1
   

Non-locality.

 
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 02:24 pm
fresco wrote:
Quote:
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".


I suspect that this spatial location is in itself non-dualistic, since it appears to be one singular notion, abstract and highly dynamic. I also believe that it is a thing we unconciously apply in maintaining coherency in our experience, and not a property of the experience itself at all.

I think it's the same with hardness, taste and color, since you bring them up.
Colors change as the light shed on them changes. Green of midday sunshine is not green of midnight moon. Though the same leaf held the same color at both times, a painter would use two different mixes to render the leaf.

So I believe that all this knowledge we accumulate about our reality are aspects that we ourselves bring to the table, and add to the experience in the processing. Dualism is a consequence of our subdividing the "pool" of information and categorizing it.

It may not apply to the "actual world", meaning that if we were able to bypass our senses, with QM for instance, the relationships we've established may not be meaningful at all.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 02:37 pm
fresco wrote:
Quote:
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".


I suspect that this spatial location is in itself non-dualistic, since it appears to be one singular notion, abstract and highly dynamic. I also believe that it is a thing we unconciously apply in maintaining coherency in our experience, and not a property of the experience itself at all.

I think it's the same with hardness, taste and color, since you bring them up.
Colors change as the light shed on them changes. Green of midday sunshine is not green of midnight moon. Though the same leaf held the same color at both times, a painter would use two different mixes to render the leaf.

So I believe that all this knowledge we accumulate about our reality are aspects that we ourselves bring to the table, and add to the experience in the processing. Dualism is a consequence of our subdividing the "pool" of information and categorizing it.

It may not apply to the "actual world", meaning that if we were able to bypass our senses, with QM for instance, the relationships we've established may not be meaningful at all.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 03:17 pm
Cyracuz,

Yes ,,,,a simple way to think about the non-duality of observer and observed is to imagine all human beings to be "colour blind". We could either say that "the property" of "colour" would not "be detected" or our "interactions with the world" would never be described in terms of "colour perception" -colour would not "exist", The first version assumes "colour" BELONGS to an "object", the second that is a feature of an "observational event". The first is dualistic, the second not. By extrapolation ALL properties can be reduced to aspects of observational events. In as much that "we" observe "in common" we can generally concur on "external reality" or "the expected outcomes of observations" ,but observers of different species will have different realities, none of which is a priori. Furthermore as "we" extend our perceptual activities by the technology of transducers, or perhaps by mutation of our perceptual systems "external reality" with shift accordingly"
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 05:20 pm
We must keep in mind the mystic's characterization of Reality as, ulitmately, neither one nor two. Dualism and non-dualism are perspectives. When we THINK about the structure of music, we take into account, amoung other things, sound and silence: dualism. We we simply EXPERIENCE music: non-dualism, a state wherein we ARE music.
The evaluation of Fresco's reasoning as weak is the expression of an unfortunately reactionary perspective.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 05:20 pm
We must keep in mind the mystic's characterization of Reality as, ulitmately, neither one nor two. Dualism and non-dualism are perspectives. When we THINK about the structure of music, we take into account, amoung other things, sound and silence: dualism. We we simply EXPERIENCE music: non-dualism, a state wherein we ARE music.
The evaluation of Fresco's reasoning as weak is the expression of an unfortunately reactionary perspective.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 05:23 pm
BTW, Cryacuz, I've heard that we can expect A2K to be sluggish for a while, given that work is being done on to improve it. We must smply be patient.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Jun, 2006 11:42 pm
JLN,

Yes, the mystic points to the position of the transcending of even the reporting of "reality". Commentaries about dualistic separation of water and river bed versus unity of the river are superceded by the dissipation of "riverness" itself within a sea of silence.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jun, 2006 03:00 am
Do continue your interesting discussion of the basic tenets of your belief system. Consider my comments an aside...an annoying aside if you must. They are not intended as such...but are merely a manifestation of my resolve to fight ignorance, intransigence, and willful blindness in this area.

Fresco wrote:

Quote:
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".


Yeah…the Christians and atheists hate it when I call attention to the fact that they are merely making guesses about the unknown and manipulating them as though they were facts and truths.

