Enduring Problems in Philosophy

[o2b]

I asked a quantum physicist if he thought particles didn't really exist and merely serve as our best estimates of reality, hence virtual particles. He said absolutely. I also asked him if reality is infinitely excursive and recursive and he agreed. I think it's all energy.

Have any of you ever heard of The Copenhagen Confession? I think it occurred in the early 1900's and Neils Bohr was a part of it. It is a confession that at the subatomic level, it is not possible to offer a mechanical explanation for things, meaning it is no longer physics.

A dude named Miles Mathis is highly critical of this. The guy is amazing.

http://milesmathis.com/

 

[mintoots]

@John K @Ren

But how certain are we though that our essence isn't somewhat imprinted on the quantum physics level? We as a human specie aren't that well versed with the particulars of quantum physics yet. The probability of there being an equivalent of DNA strands at the quantum physics level may still be out there. One other question is, could we sufficiently claim that our essence is in our DNA strands? I suppose not, yes? Perhaps our essences are necessarily composites of several temporal and physical aspects. No?

 

[John K]

@John K @Ren

But how certain are we though that or essence isn't somewhat imprinted on the quantum physics level? We as a human specie aren't that well versed with the particulars of quantum physics yet. The probability of there being an equivalent of DNA strands at the quantum physics level may still be out there. One other question is, could we sufficiently claim that our essence is in our DNA strands? I suppose not, yes? Perhaps our essences are necessarily composites of several temporal and physical aspects. No?

I agree in principle Mins ... it is very like what I was referring to here a couple of posts back:

Something to explore though is whether the generalisation of the concept of software could keep the door open to a more heterogeneous philosophy? Is software just a human artifice? By this I include the laws of nature that determine how the world behaves. If this has a reality beyond the human intellect then it could be that software is the fundamental reality not the actual physical components of the world. That could leave the door open to essence once again maybe?

The trouble is that it's very counter-intuitive to think of abstracted patterns and behaviour rules as being more fundamental than what manifests them, and how could they have existence without something to manifest them?

I'm afraid there's no going back to a more concrete understanding of matter though. It isn't just theory that says it's indeterminate within bounds, but empirical reality observed in experimentation. In fact the semiconductors we are all using to communicate with right now rely on quantum tunneling.

 

[mintoots]

The trouble is that it's very counter-intuitive to think of abstracted patterns and behaviour rules as being more fundamental than what manifests them, and how could they have existence without something to manifest them?

But isn't a thought, a word, an idea already a manifestation? You're right that it is abstract in the sense that it seems shapeless but don't we try to define its manifestations by language? While it may be counter-intuitive and may even be flimsy, it also cannot be discounted.

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

Your brain is trolling! I dare you to sing this shinderera song in Japanese! This is exactly the sort of track that fills the airwaves over at Daiso. And this composed by the game??? Was there a syllogism? I'm confused.

Edit: the song is stuck in my head.

As far as I know, all the karaoke are originals sung by the voice actors. It's really a well of timeless hits. And who says I don't sing it already?

 

[mintoots]

As far as I know, all the karaoke are originals sung by the voice actors. It's really a well of timeless hits. And who says I don't sing it already?

Please tell me you pronounced your Ls with Rs. It would be a disservice to the song if you didn't.

Edit: i got it mixed up.

 

[Ren]

But isn't a thought, a word, an idea already a manifestation? You're right that it is abstract in the sense that it seems shapeless but don't we try to define its manifestations by language? While it may be counter-intuitive and may even be flimsy, it also cannot be discounted.

I think John's observation was that a manifestation has to be manifested by something. Can a thought be manifested without a mind? And can a mind be manifested without a brain (or the analogue AI hardware)?

In other words, can there be software without hardware, in the same way that there can be hardware without software.

 

[mintoots]

I think John's observation was that a manifestation has to be manifested by something. Can a thought be manifested without a mind? And can a mind be manifested without a brain (or the analogue AI hardware)?

In other words, can there be software without hardware, in the same way that there can be hardware without software.

So, it must co-exist. The physical and the temporal must co-exist. It's the ultimate paradox to existence, then? I mean that as magnetism is polar, full existence requires the composite union of the temporal and the physical. Is this possible?

 

[Wyote]

I think John's observation was that a manifestation has to be manifested by something. Can a thought be manifested without a mind? And can a mind be manifested without a brain (or the analogue AI hardware)?

In other words, can there be software without hardware, in the same way that there can be hardware without software.

Who made the hardware for the software of our reality

 

[David54]

Ten dollar words to express the obvious..my problem with philosophy.

 

[Ren]

Who made the hardware for the software of our reality

Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss suggest: “something from nothing”. (Video)

 

[Wyote]

Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss suggest: “something from nothing”. (Video)

You know I'm a fan of that ideology

 

[Ren]

You know I'm a fan of that ideology

I do remember the God of Nothingness. Gosh, that brings us back doesn't it? Haha

 

[John K]

But isn't a thought, a word, an idea already a manifestation? You're right that it is abstract in the sense that it seems shapeless but don't we try to define its manifestations by language? While it may be counter-intuitive and may even be flimsy, it also cannot be discounted.

Of course, but this is what I was referring to earlier as emergent. The nature of our world seems to be that when you assemble it’s most basic elements of hardware, some of the assemblies manifest properties and behaviours that are not intrinsically present in the basic components.

It’s important too to avoid dichotomous thinking about these basic components. They show indeterminacy, yes, yet they do show determinacy too. The really weird thing is that they are both at the same time. There appear to be some thinkers who speculate that human consciousness and freedom of will is rooted in this, but speculation is all it is. Another weird thing is that the maths which describes the quantum world is incredibly accurate yet it’s based on the laws of probability. These were invented by Blaise Pascal to help manage his gambling habit and beat the bank - strange that they should also describe the way the world works at a fundamental level lol.

Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss suggest: “something from nothing”. (Video)

I haven’t watched this yet but the idea of something from nothing lies at the heart of whether ‘software’ is more fundamental than manifest hardware. What is meant by the ‘nothing’ that the something is from? Very often when people talk about this they assume that some form of ‘rules’ determine the process of emergence - but then the rules must exist in the nothingness they contemplate, so of course it isn’t nothing after all, hence my speculation about software maybe being the more fundamental.

Personally, I don’t see how anything can emerge from ultimate nothing, because this implies a trigger, actually or metaphorically speaking, that must already exist and the nothing referred to isn’t really nothing after all.

Who made the hardware for the software of our reality

Spoiler: Obvious ???

 

[Wyote]

@John K

 

[John K]

@John K

Brilliant! Love it!

 

[Ren]

@John K

As long as there's a circle, I'm happy.

 

[Wyote]

As long as there's a circle, I'm happy.

Spoiler

 

[Ren]

So, it must co-exist. The physical and the temporal must co-exist. It's the ultimate paradox to existence, then? I mean that as magnetism is polar, full existence requires the composite union of the temporal and the physical. Is this possible?

I don't know if the physical and the temporal must coexist, as in, if there is a necessary relation of coexistence between them. It depends on whether it is possible to conceive of an eternal world that is also physical. If the idea is not logically impossible, then there is no necessary relation. If it is logically impossible, then there is a necessary relation.

In any case, if we assume that the physical and the temporal do coexist necessarily, must software have anything to do with it? It may be possible to have the physical and the temporal but no software (although, see my post below for a skeptical take on that possibility).

 

[Ren]

I haven’t watched this yet but the idea of something from nothing lies at the heart of whether ‘software’ is more fundamental than manifest hardware. What is meant by the ‘nothing’ that the something is from? Very often when people talk about this they assume that some form of ‘rules’ determine the process of emergence - but then the rules must exist in the nothingness they contemplate, so of course it isn’t nothing after all, hence my speculation about software maybe being the more fundamental.

That's a very deep point. I admit that I do not know how to answer it. But it also seems to me that the notion of rule (or 'template' as you used in a comment to an earlier blog post of mine) is very difficult to eliminate from the basic metaphysics of the universe. I don't think it is convincing to argue that such rules/templates are mere reifications of the human mind. The mind too, after all, has to work on that something which it conceptualises as rule, law, or template. The something is still there, external to the mind, and it isn't in itself physical.

We are back to the Kantian notion of the thing-in-itself, lol.