Comments

  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    The future is a non-physical dimension of time which, in turn, contains the dimension of free will?ucarr

    I would not say that it contains freewill, or else it woud not be free.Metaphysician Undercover

    If free will inhabits the world, where it is contained, then must we conclude, by your argument above, that free will does not exist?

    Non-physical time passing causes non-physical free will to change?

    If a dimension can be conceptualized as a type of set, then the set of free will has what type of members?
    ucarr
    The empirical present consists of observations of the past, as you explain here, but the non-empirical present consists of desires and anticipations of the future.Metaphysician Undercover

    Why are the desires and anticipations of the future not a collection of things belonging to the set of the future?

    If passing time in the non-physical future causes ontological possibilities to change, where does free will play a role in making ontological possibilities change?

    In general, if passing time causes things to change, including non-physical things, then how is it free will, and not passing time, that causes ontological possibilities to change?

    What is the role played by passing time with regard to the transition from non-physical future to physical present? Is passing time the function that makes the conversions between the three tenses of time? How does passing time go about making the conversions between the three tenses of time? How does passing time make the conversion between a non-physical time tense and a physical time tense?

    Since passing time causes things to change, and future and present, one being non-physical, the other physical, connect, then how does non-physical future cause itself to become physical present?

    How does non-physical future acquire the dynamism of the present?

    As I understand your timeline of future-to-past, the linkage along the channel of possibility connecting ontological possibility and logical possibility is critically important because this is the continuity wherein free will can act to change contingent things.ucarr

    As I said, the two are not linked, there is a discontinuity, and this allows for the reality of freewill acts being concealed by the discontinuity.Metaphysician Undercover

    Can you explain your above quote within the context of your below quote?

    In the case of all contingent things, the possibility of the thing is prior to the thing's actual existence.Metaphysician Undercover

    The principal point of my last post was to demonstrate that these two are not linked. There is what I called a gap of information between them. This is due to "logical possibility" having been fundamentally designed to be compatible with observation (laws of noncontradiction etc.), which is of the past, and ontological possibility being of the future.Metaphysician Undercover

    Part 2: Probability: the event may or may not occur. Haven't we been examining the boundary between the actual and the probable? Isn't the future-to-past arrow of time the thing that links ontological possibilities with logical possibilities via free will en route to changes in physical things actualized? Isn't your quote below a declaration of the link between the possible and the actual?ucarr

    I think I see how you misunderstand now. Let's start with two categories, ontological possibilities and ontological actualities. These two constitute our assumed reality as future and past. The boundary between the two (which is really more like an overlap) is the present. We relate to these two through logical possibility, where the three fundamental laws apply to the possibilities for past actualities, and the logic of probabilities relates to the ontological possibilities of the future.

    Probabilities are just an extension of the logic of past actualities, so probabilities do not accurately represent the true nature of ontological possibility. Therefore logical possibilities, and probabilities are not linked to ontological possibility. "Probability" which is the way we understand ontological possibility, is linked to logical possibility, which is linked to the actualities of the past. Freewill is the only principle we have which links to ontological possibility.
    Metaphysician Undercover

    If something is logically possible by a proposition not qualified in terms of time, this possibility persists in all temporal frames of reference? If something is logically probable by a proposition not qualified in terms of time , then this probability persists in all temporal frames of reference?

    In the case of all contingent things, the possibility of the thing is prior to the thing's actual existence.Metaphysician Undercover

    The ontological actual is linked to the ontological possible, by the present. The logic, by which we represent these two, does link the possible and the actual, but in a different way. The logic is based completely in the actual (past) without a true representation of the future, or present. Therefore the logical representation contains a gap or lack of information where the past is not properly reated to the present or future..Metaphysician Undercover

    The logic of logical possibility is logical relations valid and true? The logic of probability is math relations mathematically valid and true? Correct evaluation of both types of statements are only constrained by time if their propositions are qualified in terms of time? Don't we see evidence of this in your above quote which has no comprehension restriction on contingent things and makes no reference to time?

    Yes, that is why I conclude that the future (the possibility of the thing) is logically prior to the past (actuality of the contingent thing) . However we do not commonly represent things this way. Due to false premises, we represent the past (actuality) as prior to the future (possibility).Metaphysician Undercover

    How do you refute the following chain of reasoning: If the future is temporally and logically prior to the present and past, and if it has no necessary pre-condition, then it is a first cause and as such, free will is caused and contingent and not free. If the future is not temporally and logically prior to the present and past, and thus has a necessary pre-condition, then it inhabits the arrow of time establishing the past-present-future sequence.

    The desires of free will change ontological possibilities such that, for example, a girl exercises her free will to receive a green scarf for Christmas instead of a red one. Towards this end, she prays every night before bed to get the green scarf on the big day. Lo and behold, the ship from China comes in at the eleventh hour with green scarves to restock the depleted supply in time, and the girl just knows her prayers made this happen.ucarr

    Was there a point to this?Metaphysician Undercover

    I find your claims about free will vague on the details and logic of its workings. My story is an attempt to apply your free will claims to a familiar situation in life. I wanted to see if you think it exemplifies what you've been claiming. Since you see no point to it, I conclude your examples demonstrating free will in action are very different.

    ...there is an incompatibility between temporal priority and logical priority.Metaphysician Undercover

    Why do you think logical claims unqualified by time are tied exclusively to the past?

    Do we know that actual things were possible before becoming actual as, for example, the possibility of a building eventually standing upon a previously vacant lot?ucarr

    Yes we do know this. We know it through the way that we know the planning and construction of the building. Since we can plan for something, and produce it, we know that the possibility of the thing is there before the thing itself. Then as time passes, we act to ensure that all the required actualities (efficient causes) are produced from the possibilities as they emerge out of the future, during the passing of time, so that the project can be successfulMetaphysician Undercover

    When we start becoming active on Tuesday, we're emerging out of the future which was Monday?

    Conversely, do we know in advance that things logically impossible don't actualize as real in the world as, for example, a failed attempt to create a statue made of circular triangles?ucarr

    I don't know how this is relevant.Metaphysician Undercover
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    QM uncertainty is the result of applying the past-to-future arrow of time. That's the representation used by physics, the one which produces the need for entropy as a principle to account for the reality that time actively passes. There is a lack of information, a gap, because this determinist representation is not a true representation. It does not account for the boundary between the actual and probable.Metaphysician Undercover

    Does the future-to-past arrow of time make the revelation QM uncertainty is a fiction?ucarr

    The uncertainty is not fiction, it is a real aspect of the physics.Metaphysician Undercover

    You say QM uncertainty is the result of applying the past-to-future arrow of time. How is it that QM uncertainty, the result of a false representation, avoids also being false?

    The info gap is the boundary between the actual and probable which physics cannot cover because this boundary is occupied by non-physical reality?ucarr

    You do not have the causal relation correct here. The area of the boundary is called non-physical because physics cannot cover it, not vice versa. This is when observation is impossible, and physics relies on observation, so physics cannot cover it. Therefore it is non-physical.Metaphysician Undercover

    Where NP=non-physics; P=physics; O=observable, given NP=¬O, and P≠¬O, then NP≠P and P≠NP. What do you think?
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    What happens to the principle of entropy within the future-to-past arrow of time?ucarr

    I don't know. It's information not available to us by our current models of time. It's simply written off as a part of reality which is unintelligible. The idea is that by changing perspective it could become intelligible.Metaphysician Undercover

    You don’t know if the arrow of time and the arrow of entropy are connected?

    There is a lack of information, a gap, because this determinist representation... does not account for the boundary between the actual and probable.Metaphysician Undercover

    It makes the boundary intelligible.Metaphysician Undercover

    How does the function of free will, which is to observe, for example, "The input/output transformation function of free will applies to the future tense_present tense interface." transform the future tense, non-physical, into the present tense, physical? What is the common ground between future tense and present tense, and how does free will provide this common ground?

    At the top of the page is the most massive type of object, and at the bottom is the least massive type. At the top line, the present is to the right, so that the entire line is in the past. At the bottom line, the present is to the left, so the entire line is in the future.Metaphysician Undercover

    In this description of the present, the two lines of dimensional extension are past and future. This shows that the present has no dimensional extension, and therefore it is a theoretical point with zero dimensions. What do you think?

    Instead the mathematical principles employed produce an infinite regress at the approach to the boundary. The lack of information manifests as uncertainty. And this is a representation produced from approaching the boundary from the past side. Therefore it does not represent ontological possibility which is on the future side of the boundary.Metaphysician Undercover

    The infinite regress is the math model of the approach of the past to the present? If the present has temporal extension, does the logical model show future and past overlap the expanding present as Venn diagrams? Do Venn diagrams of a timeline of overlapped future-present or present-past represent composite time simultaneously expressing two different tenses of time?ucarr

    Perhaps it could.Metaphysician Undercover

    Does it follow logically that composite time simultaneously expressing two different tenses of time, in the case of present + past, will contain moving things in super-position both temporally and spatially?

    Does it follow logically that composite time simultaneously expressing two different tenses of time, in the case of future + present, will contain moving things in super-position temporally, spatially and ontologically? Regarding temporal super-position here, this means time passing simultaneously physically and non-physically. Does it follow logically that this super-positioned passing time is both physical and non-physical?

    Please click the link below for a quick logical argument regarding the possibility of free will.ucarr

    Right, that is why the freewill approach is incompatible with the determinist approach.Metaphysician Undercover

    Since the laws of nature involve conditional freedom of choice as a necessary choice, and we know that looking forward to the future from the present allows choices constrained no more than choices constrained by looking forward to the past from the future, can we conclude logically that, with respect to the direction of the arrow of time, conditional freedom of choice is symmetrical?
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    We know ontological possibility and logical possibility are linked.ucarr

    The principal point of my last post was to demonstrate that these two are not linked. There is what I called a gap of information between them. This is due to "logical possibility" having been fundamentally designed to be compatible with observation (laws of noncontradiction etc.), which is of the past, and ontological possibility being of the future.Metaphysician Undercover

    As I understand your timeline of future-to-past, the linkage along the channel of possibility connecting ontological possibility and logical possibility is critically important because this is the continuity wherein free will can act to change contingent things. There are four necessary links in this chain of causation: ontological possibility (the future) → logical possibility (the overlapped present + past) → free will → desired changes in physical things.

    As I understand your expositions concerning ontological versus logical possibilities, the distinction revolves around: Part 1: True or False: a) identity (A=A); b) non-contradiction (A A); c) excluded middle (A ) (A A), and Part 2: Probability: the event may or may not occur. Haven't we been examining the boundary between the actual and the probable? Isn't the future-to-past arrow of time the thing that links ontological possibilities with logical possibilities via free will en route to changes in physical things actualized? Isn't your quote below a declaration of the link between the possible and the actual?

    In the case of all contingent things, the possibility of the thing is prior to the thing's actual existence.Metaphysician Undercover

    Don't you believe that if something is a necessary pre-condition for another thing, then that necessary pre-condition is logically prior to the contingent thing?

    We know that the free will by which the details of ontological possibilities change becomes active in the future.ucarr

    I don't understand what you're trying to say here. "the details of ontological possibilities change".Metaphysician Undercover

    The desires of free will change ontological possibilities such that, for example, a girl exercises her free will to receive a green scarf for Christmas instead of a red one. Towards this end, she prays every night before bed to get the green scarf on the big day. Lo and behold, the ship from China comes in at the eleventh hour with green scarves to restock the depleted supply in time, and the girl just knows her prayers made this happen.

    This appears very confused. Consider "ontological possibility" as possibility which exists independently from whether it is actualized, or even apprehended by a mind, in a way similar to the way we would say that actual things exist independently of being apprehended by a mind.

    Ontological possibility, being independent of both mind and physical things, stands up as possibility real within the world?

    Now, ontological possibility provides the means by which free will may change the world. "Logical possibility" remains distinct as unable to apprehend ontological possibility due to the information gap. So creative forms of logic, such as modal logic, are produced in an attempt to bridge the gap.
    Metaphysician Undercover

    Free will is the power acting upon ontological possibility so as to change its details along a timeline future-to-past?

    In the case of all contingent things, the possibility of the thing is prior to the thing's actual existence.Metaphysician Undercover

    By the above quote, do we know: logical possibility also inhabits the future-to-past arrow of time in the manner of: logical priority of possibility (future), being a necessary pre-condition of a contingent thing, also implies temporal ordering before a contingent thing?

    Do we know that actual things were possible before becoming actual as, for example, the possibility of a building eventually standing upon a previously vacant lot? Conversely, do we know in advance that things logically impossible don't actualize as real in the world as, for example, a failed attempt to create a statue made of circular triangles?
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    QM uncertainty is the result of applying the past-to-future arrow of time. That's the representation used by physics, the one which produces the need for entropy as a principle to account for the reality that time actively passes.Metaphysician Undercover

    What happens to the principle of entropy within the future-to-past arrow of time?

