|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 7, 2019 18:52:52 GMT
01. Real = is able to be analyzed?
a. "What brain sees that reality is" doesn't imply "there's no reality except what the brain sees"; b. "The Unseeing reality" exists as "unseeing reality", and doesn't exist as "the reality that could be seen as soon as good tools would be handed"; c. Analyzing the reality is an act of speculations about the reality i.e. watching realities in your head only; d. Any realities exists in a head as plural construction: one reality = one anything;
x.y.z Rx → φy. → .ψz → .x=y=z
e. Something that might be a reality appears iff it might be analyzed.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 21, 2019 21:22:03 GMT
(I guess I've made my thought pretty unclear. Means I need to analyze what I write before giving any analyzes.) I didn't want to make any existential conclusions there. Why I reckon that it's important to move along all this statements like - the experience of others, an existence of the world, etc? - Because, I guess, that I need to go as far as possible from that a posteriori facts. Considering them is not very well for any analyzes. Oh, yes. There's no need to object this facts like an existence of the outer world or similar. I'm not denying realism. I'd say I'm very keen realism views. Here, however, I needed to put things in this way, because I thought it would help me to get rid of singular or mono imagine of reality in our heads. Or to say it differently: reality is what grounds not on wholeness (oneness), but rather on separateness (pluralness), and this might support a view that to analyze reality to take it as whole thing would never be enough to understand it or even mention it.
I agree on what you wrote in your second post:
I apologize for my late answer this and some previous times. Almost all energy was being drowned by concentration on some important and not important things.
""I see John" is less accurate than "I see a person who looks like John"."
It's more accurate from your viewpoint, since you cannot, from just seeing that it looks like John, conclude that it really is. Similarly, to refer to your second example, someone might be able to construct artificial intelligence so convincing that you find yourself unable to conclude whether it actually has consciousness or not. And if both John and the terminator disappears beyond the Hubble radius afterwards, you will never get a second chance to examine it any further. But irregardless, whether it actually was John is true or false, and whether it was a terminator or a human is also true or false.
I'm for that too. I mean it doesn't cost much all those "consciousness question" without sharpening of technique equipment that still plays more important role than other things, and - that I sure the most - there's no insurances about fruits of any consciousness question we might get.
All I know that such "urgent" questions were raised with Turing's machine logic earlier, and Ryle's and Searle's speculations on speech acts some later. I'm not sure about what exactly "life" or "consciousness" question should be raised first? Biology still has all the priority in the life forms field, conceptualization matters when it comes up, e.g. pedagogical types of questions.
This, I regard as separate from the question: "Does an object that doesn't have consciousness exist independently from whether it may be observed?" For while that question can be tricky to answer, it's straightforward to conclude that since John has consciousness, he knows fullwell whether he exists or not.
Yes. I agree. John always can return to Descartes mode starting on total critique of what he sees and feels except his own existence.
Btw, without any long enough discussions over Descartes's skeptic speculations about his own existence, I'd like to think that he was indeed right saying not about logical inference of existence or sorta, but about a chance to start checking ourselves. This "start" button is what, I guess, our attention is required lots. How to push it for any machines? We're not the ones who push our own lives (our parents did it, but they were able to do it, because they had some physical abilities, and - at least I want to believe in it - had sincere wishes to do it). Surely, turning the question back to "the start button" doesn't change it completely; I wish my point should be directed not to buttons or any other things, but to ability of self-checking.
The results of checking are more pale, than this act itself. Even a simple eye pointing: I show on a point at the blackboard and a dog reacts on it staring to the point; a worm had gotten an "info" about rain drops and led to it... (and so on and so on) - all such situations shows us a simple correspondence of stimulus-reaction example. And I'd like to think that this is enough to think that a thing has consciousness: it's found it by itself.
Even to find a point among the sets of the others is a work of checking.
Descartes in his experiment was getting rid of all other thing except just one - something that he called "consciousness" (or maybe he did not call it like that... I don't remember exactly what term or terms he used). It's the same principle that any other math function works - to find primary correspondence of x and y relating to their sets.
...Oh... I guess too much imagination was being used... My thoughts are urgently needed for proper analysis, not in metaphysics...
