If two different models are equally accurate then they are both true? There are domains in the world where two or more mutually excluding conceptual models lead to succesful interaction. Don't you want true stuff to interact with? Isn't assigning a truth value (instead of a pragmatic value) to you conceptual model a drive to investigate the world?

How can an action be true or false? — T Clark

Yeah thought that myself too. But surely some knowledge must be true or false. When assessing a site, and another pragmatic epistemogist comes up with different knowledge as you do, are you both telling the truth?

You say "The function of thought is to give an analogue image of the world..." How is that different from "...the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality"? — T Clark

You forgot "reject". I don't reject this function, as pragmatic epistemology does.

Metaphysical assumptions, called "absolute presuppositions" by R.G. Collingwood, are not true or false. They are more or less useful in particular situations. — T Clark

I see you are Collingwood's faithful acolyte. The presuppositions, while not true or false, correspond to true or false actions, so important in pragmatism. The actions might even be absolutely true or false. If I use my knowledge to walk on the streets at night and experience the magic of reality, the pragmatic aspect of my knowledge is secondary.

That's exactly why she insisted men had to give up their sovereignty. She insisted Heidi gave up his sovereignty. Only then he could be truly free. By giving her her freedom. Which he probably didn't, being a strict nazi, who generally wants the wife in the kitchen and give birth to new Arians to sustain the Reich and hunt for Lebensraum.

If there was no substance behind the appearance reality would be dreamlike.

Of course, the nature of this substance will remain a mystery while it's so obvious at the same time. It's like knowing what time is but not knowing how to tell what it is. The difference being that time is easy to explain.

All matter resides in galaxies. The space between galaxies doesn't expand. All that visible matter is matter with internal friction. I'm convinced that dark matter consists of primordial black holes. It seems a lot, if not most, of big galaxies harbor a giant black hole. All visible matter is doomed to fall in these, as the evaporate veeeery slowly. If the acceleration of expansion really gets a grip, then what happens to the black holes?

The matter seems to end up on the horizon because there time seems to stop
— Cornwell1

I am still very far away from getting this one.
Is this theory based on the idea that the black hole at the centre of a galaxy will eventually expand/grow so that it will consume all of the matter in that galaxy? — universeness

It's the theory of black holes. If you look at a collapsing sphere of dust from a distance, the sphere seems to slow down in collapsing. When the sphere has a radius equal to the Schwarzschild radius it seems to have frozen and starts to emit Hawking radiation over a long time. On the inside the process takes a small time, about the time it takes light to travel over the Schwarzschild radius (so for the Sun about 1/100 000 seconds as the SR is about 3km.

Here you are again confusing what it is that we are talking about. You're talking about stories. I'm talking about what the stories are about. — Harry Hindu

That's a story also...

However, it doesn't mean that all books will have more than one copy. Some books may be absent, and some books can appear only once. — pfirefry

Reminds me of the 18 000 000 trees where I live. If every tree has 100 000 leaves, how many trees at least must have an equal number of leaves?

I'll contemplate later. State is calling me... i don't have a job now and they want me to order the flora in town... Djeeeezus!

Ok, yes, I understand what you have typed but what is the inside of the volume of the balloon you are describing in relation to the Universal structure you suggest — universeness

And there it's exactly where it gets interesting! I'll explain later. Right now I gotta an appointment at 3. I'm invited by state. To discuss my working possibilities...

and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality. — T Clark

Here you are wrong. That is not the function of thought. The function of thought is to give an analogue image of the world, so we can walk in it with confidence. Which has a pragmatic aspect, obviously. But walking at night beneath the winter moon and stars in a sleeping city, shows the function of thought goes beyond its pragmatic function.



I totally agree there is an objective truth. I even know what it is at the physical fundament. Still, it's a story.

Nah! that would be UniverseLESS, universeness means something OF the universe.... — universeness

Ah! Of course! Like universality...?

