Author Topic: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted  (Read 14648 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12297
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #232 on: August 18, 2010, 10:02:20 PM »
One can interpret what I said according to the rules of English grammar, or one can not.  It's a matter of personal preference, I suppose.

I didn't say that anything bothered me, Immed.  Try English.  The words are right there.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #233 on: August 18, 2010, 10:33:43 PM »
One can interpret what I said according to the rules of English grammar, or one can not.  It's a matter of personal preference, I suppose.

I didn't say that anything bothered me, Immed.  Try English.  The words are right there.
I guess I don't speak English then. I guess nothing bothered you at all. That's why you're going on about your opinion of my promotion of my opinion of QM. Who cares? What does this have to do with MWI, QM, QC, or the Odds of Life?
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12297
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #234 on: August 19, 2010, 12:59:32 AM »
Is being bothered about something the only reason to post a reply to it?  Are all of your posts on this forum due to you having been "bothered" by something?  What a strange idea.  The reason I posted was because I saw an opportunity to convey an important point to others, one that is often missed in discussions about interpretations.  And your post was a wonderful example of it.

You directly said that you reject the MWI because you find it unsatisfying, because you like your interpretation better, and because it makes sense to you.  There are others who don't find it unsatisfying, who don't like another one better, and to whom it makes sense.  Satisfaction is subjective.  It is an attribute of you, the person, not of the thing you're (un)satisfied about.  If you are unsatisfied about something, then saying so is a statement about you.  And if you prefer one thing over another due to personal (un)satisfaction, then that preference - that choice - says something about your preference, more than about the thing being preferred.

I would have expected someone who harps on subjectivity as much as you do to understand this already.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #235 on: August 19, 2010, 07:45:11 AM »
Is being bothered about something the only reason to post a reply to it? 
You didn't post a reply to what I said, you just obliquely claimed that my phrasing reveals something about me personally. People do that when other people bother them. It's an accusation rooted in personality conflict, not in any point that is 'often missed in discussions and interpretations'. What point is that? That I suck? That my point of view is subjective but that somehow your point of view about me is objective? That 'point' is brought up continually in every discussion with me on here, so I don't see why you act as if it's interesting news flash.

Quote
You directly said that you reject the MWI because you find it unsatisfying, because you like your interpretation better, and because it makes sense to you.  There are others who don't find it unsatisfying, who don't like another one better, and to whom it makes sense.  Satisfaction is subjective.  It is an attribute of you, the person, not of the thing you're (un)satisfied about
I deliberately used phrases like unsatisfying, 'like it better', and 'sense to me' to underscore the unsettled and theoretical nature of these cosmologies and my relation to them as someone who is subjectively involved in trying to formulate one.

There is no objective criteria for metaphysics other than our own perception of the degree to which it satisfies our questions about the cosmos. That's why we are discussing it. To exchange ideas and opinions, not to recite encyclopedias to each other. I'm not relaying knowledge of how to disassemble a transmission, where I wouldn't use those kinds of terms at all. So satisfaction is not a purely subjective attribute of me, since I would apply it to theoretical cosmology but not to auto mechanics. I don't have an inside view of auto mechanics. If I was trying to build an engine from scratch, I might find the Diesel design to be satisfying or not, but since I don't, I have no subjective investment in it.

Quote
If you are unsatisfied about something, then saying so is a statement about you.  And if you prefer one thing over another due to personal (un)satisfaction, then that preference - that choice - says something about your preference, more than about the thing being preferred.
Yes, it says that I know I'm just a person who doesn't know the ultimate metaphysical truth of the cosmos and that I approach these things with a sense of proportion, rather than presume that I speak for science or the universe.

Quote
I would have expected someone who harps on subjectivity as much as you do to understand this already.
That's why I expressly made it subjective, because I understand that these Theories of Everything exist to answer our subjective questions. I use the subjective language so that others don't need to make the point to that I have no evidence. The fact is that anyone who claims that their preference of a particular worldview isn't subjective is deluded. To imagine that one is possessed of pure and universal logic which transcends subjectivity, is to me, a fallacy of inverted narcissism. Perhaps my pointing that out is what is not-at-all-bothering you?

Can we stop the inquisition now? Do you have anything to say about the actual topic of MWI or the Odds of Life, or is it just going to be more armchair psychoanalysis and argumentation about me personally?
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Agga

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4290
  • Darwins +27/-42
  • The Forum is made of its members.
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #236 on: August 19, 2010, 08:01:03 AM »
Is being bothered about something the only reason to post a reply to it?
You didn't post a reply to what I said, you just obliquely claimed that my phrasing reveals something about me personally. People do that when other people bother them. It's an accusation rooted in personality conflict, not in any point that is 'often missed in discussions and interpretations'.
A question does not constitute an "accusation".


Quote
That 'point' is brought up continually in every discussion with me on here, so I don't see why you act as if it's interesting news flash.
Why do you think so many members have the same exact problem with you?
I've left WWGHA now, so do everyone else a favour and don't bother replying to my old posts and necromancing my threads.

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #237 on: August 19, 2010, 10:00:43 AM »
A question does not constitute an "accusation".
If "Hence, the promotion of your interpretation of QM is a statement about you - and what satisfies you - rather than about QM." is a question, then that would apply. It isn't though.

Quote
Why do you think so many members have the same exact problem with you?
Because this is a forum that specializes in a particular range of ideas. When people express ideas which are outside of that range, it is perceived as a threat, and the response is predictably targeted at discrediting the source of the ideas rather than the ideas themselves. It's the same emotional dynamic as you would find in a Christian forum when presented with scientific arguments, or a philosophy forum when presented with psychology.

I have only gotten this reaction here and with a Physics professor so far. Most people I know and have talked to them about it are not threatened or outraged at all, and I have had several people PM me from hear to voice appreciation and encourage me to keep trying.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline penkie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Let science rule!
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #238 on: August 19, 2010, 11:26:49 AM »
Because this is a forum that specializes in a particular range of ideas. When people express ideas which are outside of that range, it is perceived as a threat, and the response is predictably targeted at discrediting the source of the ideas rather than the ideas themselves...Most people I know and have talked to them about it are not threatened or outraged at all, and I have had several people PM me from hear to voice appreciation and encourage me to keep trying.

I think you misinterpret the reactions here. The worst emotions I have seen directed towards you are not of a threatened or outraged nature at all. What I have seen are critical questioning, dismissing, and at most annoyance or impatience because of the stubborn perseverance that you use to defend your ideas, despite lack of support for your ideas to make sense at all. Maybe you are overreacting because our reactions are not supportive enough?

