| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Reality
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Reality

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 968
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jul 2015 at 10:22
Quote There is no outer periphery.  It is just another part of the universe that we can't see.  Although what you said would apply to the surface of a black hole.  Since the reality that exists on the surface of the black hole is a neverending function which makes reality cease to exist.


Erm... No.

Information cannot be preserved on the 'surface' of a black hole because it becomes lost on the event horizonscattered and dispersed by gravitic effects. Since no-one knows exactly what a black hole is made of, you could hardly predict with any surety the preservation of information eithin within oor on the periphery of it. Incidentially, the 'never-ending' function of a black hole is not true - black holes evaporate (from Stephen Hawking).

The periphery in the theory is that of the universal boundary, whcih is beyond our current observable range. Interestingly though I understand that triangulations made in an attempt to measure the curvature of space reveal a very solid pythagorean symmetry, which effectively tells us that space is infinite in size, therefore has no boundary - but this does not exclude the possibility of finite multiverses within it. Already the microwave background map, which charts the decayed light from the Big Bang, has already indicated a possible 'bruise' where our universe and another collided.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jul 2015 at 11:06
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Just as there is no such thing as a little bit pregnant, I am not sure that there is anything that is a little bit indeterminate.

Welcome to the strange world of physics where things can both exist and not exist at the same time. Smile

Quantum physics in no way supports a mystical view of reality all it says is at tiny scales there are "random" events.  I have spent hours and thousands of words trying to explain what random means and do not care to repeat that effort but from a scientific perspective it simply mean unpredictable.  To the best of my knowledge there has never been any evidence that at larger scales random is a meaningful concept.

The exact nature of reality is unknown and does not exclude the possibility of reality being nothing more than the imagination of "god".  I have no interest in disproving the existence of "god" in the way Hawking or Dawkins seem to be obsessed with.  What is clear however is that those who try to prove the existence of "god" have failed miserably.  

We should not turn this into a debate over spiritualism and atheism as that is pointless.  On the other hand a philosopher should not dismiss science as irrelevant to their view of reality.

I do not hold the Pope nor the Dalai Lama in high regard, there are other philosophers who I believe have more to contribute in the long run to the universal attempt to understand what it means to be human.  The Pope and the Dalai Lama have more significance in the political world than as mystics or philosophers.  The recent comments by the Pope on Global Warming however does not give me much faith in the contribution of religious leaders in dealing with global politics constructively.  The Pope's comments seem more intune with the failed philosophies of Marx than realistic solutions to global problems.  In a world where decisions effect the physical well being of people understanding the nature of physical reality not mysticism nor even sentimentality is of greater importance.  Nonviolence and spiritual health our important contributions to social stability but they too have a very real physical dependance.    
 


Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1253
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jul 2015 at 03:42
Quote Clear as mud, or was I successful in giving you more to think about? Let me know and I will try to clarify (my mama always told me that I was _very_trying_<grin>)


Every reality is distinguishable from the greater part of society. And thank god! Or someone- for that. Would you say that Einstein and yourself share the same reality? You can speak about his theories but I'm sure you break down when asked to elaborate.

Yet you are 'allowed' to speak about Einstein's theories, they are accepted as factual representations of universal law. If everyone here, including you- only spoke about matters that they could define with scientific fluency than this would be a lonely place.

Boy bands are animated life forms, not reality as opposed to what?
Bible stories? Sorry if you are going to go there with reality please explain devotion to ancient cults.


The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 968
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jul 2015 at 13:28
Quote Yet you are 'allowed' to speak about Einstein's theories, they are accepted as factual representations of universal law.

Einsteins work describes particular physical relationships mathematically. Maths is, after all, a human conceopt designed to describe finite values (A report in scientific journals now suggests that the ages-old rules of arithmetic might actually be wrong. Not sure why, but someone studied the results and saw errors where none should be if the rules were 100% representative of relationships in the real world).

Einsteins work might at a later date be proven wrong, but for now, his equations provide correlative results that conform to scientific test and observation. Universal laws are not  intrinsic to reality - they're made up by us to describe and predict the world around us. The observable universe, for all its predictability, is after built upon the smaller quantum scale which is by its very nature far less predictable.

Quote please explain devotion to ancient cults.

A manifestation of human social behaviour. Whatever you say about spirituality, religions have very worldly objectives in most cases.


