|
Post by zendancer on Sept 19, 2019 6:31:24 GMT -5
Regarding SOCI the only difference I can see between what you've written is that ND folks regard SOCI as the only thingless thing there is. IOW, every thought, act, or feeling is a thought, act, or feeling of SOCI because there is no "other." In the words of E. "SOCI falls into its own dream as it grows from babyhood to adulthood, and sometimes it awakens from its dream of separation by becoming sufficiently silent for the obvious to become obvious." As for collapsing the wave function, consider the "existence" of a tree. Until distinguished, what a tree IS remains only what it IS. When distinguished, it's imagined to be a separate thing. The issue is one of distinction rather than observation. One can observe __________________without making distinctions and without distinguishing oneself as an observer. Duality arises as soon as a single distinction is made. The observer paradox only arises via the intellect. Yes, and this doesn't mean I look down on or dismiss the products of intellect, only, instead, that I "render unto Caesar". Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 21, 2019 3:54:22 GMT -5
I think physics implies that we can say what what a thing does, or might do, rather, but we can't say what a thing is, or even if there are things (entities without constituent parts which 'are'). Even though science takes a rather 'objective-universe view', it has not proven that there is stuff. It just proves interactions, which is action, but it can't in fact identify an entity. Yes we know phenomena are discrete energy quanta,but what is energy? Anyway, the story of matter has changed over the years - e=mc and so on. Interesting video if you're nerdy wiyh spare time. www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfHjzomqbZc.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 22, 2019 1:35:26 GMT -5
I think physics implies that we can say what what a thing does, or might do, rather, but we can't say what a thing is, or even if there are things (entities without constituent parts which 'are'). Exactly. Physics can only describe things, but not define what a thing is, or what thingness itself is. That's the job of philosophy, not physics. And ultimately, even philosophy can't really illuminate anyone about what thingness itself is. That has to be realized and seen directly (from a perspective prior to mind). So I think it's important to be aware of the inherent limits of understanding of each discipline.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 22, 2019 2:25:05 GMT -5
I think physics implies that we can say what what a thing does, or might do, rather, but we can't say what a thing is, or even if there are things (entities without constituent parts which 'are'). Exactly. Physics can only describe things, but not define what a thing is, or what thingness itself is. That's the job of philosophy, not physics. And ultimately, even philosophy can't really illuminate anyone about what thingness itself is. That has to be realized and seen directly (from a perspective prior to mind). So I think it's important to be aware of the inherent limits of understanding of each discipline. Yes indeedy. Our descriptions of reality don't actually tell of an objective thingyness, and the jury is out on what the physics 'actually' implies. There are only interpretations such as the Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations among others which are indeed stories used as an attempt to make sense of the weirdness we observe. Not that this detracts from the usefulness of the story we tell. It is very useful indeed to have a framework that makes such accurate predictions, this computer being a case in point.
I believe there is another approach to knowing the ways of nature; direct ways which aren't mechanical nor mathematical, like a proper meditation practice, for example, but these alternative or spiritual methods are very different to empirical scientific inquiry. The spiritual inquiry is very much a self inquiry that is known in direct immediacy, and has no rational explanation -
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 22, 2019 2:37:05 GMT -5
Exactly. Physics can only describe things, but not define what a thing is, or what thingness itself is. That's the job of philosophy, not physics. And ultimately, even philosophy can't really illuminate anyone about what thingness itself is. That has to be realized and seen directly (from a perspective prior to mind). So I think it's important to be aware of the inherent limits of understanding of each discipline. Yes indeedy. Our descriptions of reality don't actually tell of an objective thingyness, and the jury is out on what the physics 'actually' implies. There are only interpretations such as the Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations among others which are indeed stories used as an attempt to make sense of the weirdness we observe. Not that this detracts from the usefulness of the story we tell. It is very useful indeed to have a framework that makes such accurate predictions, this computer being a case in point. I believe there is another approach to knowing the ways of nature; direct ways which aren't mechanical nor mathematical, like a proper meditation practice, for example, but these alternative or spiritual methods are very different to empirical scientific inquiry. The spiritual inquiry is very much a self inquiry that is known in direct immediacy, and has no rational explanation -
