Proving that the Universe is not Observer-Mind-Dependant

[Aethelwulf]

This is specifically a thread for those who are interested in consciousness and physics and mostly for those who believe that reality would collapse without the mind or observer. In a very small proof/arguement, I will show that the order created using set-theory can prove that reality is not observer-dependent.

From now on, I will for this take assume that a subset is a subdimension. There is a specific condition which we must keep in mind when being a subdimension of a larger system .

Let us denote consciousness (and everything related to) as a set \mathcal{B}. Let the universe then be the set \mathcal{A}. Thus if \mathcal{B} is a subset of \mathcal{A} then I can write

\mathcal{B} \subseteq \mathcal{A}

It is taken for fact that \mathcal{B} exists as a subset of \mathcal{A} that it cannot be an exact copy . No subsystem can model precisely the larger system it is made of. This is conjectured because I believe that \mathcal{B} can never contain all the information contained in \mathcal{A}. This conjecture would make sense for consciousness, because whilst our brain takes in two-dimensional images from the outside world, it never models the outside with exact precision.

A final conjecture would be, that the mind exists but the universe doesn't depend on the mind whilst the mind does depend on the universe. This should clear up, once and for all the dichotomy of whether the universe is mind-dependant or not. Taking into consideration that the mind seems to be a late low-energy phenom as well, the mind emerges from the universe not the other way around.

So in short, the universe is not observer-dependent, but the mind is universe-dependent. This means that quantum mechanics may still have a role in developing consciousness because we are ''not outside'' of spacetime.

[Aethelwulf]

Just to make clear, when I state the mind is a late-low energy phenomena, I mean that consciousness appeared long after the radiation era. We are a by-product of the low energy phase, when the universe cooled and geometry and matter appeared. This order is also an obvious clue that the universe can exist without a conscious mind present: assuming that all conscious beings require the late energy epoch to survive.

[amazeofdeath]

Your logic fails in at least two ways:

1. You can't disprove solipsism.

2. That consciousness is limited to this universe only is an unproven assumption.

[Aethelwulf]

Your logic fails in at least two ways:

1. You can't disprove solipsism.

2. That consciousness is limited to this universe only is an unproven assumption.

1. You can't disprove solipsism.

Solipsism is the idea that only one can be sure about their own minds existence. This is obviously far too philosophical and without scientific merit. After all, there is plenty of physical hard evidence to be sure that the universe trucked on quite fine without human minds being [present]. We have only been on the evolutionary stage for 250,000 years. Saying that we can only be sure of our minds reality is redundant in the eyes of science which deals with hard facts, physical evidence, not just the experience we all come to agree on.

This is why I said we are a ''late phenomenon'' - in cosmological terms, we appeared within the low energy epoch, when matter fields dominated the universe. This order is important and thus according to science we can be sure of a reality outside of the experience of consciousness itself.

2. That consciousness is limited to this universe only is an unproven assumption

To think any other universe exists side-by-side this one, is an even bigger assumption. Pure speculation.

[Aethelwulf]

Perhaps for the latter, you should remind yourself what a ''universe'' by definition truly is. There can be no other universes isomorphic to this one.

[Aethelwulf]

Just to make clear, when I state the mind is a late-low energy phenomena, I mean that consciousness appeared long after the radiation era. We are a by-product of the low energy phase, when the universe cooled and geometry and matter appeared. This order is also an obvious clue that the universe can exist without a conscious mind present: assuming that all conscious beings require the late energy epoch to survive.

This of this as an important chronological order. It is obvious to some but not obvious to many who support the philosophical justifications of solipsism. But as I said, science cares little for philosophical justifications, but rather rigorous physical facts. Saying we live in the low-energy epoch is an important chronological order because no scientist in his right mind could justify conscious intelligent lifeforms until geometry and matter appeared in the universe, and even then the early universe would have been far to chaotic for lifeforms to properly evolve on early planets in early star systems.

More importantly, the conjecture that Fred Alan Wolf presented, stating that the big bang required consciousness, or that consciousness spilled from the big bang cannot be supported by my very short but I think elegant proof.

[Aethelwulf]

Fred Alan Wolf justified his own approach because he said that there needed to be some kind of observer in the beginning of time to collapse the wave function. He then may purport to this consciousness as being God.

God is so far outside the realms of physics that no physical theorem could possibly say a God did not exist. This my proof cannot disprove, whether consciousness existed in the radiation era, or the first instant of big bang more precisely in the form of a superintelligence. It can only infer on the things we do know.

[caveman1917]

Solipsism is the idea that only one can be sure about their own minds existence.

No, solipsism is the idea that only one's own mind exists. And as such it is completely consistent with science, utterly useless perhaps, but consistent nevertheless.
In other words, using your notation, there is no a priori reason to assume \mathcal{B} \subseteq \mathcal{A} rather than \mathcal{A} \subseteq \mathcal{B}.

In any case, this makes your argument nothing more than a tautology.

[Aethelwulf]

No, solipsism is the idea that only one's own mind exists. And as such it is completely consistent with science, utterly useless perhaps, but consistent nevertheless.
In other words, using your notation, there is no a priori reason to assume \mathcal{B} \subseteq \mathcal{A} rather than \mathcal{A} \subseteq \mathcal{B}.

In any case, this makes your argument nothing more than a tautology.

Bolded by me. I am finding your definition very little different to mine: If only ones mind can exist, what else can anyone be sure of? As I said, Solipsism is the contention we can only be sure about our own mind. I am freely able to swap this for yours, if that makes this easier to deal with.

There is however, a unique priori... you might be missing the significance of the argument coupled with the extremely simply mathematical set-up. I have stated that this proof requires that the mind is a sub-dimension. This is what the symbols

\mathcal{B} \subseteq \mathcal{A}

mean. It would make no sense from the argument to assume the negative direction

\mathcal{A} \subseteq \mathcal{B}

Because then that would mean the universe is a subset of the mind - this just seems irrational to think that everything in the universe is contained within the mind - not only is that quite clearly an incorrect statement, but it neglects the fact that we have solid physical evidence of an objective world outside of the subjective experiences of it.

Again, assuming the other order, is clearly incorrect. The entire universe cannot be a subset of the mind.

[Aethelwulf]

''Universe'' encompasses everything by our own standard definitions. Another way to view this, is by saying that the mind does not encompass everything: if it indeed did, we would know everything there would be to know about the universe, because all that information is already in our consciousness. But this is directly against our own experiences. We learn as the objective reality unfolds to us and we process this information in our neural networks. This is another reason why you cannot assume the universe as a subset of the mind.

[caveman1917]

There is however, a unique priori... you might be missing the significance of the argument coupled with the extremely simply mathematical set-up. I have stated that this proof requires that the mind is a sub-dimension.

I know, that's why it's a tautology, your proof requires your conclusion. You assume that the mind is posterior to the universe to conclude that the universe is prior to the mind.


Because then that would mean the universe is a subset of the mind - this just seems irrational to think that everything in the universe is contained within the mind - not only is that quite clearly an incorrect statement, but it neglects the fact that we have solid physical evidence of an objective world outside of the subjective experiences of it.

There is no evidence whatsoever of an objective world, the existence of an objective world is an assumption. It cannot be proven to exist or not to exist.


Again, assuming the other order, is clearly incorrect. The entire universe cannot be a subset of the mind.

Have you never had a dream? Your mind was constructing a world around you then, so it is clearly possible. If you ever ran into a wall in your dream, you would likewise have solid physical evidence of an "objective world".

[Aethelwulf]

know, that's why it's a tautology, your proof requires your conclusion. You assume that the mind is posterior to the universe to conclude that the universe is prior to the mind.

That's because it would be pure absurdity if someone calculated it the other way around... I mean yes... on you go. Treat it as a Tautology all you want, go treat my equations the other way round, but at the cost of your argument make no sense as science understands it. I haven't just chosen one way because I felt like it... I chose this specific way because it is the most logical and comprehensible.

There is no evidence whatsoever of an objective world, the existence of an objective world is an assumption. It cannot be proven to exist or not to exist.

?? what??

Of course there is. So every time my retina picks up a two dimensional image from a single photon, is not evidence of an objective world?

If you say ''no'' I don't think I will want to continue this discussion with you of fear of speculative psuedoscientific discussions.

Have you never had a dream? Your mind was constructing a world around you then, so it is clearly possible. If you ever ran into a wall in your dream, you would likewise have solid physical evidence of an "objective world".

Yes... in effect, my mind indeed was constructing a world around me -- It certainly does not constitute a universe.

[caveman1917]

That's because it would be pure absurdity if someone calculated it the other way around...

So in effect you have not proven that the universe is mind-independent, you have merely stated that you think it would be absurd if it weren't.

