What constitutes “observation” (/“measurement”)

[SanteriSatama]

So do you think this had no history before it arrived in this solar system? What was it before it arrived here?

Palindromic quantum time keeps on (re)writing both history and future. From that perspective it was as we measure from this perspective of our present duration.

Also, our temporal math-measurements in quantum time don't expand to eternity-infinity, there are horizons where questions about history become meaningless, relative to the math theory used to measure.

PS: CPT symmetry is empirical adjusting of QT about half a century after QM became a thing in physics. In that sense it's most central and most latest empirical updating.

[Simon Adams]

"Pseudotranscendental" is not my word, just how the non-computable fairy dust of real numbers is sometimes called. To separate them from "genuine" transcendentals with some proof of a certain quality of very few finite algorithms or algorithm-families referred as pi, e and couple others.

Whether we find or invent mathematics, the answer is not either-or but bit of both. I think of human mathematicians as heuristic sub routines in general evolution of heavently-earthly mathematics.

Yes, algebra in general is bridge building, mostly between geometry and arithmetics, which means between continuous and discrete. I consider real numbers gloriously failed attempt of bridge engineering, harmoniously wobbly and collapsing bridge. Funny you should mention fractals. I'm starting to realize that they are im-pansions or implosions, instead of ex-.

You can think of real numbers as sort of a Indra's Net, which is a beautiful thought-form. But it's all static. Math is seeking gnothi seauton as a process, not just as a flower reflection for a narcissist math god to admire. :)

Yes you could say that Indra’s ‘real number net’ is the fractal unfolding of the mathematical ideas. Part of me thinks natural numbers sit at the idea level, although in some way that makes no rational sense, pregnant with meaning and potential that gets a bit lost in the particulars. What would an ‘essence’ of 2 or 7 ‘feel’ like? In there an ‘essence’ of prime, or fibonacci, or are those patterns in the net? Are imaginary numbers part of the net, and if so why do we only see complex numbers in QM?

The mind boggles :)

[Simon Adams]

Palindromic quantum time keeps on (re)writing both history and future. From that perspective it was as we measure from this perspective of our present duration.

Also, our temporal math-measurements in quantum time don't expand to eternity-infinity, there are horizons where questions about history become meaningless, relative to the math theory used to measure.

PS: CPT symmetry is empirical adjusting of QT about half a century after QM became a thing in physics. In that sense it's most central and most latest empirical updating.

Yes but I would argue that’s exactly what you expect when you’re dealing purely with the representation of something. Just because it didn’t represent physical properties before it arrived here, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I would argue that’s a physicalist mindset, it’s exactly what Rovelli thinks for that reason.

[AshvinP]

But there is only ideal content (meaning) of love, sadness, etc. through the spiritual activity of Thinking. This is so basic of a principle we fly right past it in thoughtful dialogues such as this one - it is implicit in everything we write but we fail to account for it in our intellectual arguments. Let's see if what we are discussing recently can be related back to your OP.

First off, what do we mean by physical properties? If two meteors hit each other in space, there is an impact. We know that this is just fields repelling each other, but equally this is something that would normally fall under the description of a physical event. The material properties play a critical role in determining the outcome of the collision. Is the suggestion that this event would be in any way different if it happened in a part of the universe that is further than 4 billion light years away from any planet that has life? If so, in what way would it be different?

You view this as a meaningful question precisely because you do not have to account for the ideal content of "physical properties" of meteors colliding with each other in space. I am arguing that the actual Reality of what happens in such events is to be found only in the ideal activity-content (which is essentially the same position as the philosophical realism of the Scholastics). You are imagining an event occurring independently of all living and conscious observation-participation because it allows a perspective where the ideal content does not have to be accounted for - that is also what the physicalists do when attempting to understand the essence of Reality.

So do you think this had no history before it arrived in this solar system? What was it before it arrived here?

Simon, I think we need to get back to basics. Physicalism is a problem because it treats the visual exterior of objects as the essence of that object, correct? And it is a problem because it treats the world as made of isolated objects in linear space-time rather than contiguous ideal processes. I suggest we cannot opt in and out of that understanding if we are speaking of essential relations. That does not mean specific phenomenon do not correspond to specific ideal relations, because I believe they do, but we cannot determine those essential relations by simple surface study of the phenomenon, and no matter what we cannot imagine our essence is not participating in the 'objects' of our inquiry. Nothing exists without ideal content under idealism, including all feelings and sensations no matter how simple or complex. Do you agree?

[SanteriSatama]

Yes but I would argue that’s exactly what you expect when you’re dealing purely with the representation of something. Just because it didn’t represent physical properties before it arrived here, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I would argue that’s a physicalist mindset, it’s exactly what Rovelli thinks for that reason.

Representation + perception theories postulate "objective reality" which is represented and perceived. That "aboutness" is the thoroughly outdated classical physics view. Measurement problem of QT is internal to math, and idealist evolution of math. Participatory creation, as Wheeler says.

Mathematical theories as spirits in MAL. A quarrelsome as well as loving family of math gods. Sitcom and Soap Opera of measurement-decoherence (two sides of same coin!) theories. That's what we get when we expand Rovelli's physical version of massively parallel analogues to foundational theories of math, instead of accepting the badly outdated and always very questionable formalist math of classical QM and Relativity as only possibility from here to eternity.

Yes you could say that Indra’s ‘real number net’ is the fractal unfolding of the mathematical ideas. Part of me thinks natural numbers sit at the idea level, although in some way that makes no rational sense, pregnant with meaning and potential that gets a bit lost in the particulars. What would an ‘essence’ of 2 or 7 ‘feel’ like? In there an ‘essence’ of prime, or fibonacci, or are those patterns in the net? Are imaginary numbers part of the net, and if so why do we only see complex numbers in QM?

The mind boggles

Well, Norman Wildberger sees natural numbers, integers and rational numbers (he does not accept real numbers) already as a p2p fractal structure of semi-independent and intercommunicating number theories, instead of a simple nesting hierarchy as the standard narrative goes.

Context matters hugely, and there's big difference between talking about rational (or "polynumber") i, complex plane etc., and analogous concepts in real number domain. Polynumbers are a new construction-evolution from Wildbergers mainly discrete approach, which I still struggle to make good sense of, but very interesting development parallel to my own foundational musings.

In my view, ie. current mostly very intuitive hunches, coprimes and fibonacci-phi stuff are far more important and interesting patterns than the static picture of Indra's Net. What I listed are very dynamical-foundational principles of creation of Unique Beauty, instead of diamonds-all-same.

[AshvinP]

But there is only ideal content (meaning) of love, sadness, etc. through the spiritual activity of Thinking. This is so basic of a principle we fly right past it in thoughtful dialogues such as this one - it is implicit in everything we write but we fail to account for it in our intellectual arguments. Let's see if what we are discussing recently can be related back to your OP.



You view this as a meaningful question precisely because you do not have to account for the ideal content of "physical properties" of meteors colliding with each other in space. I am arguing that the actual Reality of what happens in such events is to be found only in the ideal activity-content (which is essentially the same position as the philosophical realism of the Scholastics). You are imagining an event occurring independently of all living and conscious observation-participation because it allows a perspective where the ideal content does not have to be accounted for - that is also what the physicalists do when attempting to understand the essence of Reality.

So do you think this had no history before it arrived in this solar system? What was it before it arrived here?

Simon, I think we need to get back to basics. Physicalism is a problem because it treats the visual exterior of objects as the essence of that object, correct? And it is a problem because it treats the world as made of isolated objects in linear space-time rather than contiguous ideal processes. I suggest we cannot opt in and out of that understanding if we are speaking of essential relations. That does not mean specific phenomenon do not correspond to specific ideal relations, because I believe they do, but we cannot determine those essential relations by simple surface study of the phenomenon, and no matter what we cannot imagine our essence is not participating in the 'objects' of our inquiry. Nothing exists without ideal content under idealism, including all feelings and sensations no matter how simple or complex. Do you agree?

To directly answer your question - I have no idea what Oumuamua points to in the underlying ideal foundations of the Cosmos, but I know that it does not point to another physical object limited by spatio-temporal dimensions or a "mental object" that is basically the same except we imagine it filled with "mental stuff". Furthermore, I know that my thinking activity (which is fundamentally shared with all other perspectives of Being) is essential to it because we cannot perceive without ideation and ideal content. The reasons for that conclusion are in my metamorphic essays (particularly Part I). I notice all too often people simply ignore the metamorphic progression of Spirit without presenting any actual arguments why it did not occur or is not important to factor in when discussing essential relations of the Cosmos. But even without assuming any such process for humanity at large, we know perceiving-thinking are inseparable from one another in our own experience. As Jean Piaget remarked, "What I see changes what I know and what I know changes what I see." (he meant that literally in the context of developmental psychology)

[Simon Adams]

Simon, I think we need to get back to basics. Physicalism is a problem because it treats the visual exterior of objects as the essence of that object, correct?

Correct. Clearly it’s not the “visual exterior” as a physicalist would see it, but yes, they treat the way objects interact with things as how they are.

And it is a problem because it treats the world as made of isolated objects in linear space-time rather than contiguous ideal processes. I suggest we cannot opt in and out of that understanding if we are speaking of essential relations.

But “essential relations” are what produce the physical properties surely? What is the one “thing in itself” that we do actually know? It’s ourselves, surely? Do you stop existing when you stop observing and being observed? No, you have your own mind, and your own being. I’m not denying that relations play an important role beyond representation, but you seem to be denying that things have any existence (rather than physical properties) other than in terms of relation.

That does not mean specific phenomenon do not correspond to specific ideal relations, because I believe they do, but we cannot determine those essential relations by simple surface study of the phenomenon, and no matter what we cannot imagine our essence is not participating in the 'objects' of our inquiry. Nothing exists without ideal content under idealism, including all feelings and sensations no matter how simple or complex. Do you agree?

Yes I agree with that. I think my version of ‘participating’ is far weaker than yours. I see the participation as being no different to entanglement. When you observe something, you and that thing are entangled, and in that entanglement your properties are shared. But the continuity and consistency of objects to all observers suggests to me that there is something to the phenomena beyond the entanglement. Yes time and space are in no way fundamental, and so at a fundamental level, matter, time and space are ephemeral. But they are just the stage, the necessary context, not the story where the meaning sits, so why are you so concerned about talking about the stage as having a kind of independent existence?

[SanteriSatama]

Do you stop existing when you stop observing and being observed? No, you have your own mind, and your own being.

Well, if someone feels that he/she is not being felt by any sentient being, that kind of existentially deep loneliness can often lead to withering away from biological existence. That is the difference between feeling lonely, and being socially alone without feeling unfelt, feeling felt in some field of sentience. The latter we can endure fine and enjoy, the former not so well.

Also metacognitive layer seems profoundly social network of discoursive durations.

[Simon Adams]

To directly answer your question - I have no idea what Oumuamua points to in the underlying ideal foundations of the Cosmos, but I know that it does not point to another physical object limited by spatio-temporal dimensions or a "mental object" that is basically the same except we imagine it filled with "mental stuff". Furthermore, I know that my thinking activity (which is fundamentally shared with all other perspectives of Being) is essential to it because we cannot perceive without ideation and ideal content.

Here we just disagree. This reminds me of a maths teacher I had, who would sometimes say … “you must go step by step, and do not JUMP” … suddenly jumping up onto someone’s desk. Crazy but effective way of teaching

To me it goes;

- Matter has no properties other than as an interaction (tick)
- The essence of the phenomena is more like mind than anything else (tick)
- The essence of phenomena is something we can’t know through our senses (tick)
- The essence of the phenomena doesn’t exist without me (woooaahh …)

The reasons for that conclusion are in my metamorphic essays (particularly Part I). I notice all too often people simply ignore the metamorphic progression of Spirit without presenting any actual arguments why it did not occur or is not important to factor in when discussing essential relations of the Cosmos. But even without assuming any such process for humanity at large, we know perceiving-thinking are inseparable from one another in our own experience.

I just don’t agree with much of it. I don’t think perception creates stuff, it just causes it’s physical properties.

