Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Would the Universe exist at all without Consciousness ?

  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#51 Otto Piechowski

Otto Piechowski

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2267
  • Joined: 20 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Lexington, KY

Posted 20 January 2018 - 06:39 PM

Philosophy is not physics.  Nothing more true could be stated!

 

However, in order to do physics, certain philosophical assumptions must first be made and accepted as valid.

 

Science, as science, has/have only two subject matters which it considers; they are matter (and the various forms in which matter appears, such as energy) and motion (including the various changes which material objects undergo).  However, to study matter and motion, the scientist must accept the existence of an objective reality.  This acceptance of an objective reality is referred to as the philosophical assumption called objectivism.  Of objectivism, the physics department at Southern Methodist University states on one of their websites, "There is an objective reality which is the same for everyone.  There exist unchanging laws by which the universe works, and these laws can be discovered (not invented) through experimentation.  This point of view is called objectivism. This is a matter of belief; we can’t prove it to you. But we can justify it. The rules above lead to progress. They put people on the Moon and robots on Mars and Titan; they predict solar eclipses centuries in advance; they cure diseases like smallpox and polio; they give you light at the flick of a switch and more computing power in your hand than in all of 12th century Europe.”

 

Another example of a (set of) philosophical assumption(s) physics (and science, in general) must assume to be true in order to proceed with scientific investigations is the scientific method used by a given science.  That scientific method is, itself, neither matter nor motion, and therefore cannot be a subject upon which science speaks, as science.

 

Now, of course, the scientists named Bill and Neil might choose to make comments about the veracity of objectivism and make comments about the inadequacies or competencies of the methods they use.  However, when they do so, they are no longer speaking as scientists, but as philosophers.  When they speak as philosophers, which they have every right to do, at some point the dialogue must courteously address their competencies and credentials in regard to the philosophical areas which they address.

 

Otto


Edited by Otto Piechowski, 20 January 2018 - 06:39 PM.

  • clest likes this

#52 walt99

walt99

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 593
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Mount Aerial, Kentucky

Posted 20 January 2018 - 07:31 PM

Wait....were is Mount Aerial, Kentucky?

 

Otto (Lexington, Kentucky)vedved

Mount Aerial is halfway between Bowling Green and Scottsville.  About 17 mile drive to Bowling Green.

 

I lived in Lexington a few years attending University of Kentucky.  Love that town !



#53 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 29186
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 20 January 2018 - 08:45 PM

I have heard of Popper, and I believe had to read some of his stuff at one time (but have forgotten all of it.  I found your description of recognizing the existence of truth by means of falsification, to be easy to understand and persuasive, Dave.  

 

Otto

Reading Popper was a hard slog for me.  He presents a lot of depth, in great detail.  I didn't agree with all his arguments, some struck me as scientifically naive, and he at times seemed to me to distort the relationship between theory and observation, but his fundamental thesis is compelling, and is probably our best defense against fallacies such as confirmation bias.

 

Interestingly, although I thought I had some major disagreements with him, the more I read of the objections of others to his work, the more inclined I am to defend him.  He addressed most of the existing objections before they were even made, so it appeared to me like most of his critics had just skimmed him.

 

His major publication, "Conjectures and Refutations", is a compilation of many lectures and papers presented in the 1950's and 1960's.  It's very dense, and very long.  I wore the pages off of it.  I need to find a new copy, because it's worth referring to repeatedly.  It's got to be consumed in small bites, though, and it takes a long time to chew.



#54 Otto Piechowski

Otto Piechowski

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2267
  • Joined: 20 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Lexington, KY

Posted 20 January 2018 - 08:51 PM

Wait, did you catch the full solar eclipse?

#55 walt99

walt99

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 593
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Mount Aerial, Kentucky

Posted 20 January 2018 - 10:31 PM

Wait, did you catch the full solar eclipse?

Yes,  it was wonderful.  My son came from North Carolina.  Had a SolarMAx 40mm piggybacked on Celestron/Vixen  80mm F11 with solar filter.

 

It was spooky and spectacular.



#56 walt99

walt99

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 593
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Mount Aerial, Kentucky

Posted 21 January 2018 - 09:27 AM

Wait....were is Mount Aerial, Kentucky?

 

Otto (Lexington, Kentucky)

 

Otto,

 

I'm wondering if you ever knew Professor Wasley Krogdahl.  He taught a very rigorous astronomy class at U of K.  No pretty pictures ;  mostly math . . .



#57 Otto Piechowski

Otto Piechowski

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2267
  • Joined: 20 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Lexington, KY

Posted 21 January 2018 - 11:26 AM

No, Walt,  Only took one class at UK (education) and attended a few astronomy club sessions but do not recall anyone being introduced to me by that name.  (Wasley Krogdahl).  Interesting name, though.

 

Otto


  • walt99 likes this

#58 Pess

Pess

    (Title)

  • *****
  • Posts: 3892
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Toledo, Ohio

Posted 25 January 2018 - 08:27 AM

E= M  X  C square .    C  is the speed of light .  Speed is distance and time.  Time,  according to Kant ,  is a product of the mind .

 

So,  without time ,  without the mind ,  could the Universe exist at all ?

Time is inseparable from space.   Time is not a unique product of the mind anymore than, say, a solid cube is.

 

All objects exist in 4 dimensions: Length, width, height & duration  (They 'endure through a period of time. ie: Objects, in order to exist, must project themselves through time as well as the other 3 dimensions). 

 

OK, so we established that the Universe can not be discounted just on the time basis.  But you know what's interesting?   We really don't know what how the Universe manifests itself.   We take in information from our sense organs and then our brain reconstructs a holistic copy of it which we interpret.  Who is to say this holistic construct represents reality?

 

Sure, the holistic projection in our brains is good enough to get around and operate in the Universe, but is it accurate?   

 

The Universe hologram looks some much different to, say, a bat or a Dolphin than what our minds create.

 

...and the consciously created hologram can be decidedly different in someone diagnosed as a Psychotic

 

Pesse (Explains why the Hot babe at the bar was a 10 in my mind but only a 7 in yours,) Mist


Edited by Pess, 25 January 2018 - 08:29 AM.


#59 trurl

trurl

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14467
  • Joined: 10 Jul 2017
  • Loc: North Carolina

Posted 25 January 2018 - 09:50 AM

Sure, the holistic projection in our brains is good enough to get around and operate in the Universe, but is it accurate?   

Conflicting eyewitnesses attest to the inaccuracy. Even more obvious is the incompleteness.


  • Crow Haven likes this

#60 walt99

walt99

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 593
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Mount Aerial, Kentucky

Posted 27 January 2018 - 11:10 AM

No, Walt,  Only took one class at UK (education) and attended a few astronomy club sessions but do not recall anyone being introduced to me by that name.  (Wasley Krogdahl).  Interesting name, though.

 

Otto

He worked on the moon shot equations . . . 



#61 ColoHank

ColoHank

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4719
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2007
  • Loc: western Colorado

Posted 06 February 2018 - 01:27 PM

Philosophy is not physics.  Nothing more true could be stated!
 
However, in order to do physics, certain philosophical assumptions must first be made and accepted as valid.
 
Science, as science, has/have only two subject matters which it considers; they are matter (and the various forms in which matter appears, such as energy) and motion (including the various changes which material objects undergo).  However, to study matter and motion, the scientist must accept the existence of an objective reality.  This acceptance of an objective reality is referred to as the philosophical assumption called objectivism.  Of objectivism, the physics department at Southern Methodist University states on one of their websites, "There is an objective reality which is the same for everyone.  There exist unchanging laws by which the universe works, and these laws can be discovered (not invented) through experimentation.  This point of view is called objectivism. This is a matter of belief; we can’t prove it to you. But we can justify it. The rules above lead to progress. They put people on the Moon and robots on Mars and Titan; they predict solar eclipses centuries in advance; they cure diseases like smallpox and polio; they give you light at the flick of a switch and more computing power in your hand than in all of 12th century Europe.”
 
Another example of a (set of) philosophical assumption(s) physics (and science, in general) must assume to be true in order to proceed with scientific investigations is the scientific method used by a given science.  That scientific method is, itself, neither matter nor motion, and therefore cannot be a subject upon which science speaks, as science.
 
Now, of course, the scientists named Bill and Neil might choose to make comments about the veracity of objectivism and make comments about the inadequacies or competencies of the methods they use.  However, when they do so, they are no longer speaking as scientists, but as philosophers.  When they speak as philosophers, which they have every right to do, at some point the dialogue must courteously address their competencies and credentials in regard to the philosophical areas which they address.
 
Otto


And yet, diligent graduate physicists (at least in the US) are granted Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degrees.  For that matter, those who taught things like chemistry and physics at the college level in the early 19th century were often formally titled as professors of natural philosophy.



#62 davidpitre

davidpitre

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4364
  • Joined: 10 May 2005
  • Loc: Central Texas

Posted 06 February 2018 - 10:41 PM

This reminds me of the question: "If a trees falls in the woods with no one to hear, does it make a sound?"

 



 

This is not a question (despite the apparent grammar)  , it is called a Koan. It is not an intellectual puzzle. 


  • brave_ulysses likes this

#63 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 29186
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 07 February 2018 - 12:37 AM

 

Philosophy is not physics.  Nothing more true could be stated!
 
However, in order to do physics, certain philosophical assumptions must first be made and accepted as valid.
 
Science, as science, has/have only two subject matters which it considers; they are matter (and the various forms in which matter appears, such as energy) and motion (including the various changes which material objects undergo).  However, to study matter and motion, the scientist must accept the existence of an objective reality.  This acceptance of an objective reality is referred to as the philosophical assumption called objectivism.  Of objectivism, the physics department at Southern Methodist University states on one of their websites, "There is an objective reality which is the same for everyone.  There exist unchanging laws by which the universe works, and these laws can be discovered (not invented) through experimentation.  This point of view is called objectivism. This is a matter of belief; we can’t prove it to you. But we can justify it. The rules above lead to progress. They put people on the Moon and robots on Mars and Titan; they predict solar eclipses centuries in advance; they cure diseases like smallpox and polio; they give you light at the flick of a switch and more computing power in your hand than in all of 12th century Europe.”
 
Another example of a (set of) philosophical assumption(s) physics (and science, in general) must assume to be true in order to proceed with scientific investigations is the scientific method used by a given science.  That scientific method is, itself, neither matter nor motion, and therefore cannot be a subject upon which science speaks, as science.
 
Now, of course, the scientists named Bill and Neil might choose to make comments about the veracity of objectivism and make comments about the inadequacies or competencies of the methods they use.  However, when they do so, they are no longer speaking as scientists, but as philosophers.  When they speak as philosophers, which they have every right to do, at some point the dialogue must courteously address their competencies and credentials in regard to the philosophical areas which they address.
 
Otto


And yet, diligent graduate physicists (at least in the US) are granted Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degrees.  For that matter, those who taught things like chemistry and physics at the college level in the early 19th century were often formally titled as professors of natural philosophy.

 

I'm still rather enamored of the term "natural philosophy".  I wish it were still prevalent.


  • goodricke1 likes this

#64 MarkMittlesteadt

MarkMittlesteadt

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2046
  • Joined: 08 Oct 2013
  • Loc: Weston, WI. USA

Posted 07 February 2018 - 10:14 AM

I find it interesting that this thread has not existed for me at all since it stopped being a part of my consciousness. 



#65 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 29186
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 07 February 2018 - 10:21 AM

I find it interesting that this thread has not existed for me at all since it stopped being a part of my consciousness. 

If you extend that concept to include lunch, it can be troubling.



#66 MarkMittlesteadt

MarkMittlesteadt

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2046
  • Joined: 08 Oct 2013
  • Loc: Weston, WI. USA

Posted 07 February 2018 - 10:25 AM

 

I find it interesting that this thread has not existed for me at all since it stopped being a part of my consciousness. 

If you extend that concept to include lunch, it can be troubling.

 

Except that I posted again in this thread, so it was obviously existing in my consciousness again. I can only assume lunch will operate the same way. Yet, I might be dead by then so lunch, yet again will not exist for me. Does lunch exist for someone eating breakfast? 



#67 Otto Piechowski

Otto Piechowski

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2267
  • Joined: 20 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Lexington, KY

Posted 07 February 2018 - 01:03 PM

I am not sure (or unsure) that your, that Hank's mention of the ultimate degree in fields of science is often called a Ph.D (doctor of philosophy), is relevant to the point I was making about the limited subject matter of science as science.

 

But, I am very interested in you, Hank, and Dave raising the issue of the topic of the meaning of the Ph.D (i.e. doctor of philosophy).  I had never really thought about this in any depth.

 

And so, just why do they call a doctorate degree in physics or chemistry or biology, a Ph.D. in physics, or chemistry or biology; i.e. a doctor of philosophy degree in physics (or chemistry or biology, etc.)

 

I have also wondered why they call a Doctor of philosophy, someone who holds a Ph.D. in philosophy (which creates the, seemingly, tautological title of a "doctor of philosophy in philosophy").

 

Otto


Edited by Otto Piechowski, 07 February 2018 - 01:04 PM.


#68 goodricke1

goodricke1

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 539
  • Joined: 18 May 2013
  • Loc: Ireland

Posted 07 February 2018 - 02:05 PM

I am not sure (or unsure) that your, that Hank's mention of the ultimate degree in fields of science is often called a Ph.D (doctor of philosophy), is relevant to the point I was making about the limited subject matter of science as science.

 

But, I am very interested in you, Hank, and Dave raising the issue of the topic of the meaning of the Ph.D (i.e. doctor of philosophy).  I had never really thought about this in any depth.

 

And so, just why do they call a doctorate degree in physics or chemistry or biology, a Ph.D. in physics, or chemistry or biology; i.e. a doctor of philosophy degree in physics (or chemistry or biology, etc.)

 

I have also wondered why they call a Doctor of philosophy, someone who holds a Ph.D. in philosophy (which creates the, seemingly, tautological title of a "doctor of philosophy in philosophy").

 

Otto

 

Because the disparate branches of science merge into the unifying tree of philosophical wholeness...

 

 

(...or some such profundity).


  • llanitedave likes this

#69 Otto Piechowski

Otto Piechowski

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2267
  • Joined: 20 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Lexington, KY

Posted 07 February 2018 - 07:33 PM

In response to my own question, i.e. "...just why do they call a doctorate degree in physics or chemistry or biology, a Ph.D. in physics, or chemistry or biology; i.e. a doctor of philosophy degree in physics (or chemistry or biology, etc..., I found the following in wikipedia.

 

"In the context of the Doctor of Philosophy and other similarly titled degrees, the term "philosophy" does not refer to the field or academic discipline of philosophy, but is used in a broader sense in accordance with its original Greek meaning, which is "love of wisdom"."

 

Any of you see any reason to disagree with this statement?

 

Otto



#70 ColoHank

ColoHank

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4719
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2007
  • Loc: western Colorado

Posted 07 February 2018 - 10:37 PM

In response to my own question, i.e. "...just why do they call a doctorate degree in physics or chemistry or biology, a Ph.D. in physics, or chemistry or biology; i.e. a doctor of philosophy degree in physics (or chemistry or biology, etc..., I found the following in wikipedia.

 

"In the context of the Doctor of Philosophy and other similarly titled degrees, the term "philosophy" does not refer to the field or academic discipline of philosophy, but is used in a broader sense in accordance with its original Greek meaning, which is "love of wisdom"."

 

Any of you see any reason to disagree with this statement?

 

Otto

I don't.


  • llanitedave likes this

#71 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 29186
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 08 February 2018 - 12:39 AM

 

 

I find it interesting that this thread has not existed for me at all since it stopped being a part of my consciousness. 

If you extend that concept to include lunch, it can be troubling.

 

Except that I posted again in this thread, so it was obviously existing in my consciousness again. I can only assume lunch will operate the same way. Yet, I might be dead by then so lunch, yet again will not exist for me. Does lunch exist for someone eating breakfast? 

 

Dang straight.  Not just lunch, but second breakfast and elevensees too.



#72 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 29186
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 08 February 2018 - 12:40 AM

 

In response to my own question, i.e. "...just why do they call a doctorate degree in physics or chemistry or biology, a Ph.D. in physics, or chemistry or biology; i.e. a doctor of philosophy degree in physics (or chemistry or biology, etc..., I found the following in wikipedia.

 

"In the context of the Doctor of Philosophy and other similarly titled degrees, the term "philosophy" does not refer to the field or academic discipline of philosophy, but is used in a broader sense in accordance with its original Greek meaning, which is "love of wisdom"."

 

Any of you see any reason to disagree with this statement?

 

Otto

I don't.

 

Me neither.



#73 llanitedave

llanitedave

    Humble Megalomaniac

  • *****
  • Posts: 29186
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA

Posted 08 February 2018 - 12:41 AM

 

I am not sure (or unsure) that your, that Hank's mention of the ultimate degree in fields of science is often called a Ph.D (doctor of philosophy), is relevant to the point I was making about the limited subject matter of science as science.

 

But, I am very interested in you, Hank, and Dave raising the issue of the topic of the meaning of the Ph.D (i.e. doctor of philosophy).  I had never really thought about this in any depth.

 

And so, just why do they call a doctorate degree in physics or chemistry or biology, a Ph.D. in physics, or chemistry or biology; i.e. a doctor of philosophy degree in physics (or chemistry or biology, etc.)

 

I have also wondered why they call a Doctor of philosophy, someone who holds a Ph.D. in philosophy (which creates the, seemingly, tautological title of a "doctor of philosophy in philosophy").

 

Otto

 

Because the disparate branches of science merge into the unifying tree of philosophical wholeness...

 

 

(...or some such profundity).

 

If I knew what that meant, I'd probably agree with it.


  • goodricke1 likes this

#74 gfamily

gfamily

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 693
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2013
  • Loc: North Cheshire, UK

Posted 08 February 2018 - 04:28 AM

As has been noted widely, if you successively click on the first body link in a random wikipedia article, (i.e. neither in italics nor the initial parentheses) you will almost always end up on the Philosophy page



#75 ColoHank

ColoHank

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4719
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2007
  • Loc: western Colorado

Posted 08 February 2018 - 05:06 PM

I'm still struggling to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics