European Tribune - Comments - Metaphysics of the coming age
paleo-astronomy
From there I tracked back to things like Isaac Azimov, Moon over Babylon which contains a good description of Planetary Hours--a concept in astrology--but like modern astrologers, he does not seem to know what the planetary hours were actually good for. Realizing the import was a major breakthrough.
Clues turn up here and there. The Ballad of Thomas the Rhymer was one. I was sitting in a concert at a Pagan Festival when I heard it performed for the first time. I was astonished. That was when the Planetary Hours clicked into place.
In Richard Feynman's Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman he describes besting the archaeologists in a matter involving Mayan codices and astronomy--specifically picking out the 11959 day Mayan eclipse cycle. Actually, the cycle of eclipses is 11960 days, and the one day discrepancy is a further hint.
I spent a month surfing the net reading about the Mayan Calendar. There is less there than you think. Much drivel and absurdities. But again, some good clues.
But before all of this was cracking out an ordinary Astronomy text and making comparisons of planetary constants. Ratios of synodic periods are the key. Since, fortunately, the ancients had the same sky that we do, it is possible to know what they could observe. They just thought about it differently.
I will have to post a diary.
Thanks for your compliment, and interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedic_timeline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Four_Yugas
http://www.vedanet.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=129
Good question.
I don't really know. The first stage would be to see what those numbers might correspond to in the sky. Generally, I have been looking at much shorter time-frames.
The longest cycle I have encountered so far is (one fifth of) 25 800 years (the cycle of precession of the equinoxes) and at this point I can not really justify this--because I do not have an explanation for the one fifth. And the longest cycle that I have come across that is sure is a 112-year eclipse cycle (actually 1385 months) in an account of the markings on a brass bowl recovered from Arabia and dating from Mohammedian times or possibly earlier (brass is hard to date). The 56-year cycle of the Dragon against the year can be confidently adduced to the ring of hollow stones at Stonehenge. This is not an eclipse cycle, but is instead relevant to the elevation of the Moon's path in the sky.
On the other hand, while I may know the meaning in the sky, I won't know the meaning on the ground! So I definitely miss part of what is going on.
One of my friends is studying mythological structures, and sometimes our results dovetail perfectly. But that is a study that is even murkier than what I am doing. At least to me. ;)
In particular, I would like to know how one can avoid the conceptual trap that Europe fell into in the 18th century which is to go from celestial mechanics to a clockwork universe metaphor.
How would it help if suddenly a large fraction of the population knew about these astronomical cycles? How can one justify organizing one's life around cycles other than those of the sun-earth-moon system? What difference does it make if one has a Venusian calendar? We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
So I owe you for your diligence, and shall start thinking about what goes into that diary.
Thank you for your encouragement.
As for quantum mechanics, we know it's not right: worrying too much about the philosophical implications of theories we know to be incomplete at best seems like rather a waste of energy to my mind.
That is not the problem. "As for quantum mechanics, we know it's not right." And indeed, Quantum Mechanics may well get replaced by something else.
Here is the problem: The unmitigatedness of interaction (in the case of entangled pairs) has been put to physical experiment, and this aspect of Quantum Mechanics IS correct. Which means it will also be part of whatever supersedes Quantum Mechanics.
This is not acceptable to the Western mind, unfortunately, it IS acceptable to Reality. It is part of how Reality works.
This is perhaps the key point of Herbert's book.
There is only one world-view I know of that approaches reality on this point--Vodun, or Haitian (and by extension, African) magic. There may be others I don't know of.
But then I don't believe in any of this religious/spiritual stuff that apparently underlies the "Western" mind.
In all forms of Christianity the material is a real (though denigrated) category. The spiritual is thought to exist and is exhalted, but is separated from the material.
The Modern West arises co-incidentally with modern science, which investigates public knowledge--that is, that which is publicly verifiable through demonstration or experiment. This leaves out dreams and visions (the most important part of reality in many cultures), but at this point it does not pass judgment on them.
By the 19th century certain ancient notions that had been adopted by Christianity as unalterable dogma were shown by science to be false in fact, leading to a war between Christian religion and science. One consequence of the war was that science moved from non-study of the non-material, to active denial of the non-material. Science adopted a wholly materialistic point of view.
Several non-Western cultures blur the material-spiritual distinction. The interest is not in how to separate them, but in how they relate--how they inform each other.
If you were really non-materialist you would not be Western in mind.
Most of the "the West" is definitely not materialist - the problem is that they conflate their mythos with their logos and expect certainty when there is and can be none. And they're afraid to say "I don't know".
the world is what it is
But WHAT is it? I don't think we know. A metaphysics is one's underlying model for everything. Are there metaphysics that actually work?
This as an inquiry, not angst.
And they're afraid to say "I don't know".
"Don't know" is the starting point for Zen: It is okay not to know--not at all the worst place to be. ;)
Are there metaphysics that actually work?
But WHAT is it?
I've always had a fondness for an 'answer' provided in the Yoga Vasistha (India, 500 CE).
"The world is an impression left by the telling of a story."
My problem with such metaphors is that instead of being compelling for some insight, they are compelling for being antropomorphic, that is, referring to stuff we have 'innate sense of' and don't immediately think of something whose meaning could be philosophically (or metaphysically) complicated itself. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
In the classical Indian scheme, there are 6 complementary views... none of which paints the whole picture... these views are called:
Nyaya: Sets forth the rules and limits of thought/logic/language Vaisheshika: Analysis (an ancient atomic theory is part of this approach) Samkhya: An atheistic, dualistic approach which posits an essential difference between matter and mind Yoga: Gnosis Mimamsa: A theistic approach Vedanta: Posits an essential non-duality
These are considered complementary approaches.
In all forms of Christianity<snip>
Wrong.
Why does everyone insist that Christianity is some simple set of axioms? Christianity is not like dolls cut out of folded paper. We create god in our own image and that image shifts and changes with the individual and the time. Just to be clear here I am speaking of organised Christianity.
Christianity is not some fossil that has been dug out of the ground. Attitudes and ideas of today are found in the religions of today. Christianity in particular has fractured like a pane of glass dropped on the pavement. Like humpty dumpty there are those desperately trying to put it back together, and like humpty dumpty they will fail.
For a bunch of mathematicians, the lack of precision is surprising. Is this the quality of mathematical work? It is 99% true so we will call it universal?
There is a deeper problem than the 1% of Christianity that is not part of all forms of Christianity, and that is the way Christianity is changing. It is affected and altered by the same things that affect everyone. Today's Christianity is not the same as yesterdays. There are people who desperately cling to their vision of the past, but even they put forward a new version of their beliefs and myths. The landscape that they build their beliefs on has changed, so too must be what they build on that landscape.
Not all Christians dress in funny fashions that date from your grandmother, or great grandmother's time. We are for Justice and Mercy, and Truth and Peace, and true Freedom. Edward Burroughs 1659
Could "a whole new conceptual/metaphorical scaffolding" be identified with Gaianne's "utter rearrangement of [the Western] mind"/"metaphysics" (though maybe I should not be identifying "mind" and "metaphysics" here)?
If so, then if and when we find such a new scaffolding/metaphysics, how can this help us address
the circumstances of peak oil, climate change, biosphere destruction, and consequent civilization collapse
Also, why exactly is our current conceptual/metaphorical scaffolding not already sufficient for undertaking these challenges? Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
If so, then if and when we find such a new scaffolding/metaphysics, how can this help us address the circumstances of peak oil, climate change, biosphere destruction, and consequent civilization collapse?
Clearly it is not.
Indeed it is the mind that we ALREADY HAVE that has led us into our troubles. So we need to alter or augment that mind in some way that will work.
This comes even before worrying about how we might communicate and implement such mind.
That is: I am seeking to cast a wider net.
There are two places I know to look: Peoples who already are (or were) sustainable; and the unregarded places our own studies point to. The latter may seem esoteric, but considering they demand a new mental structure (and we know we need one) they might (by luck) suggest the things we actually need. (Reality is your friend.)
