The Basis of Order

  • Thread starter Sigma Greyhamn
  • Start date

Sigma Greyhamn

If my esteemed board-mates would be so kind as to pick this apart from very possible angle paying particular attention to logical consistency and physics aspects I would be much obliged.

Thanks in advance,
Sigma the Grey
------------------------

The Observer

Order brings life. Chaos leads to death. This is not belief, this is fact.

The Master is not one with reality. He is independent of reality - he is an Observer.

Observation by an independent entity is synonymous with creation.

Chaos is throughout the Multiverse. Chaos is the natural state of the Multiverse. Chaos over an endless amount of time resulted in Order.

Hence, chaos eventually yields to Order and Order gives dichotic definition to chaos. For without Order, chaos cannot be observed and is therefore inexistent.

Order was first observed by the first Sentient creature in the Multiverse, making both the Observer and Order distinctly real. Thus Sentience is defined by the ability of a consciousness to observe Order, independent of an outside source’s criterion.
Order and chaos, the Multiverse, and Sentient beings all exist - irrespective of whether or not a God does. The concept of god/s is irrelevant to the study of Order and chaos.

In the first act of Observation, Order was brought to the formless void of swirling chaos that was reality until that point. Observation brings meaning to chaos.

Whatever and whomever was the first Sentient being created the Multiverse – despite the fact that such a being was necessarily born of chaos. Without the Observer the Multiverse was meaningless and void. Space/Time/Probability has no meaning without an Observer present to determine if energy exists at a certain point. Thus the fundamentally dualistic nature of physical reality is made clear: the Multiverse is composed of energy and information. Information necessitates an Observer.

Energy comprises both the Observer’s body and physical reality. Yet energy is only a derivative.

Clearly the Multiverse is not merely physical reality. In the higher realms of reality the thing which defines the physical – energy – ceases to be and only information exists, information clumped into data. These separate (yet related and interacting) pieces of data are called concepts. Worlds within worlds of the concepts exist in the higher realms of reality. And even here the Master must bring Order. As with reality this is done through the act of Observation.

The datum which says whether or not energy exists at a point is said to be a Qualium. A Qualium is the fundamental atom of meaning. The Observer decides in what mater Qualia comprises Order. The Master manipulates the Qualia to increase Order. He does this first by Qualia integration, also known as conceptualization; and secondly by taking actions in the physical reality to increase Order. Hence a Qualia is a single unit of perception.

Meaning is the Basis of Order. Meaninglessness and nothingness, both being hollow concepts in themselves, are the origins of chaos. There is no such thing, by definition, as nothingness; anything called nothingness is nothing more than pure potential. So dictates Observation. Once an Observer is present nothingness ceases to be possible; for the conceptualizations of the Observer bring meaning to the universe.

Chaos is destruction. Chaos in only necessary insofar as its presence contrasts with and in doing so defines Order.

Even though Order and chaos (being eternal concepts) are static principles in themselves, nothing in the physical Multiverse is static – not so long as the clock ticks. Thus all material things are dynamic, irrespective of whether or not they are in Order or chaos.



The Multiverse always was, but was not relevant until there was life. The great paradox is that the Multiverse’s original form being one of chaos, beginning without form and lacking an Observer, could have been said not to exist – yet was there. Look beyond the words.

The eternal cause of Order is life. The meaning of life is dependent upon the Observer.

The Observer is the root of all real things. The Master's life is a work of art, meant to absorb beauty and create beauty.

The act of Observation is dualistic - involving feeling and thought.

Thought is lame without emotion. Emotion is blind without thought.

Thought is necessary to continue life and to create Order. Feeling is necessary to give that continuation meaning.

An Observer’s perspective defines the Observer’s truth.

Objective truth is the truth that exists in all possible perspectives – and subjective physical reality is a thing derived from it. It is the plight of the Master to see the world subjectively and have to learn about her surrounding reality by induction. This is the case both because the Master is not omniscient and because the forces of chaos lead reality to be in a state of constant flux. The Qualia being both subject to Observation and in a constant state of change are not objective things in themselves.

Integration of Qualia to concepts and concepts to yet greater concepts on higher realms of reality may lead to Objective truths – principles. This is the essence of philosophy.

Those who serve chaos jump perspectives without learning from them. Those who serve Order master each perspective before moving onto the next one. The act of mastering a perspective is the act of concept integration.

Just as serving chaos will lead to death in the long run; in the short run it will lead to the loss of ones mind.

Mastering a perspective is an act of beauty and fulfillment; if perspectives are jumped too quickly the lack of emotional/intellectual equilibrium eventually leads to loss of Self.

One’s Self is one’s totality: The Observer’s feelings, mind, Soul and physical container. An Observer is not merely a body. One’s Ego is the Self’s defense against chaos.




The Ego should be cultivated by Order, in Order to protect the Self. The Observer’s most important Observation is herself. The Observer should ask herself what and who it is, what it seeks in existence, where it will go to find that thing, and why it is in its present local. By asking herself these questions the Observers gradually becomes the Master by bringing the Order of her Soul to her inner chaos also called suffering. The Soul is the core of one’s inner Self and the home of Order. The Soul contains emotional memory.

Defense is the martial law of Order; attack of chaos. One should never attack unless the action serves the higher Order – generally when one has been attacked first and is in jeopardy.

An Observer should endeavor always to protect two things in this Order: 1. The Observer’s values; 2. The Observer’s Self. Naturally, both encapsulate each other. Such is the essence of life.

The way of Order among Observers is to seek to better oneself while at the same time bettering the Society as a whole. If one is in a state of inner Equilibrium this synthesis is one’s natural course of action, and would appear obvious and inevitable to the Master.

A healthy Observer should be involved in a constant struggle to learn better the nature of the Multiverse. Ignorance is a weapon of chaos. All things of chaos lead to death.

The Master understands the balance of the Multiverse. The presence of chaos yields time. So long as the clock ticks chaos continues to eat away at life. Contemplation of this mystery yields the great truth which cannot be placed into words directly. The ancient ones basked in this truth.

As the Observer observes she creates the Multiverse around herself. As the Master comes to understand that which is around her (truly by understanding her own nature) she comes to Master the environment around her and to dispel chaos from out her midst.

Thus the Master always pushes chaos further away from herself. This can be seen within the very body itself; on all levels of which chaos in the form of harmful waste is removed as prescribed by the very coding of life it’s-Self.

Yet life by its nature also creates chaos as we can clearly see. Life must learn to deal with this chaos and turn it back to Order. This is the act of Mammon.
Sentient life must be a self-organizing never-ending Mammon Machine. The Mammon Machine serves the purposes of life and Order thus giving increasingly more time to the individual Observer to feel.

Due to the nature of Order the Mammon Machine of life always becomes more efficient. However, the Master’s must never forget that efficiency in itself is not the goal; greater ability to feel and experience the world for the individual Observer is the goal of the Mammon Machine. This is the essence of Society.

Hence the Mammon Machine must be balanced. The machine must turn chaos to Order while allowing the Observer to think and feel. The Master understands this. This is the essence of Government.

The physical is only a shadow world that is cast by chaos. Light is reflected into our eyes showing us the world. Sounds are bounced into our audio sensors, allowing us to hear the world. Tactile contact is pushed to the mind through re-uptake of nerves allowing us to touch the physical. Our olfactory senses warn us of dangers around us. Yet none of this is reality.

Reality, like an Observer, exists on many planes, not merely the physical. In the intellectual plane the mind differentiates Order from chaos. On the physical plane the body seeks to implement the knowledge contained by the mind and produce greater Order. In the realm of feelings the Self finds its comfort and reason for existence. In the Soul these things are integrated and stored, it is in the world of the Soul that all things are integrated.

Reason is the language of Order. Reasonable communication must be facilitated through protocols. Anything less will yield chaos.
 

Sigma Greyhamn

In the last post I attached a file for viewing concerning my theory on time but I can't figure out how to link to it so for the time being I'll leave it out and later if I get enough requests I'll post it elsewhere.

For the time being here is a small extension to the idea being put forth above. As with the one that came before pelase make me aware of any shortsidedness that you observe here.

Thanks,
Sigma the Grey.
-------------------


Qualia, Mathematics, and Philosophy

When a Qualium is seen by the Observer one piece of meaning is created.

This is called the Quantification of Meaning. In utilizing it, the Master may create a personal Arithmetic, Algebra, and Calculus of meaning.

Yet this presupposes that an Observer sees individual Qualium and has the time to bring these separate Qualia into an Ordered pattern within her mind. This is hardly, if ever, the case. And even if this were this case, Qualium are still subjective.

Yet the integration of Qualium into Objects and Concepts eventually reaches into the world of the Objective.

In the act of conceptualization (Meaning Calculus) the Master determines her priority assessment of things.

Since time is a dimension it follows that it flows in both directions, like other dimensions. Hence chaos is at one end of time and Order Unity of all Qualium at the other end.

(attached picture goes here)

This property of time implies that the past is as subject to the present as the future, proportionately. Or, alternately that different events are related to different values going across the probability axis, depending on how you choose to see it. The meaning is the same. History is as unknowable as future, if time truly is a dimension.
 
2,224
0
Dead Formalism

Originally posted by Sigma Greyhamn
If my esteemed board-mates would be so kind as to pick this apart from very possible angle paying particular attention to logical consistency and physics aspects I would be much obliged.

Thanks in advance,
Sigma the Grey
------------------------

The Observer

Order brings life. Chaos leads to death. This is not belief, this is fact.
Order brings life? ... Wrong!

Chaos is the beginning. Formality spells death. Once we set up the status quo, "nothing new" (as in life) is tolerated. All we have left is "dead formalism" ... as our buildings begin to crumble.

So where is the spark of life? Could there be some "supereminent principle" (law of nature) existing within the storm, which strikes the earth with lightning flashes, igniting everything in a blaze of chaos, everything which is dead, formal and decrepit ... by which the whole cycle of life begins anew?
 
1,596
0
I'm affraid the first posting in this thread contains false axioms, especially to define an observer as being out of reality.
There are no known observers that are not part of the same reality which is observed. In particular the human observer is part of reality. And all acts to observe reality, are physical acts.
 

Sigma Greyhamn

To Iacchus32,

I thought of that...not according to MY definition of Order. According to the traditional one, yes perhaps.

To heusdens,

I'm defining the Observer as being partly the Soul within or underlying Sentience. By doing this I can get away with saying that the Observer is independent of reality, becuase at least on the 'spiritual realm' she is.
 
1,596
0
Originally posted by Sigma Greyhamn
To heusdens,

I'm defining the Observer as being partly the Soul within or underlying Sentience. By doing this I can get away with saying that the Observer is independent of reality, becuase at least on the 'spiritual realm' she is.
There is no soul. It is just an "invention" of humans, but in reality it does not exist. For that part of your philosophy, I hold it, it does not fit reality.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
Order brings life. Chaos leads to death. This is not belief, this is fact.
Define life.
By the thermodynamic definition of order and chaos, this is generally correct...
The Master is not one with reality. He is independent of reality - he is an Observer.
My classic quibble with "not of this reality". How can you justify using logic, which is of this reality, to identify what you place outside?
Observation by an independent entity is synonymous with creation.
Creation, but not of the object itself - rather of a virtual image of the object. To say that perception = creation violates cause and effect.
Chaos is throughout the Multiverse. Chaos is the natural state of the Multiverse. Chaos over an endless amount of time resulted in Order.
Nein! Nein! Chaos is the natural state. Yes. But order is the initial state of the universe, and will end up in chaos.
Hence, chaos eventually yields to Order and Order gives dichotic definition to chaos. For without Order, chaos cannot be observed and is therefore inexistent.
No.... order eventually results in chaos. And not being observed does not neccessitate non-existence.
Order was first observed by the first Sentient creature in the Multiverse, making both the Observer and Order distinctly real. Thus Sentience is defined by the ability of a consciousness to observe Order, independent of an outside source’s criterion.
Logical problem: How can order give existence to sentience, if without sentience order cannot exist? Solution: Sentience transcends time, which is absurd.
 
2,224
0
Originally posted by Sigma Greyhamn
I'm defining the Observer as being partly the Soul within or underlying Sentience. By doing this I can get away with saying that the Observer is independent of reality, becuase at least on the 'spiritual realm' she is.
One might have to take this over to the God & Religion forum in order to debate on it, but over there I would most likely agree.
 
2,224
0
Originally posted by FZ+
Logical problem: How can order give existence to sentience, if without sentience order cannot exist? Solution: Sentience transcends time, which is absurd.
Time and space comes together in the here and now! ... And believe it or not that is transcendent!

"I close my eyes, only for a moment and the moment's gone ..." And yet the moment "always is," and that's what trandscends time -- i.e., through "the observer." This is what the focus of meditation is supposed to entail, tuning into the "stillness of moment," and using that as a springboard for one's "inner-experience."
 

FZ+

1,550
2
Actually... I don't think so.

Rather, it is the nature of awareness that creates time - not the reverse. The universe doesn't move around us, but we move linearly through time.
 
2,224
0
Originally posted by FZ+
Actually... I don't think so.

Rather, it is the nature of awareness that creates time - not the reverse. The universe doesn't move around us, but we move linearly through time.
And yet the moment is. Which is existence itself. Only "the observer," which is cognizant, can recognize this.

You see this is what makes us unique.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
The moment is... what?

And really... that's what makes us unique? Where did that come from?

Huh?[?]
 

Sigma Greyhamn

I'm answering all of the questiosn revolving around Thermodynamics (which I believe are very on track) and order with the following:

I stated that in order for time to be a true dimension like the others it must flow both ways. Re-read, reconsider, and then tell me again if what I've put forth is still problematic. I think it is, but I'm having trouble verbalizing how, maybe you can though...
 
2,224
0
Originally posted by FZ+
The moment is... what?

And really... that's what makes us unique? Where did that come from?

Huh?[?]
Cognizance gives us the ability to know we exist. Cognizance gives us the ability to know the truth. Cognizance belies the fact that we're awake and alive. Yet cognizance cannot be "realized" except within the moment. We can only become aware in the moment. We can only acknowledge truth in the moment. We can only know we exist in the moment. Therefore the process of knowing (and acknowlegment) "coincides" with the moment. Whereas each moment becomes a new awakening, and a new awareness to the fact that we exist (through cognizance, consciousness, awareness, etc.).

If you're still confused, just become aware of the fact that you exist "within" the moment, and realize you couln't do so out side of it.
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Greetings !

Welcome to PF Sigma Greyhamn !
Originally posted by Sigma Greyhamn
If my esteemed board-mates would be so kind
as to pick this apart from very possible
angle paying particular attention to logical
consistency and physics aspects I would be
much obliged.
I'm terribly sorry but my life is too short
to adress your message in that manner. :wink:
Also, I do not see the point of doing that.
Your problems begin at the very beginning
and are fundumental, there is no need to go
much forward. First, you claim things without
presenting an argument that supports them.
Second, you claim things with no place left
for doubt. If you can fix these two fundumental
aspects then I personally may see a point of
going further with your ideas.

Peace and long life.
 

Sigma Greyhamn

Drag,

Thanks!

This is meant to be philosophical underpinning - a metaphysics, not really philosophy or arguementation. CERTAINLY NOT SCIENCE!!!

I want to know if this system of thought is self-consistant.

If you can show me that it isn't or that it blantantly conflicts with things that are 'known' about the universe then I will listen, take you seriously, and if I (or enough people on the baords) agree I will atempt to fix the problem.

But just telling me that it's all flawed to begin with because of the style in which it's written and because it assumes itself correct means nothing to me since that is exactly what I am going for: metaphysics.

What I'm trying to do with this is make a system of belief, if you will, that integrates most of the religouns of the worlds common beliefs with what science now assumes about the universe. Think about that some and tell me it isn't a good idea.

Besides that you would do well to note that Aristotle (who had much to do with the birth of scientific thought) and a number of other philosophers (I'll give you a list if you insist) began their philosophies with a metaphysics that was just to be assumed and (if I might be so bold) many of those ideas I tried to unify here.

There are certainly beliefs that EVERYONE holds which are just plain unprovable assumptions from Steven Hawking to the Pope. In this way science is no different from religoun or any other philosophy. * This piece is my try at bringing all of these assumptions together as well as possible into a funtioning system of thought.

Ok, are we clear now?

* It's even argueable that empiricism is no more credidble than mysticism as an epistomology though I won't argue it unless you push me on the issue becuase I actually don't think that this is the case myself. Obviously the fact that I took this work first here shows I have a strong faith in science. ;)
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Greetings !
Originally posted by Sigma Greyhamn
Drag,

Thanks!
No, thank you. I was slightly afraid that as a
new member you might take my message as offensive.
Originally posted by Sigma Greyhamn
This is meant to be philosophical underpinning - a
metaphysics, not really philosophy or arguementation.
CERTAINLY NOT SCIENCE!!!

I want to know if this system of thought is
self-consistant.

