Defining Physicalness: Inviting Physicalists to Weigh In

[Lars Laborious]

Here goes. I think the problem is that we intuitivly tend to think of physical stuff as something intrinsically solid and unbreakable. And non-physical stuff as what religions call spiritual - something not solid, something that transcend solid matter.
Now, we don’t know anything but our consciousness since the whole knowing process is happening in our minds, so “physicalness” might only exist as an idea. On the other hand, there might exist something separate from our minds, but that’s another issue. The point is, physicalness is not necessarily something that exists outside our minds. Therefore it is meaningless to treat physicalness as if it were something other than a mathematical idea used in physics. As far as I know, the universe do not possesses any basic hardness. Mass is nothing but resistance to force, and resistance is nothing in itself. In short, all we know of are our feelings, and within that, knowledge of a system of predictable qualia that are referred to as physical facts.

 

[ak416]

I would say physical is anything that takes up space. For example a proton, is physical because it has a probability distribution of being found somewhere in space, and by taking measurements, you can find it somewhere in space. Same goes for any other particle/wavepaket. But things like energy, mass, momentum; they're not physical, they're just properties of physical things. Same with numbers, they;re not physical, theyre just things we made up. Just because we can manipulate them using mathematical laws, it doesn't make them physical. Also, lines and planes, they're not physical, as they do not take up space. There's also the question of how do you know if something takes up space. Well I am pretty sure this chair in front of me is taking up space, because if i try to stick my hand through it, i can't (only one physical things can occupy the same point in space at the same time). Please state me if I'm wrong. So i don't know who said that everything is physical, because according to the way I define it, its not. Anyways, I hope I am not stating the obvious, this is a really long thread I didnt really read everything..

 

[moving finger]

I really think that thinking of thought as physical

Wow….. do you think so?
Sorry about that, I will try to be more serious from now on…..

it is obvious and clearly shown that thought does effect matter and energy so in that way it must be physical.

Thought obviously affects matter and energy? Hmmmm. May I ask, where is the evidence for this obvious fact?
To my mind, “conscious thought” is a particular process of information transfer that takes place within a conscious (human) brain.
Now, it is entirely possible that such conscious thought could be “epiphenomenal” in the sense that there is no causal relationship of the form “conscious thought causes action”.
Can you provide any evidence that “conscious thought causes action”, as opposed to “conscious thought being purely epiphenomenal"?

I prefer to think of it as all one phenomena in different forms or states, different aspects or facets of the same stuff.

That may be the case. It may also be the case that “thought” is a by-product of action, and not a cause of such action.

If that stuff's origin is consciousness, which I think that it is, then this would be the way that it is all interactive. That consciousness is necessary for rational, aware thought is a given, I think.

This becomes (in part) a tautology if one defines “awareness” as synonymous with “consciousness”.
However I would dispute that “rational thought” necessarily requires “conscious thought”. Can you defend that statement?

So we have consciousness as the origin of thought

I would suggest that it could equally be argued that “thought” is in a sense the origin of consciousness.

then, or and, energy, then mass, then matter.

And it could be argued that there is no evidence that either thought or consciousness are causal agents with respect to energy or mass (they may be epiphenomenal).

Obviously something is eternal

Why “obviously”? Can you rationally defend this statement?
MF

 

[Les Sleeth]

Now, it is entirely possible that such conscious thought could be “epiphenomenal” in the sense that there is no causal relationship of the form “conscious thought causes action”.

It is entirely possible that the brain has a coorespondant response when consciousness thinks, just like my computer screen responds when I push buttons on my keyboard. To know what consciousness is, one has to learn to directly experience it; and epiphenomenalists, in my opinion, are sorely lacking in that sort of self knowledge.

Can you provide any evidence that “conscious thought causes action”, as opposed to “conscious thought being purely epiphenomenal"?

You surely must know that as of now the experience of consciousness is a subjective affair (I assume by "proof" you mean empirical, which requires externalizable experience to practice). We can objectively observe some brain functioning, but we can't experience another's experience of consciousness.

Can you objectively prove consciousness is epiphenomenal?

I would suggest that it could equally be argued that “thought” is in a sense the origin of consciousness.

How do you explain, then, that experienced meditators can stop thinking? I know for a fact that when one stops thinking one does NOT become less consciousnes, but more conscious.

 

[moving finger]

To know what consciousness is, one has to learn to directly experience it; and epiphenomenalists, in my opinion, are sorely lacking in that sort of self knowledge.

This could be a valid criticism of the perspective of "epiphenomenalists" - but epiphenomenalism may be true nevertheless
(it is not Nature’s obligation to behave how we would like, it is rather our duty to understand Nature)

Can you provide any evidence that “conscious thought causes action”, as opposed to “conscious thought being purely epiphenomenal"?

You surely must know that as of now the experience of consciousness is a subjective affair (I assume by "proof" you mean empirical, which requires externalizable experience to practice).

I asked simply whether any “evidence” can be provided to support the suggestion that conscious thought causes action. I did not ask for proof.

We can objectively observe some brain functioning, but we can't experience another's experience of consciousness.

I am not suggesting we must experience another’s consciousness.
But does the hypothesis that “conscious thought causes action” make any predictions which can be tested in practice?

Can you objectively prove consciousness is epiphenomenal?

I am not suggesting it is – only that it “may be”. As far as I can see no evidence has been provided thus far that would allow us either to rule out epiphenomenalism, or rule it in.

I would suggest that it could equally be argued that “thought” is in a sense the origin of consciousness.

How do you explain, then, that experienced meditators can stop thinking? I know for a fact that when one stops thinking one does NOT become less consciousnes, but more conscious.

In a case such as this, is one sure that one has actually stopped thinking, or is it just that one thinks that one has stopped thinking? Perhaps all that has happened is that one's thinking has become more directly focussed, and as a result one is less conscious of the fact that one is actually having thoughts. How would one propose to tell which is true?

With respect
MF

 

[nameless]

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html"

 

[Lars Laborious]

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html"

I guess this makes me a bothersome smart-ass, but still... :
http://www.randi.org/jr/072905beenthere.html"

 

[nameless]

Hey Lars, are you suggesting that real scientists should or would prostitute themselves for filthy lucre on a dog and pony show? *__-
Are you suggesting that any and all psi phenomena are non-existent because they cannot/will not perform like a trained seal for the Agendized Debunker Show? Is Randi the sole arbiter? Are you serious?

Besides, I find just a tad more credibility in extensive Princeton University research than the self-serving antics of a stage performer.

Besides, not everything registers on a triple-beam, or behaves the same every time.

Bye the bye, did you read the article and disagree with the findings or are you just being a "bothersome smart-ass"?
*__-

 

[Les Sleeth]

I asked simply whether any “evidence” can be provided to support the suggestion that conscious thought causes action. . . . does the hypothesis that “conscious thought causes action” make any predictions which can be tested in practice?

Sorry, I was basically ignoring your question to Royce and focusing on some of your side comments.

In a case such as this, is one sure that one has actually stopped thinking, or is it just that one thinks that one has stopped thinking? Perhaps all that has happened is that one's thinking has become more directly focussed, and as a result one is less conscious of the fact that one is actually having thoughts. How would one propose to tell which is true?
With respect.

This cracks me up every time I hear someone suggest it. How do one think one isn't thinking? Besides, if after 32 years of a hour a day practice I am still being fooled, I should be incapable of making any sense whatsoever.

Perhaps all that has happened is that one's thinking has become more directly focussed, and as a result one is less conscious of the fact that one is actually having thoughts. How would one propose to tell which is true?

It is clear you haven't experienced the beauty and power of stillness. You aren't less conscious in stillness, you are hyperconscious really. It's like how a perfectly still pond will show a minute drop on its surface much more clearly than a pond being sloshed about by the wind. The incessantly thinking mind sacrifices a certain sensitivity that is regained in stillness. What was so subtle as to be beyond perception now is made available for your perception and enjoyment. It is very easy to detect a thought in that condition.

