Philosophy Now Forum

QuantumT wrote:... Any attempt to deny explanations is not. Unless it's backed up by logic.

Which you tend to ignore?

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:43 amWhich you tend to ignore?

A matter of circumstances. Which you seem to ignore all together.

QuantumT wrote:A matter of circumstances. Which you seem to ignore all together.

What circumstances am I ignoring?

QuantumT wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:33 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:51 pm*

I'm glad you came down from your physicalistic piedestal...

Note to any would be contributors on a physicalistic piedestal: you are welcome to air your views here, but be aware that some of the members are a bit hair triggered.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:33 pm...and joined our pondering of current reality, instead of consequently denying the implications QM indicates.

What implications do you think I have denied?

QuantumT wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:33 pmAny attempt to explain the mysteries is welcome. Any attempt to deny explanations is not. Unless it's backed up by logic.

I think you missed the point. It is not that there are no mysteries in quantum mechanics, rather it is that the quasi spiritual fluff that some people, including some physicists, invent to create a coherent explanatory narrative is analogous to a god of the gaps fudge. It may be that the universe is genuinely 'mysterious', just as it may be that there really is a god, but to assert either on current evidence is premature.

seeds wrote:
As a very simplistic metaphor...

Which would support Physicalism in that a consciouness is not needed for the processes to play out?

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:14 am I think you missed the point. It is not that there are no mysteries in quantum mechanics, rather it is that the quasi spiritual fluff that some people, including some physicists, invent to create a coherent explanatory narrative is analogous to a god of the gaps fudge. It may be that the universe is genuinely 'mysterious', just as it may be that there really is a god, but to assert either on current evidence is premature.

I agree that sprituality and the concept of God is fluffy and useless in science. But we must be careful not to dismiss obvious solutions, just because they imply intelligent design.
Our current knowledge about nature is almost complete, and future advances lies almost solely in tecnology. With all that knowledge, it is about time we make usefull conclussion, if you ask me.
I agree that there are a few holes left in the complete picture, but we have the main pieces in place. When I look at it all, the answer is blazingly clear. I accept that my peers hesitate, but it annoys me when they deny facts or logic.

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:54 pm As a very simplistic metaphor...

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 3:52 pm Which would support Physicalism in that a consciouness is not needed for the processes to play out?

Yes, but if you want the processes to play out in a context of sensory-accessible “phenomena”...

(i.e., positionally-fixed, three-dimensional manifestations of reality, or anything capable of being experienced by our senses)

...as opposed to a context of sensory-inaccessible “noumena”...

(i.e., superpositionally-entangled waves (or fields) of ever-changing patterns of energy and information)

...then the presence of consciousness is required to transform the fields of information into that which the information represents.
_______

seeds wrote:Yes, but if you want the processes to play out in a context of sensory-accessible “phenomena”...

(i.e., positionally-fixed, three-dimensional manifestations of reality, or anything capable of being experienced by our senses)

...as opposed to a context of sensory-inaccessible “noumena”...

(i.e., superpositionally-entangled waves (or fields) of ever-changing patterns of energy and information)

Given it's the noumena I'm at a loss to your 'i.e.'?

...then the presence of consciousness is required to transform the fields of information into that which the information represents.
_______

Why should anything in the noumena be representing what our senses present?

Personally I think there are three things in Philosophy that are certain(maybe four), "I am", "There is at least one other than me.", "There are phenomena." and the fourth could be, if there are things and states of affairs then there is Logic.

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:51 pm Anyone who is still profoundly shocked by quantum mechanics hasn't done their homework. Or is just easily shocked.

seeds wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 5:46 pm Or is it possible that they did their homework and came to different conclusions than you?

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:51 pm In a way, the conclusions aren't all that important. As Michael Faraday said:
"All this is a dream. Still examine it by a few experiments. Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature; and in such things as these, experiment is the best test of such consistency."

Yes, and that would be a totally logical approach to our situation were it not for the fact that some things simply are not amenable to testing and experiments.

For example, there is no experiment that can reach into the inner-dimension of a human mind in order to directly study the layout and composition of the three-dimensional features of a vivid dream.

In other words, the observance of the firing of neurons in your brain will in no way reveal the precise nature and makeup of that island paradise you may have visited last night while drooling on your pillow...




Nor is there an experiment that can access and analyze the precise makeup of the dreamer of that dream. Yet it seems quite obvious that the dreamer of dreams (the “thinker” of thoughts) is real and exists.

In which case (and referencing back to your Faraday quote), in what way are the three-dimensional, multi-sensory features of dreams, along with the physically inaccessible dreamer of dreams, “...consistent with the laws of nature...”?
_______

seeds wrote:… For example, there is no experiment that can reach into the inner-dimension of a human mind in order to directly study the layout and composition of the three-dimensional features of a vivid dream.

In other words, the observance of the firing of neurons in your brain will in no way reveal the precise nature and makeup of that island paradise you may have visited last night while drooling on your pillow... …

Not sure how much credence to assign but it appears imaging is on the case.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... -15553304/
https://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research ... -play-them
https://singularityhub.com/2017/04/19/n ... 13xxottyo1

QuantumT wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:47 pm... we must be careful not to dismiss obvious solutions, just because they imply intelligent design.