Mind you, i tend to agree with your conclusion. But this just isn't a proof, irrespective of whether i like the conclusion or not. It's a statement of preference, nothing more.


Treat it as a Tautology all you want, go treat my equations the other way round, but at the cost of your argument make no sense as science understands it. I haven't just chosen one way because I felt like it... I chose this specific way because it is the most logical and comprehensible.

In what way, in detail, is "the most logical and comprehensible" different from "I felt like it"?
How would you grade "logical"? Is there perhaps some logical fallacy in doing it the other way round? If so, please point it out.
Likewise, is "comprehensible" not a subjective notion?


If you say ''no'' I don't think I will want to continue this discussion with you of fear of speculative psuedoscientific discussions.
{...}
Yes... in effect, my mind indeed was constructing a world around me -- It certainly does not constitute a universe.

This is of course the crux of the problem. You see, your proof is by its very nature speculative pseudoscience. Or perhaps to use a more accurate term, it is metaphysical.

Let me just ask you this. If you say that the world your mind constructs around you when you dream doesn't constitute a universe, and you state that this distinction is scientific, then what experiment would you perform to conclusively show whether you are at this moment dreaming or not? After all, if the distinction is scientific there must exist some experiment that differentiates between the two.

[Aethelwulf]

So in effect you have not proven that the universe is mind-independent, you have merely stated that you think it would be absurd if it weren't.

Mind you, i tend to agree with your conclusion. But this just isn't a proof, irrespective of whether i like the conclusion or not. It's a statement of preference, nothing more.

If you want the correct answer, you must see it from the logical order I give it. It is not merely a statement that the order must be this way: conclusive evidence points to a universe which long existed before advent of the human race. Carbon dating, is for one, a measurable scientific piece of evidence suggesting that objects have long preceded our existences - at least on the evolutionary scale of things. My order makes sense because science agree's with it, not because it is merely a statement.

In what way, in detail, is "the most logical and comprehensible" different from "I felt like it"?
How would you grade "logical"?

You yourself have admitted you would agree with my order. What made it logical for you?

Based on the hard scientific evidence that things have long existed before we came onto the map of things, is clearly enough evidence to suggest that my order of variables using the mind as a subset is clearly the most logical.

This is of course the crux of the problem. You see, your proof is by its very nature speculative pseudoscience. Or perhaps to use a more accurate term, it is metaphysical.

I see you could not refute the fact that a photon giving my retina information about the outside world was in fact definitive evidence of an outside world. I'll assume you have now changed your mind.

See. I see it differently.

those who purport to the world arising from the mind is pure psuedoscience. I am attempting to bring a calm to the waters by presenting this in the OP. I don't class as what it says as psuedoscience. It should in fact support the general view of the scientific mainstream, which means by definition it surely can't be psuedoscience. The definition fo psuedoscience is:

''A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method''

My conclusions are based on the scientific method. I have given reasons why my order of the variables is in fact the correct order, and explained thinking about it the other way would not have been the correct order. It is the correct order, because the scientific method agrees that it should be this order. If you had re-ordered it in a way like you had suggested before, it would be you ultimately distorting the true inherent, scientific basis of it's original order, and therefore, it would be you who is committing the psuedoscience, not me.

[Aethelwulf]

You think I am proposing a psuedoscience now?

Here is something to imagine. Could you imagine the reception I would have received if I had presented this proof the other way around? Do you think it would have sat here quietly unchallenged?

[pzkpfw]

(The conclusion does not prove the argument. (e.g. we might all agree (or not) that the Universe is not Observer-Mind-Dependant; but that won't make any particular argument that reaches that conclusion a good argument.))

[stutefish]

Here is something to imagine. Could you imagine the reception I would have received if I had presented this proof the other way around? Do you think it would have sat here quietly unchallenged?

I imagine you would receive the same reception if you had presented this proof the other way around. It would have been challenged for the same reason: It's not really a proof, it's a tautology.

[Aethelwulf]

I imagine you would receive the same reception if you had presented this proof the other way around. It would have been challenged for the same reason: It's not really a proof, it's a tautology.

The order is not reached sporadically, unless you are disagreeing with the FACT that science agrees with the order?

[Aethelwulf]

(The conclusion does not prove the argument. (e.g. we might all agree (or not) that the Universe is not Observer-Mind-Dependant; but that won't make any particular argument that reaches that conclusion a good argument.))

I'll say the same thing to you, do you not agree that science itself agrees with the order? If the order is scientifically accurate to things like carbon dating, then how can you say that my order does not prove its conjecture?

[Aethelwulf]

To say you can have it either way, would be a serious misunderstanding of things like carbon dating, or when organisms similar to ourselves appeared when the universe had sufficiently cooled to form matter itself...

You lot are not making sense at all.

[caveman1917]

You yourself have admitted you would agree with my order. What made it logical for you?

As a personal preference. It is not more logical than its inverse argument. Both are tautologies.


I see you could not refute the fact that a photon giving my retina information about the outside world was in fact definitive evidence of an outside world.

What photon? What retina? You mean the one i dreamt about last night? You consider that definitive evidence of an outside world? Or do you mean the one i may be dreaming about right now? See next paragraph.


My conclusions are based on the scientific method.

You state so, yet you have not answered my question as to what experiment you would perform that would differentiate a "real" universe from one that is constructed by your mind around you (as in a dream).

The scientific method is empirical, so what experiment differentiates a "real" universe from a "mind-constructed" one? How do you determine, experimentally, whether you are dreaming right now or not?
If there is no experiment that differentiates between them, then the distinction is not based on the scientific method. And your belief that it is would then be, by your own quoted definition, pseudoscience.

[Aethelwulf]

(The conclusion does not prove the argument. (e.g. we might all agree (or not) that the Universe is not Observer-Mind-Dependant; but that won't make any particular argument that reaches that conclusion a good argument.))

Maybe you are not arguing about the order.

If (no if's but), if the order is correct, then the mind must be sub-dimension. The conjecture is that no subdimension can accurately collect the same amount of information to form an exact copy. The arguement is, which system is making the copy?

Obviously the subdimension is making the copy, therefore, the mind preceded the universe. So by logical default, you cannot say that the universe is mind-dependent because the universe existed long before any minds where there to calculate it, observe it, in all its wonders.

That is a logical proof in itself. No?

[Aethelwulf]

As a personal preference. It is not more logical than its inverse argument. Both are tautologies.



What photon? What retina? You mean the one i dreamt about last night? You consider that definitive evidence of an outside world? Or do you mean the one i may be dreaming about right now? See next paragraph.



You state so, yet you have not answered my question as to what experiment you would perform that would differentiate a "real" universe from one that is constructed by your mind around you (as in a dream).

The scientific method is empirical, so what experiment differentiates a "real" universe from a "mind-constructed" one? How do you determine, experimentally, whether you are dreaming right now or not?
If there is no experiment that differentiates between them, then the distinction is not based on the scientific method. And your belief that it is would then be, by your own quoted definition, pseudoscience.

How can you say, it is no more logical than in one order than another, in face of the hard scientific facts WHICH CLEARLY support it?

Please, answer this.

[Aethelwulf]

This is supposed to be a science forum. If no one is capable of realizing that one order does not make sense in the face of hard scientific facts, then you might as well close this thread. I can't prove something to an audience which cannot distinguish between one order being scientific and another order which is not.

[caveman1917]

Here is something to imagine. Could you imagine the reception I would have received if I had presented this proof the other way around? Do you think it would have sat here quietly unchallenged?

I can't speak for others, but i for one would have reacted in exactly the same way. I don't really care which personal preference you have on the matter, that's up to you to decide. It is however incorrect to state that you have proven it, one way or the other. Or to even assume that such a question falls within the purview of science. It is a question of metaphysics, not science. The existence of an objective world is nothing more than an assumption, it can't be proven or disproven. From which directly follows that it can't be proven or disproven whether the universe is a function of the mind or the other way round.

[Aethelwulf]

I can't speak for others, but i for one would have reacted in exactly the same way. I don't really care which personal preference you have on the matter, that's up to you to decide. It is however incorrect to state that you have proven it, one way or the other. Or to even assume that such a question falls within the purview of science. It is a question of metaphysics, not science. The existence of an objective world is nothing more than an assumption, it can't be proven or disproven. From which directly follows that it can't be proven or disproven whether the universe is a function of the mind or the other way round.


What would it take to prove it? As I have explained just recently:

''If (no if's but), if the order is correct, then the mind must be sub-dimension. The conjecture is that no subdimension can accurately collect the same amount of information to form an exact copy. The arguement is, which system is making the copy?

Obviously the subdimension is making the copy, therefore, the mind preceded the universe. So by logical default, you cannot say that the universe is mind-dependent because the universe existed long before any minds where there to calculate it, observe it, in all its wonders.''