    There is a lack of information, a gap, because this determinist representation... does not account for the boundary between the actual and probable.Metaphysician Undercover

    Can the anti-determinist representation be called the free will representation? If so, how does free will impact the boundary between the actual and the probable?

    Instead the mathematical principles employed produce an infinite regress at the approach to the boundary. The lack of information manifests as uncertainty. And this is a representation produced from approaching the boundary from the past side. Therefore it does not represent ontological possibility which is on the future side of the boundary.Metaphysician Undercover

    The infinite regress is the math model of the approach of the past to the present? If the present has temporal extension, does the logical model show future and past overlap the expanding present as Venn diagrams? Do Venn diagrams of a timeline of overlapped future-present or present-past represent composite time simultaneously expressing two different tenses of time?

    In relation to ontological possibility, contingent events, there is no truth or falsity, because the referent is a future event which may or may not occur. As Aristotle showed, we must allow for a violation of the law of excluded middle to provide for the reality of ontological possibility. There is neither truth nor falsity in relation to a future event which may or may not occur.Metaphysician Undercover

    This is why the future-to-past arrow of time allows the ontological possibility (causation) of free will to change things?ucarr

    The freewill acts within that informational gap, so it escapes the determinist understanding. By the determinist understanding, the continuity of past actuality, extends through the boundary of the present, into the future, so that there is no informational gap. Future events are apprehended as a necessary continuity of the past actuality, such that there is no possibility of a freewill act.Metaphysician Undercover

    Please click the link below for a quick logical argument regarding the possibility of free will.

    Logic and Free Will

    There is a lack of information, a gap, because this determinist representation... does not account for the boundary between the actual and probable.Metaphysician Undercover

    The info gap is the boundary between the actual and probable which physics cannot cover because this boundary is occupied by non-physical reality?

    Does the future-to-past arrow of time make the revelation QM uncertainty is a fiction?

    But if we maintain the boundary, then when we extend the past-present-future timeline through the present, we see that is passes from actual to probable. This provides for the lack of necessity, where the freewill acts. However, to be understood this lack of necessity, and the boundary itself, has to be accounted for by real principles. This may incline one to adopt the future-present-past representation, to incorporate the boundary into the representation. Then the possibility of an action is prior to the act itself, and the passing of time is itself an activity.Metaphysician Undercover

    The future is a non-physical dimension of time which, in turn, contains the dimension of free will?

    If a dimension can be conceptualized as a type of set, then the set of free will has what type of members?

    If passing time in the non-physical future causes ontological possibilities to change, where does free will play a role in making ontological possibilities change?

    What is the role played by passing time with regard to the transition from non-physical future to physical present? Is passing time the function that makes the conversions between the three tenses of time? How does passing time go about making the conversions between the three tenses of time? How does passing time make the conversion between a non-physical time tense and a physical time tense?

    In what particular ways does the physical present bring about the transition from future to past?

    Do you agree these questions make it clear the issues being treated here inhabit the domain of science and not philosophy?

    If a dimension can be conceptualized as a type of set, then the set of free will has what type of members?

    As the set of a moving car has a person acting as a dynamo driving the car, the set of free will has what dynamo acting as its driver?
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    In the case of physical things, the arrow of time moves from ontological possibility (the future) towards logical possibility (the past) and from logical possibility towards realization of a definite and contingent outcome (the more distant past)? Moreover, the fundamental laws of logic (identity, noncontradiction, excluded middle) apply to this contingent outcome?ucarr

    I don't quite understand this. The arrow of time, in this representation, moves from ontological possibility (future) to ontological actuality (past). Logical possibility, in its basic form, is an epistemic principle, describing how we relate to past occurrences, actualities, when we are not sure exactly what actually occurred. But "logical possibility" gets more complicated when we look toward future events, predictions.Metaphysician Undercover

    We know ontological possibility and logical possibility are linked. We know ontological possibility inhabits the future. We know that the free will by which the details of ontological possibility change is active in the future. We know free will is inactive in the past. We know logical possibility pertains to the past, so these things we know tell us, logically, that the arrow of time, from future to past, has free will changing ontological possibility as desired, and then ontological possibility created by free will shapes logical possibility because the two types of possibility must match for the sake of realization in the world. Finally, in the more distant past following logical possibility, realization of something real within the world occurs as a definite and contingent outcome.
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    In the case of all contingent things, the possibility of the thing is prior to the thing's actual existence.Metaphysician Undercover

    In the case of physical things, the arrow of time moves from ontological possibility (the future) towards logical possibility (the past) and from logical possibility towards realization of a definite and contingent outcome (the more distant past)? Moreover, the fundamental laws of logic (identity, noncontradiction, excluded middle) apply to this contingent outcome?

    Simply put, the method of logical possibility is not applicable to the possibility of future events which have no truth or falsity, and cannot be represented as such.Metaphysician Undercover

    Logical possibility, being rooted in definitive identity and the binaries of noncontradiction and the excluded middle, cannot apply to the arrow of time from present to future because no true/false binary attaches to events that may or may not occur?

    Simply put, the method of logical possibility is not applicable to the possibility of future events which have no truth or falsity, and cannot be represented as such.Metaphysician Undercover

    The future-to-past arrow of time is about ontological possibilities resolving down to: a) identity (A=A); b) non-contradiction (A A); c) excluded middle (A ) (A A)

    ...the method of logical possibility is not applicable to the possibility of future events which have no truth or falsity, and cannot be represented as such. This is the "gap" referred to in your linked video, and what I called an "informational gap". The informational gap produces a false representation, "superposition". Ontological possibility is represented as logical possibility, with "superposition", and this is a false representation.Metaphysician Undercover

    In the future-to-past arrow of time, QM uncertainty is ontological possibility? It is something real that accounts for a super-position event that may or may not occur? The Schrödinger equation calculates a math evaluation to a probability outcome, and this estimation introduces a gap between itself and the precise calculation that mathematically evaluates to a definitive outcome?

    In relation to ontological possibility, contingent events, there is no truth or falsity, because the referent is a future event which may or may not occur. As Aristotle showed, we must allow for a violation of the law of excluded middle to provide for the reality of ontological possibility. There is neither truth nor falsity in relation to a future event which may or may not occur.Metaphysician Undercover

    This is why the future-to-past arrow of time allows the ontological possibility (causation) of free will to change things?
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    ...the method of logical possibility is not applicable to the possibility of future events which have no truth or falsity, and cannot be represented as such.Metaphysician Undercover

    Your statement makes a distinction between a representation of the recollected de facto past, which may or may not be true, and the contemplated de facto future, which, via poll sampling and statistical analysis, can be verified or falsified.
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    Logical possibility extends beyond physics into the realm of non-physics

    Physical things, in order to emerge into existence in the present, must be pre-determined by
    logical possibility as sufficient reason

    Logical possibility causes physics
    ucarr

    I don't understand your use of "logical possibility".Metaphysician Undercover

    My use of "logical possibility" is based on your use of it in the quote immediately below:

    In the case of all contingent things, the possibility of the thing is prior to the thing's actual existence.Metaphysician Undercover

    Although observation resolves the trajectory of an elementary particle into one measurable event, math can only calculate from super-position to a probability distribution of possible trajectories, so logic allows the supposition from uncertainty that an elementary particle trajectory is the non-physical motion of informationucarr

    As I explained, observation does not resolve "the trajectory" of an elementary particle. That's why it's commonly said that the particle takes every possible path. You are still talking about the particle as if it has a trajectory. It does not.Metaphysician Undercover

    Here's the link my quote is based on:

    Measurement Problem

    Did I omit any major parts of your theory from my summary?
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    Non-Physics: What I Learned

    • Logical possibility extends beyond physics into the realm of non-physics

    • Physical things, in order to emerge into existence in the present, must be pre-determined by
      logical possibility as sufficient reason

    • Logical possibility causes physics

    • Time, being non-physical, is logically prior to physics

    • The three tenses of time: future/present/past, being time, are non-physical

    • Physical things are fundamentally static

    • Time passing causes events with physical things changing

    • Time passing is a non-physical motion

    • Time is not a dimension

    • Time encompasses dimensions, and thus it is a set of dimensions*

    • The present tense of time is not a theoretical point with zero dimensional extension

    • The present tense of time is a two-dimensionally extended area, with the future tense of time and the past tense of time tucked inside of it

    • The present tense of time is the junction where future meets past according to the arrow of time

    • The present tense of time is best represented as an area of parallel lines:
    • The first line represents massive objects, with the present entirely to the right
    • The arrow of time, moving left, stays within the past
    • The second line represents massless objects, with present entirely to the left
    • The arrow of time, moving left, stays within the future

    • Newton’s First Law (an object continues its physical momentum until changed by an opposing physical momentum) is incompatible with free will

    • A slight change to the physical momentum of a massive object can be achieved through exercise of the non-physical momentum of free will

    • Freely willed slight changes in massive objects produce large changes in massless objects

    • The arrow of time, moving from future to the area of the present, where future traverses a complex, parallel bi-furcation of a massive-object timeline and a massless- object timeline, progresses from a discontinuity at the present into the past such that exercise of free will achieves changes in the moment-to-moment re-creation of the world

    • Although observation resolves the trajectory of an elementary particle into one measurable event, math can only calculate from super-position to a probability distribution of possible trajectories, so logic allows the supposition from uncertainty that an elementary particle trajectory is the non-physical motion of information

    • Although Heisenberg Uncertainty calculates precise position and imprecise momentum, or vice versa, the low precision of one or the other of the measurements allows the supposition from uncertainty that an elementary particle trajectory is the non-physical motion of information

    * T → (P → (F,PST))
    T=Time; P=Present; F=Future; PST=Past
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    The photon has no trajectory. I've repeated this already, yet you keep talking as if it has a trajectory. You will never understand what I am saying until you drop this idea that the photon has a trajectory. Check this article (or any similar article), where it is stated "First, the photon has no space trajectory; it famously “follows all paths” like a wave." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030402621003983

    The photon has a location at T-1, and a location at T-2. The two locations are not the same, and there is no trajectory which accounts for how the photon moved from position A to position B. Therefore we can conclude that there is discontinuity of information, relating to what happened to the photon between T-1 and T-2. The reality of the discontinuity of information is indicated by the fact that the photon's location is represented by a probability distribution rather than as having a specific, necessary trajectory. Furthermore, observable evidence of wave phenomena indicates that there is a discontinuity of the photon itself.
    Metaphysician Undercover

    The photon has a random, uncertain direction that is constrained by a probability that keeps it nearly perpendicular to the axis. More importantly, the uncertain path of a photon gets resolved by observation into a definite and measurable path, as evidenced by: . The photon duration of travel one Planck length, being observed and measured, was a certain and completed direction of travel without any fog of discontinuity.

    How does this exemplify discontinuity?

    For clarity, consider the example of a seesaw: When Child A is up, Child B is down, and vice versa. Where's the discontinuity?
    ucarr

    Your example does not represent "uncertainty" in our context, which is a statement about what we can know. Suppose the greater certainty we have about whether child A is up or down, this implies that we have less certainty about whether child B is up or down. That is analogous. This is contrary to "if child A is up, child B is down", and indicates a discontinuity between the two, because knowledge of one does not translate to knowledge of the other.Metaphysician Undercover

    There's no issue with either child having two possible positions on the seesaw at the same time. Likewise, there's no ambiguity about a vector having two types of measurement. Furthermore, QM uncertainty and precision of measurement are distinct. The Heisenberg equation, without uncertainty, gives us one measurement much more precise than the other, and vice versa. The either/or of the Heisenberg equation, like the up/down of the seesaw, has no fog hovering around it. The only implication linking the two measurements is that if one is of high precision, the other will be of low precision. Discontinuity has no application to this relationship.

    The "independence" is due to the incompatibility between freewill and common interpretations of Newton's laws. But your physicalist approach will simply deny the reality of such an immaterial act, because it is not possible to observe such an act. So giving details is rather pointless, because what you would request is proof that there is such an act. Therefore I am left with nothing but logic, and the deficiencies of physics (as evidence), to prove my point. — Metaphysician Undercover

    If your training in philosophy provided means to back your immaterial claims with evidence, no doubt you would use it. As you say, however, "...your physicalist approach will simply deny the reality of such an immaterial act, because it is not possible to observe such an act. I've bolded your above statement admitting you only have physics as your source of evidence.

