Space & Consciousness

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
marcothay
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:48 am

Space & Consciousness

Post by marcothay » Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:18 am

WHAT SPACE HAS TO DO WITH SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS?

I'm bringing up this subject because I believe that it is a KEY to unfold the path to Truth.
I 'm aware that investigating this only subject could clear many questions that are pondered on this forum.
By the way, I'm an Italian physicist and my English is not really good as it should be.

Anyway I will try my best to express my concepts.

We already know that before any "matter, energy, movement, form, time, wavelength" to exist, space is necessary.
I used the word: "exist" but I should have used the word "observe".
In fact what is the difference between those two words?
I let you ponder on that.
I love the power of simplicity because I know is the right path to Truth.
Let start from a point that will become more evident later as a basis.

To create Space out of nothing you have first assume a POINT OF VIEW and CONSIDER a different point to look at, this will give you a DIMENSION and automatically a "distance".
The "distance" in itself means a kind of relation between your ASSUMED view point and a different "point" which you decided
to look at ( Particle),: a relation that we used to call "Energy".

In physic space is defined in terms of time, energy and movement. Time is being defined in terms of space, energy and movement and so on.
To me it looks like, as an analogy, a "cat that is biting his tail"; I mean it is just a circle with no end in sight.

Usually when science finds itself on this kind of circles, scientists know that a new higher paradigm is needed.
Exact sciences are based on observation and computational reasoning (deductive and inductive methods).
We also know that mathematics is just a servomechanism of the human mind, which, interesting enough, is possessed by the Observer himself.

Again, we physicists do know that a physical phenomenon is relative true, example:
The electric field around an electron is a real physical thing or just a mathematical abstraction that predict what another particle does next to it? Or, is light made up of photons (a quantum energy with a precise location in space) or a wavelength. Or, when you are observing an electron moving, you will be able to contact a magnetic field around it. But if a different OBSERVER is moving equally and on the same direction of that electron, he would not register any magnetic activity.
So which one of them is right then? In other words, can a magnetic field exist by it own?

And that is true for each fundamental force (gravity, electromagnetic, and nuclear forces).
What many scientists are missing out, is the emphasis on the Observer, and after 20 years
of my research, I can definitely point out the "WHY".
Because many of them are basing their reasoning on the wrong axiom that this physical
Universe can exist independently from any Observers (Life?),

And this is the point where philosophers can actually help scientists (or vice versa) to find the real path of TRUTH!

to be continued ...

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by David Quinn » Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:49 am

Philosophers can certainly help scientists find the Truth, but only if scientists are willing to go beyond science and become purely philosophical in their thinking.

For example, above you write about the relative nature of things and how things can appear to change in response to the observer's perspective. It is a matter of taking this insight, which you have gained with the help of science, and pursuing its philosophical implications to the very end.

Just out of interest, how many other physicists do you know take an interest in Truth? Or is it simply your own individual project?

-

User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by maestro » Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:28 am

marcothay wrote:Because many of them are basing their reasoning on the wrong axiom that this physical
Universe can exist independently from any Observers
Realism: Science attempts to describe objects in and of themselves, regardless of observers.
Positivism: Science is an attempt to give a coherent causal theories of experience.

Most Physicists nowadays are positivists rather than realists.

User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by Jehu » Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:22 am

I used the word: "exist" but I should have used the word "observe".
In fact what is the difference between those two words?
I let you ponder on that.
To exist is be an object of mind, and so it follows that in order to exist a thing must be observed; either through the senses, or through that faculty we call the imagination.
I love the power of simplicity because I know is the right path to Truth.
Indeed!
To create Space out of nothing you have first assume a POINT OF VIEW and CONSIDER a different point to look at, this will give you a DIMENSION and automatically a "distance".
The "distance" in itself means a kind of relation between your ASSUMED view point and a different "point" which you decided
to look at ( Particle),: a relation that we used to call "Energy".

