Implications of a single consciousness

[Doctordick]

Well, I will put some serious thought into this response.

I think it's really bad when you accuse people of doing things you often do yourself. But that's a personal thing, it doesn't really matter.

We all go off half cocked occasionally. At least I admit it and apologize for my acts when they are not well thought out.

The fundamental issue is that science does not make claims to absolute truth, only to working models.

To quote myself:

It is extremely difficult to find errors in our presumptions because presumptions are, almost by definition, what we assume to be true and "truth" is an issue no "hard" scientist generally wants to discuss. Why not? For a very simple reason! It is a problem he does not know how to solve thus, in his mind, a waste of time to consider. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that there is one basic truth which can be considered absolute: that which is true by definition is absolutely true. The issue of truth by definition rests on two very straight forward points: (1.) we either agree on our definitions or communication is impossible and (2.) no acceptable definition can contain internal contradictions.

If you want to claim the absolute truth of modern physics, I'm OK with it as long as you can provide proof, which you say you do. I'm only clarifying what I meant anyway.

I am not claiming absolute truth of modern physics. I am claiming absolute truth for the conclusions of my paper (unless I have made an error which is certainly possible as no one has ever made a competent examination of my work or, if they have, they haven't pointed out any errors to me not attributable to "failure to agree on definitions").

To quote myself again, from "The Foundations of Physical Reality", Chapter 1. A Mental Model of Reality, Part I -- The Situation:

What follows from here are truly "the consequences of defining reality". Fundamentally, what I will present is often referred to as a tautology: strictly, "a needless repetition of the same idea in a different word, phrase or sentence". It would indeed be needless repetition were everyone brilliant enough to see those consequences; however, any decent education in mathematics will assure one that the consequences of definition can easily far outstrip the capabilities of common intuition.

It was certainly not to be taken as something as naive as your grandmother's beliefs about the shape of the earth.

My only comment to that is that I have never met anyone who understood just how naive there personal beliefs were. Their beliefs are their beliefs. That those beliefs are "naive" is a judgment (often poorly thought out) made by others. It seems the word is most often used for its connotations and not for its actual meaning. We are all naive and should recognize the fact.

It seems to me you placed too much emphasis on "universe", when to me the important point was "conceivable". I did not say it is impossible for unconceivable universes to exist, all I said was that it is impossible for us to conceive of an unconceivable universe. It's an almost silly statement put that way, but the bottom line is we can't avoid the concepts we have already conceived to describe whatever it is that we describe with those concepts. It's true not only of the physical universe, but also of economics, history, geography, and any intellectual endeavor.

Can't[/color] is a pretty absolute statement. Right in line with "man can't fly". You can't do anything if you do not try.

One could go even further and say that the science of physics is a logical consequence of the concepts we use to describe the physical universe.

Here you make it quite obvious that you have put little time into what I have said as that is exactly the conclusion reached in my work. The only difference between your assertion and my work is that my work is an exact analytical deduction and yours is apparently little more than an opinion.

I don't know about that. In what way do you think Newton's three laws of motion are not tautologies?

In answer to that, I can only quote myself again, from Chapter II, Part IV -- Examination of Our Conclusions:

In effect, I have shown that all conceivable universes may be seen as a three dimensional space occupied by objects which are required by definition to obey classical mechanics in the classical limit. What I have shown can be taken in two different ways. One can see the result as demonstrating that our classical view of the universe (a three dimensional space occupied by objects which obey classical mechanics) is entirely general and capable of representing any conceivable universe or one can view my results as demonstrating that the fact that classical mechanics is true by definition and that no classical experiment tells us anything about the universe except perhaps that our definitions are self consistent.

The phrase, "all conceivable universes", is not intended to be limited to that which "we can conceive ". The critical phrase is "no classical experiment tells us anything about the universe"! That pretty well puts off any professional physicist I have ever talked to. As I said, "Why do you think everyone presumes I am a crackpot without any discussion of the details of my work?"

People usually don't bother examining extraordinary claims unaccompanied by extraordinary evidence. If you are right, what does it mean and how can we verify it?

Start with my definitions and follow the logic! What I find funny here is that first you say my claims are "trivial" and then talk about people not bothering to examine "extraordinary claims". I get the distinct impression that you just have no interest in thinking about it and will throw up whatever cavil seems appropriate at the moment: "period". If that is the case, we really have nothing to talk about.

... I'm assuming there is a reason why I get more heads than tails. I'm assuming causality. ... then the outcome is not completely random and you are, essentially, implying causality.

Thank you for that admission. My point is that "causality" is required by explanations, not by the data. All one can really say about a "valid" explanation (naive or otherwise) is that the observed data is consistent with the explanation. To presume that the fact that the data is consistent with that explanation proves the explanation is correct is naive in the extreme. And that is a naivety attributable to almost everyone from the most educated scientist all the way down to a kindergarten class. I am not using that term for its connotations but rather because I want you to understand the fundamental naivete of the human race.

Any expectation is based on some theory of what you think you know about what is going on. It's as much an assumption to think the chance is 80-20 as it is to think it's 50-50, and the assumption has nothing to do with the phenomenon being observed. The key issue here is that you are making a prediction about the future - a statement about what you don't know - an assumption! To predict the future, by any means, is to assume. You can't avoid that.

You are absolutely correct. One can not make any prediction without making an assumption; fundamentally, that the theory upon which the prediction is based is valid. Now, independent of any proposed theory, it should be clear to you that underlying every possible theory is one very fundamental assumption. That assumption is that the future will resemble the past; or, to put it another way, any explanation which does not conform to the known past is to be rejected without question. If you were to go carefully go through my work (which I very much doubt you will), you would discover that the only assumption my predictions are based on is the assumption that the future will resemble the past. My point is the fact that without that assumption prediction itself can not occur or, more particularly, without that assumption, the past has nothing to do with the future and nothing is meaningful at all.

Which is why the world is full of crackpots. Most explanations are useless, even if they are true.

Now this, taken against what we had apparently agreed upon is a rather extreme statement. I can only conclude little thought was put into it; it seems to be a very emotional proclamation. "Most explanations are useless"? I think you would find few people successful in applied technology who would agree with that one.

Logic. You can create a tautology which is always true no matter what the historical data is.

Well, that is certainly a starting point and, as a matter of fact, a concise statement of what I have done. My problem is that the professionals believe that they can depend upon their intuition to do that for them and only a crackpot would think a close examination of the process would be worthwhile.

I didn't even check the url before writing it.

Then I presume you would agree with me that little thought was put into your post?

I have put careful thought into each comment I have made here and if you find any of it insulting or stupid, I can only presume you did not understand what I was trying to say.

By the way, the thread has gotten a bit off from Paul Martin's original opening,"Implications of a single consciousness". In the interest of reestablishing that thought, let me point out an interesting consequence of my definition of time (the past is what we know and the future is what we don't know and "we" are not outside the universe). First, just a quick reference to something I said to saviormachine:

I wouldn't say evolution destroys 'owners' of a set C less adapted to their environment. The set C possessed by a rock is probably quite minimal if it exists at all and the rock isn't "destroyed"; it just lays there. What was C again anyway? All the information about the universe it has to work with wasn't it? Or at least that which "it" can "remember". I guess for a rock that would be the collection of interactions it has had with the rest of the universe and it's memory would be in the vibrations and/or make up of the chemicals which are part of it. Really, I think this aspect of the problem is better left to later, after you understand the solution I have discovered.

From that respect, "we" can refer to anything from a fundamental particle to a galaxy itself. For a fundamental particle C apparently consists of very little data (mass, spin, charge etc.); for a galaxy, one might suspect it is quite more than what it is for a human. However, a human seems to do more with what he "knows" than does a galaxy.

