Jump to content

Fred Champion

Senior Members
  • Posts

    186
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Fred Champion

  1. Thanks. It should be obvious the idea of nonduality is new to me. I had not seen the term until I came to this thread. It seemed to me that my ideas fit in with it. I do not accept that "mind" is a thing or a phenomenon. I can see some meaning in it at best as a vague generalization. I prefer not to use the term. I do not accept "time" as a thing or a phenomenon either. I am convinced that it is an artifact of intelligence completely dependent upon memory. I did not mean to begin with "objects in space". What I tried to communicate is that I see space as the set of place "holders" I described as the smallest units. The idea is not that there is space, a void or something, with these units in it, but that these units are space, each one a unit of place. I do not accept the idea of space as a continuum; I do not accept infinite divisibility, rather a smallest unit which is not measurable. I don't know exactly how to fit this in, but the size of an atom is not measurable using a yardstick. Unless we define size as something measurable, the idea that we can't measure something doesn't mean it has no actual size. I posit that the smallest measurable unit would be a composite of many interactions among disturbances in space, a disturbance in space being the displacement of units of place. I imagine the interactions among disturbances such as waves, currents and voritces to be the "building blocks" of things which would interact with ever larger things to form what we could recognize as particles. I'm trying.
  2. I don't understand why you believe the two are so different. For the most part, both are expressions of what the practitioners accept as the best way to live their lives. Religion and science are both very practical. The "rules" in both are our attempt to bring ourselves into harmony with our environment, through both understanding and action. For religion this is probably, from what I understand of them, more obvious in "eastern" religions than the Jewish-Christian-Islamic ethic. It should be quite obvious in science. For example, the last 6 or 7, depending on how one separates them, of the 10 commandments are exactly the first directives social science would give for establishing and maintaining a stable and just society. The first 3 or 4 commandments are statements establishing authority for giving commandments not unlike the first paragraphs of almost every constitutional government. It is worth noting that some authority is necessary for a sustainable social system. We have observed that a society in which everyone can do exactly as he/she pleases just doesn't work. We cannot escape our human nature; we are almost never completely rational. At the fringes of every human endeavor we will find some irrationality, some conflict with other endeavors. Perhaps this is what you see as the conflict between science and religion. For example, we consider ourselves to be intelligent beings. That we should question our environment and our origin should be no surprise. That we should anticipate an intelligence as the agent of our origin should not be a surprise either. We have restricted our science to what we can observe with our five senses and instruments which enhance those senses. It should be no surprise that we require science to rule out anything we cannot "see" and demonstrate. The fringe here is that science describes our origin as the ultimate non-demonstrable event, a "Big Bang". Even that origin as described is not an origin. Everything that was in the singularity was there before the bang. So at best the Big Bang must be seen as a continuation, and so must the creation stories; in order for a creator to create, that creator, that agent, that force of change, however it is described, must have been present before the act of creation. I expect most of us would like to believe that we have the capacity to understand what was before, but it seems to me that it must be so far out of our shared experience that we have no words to describe it. Religion calls that status mystery, science calls it unknown. Note that I refered to shared experience. Many have had experiences not directly attributable to the five senses. These are common enough that they cannot be entirely discounted. I suggest that if you never look for that sort of experience you will not find it, and even if you do look for it and have an unusual experience you may not be totally convinced you have found what others say they have experienced. We are capable of convincing ourselves of almost anything. I can only tell you that my experience is that there is more than what one can experience with the five senses. The focus of our space programs is our search for other life. If we find it will that prove or disprove anything? I doubt it. It will likely raise even more questions. My suggestion to you is to keep searching even after you are comfortable with your approach to life, your philosophy for living, which is your religion, and appreciate the benefits of science.
  3. Which part of relativity do you wish to disprove, that nothing can go faster than light or that nothing can be observed to go faster than light? These are two different issues. We and our instruments cannot measure velocities faster than the input to the instrument. Using only light, how would we be able to recognize an object moving at some multiple of c, a light 'boom" similar to a sonic boom? I doubt that anyone is looking for that sort of event and even if they were set up to recognize it the odds of finding even one seem slim. How many sonic booms attributable to naturally occuring supersonic objects (not military jets) are heard each year?
  4. I am quite surprised that we can tell how the polar jets are formed. Interesting that a jet seems to be visible only when it encounters visible material. Is it intuitive that jets would be ejected at both poles by magnetic forces?
  5. Help me out here, PeterJ. I think I may have discovered nonduality by accident. I have come to believe that what we call "this side", the material universe, and the "other side", usually thought of as the environment of God and souls or heaven, are actually the same space only occupied by objects and entities with different physical characteristics. I take "other side" objects and entities to be able to occupy the same space (at the same time) with each other and with "this side" objects and entities. I have posted that I expect there is a finite smallest unit of something that can be anything and that everything is composed of those units and that they are undetectable and thus would appear to us as undifferentiated. I say undectable because their only property is that each one occupies one "unit" of place; space being the aggregate of all those units of place. So then, does space composed as I posit qualify as the "nothing" from which all "somethings" are made? I am still considering whether there might be a smallest unit which "is" and yet does not occupy a unit of place. It seems my experience does not provide a way to conceive of or describe how a structure could be formed from such units. I can only speculate that perhaps "non-place" units could somehow form or change phase into "place" units. Would "non-place" units qualify as being yet not being? In wanting to describe the Universe, and being able only to describe it in mechanical terms, we seem to be restricted to "kicking the can further down the road" of being. The idea of a "non-place" environment still has the notion of environment in it.
  6. You task me. I need to read it. Consider that if there is "the other side" as any believe, then it is part of the Universe. I accept Universe (with the capital "U") to be all that is; if there are multiple universes (with a lower case "u") they are part of the Universe. If the other side is, then what is it? I expect it might be part or all of what science tells us is the 90 to 95 percent of our Universe that we have not been able to observe. If the other side is, then I take it or part of it to be the environment, heaven, where God and souls are described as being. I expect the substance of some or all of the things there is non-discrete. If such an environment and the things in it is, then there is a physics for it, because it would be a physical, although not physical in the traditional sense of material, place with physical objects and entities. Obviously the nature of non-discrete things would be such that the physics of non-discrete things would be quite different from that of our experience, but since it appears that there might be some interaction between discrete and non-discrete things, a combined physics which would have to account for both is indicated. You ask for an origin. We have not discovered the origin of what we can observe. Perhaps the other side is the origin of our material universe. Science has only recently acknowledged even the possibility of something other than the material universe we observe. I do not expect science to openly posit a state of being for heaven or anything in it much less to consider an origin for it or anything in it. There is enough evidence, from anecdotal accounts and my own experience, for me to accept that something beyond what science acknowledges is there, but how could I possibly posit anything about an origin for it? As long as we are so far from the original topic, how about a little conspiracy theory? Many rich and smart people have, and are, spending huge amonunts of money on finding and confirming the Higgs boson. These sorts of folks don't typically throw money at folly. So, the question is what do they want for their money? Consider the potential power that could come from an understanding of the other side and the manipulation of things with that knowledge. Could it be they know more than they're letting on?
