On the one hand, the idea of collections is as non-mysterious as it gets. — litewave

Ah, very interesting. :)

I once thought of the idea that a soul could be made of unknown particles/fields that normally interact very weakly with known particles/fields, and that's why physicists have not noticed them yet, but the interaction could be significantly amplified in certain complex objects such as a human brain. — litewave

Yes, this idea seems to be floating around in the ether right now.

Beats me! Durability, a notion we're familiar with from advertisements on kitchenware. — Agent Smith

Missed this! :lol:

Mass/energy is the property of having causal relations to other objects, and causal relations are a special case of mathematical relations in spacetime where consequences logically follow from causes at a later point in the direction of time. — litewave

Good job!

All possible collections exist timelessly by necessity — litewave

Nice. :)

Another problem is that we can only consciously experience that which is in our mind, so not directly the outside world but just its representations in our mind based on perceptual inputs. — litewave

Indeed. Odd that you did not choose "mystery". Btw, did you have any interest in that paper? :lol:

Consider that there are separated points in space, non-dimensional points which have real existence. Between the points is "space" as we know it through our techniques of geometry and measurement. The non-dimensional points are very real though, having some sort of internal structure which is completely foreign to us because it is non-spatial, and we understand physical things only through their spatial representations. — Metaphysician Undercover

Okay, we accept it as granted, no need for proof right? Now, how did we arrive at this conclusion, is it from a particular kind of mathematics? Or is this more from logical inference?

Within these points is the immaterial reality which is very intuitive to us. — Metaphysician Undercover

Very interesting, I suppose this is the ultimate reason for what you said previously -our intellect or consciousness which seems to be made of immaterial substance.

And the activity in here (whatever it could be), accounts for the observed oddities of our universe... — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. :)

...oddities which appear to us when the universe is represented by spatial models; like spatial expansion, dark energy etc. — Metaphysician Undercover

Dark energy is fascinating indeed. You're saying that dark energy has something to do with the same counterintuitive nature of our immaterial intellect, that same counterintuity is reflective in the current peculiarities of the universe? Very interesting. :)

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.07884.pdf — PoeticUniverse

From link from the Physicists.

The argument relies on an assumption that the world is entirely physical...

Ah, looks like has some competition from the Physicists.

Everything is physical.

...physicalism, EFT, Core Theory...has a number of immediate implications. There is no life after death, as the information in a person’s mind is encoded in the physical configuration of atoms in their body, and there is no physical mechanism for that information to be carried away after death.

Wow, consciousness is physical.

The location of planets and stars on the day of your birth has no effect on who you become later in life, as there are no relevant forces that can extend over astrophysical distances.

Oh goodness, astrology too.

The problems of consciousness, whether “easy” or “hard,” must ultimately be answered in terms of processes that are compatible with this underlying theory...Everything we have said presumes from the start that the world is ultimately physical, consisting of some kind of physical stuff obeying physical laws.

Wow, consciousness is physical.

This research is funded in part by the Walter Burke Institute for Theoretical Physics at Caltech, by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of High Energy Physics, under Award Number DE-SC0011632, and by the Foundational Questions Institute.

.

Are there collections in reality? If so, then reality is mathematical because all mathematics can be expressed in collections. That's what pure set theory has shown. — litewave

Logic is just the principle of consistency. It just means that an object is what it is and is not what it is not. Logic is a necessary fact. And so are collections, because if there are some objects there is necessarily also a collection of them. — litewave

I think you have done well in defending your position! :)

So how do we bridge the gap between mathematics and matter/energy? Are you saying that matter always existed and that it's impossible to know how mathematics gave birth to physical creation?

Will your answer be convenient? Or must there be mystery in life? Or is there a third option where we can figure out the complexities? I remember that you mentioned planck scale litewave, it sounds to me like you believe in "mystery".

If given only three options: convenience, complexity, or mystery, which would you choose?

Spacetime itself, with everything inside it, just exists, timelessly, eternally. — litewave

Interesting. :)

As I said, a space is a special kind of collection that has a continuity between its parts. There is a rigorous definition of it in mathematics. A space also has dimensions, which is the number of coordinates necessary to specify a location inside the collection. According to theory of relativity, spacetime is a 4-dimensional space where one of the dimensions, which we call time, has somewhat different mathematical properties than the other three. So in mathematics there is no problem in defining a space, with an arbitrary number of dimensions, without time — litewave

Ah, a mathematics that represents the real world (dimensions). So maybe in a computer that would help to model a 3-d virtual world, but I suppose those mathematics would be highly lacking in modeling anything close to reality? But I could just be very naïve to how far mathematics has come along.

these objects are not a part of a spacetime. They may exist in a space without time — litewave

Are you saying that mathematics exists? I will grant you that physical objects have properties that can be predicted by mathematics, but that's a far cry from saying that mathematics actually exists, right?

How do you make such a large leap, that you notice physical objects have mathematical properties, so then you say that mathematics exists? Are you saying that a complex system of description (mathematics) implies that descriptors exist? Does logic also exist, etc.?

Then the activity within the non-dimensional points, described above, becomes intelligible to us, as non-spatial activity. And time is properly positioned as the zeroth dimension rather then the fourth. — Metaphysician Undercover

Very interesting. :)

:flower:

:flower:

But, if time itself begins with a thing that's self-created, it also seems possible to say that thing has always been here? — Roger

Correct! :)

You're saying that the first existential grouping is self-created?

Yep, that's what I think. Without having some thing that exists because of whatever's inherent to that thing, I think there will be an infinite regress of explaining one thing in terms of another. So, if "nothing" can, when thought of differently, be seen as an existent entity, this entity would be the beginning point of defining things in terms of other things. — Roger

Yes, I would agree that something is either self-created or that it was always here (infinite regression). :)

Do you think that this means existence is evolution itself?

↪chiknsld ↪Nickolasgaspar ↪T Clark There’s an interesting current story on neuroscience.com about how single memories (in mice) are stored across many diverse areas of the brain (you can read it here).

What occurs to me on reading it, is the question of what faculty or property unifies a single memory in such a way that it can be deposited across a number of different systems (it is referred to as an ‘engram’). What makes it whole? I don’t discern any comment or speculation in the article about that point. But, philosophically, this is where I think there is evidence for something like vitalism: that there is a faculty or attribute of living systems which orchestrates a huge number of diverse, individual cellular interactions into a unified whole, which operates on a number of levels, including memory.

And, in fact, if you think it through, that is analogous to a form of the hard problem of consciousness. Science can recognise where in the brain these reactions associated with storing of memories occur - the article mentions 267 of them - but how can they identify what it is that unifies all of these into a unitary experience, an ‘engram’? It seems to me another facet of the well-known neural binding problem. — Wayfarer

Ah, this is excellent information! Indeed wayfarer, there must be something greater than the mere neural circuitry of the brain that is active.

these objects are not a part of a spacetime. They may exist in a space without time — litewave

How is there space without time?

In other words, the very lack of all existent entities is itself what allows this new property of being the all grouping to appear. — Roger

You're saying that the first existential grouping is self-created?

↪chiknsld Hi. When you hear physicists talk about something coming from nothing, the nothing they're talking about still contains the laws of quantum physics, quantum fields, abstract concepts like the laws of logic or mathematical constructs. This isn't the absolute "nothing" of the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?". — Roger

Yes, indeed. Hi Roger!

My view is that I think that to ever get a satisfying answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", we're going to have to address the possibility that there could have been "nothing", but now there is "something".   Another way to say this is that if you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"), you can't do this unless somehow the 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface.  That is, in one way of thinking "nothing" just looks like "nothing".  But, if we think about "nothing" in a different way, we can see through its disguise and see that it's a "something". This then gets back around to the idea that "something" has always been here except now there's a reason why: because even what we think of as "nothing" is a "something". — Roger

Correct! Nothing is not something! :snicker:

How can "nothing" be a "something"?  I think it's first important to try and figure out why any “normal” thing (like a book, or a set) can exist and be a “something”. I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping. A grouping ties stuff together into a unit whole and, in so doing, defines what is contained within that new unit whole.  This grouping together of what is contained within provides a surface, or boundary, that defines what is contained within, that we can see and touch as the surface of the thing and that gives "substance" and existence to the thing as a new unit whole that's a different existent entity than any components contained within considered individually.  This applies to even inside-the-mind groupings, like the concept of a car (also, fictional characters like Sherlock Holmes, etc.). For these, though, the grouping may be better thought of as the top-level label the mind gives to the mental construct that groups together other constructs into a new unit whole (i.e., the mental construct labeled “car” groups together the constructs of engine, car chassis, tires, use for transportation, etc.). — Roger

Hmmm, that's interesting. A grouping of existence. :)

It's only once all things, including all minds, are gone does “nothing” become "the all" and a new unit whole that we can then, after the fact, see from the outside as a whole unit. — Roger

What grouping? I think you skipped that part, hehe. Nothing is not a grouping of anything. Existence was the grouping remember?

In other words, the very lack of all existent entities is itself what allows this new property of being the all grouping to appear. — Roger

Ah, that's logic. :) Clever trick but logic cannot exist if there is nothing.

4. If the prior probability of a miracle is very low, then we should only believe in the miracle if the evidence for it is extremely strong. — SwampMan

He's saying you should only believe in extraordinary claims if you have strong evidence.

This example shows that some events, even with a very low prior probability, can be reasonably believed in based on little evidence, let alone extremely strong evidence. For this reason, I find fault in premise 4 of Hume’s argument as I have outlined it. — SwampMan

Well you can believe in anything you want regardless of if there is evidence or not. Someone talking about the score of a football game, sure why would they lie? Usually people lie about more important things than a football game, so you would have many unsuspecting people believe you that the score is accurate, or the date, etc.

Really doesn't have anything to do with Hume saying that you should have strong evidence for extraordinary claims. His opinion is about something different than your opinion.

Theres the old saying, "nothing ventured nothing gained," but there is another side to it that might not be as often discussed and thats, "nothing ventured nothing lost." If you ask for something or try to get something, you might get what you're seeking or you might not. If you don't get what you're seeking, a date, a promotion, a job opportunity, ect. that can result in a loss. What kind of loss? the kind of loss you deal with when you get rejected. Rejection can suck, it can be embarrassing and its a blow to the ego, so that's something that should be taken into consideration if you're going to ask for something or try to get something. — HardWorker

You can find out valuable information through rejection, but then again you could just be wasting your time. The more valuable information you can gain then the more the advantage is yours. The less you learn then the more rejection reduces to merely a wasting of time.

I cannot pinpoint at what point in that story where it happened, but I am confident that the category “art” already exists in this hypothetical primate society.

Just like instincts come before knowledge, the heart grows before the brain, an atom already has electrons, so too does language have its own inherent characteristics.

I guess what I’m wondering is if there’s a word or phrase that denotes the difference between the working definition someone uses in daily life and the formal definition they’d give if asked...

Are you looking for the word, "vernacular"?

...if this phenomenon has been studied in depth recently, and if there are any behavioral interventions that can help a person to bridge that gap, or at least be aware of it. Any help, and anything I might have missed, will be greatly appreciated. — Brad Thompson

I would study linguistics if I were interested in a deep understanding of language, especially syntax, how sentences are formed, etc. That should give you a good grasp about something as simple as definitions. I've never studied that stuff so I can't really say more than that.

Apparently consciousness consists of unstructured "stuffs" or qualities. For example the sensation of red color doesn't seem to be decomposable, although in the ontology where all objects are collections of other objects (or empty collections in the simplest case) even the sensation of red color is a collection that is composed of parts. Yet every collection is also an object in itself that is unstructured/partless and stands in composition relations to its parts. It is an object in itself that is not identical to any of its parts. — litewave

What do you think the sensation is represented by? Energy perhaps?

It may seem weird to say that a collection of objects is another object in itself. Like, if you have five apples, do you also have a sixth object that is a collection of those five apples? I think you do, although it doesn't seem to be a particularly noteworthy object. — litewave

What is the object made out of? Just energy? It cannot be an object if it doesn't have some sort of physicality or energy. Do you think the brain is responsible for everything? Might there be a soul that is helping out? Something beyond the brain?

But even each apple is a collection of other objects, down to elementary particles like electrons and quarks which seem to be partless but definitely are not because that would mean they are empty sets and empty sets are all the same (which an electron and a quark are not, for example) and it seems impossible for an empty set to have properties like mass, electric charge or spin. — litewave

Ah, I see.

So I think that even elementary particles have a structure although it may be physically inaccessible for us, or even physically inaccessible in general if laws of physics prevent the probing of such structure (for example, laws of physics seem to prevent probing of spatial distances smaller than so-called Planck length). — litewave

I agree, a particle cannot be an example of nothing to something.

Some people think that collections are just "fictitious" objects and only non-composite objects (empty collections) are "real". That might be a psychological bias toward non-composite objects, caused by the fact that when our attention is splintered onto parts we lose the sense of an object as a whole. — litewave

Have you explained the empty sets yet? Assuming there is no bias, what are they referring to as being real (regarding the empty set)?

This is consciousness.
— chiknsld

Correction: This is consciousness of despair.

Your tiny light is, in fact, sun and cotillion - perhaps "a multitude in transports of joy."* Get to that joy.

In infinite darkness, it may be wise to deprioritize the brain in favor of the hand. Every organ has its season. To paraphrase Dante - rapt in the womb of his golden archefaunaflora: "Gotta till the earth if you want a rose."**






*Samuel Beckett
**The Indigo Girls — ZzzoneiroCosm

:flower:

I think the word “absurd” is better applied to your conception of existence and not so much to existing things. This is why we ought to rid ourselves of such mental containers—“existence”, “universe”, and so on—to make room for the less contrived. Any set of things is not itself a thing. — NOS4A2

Oh yes?

There seems to be a necessary principle of composition, which means that if there are some objects, whatever they are, they automatically make up another object that is a collection or combination of those objects. And this larger object automatically combines with other objects into even larger objects, and so on. So every possible object is either composed of other objects or is a non-composite object. Pure set theory can in principle describe all these objects; non-composite objects are called empty sets and composite objects are non-empty sets that are built up from empty sets. Pure set theory is also a foundational theory for mathematics because it is able to represent all mathematical objects or properties (numbers, spaces, functions, etc.) as pure sets. That's why reality is necessarily mathematical. — litewave

Very interesting. :)

But mathematics is just the structural aspect of reality, the relations between sets, or structures of relations. The objects that stand in those relations, the sets "in themselves", are something unstructured, partless (even though they stand in relations to objects that are their parts, that is, to the sets that compose them). The unstructured nature of objects in themselves may be the basis for the qualitative aspect of consciousness (qualia). — litewave

It would certainly be interesting to investigate your hypothesis. You're saying that consciousness is comprised of qualia that which without there would be no consciousness?

Here is an even more compelling picture of necessity: everything that will happen has already happened, in the sense that every event is a part of a 4-dimensional topological object called spacetime, where time, mathematically/structurally, is just one of the dimensions, a special kind of space. Spacetime itself, with everything inside it, just exists, timelessly, eternally. It exists because it is a logically consistent object, a possible world. — litewave

Ah, the never escapable fate. :)

But judgements are made not by the universe. Nothing is "inherently absurd". It is just absurd when an observer (the human) reflects upon it and points out the inanity that there is something at all rather than nothing. — schopenhauer1

Exactly, but the human here, is what makes all the difference. :) As a human, our logic becomes part of the universe. We discover mathematics, but it is still quite useful. Even the body uses mathematics, in a way our life is dependent upon mathematics. Tis the same with logic.

Oh I see what you are saying. Just basically that there shouldn't be something but there is, and that is absurd. — schopenhauer1

More importantly, if nothingness were to exist, it would not need a justification. Because it would be nothing, there would be no logic to exist in the first place. Simple enough right?

But nothing does not exist, instead "something" exists. But if we decide that existence does not need a justification either, then nothingness would actually be more justified to exist, at least according to Occam's razor.

Let's make it more simple:

We have x which has no justification (nothing).

We have y which could have a justification or could not have a justification (something) but we decide that for argument's sake that it has no justification.

Now I am saying that let's say we decide that either x or y needs to exist. That is, either "something" will exist or "nothing" will exist. And we will use Occam's razor to decide which exists. Whichever needs the least justification will (according to Occam's razor) be the one that exists.

Well nothing needs the least justification. In fact, if nothing existed a justification wouldn't even be possible. So nothing does not need a justification.

Therefore, according to Occam's razor nothing should actually exist. The way that I am wording it is simply confusing though, hence...if we say that either nothingness or existence is more justified to exist, it must be the case (according to Occam's razor) that nothingness is more justified to exist.

Well, absurdity though only has impetus in how it affects us. I see it affecting us in the patterns of constant sameness, and yet novelty is also absurd.

The sameness in the turning of the globe, the getting up to make your way in a society for survival, comfort-optimization, and entertainment pursuits, and doing this over and over and over and over again. Even the so-called "novelty" being just a part of this dissatisfaction or inherent boredom in the species. Boredom is like the flat-bottomed proof. It is the feeling itself of the absurd. Being is just one long tiring game that has come out of billions of years of interactions.

However, as I said earlier, a view from nowhere as a non-sentient universe would be, is basically "nothing". The animal is a dissatisfied universe. A universe that cannot handle nothing. — schopenhauer1

Indeed, but the issue is that the absurdity I am alluding to, seems to differ from that of Schopenhauer's reference in one vital way. The absurdity of existence is discovered by man but extends even further out to declarative, logical inference. One of these declarations is based on Occam's razor that "nothingness" is indeed more justified than existence itself.

If free will is possible (logically consistent) then it exists. But how is free will defined? Without definition there is nothing. If free will means that we can do what we want then we obviously have free will, at least to some extent. But even then, our actions would be completely determined by factors over which we have no control, in the sense that they would be determined by our wants and we cannot choose our wants. Or if we could choose our wants, we would need to want to choose the wants, so there would be a regress of wants that would either begin with a want that we wouldn't choose or it would be an infinite regress, which we wouldn't choose either because there would be no beginning to choose. — litewave

Very interesting.

It is not possible for that tree not to be there, because it would be a logical contradiction if a tree that is there was not there. — litewave

So more specifically, using this line of logic, I offer the following example:

I have two options before me, I can choose to eat a white chocolate or I can choose to eat a strawberry chocolate. I choose the strawberry chocolate.

Therefore it was never possible to eat the white chocolate?

Let me give you a more visceral example as well:

Let us pretend that I am a female choosing to mate with my partner and have a baby, or I can decide that I do not want to have children and live a different life instead.

I choose to have a baby. Let's call him John.

Therefore I can tell John that it was never possible that he could not exist?

Clearly I had the option; I could choose to mate and have a baby, but I could also have chosen to not have children and live an entirely different life where John does not exist.

By following your logic, I never actually had a choice, John was going to live no matter what? Hence, no freewill?

Or maybe the more rational route Is that I did have a choice, and at that very point, there were two possibilities, one that John could exist and one that John could not exist. As you say, two different worlds. Once I chose to have John, I entered into the world where there was no other choice than for him to exist?

So it seems, (having worked out the very sound logic that you have given me) there is a world of infinite possibilities, but we have the power to choose which world gets created with every choice we make.

Truly fascinating. :)

Some of Schopenhauer's best insights were his ideas about the centrality of boredom. Boredom sits at the heart of the human condition.

If we were in a hand-to-mouth survival situation, that is all we would be consumed with...the means to putting food in our mouth, getting hydrated, and finding comfortable shelter from the elements.

In an industrialized, complex network of production and consumption, this is all atomized into our little "work" and "leisure" pursuits. On the other side of the spectrum, waiting for us is boredom. Boredom lays bare that existence isn't anything BUT striving-after. We strive to survive and be comfortable. Then, if we do not have any entertainment pursuits to occupy our mental space, we may get existential. "Why are we doing this repetitive upkeep, maintenance, and thrashing about?" It becomes apparent about the malignantly useless (as another author has characterized it).

A pretty face, a noble pursuit, a puzzle, an ounce of pleasure.. we all try to submerge in these entertainments to not face the existential boredom straight on. That would be too much to dwell in for too long. We design goals, and virtues and reasons, and entertainments, and standards to meet, and trying to contribute to "something". We cannot fall back on the default of existence- the boredom.

So what is one to do? If suicide isn't a real option, there is only the perpetual cycle. The illusion is that it can be broken. Schopenhauer deigned freedom by asceticism. That was a nice consolation-hope to provide, but it's simply training the mind to live with the existential striving-after more easily. That is all- a mental technique. It is not a metaphysical escape hatch. We are stuck until we are not. — schopenhauer1

:up:

I think exactly his point is this habit of ours to think in terms of always a “there” there because once “we” are created there is always a sense of locus of being that we cannot get away from. Hence notions of heaven, other planes, other realities, or modes of existence. Non-sentient being isn’t nothing, but it is a “view from nowhere”. At the end of the day, without a locus of a POV, what’s the difference? People mentioned entropy, which can be metaphorically analogized or reified as something akin to Schopenhauer’s Will but it’s not that. Barring panpsychism, the view from nowhere, from this somewhere where I am, looks like nothing. — schopenhauer1

Indeed, and more importantly, "the absurdity of existence" is proof that nothingness is more justified.

If there were only nothing, no justification would be needed, but if we assume that existence also does not need justification, then automatically nothingness becomes more justified: Occam's razor.

What caused existence to be, and why?
— chiknsld

I think this is equivalent to asking "What caused logical possibility (consistency) to be, and why?" Like, why is A identical to A (and not identical to that which is not A)? Logical possibility is a necessary fact. And some years ago I came to this big revelation: there is no difference between logical possibility and existence. Why? Simply because I don't see any difference between the two and I don't even know what that would mean.

Claiming that there is no difference between logical possibility and existence may seem absurd because you may readily point to an object, for example a tree in front of your house, and say "It is surely possible (logically consistent) that that tree over there would not exist, and yet it is there - hence, logical possibility and existence are not the same." To which I would say: "Um, no. It is not possible for that tree not to be there, because it would be a logical contradiction if a tree that is there was not there." It may be logically possible for there to be another world which looks exactly like ours except for that tree, but that would be another world, not this one.

So not only is existence necessary, but everything possible exists necessarily. — litewave

:clap:

That is probably the most sound argument that I've heard for existence! :)

Very interestingly, would this imply a lack of freewill?

Yep. There is something. And so that is a fairly severe constraint on talk about “absolute nothingness”. We can already rule that out, leaving us just with relative nothingness as something that might possibly need explaining. — apokrisis

The mere fact that existence persists beyond the cold and dark, empty void tells us that we know little about its mysterious origin. Our intuition is that it defies all logic. Therefore of course nothingness can never be taken from the proverbial table. It is just the same that we cannot imagine how existence relies on self-creation, or otherwise an inexplicable permanency, as it is its separation from nothingness. And of course a third party will always be the consolation.

"The absurdity of existence" is an exhortation that nothingness is proper. The culprit is thus not of nothingness but rather of interjection. Existence requires us to return back the perfection which was borrowed. Life is a chance to declare innocence.

there is not any such "reason that existence should exist" — 180 Proof

No, there certainly is not. Perhaps one day there will be, and that shall change the whole of history of this very discourse. Looking back, we might see that it was not all in vain after all.

Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is already within yourself, your way of thinking.
— Marcus Aurelius — Tom Storm

Seems sensible enough, indeed.

At all levels, the systems of life - from sociopolitical systems to solar systems - are repugnant and should be negated as MALIGNANTLY USELESS.

Fact is, nothing can justify our existence. Existence of any flavor is not only unjustified, it is useless, malignantly so, and has nothing to recommend it over nonexistence. A person’s addiction to existence is understandable as a telltale of the fear of nonexistence, but one’s psychology as a being that already exists does not justify existence as a condition to be perpetuated but only explains why someone would want to perpetuate it. For the same reason, even eternal bliss in a holy hereafter is unjustified, since it is just another form of existence, another instance in which the unjustifiable is perpetuated. That anyone should have a bias for heaven over nonexistence should by rights be condemned as hedonistic by the same people who scoff at Schopenhauer for complaining about the disparity between “the effort and the reward” in human life. People may believe they can choose any number of things. But they cannot choose to undo their existence, leaving them to live and die as puppets who have had an existence forced upon them whose edicts they must follow. If you are already among the existent, anything you do will be unjustified and MALIGNANTLY USELESS. — Ligotti, Conspiracy Against the Human Race

Surely it is easy to say that we can always go back to nonexistence, but there is no way to prove this is so. We could come from an entirely different lifeform or plane of existence before having entered into this one. Aside from that small chance though, It is certainly true that we only know of this hemisphere of reality.

How could we ever wager on anything other than this bodily realm of natural reality. Though when we look at the minerals of life it seems to be entirely made of the most strictest of chemical reactions. From a distance it may give the appearance of artwork, but we are far from a wireless society; the cables are always showing.

You keep mentioning maths and then just as fast dismissing it. Couldn’t the cosmos have mathematical necessity and thus corporeal inevitability? — apokrisis

Well we are here aren't we? :snicker:

There are so many reasons, for example, why three spatial dimensions are the self-optimising outcome if there is any dimensional structure at all.

Only in 3D do the number of directions of rotation match the number of directions of translation. And thus only in 3D do we have the closure of Noether’s theorem and Newtonian mechanics where spin and straight line motion are “inertial” - an intrinsic symmetry or invariance of the geometry. — apokrisis

Fascinating :)

Coming from a science and not philosophy background, my first reaction is that in order to truly understand something, you must first extract yourself from within it and observe it objectively.

