Where is your experience?

[Paul2]

If I'm following you correctly, the misunderstanding is right at the start, I highlighted it. How do you define they are circling each other? Whats your frame or reference?

I am questioning whether there are any two possible frames of reference in which, for the same event and same two objects, one would be seen as rotating around another, and vice versa.

 

[Paul2]

Expansion of the above:

It is easy to see how there are two possible frames of reference in which, for the same event and the same two objects, one would be seen as traveling away from the other in a straight line, and vice versa.

 

[corbin]

Notice all the different answers there are...

 

[corbin]

Brain processes are physical processes such as electrical impulses.

Consciousness is subjective phenomenal experience. For example, the experience of seeing red.

It seems to me prima facie obvious that those two things are not identical. Brain processes are physical processes in the brain while consciousness is a subjective phenomenal experience. They couldn't be more different.

 

[The Man]

Yes. to put it in the easiest possible way, consider this; If movement is relative, it is equally right to claim that the earth revolves around the sun, than that it is the sun that is going around the earth.

Let me attempt a more detailed explanation, I'm far from expert in the field, there are other members in here with the appropriate qualification. That said, GR is one of the most successful theories of our times, it has been able to prove its strength against a large series of experimental work.

Now, one of the pillars of the theory is that there are no "absolute inertial frames", and what this means is that the laws of physics are relative to the acceleration of every particular frame in relation to the inertial frame of our choice, and so, the idea about the earth "really" going around the sun, presented as an "objective reality" of some sort, was based on the idea that there was something immovable (the absolute inertial frame), like the earth was before Copernicus et al. Now the very concept is seen as obsolete, as movement can only be defined in relation to other bodies.

Actually, Bodhi Dharma Zen, it is the other way around, the laws of physics are independent of your choice of coordinate system or reference frame. Which is how they are currently formulated, still just a model of reality by the way but that (GR) and Quantum field theory are the best we got going so far. If they are ever to get together one must change (GR is continuous while QFT discrete). Most likely it will be GR as the singularity is indicative of a failure of the theory to be predictive beyond a certain point (pun intended). Though the thing is that it will be the ability of the new combined (or, heck, new but still separate) model to make accurate and verifiable predictions that will determine its utility. Yes our description of reality depends upon models, thus is model dependent, but reality isn’t dependent on how we model it which is why we strive to make even better models of reality. Were the former untrue there would be no need of the latter.

 

[Dancing David]

Brain processes are physical processes such as electrical impulses.

Consciousness is subjective phenomenal experience. For example, the experience of seeing red.

It seems to me prima facie obvious that those two things are not identical. Brain processes are physical processes in the brain while consciousness is a subjective phenomenal experience. They couldn't be more different.

Huh?

The subjective phenomenal experience seems to be a byproduct of the brain processes. Are you saying that the perceptions exist in some meta space? If the visual cortex did not create the perception of the visual field, you would not see the color red.

I don't understand the difference.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The CMB

Well, it is an imaginary experiment

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I have said that before , all human ideas are equally right and wrong, some are more valid than others.


:helmet:

Oh no need for a helmet my friend, I believe their being right or wrong can only be contrasted against facts, and their validity circumscribe to this, well, fact.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I am questioning whether there are any two possible frames of reference in which, for the same event and same two objects, one would be seen as rotating around another, and vice versa.

Are you talking about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-body_problem In that case, the answer is affirmative, if you are in one of them you will see the other rotating around you. The to diagrams in there are pretty illustrative, and it could be mind bending.

Expansion of the above:

It is easy to see how there are two possible frames of reference in which, for the same event and the same two objects, one would be seen as traveling away from the other in a straight line, and vice versa.

If I understand what you are saying, it would be equal in a straight line or turning around... Maybe I'm not understanding your point? sorry if Im not.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Brain processes are physical processes such as electrical impulses.

Consciousness is subjective phenomenal experience. For example, the experience of seeing red.

It seems to me prima facie obvious that those two things are not identical. Brain processes are physical processes in the brain while consciousness is a subjective phenomenal experience. They couldn't be more different.

