Philosophy Discussion Forums

Hey, everyone, chill.

Meleagar has offered some perspectives that you may not agree with. No big deal.

As indeed have I.

The point is, while I'm at this forum (basically, very short time, then I'll be gone), why not ask some helpful questions that you would like answered.

Sieze the day (I won't carp on about it).

Otherwise, done gone. None the wiser.

Meleagar #229 21 April wrote

A person with free will might be able to manifest an event that defies description by certain models, but in the light of quantum theory that would be a tall order to accomplish, since under quantum theory it's entirely possible for collective fluctuations of quantum events to do virtually anything at any time, like transform a human into a rabbit or make the statue of liberty disappear.

It is possible that a human be transformed into a rabbit and that the Statue of Liberty disappear.But this is not a short linear causal chain between subatomic events and those macro-events. For the species change there would be developments over vast times including evolution of species.

Some vast geological event like a huge volcano erupting could make the S of L disappear. The Yellowstone River area and the States all around are actually due for this to happen,with megadeath to animals + vegetation although the killer dust probably wont get as far as the S of L.Certainly subatomic events will be implicated how could they not be? Not any amount of human will power can turn aside the power of volcanos. But to imply that an unexpected and perhaps unpredictable transformation is directly due to nothing but subatomic events is not true except in the case of nuclear fission.

**********************

The Belief Doctor, I selected medieval beliefs because modern science is so very much closer in time to the medieval period than to much more ancient times when there were theories involving e.g. a giant turtle carrying the world. Plus because the flat Earth fallacy is usually trotted out to show how much cleverer we scientific folk are than the backward medievals---- a position thankfully being deserted now.

Belinda wrote:
It is possible that a human be transformed into a rabbit and that the Statue of Liberty disappear.But this is not a short linear causal chain between subatomic events and those macro-events.

Yes, it can be. Under current understanding, there is absolutely nothing that prevents such an instantaneous large-scale quantum organizations. That such seeming aberrations to the normal course of events do not seem to occur very often is described by current science as a statistical matter, not a matter of physical laws which prevent it from occurring.

It is really not even understood why the macro world follows the consistent, reliable patterns that it does, considering that cause and effect breaks down at the quantum level. One must remember that the so-called "physical laws" are not physical constraints, they are only descriptions of patterns of observed behavior. For the most part, anomalous events are simply ignored.

The Belief Doctor wrote:

Meleagar wrote:


Yes, there are variations within groups, communities, nations, and the global dynamic, but that alien might conclude that as a global culture, we're at _______________phase of development.

What is that phase?

Cheers,
Steve

Using my innate psychic abilities, my conclusion is that I agree with your own answer to this question.

Meleagar wrote

One must remember that the so-called "physical laws" are not physical constraints, they are only descriptions of patterns of observed behavior.

I agree. David Hume said so too of causality; you cant get much better than that.

But that QM relies upon statistical evidence for translating its facts into macro level facts does not thereby exclude QM from the deterministic sciences.Nor does it exclude paranormal events from being dealt with by some deterministic science. In the case of noncausal healing the science is parapsychology.

Anomalies are not so much accepted by scientists and other sceptics as undeterministic, i.e. matters of originating powers (i.e. 'miracles') as matters that remain in the paranomal in-tray.I hope, Meleagar, for the sake of clarity, that you don't consider 'paranormal' to mean the same as 'supernatural' or 'miraculous'.

Meleagar also wrote in the same post

It is really not even understood why the macro world follows the consistent, reliable patterns that it does, considering that cause and effect breaks down at the quantum level.

True for all metaphysical systems which are ultimately faith-based. Your main observation shows how metaphysics goes beyond science into pure speculation and perhaps into faith. Your moderating clause does not follow from your main observation. I'd have as a moderating clause
'considering that human intelligence is limited to a few innate abilities and learning through our veil of our senses.'

