What does it mean for something to be "logically possible"?

[untermensche]

untermensche

Your belief is that direction in spacetime is quantized? In other words, you believe there are only a finite amount of directions leading from a point in spacetime?

You also believe that length is quantized? In other words, you believe there are only certain distances something can travel from a point in spacetime, that are quantized units?

Quantized means to actually have existence. Your length is not ZERO.

Imaginary points can be infinite because they are not real.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'm not surprised.
EB

You actually wrote, in effect, intuition is unconscious thought.

No. I just said the opposite.

But that in itself should keep you from venturing into the unknown world of absurdity.

No need for a special name then is there.

Well, as always, names serve to allow us to make distinctions, which may well be useful or useless. But if you don't understand that there is a distinction you're sure to miss the point. Must be a selective advantage, that, since you're here.

Most thought is unconscious as most will acknowledge. That is thought is thought.

Quantity would be irrelevant anyway but it seems to me that whatever we call 'thought' is conscious by definition. It's easy to refer to unconscious brain activity by explicit expressions such as 'unconscious brain activity' for instance.

Still, what matters is that we're indeed conscious of some thoughts and unconscious of some of the mental processes underlying these conscious thoughts. Saying anything intelligent about the world starts with being able to put different names on different things.

Whether one is conscious of it has no bearing on what is being done.

So in effect it doesn't matter to have this conversation, or indeed any conversation, or indeed any conscious thought. There's no substantial difference between people have a conversation about quantum physics on the one hand and the riddles forming on a pond when a slight drizzle is falling on the other hand.

You're in a league with ryan and untermensche, here, trying to simplify the way we think about the world to make sure we can only arrive at some deeply simplistic shit.

So if you're not surprised then you know intuition is no more than unconscious thought, not worthy of note, since it is thought.

Exactly. So your thought that thought is not worthy of note is not worthy of note. See? It cuts both ways.

And then, again, I didn't say (or suggest, imply etc.) that "intuition is no more than unconscious thought". Rather, I said the opposite: Intuitions are thoughts, i.e. they are conscious mental processes, and they clearly are the results of some unconscious mental processes.

Your view and attitude can only lead to close your mind to any effort to understand, and elicit publicly, the unconscious precursors of our intuitions, logical intuitions in particular. This is the secularist equivalent of religious obscurantism. Let's ignore how the human mind works. It's irrelevant since what really works is the brain. But I'd certainly like to know when guys like you will ever understand how the brain could possibly produce civilisations for example. Modern logic is essentially premised on the same kind of ideas as yours. To do logic, let's ignore psychology altogether. The result is now more than a century of not doing anything to elicit publicly what human beings do when they think logically. Surely, that must count as a great achievement.

Further, you're just delusional.

If you had a point then the logic of it would require you to ignore the brain altogether and go for Quantum Physics. You wouldn't do that because no one could understand even what the brain does in QM terms although you would have to insist that the brain is really irrelevant since everything a brain does is really what QM interactions do.

In reality, the trick to do intelligent things with your brain is to pick out the explanatory plane carefully, just below the surface of whatever is to be explained, otherwise combinatory explosion ensue and you go into deep shit very fast.

Psychology is too fundamental in my view to help us explain logic, but the brain is even more fundamental and therefore even more inadequate as the explanatory plane of choice. So, not psychology but something a bit less fundamental than psychology would do. So the direction of travel is the exact opposite from what you suggest. Not more fundamental, but less fundamental.

But your suggestion and position is essentially uninformed and sterile. You're talking from ignorance and going nowhere and in the wrong direction with that. Nobody will ever find to explain logic from the brain. Now, if you think logic is useless anyway, then you are effectively beyond reason and I fail to see what it is you think you're doing here except peeing to make riddles on the surface of a pond.
EB

 

[untermensche]

untermensche is another one who seems particularly apt at doing this while seemingly believing his own stuff.

I don't know if you are one of these modern day theologians that believe imaginary concepts like infinity and zero actually have existence.

But these theologians exist in your very midst.

