Obsidian debates -1

[Moose]

According to a Tibetan monk I was talking to, "Time and space are real, but must be looked on as illusions"

 

Discuss.

 

Actually that makes perfect sense to me, but I can see the argument against it.

[Raithe]

For a thread that seemed to me to start off on more of a philosophical question on how to approach life.. This swiftly went into physics and science...

[Kaftan Barlast]

What I was trying to say is that if big G is variable, then an objects mass is variable aswell. The hogwash part was just to emphasize how rubbish I think it is, and also to make it funnier.

 

 

Uh, it's entirely possible that time doesn't 'exist', not as a dimension at least. And that it can instead be thought of as the result of spatial causality. Personally I prefer this interpretation of time as it prevents silly things like time travel into the past, and works better with modern physical theories (of gravity for instance).

 

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scient...-dimension.html

 

The upside of all this is that you begin to see the universe as one immensely gigantic state machine. Which, to me, begs the obvious question: is the universe Turing complete? I'm going to guess a big fat yes.

 

[Moose]

What I was trying to say is that if big G is variable, then an objects mass is variable aswell.

 

It sounds like you're getting the concepts of weight and mass muddled.

[Pidesco]

Indeed it does.

[Pidesco]

Uh, it's entirely possible that time doesn't 'exist', not as a dimension at least. And that it can instead be thought of as the result of spatial causality. Personally I prefer this interpretation of time as it prevents silly things like time travel into the past, and works better with modern physical theories (of gravity for instance).

 

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scient...-dimension.html

 

The upside of all this is that you begin to see the universe as one immensely gigantic state machine. Which, to me, begs the obvious question: is the universe Turing complete? I'm going to guess a big fat yes.

 

“In our view, time travel into the past and future are not possible,” Sorli said. “One can travel in space only, and time is a numerical order of his motion.”

 

 

I'd need to read the original article but, it seems to me they are arguing over semantics. That time is the order of events seems to me tautological and, in any case, doesn't go against the notion of time as a 4th dimension.

[Walsingham]

1. I think it's awesome that this has provoked such a response, and it's not pure snobbery.

 

2. There are multiple subclauses to the debate, but if I may focus in on the one no-one's grappled with much:

 

The whole thrust of Buddhist thinking is that one's reaction to reality can be distinct from what reality 'wants' your reaction to be. At least I think it is. Krez, back me up here.

 

The reason for this, I would argue, is that as humans our drives only impinge on a tiny subset of reality. Therefore to actuate our drives we might benefit from only dealing with a fractional subset of reality. Being incomplete this could be described as an illusion, but a useful one.

 

Although I don't think that's what the monk was getting at.

[Pidesco]

Philosophically speaking, I'd interpret the monk's statement as a way of tackling free will within a deterministic worldview.

 

My "translation": Reality is deterministic, but the illusion of human free will is a necessary one in order to function as a self aware entity.

[Walsingham]

But if that self-awareness is false, am I actually self-aware?

 

Or am I simply acting within physical constraints of processing power imposed by the universe?

[Gorth]

The whole thrust of Buddhist thinking is that one's reaction to reality can be distinct from what reality 'wants' your reaction to be. At least I think it is. Krez, back me up here.

 

The reason for this, I would argue, is that as humans our drives only impinge on a tiny subset of reality. Therefore to actuate our drives we might benefit from only dealing with a fractional subset of reality. Being incomplete this could be described as an illusion, but a useful one.

 

Although I don't think that's what the monk was getting at.

Sounds like Socrates' cave (one of my favourite stories)

[Pidesco]

But if that self-awareness is false, am I actually self-aware?

 

Or am I simply acting within physical constraints of processing power imposed by the universe?

 

 

There is no way for one person to determine whether his own self-awareness is true or false. So there is no other choice but to accept your self-awareness as true.

[Moose]

But if that self-awareness is false, am I actually self-aware?

 

Or am I simply acting within physical constraints of processing power imposed by the universe?

 

 

Both, probably.

[Kaftan Barlast]

What I was trying to say is that if big G is variable, then an objects mass is variable aswell.

 

It sounds like you're getting the concepts of weight and mass muddled.

 

I passed my physics classes, thank you very much. A pint of bitter has different weight between the moon or jupiter, but the mass stays the same. The interesting thing happens when there are distortions in gravity which causes an objects mass to behave differently. The number of particles that make up the object stays the same, but the pull it has on it's surroundings changes. Which in effect means that the mass changes. Im not talking about distortions causes by other lumps of mass, but of ripples in gravity itself.

 

 

Uh, it's entirely possible that time doesn't 'exist', not as a dimension at least. And that it can instead be thought of as the result of spatial causality. Personally I prefer this interpretation of time as it prevents silly things like time travel into the past, and works better with modern physical theories (of gravity for instance).

 

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scient...-dimension.html

 

The upside of all this is that you begin to see the universe as one immensely gigantic state machine. Which, to me, begs the obvious question: is the universe Turing complete? I'm going to guess a big fat yes.

 

[Pidesco]

They're not just arguing semantics, they're saying that time is not a physical entity or a fourth dimension of space

 

The point of view which considers time to be a physical entity in which material changes occur is here replaced with a more convenient view of time being merely the numerical order of material change... ..The scientists also investigated the falsifiability of the two notions of time. The concept of time as the fourth dimension of space - as a fundamental physical entity in which an experiment occurs - can be falsified by an experiment in which time does not exist, according to the scientists.

