You can find Heisenbergs Physics and Beyond on archive.org, it has many conversations with Bohr and Pauli. — Wayfarer

I appreciate the reference, but I'm not sure that anything I read is going to clarify things for me. I will take a look.

The Copenhagen interpretation are philosophical speculations about what it means. — Wayfarer

It is my understanding that the Copenhagen Interpretation is not a "philosophical speculation." It represents a refusal to speculate. Metaphysics pared down to a minimum.

Choose between what principles? — Wayfarer

The video you provided talked about the violation of realism versus the violation of locality. According to the narrator, if realism is violated, but locality isn't, there is no superluminal causality or communication. Or is it the other way around. Please don't ask me to explain,

We are up against time. Yes, we will transition to fossil free energy eventually, because we will have used it all up--if industrial civilization lasts long enough. — Bitter Crank

For as long as I've been alive, people have said that conservation and non-fossil energy will never replace fossil fuels. Batteries will never be efficient enough to allow widespread use of electric cars. Obviously, many of those people have vested interests in the fossil fuel industry. Then along comes Elon Musk and says "fuck that" and changes the energy landscape in a decade.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying we've never really tried. It's been an uphill battle against financial and regional political interests. Republicans will lie about climate change the same way they have lied about the 2020 election. They'd rather drive the world off a cliff than admit there is a cliff we should avoid driving off.

Ah, but the spooky-action folks are not claiming communication, they're claiming FtL action-reaction. But if there was a (remote) empirical test for this having actually happened at the reaction side, a message could be sent via this test, so it would constitute communication. — noAxioms

It seems to me that what you call faster than light action-reaction is equivalent to communication. It seems I'm wrong about that.

That is true. But as the article then says. 'the paradox is that a measurement made on either of the particles apparently collapses the state of the entire entangled system—and does so instantaneously.' — Wayfarer

Yes. The statements seem to be contradicting each other, but I'm confident they aren't because a lot of really smart people have said so. That doesn't mean I understand it. I am comfortable believing that something is true even though I don't understand how. It gives me something to think about.

Don't be mislead, the statement you've quoted is wrong in every particular, to my knowledge. Review Matt O'Dowd's PBS Space Time video above, he gives the correct account of the issue, and also of the Copenhagen interpretation. — Wayfarer

I watched the video and, as I understand it, it confirms the statement from Wikipedia I quoted before:

The current scientific consensus is that faster-than-light communication is not possible, and to date it has not been achieved in any experiment.

I'm just as confused as I was, but the guy in the video doesn't seem to be.

All well and good about the sources of post modernism. What about too much magic expected of magma? — Bitter Crank

I remember the original discussion of this technology. It's true the original poster got a lot of skepticism, including from me, but I don't remember it being particularly harsh. He basically said that the fact that we don't drop everything else and put all our money into a potentially promising but untested new technology was a sign of stupidity or corruption. It seemed to offend him that we didn't all agree with him immediately. His obsessive and browbeating style was similar to Karl Stone's.

It could go either way, as I see it. It serves admirably as the latter. Its unnamability allows it some form of existence as originary X.

My mind bounces back and forth between the two in an agreeable way. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I don't disagree with this. I have said before that the true sign of intelligence is the ability to hold two apparently contradictory ideas in your mind at the same time. Wave/particle. Free will/determinism. Candy mint/breath mint. Less filling/tastes great.

Not the same: but ambiguity creates uncertainty. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Given that Tao is the name for the unnamable, the ambiguity of does exist vs. doesn't exist isn't that confusing. Is it important that the Tao is unnamable? Or is it also a poetic abstraction to promote contemplation?

I had another thought: In a number of translations, the Tao is said to exist, to perhaps exist, to seem to exist, to perhaps seem to exist. I take that to mean its existential status is uncertain. So the importance you attach to the non-existence of the Tao seems unwarranted. To say "the Tao does not exist" is to pin it down in a way perhaps anti-thetical to the spirit of the text. — ZzzoneiroCosm

In my post, I included quotes that seem to contradict my position to acknowledge the ambiguity. Ambiguity is not the same as uncertainty.

So to my lights, the Tao certainly exists - namely, as a poetic abstraction designed by the poet to inspire a contemplative stillness. — ZzzoneiroCosm

And by my lights, you've missed the point. Nuff said. You can have the last word.

But as a philosopher, to say X both exists and does not exist is to say nothing at all about X. He might as well have said Mu. — ZzzoneiroCosm

You and I have a different understanding.

What connection do you make between science and a Tao that exists and does not exist? Are you thinking of a kind of quantum flux? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Quantum mechanics is science. The Tao is metaphysics. Any similarity is metaphorical.

