Can the Universe Truly Be Nonphysical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dave2007
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
  • #51
OH BOY!~ Sometimes it's the question...
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #52
It would be tempting to say that extinct species are nonphysical... however, everyday we breath, eat and drink their remains. We also think about them, and thinking is a purely physical process. As is conscious-awareness.

Some people have suggested that conscious-awareness is an emergent property of the big bang and that the big bang is rooted in "nothing". Where do they get their data? Conscious-awareness is a result of the on-going development of matter. No one know's for sure what caused the big bang or if it happened at all. I think we can say, with all certainty, we are all here now. And that's about it.
 
  • #53
  • #54
Dmitry67 said:
I think the opposite, I believe that the "hard problem of consciousness"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

does exist.

One can make up names for the same processing function but the resource and the function remain the same.

"Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all?"

Define: "rich" "inner" life.

"How is it that some organisms are subjects of experience?"

Perhaps they have a brain or larger ganglia.

"Why does awareness of sensory information exist at all?"

Its a survival trait of the organism of choice.
"Why do qualia exist?"

This is a function of distinction between stimuli... and a survival trait.

"Why is there a subjective component to experience?"

Define "subjective"... or let me do it for you... personal dialog... hormones.

"Why aren't we philosophical zombies?"

Who says we're not? Have you seen the news lately?Evolution gives rise to complex and more complex systems in organisms. The goal post gets further and further away from the original goal of survival. Evolutionary refinement adds branches and more branches to the function of an organ until... at some point they become redundant and actually render the species unable to survive. This appears to be the course for humanity. As we get further and further away from basic survival, our brains turn more and more into themselves for answers. And since we know nothing more than a few rocks... we are being left holding nothing but a bunch of "qualia" which do not provide nourishment except to feed the illusion that we are the dominant species etc...
 
Last edited:
  • #57
baywax said:
This model will change, again, next week.



As far as i am aware, it has been known for more than 30 years now. Someone better versed in QCD may set a better timeline for sure.
 
  • #58
WaveJumper said:
As far as i am aware, it has been known for more than 30 years now. Someone better versed in QCD may set a better timeline for sure.

My operative word here is "model".

"Virtual" is my next best choice.

Does this "model" make pain go away?

Does it make it ok to invade 3rd world countries and kill 100s of women and children?

No, this "model" doesn't have any bearing on what humans collectively experience, using
their complex neurology. We still have to respect each person's perspective like it was our own.
 
  • #59
Dont ask me - ask Wikipedia :) I did not publish that.
I don't know how to tell p-zombie from a normal human
The only thing I am sure is that I DO HAVE QUALIA.

I have an interesting theory regarding:

baywax said:
Who says we're not? Have you seen the news lately?

I believe that there are in fact P-zombies among us: People in MCS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimally_conscious_state

When you shake them, ask questions, they can reply. Their brain still posesses all these high-level functions. However, when they are left alone, they are just laying in bed.

Why? Because their soul had already left because when their brain was deprived from oxygen for too long the link between their soul and brain had been already broken (because in normal surcumstances nobody survives in such conditions).

So brain is still functioning, but as there is no qualia/soul, they don't WANT to do anything. They can answer questions, do something when they are asked to. Exactly like our computers.
 
  • #60
baywax said:
My operative word here is "model".

"Virtual" is my next best choice.

Does this "model" make pain go away?

Does it make it ok to invade 3rd world countries and kill 100s of women and children?

No, this "model" doesn't have any bearing on what humans collectively experience, using
their complex neurology. We still have to respect each person's perspective like it was our own.



Sure, the world is as real as those 5 senses tell us and we should treat it as such with all of its bells and whistles. For those who are more curious, we agree to call it our subjective experience in a lowered voice.
 
  • #61
Dmitry67 said:
Dont ask me - ask Wikipedia :) I did not publish that.
I don't know how to tell p-zombie from a normal human
The only thing I am sure is that I DO HAVE QUALIA.

I have an interesting theory regarding:



I believe that there are in fact P-zombies among us: People in MCS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimally_conscious_state

When you shake them, ask questions, they can reply. Their brain still posesses all these high-level functions. However, when they are left alone, they are just laying in bed.

Why? Because their soul had already left because when their brain was deprived from oxygen for too long the link between their soul and brain had been already broken (because in normal surcumstances nobody survives in such conditions).

So brain is still functioning, but as there is no qualia/soul, they don't WANT to do anything. They can answer questions, do something when they are asked to. Exactly like our computers.

Define "soul" please.
 
  • #62
WaveJumper said:
Sure, the world is as real as those 5 senses tell us and we should treat it as such with all of its bells and whistles. For those who are more curious, we agree to call it our subjective experience in a lowered voice.

Ah, subjectivity.

Where does objectivity begin and subjectivity end when you define subjectivity as being the function of the neurons?

Every observation, every virtual model, everything anyone does is dependent on and governed by how their neurons function. By this definition, objectivity can't exist.
 
  • #63
baywax said:
Ah, subjectivity.

Where does objectivity begin and subjectivity end when you define subjectivity as being the function of the neurons?

Every observation, every virtual model, everything anyone does is dependent on and governed by how their neurons function. By this definition, objectivity can't exist.

subjectivity is where you guess at things you don't (or can't) know, given the evidence of what you do (objectively) know.

That is, your subjective opinions are where you fill in the blanks where objective answers aren't available.

If you want to look at it in terms of neurons, I assume there's a difference between neurons fired for imagination/creativity vs. neurons fired for memory/observation.

That being said, we do have plenty of difficulty, on a day-to-day basis, accurately interpreting our objective observations (but interpretation is related to imagination/creativity).
 
  • #64
Pythagorean said:
subjectivity is where you guess at things you don't (or can't) know, given the evidence of what you do (objectively) know.

That is, your subjective opinions are where you fill in the blanks where objective answers aren't available.

If you want to look at it in terms of neurons, I assume there's a difference between neurons fired for imagination/creativity vs. neurons fired for memory/observation.

That being said, we do have plenty of difficulty, on a day-to-day basis, accurately interpreting our objective observations (but interpretation is related to imagination/creativity).

Thanks Pythagorean,

I did however see this included in the Oxford definition of "subjectivity"

• dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.

But I think, traditionally, what you say is the correct meaning. Subjective as in gathering information from one's self rather that from the rest of the environment.

I think objectivity is obtained when an experience is a shared experience, independent of any communication between the subjects. When it's revealed later that the two experiences are actually the same phenomenon being observed independently, this gives evidence that objectivity is alive and well. There are countless incidents every day where this is proven.

There's a case for a purely subjective existence. And there's a case for a purely objective one. Some how I think there's a medium ground. Metaphorically :rolleyes: if it takes so many atoms to make a table "real"... its the same for number of observers to verify the tableness.
 
  • #65
Dmitry67 said:
He answers that question on page 18


I forgot that the Mathematical Universe that Max Tegmark speaks of, is fairly consistent with the Holographic Universe predicted by all 5 versions of String Theory.

http://www.superstringtheory.com/blackh/blackh4a.html

"This is a hint that perhaps spacetime geometry is not something fundamental in string theory, but something that emerges in the theory at large distance scales or weak coupling. This is an idea with enormous philosophical implications."
 

Similar threads

Back
Top