Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Radarmantro]

Any of you people who have read any books which concerns relativity and how anti-absolutist our common reality sometimes can seem? If I could be so free, I'd recommend Quantum Psychology, a very good book which deals with how relative most, but most likely not all, results of our instruments really can be. For example, the significant difference between how a snake brain and a human brain interprets the world. Another central example would be how some scientific instruments show light as to be particles and other scientific instruments show light to be waves. And in this context, Quantum Psychology deals also with our verbal communication and the problem of premature certainty ("No, you are wrong! Light really IS particles", "God's will really IS that socks ARE evil and we should all have sex with snakes on a plane" and so on).

I'd like your perspectives on the matter. Can we call our phenomenological reality aboslutistic, or should we rewire our brains as to better understand the changing, nondramatic world/ universe we seem to inhabit? Does an arrow in flight occupy "one" space, or several? Discuss and be happy.

Or, as Wallace would say: 

[colordeaf]

I once skimmed through a book about physics...dealing with different topics (branes, string theory, etc...). I don't really get it (because I didn't have enough time), but I've always had this odd feeling that might have to do with it...why am I seeing through the perspective I am? How come I wasn't born a pigeon? Why can't I be two people at once, literally? Why not the ceiling?

I think...people tend to see only the present and near future because anything else would be damn scary. I'd like a brain rewiring, unless I'm stating it somewhat off. When does motion begin? When does the edge of something begin?

[Radarmantro]

I once skimmed through a book about physics...dealing with different topics (branes, string theory, etc...). I don't really get it (because I didn't have enough time), but I've always had this odd feeling that might have to do with it...why am I seeing through the perspective I am? How come I wasn't born a pigeon? Why can't I be two people at once, literally? Why not the ceiling?

I think...people tend to see only the present and near future because anything else would be damn scary. I'd like a brain rewiring, unless I'm stating it somewhat off. When does motion begin? When does the edge of something begin?

I only meant with rewiring the brain that we might need a new way of thinking, that the Aristotelian philosophy has outplayed its role when it comes to determining how we should think. IS abortion murder, or not? Can we say whether or not light IS waves or particles? We can conclude that Robert Anton Wilson (the author of Quantum Psychology) wants to say that we can call abortion both murder and not, just as we can say that we can view light both as waves and particles. To Aristotelian logic, this would be unheard of, because it does not take into account the relative results of how our brain interprets our common phenomenological reality. It only stresses that "either it IS like so, or it ISN'T". Either abortion IS murder, or abortion is NOT murder. Since we does not have any means of proving this statement or disproving it, we must move it under the meaningless category, because it tells us nothing relevant regarding abortion (you can place words such as good or evil under the same category. How can I prove that The Dresden Dolls ARE evil, for example)?

Bah, my brain feels tired and does not cooperate willingly. Hope you find this collection of philosophical ranting logical. I want to sleep now, good night.

[yosmark]

This thread reminds me of a discussion i had with a Physics teacher a week ago, i would have to say the thing i am most impresed about Quantics is the fact that an electron can be in two places at the same time (i know it has a fancy name, but i don´t know how to write it in english); even though i agree in almost everything with Dr Einstein i would have to say that ... the light is a wave and a particle why would i say that??? because i have studied Erwin Sröedinger and also Bohr; that makes me think that what they say is possible and at the same time you can´t just limit your knowledge about light by just saying .."oh damn light it´s just a wave" ... why no both?

And also about quantum in general "I LOVE IT" i would have studied physics as a major but ... i don´t want to end as a teacher.

A good recomendation and maybe even a must is Brief History of Time by Dr Stephen Hawking; it´s amazing i mean it´s almost everything about astrophysics but still pretty interesting. I would love to have the kind of view of the world a god would have, like to see everything; just to see if that theory by Dr. Hawking is true the one about entropy and that stuff, read that book is awesome.

Thanks for the book recomendation, i will absolutley going to read it if i find it, can i have like the author and that stuff to look for it? Please?

[colordeaf]

I once skimmed through a book about physics...dealing with different topics (branes, string theory, etc...). I don't really get it (because I didn't have enough time), but I've always had this odd feeling that might have to do with it...why am I seeing through the perspective I am? How come I wasn't born a pigeon? Why can't I be two people at once, literally? Why not the ceiling?

