You're trying to pack too much into language...

Meaning is prior to language. There are no negative/positive values prior to language. Those require a standard by which to determine what is positive and what is negative.

I suppose I just got caught up in the momentum, and the challenge of coming up with arguments against a well-directed set of challenges — andrewk

Gotta love it...

Gravity.
— creativesoul

What about it? — Pierre-Normand

Where's it being accounted for here?

...so thus you are arbitrarily speaking about nothing with any meaning, because you refuse to answer the question about the purpose of life, which is essentially about the meaning of life. — Blue Lux

Such a question wasn't posed. I answered the one that was.

Meaning and purpose coincide.
If I find it a purpose of mine to protect certain people, there must necessarily be meaning there specifically that constitutes such a purpose, and furthermore the will to carrying out any relevant action. — Blue Lux

Asserting that meaning and purpose coincide carries a much larger burden than your personal example can carry. It can be the case that your purpose is meaningful, and also that not all meaning has purpose alongside.

If you find it hard to answer the question about the purpose of existence you must inevitably be resorting to the conclusion that there is absolutely nothing of this sort to be found, and consequently defaulting to the idea that we are strangely alienated in a strange universe with absolutely no meaning more than what we ourselves, arbitrarily, give it? — Blue Lux

The question was answered, and it was not at all difficult. All meaning requires a plurality of things and a creature capable of making connections between them. So, it is clear that existence precedes meaning, unless one posits some supernatural creator of the first things, which has a host of it's own issues. I do not. I do not claim any knowledge of the sort, nor could I care any less...

Gravity.

1) All Meaning Exists As Both Positive and Negative Values — eodnhoj7

If and only if positive and negative values are not existentially dependent upon language.

I have recently been led to conclude that knowledge will never be found but created. Objectivity is, too, not to be found, and too it is to be created. — Blue Lux

Well, strictly speaking one can find knowledge if it exists in it's entirety prior to it's being found. To talk of "creating" knowledge seems fraught. Objectivity is yet another notion that leads to nowhere... "point of view invariant" is better for the same tasks.

I'm no QM expert! — Pattern-chaser

Even the experts aren't experts... We have no idea about the nature of light(in terms of what it is, what it consists in/of).

What does "the physical" refer to other than the interpretations of our sensations.
— Metaphysician Undercover

The question works from dubious presuppositions...

All interpretation is of something already meaningful. The meaning is precisely what is being interpreted. Sensations aren't meaningful in and of themselves. They are necessary but insufficient for the attribution of meaning. All sentient creatures use sensation by virtue of autonomously drawing connections between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or themselves. The complexity of the correlation translates to the cognitive ability and/or capability of the candidate. — creativesoul

Yes, one ought to be dubious of any proposition, in the way of the skeptic. But you turn things around, as if it is the proposition which is dubious, rather than yourself who doubts the proposition. Are you really that confused? Do you really believe that it is the proposition which is dubious, and not yourself who is doubting the proposition? Why not state things to reflect the true reality, rather than creating such an illusion? — Metaphysician Undercover

Oh, the irony...

Ad homs won't do here Meta.

Your position is based upon a gross misconception of "sensation". Sensations aren't meaningful. All interpretation is of that which is already meaningful. It is precisely the meaning which is being interpreted. Saying "our interpretations of our sensations" shows a gross misunderstanding hard at work. It's a fatal flaw.

Sure, but the point is that "objects" are created by the sentient creature, through the act of sensation... — Metaphysician Undercover

There's the proof!

You agree by saying "sure" and then continue on unabated as if what you agreed to was not a problem for your position. It was and remains to be.

You are failing to draw and maintain the distinction between what you're reporting upon and your report. You've got plenty of company in philosophy.

So what is your belief about the purpose of existence? — Blue Lux

The idea of "the purpose of existence" makes no sense on my view... unless a thing is created with the sole intention to serve a specific purpose. A chair's purpose is to be sat on. Purpose presupposes a creator's intent for the creation. I would warn here against unnecessarily multiplying entities...

Direct perception is unmediated. Any notion of "perception" which allows, admits, and/or requires that it be informed by language cannot be direct perception for it is not unmediated. Rather such notions of "perception" conflate all sorts of distinct things, and are always partly informed by pre-existing worldview/experience.

The difference is between a gecko perceiving the toaster only as a part of a more complex thought process, say in some spatial relation with the primary objects of interest. A tasty morsel ran behind the toaster. The gecko goes around it while giving chase. It doesn't perceive it as a toaster. It perceives it as something to go around while looking for and/or chasing the insect.

The primary correlations were between the food source and the drive to eat. They all influenced the behaviour.

It seems that all attempts to understand something always lead back to an attempt at understanding existence (inevitable teleologies), which always leads to an attempt at understanding Human Existence. — Blue Lux

Existence is necessarily presupposed within all thought and belief formation.

What we tend to disregard is that what we know as "the physical realm" is only what our senses present to us as "the physical realm" — Metaphysician Undercover

Physiological sensory perception - all by itself - in utterly incapable of presenting meaning. It is a necessary but insufficient part thereof. Sensory perception allows detection of that which is not the perceiving creature.

What does "the physical" refer to other than the interpretations of our sensations. — Metaphysician Undercover

The question works from dubious presuppositions...

All interpretation is of something already meaningful. The meaning is precisely what is being interpreted. Sensations aren't meaningful in and of themselves. They are necessary but insufficient for the attribution of meaning. All sentient creatures use sensation by virtue of autonomously drawing connections between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or themselves. The complexity of the correlation translates to the cognitive ability and/or capability of the candidate.

...the doors of perception... — Blue Lux

I wanna tell ya a story 'bout Texas radio and the big beat...

RIP Jim

Any dichotomy which juxtaposes the physical/material against everything other than physical/material objects/particles is inherently incapable of taking proper account of that which consists of both and is thus... neither.

Whose poetry? The beginning was well written.

The GOP is looking to overturn Roe vs. Wade...
— creativesoul

I'm really not sure they will actually do this. It's very convenient for Republican politicians that the Justices took care of this issue rather than legislation. — boethius

All the more reason to appoint someone like him...

Republican (establishment) ideology has become a cult of personal enrichment at the cost of everyone else including the state. Money equaling speech is a good example of how far the Supreme court is into this ideology even without Kavanaugh. The supreme court is vital to the state functioning, once the ideology of (what the rest of thew world calls) corruption is fully in control it could rapidly erode democratic processes to the point sufficiently many people simply no longer find those processes credible. What happens after is difficult to predict, but it's not good for anyone. — boethius

Legitimized oligarchy. It's already been accepted throughout American culture.

I still don't get why they simply won't get a less controversial candidate. — Benkei

The GOP is looking to overturn Roe vs. Wade...

Here's an interesting poll:

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe accusers: 93% of Democrats say they believe the women alleging sexual harassment, compared to 78% of Republicans. Republicans are also twice as likely as Democrats to think that accused men are being unfairly treated by the media (52% of Republicans think the media coverage of the sexual allegations is unfair, compared to 20% of Democrats).

...

The differences between the parties are even more dramatic when the question turns directly to politics. Most voters in both parties agree that a Democratic congressman accused of sexual harassment should resign from office (71% of Republicans and 74% of Democrats). But when the accused congressman is a member of the GOP, just 54% of Republicans demand a resignation, compared to 82% of Democrats.

I wonder what explains this. — Michael

Double standards...

Gods were/are inventions of the imagination. They fill in all the gaps of our knowledge. God did it.

To try and maintain that QM is just an invention, causality is just a fact, is conflating an epistemic linguistic register with an ontic linguistic register.

It makes no sense. And that incoherence would indeed explain why your posts just seem a confused babble - the sound of naive realism wrestling with its own demons to no useful end. — apokrisis

This would be a devastating reply, if it wasn't based upon something other than what I've been arguing. Then, it could even be true. But alas, it was and so it cannot.

It's always easiest to argue against someone else by first misrepresenting what they've said. Looks like this exchange has come to an end...

Til next time apo...

Cheers!

we have no reason to think that the world wasn't always "QM". — apokrisis

There it is yet again!

And likewise causality didn't exist before we invented/discovered/modelled it - at least not as an articulated conception. — apokrisis

There's the conflation... full faced!

QM is our invention. Causality is not.
— creativesoul

And so you dumbly repeat something that I never said? I said classical physics might give us one model of causality. QM might give us another.

And I wouldn't call a model an "invention" exactly. It might be a free creation of the mind, but it also has to show itself to work in the real world. It is not yet clear whether you would dispute or agree with this obvious qualification. — apokrisis

Yes, some models work better than others.

Some models - and this is what I'm pointing out - are of that which exists in it's entirety prior to the model. Causality is one such thing. QM is not. QM is the model...

So, I've never claimed that you said that. I'm pointing out that you need to think about it.

Follow the logic.

QM is math. Math is language. QM is existentially dependent upon language. Causality is not. QM cannot be prior to causality. In order for something to emerge from something else more fundamental, then that something else more fundamental must exist prior to what emerges from it.

Causality cannot emerge from QM.

:wink:

Hey, we agree upon something!

In what way am I failing to distinguish between model and world by drawing close attention to the mediating role played by "the report"?

The sign (or measurement, observation, witness statement, report, fact) is the basis of the semiotic mechanism by which the model and the world are kept apart, and thus why they can then stand in some relation. — apokrisis

And my reply is that we did invent a classical model of causality. And now a quantum model would challenge its predictions. — apokrisis

And we already know it must be the more fundamental model, classicality merely being the emergent description. — apokrisis

In those ways...

Causality is not a description. QM is.

Where is the distinction between your report of causality and causality drawn and maintained? It's not there. Failing to draw and maintain that distinction has led you to claim that that which exists prior to something else emerged from that something else... which is utterly impossible.

Causality did not emerge from QM.

QM did not exist - in it's entirety - prior to our discovery. Causality does. QM is existentially dependent upon language. Causality is not. QM is our invention. Causality is not.

Is mathematics real 'in and of itself'? I would have thought that it is inextricably bound to the act of calculation. I don't presume to present any kind of answer to such conundrums, but I do say, without much equivocation, that maths is powerful and the ability to 'do math' is behind a great deal of human invention and discovery. — Wayfarer

No doubt. Math is language. Language is powerful.

Nice essay. I sped read but was left with distinct impression. I like the notion he skirted around throughout the paper...

How our framework will largely determine what things we pay attention to and how.

This bit caught my attention...

A much more difficult and confusing situation would arise if we could, some day, establish a theory of the phenomena of consciousness, or of biology, which would be as coherent and convincing as our present theories of the inanimate world.

Of course you know why....

Math doesn't do anything.
— creativesoul

What do you mean, 'do'? — Wayfarer

How many options are there given the context? It has no ability - in and of itself - to do anything.

Have you ever encountered Eugene Wigner's essay, The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences? It was one of the first things I encountered when I started posting on forums. All grist to the Platonist mill, as far as I'm concerned. — Wayfarer

I haven't. Math is effective as a result of it's rigid definitions. 2+2=4 and it always will because we will not let it be any different. Math is not real in the sense of existing in it's entirety prior to our inventing it. I'll go check out that essay...

How could I be conflating the model with the reality when I am talking about our models of reality? — apokrisis

Incoherency...

Next?

You want to claim that you're not... then draw and maintain the distinction between causality and a report thereof. Then, do the same with QM...

What I was taking issue with was the first sentence: that maths doesn't do anything observable. It makes predictions, which are then validated against observation. So maybe pure maths doesn't 'do anything observable', but mathematical physics does a great deal. — Wayfarer

I can understand how that could be a statement hard to agree with. It's true though.

In the context, it was a direct reply to apo claiming "with quantum mechanics, what is witnessed..." That is nonsense talk. Apo glosses over too many clear problems and/or refutations. We can do all kinds of stuff with math. Math doesn't do anything. Same with words. The point I was making is a basic one. I offered adequate argument against the notion that QM is fundamental to causality. Apo ignored all of it.

Yep, so you are making some confused epistemic point about our models of reality. — apokrisis

The point is clear, and not at all confusing or confused...

Pots and kettles...

I'm pointing out the inherent conflation in your position, namely that you're not drawing the distinction between your report and what's being reported upon(causality, in this case). Sometimes there is no relevant difference, as with QM. Other times, there is a substantial difference, as with causality.

To hold that QM is the basis of causality is asinine. We could debate this if you like. There's a forum for it.

For all these reasons and more, I think it is utter nonsense to talk about effects/influences happening before their cause.

Probability presupposes causality. It is nothing more than a mathematical description borne of our ignorance regarding all of the different influences in the causal chain of events.

Quantum mechanics is math. Math is language. Quantum mechanics is the language used as a means to describe specific observational results. Quantum mechanics is existentially dependent upon simpler maths.

Causality is not.

...especially dissipative thermodynamical ones, such as river branching and coastline erosion... — apokrisis

Yeah.

There's an interesting correlation...

:smirk:

Fractals are prior to any mathematical story.

Your effort to measure a system becomes so strenuous that at some point it produces such an energy density that the whole region of spacetime is going to collapse into a black hole. — apokrisis

:rofl:

A model of our invention is not something that causality can be.

I would warn here against conflating a report(conception if you prefer) of something with that something. The two are not always the same thing. Sometimes they're virtually indistinct. Sometimes that something exists in it's entirety prior to our very first report of and/or on it.

Causality is one such thing. Quantum mechanics is not.

The superposition of states is rubbish. It does not follow from the fact that an electron is always found within a predictable range of probable locations that it is everywhere it can be at the same time.

Quantum Entanglement intrigues me though...