In physic space is defined in terms of time, energy and movement. Time is being defined in terms of space, energy and movement and so on.
To me it looks like, as an analogy, a "cat that is biting his tail"; I mean it is just a circle with no end in sight.
What your are saying here is that the five fundamental assumptions upon which the physical sciences are based (i.e., space, time, mass, energy and motion), are actually the five interdependent and complementary elements of all physical entities. Interdependent because no one element can be said to exist on its own, and complementary because all five elements must be present in order than any physical thing can be said to exist.
Again, we physicists do know that a physical phenomenon is relative true, example: The electric field around an electron is a real physical thing or just a mathematical abstraction that predict what another particle does next to it?
If you (physicists) know that all physical phenomena partake of only a “relative” existence, why then do you ask whether or not they are real (absolute)?
What many scientists are missing out, is the emphasis on the Observer, and after 20 years of my research, I can definitely point out the "WHY".

Because many of them are basing their reasoning on the wrong axiom that this physical Universe can exist independently from any Observers (Life?)
So what you have discovered is that the nature of reality is essentially cognizant, and now you wish to demonstrate this by way of a rational metaphysical doctrine?

If so, I think that we can be of service to you, but as has already been said, you must abandon your reliance on observing how things appear, and follow the path of pure deductive reason. If you are in agreement, then I should very much like to take part in your enquiry.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by Dan Rowden » Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:23 am

maestro wrote:
marcothay wrote:Because many of them are basing their reasoning on the wrong axiom that this physical
Universe can exist independently from any Observers
Realism: Science attempts to describe objects in and of themselves, regardless of observers.
Positivism: Science is an attempt to give a coherent causal theories of experience.

Most Physicists nowadays are positivists rather than realists.
I think it'd fair to say that Relativity and Quantum Physics made that movement necessary.

User avatar
Loki
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:47 am

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by Loki » Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:31 am

marcothay wrote: I love the power of simplicity because I know is the right path to Truth.
Oh yeah? How do you know this? Are you a man who just goes by intuition? Or do you have some other way of knowing?

User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by Jamesh » Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:40 pm

marcothay wrote:
Because many of them are basing their reasoning on the wrong axiom that this physical Universe can exist independently from any Observers (Life?)
I absolutely believe the physical universe exists independently from any observers, but that appearances cannot.

On the other hand all concepts need to be viewed dualistically, so the concept of existence itself needs to be considered from both the whole and the parts perspectives at the same time.

The whole is directly dualistically relative to two other concepts only, namely non-existence and the sum of all parts (which is “two dimensional or flat or linear duality”), and the parts (appearances) are holistically relative to other defined things (which is three dimensional, non-linear duality).

TIME

Some things you need to realise is that The Totality cannot have a beginning or end, so therefore what everything consists of can have no beginning or end.

You also need to fully accept that everything regardless of form is causal, thus empty of fundamental particles, thus everything is the same type of entity that space is.

You also need to note that space is a caused thing – space is an outcome of something else. It has effects such as allowing us to observe dimensions. Einstein realised this with his concept of space-time – he understood that space was dualistic in nature and could be broken down. Ask yourself how matter can occupy the same location as the Space that must also be there even though the matter is also in that same location?

You also need to know that as the Universe has size, and this size is incredibly and indeterminately vast, or perhaps infinite - The Totality logically must be infinite –there can be nothing outside “all there is” (but still this does not necessarily mean endlessness dimensionally) - that something must be both self-causing and continuously expanding – this means something must continually cause more of itself, and the more of itself there is, then the more fundamental existence (as opposed to observed or mind created existence) increases.

To me the fundamental core/precursor/content/action of everything is Time (but as an unobservable fundamental entity - not the measured time we use to compare changes in form). It is the only "thing" wherein the idea of it existing as a outcome of some preceding cause, is completely illogical. I believe that Time is all there is, however it manifests in two forms, that are essentially the same. New Time and Not-New Time. The only difference between the two is that New time overall is always greater in power than what immediately preceded it, and lesser in power than the infinity of all the time that preceded it. This is the fundamental basis of Relativity.

New-time does not need a beginning cause, it is what it is - Time cannot be other than eternal - but it’s “degree of power” is continuously caused by Not-new time.
Not-new Time is still time being time to exactly the same degree as New time - if we could measure units of same there would be no difference in the power of New-time and Not-New Time – there is only a difference between extent of the Now time relative to the extent of the immediately preceding time.

