[Deutschmania]

In the recording in the original post , I heard Laurel . But with that being said , I would agree with Repzion that it's a trivial matter .

[Rugoz]

Agreed. The main problem with it is that it's not time-reversible. Nevertheless, the standard interpretation of quantum theory is non-deterministic, in the sense that although the wavefunction evolves according to a deterministic equation, any actual observed value (e.g., of position) is random. This is, after all, just what we mean by a 'probability' wave.

First of all, I don't think randomness negates causality as long as the randomness is predictable. If I flip a coin the outcome is random but the cause is still me flipping a coin (itself with a certain probability). The term "probabilistic causation" used in the paper above seems appropriate.

The problem with the Copenhagen interpretation, as far as I can tell, is that it claims the wave function collapses as result of observation (meaning a random value is realized with observation), but how the observation leads to the collapse remains completely unexplained. Whether it's the "standard" interpretation or not is meaningless, since it's not objectively superior to any other, deterministic or non-deterministic.

Look at it this way: imagine a universe consisting of only a finite number of bodies moving in space, none of which ever collide with each other (e.g., they follow parallel or diverging worldlines). Such a universe would be deterministic, but acausal. We can therefore have determinism without causality.

The original states of the bodies change with each reference frame, so you could argue there cannot be determinism. Or you could argue that while the original states are not the same, the equation of motion is still a valid causal description of state changes in all reference frames.

Needless to say when there is interaction, it's determined by original state and equations of motion, among other things.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Which is trivial and irrelevant.

How so? You are talking about causality existing in physical systems, and logic demonstrates that no causation can be established from observation.

Hence, if you believe that any necessary relationships or conditions exist in the physical (observed) world, you belief is about as legitimate as believing that fairies are what make the flowers come out in spring.

Neither trivial, or irrelevant.

This one?

correct.

I don't know what you mean.

Please tell me which big words you struggled with, for the post was clear.

If you believe in a causally closed physical universe that is self-sustaining, self-generating, efficacious, metaphysically fundamental, philosophically irreducible, eternal, your worldview is utterly ruined.

If you believe that the brain has anything to do with thought, you are in gross irrational error.

If you believe in matter, physical causes of any kind, that coldness causes water to freeze, the theory of evolution, etc, etc,etc., you hold to plainly refuted nonsense.

The worldview is refuted, it is logically impossible.

Your belief in it, is fantasy.

That is what it means.

IT also means that Berkeley's system of immaterialism, phenomenal idealism, and Trinitarian Theism stands on rational grounds, by contrast.

[Saeko]

IT also means that Berkeley's system of immaterialism, phenomenal idealism, and Trinitarian Theism stands on rational grounds, by contrast.

@Victoribus Spolia

Let's have a debate about this.

[Rugoz]

How so? You are talking about causality existing in physical systems, and logic demonstrates that no causation can be established from observation.

Hence, if you believe that any necessary relationships or conditions exist in the physical (observed) world, you belief is about as legitimate as believing that fairies are what make the flowers come out in spring.

Neither trivial, or irrelevant.

If you believe in a causally closed physical universe that is self-sustaining, self-generating, efficacious, metaphysically fundamental, philosophically irreducible, eternal, your worldview is utterly ruined.

If you believe that the brain has anything to do with thought, you are in gross irrational error.

If you believe in matter, physical causes of any kind, that coldness causes water to freeze, the theory of evolution, etc, etc,etc., you hold to plainly refuted nonsense.

The worldview is refuted, it is logically impossible.

Your belief in it, is fantasy.

That is what it means.

IT also means that Berkeley's system of immaterialism, phenomenal idealism, and Trinitarian Theism stands on rational grounds, by contrast.

Lots of silly claims, zero arguments.

You can always pretend there's some hidden variable that is the actual cause behind observed events. Let's call that variable "God". Thing is though, "God" acts exactly according to the rules we derive form observed events, so his hypothetical existence is completely irrelevant. Just apply Occam's razor and he's gone.

As for the question of the "soul". In the not-so-far future we will be able so simulate entire human brains anyway. Then that question will finally be resolved. No doubt with the expected result.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Lots of silly claims, zero arguments.

Actually the fallacies I presented necessarily obtain if you were to deny any of the claims made, I have already shown this, if you want to challenge me on this, feel free.

Thing is though, "God" acts exactly according to the rules we derive form observed events,

False, the rules derived for the former, according to immaterialism, are based on necessary inference, the rules governing the latter cannot be determined as necessary inferences, but only as correlations. Which is the fucking point.

so his hypothetical existence is completely irrelevant. Just apply Occam's razor and he's gone.

