Register to reply

Define Physical

by Les Sleeth
Tags: define, physical
Share this thread:
Les Sleeth
#235
Nov17-05, 10:17 AM
PF Gold
Les Sleeth's Avatar
P: 2,202
Quote Quote by nameless
Define Physical
Anything that can be 'perceived', registered by the senses is what is commonly called 'physical', either direct perception or indirectly perceived.
That defines a potential of the senses, it doesn't tell us what physicalness is. Surely you wouldn't suggest that if there were no senses, then physicalness wouldn't exist.
dubmugga
#236
Nov17-05, 03:45 PM
P: 67
Quote Quote by nameless
But not very interesting!
*__-
Define Physical
Anything that can be 'perceived', registered by the senses is what is commonly called 'physical', either direct perception or indirectly perceived.
nothing is very interesting, without it you have don't really have a relationship to compare anything and something to...

...physical = 5 senses in 4 dimensions

and Les for all intents and purposes if we couldn't sense anything then it may as well not exist...

...back to the perfect nothing again
Les Sleeth
#237
Nov18-05, 08:53 PM
PF Gold
Les Sleeth's Avatar
P: 2,202
Quote Quote by dubmugga
. . . and Les for all intents and purposes if we couldn't sense anything then it may as well not exist
If all humans were wiped out, would physicalness disappear? The objective of this thread was to define physical, not to define what is meaningful to human existence. Would you say light is defined by what the eyes tell us? Doesn't light have it's own reality as a wavelength, vibrational frequency, etc. apart from our experience?

You have to define physical distinct from what it means to us unless you are going to assert the solipsist's position. Nameless' definition wasn't a definition of physicalness, it was a description of how human consciousness recognizes physicalness.
BlindBeauty
#238
Nov29-05, 11:10 AM
P: 8
Certaintly 'physical' is coherent with 'existence' in that both have to 'be' in order for truth and validity. To 'exist' is to be 'Finite' or measureable in form, whether its a thought,quark, etc. I don't beleve there is any way for this to not be true: Finite = existence = physical
nameless
#239
Nov29-05, 03:41 PM
P: 155
Quote Quote by Les Sleeth
Well, I challenge you to demonstrate gravity exists before mass is present. In fact, gravity is believed to happen at the speed of light. Light speed, while fast, is not instantaneous, and therefore I'd say it must occur after mass is shows up.
Les, I'm afraid that your challenge shall go unanswered as I see no linear order inherent here. I see simultaneously arising events and aspects of events. I'm not going to get into the whole obsolete notion of 'cause and effect' again. It's comfortable water under the bridge. Time to move on.

When have you ever seen gravity without mass?

When have you ever seen mass without gravity?

FIRST it is mass, and THEN it is gravity.

Again, when have you ever seen one without the other? One would have to exist sans the other if your linear hypothesis were correct.

Quote Quote by nameless
Define Physical
Anything that can be 'perceived', registered by the senses is what is commonly called 'physical', either direct perception or indirectly perceived.
That defines a potential of the senses, it doesn't tell us what physicalness is. Surely you wouldn't suggest that if there were no senses, then physicalness wouldn't exist.
That defines a potential of (ultimately) 'mind'. Yes, I am saying that 'physicalness' is a 'potential' of mind.
Yes, I am definitely suggesting that without mind, there could be no concept/notion of 'physicalness', and hence, no 'physicalness'!

Quote Quote by BlindBeauty
Certaintly 'physical' is coherent with 'existence' in that both have to 'be' in order for truth and validity. To 'exist' is to be 'Finite' or measureable in form, whether its a thought,quark, etc. I don't beleve there is any way for this to not be true: Finite = existence = physical
Very good. For something to 'exist' it must be 'temporal', and hence, finite.
Les Sleeth
#240
Nov30-05, 12:21 AM
PF Gold
Les Sleeth's Avatar
P: 2,202
Quote Quote by BlindBeauty
Certaintly 'physical' is coherent with 'existence' in that both have to 'be' in order for truth and validity. To 'exist' is to be 'Finite' or measureable in form, whether its a thought,quark, etc. I don't beleve there is any way for this to not be true: Finite = existence = physical
What you believe is unimportant. What is important is if you can make your case. You state theory as though it is fact. Do know something the rest of the world doesn't?
Les Sleeth
#241
Nov30-05, 12:43 AM
PF Gold
Les Sleeth's Avatar
P: 2,202
Quote Quote by nameless
Les, I'm afraid that your challenge shall go unanswered as I see no linear order inherent here. I see simultaneously arising events and aspects of events. I'm not going to get into the whole obsolete notion of 'cause and effect' again. It's comfortable water under the bridge. Time to move on.
Serious question here. Do you really think the above argument makes your case? All I see is your beliefs. That is fine as long as you keep your opinions to yourself. But you have dared to enter into a public discussion, and for that you have to support your opinions with evidence and logic, both of which are sorely lacking.

