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!
analytic
503 posts
Location: bristol
503 posts
Location: bristol
Posted:
. . . UTOR: 'there is no moving now-point, no time-line, no time and no change. '
- so my contention is that this cannot give the appearance of change, as argued above.
this is Kant's point: consciousness necessarily has the appearance of change, but you cannot have the appearance of change without time.
. . . UTOR: 'there is no moving now-point, no time-line, no time and no change. '
- so my contention is that this cannot give the appearance of change, as argued above.
this is Kant's point: consciousness necessarily has the appearance of change, but you cannot have the appearance of change without time.
ture na sig
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
So you're saying that the appearance of change requires actual change?
I understand that point of view; however I'm not sure what your argument for it is.
You've definitly stated the point of view; but I'm not aware of you actually putting forward a case for the fact that we can't have the appearance of change without also having actual change.
Apologies if you have done so and I've missed it, in which case perhaps you could quote the relevant section.
(in regard to your quote above-
I agree that the moviing now-point does indeed require actual change, but do remember that the 'moving now-point' model ('A-series') timeline was what I considered your view of time to be.
It's certainly not the UTOR view of time; according to UTOR there is no moving now-point.)
Written by: quiet
. . . UTOR: 'there is no moving now-point, no time-line, no time and no change. '
- so my contention is that this cannot give the appearance of change, as argued above.
this is Kant's point: consciousness necessarily has the appearance of change, but you cannot have the appearance of change without time.
Written by: quiet
ii) You talk of the 'now-point' moving in the atemporal mathematical realm. But motion itself requires time: 'movement' is 'displacement / time', or 'change of displacement', etc: and, ex hypothesi, the mathematical realm is atemporal. So the 'now-point' cannot move around in the mathematical realm.
Written by: quiet
the problem is that IN ORDER FOR THE PERSPECTIVE TO CHANGE (or move, etc), you need to talk about TIME. Hence you can't even get the *appearance* of change in a timeless, unchanging realm.
So you're saying that the appearance of change requires actual change?
I understand that point of view; however I'm not sure what your argument for it is.
You've definitly stated the point of view; but I'm not aware of you actually putting forward a case for the fact that we can't have the appearance of change without also having actual change.
Apologies if you have done so and I've missed it, in which case perhaps you could quote the relevant section.
(in regard to your quote above-
Written by: quiet
ii) You talk of the 'now-point' moving in the atemporal mathematical realm. But motion itself requires time: 'movement' is 'displacement / time', or 'change of displacement', etc: and, ex hypothesi, the mathematical realm is atemporal. So the 'now-point' cannot move around in the mathematical realm.
I agree that the moviing now-point does indeed require actual change, but do remember that the 'moving now-point' model ('A-series') timeline was what I considered your view of time to be.
It's certainly not the UTOR view of time; according to UTOR there is no moving now-point.)
"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:
'So you're saying that the appearance of change requires actual change?
Ok, so let me check (again):
1. in UTOR, it's all laid out in an unchanging sequence.
2. now if you look at any one point in this sequence, it will be different to another point.
3. *apparent* change occurs when you look at one moment, and then at another. the two moments are different, and this difference is the apparent change, _even though nothing has changed_ . . .?
HERE IS THE ARGUMENT:
1. in order to have 'apparent change' you need to observe one point, and THEN another. otherwise the sequence would be indeterminate: if you observe A and B simultaneously, you can't be sure which way the change is running.
2. but this requires TIME: as I said two posts ago,
'the problem is that IN ORDER FOR THE PERSPECTIVE TO CHANGE (or move, etc), you need to talk about TIME. Hence you can't even get the *appearance* of change in a timeless, unchanging realm. '
that is to say, the entire notion of 'change' relies on the notion of ONE STATE OF AFFAIRS (A) becoming another (B). But unless there's a time sequence, you can't tell whether A is changing into B, or vice versa. So the notion of change relies on time, and this applies to everything, whether it's the _perspective_ or the displacement etc.
Does that make sense, and do you think it constitutes an argument?
'But that's not the problem: the problem is that IN ORDER FOR THE PERSPECTIVE TO CHANGE (or move, etc), you need to talk about TIME. Hence you can't even get the *appearance* of change in a timeless, unchanging realm.
'So you're saying that the appearance of change requires actual change?
Ok, so let me check (again):
1. in UTOR, it's all laid out in an unchanging sequence.
2. now if you look at any one point in this sequence, it will be different to another point.
3. *apparent* change occurs when you look at one moment, and then at another. the two moments are different, and this difference is the apparent change, _even though nothing has changed_ . . .?
HERE IS THE ARGUMENT:
1. in order to have 'apparent change' you need to observe one point, and THEN another. otherwise the sequence would be indeterminate: if you observe A and B simultaneously, you can't be sure which way the change is running.
2. but this requires TIME: as I said two posts ago,
'the problem is that IN ORDER FOR THE PERSPECTIVE TO CHANGE (or move, etc), you need to talk about TIME. Hence you can't even get the *appearance* of change in a timeless, unchanging realm. '
that is to say, the entire notion of 'change' relies on the notion of ONE STATE OF AFFAIRS (A) becoming another (B). But unless there's a time sequence, you can't tell whether A is changing into B, or vice versa. So the notion of change relies on time, and this applies to everything, whether it's the _perspective_ or the displacement etc.
Does that make sense, and do you think it constitutes an argument?
'But that's not the problem: the problem is that IN ORDER FOR THE PERSPECTIVE TO CHANGE (or move, etc), you need to talk about TIME. Hence you can't even get the *appearance* of change in a timeless, unchanging realm.
ture na sig
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I agree that change necesitates one state of affairs becoming another.
However, the appearance of change is not the same as actual change, and I see no reason why the appearance of change requires one state of affairs becoming another.
A murder requires that someone is killed; the appearance of a murder (ie a faked killing) does not.
Just because 'x' requires 'y'; it does not necessarily follow that the appearance of 'x' also requires 'y'.
I don't think that this applies to the scenario UTOR proposes; certainly there is no external observer (ie external to the actual consciousness in question) involved; and, as i have previously argued, from the perspective of the consciousness in question, no actual change is involved.
ie 'state of mind A' and 'state of mind B' (and in fact all other states of mind possible) exist at once in the timeless realm.
Ther is no problem determining whether A comes before B, becasue there is no before/after.
I agree that change necesitates one state of affairs becoming another.
However, the appearance of change is not the same as actual change, and I see no reason why the appearance of change requires one state of affairs becoming another.
A murder requires that someone is killed; the appearance of a murder (ie a faked killing) does not.
Just because 'x' requires 'y'; it does not necessarily follow that the appearance of 'x' also requires 'y'.
Written by: quiet
HERE IS THE ARGUMENT:
1. in order to have 'apparent change' you need to observe one point, and THEN another. otherwise the sequence would be indeterminate: if you observe A and B simultaneously, you can't be sure which way the change is running.
2. but this requires TIME: as I said two posts ago,
I don't think that this applies to the scenario UTOR proposes; certainly there is no external observer (ie external to the actual consciousness in question) involved; and, as i have previously argued, from the perspective of the consciousness in question, no actual change is involved.
ie 'state of mind A' and 'state of mind B' (and in fact all other states of mind possible) exist at once in the timeless realm.
