- #71
subtillioN
open your eyes
measurements simply contribute to our senses which are proof enough that something exists
Exploring the Infinitude of the Universe
- Thread starter Moni
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Universe
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of infinity and whether or not the universe is infinite. There is no definitive answer as it is a topic of speculation and belief. Some argue that it is impossible to truly comprehend infinity as it has no boundaries or edges. Others suggest that through logic and reasoning, we can understand it to some extent. The concept of infinity is often used in contexts where quantities have no upper bound, such as the size of sets or distances in the universe.
open your eyes
measurements simply contribute to our senses which are proof enough that something exists
- #72
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 10,296
- 41
What does this response even mean?
- Warren
- #73
subtillioN
"You wouldn't know if it was a cube, square, gallon of milk, or Carmen Electra, if you (or your visual cortex, on behalf of you) weren't able to measure its properties."
I think I would know if it was a cube or a square or a gallon of milk or carmen electra, whether or not I actually measured them.
Thus: "My eyes work just fine thank you"
- #74
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,489
- 10,814
I was getting to that... but you seem to have picked up just about exactly where I left off.
Really? Based on what? How do you define a cube? How do you define Carmen Electra? If you don't measure the length of every side of the cube and find them to be exactly the same, how do you know it is a cube?
So basically we have established that you believe something can be physically real only if you can see it, even though seeing it doesn't allow you to exactly identify it (easy there, Descartes, not everyone agrees with him). Guess what, Sub - that means you aren't real. I can't see you. But The Matrix is real because I saw it! I guess this also means you don't love your mother then, right? Love isn't an object I can see.
But wait, just because you can see something, doesn't mean you know WHAT IT IS. Sammy Sosa's bats all look the same from the outside. So even seeing isn't believing!
Sub, the point of my forray into the dimensions debate is your philosophy of REALITY ITSELF is fatally flawed, and that's where your misunderstandings of science begin. A bunch of people have been arguing theories with you (chroot seems a little frustrated...) when your objection is so basic people don't even think about it - you don't understand the concept of REALITY itself.
- #75
subtillioN
are you serious? A cube is quite easily recognizable. Do you mean to tell me that when you look at a cube you have to get out your measuring tape just to tell if it is a cube? [[ don't tell me that you are expecting to find a PERFECT cube in the wild! They don't physically exist! ]]
You have made an incorrect assumption. I said that if we can see it then this proves that in some way this "thing" is physically real. I did not say that this is the only way that i can believe in the reality of something. Please don't put words or conclusions into my mouth. Try and pay attention to what is actually said.
[[ even a dream has a physical basis after-all ... right?? ]]
Oh, no. Here comes the epistemological banalities!
...and there they go... no further comments about these innane topics.
This is OBVIOUS
You do not know what my philosophy is. This is quite apparent.
Please tell me what reality is then.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #76
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 14,983
- 28
So I ask again, how do I verify if something is real?
- #77
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,489
- 10,814
Then there is no such thing as a cube? Wait, let's back up:
According to whom? What to you may look like a cube to me may not - maybe I have better eyes. Maybe I'm looking at it from a different angle. Maybe according to me a cube is only a cube if its sides are exactly the same length (isn't that the definition?). "Perfect cube" is redundant. Maybe we are in the Matrix (Morpheus: "What is real? How do you define real...?" I'm sure you know the rest). Are you saying that reality is entirely subjective? It exists only in one's mind (of course, that would be a contradiction though)?
Ok, but you still have not said how you defne reality. If sight isn't the only way, how else? C'mon, tell us. Is there a QUANTATATIVE way to identify anything? Or is reality only identifiable QUALiTATIVELY (and by definition, subjectively)?
As I understand them, dreams are entirely a construct of your mind.
No, sub. These are logical conclusions based on your flawed perception of reality. If my understanding of your perception is wrong, CLARIFY IT! Tell me: how exactly do you define what is "real"? And along with that, how do you positively identify something.
But you said in the beginning of your post, you could identify a cube on sight. If you understand that seeing isn't always believing, isn't that a contradiction?
Then TELL ME!
No. I'm asking YOU how YOU define reality. My interpretation of your statements is that your definion of reality is wrong - so if you think your definition of reality is right, tell me what your definition of reality is. Explain it to me. Tell me where I have erred in my interpretation of your perception.
Incidentally, I think you can probably guess where I'm going with this. And that might be a reason for you to decline to clarify (or intentionally make your position LESS clear).
Last edited:
- #78
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,256
- 0
Lets back up a little, russ you quoted me saying this;
Then you said;
The numbers themselves (as existent) or "imaginary elements" that are representative of a tangible reality, hence it is an application of imaginary overlay upon physical reality to facilitate imagining exterior, self evident (By consensus of opinion, prefferably) tangible reality.
The length and width are by no means a figment of imagination, event thought the numbers themselves are simply "imagined" representation.
Not all of the concepts in math are strictly imaginary, but the numbers, as thoughts, are 'sorta' imaginary, but used (and Highly usefull!) and accepted as being "imagined" upon/in reality, in an attempt to adequately describe it.
Does that help?
Then you said;
The numbers themselves (as existent) or "imaginary elements" that are representative of a tangible reality, hence it is an application of imaginary overlay upon physical reality to facilitate imagining exterior, self evident (By consensus of opinion, prefferably) tangible reality.
The length and width are by no means a figment of imagination, event thought the numbers themselves are simply "imagined" representation.
Not all of the concepts in math are strictly imaginary, but the numbers, as thoughts, are 'sorta' imaginary, but used (and Highly usefull!) and accepted as being "imagined" upon/in reality, in an attempt to adequately describe it.
Does that help?
- #79
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,489
- 10,814
Yes. That would appear to me to be about halfway in between what I believe and what Sub believes. But I'm still trying to get him to clarify as you have. I'll get back to you on how I disagree (or if I'm really good, I'll convince you of a slight inconsistency I see
).- #80
heusdens
- 1,738
- 0
On the problem of infinity in space and time
From: Friedrich Enels, Anti-Duhring (1877)
Chapter V. Philosophy of Nature. Time and Space.
[...]
The problem itself has a very simple solution. Eternity in time, infinity in space, signify from the start, and in the simple meaning of the words, that there is no end in any direction neither forwards nor backwards, upwards or downwards, to the right or to the left. This infinity is something quite different from that of an infinite series, for the latter always starts from one, with a first term. The inapplicability of this idea of series to our object becomes clear directly we apply it to space. The infinite series, transferred to the sphere of space, is a line drawn from a definite point in a definite direction to infinity. Is the infinity of space expressed in this even in the remotest way? On the contrary, the idea of spatial dimensions involves six lines drawn from this one point in three opposite directions, and consequently we would have six of these dimensions. Kant saw this so clearly that he transferred his numerical series only indirectly, in a roundabout way, to the space relations of the world. Herr Dühring, on the other hand, compels us to accept six dimensions in space, and immediately afterwards can find no words to express his indignation at the mathematical mysticism of Gauss, who would not rest content with the usual three dimensions of space [37] {See D. Ph. 67-68}.
As applied to time, the line or series of units infinite in both directions has a certain figurative meaning. But if we think of time as a series counted from one forward, or as a line starting from a definite point, we imply in advance that time has a beginning: we put forward as a premise precisely what we are to prove. We give the infinity of time a one-sided, halved character; but a one-sided, halved infinity is also a contradiction in itself, the exact opposite of an "infinity conceived without contradiction". We can only get past this contradiction if we assume that the one from which we begin to count the series, the point from which we proceed to measure the line is anyone in the series, that it is anyone of the points in the line, and that it is a matter of indifference to the line or to the series where we place this one or this point.
But what of the contradiction of "the counted infinite numerical series"? We shall be in a position to examine this more closely as soon as Herr Dühring has performed for us the clever trick of counting it. When he has completed the task of counting from - = (minus infinity) to 0 let him come again. It is certainly obvious that, at whatever point he begins to count, he will leave behind him an infinite series and, with it, the task which he is to fulfil. Let him just reverse his own infinite series 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 ... and try to count from the infinite end back to 1; it would obviously only be attempted by a man who has not the faintest understanding of what the problem is. And again: if Herr Dühring states that the infinite series of elapsed time has been counted, he is thereby stating that time has a beginning; for otherwise he would not have been able to start "counting" at all. Once again, therefore, he puts into the argument, as a premise, the thing that he has to prove.
