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.
I think we all get that idea: a cosmos of rather rarefied matter (as we call it) which 'coalesces' into what we would call objects. and when an object moves it makes a hole in the general cosmos of matter that has to be filled. It seems an exact analogy of what happens when objects move in air. Air has to occupy the 'vacuum' created by the passage of an object.
So we are with you thus far. It seems to me for one thing that this implies a distinction between the objects and the field of matter. They have a separate identity of their own rather than just being like, 'waves' than just cause the particles of matter to bunch up as it were and then spread out again (this is a very crude analogy) and in effect nothing moves except the effect. or what we would call energy as an attribute of matter doing something.
Thus - and I know this is 'common sense' thinking so I am looking to our savants to comment - that might imply that either we have to have a separate object identity of these moving things or events, which would put a different slant on idea of 'Field', or the field being affected by a 'wave' would in fact not leave a space to be filled.
I had a look back at the first posts and of course the whole topic is about trying to wangle "God" onto the scientific or evidential table as a scientifically or evidentially credible entity. This is just a repackaging of the whole sortagod gambit - anything you can label "God" as a springboard to an interactive conscious entity to which the bible can then be linked.
That pretty much is what Mystic's idea is, through calling everything "God" and then trying to make some kind of divine intelligence credible. Where the idea fell down was this idea of consciousness as being some sort of already existent mentality in which we all share (e.g we acesss and communicate and get revelations of and from it through the manipulation of our brain lobes though meditation and prayer - I'm not strawmanning this: this is what it all adds up to) though the degree to which animals and indeed plants share in this consciousness is something about which Mystic seems to be a bit vague.
Becasue this of course is evidence of emergence - of evolution of lifeforms and their reactions and actions which is evidenced in the increasing abilities of more developed animals. Given that human mental abilities seem to be a quantum leap from even dogs elephants and dolphins (so I can understand those who claim that evolution doesn't account for it, and you need a god, or alien scientists) the evidence for consciousness as an emergent attribute of life appears to evidence - fatal evidence - against this idea of the use of the idea of a cosmos of matter (visible or the postulated 'Dark' matter) as the evidence for "God" (Mystic's preferred presentation of the word) Sorry for the recap, but perhaps the relevance of the present discussion needs consideration.
Some sort of underlying reality (which seems to be the 'Ontology' we are being invited to consider) is being postulated and we are looking at evidence for it. There seems to be a mis-match between the presentation of physics supposedly as evidence of this 'Ontology' and a supposed acceptance of the 'ontology' which apparently validates the physics, if indeed the physics is incorrect as physics but is valid as a sort of analogy of the 'ontology' that is proposed.
The basis of the mis-match is obvious; it is the old business of taking "God" (aka Underlying Reality) as a given and then trying to fiddle the facts to support it.
As observed ion P 1. This is a pretty old message for atheists and, though Mystic does the best job of trying to make it look like science as Behe did for Creationism, it fails just as soundly.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-08-2015 at 11:41 PM..
So I will not quote the bulk of your piece. Although it is interesting, it is a bit beside the point. Your concept of a unified field is an interesting one, but physicists still cannot develop a unified model consisting of many fields, let alone a single unified field. Certainly the idea is supportable by science, but only in the same sense that the LeGuin's ansible, Le'Engle's tesseract, or Adams' planetary computer are supportable. That is they take an idea in physics as a jumping off point, and weave imagination around it.
It isn't a bad idea, and it could be possible, but even if it were so, we appear to be decades if not centuries away from getting there. The science simply doesn't get us there. But rather than focusing on these parts I am trying to examine the closer, more grounded concepts in your idea. Because if those fundamental things are not correct, do not fit the extant science, then there is no point in going further. I
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
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.
What do you base this on? The physics seems to indicate that it is. Or rather, that it is not a fundamental "something" at all, but rather a property, a measured attribute of a "something". A particle is not made of energy, it has it in the same way a building has height, or a bowl of potatoes has temperature. Likewise a field has energy, but is not made of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
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.
This simply makes no sense logically. Substitute some words here, "The building simply manifests differently when we measure and identify it as height.", and you can see this doesn't make any sense at all. If reality is an underlying unified field, then that is what it is. It is not energy, though it may possess it, any more than a building becomes height when you measure it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
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).
