Why would you believe that properties require a conscious observer? — Terrapin Station

What things are like are not inherent properties of matter, but properties of thought.

The idea that energy, force or potentiality could be a "basic substance" is incoherent, though. — Terrapin Station

I don’t see why? Please explain.

The idea is simply that there's some way that an existent is, but that's always from some spatio-temporal reference point--basically some location of space and time, because it's incoherent for there to be a way that an existent is from no spatio-temporal reference point. Existents are different from different spatio-temporal reference points (including their own spatio-temporal reference points). This isn't saying anything about conscious observers.

So the question is that why, when you remove a conscious observer from the equation, do you believe that any existent would be different, from that spatio-temporal location, than it is with the conscious observer at that spatio-temporal location? — Terrapin Station

You’re correct that a frame of reference alone is spatio-temporal, but what the matter is like requires a conscious observer. Furthermore, in order for the wave function to collapse, it has to be at least observed by a machine with a computer and sensors which are designed, executed, and interpreted through an intentionality of a conscious being.

By “spirit,” I am giving a name to the basic substance. You can call it “energy,” “force,” or “potentiality,” if you like. “Spirit” just sounds like an amalgam of these ideas, and it jives with consciousness and the nature of qualia.

I think you are reading too much into what I said. I never said “spirits,” which brings up mental pictures of ghosts or something. By “spirit,” I am giving a name to the basic substance. You can call it “energy,” “force,” or “potentiality,” if you like. “Spirit” just sounds like an amalgam of these ideas, and it jives with consciousness and the nature of qualia.

But whatever.

Yes, I know what I'm talking about enough to correct your basic errors. I don't care about your attempt to boost your reputation. It's not difficult to get a book published. Any old hack can publish through the internet these days. Big publishers like Penguin are a different matter. I won't be googling you. — S

My point was that I was an atheist for a long time. Googling me would show you that. I’m not selling that book anymore. I’ve unpublished it, so your accusation that I’m trying to boost my reputation is a poor assumption made by a lazy thinker.

By “scientism” I am saying that you put faith in science to explain everything, including consciousness. Good luck with that.

From now on I refuse to respond to your faith-based posts, and I would block you if I could. You are anti-philosophy and pro-scientism.

It would all depend on the power of your argument, so.......have at it, and good luck. — Mww

I’m trying.

Why would lead you to believe that it would look any different than when perceived (re the way it looks at that particular point of reference)? — Terrapin Station

A point of reference assumes an observer.

Because you believe that God precedes all else, right? — Terrapin Station

I have thought about this for years. What would matter even look like without it being perceived? It takes an observer to make the amorphous and undifferentiated become form and differentiated.

The world existed long before us and our machines. — S

No kidding. Maybe you are a fool. Do you even understand the science?

You don't actually care about the science. You're just using it. — S

Do you even know what you’re talking about? I was the biggest atheist there was for half of my life. I even wrote a book about it, and you are free to Google me. A divine consciousness is an elegant way to explain reality. You’re just biased. Your love of scientism shows throughout.

There doesn't need to be an observation to begin with. The results don't need to be interpreted. Be honest: you're only pushing this flawed and unoriginal argument (I've seen it plenty of times here before), because you're working backwards from the conclusion that there's a God. This is your predictable God bias, and it hinders your approach to philosophy. You don't actually care about the science. You're just using it. — S

The machines, computers, and sensors are made through human intentionality. They require a conscious mind in design, execution, and interpretation. — Noah Te Stroete

No it doesn't. Do your homework. — S

The machines, computers, and sensors are made through human intentionality. They require a conscious mind in design, execution, and interpretation.

I'm an amateur artist, so I have plenty of creativity. — S

I’d love to see your art.

No it doesn't. — S

If you’re talking about machines, then my response would be that it takes a conscious mind to interpret the results.

The "observer" doesn't have to be human, let alone God. — S

The observer has to be conscious. I said I call this consciousness “God.” I didn’t say anything about the nature of God. That is your anti-God bias. As an unresolved issue, it has been shown that an observer is required for the probability function to collapse. Perhaps God is feline in nature. I like cats.

Please don’t edit your posts. Just start a new post. I know you like to LOOK smart for the record, but it is a pain in the ass. Please don’t bastardize the spirit of philosophy. Stop trying to APPEAR smart, and try actually engaging in dialogue.