The reason that we are so critical is because you just pull a theory out of thin air and then say that in your 'experience' the complete scientific world is basically seeing it all wrong or at least not complete.  You don't have any support for your ideas and you also fail to really explain what your theory or set of ideas precisely are and what's wrong with the scientific method as it is. You've also demonstrated that you only have a limited understanding of actual scientific theories and no experience with mathematics at all. What do you expect? That we let everything fall from our hands, dismiss the entire scientific community that has been so successful for hundreds of years including the greatest minds ever alive, and applaud and just assume YOU are totally correct in your understanding, even though you have no hint of support for your ideas? Maybe you can easily impress 'most people you know and talk to', but I don't think you have found a scientist yet that was impressed with your ideas.

I must give it to you that you have a talent for debating and twisting arguments around, and demonstrating that our misunderstanding and dismissing of your ideas are intolerant, narrow-minded and based on fear. But in the end these are just variations of tactics that Christians use and have perfected over thousands of years for defending their ideas.

I think it is fine that you keep bringing up your offbeat ideas (as long as you don't hijack every thread), but you should be prepared to be met with criticism, rejection and boredom of the people you present it to. And no, that is not an indication that you're on to something and that people fear your brilliant work, or that we just fear novelty in general, it just means we think you are a crank. I think you are even lucky that we even take the time to criticize you. I am quite sure that in the academic world you will just be ignored because your ideas are just a waste of time. Of course, you can also go for befriending the simpletons and impress them with your deep sounding theories. But it doesn't really bring you anywhere, does it?
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12345
  • Darwins +678/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #239 on: August 19, 2010, 12:33:37 PM »
I have only gotten this reaction here and with a Physics professor so far. Most people I know and have talked to them about it are not threatened or outraged at all,

I would surmise that is because they have not a clue what you are talking about and they hope if they just smile and nod the crackpot will wander away.




Of course, you can also go for befriending the simpletons and impress them with your deep sounding theories. But it doesn't really bring you anywhere, does it?

Tell that to Kirk Cameron.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline penkie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Let science rule!
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #240 on: August 19, 2010, 12:50:08 PM »
Tell that to Kirk Cameron.
Touché. It's not really what I meant, but it's true, being a charlatan or evangelist is an easy way to make a living and even become a celebrity.  :)
What I should have said is that it won't get you any closer to 'the truth' or progression of humanity.
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #241 on: August 19, 2010, 01:26:57 PM »
I like how you start out with this:

I think you misinterpret the reactions here. The worst emotions I have seen directed towards you are not of a threatened or outraged nature at all."

and end up with this:

Quote
"I think you are even lucky that we even take the time to criticize you. I am quite sure that in the academic world you will just be ignored because your ideas are just a waste of time. Of course, you can also go for befriending the simpletons and impress them with your deep sounding theories. But it doesn't really bring you anywhere, does it?"

Really? I'm lucky to be personally criticized? Not my ideas mind you, but me personally. I'm lucky to have people bestow their personal opinion upon me on behalf of the entire 'academic world' and that my lifelong friends, who I know from our times together attending class in Highly Gifted Magnet programs - some who are computer programmers with physics degrees, are simpletons who I've befriended to impress with my deep sounding theories? But that's not enough, you then have the nerve to tell me that I'm misinterpreting and overreacting. You suggest that these kind of blatantly personal remarks are to be interpreted as mere 'critical questioning, dismissing, and at most annoyance or impatience'?

Here, you try it on for size:

Your friends are simpletons that you have befriended to give you a receptive audience for your theories. That's not my opinion, I'm telling you that as a fact. Your friends are idiots and you only have them to feel like you are less of an idiot.

Do you interpret that my intention is to question you? To dismiss you? To express annoyance or impatience? Is my astute psychological evaluation of you not more important than discussing the nature of physical existence and consciousness?

Quote
Maybe you are overreacting because our reactions are not supportive enough?
I'm not looking for supportive reactions here. I might be looking for my ideas to be read by people who may benefit from a worldview which goes beyond devout physicalism but does not regress into theism. The reactions I get here only reinforce my OMM model which associates extreme objectivity or extreme subjectivity with intolerance and fear.

Quote
The reason that we are so critical is because you just pull a theory out of thin air
Thin air and a lifetime of experience, observation, and analysis.

Quote
and then say that in your 'experience' the complete scientific world is basically seeing it all wrong or at least not complete.
I've never said that the complete scientific world is basically seeing it all wrong. I'm saying that if we change a fundamental assumption about the nature of subjectivity and objectivity, then it seems like our most perplexing theoretical cosmological problems might begin to be resolved.

Quote
You don't have any support for your ideas and you also fail to really explain what your theory or set of ideas precisely are and what's wrong with the scientific method as it is.
The scientific method is fine. How can you say that my ideas don't have any support if you are saying that I've failed to explain what they are.

Mainly I'm saying that the cosmos is fundamentally composed of order, and that matter is a category of order rather than the other way around.

Further, I'm saying that the order we experience can be mapped on a continuum of external and objective at one end and subjective and internal at the other.

Finally I'm suggesting that light may be a property of matter in which matter is able to describe itself to some extent and sense that descriptive quality in matter outside of itself. There is precedent for this dynamic in bacterial quorum sensing, which to me, implicates sense on a molecular level.

Quote
You've also demonstrated that you only have a limited understanding of actual scientific theories and no experience with mathematics at all. What do you expect? That we let everything fall from our hands, dismiss the entire scientific community that has been so successful for hundreds of years including the greatest minds ever alive, and applaud and just assume YOU are totally correct in your understanding, even though you have no hint of support for your ideas?
I don't expect anything. I observe and respond.

Quote
Maybe you can easily impress 'most people you know and talk to', but I don't think you have found a scientist yet that was impressed with your ideas.
Impressing people is the furthest thing from my mind. I'm just trying to make sense of my own experience. All that I look for from others is corroboration - 'does it seem this way to you too? If not, how does your understanding differ?'
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12297
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #242 on: August 19, 2010, 01:50:00 PM »
You didn't post a reply to what I said, you just obliquely claimed that my phrasing reveals something about me personally. People do that when other people bother them. It's an accusation rooted in personality conflict, not in any point that is 'often missed in discussions and interpretations'. What point is that? That I suck? That my point of view is subjective but that somehow your point of view about me is objective? That 'point' is brought up continually in every discussion with me on here, so I don't see why you act as if it's interesting news flash.

I was responding to your words, and the response pertained to them.  That makes it a "reply".  I even hit the "reply" button as I did it.

My "point" was not anything you've just listed.  I can see how it would be helpful for you to imagine those things, though.

I deliberately used phrases like unsatisfying, 'like it better', and 'sense to me' to underscore the unsettled and theoretical nature of these cosmologies and my relation to them as someone who is subjectively involved in trying to formulate one.

Fair enough.  That doesn't disagree with what I am saying.  Since there is no authoritative objective standard by which to choose between quantum mechanical ontologies, a statement our preference for one over another is a statement that contains information about ourselves - about our preference-opinions - rather than about QM.  This is not a denouncement of you.  It is true of anyone's belief in anything where an objective standard is lacking.  My own preference is for the Objective Reduction ontology proposed by Roger Penrose.  That says something about me, rather than about quantum mechanical ontologies.

There is no objective criteria for metaphysics other than our own perception of the degree to which it satisfies our questions about the cosmos. That's why we are discussing it. To exchange ideas and opinions, not to recite encyclopedias to each other. I'm not relaying knowledge of how to disassemble a transmission, where I wouldn't use those kinds of terms at all. So satisfaction is not a purely subjective attribute of me, since I would apply it to theoretical cosmology but not to auto mechanics. I don't have an inside view of auto mechanics. If I was trying to build an engine from scratch, I might find the Diesel design to be satisfying or not, but since I don't, I have no subjective investment in it.

So, you agree with me.  Why the objection, then?

Yes, it says that I know I'm just a person who doesn't know the ultimate metaphysical truth of the cosmos and that I approach these things with a sense of proportion, rather than presume that I speak for science or the universe.

Well, it says something more direct than that.  Most immediately, it says something about your preference.  One can do armchair psychology and extrapolate other things based on that, but such speculation is tenuous at best - at least based on such limited information.

Quote
I would have expected someone who harps on subjectivity as much as you do to understand this already.

That's why I expressly made it subjective, because I understand that these Theories of Everything exist to answer our subjective questions. I use the subjective language so that others don't need to make the point to that I have no evidence. The fact is that anyone who claims that their preference of a particular worldview isn't subjective is deluded. To imagine that one is possessed of pure and universal logic which transcends subjectivity, is to me, a fallacy of inverted narcissism. Perhaps my pointing that out is what is not-at-all-bothering you?

Actually, they exist to answer whatever questions we want to try to make them answer.  Purpose is subjective, after all.  Anyway, all theories are basically subjective, because they are the human understanding of reality.  I agree.  That doesn't mean that a theory (and I use the word loosely to describe any model for understanding anything at all) is subjective to its core.  Quantum mechanics, for example, is subjective to the degree that we manage to understand it intuitively.  But that doesn't mean that quantum mechanics is constrained by subjectivity at its root.  Only the selection between ontologies (understandings) of quantum mechanics is subjective.  And that is what I said in my first post on the subject in this thread.

Can we stop the inquisition now? Do you have anything to say about the actual topic of MWI or the Odds of Life, or is it just going to be more armchair psychoanalysis and argumentation about me personally?

You take things far too personally, Immediacracy.  My statement applies to myself as much as it does to you.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline penkie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Let science rule!
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #243 on: August 19, 2010, 02:20:17 PM »
I like how you start out with this:
..
and end up with this:
Thanks. As you can see, I am not outraged, nor threatening you. I just don't respect your ideas.

Quote
Really? I'm lucky to be personally criticized? Not my ideas mind you, but me personally.

It's better than blind agreement of stupidity of people that nod at anything that you say, I would say. But obviously, dealing with criticism is hard for some. Especially those that are not used being criticized.

Quote
I'm lucky to have people bestow their personal opinion upon me on behalf of the entire 'academic world' and that my lifelong friends, who I know from our times together attending class in Highly Gifted Magnet programs - some who are computer programmers with physics degrees, are simpletons who I've befriended to impress with my deep sounding theories? But that's not enough, you then have the nerve to tell me that I'm misinterpreting and overreacting. You suggest that these kind of blatantly personal remarks are to be interpreted as mere 'critical questioning, dismissing, and at most annoyance or impatience'?

You sound angry. Sorry for being honest. I don't know your friends of course, I didn't say I do, nor do I know the reason why they nod at your crank theories if they have a physics background. Maybe they are afraid to lose you as a friend when they would be honest to you. That's exactly why they invented anonymous peer review in science.

Quote
Your friends are simpletons that you have befriended to give you a receptive audience for your theories. That's not my opinion, I'm telling you that as a fact. Your friends are idiots and you only have them to feel like you are less of an idiot.

You don't know my friends, nor do I have crank ideas I want to persuade them of. I didn't pick any them as an audience for my ideas, apparently unlike you. I save my ideas for papers that submit to conferences and journals for anonymous peer review.

Quote
Do you interpret that my intention is to question you? To dismiss you? To express annoyance or impatience?

Yep, you sound pretty annoyed to me. And more outraged than I have ever reacted towards you.

Quote
I'm not looking for supportive reactions here. I might be looking for my ideas to be read by people who may benefit from a worldview which goes beyond devout physicalism but does not regress into theism. The reactions I get here only reinforce my OMM model which associates extreme objectivity or extreme subjectivity with intolerance and fear.

In other words, you're here to preach? Sorry, but you sound like any other religious nut we see out here.

Quote
Thin air and a lifetime of experience, observation, and analysis.

A lifetime of bullshitting around without formulating rigorous mathematical or formal background of some vague ideas are apparently not a good way to get anywhere. You're also positioning not only against me, but against the entire scientific community of thousands and thousands of the greatest minds who have been experimenting and truly analyzing and interpreting data for hundreds of years. And they had actual working results which lead to the current technological age. Thinking long and hard doesn't guarantee any kind of success.

Quote
I've never said that the complete scientific world is basically seeing it all wrong. I'm saying that if we change a fundamental assumption about the nature of subjectivity and objectivity, then it seems like our most perplexing theoretical cosmological problems might begin to be resolved.

I don't see an incompatibility between what I say and what you say.

Quote
How can you say that my ideas don't have any support if you are saying that I've failed to explain what they are.

"I think that the immortality of spaghetti would be a good assumption to explain the existence of the flying spaghetti monster." You see, a vaguely expressed idea without support.

Quote
Mainly I'm saying that the cosmos is fundamentally composed of order, and that matter is a category of order rather than the other way around.

You try to invent entropy now?

Quote
Further, I'm saying that the order we experience can be mapped on a continuum of external and objective at one end and subjective and internal at the other.

Now you say that there is something like 'physics' and something like 'psychology'?

Quote
Finally I'm suggesting that light may be a property of matter in which matter is able to describe itself to some extent and sense that descriptive quality in matter outside of itself.

That just doesn't fit with reality. Light and matter are the consequence of the same thing.

Quote
There is precedent for this dynamic in bacterial quorum sensing, which to me, implicates sense on a molecular level.

Bacteria interacts with other bacteria using molecules. Matter reacts with other matter via electromagnetism and gravity. That's all well-known. What does this implicate precisely? What new thing do you exactly derive from this?

Quote
Impressing people is the furthest thing from my mind. I'm just trying to make sense of my own experience. All that I look for from others is corroboration - 'does it seem this way to you too? If not, how does your understanding differ?'

No, my understanding is that you have some vague ideas that fit to your mind. You are not prepared to step away from those ideas no matter what and proclaim them within almost every discussion you have on this forum. For me that's preaching. What your motives are? I don't know. Maybe you try to persuade people, so that you can safely believe what you believe. Maybe, you want to impress people and feel a really smart underestimated scientist. I don't know. One of them, I guess, why would you otherwise act in this way?
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #244 on: August 19, 2010, 02:40:59 PM »
My own preference is for the Objective Reduction ontology proposed by Roger Penrose.
I like what I've read of Penrose's view, and I think that it interprets things in a similar way that my view does. The main difference, to me, is that it lacks the interiority of subjective experience. If consciousness is quantum processes within countless microtubules, why does it seem like we are experiencing something very different? What is our coherent, gestalt subjective experience made of?

Quote
So, you agree with me.  Why the objection, then?
Because what you said "Hence, the promotion of your interpretation of QM is a statement about you - and what satisfies you - rather than about QM." was aimed at me personally - not at all a general or neutral statement about the subjective nature of interpreting QM. It was an obvious accusation of incompetence - an intimation of a personal inability on my part to render appropriately impersonal judgment.

Quote
You take things far too personally, Immediacracy.  My statement applies to myself as much as it does to you.
That's cool, then let's just make it "Hence, the promotion of y our interpretations of QM is a statement about you us - and what satisfies you us - rather than about QM."
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #245 on: August 19, 2010, 03:47:03 PM »
It's better than blind agreement of stupidity of people that nod at anything that you say, I would say.
Why would it be better? Nodding no in blind disagreement to anything that I say is superior to nodding yes?

Quote
But obviously, dealing with criticism is hard for some. Especially those that are not used being criticized.
Obviously condescending superiority is easy for some. Especially if they are used to their own hypocrisy.

Quote
I don't know your friends of course
is where it should end. Why go on to speculate about people you don't know? How does it further your argument to talk about my friends?

Quote
I save my ideas for papers that submit to conferences and journals for anonymous peer review.
That's a respectable thing to do. Do you tell them that their fake friends are simpletons? Maybe you should try it out?

Quote
In other words, you're here to preach? Sorry, but you sound like any other religious nut we see out here.
If I wanted to preach, I'd look for a group more likely to be converted. I'm just here to discuss issues that interest me that coincide with the topics of the forum.

Quote
A lifetime of bullshitting around without formulating rigorous mathematical or formal background of some vague ideas are apparently not a good way to get anywhere. Thinking long and hard doesn't guarantee any kind of success.

It's gotten me to the best Theory of Everything that I've come across - which is the only thing that I've been looking for. I don't need to get anywhere as far as I know. I'm already here. Success at what? Producing more consumer fetish objects and piles of waste? I think we could use a little more thinking long and hard and a little less 'success' in the world.

Quote
You try to invent entropy now?
No. Entropy is an automatic tendency toward disorder. I'm talking about order. Negentropy. Sequence. Coherence. Pattern. Who said anything about inventing it? I'm just saying that it's primary. Cosmos = order, not cosmos = matter.

Quote
Now you say that there is something like 'physics' and something like 'psychology'?
No, that's what you're saying. I'm talking about the phenomena which physics and psychology study and the relation between them.

Quote
That just doesn't fit with reality. Light and matter are the consequence of the same thing.
It seems to fit with the reality I experience. Better than projectile particle/waves of massless light that only exist when we choose to observe them. I agree that light and matter are the consequence of the same thing - I'm calling that thing sense. Order. Shared descriptive qualities.

Quote
Bacteria interacts with other bacteria using molecules. Matter reacts with other matter via electromagnetism and gravity. That's all well-known. What does this implicate precisely? What new thing do you exactly derive from this?
Quorum sensing implicates that interaction at a very primitive physical level is based on sense. Bacteria aren't just bumping around blind, they are coordinated in groups. The behave individually and respond socially. This places the roots of subjectivity much closer to the level of molecules and atoms than to the level of a human or other animal brain.

What I derive from this is that subjectivity is not that big of a deal to the universe. We know that small bits of DNA give rise to subjectivity, and that DNA itself is only a configuration of atoms. Subjectivity can only exist then, if it's potential to exist can be found within atoms themselves. Where else does it come from? Why would a subjectivity arise spontaneously from inert components? Electromagnetism as atomic quorum sensing makes more sense to me than inert projectiles in a senseless universe.

Quote
Maybe you try to persuade people, so that you can safely believe what you believe.
Just the opposite. I want people to persuade me that I'm wrong so I can safely believe what they believe...except that so far nobody has given me anything to think about that I haven't gone over already many times.

Quote
Maybe, you want to impress people and feel a really smart underestimated scientist. I don't know. One of them, I guess, why would you otherwise act in this way?
Act what way? Stubbornly persisting in a way of looking at things that seems correct to me? Have you considered that maybe you're acting this way so that you can safely believe what you believe?
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Operator_011

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2646
  • Darwins +17/-1
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #246 on: August 19, 2010, 04:17:05 PM »
Sigh. Another good thread being hijacked with the same issue.

This thread is no longer focused on the OP topic and has been moved to the Pit. Normal rules still apply here.

If it turns into a bitching-fest it'll be locked.
Former Moderator Account

Offline penkie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Let science rule!
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #247 on: August 19, 2010, 04:35:43 PM »
Why would it be better? Nodding no in blind disagreement to anything that I say is superior to nodding yes?


Our disagreement is not blind, several of us have repeatedly compared your ideas with science and the scientific method and have explained to you that your ideas have nothing to do with it. Science is not blind. It is the only way known to understand nature.

Quote
Obviously condescending superiority is easy for some. Especially if they are used to their own hypocrisy.

Rejecting your ideas because they are senseless don't make me feel superior. I think science is superior, not me.

Quote
is where it should end. Why go on to speculate about people you don't know? How does it further your argument to talk about my friends?

As you claimed they do not openly reject your ideas. I came up with some possible ideas why they don't.

Quote
That's a respectable thing to do. Do you tell them that their fake friends are simpletons? Maybe you should try it out?

That's not relevant in that situation. I do no need to care about my or their friends. We are anonymous to each other. They will only evaluate my ideas. And if they reject them, I won't whine to them that my friends DO like my ideas and that they're too arrogant not to. See the difference?

