Can the Universe Truly Be Nonphysical?

[baywax]

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.

 

[baywax]

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.

 

[Pythagorean]

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).

 

[baywax]

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 if it takes so many atoms to make a table "real"... its the same for number of observers to verify the tableness.

 

[WaveJumper]

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."