How about this. Explain exactly how cause and effect are obsolete.


Quote Quote by nameless
When have you ever seen gravity without mass?When have you ever seen mass without gravity? FIRST it is mass, and THEN it is gravity.

Again, when have you ever seen one without the other? One would have to exist sans the other if your linear hypothesis were correct.
Why are you freaking out about linearity? Some things are linear, and other things are not. Cause and effect is linear. So what? If you believe there are valuable things which are non-linear (which I would agree with), it doesn't mean you have to deny the linear aspects of reality!

Quote Quote by nameless
That defines a potential of (ultimately) 'mind'. Yes, I am saying that 'physicalness' is a 'potential' of mind.
?

Quote Quote by nameless
Yes, I am definitely suggesting that without mind, there could be no concept/notion of 'physicalness' . . .
Duh . . . Mind is what generates concepts.

Quote Quote by nameless
. . . and hence, no 'physicalness'!
Huh????? You are making no sense.
nameless
#242
Nov30-05, 02:19 AM
P: 155
Hiya Les,
Before I saw this post re; to me, I read your response to Beauty's post and I felt like mentioning something about your response, and now that I think about it, this seems to be a regularly recurring 'problem'. After reading the absolute nothing that you offered in responce to my post, I'll print now what I wrote;

I would think, Les, that if you had a problem with this hypothesis of Beauty's, you might have simply stated 'what point' you had a problem with, exactly what your 'problem' is, and perhaps why and how your particular view is 'superior' (in your estimation, of course). Maybe we could all learn something then? You are 'responding' just like a cult member who hears his Holy Leader slandered!

And please don't speak for me, I think that I have might have some understanding of that which Beauty speaks. So, that makes at least two who arent completely sleepwalking through what you imagine to be life.


And this is certainly applicable to the preceeding time wasting list of nothing that you left for me.

No one's trying to convert you, Les, your soul's safe, what are you so afraid of in understanding another perspective. Why so insecure? Are 'they' watching you? Why can't you pick a particular point that you see differently, and just elaborate your critical analysis of the point in question offering your understanding as a logically superior perspective?

Do you really think that anyone that reads these posts are interested in listening to the following sort of bullsh!t;

Serious question here. Do you really think the above argument makes your case? All I see is your beliefs. That is fine as long as you keep your opinions to yourself. But you have dared to enter into a public discussion, and for that you have to support your opinions with evidence and logic, both of which are sorely lacking.

This is not rational discussion, its more like your back is against a wall and you are waving your hands wildly hoping that you'll hit me somewhere and I'll go away. Do us both a favor and feel free to ignore my posts unless, of course, you have something actually thought out to ADD to the discussion and possibly even your own understanding.

Dude, you're asking ME to explain what physics has been dealing with for years? (time, cause and effect) Where you been? If you're too lazy to do your own research and are willing to sound like one of a vociferous breed of those dying of advanced cerebral ossification, here in public, thats your choice. That might work on others, but no more of that sh!t to me or it will be ignored.

"Transformation is Life,
Stasis is Death"
Les Sleeth
#243
Nov30-05, 11:40 PM
PF Gold
Les Sleeth's Avatar
P: 2,202
Quote Quote by nameless
Before I saw this post re; to me, I read your response to Beauty's post . . .
Who is Beauty? I never heard of him/her/it.


Quote Quote by nameless
Dude, you're asking ME to explain what physics has been dealing with for years? (time, cause and effect)"
Who was it who said, "I'm not going to get into the whole obsolete notion of 'cause and effect' again. It's comfortable water under the bridge. Time to move on."

I simply asked you to make your case. Right here and now I challenge you to explain how cause and effect are obsolete, and if you can I will bow before your wisdom.
nameless
#244
Dec1-05, 03:07 AM
P: 155
Les, with all due respect, the topic of this thread is a request to 'define physicality'. With respect to the threadstarter, you in this case (!), I'm ducking out after this post to make room for other interesting perspectives.

This is not the place for me to teach you about 'cause and effect'. I would be happy to use the PM system to 'enlighten' you. I shan't argue the subject with you. I can bring you to an understanding IF that is your honest desire. IF you had an attitude of a 'student' who knew that he didn't know, from whence you 'could' actually learn something, and my time would not be wasted.
You don't have to 'bow' to my wisdom, Les, just being able to recognize it might help, though. Unfortunately, your defensively challenging attitude and sarcasm tells me that it is highly unlikely that you could, at present, learn anything from me.

Perhaps this might refresh your memory regarding the mysterious identity of 'Beauty' the 'he/she/it' of whom you've never heard (from page 16 of this thread);

Les Sleeth

Originally Posted by BlindBeauty
Certaintly 'physical' is coherent with 'existence' in that both have to 'be' in order for truth and validity. To 'exist' is to be 'Finite' or measureable in form, whether its a thought,quark, etc. I don't beleve there is any way for this to not be true: Finite = existence = physical


What you believe is unimportant. What is important is if you can make your case. You state theory as though it is fact. Do know something the rest of the world doesn't?
No, just something that that YOU don't!

Are your 'responses' are so knee-jerk and predictable that you don't even take note of the unfortunate recipient anymore?

As a parting gift (consolation prize?), I'll leave you with an excerpt of an interview of Fred Allen Wolfe, Ph.D (author, theoretical quantum physicist..) by Jeffrey Mishlove.
It is an interesting, apparently 'opposite' view from yours of 'cause and effect'. He is, at least, applying creative thought. That will probably get him where he wants to go. See, he does not already think that he is 'there', so he can learn, transmute the available cutting edge data creatively and advance/evolve his understanding.
Well, I hope you enjoy this exerpt from, 'thinking-allowed.com';

MISHLOVE: You're a physicist, and a theoretical quantum physicist. And when we get to that level of quantum physics, it seems as though the mechanical notions of the universe break down completely. Everything's fuzzy, it's frothy, it's foamy, it's probability waves. Doesn't that sort of seem to be like consciousness?

WOLF: Well, let me quote from Newton about this, even though we're talking quantum physics. Literally, I feel like a child at a seashore, when it comes to seeing where quantum physics is pointing. I feel like we're on the verge of a gigantic discovery -- maybe the nature of God, maybe the nature of the human spirit. Something of that sort is going to emerge from this, because our normal notions -- in fact the notions upon which we think science makes any sense at all, the notions of space and time and matter -- they just are breaking down, they're just falling apart, like tissue paper before our eyes. Wet tissue paper; it isn't even good tissue paper. It doesn't hold anything up anymore. So we're beginning to see that -- for example, in classical physics the idea that the past influences the presence is pretty normal. Everybody says, "Oh, of course."

MISHLOVE: One-way causality.

WOLF: One-way causality. Everybody says, "Oh yeah, naturally." I mean, that's what Newton said, that's what they all say. OK, but there's another notion. What about the future influencing the present? Is such an idea just an idea that comes about through parapsychology, or through mystical insight? Quantum physics says no, it says that definitely there is a real mathematical basis for saying actions in the future can have an effect on the probability patterns that exist in the present. In other words, what takes places now, what choices are being made right now, may not be as free to you as you think they are. To you it may seem uncertain -- well, I'll do this or I'll do that. But if you realized that what you did in the future is having an effect now, then it wouldn't be as obvious. So it's hard to talk about it because the future's yet to come, right?


Remember, no one's asking you to swallow anything, think of it as a very short vacation to somewhere you haven't been (assuming, of course, that you havent been there! *__- ). Work the concepts around a bit, enjoy them and where they take you. Air out your brain a bit before packing it in and running home. Its only uncomfortable at first...

"None left behind!!"
Les Sleeth
#245
Dec1-05, 12:25 PM
PF Gold
Les Sleeth's Avatar
P: 2,202
Quote Quote by nameless
Les, with all due respect, the topic of this thread is a request to 'define physicality'.
That’s right, which is why I have challenged everyone to make their definition fit the facts. My original challenge to you was in response to your defense of simultaneity. I pointed out several ways it doesn’t fit the facts. Let’s review some of your arguments.

In response to my statement “It's simply the order of how things show up. When have you ever seen gravity without mass? FIRST it is mass, and THEN it is gravity. But if you have an example of a different order it would be interesting to hear that,” you said: “'Gravity', 'mass', 'time', 'space'… I posit that you (nor anyone) have never seen any of these 'concepts' in isolation of the others. Then you immediately jump to a 'non-sequitor' regarding 'order of appearance'.”

How is order of appearance non sequitur when Castlegate asked me why I give mass the defining spot (i.e., in a definition of physical)? I answered it was because mass seems to be the first manifestation of all we know that is physical. If mass isn’t present, then there are no particles, there isn’t gravity, there isn’t quantum effects. What is significant about mass is that it’s the common denominator in all manifestations of physicalness.

Then you said, “Not that there is some linear 'cause and effect' which the 'evidence' clearly does not support, but that the invariably simultaneous occurrence of all the aforementioned 'concepts' (gravity, mass, etc... ) would indicate to me, at least, that they are all various mutually arising 'aspects' of the same event. Sorry that I wasn't able to offer an alternative 'order', but I find no evidence of any 'order' to be in order. The 'evidence' points to 'simultaneity' not 'temporality'.”

First of all, what’s wrong with mass being the “same event” you speak of? However, you didn’t answer my argument about the speed of gravity. Doesn’t that prove beyond all doubt that mass and gravity are not simultaneous, and therefore utterly undermines your argument?

Also, my point about order is significant because of time, which I see as 100% physical and nothing more than the rate of transitions of mass. At one point there was this much mass in the universe and it was here, and then at the next point there was less mass (i.e., more energy) in the universe and it was there. Entropy is turning mass into energy, and movement is sending it away from its point of origin. So again, if there is time and change, entropy and movement, how can you claim all physical factors are simultaneous when clearly events take place before or after one another?

Next you said, “Anything that can be 'perceived', registered by the senses is what is commonly called 'physical', either direct perception or indirectly perceived.”

To that I explained that you haven’t defined “physical,” you simply described a potential/limitation of the senses. To my point you answered with what I was only able to interpret as nonsense by saying, “That defines a potential of (ultimately) 'mind'. Yes, I am saying that 'physicalness' is a 'potential' of mind. Yes, I am definitely suggesting that without mind, there could be no concept/notion of 'physicalness', and hence, no 'physicalness'!” That is gross idealism at best, and solipsism at worst.

To someone else defending that kind of perspective I asked, “If all humans were wiped out, would physicalness disappear? The objective of this thread was to define physical, not to define what is meaningful to human existence. Would you say light is defined by what the eyes tell us? Doesn't light have it's own reality as a wavelength, vibrational frequency, etc. apart from our experience?”

What’s my point? At least I defend my statements. You however just proclaim ideas like they are self-evident, and you then accuse me of knee-jerk thinking and arrogance when I challenge them every step of the way with logic, counterexamples, and evidence.


Quote Quote by nameless
This is not the place for me to teach you about 'cause and effect'. I would be happy to use the PM system to 'enlighten' you. I shan't argue the subject with you. I can bring you to an understanding IF that is your honest desire. IF you had an attitude of a 'student' who knew that he didn't know, from whence you 'could' actually learn something, and my time would not be wasted.
Please spare me, I am more than familiar with what you are talking about. No one is denying quantum mysteries, but that doesn’t require denying the reality of cause and effect just because it may be limited.


Quote Quote by nameless
Perhaps this might refresh your memory regarding the mysterious identity of 'Beauty' the 'he/she/it' of whom you've never heard (from page 16 of this thread) Are your 'responses' are so knee-jerk and predictable that you don't even take note of the unfortunate recipient anymore?
Well, his handle is “BlindBeauty,” not “Beauty” which is why I didn’t recognize it. And I objected to his point because it too didn’t fit the facts. He said, “To 'exist' is to be 'Finite' or measurable in form, whether its a thought, quark, etc. I don't believe there is any way for this to not be true: Finite = existence = physical.”

How can he possibly know finite equals existence? What are we supposed to do with his unexplained, unelaborated statement? Like you I challenged him to expand his thoughts from a mere opinion into a argument made from logic, examples and evidence.


Quote Quote by nameless
As a parting gift (consolation prize?), I'll leave you with an excerpt of an interview of Fred Allen Wolfe, Ph.D (author, theoretical quantum physicist..) by Jeffrey Mishlove. . . . It is an interesting, apparently 'opposite' view from yours of 'cause and effect'. He is, at least, applying creative thought. That will probably get him where he wants to go. See, he does not already think that he is 'there', so he can learn, transmute the available cutting edge data creatively and advance/evolve his understanding. Remember, no one's asking you to swallow anything, think of it as a very short vacation to somewhere you haven't been (assuming, of course, that you havent been there! *__- ). Work the concepts around a bit, enjoy them and where they take you. Air out your brain a bit before packing it in and running home. Its only uncomfortable at first...
I don’t think I’m “there.” I just don’t think you are making sense. So far all I’ve seen from you is tossing out ideas without feeling the slightest need to justify them. What is it you want, for me to just buy your concepts wholesale? Even if I were so weak minded, I’d have trouble with your logic (as well as with your apparent belief in philosophical idealism).

