addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcredit-cardcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobe--smallglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1launch-new-window--smalllight-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo
lan B.
user 10895495
London, GB
Post #: 231

Amen to everything said by Will and Andrew.

I'm not doing a serious experiment. I'm playing. Science if you hadn't realised never got anywhere by skepticism alone.

It is precisely “science’s skepticism” which overthrew the observationally falsifiable Aristotelian cosmology so beloved both of the Catholic Church and of mediaeval Islam!

Can you tell the time? Probably. You can probably tell what the time is and write it down into a formula.
It is a dimension right? So please point to it. Where is it? Is it Up? Is it Down?

Sorry Jazz, that is just silly. (I’m reminded of pointless conversations as a pre-adolescent at school in which – arguing as I was the atheist corner – my co-discussants would attack their own contrived straw man target by saying things like: “Well what about air and the wind? You can’t see them, can you?”)

You can't see it. Not with any microscope, telescope or scope of any kind. Its something we know, through experience, is involved in the evolution of things, so we include a factor in our equations to take account of it.

Now. Your consciousness is involved in your evolution. In the evolution of a project. In the evolution of the LHC to discover evidence of the Higgs Boson. Now point to it, where is it? In your neurons? Whatever. It is there, whatever it is, it does influence your perception of all evolution in the world.

I began a “Consciousness thread” here on this forum several months ago. A little later, Andrew followed suit. At the moment, both threads lie moribund, but if you’d like to revitalise them with your own welcome contributions at any time then please feel free!

If there was a wavefunction for the subject of Physics (now there is an idea), its evolution would be determined by the paradigms of consciousness and evidence available in specific spaces and times. Someone, somewhere though forgot to see the wood for the trees and include the evolution of perception as a world changing factor. Where do you stick perception in the Schrodinger equation that describes the evolution of a system?

You don’t. Perception is the responsibility of neurological mechanisms. Its phenomenological properties are deducible on the basis of geometrical optics.

I get the impression Jazz that you think that the mere fact that given sufficient effort and ingenuity it is possible for us to “think about anything” then some form of metaphysical/ontological idealism follows, as if the mere fact of individual conceptual representation of the content of some sentences or other can somehow conjure them into existence in some almost godlike way. The mere fact that we can abstract ourselves “outside” any circumstances – whether concrete or abstract – which we find ourselves able to represent does not mean that, ontologically speaking, we contain them, as if they are somehow functions of us!

(When you stop to ponder the matter, that is an incredibly arrogant position, somewhat resembling the hubris of the Abrahamic religions in asserting mankind to be the pinnacle of some loving/self-righteous god’s creativity and sense of purpose!)!)


Ask any flatlander where is Up? They will lock you up if you're a Third-dimensional unless you're a mathematician, that rare breed of person who is allowed to entertain insane ideas of a third dimension.

Flatlanders would be unable to respond, because a 2-dimensional space is unable to support the phenomenology of action-by-contact, and hence cause and effect go out of the window in such a space as well!

Introduce another kind of dimension to the spatio-temporal set we have already? Now where does it go? Where in a formula does it fit? Don't you get it? It is not in the formula, the formula is to be found in it. If the observer is responsible for the collapse of the wave function and the creation of measurable reality of observables then you've created a world with me in it.

Yes well you’ll recall that for the past week or so I’ve consistently been arguing against you in regard to that claim! Otherwise, you seem to be saying that we can as it were generalise ourselves outside of a paper bag. Yes, I agree to that.

Your consciousness did that, not your neurons, because your neurons would have to have been collapsed into reality along with all their component molecules particles and fields.

If you believe that consciousness is not some function of coordinated neuronal behaviour on a medium to large scale then you need to argue in favour of such a claim, rather than simply blandly assuming it to be the case beforehand, and then basing the rest of your position on it.

There are three kinds of proof. Evidence. Experience and Education.

These are all empirical – i.e. the “3” are in fact simply 1 form. (The other, second, form is of course tautology, in the form of logical reasoning and calculation, a view stressed by Wittgenstein.)

Two or more forms can often be enough to satisfy most people that something is real. Sometimes a lack of evidence though and absence of common sense education will still not shift the reality of someones experience. We would at least investigate it if it were our personal experience, even if there wasn't a strike on a photodetector or a formula to join the dots together.

[ Continued .. ]

lan B.
user 10895495
London, GB
Post #: 232

[ Continued .. ]

Science can only account for 1%-10% of the universes matter, mystically calling everything else dark matter or dark energy. Most of DNA is 'Junk DNA'. Those two ways of looking at the world are Woo. Ask a scientist to explain Love or how to do something ordinary like choose a purpose for life and most will fail to come up with a formula for that. That stuff is real but there is no scientific formula for it. That's where offering a formula is foolish. Consciousness could be put into a formula or meter but most humans would pat the person who did it on the back and tell them to go back to their day job. In those situations what is needed is not just a formula or evidence but something that feels right through experience.

Intimations of purpose do not belong to any science, and they never will, because personal values are not facts. (The only factual element in the entire situation is that someone or other at time t holds to some finitely describable set of values. These values could never find objective validation.)

Sometimes scientists make up reality based on the 3 or 4 squares on the chess board they can see, not realising the game consists of more pieces than those they've seen and they don't have enough awareness of enough squares currently to see the nature of their movement within the game as a whole. Could you figure out how a Knight moves just from a square grid of four neighboring squares on a Chess board? No. You need a wider awareness. Whenever common sense is being sacrificed people either add extras to take account of the anomalies or change the model metaphorically from Earthcentric to Suncentric. Metaphorically, we have to move from Earthcentric to Suncentric here - from matter centric to mind centric and get over any sensibilities that are locking us into irreconcilable anomalies and incongruences that have emerged as a result of the lack of unification of the Quantum and Relativistic Models.

This sounds like a surefire recipe for egocentric, anthropocentric autism! You repeat the point about the incessant need within the sciences to generalise beyond the already known. (As it happens, physics of all the sciences exemplifies this procedure par excellence!)

I feel for you if you are not any further enlightened on the sense of my paradigm from my points but I must say your questions are indeed educating me, even if the final answers leave questions unanswered.

If you or I are not learning it is not because the perfect answer hasn't been found but because the perfect question has yet to be asked. So I appreciate you asking me some good starter questions even if I cannot provide a perfect answer in the language of either your paradigm or mine.

(How about “42”? :-))


Jazz R.
jazzrasool
London, GB
Post #: 15
42?

Isn't that the value in the coupling constant to do with the strength of the force that unifies all the Electromagnetism, Weak, Strong and Gravity forces?

1/137 is the coupling constant for Electromagnetism. For the unified force I believe it is somewhere between the Strong force coupling constant of 1/1 and that of EM, 1/137 -believed to be around 1/42 .

Knowing the coupling constant associated with the unified force helps understand unified field theory and how the universe may have come into being and where it could be going, Real meaning of Life, the Universe and Everything stuff.


Douglas Adams often based his fictional props on real world conversations with physicists.
lan B.
user 10895495
London, GB
Post #: 233

42?

Isn't that the value in the coupling constant to do with the strength of the force that unifies all the Electromagnetism, Weak, Strong and Gravity forces?

Shelly Glashow wrote a book -- I think it's called The Charm of Physics -- 20 or 30 years ago whose primary concern was to motivate interest in and funding for the then-intended SSC (Superconducting SuperCollider) to be built in the US. The project was cancelled around 1990 at the estimated completion cost of $4 billion, but the background theoretical interest was in -- in Glashow's own words -- "making the desert bloom". The desert in question is the estimated 14 orders of magnitude which lie between the unification energy and the necessarily low collision energies within prospective technological reach. Neveetheless, empirical results gained at such energies even so indicate a convergence of the various field coupling constants at progressively higher collision energies toward such a graphical locus if the lines plotting the rates of convergence are logarithmically extrapolated far enough.

I don't recall the graphical value derived by Glashow which I've just described, and am unfortunately unable to access any of the book's contents online, and I thank you for stimulating me to make a web search using phrases eliciting Wiki titles such as QFT, Quantum Gravity, Coupling Constant, GUTs, Unification Energy, and so on, and as I suspected the problem is so enormously complex that the lack of consensus as to the correct Unified Field Theory (even assuming that one has ever been generated!) seems as far as I am able to determine preclude confidence in even the coefficient of the value, let alone its order of magnitude relative to, say, the 10 TeV scale.


1/137 is the coupling constant for Electromagnetism. For the unified force I believe it is somewhere between the Strong force coupling constant of 1/1 and that of EM, 1/137 -believed to be around 1/42 .

Knowing the coupling constant associated with the unified force helps understand unified field theory and how the universe may have come into being and where it could be going, Real meaning of Life, the Universe and Everything stuff.

Such knowledge would of course be part of the (eventual?) UFT, but ..

.. which one? ..


Douglas Adams often based his fictional props on real world conversations with physicists

Great stuff. Although I find Adams a litlle over-the-top Anglo-twee, I don't think that there can be much serious doubt that the vast majority of acclaimed research scientists during the past century or so cut their intellectual teeth on good science fiction.

Thanks for the responses, Jazz. I'm just trying to determine "where you're coming from".






A former member
Post #: 169
OK Jazz, I have personally encountered an amazing coincidence today which you would presumably call a synchronicity or even a serendipity. I estimate the probability of this coincidence to be at least 1 in a million.

I had called workmen to my house to do a bit of work, part of which was to repair damage to the garden wall at one side of my driveway. The day before they were due to fix the wall they turned up in the morning and were startled to find an empty car on the pavement, sideways across the driveway to my house and jammed against the wall on the other side of the driveway. (It had slipped down the hill overnight from outside a neighbour's house.) When the car was removed they found a pattern of damage to the wall that was virtually identical to the previously damaged side. The next day they repaired both sides with a nice symmetrical finish!

You can add that to your list of synchronicities if you like, and I have to say that the coincidence of the two events, the symmetrical damage to one wall precisely one day before the other was to be repaired, is extraordinary. (But clearly nothing to do with quantum physics or consciousness!)

PS I was away at the time and heard about it today, within minutes of reading that your meeting now has a venue. I guess that takes the odds to 1 in ten million!
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy