Universe can't be infinite.

[Atla]

Distinctions are IN THE CONTEXT of MINDS.

The universe makes no distinctions!

So it is universal in so far as anything we SPEAK or THINK ABOUT is "universal"!

There is no knowledge of reality separate from perception. To speak of "reality" separate from the human perception of reality is as harmful as idea as it gets!

I thought you are interested in psychology, yet you want to bypass it when doing science. What gives?

What? You deny the external world?

So how are you using this internet thing then if it doesn't work?

The internet thingy uses something called "cables" and "routers" and "computers", things like that.
Bits of information don't magically travel to you, without some hardware they are part of.

The internet is a part of the external world. Is it harmful to talk about it?

[TimeSeeker]

What? You deny the external world?

You are still looking for a strawman, eh?

The external world is only available to me through my PERCEPTIONS and my technological augmentation to perform experiments.

Direct and indirect measurements my only two mechanisms for accessing "the external world"!

The internet thingy uses something called "cables" and "routers" and "computers", things like that.
Bits of information don't magically travel to you, without some hardware they are part of.

The internet is a part of the external world. Is it harmful to talk about it?

The theory came before the cables. If the theory didn't come - the cables wouldn't have followed.

You've read about Turing. You know what he set out to achieve...

It is people who recognized the general applicability of this theory who laid down the cables.
Had they been denialists like you who don't understand the practical implications of theoretical work - we would still be stuck with wind-up telephones I imagine?

P.S cables and computers are man-made too. Like "information"

[attofishpi]

Holy shit, we agree on something rather ethereal.

I find this intuition common amongst software engineers.

Because it's not something you learned through a "rational argument". You learned through rational action.

Doing, not talking.

I'm so glad you didn't just accept that bollocks. Rationally argue your way out of the most finite point of existence being an event - or not an event.

PS I hope you dont require me to point out by what I mean by a 'finite' point of existence.

[TimeSeeker]

I'm so glad you didn't just accept that bollocks. Rationally argue your way out of the most finite point of existence being an event - or not an event.

I don't care to argue it. I agree with you.

Either the universe exists or it doesn't. If this is what non-existence feels like - it's awesome!

And any disagreement about existence or non-existence is linguistic masturbation about what to call this state-of-whatever-the-hell-this-is.

[attofishpi]

I'm so glad you didn't just accept that bollocks. Rationally argue your way out of the most finite point of existence being an event - or not an event.

I don't care to argue it. I agree with you.

Either the universe exists or it doesn't. If this is what non-existence feels like - it's awesome!

Sorry for my lack of 'concern' but is that what you two have been bangin on about since I got home? Because the answer is very fucking simple.

[Atla]

You are still looking for a strawman, eh?

The external world is only available to me through my PERCEPTIONS and my technological augmentation to perform experiments.

Direct and indirect measurements my only two mechanisms for accessing "the external world"!You are still looking for a strawman, eh?

The external world is only available to me through my PERCEPTIONS and my technological augmentation to perform experiments.

Direct and indirect measurements my only two mechanisms for accessing "the external world"!

And?

The theory came before the cables. If the theory didn't come - the cables wouldn't have followed.

You've read about Turing. You know what he set out to achieve...

It is people who recognized the general applicability of this theory who laid down the cables.
Had they been denialists like you who don't understand the practical implications of theoretical work - we would still be stuck with wind-up telephones I imagine?

P.S cables and computers are man-made too. Like "information"

When did I deny computers or the internet? I studied computer sciences for years, including information theory. Wtf

"Information" is a part of the cables and computers, and storage devices etc. in case you still don't get it.

[Atla]

I'm so glad you didn't just accept that bollocks. Rationally argue your way out of the most finite point of existence being an event - or not an event.

I don't care to argue it. I agree with you.

Either the universe exists or it doesn't. If this is what non-existence feels like - it's awesome!

Sorry for my lack of 'concern' but is that what you two have been bangin on about since I got home? Because the answer is very fucking simple.

Well right now he's trying to prove that every distinction requires 1 bit. Which is of course nonsense.

[TimeSeeker]

Sorry for my lack of 'concern' but is that what you two have been bagin on about since I got home? Because the answer is very fucking simple.

You are talking to me. I am talking to you. That's good enough for me.

If you want to call this state-of-being (or non-being) "existence" or "non-existence" you are welcome to - I don't really care about the nomenclature.

[TimeSeeker]

Well right now he's trying to prove that every distinction requires 1 bit. Which is of course nonsense.

It is the definition of 1 bit! You get to accept it or reject it.

You can't refute it, because it's axiomatic.

It follows straight from Shannon Entropy.

[attofishpi]

I don't care to argue it. I agree with you.

