Why Metaphysics fails to be adequate?

[Eventhorizon]

That kind of depends, doesn't it?

I'd probably figure it out when I realize there are no babies, and if you open something that is not meant to be opened you'd find that it is completely void inside and the surfaces are impossibly thin. You'd also find that your own body is similarly hollow at some point, and if you go to a place that you aren't supposed to see, nothing exists there except the skybox.

Great response. Assume though that when you look, things like organs are accounted for. The main focal point of my question resides on existing in a world like that and trying to measure it through observation. If enough time and effort were put in on the programmers end, and if his intention were to make the character of the game never suspect his world was less real then where it actually came from, the programmer might deduce many of the observations the game character would and could make and account for them.

Gravity is real there to the observer in the game. If the observer tried to measure gravity what would he find? We on this earth still dont know where gravity actually comes from. For the game character, gravity is a programmed rule by which it must obey. It is the same for us. It is a rule we must obey. Maybe for us, it is nothing more than a programmed rule as well.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Things are made of chaos.

Also note that it's not just observing, but measuring. This is important because the more precisely you measure, the more pronounced the probabilistic randomness becomes. This concept was actually helpful in proving that this happens because they were able to take a more general measurement of particles at the slits in such a way that the measurement did not effect the interference pattern as much.

You can think of this measurement precision as something like using a large hoop to estimate the general unknown size of a small object. If it fits through the hoop you know it is not larger than the hoop, which is a form of imprecise measurement. But the closer your hoop is to the actual size of the object, the more likely the observer effect will take place or be intensified, increasing as the tolerance becomes more precise.

Edit:
And also on this note, everything is a measurement to some degree. The whole lab the experiment is done in is actually a measurement, as it is made of discrete objects, just like the slits are, and the particles are passing between them. The walls of the lab don't seem to effect the experiment but it is a form of measuring, even observing, because you can deduce that the particle is contained in the lab vs. elsewhere. The walls are no different than the slits except that the slits are much much closer to the particle, therefore measuring it more precisely.

Great experiment. Really food for thought. It makes me believe in the strong possibility our world is a simulation. The most recent form of this experiment shows electrons going back through time and changing their original action into something different. The observer changing the outcome every time.
So is the electron changing itself because it recognizes its being watched? Doubtful. Or is there a rule set in place that causes it to behave a certain way when being observed. Likely.

 

[sprinkles]

Great response. Assume though that when you look, things like organs are accounted for. The main focal point of my question resides on existing in a world like that and trying to measure it through observation. If enough time and effort were put in on the programmers end, and if his intention were to make the character of the game never suspect his world was less real then where it actually came from, the programmer might deduce many of the observations the game character would and could make and account for them.

Gravity is real there to the observer in the game. If the observer tried to measure gravity what would he find? We on this earth still dont know where gravity actually comes from. For the game character, gravity is a programmed rule by which it must obey. It is the same for us. It is a rule we must obey. Maybe for us, it is nothing more than a programmed rule as well.

Yeah that's true. If it were that perfect then it would essentially be reality. What we see as reality is pretty much a hologram constructed through qualia anyway - the 'real' stuff is indescribable.

Take ambient light for example, which is actually invisible to the eye. This is why you can see through a perceived space - if you saw all the light that was traveling through the space in front of you, you'd be blinded and not be able to see anything but light. Yet, since the light traveling through space is not itself visible, your eyes can detect just the photons that bounce into them, and if you have two eyes you can make a stereoscopic image since each eye sees a slightly different thing, just like a hologram.

This is what allows you to see the sun as a glowing ball for example, instead of being flooded with all the actual light coming off it. Even if you look at a picture of the sun you still see the blackness of the surrounding space, space which vast amounts of light is traveling through, invisibly.

The only time you really see light that seems to be in a space is when it is refracting off dust or a gas for example.

 

[sprinkles]

Great experiment. Really food for thought. It makes me believe in the strong possibility our world is a simulation. The most recent form of this experiment shows electrons going back through time and changing their original action into something different. The observer changing the outcome every time.
So is the electron changing itself because it recognizes its being watched? Doubtful. Or is there a rule set in place that causes it to behave a certain way when being observed. Likely.

Well it's more like the particles have a probability of many possible states, and measuring it can collapse the states.

They probably don't go back in time, they are just sort of doing more than one thing at once and the thing that you see them doing depends on what you measure. As you become more certain of one aspect, such as position, the other aspects become more fuzzy.

This is why it was observed that in the double slit experiment, the interference pattern can be induced with one slit closed. Instead of particles going through two slits, the particle goes through the one slit and interferes with itself - almost as if it were in two places, which it kind of is in order to do that.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Yeah that's true. If it were that perfect then it would essentially be reality. What we see as reality is pretty much a hologram constructed through qualia anyway - the 'real' stuff is indescribable.

Take ambient light for example, which is actually invisible to the eye. This is why you can see through a perceived space - if you saw all the light that was traveling through the space in front of you, you'd be blinded and not be able to see anything but light. Yet, since the light traveling through space is not itself visible, your eyes can detect just the photons that bounce into them, and if you have two eyes you can make a stereoscopic image since each eye sees a slightly different thing, just like a hologram.

This is what allows you to see the sun as a glowing ball for example, instead of being flooded with all the actual light coming off it. Even if you look at a picture of the sun you still see the blackness of the surrounding space, space which vast amounts of light is traveling through, invisibly.

The only time you really see light that seems to be in a space is when it is refracting off dust or a gas for example.

I came across a strange phenomenon not long ago and I dont know if anyone else has noticed it or has an explanation. Sitting watching TV I had my laptop with me and set to the side. At some point I noticed the TVs reflection in the computer screen because I saw movement from the laptops screen as I watched TV. What is strange is that the reflection on the Laptop screen changed slightly slower than what was on TV. A minuscule amount to be sure but still enough for it to be noticeable.

Now was I detecting light hitting my eye at a slightly different time because it had a slightly longer way to travel? Or was it where it was hitting my eye (the side) and that my brain does not process information hitting that part of the eye as quickly as when viewing something directly?

No real relevance to the topic. Just remembered it because of it.

 

[sprinkles]

I came across a strange phenomenon not long ago and I dont know if anyone else has noticed it or has an explanation. Sitting watching TV I had my laptop with me and set to the side. At some point I noticed the TVs reflection in the computer screen because I saw movement from the laptops screen as I watched TV. What is strange is that the reflection on the Laptop screen changed slightly slower than what was on TV. A minuscule amount to be sure but still enough for it to be noticeable.

Now was I detecting light hitting my eye at a slightly different time because it had a slightly longer way to travel? Or was it where it was hitting my eye (the side) and that my brain does not process information hitting that part of the eye as quickly as when viewing something directly?

No real relevance to the topic. Just remembered it because of it.

It's probably an optical illusion, even though the light is probably slowed a little by your laptop panel glass from refracting through it. If you could really notice it travelling a longer distance then your reflection in a mirror should also lag the same way - moreso because it has a two way trip, not even a one way trip but slightly longer like the TV reflection does.

My guess is that it's an illusion due to the frame rate and flicker. Kind of like when you watch the wheels of a car going by, they some times seem to go backwards, or if you're watching a helicopter on video some times the frame rate will sync up with the rotor and it appears to be not spinning.

I see it some times too.

 

[Skarekrow]

Things are made of chaos.

Also note that it's not just observing, but measuring. This is important because the more precisely you measure, the more pronounced the probabilistic randomness becomes. This concept was actually helpful in proving that this happens because they were able to take a more general measurement of particles at the slits in such a way that the measurement did not effect the interference pattern as much.

You can think of this measurement precision as something like using a large hoop to estimate the general unknown size of a small object. If it fits through the hoop you know it is not larger than the hoop, which is a form of imprecise measurement. But the closer your hoop is to the actual size of the object, the more likely the observer effect will take place or be intensified, increasing as the tolerance becomes more precise.

Edit:
And also on this note, everything is a measurement to some degree. The whole lab the experiment is done in is actually a measurement, as it is made of discrete objects, just like the slits are, and the particles are passing between them. The walls of the lab don't seem to effect the experiment but it is a form of measuring, even observing, because you can deduce that the particle is contained in the lab vs. elsewhere. The walls are no different than the slits except that the slits are much much closer to the particle, therefore measuring it more precisely.

Not quite...
The experiment is conducted with both a single slit and a double slit....
when photons are fired at the single slit it creates a pattern that you would expect to be there...a solid line of light.
But when they are fired at the double slit it creates the interference pattern...now keep in mind that both slits have photon detectors on them.
What they could not and still can not figure out is why if the individual photons randomly go through one slit of the other, then why is there the subsequent interference pattern on the wall? This helps prove the theory of wave-particle duality, where something can both be a wave and a particle at the same time although it is a paradox as a fundamental property of the universe. The observer can view it one way or the other but not both simultaneously. That is the point. No one can fully explain why we cannot....it’s as if it is being hidden almost on purpose.

 

[sprinkles]

Not quite...
The experiment is conducted with both a single slit and a double slit....
when photons are fired at the single slit it creates a pattern that you would expect to be there...a solid line of light.
But when they are fired at the double slit it creates the interference pattern...now keep in mind that both slits have photon detectors on them.
What they could not and still can not figure out is why if the individual photons randomly go through one slit of the other, then why is there the subsequent interference pattern on the wall? This helps prove the theory of wave-particle duality, where something can both be a wave and a particle at the same time although it is a paradox as a fundamental property of the universe. The observer can view it one way or the other but not both simultaneously. That is the point. No one can fully explain why we cannot....it’s as if it is being hidden almost on purpose.

Yes. They also managed to cause the interference pattern on a single slit arranged in such a way that the photon could have passed through either slit if they had both been open.

This also still works with firing one particle at a time as you mention. This has to do with the theory of quantum superposition, a quantum particle exists in all of its states at once, until it is observed (measured) which collapses it to one state - which isn't necessarily the state you always expect. This is also illustrated by Schrodinger's cat - until you open the box, the cat is both alive and dead at the same time.

Edit:
Also the idea of more or less precise measurement has to do with the uncertainty principle, which works on a continuum. e.g. the more precisely you know the particles momentum, the less precisely you can know its position.

In 1987 they discovered that how much the interference pattern is destroyed when you measure the particles depends on how precisely you measure, so they learned that they can find which path the particle takes without destroying the pattern entirely. If you measure the photons at the slit too much, you get the solid line as if it was only one slit, which is what they use for the quantum eraser experiment - they can destroy the pattern and then bring it back by erasing the measurement using entangled pairs.

 

[Skarekrow]

Yes. They also managed to cause the interference pattern on a single slit arranged in such a way that the photon could have passed through either slit if they had both been open.

This also still works with firing one particle at a time as you mention. This has to do with the theory of quantum superposition, a quantum particle exists in all of its states at once, until it is observed (measured) which collapses it to one state - which isn't necessarily the state you always expect. This is also illustrated by Schrodinger's cat - until you open the box, the cat is both alive and dead at the same time.

Then the real question is - why? If an when they ever figure that out...in manner than can be proven, it will be an interesting day.

 

[sprinkles]

Then the real question is - why? If an when they ever figure that out...in manner than can be proven, it will be an interesting day.

I don't think 'why' is all that important because it just leads to another 'why'.

For example if they manage to find gravitons and thereby discover what actually causes gravity, that still leaves the fundamental question of why a graviton works the way it does. Gravitons are responsible for the force of gravity? Why?

 

[Eventhorizon]

Then the real question is - why? If an when they ever figure that out...in manner than can be proven, it will be an interesting day.

