However, the problem, if it's one ... — TheMadFool

There is no "problem". :roll: Whatever else is real, the physical is that aspect of the real – iceberg above the (fundamental?) waterline – available to physical modeling (i.e. natural explanations of material data). Whatever else is real – always saught in scientific inquiry and research – does not play any role in the physical sciences or factual experience that's testably known so far. Epistemology is exhausted, exceeded, by ontology – methodological (N OT Wayfarer's strawman "nothing but" metaphysical) materialism - physicalism - naturalism.

The reason quantum physics tends to undermine materialism in any form, has nothing to do with the equivalence of matter and energy. It has to do with the observer problem/measurement problem. It is because quantum physics failed to find an ultimate material point-particle, and also because it undermined the idea that the object (read Universe) exists totally independently of the act of observation. — Wayfarer

YOU ARE STILL PEDDLING THIS easily repeatedly debunked pseudo-scientific "observer effect" woo-of-the-gaps interpretation as if it is QM itself? :rofl: :sweat: :smirk: :yawn: :yikes:

It would be like a person who spends faer entire life in, say, Paris and forms the belief that Paris = The universe. — TheMadFool

Not a great example. Even if one only lives in Paris, easy to find and definitive proof exists for anyone to check that there are other places, a whole world. And, by the way, have you ever met a Parisian? They do think this. :joke:

What does materialism have to do with space? — TheMadFool

That’s not it, either. The underlying issue is that science excludes the observer. Now, who or what is ‘the observer’? Why, that would be the human being. Science aspires to see the world ‘as it truly is’, absent of any and all observers. But it can’t do that, because even the units of measurement that science uses are fixed in terms of the human perspective. The ‘observer problem’ brought this into sharp relief. This was realised by Schrodinger, in his later philosophical writings. He gives a detailed analysis of the philosophical consequences of ‘objectification’ - the fact that science can only ever deal with objects and the objectively real. Which is not in itself wrong, but it culminates in a form of consciousness, so to speak, which orients itself solely in respect of what is objective, which is a different domain to ‘the transcendent’.

[Mind] as distinct from…….
— Wayfarer

Not sure what you mean? — Pop

As distinct from energy! :roll: I thought you’d get that.

Science aspires to see the world ‘as it truly is’, absent of and and all observers. But it can’t do that, because even the units of measurement that science uses are fixed in terms of the human perspective. — Wayfarer

I suspect that many scientists would prefer to say that science aspires to see the world as closely as human observation allows.

Yes, now they would. This is one of the main things that taught them that.

have you ever met a Parisian? — Tom Storm

Aaah! Paris! [...] I think you'll find the view over here rather spectacular — Mr. Hyde

I am glad that my thread has come back to life and replying to yours because it really goes back to the basic question. Some of the thread focused on reality and is it solid, even discussion tables and that is because in many ways we are are born into and die in a physical world. In some ways, we are even trapped in the physical world, because we have to use physical means to do things. Even as I communicate on this site, I am reliant on my phone and my fingers. I remember the time when I had a broken wrist, and it was the right one, I spent 6 weeks struggling to do most things because we rely on physical reality, and our bodies.

I think that the way I see it is whether that is all there is. I am not necessarily suggesting hidden realities, but going back to what you wrote earlier we are embodied, with an interior sense of self, but at the same time, part of something larger. So, understanding reality is complex, because there are different facets, and it depends on how we put them together in our understanding. Also, reality is infinite too.

Yes, now they would. This is one of the main things that taught them that. — Wayfarer

Yep. But I guess that's what science is meant to do - models change with the data.

Ask any person, any person at all, and real = physical. — TheMadFool

Not me. I've never believed it, and never said it.

we are even trapped in the physical world, because we have to use physical means to do things. Even as I communicate on this site, I am reliant on my phone and my fingers. I remember the time when I had a broken wrist, and it was the right one, I spent 6 weeks struggling to do most things because we rely on physical reality, and our bodies. — Jack Cummins

If I were a nonphysicalist, I would say, "this is exactly what I'm talking about. The so-called physical world can't be ignored unless you want to end up in a hospital or worse, a grave. However, this doesn't constitute an argument. At best it's a scare tactic (argumentum ad baculum) or at worst parallels God level indoctrination that would leave communists, known for their so-called re-education camps, shamefully red-faced." A pinch of sodium chloride, anyone?

