On Consciousness

[PixyMisa]

Ok last try.
The highest accuracy you can find.

You mean precision, not accuracy.

If you are asking precision as in a predefined unit of measurement to use, lets go for the same plank scale (the same scale you use to quantise the EM field to derive materialistic philosophies from the particles that result from quantising its spectrum)

Okay then.

That's impossible. (But only physically impossible, not mathematically or logically impossible.)

 

[!Kaggen]

~snip~ he ascribes logical impossibilities to the human intellect; once you've done that, any conversation on the subject is pretty much doomed.

That's impossible. (But only physically impossible, not mathematically or logically impossible.)

I see.... so you believe we can discuss the physically impossible as long as it is logical and mathematically possible but we cannot discuss the physically possible if it is logically or mathematically impossible.

And you say the empiricist believe in a magic bean

 

[Roboramma]

the physically possible if it is logically or mathematically impossible.

There's no such thing.

 

[PixyMisa]

I see.... so you believe we can discuss the physically impossible as long as it is logical and mathematically possible but we cannot discuss the physically possible if it is logically or mathematically impossible.

If it's logically or mathematically impossible, IT IS BY DEFINITION NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE.

And you say the empiricist believe in a magic bean

No, I say that dualists believe in magic beans.

 

[!Kaggen]

There's no such thing.

You sure about that?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonexistent-objects/

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" Wittgenstein

 

[!Kaggen]

If it's logically or mathematically impossible, IT IS BY DEFINITION NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE.

And around we go....

 

[steenkh]

You sure about that?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonexistent-objects/

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" Wittgenstein

Please point out where in the article it says that logically impossible objects are physically possible ...

 

[Zeuzzz]

!Kaggen to clarify, it's not physically impossible for the EM spectrum to act as a particle if you quantise it to a fundamental unit; the fundamental limit for a photon's energy is the planck energy. It's just a bizarre fact particles at this scale seem to show the same properties as waves do, they are both particles and waves. They diffract, interfere, etc. So there is, as revealed by quantum physics, a dualist nature of reality. One as wave form and one as particle form. To take a materialistic view that only the particles matter is a philosophy, not a scientific view. We know this duality to exist, and solid objects can behave like non physical EM waves up to quite large scales.

I remember working out the time it would take for me to diffract passing through a door at uni in my second year. Billions of years, if I recall. Was a sort of joke, my lecturer did it to get us thinking

See this post, might be of use: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8437102&postcount=79

 

[Clive]

Is it logically and mathematically possible for an entire "physical" universe to appear from absolutely nothing?

 

[Zeuzzz]

No. But thats way off topic. See the thread "what kind of science is cosmology" to continue.

 

[!Kaggen]

Please point out where in the article it says that logically impossible objects are physically possible ...

The article was in reference to Roboramma's claim
"there is no such thing"

The point being that using language(logic) to make a claim about something which is not language(logic) is meaningless.

Pixy Misa loves doing this because he believes in the magic bean of logic which even explains no-thing.

 

[Belz...]

Ok last try.
The highest accuracy you can find.

Oh, I see. There is no purpose or use to your scenario. Ok.

 

[Belz...]

You sure about that?

Er... yes. No physical thing can be mathematically impossible.

Where the hell do you get that stuff ? Are you ever right about anything ?

 

[Belz...]

Is it logically and mathematically possible for an entire "physical" universe to appear from absolutely nothing?

No, and to be fair neither scientists nor theists are proposing that. That makes your question entirely irrelevant.

 

[Zeuzzz]

The magic bean of logic is indeed a faulty one, Godel showed that rather rigorously. Logic was shown to be illogical, his quest for a complete theory of logic ended up with his incompleteness theorem. His quest for certainty also revealed uncertainty.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Are you saying that seeing red is more than discriminating between certain visible wavelengths?

No, I don't think so. What's your point?

 

[!Kaggen]

No, I don't think so. What's your point?

Good luck with that question.

 

[PixyMisa]

The article was in reference to Roboramma's claim
"there is no such thing"

The point being that using language(logic)

Fail.

 

[PixyMisa]

The magic bean of logic is indeed a faulty one, Godel showed that rather rigorously.

No.

Logic was shown to be illogical

No.

Godel proved two things (using logic):

1. Any consistent formal system powerful enough to include arithmetic includes statements that cannot be shown to be true or false within the system.

2. Any formal system powerful enough to include arithmetic contains proof of its own consistency if and only if it is inconsistent.

These facts hold whether it's a computer doing the work or a human. These facts always hold. Tensordyne's statement that humans are not bound by the Incompleteness Theorems is equivalent to saying humans are not bound by 2+2=4: It is possible to get a different answer; it just means that you are wrong.

 

[dlorde]

May we conclude that the term ‘magic’ applies to everything that we currently do not posses a definitive understanding of.

I'd prefer it only to apply to that which clearly contradicts well established scientific knowledge or principles. I'm happy with 'unknown' or 'not yet understood' for the rest.