Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 19561 - 19580 of total 22344 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Feb 6, 2014 - 12:55am PT

So, if we watch a recording of a soccer match played a long time ago, the outcome is undetermined, not just if we are watching the match for the first time and never read about the outcome, but perhaps also if we’ve seen the match before and forgot about the outcome.

So what's of importance? The outcome of the game, or the outcome of our emotional response?
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Feb 6, 2014 - 01:00am PT

Now, nearly everyone reads, and a far better world than one without widespread literacy is the result.

NO! The world is a better place when there is less inequalibreum.

Returning to the rest
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
Feb 6, 2014 - 01:10am PT

Credit: TomCochrane
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Feb 6, 2014 - 01:21am PT
^^^ Tom. I remember talking to ChongoChuck when he was writing this. 95?
I couldn't help but notice how passionate he was on the idea, but how non-emotional he was.
MH2

climber
Feb 6, 2014 - 01:03pm PT
I wonder if all of this makes sense to a physicist.

Andrzej


While he was posting here, physicist Ed Hartouni made a comment about the mathematical universe hypothesis. He said there was another idea; that mathematics comes from physics, not the other way around. I cannot find his couple of posts on the subject but you could PM him if interested.


from Tegmark, the main proponent of the mathematical universe hypothesis:

Galileo and Wigner and lots of other scientists would argue that abstract mathematics “describes” reality. Plato would say that mathematics exists somewhere out there as an ideal reality. I am working in between. I have this sort of crazy-sounding idea that the reason why mathematics is so effective at describing reality is that it is reality.



this new development was posted here before:

giving up space and time as fundamental constituents of nature and figuring out how the Big Bang and cosmological evolution of the universe arose out of pure geometry.

http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/





And you must not forget the fifth dimension. The Twilight Zone TV program introduction originally had 6 dimensions, but then went down to 5, perhaps for budget reasons.


1959




1960

MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Feb 6, 2014 - 01:23pm PT
Chongo's writing (content, style) isn't easy for me to follow. I think he wants to say something important, but I believe he suspects that he can't do so in any final way within his paradigm. When one's model of the world is observationally conditional and undefined (open, without causal closure) and quantum (has little "jumps" or discontinuities in it), it becomes difficult to say anything about the here and now. Causality may have been thrown overboard with quantum mechanics, but what one is left with is the indeterminacy of statistical probability.

Both "laws" were invented to explain the mechanism of manifestation. But note that neither "law" exists outside of phenomenality. What would seem needing consideration would next be unphenomenality or unmanifestation. If something comes into phenomenality or being, where else could it come from?

If anything, any study of phenomenality must look beyond phenomenality into noumenality.

We should be thankful, at least, that Heisenberg and Planck together came to the notion that the "observer" is a "factor" in the process of manifestation.



. . . and you might have thought that quantum mechanics was confusing. Causality gave Nargajuna and Chandrakirti plenty of headaches 1500 years before Heisenberg, and in the end, they'd have none of it. Many Buddhists today make much of karma and causality, forgetting the Buddha's very words of admonitions about the subject: there are no doctrines. Causality appears to be an objectification; so does quantum mechanics.


BB: The world is a better place when there is less inequalibreum.

I don't think this is defensible empirically / experientially. Nothing seems to stay the same. Everything changes. Disequilibrium or divergence (rather than convergence, which is what equilibrium would appear to be) seems to best describe phenomenality.
WBraun

climber
Feb 6, 2014 - 01:30pm PT
We're in cafe one day in his (Chongo) famous back corner.

Chongo says; "Here, read my book"

I've heard him many times on the topic of his book.

So I read a couple chapters.

He looks at me waiting for a response.

Stall him some more.

He's getting really curios now and starting to twitch :-)

I say; "You're unknowingly perfectly describing God's impersonal features.

Aaawwwwkkk NO fuking way!!!! he exclaims.

LOL hahahaha
MH2

climber
Feb 6, 2014 - 01:48pm PT
Causality appears to be an objectification


That statement, too, is an 'objectification,' or at least an attempt to say that one thing is another thing.

As Ed Hartouni once put it, the way science seeks to understand a system is to identify the pieces which are essential to the description of the system and then to describe how they interact. Cause and effect are philosophical issues.
moosedrool

climber
Stair climber, lost, far away from Poland
Feb 6, 2014 - 02:10pm PT
MH2, are you familiar with the Craig Hogan's holometer? I don't have the latest news on the experiment, though.

http://lynnemctaggart.com/blog/215-the-world-is-a-hologram

Andrzej
Jan

Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
Feb 6, 2014 - 03:30pm PT
Fractile vs hologram, holograms within a fractile. I haven't thought about this in a while, but it seems to me that it corresponds with my experience. I'll bet on something like this as the new paradigm a hundred years from now.
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Feb 6, 2014 - 03:53pm PT
Fractals are popular now, but interest may taper off as time goes on. That sort of structure occurs at various places in nature, but may not be the correct tool to apply elsewhere. Catastrophe Theory, Cellular Automata, etc. were fads that have waned.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Feb 6, 2014 - 04:28pm PT
MH2 said: That statement, too, is an 'objectification,' or at least an attempt to say that one thing is another thing.


The issue of objectifying become interesting when we contrast the external, observable world and the internal, subjective world.

Per popular usage, "objecify" means to treat some person, place, thing or phenomenon as an object, or to cause it to have objective reality.

Put differently, objectifying is an attempt to define something in tangible (to our sense organs), physical terms such as measurements, colors, heat, mass, velocity, or other qualities universally known and understood.

We can see the problem with trying to do this with experience, which, while it remains our fundamental reality, is not observable nor yet is it in and of itself an object. It is, in it's basic form, a subjective reality, the only such quality in the universe, all others being objective things. For this reason we can understand why attempts to objectify experience concentrate on objective, bio functioning, for there is no other physical aspect to wrangle.

MH2's contention that causation is a philosophical rather than a scientific concern is interesting. At the very lest, causation has crucial practical ramification in the real world. For instance, they certainly did not spend billions building the accelerator at CERN without the near certainty that it would "create" or cause specific effects that they could measure and so forth. Or at any rate, if they did A, B, and C, D would likely arise or happen.

This has been the knock against Marhham and the billion dollar brain project per their stated goal of trying to computate brain function on a computer and achieving sentience. I reposted one of John Stannard's videos where the speaker said to do so without theory (how A causes B) was totally impossible. In other words, unless we understood how biology produces sentience, we won't know what to build to achieve same. Just cobbling together a comutational replica of brain function and expecting this machine to be self aware is to actually believe that the objective IS the subjective, or at least causally so, and we'll just wait and see how accurate this proves to be. I'm still giving 100 to 1 odds this will never happen in my lifetime because the theory is totally assbackwards.

My sense of this is that like mathematics, sentience is an inherent quality to reality that is not created at all. But that discussion is too abstract for this thread - I've seen where that goes here and it really is "a waste of time." The other stuff is at any rate interesting to consider as thought experiments.

JL



WBraun

climber
Feb 6, 2014 - 04:31pm PT
Largo -- "My sense of this is that like mathematics, sentience is an inherent quality to reality that is not created at all."

One of the most intelligent statements in the whole thread including the whole forum.

It takes good intelligence to understand reality as it really is .......
rectorsquid

climber
Lake Tahoe
Feb 6, 2014 - 05:11pm PT
It takes good intelligence to understand reality as it really is .......

It takes a huge ego to think that any individual, let alone any human at all, can understand reality.

We are idiots in the big scheme of things. Hardly more understanding of the universe than a typical ant.

Failing to accept that you might be wrong is the biggest ego trip I have ever seen from a person.

Dave
WBraun

climber
Feb 6, 2014 - 05:15pm PT
Yes you are a perfect example of an idiot Dave.

My post above was carefully worded to attract the stupid moths like you into the flame .......
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Feb 6, 2014 - 06:14pm PT
Put differently, objectifying is an attempt to define something in tangible (to our sense organs), physical terms such as measurements, colors, heat, mass, velocity, or other qualities universally known and understood.

This is not a description of de novo experience as regards external objects. A infant has not hitherto learned the operational procedures alluded to in the above, such as associative categorical qualities, or measurements per se, yet that infant nonetheless still experiences objects.

"Objectifying" in its most fundamental sense (as sensory stimuli) therefore long precedes operational procedures. It is flawed logic to conflate measuring (as an intentional, volitional action) with the fundamental experience of objects-in-themselves---since an object does not contain an intrinsic operational quality as an imperative to its existence.( "I assume despite David Hume with his broom")
A ball does not have a sign on it that reads "measure me...dummy". LOL
Even something like "heat" is not associated with an object like a fireplace to our infant---but rather heat itself is experienced as an "object" in itself. Only later does the little human begin to put 2 and 2 together, so to speak, and associate heat with fireplace. We are seeing a developmental process unfold in the sensory/ cognitive life as regards objects. (Much more on that later)

What we are left with are primal objects which are identical to nascent subjective states. A feeling of hunger by our infant is undifferentiated from external objects. Hunger is no different than "thing"
Experience is undifferentiated (at this point ) and has not yet been "claimed " as it were, by the strictly personal viewpoint.

Only after growing up does the infant begin to understand that objects are radically different from his/her internal state, or even that such distinction exists.
This phenominalistic graduation is required by the dictates of survival in the uncompromising physical world.( A survival meme, as it propagates , does not have the time or luxury to argue the fine, or the coarse, distinction betwixt objective and subjective)
It is either: regard the Tiger as separate from oneself ---or get munched. ( I am over-generalizing to make my point)
It is at this critical juncture that the need for measurement and procedural operationalism comes into play.
It can also be said that the subjective state is brought into being gradually more or less at this same juncture in order to keep pace with external apparati and the diktat of evolutionarily-driven biologic existence.

MH2

climber
Feb 6, 2014 - 06:28pm PT
It takes good intelligence to understand reality as it really is .......


My money is on the ant. Versus the human, at least.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Feb 6, 2014 - 06:39pm PT
It takes good intelligence to understand reality as it really is
If you can't explain a wave function collapse, then you don't have it.
moosedrool

climber
Stair climber, lost, far away from Poland
Feb 6, 2014 - 07:05pm PT
Largo: ...sentience is an inherent quality to reality that is not created at all.

How do you explain mental disorders, then? Ill brain creates ill consciousness. No brain, no problem ;)

I will take your bet. Let's be precise. I say that within 20 years a self conscious machine will exist. {I don't think it will be digital, though).

I know the difficulty associated with testing the actuality of said consciousness. But there are ways to determine that.

Andrzej
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Feb 6, 2014 - 07:34pm PT
Ward, I'm not talking about the phenomenology of objectifying at an experiential level, rather the discursive practice of an adult mind in subdividing fluid reality into "knowable" things. Of course Kant wojuld take issue with your claim of embracing things just as they are, but that's a different conversation.


But this is curious and IMO wildly off base.

"Even something like "heat" is not associated with an object like a fireplace to our infant---but rather heat itself is experienced as an "object" in itself.

Heat is and can only be experienced as a subjective tone. We can come up with measurements and temperatures about the physical aspects of heat or a fire or an astroid but heat is qualia, an experiential reality. Later, once we develop a vocabulary to label this qualia, we can associate terms to quality such as hot and so forth, but as no time does heat stop being a subjective experience. Translating the subjective "heat" into tangible physical terms is part of the objectifying process I mentioned earlier. But qualia itself can never be an object. Objectifying of internal experience remains a way for us to reify qualia into qualities we can associate with material footprints, for things we feel give rise to heat, so to speak, like a fireplace.

JL
Messages 19561 - 19580 of total 22344 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews