Maartenn100 general theories of physics & philosophy - Part II

Maartenn100 said:
I do not believe in a Big Bang model. The socalled observations are actually interpretations of observations.
You just observe radiation and you interprete it as QM events one second after the BB.

I believe in a timeless non-local universe of objects and events in an undefined state which need at least one existing conscious observer to have a timescale and localisation of the objects and the events.
That doesn't make the timescale or the space unreal. It only makes time (and space) and temporal and spatial properties of objects relative.

The problem with your Big Bang model is that it doesn't explain the most important variable in the universe: your own existence as a concious being. You must put 'consciousness' or 'observers' into the equations. Otherwise, your theory is not a description of reality.
Click to expand...
Hilite by DaylighstarWhy would conscious existence be a variable and not a constant?
 
There are two 'things' in nature, which are abstract and not observable:

Spacetime (block universe interpretation)
and
the observer (cannot be find in the matterial world: is nowhere described in physics. It's the zero point of the reference frame in mathematics. A blind spot in the observations).

These two invisible and abstract entities, which cannot be observed are more real/more absolute then our (relative) observations of space and time.

I experience, therefore I am. That's the only certainty you have.
Spacetime is absolute.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
You must see it this way:

There are two 'things' in nature, which are abstract and not observable:

Spacetime (block universe interpretation)
and
the observer (cannot be find in the matterial world. (is nowhere described in physics. It's a zero in mathematics).

These two invisible and abstract entities, which cannot be observed are more real/more absolute then our (relative) observations of space and time.
Click to expand...

If this is a reply to my question above, it fails to answer it. Let's try again:
Why would conscious existence be a variable and not a constant?
 
Daylightstar said:
If this is a reply to my question above, it fails to answer it. Let's try again:
Why would conscious existence be a variable and not a constant?
Click to expand...

I totally agree: it's a constant.
The observer, the speed of light in vacuüm and spacetime are the three absolute constants in nature.
When you have these three constants together, a 3-dimensional observable world comes into existence.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
I totally agree: it's a constant.
The observer, the speed of light in vacuüm and spacetime are the three absolute constants in nature.
When you have these three constants together, an 3-dimensional observable world comes into existence.
Click to expand...

Who are you agreeing with? I didn't say conscious existence is a constant.
Now I get to ask you why conscious existence is a constant and not a variable?
You wanted to put a variable in an equation, I quoted your statement in this post. I could link to your post where you made that statement but I just saw you are still busy editing that (and other) post(s).

What is the value of this constant?
 
Maartenn100, you should better think about what you want to post, instead of editing your posts frantically, even after a reply has been made.

You come across as dishonest.
 
Reality-Check,

I believe in the philosophical idea of the block universe of MIT professor Bradley Skow. Physicist Brian Greene also believes in this idea of spacetime as a block universe where past-present and future exist together.
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44ngv-8b8FM

You interprete an idea about the universe as 'ignorance of physics'.
It's not 'ignorance of physics' because it includes another 'constant' in nature, an unobservable and uncountable constant in nature.
The observer.
You want to explain the whole reality with physics, but your description doesn't explain consciousness. The most important 'thing' in your existence is not part of your physics.
My model of reality includes consciousness. That's the difference with your model of reality. my model includes us.

We, Reality-Check, exist.
So, we must be part of the description of nature.
That's no 'ignorance of physics'.
That's trying (with trial and error) to form a theory where consciousness is part of.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
There is no deduction - just an incoherent post that looks like high school level philosophy and thus no "logical deduced idea".
Click to expand...

Again, give me arguments why it 'looks like high school level philosophy and thus no 'logical deduced idea'?
You will only be able to convince me with arguments.

What's wrong about this reasoning:

The past doesn't exist.
The future isn't here.
The actual moment has no duration at all (because a duration means 'a past')

Ergo: time does not exist.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
I believe indeed in the philosophical idea of the block universe of MIT professor Bradley Skow. Physicist Brian Greene also believes in this idea of a block universe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44ngv-8b8FM

You interprete an idea about the universe where consciousness is part of as 'ignorance of physics'.
It's not 'ignorance of physics'.
You want to explain the whole reality with physics, but your description doesn't explain consciousness. The most important 'thing' in your existence.
My model of reality includes consciousness. That's the difference. It can describe more.
Click to expand...
Hilite by Daylightstar
Not however the most important thing in the existence of the universe.
 
Maartenn100: Beliefs without supporting evidence are religion, not science

Maartenn100 said:
I do not believe in a Big Bang model. The socalled observations are actually interpretations of observations.
Click to expand...
Your beliefs do not mean anything, Maartenn100.
7 April 2016 Maartenn100: Beliefs without supporting evidence are religion, not science :jaw-dropp!

The overwhelming evidence for the Big Band means that we are actually observing evens 1 second and 379,000 years after the Big Bang

Well duh, Maartenn100 :p: "time is relative, observer-dependent" happens to be special and general relativity!

You end with some real ignorance:
7 April 2016 Maartenn100: The Big Bang is a cosmological model not biology!
It has nothing to do with biology and the emergence of our consciousness.
 
Maartenn100 said:
There are two 'things' in nature, which are abstract and not observable: ...
Click to expand...
Repeating ignorance is bad, Maartenn100.
  • There is no "block universe interpretation" of spacetime.
    There is the philosophical concept of block universe.
    There is the physical concept of spacetime.
  • The observer is found everywhere in physics.
 
Maartenn100 said:
Reality-Check,

I believein the philosophical idea of the block universe of MIT professor Bradley Skow. Physicist Brian Greene also believes in this idea of a block universe where past-present and future exist together.
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44ngv-8b8FM

You interprete an idea about the universe as 'ignorance of physics'.
It's not 'ignorance of physics' because it includes another 'constant' in nature, an unobservable and uncountable constant in nature.
The observer.
You want to explain the whole reality with physics, but your description doesn't explain consciousness. The most important 'thing' in your existence.
My model of reality includes consciousness. That's the difference. It can describe more.
Click to expand...
Hilite by Daylighstar
You don't have a model for reality, Maartenn100. You have some vague non-specific notions suitable for a 12 year old, expressed accordingly.

Nothing more. Your notions are of no real concern to anyone .... or anything :)
 
I only see here: 'error, error, I can't process this, error'
Because an undefinable, unmeasurable feature like 'consciousness' is part of the theory.

Reality-Check said:
The observer is found everywhere in physics.
Click to expand...
.
Where in physics do they talk about consciousness, Reality-Check?
Please, give at least three examples.
 
Maartenn100 said:
Reality-Check,
Click to expand...
Maartenn100, linking to an hour long video still does not support an assertion that Brian Greene believes in the philosophical concept of block universe :jaw-dropp!

I interpret your stated ignorance of physics as ignorance of physics.
7 April 2016 Maartenn100: Ignorance of physics and what the block universe is has lead to a misrepresentation of what Brian Greene wrote.

A "block" (so far that is your words, not Greene's) of 2D slices of space + a separate time is normal spacetime (3D space + time) :jaw-dropp.

Eternalism (philosophy of time)
Eternalism is a philosophical approach to the ontological nature of time, which takes the view that all points in time are equally "real", as opposed to the presentist idea that only the present is real[1] and the growing block universe theory of time in which the past and present are real while the future is not. Eternalism is the view that each spacetime moment exists in and of itself. Modern advocates often take inspiration from the way time is modeled as a dimension in the theory of relativity, giving time a similar ontology to that of space (although the basic idea dates back at least to McTaggart's B-Theory of time, first published in The Unreality of Time in 1908, only three years after the first paper on relativity). This would mean that time is just another dimension, that future events are "already there", and that there is no objective flow of time. It is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory due to its description of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional "block",[2] as opposed to the view of the world as a three-dimensional space modulated by the passage of time.
Click to expand...
 
I only see here: 'error, error, I can't process this, error'
Because an undefinable, unmeasurable feature like 'consciousness' is part of the theory.

Originally Posted by Reality-Check
The observer is found everywhere in physics.
Click to expand...
.
Where in physics do they talk about consciousness, Reality-Check?
Please, give at least three examples.
 
[QUOTE="Reality-Check]There is the philosophical concept of block universe.[/QUOTE]

And I agree with this idea of philosopher and MIT professor Bradford Skow that space-time is a 'block universe' where the past, present and future all exist together.
 
Last edited:
Reality-Check, do you really think that a philosopher at MIT, who is trained in logical reasoning, will use false premisses to draw invalid illogical conclusions?
I expect from a professor at MIT that he studied the physics and based his philosophical conclusions about the nature of spacetime on some solid scientific concepts.
 
Last edited:
Reality-Check said:
The observer is found everywhere in physics.
Click to expand...

Where in physics do they talk about consciousness, Reality-Check?
Please, give at least three examples.
__________________
 
Consciousness is irrelevant in your model of the world, Reality-Check, I know that.
You think you can describe the whole nature of things with physics alone.

There is however this invisible variable, unmeasurable, undetectable and not deducable:
your experience of reality: the existence of consciousness in this world.

That's a part of nature.

And in my opinion: a crucial part of nature.

Science is incapable to describe this part of reality.
But maybe, this part of reality is connected to the objective, measurable world in an unforeseen way.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100: What makes all of the other philosophies of space and time incorrect

Maartenn100 said:
Reality-Check, do you really think that a philosopher at MIT, who is trained in logical reasoning, will use false premisses to draw invalid illogical conclusions?
Click to expand...
No I do not. I also know what he is talking about - philosophy not physics. Do you understand that philosophy is not physics, Maartenn100 :jaw-dropp?
7 April 2016 Maartenn100: Spacetime is physics, block universe is philosophy.

ETA:
MIT philosophy professor Bradley Skow has drawn correct conclusions about space and time philosophy. Other philosophers exist, Maartenn100. They have also drawn valid logical conclusions about space and time that are different from Skow :eek:!
7 April 2016 Maartenn100: What makes all of the other philosophies of space and time from other (often prominent) philosophers incorrect?
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
Consciousness is irrelevant to you, Reality-Check, I know that.
Click to expand...
No Maartenn100 - you imagine it.
Consciousness is relevant to me when I am writing about consciousness :eye-poppi!
These posts are not about consciousness.
7 April 2016 Maartenn100: Trusting Lanza's opinion of the weak anthropic principle and cherry picking of one reference is not good.
7 April 2016 Maartenn100: Beliefs without supporting evidence are religion, not science!
7 April 2016 Maartenn100: The Big Bang is a cosmological model not biology and the emergence of consciousness!
7 April 2016 Maartenn100: Ignorance of physics and what the block universe is has lead to a misrepresentation of what Brian Greene wrote.
7 April 2016 Maartenn100: Spacetime is physics, block universe is philosophy.
7 April 2016 Maartenn100: The observer is found everywhere in physics!
 
Is an idea about spacetime (a concept of physics) physics or philosophy, Reality-Check?
When a physicists thinks that spacetime is like 'a block universe'. Is he doing physics (cosmology) or philosophy?
 
Last edited:
I have some other questions for you, Reality-Check:

Do you think you can measure or deduce the existence of consciousness in nature with science as an instrument when you are a philosophical zombie (you can't have subjective experiences like qualia)?

When you cannot discover consciousness in nature with you measuring device, (other mind problem etc.), how do you describe the existence of consciousness with science?

You can't, can you?
 
Last edited:
You know, Reality-Check, it's logically valid to say:

When a scientist can't discover consciousness in nature with his instrument (not with his personal experience) in a brain and a nerv system (or some other organic materials), then consciousness is not part of the material world.

The incapability of science to discover consciousness in an organism (other mind problem) implies the fact that consciousness is not part of the material observable world.
 
Last edited:
Maartenn100 said:
You know, Reality-Check, it's logically valid to say:
Click to expand...
nonsense about the real world? Where consciousness is an area of scientific study. Consciousness: Scientific study

ETA: Of course (as you must know!) the biggest problem is that consciousness is defined differently by different people. A core part of consciousness is self-awareness and that is not seen to exist in young children (less than ~18 months).
 
Last edited:
Your link says:

"For many decades, consciousness as a research topic was avoided by the majority of mainstream scientists, because of a general feeling that a phenomenon defined in subjective terms could not properly be studied using objective experimental methods".

How exactly are you going to study the content of a dream of an organism (like an animal f.e.) with your brainscanner, Reality-Check?
 
Maartenn100 said:
Your link says:
Click to expand...
That is the first sentence in my link, Maartenn100. Can you read more than a sentence:
For many decades, consciousness as a research topic was avoided by the majority of mainstream scientists, because of a general feeling that a phenomenon defined in subjective terms could not properly be studied using objective experimental methods.[70] In 1975 George Mandler published an influential psychological study which distinguished between slow, serial, and limited conscious processes and fast, parallel and extensive unconscious ones.[71] Starting in the 1980s, an expanding community of neuroscientists and psychologists have associated themselves with a field called Consciousness Studies, giving rise to a stream of experimental work published in books,[72] journals such as Consciousness and Cognition, Frontiers in Consciousness Research, and the Journal of Consciousness Studies, along with regular conferences organized by groups such as the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness.[73]

Modern medical and psychological investigations into consciousness are based on psychological experiments (including, for example, the investigation of priming effects using subliminal stimuli), and on case studies of alterations in consciousness produced by trauma, illness, or drugs. Broadly viewed, scientific approaches are based on two core concepts. The first identifies the content of consciousness with the experiences that are reported by human subjects; the second makes use of the concept of consciousness that has been developed by neurologists and other medical professionals who deal with patients whose behavior is impaired. In either case, the ultimate goals are to develop techniques for assessing consciousness objectively in humans as well as other animals, and to understand the neural and psychological mechanisms that underlie it.[39]
Click to expand...
That is 36 years of mainstream research into consciousness.
 
You are avoiding all the questions, Reality-Check.

You don't seem to be familiar with 'the other mind problem'.
It's a fact of nature that you cannot know for certain that other people have minds.
Your scientific method cannot discover consciousness in nature AT ALL.
That's a fact.
 
How exactly are you going to study the content of a dream of an organism (like an animal f.e.) with your brainscanner, Reality-Check?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom