Point particles are a myth. A fairy tale image, leading to infinities, regularization, renormalization, and other ghost stories.

What is this concept of "a particle in the vacuum"? Is it a vacuum, which is not really a vacuum because there is something there, which must be a particle, but it's not really a particle because it has no location? So it's not really a vacuum, nor is there a particle, just convenient terms. — Metaphysician Undercover

A virtual particle just runs around in time with disentangled energy and momentum (off-shell). On all paths at once (or oscillating between all fast). Time does not go forwards nor backwards for them. They are time, they are vacuum. No, correction. The can serve as timekeepers. As clocks that themselves have no temporal direction.

If math was perfect why did it take so long and have so many theories thrown out or overturned by new theories? If the math had been there all along why does it need to change. The simple reason is that while the universe is describable mathematically humans have still not figured out all of the math necessary to do the job and are still working on invent new ideas and methods to do so. — Sir2u

The reason is more likely that most of the universe has no mathematical structure. Already three bodies interacting gravitationally do not move on mathematically well-defined ways, unless specific boundary conditions are fulfilled. So a mathematical universe is a fiction, a myth.

have a claim of where consciousness comes from, and have the entirety of neuroscience to back me up. What's your alternative? — Philosophim

But what is consciousness? Neuroscientists can't explain. I have a pretty accurate and adequate picture of the workings of the brain. Sound and vision, memory formation (learning), neocortical functions, etc. but I have no idea how that explains consciousness. I know what it is, by experience, but I cant explain.

Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways — Gnomon

A particle doesn't change continuously into other particles. Rather, it couples with the omnipresent field of virtual particles, by means of it charge. So the electron interacts with other electrons by interacting with the virtual photon field between them. And this virtual photon field can, on its turn, interact with virtual electrons which again can couple to photons. Zillions of couplings are involved in an interaction between two electrons. Can you imagine? All at the same time.

But as a scientific observation it might be as unrealistic as a vacuum fluctuation popping a particle of matter into existence. — Gnomon

A vacuum fluctuation can be seen as an eternal presence of a particle in the vacuum. It oscillates in time with a non-fixed energy-momentum relation ($E^2-p^2=m^2$). Only a real particle or superstrong gravity with an horizon can promote it to a real status. So it's not the vacuum that creates but the non-vacuum or its curvature.

I would agree with "let them be happy", only that Science pervades today the world --at least the Western one-- and scientists --esp. hardcore ones-- are spreading a totally materialistic view of life and Man, at the expense of the spiritual part of the human beings, with disastrous effects for the human mind and soul, something I think we are all witnessing today. One has only to look at the growing statistics of violence, crime, suicide, etc — Alkis Piskas

And again you find me on your side! This view is "hammered" into people from early age on. Great value is assigned to IQ, abstract problem solving (which can be nice! I love math an physics myself!), and materialistic economic thinking (the more goods and growth, the better, but says who and why?). If I listen to "grown up" adults talking in a language that is supposed to sound objective, I can't help feeling aversion. It's in this mindframe the world is approached and, like you showed vividly with the painting analogy, a major aspect of reality is ignored. And it's indeed this thinking which has a very powerful grip on the world. Science is nice, but it's only knowledge. About the external side of material reality. And somehow scientists (and technoly)are looked upon in awe. But hey, technology is just, well, technology, and it will never, if sophisticated enough, be indistinguishable from magic, for the magic lies within. :wink:

Painting has to do with paint and colors (physical) , but the art of painting cannot be defined or studied based on them. The elements that mainly define and constitute the art of painting are not physical in nature. — Alkis Piskas

That's it! Right. The art of painting, the images shown, stand to the colors and brushes and techniques used, as neurons, quarks, leptons, or whatever, stand to consciousness. The soul, enlightement, experience, the consciousness, in fact, is left out from the start.

Which isn't to say neuroscience is completely useless. It can be used to show, maybe, that consciousness is present (or absent in computers), but it can't touch down on consciousness an Sich. Like colors are an a priori necessity for a painting, so is material for neurons, body, and world, but there is more than material only. And exactly that is left out by the die hard materialist. Or it's called an illusion, an epiphenomenon. Well if they're happy with that....

To be honest, I think I know. Not because I'm the chosen one or whatever BS, but because I'm interested, gave it a lot of thought, and somehow my subconsciousness made all parts "click". The puzzle pieces fell into the right place. It clicked.

I hold to "none of the above, because we don't know the answer". It may not be 'sexy', but isn't this the only honest answer? — Theorem

It's a very modest answer. And if you don't know the answer then it's honest. But what if we know?

One more thing though. Please don't see me as a god lover or a preacher of the gospel.

Good question during the drinking: "Is the...hick...universe...hick...hick...masturbating and...hick!...eja-hick!-culating into empty HICK..."

Have a good time Stephen! :starstruck:

I mean, if we are his/her eyes, ears, and arm and hands, they let us create a black hole, an ejaculation into spacetime...

But if Fred needs us to procreate, is Fred just masturbating then?

I prefer terms like 'thinking outside the box,' 'lateral thinking,' 'creative thinking, etc' rather than the image of a Universe that can reveal its workings to individuals. But maybe I am being rather conventional. — universeness

But if the universe wants to become self aware, wouldn't it be best to show herself to us?

Yep, all good examples of serendipity in science but I don't think serendipity is involved in every scientific discovery but I haven't read every word regarding how maxwell arrived at his equations or how Boyle arrived at his law. You may be correct that at some point each would say 'I was lucky here because...... — universeness

Would be a good new thread. Are all discoveries pigeon shit? Even Maxwell's? It's only when the theory is worked out rationally that it seems invented or discovered while searching for it. Reality is more complex that methodology books want it to be.

Ha Ha, you always seem to get a wee 'god' image in there somehow! — universeness

Haha! Well, I don't eat my panties for them! Fred is the universe. God is Stephen hiding in it... How can the universe exist without a kind of intelligence that has blown or screamed it into existence? The same can be asked of gods, but an eternal intelligence seems more plausible than intelligence evolving in a non intelligent universe. How can the laws of nature and the stuff in it obeying them have come to be by themselves?

Well do you mean only you? from a religious style 'chosen one' perspective or as a random happenstance or as the Universe's deliberate 'reasoned' decision? or just as a result of your own musing about the Universe rather than any direct contribution from the Universe to you personally. — universeness

I think I understand your name now. Universeness. We all have it. I think Fred shows itself to everybody. To all creatures. Not only me.

I think the first three such claims are traditionally risky from the aspect of (and I think of no gentle way to put this,) mental stability. That would not make such claims wrong (if you are indeed making any such claim) It would just make them unadvisable in general discussion groups. — universeness

What three claims do you mean? Doesn't the mental has to be unstable for the fighting of standard models, which bear mental stability?

This is often the case, yes but sometimes discovery is by accident or repeated practice causes a general theory to form in the mind of one who repeats the practice 'ad nausea — universeness

Serendipity is almost omnipresent in science or technology. The pigeon shit on the reflector (leading to CMB radiation detection), the photographic plate left in the drawer by Becquerell (I suspect though he knew about radioactivity from his dad who, when B was a kid, saw radioactivity already, but he didn't know; B did and set it all up for Nobel prize money; the sneaky bastard!). Or Fleming, the discovery of teflon, of graviton strings, Feigenbaum universality (on his pocket calculator...), serendipity elements in PDE's, Archimedes, the 7 bridges of Koningsberg, the microwave oven, etc. etc. What discovery doesn't involve it?

Thanks for the link. Iconoclastic thinkers tend to be unstable by nature almost...

How can it be now, when there are unanswered questions? — universeness

Well, and I know it maybe sounds psychotic or cranky, couldn't it be that the universe has somehow showed me its nature? To actually prove it, you'll need a looooot of energy though. But it proves that theories precede practice, though they're rooted in it at the same time (true and not true at the same).

From the article:

However, in recent times, many different opinions have been proposed. For example, some researchers believe that consciousness is aroused in the frontal region of the brain, including the prefrontal and central anterior cortex. Others believe that consciousness is created in areas of the hindbrain, including the occipital/parietal and central posterior regions of the brain (Koch et al., 2016; Seth, 2018). Questions that should be asked include: where is the material basis of consciousness? The physical basis of consciousness is the most important internal factor of consciousness.

Important Component of Consciousness: Wakefulness

You have to be awake... Yes... Of course... But look how the material basis is accentuated.

The physical basis of consciousness is the most important internal factor of consciousness.

"The important internal factor" and (as?) "the physical basis". That's exactly what it isn't.

But perhaps we will have better answers in the distant future. — universeness

That distant future is now. But I don't think it makes me omnipotent.

I fully accept the Universe does not care what I like or don't like but I counter that position with the claim that as far as we currently know, the Universe has no inherent ability to care, other than through lifeforms like me and you. I think human willpower, in its individual and collective form can have a seriously significant effect on the Universe. I — universeness

So you think the universe, via us, has become self aware? If we know certain things about it, is that the universe knowing? No, it's us knowing.

So will it be technically possible, say, millions of years in the future, when we are transhuman to the extent that we can exist as pure energy — universeness

You think we can èxist as photons? Don't think so. We would have no substance and feel no passage of time.

Will we discover that space really does have layers? Subspace, Hyperspace/ Wormholes etc and will we be able to 'conquer distance' by such or other means — universeness

Wormholes like in interstellar don't exist. Wormholes are a fantasy due to the non-pointlike character of particles.

It is that fact we must understand and celebrate. — universeness

Now we're getting somewhere! Take of your hat and throw it 6 miles up! Screaming! I don't think understanding can get better. What I don't understand why physics forums are so unwilling to see that quarks and leptons are not fundamental. I asked on stack exchange, both the physics and philosophy site, and the question was closed almost instantly. Though philosophy took some longer.

In this instant of time, I think it's a BIG BANG and the creation of a new Universe or a new Fred. — universeness

Don't let yourself be fooled by Fred... The universe has not become self aware.