Belinda wrote:
Meleagar also wrote in the same post

It is really not even understood why the macro world follows the consistent, reliable patterns that it does, considering that cause and effect breaks down at the quantum level.

True for all metaphysical systems which are ultimately faith-based. Your main observation shows how metaphysics goes beyond science into pure speculation and perhaps into faith. Your moderating clause does not follow from your main observation. I'd have as a moderating clause
'considering that human intelligence is limited to a few innate abilities and learning through our veil of our senses.'

First of all, Meleager is in no position to assert that "it is not really understood ..." as that would requires knowledge of what everyone understands and intuitively knows.

Secondly, if we start with the assumption of knowledge (the means by which one gains intuitive insights), then we learn how infinite potentials 'collapse' into lived, finite experience. Fractals are one of the latticeworks by which this occurrs - as explained in some detail in my book Be and Become, fractals are a visible interface between the infinite and the finite.

Finally, all the key theorem of physics and mathematics (to wit, Godel's Incompleteness, Turing's Uncomputability, Heisenberg's Uncertainty, and Chaitin's Randomness Theorems) point to the ultimately irreducible (non-deterministic) nature of deep reality. Thus, in a sense, all of life, including all the hardest of facts 'unfold' from a fluid, superposition of states (which in turn arise from unlimited fields of potential and intent).

In other words, desire, intent, faith, expectation are the driving forces for all of experienced reality. (quick test: is there anything that you can do, without first desiring it to occur)? Rhetorical question.

As for science finding deterministic causes for things ... that's been well and truly put to rest, following Alain Aspect's experimental confirmation of Bell's Theorem, "The most profound discovery of science".

As physicist Nick Herbert explains "Whatever reality may be, it must be non-local. Since (Clauser’s) experimental verification of Bell’s theorem, we know that any correct model of reality has to incorporate explicit non-local connections. No local reality can explain the type of world we live in."

And recent work by others has confirmed that nonlocal 'hidden variables' won't cut it either.

Meta-physicality (as in the literal meaning of 'meta' and 'physicality') is the deeper ground of physical reality.

Well, at least until some breaks the Uncertainty principle, and Godel's Theorem, and ...



As Prof. Richard Conn Henry concludes (see the Belief Institute website article 'A clearer light), "The universe is entirely mental... Physics cannot help anyone from this point onwards. You may, if you wish, descend into solipsism (but do be careful not to blush); or, you can expand to the Deism of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Adams and Thomas Jefferson and the other non-Christian founders of America; or … something else, if you can justify it—just don’t ask physics for help!"

Thus, the next and ultimate fronteer is metaphysics.

Steaphen

First of all, Meleager is in no position to assert that "it is not really understood ..." as that would requires knowledge of what everyone understands and intuitively knows

I try to ignore it when someone uses passive voice in the interest of getting on with the conversation.

all the key theorem of physics and mathematics (to wit, Godel's Incompleteness, Turing's Uncomputability, Heisenberg's Uncertainty, and Chaitin's Randomness Theorems) point to the ultimately irreducible (non-deterministic) nature of deep reality. Thus, in a sense, all of life, including all the hardest of facts 'unfold' from a fluid, superposition of states (which in turn arise from unlimited fields of potential and intent).

Linear determinism is not the same as the version of determinism that recognises that many connections are lawlike, not linear.As in:

The end point of lawlike determinism is existence itself.any correct model of reality has to incorporate explicit non-local connections. No local reality can explain the type of world we live in."

In other words, desire, intent, faith, expectation are the driving forces for all of experienced reality. (quick test: is there anything that you can do, without first desiring it to occur)? Rhetorical question.

Those motivations are functions of what Spinoza called conatus. Without conatus no form of being can survive long.

As for science finding deterministic causes for things ... that's been well and truly put to rest, following Alain Aspect's experimental confirmation of Bell's Theorem, "The most profound discovery of science".

