How does Nature inform your Spirituality?

[heretic888]

I don't buy it. If two sets of "Emergent Properties" can both be "ultimately" correct, then why is there a conflict between quantum physics and Relativity?

I don't remember saying that either holon was "ultimately" correct.

In any event, that the laws of one level of holons don't "make sense" to the laws of another level of holons is perfectly in agreement with what I outlined above. In fact, it is what I would expect.

It is, however, problematic for a reductionist universe.

The fact that they conflict seems to suggest that reality exists "outside" the boundaries of their schema.

Objective reality is separate from, but not independent of, subjective reality.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

The Myth of the Given, as far as I understand it, states that reality is not just out there for us to grasp, it is constructed by our schema.

The Myth of the Given postulates that the notion that reality is entirely pregiven and that we can observe such reality without fundamentally influencing and changing what we observe. . . is, well, a myth.

It is also supported by both physics and developmental psychology.

I have postulated a thought experiment in which all living things are eradicated from Earth and a recording device has been placed in space to record what happens.

If reality blinks out of existence, then the universe truly is depended upon the schema that we construct. If not, then it doesn't.

As long as there was a single atom, subatomic particle, quantum unit, string, m-brane, or whatever. . . then there will always be some holon there.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Because they are models of reality, not the reality themselves. Why can't either of them be reconciled with demonstrably true (for particles like human beings, anyway) Newtonian model? Same reason........the fact that they conflict not only suggests that reality exists outside their schema (and a variety of newer theories bear this out) but also demonstrates how they are inherently-like most scientific models-flawed-not useless, not worthless, not wrong, or even in error-just insufficient in explaining the "ultimate nature of reality," and they always (IMNSHO) will be-constantly evolving and approaching but never reaching at total explanation......ther is always going to be another layer of the onion called "reality" including realities outside this one.

Precisely.

Again, I believe that you can not completely reconcile religious/spiritual phenomena and science. One can certainly aid or inform the other, but as far as total proof, disproof or reconciliation goes, it is probably best avoided,because of the inherent irreconcilabe conflicts between their models of reality.

I agree entirely, provided by "science" you are referring specifically to the natural sciences.

Laterz.

 

[Makalakumu]

As long as there was a single atom, subatomic particle, quantum unit, string, m-brane, or whatever. . . then there will always be some holon there.

And that is why this is a theory of philosophy and not science because it is completely untestable. For example, how can one show that a hydrogen atom has schema?

I don't buy it. There is no reason to believe that they do.

 

[Makalakumu]

......there is always going to be another layer of the onion called "reality" including realities outside this one.

Even an onion has a center. It doesn't go on forever. Why should we believe that it does? Even infinite can be constrained.

 

[heretic888]

And that is why this is a theory of philosophy and not science because it is completely untestable. For example, how can one show that a hydrogen atom has schema?

I don't buy it. There is no reason to believe that they do.

There is also no reason to believe that the "reality" you talk about exists independently of you observing it, but you assert this as fact anyway. In fact, based on the findings of quantum physics and cognitive psychology (or even the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis if you're into linguistics), there seems to be a lot of reason against such an axiom.

Also, when I say something like all holons have schemas, I do not mean they have the schemas of human beings. In fact, it is anthropomorphism to define consciousness and perception solely in human terms. We can clearly see that consciousness, as everything else, exists on a continuum. It is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon.

Furthermore, this attempt to dismiss philosophy at hand is intellectually dishonest, in my opinion. Philosophical arguments are "tested" through the logic of their claims. If they were logically unfalsifiable, then such arguments would suffer the same fate in philosophy that "intelligent design" does in biology.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Even an onion has a center. It doesn't go on forever.

The "onion" in question here is an analogy.

Why should we believe that it does?

If you want to make the same a priori assumptions that Thomas Aquinas did, then be my guest.

However, we have yet to encounter anything in the universe to lend us to believe it has either a well-defined "beginning" or "end". I really doubt we will ever find a "bottom line" in which we can start pointing to. Subatomic particles displaced atoms, and quantum units displaced subatomic particles. Now there's all this talk about "strings". . .

I'm quite confident this is going to keep going on for centuries to come, assuming humanity lives that long.

Laterz.

 

[Makalakumu]

What about strings? They certainly would qualify as the bottom line. What if that theory plays out and they really are the root of everything?

 

[Makalakumu]

There is also no reason to believe that the "reality" you talk about exists independently of you observing it, but you assert this as fact anyway. In fact, based on the findings of quantum physics and cognitive psychology (or even the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis if you're into linguistics), there seems to be a lot of reason against such an axiom.

Also, when I say something like all holons have schemas, I do not mean they have the schemas of human beings. In fact, it is anthropomorphism to define consciousness and perception solely in human terms. We can clearly see that consciousness, as everything else, exists on a continuum. It is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon.

Furthermore, this attempt to dismiss philosophy at hand is intellectually dishonest, in my opinion. Philosophical arguments are "tested" through the logic of their claims. If they were logically unfalsifiable, then such arguments would suffer the same fate in philosophy that "intelligent design" does in biology.

Laterz.

How can you show that a hydrogen atom has "schema"? You cannot, IMO. Therefore, why would anyone believe this, no matter how logical it sounds?

Furthermore, how can you justify this claim by invoking schema when these schema could be wrong? This is the same argument you are using against me, is it not?

There are plenty of things in this world that seem logical, but fall apart as soon as the rubber hits the pavement. I see no reason to believe that our schema would have any effect on the universe at all. I see no reason to believe that the universe wouldn't exist in the absence of our schema. And I see the attempt to assign "schema" to non-living inanimate particles of matter as not only anthropromorphism, but also an attempt to shore up the logic of all this.

There is no way to show that those things have schema, thus there is no reason to believe that they do.

 

[elder999]

There is no way to show that those things have schema, thus there is no reason to believe that they do.

Equally, then, most especially in the case of "those things," i.e., particles, ther is no way to show they would exist without an "observer" in the context of quantum physics-in fact, it's mathematically proven that they do not.Remember, it's mathematically provable that the moon is not there when no one is "observing" it (that includes a great deal of territory in the moon's case, including the tides, but it is demonstrably true.)

 

[Makalakumu]

Equally, then, most especially in the case of "those things," i.e., particles, ther is no way to show they would exist without an "observer" in the context of quantum physics-in fact, it's mathematically proven that they do not.Remember, it's mathematically provable that the moon is not there when no one is "observing" it (that includes a great deal of territory in the moon's case, including the tides, but it is demonstrably true.)

I'm sure I don't know half as much about quantum physics as you do, but when I took the class for my physics degree, this kind of intuitive weirdness drove me batty...

 

[elder999]

I'm sure I don't know half as much about quantum physics as you do, but when I took the class for my physics degree, this kind of intuitive weirdness drove me batty...

Don't believe me, while it's obviously not rational, and probably not exactly true:

, Horace White professor of Physics at Cornell University
We now know that the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody
looks.

N. David Mermin

Of course, it's just more scientific hyperbole, but with supporting mathematics that I'll spare you.......

 

[heretic888]

How can you show that a hydrogen atom has "schema"? You cannot, IMO. Therefore, why would anyone believe this, no matter how logical it sounds?

Because I don't believe in "intelligent design" or "special creation".

You are still falling into the trap of believing I am suggesting that atoms have the same schema as humans ---- if you don't like "schema", by the way, feel free to replace it with "construct", "paradigm", "worldview", "subjectivity", or whatever you wish --- which is clearly not the case.

I see the evolution of schemas as being correlative with the evolution of objective complexity. This is why we cannot tease subjective and objective reality apart, they co-create one another.

Furthermore, how can you justify this claim by invoking schema when these schema could be wrong?

All schemas are both right and wrong. As I said, like everything else, they exist on a continuum.

This is the same argument you are using against me, is it not?

No.

There is no way to show that those things have schema, thus there is no reason to believe that they do.

There is no way to show that reality exists independently of your observations of it, thus there is no reason to believe that it does.

This sword cuts both ways, y'see.

Laterz.

 

[Makalakumu]

There is no way to show that reality exists independently of your observations of it, thus there is no reason to believe that it does.

This sword cuts both ways, y'see.

Perhaps. However, I think the weight of one cut is greater then the other.

If "my" observations are the ones that determine "my" reality, I'm fairly certain that if I were to die at this moment, the universe would still exist.

And with that observation in mind, it certain follows that if one were to eradicate all life on this planet, the universe would still exist.

And if we were to take this even further, if one was to eradicate all life in the universe, I can see no reason why the universe would cease to exist.

Of course, you can come back with, "how in the heck would you really know, because you're dead!" and make a logical point. Yet, I will still maintain that the former is far more probable.

 

[Makalakumu]

You are still falling into the trap of believing I am suggesting that atoms have the same schema as humans ---- if you don't like "schema", by the way, feel free to replace it with "construct", "paradigm", "worldview", "subjectivity", or whatever you wish --- which is clearly not the case.

Oh, and by the way, what do they have, if they are not schema, that suddenly create objective reality? And if they have this "thing" how do you know they have it?

 

[heretic888]

Perhaps. However, I think the weight of one cut is greater then the other.

If "my" observations are the ones that determine "my" reality, I'm fairly certain that if I were to die at this moment, the universe would still exist.

And with that observation in mind, it certain follows that if one were to eradicate all life on this planet, the universe would still exist.

And if we were to take this even further, if one was to eradicate all life in the universe, I can see no reason why the universe would cease to exist.

Of course, you can come back with, "how in the heck would you really know, because you're dead!" and make a logical point. Yet, I will still maintain that the former is far more probable.

Or I could just point out that your scenario assumes the existence of linear time, which (like numerical symbol-values) is also a construct of the rational schema.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Oh, and by the way, what do they have, if they are not schema, that suddenly create objective reality? And if they have this "thing" how do you know they have it?

"Suddenly"? There is nothing sudden about it.

As I said before, I do not believe in "intelligent design" or "special creation", which are the logical consequences of your worldview. I also see no reason in sight that the universe has a "beginning" or an "end".

Ergo, there is no immediacy to this construction. It just seem to be part and parcel of the universe.

Laterz.

 

[Makalakumu]

Or I could just point out that your scenario assumes the existence of linear time, which (like numerical symbol-values) is also a construct of the rational schema.

Laterz.

Oh really? How would that fit into the scenario?

It's not supposed to be a linear progression. Each event described could occur and the result would be the same. The universe would still exist.

 

[Makalakumu]

"Suddenly"? There is nothing sudden about it.

As I said before, I do not believe in "intelligent design" or "special creation", which are the logical consequences of your worldview. I also see no reason in sight that the universe has a "beginning" or an "end".

Ergo, there is no immediacy to this construction. It just seem to be part and parcel of the universe.

Laterz.

This doesn't answer the question. I don't believe in intelligent design or special creation either and I don't see any reason to believe that every bit of matter has some "special" property that justifies the objective universe's existence.

 

[heretic888]

Oh really? How would that fit into the scenario?

It's not supposed to be a linear progression. Each event described could occur and the result would be the same. The universe would still exist.

Your scenario assumes "historical" events which could hypothetically happen in the "past" and the "future". This presumes the existence of linear time, which is a construct of the rational schema.

"History" is a human psychological construction and so is "time".

That's one of the reasons I don't believe in a special "creation", nor a "beginning" or "end".

Laterz.