  7. Perhaps its time for a bit of metaphysics. Considering the question of just what it is that makes an entity an entity, I ran across the idea that there appear to be three characteristics all entities share: they are singular, discrete and bounded. The question arises on whether the apparent form is one of several which could be. In other words, what if: One may be singular or plural. We typically think of the individual as a singular being. And yet we see the behavior of schools of fish, flocks of birds, herds of various kinds and the like. Individual organisms seem to have some way of sharing intention. A plural being would have multiple instances of existence. One may be discrete or non-discrete. Our five senses allow us to experience discrete objects. We observe action and reaction, one object displacing another and gases mixed into an atmosphere. We also witness multiple personalities, multiple identities, expressed in one body. A non-discrete being could occupy the same place with both discrete and other non-discrete beings. One may be bounded or unbounded. We observe growth, usually within limits. But we also observe fungi, bacteria, viruses many plants and some animal populations expand to consume all available space and resources. We see materials change phase with change in temperature and pressure. An unbounded being might change size at will. We may consider that by taking combinations of these characteristics we can posit eight distinct types of beings. Examples are: Human bodies may be thought of as singular, discrete and generally bounded. The spirit, soul or identity is often thought of as singular, non-discrete and bounded. God is usually considered as plural, non-discrete and unbounded. Ghosts, spirits, and the like are most often taken to be singular, non-discrete and bounded. Angels, demons and the like are often taken to be singular, non-discrete and unbounded. Singular, discrete and unbounded: schools, flocks and herds. Plural, discrete and bounded: ? Plural, non-discrete and bounded: ? My imagination fails me on the last two. The bounded vs unbounded idea seems explainable. The singular idea is common; the plural idea seems quite foreign. I expect there are a great many more examples which would be logical, and a great many more posited, if we consider that, as science tells us, at least 90 to 95 percent of the universe is what we may call non-discrete. The idea that there are non-discrete objects, beings and entities and that this kind of things makes up such a large part of the universe is interesting, but to me the more interesting thing is just how non-discrete and discrete things could accomplish the interactions commonly attributed to them. What might we have as a basis for understanding such an interface? I expect the parts of your life, your soul, your identity are delivered to the point of conception as the life present in the egg and the sperm. Both carry life, but are incomplete. Neither can form a complete body nor a complete soul by itself. At the moment of conception both the body and the soul begin. The soul is associated with, inhabits, the body. Unless disrupted, both will grow and mature. It is obvious that the body will die. It is not obvious whether the soul will die or persist.
  8. Mathematics was (is) invented, not discovered. It is therefore subjective, not objective. My memory fails me. Who was the well known mathematician who stated that one cannot prove anything with mathematics and then proceeded to use mathematics to prove it?
  9. Well tar, the idea that a "conscious being ... is not a simulation" is pretty much the idea that there is more to the "I" than the body. Consider the body as the machine and the DNA as the software; would not this organic machine be a simulation? It seems to me that the thing that makes an entity an entity and not a jump-started humanoid simulation is the spark of life, the spirit, the soul, the identity, the self, the "I"; in other words what we call the "life" in an individual. I suspect the main reason many reject the idea of an identity separate from, but connected to, the body is because they don't want to be sucked into some religious sort of thing. I also expect the main reason that most people feel that there is an identity "inside" their body is because there actually is that identity. I think it is likely that when the "spark of life is passed" at conception both the formation of the body begins and the identity is instantiated. I'm not going to argue in this thread for or against the identity surviving the death of the body; that 's for another place. I wil say that I believe the identity "grows" just as the body grows. I think this is where the notion of the "innocence" of the young comes from. We become more "aware" of our self, our surroundings and our place in our surroundings as we grow and experience. Every experience we have prejudices us for every subsequent experience; we learn. Our memory is not perfect; we tend to "fill in the blanks". Our analitical ability is compromised by experience; we learn to expect. I think it is not possible for an adult to fully comprehend the manner in which a child intuits his surroundings. Given this, it seems unlikely that adults can totally separate their intuition from reasoning. I doubt if there is to be any "proof" of existence of either the "I" as the origin of an imagined universe or of the "I" within a larger context of things "not I". We witness the beginning and end of others. It doesn't seem reasonable to me that an "I" would, or even could, conjure an existence with a beginning and an end for itself. Proof is after all just accepting a preponderance of we accept as evidence.
  10. What one experiences is... The important part of that phrase is the "one". It is that "one" that I refer to as the "I" or the self. I suggest that prior to the formation of the self there is no experiencer and thus no experience. The earliest that life can begin is at conception.
  11. Some pictures of black holes show a discharge from both poles. Not sure, but I think the nature of the discharge is not determined. A cursory consideration leads me to the idea that there may be an outward flow proportional to an inward flow; a high velocity outward flow in a narrow beam corresponding to a wider slower inward flow. Somewhat similar action can be seen by some swimming pool vacuum cleaners. If we could relate this action to individual atoms it might provide an explanation for gravity. Of course we would have to come up with an explanation for what is flowing and what makes it flow. Spinning things may act as pumps and then there's the gyroscope.
  12. I suggest if Kant did, as you say, attempt to establish space and time as our basic intuitions then he was incorrect. The fist thing any child realizes is his self, the notion of "I". Recognition of things external comes later. We learn through experience, not intuition, that we occupy a place in a larger environment and that we share that environment. We also experience events and the various cycles of nature and by memory we interpret them as the passage of time and associate remembered events as a particular time. "I" is a phenomenon we experience, as is space; time is not. I suggest that any idea of our reality must begin with accepting our "I". Everything else must be dependent upon what we accept as how that "I" came to be.
  13. And so the computer would know when to fire the missles? How, using radar (EMR)? And you would know that the noise (maybe both) was not from another source? How? You could not tell that the aircraft was even flying until it had passed, so when did the experiment begin? You could not tell that any of the conditions of the experiment were met using only sound. How would you know the aircraft was on the correct flight path, the missles were fired exactly on time, flew at exactly the correct speed, in exactly the right direction and exploded exactly on time without using light or radar? Your blind man cannot tell the difference between a sonic boom, an explosion and a clap of thunder. Using touch, and not sound or light (EMR), we can measure velocity up to the point where we lose contact with the moving object. Adding sound frees us from the restrictions of touch and we can measure velocity up to the point where the object reaches Mach 1. Adding light (theorectically) allows us to measure velocity up to close to the speed of light. And if an object were moving faster than the speed of light, our instruments would need some other source of input faster than the speed of light to detect it. The point is simply that the speed of the input to the instrument is the maximum velocity that can be detected.
  14. Depends on how you define "conscious existence" doesn't it? Even in the state posited, there could be consciousness and there would be existence. The problem for those around such an individual would be determining if there was consciousness. Certainly we would not be aware of our surroundings in that state. I suggest that we cannot know whether we would be "aware" of our self without senses. Thinking, in general, doesn't seem to be dependent upon external influences; external influences seem to disrupt thinking. There are those who say self-awareness is enhanced by denying the senses, through meditation or something similar.
  15. There is a big difference between the way someone is and the way they act. The "is" part may come from any number of factors. Other than involuntary responses to stimuli, the "act" part is choice. We can not know why a person does what he/she does, and often that person may claim he/she doesn't know why either. Choices may not always be rational. The best response I have to a question of why I did something is "it must have seemed like a good idea at the time". I accept that it is never right to judge someone on the way he/she is, because we can't really know the way another person is. I accept that it is right, and often necessary, to respond to what he/she does.
  16. A child born like that wouldn't survive. Failure to thrive is known. An adult thrust into that state would likely be considered brain dead and "allowed" to die. Detected brain waves with no correlation to stimuli would probably be considered random, not conscious activity. Even if brain waves were observed to correlate with movements, how could anyone hope to prove the movements were intentional and not caused by random brain activity? With no feedback the individual wouldn't be able to know how much he was moving a limb or even if he was moving it. Any such movements would likely appear to be spasms. I suppose we could debate whether such an adult would go insane or just think he was asleep and dreaming.
  17. The silver lining, for the survivors, is that large scale upward mobility only occurs following a colapse in the soial structure. We will not manage our own heard; nature will do that for us. Business requires growth. Everyone should know "the business of America is business" and it has been ever since Columbus set sail. It is just the way the Europeans who invaded this land were, and are. One of the more interesting things I heard recently is that the US Navy is brewing its own jet fuel. Don't know for sure, but I think it is something like brewing beer. The Navy seems to realize that the US SPR pumping facilities would be below sea level with a rise of 20 feet.
  18. Short of an extinction event, such as comet or asteriod impact or mega volcano induced ice age, there seems to be one prime candidate. A rise in sea level of 20 feet or so would displace millions of people and leave most ports unusable. Energy and food move internationally by ship. We do not have the capacity to serve the need by air or rail. Local conflicts over food and energy could expand into regional and ethnic conflicts. Domestic animal populations would be consumed and wildlife species could be hunted to extinction. Most international trade would be severely curtailed. The GDP of all nations would fall. Disruptions in incomes would cause social unrest and inequality of income distribution could lead to revolution. The internal fight for survival could cause a rise in nationalism and would likely lead to isolationism. Have-not nations that survive would be pitted against have nations for generations. To me the really sad part of this situation is that we know it is going to happen and yet we are unwilling to even plan for it much less do anything to prepare for it. I expect our species will survive but many others won't.
