Hi

Okay I should be working, but I couldn't resist coming back to this...

quote:

---

Can you show any reasoning for this conjecture? I read the words vacuum fluctuation and chaos theory and think buzzwords without any connection.

​

How do vacuum fluctuations (after you define them, please) alter the reality of the past? How does chaos theory (after you define what that is) alter the uber-determinist reality of the past?

​

How can either one or both change a fait accompli and destroy causality? Show your mechanism.

---

Chaos theory as I understand it just means that some deterministic systems of equations result in regions of indeterministic output because miniscule adjustments to initial conditions result in wildly diffierent results... commonly reduced to "butterfly effect"... if a butterfly flaps its wings (slight adjustment to initial conditions) this could make the difference between a hurricane forming or not forming on the other side of the planet 2 weeks later...And it seems to me that in pursuit of the initial condition of any deterministic system you can trace every causal chain back to random vacuum fluctuations.

quote:

---

The past is not inferred by the present.

---

Can you access the past directly to confirm? Can you rewind the tape and make sure it hasn't changed? And even if you could... you'd be viewing the tape of the past in the NOW. For all you know, you've been in existence for 1 second and all your memories of the past were loaded up 1 second ago creating the illusion of the past.The only reason you and I both approach reality with the assumption that the past exists is because this is often the most useful way to consider it, but that doesn't mean there isn't a more accurate and ultimately more useful way to consider that supersedes this naïve realism perspective.

quote:

---

Except it isn’t. We know with a great deal of certainty from observation that no one has shown a causality violation in any system we have seen. Violations that your "superposition" scheme would rittle throughout all of spacetime. Quite the opposite, we are highly confident that the chain of causality from the past has not been altered by any mechanism at any time. And we can take that all the way back to the beginning. No one can show otherwise.

---

I think you're misunderstanding what I was saying... I'm saying one way to think about it is that the present moment is an ever evolving set of constraints. When something is "known" that is a constraint on what the present moment can be.Regarding causality violation... how about presentiment experiments?
Feeling the future: A meta-analysis of 90 experiments on the anomalous anticipation of random future events - PMC
Feeling the future: A meta-analysis of 90 experiments on the anomalous anticipation of random future events

And to relate the CT, Vacuum fluctuations origins of causal chains back to my obscure notion of consciousness being partly dependent on a relationship between "surface area" / "volume"...A rock might have a very long causal chain leading back to the vacuum fluctuation, but the billions of neurons with their action potentials determining when or when not to fire have relatively short causal chains leading back to the vacuum fluctuation. So while the brain is no doubt a mechanism, it is a mechanism with a lot of "surface area" meaning a lot of boundaries... a lot of bits that could easily flip or not.

Causality violations, an indeterminate variable past, are a few of your false data points already. More like fantasy data points.Have you encountered gods? Majik? Supernatural beings? Demons, devils, unicorns or garden fairies?Just curious ... what color is the sky?

quote:

---

Causality violations, an indeterminate variable past, are a few of your false data points already. More like fantasy data points.

---

These are not data points. They are areas of curiosity to explore. Open questions.

quote:

---

Have you encountered gods? Majik? Supernatural beings? Demons, devils, unicorns or garden fairies?

---

Gods? No.Majik? I've personally experienced a few things in the Psi department that seem "anomalous" to me, but to a true believer like yourself they wouldn't crack your faith and would only invite derision. I am open minded about my experiences - skeptical of putting too much weight on them while also considering them to be potential data-points.Supernatural beings? No. But it is not unreasonable to consider there could be entities with "administrator access" to this reality which would appear to us to be "gods"... and considering something silly like Minecraft has racked up a trillion views on YouTube, it is not unreasonable to consider the idea that our reality is something entertaining to these beings who are also watching... perhaps this is who the Navy Pilots have been encountering... Perhaps this is the origin of angel and demon stories.

quote:

---

Just curious ... what color is the sky?

---

Given that you did not constrain me to a time, location, direction, zoom level, type of equipment, etc, I can name any color I choose and be correct.