Although Time is not a “thing” as such, but rather it is a permanent causal action upon it’s past self only, and does not require physical thingness (rather it precedes and causes same), still I suggest you think of Now-Time as if it were the last layer of the thinnest possible (causal) paint being continually being automatically painted on top and below (and in reality within) the previous layer of paint. As more layers of paint are applied (as time goes by) then the newest layer of paint covers more area than the previous layer – thus time becomes more powerful, there is more of it. When there are enough layers of Time then we humans are able to observe Form.

Note that I said that each layer is being applied on top and below – but also within. It is this within layering that builds pressure, which is causality – within all things time becomes increasingly compressed, resulting in outward pressure. Initially things form as cubical shapes, but when enough time pressure occurs they explode and reform into flattened shapes. You see both these in our galaxy – the round suns form a rather flattened galaxy, but you also see it in our difficulty in understanding light as being both particle and wave. Radiation is where a part within a thing and not the whole structure explodes.

I’ve always said that non-existence does not and cannot possibly exist, but I’ve just sort of changed my mind on that. Non-existence is the absolute “potential” void that time continuously grows into – the void does not exist as such except in the sense of it providing “the freedom” for time to be active, for time to continuously “be itself”.

User avatar
HUNTEDvsINVIS
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:55 pm
Location: some hot place near sea

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by HUNTEDvsINVIS » Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:07 pm

See Immanuel Kant & David Hume's philosophy. They tend to deal with metaphysics. Traditional philosophy states that zero consciousness = zero existence. I have to go now, so can't help more, but go and read up on it. There is also a Japanese philosopher that deals with paradoxes etc and believes they are the clue to understanding the universe. The universe is, after all, a paradox ; )

PS: we dont just know through observation but instincts, too.

marcothay
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by marcothay » Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:56 am

I shall not answer right now to your questions because many of them will find an answer
on the continuation below.
Someone took up quantum mechanic and let me clarify this subject before moving on.

Broadly speaking, quantum mechanics incorporates four classes of phenomena that classical physics cannot account for: (1) the quantization (discretization) of certain physical quantities, (2) wave-particle duality, (3) the uncertainty principle, and (4) quantum entanglement.

Von Neumann's reasoning permitted him also to confront the foundational issue of determinism vs. non-determinism and in his famous exposition he demonstrated a theorem according to which quantum mechanics could not possibly be derived by statistical approximation from a deterministic theory of the type used in classical mechanics. This demonstration helped to inaugurate a line of research which, through the work of John Stuart Bell in 1964 on Bell's Theorem and the experiments of Alain Aspect in 1982, demonstrated that quantum physics requires a notion of reality substantially different from that of classical physics.
Schrodinger paradox of a "cat in a box "demonstrates that "reality" is decided solely at the moment of OBSERVATION !


No one, as far as I know, has been able to debunk his logical reasoning.

In simple words, a "state of beingness" of a ' thing' became "real" only at the moment of observation

But this reality is only real for him unless someone else (other observers) agree with him which is same as to say "someone else are able to comunicate with him. And here is where Bell's theorem is crucial.


When you and I, see a table in front of us and somebody come over and says that it is a chair, we probably take him as a "crazy" person and our instinct is to invalidate or even isolate him. This is what society is doing with "crazy" (different realities) people; but this doesn't mean that those "crazy guys" are actually NOT observing what they are telling us. They DO, The problem is, we don.t agree with them! Right?

I 'm interpreting quantum physics like many experts are currently interpreting it
I'm a fan of the non-deterministic interpretation, in particular the PAP Copenhagen school of thought, which I believe to have the consensus of the majority of physicists; that is a non-deterministic interpretation where waveforms are "real" and the Observer role is causal
I don't pursue Realism but I'm not exactly a positivists either.
In any case I don't believe that exact science alone can answer the question "what is space?" which is the main subject on this thread.

