Is Reality Merely a Projection of a Singular Mind?

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
EVERYBODY READ THIS POST.
When was the last time you heard a 'theory of everything' which was compatible with the Laws of physics?!

All of them HAVE to be.
Examples: The electroweak unification, the loop formulation of quantum gravity, supergravity, string theory. They cannot claim to be the next step if they are not compatible with confirmed experimental results.

 

[CJames]

Hello LG. Glad you're finally summing up your philosophy, although it's pretty much what I understood it to be. What I'm really looking forward to is proof...but that can wait I suppose, if you have it.

I wanted to give the readers (several did ask me to do this) a more direct understanding of my philosophy - which advocates an ultimate reality of a single Mind - and of how the universe we perceive fits-in, perfectly, with this idea.
Instead of trying to prove that this is the ultimate-reality of 'everything' (which is what I always try to do), this particular post will ask the reader to accept-as-true the premise that Ultimately, there is only a Mind.

Am I correct in assuming that this means you intend to explain your philosophy, rather than prove its validity? That being the case, why are you asking us to concure that all physicists should now attempt to unite your philosophy with physics? Philosophies built to accept any scientific law contribute nothing to its progress, as they improve nothing, and prove nothing.

1. A Mind exists.
This isn't a difficult concept to understand. By direct experience, the reader can identify this premise via its attributes: reasoning-power; knowledge; emotion; will; desire; purpose; imagination; etc..
I also advocate that this 'entity' resides at singularity, and that all things perceived reside within this entity.
Some readers will complain that nothing can exist within a singularity as a singularity is a place of zero-time & zero-space.
Actually, such a complaint is null & void, since a singularity is a place of whole-time and whole-space. Or rather, a singularity is a 'place' of absolute-time and absolute-space (as opposed to fragmented-time and fragmented-space).

Mind exists now, that is undeniable. However, our minds clearly do not exist within a singularity, as we do experience non-zero spacetime. Our minds, therefore, can't be connected in any way to this Mind, as it only exists within one point in space and time. This is therefore self-contradictory.

2. The physical-universe was borne of this Mind.
Again, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp. The reader has direct experience of fantasising/dreaming about whole realms of existence within his/her own mind.

If you are indeed simply trying to explain what you philosophy is, nothing is self-contradictory here. However, if you're trying to prove something, you haven't.

3. This Mind is omnipresent. I.e., the Mind is all 'things'.
Whatever the mind thinks about is an extension of its own self... an expression of its own self. Each 'thing' can be considered a finite-aspect of the whole.
This may take a little more consideration. But any form residing within the mind is of the mind.
Therefore, I ask the reader to grapple with the idea that all forms of life within The Mind are expressions of that Mind itself, in a finite & relative environment (which has been created by the The Mind).
Therefore, I advocate that ~each individual~ is The Mind itself - seeing itself from many diverse & relative perspectives with regards to the whole.

A Mind that exists at a single point in spacetime cannot, by definition, occupy all points in spacetime. The Mind is either omnipresent, or it is a singularity. To be both is an imposibility.

Point 4 is incompatible with the definition of a singularity. You can't go around making your own definitions for words, you have to use the same ones the rest of us do. If you wish to create a new concept, you should give it a new word. A singularity is a point is spacetime that can be approached but not occupied. It is not a place where space and time are absolute and whatever else it was you said.

5. Relativity explained.
My recent topic about Relativity has been locked. But those that are interested can still browse through it. The bottom-line is that this Mind-hypothesis is fully-compatible with the fundamental-axioms of Einstein's work. I can explain why each observer sees the same universe from a different perspective of time & space. The establishment decided to lock that topic, despite the fact that not a single person showed that my hypothesis was not compatible with Einstein's work. That challenge remained unanswered.

The Mind Hypothesis was compatible with relativity, since it is built to accommodate any science. SR, however, in no way implied the Mind.

I could discuss many things here. But then it would turn into a mini-book. But here's the bottom-line for your own perception of the universe:-
1. The Mind has created it.
2. It resides at your own point of awareness, and you are its judgements made in relation to the whole. It is not aware of its wholeness here. Its awareness has become fragmented and finite.
Hence the perception of 'you'.

I fail to completely grasp what you're trying to say. That I am a thought of The Mind? That I am a fragment of The Mind?

Before you continue, I think a definition of Mind is in order. What is a mind, when you truly think about it? Something capable of reason. Explain, lifegazer, what is reason?

Take care everybody. --Carter

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by CJames
Hello LG. Glad you're finally summing up your philosophy, although it's pretty much what I understood it to be. What I'm really looking forward to is proof...but that can wait I suppose, if you have it.

Am I correct in assuming that this means you intend to explain your philosophy, rather than prove its validity? That being the case, why are you asking us to concure that all physicists should now attempt to unite your philosophy with physics? Philosophies built to accept any scientific law contribute nothing to its progress, as they improve nothing, and prove nothing.

Mind exists now, that is undeniable. However, our minds clearly do not exist within a singularity, as we do experience non-zero spacetime. Our minds, therefore, can't be connected in any way to this Mind, as it only exists within one point in space and time. This is therefore self-contradictory.

If you are indeed simply trying to explain what you philosophy is, nothing is self-contradictory here. However, if you're trying to prove something, you haven't.

A Mind that exists at a single point in spacetime cannot, by definition, occupy all points in spacetime. The Mind is either omnipresent, or it is a singularity. To be both is an imposibility.

Point 4 is incompatible with the definition of a singularity. You can't go around making your own definitions for words, you have to use the same ones the rest of us do. If you wish to create a new concept, you should give it a new word. A singularity is a point is spacetime that can be approached but not occupied. It is not a place where space and time are absolute and whatever else it was you said.

The Mind Hypothesis was compatible with relativity, since it is built to accommodate any science. SR, however, in no way implied the Mind.

I fail to completely grasp what you're trying to say. That I am a thought of The Mind? That I am a fragment of The Mind?

Before you continue, I think a definition of Mind is in order. What is a mind, when you truly think about it? Something capable of reason. Explain, lifegazer, what is reason?

Take care everybody. --Carter

'The Mind' is neither a cause nor an effect of anything, since it is postulated in such a way that it is inexistent (unchanging-existence = no-existence), it lacks any existence, and there fore there is no proof of it's existence.

There is no reason either for the existence of 'The Mind', since it cannot contribute anything to explain there is an existing world, which is eternal changing existence in time and space, and which does not need a reason to exist, and proofs it's own existence because we can interact with anything that exists.

Anyway, the source of the confusion which leads to misinterpretations like LG shows us here, is well known, and is better understood as 'The Fundamental Question' (see the thread with that name).
The peculiarity of the issue involved is that from the context of the issue on hand, we know that there can be no reason (not in the ordinary sense) for the existence of the world. The fact that such a reason can not exists is clear from our ordinary use of reason. We say that A is the case because B is the case. But if we interpret A as being 'the existing world', we come across the fact that there can not be any B to explain that fact.
In an unordinary sense, we may stretch our reasoning beyond the ordinary, and call the reason for the world 'God' or give it any other name, but this ain't helpfull in that it does not increase any real knowledge about the world, nor replaces it.
We end up in circular reasoning. The reason for the world would be God, and the reason for God would be the world. And there is nothing to lift that circularity.
In our ordinary sense, we go about reasoning that the world is an entity on itself, which exists in a spatio temporal way, without begin or end. The world is an enroling process in time and space, which does not have any limit in time and or space. Any form of causality are stricly beyong within that world, and also all reasoning is bound to within the existing world. There is nothing beyond the existing world.

A 'reason' for existing, might however be found from within the perception of the individual mind, who wonders about the real existing world, and how it enfolds. We, living humans, are the only minds that we know of, that do wonder about this, and ask questions about it, but any reasoning that can be implied, is only applicable to the individual mind, or collective mind of humans. The world is what it means to us, the world has no meaning to itself.

 

[wuliheron]

Hi you CJames, long time no see (ahhh, I've never seen you come to think of it...duh!) I'm going to but in here if it doesn't drive you nuts, if it does, just ignore me. :0)

Philosophies built to accept any scientific law contribute nothing to its progress, as they improve nothing, and prove nothing.

This is not quite true. Part of what retarded progress in modern physics was the fact that most physicists at the turn of the last century had narrow minded mechanistic philosophies based on Aristotlian logic. Since then more open ended philosophies have florished that contribute little to the debate as you say. It is by then applying the limits of experimental results to these philosophies that they begin to contribute to the debate as I'll explain in a minute.

Mind exists now, that is undeniable. However, our minds clearly do not exist within a singularity, as we do experience non-zero spacetime. Our minds, therefore, can't be connected in any way to this Mind, as it only exists within one point in space and time. This is therefore self-contradictory.

That's modern physics for ya, crazy ain't it. String theory, bytheway, postulates everything is composed of black holes.

Rodger Penrose's Twistor theory I know less about, but I do know he has speculated the neurons in our brain contain structures that are small enough to interact with quanta. It is through these interactions that he believes we "commune" with the overmind or whatever and researchers have been investigating the possibility. Whether these researchers actually believe Penrose's theory or not, the possibility of at least a serious random number generator for the human mind poses interesting possibilities for AI research.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by wuliheron
That's modern physics for ya, crazy ain't it. String theory, bytheway, postulates everything is composed of black holes.

AFAIK, it doesn't. String theory should be compatible with some general theorems about black hole entropy and Hawking radiation, according to which microscopic black holes would decay extremely fast into "regular" particles. They may be produced in accelerators, but they are not the usual constituents of matter.

Rodger Penrose's Twistor theory I know less about, but I do know he has speculated the neurons in our brain contain structures that are small enough to interact with quanta.

He has hypothesised that some of the structures in neurons do collapse the wavefunction via gravitational interaction. Many people think it is too far-fetched.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
The heading of the section of your first post is "Relativity Explained". What's more, you have been trying to pass your ideas off as an explanation of relativity for as long as I have been reading them.

I may have worded that thread wrongly. I can promise you that my intention in discussing Relativity has always been to show how that Law is compatible with my hypothesis, whilst simultaneously trying to show that it is not compatible with the materialist's view that there is a singular external reality. It is not my intention to teach people how the axioms of Relativity were formulated or how the math works. I will always advise anyone who wants to discuss those things to talk to guys such as yourself, Janus, or Arhkron.

No, you weren't. You were emphatically trying to show that SR implies The Mind. I can only take this remark as an indication that you are either lying, or have an absolutely terrible memory. I'll assume it's the latter.

There's some confusion somewhere. If that's my fault, then I apologise.

That's because I agree that your ideas could be compatible with SR.

Then why were you intent on locking the thread? If my point is valid, you should allow the discussion to proceed. Plenty of people seemed interested.

As ahrkron said, your ideas are unfalsifiable

My ideas are actually verifiable, through the laws of physics. Do not overlook the significance of that.

and are thus compatible with anything, including a universe full of 8-headed chickens with laser beams shooting out of their eyes.

LOL.
Look; if my idea was a total crock, then why does it make sense of everything we already know, including the classical:quantum duality of reality? I don't think you give my ideas the respect they deserve.
Honestly, I don't.

 

[Eh]

Oh? Does the mind idea explain quantum gravity? Does it tell us anything we don't already know?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Eh
Oh? Does the mind idea explain quantum gravity? Does it tell us anything we don't already know?

What, specifically, needs explaining about quantum gravity?
Your second question seems to imply that you've always known that existence was occurring in a singular Mind.

 

[Eh]

You've missed the point. The idea that all existence is just a product of the mind doesn't really explain anything new about that existence. You can make an ontological claim like that, but it won't actually make any predictions about the world itself. For example, how does quantum gravity work in the first place? I say it does not matter, for whatever physical conditions that govern space on quantum scales is found to be correct, you would simply claim the conditions to be a product of the mind.

Unless of course, you know of some theories could be advanced by your hypothesis.

 

[wuliheron]

AFAIK, it doesn't. String theory should be compatible with some general theorems about black hole entropy and Hawking radiation, according to which microscopic black holes would decay extremely fast into "regular" particles. They may be produced in accelerators, but they are not the usual constituents of matter.

Sorry, but you're wrong. There are several ways of interpreting string theory, just as there are several ways of interpreting QM. In both case it is Indetermancy that is the central reason for all the various interpretations. For example, one implication of string theory is that there is really only one electron in the entire universe, it just gets around... faster than the speed of light to be precise. If you are interested, I got that specific analogy to everything being black holes from a NY Times interview with Edward Witten himself.

One way to think of this is the "mirror world" aspect of M-theory which is a geometric theory. According to this view the forces of nature are accounted for as manifesting themselves in the mirror world. In the mirror world what we see as mass or electrical charge here is manifest as another property of matter like size or momentum. Whatever affects a particle here then also instantaneously affects its mirror world counterpart. In other words, it Quantum Tunnels or is connected via a worm hole to the mirror world.

This is also precisely why string theory is the first theory to postulate serious limitations to black holes that imply they really may not be singularities.

He has hypothesised that some of the structures in neurons do collapse the wavefunction via gravitational interaction. Many people think it is too far-fetched.

I agree, its a bit of a stretch to say the least. However, his twistor theory is dynamite from everything I've heard. One of the very few theories really competitive with String theory.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Materialism is not to be understood as a belief system, like religion is.

Incorrect.
Religious people assume the existence of God. Materialists assume the existence of an external reality. I can promise you that there is not one jot of proof (observed or reasoned) which supports such an assumption. Hence, this assumption is no more credible than the assumption upon which religious people build their own philosophies.

I've told you this before, but you didn't listen: Just because our inner-perceptions are ordered and consistent (and hence, understood by science), does not mean that they exist externally to the mind.
Also: Science is not a study of external reality. It is a study of internal perception. Fact.

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Since my hypothesis is founded upon scientific-law, then my hypothesis is proved via the experiments which have confirmed these laws.

Absolutely not. This is not how "experimental proof" works.

In order for a theory (physical or otherwise) to claim that an experimental result gives it any support, the said result should not be part of its initial hypotheses.

What you are trying to do is similar to the following: say you have twenty points on a piece of paper (potential experimental results) and you use two of them (A and B) to draw a straight line (your "theory"). It is transparently obvious, by construction, that the line will go through A and B. Is the line hypothesis "prooved" by the agreement with A and B? of course not.

If my hypothesis is irrelevant, then so is Einstein's work.

No. Here's the difference:

Einstein started with known physics (Maxwell equations), reexplained some of it and indicated what experiments would disagree with classical mechanics. His ideas were relevant because they were testable.

Your hypothesis starts off assuming all known physics gives the right predictions. It does not produce anything close to a prediction, so it cannot be tested for validity. The only thing it allows is some imagery, but as a support for a philosophy of reality is completely unnecesary.

My posts here are not just philosophical, as they build upon scientific knowledge.

You are forced to "build upon" scientific theory because it is evident for everyone that science works. However, you try to impose an interpretation that does not follow from known experimental results, and in doing so, you make seem as if your hypothesis needed to rely on a wrong interpretation of experimental facts.

My posts are relevant to science. For they show that science should be concentrating its future research in-line with a completely-radical working-theory (if I am correct).

