Posted on 07/05/2003 4:20:08 PM PDT by betty boop
Our concepts would have to be much simpler than reality, if reality is comprised of an infinite number of dimensions, while we humans are pretty much stuck with three of space and one of time, making four. That would be a very severe handicap for human understanding -- so severe, in fact, that I'd wonder how a scientist could even summon the will to get out of bed in the morning, knowing his entire day will be spent in an exercise in virtual futility....
Thanks for the tip re: random = uniform = chaos??? I suppose this interesting problem you raise might be soluable if we propose that most dimensions "extra" to our own normal perceptive apparatus could hang out in "imaginary time" -- like the "extra" dimensions of string theory.... But working out the details looks like it'd be a whole lot of work to me.... Apparently, it's already hard enough WRT the 11 dimensions of string theory....
Alternatively, one could simply take the "theist's way out" and simply assume that God would not have made a world that man would find very difficult to understand. Oooooppss! My anthropocentrism is showing....
Frankly, I don't see the observer as necessarily affecting the observed here in the macro world either -- only in the philosophical realm of changing knowing everything about the observed.
I gather most physicists are just so happy that it "works" that they don't care about why it works. It's a kind of "don't ask, don't tell" kinda thing.... :^)
BTW, I like RightWhale's answer to my question. It makes simple sense to my particularly simple mind. But where there are aberrations in the behavior of quanta, relative to big stuff, don't tell the Supreme Court about it, they'll find a compelling interest in it, under the penumbra of where the sun don't shine.
Absolutely not! One reason you do not see communication between us is because you see your thoughts in what you write, and you see your thoughts in what I write. To communicate, you must try to understand what the other person means, not assume you know what it means and what it implies without even asking.
I get paid a lot of money for my writing, because I make difficult concepts easy to understand. What I say should be taken at face value. I am not difficult to understand. Please do not look for implications that are not there.
I say existence is primary because consciousness must be conscious of something, and there must be something that is conscious. I do not care if that something is a mouse or God, or an angel, If there is no mouse, no God, no angel, or anything else, there will be no consciousness.
But just, "consciousness," would be the same as just, "TV programs," even if there were no TV's, no TV transmitters, and no people. What is consciousness if there is nothing that is conscious, and nothing to be conscious of?
Yet materialist science must assume logic a priori,...
No! Logic is not assumed. (Have you never read even Aristotle?) The principles of logic are not a priori, they are discovered, just as all other knowledge is discovered. If it were really a priori, no one would have to be taught logic, and the uneducated aboriginies would be as good at it as your vaunted Einstein.
But consciousness itself is not a material existent.,p> That is correct!
(By the way, both schools of Objectivism [Rand and Kelley] also hold this view. The have not correctly identified the nature of axioms, however, and are mistaken about the nature of sensation/perception. The errors are minor, but just so you know, I am not an objectivist. Also to point out you do not really understand the objectivist position on the nature of consciousness.)
I have taken your comments out of order because most of your comments were based on your assumptions of what I meant, not what I said.
One final point. Consciousness is not "produced" by the brain, is not a function of the brain, and is not an emergent quality resulting from brain activity. However, in humans, consciousness is intimately associated with the brain, and without the brain, a human will not be conscious. Not as an analogy, but to indicate in what sense I mean the brain is necessary to human consciousness, the brain is necessary to consciousness in the same way that the power lines to your house are necessary for your electric lights to work. The power lines do not produce the electric power, however, but without them, your house won't have power. So human beings without brains do not "have any consciousness," so to speak.
Please do not construe this illustration to mean consciousness comes form someplace else and the brain is just a conduit. Consciousness is an aspect of a living organism. It is probably incorrect to ascribe qualities of space or position to consciousness (as in from someplace) because it does not have material qualities (like the spatial qualities).
The intention of this post is only to clear up what I mean, not to fully explain these concepts which would require two or three chapters of a book to explain well, I think.
Hank
Oh, I don't hold any brief for trying to falsify QM, Doc. I'm very well satisfied that it has achieved tremendous success. I think it's a great work of human genius -- but there's still more to be done.
The thought occurs to me, if the quantum world is "extremely different" from the macroworld, such that it takes some time to develop an intuition for things at the atomic level, to me that doesn't "necessarily" mean that it plays by different rules. Maybe the fact is we don't understand the macroworld well enough, and what we will learn from the micro will ultimately seamlessly fill in the gaps of our knowledge. In other words, the challenges posed by QM are possibly epistemological -- having to do with overcoming ingrained habits of human consciousness -- rather than substantive.
I just find it hard to believe that two sets of different laws can apply to a single, seamless whole.... Maybe I'll learn better in time; but my own instinct, probably cultivated from the Greeks, is that ultimately, all laws are reducible to just one cause, one law. Certainly that seems to be the intuition in back of the search for a unified theory of all the forces of nature.
Yep, it's "all my fault," Hank. (Even though you routinely refuse to answer any direct question I have ever asked of you.)
[Unfortunately, I think I basically get the gist of "what you mean." It looks like nihilism to me. Now if I'm wrong about that, please do feel free to correct me -- by giving specific examples that refute that hypothesis.]
If that explanation -- "it's all bb's fault" -- really satisfies you, then have a nice day.
I don't think there are different laws. QM works just fine at the macro level, it just isn't necessary. Just as relativity isn't necessary to calculate a trip to the moon.
I'm sure I will be shot down quickly If I'm wrong about this, but the lack of seamlessness is not a shortcoming of QM.
The complexity of the world is just exactly sufficient for it to work, just as a man's legs are exactly long enough to reach the ground. No need to confuse is with ought.
Yes, js1138. It's as if the two were "made for each other." :^)
O-k, o-k, fine. Let's have The Examination of Hank Kerchief - or - The Shroud of Twistin' and Turnin' for a side bar to this thread.
It will be entertaining, especially considering your own attempts at "aikido," etc.
I tend to like the term egocentric rationalism, but have at it boys and girls, 'til it's a wrap.
A-G, maybe you've had your fill, but would you like to be the referee? ;-` I may decide to sell popcorn, myself. The character "HK" might appreciate that.
Exactly; it's called the correspondence principle. Quantum laws and classical laws converge at high quantum numbers. You do get some weird effects, though, particularly at low temperatures. In every case (e.g. superconductivity, superfluidity) the result is quantum effects showing up on a macro-scale, in direct violation of classical laws.
Well, from an aesthetic standpoint, it might be so regarded, if it were to be found lacking. Formerly, great scientific theorists "knew" they were on the right track when beauty and elegance started to emerge from their speculations.
You ain't "pedanting," Doc! Thank you so much for refining these distinctions. They are helpful to the student, and very much appreciated.
But please go on. What is your favored explanation of the occurance and nature of cognitive processes. Computational? Constructivist? Cybernetic? No?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.