Deep, abstract philosophy...... (Or, I'm clinically insane!)

[danielwang]

*****
Deep philosophy time... I'd like to tell you about my abstracted, mathematical view of the universe. I did not ever tajke a philosophy class, but yes, I did make this up completely by myself, inspired by mathematical principles of society.
A link to a full writeup is availible upon request, though it is many pages.
*****

1.
What defines anything, defines us? Everything in the universe is relative. Not as in Einstein's theory of universal relativity, but of logic applied to objects...

So in all, everything in the universe has a relation to another object, it does something, or it might as well not exist. To quote: "A rock does not exist until you see it", "If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, does it exist at all?"


2.
What is absolute value? What defines it as being relevant?
All value can be extrapolated from the universal principle of patter and order. Not pattern and order derived from chaos, but true systems.
From that, we have life and knowledge. From that, society.

Take for example, humans. Compared to another species, we may not even be sentient, there indeed many limitations to the thought processes we can have. But the fact that we (1) know that we exist (2) have considered our role in the grand scheme of things, such as this, and (3) know what prime numbers are useful for, defines the value and being of the universe.

3.
what is motive and purpose? Through value and pattern, understand the method and manifestation of the universe. Not even just the universe, there may be other abstract ideas theologists may not even be dreaming of. What if the universe, and us, are just a neuron, a quantum system inside a huge other dimension, and others like us, or unlike us exist? The purpose of our being is to discover all there is to know, which is theoretically impossible by the very nature of it.


*****
Now it's time for my realistic, common, everyday life philosophy. Although abstract sounding, thsic an be applied to real life.
*****

Let's assume that all of our abstract views are, hypothetically, hereby true. How do we, in practical, everyday situations, accomplish our purpose in the universe in relation to value (or even anything)?

Consider the mathematical principles of production in closed system dynamics.
If each of us are nodes, then we each have a realistic cost to society and contribution. Although in terms of resources we can support infinitely many people, compared against society we must think of averages. Value is keeping our total system up.

All that math and abstract ideas filter down into one word: altruism

We must give back more than we take, and be efficient as possible when doing so, as tro increase the average. Being lower than the average keeps it down.

If a jar of marbles is left by itself, then the only way to allow the marbles to stay at a level is to keep the infinite and total average to or greater than 0, or equilibrium.

If the marbles out equals marbles in, we have total equilibrium.

If marbles out exceeds marbles in, we have loss (not good).

If everyone immediately adds more marbles than they take, they amount of marbles keeps going up and up and up and up and up.

We all have a common debt from the marble jar of life. We have a realistic cost, of existing, and realistically, of using up resources such as air. If you are a burden to society to support, you had better contribute to it. That's the entire point of it.

And how to apply this to practical life? There's one thing people don't quite seem to understand: that the group interest always takes priority over their own. Albeit, I do not completely enfore this rule, but being completely selfish is certainly not good for society.

[alternatefutures]

All that math and abstract ideas filter down into one word: altruism

It actually filters down to the word "Capitalism".

[alternatefutures]

One more thing...

"A rock does not exist until you see it..."

You're not an astronomer, are you? Plus, if it doesn't exist until you see it, how could it ever exist at all? Surely the information must exist somewhere outside of your point of view so that the rock can know when it is time for it to exist. In fact, the notion that everything is relative is the closest anything in philosophy has become to have been disproven, as it allows for its oppposite (everything is absolute) to be correct simultaneously. It's a similar situation with the tree. The closest anything can ever be to "not existing" is if it is moving faster than the speed of light AWAY from EVERY object in the universe, and even then with quantum mechanics we still aren't sure if that will prevent it from affecting (and thus having a functional existance) something else.

[SS5_Majin_Bebi]

One more thing...

"A rock does not exist until you see it..."

You're not an astronomer, are you? Plus, if it doesn't exist until you see it, how could it ever exist at all? Surely the information must exist somewhere outside of your point of view so that the rock can know when it is time for it to exist. In fact, the notion that everything is relative is the closest anything in philosophy has become to have been disproven, as it allows for its oppposite (everything is absolute) to be correct simultaneously. It's a similar situation with the tree. The closest anything can ever be to "not existing" is if it is moving faster than the speed of light AWAY from EVERY object in the universe, and even then with quantum mechanics we still aren't sure if that will prevent it from affecting (and thus having a functional existance) something else.

+capitals are emphasis, not shouting+

And here we have the mating call of one who believes that life is a purely objective experience, completely unaware that in fact, life is purely SUBJECTIVE.

How do you know the world is still there when you close your eyes? The rock DOESN'T exist until you see it, or "experience" it, if you will. Think about the last time you learned something new, or saw something that you havn't before. It didn't exist until YOU experienced it, because you had NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE of its existence. Just like every person in existence right now owes their existence to me (no, bear with me on this one), because if I had never been born, I would've never experienced this, so subjectively it WOULDN'T have existed. The entirety of life and existence as a WHOLE is subjective, purely subjective. Thats why we have the power to express differing opinions. Thats why we can say "try and see it from my point of view."

Reality is quantum, and quantum states are affected by observers. Someone who observes is making a subjective analysis of the observed item. Therefore, vicariously, reality is purely subjective. You can change your reality with a thought.

[alternatefutures]

First, everything is subjective... that's an absolute statement, isn't it? Sorry, but in begining your arguement you kinda disproved it. Alright, I'll give you a break on that one. So, if everything's subjective, and in my point of view everything is absolute, that creates a bit of a conflict, doesn't it? Now, I can't be wrong in my belief that everything is absolute, as, after all, it's a subjective view. But, by the fact that I view things as absolute, in order for me not to be wrong, that subjective veiw must apply to your vision of reality as well, otherwise, again, it wouldn't be absolute and I would be wrong. This is why no serious philosopher has tried to argue relativism for well over fifty years.

We have the power to offer different opinions not because reality is different for each of us, but because we all view the same reality from a different perspective. Our points of view are relative, but without something absolute for us to look at, we wouldn't even be able to communicate in any capacity. The absolute is the "it" you refer to when you ask someone to "try and see it from my point of view." After all, if it wasn't absolute how could I hope to ever see it the same way as you do if I am indeed at your point of view? I'll probably see something different!

And you don't understand the concept of quantum states, otherwise you would know as soon as anything has measured that state the waveform collapses, and that something doesn't need to be a human, it could well be a subatomic particle reacting to gravity distortions caused by the object's state (even a quantum of energy creates some gravity). This is why things need to be moving at the speed of light away from everything in order for it not to have a functional existance, as the information of that particle, which is also constrained by the speed of light, would be unable to ever be recived by anything. In fact, when you say everything is quantum you're saying everything can be measured, that's the definition of the word (where do you think "quantity" comes from?). It can't be measured if it isn't absolute.

And I like those people who look at the world as being purely objective. My computer works because of those fine people.

[SS5_Majin_Bebi]

And you don't understand the concept of quantum states, otherwise you would know as soon as anything has measured that state the waveform collapses, and that something doesn't need to be a human, it could well be a subatomic particle reacting to gravity distortions caused by the object's state (even a quantum of energy creates some gravity). This is why things need to be moving at the speed of light away from everything in order for it not to have a functional existance, as the information of that particle, which is also constrained by the speed of light, would be unable to ever be recived by anything. In fact, when you say everything is quantum you're saying everything can be measured, that's the definition of the word (where do you think "quantity" comes from?). It can't be measured if it isn't absolute.

I'm sorry, but you've gravely mistaken. I do understand quantum states, fairly well as a matter of fact. As it so happens, I know more about the subject than most 20 year old male non-physics students do. I only know 2 other people who I can hold a conversation with this about.

I never said anything about humans observing. I only said when the quantum state "is observed". I never mentioned wgo or what would be doing the observing.

Consider, though, that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that you can know the location of a subatomic particle, or its energy, based on a subjetive analysis, but never both at the same time? As soon as you try to observe it, the waveform collapses an it becomes either one of the two.

Then there is Schroedingers cat. Until it is observed, the cat is neither alive nor dead. Neither one of those two states is a reality until someone lifts the lid and looks in the box. As soon as that happens, the quantum state collapses and assumes a "value", if you will, of "alive" or "dead", "1" or "0". But until that lid is lifted, the quantum state is both and neither.

What was that about me not understanding quantum theory?

[SS5_Majin_Bebi]

Can you explain quantum entanglement away as part of an objective, absolute reality?

[alternatefutures]

You of course also know that the Schroedinger's cat scinereo was dreamed up to show how rediculous the Uncertainty Principle is, right? The Uncertainty Principle deals with how difficult it is to get the information on a quantum state into a form the nerual network we call a brain can process, not on how to get the information in a form that matter can understand and react to; a reaction that does, in fact, affect us. Quantum entanglement is an interesting process, but since the two photons occupy darn near the same space, they have already transfered their information to each other before they were measured. They are a way around the Uncertainty Principle, but it is not transmitting data faster than the speed of light.

[SS5_Majin_Bebi]

You of course also know that the Schroedinger's cat scinereo was dreamed up to show how rediculous the Uncertainty Principle is, right? The Uncertainty Principle deals with how difficult it is to get the information on a quantum state into a form the nerual network we call a brain can process, not on how to get the information in a form that matter can understand and react to; a reaction that does, in fact, affect us. Quantum entanglement is an interesting process, but since the two photons occupy darn near the same space, they have already transfered their information to each other before they were measured. They are a way around the Uncertainty Principle, but it is not transmitting data faster than the speed of light.

Yeah, but what about quantum entanglement occuring when the photons are astronomically large distances apart? It is still instantaneous, even though conventional physics stipulates that the speed of light is the absolute limit. At those distances, some time would have to pass to allow for the information to be relayed, considering that it should only travel at the speed of light, but it happens instantaneously.

Oh, and some photons travel faster than light too.

Its too late to be discussing this now, I'm tired and my brain hurts. Lets lay off now, shall we?

[alternatefutures]

Let me quote myself earlier in the conversation:

and even then with quantum mechanics we still aren't sure if that will prevent it from affecting (and thus having a functional existance) something else.

Quantum entanglement (which does, in fact, follow rules), if it is instantaneous transmission, only serves to bolster the arguement that everything is absolute, as now there is no lag time for an object to be measured by anything else, and thus "exist". Remember, if it wasn't absolute, how could you create a situation where you know two particles will measure in relationship to each other regardless of distance? In fact, do you think it is a coincidence that Schroedinger, the man who ridiculed the Uncertainty Principle with his cat, extended Einstein's arguement on entanglement in the mid 1930's? As I stated before, entanglement is a way around uncertainty (which you tried to use to disprove my point), and thus is proof of absolutism (is that even a word???), not subjectivity.