But that's not the reason I extended this post. What I was getting to was the fact that, if one accepts reincarnation as a possibility, since time is a creation of the human mind and not a fact of the universe itself, there is no need to hypothesize that reincarnation occurs in the future. Since future and past are defined by what we know or don't know and reincarnation usually includes a reduction in knowledge (otherwise reincarnation would include a memory of both death and re-conception). At any rate, if one accepts reincarnation as a possibility, there is no evidence that we are not all the same person.

Since our memories are a function of our incarnation, previous carnations and/or future carnations have no bearing on ones current carnation (in fact, one could say that "previous" and "future" have no meaning in that context. Paul's "driver" (that awareness under discussion) could indeed be but one "thing". My only disagreement with Paul resides in the fact that a very fundamental dilemma underlies any understanding of anything: i.e., the things upon which that "understanding" is based. I have an excellent name for that particular dilemma, the "Great Original Dilemma".

Just a thought and little more.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Faustus]

We all go off half cocked occasionally. At least I admit it and apologize for my acts when they are not well thought out.

I suspect the real problem is that you think you need to think out everything you do or say. People don't expect that; they usually expect civility and respect. Those, you seldom offer.

To quote myself

I have never seen someone quote himself. Sounds like a very narcissistic thing to do.

I am not claiming absolute truth of modern physics.

Nonsense. You are claiming physics is a tautology. Tautologies are absolutely true.

I am claiming absolute truth for the conclusions of my paper (unless I have made an error which is certainly possible as no one has ever made a competent examination of my work or, if they have, they haven't pointed out any errors to me not attributable to "failure to agree on definitions").

Your paper may well be correct, but what does it mean? You haven't said a thing so far.

To quote myself again...

:zzz:

My only comment to that is that I have never met anyone who understood just how naive there personal beliefs were. Their beliefs are their beliefs. That those beliefs are "naive" is a judgment (often poorly thought out) made by others. It seems the word is most often used for its connotations and not for its actual meaning. We are all naive and should recognize the fact.

That is just a play with words to evade the real issue. Your grandmother believed the Earth was flat out of ignorance, since it was common knowledge then that it was round (unless she was really old - like 800 years old ).

There are a lot of people today who believe in astrology, and that is naive. Your comment is just, as you say, a cavil.

Can't[/color] is a pretty absolute statement. Right in line with "man can't fly".

Nonsense again. And can't you think about something other than this "man can't fly" childishness? Besides, it's not even true that man can fly; so far only airplanes do.

All I said was that I cannot conceive of things that cannot be conceived. That is a pretty absolute statement because it is a tautology.

You can't do anything if you do not try.

And I suppose your next claim is that I can do anything if I try! Watch out, for this thread may be moved to Skepticism and Debunking...

Here you make it quite obvious that you have put little time into what I have said as that is exactly the conclusion reached in my work. The only difference between your assertion and my work is that my work is an exact analytical deduction and yours is apparently little more than an opinion.

Translation: I am intellectually lazy and believe in something I can't prove.

The thought doesn't even cross your mind that I may have as much reason to think that way as you do. No, you are the great thinker who writes a paper no one bothers reading, I am just a fool who dares criticize your great genius... :zzz:

In answer to that, I can only quote myself again

Do that one more time, and I won't bother replying to your post anymore.

I get the distinct impression that you just have no interest in thinking about it and will throw up whatever cavil seems appropriate at the moment: "period".

Stop thinking about what my intentions are and address the issues! I don't care for your demeaning comments!

My point is that "causality" is required by explanations, not by the data.

My point is that so is "randomness". But that went way over your head.

All one can really say about a "valid" explanation (naive or otherwise) is that the observed data is consistent with the explanation.

Nonsense. Sometimes an explanation reveals why the observed data is not consistent with it. All one can really say about a valid explanation is that it is logical. Logic plays a more important role in science than observations, and everyone claiming to have a PhD in physics is supposed to know that.

To presume that the fact that the data is consistent with that explanation proves the explanation is correct is naive in the extreme. And that is a naivety attributable to almost everyone from the most educated scientist all the way down to a kindergarten class.

