28 May 10
Originally posted by finneganThere is an answer: no matter of what, do your chores.
Thank you. I have had a torrid (bad) time with the KID. I have not played the Scheviningen but tried hard with the Sicilian Dragon for many months. I play 1...Nf6 against 1.d4 to prevent myself from ever again trying to make sense of the Dutch. I already realize that I must first finish reading my Endgames by Fine (fascinating - can spend several hours on o ...[text shortened]... and ....
Yes I know there is no answer. It amuses me to refer to my pain from time to time.
Before enlightenment eat, and then wash your dish. After enlightenement eat, and then wash your dish.
I thank you too😵
29 May 10
I just want to thank Agerg and Finnegan for a wonderful and thought-provoking discussion--and I see that the thread has gone in other interesting ways...
Finnegan, I also want to thank you for your response to my chaos question (understood), and for the book recommendation (on my “wish list” ).
29 May 10
Originally posted by finneganYour patience is non-existent, in another spacetime this attitude of yours whould earn you sudden pain again and again😵
No answer? Tell you what. I shop, cook, eat and wash my dishes. It'll have to do.
Well the reality of the Floating World is the same for the ones who reject and for the ones who accept dualism
Now kindly please feel free to go for a ride with Nagasena's Charriot and enjoy the feeling -Feelings Are Empty😵
29 May 10
Originally posted by black beetlehttp://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/Buddhism_and_identity.htm
Your patience is non-existent, in another spacetime this attitude of yours whould earn you sudden pain again and again😵
Well the reality of the Floating World is the same for the ones who reject and for the ones who accept dualism
Now kindly please feel free to go for a ride with Nagasena's Charriot and enjoy the feeling -Feelings Are Empty😵
"...It just means that what comes later is causally/morally connected to earlier stuff..."
Not unrelated to the topic debated.
30 May 10
3 edits
Originally posted by black beetleYou'll have to forgive my lack of zen training in that I'm having some difficulty trying to parse what you're saying correctly in parts.
We can register the presence of the particle solely due to a measurement interaction that involves our consciousness, however the particle Does Not Exist Prior To That Measurement. Our happening to find it there caused it to be there.
I will rephrase it: when we want to apply measurement in the process of the continuous development of the wavefunctio o this view either, for I dislike walking on the middle way with my boat on my back
😵
You imply (or that's what it seems) in your first paragraph that a [subatomic] particle or entity observable at the quantum level exists at position x only by virtue of our measurement of it; and would not have existed otherwise (be it there or anywhere else), and seemingly go on to talk about reality as if *it is* a probability distribution. (Based in part on a response you gave to Finnegan on page 5 where you said "...according to quantum theory the electron is merely spread out as a probability distribution and not as a definite independent entity/ particle/ object between measurements...). My maths training hasn't taken me into the realm of quantum mechanics but stillI disagree with you here. I challenge you on the basis that a probability distribution is a useful qualatative picture of what is happening but is no more "reality" than some collection of people's voting behaviour *is a normal distribution* given a large number of samples to consider. Yes the underlying wave fnction model may indeed be an accurate representation of the reality which is manifest, but the actual nature or existence of subatomic entities (though not in the classical sense) I argue is not a probability distribution. In some way shape or form these things exist.
As for the EPR hypothesis; yes...Bell's inequality rules out local hidden variables but a reinterpretation of quantum mechanics courtesy of de Broglie–Bohm alludes to non-local variables and it would seem has not yet been found inconsistent. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_interpretation Don't ask me to explain it since I haven't the training, I care only cite it as a defence for my position). So the torch for causality still burns. You may ask why I'd be prepared to go so far to cling to my position; the reason is simple: The 'absurdity' of the ideas I'd be willing to accept which bolster my position is orders of magnitude less than the absurdity of truly random phenomenon.
What seems to follow in the rest of your post follows from the supposed truth of (and is a reformulation of) the same position in more zen-like phraseology.
30 May 10
2 edits
Originally posted by finneganI disagree that my argument is as you say: internally self defeating. I need not assume in any way that my argument can influence the outcome of our discussion; I need only assume than in the framework of determinism I am acting in accordance with my determined mindset as you are acting with yours, that the ends I'm trying to achieve are in my view determined is not relevent (I don't know what such ends are, and they themselves are a response to my and your actions). I would be contradicting myself if I thought otherwise!
[b]I fail to see how Heisenberg refutes causation...it refutes the claim we can determine the position/velocity of particles exactly. This does not seem to imply that such motions (indeterminable) are not in some way caused.
I randomly (ha ha) picked up a 1998 book by John Maddox, "What Remains To Be Discovered," which happens to be a neat review of would prefer to take my comfort in a recognition of reality rather than a comforting myth.[/b]
I fail to see where lies the "myth" in my position (unless you refer to something else).
The randomness you allude to in your next post can still be argued to be deterministic in the sense that the natural events from which they were derived are themselves deterministic.
The explanation of randomness I would like to see is one which explains how the inanimate has the power to 'choose' between states independently of that which would otherwise compel such a choice.
30 May 10
Originally posted by AgergYour conclusion is false; the element is understood and defined as “particle” solely thanks to our measurement. Before the collapsing of the wavefunction there is not such a thing as particle but a wave, thus: the particle Does Not Exist Prior To That Measurement. Our happening to find it there caused it to be there.
You'll have to forgive my lack of zen training in that I'm having some difficulty trying to parse what you're saying correctly in parts.
You imply (or that's what it seems) in your first paragraph that a [subatomic] particle or entity observable at the quantum level exists at position x only by virtue of our measurement of it; and would not have existed oth ...[text shortened]... h of (and is a reformulation of) the same position in more zen-like phraseology.
Therefore that basic element is neither existent nor non-existent, nor both existent and non-existent, nor neither.
Bohm declared there is no such a thing as elements of matter that they exist independently outside of each other by means that they are localised independently in different regions of spacetime and interact through forces that do not cause changes in their essential natures. This way he dismissed the mechanistic order and thus the classical causality as you pose it -but he accepts the "quantum cause-effect" condition as I offered it earlier.
Therefore the emanation "particle" is just a product of your own mind merely because of your measurement, and since it is emanated out of the wavefunction it is clearly an outcome of a probability distribution with a specific Rupa (form) 😵
30 May 10
2 edits
Originally posted by AgergDeterminism does not have to mean that, given certain conditions, there can be only one outcome. It can mean that the same (identical) conditions permit more than one possible outcome. That simple model of cause and effect implies a universe comparable to a billiard table, where the impact of one ball on another fully determines its resulting motion. However, we now see that the matter making up our universe is just not like that. Stuff is far more weird. However I am not about to launch into a lecture about Quantum Mechanics.
I disagree ...
The randomness you allude to in your next post can still be argued to be deterministic in the sense that the natural events from which they were derived are themselves deterministic.
The explanation of randomness I would like to see is one which explains how the inanimate has the power to 'choose' between states independently of that which would otherwise compel such a choice.
There is no meaning to your use of "choose" in the context of events that can have a number of different consequences where the outcome is "determined" by chance. You seem totally hooked on the cause - effect model of the material universe. I do not have to be a Zen adept to suggest this is not how physics works.
However, if pushed to a frenzy, I would argue that living creatures are entirely physical and that even human thought and feeling is mediated through the biochemistry of our bodies. So I am a perfectly good example, of a collection of inanimate particles that have the quality of being alive and that collectively make choices.
Take a cat. It might respond to seeing a bird or a mouse by stalking behaviour. In that sense, there is a largely inherited behaviour pattern that is "caused" by the sight of prey.
However, a kitten is a very poor hunter and cats have to learn how to hunt and how to kill. A kitten separated too early from its mother fails to learn and for example, may be very bad at getting around to killing even after it captures a mouse. A skilled hunter, however, makes good use of the ground to find a successful stalking plan for its kill. It does not just lurch at the prey. It takes many factors into account. The more skillful hunter would feed more often and have better chances to reproduce. At the same time, it is interesting to watch how birds use their own skills to evade the cat and in some cases, even seem to taunt the cat. So the cats behaviour does not explain enough - we also need to understand the behaviour of the bird. How many variable are we building in here? The cat - the cat's mother - the bird - their respective experience of past incidents - the terrain - the light - and what else? If the cat just does the same thing every time it will fail more often - to succeed, the cat has to try diverse strategies and tactics and over time, learn more skillful ways to work.
So is the cat's behaviour "caused" by seeing a bird? How often will a cat ignore a bird, refuse to be disturbed? The cat clearly makes an appraisal of the prospects. The cat may be well fed or lazy or stupid or old. Where is determinism helping here?
Then take this example and extrapolate to the history of the evolution of species! How many critical decisions have had a major impact on the prospects of one species over another? How did Homo Sapiens get out of Africa? Many many decisions to move over that hill, or across that river, to go North instead of East?
30 May 10
Originally posted by finneganI wish you fruitful research.
However, you are coming at me from an angle that I will not pursue. You clearly have a passion to advocate Indian philosophy and I have no passion to prove you wrong whatever. I do not feel it is important for my purpose and I have made a note to read up on the subject at some point.
31 May 10
3 edits
Originally posted by finneganMy reading so far on quantum mechanics and the realisation that there are a number of different 'flavours' of interpretation compels me to re-evaluate and possibly revise my position.
Determinism does not have to mean that, given certain conditions, there can be only one outcome. It can mean that the same (identical) conditions permit more than one possible outcome. That simple model of cause and effect implies a universe comparable to a billiard table, where the impact of one ball on another fully determines its resulting motion. Howeve decisions to move over that hill, or across that river, to go North instead of East?
I'm slightly troubled that having been exposed to and encouraged to look at this subject closer you seem to infer that I still, in weight of damning evidence to the contrary, cling only to the classical model of physics. If I am to address this, given the difficult nature of our discussion and the lack (on my part at least) of training in advanced physics, I should need to spend a good deal of time dotting my 'i's and crossing my 't's so to speak before delivering my next response as opposed to posting on the fly (no pun intended) as I often do.
I haven't the time to do this at the moment but the latter part of your response brings me back full circle to the post of mine which started this conversation, and I would like to go over that in depth at a later date (though there'll be no 'thoughtful'/long posts from me for the next week or so). You may assume that yourself and Blackbeetle have forced me to re-evaluate my position (though not in a catastrophic sense!) if you wish 🙂
31 May 10
Originally posted by finneganA kitten "studies" when it has the chance and thus it becomes more efficient, but in the same time it has to "study" not. Who teached the first ever kitten's anchestor to hunt? Its nature alone urged the cat to stalk and to kill prays, for stalking and killing prays in order to survive is the nature of the cat😵
Determinism does not have to mean that, given certain conditions, there can be only one outcome. It can mean that the same (identical) conditions permit more than one possible outcome. That simple model of cause and effect implies a universe comparable to a billiard table, where the impact of one ball on another fully determines its resulting motion. Howeve ...[text shortened]... decisions to move over that hill, or across that river, to go North instead of East?
31 May 10
Originally posted by black beetleI guess you are probably just talking in your usual zen speak that only Buddhists can understand. But if you are by chance speaking English, then the above statement shows a lack of understanding of evolution.
.... for stalking and killing prays in order to survive is the nature of the cat😵