Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Makhnov · 12-03-2010, 07:35 AM

Is reality made up of separate parts or is it a single whole?

Arguments in favor of Reality as parts

Our brains perceive differences because those differences are actually there.
Difference seems intuitively true, especially in the framework of a materialist paradigm. For the purposes of this thread, "Materialist Paradigm" means that every phenomenon has a preceding cause from the past, and that the universe is physically deterministic.
There must be differences because it is blatantly obvious from common sense. This common sense can be "verified" by looking around the room you sit in now.
I don't feel what others around me feel. I don't know what they know. My mind is separate from their minds.
The fundamental particles are fundamentally different.

Arguments in favor of Reality as a whole

To prove how separate you really are from everything around you, stop eating food. See how "separate" you really are. If you want even faster verification, stop breathing the air. Oh .. you're not so separate as you thought!
The fundamental particles that make up matter are not actually different, they only appear different. They are all the same vibrating string in 11 dimensions. The different particles are simply different vibrational modes of that self-same string.
The fundamental particles that make up matter are not actually different. They are all symmetries of an exceptional simple Lie group called E8. This gives rise to their apparent difference. The self-same particle is merely rotating through spacetime on a different axis-of-symmetry.
The differences we perceive are created through the act of perception itself. The dividing lines between these things we call "objects" are arbitrary distinctions. What motivates our brains to create these divisions is a necessity in ancestors to propagate their genetic material to offspring. This necessity is not written into reality itself, but is created a posteriori by those ancestors who happened to have reproduced. (I.e. the accidental success at reproduction later created the so-called "necessity").
The arbitrary divisions in reality created above are projected onto the outside world, not the other way around. The first projection of "difference" came when early bacteria differentiated food from its own waste matter. This distinction, as "real" as it seems, is not contained in physics per se.
Physicists at CERN believe the four fundamental forces of nature are all actually a single Master Force. It appears in different guises only because something called spontaneous symmetry-breaking takes place at lower temperatures. By "lower temperatures" we mean energy is not as hot as the universe was in the first second after the Big Bang.
Energy is neither created nor destroyed, but only changes form. The total energy of the universe, then, must be some constant exact number. Different 'stuff' is not different, it is the Same "Stuff/Thing" in different guises.
From thermodynamics. A system that has reached equilibrium cannot be used to tell time. This suggests that time is not an aspect of physics. Time is not inherent in nature, but instead is a byproduct of relationships of the "Energy Stuff/Thing" (see above) as it coordinates itself in space.

Some afterthoughts.

(On the fundamental particles arguments. If I hold a guitar string still, versus plucking it into a vibration, noone would ever suggest the vibrating string is not the same object as the same string when sitting still. Vibration certainly does not make something not be itself!)

I see a lamp in the room right now. Is it not the case that I say the word "lamp" because I am a human who interacts with reality with a human body in a human environment? Would a small ant see a "lamp"? Probably not. Immanuel Kant suggests that we do this naming game because of mental categories that must be there for thought to take place at all, or perception for that matter -- if "perception" is meant to be a place-holder for the entire conscious act of a percept, rather than say, light falling on retinal cells. We see "rocks", "chairs", "leaves" because those things are approximately the size of our hands, and when we toss them around they stay together rather than flying apart. So the biological pre-conditions are always haunting the meaning of these objects, whose existence we refuse to question. But the same could be said for "communities" or "civilizations".

If this seems bizarre, the alternative is far worse. The alternative that I can think of, superficially, is that we see lamps in rooms because there exists a PLATONIC LAMP in a realm of perfect forms. In my opinion, this alternative is far more mystical than what Kant suggested.

12-03-2010, 07:35 AM	#1 (permalink)
Makhnov Banned	parts vs. wholes redux Is reality made up of separate parts or is it a single whole? Arguments in favor of Reality as parts Our brains perceive differences because those differences are actually there. Difference seems intuitively true, especially in the framework of a materialist paradigm. For the purposes of this thread, "Materialist Paradigm" means that every phenomenon has a preceding cause from the past, and that the universe is physically deterministic. There must be differences because it is blatantly obvious from common sense. This common sense can be "verified" by looking around the room you sit in now. I don't feel what others around me feel. I don't know what they know. My mind is separate from their minds. The fundamental particles are fundamentally different. Arguments in favor of Reality as a whole To prove how separate you really are from everything around you, stop eating food. See how "separate" you really are. If you want even faster verification, stop breathing the air. Oh .. you're not so separate as you thought! The fundamental particles that make up matter are not actually different, they only appear different. They are all the same vibrating string in 11 dimensions. The different particles are simply different vibrational modes of that self-same string. The fundamental particles that make up matter are not actually different. They are all symmetries of an exceptional simple Lie group called E8. This gives rise to their apparent difference. The self-same particle is merely rotating through spacetime on a different axis-of-symmetry. The differences we perceive are created through the act of perception itself. The dividing lines between these things we call "objects" are arbitrary distinctions. What motivates our brains to create these divisions is a necessity in ancestors to propagate their genetic material to offspring. This necessity is not written into reality itself, but is created a posteriori by those ancestors who happened to have reproduced. (I.e. the accidental success at reproduction later created the so-called "necessity"). The arbitrary divisions in reality created above are projected onto the outside world, not the other way around. The first projection of "difference" came when early bacteria differentiated food from its own waste matter. This distinction, as "real" as it seems, is not contained in physics per se. Physicists at CERN believe the four fundamental forces of nature are all actually a single Master Force. It appears in different guises only because something called spontaneous symmetry-breaking takes place at lower temperatures. By "lower temperatures" we mean energy is not as hot as the universe was in the first second after the Big Bang. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, but only changes form. The total energy of the universe, then, must be some constant exact number. Different 'stuff' is not different, it is the Same "Stuff/Thing" in different guises. From thermodynamics. A system that has reached equilibrium cannot be used to tell time. This suggests that time is not an aspect of physics. Time is not inherent in nature, but instead is a byproduct of relationships of the "Energy Stuff/Thing" (see above) as it coordinates itself in space. Some afterthoughts. (On the fundamental particles arguments. If I hold a guitar string still, versus plucking it into a vibration, noone would ever suggest the vibrating string is not the same object as the same string when sitting still. Vibration certainly does not make something not be itself!) I see a lamp in the room right now. Is it not the case that I say the word "lamp" because I am a human who interacts with reality with a human body in a human environment? Would a small ant see a "lamp"? Probably not. Immanuel Kant suggests that we do this naming game because of mental categories that must be there for thought to take place at all, or perception for that matter -- if "perception" is meant to be a place-holder for the entire conscious act of a percept, rather than say, light falling on retinal cells. We see "rocks", "chairs", "leaves" because those things are approximately the size of our hands, and when we toss them around they stay together rather than flying apart. So the biological pre-conditions are always haunting the meaning of these objects, whose existence we refuse to question. But the same could be said for "communities" or "civilizations". If this seems bizarre, the alternative is far worse. The alternative that I can think of, superficially, is that we see lamps in rooms because there exists a PLATONIC LAMP in a realm of perfect forms. In my opinion, this alternative is far more mystical than what Kant suggested.