Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
No object or thing or force can be described or understood as stand-alone, or independent of the whole shooting match
I agree. There is always context. Even an object sitting in repose and isolation in interstellar space is embedded in that space, which may itself have a sponge-like character.
Welcome back, Wizard. As usual your statements about physics are interesting. Perhaps Ed, when he returns from sabbatical, will comment and clarify.
And Mike, it's interesting how some fiction authors paint an extensive verbal portrait of their central character, leaving little to the imagination of the reader, while others are minimalists in this regard, allowing the reader to fill in the blanks using their imagination.
The question I proposed initially was whether an author could create a character without regard to a model or composite model. For example, when creating a heroic figure is there the possibility that an image arrives in the mind of the writer through transcendental or astral implantation. I would say, no. When that would appear to be the case, the actual image formulation would come through the subconscious, and would always be a product of the author's experiences.
Reductionism, yes. To a point. Might you or JL think otherwise?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
actual image formulation would come through the subconscious, and would always be a product of the author's experiences.
Another absolute made by those who always claim there are no absolutes.
Another scientism by modern so called scientists ......
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
If you work off a machine-causation model then what seems creatively new - a line in a story, a new equation, etc. - will be seen as a recombination or reconfiguration of some thing(s) or latent content already IN the machine.
What machine are you talking about, here?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 7, 2016 - 04:28pm PT
|
As usual your statements about physics are interesting.
John, I'm not really talking about physics, just borrowing that language and the words of friends since coming from the experiential angle gets little traction on this thread, and seems to confuse more than make clear. I am not remotely qualified to make any statements about physics in any detailed way. However my first love was biology (I come from a family of doctors, including my oldest daughter) and I've always loved to read about science. Particularly what all the equations are purportedly referring to.
One of the most intriguing issues is addressed in this quote:
"Although it is far less common today, one still sometimes hears of Einstein's equation (E=MC squared) entailing that matter can be converted into energy. Strictly speaking, this constitutes an elementary category mistake.
In relativistic physics, as in classical physics, mass and energy are both regarded as properties of physical systems or properties of the constituents of physical systems. If one wishes to talk about the physical stuff that is the bearer of such properties, then one typically talks about either matter or fields."
So go and look up matter and you will find, "Matter has many definitions, but the most common is that it is any substance which has mass. All physical objects are composed of matter, in the form of atoms, which are in turn composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons."
We can see that one definition (mass) depends on reference to the other (matter), and visa versa. And when we look at what matter itself is apparently composed of, we are told that matter is built from atoms, and that basically, any substance built of atoms consists of matter.
While protons, neutrons, and electrons are the building blocks of atoms, these particles are themselves based on fermions. Quarks and leptons typically aren't considered forms of matter, although they do fit certain definitions of the term.
Then, there are things that either have no mass or at least have no rest mass. Things like:
Light
Sound
Heat
Thoughts
Dreams
Emotions
Consciousness
Photons have no mass, so they are an example of something in physics that is not comprised of matter. They are also not considered "objects" in the traditional sense, as they cannot exist in a stationary, stand-alone state.
Then we keep plugging and find that (fermions) which constitute the actual stuff of atoms is not stuff at all. There is no thing or stuff separate from the properties, meaning it is the properties that we are calling "things" or stuff.
This was made clear by my friend Josh over at JPL who said there was no such thing or object or stuff called a photon. A photon is simply energy/radiation. Put differently, there is no such "thing" as a photon that HAS radiation. There is only the radiation. You can call radiation a thing, because we can measure it, but what we are measuring is not some object that has a property. We are measuring the property itself.
And per so-called "fields," a field is not (I am told) some object, stuff or thing, rather a field is a quantification of energy, typically a number or tensor, that has a value for each point in space and time.
In other words, the stuff, the matter, the objects that we usually think of as causing or giving rise to this or that are not stand alone objects that have properties, they are apparently simply properties that themselves have none of the non-contingent stuffness that we think and imagine they have.