It's difficult to contest your last point. You could very well be right that we can never piece together a full and consistent view of reality. It's now speculated in physics that there could be parallel universes with different laws from what we find in this universe. Some also suggest that laws might change over time. And, it could very well be that this is beyond what we could ever know. It's not given that, if it's so that laws could change over time, that we'd be able to identify a more fundamental law that will allow us to predict this change. So I'll leave it as an open question as to whether you're right or not.
Changing laws might become a principle, but can we aim any principles as long as the present principles has stopped being as stable as earlier?.. Another paradox, I presume.
Do fundamental laws (of nowadays) depend on quantum mechanics?
And does - I beg your pardon for so many questions at a time - it depend on commutative law that is not working in QM?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 21, 2019 21:50:44 GMT
Indeed. I think I got it. But what my point is? Comparing analyzing with synthesizing (synthesising? I'm not sure about how to spell this word correctly) I'd like to prefer the first one. Analyzing seems dogmatic while synthesizing is that that arrange the situation to make more risks for mistake. Analytic truth is quite less faulty because of logic, than synthetic truth. In real life, usually I presume many of us prefer synthetic truths. They appear to be more useful. Despite of any this paradoxes only what I've wanted to try to show that reality may be analyzed, and the reality is not something that is not whole, oneness, but discrete, plural. Synthetic investigation shows it too, but as an helpful element, not the central one (a confirm truth, or the element which is in the theory of Bayes increase probability of the thesis). Plurality is still a synthetic statement as it is "one" generalization...paradox again with this paradox observing a dualism allowing for synthesis. Hmm... it's strange (quite) that you call plurality the result of a synthesis, because about a year ago, when I was trying to discuss with you about one of your topics, you were agree that there was no chance to imagine just one thing.
Trying to be more concrete and step-by-step moving through thinking, I'd like to repeat myself as possible as I can:
a. As soon as you start thinking about something no matter what it be, sooner or later you start understanding that you thinking about "something" as this "something" (quotation here may be dropped; it's just a way to underline its separateness); b. Something as something is "something", and at the same time this "something" is not anything else, but "something"; c. Hence, there are "something" and something that is not that "something";d. There are two things at least; e. Two is plural.
The sequence might be continuous as long as we need.
Also, (d), (e) and some further sequences can be easily replaced by, for example:d`. Something, something; e`. (Something, something) =/= something.And so on.This is the old school problem old one and many or general and particular. Modern means use the word "or": one or many and general or particular. I think this is mainly because of the assumption of analysis as a focal beginning point...the west is a "vs" culture and this is grounded in the zeitgeist of how we assume things. I wonder what opinions do you have about Heidegger's metaphysics?Most of this is due to linear reasoning and choice theory: you have a fork in the continuum which branches into 2 or more continuums...which continuum do you choose? "Buridan's Ass". I'm sure that my chances are much low, than the Creator's. When any "choose situation" happens it's a signal for me that there's no semantic completeness. All that I don't know how to use is abide my decision.In reality thought most choices do not exist if we see these continuums in a state of superpositioning.!
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 21, 2019 23:41:59 GMT
Plurality is still a synthetic statement as it is "one" generalization...paradox again with this paradox observing a dualism allowing for synthesis. Hmm... it's strange (quite) that you call plurality the result of a synthesis, because about a year ago, when I was trying to discuss with you about one of your topics, you were agree that there was no chance to imagine just one thing.----And you still can imagine just one thing. If I see one tree in a field, I seeing the one object I automatically seperate it from other phenomenon and in doing so create 2 or more phenomenon.
But It is a paradox, as that one phenomenon (the tree in this example) is composed of many.
Thus the first example observe synthesis as divergence, you localize one thing out of a field and we are left with a particle/field dualism of physics which is just another degree of saying atomic/general fact.
Synthesis is convergence and divergence. Trying to be more concrete and step-by-step moving through thinking, I'd like to repeat myself as possible as I can:a. As soon as you start thinking about something no matter what it be, sooner or later you start understanding that you thinking about "something" as this "something" (quotation here may be dropped; it's just a way to underline its separateness);b. Something as something is "something", and at the same time this "something" is not anything else, but "something";c. Hence, there are "something" and something that is not that "something";d. There are two things at least;e. Two is plural.Yep.The sequence might be continuous as long as we need.