 

[fromderinside]

Most thought is unconscious as most will acknowledge. That is thought is thought.

Quantity would be irrelevant anyway but it seems to me that whatever we call 'thought' is conscious by definition. It's easy to refer to unconscious brain activity by explicit expressions such as 'unconscious brain activity' for instance.

Still, what matters is that we're indeed conscious of some thoughts and unconscious of some of the mental processes underlying these conscious thoughts. Saying anything intelligent about the world starts with being able to put different names on different things.

....

EB

As you know there can be several attendings going on at the same time, but, usually just one of which we seem to be aware. In every attending there can be thought. So making a distinction of thought based on whether it is within an awareness makes no difference to the process of thought.

Humans are single channel processors of that of which they are aware, whether it be achieved by post selection or no is an open question. Also much evidence thinks there are patterns of which we can be aware rooted in different models like say those found in multipersonality individuals, only one of which is expressible at a time, but, of which investigators find individuals can become aware of they being present which another is being expressed.


Viewed with this knowledge the notion of thought becomes much more pervasive with less to do with wakefulness or attending functions.

A while back I spoke of a co-research graduate at FSU who looked at thought during sleep showing that sleep cycles typified by REM marked dreaming stages when it is well known that thought patterns are independent of sensory processing during wakefulness. These patterns are usually attributed to consolidation and repair yet they are accessible to awareness processes in the form of dreams.

Yet, with all this richness thought seems to work in more or less the same way. Your distinguishing thought by consciousness/wakefulness/awareness seems to miss what makes it thought, a process suitable for communication. Whether it takes place outside of the sphere of another process, awareness, has nothing to do with whether it is or is not thought.

To me intuition has become a way to typify women, degradingly, or, as a literary ploy to suggest other than real empiricism has been ongoing. For instance "genius (women) are marked by intuition".

 

[rousseau]

Something else?
EB

Heh, sorry, not intended to be a shot at you.

 

[Kharakov]

untermensche

Your belief is that direction in spacetime is quantized? In other words, you believe there are only a finite amount of directions leading from a point in spacetime?

You also believe that length is quantized? In other words, you believe there are only certain distances something can travel from a point in spacetime, that are quantized units?

Quantized means to actually have existence.

Quantized, in the context of this conversation, means discontinuous or discrete.

Imagine that spacetime is 2 dimensional, direction is quantized in such a way that you can only go in 8 directions. Length is also quantized, so you can only go multiples of the fundamental length.

Take 2 particles. Move particle A north 1 fundamental unit from an origination point, move particle B northeast 1 unit from the origination point. There is no way that particle B would ever be able to run into particle A again, unless particle A somehow went northeast, or particle B went southwest 1 unit.

You know why? Moving 1 unit to the northeast means that particle B moved 1/sqrt(2) north, and 1/sqrt(2) east, while particle A went 1 unit north. There is no way that an integer multiple of 1/sqrt(2), other than 0, will ever fall on an integer value. The particles will never intersect.

Only if direction or length of spacetime are non-quantized, can you have particles or fields that intersect/interact equally with one another.



If either direction or length are non-quantized, there are inherent infinities built into the structure of spacetime (and the universe as a whole). Not only that, but the color blue exists as well.

 

[Speakpigeon]

So now all directions are imaginary? What was all the fuss about zero then?

And what about your 'no imaginary things in the real world' business? I can assure you that directions are pretty useful in the real world...

I'd think you'd be better off taking a minute to think about your opinions before posting them. You might save yourself this kind of embarrassment.

?

A line of direction is imaginary as all lines.

But if we want to move in a real direction we can't travel on a line.

Decoding guidelines for FTF users:

How to read untermensche without wasting too many of your brain cells on a goose chase.

Lines of direction?

UM (unconsciously or not): Hmmm, directions are lines so let's take "line" literally as a geometrical line. So, it's abstract, so it doesn't exist physically, so it's all imaginary, so lines of direction are all imaginary, like all lines.

