U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-07-2015, 08:17 AM
 
39,041 posts, read 10,831,421 times
Reputation: 5082

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dissily Mordentroge View Post
Which makes me think a focus on the individual's or humanities so called purpose side steps a larger picture. There's a possibility that over time the collective intellectual accomplishments of any conscious species can outlive that species, not in any afterlife incarnation or whatever, but embodied in other life forms we may create be they a hybrid artificial intelligence/biological entity or something that at this time we can't begin to imagine. 'Purpose' itself is a loaded word anyhow, especially if combined with 'ultimate'.
I'm more interested to learn if the universe as we find it necessarily leads to organised intelligence and what the implications may be in the long term.
I think those are very interesting speculations and indeed speculations reach where science cannot and can suggests areas of research that science might never think of.

However, the nub of the matter and the basis of the disagreement with Mystic is what we regard as an interesting and thought -provoking speculation and what we can regard as reliably validated scientific information.

The way of validating speculations where science doesn't seem to is to produce some sort of mysterious revelation. That this is relevant came out of a thread with Mystic phd involved on the validity of divine revelation. We regard this as faith -based, but the person who experiences it regards it as reliable. Science facts can then be fitted to the Faith -belief in order to make it look 'scientific'.

This is why we have to regard it as a rationally valid - not to say mandated - position to be agnostic about faith -based claims and speculations, no matter how real they may feel tothe person experiencing the or how interesting the speculations are.

This is not to deny - no more than atheism denies a 'god' - but to reserve belief as reliable fact until the proof (that means compelling evidence) has appeared.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-07-2015, 04:29 PM
 
Location: Australia
106 posts, read 71,948 times
Reputation: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I think those are very interesting speculations and indeed speculations reach where science cannot and can suggests areas of research that science might never think of.

However, the nub of the matter and the basis of the disagreement with Mystic is what we regard as an interesting and thought -provoking speculation and what we can regard as reliably validated scientific information.

The way of validating speculations where science doesn't seem to is to produce some sort of mysterious revelation. That this is relevant came out of a thread with Mystic phd involved on the validity of divine revelation. We regard this as faith -based, but the person who experiences it regards it as reliable.

This is why we have to regard it as a rationally valid - not to say mandated - position to be agnostic about faith -based claims and speculations, no matter how real they may feel tothe person experiencing the or how interesting the speculations are.

This is not to deny - no more than atheism denies a 'god' - but to reserve belief as reliable fact until the proof (that means compelling evidence) has appeared.
The 'validity of divine revelation'? Now there's a term whose definition, let alone justification triggers discussions that are ultimately pointless. I don't deny claims from people that they've exprienced at least some transcendental hallucination. However, there's no way such claims can ever be proven to anyone else, no matter how intense or life transforming such experiences may be. To expect anyone to alter their view of the world because you imagine "I dissolved within the Almighty' or some such is asking way too much. The only valid approach for those who have had these kinds of experiences is to reveal any techniques they feel induced them, such as Tantric Yoga etc and leave it to the skeptics to trial such disciplines themselves.
And yes, science facts can then be fitted to the Faith -belief in order to make it look 'scientific', but the such superficial attempts do not survive any in depth critical analysis. Those with a desperate need to believe will however swallow such 'scientific' evidence whole. This opens up another topic I suggest could do with a tread of it's own, our species powerful desire for absolute certainty and it's ego driven fear of mortality, a desire so overriding and a fear almost so universal that many feel comforted in accepting supertitious gibberish as 'gospel truth'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2015, 05:24 PM
 
39,041 posts, read 10,831,421 times
Reputation: 5082
I agree totally. There was a long discussion on the validity of divine revelation and it became pretty clear to all but those arguing for it and (presumably) those who wanted their bias confirmed, that there was no reason whatsoever to afford the claim any credit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2015, 11:30 AM
 
93 posts, read 66,296 times
Reputation: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You tend to contradict yourself a lot Morbert . . . and seem unaware of it. By declaring the formalism of quantum mechanics free of ontological interpretation as representations of an underlying reality . . . you are declaring a lack of belief in ontology. ALL measures and the formulations that use them reflect what is going on in our reality . . . not just what is going on in the mathematics. The measures are slices of reality . . . not figments of our imagination..
I do not reject ontology. I reject the formalist approach to ontology. QM has lots of lessons for the field of ontology, and for what we can say about reality. A quantum state is expressed in terms of sets of observational outcomes, and so the behaviour of quantum states is of great interest to philosophers.

What I reject is the literal interpretation of the mathematical equations of QM as ontic entities in order to satisfy misplaced metaphysical commitments to classical experiences like determinism.

As an aside, this is not what you are doing with E=mc^2. Your interpretation of that equation was not formalist. It was wrong. Mass moving at the speed of light squared is in no way indicative of any reasonable meaning behind the equation E=mc^2.

Last edited by Morbert; 02-08-2015 at 11:41 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2015, 12:02 PM
 
40,050 posts, read 26,730,521 times
Reputation: 6049
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You tend to contradict yourself a lot Morbert . . . and seem unaware of it. By declaring the formalism of quantum mechanics free of ontological interpretation as representations of an underlying reality . . . you are declaring a lack of belief in ontology. ALL measures and the formulations that use them reflect what is going on in our reality . . . not just what is going on in the mathematics. The measures are slices of reality . . . not figments of our imagination..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbert View Post
I do not reject ontology. I reject the formalist approach to ontology.
A distinction without a difference.
Quote:
QM has lots of lessons for the field of ontology, and for what we can say about reality. A quantum state is expressed in terms of sets of observational outcomes, and so the behaviour of quantum states is of great interest to philosophers.
What I reject is the literal interpretation of the mathematical equations of QM as ontic entities in order to satisfy misplaced metaphysical commitments to classical experiences like determinism.
The issue has nothing to do with literal interpretations or determinism. The interpretation of the behavior of reality as reflected in the equations and their outcomes IS ontology. Interpreting what the underlying reality IS and what it is doing as reflected in what the mathematics reveals cannot be separated . . . as if the mathematics is only mathematics (i.e. probabilities,etc.). The patterns produced with and without knowledge of the path of photons DOES reveal a difference in what happened in reality . . . not just how we represented them using our knowledge. You deny that.
Quote:
As an aside, this is not what you are doing with E=mc^2. Your interpretation of that equation was not formalist. It was wrong.
Oh give it a rest. The ANALOGY used both formulations (E=mc^2 and E=hf) to interpret the ontological status of what we call the existing field state of energy. Using the characteristics (c=lightspeed, f=frequency) of the measures reflected in those equations . . . how would YOU explain to a lay audience what state the field representation we call energy actually EXISTS in?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2015, 12:53 PM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,249,987 times
Reputation: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The ANALOGY used both formulations (E=mc^2 and E=hf) to interpret the ontological status of what we call the existing field state of energy. Using the characteristics (c=lightspeed, f=frequency) of the measures reflected in those equations . . . how would YOU explain to a lay audience what state the field representation we call energy actually EXISTS in?
I'm not Morbert, and he may have a much better handle on it that I, but I would argue that the best way to explain "the field representation we call energy" is "nonexistent". Energy is not a field, it is a property that a field, or matter, might have, like a building has height. But height is not a building, it is a measure of an aspect of a building. In the same way, energy is a measure of an aspect, the ability to do work is the classical definition, of a field.

So your entire ontology is flawed from the get go, because you are trying to treat a field as an attribute of energy, rather than the other way round. This is one of the things I mean when I have said that your ontological musings don't line up with the equations you are supposedly basing them on. It appears you started with the idea of energy being all that there is, and then tried to shoehorn the physics in underneath that...

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2015, 01:04 PM
 
13,493 posts, read 4,990,097 times
Reputation: 1365
to deny any reasonable conclusion because we don't want "them" to have any chance of being correct is an agenda there is no rational reason to support. The data says what the data says, when some philosopher doesn't want it to be true is quite meaningless to people that are only interested in what is or is not plausible.

"no nothing" is not reasonable with the amount of information we have. It is equally unreasonable to push off a dead man doing anything other than stayed died. Or anything like we are gona be zapped if we break some mentally ill base rule.

added later -----

ontological philosophy is just a philosophy for people that don't believe in "engineering the truth" one has logical fallacies deciding and the other has "physical rules/limitations" that guide notions in.

Last edited by Arach Angle; 02-08-2015 at 01:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2015, 01:13 PM
 
40,050 posts, read 26,730,521 times
Reputation: 6049
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
A distinction without a difference. The issue has nothing to do with literal interpretations or determinism. The interpretation of the behavior of reality as reflected in the equations and their outcomes IS ontology. Interpreting what the underlying reality IS and what it is doing as reflected in what the mathematics reveals cannot be separated . . . as if the mathematics is only mathematics (i.e. probabilities,etc.). The patterns produced with and without knowledge of the path of photons DOES reveal a difference in what happened in reality . . . not just how we represented them using our knowledge. You deny that.Oh give it a rest. The ANALOGY used both formulations (E=mc^2 and E=hf) to interpret the ontological status of what we call the existing field state of energy. Using the characteristics (c=lightspeed, f=frequency) of the measures reflected in those equations . . . how would YOU explain to a lay audience what state the field representation we call energy actually EXISTS in?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
I'm not Morbert, and he may have a much better handle on it that I, but I would argue that the best way to explain "the field representation we call energy" is "nonexistent". Energy is not a field, it is a property that a field, or matter, might have, like a building has height. But height is not a building, it is a measure of an aspect of a building. In the same way, energy is a measure of an aspect, the ability to do work is the classical definition, of a field.
So your entire ontology is flawed from the get go, because you are trying to treat a field as an attribute of energy, rather than the other way round. This is one of the things I mean when I have said that your ontological musings don't line up with the equations you are supposedly basing them on. It appears you started with the idea of energy being all that there is, and then tried to shoehorn the physics in underneath that...
-NoCapo
Wrong!. I have always said that field is the only reality and everything else consists of manifestations (properties, attributes) of the underlying field . . . such as energy/mass/momentum equivalence. The refusal to even try to explain how these manifestations EXIST in reality (ontology) is where the resistance to my analogies comes from. What we call matter EXISTS at low energy states (frozen energy???) and particles EXIST at high energy states of the unified field. You may not like analogizing the differences as "speed"(frequency) . . . but it is not completely inappropriate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2015, 05:57 PM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,249,987 times
Reputation: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Wrong!
Ok, what is wrong? As far as I can tell energy is not a field. It is a property related to fields, but just like you don't have a building of pure height, you can't have a field of energy. It is a metric, not a substance. Are we agreed on that? I have to ask, because statements like
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The ANALOGY used both formulations (E=mc^2 and E=hf) to interpret the ontological status of what we call the existing field state of energy. Using the characteristics (c=lightspeed, f=frequency) of the measures reflected in those equations . . . how would YOU explain to a lay audience what state the field representation we call energy actually EXISTS in?
imply that you are trying to interpret energy as a field not as a property of a field. If you ddo mean to interpret energy as a field in and of itself, then that is where you should start your explanations, because that is not a reasonable consequence of the actual physics. If your ontology requires it, then you have a problem right off the bat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I have always said that field is the only reality and everything else consists of manifestations (properties, attributes) of the underlying field . . . such as energy/mass/momentum equivalence. The refusal to even try to explain how these manifestations EXIST in reality (ontology) is where the resistance to my analogies comes from.
This doesn't make sense to me either. Physics is all about trying to explain where these properties come from, what fields are, and how the work. The problem is we don't know. It isn't that physicists don't want to know, it is that without aconsistent model, and testable predictions, the only honest answer is we don't know, but we are looking. Your beef seems to be that physics does not explain enough, but if we go beyond the physics we are in the realm of speculation, or as it is commonly known, making s**t up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
What we call matter EXISTS at low energy states (frozen energy???) and particles EXIST at high energy states of the unified field. You may not like analogizing the differences as "speed"(frequency) . . . but it is not completely inappropriate.
Umm, matter is particles, so they can't be two distinct things at different energy states. beyond that a massive particle at rest may have more energy that a small particle in motion. I have not worked out the math for it, but it may even be possible for a massive particle to have more energy than a massless one, given large enough mass, or low enough frequency of the photon. I don't think high energy vs low energy maps to the idea of fields vs matter. Certainly not the idea of "frozen energy", as energy is a scalar quantity not something that can be frozen, or slowed down. It is an inappropriate analogy, given that energy is not vibratory, does not have a velocity, and is in fact not a thing at all, merely a metric. This is part of the problem, your analogies don't appear to be related to actual physics.

If we are missing something that does tie this in, then I would love to see it, Walk me through it. I admit metaphysics and philosophy can sometimes make my head spin, but the physics part I can generally follow. Right now it looks like you have simply taken some equations, and are using terms found in the equations without paying any attention to the context in which you found them. If that isn't the case, then some non-analogy explanations would do a lot to help communicate what you mean.


-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-08-2015, 08:40 PM
 
40,050 posts, read 26,730,521 times
Reputation: 6049
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Wrong!. I have always said that field is the only reality and everything else consists of manifestations (properties, attributes) of the underlying field . . . such as energy/mass/momentum equivalence. The refusal to even try to explain how these manifestations EXIST in reality (ontology) is where the resistance to my analogies comes from. What we call matter EXISTS at low energy states (frozen energy???) and particles EXIST at high energy states of the unified field. You may not like analogizing the differences as "speed"(frequency) . . . but it is not completely inappropriate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
Ok, what is wrong? As far as I can tell energy is not a field. It is a property related to fields, but just like you don't have a building of pure height, you can't have a field of energy. It is a metric, not a substance. Are we agreed on that? I have to ask, because statements like
imply that you are trying to interpret energy as a field not as a property of a field. If you ddo mean to interpret energy as a field in and of itself, then that is where you should start your explanations, because that is not a reasonable consequence of the actual physics. If your ontology requires it, then you have a problem right off the bat.
This doesn't make sense to me either. Physics is all about trying to explain where these properties come from, what fields are, and how the work. The problem is we don't know. It isn't that physicists don't want to know, it is that without aconsistent model, and testable predictions, the only honest answer is we don't know, but we are looking. Your beef seems to be that physics does not explain enough, but if we go beyond the physics we are in the realm of speculation, or as it is commonly known, making s**t up.
Umm, matter is particles, so they can't be two distinct things at different energy states. beyond that a massive particle at rest may have more energy that a small particle in motion. I have not worked out the math for it, but it may even be possible for a massive particle to have more energy than a massless one, given large enough mass, or low enough frequency of the photon. I don't think high energy vs low energy maps to the idea of fields vs matter. Certainly not the idea of "frozen energy", as energy is a scalar quantity not something that can be frozen, or slowed down. It is an inappropriate analogy, given that energy is not vibratory, does not have a velocity, and is in fact not a thing at all, merely a metric. This is part of the problem, your analogies don't appear to be related to actual physics.
If we are missing something that does tie this in, then I would love to see it, Walk me through it. I admit metaphysics and philosophy can sometimes make my head spin, but the physics part I can generally follow. Right now it looks like you have simply taken some equations, and are using terms found in the equations without paying any attention to the context in which you found them. If that isn't the case, then some non-analogy explanations would do a lot to help communicate what you mean.
-NoCapo
Good post. I will try my best to establish my perspective in a way you can relate to. What is wrong is your view of reality as comprised of separate "things." It is NOT. Energy is not a separate thing from anything else. Reality is ALL vibratory events in the unified field . . . manifesting different properties and attributes. In that sense . . . everything is "substance" because it is just the unified field in different forms captured by the measurement events. The unified field simply manifests differently when we measure and identify it as energy. What I believe the formulations reveal ontologically about the underlying field is . . . what its characteristics are during the measurement event . . . (whatever it is we are measuring and using in the mathematics).

This "event perspective" is difficult to engage intellectually because of our conditioned perceptions of space, time and motion in our sequential consciousness. Our consciousness shares equivalence with cosmic becoming and that is why we experience time, space and motion. The most difficult idea to abstract as "substance"(unified field) is motion and its relationship to energy. Motion is a complex phenomenon because of its inexorable link with the complex notion of space and time. As Reichenbach suggested,

. . . Space is completely filled by the field that defines its metrics; what we have hitherto called material bodies are only condensations of this field. It makes no sense to speak of a movement of material parts as a transport of things; what takes place is a traveling process of condensation comparable to the movement of a wave in water.

Motion is a transformation of the unified field. In order to "move" something from its current position in the universe to another position we have to "add and remove" equal amounts of our "measured" field . . . what is essentially the basic substance of our reality. The "measured" substances are the unified field and they must be transformed (added and removed) in equal amounts to achieve "motion." The essential concept is that to change the "position" of any substance in the universe . . . substance must be taken from another part of the continuum and added in place of the substance moved. It is on this principle that the law of the conservation of energy rests.

If you cannot visualize what I am talking about . . . find several small white buttons and one large black one and try this: Arrange the white buttons close to each other so that the black button is in the center of a white square. You now have a simplified two-dimensional reality with the different size and color buttons representing different localized (measured) quantities of the basic substance: buttons. Make sure all the buttons are as close together as possible so that moving one moves the others next to it.

Now, try to move the position of the black button in this mini-universe up from the center without creating a space or hole. You will have to keep all the buttons together. For example, slide up the buttons on the bottom of the square directly under the black button. All the buttons in that area will move up and some will bulge out the top of the square, but the black button will be moved. In order to retain the square shape of the universe you will have to remove those buttons bulging out the top and add them to the dent in the bottom. Only in that way does your universe's structure (square) remain unchanged. This two-dimensional example simplistically illustrates the basic operation of our reality as I see it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top