@Benny.....Our descriptions are acknowledged as abstraction. It all falls apart from the very beginning Benny. Your comments are all very sensible, and very logical - regarding concepts and the limits of concepts. But it appears that there is more to the world than concept, and that our concepts are very often in error. QM isn't a lifeboat that can save any old thing you toss in it with a wave of the hand - QM is still about "stuff". We use math because our machinery is incapable of perceiving these interactions or expressing them in familiar terms...abstraction is required because it is the only means available to us. I can't see infrared (I have no "infrared qualia", and that should be telling....) so it's a number..because some things can, infrared is present, even though I cant see it. It's useful to have a means with which to describe that. That says something about us, not the nature of reality.

One fewer assumption.....

@Chad.....the "idea of a bird" is based upon the qualities shared by birds. It's true, there is an "idea of a bird" that's separate from birds...and because of this...some people think that bats are birds. Bats don't become birds just because people think that they are..... You can see where this is going, I trust? No one "thinks using ideas" we think...by using our brains. That's some serious folk neurology in that little morsel there........

(January 30, 2015 at 7:46 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I think you are biased toward thinking idealism is "but a dream," with no logic or consistency to it, but this isn't right. It does NOT mean that there's no chemistry, or molecules, or no process of evaporation. It means that the paint, the process of drying, and the universe in which it dries are ultimately reducible only to concepts. A physicalist sees information as descriptive of real things, but an idealistic sees information AS the reality, and "things" as a virtual expression of the underlying information. Or, I should say, I see it that way, and assume other modern idealists probably do, too.

Where do these conceptions reside? The physicalist would say nature simply is, and abstractions are a leftover glimmer after a phenomenon has been cut and divided to single out a particular aspect of it. Nature as a whole isn't reducible to concepts but as humans, fortunately, at our very best, we can examine parts and construct a formal system that is mathematically---and hence logically---consistent, and that's why we often discover that our previous concepts were, in fact, wrong.

(January 30, 2015 at 7:46 pm)bennyboy Wrote: We describe all these things, including QM particles, the four basic interactions, etc. in mathematical forms. You've heard the saying "It's turtles, all the way down. . ." Well, I'd say that in a math-based idealistic reality, "It's math, all the way down." Eventually, you give up on finding "things," and just say "Fuck it. . . it's math only from here on in." And I think we are probably at that point right now with QM.

"It's math only from here on in" in terms of technological, and therefore, experimental limitations, but it's not as if numbers exist distinct from material objects, allowing ourselves a conception of matter that involves force fields and empty space that jitters.

(January 30, 2015 at 8:40 pm)Rhythm Wrote: @Benny.....Our descriptions are acknowledged as abstraction. It all falls apart from the very beginning Benny. Your comments are all very sensible, and very logical - regarding concepts and the limits of concepts. But it appears that there is more to the world than concept, and QM isn't a lifeboat that can save any old thing you toss in it with a wave of the hand - QM is still about "stuff". We use math because our machinery is incapable of perceiving these interactions or expressing them in familiar terms...abstraction is required because it is the only means available to us. I can't see infrared (I have no "infrared qualia", and that should be telling....) so it's a number..because some things can, infrared is present, even though I cant see it. It's useful to have a means with which to describe that. That says something about us, not the nature of reality.

Why do you think QM is still about "stuff"? What is a photon, for example, and what does it look like? What shape is it, what volume, and what location? I'd say the minimal requirements for saying "stuff" exists is that you can observe it to have a non-zero size, and a definite location in space and time. A sizeless "thing" is about as real-sounding as an uncreated creator, don't you think?

---

(January 30, 2015 at 8:53 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: "It's math only from here on in" in terms of technological, and therefore, experimental limitations, but it's not as if numbers exist distinct from material objects, allowing ourselves a conception of matter that involves force fields and empty space that jitters.

Relationships, including mathematical ones, certainly can exist and be described aside from the "real" things with which we associate them. That's what we do, for example, in computer simulation. Or maybe I misunderstand you?

Anyway, I'm not sure that scientists agree with you on this. For example, what's the location of an electron before you measure it? Does it have a definite location, or is it just a function that resolves at the instant of measurement?

(January 30, 2015 at 8:54 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Why do you think QM is still about "stuff"?

Because it is, if it weren't...science wouldn't have much to say on the matter..huh. Do you think they're studying "nothing"? Must be incredibly powerful equipment.......

Quote: What is it, and what does it look like? What shape is it, what volume, and what location? I'd say the minimal requirements for saying "stuff" exists is that you can observe it to have a non-zero size, and a definite location in space and time.

Then your requirements are at odds with what we know about "stuff" at the QM level, which isn't my problem - it's yours.

Quote: A sizeless "thing" is about as real-sounding as an uncreated creator, don't you think?

Quantum mechanics (QM; also known as quantum physics, or quantum theory) is a fundamental branch of physics which deals with physical phenomena at nanoscopic scales

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

-very small does not mean "sizeless".

QM is not fucking magic happening to "non-stuff" - there would be no way for us to know anything about it if it were. You're a cunthair away from being a guest speaker on "What The Bleep Do We Know 2".....and guess what, doesn't even matter if we're talking about human minds. That occurs at a different scale, where quantum effects seem to simply diminish into irrelevance.

Also, those computer simulations -are- real things..they aren't "aside them"...every bit of data is a physical thing. That's what the IO address refers to, the place of the physical thing. They're tiny little machines (discrete units all unto themselves) whose state is read by other tiny little machines - the cumulative physical operation of these machines is what we see, how the work is accomplished..it is very literally what computation -is- in that implementation. Computation isn't a product of a system it is that system. No system no comp. When lever A and Lever B are both thrown that -is- "true" (AND), "true" is not a product -of- that.

(January 30, 2015 at 9:00 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(January 30, 2015 at 8:54 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Why do you think QM is still about "stuff"?

Because it is, if it weren't...science wouldn't have much to say on the matter..huh. Do you think they're studying "nothing"? Must be incredibly powerful equipment.......

I disagree. Science is about making observations, drawing inferences, and doing experiments to confirm ideas about those inferences. There's nothing about it which is intrinsic to a particular world view. If you were in the Matrix, and relationships were consistent, you would go about the process of figuring out those relationships. If you were a brain in a jar, and your imagined world had enough reliable relationships to make observation worthwhile, you'd still do it.

Keep in mind that in an idealistic universe, it's ALL math (or, at least, abstract principles)-- and that includes not only the formulas drawn up, but the QM particles themselves, as well as the equipment measuring it.

Yes, it is about observation...so what are they observing then...nothing? Where can I purchase equipment powerful enough to observe nothing, I'd like some? Particles...in case you were unaware..are something. Our descriptions are -all math- because we are incapable of communicating them otherwise. Again, that says something about us, not reality.

(January 30, 2015 at 9:00 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Then your requirements are at odds with what we know about "stuff" at the QM level, which isn't my problem - it's yours.

No, it's a problem for anyone who wants to differentiate between conceptual reality and existential reality.

Not in the manner that you're proposing, no. As before, all of this applies...and you and I are in -complete- agreement regarding the concepts we use to -describe reality-. But you seem to be deadset on extending that farther than we have any reason to assume that it applies.

(January 30, 2015 at 9:14 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Yes, it is about observation...so what are they observing then...nothing? Where can I purchase equipment powerful enough to observe nothing, I'd like some? Particles...in case you were unaware..are something. Our descriptions are -all math- because we are incapable of communicating them otherwise. Again, that says something about us, not reality.

What are people in the Matrix observing? Would you call the objects of their observations real? They certainly would. That's because our reality is defined by observable qualities and relationships. There's nothing about observation or science that requires the actual existence of the things being observed-- only that consistent relationships actually exist which may be observed, categorized, and hypothesized about.

I do not deny the reality of QM particles. I deny the interpretation of the framework in which the qualities and relationships from which we've inferred the existence of QM particles, and in which we've observed them, exist.

Since you used the matrix as the example, they are observing a physical system Benny. Various states of a physical machine. Computers do work with "stuff", you understand that right? The bits are actually "stuff" - real things. They have weight and mass, a known composition and structure and location.....I know we talk to each other about them in terms of "information" that some people assume to be a nebulous "non-thing" but it is, in fact, despite the way we communicate it or the way we conceptualize it, actually a thing. No thing, no bits. If bits, there is a thing.