Making peace with femininity

[sue hindmarsh]

Shahrazad, you wrote:

Long time ago when I was a Christian, the church I went to also glorified the word Truth. They were the only ones who knew the Truth, and all others were lost.

So you rejected their "Truth" and replaced it with one that suited you better - meaning that you are now in possession of THE Truth, and those Christians are now "lost". Is that correct?

[Faust]

As far as we can tell, the behavior of quantum particles is fundamentally uncaused.

'as far as we can tell'. Quantum particles still interact with the environment, are effected by the environment, and affect the environment, this relationship is causality. There's probably a very strong causal relationship between two apparently isolated particles that do the exact same actions.

You can't just hand-wave infinite regress away with a "regardless."

what's the problem that you have with infinite regress and causality?

That's the first time I've ever heard it suggested that someone is afraid of determinism because of "responsibility." That's usually the argument given to explain why determinists are afraid of free will.

determinists aren't afraid of freewill, they just know that it doesn't exist. Many determinists despair that there's no freewill. Freewill technically doesn't at all exist in the world, most precisely because each state of being is determined by the previous state, not to mention our genetics.

So does the illusion that a computer desk is a solid and substantial object, but in reality it is mostly empty space.

the high prevalence of causality in one's life is very important and actually exists, such as the non-inherent self, or the delusional social ego, etc... Whereas knowing that a desk is mostly empty space is not necessarily useful.

[Faust]

Of course, the fundamental base of reality is causality.

what about the origin of "essence" Sue? If the universe infinitely regresses back, it needs to have this essence/matter in the first place to do it right? But this essence can't be caused because it would need an infinite chain of previous causes that still needed an "essence" to begin with. So is "essence" the only thing that's uncaused?

From your work here at GF, Unidian, I know that you have a large mental block when it comes to Causality.

what's your evidence for this? What do you think is the nature of this mental block of his towards causality?

[sue hindmarsh]

Faust,

The meaning of your concept "essence" is vague. It looks like you are referring to a 'first-cause' - but it isn't clear. Do you think your "essence" is the 'first-cause'? If you do, why do you think we need one?

[Faust]

Not a first cause, but if absolute causality means an infinite regress, this infinite chain of causes needs something to work with ie, matter. So this "essence" or "matter" would needed to have always been here, in order for causality to work with it. If the universe was always here, then it wasn't caused, it only changes through causes, but it was never caused into creation. Then causality would have an exception because the universe wasn't caused.

[Shahrazad]

Sue,

So you rejected their "Truth" and replaced it with one that suited you better - meaning that you are now in possession of THE Truth, and those Christians are now "lost". Is that correct?

No. I reject their truth, but I don't believe I am in possession of "The Truth". There is no single truth; in fact, many things are true. Neither they nor I know all those things.

And I don't believe they are "lost". They believe something that gives them comfort, and I'm not too worried about that in itself. What does bother me about them is their fundamentalism -- their wanting to push their belief system on everybody else, whether everybody else wants to or not; their wanting to make their belief system the basis of the political law of the land. (They have achieved this to a limited degree.) They are actually dangerous. Look who they elected as President of the USA?

-

[Unidian]

Sue,

You're now juggling two fundamental bases for reality:"fundamentally uncaused" and "caused". You're going to have to drop one of them, for, by definition, there can only be one 'fundamental' base to reality.

Nah, I never said both were "fundamental." Quantum mechanics is fundamental. The classical (causal) realm emerges from the acausal quantum substrate. The physical processes involved are wave function collapse and/or decoherence, depending on which interpretation one happens to prefer.

Of course, the fundamental base of reality is causality. The quantum level cannot logically operate on a different level than the rest of reality - for as you say, Unidian, "quantum particles are the basis of all physical existence". This knowledge alone tells us that causality is fundamental.

No, it tells us that you don't know anything about physics. The quantum level can and does operate differently - and that's precisely why physicists have been searching for a "unified theory" for several decades. Somehow, the classical world of cause and effect emerges out of the fundamentally acausal quantum substrate. How this occurs has yet to be fully understood, but that doesn't mean you get to proclaim things which are simply scientifically unsound.

From your work here at GF, Unidian, I know that you have a large mental block when it comes to Causality.

