shadowind

back for a little,
if its fundamental it is probally consistant, and can be treated as an absolute truth but due to our limitations i don't think we'll be able to know. we're an instrument that effects the outcome of the result in a not-completly knowen way. we're part of the system we're trying to measure, we're using our ability to measure to judge our ability to measure right? isn't that a circular argument?

__________________
remember "for mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescirbe to oursleves is liberty"-rousseau: the concept of the general will "if we can not reconcile all opions, then let us endeavour to unite all hearts."-?"to be is to be perceived"-? "‘We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know’-Robert G. Ingersoll

xxkayxx

Isn't everything a circular argument due to lack of knowledge?

__________________
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing

Nick Treklis

I'm not attempting to represent physics, as I am no physics expert. Rather, I'm discussing it in relation to A=A, causality, logic, and Absolute Truth.
Right, the photon was previously part of an atom as "potential energy" and the conversion from potential energy to a photon was the EVENT. Indeterminate does not mean it is uncaused. Everything is indeterminate, but some things appear more likely to happen based on our past experiences or what we've learned. Other things we are just blindly guessing about what might happen to them due to lack of empirical evidence.

It's more like an infinite web of causality with everything being directly and indirectly caused by everything else. And yes you could say that finite objects are an expression of the Totality depending on how you want to look at things, but ultimately all we can do is view finite phenomena, not The Infinite itself due to its inherently formless nature. All we can say about The Totality is that it is infinite, formless, and capable of producing consciousness.
Empirically yes, I agree with you, but I'm not talking about worldly matters. I'm talking about Absolute Truth which is beyond measure.
Yes, things like Absolute Truth and the Totality. They can only be understood through the use of pure logic by the enlightened mind. I think you might agree that based on how I've described these things they can't actually be dealt with in a scientific manner, no?
I'd rather we discuss this in another topic if you wish to continue it. I don't see this as relevant to the rest of our discussion, or as important as it is.

I don’t think so, my shallow understanding of quantum mechanics would be the reason for any misunderstanding I have. What I do know is that it is an empirical observation of phenomena on the atomic and sub atomic level according to what I’ve read. Therefore it is completely theoretical, will never be anything beyond a theory like all science is, and has no bearing on what I know to be absolutely true about Ultimate Reality.

I’m not talking about hidden variable theory. I’m talking about the absolute truth of A=A. In all actuality anything could be a Schrödinger’s this, or a Schrödinger’s that, regardless of whether it is triggered by a photon emission or a bear taking a **** in the woods. But like I said A=A overrides this by showing that a thing is whatever it is, regardless of whether we can apply certain physical properties to it or not. If it is an unknown or unpredictable entity, it means just that, it is an unknown or unpredictable entity at a certain point in time. A=A is never violated, and the same goes for causality as I explained in my last post.

This is all well and good but one thing we must remember is that all this is based on subjective empirical observation. It doesn’t underpin anything or provide us with anything concrete. It’s just another way of interpreting the observable universe, and although it can be beneficial to view things from different scientific perspectives, it’s no different than viewing the world from a drug induced perspective such as LSD or psychotropic mushrooms. The sage doesn’t view the world in any particular way, he simply sees it for what it is without ever trying to hold on to any particular perspective. He understands the futility of it, he understands the formlessness of The All.
So you are absolutely certain that the uncertainty principle holds? This is another blatant contradiction that simply can’t be taken with any seriousness.
It’s no trick. I’m using language to point you towards the truth. You’re mistaking the finger for the moon. Remember, words are just words, they are not the Truth itself. You need to open your third eye, the wisdom eye.
Well that’s saying two different things. In the first statement one is attempting to state an absolute truth albeit a futile attempt, in the second statement one is just poking around with an idea without actually stating anything at all.

shadowind

thats what it seems to come down to for me

__________________
remember "for mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescirbe to oursleves is liberty"-rousseau: the concept of the general will "if we can not reconcile all opions, then let us endeavour to unite all hearts."-?"to be is to be perceived"-? "‘We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know’-Robert G. Ingersoll

Og

Nope. I said that I know through repeatable observation (read: I have evidence illustrating) that this is the case. That's all anyone can ever have. But things like nuclear particle emissions are inherently deterministic. A purely stochastic emission of a photon could give someone cancer and kill them when they would have otherwise gone on to change society. The reality of examples like this forces one to discard hard determinism.

If you want to start stating that you experience absolute truth via third eye wisdom, then we're certainly not talking about the same thing. Transcendent knowledge is formless and is not based on categories of thought (i.e. being and non-being). It can't even be spoken about or conceived. I understand what you're getting at here, but this does NOT have anything to do with causality being absolute.

The universe is not deterministic. Deterministic universe is a disproven hypothesis. A=A does not, in any way, prove that absolute truth exists. It simply says that things seem to have form and we can give them labels.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
Satchitananda - True Being, Pure Consciousness, and Bliss
Tat Tvam Asi - Thou art That.
You & I, no distinction.
Mettā & Namaste

Nick Treklis

By stating that you know something you are implying it's not just a guess on your part but something you are absolutely certain of. So how do know your observations aren't skewed, or a hallucination? How do you know all your memories of this observation weren't placed there by some deceptive programmer and the observation never really happened? The fact of the matter is you don't know that with any certainty so it is impossible to arrive at absolute certainty based solely on observation, repeatable or otherwise.


Any event could cause unpredictable or unlikely results, but that doesn't mean they aren't caused or destined to happen. It just means they are unpredictable. Ultimately all phenomena is inherently unpredictable, but like I stated earlier, billiard ball type causality is very limited and does not mean there is no cause. Everything that isn't the object we are observing is a cause of its existence because that object is not everything else in existence. For example, I am a cause of my desk's existence because I am not my desk, therefore we cause each other's existence. It's this way with anything imaginable.

How do you define transcendent knowledge? What does it transcend? Is it synonymous with Absolute Truth? Why can't it be spoken about or conceived?

A=A means that a thing is exactly what it is, and nothing else, at any particular moment. It is the law of identity and nothing else. It will always hold true in all possible scenarios, meaning it is absolutely true. When we start to doubt this it is essentially a form of insanity. Can you explain to me how a thing can be something it's not?

Og

No, I specifically included a parenthetical reference in my original post that clarified that I was not referring to absolute certainty. 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.

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.

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'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.

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).

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.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
Satchitananda - True Being, Pure Consciousness, and Bliss
Tat Tvam Asi - Thou art That.
You & I, no distinction.
Mettā & Namaste

Nick Treklis

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.
I’m simply pointing out the fact that when we rely on empirical observation to prove absolute truth we will always fail.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

dameedna

You know, I alway's thought it was luck I had the parents I had.

I never thought of the whole millions of sperms that "didn't" make it.

Does every sperm have a slightly different genetic code? I presume so, but am not sure.

Anyway...please continue with the quantum stuff. Reading a beginners book on that atm. It's crazy, crazy times we live in...at least from a scientific perspective !!!