Relational Quantum Mechanics and BK Idealism

[AshvinP]

So now your main argument has actually become a misreading of my sentence above... which would have been irrelevant even if it had been correct.

Not my main argument. The use of italics in that context was interesting, telling of something.

PTC speaks of the "Light" from the Sun by which, and only by which, we can all see clearly the path ahead of us.

Why the quotes around light? And why absolutes "only" and "all"?

Light from the sun come from the past, so technically going towards light means going towards past, toward what wasreflected. And visible light is only a small fraction of wavelengths. Bats inform their paths by echo-location, which reflects back the sound they emit. Endlessly wonderful differences in the sentient world. Sun is far from the only source of light, there's also bioluminescence.

As usual, we are not even close to discussing anything of importance any more. We didn't even start with Teilhard de Chardin, but you randomly inserted him into the discussion and now you can't even stick with what you inserted. You seem to think philosophy and spirituality is just talking about your favorite topic all the time and reducing everyone else's framework to your own. No one knows right now why "point-reductionism", "Hilbert space", or anything else is relevant to anything we started discussing earlier, because no one knows how those abstractions relate to any arguments made by Rovelli, Teilhard or anyone else. You just throw them in and don't even try to explain what the argument connecting these things are. You say Teilhard used the word "point", Christians think they are heading back to God, point-math is wrong, I don't like the idea of God or point, so... I am just going to pretend these things relate and, by a wave of my magic wand, I have debunked all of Western idealist philosophy and theology that is Christo-centric in any way. I would rather not waste time playing these games which only serve to distract from any meaningful discussion.

[SanteriSatama]

As usual, we are not even close to discussing anything of importance any more. We didn't even start with Teilhard de Chardin, but you randomly inserted him into the discussion and now you can't even stick with what you inserted. You seem to think philosophy and spirituality is just talking about your favorite topic all the time and reducing everyone else's framework to your own. No one knows right now why "point-reductionism", "Hilbert space", or anything else is relevant to anything we started discussing earlier, because no one knows how those abstractions relate to any arguments made by Rovelli, Teilhard or anyone else. You just throw them in and don't even try to explain what the argument connecting these things are. You say Teilhard used the word "point", Christians think they are heading back to God, point-math is wrong, I don't like the idea of God or point, so... I am just going to pretend these things relate and, by a wave of my magic wand, I have debunked all of Western idealist philosophy and theology that is Christo-centric in any way. I would rather not waste time playing these games which only serve to distract from any meaningful discussion.

Topic of the discussion is "Relational Quantum Mechanics and BK Idealism". All the discussion has been related to that topic.

Teilhard's theory is directly related in the way that it belongs to the same paradigm of point reductionism as the math of QM and GR. You appeared to concede that the geometric idea of Teilhard is BS, so it was time to drop Teilhard and move on more general and more detailed discussion of physicalism and the kind of idealist ontology the underlying mathematical theory of physicalism postulates.

How are we supposed to make any sense of RQM and QM in general, if we can't think clearly about the most basic concept on which physicalist theories are built on, the idea of 'point'? How can we make the shift from materialist frame to idealist frame in responsible way, if accept without questioning the point reductionism of materialism as the most basic form of idealist ontology?

BK says that we can just switch the metaphysical frame and accept the "laws of physics" as they are written in the formalist language of mathematics. I can't agree with that. The math which in materialist frame is just speculative post-modern language game, becomes very concrete ontology in idealist frame and idealist ontology of mathematics.

For some reason you are arguing against thinking and discussing mathematics as clearly and ethically responsibly as we can - in a thread about mathematical physics and how that relates to idealist ontology. I don't think you and other people are stupid and unable to comprehend and discuss basics of mathematics. There's some other reason for the reluctance to do so, for the lack of self-confidence to understand mathematics on the most basic level of most basic concepts, such as 'point'...

The situation is relatively new, it was not like that when people learned math from Euclid's Elementa, which is very clear and coherent proof narrative with the purpose to prove that there are five and only five Platonic solids. What changed, how did math become so frightening and incomprehensible Monk Latin in the minds of common people?

[AshvinP]

As usual, we are not even close to discussing anything of importance any more. We didn't even start with Teilhard de Chardin, but you randomly inserted him into the discussion and now you can't even stick with what you inserted. You seem to think philosophy and spirituality is just talking about your favorite topic all the time and reducing everyone else's framework to your own. No one knows right now why "point-reductionism", "Hilbert space", or anything else is relevant to anything we started discussing earlier, because no one knows how those abstractions relate to any arguments made by Rovelli, Teilhard or anyone else. You just throw them in and don't even try to explain what the argument connecting these things are. You say Teilhard used the word "point", Christians think they are heading back to God, point-math is wrong, I don't like the idea of God or point, so... I am just going to pretend these things relate and, by a wave of my magic wand, I have debunked all of Western idealist philosophy and theology that is Christo-centric in any way. I would rather not waste time playing these games which only serve to distract from any meaningful discussion.

Topic of the discussion is "Relational Quantum Mechanics and BK Idealism". All the discussion has been related to that topic.

Teilhard's theory is directly related in the way that it belongs to the same paradigm of point reductionism as the math of QM and GR. You appeared to concede that the geometric idea of Teilhard is BS, so it was time to drop Teilhard and move on more general and more detailed discussion of physicalism and the kind of idealist ontology the underlying mathematical theory of physicalism postulates.

How are we supposed to make any sense of RQM and QM in general, if we can't think clearly about the most basic concept on which physicalist theories are built on, the idea of 'point'? How can we make the shift from materialist frame to idealist frame in responsible way, if accept without questioning the point reductionism of materialism as the most basic form of idealist ontology?

BK says that we can just switch the metaphysical frame and accept the "laws of physics" as they are written in the formalist language of mathematics. I can't agree with that. The math which in materialist frame is just speculative post-modern language game, becomes very concrete ontology in idealist frame and idealist ontology of mathematics.

For some reason you are arguing against thinking and discussing mathematics as clearly and ethically responsibly as we can - in a thread about mathematical physics and how that relates to idealist ontology. I don't think you and other people are stupid and unable to comprehend and discuss basics of mathematics. There's some other reason for the reluctance to do so, for the lack of self-confidence to understand mathematics on the most basic level of most basic concepts, such as 'point'...

The situation is relatively new, it was not like that when people learned math from Euclid's Elementa, which is very clear and coherent proof narrative with the purpose to prove that there are five and only five Platonic solids. What changed, how did math become so frightening and incomprehensible Monk Latin in the minds of common people?

How can I possibly communicate more clearly than saying, "I don't need to play "devil's advocate", because I outright disagree with you about Teilhard". If you take that to mean your bolded phrase above, which is exact opposite of what I wrote, then what chance is there for coherent discussion? You don't seem to understand how you are importing the physicalist mindset into idealism by reducing spiritual ideas to mathematical concepts. Teilhard writes an entire book about deep spiritual ideas and you reduce them all to geometrical critique. My original point about Rovelli was simple - he employs deeply flawed philosophical assumptions in his philosophical argument. I said nothing about math or QM. How we got from there to here is anybody's guess... I am not going to bother going back through the posts, but I know for certain that I am not the one who took it in this direction. Just compare my conversation with DS, who seems to hold many of the same neo-animistic views that you do, with the one we are having. That conversation is still directly connected to Rovelli and his philosophical ideas. My refusal to engage in your games has nothing to do with the content of your argument and everything to do with the obfuscating approach you employ in all of these discussions, no matter what the title or topic of the thread. It's always the same argument repeated in slightly different manner with little consideration of what is actually being discussed.

[SanteriSatama]

How can I possibly communicate more clearly than saying, "I don't need to play "devil's advocate", because I outright disagree with you about Teilhard".

Basic reading comprehension goes big way in coherent communication. Yes, I tore apart the geometric theory of the Omega point, as that was relevant to the topic. All you did and do is to divert from that topic, which means that you concede my point about the Omega point.

You don't seem to understand how you are importing the physicalist mindset into idealism by reducing spiritual ideas to mathematical concepts.

I understand very well that in idealist frame mathematical concepts are spiritual ideas. If you disagree, please present your arguments and make your case why they are not.

My original point about Rovelli was simple - he employs deeply flawed philosophical assumptions in his philosophical argument. I said nothing about math or QM.

Nagarjuna's philosophy is not deeply flawed, nor Rovelli's discussion of it. The major implication of 'emptiness' is that also the concept of point is empty of inherent being, and thus the physicalist-formalist paradigm of point-reductionism can't be mathematically, scientifically, philosophically and spiritually coherent. That's what I said and keep on saying. I don't agree that discussing the genuine deep flaw of math and QM is obfuscation. To try to exclude mathematics and most basic geometric concepts from philosophy would be obfuscation.

According to the story, there was sign in Plato's Academy saying: "Let no one ignorant of geometry enter".

[AshvinP]

How can I possibly communicate more clearly than saying, "I don't need to play "devil's advocate", because I outright disagree with you about Teilhard".

Basic reading comprehension goes big way in coherent communication. Yes, I tore apart the geometric theory of the Omega point, as that was relevant to the topic. All you did and do is to divert from that topic, which means that you concede my point about the Omega point.

No, I kept pointing out how you do not understand his argument. I know that because you have never understood the metamorphic argument, no matter how many times and different ways I try to explain it you. I gave you Barfield's philology of the Incarnation and you dismissed it without even explaining why. Teilhard is writing about that very same process of evolving consciousness, but all you see is the word "point" and then you automatically shut down from any logical consideration of the underlying meaning that he is writing about. Same with my quote of his about "seeing" and "vision" - your argument against that was no more than a LOTR reference. He is speaking of higher cognition and spiritual sight - do you have anything of value to contribute to that discussion? If you think those things are made up, then explain why.

You don't seem to understand how you are importing the physicalist mindset into idealism by reducing spiritual ideas to mathematical concepts.

I understand very well that in idealist frame mathematical concepts are spiritual ideas. If you disagree, please present your arguments and make your case why they are not.

My original point about Rovelli was simple - he employs deeply flawed philosophical assumptions in his philosophical argument. I said nothing about math or QM.

Nagarjuna's philosophy is not deeply flawed, nor Rovelli's discussion of it. The major implication of 'emptiness' is that also the concept of point is empty of inherent being, and thus the physicalist-formalist paradigm of point-reductionism can't be mathematically, scientifically, philosophically and spiritually coherent. That's what I said and keep on saying. I don't agree that discussing the genuine deep flaw of math and QM is obfuscation. To try to exclude mathematics and most basic geometric concepts from philosophy would be obfuscation.

According to the story, there was sign in Plato's Academy saying: "Let no one ignorant of geometry enter".

The concept "point" or "triangle" is not a spiritual idea by itself. I hold the Trinity to be very important, but I don't argue for it by throwing around concepts like "triangle", "triad", "threefoldness", etc. without first explaining why they are relevant and how they fit into a much larger network of ideas which speaks to spiritual essence. And, if it makes it easier for you, I will just say that I see nothing wrong with using any mathematical concept, formal or informal, ancient or modern, rationalist or intuitionist, etc., just like I don't see anything wrong with speaking about 'matter' or 'physical body' or anything similar, IF it is useful for making distinctions in any given context. So I think your argument that "anything which speaks about points, lines, integers, nouns, etc. cannot be scientifically or spiritually coherent" is utter nonsense. I remember awhile back you also tried to debate Cleric on verbs vs. nouns and why he should not be using the latter in any spiritual context, and your argument now is the same as it was back then.

re: Rovelli - so you disagree with DS and I that he is relying on flawed house of mirrors argument with no light?

[SanteriSatama]

No, I kept pointing out how you do not understand his argument. I know that because you have never understood the metamorphic argument, no matter how many times and different ways I try to explain it you.

What I can say. What you discuss in theory, this body does in practice.