Yes. I suppose that's why I'm a determinist who has taken truckloads of crap on the Internet for denying "free will." Clearly causality is big problem for me. Major mental blockage, if mental blockage is defined as "not robotically parroting all Quinnologist doctrine" (and it is defined that way for you, apparently).

Or perhaps I simply understand the limits of causality and refrain from making a metaphysical religious doctrine of it, while acknowledging that its influence over our daily lives in the classical universe is pretty much universal.

You've not as yet described, in a sentence or two, what you imagine an uncaused reality appears like.

It looks like this one. And it is this one.

It can't be one where I depend on other things like food, water, air and sunshine to continue existing - because they are all causes. So what's it like?

It's like one that includes causality at the macroscopic, classical level, but is not founded upon causality. It's like the reality that modern physics describes. It's like the one you see around you right now.

Sher,

Actually, no replacement is necessary. Long time ago when I was a Christian, the church I went to also glorified the word Truth. They were the only ones who knew the Truth, and all others were lost.

Just a technicality that you may not be aware of since you have never been truly religious.

Yep, good point. Thanks for adding that.


Faust,

'as far as we can tell'. Quantum particles still interact with the environment, are effected by the environment, and affect the environment, this relationship is causality. There's probably a very strong causal relationship between two apparently isolated particles that do the exact same actions.

Sure, but none of this changes the evidence that the particles themselves arise in an acausal fashion.

what's the problem that you have with infinite regress and causality?

It makes causality meaningless. Only in a fundamentally acausal world can causality mean anything, because otherwise the basis of causality can never be established due to the infinite regress.

determinists aren't afraid of freewill, they just know that it doesn't exist. Many determinists despair that there's no freewill. Freewill technically doesn't at all exist in the world, most precisely because each state of being is determined by the previous state, not to mention our genetics.

Agreed. Free will does not exist. All things are either caused or randomly arisen. Neither case is consistent with the idea of "free will" as it is commonly understood.

the high prevalence of causality in one's life is very important and actually exists, such as the non-inherent self, or the delusional social ego, etc... Whereas knowing that a desk is mostly empty space is not necessarily useful.

Sure, but one doesn't need to make an Absolute Metaphysical Dogmatic Truthâ„¢ of causality in order to be a determinist. They simply have to recognize that cause and effect govern our lives.

[sue hindmarsh]

Faust wrote:

Sue: From your work here at GF, Unidian, I know that you have a large mental block when it comes to Causality.

what's your evidence for this? What do you think is the nature of this mental block of his towards causality?

Mental-blocks are protection against having our happiness derailed. Unidian finds his happiness here at GF by being in opposition to certain concepts - such as the illusions: unconditional love and an inherently existing self, and his most recent delusion of their existing "fundamentally uncaused quantum particles".

His actions are not at all uncommon, but being in the majority doesn‘t automatically make his mental-outpourings true. Therefore, they require addressing - especially for those few who find their happiness in reasoning out the truth.

[Unidian]

Umm... could you be any more completely off base? I think somebody needs to radio a warning to Lakehurst because there's one hell of a blimp-wreck in that brief post, Sue. Oh, the humanity!

Mental-blocks are protection against having our happiness derailed. Unidian finds his happiness here at GF by being in opposition to certain concepts - such as the illusions: unconditional love and an inherently existing self

FYI, I don't believe in either "unconditional love" or the "inherently-existing self." You really ought to ask Dan to coach you on some of this before just swinging your broomstick wildly as if you were David Quinn trying to hit a pinata full of "Just For Men" kits.

The difference between you and I, oh Zeppelinesque one, is that I simply don't share your faith-based religious beliefs that dropping some concept such as "the inherently-existing self" is going to magically cause a religious transformation. If it had such an effect, it would have already happened to me years ago. But I know, I know - I must not have really understood it, because of some mental block (most likely the woman in my life). Cue the True Scotsman parade.

and his most recent delusion of their existing "fundamentally uncaused quantum particles".

Sorry, Sue, but this is your biggest whopper yet. If this were The Gong Show, I'd be sticking my fingers in my ears right about now, because there's gonna be a hell of a noise. The acausal nature of quantum particles is not "a delusion," it's an integral aspect of the most advanced theories in modern physics. Is gravity a "delusion," too? How about evolution? Someone of roughly equal scientific literacy to you told me it's mind pollution!