Science is one of the ways people bring things into existence by naming them. Science is all about naming.

So if the Tao exists, to my lights it's part of the universe. — ZzzoneiroCosm

As I see it, the fact that the Tao does not exist is one of the most important insights of the Tao Te Ching.

Verse 1

Therefore, by the Everlasting (ch'ang) Non-Being (wu),
We desire (yü) to observe (kuan) its hidden mystery (miao);
By the Everlasting (ch'ang) Being (yu),
We desire (yü) to observe the manifestations (chiao).
These two issue from the same origin,

Verse 2

Therefore being and non-being give rise to each other,

Verse 40

Returning (fan) is the movement (tung) of Tao.
Weak (jo) is the functioning (yung) of Tao.
Ten thousand things under heaven are born of being (yu).
Being is born of non-being (wu).

On the other hand:

Verse 4

Tao is a whirling emptiness (ch'ung),
Yet (erh) in use (yung) is inexhaustible (ying).
Fathomless (yuan),
It seems to be the ancestor (tsung) of ten thousand beings.
It blunts the sharp,
Unties the entangled,
Harmonizes the bright,
Mixes the dust.
Dark (chan),
It seems perhaps to exist (ts'un).

Verse 25

There was something nebulous existing (yu wu hun ch'eng),
Born before heaven and earth.
Silent, empty,

I saw that. Kind of a hyperabstract Predator. Perfect mystical koanic focus point. — ZzzoneiroCosm

The mysticism of some X thought to predate the universe: A perfect koanic point of focus to still the mind. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "hyperabstract," "mystical," or "kaonic." If you mean it isn't realistic, then I disagree. I've always said that Taoism is completely consistent with what we know scientifically about the universe.

predate the universe — ZzzoneiroCosm

As it says in Verse 4, it predates God.

The thing that locality denies is not the faster than light relationship between measurements, but the 'action' part. No local interpretation suggests that anything changes at the far particle when the near one is measured. Copenhagen is about as local as it gets, and it being an epistemological interpretation, all it says is that a measurement here causes knowledge here of what the other measurement will be when we learn of it. Other local interpretations word it differently, but none suggest any FTL action. — noAxioms

Thanks. It's hard to grasp.

The article is correct - information cannot be transmitted faster than light. Yet in the Bell experiments, the correlation between separated particles is instaneous. So, information is not being transmitted between the two particles, and yet the correlation is happening. By what means does it happen? You see the question? — Wayfarer

I've struggled with the whole idea. I keep holding on to the the no-superluminal-communication floatation device hoping someone will rescue me.

The 'Bell inequalities' experiments confirm that the correlation between the two particles that occurs at the measurement of one of the pairs is instantanous. — Wayfarer

It is my understanding that is not the same as information being transmitted at a rate greater than the speed of light. I admit I don't understand why not. Wikipedia says:

Superluminal communication is a hypothetical process in which information is sent at faster-than-light (FTL) speeds. The current scientific consensus is that faster-than-light communication is not possible, and to date it has not been achieved in any experiment.

Yes, I know Wikipedia is not an unimpeachable source.

By 'spooky action', I'm referring to cause and effect events being separated by a space-like manner, in other words, faster than light. If such a thing (or reverse causality) could actually be demonstrated without begging additional postulates, that would be a falsification of all local interpretations. — noAxioms

This is the question I've been wanting to ask - Did the action at a distance take place at a rate faster than the speed of light? If not what's the big deal. It is my understanding that data transfer at a speed greater than light is believed not to be possible, even given quantum entanglement. Does the experiment described contradict that?

History is full of lots of things that aren't coming back. You know, theoretically, we could all go back to riding horses and buggies everywhere instead of using cars, but being concerned about that happening to the point where you feel the need to build a stable in your backyard because IT HAPPENED BEFORE SO IT COULD HAPPEN AGAIN would be stupid. Similarly, if you know anything about how modern governments work, their relationships with business and the creation and directing of wealth, the idea that they would randomly decide to throw all that away so they could kill the consumers that keep laying golden eggs for them is if anything batshit crazier than us all going Amish. — Baden

I've looked, but I don't see that you've transferred the post from the "Easy Plan for Gun Control" thread. Maybe I missed it. You indicated you'd move it.

@Baden

Are you going to transfer the post from "Easy Plan for Gun Control" here.

Verse 25

Stephen Mitchell

There was something formless and perfect
before the universe was born.
It is serene. Empty.
Solitary. Unchanging.
Infinite. Eternally present.
It is the mother of the universe.
For lack of a better name,
I call it the Tao.
It flows through all things,
inside and outside, and returns
to the origin of all things.

