< Infinity > [Archive] - Physics Forums

subtillioN

Jul13-03, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
[B]It becomes the paradox of presentation of the universe, inasmuch as you can count things in the first place, because, if you were truly observing, or thinking, of the infinite, you would have nothing in your head, absolutely nothing, ergo not even the beginning of counting anything!

First of all you make the error of equating observation with thought. I am talking logic not observation or imagination. This distinction is critical.

Think of it in the sense of looking at the surface of a perfectly lit/illuminated sphere all at once, the entire surface, observant thinkers will realize that visually you can see nothing because unless the surface of the sphere is lit in an asymetrical manner, all you will "see" is 'flat space' with nothing to distinguish anything from anything else.

I am not talking about homogeneity whatsoever. Infinity is not equivalent to homogeneity.

Infinite is NOT a concept in your head, it cannot be, because, your imagination is limited, as well as is your thinking ability.

Of course the infinite cannot be contained in the finite mind and the infinite is not a thought. This does not mean that logic can not define the infinite without encapsulating it.

That you seem to wish to refuse to accept them, little I can do about that one.

You have simply misunderstood them.

In an infinite system you cannot even begin to count, as there is not one thing that is distinguished. (Neither beginning, nor end)

Again you are confusing infinity with homogeneity.

"Everyone regards the question of the infinite as most difficult, if not insoluble, through not making a distinction between that which must be infinite from its very nature, or in virtue of its definition, and that which has no limits, not in virtue of its essence, but in virtue of its cause; and also through not distinguishing between that which is called infinite, because it has no limits, and that, of which the parts cannot be equalled or expressed by any number, though the greatest and least magnitude of the whole may be known; and, lastly, through not distinguishing between that, which can be understood but not imagined, and that which can also be imagined. If these distinctions, I repeat, had been attended to, inquirers would not have been overwhelmed with such a vast crowd of difficulties. They would then clearly have understood, what kind of infinite is indivisible and possesses no parts; and what kind, on the other hand, may be divided without involving a contradiction in terms. They would further have understood, what kind, of infinite may, without solecism, be conceived greater than another infinite, and what kind cannot be so conceived. All this will plainly appear from what I am about to say."

--Spinoza

Hurkyl

Jul13-03, 11:49 AM

The great thing about human thought is that we can think about what we can think. Recursive logical structures are exceedingly powerful...

At "first order", you may be right and we cannot conceptualize infinity at all.

However, at "second order" we can talk about first order thought itself. We can talk about things that fail to be conceptualized at the first order level and analyze how and why we can't conceptulaize it at that level, allowing us to synthesize second order concepts.

In particular, I can think about infinity without having to simultaneously think about everything "in" that infinity.

That addresses your argumentation, but I think you're thinking about infinity in entirely the wrong way. Most of these arguments that we cannot conceptualize infinity, et cetera, et cetera, are highly dogmatic; if you refuse to step boldly forward and try to figure out what you mean by "infinity", then, by golly, you will not be able to talk logically about it!

On the other hand, mathematicians do step boldly forward. We distill the "essential elements" out of peoples' vague ideas about infinity until we get a nice, precise definition appropriate to the context, and we get a lot of useful mathematics out of it.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Jul13-03, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by subtillion
First of all you make the error of equating observation with thought. I am talking logic not observation or imagination. This distinction is critical.

So you seem to think that you can separate logic, which is a process, from thought/imagination/concept.

In order for you to follow logical thought, (the process of logic) you must have a thought, "infinite" defies that, as it cannot be thought of, logically, or otherwise, you simply self decieve.

Originally posted by subtillion
I am not talking about homogeneity whatsoever. Infinity is not equivalent to homogeneity.

Neither am I, and you cannot prove your second statement because you cannot concieve of infinite! (period!)

Originally posted by subtillion
This does not mean that logic can not define the infinite without encapsulating it.

This is a contradiction of terms, you cannot 'encapsulate' that which is defined as 'un-ecapsulable'

You can fool yourself as long as you might like to, but it doesn't fool me, nor will it.
(unimaginable & unthinkable, ergo no logic available!)

subtillioN

Jul13-03, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
The great thing about human thought is that we can think about what we can think. Recursive logical structures are exceedingly powerful...

At "first order", you may be right and we cannot conceptualize infinity at all.

However, at "second order" we can talk about first order thought itself. We can talk about things that fail to be conceptualized at the first order level and analyze how and why we can't conceptulaize it at that level, allowing us to synthesize second order concepts.

In particular, I can think about infinity without having to simultaneously think about everything "in" that infinity.

That addresses your argumentation, but I think you're thinking about infinity in entirely the wrong way. Most of these arguments that we cannot conceptualize infinity, et cetera, et cetera, are highly dogmatic; if you refuse to step boldly forward and try to figure out what you mean by "infinity", then, by golly, you will not be able to talk logically about it!

On the other hand, mathematicians do step boldly forward. We distill the "essential elements" out of peoples' vague ideas about infinity until we get a nice, precise definition appropriate to the context, and we get a lot of useful mathematics out of it.

Well spoken! I couldn't agree more. [:D]

subtillioN

Jul13-03, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So you sem to think that you can separate logic, which is a process, from thought/imagination/concept.

There are many modes of thought and yes they can be functionally seperated.

In order for you to follow logical thought, you must have a thought, "infinite" defies that as it cannot be thought of logically or otherwise, you simply self decieve.

Infinite is just a word which means "unbounded". Quite a finite thought really.

Neither am I, and you cannot prove your second statement because you cannot concieve of infinite! (period!)

Why should I prove that infinity is not equivalent to homogeneity if you are not even talking about it?

I can concieve of an infinite substance which is entirely inhomogenous. That is not a proof it is a thought.

This is a contradiction of terms, you cannot 'encapsulate' that which is [b]defined as 'un-ecapsulable'

That is precisely what I said. I can logically understand it without encapsulating it.

You can fool yourself as long as you might like to, but it doesn't folo me, nor will it.
(unimaginable & unthinkable, ergo no logic available!)

You continue to misunderstand my point.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Jul13-03, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
The great thing about human thought is that we can think about what we can think. Recursive logical structures are exceedingly powerful...
At "first order", you may be right and we cannot conceptualize infinity at all.
However, at "second order" we can talk about first order thought itself. We can talk about things that fail to be conceptualized at the first order level and analyze how and why we can't conceptulaize it at that level, allowing us to synthesize second order concepts.
In particular, I can think about infinity without having to simultaneously think about everything "in" that infinity.
That addresses your argumentation, but I think you're thinking about infinity in entirely the wrong way. Most of these arguments that we cannot conceptualize infinity, et cetera, et cetera, are highly dogmatic; if you refuse to step boldly forward and try to figure out what you mean by "infinity", then, by golly, you will not be able to talk logically about it!
On the other hand, mathematicians do step boldly forward. We distill the "essential elements" out of peoples' vague ideas about infinity until we get a nice, precise definition appropriate to the context, and we get a lot of useful mathematics out of it.

Just because you can 'second order think' about something doesn't mean that you can achieve the 'first order answer'.

Math might boldly go where no man went before, but it is not capable of mathematizing 'infinite' either, as it too, must start somewhere.

Define infinite, "no beginning, no end" so tell me, logically, where do you start?

subtillioN

Jul13-03, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Math might boldly go where no man went before, but it is not capable of mathematizing 'infinite' either, as it too, must start somewhere.

You are correct. No system of thought can encapsulate infinity. In mathematics and logic, "infinity" is an ideal. A mere symbol representing a train of thought.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Jul13-03, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Subtillion
Of course the infinite cannot be contained in the finite mind and the infinite is not a thought. This does not mean that logic can not define the infinite without encapsulating it.

These two statements, are contradictions of each other.

I can concieve of an infinite substance which is entirely inhomogenous. That is not a proof it is a thought.

subtillioN

Jul13-03, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
These two statements, are contradictions of each other.

I am talking about generalizations through logic not replication or exact and complete simulation in the mind.

Hurkyl

Jul13-03, 12:27 PM

Define infinite, "no beginning, no end" so tell me, logically, where do you start?

Define what it means to have a beginning.
Define what it means to have an end.
Define infinite to be anything without a beginning and without an end.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Jul13-03, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Define what it means to have a beginning. Delineation
Define what it means to have an end. Delineated
Define infinite to be anything without a beginning and without an end. Done with the circle 'joke'

Any more questions?

Yes, it is an Ideal, hence no comport in reality(?) which is exactly why I stated that it ends up with a responce that is equalling your belief systems, you either believe that infinity exists, or not, but there is no proving it one way, or the other.

Inconcievable.

subtillioN

Jul13-03, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Yes, it is an Ideal, hence no comport in reality(?)

Not necessarily. Infinity is simply non-computable and non-simulatable in the imagination. The only way to deal with it is through logic and reason.

which is exactly why I stated that it ends up with a responce that is equalling your belief systems, you either believe that infinity exists, or not, but there is no proving it one way, or the other.

There ARE logical proofs for infinity. See Spinoza, for example.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Jul14-03, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by subtillioN
Not necessarily. Infinity is simply non-computable and non-simulatable in the imagination. The only way to deal with it is through logic and reason.

There ARE logical proofs for infinity. See Spinoza, for example.

Logical proofs of Infinity do NOT prove that Infinity exists, they simple demonstrate an indicator that suggests that infinity is possible, nothing more.

Logic is "of" the imagination.

subtillioN

Jul14-03, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Logical proofs of Infinity do NOT prove that Infinity exists, they simple demonstrate an indicator that suggests that infinity is possible, nothing more.

Well they show that infinity is the only rational alternative and that a finite universe is nonsensical.

Of course they are not scientific proofs. They are logical proofs and there is a difference as you are keenly aware.

Logic is "of" the imagination.

Yes, logic is built on language which adds structure and symbolic generalizability to the imagination. This gives the imagination a very powerful set of abilities as we can see in science and all theory and rationality.

I distinguish logic from the pure imagination, however, for obvious reasons. Logic can take powerful symbolic shortcuts and metalevel reasoning, but the imagination must visualize everything in its minute details. Both have their own unique power and applicability and BOTH are critical for an understanding of reality.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Jul14-03, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN

Of course they are not scientific proofs. They are logical proofs and there is a difference as you are keenly aware.

Might I indulge the subtlety of them being Logical Conclusions, as opposed to proofs?

subtillioN

Jul14-03, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Might I indulge the subtlety of them being Logical Conclusions, as opposed to proofs?

sure. We both know what they are beyond the words.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Jul15-03, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by subtillioN
sure. We both know what they are beyond the words.

Not quite sure what you mean by that, as I know that both have different meanings.

An end is not neccesarily a proof, and a proof is not nessecarily an end, but an end can be a proof and a proof can be an end, but in my usage herein when I say it is the "end", it is without proof.

radagast

Jul15-03, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Logical proofs of Infinity do NOT prove that Infinity exists, they simple demonstrate an indicator that suggests that infinity is possible, nothing more.

It depends on your definition of exists, I suppose. In a defined mental construct, such as the mathematics of real numbers, the proof of an infinite number of real numbers between the number 1.0 and 2.0 is a proof of the existence of an infinity, at least constrained to within that mathematical construct.

Since common dictionary definitions of existence and exist do encompass mental constructs as well as external reality, I see this as proof of existence within the above given context.

I do not say this says anything about external, objective reality.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Jul15-03, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by radagast
It depends on your definition of exists, I suppose. In a defined mental construct, such as the mathematics of real numbers, the proof of an infinite number of real numbers between the number 1.0 and 2.0 is a proof of the existence of an infinity, at least constrained to within that mathematical construct.

Since common dictionary definitions of existence and exist do encompass mental constructs as well as external reality, I see this as proof of existence within the above given context.

I do not say this says anything about external, objective reality.

Since infinity cannot be a concept, it cannot be a number, other then to state that 'one' of them exists.

The emboldened is only a proof that we cannot count to infinity, but suggests to us that it is a possibility, ergo neither a conclusion, nor a proof.

radagast

Jul15-03, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Since infinity cannot be a concept, it cannot be a number, other then to state that 'one' of them exists.

The emboldened is only a proof that we cannot count to infinity, but suggests to us that it is a possibility, ergo neither a conclusion, nor a proof.

Agreed that, by definition, an infinity isn't and cannot be a number. Your above comment seems to fall into the category of a Bifurcation Fallacy. Implicit is the assumption that an infinity has to be a number or concept to exist. Either delineate the reasons behind this assumption, or I can't see any reason to consider that argument anything but flawed.

In trying to ascertain if an infinity exists, it's definition might be important, so I've included it below:.

Infinity
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. in·fin·i·ties
1. The quality or condition of being infinite.
2. Unbounded space, time, or quantity.
3. An indefinitely large number or amount.
4. Mathematics The limit that a function is said to approach at x = a when (x) is larger than any preassigned number for all x sufficiently near a.
5a. A range in relation to an optical system, such as a camera lens, representing distances great enough that light rays reflected from objects within the range may be regarded as parallel. b. A distance setting, as on a camera, beyond which the entire field is in focus

Now, given (by the proof) that the numeric space, or the quantity of real numbers between 1.0 and 2.0 corrosponds to an Unbounded space, time or quantity, given (by the proof) there are An indefinitely large number or amount of real numbers between 1.0 and 2.0, and given that defn 4 also seems to apply, then, inferred from the definitions and proofs given, an infinity of real numbers exists between 1.0 and 2.0.

Being you liked the word Concept, I thought I'd explore that path too.

Concept
NOUN: 1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See synonyms at idea.
3. A scheme; a plan: “began searching for an agency to handle a new restaurant concept” (ADWEEK

From how I read the definition of infinity, defn 2 does seem to also encompass the term, given it's a thought, a notion, and/or something formed in the mind. FWIW

With regards to your second paragraph, the proof does prove that the number of real numbers from 1.0 to 2.0 is unbounded - falling into the definition of infinity.

Regards,

Mr. Robin Parsons

Jul15-03, 01:56 PM

radagast, did you read the link that I have posted on these pages? as that explains why the "concept thingy" doesn't work at all, infinity is not conceivable, that is what my linked explanation proves!

Mr. Robin Parsons

Jul15-03, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Radagast

Implicit is the assumption that an infinity has to be a number or concept to exist. Either delineate the reasons behind this assumption, or I can't see any reason to consider that argument anything but flawed.

As per my original explaination, (the link on the first page) I make no assumptions, because, all you can do is profess a belief; either it exists, or it doesn't, there is "NO proving"!

EDIT /SWITCH

subtillioN

Jul15-03, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
[quote]The emboldened is only a proof that we cannot count to infinity, but suggests to us that it is a possibility, ergo neither a conclusion, nor a proof.

The proof that I am talking about is quite different indeed. It is not a mathematical proof but a metaphysical proof. (relating to the true nature of physical reality vs. a mere quantification of it)

radagast

Jul15-03, 02:13 PM

Irrespective of your previous link (which I haven't read, yet), I fail to see the problem with the logic I've presented.

Just an impression, but it almost as if you're (only from the posts in this thread, since I haven't read your link), trying to define terms such that infinities cannot exist under your definitions.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Jul15-03, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by radagast
Irrespective of your previous link (which I haven't read, yet), I fail to see the problem with the logic I've presented.

Just an impression, but it almost as if you're (only from the posts in this thread, since I haven't read your link), trying to define terms such that infinities cannot exist under your definitions.

Might I then suggest you read it, *link* (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=1438&perpage=15&pagenumber=11) at the Fourth post down, (My posting) and then you/we can discuss it better(?)

radagast

Jul15-03, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
As per my original explaination, (the link on the first page) I make no assumptions, because, all you can do is profess a belief; either it exists, or it doesn't, there is "NO proving"!

EDIT /SWITCH

But this goes back to my initial statement that it depends on how you define exists.

Given the mathematical induction proofs, the standard definitions of the words exists, and infinity, it can be shown to exist.

Perhaps I'm missing some subtle way in which you are approaching this, but it seems fairly straightforward to me.

You do have me a little baffled at your use of words though, either it exists, or it doesn't, there is "NO proving"!

My right hand exists or it doesn't, but that doesn't keep me from proving it. You seem to be using the term exists as if it implicitly refers to objective reality, rather than (in this case) a conceptual construct, such as mathematics. If so, then I concede (and have already) that none of my arguments have been intended to reflect objective reality, with respect to infinities.

Profession of beliefs, as you use it, refers to things that cannot be known, via proof (if I get what you're saying), yet mathematical constructs are ideas delineated, with rules of interaction, which enable us to determine, thru the use of said rules, along with logic, if certain things are true or not. In this case, I cannot see anything but that it's been proven.

radagast

Jul15-03, 02:45 PM

Having read your post, I still fail to see your point on infinities and their existence.

First:
All of the thoughts in our heads are 'delineations of space', hence we can conclude that an 'undelineated space', a 'space without boundaries', is something that we cannot conceive of.

A) the above is a definition designed to prevent a specific conclusion, I'm sure it's an argument flaw, but don't have the time to look it up at the moment. To say that all the thoughts in our heads are 'delineations of space', is not something I would concede.

Disregarding that point -
B) This may be a matter of semantics, i.e. how you define conceive differing from mine, but I have had little problem in conceiving the Euclidean 'line', which is infinite. That my mind cannot completely encompass it's entire space doesn't mean I cannot conceive of a line.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Jul15-03, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by radagast
Having read your post, I still fail to see your point on infinities and their existence.

A) the above is a definition designed to prevent a specific conclusion, I'm sure it's an argument flaw, but don't have the time to look it up at the moment. To say that all the thoughts in our heads are 'delineations of space', is not something I would concede.

Disregarding that point -
B) This may be a matter of semantics, i.e. how you define conceive differing from mine, but I have had little problem in conceiving the Euclidean 'line', which is infinite. That my mind cannot completely encompass it's entire space doesn't mean I cannot conceive of a line.

Yes, and your concept of a line is a delineation of space, ergo "concievable"

And as per the Emboldened part of the quote of you, you sorta have that wrong it is designed to reach a specific conclusion that being the Proving of the fact of the in-conceivability of infinite.

EDIT /switch

radagast

Jul16-03, 08:40 AM

Yet I can conceive Euclidean line, which by definition is infinite.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Jul16-03, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by radagast
Yet I can conceive Euclidean line, which by definition is infinite.

Yes! in your imagination you can conceive of a Euclidian line, but as anyone who studies reality, by structures, knows that the 'straight' line is a misnomer, it is a series of POINTS, as all structures, in physics, at atomic levels, currently known, are spherical.

3D

Yes, and in your imagination you can fool yourself into thinking that it is infinite, but in the reality that physics studies, well, proving that one is admitted as impossible, soooo....

subtillioN

Jul16-03, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Yes! in your imagination you can conceive of a Euclidian line, but as anyone who studies reality, by structures, knows that the 'straight' line is a misnomer, it is a series of POINTS, as all structures, in physics, at atomic levels, currently known, are spherical.

3D

Yes, and in your imagination you can fool yourself into thinking that it is infinite, but in the reality that physics studies, well, proving that one is admitted as impossible, soooo....

I thought the point was clear that the mind was not infinite and thus could not contain an infinite thought.

The point is then can we logically understand (not replicate in the imagination) the concept of infinity.

There is a HUGE difference here that you keep getting confused about. In the understanding of infinity one must resort to logic NOT the PURE imagination that you keep refering to....and no logic is not infinite but that is beside the point. The point is that one can define a concept in such a way that it includes the concept of boundlessness. To do this it does not have to replicate this boundlessness within itself. The same way that you can concieve of a mountain without actually trying to fit it within your brain!!

Mr. Robin Parsons

Jul16-03, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN

(SNIP) one must resort to logic NOT the PURE imagination (SNoP)

Logic is of the ImagInatIon, inseperable.

Originally posted by subtillioN
(SNIP) The point is that one can define a concept in such a way that it includes the concept of boundlessness. (SNoP)

Not if 'one'concedes that all concepts are, inherently, "bounded" things, the only other manner is the typicono'graphic that is the word "Infinite" itself, but that word incapable of describing that which it attempts to tell of/describe. (fun eh?)

subtillioN

Jul16-03, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Logic is of[/b] the ImagInatIon, inseperable.

Logic is a symbolic representation. The PURE imagination is not.

There is your differentiation (not a seperation as nothing can be truely seperated from anything else).

Not if 'one'concedes that all concepts are, inherently, "bounded" things, the only other manner is the typicono'graphic that is the word "Infinite" itself, but that word incapable of describing that which it attempts to tell of/describe. (fun eh?)

ALL concepts are finite, that is a given.

By your reasoning then there is virtually nothing that we can truely understand because we cannot imagine the true complexity of ANY PHYSICAL THING whatsoever. The mind has to simplify everything via sensation, imagination, or logic.

radagast

Jul16-03, 03:58 PM

Mr. Robin Parsons

Jul17-03, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by radagast
(SNIP)By definition, points are zero dimentional. (SNoP) You are introducing the real world as if it were an aspect of the abstraction of Euclidean geometry (or vice versa).

17/07/2003

So you think that a point can be defined as “Zero Dimensions”, perhaps in (imaginary) mathematics, but not in reality, as reality defines a point as 'solid', having existence, "Being There", (sounds like the title of a movie doesn't it?) and "Zero Dimensions" is definitely NOT there.

A "Zero dimension point" is an oxymoron. (as anything other then an Imaginary item)

As I recall it, in Physics, we describe reality, that which "is".

It is respectfully suggested that you adhere to your own observation, which is easily seen as being that of your own self-perception, reflected off of me, and presented by you as......

Originally posted by radagast
(SNIP) This is logic flaw. (SNoP)

Then again, as you seem to have indicated your departure, this has no Point! (Pardons the pun!)

subtillioN

Jul17-03, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
17/07/2003

So you think that a point can be defined as “Zero Dimensions”, perhaps in (imaginary) mathematics, but not in reality, as reality defines a point as 'solid', having existence, "Being There", (sounds like the title of a movie doesn't it?) and "Zero Dimensions" is definitely NOT there.

A "Zero dimension point" is an oxymoron. (as anything other then an Imaginary item)

As I recall it, in Physics, we describe reality, that which "is".

EXACTLY!!! Mathematics is imaginary and not equivalent to reality. This deep confusion between mathematics and reality is the sickness of modern physics!!!

Infinity exists independently of mathematics and any logic system.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Jul17-03, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
Logic is a symbolic representation. The PURE imagination is not.
PURE imagination is a BLANK PAGE!

There is your differentiation (not a seperation as nothing can be truely seperated from anything else).

ALL concepts are finite, that is a given.

By your reasoning then there is virtually nothing that we can truely understand because we cannot imagine the true complexity of ANY PHYSICAL THING whatsoever. The mind has to simplify everything via sensation, imagination, or logic.

From whence in "My Reasoning" do you find what follows in your statement; "cannot imagine the true complexity of ANY PHYSICAL THING whatsoever" , where?? where in what I have said do you see that?? where??

In that "unascribed quotation" (of me!) I speak ONLY of the 'thing' "Infinity" and how we use a typicono'graphic to tag/name that which we realize we cannot conceive of.

Where do you find that thing about the inability to imagine anything of any true complexity?? where??

russ_watters

Jul17-03, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
that a point can be defined as “Zero Dimensions”, perhaps in (imaginary) mathematics, but not in reality, as reality defines a point as 'solid', having existence, "Being There", (sounds like the title of a movie doesn't it?) and "Zero Dimensions" is definitely NOT there.

A "Zero dimension point" is an oxymoron. (as anything other then an Imaginary item)

As I recall it, in Physics, we describe reality, that which "is". This is the first thing you learn in 8th grade geometry. A point is zero dimensional (ie, it has no length, width, or height), a line is one dimentional (it has length but no width or height), a shape such as a square is two dimensional (length and width but no height, and an object such as a box is three dimensional (length, width, and height).

It sounds like you two are mistaking the point itself being zero dimensional for its LOCATION being zero dimensional. Its location can be expressed in any amount of dimensions you wish depending on the situation (ie, points on a map are located two dimensionally, points in space three dimensionally).

EXACTLY!!! Mathematics is imaginary and not equivalent to reality. This deep confusion between mathematics and reality is the sickness of modern physics!!! Thats a separate and often controversial issue. Is that the root of your distaste for "standard" physics? That would explain an awful lot about where your misconceptions come from.

Virtually everything derived mathematically about physics has later been confirmed by observation to be physically real. This often leads to uncomfortable discoveries - black holes for example were a source of debate on this grounds until they were discovered (their existence was predicted through mathematical derivation long before HST found the first one). Much of quantum mechanics has had the same type of controversy though to my knowledge NOTHING implied by the math has yet to be found inconsistent with physical reality. Ie, nothing that has ever been predicted mathematically by QM has ever been found to be at odds with later experimentation. Even the uncomfortable implications.

subtillioN

Jul17-03, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
[B]PURE imagination is a BLANK PAGE!

No, PURE imagination is syntax independent. It's "symbols" are not part of a rigorous logic system.

From whence in "My Reasoning" do you find what follows in your statement; "cannot imagine the true complexity of ANY PHYSICAL THING whatsoever" , where?? where in what I have said do you see that?? where??

You are saying that since we cannot imagine the fullness of infinity then we cannot understand it whatsoever. The fact is that we cannot imagine the fullness of ANYTHING in this physical world, so by your logic we can't understand anything.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Jul17-03, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
This is the first thing you learn in 8th grade geometry. A point is zero dimensional (ie, it has no lenght, width, or height), a line is one dimentional (it has length but no width or height), a shape such as a square is two dimensional (length and width but no height, and an object such as a box is three dimensional (length, width, and height).

It sounds like you two are mistaking the point itself being zero dimensional for its LOCATION being zero dimensional. Its location can be expressed in any amount of dimensions you wish depending on the situation (ie, points on a map are located two dimensionally, points in space three dimensionally).

Yes russ in Imaginary realms things can be whatever you would like them to be, concepts in math are included in being things that can contain imaginary elements, but in this discourse we are supposed to be talking about REALITY, Hence tangiblity becomes a critical factor in whether, or not, what you talking about, is real, or not.

It seems that the point being missed is exactly that, the differentiation between what your imagination can do, and what reality does do! It should be noted that your imagination does "imaginary", reality DOES NOT!

EDIT SP!!??

subtillioN

Jul17-03, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
[B]This is the first thing you learn in 8th grade geometry. A point is zero dimensional (ie, it has no length, width, or height), a line is one dimentional (it has length but no width or height), a shape such as a square is two dimensional (length and width but no height, and an object such as a box is three dimensional (length, width, and height).

So we have a symbol system for quantifying reality.

It sounds like you two are mistaking the point itself being zero dimensional for its LOCATION being zero dimensional.

no such confusion here.

Thats a separate and often controversial issue. Is that the root of your distaste for "standard" physics? That would explain an awful lot about where your misconceptions come from.

No, the root of my distaste is that standard model is wrong at the core. This is only visible if you get outside the system and can see it from another comparable system. The reason we have resorted to pure mathematics as a causal description is that we have no other choice in the standard model. This is because the roots are faulty and they cannot be thrown out. Too much infrastructure and too painfull.

Virtually everything derived mathematically about physics has later been confirmed by observation to be physically real.

Nope. It is all just an interpretation of the data. There are other more coherent and comprehensive interpretations for which these things are "proof" as well.

This often leads to uncomfortable discoveries - black holes for example were a source of debate on this grounds until they were discovered (their existence was predicted through mathematical derivation long before HST found the first one).

They have not been discovered. They are used to fill in the holes of the standard model, LITERALLY!!!

Much of quantum mechanics has had the same type of controversy though to my knowledge NOTHING implied by the math has yet to be found inconsistent with physical reality.

It is constantly being retro-fitted to the surprising new data, how could it ever be proven wrong? The only way to supplant it is to show a simpler more coherent system, which already exists.

Ie, nothing that has ever been predicted mathematically by QM has ever been found to be at odds with later experimentation. Even the uncomfortable implications.

Yeah right. These constant suprises are simply dealt with in the standard manner of retro-fitting the theory to new contradictory data so that now it can "predict" them!!! An abuse of the term "predict' if you ask me!!

russ_watters

Jul17-03, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Yes russ in Imaginary realms things can be whatever you would like them to be, concepts in math are included in being things that can contain imaginary elements, but in this discourse we are supposed to be talking about REALITY, Hence tangiblity becomes a critical factor in whether, or not, what you talking about, is real, or not.

It seems that the point being missed is exactly that, the differentiation between what your imagination can do, and what reality does do! It should be noted that your imagination does "imaginary", reality DOES NOT! So then the fact that a square has length and width is a figment of my imagination?

Whoa.

Nevermind. There is no point (no pun intended) to continuing this discussion.

edit: One thing I must note, and I think its been addressed before, but you and Sub are using circular and arbitrary definitions. Ie, by definition A=B, therefore A=B. Then someone points out that either in the real world or by mathematical derivation, A does NOT equal B, you go back to your definition.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Jul17-03, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
(SNIP) So then the fact that a square has length and width is a figment of my imagination?

Whoa. (SNoP)

Just outa curiosity, just where, in what you quote from me, do you derive the idea that something tangible is now a figment of your imagination??

russ_watters

Jul17-03, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Just outa curiosity, just where, in what you quote from me, do you derive the idea that something tangible is now a figment of your imagination?? Ok, I guess you have sucked me in. Lets start with a clarification:

Does a square have a physically real length and width?

subtillioN

Jul17-03, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Ok, I guess you have sucked me in. Lets start with a clarification:

Does a square have a physically real length and width?

There is metrical extension and there is physical extension.

Is the square physical? Or is it a figment of your imagination?

Let's start with a physical cube instead. This cube has a real physical extension, which can be assigned an arbitrary set of dimensional values depending on the unit system employed. The dimensioning system is imaginary but the physical extension is real and independent of any dimensional system.

russ_watters

Jul17-03, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
There is metrical extension and there is physical extension.

Is the square physical? Or is it a figment of your imagination?

Let's start with a physical cube instead. This cube has a real physical extension, which can be assigned an arbitrary set of dimensional values depending on the unit system employed. The dimensioning system is imaginary but the physical extension is real and independent of any dimensional system. Ok, thats still not clear. Does the cube have 3 physically real dimensions or not?

