ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags dark matter

Reply
Old 10th April 2016, 12:05 PM   #161
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,020
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
That still does not answer the question.
How do you know that consciousness exists outside of you when according to you it is a fact of nature that you can never be certain that other people have minds and the scientific method can not discover it
Originally Posted by Daylightstar
So, Maartenn100, how do you think you know that consciousness exists outside of you?
You don't know that.
Learn and study something about the problem of other minds, Daylightstar. That's a fundamental problem in epistemology (philosophy).
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.

Last edited by Maartenn100; 10th April 2016 at 12:06 PM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2016, 12:30 PM   #162
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
You don't know that.
Learn and study something about the problem of other minds, Daylightstar. That's a fundamental problem in epistemology (philosophy).
But you claim you know:
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
...
My model of reality includes consciousness. ...
So, now tell us, Maartenn100, how do you think you know that consciousness exists outside of you?
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2016, 12:41 PM   #163
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,020
Yes, you do that too, isn't it, Daylightstar? Do you think that other people have minds, Daylightstar, or not?
Despite this problem of other minds, we assume that other people and other animals have minds. It's - in strictu sensu - an assumption.
But we can't be sure at all when it comes to robots, computers, electronical devices etc...
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.

Last edited by Maartenn100; 10th April 2016 at 12:43 PM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2016, 01:39 PM   #164
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Yes, you do that too, isn't it, Daylightstar? Do you think that other people have minds, Daylightstar, or not?
Despite this problem of other minds, we assume that other people and other animals have minds. It's - in strictu sensu - an assumption.
But we can't be sure at all when it comes to robots, computers, electronical devices etc...
The question concerns how you think consciousness exists outside of you. You like talking about consciousness all the time.
Is it because you think Lanza says so?:
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Robert Lanza wrote a book about biocentrism. He claims that consciousness is been proven the cause of the collapse of the wave function.
...
Or is it because you think Linde says so?:
Originally Posted by Maartenn100;11216661"... [B
I cannot imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores consciousness.[/b] ..."

I think that physicist Andrei Linde is right.

How do you think you know that consciousness exists outside of you .... or as you like to say it .... 'outthere'.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2016, 02:11 PM   #165
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,865
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Learn about mathematical realism? It explains what I want to tell you about this 4D-universe.
I am familiar with and have been familiar with mathematical realism and I still couldn't parse your statement, could you please rephrase


Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
I agree, but you can only have access to information in a present moment.
In our 3D-experience, there is only the present. And there is nothing else.
(see presentism)
Again that information is from the past. Again our experience does include time


Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
You have the illusion of motion in your mind. The information where the object was a fraction of a second ago is not accessible anymore for you, and the object is not yet arrived somewhere else. You only see one 'now-slice'. (terminology of Brian Greene).

Again if something is in one location before and another after, it moved regardless of what "illusion" you migth have in your mind. Again "The information where the object was a fraction of a second ago" can still be available to you any number of ways, for example...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision


Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
It's like music. Do you think there is a song outthere, The Man? No, you only hear one puls. That's it. And when you hear the next puls, the previous puls 'doesn't exist anymore'.
You experience a beautiful song, but actually, your conscious mind has only access to one puls.
It is "outthere" as sound waves. Depending on how your are facing that "one puls" can get to one ear and then the other later. Alternately if you prefer, one ear hears "one puls" while the other hears, well, another.



Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Indeed: accessibility to our consciousness is the crucial element here.
Consciousness is our accessibility to reality. It's a crucial factor.
So you have the same compliant about a 2D spacial map?

Funny, I certainly don't recall claiming anything even remotely like "accessibility to our consciousness is the crucial element here."


Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
In 'reality', not only all the locations are 'together', but all past and future locations are on that map too...
No the 2D map only shows the spacial locations at a particular time.


Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Yes, and this does not contradict anything of what I said before. You only have access to this information in one moment: the present.
Again, that assertion is disputed by the various ways in which information gets retained. In fact just that information gets to you from the past means something had to retain it for some time.

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
The information you got from the past can only be accessed in the present.
See above, you can also retain information specifically to come back to it in the future. Heck, reflect it as say sound or light and you can even make it come back to you in the future.


Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Yes, that's true. We only seem to be able to move forward in time.
So the future does become the past.


Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Of course, I was only talking about our position in time. Not in space. We also have access to one position/moment.
Yet we can still get and retain information from events at other locations and other times. So while we can retain information for future use and even project future events we just can't get information about those future events from the future. So it is not only us that can only move from the past to the future but also apparently information.


Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
There is no motion in the actual moment.
What evidence do you have for this assertion? Exactly how long is "the actual moment"?


Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
the 4D-manifold is not only all possible moments together, but also all possible positions of objects in the past, the present and the future together.
I'm quite familiar with a 4D manifold however that it simply maps space-time events doesn't support your assertions. In fact the mathematics for those maps are continuous...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_function

...while your assertions (about time) are discrete.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_mathematics
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2016, 02:27 PM   #166
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,812
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Contrary to what our senses tell us (our consciousness) we do not live in a measurable 3D-space-world....
There is no "we" here, Maartenn100. You may live in a 2D world or zero D or imaginary world where you are the only mind .
Other people know about rulers and the 3 measured dimensions of space!
Other people know the clocks and measured dimension of time!
Other people know that these can be combined into the measured dimensions of spacetime.
Other people know that there measurable dimensions can be modeled by mathematics and are not ignorant enough to think that the mathematical dimensions are the measured dimensions.
Reality Check is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2016, 02:32 PM   #167
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,812
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
What I'm talking about here is been known as the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation of quantummechanics.
No, Maartenn100. You are displaying your ignorance of the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation of quantum mechanics which is based on a mathematical 4D spacetime like other QM interpretations !
Quote:
In his 1932 book The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, John von Neumann argued that the mathematics of quantum mechanics allows for the collapse of the wave function to be placed at any position in the causal chain from the measurement device to the "subjective perception" of the human observer
(my emphasis added)
Reality Check is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2016, 03:30 PM   #169
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
From Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos: (Wikipedia)

Quote:
Part II: Time and Experience
Part II begins by addressing the issue that time is a very familiar concept, yet it is one of humanity's least understood concepts.

Chapter 5, "The Frozen River", deals with the question, "Does time flow?" One key point in this chapter deals with special relativity. Observers moving relative to each other have different conceptions of what exists at a given moment, and hence they have different conceptions of reality. The conclusion is that time does not flow, as all things simultaneously exist at the same time.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ

Last edited by Perpetual Student; 10th April 2016 at 03:32 PM.
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2016, 09:00 PM   #170
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,020
In my theory, presentism and eternalism can co-exist.
The world without observers can be explained by eternalism. (a block universe)
The experience of a measurable world by a conscious observer means presentism. (only the actual moment exists).

Eternalism and presentism doesn't have to contradict each other once you consider consciousness as part of reality.

I believe in interactionism in this world. Not in an objective detectable world without observers.
The interactive triade 'observer - c - 4D manifold = experiencing a measurable world.
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2016, 09:37 PM   #171
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,812
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
In my theory, presentism and eternalism can co-exist.
The is a fantasy based on ignorance, not theory, Maartenn100.
Eternalism (philosophy of time)
Quote:
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] ...
  • Presentism is the concept that only the present is real.
  • Eternalism is the concept that the past, present and future are equally real.
Reality Check is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2016, 02:40 AM   #172
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
In my theory, presentism and eternalism can co-exist.
The world without observers can be explained by eternalism. (a block universe)
The experience of a measurable world by a conscious observer means presentism. (only the actual moment exists).

Eternalism and presentism doesn't have to contradict each other once you consider consciousness as part of reality.

I believe in interactionism in this world. Not in an objective detectable world without observers.
The interactive triade 'observer - c - 4D manifold = experiencing a measurable world.
Maartenn100, could you stop trying to impress yourself and answer a question in a respectable fashion? For instance:

How do you think you know consciousness exists outside of you?
You claim that it can not be measured by apparatus or know by humans.

So, how do you think you know consciousness exists outside of you?
__________________
homeopathy homicidium

Last edited by Daylightstar; 11th April 2016 at 02:58 AM. Reason: insignificant typo.
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th April 2016, 01:39 PM   #173
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Yes, you do that too, isn't it, Daylightstar? Do you think that other people have minds, Daylightstar, or not?
Despite this problem of other minds, we assume that other people and other animals have minds. It's - in strictu sensu - an assumption.
But we can't be sure at all when it comes to robots, computers, electronical devices etc...
If I thought about them, they couldn't interfere!
Darwin123 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2016, 03:23 PM   #174
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,193
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
You don't know that.
Learn and study something about the problem of other minds, Daylightstar. That's a fundamental problem in epistemology (philosophy).
No, no, no, JUST NO!!! Philosophy is at best fun (for some neat wordplay games) but it answers nothing in any evidential way. While science came from it (eventually) it is NOT science. It's proofs do not prove anything except word consistency or inconsistency . That is not science. It is a question but it is a question that will either be answered by science or will never be answered.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2016, 03:26 PM   #175
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
No, no, no, JUST NO!!! Philosophy is at best fun (for some neat wordplay games) but it answers nothing in any evidential way. While science came from it (eventually) it is NOT science. It's proofs do not prove anything except word consistency or inconsistency . That is not science. It is a question but it is a question that will either be answered by science or will never be answered.
Looks to me like philosophy is for a bunch of flip floppers who think they are always on top of some game.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2016, 03:27 PM   #176
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,193
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Yes, you do that too, isn't it, Daylightstar? Do you think that other people have minds, Daylightstar, or not?
Despite this problem of other minds, we assume that other people and other animals have minds. It's - in strictu sensu - an assumption.
But we can't be sure at all when it comes to robots, computers, electronical devices etc...
As it is indeed an assumption, we get to return to what I just said: except it can't (so far) be proven in anything. Note, I am quite sure it does, but that is not the same as knowing from a scientific/experimental set of procedures/results that it does. Hope this helps!!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2016, 03:30 PM   #177
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
...
But we can't be sure at all when it comes to robots, computers, electronical devices etc...
... trees, rocks, spoons, light bulbs, wallpaper, funny putty.
Did you know that if you shape funny putty like a bunny, it will reproduce?
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2016, 09:05 AM   #178
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,020
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
No, no, no, JUST NO!!! Philosophy is at best fun (for some neat wordplay games) but it answers nothing in any evidential way. While science came from it (eventually) it is NOT science. It's proofs do not prove anything except word consistency or inconsistency . That is not science. It is a question but it is a question that will either be answered by science or will never be answered.
You do not seem to be famliliar with analytic philosophy. It's like scepticism on this forum, but on a much more advanced level...

"Analitical philosophy is a philosophical practice[2][3] characterized by an emphasis on argumentative clarity and precision (often achieved by means of formal logic and analysis of language) and a tendency to use, or refer to, mathematics and the natural sciences.[4][5][6]" Wikipedia.
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.

Last edited by Maartenn100; 15th April 2016 at 09:22 AM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2016, 11:34 AM   #179
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
You do not seem to be famliliar with analytic philosophy. It's like scepticism on this forum, but on a much more advanced level...

"Analitical philosophy is a philosophical practice[2][3] characterized by an emphasis on argumentative clarity and precision (often achieved by means of formal logic and analysis of language) and a tendency to use, or refer to, mathematics and the natural sciences.[4][5][6]" Wikipedia.
How do you think you know consciousness exists outside of you, Maartenn100?
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2016, 12:07 PM   #180
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,193
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
You do not seem to be famliliar with analytic philosophy. It's like scepticism on this forum, but on a much more advanced level...

"Analitical philosophy is a philosophical practice[2][3] characterized by an emphasis on argumentative clarity and precision (often achieved by means of formal logic and analysis of language) and a tendency to use, or refer to, mathematics and the natural sciences.[4][5][6]" Wikipedia.
You can argue with perfect clarity and precision and still come to an incorrect answer if your perceived facts were not actually scientifically correct/proven. Referring to mathematics and natural science is not the same as carefully finding and using clearly established mathematical procedures/formulae/practices correctly and as intended and properly evaluating and using material discoveries/studies/practices accepted in the natural sciences in ways they were intended to cover. ONLY.

