Re: Einstein's train. All change, please.
Posted: Sun May 26, 2019 3:36 pm
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
seeds wrote: ↑Sat May 25, 2019 3:28 pmIn other words, we can never directly know or experience (as it really is) the exact nature of the noumenal-like underpinning of reality because any attempt to do so instantly transforms it into phenomena.
Quite an unfortunate dilemma for physicists, wouldn’t you agree?
Allegedly (according to the implications of certain theories), if life and consciousness were not an integral aspect of reality, then dissolving back into a noumenal state is exactly what would happen to the phenomenal features of the universe.
Right, and the question is: what is it that causes the ever-moving (ever-waving) quantum world to “freeze” at any given moment?
Assuming I’m getting the gist of what you're asking, then I suggest that if you can figure out what lies beneath and expresses itself as “the phenomenon generator” within the closed and subjective context of your own mind, you will then be on the right track to answering your question.
We often think of the universe as being an illusion because it is an illusion.
...but only if consciousness operates as the synthetic device or translator which yields each infinitesimal moment of a lower level abstraction into its corresponding reality as we perceive it through our own remodeling functions. In that sense, the universe is indeed an illusion...a thoroughly synthetic one.
For me, metaphorically speaking, it would be each infinitesimal moment of time which acts as lens and freezes the “the ever-moving (ever-waving) quantum world”, not unlike our most advanced cameras which can freeze even the fastest moving objects into explicit detail. In that sense time itself is the observer which creates the phenomenal output from its noumenal underpinnings or that which we denote as such. Even the quantum field is not noumenal relative to that which upholds it.seeds wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2019 9:18 pmRight, and the question is: what is it that causes the ever-moving (ever-waving) quantum world to “freeze” at any given moment?
In other words, what causes the informationally-based underpinning of the universe to yield-forth and display a sensory tangible phenomenon that the non-tangible (sensory inaccessible) information (the noumenon) represents?
..which, if it can be defined at all, can only succeed at the level in which it’s employed. What defines reality for us and our experience of the world has a very different denotation in its quantum state.
Yes, but one based on synthesis as supervised by degrees or types of consciousness. Envisioning reality as more of a highly ordered dream I think is an excellent way of putting it. When the “Doors of Perception” are in retreat the mind begins to blend with a different substratum of experience one that wouldn’t seem logical in its “normal” fixed state.seeds wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2019 9:18 pmWe often think of the universe as being an illusion because it is an illusion.
Not in the sense that it is a hallucination, or that there is nothing truly there, but in the fact that what we call “reality” is more like a highly ordered “dream,” for lack of a better word...
Yes, that conclusion may be sporadically felt when reality starts to wonder how real it actually is. For me the world resembles a description of a more potent reality which creates the one we acknowledge as The Reality.
That’s ok! God for me is just the short version for Nonentity except when spelled backwards.seeds wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2019 9:18 pm...(again, I submit this approximately 25 year old, 7.5 min video clip of me explaining what I mean by that, here - https://youtu.be/bVbpHy4nncA). (Warning - contains the word “God” in it )
Nice collection of quotes. What it ultimately all comes back to is consciousness - and what the f is that and how the f is that!uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 12:44 pm Fuck it, given up on that other thread.
Anyway, here's a couple of quotes to remind us what that was supposed to be about:
“I am among those who think that science has great beauty. A scientist in his laboratory is not only a technician, he is also a child placed before natural phenomenon, which impress him like a fairy tale.”
- Marie Curie
"What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space."
- Erwin Schrodinger.
“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.”
- Nikola Tesla
"We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images."
- Niels Bohr
"Most gravity has no known origin. Is it some exotic particle? Nobody knows. Is dark energy responsible for expansion of the universe? Nobody knows."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson
"All this is a dream. Still examine it by a few experiments. Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature; and in such things as these, experiment is the best test of such consistency."
- Michael Faraday
"Age, please leave this thread alone."
-Yours truly
Here's how I have tried to make a coherent model from all that: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com
seeds wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2019 3:48 am I suggest that Everett’s “Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” is perhaps the most ridiculous theory in existence (at least in terms of theories that are actually taken seriously by physicists).
That being said, I’d be interested in hearing why you think it might possibly be true.
I’m going to forego my usual tirade on this topic and instead offer-up something amusing about Everett’s Many-Worlds theory that people seldom consider.
Lemme paraphrase Mr Faraday: 'All this is a dream. Still examine it by a few experiments. Nothing is too ridiculous to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature; and in such things as these, experiment is the best test of such consistency.' Tell ya what, if you can cobble together an equation to match Schrödinger's that supports the tiny-toot theory, the Nobel Prize is nailed on.
Nicely stated, Dubious (as is your entire post).Dubious wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2019 10:17 pm ...but only if consciousness operates as the synthetic device or translator which yields each infinitesimal moment of a lower level abstraction into its corresponding reality as we perceive it through our own remodeling functions. In that sense, the universe is indeed an illusion...a thoroughly synthetic one.
seeds wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2019 9:18 pm Right, and the question is: what is it that causes the ever-moving (ever-waving) quantum world to “freeze” at any given moment?
In other words, what causes the informationally-based underpinning of the universe to yield-forth and display a sensory tangible phenomenon that the non-tangible (sensory inaccessible) information (the noumenon) represents?
You have offered some excellent metaphors.Dubious wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2019 10:17 pm For me, metaphorically speaking, it would be each infinitesimal moment of time which acts as lens and freezes the “the ever-moving (ever-waving) quantum world”, not unlike our most advanced cameras which can freeze even the fastest moving objects into explicit detail. In that sense time itself is the observer which creates the phenomenal output from its noumenal underpinnings or that which we denote as such. Even the quantum field is not noumenal relative to that which upholds it.
seeds wrote: ↑Sun May 26, 2019 9:18 pm ...(again, I submit this approximately 25 year old, 7.5 min video clip of me explaining what I mean by that, here - https://youtu.be/bVbpHy4nncA). (Warning - contains the word “God” in it)
Is that a nice way of telling me I need a psychiatrist?
Yes indeed, the Copenhagen boys (especially Heisenberg) were much more open to metaphysical abstractions than Einstein.Dubious wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2019 10:17 pm Much of what you say I’m not prone to disagree with as possibility since the quantum world is at least as paradoxical as anything our upstart imagination can devise. What the universe and dreams have in common (seems to me) is that what appears illogical and disjointed to consciousness makes complete sense to both the dream and the universe.
When it comes down to these manifest uncertainties Bohr and Heisenberg come across as profounder spirits than Einstein though people think of him as a god who understood everything.
Not at all, for I greatly appreciate your intelligent and critical thinking on these issues.
Time for me is an all encompassing process which creates or derives the phenomenal from its so-called noumenal underpinnings. Time is noumenal and doesn't cease once its more solidified aspect comes into being. Because time is change, nothing truly solid or unchangeable in the phenomenal regions of existence (as we encounter it) retains its state.
It's also possible that our situation in this universe is one of many that could have occurred. There is an assumption by humans that there's some kind of destiny implied by us being here and of something more purposeful beyond playing dice in winning the ultimate lottery. But like the god concept, there is absolutely nothing to justify it.seeds wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 10:52 pmHowever, I believe that Einstein was totally justified in proclaiming that “God does not play dice.” And that’s because, surely, the steadfast order with which universal reality presents itself to our senses is founded upon an even firmer ground of principles that we have yet to discover.
Definitely not! The reason I mentioned it was because Jung himself was very deep into graphic depictions of his visions and ideas in his "The Red Book: Liber Novus". If you haven't heard of it, I'm sure you will find it interesting.
Bingo! Pretty much what I say in the book. (Anyone remember that?) There is no more evidence that time is "noumenal" than there is for god. That's not to say that they don't exist, but we can happily get along without either. In the case of 'time' we are not measuring any 'flow', we are quite literally measuring change; from the expansion of the universe, to Earth going round the Sun and all the way down to the quantum leaps in atoms.
You may well be right, but's there's an alternative explanation in the book based on the mechanics of the universe we can see. Page 33 https://willybouwman.blogspot.com
Sorry old bean, but there seems to be a problem with your page numbering.uwot wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 7:27 amBingo! Pretty much what I say in the book. (Anyone remember that?) There is no more evidence that time is "noumenal" than there is for god. That's not to say that they don't exist, but we can happily get along without either. In the case of 'time' we are not measuring any 'flow', we are quite literally measuring change; from the expansion of the universe, to Earth going round the Sun and all the way down to the quantum leaps in atoms.You may well be right, but's there's an alternative explanation in the book based on the mechanics of the universe we can see. Page 33 https://willybouwman.blogspot.com
Well, fortunately for me I don't need to cobble together an equation, because Everett's work already supports my assertion.uwot wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2019 3:43 pm Lemme paraphrase Mr Faraday: 'All this is a dream. Still examine it by a few experiments. Nothing is too ridiculous to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature; and in such things as these, experiment is the best test of such consistency.' Tell ya what, if you can cobble together an equation to match Schrödinger's that supports the tiny-toot theory, the Nobel Prize is nailed on.
Well, the version on the blog isn't the finished product, but if you click on one of the images you get them in their full glory, and at the bottom you can scroll through all the pages and it is the number there I was referring to.
Thanks; it does.
One of the books I had to read as prep for my first degree in philosophy, many, many moons ago, was Bertrand Russell's 'The Problems of Philosophy' (Free to read for anyone who actually gives a fuck here: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5827 ). In it he made the point that (and I'm paraphrasing from memory) 'There is nothing illogical about the contention that the entire universe sprang into existence, along with the holes in my socks, five minutes ago.' Ya gotta drop that tab if yer gonna do this philosophy trip properly.seeds wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 1:03 pmI mean, what do you think “the tiny-toot theory” is based on?
Indeed, I am merely conveying to you precisely what the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics implies.
And what it implies is that all 7.7 billion of us humans presently functioning on planet Earth,...
(along with everything we understand to be “our universe”)
...quite possibly could have come into existence just a few seconds ago as the result of a short raspy blast of flatulence in an alternate universe.
Seriously, there is something rather than nothing, how much more absurd can it get?seeds wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 1:03 pmYeah, yeah, I know, according to Faraday, anything is possible as long as it doesn’t clash with the laws of nature.
Nevertheless, if the sheer weight of the absurdity of that vision isn’t enough to crush Everett’s theory for you, that’s fine, but at least be aware of its implications.