The Tao is great.
The universe is great.
Earth is great.
Man is great.
These are the four great powers.

Man follows the earth.
Earth follows the universe.
The universe follows the Tao.
The Tao follows only itself.

Ellen Marie Chen

There was something nebulous existing (yu wu hun ch’eng),
Born before heaven and earth.
Silent, empty,
Standing alone (tu), altering not (pu kaki),
Moving cyclically without becoming exhausted (pu tai),
Which may be called the mother of all under heaven.
I know not its name,
I give its alias (tzu), Tao.
If forced to picture it,
I say it is “great” (ta).

Therefore Tao is great,
Heaven is great,
Earth is great,
The king is also great.
In the realm there are four greats,
And the king is one of them.
Humans follow (fa) earth,
Earth follows heaven,
Heaven follows Tao,
Tao follows self-becoming (tzu-jan).

Ron Hogan

Something perfect has existed forever,
even longer than the universe.
It's a vast, unchanging void.
There's nothing else like it.
It goes on forever and never stops.
Everything else came from it.
I don't know what else to call it
So I'll call it Tao.
What's it like?
I can tell you this much: it's great.

Something that great lasts.
Something that lasts goes a long way.
And something that goes a long way
always comes back to the beginning.

Tao's great.
Heaven's great.
Earth's great.
And someone who's in touch with Tao is great, too.
Those are the four greatest things in the universe
and a Master is one of them.

Someone who's in touch with Tao
is in touch with the earth.
The earth is in touch with heaven.
Heaven's in touch with Tao.
Tao's in touch with the way things are.

I like this verse, at least the first stanza. I get a bit lost in the others, especially since some of the translations indicate that the other stanzas directly follow from the first. I don’t see the connection.

I’ve included Ron Hogan’s interpretation, which I can’t decide if I like. This translation was suggested by ZzzoneiroCosm. It’s much more American and less poetic than any of the other translations. If I had read it first, I don’t know if I would have been attracted to the Tao Te Ching as much as I was.

I’ve also included all of Lin Yutang’s selections from the Chuang Tzu, which I really like. It’s long so I’ve placed it in hide/reveal.

Stanza 1 - Stephen Mitchell’s translation

There was something formless and perfect
before the universe was born.
It is serene. Empty.
Solitary. Unchanging.
Infinite. Eternally present.
It is the mother of the universe.
For lack of a better name,
I call it the Tao.
It flows through all things,
inside and outside, and returns
to the origin of all things.

As I noted, I like this stanza. It feels like a review section before the midterm exam for the verses covered so far. I especially like the discussion of how the Tao got its name. Turns out it was just made up because we couldn’t think of anything else to call it. It’s kind of a nickname. For me that answers the paradox of Verse 1, where Lao Tzu just jumps in without explanation and names the nameless.

The subject of the cyclic return of the 10,000 things to the Tao is reiterated here. As I’ve noted in earlier posts, I struggled with this idea for a long time. Now, I see it as recognition that, while the Tao is separated into the 10,000 things by the act of naming, the 10,000 things are always returning to the Tao, i.e. that the act of creation didn’t happen 1.4 billion years ago, it’s always happening. It’s happening now. I think the idea of returning is one of those things that means different things depending on the situation.

Stanzas 2 and 3 - Stephen Mitchell translation

The Tao is great.
The universe is great.
Earth is great.
Man is great.
These are the four great powers.

Man follows the earth.
Earth follows the universe.
The universe follows the Tao.
The Tao follows only itself.

These stanzas discuss what I have called a “ladder” in previous posts. There are a lot of different ladders in the Tao Te Ching and related documents. Here are a few examples:

From Verse 42 - Stephen Mitchell

The Tao gives birth to One.
One gives birth to Two.
Two gives birth to Three.
Three gives birth to all things.

From Verse 18 - Stephan Stenud

When the great Tao is abandoned,
Benevolence and righteousness arise.
When wisdom and knowledge appear,
Great pretense arises.
When family ties are disturbed,
Devoted children arise.
When people are unsettled,
Loyal ministers arise.

From “The Great One Gives Birth to the Waters” - a text related to the Tao Te Ching. Very confusing.

{The Great One} gave birth to Water. Water returned to assist (A) {The Great One}, [and] by means of this the Heavens were completed/manifested. The Heavens returned to assist {The Great One}, [and] by means of this the Earth was completed. The Heavens and Earth [returned to assist each other] [and] by means of this the Spirits and Luminaries were completed. The Spirits and Luminaries returned to assist each other, [and] by means of this Yin and Yang were completed. Yin and Yang returned to assist each other, [and] by means of this the Four Seasons were completed. The Four Seasons returned to assist each other (E), [and] by means of this Cold and Hot (F) were completed. Cold and Hot returned to assist each other, [and] by means of this Wet and Dry (G) were completed. Wet and Dry returned to assist each other, completing the Yearly Cycle (H) and that‘s all….

