__/.:*-PHYSICS SUPERTHREAD-*:.\__

[ohnoone]

So then, do we believe that these seemingly inverifiable yet logically true statements are speaking outside of the parameters of their predictive ability? Or has our experience of reality merely not caught up with our conceptual understanding of it?

.

 

this was my question about m theory earlier. i mean math is right or it isnt, right? if two plus two equals four, and thats obvious, then if the math behind m theory adds up balanced (to mathmaticians who do that sort of thing) how can it be wrong. i suppose in the sense that it can be right only if these extra dimensions exist, so if they dont it falls apart. hmmmm, shaky ground. far out of my range to make declarative statements.

[ohnoone]

speaking of which, what do you think about this guy

[!@#$%]

this is a great thread.

i can't wait for my work schedule to chill the fuck OUT so i get a chance to read through all the links n stuff.

[Module X]

this was my question about m theory earlier. i mean math is right or it isnt, right? if two plus two equals four, and thats obvious, then if the math behind m theory adds up balanced (to mathmaticians who do that sort of thing) how can it be wrong. i suppose in the sense that it can be right only if these extra dimensions exist, so if they dont it falls apart. hmmmm, shaky ground. far out of my range to make declarative statements.

 

That's basically it, the mathematics are based on the assumption of the existence of both 'strings' and extra dimensions. Without these it falls apart. It is purely theoretical and seems to have met with a degree of success in bridging quantum and relativistic mechanics, but there may be other mathematically valid ways of doing this (within M-theory there are many) or maybe changes still need to be made within the framework of quantum or relativistic mechanics.

[imported_splint2]

wow...

 

i came in here understanding some of the basic concepts and principles hoping that i could contribute something, boy was i wrong.

 

 

guess i need to just keep on reading

[Module X]

So, to restate my original interpretation of the issue you brought up with M-theory; Do products of analytic theory, as statements about the nature of reality, over extend their predictive essence when they make claims that are contemporarily unverifiable in experience?

 

My view would be yes, but not if analytic theory builds upon a framework that is already verifiable. As in the case of quantum mechanics, where many purely mathematical predictions were later verified by experiment. I'm not sure what to believe about string theory, since some of its basic assumptions seem far too arbitrary, though mathematically necessary.

 

Witty - I want to read that book. Or maybe the other high-profile anti-string theory one.

[Clonedmulestew]

quantum theory states for every object there is a wave function that measures the probability of finding that object at a certain point in space and time. the cat in the box's essence can be summed in the "wave function of the cat"- being neither alive or dead, the fuction describes the sum of a dead cat and a live cat. to solve the fuction the box is needing to be opened. then the most probbible scene will transpire. (whether its alive or dead)

[Clonedmulestew]

"gravity":lol: :lol:

[ohnoone]

i think smolins book is supposed to be a little more accessible

[the.crooked]

ok, so im stoned. but this will be amazing.

 

 

I have been thinkin a lot lately about concepts of monism in the form of Spinoza and some other varying examples. But just mostly that existence is just the realization of infinite potential. I don't know why but this intuitively appeals to me. So I have been trying to reconcile it with my beliefs of modern physics and just the emperical pursuit of science in general. I have also been taking an analytic philosophy seminar this semester that is pretty intensive in the readings and the shit we are talking about. So anywho, with this all in mind I have sort of come to this belief about existence and our relationship with mathematics and the calculus. I also have phtotographic evidence as provided to me in the last few minutes in the form of a rediculously shaped calliflower.

 

So, Spinoza tried to reconcile his metaphysical conclusions with his belief in God. What he came up with was this; God, as we call it, is infinite in his essence. Existence, is an expression of His infinite nature. That is to say we are playing out the possibility of an infinite set of potentials (God). So in effect, God is just existence. There are other literary examples of this idea. Heinland was obviously influenced by this concept in his work Stranger In a Strange Land. The persistent greeting, "Thou art god," is reflective of his belief in a relationship between existence, "Thou," and God. This metaphysical position also finds parallels in traditional Asian Philosophies. Bhuddism is usually looked at as particularly reminescent of Spinoza's conceptions of time and its relation to god's infinite expression. The focus on transcience of moment and other buddhist logic is also contemporarily being studies in its relation to western formal (symbolic) logic. Anywho, All of this just to give some idea of where I am coming from with this idea of monism and its basic metaphysical viewpoints.

