The Problem of evoL

[duderonomy]

On 7/8/2022 at 9:15 AM, Edgarcito said:

The key is none of the X's are absolute that we know of... 

 

Do you know of anything absolute? 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

23 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Do you know of anything absolute? 

 

Absolute is absolute.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Except when it's not absolute.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

[Edgarcito]

On 8/1/2022 at 11:38 PM, duderonomy said:

 

Do you know of anything absolute? 

Nothing that I am aware.  There will always be something smaller to understand and something larger.  Always more possibilities than we can calculate.  The Prof speculated love as an absolute.....but betting he would have to employ faith just like the rest.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Nothing that I am aware.  There will always be something smaller to understand and something larger.  Always more possibilities than we can calculate.  The Prof speculated love as an absolute.....but betting he would have to employ faith just like the rest.

 

There always was something smaller and larger to understand than anything we can understand.

 

There always were more possibilities than we can calculate.

 

But do either of these facts actually change anything we do understand?

 

And if so, how?

 

 

[duderonomy]

17 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

Prof,

 

This is just all kinds of wrong. You need to show what absolute means it the original Greek, not in Swedish.

 

40% alcohol by volume too. That's not very strong evidence.

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

20 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

There always was something smaller and larger to understand than anything we can understand.

 

There always were more possibilities than we can calculate.

 

But do either of these facts actually change anything we do understand?

 

And if so, how?

 

 

Yes, because the things we don't know, the aforementioned, effect the predictability.....our inability to adequately communicate, one.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Yes, because the things we don't know, the aforementioned, effect the predictability.....our inability to adequately communicate, one.

 

Could you please give a worked example, Ed?

 

One showing the 'before' and 'after', where something is changed by what we don't know.

 

That way we can see the mechanism at work.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

Ok, how about this, Ed?

 

Before the discovery that copper conducts electricity there always was something smaller and larger to understand than anything we can understand and there always were more possibilities than we can calculate.

 

After the discovery that copper conducts electricity there will always be something smaller and larger to understand than anything we can understand and there always will be more possibilities than we can calculate.

 

What has changed?  Copper didn't start or stop conducting electricity because of anything we did or didn't understand.  And it won't start or stop conducting electricity because of anything we haven't yet understood.  Nor will it start or stop conducting electricity because of anything we have yet to understand.

 

Perhaps the only thing that has the potential to change is our understanding of how copper conducts electricity. 

 

Reality remains exactly the same, regardless of our understanding of it.  So, perhaps you weren't talking about what we don't know affecting the things that cannot change?  But you were talking about the things we don't know affecting our understanding of things that cannot change?

 

How about that?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

As I understand Schrödinger's cat, and someone please correct me if I am wrong, one of the main premises was that one would not know if the cat was alive or dead until one opened the box; and one of the tenants that Schrödinger was arguing against was the idea (generally accepted at that time) that one's opening of the box would change the outcome of the experiment. 

 

This seems applicable here. 

[walterpthefirst]

6 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

As I understand Schrödinger's cat, and someone please correct me if I am wrong, one of the main premises was that one would not know if the cat was alive or dead until one opened the box; and one of the tenants that Schrödinger was arguing against was the idea (generally accepted at that time) that one's opening of the box would change the outcome of the experiment. 

 

This seems applicable here. 

 

Hmm... surely that depends on what Edgarcito actually meant, Prof?

 

If he meant that our understanding of something actually changes reality, then No, the above example wouldn't apply.

 

If he meant that our observation of something actually changes reality, then Yes, the above example would apply.

 

After all, with the Schrodinger's cat experiment, it's the act of observing the cat that 'appears' to cause the change.

 

Not our understanding of the experiment or our understanding of what we observe once we open the box.

 

But we need Ed to help us out here and explain what he means.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TABA]

[Edgarcito]

23 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Could you please give a worked example, Ed?

 

One showing the 'before' and 'after', where something is changed by what we don't know.

 

That way we can see the mechanism at work.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

Haven't thought this example all the way through, but how about tabula rasa, and now with the understanding that babies aren't blank slates.  Has this not changed the process for some?  Surely it has.  And it has Biblical background as well if I'm not misunderstanding.

[pantheory]

6 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

As I understand Schrödinger's cat, and someone please correct me if I am wrong, one of the main premises was that one would not know if the cat was alive or dead until one opened the box; and one of the tenants that Schrödinger was arguing against was the idea (generally accepted at that time) that one's opening of the box would change the outcome of the experiment. 

 

This seems applicable here. 

 

Yes, yours is the correct interpretation. Shroedinger thought that the statistical interpretation of Quantum Mechanics was ridiculous. He agreed with the probability understanding but believed that observing something did not change it excepting as what electrons and photons can do as information-gathering entities. In conclusion Shroedinger said concerning quantum physics and ridiculous probability interpretations, such as his thought experiment of a hypothetical cat.

 

"I don't like it and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it."    circa 1930

 

Erwin Schroedinger

 

The point is that the same obviously wrong IMO interpretations prevail today 2022.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Hmm... surely that depends on what Edgarcito actually meant, Prof?

 

If he meant that our understanding of something actually changes reality, then No, the above example wouldn't apply.

 

If he meant that our observation of something actually changes reality, then Yes, the above example would apply.

 

After all, with the Schrodinger's cat experiment, it's the act of observing the cat that 'appears' to cause the change.

 

Not our understanding of the experiment or our understanding of what we observe once we open the box.

 

But we need Ed to help us out here and explain what he means.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

This is what I am thinking today:

 

1) (An understanding = reality) < reality

2) (A new understanding = reality) < reality

 

What I see you suggesting is the initial parts of 1 & 2 somehow are more weighted than the latter parts.  

 

Is this what you believe?  And why?

 

Edit: In other words, if our reality were finite and we had a finite understanding and there were no Devine anything happening, don't you think that we might THEN predict why someone needs to drink or get high or is anxious?  

 

The Bible implies that God know that reality and knows your trajectory and has the ability to alter that.  

 

Thinking about it, I'm not sure if we DID live in a purely finite reality that we would have the ability to change trajectories....  It would just be a matter of defining the reality.  Ed's gonna shoot off to left field in the desert of west Texas surrounded by that group of people eating tacos.  Ed doesn't know it yet, but yeah....he's gonna land right over there....

[TheRedneckProfessor]

33 minutes ago, pantheory said:

"I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it."    circa 1930

Erwin Schrodinger

I'm also sorry he ever had anything to do with it.  I'm much more comfortable with the biological sciences where things make sense.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

14 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

This is what I am thinking today:

 

1) (An understanding = reality) < reality

2) (A new understanding = reality) < reality

 

What I see you suggesting is the initial parts of 1 & 2 somehow are more weighted than the latter parts.  

 

Is this what you believe?  And why?

End3, are you trying to argue that perception is 9/10th of reality and that as perception changes "reality" changes with it?

[walterpthefirst]

44 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Haven't thought this example all the way through, but how about tabula rasa, and now with the understanding that babies aren't blank slates.  Has this not changed the process for some?  Surely it has.  And it has Biblical background as well if I'm not misunderstanding.

 

Umm... it seems that we are talking at cross purposes, Ed.

 

I had thought you were positing that the moment we change our understanding of something, there's a corresponding and instantaneous change in the thing we are trying to understand.

 

It looks like the Professor was going down this road too, with his example of Schrodinger's cat, where the act of observing the cat instantly changes it into either a living cat or a dead one.

 

But, you seem to be describing something else with your example.  Not a problem tho'.

 

We'll just have to try again.

 

Walter.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

3 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

End3, are you trying to argue that perception is 9/10th of reality and that as perception changes "reality" changes with it?

 

This is what I thought Edgarcito was driving at too, Prof.

 

But perhaps he isn't.

 

?

[pantheory]

50 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'm also sorry he ever had anything to do with it.  I'm much more comfortable with the biological sciences where things make sense.

 

IMO all of it makes total sense. It is simply the misunderstandings and misinterpretations of reality that many have rightfully objected to in modern physics over the last century.

 

And yes, there is much more logic, and logic-of-theory promoted within the biological sciences.

[walterpthefirst]

19 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

This is what I am thinking today:

 

1) (An understanding = reality) < reality

2) (A new understanding = reality) < reality

 

What I see you suggesting is the initial parts of 1 & 2 somehow are more weighted than the latter parts.  

 

Is this what you believe?  And why?

 

Umm... sorry about this, Ed.

 

The Prof and I clearly don't understand what you really mean.

 

Can you help us out please?

 

 

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

End3, are you trying to argue that perception is 9/10th of reality and that as perception changes "reality" changes with it?

I'm understanding that there is either a finite reality or infinite.  OUR "reality" changes as we gain understanding of that  finite or infinite reality the farther out/more we discover.  And the better we might treat each other IN that understanding. 

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm understanding that there is either a finite reality or infinite.  OUR "reality" changes as we gain understanding of that  finite or infinite reality the farther out/more we discover.  And the better we might treat each other IN that understanding. 

 

Are you using the words 'understanding' and 'reality' interchangeably, Ed?

 

I ask because of the good people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Their reality ceased to exist faster than they could change their understanding of it.

 

Reality changed them, not the other way round.

[Edgarcito]

We won't ever know whether reality is absolute and finite or infinite because we don't have the ability.

 

Again, just thinking out loud, if reality was absolute, our outcomes are fixed.  If reality were infinite, our outcomes have the potential to change...

 

I'm thinking this relates to the quantum clusterscrew...but that just me.