Quote
If I wanted to preach, I'd look for a group more likely to be converted. I'm just here to discuss issues that interest me that coincide with the topics of the forum.

Fair enough. But given the way you defend your 'ideas', I don't have the feeling you really try to discuss anything, instead of preach to us. But we'll see how you behave in the future.

Quote
It's gotten me to the best Theory of Everything that I've come across - which is the only thing that I've been looking for.

Right. Thousands and thousands of the brightest scientists are working for decades on the theory of everything, including Einstein, and they didn't come up with anything useful yet. They are doing the hard work, generalizing the data, deriving theories, making tests for verification of those theories, building multi-billion dollar machines to do the actual tests, and spend years on interpreting the results. And they're still not there, nor know if such a theory of everything even exists. You, however, outwitted all those scientists by just sitting in your chair and making stuff up. You know what another such theory is? Creationism. You don't need to test anything, you just say 'God did it', think very long about it, agree with some other simpletons and have a bit of faith.

Quote
No. Entropy is an automatic tendency toward disorder. I'm talking about order. Negentropy. Sequence. Coherence. Pattern. Who said anything about inventing it? I'm just saying that it's primary. Cosmos = order, not cosmos = matter.

"Entropy is commonly associated with the amount of order, disorder, and/or chaos in a thermodynamic system"

Order and disorder are basically equivalent terms. Entropy is a measure. Your 'idea' is similar to entropy. The principles of entropy have been discovered. I call your ideas no discovery, because you do not derive them from facts, but just make them up.

Quote
I'm talking about the phenomena which physics and psychology study and the relation between them.

What is the relation between them? And how could we know if a certain relation indeed does exist or doesn't?

Quote
It seems to fit with the reality I experience. Better than projectile particle/waves of massless light that only exist when we choose to observe them.

You use intuition, or common sense, to reject particle / wave duality. As Einstein said, "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." The QM theory is not made up by just thinking about stuff. The explanation you know about particle/wave duality is nothing more than the explanation of what the consequence of QM mathematical formulas are. There is no real duality or paradox, it's just hard to put it into words what the QM formulas mean. But QM is not exactly baseless, it has been predicting many phenomena that have been countlessly verified to be correct. It flawlessly models every micro-scale experiment we can come up with. What is there to reject about that, what is there not to fit with reality? What does your everyday macro life has to do with it?

The fact that you don't intuitively understand GM reality doesn't matter in the least. Reality doesn't care. Just coming up with some explanation, without mathematical framework, that just 'sounds right' doesn't mean that it is right. Actually, usually that sort of explanations are very very wrong.

Quote
Quorum sensing implicates that interaction at a very primitive physical level is based on sense. Bacteria aren't just bumping around blind, they are coordinated in groups. The behave individually and respond socially. This places the roots of subjectivity much closer to the level of molecules and atoms than to the level of a human or other animal brain.

Groups of bacteria are cooperating, just like the entire human body consists of cooperating cells. This doesn't say they are 'aware' or that their behavior cannot be precisely modeled. Similarly atoms and quarks are interacting via the four known forces and in that sense coordinated. That doesn't attribute any 'awareness' to them either, and does not subscribe subjectivity to them either in a psychological sense.

Quote
What I derive from this is that subjectivity is not that big of a deal to the universe. We know that small bits of DNA give rise to subjectivity, and that DNA itself is only a configuration of atoms. Subjectivity can only exist then, if it's potential to exist can be found within atoms themselves. Where else does it come from?

Small bits of DNA give rise to subjectivity? Could you please define what subjectivity is, according to you?
Properties of complex systems need not come from any of their parts, but can be part from their configuration alone.

Quote
Why would a subjectivity arise spontaneously from inert components?

Again, it is not clear what you mean with subjectivity. And again, there is no need that a complex system's behavior is inherently inherited from one of its parts.

Quote
Electromagnetism as atomic quorum sensing makes more sense to me than inert projectiles in a senseless universe.

Might be. But truth does not equal whatever makes the most sense to you.

Quote
Just the opposite. I want people to persuade me that I'm wrong so I can safely believe what they believe...except that so far nobody has given me anything to think about that I haven't gone over already many times.

I don't believe that. You seem to purposely construct your ideas so that nothing much can be said about them, or measured by them. That was the reason you originally placed them outside the scientific field. I don't think that anything can change your mind. I've already said many times that without experimentation and validation your ideas about the universe are completely useless and senseless.

Quote
Act what way? Stubbornly persisting in a way of looking at things that seems correct to me? Have you considered that maybe you're acting this way so that you can safely believe what you believe?

That's a one-on-one copy of the Christian argument " ". You are the one assuming a self-made up theory, not I. My lack of belief and confidence in your intuition does not equate to a belief system in itself.
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6710
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #248 on: August 19, 2010, 04:54:11 PM »
What I derive from this is that subjectivity is not that big of a deal to the universe. We know that small bits of DNA give rise to subjectivity, and that DNA itself is only a configuration of atoms. Subjectivity can only exist then, if it's potential to exist can be found within atoms themselves. Where else does it come from? Why would a subjectivity arise spontaneously from inert components? [...]

What is the nature of this “subjectivity” particle/wave? How would you show its existence? How would you do the maths? Would it not be more reasonable to speculate that the presence of any large object (camera, person, etc.) has a quantum effect on space-time / earth's magnetic field / etc., which is shown in the behaviour of subatomic particles? Why would the particles (atoms) that are being observed have to have the quality you propose?

Was it the Ancient Greeks who believed that the eye transmitted rays. This explained why the horizon was there (the rays fell over distance) why there was poor vision (the organ emitting the rays was weak.) and blindness - the organ had failed.

But back to your speculation, as I look at a person and he cannot see me looking, are you suggesting that the person changes because all his electrons change their behaviour? Would that matter any more than if his blink rate rose from 10.451938392 per minute to 10.451938393?

If I and you both looked at that person and he cannot see us looking, how would he change? Would he change in 2 ways or would he change the same for both of us?

What would be the significance if you were right? What would be the significance if you were not?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12297
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #249 on: August 19, 2010, 05:16:11 PM »
I like what I've read of Penrose's view, and I think that it interprets things in a similar way that my view does. The main difference, to me, is that it lacks the interiority of subjective experience. If consciousness is quantum processes within countless microtubules, why does it seem like we are experiencing something very different? What is our coherent, gestalt subjective experience made of?

I think that the answer to that question is found in the subjective idea of an individual.  On a certain physical scale, we are individuals.  On a smaller physical scale, we are no longer distinct individuals, but rather a colony of individual cells.  The question of why the body-scale of an object thinks of its body-scaled self as an individual is one that answers itself, I think.