This is obviously very difficult, perhaps even impossible, in the case of consciousness. We can only really understand consciousness when inhibiting that consciousness, leading to my doubt that we can objectively figure out what that consciousness is.

How can we exit a casual loop of consciousness, where our understanding of consciousness is biased by requiring consciousness? — PhilosophyRunner

Indeed. :)

Not that I agree for sure with quantum role in consciousness, but I find it an idea worth to be considered.
Quantum is one of the littlest form of matter we know that exists and runs into everything.Humans are made from matter also. So the possibility in every human-material aspect such as consciousness, quantum to have some role doesn't sound too irrational at all, when you follow that line of thought. — dimosthenis9

Sure, it's always worth the effort. :)

Neither makes it right of course, but it is an idea worth considering. That's all. Being so aphoristic about it as if you already know what consciousness is exactly and what is made of isn't the right attitude. Cause no one does yet and yeah, Consciousness is a damn Hard Problem. Maybe the hardest one.So we have to be open to different approaches also. — dimosthenis9

You can be open or as close-minded about topics in general. There is nothing "negative" or "positive" about being open or close-minded. And people can have whatever "attitude" they want. An attitude is a very personal aspect; it's like when someone tells you that you need to have "respect" for others. Well, respect is a very personal aspect. I would say the best thing is to try to agree with people at first, at least so the truth can be uncovered. Talking about personal things like what attitude one should have, really doesn't get us closer to any analytical truth.

Philosophy can even be considered ridiculous, hypocritical, stupid, in its efforts to assign to quantums and neurons and structures and molecules the task of building a good relationship of man with himself.
— Angelo Cannata

The purpose of science is not "building a good relationship of man with himself."

science is research that, as such, improves human knowledge and human condition.
— Angelo Cannata

Science is not research that "improves human knowledge and human condition."

It is an easy fact, though: how can we think of "understanding" ourselves, our consciousness, our being "I", by identifying it as a "hard problem of consciousness", or a matter of quantums and electrons?
— Angelo Cannata

So.... It's an easy fact. And if I disagree, I'm ridiculous, hypocritical, stupid. The T Clark rule, one of many - If many informed and intelligent people disagree with an assertion, then it is not easy, obvious, self-evident, a priori, or common sense. It may be true, but it's not easy.

consciousness is you, the subject, the one who is waiting to be met.
— Angelo Cannata

And digestion is the processing of food in the mouth, stomach, and intestines, but it can still be understood by good old everyday science.

But seriously, you're clearly just trying to raise up a fuss. Consciousness discussions go around in circles and never get anywhere. You haven't even defined what you mean by the word. You'll find it has many different meanings. — T Clark

He is trying to make up a fuss? I don't see anything wrong with what he said, but I do see you as constantly quick to disagree and making personal comments.

Most people are not ready for the truth. You have to give it to them in bits and pieces. :)

Life presents itself chiefly as a task—the task, I mean, of subsisting at all, gagner sa vie. If this is accomplished, life is a burden, and then there comes the second task of doing something with that which has been won—of warding off boredom, which, like a bird of prey, hovers over us, ready to fall wherever it sees a life secure from need. The first task is to win something; the second, to banish the feeling that it has been won; otherwise it is a burden.

Human life must be some kind of mistake. The truth of this will be sufficiently obvious if we only remember that man is a compound of needs and necessities hard to satisfy; and that even when they are satisfied, all he obtains is a state of painlessness, where nothing remains to him but abandonment to boredom. This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of the emptiness of life? If life—the craving for which is the very essence of our being—were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all: mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing. But as it is, we take no delight in existence except when we are struggling for something; and then distance and difficulties to be overcome make our goal look as though it would satisfy us—an illusion which vanishes when we reach it; or else when we are occupied with some purely intellectual interest—when in reality we have stepped forth from life to look upon it from the outside, much after the manner of spectators at a play. And even sensual pleasure itself means nothing but a struggle and aspiration, ceasing the moment its aim is attained. Whenever we are not occupied in one of these ways, but cast upon existence itself, its vain and worthless nature is brought home to us; and this is what we mean by boredom. The hankering after what is strange and uncommon—an innate and ineradicable tendency of human nature—shows how glad we are at any interruption of that natural course of affairs which is so very tedious.

:hearts:

Hmm, I see.

...so decoherence can coexist with small or large durations and expanses of coherence. — Enrique

Very fascinating. This will need a lot more explanation when you do your paper no?