|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 5, 2013 12:51:20 GMT 1
So the multi-verse does not know it is a multi-verse -so what? As regards the CCTV, at the time the tree fell the CCTV recorded audio data that could only have been recorded if sound had actually been made. The CCTV itself was made by man, but the data on the CCTV was not, it came there by the vibrations in air resulting from the tree falling. Your argument has no substance, it seems to me. But the point is the CCTV was designed to register sound. The CCTV did not evolve by itself but is a tool made to extend human perceptions so in the final analysis if human beings weren't about with the ability to hear and see neither would the CCTV. There are kinds of animals that are deaf and can sense vibrations made around them but this is not sound. If the multiverse does not know it is a multiverse you have to ask yourself who is saying it is. It is us, so if we did not exist, the concept of a multiverse would have no meaning.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Dec 5, 2013 14:12:27 GMT 1
Well that seems like nonsense to me. No human existed 10 million years ago, but the Universe did. No person was around to hold the idea of a Universe in his head, that is true, but nevertheless the Universe continued to exist in reality. So what's the problem?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 5, 2013 15:42:38 GMT 1
Well that seems like nonsense to me. No human existed 10 million years ago, but the Universe did. No person was around to hold the idea of a Universe in his head, that is true, but nevertheless the Universe continued to exist in reality. So what's the problem? How can you prove it?
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Dec 5, 2013 17:11:22 GMT 1
In an absolute sense, I cannot prove anything at all to you, I don't even have absolute proof that you exist. But on the other hand if you don't exist it is pointless having a conversation with you; in continuing with the dialogue i make certain assumptions, that you exist, that therefore that there is more than one sentient being in the Universe, that we are able to communicate, communication is through a physical device and a common language obtained through a common history etc etc. But how is all this relevant to QM and relativity?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 5, 2013 17:33:09 GMT 1
In an absolute sense, I cannot prove anything at all to you, I don't even have absolute proof that you exist. But on the other hand if you don't exist it is pointless having a conversation with you; in continuing with the dialogue i make certain assumptions, that you exist, that therefore that there is more than one sentient being in the Universe, that we are able to communicate, communication is through a physical device and a common language obtained through a common history etc etc. But how is all this relevant to QM and relativity? Well, I am tempted to pursue this but I think we would end up having a circular argument. I agree the conversation has strayed a long way from the original OP but what I would say is that QM and Relativity represent two scientific models of reality which are at complete odds with one another because they simply cannot to date be combined into one fundamental theory, at least not scientifically, although there are various ideas put forward. If geniuses have not been able to find an answer so far I doubt we are going to manage to solve it on this board. The trouble is, a beautiful theory with mathematics that work wonderfully well does not mean such a theory is correct and this is the problem - you have to test any theories in the laboratory which are repeatable and predictable.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 6, 2013 8:26:13 GMT 1
Apologies for the delay in replying - pressures of work, and/or woman trouble (a redundant elaboration you might say, eh gentlemen?)
Now, where were we?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 6, 2013 8:56:34 GMT 1
This makes no sense at all without a realistic metaphysic, abacus. Unless there's an independent existent reality, distinct from our internal representations of it, there is no sense in your "patterns which exist" nor is it possible to ascribe any meaning to your term "inconsistent patterns".
Well - you are now deviating so far from ordinary linguistic definitions that you may as well give up English altogether. At the risk of repeating myself: you really do need to give this blunt assertion some evidential support before anyone need take it seriously. You do understand that, don't you? As it stands, until you do so, it's neither philosophy nor science, but indistinguishable from the declarations of an unhinged solipsist. Though you've been kind enough to include other people in your self-invented reality, I'll give you that. On what basis you do so is a mystery though, isn't it?
No, you haven't. Neither more nor less - you missed the point entirely. You merely gave the Berkeleyian assertion that all such "objective data" is mediated by sense impressions, and hence entirely subjective. You need to counter the objection that the essential forms of sense impressions leading to objective knowledge are those distinguished in the primary/secondary distinction as primary - that is, those resulting from the mathematisation of nature. The feature of the universe, and of our sense apparatus, and reason, that has enabled knowledge, logic, and science.