Either the universe exists or it doesn't. If this is what non-existence feels like - it's awesome!

Sorry for my lack of 'concern' but is that what you two have been bangin on about since I got home? Because the answer is very fucking simple.

Well right now he's trying to prove that every distinction requires 1 bit. Which is of course nonsense.

Bollocks, seems I gotta be drawn into this, but f it thats what a healthy debate does, hopefully it draws 1 or 2 with an insight or an alternative POV.

So...every DISTINCTION of WHAT?

[attofishpi]

so while we have an interlude

Timeseeker is arguing there is no universe, somehow?
Atla is arguing that somewhere somehow there is?

Fill me in - cos i've had a few barracudas and I can't be bothered attempting to read all you stuff.

[Greylorn Ell]

Atla,

Your statement looks to me like complete BS, but thank you for your reply nonetheless.

Do you actually understand quantum mechanics, or have you merely watched some documentary channel bullshit? Have you experimented with various aspects of the paranormal? Can you explain in detail how QM biology explains photosynthesis, or any aspect of human mental behavior? If so, tell us about your experiments or STFU.

Greylorn

Just saying, you decided that the mathemathics behind QM was complete BS, even though a third of the world's economy is based on it.

I've been thinking about QM for nearly a decade but of course I don't fully understand it. (And been interested in normal psychology all my life too.) Based on these I have some vague theory how several of the parapsychological effects might work.

The most straightforward ones are: how people notice when they are being watched, and other "abnormal" effects having to do with our attention. And how people close to each other can sometimes instantly sense that the other one died, some twins even sense each other's moods. Not interested in discussing them though, I just don't see why one would dismiss QM.

(I don't understand photosynthesis. It does look like quantum behaviour, some claim it is, some claim it's quasi-quantum.
If it's quantum behaviour then as far as I understand it, it either breaks all probability/randomness, or our universe is almost infinitely more improbable and we can't (yet?) recreate this kind of non-random behaviour in a laboratory for some reason.
So I tend to favour the quasi-quantum behaviour camp nowadays, I think.)

Anyway I'm off, our views don't intersect.

That's because our knowledge about physics doesn't intersect. My book explains the QM glitch to the intelligent lay person, but it's too much work to repeat here, and pointless. If you knew the math I could outline the problem in a few words.
Greylorn

[TimeSeeker]

Timeseeker is arguing there is no universe, somehow?

What? Lol.

I am arguing that the question "Does the universe exist?" is undecidable! It's stupid to even ask it!
It's metaphysical bullshit!

[attofishpi]

Atla,

Your statement looks to me like complete BS, but thank you for your reply nonetheless.

Do you actually understand quantum mechanics, or have you merely watched some documentary channel bullshit? Have you experimented with various aspects of the paranormal? Can you explain in detail how QM biology explains photosynthesis, or any aspect of human mental behavior? If so, tell us about your experiments or STFU.

Greylorn

Just saying, you decided that the mathemathics behind QM was complete BS, even though a third of the world's economy is based on it.

I've been thinking about QM for nearly a decade but of course I don't fully understand it. (And been interested in normal psychology all my life too.) Based on these I have some vague theory how several of the parapsychological effects might work.

The most straightforward ones are: how people notice when they are being watched, and other "abnormal" effects having to do with our attention. And how people close to each other can sometimes instantly sense that the other one died, some twins even sense each other's moods. Not interested in discussing them though, I just don't see why one would dismiss QM.

(I don't understand photosynthesis. It does look like quantum behaviour, some claim it is, some claim it's quasi-quantum.
If it's quantum behaviour then as far as I understand it, it either breaks all probability/randomness, or our universe is almost infinitely more improbable and we can't (yet?) recreate this kind of non-random behaviour in a laboratory for some reason.
So I tend to favour the quasi-quantum behaviour camp nowadays, I think.)

Anyway I'm off, our views don't intersect.

That's because our knowledge about physics doesn't intersect. My book explains the QM glitch to the intelligent lay person, but it's too much work to repeat here, and pointless. If you knew the math I could outline the problem in a few words.
Greylorn

Oh let me bow down. If it's not THE MAGNIFICENT....Greylorn Elf here to drop his most esteemed oats.

[Atla]

Well right now he's trying to prove that every distinction requires 1 bit. Which is of course nonsense.

It is the definition of 1 bit! You get to accept it or reject it.

You can't refute it, because it's axiomatic.

It follows straight from Shannon Entropy.

The bit is the unit of information.

For example here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit the word "distinction" isn't even mentioned.

Yes, 0 and 1 are different, these are the two values, it's a distinction. Which doesn't mean that 1 bit is enough for "Am I thirsty?".