Do you think me a fool? — S

It’s only fitting that my 1300th post should be in response to a (S)issy. I don’t think you’re a fool. I think you’re close-minded, hard-headed, unfeeling, unoriginal, and unimaginative. But you’re not a fool. Do you have a specific question? I have a thought disorder, so my thoughts are not well-organized. Like I said, dialogue helps me get my thoughts in order.

why string theory over others? — S

Whatever the fundamental element of matter is doesn’t matter. Pardon the pun. Quantum mechanics shows that subatomic particles cannot be pinned down to a specific location and momentum until it is observed. Then the probability function collapses. It takes an observing mind in order for the elements of matter to take shape on its most fundamental scale. Hence, in order for the universe to begin (the Big Bang) something conscious had to observe the singularity in order for it to BECOME something.

Wild speculation, undefined terms, conclusions without any presented reasonable support, God bias, hand picked scientific theories - why string theory over others?

Hardly worth taking seriously. — S

Do you have a specific question or concern? Much of my thought is subconscious and only takes shape through dialogue.

Feel free to ask questions or raise concerns. My mind works best through dialogue.

Thank you.

I am of the persuasion that whatever consciousness really is (I think it’s spirit) is the structuring element or substance of reality. The material world exists, but it is only given structure by consciousness (or spirit). You can’t have one without the other. Hence, the materialism vs. idealism debate is really a confusion of the nature of reality. Both are true, needed and necessary in order for reality to be the way we find it.

Since consciousness (or spirit) gives structure to matter, I am of the reasoned opinion that there must have been consciousness (or spirit) at the very beginning (or creation) of the universe (or multiverse). Call this what you want. I call it God.

Now, if we break down matter down to its most fundamental elements, we get energy (kinetic or potential). Some theoretical physicists think the most fundamental elements are vibrating strings (String Theory). This energy or these strings (if these theoretical physicists are correct that strings are the most fundamental elements of reality) I am going to posit are also the manifestations of the consciousness (or spirit) perceiving itself on its most fundamental and microscopic level. Hence, energy IS spirit, and consciousness is spirit that is organized in very complex and convoluted ways (think of the billions of neurons in the physical brain).

So, spirit is the ultimate substance of reality, both of mind AND matter. Now, this doesn’t mean that matter isn’t ultimately real. Just walk into oncoming traffic, and you’ll find out just how real matter is. However, what it’s fundamentally made of is what mind is also fundamentally made of, i.e. spirit.

Think fractals. Spirit exists on the largest of scales (God’s mind and to a lesser but still macro scale, our minds), and spirit exists as the stuff of matter.

Now, this might sound a lot like idealism, but I’m not sure that our consciousness survives the disintegration of the material brain. I tend to believe that the spirit that makes up our brains is absorbed by the cosmos when we die, and we are no longer conscious. (We are stardust and we are spirit at the same time!) I believe that when we die we return to God and become part of the One again. This is also what the Hindus call returning to the Brahmin, what the Buddhists call Nirvana, and what I call returning to God (or the One).

I would love to hear what your thoughts are on this. Anyone else is welcome to comment.

Antinatalists need to man up or vagina up (vaginas are tough). If they can’t through strength of will, then they should seek professional help.

No one is going to stop procreation anyway.

I thought of a couple of more reasons for laziness, viz. lack of conviction, apathy, and indecision.

Lack of conviction may be a personality trait. I’m not sure yet.

Apathy may be situational or learned, and it may be a developmental issue.

Indecision may be the limbic system not strongly pressuring the frontal lobe enough. This could be a neurochemical or wiring problem. I’m not a neuroscientist.

The libertarians, also admitting determinism, mostly, have it that since such as QM shows 'randomness', which mostly cancels out, that some of the 'randomness' might make it into the will's decision-making process, disrupting it, causing an outcome which wouldn't normally happen. However, this harms the will and so it's tough to see how it helps 'free will', for then some decisions might be as 'air-headed', this being not really any help, although they say it can promote variety. Their consolation is that they may have showed that events could have been different if the universe were to be rerun. — PoeticUniverse

This isn’t libertarian free will.

The 'free' of 'free will' to some might mean that the will is not determined, that determinism in not inherent in its analysis for decisions, that it is somehow undetermined, which doesn't sound useful, but they would have to show something non-libertarian to have a 'free will' that is not a 'fixed will' that still grants us consistency to act as ourselves as we have come to be up to that moment. — PoeticUniverse

This is libertarian free will.

As I see it, free will is just when one is not being coerced. There are strong wills, moderately strong wills, moderately weak wills, and weak wills. This can change within a person from situation to situation, but there is a general average for each person.

I generally have a moderately weak will. I lack conviction and I am apathetic a lot of the time, so I rarely impose my will on the world. Sometimes I do, however, given the situation.

