Experienc only happens in absence of existence

[Bahman]

First what is existence, how we could experience and how they are related:

Lets consider a close system in a given state, S, where S resides in physical so called objective reality. We call that S exist in objective reality. S can however causes another state, S’, where S’=L(S) where L is laws of nature. Both states, S and S’, are actual hence they cannot coexist together, as far as related to physicalism, S must vanishes before S’ appears. This situation however is paradoxical since it requires that S to exist (to cause S’) and to exist not (to leave room for S’). This paradox can only be resolve if we assume that awareness of S exists in consciousness, A=E(S), where A is awareness which resides in consciousness so called subjective reality and E is the experience. The state of S’ is then created using A such that, S’=C(A), where C is the creation. The paradox is resolved in this way with the price to accept the central role for consciousness. This means that physicalsim is wrong since it is paradoxical and as we discussed no change is possible without awareness which resides in consciousness. Consciousness by definition is a irreducible being with ability to experience and create.

How the act experience happens in absence of existence:

From above, we can deduce that the act experience A should happen after act of existence of S and the act existence S’ happens after the act experience A, otherwise S can only produce itself meaning that S’ must be equal to S. S however must vanishes to give room for S’. S however cannot suddenly vanishes before A takes places meaning that they are conjugate variables. Awareness of S however completely happens when there is no need for S to exist. Hence we have the following relation between certainty in existence and experience: DA*DS~constant where DA is uncertainty in awareness and DS is uncertainty in existence. This means that the external reality does not exist when we are fully aware of it and we external reality is fully exist when we are fully unaware of it.

In simple word, what we experience cannot be there since otherwise we cannot cause change.

 

[GEddie]

The experience of any thing is not that thing.

The thing is normally out in the world. The experience is in our head.

It previously was not there before.

So something that exists can cause changes in our head.

ICXC NIKA

 

[JuanFlorencio]

First what is existence, how we could experience and how they are related:

Lets consider a close system in a given state, S, where S resides in physical so called objective reality. We call that S exist in objective reality. S can however causes another state, S’, where S’=L(S) where L is laws of nature. Both states, S and S’, are actual hence they cannot coexist together, as far as related to physicalism, S must vanishes before S’ appears. This situation however is paradoxical since it requires that S to exist (to cause S’) and to exist not (to leave room for S’). This paradox can only be resolve if we assume that awareness of S exists in consciousness, A=E(S), where A is awareness which resides in consciousness so called subjective reality and E is the experience. The state of S’ is then created using A such that, S’=C(A), where C is the creation. The paradox is resolved in this way with the price to accept the central role for consciousness. This means that physicalsim is wrong since it is paradoxical and as we discussed no change is possible without awareness which resides in consciousness. Consciousness by definition is a irreducible being with ability to experience and create.

How the act experience happens in absence of existence:

From above, we can deduce that the act experience A should happen after act of existence of S and the act existence S’ happens after the act experience A, otherwise S can only produce itself meaning that S’ must be equal to S. S however must vanishes to give room for S’. S however cannot suddenly vanishes before A takes places meaning that they are conjugate variables. Awareness of S however completely happens when there is no need for S to exist. Hence we have the following relation between certainty in existence and experience: DA*DS~constant where DA is uncertainty in awareness and DS is uncertainty in existence. This means that the external reality does not exist when we are fully aware of it and we external reality is fully exist when we are fully unaware of it.

In simple word, what we experience cannot be there since otherwise we cannot cause change.

I assume you are thinking on the “law of nature” L as a set of differential equations with its set of initial and boundary conditions. If that is the case (and I think it should be), it does not make any reference to causes nor effects. It just represents an infinite and continuous succession of states. There is no paradox on the change from state S to state S’ with the “disappearance” of state S to give place to state S’.

Regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[Bahman]

I assume you are thinking on the “law of nature” L as a set of differential equations with its set of initial and boundary conditions.

That is correct.

If that is the case (and I think it should be), it does not make any reference to causes nor effects.

Yes, because S is cause and S’ being the effect.

It just represents an infinite and continuous succession of states.

Continuity when it comes to laws of nature is a very specific limit of discrete case.

There is no paradox on the change from state S to state S’ with the “disappearance” of state S to give place to state S’.

Regards
JuanFlorencio

You cannot resolve a paradox by going to continuum regime unless you show that a anomaly has zero residue in continuum regime.

 

[Bahman]

I assume you are thinking on the “law of nature” L as a set of differential equations with its set of initial and boundary conditions.

That is correct.

If that is the case (and I think it should be), it does not make any reference to causes nor effects.

Yes, because S is cause and S’ being the effect.

It just represents an infinite and continuous succession of states.

Continuity when it comes to laws of nature is a very specific limit of discrete case.

There is no paradox on the change from state S to state S’ with the “disappearance” of state S to give place to state S’.

Regards
JuanFlorencio

You cannot resolve a paradox by going to continuum regime unless you show that a anomaly has zero residue in continuum regime.

 

[Bahman]

The experience of any thing is not that thing.

The thing is normally out in the world. The experience is in our head.

It previously was not there before.

So something that exists can cause changes in our head.

ICXC NIKA

Agree with all things you said. But my claim was about the moment of experience, now. We however always experience things that happened in the past.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Agree with all things you said. But my claim was about the moment of experience, now. We however always experience things that happened in the past.

Why not just explain what you want to say in normal disursive language? That way we could understand what you want to say.

Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

I am, and
as part of that being,
which is in a process of transformation,
(growing and undergoing corruption)
I remain who I am.

That being myself,
exists in a state of being now and here,
wherever and whenever I am,
always in the moment,
whatever else constitues that moment.

I am
I experience,
I do
always
as is happening right here and right now.

In a world of flux
the past is burned away by time
and exists no more to be experienced.

In a world of things that exist as themselves,
changing in some ways
but remaining themselves,
they exist in the present.

IOW - I have no idea what this thread is saying.

 

[GEddie]

Why not just explain what you want to say in normal disursive language? That way we could understand what you want to say.

Linus2nd

But then he wouldn’t sound like a philosopher

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

Agree with all things you said. But my claim was about the moment of experience, now. We however always experience things that happened in the past.

The moment of experience is a mirage; everything takes time (on the order of milliseconds) to register in our heads.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

You cannot resolve a paradox by going to continuum regime unless you show that a anomaly has zero residue in continuum regime.

Bahman:

I am not claiming that the continuum (which is not a regime) resolves your “paradox”. What I claim is that there is no paradox. The set of differential equations is, in other words, a set of relations between certain variables that we use to represent a state of the system, plus the variable “time”. The mathematical model does not require from us to identify one of the states as the cause of another. However, you simply insist.

You yourself require from state S to coexist with state S’ to be able to say that one is the cause of another, but as you realize that they do not coexist you conclude that you have a paradox, instead of saying that there is no causal relationship between them, or that your characterization of cause and effect is bad.

Then, as a system is defined arbitrarily I want to ask you to include your observer within your closed system, and please let me know if your paradox is resolved as you thought.

 

[Bahman]

Why not just explain what you want to say in normal disursive language? That way we could understand what you want to say.

Linus2nd

What I am claiming is that there exist two sets, E and A, where E is existence and the second one is awareness or experience filled with these elements: two mode of existences namely existence and non-existence and two mode of experiences, experiences and absence of experience. Experience is of course related to existence and absence of experience is related to non-existence. That we are sure about it. The question is how timely the first set is aligned respect to the second set. What I am claiming is that existence is aligned with absence of experience and non-existence is aligned with experience. This is true because there is always a time delay between the act existence and act experience. This is simpler argument but the OP is stronger.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman:

I am not claiming that the continuum (which is not a regime) resolves your “paradox”. What I claim is that there is no paradox. The set of differential equations is, in other words, a set of relations between certain variables that we use to represent a state of the system, plus the variable “time”. The mathematical model does not require from us to identify one of the states as the cause of another. However, you simply insist.

That I know. For me mathematical model constructed in this way are only a fit of reality.

You yourself require from state S to coexist with state S’ to be able to say that one is the cause of another, but as you realize that they do not coexist you conclude that you have a paradox, instead of saying that there is no causal relationship between them, or that your characterization of cause and effect is bad.

I don’t understand what you are saying here. My claim is very simple: S causes S’ hence S has to exist. We however know with the very fact the S and S’ cannot coexist! Hence S must vanishes before S’ take places which is problematic. That is the paradox.

Then, as a system is defined arbitrarily I want to ask you to include your observer within your closed system, and please let me know if your paradox is resolved as you thought.

The observer is withing system. It is called awareness without that no change is possible,.

 

[inocente]

I don’t understand what you are saying here. My claim is very simple: S causes S’ hence S has to exist. We however know with the very fact the S and S’ cannot coexist! Hence S must vanishes before S’ take places which is problematic. That is the paradox.

You keep repeating Zeno’s paradox, as if you can digitize a continuum. The world is not a finite state machine, you can’t analyze it using states as if it can be divided into frames like a movie, since different observers will have different frames of reference. Didn’t you study Relativity?


“Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer. The white line represents a plane of simultaneity being moved from the past to the future.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

 

[Bahman]

You keep repeating Zeno’s paradox, as if you can digitize a continuum. The world is not a finite state machine, you can’t analyze it using states as if it can be divided into frames like a movie, since different observers will have different frames of reference. Didn’t you study Relativity?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...20px-Relativity_of_Simultaneity_Animation.gif
“Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer. The white line represents a plane of simultaneity being moved from the past to the future.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

This is not Zeon paradox. How do you define derivative and integral? The are simply a limit of a discrete reality when the number of division tends to infinity. Calculus is empty without integral and deferential. I am a physicist, I study math and philosophy to a very good depth.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What I am claiming is that there exist two sets, E and A, where E is existence and the second one is awareness or experience filled with these elements: two mode of existences namely existence and non-existence and two mode of experiences, experiences and absence of experience. Experience is of course related to existence and absence of experience is related to non-existence. That we are sure about it. The question is how timely the first set is aligned respect to the second set. What I am claiming is that existence is aligned with absence of experience and non-existence is aligned with experience. This is true because there is always a time delay between the act existence and act experience. This is simpler argument but the OP is stronger.

No, this explanation is stronger because it is understandable. You are making a big deal out of the fact that our actual esperiences of the sensable data given off by objectively existing objects involves the passage of fractional moments of time. So what? The object existed when we sensed it and 99.99999% of the time it will exist after the moment of sensation and recognition. So you statement is in error. Unless you are " sensing " the activity of subatomic particles, which are changing modes of existence in fractional measures of time, which can hardly be measured, your statement has no existential meaning at all. It simply does not matter.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

No, this explanation is stronger because it is understandable. You are making a big deal out of the fact that our actual esperiences of the sensable data given off by objectively existing objects involves the passage of fractional moments of time. So what? The object existed when we sensed it and 99.99999% of the time it will exist after the moment of sensation and recognition. So you statement is in error. Unless you are " sensing " the activity of subatomic particles, which are changing modes of existence in fractional measures of time, which can hardly be measured, your statement has no existential meaning at all. It simply does not matter.

Linus2nd

You are contracting yourself if you are 100% sure that there exist an objective reality independent of any mind! The simple test to show that objective reality does not exist independent of mind is to try to change it.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I don’t understand what you are saying here. My claim is very simple: S causes S’ hence S has to exist. We however know with the very fact the S and S’ cannot coexist! Hence S must vanishes before S’ take places which is problematic. That is the paradox.

Let me try again asking you some questions, and please respond to them in a consistent fashion:

1. Is it necessary for an effect and its cause to coexist?
2. Do statuses S and S’ coexist?
3. Based on your responses, can it me said that state S is the cause of state S’?

The observer is withing system. It is called awareness without that no change is possible,.

Well, the statement in bold letters is the one you are trying to prove, right?

If the observer is within the “closed system”, it means that the “law of nature” L covers him too. So, the statuses S and S’ describe him as part of the whole closed system. He would not be a privileged part of it, so to say. The changes that take place in him would be parallel to the changes that occur in the rest of the system.

On the other hand, if you meant to say that everything is contained in the observer as a conscience (but I guess this is precisely what you wanted to prove) then you would need to face your “paradox” again, because you would need to explain how it is that such conscience can change from the status of awareness of S to the status of awareness of S´.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

You are contracting yourself if you are 100% sure that there exist an objective reality independent of any mind! **The simple test **to show that objective reality does not exist independent of mind is to try to change it.

Do you say that “Trying to change” objective reality shows that it does not exist independently of mind?

Sometimes we are successful trying to change it; some other times we fail. Which of this cases shows to you that “objective reality” depends on a mind? Which mind is that?

Best regards
Juan Florencio

 

[JuanFlorencio]

What I am claiming is that there exist two sets, E and A, where E is existence and the second one is awareness or experience filled with these elements: two mode of existences namely existence and non-existence and two mode of experiences, experiences and absence of experience. Experience is of course related to existence and absence of experience is related to non-existence. That we are sure about it. The question is how timely the first set is aligned respect to the second set. What I am claiming is that existence is aligned with absence of experience and non-existence is aligned with experience. This is true because there is always a time **delay **between the act existence and act experience. This is simpler argument but the OP is stronger.

What is the OP, Bahman?

You say that there is a delay between the act of existence and the act of experience. Which one is first?

Experiments have been conducted to measure the **delay **of our reactions to stimuli. A machine triggers a signal that affects a subject. The machine records the time when the signal was triggered. The subject has to react in a very specific way, for example, pressing a button on the table. The machine records the time when the subject issued his reaction. Also, it might record his brain activity. The delay between the triggering of the signal and the subject’s response is determined. Are you referring to this delay?