Knowledge is evil. So says a religion or two. A certain apple comes to mind. Anyway wouldnt it be funny if the human race has been around a really long time. I mean... a really long time and long ago someone figured out we are all nothing more than a simulated world created in another world...ummm err dimension. Cough. And that people kind of went a little insane about the whole prospect of not being really real. So one day in order to calm things down a bit they banned knowledge and science so that people would forget what they knew?

Well I think it would make a great scifi book anyway.

 

[Skarekrow]

I don't think 'why' is all that important because it just leads to another 'why'.

For example if they manage to find gravitons and thereby discover what actually causes gravity, that still leaves the fundamental question of why a graviton works the way it does. Gravitons are responsible for the force of gravity? Why?

Well, isn’t that our nature as humans....as a sentient being that becomes self-aware....maybe we are just a fluke in the universe, but then again, maybe not. You can sit around and wait to die if you think that there is nothing to this life...do what you want, be selfish, etc. But we as humans have a certain morality wired into our brains...why? Because it was put there through evolution as the best way to survive as a species or is it something more? I don’t mind asking why....and then asking why again...I would love to go down that rabbit hole personally.

Knowledge is evil. So says a religion or two. A certain apple comes to mind. Anyway wouldnt it be funny if the human race has been around a really long time. I mean... a really long time and long ago someone figured out we are all nothing more than a simulated world created in another world...ummm err dimension. Cough. And that people kind of went a little insane about the whole prospect of not being really real. So one day in order to calm things down a bit they banned knowledge and science so that people would forget what they knew?

Well I think it would make a great scifi book anyway.

Yes you are right....it was the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but there was also another tree which was the tree of life in the garden of eden.
If one were to prescribe to said religion, then one would also believe that God is all knowing, including the future outcomes of every person and event. One would also believe that God created all...which if the tree is included would also make true the idea that God created evil along with good. So if God is all knowing, and has power over all, then one would be a fool to assume that God did not put the tree there with the explicit purpose of tempting Eve. One would also have to believe that the Devil as the serpent was created and controlled by God as well. In fact, if one were to really read the scriptures there are many passages that tell us that we have no free will.
We have the free will of a flock of sheep (a favorite euphemism), we can roam the pasture, but we cannot go past the fence...and, as well, we are controlled (herded) by God to follow a certain predestined path. Jesus figured it out....Buddha figured it out....we do not really exist as we believe we do.....we really are as you put it “a simulated world” controlled by whom? Do we only exist in our own minds and the minds of others? If everyone on earth were to disappear would we cease to exist because we are not existing in their minds? Yes, the church banned knowledge...which goes against the whole idea behind the story of the tree of knowledge. They chose fear to rule...and for centuries it has worked....but recently people are getting wise to this. It’s all changing...into what I don’t know.

 

[sprinkles]

Well, isn’t that our nature as humans....as a sentient being that becomes self-aware....maybe we are just a fluke in the universe, but then again, maybe not. You can sit around and wait to die if you think that there is nothing to this life...do what you want, be selfish, etc. But we as humans have a certain morality wired into our brains...why? Because it was put there through evolution as the best way to survive as a species or is it something more? I don’t mind asking why....and then asking why again...I would love to go down that rabbit hole personally.

I don't think being important is all that important because we do what we do anyway.

In fact I believe importance is a relative and subjective construct in itself which paradoxically comes with this mechanism you describe. Like morality it is in your brain - just like you feel that something can be right or wrong, you in the same way feel that something can be important or not, which of course self referentially feeds back into itself.

Not that I mind, because chaos. Things don't have to be important in order to seem important.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I don't think being important is all that important because we do what we do anyway.

In fact I believe importance is a relative and subjective construct in itself which paradoxically comes with this mechanism you describe. Like morality it is in your brain - just like you feel that something can be right or wrong, you in the same way feel that something can be important or not, which of course self referentially feeds back into itself.

Not that I mind, because chaos. Things don't have to be important in order to seem important.

