Luminal

I was referring to nanotechnology, in which presumably the technology and knowledge will be closely intertwined, and likely most conditions involving the nervous system will be repaired with the same technology. But I understand the point you were making. However, that does not give credence to subjectivity. Does the fact that you will never know what it is like to be a cat make the cat's existence subjective? Or a rock's existence, for that matter?

I can't respond to your whole post at the moment, but I'll cover what I disagree with; conclude that I agree with everything else . We don't exist in the physical, material Universe. Our bodies do, possibly. Our consciousness, perceptions, personality, memories and everything that defines us exists in a model of reality created by a network of neurons. Or, whatever the individual believes houses his consciousness, if not material neuons, such as a soul. When I reach out and touch the keys on my keyboard, I'm "touching" the model of reality created moment by moment by consciousness. Do you disagree with this? There is no answer that is undisputable by humans. The last part is the most important. If I had left off "by humans" then it would be a total contradiction. After all, if that statement itself was universally true, it would be its own primary exception. The Earth isn't flat? It is not flat in the model of reality created within your brain (or soul, consciousness, etc.). If scientists came out tomorrow with a ground-breaking discovery that we existed in 6 spacial dimensions (each current one has an opposite, remotely analagous to matter/anti-matter pairs) and that Earth was indeed flat under the new definition of space, your model would change to relfect that. Even such fundamental statements as "I think therefore I am" are up to question. That statement assumes rationality (one of your five assumptions you listed earlier). If the human mechanism of logic was polarly opposite to 'actual' logic, then the statement would be "I think therefore I'm not". It fits in perfectly with science. Our neurons create a model of reality, like a computer makes a model of, say, atmospheric patterns or a game 200 years in the future. Only, our models are much more intricate and vary from individual to individual. This startling level of complexity mixed different perceptions of the same sensations along with neurochemicals that give rise to a wide variety of unusual behaviors and emotions, and much more, creates the notion of "subjectivity". I strictly do not believe in subjectivity (within my own model of the Universe, of course *wink*). Subjectivity is nothing but a term people use until they understand the reasoning or mechanics behind a particular concept. Weather patterns would have been considered anything but objective until the last few hundred years. One day I believe humans will understand every event within the human brain down to all X quintillion atoms. Not surprisingly, "subjectivity" will no longer be applied to the human experience, but to other activities at the edge of scientific understanding. Picotechnology, maybe?

Yes, we would in fact 'exist' during the dream or simulation. Why not, after all? Because it is temporary and ends as soon as the person wakes up or the simulation is turned off? This life on earth is temporary as well. I said all perceptions, not just dreams or experiences that are inherently questionable to begin with. Not on data, on experiences. You experience far more waking, sober moments than dream or drug-induced experiences (unless something is seriously wrong). Thus, those uncommon experiences are vastly outnumbered, and you take the more common experience to be the truthful one. If you were in the hospital, sleeping and dreaming 23 hours a day and awake 1 hour day, you might well assume the dreams to be reality and the reality to be a nightmare with all the pain and what not. The "final answer"? An answer that is unquestionable; a truth that cannot be doubted or disputed. And I don't believe humans will ever find such an answer, unless we become omniscient through science or through whatever lay beyond death. Our current level of intelligence and knowledge certainly doesn't suffice to find such an answer, though, and may never. I would figure, yeh. Science attempts to explain reality without a grand cosmic intelligence in the driver's seat (or passenger's if your a deist ). Nor does science doesn't get involved in morals or life beyond death. Now, I would need to have a more specific knowledge of what branch of theism you are to go any further. Science accepts "a small subset of personal experience"? As in, say, all? Psychologists, which I hope you consider scientists, have ventured into every aspect of the human experience, from lucid dreams to the unconscious mind. Would the larger "set" of personal experience include out-of-body experiences or telepathy? What are you referring to by that statement?