Edited by caldrail - 28 Jul 2015 at 13:29
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jul 2015 at 15:14
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Quote Yet you are 'allowed' to speak about Einstein's theories, they are accepted as factual representations of universal law.

Einsteins work describes particular physical relationships mathematically. Maths is, after all, a human conceopt designed to describe finite values (A report in scientific journals now suggests that the ages-old rules of arithmetic might actually be wrong. Not sure why, but someone studied the results and saw errors where none should be if the rules were 100% representative of relationships in the real world).

Einsteins work might at a later date be proven wrong, but for now, his equations provide correlative results that conform to scientific test and observation. Universal laws are not  intrinsic to reality - they're made up by us to describe and predict the world around us. The observable universe, for all its predictability, is after built upon the smaller quantum scale which is by its very nature far less predictable.

Quote please explain devotion to ancient cults.

A manifestation of human social behaviour. Whatever you say about spirituality, religions have very worldly objectives in most cases.

What are your thoughts on the almost mystic like philosophical writings of Einstein?
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1253
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jul 2015 at 18:39
Quote A manifestation of human social behaviour. Whatever you say about spirituality, religions have very worldly objectives in most cases.


I agree. It's that I know lots are people are religious by default. They unquestioningly accept the articles of faith but won't talk about telepathy with any serious interest.

Regarding Einstein you said;
Quote Einsteins work describes particular physical relationships mathematically. Maths is, after all, a human conceopt designed to describe finite values (A report in scientific journals now suggests that the ages-old rules of arithmetic might actually be wrong. Not sure why, but someone studied the results and saw errors where none should be if the rules were 100% representative of relationships in the real world).


I'm aware of the mathematical model of the universe. Surely gravity is as yet an irrefutable law. The math used by NASA to calculate speed, distance and velocity clearly correspond to physical laws. Even the height and weight of the astronauts are factored into linear equations. Isn't that what Einstein used to formulate his theory of relativity?
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2595
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Jul 2015 at 21:14
"I never studied law."  Bugs Bunny.

There is no gravity, the Earth sucks.

Watched a show on the evacuation of Vietnam, an officer on an aircraft carrier said that 34 people got off a Huey (which is made for 6 to 8), granted they were Vietnamese who are slight of frame and a good number of women and children.  But 34 people.  They can do that because they over-engineer, and I am sure that they over-engineer space craft, they definitely do so for probes and Mars rovers, which is why they say, "well, it was only supposed to last for 3 months, but 2 years later, we are still getting data, so we might as well collect it."  So yes, they do the math, but they also give themselves some wiggle room in case something goes wrong.  and of course they can't predict every possibility (like confusing km with miles, yes they did that with a Mars probe, parachute opened too soon/late, whatever, oops.).

As far as the Pope and the Dalai Lama are concerned, of course they're politicians.  They are leading and representing a community (a polis), which has its own agenda, I don't totally agree with that agenda, but I can appreciate their talent and intellect in articulating it, and promoting it.  But definitely, the Pope is not a good capitalist, there was an economic 'theory' put forth by Chesterton called 'distributivism' or something like that, which is kind of inbetween Capitalism and Communism.  And I have heard that the Dalai Lama has a Marxist streak in him, then again, no one is perfect.  People have this idea of Tibetian Buddhists being peaceful, but for a long time they executed foreigners who intruded on their kingdom.  
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jul 2015 at 12:43
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

"I never studied law."  Bugs Bunny.

There is no gravity, the Earth sucks.

Watched a show on the evacuation of Vietnam, an officer on an aircraft carrier said that 34 people got off a Huey (which is made for 6 to 8), granted they were Vietnamese who are slight of frame and a good number of women and children.  But 34 people.  They can do that because they over-engineer, and I am sure that they over-engineer space craft, they definitely do so for probes and Mars rovers, which is why they say, "well, it was only supposed to last for 3 months, but 2 years later, we are still getting data, so we might as well collect it."  So yes, they do the math, but they also give themselves some wiggle room in case something goes wrong.  and of course they can't predict every possibility (like confusing km with miles, yes they did that with a Mars probe, parachute opened too soon/late, whatever, oops.).

As far as the Pope and the Dalai Lama are concerned, of course they're politicians.  They are leading and representing a community (a polis), which has its own agenda, I don't totally agree with that agenda, but I can appreciate their talent and intellect in articulating it, and promoting it.  But definitely, the Pope is not a good capitalist, there was an economic 'theory' put forth by Chesterton called 'distributivism' or something like that, which is kind of inbetween Capitalism and Communism.  And I have heard that the Dalai Lama has a Marxist streak in him, then again, no one is perfect.  People have this idea of Tibetian Buddhists being peaceful, but for a long time they executed foreigners who intruded on their kingdom.  

All I can say is your more reasonable than most people I find on the internet.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 968
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jul 2015 at 14:14
Quote

What are your thoughts on the almost mystic like philosophical writings of Einstein?

I had no idea he ever wrote anything like that. It certainly hasn't impinged on western society anything like his scientific work.

Quote I'm aware of the mathematical model of the universe. Surely gravity is as yet an irrefutable law. The math used by NASA to calculate speed, distance and velocity clearly correspond to physical laws. Even the height and weight of the astronauts are factored into linear equations. Isn't that what Einstein used to formulate his theory of relativity?

Gravity exists but is not yet fully understood. Why, for instance, is it so fundamentally weaker than other forces? However our mathematical predictions have been tailored to our current understanding and for most purposes work quite well. However, I wouldn't assume that equations are linear as such. Einstein's results predict asymptotic results, tending toward infinity or reduction to zero, and the entire concept of einsteinian space/time is one of curved existence, in that the effect of mass is to distort the 'flatness' of three dimensional space, inferring that gravity is simply the result of the distortion and its 'steepness'
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jul 2015 at 21:40
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Quote

What are your thoughts on the almost mystic like philosophical writings of Einstein?

I had no idea he ever wrote anything like that. It certainly hasn't impinged on western society anything like his scientific work.

Einstein was a true determinist to the point that he probably didn't really believe in free will.  That and his failure to give credit to others is perhaps why I selected him to illustrate my point about the rejection of the necessity for experimental proof.   I will provide a quote and some additional comments.

Quote The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.

Einstein's brilliance is almost as clear in his philosophy as his science.  There is nothing in the above quote that I could argue against but it does give us the hint of a analogous substitution of the mind for the spiritual.  In other words Einstein's worship of intelligence is a substitute for god in his life despite his apparent modesty of "our dull faculties".  Even the substitution of emotions for intellect does nothing to dissuade the reader that the two are seperateble.  I find this odd for someone so deterministic that they would say "god does not play dice".  While he tries to convince his audience that "The separation of past, present and future is only a persistent illusion"  he fails to acknowledge the illusion that intellect and emotion are somehow separate from the environment an individual lives and develops in.   Philosophically I don't see how the perception of the universe should be deterministic and the individual mind not be.

 Here is a quote from Karl Popper relaying a conversation with Einstein.

Quote The main topic of our conversation was indeterminism. I tried to persuade him to give up his determinism, which amounted to the view that the world was a four-dimensional Parmenidean block universe in which change was a human illusion, or very nearly so. (He agreed that this had been his view, and while discussing it I called him "Parmenides".) I argued that if men, or other organisms, could experience change and genuine succession in time, then this was real. It could not be explained away by a theory of the successive rising into our consciousness of time slices which in some sense coexist; for this kind of "rising into consciousness" would have precisely the same character as that succession of changes which the theory tries to explain away

It may seem that I'm being contradictory here as I have argue that the world at scales above the quantum level is primarily deterministic and Einstein is clearly a determinist at some level.  What I'm trying to get at is the idea that Einstein does not see his own intellect or emotions deterministically.  If reality is deterministic then how can his own religiousness be anything other than a mechanical process.

I'm not a philosopher so I'm having a hard time expressing a very subtle idea.  What is important I think is to make a distinction between magical free will and the real free will that grants us the agency to experience Einsteins religiousness.  The contradiction in his philosophy is that his imagination leading to his discoveries is at once not dependent on the culture that granted him his "intelligence" and at the same time exists in a deterministic world.  I grant that there is a real contradiction between determinism and free will but for me that is the true source of religiousness.   


Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 968
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2015 at 14:26
Quote What is important I think is to make a distinction between magical free will and the real free will that grants us the agency to experience Einsteins religiousness.

