Let's take the example of the soul and let's "imagine" a way to prove it.
We have two sizeable pools for two people to voluntary drown themselves in, forcing the souls, 2, to separate from the 2 bodies.
Let's "imagine" further that the 2 souls are so friendly and gentle to one another that they are able to follow one another in the forms of 2 souls, human-sized, I guess.
Then some "diverse" interaction between these 2 souls. Then, from this "out-of-body" state the 2 souls decide to retrieve their bodies by "flying" to these 2 bodies lying there lifeless in the 2 pools and "retake up" their respective bodies.
Then, we at the outside of the situation, the friends to these 2 bodies with souls in them, these 2 people, may note they begin to wake in the pools and help them out of the pools.
Later, these 2 people go through (f)MRI scans to confirm the new mental content that also light up "reality" mark in these 2 heads/brains.
I suggest, by the above, that we "now" (by our current imagination here at the blog, Whatiswritten777, reading) have proven the existence of soul/souls, interacting and more.
Proof by inter-subjective/objective facts in 2 people and by clinical death state in these 2 people while "soul-walking". Also, the new (f)MRI scans support our findings.
Good?
--------
Some technical details, suggestions:
Time: 20 minutes to "drown" and 20 minutes of "flying time/soul time". Oxygenated pools and possibly (lightly) chlorinated. Water temperature: 22 degrees Celsius.
Pools, 4x4 meters each, in order to hold sufficient oxygen/air.
Showing posts with label Metaphysics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Metaphysics. Show all posts
Tuesday, 4 July 2017
Saturday, 29 April 2017
In Support of Dualism - The Philosophy of Mind and Metaphysics
Logic is the connecting factor of this mind to this body. The given age determines the number of years that the mind has shaped the body through all experience, even in the sense of the very thinking. Heck, even the creation of the very body happens according to the logic of the mind (if not the mind of the father and mother through the act of creation).
More importantly, as I happen to believe that the soul is proven by OBEs (Out-of-Body-Experiences), Van Lommel studies, NDEs (Near-Death-Experiences) and Phantom Feelings, I think that those who deny the existence of the soul don't know what they are talking about or that they are lying about the issue. Because I sense that they are subject to the Problem of Induction, they don't know about the "black swans" from their "little" Life-Worlds of information!
More importantly, as I happen to believe that the soul is proven by OBEs (Out-of-Body-Experiences), Van Lommel studies, NDEs (Near-Death-Experiences) and Phantom Feelings, I think that those who deny the existence of the soul don't know what they are talking about or that they are lying about the issue. Because I sense that they are subject to the Problem of Induction, they don't know about the "black swans" from their "little" Life-Worlds of information!
That is, they have never incarnated (at least never revealed), they have never been forced out of their bodies into seeming death by abuse or wanton of suicide, etc! They don't have it in their "little" Life-Worlds (of first-hand/second-hand information)!
And how difficult can it be? One can never do "soul walking" in forcing oneself out of the body by drowning in a pool or large bathtub because that's illegal! So how can one prove the soul other than scour the Earth for the very stories (the credible ones, possibly also confirmed by MRI/fMRI)?!
Dualism is winning!
What say you?
Links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_studies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience#Van_Lommel.27s_study
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_after_death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_pain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_limb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
This may be something I share with one or more people, but it's worth noting that "out-of-body" experiences are examples of thinking or sensing that put marks in brain activity, signal firing when a person recalls this memory. This should be able to pass for being a solid example of an argument for Dualism. This can be confirmed by a MR-examination or something like that where there's created an actual, objective signal firing of the recollection of this sensation. This sensation can also be compared by the signal firing due to the visual stimuli of the artistic picture of this sensation. You then have the recollection and the artistic picture or image, by your instructions and whatever aids used to create it as closely as possible to the subjective view of this "out-of-body" experience such as revisiting and taking pictures of the surgery room. You get the MR image of recollection and of the artistic picture. You can also ask this person to hypothetically try to view one's self while in the surgery room and have this 3rd MR image compared to the other 2. Remember, this person has no reason to lie about seeing one's self in 3rd person apart from the body and in all honesty what ways are there, but the subjective story of which you know nothing and therefore has no authority in? Why shouldn't you at least take this view into mind as a possibility? Of course, the skeptics are questioning the reality of this sensation, sensing, but I can't say that it can represent any weight to the discussion if the empirical examination by MR actually supports this discernment of distinction of experience. Let's just make the note also that the background story of the person having such an experience or the patient who is brought to the hospital in cardiac arrest or some other serious condition.
Thoughts? Does this clinch the case for Dualism? At least, "out-of-body" experiences remain anomalies in the Reductionist account.
It is understood that this Dualistic account suggests that the actual sensing/thinking happens in the mind outside of the body and thus it doesn't require any brain to function/exist! This should be, bang, in the middle of the street of the Dualism. Emergentism is backed by a number of underlying structures and as such can't be compared to the "out-of-body" experience which has no material links, no physical foundation. Your response?
If you are in fact outside of your body, which you have to be to truly see yourself from the outside of it (it doesn't count if you use your eyes in the skull to see a reflection in some mirror), then there's something that escapes the physicalist account. This sensing that happens outside of yourself transfers to your brain as it is carried with the non-physical soul, consciousness, mind to the brain and make the appropriate signal firings there as one recalls the "out-of-body" experience. So why is this not understandable? Why is it hard to understand that other people have truths to tell? Do you have problems with imagining an "out-of-body" experience or do you question its reality such as naming it fantasy?
It should take a near-death or short period of clinical death to be able to have the OoB experience, something which should be too harsh to demand for any amount of money, although, of course, I can understand James Randi. Second, it is not given that the OoB experience is controllable in any way more than seeing one's self looking down on one's own body in 3rd person perspective. Therefore, if the situation arises at all, the account from the patient/person is what it is, "...looking down on my self...", which is not like "let's do an OoB experience on this person. The whole argument, new or not, builds clearly on a recognition that an unknown phenomenon takes place and produces the account in the mind of the patient which is consequently told. By the way, this is not a thought experiment. I haven't invented the OoB phenomena. It's a story told by several people around the world, I believe. All I want to show, is a kind of procedure that should certify the OoB experience and in turn make the case for Dualism. I can't make an OoB-exp on my self like that. This should be a sufficient answer to what you've written.
Key words: no James Randi contest - accidental OoB-exp - no physical links, material basis - recollection of OoB-exp produces/is creating signal firings in the brain.
Foundation: several accounts of OoB-exp by different people with no motive of lying.
As I've noted, this is not a thought experiment in the classical sense because there are actual stories from people forming the investigation on it and providing the basis for this thread's purpose of highlighting possible consequences from it in respect to a case for Dualism.
Here's a link from Wikip.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience. I'd like you to put special attention to the section of Van Lommel studies. The rest is crap, I think.
As much as the beginning of the universe or existence itself is a mystery, you'll have to accept other people's accounts, subjective stories as accounts/stories of possible factual reality that may give directions on what actually exists! You can't subject people to near-death or clinical death and at the same time exercise good ethics for proving something experimentally. If one denies the possibility of an honest story of some phenomenon, then one is at a loss because one may lose important leads about what reality has to offer. In there being "no physical links" I emphasise the mystery of this phenomenon. What can I do? People mysteriously see themselves in 3rd person perspective. If there have been physical links, this would be a matter of physicalism! The nature of this is subjective and I find no possibility for solving it other than asking people to be serious about other stories outside their own heads! Read the Van Lommel stuff and write what you think, please! I have no more than you have, other than some belief in possibility and the logical connections from it as in this thread!
You can also take note of this from Dr. Sam Parnia (a scientist indeed, clearly...): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...t-of-body-experiences.html. There are serious efforts from serious people who are investigating this. Article is from 2008. Hah!
It's a procedure that is meant to be applied after someone is reporting having had the OoB-exp so that there's no interruption in the surgery situation and that every report can be treated equally. It's still possible to apply a procedure to something without having a case of experiment, this should be obvious.
In the traditional literature, as of today and given that "ghosts" exist and are not detectable, an OoB-exp that is confirmed in either way, using my account of the procedure or Dr. Sam Parnia's, is undeniably Dualism, whether you like it or not! It's just too easy to write off Dualism by asserting that all must be physical. As long as "ghosts" are seen as "non-physical" in the current literature, there's no way around this. I agree that the future may be able to change our view and describe "ghosts" as physical, but it's simply not the case today!
In current literature as a matter of fact:
Physicalists generally speak of mind as being the brain or something commonly known to be physical and not something else!
Substance Dualists (incl. Descartes) speak of the mind as being a distinct entity apart from the brain!
So, if you want to go on to redefine the literature of Philosophy of Mind, then go ahead and do so!
As for Physicalism: I take it from p. 11 in Jaegwon Kim's book, Philosophy of Mind, 2nd ed., where it says: "Since physicalism broadly understood is the basic framework in which contemporary philosophy of mind has been debated..." It says further: "Take two immaterial minds: We have to say that they are exactly alike in all physical respects since neither has any physical property and it is not possible to distinguish them from a physical perspective." I don't intend to shrink all physicalists to identity theorists, I just want to write that physicalists don't speak of minds like the substance dualists and that every physicalist require that mind is in or is something material or physical, whether it's non-reductionists, reductionists or functionalists. It says physicalist for a very good reason and that reason doesn't include "ghosts" or minds outside of the body or other traditional physicality.
By Terje Lea, 30th December, 2009 and 2nd January, 2010.
And how difficult can it be? One can never do "soul walking" in forcing oneself out of the body by drowning in a pool or large bathtub because that's illegal! So how can one prove the soul other than scour the Earth for the very stories (the credible ones, possibly also confirmed by MRI/fMRI)?!
Dualism is winning!
What say you?
Links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_studies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience#Van_Lommel.27s_study
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_after_death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_pain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_limb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
More: (From The Philosophical Notes - https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2011/08/philosophical-notes-of-intellectual.html#AD)
Thoughts? Does this clinch the case for Dualism? At least, "out-of-body" experiences remain anomalies in the Reductionist account.
It is understood that this Dualistic account suggests that the actual sensing/thinking happens in the mind outside of the body and thus it doesn't require any brain to function/exist! This should be, bang, in the middle of the street of the Dualism. Emergentism is backed by a number of underlying structures and as such can't be compared to the "out-of-body" experience which has no material links, no physical foundation. Your response?
If you are in fact outside of your body, which you have to be to truly see yourself from the outside of it (it doesn't count if you use your eyes in the skull to see a reflection in some mirror), then there's something that escapes the physicalist account. This sensing that happens outside of yourself transfers to your brain as it is carried with the non-physical soul, consciousness, mind to the brain and make the appropriate signal firings there as one recalls the "out-of-body" experience. So why is this not understandable? Why is it hard to understand that other people have truths to tell? Do you have problems with imagining an "out-of-body" experience or do you question its reality such as naming it fantasy?
It should take a near-death or short period of clinical death to be able to have the OoB experience, something which should be too harsh to demand for any amount of money, although, of course, I can understand James Randi. Second, it is not given that the OoB experience is controllable in any way more than seeing one's self looking down on one's own body in 3rd person perspective. Therefore, if the situation arises at all, the account from the patient/person is what it is, "...looking down on my self...", which is not like "let's do an OoB experience on this person. The whole argument, new or not, builds clearly on a recognition that an unknown phenomenon takes place and produces the account in the mind of the patient which is consequently told. By the way, this is not a thought experiment. I haven't invented the OoB phenomena. It's a story told by several people around the world, I believe. All I want to show, is a kind of procedure that should certify the OoB experience and in turn make the case for Dualism. I can't make an OoB-exp on my self like that. This should be a sufficient answer to what you've written.
Key words: no James Randi contest - accidental OoB-exp - no physical links, material basis - recollection of OoB-exp produces/is creating signal firings in the brain.
Foundation: several accounts of OoB-exp by different people with no motive of lying.
As I've noted, this is not a thought experiment in the classical sense because there are actual stories from people forming the investigation on it and providing the basis for this thread's purpose of highlighting possible consequences from it in respect to a case for Dualism.
Here's a link from Wikip.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience. I'd like you to put special attention to the section of Van Lommel studies. The rest is crap, I think.
As much as the beginning of the universe or existence itself is a mystery, you'll have to accept other people's accounts, subjective stories as accounts/stories of possible factual reality that may give directions on what actually exists! You can't subject people to near-death or clinical death and at the same time exercise good ethics for proving something experimentally. If one denies the possibility of an honest story of some phenomenon, then one is at a loss because one may lose important leads about what reality has to offer. In there being "no physical links" I emphasise the mystery of this phenomenon. What can I do? People mysteriously see themselves in 3rd person perspective. If there have been physical links, this would be a matter of physicalism! The nature of this is subjective and I find no possibility for solving it other than asking people to be serious about other stories outside their own heads! Read the Van Lommel stuff and write what you think, please! I have no more than you have, other than some belief in possibility and the logical connections from it as in this thread!
You can also take note of this from Dr. Sam Parnia (a scientist indeed, clearly...): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...t-of-body-experiences.html. There are serious efforts from serious people who are investigating this. Article is from 2008. Hah!
It's a procedure that is meant to be applied after someone is reporting having had the OoB-exp so that there's no interruption in the surgery situation and that every report can be treated equally. It's still possible to apply a procedure to something without having a case of experiment, this should be obvious.
In the traditional literature, as of today and given that "ghosts" exist and are not detectable, an OoB-exp that is confirmed in either way, using my account of the procedure or Dr. Sam Parnia's, is undeniably Dualism, whether you like it or not! It's just too easy to write off Dualism by asserting that all must be physical. As long as "ghosts" are seen as "non-physical" in the current literature, there's no way around this. I agree that the future may be able to change our view and describe "ghosts" as physical, but it's simply not the case today!
In current literature as a matter of fact:
Physicalists generally speak of mind as being the brain or something commonly known to be physical and not something else!
Substance Dualists (incl. Descartes) speak of the mind as being a distinct entity apart from the brain!
So, if you want to go on to redefine the literature of Philosophy of Mind, then go ahead and do so!
As for Physicalism: I take it from p. 11 in Jaegwon Kim's book, Philosophy of Mind, 2nd ed., where it says: "Since physicalism broadly understood is the basic framework in which contemporary philosophy of mind has been debated..." It says further: "Take two immaterial minds: We have to say that they are exactly alike in all physical respects since neither has any physical property and it is not possible to distinguish them from a physical perspective." I don't intend to shrink all physicalists to identity theorists, I just want to write that physicalists don't speak of minds like the substance dualists and that every physicalist require that mind is in or is something material or physical, whether it's non-reductionists, reductionists or functionalists. It says physicalist for a very good reason and that reason doesn't include "ghosts" or minds outside of the body or other traditional physicality.
By Terje Lea, 30th December, 2009 and 2nd January, 2010.
Thursday, 6 April 2017
Refutation of Time Travel - Against Time Travel
Claim:
If Time Travel would be true throughout the history of human kind, at any point in time whether past or future, time travellers would be "all over us" in telling about the future or past or whatever.
However, there are no stories of either such people or common stories of such being told from one person (the traveller) to another.
Therefore, time travel isn't going to exist ever!
Logic: Modus tollens
If Time Travel then Time Travellers (or common stories of such)
No Time Travellers
No Time Travel
Please remember that:
An assumption that Time Travellers are lying to us all the time is an unreasonable story!
Also, stories of the future would hold a kind of plausibility or coherence so that if the stories would be prevalent then the "Nostradamus" stories would be recorded or a record of place and people would be with us.
The coherence here would be that of our reality entails/is able to hold the story of the future by specific calculations, inventions, a record of history from the future or technology all the way up to that point in time.
A fake story of time travelling will quickly fall apart because it's not coherent with you travelling in time and discovering new histories of science in the future or whatever the "bridged" story that marks a genuine story of time travelling. First, fx., where's your time-travelling UFO? In your garage?
Good?
If Time Travel would be true throughout the history of human kind, at any point in time whether past or future, time travellers would be "all over us" in telling about the future or past or whatever.