 

[Royce]

Thought obviously affects matter and energy? Hmmmm. May I ask, where is the evidence for this obvious fact?

First my post was in response to previous posts in this thread and especially in response to Les' previous post. Les is familiar with most of my work here as I am with his. It was in the form of an ongoing conversation that he and I have been having off and on for nearly three years now.

I have written and posted this so many times I assumed that everyone has read it and observed it at least once by now.

The evidence is right there on your computer screen and all around you and the rest of us. If I have to spell it out again, we have thoughts, ideas, theories etc. and propose to share them with other here at PFs. By our intent and will we cause our fingers to move and type the characters into our computers via a keyboard and our computer send off the resulting electrical impulses onto the INTERNET and eventual to all of our computer monitors all created designed and built by thought and will. You move your finger by and act of will which is a form of thought.

To my mind, “conscious thought” is a particular process of information transfer that takes place within a conscious (human) brain.
Now, it is entirely possible that such conscious thought could be “epiphenomenal” in the sense that there is no causal relationship of the form “conscious thought causes action”.
Can you provide any evidence that “conscious thought causes action”, as opposed to “conscious thought being purely epiphenomenal"?
That may be the case. It may also be the case that “thought” is a by-product of action, and not a cause of such action.

First, if you will, define, “epiphenomenal” for me.

Every time you consciously and intentionally cause your body to move you are experiencing and observing conscious thought cause action.

By the last sentence in the quote above are you actually suggesting that our bodies move in a controlled and purposeful way all by themselves and then cause conscious thought to occur? Excuse me, but that is totally absurd and putting the cart before the horse.

This becomes (in part) a tautology if one defines “awareness” as synonymous with “consciousness”.

I did not say that awareness is synonymous with consciousness but that it is a necessary part of consciousness i.e. if one is not aware one is not conscious; if one is not conscious one is not aware and visa versa.

However I would dispute that “rational thought” necessarily requires “conscious thought”. Can you defend that statement?

Never having experience a conscious thought, rational or not, while unconscious, I cannot conceive of anyway one could have, be aware of and conscious of an unconscious thought, rational or irrational. Isn't that an oxymoron?

I would suggest that it could equally be argued that “thought” is in a sense the origin of consciousness.

If you insist on putting the cart before the horse, then, yes, you can argue it all you want. I don't know that anyone would listen; but, I know that, that wouldn't stop you from arguing anything. I suggest that it is intuitively obvious that one must be conscious first to have a conscious thought. I suppose it is possible for one to have any number of thoughts if one is unconscious but would one be aware of it? How would thought create consciousness if one is not conscious or aware of ones thoughts?

And it could be argued that there is no evidence that either thought or consciousness are causal agents with respect to energy or mass (they may be epiphenomenal).
Why “obviously”? Can you rationally defend this statement?
MF

Nor is there any evidence physical matter is a causal agent of mass and energy.

Within the context of subject of the posts it obviously followed. Taken out of context of that thought stream I cannot defend the statement nor do I feel it necessary to defend it because it was and is an ongoing philosophical speculation.

If your going to continue to pick everybodies comments apart at least read and understand the subject matter to which the statements are directed.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Every time you consciously and intentionally cause your body to move you are experiencing and observing conscious thought cause action.

Not so fast. What about Libet's fraction of a second between the act and the conscious intent?

 

[moving finger]

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html"

Interesting.
With respect, the results of this research allow one to conclude only that there is some "yet to be identified" influence that the human mind can bring to bear on the outcome of physical experiments. All of this is entirely compatible with an epiphenomenal model of consciousness (ie where consciousness is "caused by" the mind, and consciousness is not in itself a causal source of anything). In other words, the results show that human volunteers can somehow influence physical systems via some "unknown" mechanism, but the results do NOT show that consciousness necessarily causes this effect.
There is nothing here which says anything definitive about the "causal efficacy" of consciousness. What it does say (imho) is that the human mind can somehow affect physical systems by some as-yet-to-be-identified physical mechanism.
Before anyone jumps to conclusions - let me re-confirm I am NOT saying that epiphenomalism is the ONLY interpretation. I am saying that epiphenomalism is a POSSIBLE interpretation, and the results published here are entirely consistent with a model of epiphenomal consciousness.
As always, with respect
MF

 

[Lars Laborious]

Hey Lars, are you suggesting that real scientists should or would prostitute themselves for filthy lucre on a dog and pony show? ...

Hey Nameless, yes I do think real scientists that claim they have proof of paranormal phenomena should accept a challenge to test whether their statements are true or not, even if that means they’d have to stepdance in a public spotlight making their friends giggle. I understand that to uncritical wantobelievers, James Randi would seem like a simpel, obstinate critic that gets his kicks from spoiling fun. But his work is both serious and important – while it can disclose a hoax, it can also entail knowledge about strange phenomena that has yet to be taken seriously. And yes, I’m serious when it comes to not believe any claims just because someone at any university says so. If the fine group at Princeton University really has discovered psychokinesis, it’s their duty to embrace all critics. It is too significant not to do so.
But, I have to add, I do think it’s possible that consciousness can interact with the physical, since the world as we experience it consists only of qualia, and physical properties are rules within this bundle of bare experience.

 

[Royce]

Not so fast. What about Libet's fraction of a second between the act and the conscious intent?

I must have missed that one. Can you give me a link or a quick run down.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I must have missed that one. Can you give me a link or a quick run down.

Here is a quick rundown. You can find more references by googling on "Libet delay"

http://www.consciousentities.com/libet.htm

 

[nameless]

Hey Nameless, yes I do think real scientists that claim they have proof of paranormal phenomena should accept a challenge to test whether their statements are true or not, even if that means they’d have to stepdance in a public spotlight making their friends giggle.

Hey Lars. I agree with what you said! Very much! Great claims require great evidence. Have you read their findings? I wonder if Randi has read it? I wonder what he thinks? How he can exercise his light of his scepticism on their findings. It would be interesting.

You know though, the rigorous test conditions that Randi set up are well known to be aplicable for testing rocks and evaporation, but perhaps (he knows!) that his stringent conditions are not appropriate or aplicable to the more 'tenuous/ephemeral' world of thought and consciousness (and gained fame from his 'offer' while sure that he will never have to pay?). One cannot measure velocity with a triple beam!

 

[nameless]

Moving Finger, I agree with your take on the Princeton findings. Science does not come up with 'definitive proofs', only evidence and hypothesis. I don't agree, though, with the antique concept of 'cause and effect' anymore. It has also lost validity in the scientific community. BUt that's another thread! *__-

(Bye the bye, there is no need to bracket your messeges to me with "with respect". If there is respect, I'll know it. If not, all the 'respectful tags' will be as dust in the wind..)
Peace..

 

[Les Sleeth]

Not so fast. What about Libet's fraction of a second between the act and the conscious intent?

I suppose you didn't like my earlier answer to this issue in relation to free will:


Regarding Libet’s findings, in my opinion they do not provide nearly enough evidence to seriously challenge the causality of will. The fact that the body would ready itself for an action before consciousness is aware of the action being taken is too easily explained.

There is no doubt the body can be readied for pregnancy, for example, before the woman becomes aware of it, or that the body has systems which can ready it for fight or flight, or that we have an autonomic system, or we are capable of subliminal perception, etc. Because the body has certain survival or biologically programmed responses/capabilities built into it doesn’t mean consciousness doesn’t have control of selected aspects too.

It doesn’t matter whether we have complete control for consciousness causality to be true. If I fly a jet, I must adapt to how the systems work. If there is a system which automatically takes over when the plane stalls, or if the plane is worn out in some respect, or if it lacks a capability I want anyway . . . then I don’t have total control in the sense I can’t make it obey every exertion of my will. Nonetheless, I can still assert my will in specific ways, and so in those ways my conscious will causes the plane to do certain things.

 

[Royce]

Here is a quick rundown. You can find more references by googling on "Libet delay"
http://www.consciousentities.com/libet.htm

Thank you, selfAdjoint.
The first thing that comes to mind is that we don't consciously think about walking or a number of other things such as typing. We just do it and are often thinking about other things while we do it. I do notice that we or I at least get feedback and am consciously aware of it. For instance I may decide to walk into another room to get or do something and I do it without thinking any more about it. Often something else is on my mind so that by the time I get there I have forgotten why I went there in the first place. That is of course unless it is the kitchen or bathroom that I go to with the usual purposes.

I am conscious of feedback such as my balance or stepping on something not normal. When I'm typing I'm usually think about the subject and words and my fingers hit the correct keys without conscious thought, usually; however, I am aware after the fact that I made a mistake when I do hit the wrong key or double hit. This is often called muscle memory.

There are people who can accurately type 90 words a minute, that 7.5 characters a second. I know that they cannot be thinking about it while they're typing at that rate. They can't even be reading the material that they are typing. There just isn't time.

The problem with many of these experiments is that while they detect brain activity and even localize it to and immediate area they don't know what it is that they are actually detecting other than activity. Is it conscious thought, automatic feedback, confirmation or subconscious thought? Is is will, intention, random thought or memory sparked by the stimulus or is it something else completely unrelated and only a coincidence of timing?
I don't know but I also don't put to much credence to all of their fabulous claims. They are all under tremendous pressure to produce and publish and this makes them suspect to me.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I don't know but I also don't put to much credence to all of their fabulous claims. They are all under tremendous pressure to produce and publish and this makes them suspect to me.

With all due respect, Royce, isn't this the same closed minded attitude you accuse the deniers of independent consciouness of having? To make up a generic reason, that applies to ALL researchers, and acts as a shield to prevent you from having to consider their evidence in detail, is surely not what one would call open minded.

Libet's research in particular has a direct bearing on your conceptions, and has been the subject of a great deal of both supporting and dissenting commentary and analysis in the psychometric community. I don't think it can just be dismissed out of hand as what in the last analysis one would call fraud.

[Added] If you wil reread the description at the link you will see that Libet's method was to time the subject's consiousness of an act (lifting a finger) relative to a brain response (evoked potential), and found the potential peaked a major fraction of a second before the consciousness report (the reporting method was adjusted to take as little mechanical time as possible). This is quite different form unconscious acts like driving a familiar route.

 

[marcus]

I think that the definition of what is physical evolves along with physics. Once upon a time when Descartes wrote, physical meant pushes and pulls by macroscopic matter, then there was gravity, and chemical bonds, conserved energy, and luminiferous ether, and so on. At each point people who espoused physical philosophies (Locke, Marx, the log-pos group) used the then current notion of physicality.
Today physicality pretty much means consistence with the Standard Model of particle interactions or with General Relativity (locally GR looks like Special Relativity so that is included too)...

I agree.

I think the most important part of the definition is that it EVOLVES (along with the set of tools used).

The secondary part of the definition is what the term means TODAY.

I note two things about L.S. discussion of sA proposed definition:

A. Les forgot or overlooked the first part.

B. Les indicates that his motive for defining "physicalism" is to have a replacement for MATERIALISM, which is awkward to use because of its CONNOTATIONS.

Let's say clearly what these awkward or unfortunate connotations are. Maybe we can dust them off the word and refurbish the word "materialism" itself. It sounds to me like a very good word that has the right basic etymology (connection with MATTER) that Les seems to be driving at.

So what are the inconvenient associations with "materialism"? Some 19th century xxxxx probably----some obscure argumentations by Hegel and Marx?

 

[Lars Laborious]

Hey Lars. I agree with what you said! Very much! Great claims require great evidence. Have you read their findings? I wonder if Randi has read it? I wonder what he thinks? How he can exercise his light of his scepticism on their findings. It would be interesting. ...

Yes, I've read their findings, at least the ones on their website, and found them interesting. I'm just a bit skeptical to extraordinary claims that on the one hand are fronted on a website, and on the other hand are supposed to be spared scrutiny. I do think Randi has read their findings to, but you might be right that his test conditions aren't the best for testing consciousness-related matter. Then again, I think it's worth a try.

Royce, I agree with what you said about detecting brain activity. For instance, brain waves that neuroscientists take to represent decision making, might just as well arise after a decision has been made.

 

[Royce]

With all due respect, Royce, isn't this the same closed minded attitude you accuse the deniers of independent consciousness of having? To make up a generic reason, that applies to ALL researchers, and acts as a shield to prevent you from having to consider their evidence in detail, is surely not what one would call open minded.

I just reread my last post and I see why you suggest that I may have a closed mind. Absent minded maybe but not really closed; but, I am not convinced either. I just don't know and meant to say so in the previous post. I find it hard to believe that our body acts purposely and in a controlled manner before our brains or minds become conscious of it other than having done something so often that we do it automatically without any conscious thought at all.

Nor do I think our consciousness is entirely independent of our brains or bodies. I do believe that under certain circumstances our consciousness can operate independent of our bodies but normally it is, IMHO, interactively connected. I just don't think that it is an emergent property.

Libet's research in particular has a direct bearing on your conceptions, and has been the subject of a great deal of both supporting and dissenting commentary and analysis in the psychometric community. I don't think it can just be dismissed out of hand as what in the last analysis one would call fraud.

I don't mean to imply or say that any of them are frauds; however, fraud is not unknown in science. From what I read it seemed to me that the data was incomplete and didn't warrant the claims that some people were making.

If you will reread the description at the link you will see that Libet's method was to time the subject's consciousness of an act (lifting a finger) relative to a brain response (evoked potential), and found the potential peaked a major fraction of a second before the consciousness report (the reporting method was adjusted to take as little mechanical time as possible). This is quite different form unconscious acts like driving a familiar route.

I know that the brain does many things that we never become conscious of at all and in the case of reaction the brain does not become involved at all until after the fact. Could it be that we set up or prepare our body to do some thing one signal as in a reaction speed test. Providing a short cut from our senses to our motor control without requiring conscious thought. Then our brains receive the feedback and it takes a few fractions of a second for the potential peak to be processed into our conscious awareness?

I'm sure that you have tried to do something that you had never done before or do something very delicate and be aware of other amount or and intensity or concentration that it requires. After a few times it becomes easier and easier until it become automatic.

If thought in the form of will is not what causes our bodies to move in a controlled purposeful manner then what does?

Anyway I stand properly chastised and humbled. I shall try to be more care with my choice of words and be more open minded in the future.
However I am not so chastised or humbled that I am going to thank you for pointing it out to me and the world.

I will however thank you again for the information.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Let's say clearly what these awkward or unfortunate connotations are. Maybe we can dust them off the word and refurbish the word "materialism" itself. It sounds to me like a very good word that has the right basic etymology (connection with MATTER) that Les seems to be driving at.
So what are the inconvenient associations with "materialism"? Some 19th century xxxxx probably----some obscure argumentations by Hegel and Marx?

The ambiguities of the term (such as Marx's dialectic materialism) wasn't so much my motivation as that there seems to be more to physicalness than just matter.

But it's interesting that after I started trying to define physical, I boiled it down to mass and its effects. Of course mass and matter are virtually (totally?) identical, so I suppose the ambiguities of the term materialism may be the best reason to reject it.

However, a point I made earlier about physicalness was how something like gravity doesn't show up until there is mass. Now one might wonder if there is something present in the makeup of space before mass causes gravity to manifest. In other words, is it space that possesses the gravity potential, and we just can't see it until mass is present?

In that case, wouldn't we have to call space physical even though it is immaterial?

 

[Castlegate]

However, a point I made earlier about physicalness was how something like gravity doesn't show up until there is mass.

Perhaps it's the other way around, where mass don't show up until there is gravity? Since when does mass get top drawer honors in hierarchy structure?

Now one might wonder if there is something present in the makeup of space before mass causes gravity to manifest.

One might also wonder if space, matter, and gravity are all one in the same.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Perhaps it's the other way around, where mass don't show up until there is gravity?

Do you have an example of this?