If this indeed is what you mean to say, then you must straightway give up your idea that this is supportable by the physics! Energy and mass may be equivalent, and may even be measurements of the same "stuff" at the bottom, but there is no physics to support the idea that mass/energy == matter or fields. They are different things, one is a metric, the other is our current understanding of the reality of the thing.
Maybe you can spell out, for instance, what special relativity tells you about the ontology reality? Ideally, you can build from there to your grand idea, as opposed to starting form the unified field and working backwards. That method is particularly susceptible to confirmation bias, and distortion of the underlying physics, because you already have a goal in mind...
I consider myself an idiot savant and my savantness is "being an idiot".
They are not "separate entities anymore than ocean waves and the ocean are separate entities. Or wind from a hurricane. Or "pressure" from the wind. some of us only care about what is or what is not. Some of us try to remove "what we want it to be" from the study. I am also ok with vague. QM is vague if you understand what they are doing. I have a problem with him not adjusting his view based on new information. wtf is that about Mystic? What if the underlying reality begins to support the notion of an "emergent" "god". It will be vague of course. and thus dismissed out of hand by those that think they understand but truly only write well.
I know what you mean, and we know that we can't rule out many speculative claims. But the only way we can function is by lining in the world as it appears to be and crediting science with getting the best answers.
Anything else has to be speculative and must be kept in the pending tray until a really compelling case is made. I spent a lot of time on this, not because it was earth shattering or because it represented a powerful force in Though - Mystic is a bit of a one off - but because it was the only case that went beyond 'science is wrong - have faith and you'll know. It's been a couple of years of trying to get the essentials and I have to conclude that what there is, is speculative, faith -based and has a couple of serious objections.
I'm still reserving my judgement on whether the science (physics) works or can be made to work. I'm keeping in mind that some ideas behind physics concepts might work as analogies of something as yet unknown.
...
Maybe you can spell out, for instance, what special relativity tells you about the ontology reality? Ideally, you can build from there to your grand idea, as opposed to starting form the unified field and working backwards. That method is particularly susceptible to confirmation bias, and distortion of the underlying physics, because you already have a goal in mind...
-NoCapo
Yes. You evidently see what goes here. The Unified Field is a science -jargon word for "God" and the characteristics that (Ontologically) reveal the underlying reality really means 'The workings of nature manifest the glory of God'. That, dressed up in a lab coat, is what we have here.
I know what you mean, and we know that we can't rule out many speculative claims. But the only way we can function is by lining in the world as it appears to be and crediting science with getting the best answers.
Anything else has to be speculative and must be kept in the pending tray until a really compelling case is made. I spent a lot of time on this, not because it was earth shattering or because it represented a powerful force in Though - Mystic is a bit of a one off - but because it was the only case that went beyond 'science is wrong - have faith and you'll know. It's been a couple of years of trying to get the essentials and I have to conclude that what there is, is speculative, faith -based and has a couple of serious objections.
I'm still reserving my judgement on whether the science (physics) works or can be made to work. I'm keeping in mind that some ideas behind physics concepts might work as analogies of something as yet unknown.
exactly right arg.
we die not knowing. So the best we can ask is "what if?". That's if we even care that is. What if I line up all that we know and see what falls out. Trying desperately to keep myself out of the way. I was lucky that I started following science while I was very young when they didn't know as much as today. Today people get hit with so much science it is hard to make sense of sometimes. Some people don't know engineering, they don't know chemistry, they don't know physics (mystic!!!!) but They know their god is real. they know what speculation and blatant assertions are all right. it's too funny.
In the biz, "stuff" is weighted based on "certainty". "certainty" is really based on repeatability. We aint sure past that. The more "factual" pieces you use to support a claim the more "reasonable" it becomes. Even if I don't agree with it, it is still may be reasonable. The best I can do is render it meaningless to me. Like I do with liberals.
"Literal religion" is uncertain because it is not consistently repeatable. Theist don't get that notion at all. Science says nothing past that. Religion's outcomes are almost random when looked at literally to me. But alias, I am stupid because I have a glitch-ed brain. They didn't have dyslexia when I was young. They just called me stupid and lazy.