I'm still not clear whether you think I am dismissing something obvious. There is a big difference between not believing in something for which there is no evidence, but which others find intuitively obvious, and dismissing it.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:47 pmOur current knowledge about nature is almost complete, and future advances lies almost solely in tecnology.

How do you know our knowledge is almost complete?History shows that technological advance nearly always results in surprises.

QuantumT wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:47 pmWith all that knowledge, it is about time we make usefull conclussion, if you ask me.

Well yeah, an important role of science is to be useful, but useful is not the same as true. What use do you want science to serve?

QuantumT wrote: ↑Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:47 pmI agree that there are a few holes left in the complete picture, but we have the main pieces in place. When I look at it all, the answer is blazingly clear. I accept that my peers hesitate, but it annoys me when they deny facts or logic.

So what is blazingly clear? What facts/logic make it so?

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:41 am...some things simply are not amenable to testing and experiments.

I think Arising is right to reserve judgement on the weight of the links, but do you not think it would be equally wise not to decide in advance the limits of experimentation?

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:41 am...in what way are the three-dimensional, multi-sensory features of dreams, along with the physically inaccessible dreamer of dreams, “...consistent with the laws of nature...”?

Well, if we ever work out all the laws of nature, we'll be in a position to decide.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:06 pm I'm still not clear whether you think I am dismissing something obvious. There is a big difference between not believing in something for which there is no evidence, but which others find intuitively obvious, and dismissing it.

Well you dismissed QM as shocking, just because you're used to it. That's the danger of getting used to abnormalities.
Another thing we've gotten used to, is the so called "physical constant". ("So called" because it's quantum and quantum is not traditional physics.)
It's like saying rainbows on the moon are totally normal (if there were), even though they can't be explained. It just is so! Shut up and calculate!
The best explanation for the physical constant so far is a multiverse. Not fine tuning. Anything is better than ID.

How do you know our knowledge is almost complete?History shows that technological advance nearly always results in surprises.

I said knowledge, not tech. The only thing missing in our knowledge is dark stuff. (We figured out the entire universe, even quantum (mysterious but predictable/measurable.)

Well yeah, an important role of science is to be useful, but useful is not the same as true. What use do you want science to serve?

To be honest about probability. Currently science is hesitant, although probability points to a virtual reality.

So what is blazingly clear? What facts/logic make it so?

It's the sum of the facts/parts. If you don't see it, it means you are not ready, or not capable. I see everything. And I'm not religious.

A question for you:
If the atoms of your body lost the vacuum/space between their particles, how large would you be?

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:04 pm Yes, but if you want the processes to play out in a context of sensory-accessible “phenomena”...

(i.e., positionally-fixed, three-dimensional manifestations of reality, or anything capable of being experienced by our senses)

...as opposed to a context of sensory-inaccessible “noumena”...

(i.e., superpositionally-entangled waves (or fields) of ever-changing patterns of energy and information)

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:08 am Given it's the noumena I'm at a loss to your 'i.e.'?

According to Wiki:

Wiki wrote: The noumenon is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception. The term noumenon is generally used when contrasted with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to anything that can be apprehended by or is an object of the senses.

With the above in mind, I included the “i.e.” after noumena because the superpositionally-entangled underpinning of the universe is something that is “posited” by physicists as existing, but it can never be directly experienced (as it really is) by the senses.

Therefore, at least in that context, my use of the term seems to be in accord with the Wiki definition.

seeds wrote: ↑Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:04 pm ...then the presence of consciousness is required to transform the fields of information into that which the information represents.
_______

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:08 am Why should anything in the noumena be representing what our senses present?

I don’t know if I am misunderstanding your question, or just quibbling over semantics, but our senses do not “present” anything, they merely experience (and decode) fields of information.

Furthermore, I suggest that our five senses...

(which are an integral aspect of our “I am-ness” that you mention later)

...represent the multifaceted mechanism of our being (of our consciousness) that instigates the collapse of the wave function (as in the abovementioned “decoding” process).

In fact, that is the very reason for my earlier assertion of why the “thing in itselfness” of the waving underpinning of reality can never be directly experienced (again, as it really is), for it is instantly transformed from noumena into phenomena upon contact with our senses.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:08 am Personally I think there are three things in Philosophy that are certain(maybe four), "I am", "There is at least one other than me.", "There are phenomena." and the fourth could be, if there are things and states of affairs then there is Logic.

That all sounds quite reasonable to me, A_uk.
_______

QuantumT wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 10:23 pmWell you dismissed QM as shocking, just because you're used to it. That's the danger of getting used to abnormalities.

Hang on a moment; even if you are shocked by quantum mechanics, can you really describe the most fundamental behaviour of the universe as "abnormal"? Personally, I think it is waaaay more 'shocking' that there is a universe, that there is life and that there is consciousness, even if it is all "virtual", than that we don't quite understand how it all works. But if you want to get a handle on how the stuff we do understand works, do yourself a favour and click this link: https://willijbouwman.blogspot.com

QuantumT wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 10:23 pmA question for you:
If the atoms of your body lost the vacuum/space between their particles, how large would you be?

Maximum 1/10000 of my current size. It's on page 13 of the link.