Since when does mass get top drawer honors in hierarchy structure?

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.

 

[Crazy Moron]

“Now one might wonder if there is something present in the makeup of space before mass causes gravity to manifest. In other words, is it space that possesses the gravity potential, and we just can't see it until mass is present?”
----------------------------

And so, physicalness plus the nothingness of space produces gravity: that seems right.

In physicalness and nothingness, we have absolutely everything. You cannot find anything that is not either physical or nothing at all. The definition of physicalness, existence, materialism is altogether complete when you add the idea of nothing to the idea of physicalness.

The next question is: Which concept contains the idea of volume? Is it physicalness or nothingness that contains the idea of volume?

We think of vast infinite space as having the volume, and point particles in space having no volume, but affecting each other. Physics is the study of how point particles affect each other.

But when you think of the concept of nothingness, it occurs to you that it may not contain the concept of volume or space. It may be wrong for us to use the word space, and mean a vast nothing.

Look at a principle of string theory: all points are strings.

A string has value on a number line: it is one dimensional. It has length, while physic’s concept of a point particle is zero dimensional. Classic physics says point particles don’t have volume and space does. But if all points are strings, and a string has a value, it has length, that could mean the nothingness we think of as space does not actually contain any value; because if points have a value, then the opposite concept, nothingness, cannot have any value. String theory says point particles have a value. And math cannot describe a perfect circle with two dimensions, or a perfect sphere with three. It can only describe a perfect circle or sphere with one dimension. A one-dimensional string can be a circle or a sphere, and have a value that can be area or volume.

Going to the idea you expressed: “Is it space that possesses the gravity potential, and we just can't see it until mass is present?”

If matter has volume and space does not, then matter affects the vacuum of space by filling is emptiness. We know that the interaction of volume and vacuum produces a variable attractive force. I would suggest the most basic quality of physicalness is that it has volume.

I have heard of an experiment where a single photon is shot out. It can go either up or down. The next photon always goes up or down the same direction as the first. Photons are present, everywhere. If they were to have volume, affecting the vacuum of the space they inhabit, when another photon is introduced into the immediate area, possibly filling and changing the vacuum state of the up or down choice by filling it with more volume of matter, the next photon is attracted to where there is more matter, in this experiment.

 

[Les Sleeth]

And so, physicalness plus the nothingness of space produces gravity: that seems right.

Except . . . is space really nothing? Just because it is devoid of matter doesn't mean it is devoid of all existence. We already know about background microwave radiation, but then there's dark energy, possibly the Higgs field, the potential that awaits to manifest as gravity.

So I am not sure that it is right to say the absence of matter equals nothing.

I would suggest the most basic quality of physicalness is that it has volume.

I am not certain I followed all of your arguments, but I can't see why space doesn't have volume. What if you had infinite volume, but no other characteristics? How can you tell it is physical?

My point has been that in every case, everything we slap the label "physical" on is either from the presence of mass or effects/products of mass because until we get mass, there is no way to observe anything physical.

But if you say physicalness is volume, we could have all of that we want, yet no signs it exists. Put some mass in that volume, however, and right away there is something to label physical.

 

[Crazy Moron]

That's what I meant, space is full of radiation, which is all made of photons. I mean, space is chocked full of photons. If vacuum is total lack of volume; if point particles, like photons, were to have some tiny amount of volume; that combination of vacuum and volume would affect the amount of vacuum in different parts of space, which might make space seem to go "uphill" or "downhill".

The key idea is, does everything we call matter, even a photon, have some size or volume? It doesn't have mass as we would define mass, but it might have some volume. This idea of volume and vacuum may be the most basic idea in the universe: the idea that causes gravity and all other attractive forces.

The idea of volume would also cause repulsive force. One particle that always has volume hits another particle and knocks it out of the way. The volume of both particles cannot fit in the same place.

Volume may be the most basic quality of anything physical, even if it has no mass.

 

[dubmugga]

Ok then...

...does a thought have volume ?

how big is the collective consciousness and has it gotten bigger or has the amount of which we have tapped into it and feedback to it remained the same ?

