The question would be, if these experiences actually tell you something deep about the world or something deep about the mind, which is a part of the world, sure, but not the world itself, in a way. — Manuel
the notion of objectivity as "an awareness devoid of a point of view (hence, devoid of selfhood)" for me sort’a converges with the Neo-Platonic notion of “the One” or the Buddhist notion of “Nirvana”. — javra
'Detachment' would be a better description than objectivity, I think. — Wayfarer
I believe what you are describing is more epistemology, the study of knowledge, then it is metaphysics. — Philosophim
A long look at the history of philosophy shows a commonly recurring theme. It shows the attempt to create/discover some fundamental bedrock of certainty upon which we can build a foundation for all knowledge and wisdom — Reformed Nihilist
No philosopher, or any other mortal soul, will ever be able to see the whole rock. — Raymond
I think you did a good job laying out your vision and I think it is worth talking about. I'm surprised RN or someone else hasn't responded yet. — T Clark
My first objection is that you have mixed your physics and metaphysics. They don't belong together. That's kind of a knee-jerk reaction. I'll reread your post and see if I have more to say. — T Clark
The philosopher who knows how to combine them all has yet to be born. — Raymond
We can eliminate the complexities and even the composites as being Fundamental, for they would have parts that would have to be even more Fundamental. — PoeticUniverse
The basic fundamentals, the fundamentals from which all is made, cannot be eliminated. as these are fundamental. — Raymond
True, and so to find the basic we look toward the simplest state. — PoeticUniverse
That is probably the state of the massless particles in quarks and leptons. There are only two kinds of them, the minimum needed to construct all of matter from. Again, dualism in the bedrock. — Raymond
The bedrock is in sight. That's good for now since my lady says it's time for bed. — PoeticUniverse
Well, when you put it that way, imagination does have merit; nevertheless, I feel it's more trouble than it's worth. — Agent Smith
There's nothing wrong with imagination, or imagining, provided we recognize it as such and nothing more. The same can be said about pretense, or pretending, which I think are closely related. Mere imagining or pretending may soothe, may amuse, may gratify, may even suggest. Taken as more than what they are, though, they may confuse, bemuse, misdirect and may even become exercises in futility. — Ciceronianus
I'm the soul of futility, Sisyphus' avatar. — Agent Smith
I think there are two truly elementaries. — Raymond
The up and down quark and the electron seem to be the most useful. There are also forces. — PoeticUniverse
You can construct all with two, — Raymond
There are 25 quantum field types, all atop one another, making for one overall quantum field. — PoeticUniverse
It's more reasonable there 20 massless basic fields — Raymond
What oscillates if you say that the field is a collection of oscillators? — Raymond
The whole field fluctuates from the continuous field points oscillating; the points are not separate from one another; there can't be any spacers of the impossible 'Nothingness' anywhere — PoeticUniverse
Is there an oscillator attached to all points in space? — Raymond
Many physicists believe that "the vacuum holds the key to a full understanding of nature"[8] and that studying it is critical in the search for the theory of everything. Active areas of research include the effects of virtual particles,[15] quantum entanglement,[16] the difference (if any) between inertial and gravitational mass,[17] variation in the speed of light,[18] a reason for the observed value of the cosmological constant[19] and the nature of dark energy.[20][21] — PoeticUniverse
As I understand it, at every point in spacetime operator valued distributions are assigned and these operators excite states in a Fock space of particle states. All these states have frequencies and wavelengths and can indeed be seen in the light of oscillators, or rotating complex vectors. But are there really operators present that excite a particle state? Is not a particle state, and it's demise, propagation, or creation what comes first? Are it really creation, destruction, or propagating operators, that govern? — Raymond
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.