 

I think that there is a certain relationship between existence, Mathematics as a fundamental principle, Conciousness as the role of the observer(a la quantum mechanics), and the creation of our subjective experience based on the intrinsic limitations of the observer.

 

What is calculus? What is physics?

 

 

Ok I need to give this computer back. I will pick this up later.

[CALIgula]

did you guys know steven hawkings is getting a divorce?.....sorry...not to hi-jack the thread, but im done taking physics.....my last physics class was more than 2 years ago, so im just jealous i can't keep up with you guys.

[ohnoone]

im almost done reading the physics of consciousness, then ill have something to say/ask

[Module X]

I have been thinkin a lot lately about concepts of monism in the form of Spinoza and some other varying examples. But just mostly that existence is just the realization of infinite potential. I don't know why but this intuitively appeals to me. So I have been trying to reconcile it with my beliefs of modern physics and just the emperical pursuit of science in general.

 

So, Spinoza tried to reconcile his metaphysical conclusions with his belief in God. What he came up with was this; God, as we call it, is infinite in his essence. Existence, is an expression of His infinite nature. That is to say we are playing out the possibility of an infinite set of potentials (God). So in effect, God is just existence. There are other literary examples of this idea. This metaphysical position also finds parallels in traditional Asian Philosophies.

 

I think that there is a certain relationship between existence, Mathematics as a fundamental principle, Conciousness as the role of the observer(a la quantum mechanics), and the creation of our subjective experience based on the intrinsic limitations of the observer.

 

What is calculus? What is physics?

 

This is sounding a lot like our discussion in the 'creator' thread. I like the sentence, "existence is just the realization of infinite potential." It sounds like a line from Blake. I've been considering the exact same ideas, though I'm not familiar with Spinoza. My favorite exponent of this line of thinking would probably be William Blake, though I have considered the parallels in Eastern Philosophy, Stranger in a Strange Land, other literature (lately e.e. cummings), and other religions/artists. I would go as far as to say that every religion (a la Huxley's Perennial Philosophy) has this essential idea behind it, and the infinite nature of existence can be related to every facet of human experience. I have a very logic-oriented friend who is always pondering the grand scheme of things from a logical, scientific perspective and whenever he asks me "why" something is, I have gotten into the habit of responding "why not?" This is basically a reference to infinite potential. Ultimately, I've found that these concepts have made me a much less logical person.

 

This brings me back to the question of physics as an empirical science. Quantum theory has rendered determinism obsolete and shaken faith in empiricism. The dilemma I see is an inability to modify the basis of scientific pursuit in face of this. Perhaps this just needs more time. I agree that there is something to be said about consciousness, mathematics, and the creation of our subjective experience. But what exactly? Is there a final lesson to be learned here or does physics have more to say?

[Module X]

Oh and have you read The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra? Similar ideas, but it came out in the 70s. Interpretations like ours of quantum physics aren't new, but I'm not sure what progress they've made in the last 30 years.

 

*edit. Also The Holographic Universe. I think that book gets ahead of itself quite a bit, but it's in the same vein...

[the.crooked]

I have read the Capra book. I didn't like the dogmatic language he used. It was a good book, just didn't dig the writing.

 

 

Well, this is the way I verbalized my belief tonight:

 

I feel like you can reconcile subjective experience with looking at limitations of the observer as an infinitesimally small disparity in the realization of probabilistic behavior in terms of the inverse relationship for definition proposed by HUP.

 

That is a horrible run on sentence that I will now go through step by step.

 

So, HUP, there is an inverse relationship between the ability to accurately define either position or speed of a particle as you focus on the other one, respectively. So, I feel like this is the problem of relativity sort of encapsulated in a nice statement. That we can never accurately define time or position of an entity respective to us.

 

If you think about the observer in respect to the limit of its inherit observational powers, a la HUP, then I think one can concieve of a way to reconcile this with conciousness, and reality. That is to say the observer reflects a position in the spectrum of the inverse relationship to accurately measure Speed or Position of a particle. If you could concieve of every possible ratio of ability to accurately measure speed or position, then you could concieve of the possible amount of different "observers". It follows by the infinite reducibility of decimals that the number of those devisable ratios is also infinite.

 

The observer in the quantum slit experiment is shown to express a certain affliction on the probabilistic nature of particles. That is to say, before the observer is placed in the experiment, the particle is not forced to define itself in terms of a relative position. It merely exists in a range of possible positions that would have a certain outcome even if actuated into a particular spatial existence.Quantum mechanics says that expresses this range of existence as a probability to exist in a certain way. The observer then, closes the possibility of where the particle can be and in fact forces it to display itself in a singular position when without the observation it "existed" otherwise. So why does the observer close the probability wave and complete out the equation into the existence of a particle at a particular place in time? Well, by virtue of HUP. If each observer is one singular expression of an infinite set of possible disparities in observation (the observer as on the spectrum of the relationship between accurately measuring speed and position), It sort of appeals to me intuitively in that I feel that this infinitely yet intrinsic disparity in observation is what amounts to the realization of our subjective experience of reality, or conciousness.

 

So what then of the world we live in? Is any of it real if we are merely realizing the infinit possibilities of the probable existences of any given particle? I say yes. I think that if you consider that the difference betewen any subjective experience is infinitesimal in degree then it would follow that some observations would be close to exactly the same. But to whatever degree we say things are the same they are always in respect to our positions in space. And as such represent an infinitely different perpspective on the world we are concurrently experiencing. So, it almost ventures to suggest that position in space is the actuated difference in the infinitesimally small difference in our role as observers.

 

I also think free will can be worked into this idea. I can not concieve of an idea of conciousness or existence without free will. I think free will is like this: Our choices occur. We can not change them once they have already occured. I can not change that whence I was of 'x' age I chose "y desicion." If we agree up until now that conciousness is somehow bound to the realization of a function by virtue of some infinitely unique parameters placed on it, then you can sort of view past points of the realization of the function as past choices. If our unique role as observer leads to the subjective experience in which we choose things, then points along the realization that such an observation actuates are reflective of those subjective experiences and choices. Free will then, is the future realization of that subjective experience. As we all move concurrently through the realization of these probabilistic functions by virtue of our limited observational powers, then free will is the continual next step in the function. Each next realization in the function is infact our next choice.

 

This may seem deterministic in that if you guess the function you find the predictive pattern. However this is to quite the contrary. By virtue of the same property of numbers that allows us to infinitely realize such small disparities in observational limitation, it limits our ability to reflect that. Emperical science has always come up against the reductionist issue of irreducible units. We will never be able to quantify our understanding of conciousness, because we will always be able to infinitely refine our mathematical description.

 

I suppose I feel we are doomed to forever seek this mathematical interpretation when in reality we can never reach it, for it is by virtue of the structure we seek that we will not find it. This is the affliction of the aesthetic pursuit. Anything we do to find that shared reality, or at least what we can claim to be close to shared, is always going to reach a state of disconnection. The author of an aesthetic product will never fully convey his subjective experience, nor be able to confirm anything that may be shared between them and others, for it falls short of bridging the infinitesimally small yet infinitely large disparity between his role as observer and any other conciousness's.

 

This is the same of science. Like art, we seek to use science to express something about the world. One might argue that the quest for predictive power in science overshadows other aesthetic pursuits in their value, but just as easily any author or artist could argue that for reasons unstated that they seek to do the same. I think the unfortunate paradox for science is that it attempts to use the language that actually determines reality to undrestand it. That is to say if math and numbers are truely axiomatic then to try and use mathematics in a sort of reverse engineering way will never allow us to reach the axioms themselves. It is almost a bit of circular logic in a sense. Sure it is practical to use numbers and a priori knowledge to say something about the world, but it will ultimately be subject to the precision of the tool for quantification. I am curious to think of which drives which: the progression of precision in tools or the changes in ontology themselves.

