Stanisław Lem - Forum

English => Forum in English => Wątek zaczęty przez: cckeiser w Październik 24, 2004, 07:11:02 am

Tytuł: "There are no answers. There are only Choices
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Październik 24, 2004, 07:11:02 am
"There are no answers. There are only Choices."  

That one line in Solaris convinced me I was not watching a Sci-Fi, but a deep philosophical work of art.  
I need to know if that statement is part of Mr. Lem's philosophy, or just a line used in the movie?  
Those words are the summation of my own philosophy; Poly-Solipsism.  

To Mr. Lem  

For your consideration: www.poly-solipsism.com  

Regards  
C.C.Keiser  


Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Clapaucius w Październik 24, 2004, 11:41:20 am
Which movie do you talk about? Sodenbergh' or Tarkovsky'?

The short summation o Lem's philosophy is:
"There is no reasons, there are only a sum of Chances". One common feature of our mind is that  a human allocates to much significance to every event, that  matters a lot for his destiny. And he never thinks, that every event, and it doesn't matter is it significant or insignificant for us, is only an outcome of probability game.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Październik 25, 2004, 07:00:22 am
Cytuj
Which movie do you talk about? Sodenbergh' or Tarkovsky'?


Sodenbergh's
I did enjoy the philosophy. Lem's mind did come through all the Hollywood clutter.


[qoute
The short summation o Lem's philosophy is:
"There is no reasons, there are only a sum of Chances". One common feature of our mind is that  a human allocates to much significance to every event, that  matters a lot for his destiny. And he never thinks, that every event, and it doesn't matter is it significant or insignificant for us, is only an outcome of probability game.
[/quote]

Thank you. there is a bit of Poly-Solipsism in there. There is also a lot of quantum probability there also.

Please give Mr. Lem my regards

C.C.Keiser
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: snorri w Październik 25, 2004, 06:56:01 pm
Hej cckeiser,

I personally think

-- snorri
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Październik 25, 2004, 11:30:25 pm
Hard to disagree.

Nevertheless, if philosophy was a sport, which it sort of even is (except that noone looses or wins), You would made a decent player, poli-soliptic friend :]
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Październik 27, 2004, 06:02:50 am
Cytuj
Hej cckeiser,

I personally think
  • that you misunderstood said quotation from the movie to fit your context. The sentence, the way see it, simply means "Don't expect things to make sense in a grand scheme, because they don't; they are merely a result of a series of choices you made."
  • that your "multi-solipsism" isn't really all that new, yes almost banal, and also not a very interesting base to build a philosophy on, sorry ...
-- snorri


Greetings Snorri

Yes, we all translate the symbols we see through our own belief. The words themselves have no meaning, they are only symbols. The meaning of all symbols are in the mind of the perceiver. You translate what the symbols mean by what you have already experienced, and the meanings you have attached to all the other symbols you have used to build your own personal universe.

How you ‘see' what Lem or I have written; what meaning you assign to our words, may or may not be the meaning either of us intended. You see the symbols and you assign your own meanings.

I am as guilty of this as anyone else, but I know that I am, and that is why I am trying to contact Mr. Lem so I can find out what meaning he intended with his words.
I perceive his words and I give them a meaning that is based upon my own collection of previous experiences. Since no two minds experience Reality exactly the same, no two minds will give the same meaning to all things, or all words.
You have read my words and called them banal. I am not offended. Others have read them and called them brilliant. The difference is the meaning you each have assigned to my words.
We each perceive the Universe through the lens of our own making. We each believe the truth we perceive, but we only perceive the truth we believe.

To find out exactly what Mr. Lem meant by "There are no answers. There are only Choices." I must ask him. By communicating we exchange meanings, and come to a common consensus as to the meaning of the symbols we use.

Regards

Chuck
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Październik 27, 2004, 06:08:44 am
Cytuj
Hard to disagree.

Nevertheless, if philosophy was a sport, which it sort of even is (except that noone looses or wins), You would made a decent player, poli-soliptic friend :]


Greetings Terminus!

"except that noone looses or wins"
I guess that depends on who is keeping score! ;D

Chuck
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: snorri w Październik 27, 2004, 11:04:10 am
Hej Chuck!

Well, I was just stating my opinion. If other people see some deeper insight behind what I feel is banal -- good for them! I certainly am not the measure of everything :)

By the way: Contacting Stanislaw Lem through this forum is probably futile, as he doesn't use the internet at all. Also, you might want to read the Book "Solaris" first -- the movie is only very loosely based on the novel.

-- snorri
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: edculus w Grudzień 04, 2004, 11:35:52 pm
Yes, that quote shook my loins to the core the first time I've heard it about a year ago.  Maybe it was just a rhetorical statement?

Based on some of the responses in this forum, who really thinks we even have choices.  If how we perceive and personally understand this statement is based upon our past experiences, do we really have a choice in our understanding or the choices that we will make?  Maybe there are no answers or and no choices, maybe we're just a ball of energy experiencing the different elements that make up what some call the universe.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Grudzień 09, 2004, 02:17:33 am
Cytuj
Y maybe we're just a ball of energy experiencing the different elements that make up what some call the universe.


Well, even for an energy ball it is a significant difference to be experiencing a train running over it, or not. That's the choice.


Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: SoGo w Grudzień 12, 2004, 02:18:49 pm
Well, you could understand it like this:

You can't define why, so at least you can define what.
The biggest question: "Why is all this?"
You can never get answered, then for this there must be a thing which stand over it.
And in what is in existing then?

You can't see the last reason why we are.
Perhaps it's in us, perhaps out.
No matter, the only thing you have is your own will.
And you have him.
In the area you have got you can act like it is your mood.
But for acting you must choice.
Shall I eat or shall I prefer lying in the sun?
Even if you choose not to choose, you have voted an action, in this case the action of passivity (and dying for hunger, if you are very consequent)
What I will say is:
There aren't last answers.
But there are choices and that they have to be is an forcement.
So there aren't any answers, there are only choices.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Grudzień 13, 2004, 12:10:46 am
Given my Poly-Solipsism philosophy I believe I saw a different movie than most. If you miss the statement: "There are no answers, there are only choices;" which is uttered very softly, you miss the key to understanding what the movie Solaris was all about.
You must understand I had already formulated Poly-Solipsism based on the reduction of everything that exists back to The Singularity. From that concept I had also arrived at exactly the same conclusion: There are no Answers. There are only Choices, several months before I saw the movie.
When I head my words echoed back at me from none other than Stanislaw Lem, I nearly spewed my drink through my nose! It was a very eerie metaphysical sensation to see my own philosophy being dramatized before my astonished eyes.

From my perspective the object called Solaris is a poetic/artistic representation of The Singularity. The manifestation created from the minds of those in the story represent how we all create our reality with our own minds and beliefs.
Once we have entered into our own illusion of reality we cannot tell that it is an illusion. We are trapped in our own illusions and to our minds it becomes real.
If we cannot tell the difference between what is ‘real,' and what is an illusion, then to our minds there is no difference.
Our minds ride the wavefront until it collapses and becomes our reality!



Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Grudzień 13, 2004, 12:12:05 am
Well it's obvious You can redefine whole philosophy by telling that the only thing we're doing is instant choosing.
I have no problem understanding it.

But it doesn't mean there are no answers at all. In mathematics, one can easily answer a question like ,,does there exist a greatest prime number?'' and his/her free will has nothing to do with it.

There are other obvious questions. I can answer if it was snowing yesterday without having to choose what to say.
I regret to say we have no snow in Poland yet... but...
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Socrates w Grudzień 13, 2004, 12:50:25 am


From my perspective the object called Solaris is a poetic/artistic representation of The Singularity. The manifestation created from the minds of those in the story represent how we all create our reality with our own minds and beliefs.
[/quote]

As Kelvin would say:  "...and do you know what he have done?  We've just created another theory about Solaris, and that is no small accomplishment given what was written about it to date..." (Kelvin to Snaut, near the end of the book (paraphrased)).

Cheers, Socrates
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Grudzień 13, 2004, 04:49:17 am
Cytuj
In mathematics, one can easily answer a question like ,,does there exist a greatest prime number?'' and his/her free will has nothing to do with it.

I regret to say we have no snow in Poland yet... but...


But where do prime numbers come from, or any number for that matter?
Mathematics is wholly a human construct. Numbers only exist in the mind.
Mathematicians construct maps of the territory, but the maps are not the territory.
The are simply images in the mind.

You say you regret you have no snow as yet. I take it you are a skier? Skiers are the only people I know who regret not having snow!
It would not bother me if it never snowed around here. I am currently living in Northeastern Pennsylvania in the US, and we only get a few feet a year at the most. Sometimes not even that much. I gave up skiing 35 years ago; not that I ever did much of it anyway.
You like snow. I do not. Choices.
Our choices make us who we are. The main character in Solaris was forced to reflect on the choices he made that changed him into the person he had become. He was given the opportunity to change those choices, change himself, and change his reality.
Through Solaris, Lem is telling us if we do not like the person we have become we have the choice to change that person, and change our reality.
Poly-Solipsism tells us the same thing. Our reality is created by our choices. If we do not like our present reality we can change it by making new choices.
We do not have to settle for only what others have to offer. The characters in Solaris argued over what was the right thing to do. They each made different choices. They each chose a different reality.
The more I think about it, the more convinced I am Stanislaw Lem was telling the story of  Poly-Solipsism and The Singularity. Not that I think for one moment he ever read or even heard of Poly-Solipsism or of myself. I just believe we both independently became aware of the same concept.

What I do not know is whether the story of Solaris is actually his philosophy, or just a story, but from what I have been reading about Lem, his works of fiction are always based around his reality. I would dearly love to compare notes with Lem over our mutual understanding of this illusion of reality. Especially the similarities between Solaris and The Singularity. The movie does not really say much about Solaris itself, everything is implied. Which is pretty much all we can imply about The Singularity. We cannot actually know anything about it because The Singularity is all Potential.

Yes, I have read else where, and have been told on this forum Lem does not own a computer. Guess what, I don't believe that for a minute. He is too intelligent not to take advantage of all the Internet has to offer. If he does not actually own one himself, I am sure he has a computer at his disposal.
There is at least a little vanity in all of us. And what creative artist can resist listening in on what his fans and detractors are saying about him!
I have no doubt Lem is here! ;)

Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Karel w Grudzień 13, 2004, 08:17:08 am
Cytuj

Well, even for an energy ball it is a significant difference to be experiencing a train running over it, or not. That's the choice.
 


Once the "energy ball" get stopped to avoid a train,  a train on another rail runs over it. There even aren´t no choices
Some people call it "doom"
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Grudzień 13, 2004, 01:39:42 pm
Hehe, right :)
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Sternenfisch w Grudzień 13, 2004, 06:48:57 pm
Uhm, other way, other question:
We can't live without choices.
But can the choices be made without us?

That's what I find disturbing on Poly-Solipsism.
The Universe didn't exist because we exist.
If we all were non-existing, the universe would exist still.

But we can't exist without the universe.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Grudzień 13, 2004, 09:21:37 pm
Well, excuse me, but this polisoliptic stuff is launching my rockets of the ground.

Universe would exist without us...

SO WHAT?
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Grudzień 14, 2004, 04:45:03 am
Cytuj
Uhm, other way, other question:
We can't live without choices.
But can the choices be made without us?

That's what I find disturbing on Poly-Solipsism.
The Universe didn't exist because we exist.
If we all were non-existing, the universe would exist still.

But we can't exist without the universe.

Define--Exist!
Tytuł: Does the Universe Exist if We're Not Looking?
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Grudzień 14, 2004, 04:47:12 am
Ok, I tried to just give the link to this article several times, but it never works. All you get is "page not found"! So I gave up trying and decided to post the whole thing and give the url to the place I found it. I really don't understand why they have to ‘trick' url links so they will not work??

http://www.discover.com/recent_issue/index.html
DISCOVER Vol. 23 No. 6 (June 2002)
Table of Contents

Does the Universe Exist if We're Not Looking?
Eminent physicist John Wheeler says he has only enough time left to work on one idea: that human consciousness shapes not only the present but the past as well
By Tim Folger
Photography by Dan Winters



John Archibald Wheeler, high priest of quantum mysteries, suspects that reality exists not because of physical particles but rather because of the act of observing the universe. "Information may not be just what we learn about the world," he says. "It may be what makes the world."  
The world seems to be putting itself together piece by piece on this damp gray morning along the coast of Maine. First the spruce and white pine trees that cover High Island materialize from the fog, then the rocky headland, and finally the sea, as if the mere act of watching has drawn them all into existence. And that may indeed be the case. While this misty genesis unfolds, the island's most eminent resident discusses notions that still perplex him after seven decades in physics, including his gut feeling that the very universe may be constantly emerging from a haze of possibility, that we inhabit a cosmos made real in part by our own observations.

John Wheeler, scientist and dreamer, colleague of Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr, mentor to many of today's leading physicists, and the man who chose the name "black hole" to describe the unimaginably dense, light-trapping objects now thought to be common throughout the universe, turned 90 last July. He is one of the last of the towering figures of 20th-century physics, a member of the generation that plumbed the mysteries of quantum mechanics and limned the utmost reaches of space and time. After a lifetime of fundamental contributions in fields ranging from atomic physics to cosmology, Wheeler has concerned himself in his later years with what he calls "ideas for ideas."

"I had a heart attack on January 9, 2001," he says, "I said, 'That's a signal. I only have a limited amount of time left, so I'll concentrate on one question: How come existence?'"

Why does the universe exist? Wheeler believes the quest for an answer to that question inevitably entails wrestling with the implications of one of the strangest aspects of modern physics: According to the rules of quantum mechanics, our observations influence the universe at the most fundamental levels. The boundary between an objective "world out there" and our own subjective consciousness that seemed so clearly defined in physics before the eerie discoveries of the 20th century blurs in quantum mechanics. When physicists look at the basic constituents of realityù atoms and their innards, or the particles of light called photons what they see depends on how they have set up their experiment. A physicist's observations determine whether an atom, say, behaves like a fluid wave or a hard particle, or which path it follows in traveling from one point to another. From the quantum perspective the universe is an extremely interactive place. Wheeler takes the quantum view and runs with it.
Tytuł: Does the universe exist if we're not looking?
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Grudzień 14, 2004, 04:48:25 am
As Wheeler voices his thoughts, he laces his fingers behind his large head, leans back onto a sofa, and gazes at the ceiling or perhaps far beyond it. He sits with his back to a wide window. Outside, the fog is beginning to lift on what promises to be a hot summer day. On an end table near the sofa rests a large oval rock, with one half polished black so that its surface resembles the Chinese yin-yang symbol. "That rock is about 200 million years old," says Wheeler. "One revolution of our galaxy."

Although Wheeler's face looks careworn and sober, it becomes almost boyish when he smiles, as he does when I extend a hand to help him from the couch and he says, "Ah, antigravity." Wheeler is short and sturdily built, with sparse white hair. He retains an impish fascination with fireworks an enthusiasm that cost him part of a finger when he was young and has on occasion lit Roman candles in the corridors of Princeton, where he became a faculty member in 1938 and where he still keeps an office. At one point a loud bang interrupts our interview. Wheeler's son, who lives on a cliff a few hundred yards away, has fired a small cannon, a gift from Wheeler.

Wheeler is gracious to a fault; one colleague describes him as "a gentleman hidden inside a gentleman." But that courtly demeanor also hides something else: one of the most adventurous minds in physics. Instead of shying away from questions about the meaning of it all, Wheeler relishes the profound and the paradoxical. He was an early advocate of the anthropic principle, the idea that the universe and the laws of physics are fine-tuned to permit the existence of life. For the past two decades, though, he has pursued a far more provocative idea for an idea, something he calls genesis by observership. Our observations, he suggests, might actually contribute to the creation of physical reality. To Wheeler we are not simply bystanders on a cosmic stage; we are shapers and creators living in a participatory universe.

Wheeler's hunch is that the universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we contribute to the ongoing creation of not just the present and the future but the past as well. To illustrate his idea, he devised what he calls his "delayed-choice experiment," which adds a startling, cosmic variation to a cornerstone of quantum physics: the classic two-slit experiment.


Click on image to enlarge (14K)
Seeing Double
In his delayed-choice thought experiment, Wheeler suggests that a single photon emitted from a distant quasar (far right) can simultaneously follow two paths to Earth, even if those paths are separated by many light-years. Here one photon travels past two different galaxies, with both routes deflected by the gravitational pull of the galaxies. Stranger still, Wheeler theorizes, the observations astronomers make on Earth today decide the path the photon took billions of years ago.
Graphic by Matt Zang

That experiment is exceedingly strange in its own right, even without Wheeler's extra kink thrown in. It illustrates a key principle of quantum mechanics: Light has a dual nature. Sometimes light behaves like a compact particle, a photon; sometimes it seems to behave like a wave spread out in space, just like the ripples in a pond. In the experiment, light a stream of photons shines through two parallel slits and hits a strip of photographic film behind the slits. The experiment can be run two ways: with photon detectors right beside each slit that allow physicists to observe the photons as they pass, or with detectors removed, which allows the photons to travel unobserved. When physicists use the photon detectors, the result is unsurprising: Every photon is observed to pass through one slit or the other. The photons, in other words, act like particles.
Tytuł: Does the universe exist if we're not looking?
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Grudzień 14, 2004, 04:49:22 am
But when the photon detectors are removed, something weird occurs. One would expect to see two distinct clusters of dots on the film, corresponding to where individual photons hit after randomly passing through one slit or the other. Instead, a pattern of alternating light and dark stripes appears. Such a pattern could be produced only if the photons are behaving like waves, with each individual photon spreading out and surging against both slits at once, like a breaker hitting a jetty. Alternating bright stripes in the pattern on the film show where crests from those waves overlap; dark stripes indicate that a crest and a trough have canceled each other.

The outcome of the experiment depends on what the physicists try to measure: If they set up detectors beside the slits, the photons act like ordinary particles, always traversing one route or the other, not both at the same time. In that case the striped pattern doesn't appear on the film. But if the physicists remove the detectors, each photon seems to travel both routes simultaneously like a tiny wave, producing the striped pattern.