However, there are no stories of either such people or common stories of such being told from one person (the traveller) to another.
Therefore, time travel isn't going to exist ever!
Logic: Modus tollens
If Time Travel then Time Travellers (or common stories of such)
No Time Travellers
No Time Travel
Please remember that:
An assumption that Time Travellers are lying to us all the time is an unreasonable story!
Also, stories of the future would hold a kind of plausibility or coherence so that if the stories would be prevalent then the "Nostradamus" stories would be recorded or a record of place and people would be with us.
The coherence here would be that of our reality entails/is able to hold the story of the future by specific calculations, inventions, a record of history from the future or technology all the way up to that point in time.
A fake story of time travelling will quickly fall apart because it's not coherent with you travelling in time and discovering new histories of science in the future or whatever the "bridged" story that marks a genuine story of time travelling. First, fx., where's your time-travelling UFO? In your garage?
Good?
Sunday, 28 August 2011
On Metaphysics of Time
On Metaphysics of Time
[by Terje Lea 12. July 2011, time 08:42 by Facebook data only.]
[This begins with a drawing, crude and principal, but useful.]
Spherical waves eminating from agents as a picture to possibly state how one is able to predict ideas.
The time moves along the y/z-axis while your view is positioned at origo or along a somewhat objective history x where the x-line (with no value as such) represents the threshold between past and future and thereby is the resultgiving x-plane on how the spherical waves entwine and create history and thereby giving you a certain historical view. This exposition of time can also be seen as a kind of psychometry (please associate this with telemetry). Make the most of your time!
I can deduce consistency and coherency from Descartes' Meditations and if you have consistency and coherency, you also have continuity, the flow of time!
This is primarily made to describe the ongoing passage of time in relation to agents (people) and their ideas.
This view here can be referred to as Block time or Eternalism, yet I think it's too radical to deduct our psychological experience of closeness of the present and what it represents. In my view, it's implicit that you should maximise the use of your experience through time so that the scope of future becomes as wide as possible.
We can surely say that the past of time has generated the course for the present moment and equally surely we can say the future lies in the scope of the present even though the future consists in only one course, becoming both the present and the past. Therefore, it's not irrelevant what has taken place in the past and the future has to come out of what is our present moment! We can look at everything in our present moment and conclude with certainty that a number of things must have led up to this. At least, this must be the nature of reality, otherwise we wouldn't be alive in exactly this scope of reality as it is. I think this supports block theory of time. This may be plain and is thus probably more pedagogical than informative. My view, however, is now more deeply explained and should be impossible to retreat from unless I trash the whole block theory of time.
McTaggart is wrong in presenting his A and B bands/tracks dichotomy. I believe the origin of time historically has its roots in the seasons, the Sun and possibly the life span of human kind by every single person. The clock is thus determined by the 24 hrs cycle of the Sun (on Earth), essentially giving the time when the Sun is highest through the day. Later, one has divided the Earth into 24 time zones with few exceptions. McTaggart comes out weak in his academic life of presenting time as he does. Let me guess he has lived an incredibly relaxed life with few necessary daily routines. This is from the reason that everyone, historically, has their primary activities during the day and catches the sleep during the night. This is undeniable if one goes back to the medieval times, at least. It is eventually the objective time, given by the Sun and the passing of years, historically, that triumphs the notion of time whether you sense time in this way or that or have funny thoughts about time.
Just let me clarify:
Time is, of course, a physical requirement, being at least, 1 of 4 dimensions. This is not the question. The question is how we as human beings have come to know time, both as concept and our cognition of it. Historically, I believe one has addressed "a day's worth of work", but the revolve of the Earth making the days has been essential of this formation. I believe the timing of motion is quite recent (1400 CE or so, just as a guess, especially in referring to the feather and stone experiment in testing gravity and at the same time having the perception of time in this regard). One can perhaps check out the invention of the first time-taking pieces or clocks on Wikipedia.
Clearly then, there's no questioning of time as such, but it's worth noting that we all live under the sun and it remains our compass of time until then! This may change if we settle in a new star system, but this is not some time soon, I can predict.