As I said, even if reality was the result of an all encompassing ultracomputer simulation, that does not change how science should be done in the least bit, since such simulation still needs to comply with all known results.

And so; what if I am correct? Are there any scientists who might be actively-working to connect the mind to our physical perceptions?

Not in the way you suggest. You do acknowledge that, as a result of your hypothesis, no experimental result would differ in the least bit from what "realist science" (as you may want to call it) would say. Then, why would anybody spend anytime with an interpretation that, admittedly, produces no differences whatsoever (while just adding complications to the description, yet not to any of the math involved)?

The question I should ask you all - and demand of you an answer - is, do you think that the Mind-hypothesis (being compatible with physical-law) is worth serious consideration, by the establishment of science itself?

Frankly, not.

You acknowledge the credibility of my hypothesis; yet still seem to discount it as a possibility. Why?? [/B]

I think it is trivially compatible with what we experience (I definitely wouldn't qualify it as "credible"), but absolutely irrelevant for the description and study of our experiences.

 

[CJames]

I believe there are invisible, undetectable, intangible plates of nachos at every point in existence, mocking us because we cannot eat them. Since they are undetectable, and we will never be able to prove their existence via experiment, only by logic, they do not contradict any known law of physics. Therefore, my philosophy is correct.

I did not write this to mock you lifegazer, I did it to show you what you are doing. This is essentially the same. Just because something doesn't contradict the laws of physics, does not mean it is automatically a truth of the universe.

Wuliheron,

Hi you CJames, long time no see

Haven't "seen" you for a while either. 'sup?

Since then more open ended philosophies have florished that contribute little to the debate as you say.

The thing is, contribuing little and contributing nothing aren't the same thing. LG's hypothesis makes no predictions of any kind about any discrepancies with present theory once so ever. Not even in the extremes. It is built to accept any physical theory ever discovered, including future ones.

String theory, bytheway, postulates everything is composed of black holes.

Are you sure about that? I think it actually postulates that black holes can be treated like elementary particles. I think it does say something about being able to transform elementary particles into black holes and visa versa, but I don't think it ever says that elementary particles are black holes, just that there is some kind of fundamental link between them.

 

[wuliheron]

I believe there are invisible, undetectable, intangible plates of nachos at every point in existence, mocking us because we cannot eat them. Since they are undetectable, and we will never be able to prove their existence via experiment, only by logic, they do not contradict any known law of physics. Therefore, my philosophy is correct.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL... make mine extra hot!

Haven't "seen" you for a while either. 'sup?

I need to figure out how to convert my avatar to a jpeg or giff.

The thing is, contribuing little and contributing nothing aren't the same thing. LG's hypothesis makes no predictions of any kind about any discrepancies with present theory once so ever. Not even in the extremes. It is built to accept any physical theory ever discovered, including future ones.

That's true of any of the leading theories attempting to explain QM. It's just par for the course due to the fact that, as Stephen Hawking put it, "Quantum Mechanics is basically a theory about what we don't know." Indeterminacy is slippery and all encompassing like paradox, but its still proven incredibly useful. If the theory everything is consciousness is ever shown experimentally to be statistically unlikely to bear fruit it'll be largely ignored. In the meantime it at least shares the illustrious company of Zeno's paradoxes which still provide mathematical inspiration if nothing else.

Are you sure about that? I think it actually postulates that black holes can be treated like elementary particles. I think it does say something about being able to transform elementary particles into black holes and visa versa, but I don't think it ever says that elementary particles are black holes, just that there is some kind of fundamental link between them.

The NY Times science section does get things wrong every now and then, but they quoted Witten himself as I said and it just makes sense from the point of view of the mirror world scenario. What else could inhabit two universes simultaneously?

 

[Mentat]

Witten's referal to everything being BHs is probably just an analogy. If you took all of Witten's analogies literally, you'd think that M-theory is the blind men's discovery that there is one elephant.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by ahrkron
In order for a theory (physical or otherwise) to claim that an experimental result gives it any support, the said result should not be part of its initial hypotheses.

Like it is with science? Here's what you said: "Einstein started with known physics (Maxwell equations)...".
That's what I do. Though my conclusion becomes philosophical. I build a reasoned argument upon the back of known Laws. I don't build a scientific-theory.
Don't forget that my idea(s) are founded upon a system of reason which I equate to rationalism. Therefore, my ideas are purely philosophical. I have not (directly) proposed a new scientific theory here. I make no predictions about physical reality (though I do like to dabble occaisionally; for example my idea in the theory-room). Therefore, my idea/theory here does not even require experimental verification. It requires reasoned analysis for verification. That's how philosophy works. That's why I present my arguments in the philsophy forum.

What you are trying to do is similar to the following: say you have twenty points on a piece of paper (potential experimental results) and you use two of them (A and B) to draw a straight line (your "theory"). It is transparently obvious, by construction, that the line will go through A and B. Is the line hypothesis "prooved" by the agreement with A and B? of course not.

My arguments bring all points (everything) to One point.
Not just one or two points.

Your hypothesis starts off assuming all known physics gives the right predictions.

Are you saying that Einstein's theory is incorrect? Do not all observers experience time & space as defined by Einstein? Of course they do. Is the speed-of-light absolute, or what?
Let's not go down that absurd road which allows the laws of physics to become malleable in order for you to deconstruct my reasoning. There is no reason to infer that Einstein's Laws of Relativity are not correct.