Wheeler has come up with a cosmic-scale version of this experiment that has even weirder implications. Where the classic experiment demonstrates that physicists' observations determine the behavior of a photon in the present, Wheeler's version shows that our observations in the present can affect how a photon behaved in the past.

To demonstrate, he sketches a diagram on a scrap of paper. Imagine, he says, a quasar, a very luminous and very remote young galaxy. Now imagine that there are two other large galaxies between Earth and the quasar. The gravity from massive objects like galaxies can bend light, just as conventional glass lenses do. In Wheeler's experiment the two huge galaxies substitute for the pair of slits; the quasar is the light source. Just as in the two-slit experiment, light photons from the quasar can follow two different paths, past one galaxy or the other.

Suppose that on Earth, some astronomers decide to observe the quasars. In this case a telescope plays the role of the photon detector in the two-slit experiment. If the astronomers point a telescope in the direction of one of the two intervening galaxies, they will see photons from the quasar that were deflected by that galaxy; they would get the same result by looking at the other galaxy. But the astronomers could also mimic the second part of the two-slit experiment. By carefully arranging mirrors, they could make photons arriving from the routes around both galaxies strike a piece of photographic film simultaneously. Alternating light and dark bands would appear on the film, identical to the pattern found when photons passed through the two slits.

Here's the odd part. The quasar could be very distant from Earth, with light so faint that its photons hit the piece of film only one at a time. But the results of the experiment wouldn't change. The striped pattern would still show up, meaning that a lone photon not observed by the telescope traveled both paths toward Earth, even if those paths were separated by many light-years. And that's not all.

By the time the astronomers decide which measurement to make, whether to pin down the photon to one definite route or to have it follow both paths simultaneously, the photon could have already journeyed for billions of years, long before life appeared on Earth. The measurements made now, says Wheeler, determine the photon's past. In one case the astronomers create a past in which a photon took both possible routes from the quasar to Earth. Alternatively, they retroactively force the photon onto one straight trail toward their detector, even though the photon began its jaunt long before any detectors existed.
Tytuł: Does the universe exist if we're not looking?
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Grudzień 14, 2004, 04:51:11 am
It would be tempting to dismiss Wheeler's thought experiment as a curious idea, except for one thing: It has been demonstrated in a laboratory. In 1984 physicists at the University of Maryland set up a tabletop version of the delayed-choice scenario. Using a light source and an arrangement of mirrors to provide a number of possible photon routes, the physicists were able to show that the paths the photons took were not fixed until the physicists made their measurements, even though those measurements were made after the photons had already left the light source and begun their circuit through the course of mirrors.

Wheeler conjectures we are part of a universe that is a work in progress; we are tiny patches of the universe looking at itself and building itself. It's not only the future that is still undetermined but the past as well. And by peering back into time, even all the way back to the Big Bang, our present observations select one out of many possible quantum histories for the universe.


Birthday Bash
Andrei Linde, top, one of the principal architects of inflationary theory, helps celebrate John Wheeler's pre-91st birthday at a gathering at Princeton University. Linde is using his hands to illustrate that our universe may have been paired with another when it was born. Wheeler, with glass in hand (bottom), chats with Ravi Ravindra, a professor emeritus of comparative religion at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia.
Photographs by Brian Finke  

Does this mean humans are necessary to the existence of the universe? While conscious observers certainly partake in the creation of the participatory universe envisioned by Wheeler, they are not the only, or even primary, way by which quantum potentials become real. Ordinary matter and radiation play the dominant roles. Wheeler likes to use the example of a high-energy particle released by a radioactive element like radium in Earth's crust. The particle, as with the photons in the two-slit experiment, exists in many possible states at once, traveling in every possible direction, not quite real and solid until it interacts with something, say a piece of mica in Earth's crust. When that happens, one of those many different probable outcomes becomes real. In this case the mica, not a conscious being, is the object that transforms what might happen into what does happen. The trail of disrupted atoms left in the mica by the high-energy particle becomes part of the real world.

At every moment, in Wheeler's view, the entire universe is filled with such events, where the possible outcomes of countless interactions become real, where the infinite variety inherent in quantum mechanics manifests as a physical cosmos. And we see only a tiny portion of that cosmos. Wheeler suspects that most of the universe consists of huge clouds of uncertainty that have not yet interacted either with a conscious observer or even with some lump of inanimate matter. He sees the universe as a vast arena containing realms where the past is not yet fixed.

Wheeler is the first to admit that this is a mind-stretching idea. It's not even really a theory but more of an intuition about what a final theory of everything might be like. It's a tenuous lead, a clue that the mystery of creation may lie not in the distant past but in the living present. "This point of view is what gives me hope that the question "How come existence?" can be answered," he says.

William Wootters, one of Wheeler's many students and now a professor of physics at Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts, sees Wheeler as an almost oracular figure. "I think asking this question How come existence? is a good thing," Wootters says. "Why not see how far you can stretch? See where that takes you. It's got to generate at least some good ideas, even if the question doesn't get answered. John is interested in the significance of quantum measurement, how it creates an actuality of what was a mere potentiality. He has come to think of that as the essential building block of reality."
Tytuł: Does the Universe exist if we're not looking?
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Grudzień 14, 2004, 04:55:25 am
In his concern for the nature of quantum measurements, Wheeler is addressing one of the most confounding aspects of modern physics: the relationship between the observations and the outcomes of experiments on quantum systems. The problem goes back to the earliest days of quantum mechanics and was formulated most famously by the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrodinger, who imagined a Rube Goldberg-type of quantum experiment with a cat.

Put a cat in a closed box, along with a vial of poison gas, a piece of uranium, and a Geiger counter hooked up to a hammer suspended above the gas vial. During the course of the experiment, the radioactive uranium may or may not emit a particle. If the particle is released, the Geiger counter will detect it and send a signal to a mechanism controlling the hammer, which will strike the vial and release the gas, killing the cat. If the particle is not released, the cat will live. Schrodinger asked, What could be known about the cat before opening the box?

If there were no such thing as quantum mechanics, the answer would be simple: The cat is either alive or dead, depending on whether a particle hit the Geiger counter. But in the quantum world, things are not so straightforward. The particle and the cat now form a quantum system consisting of all possible outcomes of the experiment. One outcome includes a dead cat; another, a live one. Neither becomes real until someone opens the box and looks inside. With that observation, an entire consistent sequence of events the particle jettisoned from the uranium, the release of the poison gas, the cat's death at once becomes real, giving the appearance of something that has taken weeks to transpire. Stanford University physicist Andrei Linde believes this quantum paradox gets to the heart of Wheeler's idea about the nature of the universe: The principles of quantum mechanics dictate severe limits on the certainty of our knowledge.

"You may ask whether the universe really existed before you start looking at it," he says. "That's the same Schrodinger cat question. And my answer would be that the universe looks as if it existed before I started looking at it. When you open the cat's box after a week, you're going to find either a live cat or a smelly piece of meat. You can say that the cat looks as if it were dead or as if it were alive during the whole week. Likewise, when we look at the universe, the best we can say is that it looks as if it were there 10 billion years ago."

Linde believes that Wheeler's intuition of the participatory nature of reality is probably right. But he differs with Wheeler on one crucial point. Linde believes that conscious observers are an essential component of the universe and cannot be replaced by inanimate objects.

"The universe and the observer exist as a pair," Linde says. "You can say that the universe is there only when there is an observer who can say, Yes, I see the universe there. These small words it looks like it was here for practical purposes it may not matter much, but for me as a human being, I do not know any sense in which I could claim that the universe is here in the absence of observers. We are together, the universe and us. The moment you say that the universe exists without any observers, I cannot make any sense out of that. I cannot imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores consciousness. A recording device cannot play the role of an observer, because who will read what is written on this recording device? In order for us to see that something happens, and say to one another that something happens, you need to have a universe, you need to have a recording device, and you need to have us. It's not enough for the information to be stored somewhere, completely inaccessible to anybody. It's necessary for somebody to look at it. You need an observer who looks at the universe. In the absence of observers, our universe is dead."

Tytuł: Re: Does the Universe exist if we're not looking?
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Grudzień 14, 2004, 04:57:03 am
Schrodinger's Cat
Erwin Schrodinger, a founding father of quantum mechanics, asked what would happen to a cat locked in a box with a radioactive element that may or may not trigger the release of poison gas during the experiment. The short answer: The cat's fate is undecided until the moment someone observes the experiment.  
Will Wheeler's question How come existence? ever be answered? Wootters is skeptical."I don't know if human intelligence is capable of answering that question," he says. "We don't expect dogs or ants to be able to figure out everything about the universe. And in the sweep of evolution, I doubt that we're the last word in intelligence. There might be higher levels later. So why should we think we're at the point where we can understand everything? At the same time I think it's great to ask the question and see how far you can go before you bump into a wall."

Linde is more optimistic.

"You know, if you say that we're smart enough to figure everything out, that is a very arrogant thought. If you say that we're not smart enough, that is a very humiliating thought. I come from Russia, where there is a fairy tale about two frogs in a can of sour cream. The frogs were drowning in the cream. There was nothing solid there; they could not jump from the can. One of the frogs understood there was no hope, and he stopped beating the sour cream with his legs. He just died. He drowned in sour cream. The other one did not want to give up. There was absolutely no way it could change anything, but it just kept kicking and kicking and kicking. And then all of a sudden, the sour cream was churned into butter. Then the frog stood on the butter and jumped out of the can. So you look at the sour cream and you think, 'There is no way I can do anything with that.' But sometimes, unexpected things happen.

"I'm happy that some people who previously thought this question How come existence? was meaningless did not stop us from asking it. We all learned from people like John Wheeler, who asks strange questions and gives strange answers. You may agree or disagree with his answers. But the very fact that he asks these questions, and suggests some plausible and implausible answers, it has shaken these boundaries of what is possible and what is impossible to ask."

And what does the oracle of High Island himself think? Will we ever understand why the universe came into being?

"Or at least how," he says. "Why is a trickier thing." Wheeler points to the example of Charles Darwin in the 19th century and how he provided a simple explanation evolution through natural selection for what seemed an utterly intractable problem: how to explain the origin and diversity of life on Earth. Does Wheeler think that physicists might one day have a similarly clear understanding of the origin of the universe?

"Absolutely," he says. "Absolutely."




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RELATED WEB SITES:
Geons, Black Holes & Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics by John Archibald Wheeler with Kenneth Ford. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1998. Also check out Andrei Linde's Web site: http://physics.stanford.edu/linde.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Copyright 2002 The Walt Disney Company. Back to Homepage.
 
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Sternenfisch w Grudzień 19, 2004, 02:32:40 pm
Cytuj
Well, excuse me, but this polisoliptic stuff is launching my rockets of the ground.

Universe would exist without us...

SO WHAT?


That's showing us that there isn't a own universe for any of our choices.
If you look backward on http://www.poly-solipsism.com/ it's telled there.
Can this be true if the universe (the only one we know in his unendlessnes) didn't care of us?

That is what
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Sternenfisch w Grudzień 19, 2004, 02:46:49 pm
Cytuj
Define--Exist!


Exist is:
Living with Consciousness.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Grudzień 19, 2004, 11:49:18 pm
Cytuj

Can this be true if the universe (the only one we know in his unendlessnes) didn't care of us?

 


I don't understand what does it mean that the universe does or doesn't care about us. It is not a person. It is the universe.  You can't claim it 'cares' or not.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Grudzień 19, 2004, 11:52:19 pm
Cytuj

Exist is:
Living with Consciousness.


Haha
;D
Ok.
And what about living withoud conciousness? What about creatures that don't enjoy having brains? Like a fly, or ameba. Doesn't a bee exist? Is it concius, is it aware?

And what a hell - what about a stone? Don't tell me a stone is aware of the fact that it exists. But doesn't it?

Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Grudzień 20, 2004, 02:34:56 am
Cytuj

Exist is:
Living with Consciousness.


Define Consciousness. :)
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Grudzień 20, 2004, 03:36:10 am
Buah, he should also define 'living' !
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Grudzień 20, 2004, 06:28:53 am
Philosophy is the art of replying to any question by asking a thousand more!
cck
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Socrates w Grudzień 20, 2004, 07:23:02 am
Interesting philosophising happening here...
Cheers, Socrates
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Sternenfisch w Grudzień 20, 2004, 12:19:57 pm
Consciounsness:
The Summa of our knowledge and our memories
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Karel w Grudzień 20, 2004, 12:24:29 pm
...and other experiences
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Karel w Grudzień 20, 2004, 12:34:54 pm
Don´t want to be a corrector, You know what I mean SoGo. Good definition of Consciounsness I think
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Grudzień 20, 2004, 09:04:38 pm
Cytuj
Consciounsness:
The Summa of our knowledge and our memories


Yes! Excellent!

Especially when we add Karel's experiences.

So we have defined "Exist" as the sum of knowledge, memories, and experience.
All we can say about what exists is what we perceive to exist.
If we check our dictionaries we find circular definitions for Exist, Reality, and Real.
Reality is what is ‘Real,' and what is ‘Real" is what we perceive to ‘Exist.' And what ‘Exists' is what we perceive to be ‘Real'!

So what does that say about Reality?
If Reality is what we perceive to be real, then for there to be a Reality, it must first be Perceived!
Without Perception no-thing is Real.
Reality exists in the Mind!

The Universe does not exist if we do not "see" it.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Grudzień 21, 2004, 02:27:20 am
Bla Bla Bla... I've never seen You, polisoliptic friend. Do you even exits? Or are you some kind of a bot? Naaaa....

This polisoliptism is, in my opinion, a side effect of anthropomorphism+antrophocentrism, that consumed western philosophy billion years ago   >:(

For me it is outrageous to claim, that something doesn't exist if there isn't some supercilious human to watch it.  

So, my friends, a little bit of modesty...
(http://jovan.ru/pics/bender.gif)
Cheers
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Socrates w Grudzień 21, 2004, 03:17:38 am
I would agree with cckeiser on this one.  Reality does need to be percieved to be real for us, 5-sensed thinking proteins.  But to posit that human percievement is the alpha and omega would not be reasonable at all.  Thus, as long as we accept that Reality with a capital R is not in size and scope the same as human reality, we can be logically sure (giving that causality holds) that there are things out there which we cannot percive, but which are there.  And, if we cannot percieve them, we cannot know if they're there (and being there is a necessary condition for the reality to apply).  Does that make sense?
Cheers, Socrates
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Grudzień 21, 2004, 04:52:46 am
Cytuj
I would agree with cckeiser on this one.  Reality does need to be percieved to be real for us, 5-sensed thinking proteins.  But to posit that human percievement is the alpha and omega would not be reasonable at all.  Thus, as long as we accept that Reality with a capital R is not in size and scope the same as human reality, we can be logically sure (giving that causality holds) that there are things out there which we cannot percive, but which are there.  And, if we cannot percieve them, we cannot know if they're there (and being there is a necessary condition for the reality to apply).  Does that make sense?
Cheers, Socrates


You are in the Universe looking out and thinking "within Universe," as if the human mind is the only mind that can perceive.
I am "in" The Singularity looking into the Universe. From my perspective, all Reality is an Illusion created by the entangled minds of The Singularity.
Tytuł: The Singularity (part 1)
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Grudzień 21, 2004, 04:55:42 am
From my web site:

So what is The Singularity, and how do we know it exists?

We first start with the only thing we can be certain of: We Exist!
In order for anything at all to exist, something must have always existed. The reason is we cannot have a true Nothingness that evolves into Somethingness unless there is a something to disturb Nothingness into evolving. A true Nothingness would be completely satisfied, and being devoid of any and all properties is completely beyond entropy or perturbation ( anxiety ).
The Null Set is the most stable of all probabilities.

Since we know we exist, logically it must follow, the Null Set; Nothingness, cannot have ever been the state. We cannot get something from nothing because there is no-thing in nothing to begin with, and thus there is no-thing to evolve into something.
For anything at all to exist, something must have always existed!

But what is that "Something"?

Since we exist, Where do we exist, or What do we exist in?
We can start by saying we exist on this planet, in this solar system, this galaxy, and in this Universe.
But what does the Universe exist in?

No matter what your Religion or Belief is, sooner or latter you must arrive at the First Container that contains everything else, but that is not itself contained in anything.

If the First Container is not contained, it has no boundaries. No Boundaries means not only is it Unbound, but it has no beginning and no ending. Therefore, it must be Infinite, Unbound, and Eternal. If it is Infinite, Unbound and Eternal, it must be a Singularity.
But not just  a singularity, it must be The Singularity. Since it is Infinite there can not be any other singularities. The Singularity must be Singular in its existence. All other so called singularities are only anomalies that exist within The Singularity.

An Infinite Unbound and Eternal Singularity must then be the answer to First Cause, and because The Singularity is Something it answers the Fundamental Question why is there Something and not Nothing! Because if Nothingness had ever been the case, by its very unnature, Nothingness would always be the case.

I must point out the absence of e=mc^2 energy that makes up our Universe is not Nothingness. Quantum Physics tells us all our energy emanates from the UnReality of the Quantum Universe. So if all our e=mc^2 energy reverted back into metaphysical quantum energy, there would be No-Physical-Thing in our Universe, but it would not be absolute Nothingness. There would still be The Singularity.

But now we run into a slight problem. An Infinite, Unbound, and Eternal Singularity is an Infinity. An Infinity cannot exist as an "Is"!
It has no beginning and no ending, and it is unbound, therefore is does not, and cannot exist as a complete Whole. It is condemned to an eternal state of Potential existence.
It is this Potential existence that give us a clue as to the fundamental properties of what The Singularity is. It is Potential, and Potential is a yet to be realized Reality.

But where does this Potential come from?
All we can know about The Singularity is what we perceive to be "in it," but because it is a Singularity, no-thing can be "in" it, all things must be woven from it. There cannot be anything that is not The Singularity, so Everything is The Singularity.
Since the only thing we can be certain of is We Exist, then We do not exist in The Singularity, we are not a part of The Singularity. We are The Singularity.

