Jump to: Board index
March 27th, 2010, 5:34 pm
Keith, Quantum mechanics is figured with math, and is unlike the physics of matter. The proof is in the math.
March 28th, 2010, 9:28 pm
Meleagar wrote:Well, I don't know about you, but the only thing can observe is my experience. I might interpret that experience to mean there is a material world, or I might not.
March 31st, 2010, 3:14 pm
Meleagar wrote:Well, if you say so, then John Wheeler, Niels Bohr (Nobel Prize Winner) and Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Prize Winner) must certainly be wrong.
March 31st, 2010, 6:55 pm
Meleagar wrote:It's only a logical fallacy if the authorities in question are not actually authorities (experts) on the subject being argued.
April 3rd, 2010, 2:27 pm
athena wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/09/08/lhc.collider/index.html This is a very old article and I am disappointed this was the best I could find. It is an attempt to recreate the conditions of the big bang. It is my understanding they have had recent success and unleashed a lot of energy by colliding two protons, but without a recent article to check what I think I heard, I can not be sure the news was about what was done last week, or is still at the level of what they hope to do. If they have achieved their goal, we might be able to resolve the world's energy problem, and increase the standard of living around the world, besides having a better understanding of the universe.
Atomic explosions release energy, so I think we can say matter is energy?
April 7th, 2010, 10:33 am
Meleagar wrote:Jester Gren wrote:What necessarily is so immaterial about it? Up to this point our observations have led us to think of what material is, and now a contradictory observation leads us to question whether it is material? Maybe the definition of material has simply undergone a working.
Perhaps you should re-read the O.P. and the quotes and check out some of the references.
April 7th, 2010, 4:02 pm
What I object to are equivocated, apologetic notions of "materialism" patched together to semantically salvage the idea.
What is the point of insisting on "materialism" when, as an idea, it was juxtaposed against mind-primary idealism, and then when science clearly proves our experience of the physical world to be mind-primary—
--try to claim the mind as "material"? At what point does one give up the long-dead ghost of materialism, if to salvage it one must coopt the very idea it was diametrically opposed to?
Materialism as a philosophy meant more than "experience is constructed of something"; it meant that experience is constructed of material. Not "energy" (which was later coopted into materialistic definition), not "potential", not "information", not "mind". IOW materialism meant that mind was not generating any fundamental aspect of what we experienced as physical reality, and we know precisely the opposite is true—
—mind generates everything we recognize as physical reality, because without mind—
--not only does physical reality not exist, it never would have existed, and cannot ever have existed unless the observation of a mind collapsed quantum potential into physical experience.
April 7th, 2010, 7:30 pm
Meleagar wrote:Keith Russell wrote:
Science hasn't “proved” any such thing--first, because science doesn't deal in proofs. Scientific theories are accepted--contingently--until they are disproved.
I mean, of course, in the same sense that science "proves" anything which - as you say - is always conditional.
April 8th, 2010, 12:58 am
Meleagar wrote:Keith Russell wrote:I really wish you'd addressed this:
"...if there is a "transcendent mind" generating all this, then all the potential (potential what?) should be collapsed into actual (actual what?), at all times, already.
Our tiny little human "minds" shouldn't cause something to collapse into an actuality, if the "transcendent mind" that generates everything, wasn't powerful enough to do it!"
Human mind = transcendent mind. The creation of the universe (collapsing of potential experience into actual experience) is what the observing, transcendent human mind is doing.
April 8th, 2010, 3:28 pm
Meleagar wrote:Via the delayed choice experiment and work I've already referred to like that done by John Wheeler, history is also created by the mind. IOW, the history of the universe only exists as a manifested perspective of an individuated consciousness and exists in relation to (supportive of) that conscious existence. The human mind generates all cause-and-effect historical sequences.
April 8th, 2010, 6:31 pm
Meleagar wrote:Human mind (with free will) = transcendent mind. The human mind is the ongoing process of the transcendent mind exploring (creating) all potential (as seen from a time-linear perspective).
April 8th, 2010, 11:30 pm
Meleagar wrote:Jester Gren wrote:Actually, Jester Green was quoting me:
This is no sort of argument, let alone any sort of explanation, at all...Have you never heard the "brains in vats" theory? It is one and the same; with the exception that it is possible for us to control what we think. However, how would we know it is truly our own free will? I suppose it doesn't matter if it feels the same.
April 9th, 2010, 5:16 pm
Meleagar wrote:Keith Russell wrote: Have you really, truly, though about what it means--to you--to truly, fully believe that existence is an illusion?
I never said I believed existence was an illusion. Whether or not something is an "illusion" depends on the context of what one considers to be "real" in comparison to the "illusion". Since I consider experience to be what reality "is", then all experience is real. There's actually no such thing as an "illusion" in my philosophy; there are only poorly worded statements of experience.
This is a semantic argument. Of course an illusion is “real”; we call a thing an “illusion” when it appears to be something else; there might be a real optical effect, but it only appears like a pool of water in the desert, to us.
If you really don’t like the word “illusion”, we can find another.For an experientialist like myself, "I see an oasis" isn't a statement that the oasis exists in and of itself, but is rather only a statement about my experience of seeing.
The same should be true of anyone making a similar statement.Whether or not my other senses ever experience the oasis doesn't change the fact of seeing an oasis.
Well, here I must disagree. You’re seeing an optical effect; you think you’re seeing a pool of water in the desert. You are seeing "something", but not what you think you're seeing. There really is an optical effect, that looks like a pool of water. An organism that didn’t sense light as we do, or that relies on infrared or sonar (for example) might not even perceive the optical effect, and would almost certainly not interpret that effect as an oasis.The idea that there is a physical reality exterior to one's experience is a theory, and can't be anything other than a theory. It is a belief that cannot be evidenced other than via tautology.
But all true statements are tautological. Further, there are numerous “clues” that reality exists separate from the mind; the fact that physical injury to the CNS alters the mind, consciousness, and/or personality of a person (to cite only one example.)
Further, our memories don’t always work with a great degree of accuracy. If “reality” was created and/or generated by minds, then it should be impossible for me to ever misplace something. If I’m the only one who knows where I’ve put something, then if I truly thought I knew where it was, it should always be where I “think” it is…Since I exist "as my mind", I know mind (whatever it is) exists; everything else is conjecture. I find it wise to base my reality structure on that which I know to exist, rather than that which I can never meaningfully argue or evidence exists - i.e., what lies outside Plato's Cave.