Yes, again. Logic is dynamic then. But continuity is then linear reasoning superpostioned. So where you may diverge from on string of reasoning to another, the new string of reasoning has elements of the first string thus making these strings superimposed and existing as one entity.
Example:
[(A)-->(B)-->(C)]
The logical statement may diverge at C to:
[(D)--> (C1) --> (E)]
Therefore
[(A)-->(B)-->[(C)] --> (X) --> ((B1)B) --> (Y)]
Therefore C diverges to D, D cycles back to B by manifesting a variation of it. And this variation as a context within B progresses to E.
So while the string may end into a new proposition, the new proposition as having a variation of another propostion actually diverges prior to C (B in this case) but through C.
It's a loop, but it is rational.
It would be like saying: "The cow eats grass" "Grass grows in the field" "The field has no grass". "The cow eats no grass".
One propostion leads to a new one, and this new propostion as having elements of the old leads to a new one. This "newer new" proposition in turn cycles the original propostion to a new angle of understanding.
If This Makes Sense, I May Have To Reword It.Also, (d), (e) and some further sequences can be easily replaced by, for example:d`. Something, something; e`. (Something, something) =/= something.And so on.
Yep. The propostion exists through a variety of states when it is repeated. Like the cow example above.This is the old school problem old one and many or general and particular. Modern means use the word "or": one or many and general or particular. And That Is The Paradox. It You Say: (G v P) you Automatically Create P as General And Particular Are Now Multiple States. It's a Self-Referencing Loop.
Now The Next Problem Occurs In That the Particular, As One Answer Dissolved From 2 Answers, Now Becomes A General Statement As "Particular" Or "Many" Is A General Statement.
So (GvP) ---> P ---> ((P-->G) ---> (G&P))
Each Choice In The Dichotomy Results In A Variable That Effectively Is Composed Of An Element Of The Dichotomy Thus We Are Left With An "And" Statement.
The "Excluded Middle" Of Aristotelian Logic Negates Itself Resulting In The Double Negation Of Intuitionist Logic.
***Ignore The Random Capitals.I think this is mainly because of the assumption of analysis as a focal beginning point...the west is a "vs" culture and this is grounded in the zeitgeist of how we assume things. I wonder what opinions do you have about Heidegger's metaphysics?
From What I have Read, Emphasis On "From What I have Read", They Are Genius. They Are A Western Translation Of Taoism According To Some Sources.Most of this is due to linear reasoning and choice theory: you have a fork in the continuum which branches into 2 or more continuums...which continuum do you choose? Both You Walk Between Them. You Can Negate Choice Theory By Superposition Both Continuums Through There Common Variables."Buridan's Ass". I'm sure that my chances are much low, than the Creator's. When any "choose situation" happens it's a signal for me that there's no semantic completeness. All that I don't know how to use is abide my decision.
I had This Conversation With Someone, A Big Advocate Of Choice Theory, The SolutIon Is TO Synthesize The Choices (Through Their Common Variables) And Create A New Choice...This Is Choice.In reality thought most choices do not exist if we see these continuums in a state of superpositioning.!Yes, You Understand. The Choice Is The Act Of Creation And This Creation Is No Different Than Reaping What You Sow. It Is All The Golden Rule At The Objective Level.Check the "quadratic voiding" thread relative to dealing with generals moving to particulate.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Oct 22, 2019 15:48:13 GMT
I agree on what you wrote in your second post:
I apologize for my late answer this and some previous times. Almost all energy was being drowned by concentration on some important and not important things.
""I see John" is less accurate than "I see a person who looks like John"."
It's more accurate from your viewpoint, since you cannot, from just seeing that it looks like John, conclude that it really is. Similarly, to refer to your second example, someone might be able to construct artificial intelligence so convincing that you find yourself unable to conclude whether it actually has consciousness or not. And if both John and the terminator disappears beyond the Hubble radius afterwards, you will never get a second chance to examine it any further. But irregardless, whether it actually was John is true or false, and whether it was a terminator or a human is also true or false.
I'm for that too. I mean it doesn't cost much all those "consciousness question" without sharpening of technique equipment that still plays more important role than other things, and - that I sure the most - there's no insurances about fruits of any consciousness question we might get.
All I know that such "urgent" questions were raised with Turing's machine logic earlier, and Ryle's and Searle's speculations on speech acts some later. I'm not sure about what exactly "life" or "consciousness" question should be raised first? Biology still has all the priority in the life forms field, conceptualization matters when it comes up, e.g. pedagogical types of questions.
This, I regard as separate from the question: "Does an object that doesn't have consciousness exist independently from whether it may be observed?" For while that question can be tricky to answer, it's straightforward to conclude that since John has consciousness, he knows fullwell whether he exists or not.
Yes. I agree. John always can return to Descartes mode starting on total critique of what he sees and feels except his own existence.
Btw, without any long enough discussions over Descartes's skeptic speculations about his own existence, I'd like to think that he was indeed right saying not about logical inference of existence or sorta, but about a chance to start checking ourselves. This "start" button is what, I guess, our attention is required lots. How to push it for any machines? We're not the ones who push our own lives (our parents did it, but they were able to do it, because they had some physical abilities, and - at least I want to believe in it - had sincere wishes to do it). Surely, turning the question back to "the start button" doesn't change it completely; I wish my point should be directed not to buttons or any other things, but to ability of self-checking.
The results of checking are more pale, than this act itself. Even a simple eye pointing: I show on a point at the blackboard and a dog reacts on it staring to the point; a worm had gotten an "info" about rain drops and led to it... (and so on and so on) - all such situations shows us a simple correspondence of stimulus-reaction example. And I'd like to think that this is enough to think that a thing has consciousness: it's found it by itself.
Even to find a point among the sets of the others is a work of checking.
Descartes in his experiment was getting rid of all other thing except just one - something that he called "consciousness" (or maybe he did not call it like that... I don't remember exactly what term or terms he used). It's the same principle that any other math function works - to find primary correspondence of x and y relating to their sets.
...Oh... I guess too much imagination was being used... My thoughts are urgently needed for proper analysis, not in metaphysics...
It's difficult to contest your last point. You could very well be right that we can never piece together a full and consistent view of reality. It's now speculated in physics that there could be parallel universes with different laws from what we find in this universe. Some also suggest that laws might change over time. And, it could very well be that this is beyond what we could ever know. It's not given that, if it's so that laws could change over time, that we'd be able to identify a more fundamental law that will allow us to predict this change. So I'll leave it as an open question as to whether you're right or not.
Changing laws might become a principle, but can we aim any principles as long as the present principles has stopped being as stable as earlier?.. Another paradox, I presume.
Do fundamental laws (of nowadays) depend on quantum mechanics?
And does - I beg your pardon for so many questions at a time - it depend on commutative law that is not working in QM?
To respond to your last question first, let's examine what it means that the commutative law doesn't work in quantum mechanics. Let's imagine that you send unpolarised light thought a horizontal polarisation filter. Then half of the light would go through. Imagine then that you send this polarised light towards a vertical polarisation filter, then none would get through. So two polarisation filters, one horisontal and one vertical, would have, as the end result, to absorb all the photons. And it doesn't matter which filter we start with, the outcome would be the same. So, apparently, using this simple example, QM is commutative. However, let's introduce a third filter. We'll name the three filters as follows:
v-filter (v=vertical) h-filter (h=horisontal) 45-filter (45=45 degrees angle to both v-filter and h-filter)
So, first we send the light through the h-filter, and 50% goes through. Then it hits the 45-filter, and according to QM, 50% goes through, so now 25% of the photons haven't been absorbed. Then, lastly, those hit v-filter, and again, 50% goes through, allowing a remaining 12,5% of the original light. So: h - 45 - v =12,5%. But we've already shown that h - v = 0%. Which also means that h - v - 45 = 0%. Hence, the commutative law doesn't apply. It matters what order by which we let the light pass through the different filters. So how to interpret this?
What seems to happen is that for every measurement we make, what we measure become affected by the measurement, and, in a sense, becomes reset accordingly. So when the photons pass through a polarisation filter, that measurement itself dictates the probability distribution for what happens when they hit the next filter, which is why a classical interpretation of the phenomena isn't possible.