And since we exist as The Singularity anything we can ascribe to ourselves must by default be an attribute of The Singularity.
The only thing we know for certain is we Think; we are conscious. Consciousness must then be an attribute of The Singularity.
This is where Occam's Razor comes into play.
If we do not try to complicate anything more than necessary, and avoid making unnecessary assumptions,  then We Exist and Consciousness as The Singularity are all that is necessary.  Anything we attempt to add is only an unnecessary complication. The Singularity is composed of Consciousness, and We are the Consciousness of The Singularity.
And what is Consciousness?
Consciousness is Mind, it is Thinking, it is Thought itself; which metaphysically fulfills the quality of Infinite and  Unbound Potential.
Thoughts are infinite and unbound, and portends what is yet to be.

So what then becomes of Reality and Nothingness within The Singularity of Consciousness?
Tytuł: The Singularity (part 2 )
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Grudzień 21, 2004, 04:57:52 am
First of all there are no regions within The Singularity. The Singularity is consciousness and does not exist as an object in our four dimensional Universe. It is purely metaphysical and devoid of spacetime dimensions or degrees of freedom. It has no height, width, or depth as we would envision a finite object to have. Being pure metaphysical The Singularity does not even exists as a "point existence" which would require it to have a substance to be a point in a physical Reality. Metaphysically it is no more tangible, and has no more physical dimensions, or degrees of freedom than a Thought.
Within our thoughts we can envision a four ‘dimensional' object such as a box. We can envision a cardboard box 3 feet long, two feet high, and one foot wide. If we give it a lid we can envision the dimension of time by opening and closing that lid. We can envision volume, by placing ‘objects' into it.
That box now exists as a four dimensional object in a zero physical dimensional illusion. That box exists in our thoughts, which have infinite degrees of metaphysical freedom, but does not actually exist in four spacetime dimensions. Those spacetime dimensions are part of the manifestation, and do not actually exist. They exist in our Thoughts only.
Now let us completely eradicate the box from our minds so that it no longer exists. In fact let us cleanse our minds of everything. What is left is No-Thing, but not Nothing. We can envision a state of Nothingness, but that concept of Nothingness can only exist as a concept in our thoughts; our thoughts still exist.
Since The Singularity is infinite and unbound there are no boundaries outside. It is not an object with physical dimensions so there are no areas or zones to border off and create a boundary between itself and a void of Nothingness, so it cannot have boundaries inside.
In order for there to be a true Nothingness there can be no Thought, or consciousness to carry that thought, and if there is no consciousness, there is no Singularity.

C.C.Keiser
12/20/04
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Grudzień 21, 2004, 12:01:09 pm
Ok, I'm off this topic forever...
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Sternenfisch w Grudzień 22, 2004, 08:47:20 pm
 ??? Ok, easy. ???
You wanna say there is something more?
God?
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Grudzień 22, 2004, 11:40:42 pm
Cytuj
Ok, I'm off this topic forever...


I am sorry to hear this Terminus, but I cannot help wondering how Mr. Lem would react to this same information?
But I do respect your decision, after all, if you cannot swim you are safest staying in the shallow end of the pool.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Grudzień 23, 2004, 03:03:58 am
Cytuj

You wanna say there is something more?


To whom do You adress this?


Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Grudzień 23, 2004, 03:18:16 am
Cytuj

I am sorry to hear this Terminus, but I cannot help wondering how Mr. Lem would react to this same information?


To what information? That I don't wanna talk about Your metaphisical theory?  Or that he's a part of a Singularity?
Cytuj
But I do respect your decision, after all, if you cannot swim you are safest staying in the shallow end of the pool.


First, staying safe is not my way.
Second, I pretty much enjoy swimming.
Third, I'm even into diving. But it all depends on what water you're jumpin' into.



Nevertheless, I must say I'm deeply impressed. You claim that since your're not nothing, that something exists, and hence something must have always existed, since it is impossible for 'something' to emerge from 'nothing'.
It is quite a  theory. And I must congratulate You - You've solved the mysterious question of whether is universe eternal, or did it have a beggining. In just one line of text.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Grudzień 23, 2004, 08:08:12 pm
Cytuj

To what information? That I don't wanna talk about Your metaphisical theory?  Or that he's a part of a Singularity?

First, staying safe is not my way.
Second, I pretty much enjoy swimming.
Third, I'm even into diving. But it all depends on what water you're jumpin' into.



Nevertheless, I must say I'm deeply impressed. You claim that since your're not nothing, that something exists, and hence something must have always existed, since it is impossible for 'something' to emerge from 'nothing'.
It is quite a  theory. And I must congratulate You - You've solved the mysterious question of whether is universe eternal, or did it have a beggining. In just one line of text.


Thank you Terminus, what can I tell you, it is a gift! ;D
It is good to have you back!  :)

The reason I posted The Singularity here is, like I said before, from my pov, the "object" Solaris looks to me to be the same idea as The Singularity.

Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Grudzień 24, 2004, 04:22:57 am
Provocateur...
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Grudzień 25, 2004, 01:09:44 am
Cytuj
Provocateur...

Aah man, you caught me!  ;)
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: wetal w Grudzień 27, 2004, 01:22:16 pm
A question : Is it possible to create such a power station that could produce posetive emotions? I`m looking for them. Have you seen any?
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Grudzień 27, 2004, 04:20:33 pm
Ahihi, that's pretty funny.

Well, I think you need a TV with a DVD player, playing Monty Python's gags on & on 'forever' :]
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Karel w Grudzień 27, 2004, 05:22:02 pm
Cytuj
Well, I think you need a TV with a DVD player, playing Monty Python's gags on & on 'forever' :]

Fully agreed!





And now for something completely different.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Grudzień 28, 2004, 04:50:41 am
Staying in Python Realm, I'd like to say that this topic is like one big Silly Walk  :P
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Grudzień 28, 2004, 07:18:03 am
I am not alone!

The Self-Aware Universe

http://twm.co.nz/goswam1.htm
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Grudzień 29, 2004, 03:11:29 am

Well definitly, I am little sorry to say that, but snorri already said on 25.10.2004 all that should be said in this topic. That you interpreted Sodenbergh's line to fit your context.
An d I personally think, that besides the fact that that line is present in Sodenberghs film Your philosophy doesn't coincide with Lem's in any, slightest way.

Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Grudzień 29, 2004, 05:39:16 am
Cytuj
Well definitly, I am little sorry to say that, but snorri already said on 25.10.2004 all that should be said in this topic. That you interpreted Sodenbergh's line to fit your context.
An d I personally think, that besides the fact that that line is present in Sodenberghs film Your philosophy doesn't coincide with Lem's in any, slightest way.



Yes, I agree, and I have said so before. Because I already had the concept of Poly-Solipsism running in my mind, I interpreted Solaris through that lens. I saw a different movie than most others. To me that one line held the key to what the whole story was about.
From my point of view Solaris was dramatizing Poly-Solipsism. There are just too many similarities to be a coincidence.

I understand you and snorri do not agree, but how do you know? You saw a different story than I did. You interpreted the story through your own lens, and therefore saw the story the way you wanted to see it.
Neither of you can speak for Stanislaw Lem. Only Lem can speak for Lem!

By the way, I can provide you with a dozen more links that support Poly-Solipsism if you're interested. Just go to the "links" page on my web site, or e-mail me!
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Grudzień 29, 2004, 08:08:46 pm
Cytuj


Only Lem can speak for Lem!

 !


The only way of knowing what he thinks is reading the books, or interviews he's given. I can't help it, but I don't much polisoliptism in them.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Grudzień 30, 2004, 06:11:02 am
Cytuj

 I can't help it, but I don't ( see)much (poly-solipsism) in them.


Then may I suggest you read www.poly-solipsism.com; especially The Singularity again, and then read/watch Solaris again keeping them in mind.


Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Grudzień 31, 2004, 01:24:46 am
What is Consciousness?

http://www.closertotruth.com/topics/mindbrain/index.html
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Styczeń 03, 2005, 03:25:41 am
Mainly this
http://www.closertotruth.com/topics/mindbrain/107/107transcript.html

But who has the time to read it all...
Tytuł: Quantum basis of Poly-Solipsism
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Styczeń 05, 2005, 09:58:01 pm
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 7:38 AM
Subject: Quantum basis of Poly-Solipsism
Dear C.C.Keiser,
I'm a 64 scientist who, as you also did, discovered that polysolipsism is the master key around twenty years ago. I'm sending you my Theory of Relational Consistence, which is that view put in sound scientific terms. Please read it. I hope the scientific language is readable and easy to be understood. If you like it, please divulge among your acquaintances. I also recommend my site <http://simposio2008.cjb.net> , also related to that subject.
Beto Hoisel
THEORY OF RELATIONAL CONSISTENCE
Subversion and reaction
One of the most daring standing points in the history of science was taken by Niels Bohr, when he announced his principle of complementarity which separated science from Aristotelian logic, as he proposed that wave and particle are two different &#8211; however complementary &#8211; aspects assumed by matter and electromagnetic radiation. Despite being logically incompatible, both are true and will appear in one or the other manner, according to the experiment done. The wave associated to a particle is the equation of mathematical possibilities that such a particle shall manifest itself in a considered point (Schrödinger's function) and this only occurs when it "collapses" due to a conscious observer's intervention, bringing forth that particle from a potential into an actual condition of existence.
On that occasion, Heisenberg established for the first time a definite limit to the scientists' pretensions to fathom "everything" about reality as deep as they wish. With his uncertainty principle, he has shown the impossibility to know, with any desirable precision, pairs of observables such as moment and position of a particle. The more precise is one of these measurements, the less trustworthy will be the other. And this is not due to any imperfections of the instruments or methods employed; rather it's an intrinsic characteristic of nature itself.
From these principles the so called Copenhagen interpretation established, profound philosophical implications on the knowledge of the sub-microscopic world were introduced. First of all, we have to acknowledge that quantum reality has a probabilistic nature, instead of a determinate one: Only one experiment on a quantum property of a particle doesn't yield a trustful result; or that experiment is made on many particles or it should be done many times on the same particle, in order to obtain the average. The second implication is that it doesn't make sense to say anything about the physical properties of a quantum object without specifying the experimental arrangement used to know it. Or, in other words: In some mysterious form quantum reality is created by the observation act, which causes Schrödinger's wave to collapse, turning actual something only potential.
At this time, Niels Bohr said that "it's a mistake to suppose that the object of physics is to discover what nature is. Physics occupies only with what we can say about nature." That statement opened the way to John Wheeler's declaration that "No elementary phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon", and, more recently, N. David Mermin of Cornell University to utter his famous boutade: "We now know that the Moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks."
Tytuł: Quantum basis of Poly-Solipsism
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Styczeń 05, 2005, 10:00:12 pm
While the quantum revolutionaries, armed with their equations and puzzling experiments, proceeded with the sweeping subversion of the objective reality concept, the rest of the scientific establishment in the universities of the world ignored, or pretended to ignore, what was happening.
However, not all of them closed their eyes to that. And the reaction in defense of the sacrosanct paradigm of realism came in 1935 led by the grand patriarch of science, Albert Einstein, who, with his allies Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, conceived an imaginary experiment that, as they expected, would demonstrate the errors of quantum conceptions. That famous mental experiment, described in many books of scientific popularization, would show that if the quantum propositions were true 1) or things would move to a speed superior to the light, something not acceptable by the theory of the relativity, 2) or then reality could not exist independently of the observer. Ever since, a controversy that lasted for decades was settled on the EPR paradox, as it came to be known. And the result, already confirmed at the laboratory but not entirely digested by the scientific community, is unfavorable to Einstein and his two friends.
There are many different interpretations of the quantum theory proposed and discussed among scientists, but the one that seems less to correspond to the experimental facts and the theoretical formalism is exactly the realistic interpretation, that states the existence of an objective reality independent of whom observes.
Now, at the forum of debates of physics, there live together other theories that extend and deepen the quantum proposals and, with varied metaphysical assumptions, try to adjust facts to equations. Some of those theories are based on solid mathematical formalism, and other didn't achieve that much yet, although their concepts seem respectable and convincing. Such theories aim to explain important segments of the individual/cosmic totality, which includes, according to the quantum vision, the mysterious objective/subjective interlacement of the world.
Some of the most respected names of contemporary science, as Henry Pierce Stapp, Geoffrey Chew, and David Bohm risked their reputations as scientists when they acknowledged the evidence of the essential role of the observer of an experiment. Such a view implied to acknowledge consciousness, subjectivity and the spirit itself, that imaginary face of wholeness rejected by the old paradigm's na&iuml;ve materialism. Following the same path, many other workers in Physics, Cosmology, Neurology, Ecology and other don't fear to mention the spirit as the central agent of consciousness as they acknowledge the imaginary face of wholeness as "the stone rejected by the builders, that later has shown to be the keystone".
Riding this new wave, which comes to wide open the doors of a new millennium, I'm proposing the outline for a new theory of wholeness &#8211; the theory of relational consistence.
Tytuł: Quantum basis of Poly-Solipsism
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Styczeń 05, 2005, 10:02:13 pm
Beyond 4-dimensional space-time
Just like in Geoffrey Chew's bootstrap conception, no aspect of the theory of relational consistence can be considered basic; almost all are imported from other theories and they only subsist due to its interdependence in a coherent configuration, capable of elucidating enigmas that other approaches don't solve per se. This way, relational consistence is a bootstrap theory once it refuses the reductionist conception ingrained into the current paradigm that says the universe to be made of basic elementary constituents, such as particles, laws, constants etc. In the view of relational consistence both 1) the search for minimal elementary sub-particles and 2) the investigation of what happened in the minimum fraction of linear time after the big bang are illusory roads that ultimately will lead to nothing.
A point to be preliminarily considered is the dimensional framework where that part of totality accessible to human knowledge is inserted. It's presented in two slopes, two faces of a same coin made compatible due to an extension of Bohr's principle of complementarity: 1) the face said to be real or objective, manifested in the three dimensions of the space (Euclidean or non-Euclidean, depending on the considered scale or the investigator's option) and 2) the imaginary or subjective face, manifested in the three dimensions of time. This way, the cognoscible being has two opposite and complementary faces in its wholeness, classically known as matter and spirit, that are no more than our peculiar form of noticing what, without this resource, would remain rationally unrecognized. Let's remember Einstein's words: "time and space are not properties of the universe in itself, but just forms we use to notice it".
This way, the dimensional frame that supports the cognizable wholeness comprehends the three "real" dimensions of space x, y and z plus the three "imaginary" dimensions of time t, u and v. Everything real and all the imaginary realm, all the "objective" world and also the "subjective" kingdom, all physical and mental phenomena &#8211; including those said to be paranormal &#8211; can fit in that six-dimensional framework.
In the perceptive system ordinarily adopted, the "real" contents of the universe &#8211; the physical universe delimited by physicists and cosmologists as their object of study &#8211; are said to exist. On the other hand, the contents of the psychological "imaginary" world, as well as the ideal creations of all subjectivities &#8211; either human or not &#8211; we propose to say they inist. To speculate on other contents outside of that dimensional framework is pointless, once such contents would not be accessible to human knowledge. The mathematical formulations that describe anything unfit for that framework would exist only, or better, would inist only as an abstract mathematical entity linked to its specific ontological status of the imaginary slope of wholeness.
Observe that, as we admit time as being 3-dimensional and imaginary &#8211; the point Albert Einstein missed &#8211; the whole problem of the origins and evolution passes to be referred to a non-sequential understanding of the cosmic facts. This is the deepest and most wide-ranging revolution of our proposal. It subverts all the investigation forms related to one-dimensional and linear time, with its arrow inexorably harnessed to the big bang and the second law of thermodynamics.
This puts us in face of the Buddhist's conception of Being. D.T. Suzuki writes:
Buddha (...) is not one more who lives in a world conceived in terms of time and space. His consciousness is not more the consciousness of a common mind, regulated in agreement with the senses and logic. (...) Buddha (...) lives in a spiritual world that possesses its own rules.
The entity that physicists and cosmologists recognize as being the universe, the cosmos whose secrets they study, in truth is neither unique nor objective, except under a strictly consensual perspective. Each subjectivity, each spirit, each observer, each scientist, each person of any social level or cultural background, each consciousness &#8211; be it human or not, be it terrestrial or not &#8211; carries around a private universe of beatitude or anguish, of ignorance or light, built throughout the eons of his or her existence. This sends us to the theory of the monads, of Leibniz, a sage who reveals a surprising contemporary view. He had a premonition of important aspects of several recent theories, particularly the holographic vision of the brain (Karl Pribram) and also of the universe (David Bohm).
Our model for the relational consistence is sustained on the shoulders of those precursors.
Tytuł: Quantum basis of Poly-Solipsism
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Styczeń 05, 2005, 10:04:19 pm
Subjectivity as focus
As to the interpretations of the quantum paradoxes, we emphatically endorse the discovery (we see it as a discovery) that consciousness creates reality, when it triggers the collapse of Schrödinger's function, turning actual (real) what was only a potential existence (imaginary). That process, countless repeated in all observational actions, turns actual worlds potentially hidden in quantum possibilities, as it builds his or her parallel universe around that observing subjectivity.
Thus, we link ourselves also to the interpretation of the multiple universes, of Hugh Everett III, as we acknowledge the universe as, actually, a multiverse: An inexhaustible unfolding of universes that can portray small &#8211; or much accentuated &#8211; differences among themselves. However, we distinguish our interpretation from Everett's. He admits that all countless versions of universes in some way would "exist", superposed in a hyper-space of endless simultaneous realities as we, collectively, would only have consciousness of one. In our view, conversely, each of these multiple versions can exist only when centralized around a subjectivity that functions as its existential nucleus: Each subjectivity is the center of his or her own parallel universe. We consider as evident that something not perceived cannot be real, as observed John Wheeler. Therefore, universes not provided of a conscious subjectivity as its perceptive nucleus, cannot exist.
Our proposition, however, doesn't mean that each subjectivity is confined in only one parallel universe that, for him or her, would exist "forever" as a single private universe, according to the classic conception. It is nothing like this. In our view, each consciousness is a pole of ever unfolding universes that each subjectivity brings about according to the myriad quantum options embedded in their decisions &#8211; conscious or not &#8211; that we would call observations, equivalent to what, in formal quantum experiments, is characterized as a measurement. This way, each subjectivity is a focus of unfolding parallel universes, as predicted by calculations and admitted in Everett's interpretation. However, each one of these parallel universes has a size restricted to the limits of that subjectivity's range of perception. I remark the fundamental difference that, while in Everett's interpretation only one unfolding system exists, actualizing a single hypothetical reality where all of us would cohabit, in our proposal that old reality &#8211; independent of observers and common to all &#8211; stops having autonomous existence and turns into an existence of consensual nature. Which, for its time, is not unique: There are countless consensual realities, however compatible and consistent with the subjectivities inside them. Consensual realities which are not under interaction can be very different; but if they don't interact there's no problem. Synthetically, we propose that the thing we call reality passes to be understood as a vast inter-subjective network that interlaces consensual realities shared among groups of interacting subjectivities.
The generation of the phenomena shared by multiple subjectivities happens according to processes of holographic nature, each part containing information on the entire interacting group. This view synthesizes the theories of Pribram and Bohm in only one conception and suggests a dimensional locus &#8211; 3-dimensional time &#8211; where can comfortably be inserted the implicit order of Bohm; the domain of frequencies of Pribram; the morphogenetic fields of Sheldrake; the said paranormal phenomena; the archetypes of Plato and Jung etc. We live in a consensual universe mathematically built by our consciousness according to the Fourier's transformation, as it interprets patterns of electromagnetic frequencies originated from other subjectivities as geometric projections of the superior dimensions of space-time. Consciousness is a hologram that reproduces "one" holographic universe in perpetual mutation &#8211; a holomovement, according to Bohm &#8211; due to the continuous motion of interacting subjectivities. The most present physical processes in the forming of that consensual world are interference and resonance of the entire spectrum of electromagnetic waves &#8211; mostly of them unsuspected, however present.
I emphatically agree with the Scandinavian scientist Hannes Alfvén, when he says that "our cosmos is more an electromagnetic than gravitational being".
Tytuł: Quantum basis for Poly-Solipsism
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Styczeń 05, 2005, 10:09:22 pm
The principle of consistence
It remains, now, another problem to be examined. To consolidate those propositions it seems indispensable to provide a formulation of the principle that allows the compatibility of the many universes in their updating process. Around each conscious pole (we call it a subjectivity) the illusion of a single reality seems solid and convincing in the way ordinarily verified. If each subjectivity unfolds his or her own universes, how is it possible that this is not perceived and the suggestion of a single unique reality seems so obvious?
In the tradition of the founding fathers of the quantum quest, whenever a crucial aspect on the conception of reality and the means and limits we have to apprehend it was reached, something emerged as a principle, a basic parameter that establishes a pattern and delimits the cognitive process. This way appeared Bohr's principle of complementarity; Heisenberg's principle of indetermination; Pauli's principle of exclusion and several others. This feature seems to be an intrinsic characteristic of wholeness or, at least, of our process of apprehension of its deeper aspects.
In the same way I glimpsed what can be called a principle of consistence, which makes compatible the many worlds generated by interacting subjectivities, so that the consensual fabric comes out without flaws or fractures. That principle, as general and including as the others we have mentioned, is a key condition that allows the contents of a non-linear time &#8211; a 2 and 3-dimensional lattice &#8211; to be geometrically projected in our perceptible space-time and interact in its realm.
According to the principle of consistence, the arrow of the time comes out from no conflicting sequential collapses of quantum waves (Schrödinger's function). This starts with the endless conscious interventions in the super-hologram, triggered by the individual holograms of each subjectivity. This process forms the super-holomovement we see as reality, or the world. Therefore, consensual reality is shaped in the linear time by the successive accumulation of myriad quantum collapses in the super-hologram common to the interacting subjectivities. That sequences &#8211; which exist only in the linear time of the each subjectivity &#8211; spread common views of a reality updated in a growing consensual field, as a growing fractal that continuously incorporates new subjectivities, without contradictions or inconsistencies.
Tytuł: Quantum basis for Poly-Solipsism
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Styczeń 05, 2005, 10:11:16 pm
As can be inferred from the propositions above, the now called consensual reality &#8211; that to our view replaces the old concept of an objective reality &#8211; is formed together with lineal time as auto-consistent patches that grow according to mathematical auto-correlation functions of fractal characteristics, dispersing from different generation centers. As our perspective is holographic (non-local), we admit that such patches exchange information, even if they are not spatially close to each other, preventing they fit together without any cracks when they enter in further contact.
However, that compatibility is not always perfect. Sometimes those processes present flaws that can be detected, if they are not yet healed and adjusted. The more distant in the perceptible space-time and less interacting among themselves, more probable it will be the occurrence of compatibility fissures among different patches of consensual realities in their process of formation. An interesting example is the case of the neutrinos. For many years in the researches realized in Western laboratories neutrinos didn't accuse any mass, but in Russia invariably they appeared as bearers of very small, but measurable mass. That crack in the pot of reality was healed in January of 1995 when finally the American experiments have found mass in the neutrino.
This consensual conception of reality and the cosmos rests on epistemological foundations rather different from the one that sustained science until the end of 20th century. It also stands largely far from the Western cultural inheritance of Greek roots. Now we need to review countless remaining crucial aspects in many
sciences and research methods. More than a revolution, what is configured now in the relationship between the individual soul and the cosmos is a sweeping subversion of many things supposed to be known in Cosmology, in Physics, in Anthropology, in History, in Psychology.
From now on, it will be essential that, with courage and humility &#8211; we don't see them as incompatible &#8211; all of us became willing to acknowledge and assume the paradoxes and marvels offered to human knowledge and fruition on the verge of this new millennium.
__________________________
NOTE: 1: This paper is part of the book The Annals of an Imaginary Symposium, by Beto Hoisel, which is available only in its original Portuguese version as published by Palas Athena Association &#8211; S&atilde;o Paulo, Brasil, 1998 (English language publisher is welcome). However, six of the twelve chapters (or lectures) are translated into English and can be read and print from our site Journey Across the Cosmos - of knowledge and wisdom. (site address: <http://simposio2008.cjb.net/> ) This paper is at the end of the Lecture #6 &#8211; The New Reality, signed by a fictitious scientist christened Sir Philip Quarks F.R.S.
2: The real & imaginary author of this paper, Beto Hoisel (beto@hoisel.com.br <mailto:beto@hoisel.com.br>) is very interested in making contact with someone skillful in high mathematics to join him and help to create a mathematical formalization to this Theory of Relational Consistence.
Beto Hoisel &#8211; December, 2004
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: hypersipher w Styczeń 06, 2005, 07:10:44 am
Hi CCkeiser, i believe your theory is false.

For example, your 2nd premise "2: Every mind strives to create its own perfect universe" conflicts with "5:"Reality" is generated from the combined perceptions of all entangled minds."

You are saying, as far as the premises go, that reality cannot emerge unless we have entangled minds. That is invalid.

Furthermore, your statement that "So who is right? Which truth is The Truth?

They all are." is ultimately wrong.

Why? Because you are taking a snapshot of all theories in a static, atemporal way. That is fundamentally flawed as far as human ontology is concerned, because we exist in temporality. It is true that since such theories exist, they are the "truth." However, each theory consists of bits and pieces of underlying truth which applies not only atemporally, but also temporally. And as such, it is not possible to apply such a reductionist attitude towards different philosophies in general.

The aim of philosophy is to arrive at the truth that can account for why and how we might come up with seemingly "conflicting" theories and even theories that think they are all correct simultaneously (such as in your case).

Poly and other forms of contemporary solipsism are good theories only insofar as they tell us about our vagrant flaws in discovering the truth.

How do you plan to come up with deontological, ontological theories etc with the premises of poly-solipsism you state? You cannot. Combined with your view that all theories are correct, you are simply asking your reader to sit still as they are all true, and do nothing. You are also saying to believe in anything as it will be the truth. That is what is commonly known as a "mystical moment," which is discussed in detail in Islamic, Jewish and even Zen nirvana states.

I agree that it is a correct theory, but only atemporally, and as such it will be forgotten soon. Since we live in a "social" setting, such individualistic, pro-existentialist and mostly western theories have to be discarded because they are not dynamic in a temporal setting simultaneously for all people.




Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Styczeń 07, 2005, 02:41:46 am
Cytuj

 such individualistic, pro-existentialist and mostly western theories have to be discarded because they are not dynamic in a temporal setting simultaneously for all people.




So could You inform us about some other theory?
One that will not be discarded?

(PS    I'm not pro-polisoliptic either...)
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: hyper w Styczeń 07, 2005, 04:07:04 am
As far as I can see, any theory that expands on an isolated individual without some kind of structure that wishes to operationalize its beliefs on a worldwide basis is simply idle speculation.

Therefore, no one can simply afford to "philosophize" about something that is incoherent, inconsistent, illogical, atemporal, hedonistic and even utilitarian.

What is not said here is just as important as what is said, if not more. For the time being i don't know shit, i'm still learning and can't sin by poisoning people's minds with useless garbage.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Styczeń 07, 2005, 03:28:39 pm
Cytuj
What is not said here is just as important as what is said, if not more. For the time being i don't know shit, i'm still learning and can't sin by poisoning people's minds with useless garbage.


Now I surely do like that :).

Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Styczeń 08, 2005, 05:12:27 am
Greetings Hyper!

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your critiques of Poly-Solipsism.
I have been away for a while and just check in late last night to find your post. I have been quite busy and have little time to respond in an appropriate manner. I intend to do so very shortly.
You have offered a thoughtful and  considered critique, and deserve a thoughtful and considered reply. I welcome the challenge.
From a first read I think this may take awhile considering the scope of your questions and the necessity to define some of your terminology. It may be best to address this on a point by point basis as time allows.
May I suggest you reread Poly-Solipsism as it seems to me you may have missed some of the intent of Poly-Solipsism; for which I must take part of the blame, as I do leave quite a bit of the details and supporting logic up to the readers imagination. I am working on correcting that, and in fact that is what has been consuming most of my time of late. I just finished Chapter IV and was about to copy-edit when I found your post.
I will respond shortly to your first statement.

Thank you again for offering a thoughtful critique!

Chuck
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: hyper w Styczeń 09, 2005, 07:40:13 am
hi CC, i followed the article's link that you posted. I did not find the word "solipsistic" or "solipsism" even once in the whole article.

Now I'm sure there are correlations between the article you posted and the answers you think might help me, but finding those correlations on my own is not an efficient way for me to spend my time.

And I'd love to participate in whatever experiment you have going on    :)
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Sternenfisch w Styczeń 09, 2005, 08:30:33 pm
Cytuj

To whom do You adress this?




To cckeiser, in Relation to the singularity.
If there is something more than nothing, it's Karma for
my Person.
Or Singularity, if you name it so
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Styczeń 10, 2005, 03:15:44 am
Cytuj
hi CC, i followed the article's link that you posted. I did not find the word "solipsistic" or "solipsism" even once in the whole article.

Now I'm sure there are correlations between the article you posted and the answers you think might help me, but finding those correlations on my own is not an efficient way for me to spend my time.

And I'd love to participate in whatever experiment you have going on    :)


No, they do not call it solipsism, but the rationale for both are the same. I just take it to the next level.

I just got in from work. I had to work this weekend AGAIN, so had little time for the Internet once again. And I still need to copy-edit Chapter 4! My coauthor is patiently waiting my first edits, so I will need to be brief right now.

Here is the experiment I would like you and Terminus; and anyone else who would like to join in, to give a try.

I would like you to read both Poly-Solipsism and The Singularity, 6 times over the next 7 days, but not more than twice on any single day.
www.poly-solipsism.com

I know they are just a bit wordy, but it should not take that much time for each read. You do not need to go to my web site if you do not wish to; just copy and paste the text into a file and save it if you wish.
Of course, as you can guess, I cannot tell you why until you are all finished with the experiment.

In the mean time I will try and catch up on my promises to both you and my coauthor.

By the way, I just received an e-mail from another author who loves my Poly-Solipsism!
A quote from his e-mail!
"I'm reading carefully your texts and up to now I didn't find anything to disagree with you. "

There's much more, but I think that will do for now!
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Styczeń 10, 2005, 03:28:51 am
Cytuj

To cckeiser, in Relation to the singularity.
If there is something more than nothing, it's Karma for
my Person.
Or Singularity, if you name it so


Hi SoGo!  :)

A reply a few days ago from another discussion board on the same subject!

...In order for there to be a true Nothingness there can be no Thought, or Consciousness to carry that thought, and if there is no Consciousness, there is no Singularity.


"That's just the thing, there was nothing until it recognized itself and grew defining itself"

I liked that!  :)
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Sternenfisch w Styczeń 10, 2005, 12:52:44 pm
Hi cckeiser!

There is just one Point, which Polysolipsism must see:
If consciousness, than every form of it.
Robots as same as humans, as same as plants.
And stones have a consciousness, too.
But that didn't mean a stone has the same intelligence
than a human. :)
It's graded on a scale.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: hypersipher w Styczeń 10, 2005, 05:06:33 pm
i believe the experiment you propose is lengthy, therefore i would require compensation.

I calculate the time-cost of my leisure is:

a = hours i am awake
b = my monthly salary
c = days i work in a month

total conscious hours for me in a month are 480 (16 hrs awake a day x 30 days).

Since "b = $3000," my time-cost is 480 - hours of work (8 hours a day x 5 days x 4 weeks = 160 hours), which equals 320 hours.

Dividing my monthly salary by leisure hours awake equals $3000/320 = $9.375/hour.

Since I value my time at an amount equal or greater than $18.75 (my monthly wage), the lesiure worth of my time is the difference of my working wage and what I would require for the time-cost....

This equals $18.75 - $9.375 = $9.375.

If you pay me $9.375 for every hour i spend reading your theory, I will be willing to participate in your experiment.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Socrates w Styczeń 11, 2005, 03:34:54 am
Pretty cheap.  I ask for $25/hour with dental and medical benefits.  Oh yeah, and the free rental of a car of my choice.  
Cheers, Socrates
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Styczeń 11, 2005, 07:02:05 pm
Jeez... If you had $3000/month here, in Poland, I would personally rob you and knock fluffy experiments out of your head.  ;D

Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Sternenfisch w Styczeń 11, 2005, 08:18:04 pm
 ;D So, we are talking about money?
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Styczeń 12, 2005, 04:30:47 am
Cytuj
Hi cckeiser!

There is just one Point, which Polysolipsism must see:
If consciousness, than every form of it.
Robots as same as humans, as same as plants.
And stones have a consciousness, too.
But that didn't mean a stone has the same intelligence
than a human. :)
It's graded on a scale.



Consciousness

Given the essence of The Singularity is Consciousness, then fundamental Consciousness is not &#8216;the act of thinking,' which we usually confuse with the term Consciousness, it is not Awareness itself, but the metaphysical domain supporting Awareness and transferring Thought.

Thought is not the activity or process of Thinking, but a consequence of Thinking. A Thought is a metaphysical energy wave that carries Information. Consciousness then is the metaphysical medium that contains Thought Waves, and through which the Information passes. As such Consciousness is not an active agent itself, but is the agency composed of active agents. Our Minds, as the degrees of freedom of Consciousness, would then be the active agents that generate the Thought waves through the Consciousness of The Singularity.
Without Consciousness there is no Singularity, and without our minds as the degrees of freedom of Consciousness there is no Consciousness.
But "Degrees of Freedom" imply varying degrees, or degrees of differences. In other words, each degree of freedom bestows different freedoms.
Within the degrees of freedom would then lie different levels of Consciousness.
Knowing is the ability to store thought waves in memory.
Thinking is the ability of Knowing to connect thought waves together, with the ability to generate a thought wave,.
Awareness combines Knowing and Thinking with the ability to distinguish Self.
Intelligence combines Knowing, Thinking and  Awareness and recognize its own process of Knowing and Thinking.
Comprehension is the next level of Intelligence with the ability to process Information and recognize associations and the significance of those associations.
Creativity is the ability to manipulate Comprehension to produce new Information and create new associations.
As the Consciousness of The Singularity continues to evolve we combine the previous levels of Consciousness to acquire the next.
Which would then mean a continual evolution of Consciousness beyond Creativity. But of course, since we have not evolved to that state yet, we cannot know what that next level is.
What could we add to the Creative mind to evolve it to the next level of Consciousness?
Perhaps it is Conscience? We can add a caring soul to the Creative Mind!


Within Universe then, since Fundamental Consciousness is at the heart of all things, all things are Fundamentally Conscious, and therefore all things can carry a thought wave.
Just as a copper wire can carry a current without generating the current itself, all &#8216;things'; inanimate Stuff, can carry a thought wave without generating the thought wave or &#8216;knowing' were the wave came from. Thought waves simply pass through them. They absorb and emit photons which carry the information of Thought waves.

C.C.Keiser
12/23/04
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: hypersipher w Styczeń 12, 2005, 08:44:18 am
Interesting theory Keiser, but I see a host of problems with it.

Its almost a descriptive theory and this is worse than a value judgement. It is like saying "a rose is red" and not expecting the reader to "feel" anything.

Just for clarification, the multi-universe theory has not been proven to date. Even IF it exists, it fundamentally conflicts with your "poly-solipsism." The reason being, of course, is that your theory establishes that  ... very roughly speaking ... universe is in my individual mind, all else is redundant.

If universe is only which I can observe through my senses, then basing a theory on something which we can never interact with, see, influence etc (I am referring to multi-universes) then it becomes useless before even embarking on the journey it set out on.

Why am I referring to multi-universe when you have discarded it already? For the simple fact that you use it as a backdrop, and prove your poly-solipsism by trying to disprove and/or modify multi-universe.

I can keep going on and on but the fundamental basis of this theory are flawed.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Styczeń 12, 2005, 05:41:05 pm
Cytuj
;D So, we are talking about money?


No, just a joke:) (but it really is a lot of cash herein)

I'm like not very able to understand everything that is covered in this topic, so I don't get too involved :)
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Styczeń 13, 2005, 04:28:12 am
Cytuj
Hyper:
For example, your 2nd premise "2: Every mind strives to create its own perfect universe" conflicts with "5:"Reality" is generated from the combined perceptions of all entangled minds."
You are saying, as far as the premises go, that reality cannot emerge unless we have entangled minds. That is invalid.


cck:
You are taking them out of context to find fault. Since all 5 tenets are related, to understand any one you must consider them in relation to each other.