Because what you said "Hence, the promotion of your interpretation of QM is a statement about you - and what satisfies you - rather than about QM." was aimed at me personally - not at all a general or neutral statement about the subjective nature of interpreting QM. It was an obvious accusation of incompetence - an intimation of a personal inability on my part to render appropriately impersonal judgment.

I can see how it could very reasonably be taken that way.  That was not my intention.  I did mean for it to apply to your espousal of a certain QM ontology, but only because that was the subject immediately under discussion.  As a principle, it applies to everyone.  As a comment in this thread, it did apply to you, because you were the one who I saw engaging in the behaviour to which my comment applies.

That's cool, then let's just make it "Hence, the promotion of y our interpretations of QM is a statement about you us - and what satisfies you us - rather than about QM."

Totally agreed.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #250 on: August 19, 2010, 07:50:03 PM »
Our disagreement is not blind, several of us have repeatedly compared your ideas with science and the scientific method and have explained to you that your ideas have nothing to do with it. Science is not blind. It is the only way known to understand nature.
You are not science. You do not speak for science. 'Explaining' that an idea is not scientific is not the same as explaining why an idea is not a potential source of truth (scientific, philosophical, or otherwise). Anyone can say 'you have no evidence' or 'what you say doesn't make any sense'.

Quote
As you claimed they do not openly reject your ideas. I came up with some possible ideas why they don't.
Rather than accept the reality that my friends are normal, highly intelligent people such as yourself who do accept the possibilities of my ideas, you come up with some derogatory ideas about people you've never met...and you still see nothing wrong with that.

Quote
That's not relevant in that situation. I do no need to care about my or their friends. We are anonymous to each other.
We are anonymous here too, penkie. We don't need to care about our friends here either.

Quote
They will only evaluate my ideas. And if they reject them, I won't whine to them that my friends DO like my ideas and that they're too arrogant not to. See the difference?
There is no difference. I only brought up the fact that there are other people who are receptive to these ideas to counter the perception that the vocal members on my threads constitutes a typical reaction.

Quote
But we'll see how you behave in the future.
Is that your personal condescension/threat or are you speaking for science?

Quote
Order and disorder are basically equivalent terms. Entropy is a measure. Your 'idea' is similar to entropy. The principles of entropy have been discovered. I call your ideas no discovery, because you do not derive them from facts, but just make them up.
Entropy applies to physical measurement, not awareness subjectivity. My view of order encompasses all pattern, coherence, or identification, exterior or interior, subjective or objective. Order is not just a quantitative measure, it's qualities of experience.

Quote
What is the relation between them? And how could we know if a certain relation indeed does exist or doesn't?

The relation that I suggest is that physical phenomena are the exterior aspects of objects while subjective phenomena are experienced within the interiors of objects. We know that the brain is made of molecules and that it's electrochemical behaviors can be mapped to subjective experience but we also know that this subjective experience cannot be accessed directly or predicted from the electrochemical behaviors. The brain could behave the exact same way without there necessarily being a conscious person there at all, just as a computer could function just as it does with or without a monitor/keyboard/mouse.

Further, I suggest that this dualism is itself dualistic, such that brain behavior and subjective experience are essentially linked, but existentially separate. Like a tree has roots that go into the ground and it has branches and leaves that go into the air. They are two ends of the same phenomenon. The trunk is neither root nor branch but it unites and separates them.

Psychologically, I can observe in myself and in others, that attention to one side of the tree or the other can become habitual and shape a person's expectations about the world, and that categories of experience and observation make sense when organized along a continuum from purely physical to purely experiential.

Quote
There is no real duality or paradox, it's just hard to put it into words what the QM formulas mean.
I think it's just moving the paradox to reality so that the formulas make sense. The formulas do make sense, it's just that the reality they describe doesn't fully make sense of the reality we experience, and that's why they are hard not only to put into words, but to conceptualize at all.

Quote
But QM is not exactly baseless, it has been predicting many phenomena that have been countlessly verified to be correct. It flawlessly models every micro-scale experiment we can come up with. What is there to reject about that, what is there not to fit with reality?

You act as if I'm rejecting QM. I'm not. QM is critical to understanding the exterior behavior of matter. Matter does behave as if these things exist when we observe them certain ways, I'm just saying they can be interpreted just as well and maybe more accurately and meaningfully without the necessity of a substance-like energy conductor.

Quote
What does your everyday macro life has to do with it?
My everyday macro life is made of matter. Why would scale alone change the ontology completely?

Quote
The fact that you don't intuitively understand GM reality doesn't matter in the least. Reality doesn't care. Just coming up with some explanation, without mathematical framework, that just 'sounds right' doesn't mean that it is right. Actually, usually that sort of explanations are very very wrong.
That's fine, but someone has to tell me what I'm very very wrong about and not just state how improbable it is that I'm right. I know that it's improbable that I'm right. So what?

Quote
Groups of bacteria are cooperating, just like the entire human body consists of cooperating cells. This doesn't say they are 'aware' or that their behavior cannot be precisely modeled.
Just because something can be precisely modeled doesn't mean it has no capacity to detect. The cells of the human body have awareness too - that's where our awareness comes from. We are a logical abstraction layer that arises from the awareness of the cells of parts of our central nervous system. Why is that so noxious to entertain? Where else would our consciousness reside but inside of our brain?

Quote
Similarly atoms and quarks are interacting via the four known forces and in that sense coordinated. That doesn't attribute any 'awareness' to them either, and does not subscribe subjectivity to them either in a psychological sense.
It doesn't rule it out either. You really think that before life evolved there was no awareness in the entire cosmos? Just intangible silent processes in the dark for eons until suddenly out of nowhere, awareness happens to appear, along with, for the very first time, the entire rest of the cosmos? You take awareness for granted. I don't.

Quote
Small bits of DNA give rise to subjectivity? Could you please define what subjectivity is, according to you?
I don't do definitions but how about 'Subjectivity is the ability to experience'.

Quote
Properties of complex systems need not come from any of their parts, but can be part from their configuration alone.

Only if there exists the possibility for the configuration to yield the particular property in the first place. You can't get lasagna from a diamond and you can't get self-replicating, conscious, living organisms from a universe of tiny billiard balls.

Quote
Might be. But truth does not equal whatever makes the most sense to you.
That's all I'm asking for. 'Might be'. I'm under no delusion that the few weeks I've been tossing this idea around constitutes truth, but no matter how many times I try to express that, I get slammed for trying to outwit every genius put together. 'Might be' is all these ideas deserve, but it's also all that they need to be to warrant further exploration.