Copenhagen is more the absence of a story than any other of the interpretations. There are metaphysical embellishments on top of it, but the point of it is to draw a bright line as to where the science ends, and it ends as you say, with the definitions of relationships. This continues to frustrate most people who study it to this day, and the way they express that is to say that it's a cop-out to simply say "well, the math says, what the math says". But "the math says, what the math says", is, to my eye, just a paraphrase of your point that scientists answer "how?" instead of "what?". But this wasn't a foregone conclusion prior to 1927. If matter hadn't exhibited this property, but, instead, had conformed to the intuitive expectation of being composed of definable unbreakable atomic units that could be measured independent of the act of measurement, then this particular chapter of metaphysics could have been, and would have been closed. Similar to how we now know what powers the Sun, or why the sky is blue.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 23, 2019 4:51:14 GMT -5
Yes indeedy. Our descriptions of reality don't actually tell of an objective thingyness, and the jury is out on what the physics 'actually' implies. There are only interpretations such as the Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations among others which are indeed stories used as an attempt to make sense of the weirdness we observe. Not that this detracts from the usefulness of the story we tell. It is very useful indeed to have a framework that makes such accurate predictions, this computer being a case in point. I believe there is another approach to knowing the ways of nature; direct ways which aren't mechanical nor mathematical, like a proper meditation practice, for example, but these alternative or spiritual methods are very different to empirical scientific inquiry. The spiritual inquiry is very much a self inquiry that is known in direct immediacy, and has no rational explanation -
Copenhagen is more the absence of a story than any other of the interpretations. There are metaphysical embellishments on top of it, but the point of it is to draw a bright line as to where the science ends, and it ends as you say, with the definitions of relationships. This continues to frustrate most people who study it to this day, and the way they express that is to say that it's a cop-out to simply say "well, the math says, what the math says". But "the math says, what the math says", is, to my eye, just a paraphrase of your point that scientists answer "how?" instead of "what?". But this wasn't a foregone conclusion prior to 1927. If matter hadn't exhibited this property, but, instead, had conformed to the intuitive expectation of being composed of definable unbreakable atomic units that could be measured independent of the act of measurement, then this particular chapter of metaphysics could have been, and would have been closed. Similar to how we now know what powers the Sun, or why the sky is blue. CI is just one story that kinda makes sense given the observation, and I like it because I have a thing for freaky nerdy things. Every night I close my eyes to a science thing, and have been digging Sean Carroll lately (he's a proponent of 'many worlds') - and I keep up with Brian Greene of the string theory ilk, and Laurence Krauss, who is like 'universe from nothing' (so God ain't necessary) - he doesn't like Goddy stuff, 'ol Laurence'. I'm just a bit of a buff - Like physics ideas, but can't math
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 24, 2019 4:20:28 GMT -5
I'm talking about a different theoretical framework of QM, specifically, a change in basic assumptions, like moving away from the dead matter model. David Bohm would be your man. He thoroughly understood QM, wrote a QM textbook in the '50's most physicists loved. Then he turned to a deeper explanation of reality, his Implicate Order. In 1980 came out with the book Wholeness and the Implicate Order. But I don't know if he wrote specifically about QM from this standpoint (if he connected the math of QM to the Implicate Order). But if anybody could, it would be him. (His relationship with J Krishnamurti influenced his Implicate Order theory). I have the book but it's in storage. I will google concerning this later. Cool. I'll take a look into this as soon as I've got a bit more time. Seems I still have to read QM for dummies after all.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 24, 2019 4:38:51 GMT -5
Do scientists actually consider mathematics as some kind of objective reality?
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 24, 2019 5:17:31 GMT -5
Do scientists actually consider mathematics as some kind of objective reality? Usually they say it's 'the language of the universe'. I quote Neil DeGrasse Tyson there, but some are more extreme in tinking there is mathematical order beneath the apparent universe just waiting to be discovered, but mostly people are simply amazed at the fact that maths which we we invent works so well at describing phenomena, and it's really hard to tell if maths is invented or discovered.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 24, 2019 7:07:35 GMT -5
Do scientists actually consider mathematics as some kind of objective reality? Usually they say it's 'the language of the universe'. I quote Neil DeGrasse Tyson there, but some are more extreme in tinking there is mathematical order beneath the apparent universe just waiting to be discovered, but mostly people are simply amazed at the fact that maths which we we invent works so well at describing phenomena, and it's really hard to tell if maths is invented or discovered.That's a good way of looking at it. And I could probably argue for both positions as well as against both positions. If we consider math a language, then it's worth looking at how language shapes the way we think and experience, how language quite literally determines what we can think and what we can experience. Here's an interesting TED talk about language: www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKK7wGAYP6k
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 24, 2019 8:23:36 GMT -5
Do scientists actually consider mathematics as some kind of objective reality? There are scientists on both sides. I used to converse on Beliefnet some before it ended. There was a guy in the science section who said you can't even find a 2 anywhere in the universe. So he considered all math to be human conceived abstractions. But some mathematicians are Platonist. Physicist John Wheeler concluded, or theorized at least, information is the most fundamental aspect of the universe. He encapsulated this as "It from bit". Mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead was a Platonist. Physicist Max Tegmark wrote a book and appeared on the TV program Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman describing how he believed everything is made of math. I read his very good book, Our Mathematical Universe. I tried to find a video clip. This magazine article is an excerpt from his book. discovermagazine.com/2013/dec/13-math-made-flesh Found a short, two minute answer to your question, Max Tegmark.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 24, 2019 9:02:53 GMT -5
Do scientists actually consider mathematics as some kind of objective reality? There is an open question which, if you get deep enough into it, as lolz put it here, is essentially just another expression of the existential question. Scientists use mathematics as a tool, but Mathematicians aren't bound by that, and in this, it's a purely idealistic field of study. Mathematicians are the only ones who really take the equals sign seriously. Three things you might find interesting: (1) Bertrand Russel's "paradox" (he was, btw, a contemporary and at one point associate of J.K.'Murt) (2) Goedel's incompleteness theorem and (3) The way mathematics is currently formalized, not all infinities are the same.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 24, 2019 9:06:51 GMT -5
Copenhagen is more the absence of a story than any other of the interpretations. There are metaphysical embellishments on top of it, but the point of it is to draw a bright line as to where the science ends, and it ends as you say, with the definitions of relationships. This continues to frustrate most people who study it to this day, and the way they express that is to say that it's a cop-out to simply say "well, the math says, what the math says". But "the math says, what the math says", is, to my eye, just a paraphrase of your point that scientists answer "how?" instead of "what?". But this wasn't a foregone conclusion prior to 1927. If matter hadn't exhibited this property, but, instead, had conformed to the intuitive expectation of being composed of definable unbreakable atomic units that could be measured independent of the act of measurement, then this particular chapter of metaphysics could have been, and would have been closed. Similar to how we now know what powers the Sun, or why the sky is blue. CI is just one story that kinda makes sense given the observation, and I like it because I have a thing for freaky nerdy things. Every night I close my eyes to a science thing, and have been digging Sean Carroll lately (he's a proponent of 'many worlds') - and I keep up with Brian Greene of the string theory ilk, and Laurence Krauss, who is like 'universe from nothing' (so God ain't necessary) - he doesn't like Goddy stuff, 'ol Laurence'. I'm just a bit of a buff - Like physics ideas, but can't math oh, I can relate. Actually been dusting off my skills for mercantile reason's, and it's a young folks game. Can relate to closing your eyes to this stuff too -- that's my core conditioning at work, right there.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 28, 2019 10:50:17 GMT -5
Three things you might find interesting: (1) Bertrand Russel's "paradox" (he was, btw, a contemporary and at one point associate of J.K.'Murt) (2) Goedel's incompleteness theorem and (3) The way mathematics is currently formalized, not all infinities are the same."Some infinities are bigger than other infinities..."
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 28, 2019 10:56:12 GMT -5
Three things you might find interesting: (1) Bertrand Russel's "paradox" (he was, btw, a contemporary and at one point associate of J.K.'Murt) (2) Goedel's incompleteness theorem and (3) The way mathematics is currently formalized, not all infinities are the same."Some infinities are bigger than other infinities..." Yes. Cantor.
|
|