There is no difference between the two other than the effect it has on the individual. What Einstein is discussing is the child-like wonder at the world that so many worldly adults lose. That's not childishness, its just the enjoyment of experience of observation instead of the bored indifference many adults exhibit between getting drunk or laid. In that respect, I'm right there with Einstein. I've said many times life is a learning process. Once you stop learning, that's one foot in the grave.

The Romans for instance decided that free will was what made them above the animal kingdom (having enslaved nature to some extent) and that becoming a slave, a condition in which free will is disallowed, disenfranchises the slave from humanity, thus legally a Roman slave was not human. Cassius Dio often mentions a man being made a slave of - not because his freedom was legally curtailed or he was dragged off in chains, but because he was forced by circumstance to do as somebody else decided.That's why Roman politics was such a bear pit. Speaking out was a risk, but you had the right, and in fact many senior Romans tended to respect those who spoke their mind, however much it might have shortened their lives.

However, it is also true that many human constructs, such as organised religion or some forms of politics, don't like free will because it offers the individual a choice of obedience or activity. Enslavement can take many forms, some of them suprisingly subtle.

 
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2015 at 15:22
Free will in my estimation is so fundamental a property that I grant it to many social animals and perhaps identify it as a "force of nature".  When I say we have the kind of free will that matters not the magical kind I simply mean that while we have physical limitation those deterministic factors do not prevent us from making moral choices nor does it prevent other social animals from doing the same.  Like Einstein I believe in an orderly universe but that does not prevent me from recognizing the limitations of a determinist position nor ponder the possibilities of free will.   
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2595
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jul 2015 at 17:53
One can freely choose determinism, or free will.
Likewise, one can be determined to 'choose' free will, or determinism.
There is no firm epistemic ground, really, for selecting one over the other.
We can think that we are freely choosing something, while we are not. and visa versa.

Rationality is a subset of irrationality.  Irrationality is prior historically and developmentally to rationality.  The choice to become rational, is not itself a rational choice.  Parmenides is probably the best transition point, or maybe rather how Parmenides later gets interpreted.  His mysticism later gets interpreted as the foundation of logic.  What is, is, what is not, is not, therefore, one can only talk about what is, and all of change becomes an illusion, or maybe a blooming buzzing confusion.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jul 2015 at 00:39
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

One can freely choose determinism, or free will.
Likewise, one can be determined to 'choose' free will, or determinism.
There is no firm epistemic ground, really, for selecting one over the other.
We can think that we are freely choosing something, while we are not. and visa versa.

Rationality is a subset of irrationality.  Irrationality is prior historically and developmentally to rationality.  The choice to become rational, is not itself a rational choice.  Parmenides is probably the best transition point, or maybe rather how Parmenides later gets interpreted.  His mysticism later gets interpreted as the foundation of logic.  What is, is, what is not, is not, therefore, one can only talk about what is, and all of change becomes an illusion, or maybe a blooming buzzing confusion.

Well that certainly cleared things up.  
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2595
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jul 2015 at 04:49
What I am saying is that we do not have a privileged point of view by which to judge whether determinism or free will holds sway.  The information on each side of the debate is incomplete.  That doesn't mean that each of us have perspectives on the question of determinism vs. free will, and some of those perspectives may be better than others, but getting conclusive evidence is, imo, impossible.

But I do think we should assume that people have free will, and that they are morally responsible for their actions.  Science (and also some areas of religion) seems to assume a determinism, but with quantum mechanics, I am not sure that that is _strictly_ true.  Practically true for everything we would normally come across, yes.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31 Jul 2015 at 04:54
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

What I am saying is that we do not have a privileged point of view by which to judge whether determinism or free will holds sway.  The information on each side of the debate is incomplete.  That doesn't mean that each of us have perspectives on the question of determinism vs. free will, and some of those perspectives may be better than others, but getting conclusive evidence is, imo, impossible.

But I do think we should assume that people have free will, and that they are morally responsible for their actions.  Science (and also some areas of religion) seems to assume a determinism, but with quantum mechanics, I am not sure that that is _strictly_ true.  Practically true for everything we would normally come across, yes.

Everything we would normally come across accept we exercise free will every moment of every day. Big smile

Just don't ask me what free will is because I have no idea but it is a concept more worthy of some degree of faith than most religious dogma. Embarrassed
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.