What's between you and falsifiability? What's the big deal with falsifiability? Sir Karl Popper?

I mentioned smell because that's a part of consciousness we can easily point to. The material aspect, that is. A smell process is embedded in the greater always present and functioning whole. But you can rather precise pinpoint the ion pathways in the brain, and processes in the body. Of course the whole body and brain is involved in a smell, but even if you would include all contributing, even if you'd include the whole universe, it's no explanation of the very smell smelled.

Never.

No — Garrett Travers

All ion pulses run around in concert. There are 10exp(10exp20) possible paths to travel for parallel bundles of ion pulses. A smell is an integrated bundle running around in the olfactory region. Depending on previous smells you experience a smell. But such a process is not an explanation for the smell, in the sense that it tells what a smell is. Only the smell experience can tell you that. And there is no explanation what it actually is.

I'm afraid Cobb isn't too impressed by Global Workspace Theory or Integrated Information Theory though. He says neither is widely accepted!
— Daemon

This is simply not the case. Did you read the paper I sent you? It's the leading theory. — Garrett Travers

Do you have an example of integrated information in the brain?

I actually wouldn't find this to be suprising to found out is quite literally the case — Garrett Travers

If you know how the brain works you see that there is no computation at all in the brain. Even when you mentally perform a calculation. Computation and processing data is a human invention. Evidence on my side here.

The conclusion is that there are not absolute final truths, — Gnomon

Of course these truths exist. They just differ from person to person, group to group, culture to culture. :smile:

Let’s see: One part living tissue, two parts electricity, and a dash of physical elements. Heat it up for a couple billion years and let it cool to 98 degrees. Yup that should do it — Joe Mello

You don't know a peep about it. You should go contemplating God. It's obvious he made you for that.

Why don't the Ukrainians flee to Russia?.

There is no question that the mind is physical. Everything else is just wishful imagination — Philosophim

That's exactly the question.

No, the brain has to keep computing whatever it computes as data to build coherent networks of correspondence. — Garrett Travers

I don't think the brain computes like a computer. It "resonates" with the physical world and can do so in virtual all circumstances (and independently in dreams, thinking, or fantasies). The circumstances leave traces and memories. Learning. Strengthened connections are made. Or present at birth already (a blank mind is an illusion). From birth to death new structures arise, backfiring and shaping reality. While being conscious.

The evidence for a material mind isn't controversial, its an overwhelming deluge of reality. You brain is damaged or dies, your mind is damaged or dies. There is absolutely no viable alternative view point. — Philosophim

Seems there are running parallel threads on this. There is no material mind. There is only the approach to the brain as there is the approach to the physical world. And that approach leaves out an essential element. The noumenological giving rise to the phenomenal. Mind or consciousness are not epiphenomena, but noumena, and in this approach it's the material world the epiphenomenon or emergent property.

Maybe it's good to consider (insofar possible), an actual isolated "casus of consciousness". Let's try to find one and examine. Many involve vision (color, shapes, motion, etc.). What can we add? Say I walk in the woods, pondering without really looking. Then I hear a sound, "wake up" from my pondering, don't see where I am for a short while, and then "boom!", it's obvious where I find myself. A weird experience, involving many processes. What happens, and does that explain the experience?

Now that looks an interesting article. Thanks for the link. How did you find that? Just Googling? (Goggling?)

you will see that it is a very known AI (Artifical Intelligence) term: "Artificial neural networks (ANNs) — Alkis Piskas

AFAIK, neural networks in AI are just the digital representations of real neurons in a very simplified version. So there are no real lighning-shaped neurons involved and there is, contrary to real neuron networks involved in conscious experiences. Therefore, the AI might be able to correctly predict protein structures on the basis of gene sequences, with the aid of previous encounters (learning by connection strengths that adapt during learning, comparable to memory formations in the brain), but the programmed flows of 1s and 0s will not be conscious.

The brain is no digital computer. It reflects or recreates analogous. Like a planetarium representing the solar system.

That's a problem with your argument, not mine. — Garrett Travers

I don't see that as a problem. It's a merit, actually.

Again, I accept your position, I just need to figure out how it can be empirically validated for my to adopt it. That's it. — Garrett Travers

Considering the attempt to empirically validate it, it will be advantageous to neuroscience. For example, in the field of trying to understand the conscious aspect of vision or hearing, and the associated neurological processes, it can offer valuable knowledge which might even be a priori to experimental verification (or falsification, naturally). But such is the case in most empirical or theoretical sciences.

I get that, but gaps in knowledge are not arguments against what the data currently indicate, nor is it an argument for the position that you are trying to argue. That's an argument from ignorance, and it is merely an attempt to negate an assertion through a lack of knowledge that the evidence implies, but cannot verify as if yet — Garrett Travers

It's not about gaps, it's about lack.

It's just, the data that has been gathered is currently indicating the opposite — Garrett Travers

Point is, the data you refer to can't indicate what I conjecture to exist. You can call that a dark tower lord fantasy, but the conjectured internal is very real, though non-explicable. Well... a scream explains what I mean.