Forums > Social Discussion > The Ultimate Theory of Reality.
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
As promised in the 'Superultimate Question' thread: -
[Old link]
I've put together my proposed answer to the question- 'why is there something rather than nothing?'.
It's here: -
https://www.geocities.com/combatunicycle/utor/utor.html
Please note before adding to this thread that quantum physics, cosmology, Hawking, the 'Big-Bang', Einstein and Schrodingers cat are almost certainly off-topic due to the fact that the 'nothing' refered to in the question is philosophical nothingness (absolute emptiness) rather than the physical 'empty space' nothingness covered by physics.
(For more on this check out the first link above where this point was extensively discussed)
As promised in the 'Superultimate Question' thread: -
[Old link]
I've put together my proposed answer to the question- 'why is there something rather than nothing?'.
It's here: -
https://www.geocities.com/combatunicycle/utor/utor.html
Please note before adding to this thread that quantum physics, cosmology, Hawking, the 'Big-Bang', Einstein and Schrodingers cat are almost certainly off-topic due to the fact that the 'nothing' refered to in the question is philosophical nothingness (absolute emptiness) rather than the physical 'empty space' nothingness covered by physics.
(For more on this check out the first link above where this point was extensively discussed)
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
veteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
I can see why we perceive a continuous time, no interaction with rocks or disembodied minds and all - because we are in a mental state where these things are true. It's kind of like the anthropic principle in that the answer to "why is it like this?" is that "otherwise we wouldn't see it like that"... which is a tautology with no explainatory power as far as I can see.
Presumably there could be a mental state out there which only differs from mine in that it's currently having a conversation with a rock *shrug*
So I'm still left with wondering whether this theory has anything demonstrable to say about the Universe.
I can see why we perceive a continuous time, no interaction with rocks or disembodied minds and all - because we are in a mental state where these things are true. It's kind of like the anthropic principle in that the answer to "why is it like this?" is that "otherwise we wouldn't see it like that"... which is a tautology with no explainatory power as far as I can see.
Presumably there could be a mental state out there which only differs from mine in that it's currently having a conversation with a rock *shrug*
So I'm still left with wondering whether this theory has anything demonstrable to say about the Universe.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
mo-seph: what was worrying me about UTOR was Dave's insistence that minds (i.e. the 'timeless mathematical realm') is completely independent of the physical. so you're not going to be able to derive any result along the lines of 'embodied minds can carry more information', because, on UTOR, the physical world is simply irrelevant - that is, it might as well not exist. now that claim is, I think, pretty dodgy.
mo-seph: what was worrying me about UTOR was Dave's insistence that minds (i.e. the 'timeless mathematical realm') is completely independent of the physical. so you're not going to be able to derive any result along the lines of 'embodied minds can carry more information', because, on UTOR, the physical world is simply irrelevant - that is, it might as well not exist. now that claim is, I think, pretty dodgy.
ture na sig
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
quoting myself: 'Right - but do we have any explanation of why no mind fails to appear to be in a body?'
quoting OWD: 'I'll assume that you're asking why there are no minds that do not appear to be in bodies.'
Not quite: I'm asking why we've never encountered any disembodied minds. I KNOW that on UTOR there can be disembodied mindstates; that is, there can be mindstates which don't appear to be embodied. What you're still failing to do is to provide an explanation of why we've never encountered any of these; after all, if the mental realm is completely independent of the physical, then the mere fact that humans (if not their minds) are physical entities won't help you.
quoting myself: 'Right - but do we have any explanation of why no mind fails to appear to be in a body?'
quoting OWD: 'I'll assume that you're asking why there are no minds that do not appear to be in bodies.'
Not quite: I'm asking why we've never encountered any disembodied minds. I KNOW that on UTOR there can be disembodied mindstates; that is, there can be mindstates which don't appear to be embodied. What you're still failing to do is to provide an explanation of why we've never encountered any of these; after all, if the mental realm is completely independent of the physical, then the mere fact that humans (if not their minds) are physical entities won't help you.
ture na sig
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Dealing with the points raised by several of the last posts-
Firstly, I wasn't at any pointing talking about interacting with disembodied mind-states; I was talking about them existing.
They do, according to UToR, have existence, but you can't interact with them any more than you can interact with any mindstate.
Remember that the UToR account is that if someone appears to be in front of you and interacting, there is no actual connection between your mind and theirs, but you can know for sure that the mind you are appearing to interact with, does exist (and that there is a corresponding mind-state of them interacting with the appearance of you).
I don't think you can even have the appearance of interacting with a disembodied mind, as there would be no appearance of their presence- what's the difference between the appearance of an empty room, and the appearance of a room containing a disembodied mind?
mo-seph seems to be saying this here-
Thanks for mentioning the anthropic principle- that is a good way of grasping some of the stuff UToR is trying to express.
As far as I can see UToR has no testable predictions.
Certainly, if testing means examination of the physical world, I don't think anything could establish the truth or falsity of UToR.
I guess it could be argued that UToR isn't actually a theory, but is instead a 'theorem' ( n mathematical statement that can be proved by reasoning).
However, UToR seems to fall somewhere between the two as it does claim to explain reality (as we perceive it).
Dealing with the points raised by several of the last posts-
Firstly, I wasn't at any pointing talking about interacting with disembodied mind-states; I was talking about them existing.
They do, according to UToR, have existence, but you can't interact with them any more than you can interact with any mindstate.
Remember that the UToR account is that if someone appears to be in front of you and interacting, there is no actual connection between your mind and theirs, but you can know for sure that the mind you are appearing to interact with, does exist (and that there is a corresponding mind-state of them interacting with the appearance of you).
I don't think you can even have the appearance of interacting with a disembodied mind, as there would be no appearance of their presence- what's the difference between the appearance of an empty room, and the appearance of a room containing a disembodied mind?
mo-seph seems to be saying this here-
Written by: mo-seph
- what is important is "mind states which correspond to interacting with disembodied minds". There may be disembodied minds everywhere, but if you cannot interact with them, you'll never know. A mind could only fail to appear to be in a body if you could percieve it as such, and I'm not particularly good at perceiving non physical things.
Written by: spiralx
I can see why we perceive a continuous time, no interaction with rocks or disembodied minds and all - because we are in a mental state where these things are true. It's kind of like the anthropic principle in that the answer to "why is it like this?" is that "otherwise we wouldn't see it like that"... which is a tautology with no explainatory power as far as I can see.
Thanks for mentioning the anthropic principle- that is a good way of grasping some of the stuff UToR is trying to express.
Written by: spiralx
I'm sorry but apart from anything else does this theory make any testable predictions? Or is it just another invisible pink unicorn in my shed?
As far as I can see UToR has no testable predictions.
Certainly, if testing means examination of the physical world, I don't think anything could establish the truth or falsity of UToR.
I guess it could be argued that UToR isn't actually a theory, but is instead a 'theorem' ( n mathematical statement that can be proved by reasoning).
However, UToR seems to fall somewhere between the two as it does claim to explain reality (as we perceive it).
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Tell me what, in your view, an encounter with a disembodied mind would be like (ie how would you know it was there), and then I can tell you what UToR would say about it.
Written by: quiet
Not quite: I'm asking why we've never encountered any disembodied minds. I KNOW that on UTOR there can be disembodied mindstates; that is, there can be mindstates which don't appear to be embodied. What you're still failing to do is to provide an explanation of why we've never encountered any of these; after all, if the mental realm is completely independent of the physical, then the mere fact that humans (if not their minds) are physical entities won't help you.
Tell me what, in your view, an encounter with a disembodied mind would be like (ie how would you know it was there), and then I can tell you what UToR would say about it.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
veteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
So really what is the point? I mean you seem to have a good idea about what the theory entails (irrespective of logical fallacies there may or may not exist within it)... but I could just posit the idea of God and it'd be as helpful...
Written by: onewheeldaveWritten by: spiralx
I can see why we perceive a continuous time, no interaction with rocks or disembodied minds and all - because we are in a mental state where these things are true. It's kind of like the anthropic principle in that the answer to "why is it like this?" is that "otherwise we wouldn't see it like that"... which is a tautology with no explainatory power as far as I can see.
Thanks for mentioning the anthropic principle- that is a good way of grasping some of the stuff UToR is trying to express.Written by: spiralx
I'm sorry but apart from anything else does this theory make any testable predictions? Or is it just another invisible pink unicorn in my shed?
As far as I can see UToR has no testable predictions.
Certainly, if testing means examination of the physical world, I don't think anything could establish the truth or falsity of UToR.
So really what is the point? I mean you seem to have a good idea about what the theory entails (irrespective of logical fallacies there may or may not exist within it)... but I could just posit the idea of God and it'd be as helpful...
"Moo," said the happy cow.
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
Dave:
i) All minds appear (that is, appear to exist) to someone - minimally, all minds are self-aware.
ii) But you say: 'I don't think you can even have the appearance of interacting with a disembodied mind, as there would be no appearance of their presence'
iii) So, on your own account, there can't be any disembodied minds. Earlier, you claimed that there *could* be (and hence must be); but I won't hold you to this.
Hence
iv) The physical world *does* place constraints on the mental.
do you agree with (iv)?
Dave:
i) All minds appear (that is, appear to exist) to someone - minimally, all minds are self-aware.
ii) But you say: 'I don't think you can even have the appearance of interacting with a disembodied mind, as there would be no appearance of their presence'
iii) So, on your own account, there can't be any disembodied minds. Earlier, you claimed that there *could* be (and hence must be); but I won't hold you to this.
Hence
iv) The physical world *does* place constraints on the mental.
do you agree with (iv)?
ture na sig
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
The point is that it's an attempt to answer the question 'why is there something, rather than nothing?'.
Positing God is a traditional attempt of answering that question, but, from a logical and questioning point of view, most, if not all such attempts have been found seriously lacking.
UToR, IMO, avoids the flaws associated with God-based approaches to the question.
It indeed cannot be emirically tested, but that is because by it's nature, empirical testing is not appropriate; UToRs truth or otherwise, is instead to be established by logical means.
Similarly, we do not explore pi by empirical measurements of physical circles, we do so by logical means.
Written by: spiralx
So really what is the point? I mean you seem to have a good idea about what the theory entails (irrespective of logical fallacies there may or may not exist within it)... but I could just posit the idea of God and it'd be as helpful...
The point is that it's an attempt to answer the question 'why is there something, rather than nothing?'.
Positing God is a traditional attempt of answering that question, but, from a logical and questioning point of view, most, if not all such attempts have been found seriously lacking.
UToR, IMO, avoids the flaws associated with God-based approaches to the question.
It indeed cannot be emirically tested, but that is because by it's nature, empirical testing is not appropriate; UToRs truth or otherwise, is instead to be established by logical means.
Similarly, we do not explore pi by empirical measurements of physical circles, we do so by logical means.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
This is a misunderstanding, I assumed by 'interacting' that we meant, for example, your mind interacting (seeing, communicating with etc) a disembodied mind ie two minds interacting, one of with lacks the appearance of being embodied.
So let me clarify UToRs position on disembodied minds-
they can, and do exist.
I can appear to 'interact' with your mind, via the 'appearance' (in my visual field) of your 'appearance' of a body/face etc.
Though that appearance is an illusion, I can know with certainty that the mind it represents, does exist.
I cannot have the appearance of interacting with a disembodied mind, as it has no appearance of a body in my visual field,I thus cannot locate or see it.
However, disembodied minds do, according to UToR, exist.
Written by: quiet
Dave:
i) All minds appear (that is, appear to exist) to someone - minimally, all minds are self-aware.
ii) But you say: 'I don't think you can even have the appearance of interacting with a disembodied mind, as there would be no appearance of their presence'
iii) So, on your own account, there can't be any disembodied minds. Earlier, you claimed that there *could* be (and hence must be); but I won't hold you to this.
Hence
iv) The physical world *does* place constraints on the mental.
do you agree with (iv)?
This is a misunderstanding, I assumed by 'interacting' that we meant, for example, your mind interacting (seeing, communicating with etc) a disembodied mind ie two minds interacting, one of with lacks the appearance of being embodied.
So let me clarify UToRs position on disembodied minds-
they can, and do exist.
I can appear to 'interact' with your mind, via the 'appearance' (in my visual field) of your 'appearance' of a body/face etc.
Though that appearance is an illusion, I can know with certainty that the mind it represents, does exist.
I cannot have the appearance of interacting with a disembodied mind, as it has no appearance of a body in my visual field,I thus cannot locate or see it.
However, disembodied minds do, according to UToR, exist.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
Dave, you're still not addressing my argument. The term 'interaction' is unnecessary, so I'll remove it. I'm claiming that:
i) All minds must appear to exist to someone - in the minimal, case, to themselves. That is, all minds are self-aware.
ii) But disembodied minds cannot appear to exist to anyone (on your own account)
hence
iii) There can be no disembodied minds
which contradicts
iv)
Dave, you're still not addressing my argument. The term 'interaction' is unnecessary, so I'll remove it. I'm claiming that:
i) All minds must appear to exist to someone - in the minimal, case, to themselves. That is, all minds are self-aware.
ii) But disembodied minds cannot appear to exist to anyone (on your own account)
hence
iii) There can be no disembodied minds
which contradicts
iv)
Written by:
'disembodied minds do, according to UToR, exist'
Could you clarify your position on this, please.ture na sig
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
addressing point ii) disembodied minds can (and do) appear to exist to themselves ie self-awareness.
addressing point ii) disembodied minds can (and do) appear to exist to themselves ie self-awareness.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
enthusiast
523 posts
Location: Edinburgh, UK
523 posts
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posted:
Well, my suggestion was along the lines of:
if D is the set of possible states for minds which do not include the qualities due to embodiment and E is the set of possible mindstates which do include these qualities, then D is a subset of E.
or, for any disembodied mind, we could add embodiment and construct a massive variety of embodied minds.
Hence, if we pick minds at random, we are more likely to encounter those which believe themselves to be embodied.
I think this is the lesser of the two arguments, though, as it is quite possible to believe that interactions with disembodied minds are not possible, so the mindstates which correspond to having interacted with them do no exist. (Which I think is in line with OWD's exposition)
(And I'm not going to mention ghosts, or voices in the head, or the possibility that a mind is disembodied but for some bizarre reason you percieve it as having a body, or anything like that, because this has been a fantastically on topic discussion, and doesn't need any sidetracking...)
I'm not quite clear as to what it means for a mind to be embodied in this system, though. Is it that "there is a physical system which corresponds exactly to this mental state"? To be honest, I'm still not quite clear what a mind would be in this system, as an unordered set of mental states doesn't really seem to cut it. If you found some abstract entity which you decided encoded a mind state, by looking at the physical arrangement of particles in a rock, you could undoubtedly find something which on some level corresponded to this "mind state". I don't think it would really follow from this that the rock was an embodied mind, so I'd like to know more how this works.
Not sure where ii) comes from. What stops a disembodied mind being aware of itself? Also not sure if disembodied implies a total lack of perception? Could it have no physical body, but nonetheless have an awareness of the physical world?
But you can't know that that is the mind which is embodied in what your mind perceives to be the physical world. You know that somewhere there is a mind state which corresponds to "a mo-seph who's just heard OWD say 'yellow'", but you don't know if that mind state is actually instantiated in front of you. You don't actually know anything about what is going on behind the eyes that you see - and for every mental state which corresponds to "me" with a clear understanding of what you have said, there is an infinite variety which corresponds to me thinking you said something totally different, me perceiving you as a giant purple cabbage or me being totally unaware of sensory input. Which I don't find particularly reassuring.
spiralx: what seems interesting about this theory is that it would allow one to say "if mental state X exists, then it is necessary that X' exists, which means that..." as a tool in talking about possible realities. Which is probably useful...
Night all!
Written by: quiet
mo-seph: what was worrying me about UTOR was Dave's insistence that minds (i.e. the 'timeless mathematical realm') is completely independent of the physical. so you're not going to be able to derive any result along the lines of 'embodied minds can carry more information', because, on UTOR, the physical world is simply irrelevant - that is, it might as well not exist. now that claim is, I think, pretty dodgy.
Well, my suggestion was along the lines of:
if D is the set of possible states for minds which do not include the qualities due to embodiment and E is the set of possible mindstates which do include these qualities, then D is a subset of E.
or, for any disembodied mind, we could add embodiment and construct a massive variety of embodied minds.
Hence, if we pick minds at random, we are more likely to encounter those which believe themselves to be embodied.
I think this is the lesser of the two arguments, though, as it is quite possible to believe that interactions with disembodied minds are not possible, so the mindstates which correspond to having interacted with them do no exist. (Which I think is in line with OWD's exposition)
(And I'm not going to mention ghosts, or voices in the head, or the possibility that a mind is disembodied but for some bizarre reason you percieve it as having a body, or anything like that, because this has been a fantastically on topic discussion, and doesn't need any sidetracking...)
I'm not quite clear as to what it means for a mind to be embodied in this system, though. Is it that "there is a physical system which corresponds exactly to this mental state"? To be honest, I'm still not quite clear what a mind would be in this system, as an unordered set of mental states doesn't really seem to cut it. If you found some abstract entity which you decided encoded a mind state, by looking at the physical arrangement of particles in a rock, you could undoubtedly find something which on some level corresponded to this "mind state". I don't think it would really follow from this that the rock was an embodied mind, so I'd like to know more how this works.
Written by: quiet
i) All minds must appear to exist to someone - in the minimal, case, to themselves. That is, all minds are self-aware.
ii) But disembodied minds cannot appear to exist to anyone (on your own account)
hence
iii) There can be no disembodied minds
Not sure where ii) comes from. What stops a disembodied mind being aware of itself? Also not sure if disembodied implies a total lack of perception? Could it have no physical body, but nonetheless have an awareness of the physical world?
Written by: onewheeldave
I can appear to 'interact' with your mind, via the 'appearance' (in my visual field) of your 'appearance' of a body/face etc.
Though that appearance is an illusion, I can know with certainty that the mind it represents, does exist.
But you can't know that that is the mind which is embodied in what your mind perceives to be the physical world. You know that somewhere there is a mind state which corresponds to "a mo-seph who's just heard OWD say 'yellow'", but you don't know if that mind state is actually instantiated in front of you. You don't actually know anything about what is going on behind the eyes that you see - and for every mental state which corresponds to "me" with a clear understanding of what you have said, there is an infinite variety which corresponds to me thinking you said something totally different, me perceiving you as a giant purple cabbage or me being totally unaware of sensory input. Which I don't find particularly reassuring.
spiralx: what seems interesting about this theory is that it would allow one to say "if mental state X exists, then it is necessary that X' exists, which means that..." as a tool in talking about possible realities. Which is probably useful...
Night all!
monkeys ate my brain
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Have you looked at the UToR webpage; if not I'll post the link.
Best way to understand it is to take the set of all mindstates that would constitute individuals lives, if there was a physical world, with temporality (flowing time) and people were minds in bodies.
Take all such mindstates ie all possible mind-states, and cast them into the eternal and unchanging (non-temporal) 'mathematical realm' which UToR postulates.
That, according to UToR, is what constitutes our reality (our experience of reality).
So, in that sense, the mindstates are unordered; indeed, the mindstates which represent my life, have no causal connection whatsoever to one another.
What you say is correct- as I look at the appearance of your face, there is indeed a mindstate corresponding to you being involved in that conversation, yet seeing me as a purple cabbage.
However, one thing is certain- somewhere there exists a mind-state corresponding to you seeing me as I actually am.
If this is somewhat disturbing to you, I would point out that on any account of reality, including those which postulate physical reality- there is never any certainty concerning what is actually going on in the mind of another.
At least with UToR, you have a 100% logical guarantee that the mind-state you are addressing/communicating with, is actually real. As far as I know, no other theory or philosophical account of reality can offer such a guarantee.
Written by: mo-seph
I'm not quite clear as to what it means for a mind to be embodied in this system, though. Is it that "there is a physical system which corresponds exactly to this mental state"? To be honest, I'm still not quite clear what a mind would be in this system, as an unordered set of mental states doesn't really seem to cut it. If you found some abstract entity which you decided encoded a mind state, by looking at the physical arrangement of particles in a rock, you could undoubtedly find something which on some level corresponded to this "mind state". I don't think it would really follow from this that the rock was an embodied mind, so I'd like to know more how this works.
Have you looked at the UToR webpage; if not I'll post the link.
Best way to understand it is to take the set of all mindstates that would constitute individuals lives, if there was a physical world, with temporality (flowing time) and people were minds in bodies.
Take all such mindstates ie all possible mind-states, and cast them into the eternal and unchanging (non-temporal) 'mathematical realm' which UToR postulates.
That, according to UToR, is what constitutes our reality (our experience of reality).
So, in that sense, the mindstates are unordered; indeed, the mindstates which represent my life, have no causal connection whatsoever to one another.
Written by: mo-seph
Written by: onewheeldave
I can appear to 'interact' with your mind, via the 'appearance' (in my visual field) of your 'appearance' of a body/face etc.
Though that appearance is an illusion, I can know with certainty that the mind it represents, does exist.
But you can't know that that is the mind which is embodied in what your mind perceives to be the physical world. You know that somewhere there is a mind state which corresponds to "a mo-seph who's just heard OWD say 'yellow'", but you don't know if that mind state is actually instantiated in front of you. You don't actually know anything about what is going on behind the eyes that you see - and for every mental state which corresponds to "me" with a clear understanding of what you have said, there is an infinite variety which corresponds to me thinking you said something totally different, me perceiving you as a giant purple cabbage or me being totally unaware of sensory input. Which I don't find particularly reassuring.
What you say is correct- as I look at the appearance of your face, there is indeed a mindstate corresponding to you being involved in that conversation, yet seeing me as a purple cabbage.
However, one thing is certain- somewhere there exists a mind-state corresponding to you seeing me as I actually am.
If this is somewhat disturbing to you, I would point out that on any account of reality, including those which postulate physical reality- there is never any certainty concerning what is actually going on in the mind of another.
At least with UToR, you have a 100% logical guarantee that the mind-state you are addressing/communicating with, is actually real. As far as I know, no other theory or philosophical account of reality can offer such a guarantee.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
veteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
I dunno about real, sounds like a solipistic nightmare to be. You have state X in which you perceive embodied minds, causality etc... but is X merely a single state shared by multiple minds? Because you either have one state A which contains the mindstates of all minds at any one time that match up with what we perceive as reality, or a whole load of different states for each mind that just happen to concur.
But you can't really say that any other mind is real in the first case - it just happens that the state you're in happens to have the appearance of other minds.
I dunno about real, sounds like a solipistic nightmare to be. You have state X in which you perceive embodied minds, causality etc... but is X merely a single state shared by multiple minds? Because you either have one state A which contains the mindstates of all minds at any one time that match up with what we perceive as reality, or a whole load of different states for each mind that just happen to concur.
But you can't really say that any other mind is real in the first case - it just happens that the state you're in happens to have the appearance of other minds.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
quote: 'At least with UToR, you have a 100% logical guarantee that the mind-state you are addressing/communicating with, is actually real. As far as I know, no other theory or philosophical account of reality can offer such a guarantee. '
No, Dave, you don't: what you have is a 100% logical guarantee that the mind which you think you're communicating actually exists - but it needn't be attached to the body in front of you. For all you know, on UTOR, when you have the appearance of talking to your mother you are actually communicating with the mind of Adolf Hitler.
quote: 'At least with UToR, you have a 100% logical guarantee that the mind-state you are addressing/communicating with, is actually real. As far as I know, no other theory or philosophical account of reality can offer such a guarantee. '
No, Dave, you don't: what you have is a 100% logical guarantee that the mind which you think you're communicating actually exists - but it needn't be attached to the body in front of you. For all you know, on UTOR, when you have the appearance of talking to your mother you are actually communicating with the mind of Adolf Hitler.
ture na sig
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Is Pi merely a single entity shared by multiple circles?
I'd say yes. Is the above a problem? I'd say no.
UToR is far from a solipsistic nightmare; as it says on the webpage UToR account, it is, as far as I know, the only account of reality which specifically demonstrates solipsism to not be the case.
If UToR is correct, every being you encounter in reality, is 100% guarenteed to be real.
Having said that , I've no idea what you mean by 'state X'- UToR refers to 'states of mind' (of which there are a possibly infinite number (all possible states of mind exist) which exist in a non-temporal realm, and exist through logical necessity).
As a read of this thread will show, much confusion and misunderstanding has occured when I've let someone slip in a new term which, because it seems fairly innocuous, I've not questioned.
So, I'm going to ask you to explain-
what 'state X' is, in terms that are relevant to the issues in this thread (ie is state X physical? is it temporal?)
Is Pi merely a single entity shared by multiple circles?
I'd say yes. Is the above a problem? I'd say no.
UToR is far from a solipsistic nightmare; as it says on the webpage UToR account, it is, as far as I know, the only account of reality which specifically demonstrates solipsism to not be the case.
If UToR is correct, every being you encounter in reality, is 100% guarenteed to be real.
Having said that , I've no idea what you mean by 'state X'- UToR refers to 'states of mind' (of which there are a possibly infinite number (all possible states of mind exist) which exist in a non-temporal realm, and exist through logical necessity).
As a read of this thread will show, much confusion and misunderstanding has occured when I've let someone slip in a new term which, because it seems fairly innocuous, I've not questioned.
So, I'm going to ask you to explain-
what 'state X' is, in terms that are relevant to the issues in this thread (ie is state X physical? is it temporal?)
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
--------------
To clarify the distinction between 'minds' and 'mind-states', as I think there's room for future confusion there.
A mind is basically what we seem to have in our heads- it's our personality, thoughts, self-awareness etc.
As such, strictly speaking, on the UToR account, minds are not the entities which inhabit UToRs non temporal mathematical realm, as a full-on functioning mind requires temporality.
'Mind-states', are the constituents of 'minds'- break the life-span of a mind down into a set of instantaneous perceptions/thoughts- they are the mind-states.
And it is the mind-states which inhabit the mathematical realm ie given any mind M, every experience, thought, emotion etc, of that mind, is in the mathematical realm, as a set of mind-states.
However, between any two mind-states of M (ms1, ms2.......msx etc), there is no causal connection.
There is no more casual connection between any two of 'my' mind-states, and, say, one of my mind-states and one of yours.
--------------
To clarify the distinction between 'minds' and 'mind-states', as I think there's room for future confusion there.
A mind is basically what we seem to have in our heads- it's our personality, thoughts, self-awareness etc.
As such, strictly speaking, on the UToR account, minds are not the entities which inhabit UToRs non temporal mathematical realm, as a full-on functioning mind requires temporality.
'Mind-states', are the constituents of 'minds'- break the life-span of a mind down into a set of instantaneous perceptions/thoughts- they are the mind-states.
And it is the mind-states which inhabit the mathematical realm ie given any mind M, every experience, thought, emotion etc, of that mind, is in the mathematical realm, as a set of mind-states.
However, between any two mind-states of M (ms1, ms2.......msx etc), there is no causal connection.
There is no more casual connection between any two of 'my' mind-states, and, say, one of my mind-states and one of yours.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I can tell it's my mother by what she's saying and how she says it.
If she suddenly starts ranting in German about the master-race, then I'm going to suspect soemthing wierd is happening
Given that 'the mind I think I'm communicating with' is a possible one, then, on UToRs account, in which all possible mind-states exist, I can be 100% sure it is real.
Written by: quiet
quote: 'At least with UToR, you have a 100% logical guarantee that the mind-state you are addressing/communicating with, is actually real. As far as I know, no other theory or philosophical account of reality can offer such a guarantee. '
No, Dave, you don't: what you have is a 100% logical guarantee that the mind which you think you're communicating actually exists - but it needn't be attached to the body in front of you. For all you know, on UTOR, when you have the appearance of talking to your mother you are actually communicating with the mind of Adolf Hitler.
I can tell it's my mother by what she's saying and how she says it.
If she suddenly starts ranting in German about the master-race, then I'm going to suspect soemthing wierd is happening
Given that 'the mind I think I'm communicating with' is a possible one, then, on UToRs account, in which all possible mind-states exist, I can be 100% sure it is real.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
Dave, that's straightforwardly wrong. You're playing on an ambiguity in the phrase [?] 'the mind i think i'm communicating with'. Let's take the example of your mother:
i) You think that you're communicating with your mother
ii) But you also think that you're communicating with whoever is in front of you.
iii) In fact, you think that the mind in front of you is the mind of your mother, and not the mind of Adolf Hitler
What UTOR provides no guarantee of is (iii). Why? Because since the mental is independent of the physical, there is simply no guarantee that you're talking to your mother, rather than to Adolf. UTOR does ensure that 'the mind I think I'm communicating with' *exists*; but it doesn't ensure that 'I'm communicating with the mind that I think I'm communicating with.'
I'll put this another way: UTOR argues that your mother's mind is possible, and therefore exists; but, by the same token, it must also argue that Hitler's mind is possible, and therefore exists. Furthermore, it provides no way of choosing between the two.
You think that you can tell who it is by 'what she's saying and how she says it'; but that directly contradicts your earlier claim that, on UTOR, the mental is independent of the physical. Does it not?
Dave, that's straightforwardly wrong. You're playing on an ambiguity in the phrase [?] 'the mind i think i'm communicating with'. Let's take the example of your mother:
i) You think that you're communicating with your mother
ii) But you also think that you're communicating with whoever is in front of you.
iii) In fact, you think that the mind in front of you is the mind of your mother, and not the mind of Adolf Hitler
What UTOR provides no guarantee of is (iii). Why? Because since the mental is independent of the physical, there is simply no guarantee that you're talking to your mother, rather than to Adolf. UTOR does ensure that 'the mind I think I'm communicating with' *exists*; but it doesn't ensure that 'I'm communicating with the mind that I think I'm communicating with.'
I'll put this another way: UTOR argues that your mother's mind is possible, and therefore exists; but, by the same token, it must also argue that Hitler's mind is possible, and therefore exists. Furthermore, it provides no way of choosing between the two.
You think that you can tell who it is by 'what she's saying and how she says it'; but that directly contradicts your earlier claim that, on UTOR, the mental is independent of the physical. Does it not?
ture na sig
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Intresting conjecture, but from reading the thread I think that we lack the philosophical tools to explore it properly without getting bogged down in misunderstandings and getting overrun by crack-pots.
Also, forgive my ignorance, but what is a 'mind state'?
Intresting conjecture, but from reading the thread I think that we lack the philosophical tools to explore it properly without getting bogged down in misunderstandings and getting overrun by crack-pots.
Also, forgive my ignorance, but what is a 'mind state'?
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
veteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
An instantaneous snapshot of your mind it seems. Which is what I meant by "state X" - it's a given mind-state.
An instantaneous snapshot of your mind it seems. Which is what I meant by "state X" - it's a given mind-state.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
What is a 'snapshot' of my mind? Is it being confused with a snapshot of my brain (which would be possable). As far as I know what is called a mind is an 'emergent' (please don't misuse the term
) phenomenon created by the continuous change through our 'brain states' (or whatever they are called)...
What is a 'snapshot' of my mind? Is it being confused with a snapshot of my brain (which would be possable). As far as I know what is called a mind is an 'emergent' (please don't misuse the term
) phenomenon created by the continuous change through our 'brain states' (or whatever they are called)... According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Sorry about this being a double post but what onewheeldave is calling the UToR is similar to something which I indepently thought of a number of years ago whist studying philosophy. I believe onewheeldave's invention predates mine though. Although it is interesting it cannot hold any relevance in the 'external' world which we share for a variety of reasons. I'm not saying it's wrong (although I think that the interpretation the onewheeldave is using is slighly innaccurate) but that it doesn't prove the 'supernatural' in this world. Rather it provides a possible exlaination of why the anything exists at all. It may or may not be true and I'll provide a more in depth analysis of it when I have some spare time.
Untill then I ask that everyone trys to keep there language as simple as possible. Not because I think anyone here is stupid but when you start using jargon and 'big words' in a discussion such as this then confusion about whaat you are trying to say will very rapidly set in. Just look at the previous seven pages for evidence of that.
Sorry about this being a double post but what onewheeldave is calling the UToR is similar to something which I indepently thought of a number of years ago whist studying philosophy. I believe onewheeldave's invention predates mine though. Although it is interesting it cannot hold any relevance in the 'external' world which we share for a variety of reasons. I'm not saying it's wrong (although I think that the interpretation the onewheeldave is using is slighly innaccurate) but that it doesn't prove the 'supernatural' in this world. Rather it provides a possible exlaination of why the anything exists at all. It may or may not be true and I'll provide a more in depth analysis of it when I have some spare time.
Untill then I ask that everyone trys to keep there language as simple as possible. Not because I think anyone here is stupid but when you start using jargon and 'big words' in a discussion such as this then confusion about whaat you are trying to say will very rapidly set in. Just look at the previous seven pages for evidence of that.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I think I see what you're saying- given that both your mothers mind state must, according to UToR, exist, and so must Hitlers- then how can you know which of them is the person in front of you?
The solution is simple, according to UToR, neither of the two mindstates are in front of you.
What is in front, is a patch on your visual field which you interpret as your mothers face (incidently, I'll also stress at this point that it is not physical, it's a visual impression).
There is no mindstate there; neither your mothers or hitlers.
Those two mind-states, along with all others, are 'located' (a dodgy term as the realm has no location in space) in the mathematical realm.
Let me make this very clear, there is absolutely no causal connection between the visual of mothers face you see in front of you, and your mothers mind-state.
You can know 100% that hitler isn't 'behind' her face, because no mind-state is there (including your mothers).
I guess you'll now be thinking 'well, what's the point then, I'm talking to a mindless illusion!'
Literally speaking, yes, you are. But, UToR shows that, in the mathematical realm, the mind-state that you believe yourself to be speaking to, is real. Furthermore, that mindstate is also 'seeing' you (ie it's got a visual impression of your speaking, which also is a pure visual impression ie not a mindstate).
Written by: quiet
Dave, that's straightforwardly wrong. You're playing on an ambiguity in the phrase [?] 'the mind i think i'm communicating with'. Let's take the example of your mother:
i) You think that you're communicating with your mother
ii) But you also think that you're communicating with whoever is in front of you.
iii) In fact, you think that the mind in front of you is the mind of your mother, and not the mind of Adolf Hitler
What UTOR provides no guarantee of is (iii). Why? Because since the mental is independent of the physical, there is simply no guarantee that you're talking to your mother, rather than to Adolf. UTOR does ensure that 'the mind I think I'm communicating with' *exists*; but it doesn't ensure that 'I'm communicating with the mind that I think I'm communicating with.'
I'll put this another way: UTOR argues that your mother's mind is possible, and therefore exists; but, by the same token, it must also argue that Hitler's mind is possible, and therefore exists. Furthermore, it provides no way of choosing between the two.
You think that you can tell who it is by 'what she's saying and how she says it'; but that directly contradicts your earlier claim that, on UTOR, the mental is independent of the physical. Does it not?
I think I see what you're saying- given that both your mothers mind state must, according to UToR, exist, and so must Hitlers- then how can you know which of them is the person in front of you?
The solution is simple, according to UToR, neither of the two mindstates are in front of you.
What is in front, is a patch on your visual field which you interpret as your mothers face (incidently, I'll also stress at this point that it is not physical, it's a visual impression).
There is no mindstate there; neither your mothers or hitlers.
Those two mind-states, along with all others, are 'located' (a dodgy term as the realm has no location in space) in the mathematical realm.
Let me make this very clear, there is absolutely no causal connection between the visual of mothers face you see in front of you, and your mothers mind-state.
You can know 100% that hitler isn't 'behind' her face, because no mind-state is there (including your mothers).
I guess you'll now be thinking 'well, what's the point then, I'm talking to a mindless illusion!'
Literally speaking, yes, you are. But, UToR shows that, in the mathematical realm, the mind-state that you believe yourself to be speaking to, is real. Furthermore, that mindstate is also 'seeing' you (ie it's got a visual impression of your speaking, which also is a pure visual impression ie not a mindstate).
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
We've kept this thread as simple and jargon free as possible, so that it remains accessible.
The only 'tools' needed are a logical mind, and yes, misunderstandings will, and have, arisen.
Through communication, we try to resolve them, and I think it's been a fairly successful process, with the thread now at 9 pages and still keeping on-topic and conflict-free.
It is my faith, and belief; that any philosophical point which is true, can, by one who really understands it, be expressed simply and consisely, without the use of technical terms and obscure references to past thinkers.
Written by: jeff(fake)
Intresting conjecture, but from reading the thread I think that we lack the philosophical tools to explore it properly without getting bogged down in misunderstandings and getting overrun by crack-pots.
We've kept this thread as simple and jargon free as possible, so that it remains accessible.
The only 'tools' needed are a logical mind, and yes, misunderstandings will, and have, arisen.
Through communication, we try to resolve them, and I think it's been a fairly successful process, with the thread now at 9 pages and still keeping on-topic and conflict-free.
It is my faith, and belief; that any philosophical point which is true, can, by one who really understands it, be expressed simply and consisely, without the use of technical terms and obscure references to past thinkers.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
Ok. To me, this is all so counter-intuitive as to count as a major demerit of the theory, as I've said already, but I don't expect that to hold much force as an argument. I'd like you to clarify something:
1. You claim that UTOR ensures that the mind that I think I'm talking to (i.e. my mother, in the above case) exists.
2. But UTOR also allows disembodied minds.
3. So if I *think* I'm having a conversation with the radiator, then the mind which I think the radiator has, must exist.
is (3) right?
Ok. To me, this is all so counter-intuitive as to count as a major demerit of the theory, as I've said already, but I don't expect that to hold much force as an argument. I'd like you to clarify something:
1. You claim that UTOR ensures that the mind that I think I'm talking to (i.e. my mother, in the above case) exists.
2. But UTOR also allows disembodied minds.
3. So if I *think* I'm having a conversation with the radiator, then the mind which I think the radiator has, must exist.
is (3) right?
ture na sig
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
UToR says 'all possible mind states exist'.
Is the mind which you think the radiator has got a possible one? If so, then it does indeed exist.
I think it's safe to say that, in the vast collection of 'all possible mindstates' is one or more that are states which include the visual impression of your face speaking, and which are under the impression that they are the radiator.
Incidently, why are you conversing with a radiator? I can't imagine you'll get much response
UToR says 'all possible mind states exist'.
Is the mind which you think the radiator has got a possible one? If so, then it does indeed exist.
I think it's safe to say that, in the vast collection of 'all possible mindstates' is one or more that are states which include the visual impression of your face speaking, and which are under the impression that they are the radiator.
Incidently, why are you conversing with a radiator? I can't imagine you'll get much response
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
WELL obviously you're talking to the wrong radiators my friend!
WELL obviously you're talking to the wrong radiators my friend!
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
Two questions for Dave:
1. What determines whether the mind which I think the radiator has is a possible one?
2. Can the same 'program' be instantiated (that is, run) on two separate pieces of hardware simultaneously? (it's uncontroversial that you can run the same program on two computers simultaneously. i'm asking whether you can run the same 'mind' on two pieces of hardware simultaneously, to continue with your program analogy)
Two questions for Dave:
1. What determines whether the mind which I think the radiator has is a possible one?
2. Can the same 'program' be instantiated (that is, run) on two separate pieces of hardware simultaneously? (it's uncontroversial that you can run the same program on two computers simultaneously. i'm asking whether you can run the same 'mind' on two pieces of hardware simultaneously, to continue with your program analogy)
ture na sig
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Two unanswered questions; it's a while since I've been on this thread, and I've kind of lost track of where we were, but I'll try to answer them in a relevant way.
Interesting question. I'd be inclined to say that any mind which doesn't contain logical contradictions would be 'possible' minds.
Certainly, it would include any actual minds ie yours.
In terms of the mind which you think the radiator has- is it a mind which doesn't contain logical contradictions? If so then I guess it's a possible mind.
I thought we'd scrapped the hardware analogies, so I'm not sure where you're going with this one.
However, I'll say that I don't see why the same mind can't be run on two seperate pieces of hardware simultaneously.
If, for example we had an actual artificial intelligence enacted on a computer, it would effectively be, just like any program- a file.
That file could be copied onto other hardware- as long as the two 'minds' continued to receive the same I/O data (input/output i.e. 'sense data') they would essentially be in synch, and therefore, presumably, identical.
Two unanswered questions; it's a while since I've been on this thread, and I've kind of lost track of where we were, but I'll try to answer them in a relevant way.
Written by: quiet
1. What determines whether the mind which I think the radiator has is a possible one?
Interesting question. I'd be inclined to say that any mind which doesn't contain logical contradictions would be 'possible' minds.
Certainly, it would include any actual minds ie yours.
In terms of the mind which you think the radiator has- is it a mind which doesn't contain logical contradictions? If so then I guess it's a possible mind.
Written by: quiet
2. Can the same 'program' be instantiated (that is, run) on two separate pieces of hardware simultaneously? (it's uncontroversial that you can run the same program on two computers simultaneously. i'm asking whether you can run the same 'mind' on two pieces of hardware simultaneously, to continue with your program analogy)
I thought we'd scrapped the hardware analogies, so I'm not sure where you're going with this one.
However, I'll say that I don't see why the same mind can't be run on two seperate pieces of hardware simultaneously.
If, for example we had an actual artificial intelligence enacted on a computer, it would effectively be, just like any program- a file.
That file could be copied onto other hardware- as long as the two 'minds' continued to receive the same I/O data (input/output i.e. 'sense data') they would essentially be in synch, and therefore, presumably, identical.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [ultimate theory reality] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > The Ultimate Theory of Reality. [236 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com