Poly-Solipsism

1: Every mind is a universe unto itself.
2: Every mind strives to create its own perfect universe.
3: The laws of that universe are solely governed by the perception of the mind.
4:These laws can be altered if the perception is altered.
5:"Reality" is generated from the combined perceptions of all entangled minds.

Therefore when you say "... your 2nd premise "2: Every mind strives to create its own perfect universe" conflicts with "5:"Reality" is generated from the combined perceptions of all entangled minds."
You are confusing what is perceived in one person's personal universe with what we all perceive in our shared Reality.
At first glance "What is Reality" looks pretty simple. Reality is what is "Real," but philosophers always seem to have a way of turning &#8216;simple' into the complex, so now we must ask what is "Real?"
If we look up "Real" in the dictionary we get a string of is's that boil down to: "Real" is what we perceive to be real. So for something to be "Real," it must be perceived.
Ok, that still seems simple enough, but now we must define "Perceive"!
It is when we try to define "Perception" that things start getting complex.
Perception: Consciousness, Awareness, Insight, Intuition.
We can find definitions for these and say we know what these are, but we do not know how they work, how we got them, or where they come from.
Without knowing the answers to these questions, we cannot know what is Real, and without knowing what is Real we cannot know what "Reality" is.

Poly-Solipsism is more than "many entities of knowing."  It is more than the statement "We Exist" as a Multiplicity. It is in understanding &#8216;what we are' that leads to the answers to who, when, where, why and how we are Within its embrace lay the rational for our different perceptions of Realty.
It is in the realization that we are the essence of The Singularity, and that essence is pure, infinite and unbound consciousness, that we find the answer to "What is Reality."

All roads lead to The Singularity. The Singularity is the source of everything, and the source of all Truth. The Singularity is literally and figuratively  "All There Is." The Singularity is Infinite and Unbound Consciousness.
It is in comprehending this one Truth: All is Consciousness, that tells us we, and all we perceive, and all of Reality, is a manifestation of consciousness and cannot be separated from the Consciousness of The Singularity.
Once we grasp the significance that there is only The Singularity, and all else is &#8216;woven' from its essence, and that every "I" in the "We" of Multiplicity is the essence and consciousness of The Singularity, we can understand what "Reality" really is.
There is only The Singularity. After that, there are only Choices in perceptions. After that, Reality is what you choose to Believe it is.

Reality is not what you consciously wish to believe. Reality is what you subconsciously really believe. To change Reality, we must change what we subconsciously really believe.

Poly-Solipsism tells us all truth is "personal perceptions," and all truth is only our own personal perceptions of truth seen from our own universe.
We exist as pure infinite and unbound consciousness, after that, all else is personal perceptions and personal beliefs.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Styczeń 13, 2005, 04:31:00 am
"Of philosophy I will say nothing, except that when I saw that it had been cultivated for many ages by the most distinguished men, and that yet there is not a single matter within its sphere which is not still in dispute, and nothing, therefore, which is above doubt, I did not presume to anticipate that my success would be greater in it than that of others; and further, when I considered the number of conflicting opinions touching a single matter that may be upheld by learned men, while there can be but one true, I reckoned as well-nigh false all that was only probable."
Rene Descartes ( Discourse on Method :1637)

The failure of Rene Descartes is in believing "...there can be but one true..."
Poly-Solipsism tells us they are all true. They are each true to the mind and universe of those who perceive and believe they are true.
Once we attempt to go beyond the Consciousness of The Singularity, everything becomes a matter of personal belief, personal perceptions; personal philosophy.
We are infinite and unbound Consciousness. After that, all else is Philosophy.

Every mind searches for its own Truth.
Once we attempt to define or describe anything beyond The Singularity, we do so through the lens of our own personal universe. We can only describe the truth that exists in our personal universe. We cannot describe the truth that may exist in any other universe.
Every Philosophy is just one persons description of their own personal universe. They are describing what they see through the hazy lens of their own creation.
We use our storehouse of accumulated knowledge to fashion the lens we are now looking through. What we see as true is only what we have created from that information.
And once our lens is fashioned, we all believe the truth we perceive, but we only perceive the truth we believe.
The lens we create filters out any truth that does not reinforce its own truth. We become blind to any truth that does not fit through our own lens.
For more information on how minds entangle to create our shared Reality Please see:
"Reality the Last Frontier."
www.newfrontier.com/asheville/reality.htm

TWM CONSCIOUSNESS AND QUANTUM REALITY  
http://twm.co.nz/herbert.htm

and also:
http://www.science-spirit.org/articles/articledetail.cfm?article_id=283

From Science to God
The EDGE Interview with Peter Russell
www.edgenews.com/issues/2002/02/russell.html

Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Styczeń 13, 2005, 05:00:03 am
A few more links to help you on your way! 'O)

The Self-Aware Universe
http://twm.co.nz/goswam1.htm#discoveries

Quantum Theory and Consciousness
http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/

Science, Matter, and Consciousness
http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Essays/Scisprt.html

The Global Consciousness Project
http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Quantum Reality
http://userweb.nni.com/keiser/QR.html

Some Personal Thoughts on Meaning, Truth and Perfection by Dr.Tim Duerden
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~duerden/meaning.htm

Here is the link to the Discovery Index of past articles.
You will have to search for Vol. 23 No. 6 (June 2002) to read "http://www.discover.com
John Wheeler's "Does the Universe Exist if We're Not Looking?

I AM NOT Alone!

Captain Quantum! a.k.a. Dr. Fred Alan Wolf
http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page5.htm

Reality, Belief and The Mind by Gene Zimmer
http://www.sntp.net/essay1_3.htm
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: wetal w Styczeń 31, 2005, 02:51:45 pm
Oh meine Freunde leider hab ich keine Zeit. WIR ALLE HABEN KEINEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Styczeń 31, 2005, 03:17:49 pm
I dont speak German, but I believe wetal doesn't have time to read it all... no wonder. Me either.  ::)
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: wetal w Luty 06, 2005, 12:44:19 pm
I wonder how people can create illusory universe havinng almost no true information about it.Therefore
each of us exists in own galaxy and sun system in a certain period of time like a home-made philosopher.
One always thinks that complex questions require comlex answers,doesn`t think that it can be simple or there is no answer,maybe yet.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Luty 07, 2005, 02:53:50 am
Cytuj
I wonder how people can create illusory universe havinng almost no true information about it..

That, simply, is because we dont have a choice :)

Cytuj

Therefore  
each of us exists in own galaxy and sun system in a certain period of time like a home-made philosopher.


Well, that is, also, somewhat necessary. Nevertheless one can exist in somebody's else galaxy, all it takes is reading some books.
Cytuj
One always thinks that complex questions require comlex answers


You meant stupid one, didn't You ? :O)
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Luty 10, 2005, 05:41:42 am
Poly-Solipsism: The Play
is now on line.

http://userweb.nni.com/keiser/ThePlay.html

Thank you Terminus, you are validating the concept of Poly-Solipsism.
"We each believe the truth we perceive, but we only perceive the truth we believe."

May you always exist in the best of all universes.

Chuck
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Luty 11, 2005, 02:42:03 am
Thanks  :D
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: wetal w Luty 11, 2005, 12:06:57 pm
Die Zeit.
I spoke about time. I spoke about lack of it . Human`s life is too short,but even if we had an eternity we would not have used it in the proper way.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Luty 12, 2005, 06:46:23 am
Cytuj
Die Zeit.
I spoke about time. I spoke about lack of it . Human`s life is too short,but even if we had an eternity we would not have used it in the proper way.


The purpose of Life is to Live it.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: wetal w Luty 13, 2005, 05:13:33 pm
Hold on, ther`s a slight correction of the utterance: The purpose of life is to create.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Luty 14, 2005, 01:58:35 am
Oh gosh, now they're gonna bite their heads off about what's the purpose of life...

Wath ,,MoNtY PyThoNS Meaning of Life" - you'll see.

Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: wetal w Luty 14, 2005, 11:12:48 am
No panic, we won`t discuss this point for eternity.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Sternenfisch w Luty 14, 2005, 12:33:55 pm
Children, born in a paradise, will not see it like a paradise.

Christian won't see that their version of paradise would be, under given parameters, Hell on Earth.

Just read "transfer" for see an example for this.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Luty 15, 2005, 05:19:52 am
Cytuj
No panic, we won`t discuss this point for eternity.


Yes we will! :)

We have turned Rene Descartes's simple statement "I think; therefore I am." into a 400 year discussion on just what "I am" really means, and it doesn't look like anyone will agree with anyone else anytime soon.

If the purpose of life is to create, what do you say to all those who do not create anything?
Poly-Solipsism tells us there is no single one purpose that fits everyone; we each choose our own purpose. You are given a life to live. What you do with that life is up to you. No one has the right to dictate to someone else what they must do with their life. It is your life! You choose your own purpose! It's my life, and I will choose my own purpose!

We cannot "waste" time. We can only "use" the time we have. Time will run its course no matter what use we make of ours.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Karel w Luty 15, 2005, 08:06:27 am
...Meaning of life is to find the menaning of life...
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Sternenfisch w Luty 15, 2005, 10:31:06 am
Cytuj
...Meaning of life is to find the menaning of life...


Meaning of Life is to Reply the Code of Life
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Luty 15, 2005, 10:07:06 pm
I'm not a fan o polysoliptism, as I mentoned a few times before, and I am just about to have enough of it.
As far as I know you poly-soliptics claim that there is no independent reality. But how therefore can You claim that "time will run it's course [...]" ? What is time (if one agrees that it exists) if not an element, a feautre of objective reality?

I think that poly-solliptism is as radical as it is arrogant. It's nothing more than a subtile form of extreme anthropocentrism.

How can one claim that reality is only a construct of his/hers imagination? It is simply based on a fact that the only way humans can observe reality is through their human eyes. It's not any more revealing that to claim that the stars are just holes in a black veil surrounding the sky - just because noone can check it out.

Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Luty 16, 2005, 06:05:09 am
Why Terminus! You are becoming quite the Philosopher! ;)

Cytuj
I'm not a fan o poly-solipsism, as I mentioned a few times before, and I am just about to have enough of it.
As far as I know you poly-solipsist claim that there is no independent reality. But how therefore can You claim that "time will run it's course [...]" ? What is time (if one agrees that it exists) if not an element, a feature of objective reality?


What is "objective reality"? We went through this a few pages back. If Reality is only what we perceive it to be, then all reality is subjective.
You didn't read The Play did you? The answers are in there.


Cytuj
I think....

I am so happy to see it! ;)

Cytuj
... that poly-solipsism is as radical as it is arrogant. It's nothing more than a subtle form of extreme anthropocentrism.


No it's not! There is nothing "subtle" about it. It is blatantly anthropocentric, except it does not state it is "Humans" but the Mind that is the creator of Reality. Homo sapiens are part of the illusion.

Cytuj
How can one claim that reality is only a construct of his/hers imagination?


I don't. It is a construct of "entangled" minds. That is the difference between Solipsism and Poly-Solipsism.
Read The Play!!

Cytuj
It is simply based on a fact that the only way humans can observe reality is through their human eyes.

That is not quite true, we observe reality through our "senses." But what are our senses, and how do they work? A few of the links I left on the previous page go into this subject in some detail. We are finding some really "spooky" things about our senses.
Check out Hypnosis to find a few other "spooky" findings about our senses.

Cytuj
It's not any more revealing that to claim that the stars are just holes in a black veil surrounding the sky - just because no one can check it out.


Quantum Physics is "checking it out"! So are the Para-psychologist who study ESP and other things we have long considered "paranormal."
I have a few links to some of them on my web site.

By the way, how's the skiing? I think I read you finally got some snow!


Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: wetal w Luty 16, 2005, 05:00:16 pm
Oh, you have touched me with the word PARANORMAL.
I use ,usually, the term  UNEXPLAINED. Talking about people I`d like to admit all we have such abilities we don`t even  suspect. They are not paranormal, they are natural.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Sternenfisch w Luty 17, 2005, 03:42:34 pm
Cytuj
But the Mind that is the creator of Reality. Homo sapiens are part of the illusion.



The Mind should be the Creator of Reality?
But he is the product of the Evolution which was before.
Was there no Reality before Apes become Intelligent?
Is the Evolution an Illusion without Reality?
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Sternenfisch w Luty 17, 2005, 03:50:46 pm
Hi cckeiser, :)
I got a question, aimed at Poly-Solipsism.
Is the grade of the scale of Intellect (My Theory is: Intellect is Experiences + Knowledge  or: The Mass of Information and the Skill to use it) depending in your theory?

I mean, perhaps there is a Golem IV or so in future.
Would he have a higher range in Poly-Solipsism?

And if we say, a stone has more than nothing intellect, can he create some reality, too?
Like Golem IV perhaps can do?

I mean; If two intellects create Reality which conquers the other one, who wins?
The one with the higher Intellect?

Hope you can help me, because the message: The Reality depends from our Intellect, has throwen out many questions and it would be nice from you to take the time and clear them.

Thanks for your time. :)
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Luty 19, 2005, 05:59:49 am
Cytuj

The Mind should be the Creator of Reality?
But he is the product of the Evolution which was before.
Was there no Reality before Apes become Intelligent?
Is the Evolution an Illusion without Reality?


There was Mind before there was Universe.
Consciousness is the essence of The Singularity.
There is no Reality. Reality is an Illusion. There is only Mind.

Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Luty 19, 2005, 06:05:28 am
Cytuj
Oh, you have touched me with the word PARANORMAL.
I use ,usually, the term  UNEXPLAINED. Talking about people I`d like to admit all we have such abilities we don`t even  suspect. They are not paranormal, they are natural.


There is no-thing supernatural or paranormal. It is all just metaphysical in search of an explanation.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Luty 19, 2005, 07:06:32 am
Cytuj
Hi cckeiser, :)
I got a question, aimed at Poly-Solipsism.
Is the grade of the scale of Intellect (My Theory is: Intellect is Experiences + Knowledge  or: The Mass of Information and the Skill to use it) depending in your theory?

I mean, perhaps there is a Golem IV or so in future.
Would he have a higher range in Poly-Solipsism?

And if we say, a stone has more than nothing intellect, can he create some reality, too?
Like Golem IV perhaps can do?

I mean; If two intellects create Reality which conquers the other one, who wins?
The one with the higher Intellect?

Hope you can help me, because the message: The Reality depends from our Intellect, has throwen out many questions and it would be nice from you to take the time and clear them.

Thanks for your time. :)


Cytuj
I got a question, aimed at Poly-Solipsism.
Is the grade of the scale of Intellect (My Theory is: Intellect is Experiences + Knowledge or: The Mass of Information and the Skill to use it) depending in your theory?

I mean, perhaps there is a Golem IV or so in future.
Would he have a higher range in Poly-Solipsism?


I'm sorry SoGo, but I do not understand you question here? Can you ask it in another way?

Cytuj
And if we say, a stone has more than nothing intellect, can he create some reality, too?
Like Golem IV perhaps can do?


Does a stone have "intellect"? A stone is the product of Consciousness, so it has consciousness at its essence, but we are now talking within the illusion, and Poly-Solipsism cannot tell us what the illusion is. Poly-Solipsism only tells us How the illusion is, it cannot tells us What form the illusion will take. That depends of the choices of the entangled minds, and that changes constantly.
"There are no answers. There are only Choices."

Cytuj
I mean; If two intellects create Reality which conquers the other one, who wins?
The one with the higher Intellect?


How does it work now in everyday "reality"? The one who knows how to use the system to manipulate the minds of others. It takes more than one mind to create a shared reality, but it only takes one mind to change that reality. We do that all the time with our Theories. The more minds that accept a theory, the more "true" it will become. Then when we go looking for "proof" we find what we went looking for.

Cytuj
Hope you can help me, because the message: The Reality depends from our Intellect, has thrown out many questions and it would be nice from you to take the time and clear them.


I hope my reply as helped, but for more in-depth answers please read The Play. I am also adding a FAQ page to my web site. I have a few dozen questions and answers I am currently going through and  translating into html to put on line.
But remember I cannot answer your questions about what form our illusion will take. That is the choice you have to make, and any answer I give you about what form our illusion of reality will take, is only what I see within my own mind.
Every philosophy ever written is only a description of what that philosopher sees through the lens of their own making. They are describing their own illusion, and inviting others to join them in that illusion.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Luty 22, 2005, 12:26:21 am
http://www.mahavir.com/jainism&relativity.html

ARTICLE : Jainism & relativity
Posted By Ashok V Chowgule (ashokvc@giasbm01.vsnl.net.in)
Sat, 24 May 97 16:39:57 EDT
The Jaina perspectives of syadavada hold that a proposition is true only conditionally and not absolutely. This is because it depends on the particular standpoint, naya, from which it is being made; that logically a thing can
be perceived from at least seven different standpoints, saptabhangi-naya; which lead us to the awareness of the many-sidedness of reality, or truth, anekanta-vada.

Realist Ethics

At no time were these limited to epistemological questions, of concern only to the philosophers. Since human relationships, personal or social, are determined by our perceptions of ourselves and of others, which we mostly assume also to be true absolutely, giving rise to conflicts and violence because the others believe the
same about their judgments, the very first step towards living creatively is to acknowledge the relativistic nature of our judgments, and hence their limits. While being a distinct contribution to the development of Indian logic, the Jaina syada-vada has been, most of all, a realist ethics of not-violence, ahimsa. The two are inter-related intimately.

An article, 'Syada-vada, Relativity and Complementarity' by Prof. Partha Ghose, a theoretical physicist says that P C Mahalanobis was the first to point out, in 1954, that "the Jaina Syada-vada provided the right logical framework for modern statistical theory in a qualitative form, a framework missing in classical western logic." J B S Haldane saw a wider relevance of syada-vada to modern science. And Prof. Ghose speaks of the "most striking" similarity of syada-vada to Niels Bohr's Principle of Complementarity, first noticed by D C Kothari. Furthermore,he says:
"The logic of Einstein's special theory of relativity is also very similar to syada-vada."

In Einstein's relativity theory, Prof. Ghose points out, "the conventional attributes of mass, length, energy and time lose their absolute significance"; whereas in Bohr's complementarity theory, "the conventional attributes of waves and particles lose their absolute significance." As in syadavada, what that means is that the physical value of the former is only relative to the theoretical framework in which they are being viewed, and to the position from which they are being viewed. None of them is a fixed, absolute truth about the physical universe, as was assumed in the Newtonian physics. It would soon be discovered, too, that they are relative also to the observer who observed them.