    That's a bad assumption. But you keep insisting on it even when I tell you not to.Metaphysician Undercover

    I keep insisting that free will, being dependent upon the brain, is not non-physical.
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    The second line establishes "probability distribution" "which produces the illusion of continuity..."ucarr

    That line explicitly states "we have something... which produces the illusion of continuity". Why would you conclude that "something" refers to the probability distribution, when I've already stated that the illusion of continuity is related to the assumption of necessity, not to the probability prediction? What is stated is that there is something there, which produces the illusion of continuity, and it also supports the assumption of necessity. I make no claims as to what that "something" is, but it is obviously not the probability distribution itself, because I've already explained how it is not that Your interpretation makes no sense. It's like you are intentionally making an obvious misinterpretation for the sake of claiming that I contradict myselfMetaphysician Undercover

    Let's look at your second unedited quote:

    The prediction however is not one of necessity, but one of probability, as explained by Hume. Therefore, we have something in that duration of time, between t-1 and t-2, which produces the illusion of continuity, but since it provides a relation of probability between state A and state B, rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity.Metaphysician Undercover

    In your unedited quote, the relation of probability (probability distribution) is present, rather than a relation of necessity...

    So, it (probability distribution) illusion of continuity.

    Let's look at your first unedited quote:

    The illusion of continuity is related to the assumption of necessity, not in relation to the probability distribution, which does not make a prediction of necessity.Metaphysician Undercover

    So, it (probability distribution) illusion of continuity.
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    Relativity tells us that no given frame of reference for time is locked into one of the three tenses of time. The exception is the empirical present that populates every local frame of reference. Therefore, your talk of future preceding past, and all of the complexity it suggests, dissolves away when we remember there is no universal time.ucarr

    I told you why relativity is unacceptable. So reference to it really does little here.Metaphysician Undercover

    What I believe is demonstrated, is that if we model a single dimensional line, "an arrow of time", the present cannot be adequately positioned on that line, because the different types of objects moving relative to each other (massive vs massless), would require a different position on the line. We could simply make the area called "the present" wider, but the way that relativity theory deals with massless objects would require that the whole line would need to be "the present" at one boundary, and the other boundary would assumingly be a point. This allows for an infinitely wide present.

    Clearly this is not an acceptable representation. So, if instead, we model a number of parallel lines, each representing a different type of object, from the most massive to the most massless, then each could have its own point of "the present" which would distinguish that type of objects future from its past. Then the multitude of lines, marking the flow of time for each different type of object, would be placed in relation to each other, revealing how "the past" for some types of objects is still the future for other types, in relation to the overall flow of time. This allows for the breadth of the present, the second dimension of time, where the past and the future actually overlap because of the multitude of different types of object in the vast field of reality, each having a specific "present" at a different time, making the general "present" wide..
    Metaphysician Undercover

    All of this is theoretical physics. It won't modify relativity without experimental verification. Does it exist?

    I've been waiting for you to demonstrate some particular details of the workings of non-physics.ucarr

    I told you, freewill. You... are somewhat interested in freewill, probably because it actually is a self-evident truth... Still... you refuse to accept it as a premise.Metaphysician Undercover

    Freewill expresses as desires and anticipations. These are thoughts of the mind linked to the neuronal activity of the brain. Even if we suppose thoughts are non-physical, supposing they're free is a big assumption. Neuroscience shows us that different parts of the brain control different types of thinking. When a part is damaged, or destroyed, the associated type of thinking changes, or stops. Sometimes the brain can adjust to offset loss of function due to injury. Certainly this partial correction is not non-physical. This shows that exercise of will has parameters. Take the impairment of speech due to stroke. I haven't seen where free will restores it to pristine condition.

    However, to address your complaint, I did discuss details concerning how the material world is created anew at each passing moment, and I described the type of model of time which is required for this. You told me mathematics and diagrams would help.Metaphysician Undercover

    It is not the case that the time proposed is bi-directional. What I propose is that physical things come into existence (are recreated) at each moment of passing time. Once it is created at the present it cannot be changed, but until that moment it is not determined. The second dimension of the present allows that some types of objects move into the past (receive material existence) prior to others, at the present. This means that the present is multidimensional because some types of objects are already in the past (fixed), while other types are just beginning to materialize. Empirical evidence indicates that massive objects are created and move into the past first, that is why they have inertia, obey basic determinist laws, and it is more difficult for freely willed acts to change them. Massless things are created last, having their moment of the present later, and this provides free will the greater capacity to use them for change.

    So consider the premise that anything, any state of being, which comes into existence at the present. must be predetermined (principle of sufficient reason) by something. Now imagine a number of parallel horizontal lines, as arrows of time, in the same direction, arrows pointing left. At the top of the page is the most massive type of object, and at the bottom is the least massive type. At the top line, the present is to the right, so that the entire line is in the past. At the bottom line, the present is to the left, so the entire line is in the future. "The present" refers to when each type of object gains its physical existence. Notice that at any moment, massive objects already have physical existence before massless objects do. This allows that a slight change to a massive object, through a freely will act, is capable of producing a large effect on massless objects. This effect we observe as our capacity to change things.
    Metaphysician Undercover

    Is this a description of physical things, both massive and massless, coming into existence at each moment of passing time? After being created, these two types have a relationship to the present that determines when they can be changed? The free will of the thinking mind is the sufficient cause acting as the agent of creation of the two types of things? What are some important details of the physics of the continuous recreation of all things? How is passing time fueling this continuous recreation? How is it that passing time is non-physical? How does non-physical passing time become the dynamism of physical things changing? Is this transformation the continuous recreation of all things? Does your mind freely will the changes that are the events that populate your life? Does this mean nothing happens in your life that you don’t freely will into the
    changes that are the events that populate your life?
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    Show me how your dimensionally extended present overcomes the limitation of Heisenberg Uncertainty.ucarr

    If you can't do that, then your inability is evidence Heisenberg Uncertainty is not a measurement problem; it's an existential limitation on possible measurement.

    By definition a vector has both magnitude and direction. Vectors are not either/or, and neither is the Heisenberg calculation. One of the calculations is highly resolved, the other is not.ucarr

    Maximum certainty of one is equivalent with maximum uncertainty of the other.Metaphysician Undercover

    How does this exemplify discontinuity?

    For clarity, consider the example of a seesaw: When Child A is up, Child B is down, and vice versa. Where's the discontinuity?

    If non-physics can only observe nature through the lens of physics, then it too cannot obtain any info beyond this limitation.ucarr

    Another false premise. You keep insisting that the only way to the nonphysical is through observation of the physical, and I insist that this is false. Yet you keep insisting on it. We can derive information from ways other than observation. This is how a person comes to accept freewill as self-evident, through knowing one's inner self, and this is not a matter of observation.Metaphysician Undercover

    (As a side note, I dispute your premise self-examination "...is not a matter of observation." Knowledge is always acquired by observation, whether through the senses, or through the mind. A priori knowledge is based upon the mind's observations of logical truth.)

    But your physicalist approach will simply deny the reality of such an immaterial act, because it is not possible to observe such an act... Therefore I am left with nothing but logic, and the deficiencies of physics (as evidence), to prove my point.Metaphysician Undercover

    Your description above paints the picture of a thinker who uses physics to observe the natural world, and who then bolsters his observations with logic, and the two combined empower him to understand the natural world. This is a picture of you using your abstract mind emergent from your senses.

    The future is present to us through feelings like desire and anticipation, it is not present to us as "abstract ideas". We have contact with the nonphysical through these emotions. This gaves rise to the abstract concept of "freewill", which is how we relate to our contact with the future.Metaphysician Undercover

    If we're sitting side-by-side on a bench in the park, and you start indulging your desires for the future: vehicle, home, large income and I, hearing tell of this from you, also start indulging my desires for the future with me in possession of similar things, do you believe the two of us have entered the future mind, brain and body?

    The future-as-past is only relative in relation to our frame of reference as non-local to the incidence of the stimulus. In it's own frame of reference, it's the present. If you deny this, then you're saying a thing is future to itself, or past to itself, a strange and probably paradoxical configuration for the existing self.ucarr

    For a long time you've been telling me the future jumps to the past, skipping the present. Next the present and the past overlap and, somehow, the dimensional present includes the past.

    If all our observations are of things of the past, with the time lag being significant rather than negligible - with the latter being the case in the empirical present - then we can't know our true selves because our observations are always separated from our present selves. This undermines and perhaps even destroys the free will you're always touting.ucarr

    This is addressed above.Metaphysician Undercover

    I know you've said our exercise of free will shapes a future that becomes the past overlapped with the present with our desires realized. This allows our present to move toward our desires realized in the future now become past. So, given the overlap of two different temporal tenses, I occupy two different times simultaneously. Maybe this is superposition that has me in two different temporal locations at once. Well, if I'm my own observer and resolve myself into a definite temporal location, then I've used free will to create myself according to desire, but since my observation sees only my past, then my present self remains a mystery. Under your plan, free will creates a version of me I observe as me-as-my-past-self. I still don't know myself now. The upshot: In spite of all of this complexity, I still need a dimensionless present I approach as an infinite series that narrows the time lag down to a differential so minute I can know my virtual self.

    Regarding danger, if it's out of date info, how is it that we avoid impending harm?ucarr

    Desire and anticipation.Metaphysician Undercover

    Non sequitur because these two would be looking toward the future, not toward the past, so they'd be looking at what they imagine, whereas they need to be looking at what is actually about to happen.
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    ...the future is present to the mind as desire, anticipation, and such emotions which influence us in relation to the future.Metaphysician Undercover

    If the future is present to the mind, then it's present in the mind in the present as the present. No amount of word-gaming will change this simple truth.

    The so-called "empirical present" is a 'present" which is purely past, as you admit. So you assume, when you say "understanding is in the empirical present", without any justification, that "understanding" is in the past. But this is clearly wrong because true "understanding" must involve the future just as much as the past, because the future is just as much a part of our reality as the past is.Metaphysician Undercover

    The empirical past, as we experience it, resides within the local frame of reference of our now. It's only the past relative to the stimuli of our perceptions which have a different local frame of reference.

    The local frame of reference of our now is the only experience of a temporal tense that has an absolute value for us mind, brain and body. The other two tenses: past and future, only have relative value for us as concepts within our minds. You can only experience past and future in your mind. You never experience them mind, brain and body. This is even true when we assume the possibility of time travel. When you time travel, and arrive in another time mind, brain and body, that time is now your empirical present. If we were sitting together in a room having this conversation, and I challenged you to travel mind, brain and body to either past or future absent a time machine, you could not do it. You would remain sitting next to me in the room, no matter how many word games you played.

    Let's look at this again with another example: You're standing on the platform of a train station. An express train that doesn't stop at your station whizzes by with passengers aboard. You catch a glimpse of each other.

    We know from relativity the passengers are in one local frame of reference; you are in another. Since their velocity, relative to you, is greater, their time, relative to you, passes more slowly. Conversely, your time, at the lower velocity, relative to them, passes more quickly. Relativity of time therefore tells us that in their glimpse of you, they're looking at the future; in your glimpse of them, you're looking at the past.

    Since the two local frames of reference are different, Relativity tells us the passengers, within their own frame of reference, inhabit the empirical present; within your own frame of reference, you too inhabit the empirical present.

    We only inhabit mind, brain and body the empirical present. Past and future are only experienced as concepts of the mind. Time measured in millennia had passed before the abstract mind attained to the relativity of time and its ramifications. This because the mind must climb a learning curve before it understands the empirical present and its relationship to past and future. We're not naturally aware of relativistic effects because we only experience them mentally.

    Now we're in position to see why representing the empirical present as a point with zero extension is useful.ucarr

    Sure representing the present in this way is "useful", that's what I've argued from the beginning.Metaphysician Undercover

    The QM approach to the literal now, as represented by an infinite series irrational, suggests something curious: the empirical now lies embedded within QM uncertainty. It looks similar to the hedging of superposition, but in effect at Newtonian scale.

    The question of which of these two, the past or the future, has a greater effect on us, and therefore ought to be handed priority is a matter to be debated.Metaphysician Undercover

    ...in general we apply our experience of the past toward getting what we want. So [we] are guided by what we want and desire, therefore the future has a greater effect on us than the past.Metaphysician Undercover

    I read your statement as showing past and future hold equal status of importance. An infant has wants that lie in its future, but has scant ability to satisfy those wants due to a deficiency of learning and the ability it sponsors. Moreover, future desires, as you say, are informed by what we've learned in the past. The only common sense conclusion I see is one that puts both side-by-side on level ground.ucarr

    I don't see an argument, just more false premises. An infant cries to fulfil its wants. Your claim that an infant has no capacity to fulfil its desires is unfounded and unsound.Metaphysician Undercover

    You misquote me (see my bold text above and compare it to your bold text immediately below): scant ability no ability. So, again, as our past deepens, it enriches our intentions for the future.

    Furthermore, that the past cannot be altered is a contestable premise. Who's past are we referring to? Relativity raises this question. Somewhat as I argued before in a thought experiment, let me pitch another one which has me imagining myself leaving from you standing beside me, and traveling to the past, perhaps via a wormhole. Once there, it becomes my present. So my past, unalterable, now my present, alterable, becomes the new situation. The complexity of relativity demands we incorporate these twists and turns into our understanding.ucarr

    Something with no physical evidence, time travel, and the capacity to change the past, cannot be offered as physics. Therefore I take it merely as a desire which you have. It serves as more evidence of the reality of my perspective, that in reality, desires are given priority over physical evidence.Metaphysician Undercover

    "Those who are ignorant of the past are doomed to repeat it." When we intentionally make the present
    different from the past, we can say we've learned how to contain it, which is changing it in the sense of erasing an influence (repetition) that otherwise would exist.

    Since a QM vector can be accurately measured for both magnitude and direction, all of the info is available. The complication is that both measurements cannot be measured to high resolution simultaneously. The question becomes, "What is the role of simultaneity of high resolution measurements within QM vectors?"ucarr

    This is evidence that "the present" as a point with zero dimension, though it is useful in many situations, reaches the limitations of its usefulness at QM.Metaphysician Undercover

    Show me how your dimensionally extended present overcomes the limitation of Heisenberg Uncertainty.
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    Let's read them one after the other.

    The illusion of continuity is not in relation to the probability distribution... The probability distribution is not in relation to the illusion of continuity.

    The prediction is not one of necessity, but one of probability. We have something in that duration of time which produces the illusion of continuity...

    Right, the illusion of continuity is in relation to the assumption of necessity. It is not in relation to the prediction, which is a prediction of probability. When a prediction of probability is falsely assumed to be a prediction of necessity, as in the case of a cause/effect prediction (the falsity demonstrated by Hume), this false "assumption of necessity" is consistent with the idea of continuity (which is an illusion of sense observation). There is a relation between the two "the assumption of necessity", and "the illusion of continuity", by means of which each one supports the other logically. So it is a sort of biconditional relationship of a vicious circle of falsity. Necessity (logical) implies continuity, and continuity (observational) implies necessity. The fact that the whole thing is based in probability rather than necessity, such that the whole vicious circle is actually irrelevant, is dropped right out of the picture.

    Please explain how you apprehend contradiction.
    Metaphysician Undercover

    The probability distribution is not in relation to the illusion of continuity.

    The prediction is... in relation to the probability distribution... We have something in that duration of time which produces the illusion of continuity...

    The first line negates "probability distribution" in relation to "the illusion of continuity."

    The second line establishes "probability distribution" "which produces the illusion of continuity..."

    QM uncertainty is a discontinuity, the discontinuity of information,Metaphysician Undercover

    Can you take this QM-Uncertainty caused discontinuity and put it into a thought experiment that shows when and where the discontinuity occurs and what effect it has on the trajectory of a photon?

    You need to go into this level of physical detail in order to contradict: .

    This is a description of the trajectory of a photon traveling across the distance of one Planck length.

    By inserting your info into this situation, you need to show how QM-Uncertainty destroys the claim the photon persisted intact across the Planck length.

    By definition a vector has both magnitude and direction. Vectors are not either/or, and neither is the Heisenberg calculation. One of the calculations is highly resolved, the other is not.ucarr

    Maximum certainty of one is equivalent with maximum uncertainty of the other.Metaphysician Undercover

    How does this exemplify discontinuity?

    For clarity, consider the example of a seesaw: When Child A is up, Child B is down, and vice versa. Where's the discontinuity?

    If a particle goes from having a location (rest) to having momentum (motion), what happens in between? What constitutes this change? This is the problem of acceleration. If something goes from being at rest, zero velocity, to being in motion, having some velocity, then there must be a duration of time when the rate of acceleration is infiniteMetaphysician Undercover

    Zeno's paradox has been solved: there's a way to cross an infinite number of intervals so that they sum to a finite number. Acceleration is not involved.

    I've already noted how all of your observations of physics are rooted within physics. You're trying to see something from within an environment that has no connection to what you're trying to see. Therefore, all you see is the environment of your observations. It follows from this that what it cannot explain is populated by parts of itself as yet not understood.ucarr

    This makes no sense. How are my "observations of physics" rooted in physics, when I am educated in philosophy, not physics? You only interpret them as rooted in physics because you cannot apprehend any other possibility due to the influence of your physicalist bias. I don't deny my dualist bias, but I deny that my "observations of physics" are rooted in physics, because my observational perspective is derived from an education in philosophy. This puts my observational perspective outside of physics.Metaphysician Undercover

    The "independence" is due to the incompatibility between freewill and common interpretations of Newton's laws. But your physicalist approach will simply deny the reality of such an immaterial act, because it is not possible to observe such an act. So giving details is rather pointless, because what you would request is proof that there is such an act. Therefore I am left with nothing but logic, and the deficiencies of physics (as evidence), to prove my point. — Metaphysician Undercover

    If your training in philosophy provided means to back your immaterial claims with evidence, no doubt you would use it. As you say, however, "...your physicalist approach will simply deny the reality of such an immaterial act, because it is not possible to observe such an act. I've bolded your above statement admitting you only have physics as your source of evidence.
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    Again, the problem is the limitations of observability. Yet you are restricting your knowledge of the world to "the observable world". That is the influence of your physicalist biasMetaphysician Undercover

    My scope of the observable includes abstract ideas. What does your scope of the observable include beyond physical things and abstract ideas? Bear in mind, abstract ideas include the contents of the imagination (free will), where I locate your non-physical world.

    You are only demonstrating that you are failing in your effort to understand. All observations are of things past. We have never, and simply cannot, observe the future. Since "the present" as what constitutes the reality of "what is", consists of both past and present, there is therefore a large aspect of the reality of "what is", which has never been observed, and simply cannot be observed.Metaphysician Undercover

    The future-as-past is only relative in relation to our frame of reference as non-local to the incidence of the stimulus. In it's own frame of reference, it's the present. If you deny this, then you're saying a thing is future to itself, or past to itself, a strange and probably paradoxical configuration for the existing self.

    If all our observations are of things of the past, with the time lag being significant rather than negligible - with the latter being the case in the empirical present - then we can't know our true selves because our observations are always separated from our present selves. This undermines and perhaps even destroys the free will you're always touting.

    Regarding danger, if it's out of date info, how is it that we avoid impending harm? If the info is time-lagged by only a few nano-seconds, and is thus negligible, then practically speaking, we're inhabiting the empirical present, which is a real present.

    Your attitude appears to be "if we just wait a Planck length or two, the future will become the past, and then it becomes observable, and measurable, so what's the difference?" The difference is that if we wait for it to become past, before acting on it, then we can never get what we want. In this case, what is wanted is a more complete understanding of reality. Therefore your proposal of "semi-independent reality" ought to be rejected as not having the capacity to be productive in relation to the goal of getting a more complete understanding.Metaphysician Undercover

    Relativity tells us that no given frame of reference for time is locked into one of the three tenses of time. The exception is the empirical present that populates every local frame of reference. Therefore, your talk of future preceding past, and all of the complexity it suggests, dissolves away when we remember there is no universal time.

    I am left with nothing but logic, and the deficiencies of physics (as evidence), to prove my point.Metaphysician Undercover

    Yes, you are left with nothing but physics to explain what you believe.ucarr

    Only from your perspective of physicalist bias, am I left with nothing but physics to explain what I believe. This is a restriction which your attitude imposes on me. You will only accept an explanation in physical terms. Therefore I have no choice but to demonstrate the deficiencies of physics, to get across the need for something else.Metaphysician Undercover

    I've been waiting for you to demonstrate some particular details of the workings of non-physics. All you ever do is imagine non-physical activity that might be possible, with this act of imagination being totally dependent upon your observations of particular details of physics. Neither I nor any other physicalist impose this restriction upon you. You seem to be bound up in this restriction because, apparently, you are unable to liberate yourself from it by means of your non-physicality.

    From the perspective of some mysticisms for example, within which the givenness of Newton's first law is rejected, and the assumption that the entire world is created anew at each moment of passing time is adopted, the constraints of "physics" are left behind, and we may speak freely in terms of willful creation. But such a discussion can only be meaningful if those physicalist assumptions are first rejected. That is why the reality of free will must be adopted as the primary, and self-evident, premise.Metaphysician Undercover

    You imagine yourself as one with all of existence. Furthermore, you imagine yourself the creator of all existence through exercise of free will. This empowers you to discard Newton, which you do. Now living beyond physics, you experience reality in terms of your free will and its creations.
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    If the design of the world limits the vector info of a particle, then that's all the info there is.ucarr

    We discussed this already as well. The restriction is due to the limitations of "observability", and imposed by the need to observe in the science of physics. Therefore "that's all the info there is" is not implied at all. The lack of information available for the representation, is attributable to the restrictions of the scientific method of physics. The information we have is restricted due to the limitations of observability.Metaphysician Undercover

    Since a QM vector can be accurately measured for both magnitude and direction, all of the info is available. The complication is that both measurements cannot be measured to high resolution simultaneously. The question becomes, "What is the role of simultaneity of high resolution measurements within QM vectors?"

    Let's suppose simultaneity herein lies beyond the reach of physics. If non-physics can only observe nature through the lens of physics, then it too cannot obtain any info beyond this limitation. Therefore, it cannot be used to establish the existence of a non-physical realm unless physics can see it also. The problem is that if physics can see it, it's physical not non-physical. This tells us that "non-physics" can only see what physics sees, and thus it too must be physics after all. Therefore, it cannot be used to establish a flaw in the methodology of physics since it cannot measure anything without using that same methodology. Finally, non-physics, being dependent on physics to observe nature, can only conjecture without knowing if its existence extends beyond the realm of the imagination.
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    For simplicity, let us say that our thoughts are experienced by us in the empirical present. Right now I’m expecting you to respond to what I’m writing with your refutation statement. Why isn’t it simply true that I’m having my thoughts about the future right now in my empirical present?ucarr

    We already discussed this. The "now" of the present cannot be an extensionless point in time, for the reasons we discussed. Therefore it must be a duration. "Empirical present" is unacceptable because it implies that the entire duration of the present is in the past. We need to acknowledge that since "the present" refers to a duration, it consists of both past and future. To say that the present consists only of past is self-contradicting.Metaphysician Undercover

    The future is present in the now as an abstract thought. The mind understands that plans toward a goal are about the future, but this understanding is in the empirical present. Adding further difficulty to our understanding is the fact time is local and therefore relative. So the incidence of a stimulus impacts our perceptual system and, shortly thereafter, it renders a representation of the stimulus. It's now natural to think, therefore, by this example, the future precedes the past. However, at the moment of the stimulus, in its own frame of reference, its incidence is in the now, not in the future. This takes us back to our understanding that the future of the empirical present is an abstraction of the mind. We know this because, as we just observed, the incidence of the stimulus is in its own now, so it's the future only relative to a non-local frame of reference. In our own local frame of reference, the incidence of the stimulus is a past event, with us further in the past moving forward towards it. Even so, we're not moving towards the past, but instead moving forward within our own ongoing empirical present.

    Now we're in position to see why representing the empirical present as a point with zero extension is useful. This point is the limit of an infinite series, i.e., it's the limit of the ongoing now. You know you never wake up into the past, and you never wake up into the future. You only wake up into the empirical present. Relativity, because of its complexity, demands we understand we're always moving through the infinite series of the empirical present towards a dimensionless eternity as now.

    The question of which of these two, the past or the future, has a greater effect on us, and therefore ought to be handed priority is a matter to be debated.Metaphysician Undercover

    ...in general we apply our experience of the past toward getting what we want. So [we] are guided by what we want and desire, therefore the future has a greater effect on us than the past.Metaphysician Undercover

    The only common sense conclusion I see is one that puts both side-by-side on level ground.ucarr

    Directly above, I supply two of your comments. For my reaction to them, I repost your edited post of them. It's incomplete. Here's my entire quote:

    I read your statement as showing past and future hold equal status of importance. An infant has wants that lie in its future, but has scant ability to satisfy those wants due to a deficiency of learning and the ability it sponsors. Moreover, future desires, as you say, are informed by what we've learned in the past. The only common sense conclusion I see is one that puts both side-by-side on level ground.
    ucarr
    I see no reason for your so-called "common sense conclusion". The past cannot be altered, but the future holds the possibility of getting what you want. I don't understand why you would not prioritize the possibility of getting what you want, over that which is impossible to change.Metaphysician Undercover

    Instead of skipping over my argument in bold above, why don't you respond to it?

    Furthermore, that the past cannot be altered is a contestable premise. Who's past are we referring to? Relativity raises this question. Somewhat as I argued before in a thought experiment, let me pitch another one which has me imagining myself leaving from you standing beside me, and traveling to the past, perhaps via a wormhole. Once there, it becomes my present. So your past, unalterable, now my present, alterable, becomes the new situation. The complexity of relativity demands we incorporate these twists and turns into our understanding.
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    MU wants to argue probability means the individual trajectories are incoherent and thus their beginning state and ending state are discontinuousucarr

    ...I argue that in the case of quantum "particles", the lack of information is due to a real, ontological, gap of existence of the physical "particle". This is an ontological discontinuity of the physical "particle" between t1 and t2.Metaphysician Undercover

    If the gap in the existence of a particle - from one point in its trajectory to another point - is ontologically real, then, as I've said, that's your claim the trajectories of particles are incoherent. This conjectured discontinuity has nothing to do with not knowing before measurement, which possible trajectory will be the actual trajectory. Moreover, the measurement of the trajectory within the LHC will not show a discontinuity due to QM uncertainty. Instead, it will show discontinuity if the particle decays, or if something massive intervenes into its trajectory. Such discontinuity is something sought after by the design of the experiment. Physicists want to see particles interacting.

    If a particle has momentum (movement), it cannot have a location ( a position), and if it has a position it cannot have movement (momentum).Metaphysician Undercover

    By definition a vector has both magnitude and direction. Vectors are not either/or, and neither is the Heisenberg calculation. One of the calculations is highly resolved, the other is not.

    But this invites a fully valid philosophical question. If a particle goes from having a location (rest) to having momentum (motion), what happens in between? What constitutes this change? This is the problem of acceleration. If something goes from being at rest, zero velocity, to being in motion, having some velocity, then there must be a duration of time when the rate of acceleration is infinite. So a philosopher might ask, what is happening, what type of change is this, when a thing's rate of acceleration is infinite.Metaphysician Undercover

    Something at rest has rest momentum as well motion momentum. Infinite acceleration violates relativity: there is no acceleration all the way to light speed.

    The evidence of the nonphysical is the existence of activities which are contrary to, or cannot be grasped by physics. This includes free will acts. So the assumption of the nonphysical is not grounded in physics, it's grounded in the fact that physics cannot explain everything which is observable. And, my argument concerning time shows that it is highly probable that there are activities which physics will never be able to explain.Metaphysician Undercover

    I've already noted how all of your observations of physics are rooted within physics. You're trying to see something from within an environment that has no connection to what you're trying to see. Therefore, all you see is the environment of your observations. It follows from this that what it cannot explain is populated by parts of itself as yet not understood.
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    If we examine a particle with multiple possible trajectories across a distance, Planck scale or otherwise, we know that one of the trajectories will cover a distance traveled by the particle. The calculation of the probability of the particle taking a particular trajectory has nothing to do with the continuity of each of the calculated possible trajectories. During its journey, a particle might change, or be destroyed, but not without an intervening force causing it.ucarr

    This is utterly misleading. We cannot say that the supposed "particle" takes any "particular trajectory". Therefore we cannot say that it has "a trajectory", "a journey", or even that it exists in the meantime. There is a very clear lack of continuity of the supposed "particle", in this time period, Therefore we cannot talk about changes to the particle in this duration.Metaphysician Undercover

    The particle is not supposed. The particle is a photon. It has been established that a photon takes over the duration of one Planck length. You should notice something. Whenever you challenge me on a fact about physics, if I'm right about the fact, I can usually give you specific details establishing the fact. So far, you've only given me conjectures about what might be facts pertaining to the non-physical world, and your conjectures are usually short on details. In fact, most of your details are physics which you use to support your conjectures.

    It now seems likely that, in general, non-physics cannot get started without using the measurements and methodologies of physics. This suggests to me non-physics is an emergent property of physics, i.e., it is abstract thought.

    The "independence" is due to the incompatibility between freewill and common interpretations of Newton's laws. But your physicalist approach will simply deny the reality of such an immaterial act, because it is not possible to observe such an act. So giving details is rather pointless, because what you would request is proof that there is such an act. Therefore I am left with nothing but logic, and the deficiencies of physics (as evidence), to prove my point. — Metaphysician Undercover

    If you can neither observe nor measure a thing, how do you know it exists? If you conceive a logical conjecture about something that might exist, can you count on finding it within the world? If it's physical yes. If it's non-physical no. If the non-physical world is independent, then it runs parallel to the physical world. What's the one example that seems to permit a connection between the non-physical and the physical? Abstract thought is the answer. The seeming transformation from non-physical to physical is not really a translation between parallel realms. Abstract thought emerges from the brain as it were as a timeless compression of multiple individual patterns grouped thematically into a conceptually timeless generalization. Of course this timeless generalization can be applied to individual patterns in the real world.

    Since abstract thought is physical within the brain, then logic, also a product of the brain, also is physical. This tells us why you say,

    I am left with nothing but logic, and the deficiencies of physics (as evidence), to prove my point. — Metaphysician Undercover

    Yes, you are left with nothing but physics to explain what you believe.

    I attempt to show, in MU's own words, the contradiction I believe him to have made.ucarr

    If I could see contradiction in my own words, I would not have said them. You need to explain to me in your words, why you think what I have said is contradictory....Now you just take snippets of what I said, without any context, and wrongly claim that these snippets constitute contradiction.Metaphysician Undercover

    But you didn't see them in your own words, so you said them. I saw them in your own words, and here they are,

    The illusion of continuity is related to the assumption of necessity, not in relation to the probability distribution, which does not make a prediction of necessity.Metaphysician Undercover

    Read as: The illusion of continuity is not in relation to the probability distribution which does not make a prediction of necessity.

    The prediction however is not one of necessity, but one of probability, as explained by Hume. Therefore, we have something in that duration of time, between t-1 and t-2, which produces the illusion of continuity, but since it provides a relation of probability between state A and state B, rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity.Metaphysician Undercover

    Read as: The prediction is not one of necessity, but one of probability. We have something in that duration of time which produces the illusion of continuity; it provides a relation of probability rather than a relation of necessity; it is not a true continuity.

    Let's read them one after the other.

    The illusion of continuity is not in relation to the probability distribution... The probability distribution is not in relation to the illusion of continuity.

    The prediction is not one of necessity, but one of probability. We have something in that duration of time which produces the illusion of continuity...
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    Firstly, your language here is clear. Had it been your original language, I would'nt've called out a contradiction.ucarr

    OK, so my language was unclear, and you thought there was contradiction where there was not.Metaphysician Undercover

    Now my language is unclear. What I should've said is, "Your original language, in my opinion, expresses a contradiction."
    Can a particle traverse one Planck length? Yes.ucarr

    No it does not. That is the issue, with the uncertainty of the particle's location. We cannot say that the particle traverses that length because it's location in that extremely short duration of time when it is assumed to be moving, cannot be known. That is why physicists say that it takes every possible path from A to B. There is a discontinuity of information, such that we cannot really say that a particle even exists during this time. That's why its better to defer to the non-physical at this point, the circumstances are such that the principles of physics do not apply.Metaphysician Undercover

    My counter-narrative to your above narrative stresses the non-equivalence of uncertainty and discontinuity. QM doesn't know precisely, but does know probabilistically, what path a particle occupies at a given moment of time. This uncertainty of knowledge has no impact whatsoever on the continuity of whatever path the particle actually takes. You make a leap of logic from uncertainty about which path the particle takes in a given moment to concluding the particle doesn't exist. That's an invalid conclusion from the evidence because, were it true, we'd be unable to verify the existence of the particle, whether it travels one Planck time or one millennium.

    I know you want to set up a thought experiment that features a particle disappearing out of existence. This then allows you to usher in your non-physical info exchange as a conjectured example of non-physical causation that's useful. So far, your thought experiment is founded upon an invalid conclusion about the relationship between uncertainty and discontinuity. We know from the imaging of the LHC that particle paths do not suffer the type of QM discontinuity that would have them disappearing. Particles can decay, but that entails the emergence of constituent particles. If they did simply disappear, we couldn't design experiments to measure reactions from particle collisions. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that no mass is lost from the world overall.
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    ...everything observed through sensation is in the past by the time it is observed.Metaphysician Undercover

    So your answer is, "No, we directly experience neither the future nor the present. Only the past is observed directly."ucarr

    The empirical present consists of observations of the past, as you explain here, but the non-empirical present consists of desires and anticipations of the future.Metaphysician Undercover
    .

    For simplicity, let us say that our thoughts are experienced by us in the empirical present. Right now I’m expecting you to respond to what I’m writing with your refutation statement. Why isn’t it simply true that I’m having my thoughts about the future right now in my empirical present?

    The question of which of these two, the past or the future, has a greater effect on us, and therefore ought to be handed priority is a matter to be debated.Metaphysician Undercover

    ...in general we apply our experience of the past toward getting what we want. So [we] are guided by what we want and desire, therefore the future has a greater effect on us than the past.Metaphysician Undercover

    I read your statement as showing past and future hold equal status of importance. An infant has wants that lie in its future, but has scant ability to satisfy those wants due to a deficiency of learning and the ability it sponsors. Moreover, future desires, as you say, are informed by what we've learned in the past. The only common sense conclusion I see is one that puts both side-by-side on level ground.

    Multiplicity of possibilities isn't always born of incomplete info. Heisenberg's uncertainty equation knows both axes for the trajectory vector of a particle: position and momentum. However, due to an existential limitation on measurement within QM, only one or the other axis can be known to a useful degree of accuracy.ucarr

    You may insist that this "uncertainty" is the result of an "existential limitation on measurement", and that is what I called the limitations of observability, but this is not a complete explanation. It does not explain how these limitations cause the knowledge which ought to consist only of certainties, to get contaminated with uncertainties.Metaphysician Undercover

    If the design of the world limits the vector info of a particle, then that's all the info there is. So it's not an uncertainty. It's a design limitation. We might imagine there's more to be known, but our act of imagination doesn't dictate reality.

    I explained to you already how this uncertainty is due to a lack of correspondence between the mathematical principles and the reality of the observable physical world.Metaphysician Undercover

    As the case with you lecturing me about "time passing with nothing happening," sometimes we have to make peace with a hard fact. This is - at least for the time being - a fundamental truth that can't be further broken down by analysis, nor can it be expanded by either interpolation or extrapolation.

    The uncertainty of the uncertainty principle is due to this lack of correspondence, which is an epistemic problem. This failure of correspondence between the mathematical principles and the reality of the observable physical world, allows that the unknown, (which could be excluded from physics, and left as the non-physical part of reality which physics cannot explain), gets incorporated into the expression, the representation of the physical world, as the uncertainty of that representation.Metaphysician Undercover

    If something is part of the observable world, even if that something is an abstract idea, then it can be measured for possible use. This is what semi-independent reality, apparently non-physical, should be amenable to. That’s abstract thought, isn’t it? I'm not seeing where you're able to show non-physical things in possession of causal powers whose effects can be measured for their usefulness. The top-down causation of mind doesn't count because mind is tied to brain. Also, so far, I’m not buying your arguments for concluding free will depends upon non-physical things.

    Semi-independent reality posits abstract thought as quasi-non-physical.

    Why must the reality of abstraction be independent of physical reality? What does it lose when it loses its independence?

    You think things unexplainable in science inhabit a realm beyond its reach. If this realm is non-physical, then you need non-physical methodology to access and make use of these things. This is where you get stuck. You can’t name any non-physical methodologies. Mind is tied to brain, so it’s not what you’re looking for. This is the puzzle. Every attempt to find the non-physical terminates in physics. This is why we say mind is emergent from brain, but never becomes independent thereof.

    There’s talk of granular sub-units of space being fundamental reality: moments in time occurring. Since these sub-units of space are separated, the question arises, “What lies between them?” Let’s suppose it’s time that lies between them. Does this not bring us right back to spacetime physics?
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    Why do you think a distribution of differential probabilities is not interrelated? One of the points of the distribution is to compare levels of probability.ucarr

    Once again asking the wrong question. This has nothing to do with what was disputed. THe dispute has to do with your erroneous claim of contradiction. It was erroneous. I do not need to clothe the Emperor.AmadeusD

    My question above is directly related to your argument supporting your denial of my charge of contradiction. I repost it below:

    You've made the claim. I don't require a supporting argument. But for clarity:AmadeusD

    ...a probability distribution is not a relation of probability.AmadeusD

    A clarifying example that helps the reader to understand my question, which I already posted to you yesterday, is reposted below.

    Consider: Two basketball players. Each player tries to hit the same jump shot from the same free throw line. A statistical analyst watches each player shoot the same shot twenty-five times. He calculates a probability distribution based on the twenty-five shots taken by each player. His conclusion says Player A has a fifty per cent chance of making shot #26, and Player B has a twenty-five per cent chance of making shot #26. Now we see Player A's chance of making the shot is twice that of Player B's chance of making the shot, according to the probability distribution.

    Why do you think this probability distribution is not a relation of probability?
    ucarr

    You're ignoring my clarification. Why should I not think you're hiding behind your claim my question is irrelevant? Why should I not think you're hiding behind it because you cannot think of a sound refutation?
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    ...they must prove their absence from the scene of the crime over and above the prosecution's proof they were present at the scene of the crime.ucarr

    This is a clear example of you misunderstanding the basic tenets I pointed out. No, They do not need to 'prove their absence'. If the prosecution has no evidence they were there, the prosecution has no case.AmadeusD

    You'll notice I've bolded the part of my statement that says an active defense is needed when the prosecution does have proof - I should've said "evidence" - since it might be interpreted as damning. Moreover, as you've needlessly pointed out, it's assumed that a case that goes to trial includes potent evidence against the defendant. Technically speaking, however, you're right, it's still true that the defendant need not speak nor engage council for a defense.

    You can be confident this is correct because a prosecutor won't initiate a case lacking solid evidence proving the guilt of the defendantucarr

    False. Cases are often thrown out because of this, or at least don't make it to trial.AmadeusD

    It's my understanding that the District Attorney is interested in viable cases, considering that his/her record impacts the outcome of the next election.

    Without being able to plausibly meet the burden of proof, the prosecution would be thwarted by simple denial.ucarr

    Are you under the impression that all cases come with overwhelming evidence? Or that evidence of presence could somehow be rebutted once produced at trial?AmadeusD

    As I've been saying for some time now, both the prosecution and the defense need to exercise skillful judgment regarding the viability of a case. Even though it's a separate issue from the burden of proof being on the prosecution, the two issues are closely related within a complex relationship.

    Don't be misled by the fact the prosecution must prove its case against the defendant, and not the other way around. Both the prosecution and the defense [are liable to] make claims of fact they must prove [in their own interest].ucarr

    You note how defendants oftentimes refuse to testify. Usually this is because their defense attorney is presenting cogent rebuttals to the accusations. I don't suppose you're trying to suggest the defense has an advantage over the prosecution. Therefore, I think it reasonable to say, regarding any possible difference for the two sides going in, it's akin to the white pieces moving first in the game of chess.

    No one but a purist thinks a mute defense is sound.ucarr

    As I said above, and you seem to have missed, Judges regularly instruct juries to make nothing of the defense producing no evidence or not testifying. This is not uncommon. This literally happens weekly, possibly daily, across various courts. Lawyers often instruct their clients not to testify...AmadeusD

    Yes, I see now that a mute witness and a mute defense are two different things. The presence of the defense attorney sets them widely apart.

    Regarding how all of this relates to your naysaying my claim of contradiction by MU, am I to suppose that in a debate, you'd make a denial without supporting it, and then stand mute while your opponent advances a cogent argument against it?ucarr

    This is just as disingenuous as the previous part of your reply which was just so.AmadeusD

    No. If you've made that of what i've said, that is a misinterpretation. One that seems, I am sorry to say, purposeful. You made a claim. I denied it. That's the end of that, unless you want to provide support for your claim. You failed to provide any support for your claim (on my view, to be sure). I am free to walk away denying it. That's how it works. I am not required to answer to a claim which has not been supported. That is also how courts work, to the point that what's called "summary judgment" has been invented to cover this common circumstance.AmadeusD

    In this case, there is no judge. In my view, you failed to support your assertion. Therefore it was dismissed. Hitchens Razor.

    These are all standard concepts. Your position is counter to them. Therefore, I am confident in leaving it here.
    AmadeusD

    In the long sequence below, I present MUs statement, provide my argument for deeming it contradictory, and then you make your denial of my argument. Since you quote me when I charge MU with being contradictory, the evidence suggests you've read my argument. Are you attempting to lie your way out of acknowledging you've read my argument?

    The illusion of continuity is related to the assumption of necessity, not in relation to the probability distribution, which does not make a prediction of necessity.Metaphysician Undercover

    As I read your above quote, I get: The prediction is a prediction of probability; therefore, we have... the illusion of continuity... since it provides a relation of probability... rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity.

    Compare, side-by-side, my two readings, which boil down your words to the gist of their meaning:

    The illusion of continuity is... not in relation to the probability distribution...

    The prediction is a prediction of probability; therefore, we have... the illusion of continuity... since it provides a relation of probability... rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity.

    It's clear from your words that your two statements contradict each other.
    ucarr

    Third party here - no, they don't.AmadeusD

    Haven't you been making an astute defense of the right to deny and then remain silent? The evidence is before us: you weighed in on a debate with a simple denial, and then defended your subsequent silence:

    It's clear from your words [Metaphysician Undercover] that your two statements contradict each other.ucarr

    Third party here - no, they don't.AmadeusD

    Denial is a full response in court. The claim must be proved, not the denial. That is, in fact, how all debates go.AmadeusD

    You did provide a supporting argument:

    You've made the claim. I don't require a supporting argument. But for clarity:AmadeusD

    ...a probability distribution is not a relation of probability.AmadeusD

    But I had to request it, and your tone in providing it suggested to me you felt you were doing me a favor.
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    In a court of law, as you know, when one side says the other has made a contradictory statement, and then the side accused of making a contradictory statement says, "I did not make a contradictory statement." the judge then requires the side making the denial to prove their denial.ucarr

    Don't be mislead by the fact the prosecution must prove its case against the defendant, and not the other way around. Both the prosecution and the defense make claims of fact they must prove. So if a claim of innocence is based upon the defendant not being at the scene of the crime, in order to persuade a jury in their favor, they must prove their absence from the scene of the crime over and above the prosecution's proof they were present at the scene of the crime. Simple denial won't do. You can be confident this is correct because a prosecutor won't initiate a case lacking solid evidence proving the guilt of the defendant. Without being able to plausibly meet the burden of proof, the prosecution would be thwarted by simple denial.

    If the defense could win their cases with simple denial, who would ever need a defense attorney?

    Absolutely not. BUt if this is how you feel things go, then I am not surprised. Denial is a full response in court. The claim must be proved, not the denial. That is, in fact, how all debates go. In court, particularly important. Judges remind juries constantly that a defendant not providing any testimony or evidence does not indicate anything whatsoever. The entire point is that the prosecution prove their case, either on probability, or beyond reasonable doubt. At no stage, ever, does a judge require proof of denial. You're talking about disputed facts.AmadeusD

    Your purist argument is true, but I don't believe one person in ten thousand would enter a courtroom as a mute defendant without a defense attorney. Moreover, with indigent defendants, the court assigns a public defender free of charge. No one but a purist thinks a mute defense is sound.

    Regarding how all of this relates to your naysaying my claim of contradiction by MU, am I to suppose that in a debate, you'd make a denial without supporting it, and then stand mute while your opponent advances a cogent argument against it?

    Why do you think this probability distribution is not a relation of probability?ucarr

    You're not asking close to the correct question to address the issue. The distribution and the relation are separate properties/elements.AmadeusD

    Why do you think a distribution of differential probabilities is not interrelated? One of the points of the distribution is to compare levels of probability.

    Why do you think a distribution of plotted trajectories has anything to do with the internal consistency and coherence of each trajectory? MU wants to argue probability means the individual trajectories are incoherent and thus their beginning state and ending state are discontinuous. If he can establish this dis-continuity, then he can insert by conjecture possible non-physical agents of change and causation independent of physics.

    MU wants to ride piggyback atop the dynamism of physics, then, at the critical moment of his conjectured dis-continuity of the trajectory of the particle, insert his immaterial agents, i.e., immaterial information doing an immaterial info exchange at the last lap of the trajectory, thus proving both the independence and causal power of immaterial info.

    So far he doesn't answer the question why none of his independent, immaterial things can't do anything observable without the grounding of physics.
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    You've made the claim. I don't require a supporting argument. But for clarity:AmadeusD

    a probability distribution is not a relation of probability.AmadeusD

    Consider: Two basketball players. Each player tries to hit the same jump shot from the same free throw line. A statistical analyst watches each player shoot the same shot twenty-five times. He calculates a probability distribution based on the twenty-five shots taken by each player. His conclusion says Player A has a fifty per cent chance of making shot #26, and Player B has a twenty-five per cent chance of making shot #26. Now we see Player A's chance of making the shot is twice that of Player B's chance of making the shot, according to the probability distribution.

    Why do you think this probability distribution is not a relation of probability?
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    The illusion of continuity is... not in relation to the probability distribution...

    The prediction is a prediction of probability; therefore, we have... the illusion of continuity... since it provides a relation of probability... rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity.
    Metaphysician Undercover

    It's clear from your words that your two statements contradict each other.ucarr

    Third party here - no, they don't.AmadeusD

    Your claim is a refutation of my claim. It makes a declaration about the truth content of my claim, finding it to be zero.

    Why do you think your refutation of my claim's truth content is not another claim that needs to be supported by a logical argument?

    In a court of law, as you know, when one side says the other has made a contradictory statement, and then the side accused of making a contradictory statement says, "I did not make a contradictory statement." the judge then requires the side making the denial to prove their denial. In summary, we see that a claim of making a contradictory statement has been leveled against the other side, and then the other side denies it. The judge, hearing the denial, knows the denial is another claim, and thus demands the denier present an argument supporting the denial.

    It does seem, unfortunately, that you misunderstand basic tenets of exchange, reason and relation. It is making things difficult. We ran into this last year, and it seems MU is getting it now. Perhaps reflect on some of these criticisms with an open mind. It seems your entire mode is to simply push-back even when things you say aren't relevant.AmadeusD

    Consider: As you see at the top of this post, I reposted MUs statements I find contradictory. I've edited out the extraneous details to clarify the parts of his statements I'm addressing.

    This is evidence I present to support my claim of contradiction; I attempt to show, in MU's own words, the contradiction I believe him to have made. The point I'm making now isn't concerned with the correctness of my interpretation of MU's statements. I'm attempting to show I follow proper procedure when I participate in rational discourse. When I push-back on someone's claim because I believe it false, I always provide either evidence - as in this case - or a logical argument, or both.
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    ...everything observed through sensation is in the past by the time it is observed.Metaphysician Undercover

    So your answer is, "No, we directly experience neither the future nor the present. Only the past is observed directly."

    Since sensory processing by the brain at light speed is time-lagged only nanoseconds behind sensory stimulus, and thus it is negligible, you, like me, always wake up in the empirical present, it being noted you call it the past.

    If this is true, as I judge it, based upon your words, then I see your temporal direction, like mine, is a passage through a never-ending, nanoseconds time-lagged sequence of pasts.

    The illusion of continuity is... not in relation to the probability distribution...Metaphysician Undercover

    Correct, the illusion of continuity is in relation to the assumption of necessity.Metaphysician Undercover

    The prediction is a prediction of probability; therefore, we have... the illusion of continuity... since it provides a relation of probability... rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity.Metaphysician Undercover

    It is when the prediction of probability is taken as a prediction of necessity, which creates the illusion of continuity.Metaphysician Undercover

    So, we have a prediction based on probability, and this does not on its own lead to a conclusion of continuity, because "probability" implies a lack of information required to complete the continuity.Metaphysician Undercover

    Multiplicity of possibilities isn't always born of incomplete info. Heisenberg's uncertainty equation knows both axes for the trajectory vector of a particle: position and momentum. However, due to an existential limitation on measurement within QM, only one or the other axis can be known to a useful degree of accuracy.

    So, we have a prediction based on probability, and this does not on its own lead to a conclusion of continuity, because "probability" implies a lack of information required to complete the continuity. However, when we assume the cause/effect relation to be one of necessity, and we assume therefore that the prediction is one of necessity rather than one of probability, this creates the illusion of continuity.

    Therefore, the illusion of continuity is not in relation to the probability distribution itself, it is related to the assumption (belief) that the prediction which is based in probability is a prediction of necessity.

    Where is the contradiction here?
    Metaphysician Undercover

    Firstly, your language here is clear. Had it been your original language, I would'nt've called out a contradiction.

    Secondly, we know particles cover distances across durations of time. This is the issue you raised in your Planck time thought experiment: Can a particle traverse one Planck length? Yes.

    Next you posited a theoretical half Planck length. Claiming no physics can occur at sub-Planck length, you speculated about info exchange at sub-Planck length independent of physics. You concluded immaterial info can do something causal independent of physics.

    If we examine a particle with multiple possible trajectories across a distance, Planck scale or otherwise,
    we know that one of the trajectories will cover a distance traveled by the particle. The calculation of the probability of the particle taking a particular trajectory has nothing to do with the continuity of each of the calculated possible trajectories. During its journey, a particle might change, or be destroyed, but not without an intervening force causing it.

    Inside the LHC two protons collide and the Higgs particle emerges. Researchers had predicted the emergence of the Higgs particle on the basis of one Higgs particle emergence for every 30 billion proton-to-proton collisions. Since the researchers, using statistical analysis, detected the Higgs particle, we see no continuity issue attached to a probability calculation of the Higgs particle emergence.

    It's clear from your words that your two statements contradict each other.ucarr

    I really don't see how you apprehend contradiction here. The prediction is based in a relation of probability, not in a relation of necessity. However, when this relation (the cause effect relation) is taken to be a relation of necessity, the illusion of continuity is created.Metaphysician Undercover

    This isn't what you wrote originally:

    The illusion of continuity is... not in relation to the probability distribution...Metaphysician Undercover

    The illusion of continuity ... the probability distribution...