UM doesn't realise, or doesn't care, that what people mean are actual directions that are thought to exist in the physical world, i.e. physical direction. Beero said "directions", meaning something concretely existing in the physical world. But whatever may be the actual, arguably unknown physical form of directions, UM translates "direction" as "direction line", takes "line" to mean 'geometrical line", and since a geometrical line arguably only exists as a concept, i.e. an abstract thing, beero's concrete "direction" suddenly becomes "imaginary lines" in UM's mind. Hey, presto!

And the conversation is sure to go on without conceivably producing anything worth reading ever as UM won't in fact talk about the same thing as beero does.

UM's posts make up a monolog based on a literal and therefore fictitious interpretation of what other people say.

Let's concede it's not a federal crime, though, just a waste of time, brain cells and calories.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Something else?
EB

Heh, sorry, not intended to be a shot at you.

And here we can see the effect on UM's literalness on other posters. They start to say strange things or reply incomprehensible replies.


Hey, you did take something!

A "shot" of what?

Tell us when you're 'sober' again.
EB

 

[Kharakov]

Real world: continuous.

UM world: quantized- everything is made up of fundamental units of space, which behave like voxels. More voxels being added to the universe explains spacetime expansion. Voxel shrinking explains gravitation. blah blah blah....

 

[Speakpigeon]

Quantity would be irrelevant anyway but it seems to me that whatever we call 'thought' is conscious by definition. It's easy to refer to unconscious brain activity by explicit expressions such as 'unconscious brain activity' for instance.

Still, what matters is that we're indeed conscious of some thoughts and unconscious of some of the mental processes underlying these conscious thoughts. Saying anything intelligent about the world starts with being able to put different names on different things.

....

EB

As you know there can be several attendings going on at the same time, but, usually just one of which we seem to be aware. In every attending there can be thought. So making a distinction of thought based on whether it is within an awareness makes no difference to the process of thought.

No, I don't know that there can be several "attendings" going on at the same time. Indeed, I have no idea what you mean by "attending", although perhaps "mental process" fits. Thoughts are also mental processes so I will use this expression rather than "attending", which is not standard English, only, possibly, technical jargon, or even fromderinside's personal jargon.

I will keep "thought" to mean a mental process of which we are conscious. This is reasonable as being conscious of a mental process does make a difference since you can discuss your conscious mental processes but not so your unconscious ones, at least not under normal circumstances.

So the distinction is perfectly legitimate.

Humans are single channel processors of that of which they are aware, whether it be achieved by post selection or no is an open question. Also much evidence thinks there are patterns of which we can be aware rooted in different models like say those found in multipersonality individuals, only one of which is expressible at a time, but, of which investigators find individuals can become aware of they being present which another is being expressed.

So we have evidence that individuals can be concurrently aware of several mental processes, not that there is no difference between conscious and unconscious ones. So it is still not properly justified to assimilate unconscious mental processes to thought.

Viewed with this knowledge the notion of thought becomes much more pervasive with less to do with wakefulness or attending functions.

No. Not knowledge. Theory, and probably wrong.

A while back I spoke of a co-research graduate at FSU who looked at thought during sleep showing that sleep cycles typified by REM marked dreaming stages when it is well known that thought patterns are independent of sensory processing during wakefulness. These patterns are usually attributed to consolidation and repair yet they are accessible to awareness processes in the form of dreams.

Yet dreams are definitely not like thoughts. That's why we use different words, to make useful distinctions. Dream specialists don't talk of "sleep thoughts", they still talk of "dreams".

Yet, with all this richness thought seems to work in more or less the same way.

Not subjectively they don't. I can still make a difference between my dreams and my thoughts. Even you right now will know, or should know if you're not beyond repair, that I am fully awake and conscious doing this post. I could conceivably make a post while dreaming, somehow, but I doubt very much it could be as sharp as is this one. So, also not objectively they don't. Only you seem to ignore the difference.

Your distinguishing thought by consciousness/wakefulness/awareness seems to miss what makes it thought, a process suitable for communication.

Since when dreams look like they are suitable for communication? Have you tried to hold a productive conversation with a dreamer? Hell, it's already difficult as it is to do it with most people when they are fully awake!

But a thought is only susceptible of being communicated. It's essentially a voluntary move. Also, you can't communicate your thoughts while thinking without altering the thoughts themselves. You can communicate about past thoughts, and dreams, and see that there's a clear difference, one which is objectively registered in dictionaries in all languages in the world, by having two distinct entries: one for "dream", one for "thought".

Check it out when you wake up.

Whether it takes place outside of the sphere of another process, awareness, has nothing to do with whether it is or is not thought.

Yet that's precisely what people, indeed all peoples in the world, do. They distinguish dreams and thoughts. What more could you need?

To me intuition has become a way to typify women, degradingly, or, as a literary ploy to suggest other than real empiricism has been ongoing. For instance "genius (women) are marked by intuition".

To you, possibly, but if you want to engage usefully with other people you should shape up and respect the near universal linguistic usage that distinguishes between dreams and thoughts. Right now you're like a withdrawn child talking to himself, unable to understand what other people say.

Wake up.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

Real world: continuous.

UM world: quantized- everything is made up of fundamental units of space, which behave like voxels. More voxels being added to the universe explains spacetime expansion. Voxel shrinking explains gravitation. blah blah blah....

Well, "blah blah blah" at least is clearly quantified.
EB

 

[Kharakov]

Real world: continuous.

UM world: quantized- everything is made up of fundamental units of space, which behave like voxels. More voxels being added to the universe explains spacetime expansion. Voxel shrinking explains gravitation. blah blah blah....

Well, "blah blah blah" at least is clearly quantified.
EB

Ahh, but you missed the "....", which could be an infinite amount of blahs.

To tell you the truth, I don't think you can have an infinite amount of blahs, or untermensch generated conversation started on TFT. So that is one guaranteed non-infinite in the universe. Unless there is an infinite multiverse, so that there is already an infinite amount of UM blah conversations once there is one UM blah conversation....

 

[fromderinside]

As you know there can be several attendings going on at the same time, but, usually just one of which we seem to be aware. In every attending there can be thought. So making a distinction of thought based on whether it is within an awareness makes no difference to the process of thought.

No, I don't know that there can be several "attendings" going on at the same time. Indeed, I have no idea what you mean by "attending", although perhaps "mental process" fits. Thoughts are also mental processes so I will use this expression rather than "attending", which is not standard English, only, possibly, technical jargon, or even fromderinside's personal jargon.

I will keep "thought" to mean a mental process of which we are conscious. This is reasonable as being conscious of a mental process does make a difference since you can discuss your conscious mental processes but not so your unconscious ones, at least not under normal circumstances.

So the distinction is perfectly legitimate.

Sorry you don't like attendings. How does multiple source attention sound? Just as clumsy.

The problem with consciousness is that it is the result of received and processed inputs and selected schemata for interacting with the ongoing world about us. It's a very narrow one page summary of what the brain (individual) is doing at any one time. Most all editing has already been achieved, definition of all sensing has been achieved and all competing attended inputs have been processed and incorporated into one's current focused upon awareness.

There is no doubt about our ability to hold attention to several inputs simultaneously even though only one will rise to conscious awareness.

Several references for your entertainment.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4626291/

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...neous_cues/links/55662e8508aeccd77735a081.pdf

Humans are single channel processors of that of which they are aware, whether it be achieved by post selection or no is an open question. Also much evidence thinks there are patterns of which we can be aware rooted in different models like say those found in multipersonality individuals, only one of which is expressible at a time, but, of which investigators find individuals can become aware of they being present which another is being expressed.

So we have evidence that individuals can be concurrently aware of several mental processes, not that there is no difference between conscious and unconscious ones. So it is still not properly justified to assimilate unconscious mental processes to thought.

The point I attempted to make and failed to make miserably by your response is Humans can have multiple personalities. That humans can be aware of the existence, though not the detail, of other personalities when the current resident personality is holding conscious sway. That is much different from multiple processes, it is multiple theaters. Such would be more like a feeling. Damn. there it is again. Emotion, which you neglected completely.