I wonder how much morality would remain in our brains without the guidance other people have given us since birth. Example, a baby who is somehow able to survive on its own without the help of other humans. Would that child or person later have any concept of something other than self if meeting other humans for the first time later in life? Would it develop morals after spending enough time with other humans etc.... Is it in other words, something that is in our brains already or something taught by society?

 

[Eventhorizon]

Well, isn’t that our nature as humans....as a sentient being that becomes self-aware....maybe we are just a fluke in the universe, but then again, maybe not. You can sit around and wait to die if you think that there is nothing to this life...do what you want, be selfish, etc. But we as humans have a certain morality wired into our brains...why? Because it was put there through evolution as the best way to survive as a species or is it something more? I don’t mind asking why....and then asking why again...I would love to go down that rabbit hole personally.

Yes you are right....it was the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but there was also another tree which was the tree of life in the garden of eden.
If one were to prescribe to said religion, then one would also believe that God is all knowing, including the future outcomes of every person and event. One would also believe that God created all...which if the tree is included would also make true the idea that God created evil along with good. So if God is all knowing, and has power over all, then one would be a fool to assume that God did not put the tree there with the explicit purpose of tempting Eve. One would also have to believe that the Devil as the serpent was created and controlled by God as well. In fact, if one were to really read the scriptures there are many passages that tell us that we have no free will.
We have the free will of a flock of sheep (a favorite euphemism), we can roam the pasture, but we cannot go past the fence...and, as well, we are controlled (herded) by God to follow a certain predestined path. Jesus figured it out....Buddha figured it out....we do not really exist as we believe we do.....we really are as you put it “a simulated world” controlled by whom? Do we only exist in our own minds and the minds of others? If everyone on earth were to disappear would we cease to exist because we are not existing in their minds? Yes, the church banned knowledge...which goes against the whole idea behind the story of the tree of knowledge. They chose fear to rule...and for centuries it has worked....but recently people are getting wise to this. It’s all changing...into what I don’t know.

In my mind yours is a logical process of thought that should cause religious people to at least think. I made the determination long ago that if their actually were a God as described in the bible, it and the devil were one and the same. You said it better though pretty much covering most if not all the bases.

For a while I became sure religion needed to go away, certainly the religions that came from the western bible because they had damaged society for long enough. But then, as time moved on I began to wonder what better thing would I replace them with? Pure logical thought without heart seems to be self defeating as well. Not to say that religion is a persons heart but if it is the only way they can keep themselves from running into the streets doing whatever they want, if they are so scared of the darkside within themselves they must enlist the help of the imaginary to control it...then where is my argument?

And so while I still fight to live I ask myself what do I believe in thats worth fighting for. The only thing I can come up with is happiness and everything associated with it.

 

[sprinkles]

I wonder how much morality would remain in our brains without the guidance other people have given us since birth. Example, a baby who is somehow able to survive on its own without the help of other humans. Would that child or person later have any concept of something other than self if meeting other humans for the first time later in life? Would it develop morals after spending enough time with other humans etc.... Is it in other words, something that is in our brains already or something taught by society?

It's kind of moot because nobody is an island. What the child becomes in an environment sans humans is just as dependent on the environment as it is with humans.

Holistically, all outcomes are interdependent and morality is no exception. To wonder if it is learned ignores the corollary that learned habit or not, both cases depend on the state of things. It's not independent.

Edit:
Or to make an analogy, if you have a bucket of Legos, you might build a house, or you might build a space ship. But in either case it is derived from an arrangement of Legos, which always have an arrangement in relation to each other - even while disassembled in the bucket.

 

[Skarekrow]

In my mind yours is a logical process of thought that should cause religious people to at least think. I made the determination long ago that if their actually were a God as described in the bible, it and the devil were one and the same. You said it better though pretty much covering most if not all the bases.

For a while I became sure religion needed to go away, certainly the religions that came from the western bible because they had damaged society for long enough. But then, as time moved on I began to wonder what better thing would I replace them with? Pure logical thought without heart seems to be self defeating as well. Not to say that religion is a persons heart but if it is the only way they can keep themselves from running into the streets doing whatever they want, if they are so scared of the darkside within themselves they must enlist the help of the imaginary to control it...then where is my argument?

And so while I still fight to live I ask myself what do I believe in thats worth fighting for. The only thing I can come up with is happiness and everything associated with it.

The Bible isn’t a bad thing....in fact no religious book is a bad thing....they have become “bad” things when people use fear, intimidation, to gain power for themselves via that religion. This goes back for centuries....the “Christian” church is a prime example of that...the Crusades, the witch trials, the fear of Hell and it’s unimaginable unrelenting tortures. A true Christian would help the poor, would not look down upon anyone, would love those who have wronged him, would not be rich.
Even more scary than the Catholic church now is the right-wing evangelical “christians” who have excluded so many....Immigrants, Gays, Liberal minded people.
For immigrants - 'We are called to discern among, “sojourners” (like Ruth and Rahab who intend to assimilate and bless) and “foreigners” (who do not intend to assimilate and bless) and to welcome the former with hospitality.”
For those affluent “Christians” - "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God. - Matthew 19:24.”
And then you have the story of the rich man and Lazarus....Lazarus was a beggar for scraps of food. Lazarus ends up in heaven while the rich man ends up in “Hell”.
"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money. - Luke 16:13.”
On war and peace - "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. - Matthew 5:38-42, Luke 27-30.”
On women’s place - "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. - Galatians 3:28”
Religious fundamentalism ignores such quotations or twists them into something that suits their own needs which is find vile and disgusting.
Think, if Jesus were president would the poor be fed? Would the rich in this country continue to gouge the poor and middle class? Would we all have medical care?
I find it incredible morally and personally wrong that those who are poor in this country or those who have food stamps are looked down upon.
The poor are treated as if they have some sort of moral failure and therefore do not deserve help. That attitude repels me.

 

[Skarekrow]

I don't think being important is all that important because we do what we do anyway.

In fact I believe importance is a relative and subjective construct in itself which paradoxically comes with this mechanism you describe. Like morality it is in your brain - just like you feel that something can be right or wrong, you in the same way feel that something can be important or not, which of course self referentially feeds back into itself.

Not that I mind, because chaos. Things don't have to be important in order to seem important.

I just watched a program that was exploring the hardwiring of morality in our brains...they found that there is a certain level of morality that we are endowed with from birth.
I do not think we are important in the grand scheme of the universe....that wasn’t my inference. I was stating that we either are important or we are not at all.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I just watched a program that was exploring the hardwiring of morality in our brains...they found that there is a certain level of morality that we are endowed with from birth.
I do not think we are important in the grand scheme of the universe....that wasn’t my inference. I was stating that we either are important or we are not at all.

Important to what? Ourselves? I cant see that we have any importance beyond that and given how small we are... What great thing can human kind bring to the universe that nothing else can?

 

[sprinkles]

I just watched a program that was exploring the hardwiring of morality in our brains...they found that there is a certain level of morality that we are endowed with from birth.
I do not think we are important in the grand scheme of the universe....that wasn’t my inference. I was stating that we either are important or we are not at all.

Could be genetic memory maybe?

What's been shown is that a species itself is almost like a symbiotic colony in a way - similar to a large organism. Kind of like the plant called King's Lomatia - it is a clonal colony, all specimens of it are genetically identical clones, and the plant does not reproduce as it has no seeds or fruits. Instead, when a part of the plant drops off to the soil it grows roots, so currently all King's Lomatia in existence are derived from just one plant which has been around for more than 40,000 years.

Genetic memory is also displayed in the Portia genus of jumping spider. Portia spiders of the same species will have different inborn behaviors depending on where they were raised and what unique prey exists there, as if they remember how their ancestors handled this prey.