Actually, the system I am arguing for is that there are only minds and mental content, this system is ontologically simpler than the belief in minds, mental content, and matter (which you are forced to believe in, for in denying the first two you commit an absurdity). God being a Mind is part of the only two metaphysical categories admissible under my system. Thus, God is not cut-out by Occam's razor, rather matter and material causes removed, they are unnecessary categories.

My system, which is theistic, is inherently simpler via Occam's Razor. It is not coincidence that Berkeley's system was inherently and explicitly nominalist (ockhamist).

In the not-so-far future we will be able so simulate entire human brains anyway.

Which would prove nothing as the brain as we have now cannot be shown to have any relation to subjective states whatsoever (thoughts and experiences) except by mere correlation.

So making another brain would advance nothing. Physicalism is at an impasse on the mind and it cannot be resolved. It is an epistemic impossibility.

Then that question will finally be resolved.

It is already resolved.

My system.

I'm taking challengers.

Speaking of which;

Let's have a debate about this.

Sure. I will be back on PoFo sometime after 06/07/18 and we can duke-it out.

I would love to debate this topic, its one of my favorites. We should definitely set parameters though unless you want to keep it informal (in which case I will still pre-declare the extent of my involvement as I don't want to debate this topic over 400 posts, etc.)

Otherwise, I'll see you at high noon Saeko.

[Saeko]

Sure. I will be back on PoFo sometime after 06/07/18 and we can duke-it out.

I would love to debate this topic, its one of my favorites. We should definitely set parameters though unless you want to keep it informal (in which case I will still pre-declare the extent of my involvement as I don't want to debate this topic over 400 posts, etc.)

Otherwise, I'll see you at high noon Saeko.

This debate is guaranteed to be interesting as I take pretty much the exact opposite position in denying the existence of mental entities.

[Rugoz]

False, the rules derived for the former, according to immaterialism, are based on necessary inference...

You cannot derive rules for imaginary nonsense by inference. But feel free to demonstrate it.

the rules governing the latter cannot be determined as necessary inferences, but only as correlations.

If I observe an outcome as a result of my action often enough, I can reasonably assume action -> outcome. Whether there's hidden variable is irrelevant, that's the point.

Actually, the system I am arguing for is that there are only minds and mental content, this system is ontologically simpler than the belief in minds, mental content, and matter (which you are forced to believe in, for in denying the first two you commit an absurdity).

I only believe in matter, I don't see where the "absurdity" lies in that.

God being a Mind is part of the only two metaphysical categories admissible under my system. Thus, God is not cut-out by Occam's razor, rather matter and material causes removed, they are unnecessary categories. My system, which is theistic, is inherently simpler via Occam's Razor. It is not coincidence that Berkeley's system was inherently and explicitly nominalist (ockhamist).

A "mind", LoL, what's that even supposed to be. You just replaced the simple laws of physics with an infinitely complex black box. That's the opposite of Occam's razor.

So making another brain would advance nothing. Physicalism is at an impasse on the mind and it cannot be resolved. It is an epistemic impossibility.

I didn't know you are ok with the idea that "minds" can be copied, run at different speeds, reset to different states by the click of a button because they run on a computer.

[Hong Wu]

Who would have thought our friends Yanny and Laurel could merit such discussion

But wait until Yaunel gets here...

[Cookie Monster]

IT also means that Berkeley's system of immaterialism, phenomenal idealism, and Trinitarian Theism stands on rational grounds, by contrast.

Berkeley's argument for immaterialism sounds like, for the lack of better words, much like communal solipsism. Even if our mind only projects a reality of its own design, and despite all the difficulties we may face in grasping the material reality, there is a material universe to which we are all bound. And this material universe gives a damn about the brilliance or shortcomings of our mind to unwrap its secrets.

Maybe it does, but that tells us more about you than it does about the physical universe. The point is that if we mentally reverse the arrow of time, then the laws of motion look the same and we still have changes from a 'previous', or prior, state. But we can have changes without necessarily having any causality, as this thought-experiment demonstrates.

Couldn't you argue that there is causality because of the presence of an arrow rather than the direction of the arrow.

Anyhow, there must be some appreciation of causality in modern physics, after all the speed of light is called the limit of causality.

[Potemkin]

I only believe in matter, I don't see where the "absurdity" lies in that.

What you call "matter" is a concept, not an objectively real thing. And, like any concept, it can exist only as the content of a mind. After all, what is "matter"? Is it solid? Yet modern science tells us that matter is not solid at all, but is mainly empty space populated by tiny particles, and when they are not being directly observed these particles exist only as probability waves with no definite position or other physical properties. And these probability waves are very obviously mental concepts with no existence or meaning outside a perceiving mind.

Couldn't you argue that there is causality because of the presence of an arrow rather than the direction of the arrow.

What we call the "arrow of time" is a consequence of entropy - the tendency of a system to evolve from a state of order to a state of disorder. The reason is does this is simply because there are many, many more ways in which a given physical system can be disordered than ordered. For example, if we have a metal box containing some gas, and we start with a higher pressure of gas in one corner of the box (i.e., more gas molecules in that corner of the volume), then the system will evolve into a state in which the pressure is equally distributed throughout the volume. This is simply because there are many, many more ways the system can be in that state of equalised pressure than in the state in which there is higher pressure in one corner of the volume. The individual motions and collisions and interactions of the gas molecules with each other are always time-reversible, but the system as a whole, because of entropy, is not. The arrow of time is therefore an emergent property of large physical systems rather than being an inherent property of the laws of physics themselves.

Anyhow, there must be some appreciation of causality in modern physics, after all the speed of light is called the limit of causality.

The speed of light is the limit in the sense than no physical system which is outside the light cone of a given point in space-time can interact with that point in any way whatsoever. We call that a limitation on 'causality' (which must be local, in that relativistic sense), but such interactions include anything, even time-reversible interactions. Causality, in the sense of time-irreversible interactions, is not a necessary part of the definition.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

What is matter? Doesn't matter.
What is mind? Never mind.

[Potemkin]

What is matter? Doesn't matter.
What is mind? Never mind.

What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind.

You see how that works, jjj?

It also happens to be wrong. The mind has a material basis, and matter has a mental basis. Mind and matter are, in fact, a dialectical dyad.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Yes I know it's wrong Potemkin that's why I rearranged it the way I did thank you very much.

[Potemkin]

Yes I know it's wrong Potemkin that's why I rearranged it the way I did thank you very much.

But matter is still matter, and mind is still mind. It's just that they are entangled together at the most fundamental level.

[Rugoz]

What you call "matter" is a concept, not an objectively real thing. And, like any concept, it can exist only as the content of a mind. After all, what is "matter"? Is it solid? Yet modern science tells us that matter is not solid at all, but is mainly empty space populated by tiny particles, and when they are not being directly observed these particles exist only as probability waves with no definite position or other physical properties. And these probability waves are very obviously mental concepts with no existence or meaning outside a perceiving mind.

Mind is not an objectively real thing, it is just matter. Nothing absurd about that.

As for wave functions, they might very well be the real thing, it depends on the interpretation of QT.

[Potemkin]

Mind is not an objectively real thing, it is just matter. Nothing absurd about that.

Actually, philosophically speaking, it is absurd. Claiming that mind 'is' matter is a category error. The qualia of human experience are not reducible to material objects.

As for wave functions, they might very well be the real thing, it depends on the interpretation of QT.

What do you mean by "the real thing"? A probability wave is defined in terms of human observations. The modulus squared of the (normalised) amplitude of the probability wave at a given location is simply the probability of observing the particle at that particular location. It has no other meaning and no other 'reality'. Even the 'hidden variables' interpretations of QM don't regard the probability wave as being ontologically existent.

[Rugoz]

Actually, philosophically speaking, it is absurd. Claiming that mind 'is' matter is a category error. The qualia of human experience are not reducible to material objects.

Why not?

What do you mean by "the real thing"? A probability wave is defined in terms of human observations. The modulus squared of the (normalised) amplitude of the probability wave at a given location is simply the probability of observing the particle at that particular location. It has no other meaning and no other 'reality'. Even the 'hidden variables' interpretations of QM don't regard the probability wave as being ontologically existent.

There are many interpretations which consider the wave function to be real. E.g. many worlds, objective collapse.

[Atlantis]

But matter is still matter, and mind is still mind. It's just that they are entangled together at the most fundamental level.

Mind and matter are only concepts of a mental conditioning that evolved in humans for purely practical purposes: the primate tries to grasp (understands) the fruit, ie. he has (the fruit) or he has not, he is or he is not ... That dualistic mode, which determines all our practical thinking, wasn't made to grasp metaphysical questions. In reality, the observer is not independent of the experiment he observes. There is no duality of observer and observed. The universe is not aware of its own existence or non-existence. The quantum physicist, just like Nagarjuna, reaches the limits of what can be grasped by human logic.

[Potemkin]

The quantum physicist, just like Nagarjuna, reaches the limits of what can be grasped by human logic.

Ah, good old Nagarjuna....

1. The world is real.
2. The world is an illusion.
3. The world is both real and an illusion.
4. The world is neither real nor an illusion.

All four statements are true simultaneously.