Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by geordief

  1. pi is not the relationship between a circumference and the radius of a circle? That doesn't change when there is mass-energy? Maths has no relationship to the physical world?
  2. And my point is that is cannot be proved ,just assumed "in mathematics" you are correct but the world may well not be "mathematics" ,whilst mathematics is a reflection of the world.
  3. To argue that mathematical equations exist without regard to time feels to me like shaky ground. True ,if we were to make a meeting arrangement that we would touch base a few seconds before the universe went into heat death I would be very confident that x^2 =4 would still imply ×=+/-2 and I would bet my life on it . But that is not the same as being 100% certain (,and correct) To remove the feeling or intuition that time underlies every phenomenon would require unearthing where that feeling came from and disproving it completely. I doubt that is possible and so it remains in force. Nothing follows from this feeling.It is without consequence. It is entirely unrelated to the incredible change in perception whereby some (French?) physicist before Einstein decided to equip a second observer with his own clock (forget that man's name)
  4. You have used the temporal condition always. Does that matter (are we tripping over our own feet ?)? Does pi have a well defined value ? It is a limit/process (again with its temporal connotation) and moreover I thought gravity changed its value.
  5. Well you certainly do if you are learning the subject . And we never stop learning. There will come a time when x2 = 4, will go the way of all language examples and need to be redefined. And for pi you need to write it down on every occasion. Between the writing /reading events it disappears (like the unheard tree in the forest) i don't think you would claim that x2 = 4, is true for all time (we know gravity affects the outcome of an experiment based on it;the area of a square region with length 2 in one direction won't be 4 ,will it?
  6. I think I understand what he is getting at. It is a grey area. There are steps in any mathematical or logical process. Does one "step" cause the following one? Maybe yes ,maybe no. One step in logic can lead to any amount of consequences (and maybe preconditions) so that argues against physical causality where each "step" is linked with its immediately preceding and immediately following links in the causal chain (if we ignore spooky action at a distance ,perhaps) But there is a sense where one link in the mathematical or logical chain is responsible for its following consequences and there is a strong feeling in my mind that this could not happen without some concept of time being involved (maybe a progenitor of time?)
  7. I don't mean in accurate detail. It would be ridiculous to simulate internal processes . I just mean ,if possible to take that aspect into account
  8. I wonder if there have been any computer simulations of how the world would appear to ,say a tennis player if all movements in the game (including perhaps his or her internal processes) were at a relativistic speed.
  9. If we ignore the mind ,the world affects/interacts with itself continuously.Everything that happens seems to be a part of the world affecting another part of the world. So there is nothing surprising in the mind (one part of the world) affecting another part of the world I think there is an approach that maintains that the mind is independent of the world (possibly this is called Dualism?) I do not share that approach..Perhaps ,from my scanty knowledge of philosophy it is called Monism? It seems the universe is a great contortionist to be able to express itself in a form that is able to observe and make enquiries of itself. That is one thing that I find I cannot myself do (observe myself directly) Perhaps the universe is likewise obliged to look at itself indirectly?
  10. Am I putting the cat among the pigeons to ask does gravity change time? Does time change with spatial distance? Is the change related to such a change in time time-related? (linguistics gives me the shivers)
  11. Well I think you may be saying that we cannot trust any observation to be a completely faithful record of an observed series of events. Another thing we can be sure of then (after death and taxes) ;the "information deficit "
  12. You are surely not suggesting that the external world is not real? I thought I had decided (for myself) that that implied solipsism. That we either had realism or solipsism (which I disagree with) . Think it was here.... https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/122617-the-relationship-between-the-mind-and-the-observed-world/?do=findComment&comment=1149137 Is there ground in between? You went on to say that the mind can process data in a way that leads to a discrepancy....are there any analogous situations where there are events in the external (ie mindless) world where there are "discrepancies" ,or is a mind required at some point in the chain for a "discrepancy" to occur? A mutation ,perhaps?
  13. Not quite sure what "as such" implies but no I don't see a clear demarcation between them. There seems to be a symbiotic relationship between them and ,I suppose to another mind ,my mind is (to it )something external ,an object of potential study even. To an individual mind everything seems external but when it observes (or attempts to observe) its own functioning does it consider that external or internal?(or something else perhaps:does dynamism change the description?)
  14. It is good but it is a snapshot.I wonder how that would feed into the mind's ongoing picture. Also those filters are extremely interesting.I wonder in which parts of the brain they could be situated? Obviously those parts that process memory are involved but I think I have heard that the brain is decentralized and so the relevant areas are probably not necessarily located in any one area. I am also interested I realize in the methods available to interfere with the "filter functions"...might that explain the popularity of mind altering drugs?(and the interest of the CIA and possibly some of Trump's acquaintances during his time in Russia)
  15. Can you give a hopefully representative example of how an individual mind's model of external reality might differ from what he or she is attempting to model? An extreme example would also be interesting.
  16. Ironic that I would take the representation ( of Nash and his hallucinations) for the reality.
  17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Beautiful_Mind_(film) Was a beautiful film.
  18. Yes ,I have mistakenly heard things which weren't there ,so I suppose seeing things that aren't there would be the same kind of thing. And yes , schizophrenia is too extreme to generalize from.
  19. Nicely explained.Since it does relegate solipsism to irrelevance ,does that also do away with any need for a "realist" standpoint if it is the only game in town? And why , I wonder does the solpsistic view have any traction at all (as it once did with me in the dim distant past for a very short period)?
  20. Yes the spider's web might well be open to that interpretation .I wonder if they use each others' webs or always make one from scratch. Also wonder how people who variously feel that the internal and external worlds are separate or interwoven might conduct themselves differently in their everyday activities.
  21. That stretches credulity. Our mind would have to be a master conjurer extraordinaire to invent something that wasn't there to be intimated or misinterpreted in the first place. The distinction I had in mind in the OP had to do with where we draw the line between the "internal" and the "external". For example are our eyes internal or external ? "Clearly"external ....what about the parts of the anatomy that the eye feeds into ? How far along that chain until we say "that is internal" ? I realise the brain is uncharted territory but is there something that says we cannot pinpoint (because it is not there ) any interface between "external" and "internal"? If there is no demarcation is there a sense they are fundamentally the same ?(two halves of the same coin perhaps) Those delusional people will assume that the evidence for their delusions is false (everyone else can be in on the plot to fool them). I think they may agree they have imagined episodes but only after their medical condition has cleared up.
  22. There was Titus Oates as well ""I am just going outside and may be some time" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Oates
  23. That is how Churchill quit smoking ,the story goes. Once he said he was quitting he had little choice.
  24. From memory (perhaps flawed) the first words in the Bible are "first was the word " (logos in Greek) Whilst disapproving of the Bible in general I have been fascinatied by this mise en scene..(if correct) It may be relevant to your apparent trouble with language and the idea it attempts to express. Maybe we are all more prisoner than we imagine of the languages we have learned and by expanding our vocabulary we can unearth meanings we did not imagine we there to be discovered. Even so some meanings may just not be available to express and they may just "fall through the cracks" Time may be one of those concepts that is just too fundamental (and wears too many "disguises") for all its characteristics to be able to be expressed in words One of its disguises is the scientific usage most of us are familiar with (I am not familiar with its usage in quantum mechanics,which may be good for my sanity)
  • 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.