My knowledge of the nature of science is based on David Chalmers 'What Is This Thing Called Science?'. I chose Popper with a nod to Kuhn.There is probably more I have to learn/

And recent work by others has confirmed that nonlocal 'hidden variables' won't cut it either.

Isn't Chaos Theory a hidden variable of a sort?
'The universe is entirely mental' like 'The spirit of god moved over the waters'(Genesis) puts spirit in the primal position. But unless there is some creation from spirit, spirit cannot exist either.No,I claim that mind and extended matter are interdependent, two aspects of the same.

Belinda wrote: My knowledge of the nature of science is based on David Chalmers 'What Is This Thing Called Science?'. I chose Popper with a nod to Kuhn.There is probably more I have to learn/

And recent work by others has confirmed that nonlocal 'hidden variables' won't cut it either.

Isn't Chaos Theory a hidden variable of a sort?
'The universe is entirely mental' like 'The spirit of god moved over the waters'(Genesis) puts spirit in the primal position. But unless there is some creation from spirit, spirit cannot exist either.No,I claim that mind and extended matter are interdependent, two aspects of the same.

Chaos Theory, in basic terms, is a deterministic model, not based on quantum theory, and thus of limited application (similar to Newtonian mechanics), despite it successes.

As for Popper, Chalmers, Kuhn et al. I've largely ignored them. I seem to recall Bronowski? quoting a physicist "I'm now convinced quantum physics is actual philosophy" ... so in that sense QP is closer in real terms to the causal processes/impetuses of life.

As for mind-matter divide, that only indicates our relatively superficial depth of understanding. Native cultures have had strong traditions of intuiting the spiritual aspects of matter. Combined with technological/rational abilities, a intuitive-analytic combination is the future development of our race.

Technologically, we've gone (if not too far) then far enough. Now we're needing a deeper intuitive (nonlocal) sense of how to apply technology wisely, and sustainably.

At least that's what I sense. When one views the world as a living dynamic (including that of 'inanimate' matter), then the global events of recent years starts to fit a pattern. Nature will work, and is now working, to correct imbalances. Unfortunately, that correction may entail our demise, but I believe Nature is benevolent and will work to include us (by virtue of us being a part of Nature).

TheBeliefDoctor said: "In other words, desire, intent, faith, expectation are the driving forces for all of experienced reality. (quick test: is there anything that you can do, without first desiring it to occur)?"

My "quick test" answer; Sure, many things: see, hear, breathe, sleep ... etc. Intend not to do these things and see how experienced reality responds.

Felix wrote:TheBeliefDoctor said: "In other words, desire, intent, faith, expectation are the driving forces for all of experienced reality. (quick test: is there anything that you can do, without first desiring it to occur)?"

My "quick test" answer; Sure, many things: see, hear, breathe, sleep ... etc. Intend not to do these things and see how experienced reality responds.

That quick test (for those not quite catching the intent) was (in more detail): Is there anything you can do without first expecting, desiring, intending, having faith that it will occur?

did you have any intent or expectation that you can see?

If you answer in the negative, that makes you a victim, of who or what, who knows, since it won't be you that knows (as you're a victim).

"If you answer in the negative, that makes you a victim, of who or what, who knows, since it won't be you that knows (as you're a victim)."

Yes indeed, It seems that I must continue to breath, eat and sleep if I want to stay alive, regardless of whether or not I desire or intend to do these things. If that makes me a victim, then so be it. I take it that you are not a "victim," that if you do not desire or intend to do these things, you will not have to?

Felix wrote:"If you answer in the negative, that makes you a victim, of who or what, who knows, since it won't be you that knows (as you're a victim)."

Yes indeed, It seems that I must continue to breath, eat and sleep if I want to stay alive, regardless of whether or not I desire or intend to do these things. If that makes me a victim, then so be it. I take it that you are not a "victim," that if you do not desire or intend to do these things, you will not have to?

'Victim' was perhaps a poor choice of word. The extent to which many have habituated the expectation of 'normal living' goes mostly unnoticed. But there are those sufficiently skilled to slow, and if it is their wont, to stop their hearts.

If we do not have conscious intent, as an integral part of our experience, then we remain 'victim' to forces, or probabilities that must be entirely disconnected from our nonlocal awareness and ability to choose accordingly.

In an interconnected existence, that becomes rather difficult. In other words, on some level, we're aware, and thus make conscious choices to either engage those probabilities or avoid them.

Hence the integral role of intention, choice, desire, faith ... conscious volition for the reality we experience.

There are obviously limits to what probabilities we can help congeal into physicality, but nonetheless, we're still aware and able to choose our circumstances.

I think it was Victor Frankl who wrote that the last human capacity (that can't be destroyed), is the freedom to choose our attitude, irrespective of circumstances. Which still comes down to desire (to choose our attitude).

I suppose my earlier statement about 'doing anything' should have more correctly referred to Frankl's point, of choosing our state of mind (hence the fundamental cause of desire, expectation ... etc).

The Belief Doctor wrote

Technologically, we've gone (if not too far) then far enough. Now we're needing a deeper intuitive (nonlocal) sense of how to apply technology wisely, and sustainably.

At least that's what I sense. When one views the world as a living dynamic (including that of 'inanimate' matter), then the global events of recent years starts to fit a pattern. Nature will work, and is now working, to correct imbalances. Unfortunately, that correction may entail our demise, but I believe Nature is benevolent and will work to include us (by virtue of us being a part of Nature).

Yes, Yes, and Yes. But nature is not benevolent. Attributing benevolence to nature is an anthropomorphic fallacy.Benevolence pertains to mankind and in a more limited way to all the higher mammals.

One question about QM: when statistical significance is inferred from QM experiments and observations is this inference not as deterministic as when deterministic process is inferred from significant results of experiments and observations of macro events?

Belinda wrote:The Belief Doctor wrote

Technologically, we've gone (if not too far) then far enough. Now we're needing a deeper intuitive (nonlocal) sense of how to apply technology wisely, and sustainably.

At least that's what I sense. When one views the world as a living dynamic (including that of 'inanimate' matter), then the global events of recent years starts to fit a pattern. Nature will work, and is now working, to correct imbalances. Unfortunately, that correction may entail our demise, but I believe Nature is benevolent and will work to include us (by virtue of us being a part of Nature).

Yes, Yes, and Yes. But nature is not benevolent. Attributing benevolence to nature is an anthropomorphic fallacy.Benevolence pertains to mankind and in a more limited way to all the higher mammals.

One question about QM: when statistical significance is inferred from QM experiments and observations is this inference not as deterministic as when deterministic process is inferred from significant results of experiments and observations of macro events?

Hi Belinda,

You ask good questions.

As for nature, if nature is not benevolent, then neither is mankind. As within the part, so within the whole. For one to be benevolent, while the other is not implies a disconnect that is, in deeper terms, non-sensical (what is the gap between the part and the whole? Rhetorical question: there is none).

as for QM, the statistical nature is due to the downward causation of crowds, groups, gestalts. And that's it, nothing more.

In other words, particles and people behave the way the do because of peer-group pressure -- if you were to observe a large crowd of people, it would behave statistically (which is what insurance companies heavily rely on).

That's QM in a nut-shell. All the way up, all the way down.

Galaxies distribute themselves fractally. Same principle.

In a nonlocally interconnected existence, self-organising systems occur throughout all levels of physically.

How could it be otherwise? Another rhetorical question.

Why not put it this way:

"Every person has a Buddha nature" ?

******

In other words, particles and people behave the way the do because of peer-group pressure -- if you were to observe a large crowd of people, it would behave statistically (which is what insurance companies heavily rely on).

Insurance companies, yes. I always like a concrete forinstance. But are not insurance companies at least as attached to causation of events as predictors as anyone else? It's simple inductionism, isn't it?