## The state of physics is worse than I thought

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

### Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Well, no, a square is a thought, a thought about something. A claim about what will happen if you measure something. That is why a square is immutable, because it is a thought. It is atomic.
Aventador

Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

### Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

So, you can claim that a thought about something will be accurate or not, but you can't claim that the thought itself is the thing. Well I mean you can, nobody is stopping you, but...
Aventador

Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

### Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

I feel we are getting side-tracked, I was interested in whether the conjectured realms are conjectured to be independent. But if I have to define everything then it's probably not worth pursuing.

It is, in any case, an old question.
Aventador

Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

### Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

And apparently independent "realms of existence" can be freely chosen (as long as they are really independent). For example the realm of maths is independent from the realm of love novels. James separates the realm of mind from the realm of physicality (one formed of positive and negative ultra minuscule electromagnetics and the other formed of perception of hopes and threats) - both falling into the category of affectance.

I think maybe you are missing that point - realms are chosen ontologies.

In the past (reportedly by Plato and the I Ching) ideas - called "divine" - were chosen to be thought of as separate entities that are not physical or a part of the "mortal changing" universe.

So we are not talking about a physically measurable thing (concepts are not physically measurable - because they are not physical - even though the process of thinking about them IS physical) - we are talking about how to think about and categorize what we deal with - and there are options just like with relativity and quantum mechanics and rationality.

Aventador wrote:So, you can claim that a thought about something will be accurate or not, but you can't claim that the thought itself is the thing. Well I mean you can, nobody is stopping you, but...

A thought concerning logic will be consistent or not - so right or wrong. A thought about whether something physically exists can be right or wrong depending on whether it is true to actual physical existence. But a thought about a concept is simply a thought about a concept - there is no right or wrong to it except maybe in the standard naming of it. If you think of a 5 sided square then you just have your names wrong - it is called "pentagon" - not "square" - but the shape imagined is still just whatever shape you imagined.
Last edited by obsrvr524 on Tue Jun 15, 2021 5:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 3132
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

### Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Is the $$\sqrt -2$$ a physical thing or just a useful concept?

Quantum fields collapsing - is that a physical reality or just a useful concept to help calculate something?

Does real space actually bend? Or is that just a useful way to think about space in order to calculate - or think about how - to get to a final real solution?

Those are all ontologies or "realms" - temporary limited use for the sake of thinking. They never physically exist.

The realm of gods and angels are that same thing - just a way to think about the universe so that final decisions can be made.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 3132
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

### Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

I mean this is all generally kosher, except there is one part where you conflate the applicability of thought to stuff with the applicability of thought to another thought. Here:

obsrvr524 wrote:A thought concerning logic will be consistent or not - so right or wrong. A thought about whether something physically exists can be right or wrong depending on whether it is true to actual physical existence. But a thought about a concept is simply a thought about a concept - there is no right or wrong to it except maybe in the standard naming of it. If you think of a 5 sided square then you just have your names wrong - it is called "pentagon" - not "square" - but the shape imagined is still just whatever shape you imagined.

The name you use for the thought of the shape may be wrong, according to the useful name or category assigned to that thought, but they are both still thoughts. The shape a square represents is also a thought.
Aventador

Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

### Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

By the way I do understand the usefulness, which you don't know how grateful I am that you do refer to the reason for it as usefulness, of assigning these two categories.

I want to formulate another more complicated thought, but I wanted to say this first.
Aventador

Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

### Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

If you think about thoughts as manifesting, the same way changes in the physical world manifest, and here I suppose we can call thoughts changes in the psyche, and you consider both as being related, is it not possible that they relate in more ways than the cause-effect chain of DNA, protein, nerve, neural impulse describes? Or, rather, is it not possible that useful categorizations can be conjectured that could describe effective ways in which they correlate?

We agree that science is thought. My question is only whether we cannot do better thoughts that are, as you say, useful to us by way of describing how these two realms, these two categories, correlate.
Aventador

Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

### Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

In any case, to confuse both as being the same thing would instantly destroy the enterprise. It is, in essence, madness, dislocation with reality.
Aventador

Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

### Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Perhaps, too, new (scientifically useful) categories would be needed for that enterprise.
Aventador

Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

### Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

And, of course, also, perhaps categorization is not the only way to arrange thought. What is thought, anyway? It can be broken down many ways, if treated as matter rather than a concept.

Maybe we can treat thought as matter, but only with thoughts. I don't want to give the impression that I, too, am insane.
Aventador

Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

### Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Aventador wrote:I mean this is all generally kosher, except there is one part where you conflate the applicability of thought to stuff with the applicability of thought to another thought. Here:

obsrvr524 wrote:A thought concerning logic will be consistent or not - so right or wrong. A thought about whether something physically exists can be right or wrong depending on whether it is true to actual physical existence. But a thought about a concept is simply a thought about a concept - there is no right or wrong to it except maybe in the standard naming of it. If you think of a 5 sided square then you just have your names wrong - it is called "pentagon" - not "square" - but the shape imagined is still just whatever shape you imagined.

The name you use for the thought of the shape may be wrong, according to the useful name or category assigned to that thought, but they are both still thoughts. The shape a square represents is also a thought.

Ok maybe it is the definition of "a thought" that needs to be worked out. If a thought is the physical thing in your head - a pattern imagined - that would be physical. Also the process of thinking about that image is physical. But a thought about - let's say - a unicorn - is not the presence of a unicorn. A unicorn is only a concept.

If you want to say that the imagined pattern within your brain is the concept itself - then you have epistemology issues. The concept of a scapegoat might be used in many places - the same concept - the same scapegoat - but in different places at the same time?

Concepts don't have physical restrictions. Thoughts do (assuming you are talking about the physical pattern within the brain - which is not an actual square - merely an arrangement of impulses and residues that represent a square - there is no actual square in your head. So a thought of a square cannot be a square. Thoughts are not square.

Aventador wrote:If you think about thoughts as manifesting, the same way changes in the physical world manifest, and here I suppose we can call thoughts changes in the psyche, and you consider both as being related, is it not possible that they relate in more ways than the cause-effect chain of DNA, protein, nerve, neural impulse describes? Or, rather, is it not possible that useful categorizations can be conjectured that could describe effective ways in which they correlate?

Anything that changes is physical - by definition (the physical universe is made strictly of the changing).

So if you want to say that thoughts change - that dictates that they be physical. But concepts never change - a square will forever be a square.

I don't think thoughts correlate to concepts except as patterns in the brain that are used like words ot signs. The concept itself never exists in the brain - unless your brain is a hell of a lot stranger than I imagine.

Aventador wrote:My question is only whether we cannot do better thoughts that are, as you say, useful to us by way of describing how these two realms, these two categories, correlate.
Aventador wrote:If you think about thoughts as manifesting, the same way changes in the physical world manifest, and here I suppose we can call thoughts changes in the psyche, and you consider both as being related, is it not possible that they relate in more ways than the cause-effect chain of DNA, protein, nerve, neural impulse describes? Or, rather, is it not possible that useful categorizations can be conjectured that could describe effective ways in which they correlate?

We agree that science is thought. My question is only whether we cannot do better thoughts that are, as you say, useful to us by way of describing how these two realms, these two categories, correlate.

That was obviously the purpose of Affectance Ontology - to give an entirely rational explanation for all existence from which new ways of dealing with reality can be gleamed. James answered many questions that current science says that it cannot answer.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 3132
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

### Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

obsrvr524 wrote:If you want to say that the imagined pattern within your brain is the concept itself - then you have epistemology issues.

Let's get specific here. The patterns in the brain are the neural impulses (and to find patterns and name neurons and impulses, also, are all thoughts, evidently). The imaginary 'lines' that conform a shape are thoughts.
Aventador

Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

### Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

obsrvr524 wrote:Concepts don't have physical restrictions. Thoughts do (assuming you are talking about the physical pattern within the brain - which is not an actual square - merely an arrangement of impulses and residues that represent a square - there is no actual square in your head. So a thought of a square cannot be a square. Thoughts are not square.

Ah, I see you were ahead of me. I will keep reading.
Aventador

Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

### Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Aventador wrote:Maybe we can treat thought as matter, but only with thoughts. I don't want to give the impression that I, too, am insane.

I am actually currently in the process of discussing that on another thread - The Physics of Psychology - being discussed on Observing JSS' thoughts on Psychology - RM:AO.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 3132
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

### Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Aventador wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:If you want to say that the imagined pattern within your brain is the concept itself - then you have epistemology issues.

Let's get specific here. The patterns in the brain are the neural impulses (and to find patterns and name neurons and impulses, also, are all thoughts, evidently). The imaginary 'lines' that conform a shape are thoughts.

I think it is the same difference as words and sentences vs physical objects (called "map vs terrain"). The brain has its own internal biochemical language.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 3132
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

### Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

obsrvr524 wrote:That was obviously the purpose of Affectance Ontology - to give an entirely rational explanation for all existence from which new ways of dealing with reality can be gleamed. James answered many questions that current science says that it cannot answer.

I suppose the problem is that as soon as you say 'ontology,' it is assumed that you are making a claim on the fundamental material of the universe, as immutable as a thought. An atomistic claim.

That the world, in its most essencial nature, is itself affectance, rather than that affectance is a concept deemed to be so useful to interpret the world with, that it can be used to break many unsolved problems of science.

When I talk about treating thought as matter, as I attempted to describe above, I meant making falsifiable claims about their dynamics, now of the thought itself, of the concept itself, whereby these dynamics are also descriptive of the material world. That is, dynamics that address the correlation of thought with the material world aside from their traceability to neuronal activity.

And when I refered to thoughts as change, not as changing, but as change, I meant as discreet things that have a temporal expression. The concept of a square is atomistic, it doesn't change, it cannot be split, it is what it is. But when a specific instance of a thought of a square occurs, here there is a change in the psyche where it occurs. I don't mean any necessary relation between this idea and what I set out in the previous paragraph, but this is what I meant. I mean it as an example whereby both categories can be considered in relationship to eachother.
Aventador

Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

### Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

There is also the issue that there is a history to the formation of the concept of a square. It did not come into the world whole and perfect, steps occurred until several different architects and later Greek theorists were already using a formed thing that does not change. Here also is a concrete relationship between thought and matter, thought and time.
Aventador

Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

### Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Neither, there was simply a point in time where the concept of chicken made sense, before which there was a kind of proto-chicken thought, a series of psychic occurences that weren't yet applicable as chicken to chickens.

The point at which they begin to exist is arbitrary, there is no actual point, but eventually the concept does exist, and it itself does not change.
Aventador

Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

### Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Probably, if we study evolution, we can name a vast amount of little changes, each discreet, each enough to itself perform a function, and that by taking 'chicken' you are simply isolating one of these stages, which is particularly powerful and pertinent for the reasons that naming 'chicken' are powerful, so that every 'proto-chicken' also exists, and continuations, such as cyborg-chicken, can also exist, or naming a coward a chicken also exists. Neither erases the other, and the relationship between each is also specific.
Aventador

Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

### Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

But these are all just ways of conceiving of things, and conception is not reality, on this we agree, and so does any sane man. Sane being just a Latin word for healthy.
Aventador

Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

### Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Aventador wrote:But these are all just ways of conceiving of things, and conception is not reality,

Though it is real. And that is a problem for evolutionary scientists, though they don't yet properly exist.
Aventador

Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

### Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Aventador wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:That was obviously the purpose of Affectance Ontology - to give an entirely rational explanation for all existence from which new ways of dealing with reality can be gleamed. James answered many questions that current science says that it cannot answer.

I suppose the problem is that as soon as you say 'ontology,' it is assumed that you are making a claim on the fundamental material of the universe, as immutable as a thought. An atomistic claim.

But you would like the way he did it.

He made no premise assumptions - thought to be impossible - he did it anyway.

Aventador wrote:That the world, in its most essencial nature, is itself affectance, rather than that affectance is a concept deemed to be so useful to interpret the world with, that it can be used to break many unsolved problems of science.

You would have to read it - you are already off track.

The first question that begins his entire (huge) curriculum (if I can use that word) is -

"Can you think of anything that you would claim exists even though you know that it has absolutely no affect upon anything?"

From there it begins to get interesting and quickly becomes very interesting.

Aventador wrote:When I talk about treating thought as matter, as I attempted to describe above, I meant making falsifiable claims about their dynamics, now of the thought itself, of the concept itself, whereby these dynamics are also descriptive of the material world. That is, dynamics that address the correlation of thought with the material world aside from their traceability to neuronal activity.

That is what we are discussing in that other thread - except starting from a very very fundamental level - not ready to answer that question yet.

Aventador wrote:
Aventador wrote:But these are all just ways of conceiving of things, and conception is not reality,

Though it is real. And that is a problem for evolutionary scientists, though they don't yet properly exist.

From what I have read from you - you could spend the rest of your life rightfully pointing out the fallacies of others. Optionally - you could take a different route maintaining that same skepticism but not worrying about all of the mistakes so many others have made (and still are making).
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 3132
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

### Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

Well, I do have a stake in this world.

And a joy in knowing it.
Aventador

Posts: 362
Joined: Fri May 28, 2021 1:34 am

### Re: The state of physics is worse than I thought

So how would you answer that question?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

You have been observed.
Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
It's just same Satanism as always -
• separate the bottom from the top,
• the left from the right,
• the light from the dark, and
• blame each for the sins of the other
• - until they beg you to take charge.
• -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher

Posts: 3132
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users