If you think those things are made up, then explain why.

I have already been at the "Omega point". A choice was given to me, whether to end all the suffering by ending the world, by stopping time and everything and canceling experiencing as such. I chose life, accepting also the pain and suffering that comes with the choice.

I made my choice, and if you disagree with that, I'm sorry and you are free to find your escape. I can only hope that you choose to stay around, the metamorphic process of helping to make this world a better place for all our children, to cause less suffering and to bring more joy, as a fellow traveler.

So I think your argument that "anything which speaks about points, lines, integers, nouns, etc. cannot be scientifically or spiritually coherent" is utter nonsense.

Where have I ever argued so?

[AshvinP]

No, I kept pointing out how you do not understand his argument. I know that because you have never understood the metamorphic argument, no matter how many times and different ways I try to explain it you.

What I can say. What you discuss in theory, this body does in practice.

If you think those things are made up, then explain why.

I have already been at the "Omega point". A choice was given to me, whether to end all the suffering by ending the world, by stopping time and everything and canceling experiencing as such. I chose life, accepting also the pain and suffering that comes with the choice.

I made my choice, and if you disagree with that, I'm sorry and you are free to find your escape. I can only hope that you choose to stay around, the metamorphic process of helping to make this world a better place for all our children, to cause less suffering and to bring more joy, as a fellow traveler.

So I think your argument that "anything which speaks about points, lines, integers, nouns, etc. cannot be scientifically or spiritually coherent" is utter nonsense.

Where have I ever argued so?

Where? That is the only argument you make over and over again. Just search your own comments on this forum and you will find plenty examples. But I think the bolded sentence tells us all we need to know. You have had psychedelic shamanistic experiences, probably without any sort of disciplined spiritual preparation, so now you have "already been" everywhere and done everything, and figured out all the mysteries of the Cosmos. Right, well... someone who feels that way is not going to be disabused of that feeling by anything that can be written here.

[DandelionSoul]

Just to chime in real quick since I was brought up, I don't necessarily think Rovelli's sense of dependent arising and emptiness is flawed. I do think the mirror-house analogy is flawed, but I think he was clumsily trying to make a point I'm pretty sure I agree with in substance. If I were to tweak it, I would fasten lights onto the mirrors, or make them luminous mirrors: without the other mirrors to reflect the light, there is no light (since light only exists in interaction), but without the lights, there is no reflection, so while there might still be mirrors strictly speaking (since we're using an analogy of pre-existing physical objects arranged just so), there might as well not be. All analogies are always imperfect, but I think that captures my view, and fills out what I think is his view, a little better.

[SanteriSatama]

Where? That is the only argument you make over and over again. Just search your own comments on this forum and you will find plenty examples.

Criticism of point-reductionism, the paradigm of formalism-physicalism, does not mean wholesale rejection of geometry and mathematics. On the contrary, the criticism comes from deep love of geometry and mathematics. The criticism comes from severe dislike for the intellectual dishonesty and spiritual irresponsibility of how the paradigm of formalism-physicalism abuses geometry and mathematics. There are better ways, and if you wish, I can share the intuitive truth of how I see 'point'.

But I think the bolded sentence tells us all we need to know. You have had psychedelic shamanistic experiences, probably without any sort of disciplined spiritual preparation, so now you have "already been" everywhere and done everything, and figured out all the mysteries of the Cosmos. Right, well... someone who feels that way is not going to be disabused of that feeling by anything that can be written here.

Psychadelics were not involved in that. This whole life has been spiritual preparation. The mysteries are endless and learning never stops, in the gift of this choice.

The actual experience of infinite love and mercy came later, in my first communion with Mother Ayahuasca, which was ministered by a Christian shaman.

I do feel abused and hurt by what you write.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Well this conversation between AP and SS as reached the point where the xiphoid points being made seem to have less and less to do with metaphysics, or the topic, and more and more to do with pointing towards cultural dissonance, diverging paths, and duelling personality types and styles of expression, bent on taking affront at every turn. Please, surely there's a way to disagree without all the twitterish umbrage.