Quote:
Originally Posted by Og  No, I specifically included a parenthetical reference in my original post that clarified that I was not referring to absolute certainty. |
Regardless, what you're implying is that you are certain the uncertainty principle holds...true. This is an unconscious attempt on your behalf of stating an absolute truth, and as I stated earlier it is a futile attempt because it is a blatant contradiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Og As for the "Are we in the Matrix?" question, I don't see how this is a useful train of thought to move down. If we are, our experience is indistinguishable from if we weren't (as far as we can possibly know). It's the idealism versus materialism argument and it can never be addressed. |
I’m simply pointing out the fact that when we rely on empirical observation to prove absolute truth we will always fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Og So we just go with what we can reproduce from multiple angles and with multiple tools. We try to ask ourselves these questions about how we could be fooling ourselves and then we design experiments to test whether we are being fooled. It's certainly not a useless exercise. |
I never said it was a useless exercise, in fact I said exactly the opposite. What I am trying to show you is that these exercises can ultimately never lead to anything but a guestimation on our part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Og Again, you're talking about hidden variable theorem. Hidden variables are description of the causality chain that are hidden from us. They would be the theoretical causes that make things appear unpredictable.
Again, hidden variable theory has some real problem (see Bell's Theorem link above). I'm pretty sure I'm not misunderstanding you here. You're implying that there is cause (i.e. dependency) to all things. The hidden variables would be a description of this cause. The fact that they're hidden would be the reason that the event is unpredictable. Hidden variable theory doesn't hold water. |
I am not talking about any theorem, I am saying that just because we can't observe a chain reaction happening in perceived phenomena does not mean it has no cause. A hidden variable is just that, a hidden variable and nothing more. In all actuality we can just lump all hidden variables together and label it the Hidden Void. We know it exists, we know it has an effect on perceived phenomena, and that is it. Of course the Hidden Void isn’t the only thing causing things to happen as I explained. Even our own bodies and minds are causes to all phenomena. Everything is dependent on that which it is not in order for it to exist perceivable or unperceivable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Og I'll add that I basically agree with this. Causality and logic apply on the macroscopic scale of human interactions and such. But it's most likely not an unbroken chain. And if it is, as I said, I can break it by choosing to base an action I take on the outcome of a quantum process that represents a TRUE flip of a coin. Certainly the state of an atom (and the shape of the probability distribution function of its elections and other particles) is defined by its environment, but state transitions and interactions between atoms are random expressions of the probability distribution function and no atomic outcome is "caused"... The possibilities may be bounded, but it's still not determined. |
Causation is never broken unless we assume there was a point in time that nothing existed, which is a logical impossibility because this would imply that something came out of nothing. Ridiculous isn't it? Again, although we can't perceive the Hidden Void causing certain phenomena in a billiard ball type fashion does not mean it wasn't caused. Even on a macroscopic level we are just assuming billiards ball type causes for perceived phenomena on the basis of survival and convenience. For example, even though there is ultimately no separation between me and a lion, I distinguish between the two because it is convenient and will not put me in harm’s way. So I can't stress enough the important difference between billiard ball type causality such as wind blows, tree falls over, tree lands on a deer and kills it, And Absolute Causality which has to do with the fact that everything is dependent on that which it is not in order to exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Og I don't define it other than to say that it is is beyond (even this word "beyond" doesn't apply) categories of thought. Categories such as absolute/relative, good/evil, here/there, being/nonbeing, etc. It's a mystery that no categorical discussion can pierce. This is what Joseph Campbell labels "God" as. A mystery that transcends all categories of thought. The mystery that any of this (us/universe) exists. I was saying that that concept seemed synonymous with what you were calling absolute (formless, etc). |
What you just said here is exactly what you said you can’t do, which is an attempt to conceive and describe what you call transcendental knowledge. It appears you are just rambling on about something just to say something about it because you haven’t yet grasped it. Let me explain something, there is nothing beyond consciousness, whether it’s a physical object, an idea, a photon, or the hidden void doesn’t matter, it’s all just a figment of our imagination, essentially an illusion. In all actuality all we ever really experience is this supposed gray mass resting behind these supposed eyes of mine that supposedly “see things”. As conscious beings we are bound to categorize these things and try and make sense of them the best we can, but it’s essential that we don’t fall into the illusion that these things inherently exist. These words are pointing you towards Absolute Truth, and indeed they can be transcended, I have done just that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Og Again, a thing is a collection of probability distribution functions that describe these things that are not solid. You are mostly empty space. The reason I would see you as a physical entity is because of the way photons interact with those probability distributions in the empty space.
Certainly it is useful to say that A=A just as newtonian mechanics are still useful (and used) to place a man on the moon.
But when you look at our fundamental nature as composed of atoms, we really are stepping into your "form of insanity." Things don't have individual identity and can disappear and reappear. They are represented as gray areas and you can't grasp them firmly. The more you try to, the more they slip away (i.e. the uncertainty principle).
Your proposing A=A as some sort of axiom that necessarily makes sense based on a logical intuition that you've developed as a macroscopic being in a macroscopic world. You don't, for example, have to deal with matter moving around you at close to the speed of light. You don't, for example, care about the specific spectral content of the sun's light.. You don't care about the nature of how a transistor works in your computer (though there are many people that do).
It's fine at a macroscopic level. Sure, A=A. But if you want to extend that to absolute, you've got a lot of work to do. You've gotta battle relativity and quantum mechanics.
Lets call an electron in a semiconductor "A"... A can not exist IN the band gap, but can exist on either side (when i say "can", I'm referring to what the quantum mechanical probability distribution function describes). You can measure a slow trickle of current that we call "tunneling" as electrons somehow appear on the other side of the gap that they shouldn't be able to cross (in classical newtonian terms). Is that thing that is on the "other side" of the gap the same A?
There are many of examples like that in quantum mechanics. And I'll agree that it is a form of insanity. But it works damn well to create all manner of useful devices and to tell us useful things about the way the universe works. |
A=A is not an attempt to state that perceived phenomena inherently exists, or explain its physical properties, it is all about the law of identity. The law that however you choose to define perceived phenomena , it is exactly that and nothing else. It bypasses all empirical studies because it is a purely logical truth.
.
.
.
As a suggestion, I think our discussion ought to be archived if that's a possibility, preferably by seperating our posts from the other posts in this thread and giving it it's own appropriate label. I think it's been a very well written discussion on both our behalfs and will provide plenty of spiritual/philosphical insight for those who can appreciate it. Wouldn't want a gem like this slipping through the cracks. Also, if you don't think it will ruin the integrity of the discussion maybe the global warming parts could be removed too.