But if we live on opposite sides of a really big spherical universe then we don't need two 'hubble volumes', we could just be on opposite hemispheres of the same big Universe. — universeness

I think I see how you envision it. If we are on opposite sides of the universe we are not on opposite sides of a 3d sphere.
The balloon (2D). Draw, on a huge balloon of say Earth size, a circle on it. Diametrically opposed points on this circle are you and I on opposite sides of the visible universe (which you can see from the center).
In reality the balloon is much bigger. If you draw a circle of one meter radius on the balloon, then the circumference of the balloon is about 10exp11 meter... About a hundred million kilometers. There's more behind the horizon!

But why would all matter end up at the event horizon of black holes?
In the 'big rip' and 'heat death,' the expansion continues until we can't see any other galaxies and then everything just ultimately disassembles and fade's away. Why would everything end up at black hole's? — universeness

The matter seems to end up on the horizon because there time seems to stop. If you fall in as a particle you get radiated away in a wink. All matter ends in black holes which seem to last long. Evaporation to photons takes a wink though for the matter inside them. Information of this matter resides in the virtual particles, the closed one particle propagators in Feynman diagrams. A negative energy solution is sent inside, so the mass of the hole reduces bit by bit. Positive energy solutions, particle-antiparticle pairs, annihilate to send information outside (some photons can go back in the hole too, but slowly the information about the inside particles gets out). So if you throw in a bike you can still see the bike in the Hawking photons. Somewhat fucked up, but still...

Double Hubble --->
No more rubble
but nubble gubble
and pubble
in the inflated dubble

That's what the universe is. God blowing a bubble in his chewing gum.

Dunning-Kruger meets Method-Feynman.

Again we presume 'the world' is just 'the way it is' absent our observation of it — Wayfarer

Isn't that a justified presumption? That's what the standard interpretation amounts to. It's not that "the observer" creates the world. The standard interpretation of QM presupposes a super position of all states, even of the observer. A measurement is constituted by the observer interacting with a superimposed state. This collapses the total wavefunction. But not for an observer observing the observer... They will stay in superposition until they observe consciously themselves so their consciousness cause the collapse.
Of course consciousness produces this image, but we don't we all want an objective reality to exist?
I agree though that it's just one story amidst many.

You took the words right out of my mouth! There exist no space-like world lines in physics. Only time- and light-like. Both involve space and time. Every change in space is accompanied by a change in time.

What? this text flew right past me! What does it mean? — universeness

I wondered about "universeness". Doesn't this mean "without a universe"?

Which surface in the Universe is receeding? — universeness

The imaginary surface where the redshift of receding galaxies seems infinite. All galaxies seem to accumulate on this surface. It's like the event horizon around a black hole. Seen from our perspective all matter seems to end up on that horizon. Likewise for the cosmic horizon.
I wrote "seems" to end up. If you fall through the event horizon of a BH you will just end up at Its center. For me watching you fall from far away, you will freeze at the horizon (what joy for me to see you freeze... finally a silent forum... :wink: ). For you falli7ng in it takes, say, a second to the center, while for me it seems you take infinite time. The evaporation takes the blink of an eye (Hawking radiation originates in the entangled vacuum; the vacuum around the hole is excited by the heavy gravity present) from your inside perspective, but for me you radiate freely away over a large timespan, dependent on the BH mass.

Can you exemplify this? What kind of difference might you see and why? — universeness

Imagine this. You find yourself 80 billion ly away from here. You can see things from there that I can't see, like you can see a part of the world where you live that I can't see. When 80 billion ly apart we can still see each other but we both can see things the other can't. Which means there can't be two identical Hubble spheres. Because if so, everything around it should also be the same, contrary to assumption. Now I can post!

If materialism is a sort of electric glitch, why does it matter? — Olivier5

It doesn't matter. It's just the way it is. Matter is charged. Charged with thoughts and feelings and has a mouth to speak and fingers to type.

Numbers can be stored in a binary representation about 3 times more efficiently than in a decimal representation ( — Andrew M

Don't you mean more inefficiently? 999 requires 10 tubes in binary, but 3 in decimal. Or do you mean 3 times 10 tubes (10 for each decimal digit)? 8 requires 3 tubes in binary (well, 1-7: 000-111, 8 is 1000), while it needs 8 tubes in decimal? Or is there one tube for 0-9, like one for 0-1? Isn't binary then 5 times as efficient? I mean, if you need 10 tubes for a decimal digit and 2 for a binary, you need 5 times as many tubes. 999 needs 3 tubes though while in binary it needs 10. You need 30 tubes for all decimals 1-999 though and only 10 for the binary version. Is that last to which you refer?

but a potentially infinite number of superposition states — Andrew M

Isn't the number of superimposed states 2^n, where n is the number of electrons entangled?

There is a copy of me in the Babel Tower?

Morning universeness (without a universe? Appropriate for this thread!). There is a whole lot of 3d space beyond the horizon. If the universe didn't expand there would become more and more visible. The universe goes on beyond the horizon, like the Earth. We see only a small part. I did a back of the envelope (litterally!) calculation. There fit about 10exp11 observable universe diameters in the whole... It inflated all in existence around the singularity, which is part of a 4d substrate into which it expands, together with another 3d universe on the other side of the singularity wormhole. The problem is how to keep matter in our three dimensions without it moving in the fourth.

So there are a lot of Hubble volumes (they are defined as the volumes within the surface that recedes with lightspeed). If you near such a surface (or anywhere else from its center) you see different things, so there can't be two equals. This holds for all spheres that you suppose equal, so there are no equal volumes of any size.

The point is, according to the standard interpretation, the whole world, including the past, is in superposition until a conscious observer (how can a process be an observer?) makes a measurement. The measurement problem is the the cause of dozens of interpretations and proposed solutions.

The only alternative is hidden variables. Objective collapse. That's exactly the reason I think they are real.
How can chance be non-deterministic? You could ask just as well "how can a particle be here and then there?", but this seems more realistic.

Well, no, not at all. For one thing, whether there is a person to ignore is precisely what is in question, and for another, in thinking about whether God/gods exist, we are doing the opposite of "ignoring" the matter. — Seppo

Questioning the existence of gods or other persons is very close to denying them. You have to question their existence firstly. Then denial is a small step.

Does it not come down to whether or not, what you say here is true or false?
How would we obtain evidence of such interaction?
Are the hubble volumes described in Tegmark's level 1 multiverse, 3D volumes is a 4D space? — universeness

I think I see why you write about the 4d space. I don't think you need a 4th spatial dimension to leave the observable universe.
Let's go one dimension smaller. I remember you brought up the balloon model for our universe. A 2d closed space embedded in 3d space. On this balloon you can draw small circles. These represent our observable universe (Hubble spheres are not exactly the same as the visible universe but let's assume them equal). There are a loooot of these volumes and the balloon is actually to small to draw a visible circle (so it's in good scale to the size of the balloon). That's why space seems flat.
So. There are a loooot of these Hubble volumes in the totality of space, behind the horizon. If you consider space infinite, Tegmark hypothesizes that in an infinite number of different Hubble volumes you will encounter a universeness and Cornwell1 doing exactly the same as we do now. Now, apart from the fact that I don't think the universe is infinite, but a closed 3d balloon, how can this be? It seems to me that near the edges of identical volumes there is information exchange with spheres outside, making the spheres different from each other, contradicting the assumption.
What thinks thou?

This effect is what hunts the philosophers of science. They are so caught up in inventing schemes and methodologies of science that they loose sight on its actual workings and are completely paralyzed when they actually engage in it.

What are the metaphysical assumptions made in pragmatic epistemology? If knowledge is useful in practice than it's true knowledge? Is knowledge gathered only in practice?

Is your materialism liquid at ambient temperature, or gaseous, or solid? — Olivier5

The materialism is watery and bloody. It uses energy by ATP reduction to ADP. Hemoglobin transporters grab up oxygen from the lungs and release it in the brain to promote ADP to ATP again. The electric currents on the neural lightning form an idea of materialism.

Speculation without ANY evidence, prior or posterior, is futile. — god must be atheist

It becomes a different issue though when the mindful inquirer becomes aware of the repetitive structure of the universe and we can nothing else but conclude that those ridiculing a reincarnation (an infinity of them, in fact) are fooling themselves. After you die you are born again the same moment in a universe following up the present one. It's a logical impossibility to reincarnate in the present universe. A follow up is required, an absolute and irrefutably necessary prerequisite. Nature indicates that this necessity is present. So, prepare yourself for your new birth. Hopefully for you, you don't get born as me...