The Orangutan who wants to replace the Jews (unless of course the Jew is his accountant)

You mean the Racist-in-Chief? — NKBJ

Yes, the Commander of disinformation.

Okay. So that's what you'd be in favor of? — NKBJ

I think so, but if the nominee is for Medicare for all then so be it. I would never vote for the con man.

I see where you might be confused. A public option is not private insurance. It’s a government-run alternative to private insurance. It’s what some candidates are advocating as a first step in order to eventually phase out for-profit insurance so we can eventually get to a single payer system. That’s the strategy anyway.

Medicare for all is much more ambitious and disruptive. It’s a huge step all at once.

From your link:

“Sanders' plan requires eliminating the tax-free status of employer-provided health insurance (and since his plan would essentially eliminate employer-provided insurance, it makes no sense to preserve its tax-free status).”

Also, as to your claim about support dropping to 30%, could you supply a source for that please? — NKBJ

Sorry, I can’t. It was on MSNBC.

I would argue (in the abstract, without having seen the poll in question) that a surveyor telling people they would have to give up private healthcare when the government offers medicare for all is misinformed at best, and at worst lying. — NKBJ

Medicare-for-all is a replacement for employer-based insurance. Are you thinking about a public option?

Thank you both for your patience with me. This is interesting stuff.

"

I can't speak to non-pointed set-theoretic probability theory. I know about ETCS (elementary theory of the category of sets) so I understand that sets don't require points. But as to probability, I can't say. However if you take finite line segments as sets, you seem to lose intersections. Are these closed or open segments? You have a reference for this interpretation of probability theory?
— fishfry

Let's look at Kolmogorov axioms here: (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/KolmogorovsAxioms.html)

Everything that is needed is a set W
W
, some Qi
Q
i
, that can be "anything", a function Qi
Q
i
from the Qi
Q
i
to real numbers, and a function "complement" on the Qi
Q
i
.

Let's consider as our probability space the segment [0, 1].

I can take for Qi
Q
i
the closed sets included in [0, 1] made of countable number of non overlapping segments with non zero length, and for W
W
the set of all these sets. The complement of a Qi
Q
i
will be the closure of the remaining part of [a, b] when I remove the Qi
Q
i
. There are no Qi
Q
i
of zero measure (and this is very reasonable for a probability theory: every event that can happen must have a non zero probability to happen).

The complement of a Qi
Q
i
overlaps with Qi
Q
i
only on the end points, and that is compatible with the axioms: the sum of measures adds up to 1.

The elements of W
W
are simply ordered pairs of real numbers instead of single real numbers, but everything works at the same way: from the point of view of set theory two segments are equal if and only if the extremes are equal: no mention of overlapping segments at all.

The definition of overlapping segments is the usual one: the higher number of the first pair is bigger than the lower number than the second pair.

There is no need to consider infinite sets of points, and for probability theory there is no need to speak about points at all: probability theory does not need zero-measure events, and no physical possible event has zero probability.

P.S. This is only a very simple example to show that it's not contradictory to define probability without points. Pointless topology is much more general than this and makes use of the concept of "locales" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointless_topology) — Mephist

This to me seems to be what @Dfpolis was saying that mathematics must be instantiated in nature first otherwise it is pointless to talk about numbers existing in a Platonic ideal realm. That’s what I got from what you both were saying. Pardon the intrusion.

Can’t a real number go on and on for infinity? Or is that an irrational number...?

I guess I got confused because you guys were talking about numbers as points, where I was thinking about zero-dimension points on a two-dimensional line. This stuff to me right now is very esoteric, as I don’t remember the terminology for the different kinds of numbers. I was always better at calculations like an engineer than I was so much interested in or ever had any exposure to theory.

Well, thank you for trying to explain it to me. I guess I’m really not interested enough to do further studying. It seems like a meta question or concern whose answer may have little consequence... but it may just seem that way to me because of my ignorance.

I apologize for the intrusion.

One can be doing many things when mentioning one's attitude towards what counts as justified aggression. — creativesoul

Fair enough. I don’t think Mandela would appreciate your invoking his example in this situation, however. That’s just my opinion.

That's way too broad a brush stroke. — creativesoul

That’s the issue as I see it. If you don’t, then I don’t know what to say. I live in a small town in Wisconsin. That seems to be the issue here. As you may know, Trump won this state by only a few thousand votes mostly from rural areas with his promise of bringing back “millions and millions” of jobs.

He hasn’t delivered and won’t. That was the con job.

Doesn’t seem like a fitting analogy to compare this situation to Mandela’s, but have at it.