I think that a distinction can be made between 'intrinsic' and 'relational' properties. — boundless
Yeah, that bit. The principles of physics are to be formulated so that the frame of reference being used does not change those principles. Any frame will do. This was intended to head off the common notion that science seeks a "view from nowhere" - perhaps the view you described and disagreed with as "independent from any reference frame". Rather, science seeks a view from anywhere. A point worth making in a philosophy forum.On the other hand, yes, I agree if this is taken to mean that any reference frame can be used to discover/find some truth that is valid for all other reference frames. — boundless
That seems to be making 'an ontological claim'. Or wait - is it an 'epistemological claim?' — Wayfarer
So like gauge invariance vs Poincaré invariance? Constrain spacetime to a manifold of points and it still has degrees of freedom in that the points may spin rather than sit still. They may be vector and chiral rather than scalar. Quantum spin arises as an intrinsic property and the rest of particle physics follows. — apokrisis
Yeah, that bit. The principles of physics are to be formulated so that the frame of reference being used does not change those principles. Any frame will do. This was intended to head off the common notion that science seeks a "view from nowhere" - perhaps the view you described and disagreed with as "independent from any reference frame". Rather, science seeks a view from anywhere. A pont worth making in a philosophy forum. — Banno
You presume it must involve a conscious being, — Banno
IIRC there was a paper by philosopher Michel Bitbol that discussed this kind of thing — boundless
andit implies the observer, who is not in scope for the objective sciences — Wayfarer
I reject any notion of ‘consciousness as substance — Wayfarer
You want consciousness to be the special thing that collapse wave functions, but you don't want it to be different to the other stuff of the universe. — Banno
:up:... to head off the common notion that science seeks a "view from nowhere" ... Rather, science seeks a view from anywhere. A point worth making in a philosophy forum — Banno
:up: :up:It is one thing to say that things unperceived are not the same as we perceive them to be and altogether another to claim that when unperceived they don't exist. — Janus
↪Wayfarer Again, there is the bit where you give and the bit where you take back. You want consciousness to be the special thing that collapse wave functions, but you don't want it to be different to the other stuff of the universe. — Banno
↪boundless That’s pretty right - I do hold to a form of epistemic idealism. But I also claim that what we can claim is real is inextricably connected to what we can know, which I think is a consequence of my training in Buddhist philosophy. — Wayfarer
Cheers.I do not think that QBism or similar views are in contrast with your own view. — boundless
↪boundless Linde says it changes our perception of what appears to be ‘the past’. — Wayfarer
What's odd is that this is a thread about justice and fairness, yet it contains page after page of speculative quantum physics. — Banno
Hence:
it implies the observer, who is not in scope for the objective sciences
— Wayfarer
and
I reject any notion of ‘consciousness as substance
— Wayfarer
But how can you have it both ways? You both physicalism and dualism. — Banno
It then becomes clear and certain to him that what he knows is not a sun and an earth, but only an eye that sees a sun, a hand that feels an earth; that the world which surrounds him is there only as idea, i.e., only in relation to something else, the consciousness, which is himself.” ~ Schopenhauer
and therefore he has eyes and hands! Why are eyes and hands OK, but not the sun or the earth? — Banno
Is it possible to 'split' the thread? — boundless
No, but you can always start a new thread on the speculative physics. Trouble is, folk here seem adamant that the physics is somehow apposite to fairness, so I think they woudl probably stay here rather than join you. Might be best to go with the flow.Is it possible to 'split' the thread? — boundless
It was indeed facetious, since the quote had so little to do with the issues at hand. And so we go back to where we were half a thread ago, the challenge before us becoming more endurance than enlightenment.I thought this response was so comically off the mark that I replied with an emoji. — Wayfarer
You want consciousness to be the special thing — Banno
This "knower" (i.e. perceiver) Bishop Berkeley calls "God" which, not by coincidence I'm sure, is functionally indistinguishable from @Gnomon's "Enformer". An infinite regress-of-the-gaps. :sparkle: :eyes:It is that which discloses such things as gravity and raditation and sub-atomic particles, amidst innumerable other things. It is the subject to whom all this occurs or appears. The ‘unknown knower’. — Wayfarer
Agreed. Mind(ing) is something sufficiently complex brains do – a (meta)activity, not an entity.[T]he mind is not ‘a thing among other things’ — Wayfarer
You mean experimentally? - https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys3343
As a bone of contention? - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-023-04251-x — apokrisis
I don't follow Santa Fe Institute in general, because my interest is primarily in their work on "dynamics regulated by Information" as you put it. Here's two books by authors & editors, some affiliated with SFI, that approach Complexity and Self-Organization from an Information perspective. :smile:No. It gathered a good bunch of people to drill into self-organising complexity in the broad sense. But then over-generalised that dynamicist viewat the expense of the further thing which biosemiotics is focused on. Dynamics regulated by information. — apokrisis
Are you demanding a "clear position" expressed in Materialistic terminology? I can't speak for , but I suspect that he "cannot or will not do that", because it would completely miss the meaning of his Immaterialist*1 philosophical Position. Any "sensible" Material aspects of his worldview are covered by Science, not Philosophy. :smile:But if we are here to argue sensibly it seems at least reasonable to be called upon to state a clear position. My complaint about Wayfarer is that he cannot or will not do that. — Janus
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.