Not me. I've never believed it, and never said it. — Wayfarer

You are not like the rest of us. :smile:

If I were a nonphysicalist, I would say, "this is exactly what I'm talking about. The so-called physical world can't be ignored unless you want to end up in a hospital or worse, a grave. However, this doesn't constitute an argument. At best it's a scare tactic — TheMadFool

It's actually a pretty good argument... hard to ignore facts like that.

I don't want to end up in hospital or in a grave yet, although I remember on the first week when I began working in a psychiatric hospital, I dreamt that I was a patient, lying in a dormitory bed. But, that aside, I think that it does happen that people lose touch with physical reality. I didn't know that you (Madfool) consider yourself as a physicalist, but presume that you mean that that is the most ultimate reality. I definitely think that it is primary and as the starting point for something more. But, I am not sure whether some underlying invisible causes come into play. I think that this is at the core of any understanding of reality.

I think that your question of how can we account for the arts and philosophy is extremely important in our understanding of reality. Ever since I began thinking about philosophy of reality, I have thought of this in connection with the idea of the collective unconscious. However, I am aware that Jung's idea has been seen as lacking in philosophy. I wonder if this could be because he did not explore it fully enough as a philosophical concept. He was rather blurry in seeing it as connected to metaphysics or as being an aspect of nature and biology.

One major query which I have is where do creative ideas come from? I know that Plato speaks of ideas of Forms, but even these seem like abstract entities. However, individuals have specific ideas and ways of seeing, which are experienced uniquely. I think that this is partly on a phenomenological level and I do plan to read more in this field, and I do wish to read Hegel's 'Phenomenology of Mind'. But, at the moment, my own understanding is that unique perception and creativity do seem to point to the possibility of reality being multidimensional.

Anyway, if you, or anyone else reply, I will look at it later in the day, because I have a medical appointment this afternoon (and I have some comments to reply to in the thread I started yesterday.)

It's actually a pretty good argument... hard to ignore facts like that. — Tom Storm

It's hard to not think that way. Therein lies the rub.

I don't want to end up in hospital or in a grave yet — Jack Cummins

You won't! :up:

One major query which I have is where do creative ideas come from? — Jack Cummins

My guess is they come from the same "place" other thoughts, words, walking, etc come from: 'subpersonal brain processes' (i.e. system 1 "fast brain" ~ Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow), in other words, from the you that's deeper than You. Sorry, no Platonic out-there, transcendent, supersensible, collective unconscious woo-woo beaming ideas into our "souls" like a radio receiver that "creative" people platonicly "recollect" by turning some tuner knob in their "soul" to another frequency. Our brains are brain-blind because they lack internal sensory organs and so we do not directly perceive that we even have brains that generate 'the idea of having a brain-blind brain'.

No more mystery, Jack, than the fact that as you read this on a screen your eyes do not – cannot – directly see themselves as they are seeing these pixels. Can't directly see the back of your head either. Where does that itch between your shoulder blades come from? Same "place" as "creative ideas" which often need to be scratched too.

I have read read some of Kahneman's book, but not all of it. I think framing of life and reality is important, although I am not sure that idea has not been discovered before.

As for mystery, I am not sure to what extent it can be ruled out or incorporated. I am definitely in favour of demystification, and not just speaking of the ineffable or the unknown. However, I do think that each of us, and the various models of thinking are so limited. I really see it as being more of an adventure, in which any of us can search in life and in ideas, in order to look for the most innovative ways of seeing, in science, arts and all disciplines. It is partly about individual perception of reality, but this is not entirely separate from the cultural pursuit of knowledge.

Thanks for your ongoing participation. What I am wondering about is what is energy exactly. I am sure that there is the formula, as expressed in physics. However, I wonder if even this is limited because it is about formulas and models. I am not trying to be awkward, but all models seem to be models. I think that we need to refine and develop them. I am also aware that you are probably in a different part of the world, so that you are probably awake when I am sleeping, which probably means that we have delayed responses. I wake up and see your ideas and by the time I have drunk a couple of coffees you have probably gone to bed. However, I do appreciate the ideas which you have contributed to this thread discussion.

I am not convinced that the idea of energy within quantum physics is not worthy of greater philosophical speculation. I think that your discussion of all these areas are so open up ideas for exploration, even though I can't always access the links you provide, which is probably due to signals, an aspect of reality which on which we are starting to rely upon. However, I think that the point which you make about the role of the observer, which is recognised in the physics of relativity is extremely important, and I do wonder to what extent this ideas has been incorporated as a basis, or aspect, of the underlying premises of philosophy.

However, I think that the point which you make about the role of the observer, which is recognised in the physics of relativity is extremely important, and I do wonder to what extent this ideas has been incorporated as a basis, or aspect, of the underlying premises of philosophy. — Jack Cummins

Isn't that postmodernism? ;)

While the ontological interpretation of the wavefunction hasn't been much in favour, recent experiments suggest that if you and I prepare a system in a superposition of measurable states, then you measure it, you may collapse the wavefunction for you, but not for me. Indeed, I could perform a measurement that demonstrates the system remained in superposition after you measured it and obtained a singular result. (Disclaimer: Strictly, the experiments suggest that either we have no freedom of choice, or stuff like future events affecting the past is possible, or that reality is observer-dependent. Also the experimental technique remains disputed.) The role of the observer may be important, but only for the observer.

The role of the observer may be important, but only for the observer. — Kenosha Kid

We’re all observers, and the absence of human beings, what observers are there? Now that’s a question you’re not going to find the answer for in physics.

As for mystery, I am not sure to what extent it can be ruled out or incorporated. — Jack Cummins

Do you think you're an unconscious automation that has been formed by chemical interactions driven by physical laws? That creativity, art, philosophy, the history of human culture are the outcome of unconscious brains driven by the algorithms of survival, itself an unconscious process? Because that's what you're being asked to believe.

You should understand that one of the primary capabilities for even beginning philosophy is discriminating wisdom, the ability to discern the true from the false. Here's your opportunity!

The role of the observer may be important, but only for the observer. — Kenosha Kid

:up:

My phone battery may run out at any moment, but I definitely don't think that I am automaton. I think that there may be an unconscious, but I do wonder if it has some underlying principles. One of the first books which I read shortly after leaving school was, 'God and the Unconscious' by Victor White. That was a fairly complex book, and I was a bit upset when my mother told me she threw it away because it was tatty because the book, especially the title was my one of the biggest ideas which influenced me in thinking about some underlying force, whether it is called God, energy or the unconscious .

We’re all observers, and the absence of human beings, what observers are there? Now that’s a question you’re not going to find the answer for in physics. — Wayfarer

That might be a little too speculative for a physics text. Personally I think it's overwhelmingly likely other intelligent species exist, or have existed, or will exist, out there somewhere. Unsure of the relevance of this though.

Unsure of the relevance of this though. — Kenosha Kid

Well, it has philosophical significance. When the problems associated with 'the observer' started to become apparent, this was what prompted Einstien to ask 'doesn't the moon continue to exist when nobody's looking?' He could not accept the idea that 'the kind of answer you get depends on the kind of question you ask', as Bohr put it, but believed there must be a truly 'mind-independent' outcome or object, which quantum theory was failing to capture. This was the substance of the long-running Bohr-Einstein debates which went well into Einstein's Princeton years. The subsequent confirmation of 'Bell's inequalities' by the Alain Aspect experiments is generally regarded as decisive in favour of Bohr's interpretation over Einstein's.

Which I'm sure you would know.

Your best argument would be to say energy clumps together into an emergent property, thus into elementary particles, then atoms, molecules, etc. Thus is no longer just energy. I would counter argue that all you have done is symbolize different densities and entanglements of energy into the symbols: elementary particles, atoms, molecules. I would say If you strip away the symbols, all you would see is entangled densities of energy with emergent function. You would say no, and i would say yes, and we would be at the current stale mate. However our paradigm would lend its bias to the situation, and we would both walk away in the knowledge that we are right, although we disagree.

As @Wayfarer pointed out there is no mind independent observation, and all minds operate through a paradigm, which is biased towards that paradigm. It means there can be no reality, as envisaged by naive realists. What there is instead is interpretations of reality. It means nobody's interpretation of reality can have absolute authority. In reality there is no reality! :lol:

However there are interpretations and some are better then others an this is what we quibble over.

As Wayfarer pointed out there is no mind independent observation, and all minds operate through a paradigm, which is biased towards that paradigm. It means there can be no reality, as envisaged by naive realists. What there is instead is interpretations of reality. It means nobody's interpretation of reality can have absolute authority. In reality there is no reality! :lol: — Pop

While I can't recall how he does it doesn't John Searle (amongst others) present arguments against this?