This is so great!

I don't know how it could possibly contribute to the philosophical discussion at hand in a meaningful way, but photons are currently not known to be spatially extensive - they are, like electrons, mathematically described as point particles which are subject to quantum mechanical uncertainty, and no measurement so far falsifies this assumption. If string theory is correct, we'd know more about their shape, as it would be a 1-dimensional string instead of a point particle, but that's pure speculation.

(February 1, 2015 at 10:33 am)Alex K Wrote: I don't know how it could possibly contribute to the philosophical discussion at hand in a meaningful way, but photons are currently not known to be spatially extensive - they are, like electrons, mathematically described as point particles which are subject to quantum mechanical uncertainty, and no measurement so far falsifies this assumption. If string theory is correct, we'd know more about their shape, as it would be a 1-dimensional string instead of a point particle, but that's pure speculation.

Science is pointing away from a consciousness as a requirement as a cause no matter what we currently don't know about QM.

There simply is no need to fill in the gap with a giant cognition.

Our model suggests that you'd feel them "pushing back" at half a fermi (or somesuch, less than 1 but more than zero)....iirc who was the resident physics nut in the thread....for confirmation?

(February 1, 2015 at 10:38 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(February 1, 2015 at 10:33 am)Alex K Wrote: I don't know how it could possibly contribute to the philosophical discussion at hand in a meaningful way, but photons are currently not known to be spatially extensive - they are, like electrons, mathematically described as point particles which are subject to quantum mechanical uncertainty, and no measurement so far falsifies this assumption. If string theory is correct, we'd know more about their shape, as it would be a 1-dimensional string instead of a point particle, but that's pure speculation.

Science is pointing away from a consciousness as a requirement as a cause no matter what we currently don't know about QM.

There simply is no need to fill in the gap with a giant cognition.

That's right. In the first decades of QM some people thought consciousness was the thing causing wave functions to collapse, spawning all kinds of woo on the sidelines, but this view has been largely discarded now as an artifact of the initial confusion about the theory.

(February 1, 2015 at 10:30 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(February 1, 2015 at 10:29 am)Rhythm Wrote: Will the explanation dissuade you from your assumption any more competently than an explanation of Mario's size existence?

I don't know. Explain how you know the size of a photon, and I'll tell you.

Try researching the compton scattering effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

-or-

"Photon Antibunching in Resonance Fluorescence"
(trying to find a nonsub download for you)

Quote:Will a repetition of the difference between information and the arbitrary medium which carries it dissuade you from yours?

No, because your dividing line won't be made any more true through repetition. You'll need a better case than "I disagree" entirely. You think it;s something "else" but I can not only point to my explanation...but also touch it (and so can you).

I'm no Pastafarian, but still I keep reading this thread title as "A Couscous Universe."

(February 1, 2015 at 10:41 am)Alex K Wrote:

(February 1, 2015 at 10:38 am)Brian37 Wrote: Science is pointing away from a consciousness as a requirement as a cause no matter what we currently don't know about QM.

There simply is no need to fill in the gap with a giant cognition.

That's right. In the first decades of QM some people thought consciousness was the thing causing wave functions to collapse, spawning all kinds of woo on the sidelines, but this view has been largely discarded now as an artifact of the initial confusion about the theory.

It was never taken seriously at all. The woo was popularized by si fi shows like Star Trek. Even today some still fall for si fi crap. NASA put out an article about the "warp drive" and everyone went ape shit over it and failed to read the entire thing. "Plausible" and "likely" are the part they missed, it was only mathematical on paper. The article also said to do that it would take all the energy in the universe.

Si fi woo is as bad as religious woo.

(February 1, 2015 at 2:15 pm)Brian37 Wrote: The article also said to do that it would take all the energy in the universe.

Way behind the times.



And if you interested in the math behind it:

(January 31, 2015 at 11:52 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(January 31, 2015 at 11:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote:

---

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

What seperates your imagination from the shared environment?

Something exist if it directly interacts with the shared environment.

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

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?

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

---

That's a lot of questions. Let me answer that, in general, I'd describe most things as you would: momentum is the product of mass and velocity, the speed of light is 300,000km/s., etc. In fact, in all observable cases of physical interactions, I'd accept current explanations: bat has momentum a, ball has momentum b, you do the math, and ball flies toward the outfield.

Me doing the math isn't what make the ball fly. The ball flies because the bat interacts with the ball. Just because we can use math to calculate how the ball will fly, it doesn't mean the math is making the ball fly. Just look how you describe the universe. Your explanations are all physical. Yet you want to say the deeper layer is information because the limitation of your senses. It's not justified but is an argument from ignorance.

Quote:The main differences occur at philosophical boundaries. What, for example, is a photon: a wave, a particle, both, neither? As an idea, ambiguity is fine. I would not, however, accept that an ambiguous "particle" is real in a physical sense, because there's no way to map it to the dimension of space which is the framework in which physical monism works.

You can map a particle to a specific spacetime. Just because our instruments aren't not capable of measurements doesn't mean the position is ambigious. It mean it is ambigious to us. Here is a video demonstating the pilot-wave intepertation of QM that desolves the ambiguity.

Quote:Another example is the mind. In a physical monism, subjective mind is a (very strange) "bonus" to processes which should be able to tick along just fine without it. And before everyone starts shouting about brain chemistry, consider this: how do we even know what physical systems have the capacity to experience subjectively? We don't.

I frankly do not see what the problem is. Your brain takes in some sensory information and assosiates it with a memory. The consciousness (a byproduct of the brain) has access to these memories. So whenever you get the a similiar sensory data, the already existing memory makes you feel like you know what it is. This is subjective, because this is only your memory not anyones else.

Quote:It seems to me much simpler to explain all the universe in terms of an interaction of ideas, than to explain mind in terms of physical elements. This is because we already experience everything we know as a collection of experiences and ideas anyway.

We can generate ideas, I do it all the time. These ideas do not manifest in reality unless I get up and impliment them. If ideas is what this reality is made out of, then there shouldn't be a difference between generating ideas in my head vs ideas in reality.

Consider the situation.

I tell you "here are 10 balls that our now yours." You do not see any balls. You say, "there are no here." I say, "they're clearly there, use your imagination." You humor me and say, "those balls have a nice blueish color." I look at you ad say, "the balls are red, not blue."

In physicalism, my mind cannot create physical objects. So me imagining physical objects have no affect on reality.
In idealism, my mind can create ideas. So I can create the idea of balls using my imagination. You couldn't see my created balls because of ...... umm ..... what is preventing you from seeing them?