Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Trump
climber
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 10:15am PT
|
What would be the proper classification level for analysis here?
Ooooh, the reference class problem! Me, me, me! I know the answer to this one! I’ve got this one all figured out!
Misplaced generalization is what we humans do. That and/or a good name for a band. Still though, doesn’t seem to stop any of us from doing it and doing it and doing it again.
Happy New Years thinkers! Looking forward to doing it some more next year.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 10:53am PT
|
It seems to me that you’re looking for a particular kind of answer here, aren’t you?
No, just looking for any cogent rationale for why a universal consciousness would bother spawning a material world. What would be a possible reason for even bothering with the material?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 11:58am PT
|
Take the weak force (electromagnetic force) CARRIED by the photon, and predcicted by Nobel laureates Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Salam and Abdus Glashow in the 1960s.
When Weinberg was fishing around for the weak force, was he "flopping about?" Is the weak force a "product" of anything, including evolution?
In the electro-weak unification, the photon is the propagator of the electromagnetic "force" there are three other propagators in this theory, W⁺, W⁻, Z⁰ all of which are very massive, the photon, γ, is massless.
That masses of the W⁺, W⁻, Z⁰ make the weak interaction a short range force, the masslessness of the γ gives the electromagnetic force and infinite range.
The idea that these were massive was worked out long before the electro-weak unification, the similarity of the forces (at least similar to physicists) suggested that they may be the same force. But if they were the same force, the question would be why are the propagator masses so different?
This was worked out to completion by many theorists, the three that got the Nobel prize were considered to have made more significant contribution. The idea that the "symmetry" of the electro-weak force was broken in such a way that their masses would be so different came from Higgs and others.
What is referred to as the Higgs boson was a prediction of this theory. Experimentalists went to work trying to find the Higgs boson and succeeded, confirming the prediction. This opens up an entirely new sector for physicists to study, what is the Higgs boson. The Chinese have recently announced that they will build an accelerator for this study, a "Higgs factor" in the parlance.
While the electro-weak theory was worked out to completion in the 1970s and important experimental results confirmed parts of the theory (the existence of the Z⁰ implied that there would be weak interactions that did not change the sign of the charge of the interacting particles, and later the observation of the W⁺, W⁻, Z⁰ particles, the discovery of the Higgs completes the confirmation of the theory.
The weak force is responsible for radioactive decay, which was first observed at the turn of the century. Fermi proposed a theory to explain one aspect of that decay. The discovery of the neutron and a theory of nuclear structure began to explain other aspects of radioactive decay.
These theories organize a vast amount of experimental observation into a predictive schema.
Many aspects of theories are general to other theories, and those things are considered "fundamental," the conservation of energy, of momentum, of angular momentum, for instance. Each of those conservation laws are explained in terms of symmetries through Noether's theorem, and we say those symmetries are "fundamental."
Elementary particles are considered "fundamental" until they are not, the electron is "fundamental," but the proton and the neutron are explained as constituents of "more fundamental" quarks and gluons.
The way things gain the status of "fundamental" is not from the "top down" by a declaration, but by seeing how they enter theory.
If you proposed that consciousness was "fundamental" in the universe you should be able to show how it enters into everything. So far that we would claim its fundamental nature, we might say that all of our theories exist because we are conscious, and those theories wouldn't exist, presumably, if we were not. While the former is true, the later would be problematic to prove, philosophers have been about that for a long time with no conclusion.
But also necessary would be to show that "consciousness" pervades the universe. So far, we have no evidence of this, and our theories that do explain much of what we see when we look do not need consciousness as part of the explanation, except for the role of the explainer.
As far as we know, "consciousness" is not a necessity for the universe to exist, and that would make if fall short of "fundamental."
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 01:08pm PT
|
As far as we know, "consciousness" is not a necessity for the universe to exist, and that would make if fall short of "fundamental."
Couldn't you reasonably say as well "as far as we know consciousness may be a necessity for the universe to exist?" "As far as we know" covers much territory.
As well, the definition of fundamental is tricky, especially if it is based on necessity for existence. What else could you eliminate from the universe and still have it exist: light? Entropy?
It seems reasonable to expect the existence of life and consciousness throughout the universe given its uniformity of physical laws and structure, given the nature of time and space.
Perhaps consciousness is simply the logical and inevitable consequence of evolutionary processes which are the logical consequences of a set of physical laws and an inviolable structure and in that sense why wouldn't consciousness be fundamental?.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 01:43pm PT
|
Quote ---- "As far as we know consciousness is not a necessity for the universe to exist ."
Lol unreal .....
Without consciousness there would be no universe to begin with.
You people are sooo clueless to consciousness it's embarrassing..
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 02:20pm PT
|
Perhaps consciousness is simply the logical and inevitable consequence of evolutionary processes which are the logical consequences of a set of physical laws and an inviolable structure and in that sense why wouldn't consciousness be fundamental?.
sure, but if everything is a consequence "of a set of physical laws and an inviolable structure" then everything is a fundamental.
so discussing what is fundamental is irrelevant.
generally we have an aesthetic that seeks the smallest number of "fundamental" things and derive everything else, sort of reverse reductionism as it were. The evolution of "consciousness" and other human behaviors seems to be quite a good candidate explanation, and it does have testable consequences, though dependent on the definition of consciousness.
now this aesthetic of parsimonious explanation can certainly be criticized, there is no physical reason why this must be so, but so far it works well. Other modes of explanation have been expressed, e.g. emergence, but as far as I know these ideas have not succeeded.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 03:55pm PT
|
I don't disagree with that. Declaring what is and isn't fundamental, like many ideas on this thread, requires very strict definitions. Parsing out what is and isn't fundamental to the universe seems a problematic reduction from the start. You might end up with nothing but a handful of energy.
What's curious about consciousness, however, is "as far as we know," it's the only way of knowing and therefore fundamental to any understanding.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 04:04pm PT
|
What's curious about consciousness, however, is "as far as we know," it's the only way of knowing and therefore fundamental to any understanding.
But we haven't even a definition for "consciousness," or "knowing" for that matter, so while we somehow demonstrate that we have knowledge, we can't say how we have it, or attribute it to our "conscious" state with any definiteness.
I would say AlphaZero "knows" chess, I wouldn't say it was "conscious" (but I don't have a good reason).
You might end up with nothing but a handful of energy.
actually, when you add all the energy up it sums to zero...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 05:18pm PT
|
You have to stop using "WE" pertaining to consciousness.
You people are NOT the authority .... yet claiming that role .....
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 05:58pm PT
|
I don't think I claim to be the authority at all.
Who is the authority, in your opinion?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 06:37pm PT
|
I don't have opinion.
Mental speculators have opinions.
The actual manufacturer is always the authority.
|
|
Minerals
Social climber
The Deli
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 07:20pm PT
|
The actual manufacturer is always the authority.
What is the manufacturer’s warranty policy? If they have to issue a product recall, for defective merchandise and/or faulty design, do they cover the return shipping? Will they repair or replace defective merchandise, and what’s the turnaround time? Is the manufacturer liable for any damages or injuries caused by a faulty design? How long has the manufacturer been in business? Do they provide good customer service? Just want to be sure that I’m dealing with a reputable vendor before making a purchase. Thanks
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 07:34pm PT
|
You are defective now.
You made yourself defective.
The warranty is you fix yourself according to the manufacturer's instructions.
But you fools all jump up and down like monkeys and claim there's no manufacturer and no instructions.
So you remain st00pid and defective all while masquerading yourselves as advanced ....
|
|
Jim Clipper
climber
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2018 - 07:56pm PT
|
Runaway sexual selection.
Seriously, chicks dig science.
Cheers, I'm gonna go do some pull ups, and get swole
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Trump: . . . [misplaced generalization is] a good name for a band.
I like this one. :-)
Healyje: What would be a possible reason for even bothering with the material?
I’m a little surprised at this response, but as you might say, I hardly know you, I guess. Do you not, or have you not, done anything simply for your own expressiveness? You have no artistic bone in your body? Beauty or an odd creation is irrelevant to you? Would you say that art is not cogent? If that were to be so, then you are a bit alien to the rest of your species. Expression is perhaps the first and most fundamental attribute of intelligence. Even the wheel and fire were creative inventions. If not expression, then what makes the human species significant to your way of thinking?
Ed: . . . we haven't even a definition for "consciousness," or "knowing" for that matter, so while we somehow demonstrate that we have knowledge, we can't say how we have it, or attribute it to our "conscious" state with any definiteness.
And this would NOT be fundamental? What then would? Do we need to say what the word fundamental means? If one cannot break down into components a thing, then how is that thing not fundamental?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
There's no "hypothesis." to consciousness period.
Clueless clowns like you can't even see their own eyeballs without it ......
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
MikeL, I was explaining what we call fundamental in physics, and how we get to labeling something fundamental.
We do not define something as "fundamental" when we are confronted with a mystery.
The "we" here is interesting, as we are the creators of these explanations, so one might say without too much hubris that we "create" the universe through these thoughts. I think this has been your point. However, what we create is a symbolic system with which to predict the behavior of the "universe" to a finite degree, and consistent with our finite ability to sense the universe.
In this perspective, we don't create the universe any more than your glasses create the fine-print you are trying to read.
How our consciousness is related to our understanding of the universe might be a fundamental question, whether or not consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe would have to wait for us to be able to define consciousness.
I agree that we have difficulty assigning that attribute to other beings that share our singular world. If we cannot recognize it at home, how would we in the very different depths of the universe, largely hostile to life as we know it?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
The universe is NOT hostile to life at all.
There are human forms everywhere in the universe.
Not all human forms and life forms are on this planet earth.
Change your consciousness and you can go to any planet in the material manifestation.
You do not need to use the devolved back into caveman technology of so-called modern science which is actually no better than breaking a rock with another rock.
Purify your consciousness beyond the material plane and you can travel to the spiritual manifestation.
None of this is so called metaphorical but actual truths that can be performed by anyone with intelligence.
But the primitive cavemen of so called material consciousness of modern science remain clueless to these methods due to their consciousness being permeated in the illusionary maya ....
|
|
TClimberByTrade
climber
Santa Ana
|
|
Science can be black and white, practical, efficient and down to earth. Braun electrical problem actuator narrowed down and located in Riverside with object back to work after pick up. It's a fairly new science object and doesn't apply crane definition by turret.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
I'll be working and fixing on our Bobcat 753 heater control as soon as it warms up some more today .....
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!