(September 23, 2015 at 7:04 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(September 23, 2015 at 4:19 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: But strip materialism back to its bare metal and it proposes that the world is made of stuff.  I see no reason why a world of fields is not stuff.  Fields:

- are not formless (you continue to represent that view). Fields have values, eg value x, in spacetime vector y.
- equations govern them and their time evolution and these are deterministic
- really exist

You have responded to my insistence that particles are describable not as things but as ideas by enumerating the mathematical ideas by which they are described.

If you want to say that a particle (or a field) isn't formless then fine; show me what form a photon (for example) has.

Are you sure they only exist?  I think you mean to say, "They really, really exist ya gotta believe me, cuz everyone knows it's true."

No I have responded by saying that they have values in spacetime and are therefore not ideas.

The form is that determined by the maths  What are you after here, the describtion of a billiard ball (which it probably isn't for example?).  You keep asking me to define a form and I keep referring you to the models which will give you that.  I cannot describe the form in a platonic or Newtonian sense.

I mean to say what I said.  They really exist.  We can detect them.  I am not sure what would count as evidence of a photon to you?  If your standard of evidence is a want to see a photon, as a billiard ball, in 3D space or I am forced to believe photons dont really exist, they are just an idea, materialism is false or significantly flawed... well you might just be disappointed.

(September 23, 2015 at 8:08 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: No I have responded by saying that they have values in spacetime and are therefore not ideas.

Really? These values establish that they are not ideas? How, pray tell.

Quote:The form is that determined by the maths  What are you after here, the describtion of a billiard ball (which it probably isn't for example?).

No. What I want is an unambiguous description of a thing, which is necessary to call it a thing rather than an idea. A collection of formulae and "values" isn't really convincing in this regard, since those are, exactly, ideas.

Quote: You keep asking me to define a form and I keep referring you to the models which will give you that.  I cannot describe the form in a platonic or Newtonian sense.

I think form is a pretty simple word. What does a QM particle look like? What's it's volume? What's it's shape? What are the properties by which you can infer that it is a thing, and not an idea or an expression of one or more ideas?

Quote:I mean to say what I said.  They really exist.  We can detect them.  I am not sure what would count as evidence of a photon to you?  If your standard of evidence is a want to see a photon, as a billiard ball, in 3D space or I am forced to believe photons dont really exist, they are just an idea, materialism is false or significantly flawed... well you might just be disappointed.

The issue isn't whether photons exist. It's whether they are the expression of physical mechanisms or the expression of ideas. I think for something to be said to exist physically, it would need to be expressable unambiguously in spacetime. If it is ambiguous in nature, then it is paradoxical-- and that which is paradoxical is easily expressed in mind, but not easily expressed in any sense that one should call "physical."

Quote:It's whether they are the expression of physical mechanisms or the expression of ideas.

They seem to be expressions of physical mechanisms -about which- we have ideas.  This is one of the assumptions at play in the LHC (and also in the metaphysical claim of idealism -that ideas are referent), for example, which produces those results you feel are somehow indicative (if not entirely demonstrative) of the truth of idealism, and the vacuous position of materialism.........as metaphysical claims.........


Now, this evidence you are bringing forward, and it's possible truth value as criticism of a materialist position- can only be argued to be informative if you assume what you have concluded to be false... to be true.  This evidence only tells us what things seem to be, but if things are not as they seem.........this evidence tells us nothing.

Quote:A collection of formulae and "values" isn't really convincing in this regard, since those are, exactly, ideas.

Do you think it's possible for anyone to produce what would be required to convince you - under these restrictions?  If I handed you a rock to establish that rocks were a thing - could you not simply reply that whatever the rock may be...it is an idea to you, in your experience...as you experience it? Obviously, you would reply in such a manner if I were to offer an explanation of a rock down to it's very fundament as we currently see it. Is there something between handing you a rock and a quantum explanations of rocks, or have you blocked all routes, as it were - with such a response?

RATIONAL AKD 
“no model of realism is compatible with the findings of QM”. 
“nice try. but non-local hidden variables were also falsified by violations of the Leggett inequality."

Far from being a nice try, it is a defeater.  I think you think you have better position than you do to use terms like "nice try".

