1
   

Non-locality.

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 06:20 pm
JLNobody wrote:
Don't be so sensitive, Frank.


If I feel like being sensitive...I will be sensitive.

I will file your advice on what I should or should not be alongside the file containing your guesses about REALITY.


Quote:

I didn't say YOU were vacuous, I said the very notion of Reality--since it includes EVERYTHING (an absolute plentitude) and NOTHING in particular--is conceptually vacuous.



Actually, what you said was: I agree, and have stated so before, with Frank's vacuous notion of Reality as that which is the case, whatever it may be.

And you can shove the word "vacuous" as used there!


Quote:

You feel a compulsion to be snotty even when others are agreeing with you? Hmm.


I am not a compulsive person...and you are really not agreeing with me.

Hummmm.




Quote:
Also, Frank, you said it is "obvious" that I am guessing. Are you saying that you are not guessing about my guessing?


I am guessing.


Quote:
Gasp, you're deep.


You are not.


Quote:
We shouldn't be so silly in the context of Cyracuz' very intelligent and serious comments.


Stop any time you are able.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 09:17 pm
Frank, you have a way of stating the obvious so mercilessly. Smile
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 10:55 pm
Actually, Frank's sweet. And he IS compulsive to the extent that he is very predictable.
Good night, all.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 10:59 pm
fresco wrote:
Joe

I'm interested to see you concur with "reality" as "consensus".

Given your demonstrated lack of curiosity about my views, I'm rather surprised by your new-found interest.

fresco wrote:
Cyracuz's remarks on on the Hindu concept of "illusion" can surely be compared with Einstein's own words "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

Any two things can be compared. Whether the resulting comparison is of any value is, of course, another matter entirely.

fresco wrote:
Although Einstein does not seem to have had an esoteric concept of unity of observer and observed, he certainly did stress the relativity of observations to their observers which seems but a short step from their inseparability.

Or he could have been indulging in a mildly ironic jest.

fresco wrote:
Also,we need to wary of phrases like "making sense" with this sort of material.
To repeat a quote from the theologian/physicist Polkinghorne:"

"Do not make common sense the measure of everything but be prepared to recognise aspects of reality in those modes that are intrinsic to their natures, however strange these modes may at first sight seem to be'. There is not one single, simple way in which we can know everything; there is no universal epistemology. …………

How does the theologian/physicist Polkinghorne know that?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 11:49 pm
Joe,

I use the word "interested" both as a peace gesture and as a preamble to an invitation to comment on the relationship between "reality" and "truth".

Polkinghorne's "knowledge" is experiential. He did his Ph.D under Dirac ( a major contributor to QM) The QM position on "locality" is in terms of probability functions. Despite Einstein's chagrin, this is the only "successful" account of the experimental data for the wave properties of matter. Large objects have a probability close to "1" of "being where we think they are" but this is not the case for subatomic objects. Hence the oblique reference to "fuzzy sets"......and non-locality goes even further in that it undermines the very idea of "where" itself .

Philosophically, the circular question "how do we know what knowledge is" requires an examination of all contexts in which "know" is used. "Experience" is one such context.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 01:52 am
Cyracuz wrote:
Frank, you have a way of stating the obvious so mercilessly. Smile


Just Frank being frank! Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 01:56 am
JLNobody wrote:
Actually, Frank's sweet.


Actually...one of the sweetest.

Come to the Big Apple and party with me.

You'll see.


Quote:

And he IS compulsive to the extent that he is very predictable.
Quote:


Multiple choice response:

a) Bite me.

b) Aren't we all here?

c) All of the above.


Quote:
Good night, all.


It is 4:00 am. Just woke up. Can't say good night back.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 08:04 am
fresco wrote:
Joe,

I use the word "interested" both as a peace gesture and as a preamble to an invitation to comment on the relationship between "reality" and "truth".

"Reality" is "true" to the extent that it conforms to our accepted notions of "reality."

fresco wrote:
Polkinghorne's "knowledge" is experiential. He did his Ph.D under Dirac ( a major contributor to QM) The QM position on "locality" is in terms of probability functions. Despite Einstein's chagrin, this is the only "successful" account of the experimental data for the wave properties of matter. Large objects have a probability close to "1" of "being where we think they are" but this is not the case for subatomic objects. Hence the oblique reference to "fuzzy sets"......and non-locality goes even further in that it undermines the very idea of "where" itself .

That's fine, I have no problem with that. But when Polkinghorne says "There is not one single, simple way in which we can know everything; there is no universal epistemology," he appears to be positing at least one universal epistemology: i.e. that epistemology that permits him to say that there is no universal epistemology. Or, to put it another way, Polkinghorne "knows" that there is no one way of "knowing" anything, yet he certainly seems to be saying that he knows that.

And that, to my mind, is an obvious (and irresolvable) contradiction.

fresco wrote:
Philosophically, the circular question "how do we know what knowledge is" requires an examination of all contexts in which "know" is used. "Experience" is one such context.

No, it doesn't require us to examine all the contexts in which "know" is used. That is, at most, an interesting grammatical or linguistic or even sociological question, but it bears little philosophic weight.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 08:35 am
joe wrote:
Quote:
That is, at most, an interesting grammatical or linguistic or even sociological question, but it bears little philosophic weight.


In the same way as water bears little importance in the physical act of swimming. Yet, without water, and without the knowledge of how it behaves, it would be impossible to swim.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 10:42 am
Cyracuz wrote:
In the same way as water bears little importance in the physical act of swimming. Yet, without water, and without the knowledge of how it behaves, it would be impossible to swim.

True, and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 11:44 am
Joe,

If "truth" reflects "reality" and "reality" is a function of "consensus"
then presumably "truth" reflects consensus. ?

My philosophical position on "knowledge" as stated above is straight Wittgenstein. My conclusion from such an analysis of language games involving the word "knowledge" is that they share the features of "prediction" and "control". Polkinghorne is therefore saying that "knowing" at the micro-level involves "probabilistic prediction" with the suspension of normal logical rules. This to me seems to be a sufficient claim for the non-universality of epistemological modes, unless I myself press for a universal move to non-binary logic with "certainty" as a probabilistic asymptote.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jun, 2006 11:40 pm
Fresco, can you discuss how the principle, "knowledge is a function of the knower," relates to the relativistic and universalistic epistemologies "championed" respectively by you and Joe?
I think of "knowing" as a reflection or expression of our very nature as much as it may point to that which we feel we know. Knowledge is not a simple positivistic/objective lens onto God's Truth. This is supported by the fact that members of radically different cultural systems entertain very different "knowledges" (i.e., their respective "worldviews"). At the same time Joe's universalistic epistemology is ironically affirmed by the observation of how mystics of different epochs and cultures share (what Aldous Huxley) called a 'perennial philosophy", a shared set of foundational assumptions about Reality.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 12:48 am
JLN,

You have exposed my devil's advocate position of attempting to lead Joe to the conclusion that any "universal epistemology" must indeed encompass non-dualism.
The non-binary logic of QM implies that "set membership" of "objects" is a function of "the observation event". QM talks about "the instantaneous collapse of the probability function" when an observation takes place. (see for example the celebrated "Shrodinger's Cat"). What traditionalists can't "understand" in examples like these is that mutually exclusive states "actually exist" up to the point of observation by a particular observer.

Irrespective of the nuances of that particular interpersonal exchange you and I have already accepted the axioms of non-duality as described in ancient sources. It is therefore difficult for us to undo this mindset and look at the QM data as though it alone could lead us to an equivalent position. Secondly we should think about the origin of hypotheses for people like Bohr. Their personal "semantic fields" may have indeed be driven by "ancient wisdom". Those who reject this semantic field are hoping (like Einstein perhaps) that the controversial findings will eventually yield to some more orthodox "explanation" in the same way that "alchemy" gave way to "chemistry".
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 06:23 am
Quote:
True, and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.


Hey, thanks for the tip. Smile
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 08:10 am
fresco wrote:
Joe,

If "truth" reflects "reality" and "reality" is a function of "consensus"
then presumably "truth" reflects consensus. ?

I suppose if I had said that, I would agree. But I didn't, so I don't.

fresco wrote:
My philosophical position on "knowledge" as stated above is straight Wittgenstein. My conclusion from such an analysis of language games involving the word "knowledge" is that they share the features of "prediction" and "control". Polkinghorne is therefore saying that "knowing" at the micro-level involves "probabilistic prediction" with the suspension of normal logical rules. This to me seems to be a sufficient claim for the non-universality of epistemological modes, unless I myself press for a universal move to non-binary logic with "certainty" as a probabilistic asymptote.

If Polkinghorne seriously thinks that he is suspending the "normal logical rules," then he is fooling himself (as, indeed, I think you are when you likewise claim to abjure traditional logic).

fresco wrote:
You have exposed my devil's advocate position of attempting to lead Joe to the conclusion that any "universal epistemology" must indeed encompass non-dualism.

Try as you might to back me into a logical corner, you can't do it. Not because my position is unassailable, but because yours is so pathetically weak. Nevertheless, I encourage you to keep trying.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 08:43 am
fresco wrote:
Quote:
any "universal epistemology" must indeed encompass non-dualism.


If we think of sound being "everything", then it is easy to see this non-dualism.

Music is not sound, and it is not silence. These are dualistic counterparts that come together an form what we call music, wich would render music something non-dualistic.

Personally I believe the idea of dualism to be a method of learning, nothing more.

Btw, I am having trouble connecting to A2K these days, so it's hard to follow debates. If this post is completely off the subject feel free to ignore it.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 09:05 am
Joe,

Why you need to take a confrontational stance on this is your own affair. When I read celebrated exponents of modern physics like Brian Greene I get anything but the feeling that my case is "weak". What, for example am I to make of this excerpt from the introduction to "the Fabric of the Cosmos"?

"Whereas human intuition, and its embodiment in classical physics envision a reality in which things are always definitely one way or the other, quantum mechanics describes a reality in which things sometimes hover in a haze of being partly one thing AND the other. (emphasis Greene's) Things become definite only when a suitable observation forces them to relinquish quantum possibilities and settle on a specific outcome" (p.11 Penguin Edition).

Greene goes on to comment "This, plainly speaking is weird". A non-dualist would merely comment "not so weird" !
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 09:34 am
Cyracuz,

(We are all having trouble connecting. I am tending to write my comments in Word and paste them quickly when there is a gap in the traffic)

The specific non-duality to which JLN and I refer is the inseperability of observer and observed. This is in some ways an extension of Descarte's mind-body duality, where the body is considered an "object".
Since "objects" normally have "spatial location" as one of their "properties". the deconstuction of "locality" is significant as a step towards the deconstruction of "objectivity" itself. For what are "properties" other than "expected relationships between observer and observed...hardness, taste, colour, location etc all are based on potential interaction....without "the actor" AND the "acted upon" NO REALITY. Such a conjunction implies that "existence" is the sum of such interrelationships and that "things" do not "exist" outside "relationship".
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 10:52 am
fresco wrote:
Cyracuz,

(We are all having trouble connecting. I am tending to write my comments in Word and paste them quickly when there is a gap in the traffic)

The specific non-duality to which JLN and I refer is the inseperability of observer and observed. This is in some ways an extension of Descarte's mind-body duality, where the body is considered an "object".
Since "objects" normally have "spatial location" as one of their "properties". the deconstuction of "locality" is significant as a step towards the deconstruction of "objectivity" itself. For what are "properties" other than "expected relationships between observer and observed...hardness, taste, colour, location etc all are based on potential interaction....without "the actor" AND the "acted upon" NO REALITY. Such a conjunction implies that "existence" is the sum of such interrelationships and that "things" do not "exist" outside "relationship".


In other...fewer...words...

...they are sharing of their belief system.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 12:40 pm
Frank,

I "believe" my car is outside where I left it despite the fact that QM says there is a very remote possibility it could be on the far side of the moon. Indeed, I, the moon, and the car could be "anywhere". Their apparent separation into distinct "entities" belies their origins in a unified observational act. Unlike religious dogma, such a concept is supported by conventional "scientific evidence". If you want to call the acceptance of such a concept a "belief system" then you merely display your misunderstanding of its functions which, here, are to provide a semantic field for meaningful discourse and to direct experimental hypotheses.

Now this does not rule out the potential usage of nonduality as basis FOR a "belief system" (elsewhere) involving say holistic/ecological goals and directives, but here we introduce dogma and opinion rather than "conventional evidence".
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Non-locality.
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/26/2021 at 06:51:10