 

I have also been thinking how could we account for everything as numbers? Well, don't we already? Numbers have no clear referent for their sign or symbol. We can only think of classes of thinks which we think exhibit "numberness," I see two doves. I don't see what is actually the conception two, I see things which when categorized express what I feel is how to use the number. But what then is there of the essential nature of numbers? Frege, Russel and some other say that the sense, or the use I just described, is infact the essence of the number. If that is infact the case, that the true nature of a number is its actuation in categorization of things, then everything can be said to be of the essential nature of numbers.

 

 

anywho, all of this to say that science is fucked just like everything else is, in truely trying to communicate the reality between each subjective experience.

[the.crooked]

you never realize how much you type if you use the quick reply.

[ohnoone]

okay so i finishes the physics of conciousness, (mistyped as "on" in my reading list on page one)

 

Walker deals with alot so trying to to sum it all up in my crude laymens terms may do him a grave injustice but heres some things that stand out that ill try not to butcher. he goes fathoms deep into the functions of the brain trying to find a way to scientifically describe consciousness in a quantum manner. his best effort is realized in the way that synapses fire, in that the millions of synapses are prodded by electrons to be fired by one particular electron, so that the millions of synapses are the millions of probabilities. the electrons travel by way of quatum tunneling, ( he thinks) something that apparently happens in the quantum world quite often, that gives observers the impression that they are one second in one place (inside the nucleus, for instance) and then one second outside, without actually going through the physical texture or space of the object, in a sense teleporting.As little as i know about physics i know even less about brain chemistry so why im even trying to describe this is beyond me. haha.

 

another thing that i can describe that i thought was cool, was his discussion of how state vector collapse on completion of measurement loops gives rise to the passage of time. you have the future, the unrealized possibilities, which gives way to the conciousness present, the uncollapsed state vector, which instantly collapses in the "present" of our will selecting one of a million possibilities, a myriad of bubbles on a ponds surface. the bubbles burst, driven by their own bursting and the past is gone. "we, the conscious entities are like time's zipper, our minds pulling together the the future's infinite possibilities into yesterdays secured past"

 

im already moving onto to smolins the trouble with physics which im barely into and i can already tell is awesome. hes holding the entire science to account the way it needs to be. pretty rad.

[the.crooked]

I feel like he and I are fundamentally trying to say the same things, but in different ways. Or rather the specifics of the ideological application are different.

 

I think it is important to clear up whether he actually says, as you say, that "millions of synapses are the millions of probabilities." I think that is problematic in that the probabilities are infinite their possible realization. The finite number of synapses can not complete the totatility of that by virtue of being finite. But, if you think of the synapses as the past realizations of the functions as actuated by our conciousness, then it fits a little better I think. I say this in so much as perhaps our synapses are the physical response to the totality of experience at any given moment.

 

If we keep the possibilities to the realm of a priori knowledge then all the physical processes are just the realization of those possibilities. I like that a little more. Iono, I actually got to talk about the idea I last posted in class today. It was interesting to discuss this in terms of quantum computing as a possible reconciliation of strong AI and contemporary discussions of computative power. I'll talk more bout this later. food time...

[oushla]

i agree

[Module X]

Too many words here. The Physics is getting lost in the vocabulary and I don't think that's entirely necessary. I'm drunk now, response will be formulated later...

[the.crooked]

haha, yeah. thats why i wasn't sure if i should talk bout this stuff in here. I knew it would happen.

 

I do just need to make an existenialism in physics thread. Will do that when I'm not high.

[the.crooked]

but mod x. respond to that long ass post. i wanna know what you think. outside of it being too much wording.

[El Mamerro]

I'm gonna have to agree, I love reading what you have to say crooked, but it's getting increasingly verbose. I spend more time trying to decipher what each sentence is trying to say than thinking about the overall idea behind it.

[ohnoone]

I think it is important to clear up whether he actually says, as you say, that "millions of synapses are the millions of probabilities." I think that is problematic in that the probabilities are infinite their possible realization. QUOTE]

 

 

again, i should have known better than to try and re word something i read 200 pages ago, especially given the half ass effort and limited knowledge.