Actually, the result of chaotic systems is very deterministic. Sensitivity to initial conditions. In practice we do not have all the information we need. But with enough information chaotic systems a very much predictable. What vacuum fluctuations? Where? Under what conditions?What do you think vacuum fluctuations are? How do they work? By what criteria do you trace all causality to vacuum fluctuations? Can you give an example? Ahh, yes. Solipsism. It's bullshit.There is an objective reality that can be physically discerned. We have the physics. We know, in extreme detail, how these things work. There is no justifiable reason to entertain any flavor of solipsistic notion. There is nothing in this universe to hint such a thing. It has no more efficacy than any other pulled-from-the-ass wishful fantasy like fiat creation or flat-earthism or the existence of unicorns on Enceladus.If this IS the matrix then it is so perfect as to be, in actuality, our reality. And we can objectively discern this reality regardless of the woo-woo protestations to the contrary.I reject, as does all science, this solipsist delusion. https://medicalxpress.com/...l-psychic-ability-debunked.html Yes, it's talking about your cited study. Rips it apart. Vacuum fluctuations. Where? You are talking Quantum fluctuations, right?So this pepperoni pizza set of neurons that is about to fire in you brain is anchored in a vacuum fluctuation somewhere? Is that vacuum fluctuation inside your head? That might explain some things.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

OK, now you're talking my language. Good show.

The derision is just for fun. The science rules.PSI has been studied for centuries with real believers, professors, scientists, lots of $$$, dozens of universities and for all this there is nothing. Anything and everything that might have sparked an interest has been debunked over the decades. PSI has nothing to justify a seat in the science hall. It's still outside looking for data. Hangdawg13, yes it is exceptionally unreasonable to consider any unevidenced emotional wet dream as even a potential reality in this universe. Just because you can think it and it makes someone feel good does not make it real. Religion has been doing this for millennia upon millennia with nothing but bloodshed and war to answer the trivial differences in their various wet dreams.Yes, it is exceptionally unreasonable, logically vacuous and downright dangerous to even contemplate considering emotional wishful dreams among our reality.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

OK. You're a nut job. Got it.Can I ask again about your sky?

I'll differ. NOW is the inevitable product of the past. Your NOW is set in concrete by that past. It is already part of the past. The next moment yet to come is what is heavily constrained by what is known limiting what outcomes are possible. NOW is the initial condition constraining all possible futures. And there is no vacuum fluctuation necessary.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

That's the whole thing, though - isn't it?Some people will use a filter on some data points and have less (sometimes accidentally.)
Other people will have dirty lenses and include data points that don't actually exist (again, sometimes accidentally.)We all end up with different maps.The question is: Why do you want the map?Many people want the map in order to feel secure or feel happy or feel... something.
-such people don't care if they (accidentally or not) don't have an accurate map... they have a map that "works for them."Many people want the map in order to... have an accurate map.
-such people will scrutinize and compare maps, and develop methods to identify filters and dirty lenses and make the required corrections for an "accurate map."
-for now, Science has been developed, tested, and proven to be our far-and-away-best-method for identifying filters and dirty lenses (accidental or otherwise) and get as close as we possibly can to "an accurate map."So, the question for you is: Why do you want the map?Be honest with yourself.
There really is no wrong answer.If you want to feel... something... from your map.
-there will be those who support you, and those who think you're being foolish
-just be honest and do the map for you... it's your map, who else should it be for?
-again, just be honest, if your map is not focused on "being the most accurate map possible" but more for your own feelings/well-being... be aware that "accuracy" is not the strong point of your map, and therefore "knowing how reality works" shouldn't be something you consider yourself an expert on
-of course, you should be able to consider yourself an expert on "taking care of yourself" as that's what your map's focusing onIf you want accuracy from your map.
-there will be those who support you, and those who think you're being foolish
-just be honest and do the map for you... it's your map, who else should it be for?
-again, just be honest, even if your map is focused on accuracy, it will have limitations and areas outside of your personal knowledge-level... understand these and you'll understand where the "strong point" of your map is and where there is more learning to be done
-only if you can understand which points are strong, and which are weak... will you be able to appropriately consider yourself an expert in the proper areasThere is no "one-size-fits-all" map.
There is no "Oh, this works for me.. I'm sure you'll love it to!" map.
There is no "well, this map is fully complete and perfect..." (on any side of what kind of map you're after.)
There are no easy answers - if there were, we would all have them. Just as we all know that 4 apples is more than 3 apples. Easy answers are known and agreed on by all.Complicated matters do not have 'full solutions.'
Anyone who claims to have 'all the answers' most definitely does not.
It is up to us to decide which areas of the complicated matters we want to focus on.
It is up to us to judge which areas of the complicated matter we're able to understand, and which are beyond our (possibly only 'current') understanding.

quote:

---

Some people will use a filter on some data points and have less (sometimes accidentally.)

---

Suppose your filter is the scientific method. To discover anything with the scientific method, the thing you discover must reliably repeat. A mechanism reliably repeats. So through the lens of science, the universe is a mechanism. This leads to a few issues and leads some materialistic scientists to make the nonsensical statements like, "consciousness is an illusion." And more philosophical issues:
1) "Hard Problem" of consciousness and defining the observer.
2) Qualia
3) Choice, real or illusion?
4) Novelty: can anything new happen? If this is a "block universe" why is it not already calculated and compressed? Why is this particular moment being "read"? and who is reading?
5) Generally being an arrogant closed-minded dick.The scientific method is obviously a useful filter, but if NOVELTY is a real thing... if the universe is evolving into something truly NEW, then the scientific method will filter out that aspect of the universe.In information theory, "surprise" is essential. That which is unsurprising is compressible or noise or not communicating anything.In my metaphysical worldview, the desire for a "surprise" is what fuels the whole thing.Regarding Psi, I think it has been successfully probed with the tool of science to discover things that reliably repeat. This means there are underlying mechanisms which could eventually be folded under the tent of "materialism" once the old generation with PTSD from their Christian roots dies and a new more open minded generation comes up.

quote:

---

The question is: Why do you want the map?

---

Excellent question and it is one I have thought a lot about lately.Part of it is general curiosity. I've always wanted to know how things work. That's why I became an engineer. My 2 year old son is the same way. His toys spend a lot of time upside down and he's always asking for a screwdriver to take apart his toy cars.Probably something like a dopamine hit when we learn something new and this trait was selected for because there is value in exploring new territory or building a new tool because you find new resources or gain new abilities.And right there, power enters the picture. The ultimate goal of knowledge is power or potential power. I have a very utilitarian view of truth. That which is most true is that which is most useful in accomplishing a goal. A more accurate map is a more useful map. Life is an open game and we aren't told the rules... we have to figure them out as we go, so where should we spend our resources and spend our limited time and energy? Some of that depends on your map of the meta-game.There is also a great deal of stress and anxiety caused by encountering things that aren't on your map. This is what ultimately led me away from Christianity... my Christian map of reality didn't match up with reality in some significant ways, so I explored other sources and data points.I used to live in the country and we had a lot of dogs. Some dogs would lazily lie on the porch all day. But one dog would run along the fence and bark at every goddamned thing in the woods. She wore a path along her boundary between the known (yard) and the obscure unknown beyond. I'm more like that dog.

I usually don't comment on these quasi-philosophical threads because I usually have no clue what the point is and they never seem to get to the point. I have read this thread, first because of your announcement of discarding Christianity, partly giving credit to EvC, and then to understand your current philosophy life, I don't think I understand it at all.It seems like you are saying that "if a tree falls in the forest and if no one was there to hear it, there was no sound," and therefore the past is fluid or maybe doesn't even exist, with some "last Thursdayism" thrown in. That's not how my friends and I use the scientific method. Recording observations so they can be analyzed is a fundamental step in the scientific method in 2022 and has been for several centuries.Another step in the scientific method is reporting your observations and all the details about how they were obtained, then the people who read about your discovery can analyze your results. This is one of the repeatability parts of science!As an analogy, this doesn't make any sense to me. How is the Universe repeating? And what exactly is the lens of science seeing that makes you think the Universe is a mechanism? Are you using "mechanism" to mean something designed? I see "mechanism" used to describe all sorts of features at the molecular level in living cells as well as observations in astrophysics. It seems like an odd way to describe the Universe, to me. You may not realize this, but materialistic scientists is not a recognized branch of science anywhere except the minds of non-scientists.I suppose there must have been some scientists that said that or something similar, but is that all they had to say on the subject of consciousness?I would expect a scientist who said something like that to explain what they mean, because the whole consciousness experience is under intense study and has been for centuries. We have learned a lot about consciousness and we will continue to learn a lot.Philosophers think and talk about consciousness quite a lot, but I have not seen any consensus or useful discoveries about consciousness based on philosophy. This seems like the "if a tree falls in the forest" philosophical question. All we have to do is look to see the tree laying on the ground to know it has fallen.One of the things I love about astronomy and astrophysics is, that we get to watch cosmic events like supernovae occur in the past. We are directly observing events in the past , as they are occurring. Those observations can be analyzed over and over in many different ways, and we learn all sorts of new things about chemical and physical properties surrounding these past events. They occurred whether we were watching or not and we can still look at events that we missed part of, and infer from other observations, what happened before we started looking.Does this explain the whole Universe? Of course not, but along with millions of other observations pictures start to emerge. We are living in the golden age of observation of the Universe beyond the earth, and life and everything else about the earth. We are learning more and more every single minute and that is what makes our personal existence meaningful, for some of us. I am hoping to live long enough to see more data collected on a bunch of the mysteries I am interested in. I have no idea what that means. I feel like I make choices. It feels like the Universe is reality and if it's an illusion, it still seems like reality. Why waste time worrying about it? Well, I don't know what you are asking for here, do you mean can the physical processes of the Universe suddenly work differently or can a comet break apart and smash into Jupiter?I don't know what a "block universe" is or what you mean by "calculated and compressed."This particular moment is being read by me because I'm curious. He always seemed like an open minded skeptic to me. I'm not sure what you're saying here, but if you are implying that scientists or science will ignore evidence of fundamental changes to the Universe then you are BSing us, because when even the smallest hint of something NEW shows up, we science the shit out of it!You seem to think it's a flaw in our methodology that we don't science the shit out of it before it's discovered. Knowledge for me is the joy of learning new things, it enriches my life. I was told the rules, that was part of formal and informal education. That is the point of education, so we don't have to spend all our resources to figure out everything that has already been discovered.I don't what you mean by "meta-game." but you seem to be saying in this thread that your imaginary stuff in your mind is the best imaginary stuff and that it's obviously the best imaginary stuff, based on your detailed research of imaginary stuff.The thing is, I can't even imagine, in my mind, the imaginary stuff in your mind. I was lucky. I discarded Christianity just a few years after I figured out the Santa Claus fantasy, for exactly the same reasons. I remember being perplexed that adults, grownups, would intentionally believe obvious bullshit. I still haven't seen any data points that reveal a reality based on imaginary sources. I would jump over the fence and go explore the obscure unknown beyond, then I would come back and tear the fence down and tell everyone what I had seen and then take them out and show them.Edited by Tanypteryx, : spelling

I am taking Hangdawg13 to be exploring ideas, rather than taking rigid positions on them. You might be reading too much into what he said. I agree with you there. I do think Hangdawg13 is giving more weight to "materialism" than he should.Yes, there are some people saying that consciousness is an illusion. One of them is Dan Dennett, be he is a philosopher, not a scientist. And when he talks of "illusion" he does not mean what Hangdawg13 is probably taking him to mean. It is worth reading what Dennett actually says about this. It is in his book "From Bacteria to Bach and Back". I'm not sure what Hangdawg13 meant by that. The so-called "hard problem" was posed by David Chalmers, who is a philosopher and not a scientists. Personally, I think Chalmers is looking at consciousness the wrong way. This is a word used to refer to the qualities of experience, particularly of perceptual experience. It is another term that comes from philosophers. Personally, I'm a qualia skeptic (or a "qualia-phobe" as they like to describe it). I'm guessing that Hangdawg13 is also a qualia skeptic.More generally, I see Hangdawg13 as teasing out ideas rather than making rigid assertions.

That is probable, but I think he is generalizing and also mischaracterizing scientists as supporting some philosopher's BS ideas about science.I thought, perhaps erroneously, that I would point out what I see as some flaws in the basis for his claims about science and scientists.

quote:

---

I would jump over the fence and go explore the obscure unknown beyond, then I would come back and tear the fence down and tell everyone what I had seen and then take them out and show them.

---

You are truly God's doG.I would love to respond to your comments, but I really picked a bad time to pop back in here for discussion. I've essentially been doing two jobs since co-worker passed last fall from COVID - his replacement starts Monday. And I'm in the middle of moving and with a 2 year old and pregnant wife. I'll respond when I can.