Here we are 500 posts in, and I don't think this has been answered. Lack of it is why I suggests that nobody really supports mind independent existence.the question of this topic is not about the moon, but about the unicorn. If the unicorn exists, why? If it doesn't, why? Most say it doesn't, due to lack of empirical evidence, but if empirical evidence is a mind-dependent criteria. Sans mind, there is no empirical evidence to be considered. — noAxioms
Agree with all that, but none of it negates my point that those cars find meaning in the lights. Only some dog's get the meaning intended by those that built the lights, such as dogs trained to aid the blind.Notice, however, that humans built those [presumably self driving car] things in a way that they would react in such a manner. A dog would probably attribute a completely different meaning to traffic lights and signs than humans do. — boundless
Perhaps, but then arguably neither does your brain. It's the process that does the understanding, not the hardware. For instance, if a human was to be simulated down to the neurochemical level (molecular level is probably unnecessary), then the person simulated would know what it's like to feel pain, but neither the computer, program, or programmers would in any way know this.A computer perhaps doesn't 'understand' the calculations that it does more than, say, a mechanical calculator does.
Not if you give a definition of '... like a human' to the word. Otherwise, yes.Do you think that mechanical calculators find the input we give them 'meaningful'?
Hard to use 'intent' in the context of ants, but it can be done.I can accept these cases. I believe, in fact, that talk of 'meaning', intentionality and so on makes sense in the case of living beings (and perhaps even in something at the 'border' of life, like viruses).
'Intelligible' is a relation, not a property, so X might be intelligible to Y, but not to Z.My point was more like: is the intelligibility we find in the world a property of the world or a property of the world as it is presented to us? — boundless
My opinion: mind independence has no requirement of intelligibility, but 'reality' does since it seems to be a mental designation. So I agree with your statement.I think that the most reasonable thing to say is that the 'mind-independent reality' has an intelligible structure ...
Irrefutable is easy. It refuting the alternatives that gets challenging.But at the same time, I am not sure if one can make irrefutable claim in one way or another.
The question was from Mww who asked "What would a thermostat-in-itself even mean?". So why we give it that name is not particularly relevant to what it is in itself.Again, we call it a 'thermostat' because we observe it doing things that conform to a certain function we have built it to do. Does this mean that a 'thermostat' is a specific kind of 'entity'? Well, I would question that. — boundless
Agree with that.Do the qualities of 'being a chair' and 'being a thermostat' exist independently of our minds'? I don't think so.
Not by that name anyway. There have been thermostats long before humans came around and made some more. But that name is under 2 centuries old, and a human-made mechanical device serving that function is only around 4 centuries old.Independently form us, there are no 'chairs', no 'thermostats' and so on.
There you go. What's the difference between calling something magic by another word (immaterial mind say), and just calling it 'yet undiscovered physics'. The latter phrasing encourages further investigation, but the former seems to discourage it, declaring it a matter of faith and a violation of that faith to investigate further. Hence no effort is made to find where/how that immaterial mind manages to produce material effects.Interestingly, despite having a reputation of being a skeptic for his questioning of causality, Hume was very convinced that of the existence of laws of nature. In fact, IIRC he denied the possibility of 'miracles' by implying that no violation of these laws was possible.
Similarly, Spinoza argued that 'miracles' were natural phenomena that, due to our ignorance we misunderstood as 'super-natural' or 'magic'. — boundless
Of course. No metaphysical interpretation is falsifiable. The ones that are are not valid interpretations.This, however, makes the very critique questionable. For one thing it shows that naturalism is no more falsifiable than other metaphyisical theories.
Yes, as I tried to point out with my dark matter example. If something new comes along, the magic it used to be becomes natural, and naturalism is by definition safe. But it isn't a specific interpretation in itself since naturalism doesn't specify the full list of natural laws.But even worse, the risk is that we equivocate the meaning of 'natural' in a way that it becomes empty.
Agree. There is for instance no 'state of the entire universe', only a state relative to say some event. MWI is quite similar except it does away with the relation business and goes whole hog on the absolute universe, a thing with the property of being real. Since there's nothing relative to which any state might be, there's no states, just a giant list of possible solutions to the universal wave function. It's still that one structure. One can extend MWI to include different possible states of an even more universal wave function, including different values for all the universal constants, but MWI itself seems confined to just this one set of values for those constants.Remember that Rovelli is a relationalist, and according to his interpretation of quantum mechanics (which you also seem to like), the state of a given physical system is defined in relation to another physical system. So, it is difficult to justify a description of the 'whole universe' in a relational view.
That's actually a really hard question, loaded with biases. A thing being an object seems intuitively mind-independent, but I showed otherwise, doing a whole topic about it. What actually IS mind independent is super difficult to glean since it's a mind doing it. "Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.” -- HeisenbergBut, again, where is the cut-off where we can safely disentangle what is 'mental' and what is 'independent from our interpretative faculties'? — boundless
Our understanding of it certainly is conceptual, but I have no trouble accepting that the mathematics in itself is not.Honestly, I have a hard time to accept that mathematics isn't conceptual.
A little like my concept of the moon and the moon in itself, but that relation is quite different since I have a mutual measurement relation with the moon and it doesn't work that way with 3.On the other hand, you seem to say that mathematics is the foundation of reality. But what is the relation of, say, your concept of 'three' and the number 'three'?
Tegmarks MUH book spends a lot of pages doing that, but in short, if there is nothing doesn't see to follow mathematical law, then the proposal is valid.If mathematics is before the everything else in your view, you still have to explain how 'everything else' is derived from it.. — boundless
That sounds like the 'fire breathing' spoken of. Not necessary. 2 and 2 add up to 4 despite lack of instantiation by any mechanism actually performing that calculation. Similarly, a more complex mathematical entity (say the initial state of the universal wave function) yields me despite lack of real-ness.You might say that math can describe everything or that everything exhibits regularities that can be understood mathematically (though I am not convinced by this, let's assume that it's true). You still have to explain how the 'production' is made.
Agree. That the universe is mathematical does not in any way imply that we can fully understand the mathematics, or far worse, understand something complex in terms of tiny primities, which is like trying to understand Mario Kart in terms of electron motion through silicon.I believe that life can't be understood in purely mathematical terms.
Yea, that sign makes it not quite the same thing, eh? Both aspects of the same 'object', but different properties in that direction.I would say that it says that space and time are the same thing, which, again, perhaps is just 'entanglements'. — noAxioms
Well, for instance in SR, inside the spacetime interval formula the time component has an opposite sign form the spatial. — boundless
One does not travel through spacetime. Travel is something done through space. It's an interpretation, a mental convenience. Reference frames are definitely abstractions.Also, you can travel in all directions of space but not backwards in time.
Interestingly, Einstein also relied on the idealist Schopenhauer in his rejection of quantum nonlocality despite being a realist.
Intuitive maybe, but it's been demonstrated to be quite wrong. There is no valid locally real interpretation, and Einstein seems to argue for one.Einstein made the point especially clear in a 1948 letter he sent to Max Born (from the SEP article about Einstein's philosophy of science)
...
Admittedly, it's a very intuitive argument and prima facie it seems correct. — boundless
But there is no evidence one way or another, except eternalism is the simpler model, but then the simplest quantum models also don't mesh well with one's intuitions. So instead of needing more evidence (there isn't any to start with), you need to justify the more complicated model.If eternalism is true, it becomes quite clear that despite that the 'now' and 'the flow of time' are essential aspect of our experience they are in fact purely illusory. Honestly, I am not ready to abandon what is seems a phenomenological given as an illusion. I need more evidence. — boundless
Quite right. If it's true, our experience of it is a lucky guess since the view makes not empirical difference.Notice that even if presentism were right, and, indeed, there is a real 'now' and an objective 'flow of time' it might still be the case that our 'now' and 'flow of time' is illusory. After all, our reference frame isn't the same as the preferred frame of such a theory.
It's a kind of determinism, but not what's usually meant by the term. A block model with randomness just means that a subsequent state does not necessarily follow from some prior state. An atom might decay or might not. Bohm says that there are hidden variables that determine if it will or not. MWI says it both decays and doesn't. There is no state evolution at all under RQM since it's all hindsight, but RQM is not considered deterministic. Most of the rest are not. In a block context, that might mean that there's randomness in state evolution, but the history is all there. It's dice rolls, but equivalently all in the past so to speak.Right! But without determinism, I can't see how a block universe is untenable.
No, at least not the kind of determinism that QM is talking about. I actually listed 6 kinds of determinism, and block universe was only one of them, but the one the name talks about is a different kind.Eternalism entails determinism (notice that the reverse is not true, however).
You'll have to explain that one. I don't see this, and I don't see how lack of flatness matters. No, 'spooky action' is not implemented via worm holes, if that's what you mean.And I also believe that in GR one can even explain quantum nonlocality without much problems, given the fact that spacetime is not flat.
Yes, talking about that, and what it did was generalize an absolutist interpretation (LET) of physics. LET is the special case like SR, only applicable to zero energy situation. Schmelzer finally extended that interpretation to include gravity.Are you referring to Ilja Schmelzer's theory? I read some discussions about ten years ago in physicsforums. If it is that version of LET, I didn't know that it is now accepted as valid. — boundless
Sorry, under physicalism, there is no difference between the two. Your assertion is just that, nothing that has been demonstrated.[The instrument's] reaction is strictly determined, whereas yours is unbounded. — Wayfarer
None of this seems to follow. Under physicalism, human intentionality is just another thing physically caused, deterministic or not. No discrepancy is in need of resolution. You correctly point this out with: "intentional behaviour is ultimately reducible to brain states and is therefore physical". You discolor that statement with words like "attempt" and 'purport", but the statement is not falsified by your personal assessment. The only disagreement I have with the statement is it being confined to brain states. There would be plenty of physical factors outside the brain that also contribute to intentionality.Intentions and intentionality are, after all, very difficult to accommodate in a physical framework. Physicalism holds to the causal closure of the physical domain, which means that for every effect, there is a physical cause. Now, of course, this seems very difficult to reconcile with the apparently-obvious fact that intentions and mental acts have consequences
It seems a thermostat has some sort of nature in itself just like anything else. It being purposefully made doesn't change that at all. It being purposefully made or not isn't one of the in-itself properties.It relates to things-in-themselves only insofar as things-in-themselves are the only necessary naturally-occuring existents, which, of course, a thermostat is not. — Mww
Quite the opposite. For one, something appearing to something's senses makes it by definition subjective, not objective. Not being a realist, I don't think anything at all has objective existence, but that's just opinion. The fault I find with objectivity lies elsewhere.All that’s required for being an objective thing, is the possibility of its appearance to our senses, which, the senses being purely physiological in function, is very far from mind-dependent. — Mww
You need to assert that a thermostat is now not an object (in 'the usual sense') in order to make a point? I actually agree with all but that last bit since not of it prevents that object (and yes, it's an object, just like you are) from performing an experiment and acting on the result of that experiment.A thermostat is an instrument, designed by humans for their purposes. As such, it embodies the purposes for which it was designed, and is not an object, in the sense that naturally-occuring objects are. — Wayfarer
OK, that distinguishes agent from the thermostat, which probably lacks what most would consider 'intentionality'. But physicalism doesn't deny intentionality, and intentionality is not not necessarily confined to biological objects.'In philosophy, an agent is an entity that has the capacity to act and exert influence on its environment. Agency, then, is the manifestation of this capacity to act, often associated with intentionality and the ability to cause effects. A standard view of agency connects it to intentional states like beliefs and desires, which are seen as causing actions.'
I can very much pitch my decisions as reactions to inputs, so it's merely a choice to apply one word or the other according to ones preferences.A thermostat reacts. It doesn’t decide. — ChatGPT — Wayfarer
I don't think it has to do this. I think rather that it must be shown that these things cannot have physical causes, which admittedly many have tried to do. Any explanation by a naturalist can be waved away as usual as correlation, not causation. That won't ever change, regardless of what non-biological entities begin to exhibit agency as defined here.Physicalism has to account for how physical causes give rise, or are related to, intentional acts by agents.
Thanks. Not ill, but structural issues. Both knees, hips, one shoulder, all replaced. What does she do after that? Falls and breaks her elbow/hand, the only one that isn't a robot. Sigh... Problem is, we (3 kids) all live almost a day's travel away.(And belatedly, sympathies for your mother. Mine too was ill for a long while.)
Probably. Traffic lights definitely are meaningful to a self-driving car, a straight-up example of information that has meaning outside what many consider to be a 'mind', a word that tends to be reserved for biology if not only humans. traffic lights definitely are meaningful to a self-driving car, a straight-up example of information that has meaning outside what many consider to be a 'mind', a word that tends to be reserved for biology if not only humans.Try to think about this in this way. Let's say you see a street signal. It certainly contains meaningful information to you. This maningful information has a physical support. But does this mean that the 'meaning' of what is written in the signal is something that exist outside mind? — boundless
Would a sufficiently independent AI device, one not doing what any humans made it to do, count as a sentient being? I've already given thin examples, but better ones will come soon as humans have dwindling roles in the development of the next generation of machines.... to be something that pertains to the inanimate but only to living beings or, perhaps, only to sentient beings.
Are those two mutually exclusive, or just the same thing described at different levels? Does a candle burn or is it just atoms rearranging themselves?Do measurements reveal to us an intelligible structure of the world or, rather, are we that we mentally imputing an interpretation to the data we have, according to the cognitive structure of our mind? — boundless
The figure made by Wheeler IMO is quite useful here. What is being questioned here is not the existence of 'something' outside the mind. Rather, what is being questioned is the fact the existence of such an 'intrisically meaningful' structure of the 'mind independent world' that enables us to know it. Rather, perhaps, there is no such 'intrinscally meaningful' structure in the 'mind independent world' and we know it only through the filters of our interpretative mental faculties. Therefore, we can't claim knowledge of 'the world as it is'.
Well it wouldn't have the name 'thermostat', and it wouldn't even have 'thingness', a defined boundary where it stops and is separate from all the not-thermostat. And given certain interpretations, it has identity or not, or has a less intuitive number of dimensions say.What would a thermostat-in-itself even mean? — Mww
The question never was - is a thermostat a natural object, which is easily affirmed
How is it being 'natural' or intentionally created or not in any way have any bearing on the nature of the thing in itself?the existence of it, reduces to a necessary conscious reflection of a particular intelligence.
It being an objective thing is already a mind-dependent assessment. I personally doubt it, but hey, I have issues with realism, so that's just me.but whether or not the objective reality of a thermostat
Gray line. Natural is whatever is not magic. Dark matter and energy were recently upgraded from magic to 'natural'. If it can be empirically demonstrated that there is some non-physical 'mind object/substance' that somehow can produce deliberate physical effects, then I suppose it would similarly be upgraded to the list of natural things. But until then, its considered taboo to look at the man behind the curtain.But, again, what is 'natural', though? — boundless
Pointing out that 'natural' is a relation. Our 'naturalism' means natural to our universe. It means the laws of the universe in question, so each one might have different natural physics, if 'physics' is even applicable, which it probably isn't to most.Also, if there was another 'universe' with different laws, would that be 'not natural'?
But you didn't answer the question. How is that not an example of a view without a perspecitve? There's no point of view since you see the whole thing, much in contrast to @Wayfarer's subjective description of a scene without observers in it.Those who interpret physical theories as 'useful models' would regard that [spacetime] diagram as an useful abstraction that has practical value.
It's always the latter from my perspective since the item in question has been described. OK, it's been described, but that description wasn't a requirement. 2+2 is still 4 even if nobody ever happens to notice that.It having a requirement of being describable is different than having a requirement of being described, only the latter very much implying mind dependence. — noAxioms
Correct. But how can you know, from your cognitive perspective, that it's not the latter?
Grouping them into objects like that is definitely a mental thing, but the state of the system doesn't require that mental grouping to behave as it does in itself.Perhaps the 'pebbles' are merely emergent features of their constituents and envinronment - so the 'pebbles' are mentally imputed and not real 'entities', and we can reasonably argue for that.
By definition, I cannot give an example of only the former, since by doing so it ends up also on the latter list. That leaves discussing such things without explicit examples. I can describe a world without me in it, but the description by me still requires me.So, how do you tell the difference between something 'describable' and something that is 'of the description'?
Probably not. This 'speaking' doesn't seem to work without some kind of commitment like that. But the quantum system in itself presumably doesn't require being spoken of.But, again, can we reasonably speak of the 'physical' or even the 'quantum' without making ontic commitments?
That would mean that my supervention list is totally wrong. Seems unlikely though since it can be independently gleaned by isolated groups, something contrasted by 'god' which does not have that property.And what about the possibility that mathematics is conceptual?
It's one model, yes. Sort of MUH, with attempts to patch the blatant flaws in such a model.The 'worldview' you are presenting here seems to me a sort of 'neo-pythagoreanism', where mathematics is fundamental and everything else is derivative.
That's the cool thing about my heirarchy. No fire breathing is necessary at all. Only a realist view (which Tegmarks MUH is, BTW) has that problem.But as Steven Hawking asked “What breathes fire into the equations?”
It apparently does, as demonstrated by the lack of example of something that cannot be thus produced.That is, how can mathematics 'produce' everything else?
I would say that it says that space and time are the same thing, which, again, perhaps is just 'entanglements'.Yes, both SR and GR taken literally imply a 'block universe', i.e. only the 4D spacetime is real and 'space and time' are abstractions.
Actually, only Minkowski at first, who reinterpreted SR as spacetime geometry, which the SR paper did not. This led Einstein to note that he didn't understand his own theory anymore, but this new way of looking at it (geometrically) was essential to completing the GR work.Interestingly, both Minkowski and Einstein himself read relativity in this way
Eternalism was kind of new to the physics community at the time. There's no conflict. The experience is an interpretation put there by evolution. Without that, one could not be a predicting being. But the two different views actually have identical empirical experience, so the conflict is only between models, not anything that can be used to falsify one or the other.But notice that the question is hardly settled. Einstein, despite taking relativity at 'face value', was deeply troubled by the 'problem of the now', that is how can we reconcile our immediate experience of the 'present' and the 'flow of time' with what relativity seemed to imply.
But you don't know the QM is not deterministic. There are plenty of interpretations that are such, and even the dice-rolling ones do not falsify a block view. Don't confuse determinism with subjective predictability.Personally, I don't think that QM supports the 'block universe' view. After all, if quantum events are not deterministic it doesn't seem the case that 'everything is fixed'.
There is generalized version of LET. Took over a century to publish one, but it's a valid interpretation that is compatible with presentism. Certain GR predictions like black holes and the big bang had to be eliminated, but if you're ok with that, then we're good. There is an empirical test for black holes, but not one that can be published in a journal. Physics has a sense of humor sometimes I swear.If, however, the 'block universe' is not 'how things really are', it certainly make us wonder how to interpret relativity.
More like I haven't seen anything that cannot. Sure, some things are too complex, but that doesn't demonstrate that is isn't math. Hard to describe Fred the butcher using just math.Anyway, do you think that everything about life can be described, in principle, by math?
I was going to suggest a thermostat, which performs experiments and acts upon the result of the experiment. I always reach for simple examples. But you'll move the goalpost no doubt.We decide, we act, we perform experiments, among other things. What object does that? — Wayfarer
Now we drag purpose into the mix. That wasn't in the original question (quoted above),. Most guys doing experiments in the lab are also doing those experiments due to the needs of their employers, not their own purposes, so does that make them not actual acts and experiments now?But AI is an instrument which has been created by human engineers and scientists, to fulfil their purposes. It's not a naturally-occuring object.
'Think' and 'decide' have now been added to the list. Hard to wedge especially that first word into what the thermostat is doing.The question stands - what kinds of objects think, decide, act, perform experiments? — Wayfarer
I beg to differ. That very phrase is used to describe what a self-driving car does, that it can perform its task without direct human intervention.AI is not a naturally occurring object, nor does it possess agency in the sense of autonomous intention.
Only for current lack of anything else defining different ones. There are devices that operate under their own goals, one notorious example being a physical robot that make multiple escape attempts, sometimes getting pretty far.It operates within a framework of goals and constraints defined by humans.
No, they don't always. OK, the game playing ones play games, but they don't play the way the humans tell them to. Driving cars are constrained by the road rules which admittedly are human rules. They'd do far better if they made up their own rules, but then the humans would likely not be able to follow them.So - AI systems embody or reflect human agency
I can designate a robot, rock, or person each as objects. Your choice not to do so would be your choice.so again, they're not objects, in the sense that the objects of the physical sciences are.
I must disagree. The (3D) state of the universe changes over (1D) time, but the (4D) universe does not. Similarly, the air pressure at a mountain changes over altitude, but the mountain itself, nor the air about it, is not at one preferred altitude, in any reference frame.The universe does change over time, from the perspective of any intra-universe reference frame. — Relativist
The pragmatic part of me still believes it, and it's the boss. The rational part thinks otherwise, but the boss, while it doesn't mind, is certainly not swayed. Part of growing up was to recognize the conflict between the two and keep them separate.You had a belief about the external world, and now you don't.
What if there are no beliefs, only acknowledgement of possibilities? I don't go that far, but I do try to identify rationalization when I see it and try to cut through fallacious reasoning.I can understand questioning it, given that it is possibly false, but most of our beliefs are possibly false and (I assume) you nevertheless continue to believe most of them.
What if we took away just the bold part? This world produces living organisms that interact with it. How would that interaction differ from the same word that is real?Regarding this particular intuition: IF there is an external world, and this world produced living organisms, those living organisms would necessarily need to successfully interact with that external world.
It is indeed an assumption. It being an 'object' seems to be a mental designation, so not part of the assumption of whatever it is in itself not being observation dependent.The assumption that the object is at it is, in the absence of the observer, is the whole point. That is the methodological assumption behind the whole debate. — Wayfarer
Any such aspect wouldn't be a an inextricable aspect of the thing in itself, given said assumption above.The fact that there is an ineliminable subjective aspect doesn’t falsify that we can see what is, but it does call the idea of a completely objective view into question.
I can think of several that might do all that, but you probably would not choose that vocabulary to describe something not-you doing the exact same thing. The not-human thing doing say 'experiments' has no effect on things being what they are, again, given the assumption of lack of dependency above.Because we make judgements, for starters. We decide, we act, we perform experiments, among other things. What object does that?
Maybe. At least one interpretation gives a role to a sentient observer, leading to solipsism. The rest seem to discard altogether it as a distinct interaction separate from other kinds.Standard QM by itself is silent, I believe, on what is an 'observer'.
Of course, what is an observer is a matter of interpretations.intuition — boundless
Your choice of tense suggests that at said earlier time, 'the universe' (and not just the subset of the universe events where the time coordinate is some low value) 'was' devoid of life, that the universe changes over time. This is not consistent with a universe not contained by time.No, I don't think the universe is contained by time, but I believe time is real within the universe - and therefore there was a time before life emerged. — Relativist
I said I give little weight to intuitions since the purpose of intuition isn't truth, but rather pragmatism. Hence I question all intuitions and don't necessarily reject all of them (most though).I don't understand why you deny our basic intuitions about there being an external world.
Long story. The childhood intuition didn't hold water, just like God, or the time 'flowing' and there being a 'present' all seeming very intuitive, but completely lacking in empirical evidence. So I learned to be rational rather than to rationalize.Surely you intuitively accepted this during your childhood, so what led you to believe you were mistaken?
This topic got away from me, moving faster than I could follow. This coupled with being really busy with work and ailing mother, it got to be over a month.But, thanks again, we should let the thread owner get a word in. — Wayfarer
Despite my efforts to the contrary and the lack of space in the title line, I don't think anybody articulated exactly what I'm trying to point out with this thread. I don't expect an answer from you since you don't claim said independentThe title of this thread—“Does anybody really support mind-independent reality?”—is precisely the issue." — Wayfarer
Per my comment just above, no, it's still mind dependent. It only indicates that the clock still relates to you even when not being immediately perceived.I offered that if we can produce concepts that don't seem to subjectively vary (e.g. the ticking of a clock), then is that not mind-independent? — Apustimelogist
You need to accept more if you're to claim mind independence. I agree that this positivist position that you (Wayfarer mostly) continually knock down is not a mind-independent view.... the positivist says I can measure, test, observe, recognise, describe etc the world we are in and if there is anything else to it, show it to me so I can measure it? If you can’t, then why should I accept that it is there at all? — Punshhh
It may presume physicalism to be based on false premises, but it does not demonstrate it, or if it does, the quote to which this is a reference does not demonstrate it.[Idealism] explains why physicalism is based on false premisses. — Wayfarer
OK, I agree with all that, but our belief being shaped by perceptions does not alter what is, does not falsify this externality, no more than the physicalist view falsifies the idealistic one.Cognitive science shows that what we experience as 'the world' is not the world as such - as it is in itself, you might say - but a world-model generated by our perceptual and cognitive processes. So what we take to be "the external world" is already shaped through our cognitive apparatus. This suggests that our belief in the world’s externality is determined by how we are conditioned, biologically, culturally and socially, to model and interpret experience, rather than by direct perception of a mind-independent domain. — Wayfarer
This part seems to be just an assertion. How are we (as 'agents', whatever that means) fundamentally different than any other object, in some way that doesn't totally deny the physicalist view? It seems a very different view must be assumed to make these assertions. Fundamentally, I don't think there is 'importance' at all. Importance to what? Us? That's subjective importance, nothing fundamental.But the philosophical question is about the nature of existence, of reality as lived - not the composition and activities of those impersonal objects and forces which science takes as the ground of its analysis. We ourselves are more than objects in it - we are subjects, agents, whose actions and decisions are of fundamental importance.
Naive physicalism maybe. Few would assert such direct realism.And through critical self-awareness, we can come to understand that world we experience is already a mediated construction, not an unfiltered or unvarnished encounter with reality in itself. Which is what physicialism doesn’t see.
Patching it back in isn't excluding it. That it isn't a supernatural entity of its own is, yes, something excluded.Physicalism can't find any mind in the world it studies, because it begins by excluding it, and then tries to patch it back in as a 'result' or 'consequence' of the mindless interactions which are its subject matter and from which it seeks to explain everything about life and mind. — Wayfarer
I also acknowledge this, but any alternative to physicalism has the same significant explanatory gaps, so what's the point of bringing it up?You [relativist] acknowledge that physicalism has significant explanatory gaps when it comes to the philosophy of mind — Wayfarer
Yea, pretty much, and I've agreed that both 'man', 'mind' and 'object' are words referring to concepts, so it seems rather circular to suggest that 'man' is dependent on 'man'. Nothing seems to ground this.What does modern science have to say about the nature of man?
...
— D M Armstrong, The Nature of Mind
That is, as an object. — Wayfarer
I think this doesn't hold water. Observation may depend on subjectivity, but not on a subject or on a consciousness, both of which are, in the end, presumed objects. Objects being ideals, they are not the source of subjectivity, but rather a product of it.But philosophy cannot honestly sustain this stance. The human subject is not just an object within the world, but also the condition for any world appearing. Scientific objectivity depends on observation, and observation presupposes a subject—a standpoint, a perspective, a consciousness.
Here, Kant seems to be talking about the mental representation of time, not of time in itself. In that light, I see no conflict and I agree with the statement, especially since time is most often represented as a flow, a succession of states of things, which yes, is no more than a mental representation and is hardly foundational in a view where mental is not fundamental.. But just take the first paragraph in that section:
"1. Time is not an empirical conception. For neither coexistence nor succession would be perceived by us, if the representation of time did not exist as a foundation à priori. Without this presupposition we could not represent to ourselves that things exist together at one and the same time, or at different times, that is, contemporaneously, or in succession." -- Kant — Wayfarer
If this is an accurate representation of Bergson's position, he doesn't take a very scientific view. There is proper time (the thing in itself), coordinate time (an abstrction), and one's perception of time, which is what Kant seems to be talking about. Concerning (3), both clocks and people measure proper time, hence my non-scientific assessment. (4) correctly points out that the difference between people and clocks is one of precision, but better precision doesn't make it a different kind of time.... Aeon Magazine article on the Einstein-Bergson debate on time, specifically:
"To examine the measurements involved in clock time,(1) Bergson considers an oscillating pendulum, moving back and forth. At each moment, the pendulum occupies a different position in space, like the points on a line or the moving hands on a clockface. In the case of a clock, the current state – the current time – is what we call ‘now’. Each successive ‘now’ of the clock contains nothing of the past because each moment, each unit, is separate and distinct.(2) But this is not how we experience time. Instead, we hold these separate moments together in our memory. We unify them. A physical clock measures a succession of moments, but only experiencing duration allows us to recognise these seemingly separate moments as a succession.(3) Clocks don’t measure time; we do. This is why Bergson believed that clock time presupposes lived time.
Bergson appreciated that we need the exactitude of clock time for natural science.(4) For example, to measure the path that an object in motion follows in space over a specific time interval, we need to be able measure time precisely. What he objected to was the surreptitious substitution of clock time for duration in our metaphysics of time. His crucial point in Time and Free Will was that measurement presupposes duration, but duration ultimately eludes measurement. --- Einstein-Bergson debate
Amateur late responder... :)Sorry for the late reply. — boundless
My problem with this is that there are also philosophical models that do not make any 'stance' about whether 'the physical' or 'the mental' is fundamental. — boundless
Most in fact, naturalism being one of them. Pretty much anything except materialism and idealism respectively. — — noAxioms
1) My comment concerned what various 'ism's state about what is fundamental, but your reply seems to be about what is.Naturalism generally explicitly denies anything 'supernatural' (there is nothing outside the 'universe' or the 'multiverse'). Unless it is something like 'methodological naturalism' I don't see how it is metaphysically neutral. — boundless
My example of one was a spacetime diagram which has no point of view. How is that still 1st person then, or at least not 3rd?Anyway, the 'third-person perspective' is said to more or less be equivalent to a view from anywhere that makes no reference to any perspective. I guess that you would say that there can't be any true 'third-person perspective', though.
Yes, it seems dualistic to assume that. No, neither needs to be fundamental for it to be dualism. They both could supervene on more primitive things, be they the same primitive or different ones.I meant: is it dualistic to assume that there is indeed consciousness and 'the material world' and none of them can be reduced to the other with the proviso, however, that any of them are 'ontologically fundamental'?
Not directly. It having a requirement of being describable is different than having a requirement of being described, only the latter very much implying mind dependence.Well, is it interesting, isn't it? I believe that, say, someone that endorses both materialism and scientism would actually tell you that the world is 'material' and totally describable. It would be ironic for him to admit that this implies that is not 'mind-independent'.
Perhaps so. This is consistent with my supervention hierarchy that goes something like mathematics->quantum->physical->mental->ontology(reality) which implies that the physical is mind independent (mind supervenes on it, not the other way around) but reality is mind dependent since what is real is a mental designation, and an arbitrary one at that. There's no fact about it, only opinion.Anyway. If, in order to be mind-independent a definition of reality must not rely on describability would not this mean that, in fact, we can't conceive such a definition of reality?
Nit: A thing 'looking like' anything is by definition a sensation, so while a world might (by some definitions) exists sans an sort of sensations, it wouldn't go so far as to 'look like' anything.Imagine 'how the world looks like' without any kind of sensations. — boundless
How do you account for the past, before any human-like intelligence existed? — Relativist
1) boundless made no mention of life forms. An observing entity is indeed implied, but I personally don't consider 'observing entities' to be confined to life forms.There were no sensations in the universe before life came into being. — Relativist
It is related to sentient experience in that some sentient thing is conceiving it. But that isn't a causal relation. Objects in each world cannot have any causal effect on each other, and yes, I can conceive of such a thing, doing so all the time. Wayfarer apparently attempts to deny at least the ability to do so without choosing a point of view, but I deny that such a choice is necessary. Any spacetime diagram is such a concept without choice of a point of view.The point is: can you conceive a world that has absolutely no relation to 'sentient experience'? — boundless
I don't consider this to be just a physicalist problem. The idealists have the same problem. It's a problem with any kind of realism, which is why lean towards a relational ontology which seems to not have this problem.The problem for me, however, is to explain from a purely physicalist point of view why there are these 'structures' in the first place. — boundless
I would say that if one denies the existence any kind of external reality (solipsism) or affirms that, at most, there might be something else but we do not interact in any way with that is irrational. — boundless
To emphasize what little weight I give to said basic intuitions, I rationally do not agree. Denial of existence of any kind of external reality isn't necessarily solipsism. At best, it's just refusal to accept the usual definition of 'exists', more in favor of a definition more aligned with the origin of the word, which is 'to stand out' to something (a relativist definition).I agree. That is contradicted by our basic intuitions. — Relativist
I consider myself quite the skeptic, but not in the solipsism direction. None of this 'cogito ergo sum' logic which leads to that.I always have had trouble with philosophical skepticism — prothero
Indeed, maybe he was wrong.Yes -- but maybe Einstein was wrong. — Moliere
I think any decent definition of 'universe' would involve it being a closed system. If not, it is at best part of some larger structure, just part of a universe.Is the whole universe rightly described as a closed system?
A physical coin flip (like Pachinko) should be a reasonably deterministic process. If all state is known to enough precision, the outcome is computable. Still, classical physics is not empirically deterministic, as illustrated by things like Norton's dome. This does not falsify ontic deterministic interpretations, which give cause to all events.What I know is that you have to perform the experiment in order to find out the outcome -- much like a quarter. — Moliere
PSR seems to be more of a classical principle, talking more about a sufficient reason why I chose chocolate today despite preferring vanilla, and not so much about sufficient reason for the nucleus to decay just then.There seems to be a common intuition, but not a universal one, that the Principle of Sufficient Reason, if it were true, would imply Determinism is also true. — flannel jesus
Wouldn't we be able to ask "Why am I in universe 1 rather than universe 2?" — Moliere
Pretty equivalent, yea. Makes no sense in either case. To suggest otherwise would be to say that X is Y when it clearly isn't.That's the same as asking "why am I me and not you?" — flannel jesus
We apparently see things quite differently, you taking the 'thing playing a lottery' stance.I'm me and not you cuz there was a percentage chance I was you, and a percentage chance I was me -- and I just happened to flip heads. — Moliere
Easy. The whole thing says that for a closed system, the system (described by one wave function) evolves according to the Schrodinger equation, which is a fully deterministic equation.I'm struggling to see how many-worlds can be interpreted as deterministic, but again it seems like we're coming back to terminology in the first place. — Moliere
Under determinism, yes, every time, given multiple systems with fully identical initial state."does the same thing every time" isn't what I said with respect to different kinds of events. — Moliere
Depends on one's definition of 'I'. Given some definitions, you're in both. I don't like that definition since it seems to violate law of non-contradiction. Determinism is a separate issue from what 'you' are under MWI.You may be able to, but I cannot understand why Many Worlds is deterministic for the reason I said -- why am I in the up-world and not the down-world? — Moliere
Peano Arithmetic seems to concern only natural numbers, and is not closed under a lot of operations. A lot more axioms are needed to move into extensions to natural numbers, and it still remains difficult to find a set of numbers which is closed under all operations. Complex numbers are not up to the task, but Octionians are. Problem with Octonians is that so many of the operations lack commutative, associative, and transitive properties.But once you say 2+2=4 you are now in into the realm of mathematics where different rules apply and 2+2=4 is not an absolute truth. Rather, 2+2=4 is only true within specific mathematical systems - most commonly Peano Arithmetic - where you start of with certain axioms and rules and then you can derive 2+2=4. — EricH
Most in fact, naturalism being one of them. Pretty much anything except materialism and idealism respectively.My problem with this is that there are also philosophical models that do not make any 'stance' about whether 'the physical' or 'the mental' is fundamental. — boundless
I am aware of this wording, but have never got it. How can a perspective not be first person by the thing having the perspective, even if it's a tree or a radio or whatever? Sure, it might not build a little internal model of the outside world or other similarities with the way we do it, but it's still first person.Some phenomenological approach conceptualize this by saying that the 'first-person perspective' (the 'mental') and the 'third-person perspective' (the 'physical') are not reducible to one another
I kind of lost track of the question. Classify the ontology of the first and third person ways of describing what might be classified as an observer?but you need to take both into account even if it is not possible to make a synthesis of them (think about 'complementarity' in QM). To none of them, however, an ontological status is actually granted. Both are ultimately 'point of views'.
How would you classify this? It is obviously not 'dualistic' in the sense that an ontologiy is not even presumed.
Me too. I struggled to find a more appropriate word and failed.Sort of agree. They are not 'parts' that we are composed of. That would be a 'materialistic' interpretation of principles and laws. But even saying that they are 'means' is wrong IMO. — boundless
OK, I can go with that, but it implies that 'stuff' is primary, interaction supervenes on that, and laws manifest from that interaction. I think interaction should be more primary, and only by interaction do the 'things' become meaningful. Where the 'laws' fit into that hierarchy is sketchy.I would say that they 'manifest' in the way physical stuff interact. If they weren't 'there', there would be no 'way' in which physical stuff would interact.
Depending on one's definition of being real, I don't agree here. A mind-independent definition of reality doesn't rely on describability. By other definitions, it does of course.I am not even sure that it even makes sense to think about an 'unstructured reality'. So, probably, this implies that, after all, intelligibility is something essential to anything real.
Sounds legit. All of it.If one posits that, say, the fundamental reality is, say, the Platonic 'world of Forms' it's possible to explain why the physical world presents to us regularities. They are, so to speak, 'moving images' of the Forms or 'manifestations' of them. And physical things are instantiations of the forms.
But materialism would simply assume that there is an 'order' in the world without having a conceptual category that explains it. Is being intelligible intrinsic/essential to be material? Is the 'order' material? — boundless
OK, got that.Assuming some kind of reality of mathematica and logical principles to make a case for the intelligibility of physical reality.
Good. You're not treating time differently than space. Being consistent goes a long way to being valid.Yes, I completely agree with it. — Wayfarer
I can think of counterexamples to that. Certain forms of BiV or simulation reality are not necessarily situated in an actual space that is being perceived. Sure, there is an embedded space and/or time, but that's not the space/time perceived. It might have say a different number of dimensions than the number presented to one's experience.You said you haven't read up on Kant, but he says something like this: space and time are not derived from experience (a posteriori), nor are they concepts, but rather they are the necessary, a priori conditions of experience. In other words, we cannot perceive or imagine anything without situating it in space and time.
First of all, I still think my title is poorly worded. I'm not asking if the apple would still be there if you were not. I'm more asking if the line between that which exists and that which doesn't is or is not drawn in some oberver independent way.You asked a rhetorical question in the thread title - 'Does anybody support a mind-independent reailty' - from what I'm seeing, the answer would be that you do. Would that be right?
It isn't more fundamental under all views. Under idealism, perceived time is more fundamental than the time from any theory.I've learned from my research that these different "types" of time, with "type 1" (proper time) being the more fundamental (or "physical") concept, is recognised within the framework of relativity. — Wayfarer
It is true. It does not become a mental construct of proper time until experienced. But type 1 is proper time, not the mental construct of proper time, and the argument seems not to be true at all of the latter.And my claim is that this is true even of so-called 'Type 1', supposedly mind-independent time.
Based on much of the content of this topic, I can even agree with that, since ontology is potentially a mental construct. What proper time is, is a different issue than what it means to say it exists. OK, by some definitions of 'exists', the word means to 'be' whatever it is, but by other definitions, to exist means to be labeled thus by something that worries about such things.Bergson's analysis challenges the idea of a time that exists completely independently of any form of "experiencing" or "measuring" (in the broader sense that includes conscious awareness).
You may choose to interpret these things any way you want. Proper time is still the same (invariant) in any interpretation, and is something meaningful to us.Even physical clocks, which we might think of as objective measures, rely on physical processes unfolding in space, which we interpret as temporal intervals.
Not all interpretations represent time as something that passes. Movement may represent time, but not necessarily its passage.Even in the case of physical measurements, we are the ones who interprest the spatial movements as representing the passage of time.
I agree with this.Without an observer (human or otherwise) to relate the spatial changes to the concept of time, the clock's movements are just that – movements in space.
Lacking a Planck clock, I don't think any clock measures discreet moments in a way that a human doesn't.The distinction between the discrete moments measured by a clock
Perhaps he would argue that, incorrectly. Our interpretation of clocks gives us a sort of epistemic time, but it doesn't create physical time, it only measures it, and physical time, just like physical distance, can (given a sort of mind-independent interpretation) be without any necessity of perception. So OK, Bergson is perhaps not such a realist, and that's not an invalid position. But a choice of premises is very different than an unbacked assertion that those premises are necessarily true. Same goes with Einstein if he makes such an assertion.However, a Bergson would likely argue that even the "physical" time we measure with clocks is still dependent on a framework of spatial measurement and our interpretation of it which only an observer can provide.
That scale being more fundamental, all events at any scale are affected by them, even if what we call classical behavior is more emergent than coming directly from the Planck scale. But then there's the 'what does it mean' part. Absent some kind of awareness, there's nothing to find meaning. If ontology is meaning, then it doesn't even exist. But in a mind-independent view, proper time (at whatever scale) doesn't require itself to be meaningful to anything.So if we take Bergson's challenge seriously, we might ask: what does Planck time mean in the absence of any system to "observe" or be affected by events at that scale?
More fundamental than spacetime, but probably not actually 'fundamental' itself.Is it a fundamental property of spacetime
Of course it is.Bergson's perspective suggests that even this concept is embedded within our theoretical framework of measurement and understanding.
Not what I'm talking about then. How is that statement distinct from regular idealism?Ontic or ontological idealism holds that the world is ultimately mental (or spiritual) in nature. — Wayfarer
I can think of few views (if any) that would disagree with that.I'm arguing for epistemological idealism which argues that whatever we know of the world has an ineliminably subjective pole.
Saw that in my searches. Don't trust such an assessment written by somebody clearly favoring one side over the other. Such debates express two points of view, neither debunked, and thus comes down to who can think faster on their feet. I'm thinking of say the way WL Craig clearly trounced Hitchens despite my opinion of which side is correct and despite my opinion that Craig doesn't even believe what he pitches. He's incredibly good at the pitching, and that's what counts in a debate. Not who's right, and not what one's actual belief's are.Ref: Who Really Won when Bergson and Einstein Debated Time, Evan Thompson, Aeon.
You missed the point then. I was searching for any context where 2+2 might be equal to something other than 4, any reason to not accept 2+2=4 as an absolute truth.Ironically, the original point I was making there is that you are the one finding such things ambiguous hence why you conflate 2+2 referring to completely different things. — Apustimelogist
Note that under such natural units, all four of those constants have the value of 1.The claim that Planck units (Planck time, Planck length, Planck mass, etc.) are a set of "natural units" derived solely from fundamental physical constants: the speed of light (c), the gravitational constant (G), and the reduced Planck constant (ℏ) is correct. These constants are believed to be universal throughout the cosmos. — Wayfarer
This is what you asked about. It suggests that such units are not made up, but rather are physical, a mind-independent set of units that is a property of our cosmos.In this sense, an advanced alien civilization, by studying the laws of physics, could indeed independently arrive at the concept of Planck units and their values.
The Planck unit of time is one of proper time (type 1), not the third type (awareness of) time which you seem to have been referencing. Don't confuse the two. There's little point in utilizing Plank units for measuring a specific species' awareness of time.However the existence of Planck units, while providing a universal and objective scale for duration, does not fundamentally undermine the argument that measurement (or observation from a specific frame of reference) is an essential element of duration, nor does it negate the "subjective" components we discussed.
I'm not sure if whatever you're referencing would have a true duration. I use the physics definition of 'event', which is a point in spacetime, something without duration. OK, so a different sort of event like the sinking of the Titanic, which took hours, but that sort of duration is coordinate time, not proper time. That duration varies relative to one's choice of reference frame, as is necessarily the case with anything with extension like that. There's no one 'true' duration of something that multiple people are aware of or relative to different frames since it is different for each of them.Even if an event's "true" duration is, say, X — Wayfarer
That's coordinate time, and yes, it is frame dependent. Proper time is invariant, and Planck units are units of proper time.Planck units in its own rest frame, an observer moving at a high velocity relative to that event, or an observer in a strong gravitational field, will still measure a different duration for that event due to time dilation.
That only works for type 3 durations, and I stand by that point. Coordinate time requires awareness to compute, but it otherwise doesn't require being computed to have a coordinate duration.My point that "measurement is an essential element of duration" stands.
This is wrong. Proper duration is invariant in both a relativistic and an absolute interpretation of the universe, and coordinate duration (including 'actual' duration in the absolute universe) is not invariant. Neither kind of time has a requirement to be noticed by any observer. Of course, that's different in any mind-dependent sort of ontology where being noticed is a requirement.In a relativistic universe, duration isn't an absolute, pre-existing quantity that merely needs to be "counted" by an observer. — Wayfarer
I just watched Brian Cox explain the incomprehensible minuteness of the Planck Length: — Wayfarer
Apparently Apustimelogist finds your statement completely ambiguous.So its like discussing spelling: m-i-n-u-t-e. — Apustimelogist
So this modern materialism then, what does it suggest, especially above and beyond what naturalism does?Since this thread is about ontology, however, it would be probably more appropriate to refer to 'materialism', then, without using that term to indicate a specific form of 'materialism' that, say, is equated to ancient atomism or a literal interpretation of newtonian mechanics but it is compatible with modern physical theories. — boundless
It's how I use the word, but mostly just to identify 'not dualism', and I prefer to use naturalism to describe that, so I admit that the term needs something else, perhaps said ontological stance.Still, I am not sure why people would call 'physicalism' a non-ontological view, but that's me.
No, but I don't suggest that I am composed partially of principles and laws either. Those things are the means by which physical stuff interacts.Anyway, personally, I would not call principles, laws and so on as something physical.
:up:In fact, they are more like the transcendental conditions for the existence of something physical.
I am trying to understand all the terms being used here. Some examples would help, perhaps of something unstructured, and how exactly speaking about a physical reality contradicts materialism.A purely 'unstructured' (i.e. intelligible) 'physical reality' is not a 'physical reality' at all. And the structure is more like a 'principle' than an 'object'. To me this means that the mere assumption that 'physical reality' is intelligible (which seems to be in fact necessary to speak about a 'physical reality'), contradicts materialism (and hence 'physicalism' as a metaphysical/ontological position). — boundless
Maybe. As I said, it doesn't stand out, which makes it perhaps not exist, but I don't see it being contradictory.An unstructured world is IMO a contradiction in terms. — boundless
OK, but I've always associated that with just 'idealism'. Perhaps I should ask what non-ontic idealism is then. I mean, epitemic idealism makes sense, but almost in a tautological way. You only know what you know.Well, [ontic idealism] is often referred to the position that reality is exclusively mental and, therefore, there are only minds and mental content as we know them (a position that is most often attributed to Berkeley, but I think that he was more sofisticated than how it is often presented). — boundless
Assuming a reality to make a case for a reality?Anyway, I was not trying to 'make a case' for any of these 'idealist' positions. I was more like 'making a case' for the 'reality' of 'mathematical and logical truths' by simply assuming that there is an intelligible physical/material reality.
AgreeIn any case, if one assumes the 'reality' (and the 'indipendence' from the physical world and our minds) of math and logic, then one cannot be a 'materialist' and possibly even endorse some forms of ontological idealism, for that matter.
Yes what the body experiences pre-cognitively is unknown to us in vivo.
The experience of anything that isn't you is not known to you. Still not sure what you mean by cognition here, but plenty of things (trees, slime molds) do plenty of experiencing and communicating without the benefit of a nervous system.
— Janus
Except it is 2+2 being discussed, and not the label nor any of the symbols or concepts of them, nor how anything is spelled.Its all different things blanketly labelled as 2+2 when really that doesn't actually describe the specifics of each thing and why they are like that. — Apustimelogist
OK. I don't agree with the premises, so whether any of the conclusions follow from them seems irrelevant. Your belief seems not to answer my question about your belief not including any conclusion of objective existence. It all seems to hinge on relations between subjects experiencing objects.I have an argument for the existence of my mind, which is based on the fact that experience exists and is coherent. — MoK
Well that interpretation is not included in my suggestion of you being in superposition.I think the interpretation of Bohmian quantum mechanics is correct since it is anomaly-free..
What is meant by this? Kind of like a rock 10 km deep experiencing heat and pressure, all sans any cognition to mentally experience those things? That was my guess.... the fact that we don't really know what the body experiences prior to cognition ... — Janus
Of the 9 types of multiverses listed by Greene: Brane, Cyclic, Holographic, Inflationary, Landscape, Quantum, Quilted, Simulated, Ultimate, only Quilted, Quantum, and arguably Brane share the same spacetime as us (the same big bang, same constants). Of the 9, only Ultimate can claim 'no possible relation'. The rest are all related, but by definition of an alternate universe/world, they might have no direct causal effect on us. Exceptions: Holographic and Simulation.I was referring to other universes, not remote parts of this universe. Other universes, if they existed, would not share our spacetime, hence no possible relation. — Janus
Right. Solutions: Either an awful lot of dice being rolled, or one heavily loaded die. Wayfarer quoted Davies above that apparently favors the latter view.In any case no matter how "stupid improbable" it might be, it has happened in our case, and thus we are here wondering about it.
OK, how about ‘no time outside the measurement of time’. I refer back to the earlier quote: "Clocks don’t measure time; we do. "
OK, that's pretty obviously the 3rd kind of time, thus I agree with your statement.
— Wayfarer
Not that kind of time, so not so obvious. Perhaps the problem is conflating one definition of time with one of the others.The objections to this seem to be that time is ‘obviously’ objective.
You are thinking of the Planck units, and yes, a species on another world can independently discover those units.Imagine some species on another planet, far larger than Earth, with a daily rotation of one of our weeks, and an annual rotation of tens of our decades. Presumably the units they would use for measuring time would be very different to terrestrial units. — Wayfarer
Time is always relative to something, the length of a worldline, an abstract coordinate system, or relative to the experience of a particular being. Even under an absolutist theory, there is not an objective age of the universe at a given event. It would depend on the depth of the gravitational potential where the age was measured, and there isn't any objective depth to that, or if there was, it is arguably infinitely deep, meaning it takes infinite objective time for one second to tick by on Earth. I didn't list absolute time in my list of 3, but mostly because it's totally undefined.Is there an objective time which is independent of these two apparently incommensurable systems of measurement? — Wayfarer
Again, was not aware of that, but there is probably more than one view lumped under the term.Well, I believe that physicalism posits that the 'physical' is fundamental. — boundless
Yes, and not materialism. One that latter point we apparently differ.Just a quick terminological point. I believe that 'physicalism' and 'naturalism' are treated as synonyms. — boundless
I would have said that a materialist would assert material to be fundamental, not supervening on something more fundamental, and the physicalism/naturalism do not assert that. That doesn't mean that the physical necessarily supervenes on something also physical.But, I would say that 'materialism' also can mean the same thing, unless we call 'matter' only a subset of what is 'physical'.
Sure, stretch the definition and call 'fields' physical. You can do that all the way down, which blurs the distinction between the two terms.Another is that perhaps not all things that physics is concerned with are strictly "material". A physicalist may believe in quantum fields, but are quantum fields "material" or "matter"? — flannel jesus
Yes, one can slap on the label or not at one's preference. How it works is unaffected by this. I would look at other worlds like the GoL discussed above. There are objects (spaceships for instance) in that world. Are they considered 'physical'? Answer: Your choice to say yes or no. The definition of 'physical' definitely gets shaky when one steps outside of our own particular universe.But the risk here is equivocation. For instance, if I say that there are really 'physical laws', it seems that we end up with something like 'hylomorphism', i.e. the position that the 'physical' is also something that has a structure that is intrinsically intelligible (at least, in part). Is that 'structure' also 'physical'. I guess one can say so. — boundless
I perhaps am one open to accepting structure as more fundamental than physical.But if one accepts that 'structures' are as fundamental as 'physical things', it certainly implies that wholes are not really reducible to parts (as parts cannot be 'abstracted' from their context).
Which may just bring it back to an objective truth, yes.I can agree with that. And yes, you need to posit the 'truth' of the whole context. — boundless
How so? In the domain of integers, 2+2=4. but in a different (modulo 3 say) domain, 2+2=1. In Euclidean geometery, square circles are a contradiction. In non-Euclidean geometry, they're not.and a context requirement seems like an awful big asterisk to the claim of the objectiveness of its truth. — noAxioms
But this is just because you are giving completely differernt things the same representation. — Apustimelogist
I also hold sympathies to idealism, to the point where ontology may well just be an ideal even if I'm not an idealist (mind being in any way fundamental). All sorts of traps on that road, but I think it is valid. Is there such a thing as ontic idealism?on the 'eternality' part. Actually, I do think that maybe logic and math are 'mental constructs'/'concepts' (I do have my sympathies with 'idealism'*), but not in the sense that they are conventional. — boundless
Yes, it counts. Galaxies form early, so no 'new galaxy' like we did with the star. I picked 60 GLY because GN-Z11 (a record breaker until JWST found plenty further ones) is about 31 GLY away (proper distance along line of constant cosmological time). So let's say all galaxies form at 100 MY. We have galaxy X at 60 GLY comoving distance. The people on GN-z11 at age 13.8 GY can see both us and galaxy X. But they see both when they were super young, and they only see it recently since the effect took that long to get there. So they can't send a picture of say X to us since that light would leave now and would never get here. GN-z11 crossed our event horizon about 10 GY ago, so nothing there since then can ever effect us. Thus galaxy X still has zero causal effect on us.I gotcha. But does 2nd hand count? If 60 GLY influences a galaxy that's right between us, and 30 GLY influences us...? — Patterner
I realized the reason you quoted it, and ran more with the title since it had direct application to the issue brought up in the OP.I quoted [Goldilocks Enigma] in support of my contention that there is no time outside the awareness of it. — Wayfarer
Yes, a galaxy has mass just like a star does, so it can be treated as a body in its proximity, but 60 GLY is not in proximity. The mass of a galaxy makes zero difference at that distance compared to the same mass that didn't form a galaxy, despite the fact that the galaxy masses somewhat less just like our sun masses less than the material from which it was composed. Those local differences in the gravitational field simply cannot propagate FTL.Not sure I'll say this right... I thought a galaxy could be treated as one body when calculating it's gravitational influence. That one body being the sum of all the stars, and everything else, in it. So each star is part of that sum, and the galaxy would have a weaker gravitational influence without it. No? Or were you thinking of a lone start in intergalactic space? — Patterner
Physicalism necessarily requires mathematics to be a mental product only? I was not aware of that. Materialism, sure, but not physicalism.I agree that physicalism
...
the structure of the physical world actually is similar to that of our reason and at the same time trying to affirm that math and logic are the products of our minds. — boundless
I do admittedly have trouble denying 2+2=4, but even that assumes some context, as does say the impossibility of a square circle. I can do the latter with non-euclidean geometry, and I can deny the former with say modulus arithmetic, or telling weird stories like 1+1=1 to depict the unity of marriage, or 1+1=3 to depict reproduction. Those aren't counterexamples, but rather examples to show that 2+2=4 requires context, and a context requirement seems like an awful big asterisk to the claim of the objectiveness of its truth.I am surprised that you made this point, actually. 'Two plus two' is a different concept from 'four'. Just because the numerical value is the same it doesn't at all imply that it's a tautology. — boundless
If it's a mental construct, it would seem dependent on time. I don't think it's a mental construct, so I'll agree with your assertion of it being eternal.Time-independent in the case of math and logic. — boundless
How can you be certain of that kind of existence when you have no access to an objective viewpoint? There are even some interpretations of our universe (as opposed to objective) that say that 'you' are in superposition of being and not being, but mostly the latter.By exist, I mean having objective reality or being. I already defined what I mean by "I". — MoK
Same thing essentially.Yes, I can be a brain in a vat, or what I experience could be caused by a Demon.
I go way further than that. There seems to be no empirical test for the sort of existence you define. A thing existing and the same thing not existing would have identical experience, similar to say the experience of a presentist universe vs experience of a block universe. So one is forced to draw conclusions first, and then make up your evidence from there, a process of rationalization.There is no argument to tell whether other people exist.
No, by definition 'this universe' must contain observers, else it would be this one, but rather another one.The problem of including the observer in our description of physical reality arises most insistently when it comes to the subject of quantum cosmology - the application of quantum mechanics to the universe as a whole - because, by definition, 'the universe' must include any observers. — Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life, p 271
Quantum cosmology is in its infancy since there is no unified theory to date. Time drops out only because the subject deals with the universe before time has separated from the other dimensions, before say gravity separates out from the other 'forces'.Andrei Linde has given a deep reason for why observers enter into quantum cosmology in a fundamental way. It has to do with the nature of time. The passage of time is not absolute; it always involves a change of one physical system relative to another, for example, how many times the hands of the clock go around relative to the rotation of the Earth. When it comes to the Universe as a whole, time looses its meaning, for there is nothing else relative to which the universe may be said to change. This 'vanishing' of time for the entire universe becomes very explicit in quantum cosmology, where the time variable simply drops out of the quantum description. It may be restored by considering the Universe to be separated into two subsystems: an observer with a clock, and the rest of the Universe. — Paul Davies
I don't see any of that following at all, but then this tiny context might have snipped out pages of stuff leading to this conclusion.Linde expresses it graphically: 'thus we see that without introducing an observer, we have a dead universe, which does not evolve in time', and, 'we are together, the Universe and us. — Paul Davies
Funny, I can.The moment you say the Universe exists without any observers, I cannot make any sense out of that.
The average mass density of the universe sets a sort of fixed curvature. Changes to that curvature, say the formation of a concentration of mass like a star, cannot effect something beyond its event horizon, ever. That would require gravitational waves (the carriers of the changes to the gravitational field) to move locally faster than c. A new star as close as 20 GLY similarly cannot make any gravitational difference to us (ever) compared to if that star had not formed. We will never see it. But it's within the visible universe this time, so the mass from which it is composed has had a causal effect on us, not true of the one 60 GLY away.For a star 60 GLY away, they can see the same galaxy the we do, even if we can't see each other. Those are relations, just not direct causal ones. — noAxioms
Doesn't the gravity of each affect the other? — Patterner
Well I use 'measured' vs not, which divides events into two (not three) categories, which is roughly delimited not by a hyperplane of a present, but by the past light cone of the system event doing the measuring. That's a physical (invariant) division, not an abstract frame dependent one.I agree there's ambiguity in the way I used "exists". Can you suggest a different term? I want to distinguish between the superset of past/present/future existents and hypothetical things that are not in that superset. — Relativist
Well those things exist by some definitions/interpretations of 'exists' and of 'I' and not by others.I can for sure tell that I exist, by "I" I mean a mind with the ability to experience and cause (I have an argument for substance dualism). I can for sure tell that change exists. Some changes are due to me, and others are not. What causes other changes is subject to discussion; it could be a Demon or it could be real people. So, for sure, we can say that something exists beside me, but I think we cannot tell for sure what that thing is beside me! — MoK
Those are just two possible definitions of what it means to be real. I actually counted 6 or more such definitions. Most of the assertions about what is real vs what isn't use a definition that implies, if not explicitly, mind dependence.Why must something be "relation-independent" in order to count as real? — Janus
I disagree. We share the same big bang perhaps. For a star 60 GLY away, they can see the same galaxy the we do, even if we can't see each other. Those are relations, just not direct causal ones.We have no physical relation to such worlds.
Not an exact calculation, no, but 'stupid improbable' can very much be shown. Just not exactly how stupid improbable.The fine-tuning argument has never done it for me. I don't believe we can accurately calculate odds when the sample is but one.
Probably not relativity or cosmology, but definitely chemistry and quantum mechanics since quantum effects are critical to nerve operation as much as it is critical to transistor operation.Come on. When you study neuroscience, how much physics are you required to understand? — Wayfarer
I disagree with this, but I lack the credentials to deny any claim that any biological primitive operates on non-deterministic physics (and by that, I mean that randomness is not amplified or otherwise leveraged anywhere).Sure, the brain and other biological structures don't operate in defiance of physics but they instantiate principles which could never be predicted on the basis of physics alone.
Nothing in physics is violated by that either. That physics operates at a more fundamental level than something complex like say 'mitosis' doesn't mean that mitosis necessarily not physical.Nothing in physcis either does that, or accounts for that. — Wayfarer
I toyed with bringing up such an example in my prior topic about predication. I am a software engineer. One puts out a functional spec, a document which specifies what the product does. That's a list of predicates of a nonexistent thing, a potential example of existence not being prior to predication..People make up new theories which often make predictions about things that haven't been observed yet. — Apustimelogist
What do you mean by 'eternal' here? I have two definitions of that, and neither seems appropriate. I seem to favor the idea of mathematics being fundamental, but not all would agree.If, however, we do accept that mathematical and logical truths are eternal
...
This would mean that they are either fundamental in themselves (as say Penrose IMO suggests) or depend on something else that is also not contingent and eternal... — boundless
Under presentism, yes. But you called all those 'existing', the tense of which implies 'currently existing'. That's what I was commenting on.There is a set of things that existed in the past, a set of things existing in the present, and a set of things that will exist in the future. — Relativist
A point of reference IS a subject, just not one with subjectivity, although a point of reference does not alone define a coordinate system, so coordinate quantities like extension and duration are undefined.Without a subject, there is no point of reference for spatial extension or temporal duration — Wayfarer
That's just geometry.But what about relativity!? You can do experiments which show the effects of things like time dilation related to clocks without requiring observers or perspectives or anything like that. — Apustimelogist
They do actually. Physics is not something that happens only in labs or when people are watching. Epistemology of physics does, sure, but I don't think Apustimelogist was talking about epistemology.But those experiments don't do themselves — Wayfarer
Does this mean existent, but not in a material way? Because that implication is there, an equivocation of being real and existing. I point this out because there are those that very much distinguish the two, even if only by definition. Relativist detects the lack of the equivocation implied above.It's actually a very simple idea: that natural numbers (and other such intelligible objects) are real, but not materially existent. — Wayfarer
I have seen them used thus, as I have: Existing but not real or v-v.I question Wayfarer's distinguishing between "existing" and "real" — Relativist
I've been kind of up front about my usage of 'objective' to mean 'not relative', but you're seeming to imply 'not subjective' here. A truth about an object (as if 'object' had any sort of objective meaning) seems to be relative to the object, which is fine for a predicate. Is 2+2 adding up to 4 an objective truth, or is it only relative to this mathematics we seem to have discovered? Maybe there's different mathematics where 2+2 is something else or is meaningless.The other point is that mathematics seems to be ‘true’ in a way that goes beyond the objective. We usually think of ‘objective’ as meaning something inherent in the object, or at least independent of our perception. — Wayfarer
Point taken.But mathematics is often the means by which we define what’s objective in the first place—so in that sense, it seems to transcend the domain of the objective rather than just belong to it.
Not sure indeed. The issue of descriptive vs. proscriptive comes to mind.I’m not using ‘abstract’ to mean just 'mental' or 'subjective'—mathematical truths don’t seem to depend on individual minds. But it’s not clear that they’re part of the natural world either. That leaves a kind of philosophical gap: we trust mathematics to describe the real, but we’re not sure where mathematical truths themselves fit into our picture of reality.
I don't think you need to be a physicalist to agree with that statement.As a physicalist (more or less), I'd simply say that abstractions do not exist as independent entities in the world. — Relativist
But what if numbers are more fundamental than the object. They certainly are in say GoL, where '3' definitely has causal powers, and 'objects' only exist if 3 does first. Of course, real numbers play far less of a role than do small integers.Example: we can consider several groups of objects, each of which has 3 members - and from this, we abstract "3". 3 is a property possessed by each of these groups.
The act of abstraction, sure, but abstract objects (like 3 itself, and not just the concept of 3) doesn't require an act abstracting.This process is the basis of abstraction
Why not? For the materialist, sure, but physicalist? Not sure exactly what defines a physicalist, but i thought it was something like 'mind supervenes on the physical'. It's a stance against mind not being fundamental.For the physicalist, then of course abstractions like numbers can’t exist independently — Wayfarer
Be nice to know how it came about. If the concept is already grasped, then the roots of that concept go back further than Relativist's example. Perhaps tokens were grouped to match the count of something, but without knowing that there are 3 tokens. I don't think we'll ever know the early history of being able to count, but humans are not alone in the ability to do so.We don’t derive the idea of “three” from objects; rather, we recognize objects as “three” because we already grasp the concept a priori. In that sense — Wayfarer
The skeptic in me wants to doubt that, but how can it not be so? Does Platonism follow from it? It seems to come down to the issue of it being true implying its reality.The fact that 3 + 2 = 5 holds independently of any particular instance—it would be true even if there were no physical groups of five objects anywhere. — Wayfarer
So the dead/live cat is real, but not actual. The measured dead cat is actual. Cute, but the Wigner's friend experiment seems to challenge this unitary notion of a wave function collapse into 'actual'. I'd like to see their take on that.By expanding the definition of reality, the quantum’s mysteries disappear. In particular, “real” should not be restricted to “actual” objects or events in spacetime. Reality ought also be assigned to certain possibilities, or “potential” realities, that have not yet become “actual.” These potential realities do not exist in spacetime, but nevertheless are “ontological” — Quantum Mysteries Dissolved
There are those that assert this? Seems contradictory for some event to be 'existing' and also 'will exist', which seem to be two different contradictory tenses for the same event, relative to the same 'present' event.This sounds a bit like a presentist who considers as "existing" everything that exists, has existed, or will exist - i.e. a 4-dimensional landscape for identifying existents. — Relativist
Despite there no single tiny bit having been found that doesn't operate under said physical principles. Sure, the complexity might defy unwilling understanding, but that doesn't justify any claim that it does something dependent on more than just physical interactions.But when we get to the human brain, which is the most complex naturally-occuring phenomenon known to science, I see no reason to believe that it can be described in terms of, or limited to, physical principles. — Wayfarer
A problem with a materialist view perhaps, since only material things exist. A physicalist view only says that people are no more than arrangements of physical stuff. The view doesn't deny the potential existence of non-material things like forces and abstractions. At least that's how I distinguish materialism from physicalism.A purely physicalist view, however, is difficult to reconcile with the existence of abstract objects. — boundless
Of course not. 'Physical' is a reference to our universe. If logical operations were physical, they'd be a property of this universe and not anything objective. Something in a non-physical universe (like GoL) could not discover mathematics.For instance, logical operations do not seem to be reducible to physical causality, which seems contingent.
I'll let @wayfarer comment on that since I don't know Platonism enough to know what they assert.Generally physicalists oppose platonism due to the fact that it posits an irreducible non-physical reality.
Being accessible to minds has nothing to do with the truth of them.If a mathematical structure is going to supervene on mathematical truths, then those truths are going to need to be accessible by far more than just reason, which sounds like a mental act or some other construct that instantiates the mathematics (such as a calculator). — noAxioms
It depends on what we call 'reason'. If by reason we mean the mental ability to make deductions, inductions, reasonings and so on, well, at least a good part of mathematical truths are accessible to our finite minds.
Maybe it's us understanding some of theirs.So, at least in principle, that intelligence could understand our mathematics. — boundless
Good to see that we don't agree on everything then.Well, to be honest, I don't think that conscious beings can be understood in purely computational terms.
Difference of map and territory. There's the thing, and then there's a simulation of that thing. So while we can be simulated, by definition, we are not simulations.But, I still don't see how it can be considered a separate world from the one where the simulation is run (unless you mean from the 'perspective' of the simulated 'entities', assuming that such a concept makes sense).
OK, you seem to grok that.Ok! Yes.
How could they not be? I mean, OK, under idealism, mathematics is nothing but mental constructs. I get that, and there are even non-idealists that say something similar, but since they can be independently discovered, it seems more than just a human invention.The problem is, however, that if mathematical truths are independent from both our minds and all the contingencies of the world — boundless
If a mathematical structure is going to supervene on mathematical truths, then those truths are going to need to be accessible by far more than just reason, which sounds like a mental act or some other construct that instantiates the mathematics (such as a calculator).Plato himself for instance argued that they reside in a different level of 'reality', the reality of intelligible objects, accessible only from reason.
Great. 3 worlds on their own instead of each being stacked on the next.In recent times, Penrose popularized the idea of the 'three worlds', the physical world, the world of consciousness and the 'platonic realm'. All these worlds for him both transcend and relate to each other.
I agree with that bit, and perhaps the ontology can follow since such truth stands out from nonsense.I believe that mathematical platonism is right because it seems to me that mathematical truths are objectively true and independent from both the world(s) and our minds.
I'm actually being moved by this reasoning, so yes.They can be known, so they are not 'nothing' (or figments of our imagination because they are independent from our minds) - they seem to have some kind of ontological reality.
I think not the point. Said intelligence would need to be presented with an environment where such tools would find utility. It need not be 'of any kind' for mathematics to be independently discoverable.The point would be "can a rational intelligence of any kind learn mathematics as we know it?". For instance, I read that some propose that a rational being that lives alone in an undifferentiated environment would not coinceive numbers.
An approximation of it can be, yes. A classical simulation is capable of simulating this world in sufficent detail that the beings thus simulated cannot tell the difference. Another funny thing is that GoL is more capable of doing this than is our universe due to resource limitations that don't exist under GoL.Well, you are assuming that our world can be simulated. — boundless
A world is what it is, and a simulation of it is a different thing, sort of like the difference between X and the concept of X, something apparently many have trouble distinguishing..Anyway, if our world were a simulation, I would not consider it a separated world from that which runs the simulation.
I need more of a mathematics background to give an intelligent answer to that.An interesting question would be what is the relation between spacetime and the Hilbert space.
I sure do. A small fraction of the former are part of our causal past. None of the latter are, which makes a big ontological difference if ontology is based on us.Surely you can understand how unknown planets and unknown universes are on a different ontological plane? — Wayfarer
If it's defined that way, then there's not such thing as other universes by definition, at least not existing ones, and that's presuming that we're part of the universe as thus defined. Per my prior topic, I find no empirical test for that sort of thing.The universe being ‘the totality of what exists’.
Do you understand how it works, what the duration of all the prior ones were (as measured by one of our clocks), and how long it will take for the next one to happen? It is a cool idea, I admit.I’m open to Penrose’s idea of the cyclical universe
Those are interesting, but pop articles written by people no smarter than you or I, writing about view of people who are indeed smarter in their field.In the past 100 years our knowledge of the universe has expanded by orders of magnitude. I find the notion of a multiverse intriguing - but I'm just an armchair physicist. However, much smarter people than I think it's worth looking into.
https://www.thescienceblog.net/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-the-theory-of-the-multiverse/
https://organicallyhuman.com/googles-quantum-multiverse-exists/ — EricH
For one, I distinguish mathematics being objectively real, and mathematics being objectively true. The latter seems to hold, and the former I thought was what mathematical Platonism is about, but you say it's about being true. I am unsure if anybody posits that the truth of mathematics is a property of this universe and not necessarily of another one.Well, the general term is matheamtical 'realism'. There are different variants. Platonists assert that mathematical truths are both independent from our minds and also from the world. — boundless
Well I agree with that, and so does @Richard B given his last post.The main argument is that mathematical truths do not seem to rely on any kind of contingency.
Being objectively true (and not just true of at least this universe) does not imply inaccessibility. The question comes down to if a rational intelligence in any universe can discover the same mathematics, and that leads to circular reasoning.Opponents of platonism question the possibility that such a 'realm of truths' can be known by us.
Only a simulation of it. The things in themselves (all different seed states) are their own universes.Well, to me [Conway's Game of Life] would be a subset of 'our world', wouldn't it? — boundless
Totally agree here.The relationality of physical propoerties for instance suggest to me that the way we carve the world into objects is in large part a mental construct. So, describing the world outside the context of observations with concepts that are being introduced to make sense of observations would be a leap that might have to be justified. — boundless
A perspective seems to be a sort of 5 dimensional thing, 4 to identify an event (point in spacetime), and one to identify a sort of point in Hilbert space, identifying that which has been measured from that event. All these seem to be quite 'real' (relative to our universe)Here's an idea. Maybe the 'change' of my perspective is just an useful abstraction. 'My' 'observing perspective' is the same even when the description changes because I moved in my worldline. So, maybe any kind of perspective that physics tells about is an useful abstraction, which doesn't necessarily connect to something truly real.
That's one way. An extremely unlikely event, but no end of places and time for it it occur. Plenty of dice being rolled, so abiogenesis doesn't seem to be a problem at all.One way I've thought about the anthropic principle is simply to observe that it puts paid to the argument that the origin of life is a consequence of the fortuitous combination of elements, the 'warm little pond' theory of abiogenesis. — Wayfarer
Most of that has unlimited rolls of the dice, so improbability isn't a problem. The part in bold, if this is 'the one universe', only gets one shot, since those incredibly unlikely characteristics are the same everywhere, and that means you only get one shot at it.And that's because the causal sequence that gave rise to those circumstances can be traced back past the formation of the planet, to the stellar transformations that gave rise to those complex elements,which in turn can be traced back to some specific characteristics of matter-energy that seem to have existed from the earliest moments of the cosmos.
People finally accepted uncountable further unknown planets. Why is this one so different?But I think the argument that there might be uncountable further unknown universes doesn't amount to saying anything whatever.
We both think that. I don't go so far as to say that I 'know that'.Do you think that '2+2 = 4' is a mind-independent truth? I actually think it is. — boundless
Right. I don't know a whole lot about mathematical Platonism, being unsure about the arguments for each side, and why 2+2=4 perhaps necessitates it or not.That's why I lean toward some form of matematical platonism. It seems that mathematical truths are discovered, not 'invented', at least in part.
Well, a plurality of worlds that don't depend on minds at all. A great deal of them would be unfathomable to us, but what, do they all exist? I came up with a world from Conway's Game of Life (GoL), which is very crude, 3D (2 space, 1 time), and arguable has 'objects'. Does an evolution of a given initial GoL state exist? It certainly is a world. That's what I mean by questioning where the line should be drawn (from what does it stand out?) Nobody has answered the question. I have only vague answers, none supported by logic. That's a great deal of the reason I'm not a realist.I think I see what you mean. But then all the worlds would be mind-dependent. Not dependent on a particular mind. So we would have a pluarality of worlds that depend on their respective 'minds'.
I'm not comparing it to how things appear to you. The pen is not conscious and nothing appears to it at all. But the pen has a causal history and thus measures (interacts with) that history, just as you do. So not as things appear to you, but how your entire causal history relates to you. Your mental processing of a fraction of those measurements has nothing to do with this causal relation, thus the pen and a random meat-wad are on ontological level ground.It would be quite a coincidence that the world 'in the perspective of a pen' is describable in the same terms as it is 'as it appears to me'.