We don't necessarily need to be insane to have wrong information entering our heads through the senses. Although I don't personally believe it, our universe being a sub-reality in another reality (such as someone else's dream, or a simulation, or some advanced form of entertainment for future generations, etc.) is one such example. But I do not think you would debate this point, and it is just a matter of semantics about "sanity" being inclusive of "ignorance". Yet, neither do you always question it. And even if you did always question every perception, the act of questioning does not validify the answer you arrive at. Perhaps we mistakenly take our dreams for an internally created reality, when those could be brief glimpses into our waking, "sober" life, except that we "awaken" into this world, what we would otherwise perceive as perfect clarity is shattered into unorganized and chaotic memories. So, we assume dreams are imagined. I did not say as much. Many people simply hold to the view that science is inherently superior to religion because science is empirical and rational whereas religion is based on assumptions, faith, and traditions. I was just stating that science has those inescapable requirements of faith and assumptions as well, albeit far fewer. As I said, I wasn't aware what society's common usage of the term "non-objective" was, but I was using it for that purpose. If you know a better term, I'll glady use it.

First, let me say that I agree (except about it being a total contradiction, which it isn't exactly). Even my perceptions are concepts of which I've formed through perceptions. But as I said, for the perceptions of my perceptions to be incorrect, then the perceptions are still incorrect. It is as simple as that. There's no contradiction as far as I'm aware: If my perceptions are always right, then they are always right. No fallibility, period. This would be a position closer to yours, if I understand you correctly. If the knowledge of my perceptions are wrong, or if my knowledge of perceptions are correct but the information entering them are wrong, then in both cases there is a state of non-objectivity in that information. That's my position. In other words, either sure is sure or unsure is unsure. If you were wondering why, in response to your post, I mentioned the Matrix conspiracy, that's what you would have to accept (or something very similar, like a government cover-up) to explain how information could be entering directly into our memory/knowledge without any perception involved. I don't think either of us believe that.

Yes, actually. You've never had a dream where someone pointed a gun at you and/or shot at you? I have. Let me make a distinction here, though. Subjective and non-objective are not exactly the same thing. If an anonymous person told you that he saw your girlfriend cheating with another guy, the truth wouldn't be subjective. It would either be right or wrong, based on the reliability of the source of information. Subjective, on the other hand, is more or less the continuum of values formed in the brains of biological beings, owing itself to the vast complexity of the neural architectures in the brain. I see a color as light blue; you see that color as dark blue. Non-objective is simply anything that's not provable. Senses fall into this category. And as no information enters our brains except through these pathways, all human knowledge is non-objective. Yet there's no problem with treating sensory input as objective to advance science. Disclaimer: Those are just the terms I use for a simpler description of what I'm explaining. If 'non-objective' is used for another definition by society, I apologize.

Unless you've ever had information enter into your brain without the involvement of your senses. Of course, you never know, but that would require a Matrix Conspiracy (direct connections into our brains without our knowledge) or huge government cover-up. And you're supposed to be opposed Matrix conspiracies and the such, correct?

None of this is the point. Everything you perceive is perceived. There is no test or experiment that will ever be "objective enough" to avoid this. Human senses are subjective, and hence everything filtered through them are as well. It is an assumption to treat anything you perceive as fact. Even this statement, because my knowledge of perceptions are based on what I've perceived. Great point. As long as we understand that science is only observation and can never establish unquestionable fact, then I think no one has a problem and we can proceed forward. Put it this way: there might be absolute truth out there, but no human will ever obtain it. That's because all truth is filtered through inherently fallible mechanisms (both the senses and the human brain).

Note, there is a difference between doubting they exist and believing they don't exist. I am more than happy to pursue science and accept empiricism, because thus far it has greatly improved my life and the lives of everyone I know. I am simply opening the smallest crack in the door to a possibility that humans may one day be able to test (perhaps with great leaps in neuroengineering, nanotechnology, AI, and other fields).

Do you think simple life is common in the Universe? The vast, vast majority of the history of life on Earth was comprised of prokaryotic cells accomplishing very little other than releasing free oxygen into the atmosphere. Perhaps life is common in the Universe, but most life cannot jump to the eukaryotic or multicellular stage. Or, maybe these fragile lifeforms are continuously wiped out by simple changes in the climate or chemical make-up of the oceans. The tiny minority reaching a more complex stage would have to deal with the occasional extinction event. Possibly asteroid strikes, GRBs, are major volcanic activity are more common on other developing worlds, and we were lucky to get away with only 5 or so. Finally, there is the possibility that viruses evolved faster than the immune systems of multicellular organisms evolved (or possibly sooner than multicellular organisms themselves, so that any time MC organisms evolved, they were destroyed immediately).