 

ill be right back.

[Module X]

So, HUP, there is an inverse relationship between the ability to accurately define either position or speed of a particle as you focus on the other one, respectively. So, I feel like this is the problem of relativity sort of encapsulated in a nice statement. That we can never accurately define time or position of an entity respective to us.

 

If you think about the observer in respect to the limit of its inherit observational powers, a la HUP, then I think one can concieve of a way to reconcile this with conciousness, and reality. That is to say the observer reflects a position in the spectrum of the inverse relationship to accurately measure Speed or Position of a particle. If you could concieve of every possible ratio of ability to accurately measure speed or position, then you could concieve of the possible amount of different "observers". It follows by the infinite reducibility of decimals that the number of those devisable ratios is also infinite.

 

What bothers me here is that you're making the jump from quantum to human scales without taking into account the physical differences between them. Quantum mechanics turns right into classical mechanics when energies, distances etc. are brought up to the scale of what you are calling conscious observers. Does HUP really effect anything on the scale of consciousness? Are you speaking about the inner workings of the brain, and suggesting something quantum in nature is occuring? Also you are focusing on a very specific part of quantum mechanics, that is, HUP. Does your theory change if you take into account, say, quantum nonlocality, which, to take an idea from the Tao of Physics, can be seen to demonstrate that everything, hence every observer, is intrinsically connected in some way? This seems to go against the idea of separate, subjective experience. Just some things to consider.

 

The observer in the quantum slit experiment is shown to express a certain affliction on the probabilistic nature of particles. That is to say, before the observer is placed in the experiment, the particle is not forced to define itself in terms of a relative position. It merely exists in a range of possible positions that would have a certain outcome even if actuated into a particular spatial existence.Quantum mechanics says that expresses this range of existence as a probability to exist in a certain way. The observer then, closes the possibility of where the particle can be and in fact forces it to display itself in a singular position when without the observation it "existed" otherwise. So why does the observer close the probability wave and complete out the equation into the existence of a particle at a particular place in time? Well, by virtue of HUP. If each observer is one singular expression of an infinite set of possible disparities in observation (the observer as on the spectrum of the relationship between accurately measuring speed and position), It sort of appeals to me intuitively in that I feel that this infinitely yet intrinsic disparity in observation is what amounts to the realization of our subjective experience of reality, or conciousness.

 

In the quantum slit experiment, "placing" the observer in the experiment means measuring which slit the particle passes through. One could well "observe" the experiment without doing this and still see an interference pattern. HUP states that observation is limited because it cannot be separated from interaction. What exactly is meant by "disparities" in observation? I'm having trouble making the connection here between HUP and consciousness.

 

So what then of the world we live in? Is any of it real if we are merely realizing the infinit possibilities of the probable existences of any given particle? I say yes. I think that if you consider that the difference betewen any subjective experience is infinitesimal in degree then it would follow that some observations would be close to exactly the same. But to whatever degree we say things are the same they are always in respect to our positions in space. And as such represent an infinitely different perpspective on the world we are concurrently experiencing. So, it almost ventures to suggest that position in space is the actuated difference in the infinitesimally small difference in our role as observers.

 

But why then do we all corroborate essentially the same basic facts of experience? Now you're saying that quantum effects are essentially cancelled out on a large scale, as I pointed out earlier. But in face of this, you're making the jump from a single particle to making statements regarding the realm of conscious, everyday experience, and I don't see how this is supposed to be linked, aside from intuition.

 

I also think free will can be worked into this idea. I can not concieve of an idea of conciousness or existence without free will. I think free will is like this: Our choices occur. We can not change them once they have already occured. I can not change that whence I was of 'x' age I chose "y desicion." If we agree up until now that conciousness is somehow bound to the realization of a function by virtue of some infinitely unique parameters placed on it, then you can sort of view past points of the realization of the function as past choices. If our unique role as observer leads to the subjective experience in which we choose things, then points along the realization that such an observation actuates are reflective of those subjective experiences and choices. Free will then, is the future realization of that subjective experience. As we all move concurrently through the realization of these probabilistic functions by virtue of our limited observational powers, then free will is the continual next step in the function. Each next realization in the function is infact our next choice.

