So the problem is semantical rather than grammatical. That makes more sense. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I'm saying you can call it a spacetime or a universe, it comes to the same thing concerning what I'm saying about the loss of information.

Leibniz: I see your point. If some things don't have an effect then there's the possibility that our brains or minds, if you like, could be, through understanding, sequestered in a cause-empty environment, sealed off, as it were, from all influences and that makes us free. — TheMadFool

Perhaps free will means the ability to be a free causal agent.

When he talks about the woman with Alzheimer's she is not losing consciousness, she is losing her memory.

There is a writer (forget his name) made the assertion that civilization has added nothing to make our lot better. We were healthier and better off before we came out of the forest. There's a lot of truth in that. One of the most awful things about modern capitalism is that it does not provide creative lives for many people. My response to the system is to be real smart about how I interact with it.

Programming, chess, mathematics and other games do help you to think with precision. Anyone who wants to philosophize would do well to learn to think with clarity.

I do agree there is a non-physical universe of energy. — Becky

I think it was Bohr that said it is meaningless to say where a particle is outside detection. Where was it before detection? Nowhere. If by 'where' we are talking about a location in the physical universe then it was nowhere because a particle is not in the physical universe until it is detected*

Detection is when a particle collides with the physical universe/spacetime. This collision is registered as a trace effect on, for example, a photographic plate. Prior to the registration the particle was 'elsewhere' but not in the physical universe.

*Specifically, they are never in physical spacetime, they only leave trace effects here.

What if you see something new that you have no associations for? Even a kitten is fascinated by the world around it and it is all new. We have two kittens at the moment. They relish discovering the new with which they have no associations. Yep, he's a Zombie ok.

If consciousness was only a collection of associations how could you ever become conscious unless you had associations to make and you can't have associations unless you are first conscious? He's definitely Zombified.

I'm trying to impress on you, but without much success, that consciousness is the root of creativity.
Consciousness unifies and integrates information.
Creativity unifies and integrates information — Pop

Yes, I agree entirely. This is what the word 'inspiration' means. Making art works is about making metaphors, symbols and images of spiritual reality. We are conscious of spiritual reality and we make physical images of it. I think we are saying much the same thing.

Well, no. There is still only one universe, with two descriptions. — Banno

It depends on what 'universe' is referring to. If we are talking in terms of geometry there are two spacetimes, quantum and physical. As far as measurement is concerned it comes to the same thing. I find that conceiving things in terms of two spacetimes makes things easier to grasp. When it comes to measurement the difference is semantic.

Wow! How would you prove that? — Becky

I'm just going by what the scientists tell us. If a quantum event is n-dimensional and the only way to physically measure it is in a 4-dimensional world, n - 4 dimensions of information are lost.

Take a 3-dimensional object. Project its shadow on a 2-dimensional surface. You can see that 1 dimension of information is lost.

That's very interesting that each time an event is created, information is lost while passing down to our universe. However, I argue that in this external universe, information cannot be reasoned about using our conventional techniques as events in that space are "brute facts without explanation". — bizso09

Mathematical physics seems to be one way into the quantum universe, which is why it is so successful.

The question of identity assignment is one such problem that is not possible to answer using a logical framework. — bizso09

Suppose you are in a restaurant with another person. You are both in the same external reality but your experience of it is different from the other person's experience of it. For example, he is looking at you and you are looking at him so these are two different experiences. Your experiences are different because you both have different perspectives or points of view, on the same reality. So maybe the 'you' is largely a point of view on the world.

The double slit and various related experiments do come close to suggesting the universe likes paradox. But probably we just don't understand what's going on. — Marchesk

A post of mine from the thread 'Existence of an external universe'-

There are two spacetimes, quantum spacetime and physical spacetime. Quantum spacetime is an n-dimensional spacetime (it has been suggested n = 10 or 11). Physical spacetime is 4-dimensional. This effectively means there are two universes.

The physical universe is an emergent property of the quantum universe of energy. It is 'conjured up' from quantum spacetime.

When there is an n-dimensional event in the quantum universe that event is reduced from n dimensions to 4 dimensions so n - 4 dimensions of information are lost. More so, a quantum event is registered in the physical universe as a physical trace effect. eg a spot on a photographic plate is a trace effect. But these trace effects are necessarily physical 4 dimensional objects in the physical universe while the event that caused them is an n-dimensional event in the non physical universe of energy. So physicists are reduced to trying to measure an n-dimensional event with a 4-dimensional ruler. No wonder quantum physics is weird.

'One infinity'. — Marchesk

One anything. One {0} and off you go...

Numbers are made by iteration and partition.

Start with- "/", iterate: "//" and so on: "///////////////..."

Partition each step:

/, //, ///,...

= {/}, {//}, {///},...

In Arabic numerals-

1, 2, 3,...

I do not understand creativity that is not an expression of consciousness - please enlighten me. — Pop

I'm talking about art in cultural terms. Generally speaking artists do not become seized with a desire to express something. It is more fundamental than that. It is a desire to create. It is a human need to feel that we create our own lives. Expression, in cultural terms, is just sharing the image (art work) with others. It is not the primary motivation. But it follows, naturally, because art inevitably expresses the contents of the artist's consciousness.

What I don't like is teachers telling art students things like 'art is about self expression' or ' art is about reflecting society'. These are not the primary motivations. The primary motivation is an innate need to create.

One of the great problems of modern capitalist society is that it does not cater for people's creative needs.

That's another kettle of fish!

I'm here because I'm interested in 'stuff' (I hardly need to define 'stuff'). I also want to know how to think properly. How does one think correctly about philosophy? Why are humans so bad at it? Proper thinking is best developed not just by philosophy but by mental exercises: logic, mathematics, chess...anything that exercises your mental abilities. I am here to see if I am thinking correctly by testing my ideas so see how people will react and to see if they are thinking correctly.

Thinking about very hard fundamental problems (like math problems) is a good way to learn to think logically. But for philosophy, some kind of mystical or intuitive insight is good as well as the logical stuff. Logic alone won't do it.

So why on earth would paradoxes be built into the universe? — Benj96

I don't believe they are. I think paradoxes are superficial. They are limitations on language and defects in human thinking. In Russell's Paradox the statement is:

"The set of all sets that are not members of themselves." Immediately we have a problem because the statement assumes that this entity is a set, but it is not, as the paradox shows.

It needs to be restated as:

"All sets that are not members of themselves."

Now we can ask the question What is this entity if it is not a set? See my entry on R.Paradox. in the mathematics thread.

You can create the number line with the null set. Let {0} = the null set:

{0}
{0}{0}
{0}{0}{0}
{0}{0}{0}{0}...etc

= 1, 2, 3, 4...:

Only demonstrable mathematical truths are domonstrably true. The jury is out on everything else (except 'I think therefore I am' and 'There is something').

So essentially any number would not refer to anything either? If so what does zero refer to? What differentiates 1 from 0? — Outlander

1 can count the 0. 'One zero'.

That you feel the need to create something - what dose that express?

What is the mind activity that leads you to create art? Is it not your consciousness? — Pop

Yes, you could say consciousness. But the primary motivation is not expression, it is simply to create. I suppose expression is inevitable on some level but 'create' is the motivation. "Reflecting society" is also something that creeps in but doing art 'to reflect society' is journalism

Information is power they say, and if this summarizes the concept of art then why would anyone just give power away to someone else for nothing? There must be more to it than that alone. — kudos

I suppose the artist reveals a lot by sharing his/her thoughts but we do that anyhow.

And he believes, not based on "faith" but on evidence, that Information is the essence of reality --- of both Matter and Mind; both "invisible transcendental" Energy, and visible tangible Matter. — Gnomon

I don't think 'everything' is information because that would mean that all that exists is abstraction and I don't see how abstraction can exist without substance. If information exists it must have some kind of substance (mind?) to keep it in being. You can't have 0s and 1s by themselves. You have to store them on something, even if that something is a mind.

The idea that "Art work is information about the artist’s consciousness," is sort of difficult for me to accept without qualification. If this were true, how could there be such a thing as art work to begin with? Because there would be no necessity for the artist to share information about their consciousness beyond some type of perversion. In addition, without some contribution from outward there can be no 'cast' of art in which to apply it's form. — kudos

I don't think it is perverse to want to share something good. It is natural. Yes, there are all kinds of influences that determine 'fashion' in art: art history, other artists, the world at large etc. But the essential aesthetic is deeper than fleeting fashions. As the OP says, art is about the artist's consciousness but the form of the image (art work) is often influenced by fashion in art. Art is creativity. An Art work is a bit messier when it comes to definitions because it has so many cultural influences.

When people say 'art' they are mostly talking about the image be it a painting or piece of music or sculpture. For me art is the inner process and the image/art work is a metaphor of that process.

Interesting...sounds like you are referring to Einstein's Block Universe theory, where time is just an illusion...(?). — 3017amen

Time is a geometric shape just like any object. Time, in human experience, depends on information reaching a certain point: where the human being happens to be. Human consciousness (at least physical consciousness) is located at a point in space and time flows as information reaches this point. But what if someone's consciousness could fill the whole solar system or universe. What would time be like then?

So, Matter, Energy, and Mind are different forms of the same thing : Information. — Gnomon

But there must be substance if there is to be anything. Information by itself is abstract. There must be mind or substance to hold the information in being.

Is eternity outside of time? If it is, then when Time/Universe had a beginning, something outside of time caused Time to exist, hence a change of events preceded Time. Time would then be subordinate to a change or change in events/being or becoming, whichever you prefer. (See the 4:40 mark of the video.) — 3017amen

Time is 'in' eternity. Time is a 4-dimensional object, like any other physical object. It is the 'shape' of physical existence. This object exists in eternity but is not necessarily eternal. 'Spacetime' is a better expression.

In your view, does art include meaning, or is it separate from it? IE: are you only occupied with the meaning of art to the artist his or her self? — kudos

Not sure if you are asking me or Pop. Anyhow, for me, art is about meaning. Truth = meaning = beauty.
Beauty is truth. But a problem arises when people are asked what is beauty? The answer will be subjective. But for me, beauty is truth. But what is truth? and we are back to subjectivity.

Beauty and meaning can be shared by sharing the external, physical, work of art. But, for the artist, meaning is in the experience of creating. Art as 'expression' or 'reflecting society' (duh) are secondary things.

Art is creativity; for me the reason to create something is a conviction that it is worth creating. People say 'art is about reflecting society'. No, I don't think so, but when it does that is only incidental or secondary. Many artists create works that are different from the societies they live in. Michelangelo painted angels but in his time there were open sewers running through the streets.

I basically agree with Pop's definitions. Art is an inner process that is shared by means of the image.

There is a difference between art and art work. Art is a process whereby the artist evolves and develops in terms of consciousness. Art is an inner journey. A art work is a physical image of this inner process. This physical image can be shared with others but art as 'expression' is only incidental. One can go on this inner journey without expressing anything (ie without showing the art works to anybody). Art certainly is not about 'expression' let alone 'self expression' (what a silly notion). It is about an inner journey. That art works express something to other people is a secondary thing. It is about sharing the experience, through the image. As an artist I never think I need to express anything. But I do need to create things.

:100: :clap: :up: — Pfhorrest

SophistiCat put me on the right track...

And the consequence of that is that talk of extension in mathematics becomes fraught with ambiguity. Hence, Wittgenstein's argument that mathematical extensions must be finite, and hence his adoption of finitism, seems misguided. — Banno

Here's a thought. Draw the X axis. The segment between 0 and 1 is a physical extension in space. This segment contains an infinity of dimensionless points: ie points of zero dimension. But if you set down an infinity of these zeros side by side, you get 1 unit of length. The implication is that 0 x $\infty$ = 1.

