- #106
subtillioN
Originally posted by Hurkyl
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?Perceptions are specialized and easily tricked.
[quite]On another topic, what are sufficient ways to verify something is real besides sensing them?
Everything is real. Non-real things do not exist, by definition. Sensation is the root of all mental contact with reality. From there we can build artificial senses (atomic force microscopes etc.) and logic systems to understand aspects of the causality of the system.
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?
In a sense that is correct, but only in the sense of the difference in the root-level causality and the macro-scale manifestation of causality. When I say "matter in motion" there is a tendency to imagine a kinetic-atomic model of atoms (or objects) bouncing around in a void. This is not what I mean. I am talking about matter as a compressible fluid-dynamic frictionless continuum--in turbulent motion, compressing, rotating etc.
Are there two types of matter now? Atomic and ...fluid-dynamic...?
Root-level matter is the continuum mentioned above and atomic matter is formed by a circle of cause and effect--venturi-stabilized rotational compression->increasing torque->increasing venturi effect etc. until a pressurized equilibrium is reached in which the structure is an intensely steep density gradient of raw matter-- an atom. There are harmonic wave-equilibration processes which quantize this gradient into a series of shells in the Schrodinger electron density pattern (seen in Bodes Law as well).
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?
Matter is extended and this extension is real. "places" are real therefore as well.
Is pressure matter?
Yes, in raw matter they are unequilibrated density deviations...either positive or negative (also known as charge).
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.
Yes. Everything that exists is real.
Of everything that exists, that which looks like something else, is an illusion.
Perceptions are specialized and easily tricked.
Everything is real.
From there we can build artificial senses (atomic force microscopes etc.) and logic systems to understand aspects of the causality of the system.
When I say "matter in motion" there is a tendency to imagine a kinetic-atomic model of atoms (or objects) bouncing around in a void. This is not what I mean. I am talking about matter as a compressible fluid-dynamic frictionless continuum--in turbulent motion, compressing, rotating etc.
Root-level matter is the continuum mentioned above and atomic matter is formed by ...
Matter is extended and this extension is real. "places" are real therefore as well.
Yes, in raw matter they are unequilibrated density deviations...either positive or negative (also known as charge).
Originally posted by heusdens
If 'X' were defined as a consciouss actor outside of space time and matter, I would say then that 'X is not real'.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
Recall that I was talking about recognizing illusions; how do we discover if our perceptions have been tricked?
If A is an illusion that looks like B, it seems clear by your terminology that the illusion of B is real... but is B real?
Is curved space real?
Is there anything that satisfies the proposition "X is not real"?
So theory and experiment may, indeed, suffice as replacements for direct sensation. Allow me to set this idea on the back burner a bit before we go into depth how this may be done.
But allow me ask one question; if it takes much more than a "yes" or "no" answer, we can defer it until later... is it ever acceptable to trust these artifical senses and logic systems when they contradict our senses?
For example, in the famous optical illusion of circles surrounded by circles, is it acceptable to trust the ruler (and implicitly the theory that rulers are good measuring devices) when it says they are the same size, despite my vision telling me otherwise?
I'm avoiding ascribing any physical idea to "matter in motion" at this time, for the purposes of this discussion. I'm talking neither about bouncing balls nor flowing fluids; I'm trying to develop an acceptable framework of discovery which we can use to make this discovery. Might "time evolution" be an acceptable synonym for "cause and effect"?
To avoid fixing the discussion to anyone theory (and to better follow the flow of the discussion so far as to determining what is an acceptable way to understand the universe), would it suffice it to say that you are using the term "matter" both for "root-level matter" (which is, in some sense, fundamental) and for observable patterns of that root-level matter?
Is there any way we could deduce this conclusion from observation, or must we accept it as an axiom for this discussion?
And would the term "point" be an acceptable synonym for "place", in the sense we can say that the universe is "made" of points, and matter extends through these points? By "made" of points, that just means that all extensions of matter can be described by the points through which it extends.
This is in accordance with my previous comment on the term "matter" correct; pressure is not fundamental matter, but an observable pattern in root-level matter. Allow us to hold off on more precise meanings of pressure.