Physicalism

[Juma]

The following is a post I made for you a few hours ago that I think you missed.

i didnt miss it. It is based on a false premise: that infinitesimals are real physical features.
So i thought my later responses would be enough.

 

[ryan]

The following is a post I made for you a few hours ago that I think you missed.

i didnt miss it. It is based on a false premise: that infinitesimals are real physical features.
So i thought my later responses would be enough.

Wouldn't there be infinitesimal changes in continuous fields?

 

[Juma]

The following is a post I made for you a few hours ago that I think you missed.

i didnt miss it. It is based on a false premise: that infinitesimals are real physical features.
So i thought my later responses would be enough.

Wouldn't there be infinitesimal changes in continuous fields?

Infinitesimals is a feature of a specific mathematical formulation. It is not even part of the physical model, less so a real physical feature.

 

[ryan]

The following is a post I made for you a few hours ago that I think you missed.

i didnt miss it. It is based on a false premise: that infinitesimals are real physical features.
So i thought my later responses would be enough.

Wouldn't there be infinitesimal changes in continuous fields?

Infinitesimals is a feature of a specific mathematical formulation. It is not even part of the physical model, less so a real physical feature.

Well then if the universe is quantified into very small parts/quanta/particles, then there can't be such a thing as a whole object comprised of parts.

Furthermore, there would have to be some kind of continuous connection for a being to know of a whole. There needs to be an "agent" who can make connections and outline groups of quanta.

There needs to be something that is not a quantum.

 

[Juma]

Well then if the universe is quantified into very small parts/quanta/particles, then there can't be such a thing as a whole object comprised of parts.

There are forces between the parts so the parts interact and the interaction result in bigger structures/processes.

 

[ryan]

Well then if the universe is quantified into very small parts/quanta/particles, then there can't be such a thing as a whole object comprised of parts.

There are forces between the parts so the parts interact and the interaction result in bigger structures/processes.

But you said that it isn't continuous; there would have to be gaps/discontinuities.

 

[Juma]

Well then if the universe is quantified into very small parts/quanta/particles, then there can't be such a thing as a whole object comprised of parts.

There are forces between the parts so the parts interact and the interaction result in bigger structures/processes.

But you said that it isn't continuous; there would have to be gaps/discontinuities.

Eh ?
1) what has that to do with anything?
2) what is this "it" that you say that I said was not continous.
3) and again: what has that to do with anything?
4) Continuity is a model. Not reality.

 

[ryan]

Well then if the universe is quantified into very small parts/quanta/particles, then there can't be such a thing as a whole object comprised of parts.

There are forces between the parts so the parts interact and the interaction result in bigger structures/processes.

But you said that it isn't continuous; there would have to be gaps/discontinuities.

Eh ?
1) what has that to do with anything?
2) what is this "it" that you say that I said was not continous.
3) and again: what has that to do with anything?
4) Continuity is a model. Not reality.

Okay never mind what I typed.

To understand a whole of parts, an observer can't be parts; the observer must be more that just individual particles and interactions. Only very basic pieces of information are being passed from part to part; something needs to make a whole out of them.

 

[Juma]

Well then if the universe is quantified into very small parts/quanta/particles, then there can't be such a thing as a whole object comprised of parts.

There are forces between the parts so the parts interact and the interaction result in bigger structures/processes.

But you said that it isn't continuous; there would have to be gaps/discontinuities.

Eh ?
1) what has that to do with anything?
2) what is this "it" that you say that I said was not continous.
3) and again: what has that to do with anything?
4) Continuity is a model. Not reality.

Okay never mind what I typed.

To understand a whole of parts, an observer can't be parts; the observer must be more that just individual particles and interactions. Only very basic pieces of information are being passed from part to part; something needs to make a whole out of them.

You have made this claim over and over again. But you yet not shown any reason for it. Please investigate whst your real reasons for this belief is because it is definitely not based on reason.

 

[steve_bnk]

From quantum mechanics, to determineany state of a system there must be a transfer of energy from the system to whatever is accessing the states.

An object glows red hot, photons are transferred from the object to the human eye, a transfer of energy.

There can be no truly isolatedindependent observer. The question is how much of the measurement is due to the combined states of the observer and observed.

You want to measure temperature in a small glass of water. You put a large glass thermometer in the glassof water. You are not measuring the water temperature, you are measuring the combined temperature of water, glass, and thermometer.

Ryan correctly stated a problem butdrew a wrong conclusion. There can be no greater than sum of parts.Observer(human or instruments) and that which is observed is alwaysone system.

 

[Kharakov]

Okay never mind what I typed.

It's not like anyone would notice such an infinitesimal portion of the infinite reality in which we live.

 

[Kharakov]

Infinitesimals is a feature of a specific mathematical formulation. It is not even part of the physical model, less so a real physical feature.

Well then if the universe is quantified into very small parts/quanta/particles, then there can't be such a thing as a whole object comprised of parts.

Furthermore, there would have to be some kind of continuous connection for a being to know of a whole. There needs to be an "agent" who can make connections and outline groups of quanta.

There needs to be something that is not a quantum.

Ohh, you mean like you?

By the way, QM describes things that are infinitesimal in relation to the whole, which is the reason it causes such problems for certain semi-infinitesimal individuals.

 

[ryan]

Okay never mind what I typed.

To understand a whole of parts, an observer can't be parts; the observer must be more that just individual particles and interactions. Only very basic pieces of information are being passed from part to part; something needs to make a whole out of them.

You have made this claim over and over again. But you yet not shown any reason for it. Please investigate whst your real reasons for this belief is because it is definitely not based on reason.

Think about what "Sweden" means to a human. There is a wholeness to "Sweden" in the observer's mind, and objectively, Sweden is just many tiny parts. But if the brain is only a different configuration of the same kinds of parts, then what is acknowledging "Sweden" as a whole?

 

[ryan]

From quantum mechanics, to determineany state of a system there must be a transfer of energy from the system to whatever is accessing the states.

An object glows red hot, photons are transferred from the object to the human eye, a transfer of energy.

Each part in the brain does not know that anything is being transferred, so where is this knowledge of transference coming from?

 

[ryan]

Okay never mind what I typed.

It's not like anyone would notice such an infinitesimal portion of the infinite reality in which we live.

It doesn't matter whether we notice it or not; it's mere existence is what is perplexing.

 

[ryan]

Infinitesimals is a feature of a specific mathematical formulation. It is not even part of the physical model, less so a real physical feature.

Well then if the universe is quantified into very small parts/quanta/particles, then there can't be such a thing as a whole object comprised of parts.

Furthermore, there would have to be some kind of continuous connection for a being to know of a whole. There needs to be an "agent" who can make connections and outline groups of quanta.

There needs to be something that is not a quantum.

Ohh, you mean like you?

yes

By the way, QM describes things that are infinitesimal in relation to the whole, which is the reason it causes such problems for certain semi-infinitesimal individuals.

Tell that to Juma. Juma is the one who does not accept infinitesimals in the real world.

 

[Kharakov]

Okay never mind what I typed.

It's not like anyone would notice such an infinitesimal portion of the infinite reality in which we live.

It doesn't matter whether we notice it or not; it's mere existence is what is perplexing.

You consider your typing's existence mere? I like the "obsolete" definition of mere here.

 

[Kharakov]

By the way, QM describes things that are infinitesimal in relation to the whole, which is the reason it causes such problems for certain semi-infinitesimal individuals.

Tell that to Juma. Juma is the one who does not accept infinitesimals in the real world.

I find it shocking, absolutely shocking mind you, that someone of Juma's stature does not accept the existence of infinitesimals in reality.

 

[Juma]

Think about what "Sweden" means to a human. There is a wholeness to "Sweden" in the observer's mind, and objectively, Sweden is just many tiny parts.

It is not the "many tiny parts" we experience but the sensory data that reach our brain. the "wholeness" is an illusion, its just how the brain (re)presents an aspect (sweden) of all this data.

But if the brain is only a different configuration of the same kinds of parts,

What you see as "only different configuration" is a wast, complicated dynamic interaction between billions of higly organiced and specialised of parts. (Neurons etc) neurons are well known of being able to react on data and produce logically processed output,.
Another example is computers: computers are just another "configuration of the same kind of parts" (atoms) but you wouldnt say that computers cannot recognize patterns and for example detect what is sweden and what is not sweden?

 

[steve_bnk]

From quantum mechanics, to determineany state of a system there must be a transfer of energy from the system to whatever is accessing the states.

An object glows red hot, photons are transferred from the object to the human eye, a transfer of energy.

Each part in the brain does not know that anything is being transferred, so where is this knowledge of transference coming from?

Pointless to respond. Adios.