4
   

Relationship or field as the sole quanta of reality?

 
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 05:53 pm
@imans,
Quote:
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

I think I like how your brought this together at the end of your comment.
Are you explaining how 'mind' is necessary to bridge the gap between the freedom of goodlife, and the obligation/communication with the rest of non-life?
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 11:17 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.


While those seam in fact be quality's a "field" needs to be understood as a field my take on the word rather considers an area of space where the same language and structures operate any kind of system with a given "matrix" of phenomena. In that sense a field is a domain.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 11:21 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Would your understanding of what a field is have meaning absent time?
Perhaps simply as a "folding in", then of course begging the question...
What has been folded?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 11:39 pm
@MattDavis,
MattDavis wrote:

Would your understanding of what a field is have meaning absent time?
Perhaps simply as a "folding in", then of course begging the question...
What has been folded?


Whatever IS be it for one nanosecond or a googolplex of eons it is a valid domain once it worked within a given range...its not even a matter of witnessing or conscience as foundation for existence as some pretend but so simply a matter of operating or not...if any given language works in a given domain it is valid or true for all domain dependent agents...what I mean is, as a phenomena on itself, it is enough as proof of being true !

Essentially a field refers to something as being true within a given range of operators...and of course truth itself is timeless.
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 11:46 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
This thread started looking at some possible convergence between deconstructivism ( I think this is fresco's position)
And my own naive realistic views.
It seemed to me that deconstructivism is at heart an interlacing web of 'relationship'.
I was wondering if there were any analogous system without substrate to be found in the physical model.
We wondered about field....
[just for the background] Very Happy

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2013 11:52 pm
@MattDavis,
maybe...but I suspect it is the kind of convergence he wont like, as whatever is the case is the case... Very Happy
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 12:00 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
I will assume not total tautology till I have read more Derrida, Wittgenstein, etc.
My prejudices are more of a naive realist... obviously.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 12:13 am
@MattDavis,
I think you should keep being a naive realist, after all whatever else frame of reference do you have to measure your experience ? And even if you did wouldn't you had acquire just another frame of reference for truth ?
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 12:19 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
I don't mind a challenge to my beliefs.
It's invigorating. Lets talk about something we don't agree on. Though I may have to hit the sack soon. I'm in the USA. About 1:20 am here.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 12:23 am
@MattDavis,
Portugal here 6.23 Am and a hell of an insomnia... Wink
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 12:32 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Sorry about the insomnia Sad
Thanks for the back and forth.
I have a woman who's been neglected.
Hope to hear more of your thoughts, look forward to a major disagreement. Smile
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 02:32 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
As Einstein implied, observers tend to carry their own frames of reference around with them which of course is antithetical to naive realism.

Quote:
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."


...and browsing his quotations, here's another which seems applicable to you...
Quote:
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 07:06 am
@MattDavis,
MattDavis wrote:

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.

Matt, can you explain 'your' understanding of the differences between the 'physical' and the 'non-physical'?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 10:11 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

As Einstein implied, observers tend to carry their own frames of reference around with them which of course is antithetical to naive realism.

Quote:
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."


...and browsing his quotations, here's another which seems applicable to you...
Quote:
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."



You still don't seem to get the point here but let me lend you a hand, what would Einstein state regarding true illusions being true illusions ? And about mathematics what is to not be real in mathematics itself ? I suppose a wrong must be replaced by comparison by something more rightful, namely in the least, the rightfulness of it working or not, or the consideration might just as well be mute in meaning...how would you know anything about that for reference and peaking places ? Your extreme relativism undoes itself....
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 10:26 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
It seams to me that you are probably one of the more constant and Universal "Truthists" in this forum precisely by defending that there are no Absolute Truths which in itself is an immediate contradiction...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 10:33 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Further clarifying, I guess what I mean or am trying to convey here, is that you cannot assert that there are no place holders precisely by putting a place holder on that very statement.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 10:37 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Given your self proclaimed degree of sufficient intellectual and philosophical enlightenment, derived in your criticism of naive realists, I would have to confront you with a great degree of hypocrisy on your certainty about uncertainty or conclude that you are confused and do not take your beliefs to their final consequences...
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 10:40 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
I take Einsteins concept of "reality" to be a set of structured universals which transcend lay concepts such as "time", "force and "gravity" which depend on fixed reference frames (independent is-ness). His views were of course superceded by those of QM for whom "structure" became a matter of "probability functions" which collapsed at the point of "observation". Statistically, expectation of structure at the macro-level is high, thereby giving confidence in "a permanent reality" whereas that at the micro-level is low or nebulous, implying that "structured reality" is coextensive with the actions of "macro observers".
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 10:54 am
@fresco,
Should I remind you that "observation" in physics imply s detectors and not people...besides what you just said is irrelevant to the point being made in my previous posts.
0 Replies
 
MattDavis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Feb, 2013 10:56 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

MattDavis wrote:

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.
Matt, can you explain 'your' understanding of the differences between the 'physical' and the 'non-physical'?

In the context of this statement I meant:
Physical as in the conventional (scientific realistic) sense of the term. Matter or energy. Something which has "existence" even when you (consciousness) are/is not observing it.
Non-physical as in the deconstructionist sense of the term. Phenomena which have no "existence" absent an observer (consciousness). Similar also to some more extreme versions of the Copenhagen interpretation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
0 Replies
 
 

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
Do you See what Eye See?? - Discussion by NoName77
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/23/2021 at 08:54:05