Ther is no problem determining whether A comes before B, becasue there is no before/after.
"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 elaborate on that-
the moment of your birth, and the moment of your death, exist in the timeless mathematical realm, simultaeonously (to the extent that this has meaning in a timeless realm).
In actuality, one does not preceed the other.
To elaborate on that-
the moment of your birth, and the moment of your death, exist in the timeless mathematical realm, simultaeonously (to the extent that this has meaning in a timeless realm).
In actuality, one does not preceed the other.
"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:
'However, the appearance of change is not the same as actual change, and I see no reason why the appearance of change requires one state of affairs becoming another.'
look:
1. the appearance of change requires that you have two different appearances: that is, that you have a change of appearances.
2. if those appearances are simultaneous, then there can be no sequence to them.
3. but change entails sequence: 'A THEN B', or 'A BECOMES B', or 'A changes into B', for instance.
put another way:
i) The appearance of change itself requires change: the appearance of change is a matter of a change in appearances.
you still unconvinced?
'However, the appearance of change is not the same as actual change, and I see no reason why the appearance of change requires one state of affairs becoming another.'
look:
1. the appearance of change requires that you have two different appearances: that is, that you have a change of appearances.
2. if those appearances are simultaneous, then there can be no sequence to them.
3. but change entails sequence: 'A THEN B', or 'A BECOMES B', or 'A changes into B', for instance.
put another way:
i) The appearance of change itself requires change: the appearance of change is a matter of a change in appearances.
you still unconvinced?
ture na sig
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Indeed, two different appearances are necessary- but they are simultaneous (in the sense that it is not the case that they happen at different times).
And, for that reason, in the mathematical realm, there is indeed no sequence.
IMO you're getting involved in some dodgy linguistics there- I disagree totally that the 'appearance of change' is a matter of a 'change in appearances'.
That is no more the case than the 'appearance of a murder' being a matter of the 'murder of an appearance'
very much so
Written by: quiet
look:
1. the appearance of change requires that you have two different appearances: that is, that you have a change of appearances.
2. if those appearances are simultaneous, then there can be no sequence to them.
3. but change entails sequence: 'A THEN B', or 'A BECOMES B', or 'A changes into B', for instance.
Indeed, two different appearances are necessary- but they are simultaneous (in the sense that it is not the case that they happen at different times).
And, for that reason, in the mathematical realm, there is indeed no sequence.
Written by: quiet
put another way:
i) The appearance of change itself requires change: the appearance of change is a matter of a change in appearances.
IMO you're getting involved in some dodgy linguistics there- I disagree totally that the 'appearance of change' is a matter of a 'change in appearances'.
That is no more the case than the 'appearance of a murder' being a matter of the 'murder of an appearance'
Written by: quiet
you still unconvinced?
very much so
"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:
'IMO you're getting involved in some dodgy linguistics there- I disagree totally that the 'appearance of change' is a matter of a 'change in appearances'.
That is no more the case than the 'appearance of a murder' being a matter of the 'murder of an appearance''
---
This isn't right. I'm not playing word games. My point is strictly logical:
0. 'Change' = 'at least two different states of affairs in sequence.'
1. The 'appearance of change' = 'the appearance of (at least two different states of affairs in sequence)'
BUT
2. 'the appearance of (at least two different states of affairs in sequence) = at least two different appearances of states of affairs in sequence' (by expansion)
hence
3. (from 1 & 2) 'the appearance of change' = 'at least two different appearances of states of affairs in sequence'
BUT
4. There is no sequence in the mathematical realm.
THEREFORE
5. There is no appearance of change in the mathematical realm.
and hence
5b. consciousness - to which there is the appearance of change - does not exist in the mathematical realm.
If you want the formal structure of that argument expanded, I'm happy to do so. I think it's sound, however.
'IMO you're getting involved in some dodgy linguistics there- I disagree totally that the 'appearance of change' is a matter of a 'change in appearances'.
That is no more the case than the 'appearance of a murder' being a matter of the 'murder of an appearance''
---
This isn't right. I'm not playing word games. My point is strictly logical:
0. 'Change' = 'at least two different states of affairs in sequence.'
1. The 'appearance of change' = 'the appearance of (at least two different states of affairs in sequence)'
BUT
2. 'the appearance of (at least two different states of affairs in sequence) = at least two different appearances of states of affairs in sequence' (by expansion)
hence
3. (from 1 & 2) 'the appearance of change' = 'at least two different appearances of states of affairs in sequence'
BUT
4. There is no sequence in the mathematical realm.
THEREFORE
5. There is no appearance of change in the mathematical realm.
and hence
5b. consciousness - to which there is the appearance of change - does not exist in the mathematical realm.
If you want the formal structure of that argument expanded, I'm happy to do so. I think it's sound, however.
ture na sig
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
The unchanging mathematical realm, or unchanging universe, or deterministic universe I think you might be able to draw from this as well, does not need to change. However the perception of it does change. You might be able to reduce time to "change of perception in consciousness" instead of getting rid of it completely, couldn't you?
But then that would entail something that changes, which (by UTOR) arrises from something that doesn't... Arguments for an unchanging God get hung up on this too. Or you could take it the dualistic route and relegate things to the "mathematical realm" and the "mental realm", but I think that allows more than UToR would survive...
===
Put another way, lets say you have a cube. As YOU rotate around the cube, the appearance changes, without the cube having changed location, angle, etc. However, because this is RELATIONAL for there to be any change, or appearance of change, there MUST be a change in one of the two, subject or object.
Arguably, for UToR though, the appearance of change does NOT entail a change in either one (materially at least, but there is still a change in perception). Take for instance a DRAWN cube. Without subject of object moving or changing (again, except for the perceptual change), one can view it in two different ways simply by changing the perception of which square is in front.
But that's still a change. Unless you want to relegate mental / perceptual states to differing rules regarding change. What I'm reading here, and I may be wrong about how your seeing this Dave, is that the object of perception needs not change for there to be appearance of perception in the subject. But this relegates consciousness to a wholly different set of functional rules. It may be a "line of perceptions" or something like that, a written program if you will, but there is still the moving now point. In essence: how do you explain the appearance of the now-point, without change?
Also, if the now-point is not moving, specifically from past to future, then how do you explain the fact that we can remember the past, but not the future? After all, if the program of consciousness is already written, and timeless, than the whole of the program should be available to view, shouldn't it? There is SOMETHING moving in this system to give the appearance of change, even if its only change in perception.
Unless of course changes in perception are written into the program of consciousness completely as well. How exactly is time done away with here, given appearances?
The unchanging mathematical realm, or unchanging universe, or deterministic universe I think you might be able to draw from this as well, does not need to change. However the perception of it does change. You might be able to reduce time to "change of perception in consciousness" instead of getting rid of it completely, couldn't you?
But then that would entail something that changes, which (by UTOR) arrises from something that doesn't... Arguments for an unchanging God get hung up on this too. Or you could take it the dualistic route and relegate things to the "mathematical realm" and the "mental realm", but I think that allows more than UToR would survive...
===
Put another way, lets say you have a cube. As YOU rotate around the cube, the appearance changes, without the cube having changed location, angle, etc. However, because this is RELATIONAL for there to be any change, or appearance of change, there MUST be a change in one of the two, subject or object.
Arguably, for UToR though, the appearance of change does NOT entail a change in either one (materially at least, but there is still a change in perception). Take for instance a DRAWN cube. Without subject of object moving or changing (again, except for the perceptual change), one can view it in two different ways simply by changing the perception of which square is in front.
But that's still a change. Unless you want to relegate mental / perceptual states to differing rules regarding change. What I'm reading here, and I may be wrong about how your seeing this Dave, is that the object of perception needs not change for there to be appearance of perception in the subject. But this relegates consciousness to a wholly different set of functional rules. It may be a "line of perceptions" or something like that, a written program if you will, but there is still the moving now point. In essence: how do you explain the appearance of the now-point, without change?
Also, if the now-point is not moving, specifically from past to future, then how do you explain the fact that we can remember the past, but not the future? After all, if the program of consciousness is already written, and timeless, than the whole of the program should be available to view, shouldn't it? There is SOMETHING moving in this system to give the appearance of change, even if its only change in perception.
Unless of course changes in perception are written into the program of consciousness completely as well. How exactly is time done away with here, given appearances?
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Addressing Quiets argument-
Let's take a solid example of 'change', and look at it from both perspectives (yours and UToRs).
'X' looks at a light bulb and observes it to be 'on'; immediately after X observes it to be 'off'.
That's a change- the light bulb has changed (from on to off).
For what we're discussing, the change of the bulb isn't relevant- it's the change in X's mind-state (as, according to UTOR, the only relevant things are mind-states in the mathematical realm).
Nevertheless, from your viewpoint, there is 'change', as initially X was in the mind state of seeing a 'on' bulb, and went to a state of seeing an 'off' bulb- ie, genuine change.
I'll call those two mind states 'M1' and 'M2'.
And now, the same state of affairs but from the UTOR perspective.
In a mathematical, timeless realm, exist all possible mind-states, including those of individual 'X'.
Specifically, M1 and M2 exist- they do so simultaneously (in the sense that they do not occur at different times), necessarily so as there is no time in the mathematical realm.
Despite this lack of temporality, all relevant aspects that are real in your viewpoint, are also real in UToRs ie there exist two different mind states, one of which is M1 (X observing the bulb to be on, and M2 (X observing the bulb to be off).
Addressing your well-structured argument above; I'm disagreeing with premise 1-
because, as I have tried to show above, the appearance of change can be accounted for by two different states of affairs, which do not need to occur at different points in time.
Addressing Quiets argument-
Let's take a solid example of 'change', and look at it from both perspectives (yours and UToRs).
'X' looks at a light bulb and observes it to be 'on'; immediately after X observes it to be 'off'.
That's a change- the light bulb has changed (from on to off).
For what we're discussing, the change of the bulb isn't relevant- it's the change in X's mind-state (as, according to UTOR, the only relevant things are mind-states in the mathematical realm).
Nevertheless, from your viewpoint, there is 'change', as initially X was in the mind state of seeing a 'on' bulb, and went to a state of seeing an 'off' bulb- ie, genuine change.
I'll call those two mind states 'M1' and 'M2'.
And now, the same state of affairs but from the UTOR perspective.
In a mathematical, timeless realm, exist all possible mind-states, including those of individual 'X'.
Specifically, M1 and M2 exist- they do so simultaneously (in the sense that they do not occur at different times), necessarily so as there is no time in the mathematical realm.
Despite this lack of temporality, all relevant aspects that are real in your viewpoint, are also real in UToRs ie there exist two different mind states, one of which is M1 (X observing the bulb to be on, and M2 (X observing the bulb to be off).
Addressing your well-structured argument above; I'm disagreeing with premise 1-
Written by: quiet
1. 'the appearance of (at least two different states of affairs in sequence) = at least two different appearances of states of affairs in sequence' (by expansion)
because, as I have tried to show above, the appearance of change can be accounted for by two different states of affairs, which do not need to occur at different points in time.
"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:
i8beefy2
- I think my post above may make clear my position on some of the points you raise.
There are different states of affairs in the UToR account, in fact every possible state of consciousness is in existence there- it's just that they all exist in one instant, there is no past and future.
As for how that can account for our experience of past and furure- that is a problem for any account if you look into it deeply, including those which have a flow of time (many modern physicists are currently puzzling over why we remember the past and not the future).
We're talking about consciousness here- it's my belief that understanding consciousness (including consciousness of experiencing temporality) is beyond us. IMO, however much we understand about consciousness, we will never be able to see how it arises with anything like the understanding we can have of, say, how an alarm clock works.
Hiwever, I will say this- if the standard view of time and reality (ie 'a-series' and the existence of a physical temporal world) does account for our experience, then, IMO, so must UToR.
This is because all the instantaneous moments of consciousness that are real in the standard view, exist in the mathematical realm- the exact same instants of consciousness.
From this it follows that we (in UtoRs mathematical realm) experience the exact same reality.
i8beefy2
- I think my post above may make clear my position on some of the points you raise.
There are different states of affairs in the UToR account, in fact every possible state of consciousness is in existence there- it's just that they all exist in one instant, there is no past and future.
As for how that can account for our experience of past and furure- that is a problem for any account if you look into it deeply, including those which have a flow of time (many modern physicists are currently puzzling over why we remember the past and not the future).
We're talking about consciousness here- it's my belief that understanding consciousness (including consciousness of experiencing temporality) is beyond us. IMO, however much we understand about consciousness, we will never be able to see how it arises with anything like the understanding we can have of, say, how an alarm clock works.
Hiwever, I will say this- if the standard view of time and reality (ie 'a-series' and the existence of a physical temporal world) does account for our experience, then, IMO, so must UToR.
This is because all the instantaneous moments of consciousness that are real in the standard view, exist in the mathematical realm- the exact same instants of consciousness.
From this it follows that we (in UtoRs mathematical realm) experience the exact same reality.
"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:
owd, you still haven't addressed my argument ^^
like i say, i think it's sound: if you can identify any false premisses or invalid moves, please feel free to point 'em out.
i know there are different states of affairs in UTOR: my point was just that there is no sequence (since it's atemporal), and that is not sufficient for even the appearance of change.
could you address this please?
owd, you still haven't addressed my argument ^^
like i say, i think it's sound: if you can identify any false premisses or invalid moves, please feel free to point 'em out.
i know there are different states of affairs in UTOR: my point was just that there is no sequence (since it's atemporal), and that is not sufficient for even the appearance of change.
could you address this please?
ture na sig
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
But that still does not account for the differences between point M1 and M2. There is still a change in mind state. What is that change? Why do we experience M1 or M2, and not both at the same time then?
What I mean to say here is, there is the mathematical realm that is eternal and unchanging. This is the fundamental underlying reality that gives rise to everything in existence, including consciousness, no? Or rather, it IS everything since it is unchanging and thus can't "give rise" to anything? What all does "consciousness" encompass here? Is it only the observer, or are we including in that all mental events / perceptions?
If the mathematical realm is unchanging, then even the appearance of change is impossible, because the appearance itself REQUIRES a change in the observer. If the mathematical realm is all there is (if I'm reading you right), then that is fundamentally impossible. Even if both mental states exist, there is still a change between the two for the subject.
It seems like consciousness is almost seperated from the mathematical, unchanging. Like the observer is looking AT the realm instead of being part OF it. Even if it is, and changes in perception are like my 2D cube example, there is still a change in the OBSERVER even though there is no change in the object. It sounds almost like dualism, because I can't see how the observer is included within the unchanging mathematical realm...
But then you have to account for how the eternal yeilds up the changing THING that I can't see you getting rid of. You could have a multidimensional universe (time being reduced to a dimension then that we travel) that is eternal and change occurs because of some kind of temporal now-point moving along the time dimension... but the "now-point" changes. If consciousness is what changes, your just passing the buck to it instead of time. And THEN you have the problem of accounting for the similarity of experience/perception between different individuals.
What accounts for the appearance of change, since if BOTH events are present, we only experience them one at a time instead of both at the same time?
But that still does not account for the differences between point M1 and M2. There is still a change in mind state. What is that change? Why do we experience M1 or M2, and not both at the same time then?
What I mean to say here is, there is the mathematical realm that is eternal and unchanging. This is the fundamental underlying reality that gives rise to everything in existence, including consciousness, no? Or rather, it IS everything since it is unchanging and thus can't "give rise" to anything? What all does "consciousness" encompass here? Is it only the observer, or are we including in that all mental events / perceptions?
If the mathematical realm is unchanging, then even the appearance of change is impossible, because the appearance itself REQUIRES a change in the observer. If the mathematical realm is all there is (if I'm reading you right), then that is fundamentally impossible. Even if both mental states exist, there is still a change between the two for the subject.
It seems like consciousness is almost seperated from the mathematical, unchanging. Like the observer is looking AT the realm instead of being part OF it. Even if it is, and changes in perception are like my 2D cube example, there is still a change in the OBSERVER even though there is no change in the object. It sounds almost like dualism, because I can't see how the observer is included within the unchanging mathematical realm...
But then you have to account for how the eternal yeilds up the changing THING that I can't see you getting rid of. You could have a multidimensional universe (time being reduced to a dimension then that we travel) that is eternal and change occurs because of some kind of temporal now-point moving along the time dimension... but the "now-point" changes. If consciousness is what changes, your just passing the buck to it instead of time. And THEN you have the problem of accounting for the similarity of experience/perception between different individuals.
What accounts for the appearance of change, since if BOTH events are present, we only experience them one at a time instead of both at the same time?
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I thought I had. Presumably the argument you're talking about is-
0 is fine, 1 is fine (depending on the linguistic quibble mentioned earlier), and I dispute 2 (sorry, in my previous post I messed up the quote and called it 1).
"2. 'the appearance of (at least two different states of affairs in sequence) = at least two different appearances of states of affairs in sequence' (by expansion)
hence"
IMO, the appearance of change (two different.......affairs in sequence) does not require at least two different appearances of affairs in sequence.
It does, on the UToR account involve two different instances of mind-states- but they are not in sequence- they occur simulateously (in the sense that they do not happen at different times).
So, concerning your argument, I dispute 2, on the grounds that it assumes the very thing it claims to prove.
Written by: quiet
owd, you still haven't addressed my argument ^^
like i say, i think it's sound: if you can identify any false premisses or invalid moves, please feel free to point 'em out.
i know there are different states of affairs in UTOR: my point was just that there is no sequence (since it's atemporal), and that is not sufficient for even the appearance of change.
could you address this please?
I thought I had. Presumably the argument you're talking about is-
Written by: quiet
0. 'Change' = 'at least two different states of affairs in sequence.'
1. The 'appearance of change' = 'the appearance of (at least two different states of affairs in sequence)'
BUT
2. 'the appearance of (at least two different states of affairs in sequence) = at least two different appearances of states of affairs in sequence' (by expansion)
hence
3. (from 1 & 2) 'the appearance of change' = 'at least two different appearances of states of affairs in sequence'
BUT
4. There is no sequence in the mathematical realm.
THEREFORE
5. There is no appearance of change in the mathematical realm.
and hence
5b. consciousness - to which there is the appearance of change - does not exist in the mathematical realm.
0 is fine, 1 is fine (depending on the linguistic quibble mentioned earlier), and I dispute 2 (sorry, in my previous post I messed up the quote and called it 1).
"2. 'the appearance of (at least two different states of affairs in sequence) = at least two different appearances of states of affairs in sequence' (by expansion)
hence"
IMO, the appearance of change (two different.......affairs in sequence) does not require at least two different appearances of affairs in sequence.
It does, on the UToR account involve two different instances of mind-states- but they are not in sequence- they occur simulateously (in the sense that they do not happen at different times).
So, concerning your argument, I dispute 2, on the grounds that it assumes the very thing it claims to prove.
"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:
The difference between M1 and M2, is that in M1 the observed light bulb is on, and in M2 it is off; that's the difference, and the only difference.
We don't experience them at the same time because that would be a different mind-state; let's call it M3.
Why is it different to M1 and M2? Because it involves the bulb being both on and off- thus it is obviously not M1 (where the bulb is on) and obviously not M2 (where the bulb is off).
On the UToR account there is simply a huge collection of mind-states- 'instants of awareness', in fact every possible instantaneous mind-state.
There is no more causal connection between any two of 'my' mind-states than there is between one of mine and one of yours.
I would no more experience all my mind states at the same time than I would experience your mind states.
Written by: i8beefy2
But that still does not account for the differences between point M1 and M2. There is still a change in mind state. What is that change? Why do we experience M1 or M2, and not both at the same time then?
The difference between M1 and M2, is that in M1 the observed light bulb is on, and in M2 it is off; that's the difference, and the only difference.
We don't experience them at the same time because that would be a different mind-state; let's call it M3.
Why is it different to M1 and M2? Because it involves the bulb being both on and off- thus it is obviously not M1 (where the bulb is on) and obviously not M2 (where the bulb is off).
On the UToR account there is simply a huge collection of mind-states- 'instants of awareness', in fact every possible instantaneous mind-state.
There is no more causal connection between any two of 'my' mind-states than there is between one of mine and one of yours.
I would no more experience all my mind states at the same time than I would experience your mind states.
"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:
OWD - re:
'owd, you still haven't addressed my argument ^^'
i don't know about the timestamps, but i must have written that before you posted your response - which was clearly addressing my argument.
anyhow, i think i now know what we're taking issue over, to wit:
'the appearance of (at least two different states of affairs in sequence) = at least two different appearances of states of affairs in sequence'
You think that this begs the question, I think that it's a conceptual truth. So I'm not really sure how to continue. Perhaps a question: how can you get the appearance of change without a sequence of appearances? Specifically, in the timeless, mathematical realm, what determines whether the appearance is of A changing into B, or of B changing into A?
OWD - re:
'owd, you still haven't addressed my argument ^^'
i don't know about the timestamps, but i must have written that before you posted your response - which was clearly addressing my argument.
anyhow, i think i now know what we're taking issue over, to wit:
'the appearance of (at least two different states of affairs in sequence) = at least two different appearances of states of affairs in sequence'
You think that this begs the question, I think that it's a conceptual truth. So I'm not really sure how to continue. Perhaps a question: how can you get the appearance of change without a sequence of appearances? Specifically, in the timeless, mathematical realm, what determines whether the appearance is of A changing into B, or of B changing into A?
ture na sig
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I'm saying it begs the question because one of the premises contains the assumption that the appearance of change requires actual change- as such it can't be used to prove that the appearance of change requires actual change.
I'll throw the question back at you- in your world model of time and sequential events, from the perspective of individual X, how can he/she determine whether the appearance is of A changing into B, or of B changing into A?
Easy- if B comes after A then it must be A changing into B.
But...from the perspective of X, we have M1 (the mind-state of observing A) and M2 (the mind-state of observing B).
With M2, how is it known by X that A happened previously? X cannot directly access A, as it is in the past and no longer exists.
Only by the memory of M1 can X (at M2) determine the past nature of A.
Do you agree?
If so, then the same holds in the UToR worldview ie M1 and M2 exist (simultaneously, in the sense that they don't exist at different times), and M2, being totally identical to the M2 in your world view, has that special characteristic/feeling that we know as memory.
Now I'm not going to claim that UToR can explain the appearance of time and change particularly well; there's no reason why it should, it was designed to expain something which no other theory, to my knowledge, has ever attempted (at least by using coherent logic) ie the super-ultimate question of why there is something rather than nothing.
As such we can hardly expect it to explain the exact means by which the stupendous complexities of consciousness, perception and temporal experience occur.
But I would say that, in that respect, it is no more lacking than any other world view, including the ones you seem to support that rely on concepts like time flowing.
The advantage of UToR, IMO, is that it explains reality whilst stripping away complexities like a-series time.
I've argued above that a-series time (ie view that time 'flows') actually does not expain anything, particularly things like 'change'.
It (a-series time) also has some some fundamental inconsistencies.
For example, it claims to explain change and flow of time, yet it does so by postulating a moving 'now-point' (the present moment; which therefore itself involves change.
Now if change requires an external moving now-point, how do we explain the change that occurs to the now-point?
Either we require a further external time to measure it relative to (and hence commence an infinite series of extra time-lines), or, the change of the now-point does not require an external time-line; if that is the case then why did the initial set of changes require the existence of the now-point in the first place?
I'm saying it begs the question because one of the premises contains the assumption that the appearance of change requires actual change- as such it can't be used to prove that the appearance of change requires actual change.
Written by: quiet
Perhaps a question: how can you get the appearance of change without a sequence of appearances? Specifically, in the timeless, mathematical realm, what determines whether the appearance is of A changing into B, or of B changing into A?
I'll throw the question back at you- in your world model of time and sequential events, from the perspective of individual X, how can he/she determine whether the appearance is of A changing into B, or of B changing into A?
Easy- if B comes after A then it must be A changing into B.
But...from the perspective of X, we have M1 (the mind-state of observing A) and M2 (the mind-state of observing B).
With M2, how is it known by X that A happened previously? X cannot directly access A, as it is in the past and no longer exists.
Only by the memory of M1 can X (at M2) determine the past nature of A.
Do you agree?
If so, then the same holds in the UToR worldview ie M1 and M2 exist (simultaneously, in the sense that they don't exist at different times), and M2, being totally identical to the M2 in your world view, has that special characteristic/feeling that we know as memory.
Now I'm not going to claim that UToR can explain the appearance of time and change particularly well; there's no reason why it should, it was designed to expain something which no other theory, to my knowledge, has ever attempted (at least by using coherent logic) ie the super-ultimate question of why there is something rather than nothing.
As such we can hardly expect it to explain the exact means by which the stupendous complexities of consciousness, perception and temporal experience occur.
But I would say that, in that respect, it is no more lacking than any other world view, including the ones you seem to support that rely on concepts like time flowing.
The advantage of UToR, IMO, is that it explains reality whilst stripping away complexities like a-series time.
I've argued above that a-series time (ie view that time 'flows') actually does not expain anything, particularly things like 'change'.
It (a-series time) also has some some fundamental inconsistencies.
For example, it claims to explain change and flow of time, yet it does so by postulating a moving 'now-point' (the present moment; which therefore itself involves change.
Now if change requires an external moving now-point, how do we explain the change that occurs to the now-point?
Either we require a further external time to measure it relative to (and hence commence an infinite series of extra time-lines), or, the change of the now-point does not require an external time-line; if that is the case then why did the initial set of changes require the existence of the now-point in the first place?
"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:
It does attempt to answer the Big Why question, but it also has several consequences that need explaining me thinks. And I don't think your theory about the Mathematical Realm is too much different from the Realm of the Forms in Plato, actually, just a little tweaked... we're just defining a different kind of necessary being (Which I already pointed out a long time ago I don't think is necessary, or at least has no existence without a universe of relations, a catch-22)
So, I think UToR SHOULD have to explain time too, as several of the logical inconsitencies lie strongly in that area.
Specifically, how do you explain experience? Period? I mean without a change from mindstate to mindstate, a REAL CHANGE, then there is no difference between the two. Experience and time are closely related, because experience entails a change between mindstates in a (semi-)linear fashion. In an unchanging universe, this is simply impossible, is it not?
For example, lets say all things are unchanging except one particle. Then we have time, because time is a change of relation. Without, we have no time, no experience, no perception to explain... At LEAST one thing must be changing. Perceptually, I think much more is changing, unless consciousness is the only thing changing, but the problem remains: something is changing.
Put another way, if the universe is all one, AND is unchanging, then how can only certain aspects of that whole be activated to give the guise of experience / time? Now I think your thinking (and of course I may be wrong) that if all time happens at the same time, then every mindstate, regardless of contradictory content, happens at the same time, or simply IS all at once.
I just don't see how this can work out right unless something that is NOT changeless is incorporated, and that requires something fundamentally different from your realm, and would still require explanation which I don't see coming from the UToR in its present state...
And aren't there experiments where effect precedes cause? Something to do with wave functions and string theory and instantaneous change or something? I think it was in a paper about "The Universe as a Hollogram" or something I read once...
It does attempt to answer the Big Why question, but it also has several consequences that need explaining me thinks. And I don't think your theory about the Mathematical Realm is too much different from the Realm of the Forms in Plato, actually, just a little tweaked... we're just defining a different kind of necessary being (Which I already pointed out a long time ago I don't think is necessary, or at least has no existence without a universe of relations, a catch-22)
So, I think UToR SHOULD have to explain time too, as several of the logical inconsitencies lie strongly in that area.
Specifically, how do you explain experience? Period? I mean without a change from mindstate to mindstate, a REAL CHANGE, then there is no difference between the two. Experience and time are closely related, because experience entails a change between mindstates in a (semi-)linear fashion. In an unchanging universe, this is simply impossible, is it not?
For example, lets say all things are unchanging except one particle. Then we have time, because time is a change of relation. Without, we have no time, no experience, no perception to explain... At LEAST one thing must be changing. Perceptually, I think much more is changing, unless consciousness is the only thing changing, but the problem remains: something is changing.
Put another way, if the universe is all one, AND is unchanging, then how can only certain aspects of that whole be activated to give the guise of experience / time? Now I think your thinking (and of course I may be wrong) that if all time happens at the same time, then every mindstate, regardless of contradictory content, happens at the same time, or simply IS all at once.
I just don't see how this can work out right unless something that is NOT changeless is incorporated, and that requires something fundamentally different from your realm, and would still require explanation which I don't see coming from the UToR in its present state...
And aren't there experiments where effect precedes cause? Something to do with wave functions and string theory and instantaneous change or something? I think it was in a paper about "The Universe as a Hollogram" or something I read once...
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I've really said it all in my previous recent posts, so it may be a good idea to have a look over them again.
Mindstates- M1 is aged 5 you looking at a clock, M2 is you aged 23 looking at a lake- that's two very different mindstates; the fact that they don't occur on a time line some distance apart, is not relevant.
Concerning: -
IMO, UToR shouldn't have to explain time as it specifically states that reality is a timeless realm.
UToR has looked at time (a-series time/time involving actual change), and found it lacking. Specifically that it lacks-
1. logical consistency
2. explanatory power (as I previously argued, the notion of flowing time fails to explain any aspects of our experience of reality)
3. All aspects of our experience of reality that supposedly are explained by a-series time, are all covered by the view that UToR expresses (b-series/unchanging)
Flowing time (in the UToR view) is unecessary to explain reality, and, more than that, time flowing time cannot be; here's the relevant quote-
--------------
I feel that I've explained as fully as I can why temporal change is not necessary to explain our experience of reality.
Perhaps more fruitful discussion could result if you were to give evidence for the existence of temporal change (other than the fact that things seem to you to change temporaly.
I've really said it all in my previous recent posts, so it may be a good idea to have a look over them again.
Written by: i8beefy2
Specifically, how do you explain experience? Period? I mean without a change from mindstate to mindstate, a REAL CHANGE, then there is no difference between the two. Experience and time are closely related, because experience entails a change between mindstates in a (semi-)linear fashion. In an unchanging universe, this is simply impossible, is it not?
Mindstates- M1 is aged 5 you looking at a clock, M2 is you aged 23 looking at a lake- that's two very different mindstates; the fact that they don't occur on a time line some distance apart, is not relevant.
Concerning: -
Written by: i8beefy2
Specifically, how do you explain experience? Period? I mean without a change from mindstate to mindstate, a REAL CHANGE, then there is no difference between the two. Experience and time are closely related, because experience entails a change between mindstates in a (semi-)linear fashion. In an unchanging universe, this is simply impossible, is it not?
So, I think UToR SHOULD have to explain time too, as several of the logical inconsitencies lie strongly in that area.
IMO, UToR shouldn't have to explain time as it specifically states that reality is a timeless realm.
UToR has looked at time (a-series time/time involving actual change), and found it lacking. Specifically that it lacks-
1. logical consistency
2. explanatory power (as I previously argued, the notion of flowing time fails to explain any aspects of our experience of reality)
3. All aspects of our experience of reality that supposedly are explained by a-series time, are all covered by the view that UToR expresses (b-series/unchanging)
Flowing time (in the UToR view) is unecessary to explain reality, and, more than that, time flowing time cannot be; here's the relevant quote-
Written by: onewheeldave
It (a-series time) also has some some fundamental inconsistencies.
For example, it claims to explain change and flow of time, yet it does so by postulating a moving 'now-point' (the present moment; which therefore itself involves change.
Now if change requires an external moving now-point, how do we explain the change that occurs to the now-point?
Either we require a further external time to measure it relative to (and hence commence an infinite series of extra time-lines), or, the change of the now-point does not require an external time-line; if that is the case then why did the initial set of changes require the existence of the now-point in the first place?
--------------
I feel that I've explained as fully as I can why temporal change is not necessary to explain our experience of reality.
Perhaps more fruitful discussion could result if you were to give evidence for the existence of temporal change (other than the fact that things seem to you to change temporaly.
"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:
Ahhh I think I see now...
How do you explain the linear arangement of mind states though? IE, the fact that Im looking at a clock and now its 6:45, and then fifteen minutes later its 7:00? What I mean to say is, how do you account for the uniformity of conscious experience of mindstates in a linear fashion?
Ahhh I think I see now...
How do you explain the linear arangement of mind states though? IE, the fact that Im looking at a clock and now its 6:45, and then fifteen minutes later its 7:00? What I mean to say is, how do you account for the uniformity of conscious experience of mindstates in a linear fashion?
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Good question.
Firstly, i'll point out again that the competing theories (a-series time based), IMO, do not account for linearity of mind states anymore than UToR does.
They seem to, as the 7.00 mind-state comes after the 6.45, on the timeline.
However, as I pointed out before, at the 7.00 mindstate, there is no real access to the 6.45 mindstate, which has ceased to be (it's in the past).
So at the 7.00 mindstate, the only thing aproximating access to the 6.45 is memory (of the 6.45 mindstate)- thus all relevant factors must necessarily take place within the 7.00 mind-state instant.
So...
if linearity of experience is accounted for by the competing theory, then it is just as well accounted for by UToR, because that 7.00 mindstate (which supposedly, in the instant of it's being, accounts for the perception that it comes after the 6.45 one) is one of the instants in the reality that UToR describes.
ie UToR explains linearity as well as models based on flowing time, and goes further by eliminating the unnecessary baggage of flowing time.
-----------------
In truth though, I'm inclined to say that the mechanism by which our perceptions of temporal flow, linearity etc, arise, are a mystery.
I can't tell you why a collection of logically necessary 'instants of being' results in a field of experience that seems to have temporality as its basis.
But that is not a lack in UToR because, as i've been arguing, the exact same mystery is evident in all competing theories, including the ones that use a-series/flowing time.
Good question.
Firstly, i'll point out again that the competing theories (a-series time based), IMO, do not account for linearity of mind states anymore than UToR does.
They seem to, as the 7.00 mind-state comes after the 6.45, on the timeline.
However, as I pointed out before, at the 7.00 mindstate, there is no real access to the 6.45 mindstate, which has ceased to be (it's in the past).
So at the 7.00 mindstate, the only thing aproximating access to the 6.45 is memory (of the 6.45 mindstate)- thus all relevant factors must necessarily take place within the 7.00 mind-state instant.
So...
if linearity of experience is accounted for by the competing theory, then it is just as well accounted for by UToR, because that 7.00 mindstate (which supposedly, in the instant of it's being, accounts for the perception that it comes after the 6.45 one) is one of the instants in the reality that UToR describes.
ie UToR explains linearity as well as models based on flowing time, and goes further by eliminating the unnecessary baggage of flowing time.
-----------------
In truth though, I'm inclined to say that the mechanism by which our perceptions of temporal flow, linearity etc, arise, are a mystery.
I can't tell you why a collection of logically necessary 'instants of being' results in a field of experience that seems to have temporality as its basis.
But that is not a lack in UToR because, as i've been arguing, the exact same mystery is evident in all competing theories, including the ones that use a-series/flowing time.
"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'm beginning to think that your theory is perhaps possible, but lacks any kind of explanatory power and simply relies on a different set of assumptions than a time-based theory. The only difference seems to be what you cut with Ockham's Razor...
I'm beginning to think that your theory is perhaps possible, but lacks any kind of explanatory power and simply relies on a different set of assumptions than a time-based theory. The only difference seems to be what you cut with Ockham's Razor...
"Moo," said the happy cow.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
And has Ockhams Razor ever been wielded quite so skillfully and appropriately as it is in the hands of UToR?
UToR's explanatory power is in fact considerable- if correct, it explains all our experience of reality- it explains everything that more conventional (time and matter based) theories do; however, it does so without the considerable excess baggage that those theories come bundled with
ie the existence of a huge amount of physical matter, time, flow and change, certain logical inconsistencies that come with claims that time 'flows' etc, etc.
------------------------
Perhaps most important, not only does UToR explain reality at least as well as conventional theories; it also gives answers to some questions that they don't adequately deal with.
For example, if time and matter based frameworks do describe the world adequately, they still fail to deal with the issue of why it is real; of the two equally plausible cases of the world existing, and the world not existing; why is it the first that came to be?
For UToR, this is not an issue- the mathematical realm that is reality simply cannot not be- the entities that make up reality are logically necessary.
Written by: spiralx
I'm beginning to think that your theory is perhaps possible, but lacks any kind of explanatory power and simply relies on a different set of assumptions than a time-based theory. The only difference seems to be what you cut with Ockham's Razor...
And has Ockhams Razor ever been wielded quite so skillfully and appropriately as it is in the hands of UToR?
Written by: from somewhere on the net
A more straightforward application of the Razor is when we are face with two theories which have the same predictions and the available data cannot distinguish between them. In this case the Razor directs us to study in depth the simplest of the theories. It does not guarantee that the simplest theory will be correct, it merely establishes priorities.
UToR's explanatory power is in fact considerable- if correct, it explains all our experience of reality- it explains everything that more conventional (time and matter based) theories do; however, it does so without the considerable excess baggage that those theories come bundled with
ie the existence of a huge amount of physical matter, time, flow and change, certain logical inconsistencies that come with claims that time 'flows' etc, etc.
------------------------
Perhaps most important, not only does UToR explain reality at least as well as conventional theories; it also gives answers to some questions that they don't adequately deal with.
For example, if time and matter based frameworks do describe the world adequately, they still fail to deal with the issue of why it is real; of the two equally plausible cases of the world existing, and the world not existing; why is it the first that came to be?
For UToR, this is not an issue- the mathematical realm that is reality simply cannot not be- the entities that make up reality are logically necessary.
"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!
AnonymousPLATINUM Member
Posted:
The mathematical realm can't not be. There never was a time when it wasn't real.
To say that it does not not exist does not imply any reality-Whats to say that now it is real? Mathematics is of the mind part of the mind\body dualism. Nothingness, being the prerequisite of something,
is prior to this notion.
The mathematical realm can't not be. There never was a time when it wasn't real.
To say that it does not not exist does not imply any reality-Whats to say that now it is real? Mathematics is of the mind part of the mind\body dualism. Nothingness, being the prerequisite of something,
is prior to this notion.
AnonymousPLATINUM Member
Posted:
Also guys, i'd like to make a slightly simpler reccomendation to this highly technical discussion, this would be to read the Chuang Tzu particularly the translation of Leon Weger. This whole system of thought is based on the principle there explained. Just one more thing...have the ladies entered any posts on this topic?
This could be accused of being off-topic so i leave you with a last thought of mine on the possibility of AI....
Evolution is a process of both body and mind. The evolution of mind is by involute conduit through the biological, material evolution by natural selection of bodies of sentience toward the total experience and understanding of the structure of the yet ineffable totality. Given the biological evolute so far, one species\genus lives from and through its predeccesors. This applies to both the animal and plant kingdoms, implying inanimate(if there is such a thing) material as a given neccessary. Each lives on the entropic effluent of some other in some way...hence I ask the question; What of our nuts and bolts?
Also, looking at the biolgically dominant species with the evolution of mind in mind it is useful to note the capacity for cogitations holds the same dominant position. That computers can process more information than the human mind should indeed be a fearsome thing for the race of men, whom following the nature of all things, create their own destruction.
Also guys, i'd like to make a slightly simpler reccomendation to this highly technical discussion, this would be to read the Chuang Tzu particularly the translation of Leon Weger. This whole system of thought is based on the principle there explained. Just one more thing...have the ladies entered any posts on this topic?
This could be accused of being off-topic so i leave you with a last thought of mine on the possibility of AI....
Evolution is a process of both body and mind. The evolution of mind is by involute conduit through the biological, material evolution by natural selection of bodies of sentience toward the total experience and understanding of the structure of the yet ineffable totality. Given the biological evolute so far, one species\genus lives from and through its predeccesors. This applies to both the animal and plant kingdoms, implying inanimate(if there is such a thing) material as a given neccessary. Each lives on the entropic effluent of some other in some way...hence I ask the question; What of our nuts and bolts?
Also, looking at the biolgically dominant species with the evolution of mind in mind it is useful to note the capacity for cogitations holds the same dominant position. That computers can process more information than the human mind should indeed be a fearsome thing for the race of men, whom following the nature of all things, create their own destruction.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
If the mathematical realm can't not be, then it must be.
For any entity 'x' there are two possibilities- x exists, or, x does not exist.
If it can't be the case that 'x does not exist'=true; then obviously x must exist.
If you're wanting to contribute to this thread it really would be a good idea to read the original webpage-
https://www.geocities.com/combatunicycle/utor/utor.html
and also the rest of this thread- it is after all now 6 pages long and a lot has been covered and elaborated on.
Lastly, we've attempted in this thread to keep it as non-technical as possible, so as not to exclude people. Obviously, considering the nature of this discussion, a balance has had to be struck, but I have previously requested on several occasions that people tone down the technical language.
I mention this because your last post about evolution uses language that most people here will find totally incomprehensible.
Lastly, I suspect that your ideas may be much more relevant to metaphysics in general (UToR is a very specific theory dealing with a specific issue, rather than a general metaphysical one).
A recently started thread on metaphysics is here: -
[Old link]
where any metaphysical ponderings on evolution and general utors would be most welcome.
Written by: flip
The mathematical realm can't not be. There never was a time when it wasn't real.
To say that it does not not exist does not imply any reality-Whats to say that now it is real? Mathematics is of the mind part of the mind\body dualism. Nothingness, being the prerequisite of something,
is prior to this notion.
If the mathematical realm can't not be, then it must be.
For any entity 'x' there are two possibilities- x exists, or, x does not exist.
If it can't be the case that 'x does not exist'=true; then obviously x must exist.
If you're wanting to contribute to this thread it really would be a good idea to read the original webpage-
https://www.geocities.com/combatunicycle/utor/utor.html
and also the rest of this thread- it is after all now 6 pages long and a lot has been covered and elaborated on.
Lastly, we've attempted in this thread to keep it as non-technical as possible, so as not to exclude people. Obviously, considering the nature of this discussion, a balance has had to be struck, but I have previously requested on several occasions that people tone down the technical language.
I mention this because your last post about evolution uses language that most people here will find totally incomprehensible.
Lastly, I suspect that your ideas may be much more relevant to metaphysics in general (UToR is a very specific theory dealing with a specific issue, rather than a general metaphysical one).
A recently started thread on metaphysics is here: -
[Old link]
where any metaphysical ponderings on evolution and general utors would be most welcome.
"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:
'For any entity 'x' there are two possibilities- x exists, or, x does not exist.'
- or both: like all of the quantum-mechanical stuff that people have been citing
OWD: i'm still thinking about the discussion above ^^, and i'll post something concrete once i've worked out what i think about it. bear with me.
i do have one slight worry: if UTOR is supposed to answer the question 'why is there something rather than nothing?', then i'm not entirely clear how the 'timeless, mathematical realm' can hold the answer to a thoroughly temporal question - i.e. 'why IS there . . . etc.'
but i don't think this is particularly important, so please feel free to ignore it.
'For any entity 'x' there are two possibilities- x exists, or, x does not exist.'
- or both: like all of the quantum-mechanical stuff that people have been citing
OWD: i'm still thinking about the discussion above ^^, and i'll post something concrete once i've worked out what i think about it. bear with me.
i do have one slight worry: if UTOR is supposed to answer the question 'why is there something rather than nothing?', then i'm not entirely clear how the 'timeless, mathematical realm' can hold the answer to a thoroughly temporal question - i.e. 'why IS there . . . etc.'
but i don't think this is particularly important, so please feel free to ignore it.
ture na sig
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Not both; we're talking logic here, and that is not affected by quantum physical effects (they take place in the physical world).
The existence of X precludes it's non-existence, and vice-versa; it's one or the other; not both, and not neither.
Simple, 'is' is being used in it's non-temporal sense.
Similarly, the first digit of pi 'is' 3; obviously 'is' there isn't being used in any temporal sense (it doesn't really make sense to say that the first digit of pi 'was' 3, or will be 3).
However, though use of 'is' isn't a problem, I will grant you that it's difficult to talk about UToR and the mathematical realm without temporal terms slipping in.
An example of this is when I've referred to all instants of consciousness taking place simultaneously.
Simultaneously is generaly a temporal term (ie happening at the same time).
This is inevitable because so much of our language is based around temporality.
And this is why, when I have used 'simultaneously' I have put in brackets something like 'in the sense that they don't happen at different times), to convey that I'm using a term generally considered temporal, in a non-temporal sense.
Written by: quiet
'For any entity 'x' there are two possibilities- x exists, or, x does not exist.'
- or both: like all of the quantum-mechanical stuff that people have been citing
Not both; we're talking logic here, and that is not affected by quantum physical effects (they take place in the physical world).
The existence of X precludes it's non-existence, and vice-versa; it's one or the other; not both, and not neither.
Written by: quiet
i do have one slight worry: if UTOR is supposed to answer the question 'why is there something rather than nothing?', then I'm not entirely clear how the 'timeless, mathematical realm' can hold the answer to a thoroughly temporal question - i.e. 'why IS there . . . etc.'
Simple, 'is' is being used in it's non-temporal sense.
Similarly, the first digit of pi 'is' 3; obviously 'is' there isn't being used in any temporal sense (it doesn't really make sense to say that the first digit of pi 'was' 3, or will be 3).
However, though use of 'is' isn't a problem, I will grant you that it's difficult to talk about UToR and the mathematical realm without temporal terms slipping in.
An example of this is when I've referred to all instants of consciousness taking place simultaneously.
Simultaneously is generaly a temporal term (ie happening at the same time).
This is inevitable because so much of our language is based around temporality.
And this is why, when I have used 'simultaneously' I have put in brackets something like 'in the sense that they don't happen at different times), to convey that I'm using a term generally considered temporal, in a non-temporal sense.
"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:
'--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'For any entity 'x' there are two possibilities- x exists, or, x does not exist.'
- or both: like all of the quantum-mechanical stuff that people have been citing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not both; we're talking logic here, and that is not affected by quantum physical effects (they take place in the physical world).
The existence of X precludes it's non-existence, and vice-versa; it's one or the other; not both, and not neither.'
- I agree that we're talking logic here, but that *is* affected by quantum physics. To wit, intuitionist, quantum, and other 'deviant' logics, which deny the principle of bivalence / the law of the excluded middle, for instance. Susan Haack's 'philosophy of logics' covers this in some detail.
//
My main problem with UTOR is this: consciousness isn't a program, it's a running program. If you think it's just a program, then you've got to give some exposition of what the running program would be - and I don't see how you can do this. But if you think that it's a running program, then it necessarily cannot exist in the atemporal realm, because running implies temporality.
'--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'For any entity 'x' there are two possibilities- x exists, or, x does not exist.'
- or both: like all of the quantum-mechanical stuff that people have been citing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not both; we're talking logic here, and that is not affected by quantum physical effects (they take place in the physical world).
The existence of X precludes it's non-existence, and vice-versa; it's one or the other; not both, and not neither.'
- I agree that we're talking logic here, but that *is* affected by quantum physics. To wit, intuitionist, quantum, and other 'deviant' logics, which deny the principle of bivalence / the law of the excluded middle, for instance. Susan Haack's 'philosophy of logics' covers this in some detail.
//
My main problem with UTOR is this: consciousness isn't a program, it's a running program. If you think it's just a program, then you've got to give some exposition of what the running program would be - and I don't see how you can do this. But if you think that it's a running program, then it necessarily cannot exist in the atemporal realm, because running implies temporality.
ture na sig
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Maybe so for inuitist/quantum/deviant logics, but the logic I'm using in connection with UToR is the good old fashioned 'normal' logic, and, in this, it's a case of 'x' OR 'not X' ie not both together.
This is a similar situation to saying that the angles of a triangle do not need to add to 180 degrees, because, in non-euclidian geometries they can add more than 180, or less than 180.
This is absolutly true, however, given that the space in question is a Euclidean one, then the angles do add to precisely 180 degrees- no exceptions.
Deviant logics and deviant spaces do give different results, but they don't alter the results in non-deviant logics and spaces.
Written by: quiet
- I agree that we're talking logic here, but that *is* affected by quantum physics. To wit, intuitionist, quantum, and other 'deviant' logics, which deny the principle of bivalence / the law of the excluded middle, for instance. Susan Haack's 'philosophy of logics' covers this in some detail.
Maybe so for inuitist/quantum/deviant logics, but the logic I'm using in connection with UToR is the good old fashioned 'normal' logic, and, in this, it's a case of 'x' OR 'not X' ie not both together.
This is a similar situation to saying that the angles of a triangle do not need to add to 180 degrees, because, in non-euclidian geometries they can add more than 180, or less than 180.
This is absolutly true, however, given that the space in question is a Euclidean one, then the angles do add to precisely 180 degrees- no exceptions.
Deviant logics and deviant spaces do give different results, but they don't alter the results in non-deviant logics and spaces.
"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!
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com