Philosophy Discussion Forums

Jester Gren wrote:But even what happens can be evaluated by logic. I think intuition is one of the most useful skills, I have not had much experience though. I think they are trying to make a real fourth dimension out of these observations, the field physics is obviously searching for some definition of it.

If particles do travel backward in time it might help explain how people make inductive as well as deductive decisions, deja vu, and other mental phenomena.

Agree. The idea that influences connect (across) time, or at-once in the unlimited fullness of 'now', explains heaps ... well, not much doesn't make sense with that world-view.

For those interested:

"Your precognitive awareness of your probable futures helps you to make choices that will lead to that reality" (Jane Roberts, Unknown Reality: Vol. 1)

If you want to read from the major source of much of the new-age movement, read "the nature of personal reality'
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1878424068
Typical comments from Amazon about this book "No philosophy on earth, and I've read a lot of the stuff, comes near the cohesiveness of Seth", or "The material in this book is absolutely timeless," and "It is by far and away the most profound, mind-boggling work I have ever encountered." and so on.

As plenty have recognised, many new-age authors have based their books on this material.

I have yet to find any other material that comes even close.

The Belief Doctor wrote

I wouldn't know what philosophers and theologians actually think - as a general rule I don't much pay attention to their views and opinions. I sense they were left behind in the wake of quantum physics. I've seen far more eloquent, powerful, spiritual insights coming from physicists than philosophers. In my opinion, first are writers & poets, then physicists, spiritual teachers, and the occasional theologian (Bishop Spong comes to mind) ... then probably the wisdom of crowds, then maybe philosophers, theologians, scientists and last, and least wise, atheists.

And then goes on to say in effect that Free Will is a matter for poets , physicists, or Bishop Jack Spong rather than philosophers.

My response to this from The Belief Doctor is that I have never seen a reasoned discussion of ontological Free Will with philosophically rigorous terminology from any of these people.

Belinda wrote:The Belief Doctor wrote

I wouldn't know what philosophers and theologians actually think - as a general rule I don't much pay attention to their views and opinions. I sense they were left behind in the wake of quantum physics. I've seen far more eloquent, powerful, spiritual insights coming from physicists than philosophers. In my opinion, first are writers & poets, then physicists, spiritual teachers, and the occasional theologian (Bishop Spong comes to mind) ... then probably the wisdom of crowds, then maybe philosophers, theologians, scientists and last, and least wise, atheists.

And then goes on to say in effect that Free Will is a matter for poets , physicists, or Bishop Jack Spong rather than philosophers.

My response to this from The Belief Doctor is that I have never seen a reasoned discussion of ontological Free Will with philosophically rigorous terminology from any of these people.

Well, by all means have yourself a "reasoned discussion of ontological Free Will ..." but for the important stuff, I'll defer to those who live big, passionately embracing the deep marrow of life (poets, writers, artists, entrepreneurs), in conjunction with some good gear from physicists.

Meleagar wrote:

Marabod wrote: These guys are just neanderthals from a scientific point of view, do not become like them!

I think that dismissing Nobel Prize winning quantum physicists as "neanderthals" might be something of a mistake when one is discussing quantum physics.

Mel, I was not dismissing anyone! Please, provide the reference of the original works of the physicists you have mentioned, for me to see if I am dismissing them or not. So far you are (as a profane in QM) quoting the opinions of the other profanes on what these physicists allegendly said - but science is not based on something said by someone, it is based on Mathematical models! If you refer to some statement as "scientific" you better be ready to present its Mathematical form! The hint: e=mc^2.

Reality check shows, that long-mulled Schroedinger's cat boils down to a single phrase by Schroedinger in his 1932 essay (not in his scientific work!), and in the same phrase the same Schroedinger calls it a joke... The quote was posted here by Mr Saint - to prove to me that the cat was a "thought experiment" bwa-hahahaha.

Marabod wrote:- but science is not based on something said by someone, it is based on Mathematical models! If you refer to some statement as "scientific" you better be ready to present its Mathematical form! The hint: e=mc^2.

Reality check shows, that long-mulled Schroedinger's cat boils down to a single phrase by Schroedinger in his 1932 essay (not in his scientific work!), and in the same phrase the same Schroedinger calls it a joke... The quote was posted here by Mr Saint - to prove to me that the cat was a "thought experiment" bwa-hahahaha.

Uhm, I would have thought good science was based on observation of the data, then proposing theories to account for said data. Is there any particular evidence that deep reality must comply to some mathematical formula? You are presumably aware of Godel's Theorems, and the limits to mathematical expressions.

I have no trouble with the idea that deep reality, beyond however many dimensions of substrata one looks, is 'immathematical' spontaneously forming into higher level frameworks or latticeworks, that do comply with various mathematical formula.

But only because we all choose to abide by said formula (e.g. the behaviour of individuals within crowds).

This is where again one is best to defer to those living spontaneously, as they intuitively rely and relish the 'immathematical' nature of life. Listen to them if you want deep philosophical insights into life.

As for Erwin's cat, it remains a paradox due to the profound implications of superpositions. I'm not sure what mathematics you would need beyond the vast volumes of mathematical material relating to quantum theory. I would have thought most here didn't need to discuss the detail of wave-functions and the like, having understood enough to enable good discussion of the implications thereof.

btw, re your "you better be ready to present its Mathematical form! The hint: e=mc^2."

Would it behove you to get the equation right? I recall from memory that it is e = mc^2/Square root(1-v^2/c^2)

The Belief Doctor wrote:

Marabod wrote:- but science is not based on something said by someone, it is based on Mathematical models! If you refer to some statement as "scientific" you better be ready to present its Mathematical form! The hint: e=mc^2.

Reality check shows, that long-mulled Schroedinger's cat boils down to a single phrase by Schroedinger in his 1932 essay (not in his scientific work!), and in the same phrase the same Schroedinger calls it a joke... The quote was posted here by Mr Saint - to prove to me that the cat was a "thought experiment" bwa-hahahaha.

Uhm, I would have thought good science was based on observation of the data, then proposing theories to account for said data. Is there any particular evidence that deep reality must comply to some mathematical formula? You are presumably aware of Godel's Theorems, and the limits to mathematical expressions.

I have no trouble with the idea that deep reality, beyond however many dimensions of substrata one looks, is 'immathematical' spontaneously forming into higher level frameworks or latticeworks, that do comply with various mathematical formula.

But only because we all choose to abide by said formula (e.g. the behaviour of individuals within crowds).

This is where again one is best to defer to those living spontaneously, as they intuitively rely and relish the 'immathematical' nature of life. Listen to them if you want deep philosophical insights into life.

As for Erwin's cat, it remains a paradox due to the profound implications of superpositions. I'm not sure what mathematics you would need beyond the vast volumes of mathematical material relating to quantum theory. I would have thought most here didn't need to discuss the detail of wave-functions and the like, having understood enough to enable good discussion of the implications thereof.

btw, re your "you better be ready to present its Mathematical form! The hint: e=mc^2."

Would it behove you to get the equation right? I recall from memory that it is e = mc^2/Square root(1-v^2/c^2)

If good science is based on direct observation, then I am involved in a bad science, as direct observation in Physical Chemistry gives no scientific results. Same as in Quantum Mechanics. We do not "observe", we control parameters and record the changes in them. These changes then (after the experiment) are reviewed retrospectively, and the conclusions are made of what exactly was happening during the experiment.

Science and Mathematics are inseparable, and no science exists outside of mathematically described models. In order to prove the opposite, one must demonstrate some law from some fundamental or even applied science, which is used as formulated in words, not in the equations. The rules and some principles can be indeed formulated in words, such as Le Chatelier Principle, but they are not the laws as such, but only a generic representation of these laws, covering a variety of "similar" cases.

E=mc^2 is what is contained in the last lines of Einstein's own lectures on Special Relativity, it is a Law; the equation you are bringing in is containing a velocity evaluation v^2/c^2, and in case if v=c it makes no sense as e becomes equal to infinity... You may as well spend a time explaining for which cases such form may serve, as a formula without explanations of what it means possesses no sense, same as a word, written in an encoded alphabet.

Marabod wrote: If good science is based on direct observation, then I am involved in a bad science, as direct observation in Physical Chemistry gives no scientific results.

Science and Mathematics are inseparable, and no science exists outside of mathematically described models. In order to prove the opposite, one must demonstrate some law from some fundamental or even applied science, which is used as formulated in words, not in the equations. The rules and some principles can be indeed formulated in words, such as Le Chatelier Principle, but they are not the laws as such, but only a generic representation of these laws, covering a variety of "similar" cases.

E=mc^2 is what is contained in the last lines of Einstein's own lectures on Special Relativity, it is a Law; the equation you are bringing in is containing a velocity evaluation v^2/c^2, and in case if v=c it makes no sense as e becomes equal to infinity... You may as well spend a time explaining for which cases such form may serve, as a formula without explanations of what it means possesses no sense, same as a word, written in an encoded alphabet.

Dear me,

What is it that causes people to misquote?

I said "observation of data" ... when is that not applicable?

Please name one mathematical theorem (just one) that is NOT based on some axiom (assumption). Once again, you are familiar with Godel (and Turing's Uncomputibility, Heisenberg's Uncertainty, and Chaitin's Randomness Theorems). E.g. Chaitin. "Some mathematical facts
are true for no reason, they're true by accident!" ( http://www.cs.umaine.edu/~chaitin/summer.html)

Science, did you say? All based on assumptions.

Again, what evidence do you have that supports your assumptions that deep reality is mathematical?

It's a rhetorical question. There is none, beyond further assumptions that there is, or would be evidence. That's the beauty of the infinite and genuine free-will (not sure what the philosophers bang on about, but free-will in the quantum space is FREE, big-time. Things happen for no logical reason at all. Pure, unadulterated 'magic'.)

As for e=mc^2. the equation that was given mc^2/sqrt (1-v^2/c^2) is correct (I've since checked). If v->c, then the energy becomes infinite. Correct. That is why normal physical things cannot get to, or exceed the speed of light. If v=0, then you get the standard e=mc^2. Correct. But this getting into the detail of mathematics is not of interest. Let's move on.

"It's a rhetorical question. There is none, beyond further assumptions that there is, or would be evidence. That's the beauty of the infinite and genuine free-will (not sure what the philosophers bang on about, but free-will in the quantum space is FREE, big-time. Things happen for no logical reason at all. Pure, unadulterated 'magic'.)"

"But this getting into the detail of mathematics is not of interest. Let's move on."

The point of Mathematics is to better explain the "unadulterated/magical" world we live in, you are suggesting that this is not worth our time. I get the feeling you would rather connect with writers, but this discussion is based on physics.

Jester Gren wrote:"It's a rhetorical question. There is none, beyond further assumptions that there is, or would be evidence. That's the beauty of the infinite and genuine free-will (not sure what the philosophers bang on about, but free-will in the quantum space is FREE, big-time. Things happen for no logical reason at all. Pure, unadulterated 'magic'.)"

"But this getting into the detail of mathematics is not of interest. Let's move on."

The point of Mathematics is to better explain the "unadulterated/magical" world we live in, you are suggesting that this is not worth our time. I get the feeling you would rather connect with writers, but this discussion is based on physics.

Absolutely, writers AND physicists. Artists and real scientists, who else you gonna call? (just joking .. maybe

Agree, mathematics is to better explain the world we live in, up to a point. Then who you gonna call? Back to the artists, poets, songwriter-musicians and physicists for the important stuff.

Remember in "Contact" when Jodie Foster was in awe of the cosmos ... "They should have sent a poet". She (the characterI) knew enough to admit her limitations.

The Belief Doctor wrote:

Marabod wrote: If good science is based on direct observation, then I am involved in a bad science, as direct observation in Physical Chemistry gives no scientific results.

Science and Mathematics are inseparable, and no science exists outside of mathematically described models. In order to prove the opposite, one must demonstrate some law from some fundamental or even applied science, which is used as formulated in words, not in the equations. The rules and some principles can be indeed formulated in words, such as Le Chatelier Principle, but they are not the laws as such, but only a generic representation of these laws, covering a variety of "similar" cases.

E=mc^2 is what is contained in the last lines of Einstein's own lectures on Special Relativity, it is a Law; the equation you are bringing in is containing a velocity evaluation v^2/c^2, and in case if v=c it makes no sense as e becomes equal to infinity... You may as well spend a time explaining for which cases such form may serve, as a formula without explanations of what it means possesses no sense, same as a word, written in an encoded alphabet.

Dear me,

What is it that causes people to misquote?

I said "observation of data" ... when is that not applicable?

Please name one mathematical theorem (just one) that is NOT based on some axiom (assumption). Once again, you are familiar with Godel (and Turing's Uncomputibility, Heisenberg's Uncertainty, and Chaitin's Randomness Theorems). E.g. Chaitin. "Some mathematical facts
are true for no reason, they're true by accident!" ( http://www.cs.umaine.edu/~chaitin/summer.html)

Science, did you say? All based on assumptions.

Again, what evidence do you have that supports your assumptions that deep reality is mathematical?

It's a rhetorical question. There is none, beyond further assumptions that there is, or would be evidence. That's the beauty of the infinite and genuine free-will (not sure what the philosophers bang on about, but free-will in the quantum space is FREE, big-time. Things happen for no logical reason at all. Pure, unadulterated 'magic'.)

As for e=mc^2. the equation that was given mc^2/sqrt (1-v^2/c^2) is correct (I've since checked). If v->c, then the energy becomes infinite. Correct. That is why normal physical things cannot get to, or exceed the speed of light. If v=0, then you get the standard e=mc^2. Correct. But this getting into the detail of mathematics is not of interest. Let's move on.

You confuse assumption and axiom, I would suggest you to check the dictionary! Axiom is not an assumption at all, it is a statement which does not require any special proof due to it being OBVIOUS. The simple axiom would be "humans have two legs", and the factories making shoes are basing their production planning on this axiom. Yes, some people may present a special case of having 1 leg or having none at all, but this would be an exception from the rule, which the shoemakers do not take into account.

Assumption would be a mental construct, SUGGESTING that the things are exactly as the assuming person describes or envisions them.

Thus, an axiom is OBJECTIVE (exists independently from an observer) while an assumption is SUBJECTIVE (entirely depends of the observer).

Axioms are valid only in the framework of certain condition. For example, the axiom of parallelism by Euclides is ONLY applicable to the Euclidian spaces, and is not applicable to the spaces of Lobachevsky. Mathematics only uses the axioms when they are APPLICABLE - and it uses the assumptions ONLY as some temporary agreed on statements, needed for the purposes of proving some certain result, which themselves would be ONLY valid provided the assumption has been proven true.

Math DOES NOT use any assumptions at all as a base of some conclusion - if such assumption appears in the heading of some Mathematical theory, this assumption plays a role of a caveat emptor, a disclaimer, and specifies that the theory WOULD BE TRUE only if the initial assumption was a fact, was PROVEN as a fact (see wiki for a definition of a fact).

Just to explain the past - e=mc^2 is a Law of Special Relativity. This Law acts as valid in the Newtonian Inertial Reference Frame. In such frame the full energy of any (ANY!) material body can be calculated using this formula. If (IF!) the reference frame is not Newtonian, and a body MOVES in this reference frame with a speed v, somehow COMPARABLE to the speed of Light c, THEN its full energy would be calculated by the formula you brought in. We all (all?) know that General Relativity as a completed Theory does not exist. Moreover, we know that Science does not even target to establish it, instead the Science was since 1920s targeting the Unified Field Theory - as Relativity in a general form is (in common language) a mess. The formula, demonstrated by you has no practical implications at all, at least to date - and this is one of the reasons why the Large Hadrone Collider was built for several billion Euros, but it still does not work, alas.

Your question about some my "proofs" of some "assumptions" of Math validity about some "deep reality" makes no practical sense - as in all fairness, this validity in no way relies on your personal opinion - and if the computer, through which you are publishing these your bizarre doubts, is not a proof of this validity for you, then one can hardly present to you this proof at all. Just imagine yourself in a world, built on your own with no mathematical "assumptions" - you would be not able to even publish these your doubts, as all what you have in your world would be wax candle, a piece of parchment and a stylus from your favourite gender.

Marabod wrote:
You confuse assumption and axiom, I would suggest you to check the dictionary!

Crikey,

From Wikipedia, not that that is any great authority, but it'll suffice.

"an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident,"

"NOT proved, or demonstrated." (i.e. assumed to be true)

Did you know that when they hanged all those witches in Salem in 1692, it was all so very self-evident that they were witches.

Marabod wrote:Math DOES NOT use any assumptions at all...

Is that right.

Marabod wrote: Just to explain the past - e=mc^2 is a Law of Special Relativity. This Law acts as valid in the Newtonian Inertial Reference Frame. In such frame the full energy of any (ANY!) material body can be calculated using this formula. If (IF!) the reference frame is not Newtonian, and a body MOVES in this reference frame with a speed v, somehow COMPARABLE to the speed of Light c,

Uhm, err, when is anything perfectly stationary (anywhere in the universe)?

Marabod wrote:Just imagine yourself in a world, built on your own with no mathematical "assumptions" - you would be not able to even publish these your doubts, as all what you have in your world would be wax candle, a piece of parchment and a stylus from your favourite gender.

Double crikey. "in a world, built on your own" ... why would I want to imagine that? Co-creation is the go.

As for the rest, must away ...
Cheers,

The Belief Doctor wrote

Well, by all means have yourself a "reasoned discussion of ontological Free Will ..." but for the important stuff, I'll defer to those who live big, passionately embracing the deep marrow of life (poets, writers, artists, entrepreneurs), in conjunction with some good gear from physicists.

But passionate poets,artists,entrepreneurs, and scientists can and do sometimes write their philosophical ideas in prose, sometimes in poetry, sometimes in paintings.

John Keats, one of the more earthily sensuous and passionate poets wrote down his philosophical thoughts in both poetry and prose.So did Coleridge although he did his in poetic language ans sermons while he was a Unitarian minister. William Blake expressed his social/moral critiques in poems, rather difficult prose, and paintings.I mean I can provide a long list of poets who are also philosophers and who express philosophical ideas in poems. It is a poor poet whose ideas are nothing but pretty wallpaper.

I would like to know of a good poet, scientist or painter who discusses Free Will and determinism. At this moment I cannot think of any.But I would not be surprised to learn of some who do so.
As for entrepreneurs, my son is one entrepreneur who can also give an entertaining stage performance and can debate more sceptically, informedly and rationally than most people I know. But entrepreneurs generally, my impression is that few of them are men of parts.I would like to be wrong about this.Please prove me wrong about entrepreneurs.
(edited)
I looked up Google and found this (nd a lot more):

In literature, the conflict between determinism and free will has been portrayed from Greek tragedy to the novels of George Eliot and Thomas Hardy and beyond. In a special sense, of course, any fictional character's actions are determined by the author.

In the Greek tragedian Sophocles' Oedipus' Rex, whose fate is foretold by a prophecy from the Delphic oracle. Oedipus tries everything he knows to avoid fulfilling the prophecy, but ironically, everything he does only helps to fulfil it. He finds that, as the prophecy predicted, he has killed his own father and married his own mother.

However, this philsoophyclub is probably not a very appropriate vehicle for a long poem or a novel.Concise explicit reasoning may be the best medium for philosophyclub. It's probably a good idea to quote relevant passages from literature or fine art works as illustrations of the Free Will / determinism debate.

The Belief Doctor is right though if what he is saying is that art is a more effective entree into philosophical thought than works of philsophy per se. Nietzsche I believe knew this and wrote accordingly.If The Belief Doctor is also claiming that philosophy minus passion is not for him, I feel the same. I do have feelings about determinism and Free Will, and this is why I am biased as is any living person. But a good philosopher will try to give a balanced argument and predict objections and answer them. This can also be done in creative literature. The explicit language style of philosophy is not to everyone's taste and the poetic style is not to everyone's taste but the two are not mutually exclusive tastes for one individual to have. Times and seasons.

"NOT proved, or demonstrated." (i.e. assumed to be true)

Doc, do not play a dumbo! I gave you an example - a human has two legs. it is not proved or demonstrated, but considered to be obvious. You bring the word "assumption" into this, but this word is not a part of definition, it is YOUR assumption it is a part of it.

You may bathe in your favourite assumptions for your entire life, and no one would notice this except yourself - as it affects nothing. I, once again, gave you the example of a computer, which was developed by the science and math you are rubbishing - without suggesting ANYTHING instead of them.

I am not going to argue with you on dictionary definitions - if the "assumption" is not used to define the "axiom", then go get a cold shower.

Dear god folk

As mentioned earlier, my forum participation was a brief sojourn for me.

In leaving, may i suggest those of you who seek to learn, discover, and to be surprised and happy to do some meditation courses. I enjoyed Silva Method many years ago. Others abound.

The suggestion is to experience dimensions to life that reach beyond what's in your head, beyond your limited, and limiting logic.

Learning to trust intuition (the nonlocal kind) is of immense, and often, life-saving benefit.

A whole new world awaits those willing to fall into themselves (into their intuitive, nonlocal awareness), and into life.

Blessings on your journeys
Kind regards,
Steaphen Pirie
www.beliefinstitute.com

I hope it was not Silva's method, which teaches the adepts to confuse assumptions with axioms