Okay I think I can say something as an objective opinion.
This all has to do with cause-effect and the nature of measure and consequence.
The synthesis is suggesting and there is no doubt about it, the nature of cause effect in the universe is determined by a universal consciousness, ( finds itself -outcome) by way of measure alongside a location or resting place in what is described the consciousness field. The consciousness field is then without an order of consciousness and the god figure is applied.
The first underlying issue is not the hypothesised field as continuously phrased, but whether or not there is even a hazy kick at the cat with respects to a workable possibility of real actual content to the idea for support to the suggestion concerning these areas of consequence, measure and contrast.
The synthesis in principal obliterates contrast and unifies everything in one full sweep which ignores the issue of contrast and consequence, measure itself and, does not address the nature itself of measure. Plus measure is not just measure, its in motion, if its captured its a still, so we know its only an in-accurate glimpse.
Measure in the whole scheme of it all, it suggests a human consciousness is measure or the qualifying necessity in the nature of things to do with change, and there just isn't any evidence for the suggestion. What the science would know is the nature of consequence and things to do with measure, are things which would be 'able, to find common ground associations ( while in motion) in order ( alongside the laws, boundaries), to effect a consequence. ( expressing the condition of space, time, boundaries etc) Theres zero evidence human consciousness can just be dropped into the middle of the puzzle let alone not be anything near what is seen to be absolutely required in the nature of things to do with change. So it doesn't even infer what it is trying to infer, it infers a human consciousness. Being demanding of a subject in this area certain will get an idea every time. Plus it manipulates the discovery so that's what it does, manipulates. In all art a translation cannot under any circumstance have any bias whatsoever and this area would tackle creative thinking, there cannot be a bias its a rule, moderation. Plus the button analogy won't work and avoids things to do with gravity and moving the buttons . In edit,trying to corner a universal determining reality and using human consciousness within an equality, ( value ) wouldn't be realistic . But its a good one none the less for extracting and rephrasing things, getting at the impossibility of these issues.
Last edited by Sophronius; 02-09-2015 at 11:06 AM..
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.
The above is half straw-man, and half incorrect.
The mathematics is indeed only mathematics. To quote Einstein: "as far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality".
This doesn't, of course, mean our understanding of reality shouldn't be informed by what we observe of it. The patterns of photons in a double slit experiment are precisely the kind of observations used to inform our understanding of reality.
Quote:
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?
Firstly, I would not use phrases like "the field representation we call energy". Not only is it wrong, it is horribly unclear. Energy is not a field representation. Energy is a property of things. Loosely speaking, "energy" is how we quantify a thing's ability to do work. More correctly, energy is the property we measure that is conserved due to the time-symmetry of the laws of physics.
If I was asked to explore the ontological significance of E=hf and E=mc^2, I would start with a discussion of quantum field theory. QFT is the theory that unifies relativity and quantum mechanics. I.e. It is the theory which obtains both the relations E=mc^2 and E=hf. Depending on the audience, this might require prerequisite talks on relativity and quantum mechanics. I might also take the liberty of pushing my preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics during these talks. After QFT was introduced, the discussion would ultimately end on a presentation of the candidate ontologies for quantum field theory.
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 Morbert
The above is half straw-man, and half incorrect.
Nonsense. More obfuscation and lack of specifics.
Quote:
The mathematics is indeed only mathematics. To quote Einstein: "as far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality".
This doesn't, of course, mean our understanding of reality shouldn't be informed by what we observe of it. The patterns of photons in a double slit experiment are precisely the kind of observations used to inform our understanding of reality.
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.
Quote:
Firstly, I would not use phrases like "the field representation we call energy". Not only is it wrong, it is horribly unclear. Energy is not a field representation. Energy is a property of things. Loosely speaking, "energy" is how we quantify a thing's ability to do work. More correctly, energy is the property we measure that is conserved due to the time-symmetry of the laws of physics.
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.
