. I said that scientific measurements are measurements of observer-independent things. — Michael

I don't think it is possible to have a measurement within a system without an observer. Everything is entangled. Any measurement (a process) will immediately entangle observe and observed. If there is something independent of the observer it is forever inaccessible and unknown in any manner.

"All philosophical ideas spring from a socio-political-economic context. Often (most of the time) differences are the result of ultimate motives and goals. There is nothing rational or logical there, though people work hard to make it seem so."
— Rich

Postmodernism!

Run! — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Philosophical ideas do not necessarily have to be approached from the point of view of which is more logical than the other. One can approach it, and possibly gain more insight, by analyzing how and who benefits politically and economically from a particular point of view.

Confuciusism is a good example. In response to Daoism, which was quite egalitarian, the Emperors of China promoted the teachings of Confucius that emphasized fidelity to the hierarchy. It b is not that Daoism was any more or less logical than Confuciusism, rather it was which was better at promoting certain political and economic objectives. One can study Determinism, Fatalism, and Free Choice philosophies in a similar light.

But wouldn't that be complexifying the matter. We'd have to give up the perfectly good concept of causation that underpins determinism.

Opting for God would still require an explanation on how fate works. There needs to be a process through which God imposes his will on us. — TheMadFool

What is a perfectly good concept is really a matter of taste. Those who are looking for the utmost of simplicity will opt for God. A bit more complex might be gods. Even more complex would be Laws of Nature, to the extent that anthropomorphizing Laws of Nature is a bit more difficult than gods (you have to introduce things like genes and such).

Depending upon goals and motives one might come choose one causation over another. What all of these concepts have in common is the desire to eliminate choice from individuals and imbue it (anthropomorphizing) somewhere else.

If that's true then, by Occam's razor principle, we can purge the God angle and simply subscribe to determinism. — TheMadFool

Or one can expunge the myriad of undefinable Laws of Nature that supposedly determines everything in the universe and replace them with God and make everything much simpler. It would seem this is the much simpler path to go which is undoubtedly one of the reasons people adopt the view that God determines everything.

I have a hard time seeing these facts about the world as observer-independent, as one would naturally assume. — Question

Each individual makes some observation.

When recalled from memory, the observer has a particular level of intensity of certainty about the observation, and will describe it using a range of words or other means as some sort of belief or fact. Something that is taught in school by a teacher may be recalled as a fact because of its association with a teacher or academia.

Something comes along (a new observation in memory) that questions the fact and the fact becomes degraded more or less, possibly to "I think this is what happened".

Facts are this beliefs with high level of intensity of certainty.

Certainty of beliefs may increase or decrease depending upon life experiences and observations (the credibility of a co-confirmer may come into question).

Facts are individual beliefs that may be shared with a higher level of certainty associated with it but no different than any other belief and equally fluid. It is a process.

With certainty(conviction) comes "I know", and with less comes "I believe".

Is that what you're getting at? — creativesoul

Yes. It is a feeling that leads us to express a thought with different word characterizations.

What?

If true, then the same would apply to the Bohmian pilot wave. — Andrew M

Absolutely. All in one universe so we can actually explore the phenomenon.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2078251-quantum-weirdness-may-hide-an-orderly-reality-after-all/

Earlier you mentioned the distinction between "I believe" and "I know"... — creativesoul

Some words that someone might use to express different degrees of intensity of assuredness regarding a statement.

In other words, anybody who thinks that the possibility of a different past or different laws is unfounded needs to take it up with determinists. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

To put a fine point on the issue:

For determinists, everything is formed at the Big Bang (the scientific Genesis story) so the so-called Laws of Nature could have been different at the time of the Big Bang. That is, humans don't have choice but the Big Bang does.

Fatalism, with its origins in form of forces of gods (as opposed to forces of nature) do not question or entertain the possibility that the gods could have done something different. The gods no best.

So one can choose between the gods knowing best and living with it, or the choice that the Big Bang made was it, so tough luck if you don't like it. Not a big difference, it is just how one views the Creator.

All philosophical ideas spring from a socio-political-economic context. Often (most of the time) differences are the result of ultimate motives and goals. There is nothing rational or logical there, though people work hard to make it seem so.

Denying that your thought/belief presupposes truth doesn't fare well when held alongside everyday relevant facts to see whether or not it makes sense. — creativesoul

One must actually try to find truth in the mobility of thought and expression and actually observe the hopelessness in the effort. One cannot freeze the thought. It changes too fast to catch it. This is not a simple phenomenon. It it's intrinsic in understanding the nature of oneself and the universe. However, we do call phenomenon true when it it's close enough for practical purposes. But this is far away from truth.

With arts, one must study the creator as well as the creation. To learn to be creative is a very long journey.

It's a philosophical choice. Local action or spooky action. — Andrew M

I would put it a little differently. The choice is:

A) Experimentally verified entanglement at a distance (non-locality)

or

B) An a never ending,, growing number of unverifiable, unknowable universes.

I think this is a much better way to describe what is actually being presented.

OK. Thanks.

I've read journals where they have referred to Everett's Many Worlds as Multi-verses, but it is off no matter, because it is impossible to describe or imagine such a reality whether it be I've or a million words.

I will provide you a suggestion that will surely put you on a new path and create change if you are willing to change, and that is study the arts. Choices include but not limited to drawing, singing, dancing (my favorite, but not ballroom), playing an instrument, creative writing, Tai Chi, painting, etc. The idea is to begin to develop creative expression which will most surely move you to a different place in life. If this idea appeals to you, I will gladly answer any questions you have. Good luck with your new exploration into life!

So, your sentence "you are an intelligence (not confined to the physical brain) that manifests the physical body" pleased me very much but in this case why does intelligence manifest the physical body in this way and not another ? What governs intelligence ? — Julian

It is certainly an interesting question to ponder.

Intelligence is exactly what what we perceive it to be. It has memory, it makes choices, it explores, it creates and it learns. That is what we do. In order to satisfy its (our) desire to do this things, it (we) creates different life forms and experiments with these different forms. Of course it is constantly evolving in its (our) understanding and concurrently so is our life forms.

So, succinctly, what we are is the result of what we have learned and created so far. The similarities in forms (and differences) can be explained using Rupert Sheldrakes theory of morphic resonance.

I'm not asserting the position here, just being amused at the boggling. It solves the problem of effects happening well before their causes, something that is not mind boggling, but still a violation of a lot of principles of physics. So I ask you to say what the difference in experience would be if MW turned out to be how things are objectively? Surely there must be a difference if it is so implausible. — noAxioms

The difference lies in our understanding of the nature of the universe and what that might entail spiritually, metaphysically and physical practicality. No one could have predicted the effects that the introduction of quantum physics would have on our lives, in all of these dimensions, when we moved from the mechanical universe of Newton to the quantum universe. Entanglement at a distance, if it is a real phenomenon, would probably have a profound impact on all of our lives.

The most straightforward place to start, is to take Descartes literally:

"I think therefore I am.

You are an intelligence (not confined to the physical brain) that manifests the physical body. The two are one and the same.

You didn't understand MW enough to know that Alice is in both of them? Argument from incredulity? One of the main points of MW is to do away with action at a distance. — noAxioms

Yes, this it's how far scientists are willing to go to preserve locality. They'll even present a never ending, every growing universe of multi-verses. How many of me does there exist? As many choices I've made in my life so far, moment by moment and combined with the choices being made by others?? It boggles the mind to imagine such a multi-universe. It totally destroys the notion of realism whatever ones notion of realism must be. Alice has indeed come to life.

In the meantime, non-locality as predicted by the Bohm model has been experimently verified as interpreted by those scientists who are working on the problem.

If 2 is false (as is asserted by the Everett model), then the violation of Bell's inequalities do not demonstrate non-locality. — Andrew M

Of course, one can buy into an infinite number of universes to avoid non-locality. But then, what is being observed in all of these experiments? Bohm would say the quantum potential acting at a distance.

Is the above true? — creativesoul

It is an expression of what I believe. This I believe is a reasonable description that brings to me a better understanding of what I am and my relationship to others. To call it true or not true brings me no closer to understanding the nature of my thoughts. I have a thought and I try to express it, maybe using words, oil paint, music, song, poetry, or whatever. But wait! It is not adequate or possibly my thoughts have changed as I express them. So I go back and revise. The link between thought and expression is a fluid one. Trying to create immobility within mobility for me is an unnecessary and futile effort.

Yet, some may wish to pin it down. Create an immobility that they call true. For how long? At the time of the utterance. Have they really managed to stop thought and express it so precisely so that it can be called true for the necessary time allowed. For someone else, they can believe what they wish. I don't find it possible so I allow for simple beliefs and forget about the other hopeless exercise in immobility.

Maybe saying something is true for an instance is practical but practicality should not be confused with what introspection reveals.

So then do you or do you not think that your beliefs are true? Do you or do you not think that your statements are statements and/or expressions of your own thought/belief? — creativesoul

As I said, I understand they are my beliefs that are subject to constant change as my experience and knowledge grows. I find that I learn much more when I am flexible and allow my beliefs to change. What I say it's an expression of my thoughts. But since the utterance comes after the memory of the thought then even my utterances may no longer be an expression of my thoughts. It's really quite impossible for me to create immobility in a highly fluid world of thought. I accept this as the nature of things.