In responding to Charles Taylor, Metaphysics, 4th ed., this fleeting moment, referring in particular to The Elusive Present, pp. 85-87, of the present can only float in one direction, forward!
Time is also stuck to the time-track. 1980/01/01 CE will always be 1980/01/01 CE even if you consider it as 1980 CE + 13,7 x 10^9 CE years. This will always yield present time point, X CE + 13,7 x 10^9 CE where 13,7 x 10^9 CE is the most precise scientific estimate of the universe relevant to time and X is current date by year or date. I can write it like this: X + S being the X years from 0 CE and the scientific estimate from 0 CE to the beginning of the universe according to the Big Bang theory and scientific community's consensus.
The time of relativity/absurdism is slashed in the Metaphysical sense of Time theory.
This is also meant as an indicium for free will and the rationalist's approach, only in this regard.
Note. Don't pay too much attention to "rationalist's approach". It's simply put this way for suggesting the special place consciousness may have in regarding events of time and especially the consciousness of other "agents" in this perspective.
©Terje Lea, 2001-2010 with 25.03.2010, 26.03.2010, 12.04.2010, 19.04.2010, 27.04.2010 and 28.04.2010. A little comment has been added, 20.05.2010, to the word "psychometry".
Back to front page.
[by Terje Lea 12. July 2011, time 08:42 by Facebook data only.]
[This begins with a drawing, crude and principal, but useful.]
The time moves along the y/z-axis while your view is positioned at origo or along a somewhat objective history x where the x-line (with no value as such) represents the threshold between past and future and thereby is the resultgiving x-plane on how the spherical waves entwine and create history and thereby giving you a certain historical view. This exposition of time can also be seen as a kind of psychometry (please associate this with telemetry). Make the most of your time!
I can deduce consistency and coherency from Descartes' Meditations and if you have consistency and coherency, you also have continuity, the flow of time!
This is primarily made to describe the ongoing passage of time in relation to agents (people) and their ideas.
This view here can be referred to as Block time or Eternalism, yet I think it's too radical to deduct our psychological experience of closeness of the present and what it represents. In my view, it's implicit that you should maximise the use of your experience through time so that the scope of future becomes as wide as possible.
We can surely say that the past of time has generated the course for the present moment and equally surely we can say the future lies in the scope of the present even though the future consists in only one course, becoming both the present and the past. Therefore, it's not irrelevant what has taken place in the past and the future has to come out of what is our present moment! We can look at everything in our present moment and conclude with certainty that a number of things must have led up to this. At least, this must be the nature of reality, otherwise we wouldn't be alive in exactly this scope of reality as it is. I think this supports block theory of time. This may be plain and is thus probably more pedagogical than informative. My view, however, is now more deeply explained and should be impossible to retreat from unless I trash the whole block theory of time.
McTaggart is wrong in presenting his A and B bands/tracks dichotomy. I believe the origin of time historically has its roots in the seasons, the Sun and possibly the life span of human kind by every single person. The clock is thus determined by the 24 hrs cycle of the Sun (on Earth), essentially giving the time when the Sun is highest through the day. Later, one has divided the Earth into 24 time zones with few exceptions. McTaggart comes out weak in his academic life of presenting time as he does. Let me guess he has lived an incredibly relaxed life with few necessary daily routines. This is from the reason that everyone, historically, has their primary activities during the day and catches the sleep during the night. This is undeniable if one goes back to the medieval times, at least. It is eventually the objective time, given by the Sun and the passing of years, historically, that triumphs the notion of time whether you sense time in this way or that or have funny thoughts about time.
Just let me clarify:
Time is, of course, a physical requirement, being at least, 1 of 4 dimensions. This is not the question. The question is how we as human beings have come to know time, both as concept and our cognition of it. Historically, I believe one has addressed "a day's worth of work", but the revolve of the Earth making the days has been essential of this formation. I believe the timing of motion is quite recent (1400 CE or so, just as a guess, especially in referring to the feather and stone experiment in testing gravity and at the same time having the perception of time in this regard). One can perhaps check out the invention of the first time-taking pieces or clocks on Wikipedia.
Clearly then, there's no questioning of time as such, but it's worth noting that we all live under the sun and it remains our compass of time until then! This may change if we settle in a new star system, but this is not some time soon, I can predict.