As Jean Piaget remarked, "What I see changes what I know and what I know changes what I see." (he meant that literally in the context of developmental psychology)

To me this statement makes complete sense. Whenever you quote something (apart from Steiner), I see something very different from what you are arguing It could be rephrased “I learn from what I see, and what I learn changes how I see it”. You are of course reading something else into it. I don’t know the context, but is there anything in the context to suggest your reading?

[AshvinP]

Simon, I think we need to get back to basics. Physicalism is a problem because it treats the visual exterior of objects as the essence of that object, correct?

Correct. Clearly it’s not the “visual exterior” as a physicalist would see it, but yes, they treat the way objects interact with things as how they are.

And it is a problem because it treats the world as made of isolated objects in linear space-time rather than contiguous ideal processes. I suggest we cannot opt in and out of that understanding if we are speaking of essential relations.

But “essential relations” are what produce the physical properties surely? What is the one “thing in itself” that we do actually know? It’s ourselves, surely? Do you stop existing when you stop observing and being observed? No, you have your own mind, and your own being. I’m not denying that relations play an important role beyond representation, but you seem to be denying that things have any existence (rather than physical properties) other than in terms of relation.

Yes, that bolded part is definitely a clear implication of what I am saying re: participatory consciousness. As usual, when discussing these things, a great discussion pops up that is extremely relevant. This time it is BK's discussion with Mark Vernon, now playing here -



They get into Barfield and these issues pretty quickly. Around 30 minute mark they begin discussing Rovelli and "relational QM". Quantities (physical properties) are, in essence, qualitative relations. There is no such thing as isolated objects which exist with physical properties apart from such relations. I think that much is confirmed by modern science. But there will always be the temptation to say "ok that is how it is for natural science, but that does not tell us anything about the underlying spiritual Reality". My response is always, "we only think that way because of the Cartesian-Kantian divides". Otherwise it would not occur to separate natural science and spirituality in that manner, as it did not occur to medieval philosophers like Aquinas.

The thing-in-itself we actually know is our own thinking activity (if the word "know" pops up that is a big hint we are dealing with such activity). As discussed in Transfiguring our Thinking essay, that activity is where the phenomenon and noumenon are clearly and undeniably united in our experience. Everything else presents to us as a riddle and we must employ our thinking activity to figure out how it relates to us and the world at large. We may convince ourselves through mere intellect beholden to unexamined assumptions that we are describing phenomenon apart from their relation to us, which is what the physicalist convinces himself of, but that is not what we are actually doing. We are always dealing in relational qualities.

That does not mean specific phenomenon do not correspond to specific ideal relations, because I believe they do, but we cannot determine those essential relations by simple surface study of the phenomenon, and no matter what we cannot imagine our essence is not participating in the 'objects' of our inquiry. Nothing exists without ideal content under idealism, including all feelings and sensations no matter how simple or complex. Do you agree?

Yes I agree with that. I think my version of ‘participating’ is far weaker than yours. I see the participation as being no different to entanglement. When you observe something, you and that thing are entangled, and in that entanglement your properties are shared. But the continuity and consistency of objects to all observers suggests to me that there is something to the phenomena beyond the entanglement. Yes time and space are in no way fundamental, and so at a fundamental level, matter, time and space are ephemeral. But they are just the stage, the necessary context, not the story where the meaning sits, so why are you so concerned about talking about the stage as having a kind of independent existence?

Well we could say it that way, but then we must recognize we are always "observing" the phenomenon in question. Thinking is a form of observation, as I claimed with regards to the inseparability of perceiving-thinking. How do objects gain "continuity and consistency"? It is not by virtue of one person merely observing (without thinking) and another person merely observing and then matching up their mere observations. It is by virtue of the ideal content added to the mere perceptions by Thinking activity. Only after that do we say there is continuities and consistencies in the phenomenal world. If we do not recognize that inter-dependence, then we are defaulting to physicalist view under guise of "idealism" and I assume nearly everyone here thinks that is a concern, otherwise they would not be here. Such a view removes all meaning behind the natural symbols of the phenomenal world and redirects it into various idols (or simply gives way to nihilism), such as politics, economics and religious dogmatic conceptions.