So by default, it proves itself. Now I posited a question to you above.

[caveman1917]

How can you say, it is no more logical than in one order than another, in face of the hard scientific facts WHICH CLEARLY support it?

Please, answer this.

Let me tell you two interpretations of those hard scientific facts you talk about.
1. There is an objective world that i subjectively probe with experiments that seems to be consistent with certain models about it that i make up.
2. Like in a dream, my subconscious mind constructs a world around me that seems to be consistent with certain models about it that i make up.

You state that there is a scientific difference between the two, which means there exists an experiment that differentiates between these two.
So i ask you again, what experiment would you perform that would show whether it is one or the other? Either provide an experiment or admit that the distinction is not scientific.

That doesn't mean that the distinction cannot exist, or that the discussion cannot be interesting, just that there is no proof (in the scientific sense) of one or the other.

[Aethelwulf]

Let me tell you two interpretations of those hard scientific facts you talk about.
1. There is an objective world that i subjectively probe with experiments that seems to be consistent with certain models about it that i make up.
2. Like in a dream, my subconscious mind constructs a world around me that seems to be consistent with certain models about it that i make up.

You state that there is a scientific difference between the two, which means there exists an experiment that differentiates between these two.
So i ask you again, what experiment would you perform that would show whether it is one or the other? Either provide an experiment or admit that the distinction is not scientific.

That doesn't mean that the distinction cannot exist, or that the discussion cannot be interesting, just that there is no proof (in the scientific sense) of one or the other.

I'll get to this in a moment, but for someone who mentions that there is no evidence of the objective world, external to our feeling of it, makes me worried if his overall view of the scientific facts are clearly understood in the first place.

[caveman1917]

What would it take to prove it? As I have explained just recently:

''If (no if's but), if the order is correct, then the mind must be sub-dimension. The conjecture is that no subdimension can accurately collect the same amount of information to form an exact copy. The arguement is, which system is making the copy?

Obviously the subdimension is making the copy, therefore, the mind preceded the universe. So by logical default, you cannot say that the universe is mind-dependent because the universe existed long before any minds where there to calculate it, observe it, in all its wonders.''

So by default, it proves itself. Now I posited a question to you above.
(my bold)

Of course by default it proves itself, that's what it means to be a tautology. I can turn this around just as easily. If the order is incorrect, then the universe must be a subset, and the opposite conclusion follows.

What it would take is an experiment, not a statement that basically says "If i am correct then i am correct". The scientific method is based on experiments, it is empirical.

You complain that this is supposed to be a science forum, however it seems to be you that are having difficulty with the distinction between science and metaphysics.

[Aethelwulf]

1. There is an objective world that i subjectively probe with experiments that seems to be consistent with certain models about it that i make up.
2. Like in a dream, my subconscious mind constructs a world around me that seems to be consistent with certain models about it that i make up.

Notice, the second assertion is ''like'' a dream. In this instance, we are [likening] something to something else. This does not mean that reality is a dream - in fact our very consciousness dictates that being ''awake'' is something quite different to ''being asleep''.

Dreams are mostly manufactured by our subconscious. The other small remainder would be just chemical signals possibly replaying things it had done during the day. The experiment which differentiates the two is the objective and subjectivity of consciousness and dream states. In a dream state we are not completely fully aware of our surroundings, whilst when awake, we are.

It becomes all very ''Martixy'' and ''Alice in Wonderlandish'' to think we are constantly in a dream state. Neurological science can quite clearly differentiate between the two.

[Aethelwulf]

(my bold)

Of course by default it proves itself, that's what it means to be a tautology. I can turn this around just as easily. If the order is incorrect, then the universe must be a subset, and the opposite conclusion follows.

What it would take is an experiment, not a statement that basically says "If i am correct then i am correct". The scientific method is based on experiments, it is empirical.

You complain that this is supposed to be a science forum, however it seems to be you that are having difficulty with the distinction between science and metaphysics.

You don't get it do you. It can't be turned around - not unless you ignore the hard scientific facts which back it up. I gave you examples. You seem to have ignored them.

[caveman1917]

Notice, the second assertion is ''like'' a dream. In this instance, we are [likening] something to something else. This does not mean that reality is a dream - in fact our very consciousness dictates that being ''awake'' is something quite different to ''being asleep''.

You can leave out the "like" if you want, i was merely suggesting that there are multiple ways of achieving this scenario, of which dreaming is only one. Another one would be having my brain linked up to a computer simulation. Or this entire universe, including my own brain, existing inside a computer simulation. And probably many more..

[caveman1917]

You don't get it do you. It can't be turned around - not unless you ignore the hard scientific facts which back it up. I gave you examples. You seem to have ignored them.

There are no, none whatsoever, scientific facts that back up the existence of an objective world. Unless you are going to claim that it's impossible for me to dream about carbon dating?

So, again, please provide the scientific experiment that would show that this world is not created by my mind.

[Aethelwulf]

There are no, none whatsoever, scientific facts that back up the existence of an objective world. Unless you are going to claim that it's impossible for me to dream about carbon dating?

So, again, please provide the scientific experiment that would show that this world is not created by my mind.

We have scientific measurements which record photon's hitting off the retina. We have further scientific evidence which shows that this information goes into our neural networks as a two dimensional image. The only thing science cannot fully answer for is how the brain recasts this two dimensional image into the three dimensional phenomenon known as perception. This is perhaps the only unknown. The rest is very scientific.

Saying we have no existence of the outside world, you may as well say that every scientific experiment is bogus. I find that extremely unlikely.

[Aethelwulf]

You can leave out the "like" if you want, i was merely suggesting that there are multiple ways of achieving this scenario, of which dreaming is only one. Another one would be having my brain linked up to a computer simulation. Or this entire universe, including my own brain, existing inside a computer simulation. And probably many more..

As I said, Neuroscience, the scientific theory which studies the chemistry of the brain and physiological make-up of the brain can quite clearly differentiate between the two. If you can't, then so be it.

I have enough trust in science to know you claims are rubbish.

[Aethelwulf]

I will say that we never measure the world directly. Anything we collect from the outside world is recreated here in our brains. But these photons hitting off our retina are real physical representations of a real object reality we exist in. This is not evidence that the objective world does not exist. The fact that we gain this information from the outside is rather evidence supporting that an objective world actually exists.

Now, these conversations have gone far off from the OP's original discussion... You've been feebly trying to prove the OP wrong because we cannot prove we are not ''constantly'' in a dream state. Your arguments are complete psuedoscience in its finest.

[caveman1917]

We have scientific measurements which record photon's hitting off the retina. We have further scientific evidence which shows that this information goes into our neural networks as a two dimensional image. The only thing science cannot fully answer for is how the brain recasts this two dimensional image into the three dimensional phenomenon known as perception. This is perhaps the only unknown. The rest is very scientific.

So you are stating that it's impossible for my mind to have made all that stuff up in a dream (or a computer simulation to have fed all that to my brain, or...)? If not, than those experiments don't really differentiate, do they?


Saying we have no existence of the outside world, you may as well say that every scientific experiment is bogus. I find that extremely unlikely.

Making the assumption that there exists an objective world is useful, that doesn't make it any less of an assumption though. Science has nothing to say on the matter, it is not a scientific question, it is not a hypothesis that can be falsified, in other words there exists no experiment that can falsify it either way.

Or to quote the very first response you had in this thread:

You can't disprove solipsism.

[caveman1917]

I have enough trust in science to know you claims are rubbish.

Alright, i have been asking you this many times and you consistently ignored my question so i will make this a direct request:

CM1: Provide an experiment that would falsify the hypothesis that the world is a product of my mind. Describe this experimental setup in detail, and specifically state what result would show that the world i perceive is not a product of my mind.

Failing to do that, there are only two possible resolutions.
Either you are unaware that a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable and your knowledge of the scientific method which you claim to base your statements on can be seriously called into question, or you are aware of that but for some reason think that doesn't apply to the hypotheses you make up.

[caveman1917]

Now, these conversations have gone far off from the OP's original discussion...

The OP is a pure tautology, what else would you expect? You might as well have us discuss P \Rightarrow P where P is any statement.

[pzkpfw]

As I said, Neuroscience, the scientific theory which studies the chemistry of the brain and physiological make-up of the brain can quite clearly differentiate between the two. If you can't, then so be it.

I have enough trust in science to know you claims are rubbish.

Please take a deep breath. I understand you are getting upset at the reaction to your OP, but don't let yourself get angry.

[Aethelwulf]

The OP is a pure tautology, what else would you expect? You might as well have us discuss P \Rightarrow P where P is any statement.

I would be the first to congratulate you if you were right, but this word ''tautology'' has become quite the buzzword for you. Just because you keep repeating it, does not make the fact your direction in my expression is not scientific disappear. It is only scientific to consider systems where there is true chronological order which science agree's with. Your's is not agreed with science.