    The prediction is a prediction of probability; therefore, we have... the illusion of continuity... since it provides a relation of probability... rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity.Metaphysician Undercover

    The prediction prediction of probability therefore, we have... the illusion of continuity...
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    You've made the claim. I don't require a supporting argument.AmadeusD

    You've also made a claim. In rational discourse, propositions need the support of logical arguments. Why do you think you're exempt from this requirement?

    probability distributionMetaphysician Undercover

    is notAmadeusD

    of probabilityMetaphysician Undercover

    a relation of probabilityMetaphysician Undercover

    Why are the calculated probabilities of possible values of a variable not part of a relation of probability of possible outcomes?
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    The illusion of continuity is... not in relation to the probability distribution...Metaphysician Undercover

    The prediction is a prediction of probability; therefore, we have... the illusion of continuity... since it provides a relation of probability... rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity.Metaphysician Undercover

    It's clear from your words that your two statements contradict each other.ucarr

    Third party here - no, they don't.AmadeusD

    This is your declaration. Where is your supporting argument?
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    I hope what I said above helps you to see how this is not a proper representation of the continuity I am talking about. The continuity I referred to is epistemic, it is a continuity of information.Metaphysician Undercover

    There's no clear distinction here. Logic and knowledge are both epistemic.

    So the problem here is that you have two incompatible premises which you try to unite. You say "logical relationships are atemporal". And you also have "real life is temporal". Because of this incompatibility the "logic" you are talking about cannot be applied to "real life". But then you attempt to apply this type of "atemporal" logic to "temporal" real life, through the concept of causation, and you produce a seriously flawed example. The obvious problem is that causation refers to "real life" temporal events, so the application of atemporal logic is faulty. Therefore modal logic has been developed for this purpose.Metaphysician Undercover

    I'm not uniting logic and events; I'm stressing their distinction: one atemporal, the other temporal. If your house is on fire, and it's logically true dousing it with water will extinguish the fire, but you're unable to get to water and the house burns down, this calamity blocking the link between real burning house and real water to save it has zero impact on the logical truth connecting water with extinguishing fire.

    Furthermore, this stresses that causation is a logical concept of the abstract mind, and thus it too is atemporal. If it's true A causes B, then A in the role of cause and B in the role of effect are contemporaries. If B is not an effect of A simultaneous with A being a cause of B, then A is just A, it's not an effect. This is why we understand causation is an abstract thought, not an event.

    ...in that time period, between T1 and T2, between when the photon is at PX and PY respectively, a physical force cannot act on that photon, because the time period is too short for a physical event to occur. Therefore if anything acts on that photon in this time, it must be nonphysical.Metaphysician Undercover

    You're repeating your mistake of confusing: a) the Planck length is currently the shortest time interval science can measure with; b) the Planck length is the shortest time interval in which physics can happen.

    Statement b), which your argument assumes, is false.
    ucarr

    As I've explained, this is not relevant. The fact is that physics is restricted by the limitations of observation. The use of "Planck time" is just an example of such a restriction. So it doesn't matter if Planck time is replaced by some other temporal length, as the shortest time period, there will always be a shortest time period due to the limitations of observational capacity. And physical theories are verified through observation, so this is a restriction to "physics".Metaphysician Undercover

    If what I wrote is now irrelevant, it's because you've shifted from denying physics below Planck scale to asserting physics has measurement limitations, an assertion nobody disputes. The difference between what you say now and what you said directly below is obvious.

    ...in that time period, between T1 and T2, between when the photon is at PX and PY respectively, a physical force cannot act on that photon, because the time period is too short for a physical event to occur. Therefore if anything acts on that photon in this time, it must be nonphysical.Metaphysician Undercover

    The further principle which I've tried to impress on you, is that this restriction necessitates an "informational gap". There will always be a shorter period of time, shorter than what observational capacity allows for, and physics will not be able to tell us what happens during this time period due to that restriction. Therefore something nonphysical could happen during this time period which could have a causal influence.[/quote]

    Since your "observations" of immaterialism are restricted by the observational limitations of physics, your suppositions about immaterial info and causation are really just speculations made possible by the work of physicists. Your dependency on physics doesn't make a strong case for believing immaterialism has logical and existential priority over materialism.

    Consider entropy for example. As time passes entropy increases, and this is a violation of the law of conservation of energy within a system. Energy is lost to the system, and its loss cannot be accounted for. So in principle the law of entropy indicates a violation to the conservation law. Now, even during the shortest period of time, some energy must be lost, and we can ask what is the cause of this loss. Clearly, the activities of "physics" do not account for the increase in entropy, so the cause of it is nonphysical. "Entropy", commonly represented as "uncertainty" signifies the informational gap which I referred to, where something nonphysical has causal influence during the passing of time.Metaphysician Undercover

    The first law of thermo-dynamics says the total energy of a system remains constant, even if it is converted from work into heat energy.

    Entropy is the loss of a system's available energy to do work. There is no violation of the first law.

    You acknowledge that, "As time passes entropy increases..." This statement has you acknowledging passing time and increase of entropy are moving in the same direction. Since increase of entropy is experienced by humans as getting old and dying, how do you deny our getting born infantile, and then growing through childhood, adolescence, first adulthood, and middle age all come before old age, given your contention the future, which for the child is old age, comes before the past, which for the old person, is childhood?

    We can only say that the immaterial cannot do anything observable without converting that activity into material activityMetaphysician Undercover

    To me this looks like an acknowledgement, by implication, that immaterialism, i.e., abstract thought, is an emergent property of physic.
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    So it's not probability itself, which creates the illusion of continuity, it is the practise of treating what is probable as what is necessary, which creates that illusion.Metaphysician Undercover

    This is not what you say in your original quotes.

    And the point is that it is an illusion, not real. The first quote indicates what are the consequences of treating the probable as necessary, and the second quote states the consequences of treating the probable as it truly is, probable. So in the first it is the assumption of necessity which is related to continuity, and in the second, it is stated that what is often assumed to be necessary (determinism), is really just probable, therefore the continuity associated with this assumed necessity is an illusion. The necessity is false.[/quote]

    As I read you, you're charging QM physics with trying to pass off probability as necessity. The prominence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle contradicts this wholesale mis-characterization of QM physics.

    As the Schrördinger equation calculates the multiplicity of possible trajectories of a particle, there is no continuity issue for the individual possible trajectories, and therefore there is no continuity issue with the set of these possible trajectories.

    Probability and continuity run on separate tracks here.

    Regarding probability: There's a probability cloud of possible locations of the particle

    Regarding continuity: Whether it's the same particle at the start and end of its journey across an interval of time is not necessarily in question. It's possible two different states express: a) two different positions of the same particle; b) the decay of, say, a proton, into a neutron.

    Without focusing observational attention on A it cannot be said that all A causes Z.Metaphysician Undercover

    I've never denied causal chains can be broken.

    Suppose we establish that: iron pipes, when dipped in liquid vinyl, don't rust. Logically, we can represent this relationship as: P=Non-rust state and Q=Vinyl-dipped iron pipe, so . This is a logical relationship with the terms established: iron pipes don't rust when they're dipped in vinyl. This logical relationship inhabits the abstract mind, and it is atemporal.

    We can readily see that this is seriously flawed. Just because "vinyl-dipped" produces the necessity of "non-rust", we cannot conclude that all non-rusted pipes are vinyl dipped. This is how the assumption of bi-conditionality may mislead.Metaphysician Undercover

    Your analysis is irrelevant because my statement never claims its logic establishes: we can conditionally conclude that all non-rusted pipes are vinyl dipped.

    P=Non-rust state and Q=Vinyl-dipped iron pipe, so .

    Vinyl-dipped iron pipes imply non-rusted iron pipes, but non-rusted iron pipes don't imply vinyl-dipped iron pipes. The two statements are not commutative. One does not allow us to assume the other.

    By inserting the bi-conditional: non-rusted iron pipes imply vinyl-dipped iron pipes if and only if vinyl-dipped iron pipes imply non-rusted iron pipes, the two statements are equalized by definition, and thus they become commutative.

    With P and Q equalized bi-conditionally, one allows us to assume the other.

    The statement: "vinyl-dipped iron pipes imply non-rusted iron pipes," is an analytic truth, but it is not the way the world is. This shows us that sound logic does not always faithfully represent the world.

    This distinction remains useful to my purpose because I want to show how the soundness of logic
    is not necessarily refuted by contrary events. See below.

    ...I establish that: a) causal relations exemplify bi-conditional logic; b) temporal sequences of events can be regarded as being causal, but interruptions in their continuity says nothing contradictory about the bi-conditional logic of causation.ucarr
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    Since future and past are distinct dimensions of time, and they overlap at the present, the present must be two dimensional.Metaphysician Undercover

    Does a person experience future and past empirically?

    Considering your two above quotes, as I understand you, in the first quote you absolve probability from responsibility for producing the illusion of continuity. In your second quote, you indict probability for producing the illusion of continuity.ucarr

    You misunderstand the second quote then. Notice in the first quote, the assumption of necessity goes hand in hand with the illusion of continuity. These two are related. In the second quote I am saying that the assumption of necessity is false, what is really the case is that predictions are based on probability rather than necessity. This supports the first quote, saying that continuity is an illusion, and implying that the assumption of necessity is a false assumption.Metaphysician Undercover

    Directly below are your two quotes.

    The illusion of continuity is related to the assumption of necessity, not in relation to the probability distribution, which does not make a prediction of necessity.Metaphysician Undercover

    As I read your above quote, I get: The illusion of continuity is... not in relation to the probability distribution...

    The prediction however is not one of necessity, but one of probability, as explained by Hume. Therefore, we have something in that duration of time, between t-1 and t-2, which produces the illusion of continuity, but since it provides a relation of probability between state A and state B, rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity.Metaphysician Undercover

    As I read your above quote, I get: The prediction is a prediction of probability; therefore, we have... the illusion of continuity... since it provides a relation of probability... rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity.

    Compare, side-by-side, my two readings, which boil down your words to the gist of their meaning:

    The illusion of continuity is... not in relation to the probability distribution...

    The prediction is a prediction of probability; therefore, we have... the illusion of continuity... since it provides a relation of probability... rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity.

    It's clear from your words that your two statements contradict each other.
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    To me, consciousness is the ability of the mind, the ability to experience. The mind however has another ability, namely the ability to cause as well. So, to summarize, the mind is an entity with the ability to experience and cause.MoK

    I think ability to experience = enduring, personal point of view featuring impressions and judgments about them.

    I think ability to cause = formulating a plan followed by execution of a logical sequence of steps to achieve the plan's goal.

    What do you think?
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    Do you believe time is immaterial?

    Do you believe the passing of time causes the material world to exist?

    Do you believe physics rides piggyback on passing time, the reality clock?

    Do you believe the principles connecting immaterial cause with physics populate metaphysics?

    Do you believe passing time is the fundamental reality, that it cannot be broken down into components?

    With respect to passing time, the ultimate fundamental, logic, math and science cannot discover constituent inner workings?

    Passing time, aside from itself, remains unresponsive to all other things?
    ucarr

    Pretty much "yes" to everything here, but some of the questions aren't really clear enough to answer with confidence.Metaphysician Undercover

    This question and response shows our work so far has been good: a) You've done a good job of communicating your system of beliefs to me; b) I've done a good job of listening and learning about your understanding of metaphysics.

    Here's the most important confirmation:
    • Do you believe the principles connecting immaterial cause with physics populate metaphysics?
    • Pretty much "yes" to everything here...
    Edit: I say that passing time is broken down into components, dimensions.Metaphysician Undercover

    Edit: I say that passing time is broken down into components, dimensions.Metaphysician Undercover

    Do these dimensions include line, area and cube?

    I have bolded the part of your statement that appears to contradict your other statement above it. I need an explanation of your apparent self-contradiction.ucarr

    I don't see the contradiction. I think you must be misunderstanding. There is an illusion of continuity between state A and state B so continuity is assumed based on that illusion. But there is not a real continuity as there is a gap between T1 and T2 which physics cannot explain. Instead of explaining the gap, continuity is assumed.Metaphysician Undercover

    The illusion of continuity is related to the assumption of necessity, not in relation to the probability distribution, which does not make a prediction of necessity.Metaphysician Undercover

    The prediction however is not one of necessity, but one of probability, as explained by Hume. Therefore, we have something in that duration of time, between t-1 and t-2, which produces the illusion of continuity, but since it provides a relation of probability between state A and state B, rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity.Metaphysician Undercover

    Considering your two above quotes, as I understand you, in the first quote you absolve probability from responsibility for producing the illusion of continuity. In your second quote, you indict probability for producing the illusion of continuity.