Those symbols are just Unicode characters that you can copy/paste from anywhere — SophistiCat

Thanks. The first thread in the Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics forum (this forum) explains how to use the math tag and how to create symbols.

"This is the answer to the question"

Is it the same as the answer to this question?

Do you have any real god given rights, or are god given rights just a feel-good lie that we tell ourselves we have so as to ignore that we have none? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Simone Weil writes about this. The Jews did not have a concept of rights in the way we do. Their concept was the justice of God. Weil points out that when Jesus was confronted they asked Him "By whose authority do you say these things?" not "What right do you have to say these things?" What mattered to the Jews was the authority of God, not rights. Rights are invented by statesmen. They are a codification of what was originally understood, by the Jews, as justice that comes from above.

There are two spacetimes, quantum spacetime and physical spacetime. Quantum spacetime is an n-dimensional spacetime (it has been suggested n = 10 or 11). Physical spacetime is 4-dimensional. This effectively means there are two universes.

The physical universe is an emergent property of the quantum universe of energy. It is 'conjured up' from quantum spacetime.

The reason is because the EU only contains the generating sources, but as soon as those things are generated, they enter the PU where they are subject to the laws of PU. One can regard the EU as a collection of brute facts, that live outside of the framework of the PU — bizso09

This one reason why quantum physics is confusing: When there is an n-dimensional event in the quantum universe that event is reduced from n dimensions to 4 dimensions so n - 4 dimensions of information are lost. Moreso, a quantum event is registered in the physical universe as a physical trace effect. eg a spot on a photographic plate is a trace effect. But these trace effects are necessarily physical 4 dimensional objects in the phsical universe while the event that caused them is an n-dimensional event in the non physical universe of energy. So physicists are reduced to trying to measure an n-dimensional event with a 4-dimensional ruler. No wonder quantum physics is weird.

How does energy become matter and then manipulate itself? — Benj96

If energy is an expression of mind that is an easy one; Is it more correct to say mind manipulates energy and therefore matter?

How does it observe itself and ask questions about itself? Why does it have the capacity to love and hate?

Again, mind and energy may be much the same thing. If energy is mind then energy is what is traditionally termed 'spirit'.

X ∈ X'

X' ∉ X' — SophistiCat

By the way, is how do I type these set symbols? Latex? Is there a guide?

Edit: Found it. $\in$ Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics sub forum

Ok, I'll put it this way. List the sets that are not members of themselves as

a₁, a₂, a₃, ...

X is going to be {a₁, a₂, a₃, ...}

But for some i,

a_i = {a₁, a₂, a₃, ...} = X

So the sets in question are-

a₁, a₂, a₃, ...a_i...

= a₁, a₂, a₃, ...{a₁, a₂, a₃, ...}...

So X is to be defined as {a₁, a₂, a₃, ...}\a_i

= X\{a₁, a₂, a₃, ...} = X\X

That is, X is defined as not being a member of itself.

Don't worry about the notation. X is defined as not being a member of itself, that is all.

No, that's not how it works.

X = {{x}, {y}, {z}}

X' = {{x}, {y}, {z}, {{x}, {y}, {z}}}

X ≠ X'

X ∈ X'

X' ∉ X' — SophistiCat

No, I am saying IF X is included in X then

X = {{x}, {y}, {z},... {{x}, {y}, {z}}}

But IF X is not included

X = {{x}, {y}, {z},...}

I am only saying this to clarify things. But by definition X is NOT included so

X = {{x}, {y}, {z},...}

Precisely X = {{x}, {y}, {z},...}\{{x}, {y}, {z}}

{x}, {y}, {z} and {{x}, {y}, {z}} are different sets so excluding the set {{x}, {y}, {z}} does not exclude {x}, {y}, or {z}