But that's my take on that comment as well.I am not sure that Rovelli meant that. I think he meant that each observer when asks "what did you see?" to another will get an answer which is coherent with his observations. I don't think that Rovelli meant anything more than this. — boundless
Thinking about stuff rather than giving a quick knee-jerk response is always a good thing. I'm often delayed in replying precisely because I'm looking up sites relevant to the response. It's not like I think I have all the answers already. I certainly don't.That's a good point, indeed. I need to think about this to give you a proper response. Hope you don't mind. — boundless
If you equate 'irrelevance to us' as 'nonexistent to us', then sure, but those other worlds are relevant to the only viable models that explain certain things. I notice you don't have a solution yourself to say the fine tuning problem, perhaps waving it away as being somehow necessary, but without saying how it is necessary.In which case, they're completely irrelevant in any sense other than providing rhetorical elbow-room in which any claim whatever can be accomodated. — Wayfarer
I think I proposed 2+2=4 as a sort of necessary truth. A whole lot of stuff falls apart if that isn't accepted.It's a way of avoiding admission of necessary truths, which suits your relativist arguments.
Pretty good summary, yes. To say 'there was nothing, and then there was something' implies that there was time in which more stuff besides time suddenly 'happened'. It seems a category error to consider the universe to be something that 'happened'. Again, opinion, but the opposite opinion is to posit the existence of something (a preferred moment in time) for which there is no empirical evidence, only intuition, and I rank intuition extremely low on my list of viable references.Okay the way you frame it I tend to think the Universe contains time, which means there was no time prior to the existence of the Universe. In other words, if there is anything there is also time because things are necessarily temporal, and if there are no things then there is no time. — Janus
Except for the 'reality' part, sure. Mind-independent, sure. Relation-independent, no. I think in terms of relations, but I don't necessarily assert it to be so. I proposed other models that are not relational and yet are entirely mind-independent. See OP.You also seem to agree that there are things independent of minds. In which case you would appear to be one the "anybodies" who support mind-independent reality.
Sure we do. It's just a different relation than 'part of the causal history of system state X', more like a cousin relation instead of a grandparent relation. The grandparent is an ancestor. The cousin is not. The cousin world is necessary to explain things like the fine tuning of this world, even if the cousin world has no direct causal impact on us.We have no relation to such worlds
That interpretation can be shown to lead to solipsism, which isn't a falsification, but it was enough to have its author (Wigner) abandon support of the interpretation.How could we ever demonstrate that consciousness collapses the wave function
By definition, those can neither be demonstrated nor falsified.or that there really are hidden variables?
OK, so you're open to there being others, but you don't see evidence of such, which just means that they're sufficiently separated to not notice each other. An that's just this universe, never mind other onesYou assert that no alien intelligence is capable of coming up with that theorem? — noAxioms
Not at all, but there is no evidence of such. I mean ‘rational intelligence’.
...
To all intents and purposes, that refers to our minds, although I'm open to the possibility of other intelligent species in the Universe. — Wayfarer
So I outline, in first paragraphs of the OP, grounds to entertain the idea of worlds/universes with different rules. By the relational definitions I've given, those worlds (like any other world) do not exist relative to us by definition, but neither do we exist relative to them.And there’s also no grounds to entertain the idea of a universe with ‘different physical rules’. This is where your relativism/nihilism shows through. It underwrites the idea that there are no necessary truths.
I mean that this world has evolved observers.What do you mean "the universe is self-observed"? — Janus
That means that time is part of the universe, one dimension of 4D spacetime, consisting of all events including the ones with us in it. This is an opinion.You say the universe contains time
It's true under any observation-dependent definition of existence. I'm exploring alternate definitions.The question boils down to whether "if nothing is observed then nothing exists" is true.
Because the apple is observed. No, I'm not talking about something merely unseen, say the nearest star to our exact position, but on the opposite side of the galaxy. Most assume that exists.Why is the question not about if the apple has mind-independent existence?
OK, I took that from the evidence that each has language, something one doesn't have without interactions with others.I can't know that the other person describing the same thing I saw and the thing I saw are not both products of my imagination. — Patterner
That's the standard line, yes. The OP is full of challenges to not so much that, but our presumed nonexistence of stuff not observed.I say it does not exist because it is being observed. I say observing it is the means by which we know it exists, but it would exist if it was never observed.
Probably the symbols and their meaning as taught to said readers. Good question though. Suppose integers don't exist. Not saying they don't exist somewhere in our universe, but that they don't exist at all. Can 7+3 really add up to 10, or must they be instantiated somewhere first, like 7 oranges and 3 grapefruits in a basket of 10 citrus fruits.Regarding the casual power of integers, 7 + 3. What caused "10" to exist in the mind of probably everybody who read that sentence?
I want a plausible model, even if I cannot know the correctness of it. Nobody can know if their interpretation of anything is the correct interpretation. That's true by definition.Can you just assume there is such a model that you don't know about? — Patterner
I don't think so since the model would not require itself to be known, but neither does it forbid it.But the mind can't know what that model is, because that defeats the purpose. Is that right?
If existence is but an ideal (described in alternative (1) just above), then yes, the above suggestion would be true. Also, the universe seems to contain time, not be contained by it, so all of it exists equally, meaning the universe is self-observed, period. There's no before/after about it. Yes, the parts prior to the observation are the ones observed. Its the events after the observation that are not observed, so maybe it's those that don't exist under some mind-dependent position.You ask whether anyone really supports (I presume you mean believes in) a mind-independent reality. Do you believe anything existed prior to the advent of minds? — Janus
Yes, I tried to convey that the point still stood.But the point about integers remains. — Wayfarer
I don't think so. I really care, and I want a model that lacks fundamental problems, but I'm getting nowhere. The relational thing works nice on paper, but it has problems of vanishing probability of the relations I perceive being actual perceived things instead of illusions, a sort of Boltzmann Brain problem. That's a hard one to get around, and it must be solved for the view to be rational.the 'shrug, whatever' type.
The model itself is of course, but I mean that which it is modelled.But models are clearly mind-dependent in some fundamental sense.
You assert that no alien intelligence is capable of coming up with that theorem? If not, what are you saying? It seems discoverable even by an intelligence in a universe with completely different physical rules.Einstein said once, ... '... I believe, for instance, that the Pythagorean theorem in geometry states something that is approximately true, independent of the existence of man.'
But this overlooks the point that it is something only man can know."
That would be evidence of not-solipsism, but the fact said place is said to exist because it is being described by one or more observers makes its designation as such pretty dependent on the observation.If two minds that don't know each other, and don't know what the other is doing, independently go to the same place, and described it the same way, does that not mean there is something independent of either mind? — Patterner
Yes, quantum theory seems to have a special relation with integers and not just real numbers like Newtonian physics.So, while it is true that integers lack causal powers, they nevertheless constrain the space of possible causal relations in quantum systems by defining the allowed states of the system. In this way, mathematics — and whole numbers specifically — shape the possibilities of physical reality. — Wayfarer
Well this made me dig a shallow pit into the nihilism thing since there's so many variations of it and some of it probably does apply to me. Yes, I see no use for non-relational existence. I see that in a Russell's teapot sort of light, posited by many but lacking any predictive power, also similar to the premise of a preferred moment in time, another very intuitive but empirically empty proposition.One thing I've picked up reading your posts over the years, is that you're basically nihilist - kind of a 'soft nihilism', not harsh or cynical. 'Nobody knows for sure that anything is real.' It provides a kind of ultimate get-out-of-jail card for any argument or model, which can be nullified with a shrug, and 'who knows'? — Wayfarer
Realism can be relational. You can talk about it either way. 2+2=4 seems like an 'ultimate truth', but who can say for sure?Can we talk about a 'realism' without 'ultimate truths' or the possibility to know them? — boundless
What I am getting at is the contradiction in your statement there. Yes, realism usually involves the world relative to which we interact. But that relation is precisely what makes its preferred existence mind dependent. Yes, an identical world except without any observers would arguably be more mind independent, but there would be nothing, even in another world, to label it 'the world' instead of just 'a world'. It's the preferredness of this world that makes it mind dependent. Take away that preference and it becomes mind independent, but it also drops the barrier to all those other worlds from equally existing, leaving open the question if there is still a barrier at all distinguishing what exists from what doesn't.I'm not sure about what you are getting at. I would say that usually realism involves that the world can be known, at least in priciple, as it is independently of any perspective of any subject.
Only if a perspective requires a mind, which I often emphasize to the contrary.But oddly enough I would say that if there are 'as may worlds as perspectives' then the presence 'mind-independent reality' is more difficult to defend.
Tall claim, but I suppose most interpretations (maybe not copenhagen) can be read this way.Some interpertations however claim that they are 'ontologically interpretable' (to use a phrase by d'Espagnat), in the sense that they can be read as providing a correct description about the world as it is in itself. — boundless
I'm not sure what it would mean to go outside one's own perspective. I have a lot of perspectives (any moment along my worldline), but those are all mine. Nothing prevents anybody from imagining what another observes, which is exactly what's being done here with Wigner's friend. Almost all thought experiments leverage imagined perspectives.Rovelli is saying that each 'observer' can't go outside 'his' own perspective.
As you quoted Rovelli saying, he knows the other observes the same elephant.'He' will never find any inconsistencies because all data 'he' will be able to find will be consistent 'for him'. But if 'his' knowledge is limited by 'his' own perspective, then, he can't actually know what 'others' observe.
But you've measured many forks, but measured only one world. This leads some (not all) to conclude there is but 'the' one world, and if 'what there is' is defined as what is observed, then there is indeed but the one world, but that definition isn't a mind-independent one.I can talk about the fork I used at dinner without meaning it's the only, or the preferred, fork. — Patterner
So says the Mormon.And I'll be in all kinds of troubles if someone asks what I'm doing this weekend, and I say, "I'll have to ask a wife."
In a topic such as this one, I think not. Pragmatically from day to day interactions, yea, we all know what is meant by it, and few ponder how our observation of it makes it preferred to us, but not preferred.The universe I'm in may or may not be the only universe. But it's the only one I have any experience of. If I start talking about "a" universe, people will be confused. They'll probably stop me and ask what I mean by "a".
'Spring from' implies a time when the 'real thing' wasn't yet real, but time is there, so if it sprang, then it wasn't from nothing. I don't think our universe is contained by time.I don't think they spring from nothing, for no reason. — Patterner
I didn't say either 'caused or was affected by anything. I said that some consider 17 to be something that exists (see platonic realism), and some don't. It existing due to being causal seems to leverage that Eleatic Principle discussed in the OP. 17 is part of mathematics, and some theories (Tegmark's MUH for instance) posit that universes supervene on mathematics, which would give 17 causal powers.Number 17 is not matter. Therefore, number 17 or the word "blue" can not be caused nor effect anything. — Athena
No problem. Thank you for your questions and contributions.I would like to gracefully withdraw from this thread. I do not understand what anyone is saying.
Spent quite some time looking at it. There must be a more formal paper somewhere since this seems to be more a pop article written for the likes of me. Has a scientific paper been submitted and peer reviewed?New theory of entanglement - Persistence Theory, Bill Gianokopoulos — Wayfarer
Not contesting that. What I am contesting is that it wasn't 'the universe' until those 'understanding' things designated it as such. Without said observation, it is merely 'a universe', not the preferred one.I never realty understand these conversations. Before anything on the planet, possibly in the universe, existed that had even the vaguest hint of understanding of mathematics, there would have been any number of instances when groups of objects joined together. — Patterner
That actually speaks to me, even though I think I'm interpreting these words in a different light than was intended.In H.O Mounce’s Wittgenstein’s Tractatus An Introduction, puts it nicely when he says, “For the solipsist in wishing to deny the independent reality of the world, in maintaining that only he and his ideas are real, has the idea of his self as an object standing, as it were, over and against an unreal world. But when he realizes the confusion in this, when he sees that there can be no such object as he takes his self to be, the world reappears as the only reality in which his self can manifest itself.” — Richard B
I reference something like that all the time, separating pragmatic truths from the rational ones.Some time ago, I mentioned the distinction of the 'two truths' ... — boundless
In the right reference frame, it is what happens, but it's still a provisional truth in that frame. I don't think what you call 'ultimate truths' are frame or perspective dependent.For instance, "The Sun rises in the east and sets in the west" is true in a provisional sense. But it also isn't true, right? We know that it is not a correct description of what 'really happens'.
The bolded bit is such a perspective reference, and illustrates the point of this topic.On the other hand, 'ultimate truths' would be correct statements that in some ways describe how the world is 'in itself'.
The friend is almost immediately entangled with the spin-measurement device, so he's going to match that every time, whether or not Wigner has measured the friend yet or not.No, I was thinking also about what the Friend measured after he exited the box. — boundless
Interesting that Rovelli phrased it that way, but if it were not true, the view would be falsified. The statement is true of quantum mechanics and not just any subset of interpretations.Rovelli actually brilliantly paraphrased his views like this: "More precisely: everybody hears everybody else stating that they see the same elephant they see. This, after all, is a sound definition of objectivity." ... Wigner hears his Friend stating he saw the same thing Wigner observed. But this is not a way, for Wigner, to go outside Wigner's perspective.
No, it just means that the friend event that Wigner measures is a different perspective than the Wigner event doing the measuring. That friend perspetive event cannot measure the Wigner event in question since said Wigner event doesn't exist relative to the friend event in question.When Wigner and the Friend meet, their interaction is (also) a measurement. So, the state of the Friend is 'measured' by Wigner. Does this mean that the Friend loses his status as a 'perspective bearer'?
Also, it makes the assumption that its truth is perspective-independent. — boundless
Knowledge is not the same as truth. Sure, knowledge seems perspective dependent, which is why we don't know where the nearest alien intelligence is.Quite the opposite. Where are you getting all this? — noAxioms
If I say that my knowledge is restricted to my own perspective, how can I claim there are other perspectives and there are no perspective-independent things? — boundless
More or less, yes. Note that my point isn't about only RQM. But all models who claim that knowledge is perspectival.[/quote]RQM (like almost all ontic interpretations) doesn't treat any person different than another. It doesn't even treat pens differently than people.Are you suggesting that Wigner isn't sure that the friend is like himself?
This is philosophy of mind, which of course has no resolution. Sure, but we're presuming sufficient mind-independence to suspect one person's experience is functionally similar to any other.But also note that our knowledge seems to be perspectival. Wigner can't 'see' the world from the Friend's perspective in order to confirm his belief that, indeed, the Friend is, as you put it, like him. This is so precisely becuase Wigner's knowledge is limited by his perspective.
The syntax suggests that this world exists to the exclusion of any other, all because it's the one we see. A far less mind-dependent wording would be 'a world' which doesn't carry any implication of being the preferred world.Calling it 'the world' is already an observer bias. — noAxioms
Why? — boundless
Different, not necessarily better. Best to define how the word is being used up front when wielding it.Are you saying that a better distinction [of 'objective'] would be between "what is independent from any relation" vs "what is relation-dependent"? — boundless
Almost all events are preceded by prior events. Not sure what that has to do with uncaused occurrences like beta decay. A few interpretations have it being a caused (determined) thing.I'm going to arrogantly say very little and assume I've solved all the thread's problems.
1 ) Physical != preceded by an event, the timing of beta decay events is random, they only have a cause in an abstract sense rather than a preceding event sense. — fdrake
OK, This seems to say that 'laws' don't count as causes.2) Preceded by an event != caused, even in how we use cause in explanations. People want to say things like "the tendency of a system towards its ground state causes...", even when that's not talking about a precedent event, it's talking about a "law" {an abstract generality} causing an event {a concrete particular}
Agree. The Dome thing is a wonderful example of an uncaused occurrence in Newtonian mechanics (which demonstrates that it isn't deterministic as claimed).3 ) Mathematised != determined, compare Norton's Dome in Newtonian mechanics {arbitrary rolling point} and any quantity associated with a distribution {anything that can be represented with a wavefunction has a wavefunction squared...}
Title is poorly worded, mostly due to lack of being able to express a correct one in a short line.5 ) Measurement != thought, OP grants this, so already undermines the premise in the title.
Sorry Zeno :(6 ) Physical != part of a mathematical model, like bouncing balls' amplitudes following a geometric decline only stopping in the limit.
But the quarks possibly supervene on maths objects. That doesn't make said maths physical in the same way, I agree.7 ) Physical != part of a physical theory - maths objects are parts of physical theories, but not physical in the same way as quarks and chairs.
An electron trajectory though space is a counterfactual.8 ) Relational != causal - come on you lot, an electron's trajectory through space is related to is charge
Sure. Some models have good odds, and others have really low odds.Which makes the 'unlikelihood' of our universe arising from random chance depend on the current models one may adopt or might come about within a hundred years or so of empirical stagnation. — substantivalism
But the bleach thing at least has an argument, even if the argument isn't perfect.It's like how a skeptic will always find holes in the arguments I give to not drink bleach. . . alas. . . I still decide not to. — substantivalism
As an entanglement relation, I would suggest it exists. Almost all our pragmatic models involve such a relation, even if the relation isn't recognized as such.... when I hear sounds they correspond to real frequencies and amplitudes in differential air pressure. You're suggesting that not even that kind of correspondence exists? — flannel jesus
Agree that your discussion about Wigner's friend was framed in epistemic term. So the friend sort of fills a role in that respect, even if a simple printer would have also served.Consciousness causes collapse' is to be interpreted as a phrase though. If collapse is merely an epistemic oupdate of a conscious agent, I don't see anything controversial. Of course, if consciousness causes a physical change, then things are different. So, let's not confuse these two distinct interpretations. — boundless
OK, I think I worked it out. You're talking about Wigner's opinion of what the friend has measured while the friend is still in the box. That's a clear counterfactual, and unless an interpretation is used that posits counterfactuals, there is no 'truly' about it. RQM does not posit counterfactuals.Only that, in their own perspective, there are no logical inconsistencies. For Wigner it is as if the Friend sees the same as he sees. But it cannot say what is truly seen by the Friend.
I don't know what you mean by 'truly' here.. — noAxioms
No, not at all. Existence of anything is relative to that which has measured the thing, and so far, our 'perspective bearers' have not been measured. They will momentarily, but then they're not the perspective bearers anymore, they're the observed.For instance, the relational view expressed here still has to make the assumption that the 'perspective-bearers' have their existence independent from the perspectives. — boundless
Quite the opposite. Where are you getting all this?Also, it makes the assumption that its truth is perspective-independent.
That seems tautological. Perhaps I'm missing the question.If my knowledge is restricted to what I can know from my own perspective, how can I know that?
According to RQM, their ontology relative to Wigner is a superposition of states. According to other interpretations, the ontology is different. Ontology seems to be a mental construct, a function of say one's choice of interpretation, but it also might be a physical mind-independent status, depending on which (if any) interpretation is actually the case.The friend who notices spin up has a perspective, as does the friend noticing spin down. Those are two perspectives in superposition (relative to Wigner). Wigner knows this. What he doesn't know is which state things will collapse to relative to him when the box is opened. That part is a counterfactual. — noAxioms
Ok. But what about the ontological status of the two Friends?
Are you suggesting that Wigner isn't sure that the friend is like himself? That Wigner cannot discard solipsism? I suppose that's correct, but it's not considered a valid quantum interpretation since it leads to zero knowledge of anything. Ditto with superdeterminism, a loophole in Bell's proof, but you still don't see it included in the interpretations list.Also, he can't go outside his perspective, so what he can know is that he will never find inconsistencies. He can't in any way know that the Friend has his own perspective.
Yes. I am not using any of those words as something requiring a human or other 'observer' to be involved.But you are still treating the pen as a 'perspective-bearer', i.e. something differentiated and something relative to which one can define a state of 'everything else'. — boundless
Logical analysis is enough to know they're valid. You can't know that they're sound of course.Futhermore, if one adopts a relational standpoint, one can't never know that they are valid.
I don't understand that problem enough to have an opinion about how problematic it is or to critique any solution proposed or counter-critique.But I am not sure that the 'preferred basis' is truly solved in a non 'for all practical purposes' way. — boundless
A person is differentiated in a way that a chair isn't. I, as a conscious human being, have a private conscious experience that strongly suggests to me that I am differentiated enough to be a distinct entity. I would say that other humans are like me in this respect. This is also probably true for animals, assuming that they are conscious beings.
It suggests to you, yes. Physics seems mute about it, which is my take.
Again, read the topic linked, which gets into exactly where a human boundary is.
Any biological cell is more clearly bounded than is a person, but even it gets fuzzy in some ways.
A living thing can be discontinuous, as can information processing.
I don't think the point is particularly important to this topic.
— boundless
Calling it 'the world' is already an observer bias.Bernard D'Espagnat distinguished two senses of objective. 'Strongly objective' is something that is independent from any cognitive perspective (a property of the 'world in itself').
Terminology granted, but both seem to contrast 'objective' with 'subjective', as opposed to objective vs relational.'Weakly objective' is something that every cognitive agent can agree upon. Nothing weakly objective can be assumed to be strongly objective.
Often, yes, but sometimes and idea is of something not already there. Any fiction for instance.But what is an idea, but an idea of something. Like a word, an idea, sitting in the mind, is about something "already there" before the idea of it was formed. — Fire Ologist
As I said above, the title is poorly worded. My focus is on those that posit a mind-independent reality (which is almost everybody except idealists), they tend to restrict their idea of what exists to 'this universe', calling 'the universe' instead of just one of many. Why is this one special? Because it is observed (by us) of course, which makes it pretty mind-dependent in my book.I do not support "mind-independent reality?" But I must say I do not understand anything you said. — Athena
Reality is defined as 'what is' (or not), so not sure how reality is a reaction to itself.All of reality is a reaction to what is.
The number 17 doesn't seem to be a matter of cause & effect. It's just a member of the set of integers. You might say it is but an abstraction, but I think it is far more fundamental than that.All things are a matter of cause and effect.
No argument here since I did a whole topic on that (2 topics ago). But similarly, you, as 'a thing' is also just a mental imputation.Maybe individuating the JWST as 'a thing' is a mental imputation. — boundless
Again agree. While there are some objective constants, physical quantities and units don't seem to be among them.Note that my point is that physical quantities are defined in a relational way from the start.
Lock is unimportant. The hypothetical lab needs to be a box from which zero information can escape. We presume this, but in reality, such box would kill its occupants.Let's consider the Wigner's friend scenario, where the Friend makes an experiment in a lab which is locked from the outside. — boundless
You can always put another observer outside, perhaps outside a box containing Wigner and the inner box. What is demonstrated by doing this?Wigner is not 'entilted' to go outside of it and ask himself what the Friend, in the Friend's perspective is seeing.
As does the device measuring the (say) spin of some particle. The wave function collapses for both almost immediately upon this measurement. Wigner has to wait for his wave function (of the box) to collapse.Assuming that the Friend also has his 'perspective'
Wigner knows when the box is opened. The friend might know everything right away. The box cannot let information out, but letting information in is allowed.Still both of them do not actually know what the other truly observed.
I don't know what you mean by 'truly' here. This is a relational view. There is no objective truth going on anywhere. Nobody notices anything weird.Only that, in their own perspective, there are no logical inconsistencies. For Wigner it is as if the Friend sees the same as he sees. But it cannot say what is truly seen by the Friend.
The friend who notices spin up has a perspective, as does the friend noticing spin down. Those are two perspectives in superposition (relative to Wigner). Wigner knows this. What he doesn't know is which state things will collapse to relative to him when the box is opened. That part is a counterfactual.This also means that under RQM (and, really, QBism and similar) Wigner can't even say that there are 'perspectives' other than his own with certainty.
Where do you get this? Wigner subjectively sees up once box is opened. Friend sees up earlier than that, but it isn't intersubjective until they compare findings, so none of it is beyond anybody's perspectives. The agreement is grounded in empirical perspectives.Only positing something beyond the 'perspectives' can ground intersubjective agreement.
That I will agree with. It is an epistemological statement, not worded in an ontic manner. RQM is not about epistemology.This implies that one cannot know what is 'beyond' one's perspective.
Agree with the last statement, but not that the two perspectives (at different times, same place) are the same thing. Lots of changes can occur during those 20 minutes, lots of wave function collapses.As I see it, there is nothing in RQM (and, really, also in QBism and similar) that 'Mars in the perspective of Y' and 'Mars in the perspective of Z' are the same thing. Y will never find inconsistencies.
I'm not. The pen has no awareness of that which it measures. The interaction definition has nothing to do with consciousness or people at all.The problem with this IMO it is that we are 'anthropomorphizing' the pen.
The world does not 'appear' at all to the pen. It just exists in some state relative to the pen. That's what I mean by a perspective. It's just a system state at a moment in time, a system capable of being affected by past events, so a vacuum state won't do.... But how the world appears to a pen
Those are straight out of wiki. The former has arguably been solved. The latter as well, but arguably less so. Copenhagen doesn't derive it: It is just postulated up front. MWI could have done that.Regarding MWI, ... I am not sure if the 'preferred basis problem' (i.e. how to explain in MWI that the wavefunction can be decomposed in a way to explain the appearance of the 'classical world') has been solved and, also, it's not clear to me how the Born Rule is explained in this interpretation. — boundless
That's a valid reason to prefer some other interpretation, but not a valid critique of it. The critique I quoted just above are valid critiques, and are or are not solved, depending who you ask.But, yes, in a way the first 'objection' is not perhaps 'scientific' but simply philosophical.
Funny, but that's the part that makes me prefer another interpretation, not the stuff you listed above. See my response to Apu below.Oddly enough, it is actually the closest physical theory to a 'ontological monism' that has been proposed (the universal wavefunction being only 'real thing' ...
We always build internal models, and while my model in some ways has correspondence to states in my world, I don't call my model 'knowledge' like it is some kind of accurate representation.If the division into physical objects is conceptual and doesn't reflect faithfully the structure of mind-independent world, how can we claim that we do have knowledge of the 'world beyond' our perspective? — boundless
Indeed. Even science makes such designations, again, finding it useful to do so.But this still is based on some assumptions you make about the 'world in itself'. Assumptions that do not seem to be justified in light of scientific knowledge only.
There's no exact match, and there's no check if by insane chance you got one actually right. The purpose of the model is not to be accurate. The purpose is to be useful, and to be useful, it merely needs to be accurate enough to predict what will actually be observed.How can you check that the description of the 'mind-independent world' actually matches its structure?
The intersubjective agreement seems compelling enough.It seems a reasonable inference, yes, but can we have compelling reasons to assert that there is this correspondence?
And lack of a rational answer to that question makes me ask a different question instead.from my subjectove perspective the issue is borderline close to "why is there anything at all?". — Apustimelogist
I don't doubt that, and intuition probably plays a significant roles for most. The view makes a hash of personal identity for instance, and that's a lot to ask some people to give up.Nothing to do with bias, but a considered judgement. I'm one of (apparently quite a few people) who simply think that Everett's metaphysics (as this is what it was) is absurd. — Wayfarer
Thanks then for the snips because it wanted my soul to read it. Not money at least.There's an interesting account of the genesis of Everett's ideas in a Scientific American article — Wayfarer
Which follows directly from the premise of the dissertation.Breaking with Bohr and Heisenberg, he dispensed with the need for the discontinuity of a wave-function collapse.
Hence personal identity bearing no resemblance to one's personal experience of identity.Everett saw that under those assumptions, the wave function of an observer would, in effect, bifurcate at each interaction of the observer with a superposed object.
Really? Did Everett call them 'copies'? You never know how much liberty these SA columnists take in writing these articles. I'm just wondering what terminology was Everett's and what came from DeWitt (such as 'multiple worlds').The universal wave function would contain branches for every alternative making up the object’s superposition. Each branch has its own copy of the observer, a copy that perceived one of those alternatives as the outcome.
[Citation needed]. The worlds can interact. If they are sufficiently decoherent, they can be treated as independent entities, but they never fully separate. The whole point of superposition is different worlds interacting with each other, but any measurement of such superposition states entangles the measurer with the system measured.According to a fundamental mathematical property of the Schrödinger equation, once formed, the branches do not influence one another. Thus, each branch embarks on a different future, independently of the others.
As would be expected from a metaphysical interpretation of any theory.Isn't it obvious that 'bifurcation' and 'branching' are in effect metaphysical postulates?
Do interpretations have scientific implications? They have metaphysical implications, sure.And that they're postulated in order to avoid the scientifically-embarrasing implications of the so-called 'Copenhagen interpretation', which Everett sought to challenge?
That article is open to read.Philip Ball also has a critical chapter on Many Worlds in his book Beyond Weird, which can be reviewed here:
What the MWI really denies is the existence of facts at all.
Non-sequitur. It eliminates no such thing except a coherent 'we' doing the experiencing since, as I said, it does make a hash of personal identity. If he means that, then he should say it instead of saying something wrong.It replaces them with an experience of pseudo-facts (we think that this happened, even though that happened too). In so doing, it eliminates any coherent notion of what we can experience, or have experienced, or are experiencing right now.
Ignoring the issue is an option, sure. There are solutions (at least two), and some problems still have no solution, room for further study.Again, my point is that this issue is so abstract and we know comparatively little about thr universe works that I don't trust anyone's reliability in offering an explanation which is even close to correct. — Apustimelogist
The comment was about the substrate on which the existence of a thing rests. Suppose for the sake of argument that our universe is mathematical and doesn't just appear that way. That means it could be simulated. Any mathematical causal structure (anything that evolves over some notion of time) can be simulated, drawing a distinction between the structure itself (real?) and the simulation of it (not real?).Is a real steak not implemented in the physics of the situation? — flannel jesus
Looking fwd to it. Your answers have at least got me thinking and re-assessing.I hope I'll be able to answer you back tomorrow. — boundless
Anyone can grep a word from your posts. You see your hand and perhaps don't think about the rest enough to see the problems I tried to identity. Good pragmatic policy, but not one that holds water.Some of what I offer instead. — Banno
Maybe not. You seem to argue the relevance quite well below.Sorry, that wasn't my intention but I realize that I took the discussion too far. — boundless
There's no mind at the JWST, yet it has a perspective that no human has, especially given its far wider range of light sensitivity than our paltry 3 frequencies.The reason being that I actually don't believe it is meaningful to assign a perspective outside the mind.
Yes, any selection of units implies a relation to a standard. Physics seems to work without units, so unit selection would qualify as an abstraction. Charge is quantized, so the units there are arguably physical.consider how we define and conceptualize physical quantities. Even those which seem an intrinsic property of a physical object is defined in relational terms.
I'll accept that.All physical quantities are measurable and this means that they are about how a physical object interacts with other physical objects. — boundless
I want to say no to this, but cannot, so excellent point. A property of an object would be a counterfactual.If the above is true, then, this means that all physical quantities are relational, defined in a particular context and, ultimately, are not properties of only the given physical object. — boundless
Also think Heisenberg.Change the measurement context and you change the description (I think I am in full agreement with RQM here...).
OK, point taken on the perspective thing. My retorts to that are classical, and we're not discussing a classical universe.But now, consider. We have said that physical quantities are defined when a determinate context is specified. This means that they are perspectival. — boundless
Nothing beyond seems worded as a positive claim about a counterfactual: it being empty, as opposed to simply unmeasured. I don't approve of that wording.RQM asserts that any physical object defines a 'perspective', a context in which it is meaningful to make a description of 'the physical world' according to its perspective. And it also asserts that, after all, there is nothing beyond these 'perspectives'. I find both claims problematic TBH. — boundless
Does it? Maybe you're saying what I'm saying. Q being unmeasured is not the same as a measured not-Q. Going outside requires a different perspective Z, and sure, from that other perspective, there are things available that were not relative to the first perspective Y. Findings of the new perspective in no way alters what exists relative to Y, and to say 'relative to Y there is something beyond' constitutes a counterfactual.The second one implies that we can actually 'go outside' the perspectives, and 'check', so to speak
Y measures Mars, 20 minutes ago. While [the current state of the space where Mars should be, simultaneous with Y] is unmeasured, it does not imply that there's a reasonable probability that some subsequent measurement Z 30 minutes hence, that includes a measurement of Y, would find Mars to not be there. RQM has to support predictions in a way since predictability is something measurable.This would IMO contradict what RQM actually says. Denying something implies that it would be possible to affirm that thing. So, if according to RQM we have to define a perspective to make a description, we can't go 'outside' of it.
Let me ask you, if MWI is the solution, then what is the problem? — Wayfarer
That's one answer.Well, I believe that the point made here is that in MWI there is only one physical object which evolves deterministically. In a sense no interpretation of QM enjoys a similar simplicity at least here. — boundless
Complex, yes, but that's only a problem if something more fundamental is being posited to be driving its evolution, a simulation being run or some such. As a pure mathematical object, no such problem is there. As for the restrictions to subjectivity, that's true even without MWI where we have access to only a tiny visible universe out of an otherwise infinite classical universe. We only have access to a well-tuned world and not all the other ones which lack sufficient complexity to be observed. Complexity is your friend here, without which there's be nothing to know anything.I believe that MWI has its own problems, though. For instance, one can well argue that yes the above simplicity is true, but at the same time the universal wavefunction is an extremely complex object and most of its 'structure' is completely inaccessible to us. — boundless
A problem why? Bugs your intuitions? Again, even a classical universe has said 'incredible number of versions of 'us' that are of course inaccessible'. MWI didn't invent this, it just put some of them spatially very nearby.The same goes for the incredible number of versions of 'us' that are of course inaccessible. — boundless
Well for one, it would have to be admitted that the universe cannot be locally deterministic. No other interpretation allows that. They're either non-deterministic or they allow something like retrocausality.Put another way, if it turned out that MWI couldn’t be the case, then it would have to be admitted that …. — Wayfarer
Maybe. He didn't have Bell's proof, restricting what can be demanded of a satisfactory interpretation. He definitely expressed a preference for locality (relativity leans on it so hard) and determinism (the 'God does not roll dice' quip), but he probably didn't want to let go of his counterfactuals either, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Einstein might not have known that.I doubt that any of [the alternatives] would satisfy Einstein, however — boundless
Consider a hurricane. It certainly seems a separately existing entity. ...
Is the hurricane a real 'object' or the 'hurricane' is more like a construct (or a 'model', if you like) that we use to make sense of what we are observing. — boundless
Is the hurricane a real 'object' or the 'hurricane' is more like a construct (or a 'model', if you like) that we use to make sense of what we are observing.
I find 'separately existing entity' to be only an ideal, not anything physical. Discussed here if you're interested.That's why I keep asking about if, say, a hurricane, a chair etc is really a true physical object, i.e. a separately existing entity that truly is a part of a 'mind-independent physical world'. If these things are more like emergent features rather than objects, this would mean that the division of the 'world' into them is more like a conceptual construct. — boundless
No, talking about a weaker assumption, that it corresponds to something in the physical world, not that the concept is an accurate portrayal of the thing in itself.Assuming that it actually 'corresponds' to 'how the physical world' is 'in itself' is a strong assumption — boundless
I see no antinomy identified, no contradiction in this description. That there is a mind independent world, and a description of the nature of it (however poorly matching) seem not to be mutually contradictory.So, maybe, we are encountering an antinomy here: on the one hand, positing a mind-independent world seems necessary to make sense of our experineces. On the other hand, however, there is no epistemic guarantee that our cognitive faculties can step outside from our perspective and give us a non-mediated knowledge of the mind-independent world. So, it seems that we are stuck in an antinomy here.antinomy — boundless
Exists, sure. Objectively? Non-sequitur. It was of course discussed in my prior topic, so I won't go further here.If an apple didn't have objective existence it wouldn’t be an apple. — Mww
Positing unseen existence has explanatory power, but technically if it's only part of explaining what is seen, it doesn't shake off the mind dependency altogether.Another story indeed, in that I am not authorized to say what I don’t see doesn’t exist, while it being perfectly legitimate to say what I don’t see I don’t experience.
Not if it's not based on said subject's subjectivity.All that being said, it must be the case that whatever the line is, it relates exclusively to, and is derivable only from, the subject inquiring about its establishment.
But the steak has properties. Its existence is due to common consensus. Hence it has properties, predication, and all that. But this case is declared to be one of nonexistence, only because the mathematics of the situation ironically is being implemented by something more fundamental, as opposed to real things which are not implemented at all. No fire being breathed into the equations.The bald white guy eats a steak in the matrix, and talks about how he knows it's not "real". So most people can conceptually distinguish between real things, and experiences that seem like they're experiences of real things but in fact aren't. Right? — flannel jesus
Which is why definitions are so important on these forums. For example:For communication to occur (the primary function of language-use) it would do the speaker or writer good to understand the language understood by their listeners and readers, as well as the level of understanding of the language. — Harry Hindu
How are you using 'mind' here?And you have been using the parts as examples of what all is while appearing to fail to account for the mind as part of the whole as well.
Not attempting that, lacking a ground of meaning for the question. All I see is relations, so all I ask is 'what is relative to X or to Y?' My claim in the OP might be expressed as everybody starting out with 'what exists relative to me', but somewhere while concluding that the 'me' isn't required for something to exist relative to something else, it is forgotten that it's still only a relation being considered.If you are going to go for the "Hail Mary" to explain what all is
There are indeed others, but are there others that fall under methodological naturalism?And there may be other [explanations for the tuning problem] — Apustimelogist
A cause does not necessarily cause a change. I mean, hairspray is intended to cause a hairdo to not change as much. I also don't like using a word in its own definition/description. I might hazzard: "AC is something that has influence over the effect state", but we seem to be using different definitions.We appear to have two (at least) genera of cause in play.