 

I want to see that experiment. I don't think that's possible.

 

Also I don't understand the first sentence of the article, there's no either/or between time being a dimension and being "the numerical order of material change".

[Humodour]

Uh, it's entirely possible that time doesn't 'exist', not as a dimension at least. And that it can instead be thought of as the result of spatial causality. Personally I prefer this interpretation of time as it prevents silly things like time travel into the past, and works better with modern physical theories (of gravity for instance).

 

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-scient...-dimension.html

 

The upside of all this is that you begin to see the universe as one immensely gigantic state machine. Which, to me, begs the obvious question: is the universe Turing complete? I'm going to guess a big fat yes.

 

[Walsingham]

But if that self-awareness is false, am I actually self-aware?

 

Or am I simply acting within physical constraints of processing power imposed by the universe?

 

 

There is no way for one person to determine whether his own self-awareness is true or false. So there is no other choice but to accept your self-awareness as true.

 

How does this change for the delusional? How are we to distinguish?

 

Naming no names *cough cough*

[Meshugger]

<kalani> Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed into a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death life is only a dream and we're the imagination of ourselves...Here's Tom with the weather.

 

Always relevant and hilarious.

[Orogun01]

But if that self-awareness is false, am I actually self-aware?

 

Or am I simply acting within physical constraints of processing power imposed by the universe?

 

 

There is no way for one person to determine whether his own self-awareness is true or false. So there is no other choice but to accept your self-awareness as true.

If you understand the nature and cause of your actions then you really are aware. We are capable of knowing why we behave the way we do, we can look on a crappy day and see were it all went wrong. The deal here is understanding that your own volition it's under your control and however you react to the deterministic universe is your choice.

 

Buddhism is a lot like Stoicism when it comes to ethics, huh?

[pmp10]

The deal here is understanding that your own volition it's under your control and however you react to the deterministic universe is your choice.

Isn't that a contradiction?

If the universe is a deterministic system then so are you and thus have no choice in any matter.

[Oblarg]

Philosophically speaking, I'd interpret the monk's statement as a way of tackling free will within a deterministic worldview.

 

My "translation": Reality is deterministic, but the illusion of human free will is a necessary one in order to function as a self aware entity.

 

Except, reality isn't deterministic. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of quantum physics knows this.

[Pidesco]

Philosophically speaking, I'd interpret the monk's statement as a way of tackling free will within a deterministic worldview.

 

My "translation": Reality is deterministic, but the illusion of human free will is a necessary one in order to function as a self aware entity.

 

Except, reality isn't deterministic. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of quantum physics knows this.

 

 

Regardless of the universe's actual inner workings, a person (in this case, the Tibetan monk) can have whatever beliefs he wants. I'm positing that the monk believes in a deterministic universe.

 

In any case, it's perfectly possible to argue that there's a deterministic framework hidden behind quantum mechanics. It's pure speculation, of course, and it's not my own opinion, but it's a valid way of seeing things.

[Humodour]

Philosophically speaking, I'd interpret the monk's statement as a way of tackling free will within a deterministic worldview.

 

My "translation": Reality is deterministic, but the illusion of human free will is a necessary one in order to function as a self aware entity.

 

Except, reality isn't deterministic. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of quantum physics knows this.

 

It actually might still be. It depends a bit on what's governing quantum physics, and it could go either way. It's one of those metaphysical questions which are currently untestable (and possibly will always remain so).

[Oblarg]

Philosophically speaking, I'd interpret the monk's statement as a way of tackling free will within a deterministic worldview.

 

My "translation": Reality is deterministic, but the illusion of human free will is a necessary one in order to function as a self aware entity.

 

Except, reality isn't deterministic. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of quantum physics knows this.

 

 

Regardless of the universe's actual inner workings, a person (in this case, the Tibetan monk) can have whatever beliefs he wants. I'm positing that the monk believes in a deterministic universe.

 

In any case, it's perfectly possible to argue that there's a deterministic framework hidden behind quantum mechanics. It's pure speculation, of course, and it's not my own opinion, but it's a valid way of seeing things.

 

No, it's not. The universe is quite clearly probabilistic.

[Raithe]

The theory I have a warm feeling for was the suggestion that the universe at large is some form of intelligence that's slowly been growing up, and that all life within it is actually the universe experimenting to understand ethics and morality.

 

Completely non-scientific, but just a quirky thought.

 

 

The question shouldn't be 'Is there a perfect being who created the Universe' it should be 'Why would a perfect being need to create the Universe?'

[Pidesco]

Philosophically speaking, I'd interpret the monk's statement as a way of tackling free will within a deterministic worldview.

 

My "translation": Reality is deterministic, but the illusion of human free will is a necessary one in order to function as a self aware entity.

 

Except, reality isn't deterministic. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of quantum physics knows this.

 

 

Regardless of the universe's actual inner workings, a person (in this case, the Tibetan monk) can have whatever beliefs he wants. I'm positing that the monk believes in a deterministic universe.

 

In any case, it's perfectly possible to argue that there's a deterministic framework hidden behind quantum mechanics. It's pure speculation, of course, and it's not my own opinion, but it's a valid way of seeing things.

 

No, it's not. The universe is quite clearly probabilistic.

 

ok.