We know that most of the atomic constituents of the human body are born within stars and supernovae and as such their origins can be precisely traced to very distant antecedent events within the cosmos. My question therefore is this.
How can we possibly occupy a universe wherein some events are determined and others are not, if indeed all events are ultimately interrelated down to the very atomic structure of material objects. — Marcus de Brun
The mind-stuff of the world is, of course, something more general than our individual conscious minds.... The mind-stuff is not spread in space and time; these are part of the cyclic scheme ultimately derived out of it.... It is necessary to keep reminding ourselves that all knowledge of our environment from which the world of physics is constructed, has entered in the form of messages transmitted along the nerves to the seat of consciousness.... Consciousness is not sharply defined, but fades into subconsciousness; and beyond that we must postulate something indefinite but yet continuous with our mental nature.... It is difficult for the matter-of-fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character. But no one can deny that mind is the first and most direct thing in our experience, and all else is remote inference."
Because the so-called 'sub-atomic constituents' of matter are themselves indeterminate in nature.
Could you expand on this? How are sub-atomic particles indeterminate? — Marcus de Brun
The concept of the atom had proved exceptionally fruitful in the explanation of chemical bonding and the physical behavior of gases. It was soon apparent, however, that the particles called atoms by the chemist were composed of still smaller units. But these smaller units, the electrons, followed by the atomic nuclei and finally the elementary particles, protons and neutrons, also still seemed to be atoms from the standpoint of the materialist philosophy. The fact that, at least indirectly, one can actually see a single elementary particle—in a cloud chamber, say, or a bubble chamber—supports the view that the smallest units of matter are real physical objects, existing in the same sense that stones or flowers do.
But the inherent difficulties of the materialist theory of the atom, which had become apparent even in the ancient discussions about smallest particles, have also appeared very clearly in the development of physics during the present century.
This difficulty relates to the question whether the smallest units are ordinary physical objects, whether they exist in the same way as stones or flowers. Here, the development of quantum theory some forty years ago has created a complete change in the situation. The mathematically formulated laws of quantum theory show clearly that our ordinary intuitive concepts cannot be unambiguously applied to the smallest particles. All the words or concepts we use to describe ordinary physical objects, such as position, velocity, color, size, and so on, become indefinite and problematic if we try to use then of elementary particles.
Hard determination is the reality; soft determination is the appearance. — Bitter Crank
Hard determination is the reality; soft determination is the appearance. — Bitter Crank
This appears to be empirically correct, but is this not simply stating that reality is something of a delusion, if experienced reality is at odds with the fundamental truth of that reality? — Marcus de Brun
I used the concept of space-time continuum here, as it is commonly used — Ötzi
Higher dimensional perception is much more difficult. Accurate time perception can only be approximated by using predetermined units of measurement (like my one-eyed depth-perception analogy). Anything of higher dimensions can only be conceptually understood by using mathematics. — Ötzi
That is basically saying everything is subjective. An interesting notion but I tend to think the subjective is derived from the objective, not the other way around.What then if the temporal dimension itself is not perceived as an external apriori, but rather is the product of the function perception?
That is basically saying everything is subjective. An interesting notion but I tend to think the subjective is derived from the objective, not the other way around. — Ötzi
In my estimation QM and Philosophy are presently at the same impasse. Neither can proceed without an appropriate Philosophy of Time and this may lie at the very heart of the questions pertaining to the truth, falsity or function of a Determined Universe. — Marcus de Brun
The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can't believe the whole universe exists for our benefit. That would be like saying that you would disappear if I closed my eyes.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.