It does not produce anything close to a prediction

This is philosophy. I'm not in the business of making predictions about matter. I am producing a conclusion (not a prediction). I am producing a fact from what we know.
Like I said, my arguments don't alter science in the slightest. They just alter attitudes (materialistic, hopefully). And that would affect the future of scientific research.

so it cannot be tested for validity.

It can be tested by reason. Do my ideas make sense, or not?

The only thing it allows is some imagery, but as a support for a philosophy of reality is completely unnecesary.

I don't believe that you don't see the significance of my philosophy.
I fail to see why you would make such a remark.

You are forced to "build upon" scientific theory because it is evident for everyone that science works.

Correct. However, it only 'works' within the confines of what we are actually certain of... of what we already know. The rest of the time, during research into specific phenomena, science is forced to make reasoned-guesses from the knowledge it already possesses. The same as me. But science is looking for a material-cause for everything. Therefore, physical-verification is necessary, to confirm that cause.
I however, had not limited my conclusions to anything like "All effects have a material-cause; therefore, theories about reality should be verifiable with observation.". Nay squire, not me!
My philosophy does not allow me to assert the nature of reality. I have to prove my case; and rightfully so.

However, you try to impose an interpretation that does not follow from known experimental results

You've already admitted that my hypothesis was compatible with Relativity, amongst other things. You've already granted me compatibility. Therefore, you too have seen that my interpretation has followed from known experimental results.

and in doing so, you make seem as if your hypothesis needed to rely on a wrong interpretation of experimental facts.

Not in the slightest. I have paid special consideration of the twin paradox, as interpreted by science itself. The spacetwin can leave Earth at a specific moment. The moment he gets back, we can see that he has experienced 20/30 years less time than his brother (a wrinkle comparison). At least, this is what the Lorentz-transformations predict.
As you can see, my idea is dependent upon this scientific presentation of the facts. Why would I try to prove that these things are wrong? I believe them. I need them to be right.

Then, why would anybody spend anytime with an interpretation that, admittedly, produces no differences whatsoever (while just adding complications to the description, yet not to any of the math involved)?

It affects the future of science (if correct). Not the past. But my philosophy reaches beyond the parameters of scientific consideration. It reaches to life itself. That's why people should listen.

Frankly, not.

Frankly, I don't think you can justify that comment with reason and without exhibiting a specific philosophical bias. Namely, materialism.

Have you ever stopped to consider that the repulsion of materialism from science, could benefit science?

 

[CJames]

Okay Wuliheron, I looked through The Elegant Universe and got my answer. (Note that the book is, of course, a popular text and not a detailed mathematical paper.)

String theory has shown that a brane wrapped around a collapsing fragment of a Calabi-Yau form is mathematically equivalent to a black hole. Because in string theory the mass of a string or brane is dependant on the tension it is going through, as the fragment collapses, the tension drops, and the mass drops. What they found was that when the tension reaches zero and the black hole has no mass, it goes though a conifold transition and "melts" into a normal string, a massless one, such as a photon. So what they had actually shown was that black holes and elementary particles are composed of the same "stuff." They can phase change between each other. Therefore elementary particles and black holes have now been shown to have a lot in common and can at many times be treated in the same way. But they aren't actually the same thing, rather expressions of the same thing. Make sense?

Thanks for making me look this up, I feel smart again. LOL.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
I believe there are invisible, undetectable, intangible plates of nachos at every point in existence, mocking us because we cannot eat them. Since they are undetectable, and we will never be able to prove their existence via experiment, only by logic, they do not contradict any known law of physics. Therefore, my philosophy is correct.

I did not write this to mock you lifegazer, I did it to show you what you are doing.

Then you've made a fool of yourself. I'll show why...
Present a logical argument, derived from the known laws of physics (as mirroring our perceptions), to show how you made that conclusion.
Have you got any such argument?
I've had dozens of topics where I used knowledge to build to my conclusion. I did not just present a theory/idea which had not considered the knowledge which we have.
Your belief in 'nachos' is admirable. But unreasonably foolish. You have made no dent in my philosophy with your plate of nachos. Maybe you should have tried mashed-potatoes... I'm a sucker for them.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Then you've made a fool of yourself. I'll show why...
Present a logical argument, derived from the known laws of physics (as mirroring our perceptions), to show how you made that conclusion.
Have you got any such argument?
I've had dozens of topics where I used knowledge to build to my conclusion. I did not just present a theory/idea which had not considered the knowledge which we have.
Your belief in 'nachos' is admirable. But unreasonably foolish. You have made no dent in my philosophy with your plate of nachos. Maybe you should have tried mashed-potatoes... I'm a sucker for them.

He presented the logical reason why you can't prove him wrong, and that's good enough, isn't it.

Sure, he didn't attempt to describe popular theories, through use of his Nachos hypothesis, but he's just trying to make a point.

 

[CJames]

How's it hangin' LG.

I build a reasoned argument upon the back of known Laws. I don't build a scientific-theory.
Don't forget that my idea(s) are founded upon a system of reason which I equate to rationalism. Therefore, my ideas are purely philosophical.