[Aethelwulf]

Alright, i have been asking you this many times and you consistently ignored my question so i will make this a direct request:

CM1: Provide an experiment that would falsify the hypothesis that the world is a product of my mind. Describe this experimental setup in detail, and specifically state what result would show that the world i perceive is not a product of my mind.

Failing to do that, there are only two possible resolutions.
Either you are unaware that a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable and your knowledge of the scientific method which you claim to base your statements on can be seriously called into question, or you are aware of that but for some reason think that doesn't apply to the hypotheses you make up.


The fact we extract information from any experiment designed to probe reality is an experiment against your favor. Understand that and we might get somewhere.

[Aethelwulf]

Please take a deep breath. I understand you are getting upset at the reaction to your OP, but don't let yourself get angry.

I'm trying.

[Aethelwulf]

Mathman

I am open to new suggestions, but what you are suggesting is quite frankly, Hollywood material. Neuroscience is heavily in my favor. This is a science. What you are conjecturing is... ''let your brain seep from your ears'' openness. Thinking the world is a complete utter fabrication, a total dream state where we extract no objective information from any experiment which is designed to probe reality is ... absurd.

[Aethelwulf]

Once you realize that all the scientific evidence stacks in the proposal it goes my way, it is hard to consider it going another - sure, cling to these idea's that we live in a dream state constantly and reverse my argument - but yours is hardly scientific which is the whole point.

[pzkpfw]

Once you realize that all the scientific evidence stacks in the proposal it goes my way, it is hard to consider it going another - sure, cling to these idea's that we live in a dream state constantly and reverse my argument - but yours is hardly scientific which is the whole point.

Nobody is saying the Universe is that way, they are simply saying that you've not been able to prove it isn't. Your argument depends on certain assumptions, and becomes (no matter how much you or anyone likes those assumptions) circular. That's not "scientific".

[caveman1917]

I would be the first to congratulate you if you were right, but this word ''tautology'' has become quite the buzzword for you. Just because you keep repeating it, does not make the fact your direction in my expression is not scientific disappear.

You are mixing up several different aspects here. The argument you proposed is a tautology, irrespective of the truth-value of its conclusion/assumption. It is of the form P \Rightarrow P. It would be just as tautological if you had presented it the other way round. As such there is not much more that can be said about the form of argument.

Another aspect, what we have been discussing, is what P should be, either "the mind is a function of the universe" or "the universe is a function of the mind". (this has no effect on the argument being tautological or not).

You say it must be the former, i'm saying that neither is a scientific hypothesis, and thus neither can be proven nor disproven.

[caveman1917]

The fact we extract information from any experiment designed to probe reality is an experiment against your favor. Understand that and we might get somewhere.

The fact that i can dream about performing those experiments and getting those results invalidates your claim that these somehow differentiate. I'm not saying that the universe is a function of the mind, i'm saying that that hypothesis is unprovable either way.

For every experiment you could come up with that purports to show that the world is objective i can state that i could just as well be dreaming about performing that experiment and getting that result. Understand that and we might get somewhere.

[caveman1917]

Thinking the world is a complete utter fabrication, a total dream state where we extract no objective information from any experiment which is designed to probe reality is ... absurd.

Yes it is absurd. But that is the point, you can't prove this beyond saying "it is absurd", which boils down to saying that you use the assumption that the mind is a function of the universe "because you like it". That may be true, but it is not a scientific argument. It's just a statement of preference.

If you would have just said "i think it is absurd to think that the universe is a function of the mind", that statement wouldn't be challenged. The thing that is being challenged is your claim that you have proven this using the scientific method, which is simply false. Because that would imply that you have an experiment that shows that an objective world exists, which you must by now realize is impossible (i can always just dream about performing that experiment, just like i could have just dreamt up the entire field of neuroscience).

[Aethelwulf]

Nobody is saying the Universe is that way, they are simply saying that you've not been able to prove it isn't. Your argument depends on certain assumptions, and becomes (no matter how much you or anyone likes those assumptions) circular. That's not "scientific".

I don't need to though. His point is you can freely chose one way and the other without any consequences.

My argument to him all along was that there is in fact a ''preferred directionality'' and it is the one science agrees with most. The way mathman makes it out is that this tautology is a complete disaster for my conjecture - but he's ignoring the hard scientific facts which back that directionality.

It's like a theory, no one can ever [[prove]] a theory. There are however evidences which lean in the favor of one theory to another. Ignoring those evidences would be a disaster for science in general. We can't similarly just ignore the facts of the direction in which my expression goes.

[Aethelwulf]

Yes it is absurd. But that is the point, you can't prove this beyond saying "it is absurd", which boils down to saying that you use the assumption that the mind is a function of the universe "because you like it". That may be true, but it is not a scientific argument. It's just a statement of preference.

If you would have just said "i think it is absurd to think that the universe is a function of the mind", that statement wouldn't be challenged. The thing that is being challenged is your claim that you have proven this using the scientific method, which is simply false. Because that would imply that you have an experiment that shows that an objective world exists, which you must by now realize is impossible (i can always just dream about performing that experiment, just like i could have just dreamt up the entire field of neuroscience).

Read above my comment to Pzkpfw. There are reasons we don't go down absurd paths in science - the main one is because of the evidence weighing an argument. Keep in mind my words also that you can never prove a theory - but some theories are more correct than others when it comes to explaining the mechanics of the world.

[pzkpfw]

I don't need to though. His point is you can freely chose one way and the other without any consequences.

My argument to him all along was that there is in fact a ''preferred directionality'' and it is the one science agrees with most. The way mathman makes it out is that this tautology is a complete disaster for my conjecture - but he's ignoring the hard scientific facts which back that directionality.

It's like a theory, no one can ever [[prove]] a theory. There are however evidences which lean in the favor of one theory to another. Ignoring those evidences would be a disaster for science in general. We can't similarly just ignore the facts of the direction in which my expression goes.

How does science agree? What hard scientific facts?

[caveman1917]

There are reasons we don't go down absurd paths in science - the main one is because of the evidence weighing an argument.

What evidence? You don't have any. If you're going to say "look at neuroscience etc", all that says is that your mind has a vivid imagination in creating this world around you.


Keep in mind my words also that you can never prove a theory

No, but a scientific theory must be falsifiable, which yours isn't. Ergo it is not scientific, it is metaphysics, it's a belief.

As an aside, does this mean that you retract your claim that you have provided proof (in the scientific sense) for your hypothesis?

[Aethelwulf]

How does science agree? What hard scientific facts?

In the direction of the expression you mean? Well, I used an example very early on. Studying biological systems, we appeared about 240,000 years ago. Assuming that our consciousness was unique in the universe, we can trace things that have far preceded our appearance in the animal kingdom. We also have a cosmological factor to consider. The universe certainly arranged itself very well in the absence of human consciousness... say a mere 10 million years after the first instant of the BB. We appeared very late in the universes history. There is plenty scientific evidence which backs that up well, meaning there is a preferred directionality in my expression.

[Aethelwulf]

I am not answering caveman anymore. He's asking questions I have already answered to him. We've actually covered these evidences way back. His memory must be failing him, but mine hasn't.

[Aethelwulf]

No, but a scientific theory must be falsifiable, which yours isn't. Ergo it is not scientific, it is metaphysics, it's a belief.


How do you know my theory is not falsifiable? I don't think you've thought this through long enough. If my ''directionality'' in my expression requires Darwin's theory, cosmological chronological order of events.... requires carbon dating and our precise measurements therego of our approximated appearance in the universe, then sure. My theory is falsifiable. Falsify carbon dating, Darwin's theory or even prove that we did exist when the universe was hot and only a fraction of a centimeter wide.

[pzkpfw]

In the direction of the expression you mean? Well, I used an example very early on. Studying biological systems, we appeared about 240,000 years ago. Assuming that our consciousness was unique in the universe, we can trace things that have far preceded our appearance in the animal kingdom. We also have a cosmological factor to consider. The universe certainly arranged itself very well in the absence of human consciousness... say a mere 10 million years after the first instant of the BB. We appeared very late in the universes history. There is plenty scientific evidence which backs that up well, meaning there is a preferred directionality in my expression.

Again, you just show that your idea is circular.

For example, you state that "we appeared about 240,000 years ago".

But if the Universe was dependant on the mind of the observer, then that "evidence" would just be another one of the things that mind has "made up".

There's no way to prove the objective "truth" of that "evidence".

[caveman1917]

we don't go down absurd paths in science

My quantum mechanics course certainly didn't same that way :)

[Aethelwulf]

My quantum mechanics course certainly didn't same that way :)

No one understands quantum mechanics. The very core of it is ... a mystery. However, theories backed with observational data preclude some theories are quite obviously less absurd than another.

