Page 387 of 416 FirstFirst ... 287337377385386387388389397 ... LastLast
Results 11,581 to 11,610 of 12479

Thread: The last and final argument about reality.

  1. #11581
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,219
    OK to reiterate, here is my view

    MDR is just simply the case, we are a prisoner of our own function and just what that gives unto unto our conscious awareness of things

    Whether or not there is an MIR behind it is broadly a matter of belief, it is something I think to be stronger than the alternatives as a way of thinking, at least in most situations.

    The strength of MDR thinking though is in freeing yourself of the necessity of all your models adding up to some consistent picture, rather than being contextual to your needs in a given circumstance. The absolute reality doesn't matter. There are strengths to tryiong to produce a GUT from one direction of understanding, but there are strengths to thinking in different ways as well. But the bottom line is relaity is what you can say is real, what is real is subject to how you define that and includes therefore in context the way you wish to see things.

    There is no meaning delivered from up on high about words. They mean what we want them to mean, and never completely agree upon them. I've spent some considerable time for instance over the last year arguing about the difference between binary condition in our understanding vs binary condition in phenomena, which to someone stuck in MIR style thinking leads to category error, but to which MDR thiking will give a completely different idea, our categorization of these things extends only to the context of which we which to claim these things, it has not meaning outside of which.... I cannot pose the actual questions here as they are outside the scope of this forum, but they fit right in.

    ETA: they come come under the headings of politics, linguistics and other sociological things that lie clearly outside the mandate of the rules. and thus I will not bring them up even as example... feel free to PM if you wish more info on these, but I ain't publicly posting them.
    Last edited by malaidas; 2017-Mar-09 at 03:43 PM. Reason: minor addition
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  2. #11582
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    25,471
    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Robinson View Post
    "Not at all," says the particle reductionist. "Fields can be analysed in terms of exchange of force-carrying particles, including virtual particles."
    Tell it to Heisenberg. You see, that's the point: it's mind dependent. You really want to argue that the MDR is falsified by pointing out areas that minds disagree on?
    What about your own assumptions, Ken?
    You mean, what about my own mind dependence? Yeah, it's there, that's what I'm saying.

  3. #11583
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    25,471
    Quote Originally Posted by malaidas View Post
    OK to reiterate, here is my view
    I'd say we are largely in full agreement at this point!

  4. #11584
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,219
    well we were kind of when I had to take a break. as I recall there were just some philosophical issues we'd agreed to differ upon.

    however given i've not posted for about a year i thought it was worth summarizing my views again.
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  5. #11585
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    6,759
    Out of curiosity: does only that which is observable, exist?

  6. #11586
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Liverpool, UK
    Posts
    4,219
    I would rather say that only that which has been observed directly or indirectly can be said to actually exist with certainty .

    eta: to clarify, certainty being a relative thing here, not an absolute. basically sufficiently confident to assert objectively.
    Last edited by malaidas; 2017-Mar-17 at 08:28 PM.
    You're really not going to like it, the meaning of life the universe and everything is.... is.... 42!
    What??????
    is that all you have to show for 7.5 million years of work?????
    it was a tricky assignment.

    "Live Long and Prosper" in memory of Leonard Nimoy
    "I think I'll change my name to Cliff. "Cliff, I can't see anyone lasting in this industry with a name like Cliff" in memory of Terry Pratchett

  7. #11587
    Quote Originally Posted by malaidas View Post
    I would rather say that only that which has been observed directly or indirectly can be said to actually exist with certainty .

    eta: to clarify, certainty being a relative thing here, not an absolute. basically sufficiently confident to assert objectively.
    An excellent qualification, whether you take away or leave the words "or indirectly". I like to think of it as a workable approximation.

  8. #11588
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    6,808
    Certainty? Oh dear. This thread is looping.. A) certainty is not sCience at work, b) the unknowables, c) how can a mind be certain of anything past solipsism? D) you cannot qualify non existence so existence is a model.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  9. #11589
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Out of curiosity: does only that which is observable, exist?
    No, that which observes it must also exist.

  10. #11590
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    8,651
    What does it mean for something to exist?

    I used to think that only one of Donald Trump and Donald Duck really existed and the other didn't, but now I know that they're both just mental models.

  11. #11591
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    What does it mean for something to exist?

    ...
    I'll hazard a guess on this one, or as I like to think of it recently, "a workable approximation" in a preliminary stage.

    To observe or be observed.

    I'd extend that idea to providing a workable approximation for the definition of life - can it observe? Does it show signs of observation?

    In the case of non-life, you are left with the remainder of existence, that which can be observed.

    Thus, the power of observation defines all life and non-life. I believe this is a coherent, logical way of viewing the problem as a starting point which can be built upon for more complex conclusions, or, as I like to think of it recently, ever finer levels of approximations.
    Last edited by Canis Lupus; 2017-Mar-18 at 09:51 PM.

  12. #11592
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    6,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Canis Lupus View Post
    No, that which observes it must also exist.
    By merit of what does that which observes exist? Turtles all the way down?

  13. #11593
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    By merit of what does that which observes exist? Turtles all the way down?
    I'm not sure what "turtles all the way down" refers to.

    Nonetheless, in relation to the first sentence - the merit of necessity: without one you can't have the other i.e. to be an observer there must be objects to observe and to be an object of observation, there must be an observer. Take away one and the other vanishes. No turtles there thus far.

    edit: ok found it https://www.quora.com/Phrase-Origins...l-the-way-down
    Last edited by Canis Lupus; 2017-Mar-20 at 12:39 AM.

  14. #11594
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    6,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Canis Lupus View Post
    I'm not sure what "turtles all the way down" refers to.

    Nonetheless, in relation to the first sentence - the merit of necessity: without one you can't have the other i.e. to be an observer there must be objects to observe and to be an object of observation, there must be an observer. Take away one and the other vanishes. No turtles there thus far.

    edit: ok found it https://www.quora.com/Phrase-Origins...l-the-way-down
    So how does this simultaneously occur? Or do you contend there is no beginning? Timeless existence of both?

  15. #11595
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    6,808
    You can hypothesise a mind, however it is supported, that can imagine both objects and observations. You can choose to say that mind is aware that it is imagining, or that it believes what it imagines is real. Extended to all knowledge as known by a mind or collection of minds and the two possibilities remain. You can be aware that you don't know, cannot know, or you can believe your mind is sufficient evidence of external to your mind, reality. You may find the step to realisation of belief too hard to grasp. However it remains logical that a mind cannot test it's own core belief against an external reality that it can only ever model. There are unknowables in the mind model.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  16. #11596
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    6,759
    What is the mind? There is no mind particle. Science currently excludes the mind.

  17. #11597
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    10,419
    The reason I run down "Mind Independent" is that I have a provable, indefinable, quantifiable self-definition. As does everything else.

    I am without a doubt not a part of all other things in reality. My extent across space-time is about 45 light years but my gravitational influences are much smaller. I have an information density and an energy budget. For most of the observable universe, I am invisible and unknowable. Yet, I am.
    Solfe, Dominus Maris Pavos.

  18. #11598
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,859
    You are on SolfeTV, and I watch you every night, along with most of the galaxy.
    Formerly Frog march..............

  19. #11599
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    10,419
    Quote Originally Posted by frog march View Post
    you are on solfetv, and i watch you every night, along with most of the galaxy.

    lol!
    Solfe, Dominus Maris Pavos.

  20. #11600
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    So how does this simultaneously occur? Or do you contend there is no beginning? Timeless existence of both?
    I have no contention, but the logic itself.

    The logic says simultaneously. If the logic is correct, then the answer should be correct.

    This conclusion is as "old as the hills". It can be arrived at simply without any great intelligence and learning, except a good guide asking the right questions. It's this simplicity which makes many prefer not to take it seriously, I believe.

    Personally, in my study of history, with its focus on philosophical history and the way Platonic thinking has shaped western thought, I see how science was born as a natural and necessary off-shoot of Platonic thinking: the attempted resolution the conflict between our observation of cause and effect with this idea of a simultaneousness. It's possible to view Science at its most general level working in this gap.

    This conclusion is very much my own, although I don't doubt if I read enough around I will find others familiar and persuaded by Platonic thought expressing the same, maybe using different wording.

    You might ask how can Platonism, with its own focus on the fragility of the senses, give birth to a method reliant on what it concludes is fragile? The answer is that it is from someone who doubts the reliability of the senses that science methodology is likely to be thought important - this bridging of the gap between the senses and logic.

