4
   

Relationship or field as the sole quanta of reality?

 
 
Reply Mon 18 Feb, 2013 11:51 am
Not in the sense of relationships or fields being dichotomous but rather of them being perhaps analogous.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 4 • Views: 3,052 • Replies: 49
No top replies

 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Feb, 2013 11:58 am
@MattDavis,
fresco wrote:
I believe there is now post-post modernism (!) but I am not sure of its trend. But it is certainly the case that "independent objects" have taken a severe knock from the quantum physics findings on "non-locality". Also, in recent cognitive science inter-level relationships (physiological-psychological-social) form a substrate to investigate those of observer and observed, and a "systems approach" involving multi-valued state transitions,(as opposed to binary dichotomous flip-flops) appears to be yielding results where assumptions of fixed set membership (observer independent identity) have failed.


MattDavis wrote:
What I was getting by "system without component", was more along the lines of could "relationship" serve as the sole quanta in building up a reality.


fresco wrote:
Insofar as the concept of "field" is a form of "relationship", you may certainly have a point.


MattDavis wrote:
I guess I have a hard time reconciling relationship/fields as meaningful apart from time.
I feel as though pure relationship only leads to a static reality.
I have a hard time wrapping my head around being able to let go of a need for "change" in a reality.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Feb, 2013 12:15 pm
@MattDavis,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_field
Worth a look.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Feb, 2013 01:02 pm
@fresco,
Thanks.
I looked.
To match my perhaps only intuitive requirements for a reality:

1. I feel as though a field(physics) needs to be able to propagate. Implying time.
2. I feel as though a semantic field must be allowed to drift. Implying iteration.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Feb, 2013 02:16 pm
@MattDavis,
georgeob1 wrote:

Thanks, I better understand your thinking about all of this now. However, I am a bit perplexed by your avoidance of formal philioophical methods and your expressed (in another post) preference for "just using logic" to examine the sequence of (presumably physical) events before one takes an action, perhaps in order to verify that a 'free will' (something you referred to as a contradiction in terms) exists or does not exist.

The domain of physical science, based on observation and verification, ends with the Big Bang. Science, based on observation and verifiable propositions, can reach no farther.

My argument about determinism and chaos was directed at the fact that there are many physical processes, well understood by science and fully deterministic in its terms , whose future states are not knowable. That is to say there can be no observational proof of that determinism in such cases. Assuming for the moment that the ever-plastic neural networks in the human brain are also subject to chaos (as seems likely), that means that observational science (logic) cannot determine whether free will exists or doesn't exist based on experiment and observation - the question is moot.

The limits of science noted above also mean that "magical" thinking or uncaused events are themselves beyond the domain of science. Nowhere has it been established that such science includes all that can possibly exist or occur. That said, some (including some scientists) do postulate that nothing outside the domain of observational science can possibly exist. The fact that all extant scierntific models for the origin of the universe culminate in a singularity, or a postulated (and inherantly unverifiable) infinite sequence of creation & destruction or equivalently infinite set of quantum multiverses - all of which are themselves unverifiable, and therefore by definition outside the domain of science, often does not get a recognition of the supreme irony involved here. It turns out that materialist science does indeed involve some "magical thinking" on the part of its practitioners.

If, for the moment, one excludes uncaused events or magical thinking as you wish, then it is surely true that man has no free will. However, Despite that, the available facts strongly suggest that, even if it is entirely deterministic, human behavior can never be reliably predicted in individual cases. We will be left only with the statistical inferences about central tendencies that we do quite well now. The only thing uniting chaos and freedom is unpredictability. The bottom line here is that science won't be able to verify this surmise one way or the other, just as it can't offer a verifiable theory obout the origin of the universe.

Ultimately we are faced with a choice between materialistic magic and theist magic.


fresco wrote:

Quote:
Ultimately we are faced with a choice between materialistic magic and theist magic.

...which perhaps relates to the extrapolation of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem which suggests that in any system there is always at least one axiom whose "truth" cannot be verified.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Feb, 2013 02:22 pm
@MattDavis,
From my perhaps limited understanding of Godel's theorem:

I would contend that any axiomatic system which relies upon iteration, it can be assumed that there will be unknowable "things"(plural intended). I don't know how strong a case can be made that those "things" are axioms however. I think the theorem relies upon the axioms remaining static.

So by extension, a deterministic system (which still allows the "choas"/"emergent" effects earlier mentioned) that relies upon iteration of "time" will have unknowable things but these unknowable things are not necessarily the "rules" by which the system operates (the axioms).
0 Replies
 
imans
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2013 04:34 pm
reality is never about free different relations nor about same freedom fact

reality is about existence superiority that force everyone to admit smthg existence in order to keep himself relatively out of it free

that is why ur reality is based on hypocrisy and social lies which confirm the point, as if u r meanin the way to b winner even where u admit some things existence, since y r lying about ur considerations and know where u r hittin everything down

there is always two differen thing in existence
the present which is always freedom so no thing, but can b a sense of living or present life that could matter as supporting matters

and what is superior to present, that could b past or futur when the present is not living so not realizin anything
what is superior to present is absolute superiority, when the present is living sense so the present is always relative
while absolutes always are first objective so absolutes superiorities is the reason of positive relations logics to absolutes realities

so the point i mean, is what freedom is the present so not what is there objectively, which prove then that determinism is what gives life to freedom

the main focus, is absolute objective superiority to b true
once existence is really true then freedom is always right
bc freedom out of superior objective cant b but beyond superiority so right positive source of itself

but even now and before, things happenin touch conscious presence relatively only, the conscious is its present alone existing constant still or sense

as opportunists to evil life u cant but mean everything knowledge as ur reason of being which is hypocrit, showin how u dont care about anyone but urself so even everything is pointed as nothing but a ground to support ur feet steppin on
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2013 04:45 pm
@imans,
Quote:
what freedom is the present so not what is there objectively, which prove then that determinism is what gives life to freedom

I think I agree. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2013 08:30 pm
Sorry I don't really understand your response with regard to the OP?
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2013 09:12 pm
@MattDavis,
Sometimes the spamming community drops into a thead, hoping to post their links without being reported. I think it affects the standing of whatever site they are promoting.

Did you notice that at the top of every post is a button called "Report"? If you try it, you will notice that the default complaint is Spam.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2013 09:21 pm
@roger,
Yes. Thanks Roger.
I actually figured out it was spam by the link back.
It is a strategy to increase ranking on search engines such as google.
I reported already.
My default response was to be charitable, but later investigated and "put 2 and 2 together" Laughing
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2013 09:23 pm
@MattDavis,
Would it be appropriate/inappropriate for me to "thumbs down" our recent back and forth, in case anyone wants to continue the OP discussion.
Do you think it even matters?
roger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Feb, 2013 09:34 pm
@MattDavis,
Sure. In some topics, off topic digressions are expected. In some, they are not.
0 Replies
 
imans
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Feb, 2013 12:07 pm
it is clear that the op is an invention and not a true result

u mean to preach good relationships between people by using and abusing any information sayin the issue for now is being reality

relations between relative conscious beings is never absolute so never real

u keep thinking what u can do as a creator of ur own self life, insultin truth in everything and anyone mind
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Feb, 2013 02:17 pm
@imans,
I mean no insult, merely an exploration of truth.
imans
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 01:09 am
@MattDavis,
again u do the point i saw makin it more alive

ur means are not the reason of its resultin expression, what is relative is never objective while existence is only absolutely

that is why ur op mean life not reality, relationships
living is a subjective sense of being real in being more or over reality concept or needs since positively free

MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 02:56 am
@imans,
Are there degrees of subjectivity? Can one move closer and closer to objectivity, though maybe never completely non-subjective?
igm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 04:00 pm
@MattDavis,
MattDavis wrote:

Thanks.
I looked.
To match my perhaps only intuitive requirements for a reality:

1. I feel as though a field(physics) needs to be able to propagate. Implying time.
2. I feel as though a semantic field must be allowed to drift. Implying iteration.


What does phenomena's lack of duration have to say about 'time'?
imans
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 05:18 pm
@MattDavis,
MattDavis wrote:

Are there degrees of subjectivity? Can one move closer and closer to objectivity, though maybe never completely non-subjective?


no subjectivity is u meanin urself so there cant b degrees since u r alone there u meanin urself out of all

but the issue is what i say my perspective of existence being fundamentally upon two different factors that stay separate, freedom and truth

freedom is more the conscious seein itself out of everything and meanin or thinking something such as wills or needs or simple reactions
truth is always the objective absolute so always about facts and its realities life

the conscious usually dont mean to b true, keep seekin to be else or free from all since it sees itself as true

objective perspectives are always pointing else superiority as the reason of certain values through the reality of things then objective perspectives are never freedom

that is how existence seem to b based on what freedom mean objective freedom values without seeing it, so in truth sense
and objective existence meanin true rights without touchin it so never real with

on the individual level, this is why it is very important to distinguish where u r free from all as a conscious and where u r true self reality in being existing, the communication between both is the conception of ur mind so a kind of free self

MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 05:48 pm
@igm,
Quote:
What does phenomena's lack of duration have to say about 'time'?
Hmm...
I'm not sure that phenomena do have duration.
That was kind of the reason I asked the OP.
My intuition seems to want of basic constituents that do not rely upon time.
I was looking for basics from which time could be constructed (in a purely materialistic sense) whether that "material" be physical or non-physical.
 

Related Topics

Nature of gun laws - Discussion by gungasnake
Reality - thing or phenomenon? - Question by Cyracuz
Atheism - Discussion by littlek
Is Reality a Social Construction ? - Discussion by fresco
The 10 Most Destructive Americans - Discussion by coldjoint
Deportation Bus - Discussion by gungasnake
The reality of time - Question by dalehileman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Relationship or field as the sole quanta of reality?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/23/2019 at 09:12:39