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 02-12-2015, 12:43 PM
 
40,193 posts, read 26,820,188 times
Reputation: 6059

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Nonsense. More obfuscation and lack of specifics. Yes the math is math . . . but the measures used in it are captured representations of reality and to the extent that the manipulations using the metric and rules produce results that accord with measured outcomes . . . they can reveal the structure and composition of reality in the characteristics of the symbols used. Why do you insist on misrepresenting things. You know that energy/mass is a "same property" of field as it manifests to us using our measures. Your pretense that anything about that is wrong seems to be a tactic predicated on the probable ignorance of anyone not familiar with your formalism nonsense. That is why I specifically asked you to speak to a lay audience . . . something you are either unwilling or unable to do. If you only know the formalism and cannot translate that into plain English for a lay audience . . . you do not really know anything, IMO.QED! In other words . . . you would not even pretend to distill all the formalism and jargon of QFT and the various alternatives into their implications for a lay audience. IMO if you cannot translate it . . . you do not know it well enough to do so. Actually based on our interactions and your stated preference for consistent histories . . . I prefer not to think it is because you are incapable of it. I prefer to think it is because you do not believe there ARE any such implications translatable to a lay audience. That would also be why you are so critical of my attempts to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbert View Post
The opposite is true. I there are very profound philosophical implications that are easily understood by the lay audience.
The single most important implication is the fundamental character of nature is qualitatively different from our classical conceptualisations of things like particles and fields.
More refusal to engage my views directly and simply misrepresent them. I have consistently asserted that particles do not exist as currently conceptualized. All of our measures discretize what is not discrete. They are "events" that reveal ASPECTS of our reality that must be inferred from the characteristics of the measures. This you refuse to do in favor of an uninformative formalism.
Quote:
This is the implication you need to internalise. Your quest to "translate" equations into classical entities is as futile as trying to determine the colour of radio waves.
Colors are simply EM radiation in a specific frequency range. Since virtually everyone is conditioned to perceive and understand reality in classical and sensorial terms . . . any attempt to explain it without resort to them is largely futile. The abstractions of mathematics are comprehensible to a very small cadre of humanity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-12-2015, 01:51 PM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,256,000 times
Reputation: 1317
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Colors are simply EM radiation in a specific frequency range. Since virtually everyone is conditioned to perceive and understand reality in classical and sensorial terms . . . any attempt to explain it without resort to them is largely futile. The abstractions of mathematics are comprehensible to a very small cadre of humanity.
But this is like trying to explain the philosophical implications of modern cosmology using the Ptolomeic model of the universe. Invariably the result will be pretty much worthless.

A much better approach is to work to explain, at least in a generalized manner, the actual physics being referenced. Trying to stuff QFT into a classical field theory box simply yields confusion and misunderstanding.

If, as you imply, the layperson cannot grasp enough of the actual science to draw philosophical conclusions, the answer is not to invent psuedo-science, the answer is to not invoke science at all! Just tell them you had a vision, and you now can definitively speak for God's motivations desires. That is better than presenting inaccurate "analogies" that simply do not explain anything, not have any relation to the extant science.

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 02:01 PM
 
40,193 posts, read 26,820,188 times
Reputation: 6059
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
More refusal to engage my views directly and simply misrepresent them. I have consistently asserted that particles do not exist as currently conceptualized. All of our measures discretize what is not discrete. They are "events" that reveal ASPECTS of our reality that must be inferred from the characteristics of the measures. This you refuse to do in favor of an uninformative formalism. Colors are simply EM radiation in a specific frequency range. Since virtually everyone is conditioned to perceive and understand reality in classical and sensorial terms . . . any attempt to explain it without resort to them is largely futile. The abstractions of mathematics are comprehensible to a very small cadre of humanity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
But this is like trying to explain the philosophical implications of modern cosmology using the Ptolomeic model of the universe. Invariably the result will be pretty much worthless.
A much better approach is to work to explain, at least in a generalized manner, the actual physics being referenced. Trying to stuff QFT into a classical field theory box simply yields confusion and misunderstanding.
If, as you imply, the layperson cannot grasp enough of the actual science to draw philosophical conclusions, the answer is not to invent psuedo-science, the answer is to not invoke science at all! Just tell them you had a vision, and you now can definitively speak for God's motivations desires. That is better than presenting inaccurate "analogies" that simply do not explain anything, not have any relation to the extant science.
-NoCapo
You are complaining about a straw man characterization of my views and their relationship to science. I do NO disservice to the actual science. My references ARE to the actual physics. The idea that they are NOT is a straw man version of the problem my analogies caused for the formalists . . . like Morbert. His non-existent ontology as reflected in his preference for the "consistent histories" view of quantum mechanics colors his view of all ontologies. It is clear he doesn't believe there IS any to be gleaned from the mathematics. I couldn't disagree more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2015, 06:14 AM
 
5,462 posts, read 5,946,619 times
Reputation: 1804
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You are complaining about a straw man characterization of my views and their relationship to science. I do NO disservice to the actual science. My references ARE to the actual physics.
Keep saying it over and over and over and over and maybe some day someone will believe you.

There's no place like home. There's no place like home. There's no place like home. Or some such.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2015, 06:30 AM
 
Location: Florida
19,857 posts, read 19,965,031 times
Reputation: 23325
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You are complaining about a straw man characterization of my views and their relationship to science. I do NO disservice to the actual science. My references ARE to the actual physics. The idea that they are NOT is a straw man version of the problem my analogies caused for the formalists . . . like Morbert. His non-existent ontology as reflected in his preference for the "consistent histories" view of quantum mechanics colors his view of all ontologies. It is clear he doesn't believe there IS any to be gleaned from the mathematics. I couldn't disagree more.

Let's see. You postulate that thoughts derived from consciousness (although it seems that it's only the good ones) don't dissipate ....ok....and ultimately coalesce.....maybe, but don't recall what the basis is for that so there may or may not be one......but then declare that that body of united energy output remains conscious.....pure speculation based on absolutely nothing scientific.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2015, 10:17 AM
 
40,193 posts, read 26,820,188 times
Reputation: 6059
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You are complaining about a straw man characterization of my views and their relationship to science. I do NO disservice to the actual science. My references ARE to the actual physics. The idea that they are NOT is a straw man version of the problem my analogies caused for the formalists . . . like Morbert. His non-existent ontology as reflected in his preference for the "consistent histories" view of quantum mechanics colors his view of all ontologies. It is clear he doesn't believe there IS any to be gleaned from the mathematics. I couldn't disagree more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC View Post
Keep saying it over and over and over and over and maybe some day someone will believe you.
There's no place like home. There's no place like home. There's no place like home. Or some such.
Hi KC . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold View Post
Let's see. You postulate that thoughts derived from consciousness (although it seems that it's only the good ones) don't dissipate ....ok....and ultimately coalesce.....maybe, but don't recall what the basis is for that so there may or may not be one......but then declare that that body of united energy output remains conscious.....pure speculation based on absolutely nothing scientific.
The key word is postulate, old_cold. You are addressing my CONCLUSIONS . . . not the underlying scientific rationale that leads me to them. That is what makes your "based on absolutely nothing scientific" incorrect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2015, 11:56 AM
 
93 posts, read 66,507 times
Reputation: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
More refusal to engage my views directly and simply misrepresent them. I have consistently asserted that particles do not exist as currently conceptualized. All of our measures discretize what is not discrete. They are "events" that reveal ASPECTS of our reality that must be inferred from the characteristics of the measures.
But neither do fields. Fields and particles are both classical approximations of an underlying quantum reality.

Quote:
any attempt to explain it without resort to them is largely futile.
This is true in one sense, which is why quantum states are expressed in terms of what we can observe. If a quantum theory never made contact with our classical perceptions, it would be useless.

But what is important is the understanding that the quantum world is ontologically prior to the classical world. We do not try to explain quantum phenomena in terms of classical entities. Instead, we show how a consequence of quantum physics is the emergence of classical and quasi-classical phenomena. This is why I emphasise the consistent histories interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is the interpretation that best describes our classical world as emerging from a quantum world. It is an interpretation which provides the most natural language for papers on the matter, like this one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2015, 02:59 AM
 
Location: Australia
106 posts, read 72,139 times
Reputation: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus View Post
Why can it not? Solely because you want it to be so? I see no reason why it can not.

All you have done is point out that the act of observing changes the state of the brain if the brain is observing itself. So what? Why is that a problem? It is just a series of recursive and ongoing state changes. State change. Observe. Change. Observe that. Change. Observe that. Continuously. Just because it is ongoing does not make it impossible.
Chasing your tails you are.
Consciousness, self iteration, or whatever you want to call it may take place in a portion of the brain not influencing or altering a process or processes it observes taking place within other parts of that brain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2015, 05:35 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,028,654 times
Reputation: 1368
mystic. I understand you.

evidence for a unified field is the collapse of matter to a dwarfs, neutron (gluon soup core), into one unified something or another in a black hole. Ok, we see that and we get that math is not working to link eistieny-hiny and the big Boerkousky. To me it's because we don't know what is going in physically at the atomic level.

Now the, "hunches". Thanks mort, get word for the wordless. The question is "is this unified "consciousness" an "ok hunch". Past "possible" that's the end of the hunchig because we know less about awareness then we do space. So your hunch really only is a wicked guess. And we all said "possible. but we do not agree with the line of logic." There are some real issues there. I offered to help ya a few times. And many others have told you in a polite matter 10x's (get it matter, manor, srry thats the crazy coming out) before they got frustrated.

There are two ways to achieve self aligning patters and/or consciousness at the universal level that have more legs than you yours. Use QM and hierarchy of structures notions. And the "Hunching" can only be reduced to "irrelevant to me" by those that understand. Or called "wild speculation", they need the adjective "wild" or the "speculation" is the hunch. Or dismissed out of hand by the layman. Yep, the literacy genius house wives and accountants that did well in language arts classes, have strong legs in forums when splashed in the face with anti-religion-hitch-sauce.

Like arg hinted at. We die not knowing. So know yourself first. What emotions drive you and what trait would a person driven by that emotion focus on? That's a real start mystic. It's stupid basic. That's why I think philosophy is a bunch crap in the end. Whenever anchored in the world these wishy washy people dance of into the mist ... grateful dead style. They were hit by that train.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2015, 08:47 AM
 
343 posts, read 246,767 times
Reputation: 32
A unified consciousness isn't even the problem and has nothing exactly or directly to do with any ontology's with regards to the quantum knowledge,

It has to do with determinism and non deterministic issues , whether anybodies philosophy likes it or not because why, because that's the problem. So without explaining the double slit and the problem concerning determinism its saying nothing, ( or suggest an experiment approach) . Big ideas going into all kinds of philosophies are nice but that's about it unless there are exact connecting suggestions for experiment which can add to understanding .

Last edited by Sophronius; 02-14-2015 at 09:13 AM..
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