The rest is just confusing. You keep denying a one true reality, but then talk about things that exist when no one is looking and in something where you and I exist and can interact. — Harry Hindu

It's confusing because it is confusing. All people, or more realistically, groups of people, see a reality which they think exists separately of them. Individuals can change it and the group reality influences the individual. Is there an all embracing reality, capturing and directing all these realities? No, because that would be a new reality believed to exist independently of us. Which is a justified belief, as anyone wants his beliefs to be objectively true. But this is only a story we tell, like the story of God being the one and only Truth.

Confusing indeed...

Let me add this. You can add everything to the story we tell without the need of proving it, as is asked for in the scientific story. I saw a discussion on this forum about the reality of electrons in the double slit experiment. Their reality as a particle. They can't be seen directly and it was conjectured that there were only lightening unicorns traveling between the emitter and screen and they don't like to be observed. Which is actually a pretty good description!

Ha! "Science piction" movies. When subtitled.

What's the difference between = and :=? Say $f(x)=x^2$ and $f(x):=x^2$. And what's the difference with ≡, "identical to"?

Enlightenment means litterally throwing light in the dark. By lighting a match in the dark room we come to know what creatures under the bed are monsters.

It's the experience, the revelation, of a previously not seen truth that's enlightening. Like the epiphanies all of us experience once in a while.

The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research,

How can scientific research point this out?

Ma que sta dicendo lei?

Haha! That's it! We are miracle-charged! Made in heaven!

What material is your materialism made of? Wool? Iron? Silicon?

Is your materialism liquid at ambient temperature, or gaseous, or solid?

How much does your materialism weight, in kg? — Olivier5

All matter is in it's fundaments massless. Interaction between the fundamentals gives mass. Interaction is the motor. Why is there interaction? Because of the will. All forms of matter have will and various degrees of consciousness. Some forms even wear smiles and speak! They can be annoying though... :smile:

Religious ideas are not to be taken literally; they are metaphors designed to inspire certain kinds of feelings and dispositions. The "role of philosophy" is diverse and ever-changing and is shown in the various domains of philosophy that have evolved, it is not something to be stipulated. — Janus

Why shouldn't it be taken literally? Religion is about gods who created the world. Where else could it come from?

In fact, the observer effect exists in classical physics as well - to measure air pressure in a tire, we must let out a little air, thus changing the pressure. — Real Gone Cat

That's where Wiki is wrong. A strict following of the Copenhagen interpretation necessitates a conscious observer doing a conscious measurement to collapse the wavefunction. In the Copenhagen context this problem is not solved. This is the cause of the dozens of interpretations and the measurement problem. John Bell, an advocate of hidden variables (for which this problem does not occur) found it difficult to imagine that the past was in a superposition until someone with sophisticated knowledge about QM actually makes a measurement.

[

Imagine a physical description of a tennis match. — Banno

That's exactly what can be described physically.

The point is, from the fact that we currently lack an answer, it doesn't follow that there is no such answer. For the theistic explanation to follow, the very possibility of a non-theistic alternative must be ruled out (not merely presently lacking). — Seppo

But what if you have found a self consistent, coherent irreducible answer? Where does the stuff you think you have an answer about come from? It can't be it's own answer.

I consider this as a compliment...

Point is, I have taken a leap in the hot waters of fundamental physics and cosmology and have come to the conclusion that it's no more than a nice tale about the physical world. I understand the the big bang, particles at a fundamental level, serial big bangs, etc. At the same time it's a complete mystery why it's there and what it's internal nature is like. I can feel it, I can see it, I can describe it without a description that possibly can go deeper. No god of the gaps needed. Still I'm a lost soul... Thanks to you though I know why I live, what's it all about, and where it all came from. You are God playing hide and seek with themselves... A compliment!

How small has religion become! Once it explained everything, physical, social, moral and political. Now it is reduced to the hope that neuroscience will not be able to explain why you raised your arm. — Banno

This merely shows how big science seems to have grown. Science isn't even able to explain how, why, or with what intentions, elementary particles move towards each other or away from each other. Maybe already at the fundamental level God-given love and hate operate...