Here is a quick example. Gravity is a force produced by curvature and distortions. A radical and... absurd theory would be linking gravity directly to the electrostatic forces. Just as an example.

[caveman1917]

I am not answering caveman anymore.

I have asked you a direct question a couple of posts back, which you haven't answered. I asked you for a specific experiment and your reply was simply "neuroscience".


His memory must be failing him, but mine hasn't.

Maybe my memory is indeed failing me, but i seem to recall that last time i checked neuroscience was a scientific field, not an experiment.

[Aethelwulf]

Again, you just show that your idea is circular.

For example, you state that "we appeared about 240,000 years ago".

But if the Universe was dependant on the mind of the observer, then that "evidence" would just be another one of the things that mind has "made up".

There's no way to prove the objective "truth" of that "evidence".

The answer would be we would have to all have the same consciousness, but my experience tells me otherwise. What a mind makes up, would have to be an asymptotic phenomena of another. But my mind is quite clearly independent of yours.

[Aethelwulf]

Maybe my memory is indeed failing me, but i seem to recall that last time i checked neuroscience was a scientific field, not an experiment.

You know what mean.

[caveman1917]

The answer would be we would have to all have the same consciousness

We all? You never dreamt of other people?

[caveman1917]

You know what mean.

Well, it's your choice. We can either have you state an experiment, then i can state that i might as well just be dreaming about performing it (or dreaming about some other person performing it), then you can state another experiment, to which i can reply in the same way, all the way until we have covered the entire field of neuroscience, and ultimately all of science. Or you could just admit that this line of argument fails to support your position.

[Aethelwulf]

We all? You never dreamt of other people?

I've never had an identity issue in a dream, no. But then if I did, I wouldn't be surprised. It is a dream after all. Like I wouldn't get too serious over a movie... because you know... it's a movie.

[caveman1917]

I've never had an identity issue in a dream, no.

I didn't say dream about being another person, i said dreamt about other people, ie having other people populate your dream with you.
I'm going to assume you did, which implies that the mind is certainly able to construct other people to populate the world it can construct.
Ergo your argument based on the probability of "all of us" having the same consciousness fails.

[AstroRockHunter]

This is specifically a thread for those who are interested in consciousness and physics and mostly for those who believe that reality would collapse without the mind or observer. In a very small proof/arguement, I will show that the order created using set-theory can prove that reality is not observer-dependent.

From now on, I will for this take assume that a subset is a subdimension. There is a specific condition which we must keep in mind when being a subdimension of a larger system .

Bold mine.
This is an unsubstantiated assumption. You must remember that even a sub dimension can have a subset that would not necessarily be its own dimension.



Let us denote consciousness (and everything related to) as a set \mathcal{B}. Let the universe then be the set \mathcal{A}. Thus if \mathcal{B} is a subset of \mathcal{A} then I can write

\mathcal{B} \subseteq \mathcal{A}

It is taken for fact that \mathcal{B} exists as a subset of \mathcal{A} that it cannot be an exact copy .
Bold mine.

That consciousness isn't an exact copy of the universe does not lead to statement that it cannot be an exact copy.



No subsystem can model precisely the larger system it is made of. This is conjectured because I believe that \mathcal{B} can never contain all the information contained in \mathcal{A}. This conjecture would make sense for consciousness, because whilst our brain takes in two-dimensional images from the outside world, it never models the outside with exact precision.

Conjecture is fine, but please don't insist that this is scientific proof.



A final conjecture would be, that the mind exists but the universe doesn't depend on the mind whilst the mind does depend on the universe. This should clear up, once and for all the dichotomy of whether the universe is mind-dependant or not. Taking into consideration that the mind seems to be a late low-energy phenom as well, the mind emerges from the universe not the other way around.

An interesting conjecture. How would you explain how the mind perceives the universe when psychedelic compounds (such as LSD) are introduced into the brain?



So in short, the universe is not observer-dependent, but the mind is universe-dependent. This means that quantum mechanics may still have a role in developing consciousness because we are ''not outside'' of spacetime.

However, the interpretation of the universe is very much observer dependent.

[Aethelwulf]

Bold mine.
This is an unsubstantiated assumption. You must remember that even a sub dimension can have a subset that would not necessarily be its own dimension.


Bold mine.

That consciousness isn't an exact copy of the universe does not lead to statement that it cannot be an exact copy.



Conjecture is fine, but please don't insist that this is scientific proof.



An interesting conjecture. How would you explain how the mind perceives the universe when psychedelic compounds (such as LSD) are introduced into the brain?



However, the interpretation of the universe is very much observer dependent.

Ah good, fresh questions. I will get to you in a minute. I think I need a cup of tea!

[caveman1917]

Ah good, fresh questions. I will get to you in a minute. I think I need a cup of tea!

All good and well, but i do still expect either an experiment that actually differentiates between the two hypotheses or a retraction that either hypothesis is scientific.

[Aethelwulf]

This is an unsubstantiated assumption. You must remember that even a sub dimension can have a subset that would not necessarily be its own dimension.

Yes, but that does not destroy the order of the expression. For if the mind is a subset of the universe, and you further found a sub-set in the mind, there is no order broken. It would just be a new dimension.

That consciousness isn't an exact copy of the universe does not lead to statement that it cannot be an exact copy.

That conjecture is typically a set theory conjecture. No sub-system can precisely model the system it is a part of. It's not my own which I created for the argument.

Conjecture is fine, but please don't insist that this is scientific proof.

I believe, assuming my direction of the expression is true, then it kind of proves itself. If you like, from now on I will use conjecture, if people are happier with that.

An interesting conjecture. How would you explain how the mind perceives the universe when psychedelic compounds (such as LSD) are introduced into the brain?

It effects the synapses of the brain - the normal physiological functions such as chemical translations and signals carried from one neurotransmitter to another are simply impaired by the use of psychoactive compounds. One possible way to explain it, is when an electrical signal reaches a synapse, it may trigger release of tiny bursts of chemicals called neurotransmitters - when you induce the brain with certain chemicals, you are changing the entire chemistry of the brain's ability to function properly.

However, the interpretation of the universe is very much observer dependent.

The universe is exposed to our degree of describing it. It's material physical foundation had to be there independent of the mind, for... if it was not, our brains which depend on matter could never have came about.

[Aethelwulf]

All good and well, but i do still expect either an experiment that actually differentiates between the two hypotheses or a retraction that either hypothesis is scientific.

One that differentiates between knowing we are not in a dream state? Hold on. There are plenty experiments which actually probe the mind when we are asleep. There are unique differences between being asleep and being awake.

[Aethelwulf]

One that differentiates between knowing we are not in a dream state? Hold on. There are plenty experiments which actually probe the mind when we are asleep. There are unique differences between being asleep and being awake.

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/03/08/sleep-brainwaves/

In this, it shows how certain brain waves act differently in different situations

http://www.youramazingbrain.org.uk/insidebrain/brainsleep.htm#

[AstroRockHunter]

This is an unsubstantiated assumption. You must remember that even a sub dimension can have a subset that would not necessarily be its own dimension.

Yes, but that does not destroy the order of the expression. For if the mind is a subset of the universe, and you further found a sub-set in the mind, there is no order broken. It would just be a new dimension.

But it can. If you assume that consciousness is a sub dimension of the universe, then it could be argued that consciousness would be every bit as rich as the universe. If however, you assume that consciousness is only a sub set of the universe then you must then define boundaries of that sub set before you begin to attribute any properties to it. Either way, it is an assumption, which is okay until you start to claim cause and effect due to these assumptions.



That consciousness isn't an exact copy of the universe does not lead to statement that it cannot be an exact copy.

That conjecture is typically a set theory conjecture. No sub-system can precisely model the system it is a part of. It's not my own which I created for the argument.
Which is fine, for set theory. However, conjecture, like assumptions, should not be used to claim cause and effect.




Conjecture is fine, but please don't insist that this is scientific proof.

I believe, assuming my direction of the expression is true, then it kind of proves itself. If you like, from now on I will use conjecture, if people are happier with that.

Once again, you're offering an assumption as evidence to support your belief.




An interesting conjecture. How would you explain how the mind perceives the universe when psychedelic compounds (such as LSD) are introduced into the brain?

It effects the synapses of the brain - the normal physiological functions such as chemical translations and signals carried from neurotransmitter to another are simply impaired by the use of psychoactive compounds. One possible way to explain it, is when an electrical reaches a synapse, it may trigger release of tiny bursts of chemicals called neurotransmitters - when you induce the brain with certain chemicals, you are changing the entire chemistry of the brain's ability to function properly.

Now you're making the assumption that every human brain operates exactly the same way and contains exactly the same chemical compounds in exactly the same proportions. However, we know that this assumption is incorrect because of the numbers of people who suffer with what we define as "mental illness".




However, the interpretation of the universe is very much observer dependent.

The universe is exposed to our degree of describing it. It's material physical foundation had to be there independent of the mind, for... if it was not, our brains which depend on matter could never have came about.

Yes, but you have not proven your assertion presented in the OP. My point is this, you are basing your position on assumptions and conjectures that have not been established in the context of your assertions.

[Aethelwulf]

But it can. If you assume that consciousness is a sub dimension of the universe, then it could be argued that consciousness would be every bit as rich as the universe.

I don't see that happening, since our scope of the universe is fascinatingly limited at any time. True, when we observe the world, our brain tries recollect all the information it can from these photons hitting our retina's, but there is a lot of quantum information occurring in which we cannot observe, therefore, our consciousness is not an exact copy. To be quite blunt about the situation, it's many magnitudes off being as such.

Which is fine, for set theory. However, conjecture, like assumptions, should not be used to claim cause and effect.

In the past I have been argued to not present work well without math. In this instance, I am being argued with because I am using math! Trust me, set theory is a brilliant way to make a proposal - especially a scientific one which may require cause and effect. A very good example, would be Bells Theorem. It is a product of set theory, and it's theorem proves the inequality.

Once again, you're offering an assumption as evidence to support your belief.

My assumption is based on what we know from science which is then strengthened by my mathematical conjectures. I don't know what else you want me to do?

Now you're making the assumption that every human brain operates exactly the same way and contains exactly the same chemical compounds in exactly the same proportions. However, we know that this assumption is incorrect because of the numbers of people who suffer with what we define as "mental illness".

No, I never said every brain operates the same way. You are putting words into my mouth. I was generalizing what can happen. Drugs can effect people in different ways, but it still messes with the synapses in the same way - just the experience of the chemical changes maybe perceived differently. This is why one hallucination may differ to another person on the same drug. The dynamics are the same however, because we all have synapses and my electrical signals are transported just like yours. Just like if you cut me, I bleed like you. I may have a better pain threshold however, from you. Just like my experience of drugs might have a different side-effect to you.

Yes, but you have not proven your assertion presented in the OP.

As I said, if there is no question about which way the expression should be read, then the rest proves itself. As I said, if you have a problem with me using ''prove'' that is fine. We can stick with something else, like ''offers itself as a strong evidence'' for.

[Reality Check]

From now on, I will for this take assume that a subset is a subdimension.
Your first mistake: a subset is not a "subdimension". A subset (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset) is a set constructed by selecting objects from another set.
Sets do not have dimensions. A subset does not have a smaller number of dimensions ("subdimension"?) than a set.

Letting consciousness or the universe be sets is ridiculous because they are not sets. You could have a set that has one member (consciousness) and denote that as the set B. You could have a set that has one member (the universe) and denote that as the set A. Then you have the trival result that A and B have the same number of members!

[Aethelwulf]

The very fact I have used math shouldn't even be brought up in these arguments. There is no speculation when it comes to math, only to the situations it is being applied to. The only speculations (which are based on hard science) is that the universe preceded the mind. Now, normally someone would not argue that - so the math which can describe this best is set theory, by stating that the mind is a sub set of the universe. In doing so, then we can use the axioms of set theory to state things like ''the subset cannot copy itself of the whole completely''. This works well with our experiences, because we can be damn sure that whilst our brain tries to copy this world around us, what we see is only a fragment of a much greater whole which we call the universe. Saying stuff like ''but that doesn't stop a consciousness from being an exact copy'' is utterly meaningless... and itself a speculation without merit or justification. Whilst all mine do have merit and even a logical justification.

[Aethelwulf]

Your first mistake: a subset is not a "subdimension". A subset (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset) is a set constructed by selecting objects from another set.
Sets do not have dimensions. A subset does not have a smaller number of dimensions ("subdimension"?) than a set.

Letting consciousness or the universe be sets is ridiculous because they are not sets. You could have a set that has one member (consciousness) and denote that as the set B. You could have a set that has one member (the universe) and denote that as the set A. Then you have the trival result that A and B have the same number of members!

According to this work, the universe could be a causal set, or modeled as such http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9811053v2.pdf

I can very well describe the universe as a set. And anything inside that set defined as a subset can be treated as though it where a subdimension. In fact, I remember reading a paper which did just that, albeit, it was a totally different approach I used.

[Aethelwulf]

In fact, you can refer to element subsets as subdimensions if my mind correctly remembers this stuff. Hold on while I find a link.

[Aethelwulf]

At the moment I can only find this... and it's a horrible page...

'' you can also refer to element subsets by using subdimensions''

http://www.xjtek.com/anylogic/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.xj.anylogic.help/html/sd/Defining_Array_Equations.html

[Aethelwulf]

Let me prove this in a new way.

Think of the human perception as a subspace. It has it's own degree's of freedom - and I may not mean real ''physical degree's of freedom here''... as I said, the mind recreates the outside world, projects what it see's ''in here'' and we observe what can be described as a three dimensional vector space. What is a subspace? I can give a quick mathematical example...

Our equation should be of the form.

\begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \\ z \end{pmatrix}= (V_1,AV_2,BV_3)

Thus if we have:

x+2y+3z=6

then

(x,y,z)=(1,1,1)

We make them equal, 1,1 and 1, and we may see it is a solution to the value x+2y+3z=6. We set it to zero:

x+2y+3z=0

We require two solutions, and to check if it is linearly independent, thus we can have:

(-2,1,0) and (-3,0,1)

they are not linearly independent so the general solution of the entire form is:

\begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \\ z \end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 1 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}+A\begin{pmatrix} -2 \\ 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}+B\begin{pmatrix} -3 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}

And this is a mathematical description of a linear subspace in a matrix. Now, a subspace of is a subset that is a vector space itself and a subset of a vector space is just a set of elements from the vector space - so not every subset is a subspace, but every subspace is a subset. The mind surely would be a subset in this case. And, assuming we are talking about vector spaces, we may call the mind a subdimension, just for clarity to remind ourselves that in this bubble of perception, we do realize a three dimensional image. It is almost like as if the mind is trying to make an exact copy of what it is observing, hence why I use the set theory logic that no subset can model it's larger superset precisely.

[Reality Check]

According to this work, the universe could be a causal set, or modeled as such http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9811053v2.pdf

That is right so


I can very well describe the universe as a set.

is wrong because you missed out the word causal.

Now you have to show that consciousness is a causal set that is a sub set of the universe as a causal set.

[Aethelwulf]

That is right so

is wrong because you missed out the word causal.

Now you have to show that consciousness is a causal set that is a sub set of the universe as a causal set.

You know, causal sets might be a very good approach since it can define a cause and effect in my expression. But that is for another time when I have studied the terminology a bit better.

Anyway, I feel you are missing the point. ''Causal'' or not, the word ''Causal'' implies an order. The real thing to remember here is that it is still a set. You flat out said that a universe could not be defined as a set, and I proved that in theory (and in practice) you were wrong.

Now there is absolutely no point getting hung up on the word ''Causal''. As I said, it just implies an order, and if anything, if you read my work carefully, I implied an order a long time ago. I just never explicitly wrote it for causal notation. But the universe in its most blatant form, is being treated as a set.

[John Mendenhall]

Let us denote consciousness (and everything related to) as a set \mathcal{B}. Let the universe then be the set \mathcal{A}. Thus if \mathcal{B} is a subset of \mathcal{A} then I can write

\mathcal{B} \subseteq \mathcal{A}

It is taken for fact that \mathcal{B} exists as a subset of \mathcal{A} that it cannot be an exact copy . No subsystem can model precisely the larger system it is made of. This is conjectured because I believe that \mathcal{B} can never contain all the information contained in \mathcal{A}. This conjecture would make sense for consciousness, because whilst our brain takes in two-dimensional images from the outside world, it never models the outside with exact precision.




Your notation is incorrect. You have not defined B as a proper subset of A. Indeed, you have done just the opposite. B using your notation may include all of A. Here is the reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset

I think, at the very least, that you are misapplying set theory in a metaphysical idea.

Regards, John M.

[Aethelwulf]

Your notation is incorrect. You have not defined B as a proper subset of A. Indeed, you have done just the opposite. B using your notation may include all of A. Here is the reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset

I think, at the very least, that you are misapplying set theory in a metaphysical idea.

Regards, John M.

Oh yes that's quite right. Thank you.

I think, at the very least, that you are misapplying set theory in a metaphysical idea.

You're allowed your opinion. This is why I posted this here... but I am curious, what you think is metaphysical about this?

[Aethelwulf]

You know, I don't think I used that notation because I don't know the latex code for it.