Your analysis is just false.  I have already shown you an interpretation of QM that is consistent with QM, realism and determinism, ie Bohmian mechanics.  The inequalities and Kochen-Specker Theorem you think debunk Bohmian mechanics either do not debunk it or can be argued to support it.  The articles are interesting, and of course there is some poetic license to grab attention.  But the scientific papers which underlie those articles is where the data is.  In those papers (written by the experimental physicists) which you think support your points, infact demonstrate my point.  The theoretical physicists who gave their name to those inequalities, back that up as well.  The point stands that you are over-interpreting QM.  Attached below are relevant points from those papers and a little judicious quote mining on my part from the theoreticians. All this is available on the internet and I am happy to point it out if you need me to.

From the scientific paper on Leggatt inequalities. AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF NON-LOCAL REALISM

“It is clear that other classes of non-local theories, possibly even fully compliant with all QM  predictions, might exist that do have this property when re-producing entangled states.  Such theories include additional communication or dimensions.  A specific case deserving comment is Bohm’s theory.  There the non-local correlations are a consequence of  the non-local quantum potential, which exerts suitable torque on the particles leading to experimental results compliant with QM”

LEGGATT HIMSELF

“Since the predictions of the Bohmian pilot wave model ... are by construction identical to QM, it presumably cannot reproduce the predictions of that model either”

From a paper critiquing the experiment A CRITICISM OF “AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF NON-LOCAL REALISM

“To summarize, what can one conclude from the violation of Leggett’s inequality? The logical conclusion is that Leggett’s hypothesis is false, i.e., that a theory that contains the hidden variables u and v proposed by Leggett cannot be empirically viable. That doesn’t tell us anything about determinism or any type of philosophical realism. A title like “An experimental test of non-local realism” is severely misleading: it could, for instance, lead some readers into believing that the experiment reported by the article makes a theory like Bohmian Mechanics more implausible while it is exactly the other way around: a prediction of Bohmian Mechanics has been experimentally verified and a class of alternatives to it has been shown not to be viable.”

From the paper on Contextuality in Bohmian Mechanics

“The Kochen—Specker theorem shows that noncontextual hidden variable interpretations of quantum theory are impossible. This does not mean, however, that hidden variable theories are not possible. In fact, the Bohm model is just such a theory. We show by considering an example involving interferometers how the Bohm model is contextual, thus circumventing the Kochen—Specker theorem. We will find that the result of a measurement of an operator in Bohmian mechanics is not just dependent on the context of other measurements that are also being performed at the same time, but also dependent on the way in which a particular measurement is performed.”

From JOHN BELL HIMSELF on The impossibility of the pilot wave (a somewhat ironic title from John Bell)

“But in 1952 I saw the impossible done.It was in the papers of David Bohm.  Bohm showed explicitly how parameters could indeed be introduced, into nonrelativistic wave mechanics, with the help of which the indeterministic description could be turned into a deterministic one.  More importantly, in my opinion, the subjectivity of the orthodox version, the necessary reference to the ‘observer’ is eliminated.”

RATIONAL AKD
“since I haven't presented any arguments for 5, I think it's unfair for you to determine it doesn't follow without any knowledge of how I got to it.”

Totally accept that. Which is why I prefaced it with an apology in advance if I was straw-manning you.  I was not sure whether you made that argument or not.  We can address the god stuff later.

RATIONAL AKD
“why? is your 'self' equivalent to matter? if your mind exists, then why not your self? mind is really what you refer to as self.
so you don't count as 'something'?
well, our minds certainly have temporal existence. but I don't think a mind generally necessitates temporality.
my position is that matter doesn't exist. but a reference of self is not equivalent to a reference of your body.”

The problem here is you are not offering any coherent sketch of your own existence.  You are claiming to be an immaterial mind, but offer no sketch of what this is.  Lets start by defining terms.  What is the immaterial to you?  Because I read what you are saying (rightly or wrongly) as only the immaterial really exists.

RATIONAL AKD
“well... you wouldn't be conscious of just your own consciousness. there is an external world, but it comes from a different mind.”
“why do you need specifically external awareness for consciousness? internal awareness isn't an option?”

You seem to be just begging the question here.  Internal awareness is an option, but not by itself.  To know you are conscious you have to be aware of something outside of yourself, existence if you like so you can know you are conscious and the changes in your state of consciousness are possible and anchored to something in reality. What can you say or know or learn if you are only self aware? If I have never seen anything does the concept of brown have any meaning? If we went further and removed all of our sensory input at birth, what would we know or be conscious of?  Are any other animals self aware and do they only exist as minds?

