Can existence outside of the physical world be defined and discussed?

[moving finger]

The program is physical in that it is a series of laser cut grooves in plastic. The format of the information in the program depends on the CD or HD or MP3 or whathaveyou to exist.

With respect, this is an example of "confusing the map with the territory".

The "laser grooves in plastic" is not the program. It is a representation of (some of) the information pertaining to the program. In the same way, a map is not the same as the territory, it is a representation of (some of the information pertaining to) the territory.

So, please tell me, where is the non-physical portion of a concept or a program?

Let me answer your question with an example, and a question for you :

I can imagine that the tooth fairy exists, when in fact the tooth fairy does not exist. All I am doing when imagining the existence of the tooth fairy is cross-relating multitudes of concepts (correlating otherwise abstract information) within my mind. This is simply information. Nowhere in my mind is there anything which could be identified (objectively) as a physical tooth fairy.

Are you perhaps suggesting that this concept (this figment of my imagination) "the tooth fairy" is somehow physically real?

Best Regards

MF

Humans put constraints on what they can achieve more often by their limited imaginations than by any limitations in the laws of physics (Alex Christie)

 

[quantumcarl]

Are you perhaps suggesting that this concept (this figment of my imagination) "the tooth fairy" is somehow physically real?

Best Regards

No.

I am suggesting that a "figment of your imagination" is 100% physical (contrary to what I wrote earlier). The reasoning for this answer is because, according to physics, neurophysics and biophysics the "figment" of an imagination is a physical, electro magnetic response to a configuration of other physical attributes such as neuronal chemistry and the structuring of a neuron.

We interpret the the patterns and frequencies of these EM responses and assign their appropriateness to other neurons and subsequently, other EM responses. This chain of responses forms the "figment", concept and/or thought that is sometimes experienced in humans.

This alone suggests that the observer and the observer's thoughts are all purely physical. But, there is alway the question of where EM radiation comes from and what is the root cause of energy.

To answer my question to you:
no one would be able to locate the non-physical attributes of a concept or a 'figment' because all non-physical features are "off the map" as you say, of the physical universe.

 

[moving finger]

We interpret the the patterns and frequencies of these EM responses and assign their appropriateness to other neurons and subsequently, other EM responses. This chain of responses forms the "figment", concept and/or thought that is sometimes experienced in humans.

The only things that have any physical reality in my brain are the various chemicals, free radicals, ions and electrons which make up the various hardware configurations of my neurophysiology. There is nothing there which can be physically identified as the “tooth fairy”, which is the concept that I imagine (for the sake of this discussion) really exists. The concept “tooth fairy” is simply a subjective correlation between different levels of information represented by those neurophysiological pathways. I agree the concept would not exist if the pathways did not exist (just as the program running on a computer would not exist if the computer hardware did not exist), but that does not make either the concept or the computer program a “physical entity”. Information per se is not physical. The concept I have in my mind of a tooth fairy, and the program running on my computer, are both dynamic patterns of non-physical information, which simply rely upon diverse physical substrates for their enactment. (Once again, do not confuse a running dynamic computer program, patterns of information, with the physical but static encoding of some of that program information on a CD or hard drive).

This alone suggests that the observer and the observer's thoughts are all purely physical.

Think of a computer simulation such as “SIM City”. Are you suggesting that the virtual cities and buildings which are “constructed” in Sim City have some kind of physical embodiment? Turn off the computer monitor, but leave the program still running. The program is still “creating” the virtual buildings and roads etc in dynamic memory, but all it is really doing is just processing information. There is nothing physical that we could point to and say “look, there is that virtual hospital, there is that virtual police station” – these entities do not physically exist, they are simply virtual constructs made from the interpretations that we place on dynamically changing patterns of information.

Best Regards

MF

 

[quantumcarl]

What you call your neuroelectromagnetic activity is up to you... you can call it the "tooth fairy" and you can call it the "Old Man and the Sea". What you call your neuronal impulses is up to you and the people who agree with you.

The fact remains, however, that the "thought" you call the "tooth fairy" actually is 100% physical, according to my calculations .

Judging from how the effects of a thought can grow exponentially in energy and in size I wouldn't be too surprised if the Tooth Fairy did physically exist by now. In fact, the whole Tooth Fairy "idea" possesses adults and causes them to expend energy in an inefficent manner in many of the cultures in the Northern Hemisphere. So, effectively, the Tooth Fairy physically exists in the actions and role modeling of parents of the Northern Hemisphere

 

[eggman]

Possibility 1

I does not seem that Awareness is a physical thing...

So i vote 'no'...the observer is not a physical entity...

It may be like a property of consciousness...i'm not sure.

Since awareness cannot be the object of itself we really have no way to know for sure (?)

 

[eggman]

Possibility 2

...maybe an apparition of the physical division of 'thought ' or what appears to be 'thinking'

In other words the universe is a ghost or phantasm..

Particles divide...energy is released...this energy illuminates the residue

of the original particles and we 'see' a world or image via the nervous system.

Life is but a Dream ?

?

 

[moving finger]

Life is but a Dream ?

A dream requires a dreamer... but this is the homunculus or cartesian theatre illusion

Best Regards

MF

 

[selfAdjoint]

A dream requires a dreamer... but this is the homunculus or cartesian theatre illusion

Does it really? Since we can do without the homonculus in physical theories, why couldn't solipsism do without it? The universe as a congeries of fictions "appearing" virtually!

 

[moving finger]

Does it really? Since we can do without the homonculus in physical theories, why couldn't solipsism do without it? The universe as a congeries of fictions "appearing" virtually!

I take your point.

What I should have said is :

Perhaps life is but a dream. But do not make the mistake of thinking that there is a "physical dreamer" who is having that dream, because that way lies the cartesian theatre illusion of consciousness

Best Regards

MF

 

[paw_tracker]

If you consider Feynman's "handshake" interpretation of the copenhagen's, the observer must be physical in order for the electron or any quantum particle to be disrupted or influences from any distance. See Feynmans quantum mechanics interpretation of the particle duality.

 

[selfAdjoint]

See Feynmans quantum mechanics interpretation of the particle duality

Where can I see it?

 

[Ernies]

As Wittgenstein discusses, only the physical can be discussed. The meta-physical cannot. Therefore a discussion of existence outside the logical space of existence is not something that can be defined in order to be considered.

What on Earth does the first sentence mean? Simply that this is Wittgenstein's definition of discussion? Is mmarko agreeing with that?
If so how can one discuss mathematics, music and so on? I can easily find a definition of Zemelo's theorem, but find it impossible to do the equivalent with, say, Chopin's Prelude No. 17. I can discuss both, but neither are to my mind physical.

Wittgenstein may or may not have been a genius, but he never got over his theory of maths being ignored at a conference in 1930 by preference for Godel. This gave him a fanatical bias against unending processes, and ultimately restricted him to discussing the physical. The kindest opinion I have heard of his maths theory is 'naive'

Ernies