![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Biosapien » March 16th, 2020, 8:40 am wrote:Hi everyone,
I have read some of the previous discussion but I couldn't relate any of those replies to the tittle of the posted thread. My perspective about "Though/Matter/Energy is all three has emanated from single entity which doesn't has origin or end. Thoughts are illusion or effect of energy towards matter.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
lateralsuz » March 15th, 2020, 6:28 am wrote:Hi Hyksos
I'm sorry that you still don't see me as a friend. There is also no epiphany in my thinking.
All I have tried to do is put your argument within the underlying philosophical framework.
There is no point in denying that maths is essentially Determinist, and therefore that most of science is conducted initially with a Determinist philosophy.
The question is, what is the underlying nature of the QM results, which seem to break Determinist principles?
Is there a hidden cause or not?
I am drawn to the suggestion that because the loophole-free tests of Bell's Theorem still break Determinist principles, then we should consider that true spontaneity and randomness do exist.
It is a possibility, but we cannot claim that all scientists believe this. It is not proven - because of the other logical philosophical possibilities. However, we can say that non-determinist views now have stronger evidence to support their ideas.Your ''Crude logic'' is wrong here. The universe is far too weird for you to figure it out on a forum like this. Quantum mechanics is maddening. There is no simple way to describe it using the monkey ideas that our brains carry around.
The whole point about the philosophical arguments is that they do seem to have narrowed the options to a small number of simple possibilities. If we accept the basic principles underpinning that logic, then we might be able to pursue better options than just flogging one 'dead horse' - which the evidence already contradicts.
Why go for 'many worlds' when a simple concept of another type of stuff underpinning existence would suffice in a much simpler way?
davidm » March 10th, 2020, 7:18 pm wrote:As to QM itself, its supposed indeterminism, anti-realism, and non-locality (Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance,” which he derided) are derivations of Copenhagen, or Copenhagen-style, interpretations, or meta-theories, of QM.
QM is fully deterministic, with no spooky action at a distance, and no anti-realism, under both Everett’s relative-state formulation (Many Worlds) and under superdeterminism, favored by Sabine
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
No, I really don't do theory. Theory and fact are two entirely different things. It's not a theory we're posting here. It's not a theory the sun is in the sky or that we're in space.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Maybe, but thoughts aren't illusion, they're an actual process taking place in the brain. But they can create illusion, like the man who thinks he's Napoleon.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
But by "QM" there you mean the mathematical formalism. What is baldly observed is wave function collapse, and randomness in vacuum fluctuations and nuclear decay events. It is in those things we all part ways.
She tripled down and claimed scientists are regularly observing phenomena that defy explanation.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
lateralsuz » March 18th, 2020, 4:16 pm wrote:
So you do apply theory, because you assume that the physical brain is real.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
I also assume I'm posting on the SPCF forum and I live on planet Earth... what a silly I am!
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
You seem to be making the philosophical choice that physical matter and causality are everything - the application of a chosen philosophy out of many others. I try to keep an open mind when the evidence does seem to point to non-inevitability both in our thoughts, and in the results from QM beyond the incomplete and 'probabilistic' mathematics, as hyksos pointed out.
My question to you stands -
when you are faced with these real effects/results do you attribute them to a hidden cause, or something without a cause?
Also if there is another possibility beyond these two, I'd really like to know what it is.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
lateralsuz » March 19th, 2020, 4:17 am wrote:
What is the evidence for this? The evidence of the capabilities of our thoughts:- which do seem to genuinely start new things, and which make things 'not-inevitable'. We choose to build new things and we do create music which would never occur otherwise. In the world of biology we also experience feelings and emotions which have aspects that do not seem to have a physical explanation.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
charon » March 16th, 2020, 4:16 pm wrote:[quote="[url=http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=349953#p349953]
Maybe, but thoughts aren't illusion, they're an actual process taking place in the brain. But they can create illusion, like the man who thinks he's Napoleon.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Its a well know fact that for all kind of reaction there should be some outcome (may be constructive or destructive).
Since you said "thoughts are actual process taking place in brain" could you explain this process for an any particular contradictory situations. Thank you for your comments.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
davidm » March 17th, 2020, 1:38 am wrote:Whether someone comes along to empirically differentiate among the competing interpretations of QM, no one has any way of knowing. So far there is no empirical way to distinguish among them.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
If some aspect of the activities of our brain is currently not fully explained, why would that lead you to say it is nonphysical or presume that some physical account could not be developed at some point? This sounds like a Cartesian version of "God of the gaps. " It presumes dualism, a discredited metaphysics for which there is no evidence.
I sometimes get the feeling that you haven't asked the hard question: how could a nonphysical force or substance interact with physical ones? If you've looked at the last 350 years of science and philosophy, you may have noticed that that which interacts with physical matter is by definition...physical. Few now believe that, say, ghosts can turn doorknobs.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
So there are causeless things in life. Not everything is caused. Cause implies a beginning and therefore an ending. Since you like science, there's a perfect example right there - energy can't be created or destroyed. So no beginning and no end.
But are you also asking whether there's anything else apart from all this? There may well be, but it's not something one can understand.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
If some aspect of the activities of our brain is currently not fully explained, why would that lead you to say it is nonphysical or presume that some physical account could not be developed at some point? ...... It presumes dualism, a discredited metaphysics for which there is no evidence.
I sometimes get the feeling that you haven't asked the hard question: how could a nonphysical force or substance interact with physical ones?
Also, why is novelty (as in the product of our brains processes) necessarily evidence of something dualistic? There are many crystals that constantly produce new and novel configurations, but we don't presume that some nonphysical creative guidance is involved.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
I find it intriguing that you believe there is evidence of things with no cause, yet you do not seem to recognise the philosophical choices you are making in your arguments.
Oh.... and a beginning does not have to imply an end.
People who believe that they see evidence of true spontaneity or randomness
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Return to Philosophy of Science
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests