You're talking about properties of mathematical constructions. I'm thinking in the context of physics. e.g. Newton's gravity being a force acting "at a distance". Quantum theory being a "non-local" theory. Entanglement. Bell's theorem. etc.

Maybe, in the context of physics and relativity there's a problem with the concept of "locality" to begin with.


PairTheBoard

Maybe somebody should come up with some different terminology then. Is that too much to ask?

Great talk.






PairTheBoard

That guy used to post here, until thylacine dealt with him.

At 15:08 of the video;
Hugh Everett (1957)
"You've been making things unnecessarily complicated."
1. The wave function represents reality entirely and exactly.
2. Wave functions never collapse. They always obey the Schrödinger equation.
------------------

I don't think Everett's theory implies "Many Worlds". Just the opposite in fact. Many Worlds is wave function collapse on steroids. I believe the root of the problem is a false cognitive imperative that compels us to get things down to something "definite". Many Worlds is just another way of doing that. It's a cognitive imperative that keeps us in a box and causes cognitive dissonance if we try to leave that box. In this case, leaving that box means accepting the reality of the Universal Quantum State. We never leave it. We are not on one of the imagined definite paths of the many paths of Many Worlds.

The Universal Quantum State is a mathematical representation of Spontaneity. As entanglements (interdependence of everything) get denser they bring into focus the appearance for us of the classical. The universal quantum wave function unfolds specifically according to the Schrödinger equation yet it's not deterministic because the Quantum State is not a Definite state. It is a state of spontaneity, a representation of the Tao.


PairTheBoard

Nothing is fixed. There are no nouns. They're all verbs. Everything is happening. Now is nowing. Being is beinging.


PairTheBoard

This paper gives a mathematical definition of locality, in the sense of physics.

Sean Carroll posted here? Under what name?

mobiusstri

He is right about there being no thirst among some to explore these problems, and from a pragmatic point of view they are probably correct in doing so... why, because if you can predict to a very high degree of accuracy the outcome of an experiment and develop new technologies as a result then you are solving the problems of physics. But Sean is a philosopher trapped in the mind of a materialist, to overcome the kinds of problems he wants to solve we must go beyond this I think, beyond physics as it were. The shut up and calculate brigade can be left to their own devices.

He misrepresents Copenhagen I think. Yes, the moon is there when nobody looks, the tree falls etc, because of decoherence. It is not what the experimenter bothers to do to gain information (observe, measure etc), but what he can do, that determines the outcome, and this is causative. This leads us straight to idealism, rather than to a unified "reality" of a universal wavefunction. (we must define reality to mean the totality of phenomena in the Universe to have agreement on terms). It is understandable when we demarcate reality as phenomena from un-reality as noumena. 'Many-worlds', Bohm, hidden variables etc, are coping mechanisms for when shut-up-and-calculators discover that materialism cannot solve the riddles presented by physics. A friend, ahead of me in formal learning by a number of years and light years ahead of me in reading of literature and philosophy, promised that Bohm would reveal solutions to great mystery... imagine my disappointment.

It is refreshing that Sean, author of books on spacetime and general relativity, does not know what space and time are and is happy to admit this. It seems that only when one reaches high enough authority are they allowed to say 'I don't know'. The problem is ofc in defining what space and time are in the first instance. To define them as phenomena is a problem.

I listened to breeze through the Copenhagen interpretation, explain hidden variables and many worlds To a more excited than usual Slavoj Zizek lately. who would have tested Anyone’s patience. Was hard to get through.

He admitted that with hidden variables you can’t make predictions if you cant know where the hidden variables are. And neither make predictions with many worlds interp if you cant determine which branch of the wave function you’re in
To put it sloppily

Which is one of KastruPs gripes against materialism and main reason for wanting strongly to debate Sean.

Sean seems honest, polite, not douchey. I think Sean would talk to Bernardo Kastrup if he didnt get so dramatic and combative.
Meh

https://youtu.be/BPUGIsJe0Cs

They are probably correct in doing so.

*Not?

I agree, but it keeps us occupied

Correct for them, I should say. Because they seem comfortable with what they're doing. It's a mindset thing I guess. To me, physics is a limited part of the picture.

Have a dusty copy of one of zizek's books somewhere, never been touched. Always struck me as a bit of a windbag, not sure where the book came from actually.

Consciousness is experiencing existence.


PairTheBoard

Those who speak, do not know.

I’m quoting. In other words every thing we say here is not true. But we’re human, we are chatterboxes. Express yourself.


Time is an illusion. Space. And causation. It’s maya. It’s happening now. Forms change indeed.

If they invent the immortality pill. We will rationalise it. Sure. We’ll do anything except admit we are god.

If they don’t. You can go to sleep eternally. If you’d rather that. However before you born. It was eternal darkness. So in that sense. You are precisely going to end up in the exact same state as before you were born.

Think about it. Eternal sleep before you were born and eternal darkness when you die. Hence, you may as well not have been born at all and nothing matters.

But. You got here once. Why not twice. Logic.

Aha, logic is not an illusion.

You'd be proud of me, Mac: I bought a piece of electronics equipment - an amplifier for earphones - and it worked instantly. No complicated instructions, no mismatched specifications, no downloading apps or QR codes, just plug it in and turn the one volume dial up.

The Koan does not contain enlightenment. The Koan is a poem, a song played on the keys of the metaphoric complex of language. Hearing the song may coincide with an experience of enlightenment. The thing is, the song is always playing. There is nothing so profound as experiencing existence.


PairTheBoard

The Koran is a vomit of idiocy perpetrated on humanity by a charlatan!

Some koans:

(Koan)

One day Banzan was walking through a market. He overheard a customer say to the butcher, “Give me the best piece of meat you have.”
“Everything in my shop is the best,” replied the butcher. “You can not find any piece of meat that is not the best.”
At these words, Banzan was enlightened.

(Koan)

A monk asked Master Haryo, “What is the way?”
Haryo said, “An open-eyed man falling into the well.”

(Koan)

One day as Manjusri stood outside the gate, the Buddha called to him, “Manjusri, Manjusri, why do you not enter?”
Manjusri replied, “I do not see myself as outside. Why enter?”
==============


PairTheBoard

The gateless gate. Book.

Koans are said to have the same structure as a joke. A setup with a punchline that isn’t funny, but something else.

This is a synchronicity for me. I just bought AirPods.

I took them out of the box. And held them near the phone, basically.

I read wireless earphones aren't loud enough. Is that not the case? I want volume 11.