For example, your earlier statement that evidence doesn’t support linear cause and effect is contradicted by evidence about as much as a statement can be. Fred Allen Wolfe doesn’t support your statement, he wasn’t saying that there is no such thing as linear cause and effect. He was saying that it seems to disappear in the quantum world. As any physicist here will tell you, classical physics holds up admirably for most everyday situations. It’s no big secret that linearness doesn’t extend from start to finish, but I don’t see a reason to translate that into some mystical belief.

There is linear cause and effect, and there are non-linear realities. Why deny one simply because the other is true? In fact, that seems to be your general view of physicalness too (that distinguishing physicalness can’t be really done because it isn’t real somehow). If you think that, I understand the view, but it doesn’t help us define it.

Something goes on in reality which manifests in ways we call “physical.” It doesn’t matter if it is the mind of God exhibiting itself or something else, those are metaphysical concerns to be considered in a different thread. The purpose here was to come up with a practical working definition of physical that fits the facts.

Humans work with whatever “physical” is and create all sorts of things through that. Some scientists believe all reality is physical, but then sometimes seem to vacillate on what’s included in physical. We’ve debated here many times, for instance, about what consciousness is. Some say it is entirely born of physicalness, and then try to account for it with things they say are physical, but which others dispute is really physical. That was my motive for this thread . . . to differentiate and isolate physicalness from anything which is not physical so in discussions we’d have a more clear idea of what each idea means to discussion participants.

Obviously we were unable to reach consensus, but I think the exercise was useful anyway (for me at least). Personally I still can’t come up with a better definition than physicalness being mass and its effects. To me that means, if there are nonphysical influences in reality, they are massless.
nameless
#246
Dec2-05, 11:20 PM
P: 155
Quote Quote by Les Sleeth
Please spare me, I am more than familiar with what you are talking about.
No you aren't...

But, instead of responding line by line and getting nowhere, I shall first offer a short quote by Richard Feynman from "Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman".

Quote Quote by Richard Feynman
"The Laws of Nature are not rules controlling the metamorphosis of what 'is' into what 'will be'. They are descriptions of patterns that exist, all at once, in the whole tapestry.. The four-dimensional space-time manifold displays all eternity at once."
Consider this just one 'gem' from a constantly expanding diadem of perspectival sources testifying to the absolute simultaneity (absolutely anti-intuitive) of each and every 'moment'.
Consider there is a convergence of this 'understanding' from widely varied sources, mostly arrived at 'independently'.

Well, if (as the most pregnant cutting edge of current thought from various disciplines is positing) 'all' exists at once, and there is no (despite your very best sensory information), 'time/linearity/motion', there can likewise be no 'cause and effect' as this is predicated on motion/time/linearity (not necessarily in that order.. *__- ).
Again, unless things happen at different times, one after the other, there can be no inherent reality in the notion of c&e.

I will, to a point, agree with you in that I'll concede that the notion of 'cause and effect' has apparent 'existence', though, solely within the very subjective 'dream of life'. So if you are of the opinion that any 'dream' is 'existing reality', then so would be 'cause and effect'. It is within this 'hologramic construct' that the notion of c&e has any validity or usefulness as it relates only to this subjective 'illusion'. The illusion of c&e is only 'useful' (within certain context) within the greater illusion of 'life'!

Again, I'm not trying to affect your 'beliefs', I'm just attempting to help you understand a perspective obviously alien to your own.
nameless
#247
Dec2-05, 11:26 PM
P: 155
Les, here is another perspective closer to your own than mine. What becomes of your 'cause and effect' within 'this' context?

Excerpt from:
Time: Reversible or Irreversible?

Classical physics says time is reversible because its laws hold true whether time flows forward or backward. Thermodynamics says time only flows forward, because were it to reverse, entropy of an isolated system could decrease which would violate the second law of thermodynamics.
So is time reversible or irreversible? The answer cannot be deduced from either classical physics or thermodynamics because both are flawed in their assumptions.

Classical Systems are Timeless
Classical physics only deals with deterministic systems whose past, present, and future are entirely contained in a single timeless equation. As a result, for such systems time does not exist except as spatial increments marking the various aspects of a static pattern frozen in eternity. Moving one way or another on a static pattern does not change it, and for this reason the laws of classical physics hold true regardless of whether the time variable is positive or negative. Because time is not an intrinsic part of deterministic systems, classical physics has nothing valid to say about the real nature of time.

Thermodynamics Is Just A Suggestion
Thermodynamics is a statistical science that calculates trends rather than individual events. This means it sweeps complex molecular motion under the rug and only makes observations about the resulting lump. It is important to remember that according to classical physics, molecular motion is deterministic, implying that thermodynamic systems must also be deterministic because they are merely collections of deterministic molecules. If the components of a system are time reversible, then so must the system itself.
So why does thermodynamics claim time is irreversible? Because due to the overwhelming complexity in keeping track of every deterministic molecule, it is forced to ignore this level of precision where reversibility resides.
The illusion of time irreversibility in thermodynamics arises from two problems:

1) its inability to calculate a system with absolute precision, which prevents it from mathematically confirming time symmetry, and
2) that its laws are based on incomplete statistical observations and assumptions.

Time symmetry or reversibility requires that the laws of a system in question do not change when time is reversed. In classical physics, this is easy to check because past and future of a system can be calculated with absolute precision. But thermodynamics cannot completely know the total characteristics of a system because its molecular details are too complex to take into account. So it cannot even compare the forward and reversed systems to check for symmetry because they are too complex. On this point alone, thermodynamics is therefore inconclusive about the nature of time.

Thermodynamics Makes Statistical Laws Apply to Individual CasesResorting to statistical observations, it forces a match between limited laboratory observation and mathematics by fatally assuming that instead of collections of deterministic particles, things are made of perfect fluids. This is done as a matter of practicality to smooth over the randomness of molecular motion, which unfortunately throws out its inherent deterministic and time reversible nature.
Assuming a perfect fluid is like assuming that each family in America has exactly 1.3 children, to match the national statistic. While this is a neat mathematical device, when it gets taken too seriously any family’s claim to have two children is seen as an impossibility because it would “violate the statistical law.”
Likewise, when time is reversed and entropy decreases, the resulting violation of the second law of thermodynamics should be no cause for alarm because the second law is only a unique statistical trend, not an absolute pillar of physics as its supporters claim. It seems universal only because the mathematics apparently support it, but remember that the math in thermodynamics is built upon the assumption that systems are made of perfect fluids.
While the systems to which science has restricted its observations do show increasing entropy, this says nothing about the ignored systems. What applies to the minority need not be universal for the majority. In truth, a decrease of entropy violates nothing because it is not an impossibility – it simply has lower probability than were the system to increase in entropy. Therefore, the mathematical and observational proof in thermodynamics are insufficient to claim that time is irreversible.

Proper Definition of Time IrreversibilitySo how do we determine whether time is reversible or irreversible, being that classical physics and thermodynamics have now been eliminated from the debate? We see that thermodynamics is on the right track – stated another way, time seems irreversible because the future is more uncertain than the past. While the past can be clearly observed from observation of what transpired in a system, if calculations are unable to perfectly predict the future as well, the future will seem murkier. So the future seems always “in the making” which gives rise to an apparent forward flow of time.
But this murkiness of the future is only due to incomplete information concerning the individual particles of a thermodynamic system. Were we to know them in detail, we could indeed see that the future is as certain as the past and that time in that case is reversible. The nearsightedness of an observer says nothing about the intrinsic fuzziness of the object observed; that science cannot determine the future state of a system does not mean the system itself is nondeterministic.

Quantum Mechanics Proves Direction of Time
It should now be clear that only nondeterministic systems are time irreversible. Time cannot be symmetric in systems whose future is not already contained in some tidy equation connecting it with the past.
Do such systems exist? Yes, quantum processes are nondetermistic by nature. What state a wave function collapses into cannot be predicted mathematically. Quantum mechanics is a lot like thermodynamics in the sense that its laws deal with the statistical trends of random processes, except there is one crucial difference: the unpredictability of a quantum system comes not from shallowness of an observer’s perception, but on the intrinsically nondeterministic nature of the system itself.
Then how exactly does time arise? By consciousness sequentially choosing which aspects of quantum wave functions to manifest as physical experience. Choice is nondeterministic because were it not, it would already be pre-decided, leaving no choice. Choice necessitates freewill, so the irreversibility of time ultimately stems from freewill being neither predictable nor easily undoable.
Perhaps this sounds like new age mumbo jumbo to you, but all this is self evident from the mathematics of quantum mechanics. There are no hidden variables in quantum theory, only those created on the spot by conscious selection. Nothing in quantum physics contradicts this idea.

Consciousness and Quantum Phase
The phase of a wave function is entirely “arbitrary” according to physics, and it is precisely this phase that creates huge consequences for how a time-dependent wave function evolves and interacts with other wave functions. In truth, this phase factor is not arbitrary, but deliberately chosen at some level of consciousness because being detached from the deterministic (statistical) parts of quantum theory, phase is left entirely at the discretion of choice. This shows how mind ultimately affects physical reality, not by violating its classical laws, but by working through nonlinear systems to amplify “arbitrary” quantum fluctuations into macroscopic effects.
Time dependent wave functions show how consciousness creates time. The only reason they appear to evolve through time is that they consist of multiple stationary states (wave functions independent of time) whose various phases change to produce a “moving” wave function. But these phases are chosen by consciousness, and since it is the phases that give rise to the seeming time-dependence of a wave function, it should be beyond debate at this point that consciousness creates time.
Furthermore, once a wave function has “collapsed” (one disc of the jukebox selected to be played), it cannot “uncollapse”. The collapse of a wave function is not time reversible because mathematics cannot calculate it equally well forwards and back. Only linear systems which are perfectly predictable are time reversible. So once more, time is irreversible when, and only when, it comes to quantum systems and freewill choice.

The Interface Between Quantum and Classical SystemsHow does all this fit with the systems of classical physics? Classical systems are merely series of deterministic effects, while conscious choice is the original nondeterministic cause.
The interval between deterministic events is known as linear time, which is illusion for the simple fact that the span between first and last effect is redundant and thus nonexistent except to the observer choosing to observe it as real. Deterministic systems appear to move only because our consciousness slides its observational focal point along the eternally static pattern of the system, not because the system itself is changing.
As an analogy, the songs on a CD do not change with time because they all exist simultaneously as data on a disc, and any illusion of time between beginning and end of a song arises solely from them being played as such. When a CD is played, it progresses at a default sequence, direction, and speed – but these can be changed if one chooses to skip tracks, increase the speed, or listen to it backwards, all without actually changing the CD itself.
True time does not span intervals of deterministic sequences, but rather intervals of freewill choice. If consciousness were to choose to view the static pattern backwards, sideways, or in jumps, then that is perfectly permissible. The term “irreversible” only means that there exists a tendency for time to progress in the direction that conscious choices are made.
Thus, reality progresses in piecewise deterministic jumps. This can be compared to how road trips consist of roads and intersections. What roads have been traveled determine which new roads are available at an intersection, but not which particular road will be chosen. Quantum physics equations show what roads are available, but consciousness ultimately decides which to follow.
And so it is with reality – the choices we make determine what choices are available, but not which ones we’ll end up making. Thus, classical and quantum processes interact to give rise to the rich dynamic fractal we call life.
Les Sleeth
#248
Dec3-05, 12:15 AM
PF Gold
Les Sleeth's Avatar
P: 2,202
Quote Quote by nameless
No you aren't...
Just because I'm not falling down worshipping your interpretations of things doesn't mean I am not acquainted with the concepts!

Just listen for a minute, okay?

I am not saying, and never have, that once we get to the ultimate state of things that cause and effect continue to hold.
Let's say you are a person who sees what is ultimately true. My experience has been that absolutists think about everything in absolutes. I would agree that there is something absolute, and that nothing can stand up to it in terms of significance.
However, if we assume this perspective we must conclude that from the absolute all things relative emerge. One of the relative situations that would have to have emerged from the oneness of the absolute is cause and effect. In that model, is cause and effect absolutely real (i.e., if held next to the true Absolute)? Of course not. But for now, and in one spot, cause and effect are functioning.

I can prove, beyond all doubt, that cause and effect occur here in this universe. If you try to deny it you will prove yourself to be other than a realist. If you hit your "g" key, a "g" will appear you your monitor. Cause and effect. If you drill a hole in your head, you will bleed and possibly hear an echo. Cause and effect. If you fail to say "yes dear" when your wife is premenstral, you are in for trouble. Cause and effect.

My point is, within the greater realm of the absolute, relative situations exist, and they have sets of rules. The rules may be temporary, the rules may be just in this location, but they still exist here and now.

For this thread I asked participants to contemplate the rules that define what we call "physical" HERE AND NOW. I don't have any illusions that physicalness is absolutely real everywhere and forever (though I know some people believe it is). I was simply trying to come up with some ideas about what establishes physicalness HERE AND NOW.

Then you come along and seem to say it's all an illusion, that there is no such thing, that part of the very foundation of physicalness (cause and effect) are obsolete concepts.

The problem is, you are philosophizing in the realm of the absolute, and this thread is about a relative situation. I don't think it is right for you to demand we only talk about what is absolute. And I feel insulted that you treat me like I am a moron because I dare talk about something other than the absolute.

If you were to check all my posts and threads, you would see that I am more than capable of talking about the ultimate thing, and that I am a lover of it far more than relative situations. I just think it is important to understand all of it, not just what I favor.
nameless
#249
Dec3-05, 03:08 AM
P: 155
Didja miss this part?
I will, to a point, agree with you in that I'll concede that the notion of 'cause and effect' has apparent 'existence', though, solely within the very subjective 'dream of life'. So if you are of the opinion that any 'dream' is 'existing reality', then so would be 'cause and effect'. It is within this 'hologramic construct' that the notion of c&e has any validity or usefulness as it relates only to this subjective 'illusion'. The illusion of c&e is only 'useful' (within certain context) within the greater illusion of 'life'!

Which seems to relate to your rant.

Why, do you think, do you NEVER actually respond to the interesting (for thinking people, anyway) points that I am offering?
Les Sleeth
#250
Dec3-05, 10:56 AM
PF Gold
Les Sleeth's Avatar
P: 2,202
Quote Quote by nameless
. . . you get personal
I get personal? Who said, ". . . if that is the definition of a moron, then I'm afraid you are wearing the shoe, you lie outright, you dissemble, you whine and rant and demand things . . ."

I believe I've tried to reason with you. The problem for me has been that you hijack the thread to expound your personal philosophy. What I've "demanded" is that you get on topic; and yes I got a little impatient in these last posts.

You say, "Why, do you think, do you NEVER actually respond to the interesting (for thinking people, anyway) points that I am offering?" Well, I have responded, not directly to your personal philosophy, but by trying to get you to discuss the theme of this thread. So far your perspective has hardly been relevant to this discussion. For example:

Quote Quote by nameless
Didja miss this part?
I will, to a point, agree with you in that I'll concede that the notion of 'cause and effect' has apparent 'existence', though, solely within the very subjective 'dream of life'. So if you are of the opinion that any 'dream' is 'existing reality', then so would be 'cause and effect'. It is within this 'hologramic construct' that the notion of c&e has any validity or usefulness as it relates only to this subjective 'illusion'. The illusion of c&e is only 'useful' (within certain context) within the greater illusion of 'life'!
Which seems to relate to your rant.
Now, you offered that to me as your concept of being responsive to this thread's topic, yet 98% of the statement is your personal philosophy. The only thing you said that was even close to being on subject was the "apparent existence" of cause and effect, and then you were right back to your "dream" concept.

That you believe your philosophy is "interesting to thinking people" shows how out of touch with modern philosophy you are. Philosophical idealism is pretty much the bane of philosophy at a science forum because there is no way to prove or falsify its claims. Then you act like if I only understood what you were talking about then . . . Well, I do understand it. In fact, I've heard so much of it that now I try to ignore it hoping whoever is talking about it will get the hint and embrace a more factual way of philosophizing (a former member was even banned here for incessantly trying to explain physics with it). So it is nothing new, it isn't the slightest bit novel.

But let's say you are right, and this is all an illusion. What does that have to do with defining physical? If it is an illusion, then fine, define what physical is in that illusion. Why use every opportunity to push your philosophy? I didn't ask you to explain the ultimate meaning of things, I asked you to define physical. Start your own thread if you want to argue the merits of idealism.
sameandnot
#251
Dec12-05, 10:25 PM
P: 316
wow!
<breathing for the posters.>
hhuuhhhhh... hahhhhhhhhhhhh.... (does not stop, of course).

notices: object is perceived by subject.
realizes: object is within subject, as a perception.
further: perception is subject.
concludes: object is subject.
thinks: how to know object, without knowing subject?

<breathing... silence.>
octelcogopod
#252
Dec13-05, 07:54 AM
octelcogopod's Avatar
P: 506
While sameandnot has a point..

In THIS world, so to speak, where we are in a sense observing a physical reality, I would define physical as anything that isn't subjective.
Heh, while that may be a broad statement, just tihnk about it for a second.
In my personal world view, almost everything is physical, up to the point where everything is physical.
However, I think that some things, like a subjective state, which I wrote about in a thread in General Philosophy, is somehow a transcending state of physicality.

I believe therefore, that to simply define physical as everything that isn't physical, is the simplest solution.
YES, I do know that we haven't defined physical, we haven't defined subjective, but then again who can do that?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
How does one define existence outside the physical world? General Discussion 16
How do u define Classical Physics 9
Define Distance General Discussion 21
How does a physical brain create non-physical things? Medical Sciences 8