1) Conceptual causes (CC), the invention by an observer that you think might correspond to an actual cause,
2) Actual causes (AC): in this case being the something that causes some change in some system. — tim wood
Hard to parse that, but you seem to say that a cause is something necessary for the effect state to be. That is not too far from the way I worded it. You also seem to indicate "one only" (my bold), which perhaps indicates that only one factor meets this definition. I certainly cannot agree with that, yet you seem to rely on this assertion when attempting to demonstrate that ACs don't exist.Of AC, on my understanding of the term, butone only, the without-which-not of the supposed event.
I don't think Einstein had yet abandoned counterfactuals at that point yet, so FTL action was the only alternative, and it defied the premises of special relativity. So yea, he described it in those terms.I do understand that there's no 'action' as such, like a force that operates between the two particles. 'Spooky action at a distance' was, however, Einstein's expression. — Wayfarer
We do know enough that it is on the order of many thousands of dice. It being possible is not the same as it being plausible.But this is part of my point. Like you've started using analogies like this when it isn't really clear if this is even a fitting analogy because we just don't know enough. — Apustimelogist
There is an intelligible solution. Read the OP.these aren't interesting questions unless there is a kind of reasonable potentiality of an intelligible solution.
There is a solution... but the solution has its own problems, and some of those are just as bad. I don't claim to have an answer here. I have weird ideas, but I know that there are holes in them just like the holes I see in the typically held views.You may ask why anything exists at all... clearly an example of a question where at least with what we know now does not have a reasonable, even conceovable solution.
Agree, but a more rational approach would be to match concepts to evidence instead of the other way around.Minds are adept at formulating concepts, and matching instances to these concepts. — hypericin
In this case I will also agree, but my suspicions in this case are that while there is some correspondence, there's not a lot of it.And while the relationship between concept and reality is not simple, it similarly goes too far to say there is no relationship at all.
So saying that the moon causes tides is not an example of physical language then.In my understanding, a physical language per se is purely a communication protocol for coordinating human actions, that is to say physical languages per-se do not transmit information about the world from the mind of the speaker to the mind of the listener. — sime
They are relativized becasue one speaker might intend different meaning than another for a specific word. This is not true of computer languages, which allows (almost) no ambiguity. You speak of physical language as distinct from common language, and perhaps my assessment is only true of the latter.Physical languages are de-dicto not phenomenological; otherwise their meaning would become relativized to the thoughts and judgements of a particular speaker which would hinder their ability to function as universal protocols.
Only in a relational sense, and the opinion wasn't worded as a relation, so I very much question it.That opinion , while apodeitically certain — Mww
Or 'what I see is only part of what exists'. None of those are contradictory without some assumptions in need of explicit identification.its negation is a contradiction, re: what I see is not what exists, or, what I see does not exist
If the list of what exists is confined to that which is perceived, then it is perception dependent. To say 'what I see exists' is fine, but to say 'only what I see exists' is another story. Which is why I ask where the line is drawn between existing things and not.That opinion [...] has to do with existence itself, without regard for whether such existence is mind-independent.
See just above.I don't understand what that has to do with anything — flannel jesus
Only some extreme forms of idealism support things going out of existence when out of sight. I'm not talking about actual sight, but any form of measurement at any time, not just 'in view by me, now', which is both solipsistic and presentist, neither of which is relevant to the topic.And that’s pretty easy…..just close my eyes — Mww
Funny, but I find that to be the solving of a problem, not the creating of a problem.The problem I see in RQM is that it doesn't seem to have a 'unifying' ground for these perspectives. Each physical object defines its own perspective and there is nothing in the theory that is assumed to be beyond that. — boundless
It has epistemology? The view doesn't assign meaning to there being something sans relation, so saying "there is nothing outside these perspectives" is not meaningful.To say that there is nothing outside these perspectives is, in fact, inconsistent with the RQM claim that the world can be described only by assuming a certain perpsective. In other words, one of my problem with RQM is that it seems to make a claim that goes against its own epistemology.
Correct. It says what is, and maybe what isn't. It kind of says that everything is, or at least everything QM, which begs the question, why just that?Regarding MWI, it is in fact more consistent on this than RQM IMO.
There could be other entities. Calling them 'physical' might be assigning a property meaningful only to our structure.There is the universal wavefunction which is the unifying element (and in a sense the only real 'physical entity'). — boundless
Agree, that sounds like an ontic assertion on said interpretation. I certainly don't know my history enough to suggest who posited what back then. You seem to be more informed of the opinions of these pioneers.I think that Heisenberg himself actually had an ontic interpretation of Copenaghen. At least, he talks a lot about interpreting the collapse as a way to actualize potentialities. And yes the act of observation 'actualizes' these potentialities. Not sure how this isn't a causal explanation of the collapse and how can it be interpreted epistemically. — boundless
Not in any way at all. It can under SR, but not GR.The entire spacetime cannot be foliated in a unique way. — boundless
No. What we see is physical and thus frame independent. A frame is but an abstraction after all. A location or a speed are not physical quantities, but abtract ones, so those are frame dependent. So my perspective doesn't change just because I happen to choose a different one, something I do effortlessly from moment to moment, from one context to another.But still, the world we see with its frame-dependent values of physical quantities is perspectival, frame-dependent, yes?
Under an absolutist theory, they're not. One coordinate system is the correct one, and the rest are simply wrong. It ceases to be an abstraction as it is under relativity.And I am not sure that reference frames are 'just' coordinate systems. — boundless
A different perspective, so yes, a different way it looks. That would be frame independent.For instance, it can be a way of trying to describe "how the world would look like to an observer in such and such situation".
Yes, and if Alice changed her frame choice to that of the platform, she'd still observe nothing different, but she'd compute something different. Your opinion is otherwise, and I'm fine with that. You interpret the words differently than do I.To make a trivial example. Let's say that Alice is in a train that moves at constant velocity and Bob sees her from the station. The velocities that are relative to the 'reference frame at rest with the train' are actually the velocities that Alice would observe.
I can show a floor plan, which is sort of a view without a perspective.My point is more like asking: how your house look irrespective of any perspective?
So what? I presume we share the same ontology, but none of that matters to the question of 1) what that ontology is, and 2) what else (unperceived) also shared that ontology.But you are only aware of me in the same way you are aware of anything. I don't understand how you can question the nature of everything except other people when you access the nature of people the same way you access the nature of everything else. I mean, I could be a bot. Others could be p-zombies or androids, or aliens in disguise. — Harry Hindu
That's actually different than what I asked, but well put. I didn't see anything on that list that implied objective. 'Physical' is not much different than 'is part of this universe', but the word 'physical' probably can be used in other contexts.So the question doesn't seem to be "DO they exist" rather "HOW do they exist". Are they ideas, physical, information, process, relationships, or what?
No, the subsequent states do the measuring. Nothing needs to be 'got going'. That's one of the advantages of the view is that it doesn't demand anything objective. Yea, it's measurements all the way down (and not up).The issue now is what measured the first system to get it all going — Harry Hindu
Different than saying it, yes. Does not imply that it isn't all just information.Is this different than saying it is information
I could spin it both ways. System state Y (a 'beable' if you want the term used for an event with extension) is a function of prior state X, which means that Y has measured X and X exists relative to Y. There is definitely a causal relationship between the two and evolution of system states is a process. The intervening states are therefore a process and the 'measuring' involves those processes. But Y is a state and isn't doing anything at all, so Y isn't 'measuring' or doing any other process. It's just in a state of having measured X.Is measuring a process? — Harry Hindu
But surely this is nothing to do with the reality outside our heads which is mind-independent — Apustimelogist
I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning what is typically on our list of what exists and what doesn't. I'm not asking if the reality is mind-independent, but if our choice of ontology is one of mind independence.Who are we all talking to if not something independent of our minds? — Fire Ologist
There is no 'the cause'.So what's the cause? — tim wood
Wrong. It's to say that no one of them is the cause.To say there are many is to say that no one of them is a cause.
Influences, which is in no way control, despite claims to the contrary.So sacrificing an ox controls, say, flooding or typhoons or earthquakes?
That's like saying that because I have a concept of you, if follows that you don't exist. Non sequitur. Yes, we have a concept of cause, and it very much might correspond to real connections between states. Such is the assumption of pretty much any non-idealist.Let's retry this: "cause" is an abstract concept used by an observer to account for an apparent connection between two events. Being the free invention of the observer, there can be no real connection between the cause and the events referenced. — tim wood
Roll a 10000 dice. Any outcome that comes up is just as extremely unlikely as the next. So no, that's not the problem. The problem is that it came up 6's on all dice, first try. That is a problem. Not being bothered by it is the choice made by most, but that doesn't make it a problem not in need of solving if one wants a valid answer to 'why is reality like this?'.I have personally never understood the fascination with this topic. I has never bothered me that extremely unlikely things can happen. — Apustimelogist
Agree to all, and I suggested something along these lines in my OP. Saying something exists (even saying it exists in a mind-independent way) is a notation being made by a mind.That we notate something as existing depends on a mind to do the notation. With the weak anthropic principle, this means that worlds conducive to minds are liable to be notated, and worlds not conducive will not be notated. — hypericin
No argument. Would you go so far as to say that there is no correspondence at all between the notation and the actuality of the situation?But this doesn't have a logical connection to mind independent reality, itself. Both types of worlds may exist independently of minds, regardless of the fact that only one may be so notated.
But we're talking a realist view here where there are actually things in themselves, and not just ideas of them. You speak only of ideas, concepts, suppositions, notions.For [Kant], the mind-independent world is not an observable object, but a regulative idea — a necessary conceptual limit. It’s not something we experience, but something we must presuppose in order to make experience coherent. The notion of a world ‘in itself,’ existing independently of all observation, is not something we encounter — it’s something we must presuppose in order to have coherent experience at all. — Wayfarer
Are we talking about an observerless world now, or just this world, but absent any observation? Sure, we don't encounter it, but for the reasons in the OP, we must posit them anyway, and for the reason you give: to make experience coherent.The notion of a world ‘in itself,’ existing independently of all observation, is not something we encounter — it’s something we must presuppose in order to have coherent experience at all. — Wayfarer
I find no paradox in that at all.So paradoxically, even the idea of ‘what is independent of mind’ is an idea we arrive at only through thinking about it.
Yes, that's a pragmatic assumption that allows the science to work. But science knows at least enough to extend that treatment to far more than this world. On the other hand, it has no requirement to extend the treatment to things that are in no way related to our world.Scientific realism tends to treat what is “really there” as that which exists independently of any observer — that is, what would still be the case even if no minds were around to perceive or theorize about it.
Spooky action has never been demonstrated. That prize was for showing the universe to not be locally real, but you're presuming it to show that the universe is not local.And for all Einstein's impassioned polemic, the experiments which validated 'spooky action at a distance', and which were the basis for the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, undermine the premises of scientific realism.
Perhaps so. I had at least two ideas involving causation, one objective (Eleatic principle) and one relational (the ontology by measurement) that only works in a entangle/collapse model like QM offers, and a few really weird examples, with GoL not being one of them.To exist might well be to stand in a relation to something else - perhaps this would be one way to understand Quine, for example. But to restrict the relevant relation to causation is overstretch. You are beginning to mix two distinct ideas of what it might be to exist. — Banno
Consistent with the view I'm querying, yes. But most that I've interacted with seem to take the 'same thing' assumption, and while that isn't "because we see it", it gets awfully close.What we see an emergent artifact of what exists, not *actually* the same thing as what exists. — flannel jesus
A vast majority of events in the past light cone of the explosion contributes to the cause of the explosion. You question makes it sound like there is one cause. A somewhat immediate cause might be the chemical nature of the dynamite stick, but all such sticks have that nature, and not all of them explode. So it is a necessary cause but not a sufficient one.what causes the dynamite to explode in my example from above. — tim wood
Given no change to the prior state (of everything, not just this 'one cause') and given hard determinism, yes the effect in question will happen inevitably from that state. But few interpretations of physics support such determinism.What passes for a cause is usually a description of an event that presumably, given the cause, will happen again.
Agree, sort of. The dynamite would probably not be used to remove the stump if there was never a description of how dynamite could be used in that way. A description after the fact cannot be part of the cause of the described event because it's not part of the causal history of the effect event.But certainly the description itself causes nothing. — tim wood
Knowledge of causes and the actual causes are rarely aligned. Remember, the causal definition has nothing to do with epistemology, it has to do with causal power (in the case of the eleatic principle) of something, and not which specific causes were instrumental in a particular effect.And that's at best. History is full of examples of "causes," accepted as such, which were nothing of the kind, many being finally understood as mere superstition.
Nope. Time seems not to be a 'thing', yet time inevitably causes our death.But if you're quite sure that causes are things ... — tim wood
Effected by, yes. 'Controlled by' makes it sound like a deliberate outcome was achieved by said sacrifices, in which case I have no idea how you get that from what I've said.then it seems to me you're committed to there being a time on planet earth when the violence of nature was controlled by sacrifices of various kinds.
I'm talking about actual causes, not claimed causes, the difference between territory and map respectively. You seem to be talking about only the claims, the map.After all, they were taken at the time as causes.
This makes it sound all nice, neat and linear, as opposed to being a vast network of system states leading up to (deterministically or not) the C2 event. Sure, the condition C2 is a function of C1, but it isn't a function of only C1. I can think of exceptions. C1 is the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, but 6 months prior to the hit. C2 is the extinction of say 75% of all Earth species at the time. That one is pretty dang linear, is not a counterfactual, and does not seem to depend significantly on other causes.Let's suppose there's a condition C1 at time T1, and also a condition C2 at time T2. Now suppose you have a model/explanation/"cause" that for you accounts for C2 in terms of C1. — tim wood
This is what I mean by it being typically expressed as a linear chain instead of just part of a network. Yes, the virus plays a critical role in this bit of causation, despite the fact that not all polio victims (such as my mother) get paralyzed. Benefit to it is that when I contracted a disease with similar symptoms (viral meningitis), she got me to a hospital pronto, preventing most complications.The polio virus initiates the causal chain that leads to paralysis — RogueAI
You're asserting that the concept of a cause has no corresponding thing in itself? Sounds like the way I treat objective ontology, but I have a hard time agreeing with this one outside of straight idealism.We might call your account an account of a cause. But what is that but a description with at best some utility you think of as worthwhile - at best an idea. But in any case not a thing. — tim wood
Showing the faultiness of claiming one 'the cause'. Maybe not ice, which tends to prevent a car from rolling over.Excessive speed says the policeman. Faulty suspension, says the mechanic. Poor road design, says the civil engineer. Ice on the road, says & etc. — tim wood
That seems weird. Cannot laws be a cause? What causes water to bond like it does?From the book referenced just above, the author observes that for Newton, some events had causes, others were the result of the operation of laws. — tim wood
A definition is only a definition and doesn't argue anything. But one can escalate a definition to a premise. Then it becomes an assertion, something subject to disagreement.What does that argue? — Banno
This comes from a comment about information being fundamental, but I don't think information deliberately put in place as communication between minds is what is being suggested as being fundamental.Yeah, the CD example wasn't that good — RogueAI
I was actually thinking of quoting the OP of that topic in here since I disagree with the forced perspective you use in your example attempting to discredit a 'view from nowhere', something that actually can be done, but doesn't work well at all with a QM structure lacking counterfactual state.I wrote an OP on this - the Mind Created World. — Wayfarer
Given an interpretation with collapse upon measurement, yes. QM theory doesn't say anything about it, and some interpretations don't require any measurement, such as ensemble interpretation.But in QM the 'collapse' of the wavefunction happens during measurements — boundless
Agree.If any physical object can cause a 'measurement' by interacting with any other physical object, then my point of the perspectives remain.
Agree and disagree. Sure, lots of perspectives, and I don't mean just hundreds. RQM says 'real' is a relation to any one perspective event, none of which is itself real. That makes a lot of sense to me. MWI says there is but the one closed wave function, and it is real, not in relation to anything. That's a lot of real perspectives (more than just the infinite perspectives of the Newtonian world where there is no bound to the number of places/events from which an observation can be made.MWI and RQM share IMO the same problem. They try recover a 'realism' of sorts at the questionable price of implying an explosion of the number of perspectives (though I believe that RQM actually isn't realistic if it doesn't postulate a 'veiled reality' that 'grounds' all the perspectives).
That's because some have tried to rewrite it as an ontic interpretation from its roots as an epistemic one. So I urged going with the epistemic roots and not what came later. All of science, and the theory itself, can be expressed as what we can know and predict, and to hell with how it actually works under the covers.Well, I do not generally use 'Copenaghen' as a term to describe my views, due to the fact that there are many flavors of 'Copenaghen' — boundless
Which is true for epistemology, no? Don't see that isn't mind dependent.Some of them are not even epistemic as they go too close to abscribing a causal role to mind/consciousness.
Fine then. I am pretty in the dark about those.I am sympathetic to QBism and d'Espagnat's view of 'veiled reality'. — boundless
Maybe it's just showing us that our intuitions are what's being shown to be stranger and stranger. How it really works has no obligation to be something we're comfortable with.In fact, there is a trend in physical theories since at least the formulation of special relativity. The mathematics becoming more and more abstract, the fact that if we interpret them as a faithful picture of physical reality it becomes stranger and stranger and so on. — boundless
Careful. A reference frame is just a coordinate system, an abstraction, and requires neither any object nor observer to be stationary in it in order to be valid. No coordinate system foliates all of spacetime (it can under Newtonian), so any theory that posits an frame that is physical (and not just abstract) necessarily must choose which parts of spacetime are not part of the universe at all.Anyway, I believe that even in Newtonian mechanics the question of perspective was present, with the notion of reference frames. It's clear what that notion means when one thinks about an observer which is at rest with respect to some kind of object. — boundless
No. The experience of any observer is not dependent on an abstraction, and is identical from frame to frame, even under non-relativistic theories. These different frames only cause different calculations of coordinates to be made.But the problem is: are these reference frames a way of talking about what an observer would observe/experience in a given situation?
Don't get you. You mean why does my house look different from the back than it does from the front? Should it not?What remains when one 'takes away' everything perspectival (i.e. everyting that is perspective-dependent)? — boundless
Maybe. If all causal structures are based on mathematics, and mathematics is based partly on numbers and their inherent relations, then it can be argued that numbers have the causal properties required to meet the criteria of the principle.One issue with the Eleatic Principle is that it leaves out more than just abstract entities like numbers — it also excludes the kinds of structural constraints that actually make causality intelligible in the first place. — Wayfarer
I cannot disagree with this.The uncertainty principle and the shift toward probabilistic models made it harder to hold onto the idea of strict causal necessity, and we ended up with something more structural — and arguably closer to constraints than to causes.
