Nothing exists outside the mind

[John W. Kelly]

[quote="kake"] The chair doesn't exist but in our head. Hell, the electrons don't even exist. [quote]
Then what happens when you kick the chair? As for the electrons, I'll take the leap of faith that we can predict their existence

[ray]

Nothing exists outside the mind.

Anybody want to contend?

I challenge anyone to show me that things actually exist. I'm not up for arguing a point, I'm up for finding truth.

So, let me get this right.

You say nothing exists and still you want to find the truth.



Perhaps you need to make up your mind:

Does it or doesnt it.

[Psychonaut]

nothing exists outside the mind ≠ nothing exists

[Arising_uk]

...As for the electrons, I'll take the leap of faith that we can predict their existence

Isn't that probably predict their existence JWK?

[Psychonaut]

The electron is a model used to explain the micro-level mathematics behind certain macro-level interactions.

Nothing more. Any scientist, or other person, that claims 'the electron exists' in any metaphysical (or physical) sense is a dick, ipso facto, QED.

[Arising_uk]

The electron is a model used to explain the micro-level mathematics behind certain macro-level interactions.

Nothing more. Any scientist, or other person, that claims 'the electron exists' in any metaphysical (or physical) sense is a dick, ipso facto, QED.

Is it so clear cut with respect to "exists"? As in some cases we manipulate the micro-level mathematical model to allow us to predict the existence of certain macro-level interactions? Hence the Periodic table allowed the discovery of many elements that were 'unknown'. I think there's a case in Molecular Chemistry(?) where a carbon form was predicted from the math. So I guess they'd make metaphysical existence at least?

[Psychonaut]

Nope, the model is truly in the math, the idea of the electron as a physical entity is just a way of explaining math.

[Arising_uk]

Nope, the model is truly in the math, the idea of the electron as a physical entity is just a way of explaining math.

I agree that the 'model' of the 'electron' has a mathematical aspect and as such is 'in the math'' but since I disagree that Physics is Mathematics, because I think that Mathematics is alike Logic and is based upon a 'state of affairs', whereas Physics is based upon "what there apparently is?"(but give them respect as they do say that the "electron" which probably 'exists', 'exists' only to a very high degree of probability). So I think that all possible mathematical theorems are already given(but I stand to be corrected). So the job is too decide how 'one' 'understands' the idea that a 'state of affairs' is in existence? So it boils down to what we can predict to exist against what exists(one of the 'goat-boys' points I'd guess?) You say its the 'Maths' and I ask you what you mean by this as to me its being this thing that can argue about it "being the maths" given that its obviously not about the 'math' with respect to us?

[Psychonaut]

By saying its the math, I am not saying that it has the certainty of mathematics. It is taking the patterns of occurences and using the math to make a prediction of outcomes from certain actions, obviously always revisable.

I agree that the 'electron' exists to a degree of probability, wherein I mean 'electron' to be a subsection of the mathematical formula.

I do not think that these formulas can ever pertain to what is 'us', or what we or anything else are ultimately composed of.

The 'laws' of physics only hold insofar as they are observed to hold, and there is no reason to suppose that any of these laws pertain to anything other than our locality in the perceived past. That is to say, they do not hold at all in any universal sense, which is why the notion of a unifying model is a truly misguided affair. Even to the degree to which they pertain to the observed locality and past, this should not be taken, imo, to mean that they say anything about the fundamental nature of even that which has been observed. We do it cos flawed as it is, its the best way we have.

[Arising_uk]

By saying its the math, I am not saying that it has the certainty of mathematics. It is taking the patterns of occurences and using the math to make a prediction of outcomes from certain actions, obviously always revisable.

So we agree? That it is the 'state of affairs' that comes first? But that we can make predictions that the Math say 'must' be true if the premises are true means we can say what will be true if we test?

I agree that the 'electron' exists to a degree of probability, wherein I mean 'electron' to be a subsection of the mathematical formula.

I think differently. I think this 'electron' does proably exist and this is reflected in the ability for a sub-section of Mathematics to apply. Because Maths is like Logic to me and in Logic if the 'state of affairs' is identified then all the possible relations and functions, and combinations of such, that are available to that 'state of affairs' is then available, within the restriction of time. But due to recorded meaning 'we' can escape that restriction as well.

I do not think that these formulas can ever pertain to what is 'us', or what we or anything else are ultimately composed of.

Depends what you mean? If its all a Sim then obviously not, hence the Noumena but Science has shown us that we can produce functional equivalents for our sense for whatever it is that is going on. Given that we can have such a model then we can 'bootstrap' upon this assumption and deduct from the axioms what may be possible and check with the current 'state of affairs' if it is? If we 'fill' all the possible 'states of affairs' then there appears to me to be a slim chance that we could notice where the 'inputs and outputs' of the 'sim' occur. Or at least where our Logic does not apply with respect to 'reality'. Not sure what we could do with such knowledge but do think that if this is a AL simulation then they are either searching for 'new' algorithms, we're in a kid's Sims, we may be what 'they've' 'been' 'searching for', 'its' calculating something else and we are a by-product, 'its' calculating something else and we are an unexpected by-product(my personal favourite). What does appear true is that so far it appears to be all perception, communication and information.

The 'laws' of physics only hold insofar as they are observed to hold, and there is no reason to suppose that any of these laws pertain to anything other than our locality in the perceived past. That is to say, they do not hold at all in any universal sense, which is why the notion of a unifying model is a truly misguided affair. Even to the degree to which they pertain to the observed locality and past, this should not be taken, imo, to mean that they say anything about the fundamental nature of even that which has been observed. We do it cos flawed as it is, its the best way we have.

That there is a problem with Induction is a problem of Philosophy. But the 'laws of Physics'(to my understanding) have recently been understood as 'lawlike' laws, not Law. The rules of Logic are Laws of Thought and a job of Physics is to examine which 'states of affairs' occur such that a proposition of Logic when interpreted as Physics is true at this state. 'Laws' are where they are near probable 'tautologies', i.e. we have pretty much done the 'whole' possible 'truth-table'.

[LysergicMan]

Everyone calm down....eat LSD....and experience the Truth yourselves

[kennethamy]

You must have excellent eyes to be able to see electrons. I thought they were way too small to be seen even by the most powerful microscope. And here you tell me that you (and I?) can see electrons when you hold up a chair. That is amazing? I can see only the chair.

[effie]

I haven't read the posts thoroughly,but I can tell you one thing: reality exists,no matter how we interpret it. A chair truly exists,either we interpret it as a solid wooden mass or as a bunch of electrons-it's just a matter of perspective. So everything exists outside the mind. On the other hand, what we perceive exists only inside the mind. So simple.
Don't confuse perception with reality,that's the most arrogant and crucial human mistake. We all are convinced that only what we know truly and objectively exists. However this opinion is constantly being proved wrong,especially by science, but we are too stubborn to get rid of it. That's exactly how mind works-it needs to be sure that it's effective and that it contains all the necessary information. In other words, it is engaged to form a total impression of a phenomenon even if it's based on few data. If you want to reach knowledge,you have to overcome this natural necessity. I know that what I wrote doesn't make any sense because it's been a while since I last wrote in English, but I just wanted to get it out of my system, so forgive me

Kennethamy,people DO see electrons. As a matter of fact,people that have recovered from innate blindness report that in the beginnig all that they can see is light. LAter they are TRAINED to see chairs,beds etc exactly like you and me. The only difference is that we were trained when we were really young,so we don't actually recall it.

[wiseman80]

Anybody want to contend?

I challenge anyone to show me that things actually exist. I'm not up for arguing a point, I'm up for finding truth.

For example, show me a chair. You can't, because when you hold up a chair I see billions of electrons. The chair doesn't exist but in our head. Hell, the electrons don't even exist. There is no base particle so really nothing exists but movement, and the mind's attempt to hold that movement still and make a structure out of it.

Try this experiment: Take a chair that doesn't exist and give it to your friend. Ask him to crash it into the back of your head in a completely dark room.

The experiment verifies that you cannot see electrons, but can you feel it?

[kennethamy]

Anybody want to contend?

I challenge anyone to show me that things actually exist. I'm not up for arguing a point, I'm up for finding truth.

For example, show me a chair. You can't, because when you hold up a chair I see billions of electrons. The chair doesn't exist but in our head. Hell, the electrons don't even exist. There is no base particle so really nothing exists but movement, and the mind's attempt to hold that movement still and make a structure out of it.

Try this experiment: Take a chair that doesn't exist and give it to your friend. Ask him to crash it into the back of your head in a completely dark room.

The experiment verifies that you cannot see electrons, but can you feel it?

Or stick your finger into the live light bulb socket of your lamp. That shock you get? That's electricity.