If you can show me that it isn't or that it
blantantly conflicts with things that are
'known' about the universe then I will listen,
take you seriously, and if I (or enough people
on the baords) agree I will atempt to fix the problem.
I see. Well, for one thing, since there is little
argument construction involved as I see it,
you require a relativly large amount of
enitial assumptions. Even the belief in God
is still an attempt to simplify things whereas
you seem to do the opposite, which is just
a bit uncomfortable when you want to use it
and fully understand it (not to mention what
you don't want to do here - question it).
Originally posted by Sigma Greyhamn
What I'm trying to do with this is make a system
of belief, if you will, that integrates most of
the religouns of the worlds common beliefs with
what science now assumes about the universe.
Think about that some and tell me it isn't a
good idea.
If you define good in terms of usefullness and
if you define usefullness on a scale that descends
from one's perspective unto others then I think
it is usefull indeed if it will be a bridge
between science and God that will mostly be
crossed by those on the God side (according to
my perspective), however, the value of usefullness
is defined by the amount of people who make use of
your system - and that's the hard part. :wink:

One of the great things about the concept of
God is that it's so simple and "user-friendly".
It's a "human" and humane "face" to the otherwise
faceless and perhaps scaryy for some mystery of
existence. To throw it away is not that easy
for people who believe in it, aspecialy if all
you leave them with is a complicated
multi-assumptional system the likes of which
they only currently accept because it is
connected to the notion of God (religion).
Originally posted by Sigma Greyhamn
Besides that you would do well to note that
Aristotle (who had much to do with the birth
of scientific thought) and a number of other
philosophers (I'll give you a list if you
insist) began their philosophies with a
metaphysics that was just to be assumed and
(if I might be so bold) many of those ideas
I tried to unify here.
Don't compare horses to race cars...:wink:
Originally posted by Sigma Greyhamn
There are certainly beliefs that EVERYONE holds
which are just plain unprovable assumptions
from Steven Hawking to the Pope. In this way
science is no different from religoun or any
other philosophy.
Science is TOTALLY different from any belief
because it is not, it is NOT a phil. perspective
at all - it is just observation. Sometimes,
people confuse science for philosophical
perspective, it isn't one.
It is the case however that there is the
correct(or most likely) phil. perspective and
that uses the info that science provides.

Live long and prosper.
 

Sigma Greyhamn

You are correct that science is not a phil. POV. However, science does rely on empiricism as an assumption basis and it IS a phil. POV.

Just the fact sir, just the facts.

Um, I do not equate religoun with god as quickly and seemlessly as you seem to. Many religouns have no concept of God (Taoism, Buddhist, Zen) and some of said religouns have millions of adherints in the east.

Furtheremore the vast majority of religouns over the centuries have been polytheistic.

Besides that many MANY religouns over the years HAVE NOT had the idea of an anthropomorphic God that is currently so popular amoung Christianity, Islam, and certain forms of Judaism. (And Judaism's God ISN'T actually very anthropomorthic if you really get into it - at least not from the Kabbalistic POV)

Having said that: Your completely right; I've elimninated God from out of the picture. Yet unlike everyone who has done that before me I haven't said: Not God. I've said: Forget God for a second - I don't think that is as problematic.

In order for this to work I absolutely have to throw out the idea of God. I can't allign mysticism with scientific thought in any other way and still get the atheists and all the like to take it seriously. And I would rather (for the time) loose some of the stronger beleivers in the religous boat in order to do this. They are always easier to convince later on through sheer social pressure and upbringing anyways.

As for the interface aspect of God. I find it extrmely immature to assume that God would real give a damn about any particular human and, in fact, possibly even the entire race in general. No doubt our blatant immorality turn her/him off to us years ago as a failed experiment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
2,224
0
Originally posted by FZ+
Logical problem: How can order give existence to sentience, if without sentience order cannot exist? Solution: Sentience transcends time, which is absurd.
From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50&perpage=15&pagenumber=9" ...
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Right, you got it!

Consciousness is a concept. A "state" of being. It doesn't exist, it's just something we use to communicate to each other.

Unless you want to look into the unique identifying factors of consciousness and use that as your proof of existance of this "thing" you are going to label consciousness.

Does that make sense?


