h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I dont know about the co-incident invention of silvered mirrors and autobiographies, but it makes a kind of sense in terms of vanity of vanities!

Here is something about half-silvered mirrors and the nature of reality...

The EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) Paradox introduces a class of experiments, which turn out to involve some of the strangest consequences of quantum mechanics. This experiment involves a pair of particles, or physical systems, which interact and then move apart. Quantum theory shows that the results of measurements on one particle enable us to predict the results of corresponding measurements on the other particle.

That is because both particles were "one" physical system. Now if we perform a measurement on one particle, the wavefunction (something that describes all that is knowable about an object) shall jump to assume the value of the measurement on this particle. But what about the second particle, since this system was "one" system, this means that a measurement (or jumping) at particle 1 implies an instantaneous measurement (or jumping) at particle 2?

Suppose that we have an atomic particle. This particle was then split into two particles: an "spin-up" particle and a "spin-down" particle. Now we expose these particles to a half silvered mirror at 45 degree angle to the source, in such an arrangement one particle goes through and the other defelected at right angles imagine that the two particles continued to move at right angle directions at the speed of light for several years, so that they eventually were many light years apart (you could calculate the exact distance useing pythagoras theorem).

Now according to quantum mechanics, any measurement (trying to determine the spin of a particle) on particle 1 shall determine the outcome of measurement on particle 2.

So if we examined the spin of particle 1 and found it to be up, then the other particle is automatically down.

Now how did particle 2 "know" about particle 1 measurement and how come it was affected by it?

This EPR experiment was performed by a British scientist called Bell - who found out that in the lab the spin direction of "entangled" particles (such as these are called) form their spin direction instantaenously when 1 particle is measured, implying either instantaenous communication (faster than light) or some other interpretation such as the "observer" causing the system (the universe) to form according to the act of observation. The so called consiousness causes wavefunction to collapse theory.

"Spooky action at a distance" Einstein called it!

An interesting interpretation of the results of Bells/EPR Experiment described above can be found in the philosophy of a chap called George Berkeley (see Recumbentmans article on him A3472986).

If I can paraphrase succinctly his philosophy (!) it is that there is no such thing as matter - it simply doesn't exist - it's a mental figment that we create to make sense of the flood of perceptions our minds are bathed in. Nothing essentially inaccessible to mind can be presumed to exist: Berkeley's motto became 'esse est percipi' - 'to be is to be It perceived'.

Now if we accept this, and from a phenomenological perspective it's plausible (IMO), then how do we account for the 'fact' that our minds have :

a) evolved to support this functionality?
b) that there is apparent consistency in the way our minds work, person to person?

It seems to me we have evolved a common cognitve functionality to allows us to: fight, feed, flee and reproduce (as Patricia Churchland would say the 4F's). But it goes only that far, meaning to say there is no need for the 4F's to evolve us understanding the 'reality' of truth. The job evolution has provided brains for is just enough for us to efficently adapt and survive. Evolution is not concerned with 'truth', just adpative performance capability.

So indeed the universe may be a subjective reality as Berkeley states, where our minds 'collapse the wave function' based on our singular (or collective) consiousness and the observations that we make. But the objective/ material aspect we 'percieve' is merely an abstraction to serve as a model for cognitve function being efficiently processed. Something that Physicists call a "Transformation".

For example we 'see' objects in 3 dimensions, but the retinal image is 2 dimensional and we construct the 3rd dimension through binocular interaction in that part of the cortex where we interpret vision. Furthermore our physical understanding of space-time seperates the dimension of time from the spatial dimensions, yet this is not the reality of Minkowski space (4 dimensions of space-time that Einstein uses in General Relativity). Why? Perhaps becuase our mentalization limits simply requires modeling reality that way. It's a limitation not of reality, rather of our perception limited by the processing model of mind that has evolved to do a job not targeted at getting at truth.

Something to think about. See :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse

HOW CAN YOU BASE AN ARGUMENT FOR BERKELEY ON SOMETHING OF MATTER (i.e. a brain, physics)?

Sorry, but really, isn't that a fallacy?