Note: Wikipedia is not a source known to be perfect and always correct. I did not need much to catch the flaws in their phrasing as written in your quote - which I assume is exactly as Wiki had it.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2016, 12:17 PM   #181
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,193
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
You do not seem to be famliliar with analytic philosophy. It's like scepticism on this forum, but on a much more advanced level...

"Analitical philosophy is a philosophical practice[2][3] characterized by an emphasis on argumentative clarity and precision (often achieved by means of formal logic and analysis of language) and a tendency to use, or refer to, mathematics and the natural sciences.[4][5][6]" Wikipedia.
By the by: Analytic and analysis But analitical..............?????
Your doing or Wiki's.....
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2016, 12:42 PM   #182
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
 
ferd burfle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Just short of Zeta II Reticuli
Posts: 1,140
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
You do not seem to be famliliar with analytic philosophy. It's like scepticism on this forum, but on a much more advanced level...

"Analitical philosophy is a philosophical practice[2][3] characterized by an emphasis on argumentative clarity and precision (often achieved by means of formal logic and analysis of language) and a tendency to use, or refer to, mathematics and the natural sciences.[4][5][6]" Wikipedia.



Heavens to Betsy, won't you please do us the courtesy of reading the sources you cite, with lots of attention to comprehension? The article specifically said that analytical philosophy applies scientific and mathematical principles to philosophy; In other words, science and math are inputs to their philosophy and are not outputs. The output of their process is philosophy, not science. Your posting history suggests your process results in neither one.
__________________
Chicken is a vegetable-James May, vegetarian
A target doesn't need to be preselected-Jabba
ferd burfle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2016, 12:51 PM   #183
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
You do not seem to be famliliar with analytic philosophy. It's like scepticism on this forum, but on a much more advanced level...

"Analitical philosophy is a philosophical practice[2][3] characterized by an emphasis on argumentative clarity and precision (often achieved by means of formal logic and analysis of language) and a tendency to use, or refer to, mathematics and the natural sciences.[4][5][6]" Wikipedia.
Why do you even print this here? What you present in your threads is extremely far removed from that.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2016, 07:26 PM   #184
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,193
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
Why do you even print this here? What you present in your threads is extremely far removed from that.
Gives him something to do with our spare time.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2016, 01:43 AM   #185
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,020
Philosophy can tell us something about the bounderies of what we can know. (epistemology)
The main point is: the problem of other minds is a valuable concept. It doesn't matter wether this idea comes from philosophy or science. Nature is not devided in 'science' and 'philosophy'. The problem of other minds is a fact of nature.


analytic philosophy:


It's about:
epistemology (what can we know?)
philosophy of science: the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science.
Conceptual analysis.
Logica


It's advanced scepticism.
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.

Last edited by Maartenn100; 16th April 2016 at 01:59 AM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2016, 01:45 AM   #186
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Philosophy can tell us something about the bounderies of what we can know. (epistemology)
The main point is: the problem of other minds is a valuable concept. It doesn't matter wether this idea comes from philosophy or science. Nature is not devided in 'science' and 'philosophy'. The problem of other minds is a fact of nature.
How do you think you know consciousness exists outside of you, Maartenn100?
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2016, 02:36 AM   #187
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,786
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Philosophy can tell us something about the bounderies of what we can know. (epistemology)
The main point is: the problem of other minds is a valuable concept. It doesn't matter wether this idea comes from philosophy or science. Nature is not devided in 'science' and 'philosophy'. The problem of other minds is a fact of nature.
Well, since you didn't invent the concept, and you can only experience your own mind, the problem of other minds might be an illusion created by your mind.
Or it somehow just exists or might have been conceptualized by a mindless automaton. Solipsism isn't a very useful viewpoint.

And I'm at a loss about what minds and p-zombies have to do with physics.
You keep saying physicists should factor consciousness into their theories, but you've never explained how or even why.
Porpoise of Life is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2016, 03:05 AM   #188
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,020
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
I am familiar with and have been familiar with mathematical realism and I still couldn't parse your statement, could you please rephrase
Ok, I rephrase it: the block universe (reality) exists only as a timeless, non-local undetectable matematical entity. Like every mathematical entity, it can be conceptualised by a conscious mind. But it exists independent from minds. (see also: theory of forms (platonism))
The exisence of an observer introduces a timeline.

Originally Posted by De Man
Again that information is from the past. Again our experience does include time
Yes, but time or the experience of causality is a result of the combination 'a mind' and 'the existence of this timeless, non-local block universe'.

Originally Posted by De Man
It is "outthere" as sound waves. Depending on how your are facing that "one puls" can get to one ear and then the other later. Alternately if you prefer, one ear hears "one puls" while the other hears, well, another.
All events on every moment exist simultaneiously as spacetime. Where the wave was, is and shall be exists in the block universe together. You as an observer moves through spacetime and have the experience of causality. (the moving spotlighttheory (of consciousness)). You have access to one puls at a time and you have the 'experience' of a timeline, which you have to conceptualise.


Originally Posted by Maartenn100
In 'reality', not only all the locations are 'together', but all past and future locations are on that map too...
No the 2D map only shows the spacial locations at a particular time.

You wrote earlier:

Originally Posted by De Man
We do have access to it, again that you make a post expecting someone to read it later and then perhaps reply demonstrates this. Your only compliant seems to be that you can't access it all at once. Well, guess what, you can't access all the locations just on a 2D map of a 1 mile radius around you all at once either even though that map has everyone of those locations "together"."
You don't have access to it, you have to conceptualise this timeline, based on your observations. The timeline does not exist outhere. There is an existence of all things of all times and places together outthere in a timeless mathematical manifold.

Originally Posted by De Man
"So the future does become the past."
In our experience, yes.



Originally Posted by de man
Yet we can still get and retain information from events at other locations and other times. So while we can retain information for future use and even project future events we just can't get information about those future events from the future. So it is not only us that can only move from the past to the future but also apparently information.
This idea of causality (travelling from the past to the future) is only possible because of the existence of observers. In reality, in the block universe, the positions in spacetime (past, present, future) of every bit of information exists together in this (undetectable) timeless block unverse.
We have access to some information from the past, in our present, due to the fact that we are existing observers.
In a block universe, which is reality, all this information, on every moment in time and space and where and when it will be in the future, co-exist.
Where the sound/light wave was, is and shall be co-exist in the block universe. We as observers have only access to where this information from the past is on a particular moment and location.

[quote="Maartenn100"]
There is no motion in the actual moment.[quote]

Originally Posted by The Man
What evidence do you have for this assertion? Exactly how long is "the actual moment"?
Once the actual moment has a duration, it has a past and a possible future. It must be the smallest amount of time possible (Planck time) or zero. I assume, the planck time. But when it has a duration, it actually can be divided in a past and a possible future. So, it must be almost equal to zero.
(I actually don't know that)

Originally Posted by De Man
I'm quite familiar with a 4D manifold however that it simply maps space-time events doesn't support your assertions. In fact the mathematics for those maps are continuous...
It supports the idea of a block universe.
Consciousness establishes the experience of causality.
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.

Last edited by Maartenn100; 16th April 2016 at 03:26 AM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2016, 03:30 AM   #189
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,020
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
And I'm at a loss about what minds and p-zombies have to do with physics.
You keep saying physicists should factor consciousness into their theories, but you've never explained how or even why.
That's the problem with conciousness: there is no way to include this constant into equations or describe it in scientific terms. Scientists cannot define it.

But, consciousness is a part of reality, and a description of nature without this 'constant' of nature, is an incomplete description of reality.

More over, I think that consciousness has a lawful connection with the measurable reality.

So, I believe, that you can never find a TOE (a theory of everything) without considering consciousness as part of your theory.
Because the measurable world (physics) is - somehow - lawfully connected with consciousness.