 

This may seem deterministic in that if you guess the function you find the predictive pattern. However this is to quite the contrary. By virtue of the same property of numbers that allows us to infinitely realize such small disparities in observational limitation, it limits our ability to reflect that. Emperical science has always come up against the reductionist issue of irreducible units. We will never be able to quantify our understanding of conciousness, because we will always be able to infinitely refine our mathematical description.

 

Ok.

 

I suppose I feel we are doomed to forever seek this mathematical interpretation when in reality we can never reach it, for it is by virtue of the structure we seek that we will not find it. This is the affliction of the aesthetic pursuit. Anything we do to find that shared reality, or at least what we can claim to be close to shared, is always going to reach a state of disconnection. The author of an aesthetic product will never fully convey his subjective experience, nor be able to confirm anything that may be shared between them and others, for it falls short of bridging the infinitesimally small yet infinitely large disparity between his role as observer and any other conciousness's.

 

I think this is a matter of communication, not a fundamental disparity in observation. Aesthetic pursuit succeeds remarkably well in communicating basic facts of experience that are the same. I think it communicates that there is no real disparity between seemingly separate, subjective experience.

 

This is the same of science. Like art, we seek to use science to express something about the world. One might argue that the quest for predictive power in science overshadows other aesthetic pursuits in their value, but just as easily any author or artist could argue that for reasons unstated that they seek to do the same. I think the unfortunate paradox for science is that it attempts to use the language that actually determines reality to undrestand it. That is to say if math and numbers are truely axiomatic then to try and use mathematics in a sort of reverse engineering way will never allow us to reach the axioms themselves. It is almost a bit of circular logic in a sense. Sure it is practical to use numbers and a priori knowledge to say something about the world, but it will ultimately be subject to the precision of the tool for quantification. I am curious to think of which drives which: the progression of precision in tools or the changes in ontology themselves.

 

Perhaps consciousness is defining reality in its use of mathematics to understand reality. Science has so far succeeded quite well at what it set out to do. The limitation of science is the infinite complexity of the real world, as well as the precision in quantification. But it still gives us general, and often very specific, insight into the way the world operates. I don't really believe in eschatology, but I think science is going somewhere.

 

I have also been thinking how could we account for everything as numbers? Well, don't we already? Numbers have no clear referent for their sign or symbol. We can only think of classes of thinks which we think exhibit "numberness," I see two doves. I don't see what is actually the conception two, I see things which when categorized express what I feel is how to use the number. But what then is there of the essential nature of numbers? Frege, Russel and some other say that the sense, or the use I just described, is infact the essence of the number. If that is infact the case, that the true nature of a number is its actuation in categorization of things, then everything can be said to be of the essential nature of numbers.

 

This is sounding like Plato's theory of forms. Numberness is an idea, and math is a language. It is a tool for expressing things between conscious observers. I can't really comprehend why anyone would think anything is of the "essential nature of numbers."

 

anywho, all of this to say that science is fucked just like everything else is, in truely trying to communicate the reality between each subjective experience.

 

Naturally. But I believe that science says something, and art says something, and whatever else says something, and altogether that says everything you need to know. I think the fundamental difference between our viewpoints is that you have chopped experience into an infinity of separate, subjective individual conscious observers, while I don't believe this separation can be made. I tend to side more with Capra in the belief that everything is fundamentally inseparable, thus subjectivity is ultimately illusory.

 

That took me way too long and I'm not really satisfied with what I've said. I'm hungover and my brain is barely functioning.

[the.crooked]

It's hard putting into words the idea that you see as encompassing everything. Previous to my switch to physics I had never really tried to write anything like this. I recognize that being concise or at least breaking the ideas into more palpable parts is what I need to work on. It's most often the main crit of anything I write for class.

 

I just have this problem, that I feel each sentence requires so much in expressing the totality of the concept I'm trying to convey that I get too wrapped up in it I think. I suppose that writing this stuff at like five in the morning a lil lifted doesn't help either. But I appreciate you guys' responses and critics. It only helps me refine my writing outisde of class.

[the.crooked]

Mod X, I have a lot to respond, and to clarify, and I think I can do it so that you either will accept in some form what I've said or disagree entirely. But for now I need food. I have to say this is one of the better discussions I've had in a bit.

[the.crooked]

What bothers me here is that you're making the jump from quantum to human scales without taking into account the physical differences between them. Quantum mechanics turns right into classical mechanics when energies, distances etc. are brought up to the scale of what you are calling conscious observers. Does HUP really effect anything on the scale of consciousness? Are you speaking about the inner workings of the brain, and suggesting something quantum in nature is occuring? Also you are focusing on a very specific part of quantum mechanics, that is, HUP. Does your theory change if you take into account, say, quantum nonlocality, which, to take an idea from the Tao of Physics, can be seen to demonstrate that everything, hence every observer, is intrinsically connected in some way? This seems to go against the idea of separate, subjective experience. Just some things to consider.

 

I think, the reason I did this, was assuming that conciousness itself is not a physical thing. Perhaps you will want to call me a dualist, but I think that is ok. The scale I was speaking of was maintaining itself to quantum because I was only speaking of conciousness not the brain. I don't necessarily know if I believe the brain contains the essence of conciousness alone. I am taking issues of subjective experience as the problem of private minds, and also in the form discussed by 20th century existentialists. I want to address why I think there is to some level a shared experience, but I'll talk bout that in another paragraph where you asked more directly.

 

 

In the quantum slit experiment, "placing" the observer in the experiment means measuring which slit the particle passes through. One could well "observe" the experiment without doing this and still see an interference pattern. HUP states that observation is limited because it cannot be separated from interaction. What exactly is meant by "disparities" in observation? I'm having trouble making the connection here between HUP and consciousness.

 

I know observation is measurement at this part, I wasn't contending it was a person physically viewing it that caused the collapse in the probability. I am taking conciousness as a measurement itself. Sort of. I'll get back to this. When I said disparity in observation, I meant the disparity in precision of any different observation.

 

 

 

But why then do we all corroborate essentially the same basic facts of experience? Now you're saying that quantum effects are essentially cancelled out on a large scale, as I pointed out earlier. But in face of this, you're making the jump from a single particle to making statements regarding the realm of conscious, everyday experience, and I don't see how this is supposed to be linked, aside from intuition.

 

Ok, I think I have this one under controll. The reason we report a similiar experience of the world to a large degree is that in terms of being different in our observational powers, it is only by degree. When I was thinking of conciousness as an effect of HUP, I think of HUP as a spectrum of infinitely possible positions. The spectrum then, is the range of being able to measure speed to being able to measure position. Each measurement is on the infinite boundary. That is to say because of the inverse relationship you can never wholey proclaim to have measured either speed or position to an impeccable precision. Again though, because of the infinite reducibility of decimals and expansion of numbers, we can say that these varying points in the spectrum only vary in the degree by which we wish to quantify them. Again a matter of specificity. However, If we choose to think of each point as just that, a point, then you end up with an infinite set of infinitely different, but infinitely close possibilities for the ratio of accuracy in measurement.

 

Now, I was taking mathematics as a whole, pure logic, etc. to be axiomatic truth. This in so much as the reconciliation of calculus with modern logic and in turn the inseperability of calculus to physics. SO, this is the key part. As knowledge that exists outside the realm of physicalness, I think it is infact what we are observing. It is the math itself that is interpreted differently by each subjective observer and such creates each subjective experience. The reason that so much of what we say about the general world is similar is because there is only slight differences in the way we interpret the math that constructs it. If we have mathematical representations of particles, wave functions, then I see no reason why it is hard to believe that at a fundamental level it is our perception that realizes those functions in a particular way. I suppose it would be clearer to say that I think conciousness is in some ways just the realization of HUP in its application to physics. I think this is where I can answer your question of the bridge between quantum and macro-level life. It is not that quantum experience is happening on a macro level, but that macro-level experience is quantum experience. Just because our "bodies" exist in space does not necessitate that our conciousness does. You may say it's in your brain, but I ask you to find the place that allows you the continuous awareness of your own self. I think the tie between our subjective experiences that allows some basic similarities is the fundamental nature of mathematics themselves. As HUP is the realization of mathematics in a certain way, then I should stand to see a connecting factor in experience between mathematics alone.

 

I think that is why we use mathematics at all. From Descarte on, we have recognized that some fundamental mathematics rests a priori and so on. We think that by using mathematics we will in some form discover the universal truth. I think the mathematics themselves are that universality and the way in which it is realized differently by degree is what allows for both shared concepts about the world and fundamentally different perceptions.

 

I think this is a matter of communication, not a fundamental disparity in observation. Aesthetic pursuit succeeds remarkably well in communicating basic facts of experience that are the same. I think it communicates that there is no real disparity between seemingly separate, subjective experience.

 

The problem is that those facts are only in so much as you interpret them. There is only an attempt to convey what I am thinking, but I can never be assured that you concieve of the precept being discussed in the totality that I do. At that, if you look at it like Quine, our metaphysical ascription of the world is the totality of statements we have about it. That is to say anything that we take in is in relation to all of the other concepts we hold about anything. So, by virtue of you having seperate experience from me, you will always hold fundamental statements about the world that in some way is different then me.

 

Perhaps consciousness is defining reality in its use of mathematics to understand reality. Science has so far succeeded quite well at what it set out to do. The limitation of science is the infinite complexity of the real world, as well as the precision in quantification. But it still gives us general, and often very specific, insight into the way the world operates. I don't really believe in eschatology, but I think science is going somewhere.

 

I think this is the intrinsic problem of empericism, we are trying to use the very form that governs us to understand the form itself.

 

This is sounding like Plato's theory of forms. Numberness is an idea, and math is a language. It is a tool for expressing things between conscious observers. I can't really comprehend why anyone would think anything is of the "essential nature of numbers."

 

I was referrencings Frege and Russel in this section. When Frege was trying to come up with a clear cut means of how we use language, he tried to apply his structure to numbers. There is the sign, sense and referent. The sign then would be any symbolic representation of a number. The sense is how we apply it. Again, I see a singular computer in front of me. It is the recognition of the computer as single that exemplifies my 'sense' of the number. The referant is where he ran into problems. What is the actual thing in which the sign picks out? Where does it exist? and what does it exist as? My point was to say that perhaps because we can not concieve of a number save an example of it, it suggests that its referent, or essential nature is of anything that is an example of it. I am doing not a great job of explaining this, so I'll either reference you to Frege, Russel, etc for questions of language.

 

 

Naturally. But I believe that science says something, and art says something, and whatever else says something, and altogether that says everything you need to know. I think the fundamental difference between our viewpoints is that you have chopped experience into an infinity of separate, subjective individual conscious observers, while I don't believe this separation can be made. I tend to side more with Capra in the belief that everything is fundamentally inseparable, thus subjectivity is ultimately illusory.

 

Thats the thing to me, we can never capture the total essence. Because we each are this subjective experience that seeks to share its perception, we are always striving to add more. I am not saying I think it is a bad thing. On the contrary I think the progression itself is what's important. The progression of aesthetic production in general sort of parallels the process I have proposed. Take each aesthetic piece, whatever it may be, as on place in the varying spectrum of HUP as I have proposed. Each piece is a different ratio of accuracy and ability to percieve certain characteristics of the world. It is the progression of those that seeks to complete the picture. Just as our lives themselves are the continual realization of mathematic possibility, our aesthetic pursuit is the continual realization of our perception of that mathematica possibility.

 

 

I hope this was clearer.

[the.crooked]

so i didnt get food. i just wrote this... now food time. peace.

 

 

and mams... cmon now, I know you got somethin to say.

[El Mamerro]

Well, this seems to have evolved into a more philosophical type of discussion that I quite frankly don't know enough about to add to or even comment. So I just read and learn.