RATIONAL AKD
“consciousness was created apart from evolution of the universe. our consciousness was put at a particular point corresponding to a temporal location in the physical universe. the history we observe is matter behaving materialistically because it is being observed. thus the history didn't exist until the first conscious life form was put in it, then all the billions of years of history materialized at once.”

Well to be fair you have grasped the nettle and perhaps given me the only answer you could.  Maybe the best thing to do is simply underline the absurdity that Idealism commits you to.

RATIONAL AKD
"it's not a fantasy world in the sense it's whatever you want it to be. it has a predetermined function determined by predetermined probabilities. and since this world is a mental construct, it can be referred to as a 'true state."

But apparently it is at the whim of a ‘master-mind’. Call it mind A.   What is the difference between whim-wishing of mind A and the inability of whim-wishing of the whole set of minds excluding mind A.  It is still a fantasy.  A fantasy is a fantasy.

RATIONAL AKD
“certainly a valid point that deserves a serious answer. the answer is God is not observing material interactions apart from our observations. God doesn't care for material events, he only observes us. material interactions are only determined by God to the extent that they fulfil his plan, but the position of certain quantum particles would not be a factor.”

1. The god-concept designates an omniscient and omnipresent – all-observing conscious being (i.e. its knowledge effectively observes all phenomena).
   
2. Conscious observation collapses quantum superpositions.
   
3. An all-observing being would automatically collapse all quantum superpositions. (from 2)
   
4. We observe that not all quantum superpositions are collapsed.
   

1. Therefore, gods cannot exist. (from 1, 3 and 4)

You seem to be making a case that a god would want not to observe QM systems.  Quite how you know that is excluded from your explanation.  Thats not the point, I am using the theists own definitions here.  The point is it can and does observe everything including quantum physics.  You can plead god is different if you like, but there are no workings to show me how you arrived at that point.

(September 23, 2015 at 10:45 am)Rhythm Wrote: Do you think it's possible for anyone to produce what would be required to convince you - under these restrictions?  If I handed you a rock to establish that rocks were a thing - could you not simply reply that whatever the rock may be...it is an idea to you, in your experience...as you experience it?  Obviously, you would reply in such a manner if I were to offer an explanation of a rock down to it's very fundament as we currently see it.  Is there something between handing you a rock and a quantum explanations of rocks, or have you blocked all routes, as it were - with such a response?

I think the idea of evidence in the context of brute fact is nonsensical, basically by definition. Since we are trying to figure out what is "under the hood," then there are two possibilities: that whatever we say is under the hood is just the next layer down and there are more layers, which means we can never know, ultimately, upon what elements the universe supervenes; or whatever we say is under the hood is really the end of the line, in which case we will be agnostic of this fact since there's no way to know what you don't know.

That being said, since all the evidence you can provide is experiential in nature, then only by a conscious choice of assumptions could I arrive at the conclusion that the world is as you describe it.

"You don't know what you don't know" is not an argument against or refutation -of- materialism, nor does it advance the position of idealism a single millimeter.  A requirement of full knowledge is ridiculous and unreasonable.  Further, it's invocation doesn't have the ability to make or support the comments you've offered.  I agree wholeheartedly that there is currently no way to prove either metaphysical claim.  This does not, however, level the ground between the two claims.  

The LHC keeps smashing "stuff" into "things" and producing results either because it's working assumptions -are true-...or the universe behaves -as though- they were true.

You've -made- assumptions in the arguments you've offered, both consciously and inadvertently.  Can you dismiss the power of evidence (or the assumptions upon which the evidence rests) while simultaneously pointing to it -as- evidence (or the inaccuracy of the assumptions of which it rests)?  If there's something under the qm hood, not at all like the qm hood (and maybe there is)...... then it makes -no sense at all- to stare at the hood and makes claims as to the engine beneath by reference to the hood above.

(September 23, 2015 at 10:17 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(September 23, 2015 at 8:08 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: No I have responded by saying that they have values in spacetime and are therefore not ideas.

Really?  These values establish that they are not ideas?  How, pray tell.

Quote:The form is that determined by the maths  What are you after here, the describtion of a billiard ball (which it probably isn't for example?).