    Besides, that is the point of the scientific method - to overcome the problems with sensory perception using something more than sensory perception - quantifiable, testable results in one form or another. This is most likely to come from someone taught not to trust the senses - a Platonist/geometrical mathematician.
    Last edited by Canis Lupus; 2017-Mar-20 at 11:12 PM.

  21. #11601
    And thus we arrive at the conflict between what is thought of as the quantum world, indicating simultaneousness, with the macro, which applies cause and effect reasoning.
    Last edited by Canis Lupus; 2017-Mar-21 at 01:34 AM.

  22. #11602
    Quote Originally Posted by Frog march View Post
    You are on SolfeTV, and I watch you every night, along with most of the galaxy.
    Among the best shows are when folks don't know they are being watched. Although I haven't tuned in myself, I do hope you haven't spoiled the show by telling the subject, initiating self-consciousness.
    Last edited by Canis Lupus; 2017-Mar-21 at 12:51 AM.

  23. #11603
    Found what I was looking for

    One of the most deeply rooted concepts in science and in our everyday life is causality; the idea that events in the present are caused by events in the past and, in turn, act as causes for what happens in the future. If an event A is a cause of an effect B, then B cannot be a cause of A. Now theoretical physicists from the University of Vienna and the Université Libre de Bruxelles have shown that in quantum mechanics it is possible to conceive situations in which a single event can be both, a cause and an effect of another one. The findings will be published this week in Nature Communications.

    https://phys.org/news/2012-10-quantum-causal.html#jCp
    I was pretty confident it would be out there somewhere. Smarter people than me are looking at this problem for a living. All strength to them and may the force be with them, to use a well worn cliche.
    .
    Edit: I would have thought the principle of entanglement would be showing much the same thing. The paper probably makes reference to it I am predicting.

    Further Edit: Yes, here we go, one among several references to entanglement

    The most studied, almost epitomical, quantum correlations are the non-signalling ones, such as those obtained when Alice and Bob perform measurements on two entangled systems. Signalling quantum correlations exist as well, such as those arising when Alice operates on a system that is subsequently sent through a quantum channel to Bob who operates on it after that. The usual quantum formalism does not consider more general possibilities, as it does assume a global causal structure. Here, we want to drop the latter assumption while retaining the validity of quantum mechanics locally.

    http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2076
    Last edited by Canis Lupus; 2017-Mar-21 at 04:39 AM.

  24. #11604
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    6,759
    After this mammoth thread, All I can take from it is that our reality is dependent on the interpretation by our minds.

    All the rest is philosophical circumlocution, IMHO. To each his own. Take no offense, this is not addressed to anyone.

  25. #11605
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,859
    I take from what I've read of this thread and similar posts elsewhere, is that science will always have deeper to go, and that all it will ever have is models. Eg gravity: we will never really know why when we drop a stone, why it falls.
    Formerly Frog march..............

  26. #11606
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    10,419
    Quote Originally Posted by Canis Lupus View Post
    Among the best shows are when folks don't know they are being watched. Although I haven't tuned in myself, I do hope you haven't spoiled the show by telling the subject, initiating self-consciousness.
    I am sentient but routinely fail even the most basic tests for consciousness. Usually along the lines of one or more fails per item on the Glasgow Coma scale. I never know the date and time and very often don't look at people when speaking.
    Solfe, Dominus Maris Pavos.

  27. #11607
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    6,759
    Quote Originally Posted by Frog march View Post
    I take from what I've read of this thread and similar posts elsewhere, is that science will always have deeper to go, and that all it will ever have is models. Eg gravity: we will never really know why when we drop a stone, why it falls.
    True, but important is the fact that it falls...

  28. #11608
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    6,808
    IT seems the nearly dogmatic mainstream view of reality with dark matter might be challenged by the hypothesis that progressive entanglement creates gravity and or that gravity becomes linear rather than inverse square when much weaker than our familiar value (MOND) . These are mind based ideas based on observations of phenomena we can never hope to touch. To elevate MDR to MIR is a mind step too far.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  29. #11609
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    6,759
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    IT seems the nearly dogmatic mainstream view of reality with dark matter might be challenged by the hypothesis that progressive entanglement creates gravity and or that gravity becomes linear rather than inverse square when much weaker than our familiar value (MOND) . These are mind based ideas based on observations of phenomena we can never hope to touch. To elevate MDR to MIR is a mind step too far.
    Yet to observe is one thing, to derive conclusions based on observation using an idealized tool such as math, is another.

  30. #11610
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    After this mammoth thread, All I can take from it is that our reality is dependent on the interpretation by our minds.

    All the rest is philosophical circumlocution, IMHO. To each his own. Take no offense, this is not addressed to anyone.
    No offence taken, although I must confess to a little disappointment.

    Personally, this thread has proved invaluable at enabling certain conclusions to be arrived at more confidently. Although, at the same time, I can understand why anyone would use the term "philosophical circumlocution" after so many pages. I would prefer not to be involved in such pointless circumlocutions, and I have no reason to complain about my involvement in this thread and the stimulus it has provided, courtesy of its many contributors. To you all, a big THANK YOU. You have not wasted my time, and I hope I am not wasting your time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frog march View Post
    I take from what I've read of this thread and similar posts elsewhere, is that science will always have deeper to go, and that all it will ever have is models. Eg gravity: we will never really know why when we drop a stone, why it falls.
    The models will need to be forever refined. That's simply how we and the universe work I have concluded. The principle of uncertainty, inherent in all nature and our thinking, ensures this no matter how closely our models approximate what is occurring in the universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    I am sentient but routinely fail even the most basic tests for consciousness. Usually along the lines of one or more fails per item on the Glasgow Coma scale. I never know the date and time and very often don't look at people when speaking.
    I'm glad you didn't take offence. I was, of course, not meaning to imply that you were not an intelligent being. It was more akin to the lovely young girl who was singing to the sea from my neighbour's balcony last night, until she saw me out of the corner of her eye attending my flower/herb balcony garden and then became self-conscious stopping her little performance. A shame, but those interested in science understand that observation can alter something.

    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    True, but important is the fact that it falls...
    Yes, and we must pay attention to a fact, no matter how small, even on the quantum level. It is self-defeating to surround that fact with some qualification which isolates it, permitting us to disregard that fact in our thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    IT seems the nearly dogmatic mainstream view of reality with dark matter might be challenged by the hypothesis that progressive entanglement creates gravity and or that gravity becomes linear rather than inverse square when much weaker than our familiar value (MOND) . These are mind based ideas based on observations of phenomena we can never hope to touch. To elevate MDR to MIR is a mind step too far.
    I don't know enough about MOND theories, MDR or MIR to make any meaningful comment on them particularly, but I will make this comment generally: what the quantum world is telling us is where the smart money ought to be when it comes to the resolution of the conflict between the quantum and the macro.*

    The paper cited above from the University of Vienna and the Université Libre de Bruxelles , I believe, is analogous to an old fashion bomb with a long wick. The authors have sparked the wick and the bomb will eventually go off for our present theories of the macro. The bomb is stacked with entanglement as the explosive. In a nutshell, the two (quantum and macro) will not be reconciled until cause and effect thinking is abandoned in the conclusions we reach about the macro. That is not to state that cause and effect thinking should not be used at reaching a conclusion free of cause and effect, but an arrived at consistent model compatible with the data of the quantum world will need to be.

    I find this as shocking as any person who has spent his whole life thinking and concluding on the basis of cause and effect, or, at least that part of it he remembers.

    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Yet to observe is one thing, to derive conclusions based on observation using an idealized tool such as math, is another.
    In replying, I'm going to go to the heart of matter, but not because I want to be argumentative. If you observe, you are in an instant one and all of the idealisation which Maths teaches us about, and become implicated unavoidably in the only possible equation capable of reconciling our present conflicts in intellectual thought and the purest purpose of science.

    So, it seems to me, there is no actual distinction between observing and the "idealised tools of maths".

    * In thinking about this sentence after the post I realised the "smart money" is already on the quantum world. The research by business far exceeds the more equitably distributed funds governments hand out. That money's end is pragmatic admittedly, but in that pragmatism, deeper and deeper understanding of the significance of the quantum world cannot help but be revealed.
    Last edited by Canis Lupus; 2017-Mar-22 at 01:08 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •