|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 12, 2013 19:00:48 GMT 1
I'm going to try and catch up with this thread - sorry for falling behind, it must be adding to the confusion. Back later.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Dec 12, 2013 19:59:08 GMT 1
So, your answer to my question is NO, the Earth did not actually exist at the time of the dinosaurs. Something did exist, I assume you are thinking something like a hollowed-out sphere (because dinosaurs could not perceive the Earth's interior), or perhaps a kind of decapitated sphere (the dinosaurs presumably never perceiving the poles). But such an object could not exist, and even if it did, it could not provide sufficient gravity and the dinosaurs would just float off into space.
But it is you that is insisting on putting forward an immutable law, Abacus, you are trying to say that nothing can exist without some entity being aware of it first! Why? And you seem to be talking about natural beings, (animals, humans) not disembodied minds, so you are assuming that there have to be at least animals present to actualise objects. But clearly for animals to arise there have to be objects in place such as the Sun to give light and heat, and an Earth to give substantial gravity, so your case cannot be correct. QED.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 13, 2013 4:27:14 GMT 1
No. I wasn't asking you about "what we perceive as reality", I was asking you about what you were talking about - something called "potentials" that you claim "obviously" and "certainly" exist prior to and independent of our perception of reality. I want to know how these putative "potentials" are differentiated in your mind from something which exists. Because it seems to me that this is as it stands merely a realist metaphysic in disguise, and the disguise is merely one of the facile truism that we experience this reality through our perceptions. On the other hand, you're also trying to claim that it is our observations - some intelligent being's observations at least - that "crystallise" these "potentials" into existence: so there must be some sort of difference between potential and actual in your mind. I'd like to know what it is, please.
I'd also like to know what possible reason you have for claiming the existence of these potentials, given your argumentation that reality is in fact equivalent to our mental processing of it. You say it's obvious and certain that something exists independent of our perceptions - but on what basis are you making this claim? Given that you've argued that any empirical evidence is a product of our perceptions, and any logical argument depends on a neocortex. What else have you left? This apparently groundless modification is the only difference between you and Bishop Berkeley, incidentally - I am merely putting the objection to your theory that he would put to you. What reason have you for this concession to realism? And what sense does it make?
It leaves us with a mystery at the heart of our understanding of the quantum world. I would say what I hinted at earlier - the spacetime metric is not adequate to explain these experiments, and something else is demanded. It's not the only result or field to arrive at this conclusion either.
I have no idea what "objective experiences" might be - I've certainly never used the term, and can make no sense of it.
That is your argument, yes. And then you've gone and tacked on what seems to me an entirely ad hoc level of existence you call "potential".
I keep asking you: is this where you get this metaphysic from?
I repeat: something very odd is going on in these experiments, no question. But until we understand what the connection is between these isolated elementary particles and the macroscopic world, it is illegitimate to use any observation of them to imply anything about that world. We don't know what the connection is.
It's entirely feasible, for example, that at that elementary resolution our brains may indeed influence photons, electrons etcetera, through the magnetic field that connects them. Whether this amounts to "bringing into existence" is another matter - please remember that nobody has ever "observed" a probability amplitude, a wavefunction. They're mathematical abstractions, artifacts in our equations enabling us to make predictions about how a particle might evolve. All we ever see are the particles.
It's your theory!
I don't think I am, frankly. Frankly, I think it's a load of codswallop. You don't even know what you mean by it!
No, I'm sure that's not true. You've merely made a fairly obvious mistake in your reasoning, that's all. No one else has.
What knowledge?
Was he the one who married Carrie Fisher?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 13, 2013 4:41:33 GMT 1
Thanks for your reply, it is becoming clearer what you are thinking. You seem to be suggesting that, before sentient beings with the intelligence to conceive of, and therefore 'crystallise' the Solar System, there were animals living on Earth, which could view the Moon and the Sun, and some planets. Abacus, if those animals could see the Sun and the planets, then there clearly must have been a Solar System there already. I can't make sense of your suggestion at all. Ok, there seems to be some confusion here. ;D ;D ;D How do you get from these commonplace truisms about the limits of perception, conception, understanding etcetera, to your claim that the Sun, Moon, etcetera didn't exist? Yup. No it's not. It's a well reasoned empirical hypothesis based on overwhelmingly abundant evidence. Must I remind you again of the primary/secondary quality distinction? If the car ran over the spider that's all the spider will ever observe, full stop, it doesn't matter what the spider thinks about it. You're not talking about ideas. You're talking about existence. You're not talking about the "concept of" but the existence of. And yet, and yet, campers: mystery of mysteries, the comet, blithely unaware that the dinosaurs were rudely unaware of it, continued merrily on its way, inconsiderately asserting its existence.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 13, 2013 4:52:33 GMT 1
Those creatures that existed before humans (and the human concept of the Solar System) were, you agree, receiving light from celestial objects. Now you say that they had no idea that the light was from celestial objects, the creatures had no concept of celestial objects at all. But you do agree don't you that, nevertheless, the light DID in fact come from celestial objects, from the Sun, Moon and planets, which comprise the most part of the Solar System. You mention cars but that is a different category of object. I am familiar with the fact that a car is a human artefact and is categorised on the basis of its function for us, and other living things would regard cars differently. Similarly a simple wooden bench might be used as a table or a seat, and be called as such, depending on the use to which it was put. There is nevertheless the inescapable fact that the object labelled bench or table or seat or whatever it is, does exist; in the last resort, that lump of cut wood does in fact exist. With the car, there is no escaping the fact that there is a lump of (mainly) metal present, taking up the space that any object or creature might use instead. Similarly with the Solar System, though the creatures did not have any concept of the moons and planets, they were living on a planet, lit by the Sun, so there was undoubtedly a Solar System then. Yes, but with all due respect principled Fascinating. She's fascinating. Aren't you, fascinating? Like Popeye, she is what she is, irrespective of your ideas about it. Welcome to the madhouse. The car would crush the spider. The comet wiped out the dinosuars. They left fossils. Meteorites cratered the Moon. Nonsense. All we need do is reject your unfounded presumption that in order for something to exist it needs to be perceived or thought about. That's your assumption - and you don;t even have the excuse it's commonsense! As for your repeated claim that it's impossible to "prove" this - you're wrong. It's easy to "prove". All we need do is offer the abundant empirical evidence that "proves" it - that is, is best explained by this hypothesis. That's what "proof" means, in the real world. Yes. You're confused about what "proof" means. I have a feeling I've mentioned that before.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 13, 2013 5:12:22 GMT 1
In what way are they "wrong"? In the way I've said. They're approximations. They're incompatible in all cases. They're conceptually incompatible. Not even Feynman claimed that means it's absolutely "right" - the final word, the Truth about the universe. I can find you a lecture where he asserts exactly the opposite, if you want. For a start, he recognised a fairly obvious drawback about it: it's ugly, and complicated, and contains various ad hoc elements. Ultimately, the final explanatory scheme that exhaustively accounts for all our observations, in a consistent manner, will be beautiful - simple, elegant, every piece just so, obviously demanded from every other piece. There's a certain quality of "faith" about that belief, I concede, but most scientists - and mathematicians - share that faith.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 13, 2013 5:22:01 GMT 1
I am finding it difficult to grasp where you are coming from here. I thought you had agreed that, even before the existence of intelligent observers, there was a planet Earth with animals on it, and that light came to Earth either directly from an object we call the Sun, or from objects, planets and moons, that reflected the light of the Sun. Those objects are what constitutes the Solar System, so therefore you are accepting that the Solar System did exist before intelligent life arose, are you not? So why are you casting doubt as to the existence of the Solar System at that time? No, there was not a planet earth or a solar system existing in the form we recognise them today. Did they exist in some other form, then? How does that form relate to the one we recognise today? You've just conceded that you have no idea what you mean by this sentence. As I sort of suspected, to be honest. But at least tell us: what is the evidence that nevertheless leads you to assert it? Yes. I already have - in replies #15 and #18. To summarise - primary qualities, unlike secondary qualities, do not depend on anyone's awareness. If you don't know what you mean by "the potential of the oven" (or anything else) how is anyone able to "show" such a thing?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 13, 2013 5:43:37 GMT 1
No - just change. A rate of change would be self-referential: you'd end up with t over t in your equations, which is always 1.
You misunderstand - I said we project our reifications onto those theories.
No, not really. As I said, there is no symbol in any scientific theory for causation.
The link is through chance mutation and natural selection. The meaning of these concepts is given by descriptions of genetics, environmental interactions, and reproductive advantage in that environment. Nowhere is any "cause" postulated, or required. If it is, it's as an admission that the physical link between one event and another is not yet understood - but yet, as Hume noted, observed to invariably be conjoined. The exact physical mechanisms by which genes are expressed to produce phenotypical changes are not yet fully understood, for example - therefore we can say mutations cause various difference in survivability, and accept it as an unexplicated bridging term that awaits full understanding. That's all.
Ultimately, all full explanations require a demonstration of how one obsevred pattern or set of patterns develop out of another, how they are connected. Now, often there is a need to invoke the concepts of force to make this development effective - but as you no doubt know, this too is an admission of as yet inadequate explication. Most physicists these days believe all forces are ultimately to be explained as an exchange of various particles between systems.
Of space, through time.
Sorry? List of what?
No, it's the other way around. We ascribe "causation" when we don't understand the links. When we do, "causation" disappears, like the Cheshire cat, leaving behind merely the grin of energy exchange.
I've pointed out to you before - they are mixed up indiscriminately. There is no scientific theory or even observation that is not shot through and through with complex and multi-layered philosophical viewpoints. It is not the job of "science" to disentangle those viewpoints, but of philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 13, 2013 5:58:34 GMT 1
By the way, abacus, you appear to have made a bit of a pig's ear of quoting me in the above post. Mr.Sonde did not say "you appear to be mixing up the two indisciminately", and neither did he do it.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 13, 2013 6:07:52 GMT 1
Abacus, what is the problem with there being an oven in existence, even if not one single being has become aware of its existence? You have to show why you think that lack of awareness of an object means the object cannot in fact exist. It is a logical conclusion. For existence to mean anything it has to be in something's awareness. It's a logical premise. You haven't argued for this yet - you need to draw it as a conclusion from previous premises, which you haven't yet given. What are they? As a premise, as an axiom, I see no reason to accept it whatsoever. I keep asking: what is your evidence? What are your premises? You've said you're arguing a priori, and therefore don't require any evidence. But why should anyone acpt this a priori axiom, when it doesn't explain anything - is, in fact, obviously wrong?... ...As confirmed by that patently absurd response. Neptune, I think you mean...Then how did it gravitationally affect Uranus?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 13, 2013 6:23:13 GMT 1
I asked you before - how did Galileo change Saturn? Your claim is that it was only when he looked at it through his telescope that its rings came into existence: before that they were merely some sort of "potentiality". I hope I'm paraphrasing your position correctly?
Now - you concede I think that you have no evidence whatsoever for this supposition. Don't you? You say it's an apriori argument?
So, it's not really a question of me "forgetting" this statement. It's rather that I see no reason to agree with it. Au contraire, I think it's nonsense. As far as I'm concerned, photons from Saturn entered Galileo's telesope and thereby via the processing of his brain formed an image reproducing the way Saturn's rings appear. I don't think it altered Saturn in the slightest.
"For us, to define them" is a completely different and innocuous statement compared to what you're actually saying, which is, if I follow you aright: "For us, to define them, thereby creating their existence."
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 13, 2013 6:51:37 GMT 1
So, your answer to my question is NO, the Earth did not actually exist at the time of the dinosaurs. Something did exist, I assume you are thinking something like a hollowed-out sphere (because dinosaurs could not perceive the Earth's interior), or perhaps a kind of decapitated sphere (the dinosaurs presumably never perceiving the poles). But such an object could not exist, and even if it did, it could not provide sufficient gravity and the dinosaurs would just float off into space. ;D ;D A mere quibble.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 13, 2013 6:58:40 GMT 1
But it is you that is insisting on putting forward an immutable law, Abacus, you are trying to say that nothing can exist without some entity being aware of it first! Why? And you seem to be talking about natural beings, (animals, humans) not disembodied minds, so you are assuming that there have to be at least animals present to actualise objects. But clearly for animals to arise there have to be objects in place such as the Sun to give light and heat, and an Earth to give substantial gravity, so your case cannot be correct. QED. Yes, as I've said - not so elegantly, I admit - abacus' metaphysic can explain nothing. If I may be so bold, may I whisper my dawning suspicion that what abacus is trying to do here is proffer some "proof" of "God" - an intelligent consciousness omnipresent ab initio? That's it, isn't it, abacus? I have to admit I have a great deal of sympathy for such an endeavour - indeed, I recently tried to do the same thing in a long discussion on another board with the good Lady Markham-Harshly. On very very different grounds, I hasten to add. Your attempt is identical to Bishop Berkeley's - I'm at a loss as to why you tried to deny it.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 13, 2013 7:26:28 GMT 1
Wow. I've caught up. Is there a prize?
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Dec 13, 2013 8:22:38 GMT 1
Quite so, as Principled can confirm, we are not one and the same. Perhaps, from the use of the small p, Abacus thinks I am a principled person?
|
|