No.  What I want is an unambiguous description of a thing, which is necessary to call it a thing rather than an idea.  A collection of formulae and "values" isn't really convincing in this regard, since those are, exactly, ideas.

Quote: You keep asking me to define a form and I keep referring you to the models which will give you that.  I cannot describe the form in a platonic or Newtonian sense.

I think form is a pretty simple word.  What does a QM particle look like?  What's it's volume?  What's it's shape?  What are the properties by which you can infer that it is a thing, and not an idea or an expression of one or more ideas?

Quote:I mean to say what I said.  They really exist.  We can detect them.  I am not sure what would count as evidence of a photon to you?  If your standard of evidence is a want to see a photon, as a billiard ball, in 3D space or I am forced to believe photons dont really exist, they are just an idea, materialism is false or significantly flawed... well you might just be disappointed.

The issue isn't whether photons exist.  It's whether they are the expression of physical mechanisms or the expression of ideas.  I think for something to be said to exist physically, it would need to be expressable unambiguously in spacetime.  If it is ambiguous in nature, then it is paradoxical-- and that which is paradoxical is easily expressed in mind, but not easily expressed in any sense that one should call "physical."

You state that for example 'photons' are ethereal, formless and therefore more like the idea of a thing rather than a thing. Then when you receive an answer that states they are not formless, have an instantiation in reality and have values in spacetime, and are pointed at models explaining it.Then you shift the goalpost and ask....

....what do they look like then. You do realise how small and fast these things are right?  What exactly are you expecting to be shown? Other than describing them mathematically, I am not sure how anyone could show that.

Photons are not ideas, they may be approximations of quantised fields.  But that still does not make them merely ideas or in anyway validate Idealism or invalidate Realism.  Your failure to imagine photons from the models describing them is your incredulity and not a wider point of deeper meaning.

You can of course examine and reject any and all of those models and hold that photons are just ideas. But then you would need to do that by presenting a positive model and case of your own.

(September 23, 2015 at 12:15 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: Your analysis is just false.  I have already shown you an interpretation of QM that is consistent with QM, realism and determinism, ie Bohmian mechanics.  The inequalities and Kochen-Specker Theorem you think debunk Bohmian mechanics either do not debunk it or can be argued to support it.

that is not what i said... you even quoted my specific statement and still didn't address it. i didn't say anything about the Kochen-Specker theorem debunking Bohmian mechanics... i said violations of the Leggett inequality debunked the idea of non-local hidden variables... which are the last refuge of a deterministic/realist model for reality since local hidden variables were already falsified. the unique role of the observer cannot be denied in QM anymore.

Captain Scarlet Wrote:The articles are interesting, and of course there is some poetic license to grab attention.

of course they have some poetic license... but that doesn't take away from the fact that Leggett's inequality was violated, and thus non-local hidden variables have been falsified.

Captain Scarlet Wrote:The theoretical physicists who gave their name to those inequalities, back that up as well.  The point stands that you are over-interpreting QM.

yes... the inequality was made to back up the theory of non-local hidden variables... but you apparently missed that it was shown the inequality was violated in 2007. it was shown to be violated by Anton Zeilinger and his team. and if you want to throw quote out, why not look at one by Zeilinger who proved the inequality was violated.
[quote-Anton Zeilinger] So we know that we cannot assume - to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in an experiment exist prior to the measurement... so in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure.[/quote]
keep in mind, i'm showing the violations of the inequalities as evidence against realist interpretations of QM... not the inequalities themselves.

Captain Scarlet Wrote:Lets start by defining terms.  What is the immaterial to you?  Because I read what you are saying (rightly or wrongly) as only the immaterial really exists.

a collection of information in the form of thoughts, which make up a sense of reason and self awareness. those would be bare minimum qualities of mind.

Captain Scarlet Wrote:Internal awareness is an option, but not by itself.  To know you are conscious you have to be aware of something outside of yourself, existence if you like so you can know you are conscious and the changes in your state of consciousness are possible and anchored to something in reality.

i don't see how internal awareness entails external awareness. to know you are conscious, all you need is the ability to think... i don't see how external awareness is required for thought.

Captain Scarlet Wrote:What can you say or know or learn if you are only self aware?

you don't need to learn to think. and if you are self aware, why wouldn't you be conscious?

Captain Scarlet Wrote:If I have never seen anything does the concept of brown have any meaning?

are you suggesting concept of color is required for consciousness? so what about blind people then? just because you don't have a concept of brown doesn't mean you're not conscious...

Captain Scarlet Wrote:Are any other animals self aware and do they only exist as minds?

I'm not really in a position to speak for the consciousness of animals. I can really only know that I'm conscious. and I think it's reasonable to presume humans are conscious. but i can't determine such for animals.

Captain Scarlet Wrote:But apparently it is at the whim of a ‘master-mind’. Call it mind A.   What is the difference between whim-wishing of mind A and the inability of whim-wishing of the whole set of minds excluding mind A.

the difference is the structure of the world is not determined by subjectivity of every mind, thus different for everyone. it has a consistent structure determined by this one 'mind A' and thus 'is' whatever mind A determines it to be. so if he determines the universe to appear a certain way, it is not a deception... it's a construction. that's like saying creating a video game world is a deception...

Captain Scarlet Wrote:You seem to be making a case that a god would want not to observe QM systems.  Quite how you know that is excluded from your explanation.

a defense is not something you necessarily know or can prove... it's a plausible explanation that defends a proposition from criticism. can you show my defense is not plausible?

Captain Scarlet Wrote:Thats not the point, I am using the theists own definitions here.  The point is it can and does observe everything including quantum physics.

why do you get to determine that? I don't see why this mind has to observe every particle phenomenon... why have you made that determination?

(September 23, 2015 at 2:16 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: You state that for example 'photons' are ethereal, formless and therefore more like the idea of a thing rather than a thing. Then when you receive an answer that states they are not formless, have an instantiation in reality and have values in spacetime, and are pointed at models explaining it.Then you shift the goalpost and ask....

....what do they look like then.

If you think that's shifting the goalpost, then you'll have to tell me what "form" means to you. Because in my world, if someone says something has form, asking what that form is is a perfectly sensible next question.

Quote: You do realise how small and fast these things are right?  What exactly are you expecting to be shown? Other than describing them mathematically, I am not sure how anyone could show that.

Since it is my position that something only describable mathematically is probably an idea, then that's not too surprising, is it?

Quote:Photons are not ideas, they may be approximations of quantised fields.  But that still does not make them merely ideas or in anyway validate Idealism or invalidate Realism.  Your failure to imagine photons from the models describing them is your incredulity and not a wider point of deeper meaning.

My failure to imagine photons shames me deeply. I mean, everyone else knows just what they look like, and just what they are, and here is silly me, thinking they are ambiguous, undefined, and describable only in statistical terms. I'm ashamed to represent the shitty Canadian school system.

Quote:You can of course examine and reject any and all of those models and hold that photons are just ideas. But then you would need to do that by presenting a positive model and case of your own.

No, I don't have to do that. I take idealism as default because literally 100% of everything I know, and (assuming non-solipsism) 100% of everything everyone else knows is presented to them as a collection of ideas. That's how we experience reality, and assuming there's something "behind" that, without being able to very strongly demonstrate it, seems like a philosophically weak and completely unnecessary assumption.

(September 23, 2015 at 1:56 pm)Rhythm Wrote: "You don't know what you don't know" is not an argument against or refutation -of- materialism, nor does it advance the position of idealism a single millimeter.

I'm not saying that to refute materialism. I'm using it to say there cannot be any sensible process by which even scientific inquiry can establish that materialism is foundational to reality. If you want to use the exact same argument about idealism, then I'd agree, but I've already explained why I would take idealism as the default position anyway.

Quote:  A requirement of full knowledge is ridiculous and unreasonable.  Further, it's invocation doesn't have the ability to make or support the comments you've offered.  I agree wholeheartedly that there is currently no way to prove either metaphysical claim.  This does not, however, level the ground between the two claims.

I fully agree, but I doubt that means the same to you as it does to me.

Quote: You've -made- assumptions in the arguments you've offered, both consciously and inadvertently.  Can you dismiss the power of evidence (or the assumptions upon which the evidence rests) while simultaneously pointing to it -as- evidence (or the inaccuracy of the assumptions of which it rests)?

Yes. I know that the materialist position relies on evidence, and I'm showing that that foundation is non sequitur. The observations you make do not, and cannot, arrive at a materialist world view, unless you've already assumed that your observations say more than they do. It's a toxic term, but I guess I have to float it here: begging the question.