Posted on 04/04/2005 9:07:44 PM PDT by Ronzo
No, the past is, after a fashion, linear; the present is planar; the future is volumetric. You sense nothing in the actual present of the event, yet your mind projects the notion of present because of a seeming 'simultaneity'. [Science can take a beam of light from a distant star and tell what the status of that star was at moment of the beam leaving the star, but the time in our perception between emission and reception places the star at a very different 'present' by the time the beam reaches us. Has it ever crossed your mind that the photons from the star may be energy, a byte of time and a pinch of space?]
Although I disagree with the premise of this article and would aver that a tree falling in the forest does indeed make a sound even if noone hears it, nevertheless my worldview is this: I perceive that "all that there is" is God's will and is unknowable in its fullness, that the physical realm is a manifestation of that reality. Thus concerning math and physics I am Platonist. And concerning politics and ideology, I am Christian conservative.
IOW, in my worldview everything in space/time is contingent per se because it is a manifestation, i.e. finite "reality" is an illusion (albeit a persistent one as Einstein said).
"Has it ever crossed your mind that the photons from the star may be energy, a byte of time and a pinch of space?"
Of course. We could also just call those photons "information." Perhaps the star is sending us a message, even if that message is only that it--at one point in time--it did exist. But of course we can learn alot more from those photons than just the star's existence.
But here's a more interesting thought: Why are we so interested in the stars anyway? Why do we study them in such great detail? What is it that we ultimately hope to learn??? What's the real message being communicated???
I, for one, go through 99% of my life without ever seeing so much as one single star (not counting the Sun!). The fact they exist is nice, but what differnce does it make to me whether then are five miles from earth, or five million light years away? What does that knowledge (information) do for me?
They do however show signs of intelligent behavior, indicating something 'beyond' the brain as the inception (or source) of their willfulness (since they have no brain): cell intelligence, amoeba.
This is sometimes called the "will to live" "want to live" "fecundity principle" or "life principle". For Lurkers interested in more: Can the Monist view account for What is Life?
Baloney. Sound is energy. Energy is given off as a result of the tree falling. Some of that energy is in the form of sound waves. They do not need a human or hearing witness to "exist."
Your consciousness seemingly did not include an understanding of basic physics. Therefore, you are not as conscious as I am. Do you exist?
What does it matter if you exist? If you do not exist, but your body is living, may we forbid you any food or water, even by natural means?
A. Einstein was quite astonished by the amoeba 'spore stalks' he was shown at Princeton. If there is no brain with an alive organism, how is it that they exhibit 'will'? [Remember the'twisted epistle' I sent to you once, regarding space/time/life force/spirit and the continuum mixes of variabilities? How odd that we are so close to discussing those ntions here!]
Well, ladies?
Good point.
Mathematics however is more open-minded as it were. F-theory which is also called "father" theory because it unifies other string theories (Cumrun Vafa, Harvard) suggests that there is an extra time dimension.
An extra time dimension would mean that what we perceive to be a timeline in our 4D worldview is actually a plane. There is no necessary cause/effect relationship, it could just as easily be effect/cause - or not related at all. Past, present and future would all co-exist on the plane. Arrows and directions are moot.
However, because there would be no actual arrow of time, entropy would be an illusion to observers traveling a worldline in a general direction.
OTOH, non-locality could make sense - splitting a photon and measuring the one at a certain space/time coordinate determining the other regardless of "distance" between. What would seem like a violation of the speed of light in non-locality would not be a violation if time is a plane and not a line.
Likewise, superposition could make sense - the cat would be both alive and dead since there is not a necessary cause/effect relationship as is required with a time line, an arrow of time.
IOW, the "arrow of time" would be the perception of an observer on a worldline - not what was actually physically happening. This is similar to the multi-world theory that all possibilities actual manifest in parallel universes. The "you" which did not read this post exists as does the "you" who did read this post - in parallel "universes" (or selections of coordinates) on different branches of your worldline as observer.
If a tree falls in the forest, the forest itself hears;
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF7/762.html
"Trees and rocks are just very slow animals"
[The Book of Merlyn]
It would be great for everyone to share notes!
If there is dualism between consciousness and the body, how does conscious thought result in movement of the muscles? How does deciding to hit a nail result in a nail getting hit? What is the mechanism whereby thought acts on material objects?
Lipton is weak on explanation. If he is not a dualist, he ought to say so. I am still looking for a mechanism from a dualist point of view.
Careful there, Girl, you're handing Schroedinger's cat to Ronzo ... the box contains nothing until it's opened?
New bumpersticker idea;
"The only good cat is a Schroedinger's cat".
The ambiguity will drive everybody nuts....:))
The boundaries of materialism are stiffling to investigation both within and outside science. Many correspondents dismiss the non-physical, non-corporeal, non-spatial, non-temporal with a handwave, i.e. that pain/pleasure, red/green, mathematical structures, consciousness, geometry, information and such do not "exist" in nature. Jeepers...
Strange, but true: if you deny the non-physical with a handwave, then you have the absurd situation where you are, in fact, denying the very laws of logic upon which the metaphysical naturalists have built their very imposing castle. For the very laws of logic are non-physical, non-corporeal, non-spatial, and non-temporal. The metaphysical naturalist has built his castle on a foundation that, in his eyes, does not even exist! Ergo, metaphysical naturalism is illogical.
Even using a naturalistic premise for the conducting of empirical research is illogical: "Assuming there is no supernatural intervention of any kind, how did this "thing" come into existence?" Such a question is already absurd, even as an assumption, because there is no logical way to absolutely rule out supernatural explanations. It is an article of anti-faith, nothing more.
As a contrast, a logical premise for investigation could be simply "How did this "thing" come into existence?" Assuming only that it, at one time, did not exist and now it does. If our powers of observation are sufficient to find causality, then fine. If not, then we have to look beyond that which can be observed with our five senses, and start using our rational minds. Our minds have this strange ability, which can be easily proven, to perceive FAR more than what the five senses are telling us...
We need some help here to get our arms around this issue. Although I disagree with the premise of this article and would aver that a tree falling in the forest does indeed make a sound even if none hears it, nevertheless my worldview is this: I perceive that "all that there is" is God's will and is unknowable in its fullness, that the physical realm is a manifestation of that reality. Thus concerning math and physics I am Platonist. And concerning politics and ideology, I am Christian conservative.
My goodness A-G, you just gave away the whole show! By stating your worldview for all to see, we can then draw conclusions about your observations based upon your "filter." It would be so very, very nice if everyone else in this world were to be so honest. How much "objectivity" is really objective? Of course I don't believe in true, absolute objectivity in this life, for all of us, even scientists and journalists (especially journalists), have some sort of framework (i.e. "worldview") which pre-determines just how we perceive things.
Hence, if your worldview states that trees make noise when the fall down, whether or not their is an observer to hear the sound, then it is the equivalent of saying that human observers are not needed for something to be true. To that extent I agree with you.
However, how about this thought experiment: all humans are born deaf--no ears. As a matter of fact, no living animal or beast any kind on the planet has ears. Now, if the tree falls in the forrest, does it make a sound? Again, I would argue no, because if there is no way to perceive sound, then sound does not exist. (At least for us mere mortals!) All a human could do is denote a minute change in air pressure, and might even need an instrument to measure it.
But does that mean sound does not exist absolutely--that there can be no being anywhere in the universe that is unable to perceive sound? Then the answer is yes, sound exists-- because there are beings somewhere that understand what sound is.
Can we see sound or hear light? No, not anyone I know has that ability. Does that mean there are no creatures anywhere that would be unable to do such a bizzare thing? Probably not.
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.