Quote
I don't believe that. You seem to purposely construct your ideas so that nothing much can be said about them, or measured by them. That was the reason you originally placed them outside the scientific field. I don't think that anything can change your mind. I've already said many times that without experimentation and validation your ideas about the universe are completely useless and senseless.
I don't purposely construct my ideas at all. I didn't originally place them anywhere. I agree that it's hard to experimentally validate or measure them, but that's part of what I'm saying - subjectivity is hard to experimentally validate. Prove your beliefs exist. Does the fact that you can't make them useless and senseless?
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #251 on: August 19, 2010, 08:35:44 PM »
What is the nature of this “subjectivity” particle/wave? How would you show its existence?
It's not a particle/wave, it's what takes place within particles and through waves. We show it's existence by experiencing it ourselves. We understand that the patterns of our brain appear to be one thing on the outside (DC potential flux patterns, neurotransmitter production, etc) and another thing on the inside (sensations, memories, ideas).

Quote
How would you do the maths?
The maths have been done. I'm just interpreting interpretations of the maths.

Quote
Would it not be more reasonable to speculate that the presence of any large object (camera, person, etc.) has a quantum effect on space-time / earth's magnetic field / etc., which is shown in the behaviour of subatomic particles? Why would the particles (atoms) that are being observed have to have the quality you propose?

We're made of atoms and any large object, recording device, detection instrument, and the Earth is also made of atoms. It makes more sense to me that each object has it's own way of imitating/relating to whatever phenomenon is introduced and that the way the matter of our brain interprets those relations reflects it's own reality as well as the nature of the phenomenon. When you look at the fundamental physical level of the cosmos, you get a fundamental sense of recognition of the reality of observation, of physical presence, etc. If anything has the qualities of consciousness, it's made of atoms. I see no reason why we should presume that sensation arises from a random interaction of atoms but not at all from atoms themselves.

Quote
But back to your speculation, as I look at a person and he cannot see me looking, are you suggesting that the person changes because all his electrons change their behaviour? Would that matter any more than if his blink rate rose from 10.451938392 per minute to 10.451938393?
I'm only suggesting that when you look at a person, the atoms in the photomolecules of your retina have and express an awareness of the outside surface of that person's body when that surface is sufficiently illuminated. It's direct awareness. There is no light stuff bombarding your eye - what you see is happening to the atoms of your eye and brain, not to the space in front of your eyes.

When you look at a picture of a person, the atoms in the photomolecules of your retina imitate an awareness of the atoms that make up the display of the picture that imitates a pattern of awareness of the film or ccd atoms in the camera during the exposure. The pattern is the thing. Not photons. Photons don't make a coherent image pattern, patterns and pattern recognition on the cellular, molecular, and atomic level make sense that we can understand because 'we' are made of these same kinds of patterns and pattern recognitions.

Quote
If I and you both looked at that person and he cannot see us looking, how would he change? Would he change in 2 ways or would he change the same for both of us?
I don't know that 'he' would change, although guys like Rupert Sheldrake will tell you that people can often feel that they are being looked at (and I have experienced that myself but I don't make a lot of it other than that perception is not always limited to ranges we consider possible). I'm just saying that our brains are forming a picture of the guy based on their actual detection of the guy or the illuminated guy. Everything that is illuminated under the same conditions is connected by virtue of sharing the same illumination. The degree to which it changes us varies from having a shadow pass by to being burned up in an atomic blast.

Quote
What would be the significance if you were right? What would be the significance if you were not?
If I'm right, then we live in a participatory cosmos where order, sense, life, and consciousness are sometimes supported and sometimes not. A cosmos which has different potentials that can be accessed through focusing one's attention on the appropriate kinds of phenomena and taking appropriate actions. If I'm wrong, there still could be a lot of other possibilities that would lead to the same view of the cosmos.

If strict mechanistic physicalism is right, however, then we live in an involuntary cosmos where order, sense, life, and consciousness are pure, unsupported accident and all meaning is illusory except for sterile mathematics divorced from any mathematician.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #252 on: August 19, 2010, 08:57:04 PM »
I think that the answer to that question is found in the subjective idea of an individual.  On a certain physical scale, we are individuals.  On a smaller physical scale, we are no longer distinct individuals, but rather a colony of individual cells.  The question of why the body-scale of an object thinks of its body-scaled self as an individual is one that answers itself, I think.
It's not a question of why it might make an obvious sort of sense that a body should perceive itself as a body (although that in itself might be little more than taking consciousness and order for granted), but what is this individual-body-level perception actually made of? Through what substance is it's presentation accomplished?

It's like explaining a monitor image as just a set of pixels, but understanding how the pixels work says nothing about the image those pixels make up, let alone the meaning of the experience of images in general. That's why I think that any explanation of the universe which fails to fully account for the ordinary experience of the explainer is critically flawed. Where are the alphabets, the odors, the jokes and the ironies in a world of micro quantum determinations?
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12297
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #253 on: August 19, 2010, 09:04:06 PM »
Asking what consciousness is "made of" falls into the trap of assuming that it is a "thing" that can be "made of" stuff.  It's like asking "what is math made of?"  Despite "math" being a noun, it is not evidentally meaningful to ask what it is "made of".

My own take on what consciousness "is", is that it's just a natural property of matter, expressed in different ways according to different arrangements of matter.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #254 on: August 19, 2010, 09:10:24 PM »
Asking what consciousness is "made of" falls into the trap of assuming that it is a "thing" that can be "made of" stuff.  It's like asking "what is math made of?"  Despite "math" being a noun, it is not evidentally meaningful to ask what it is "made of".
That's how I feel about light. It's not made of anything, it's just our visual awareness of material processes.

Quote
My own take on what consciousness "is", is that it's just a natural property of matter, expressed in different ways according to different arrangements of matter.
I very much agree with that. I'm just taking it out on a limb by suggesting that the different arrangements of matter express consciousness by amplifying or focusing pre-existing potentials of matter itself, and that those potentials are local to the 'inside' of matter.
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12297
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #255 on: August 19, 2010, 10:17:35 PM »
I prefer to make fewer assumptions, rather than more.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline relativetruth

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 631
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #256 on: August 20, 2010, 05:09:01 AM »

Quote
How would you do the maths?
The maths have been done. I'm just interpreting interpretations of the maths.


I am correct in assuming that you don't have a problem with the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics , Relativity etc but more with the language used by scientists when they try and explain concepts like entanglement to the intelligent educated layperson?

I have only been partially following the threads where you have espoused your theory so please correct me on my understanding of what I think you are saying (using layman language).

1. Photons don't 'travel' through space.
2. Individual particles/energy/stuff communicate with other partiicles/energy/stuff when they feel the need. So when a person looks at an object the particles/energy/stuff in that persons brain sets up a link with the particles/energy/stuff of the object and they transfer data.