I'm aware that Q. physics is subjected to different interpretations and everyone is free to choose one between them; again I think that this freedom or power of choice is determinate by ME or YOU ( note the emphasis on pronoun) and not by any deterministic neuronal physical laws.
I also believe that the path to TRUTH is something personal and it does not necessarily need a consensus of ‘authorities’.

continue below...

marcothay
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by marcothay » Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:09 am

I love the power of simplicity, and all I would like to make clear to you, is that the term:" Point of view" ( a point from which someone is observing) is much related to the reality He is getting.
We don't need to look QM to grasp that an observer is indeed in-charge of what is observing ( his own reality).
Classic physics and Einstein relativity says so! Try to re-read a book on those subjects, but this time put the emphasis on the observer, you will be
astonished to find out that every physical phenomena become "real" only to the same reference frame! And what is a "reference frame"if not a point of view?
Example:
# Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an OBSERVER s "stationary" clock.
# Length contraction: Objects are measured to be shortened in the direction that they are moving with respect to the OBSERVER.
# Relativity of simultaneity: Two events that are simultaneous to an OBSERVER A may not be simultaneous to an OBSERVER B if B is moving with respect to A.
#The laws of physics are the same for all OBSERVERS in uniform motion relative to one another (Galileo's principle of relativity).

From Wikipedia:A frame of reference in physics, refer to an observational reference frame tied to the state of motion of an observer. It may also refer an observational reference frame and an attached coordinate system, as a unit. For example, according to one point of view, the observer, the coordinate system and the observational apparatus all are included in the frame: "Each reference frame must have an observer to record events as well as a coordinate system for the purpose of assigning locations to each event".

I can go on and on on this.
But strangely enough no one seems to define what a an "observer"or a "point of view" is actually is !
Again, defining Space on terms of "point of views" instead of movement, time, energy and matter, IS what I believe to be the right path.
Not only right but applicable and useful MAN

What follows will enter in the core of the matter...
And at the end I will give you a little experiment on how to experience movement even with
your body standing still!

bert
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:08 am
Location: Antwerp

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by bert » Wed Jan 21, 2009 5:02 am

marcothay:
In any case I don't believe that exact science alone can answer the question "what is space?" which is the main subject on this thread.
what is space?
a place of imagining beforehand, of mutation, of refunctioning that allows the having-of-offspring design for birth. for Space can not contain emptiness - always developing, squeezing out, drifting, and forcing the act of putting something somewhere into the closets of time as correlatives; collecting and re-shaping to drift again in some stream of air or water.


marcothay:
I'm aware that Q. physics is subjected to different interpretations and everyone is free to choose one between them; again I think that this freedom or power of choice is determinate by ME or YOU ( note the emphasis on pronoun) and not by any deterministic neuronal physical laws.
I also believe that the path to TRUTH is something personal and it does not necessarily need a consensus of ‘authorities’.
what is conscience?
from our likes and dislikes made law, it assumes a beauty-reflex of our inherent values of good and evil, forming a personal religious culture begotten by the training of our Ids.

User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by Carl G » Wed Jan 21, 2009 5:10 am

bert:

i've figured finally out - reading your posts, makes me feel I'm losing my mind

User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by Jehu » Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:10 am

marcothay wrote:Again, defining Space on terms of "point of views" instead of movement, time, energy and matter, IS what I believe to be the right path.
Not only right but applicable and useful MAN
Yes, but can you provide a rational demonstration that this is the case, or are simply putting forward one more theory? If you are merely hypothesizing, then perhaps a science forum would be more appropriate, for then yours might complete with all the other theories – each of which is applicable and useful in its own right.

bert
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:08 am
Location: Antwerp

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by bert » Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:48 am

Carl G wrote:bert:

i've figured finally out - reading your posts, makes me feel I'm losing my mind
thanks. I take that as a compliment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasis

look for the Theocentric in the Egocentric; insodoing, Ego expands by that which evokes mutual outflows.

User avatar
Loki
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:47 am

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by Loki » Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:31 am

bert wrote: look for the Theocentric in the Egocentric; insodoing, Ego expands by that which evokes mutual outflows.
Exactly, Bert. It's a bit like provoking the digamy which underpins the undulating plethora of influx zones, residing inside the simulcrum of shadow soothsaying. Or better, the abligurition of righteous wallowing in gongoozler emunction.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by David Quinn » Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:02 am

marcothay wrote: I 'm interpreting quantum physics like many experts are currently interpreting it
I'm a fan of the non-deterministic interpretation, in particular the PAP Copenhagen school of thought, which I believe to have the consensus of the majority of physicists; that is a non-deterministic interpretation where waveforms are "real" and the Observer role is causal
Non-determinism doesn't mean non-causal, then?