Yes, that was the kind of experiment I was referring to. What the results demonstrate is a violation of Bell's inequalities, not "spooky action at a distance". — Andrew M

Ok. A violation of Bell's Inequalities which is designed to test .....??

Your mistake is not realizing that statements are statements of thought/belief. — creativesoul

Well this is kind of silly already. It was an interesting learning experience.

I certainly believe what I write, Rich. — creativesoul

I just said I did in response to the same question from you above. I believe everything I say, I just don't elevate it to truth. I just leave myself lots if wiggle room for change, since everything is constantly changing. I think it takes to much effort to attempt to create immobility in a ever changing universe. It's all about intensity, and through experience, I've learned to moderate intensity of my beliefs. In this way, it is easier to change and allow for change.

So Rich, do you have anything substantive to add to the conversation about truth, or are you here to put forth ad hominem aimed in my direction instead"? — creativesoul

Nothing other than agreeing with you (now that I have corrected my mistakes) that you are simply expressing your beliefs and that is all you were trying to do. It was my mistake (actually valuable learning experience) when I thought that you were trying to express statements that you thought were true.

Acknowledgement of mistake is crucial for correction. — creativesoul

No problem. We all have our own beliefs.

You're confusing your own imagination with reality my friend.

I've never called my beliefs "truths". — creativesoul

Great. Thanks for sharing all your beliefs with me.

And yet if you believe what you write, then you must believe that I am unknowingly presenting my own personal belief as a truth. — creativesoul

Oh, everything you said is your belief. Thanks for sharing them, but I don't share any of them. If you want to call them truths, it's fine with me, but I don't believe any of them are true, just your beliefs. But then again, it's just my belief.

So you believe that you know what's going on in my head better than I do? — creativesoul

No, I believe what I believe. There is no greater or less than. I also believe that people who believe in truths constantly change what they believe is true. Everyone and every thing seems to be constantly changing.

Do you not believe what you write? — creativesoul

It is what I believe but my beliefs are in a constant state of change, mostly because of good ideas I find on YouTube and forums.

I would think that that's exactly what anyone anytime making an assertion displays. — creativesoul

If someone is asserting something is true. But one can simply assert a belief and if there is interest explain how s/he came to such a belief.

what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so. — creativesoul

Makes for an interesting discussion between those who claim to know what's true. The cat is in the mat might certainly provide lots of discussion.

It seems to me that you're talking about conviction. — creativesoul

Which is exactly what people who claim they know the truth display, lots of conviction.

That is irrelevant. A=A is utterly meaningless in and of itself. Let A be "a belief — creativesoul

A belief is just a thought about some idea which we feel some personal intensity. Some people feel great intensity about their thoughts and call them truths. It's pretty common by the way. Usually experience tends to modulate such intensity of thoughts.

"a belief is a belief" is meaningless. — creativesoul

Not to someone who distinguishes "I believe" from "I know' and certainly a lot more meaningful that equating "I believe" to "I know".

Basically your whole post it's a personal belief presented as a truth but you don't recognize it as such. However, be that as it may, it is no surprise that yet again a subjective view of truth is presented as Truth.

The cat is on the mat" is true if and only if the cat is on the mat. — creativesoul

In what frame of reference? Yours or mine?

By the time you utter the sentence, the cat may no longer be on the mat.

Truth is presupposed within thought/belief. — creativesoul

This is surely a subjective viewpoint. Personally, for me a belief is a belief.

"I believe" and "is true" are both redundant uses of language. — creativesoul

For me, I believe is precisely that, i.e. thoughts that I have with varying degrees of intensity. If someone thinks something is true, s/he may use the verb "know" or something to that effect.

I believe your description of your beliefs is an excellent example why beliefs are everywhere and truths exist to satisfy some desire. So truth exists as a goal for someone, but that a pretty narrow definition, akin to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

"Any statement, any standard, is no better than any other, and is only a brute fact" — Michael Ossipoff

I mean we could speak to the masses, but then we would be subjected to argumentum ad populum.

Or, we can agree that you have the final say, but then that would be confronted with argumentum ad verecundiam.

So what is left?

I guess just arguing that the other person's ideas are brute facts while ours aren't.

In any case, I understand you perfectly. It's not a brute fact if you say it isn't. I get it.

Well, Ockham's Principle of Parsimony is pretty-much universally-accepted as a standard for merit. — Michael Ossipoff

Let's just say it has no merit. It is just a brute fact. And that others like it equally has no merit (argumentum ad populum).