Numbers themselves are constructions of the perceptions you have over a lifetime. Perhaps it is too abstract to consider with our human brains, but what you see as ten may not be ten for me, or one, or 532. These are assumptions we must make to push the human sphere of knowledge forward. Can you imagine a Universe that lacks time and space (and thus causality) yet has alternatives? Of course not. Neither can we imagine a reality without concrete numbers. You see, most humans naively make the assumption that the homo sapien model of reality is the only one that works, or even can work. Once again, this assumption may turn out to be true, but I highly doubt it. We haven't even placed a human on another planet in our own little speck of a solar system, nor have we observed the boundaries of our Universe. Not to mention, no one has ever witnessed the world from another person's senses. We've got a long way to come before we can test such assumptions.

The machine would pick up the color that you see as green and what you call green, and it would also pick up the color I would see as red if you had my eyes but I would call it green. But neither is "true" or "false". Both models are merely that: models. Is the English word for "Sun" a more accurate portrayal of the massive fusion engine 93 million miles away, than say, the Spanish word for Sun? Neither are are closer or further from the truth. They simply represent a concept with something that has nothing to do with that concept itself (patterns of sounds formed into vocalizations). ==================================================== The best analogy I can offer: you are walking around in your house at night, and it is utterly pitch black dark. Yet, you manage to maneuver yourself successfully from room to room, with only a few bumps into furniture here and there. How did you do it? Your mind has created a fully operation model of the house based on your perceptions. The next evening, you get drunk and wake up that night in someone else's house, thinking you are in your own house. There are no lights, no sounds, and you use the model of your house to navigate. You trip down a flight of stairs and break your neck. Our reality is a model, one that may or may not fit with the actual state of physical universe (and whatever may lie beyond).

First, I do not accept solipsism. Because our perceptions may be false, that does not mean my mind is the only thing that exists. But my mind is the only thing that exists for me. There's a major difference in those two ideologies. My reality is composed of a representative model that my neurons create in my head. Do objects actually have hues and colors inherently? No, those are qualities endowed by your brain upon different wavelengths of light striking your retina. Second, as far as you are concerned, even the notion of a sniper and the notion of death are but concepts you have picked up through your perceptions of this world. Have you ever died? More specifically, have you ever been killed by a sniper? Even though you may see this as an absurd consideration, even the very aspect of death is but something you believe will eventually occur based on events you have witnessed (as in, your senses). If I isolated someone from birth in a small house with no way to leave or communicate with any other human or observe other life, with just the food and water necessary to live, would that person ever know he was going to die? He wouldn't even know what death is. Animals don't know they are going to die.

Well, what is your reality? A model created by a network of neurons in your brain. You do not interact with the physical world itself. Rather, you interact with the model of reality your mind is creating moment by moment.

As someone else mentioned, our dreams do follow their twisted form of logic. I have a close relative that has been dead for many years, and he always appears in my dreams as alive, and in those dreams, I nor anyone else question him being there. Do you not see what I'm getting at? Even the computer is still your own perception. The GM counter is still your own perception. There is no method to ever avoid this. You must take the leap of faith that those perceptions are always accurate, even when we know that not to be the case. How is it "speculation" that dreams, movies, photographs, hallucinations, and such are not real, pray tell? Some we know aren't real while they are occurring (movies, games, and such) while others we aren't aware while they are occurring. We assume that our waking, sober world is perceived without substantial error. That is the assumption science must make. And it is an assumption that may turn out to be either right or wrong.

Actually, the assumption that our senses are indeed impeccable information harvesters would be more akin to the belief/disbelief in a deity, do you not think?

.......... Did I say that? You should read down further. This is about the reliability of sensory information to our brains, not a "matrix conspiracy". This is as important a scientific pursuit as any other. As displayed by psychoactive drugs, dreams, or even simple photographs and movies, our senses do not require much to be deceived. Thankfully, our brains can discern that movies are not happening before our very eyes, whilst not so for dreams and hallucinations. However, the point is not whether our brains can successfully determine the veracity of senses on a day to day basis with knowledge available to us, but whether knowledge not available to us is influencing our sensory input, and consequentially allowing us to make wrong decisions. For example, at the most simple level, subatomic particles might be striking regions of the brain and affecting the vision of each individual differently. Or, at a more intricate level, one could have a moderate case of Schizophrenia and deluding himself about the realities of his life. Or, on a more intricate level still, I could be waking from a dream in a few second, dreaming I'm typing on a forum (I'm ashamed to admit I have dreamed about chatting of forums many times before ). Yet more and more intricate elaborations in our brains may exist, but we cannot and do not worry about those as we have no means to test them in a reliable way. It is the great assumption that science makes. Thanks for throwing this over into the pseudoscience section. Now, obviously, it is but mere speculation that we assume our senses are infallible, right? Isn't it speculation that our senses are always right, considering we know for a fact that they aren't? Meh, I expected more from the replies I suppose.

Well, I'm not "regurgitating" his argument, because I've never heard of it. Yet, his ideas seem to be on target. Our entire reality, even if this is the real world, is effectively a simulation nonetheless, one that our brains project within our heads, to give rise to intelligence and increase our chances of survival. I follow those rules, yet I know that they very well could be wrong. In fact, I think it most likely that those assumptions are wrong. For every "real universe" in existence, there are an infinite number of possible "sub-realities" that can be created... as in dreams, simulations, hallucinations, false memories. These are indistinguishable to the participants in those "sub realities" until they leave them and are enlightened to their previous state. But none of this keeps me from accepting and practicing science, as it has yet to fail me so far in my relatively brief speck of an existence in the scheme of the cosmos. You're completely right; there is no way to conclusively answer this... at this time, anyways. Perhaps in future human endeavors, our intellectual capabilities will be enough orders of magnitude greater than they are now to answer this question. Remember, less than 3 orders of magnitude separate the information contained in the brain of a mouse and the brain of a human. Nanotechnology, AI, genetic engineering... these may boost our minds to an adequate level... or we can hope.

Good point, and I agree. The fulfillment of our wants/needs and our contentment in life are completely and only defined by what we can perceive, not by what is true yet we might not know. "What you don't know can't hurt you." Well... at least in the sense of our emotions anyways.

As I posted above, I intended those to be two separate ideas. Questioning our senses' reliability and our rational mind are two different, but related, ideas. This world might very well be a simulation (in fact, many would argue that it is more likely), but the 'ultimate' or 'final' reality might be very similar to ours, even the same maybe. So, once again, I'll clarify that I'm doubting our senses, not the mind unto which those senses give their information. Both might be unreliable, but that's not within the scope of this topic.

Well, that leads us to the next assumption of science: that human logic works. However, I should have made it clear, logic and reason based on anything you've picked up through your senses, not reason and logic altogether. My bad. Yet, I suppose there is no such thing as logic that isn't based on something learned through your senses, so we're back to square one. It is quite a mess, isn't it? In short, throwing out logic is the step beyond throwing out the reliability of our senses. We can analyze senses without necessarily saying that all the logic founded upon them is wrong too. I doubt I'm making much sense, so let me give you an example. Movies aren't real nor an accurate portrayal of the real world, but someone "from another reality" could still watch our movies and get a basic understanding of how our existence works: there is causality to actions, there are three dimensions in space, certain mathematical principles apply, there is gravity, there is an atmosphere from which we breath, and so on. The specifics might be off (every woman being a supermodel and an amazing fighter both; always a dramatic resolution to every event; etc) but they'd get the idea. So, I can question if this world is a simulation or dream without questioning whether, say, causality or logic exist or not, although they may very well not. And in that case, in becomes moot entirely. I'll summarize, scientists (and everyone) assume everything is A and always has been and always will be, while I'm saying it could be B, C, or D... or even all the way down to Z, but if it's Z, even asking the question is impossible, so let's just stick to A through D now.

Note: I use science, I trust science, believe it will improve our lives and the lives of our children and their children, and so on. However, step away from your immersion in science, empiricism, reason, and logic for just a moment, and consider the assumption you are making. Every piece of information you have ever received, from artwork to mathematical laws, has come from one source: your senses. How reliable are our senses? Well, in dreams, you must conclude that they are outright fooling you. The scary part? You don't know the sensations are false in a dream. In movies, you see and hear (and one day perhaps even feel, taste and smell) the sensations. Are your senses right? Of course not, those events never happened. Yet at least you know that a movie didn't occur in real life. The point, senses are not reliable. In fact, our brains can be deceived with reletive easily. Dreams, delusions, psychoactive drugs, hallucinations, simulations (full simulations are at most a few decades away), movies... all have one thing in common, they fool our senses, and more often than not, we believe the unreliable information while it is being presented to us. "But, wait a moment!" you say, "I can commincate with other humans to confirm my sensations are accurate. That counts for something, right?" Does it count for anything? Keep in mind, even the voices and words of others is still your own sensation. I don't know about you, but I've had several dreams in which I've asked others if I was dreaming, and they assured me I wasn't (even laughed for asking the question). With that aside, science certainly isn't a hollow pursuit, but neither is it the final answer. Just as religious individuals should always keep a small part of their mind somewhat open to the minutest possibility that their faith is misplaced, scientists and those who practice it should do the same.

