All I can say is that Mr. "Grand Mathematical Structure" better get his little butt in here and cleanup his room.

(January 31, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Chas Wrote: I'd suggest (strongly) that a particle has a definite position and momentum.

Oh? Including electrons? How about photons?

Quote: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.

Why not?

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

Really? Tell that to the magnets on my fridge.

Quote:No woo is required.

And none offered.

(January 31, 2015 at 6:32 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(January 31, 2015 at 5:42 pm)Chas Wrote: I'd suggest (strongly) that a particle has a definite position and momentum.

Oh? Including electrons? How about photons?

Yes and yes.

Quote:

Quote: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.

Why not?

When you measure one quantity, the other is affected by the measurement, therefore you can't know both.

Quote:

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

Really? Tell that to the magnets on my fridge.

When did we start talking about magnetic or electrical fields? I thought we were talking about particles.

Quote:

Quote:No woo is required.

And none offered.

It sounded woo-y to me.

(January 31, 2015 at 6:56 pm)Chas Wrote:

(January 31, 2015 at 6:32 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Oh? Including electrons? How about photons?

Yes and yes.

So what is the position of a photon as it passes through a double-slit experiment?

@benny:
Under your idealistic monism, why does drinking alcohol result in the experience of drunkenness?

Cognition is an emergent property not a starting point. The universe is not a cognitive thing nor is "all this" some simulation being run by something else. The idea of a cognitive universe suffers the same problem of infinite regress as any god claim does.

Infinite and finite do not require, either way any sort of cognition. We are in reality merely finite cognition as part of evolution in giant uncaused uncaring and unthinking ride. No different than accepting that a hurricane does not think about it's path, the universe is simply a giant weather pattern.

(January 31, 2015 at 8:39 pm)rasetsu Wrote: @benny:
Under your idealistic monism, why does drinking alcohol result in the experience of drunkenness?

I don't know the exact chemistry of alcohol on brain function.

(January 31, 2015 at 8:57 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(January 31, 2015 at 8:39 pm)rasetsu Wrote: @benny:
Under your idealistic monism, why does drinking alcohol result in the experience of drunkenness?

I don't know the exact chemistry of alcohol on brain function.

More generally, why does manipulation of the brain via substances result in manipulation of the experiences?

(January 31, 2015 at 5:32 pm)bennyboy Wrote: 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'm probably in way over my head here, but my lay understanding is as follows: it exists in the sense that it occupies space, contains energy, and eliminates the presence of a vacuum. When a field is an excited state, the particle is born. Since fields are always interacting with each other, wave functions collapse; particles are "measured" by different fields and other agglomerations of particles, forcing the excited states into a definite position in spacetime. The problem with "an idea" as the solution, one that exists solely in thought without any characteristic identifiable with a world where concepts are provided definition by sense data, is that it cannot, at least as I can see, be understood in terms of how this purely abstract existence could affect physical reality.

(January 31, 2015 at 3:40 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(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.

So the subset of the information of paint (specifically the chemistry subset) interacts with the information of the air? How can information do anything?

Quote:

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.

What seperates your imagination from the shared environment?

Quote:

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?

Something exist if it directly interacts with the shared environment.

Quote:

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.

e.g. to walk or to think of walking. You partically answered earlier, but you didn't specify how can such a seperation exist.

Quote:

Quote:How does cause and effect work?

The interaction of ideas over time causes change of state.

What are the mechanics of the interaction?

So you think time exist, what about space? Or do you think time and space are also information?

Quote:

Quote:What is consciousness?

The subjective awareness of information.

What is consciousness made out of? Information? If so, how can information create a consciousness?