Quote:
If I was asked to explore the ontological significance of E=hf and E=mc^2, I would start with a discussion of quantum field theory. QFT is the theory that unifies relativity and quantum mechanics. I.e. It is the theory which obtains both the relations E=mc^2 and E=hf. Depending on the audience, this might require prerequisite talks on relativity and quantum mechanics. I might also take the liberty of pushing my preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics during these talks. After QFT was introduced, the discussion would ultimately end on a presentation of the candidate ontologies for quantum field theory.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
Your concept of a unified field is an interesting one, but physicists still cannot develop a unified model consisting of many fields, let alone a single unified field. Certainly the idea is supportable by science, but only in the same sense that the LeGuin's ansible, Le'Engle's tesseract, or Adams' planetary computer are supportable. That is they take an idea in physics as a jumping off point, and weave imagination around it.
If you believe the science I am using is in the same category as Ursula's, Madeleine's and Douglas's Sci Fi ideas . . . you really don't understand it at all. I accept the blame for my communication issues. But what I seek to do is not easy . . . translating the implications of physics for a lay audience. Morbert refuses even to try it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
It isn't a bad idea, and it could be possible, but even if it were so, we appear to be decades if not centuries away from getting there. The science simply doesn't get us there. But rather than focusing on these parts I am trying to examine the closer, more grounded concepts in your idea. Because if those fundamental things are not correct, do not fit the extant science, then there is no point in going further.
You currently stand alone in your assessment of my idea and its plausibility. I agree about getting the science right . . . but that is very different from getting the implications right and communicating them without jargon to a lay audience. No one has pointed out any significant errors in the presented science . . . just in the implications drawn and the methods of communicating them. To date no alternative attempts have been offered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
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.
What do you base this on? The physics seems to indicate that it is. Or rather, that it is not a fundamental "something" at all, but rather a property, a measured attribute of a "something". A particle is not made of energy, it has it in the same way a building has height, or a bowl of potatoes has temperature. Likewise a field has energy, but is not made of it.
Everything is a vibratory "event" representing a manifestation of the underlying field. Measurements capture and discretize the characteristics of these "events" as separate things. To the extent that they exhibit some permanence (standing wave property) we consider them separate objects or things. When we cannot measure some "events" at the same time we tend to get confused (Heisenberg). We are not excluded. We are "events" characterized by the standing wave property. Our semi-permanence in our physical form is achieved by reiteration. [Our Spirit (consciousness) achieves actual permanence in its uniquely energic form, IMO.]
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
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.
This simply makes no sense logically. Substitute some words here, "The building simply manifests differently when we measure and identify it as height.", and you can see this doesn't make any sense at all. If reality is an underlying unified field, then that is what it is. It is not energy, though it may possess it, any more than a building becomes height when you measure it.
What you measure exists because you measure it. It is how the field manifests when you capture it. The field manifesting as a building is not height . . . but the aspect of the field that you capture in your measurement is what we call its height. That aspect DOES exist in the specific standing wave manifestation of field we call a building. The characteristic of the field that we call height DOES exist as measured.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
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).
If this indeed is what you mean to say, then you must straightway give up your idea that this is supportable by the physics! Energy and mass may be equivalent, and may even be measurements of the same "stuff" at the bottom, but there is no physics to support the idea that mass/energy == matter or fields. They are different things, one is a metric, the other is our current understanding of the reality of the thing.
You are making unnecessary and confusing distinctions between the attributes of the field and the field. We only know about the underlying field through its exhibited and/or measured attributes. When we manipulate those attributes mathematically it can reveal other characteristics that enable us to discern its state. Of course measures are metrics and the math employs various specific ones to manipulate them. That has nothing to do with whether or not they contain information about the underlying reality we want to understand. The characteristics of those measures are definite clues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo
Maybe you can spell out, for instance, what special relativity tells you about the ontology reality? Ideally, you can build from there to your grand idea, as opposed to starting form the unified field and working backwards. That method is particularly susceptible to confirmation bias, and distortion of the underlying physics, because you already have a goal in mind...
-NoCapo
I have been doing so repeatedly and for many iterations with many interlocutors. I am the only one who has sought to bring the material down to earth in a comprehensible form. The formalisms of the science will never do that. It certainly is not appropriate in this forum.
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.
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.