The idea of an infinite series which has been counted, in other words, the world-encompassing Dühringian law of definite number, is therefore a contradictio in adjecto ["contradiction in definition" -- ed.] contains within itself a contradiction, and in fact an absurd contradiction.
It is clear that an infinity which has an end but no beginning is neither more nor less infinite than that which has a beginning but no end. The slightest dialectical insight should have told Herr Dühring that beginning and end necessarily belong together, like the north pole and the south pole, and that if the end is left out, the beginning just becomes the end -- the one end which the series has; and vice versa. The whole deception would be impossible but for the mathematical usage of working with infinite series. Because in mathematics it is necessary to start from definite, finite terms in order to reach the indefinite, the infinite, all mathematical series, positive or negative, must start from 1, or they cannot be used for calculation. The abstract requirement of a mathematician is, however, far from being a compulsory law for the world of reality.
For that matter, Herr Dühring will never succeed in conceiving real infinity without contradiction. Infinity is a contradiction, and is full of contradictions. From the outset it is a contradiction that an infinity is composed of nothing but finites, and yet this is the case. The limitedness of the material world leads no less to contradictions than its unlimitedness, and every attempt to get over these contradictions leads, as we have seen, to new and worse contradictions. It is just because infinity is a contradiction that it is an infinite process, unrolling endlessly in time and in space. The removal of the contradiction would be the end of infinity. Hegel saw this quite correctly, and for that reason treated with well-merited contempt the gentlemen who subtilised over this contradiction.
[...]
From: Friedrich Enels, Anti-Duhring (1877)
Chapter V. Philosophy of Nature. Time and Space.
[...]
The problem itself has a very simple solution. Eternity in time, infinity in space, signify from the start, and in the simple meaning of the words, that there is no end in any direction neither forwards nor backwards, upwards or downwards, to the right or to the left. This infinity is something quite different from that of an infinite series, for the latter always starts from one, with a first term. The inapplicability of this idea of series to our object becomes clear directly we apply it to space. The infinite series, transferred to the sphere of space, is a line drawn from a definite point in a definite direction to infinity. Is the infinity of space expressed in this even in the remotest way? On the contrary, the idea of spatial dimensions involves six lines drawn from this one point in three opposite directions, and consequently we would have six of these dimensions. Kant saw this so clearly that he transferred his numerical series only indirectly, in a roundabout way, to the space relations of the world. Herr Dühring, on the other hand, compels us to accept six dimensions in space, and immediately afterwards can find no words to express his indignation at the mathematical mysticism of Gauss, who would not rest content with the usual three dimensions of space [37] {See D. Ph. 67-68}.
As applied to time, the line or series of units infinite in both directions has a certain figurative meaning. But if we think of time as a series counted from one forward, or as a line starting from a definite point, we imply in advance that time has a beginning: we put forward as a premise precisely what we are to prove. We give the infinity of time a one-sided, halved character; but a one-sided, halved infinity is also a contradiction in itself, the exact opposite of an "infinity conceived without contradiction". We can only get past this contradiction if we assume that the one from which we begin to count the series, the point from which we proceed to measure the line is anyone in the series, that it is anyone of the points in the line, and that it is a matter of indifference to the line or to the series where we place this one or this point.
But what of the contradiction of "the counted infinite numerical series"? We shall be in a position to examine this more closely as soon as Herr Dühring has performed for us the clever trick of counting it. When he has completed the task of counting from - = (minus infinity) to 0 let him come again. It is certainly obvious that, at whatever point he begins to count, he will leave behind him an infinite series and, with it, the task which he is to fulfil. Let him just reverse his own infinite series 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 ... and try to count from the infinite end back to 1; it would obviously only be attempted by a man who has not the faintest understanding of what the problem is. And again: if Herr Dühring states that the infinite series of elapsed time has been counted, he is thereby stating that time has a beginning; for otherwise he would not have been able to start "counting" at all. Once again, therefore, he puts into the argument, as a premise, the thing that he has to prove.
The idea of an infinite series which has been counted, in other words, the world-encompassing Dühringian law of definite number, is therefore a contradictio in adjecto ["contradiction in definition" -- ed.] contains within itself a contradiction, and in fact an absurd contradiction.
It is clear that an infinity which has an end but no beginning is neither more nor less infinite than that which has a beginning but no end. The slightest dialectical insight should have told Herr Dühring that beginning and end necessarily belong together, like the north pole and the south pole, and that if the end is left out, the beginning just becomes the end -- the one end which the series has; and vice versa. The whole deception would be impossible but for the mathematical usage of working with infinite series. Because in mathematics it is necessary to start from definite, finite terms in order to reach the indefinite, the infinite, all mathematical series, positive or negative, must start from 1, or they cannot be used for calculation. The abstract requirement of a mathematician is, however, far from being a compulsory law for the world of reality.
For that matter, Herr Dühring will never succeed in conceiving real infinity without contradiction. Infinity is a contradiction, and is full of contradictions. From the outset it is a contradiction that an infinity is composed of nothing but finites, and yet this is the case. The limitedness of the material world leads no less to contradictions than its unlimitedness, and every attempt to get over these contradictions leads, as we have seen, to new and worse contradictions. It is just because infinity is a contradiction that it is an infinite process, unrolling endlessly in time and in space. The removal of the contradiction would be the end of infinity. Hegel saw this quite correctly, and for that reason treated with well-merited contempt the gentlemen who subtilised over this contradiction.
[...]
- #81
subtillioN
sensation is the root of all measurement
- #82
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,489
- 10,814
So only something that can be perceived with the 5 senses is physically real? Is the corollary also true? If something is perceived with one or more of the five senses, does that make it real? And what does measurement have to do with this? Can (must?) what is physically real be expressed quantatatively? In the previous page you said you do NOT need to measure a cube to know its a cube.
Explain, please. The root of your displeasure with math and physics as structured around math seems to be that it doesn't adequately deal with physical reality. Please explain what physical reality is.
I've noticed your answers are getting shorter and shorter. I know I am asking difficult and leading questions, but they are important questions.
Last edited:
- #83
subtillioN
A perfect cube is an idealization. It cannot and does not truly exist because you cannot get an absolutely (infinitely) precise measurement to construct it with.
All humans can recognize a cube when we see one. Come on is this really so difficult to understand?
It doesn't matter. We humans generally have fuzzy definitions that suffice. Also you can never have a REAL cube with ABSOLUTELY EXACT dimensions because there is no way of manufacturing one. Even with nanotechnology we are limited to the precision of atoms and thus when you zoom in you will find that there are no planes nor lines nor points making up your cube.
Mathematics deals with idealizations not absolute realities.
When I say cube (as in one existing in the wild) I don't mean one with absolute precision in its dimensions. Therefore I have to specify EXACTLY what I do mean because this is a source of confusion here because you ARE talking about a perfect cube and I am not.
Is a sugar cube not a cube?
So you believe in a spirit? Or do you believe that dreams are an effect of your brain?
An illusion is a subset of the real. To me the difference between the real and the illusory is in what they appear to be vs. what they actually are. If they appear to be something that they are not then they are an illusion. Illusions are entirely real of course otherwise they would not exist.
So my perception of reality is flawed yet you do not understand it?
Is everything that you do not understand, necessarily flawed? That is quite a limiting reaction to novelty! Good luck evolving.
Something that exists. Existence has its roots in causality, of course.
sensation...
I never made a claim that my senses were perfect, but they are the root of all measurements and identifications. Think about it, could you identify or measure something without sensing it?
You TELL ME!
Everything foreign to you is wrong...
yes, you feel a desperate need to prove me wrong so that you can safely ignore my claims that the standard model is wrong. I have seen it a million times before. Instead of being curious you are fearful and are compelled to prove to yourself that I am unqualified to make any true statements.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #84
subtillioN
How many times do I have to deny this assumption for you to hear it?
In some sense, yes, provided you know the true nature of illusions.
It can but it does not have to be.
That is not the root of my "displeasure". The root, as I have already told you is that it is incorrect. This root error prevents it from acheiving an actual understanding of the causality beneath the empty equations which DO adequately describe the relationships and ratios of physical reality.
lol, yes groping for some semblance of order. Did you run some calculations on your statistics to find my state of mind? [zz)]
- #85
subtillioN
The solution is that the finite is composed of divisions of the infinite and continuous! Not that the infinite is composed out of multiplications of the finite. If you start with infinity there is no reason that it cannot be divided, but if you start with the finite there is no way you can ever reach infinity.
