Re: God=G_uv Retroactive Teleogical Causation?

From: bv_schornak (nowhere_at_schornak.de)
Date: 09/26/04 

Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:52:25 +0000 (UTC)

Russell E. Rierson wrote:

>bv_schornak wrote:
>
>
>>You still owe an answer to the question how something like space -
>>a _virtual construction_ in our mind (defined by length, width and
>>height) - could cause anything.
>>
>> From where do you derive a supernatural property that mathematical
>>objects can "cause" (= create?) objects which are real? Does _any_
>>physicist - except [Hammond] - support this claim?
>>
>A point particle moving in three dimensional space has three degrees
>of freedom. Space can be described as being a relational medium, that
>is to say, space is a relational mediator, having both freedom and
>deterministic[causal] constraints. All motion is relative motion,
>according to Einstein and Mach.
>
>http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/DegreeofFreedom.html
>
>Since space is only definable by the events that "relate" within it,
>it becomes abundantly and self-evidently clear, that matter[events]
>generates[defines] space. this is our first step in the realization of
>the fundamental 21st century paradigm shift. Spacetime cannot exist
>without matter-energy[events] that define it.
>
>A metric field can be defined by the primary substratum of events.
>Thus, the intrinsic geometrical structure of spacetime is predicated
>on
>the pseudo-Riemannian spaces via the affine relationships — all
>physical events are fully reducible to manifestations of the
>substratum i. e. the stochastic event density generating a metric
>field.
>
>
>The uncertainty principle and gravity are also related to the same
>mathematical properties. The proof of the uncertainty relation
>involves the Cauchy Schwartz inequality. The triangle inequality
>defining distance relationships, follows from the Cauchy Schwartz.
>
>
>Einstein quote:
>
>"Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in
>which we live."
>
>
>Einstein appears to agree with the George Hammond SPoG? Space and
>time are mental, thus coginitve and perceptual in nature. Perception
>and cognition form the quintessential basis of reality.
>
>
>According to philosopher Bishop Berkeley, God's existence is made
>evident by our everyday instances of perception. Because sensible
>objects are mind-dependent, yet exhibit a persistence and regularity
>that transcends our individual perceptions of them, it follows that
>there must be a master-perceiver - God, in whose mind they are
>maintained.
>

Nice! :)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Let's make a little experiment:

Imagine an empty table standing in the middle of a room.

It's there, 1x1x1 m, we just think we can touch it, yes?

Now let's define a "space" around this table with 2x2x2 m.

This far, we should have the same picture in mind...

Now - let's leave the room and lock the door. No one is in
the room now.

You've got it until now?

Now the difficult part:

What will happen in our "space" while we are not observing
it? Could it "cause" the table to move or transform into a
chair?

Could it be we'll find a good meal on the table if we open
the door?

Or the children's block we were talking about materialized
on the table?

If so, I will admit I was wrong - it would be obvious that
magic surrounds us... :)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Okay, switching to serious mode...

Space (space-time, to be precise) is something that exists
as a "whole". Our "local view" of a small piece of matter,
a small amount of energy or more complex relations between
both (energy and matter) isn't much more than a snippet of
reality. Due to our limited abilities and knowledge, we're
not able to "see" (or know!) all possible forces which may
influence our "local view". Therefore, we define all those
spaces, systems in motion and systems at rest limited to a
frame we are able to handle. Only within this chosen frame
(our "local view") events and objects become "predictable"
and computable (where prediction in many cases can be seen
as guessing).

The limitations and definitions are okay if we use them to
calculate something specific. But we always should have in
mind - these are results of our limited ("local") point of
view. We can't apply our "knowledge" to larger systems, it
would be out of our frame. Just imagine a map with _every_
curvature caused by gravitational fields in this Universe.
Now try to calculate one of these curvatures, related to a
randomly chosen, _universal_ coordinate system - including
all other curvatures influencing it. This is an impossible
task, we would need a database where every piece of matter
in the entire universe is stored.

Test your model of a "Universe depending on perception and
mind" against the consequences. If thoughts and perception
would form this Universe, it would be in permanent change.
Every new thought, every malfunction in the sensors of any
being would cause an immediate change of universal reality
for all beings in this Universe. Thus, neither science nor
mathematical models would be valid, because they _require_
a defined behaviour of every object and reliable universal
constants (e.g. the speed of light).

Einstein and SPoG? Hm, George abuses Einstein's equations,
of course. But that's a little bit like a child sitting in
a car, grabbing the steering wheel and humming "brrrrrmmm,
brrrrrmmm, ..."?

Some schools of Buddhism teach our spirit could be re-born
as a stone. How does a stone "perceive" the Universe? What
are the differences between this belief and the beliefs of
Bishop Berkeley? Which of both is of higher worth? Who can
tell us which of both is right and which is wrong? Beliefs
are beliefs, knowledge is knowledge, thoughts might belong
to the field of knowledge or beliefs. It's just a question
of the best match with reality, isn't it?

Greetings from Augsburg

Bernhard Schornak

Relevant Pages

  • Re: firing up the grill
    ... the perception did not match the reality are so few as to be negligible. ... general principles upon which the universe operates are still the goal ... The idea that the universe just materialized for no obvious reason has ... If I have a package of cookies that ordinarily contains twelve of the little ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Quantum Gravity 396.0: India Relates Difference of Exponentials (as in 395) to Visual Perception
    ... of the Universe and biological properties, ... has been made more precise for the enhancement of visual ... the Enhancement of Visual Perception Through Stochastic Resonance?", ... for two-time expansion of the Universe (t, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Why do people buy kosher?
    ... perception, and all of these discussions relate back to that. ... bridge between the "phenomenal" universe that we experience with our ... view, that perception is reality. ... brains perceive the ta'am of Torah, so too does that prove that Torah is ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: programming bomb-testing experiment on a regular computer
    ... If the universe was 100% predetermined we would still be free as it's ... to be indistinguishable from uncaused actions in many cases. ... Our perception isn't always the same as reality. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Quantum Gravity Via Expansion-Contraction 39.0: Topological Phase Change
    ... When I say that the Universe in its acceleration phases regarded itself ... looks like a sort of anthropomorphic perception claim. ... Observers in much of physics, ... systems, not just life, whether or not the engineering definitions are ...
    (sci.physics)