Is The Uncertainty Principle Incompatible With Determinism?

GPS
Nuclear Power

Likely will lead to advances in space travel

 

You beat me to it GB on GPS. Without accounting for relativistic effects GPS would be anything but accurate.

Scientists seek to understand the theory of things for the sake of understanding, or from a purely theoretical perspective. Engineers generally seek to understand the same things as scientists with the intent of building things by applying the theories to practical applications. Generally, the understanding comes before the practical applications are even realized, so we must seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge.

Some of the questions humans thousands of years ago thought could never be answered are now common knowledge, so I don't think "we'll never know everything" is a good excuse to not seek out answers to the questions we have.

 

Nuclear power is more a result of special relativity. I'll mention that for the sake of clarity.

 

I never meant to suggest that we should stop looking for answers.

 

All I am saying is that the universe is decidedly weird. We should embrace our weirdness. We're not really embracing it. Scientists are some of the weirdest amongst us, and they wear suits and everything's always the same. Nothing ever gets too crazy (except in the actual cosmos.) We all await the equation that will save all our lives, and it may be coming, but do you think it desires that we all think the same and act the same?

I don't see how our decision to act in symmetry is scientific, and I don't see how it helps us to think in creative ways to solve problems. To do this we must understand that the universe is weird, the weirdness isn't going away, and we're going to find more of it. At some point we have to change the direction of what we're looking for. We're always looking for a way to make things somehow "normal", equating normalcy with our own desire for control. But quantum physics gives us things we aren't looking for. Strange truths that tell me we should be looking for the magical, not the mundane.

 

I think true deviation from patterns like you are speaking about requires that you do not see them any more.

I mean, for reasons pertaining to quantum physics, sometimes it's better to give plain old advice than to joust and speculate because experience is done the best by the instruments God gave us. And this is coming from an atheist.
Words don't matter it is what is understood from the words that mean something. It means different things to all of us. But what we have in common are our own eyes and ears and senses.

It would be incorrect or....less precise to tell someone to open their eyes to what things truly are.

Instead, its more like people should open their eyes to that things really are. Things either exist or they don't exist.

Arguing about the nature of their existence is sort of like saying there is no right way to do a puzzle.

I mean it's true....but its also true that it is the nature of the puzzle to allow pieces to fit snugly together without bending anything.

There is a place for everything that exists.

 

Do you think you can comprehend how many ways a puzzle can fit together considering how small atoms are?

No, you can't, because we can't measure shit like that with our brains or with computers THATS WHY THE PRINCIPAL IS UNCERTAIN.

This was not directed at anyone.

 

I'm not talking about deviation from patterns. I'm talking about the inability to explain why the pattern exists or what it means. I wouldn't say this is a deviation from the pattern, because who is anyone to say how the pattern should appear? I don't think that something's being a pattern would mean that it wasn't completely mysterious.

I think people are quite aware that things really are. It's what things really are that people are not aware of. Whether they are an enigma or whether they have total control over their environment. I am not saying that there is some middle ground between existence and non-existence. I am saying mystery exists and to get used to it.

Well, objectively, the puzzle is still the puzzle no matter how it's being done. Puzzles go wrong all the time. Objectively, this is how the universe functions. If you're considering what is real, what is really real, you have to consider the nature of their existence, or you can't honestly say you've answered the question. We can't all just live in the dark, all agreeing there is no such dilemma, because there is.

 

"In other words, quantum mechanics dictates that the world we see is just one of an infinite number of possibilities. But why? Tegmark doesn’t have an answer, but his ideas demonstrate that there might be a more dynamic relationship between consciousness and other states of matter—that our ability to perceive the world is both a means to an end and also an end (an “object”) in itself."

http://www.pbs.org/w...tate-of-matter/

http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.1219

One step closer to Scientifically verifying that the entire Universe is composed of self-aware Consciousness, aka known as the Aether or Ether in olden times. But even if Universal Consciousness is not equivalent but more subtle than Aether, the Aether would be means of manipulating the physical world with your Consciousness (Universal Consciousness, Spirit, and Aether are all quite similar in definition). This would be the equivalent to 'Perceptonium', which is just more Scientific sounding. This is also one step closer to verifying that the Universe is One, and one step closer to verifying Magick when it says "that there might be a more dynamic relationship between consciousness and other states of matter".

 

The only thing that article suggests is that consciousness is not a byproduct of the brain but the perceptronium still requires specific arrangements of matter to get modes of consciousness. the rest of your post was irrelevant, fallacious reasoning on your part as to what was said in the article.

 

I will commend you for at least trying to summarize the articles though Chinacat, that's much more preferable than these occasional random links you post with no analysis of how it supports your position or moreover why you even posted it.


By definition of this perceptronium, it seems to still require a division from the conscious entity and the rest of the environment.

 

Barrett AB(2014) An integration of Integrated Information Theory
with fundamental physics. Front. Psychol. 5:63.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00063

http://www.frontiersin.org/Journal/Abstract.aspx?s=253& name=consciousness%20research&ART_DOI=10.3389 /fpsyg.2014.00063

 

Which would point to Universal Consciousness. If there's a division between it and the conscious entity and the rest of the environment, it's like that for everyone, so it must just be "out there" Universally. Unless there's little bubbles of Perceptronium floating around that go into a person's consciousness. Makes more sense that it would be a universal Field instead, that takes the form of each person, animal, plant, and the rest of existence. Since there's no ultimate division between anything, it's still pointing to Oneness.

 

And where is this Perceptronium existing then if it's not in the brain?

 

So it's the Scientific/Mathematical version of saying exactly what I've already been saying, that Consciousness is a Field?

 

Well, in some ways (mostly we agree that consciousness involves fields of some sort). I don't think that consciousness *is* the fields themselves. It's a phenomenon that emerges from fields in highly integrated configurations with much "intrinsic information". This is just a hypothesis, if you read the entire paper you will get an idea of what types of things would be needed to start developing actual theories. IIT theories, however are theories; this is an attempt to bring IIT and physics together. However, I have not seen anything that suggests anything like a "universal consciousness" or anything like that. It instead suggests that consciousness would be confined to localized patches of fields, centered at the point of highest integration. If one "consiousness" could influence another, it would be because of the fundamental interactions between physical fields ... not sure what the implications of that might really mean but it's pretty interesting to think about.

 

It seems to be suggesting that The brain may be an incomplete mode from which perceptronium arises, so presumably there needs to be mathematically relational mediums in relative conscious entities which are self-aware and can retrieve, store and process information.

There is a brief mention of AI in the article but nothing really other than that. The article seems to be more about proposing a formula for consciousness, rather then saying where (besides matter) consciousness is.

 

Let me be clear here too, I am not saying I ascribe to the perceptronium approach, I am just attempting to dissect the contents of the article.


I think One of the most erroneous assumptions common in articles like these about 'neuroscientists being baffled by consciousness' as it relates to the brain is how science in this realm has to cater to ethical considerations. I don't think its a problem with neuroscience being completely baffled with how consciousness may work in the brain necessarily so much as it is that It's not like We can just take a live human and remove all pathways in the brain one by one to find the point where consciousness seems to be deteriorating.

Ethical considerations are good but this may be one area where they impede our progress in understanding as well.

 

And from where did these fields emerge from? They can't just exist independent of each other. If there are patches of moss on the surface of the earth, their roots stem to a common source. Even "separate" trees are interconnected in their roots deep beneath the Earth.

 

They even said in the article of what I posted that the way we view ice cubes as somehow being separate from each other and the water is a strange conclusion to come to. This reflects the deep-seated Egoic Consciousness of Separation that has been part of our evolutionary path up to this point. What is being implied here, however, is that it's all One and interconnected. Even if they won't admit to that because they are Scientists and don't want to sound like Mystics, it's still being implied. At some point it will have to be admitted by all of Science.

Now apply the ice cubes to the "patches" of Consciousness from the other study posted.

Did Psychedelics not reveal this to anyone on this forum?