|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 7, 2013 14:57:20 GMT 1
That is a bit like that old question "If a tree falls in an uninhabited forest, does it really make a noise". The answer is of course it does. No doubt any birds in the tree would have heard the warning crack that warned them to fly off. Any small mammal crushed by the tree's fall would no doubt have heard the horrible creak and thump, before its demise. Even if we are to assume that, somehow, not a single animal was about to hear the noise, we can be certain that any CCTV, with audio capability, would indeed have captured the sounds. For we know what sound consists of: vibrations in air, and a falling tree could not avoid making such vibrations. You are suggesting that there is, in reality, a universe which entirely consists of an oven. Now if it really does exist then there is no need to worry about whether anyone is there to name it. I think that there is one multi-verse theory that all possible states come into being in separate universes. Assuming that the multiverse theory is correct, and assuming that a universe consisting entirely of an oven (!) must therefore exist, then nobody needs to be there to perceive its existence. The thing about the CCTV is that there has to be some intelligent agency that produced it, so here again, you are bringing in a pre-existing "observer" that arranged for the CCTV to detect the falling tree. Vibrations would be produced, yes, but unless there is something that can turn these into noise, like ears, they remain disturbances, not noise. Again, with the multiverse idea, how does a multiverse know it is a multiverse unless it has some kind of self-awareness? You're ignoring the distinction between noise and sound - a distinction fascinating was careful to draw. "Disturbances" are the sound: that we need ears to "turn" this into noise is merely making your point again that in order to have brain activity we first need a brain. I think your overall problem here is that you are seemingly convinced that in order for anything to exist we must first have a sense impression of it. Is that right?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 7, 2013 15:00:10 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. ;D No matter, never mind.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 7, 2013 15:02:03 GMT 1
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. Again - the concept. Your point that in order for brain activity to occur we need a brain has been conceded - move on.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 7, 2013 15:11:45 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? 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.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 7, 2013 15:16:17 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. How and why is that the problem?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 7, 2013 15:21:53 GMT 1
[quote author=mrsonde board=debate thread=1955 post=22445 time=[/]
...... 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, 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. [/quote]
I would put it this way: eclipses, the relationship between the planets and the sun, were certainly a range of potential realities that had the possibility to exist but such possibilities can only ever remain as such unless interconnected to an observing agency. The trap you keep falling into is to assume that the fact that we, now, can conceive of the solar system existing in the form we observe it today means that there was something about many millions of years before the appearance of life that could do the same. Logically this does not work because until some kind of phenomena is actually measured (observed) by a conscious being it will simply remain as unrealized.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 7, 2013 15:26:22 GMT 1
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. How and why is that the problem? 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.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 7, 2013 15:47:55 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. Independent of our impressions and concepts about it, I meant. The dust that coalesced to form the planets, say. What you are confusing is the referents of a theory with the theory itself. Einstein's theory did not modify the reality it describes and attempts to explain; it modified our current state of understanding of that reality. Two entirely different things, and you consistently confuse the two. I don't expect it bothered Saturn too much. Okay - how did Galileo change Saturn, exactly? It's not "meaningless" to so talk. I have the impression that your understanding of "meaning" is somewhat different to how the term is ordinarily understood. Do you endorse the radical stricutres on its definition of the logical positivists, is that the problem here? Well, I never have actually asserted that point, but never mind. I don't see the difficulty, sorry. I see the difficulty in respect to observations of the sub-molecular world, of course; but I don't see this difficulty, which is a straightforward problem with observing objects that are perturbed by light, and therefore has no serious implications for a realistic metaphysic at all, rationally leads us to conclude that therefore the objects we observe did not exist before we observed them. Has it? Then answer my at the time sardonic question about Galileo and Saturn with the seriousness it apparently deserves. I don't think anyone has ever made this claim, abacus. The issue is not how the environment appears - the presence of an observer is obviously implied by a question formulated in that way. The issue that science attenpts to address is how the environment is. You have moved on to a model of reality that asserts that without an observer it doesn't actually exist at all - except as some inchoate glob of something you call a "potential", whatever that may mean. I and most everyone else moved on from Newton long ago - we just went in a more sensible direction. I hesitate to enquire into this, given our progress so far, but I think it's necessary, given your apparent reluctance to countenance the primary/secondary quality distinction. It strikes me that the shaky ground we're on is given by your views on the nature of mathematics. You talk as though logic and maths are entirely human creations: is that how you see the matter? If so, your belief that consciousness is required before existence is possible makes somewhat more sense.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 7, 2013 18:13:05 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. Oh, excuse me:I wonder how I got that impression?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 7, 2013 18:29:19 GMT 1
And I've asked you, twice: what in blazes do you mean by "potentials of possibilities"? And I've asked you, more than three times: how do these "potentials" possibly interact with our consciousness before such consciousness has evolved?
Please remember: the whole point of this fantastic metaphysic of yours is as an attempt to explain our experience of the universe. You're asking us to throw out a pretty much perfectly working explanation and replace it with yours, because you believe it accounts for that experience better. How? You can't even make it make sense on its own terms.
I'll say it's not! Bishop Berkeley made sense. You're attempting the seemingly impossible feat of making an idealistic argument but yet still retaining a dualistic metaphysic of mind and matter. For some reason you haven't explained yet. I admire your chutzpah in trying, and sincerely wish you luck with it, but I'm still waiting for you to begin providing the slightest piece of evidence for it.
Apart from the ongoing enigma of what "potential" means, I don't see the contradiction here.
Go on then, do that: that would be some progress.
Okay - I'll believe you. There's this something else, called "potential." It's waiting for consciousness to become aware of it, then it becomes actual. Is that right?
As I've pointed out to you: no one has ever denied this. It's a statement of the obvious.
Ah - well, that's going a great deal further. You're claiming now that it's possible to have alternative logics. Now this really does demand a considerable body of evidence before it needs to be taken seriously.
You're not? But I gave you the standard list of them. That's what I mean - and so does everybody else.
Am I, am I. And your evidence for this extraordinary claim?
Perhaps, but as I keep asking you over and over: what is your evidence for these claims? Then I might consider becoming less parochial.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 7, 2013 18:46:11 GMT 1
Your notion of "meaning" appears to be playing a key role in your whole argument, therefore, so perhaps we really ought to explore it further. As it stands, you appear to be saying that for brain activity to occur (for there to be a "meaning") it is necessary for there to be a brain.
I concede this point.
Yes - and? The next stage in your argument needs to move from these statements of the obvious, which very few people have ever disagreed with - no realist, that's for sure - to one which shows that therefore there is no noumena, to keep consistent with the terminology: no existent forms giving rise to the phenomena.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Dec 7, 2013 18:46:41 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?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 7, 2013 19:20:49 GMT 1
So, again: your evidence for this extraordinary claim is?
No - that's not my assumption at all, abacus. I have not the slightest inkling how you've arrived at that suspicion. Or even why.
And your evidence for this extraordinary claim is?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 7, 2013 19:30:53 GMT 1
How and why is that the problem? 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.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Dec 7, 2013 19:42:15 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...
|
|