Heisenberg was right to a certain extent. I think he refers to the scientific method and scientific questions asked. If we ask mathematical questions nature will reply in that language. Or else we force her to fit the math as is done in experiment surrounded by measuring devices. We expect that what we think to exist, be it an object under scientific investigation (in which, to a certain degree, we create the object and its surrounding), the god talking to us, or the ghosts in the forrest.

What I'm drawing attention to is that what we presume is real independently of any observers, is still very much a construction of the mind. Any judgement about what exists, whether space or anything else, is a judgement — Wayfarer

Agreed. But does that mean they don't exist independently of us? Different people have different things they think to exist observer independently. You claim there is actually one observer independent reality that we can't know. I think the observer independent reality depends on the observer (which sounds self contradictory but actually isn't).

As the help stays out and I owe you, let me help. It depends on q. Assume q: "it's 2 o'clock". Does negating this lead to a contradiction? Probably. Between you and your boss. Assume "the wall is 2 meter high". Negating this will not lead to a contradiction but certainly to a confrontation trying to jump over. Assume every particle is neutral. Negating this will contradict the behavior of charged particles. Assume time is real. Negating this doesn't lead to a contradiction but surely justifies you in smashing the clock at town hall. You probably end up in contradiction with the city major.

Isn't denying an assumption already contradicting it? Is denial to contradict?

Mind-independent' is a methodological assumption, — Wayfarer

I'm against any method. They can be useful, but there is no such thing as The Method. What has this assumption to do with a method? I just think they exist outside of us, independently of what I think about them? Don't you agree the space you walk in is real? Why shouldn't it exist if there are no observers? There would be no perception of it, but space would still be there. As we perceive it.

surpasses 250 per day. — jgill

As the imperative of growth dictates. Progress=growth. Litterally. More, deeper, larger, higher, faster, further, richer, shorter, thinner, fatter, boomer, or banger. "The record is broooooken!" I'm not saying this is inherently wrong, but it fucks up nature. That's the reason for the chaos in nature. And the unholy alliance of state and Science. I'm "a scientist" myself (like anybody..) but at least I realize what once was God and State is now Science and State.

What is it about these big-shot intellects that they are attracted to this sort of thing? — jgill

It's a game requiring "the" intellect. To be analyzed or even programmed. A friend of mine got off on it too. "Look, if the orange is up in the middle, your left hand starts moving away, and then your,,,", yeah yeah....

They don't but I have! :wink:

Nothing within it is nearer or further, older or newer, closer or further away — Wayfarer

Unless these features are observer independent.

A really radical dualism (or something like it) has (as I see it) nothing at all to say about the relationship between qualia and its substrate. — ajar

I'm not sure if I qualify as radical but I'm a dualist too. I think you agree that matter contains electric charge and color charge. What if these are the base of consciousness, which means that the problem is solved, or in any case reduced.

Interesting! Methusalem is older than the universe! Huh? But is this a real threat to big bang cosmology?

Please, explain. Are you saying the Chinese have a better way of life? Perhaps India is the best model? Arabs are equal to Asians? Do you want to live in Afghanistan? — Athena

These countries are western in fact. Cities in India, China, Afghanistan are all alike. I mean the ways of life made impossible by western expansion. There are, or better, were, lots of them scattered around the globe. African tribes (showing themselves for money to tourists), Aboriginals (some in Australia drinking alcohol after being robbed from their land), people on islands who got cancer by nuclear testing), people in India getting used for money while their ancestors lived a happy life before the advent of the west, native Americans, people from Africa living a happy life before the west arrived, the Hopi Indians, Inuit ways of life, people living happily in nature, etc.

Then there is only one actual symmetric thing. The singularity at the big bang. Spatiotemporally a pure symmetry. There was time but without direction. In the universe there are no exact symmetries, irreversible processes only and no truly periodic clock. At the big bang the opposite. The symmetry materially, so truly, broke when the virtual got real.

What other system empowers individuals and lifts the individual human potential, and therefore, the collective potential of civilization? — Athena

All non-western forms of live.

Isn't symmetry about two different things being the same? Left and right are symmetric. If you let things move to the left it's the same as making them move to the right.

What about the two hydrogen atoms in water. Aren't they symmetric somehow?

Yes, it's strange. Very strange. I still wonder from where it all came, why I am me, etc. Even when you think you know the fundamentals, what are they really? We can make models, and space seems the "stuff" between matter. But is that space? Or just a perception necessary for life? The world is a magic place!

Which is the same as defending solipsism — TerraHalcyon

I don't get this. Why you say that?

Ah, then I understand. I'm not made of the same particles as when born. I'm not sure if that matters. All the new ones have a direct relation to the old. There is not a new me.

Thanks mr. G. :wink:

Where does the mirror fit then? — Metaphysician Undercover

Perpendicular to the screen, left or right to the 2.

They would also strongly argue that you aren't the body, for a lot of reasons. — TerraHalcyon

If not the body, then who are you? It's who I see in the water. It's what other people see of me. The brainy mental universe and the physical one around me make it possible for me to live. In that sense they are essential for me. But they are no me.

also find it odd you're positing an external reality when in my thread you tried defending solipsism — TerraHalcyon

Defending solipsism? I defended the guy. I'm not a solipsist.

I don't think it's about metric component values only, if this is what he means by numerical laws. The numbers are not primary but secondary. Associating numbers with it is...an opinion, and E and R are allowed to have opinions...

The ezelsbrug is the reality, the numbers the description of the manifold. In brane theory, a 3d brane, on which matter is constrained, is emerged in a 4d space. When the branes collide, with an incredible precision, a big bang occurs. The branes reside again and matter accelerates away to infinity. Then a new collision and again, bang! Ad inf. A bit like my model. The branes being two 3d closed universes on a 4d substrate space.

Consciousness is not one of the two perspectives. — Brock Harding

It is in my view. Only the internal world of the brain creates the consciousness we experience. Of course there is interaction with the physical world. But it's the internal world that brings it alive.

There's no point to this discussion: my neural network (brain) is not aware that it is a neural network (brain). — Agent Smith

But the content of your brain, with which you are in direct contact internally, is. The content of your brain, structured electric charges running around continuously, from embryo to old man, can create an image of whatever physical structures, in qualia. The brain has the potential to create analogues of virtually infinite physical processes. A micro universe. The number of physically possible paths is mega giga astronomical: a 1 followed by 10exp35 zeroes!

Ego-death, self reflection, representations of the self, self consciousness, self referential strange loops... What's the big deal about the self? Do we all have an identity crisis?

Living without an image of yourself how you should be leads to ego death. Living like you feel makes the mental image of yourself disappear and you are as you are. You're your body then, fully alive between the outer physical world and the inner mental world, without a second you disturbing.

Either live life as a zombie or as a narcissist. Tough choice! Both are deadly. — Agent Smith

Damn you Agent! How come you make me laugh every time? :razz:

Indeed, I fully agree. No one has even started to explain what time is before proving it wrong or wright. You seem to be the only one who made an attempt.

Consider the state of the universe to be represented by a real number: say 1.12365... — hypericin

You think you can represent a universe by a real number, the most non-real number of all (apart from the hyper reals)? A continuum can't be broken up in points.

There you go. Incontrovertible. — Banno

Then how long did it take before you came up with this fantastic idea? If you can't tell me the answer you are wrong. Then time is not real.

There is one scientific imperative that brings disaster and natural chaos. The scientific imperative of growth. According to the second law of TD entropy in a closed system increases. If people create order ("that wonderfull growth in technology", with accompanying fairy tales of a conscious computers, star travel, genetically manipulated humanoids, androids, ?), the natural order has to decrease. Unavoidable. Already storms are more energetic (more entropy). Species get extìnct and the reason why the biologist thinks this is regrettable is that study objects are gone.

All subjective experience is caused by consciousness, but consciousness does not give birth to itself (not an illusion). Does this make consciousness the first cause? — pfirefry

Consciousness=charge.
Virtual charge= Virtual Consciousness
Virtual charges=negative curvature
Negative curvature=Causing power

Thus...Consciousness (virtual not to be confused with not real; potentially real) is first cause.

Einstein called gravity a force. — jgill

That's exactly what he not did. Gravity is no force.

Once one moves into 4-D, the "curvature" of space becomes an algebraic concept, not a geometric concept — jgill

Can you elaborate on that? For example, why can't a circle exists in 2d?

Why are these pictures misleading? The only thing that's misleading are gravity used for the pulling in and applying 2d for 3d. A 3d space curved in 4d is not to see (well, maybe a 2d slice). But if the rubber sheet represented 2d space around a 2d mass, the picture would be correct. Of course without gravity pulling and time curvature iscthe most important for low velocities. :cool:

If the imperative says to always tell the truth, shouldn't he obey?
— Raymond

If that's the case, he would be making a judgement on me. But Mww says deontologists don't make such judgements on others, but only on themselves. So what exactly does he mean by “judgement”? — Amalac

The judgement being that you're disobedient to the imperative. The sick man must, in the name of truth, know the truth.

That's after I have already lied. — Amalac

If the imperative says to always tell the truth, shouldn't he obey? He thinks you should always tell the truth so the answer should be yes. He can stay silent of course. He would be a $%^#$ if he told the sick man the truth, only because "in the name of".

No, I don't mean "dark matter" as a "thing" but the way it is being explained — Mason

It can be explained as a variation in gravity strength also so not real matter. Do you have a preference?

What does the categorical imperative say here? Should the deontologist truthfully answer that question, or is he allowed to stay silent? — Amalac

If the imperative says to tell the truth he should answer that you tell the truth to the poor man. He can also remain silent. He doesn't lie then.