If one starts to reflect on this, the end conclusion is that one cannot describe the universe as being deterministic, well, with the exception of some rather fancy idea, such as what's referred to as the "many worlds"-interpretation. One may even use this as an argument for the existence of free will. Now, to relate it to your point, then that becomes rather complicated, but I'll simplify as follows: In a non-deterministic universe there will always be phenomena one cannot fully explain, and be a reminder of that we may never have a full overview of what to expect from reality. -Just like we can never know exactly what decisions to expect from a conscious being exercising his/her free will.
So, to answer another of your questions, yes, since QM's predictions are being confirmed again and again, it can't be disregarded in an attempt to describe reality.
And as for your point in regards to that observation itself affects reality, then yes, that is exactly what QM is telling us.
And in regards to Turing's machine, then we're really into difficult stuff. I do indeed link that to quantum mechanics, but now we're into concepts like unenumerable subsets of natural numbers, which will take some elaboration to explain to put it mildly. It's up to you how far you wish to go.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Oct 22, 2019 16:38:06 GMT
To respond to your last question first, let's examine what it means that the commutative law doesn't work in quantum mechanics. Let's imagine that you send unpolarised light thought a horizontal polarisation filter. Then half of the light would go through. Imagine then that you send this polarised light towards a vertical polarisation filter, then none would get through. So two polarisation filters, one horisontal and one vertical, would have, as the end result, to absorb all the photons. And it doesn't matter which filter we start with, the outcome would be the same. So, apparently, using this simple example, QM is commutative. However, let's introduce a third filter. We'll name the three filters as follows:
v-filter (v=vertical) h-filter (h=horisontal) 45-filter (45=45 degrees angle to both v-filter and h-filter)
So, first we send the light through the h-filter, and 50% goes through. Then it hits the 45-filter, and according to QM, 50% goes through, so now 25% of the photons haven't been absorbed. Then, lastly, those hit v-filter, and again, 50% goes through, allowing a remaining 12,5% of the original light. So: h - 45 - v =12,5%. But we've already shown that h - v = 0%. Which also means that h - v - 45 = 0%. Hence, the commutative law doesn't apply. It matters what order by which we let the light pass through the different filters. So how to interpret this?
What seems to happen is that for every measurement we make, what we measure become affected by the measurement, and, in a sense, becomes reset accordingly. So when the photons pass through a polarisation filter, that measurement itself dictates the probability distribution for what happens when they hit the next filter, which is why a classical interpretation of the phenomena isn't possible.
If one starts to reflect on this, the end conclusion is that one cannot describe the universe as being deterministic, well, with the exception of some rather fancy idea, such as what's referred to as the "many worlds"-interpretation. One may even use this as an argument for the existence of free will. Now, to relate it to your point, then that becomes rather complicated, but I'll simplify as follows: In a non-deterministic universe there will always be phenomena one cannot fully explain, and be a reminder of that we may never have a full overview of what to expect from reality. -Just like we can never know exactly what decisions to expect from a conscious being exercising his/her free will.
So, to answer another of your questions, yes, since QM's predictions are being confirmed again and again, it can't be disregarded in an attempt to describe reality.
And as for your point in regards to that observation itself affects reality, then yes, that is exactly what QM is telling us.
And in regards to Turing's machine, then we're really into difficult stuff. I do indeed link that to quantum mechanics, but now we're into concepts like unenumerable subsets of natural numbers, which will take some elaboration to explain to put it mildly. It's up to you how far you wish to go.
The Motto of These Useless Freaks Is: "If It's Weird, It's Wise"The universe only seems to be willy-nilly because of inadequate searching of what could explain the discrepancies. Geek escapist scientists have lost the use of their minds because of a personality defect causing them to embrace irrationalism. Indeterminacy, for example, should have meant, to rational minds, that an undiscovered outside factor must explain the anomalies.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 29, 2019 22:19:06 GMT
Check the "quadratic voiding" thread relative to dealing with generals moving to particulate. Do you have your articles in txt, pdf, or sorta formats to download? I mean the ones you posted here. I did some html format download previously for reading some of your works, but it wasn't really soft in use. I mean there were many spare, non-specific info in those downloaded files.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 29, 2019 22:30:32 GMT
To respond to your last question first, let's examine what it means that the commutative law doesn't work in quantum mechanics. Let's imagine that you send unpolarised light thought a horizontal polarisation filter. Then half of the light would go through. Imagine then that you send this polarised light towards a vertical polarisation filter, then none would get through. So two polarisation filters, one horisontal and one vertical, would have, as the end result, to absorb all the photons. And it doesn't matter which filter we start with, the outcome would be the same. So, apparently, using this simple example, QM is commutative. However, let's introduce a third filter. We'll name the three filters as follows:
v-filter (v=vertical) h-filter (h=horisontal) 45-filter (45=45 degrees angle to both v-filter and h-filter)
So, first we send the light through the h-filter, and 50% goes through. Then it hits the 45-filter, and according to QM, 50% goes through, so now 25% of the photons haven't been absorbed. Then, lastly, those hit v-filter, and again, 50% goes through, allowing a remaining 12,5% of the original light. So: h - 45 - v =12,5%. But we've already shown that h - v = 0%. Which also means that h - v - 45 = 0%. Hence, the commutative law doesn't apply. It matters what order by which we let the light pass through the different filters. So how to interpret this?
What seems to happen is that for every measurement we make, what we measure become affected by the measurement, and, in a sense, becomes reset accordingly. So when the photons pass through a polarisation filter, that measurement itself dictates the probability distribution for what happens when they hit the next filter, which is why a classical interpretation of the phenomena isn't possible.
If one starts to reflect on this, the end conclusion is that one cannot describe the universe as being deterministic, well, with the exception of some rather fancy idea, such as what's referred to as the "many worlds"-interpretation. One may even use this as an argument for the existence of free will. Now, to relate it to your point, then that becomes rather complicated, but I'll simplify as follows: In a non-deterministic universe there will always be phenomena one cannot fully explain, and be a reminder of that we may never have a full overview of what to expect from reality. -Just like we can never know exactly what decisions to expect from a conscious being exercising his/her free will.
So, to answer another of your questions, yes, since QM's predictions are being confirmed again and again, it can't be disregarded in an attempt to describe reality.
And as for your point in regards to that observation itself affects reality, then yes, that is exactly what QM is telling us.
And in regards to Turing's machine, then we're really into difficult stuff. I do indeed link that to quantum mechanics, but now we're into concepts like unenumerable subsets of natural numbers, which will take some elaboration to explain to put it mildly. It's up to you how far you wish to go.
Thank you, Karl. Honestly, your answers are always very pleasure to read. Have you been publishing or discussing these themes somewhere? I mean not the forums for supreme thinkers, but maybe something easier to get. What do you think of David Chalmers QM interprets of consciousness? (If I understood some things correctly from first two chapters of his "The Conscious Mind" book, the supervenience function as a QM's method (may be, I'm not sure of it) that used in the mind/body problem could become something that we might accept to move through it to find finally something.)
|
|
|
Post by karl on Oct 30, 2019 21:39:30 GMT
To respond to your last question first, let's examine what it means that the commutative law doesn't work in quantum mechanics. Let's imagine that you send unpolarised light thought a horizontal polarisation filter. Then half of the light would go through. Imagine then that you send this polarised light towards a vertical polarisation filter, then none would get through. So two polarisation filters, one horisontal and one vertical, would have, as the end result, to absorb all the photons. And it doesn't matter which filter we start with, the outcome would be the same. So, apparently, using this simple example, QM is commutative. However, let's introduce a third filter. We'll name the three filters as follows:
v-filter (v=vertical) h-filter (h=horisontal) 45-filter (45=45 degrees angle to both v-filter and h-filter)
So, first we send the light through the h-filter, and 50% goes through. Then it hits the 45-filter, and according to QM, 50% goes through, so now 25% of the photons haven't been absorbed. Then, lastly, those hit v-filter, and again, 50% goes through, allowing a remaining 12,5% of the original light. So: h - 45 - v =12,5%. But we've already shown that h - v = 0%. Which also means that h - v - 45 = 0%. Hence, the commutative law doesn't apply. It matters what order by which we let the light pass through the different filters. So how to interpret this?
