Experienc only happens in absence of existence

[JuanFlorencio]

I see what you mean with your mental experiment. But first thing first, how possibly S undergoes a change and reach a final state without presence of awareness. S–S’ is paradoxical.

If you have studied physics then you must know that the theory about irreversible processes was unknown for centuries. The knowledge about the tendency towards equilibrium is an integral part of such theory and it was unknown too. This means that those processes have happened without our awareness. So, awareness is not necessary for those processes to happen.

Then you ask “how possibly S undergoes a change and reach a final state without awareness?” (let me remark that it happens without hate, and without admiration, and without many other things; though I have to say that some pre-socratics tried to “explain” change using their concepts of “love” and “hate” ).

As a physicist you should then analyze the system and you would observe something like this: the system that I arbitrarily have defined can be divided conveniently into several parts, and I can see that there is migration of corpuscles from one part to the other.

And this is the kind of explanation that humans as scientists can provide. Nothing else is necessary to take advantage of it. But now you might want to know why is it that systems tend to equilibrium. Scientists don’t care about that. As for philosophers, certainly some of them used to care, but it was because change involved epistemological problems. The question was: How can we produce science about something that changes? They thought that it was impossible, because if something changes and you have said something about it, a moment later it will not be applicable to it anymore. But centuries later Newton and Leibniz developed the theory of Calculus, and it made it possible to produce the desired science (with mathematics!!).

By the way, I think you should study Descartes, Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Berkeley. They dealt with the problem you have in your hands, and ,without disrespect, they really did it far much better than you. This could help you to make a faster progress and eventually discard your ideas once you realize how they failed. I don´t know…

Best regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes.

Because of logic does not tell me otherwise.

Well the very fact that there exist changes that we are not cause of them open a door to notion of God as a possibility. Hence I am align with you in accepting a God which causes all those changes that we don’t intervene. I have some strange idea about a universe without God but I cannot verbalize them, I am constantly thinking through. I however don’t agree with your concept of God.

God is consciousness, and it doesn’t have any part, hence the set of God and universe is a close system, otherwise you cannot explain the changes that you observe.

God created the universe, how could he be a part of it? The universe cannot account for its own existence, therefore God must have created it. Why are you holding back, what is the problem?

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Dear Bahman:

I understand that this is a pretty complex topic. Still, it is not a good signal to be going to and fro. In my post #11 I wrote:

You answered in post #13:

I responded to this in post #18:

Then you came back in #21:

And.

This seemed to imply to me that you were putting the observer outside the closed system again. Then I insisted in #24:

And

Then you responded with this two contradictory statements in #26 :

And then:

I meant there exist not a L which can act on consciousness. Pleas read the rest of the sentence and sorry for misunderstanding.

But besides this, when I said:

You responded:

Which seems rather strange to me.

It is strange at first side. It is very real.

Where are you from, Bahman?

Best regards
Juan Florencio

Iran.

 

[Bahman]

Dear Bahman:

So when you find yourself unable to explain certain changes, because we are not causing them you introduce your concept of God. Is this how you conceive the task of a physicist and of a philosopher? Such infamous resource is known as the “Deus ex machina”. Of course, you have to design your God as well, so that it can resolve your problem.

Regards
JuanFlorencio

I know my duty as a physicist. The main question is what is L? As a philosopher however, I have a deeper understanding, L is the result of consciousness. Hence, what we observe as external reality, what we have no control on it, is body of God. The simplest interpretation. There are however problems with our births and deaths which I cannot verbalize them simply. To me consciousness is simple, primary and irreducible hence it cannot be created. Hence we do simply exit. We simply didn’t have any experience because we didn’t have any body. How our journey will end is mostly depends on us. So to me another possibility is that we are the whole who cause any changes yet because each individual is a part of whole then s/he or it has not full control on everything. That is second interpretation.

 

[Bahman]

If you have studied physics then you must know that the theory about irreversible processes was unknown for centuries. The knowledge about the tendency towards equilibrium is an integral part of such theory and it was unknown too. This means that those processes have happened without our awareness. So, awareness is not necessary for those processes to happen.

They could happen without our awareness but they could not happen without any awareness. The very fact that awareness happens after S and then A causes S’ give a direction to time. Hence awareness is necessary again. Otherwise one could claim that there exist a time reversal symmetry hence S’ can also cause S too.

I am already thinking about the concept of time (I have a tread about time), its direction, etc. But the stuff is not cooked well. I would be happy to discuss them within this forum or privately and have your opinion about them.

Then you ask “how possibly S undergoes a change and reach a final state without awareness?” (let me remark that it happens without hate, and without admiration, and without many other things; though I have to say that some pre-socratics tried to “explain” change using their concepts of “love” and “hate” ).

It is what is called potentiality which resides in awareness. It becomes actual once decision is made. This applies to us as well as other natural system with the difference that we do have memory and they (a rock for example) don’t.

As a physicist you should then analyze the system and you would observe something like this: the system that I arbitrarily have defined can be divided conveniently into several parts, and I can see that there is migration of corpuscles from one part to the other.

I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. Could you please elaborate?

And this is the kind of explanation that humans as scientists can provide. Nothing else is necessary to take advantage of it. But now you might want to know why is it that systems tend to equilibrium. Scientists don’t care about that. As for philosophers, certainly some of them used to care, but it was because change involved epistemological problems. The question was: How can we produce science about something that changes? They thought that it was impossible, because if something changes and you have said something about it, a moment later it will not be applicable to it anymore. But centuries later Newton and Leibniz developed the theory of Calculus, and it made it possible to produce the desired science (with mathematics!!).

That is the part I am already thinking about. How laws of newton can be derived? But you are right with your observation that most scientist don’t care about essence of thing but what happens on the surface. They are happy once they have a theory which fits reality.

By the way, I think you should study Descartes, Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Berkeley. They dealt with the problem you have in your hands, and ,without disrespect, they really did it far much better than you. This could help you to make a faster progress and eventually discard your ideas once you realize how they failed. I don´t know…

Best regards
JuanFlorencio

Thanks for that.

 

[Bahman]

I asked for a logical argument. No logical argument was presented.

A logical argument for the very fact that we are living in a close system? We know it. Switch of the sun and life will be gone. Sun is dieing and we are growing. That the definition of a close system.

Discussion implies a mutual agreements on the terms and definitions. This has not been forthcoming. I see monologue not dialog.

I am open to dialog. Please let me know where would you like to start the discussion if you are not happy with the current state of it.

Note the use of the quote function.

Thanks.

 

[Bahman]

I am talking about my mind, not the mind of God. No reality can exist without the mind/power of God sustaining it’s existence. But the whole universe will continue to exist when I pass from the scene, as it existed before I arrived in this world.

Linus2nd

Your mind is in FULL control of your body and decisions you make.

 

[Bahman]

God created the universe, how could he be a part of it?

How could God create the universe? You don’t know and your God didn’t reveal it to you. The act creation is impossible. I have over 100 threads on this very topic.

The universe cannot account for its own existence, therefore God must have created it.

I already show that Thomas is wrong given a simple example a living being which can sustain itself and move. One counter example is enough. Who sustain other changes? God, gods, etc. I will rather say that I don’t know.

Why are you holding back, what is the problem?

Linus2nd

You think that my love is not longing for the perfection so called God? It is unapproachable somehow. It is either an idea or we cannot objectively perceive it. I already have an argument for it in Thomas’s forth way. I can repeat it again if you wish.

 

[inocente]

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.

I challenge you to post your theory at physicsforums.com, where all the posters are physicists, and report back here on whether any agrees that you can divide real-world physical systems into finite states in the way you did in your OP.

 

[Bahman]

I challenge you to post your theory at physicsforums.com, where all the posters are physicists, and report back here on whether any agrees that you can divide real-world physical systems into finite states in the way you did in your OP.

Well, I will do that. Do you own the same name there?

 

[inocente]

Well, I will do that. Do you own the same name there?

No, but I promise not to post there so I don’t affect the result.

 

[Bahman]

No, but I promise not to post there so I don’t affect the result.

Done. Please feel free to contribute. I would like to know your name there if you don’t mind. :bounce:

 

[Bahman]

No, but I promise not to post there so I don’t affect the result.

They deleted my post arguing that it is related to philosophy!

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I meant there exist not a L which can act on consciousness. Pleas read the rest of the sentence and sorry for misunderstanding.

Bahman, I think that you would have to start again. Only you know what you are trying to say. Say it right from the beginning.

Is the conscience included within the closed system or not?

It is strange at first side. It is very real.

It is strange at first sight, at second sight and it is strange forever.

It is very strange (unacceptable and -excuse me, Bahman- absurd) that you say something like “now that you agree with me…” when I said “Bahman, I disagree with you”.

Regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[Bahman]

Bahman, I think that you would have to start again. Only you know what you are trying to say. Say it right from the beginning.

Is the conscience included within the closed system or not?

Consciousness is what rules the system, dictating how S should change to S’. S and S’ are direct observable hence we can assign them some variables. Awareness is however cannot be measured directly since it happens in consciousness. So to sum up, we have inside and outside, measurable and unmeasurable, slave and master. Of course we cannot exist in absence of S since we cannot experience but that doesn’t mean that we don’t have any essence, consciousness. I hope that things clear by now.

It is strange at first sight, at second sight and it is strange forever.

It is very strange (unacceptable and -excuse me, Bahman- absurd) that you say something like “now that you agree with me…” when I said “Bahman, I disagree with you”.

Regards
JuanFlorencio

Do you agree with this chain …S–A–S’–A’…?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I know my duty as a physicist. The main question is what is L? As a philosopher however, I have a deeper understanding, L is the result of consciousness. Hence, what we observe as external reality, what we have no control on it, is body of God. The simplest interpretation. There are however problems with our births and deaths which I cannot verbalize them simply. To me consciousness is simple, primary and irreducible hence it cannot be created. Hence we do simply exit. We simply didn’t have any experience because we didn’t have any body. How our journey will end is mostly depends on us. So to me another possibility is that we are the whole who cause any changes yet because each individual is a part of whole then s/he or it has not full control on everything. That is second interpretation.

Dear Bahman:

Either as a physicist or as a philosopher or as a theologian or as a psycologist (in any case you remain as a man) you have to build your arguments upon a number of premises. Those premises have to be accepted within the community that you are addressing. Otherwise, you will have to start with other premises which are accepted.

Philosophy was invented in Greece and further developed in western societies, and within this realm (the realm of philosophy), the following statements are not accepted as premises:

1. Whatever we do not control is the body of God.
2. Consciousness is simple, primary and irreducible.
3. Consciousness cannot be created.
4. We do not have experiences if we do not have a body.
5. I am the whole.

You could probably find statements similar to those in the writings of some western philosophers, but not as premises, but as the conclusions of certain arguments. You are missing the arguments.

Best regards!
JuanFlorencio

 

[JuanFlorencio]

They could happen without our awareness but they could not happen without any awareness. The very fact that awareness happens after S and then A causes S’ give a direction to time. Hence awareness is necessary again. Otherwise one could claim that there exist a time reversal symmetry hence S’ can also cause S too.

That is not a fact, Bahman. It is the conclusion that you would like to reach. But so far, you have not put the means to do it.

I am already thinking about the concept of time (I have a tread about time), its direction, etc. But the stuff is not cooked well. I would be happy to discuss them within this forum or privately and have your opinion about them.

Martin Heidegger wrote the outstanding book “Being and Time”. It belongs to philosophy. I think you could open a thread here. If I can be of any assistance to you, I will be pleased.

It is what is called potentiality which resides in awareness. It becomes actual once decision is made. This applies to us as well as other natural system with the difference that we do have memory and they (a rock for example) don’t.

It sounds nice, but you need to prove it. Philosophy intends to be a rigorous discipline; it is not a collection of “beautiful thoughts”, though it can be beautiful, of course.

I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. Could you please elaborate?

My pleasure. Consider this example: If you put a crystal of sodium chloride in a glass containing water in thermodynamic equilibrium with its surroundings, and think of it as your closed system, you will “observe” (you must know that this is a very technical word) how it changes over the time (making a suitable physical monitoring of it). You will observe that the concentration of sodium and chloride ions starts increasing around the crystal and how a concentration gradient develops within the liquid. Finally, the crystal will disappear (or if it is too big, will stop dissolving) and the concentration of ions within the liquid will become “practically” (this is another technical word) homogeneous.

So, what are the parts that we can consider in this experiment? One is the salt crystal, and the other is water. The crystal is releasing corpuscles (sodium and chloride ions) and the migrate into the liquid.

Was it clear?

That is the part I am already thinking about. How laws of newton can be derived? But you are right with your observation that most scientist don’t care about essence of thing but what happens on the surface. They are happy once they have a theory which fits reality.

Based upon the accepted premises of science and using its methods, you can’t do more.

How can the laws of Newton be derived? If your question belongs to the realm of science you can find a response reading Newton’s works. If your question concerns epistemology, then it would be convenient for you to study Immanuel Kant. He was the first to develop a theory trying to explain how is the newtonian physics possible.

Regards
Juan Florencio

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Consciousness is what rules the system, dictating how S should change to S’. S and S’ are direct observable hence we can assign them some variables. Awareness is however cannot be measured directly since it happens in consciousness. So to sum up, we have inside and outside, measurable and unmeasurable, slave and master. Of course we cannot exist in absence of S since we cannot experience but that doesn’t mean that we don’t have any essence, consciousness. I hope that things clear by now.

In other thread you have identified “consciousness” with the “I”. You have said also that we don’t have experiences until we have a body. It seems to imply that “consciousness” is affected by the body. Please, confirm or correct your views.

When you say now that "Consciousness is what rules the system, dictating how S should change to S’ " do you mean that it rules the system consciously?

Do you agree with this chain …S–A–S’–A’…?

No, I don’t. As I said before: My conclusion is that the path of events that takes place is this:

S–A; S–S’
S’–A’

where “;” means simultaneity or, if you please, processes running in parallel.

Regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[Bahman]

Dear Bahman:

Either as a physicist or as a philosopher or as a theologian or as a psycologist (in any case you remain as a man) you have to build your arguments upon a number of premises. Those premises have to be accepted within the community that you are addressing. Otherwise, you will have to start with other premises which are accepted.

Philosophy was invented in Greece and further developed in western societies, and within this realm (the realm of philosophy), the following statements are not accepted as premises:

Ok, lets make a checklist.

1. Whatever we do not control is the body of God: This I have.

Whatever we do not control is the body of God: This I have.

1. Consciousness is simple, primary and irreducible.

Consciousness is simple, primary and irreducible: This I have.

1. Consciousness cannot be created.

Consciousness cannot be created: This I have.

1. We do not have experiences if we do not have a body.

That is what I said: “We don’t exist when we don’t have a body. We do however have an essence so called copiousness/I.”

We don’t exist when we don’t have a body, a thing with the ability to experience the self: This is mostly around the concept of what existence is. We have to agree on whether you
accept this chain or not: S–A–S’–A’.

We do however have an essence so called consciousness/I: This is a definition.

1. I am the whole.

I have never said that.

You could probably find statements similar to those in the writings of some western philosophers, but not as premises, but as the conclusions of certain arguments. You are missing the arguments.

Best regards!
JuanFlorencio

I will create a separate thread for each of them… It would be pleasure to have your harsh criticism everywhere.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Your mind is in FULL control of your body and decisions you make.

Yes, but it did not create itself. It cannot both be and not be at the same time. Therefore its existence is due to another. But this cannot go on to infinity. Therefore the creator of my mind is God, who has the power to do it.

Linus2nd