  19. Yes, I think I know what you mean. I've known people who were offended when I reminded them that Jesus was a Jew. A few have even argued that he wasn't. Interpretation is the key. In the archaic, "40" means "a lot", a "mansion" means a private dwelling, etc. The "a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day" of the Bible can lead to different ideas. In considering any text, and especially an ancient text, I encourage the reader to consider that the writer was writing for a contemporary audience. On the other hand, the "666", the mark of the beast, a man-made symbol, would have made no sense to people of that age if it had been presented as the scheme for the UPC label of 3 six-digit numbers (which is required on all packaged goods sold today). When it comes to faith, or believing, in religion and science, I think we should consider whether we are going to believe in what the person instructing us is saying or believe in the person. I prefer to trust the person but still be free to question what he is saying. Blind obedience is never a good thing.
  20. I'm a bit surprised no one has mentioned Joseph Campbell here. "The Power of Myth" (video series and book) might be a good introduction to Campbell and mythology. He seems to have made a thorough examination of the subject. The idea that one's religion is one's philosophy for living follows his lead.
  21. I suggest that the problem you identify is mostly a problem with interpreting what is included in a religion. You may wish to consider that religion is a philosophy for living one's life. It is the approach one takes to himself, his environment and the other objects and lives in that environment. Philosophy must begin with some recognition of "self"; without that there is nothing else to consider. Self includes identity and consciousness. It seems to me that most people (even if they are not willing to admit it) do not consider their identity to be just the collection of molecules which makes up their body. Consciousness is not well understood. There does not seem to be a way for a collection of molecules to make choices (exercise what is called "free will"). Material objects react, they do not make choices. We have then the perception of an identity and consciousness which is "more" than the result of a mechanical body. Those who do perceive that something "more" identify "it" as the spirit, the spark of life, the soul, the life force or any number of other terms. Whatever it is called, it is regarded as the true self, what you mean when you say "I". Science describes everything in some "frame of reference". The experiences of individuals are in a frame of reference too. The environment we exist in is our matrix and our identity is the origin of that matrix. I think it is quite natural for us, as identities, to describe what we experience and call our universe as having a beginning, since we observe other things, including lives, to begin and end. Science cannot accept "something from nothing", thus the Big Bang. Common religious ideas propose the beginning as a creation. A creation requires a creator. Neither of these actually describes a beginning. Something before the beginning is posited in both. In an effort to not be partial, we can say that religion gives us an account, in general, of what has happened and science provides an account of how it has happened. I see no conflict in that. If the "mystical" side of existence as described by religion does indeed exist, then it is a part of our universe and I think it is likely that science will discover it. Since we cannot prove a negative, it seems best to not dismiss religion entirely until science can prove that self and consciousness and the ability to make choices are just a process performed by collections of molecules.
  22. What can a caterpillar know of flight? Even if he were to recognize it, would it be important for him to learn about it? Hard questions since we don't know much about his intellect. Is what we might call his "race memories" actually hard wired into him or are they something that grows within him depending on the quantity and quality of nourishment he consumes? Is his identity constant, even through his transformation? Back to the topic. In order to know everything, one would have to know history - in detail. Doesn't seem possible. Without a means of instantaneous communication we cannot know the present everywhere. We are limited to knowing what has happened and cannot know what is. As Hume said, we can know only what we experience. Experience is local; knowledge is local - and limited. Could we know more, or all, after some posited transformation? I think the caterpillar would have to know what it means to be a butterfly in order to answer that question.
  23. Thanks, it becomes more obvious that I am not up to anywhere near your speed on this. I did look at mysterianism a bit, and a variety of related ideas. I think one problem with mysterianism and the related ideas is that many ask "why" of experience. My response must be that this is not an appropriate question. The answer seems obvious: "it", whatever the it is, is the way it is; if it were not this way, it would be another way or not be at all. The why question seeks a reason where, to me, ultimately there either is none or we are not capable of grasping it. I take the fact that we can ask for a reason as evidence of our capacity to understand it should there be one, thus I conclude that there is no reason and it is just the way it is. Perhaps this is what you mean by unthinkable. One other problem, as I see it, is the idea of the "mind". There seems to be no agreement on what mind is. I see mind as the identity's "user interface" to the body. I admit one has to accept the idea of the identity as a natural thing apart from but associated with the body in order to accept it needing or using a means of interacting with the body. We need and use a variety of physical objects and processes to interact with our computers, especially memory. I see the identity's interaction with the body as similar. One very important characteristic shared by the computer operator and the identity is the ability to make choices (free will). This ability alone distinguishes the identity from all of what we usually call objects. It is the difference between an object and an entity. I explained to a Baptist preacher once that I thought that if God, heaven, the soul and the whole "other side" notions were real then they must actually exist and if so then they must be part of our Universe (since the Universe is all that is) and there would be a physics for it. I think it was the first time he had been confronted by the idea that it was actually physically real. I hope this explains why I think the search for consciousness must be moved into physics. The magic and spookiness must be eliminated if we are to discover the truth about life.
  24. Wow. If Bill Clinton had a problem understanding "is" then I guess I can question "I" without too much embarrassment. I think I get the part about the ultimately real being "unthinkable". I take this to mean incomprehensible. If we cannot comprehend, the next question is why can't we. I want to say that it is because of our nature, that we just do not have the ability, but not because the real cannot be comprehended. The "I am" in Genesis is not presented as featureless, but rather as something than can be recognized, to some extent. If we accept that the ultimately real is unthinkable, do we not have to conclude that Genesis, like the Big Bang theory, does not present the ultimately real? If we cannot comprehend, not because of our inability, but because of the nature of the ultimately real then I think the question has to be whether we have the ability to assign meaning to the term "unthinkable". I don't get the part about physicists assuming it is Nothing. I can understand that in physics we may have to step around the question of "real", especially in the context of it being unthinkable, and get on with the "how" of our experiences, but not that it would be dumped into nothingness. I ask again, are we to accept that everything has come from the ultimately real? If the answer is no, the obvious question then is where did everthing come from? If the answer is yes, then why would we not consider all of that everything to be just as real as what produced it? I don't get that the piano is any less real that the atoms which form it; not more real, but not less real either. I don't get the idea that a composite produced by or from the ultimately real would be not real, other than that you have defined real as not reducible. I suppose I'm stuck on the definition. I am more comfortable contrasting real with illusion, I have no term to replace real for that comparison and I do not want to describe everything I experience as an illusion, and if we define illusion as experience, then I need another term for what I now call illusion. I expect some might think this a topic for another thread, but I feel it ties in here: I have followed the political and religious debate on when life begins. To me it is a question for science, not politics or religion. I think we all accept that at conception the body forming process begins and that if left to run its course death will follow in some not too distant time. So much for the physical part of each of us. The part not commonly discussed, and to me just as much a question for physics is the beginning of consciousness. I take consciousness to be the "I" part of us. In order to be politically correct I refer to it as the identity rather than the spirit, the spark of life, the soul or whatever else some might call it. I wonder if we might recognize that the identity is a composite formed from the partial identity present in the egg and the sperm just as the body is a composite formed from the partial body present in the egg and the sperm. If we were to acept this we would have an origin for our identity. It seems to me that if science could enbrace the idea of an origin for identity, consciousness, as it has for the origin of the body we could rescue identity from mysticism and get on with developing a physics for it.
  25. In your example you are cheating. You are using light to determine that the jet travels over the peaks. You may hear two booms two seconds apart but you cannot determine where they were generated nor what generated them unless you look. Unless your pilot is also cheating by looking or using radar how does he know when to fire the missles? You cannot set up and run the experiment with any degree of certainty without using light.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.