Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

My big T.O.E.

Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 10:39:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Apparently Santa Clause is a physicist and a philosopher.

I'd like to dedicate a thread to studying this lecture. You may want to include timestamps to reference your comments because it can be a little technical at times. I think this could be the source of some very good discussions...
Rob
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 10:57:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
at the 6 minute mark he's said nothing at all yet.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 11:03:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
at 9 minutes he's gotten to saying that understanding "subjective" significance and such is more important to us than "objective" physical stuff... but he's not provided any insight at all into what makes stuff significant to us...

pretty boring video which is almost all introduction and doesn't say much at all...

it seems he was maybe going to try to actually say something.. but the video ended.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 11:05:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
ah!, there are more videos.. I'd say skip the first one At Least to the 6 minute mark
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2011 11:11:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
in the beginning of the second video he places consciousness and such OUTSIDE of Physical reality...

He says we must assume this.

I don't see why... though Now he's kind of getting to what He means it seems... suggesting that Physical explanations CANNOT explain consciousness and such.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 12:03:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
He doesn't support saying that Physical Reality can't explain consciousness...

and Given that Physical changes Quite apparently change how conscious experiences occur... How people think, what they Can think... etc..

I would certainly say that simply Assuming that it lies Outside of physical reality is Ridiculous.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 8:25:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/7/2011 11:05:15 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
ah!, there are more videos.. I'd say skip the first one At Least to the 6 minute mark

Yes that would have been prudent of me :)
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 8:27:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/7/2011 11:11:27 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
in the beginning of the second video he places consciousness and such OUTSIDE of Physical reality...

He says we must assume this.

He mentions that his points are based upon research that is just not available in this format, presumably to suggest we buy his book. You kind of have to listen to the whole thing and decide whether it's worth the effort to delve further...

I don't see why... though Now he's kind of getting to what He means it seems... suggesting that Physical explanations CANNOT explain consciousness and such.
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 8:31:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 12:03:45 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
He doesn't support saying that Physical Reality can't explain consciousness...

I think that's left to the simple assertation that science cannot explain it, and until it does we can assume it's non-physical. We can always just wait for the day where we figure out exactly how the laws of physics lead to consciousness, but it's reasonable to assume that we may never find it.

and Given that Physical changes Quite apparently change how conscious experiences occur... How people think, what they Can think... etc..

I would certainly say that simply Assuming that it lies Outside of physical reality is Ridiculous.

I'm leaning towards this train of thought, simply because, like I previously said, I don't expect to find consciousness in the laboratory. It is troublesome to say that chance events stirred molecules together and formed life, which, through all our best pointed efforts, we cannot reproduce. There definitely seems to be something about life that escapes science.
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 8:47:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Does anybody understand the "two-slit experiment very well?

Very early in the lecture he brings up the TSE (I'll just call it that) and explains it. He comes back to it and culminates his point about it in the 7th video at about 6:00.'

Now I've read and understand the TSE from Stephen Hawking's books, and how he describes it is this: light forms an interference pattern when it is shown through two slits on a backdrop - which isn't anything special. But what is remarkable, Hawking states, is that the same interference pattern emerges when you send through photons only one at a time. Since one photon at a time cannot interfere with itself, it leads to the remarkable conclusion that each photon must actually travel through both slits at the same time. I forget what the implications of this is; perhaps someone can elaborate.

But Santa has a different way of explaining it. He says that the photons only go through one slit at a time, and that the interference pattern is a result of you not actually looking. It's literally a "if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to here it" situation - he says that if somebody actually looks, then the photon will go through a particular slit, but otherwise it's just a probability thing.

Does anybody have a better understanding of the TSE that can offer a perspective?
Rob
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2011 9:02:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It seems like having a beard, glasses, and a calm disposition is enough to appear philosophical and convincing these days.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2011 8:17:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 9:02:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
It seems like having a beard, glasses, and a calm disposition is enough to appear philosophical and convincing these days.

Is there something about the lecture you find lacking?
Rob
tornshoe92
Posts: 361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2011 2:31:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/8/2011 8:47:42 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Does anybody understand the "two-slit experiment very well?

Very early in the lecture he brings up the TSE (I'll just call it that) and explains it. He comes back to it and culminates his point about it in the 7th video at about 6:00.'

Now I've read and understand the TSE from Stephen Hawking's books, and how he describes it is this: light forms an interference pattern when it is shown through two slits on a backdrop - which isn't anything special. But what is remarkable, Hawking states, is that the same interference pattern emerges when you send through photons only one at a time. Since one photon at a time cannot interfere with itself, it leads to the remarkable conclusion that each photon must actually travel through both slits at the same time. I forget what the implications of this is; perhaps someone can elaborate.

But Santa has a different way of explaining it. He says that the photons only go through one slit at a time, and that the interference pattern is a result of you not actually looking. It's literally a "if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to here it" situation - he says that if somebody actually looks, then the photon will go through a particular slit, but otherwise it's just a probability thing.

Does anybody have a better understanding of the TSE that can offer a perspective?

Schroedinger's cat dawg! But in all seriousness I read I small amount about the TSE a while ago but at the time I was just doing it to make myself feel all smart (didn't work). Now that you mention it though I have an interest in going back and reading one of the books I have that explain it.
"Next time I see a little old lady going to church I am going kick her in the ovaries because she is personally responsible for this. Thanks Izbo." -C_N