Philosophy Discussion Forums

From the O.P. of the thread I was talking about:

For example, in their paperThe Strong Free Will Theorem , Conway and Kochen argue from a mathematical proof:

More precisely, if the experimenter can freely choose the directions in which to orient his apparatus in a certain measurement, then the particle’s response (to be pedantic—the universe’s response near the particle) is not determined by the entire previous history of the universe.

and later conclude:

Although the FWT [Free Will Theorem] suggests to us that determinism is not a viable option, it nevertheless enables us to agree with Einstein that “God does not play dice with the Universe.” In the present state of knowledge, it is certainly beyond our capabilities to understand the connection between the free decisions of particles and humans, but the free will of neither of these is accounted for by mere randomness.

The tension between human free will and physical determinism has a long history. Long ago, Lucretius made his otherwise deterministic particles “swerve” unpredictably to allow for free will. It was largely the great success of deterministic classical physics that led to the adoption of determinism by so many philosophers and scientists, particularly those in fields remote from current physics. (This remark also applies to “compatibalism”, a now unnecessary attempt to allow for human free will in a deterministic world.)

Although, as we show in [1], determinism may formally be shown to be consistent, there is no longer any evidence that supports it, in view of the fact that classical physics has been superseded by quantum mechanics, a non-deterministic theory. The import of the free will theorem is that it is not only current quantum theory, but the world itself that is non-deterministic, so that no future theory can return us to a clockwork universe.

In his 2008 paper On The Arrow of Time, Ionescu state in the abstract:

The interface between classical physics and quantum physics is explained from the point of view of Quantum Information Theory (Feynman Processes), based on the qubit model. The interpretation depends on a hefty sacrifice: the classical determinism or the arrow of time. As a benefit, the wave-particle duality naturally emerges from
the qubit model, as the root of creation and annihilation of possibilities (quantum logic).

and concludes:

In conclusion, symmetry prevails and reassuringly, there is enough determinism making it worth planning ahead, with a (qu)bit of surprise to make use of our free will to chose our future depending on what it has in store for us.

It's really not difficult to comprehend; determinism based upon materialism-methodological science was/is rooted in the idea that there was an actual material substrate that acted in a sequential, cause-and-effect fashion from time A, to time B, and then to time C; the very definition of determinism states that given a state of things at time A, things then obey natural laws thereafter.

This requires two essential commodities: that things actually exist in some "state" that can be acted on natural laws and are only acted upon by natural laws (without any intervening acausal agency), and that things proceed in a linear fashion through time, making it possible for the state of matter and laws at "A" to cause "B".

However, quantum experiments and mathematical models derived from that experimentation not only show that "matter" doesn't comprise any particlar state unless observed, it doesn't comprise a fully-defined state even when observed, and the state of matter can be changed according to how one observes it. Further, the historic trajectory and characteristics of quanta can be changed on observation by a conscious mind. Mind appears to be a supervening acausal agent; it cannot be "caused" because no causative, defined matter sequences exist to generate mind without mind there to observe. Causation sequences cannot exist without a mind present to observe and collapse potential into actual experience.

This science and math leaves one with the inescapable conclusions that mind creates cause-and-effect patterns through the act of observation. I submit that "the act of observation" is really just what acausal, free will intention does, and that it is this intention that actually "causes" the cause-and-effect pattern we generate out of potential when we make such observations.

It's clear that both materialism and determinism have been entirely falsified by modern science, and that those who cling to them via forms of apologetics do so for reasons other than what logic can derive from what physics and math have repeatedly verified for the last 75 years.

Meleagar wrote

Mind appears to be a supervening acausal agent; it cannot be "caused" because no causative, defined matter sequences exist to generate mind without mind there to observe. Causation sequences cannot exist without a mind present to observe ---

This apparently supervening causal agency is only apparent when you believe that mind and matter supervene upon each other in consciousness. But this is not what happens. What happens is that for any event A, mind and matter coexist at the same time and the event A may be viewed from the point of view of mind or the point of view of matter.
This is what happens when a physicist observes a subatomic event. The physicist can choose whether to view the event from the point of view of matter or the point of view of her own subjectivity.

It is true what Meleagar says that Causation sequences cannot exist without a mind present to observe . But this implies that both mind and matter exist, not that mind causes matter or that matter causes mind.

Belinda wrote:
It is true what Meleagar says that Causation sequences cannot exist without a mind present to observe . But this implies that both mind and matter exist, not that mind causes matter or that matter causes mind.

It implies no such thing, and it absolutely means that mind causes matter.

www(dot)newdualism(dot)org(slash)papers(slash)R.Henry(slash)436029a(dot)pdf

You all should read this, it exposes all the great quote chopping Meleagar did, and how he came to this wonderful misunderstanding. Great work my friend, THE DEVIL thanks you.

Sincerely yours,
The Dark Princess, The Devil.

http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Henry/436029a.html

Good. However, R.Henry doesnot say that there is nothing out there, he says only that there are neither waves nor particles. And that therefore the world is immaterial. The question is 'how much of the world outside of consciousness is real?' It's not a matter of this or that being real or immaterial, it's a question of the standard by which one can judge which mental construct is real and which is immaterial.

If nothing is real, and every mind construct is immaterial, then not only energy itself is immaterial, but self as imaginer is also immaterial. The argument is a snake consuming itself.We finish either with nothing or with everything in its complete and necessary physicality and its complete and necessary mentality.

That there is something is apparent because the alternative is literally unthinkable.Therefore we finish with everything in its complete and necessary physicality and mentality.Pantheism, not substance dualism.

That materialism is false doesn't mean "nothing" exists. It just means that "material" in any significant sense of the word doesn't exist.

Physics has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the "material" of materailism simply does not exist. We know mind exists; we know that we experience what we call "material", but upon closer examination it is not "material" at all. It doesn't behave, look or act like materialism predicts whatsoever.

Once again, there is no scientific justification for a belief in materialism because it has been found that such "material" simply doesn't exist. Something exists, but is not "material".

Meleagar wrote

That materialism is false doesn't mean "nothing" exists. It just means that "material" in any significant sense of the word doesn't exist.

I disagree.
Materialism means that something which is not mind is primal. This something may be energy, gravity,or any other force of nature.Or it may be planets, trees, specks of dust, molecules or atoms. The accepted meaning of a word is easily discovered from a good dictionary.

Belinda wrote: I disagree.
Materialism means that something which is not mind is primal. This something may be energy, gravity,or any other force of nature.Or it may be planets, trees, specks of dust, molecules or atoms. The accepted meaning of a word is easily discovered from a good dictionary.

Material-ism is the philosophy that material is primal. That's why the word "material" is right there in the term. Perhaps you could supply a definition from a "good" dictionary that supports your expanded perspective of what materialism means?

Because dictionary.com states that materialism is:

the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.

Meleagar wrote:Physics has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the "material" of materailism simply does not exist. We know mind exists; we know that we experience what we call "material", but upon closer examination it is not "material" at all. It doesn't behave, look or act like materialism predicts whatsoever.

First of all, to the objective world, it is perhaps impossible to disprove that something exists. Matter that is not part of our brain is possibly impossible to prove or disprove. For instance, hypothetically: I could be completely deluded, and imagined everything I've experienced in life; but something could still exist just inches from the range of my mind, that I could have no knowledge of. Your argument is more of 'I think, therefore I am'; that all you know exists is your own mind. But this type of proof is only useful on a subjective lever (for instance, a scientist can claim they have a mind and it exists; but for all anyone knows, they could be a machine).

You mentioned that you have found ways to use quantum physics, and have had experiences that prove your understanding of it is correct. How do you know these experiences come from the quantum world. The quantum world is far, far away in size; and no scientist truly understands it. These experiences could come from something far more complex than the quantum world (and when I say 'comlex', I mean in scientific terms; in other words, something structered passed the quantum world--like cells). What are these experinces, exactly?

I've taken a course of Quantum Physics, and am going to try and explain what the key problems that confuse scientists.

As you said, matter does not behave like matter, to our understanding of it. The key word is our understanding of it, it does not mean it doesn't exist. A quark may vanish in one place, and reappear far away. Two quarks, when separated far apart, may sway and move as though connected by something. But the problem of connection, two quarks moving the same way, could be solved from understanding that something may be smaller than even the quantum world (which is then affecting matter in a way that seems an enigma). 'Teleportion', in which a particle can slide threw solid matter or appear somewhere far away; could, hypothetically, be explained with further understanding of the quantum world. Think of sand, from far away, sand may seem completely solid; yet you may see a crab walk strait threw it. This is to say, it could be these particles are finding 'gaps', the way water can go threw a net. This is certainly a confusing field, in which many theories--including your own--can be used to try and explain it. But that doesn't mean your theory solves it, nor does it mean it's the correct one.

The greatest problem with quantum physics relates to the problem of determinism. It is true that this problem could mean a fundemental change in our understanding of physics is required--the same way Quantum Physics changed Newtonian Physics. This problem is sometimes referred to as Quantum Randomness. In which something, at a quantum level, seems to happen completely at random, and without reason to our knowledge. Once again, the key word is to our knowledge. The problem, however, gets more complex; even if they seem insagnificant. From tests, a particle will only become a possitive of a negative once it has been studied. For instance, when two particles are saparated, once one is identified as being possitve; only then will the other show behavior of a negative. This is the only evidence, to my knowledge of quantum physics, that supports your claim. Like matter not behaving like matter would be the problem for your theory, but not exactly evidence to support it. Various other concepts have been used to try and explain it. For instance, the 'many worlds' theory (which is the idea that every possible act happens in a different branch of the universe [without going into details, it is sort of like having many alternate universes]) is also a very extreme theory, that would greatly change our understanding of the universe; sort of like yours--only for this one it is claiming the universe is much bigger than we thought (which is saying something).

Quantum Physics is a growing field of science, and perhaps will have to be removed in order to usher-in a better understanding of physics. But, as many quantum scientists say, our best understanding of it is that no one understands it. This goes for anyone's theory.

It doesn't matter wrote:You mentioned that you have found ways to use quantum physics, and have had experiences that prove your understanding of it is correct.

That's not what I said. I never said my experiences proved anything, only that they seem to correspond to my quantum model. It doesn't prove anything.

How do you know these experiences come from the quantum world.

I don't.

The quantum world is far, far away in size; and no scientist truly understands it.

If you mean that no scientist "truly" understands it in the sense that no technology or useful product can come from it, that is untrue. A very large segment of our economy depends on a scientific understanding of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. You don't have to "truly" understand a thing in order for the thing to be very useful and practical.

From here

The quantum world may seem so small and weird that there's no connection with everyday reality, but that impression couldn't be further from the truth. Newly published studies - and a newly released documentary - explore the big frontiers of the quantum information revolution.

Actually, quantum physics is as connected to everyday reality as the device that's displaying these words of mine. If it weren't for the quantum nature of light, inventions such as computers, TVs and DVD players would be impossible.

"It makes me cringe when I hear people say how weird quantum mechanics is, when we understand it so well," he told me. "The first lesson is that you shouldn't suggest it's so weird. It is wonderfully predictable. You really can do the engineering right." -[David Cory, a nuclear engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology]

These experiences could come from something far more complex than the quantum world (and when I say 'comlex', I mean in scientific terms; in other words, something structered passed the quantum world--like cells).

It doesn't matter if the model refers to anything "true", as long as it appears to work. For example, it doesn't matter if my model of Apollo pulling the sun through the sky with a chariot on a schedule is untrue, as long as it provides a successful model for telling time and keeping appointments.

What are these experinces, exactly?

Spontaneous (and apparently permanent) healings of cancer on 2 occassions, healing of severe joint pain and other healings, finding the perfect job/career without any experience or education in the field whatsoever, moving from abject poverty with ruined credit to owning the home of our dreams and other material possessions we could only dream about; finding the perfect soul-mate, finding an unimagined state of happiness and enjoyment; getting 2 book published, finding every freelance opportunity I could wish for; repairing the relationship of my mother and her other children; driving unwanted people out of my life and changing others to become enjoyable; transformation of the world from something that delivered frustration, depression and pain to something that delievers enjoyment and enthusiasm. Things I imagine appear out of thin air. I intend for people to give me things, and they give me all sorts of things.

I really could go on and on with and endless list of specifics, but all of this has happened since I and my wife started our manifesting and intention techniques based on the idea that the mind is a quantum observer and collapses reality in accordance with the state and intention of the observer.

My model apparently works, whether or not what is actually going on has anything to do with quantum physics. It could be that the model has simply transformed my psychology which in turn has fortuitiously transformed my behavior and led me down a far more enjoyable and profitable path. Who knows?

I only care that it apparently works. I don't search for truths, I search for practical function.

Belinda wrote:http://www.newdualism.org/papers/R.Henry/436029a.html

Good. However, R.Henry doesnot say that there is nothing out there, he says only that there are neither waves nor particles. And that therefore the world is immaterial. The question is 'how much of the world outside of consciousness is real?' It's not a matter of this or that being real or immaterial, it's a question of the standard by which one can judge which mental construct is real and which is immaterial.

If nothing is real, and every mind construct is immaterial, then not only energy itself is immaterial, but self as imaginer is also immaterial. The argument is a snake consuming itself.We finish either with nothing or with everything in its complete and necessary physicality and its complete and necessary mentality.

That there is something is apparent because the alternative is literally unthinkable.Therefore we finish with everything in its complete and necessary physicality and mentality.Pantheism, not substance dualism.

When I was young, this argument of what is real and what is not, really tormented me. My X had absolutely no tolerance for my intellectual seeking of truth. Annoyed with me, he suggested I try to put my head threw the wall. Whatever my head is, and whatever the wall is, trying to push through something appears solid, causes pain. As a child, my family spoke of such things, as Yogis moving through walls and through time and space without following the laws of three dimensional reality, so my understanding of reality is not unquestioned. I just think we need to be more pragmatic? Whatever reality is, there are physical laws, and our time might be better spent learning those laws. I think that would give us a better understanding of reality.

We can also study yoga and see if we can travel though space and time, mentally. We could discuss the fifth dimension and ourselves as light energy beings.
http://walkinswanderersandstarseeds.lef ... -on-telepo rtation-and-invisibility/ This is also the subject of Jose Arguelles "The Mayan Factor".

Using the template of the Tzolkin as the blueprint of the light body, we immediately identify the Loom of Maya as the electrical currents-the one positive, the other negative-that are the universal polar currents of any electromagnetic field. Using the physical body as a bio-electromagnetic battery, the universal electrical currents cross over each other in endless pulsation. This process occurs at the micro level with every nervous discharge and synaptic crossing. Indeed, what we call information is the "mental" processing of these discharges. It also occurs at the macro level and the entire physical unit, which each organism embodies, can be viewed as a single bio-electromagnetic battery accommodating the powerful crossing over of the two universal currents of energy.

Electric charge as information, is most exciting. It certainly means we can be immortal. All the information about us for several life times can be carried by one neutrino through space and time. We can understood smell, as electrical information perceived by our brain as the smell of an onion or rose. If we want to explore reality and possible realities, that is science, and most exciting.

Belinda,

The argument that if everything is immaterial then it is a snake consuming itself is only valid for for materialists, because for materialists material must exist for anything to exist. Non-materialsts are not so limited, as they have room for both the material and the non-material in their view.

Everything (that we know of) has been shown by science to be fundamentally immaterial, by any reasonable definition of the term. What we thought was material, the physical experience, has been shown to not be of a physical world, but rather a processing intersection of different kinds and arrangements of information, much like a dream is not of an actual physical world, but apparently just a processing of information.

As Athena said, though, if one cannot find a practical use for such a view of the world, there's no reason to adopt it. Had my model of the immaterial, information-based world not produced results, I wouldn't have pursued it for long.

It doesn't matter if the model refers to anything "true", as long as it appears to work. For example, it doesn't matter if my model of Apollo pulling the sun through the sky with a chariot on a schedule is untrue, as long as it provides a successful model for telling time and keeping appointments.

Good, good, now apply those arguments to how this debate is shaped and you'll understand that you have not refuted any of his claims logically.

Jester Gren wrote: Good, good, now apply those arguments to how this debate is shaped and you'll understand that you have not refuted any of his claims logically.

Who is "his"?

You replied to someone else's post of the name "It doesn't matter". I'm somewhat confused as to what you're suggesting though. If the scientific method depends solely on observation, how can one apply it to unobserved objects, and therefore prove inexistence beyond its domain?