The problem with that is that it is based on a dualism ontology. I don't see the need for that.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Actually, Bodhi Dharma Zen, it is the other way around, the laws of physics are independent of your choice of coordinate system or reference frame. Which is how they are currently formulated,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, if you choose one frame of reference then auxiliary fictitious forces like the Coriolis effect must enter the equations?

... still just a model of reality by the way but that (GR) and Quantum field theory are the best we got going so far. If they are ever to get together one must change (GR is continuous while QFT discrete). Most likely it will be GR as the singularity is indicative of a failure of the theory to be predictive beyond a certain point (pun intended). Though the thing is that it will be the ability of the new combined (or, heck, new but still separate) model to make accurate and verifiable predictions that will determine its utility.

Our two best theories, what I find amazing is that, if one is correct, the other one most necessarily need to be wrong, and this goes around common sense if we keep the belief about a "real world that follows the laws I imagine". Im convinced about neither of them are definitive in any sense, and they will be useful because they work, but at some point both will be rendered "ontologically obsolete".

Yes our description of reality depends upon models, thus is model dependent, but reality isn’t dependent on how we model it which is why we strive to make even better models of reality. Were the former untrue there would be no need of the latter.

It is very tricky, because when we state the word "reality" is loaded with.. well... models...

I believe we can make models that adjust better to facts, without needing any "underlying reality".

 

[The Man]

Brain processes are physical processes such as electrical impulses.

Consciousness is subjective phenomenal experience. For example, the experience of seeing red.

It seems to me prima facie obvious that those two things are not identical. Brain processes are physical processes in the brain while consciousness is a subjective phenomenal experience. They couldn't be more different.

Why “not identical”? Unless by “seeing red” you just mean getting angry, then simply interrupting your optic nerve wouldn’t prevent you from seeing red (though it could make you angry). Other than an emotion “seeing red” is specifically the neurological perception of a color definable as some band of wavelengths in the visual spectrum. Now perhaps having experienced “red” (that band of wavelengths) you can imagine “red” or even see it with your eyes closed from the neurological noise of your optic nerves and visual cortex. However, lacking that or any other objective definition of “red” how do you define it? Subjectively? Fine, but definitions are only useful in their ability to communicate commonly understood meanings. Without such your “subjective phenomenal experience” of “red” can only be “phenomenal experience” for you.

 

[The Man]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, if you choose one frame of reference then auxiliary fictitious forces like the Coriolis effect must enter the equations?

Nope, you are not wrong but there is a specific reason they are called “fictitious forces”. They are just a result of your choice of cooodianat systems, pick a different system and you could get different “fictitious forces” or none at all.

Our two best theories, what I find amazing is that, if one is correct, the other one most necessarily need to be wrong, and this goes around common sense if we keep the belief about a "real world that follows the laws I imagine". Im convinced about neither of them are definitive in any sense, and they will be useful because they work, but at some point both will be rendered "ontologically obsolete".

You seem to be speaking in absolutes after claiming “There is no absolute truth”. So both can be true to some regard and/or wrong in some other, perhaps just like I said one needs to change. Oh and they are quite definitive and that’s the thing that needs to change in either, their definitions. The “common sense if we keep the belief about a "real world that follows the laws I imagine"”? Did you even read what I posted? There is nothing “common sense” about "a “real world that follows the laws I imagine"”. That would be a delusion. Again the “real world” doesn’t follow the models; the models follow the real world. Again if the former were untrue there would be no need of the latter.

It is very tricky, because when we state the word "reality" is loaded with.. well... models...

Nope, not tricky at all, we model reality as best we can, so yes we load our perception of “reality” “with.. well... models...”. No rabbit out of a hat there, just all we can do . Though, now we’ve gotten to such a point that our instrumentality to make advancements needs such a concerted effort that just getting the hat (let alone seeing the rabbit) is phenomenal.

I believe we can make models that adjust better to facts, without needing any "underlying reality".

Facts lacking a basis in an "underlying reality"? We can certainly make model that adjusts better to what anyone wants to believe but “facts” place the same limitation upon those models as a (factually based) "underlying reality" does. Would you prefer some "underlying reality" not base on facts or is it just the term "underlying reality" that you would like to dispense with? Sorry, that’s why there are facts, just something you can’t throw away at your whim, unless you just want to ignore the reality underling those facts.

