(January 30, 2015 at 10:22 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Pretty sure I didn't have to warp anything to explain that people living in a machine experienced the physical states of that machine. If I'm being asked to imagine that this is a matter of fact statement about our reality that's a matter of fact statement about their experience. Some other thing, not "The Matrix" and I'd answer differently....

You can say that we don't experience people, but only the physical states of QM particles, but this isn't a very meaningful statement. We experience as human not a collection of QM particles, but the information encoded in their relationship to each other.

But we don't have to go to such a deep virtual reality to see this. We can just experience a video game. There's Mario, jumping around the screen. Does he "exist?" Not in the sense that we normally mean, no. Information about him exists and is encoded in memory, CPU, and GPU. But Mario isn't there. If you want to insist that Mario IS a collection of binary states in the hardware, then I disagree with you-- Mario is a little red-clothed dude with a hammer jumping around the screen. I know, because I observe him. See? There he is.

You say QM particles "really" exist. But a photon has no mass or volume. Where, then, is this mythical physical medium in which information about the photon exists? Is there another layer of physical reality which carries information about "things" which have zero size?

---

(January 30, 2015 at 10:22 pm)Rhythm Wrote: ....for example, if Benny had asked me, what if "we were living, in a non material world" -Then I would be a non material girl.

I'll only accept this argument if you sing it.

---

(January 31, 2015 at 12:40 am)Surgenator Wrote: @Rhythm
I pose an interesting question only to come back to 3 pages worth of discussion between you and benny. You're stealing my fun.

If you're asking about the drying paint, I did answer it.

But I'll answer it again (maybe inaccurately as I'm not an expert in drying paint): the heat from the sun or another source excites the water molecules, causing them to break free of the paint and be absorbed into the air. The other molecules in the paint remain behind on the wall, leaving a solid shell.

See, the thing you guys don't seem to be connecting with is that there's nothing described in a physical monism which isn't describable in an idealistic monism, usually in almost the same terms. It is at philosophical boundaries that answers become very different: cosmogony and psychogony, for example, or in looking for the most primitive elements upon which everything we observe supervene.

(January 31, 2015 at 1:33 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(January 31, 2015 at 12:40 am)Surgenator Wrote: @Rhythm
I pose an interesting question only to come back to 3 pages worth of discussion between you and benny. You're stealing my fun.

If you're asking about the drying paint, I did answer it.

But I'll answer it again (maybe inaccurately as I'm not an expert in drying paint): the heat from the sun or another source excites the water molecules, causing them to break free of the paint and be absorbed into the air. The other molecules in the paint remain behind on the wall, leaving a solid shell.

See, the thing you guys don't seem to be connecting with is that there's nothing described in a physical monism which isn't describable in an idealistic monism, usually in almost the same terms. It is at philosophical boundaries that answers become very different: cosmogony and psychogony, for example, or in looking for the most primitive elements upon which everything we observe supervene.

You're using physical monism for the description and only assert that it is describable in idealistic terms. Your assertation isn't justified.

(January 31, 2015 at 2:03 am)Surgenator Wrote: You're using physical monism for the description and only assert that it is describable in idealistic terms. Your assertation isn't justified.

I don't understand this. Do you think that in an idealism, paint doesn't exist, or it doesn't dry? If so, then you are arguing past me, not with me. I've seen paint, and observed that it dries. What does this have to do with a physical monism?

(January 31, 2015 at 2:24 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(January 31, 2015 at 2:03 am)Surgenator Wrote: You're using physical monism for the description and only assert that it is describable in idealistic terms. Your assertation isn't justified.

I don't understand this. Do you think that in an idealism, paint doesn't exist, or it doesn't dry? If so, then you are arguing past me, not with me. I've seen paint, and observed that it dries. What does this have to do with a physical monism?

Neither. You're claiming physical terms and explanations can be translated into idealist terms and explanations. This claim is not justified. On the QM level, you only have wavefunctions not redness, dryness or any other qualia.

(January 31, 2015 at 3:40 am)Surgenator Wrote:

(January 31, 2015 at 2:24 am)bennyboy Wrote: I don't understand this. Do you think that in an idealism, paint doesn't exist, or it doesn't dry? If so, then you are arguing past me, not with me. I've seen paint, and observed that it dries. What does this have to do with a physical monism?

Neither. You're claiming physical terms and explanations can be translated into idealist terms and explanations. This claim is not justified. On the QM level, you only have wavefunctions not redness, dryness or any other qualia.

I'm doing no such thing. There's no translation needed. We experience information about shapes, colors, etc., and we form ideas from our experience. Those experiences which we seem to share we call objective. At no point in any of this have we needed to assert that there is a magical universe full of stuff-that-is-not-stuff like photons or their wave functions. That we have done so is probably much the same as our reason for counting in 10s-- we are limited. We experience in terms of objects with dimensions: table surfaces and such. But now we know that a surface is a symbolic representation of a statistical cloud of. . . wait for it. . . information.

You know, we're so limited that we used to think that things occupying space actually occupied space. Now, we know that things like a desk occupy not more than 0.000000001% (forgive me if I've miscounted the actual number of zeros-- I only have so many fingers, you know), and that non-zero fraction may itself be the wishful clinging of a material world view where stuff is still stuff.

(January 31, 2015 at 3:59 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(January 31, 2015 at 3:40 am)Surgenator Wrote: Neither. You're claiming physical terms and explanations can be translated into idealist terms and explanations. This claim is not justified. On the QM level, you only have wavefunctions not redness, dryness or any other qualia.