In responding to Charles Taylor, Metaphysics, 4th ed., this fleeting moment, referring in particular to The Elusive Present, pp. 85-87, of the present can only float in one direction, forward!
Time is also stuck to the time-track. 1980/01/01 CE will always be 1980/01/01 CE even if you consider it as 1980 CE + 13,7 x 10^9 CE years. This will always yield present time point, X CE + 13,7 x 10^9 CE where 13,7 x 10^9 CE is the most precise scientific estimate of the universe relevant to time and X is current date by year or date. I can write it like this: X + S being the X years from 0 CE and the scientific estimate from 0 CE to the beginning of the universe according to the Big Bang theory and scientific community's consensus.
The time of relativity/absurdism is slashed in the Metaphysical sense of Time theory.
This is also meant as an indicium for free will and the rationalist's approach, only in this regard.
Note. Don't pay too much attention to "rationalist's approach". It's simply put this way for suggesting the special place consciousness may have in regarding events of time and especially the consciousness of other "agents" in this perspective.
©Terje Lea, 2001-2010 with 25.03.2010, 26.03.2010, 12.04.2010, 19.04.2010, 27.04.2010 and 28.04.2010. A little comment has been added, 20.05.2010, to the word "psychometry".
Back to front page.
Friday, 26 August 2011
The Free Will Theorem and Quants - Complexity
Various!Posted by Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea 2011-07-05 03:30:40
I think it requires complexity of heavier bodies of matter for free will to obtain.
The Free Will Theorem is presented by John Conway and Simon Kochen and the Wikipedia page has a criticism of them as a part of presenting The Free Will Theorem.
The url to it is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem.
Fx. a stream of photons of visible light can only do that much when speeding away from the Sun. There is no evidence that the stream of photons can change anything in particular, let's say direction, compensating for some gravity. See Einstein's relativity for gravity effects on photons.
Also, complexity should also be required for the decision for choosing between pleasure and relaxation and exercise and feeding and hunt. Although, these properties are only present with animals and ourselves, the humans.
So unless a bigger body is chosen and the choices are somehow explicated, I think "undetermined" is too weak for giving any plausibility to it or credibility for that matter.
I think, though, that the Dr. Dick Bierman experiments of Holland show that "monades" are likely to obtain in a fundamental way, in line with The Free Will Theorem by John Conway and Simon Kochen, rather than an unknown mechanism that may be impossible to find. This is a warning to future experimenters (the physicists).
The conclusion must be that a bigger system is effectuating the free will existing everywhere whether you call it God or some strange uknown super entity of the Universe / Multiverse or whatever.
Note: originally posted as http://blog.t-lea.net/#post232
Note: you can also read about this on Static Display... on Facebook, it's an open group of mine.
I think it requires complexity of heavier bodies of matter for free will to obtain.
The Free Will Theorem is presented by John Conway and Simon Kochen and the Wikipedia page has a criticism of them as a part of presenting The Free Will Theorem.
The url to it is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem.
Fx. a stream of photons of visible light can only do that much when speeding away from the Sun. There is no evidence that the stream of photons can change anything in particular, let's say direction, compensating for some gravity. See Einstein's relativity for gravity effects on photons.
Also, complexity should also be required for the decision for choosing between pleasure and relaxation and exercise and feeding and hunt. Although, these properties are only present with animals and ourselves, the humans.
So unless a bigger body is chosen and the choices are somehow explicated, I think "undetermined" is too weak for giving any plausibility to it or credibility for that matter.
I think, though, that the Dr. Dick Bierman experiments of Holland show that "monades" are likely to obtain in a fundamental way, in line with The Free Will Theorem by John Conway and Simon Kochen, rather than an unknown mechanism that may be impossible to find. This is a warning to future experimenters (the physicists).
The conclusion must be that a bigger system is effectuating the free will existing everywhere whether you call it God or some strange uknown super entity of the Universe / Multiverse or whatever.
Note: originally posted as http://blog.t-lea.net/#post232
Note: you can also read about this on Static Display... on Facebook, it's an open group of mine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)