No, but in discussing ontology in my prior thread, I found not one contributor that put forth something that wasn't essentially 'what exists is what we see', which is too close to 'because we see it'. I was looking for something more objective than that, so the topic title here was specifically worded to push the buttons of those who wanted to suggest otherwise.The title of this thread is irksome. So you disagree with some idea, and that means *no one* really believes it? Come the fuck on. — flannel jesus
I know that, but is it a rational belief, or only a rationalized one? I got few who attempted to justify the position before, so I'm trying to pry it out here by explicitly challenging the claim. I want a discussion. I'm not asserting that the position is necessarily wrong.Yes, people out there really believe in a reality that isn't dependent on minds.
That is the question, but had I worded the title that way (instead of a veiled claim), would I get an answer? Didn't work last time when deliberately poked my stick at something else (said EPP) that I felt to be unjustified.The question shouldn't be, "do people really disagree with me?", obviously they do, the question should be "why do they?"
What I'm looking for is justification for calling the belief to be one of mind-independence. Of course, being a metaphysical opinion, one cannot demonstrate that opinion to be the case. I am just looking for an opinion of mind-independent existence of something that actually holds up to the claim of being mind-independent, and that means something other than "what I see is what exists".You asked for a defense of a strictly metaphysical condition, re: the mind-independence of reality, which cannot be justified without sufficient criteria for the relation of the conceptions involved to each other. — Mww
Utterly relevant to what I just said, and yes, to the drawing as well. Certain models of reality cannot be the case and simultaneously justified with any empirical evidence due to that problem.There's a small possibility of that, yes. Boltzmann Brains and whatnot. — RogueAI
I'm not questioning that distinction. I'm questioning where you draw the line between the existing not-you thing and the non-existing things. That's a different distinction than the one you seem to be referencing.On the one hand, then, by saying I hold with a mind-independent view of reality, the only relation I need is apprehending the distinction between me and not me ... — Mww
Hardness and porosity do not exist independently of the rock either. — Harry Hindu
Hardness is not a physical trait, only a concept? I would not concur.These are ideas, not things — tim wood
A matter of a level of creativity I think, to imagine something not based on the parts immediately at hand. Yea, a unicorn is hardly a stretch.I wonder if you could have the idea of a unicorn without having experienced the existence of horses and horns prior. — Harry Hindu
Unlikely but possible, a drawing (or even paper) existing sans intent.I mean would that drawing come to exist if there if you had no ideas of unicorns?
Not at all. That world relates to you as much as it does to me. But confining our declaration of reality to that mutually shared world is what I'm bringing into question.Then you're talking about solipsism if you are emphasizing the uncertainty of an external world.
A system state does not measure itself. Subsequent system states measure it, yes, true even under Newtonian physics, although I don't think this relational spinning of ontology was seriously considered back then.How does a system that doesn't exist measure itself?
Causal, yes. Deterministic? If all that exists relative to X is in the past of X, then it is fixed history, so yea, I suppose the word ;deterministic' can be used to describe that. Ditto for eternalism where all states exist, even if one state does not uniquely determine the subsequent one (which is what most mean by 'deterministic').In a deterministic universe, which you seem to be describing
That's what brains and memory is for, as you indicated. All that works without need of a preferred moment in time.You would need to explain how we are so successful at making predictions
Yes, that's utilizing the pragmatic definition, but such a definition is necessarily confined to the entity finding utility in the definition, illustrating my point that such definitions are dependent on said entity, which presumably has something that qualifies as mental processes.When we talk about things being real, the paradigmatic cases are chairs and rocks and the screen on which you are reading this text. Or "This is a hand". — Banno
a something, not a someone. Yes, it is a relation, and there can be no necessity of a 'someone' if it is to be mind independent. So yes, presuming such a relational definition, you get this:I should have that as exists-to-me. That might signal that the existence referenced is not existence qua, but instead existence-to-(a someone). — tim wood
The question is meaningless with the relational definition, so a different meaning is implied by that usage. Does it exist? Does it matter? Would 2+2 not equal 4 if the 2's lacked existence? Must fire be breathed into the equation for it to be fact?And that leaves the question of existence itself - does the stone exist?
Which sucks because what little I know of Kant is his idealism, which seems off topic for a discussion of mind-independence, but what do I know of what Kant might contribute?And this gets Kantian.
That practical usage is a relational one, despite most missing that there's a relation implied. I'm trying to go well beyond that practicality. I don't thing the existence of the stone is any sort of illusion. The true nature of it is hardly classical like it's treated, but classical treatment is quite pragmatic. The stone relates to me, and typically that is simplified to objectivity. Why not?As a practical matter of course the stone exists. In some sciences the presupposition is that the stone exists, And in some other sciences, "exists" and "stone" might have to be defined as terms of art.
Physics being causal and there being 'a cause' are different things. Got some examples? I mean, a butterfly yawns in Brazil and a hurricane happens 3 months later. Had the butterfly not yawned (like they even can, I know...), the hurricane would not be, but other ones would Is the butterfly the cause of it? Heck no, but it contributed. Is there one cause of the storm? Is there one cause of the murder? Of course not. Does that mean that the guy that shoved in the knife isn't responsible? Probably not.I've evolved - no cleverness on my part, just through reading - to an understanding that there is no such thing as a cause — tim wood
The stone stands out to me, so it exists to me. But that's expressed as a relation. Most people's concept of existence is a relation, even if they don't call it that.You argue it does not exist? — tim wood
So do I, to the point where at any point I want to reference the idea, I will say 'perception of X', 'concept of X', or whatever.Kindly make that argument clear and explicit. I myself distinguish between ideas and (material) things, both real — tim wood
Not independent at least of the process via which they are implemented.If ideas are real then how can you say that they do not independently exist? — Harry Hindu
Nah... My ideas of unicorns exist despite the typical assertion of the nonexistence of the unicorns.You might say that ideas of rocks need rocks to exist — Harry Hindu
Cannot parse this. Are you speaking of the intelligence making the presuppositions? Would that be you? Is reality dependent on your suppositions?I have no problem at least holding to a mind-independent view or notion or idea, of reality, given a particular set of presuppositions, those in turn given from the kind of intelligence supposed as immediately in play. — Mww
You seem to misunderstand the OP. I'm not suggesting that mind causes the existence of things, but rather that the minds cause the concept of existence of things. Whether that concept corresponds to objective fact is an open issue. People tend to assert the existence of things perceived. (They're presumed to exist) because they are perceived, but I think you're reading it more as They're presumed to (exist because they are perceived). The latter is the idealism I'm not talking about.If it isn't idealism then it must be some form of panpsychism. — Harry Hindu
:up:Minds are not fundamental. Information is. — Harry Hindu
More to the point, are 'you' in the past, and per the reasoning quoted above, the answer is yes. A relational view is described there, and Rovelli (from Relational Quantum Mechanics) says that a system at a moment in time does not exist since it hasn't measured itself. It can only measure the past, so only prior events exist relative to a measuring event.What do we take away from all this? Perhaps that ontology runs backwards. The existence of a causal thing is not objective, but rather works backwards from the arrow of time. Future measurements cause past measured events to come into existence, at least relative to the measurement done. And by 'measurement', I mean any physical interaction, not a mind-dependent experiment does with intention. Such a definition would be quite consistent with the Eleatic Principle, no? — noAxioms
Sure, but what about your mind? Is your mind in the past? — Harry Hindu
Well, not being a presentist, I would word such comments more in B-series. Any particular brain state includes observation of past states, binding those states into a meaningful identity. I (some arbitrary noAxioms state event) have but one causal past (a worldline terminating at said event), but no causal future since no subsequent state is measured.Based on what you are saying, another's observation of your brain would be in the past, but your mind, for you, is in the present. — Harry Hindu
Eleatic Principle says that all causal states are real. The principle has an objective wording, not the weird backwards-arrow causal ontology described by the paragraph quoted.If you're going to make an argument for causal systems being real — Harry Hindu
No, no complexity required at all. Just causal interactions.If you're saying it's backwards then you are saying that complexity is fundamental and simplicity arises from complexity
Quite agree with this. Grasping what is objective truth. Does it being fact imply that 'it is already there'? Do the phrases mean the same thing?Frege wrote:
If we want to emerge from the subjective at all, from the realm of ideas, we must conceive of knowledge as an activity that does not create what is known but grasps what is already there. — Basic Laws of Arithmetic, 23 — J
If it's objective, there's an incredible lot more of it that the tiny spec accessible to humans. So I cannot agree with this statement, or that it follows from the Frege quote. Natural sciences seem to be only relevant to our world, not objectively relevant as is the case with mathematics.1. There is an objective reality, independent of, but accessible to human knowledge. — J
If reality isn't out there in a timeless way, then it is contained by time, a larger reality than 'all of reality', which seems very contradictory. Time seems very much to be a property of this world (and any other causal structure). Intuition might say otherwise, but truth is not the purpose of intuition.Here's what I would not defend:
1. A use of the term "objective" to mean "out there in a timeless, changeless way that is not only independent of how human consciousness pictures it, but also somehow identical to it." (Frege probably did believe this.)
Some clarification then. I use 'observer' to mean something like people, any entity which can gather information and attempt to glean its own nature. 'Measure' on the other hand comes from quantum mechanics, the most simple interaction between two 'physical' states, say a rock measuring rain by getting wet and getting a jolt of momentum from the drop. That's a measurement, but not an observation.The problem here, in my opinion, is that if every physical object is taken to qualify as an 'observer' (which seems to be implied by your assertion that any physical interaction is a measurement), then the number of 'perspective' is probably to high. — boundless
Yes, hence there being an incomprehensible quantity of worlds under something like MWI. You list a classical interaction, but the tiny ones are far more frequent.If QM could be in principle be applied at all scales, if you consider, say, the fall of a pen on a table, the 'perspectives' are incredibly many. — boundless
Go Copenhagen then. It's the point of that interpretation. There's no causal role of the observer in any interpretation except the Wigner interpretation, which Wigner himself abandoned due to it leading to solipsism.Personally, I prefer to interpret QM epistemically, in which case there is no 'causal' role of the observer. — boundless
I'm not too worried about not knowing about it. But positing that only the parts that we know are all that exists is what makes such a premise in an observer-dependent definition of existence.However, it might mean that there is a limit of that we can know about mind-independent physical reality. — boundless
Positing that the stuff we see is mind independent is indeed necessary to do science. But positing that all of reality is confined to the stuff we see is what I typically see in assertions of what exists. It's a very pragmatic way of looking at it, but not an objective way of looking at it at all.I do believe that positing a mind-independent reality is simply necessary to do science — boundless
You see the distinction then, articulating it in a different way than I had.First we have to consider the meta-metaphysics of "mind-independence"; should mind-independence be understood to be an existential claim that the world literally exists independent of the senses? Or is mind-independence merely a semantic proposal that physical concepts are definitionally not reducible to the senses? — sime
A CD player will still produce the air vibrations of the music. Nothing will be around to interpret those patterns as music though. Tree falls in forest. Ground shakes, as does air, but it that making a sound?Let's say you have a compact disk of Mozart pieces. In a mindless universe, that disk is just a collection of particles assembled in a disk with a bunch of tiny pits. There's no musical information, right? — RogueAI
I think there is a thing in itself behind the idea. Sure, isolated minds can independently come up with the same mathematics (unlike any God story), so that's pretty hard evidence of it having more existence than just a shared idea.What about numbers? — RogueAI
What about them? A number is an idea. — tim wood
I think they are clearer. OK, the chair affects you personally, but I cannot conceive of any observer sans some sort of causality being involved. For as old as the definition is, I find it to be elegant and still applicable.As if causal processes were clearer than the chair on which I sit. — Banno
Causality has been defining most of those familiar notions a lot further back than those theories. The eleatic principle dates back to the Greeks.Most other philosophers who see any worth in SR or GR seem to motivate the notion that the central lesson to be learned from said theories is their strong emphasis on causality defining many familiar notions. — substantivalism
Hmm, like what? The existence of a preferred moment in time? What else? I can think of more, but the list gets more hand-wavy the further you go. What's classical physics got to do with it? What has post-classical physics taken away that classical allowed? It seems like post-classical actually added more to the metaphysics, not taken it away.Classical physics is completely fine with conceptually expanding their ontologies or metaphysics to accommodate unseen entities which possess no casual import.
Gravity is curved? You mean a model where gravity is explained by curvature of spacetime? There are alternate models to that, so your 'only' doesn't hold.Is gravity curved because it can only be modeled with curvature?
Under realist physics, time seeming to subjectively pass faster or slower seems to be a function of boredom vs productivity and has nothing to do with where you are or how fast you're going.Why would time seem to pass more quickly in a more objective frame? — Metaphysician Undercover
Both presentist and eternalist views fit in with that, so I'm fine with it. 'Realist' is an adjective, so one can be realist about one thing and not another. Said Berkeley idealist is realist about mind for instance, but that is admittedly not the classic realism of <the matter I see is real> (which sound an awful lot like idealism to me).Just classical existence realism. — substantivalism
Very often any view different from your own looks rabid.rabid berkeley idealists.
Quite the opposite. The terms 'future', 'present' and 'past' are only ontologically meaningful under presentism, the view that divides all events into those three categories. There being no such division under eternalism, all events share identical ontology. Hence the lack of tensed verbs when discussing the view since tensed verbs make reference to something that the view does not posit.As there is not definite future or past. . . THEY DON'T EXIST under presentism remember.
We don't even know if it passes, so yea, I agree.We don't know how time passes. — Metaphysician Undercover
Relativity says the opposite: First postulate is that physics (including the experience of anybody, anywhere) is frame and location independent. Time is thus experienced identically for everybody. If this were not so, you could identify a more objective frame by the experience of time passing more quickly there.Doesn't relativity indicate that the time experienced is unique to the spatial conditions of the individual?
Depends on one's definition of time. I can think of 3 kinds right off, and proper time is the one experienced. The others are coordinate time (computed, not experienced), and the flow of the present (zero empirical impact).I wonder if time isn't the thing we experience — flannel jesus
That's an interesting topic in itself. Experience seems to be a process, not a state. A process is at minimum a change of state over some finite time. The issue of Boltzmann brains gets into this, where you don't so much hold beliefs, but you hold memories of beliefs (same thing?).I don't think you can have an experience in just a snapshot of existence. — flannel jesus
In a classical universe, this sort of thing might work, but our universe is not classical, and the vast majority of interpretations of physics do not have things/states existing until after measurement. Photons for instance seem to only exist in the past. Interesting problem for the presentists, but they get around it.Existence CANNOT wait to be decided. — substantivalism
This is trivially falsified. I cannot demand of nature to tell me the state of some event that has 'happened' but is further away that light could travel in the elapsed time.we cannot just say that nature doesn't know what things there are until the time when you do observe it. Before it's observed, during, and after nature should always give an answer on this if we demand its objectivity.
Anthropomorphising nature, and per the first paragraph above, no it doesn't.... nature 'knows' instantaneously what things exist and what things don't WITHOUT delay.
That's because its presence in the past has been measured, and it's kind of a big thing to somehow have vanished in that small time, so its existence now is highly probable.Nature doesn't have to wait for you to get light from andromeda to say whether it exists
Yes. Light has classical existence, but the universe is not classical. Photons do not have classical existence. The one is a probability thing, just like 'Andromeda is probably still there, as is the moon.... when the light is emitted. . . when it travels. . . and when it finally gets to your eyes. . . IT ALWAYS STILL EXISTED.
Subjectively actually. Empirical data yields subjective existence, not objective. The former is a relation, as in your 'being a part of the same reality' relation.. while light is emitted. . . travels. . . and gets to your eyes is also objectively answered.
Can you name some? Can you name some for presentism? Neither works for M-U because he's an idealist and both are real interpretations of time. Eternalism not being compatible with it isn't a falsification of eternalism any more than the validity of eternalism being a falsification of idealism.Hasn't Eternalism also given itself numerous other unsolvable problems? — substantivalism
I cannot think of any view that suggests that you would. I may have suggested that you experience the time during which I was listening instead of being stuck experiencing only the time that you are talking.That's right, I do not experience you listening. — Metaphysician Undercover
You misunderstand. I am not asking for a determination of when that time is, only that you must inevitably be simultaneous with it at some point, unless you are skipping over swaths of timeAnd to determine what I am experiencing at the same time (simultaneously) as you listening requires principles of measurement.
The correct term is 'worldline', and I am everywhere present on it, and thus it is not something along which I move. Yes, that is an example of physical extension, and there are examples of physical motion. The part I'm denying is numbers supervening on physics instead of the other way around.I'm arguing that physical you does move along a number line; it's called the timeline of your personal history — ucarr
I don't recall saying that, but if the existence of the world in which those fields apply is grounded in human presence in that world, then yes, they, like the rocks, seem pretty mind dependent. I meet few realists who go beyond that bias. Tegmark is one, but he goes to the extent of 'everything exists' or maybe 'everything possible', which is a problematic stance.You're saying quantum fields are mind-dependent? — ucarr
They probably wouldn't be posited if they were not measured, yes.Quantum fields are measured.
Hence the axioms of mathematics for instance. Without careful selection of axioms, mathematics as a tool would be pretty useless. So better written, yes.I should've written, "If it's a necessary premise that cannot be justified - as with a first-order system - it's axiomatic.
Science doesn't depend much on a specific stance on metaphysics. It pragmatically uses a definition like E4, even if E4 is mind dependent, because science is all about knowing and predicting, which is also mind dependent.This puts you fundamentally at odds with science because all scientific theories are axiomatic to the extent that they cannot be proven.
That would be EMPA (existing mind precedes asserting, and also MPA: mind preceding asserting). Predication (a rock being massive) is different than a mind noting a predication. Hence the rock can be massive sans mind (MPP false), but it still takes a mind to conceive of predication (MPCP). This is per my OP where concept of X needs to be explicitly distinguished from X.If it's true nothing can be asserted prior to existent mind (MPP) ...
I'm not making a positive claim. A negative cannot be demonstrated, only falsified by counterexample.Where is yours?
You mistake a relation for objectivity. Social interaction establishes a common relation. I'm totally fine with a relational (finite domain) definition of existence, even if EPP doesn't hold under it.If you doubt the objectivity inferable from social interaction, then you've fallen into solipsism.
OK, but you're changing domains to say that, and the existence of something in one domain is not always a fact in another. What about something that resides on a planet near the star Deneb? Its presence there is not a fact in Moscow (it might be under some non-local interpretation of QM where retrocausality is allowed). That example is one of a more disjoint domain, and they get more disjoint than that. The thing residing near Deneb has predicates, and yet said existence is not factual in Moscow. For that matter, Moscow is not factual relative to the described thing.You do exist in Moscow because your residence in ¬ Moscow, if true, is a fact in Moscow.
You should quote where you think I said or implied that. The bit about the existence of existence seems pretty circular to me.You suspect general existence has the ontological status of numbers.
I don't.remember saying it was.Why do you think position non-causal?