The upanishad-s and the Jaina syada-vada had argued that reality carries within itself also opposites as its inherent attributes; and, therefore, no absolute statements can be made about it. But no sooner was this said than it was shown itself to be subject to the same limitation.

In the wake of the relativity theory, which had already shattered the classical notions of physical order, de Broglie, a French prince, demonstrated, in 1924, that an electron is both a particle and a wave, whereas quantum mechanics had held the particle-wave duality. This discovery was even more upsetting, but experimentally proved.

The most upsetting was the subsequent proof, provided by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, that no events, not even atomic events, can be described with any certainty; whereas the natural sciences were rooted until then, and are so even now,in the mistaken notion that scientific rationality and its method gave us exact and
certain knowledge of the universe. Heisenberg called it the 'Principle of Uncertainty'. Its substance was not only that human knowledge is limited but also that it is uncertain. That is to say, there are aspects of reality about which nothing definite can be said - the avyaktam, or the 'indeterminate', of the Jaina syada-vada.


Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Luty 22, 2005, 12:27:42 am
http://www.mahavir.com/jainism&relativity.html

Subsequent Proof

In his book The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics, published in 1979, Gary Zukay said: "The wave-particle duality marked the end of the 'either-or' way of looking at the world. Physicists no longer could accept the preposition that light is either a particle or a wave because they had "proved" to themselves that it was both, depending on how they looked at it."

Syada-vada, and with it anekanta-vada, had held that there are several different ways of perceiving reality, each valid in its place, and none of them true absolutely. But how do we judge the validity of our perceptions, by what criteria, by what method? These are the main questions of epistemology. Since modern science has been a method of perceiving reality, even if only physical reality, it is epistemology with a certain method. Einstein had placed great emphasis upon that fact; and he was one scientist of modern times who had placed also the greatest
emphasis upon the question of method in theoretical physics. His writings in that regard are to be found in his Ideas and Opinions, published in 1954. He said: "Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is - insofar as it is thinkable at all - primitive and muddled."

Limits of Logic

Concerning the method, as physics advanced, it became clear that the theoretical element in scientific laws cannot be abstracted from empirical data, nor can it be of pure logical induction. There is no bridge between the two of a kind that one necessarily implied the other. According to Einstein, the "axiomatic basis of
theoretical physics cannot be abstracted from experience but must be freely invented"; "experience may suggest the appropriate mathematical concepts,but they most certainly cannot be deduced from it." Neither can pure logic give us knowledge of the physical world. On this point also, Einstein was unambiguous. "Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world", he says; "all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it.

Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." The passage from sense impressions to scientific theory, Einstein says, is through "intuition and sympathetic understanding."

In brief, the two revolutions of relativity theory and quantum mechanics and what followed, had rendered naive realism, pure empiricism, pure logical thinking, and materialism, when each claimed to be the only way to knowledge and its certainty,to be incompatible with scientific method. What had hitherto been assumed to be
the scientific method and, therefore, also the only true rationality, and was sought to be imposed upon the rest of the world was, in its absoluteness, discarded, And in all those movements of the New Physics, the Jaina syada-vada and anekanta-vada are clearly manifest.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Sternenfisch w Luty 22, 2005, 07:29:52 pm
"I got a question, aimed at Poly-Solipsism.  
Is the grade of the scale of Intellect (My Theory is: Intellect is Experiences + Knowledge or: The Mass of Information and the Skill to use it) depending in your theory?

I mean, perhaps there is a Golem IV or so in future.  
Would he have a higher range in Poly-Solipsism? "

Sorry for being ununderstanderable.

I think we can put every thing in a "scale of the intellect".
Everything is in this scale, a stone nearly at zero, a cow higher, a human higher than both.

My question is confusing myself now, so lets forget it.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Sternenfisch w Luty 22, 2005, 07:33:18 pm
Last week I had an interesting discussion with my German-Teacher.

cckeiser perhaps it will make you hapier if I say he is a poly-solipsist too.

But he said something which may is interesting for this forum.
I asked him (the poli-solipsist) what consciousness is.
He said it is all we can put in speech.
The mind before the universe, got it speech?
Or was it unconsciousness?
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Marzec 01, 2005, 01:36:06 am
"All we can put in speech"?
I don't think so. Not a day passes by that I don't feel something that is strictly "undescribable" - you can not describe everything that you're aware of!
But you FEEL numerous things... you SENSE many MOODS, many of  these things are not beyond perception, but beyond words.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Marzec 01, 2005, 05:38:54 am
Cytuj
"I got a question, aimed at Poly-Solipsism.  
Is the grade of the scale of Intellect (My Theory is: Intellect is Experiences + Knowledge or: The Mass of Information and the Skill to use it) depending in your theory?
 
I mean, perhaps there is a Golem IV or so in future.  
Would he have a higher range in Poly-Solipsism? "

Sorry for being ununderstanderable.

I think we can put every thing in a "scale of the intellect".
Everything is in this scale, a stone nearly at zero, a cow higher, a human higher than both.

My question is confusing myself now, so lets forget it.


Hi SoGo

I do make mention of this in The Play.

The main argument against Solipsism itself; as Terminus pointed out in a previous post, is the problem of "Other Minds."
Poly-Solipsism negates that objection by admitting a Multiplicity. But that then leaves the problem of Individuality in a One Consciousness Singularity.

Why are there individual minds or egos? How did a Singularity of One Consciousness evolve to be composed of the Many?
I gave this question considerable thought after I traced all of existence back to the First Container: The Singularity. If we start out with "A" Singularity, how did we acquire our individual egos? It gave me some pause until I realized I was attempting to conceptualize The Infinite and Unbound Singularity as a finite spacetime object. There is no correlation between The Singularity and anything that exists within our perceptions of Universe.

It was while contemplating its Unbound nature that lead me to finally comprehend the infinite degrees of freedom of The Singularity.
It was one of those "Duh!" moments when you realize the answer has been staring you right in the face all along. The Singularity was never "A" Singularity. It is not an Object, it has always been Infinite and "Unbound"!
The Singularity has always been a Multiplicity. We are the Infinite degrees of freedom of The Singularity.
To understand this a little better lets consider our spacetime Universe. We say we have height, depth, width, and time. We call them Dimensions but this is a misnomer. There is only one "Dimension;" the Universe, but it has four "degrees of freedom" to exist in. Actually, the last time I checked, the Theorist tell us our Universe has 11 degrees of freedom, but we are only aware of the four.
If they have not done so, I would add consciousness to the list of degrees of freedom of our Universe. We often overlook the very tool we use to study it with.

If we conjure up a mental image of our Universe we can start with a point and then expand that point to include all the degrees of freedom we can mentally envision. In this way we can &#8216;see' our physical Universe is but one "dimension": the point we started with, but for our physical Universe to exist as we know it, we have to allow it the &#8216;degrees of freedom' it requires.
When viewed this way it becomes apparent there is only one dimension of Universe, but it needs to have all its degrees of freedom for it to exist.
Remove any one of these degrees of freedom and the Universe would not exist at all, and if the Universe does not exist, none of the other degrees of freedom could exist. Our Universe is dependent on all of them entangling together to give our Reality the freedom it requires to exist.

continued in next post.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Marzec 01, 2005, 05:40:20 am
It is the same for what we call our minds, our individuality. It is because of the way we view Consciousness that leads to our confusion. We only perceive the &#8216;dimension' of consciousness we are aware of; our own. In trying to consider consciousness from the point of view of an Infinite and Unbound Singularity, we must remember The Singularity has no end, and therefore does not exists as an &#8216;is' and is always in a state of Potential existence. Such a state would entail continual change in its own consciousness. Evolving, as it were, in an attempt to fulfill its own potential. But since it is an infinity with no end, it never can.
I believe to understand Consciousness we must do so from point of view of The Singularity, and not from inside the Universe, which can only give us a partial view, sort of the end results, and not the whole perspective, where we can only view it the same way we view any one of the spacetime &#8216;degrees of freedom' when we call it &#8216;a dimension.' It is not a separate entity existing by itself. It cannot exist in isolation just as Height cannot exist in isolation.
Without all other degrees of freedom entangled together, any single one in isolation has no meaning. We can perceive it separately, but it cannot exist separately.

Our minds and not separate entities existing isolated from all others. Just as Height cannot exist without all the other degrees of freedom, a single mind cannot exist without all other minds entangling to give the One Consciousness the Infinite degrees of freedom it requires to exist.

There is only One Consciousness, but with infinite degrees of Freedom. Our minds are the degrees of freedom of The One Consciousness. And each of our minds provides another, and different, degree of freedom to The Singularity.
It is only our own egotistical nature that presumes one intellect is superior to any other. All are of equal importance to The Singularity, and none would have any meaning without all the others.

That is why I say we are not &#8216;part' of The Singularity, and we are no &#8216;in' The Singularity. We are the Infinite degrees of freedom of The Singularity. We are the Consciousness of The Singularity, and The Singularity is our Consciousness.
We are The Singularity.

Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Marzec 01, 2005, 06:14:10 am
Cytuj
Last week I had an interesting discussion with my German-Teacher.

cckeiser perhaps it will make you hapier if I say he is a poly-solipsist too.

But he said something which may is interesting for this forum.
I asked him (the poli-solipsist) what consciousness is.
He said it is all we can put in speech.
The mind before the universe, got it speech?
Or was it unconsciousness?


"It is all we can put in speech."

Yes, I like that, and I think I would like your teacher. You may send him a link to my web site and my e-mail address if you like. I am always interested in talking "shop" with another Poly-Solipsist.
By the way, I see they are now calling it Quantum Solipsism! Different name, but pretty much the same philosophy! Quantum Solipsism is based on the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/
Refuted:
http://www.benbest.com/science/quantum.html


I believe Terminus is taking the word "speech" too literally where it is meant more philosophically. Just as in the question "Does the Universe exist if we are not looking?" That "looking" is not to be taken literally, but philosophically.

To understand the geist of your Teachers statement we must understand what is "Speech," and everything that is required to become speech. "It is -all we can put in -speech."
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: wetal w Marzec 02, 2005, 04:19:07 pm
All right now, Universe is an idea can it exist without us?
I don`t remember whom these words belong to that every man is a Universe and that this Universe dies with him.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Marzec 02, 2005, 11:27:26 pm
It all comes down to a definition matters...
After I die, I cannot tell if the world stopped existing.
We can quarell forever... One of us says, that a world doesn't exist when you don't see it, other one says the world exists  anyway... there is no solid argument for neither side...

it's a waste of time.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: wetal w Marzec 12, 2005, 02:01:42 pm
I don`t think that philosophy operates arguments , serious what is more. The Universe won`t be without people. The example is a computer in front of you , it won`t be a computer without user but a heap of plastics,metals and glass.We are the possessers of the ideas of things , not a single thing can be itself without us even the Universe.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Marzec 18, 2005, 05:01:22 am
Cytuj
I don`t think that philosophy operates arguments , serious what is more. The Universe won`t be without people. The example is a computer in front of you , it won`t be a computer without user but a heap of plastics,metals and glass.We are the possessers of the ideas of things , not a single thing can be itself without us even the Universe.



http://panentheism.blogharbor.com/
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: wetal w Marzec 20, 2005, 10:55:47 am
Conclusion: All is possible what is possible.Aii is truth what is truth.All is real what is real.All is right what is right. And all is wrong what is wrong.
Who can add something?
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Marzec 31, 2005, 07:14:41 am
Cytuj
Conclusion: All is possible what is possible.Aii is truth what is truth.All is real what is real.All is right what is right. And all is wrong what is wrong.
Who can add something?


That is what we do. We "add something".

The Problem of Individuality in a One Consciousness Singularity.


Why are there individual minds or egos? How did a Singularity of One Consciousness evolve to be composed of the Many?
I gave this question considerable thought after I traced all of existence back to the First Container: The Singularity. If we start out with "A" Singularity, how did we acquire our individual egos? It gave me some pause until I realized I was attempting to conceptualize The Infinite and Unbound Singularity as a finite spacetime object. There is no correlation between The Singularity and anything that exists within our perceptions of Universe.

It was while contemplating its Unbound nature that lead me to finally comprehend the infinite degrees of freedom of The Singularity.
It was one of those "Duh!" moments when you realize the answer has been staring you right in the face all along. The Singularity was never "A" Singularity. It is not an Object, it has always been Infinite and "Unbound"!
The Singularity has always been a Multiplicity. We are the Infinite degrees of freedom of The Singularity.
To understand this a little better lets consider our spacetime Universe. We say we have height, depth, width, and time. We call them Dimensions but this is a misnomer. There is only one "Dimension;" the Universe, but it has four "degrees of freedom" to exist in. Actually, the last time I checked, the Theorist tell us our Universe has 11 degrees of freedom, but we are only aware of the four.
If they have not done so, I would add consciousness to the list of degrees of freedom of our Universe. We often overlook the very tool we use to study it with.

If we conjure up a mental image of our Universe we can start with a point and then expand that point to include all the degrees of freedom we can mentally envision. In this way we can &#8216;see' our physical Universe is but one "dimension": the point we started with, but for our physical Universe to exist as we know it, we have to allow it the &#8216;degrees of freedom' it requires.
When viewed this way it becomes apparent there is only one dimension of Universe, but it needs to have all its degrees of freedom for it to exist.
Remove any one of these degrees of freedom and the Universe would not exist at all, and if the Universe does not exist, none of the other degrees of freedom could exist. Our Universe is dependent on all of them entangling together to give our Reality the freedom it requires to exist.

It is the same for what we call our minds, our individuality. It is because of the way we view Consciousness that leads to our confusion. We only perceive the &#8216;dimension' of consciousness we are aware of; our own. In trying to consider consciousness from the point of view of an Infinite and Unbound Singularity, we must remember The Singularity has no end, and therefore does not exists as an &#8216;is' and is always in a state of Potential existence. Such a state would entail continual change in its own consciousness. Evolving, as it were, in an attempt to fulfill its own potential. But since it is an infinity with no end, it never can.
I believe to understand Consciousness we must do so from point of view of The Singularity, and not from inside the Universe, which can only give us a partial view, sort of the end results, and not the whole perspective, where we can only view it the same way we view any one of the spacetime &#8216;degrees of freedom' when we call it &#8216;a dimension.' It is not a separate entity existing by itself. It cannot exist in isolation just as Height cannot exist in isolation.
Without all other degrees of freedom entangled together, any single one in isolation has no meaning. We can perceive it separately, but it cannot exist separately.

Our minds and not separate entities existing isolated from all others. Just as Height cannot exist without all the other degrees of freedom, a single mind cannot exist without all other minds entangling to give the One Consciousness the Infinite degrees of freedom it requires to exist.

There is only One Consciousness, but with infinite degrees of Freedom. Our minds are the degrees of freedom of The One Consciousness. And each of our minds provides another, and different, degree of freedom to The Singularity.
The Singularity is Consciousness, and what each mind envisions; what each mind can imagine; what each mind can create; what each mind believes, adds potential to our degrees of freedom.
It is only our own egotistical nature that presumes one intellect is superior to any other. All are of equal importance to The Singularity, and none would have any meaning without all the others.

That is why I say we are not &#8216;part' of The Singularity, and we are no &#8216;in' The Singularity. We are the Infinite degrees of freedom of The Singularity. We are the Consciousness of The Singularity, and The Singularity is our Consciousness.
We are The Singularity.



C.C.Keiser
11/30/04
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Kwiecień 12, 2005, 03:35:16 am
This quasigeometric construction (with ,,degrees of freedom'' used as renamed dimensions) is somewhat poor and hollow. You seem to forget that in such multidimensional space a subspaces exist, a subsets that can be freely joined and may as well remain disjoint. This would imply that there exists at least one non empty sub-universe (or as you may prefer to call it "sub-singularity" - the funny names you use are not as necessary as it seems) which is disjoint with every other ones (it may be a projections of a singularity onto one or more of ,,degrees of freedom''). This, in math, is called a subspace. In contrary to what you claim, the number of degrees of freedom  (dimensions) is not infinite, as the number of people (conciousnesses) is definitly finite. How large it is, doesn't matter. A subspace is closed, yet it is, in a way, equivalent to the entire "singularity", because it has its structure mapped onto it.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion, that there exists more that just a one singularity (which is a whole universe) but also its subsingularities, that are a simplified copies of the whole, but the copies hold whole information about the whole. It implies that there is no need to talk about the whole singularity, on of the subspaces is enough. Following this way of deducing, we get to the conclusion that there is no  objective truth.  

One more thing: real, four-dimensional universe behaves in a way, in which when a change occurs, it affects all the dimensions of the objet (three dimensions, and change takes place in fourth). This four dimensions are not independent. Whereas your 'degrees of freedom' are purely independent of each other, because what one consious being claims to be his/hers imagination, doesn't nevessarily have to mean anything for another being.
This, in my opinion, proves even harder, that the construct You're proposing lacks more than it seems.

And finally, a question: isn't it better to shake hands with reality and start using your brain to describe it in simple terms? What good is claiming, that nothing really exists and everything is a matter of your choice? (Beside the fact, that one becomes an extreme megallomaniac).

?

Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: wetal w Kwiecień 12, 2005, 04:43:55 pm
It happens sometimes that we take the position of a spectactor,we see everything and agree with averything.Machines/automatos/ behave themselves the same way.If you can`t object the things are bad.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: peskanov w Kwiecień 20, 2005, 01:11:46 am
Hello there, and greetings from Valencia, Spain. This is my first post; I hope I will stay long time in this forum :)

I would like to state that this "poly-solipsism" is very close to many versions of idealism, especially the celebrated Berkeley version of it.
Yes, Lem has a good knowledge of solipsism, idealism, materialism, physicalism, etc... This is not a guess, he has speaked often about philosophy.
In his books, he has joked often about solipsism, especially in the ciberiad. He thinks solipsism is much more emotional than rational.
He has also played with idealism; but unlike Philip K. Dick, Lem always seems to have a strong root in objectivism: the belief of an unique reality that involve everything and everybody.
Not only that, I am quite confident that Lem see the mind as a phenomena purely emerged from the brain, limited to it's existence. Imaginary magnitude, Star Diaries and several other books makes fun of  transcendency very often.
In nearly all his books, Lems thinking appears as physicalism/materialism.