[WayneFrancis]

...
I see you could not refute the fact that a photon giving my retina information about the outside world was in fact definitive evidence of an outside world. I'll assume you have now changed your mind.
...

How do you know it is a photon giving you that information and your brain isn't just making that information up. Our brains make up stuff all the time. This is why many illusions work. It doesn't matter if they are visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory or tactile in nature.

This is the point. Everything you know stems originally from these senses. All these senses are products of our brain and our brain can and does short circuit the chain. Your universe is the sum of everything you've experienced. If someone else makes an observation you don't know about is it part of your universe? How do you know they made the observation? Once you know they made the observation how do you know your knowledge that they made the observation isn't generated by your mind.

caveman1917 is right. While you, me, caveman1917 and most other people accept our brain doesn't make up the universe around us it isn't a logical proof. Science is based on the fact that I am not just dreaming this but thee is nothing logically inconsistent with me being in some very vivid and self consistent dream. Like wise there is nothing inconsistent with me not being real at all but just some type of very advanced program running in some machine some where. There are some very strong arguments that we are more likely then not some type of simulation and not really real ourselves. How would we know?

So you can't disprove a philosophy if it is consistent with observation even if you don't think it is as likely as another philosophy that would amount to the same observations.

[Aethelwulf]

How do you know it is a photon giving you that information and your brain isn't just making that information up. Our brains make up stuff all the time. This is why many illusions work. It doesn't matter if they are visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory or tactile in nature.

This is the point. Everything you know stems originally from these senses. All these senses are products of our brain and our brain can and does short circuit the chain. Your universe is the sum of everything you've experienced. If someone else makes an observation you don't know about is it part of your universe? How do you know they made the observation? Once you know they made the observation how do you know your knowledge that they made the observation isn't generated by your mind.

caveman1917 is right. While you, me, caveman1917 and most other people accept our brain doesn't make up the universe around us it isn't a logical proof. Science is based on the fact that I am not just dreaming this but thee is nothing logically inconsistent with me being in some very vivid and self consistent dream. Like wise there is nothing inconsistent with me not being real at all but just some type of very advanced program running in some machine some where. There are some very strong arguments that we are more likely then not some type of simulation and not really real ourselves. How would we know?

So you can't disprove a philosophy if it is consistent with observation even if you don't think it is as likely as another philosophy that would amount to the same observations.

Because, as I explained to caveman, we have evidence showing us that when we sleep, it is quite different to being awake. Unless you consider being awake is another dream state, in which case create you own thread and peddle that psuedoscientific idea. Please, go right ahead, but not here please. Now discuss something else, I am sick and tired of that rubbish.

[WayneFrancis]

We have scientific measurements which record photon's hitting off the retina. We have further scientific evidence which shows that this information goes into our neural networks as a two dimensional image. The only thing science cannot fully answer for is how the brain recasts this two dimensional image into the three dimensional phenomenon known as perception. This is perhaps the only unknown. The rest is very scientific.

Saying we have no existence of the outside world, you may as well say that every scientific experiment is bogus. I find that extremely unlikely.

But the point is you can't tell if your observation of the scientific evidence isn't also just in your head.

IE I can dream about seeing something. I can dream that while I'm seeing something some device shows my retina responding to what is thought to be photons. I can dream that same device records photons bouncing off my retina.

No one here is saying that science doesn't treat the world as real. What we are saying is that science can't prove the world is real or not because the 2 situations can have EXACTLY the same results.

So while science, and most of us hear agree with you in that the universe around us is real and not just in my mind, science can not confirm this. You seem to be frustrated by wanting to prove a philosophical view scientifically when science by its nature could not distinguish between a real universe, a really good dream, a really good simulation.

So science just assumes that the universe is self consistent and doesn't speak on something that can not be tested, even in theory.

[WayneFrancis]

The answer would be we would have to all have the same consciousness, but my experience tells me otherwise. What a mind makes up, would have to be an asymptotic phenomena of another. But my mind is quite clearly independent of yours.

Really? Having worked in the mental health field I know people that see and hear people that I don't. They are convinced these people are independent of themselves yet from my perspective it is just them making stuff up in their head. But who knows. Maybe it is all just me having these delusions and the people that hear voices are just vivid multi sensory figments of my imagination. Just like you...I might have made you up without even knowing it while I'm in some 10 billion year or 2 second slumber.

[WayneFrancis]

I've never had an identity issue in a dream, no. But then if I did, I wouldn't be surprised. It is a dream after all. Like I wouldn't get too serious over a movie... because you know... it's a movie.

You've never cried at a movie? You've never been scared at a movie? You've never laughed at a movie? You've never had your heart race watching a movie? I mean they are just movies so why should you get scared, excited, happy, sad.

[WayneFrancis]

One that differentiates between knowing we are not in a dream state? Hold on. There are plenty experiments which actually probe the mind when we are asleep. There are unique differences between being asleep and being awake.

But you are now going outside of your mind to verify that all of this isn't just in your mind. As it has been said many times here I can dream about all those experiments. So please answer question CM1. What test can you preform that would falsify the possibility that I'm just dreaming all this or that my mind is just hooked up to a simulation that provides my brain with the exact same stimulus that me not being in a simulation would.

[WayneFrancis]

Aethelwulf please answer this question


...
CM1: Provide an experiment that would falsify the hypothesis that the world is a product of my mind. Describe this experimental setup in detail, and specifically state what result would show that the world i perceive is not a product of my mind.
...

Your "answer" in post number 42


The fact we extract information from any experiment designed to probe reality is an experiment against your favor. Understand that and we might get somewhere.

is not an answer. All it shows is that science assumes that the universe will be self consistent and it doesn't care if the universe is a construct of a single mind, a simulation or some other configuration that would appear to us as what we see now.

The problem with your base idea is you are doing the equivalent to "God does/does not exist therefore x, y & z" since the first part of that is not scientifically provable one way or another it is not science.

I guess a good way to put it is that science is agnostic on the issue of "Is the universe independent of my mind or is the universe a product of my mind"

[tusenfem]

Our equation should be of the form.

\begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \\ z \end{pmatrix}= (V_1,AV_2,BV_3)


You probably want to say that x is a function f(V1, V2, V3), and I have no idea why you put in A and B.



Thus if we have:

x+2y+3z=6

then

(x,y,z)=(1,1,1)

We make them equal, 1,1 and 1, and we may see it is a solution to the value x+2y+3z=6.


and you can have (0,0,2) or (0,3,0), also solutions of the equation that you are looking at.



We set it to zero:

x+2y+3z=0

We require two solutions, and to check if it is linearly independent, thus we can have:

(-2,1,0) and (-3,0,1)


No, it does not require two solutions, there are (at least) 2 solutions, like there were (at least) 3 solutions to the equation equal to 6.
If you want to discuss math, then you better do it correctly, you seem, like in your "philosophical discussions" just to put down what you like, whether founded in science or not. You actually have to explain what you want to do, and that means state at the beginning that you want to find all possible solutions to your equal 6 equation. If you don't say that, then we just have to guess, why you only come up with one solution (when there are clearly more) and why you suddenly are interested in the equal 0 equation. It is all in the clear explanations.



they are not linearly independent so the general solution of the entire form is:

\begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \\ z \end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 1 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}+A\begin{pmatrix} -2 \\ 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}+B\begin{pmatrix} -3 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}


Are you sure about the linear dependancy? Methinks you don't know what linear dependency is if you claim that the two solutions are not linearly independent, or it may be a typo???? In a simple way it is that if you find solutions P, Q and R of your equal zero equation, then these solutions are linearly independent when you cannot write that cP + dQ = eR with c,d,e elements of N.

What you wrote down is a simple way of getting the whole set of solutions, so please write the text correctly, think a bit about what you want to present, read if it is correct or not.



And this is a mathematical description of a linear subspace in a matrix.


No, not in a matrix, what is a matrix exactly?
You have here a vector equation giving you a 3D subset of 3D space that describe all points for the equal 6 equation.




Now, a subspace of is a subset that is a vector space itself and a subset of a vector space is just a set of elements from the vector space - so not every subset is a subspace, but every subspace is a subset. The mind surely would be a subset in this case. And, assuming we are talking about vector spaces, we may call the mind a subdimension, just for clarity to remind ourselves that in this bubble of perception, we do realize a three dimensional image. It is almost like as if the mind is trying to make an exact copy of what it is observing, hence why I use the set theory logic that no subset can model it's larger superset precisely.

first bold: read what you write before posting it!
second bold: prove it.

[Luckmeister]

Aethelwulf, I assume there is an objective reality because it is the philosophical view that works best for me. I do not consider that view scientifically proven or provable but I don't care. I don't need to do that to make sense of the world to my satisfaction. I also don't feel the need to seek scientific proof that I'm happy, sad or in love. It's important to know there are times when it's appropriate to take off the lab coat. :)

[captain swoop]

Cogito ergo sum as the man once wrote.

[captain swoop]

I am not answering caveman anymore. He's asking questions I have already answered to him. We've actually covered these evidences way back. His memory must be failing him, but mine hasn't.

You will answer questions that relate directly to the thread. Ignore them at your peril. Please read the rules for posting in this Forum.

If you have a problem with any post then report it do not ignore posters because you don't like or can't answer the questions. 'I don't know' is always a good answer.

[amazeofdeath]

I'll get to this in a moment, but for someone who mentions that there is no evidence of the objective world, external to our feeling of it, makes me worried if his overall view of the scientific facts are clearly understood in the first place.What is this evidence of the objective world? As others have said, our scientific facts are not inconsistent with a universe that my mind has created for me. That there seems to exist things that seem to be far older than I am is not evidence that they exist objectively.

You seem to be confused about the limitations of science. Science "works" because the universe we apply it to has proven to be internally consistent so far. Science or scientific method would work as well for people living only in a computer simulation I made, as long as the simulation is internally consistent (but it could be very different from a universe like ours), and it could not tell them that they exist only in the simulation. This is the same position we are in.

As a comic relief: http://abstrusegoose.com/455

[Aethelwulf]

You probably want to say that x is a function f(V1, V2, V3), and I have no idea why you put in A and B.



and you can have (0,0,2) or (0,3,0), also solutions of the equation that you are looking at.



No, it does not require two solutions, there are (at least) 2 solutions, like there were (at least) 3 solutions to the equation equal to 6.
If you want to discuss math, then you better do it correctly, you seem, like in your "philosophical discussions" just to put down what you like, whether founded in science or not. You actually have to explain what you want to do, and that means state at the beginning that you want to find all possible solutions to your equal 6 equation. If you don't say that, then we just have to guess, why you only come up with one solution (when there are clearly more) and why you suddenly are interested in the equal 0 equation. It is all in the clear explanations.



Are you sure about the linear dependancy? Methinks you don't know what linear dependency is if you claim that the two solutions are not linearly independent, or it may be a typo???? In a simple way it is that if you find solutions P, Q and R of your equal zero equation, then these solutions are linearly independent when you cannot write that cP + dQ = eR with c,d,e elements of N.

What you wrote down is a simple way of getting the whole set of solutions, so please write the text correctly, think a bit about what you want to present, read if it is correct or not.



No, not in a matrix, what is a matrix exactly?
You have here a vector equation giving you a 3D subset of 3D space that describe all points for the equal 6 equation.




first bold: read what you write before posting it!
second bold: prove it.

It's been a while since I did any of these calculations. A very long while. I don't even need to prove it this way. I was thinking out loud yesterday.

My original statements in the OP hold. I only said this about the subspaces because Readonly was challenging the idea that I could not use the universe as a set... But I proved that wrong anyway, didn't I?

[Aethelwulf]

In fact, the calculations I wrote down here for the subspaces, was exactly how I did them three years ago, I have it written down in the work jotter here, in my hands. I probably should have took the time last night to go through it for mistakes. But well done, you managed to find mistakes that were made by someone under-experienced.

[Aethelwulf]

''Are you sure about the linear dependancy? Methinks you don't know what linear dependency is if you claim that the two solutions are not linearly independent, or it may be a typo???? ''

Almost certainly a typo.

[Aethelwulf]

Aethelwulf, I assume there is an objective reality because it is the philosophical view that works best for me. I do not consider that view scientifically proven or provable but I don't care. I don't need to do that to make sense of the world to my satisfaction. I also don't feel the need to seek scientific proof that I'm happy, sad or in love. It's important to know there are times when it's appropriate to take off the lab coat. :)

I don't know.

[Aethelwulf]

Aethelwulf please answer this question



Your "answer" in post number 42



is not an answer. All it shows is that science assumes that the universe will be self consistent and it doesn't care if the universe is a construct of a single mind, a simulation or some other configuration that would appear to us as what we see now.

The problem with your base idea is you are doing the equivalent to "God does/does not exist therefore x, y & z" since the first part of that is not scientifically provable one way or another it is not science.

I guess a good way to put it is that science is agnostic on the issue of "Is the universe independent of my mind or is the universe a product of my mind"

I don't know.

[Aethelwulf]

But you are now going outside of your mind to verify that all of this isn't just in your mind. As it has been said many times here I can dream about all those experiments. So please answer question CM1. What test can you preform that would falsify the possibility that I'm just dreaming all this or that my mind is just hooked up to a simulation that provides my brain with the exact same stimulus that me not being in a simulation would.

I don't know.

[Aethelwulf]

You've never cried at a movie? You've never been scared at a movie? You've never laughed at a movie? You've never had your heart race watching a movie? I mean they are just movies so why should you get scared, excited, happy, sad.

Yes, these are mirror neurons inside my head which make me empathize to a story. But it is still a story and I can differentiate between reality and fiction, unlike some.

[Aethelwulf]

But the point is you can't tell if your observation of the scientific evidence isn't also just in your head.

IE I can dream about seeing something. I can dream that while I'm seeing something some device shows my retina responding to what is thought to be photons. I can dream that same device records photons bouncing off my retina.

No one here is saying that science doesn't treat the world as real. What we are saying is that science can't prove the world is real or not because the 2 situations can have EXACTLY the same results.

So while science, and most of us hear agree with you in that the universe around us is real and not just in my mind, science can not confirm this. You seem to be frustrated by wanting to prove a philosophical view scientifically when science by its nature could not distinguish between a real universe, a really good dream, a really good simulation.

So science just assumes that the universe is self consistent and doesn't speak on something that can not be tested, even in theory.

I don't know.

[Aethelwulf]

first bold: read what you write before posting it!
second bold: prove it.

''The mind surely would be a subset in this case.''

Well, if the mind is a subset B, but is not a vector subspace, it cannot contain all the elements that you would find in A. If B was a vector space containing all the same elements as A, our universe, then it would be subspace of A.

[Aethelwulf]

Now, I am trying to write up a thread on spontaneous symmetry breaking and the Higgs model. From now on in this thread, I will be posting ''I don't know'' to answers. Because some are being obtuse, others are just repeating themselves. So just a warning, I will reply, just not with all the details I just did once before.

[tusenfem]

It's been a while since I did any of these calculations. A very long while. I don't even need to prove it this way. I was thinking out loud yesterday.



My Bold.
Yes, and that is your problem, you seem to just go on and on without any pre-thoughts whatsoever, just write down what you happen to think. That is NOT how it works in ATM, and you know it, because that was the reason that your other thread got closed. The only idea you had apparently is in your OP, and nothing further, you just make it up as you go. This is your last chance to improve on actually presenting your case. This thread is this > < close from getting closed too, in my view.

[Aethelwulf]

Actually, I'd prefer it if it was closed. I asked a moderator yesterday to close it because the discussion was getting no further than suppose ''tautologies'' even though there can only be one logical order. And the only part I thought about loud yesterday was a work I wrote out years ago when first learning about subspaces - my fault for not checking for errors mind you.

Please close this thread.

[Jim]

Aethelwulf, you are lucky tusenfem responded before I had the chance, because I would have infracted you. Your arrogance, condescension, and generally boorish behaviour don't play well here.

You do not get to decide which questions you will or will not answer. You do not get to open an ATM thread and then ask for it to be closed because you don't like the questions or cannot answer them. ATM threads are closed because their 30 days are up, or because the OP has withdrawn the original ATM claims.

[John Mendenhall]

Oh yes that's quite right. Thank you.

I think, at the very least, that you are misapplying set theory in a metaphysical idea.

You're allowed your opinion. This is why I posted this here... but I am curious, what you think is metaphysical about this?

“A set is a collection of well defined and distinct objects, considered as an object in its own right.”

The above is the very first line from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_%28mathematics%29

Attempting to use the universe as a set does not work. The universe does not consist of well defined and distinct objects. It is not even known for certain if the universe is finite or infinite, open or closed, flat or curved. And there is the uncertainty principle, relativistic considerations, black holes, dark matter, dark energy, etcetera to consider. See the quote from korjik below. From moment to moment the universe changes unpredictably due to quantum events. The universe fails the well defined and distinct objects test for sets. Your OP is incorrect because it is based on a false premise, that the universe can be considered as a set.

Too bad.

Regards, John M..

[Aethelwulf]

Well, I thought we had already established that a universe can be defined by a set. I even linked a paper which described the universe as a causal set, ... causal or not, it was described as a set no?

[Aethelwulf]

Because my OP had the work written wrong, I used the wrong symbol, I'd like to take back the assertions of the OP and have this closed now. I still think the general idea is correct... but because it has been presented wrong, I would like to take the whole thing back and have the thread closed now.