QM events, according to what you say here, are at least caused by the observer. Given that determinism is the theory that "all things have causes", isn't it misleading to describe your interpretation as non-deterministic?

-

User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by Jamesh » Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:44 am

Schrodinger paradox of a "cat in a box "demonstrates that "reality" is decided solely at the moment of OBSERVATION !
Not “reality” but "definition". Regardless of what is there, there will always be something there, some form of reality, even if it is just space.

marcothay
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by marcothay » Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:12 am

Just a clarification for David and Jamesh,

"definitions of terms used to discuss a problematic are necessary and they have to be agreed upon by both parties, to the problematic be resolved"

Non-determinism doesn't necessarily means non-causal, it precisely means no free will at all by the observer; it means that your decision to continue reading this comment has not been already determinate by any external force; it means that Laplace 's determinism could be false.

Now, the word "reality" is the most misunderstood word in philosophy of science, everyone seems to have his own definition, in fact I often double quote this word when I use it. Indeed, how we can define this word if we don't define first what an observer is?

Another word not well defined is the word "consciousness".
Those will came clearer ( I hope) with the following.
After all, what I'm trying to do is to find a definition of SPACE on terms of "consciousness" that would be helpful to help people to see what they really are.

So what is Space? One intrinsic part of it is that to exist he must to have at least one DIMENSION.
Definition of dimension: a point of source of observation and a point to look at ( I call it "anchor point")

Of course, we have to understand that the point of source to create a dimension has not to be localized which means that it/he in origin doesn't possess "position", form, mass, or wavelength whatsoever.
His position become real only when he decide to create an anchor point to look at.
As an analogy think about the Bigbang as a source of space.
I will give you a definition of "source"(cause) later.

This physical universe is a three-dimensional one; you can see it looking at the corners of
your room. As I said before, later I will give you an experiment on how to experience movement even with your body ( by the way, another anchor point) standing still.

Now, I'm aware that mathematics can create multidimensional universes but don't forget that mathematics is just a servomechanism of the mind which is same as to say that mathematics are originated by human intellect; Newton had to develop differential calculus to demonstrate his gravitational theories. This doesn't mean that other different universes may not exist, it just means that this ( what WE are observing ) particular universe doesn't permit more than three dimensions.

And forget about TIME being considered a fourth dimension, the definition of the term dimension excludes it. Again it is just an interpretation of a mathematical equation with no physical evidence.
The difference between mathematics and physic is important, there are entire sections in mathematics that don't have any relation with this physical universe.
Again, mathematics in itself doesn't depend on the physical word and it is just a creation of the "mind".

marcothay
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by marcothay » Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:25 am

Ok, let's further develop what I mean when I say:" we have to understand that the point of source to create a dimension has not to be localized which means that it/he in origin doesn't possess: position, form, mass, or wavelength whatsoever.
His position become real only when he decide to create an anchor point to look at.
As an analogy think about the BigBang as a source of space."

"Something" that doesn't have any position (space), form, mass, energy, wavelength or any movement is what I call a True Static.
In physic a static is defined as something that is holding its position in space, but if you look deeper it is just a relative truth. Example, a book on a table if is not touched by any observer or any other force may appear in a static state; but the truth is, it is holding his position by a balance of different forces (table against gravity) and actually if you take a wider view point it is moving with the Earth rotation plus the Earth revolution around the sun, and we know that the sun is moving around the center of our galaxy and our galaxy is moving ...Got the picture? Do you see that changing view points you get
a different reality of "reality"?

Now, how far you could go to widen a/your view point?
Till it exit this physical Universe, isn't?
And what you find at that point? Simple, you find TRUE STATIC confronting MOTION.( the most basic dichotomy ever)!
Physicists have already found what a TRUE STATIC is, but the majority of them didn't realized it. The reason for that is because in their academic education they have been instructed to consider any "zero" or "infinite" result from any physical-mathematical equations as wrong answers.
Schrodinger equation is an example.

Actually what is the difference between zero and infinite?
Could an absolute zero be infinite?

Continue...

User avatar
maestro
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:29 am

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by maestro » Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:26 am

Marcothay,
The issues you are discussing have less to do with physics and more to do with theories (philosophy) of knowledge. While physicists may not be aware (or are not interested) in these matters, there are whole bookshelves on the philosophy of science in any decent library. One interesting book that I came upon recently is

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Relativis ... 0226469492

marcothay
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by marcothay » Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:48 am

maestro wrote:Marcothay,
The issues you are discussing have less to do with physics and more to do with theories (philosophy) of knowledge. While physicists may not be aware (or are not interested) in these matters, there are whole bookshelves on the philosophy of science in any decent library.
Yes, that's why I'm discussing it in here and not in a strictly "scientific" forums where strangely enough, those forum look like to be moldered by some kind of " committee of authorities".

Please, take the following as an advice:
An arbitrary may be considered as a factor introduced into a problem's solution when that factor does not derive from a known natural law but only from an authoritarian opinion or command.
On my experience, a problem resolved by data derived from known natural laws resolves
well and smoothly and has a useful solution. When the problem is resolved by introducing arbitraries (factors based on opinion or command but not natural law) then the solution, when used, will ordinarily require more arbitrariness to make that solution applicable ( the harder one tries to apply that solution corrupted by arbitraries to any situation or physical equation, the more arbitraries have to be introduced.

That is happening not only in science, but in philosophy as well.

The outcome of all of that is more complexity.(take Bert's comments as an example)

I'm strongly believe that Science, Philosophy, Epistemology and even Religion ( not the institutionalized religions) one day will met on a commune ground, don't you?

bert
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:08 am
Location: Antwerp

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by bert » Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:05 am

fear of deviation from arbitrary standards and categories confirms some groups their bogey.

I believe excogitation is (still) not the sufficient guide - within the labyrinths, instinctive guessing is more succesfull.

Steven Coyle

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by Steven Coyle » Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:11 am

The solution is tantric. The complete Godself mersed in a colorful, holographic void. Not only highly visual thinking (thinking in pictures), but also highly literate tic toc toe - leading to chess, leading to higher pattern recognition Go on a Go board.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by David Quinn » Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:06 am

marcothay wrote:Just a clarification for David and Jamesh,
[i]"definitions of terms used to discuss a problematic are necessary and they have to be agreed upon by both parties, to the problematic be resolved" [/i]
Non-determinism doesn't necessarily means non-causal, it precisely means no free will at all by the observer; it means that your decision to continue reading this comment has not been already determinate by any external force; it means that Laplace 's determinism could be false.

Given that it is impossible for us to measure conditions precisely in any situation, I would have thought that Laplace's determinism has long been discredited by the mainstream community.

But Laplace's determinism is just one version of determinism. Determinism essentially asserts that "all things have causes" - nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't assert that these causes have to be observed or capable of being measured in order for them to exist. It merely asserts that things cannot arise without cause at all.

Given this, wouldn't it be more correct to say that the "non-determinism" of the Copenhagen interpretation is really a form of determinism?

I don't know what you mean when you say that non-determinism means no free will. Determinism also means no free will. Whilst I agree that the concept of non-determinism is incompatible with the concept of free will, the concept of deteminism (all things have causes) is also incompatible.

I also don't know what you mean by an "external force". Are you referring to forces that are external to the causal forces operating within the body?

Now, the word "reality" is the most misunderstood word in philosophy of science, everyone seems to have his own definition, in fact I often double quote this word when I use it.
Yes, reality is always a matter of personal definition. That's the reality.

Indeed, how we can define this word if we don't define first what an observer is?[
I don't see how the definition of a reality hinges on the definition of an observer.

For example, if I were to define reality as that which is permanent, unchanging, everywhere and everywhen, beyond life and death, absolute in nature, responsible for the existence of all things, etc, then the observer doesn't come into it - at least not until I begin assessing what place the observer has within such a conception. In other words, the definition of reality comes first and the observer, along with everything else, is subsequently assessed in that context.

-

User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: Space & Consciousness

Post by Jehu » Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:25 pm

While the term “reality” is generally misunderstood (especially as it is taken to be equivalent to the term “actual”), it is well defined in terms of its philosophical usage. Consider the following definition drawn from the Oxford Dictionary under the philosophy sub-heading:

reality 1 what exists or is real; that which underlies appearances.

real 8 having an absolute and necessary and not merely contingent existence.

Reality then is clearly defined philosophically as “that which has an absolute and necessary existence, and which underlies the appearance of all things.”

Post Reply