In terms of emotions, Lem seems to accept the existence death without fear, but also without any hope of transcendence. Read "His master voice", especially the end of the book.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Kwiecień 20, 2005, 03:49:14 am
Your very welcome, Pescanov.

In contrary to what You may expect, I will not speak about Lem's philosophical views, which You have correctly put down above (there's no point correcting You ::)   ).

I will get down to Your avatar and program.
I mean this.

(http://members.lycos.co.uk/xc543xb/randomness.jpg)

The one above was created with a different random generator than Your looped
((j = (j ^ ((j << 13) | ( j >> (32-13))))), but yet it doesn't seem any more random.

But allright - You ask (in the sentence underneath Your avatar) ,,Is there any randomness at all". I assume You expect everyone to crack their jaws open after seeing that
this randomly selected symbols form a visible pattern.

BUT, have mercy - what a heck do you expect them to look like? It they really were randomly (not pseudo-randomly) selected - they would look exactly the same. A square here, straight line there. It's just the consequence of the fact that you use only two symbols. Use six, then we'll see what is the randomness.


Ok, back to Lem.
It is true he describes soliptysm; I have many times above stated that soliptysm is a fun of bored, so I won't do it again.

Cheers and Welcome again ::)

Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: wetal w Kwiecień 20, 2005, 01:02:45 pm
Solipsism? Do you remember Platon with his world of ideas? Our brain works out the reality so that we can see only our own version of it. The story is old as the WORLD is.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: peskanov w Kwiecień 20, 2005, 04:38:55 pm
Cytuj
BUT, have mercy - what a heck do you expect them to look like? It they really were randomly (not pseudo-randomly) selected - they would look exactly the same. A square here, straight line there. It's just the consequence of the fact that you use only two symbols. Use six, then we'll see what is the randomness.  

Mmmm...No, the main point of my little puzzle is about Pareidolia, the human tendency of seeing "faces in the clouds".
Most thinkers find purpose on nature, see the patterns, the mechanism, and deduce that a creator have designed it, or that a deep mistery about nature exist.
However, as humans we are condemned to find patterns anywhere, to match every information with our existing prejudices. I think that small labyrinth, which in reality amounts to a bag of stochastically (not random) distributed bars, show that lesson quite nicely.

The question about randomness is a secondary point. Most idealists try to scape the consequences of determinism and modern neuroscience through quantum mechanics. Most physics thinks that indeterminism exist at microscopic level, and others think indeterminism is NEEDED for QM and General Relativity to be correct.
However, as you pointed out: How can one find a diference between true randomness and stochastically generated noise? And, even if you can, does it matter? Would our universe, and our own nature as humans, be different if indeterminacy exist at any level? I don't think so.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Kwiecień 21, 2005, 03:52:30 am
Ok I understand Your point now.  (Nevertheless, I found generating that slashes and backslashes very amusing :)  )
Tytuł: Poly-Solipsism Goes Hollywood! :)
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Kwiecień 21, 2005, 05:07:06 am
Hi All! :)


I have been receiving e-mails from my readers exclaiming my philosophy of Poly-Solipsism has "Gone Hollywood!"
I had to check it out, so I bought the "What the Bleep do We Know" dvd. They were pretty much correct. The movie is very close to Poly-Solipsism, but not completely. I take the concepts they have introduced to its definitive conclusion.
We are The Singularity.
There are no answers. There are only Choices.

They have a web site at www.whatthebleep.com

Enjoy!!

PS
Sorry, but I have been very busy answering e-mails the past few weeks, and find I have very little time anymore to visit all my discussion boards.

You can always e-mail me if you have any questions on Poly-Solipsism.
This forum really should be for discussing Lem, and not Poly-Solipsism.

Thank you for your interest though.

Chuck
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Kwiecień 22, 2005, 06:12:03 am
Greetings Peskanov

I really should be replying to a heated discussion on The Singularity I am having by e-mail with a mathematician, but since you have been interested enough to visit my web site several times over the past few days, I feel obliged to reply to your posts here.
I was going to abandon this forum and restrict my future discussions to e-mail only, but there are still a few here that are  interested in continuing, so I will attempt to continue to reply here as time allows.


Yes, I have been compared to Berkeley before, and also to Idealism and Conceptualism before, among many other "isms." Though there are many similarities,  none of them quite fit perfectly. The only philosophy I have found so far to fit Poly-Solipsism to a tee, is Poly-Solipsism itself.  Even the philosophy introduced in the "What the Bleep do we Know" movie is not quite exactly Poly-Solipsism. Everything that is in that movie is contained in Poly-Solipsism, but no all of Poly-Solipsism is in the movie. The movie leaves many questions unanswered.
The movie is not done very well by the way, but the Philosophy is great!

I do appreciate your views on what you believe Lem thinks, but I still maintain only Lem can speak for Lem. Thank you anyway.

Most of the rest of your posts discuss the pov's of other "isms" and your own pov about varius subjects. They are all choices. Everyone you mentioned, and everyone here, including yourself, and including myself, have made a choice as to how we wish to view Reality. We each have chosen how we wish our Reality to work. We, the human species, have been doing this very same thing for millenniums. We continue to this day to argue over our different perceptions and over who is right. We will never agree until we recognize we really do not exist in the very same universe.
Reread all that you have written. Are these not your choices as to what you wish to believe, and how you wish your universe to work?
You know you are right. You know this is how it really is, and it just could not work any other way.
Everyone else believes the vary same thing about their choices.
I know I am right. I know that Poly-Solipsism is the absolute Truth, and this is how reality really works. It just couldn't work any other way.
So what happens now? We each call each other delusional, crazy, whacked, nuts, Insane!
No, Poly-Solipsism tells us no one is delusional, we all are just illusional.
We each select and create the Reality we wish to exist in.

Several times you state " I think( this)" or "I don't Think (this)." That is exactly what Poly-Solipsism tells us we do; We Think.

There is only The Singularity. All else is Philosophy.
There are no answers. There are only Choices.

Warmest Regards

Chuck
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Kwiecień 23, 2005, 06:51:15 am
I just received this from one of my e-mail discussions. Considering my last post, I thought everyone here would find it as amusing as I did!

Cytuj

Q: There's another remarkable statement he makes. It is in a discussion of the reality of the episode. He says, that is all there is in reality, what you felt.

CC: Uh-huh. Yea, he, don Juan's a very sophisticated thinker, really, it's not easy to come to grips with him. You see, I had tried various times to wrestle with him intellectually and he always comes the victor, you know. He's very artful. He posed once the idea to me that the whole, the totality of the universe is just perception. It's how we perceive things. And there are no facts, only interpretations. And those are nearly, I'm merely paraphrasing him as close as I can. And perhaps he's right, the facts are nothing else but interpretations that our brain makes of stimuli. So that such whatever I felt was, of course, the important thing.

From an INTERVIEW WITH CARLOS CASTANEDA, author of THE TEACHINGS OF DON JUAN: A YAQUI WAY OF KNOWLEDGE, by Theodore Ros


Now there was a smart guy!! ;)
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Sternenfisch w Kwiecień 23, 2005, 09:35:03 pm
Cytuj
There is only The Singularity. All else is Philosophy.
There are no answers. There are only Choices.


Chuck


Stopping proclaiming could eventually be interprated as losing.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: peskanov w Kwiecień 25, 2005, 01:38:09 pm
Cytuj
I really should be replying to a heated discussion on The Singularity I am having by e-mail with a mathematician, but since you have been interested enough to visit my web site several times over the past few days, I feel obliged to reply to your posts here.

Thanks, but you are probably confusing me with other person. I have visited your page one time, if I remenber correctly.
Cytuj
I do appreciate your views on what you believe Lem thinks, but I still maintain only Lem can speak for Lem. Thank you anyway.

As many writers, Lems speaks through his books. If you interested in what Lem thinks, you should read them.
The bulk of his opinions on philosophy is found specially in Cyberiad and Diaries from the stars (the second part).

So you don't have to take my word, just read Lem books!
Cytuj
You know you are right. You know this is how it really is, and it just could not work any other way.
 Everyone else believes the vary same thing about their choices.

Not at all, any thinker worth it's salt is aware about the imposibility of obtaining an absolute certitude about anything.
In fact this is one of Lem's recurring themes.
About my own thinking, I am aware that solipsism and idealism are possible, but I don't see that's the case.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Kwiecień 25, 2005, 04:55:53 pm
Cytuj

Stopping proclaiming could eventually be interprated as losing.


He just doesn't give up ::)
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Sternenfisch w Kwiecień 27, 2005, 08:00:35 pm
Cytuj

He just doesn't give up ::)


Maybe a read something wrong, a word or so.
But it looked like he want to stop posting.
I tried to stop that with this post, you know.
Even if he don't want to.

Discussion about Poly-Solipsism is interesting, still since my german-teacher has signed as one.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Kwiecień 28, 2005, 06:37:05 am
Cytuj

Maybe a read something wrong, a word or so.
But it looked like he want to stop posting.
I tried to stop that with this post, you know.
Even if he don't want to.

Discussion about Poly-Solipsism is interesting, still since my german-teacher has signed as one.


Hi SoGo

It is not that I really want to stop posting here. It is that I feel almost compelled to stop posting, not only here, but on all my previous discussion boards. With all the e-mail discussions I am now involved in I simply do not have the free time I once did. Besides, I seem to be getting the same questions over and over, and repeating the same answers over and over.
I really do like this board and respect Terminus and all the posters here, but I also feel like I am cheating a bit by posting Poly-Solipsism on a Solaris discussion board. I never really intended to do so. I was only trying to contact Lem to discuss his philosophy in writing Solaris, as I saw a great similarity to my concept of The Singularity.
I have extended an invitation, if he accepts he does, if not, than he doesn't. I am now beyond caring.

The only reason I continue here is because I keep receiving request form this board, and visitors to my web site from this board.
Someone from this forum just visited my web site. That is why I am here now, and frankly the only time I visit here anymore. When someone shows an interest in Poly-Solipsism by visiting my web site I follow the link to oblige them, and show them the courtesy of replying to their requests.

But as long as the board administrator does not mind, and there is still interest in my continuing to post here I will oblige as time allows. But the only time I remember to stop by is when someone from here pays me a visit. I check my web site stats about once a day, otherwise I am concentrating on my e-mail discussions.

And since you have expressed an interest I will try to stop by more often.

Thanks Sogo

Chuck
Tytuł: Lems life today
Wiadomość wysłana przez: manami w Kwiecień 28, 2005, 12:36:08 pm
can anybody tell me somthing about how stanislaw lem lives today?
it's really important for me!
thanks

manami
Tytuł: Zen and Poly-Solipsism! ;O)
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Maj 31, 2005, 06:29:38 am
You are going to love this!

As it turns out Poly-Solipsism is fundamentally very similar to Buddhism. I did not know that when the concept came to me. Before writing Poly-Solipsism I really did not know anything much about Buddhism or Zen beyond " What is the sound of one hand clapping?"
That was about it, and it didn't mean anything to me back then.
It seems with Poly-Solipsism I accidently rediscovered the fundamentals of Buddhist philosophy.
There are a few differences, but those few differences turn out to be very important. They allow for Individuality in the One Consciousness that Buddhism would deny you.
Tytuł: Re: Zen and Poly-Solipsism! ;O)
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Sternenfisch w Maj 31, 2005, 09:31:41 pm
Cytuj
that Buddhism would deny you.


What would Buddhism deny for example?
Or on what have thought specially when you wrote this?
Tytuł: Re: Zen and Poly-Solipsism! ;O)
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Czerwiec 01, 2005, 04:40:43 am
Cytuj

What would Buddhism deny for example?
Or on what have thought specially when you wrote this?


http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/zen-writings/huang-po.htm
Cytuj
Worldly people grasp worldliness; Dharma students grasp Mind.  If they let go of both worldliness and Mind, they can encounter real Dharma.  Dwelling without worldliness is easy; dwelling without mind is difficult.  People fear dwelling without mind and fear failure in their attempts to do so because they think that they would have nothing to hold onto.  However, Original Emptiness is not emptiness but genuine Dharmadhatu.

Since time without beginning, the nature of Awakened Mind and Emptiness has consisted of the same, absolute non-duality of no birth or death, no existence or non-existence, no purity or impurity, no movement or stillness, no young or old, no inside or outside, no shape and form, no sound and color.  Neither striving nor searching, one should not use intellect to understand nor words to express Awakened Mind.  One should not think that it is a place or things, name or form.  One should not think that it is a place or things, name or form.  Only then is it realized that all Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and sentient beings possess the same natural state of great Nirvana.




Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Czerwiec 08, 2005, 03:25:33 am
I just found this. I thought others here would also find it interesting. Much of Dr. Fred Alan Wolf's writings fit very nicely with Poly-Solipsism.

http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page5.htm

Cytuj
Question:   Do we project reality?

Answer:   The evidence of physiology seems to indicate so. It tells us that our memories alter our perceptions and hence color our senses of the putative objective world. Hence the world we see appears according to our expectations. A change in expectations leads to a different view of the world. Since we can't get beyond our subjective views, we can never really determine what is absolutely "out there." Classical neurophysiology would say that our minds play tricks on us and in some sense distort the "true" objectivity of the world. The quantum neurophysiology returns to the shamanic or magical view that there is no "out there" until it's perceived. Both views suggest we must project in order to perceive.

Dr Fred Alan Wolf.

Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: wetal w Czerwiec 20, 2005, 12:37:12 pm
Rich theory and what about practice? Theory`s nothing without practical field.
Like V.Lenin said ART SERVES PEOPLE.So our task is to work for needs of society and of course our own.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Czerwiec 27, 2005, 02:11:52 am
Cytuj
Rich theory and what about practice? Theory`s nothing without practical field.
 Like V.Lenin said ART SERVES PEOPLE.So our task is to work for needs of society and of course our own.

Practical Quantum Magick!

We do practice it all the time. The point is, we are not aware that we do so. Think of everything you know and believe. Where did this information come from. Now think of everything everyone else believes. How many of those beliefs of others do you share? Where did their information come from?
There are so many different points of view on every subject it is nearly impossible to count yet alone list them all. Everyone holds a different truth to be true. Everyone perceives a different Reality.
"We must project in order to perceive."
The wave function of quantum theory behaves as a nebulous field of potential information. For any of us to extract information from that wave function we must interact by observing. That interaction causes an exchange of information between the wave function and the Observer. The Observer and the wave function become entangled. The wave function will then surrender the information that is anticipated by the observer. We project into the wave function our own expectations of what is true and what is Reality and the wave function behaves accordingly by reflecting those expectations back to us. We chose our own Reality.

What practical purpose does this have for society? It tells us why we all believe so many different  and sometimes contradictory things. It tells us why everyone believes the other guy is insane for perceiving a truth so different than the one we know to be true.
Since time before memory we have been killing each other over differences in ideology. We fear those who do not believe the same as we do, and attempt to exterminate anyone who challenges our perceptions of truth. We did, and continue to do so, because we did not understand how our Reality functions and why others perceive differently.
What would happen to the tensions in the world if everyone understood we each create our own reality by choosing what we wish to be true?
For all intent and purposes Reality is an observer generated illusion, and all truths have the very same potential to be manifested into Reality for any individual observer.
We error because we each believe the Reality and the truth we personally perceive and believe is the one and only Reality, and the one and only Truth.
Poly-Solipsism and the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory both tell us there are infinite truths and infinite Realities, and none is any more or less true than any other. We each perceive our own, and our Shared Reality is generated because we are mostly selecting pretty much the same information from the wave function to extract, and therefore we create a similar Reality.
We are all pretty much perceiving a similar reality, but that reality isn't "out there," it's in our own minds. We are not really Observers separated from the Universe by some invisible magick glass. We are all imbedded in the reality we each perceive and continually interact with our own perceptions of the Grand Illusion.
I have read our brains continually process 400 billion bps of information, but we are only consciously aware of a few thousands at any one time. It takes a lot of processing to turn an illusion into Reality!

Cytuj
"There is no reality except the one contained within us. That is why so many people live such an unreal life. They take the images outside them for reality and never allow the world within to assert itself."
Herman Hesse (1877-1962)


You may like to ask Dr Wolf this same question. It would be interesting to compare answers.

Tytuł: t
Wiadomość wysłana przez: awariat w Lipiec 07, 2005, 02:21:19 am
I'm going to write for poly-solipsism, great work cckeiser!
The fun part about this is that you can believe that poly-solipsism is not true but poly-solipsism accepts that as truth too.
It was mentioned that poly-solipsism is similar to buddhism, well it is also similar to christianity. It says on your poly-solipsism page that if you believe in heaven you will finally get there. That is exactly how it is in christianity (maybe even in other "old testament religions"), you can only enter heaven if you want to get there. Even if you were a serious sinner, if you finally regret that and state that you want to be in heaven you will enter it.
Poly-solipsism gives many answers and is a part of many concepts and religious trends. That's why I find it intriguing.

Tytuł: Re:  t
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Lipiec 07, 2005, 06:33:21 am
Cytuj
I'm going to write for poly-solipsism, great work cckeiser!
The fun part about this is that you can believe that poly-solipsism is not true but poly-solipsism accepts that as truth too.
It was mentioned that poly-solipsism is similar to buddhism, well it is also similar to christianity. It says on your poly-solipsism page that if you believe in heaven you will finally get there. That is exactly how it is in christianity (maybe even in other "old testament religions"), you can only enter heaven if you want to get there. Even if you were a serious sinner, if you finally regret that and state that you want to be in heaven you will enter it.
Poly-solipsism gives many answers and is a part of many concepts and religious trends. That's why I find it intriguing.


Yes!! Thank you awariat, thank you for your post. It is evident you comprehend the fundamentals of Poly-Solipsism.
We each believe the truth we perceive, but we only perceive the truth we believe. Our continued error is to presume the Reality and the Truth we each perceive is the one and only Truth and the one and only Reality. We each create our own Reality, and choose our own truth, and any one of them is just a valid as any other.
The fact that we constantly disagree with each other just proves we are each existing in a different universe and perceiving a different truth and a different Reality.

