Proving that the Universe is not Observer-Mind-Dependant

[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.

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:



then



We make them equal, 1,1 and 1, and we may see it is a solution to the value .

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:



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

and

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:

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.