Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 31, 2018 - 04:27pm PT
|
^^^ I'd have fun discussing those points, but I can only handle one major discussion (and the associated WoTs I feel compelled to write) at a time. Also, I don't want to come across as dominating a thread, nor do I have the time to be that engaged.
Not dodging. Just stating some spatio-temporal realities. Sadly, evolution made me non-God-like.
;-)
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
May 31, 2018 - 04:34pm PT
|
The dialogue between Ed and Richard is very enjoyable reading. Thanks, fellows.
My best friend for over 40 years died several years ago. He was a math colleague, seven years older and a lot smarter than me. We were both hired at the local college in 1971, and he came there from 14 years at Argonne.
He started college as a physics major, and got steady A's until he reached the senior level course in introductory quantum theory. I don't recall if he bailed from the course or not, but he switched to mathematics as a grad student, getting a degree from Purdue. He would simply shake his head when QM came up, saying he could not get it. Which makes me wonder how these courses are taught. He was pretty bright and his doctoral thesis started a new line of development in differential/integral equations.
Reading about the Bell experiment leads to the necessity of a deeper involvement with the subject, for which I haven't the exploratory spirit.
But, thanks to these two gentlemen for their contributions.
(edited)
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
|
May 31, 2018 - 04:52pm PT
|
After reading all that I just want to fuking know this!
Ed, do you believe in a deity or afterlife?
Richard, do you believe in a deity or afterlife?
Well then, I now pronounce you as...
Just kidding there.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
May 31, 2018 - 05:29pm PT
|
Largo says I'm "locked into a perspective" but as I've written elsewhere I'm committed to a particular world view.
--
My point is that your world view is a perspective. How could it not be?
As I've been saying all along, by definition, a 3rd person perspective excludes subjectivity, which makes it the wrong tool to capture what it by design is leaving out. Expecting to find it is a logical absurdity. And note that there is no trace of experience to be found anywhere in the atoms. It's hardly unexpected to announce, from this perspective, that "there is nothing there," or for Ed to question that when sentience is left out of the equation, nothing goes missing.
I see Ed and Dennett as saying the same thing. Both, it seems, seeks to explain away consciousness through the investigation of physical processes in which phenomenological mind is a needless component. The problem lies in looking at human decision making in the same, strictly mechanical functionalist terms as we might "explain" the kreb cycle, then declaring that the process is entirely determined.
I'm convinced that the only way out of this rabbit hole is to look at the decision making process when conscious awareness runs the spectrum from not to barely there, to being present so far as we can. In my own experience with brain scanning experiments in this regards, awareness radically effects the mechanical generation of decision making options. What makes this study tricky is that the subjective and objective are both in play.
Not any easy one to wrangle down.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 31, 2018 - 06:54pm PT
|
Ed, do you believe in a deity or afterlife?
no
|
|
Delhi Dog
climber
Good Question...
|
|
|
May 31, 2018 - 07:05pm PT
|
The dialogue between Ed and Richard is very enjoyable reading. Thanks, fellows.
Though I struggle to get my pea brain wrapped around a lot of it, I agree.
Thanks for that link WB
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 31, 2018 - 07:12pm PT
|
Richard, do you believe in a deity or afterlife?
Uhhh... hmmm...
I think that there's "something" non-natural/non-physical, but I'm not solid on what that entails.
I'm probably saying too much for a public forum, but I think that I'm not a "good Christian." I am sickened by Judeo-Christian dogma, yet I don't find non-propositional Eastern thinking interesting.
Let's just say that in my mind the logical space is open for reality to include the non-natural/non-physical. But filling that space with particulars is much harder than religionists believe. I don't know that I've made even much of a "start" on that project. I have some ideas, and some of them seem to hold up to scrutiny.
But I'm not a "good Christian," and I really don't have an ax to grind on the subject.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
May 31, 2018 - 07:41pm PT
|
I don't think I understand any "results" that can't be expressed in terms of clear definitions and explicit logical relations.
Physicists were confronted with a similar problem when classical physics was overthrown by quantum weirdness.
Humans need to be flexible in their thinking when new results overthrow old thinking.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
May 31, 2018 - 07:58pm PT
|
Per Madbolters (and thanks for the discussion) comment about "what reality really is," the white elephant in the room is that at bottom, we might be nothing at all.
Our experience tells us that our reality is made up of physical/material components, and that our world is an independently existing objective one. Does quantum mechanics tell us there is "real physicality” in the universe, when QM has show that atoms are composed of focused vorticies of energy-miniature tornadoes that pop into and out of existence from the void. The revelation that the universe is not an assembly of material parts, suggested by Newtonian physics, and instead comes from a holistic entanglement of immaterial energy waves has been around since Einstein, Max Planck, Heisenberg, et al. I'm sue Ed can tell us all about it.
The miracle, to me, is that we are here talking about it.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 31, 2018 - 08:11pm PT
|
But what about an afterlife?
There I'm even fuzzier. Again, I have some ideas, and I think that some can withstand some scrutiny. But I'm not a "good Christian" on this point either.
For example, the idea of Heaven and Hell in the sense that the vast majority of Christians believe... uh, no.
Conscious life after death? I don't believe in that; the "soul" must be embodied to be conscious.
Some sort of divine judgment day? Well, let's just say that whatever judgment may occur will, I believe, involve some huge surprises for most people that think they have it wired.
For example, I don't believe that God judges people on the basis of whether or not they happened to have some particular set of beliefs, as in the content of those beliefs. So, I am extremely non-judgmental about what people happen to believe in this or that time-slice. Imo, intellectual honesty trumps all other considerations, because from it all other forms of "righteousness" and wisdom emerge.
I heard an analogy from one church-member that I thought was quite prescient. Let's say that knowing God is at least significantly in part a matter of learning particular propositions. These propositions, then, are like rungs on a ladder by which we ascend to a fuller and deeper knowledge of God. And each person's ladder has exactly the same set of rungs. This, of course, implies that there is a set of objective truths about God that can be discovered, which is what Judeo-Christians believe.
Now, of course, many people deny the existence of both God and the ladder. Others have decided to get on their ladder. Many others are on their ladder, but they just don't realize it yet.
Now, many people on their various ladders start looking around at others on their ladders. They start judging others in terms of the rungs that are below them and those rungs that they are currently clinging to. They judge how quickly others are climbing compared to themselves. "Good Christians" start saying all sorts of things like, "For shame! That person doesn't believe in x, y, and z! If they don't get their act together, and right snappy quick, they are going straight to Hell, and they will richly deserve it!"
What they don't realize is that, while all the different ladders climbed by different people have the same rungs, some rungs are harder to surmount than others, and, more importantly, the rungs are not in the same order.
Evaluating others on the basis of what "doctrines" they hold or don't hold at any given moment is a fool's game, imo. I'm content to let God sort it out, and I don't worry about "the afterlife," whatever that means. We have now; we live in now; our present decisions reflect our perspectives now. So, I try to live honestly now.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 31, 2018 - 08:23pm PT
|
The miracle, to me, is that we are here talking about it.
Hehe... and doing so pretty civilly by Supertopo standards. That's a miracle in itself. :-)
Thank you for your part in the discussion as well, John!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 31, 2018 - 08:30pm PT
|
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0811.3129.pdf
Violation of local realism with freedom of choice
Thomas Scheidl, Rupert Ursin, Johannes Kofler, Sven Ramelow, Xiao-Song Ma, Thomas Herbst, Lothar Ratschbacher, Alessandro Fedrizzi, Nathan K. Langford, Thomas Jennewein, & Anton Zeilinger
Bell’s theorem shows that local realistic theories place strong restrictions on observable correlations between different systems, giving rise to Bell’s inequality which can be violated in experiments using entangled quantum states. Bell’s theorem is based on the assumptions of realism, locality, and the freedom to choose between measurement settings. In experimental tests, “loopholes” arise which allow observed violations to still be explained by local realistic theories. Violating Bell’s inequality while simultaneously closing all such loopholes is one of the most significant still open challenges in fundamental physics today. In this paper, we present an experiment that violates Bell’s inequality while simultaneously closing the locality loophole and addressing the freedom-of-choice loophole, also closing the latter within a reasonable set of assumptions. We also explain that the locality and freedom-of-choice loopholes can be closed only within non-determinism, i.e. in the context of stochastic local realism.
...We would also like to emphasize that the freedom-of-choice assumption is completely distinct from the locality assumption. The assumption that the local outcome does not depend on the setting and outcome on the other side does not imply the statistical independence of hidden variables and setting choices. This non-equivalence is highlighted by the fact that we can envisage a situation in which locality is fulfilled but freedom of choice is violated. Thus, both physically and mathematically, Bell’s theorem and hence the validity of all Bell inequalities rely critically on the joint assumption of local realism and freedom of choice...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 31, 2018 - 09:07pm PT
|
^^^ I'm honestly curious, Ed, what you think might be a way out of these implications for a Bohmian. I mean, thinking as a physicist with nuances that I can't imagine.
I won't be responding much or at all over the next few days until mid-week next week. Out of state and pretty consumed. Please don't take my lack of responsiveness as "disconnectedness."
Good evening and good weekend, all.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 31, 2018 - 09:08pm PT
|
I'm off to the hills tomorrow, for the weekend, so nothing much more until next week from me.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
MB1: Let's say that knowing God is at least significantly in part a matter of learning particular propositions. . . . This, of course, implies that there is a set of objective truths about God that can be discovered . . . .
I’d say those are some pretty significant (and narrow) assumptions and implications. They indicate to me that you might only be talking about objective reality. Subjective reality must require another kind of conversation then? Should I assume that subjective reality is somehow not amenable to substantive investigation?
Your conversation with Ed seems to avoid the OP’s question. No matter where these conversations (mind, soul, God, religion) start, they invariably end-up positing everything into the field of “objective reality.” As one can read here, the differences as to what is what are great even between those who are oriented to objective realities. By contrast, there would seem to be no place or no bridge for conversations about so-called non-objective realities / subjectivities (and their relation to objectivities).
God, mind, soul, experience, etc. are being shoe-horned into some very tight compartments. It looks like outright denial to me. There’s some head nodding in the direction of those who want to talk about those subjective topics—as if to communicate some civility—but they seem to be an empty gestures from my point of view. I guess it’s just your run-of-the-mill conundrum.
Be well.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
Have fun out there, Ed. Thank God (or chance) for weekends.
Mike said: God, mind, soul, experience, etc. are being shoe-horned into some very tight compartments.
That's what happens when you investigate from a given perspective - at least that's how I see it. That's why it's so crucial to review first assumptions.
And to madbolters point about philosophical investigations. Philosophy is not, in my book, a surrogate for measuring and what follows from measuring seemingly "physical" external objects and phenomenon. Philosophy is an investigative tool basically asking: what are we talking about, and whatever you are saying about it, what does that mean? And by "mean," I'm not referring to ethical, moral, etc. meaning, rather, how is what you are saying logically coherent? And if what you are saying is paradoxical or non-logical, is the reason because your language and logic is flawed, or because what we are looking at - in most cases - won't knuckle under to a linear, causal explanation.
On that note, I'll leave this thought for a weekend's pondering - said Wittgenstein the “The Blue Book”:
"It can never be our job to reduce anything to anything, or to explain anything. Philosophy really is “purely descriptive."
Consider this - if you're so inclined - in reference to the notion of "free will." Simply try and describe the process of how you choose options when faced with a new task.
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Consider this - if you're so inclined - in reference to the notion of "free will." Simply try and describe the process of how you choose options when faced with a new task.
Yeah, not so simple. For me it depends on how important that I imagine that decision to be. Sometimes it is not as important as I imagine. I use different processes for different situations and my wife uses processes that I can't imagine. For the important ones that I have time for, I usually ultimately try to sleep on it.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Okay, so while Ed's on vacation, I'll be taking over for him in his "contest" with MB1. So as not to make a fool of myself, Ed's got the physicist's point of view, like F=MA and E=MC^2 and black holes are real -- right?
Well MB1, in this new role, I'm gonna have to go with my stock answer when I am put into or volunteer for sh#t like this; the quadratic equation. It doubles as my favorite answer (of 6) to Wittgenstein's mill argument. Got any questions?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
Consider this - if you're so inclined - in reference to the notion of "free will." Simply try and describe the process of how you choose options when faced with a new task.
Yeah, not so simple. For me it depends on how important that I imagine that decision to be. Sometimes it is not as important as I imagine. I use different processes for different situations and my wife uses processes that I can't imagine. For the important ones that I have time for, I usually ultimately try to sleep on it.
That's more - if I read you right - a matter of making a crucial decision. You need a more dynamic process to see how mechanical brain and attention work in tandem. And the task has to be new to simplify the experiment, otherwise your conditioning will mechanically do all the work.
For example, try and write a poem. No matter the quality. Note the options that your brain serves up. Note how you scan those options for the one that seems (thought) or feels best as your conditioned "I" weighs the options. Then once you have few lines down, start to revise, and watch the process again.
Awareness and brain are inseparable but not the very same phenomenon. The brain can't "see" itself. It it is a machine. (Can you hear the functionalists saying, "Awareness IS the brain, or is produced by the brain." They need to do the experiment, countless times if need be, till they can learn otherwise.)
Awareness doesn't "emerge," information emerges - but this is an even trickier one to unpack.
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
"Brain" is where contemporary western science took a wrong turn.
The reason they choose to ignore scientific evidence of a soul is because the soul has been booby-trapped using a thing called the mind, which is different.
If you find yourself objecting strongly to the idea of an immortal "I" who lives many lifetimes, you are experiencing the content of the trap.
I would like to testify that life on the other side of that trap is sweet.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!