You seem to be implying (whether or not MRP agrees, I'll leave up to him) that the dimensions exist only in my mind. So a cube does NOT have 3 real physical dimensions?

How then do you know that its a cube? Hell, how do you even know its real - that it even exists?

Hurkyl

Jul17-03, 06:58 PM

A more pressing question is how do we verify whether or not something has physical extension? What measurable properties does physical extension have?

subtillioN

Jul17-03, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Ok, thats still not clear. Does the cube have 3 physically real dimensions or not?

Dimensions are not physically real.

You seem to be implying (whether or not MRP agrees, I'll leave up to him) that the dimensions exist only in my mind. So a cube does NOT have 3 real physical dimensions?

exactly

How then do you know that its a cube? Hell, how do you even know its real - that it even exists? [/B]

I can see it. Do you have to measure something and categorize it to know it exists?

subtillioN

Jul17-03, 07:02 PM

chroot

Jul17-03, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
I can see it. Do you have to measure something and categorize it to know it exists?
You could know the thing exists; but you couldn't know what the thing was. You wouldn't know if it was a cube, square, gallon of milk, or Carmen Electra, if you (or your visual cortex, on behalf of you) weren't able to measure its properties.

- Warren

Hurkyl

Jul17-03, 07:14 PM

Everything real has physical extension. Depends on what it is and the measurement tools at our disposal.

How do we know if something is real? Unless we have a way to know if something is real, this does not provide a way to verify if it has physical extension.

What if the measurement tools are atomic clocks and light beams?

subtillioN

Jul17-03, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by chroot
You could know the thing exists; but you couldn't know what the thing was. You wouldn't know if it was a cube, square, gallon of milk, or Carmen Electra, if you (or your visual cortex, on behalf of you) weren't able to measure its properties.

- Warren

My eyes work just fine thank you

subtillioN

Jul17-03, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
How do we know if something is real? Unless we have a way to know if something is real, this does not provide a way to verify if it has physical extension.

What if the measurement tools are atomic clocks and light beams?

open your eyes

measurements simply contribute to our senses which are proof enough that something exists

chroot

Jul17-03, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
My eyes work just fine thank you
What does this response even mean?

- Warren

subtillioN

Jul17-03, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by chroot
What does this response even mean?

- Warren

"You wouldn't know if it was a cube, square, gallon of milk, or Carmen Electra, if you (or your visual cortex, on behalf of you) weren't able to measure its properties."

I think I would know if it was a cube or a square or a gallon of milk or carmen electra, whether or not I actually measured them.

Thus: "My eyes work just fine thank you"

russ_watters

Jul17-03, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
A more pressing question is how do we verify whether or not something has physical extension? What measurable properties does physical extension have? I was getting to that... but you seem to have picked up just about exactly where I left off. My eyes work just fine thank you I think I would know if it was a cube or a square or a gallon of milk or carmen electra, whether or not I actually measured them. Really? Based on what? How do you define a cube? How do you define Carmen Electra? If you don't measure the length of every side of the cube and find them to be exactly the same, how do you know it is a cube?

So basically we have established that you believe something can be physically real only if you can see it, even though seeing it doesn't allow you to exactly identify it (easy there, Descartes, not everyone agrees with him). Guess what, Sub - that means you aren't real. I can't see you. But The Matrix is real because I saw it! I guess this also means you don't love your mother then, right? Love isn't an object I can see.

But wait, just because you can see something, doesn't mean you know WHAT IT IS. Sammy Sosa's bats all look the same from the outside. So even seeing isn't believing!

Sub, the point of my forray into the dimensions debate is your philosophy of REALITY ITSELF is fatally flawed, and thats where your misunderstandings of science begin. A bunch of people have been arguing theories with you (chroot seems a little frustrated...) when your objection is so basic people don't even think about it - you don't understand the concept of REALITY itself.

subtillioN

Jul17-03, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
[B]Really? Based on what? How do you define a cube? How do you define Carmen Electra? If you don't measure the length of every side of the cube and find them to be exactly the same, how do you know it is a cube?

are you serious? A cube is quite easily recognizable. Do you mean to tell me that when you look at a cube you have to get out your measuring tape just to tell if it is a cube? [[ don't tell me that you are expecting to find a PERFECT cube in the wild! They don't physically exist! ]]

So basically we have established that you believe something can be physically real only if you can see it

You have made an incorrect assumption. I said that if we can see it then this proves that in some way this "thing" is physically real. I did not say that this is the only way that i can believe in the reality of something. Please don't put words or conclusions into my mouth. Try and pay attention to what is actually said.

[[ even a dream has a physical basis after-all ... right?? ]]

Guess what, Sub - that means you aren't real. I can't see you.

Oh, no. Here comes the epistemological banalities!!!

But The Matrix is real because I saw it! I guess this also means you don't love your mother then, right? Love isn't an object I can see.

...and there they go..... no further comments about these innane topics.

But wait, just because you can see something, doesn't mean you know WHAT IT IS.

This is OBVIOUS

Sub, the point of my forray into the dimensions debate is your philosophy of REALITY ITSELF is fatally flawed, and thats where your misunderstandings of science begin.

You do not know what my philosophy is. This is quite apparent.

A bunch of people have been arguing theories with you (chroot seems a little frustrated...) when your objection is so basic people don't even think about it - you don't understand the concept of REALITY itself.

Please tell me what reality is then.

Hurkyl

Jul18-03, 06:10 AM

So I ask again, how do I verify if something is real?

russ_watters

Jul18-03, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by subtillioN
[[ don't tell me that you are expecting to find a PERFECT cube in the wild! They don't physically exist! ]] Then there is no such thing as a cube? Wait, lets back up:A cube is quite easily recognizable. Do you mean to tell me that when you look at a cube you have to get out your measuring tape just to tell if it is a cube? According to whom? What to you may look like a cube to me may not - maybe I have better eyes. Maybe I'm looking at it from a different angle. Maybe according to me a cube is only a cube if its sides are exactly the same length (isn't that the definition?). "Perfect cube" is redundant. Maybe we are in the Matrix (Morpheus: "What is real? How do you define real...?" I'm sure you know the rest). Are you saying that reality is entirely subjective? It exists only in one's mind (of course, that would be a contradiction though)? You have made an incorrect assumption. I said that if we can see it then this proves that in some way this "thing" is physically real. I did not say that this is the only way that i can believe in the reality of something. Please don't put words or conclusions into my mouth. Try and pay attention to what is actually said. Ok, but you still have not said how you defne reality. If sight isn't the only way, how else? C'mon, tell us. Is there a QUANTATATIVE way to identify anything? Or is reality only identifiable QUALiTATIVELY (and by definition, subjectively)? even a dream has a physical basis after-all ... right?? As I understand them, dreams are entirely a construct of your mind.Oh, no. Here comes the epistemological banalities!!! No, sub. These are logical conclusions based on your flawed perception of reality. If my understanding of your perception is wrong, CLARIFY IT!! Tell me: how exactly do you define what is "real"? And along with that, how do you positively identify something. This is OBVIOUS [re: eyes can decieve you] But you said in the beginning of your post, you could identify a cube on sight. If you understand that seeing isn't always believing, isn't that a contradiction? You do not know what my philosophy is. This is quite apparent. Then TELL ME!!Please tell me what reality is then. No. I'm asking YOU how YOU define reality. My interpretation of your statements is that your definion of reality is wrong - so if you think your definition of reality is right, tell me what your definition of reality is. Explain it to me. Tell me where I have erred in my interpretation of your perception.

Incidentally, I think you can probably guess where I'm going with this. And that might be a reason for you to decline to clarify (or intentionally make your position LESS clear).

Mr. Robin Parsons

Jul18-03, 08:51 AM

Lets back up a little, russ you quoted me saying this;
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Yes russ in Imaginary realms things can be whatever you would like them to be, concepts in math are included in being things that can contain imaginary elements, but in this discourse we are supposed to be talking about REALITY, Hence tangiblity becomes a critical factor in whether, or not, what you talking about, is real, or not.

Then you said;
Originally posted by russ_watters
So then the fact that a square has length and width is a figment of my imagination?

The numbers themselves (as existent) or "imaginary elements" that are representative of a tangible reality, hence it is an application of imaginary overlay upon physical reality to facilitate imagining exterior, self evident (By concensus of opinion, prefferably) tangible reality.

The length and width are by no means a figment of imagination, event thought the numbers themselves are simply "imagined" representation.

Not all of the concepts in math are strictly imaginary, but the numbers, as thoughts, are 'sorta' imaginary, but used (and Highly usefull!) and accepted as being "imagined" upon/in reality, in an attempt to adequately describe it.

Does that help?

russ_watters

Jul18-03, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Lets back up a little...Does that help? Yes. That would appear to me to be about halfway in between what I believe and what Sub believes. But I'm still trying to get him to clarify as you have. I'll get back to you on how I disagree (or if I'm really good, I'll convince you of a slight inconsistency I see [;)]).

heusdens

Jul18-03, 09:07 AM

On the problem of infinity in space and time
From: Friedrich Enels, Anti-Duhring (1877)
Chapter V. Philosophy of Nature. Time and Space.

[...]

The problem itself has a very simple solution. Eternity in time, infinity in space, signify from the start, and in the simple meaning of the words, that there is no end in any direction neither forwards nor backwards, upwards or downwards, to the right or to the left. This infinity is something quite different from that of an infinite series, for the latter always starts from one, with a first term. The inapplicability of this idea of series to our object becomes clear directly we apply it to space. The infinite series, transferred to the sphere of space, is a line drawn from a definite point in a definite direction to infinity. Is the infinity of space expressed in this even in the remotest way? On the contrary, the idea of spatial dimensions involves six lines drawn from this one point in three opposite directions, and consequently we would have six of these dimensions. Kant saw this so clearly that he transferred his numerical series only indirectly, in a roundabout way, to the space relations of the world. Herr Dühring, on the other hand, compels us to accept six dimensions in space, and immediately afterwards can find no words to express his indignation at the mathematical mysticism of Gauss, who would not rest content with the usual three dimensions of space [37] {See D. Ph. 67-68}.

As applied to time, the line or series of units infinite in both directions has a certain figurative meaning. But if we think of time as a series counted from one forward, or as a line starting from a definite point, we imply in advance that time has a beginning: we put forward as a premise precisely what we are to prove. We give the infinity of time a one-sided, halved character; but a one-sided, halved infinity is also a contradiction in itself, the exact opposite of an "infinity conceived without contradiction". We can only get past this contradiction if we assume that the one from which we begin to count the series, the point from which we proceed to measure the line is any one in the series, that it is any one of the points in the line, and that it is a matter of indifference to the line or to the series where we place this one or this point.

But what of the contradiction of "the counted infinite numerical series"? We shall be in a position to examine this more closely as soon as Herr Dühring has performed for us the clever trick of counting it. When he has completed the task of counting from - = (minus infinity) to 0 let him come again. It is certainly obvious that, at whatever point he begins to count, he will leave behind him an infinite series and, with it, the task which he is to fulfil. Let him just reverse his own infinite series 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 ... and try to count from the infinite end back to 1; it would obviously only be attempted by a man who has not the faintest understanding of what the problem is. And again: if Herr Dühring states that the infinite series of elapsed time has been counted, he is thereby stating that time has a beginning; for otherwise he would not have been able to start "counting" at all. Once again, therefore, he puts into the argument, as a premise, the thing that he has to prove.

The idea of an infinite series which has been counted, in other words, the world-encompassing Dühringian law of definite number, is therefore a contradictio in adjecto ["contradiction in definition" -- ed.] contains within itself a contradiction, and in fact an absurd contradiction.

It is clear that an infinity which has an end but no beginning is neither more nor less infinite than that which has a beginning but no end. The slightest dialectical insight should have told Herr Dühring that beginning and end necessarily belong together, like the north pole and the south pole, and that if the end is left out, the beginning just becomes the end -- the one end which the series has; and vice versa. The whole deception would be impossible but for the mathematical usage of working with infinite series. Because in mathematics it is necessary to start from definite, finite terms in order to reach the indefinite, the infinite, all mathematical series, positive or negative, must start from 1, or they cannot be used for calculation. The abstract requirement of a mathematician is, however, far from being a compulsory law for the world of reality.

For that matter, Herr Dühring will never succeed in conceiving real infinity without contradiction. Infinity is a contradiction, and is full of contradictions. From the outset it is a contradiction that an infinity is composed of nothing but finites, and yet this is the case. The limitedness of the material world leads no less to contradictions than its unlimitedness, and every attempt to get over these contradictions leads, as we have seen, to new and worse contradictions. It is just because infinity is a contradiction that it is an infinite process, unrolling endlessly in time and in space. The removal of the contradiction would be the end of infinity. Hegel saw this quite correctly, and for that reason treated with well-merited contempt the gentlemen who subtilised over this contradiction.

[...]

subtillioN

Jul18-03, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
So I ask again, how do I verify if something is real?

sensation is the root of all measurement

russ_watters

Jul18-03, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by subtillioN
sensation is the root of all measurement So only something that can be percieved with the 5 senses is physically real? Is the corollary also true? If something is perceived with one or more of the five senses, does that make it real? And what does measurement have to do with this? Can (must?) what is physically real be expressed quantatatively? In the previous page you said you do NOT need to measure a cube to know its a cube.

Explain, please. The root of your displeasure with math and physics as structured around math seems to be that it doesn't adequately deal with physical reality. Please explain what physical reality is.

I've noticed your answers are getting shorter and shorter. I know I am asking difficult and leading questions, but they are important questions.

subtillioN

Jul18-03, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
[B]Then there is no such thing as a cube?

A perfect cube is an idealization. It cannot and does not truely exist because you cannot get an absolutely (infinitely) precise measurement to construct it with.

Wait, lets back up: According to whom? What to you may look like a cube to me may not - maybe I have better eyes.

All humans can recognize a cube when we see one. Come on is this really so difficult to understand?

Maybe I'm looking at it from a different angle. Maybe according to me a cube is only a cube if its sides are exactly the same length (isn't that the definition?).

It doesn't matter. We humans generally have fuzzy definitions that suffice. Also you can never have a REAL cube with ABSOLUTELY EXACT dimensions because there is no way of manufacturing one. Even with nanotechnology we are limited to the precision of atoms and thus when you zoom in you will find that there are no planes nor lines nor points making up your cube.

Mathematics deals with idealizations not absolute realities.

"Perfect cube" is redundant.

When I say cube (as in one existing in the wild) I don't mean one with absolute precision in its dimensions. Therefore I have to specify EXACTLY what I do mean because this is a source of confusion here because you ARE talking about a perfect cube and I am not.

Is a sugar cube not a cube?

Maybe we are in the Matrix (Morpheus: "What is real? How do you define real...?" I'm sure you know the rest). Are you saying that reality is entirely subjective? It exists only in one's mind (of course, that would be a contradiction though)? Ok, but you still have not said how you defne reality. If sight isn't the only way, how else? C'mon, tell us. Is there a QUANTATATIVE way to identify anything? Or is reality only identifiable QUALiTATIVELY (and by definition, subjectively)? As I understand them, dreams are entirely a construct of your mind.

So you believe in a spirit? Or do you believe that dreams are an effect of your brain?

An illusion is a subset of the real. To me the difference between the real and the illusory is in what they appear to be vs. what they actually are. If they appear to be something that they are not then they are an illusion. Illusions are entirely real of course otherwise they would not exist.

No, sub. These are logical conclusions based on your flawed perception of reality. If my understanding of your perception is wrong, CLARIFY IT!!

So my perception of reality is flawed yet you do not understand it?

Is everything that you do not understand, necessarily flawed? That is quite a limiting reaction to novelty!!! Good luck evolving.

Tell me: how exactly do you define what is "real"?

Something that exists. Existence has its roots in causality, of course.

And along with that, how do you positively identify something.

sensation....

But you said in the beginning of your post, you could identify a cube on sight. If you understand that seeing isn't always believing, isn't that a contradiction?

I never made a claim that my senses were perfect, but they are the root of all measurements and identifications. Think about it, could you identify or measure something without sensing it?

Then TELL ME!! No. I'm asking YOU how YOU define reality.

You TELL ME!!!!

My interpretation of your statements is that your definion of reality is wrong

Everything foreign to you is wrong....

Incidentally, I think you can probably guess where I'm going with this. And that might be a reason for you to decline to clarify (or intentionally make your position LESS clear).

yes, you feel a desperate need to prove me wrong so that you can safely ignore my claims that the standard model is wrong. I have seen it a million times before. Instead of being curious you are fearful and are compelled to prove to yourself that I am unqualified to make any true statements.

subtillioN

Jul18-03, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
[B]So only something that can be percieved with the 5 senses is physically real?

How many times do I have to deny this assumption for you to hear it?

Is the corollary also true? If something is perceived with one or more of the five senses, does that make it real?

In some sense, yes, provided you know the true nature of illusions.

And what does measurement have to do with this? Can (must?) what is physically real be expressed quantatatively?

It can but it does not have to be.

The root of your displeasure with math and physics as structured around math seems to be that it doesn't adequately deal with physical reality.

That is not the root of my "displeasure". The root, as I have already told you is that it is incorrect. This root error prevents it from acheiving an actual understanding of the causality beneath the empty equations which DO adequately describe the relationships and ratios of physical reality.

I've noticed your answers are getting shorter and shorter. I know I am asking difficult and leading questions, but they are important questions.

lol, yes groping for some semblance of order. Did you run some calculations on your statistics to find my state of mind? [zz)]

subtillioN

Jul18-03, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by heusdens
[b]On the problem of infinity in space and time
From: Friedrich Enels, Anti-Duhring (1877)
Chapter V. Philosophy of Nature. Time and Space.

[...]

For that matter, Herr Dühring will never succeed in conceiving real infinity without contradiction. Infinity is a contradiction, and is full of contradictions. From the outset it is a contradiction that an infinity is composed of nothing but finites, and yet this is the case.

[...]

The solution is that the finite is composed of divisions of the infinite and continuous!! Not that the infinite is composed out of multiplications of the finite. If you start with infinity there is no reason that it cannot be divided, but if you start with the finite there is no way you can ever reach infinity.

"Multiplication through division " as Buckminster Fuller says.

Thank you heusdens for that fascinating material!!

chroot

Jul18-03, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
A perfect cube is an idealization. It cannot and does not truely exist because you cannot get an absolutely (infinitely) precise measurement to construct it with.
You're getting too caught up with the 'absolutely exactly' notion. We're not requiring perfect cubes here. Even shoddy cubes made out of silly-putty will do.
All humans can recognize a cube when we see one. Come on is this really so difficult to understand?
It is in fact extremely difficult to understand -- ask any cognitive scientist, or any computer scientist working in machine vision. The task of going from an array of pixels to a perception of a cube (versus a perception of, say, Carmen Electra) is enormously complex. I have no clue why you seem to think it's trivial.

The point I've made is simple: your brain (automatically) measures the dimensions of the things you look at. Your brain immediately recognizes that the silly-putty object has three dimensions that are (roughly) the same, and tags the object as a (shoddy) cube. Were it not for dimensions, and your brain's ability to measure along them, you would be not capable of discerning a cube from Carmen Electra. Perception requires measurement.

- Warren

russ_watters

Jul18-03, 12:16 PM

Ok, from your posts, I'm going to construct what your definition of reality appears to be. Please correct anything that doesn't fit with your actual beliefs.
Originally posted by subtillioN
A perfect cube is an idealization. It cannot and does not truely exist because you cannot get an absolutely (infinitely) precise measurement to construct it with. So there is no such thing as a cube. From this it follows that NO object can be positively identified. And: All humans can recognize a cube when we see one. Come on is this really so difficult to understand? Ok, so from this and the first quote, what we have here is Rule #1 of your definition of reality.

1. Reality is entirely subjective (corollary, there is no such thing as objective reality).

We humans generally have fuzzy definitions that suffice. Also you can never have a REAL cube with ABSOLUTELY EXACT dimensions because there is no way of manufacturing one. Even with nanotechnology we are limited to the precision of atoms and thus when you zoom in you will find that there are no planes nor lines nor points making up your cube. Fine. This builds on rule number 1 and from it you get rule number 2.

2. Definitions are subjective.

Which follows number 3:

3. Reality is undefinable.

When I say cube (as in one existing in the wild) I don't mean one with absolute precision in its dimensions. Therefore I have to specify EXACTLY what I do mean because this is a source of confusion here because you ARE talking about a perfect cube and I am not.

Is a sugar cube not a cube? Well following what you said above, a cube is a cube if you say its a cube and its not a cube if I say its not a cube. Its entirely subjective. And from this we get 4:

4. Reality exists only as perceptions in the mind of the beholder.

I'll let go for now the obvious implication of all of this that if there is no such thing as length, width, or height, there is really no such thing as physical reality.
So you believe in a spirit? Or do you believe that dreams are an effect of your brain? It has nothing to do with a spirit. A dream is not something that can be detected by your five senses. Whatever its cause, it exists entirely in your own mind. Then again, that would seem to fit with #4 - it exists in your mind and that makes it real? So my perception of reality is flawed yet you do not understand it?

Is everything that you do not understand, necessarily flawed? That is quite a limiting reaction to novelty!!! Good luck evolving. I said that if I am wrong, clarify it. Please do. So far all of your (limited) clarifications have reinforced the perception. This is one of the main differences between you and me (and maybe this is why we are having trouble here). I WANT to understand your opinion. I WANT you to clarify and teach me what you believe. You have stated repeatedly that you do NOT want to understand the alternatives (Relativity for example) to your beliefs. [re: what is real?] Something that exists. Thats a circular arguement using synonyms - something exists because it is real and something is real because it exists. How do you know something exists? (yeah, yeah, because its real - tell me WHY). Existence has its roots in causality, of course. Interesting. Could you expand on that?

I never made a claim that my senses were perfect, but they are the root of all measurements and identifications. Think about it, could you identify or measure something without sensing it? What's this about measurements again...? I thought measurements weren't real. Please clarify. You TELL ME!!!! Please. You have to give the quid to get the pro quo. I asked you a question (with several clarifications) and I'd like an answer.
Everything foreign to you is wrong.... Not even close. yes, you feel a desperate need to prove me wrong so that you can safely ignore my claims that the standard model is wrong. I have seen it a million times before. Instead of being curious you are fearful and are compelled to prove to yourself that I am unqualified to make any true statements. I would hardly say I am ignoring you or your claims. I am curious. I am asking direct questions intended to clarify your position and you are not answering them. How many times do I have to deny this assumption for you to hear it? [re: So only something that can be percieved with the 5 senses is physically real?] But:sensation is the root of all measurement [re: So I ask again, how do I verify if something is real? Isn't that a contradiction? How about this: Can you give me an example of something that cannot be sensed in any way, but is real? In some sense, yes, provided you know the true nature of illusions. [re:Is the corollary also true? If something is perceived with one or more of the five senses, does that make it real? ] Can we know the true nature of all illusions?

Sub, the implications of the things you have posted here are staggering. It really does follow from the things that you said that there is no such thing as objective reality - reality is simply a construct of your mind. The Matrix.

edit: multiple screwed up quotes

subtillioN

Jul18-03, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by chroot
You're getting too caught up with the 'absolutely exactly' notion. We're not requiring perfect cubes here. Even shoddy cubes made out of silly-putty will do.

It is Russ that requires infinite precision before he can even see one. I said that I can recognize a cube when I see one and Russ said that one must measure it in order to see it.

I thought it would be obvious that I agree with you that "Even shoddy cubes made out of silly-putty (or sugar) will do".

It is in fact extremely difficult to understand -- ask any cognitive scientist, or any computer scientist working in machine vision. The task of going from an array of pixels to a perception of a cube (versus a perception of, say, Carmen Electra) is enormously complex. I have no clue why you seem to think it's trivial.

Again you make a faulty assumption. Complexity is relative, and I never said the process of vision was trivial.

The point I've made is simple: your brain (automatically) measures the dimensions of the things you look at.

That is quite a stretch. Can you extract from this measurement the values of these dimensions? Sensation is a fuzzy type of measurement and I don't really categorize it as such, but if you wish we can think of it this way.

Your brain immediately recognizes that the silly-putty object has three dimensions that are (roughly) the same, and tags the object as a (shoddy) cube.

No. My sensation of sight works on pattern recognition, not dimensional measurement and logical deduction.

Were it not for dimensions, and your brain's ability to measure along them, you would be not capable of discerning a cube from Carmen Electra.

Not true as pointed out above.

Perception requires measurement.

Well I think you have it a bit inverted.

chroot

Jul18-03, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
No. My sensation of sight works on pattern recognition, not dimensional measurement and logical deduction.
What patterns is your brain recognizing? Be specific.

- Warren

subtillioN

Jul18-03, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
[B]
So there is no such thing as a cube.

False assumption. Cubes exist all over the place. They just are not perfect in their physical ratios and they are not made out of mathematical points, lines or planes.

Note that there are two types of cube in operation here. There is the mathematical cube and the physical one. One is an idealization based in precise rules of mathematics and the other is a physical one made imprecisely out of matter.

From this it follows that NO object can be positively identified.

False. I make positive idntifications all the time, but no identification is absolutely infallible.

And: Well following what you said above, a cube is a cube if you say its a cube and its not a cube if I say its not a cube. Its entirely subjective. And from this we get 4:

We all know what a cube really is, right?

4. Reality exists only as perceptions in the mind of the beholder.

Where are you getting this stuff from? That is precisely OPPOSITE of my beliefs.

"Reality exists [not] only as perceptions in the mind of the beholder."

I'll let go for now the obvious implication of all of this that if there is no such thing as length, width, or height, there is really no such thing as physical reality.

I did not claim that there is no such thing as length, width, or height. I am saying that there is physical extension and there is mathematical quantification of this extension. The two are not equivalent.

It has nothing to do with a spirit. A dream is not something that can be detected by your five senses.

Can you not see, hear, smell, touch and feel a dream? Can you not do the same with a dreaming brain?

Whatever its cause, it exists entirely in your own mind.

Whatever its cause? This means that it physically exists.

Then again, that would seem to fit with #4 - it exists in your mind and that makes it real?

Yes a dream is real, but it is also an illusion.

I said that if I am wrong, clarify it. Please do.

I am certainly trying!!

This is one of the main differences between you and me (and maybe this is why we are having trouble here). I WANT to understand your opinion. I WANT you to clarify and teach me what you believe. You have stated repeatedly that you do NOT want to understand the alternatives (Relativity for example) to your beliefs.

I am a physics student btw. I AM learning the alternatives and HAVE learned MANY of them already.

Thats a circular arguement using synonyms - something exists because it is real and something is real because it exists.

It is not an argument. It is a description of the relation of the terms. Reality is that which exists and that which pertains to causation.

How do you know something exists? (yeah, yeah, because its real - tell me WHY). Interesting. Could you expand on that?

Knowledge is relative and it is rooted in sensation.

I thought measurements weren't real.

I did not say they were not real. I said they have their reality in the mind. You can not find a dimension outside the mind. Even if you write it on paper it is meaningless and non-operational without the mind.

Can you give me an example of something that cannot be sensed in any way, but is real?

We can only sense a minute portion of reality. I have no doubt that the atoms of the mountain out my window are real. I could go on for hours listing things.

Can we know the true nature of all illusions?

It is simple. An illusion is a reality that looks like something that it is not.

Sub, the implications of the things you have posted here are staggering. It really does follow from the things that you said that there is no such thing as objective reality - reality is simply a construct of your mind. The Matrix.

That is a consequence of your interpretations of what I am saying. What I actually believe is EXACTLY the opposite.

subtillioN

Jul18-03, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by chroot
What patterns is your brain recognizing? Be specific.

- Warren

The patterns on my retina, whatever they happen to be.

chroot

Jul18-03, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by subtillioN
The patterns on my retina, whatever they happen to be.
And how exactly does your brain perform this pattern recognition?

Be specific.

- Warren

subtillioN

Jul18-03, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by chroot
And how exactly does your brain perform this pattern recognition?

Be specific.

Go read a CogSci book for the details... or get to the point.

russ_watters

Jul18-03, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by chroot
You're getting too caught up with the 'absolutely exactly' notion. We're not requiring perfect cubes here. Even shoddy cubes made out of silly-putty will do. I was harping on it because of the second part of your post. I am perfectly fine with defining a cube loosely IN CERTAIN CONTEXTS. If we can agree on a loose definition for a certain context, its simple. Its when you try to define something precisely (aka scientifically) when it gets complex. Thats part of my main point. Reality CANNOT be subjective for that reason. Again you make a faulty assumption. Complexity is relative, and I never said the process of vision was trivial. Related to above, Sub: how complex do we need to be? How specific do our definitions need to be?We all know what a cube really is, right?Certainly. We have established that its whatever a person THINKS it is but at the same time it is an object with six equal length sides and right angles. And that of course is contradictory. But wait, didn't you say: ...you can never have a REAL cube... Hmm... That is quite a stretch. Can you extract from this measurement the values of these dimensions? Sensation is a fuzzy type of measurement and I don't really categorize it as such, but if you wish we can think of it this way. Be careful - you might accidentally invoke some math there. The patterns on my retina, whatever they happen to be. [re: what patterns does your brain recognize?] But what do these patterns mean in physical reality. For example, you may recognize that Carmen Electra has large breasts, right? What would you base that on? Compared to what? Dimensions!! Measurements!! Your brain recognizes patterns by comparing shapes to each other. Shooting a basketball is the same way - you start by estimating (even subconcsiously) the distance to the net. From imprecise measurements, it can attain highly advanced pattern recognition and motion control. Cubes exist all over the place. They just are not perfect in their physical ratios and they are not made out of mathematical points, lines or planes. Then by definition, they are not cubes. They are objects that are according to subjective pattern recognition, similar to cubes. Note that there are two types of cube in operation here. There is the mathematical cube and the physical one. One is an idealization based in precise rules of mathematics and the other is a physical one made imprecisely out of matter. The definition of a cube does not differentiate. False. I make positive idntifications all the time, but no identification is absolutely infallible. [re: no object can be positively identified] That is an exact contradiction. Positively fallible. I did not claim that there is no such thing as length, width, or height. I am saying that there is physical extension and there is mathematical quantification of this extension. The two are not equivalent. Ok, says who? The people who invented math say the number on the page IS a quantification of a physical reality. And by the way, if there is a physically real length, width, and height, what do you call their intersection? [;)] Where are you getting this stuff from? That is precisely OPPOSITE of my beliefs. [re: reality exists only as the perceptions in the mind of the beholder] See your definition of a physical cube. If a cube is something that can only be "idealized" by each individual person in their own mind (regardless of whether people agree or disagree with the definition) then reality is a construct of your mind. Can you not see, hear, smell, touch and feel a dream? No. You can't. When you are dreaming, you THINK you can, but in fact your sensory organs are not functioning. Again - you are saying that reality is a construct of your imagination. Well, maybe Descartes is feeling better now... "I think therefore I am"... and nothing exists unless I think it. I am a physics student btw. I AM learning the alternatives and HAVE learned MANY of them already. And yet you have stated you have no intention of learning Relativity. Strange. Whatever its cause? This means that it physically exists. [re:...it exists entirely in your own mind.] Again, I have demonstrated that just because something exists in your mind, doesn't mean it has a physical extension and vice versa. And hey, wait - thats what you said about math!! Yes a dream is real, but it is also an illusion. That I may need to put into my sig: illusion=reality. It is not an argument. It is a description of the relation of the terms. Reality is that which exists and that which pertains to causation. [re: real vs exists] Cause=effect=cause=effect=cause=effect.... It is most certainly circular. If not a circular arguement then a circular definition/description. An illusion is a reality that looks like something that it is not. That's not what I asked. I asked can we KNOW? Are you implying that it doesn't matter if we know or not? What I actually believe is EXACTLY the opposite. What you believe appears to be circular, self-contradictory, and self-reinforcing.

subtillioN

Jul18-03, 02:14 PM

Thats part of my main point. Reality CANNOT be subjective for that reason.

My view is heirarchical. Reality is at root objective. Within this objective reality there exists the sub-set of subjective reality in which the concepts of man reside. These concepts include the very usefull tool of mathematics and dimensional analysis.

Related to above, Sub: how complex do we need to be?

Depends on what we are trying to achieve.

How specific do our definitions need to be?

Specific enough that we can communicate effectively.

------------
We all know what a cube really is, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Certainly. We have established that its whatever a person THINKS it is

No. It is a societally established construct. We have a COMMON notion of a cube, otherwise we cannot talk about it.

but at the same time it is an object with six equal length sides and right angles.

approximately equal

And that of course is contradictory. But wait, didn't you say:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...you can never have a REAL cube...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm...

Yes, but I was talking about the prefect cube of mathematics because this is what you were fixated upon.

---------
The patterns on my retina, whatever they happen to be. [re: what patterns does your brain recognize?]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But what do these patterns mean in physical reality. For example, you may recognize that Carmen Electra has large breasts, right? What would you base that on? Compared to what? Dimensions!! Measurements!!

How did you know that I have an excessive complusion to measure breasts!!!! Yes, I am always whipping out my measuring tape and measuring the breasts of the beautiful women that walk by, just so that I can compare them in my exclusively quantitative and dimensional mind.

Your brain recognizes patterns by comparing shapes to each other. Shooting a basketball is the same way - you start by estimating (even subconcsiously) the distance to the net. From imprecise measurements, it can attain highly advanced pattern recognition and motion control.

These "measurements" are not what we familiarly understand by measurements. They are actually a complex process of pattern recognition of our neural networks. I make a distinction because we do not inherently come up with a number in such sensations. If you want to consider this a measurement process then go ahead but it is quite different from the dimensions used in Physics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cubes exist all over the place. They just are not perfect in their physical ratios and they are not made out of mathematical points, lines or planes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then by definition, they are not cubes. They are objects that are according to subjective pattern recognition, similar to cubes.

You said it not me. This is mere quibling over definitions...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that there are two types of cube in operation here. There is the mathematical cube and the physical one. One is an idealization based in precise rules of mathematics and the other is a physical one made imprecisely out of matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The definition of a cube does not differentiate.

sure it does. I just made this differentiation explicit.

That is an exact contradiction. Positively fallible.

Ok then we can make no positive identifications and must deal with approximate ones. Note that an identification only happens in the mind. Real objects do not have lables inherently attached to them...

Note: I simply have a different, non-absolute definition of "positive identification". If an effective, yet fallible, definition of identification is good enough for science then it is good enough for me.

Ok, says who?

me

The people who invented math say the number on the page IS a quantification of a physical reality.

ok so what?

And by the way, if there is a physically real length, width, and height, what do you call their intersection?

There is no intersection. Those dimensions are quantifications of the physical extension. We are getting confused in improperly stated definitions here.

See your definition of a physical cube. If a cube is something that can only be "idealized" by each individual person in their own mind (regardless of whether people agree or disagree with the definition) then reality is a construct of your mind.

Again, where are you getting this stuff from? You have misunderstood my definitions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you not see, hear, smell, touch and feel a dream?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. You can't. When you are dreaming, you THINK you can, but in fact your sensory organs are not functioning. Again - you are saying that reality is a construct of your imagination. Well, maybe Descartes is feeling better now... "I think therefore I am"... and nothing exists unless I think it.

You are getting lost in inexplicit details of definitions. You are assuming things that lead to false conclusions... oh well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a physics student btw. I AM learning the alternatives and HAVE learned MANY of them already.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yet you have stated you have no intention of learning Relativity. Strange.

I know it enough to know that I do not need to learn it in any more detail in order to understand physical reality. Big Deal. You don't understand how or why I can make such a conclusion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever its cause? This means that it physically exists. [re:...it exists entirely in your own mind.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I have demonstrated that just because something exists in your mind, doesn't mean it has a physical extension and vice versa.

Mental illusions do have their existence in a physically real and extended process.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes a dream is real, but it is also an illusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That I may need to put into my sig: illusion=reality.

And thus again you misunderstand what i am talking about.

Do you think an illusion does not physically exist? How could we see it if it did not exist?

Cause=effect=cause=effect=cause=effect.... It is most certainly circular. If not a circular arguement then a circular definition/description.

It is a chain that cannot be broken. I would love to see you try BTW

What you believe appears to be circular, self-contradictory, and self-reinforcing.

Note the key word here "appears".

Mr. Robin Parsons

Jul18-03, 03:45 PM

Just jumping back in to try to establish some reality again....

Originally posted by subtillioN
We all know what a cube really is, right?

YES! in physical reality it is a collection of SPHERES that, when assempled into a shape appear as a "six (roughly equally) sided, 'square' object".

You guys, well I hope you are enjoying yourselves at least, but WOW have you ever gone a ways off from <Infinity> the subject at hand.

Anyways.............

(AKA-WHATEVER!)

subtillioN

Jul18-03, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
You guys, well I hope you are enjoying yourselves at least, but WOW have you ever gone a ways off from <Infinity> the subject at hand.

Yes deep into the realm of mis-communication!!!

[g)]

[:D]

Phobos

Jul18-03, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
You guys, well I hope you are enjoying yourselves at least, but WOW have you ever gone a ways off from <Infinity> the subject at hand.

Exactly.
**booting this mess to the Philo. forum**

russ_watters

Jul18-03, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Phobos
Exactly.
**booting this mess to the Philo. forum** Mission accomplished. [:D]

Hurkyl

Jul18-03, 06:42 PM

Can something I have sensed not be real?

How do I distinguish between reality and illusion?

Do real things have properties? If so, how do I know what they are?

subtillioN

Jul18-03, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Can something I have sensed not be real?

It must be real, but it is not always apparent what its true nature is, i.e. it may be an illusion.

How do I distinguish between reality and illusion?

Depends on the nature of the illusion.

Do real things have properties? If so, how do I know what they are?

Yes. They are causal, i.e. they consist of matter in motion. NOTE: This is based in Sorce Theory in which EVERYTHING is made of matter in motion. In the Standard Model they could be made of energy (whateverthatmeans) or they could even be vacuum fluctuations, i.e. virtual particles, etc. [made of mathematics not causality]

Hurkyl

Jul18-03, 07:17 PM

Depends on the nature of the illusion.

That was quite informative. Examples would be nice. A general approach would be better.

Yes. They are causal, i.e. they consist of matter in motion.

An awfully strange definition of "casual"; how does it relate to cause and effect?

What is matter? What is motion? How do I identify what matter is? How do I identify matter is moving? How would one go about distinguishing between matter in motion and an illusion? What about matter not in motion?

Is your meaning of "casual" limited only to being a set of moving matter?

subtillioN

Jul18-03, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
[B]That was quite informative. Examples would be nice. A general approach would be better.

In the case of a dream, for instance, there is a different quality about it. In mine things never maintain a consistent identity and thus they keep changing into other things when I am not looking.

In the matrix there are glitches, etc.

An awfully strange definition of "casual"; how does it relate to cause and effect?

It is quite complex. A disequilibrium of matter tends to equalize at a constant speed c per unit density. Causality is based in the constant attempt of matter to equalize its density disturbances and it is in fluid motion.

Cause and effect are the twin halves on an imaginary time-line of this tendency for equilibrium.

What is matter?

As distinguishable from atomic matter, it is a continuous compressible fluid-dynamic substance.

What is motion?

A change of place from any "here" to any "there". Both matter and pressure can move.

How do I identify what matter is?

You don't need to. Everything is made out of matter.

How do I identify matter is moving?

Various ways all of which involve sensation of a motion relative to something else.

How would one go about distinguishing between matter in motion and an illusion?

An illusion is made out of matter in motion.

What about matter not in motion?

There is no such thing. Only patterns of matter in motion can remain relatively stationary at specific scales. At deeper scales it is found that matter is in motion with equilibrating wave systems moving at c.

Is your meaning of "casual" limited only to being a set of moving matter?

causality is a continuum of matter in motion, yes. This matter in motion consists of both fluid motion and the motion of pressure systems (waves).

Hurkyl

Jul18-03, 08:48 PM

Some more interesting examples of distinguishing illusions would be nice. What about optical "illusions" and magic tricks of various sorts? What about the "illusion" of stillness?

(I put "illusion" in quotes because it's unclear that the way I am using illusion coincides with your meaning of the term)

On another topic, what are sufficient ways to verify something is real besides sensing them?

It is quite complex. A disequilibrium of matter tends to equalize at a constant speed c per unit density. Causality is based in the constant attempt of matter to equalize its density disturbances and it is in fluid motion.

Cause and effect are the twin halves on an imaginary time-line of this tendency for equilibrium.

Woah, slow down! Going from touchy-feely sensation to this is an awfully big leap! We certainly have not progressed far enough in this semi-rigorous treatment of your beliefs to try and digest a statement like this. (Besides, another round of me telling you that this is syntactically gibberish and you telling me I'm in a mental box would be fruitless)

In any case, from your response, it seems that the meaning "motion of matter" does indeed have nothing to do with the meaning of "cause and effect" and you are trying to explain why there is an "illusion" of cause and effect. Correct?

As distinguishable from atomic matter, it is a continuous compressible fluid-dynamic substance.

Are there two types of matter now? Atomic and ...fluid-dynamic...? Is it time to try to explain what you mean by these phrase? I think we should still stick to fully fleshing out the basics of knowledge according to you at this point.

A change of place from any "here" to any "there". Both matter and pressure can move.

So there is some concept of place. Are places real? There is some concept of change; does that imply a concept of time, and is time real?

Is pressure matter?

You don't need to. Everything is made out of matter.

So everything real is made out of matter, and everything made out of matter is real? This brings us no closer to being able to identify just what is real, but it's good to have performed this identification.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Jul18-03, 08:54 PM

Ahem** Isn't there supposed to be a distinguishment between the waking mind and the sleeping mind, in there observation of reality, respecting illusion, and Non illusion of/in nature.

The idea that there is 'no boundary' in perception crossed, therein, is kinda silly.

Further, in the Sciences it is a volontary agreement to described observance of accepted physical (measurable, hence mathematical in nature, as a 'seconding of opinion') propeties of space in Universality.

So, off ya goes........

subtillioN

Jul18-03, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
[B]Some more interesting examples of distinguishing illusions would be nice. What about optical "illusions" and magic tricks of various sorts? What about the "illusion" of stillness?[quote]

Perceptions are specialized and easily tricked.

[quite]On another topic, what are sufficient ways to verify something is real besides sensing them?

Everything is real. Non-real things do not exist, by definition. Sensation is the root of all mental contact with reality. From there we can build artificial senses (atomic force microscopes etc.) and logic systems to understand aspects of the causality of the system.

In any case, from your response, it seems that the meaning "motion of matter" does indeed have nothing to do with the meaning of "cause and effect" and you are trying to explain why there is an "illusion" of cause and effect. Correct?

In a sense that is correct, but only in the sense of the difference in the root-level causality and the macro-scale manifestation of causality. When I say "matter in motion" there is a tendency to imagine a kinetic-atomic model of atoms (or objects) bouncing around in a void. This is not what I mean. I am talking about matter as a compressible fluid-dynamic frictionless continuum--in turbulent motion, compressing, rotating etc.

Are there two types of matter now? Atomic and ...fluid-dynamic...?

Root-level matter is the continuum mentioned above and atomic matter is formed by a circle of cause and effect--venturi-stabilized rotational compression->increasing torque->increasing venturi effect etc. until a pressurized equilibrium is reached in which the structure is an intensely steep density gradient of raw matter-- an atom. There are harmonic wave-equilibration processes which quantize this gradient into a series of shells in the Schrodinger electron density pattern (seen in Bodes Law as well).

So there is some concept of place. Are places real? There is some concept of change; does that imply a concept of time, and is time real?

Matter is extended and this extension is real. "places" are real therefore as well.

Is pressure matter?

Yes, in raw matter they are unequilibrated density deviations...either positive or negative (also known as charge).

So everything real is made out of matter, and everything made out of matter is real? This brings us no closer to being able to identify just what is real, but it's good to have performed this identification.

Yes. Everything that exists is real. [:D]
Of everything that exists, that which looks like something else, is an illusion.

heusdens

Jul19-03, 10:14 AM

The Fundamental Question (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3703)

Which reasons about the question "Why is there something instead of nothing" and which concludes that there must have been something apart, outside and independend of consciousness, that has existed always.

Hurkyl

Jul19-03, 11:22 AM

Perceptions are specialized and easily tricked.

Recall that I was talking about recognizing illusions; how do we discover if our perceptions have been tricked?

Everything is real.

If A is an illusion that looks like B, it seems clear by your terminology that the illusion of B is real... but is B real?

Is curved space real?

Is there anything that satisfies the proposition "X is not real"?

From there we can build artificial senses (atomic force microscopes etc.) and logic systems to understand aspects of the causality of the system.

So theory and experiment may, indeed, suffice as replacements for direct sensation. Allow me to set this idea on the back burner a bit before we go into depth how this may be done.

But allow me ask one question; if it takes much more than a "yes" or "no" answer, we can defer it until later... is it ever acceptable to trust these artifical senses and logic systems when they contradict our senses?

For example, in the famous optical illusion of circles surrounded by circles, is it acceptable to trust the ruler (and implicitly the theory that rulers are good measuring devices) when it says they are the same size, despite my vision telling me otherwise?

When I say "matter in motion" there is a tendency to imagine a kinetic-atomic model of atoms (or objects) bouncing around in a void. This is not what I mean. I am talking about matter as a compressible fluid-dynamic frictionless continuum--in turbulent motion, compressing, rotating etc.

I'm avoiding ascribing any physical idea to "matter in motion" at this time, for the purposes of this discussion. I'm talking neither about bouncing balls nor flowing fluids; I'm trying to develop an acceptable framework of discovery which we can use to make this discovery. Might "time evolution" be an acceptable synonym for "cause and effect"?

Root-level matter is the continuum mentioned above and atomic matter is formed by ...

To avoid fixing the discussion to any one theory (and to better follow the flow of the discussion so far as to determining what is an acceptable way to understand the universe), would it suffice it to say that you are using the term "matter" both for "root-level matter" (which is, in some sense, fundamental) and for observable patterns of that root-level matter?

Matter is extended and this extension is real. "places" are real therefore as well.

Is there any way we could deduce this conclusion from observation, or must we accept it as an axiom for this discussion? And would the term "point" be an acceptable synonym for "place", in the sense we can say that the universe is "made" of points, and matter extends through these points? By "made" of points, that just means that all extensions of matter can be described by the points through which it extends.

Yes, in raw matter they are unequilibrated density deviations...either positive or negative (also known as charge).

This is in accordance with my previous comment on the term "matter" correct; pressure is not fundamental matter, but an observable pattern in root-level matter. Allow us to hold off on more precise meanings of pressure.

heusdens

Jul19-03, 01:33 PM

If 'X' were defined as a consciouss actor outside of space time and matter, I would say then that 'X is not real'.

sir Mojo Loren

Jul23-03, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by heusdens
If 'X' were defined as a consciouss actor outside of space time and matter, I would say then that 'X is not real'.

Excellent definition. "Outside of space time and matter" could be simplified to "outside causality", however.

sir Mojo Loren

Jul23-03, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
[B]Recall that I was talking about recognizing illusions; how do we discover if our perceptions have been tricked?

hmmm.... let me take a crack at it.

you have to develop tricks of your own to trick the tricks!

If A is an illusion that looks like B, it seems clear by your terminology that the illusion of B is real... but is B real?

everything is real

Is curved space real?

Yes "curved space" is a real map of a real field whose essense is really unknown by modern physics.

Is there anything that satisfies the proposition "X is not real"?

It depends on your definition of "real". The definitions of these terms are not very well specified so we unconsciously blurr the distinctions.

So theory and experiment may, indeed, suffice as replacements for direct sensation. Allow me to set this idea on the back burner a bit before we go into depth how this may be done.

Yes, but mathematics is not a substitute for causality.

But allow me ask one question; if it takes much more than a "yes" or "no" answer, we can defer it until later... is it ever acceptable to trust these artifical senses and logic systems when they contradict our senses?

Artificial senses ARE senses. If the senses contradict each other then one must understand the nature of this contradiction before one can trust the senses.

Logic is beyond sensation. It is an artificial, symbolic causality. If it contradicts our experiential understanding of causality, then that is another story and the answer is emphatically "NO". If we abandon causality then there is no way to maintain contact with reality. Our constructions will wander off into a fantasy land with no restrictions as to a deeper physical order.

For example, in the famous optical illusion of circles surrounded by circles, is it acceptable to trust the ruler (and implicitly the theory that rulers are good measuring devices) when it says they are the same size, despite my vision telling me otherwise?

Of course. The real relations are simply mis-interpreted by the specialized mechanisms of the brain.

I'm avoiding ascribing any physical idea to "matter in motion" at this time, for the purposes of this discussion. I'm talking neither about bouncing balls nor flowing fluids; I'm trying to develop an acceptable framework of discovery which we can use to make this discovery. Might "time evolution" be an acceptable synonym for "cause and effect"?

A more abstract one so it must be used with caution and always kept in check with the deeper level.

To avoid fixing the discussion to any one theory (and to better follow the flow of the discussion so far as to determining what is an acceptable way to understand the universe), would it suffice it to say that you are using the term "matter" both for "root-level matter" (which is, in some sense, fundamental) and for observable patterns of that root-level matter?

Everything is made out of the same matter. It is important to make a distinction here however. Spinoza uses the terms "Substance" and "modes". Substance is the root level continuous stuff and modes are the finite patterns made out of that substance. These terms will suffice for this discussion.

Is there any way we could deduce this conclusion from observation, or must we accept it as an axiom for this discussion?

I feel it is not only quite readily apparent, but it is absloutely logically necessary. Can you imagine any metaphysics without including extension?!!

And would the term "point" be an acceptable synonym for "place", in the sense we can say that the universe is "made" of points, and matter extends through these points? By "made" of points, that just means that all extensions of matter can be described by the points through which it extends.

I would say that it is confusing to say that the universe is made of points because points are mental mathematical extensionless place-holders for places and the Universe clearly is not made out of extensionless place-holders.

This is in accordance with my previous comment on the term "matter" correct; pressure is not fundamental matter, but an observable pattern in root-level matter. Allow us to hold off on more precise meanings of pressure.

Yes pressure and charge are modes not substances, of which there can be only one.