Viewed with this knowledge the notion of thought becomes much more pervasive with less to do with wakefulness or attending functions.

No. Not knowledge. Theory, and probably wrong.

A recent Theory article for you.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4374459/

A while back I spoke of a co-research graduate at FSU who looked at thought during sleep showing that sleep cycles typified by REM marked dreaming stages when it is well known that thought patterns are independent of sensory processing during wakefulness. These patterns are usually attributed to consolidation and repair yet they are accessible to awareness processes in the form of dreams.

Yet dreams are definitely not like thoughts. That's why we use different words, to make useful distinctions. Dream specialists don't talk of "sleep thoughts", they still talk of "dreams".

The primary difference between dreams and thought are to which they are connected. One is process set A working in a real sensory world and the other is process A working without the sensory connections. Rather metabolic activity, reconstituting, repairing, altering, serves to stimulate processes during dreams.

Yet, with all this richness thought seems to work in more or less the same way.

Not subjectively they don't. I can still make a difference between my dreams and my thoughts. Even you right now will know, or should know if you're not beyond repair, that I am fully awake and conscious doing this post. I could conceivably make a post while dreaming, somehow, but I doubt very much it could be as sharp as is this one. So, also not objectively they don't. Only you seem to ignore the difference.

The problem with your statement is "I". Research shows otherwise. Humans don't work as we, individually, believe we to. Rational argument now takes a farewell pratfall.

Your distinguishing thought by consciousness/wakefulness/awareness seems to miss what makes it thought, a process suitable for communication.

Since when dreams look like they are suitable for communication? Have you tried to hold a productive conversation with a dreamer? Hell, it's already difficult as it is to do it with most people when they are fully awake!

But a thought is only susceptible of being communicated. It's essentially a voluntary move. Also, you can't communicate your thoughts while thinking without altering the thoughts themselves. You can communicate about past thoughts, and dreams, and see that there's a clear difference, one which is objectively registered in dictionaries in all languages in the world, by having two distinct entries: one for "dream", one for "thought".

Check it out when you wake up.

Ah. Not married, eh. Partner reports her recent, just before waking, dreams in living text every morning complete with conversations she has with dream characters during them.

We agree that waking thought, most of it, and dream thought are different. The point is I have evidence for the how and why of the differences (Sensory connected versus metabolically connected, see above) and you have a presumption of class because they seem different. The underlying processes and neural mechanisms are are reference to memory, visual imagery, and language access included in thought and dream are the same.

Whether it takes place outside of the sphere of another process, awareness, has nothing to do with whether it is or is not thought.

Yet that's precisely what people, indeed all peoples in the world, do. They distinguish dreams and thoughts. What more could you need?

To me intuition has become a way to typify women, degradingly, or, as a literary ploy to suggest other than real empiricism has been ongoing. For instance "genius (women) are marked by intuition".

To you, possibly, but if you want to engage usefully with other people you should shape up and respect the near universal linguistic usage that distinguishes between dreams and thoughts. Right now you're like a withdrawn child talking to himself, unable to understand what other people say.

Wake up.
EB

I'm as awake as Columbus and a few others were awake when the whole world believed the world was flat or as ridiculous as Galileo when it was common sense feathers fell more slowly, as a principle of nature, than do iron balls.

Self reporting and failure to include scientific reasoning as part of philosophy holds you back sir.

 

[Kharakov]

FDI- feathers do fall more slowly than iron balls in the Earth's atmosphere, which the majority of us live within. And everyone knows that balls fall slower at the equator than at the poles.

 

[fromderinside]

Add vacuum equalize gravity find principle.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Well, "blah blah blah" at least is clearly quantified.
EB

Ahh, but you missed the "....", which could be an infinite amount of blahs.

No, a finitely quantified object like "...." can only be an appropriate and clear indication that only a finite number of blahs is meant. Will UM take the cue?

To tell you the truth, I don't think you can have an infinite amount of blahs, or untermensch generated conversation started on TFT. So that is one guaranteed non-infinite in the universe. Unless there is an infinite multiverse, so that there is already an infinite amount of UM blah conversations once there is one UM blah conversation....

Yeah, and this is frightening! A finite number of QM blahs opens the doors to an infinity of UM blahs. Each UM would of course deny for himself the reality of infinity but there would be an infinity of them denying the reality of infinity, each blissfully unaware that he is contradicted in fact by an infinity of parallel UMs all denying the existence of infinity. This is too much to bear. Infinitely too much to bear. Only UM's unawareness can possibly withstand the pressure exerted by this contradiction.
EB

 

[ryan]

I am just thinking about what a quantized spacetime would even be like and if it is even logical. So if there is something between each point in space, then wouldn't that make that and spacetime continuous? It would be like how the rationals and irrationals need each other to be continuous.

Or, if there is nothing in between any two points in space (or nothing between stuff/ether that is between the 2 points), then wouldn't that also make the universe necessarily continuous? In other words, we say that there is nothing or no numbers between 2 and 2; or less abstractly we would say that there is nothing between my pencil at a point in time and my pencil in that same point in time.

Either way, there would seem to have to be something real that is continuous. Call it space-time-ether that is a fundamental continuum.

More worryingly for these two brave conceptual scufflers, the result is broadly to impoverish the range of concepts one can use to think. Ryan just ends up here proving at least to himself that the notion of quantised space is useless because redundant with that of continuous space, ...
EB

I don't know what you are talking about. I am on here testing ideas, and trying to learn more. There is so much to learn that I will probably never believe or trust my or anyone else's sense of certainty.

 

[untermensche]

Quantized means to actually have existence.

Quantized, in the context of this conversation, means discontinuous or discrete.

Imagine that spacetime is 2 dimensional, direction is quantized in such a way that you can only go in 8 directions. Length is also quantized, so you can only go multiples of the fundamental length.

Take 2 particles. Move particle A north 1 fundamental unit from an origination point, move particle B northeast 1 unit from the origination point. There is no way that particle B would ever be able to run into particle A again, unless particle A somehow went northeast, or particle B went southwest 1 unit.

You know why? Moving 1 unit to the northeast means that particle B moved 1/sqrt(2) north, and 1/sqrt(2) east, while particle A went 1 unit north. There is no way that an integer multiple of 1/sqrt(2), other than 0, will ever fall on an integer value. The particles will never intersect.

Only if direction or length of spacetime are non-quantized, can you have particles or fields that intersect/interact equally with one another.

If either direction or length are non-quantized, there are inherent infinities built into the structure of spacetime (and the universe as a whole). Not only that, but the color blue exists as well.

No. I am telling you.

Quantized means to actually exist.

Non-discreet existence of any kind is an imaginary delusion.

Non-discreet would mean something could be divided infinitely. An imaginary concept that only can take place in the imagination.

Because an infinite section of anything is equivalent to zero.

In other words, it doesn't exist except in the imagination.

 

[untermensche]

UM's posts make up a monolog based on a literal and therefore fictitious interpretation of what other people say.

You're about as full of shit as a human can be.

Which is why you don't talk to me and expose your ignorance.

Like a little girl you talk about me.

 

[Kharakov]

I suppose you don't understand that if spacetime is quantized in both direction and length, there would be virtually no interaction between particles.

If it is continuous in either, then all points could be reached, and all directions of travel simulated.


@beero1000- Can someone reach any point in Euclidean space if angles are continuous but length is quantized, or length is continuous but angles are quantized (with certain parameters of quantization so that one isn't simply rotating 2pi every time or something like that)?

 

[untermensche]

I suppose you don't understand that if spacetime is quantized in both direction and length, there would be virtually no interaction between particles.

You can't invoke imaginary things like non-discreet entities, entities made of infinitesimal things that occupy zero space and time, to solve real problems.

It isn't a real answer.

But on paper you can deal with imaginary points that occupy no space or time.