|
|
2013-12-02
Only a few hours ago the I Ching urged me to commit to my highest
aspiration and to announce my intention. It said "Make known
the arrival of a message from heaven and announce it at the Earth
altar. If you don't deliver your important message you will be cut
off and isolated. Call out. Tell us now. Now!" Then along
comes an invitation to do so on Facebook, which motivated this... :)
So, what is the highest
perceived benefit or aspiration of my Life?
More >
|
|
|
|
2013-11-26
I was recently asked: "Is QM in its abstract mathematical proceedure that applies to particles, and just abstract conceptualisations, not considered naive realism?"
No, it is called scientific realism because it claims that aspects of reality can be known scientifically. Scientific realism can be naïve realist, for example via claims that particles are real. This is naïve realist because it is based on the assumption that that which is portrayed by our observations is real.
However in the case of QM it is not naïve realist - it is in fact the antithesis of naïve realism because it claims that the observables that we apprehend are not in any way objective, they are created in the act of observing and are thus totally dependent on how we observe.
Thus QM claims that anything that is portrayed by our experiences cannot be objectively real - whilst naïve realism claims that that which is portrayed by our experiences is objectively real. The two are diametrically opposed.
QM is realist because it claims that that which is represented by wavefunctions are real. I.e. they exist independently of our observations - in fact they are inherently unobservable. Whenever we try to observe them what we experience are the 'observables' that are created in the act of observing.
So QM doesn't claim that particles or waves are real, these are just observables. It is that which is represented by wavefunctions that are real and which give rise to observations of either a particle or a wave depending on how we observe it.
BTW QM doesn't claim that the mathematical proceedures are real - these are just symbolic models via which we comprehend quantum systems.
Hence this type of realism is scientific realism because the things that are considered to be real can only be apprehended by the mind via 'abstract' scientific conceptualisations. The fact that these are 'abstract' doesn't imply that they are unreal - in fact it implies the opposite.
Within a naïve realist paradigm 'abstract' means 'unreal' because it can never be portrayed by the content of an experience no matter how augmented that experience may be (e.g. by microscopes or telescopes or particle accelerators etc). Due to naïve realism we are in the habit of thinking that only the things portrayed by our experiences can be real and that everything else is abstract and unreal.
However, when we step away from naïve realism and seriously consider the role of experience we realise that if experience is fundamental and not just an anomaly then that which is most real must underlie our ability to experience. Furthermore, "that which underlies our ability to experience" cannot be "that which is portrayed by our experiences". Thus that which can be observed is unreal and that which is real would seem 'abstract' because it can never be observed.
In other words, to use a metaphor, reality is the sight within seeing rather than that which is seen. Hence the most real is the most abstract.
BTW it is very rare to find a coherent discussion of the non-naïve realist nature of QM. Most discussions try to introduce naïve realist features or apply it within a naïve realist context.
This is because over the past 80 or so years there have only been a handful of physicists who could think outside of naïve realism. Thus the standard attitude is that we should focus on the world that we know via naïve realism (i.e. the physical universe) and we should use QM to make calculation about that world. Meanwhile we should avoid any attempts to think about what QM really means, i.e. what it is really saying about the nature of reality.
Thus it has been declared over and over that QM makes no sense and that attempts to think deeply about it will drive you insane. This attitude arises because a naïve realist cannot conceive that there is anything beyond naïve realism, thus someone who thinks outside of naïve realism must be insane, or so it seems to them.
There are now a few physicists who are beginning to see beyond naïve realism, but the vast majority of physics and science in general is still thoroughly naïve realist.
Here is a very short article that I wrote for a fringe science newsletter regarding the paradigm shift that is slowly emerging within physics: http://anandavala.info/article/EmergingParadigm.pdf
A more detailed analysis is conducted here: http://anandavala.info/OIPVSE.pdf
Note: in order to conduct this research I had to break away from habitual ways of thinking by dropping out of academia, however this means that this work has no way of being heard by academics or others engaged in similar work. If these ideas resonate with you then you can help by bringing it to their attention.
Thank you for listening and helping! I hope that it helps you as much as it has helped me to develop a clearer understanding of the nature of reality.
|
|
|
|
2012-05-08
Some questions regarding the relation between a 'process' and a 'schema'.
Note: in this context a 'schema' is structured information that symbolically represents a process.
Examples of schemas are sheet music (for a musical sound-scape), written language (for a linguistic speech act), computer code (for a running application), DVD encoded data (for a digital movie) , html/php/... (for a website), wavefunction (for the dynamical evolution of a quantum system), neural activity (for a sensory or cognitive impression), etc. More >
|
|
|
|
2012-05-02
I was recently asked about introductory material to the
computational paradigm and its intersections with related fields of
ideas. Here's a bit of a brainstorm... More >
|
|
|
|
2011-03-06
Worldly concepts, words and thought processes cannot give the mind
enough traction to grasp reality. However the mind itself CAN grasp
these things and the intellect can understand. Although the word
'mind' means different things to different people... Hence I'll
explain a little of where I'm "coming from" in regards to
'mind'... More >
|
|
|
|
2010-12-28
I just read a very thought provoking article The
Truth by Eric
Gross, which I thoroughly enjoyed. In response to it something
came to mind, certainly not as a criticism but simply as an extra
dimension to consider... More >
|
|
|
|
2010-12-28
Some quotes from Advaita Vedanta:
“Truth must be discovered, but there is no formula for its
discovery. You must set out on the uncharted sea, and the uncharted
sea is yourself. You must set out to discover yourself…” (J
Krishnamurti)
- # - # - # - # - # - # - # - # - # - # -
"No person from outside can make you free... No one holds the
Key to the Kingdom of Happiness. No one has the authority to hold
that key. That key is your own self, and in the development and the
purification and in the incorruptibility of that self alone is the
Kingdom of Eternity..." (J. Krishnamurti)
- # - # - # - # - # - # - # - # - # - # -
“That which is the subtle essence, in it is the self of all that
exists. It is the True. It is the Self, and thou ... art it.”
(Chandogya Upanishad 4:10:1-3)
- # - # - # - # - # - # - # - # - # - # - More >
|
|
|
|
2010-07-31
This is the latest version of the structural basis of the high level design for a general innovation project. Note: I'll keep updating the diagram and adding comments until this design reaches a steady state...
Here are some slides of the various components shown separately... More >
|
|
|
|
2010-07-16
“A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste
not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.” (Alexander Pope)
Quotes from Chapter 13 “The Yoga of the Division of the Cosmos
into Body and Soul” from the Bhagavad Gita. More >
|
|
|
|
 2010-07-10
Let me relate to you a short story as an introduction to the real
subject of this article – the mathematical / metaphysical
foundations of a unified holistic science.
I was 21, working as a taxi driver and quite deeply 'absorbed'
with what one might call the occult, in particular Western Esoteric
(Kabbalistic) Ritual High Magick. However from surface appearances I
was "just a taxi driver".
During this time somehow the thought entered my awareness that "I
will descend into the swamp of modernity wherein I will find and
retrieve a 'Jewel of Immeasurable Worth' that lies unnoticed."
I didn't know what it meant - but the idea grew – not just an
intellectual idea, but an inspiring force. It hovered just beneath
the conscious mind; floating on the 'surface' of the subconscious.
Six months or so later another idea surfaced - "I will study
physics and computer science at Uni next year." And I did - all
up for about 5 years. ######## More >
|
|
|
|
2010-07-08
I am not very familiar with the "Integral
Theory" memeplex, however I have begun to observe and
contemplate it. In particular my mind is contemplating the
epistemological issue of...
How do Integral theory and naïve
realism relate?
This question can be disected into two questions:
How does Integral theory recognise (i.e. understand,
describe, represent and assimilate) the phenomenon of naïve
realism, either directly or indirectly via related phenomena?
How is Integral theory influenced at an epistemological level
by naïve realism?
If anyone has any comments,
links etc regarding these questions and potential answers, then
please let me know via facebook
or twitter or email.
Regarding the second question,
The following quote from "An
approach to critiques of integral theory" points to an area
in which the influence of naïve realism may potentially be found
within integral theory. More >
|
|
|
|
2009-09-30
.
|
|
|
|
2009-09-30
Notes from a brainstorm about symbolism and its
place in the broader context.
Firstly a mind-map that gives a high-level overview of the context
in which these thoughts take place (full size pdf), and then some brief notes.
More >
|
|
|
|
 2009-08-28
Below are extracts from the Lankavatara
Sutra that are related to naïve realism, information theoretic metaphysics and self-realisation.
All that is seen in the world is devoid of effort and action
because all things in the world are like a dream, or like an image
miraculously projected. This is not comprehended by philosophers and
the ignorant, but those who thus see things, see them truthfully.
Those who see things otherwise walk in discrimination, they cling to
dualism. The world as seen by discrimination is like seeing ones own
image reflected in a mirror, or ones shadow, or the moon reflected in
water, or an echo heard in a valley.
People grasping their own shadows of discrimination become
attached to this thing and that thing and failing to abandon dualism
they go on forever discriminating and thus never attain tranquillity.
By tranquillity is meant Oneness, and Oneness gives birth to the
highest Samadhi which is gained by entering into the realm of Noble
Wisdom that is realisable only within ones inmost consciousness... More >
|
|
|
|
2009-04-07
The general meaning of the term 'realism' is “A
tendency to face facts and be practical rather than imaginative or
visionary.” (ref)
however it is also the name of a particular philosophical
movement.
Realism is "in philosophy, the viewpoint which accords to
things which are known or perceived an existence or nature which is
independent of whether anyone is thinking about or perceiving them."
(http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/493091/realism)
"The nature and plausibility of realism is one of the most
hotly debated issues in contemporary metaphysics, perhaps even the
most hotly debated issue in contemporary philosophy. The question of
the nature and plausibility of realism arises with respect to a large
number of subject matters, including ethics, aesthetics, causation,
modality, science, mathematics, semantics, and the everyday world of
macroscopic material objects and their properties."
(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism/)
The aspect being discussed here is that of the "everyday
world of macroscopic material objects and their properties" and
the idea "that physical objects exist independently of their
being perceived." (http://www.answers.com/topic/realism)
In recent conversations and on several videos on the web I have
noticed that there is a tendency for minds to confuse the name of the
movement with the meaning of the word. This leads them to redefine
within their own minds the terms 'real' and 'reality', which leads to
enormous confusion in conversations about reality (that which
actually exists). For example, they say things such as “Reality
doesn't "actually exist"! All Realities are illusions. They
are only what we each perceive in our own minds. Realities only exist
in our own minds.” This is a common colloquial use of the
terms, which is directly contradictory to the standard dictionary and
philosophical meanings.
If we cannot coherently work towards an understanding of reality
(that which actually exists) so that we can effectively participate
in reality then we may soon no longer be a part of that which exists
(extinction). For this reason those who wish to converse coherently
about reality should clearly distinguish between the name
of a movement and the meaning
of the word, and should keep
to the commonly accepted definitions of 'real' and 'reality'.
Arbitrarily changing the meaning of such key words creates confusion
that is very harmful to coherent rational discourse.
To assist with this I include below a table with commonly accepted
meanings along one dimension and different usage patterns along the
other. Then I offer an explanation of why the confusion arises and
some alternative ways of communicating with naïve realists. Then I
also include a list of quotes from genuine realists (those who are
realistic) not nominal realists (those who ascribe to a particular
philosophical movement). More >
|
|
Page: 1 2 Older entries >> |