"Multiplication through division " as Buckminster Fuller says.
Thank you heusdens for that fascinating material!
Last edited by a moderator:
- #86
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 10,296
- 41
You're getting too caught up with the 'absolutely exactly' notion. We're not requiring perfect cubes here. Even shoddy cubes made out of silly-putty will do.
It is in fact extremely difficult to understand -- ask any cognitive scientist, or any computer scientist working in machine vision. The task of going from an array of pixels to a perception of a cube (versus a perception of, say, Carmen Electra) is enormously complex. I have no clue why you seem to think it's trivial.
The point I've made is simple: your brain (automatically) measures the dimensions of the things you look at. Your brain immediately recognizes that the silly-putty object has three dimensions that are (roughly) the same, and tags the object as a (shoddy) cube. Were it not for dimensions, and your brain's ability to measure along them, you would be not capable of discerning a cube from Carmen Electra. Perception requires measurement.
- Warren
- #87
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,489
- 10,814
Ok, from your posts, I'm going to construct what your definition of reality appears to be. Please correct anything that doesn't fit with your actual beliefs.
1. Reality is entirely subjective (corollary, there is no such thing as objective reality).
2. Definitions are subjective.
Which follows number 3:
3. Reality is undefinable.
4. Reality exists only as perceptions in the mind of the beholder.
I'll let go for now the obvious implication of all of this that if there is no such thing as length, width, or height, there is really no such thing as physical reality.
Sub, the implications of the things you have posted here are staggering. It really does follow from the things that you said that there is no such thing as objective reality - reality is simply a construct of your mind. The Matrix.
edit: multiple screwed up quotes
So there is no such thing as a cube. From this it follows that NO object can be positively identified. And:
Ok, so from this and the first quote, what we have here is Rule #1 of your definition of reality.
1. Reality is entirely subjective (corollary, there is no such thing as objective reality).
Fine. This builds on rule number 1 and from it you get rule number 2.
2. Definitions are subjective.
Which follows number 3:
3. Reality is undefinable.
Well following what you said above, a cube is a cube if you say its a cube and its not a cube if I say its not a cube. Its entirely subjective. And from this we get 4:
4. Reality exists only as perceptions in the mind of the beholder.
I'll let go for now the obvious implication of all of this that if there is no such thing as length, width, or height, there is really no such thing as physical reality.
It has nothing to do with a spirit. A dream is not something that can be detected by your five senses. Whatever its cause, it exists entirely in your own mind. Then again, that would seem to fit with #4 - it exists in your mind and that makes it real?
I said that if I am wrong, clarify it. Please do. So far all of your (limited) clarifications have reinforced the perception. This is one of the main differences between you and me (and maybe this is why we are having trouble here). I WANT to understand your opinion. I WANT you to clarify and teach me what you believe. You have stated repeatedly that you do NOT want to understand the alternatives (Relativity for example) to your beliefs.
Thats a circular argument using synonyms - something exists because it is real and something is real because it exists. How do you know something exists? (yeah, yeah, because its real - tell me WHY).
Interesting. Could you expand on that?
What's this about measurements again...? I thought measurements weren't real. Please clarify.
Please. You have to give the quid to get the pro quo. I asked you a question (with several clarifications) and I'd like an answer.
Not even close.
I would hardly say I am ignoring you or your claims. I am curious. I am asking direct questions intended to clarify your position and you are not answering them.
But:
Isn't that a contradiction? How about this: Can you give me an example of something that cannot be sensed in any way, but is real?
Can we know the true nature of all illusions?
Sub, the implications of the things you have posted here are staggering. It really does follow from the things that you said that there is no such thing as objective reality - reality is simply a construct of your mind. The Matrix.
edit: multiple screwed up quotes
Last edited:
- #88
subtillioN
It is Russ that requires infinite precision before he can even see one. I said that I can recognize a cube when I see one and Russ said that one must measure it in order to see it.
I thought it would be obvious that I agree with you that "Even shoddy cubes made out of silly-putty (or sugar) will do".
Again you make a faulty assumption. Complexity is relative, and I never said the process of vision was trivial.
That is quite a stretch. Can you extract from this measurement the values of these dimensions? Sensation is a fuzzy type of measurement and I don't really categorize it as such, but if you wish we can think of it this way.
No. My sensation of sight works on pattern recognition, not dimensional measurement and logical deduction.
Not true as pointed out above.
Well I think you have it a bit inverted.
- #89
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 10,296
- 41
What patterns is your brain recognizing? Be specific.
- Warren
- #90
subtillioN
False assumption. Cubes exist all over the place. They just are not perfect in their physical ratios and they are not made out of mathematical points, lines or planes.
Note that there are two types of cube in operation here. There is the mathematical cube and the physical one. One is an idealization based in precise rules of mathematics and the other is a physical one made imprecisely out of matter.
False. I make positive idntifications all the time, but no identification is absolutely infallible.
We all know what a cube really is, right?
Where are you getting this stuff from? That is precisely OPPOSITE of my beliefs.
"Reality exists [not] only as perceptions in the mind of the beholder."
I did not claim that there is no such thing as length, width, or height. I am saying that there is physical extension and there is mathematical quantification of this extension. The two are not equivalent.
Can you not see, hear, smell, touch and feel a dream? Can you not do the same with a dreaming brain?
Whatever its cause? This means that it physically exists.
Yes a dream is real, but it is also an illusion.
I am certainly trying!
I am a physics student btw. I AM learning the alternatives and HAVE learned MANY of them already.
It is not an argument. It is a description of the relation of the terms. Reality is that which exists and that which pertains to causation.
Knowledge is relative and it is rooted in sensation.
I did not say they were not real. I said they have their reality in the mind. You can not find a dimension outside the mind. Even if you write it on paper it is meaningless and non-operational without the mind.
We can only sense a minute portion of reality. I have no doubt that the atoms of the mountain out my window are real. I could go on for hours listing things.
It is simple. An illusion is a reality that looks like something that it is not.
That is a consequence of your interpretations of what I am saying. What I actually believe is EXACTLY the opposite.
Last edited by a moderator:
- #91
subtillioN
The patterns on my retina, whatever they happen to be.
- #92
chroot
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 10,296
- 41
And how exactly does your brain perform this pattern recognition?
Be specific.
- Warren
- #93
subtillioN
Go read a CogSci book for the details... or get to the point.
- #94
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,489
- 10,814
I was harping on it because of the second part of your post. I am perfectly fine with defining a cube loosely IN CERTAIN CONTEXTS. If we can agree on a loose definition for a certain context, its simple. Its when you try to define something precisely (aka scientifically) when it gets complex. Thats part of my main point. Reality CANNOT be subjective for that reason.
Related to above, Sub: how complex do we need to be? How specific do our definitions need to be?
Certainly. We have established that its whatever a person THINKS it is but at the same time it is an object with six equal length sides and right angles. And that of course is contradictory. But wait, didn't you say:
Hmm...
Be careful - you might accidentally invoke some math there.
But what do these patterns mean in physical reality. For example, you may recognize that Carmen Electra has large breasts, right? What would you base that on? Compared to what? Dimensions! Measurements! Your brain recognizes patterns by comparing shapes to each other. Shooting a basketball is the same way - you start by estimating (even subconcsiously) the distance to the net. From imprecise measurements, it can attain highly advanced pattern recognition and motion control.
Then by definition, they are not cubes. They are objects that are according to subjective pattern recognition, similar to cubes.
The definition of a cube does not differentiate.
That is an exact contradiction. Positively fallible.
Ok, says who? The people who invented math say the number on the page IS a quantification of a physical reality. And by the way, if there is a physically real length, width, and height, what do you call their intersection?
See your definition of a physical cube. If a cube is something that can only be "idealized" by each individual person in their own mind (regardless of whether people agree or disagree with the definition) then reality is a construct of your mind.
No. You can't. When you are dreaming, you THINK you can, but in fact your sensory organs are not functioning. Again - you are saying that reality is a construct of your imagination. Well, maybe Descartes is feeling better now... "I think therefore I am"... and nothing exists unless I think it.
And yet you have stated you have no intention of learning Relativity. Strange.
Again, I have demonstrated that just because something exists in your mind, doesn't mean it has a physical extension and vice versa. And hey, wait - that's what you said about math!
That I may need to put into my sig: illusion=reality.
Cause=effect=cause=effect=cause=effect... It is most certainly circular. If not a circular argument then a circular definition/description.
That's not what I asked. I asked can we KNOW? Are you implying that it doesn't matter if we know or not?
What you believe appears to be circular, self-contradictory, and self-reinforcing.
- #95
subtillioN
My view is heirarchical. Reality is at root objective. Within this objective reality there exists the sub-set of subjective reality in which the concepts of man reside. These concepts include the very usefull tool of mathematics and dimensional analysis.
Depends on what we are trying to achieve.
Specific enough that we can communicate effectively.
No. It is a societally established construct. We have a COMMON notion of a cube, otherwise we cannot talk about it.
approximately equal
Yes, but I was talking about the prefect cube of mathematics because this is what you were fixated upon.
How did you know that I have an excessive complusion to measure breasts! Yes, I am always whipping out my measuring tape and measuring the breasts of the beautiful women that walk by, just so that I can compare them in my exclusively quantitative and dimensional mind.
These "measurements" are not what we familiarly understand by measurements. They are actually a complex process of pattern recognition of our neural networks. I make a distinction because we do not inherently come up with a number in such sensations. If you want to consider this a measurement process then go ahead but it is quite different from the dimensions used in Physics.
You said it not me. This is mere quibling over definitions...
sure it does. I just made this differentiation explicit.
Ok then we can make no positive identifications and must deal with approximate ones. Note that an identification only happens in the mind. Real objects do not have lables inherently attached to them...
Note: I simply have a different, non-absolute definition of "positive identification". If an effective, yet fallible, definition of identification is good enough for science then it is good enough for me.
me
ok so what?
There is no intersection. Those dimensions are quantifications of the physical extension. We are getting confused in improperly stated definitions here.
Again, where are you getting this stuff from? You have misunderstood my definitions.
You are getting lost in inexplicit details of definitions. You are assuming things that lead to false conclusions... oh well.
I know it enough to know that I do not need to learn it in any more detail in order to understand physical reality. Big Deal. You don't understand how or why I can make such a conclusion.
Mental illusions do have their existence in a physically real and extended process.
And thus again you misunderstand what i am talking about.
Do you think an illusion does not physically exist? How could we see it if it did not exist?
It is a chain that cannot be broken. I would love to see you try BTW
Note the key word here "appears".
Last edited by a moderator:
- #96
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,256
- 0
Just jumping back into try to establish some reality again...
YES! in physical reality it is a collection of SPHERES that, when assempled into a shape appear as a "six (roughly equally) sided, 'square' object".
You guys, well I hope you are enjoying yourselves at least, but WOW have you ever gone a ways off from <Infinity> the subject at hand.
Anyways....
(AKA-WHATEVER!)
YES! in physical reality it is a collection of SPHERES that, when assempled into a shape appear as a "six (roughly equally) sided, 'square' object".
You guys, well I hope you are enjoying yourselves at least, but WOW have you ever gone a ways off from <Infinity> the subject at hand.
Anyways....
(AKA-WHATEVER!)
- #97
subtillioN
Yes deep into the realm of mis-communication!
- #98
Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 1,957
- 7
Exactly.
**booting this mess to the Philo. forum**
- #99
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,489
- 10,814
Mission accomplished.
- #100
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 14,983
- 28
Can something I have sensed not be real?
How do I distinguish between reality and illusion?
Do real things have properties? If so, how do I know what they are?
How do I distinguish between reality and illusion?
Do real things have properties? If so, how do I know what they are?
- #101
subtillioN
It must be real, but it is not always apparent what its true nature is, i.e. it may be an illusion.
Depends on the nature of the illusion.
Yes. They are causal, i.e. they consist of matter in motion. NOTE: This is based in Sorce Theory in which EVERYTHING is made of matter in motion. In the Standard Model they could be made of energy (whateverthatmeans) or they could even be vacuum fluctuations, i.e. virtual particles, etc. [made of mathematics not causality]
- #102
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 14,983
- 28
That was quite informative. Examples would be nice. A general approach would be better.
An awfully strange definition of "casual"; how does it relate to cause and effect?
What is matter? What is motion? How do I identify what matter is? How do I identify matter is moving? How would one go about distinguishing between matter in motion and an illusion? What about matter not in motion?