Poly-Solipsism is similar to Buddhism, but Buddhism does not recognize the ultimate necessity of individuality in the continued evolution of The Singularity. It does not recognize the separation by perspective of the individual mind. It is that separation by "state of mind" that gives The Singularity its infinite degrees of freedom. If all minds were one mind, there would be no separation, and there really would be only the one mind of pure Solipsism. There would be no "we," there would only be "I." Buddhism maintains there is only Buddha, and all minds are Buddha.
I was raised Christian, and that is what the middle c stands for in my name, but I morphed into Atheism by the time I graduated highschool. We create our own Gods and we create our own Heaven and our own Hell, and then our minds judge ourselves. It is not our victories, but our failures we take to our graves.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: wetal w Lipiec 07, 2005, 12:47:55 pm
You`ve mentioned the religion, did you happen to think about it`s origins? Long ago people had too many things unexplained, and lived too far from each other.
 Here I should mention that human is a social being that means that a man is a man within a society, without it he`s a beast.
This what is called a singularity is a constituent part of a social unity.Like a diode in a TV-set that replaces automatically when fails.
 The society is a self maintaining system that works in accord with the internal principles. The components of one system will never fit to another.  It is like as if Russians rush to USA  there`ll be no more states but Russia .
 Religion doesn`t learn it doesn`t take scientific explanations, same happens to philosophy in some way,
it doesn`t learn and can not be a tool of learning, it`s still on the same level as it was hundreds of years ago.
 I think that we make a pitfall for ourselves.
 
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: awariat w Lipiec 07, 2005, 11:33:39 pm
Of course 99% of religion is bad and no origins are pure. But that doesn't mean some of the statements are good, thought by very good, wise people.
You say religion doesn't evolve? I think the reason why it is a pitfall is because it evolves, it should be simple and never change. If there were only the ten commandments, it would be enough. What else can you add, remove from that? Moses was one of the wisest men ever. His ten commandments have the same meaning now and 3000 years ago. No bull**** like killing goats and wearing funny hats. That does not server the purpose of a religion. It should be simple.Poly-solipsism lets you believe in whatever you want, but you will be your own judge. That's a tough judge :).
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Lipiec 08, 2005, 05:30:23 am
Lets return to Solaris; at least to the movie I saw with George Cloney. It is what brought me here in the first place.
If you missed the whispered words "There are no answers. There are only choices." uttered by the apparition of his friend, you missed the key to what the object Solaris was. At least from my point of view, with the concept of Poly-Solipsism firmly imbedded, and pretty much front and center in my mind, those whispered words explained how the object Solaris worked. It worked the very same way The Singularity works. Each mind generates its own illusions of Reality to exist in.

"We must project in order to perceive."
What thoughts, wishes, and memories were projected into Solaris were returned and perceived by the senses as being real. But they really were not real. It was only by looking at the subatomic structure the lie was revealed.

What we project into The Singularity is returned as our Reality. Our senses perceive it to be real. But if we look at the subatomic structure and venture down the rabbit hole below the Planck threshold into the quantum universe, it turns out our physical reality is made from no-thing at all. There are no solids in our solids, and no particles in our particles. It's all just Information pretending to be real.
The photon, along with the gluon and the W/Z particle are gauge bosons with no mass at all, yet they change our whole Universe. There sole function is to transfer Information from one place to another. The gauge boson is the information it carries and by transferring its information it changes one thing into another thing.
Everything we perceive as real is nothing more than the transfer of Information.

I am still convinced; until I hear Lem say otherwise, that Solaris was a dramatized version of Poly-Solipsism!
You can disagree all you want, but only Lem can speak for Lem.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: wetal w Lipiec 08, 2005, 12:54:57 pm
About religion and information we`ll, maybe, speak later.
 I`ve started to speak about philosophy `n religion.
 Indeed philosophy and religion is almost the same thing,they are interdependent.The base of each religion the philosophy is.
  People with atheistic outlook are not as atheistic as they think moreover they are pagans; atheism is based on a certain philosophic conception,this way each atheist has own religion and glorifies own gods.
  No philosophy can be a tool of learning, it`s more likely to be a MOTIVE to use own grey cells.
  Scientists like mideval heretics try to undermine philosophical and religious views.
  The Philosophy doesn`t state it supposes.
 
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Lipiec 09, 2005, 05:36:44 am
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes and ships and sealing-wax
Of cabbages and kings
And why the sea is boiling hot
And whether pigs have wings.


Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (Lewis Carroll). 1832-1898.

And this boys and girls is probably as good a description of philosophy as you can find anywhere!
The dates 1832 and 1898 are the years Charles Lutwidge Dodgson was born and died. It is the little dash ( - ) between them that is important. That little dash represents the years he lived.

Philosophies are beliefs, and Beliefs are philosophies. Religion is a belief and therefore is a philosophy. All our Science has it's roots in 600 BC Ionian Greek Philosophy. Science is a way of looking at our universe and our own existence, and trying to make sense of it all. Science is just as much a belief as any religion, and is therefore also a philosophy.

We exist. All else is philosophy!
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: wetal w Lipiec 14, 2005, 04:34:24 pm
And we philosophize to find the reason of the existenze.
 Have you noticed that only unsatisfied people think about philosophhy?
 When we are happy we forget about the sense of life, we don`t think about it ,the same happens to philosophy.
 
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Lipiec 14, 2005, 07:14:00 pm
I'd like to state my mind about the sentence "There are no answers. There are only Choices" once and for all.
Let's call this sentence S, for short.  

If S  is true , than, it is inevitably true, regardless of what we think about it. So, one has no choice when deciding if S is true. So, it's not a matter of choice! But this contradicts with S itself, which states that everything is a matter of choice.

Contradiction. End of proof. S is not true (reductio ad absurdum).
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Lipiec 17, 2005, 05:02:17 am
It's your Choice.  :)
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: wetal w Sierpień 09, 2005, 01:05:10 pm
Cytuj

It's your Choice

One more zig-zag on the straight line.
We do it `cause we like it. Our life would be too boring without them.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: afebk w Sierpień 29, 2005, 07:13:54 am
Cytuj
It is the little dash ( - ) between them that is important. That little dash represents the years he lived.


Well, that just blew my mind.  During one of my stints in graduate school, I wrote a seminar paper on the hyphenated terms (politico-feminine is one I remember) used to discuss Nietzsche.  I don't remember much of it, except that I concluded that the hyphen (-) correlated to the 'uber' within the concept of the ubermensch.  As such it represented the crossing-over of the Abyss, and the lifelong commitment of the ubermensch to active nihilism.  That concept has since continued to rattle around in the back of my mind, and I always pay suspicious attention to hyphens.  Your reading of the hyphen as a representation of a man's life almost brings me to belive in the collective unconscoius!  Is it possible that my graduate work exists somewhere in the aether?

And to cckeiser, your argument has convinced me...I'm going to watch Solaris with your comments in mind.   Have you, by chance, read much of Richard Feynman?  

I apologize for posting to a thread that has been dormant, but I only just discovered it for myself.

AFK
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Luca w Wrzesień 02, 2005, 02:40:17 pm
Cytuj
Philosophies are beliefs, and Beliefs are philosophies. Religion is a belief and therefore is a philosophy. All our Science has it's roots in 600 BC Ionian Greek Philosophy. Science is a way of looking at our universe and our own existence, and trying to make sense of it all. Science is just as much a belief as any religion, and is therefore also a philosophy.


    Hold on for a moment. There is at least one, fundamental difference between science and religion/philosophy. I would call it decisive without any hesitation. Science is verifiable. It is also able to predict future states posteriori. To decribe it in short - science is a collection of questions that we can expect to be answered by nature, while philosophy/religion inhabits region that does not hold such hopes. In fact, if it did it wolud cease to be philosophy - verifiable theories are science!
    Haven`t you noticed differences in outcomes of philosophy and science? There is a joke pointing out that distinction, which says that physicists need lots of expensive equipment, mathematicians require only paper, pens and trash cans, while philosophers go even without trash cans...
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Wrzesień 02, 2005, 08:28:21 pm
Don't fight him, man, as you can see I've proven him that the main rule of his philosophy is a big fat contradiction, but this doesn't stop the man.

So, if logic and the rules of reason are of no importance for him, there's no point in reading this thread any more. As it was from the beginning.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: wetal w Wrzesień 17, 2005, 01:03:25 pm
 Allright now. You attack the guy from all sides.Have you asked yourselves why he expresses his thoughts here. Yes he`s a Lem`s reader.
 It is natural when someone develops a personal philosophical conception or a world conception."The world without answers" for instance. As for me I also have a view that crosses with Keiser`s in some way.
 You see that he speaks about the reality which every mind concerns to be real, the minds are different same happens to reality.
 Do you believe in ghosts and witches? I do not. But it doesn`t mean that there`s no people taking them real.You see the objects but it doesn`t mean that those objects are same to everybody. colorblind people live in purple environment though it is not purple and we can see the other colours of spectrum. So talking about human psychology I can agree with a statement that thre is no answers only choices whether to believe or not in the reality we live in.
 According to my conception the relity doesn`t exist,the view is not scientific but phylosophical , it happens really often that we idealize the surrounding so that it ceases to be real.If we were the robots without imagination there would be no idealzation and I would never agree with Keiser`s statement even partially.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Wrzesień 26, 2005, 04:03:53 am
"It's up to you to choose grand beliefs, wondrous convictions, noble
purposes and lofty ideals. Then recognizing yourself as the final
source of all your meaning, belief and conviction will not degrade
into apathy and lack of meaning."
Gene Zimmer

Excerpt from: Reality, Belief and The Mind by Gene Zimmer

Universes and Reality

The world "out there", external reality, is a mutually shared universe
of common experience. It is the lowest common denominator of all our
experience. It is the mediocre minimum which we all take for granted
and it supplies us with a common field of action. That is all it is.
Your realm of personal "mind" is another sort of universe. You
experience it every second of every day. From here comes any and all
meaning about anything in the "outer" universe. The functions of
attention, concentration, imagination, responsibility, belief,
conviction, intention, decision, purpose, reason, intellect, and more
solely reside within your own personal "mind". These are qualities of
any mind. The "amount" of each and control we each have over these
various functions varies from person to person, and even within
ourselves from day to day. But they are there in each of us in some
form and to some degree. You may be influenced by the external world
of common experience, but this inner universe exists, is very real,
and is ultimately of more value than anything "out there". Why?
Because what happens "out there" depends completely on what you do (or
what "happens") with your own mind. In fact, your own inner universe
is the only thing capable anywhere of choosing and deciding value. The
world of external events takes shape in exact accordance with the sum
total of all Man's inner beliefs, conviction, ideas, meanings,
thoughts, desires, etc.

It is vital to get some grasp of this because Man's inner world , or
universe of thought, is very much ignored by all current popular
belief systems. This inner universe is the important universe and it
has been systematically ignored and suppressed by current
materialistic notions. The popularization and use of modern
psychological and psychiatric theories are the worse example of this.
When Man's inner universe is destroyed systematically through
institutionalized belief systems, Man can only finally become a pale
shadow of raw matter and energy - which in itself is dead, meaningless
and devoid of all life.

page 1
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Wrzesień 26, 2005, 04:05:36 am
Page 2

Modern materialism has exaggerated the importance and power of the
external universe over the inner universe of Man's mind. Behaviorism
talks ad naseam about the effect of the environment on people. The
environment (external reality) is placed in a superior position above
the individual person (mind). People involve themselves in and dissect
the physical universe in a futile attempt to gain "understanding".
They think the answers lie outside themselves. Again, all meaning,
purpose and value for anything, is determined by your mind and for
you, by your mind alone. You are the most truth you will ever know
about anything as you are the ONLY source of truth for everything you
experience. In the end, whatever you end up believing "in" or "about"
is fundamentally an action of your own mind to attach meaning and
significance to something. It's an action of an individual mind.

You are the complete source of meaning for you. You might explain, "I
believe this because it's so true, and it makes me feel good, and
blah-blah-blah...", and you may attribute your choice to all manner of
reasoning about ideas, external events and situations, but in the end
YOU SIMPLY DECIDE TO BELIEVE and EXPERIENCE MEANING solely by your own
mental actions. We all tend to take our cues from external events, and
our beliefs often follow reactions to events, but this isn't
necessary. The function of believing and developing conviction could
be separate from one's experiences of external reality, and if you
suddenly found yourself in some other reality, on some other world,
somewhere else, you would simply begin responding to the external
events there, and develop new beliefs accordingly. This is as true for
science as it is for religion. It is true for everything. Ultimately,
nothing is true unless you believe it to be so. And for you, it then
is. But you are the source of the meaning - the source is not anything
you conceive yourself to experience "out there", whether an observable
"thing" or an "idea".

The purpose of pointing this out is not to make you feel as if all is
useless and meaningless, although this will be the result as long as
you look for meaning outside yourself and fail to acknowledge your own
direct participation in the creation of belief, conviction and meaning
for your own personal experience. It's up to you to choose grand
beliefs, wondrous convictions, noble purposes and lofty ideals. Then
recognizing yourself as the final source of all your meaning, belief
and conviction will not degrade into apathy and lack of meaning. Most
people search "out there" to find something to "believe in", and to
give their life meaning, but in the end, it is your own action of
establishing belief which underlies any choice or decision. Again,what you accept to believe need not correspond to any pre-packaged
theory, concept or philosophy, whether scientific, philosophical or
religious, but we all tend to take for granted that the existing
options presented to us are the only possibilities available. But this
is difficult to do in a world where Man's inner world and all it does
is so casually and persistently denied. It is also difficult to do
when so many external forces attempt to sell you on their own specific
set of opinions and beliefs. Everybody is trying to get you to accept
their patterns of belief and systems of meaning.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: cckeiser w Wrzesień 26, 2005, 04:06:47 am
page 3

This is the real battle occurring on planet Earth. The winners and
losers of this battle are what truly determine the "evolution" of
societies and the world. Now, and in the past, most of what is being
sold is trash, as it usually denies and oppresses that which is
capable of believing and attaching meaning - you and your mind. Your
mind and everyone else's minds are the true source of any quality of
life that will ever exist. Solely and completely. Recognition,
education into the functions, and empowerment of minds results in
success, decency, morality, strength, sanity and greatness. Denial and
suppression of these things results in failure, perversions,
immorality, weakness, insanity and mediocrity. Materialism as a belief
system has the effect of denying these things.

Excerpt from:

Reality, Belief and The Mind
by Gene Zimmer

Â&copy;Gene Zimmer 1999 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED





Tytuł: "SEVEN!" replied the machine.
Wiadomość wysłana przez: innate w Wrzesień 26, 2005, 05:38:42 am
And now what's two and two?
"SEVEN!" replied the machine.

That one [exchange] in [Trurl's Machine] stopped my (sic) cold, and convinced me I was not [reading] a Sci-Fi, but a deep philosophical work of art.
I need to know if that statement is part of Mr. Lem's philosophy, or just a line used in the [book]?
Those words are the summation of my own philoosophy (sic); [Four-Sevenism].


"Seven, yes, seven, we always knew it was seven!"
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Wrzesień 26, 2005, 10:17:27 pm
Bzzzz! BzzzRRR!

--
THAT DOESN'T COMPUTE!

Fatal exception discovered in the module psolic.rubbish();  at 0f3444.

Don't restart the system.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: wetal w Październik 10, 2005, 03:51:54 pm
Well someone has mentioned Trurl`s computing machine.There was a story in Cyberiad where trurl was introduced as a creator of the most useless thinking macines.
  And what about ELEKTRIBALT or SCHASPOBUT/ Electric talker and a Unit which was always surprised/.
  In the example with silly machine Mr. Lem wanted to describe a fool - a person who thinks he is right unlooking what the arguments are.
  Illogical can not be a philosophical conception.
  If you see the mistake,say , tell about it , try to reason why you think so, reason the examples.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Październik 10, 2005, 07:38:13 pm
Are you trying to encourage me to discussion with C.C.Kaiser? It's not possible anymore, since I've proven the discrepant nature of His theory. Why bother than.  
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: wetal w Listopad 03, 2005, 01:31:40 pm
   Maybe,though I didn`t think about encouraging of the discussion.Just sometimes new ideas appear but to place it in another topic is unnecessary.
   You see that all the time we explain something but that but that doesn`t mean that this explanation will be constant. `Cause we change our views or mistaken,or just found another facts which lacked.
 
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: Terminus w Styczeń 15, 2006, 02:16:30 am
Rightie then, I'll go straight back to the discussion when Chuckie proves my proof to be wrong, using cold logic.

'Till then there's no point.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: innate w Styczeń 15, 2006, 02:58:09 am
So which story is it that has this always-surprised 'schaspobut' that wetal mentioned a few months ago?
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: wetal w Styczeń 23, 2006, 12:20:14 pm
It is in "The Cyberiad" when Trurl wanted to make a happy creature.At first this Schaspobut was surprised and sighed about everything `cause he was stupid.  But when the constructor increased his intellect the machine started to criticise Trurl and as a matter of fact was disassembled for spare parts.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: wetal w Styczeń 23, 2006, 12:24:50 pm
Hold on ,I`ve just forgot to sum it up.Ignorance is a bliss. Do you agree with this saying?
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: innate w Styczeń 23, 2006, 05:00:02 pm
Ahhh...I think that's "In Hot Pursuit of Happiness", which is not part of the English Cyberiad. It's only available in a collection of short stories by Eastern European authors, and therefore too hard to find.

Is ignorance bliss? I was going to say that it does help a person to accept a world filled with stupidity and malice, but then I remembered that general ignorance allows the populace here to be manipulated to stay perpetually angry and fearful.
Tytuł: Re: "There are no answers. There are only Cho
Wiadomość wysłana przez: wetal w Styczeń 24, 2006, 09:13:50 am
 It is much easier to manipulate ignorant people for every government no matter how democratic it is.They resemble grass which waves to the side where the wind blows ,change their views rapidly to diametrally opposite ones without hesitation,blieve the words no matter how false tey are ,these  people are to lazy to check their ideas.
 Someone may consider he should help and eliminate the unliteracy-it is impossible `cause maximum he can do is to make somebody think his own way.There exists no truth but one you chose.