Are you hearing them? Are you seeing them? Are hearing and seeing, sensations? Why assume anything more than what is clearly the truth? — Metaphysician Undercover

Solipsism isn't "clearly the truth", more like radical parsimony, haphazard reduction.

there's no distinction to be made there. Philosophers agree. — Metaphysician Undercover

They do not; your sentiment is towards the bottom.



Dead end.

so thus you are arbitrarily speaking about nothing with any meaning, because you refuse to answer the question about the purpose of life, which is essentially about the meaning of life.
Meaning and purpose coincide.
If I find it a purpose of mine to protect certain people, there must necessarily be meaning there specifically that constitutes such a purpose, and furthermore the will to carrying out any relevant action.
If you find it hard to answer the question about the purpose of existence you must inevitably be resorting to the conclusion that there is absolutely nothing of this sort to be found, and consequently defaulting to the idea that we are strangely alienated in a strange universe with absolutely no meaning more than what we ourselves, arbitrarily, give it?
And so what is the impetus of science? Of philosophy?

In the case of interference effects, the history of the observed particle is the sum of the particle's component histories. "Before" and "after" are still well-defined for the particle (i.e, it goes into an interferometer, unitary processes occur and it is finally observed at a detector). However each component history must be considered separately, with cause preceding effect in each separate case. What doesn't make sense is to apply "before" and "after" in aggregate when no measurement has been performed (which would of course result in a singular observation where "before" and "after" are well-defined for that component history). — Andrew M

But since laws of physics don't differentiate between past and future and there is no entropic arrow of time for a particular component history, how do you know where is past and where is future for a particular component history?

For instance, there is no reason to the ordering of the natural numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc., without a temporal referencing. The ordering would be completely random, without the temporal act of counting, in which 1 is prior to 2, etc.. You might argue that 2 is greater than 1, but by what principle would this be true, other than the fact that 2 comes after one in the act of counting. — Metaphysician Undercover

A set of 3 elements will always have a greater cardinality than a set of 2 elements, no matter whether someone counts them. This fact is not dependent on anyone counting the elements. Counting only confirms this fact (unless the counting person makes a mistake). So you don't need a temporal order to order natural numbers.

Actually, it seems that temporal ordering can be reduced to logical/mathematical ordering. In the theory of relativity, time is treated as a special spatial dimension and space is a mathematical structure with no need for reference to time. On the time dimension of spacetime we can then define the arrow of time from past to future as the direction of increasing entropy (disorder) of the mathematical structure of each time slice.

I don't agree that you need both temporal and logical ordering to explain causality. All that is needed is temporal ordering. — Metaphysician Undercover

Temporal order doesn't seem sufficient to explain causality: if one event precedes another in time, it doesn't necessarily mean that the earlier event caused the later.

We want the cause to be within a particular spatial radius because that's what experience and induction (consequentially our inductively produced premises) tell us must be the case. — Metaphysician Undercover

How do you determine the particular spatial radius though? It seems that you must formulate a theory that involves laws of physics and based on this theory you deduce the effect from the cause, in the context of an arrow of time.

A set of 3 elements will always have a greater cardinality than a set of 2 elements, no matter whether someone counts them. This fact is not dependent on anyone counting the elements. Counting only confirms this fact (unless the counting person makes a mistake). So you don't need a temporal order to order natural numbers. — litewave

Clearly I was talking about "the ordering" of numbers, as the topic was "logical priority". So cardinality is irrelevant to my example.

Actually, it seems that temporal ordering can be reduced to logical/mathematical ordering. In the theory of relativity, time is treated as a special spatial dimension and space is a mathematical structure with no need for reference to time. On the time dimension of spacetime we can then define the arrow of time from past to future as the direction of increasing entropy (disorder) of the mathematical structure of each time slice. — litewave

Notice that you've reversed things. The product of your reduction is disorder, not order. A reduction with order as the subject, rather than disorder, brings the opposite result, logical ordering is reduced to temporal ordering.

Temporal order doesn't seem sufficient to explain causality: if one event precedes another in time, it doesn't necessarily mean that the earlier event caused the later. — litewave

Right, now we're getting down to the subject matter. Temporal ordering is not in itself sufficient to account for causality, I will grant you that. But if we maintain the principle that it is essential, as the concept of "cause" dictates, then we have a platform from which we can assess other possible conditions of "cause". We can treat the other elements as necessary accidentals, necessary in the sense that they are needed, but accidental in the sense that no particular one is required. We then place the various spatial relations associated with causation as secondary conditions, accidentals, and not essential to the nature of causation. So when the described spatial relations give the appearance of causation, without the necessary temporal order, we must dismiss the description as inaccurate. There cannot be causation without the appropriate temporal order therefore something is wrong with the description which says such.

How do you determine the particular spatial radius though? It seems that you must formulate a theory that involves laws of physics and based on this theory you deduce the effect from the cause, in the context of an arrow of time. — litewave

That's the point, there is no need to determine a particular spatial radius. Such determinations are made from experience and inductive reasoning, so they may be inaccurate due to empirical limitations. The true spatial radius can only be determined posteriorly, after the proper context, the true "arrow of time" has been represented. We maintain the logical principle, that temporal order is the necessary condition for causation, then when an event appears as a cause of another event we direct our representation of the "arrow of time" in this way, despite the fact that it contradicts empirical principles, because empirical principles are known to be, by their very nature, fallible. And the way to determine mistaken empirical principles is to strictly adhere to logical principles.

Clearly I was talking about "the ordering" of numbers, as the topic was "logical priority". So cardinality is irrelevant to my example. — Metaphysician Undercover

Set cardinality expresses the same as natural numbers: how many things there are. That's the property that orders natural numbers from the smallest to the biggest. Time is not needed for this ordering.

Notice that you've reversed things. The product of your reduction is disorder, not order. — Metaphysician Undercover

The disorder I talked about is entropy, not absence of time ordering. Entropy is a measure of the randomness of the structure of the universe. High entropy = lots of randomness, much disorder; low entropy = little randomness, little disorder. According to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy of the universe increases with time. It is generally accepted that the arrow of time is defined as the direction of increasing entropy of the universe. So entropy of the universe provides time ordering of the states of the universe.

But since laws of physics don't differentiate between past and future and there is no entropic arrow of time for a particular component history, how do you know where is past and where is future for a particular component history? — litewave

Per the earlier video (from 1min:32), that is known from the experimental setup. One component history has Alice applying operation A to the photon and then Bob applying operation B, whereas the other component history has the opposite ordering.

If detectors were placed at the ends of those paths just before they merged at the final beam splitter, then a definite causal order would be observed (i.e., either the first path or the second path).

Whereas in the setup as shown, the final observer (the causal witness) does not singularly observe A occurring before B or vice-versa. The observer calculates from the interference effects that both must have happened. There is a definite causal order on a per path basis, but an indefinite causal order in aggregate.

Note that no issue need arise about a supposed failure of causality or a failure to distinguish the past from the future. The only issue is that it is a fallacy of composition to assume a single causal ordering for an aggregate of paths.

...so thus you are arbitrarily speaking about nothing with any meaning, because you refuse to answer the question about the purpose of life, which is essentially about the meaning of life. — Blue Lux

Such a question wasn't posed. I answered the one that was.

Meaning and purpose coincide.
If I find it a purpose of mine to protect certain people, there must necessarily be meaning there specifically that constitutes such a purpose, and furthermore the will to carrying out any relevant action. — Blue Lux

Asserting that meaning and purpose coincide carries a much larger burden than your personal example can carry. It can be the case that your purpose is meaningful, and also that not all meaning has purpose alongside.

If you find it hard to answer the question about the purpose of existence you must inevitably be resorting to the conclusion that there is absolutely nothing of this sort to be found, and consequently defaulting to the idea that we are strangely alienated in a strange universe with absolutely no meaning more than what we ourselves, arbitrarily, give it? — Blue Lux

The question was answered, and it was not at all difficult. All meaning requires a plurality of things and a creature capable of making connections between them. So, it is clear that existence precedes meaning, unless one posits some supernatural creator of the first things, which has a host of it's own issues. I do not. I do not claim any knowledge of the sort, nor could I care any less...

What does "the physical" refer to other than the interpretations of our sensations. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sensations aren't meaningful.
— creativesoul

Like I was born yesterday? — Metaphysician Undercover

All interpretation is of that which is already meaningful. Sensations aren't meaningful. It makes no sense at all to say "the interpretations of our sensations".

What is a sensation if not a sensory experience? I see. I hear, I taste, I smell, I feel; those are sensations, experiences. What is interpreted if not those experiences?

What is a sensation if not a sensory experience? I see. I hear, I taste, I smell, I feel; those are sensations, experiences. What is interpreted if not those experiences? — Janus

What is already meaningful?

Set cardinality expresses the same as natural numbers: how many things there are. That's the property that orders natural numbers from the smallest to the biggest. Time is not needed for this ordering. — litewave

That's true, except you are missing the premise which forces the conclusion that time is necessary for this ordering. Cardinality must be determined, and this is the process which takes time. Counting takes time, requiring numbering in the order of 1,2,3,4, etc.. Therefore time is required for this ordering. Set cardinality requires time.

The disorder I talked about is entropy, not absence of time ordering. — litewave

Right, the point though is that since you place temporal order as posterior to logical order you derive the conclusion that time creates a disordering. But if you work from the other direction you will see that temporal order is prior to logical order. Any example of logical order which you give (like the ordering of numbers above), can be demonstrated to rely on a temporal order for its validity.

High entropy = lots of randomness, much disorder; low entropy = little randomness, little disorder. According to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy of the universe increases with time. It is generally accepted that the arrow of time is defined as the direction of increasing entropy of the universe. So entropy of the universe provides time ordering of the states of the universe. — litewave

See, you are disregarding the ordering which is necessarily prior to the disordering of entropy which you describe. So an ordered universe is necessarily prior to the disordering which the arrow of time brings about. Therefore order is temporally prior to disorder. The logic which brings about the conclusion that disorder follows from the flow of time, assumes already a prior temporal order. It relies in the assumption of temporal order.

Sensations aren't meaningful. It makes no sense at all to say "the interpretations of our sensations". — creativesoul

I really cannot understand this at all. The statement that sensations are not meaningful appears as blatantly false. So until you back this up with an explanation, or a demonstration of a sensation which is not meaningful (because sensations seem to all be meaningful to me), I'll have to dismiss what you say as nonsense.

NOTHING is more fatal to discussion than having questions answered by questions.

Sensations aren't meaningful. It makes no sense at all to say "the interpretations of our sensations".
— creativesoul

I really cannot understand this at all. The statement that sensations are not meaningful appears as blatantly false. So until you back this up with an explanation, or a demonstration of a sensation which is not meaningful (because sensations seem to all be meaningful to me), I'll have to dismiss what you say as nonsense. — Metaphysician Undercover

Our criteria for what counts as "sensation" differs. Mine excludes all things informed by language.

All meaning is attributed. All attribution of meaning requires a plurality of things and a creature capable of drawing a correlation, connection, and/or association between them. In order draw a correlation between different things, those things must first be perceptible. Physiological sensory perception facilitates this capability to detect the perceptible.

Sensations are detection based The sensation becomes meaningful when the perceiving creature draws a correlation between it and something other than it.

All interpretation is of that which is already meaningful. — creativesoul

What is a sensation if not a sensory experience? I see. I hear, I taste, I smell, I feel; those are sensations, experiences. What is interpreted if not those experiences? — Janus

What is already meaningful? — creativesoul

NOTHING is more fatal to discussion than having questions answered by questions. — Janus

The quality of the question plays a significant role too, right?

Cardinality must be determined, and this is the process which takes time. Counting takes time, requiring numbering in the order of 1,2,3,4, etc.. Therefore time is required for this ordering. Set cardinality requires time. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, as I said, cardinality of a set exists whether or not someone counts it. The number of electrons in the atom of carbon was 6 even before anyone counted them. Counting does not create cardinality; it can only confirm it.

If the one questioned thinks the question is poorly conceived or irrelevant or otherwise deficient in whatever way, then the onus is on the one questioned to demonstrate that such is the case. Mere assertion or insinuation are not sufficient for, and are in fact fatal to, fruitful discussion.

As to "quality of questions" questions that purport to answer questions have none because they are evasions that attempt to shut down further discussion.

If the one questioned thinks the question is poorly conceived or irrelevant or otherwise deficient in whatever way, then the onus is on the one questioned to demonstrate that such is the case. mere assertion is not sufficient for, and it is in fact fatal to, fruitful discussion. — Janus

Your questions were based upon your framework(your notion of "sensation" to be exact). Your framework is different than mine. That's a problem all by itself if you're looking to criticize my position.


I claimed the following(basically)...

Sensation is not meaningful. All interpretation is of that which is already meaningful. There can be no interpretation of sensation.

You offered a description of "sensation" that is remarkably different than my own, and then proceeded to ask a question that ignored what you were supposed to be critiquing. You asked me what was being interpreted in your own conception of "sensation". The only appropriate answer from me was to ask you to further elucidate upon your own candidate.

What was already meaningful?

Sensation is not meaningful. — creativesoul

Whoops. Off the rails already.

Sure, language takes semiosis to another level. But sensation is also fundamentally semiotic.

Your questions were based upon your framework(your notion of "sensation" to be exact). Your framework is different than mine. That's a problem all by itself if you're looking to criticize my position. — creativesoul

You assume too much about what my "framework" is. Such presumptuousness is not helpful to discussion. In any case I have defined sensation according to what I take to be the common understanding: you are yet to explain what your definition of "sensation" is. I know at least that you purport to hold to some other understanding of sensation; and I critique that purportion just on the basis that it apparently gratuitously deviates from the common understanding. I assume that such a deviation has no intellectual value unless I am shown that it does have such value or that it is not in fact a gratuitous deviation from the common understanding. You have failed to do that so far.

You have merely asserted that sensation is not meaningful, without any arguments, explanations or examples..What is usually referred to by "sensation" is sensory experiences; seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling and touching. Leaving aside the question of whether those experiences are "meaningful'; I asked you what sensation could consist in if not in those kinds of sensory experiences.

You avoided the question...

Sorry creativesoul, but I just can't follow what you're saying. It's completely foreign to me.

No, as I said, cardinality of a set exists whether or not someone counts it. The number of electrons in the atom of carbon was 6 even before anyone counted them. Counting does not create cardinality; it can only confirm it. — litewave

A set is artificial, and so is its cardinality. So your comparison to an atom, which is a naturally occurring object is not relevant. Here's a more relevant example. That a circle has 360 degrees is also something artificial. A circle would not have 360 degrees unless human beings designated this. Likewise, a set would not have a cardinality unless human beings designate the cardinality, because even the human designation of "set X", requires an interpretation of what is meant by "X" in order to create the set. You seem to be confusing the naming of the set, with the actual existence of it.

Regardless of this disagreement over cardinality, even if just naming a set gave that set existence, the naming itself is a temporal process requiring a temporal order. So your argument, even if it were acceptable, doesn't prove what you need it to prove because the existence of the set itself is dependent on a temporal order. You ought to realize that you cannot get beyond the priority of temporal order. All forms of order are dependent on and based in temporal order. Time gives us the fundamental intuition of "order". If you take the time to consider this proposition you will realize its truth.

Well, we could always compare/contrast our respective conceptions of "sensation"...

Something tells me that none of you will.

You have merely asserted that sensation is not meaningful, without any arguments, explanations or examples.. — Janus

That's false.

What is usually referred to by "sensation" is sensory experiences; seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling and touching. Leaving aside the question of whether those experiences are "meaningful'; I asked you what sensation could consist in if not in those sensory experiences. — Janus

You weren't leaving aside the question of whether or not experiences are meaningful when you first asked me what was being interpreted if not for those experiences.

Well, we could always compare/contrast our respective conceptions of "sensation"... — creativesoul

I think you are just being asked to justify your sweeping statements on the issue.

You said sensations weren't meaningful. That would startle most psychologists. Why would the nervous system go to all the bother of conceiving of the world as a system of signs otherwise?

Sensation...

Is it existentially dependent upon language?

I would argue in the negative.

I think you are just being asked to justify your sweeping statements on the issue. — apokrisis

I'd love to have an audience capable of allowing that to take place. You'd be a great participant in such a situation.

So you don't believe that an atom of carbon had 6 electrons before someone counted them? That would be pretty outlandish. Those 6 electrons determine carbon's chemical properties without which no humans would come into existence.

The circle consisted of 360 wedges even before someone called them degrees. Just as it also consisted of 370 (smaller) wedges or any other number of wedges, which no one called degrees. Just because someone called 360 wedges degrees doesn't mean that those 360 wedges were not there before.

A set is just a collection of objects. Its existence doesn't depend on whether some human names it or counts the objects.

What is a sensation if not a sensory experience? I see. I hear, I taste, I smell, I feel; those are sensations, experiences. What is interpreted if not those experiences? — Janus

Really? Then quote where I said that experiences are meaningful. — Janus

What is a sensation if not a sensory experience? I see. I hear, I taste, I smell, I feel; those are sensations, experiences. What is interpreted if not those experiences? — Janus