There may be other places to look.
Seriously, I cannot imagine how ecology or political economy can depend on insights from Quantum Mechanics. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
back to Mig's question. since environmental destruction is caused by a civilization which doesn't know itself, nor its relationship to its surounding; then a healthy dose of conscious evolution would enable the "New Deal/Apollo" program of renewable energy to be not supported, but demanded by the general population. Skennah Kowa
But there's a whole 'nother side to him and his work. Some of his insights he got while doing the grunt work for Abdus Salaam's Nobel. That Sarfatti worked for Salaam doesn't invalidate his Nobel. Brian Josephson remains in constant contact with him, despite sarfatti's sentient computer. That doesn't invalidate the Josephson Junction. and for what it's worth, Sarfatti is a center of the physics consciousness world.
Full disclosure. I can't argue physics, because i'm not, nor ever will be one in this lifetime. Sarfatti is a close friend of mine for nearly 30 years. I stayed at his house in November, so i'm prejudiced. I have seen him at his most brilliant, and i have seen him at his most manic. But as Jack himself often says, it doesn't matter if he's crazy, it matters if the equations check out.
And i do have personal knowledge of how much equation checking is being done at high levels around the world. Skennah Kowa
The real point was not about Sarfatti, but about the physical roots of consciousness, and the possible effect of the now common "paradigm shift" in human thinking. And how that shift would affect every aspect of civilization. Skennah Kowa
Preconceived ideas are always the hardest to give up.
People in general do not change views easily, as there's always some extra attachment. "No, we have to take Little Round Top, said Lt. General Pickett." or perhaps, "No, Pope, the sun does not move around the earth." Skennah Kowa
I don't worry about where my insights come from, only whether they're any good.
Sadly, I'm sure people would rather believe a sentient computer than Sarfatti himself.
you are the media you consume.
I'm immediately skeptical of Crazy Horse on this: his comment has dualism written all over it, with the material/immaterial mapping to the microscopic/macroscopic world of physics. That would be neat if true, but I'd rather reject more likely candidates first.
The Mind reconfigures neural pathways. Among those so configured are the pathways to/from the diencephalon where the Thalamus and Hypothalamus major control areas for the endocrine system are.
Thus, what you think may become what you are.
Also, the Thalamus is the 'ante room' to the two cerebral hemispheres where higher cognitive functions are located. As the body does its 'thing' messages are passed to the Thalamus through the Central Nervous System and the biochemical signals of the endocrine system. Together these 'inform' the Thalamus which then transmits messages to the cerebral hemispheres.
Thus, what you are may become what you think.
Out of the googleplex of messages being transmitted eventually some of what you think will become what you are. Out of the googleplex of messages being transmitted eventually some of what you are will become what you think.
On a simplistic level, the homeostasis system will generate signals to the Thalamus which send signals to the cerebral cortex which will result in the thought, "Let's go out for a pizza."
It works the other way as well. That's how we can make the decision to hold our breath so we don't drown while swimming under water. A doo run-run-run, a doo run-run
Newton's Gravity still affects brain components. Why not other physical aspects? Skennah Kowa
Similarly we may or may not need quantum mechanics to describe consciousness to an extent we are satisfied with. If it turns out our brains store data in quantum states, for example (admittedly I know very little about QM), then sure, QM will have to be into incorporated into an adequate description of consciousness.
I'm not equating transistors or logic gates to neurons, by the way. I'm claiming that in a universe with no apparent absolutes, pinning down assumptions through approximate models is all we can do, that this is useful, and that less sophisticated models, even those that have been superseded by models that work in a broader range of cases, can be adequate for our purposes.
Not quite: Transistors only work BECAUSE of quantum effects.
Without quantum effects we would still be using vacuum tubes.
I don't have anything to add; I just want to highlight it.
Anything that can cut through the willful ignorance of this civilization is to the good.
Of course, we don't: That is the problem I started with.
But for my part, I am willing to SEEK understanding.
How will an understanding of Quantum Mechanics inform ecology and political economy?
We won't know unless it happens.
Entanglement doesn't imply superluminal communication, by the way. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
Instead, quantum optics has provided esperimental verification of Bell's inequalities, Hardy's theorem, the Kocken-Specker theorem, interaction-free measurement [which is not interaction-free], quantum teleportation [which is not teleportation but subluminal communication]...
There are enough wonders in empirically established quantum mechanics already. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
However: I do not know enough physics to know if it is possible; only enough to know how I would try to do it. The basic idea would be to use the difference between the interference patterns that can be generated when particles do not choose, versus the lack of interference pattern that occurs when they are forced to choose. Obviously the particles would be in batches--sequences--long enough to reliably create such patterns.
Of technical problems, there should be many.
Theoretically, it would be very interesting.
The earth is only 21 light-milliseconds across. I don't think it will improve cellphones much.
Any experimental verification of superluminal communication?
Kind of.
And also here.
I can understand the group velocity argument, but what bothers me is that the rationale for 'proving' that superluminal communication can't happen seems very similar to the one that was being used to 'prove' with absolute relativistic certainty that the group velocity has to be less than c.
This doesn't 'prove' anything about what's possible, but it does make me suspicious of the rigour of the arguments that are being used.
Researchers have now measured many group velocities higher than c. "It's just not true what they say in the textbooks," says Raymond Chiao of the University of California at Berkeley. For example, a Gaussian shaped light pulse can travel faster than c through some highly absorbing materials. The explanation is that the central piece of the pulse is attenuated more than the earliest piece. Although the pulse shape is unchanged, it comes out smaller, and the "leading edge" of the input pulse is transformed to become the peak of the emerging pulse, a process called "reshaping." So no part of the pulse is actually transmitted faster than c, says Chiao.
You are asking me to explain how a new theory of Quantum Mechanics would allow Quantum Mechanics to solve our problems. But there is no way I would expect that.
And not only because our problems are not going to get solved.
Rather, my guess is that a correct understanding of Quantum Mechanics would be a new model of the world, and that model would suggest many things, not only about Quantum Mechanics. It would suggest things that would compel us to CORRECT OUR BEHAVIOR.
What might those things be? We'll know if it happens.
That is the real problem. How do you construct a metaphysics that at the same time contains heuristics for the microscopic and for the macroscopic.
I agree with a lot of people that quantum gravity is likely to result in this new heuristics, but I honestly fail to see how 1) any quantum gravity is going to be testable other than by internal consistency (which you lambast), that is, how experiments are going to be accessible; 2) how knowledge of quantum gravity could affect (or would have affected) political economy.
Feynman once said that the problem with hard-nosed scientists is not that they lack imagination but that what they imagine is constrained by everything they know to be approximately true. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
???
I had no complaint about internal consistency--but what we were getting was faith. In a sense there was no choice about that, but I thought that in that case we should own up to it.
Then again, a non-formal proof of consistency, might serve, but--and now I am wandering off-topic, perhaps those funny little symbols were not as important as everybody thought? I was slowly coming around to the intuitionist view that mathematics should be comprehensible. Even if the intuitionists treated Cantor very badly--which they did--they weren't wrong about everything. Hilbert's project had its uses, but the core of it had failed. It was time to let mathematics be done in a style appropriate to its content.
So during this period, it was the logicians, not the mathematicians, who were my guides. They wanted proof of consistency but knew they had not gotten it, and owned up. They knew they needed to do something about it, too, even if what they did lay outside of logic.
It would suggest things that would compel us to CORRECT OUR BEHAVIOR.
It's actually not hard to understand what the problem is. Although the Western Mind (including Colman's, at a guess) shrinks back in horror from mysticism and explicit dualism, it still works on the assumption that Mind is separate from Reality, and that the only way to understand Reality is by making Mind (i.e. abstracted pattern recognition) and Reality as separate as possible.
You can experiment on Reality, but you're not allowed to admit that you take part in the experimental experience directly. That's called being subjective, and it's a terrible sin.
Put simply, we don't see ourselves as an organic part of the physical world. We see ourselves as separate and detached from it. It happens to us and around us, but it's not a deeply felt or experienced part of us.
So physics is still a theory of distant-mindedness rather than a theory of participation, and Goedel is the inevitable result of trying to find a theory of mind which isn't grounded in experience - a castle in the air with no foundation, because foundational axioms are based in participation and experience and can't be derived from pure pattern matching.
Relativity and QM have been suggesting - inconclusively, so far - that participation is a pre-requisite for deep understanding.
This is very uncomfortable for rational dualists, and they're still not sure what to make of it.
Inevitably the disconnection leads to ravings and mania like the international economic system, where pure algorithms of value disconnect from reality so completely that they're in serious danger of destroying themselves.
This won't change until the detachment ends. It doesn't have to end in a naive participation mystique, because that's often every bit as superficial as it seems to be. Doing lots of drugs and saying 'Hey, wow, that's like, really cool' isn't any more insightful and useful than it seems to be.
But the common factor among mystics is that they don't feel the separation, either between themselves and physical reality, or between themselves and others. And that makes them consicous participants with a personal relationship to their surroundings, rather than slightly confused and anxious passengers who feel embattled and detached from them.
Very neat and clean. :)
Although the Western Mind (including Colman's, at a guess) shrinks back in horror from mysticism and explicit dualism, it still works on the assumption that Mind is separate from Reality, and that the only way to understand Reality is by making Mind (i.e. abstracted pattern recognition) and Reality as separate as possible.
Thank you for attributing idiotic views to me. I always appreciate that, especially when they're diametrically opposed to my actual views. I guess I'll just have to become a mystic so I can truly understand things. <sigh>
Turns out that earlier I was discussing with Migeru in IM that the distinction between observer and the observed is entirely artificial. Mind you, mysticism doesn't help at all, because it moves the observer further from the observed, not closer - the observer is really outside reality, floating around in a higher state of consciousness with the other enlightened souls, man.
Could you develop that point further, or any chance of posting that segment of your IM chat?
(Or maybe Migeru is already planning to include it in his diary on quantum mechanics and ontology?) Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
what is an object? take the physics of quasiparticles and the whole idea of objects falls apart what constitutes the identity of an object? take the physics of fermion, boson, anyon statistics and compare with maxwell-boltzmann; take the Gibbs paradox but if these topics are a prerequisite for discussing ontology, who can take part in the discussion? it takes the fun out of philosophy </lecture>
but if these topics are a prerequisite for discussing ontology, who can take part in the discussion?
it takes the fun out of philosophy </lecture>
Migeru: it's funny how QM philosophical problems always end up at the conscious observer ... but I think it's about philosophy, not about quantum consciousness Colman: Yes. Migeru: it's like the philosophhy of probability: it's also broken Colman: It's an artificial split between system and observer. Or somethign along those lines. Migeru: do you know about the holographic principle in quantum gravity? Colman: I've heard of it. But I forget... Migeru: it says roughly... you can put a boundary wherever you want the area of the boundary is a bound on the information entropy of either half it appears likely to be a key principle of the new theory but quite what it has to do with consciousness... though it does seem to have something to do with these boundaries between systems Colman: Hm. Migeru: subject and object, etc Colman: Could do. The distincition is artifical. Migeru: the problem is since we don't understand consciousness we can't do a toy model of a self-aware entity Colman: No. Migeru: so there's no way to put that in QM and talking about QM as the basis of consciousness just confuses things even more!
A big problem with the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is actually disentangling the philosophy of probability from specifically quantum mechanical conceptual problems. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
This seems to be a good thing because otherwise you end up in a solipsistic universe, where you personally are a cause of the Big Bang and all 13 and a bit billion years of everything that happened afterwards. (For varying and approximate values of 'you', at least.)
Assuming consciousness is essential seems to be another spin around the implicit dualism of mind over matter. Although it looks as if it's saying that mind and matter are linked, the implication is really that matter only appears when mind decides it does - which could be a little bit suspect, I think.
How much of a mind do you need before it's conscious enough to start deciding observables?
There's a neat paradox which says that if you try to kill yourself in a quantum experiment, you can't do it. If you did you wouldn't be able to observe the result of the experiment. So it would never happen.
Your colleagues meanwhile can see a quantum suicide note, and possibly a dead body.
Back to the beginning, consciousness is not essential but unless a conscious observer is involved, philosophical problems with quantum mechanics seem rather mild to nonexistent, which again suggest a philosophical problem, not a problem with quantum mechanics. The central question is: how are entanglement or interference perceived? Remember Bohr's "no phenomenon is a phenomenon unless it is an observed phenomenon". We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html
There are 41 statements to the Woo Woo credo, many of which demonstrate that it is a term coming out of Usenet flamewars--or somesuch. To understand if a person is a woo woo, one would have to run their comments via the list--and if they matched up, you can then call them "woo woos" and start an argument--it's an argumentative term, with some humour but clearly aimed at a certain Usenet type of character (the kind who reports you to the sys admin etc.) The list does have some enjoyable moments. I recommend numbers 4, 8, 9, 12, 22...wow, 22! But I don't recommend using it as shorthand because it is clearly meant to be derogatory. Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
It doesn't try to define what really happens, it doesn't assume that wave functions are 'real' or even that they evolve. All it says is that if you measure a system at time t, the probabilities of the different outcomes are the real part of etc.
The fact that states can be in various baroque non-local superpositions before the interaction doesn't change this. The probabilities will still be consistent and computable.
Migeru:
What none of them address is the (not quantum-mechanical but probabilistic) problem of actuality (which of the actual histories is realised), which is basically the (probabilistic, not quantum mechanical) problem of assigning a probability to a single event.
"It's random within probabilistic constraints" seems to be all that QM can tell you.
There may be a theory which defines the ontology in more detail. But QM doesn't seem to be it.
The only difference between an observer and a non-observer is that the observer is consciously aware of a measured value. But that doesn't define the value.
What's annoying about QM is that it tries to conflate different issues. There's a difference between the physical interaction needed to make a measurement and the mental process of experiencing the measurement. There's also non-locality, which supposedly makes everything very spooky and has somehow - for some reason which has never been properly explained, because it's not really needed - been linked to mental experience, even though it's completely distinct.
Consciousness Micro to macro amplification ('measurement') Non-locality etc 'It's all one' woo woo
are all different. I'll take the middle two. I won't accept the other two until someone does an experiment in which two observers measure two contradictory observables from the same quantum system at the same time.
Remember Bohr's "no phenomenon is a phenomenon unless it is an observed phenomenon".
That's almost makes sense, but doesn't, because in the limit it says that nothing in the universe exists unless it's observed. Which seems unlikely - otherwise you're back to solipsism again, with every possible wave function in the entire history of the universe converging on your viewpoint.
Regarding Bohr, isn't that very similar to what Kand said about noumenon and phenomenon? Aren't there serious epistemological issues at the core of all this?
ThatBritGuy:
"It's random within probabilistic constraints" seems to be all that QM can tell you. There may be a theory which defines the ontology in more detail. But QM doesn't seem to be it. The only difference between an observer and a non-observer is that the observer is consciously aware of a measured value. But that doesn't define the value.
sniff, sniff Chris, is that you cooking up another batch of your pudding somewhere? Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
That depends what you expect physics to do. There's a difference between explaining reality, modelling reality, and defining reality.
I think realistically (sic) the best you can hope for is models of increasing sophistication and usefulness. Explaining reality is best left to theologians. (Not that they have a clue either, but it keeps them busy.)
No one should be trying to define reality, ever, but it's easy to fall into the trap of believing that a theory with predictive power is what's going on ontologically.
Too much physics is still cursed by Platonism. According to Penrose et el., models supposedly float around outside reality telling it what to do.
But there's a huge gap between using experimental recipes to predict what's going to happen next, and assuming there's a Central Recipe Database running things behind the scenes.
One is pattern recognition, the other is metaphysics. One assumes that reality works consistently and the consistency can be enumerated. The other makes unwarranted assumptions about the mechanisms which create that consistency.