Is your meaning of "casual" limited only to being a set of moving matter?
- #103
subtillioN
In the case of a dream, for instance, there is a different quality about it. In mine things never maintain a consistent identity and thus they keep changing into other things when I am not looking.
In the matrix there are glitches, etc.
It is quite complex. A disequilibrium of matter tends to equalize at a constant speed c per unit density. Causality is based in the constant attempt of matter to equalize its density disturbances and it is in fluid motion.
Cause and effect are the twin halves on an imaginary time-line of this tendency for equilibrium.
As distinguishable from atomic matter, it is a continuous compressible fluid-dynamic substance.
A change of place from any "here" to any "there". Both matter and pressure can move.
You don't need to. Everything is made out of matter.
Various ways all of which involve sensation of a motion relative to something else.
An illusion is made out of matter in motion.
There is no such thing. Only patterns of matter in motion can remain relatively stationary at specific scales. At deeper scales it is found that matter is in motion with equilibrating wave systems moving at c.
causality is a continuum of matter in motion, yes. This matter in motion consists of both fluid motion and the motion of pressure systems (waves).
Last edited by a moderator:
- #104
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 14,983
- 28
Some more interesting examples of distinguishing illusions would be nice. What about optical "illusions" and magic tricks of various sorts? What about the "illusion" of stillness?
(I put "illusion" in quotes because it's unclear that the way I am using illusion coincides with your meaning of the term)
On another topic, what are sufficient ways to verify something is real besides sensing them?
Woah, slow down! Going from touchy-feely sensation to this is an awfully big leap! We certainly have not progressed far enough in this semi-rigorous treatment of your beliefs to try and digest a statement like this. (Besides, another round of me telling you that this is syntactically gibberish and you telling me I'm in a mental box would be fruitless)
In any case, from your response, it seems that the meaning "motion of matter" does indeed have nothing to do with the meaning of "cause and effect" and you are trying to explain why there is an "illusion" of cause and effect. Correct?
Are there two types of matter now? Atomic and ...fluid-dynamic...? Is it time to try to explain what you mean by these phrase? I think we should still stick to fully fleshing out the basics of knowledge according to you at this point.
So there is some concept of place. Are places real? There is some concept of change; does that imply a concept of time, and is time real?
Is pressure matter?
So everything real is made out of matter, and everything made out of matter is real? This brings us no closer to being able to identify just what is real, but it's good to have performed this identification.
(I put "illusion" in quotes because it's unclear that the way I am using illusion coincides with your meaning of the term)
On another topic, what are sufficient ways to verify something is real besides sensing them?
Woah, slow down! Going from touchy-feely sensation to this is an awfully big leap! We certainly have not progressed far enough in this semi-rigorous treatment of your beliefs to try and digest a statement like this. (Besides, another round of me telling you that this is syntactically gibberish and you telling me I'm in a mental box would be fruitless)
In any case, from your response, it seems that the meaning "motion of matter" does indeed have nothing to do with the meaning of "cause and effect" and you are trying to explain why there is an "illusion" of cause and effect. Correct?
Are there two types of matter now? Atomic and ...fluid-dynamic...? Is it time to try to explain what you mean by these phrase? I think we should still stick to fully fleshing out the basics of knowledge according to you at this point.
So there is some concept of place. Are places real? There is some concept of change; does that imply a concept of time, and is time real?
Is pressure matter?
So everything real is made out of matter, and everything made out of matter is real? This brings us no closer to being able to identify just what is real, but it's good to have performed this identification.
- #105
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,256
- 0
Ahem** Isn't there supposed to be a distinguishment between the waking mind and the sleeping mind, in there observation of reality, respecting illusion, and Non illusion of/in nature.
The idea that there is 'no boundary' in perception crossed, therein, is kinda silly.
Further, in the Sciences it is a volontary agreement to described observance of accepted physical (measurable, hence mathematical in nature, as a 'seconding of opinion') propeties of space in Universality.
So, off you goes...
The idea that there is 'no boundary' in perception crossed, therein, is kinda silly.
Further, in the Sciences it is a volontary agreement to described observance of accepted physical (measurable, hence mathematical in nature, as a 'seconding of opinion') propeties of space in Universality.
So, off you goes...