|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 8, 2013 2:30:29 GMT 1
I'm serious about that - it was suggested by John Wheeler back in the 70s. More as a provocative "what if" solution to the "what collapses the wavefunction?" question than a serious theory, I think. (But it has since been taken up with utmost seriousness by advocates of the strong anthropic principle.) Wheeler said the "observation" required might be made by a piece of rock, not necessarily a being with intelligence - but the reasoning behind that eludes me.
Yet another alternative possibility is the one advocated by British physicist Julian Barbour. Time doesn't actually exist at all - it's merely an illusion, including our impression that it passes. The existence of the pre-planetary dust, the solar system without life, the solar system with life, etcetera, are all possible "nows" in an infinite sheet of "nows" that include all other possibilities - abacus' "potentials", I suspect - and these just happen to be connected to each other in the "now" we happen to be looking out from.
Something like that. Frankly, the man would verge on incomprehensibility explaining the way to the pub.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 8, 2013 9:54:12 GMT 1
You're conflating those two senses of prove again. This is not a mathematical theorem or a logical syllogism, abacus, but an empirical hypothesis. The "proof" of it does not consist in showing that a system of rules have been correctly followed, but in showing that the evidence we have is adequately explained by it. You're like a defence counsel summing up your case to the jury: yes, the victim was indeed found wrapped up in a binbag in my client's freezer; yes, my client's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, buried in the victim's chest; yes, the accused was recorded on CCTV plunging that very same weapon into the victim; yes, my client does indeed inherit a million pounds as a result of this heinous crime; yes, my client did indeed confess: but, members of the jury, BUT, the murder weapon may well not have actually existed at the time! Nor, indeed, did the victim! So can we say with hand on heart that the crime actually occurred at all? No! And my learned friend has not offered you a single piece of proof that even my client exists! Not one! I move for the case to be dismissed, m'lud. This scenario is a very misleading example of my position. We are discussing the ultimate definition of reality which has nothing to do with living in a civilised society with laws and decent moral standards. We still have to live in a practical world, regardless of the philosophy behind its deeper aspects, so we cannot just ditch things like civilisation, religion and science, etc. Perhaps, in some distant future time when we have a greater grasp and control over "reality", the way we live might be dramatically different, but until then we have to conduct ourselves in a way that allows you and me to have a discussion like this in a democratically free society where free speech is highly valued.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 8, 2013 10:00:29 GMT 1
Abacus, are you saying that, as there was no life before the Solar System then the Solar System did not come into existence until life appeared (on Earth, that being the only place we know of life existing)? Or are you saying that, because the Solar System must have existed before life on Earth appeared, there must have been some other life form, or perhaps supernatural entity, that, by making an observation, brought the Solar System, including the Earth, into existence? ;D There is another possibility, seriously advocated by a number of physicists who have tied themselves into the same sort of philosophically naive knots that abacus torments himself with: The universe evolves consciousness, then "looks" back in time in order to transform the "potentialities" of the myriad wavefunctions into actual existence in order that it can evolve in order that it can look... Well, may I refer you to this article which puts the case for the idea you have sited? www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 8, 2013 10:14:09 GMT 1
I'm serious about that - it was suggested by John Wheeler back in the 70s. More as a provocative "what if" solution to the "what collapses the wavefunction?" question than a serious theory, I think. (But it has since been taken up with utmost seriousness by advocates of the strong anthropic principle.) Wheeler said the "observation" required might be made by a piece of rock, not necessarily a being with intelligence - but the reasoning behind that eludes me. Yet another alternative possibility is the one advocated by British physicist Julian Barbour. Time doesn't actually exist at all - it's merely an illusion, including our impression that it passes. The existence of the pre-planetary dust, the solar system without life, the solar system with life, etcetera, are all possible "nows" in an infinite sheet of "nows" that include all other possibilities - abacus' "potentials", I suspect - and these just happen to be connected to each other in the "now" we happen to be looking out from. Something like that. Frankly, the man would verge on incomprehensibility explaining the way to the pub. What I would say to this is that we cannot rely on commonsense models of what the universe is really like. This is why some of the ideas you cite have been suggested in order to accommodate what is now known about reality in terms of some of our scientific experiments. Additionally, the idea of causality and time is contradictory since no matter how far back in time you go you will never arrive at an original cause, which brings into question how causality can be a valid concept as you are effectively saying causality itself has no cause! What happens deep inside a black hole? Nobody knows, and the usual mathematics produce infinities, which is a sure sign the maths is wrong. This is why we have to extend our models of how reality works in situations other than in the spacetime paradigm we use for macro object like planets, stars galaxies, people, cats, beach balls, etc.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 8, 2013 10:24:52 GMT 1
Because, until such theories about any underlying basis uniting QM and Relativity can be tested and reproduced in repeatable experiments they remain philosophical speculations, not scientific theories. Well, that wasn't what I was questioning, but never mind. You realise that if we take this definition of the boundary between "philosophical speculation" and "scientific theories" seriously, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity only became a scientific theory four years after its publication? And his Special Theory is still yet to be so elevated. Neither is the Theory of Evolution a scientific theory; nor the Big Bang hypothesis; nor the quark theory; nor the speculation that dinosaurs walked the Earth; nor the theory that comets emerge from the Oort Cloud; nor a whole range of other useless philosophical speculations. Well, this is simply wrong. What you seem to be suggesting is that science is redundant and people like Popper were misguided in advocating the scientific method. There are different "levels" of reality and even though science might be shown to be ultimately incorrect, we as a species seem to need to use science in order to function as an animal that has developed over evolutionary time. Perhaps, one day, we might evolve into a highly spiritual creature that has no need of science and lives in a world that consists of a reality far beyond the appreciation of today's average person. If so, this would be a good illustration of my point about reality being closely linked to consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 9, 2013 2:40:40 GMT 1
You're conflating those two senses of prove again. This is not a mathematical theorem or a logical syllogism, abacus, but an empirical hypothesis. The "proof" of it does not consist in showing that a system of rules have been correctly followed, but in showing that the evidence we have is adequately explained by it. You're like a defence counsel summing up your case to the jury: yes, the victim was indeed found wrapped up in a binbag in my client's freezer; yes, my client's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon, buried in the victim's chest; yes, the accused was recorded on CCTV plunging that very same weapon into the victim; yes, my client does indeed inherit a million pounds as a result of this heinous crime; yes, my client did indeed confess: but, members of the jury, BUT, the murder weapon may well not have actually existed at the time! Nor, indeed, did the victim! So can we say with hand on heart that the crime actually occurred at all? No! And my learned friend has not offered you a single piece of proof that even my client exists! Not one! I move for the case to be dismissed, m'lud. This scenario is a very misleading example of my position. We are discussing the ultimate definition of reality which has nothing to do with living in a civilised society with laws and decent moral standards. We still have to live in a practical world, regardless of the philosophy behind its deeper aspects, so we cannot just ditch things like civilisation, religion and science, etc. Perhaps, in some distant future time when we have a greater grasp and control over "reality", the way we live might be dramatically different, but until then we have to conduct ourselves in a way that allows you and me to have a discussion like this in a democratically free society where free speech is highly valued. The scenario was not intended to portray your position, but the confusion you keep falling into about the meaning of "proof". You have repeatedly asked for a proof that something exists, independent of any empirical evidence that it does. By doing so you've determined your own conclusion, because obviously you will not accept the assertion as an axiom in a logical system, nor will you accept any other assertions as axioms from which it can be logically drawn as a theorem: you would merely say, yes, but what "proof" have you for these axioms, independent of any empirical evidence...and so on, and so on. And, taking the other standard meaning of "proof", the showing that a conclusion adequately follows from given evidence, you weill merely say: but what "proof" have you that the evidence exists. You see? It's your question that's fundamentally wrong, as so often in philosophy - and science.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 9, 2013 2:49:02 GMT 1
;D There is another possibility, seriously advocated by a number of physicists who have tied themselves into the same sort of philosophically naive knots that abacus torments himself with: The universe evolves consciousness, then "looks" back in time in order to transform the "potentialities" of the myriad wavefunctions into actual existence in order that it can evolve in order that it can look... Well, may I refer you to this article which puts the case for the idea you have sited? www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htmThankyou, but I'm afraid it doesn't - not even Wheeler was cranky enough to suppose that much. I was sort of puzzled as to why when I kept asking you for evidence for your claims you didn't refer to this and similar experiments, though, I must admit. Seeing as it's in the opening posts, it would have been easy enough. But now you have, let's examine it, and see how far it supports your case. By the way - is this the source of your metaphysical theory, abacus? Or had you formulated it beforehand - and if so, what was your source (or sources) then? Indulge my curiosity, if you would.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 9, 2013 3:10:09 GMT 1
I'm serious about that - it was suggested by John Wheeler back in the 70s. More as a provocative "what if" solution to the "what collapses the wavefunction?" question than a serious theory, I think. (But it has since been taken up with utmost seriousness by advocates of the strong anthropic principle.) Wheeler said the "observation" required might be made by a piece of rock, not necessarily a being with intelligence - but the reasoning behind that eludes me. Yet another alternative possibility is the one advocated by British physicist Julian Barbour. Time doesn't actually exist at all - it's merely an illusion, including our impression that it passes. The existence of the pre-planetary dust, the solar system without life, the solar system with life, etcetera, are all possible "nows" in an infinite sheet of "nows" that include all other possibilities - abacus' "potentials", I suspect - and these just happen to be connected to each other in the "now" we happen to be looking out from. Something like that. Frankly, the man would verge on incomprehensibility explaining the way to the pub. What I would say to this is that we cannot rely on commonsense models of what the universe is really like. . I'm afraid it seems to me that's exactly what you're doing. In fact, you go so far as to say the universe is "really like" nothing at all until some intelligent being like us gives it "meaning". I have no objection to that effort whatsoever. I'm not the one who disses philosophical speculation. All I would object to about the two cases cited, or the other two alternatives fascinating put to you about your own, is that they're patently hopelessly wrong - on many levels and for many reasons. Not least of which is that they don't achieve the task they've set themselves - explain the mysteries of these experiments, or what "the universe is really like". I'm not sure where you're going with this, or why. Why have you suddenly dragged causality into it? It has the definite aroma of my courtcase scenario above, I have to tell you. You're not trying to evade fascinating's question to you by saying, ah, yes, BUT, members of the jury, can we be sure that time actually exists, or indeed, that anything actually causes anything else? Hmmm? Are you really sure, hand on heart, that my client caused the victim's injuries, when we do not even know whether causing anything to happen at all is possible? I put it to you that there is reasonable doubt here, and you must follow your duty and acquit. Look - very briefly, in a nutshell. In science, and again in rationality in general, the notion of causality does not especially or significantly depend on that of time. Nor does it depend on generalisation - on inductive reasoning. Hume merely made an inadequate analysis of what the term means. I'll give you a more thorough analysis, if you want - but perhaps that would be better on a different thread? Yeah - so? The maths of special and general relativity are "wrong", the maths of QM are "wrong". That is, they're systems of equations that given measured values put in will give you an approximate answer out. Approximate - the best we can get, at the moment. You don't suppose there's anyone on the planet who believes otherwise, do you? Yes we do - that's the problem: the examples cited above, and reasoning about QM generally (with a couple of notable exceptions like David Bohm), do nothing of the sort. They are not "extending our models" at all. They're building their own model, appropriate entirely and solely to "quantum objects", and then pasting it in a completely ad hoc fashion onto what you term (oddly, I have to say) "the spacetime paradigm". The problem is no one has an effing clue how to do this - how the maths of QM work in anything other than situations involving an elementary particle.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 9, 2013 3:23:16 GMT 1