In this verse, it seems as if Lao Tzu is working to connect the cosmic and the human. To show where we fit in.

Man follows the earth.
Earth follows the universe.
The universe follows the Tao.
The Tao follows only itself.

In some of the translations, instead of “man” it says “the ruler,” which raises the question that comes up often - whether the Tao Te Ching is meant for all of us or just the bosses.

Humanity, Earth, Heaven, and the Tao are called the four great powers. There is clearly a hierarchy with the Tao at the top.

Can 0% (literally impossible) thus Person A's prediction about himself be the correct likelihood outcome of Event 1? — Geerts

No. All sorts of things could happen. He could suddenly have a stroke which causes changes in his mental state leading to him robbing the bank. Or he could get a phone call saying that his children are being held hostage until he robs the bank. Really unlikely, but certainly greater than the cat picture.

For me almost anything that can occur in this world would have much higher probability than Event 2 which is absurdly improbable. — Geerts

Keeping in mind that the screen showing the cat has the same probability as any other pattern of pixels. A royal straight flush in spades has the same probability as AS, 8D, JH, 2H, 5C.

the fact that there is structure to the world does not mean that the world comes to our awareness packaged an ‘inherent’ way that is already mathematical. Nature became mathematizable when we contributed our own peculiar interpretive structures to it. — Joshs

This is a good way of putting it.

Now, the predictable move from here is to say, “Well, that’s just how things work in our work (aka “the real world”) and tests exactly my point about entailed moral disqualification. — schopenhauer1

We are social animals. We like to hang around with our friends and family. It's unavoidable. It's been in our DNA for millions of years. This entails restrictions on our, and their, freedom, which we all accept. Morality is the deal we make so that the whole thing will work. It's all about restrictions. In essence, you are saying morality is immoral.

I'll give you the last chop on this. I've taken it about as far as I can.

I don't just write something and not defend it. I do try to rebut objections, even if people think it unsatisfactory. I write in good faith. — schopenhauer1

Agreed.

So are you saying people wish to have other people's preferences thwarted to have these things (love, friendship, loyalty, etc)? If so, more evidence for my case.. preferences had means having other people's preferences thwarted.. Thus morally disqualifying the whole thing (because it is a feature of the system and an intractable conundrum..other people's thwarted preferences allows for our preferences met). — schopenhauer1

So, in order to have a good life, I can't restrain my desire for complete freedom, even if I choose too. Even if it will make me happy. Do I have that correct? You forgot gravity. Gravity keeps me from flying if I want to.

This is a circular argument - In order to be happy you have to be unrestricted. The things that make you happy restrict you. QED. It is immoral to be happy.

As a psychotherapist-to-be, my instinct is to try to help. — ZzzoneiroCosm

A bit of a nasty implication. Or a nasty bit of implication. Or an implicatory bit of nastiness.

...But sadly only convinces one that the world would be a far more charming and cheerful place (indeed, in which to unconscionably suffer!) with fewer schopenhauer1-types about, incessantly jeremiahing. — ZzzoneiroCosm

@schopenhauer1 is a bit of a one-trick pony and I have disagreed with most of his positions over our time together on the forum. On the other hand, I have noted him branching out from his usual anti-natalism to broader subjects, although admittedly still focusing on the same set of issues. Also, he always comes to the discussions prepared with specific positions and arguments, unlike 63.459% of the other members. He writes well.

If I'm not in the mood to cross swords with his brand of pessimism, I avoid the discussion. You can't say you didn't expect what you get.

The best kind of existence would be one, perhaps, that is suited to each individual tastes/preferences without infringing on other people's tastes/preferences. That would mean by necessity everyone would have to enjoy their favored existence without infringing on other people's favored existence (if this existence was trying to be moral and it was agreed that enjoying one's own preferences was deemed as moral). But wait!!

What if your favored existence only is realized by infringing on other people's favored existence? — schopenhauer1

Almost everyone's "favored existence" would include being able to live sociably and peacefully with other people. Clearly then, almost every favored existence requires people to accept your so-called "infringement," otherwise known as friendship, loyalty, love, generosity, empathy, compassion, trust, honesty...

My theory is that morality is rooted in empathy. Empathy is a plausible basis for the "golden rule" - a formalism that seems to have developed independently in various cultures. We also know that psychopaths have an absence of empathy, and their behavior demonstrates an absence of morals.

If I'm right, then animals share the foundation of morality - empathy, but they lack the powers of abstraction to codify it into a "rule". — Relativist

This makes sense to me.

1. These are my values/ belifs/ current goals/ current understanding (may be very specific to the topic)
2. Here is my detailed defense of them/ articuation of the problem/ question
3. Invitation for the other party to pick apart 2, and even 1.
4. Respond to 3 only to help 3 more effectively pick apart 2, and even 1, attempting to minimise misunderstanding — SatmBopd

I disagree with some of what you say, but I don't know that we are all that far apart. I just think that defining terms at the start is an important part of the process. Case in point - metaphysics, especially epistemology. It's at the center of what I understand about the world and I have very specific opinions about what's important and how it should work. Unfortunately, just about everyone has different and often conflicting opinions about what metaphysics is. Most discussions end up in endless disagreements about definitions. In discussions I start, I am careful to explain what it means to me, what I think about it, and how I want the discussion to proceed. Otherwise I'll never get to talk about the issues that are important to me.

I start discussions to learn things. To test my ideas. To make sure I can express my thoughts effectively. If I don't set the rules out carefully, I won't get what I'm after.

I'm sceptical that it will lead us to truth or the best possible discussions/ ideas — SatmBopd

I don't think I understand the kind of discussion you're talking about. Have you seen any like that here on the forum as an example?

OK, but isn't the artwork nevertheless aesthetic to the beholder(s) even if not beautiful? — javra

To be honest, I don't really judge a work by whether or not it's beautiful or whether the experience of it is beautiful. I judge by whether or not I am moved - emotionally, sensually, or intellectually. Changed. For an experience to be beautiful, aesthetic, it must be moving.

So, yes. I can be moved by an artwork that isn't conventionally beautiful.

we are already taking for granted the substantial claim that these definitions are the best, or most relavent ones. — SatmBopd

When I set out the terms of discussion in the OP, I often, generally, have very specific things I want to talk about. You may notice that I try to ride herd on my own discussions to keep them on the track I intended. When I am participating in someone else's discussion, I try, usually if not always successfully, to follow the terms they've set out. If someone doesn't want to talk about things in the terms I do, they can go to another discussion or start one of their own.

I've found that the best discussions, either my own or someone else's, have the terms of the discussion well laid out, including definitions of terms if those are likely to be confused.

Then again, what of the ugly in art which is nevertheless attractive, captivating, and pleasing? Isn't it a contradiction in semantics to affirm that a painting is both beautiful and ugly? — javra

As I said, art is about experience. It's not necessarily the picture that's beautiful, it's the experience.

Great book by the way. — javra

Hated it, but yes, very well written. Compelling. Unforgettable.

Yes. I meant that Aristotle is talking about unpleasant emotions and how they still are part of art. — Jackson

Yes, then I guess we are talking about the same thing.

Similar to Aristotle's idea of catharsis. — Jackson

When I think of "catharsis" I think of purging unpleasant emotions. I don't think that's what I'm talking about. I think there can be value, truth, beauty in an unpleasant experience. As I said, it's not something I want to do. Perhaps it's a sign of weakness; yes, it is; but I like happy endings.

What do you think? — SatmBopd

A well-thought-out and clearly expressed argument I find myself disagreeing with, at least in part.

Anytime you define terms, you are already establishing the goal posts for the argument, most of the consequential discussion probably takes place in that step, which I think is often regarded as merely the opening formalities of a discussion. — SatmBopd

Agree with this.

Rather than arguing about classifications and terms, unless it is done with as much precision as to be scientific, (and even then, the utility of the discussion is necessarily limited due to its specificity) I think all (or most) philosophical discussion should revolve around the attempted articulation (and perhaps even creation) of values and experiences. — SatmBopd

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, this is where we disagree. I have said many times that the major problem with many, perhaps most, discussions here on the forum is the failure to define terms. People assume they know what words mean and that others have the same understanding. Then there is a long, convoluted, pointless argument with different people talking about different things as if they are the same. Prime example - consciousness, self-awareness, sentience, self-consciousness, awareness, attention, thinking, cognition, introspection, reasoning, rationalization.

When I start a discussion, I want to talk about the specific thing I have in mind. I want other people to be using the terms I use in the same way I am. I don't want long arguments about what words mean, unless that is the specific point of the discussion.

So it is the quality of the writing and its form which gives the property beauty. — Jackson

The experience is beautiful, but unpleasant. It's not something I enjoy. I try to avoid that kind of art.