Avoiding this problem of consiousness in the natural sciences will be seen as the biggest mistake of these times by future generations of philosophers and scientists.
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.

Last edited by Maartenn100; 16th April 2016 at 03:44 AM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2016, 03:50 AM   #190
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,389
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Avoiding this problem of consiousness in the natural sciences will be seen as the biggest mistake of these times by future generations of philosophers and scientists.
Plus ça change.. all up in Maartenn's world, I see.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2016, 08:03 AM   #191
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,865
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Ok, I rephrase it: the block universe (reality) exists only as a timeless, non-local undetectable matematical entity. Like every mathematical entity, it can be conceptualised by a conscious mind. But it exists independent from minds. (see also: theory of forms (platonism))
The exisence of an observer introduces a timeline.
No, time (as a dimension) and thus different temporal ordinal locations in time are part of the mathematics for the 4D map. As such and with your assertion of mathematical reality before they are thus part of that reality. Again you are trying to assert the existence of a "matematical entity", the 4D manifold, but just without the 4th D.


Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Yes, but time or the experience of causality is a result of the combination 'a mind' and 'the existence of this timeless, non-local block universe'.
No, the "experience of causality" is the result of, well, causality. Without it what you experience would have no causal relation to "the existence of" anything. Again the 4D manifold you have asserted as " non-local undetectable matematical entity" is explicitly not timeless.


Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
All events on every moment exist simultaneiously as spacetime. Where the wave was, is and shall be exists in the block universe together. You as an observer moves through spacetime and have the experience of causality. (the moving spotlighttheory (of consciousness)). You have access to one puls at a time and you have the 'experience' of a timeline, which you have to conceptualise.
Nope, even just the name "spacetime" explicitly invokes time as part of that continuum. Similarly the mathematics explicitly include it as a dimension. Which again means events can be separated in time just as they can in space.


Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
No the 2D map only shows the spacial locations at a particular time.

You wrote earlier:
I know what I wrote and that 2D map I proposed was spacial.


Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
You don't have access to it, you have to conceptualise this timeline, based on your observations. The timeline does not exist outhere. There is an existence of all things of all times and places together outthere in a timeless mathematical manifold.
Perhaps here is your confusion "all times and places together". Technically the 4D map displays them as not together but separated as different locations in time and/or space. The map simply being displayed all at once doesn't make the events it displays any more simultaneous then it does make them happen at the same spatial location. Again the map explicitly and mathematically distinguish between locations in time (as well as in space).

Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
In our experience, yes.
Not just our experience but the motion and direction of motion itself. That is all past and future are just directions along a temporal axis. Like left and right, up and down or front and back. They are all simply identifiers of ordinal directions along an axis.



Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post

This idea of causality (travelling from the past to the future) is only possible because of the existence of observers. In reality, in the block universe, the positions in spacetime (past, present, future) of every bit of information exists together in this (undetectable) timeless block unverse.
We have access to some information from the past, in our present, due to the fact that we are existing observers.
In a block universe, which is reality, all this information, on every moment in time and space and where and when it will be in the future, co-exist.
Where the sound/light wave was, is and shall be co-exist in the block universe. We as observers have only access to where this information from the past is on a particular moment and location.

No, ordering of and separation of locations is again an explicit aspect of the map and the mathematics of the map. You can't assert the existence of the map and or mathematics while denying the explicit ordering and separation of locations that map represents, well, unless you just want to be self-contradictory.

Once again it seems you want to deny just the temporal ordering and positioning represented by the 4d map while maintaining the spatial ordering and positioning. The map and mathematics just treats them all as dimensions. Again that was the point of the 2D spacial map to show you that you are treating spacial dimensions different.


Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Originally Posted by Maartenn100
There is no motion in the actual moment.


Once the actual moment has a duration, it has a past and a possible future. It must be the smallest amount of time possible (Planck time) or zero. I assume, the planck time. But when it has a duration, it actually can be divided in a past and a possible future. So, it must be almost equal to zero.
(I actually don't know that)
Even at zero time it doesn't eliminate "a past and a possible future" or what in geometrical terms would simply be preceding and succeeding locations along that axis.


Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
It supports the idea of a block universe.
Consciousness establishes the experience of causality.
No it doesn't and once again without causality as an aspect a prior of consciousness what you do consciously experience can have no causal relation to reality (block universe or otherwise). Don't forget that consciousness takes time, information only travels so fast. So the temporal limits on becoming aware of some information will far exceeded your "smallest amount of time possible" proposed above. Furthermore some information you simply, and at times deliberately, aren't conscious of, still it has causal affects. Again causality is just a temporal direction, cause preceding effect, mathematically, physically and mechanically it doesn't matter which direction that is, the mathematics, laws and mechanics are time symmetrical. So causality works fines in one direction as it does the other, the simple directional designations (cause and effect) like left and right, front and back or up and down just get reversed.

Heck, even your first quote above asserts such dimensions and directions (what the map and mathematics represent) "exists independent from minds". Your assertions are so convoluted and contrived, without any applicable understanding, to get what you apparently want (an observer created reality) that you can't even just agree with yourself.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2016, 08:10 AM   #192
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,865
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Avoiding this problem of consiousness in the natural sciences will be seen as the biggest mistake of these times by future generations of philosophers and scientists.

Specifically dealing with the know problems of consciousness, sub-consciousness and even unconsciousness, have been asspects of empirical and experimental science for generations. One of them is people trying to find ways to claim support for whatever they consciously, sub-consciously or even unconsciously want even if those claims are just self-contradictory.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2016, 09:17 AM   #193
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,020
I don't want an observer created universe.
I believe in conciousness, co-creating the universe. That's a subtle, but crucial difference.
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.

Last edited by Maartenn100; 16th April 2016 at 09:18 AM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2016, 09:54 AM   #194
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 37,836
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
I don't want an observer created universe.
I believe in conciousness, co-creating the universe. That's a subtle, but crucial difference.
The universe doesn't care what you want or believe in.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2016, 10:13 AM   #195
The Man
Scourge, of the supernatural
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,865
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
I don't want an observer created universe.
I believe in conciousness, co-creating the universe. That's a subtle, but crucial difference.

"co-creating" with what?

The distinction is neither "subtle" nor relevantly "crucial" again as the "matematical entity" you claim to be "reality" and "exists independent from minds" explicitly includes time.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2016, 10:24 AM   #196
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
I don't want an observer created universe.
I believe in conciousness, co-creating the universe. That's a subtle, but crucial difference.
I don't want...
I believe in...

This is not science; it is religion.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2016, 10:31 AM   #197
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,020
There are two options:

Consciousness is part of reality and has a lawful connection with the material world. Then it must be part of your theory of everything in the natural sciences. A TOE must describe consciousness.

Or

Consciousness is not lawfully connected to the material or physical world (described in the natural sciences), then you need to accept the logical consequence that the mind is not part of the describable natural world.
(mind-matter-duality)

You cannot have it both to be true.
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.

Last edited by Maartenn100; 16th April 2016 at 10:40 AM.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2016, 10:34 AM   #198
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,020
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
I don't want...
I believe in...

This is not science; it is religion.
No, this is part of the process of a thought experiment.
I have good reasons to believe in...
__________________

If the time interval of one second is everywhere the same for you, wherever you are in the universe, and you follow a straight path (in a curved spacetime) to you, your clock and your local idea of a straight path will determine what you will observe as being curved or expanded space outthere.
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2016, 10:45 AM   #199
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,037
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
Consciousness is part of reality and has a lawful connection with the material world. Then it must be part of your theory of everything in the natural sciences. A TOE must describe consciousness.
Why must a TOE describe consciousness? Must it also describe radios, waterfalls, and other stuff that exists in our world? Consciousness is just what happens when lots of neurons get together. All "lawfully connected".
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th April 2016, 10:46 AM   #200
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
No, this is part of the process of a thought experiment.
I have good reasons to believe in...
More religion! Belief has nothing to do with science.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:39 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.