Nick_em, have another look at the wiki link I provided, in particular that part that says...

"The idea of consciousness somehow being related to the creation of reality was first proposed by Bishop Berkeley. With the publication of Die Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik, it was Von Neumann however who became the first person to hint that Quantum theory may imply an active role for consciousness in the process of reality creation."

As for the brain being physical and of matter, well that is an issue of perception also, we can see our brains functioning through say MRI in real time, observe that on the Computer Screen and have that image processed in our visual cortex - loopy

Eugene Wigner (a contempory of Von Neumann) came up with the 'friends paradox' in this area also, take a look here ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_friend

It is a though experiment in which 2 friends and Schrödingers Cat interact. One performs the Schrödinger's cat experiment while the other friend is out of the room. Only when ne returns does he himself know the result of the experiment (by seeing the mood of his friend): until this point, was the state of the system a superposition of "dead cat/sad friend" and "alive cat/happy friend," or was it determined at some previous point, eg., when the friend opened the box when the other was outside of the room?

Wigner designed the experiment to highlight how he believed consciousness is necessary to the quantum mechanical measurement process, it also illustrates how multiple consciousness may interact in a sense to form reality.

Without having anything to do with Quantum theory of course Berkeley did have similar thoughts a few centuries earlier.

Warning: Berkeley is in my view wrongly described as a subjective idealist. He never said consciousness creates things. What he said was that no extra thing (matter) need be posited alongside the things that we perceive (just like Occam). Berkeley belongs among the empriicists.

I'm hoping to learn something here so keep going

Sorry, no enlightenment, only links:

F2217673?thread=695898&skip=278&show=20

F103637?thread=3614091

Vestboy,

Recumbentman and I have several conversations going on presently and in the past on this issue. One thing you can learn from it is that we tend to return to the same issue a lot!

Reading and writing on blogs and conversations are fine, but it has to have a open mind to changing ones perspective, otherwise it's a futile gesture. There is a fragement of Milton that is worthy of quotation in this respect...

Others apart sat on a Hill retir'd,
In thoughts more elevate, and reason'd high
Of Providence, Foreknowledge, Will, and Fate,
Fixt Fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute,
And found no end, in wandring mazes lost.
Of good and evil much they argu'd then,
Of happiness and final misery,
Passion and Apathie, and glory and shame,
Vain wisdom all, and false Philosophie

See Verses 510-580 …http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/pl/book_2/text.shtml

Puts it into context - I think Milton was saying all this "high reasoning" and rationalization about "Providence, Foreknowledge, Will and Fate" is ultimately meaningless. My personal view is that you need to apply reasons beyond the rational, that are ultimately personal ones, to be able to make or break the Cosmic Joke.

Have you ever experienced the 3D pictures that cannot be seen immediately but you have to adjust your focus (vision) before they are apparent. Some people never see them as they cannot allow or adjust their vision to "let go" enough for it to work.

I think that what you are talking about (When you talk about "leap of Faith" type actions) is something that people know that others can do, but they cannot - for whatever reason.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the 3D pictures don't work. They just don't work for some people (or some people will not/cannot perform the action required to make them work.

I'm bright enough but my preferred learning method is through allegory. I understand things better when I'm told x is like y. Trying to understand x on its own is much harder.

I'm at the point of approaching this from the reverse view. I've been a practising Christian for all of my life but now I'm not so sure that my "leap of faith" wasn't something like the 3d picture transition. Soimething that some people can experience but is nothing more than that.

This link is about Fowlers stages of belief, it tries to characterise the journey of the development of faith that some people feel they go through - A937767

That was, for me, one of the most worthwhile links anyone has ever given me. Thanks

You're most welcome (I like to think from time to time that there is some benefit to what I do!)

rockcheekychimp50001
follow the path that is chosen for you

It's your destiny and you own it; just pray it stays in your hands. (Loudon Wainwright III)

Let's play Fantasy Philosophy (quite a thing to do I know)

20th century top 10 philosophers (to qualify they must not have died before 1901 - this disqualifies Nietzsche (died 1900), but as he would have made it on most folks list it just gives us one more).

For me;

1/ Wittgenstein A1024156 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
2/ Heidegger A656787 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger
3/ Nagel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Nagel
4/ Rawls A3136042 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls
5/ Kuhn A1049915 & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn
6/ Popper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
7/ Dummett http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dummett
8/ Sartre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre
9/ Ayer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Ayer
10/ Maritain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Maritain
11/ Whitehead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead

Reserves

12/ Russell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell
13/ Putnam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Putnam
14/ Strawson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._F._Strawson
15/ Lewis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Lewis_(philosopher)
16/ Husserl http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Husserl
17/ Anscombe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._E._M._Anscombe
18/ Frege http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottlob_Frege
19/ Carnap http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Carnap
20/ Quine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Van_Orman_Quine
21/ Derrida http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida
22/ Dennett http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett

Lot's of room for selection, though I think the formation depends on the team you want play against.

I am the opinion that as a group we should aim to write up entries for these folks, there are a few in now, but a lot of gaps.

ok

Well, after all your recommending me to "move beyond Wittgenstein" I'm only delighted to see him at the top of your list!

I'm a simple soul really, my list would be

1. Wittgenstein.
2. Nobody else.

Is that unfair? Maybe I should include Ryle and Quine, and Dennett and Rawls too . . . trouble is, I haven't read a whole lot of their stuff, or hardly any of the others'. I go along with Illich, and Chomsky gets my admiring appreciation. Do Pinker and Dawkins count, or do they belong in the Scientists' team?

Sack Popper, he's a loser.

i don't know

Recumbentman,

Well you gave me a , you are predictable in your loyalties!

I resisted putting in Theolgians/Scientists/Mathematicians, so no Einstein, Godel, Pinker, Gould or Dawkins.

One correction it's not a top ten it's a team of 11. It's a game played by two with a ref judging (ie., a game for 3).

RULES FOR 'PHANTASY-PHILOSOPHERS'

1/ Choose a goalkeeper (G) a formation of defence (D), midfield (MF) and strikers (S) that you declare beforehand and you can choose from as you play,
2/ The 'pitch' is divided into 5 zones (your goalarea, defense, midfield, offense, opponent goalarea),
3/ one person (toss a 'virtual coin') then plays one 'team' against the others,
4/ kicking off with a 'midfield' philosopher debate, selecting 1 midfielder,
5/ your opponent then picks from his formation ('strikers' in opponents goalarea zone, 'strikers' in offense zone, 'midfielders' for midfield zone, 'defenders' for his defense zone and 'goalkeeper' for his goalarea zone),
4/ To score a goal you have to move through the zones, winning arguments in each zone. Winning a debate in the opponents goalzone scores a goal,
5/ A debate is won by a single posting from both sides, who has the ball goes first. The ref decides who wins. If it is a draw they post again,
6/ Sudden death applies who score first wins, after say 20 posts the game is drawn if no goals scored.

For example:

Side 1 Chooses to kickoff with Kuhn (MF)
Side 2 Chooses to tackle with Dennett (MF)
Side 1 Posts Principle that Imcommensurability proves Dennet has hidden bias and illustrates that by referrring to case of Dennetts argument with Gould.
Side 2 Posts Dennett says Kuhn argument is an example of an skyhook and should be dismissed
Ref: Rules Kuhn wins, move to Defense zone of Side 2
Side 1 Chooses Popper (S)
Side 2 Chooses Ayer (D)
Side 1 Posts Ayers theory of Verification cannot itself by analytically or emprically verified.
Side 2 Posts that this is an example of Falsification
Ref: Rules Popper wins, move to Goalarea
Side 1: Chooses Popper (S)
Side 2: Chooses Wittgenstein (G)
Side 1: Posts that the Wittgenstein TLP statement that "Whereof what one cannot speak, Theorof one should be silent", is itself meaningless, therefore Wittgesntein should have been silent.
Side 2: Posts that Popper is ignoring Wittgenstein PI work that says this kind of language is just a Game.
Ref: Rules Popper wins, GOAL!
GAME OVER: Side 1 wins