His actions are not at all uncommon, but being in the majority doesn‘t automatically make his mental-outpourings true. Therefore, they require addressing - especially for those few who find their happiness in reasoning out the truth.

Happiness, Sue? How droll and pedestrian. Shouldn't a Lofty airship such as yourself be voyaging in the rarefied atmosphere amongst the higher peaks? One wouldn't want to be too down to Earth, especially while flying blind...

[RobertGreenSky]

This has become a remarkably entertaining thread, like the archetyal 'disaster being played out and you just can't look away'. Causality being under discussion, note that the first four lines in Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way are:


Neither from itself nor from another,
Nor from both,
Nor without a cause,
Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.


(Jay L. Garfield, tr., p. 3.)


The very first lines - some folks have huge mental blocks about Nagarjuna.

[Faust]

The acausal nature of quantum particles is not "a delusion," it's an integral aspect of the most advanced theories in modern physics.

according to Quinn's research, the idea that quantum particles are uncaused is a "gross misunderstanding" according to a large part of the scientific community.

http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... ntum01.htm

Is gravity a "delusion," too? How about evolution?

uhh yeah, evolution can actually definitely be a delusion, simply because the real evidence for it is actually terribly and awefully lacking. Just because it's a popular fad-like theory, doesn't make it true ;)

One of the big problems with evolution, is the impossibility of speciation. A species can only breed with its own species, and all its variability is in its species gene pool, and no organism passes on learned traits, only traits that it already has. These facts make the absurd theory that apes somehow evolved into humans, false. You should try and prove me wrong on this, it'll be a laugh.

[Unidian]

Faust,

According to Quinn's research? Since when is Quinn in any position to judge what is and isn't "a gross misunderstanding" on the part of the scientific community? Why shouldn't I proclaim in response that according to the research of Unidian and some crackhead on the corner, gravity is gross misunderstanding? There is no curvature of space or graviton particle, the Earth just sucks.

If that link points to one of Quinn's books, I've read them, and the whole topic was discussed at length by myself and others almost five years ago.

http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewto ... f=14&t=576

uhh yeah, evolution can actually definitely be a delusion, simply because the real evidence for it is actually terribly and awefully lacking. Just because it's a popular fad-like theory, doesn't make it true

omg... dude...

One of the big problems with evolution, is the impossibility of speciation. A species can only breed with its own species, and all its variability is in its species gene pool, and no organism passes on learned traits, only traits that it already has. These facts make the absurd theory that apes somehow evolved into humans, false. You should try and prove me wrong on this, it'll be a laugh.

Not a chance - I gave up that fruitless pursuit while you were most likely in middle school. Instead, I will point you to one link. One link to rule them all - one link to find them, one link to bring them all and in the darkness bind them!

http://talkorigins.org

Go there and win.

[sue hindmarsh]

Unidian wrote:

Sue: Open your eyes and look around you . Marriage (coupling) is the template for the whole of society. From the dawn of time, males and females have been joining together, making a family, and thereby becoming part of the community of couples and their children called 'Society'.

Yeah, ya think? Maybe that's because there's this magical thing called "reproduction" and a biological drive to perpetuate the species. But I guess you'd prefer to view it in terms of "everybody's deluded."

I guess you and David wouldn't know anything about that whole overwhelming biological drive to perpetuate the species, eh?

Yes, sex is very base; very animal. Over sixteen years ago I allowed those base instincts to drive my actions, resulting in my having a second child - a son. In the last sixteen years I have had no more children.

Sue: But not surprising, such blind, deaf and dumbness does make you completely suitable to become a husband - which, as you state, you already are!

Actually, I'm not married, but don't let that stop you from spewing this eminently amusing polemic.

You wrote in an earlier post on this thread (Fri Feb 22, 4:12 pm):

I'm in a long-term relationship

A long-term relationship is ‘marriage‘.

Marriages and divorces can occur in a moment. Observe men and women sizing each other up across a crowded room, looking for a potential partner. With one glance they’ve imagined themselves in a relationship with the other person before they’ve even met them. They’ve romanced them, had sex with them, shared the rest of their lives with them, or thrown them over for someone else - all based on the shoes the man was wearing, or the colour of the woman’s hair.