__________________
1. The Subjectivist Fallacy is the most common error of the human species.

2. Do not superimpose mythology onto reality.
Let me ask you something here? How is it possible to be objective "outside" of what it means to be human? How can you possibly make a claim to such a thing if in fact you were subject to the same criteria? Do you have some sort of special "knowing" that we all don't share? You can refer to all the studies and "documented proof" that you like, but where does "the witness" to that proof actually lie? Could it be the same human beings who, out of their own sense of "subjective cognizance," that set up the experiments in the first place? If so, then that would be tantamount to saying "the truth" is virtually unobtainable ... and yet, here we are trying to sort things out and make sense of it all? ... How strange?

Of course there might be one possible solution to our dilemma here, that in fact we do have a soul which, in conjunction with a Greater Reality (God), does stand outside of time and space -- i.e., in a "truly obective" sense. Or else how is it possible to be obective? And how could we even conceive of its possiblity?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Greetings Sigma Greyhamn !
Originally posted by Sigma Greyhamn
However, science does rely on empiricism as an
assumption basis and it IS a phil. POV.
But there is no need for such a view. If
originally you make no assumptions and you have
some input data which appears to follow
certain patterns then you just follow it,
no assumptions are neccessary. You can measure
it in terms of usefullness for example at this
point or in terms of your curiosity. But, you
make no assumptions you just see possibilities
to find more patterns and understand the vague
ones you observe more clearly and do it if you wish.

The scientific method is the seeking of
connections in the world - not explanations.
It does not assume there MUST be connections.
Science is the obsevation of the world. But,
it does not assume that the world CAN be
observed or explained through observation.

Unfortunetly, many people confuse the above
definitions and DO add assumptions to them.
Originally posted by Sigma Greyhamn
Um, I do not equate religoun with god as quickly
and seemlessly as you seem to. Many religouns
have no concept of God (Taoism, Buddhist, Zen)
and some of said religouns have millions of
adherints in the east.

Furtheremore the vast majority of religouns
over the centuries have been polytheistic.

Besides that many MANY religouns over the years
HAVE NOT had the idea of an anthropomorphic God
that is currently so popular amoung Christianity,
Islam, and certain forms of Judaism. (And Judaism's
God ISN'T actually very anthropomorthic if you
really get into it - at least not from the
Kabbalistic POV)
O.K. you're right. However, in that case you'll
also need some advantages over such religions.
Originally posted by Sigma Greyhamn
And I would rather (for the time) loose some of
the stronger beleivers in the religous boat in
order to do this. They are always easier to
convince later on through sheer social pressure
and upbringing anyways.
Indeed.
Originally posted by Sigma Greyhamn
As for the interface aspect of God. I find it
extrmely immature to assume that God would real
give a damn about any particular human and,
in fact, possibly even the entire race in
general. No doubt our blatant immorality turn
her/him off to us years ago as a failed experiment.
I have no idea, I don't think it exists. :wink:

What I did mean and you should recognize is
that God DOES serve a role in religions where
it exists in terms of treating people in certain
ways (ussualy positive - if its "demands" are
settled at least) and it does affect people's
lives according to these religions. This
creates a certain "comfort" which means that
you don't have to wonder about the paradox
of existence and you (in many religions) have
this nice, warm and soft God (or at least one
with whom you can bargain) and that "comfort" IS
a powerful idea that you have to reckon with.

Anyway, I believe the original subject was
the self consistency of your approach. Well,
like I said you have a LOT of assumptions
and not a very evolved system to look at it
all. So, I guess it's not exactly the "basis
of order" even if you ignore the "external" view.
But, it's really not that bad...:smile:

Peace and long life.
 

Sigma Greyhamn

I hate to have to be the one to make this point but science has it's assumptions.

What your arguing, however, is the pure scientific method being carried out from step one by some anonymous observer which has absolutely no assumptions whatever.

Such a mythical character is still making assumptions. What assumptions?
0. I am.
1. (I am therefore) I think.
2. I think therefore I am.
3. If I see something that seems to me to have a pattern, it's a pattern.
4. There is a world external to me.
5. This world is the source of these patterns I'm observing.
6. I have a criteria inside my awareness by which to judge what is a pattern and what isn't.
7. My studying patterns I can observer new patterns.
8. By studying this world around me I may somehow benefit.
9. It is the Good to benefit.
10. Reality is probably static.

Far be it from me to point out that such an observer studying these patterns could easily be seen as The Observer finding/creating Order.

Just because the system isn't evolved doesn't mean it isn't a basis. Basis' are starting points by definition, no?
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Greetings Sigma Greyhamn !