    I have bolded what I take to be your attack on the validity of what you call "past_future determinism." You're mixing apples with oranges. Logical relations are atemporal. is a bi-conditional logical relation between P and Q. It says the two are bi-conditional - each is a necessary condition for the existence of the other - if and only if the two terms are equal. This is identity logic.ucarr

    The succession of temporal events, by definition, stands as a temporal phenomenon. Everybody knows, "Life is what happens to you /While you're busy making other plans..." - John Lennonucarr

    Sorry, I don't see your point. Determinism assumes a necessary, and bi-conditional, relation between cause and effect, as described by Newton's first law of motion. A force will change the motion of a body. If the motion of a body changes, it has been acted on by a force. How is that not bi-conditional?Metaphysician Undercover

    With my two above quotes, I establish that: a) causal relations exemplify bi-conditional logic; b) temporal sequences of events can be regarded as being causal, but interruptions in their continuity says nothing contradictory about the bi-conditional logic of causation.

    Suppose we establish that: iron pipes, when dipped in liquid vinyl, don't rust. Logically, we can represent this relationship as: P=Non-rust state and Q=Vinyl-dipped iron pipe, so .
    This is a logical relationship with the terms established: iron pipes don't rust when they're dipped in vinyl. This logical relationship inhabits the abstract mind, and it is atemporal.

    In the real world, we have an iron pipe scheduled for vinyl dipping by a certain date. It's part of an outdoor support structure for the roof covering a veranda. On that date, the shipment of liquid vinyl to be used for the dipping fails to arrive due to bad weather interrupting and delaying shipping of the liquid vinyl. So, on that date, it rains and the iron pipe rusts.

    From this event we don't declare that the bi-conditional logic is faulty because the pipe is rusty. Real life is temporal, and thus causal relationships are subject to interruptions. Logical relationships are atemporal, and the change of circumstances of life interrupting real and causal chains of events have no bearing upon the truth content of atemporal, logical relationships.

    ...in that time period, between T1 and T2, between when the photon is at PX and PY respectively, a physical force cannot act on that photon, because the time period is too short for a physical event to occur. Therefore if anything acts on that photon in this time, it must be nonphysical.Metaphysician Undercover

    You're repeating your mistake of confusing: a) the Planck length is currently the shortest time interval science can measure with; b) the Planck length is the shortest time interval in which physics can happen.

    Statement b), which your argument assumes, is false.

    Don't you see that it is impossible for that photon to be acted on by another photon, in that time period? The photon moving from PX to PY is the shortest possible period of time in which a physical event can take place. The photon being acted upon by another photon is another physical event. It is impossible that the photon can be acted upon in this time, because the event of moving from X to Y has already taken all that time, so there is no time to add another physical event within that duration.

    The rest of your paragraph seems to just demonstrate that you still have not understood this.
    Metaphysician Undercover


    I have lined through your above statements because they repeat an argument based upon a false premise. Again, the singularity assumes the persistence of physics all the way down to the infinitely small interval of time. Were this not the case, the Big Bang couldn't happen.

    It's not precisely correct to say science is limited to empirical observation for verification. Math interpretation of evidence plays an important role.ucarr

    Sure, but what is evidence but observational data? The math has to be applied to something.Metaphysician Undercover

    For example, at Cern the math is applied to the spectral imaging of particle behavior.

    Describe some details of non-physical activity.ucarr

    What are you asking for, a physical description of the nonphysical? Haha, nice try.Metaphysician Undercover

    Your question reveals your belief the immaterial realm cannot be active, cannot do anything without converting into the material realm.

    Since you think the spectral imaging of particles at Cern examples a lack of empirical verificationucarr

    Why do you say this, that I think like that? That is obviously not what I've been saying.Metaphysician Undercover

    Here's what you've been saying.

    What happens between T! and T2 is not a "physical change" because it cannot be empirically verified...Metaphysician Undercover

    You're falsely claiming the math interpretation of the ATLAS and CMS detection of particles at Cern is not empirical verification of physical phenomena. Can you present a math interpretation that contradicts the Cern math interpretation?

    Note - From now on, lets post everything in this thread.
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    What is at issue, is that the photon does not, rigorously speaking, "cover the distance". What happens between T! and T2 is not a "physical change" because it cannot be empirically verified, observed.Metaphysician Undercover

    Is this your argument for adding immaterial causation into the mix?

    So, by adhering to determinist causation, it is assumed that there is temporal continuity of the photon between T1 and T2, and by Newton's first law, nothing can have an effect on it in the meantime, because that is outside the limits of physical possibility.Metaphysician Undercover

    Read Newton again. His first law says, "...an object will not change its motion unless a force acts on it."

    ...some physicists say that the photon must take every possible path between X and Y. Therefore, we cannot even conclude, from observable evidence, that the photon exists in the meantime.Metaphysician Undercover

    Overall, this is an argument that supports my position: "...an object will not change its motion unless a force acts on it." So, as I said, the photon covers the Planck length. If its path is altered by another photon, then, from start to finish, we're looking at the physical activity you're trying to deny. Likewise, this applies to a photon having several possible paths. You admit a probability distribution is not afflicted with the identity problem you have brought up. You talk of possibility pairing with realization. So QM probability confirms rather than denies physics. Your conclusion of "no physical change," as based upon lack of empirical verification, stands invalid. Read up on the work conducted at Cern. All of this QM activity refutes your denial of physics at the Planck length.

    The shortest length science can currently measure is one Planck length. This is a very different statement than the statement that says, “On Planck length is the shortest possible length in which physics can occur.”ucarr

    The issue is that "physics" is limited by the scientific method, which relies on empirical observation for verification. Therefore the science of physics is restricted by the natural limitations of observability. Remember, we agreed that what is "observed" is always in the past. However, we also agreed that there is some part of the future, which coexists with the past, at the present. This aspect of "the present" which is really "the future", in the same way that what is observed at the present is really "the past", is an unobservable part of the present. This is what can be called the nonphysical, due to its inability to be observed. And the nature of free will demonstrates to us that the nonphysical is active and causal at the present.Metaphysician Undercover

    It's not precisely correct to say science is limited to empirical observation for verification. Math interpretation of evidence plays an important role.

    I continue to claim humans experience the empirical present, with abstract thoughts about the relative past and relative future.

    Being unobservable to the senses is not proof something is non-physical; the EM waves feeding your tv are unobservable.

    Describe some details of non-physical activity. Your example of info transfer was presented without details exposing the transferral process.

    What happens between T! and T2 is not a "physical change" because it cannot be empirically verified...Metaphysician Undercover

    Since you think the spectral imaging of particles at Cern examples a lack of empirical verification, I think you should learn more about the scientific method before attempting to criticize it.
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    In the model of time I described, it is necessary to assume real points in time, real moments when the world materializes as time passes. These moments ought to be observable, and from these real moments, the principles for relating the non-physical activity can be established.Metaphysician Undercover

    Do you believe time is immaterial?

    Do you believe the passing of time causes the material world to exist?

    Do you believe physics rides piggyback on passing time, the reality clock?

    Do you believe the principles connecting immaterial cause with physics populate metaphysics?

    Do you believe passing time is the fundamental reality, that it cannot be broken down into components?

    With respect to passing time, the ultimate fundamental, logic, math and science cannot discover constituent inner workings?

    Passing time, aside from itself, remains unresponsive to all other things?

    Probability stands as a necessary condition for a distribution of options, instead of for a single option.ucarr

    How is this an illusion of continuity?ucarr

    The illusion of continuity is related to the assumption of necessity, not in relation to the probability distribution, which does not make a prediction of necessity.Metaphysician Undercover

    The issue is the lack of continuity between state A (quark), and state B (anti-quark). Without continuity we lose the principle of identity. At t-1 is state A, at t-2 is state B, and there is time between these two. In this time between, we cannot say whether there is state A, state B, neither, nor both. However, there must be something which links the two, because if we consider a succession of states prior to state A, state B can be successfully predicted. The prediction however is not one of necessity, but one of probability, as explained by Hume. Therefore, we have something in that duration of time, between t-1 and t-2, which produces the illusion of continuity, but since it provides a relation of probability between state A and state B, rather than a relation of necessity, it is not a true continuity. — Metaphysician Undercover

    I have bolded the part of your statement that appears to contradict your other statement above it. I need an explanation of your apparent self-contradiction.

    The break in continuity is between past and future. So when we say that because the last ten minutes have occurred in a certain, determined way, the next minute will necessarily be in a determinable way, based on what already happened. That is the assumed necessity of the cause/effect relationship which supports determinism, such that we say that if X occurs, Y necessarily will occur, when Y is understood to be the necessary effect of X. That necessity implies a continuity between past and future, such that nothing could interfere, or come between X (past) and Y (future), at the present, to make something other than Y occur. Do you see how the assumed necessity of the relation between cause and effect is based in a presumed continuity, the premise of continuity supports the believed necessity of that relation?Metaphysician Undercover

    I have bolded what I take to be your attack on the validity of what you call "past_future determinism." You're mixing apples with oranges. Logical relations are atemporal. is a bi-conditional logical relation between P and Q. It says the two are bi-conditional - each is a necessary condition for the existence of the other - if and only if the two terms are equal. This is identity logic.

    The succession of temporal events, by definition, stands as a temporal phenomenon. Everybody knows, "Life is what happens to you /While you're busy making other plans..." - John Lennon
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    The presence of State A, and the presence of State B are included in the time duration defined as T1-T2. This is stipulated, or otherwise determined from empirical evidence, to be the shortest period of time during which a physical change can occur. Therefore no physical event can occur between T1 and T2, whether this event takes a quarter of that time, a half of that time, three quarters, or .999... percent of that time.

    Firstly, I've lined through your statement because I believe it generally invalid, as I've explained in my previous post.

    Secondly, for curiosity, I've bolded two of your statements that contradict each other. Given this contradiction, your argument is nonsense.

    So, in your example, If T-1 marks the presence of a quark, and T-2 marks the presence of a quark, anti-quark pair, it is impossible that a collision of two quarks occurred in between, because this is a physical event, and it has already been determined that this period of time is too short for the occurrence of a physical event.
    Metaphysician Undercover

    Firstly, again I've lined through your statement because I believe it generally invalid, as I've explained in my previous post.

    Secondly, for curiosity, I've bolded part of your statement because, as I understand you, you're saying all of the time is consumed in the transformation from T1 to T2. This transformation cannot happen without a catalyst; in this case its the collision of the two quarks.
  • What Does Consciousness Do?


    Here's what I agree to: T1 = State A: a quark; T2 = State B: a quark_anti-quark pair. This transformation occurs in one Planck length, the shortest duration allowing physical change.

    For example, another quark has collided with the quark of T1, thus producing the quark_anti-quark pair at T2.
    ucarr

    How could two quarks collide in the time between T1 and T2 because the change form quark to quark, anti-quark pair, already takes up all that time, and nothing physical can happen in a shorter time?Metaphysician Undercover

    How could two quarks collide in the time between T1 and T2 because the change form quark to quark, anti-quark pair, already takes up all that time, and nothing physical can happen in a shorter time?

    Do you see what I mean? The physical change observed is the change from State A to state B. Nothing physical can happen in a shorter time. Therefore it is impossible that anything physical happened between the state of quark, and the state of quark, anti-quark. Therefore it is impossible that another quark collided with the quark during this time.
    Metaphysician Undercover

    Since we're doing a thought experiment, we're stipulating terms. Up front, we can stipulate scientific rigor, or not. If not, then I can stipulate: at T1 two quarks collide such that T2 has a pairing of one quark with one anti-quark.

    If yes, then we have to do calculations based on the time for light to travel 1 Planck length in vacuum, which is a time interval of approximately . Light being the greatest possible velocity of our world, this is a measure of the longest time possible for a physical event to occur within the boundary of one Planck length.

    Since all other physical events are sub-light speed, and thus would have time durations greater than , we know that, per scientific rigor, the only example of a physical event occurring within one Planck length is light traveling in vacuum.

    So, per scientific rigor, I stipulate at T1 a photon emits, and at T2 the photon covers the distance matching one Planck length. So the change of state of our thought experiment is the change of position of a photon across one Planck length.

    The shortest length science can currently measure is one Planck length. This is a very different statement than the statement that says, “On Planck length is the shortest possible length in which physics can occur.

    So, thanks to your demand for scientific rigor, it appears that our contemplation of its requirements has imploded your project to establish a spacetime wherein no physical event can occur yet wherein a supposed non-physical exchange of info is possible.

    For clarity, it should be stated that the Planck length is currently the smallest spacetime unit we can measure. Smaller spacetime units, such as those occurring at the time of the Big Bang, are not currently measurable.

    The Big Bang theory makes it clear that some scientists believe physics persists all the way down to the singularity, which is infinitely small. So, by this reasoning, there is no pre-singularity point at which physics stops.