Just thinking about a woman or a man romantically is the same as marrying them, for the emotions that are exercised, and the ego stroking, is exactly the same in long or short term relationships.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

According to Quinn's research? Since when is Quinn in any position to judge what is and isn't "a gross misunderstanding" on the part of the scientific community?

If you had bothered clicking the link, it might have occurred to you Quinn mostly documented the replies to his inquiries at various online academic communities. Perhaps you should try reading it and say what you think about it.

I once asked this guy and got basically the same answer. When it comes to causes of probability or absolute indetermination, many theories go around and 'science' is just as curious and baffled about it as the man in the street.

So it all falls or stands with ones cosmological hypothesis. Determinism looks like the most reasonable one and it doesn't appear to have any contradictions. So it once again becomes a matter of philosophy. Take it or leave it alone.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Unidian wrote

Marriage (coupling) is the template for the whole of society. From the dawn of time, males and females have been joining together, making a family, and thereby becoming part of the community of couples and their children called 'Society'.

Complex societies have indeed benefited from the type of coupling you're describing. Perhaps exclusive relationships are even more important to uphold social cohesion of a larger group than it's actually needed for any procreation. But I wouldn't call it 'from the dawn of time'. Perhaps from the dawn of the city-state. The city is a Woman - she's Legion. :)

[Dave Toast]

Hi Nat,

Sorry to do this to you but it's been asserted as some kind of scientifically established fact and the truth is that it isn't.

Could you please start a new thread detailing exactly the proof of acausailty according to QM?

[brokenhead]

And I don't believe they are "lost". They believe something that gives them comfort, and I'm not too worried about that in itself. What does bother me about them is their fundamentalism -- their wanting to push their belief system on everybody else, whether everybody else wants to or not; their wanting to make their belief system the basis of the political law of the land. (They have achieved this to a limited degree.) They are actually dangerous. Look who they elected as President of the USA?

We have one the one hand in the U.S. the much ballyhooed "separation of church and state." On the other hand, the one beneath the table, we have religion and politics engaged in a shameless mutual ass-kissing. Maybe this comment is not appropriate to the title of this thread, Shah, but you just touched on one of my biggest pet peeves.

[brokenhead]

Just thinking about a woman or a man romantically is the same as marrying them, for the emotions that are exercised, and the ego stroking, is exactly the same in long or short term relationships.

Just thinking about someone romantically? Yes, I guess that is a pretty short-term relationship. The same as being married, you say! Keep it down, willya? You might give some lawyers bad ideas. "Your just looked at my client's tits. That'll cost you a monthly payment of $4000..."

Observe men and women sizing each other up across a crowded room, looking for a potential partner. With one glance they’ve imagined themselves in a relationship with the other person before they’ve even met them. They’ve romanced them, had sex with them, shared the rest of their lives with them, or thrown them over for someone else - all based on the shoes the man was wearing, or the colour of the woman’s hair.

Now you tell me! I guess the sneakers have to go, huh?

[Faust]

If you had bothered clicking the link, it might have occurred to you Quinn mostly documented the replies to his inquiries at various online academic communities. Perhaps you should try reading it and say what you think about it.

thanks Diebert, I hate correcting people's semantic errors.

Determinism looks like the most reasonable one and it doesn't appear to have any contradictions. So it once again becomes a matter of philosophy. Take it or leave it alone.

what about the infinite chain of causes thing? That's not a contradiction to you? If causality is absolute, then wouldn't there need to be "substance" or the "universe" or "matter" in the first place for there to be an infinite chain? Then "matter" was always here, which means it was uncaused.

[Unidian]

Sue,

Yes, sex is very base; very animal. Over sixteen years ago I allowed those base instincts to drive my actions, resulting in my having a second child - a son. In the last sixteen years I have had no more children.

I wonder what your son would think about being being described as the unintentional result of "very base, animal actions." I also wonder how he would feel about your obvious relief at having no more more children after him.

BTW, is the lad a QRSH? Is he being brought up to value lofty Truths and such? Or, as I've heard here and there, is he more the World of Warcraft type?

Dave Toast,

Hi Nat,

Sorry to do this to you but it's been asserted as some kind of scientifically established fact and the truth is that it isn't.

Could you please start a new thread detailing exactly the proof of acausailty according to QM?

No, because honestly I don't care whether people here believe it. If you want to know, do the research. But I'm not going to that much trouble when people who have ideological motivations are going to insist there's "still a debate" no matter what - just like other ideologically-motivated people insist there is "still a debate" about evolution and global warming. I don't debate evolution on Christian boards and I don't debate global warming on conservative ones. Neither of those groups is interested in being reasonable, they are interested in finding any available loopholes into which they can insert their pet fantasies.

It doesn't matter, anyway. Determinism in the everyday world is not undermined by quantum acausality, it's just not an "absolute truth." I'm a determinist and quantum acausality doesn't bother me at all.

[Faust]

No, because honestly I don't care whether people here believe it. If you want to know, do the research. But I'm not going to that much trouble when people who have ideological motivations are going to insist there's "still a debate" no matter what - just like other ideologically-motivated people insist there is "still a debate" about evolution and global warming. I don't debate evolution on Christian boards and I don't debate global warming on conservative ones. Neither of those groups is interested in being reasonable, they are interested in finding any available loopholes into which they can insert their pet fantasies.

that's because you're lazy and dishonest. You're a hypocrite if you don't want to go into trouble debating about these issues, then calling these people ideologically motivated. Of course there's still a debate about evolution and global warming, only hypocritical lazy dishonest people such as you discourage debates and absurdly call them "ideological" when it's you that's lazy and ideological. I clearly showed you that the uncaused theory of quantum mechanics is not even unanomous among scientists, and you lazily concluded that "gross misunderstanding" was a conclusion of Quinn, when in reality it was a conclusion of scientists. Of course lazy ideological people like you don't even bother reading the link.

About quantum mechanics, you still haven't described how it can be uncaused, since any interaction with the environment involves the necessity of causation.

[Unidian]

Of course there's still a debate about evolution and global warming

Case in point. See what I mean, folks?

Better to watch grass grow than to wade into that sort of thing. And just a handy tip, a stream of insults won't provoke me into having discussions that I find pointless. That might have worked a year ago and definitely would have worked three years ago. But no longer. Feel free to sling some more insults out there if you want, though.

[Dave Toast]

No, because honestly I don't care whether people here believe it.

Neither do I?

If you want to know, do the research.

I did it a good 15 years ago and have kept up ever since.

But I'm not going to that much trouble when people who have ideological motivations are going to insist there's "still a debate" no matter what

I know it's a lot of trouble, that's why I apologised. But if either one of us comes out of this with a clearer understanding of this important subject, it'll be worth it.

As to whether there's still a debate, there most definitely is. However said debate is a red herring as it's really a false dilemma.

- just like other ideologically-motivated people insist there is "still a debate" about evolution and global warming. I don't debate evolution on Christian boards and I don't debate global warming on conservative ones. Neither of those groups is interested in being reasonable, they are interested in finding any available loopholes into which they can insert their pet fantasies.

I understand and agree with exactly what you're saying. I'm the same. So don't you think you might be somewhat presumptuous of my intentions here?

It doesn't matter, anyway. Determinism in the everyday world is not undermined by quantum acausality, it's just not an "absolute truth." I'm a determinist and quantum acausality doesn't bother me at all.

IMO, if quantum acausality were true, it would definitely undermine determinism in the everyday world as the everyday world simply would not exist. However, any statement about such matters or anything related to causality at the quantum level will only ever be a matter of opinion, as opposed to fact.

This is the crucial point which is so commonly misinterpreted and turned into this whole debate upon a false dilemma.

[RobertGreenSky]

1800 years ago Nagarjuna assigned both causality and acausality to the field of the conventional, denying them both as absolutes. That is an inconvenient fact round here but it is a fact nonetheless.


For those perplexed by refences to dirigibles this thread on another message board will explain it.

[Unidian]

IMO, if quantum acausality were true, it would definitely undermine determinism in the everyday world as the everyday world simply would not exist.

Why?

I see no problem with a functionally deterministic "classical" world emerging at the macroscopic level from an acausal quantum substrate. With a nod to Robert's Nagarjuana reference, I think the whole problem arises when when one tries to make either the "classical" aspect or the "quantum" aspect foundational in some concrete ontological sense.