And like you…they attempt to justify it…rationalize it…talk around it…play with words and pretend they are not doing what they are doing.

No problem. Really, I do.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jun, 2006 08:25 am
fresco wrote:
Joe,

Why you need to take a confrontational stance on this is your own affair.

I don't think I'm being confrontational when I point out that your position is pathetically weak. What you consider to be confrontational I consider to be merely a trenchant observation.

fresco wrote:
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" !

What are you to make of it? Oh, I don't know. How about a hat? Or a brooch? Or a pterodactyl? It's clear that you don't agree with its conclusion, so make of it what you will.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jun, 2006 08:28 am
JLNobody wrote:
We must keep in mind the mystic's characterization of Reality as, ulitmately, neither one nor two.

Why?

JLNobody wrote:
Dualism and non-dualism are perspectives.

No, a non-dualistic perspective is a figment.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jun, 2006 09:06 am
Joe and Frank

Synopsis.

1. Einstein group challenges Bohr for evidence of non-locality as predicted by non conventional logic of QM.

2. Evidence is found and the Einstein group concedes.

3. Joe "challenges" eminent writers who embrace and expand on the non-conventional findings of QM with unqualified statements of the type "they are wrong"

4. Frank types its all "guessing" on his computer whose development depended in part on QM principles.


If you are not interested in discussing the philosophical implications of non-locality, what are you doing here ? And by this I mean that you both know quite well that the word "discuss" excludes high school heckling. If you have any genuine queries or alternative views on the subject matter I will be pleased to try to deal with them.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jun, 2006 01:49 pm
fresco wrote:
Joe and Frank

Synopsis.

1. Einstein group challenges Bohr for evidence of non-locality as predicted by non conventional logic of QM.

2. Evidence is found and the Einstein group concedes.

You forgot a step there:
    2.5. [b]Fresco[/b] uses this as evidence for non-dualism.

After all, if you were only attempting to show that physicists disagree over certain aspects of quantum mechanics, then there'd be no point in starting the thread, especially not in the philosophy forum.

fresco wrote:
3. Joe "challenges" eminent writers who embrace and expand on the non-conventional findings of QM with unqualified statements of the type "they are wrong"

Actually, my reaction is usually "you are wrong." I don't pretend to know enough about quantum mechanics to claim that some famous physicist is wrong, provided that the physicist is talking about quantum mechanics.

fresco wrote:
If you are not interested in discussing the philosophical implications of non-locality, what are you doing here ? And by this I mean that you both know quite well that the word "discuss" excludes high school heckling. If you have any genuine queries or alternative views on the subject matter I will be pleased to try to deal with them.

Somehow I doubt that.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jun, 2006 07:55 am
Joe,

I'm rather flattered that you think that I introduced the concept of non-duality .

Read the background article by David Peat provided on page one. Philososophy starts there.

Excerpts:
. .
"It may also be possible that locality and certain forms of causality will one day be seen as limiting cases of a more general non-local holism, for our current paradigms of physics may be blinding us to different ways of seeing".

"Ford and I have drawn attention to (an) analogy between human communication and the quantum wholeness of observer and observed. The recent linguistic theory of "mental spaces", for example, stresses the essentially creative nature of communication. The listener is not a passive object acted on by the message, or a simple decoder of syntax and semantics. Listening and talking are creative acts in which whole mental spaces are built in a highly active way. A single word or phrase can trigger the creative construction of some new "mental space" so that meaning is constantly flowing backward and forward between the two speakers. The meaning of the word is, like a quantum, indivisible and belongs neither to speaker or listener but to the whole creative act of communication."
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jun, 2006 08:03 am
fresco wrote:
Joe,

I'm rather flattered that you think that I introduced the concept of non-duality .

With the proviso that the "recent" physics of non-locality may not be the last word on "physical reality" please feel to give your example. By this I mean that those of us who embrace the "superiority" of non-dualism can be "comforted" by such physical evidence for the appropriateness of our direction, without delimiting our destination.

That was your third post in this thread.

fresco wrote:
Read the background article by David Peat provided on page one. Philososophy starts there.

Excerpts:
. .
"It may also be possible that locality and certain forms of causality will one day be seen as limiting cases of a more general non-local holism, for our current paradigms of physics may be blinding us to different ways of seeing".

"Ford and I have drawn attention to (an) analogy between human communication and the quantum wholeness of observer and observed. The recent linguistic theory of "mental spaces", for example, stresses the essentially creative nature of communication. The listener is not a passive object acted on by the message, or a simple decoder of syntax and semantics. Listening and talking are creative acts in which whole mental spaces are built in a highly active way. A single word or phrase can trigger the creative construction of some new "mental space" so that meaning is constantly flowing backward and forward between the two speakers. The meaning of the word is, like a quantum, indivisible and belongs neither to speaker or listener but to the whole creative act of communication."

Peat may indeed be a great physicist, for all I know, but when he talks of the "creative construction of some new 'mental space,'" he indulges in just so much metaphysical gobbledigook. I'm not qualified to judge his statements regarding physics, but I have enough familiarity with metaphysical gobbledigook to offer an informed opinion thereon.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jun, 2006 08:20 am
Joe, since we are in hair splitting mode the citation of Peat came in post no.1. The exerpts show their non-dualistic basis. My comments followed from there.

What you call "gobbledegook" is directly comparable with Wittgenstein's philosophy of language and Bateson's view of language as action co-ordination. Philosophical discussion isstimulated by cross-fertilization between fields. Bateson for example adheres to the non-linear mathematics employed to account for "living systems" and Peat uses the analogy of non-linear models superceding linear ones, to non-dualistic ones superceding dualistic ones. This is horizontal philosophical (epistemological) analysis as opposed to vertical or historical analysis.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jun, 2006 09:32 am
...and interestingly (to me) I've just looked up one of Peat's references on language, Fauconnier, who in turn refers to Bateson. This confirms my understanding of "the gist" of what Peat is saying.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jun, 2006 10:04 am
joe wrote:
Quote:
Peat may indeed be a great physicist, for all I know, but when he talks of the "creative construction of some new 'mental space,'" he indulges in just so much metaphysical gobbledigook.


May I ask how you would describe the act of talking?

There are to ways to read something.

To read in an attempt to understand.

To read in an attempt to disarm.

I don't know if the two are mutualy exclusive, but one or the other taken to extremes tends to exclude the other.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jun, 2006 10:37 am
fresco wrote:
Joe, since we are in hair splitting mode the citation of Peat came in post no.1. The exerpts show their non-dualistic basis. My comments followed from there.

You are far too modest. From what I can tell, Peat did not mention non-dualism (although he hinted at the lack of distinction between observer and observed). You were the one who said that Peat's position could be used as support for the validity of non-dualism.

fresco wrote:
What you call "gobbledegook" is directly comparable with Wittgenstein's philosophy of language and Bateson's view of language as action co-ordination.

Gobbledigook is gobbledigook, no matter how eminent the source.

fresco wrote:
Philosophical discussion isstimulated by cross-fertilization between fields. Bateson for example adheres to the non-linear mathematics employed to account for "living systems" and Peat uses the analogy of non-linear models superceding linear ones, to non-dualistic ones superceding dualistic ones. This is horizontal philosophical (epistemological) analysis as opposed to vertical or historical analysis.

No doubt.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jun, 2006 10:41 am
Cyracuz wrote:
May I ask how you would describe the act of talking?

There are to ways to read something.

To read in an attempt to understand.

To read in an attempt to disarm.

I don't know if the two are mutualy exclusive, but one or the other taken to extremes tends to exclude the other.

I have no idea what you mean by "reading in an attempt to disarm." I read in order to understand what the author is attempting to convey. If I were not interested in understanding the author, I would do just as well to illustrate the margins with crayon.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jun, 2006 10:54 am
By " reading to disarm" I mean the way non religious people often read scripture. Not to seek it's meaning, but to find as many ponts they can where "idiocy", inconcistency and contradictions are present. The aim for this type of reading is to disregard whatever you're reading.

I am not accusing you of this. The statement was issued in the same post as my question to you for practical purposes. (So I wouldn't have to make another post.)
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 4
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/26/2021 at 07:12:40