LG, if this is truly what you did, then I would agree with you. If you logically proved your argument, proved that it was compatible with physical laws, and proved it was entirely consistent, then it would be philosophically correct. However, I don't believe you have ever logically proven why your argument is the case, and you haven't proven that it is logically consistent with itself, given some of the contradictions I and others found in your first post in this thread. With that in mind, no, your hypothesis doesn't contradict any physical law. But that is only because your hypothesis requires that all laws are consistent and that they always be as such, but generated by A Mind.

Get rid of the inconsistencies in your argument, and then logically prove that your argument naturally arises from some sound premise. Otherwise, it's just a crackpot theory, and that is all it will ever be.

It can be tested by reason.

Then that is what you must do. The premise that the outside world does not exist has never been backed up with anything other than that it seems unlikely to you that an outside world exists. The fact that we cannot prove an outside world exists is not proof that it doesn't exist.

It affects the future of science

No, it does not. As you have said, "I don't build a scientific-theory." You build a philosophy. And if it is correct, which you haven't proven, then it will not alter or challenge any scientific theory, as you so often say. It makes no predictions about the laws of the universe, and science is about the laws of the universe.

Best wishes.

 

[wuliheron]

But they aren't actually the same thing, rather expressions of the same thing. Make sense?

Thanks for making me look this up, I feel smart again. LOL.

That makes some sense, but also raises the issue of what that same "stuff" is and how it can connect two distinct universes without being a black hole or worm hole or whatever. Nor does it explain how a solitary electron gets around at faster than the speed of light. Some theories still assert that the entire universe is a singularity, and this version sounds like a step in that direction.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
That makes some sense, but also raises the issue of what that same "stuff" is and how it can connect two distinct universes without being a black hole or worm hole or whatever. Nor does it explain how a solitary electron gets around at faster than the speed of light. Some theories still assert that the entire universe is a singularity, and this version sounds like a step in that direction.

Perhaps one of us should start a thread on one (or all) of these topics that you mention, in the Theoretical Physics Forum. These are very interesting topics, and I'd like to hear the other members' feedback on this.

 

[CJames]

Present a logical argument, derived from the known laws of physics...

The premise that the Mind is all that exists is in no way derived from the known laws of physics, despite what you said in the relativity thread.

I've had dozens of topics where I used knowledge to build to my conclusion.

No, you've had dozens of topics where you demonstrated that your hypothesis violates no law of physics, and you've had dozens of topics that made reasoned predictions based on unbacked premises all the while avoiding using logic that necessarily implies the conclusion.

Maybe you should have tried mashed-potatoes... I'm a sucker for them.

Damn, wrong plate of food. Wy do I always have to mess things up? (sob)

My point was that in this thread, you are asking us to assume that the Mind hypothesis has been logically proven, and are simply asking us whether or not it is compatible with the laws of physics. So I'm asking you to assume the Nachos hypothesis has been logically proven, and am asking you whether it is compatible with the laws of physics. It is. So is yours. Can we move on? I know you think you've provided proof, but I don't see it anywhere. Direct me to a logical proof if you have one. A link? Anything? Pages and pages of explaining how your theory works, yes, but no logic necessarily implying the conclusion. Not that I know of anyway. (And of course, no, I have no logical proof of the Nachos hypothesis.)

Goodbye, ttyl, , .

 

[CJames]

Perhaps one of us should start a thread on one (or all) of these topics that you mention, in the Theoretical Physics Forum. These are very interesting topics, and I'd like to hear the other members' feedback on this.

I agree. It's a very interesting topic that's kinda lost in here.

Let's see...WuLi, if you've got PC paint or photoshop I think you can open your avatar and save it as jpg. My version will anyway.

Oh, and thanks for backing me up Mentat.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by CJames
I agree. It's a very interesting topic that's kinda lost in here.

Let's see...WuLi, if you've got PC paint or photoshop I think you can open your avatar and save it as jpg. My version will anyway.

Oh, and thanks for backing me up Mentat.

Your welcome, I think you were right.

If you had chose something a little less "off", I might have played Devil's Advocate, and presented an entire case for it. That's just how I am, I guess.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by (Q)
Lifey

The question I should ask you all - and demand of you an answer - is, do you think that the Mind-hypothesis (being compatible with physical-law) is worth serious consideration, by the establishment of science itself?

*brutally honest mode on*

Since you demanded - it is by far and away the most irrational form of nonsense I’ve ever heard and has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Nice damnation Q. As usual, no justified reason.

You acknowledge the credibility of my hypothesis; yet still seem to discount it as a possibility. Why??

I don’t know where you get that idea – I see nothing credible about it whatsoever.

Nice damnation Q. As usual, no justified reason.

"No reason". Man's downfall.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
He presented the logical reason why you can't prove him wrong, and that's good enough, isn't it.

To be brutally-honest, he presented 'jack'. There's no argument which can use the laws-of-physics to show that a plate-of-'nachos' is the source of all reality. There is only imagination.
I, however, have presented dozens of arguments (based upon all-sorts of knowledge) to build towards my conclusion. And yet, nobody has ever been able to refute any of my arguments, except through squabbling about definitions. That's a fact.
So; he hasn't presented any logical reason. And that's why I don't have to prove that he is wrong. If his logic is nonsense, then what else do I need to prove?

Sure, he didn't attempt to describe popular theories, through use of his Nachos hypothesis, but he's just trying to make a point.

The only point to be gleaned from this specific conversation, is that neither he nor you have a good-grasp of 'logic'.
I was right about you. And it is a shame for one so young (yet intelligent) to have been brainwashed like this, already. A real shame. I mean it.

 

[CJames]

Hey, feel sorry for me too. I'm only a high school senior. What about my fragile mind? Alright, I'll have a go at this.

The only point to be gleamed from this specific conversation, is that neither he nor you have a good-grasp of 'logic'.

Ugh. As I said I can't logically prove my Nachos hypothesis. My point is that you can't logically prove it goes against the laws of physics.

LOGIC must inevitably imply the conclusions. I suppose much of your hypothesis is logical, but only when based on the premise that all of reality is the creation of the mind. You have never backed this premise, and I would really enjoy it if you started a thread logically proving this is the case, or at least presenting why it is sound.

Incidentally, I would like to say that despite you accusing me of it before, I am not a materialist. Sometimes I end up behaving like one, sometimes I forget I'm not. LOL. But my point is not that the material universe certainly exists. My point is that you assume it does not, and there is no reason for that. Not that you have given, anyway.

Take care.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by CJames
Hey, feel sorry for me too. I'm only a high school senior. What about my fragile mind? Alright, I'll have a go at this.

You're alright CJ. You're still unsure of yourself. That means you're still 'open' - to some degree, anyway.

Ugh. As I said I can't logically prove my Nachos hypothesis. My point is that you can't logically prove it goes against the laws of physics.

No I cannot. But since it was not founded upon those laws of physics, how can I use those laws-of-physics to disprove it?
Within the realm of reasoned causality, your Nachos-theory doesn't get a look-in. You will need unreasoning 'mugs' to fall for it. Only the reasoning-skeptics will question it. They will ask you how you came to your conclusion. And your explanation will be: "Imagination.".
You're forgeting the all-important point - my argument is founded upon the laws of physics. Not imagination.

I suppose much of your hypothesis is logical, but only when based on the premise that all of reality is the creation of the mind. You have never backed this premise, and I would really enjoy it if you started a thread logically proving this is the case, or at least presenting why it is sound.

Gimme a break... I've been posting here for 18 months... and this is the first topic where I've ever asked the reader to follow-through my conclusions upon the back of an assumption (reality is Mind). The rest of the time, I've asked the reader to follow-through our knowledge to the conclusion which I actually make.
Neither you nor Mentat seem capable of making this distinction. At least, you haven't done so to-date.

My point is that you assume it does not

I don't assume that external-reality does not exist. I try to show that the laws of physics can only apply to a reality that is mindful.
I'm not happy with this response of yours. You accuse me of 'assumption'. Yet the basis of my philosophy is that I don't assume anything that is not 'absolute'. That's why I concentrate my philosophy upon science.

Take care.

You too. Do not think that I despise or hate you because you do not see my philosophy. Far from it. I can sense that you're a ~good guy~.

 

[RuroumiKenshin]

I try to show that the laws of physics can only apply to a reality that is mindful.

how about metaphysics? (it isn't reality).

I would define reality as your conscious surroundings. Physics describes it all for you in extreme detail.

 

[CJames]

I can sense that you're a ~good guy~.

Thankyou kindly.

Within the realm of reasoned causality, your Nachos-theory doesn't get a look-in.

But I just don't see where the Mind hypothesis is reasoned, not from the beginning anyway. Much of it does follow fairly logically, but I have seen a lot of your posts and none of them really seemed to try to give a real strong sense of why the premise is correct.

You have said that from birth, humans have the potential to reason, and therefore reason isn't based on external data. You argue that this proves mind transcends material phenomina. But in what way? It proves, if it's true, that the mind is capable of thought without knowledge of material. But no knowledge of material certainly does not imply no material.

You have argued that our perceptions of the outside world are built by our minds. But this does nothing to prove that the outside world does not exist, that our perceptions are not based on external phenomina, or that the tangible world is completely and utterly our creation. All it proves is that we can never know. We cannot percieve that which is outside our perception.

You have argued that because every observer has his own unique perception of space and time, he therefore generates that perception unto himself, while ignoring the fact that this can be explained purely in terms of physical laws.

I have been listening lifegazer. I've been listening, and I've been hearing a great deal of creativity and a lot of evidence that the Mind hypothesis can work in conjunction with the laws of physics. But I have not heard a logical proof absolutely proving its truth.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Incorrect.
Religious people assume the existence of God. Materialists assume the existence of an external reality. I can promise you that there is not one jot of proof (observed or reasoned) which supports such an assumption. Hence, this assumption is no more credible than the assumption upon which religious people build their own philosophies.

I've told you this before, but you didn't listen: Just because our inner-perceptions are ordered and consistent (and hence, understood by science), does not mean that they exist externally to the mind.
Also: Science is not a study of external reality. It is a study of internal perception. Fact.

I regard your statements as nonsense. You can not treat religion and materialism on equal grounds. Religion is a belief in something which can not be directly witnessed, which in fact is not there.

There is an outside reality, we are part of it, and also our mind is part of that reality. I do not 'assume' my own existence and that what I perceive, I know it is there.

There is not one jot of evidence for something 'outside' that reality, and/or for some 'cause' for that reality. In fact there can't be a cause to reality, it would mean something would 'exist' outside 'reality' itself. Which is a simple truth, cause everything that exists is part of the reality.

Your hypothesis about a 'Mind' that 'creates' the universe and all there is, is just nonsense. Since, it does not explain ANYTHING.
To explain something, means you explain unknown phenomena in terms of phenomena which are already well understood.
But your hypothesis about 'Mind' is totally dazzling and confusing, in fact the 'Mind' itself is uncomprehensible, we are not advancing one bit in knowledge whatsoever.

Further, this 'Mind' hyopthesis contrasts everything we know of the existing world, which is a form of existence which is in eternal motion, and takes place in space and time. There is nothing beyond that. That is an absolute proof of why your hypothesis does not work.
From nothing comes nothing. The world does not arise out of 'Mind'.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
I regard your statements as nonsense. You can not treat religion and materialism on equal grounds. Religion is a belief in something which can not be directly witnessed, which in fact is not there.

Firstly, you don't know for sure that 'God' is not there. That's one assumption, on your part. Secondly, our experience of existence is completely inner... Mindful. Absolutely so. Therefore, you are not a witness to an external reality. You are only a witness to your own mind. Hence, when you insist on stating that there is an external reality, you do so via pure belief. You are not a witness to such a reality.
There is no more justification for believing in an external reality, than there is for just believing in a God.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Firstly, you don't know for sure that 'God' is not there. That's one assumption, on your part. Secondly, our experience of existence is completely inner... Mindful. Absolutely so. Therefore, you are not a witness to an external reality. You are only a witness to your own mind. Hence, when you insist on stating that there is an external reality, you do so via pure belief. You are not a witness to such a reality.
There is no more justification for believing in an external reality, than there is for just believing in a God.

First, explain me what 'God' is or is not, only then I can answer that question. You state that we cannot have knowledge of things outside of our mind. Complete and absolute knowledge is impossible, but this does not contradict the fact that we can know about the world, and do have knowledge about the world.

What I know about the world, is that it is a separate entity, not in any way dependend on my mind, and that the world has an existence on it's own. I know that a tree exists, and has existence on it's own, wether that tree is observed by me, or not. There has not been any proof that has falsified that assumption, so why should I doubt that assumption? For God on the other hand, we have not found any direct evidence, and some ways in which God is defined (f.i. your definition) exclude also the theoretical possibility for ever directly witness God. So, that stricly prohibits this concept of 'God' to ever be part of the reality, it is strictly bound to an abstract category of the mind.

Apart from these fact, people can have their own opinions and beliefs, that have personal value to them, not withstanding the fact that this belief might contrast scientific knowledge and materialistic understanding of the world.

I do not doubt people believe in a God. It does not surprise me that people on some level are tend to believe there is a God. The tendency for people to belief in something that by rational norms and values is absurd, is what makes people human.
But nobody knows if that belief is justified, or if that belief can ever be tested or falsified. That is why it is a belief. And please note, that it is not my opinion that I am against belief. Everyone is entitled to believe in anything they seem fit for them, as long as this occurs on a strictly private level. For all practical purposes we state that 1 and 1 equals 2, wether you belief that to be the case or not. And for all practical purposes, there is an objective reality, which is independend of your mind. Wether your believe that to be the case or not.

What you are trying to do is mix up observed facts about the world as a separate entity independend of the mind, and belief. Those two things are not standing on same grounds. They aren't comparable assumptions. Firstly because all our knowledge about the world is based on the assumption that there is an outside world, which is independend of our mind. You state that this structured way in which we see the world, could as well be caused by 'Mind'. What does that explain? In my mind you explain nothing, cause in stead of explaing the subject to be explained, you direct the issue to explain 'Mind'.
Well, the only way we can know of the 'ways of the Mind', is by explaining reality as we see and can observe, and by doing that, we in fact take into account the fact that we assume there is an objetive reality to be observed in the first place.

Also I have told you many times that the artificial construct of 'Mind' as an entity that accounts for the existence of all of reality, is in fact an absurd thought construct. The 'Mind' entity can not be accounted for anything that happens in the real world, cause by your definition, 'Mind' is not part of that reality.
Your reasoning comes about reasoning in empty space, outside of time, and dealing with abstract categories of the mind, rather then reality.

Let me state it like this. Without any material existence, without the existence of space and time, there is not much reason one can find.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You're forgeting the all-important point - my argument is founded upon the laws of physics. Not imagination.

Wrong. It contradicts what you said at the beginning of this thread, and what I have suspected from the beginning. In the first post, you ask us to first accept the idea that all reality eminates from the Mind (the Nacho of your hypothesis (no offense)), and then you attempt to show how it fits the laws of physics. This is how all of your threads on this topic - that I have ever seen (and I did a lot of research on them, on the old PFs) - have worked.