I think...people tend to see only the present and near future because anything else would be damn scary. I'd like a brain rewiring, unless I'm stating it somewhat off. When does motion begin? When does the edge of something begin?

I only meant with rewiring the brain that we might need a new way of thinking, that the Aristotelian philosophy has outplayed its role when it comes to determining how we should think. IS abortion murder, or not? Can we say whether or not light IS waves or particles? We can conclude that Robert Anton Wilson (the author of Quantum Psychology) wants to say that we can call abortion both murder and not, just as we can say that we can view light both as waves and particles. To Aristotelian logic, this would be unheard of, because it does not take into account the relative results of how our brain interprets our common phenomenological reality. It only stresses that "either it IS like so, or it ISN'T". Either abortion IS murder, or abortion is NOT murder. Since we does not have any means of proving this statement or disproving it, we must move it under the meaningless category, because it tells us nothing relevant regarding abortion (you can place words such as good or evil under the same category. How can I prove that The Dresden Dolls ARE evil, for example)?

Bah, my brain feels tired and does not cooperate willingly. Hope you find this collection of philosophical ranting logical. I want to sleep now, good night.

The logic reminds me of Vergere from the New Jedi Order Books (a character who would fit the lyrics of the Gardener, the way she interacts with Jacne Solo in Traitor). "Everything I tell you is a lie". "Everything I tell you is truth" (she challenges the black/white notions of the universe the protagonist has). I like how you put it.

[85283-071]

I only meant with rewiring the brain that we might need a new way of thinking, that the Aristotelian philosophy has outplayed its role when it comes to determining how we should think. IS abortion murder, or not? Can we say whether or not light IS waves or particles? We can conclude that Robert Anton Wilson (the author of Quantum Psychology) wants to say that we can call abortion both murder and not, just as we can say that we can view light both as waves and particles. To Aristotelian logic, this would be unheard of, because it does not take into account the relative results of how our brain interprets our common phenomenological reality. It only stresses that "either it IS like so, or it ISN'T". Either abortion IS murder, or abortion is NOT murder. Since we does not have any means of proving this statement or disproving it, we must move it under the meaningless category, because it tells us nothing relevant regarding abortion (you can place words such as good or evil under the same category. How can I prove that The Dresden Dolls ARE evil, for example)?

Bah, my brain feels tired and does not cooperate willingly. Hope you find this collection of philosophical ranting logical. I want to sleep now, good night.
[/quote]

If you don't mind me asking, who are you, how did you end up here and what other sorts of things do you like to ponder? This might seem odd and direct, but that is only because I am odd and direct.

[Radarmantro]

If you don't mind me asking, who are you, how did you end up here and what other sorts of things do you like to ponder? This might seem odd and direct, but that is only because I am odd and direct.

I am used to odd and direct stuff on the internets (I myself can be experienced to be quite odd and direct sometimes), so do not worry 'bout it. Regarding whom i am; I have explained some things about myself in the introduction thread. First of all, my physical body spawned in North-Norway some 19 years ago, but apart from that I like to ponder upon stuff (everything from relativity to social behavior to metaphysics and so on), read stuff (such as Quantum Psychology, it humors my brain), play games, eat hearty meals, write, make music, listen to music etc.
To answer your other question; I like, as I have already stated, to ponder a great many deal of things. I spend much time thinking over myself and my own being, my own shortcomings, my good sides etc. Relativity also takes up quite a lot of grey matter, because I perceive it to make up such a huge part of how we interpret the world we think we interact with, how mental surroundings make up our impression of things around us. Morals and such metaphysical topics can also be quite interesting to discuss and think about, for one thing because I find it has tight connections to relativity and our own brain processes. Science in general also interests and stimulates my brain.

As to why I have come here? Because The Dresden Dolls appeal to me, and one day I find out that they have a forum connected to them, so I go like "why hey, they has have internetz forum! Me wants!". So I register and start writing. My consider my first impression to be good, and I was appealed to continue writing and spending some time on here. But mainly because I like The Dresden Dolls, and their music have helped inspire some of my own playing.

[Cheddars Cousin]

I say yes.

[Musings]

There are portions of reality that are absolute, yeah.  Like gravity. 


One problem is that we have and we will always have tools that are less accurate than the absolute truth.  So, as we get better tools, we have to keep revising our opinions on reality.  The other thing is we can only form ideas of absolute truth (which may, very well, not be absolute) with our minds and brains, and that is very perceptually and experientially based.  A lot of social constructions, for example, are very hard to move beyond because our brains are partially shaped by them.  Take into consideration problems of perception and language influencing thoughts (our creations influencing ourselves) and the problem becomes 100-fold.  It becomes a problem to dissociate what is perception and what is actual.  It becomes a problem that we are dealing with more than 6 billion perceptions and minds.  It might all be perception and we might be living in black boxes.  It might not. 

But before I take this conversation elsewhere, physics attempts to get at absolute truth by quantifying it.  It might be the best approach we have so far.  But it's still be revised, rapidly, and is based on theory after theory and that this idea of numbers and the absoluteness of numbers.

[85283-071]

I say yes.

I hate to risk jumping the gun, but I was thinking yes too.

[Kovacs]

I'd like your perspectives on the matter. Can we call our phenomenological reality aboslutistic, or should we rewire our brains as to better understand the changing, nondramatic world/ universe we seem to inhabit? Does an arrow in flight occupy "one" space, or several? Discuss and be happy.

Or, as Wallace would say: 

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....Quantum.

"Yes".

Quantum and its findings make up a decent portion of my current belief (religious and spiritual) system. I'll freely admit that I haven't explored quantum in a few years...most of my info comes from a Philosophy of Physics course and other random readings from when I was much younger, so feel free to correct and or elaborate if I make some unclear statments.

Things that make me go "oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo":

- Observation of a Quantum event affects the outcome of the event (or appears to). This is the light acting different ways depending on it's mood. One can take this a multitude of ways. On the more conservative end, something in the physical act of observing is changing things (which seems incomplete given the observations recorded). On the more radical end, thought affects reality. Or rather, conciousness percieving reality changes it. Or even that there is an intelligence behind the scenes changing it. *spooky music*
   - You could even go so far as to say that a "genius" is someone with a powerful enough mind/will to conform reality to his perception. i.e. gravity wasn't truly defined in its current form until Newton...relativity didn't actually exist until Einstein, etc etc. But thats sci-fi talk.

- Anything you think you know about whats going on is completely and irrevocably fucked. The effects you feel (such as gravity) are real, and haven't changed. But the causal chain to create those effects at the quantum level defies all human logic.
   - Particles appear to be able to interact with each other regardless of physical distance
   - Cause can happen after effect on a quantum level (fate, essentially)

- Since all this is going on at the quantum level, it makes sense to me that the effects would be seen macroscopically. How? I have no idea. But in my mind, it goes a long way towards explaining things like love (twinning of your own personal fabric of the universe with another), religion (feeling an understanding of the world around you is just glimpsing the quantum order to it all), or even more outstanding things like telepathy, "magic", curses, etc.

- It frustrates me when people say that science is taking the magic out of the universe, or stripping it of its wonder, when quantum has done nothing but increase wonder throughout anyone who studies it. Some scientists have turned to religion of all things.

- Even before quantum theory, these mysteries were around. The concept of infinity is used throughout nearly every important mathmatical proof, yet it still remains impossible for the human mind to conceptualize it fully. Try it. The only way to concieve infinity is to think about something that goes on forever, which would mean you'd have to think about it forever.


To answer your questions, in my opinion:

- No, what we see is not real.
- I don't know if we "should" rewire our brains, but I believe we eventually will
- Probably many. I don't really buy that we exist solely in three dimensions physically.

What's your opinion on probability functions as a way of viewing the universe Radarmantro? The past few years I've been entertaining the idea of the brain as just a probability field collapser. I forget which book I got it from. 

[Devery]

There are portions of reality that are absolute, yeah.  Like gravity. 

I'll leave this discussion to those of you who know what you're talking about.  Your gravity statement reminded me that I had read a few things by Christian fundamentalists around about the time Jerry Falwell died to the effect that the concept of gravity is nothing but a bunch of atheistic hooey.  So, I just did a brief search and came up from this little gem from some message board:

Gravity: Doesn't exist. If items of mass had any impact of others, then mountains should have people orbiting them. Or the space shuttle in space should have the astronauts orbiting it. Of course, that's just the tip of the gravity myth. Think about it. Scientists want us to believe that the sun has a gravitation pull strong enough to keep a planet like neptune or pluto in orbit, but then it's not strong enough to keep the moon in orbit? Why is that? What I believe is going on here is this: These objects in space have yet to receive mans touch, and thus have no sin to weigh them down. This isn't the case for earth, where we see the impact of transfered sin to material objects. The more sin, the heavier something is.

[Kovacs]

That statement nearly made me froth.

[Radarmantro]

"On the more radical end, thought affects reality. Or rather, consciousness perceiving reality changes it."

Define reality in this context and how "consciousness" changes it. I think I know what you mean, but this can be seen as one of the points with quantum relativity, that although we perceive something to be like this or that, we can only say so much about it from the results we can read from our instruments (be it either brain, eyes, thermometer etc). So if anyone sees the moon and thinks "hey, that IS a big shiney firefly", well... how can we disprove that it IS a big firefly? Afterall, our understanding of both the moon and the word firefly derives from subjective models of both and therefore we have no way of concluding any absolute definition for firefly or for the moon. But at the same time, we would be left baffled if we tried to prove that the moon really IS a firefly. How would we do that? How would we measure the Moon for any presence of fireflyness, under which conditions and in what contexts? Not to mention that we'd have to determine we have the right Moon and we know how to properly observe any measure of fireflyness. Or do we proceed by taking the definition we already have on the word "firefly"? In any case, it can be seen as a statement we can not make any sense out of. "The Moon seems to my brain at this moment to resemble a huge, shiney firefly, according to my understanding of how a firefly looks like to my sensory equipment", this sentence would make a whole more lot of sense, since it makes a statement according to what we experience, without applying an unseen "essence" to an object which cannot be proved or disproved.

"You could even go so far as to say that a "genius" is someone with a powerful enough mind/will to conform reality to his perception. i.e. gravity wasn't truly defined in its current form until Newton...relativity didn't actually exist until Einstein, etc etc. But thats sci-fi talk."

Good that you noticed it yourself, else I'd ask you if these propositions seemed very logical to you, no offence intended though

"The effects you feel (such as gravity) are real"

They ARE real? Can you make the same statement without utilizing human verbal symbolism or human instruments or their results? A more correct way of saying it could be "according to what we can observe of the effects of any natural process which we CAN observe, we can conclude that the effects of said natural process (for example gravity) seem real to those of the humans who have a common way of perceiving/ explaining these effects". Does this seem logical?

"- I don't know if we "should" rewire our brains, but I believe we eventually will"

Why not?

"What's your opinion on probability functions as a way of viewing the universe Radarmantro?"

My opinion regarding probability functions? My subjective opinion can be viewed as based on what I can observe and what I can experience. If I cannot observe or experience something in one way or the other, it either means that my instruments does not have sufficient power to observe or experience it, or that my instruments perceive it differently. You will have to excuse me if I do not hold the required information regarding "probability functions" to respond sufficiently, because I do not think I am certain whether or not I know what you mean with probability functions (I is n00b)

"Gravity: Doesn't exist. If items of mass had any impact of others, then mountains should have people orbiting them. Or the space shuttle in space should have the astronauts orbiting it. Of course, that's just the tip of the gravity myth. Think about it. Scientists want us to believe that the sun has a gravitation pull strong enough to keep a planet like neptune or pluto in orbit, but then it's not strong enough to keep the moon in orbit? Why is that? What I believe is going on here is this: These objects in space have yet to receive mans touch, and thus have no sin to weigh them down. This isn't the case for earth, where we see the impact of transfered sin to material objects. The more sin, the heavier something is."

Notice the last bold part of that statement. It should serve as a sufficiently strong enough warning for most of us that we do not need to take these words seriously.

[Brittany]

Is it this book? 

If you recommend it, I'll buy a used copy.