 

[Dancing David]

Oh no need for a helmet my friend, I believe their being right or wrong can only be contrasted against facts, and their validity circumscribe to this, well, fact.

The helmet is not in anticipation of your response.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You seem to be speaking in absolutes after claiming “There is no absolute truth”. So both can be true to some regard and/or wrong in some other, perhaps just like I said one needs to change. Oh and they are quite definitive and that’s the thing that needs to change in either, their definitions. The “common sense if we keep the belief about a "real world that follows the laws I imagine"”? Did you even read what I posted? There is nothing “common sense” about "a “real world that follows the laws I imagine"”. That would be a delusion. Again the “real world” doesn’t follow the models; the models follow the real world. Again if the former were untrue there would be no need of the latter.

Regarding speaking in absolutes, negating the existence of something like absolutes is not stating an "absolute claim" (there is no absolute truth) but rather negating the existence of such claims. You are right, claiming that the world "IS" in a determinate way is a delusion. Every "is" statement is an ontological claim, and I see no need for ontological claims of any sort. Well, unless "facts" could be considered an ontology.

I believe the subject is rather obscure, and hence the problems we are having maybe merely semantic. For me, the models follow the known or projected facts, not "a world".

Nope, not tricky at all, we model reality as best we can, so yes we load our perception of “reality” “with.. well... models...”. No rabbit out of a hat there, just all we can do . Though, now we’ve gotten to such a point that our instrumentality to make advancements needs such a concerted effort that just getting the hat (let alone seeing the rabbit) is phenomenal.

If I get what you are saying, yes everything would be phenomenal at some point, to be confirmed. I see no need for the word "reality"; I try to use it just to illustrate points.

Facts lacking a basis in an "underlying reality"? We can certainly make model that adjusts better to what anyone wants to believe but “facts” place the same limitation upon those models as a (factually based) "underlying reality" does. Would you prefer some "underlying reality" not base on facts or is it just the term "underlying reality" that you would like to dispense with? Sorry, that’s why there are facts, just something you can’t throw away at your whim, unless you just want to ignore the reality underling those facts.

Yes, the facts limits the reach and nature of our concepts, of our theoretical models. I just don't see the need to assume a "reality" behind facts. The "reality underlying those facts" is always, an assumption.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The helmet is not in anticipation of your response.

Then I didnt get it.

 

[Dancing David]

Then I didnt get it.

I have been flamed for that statement by others in the past.

 

[Paul2]

Yes, the facts limits the reach and nature of our concepts, of our theoretical models. I just don't see the need to assume a "reality" behind facts. The "reality underlying those facts" is always, an assumption.

But what else is behind the facts except the thing we label "reality?" What is a fact if not what is in front (so to speak) of reality?

You accept the concept of a fact, yet somehow feel the need to distance yourself from the concept "reality." Reality doesn't have to be anything more than that which is behind facts. Let's call it an assumption, then. It seems a necessary one (an axiom, perhaps?).

If there's nothing behind the fact, why are facts such stubborn things, then?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I have been flamed for that statement by others in the past.

You have been facing naive realists, I guess.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

But what else is behind the facts except the thing we label "reality?" What is a fact if not what is in front (so to speak) of reality?

That's the whole point, its better to stick with facts. Why? because what humanity has been labeling "reality" have changed enormously every time the paradigm changes.

You accept the concept of a fact, yet somehow feel the need to distance yourself from the concept "reality." Reality doesn't have to be anything more than that which is behind facts. Let's call it an assumption, then. It seems a necessary one (an axiom, perhaps?).

About facts yes of course, facts are real, but there is no necessity of having any underlying concept ("below" them). Why? because it will be a concept, not reality. So, no, I don't believe it is necessary.

If there's nothing behind the fact, why are facts such stubborn things, then?

That's the kind of questions that compels us to conceptualize whats "behind" facts. I choose to stop right there, I see no need to go anywhere past the facts.