Everyone in the world but yourself, right? Oh well...

I am not using that term for its connotations but rather because I want you to understand the fundamental naivete of the human race.

What "fundamental naivete"? This is nonsense. You are just playing with words and making no intellectual argument whatsoever.

One can not make any prediction without making an assumption; fundamentally, that the theory upon which the prediction is based is valid.

More word games. "One cannot make any prediction without making an assumption; fundamentally, that the theory upon which the prediction is based can be used for making predictions".

You keep making those arguments as if they had any meaning, when in fact they are simply tautologies in disguise. Reading your posts is like peeling an onion; when one gets to the essence of what you are talking about, one discovers you are talking about absolutely nothing! The only really meaningful sentences in your posts are the insults and the self-aggrandizing statements; everything else is just a bunch of tricks devised to misdirect the reader's attention.

If you were to go carefully go through my work (which I very much doubt you will)

And why should I, when you said you "don't think that paper is a very a good presentation" (your words! apparently you only quote yourself when you find it convenient!)

Now this, taken against what we had apparently agreed upon is a rather extreme statement. I can only conclude little thought was put into it; it seems to be a very emotional proclamation

Here you are again, insulting me to avoid the issue...

"Most explanations are useless"? I think you would find few people successful in applied technology who would agree with that one.

This forum is full of explanations. From the origin of the universe to the workings of consciousness, there are myriad explanations posted here for your reading pleasure. If you don't find those explanations useless, I can only say you are naive.

Then I presume you would agree with me that little thought was put into your post?

I will never agree with you that I'm stupid. Stop trying to convince me I don't think carefully about what I say; it's always easier for me to think you don't understand what I'm saying.

For someone supposedly so well-acquainted with human psychology, doing that is just silly.

I have put careful thought into each comment I have made here and if you find any of it insulting or stupid, I can only presume you did not understand what I was trying to say.

Ha ha! What did I just say?

let me point out an interesting consequence of my definition of time (the past is what we know and the future is what we don't know and "we" are not outside the universe).

Why should I care about the interesting consequences of your definition of time when I don't agree with it? Whatever you say about your "time" has no meaning to me as it doesn't relate to my "time".

What I was getting to was the fact that, if one accepts reincarnation as a possibility, since time is a creation of the human mind and not a fact of the universe itself, there is no need to hypothesize that reincarnation occurs in the future. Since future and past are defined by what we know or don't know and reincarnation usually includes a reduction in knowledge (otherwise reincarnation would include a memory of both death and re-conception). At any rate, if one accepts reincarnation as a possibility, there is no evidence that we are not all the same person.

Thanks for that. I'll just add your explanation above to the pile of useless explanations I know.

I have an excellent name for that particular dilemma, the "Great Original Dilemma".

So now you also explain what God is, and turns out He is an acronym? Excuse me the laughter, I can't help it

I'm sorry Doctordick, I probably shouldn't be laughing at you. It's clear to me you have some sort of linguistic disorder, which is not bad enough to prevent you from being functional, but it definitely impairs your ability to have meaningful conversations with ordinary people.

By the way, people like you tend to obsess with activities that require little social contact, like mathematics, computer programming, and the exact sciences. Perhaps you are right and you really discovered something important, but if that is the case then you'll have to take that discovery to your tomb. More than likely, though, I think you are just a confused fellow.

Sorry if you think this post is not well thought out. I know it appears that way to you. I wish you better luck with saviourmachine, but I suspect he'll find out sooner or later, if he hasn't already.

Good bye!

 

[Doctordick]

I suspect the real problem is that you think you need to think out everything you do or say. People don't expect that ... I am intellectually lazy and believe in something I can't prove.

Do that one more time, and I won't bother replying to your post anymore.

Thank god; the end is near!

Stop trying to convince me I don't think carefully about what I say; it's always easier for me to think you don't understand what I'm saying.

Well, pick the easy route then. Say something intelligent and I will take you seriously. For the moment, my only serious comment to your deep and profound retort, read this.

Have fun -- Dick