I'm doing no such thing. There's no translation needed. We experience information about shapes, colors, etc., and we form ideas from our experience. Those experiences which we seem to share we call objective. At no point in any of this have we needed to assert that there is a magical universe full of stuff-that-is-not-stuff like photons or their wave functions. That we have done so is probably much the same as our reason for counting in 10s-- we are limited. We experience in terms of objects with dimensions: table surfaces and such. But now we know that a surface is a symbolic representation of a statistical cloud of. . . wait for it. . . information.

So going back to the drying paint question, what information is in play when paint dries?

Also, how does information does anything? For example, I can picture myself walking and not walk. There is a difference between me walking and me thinking about walking. I don't see how idealism differentiates between the concept and the action.

Also, if the fundamental thing is information, what is consciousness?

(January 31, 2015 at 3:59 am)bennyboy Wrote: You know, we're so limited that we used to think that things occupying space actually occupied space. Now, we know that things like a desk occupy not more than 0.000000001% (forgive me if I've miscounted the actual number of zeros-- I only have so many fingers, you know), and that non-zero fraction may itself be the wishful clinging of a material world view where stuff is still stuff.

So you think something doesn't exist if doesn't occupy space? Where did you get this requirement?

FYI, consciousness and information don't occupy space either. Consciousness and information don't have a well defined position in space. How would you order information in time, i.e. cause and effect?

There are too many fundamental aspects of reality that I don't see idealism answering. Just to name a few,
What is an action?
How do you differetiate between actions and concepts of actions?
How does cause and effect work?
What is consciousness?

The purpose of my "how does paint dries" question is to lead to these set of questions.

(January 31, 2015 at 3:24 pm)Surgenator Wrote: So going back to the drying paint question, what information is in play when paint dries?

Information about its chemistry as it interacts with air.

Quote:Also, how does information does anything? For example, I can picture myself walking and not walk. There is a difference between me walking and me thinking about walking. I don't see how idealism differentiates between the concept and the action.

Well, in one case, you are walking outside where other people walk, and in the other case, you are imagining walking, and other people cannot walk there, because it's in your imagination.

Quote:Also, if the fundamental thing is information, what is consciousness?

The subjective awareness of information.

Quote:So you think something doesn't exist if doesn't occupy space? Where did you get this requirement?

Hmmmm. . . what does "exist" mean to you?

Quote:FYI, consciousness and information don't occupy space either. Consciousness and information don't have a well defined position in space. How would you order information in time, i.e. cause and effect?

Do consciousness and information "exist"? Then I think I can almost answer my question about how you define that word. Let me ask you-- do numbers exist?

Quote:
There are too many fundamental aspects of reality that I don't see idealism answering. Just to name a few,
What is an action?

A deliberate change of state in one's environment.

Quote:How do you differetiate between actions and concepts of actions?

I don't understand this question.

Quote:How does cause and effect work?

The interaction of ideas over time causes change of state.

Quote:What is consciousness?

The subjective awareness of information.

(January 30, 2015 at 8:54 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(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?

All I'm saying is that mathematical relationships exist in human brains as a deductive formalization of objects; it's not as if the objects themselves are mathematical, as that is a meaningless division without intelligence sufficient enough to formalize such a language. On the other hand, when we speak of an object with the descriptive qualities we typically do, we are describing a phenomenon that exists and does so whether we are looking at it or not. In terms of QM, there many different interpretations so I wouldn't draw a whole lot on any particular one, as idealists often seem to do, but I like the interpretation that particles do not have a definite location until interacted with. That doesn't mean that a field is non-physical, it means that we can only describe its activity in terms of our formalized system.

Quote: On the other hand, when we speak of an object with the descriptive qualities we typically do, we are describing a phenomenon that exists and does so whether we are looking at it or not. In terms of QM, there many different interpretations so I wouldn't draw a whole lot on any particular one, as idealists often seem to do, but I like the interpretation that particles do not have a definite location until interacted with. That doesn't mean that a field is non-physical, it means that we can only describe its activity in terms of our formalized system.

Dealing with QM challenges the imagination severely. I strongly think that those who say they understand QM and parade out formulae don't really get it. (This is not directed at anyone in particular by the way)

If a particle has no definite location, then in what sense does it exist? I'd argue that it represents information-- information about a future relationship or constraint. I would not say a QM field is a "thing," since it has no definable shape, volume, or location (afaik). It is not existent, but is rather a description of what could be existent if "called upon" to be resolved.

In a physical monism, fields are like mysterious ghosts. That's one of the reasons I like idealism: you don't need to orient an idea in space, or establish its volume. You just need to know what potential relationships a "particle" represents.

(January 31, 2015 at 5:32 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

Quote: On the other hand, when we speak of an object with the descriptive qualities we typically do, we are describing a phenomenon that exists and does so whether we are looking at it or not. In terms of QM, there many different interpretations so I wouldn't draw a whole lot on any particular one, as idealists often seem to do, but I like the interpretation that particles do not have a definite location until interacted with. That doesn't mean that a field is non-physical, it means that we can only describe its activity in terms of our formalized system.

Dealing with QM challenges the imagination severely. I strongly think that those who say they understand QM and parade out formulae don't really get it. (This is not directed at anyone in particular by the way)

If a particle has no definite location, then in what sense does it exist? I'd argue that it represents information-- information about a future relationship or constraint. I would not say a QM field is a "thing," since it has no definable shape, volume, or location (afaik). It is not existent, but is rather a description of what could be existent if "called upon" to be resolved.

In a physical monism, fields are like mysterious ghosts. That's one of the reasons I like idealism: you don't need to orient an idea in space, or establish its volume. You just need to know what potential relationships a "particle" represents.

I'd suggest (strongly) that a particle has a definite position and momentum.

The Uncertainty Principle states that we cannot measure either with arbitrary accuracy without disturbing the other, i.e. we can't know both with certainty.

There is no field other than as a mathematical abstraction in a conscious mind.

No woo is required.