What seems to happen is that for every measurement we make, what we measure become affected by the measurement, and, in a sense, becomes reset accordingly. So when the photons pass through a polarisation filter, that measurement itself dictates the probability distribution for what happens when they hit the next filter, which is why a classical interpretation of the phenomena isn't possible.
If one starts to reflect on this, the end conclusion is that one cannot describe the universe as being deterministic, well, with the exception of some rather fancy idea, such as what's referred to as the "many worlds"-interpretation. One may even use this as an argument for the existence of free will. Now, to relate it to your point, then that becomes rather complicated, but I'll simplify as follows: In a non-deterministic universe there will always be phenomena one cannot fully explain, and be a reminder of that we may never have a full overview of what to expect from reality. -Just like we can never know exactly what decisions to expect from a conscious being exercising his/her free will.
So, to answer another of your questions, yes, since QM's predictions are being confirmed again and again, it can't be disregarded in an attempt to describe reality.
And as for your point in regards to that observation itself affects reality, then yes, that is exactly what QM is telling us.
And in regards to Turing's machine, then we're really into difficult stuff. I do indeed link that to quantum mechanics, but now we're into concepts like unenumerable subsets of natural numbers, which will take some elaboration to explain to put it mildly. It's up to you how far you wish to go.
Thank you, Karl. Honestly, your answers are always very pleasure to read. Have you been publishing or discussing these themes somewhere? I mean not the forums for supreme thinkers, but maybe something easier to get. What do you think of David Chalmers QM interprets of consciousness? (If I understood some things correctly from first two chapters of his "The Conscious Mind" book, the supervenience function as a QM's method (may be, I'm not sure of it) that used in the mind/body problem could become something that we might accept to move through it to find finally something.)
Thank you. I haven't posted any thoughts online, except for on this forum.
I am no expert on David Chalmers, but I know he states that consciousness can't be explained as a physical process. My take on that is that I'm convinced that consciousness can be directly related to physical processes, but not so that these processes can be described with algorithms, and hence be reproduced by a computer simulator. Rather than stating that consciousness isn't physical, I would assert that consciousness isn't mechanical, but that everything physical isn't mechanical. Quantum mechanics is physical, but I believe it to be neither mechanical, nor random. For now it appears random, but I believe that the randomness is just a matter of that there is no algorithmic way to predict what will happen.
And since I do believe that there is an intimate link between the introspective and the physical world, I do believe that our introspective world holds key to understanding the complexity of the physical world. Going down that rabbit hole as an individual is what Gödel did when he claimed that researching the introspective world is just as much as science as the natural sciences. And even with his brilliant mind, we can observe that his emphasis on his introspective world, also lead him astray, and he ended up starving himself to death, believing that people were poisoning his food. To maintain an understanding of the distinction between the external and the internal world is required to stay sane. So if one were to ask how exactly to use introspection to understand the physical world, a truthful answer would have to be very complex and very difficult to understand.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 30, 2019 23:08:42 GMT
Thank you, Karl. Honestly, your answers are always very pleasure to read. Have you been publishing or discussing these themes somewhere? I mean not the forums for supreme thinkers, but maybe something easier to get. What do you think of David Chalmers QM interprets of consciousness? (If I understood some things correctly from first two chapters of his "The Conscious Mind" book, the supervenience function as a QM's method (may be, I'm not sure of it) that used in the mind/body problem could become something that we might accept to move through it to find finally something.)
Thank you. I haven't posted any thoughts online, except for on this forum.
I am no expert on David Chalmers, but I know he states that consciousness can't be explained as a physical process. My take on that is that I'm convinced that consciousness can be directly related to physical processes, but not so that these processes can be described with algorithms, and hence be reproduced by a computer simulator. Rather than stating that consciousness isn't physical, I would assert that consciousness isn't mechanical, but that everything physical isn't mechanical. Quantum mechanics is physical, but I believe it to be neither mechanical, nor random. For now it appears random, but I believe that the randomness is just a matter of that there is no algorithmic way to predict what will happen.
And since I do believe that there is an intimate link between the introspective and the physical world, I do believe that our introspective world holds key to understanding the complexity of the physical world. Going down that rabbit hole as an individual is what Gödel did when he claimed that researching the introspective world is just as much as science as the natural sciences. And even with his brilliant mind, we can observe that his emphasis on his introspective world, also lead him astray, and he ended up starving himself to death, believing that people were poisoning his food. To maintain an understanding of the distinction between the external and the internal world is required to stay sane. So if one were to ask how exactly to use introspection to understand the physical world, a truthful answer would have to be very complex and very difficult to understand.
True. But we are left with a paradox where the introspective mind forms external reality as well. Take this sentence you are reading right now, your physical processes are currently changing as you assume (imprinted) by these words. So we are left with internal and external reality forming the other and yet they are seperate. It is best to say they are both dimensions of one reality superimposed through eachother and in one degree or another are always connected. There perceived seperation is where they do not align. Take the context of a unicorn for example. The unicorn exists empirically as a piece of art or a drawing but it does not exist as a biological entity. It exists also under the context of a dream and not an empirical phenomenon. Thus the unicorn, a context of the one reality that assumes all mental, physical and emotional processes, is defined as a context that aligns with certain contexts but not others.
|
|
|
Post by karl on Oct 31, 2019 1:17:12 GMT
Thank you. I haven't posted any thoughts online, except for on this forum.
I am no expert on David Chalmers, but I know he states that consciousness can't be explained as a physical process. My take on that is that I'm convinced that consciousness can be directly related to physical processes, but not so that these processes can be described with algorithms, and hence be reproduced by a computer simulator. Rather than stating that consciousness isn't physical, I would assert that consciousness isn't mechanical, but that everything physical isn't mechanical. Quantum mechanics is physical, but I believe it to be neither mechanical, nor random. For now it appears random, but I believe that the randomness is just a matter of that there is no algorithmic way to predict what will happen.
And since I do believe that there is an intimate link between the introspective and the physical world, I do believe that our introspective world holds key to understanding the complexity of the physical world. Going down that rabbit hole as an individual is what Gödel did when he claimed that researching the introspective world is just as much as science as the natural sciences. And even with his brilliant mind, we can observe that his emphasis on his introspective world, also lead him astray, and he ended up starving himself to death, believing that people were poisoning his food. To maintain an understanding of the distinction between the external and the internal world is required to stay sane. So if one were to ask how exactly to use introspection to understand the physical world, a truthful answer would have to be very complex and very difficult to understand.
True. But we are left with a paradox where the introspective mind forms external reality as well. Take this sentence you are reading right now, your physical processes are currently changing as you assume (imprinted) by these words. So we are left with internal and external reality forming the other and yet they are seperate. It is best to say they are both dimensions of one reality superimposed through eachother and in one degree or another are always connected. There perceived seperation is where they do not align. Take the context of a unicorn for example. The unicorn exists empirically as a piece of art or a drawing but it does not exist as a biological entity. It exists also under the context of a dream and not an empirical phenomenon. Thus the unicorn, a context of the one reality that assumes all mental, physical and emotional processes, is defined as a context that aligns with certain contexts but not others.
I agree with this as an observation on how difficult it is to find clarity on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 31, 2019 1:19:09 GMT
True. But we are left with a paradox where the introspective mind forms external reality as well. Take this sentence you are reading right now, your physical processes are currently changing as you assume (imprinted) by these words. So we are left with internal and external reality forming the other and yet they are seperate. It is best to say they are both dimensions of one reality superimposed through eachother and in one degree or another are always connected. There perceived seperation is where they do not align. Take the context of a unicorn for example. The unicorn exists empirically as a piece of art or a drawing but it does not exist as a biological entity. It exists also under the context of a dream and not an empirical phenomenon. Thus the unicorn, a context of the one reality that assumes all mental, physical and emotional processes, is defined as a context that aligns with certain contexts but not others.
I agree with this as an observation on how difficult it is to find clarity on this issue.
The only conclusion I can find is that our thoughts and emotions seem to form the reality around us...but this statement is still obscure. I mean there are plenty of examples (spoken word, etc.) but as to the depth...its unexplored in my mind.
|
|