I'm soory for this a bit late response. :smile:
Originally posted by Sigma Greyhamn
What your arguing, however, is the pure scientific
method being carried out from step one by some
anonymous observer which has absolutely no
assumptions whatever.
That is what I meant to say, yes.
Originally posted by Sigma Greyhamn
0. I am.
1. (I am therefore) I think.
2. I think therefore I am.
?
How are those assumptions at all necessary ?
You can exist without even believing you do,
it's not like you'll dissapear or something
otherwise.
Originally posted by Sigma Greyhamn
3. If I see something that seems to me to have
a pattern, it's a pattern.
Since there is no definition of a pattern
beyond the one we ourselves invented I do
not see how that is an assumption of something.
Originally posted by Sigma Greyhamn
4. There is a world external to me.
5. This world is the source of these
patterns I'm observing.
Such assumptions are not made (and those
scientists who do make'em - shouldn't.)
Originally posted by Sigma Greyhamn
6. I have a criteria inside my awareness by which
to judge what is a pattern and what isn't.
If you don't assume your own existence according
to any particular defintion you don't need to
assume your awareness or any other personal
qualities either, do you ?
Originally posted by Sigma Greyhamn
7. My studying patterns I can observer new patterns.
Why do many scientists then think they
can achieve a TOE ?
There is no assumption in science that says that
the list of patterns is infinite and no
assumption that it is finite either.
Originally posted by Sigma Greyhamn
8. By studying this world around me I may
somehow benefit.
Hmm... There is an assumption at the
base of this argument that experience - previous
data input, has some connection to the future.
Analyzing this assumption we can find two
more assumptions :
1. Existence is not absolute chaos.
2. Change.

But, again, these are defaults - that is, we
have this data input and we seek to explore
it more fully - we do not assume we CAN do that.
Is that seeking an assumption ?
Hmm...
You can call it free will or determinism
controlled reactions, but it doesn't seem
likely it can ever be absolutely determined,
just like everything else.
Originally posted by Sigma Greyhamn
9. It is the Good to benefit.
Not even close...:wink:
Originally posted by Sigma Greyhamn
10. Reality is probably static.
I'm not certain what you mean by that.

To sum up, you might ask why do I say
likely and how do I avoid that being an
assumption. "Likely" is the result of
abstract reasoning systems we consider.
But, eventually there is infinite
indetrminacy (which also means that this
statement just seems likely at the moment).

Live long and prosper.
 
Last edited:

Sigma Greyhamn

I do beleive that if you exist and you think you don't that before long you will not...

If you have an a priori definition, it is still a definition...

If you don't assume an external world then you are a Buddhist, not a scientist...

If you don't assume you exist then you aren't conscience, not as far as I'm concerned.
You wouldn't make it very long, IMHO, if you assumed you weren't 'real' in some shape form or fashon (at least temporarily real)

Let's do an exercise shall we? You post the scientific method as you understand it, and I'll write you commentaries. Then we'll continue to dicker over this....

Live long and prosper
 

Alexander

Originally posted by Sigma Greyhamn
I hate to have to be the one to make this point but science has it's assumptions.

What your arguing, however, is the pure scientific method being carried out from step one by some anonymous observer which has absolutely no assumptions whatever.

"Observer" in science means some device or tool independent of human senses (say, a meter stick, a stop watch, a spectrometer, a thermocouple, etc). (And device does not assume/disassume existence or inexistence of something, it simply measures it.)

So nothing which follows in your long list of assumptions (mostly human feelings) is needed in science.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sigma Greyhamn

Um, yes true Alex, However:

YOU NEED A HUMAN BEING BEHIND THE ACT OF MEASURING OR THE MEASUREMENT IS MEANINGLESS (supposing a measurement can even take palce without a human present to do it or set it up)!!!!!

'Measuring' something is a totally arbitrary act without a human being (or some sentient form of life) realising that there is something being 'measured' and something to judge it against, the 'measure'.

In example: a monkey in a forest holds up his new toy ruler that he found against 'something' (I'll leave it to your imaginations).

Has he measured? No, he's held a piece of wood up against something. He doesn't measure becuase he cannot interpret the markings or what they mean.

And I do hope you'll agree with me that the ruler doesn't know what he's being set against. Please give me that much!!!!!!!
 

Related Threads for: The Basis of Order

Replies
82
Views
7K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Posted
3 4 5
Replies
123
Views
18K
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top