If my summary is vaguely correct I have a few questions.

1. Gravitational lensing has been observed. how do you explain it in your interpretation?
2. How do X-ray scans work? Do the outer body particles/energy/stuff say 'sorry mate!, too much information, I am not going to respond'. Whereas bones and such say 'yeah, I can talk to you.'

« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 05:14:01 AM by relativetruth »
God(s) exist and are imaginary

Offline Immediacracy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #257 on: August 20, 2010, 07:10:39 AM »
I am correct in assuming that you don't have a problem with the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics , Relativity etc but more with the language used by scientists when they try and explain concepts like entanglement to the intelligent educated layperson?

Not the language, but some of the interpretation. The assumption of a physical light substance.

Quote
1. Photons don't 'travel' through space.
Right. Unless by 'photon' you mean a logical pattern rather than a physical pattern. A 'beam of light' is a logical path which delineates an area subject to illumination, that's all. There is no physical 'beam', just self-illuminated particles in a beam shaped path.

Quote
2. Individual particles/energy/stuff communicate with other partiicles/energy/stuff when they feel the need. So when a person looks at an object the particles/energy/stuff in that persons brain sets up a link with the particles/energy/stuff of the object and they transfer data.
No, I'm thinking that there's no physical link although there is a physical chain reaction. There isn't 'data transferred' physically, although you could model a logical data transfer and be correct (is data ever transferred physically? maybe that's a semantic glitch...). You could model wave or particle behavior and be correct as well, which is exactly what I think QM is - like pre-Copernican astronomy, it's a logic based on observation, but it takes it's inferences from that observation only rather than jump to an unorthodox-seeming conclusion.

The conclusion that the behavior observed is local to the observer and the material observed seems unorthodox because we are not accustomed to working with phenomena on the very lowest level of substance so we have no precedent to model our own atomic-molecular-cellular-organic entanglement. I would not say that illumination occurs when objects 'feel the need', I'm not saying they have a choice about it exactly (though I wouldn't know), but that they participate in the local choreography whether they want to dance or not. It's the same as having a photon force the dance upon you, except there's no photon, just quorum sensing on an atomic level.

Quote
1. Gravitational lensing has been observed. how do you explain it in your interpretation?
For any of these kinds of questions you have to deconstruct the experiment and look only at what was actually used to make the observation and rethink the experiment without a photon stream. The observation of gravitational lensing undoubtedly tells us about how mass effects the logical characteristics of the effects on the objects we use to observer (our eyes and brains included) but it doesn't necessarily tell us what is happening in the space in between the observing objects and the observed. It's inferred, and there is more than one way to infer the result. Without the photon stream, nothing changes except the way that we think about what is going on. There's still a relativistic shift, but all that's bending is our expectation about the result. There may not be any physical 'bending of light'.

Quote
2. How do X-ray scans work? Do the outer body particles/energy/stuff say 'sorry mate!, too much information, I am not going to respond'. Whereas bones and such say 'yeah, I can talk to you.'
X-Ray scans work in the same way they always do, only the X-Ray isn't a physical 'ray', it's just that an electrified Tungsten or Molybdenum anode produces effects the tissues of the body differently according to their density. Bones rock out. Soft tissue, not so much. The areas of the film or ccd element which are exposed to the 'bone dance', are themselves excited in the same pattern, which we reproduce by exciting our own retina when we look at it.

EDIT: Not sure if an X-Ray image is a positive or a negative? Maybe it's the soft tissue that rocks out and the bones that chill?

Think of this example. When you listen to the radio, instead of imagining invisible radio waves, imagine that you are listening to an amplified analog of your antenna. Your antenna is 'listening' to the broadcast tower (and also whatever material conditions/obstacles presented by the atmosphere). Listening itself is the brain imitating the behavior of eardrum. It's all happening atom to atom and object to object. It's 'quantum jumping', not penetrating space physically.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2010, 07:19:16 AM by Immediacracy »
"That which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
- John Archibald Wheeler

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12297
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #258 on: August 20, 2010, 10:18:32 AM »
It is the bones that block the X-rays.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline relativetruth

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 631
  • Darwins +11/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #259 on: August 20, 2010, 10:33:25 AM »
I am correct in assuming that you don't have a problem with the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics , Relativity etc but more with the language used by scientists when they try and explain concepts like entanglement to the intelligent educated layperson?
Not the language, but some of the interpretation. The assumption of a physical light substance.

Does mathematics use terms like 'physical light substance'? Scientists use human language phrases to explain their theories to a wider audience is this not the same as interpretation?


No, I'm thinking that there's no physical link although there is a physical chain reaction. There isn't 'data transferred' physically, although you could model a logical data transfer and be correct (is data ever transferred physically? maybe that's a semantic glitch...).

[...]

Whether there is a physical data transfer occurring or not there still is a 'state change' in the observer. i.e. 'I saw something'.
Gravitational lensing has been observed. how do you explain it in your interpretation?

For any of these kinds of questions you have to deconstruct the experiment and look only at what was actually used to make the observation and rethink the experiment without a photon stream. The observation of gravitational lensing undoubtedly tells us about how mass effects the logical characteristics of the effects on the objects we use to observer (our eyes and brains included) but it doesn't necessarily tell us what is happening in the space in between the observing objects and the observed. It's inferred, and there is more than one way to infer the result. Without the photon stream, nothing changes except the way that we think about what is going on. There's still a relativistic shift, but all that's bending is our expectation about the result. There may not be any physical 'bending of light'.

I am honestly trying to get an understanding of what you are trying to say.
I cannot see how the above gives me an explanation.
Gravitational Lensing is a phenomena observed by astronomers. If they saw it as a 'photon stream' or not is irrelevant. They observed what they observed.
I only asked how you interpret their observations using your theory?
Relativity predicted that such phenomena would occur.
Relativity explains using language that layman can understand how this could work.
 
Quote
X-Ray scans work in the same way they always do, only the X-Ray isn't a physical 'ray', it's just that an electrified Tungsten or Molybdenum anode produces effects the tissues of the body differently according to their density. Bones rock out. Soft tissue, not so much. The areas of the film or ccd element which are exposed to the 'bone dance', are themselves excited in the same pattern, which we reproduce by exciting our own retina when we look at it.

The language used above is similar to that used in the dodgy side of the cosmetic industry using pseudo-science to attract gullible clients.
God(s) exist and are imaginary

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12297
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: "The odds of life are too low for it to just have happened" refuted
« Reply #260 on: August 20, 2010, 11:00:14 AM »
Immediacracy, have you ever examined something using X-ray diffraction?  Do you know what it is?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.