...ie the volume or turnover of thought is is always balanced at zero or the more we expand our consciousness the bigger the volume the collective consciousness has

I prefer to think whatever is known and observable, the collective consciousness as it were, has always been known and able to be observed, we just don't know it or haven't seen it yet and this applies to all entities of any nature anywhere in any universe...

...on a side note i still don't get how a photon as a particle has no mass

wouldn't it be so much easier if we ascribed mass to light as then it might account for gravity ?

thinking about the basic quality of anything physical i would agree it to be volume as 4dimensions can create a perfect sphere butof course as we all know...

nothing is perfect
in the space where nothing exists
will one find perfection
the perfect nothing

unfortunately in this space there is always room for improvement...

...as you were

 

[Crazy Moron]

Conscious thought exists outside the universe looking at it. A thought isn’t physical.

To describe the whole universe, we have to say there is everything that is physical, and nothing.

Taking the pure concepts of physical and nothing, let’s put a zero-dimensional point on zero. Put another zero dimensional point next to it with no distance between them. Both points are still on zero. Both points are still nothing. You can add a thousand points and they will still be on zero, still nothing.

Put a zero-dimensional point a small distance from the point on zero: we have two distinct points, we are progressing down the number line. Put a thousand points that distance apart, and we have progressed noticeably down the number line. String theory says all points are strings. There is a string, or a small distance from zero to the first point. If there wasn’t the string, they would be the same point, and never get off of zero. All points really do have to be strings, in order to be points that are not zero.

On a sheet of paper, on a plane, we would put down a point that looks like a dot. It is point-like. The dot has a diameter. Put another dot next to it so there isn't any distance from the surface of the first dot to the next, and we can make a line, the same as we did with zero dimensional points placed a small distance apart. The dots, small circles are the same as strings. They are described by one dimension: diameter. On a line a string has length. On a plane, a string has area. In 3D space a string has volume.

So all points, which are physical things have volume. If you reduce the volume to zero, or you reduce the length of the string to zero you never get off of zero. It is nothing. If a point is not a string, it is nothing. So we have physical and we have nothing; that is everything in the universe.

Volume is a string in 3D space. If you reduce volume to zero, you have nothing. To have physical you must have volume.

The idea of nothing, or vacuum is a very powerful attractive force. Pure vacuum is the strong force. If you fill vacuum with point particles that have volume, and thus fill the vacuum, you can lessen the vacuum until it is not an attractive force. Slight imbalances in the way vacuum is filled by point particles that have no mass but must have volume in order to be a particle, produce gravity.

If photons are everywhere, maybe there is a static array of massless photon-like particles permeating all of space. They are like the light bulbs on a Las Vegas sign, which are set in place, although set is not the right word because they can change the shape of space. The photons we can see are energy being transferred from one of these particles to another, like lights that light up and go off causing what looks like movement, but is really static lights lighting up and shutting off.

Now we have a universe full of points which are matter but do not have a gravitational attraction. They have volume and affect the vacuum, and shape it.

 

[nameless]

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.

'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'.

Wouldn't the 'evidence' lead to a different hypothesis?

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'.
At least, that's how it looks from 'this' tree!
*__-

 

[nameless]

nothing is perfect

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.

 

[Les Sleeth]

'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'.
Wouldn't the 'evidence' lead to a different hypothesis?
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'.
At least, that's how it looks from 'this' tree!
*__-

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 Sleeth]

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]

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]

. . . 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]

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]

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.

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'!

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]

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]

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.

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!

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' . . .

Duh . . . Mind is what generates concepts.

. . . and hence, no 'physicalness'!

Huh? You are making no sense.

 

[nameless]

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, that's 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]

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.

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]

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, http://www.thinking-allowed.com/wolf.html" ;

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 haven't 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]

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.

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.

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.

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 haven't 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]

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".

"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]

Les, here is another perspective closer to your own than mine. What becomes of your 'cause and effect' within 'this' context?

Excerpt from:
http://montalk.net/science/74/-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]

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]

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]

. . . 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:

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.