Well, that wasn't what I was questioning, but never mind. You realise that if we take this definition of the boundary between "philosophical speculation" and "scientific theories" seriously, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity only became a scientific theory four years after its publication? And his Special Theory is still yet to be so elevated. Neither is the Theory of Evolution a scientific theory; nor the Big Bang hypothesis; nor the quark theory; nor the speculation that dinosaurs walked the Earth; nor the theory that comets emerge from the Oort Cloud; nor a whole range of other useless philosophical speculations. Well, this is simply wrong. Why is it wrong? How is it possible to test and reproduce in repeatable experiments the Big Bang theory? What are you reproducing in your experiments testing the theory of evolution? How are you going to reproduce and test quarks, when no one has ever seen one, or could ever see one? No one has ever seen the Oort Cloud either, or reproduced the path of a comet. And not only has Special Relativity never been tested, it is in principle impossible to do so! No - what I am suggesting is that Popper was misguided in his analysis of what science is, and how it works. He was mistaken in what the "scientific method" consists. I'm far from being the first person to "suggest" this, I should hasten to reassure you - as I remarked earlier, this is very well thrashed-out ground. Most of all, Popper was mistaken in supposing he'd correctly analysed the difference between scientific explanation and other sorts - what you would call "philosophical speculations", I suspect. But again - this is taking us well away from the subject of this thread. I'm glad you put that in quotes. It reassures me that I'm not the only one who doesn't know what you mean by it. You use the word "reality" as Humpty Dumpty might, sir. You can't just make up your own definitions like that and expect to understand anything to do with what is "real". No, really, I insist. Really.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 9, 2013 11:00:28 GMT 1
This scenario is a very misleading example of my position. We are discussing the ultimate definition of reality which has nothing to do with living in a civilised society with laws and decent moral standards. We still have to live in a practical world, regardless of the philosophy behind its deeper aspects, so we cannot just ditch things like civilisation, religion and science, etc. Perhaps, in some distant future time when we have a greater grasp and control over "reality", the way we live might be dramatically different, but until then we have to conduct ourselves in a way that allows you and me to have a discussion like this in a democratically free society where free speech is highly valued. The scenario was not intended to portray your position, but the confusion you keep falling into about the meaning of "proof". You have repeatedly asked for a proof that something exists, independent of any empirical evidence that it does. By doing so you've determined your own conclusion, because obviously you will not accept the assertion as an axiom in a logical system, nor will you accept any other assertions as axioms from which it can be logically drawn as a theorem: you would merely say, yes, but what "proof" have you for these axioms, independent of any empirical evidence...and so on, and so on. And, taking the other standard meaning of "proof", the showing that a conclusion adequately follows from given evidence, you weill merely say: but what "proof" have you that the evidence exists. You see? It's your question that's fundamentally wrong, as so often in philosophy - and science. The crucial question here is: does evidence exist as an overt aspect of the universe or not? I don't see how it can because it is something that has to be worked for by asking questions but then this begs another question as to exactly who or what is going to ask the questions. You talk about axioms and logical systems, etc., but in the pre-human world none of these things existed and the reason why is that such entities are an emergent property of the neocortex. So, the conclusion we are inevitably pushed towards is that without something like the neocortex all your logical arguments are meaningless and effectively non-existent.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 9, 2013 13:00:53 GMT 1
Thankyou, but I'm afraid it doesn't - not even Wheeler was cranky enough to suppose that much. I was sort of puzzled as to why when I kept asking you for evidence for your claims you didn't refer to this and similar experiments, though, I must admit. Seeing as it's in the opening posts, it would have been easy enough. But now you have, let's examine it, and see how far it supports your case. By the way - is this the source of your metaphysical theory, abacus? Or had you formulated it beforehand - and if so, what was your source (or sources) then? Indulge my curiosity, if you would. These kinds of experiments represent the "unearthing" of potentials existing in the mix of raw data and the role of consciousness in defining such data. It's really a creative process which "sculptures" our experience of reality. Note that I said "our experience" of reality! What does this mean? It means that reality is not an entirely independent, objective thing, not at all. What is says is that conscious beings define their own, subjective reality according to the mental filters they have been endowed with. The fact that we, as a species, have successfully survived for millions of years is a tribute to our ability to adapt to our environment in a way that has suited our subjective character. How longer this will continue remains to be seen but it is my guess that we will need to evolve as a species in order to unearth yet more and more subtleties of the potentials that exist in the "great unknown." As to metaphysical theories, well, who was it that once said that the universe is not only queer but much queerer than we could possibly imagine?!
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 9, 2013 13:22:53 GMT 1
I'm not sure where you're going with this, or why. Why have you suddenly dragged causality into it? It has the definite aroma of my courtcase scenario above, I have to tell you. You're not trying to evade fascinating's question to you by saying, ah, yes, BUT, members of the jury, can we be sure that time actually exists, or indeed, that anything actually causes anything else? Hmmm? Are you really sure, hand on heart, that my client caused the victim's injuries, when we do not even know whether causing anything to happen at all is possible? I put it to you that there is reasonable doubt here, and you must follow your duty and acquit. Look - very briefly, in a nutshell. In science, and again in rationality in general, the notion of causality does not especially or significantly depend on that of time. Nor does it depend on generalisation - on inductive reasoning. Hume merely made an inadequate analysis of what the term means. I'll give you a more thorough analysis, if you want - but perhaps that would be better on a different thread? - The idea of causality and time is a central plank of science. If you dispense with these you then completely destroy the scienfic edifice of the way science accounts for the way the world works. Why, for example, do we never see a glacier re-assembling or a person returning to life after death? It may all be an illusion, ultimately, but to enable physical beings such us us to live in a reasonably stable and worthwhile environment, day to day, causality and time are indespensible. For this reason, your legal scenario is irrelevant since the law must operate in the practical world, not in the world of epistemology. Having said all that, time may well be a structure we impose on our experiences in order to support a particular mode of living (maintaining a job, celebrating Xmas, predicting tides, and so forth). The fact that when you try to discover the origin of time you cannot, means time is not a fundamental component of the universe, rather, it serves as a framework for us human beings to organize our experiences.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 9, 2013 15:59:45 GMT 1
What I would say to this is that we cannot rely on commonsense models of what the universe is really like. . I'm afraid it seems to me that's exactly what you're doing. In fact, you go so far as to say the universe is "really like" nothing at all until some intelligent being like us gives it "meaning". Indeed, but commonsense has only described a very limited set of aspects of reality that we have had to adapt to in order to promote our survival as a species. We are today finding out that there seem to be many more beyond the reach of ordinary senses that require special experimental situations to observe and strange ideas about what they might mean. Once again, it seems I need to remind you that we cannot use terms such as "what the universe is really like" because it is not an absolute concept inasmuch as there can be no, single, all encompassing definition of what the universe is like. It all depends who and how the potentialities embedded within the matrix of the universe are perceived. An inhabitant living on a distant planet in a distant galaxy might well have evolved to look at the universe in their own, subjective manner. Perhaps. So, in a way, you seem to be conceding that science is really just our models of what we observe and, therefore, will always be subjective approximations! Wasn't so hard, was it? There are a number of competing ideas about what the bizarre data of such experiments provide us with but what is wrong with this? Back in history the Greeks had various theories about how the world worked and it was a positive spur to others who came later to use systematic methods in order to find answers.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 9, 2013 16:18:05 GMT 1
Well, this is simply wrong. Why is it wrong? How is it possible to test and reproduce in repeatable experiments the Big Bang theory? What are you reproducing in your experiments testing the theory of evolution? How are you going to reproduce and test quarks, when no one has ever seen one, or could ever see one? No one has ever seen the Oort Cloud either, or reproduced the path of a comet. And not only has Special Relativity never been tested, it is in principle impossible to do so! Well, welcome to the scientific method! Nobody has ever actually seen a living dinosaur yet we make inferences from fossil evidence. This is how science works, surely you knew that! Science is all about detective work. Just because a detective was not present at the commission of a crime and did not witness it does not mean the detective is not in a position to piece together evidence to reconstruct what occurred. You need to expand on this a bit before can make a sensible response. The problem is, nobody can really define what reality is, therefore, it's all up for grabs, it seems to me!
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Dec 9, 2013 17:34:42 GMT 1
Firstly I wonder why you say that is the crucial question. But my attempted answer to the question is probably "Yes". Evidence is, by definition, "what is evident" and the word "evident" means "obvious" or "manifest". If it is accepted that there is a Universe, then the very fact that a Universe is there is manifest, obvious, evident.
It's true that there may need to be sentient beings around for the Universe to be made manifest to. But that isn't the same as saying that, before sentient beings came along, there was no Universe.
Then there is the aspect I alluded to before, quite possibly the whole idea of a Universe is an illusion dreamt up by my own deluded mind, and everything I believe to be external to me (including abacus9900) does not really exist. I think we are not treating such a scenario seriously but even if we (or I) did, I could still say that the Universe evidentially, manifestly and obviously (from the knowldedge of my own subjective reality) exists, consisting entirely of me.
|
|