It is interesting to consider all of this as if reality was the on-going interplay of relative forms arising falling away, and when a form does appear, it is a temporary assertion of the whole damn process. That there is no actual separating reality into independent pieces of stuff.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
In other words, the stuff, the matter, the objects that we usually think of as causing or giving rise to this or that are not stand alone objects that have properties, they are apparently simply properties that themselves have none of the non-contingent stuffness that we think and imagine they have.
Ah hah.
However, some objects can be made of quite different stuff, from tubes to transistors to neurons to tinkertoys, and they will still do logic.
The question of how stuff works is a little different than the question of what the stuff is.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Jgill: whether an author could create a character without regard to a model or composite model . . . . the actual image formulation [of that character] would come through the subconscious, and would always be a product of the author's experiences.
That’s not Jung’s or depth psychologists’ view of the unconscious. They appear to be arguing for sets of kinds of platonic forms, universals or models upon which many variations can be generated.
Similar questions have been raised, theories created and tested, and articles published in cognitive psychology, cognitive science, and language studies with regard to family resemblances, categorizations, and exemplars. Although not specifically considered stored and arising out of the unconscious, the development and application of categories have stumped researchers for decades. I mean they have theories and all, and some really great competing theories, but they cannot say how it is that people create and use categories so successfully. (Think about if you could not categorize; ha-ha, then you’d be in my world.)
Which comes first? The instantiations upon which categories are built; or categories into which instantiations are subsumed? The remarkable thing about this (not unlike Chomsky’s claims about the inherent capability of humans for language) is that humans create and use categories without even knowing how they do so. How do you know a thing is a particular kind of thing if it’s the first time you’ve seen the particular instantiation? How do people get the categorizations right among one another so successfully when we don’t know the basis for the categorizations?
In Mary Watkins’ book, “Invisible Guests,” she reports that various artists say that the works they created were the result of taking dictation or guidance from beings that others could not perceive. Really. I don’t think this is an extraordinary declaration.
Northrup Frye argued for four literary archetypes as endemic and enduring themes that resonate throughout mankind (tragedy, comedy, romance, and irony). Literature, Frye wrote, is "the place where our imaginations find the ideal that they try to pass on to belief and action, where they find the vision which is the source of both the dignity and the joy of life."
The Ideal. . . .Vision.
How does one reach beyond his or her grasp?
I don’t think that remarkable artists copy from experience. They create their visions from an internal model that transcends (yet encapsulates) the imagination. What is orly creative or new goes beyond what one knows or experiences.
In the last analysis, of course, I must say that I don’t know.
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
This was made clear by my friend Josh over at JPL who said there was no such thing or object or stuff called a photon. A photon is simply energy/radiation. Put differently, there is no such "thing" as a photon that HAS radiation. There is only the radiation. You can call radiation a thing, because we can measure it, but what we are measuring is not some object that has a property. We are measuring the property itself.
Long time listener. First time caller. This is not so simple. In terms of its behavior, a photon can also be described just as accurately as a particle. This was proven by the Davisson-Germer experiments at Bell Labs that led to the Nobel Prize in physics by demonstrating wave-particle duality.
As an interesting aside, Lester Germer was a long-time Gunks climber.
Curt
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 7, 2016 - 07:18pm PT
|
Actually, MH2, I think ALL objects are composed of the same non-stuff, no matter what the tentative object is.
Don't take my word for it. Check this vid out that discusses quantum fields, and listen to the end, when Art Hobson is quoted as saying, "There are no particles, they're only fields."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgA_0Kxb1fg
Much of this harks back to the question: What isn't physical, which implies that reality is entirely physical. So we ask, what does "physical" actually mean?
Strictly speaking, physical is defined as:
adjective
1.
of or relating to the body as opposed to the mind.
2.
of or relating to that which is material:
the physical universe; the physical sciences.
3.
noting or pertaining to the properties of matter and energy
Even the very definition of "physical" separates body (physical) from mind (not itself-physical). Then we see that physical does not apply to some physical thing, but rather to properties "relating to that which is material," a term that has no definition save for properties.
In other words, there just might not be any stuff "there" at all, but rather, only properties which are NOT composed of stand-alone, independent stuff that has any inherent or non-contingent nature.
This might square with Hobbs statement that there is no stuff, only fields. Or put differently, there are no things that HAVE properties, there are only properties (granted our senses tell us otherwise). Or as my friend Josh says, there is no object or thing that HAS radiation, there is simply radiation.
Obviously this goes against common sense and intuition. When we say, X has a property called spin, we automatically ask "What spins."
A possible experiential correlate to this is that there is no stand-alone "I" or observer who experiences any thing. There is only experience.
That is a blurted out version. Someone else with more time and insight might be able to articulate this with much more clarity.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Which comes first? The instantiations upon which categories are built; or categories into which instantiations are subsumed? (MikeL)
This question passes from philosophical noodling to practical reality at times. I knew of a young PhD math student who worked diligently towards his thesis on a highly interesting class or category of functions for a year or so. When he brought in the results of his investigations his advisor asked him to provide an example of such functions. As it turned out his category was an empty set.
In other words, the stuff, the matter, the objects that we usually think of as causing or giving rise to this or that are not stand alone objects that have properties, they are apparently simply properties that themselves have none of the non-contingent stuffness that we think and imagine they have (JL)
To me this statement encapsulates an error in classification, what is called a Category Mistake. You want the macro and the micro worlds to belong to the same category. I don't think they do.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Actually, MH2, I think ALL objects are composed of the same non-stuff, no matter what the tentative object is.
Then it seems good to move past any question about what an object IS, as a fundamental inquiry, and try to learn how it interacts with other objects, no longer trying to ask what smaller stuff the stuff is made of.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
"It depends on what your definition of 'is' is." (POTUS)
Good point, Andy. The quest for no-thingness is fatally flawed.
No one knows what a field as spoken of in physics actually is. But they do know what it does. In math a vector field is a simple concept. I diddle with them in the complex plane frequently.
That’s not Jung’s or depth psychologists’ view of the unconscious
Yes, and their ongoing success would invalidate my conjecture.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
Yes questing is flawed.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Jgill: As it turned out his category was an empty set.
As might all.
No one knows what a field as spoken of in physics actually is. But they do know what it does.
Doesn’t this declaration strike you as even slightly odd? “We know does, but we don’t know what does.” You might admit that this is a strange way of talking, even more so of seeing.
What you seem to be saying here is that you are aware of some dynamics, but you don’t know the entities of which the dynamics express or present. Don’t you think that’s a funny / strange way to express or present what could be otherwise known as “being?” How far away are you from simply calling everything that you perceive as “energy” or “appearance,” and leave it as that?
I mean, the “being” of entities is a pretty big concern, no?
For me, this is the problem with the proof of materiality through the replicability of research studies. They purport to prove the conception of an entity but only by its dynamics and properties. But the link between the conception of an entity and its expression / behavior is not established. We see appearances, and we can agree among each other that there are appearances, but we don’t know of what.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 8, 2016 - 09:08am PT
|
To me this statement encapsulates an error in classification, what is called a Category Mistake. You want the macro and the micro worlds to belong to the same category. I don't think they do.
---------
We all know the pitfalls of trying to apply the small to the big. But the point is, reductionism doesn't acknowledge these catagories. Reductionism never says - we can only go down so far and then our methods are no longer viable. You can explain that away many ways, but we are not really looking at catagories, per se, but reality in the round.
And Dingus, you are still whiffing on this one, IMO, believing that energy and matter are the same thing. Do a little reading and you'll see that mass is a very misleading term. What do you think the man meant when he said, "There are no particles, only fields." Or when Josh Schoolcraft said, "There is no such thing as a photon that HAS radiation. There is only radiation."
The point is that we live in a world of objects that are not composed of independent, stand-alone stuff at all.
Another fascinating point here, perhaps the most curious of them all, is the difference between what something is, and what "it" does. Mike brought up the crux of it. In doing science on what an assumed thing does, we presuppose that there is actually a thing there that DOES this or that, that has this rest mass, this velocity, this charge, etc. I have heard some say that science does not ask what something is, rather what something does, the implication being that either an assumed object IS what it does, and no more, or that if science only directed their attention to what objects were, an answer would be forthcoming. Fact is, all reality is a moving target, and no one can answer the "what" question because there are no fixed things to begin with, and the properties we call energy and matter are neither things or separate from each other.
In other words, asking what some thing IS, is a trick question because it implies there is some thing there in the first place, some observer-independent, stand-alone, non-contingent stuff or entity which in fact is not "there" in the way our senses tell it is is there. I have a hunch that asking what a field is runs into the same challenges. We can call it a thing for convenience, but it seems to defy the definitions of a classical external object.
BTW, very good post, Mike.
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
"There is no such thing as a photon that HAS radiation. There is only radiation."
As I pointed out earlier, photons are particles--and vice-versa.
Curt
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Modern materialistic scientists remove a nut and bolt from a machine and then study it to see what makes it work.
They'll spend lifetimes studying the nut and bolt.
They never find out it's required to make the whole cosmic manifestation to operate correctly.
They only see a nut and a bolt and have rooms full of data on a nut and a bolt and spend lifetimes talking about the nut and bolt.
Who made the nut and bolt?
It's not important to the gross materialists, only the nut and bolt is important!
|
|
i-b-goB
Social climber
Wise Acres
|
|
"As ye have received Christ Jesus the Lord."
Colossians 2:6
The life of faith is represented as receiving--an act which implies the very opposite of anything like merit. It is simply the acceptance of a gift. As the earth drinks in the rain, as the sea receives the streams, as night accepts light from the stars, so we, giving nothing, partake freely of the grace of God. The saints are not, by nature, wells, or streams, they are but cisterns into which the living water flows; they are empty vessels into which God pours his salvation. The idea of receiving implies a sense of realization, making the matter a reality. One cannot very well receive a shadow; we receive that which is substantial: so is it in the life of faith, Christ becomes real to us. While we are without faith, Jesus is a mere name to us--a person who lived a long while ago, so long ago that his life is only a history to us now! By an act of faith Jesus becomes a real person in the consciousness of our heart. But receiving also means grasping or getting possession of. The thing which I receive becomes my own: I appropriate to myself that which is given. When I receive Jesus, he becomes my Saviour, so mine that neither life nor death shall be able to rob me of him. All this is to receive Christ--to take him as God's free gift; to realize him in my heart, and to appropriate him as mine.
Salvation may be described as the blind receiving sight, the deaf receiving hearing, the dead receiving life; but we have not only received these blessings, we have received Christ Jesus himself. It is true that he gave us life from the dead. He gave us pardon of sin; he gave us imputed righteousness. These are all precious things, but we are not content with them; we have received Christ himself. The Son of God has been poured into us, and we have received him, and appropriated him. What a heartful Jesus must be, for heaven itself cannot contain him!
CHARLES SPURGEON
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
How far away are you from simply calling everything that you perceive as “energy” or “appearance,” and leave it as that?
Why is energy is in quotes? If I call everything energy, won't you just ask me to define energy or otherwise say what energy is?
The labels like 'energy' are just heuristics. They help us to talk and learn about objects in the world around us. We ourselves are part of that world. We learn about ourselves by trial and error in our early years.
It is the dynamics of and interactions and connections among the objects we perceive that give us our only clues to what they are. How else could you learn about the world?
Take a baseball and hit it with a bat. The path of the ball will be a parabola. We know that from finding patterns in the way things work. We don't know it from deep study of what a baseball is, a bat is, or a parabola is.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Who made the nut and bolt?
Rawl?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Before anything can be created, made, moved or animated a consciousness stream must first be there ......
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!