I repeat: there is nothing "special" about an oven. There's not much "special" about any of the apparatus in the standard double-split experiment, either. Together, those two pieces of apparatus lead to the entirety of quantum mechanics, in all its essentials.
Apart from that, I don't understand what you mean by "interference", or "equation". What is the essential difference between "scientific" observations and any other sort?
Not really. What causal ideas? There is nothing in logic or mathematics that depends on any notion of causality - famously. Or notoriously.
Unless you mean p>q. You would wish with Dodgson to argue this is an ungrounded relation?
Oh, I see. I thought you were making a scientific point.
I would say that you are merely repeating your solipsist assertion again, without providing any supporting evidence, and until you do so there is absolutely no reason to suppose this is true in the least. Or rather, it is trivially true but - so what? Your implication, which you have to some extent also asserted in various ways, is that this means at least two things: one, we therefore have no access to objective data, and hence knowledge; and two, therefore we have no reason to suppose anything exists in any form other than our perceptions of "it". Both these conclusions are unwarranted leaps of inference from your trivial observation that we perceive the world.
If I lay a ruler on my computer screen I perceive that it measures 17 inches. In what way does the necessity for me having to perceive this fact in order to experience and relay it mean that I have created it?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 6, 2013 11:00:11 GMT 1
This makes no sense at all without a realistic metaphysic, abacus. Unless there's an independent existent reality, distinct from our internal representations of it, there is no sense in your "patterns which exist" nor is it possible to ascribe any meaning to your term "inconsistent patterns". It's more subtle than that. Nothing can be said to be truly independent because everything in the universe is interacting, so in a sense things do possess a degree of independence but there will always exist potentials of new forms that come about by novel interactions. If this were not the case then creation would not be possible and scientific progress would be non-existent. Going back to Relativity, if an Einstein had never been born and taken an interest in science, Relativity might not have been thought of for some time (although I expect someone else would had the same idea sooner or later, we cannot be sure). What you are confusing is the current state of a given reality with the potential of such to interact and modify in a cooperative process of observation. When I use the word "observation" I apply this to both "observer" and "observed" so that, for example, when Galileo peered through his telescope at Saturn there occurred a two-way process of observation on the part of both parties - Galilelo and Saturn, producing a brand new relationship which we call an "astronomical observation." Need I remind you of the well quoted precept of any field of study that "the act of observation will inevitably change to some extent that which is observed?" This is particularly true of the sub-atomic world where the only way to produce experimental data is to effectively "interfere" with what is, hitherto, undisturbed so here we see that it is quite meaningless to talk of "an independent reality that preexists" since, by the very act of observation, we change whatever it was that was there prior to our observation. In view of the forgoing, how can you continue to maintain that there has to be a pre-existing, independent reality, which remains exactly the same after an observation as it was prior to an observation? The study of quantum mechanics has completely blown this idea out if the water for all time! When you or anyone else looks at something in the environment there is a whole chain of electro-chemical, plus conceptual interpretations, that take place in an instant so it would seem preposterous to assert that the environment "appears" exactly the same in the absence of human observers or even animal observers as it does when these are present. This is what you seem to be overlooking, preferring to think that observers are irrelevant, something, I feel, that is rooted in a fundamental reluctance to abandon the classical Newtonian point of view. We have moved on from the classical and commonsense model of reality to a less certain one where things are often not what they appear at first sight. Even with mathematics we are on shaky ground because, for example, the mathematics that describe the way we model spacetime simply break down deep inside a black hole. Mathematics actually developed from the way people manipulated things in their environment but here again, this is really a very parochial construction, albeit very effective within the right context but it does not follow you can apply what works in a special case (our earthly environment) to the rest of Creation.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 6, 2013 11:48:21 GMT 1
What meaning? The meaning that the statement conveys. What is it that you don't understand about it? It's your contradiction of this statement that doesn't make any sense. At least - not as you've left it. In order for it to make sense you need to answer my question to you: how does consciousness develop, if in order for it to arise you need very elaborate complex natural conditions? How can these or any other conditions exist if they first of all require consciousness to do so?
You assume that such a demonstration is necessary in order to know anything about it. It isn't, at all.
Not at all - I don't know where you get that idea from! It's an exhaustively detailed rational argument - no "assumption".
This is an extremely confused point, resting on a basic misunderstanding of the nature of logic, reason, and empirical knowledge. I think - giving you possibly more credit than the statement deserves. It's either that, or it's merely a simple circular argument produced by the same unsubstantiated assertion you've already made several times - that we cannot know anything about reality if we have to do so through perceiving it.
I'll presume the former, because the circular assertion is obviously simply too daft, even though you've repeated it more than once already.
Your use of the term "proof" above is prone to leading you into all sorts of errors. It has various meanings, depending on its context - logic, science, a courtroom, for example - and it seems to me you're conflating at least two of them. In logic, it means correctly drawing the valid implications of a set of premises. Note well - it does not require the truth, the factual accuracy, of the premises. The premises may indeed be false, yet still have valid conclusions. The meaning of "proof" here is purely mathematical, and has no intrinsic relation to the empirical world whatsoever. Then there is the equally common meaning of "proof" that refers to the rational warrant of a conclusion from varying degrees of evidence. This is the empirical sense of the term, used, for example, in a courtroom. Your assertion:
"this is just an assumption and can never be proved since to provide any proof necessarily has to involve an observing agency"
is confusing the two meanings, and as such is trivially true by definition. It's tautologous.
Now, retaining a single meaning of the term proof in your statement above, it's obviously false. In the logical sense, a proof is a proof. It is true, eternally, and depends not in the least on any observing agency. And in the empirical sense, it is not required for proof to have been given for there to be no observing agency involved.
No, obviously not. The same applies to any product of human creativity, by definition. You need to rationally move from this definitionally true statement to an empirical demonstration that it also applies to things not made by human agency - rocks, planets, stars, and so on.
You might be depending on what other considerations you have in mind, I don't know, but the one you've proferred here simply won't compel anyone to such an unwarranted conclusion. The fact that Einsteion's Theory of Relativity did not "exist" before Einstein does not in any way have any bearing on the question of whether the matters that the theory refers to exist or not. Light, motion, gravity, space, time...
No, your argument for this conclusion isn't valid - logically or empirically. In order for it to be so you need a so far missing piece of argumentation. You need to assert the premise: esse est precipi. If we accept that, your conclusion follows. But we don't accept that. And you have yet to give a single reason to do so.
Did you miss the bit where I pointed out to you that our knowledge about reality is generally held to consist of the measurements and the relations between primary qualities? How the information about these primary qualities is derived, through whatever sensation, and by whatever creature, is completely irrelevant.
It does have a meaning; it is not an assumption but an empirical proposition with countless corroborating evidence; and you haven't looked deeper into the proposition at all, but merely misunderstood its content. You've assumed it's a proposition whose truth ("proof") derives from sensations. Your assumption is mistaken.
Well, no one has ever denied this, as far as I'm aware. That's a very anodyne statement of the obvious compared to the position that you've so far been arguing. That position has been: what we experience as reality is the only reality there is.
You do see the difference between those two positions, don't you?
Agreed. But this is a realist position you're asserting now.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 6, 2013 15:33:54 GMT 1
You keep saying I assert the only reality that exists is as a result of our perceptions but that is incorrect, I never said that. What I said was there are potentials of possibilities in the external world that interact with our consciousness and that at some point form what we call objective reality. This is not what Bishop Berkley advocated. If you continue to argue from this fundamental misunderstanding we will keep arguing in circles. It 's not that there is a separate independent reality existing in isolation but that reality is a kind of matrix which is interconnected in all sorts of ways and also which possesses the potential to form novel arrangements. I am arguing from a priori position so I have no need to provide scientific data in order to support my case aside from pointing out the consequences we see everyday flowing from my interpretation of reality.
Also, I do not subscribe to the idea that what we perceive is the only reality, far from it. What I have said is that we construct our subjective reality according to our particular perceptual apparatus; someone from the planet Blogg might interpret their reality as something different from us, it all depends. Other advanced lifeforms may not use the same logic as us if their evolutionary development has endowed them with abilities which have been tailored to their particular environment.
I'm not sure what you mean by primary qualities but if you mean what I think you mean you are making a serious error in assuming such qualities are universal and immutable. Your whole position is based on a parochial view of reality, rather like fish in a small pond thinks all of reality is defined by their local environment and the way they experience it.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 6, 2013 18:31:53 GMT 1
Okay - but do I have to repeat my question, again? Where is any "awareness" when there's merely dust floating about in space?
I do not know what you mean by "potentials" of dust, incidentally. Do you?
Elaborate on this evidently crucial notion of "potential", please. I do not know what it means. Well, I know what it means in physics, but that's clearly not how you're using the term.
That's one interpretation (Copenhagen). A widely believed one, granted, but not universally accepted - and it wasn't the interpretation of Schrodinger, who formulated the equation you're referring to.
Given the opening posts of this thread, it would seem to me that this is an untenable interpretation now.
This reasoning depends entirely on a view of mathematics that sees it as invented rather than discovered. There are very few physicists I think who would go along with your decription here. I can't recall any quantum physicist referring to the wavefunction as a mentally constructed model imposed on the world.
But even if they did, you still haven't evaded the issue. The problem still remains of actual reality - the probability wave collapses into existence. This much at least is not a mathematical construction, a model, and nor is it "imposed".
Your metaphysical view is highly unusual - I'm not sure I've come across it before. It's a form of idealism somehow derived from a 17th Century dualism: I suspect this is the root of your apparent confusion. There are very very few scientists, or philosophers, who would attempt to seriously defend any form of dualism any more - and there haven't been for well over a century. You should ask yourself what you mean by these two terms - and crucially the relation you think pertains between them - of "mind" and "matter".
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 6, 2013 18:50:10 GMT 1
So what?
No, it indicates nothing of the sort. It merely indicates that a dog can't understand science.
On the contrary. The whole point about the wave equation is it does enable you to build a completely predictable model of what is seen. As evidenced by the experiment described in the opening post!
"Cannot" is rather too conclusive a term, I think. Does not, at present, I'll accept.
It demonstrates nothing of the sort. It merely demonstrates that there are still mysteries to solve, that's all.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 6, 2013 18:57:05 GMT 1
Your central point is that you claim there has to be such a definition in order for what is defined to exist. But it's so far just a claim - you've provided no evidence or reasoning for it. On the face of it it seems an absurd and unjustified claim, I have to tell you. I understand you're puzzled by that, because to you it's apparently obvious, this dependency of existence on mental perception. I suggest that is solely because you've been thinking that way for so long, that's all. I'd be interested in learning where you first came across this idea?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 6, 2013 19:09:19 GMT 1
The predicitons do, obviously - all you're saying is for brain activity to occur you first require a brain. But what is predicted does not require this. Eclipses occurred before we learned how to predict them, and they would have continued to do so had we never done so.
Do you dispute that last contention, incidentally?
Yes, they do. Why wouldn't they? You contend that the relation between the Sun, Moon and Earth did not exist before a human brain worked them out mathematically so that eclipses, phases, high tides. etcetera could be predicted? The onus is entirely on you to rationally defend such an outrageous claim, abacus - and you'd better provided very good evidence for it.
He was, fundamentally.
I don't think so. But let's not get distracted onto an analysis of the merits and demerits of Popper, or any other philosopher. I was not in the least saying "Popper said this therefore..." I was simply nodding my acknowledgement that this matter of the logic of theory replacement in particular has been thoroughly thrashed out, by those and other very fine minds.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 7, 2013 13:34:17 GMT 1
Once again, you are missing the point by claiming there must be an independent reality that is always there, regardless of whether observers exist or not. I have already said that it is not a question of whether something exists separate from our perception of it because it clearly does, however, for "it" to have any meaning at all there must be a mediating process that transforms whatever is out there into comprehensible, intelligible data that human beings can relate to. This is what is normally termed " phenomena", i.e, sensory experiences that present themselves forcefully upon our perceptions that indicate something of tangible substance is present.
|
|