No, the theorized smallest subunit of reality couldn't be 'seen' at smaller fractions... at least in my opinion. After you've reached this point, the only way to analyze it (since reductionism is thrown out the window at this point) is to study the forces it interacts with, and the larger entities it goes on to create with the combination of other minimally (not infinitely small, mind you) particles, strings, etc. Infinitely large and infinitely small are very different ideas. Think of it this way: what's the maximum and minimum number of atoms that could exist in any imaginable unbounded space, with a given that at least some do exist? For minimum, one of course. For maximum, infinite of course. And even if you removed the given that at least some must exist, then you have zero for minimum. Atoms have specific requirements that must be met to exist: at least 1 proton and 1 electron. Think of any object, either living or nonliving, and you come to the realization that it has requirements that must be met to exist and/or function (if it has a function). A human: oxygen to breath, environment with plenty of carbon to synthesize organic molecules, water for hydrolysis and dehydration synthesis, and so on. A rock: atoms with covalent bonds, enough strength to remain in one piece, and so on. Why would we think that if you kept getting smaller and smaller, than you would eventually reach a point where things didn't have requirements that must be met to exist? See the above function, xsin(1/x); is the last oscillation postive or negative? Infinitely small just doesn't work, unless all logic and laws completely morph into something else entirely at infinitely small degrees. Even then, the reality that we know does have an minimum size: the size where the aforementioned logic and laws fail. On the other hand, with infinitely large, laws and logic work perfectly fine. However, we are finite beings, and can't interact with or even understand infinitely expanding values. But never do those values break rules, laws, logic, or simple common sense. Think of f(x) = sinx. With infinitely large, we can confidentally say that it has no final oscillation, because we never cross it or reach it or see it. Not so with xsin(1/x). We can see and cross the whole range of oscillations within a finite time and finite space. In short, infinitely small = infinite trapped within finite values. *shakes head* Infinitely large = infinite at infinite values. *nods head* Hopefully, I've made myself understood.

I don't think this belongs in the pseudoscience section, because everything I am describing is simple, accepted science and activities, but applied in a way to make us think about infinity. Let's say that you were driving in a Volkswagen Beetle and your MPG is, say, 20. You add 300 pounds of bricks to the back seat, and your MPG decreases to, say, 15. The accuracy of these numbers isn't very relevant. Now, you keep removing bricks, and your MPG creeps further and further back toward 20, but doesn't reach it. Finally, you remove everything from the car that wasn't there previously, except one electron, or 1/1840th of a Dalton. Will your MPG be affected by 1 electron? Who knows, but let's apply it to an even more extreme case to make a point. You then take that electron, and put it on a cruiseliner (which, for the sake of this discussion, is using gallons to measure its fuel efficiency, rather than a larger figure, but it using a more powerful fuel). You keep increasing the size of the vessel or vehicle you are in, and the elctron is reletively less and less important to the MPG (not as though it was relevant to begin with). At some point, adding that electron's mass would not require another molecule of fuel to be burned to carry its weight. Or, you could apply a similar thought experiment with a quark, but it doesn't matter. When it crosses this threshold where adding an electron to the mass of the moving object doesn't change the fuel efficiency, because no additional molecules of fuel must be burned to carry that particle across a distance, what are the implications for thermodynamics? Infinity? To completely finalize the point, you could also keep decreasing the distance traveled by the relatively massive moving object (billions of tons in mass at this point), to such a small amount (say, several nanometers), that it's going to burn the exact same amount of fuel, down to the molecules, even if many particles were removed or added. Thoughts?

I have recently begun to question whether there is such a thing as "infinitely small" values. Infinitely large, I can accept, for reasons I am about to explain. Look at the function f(x) = xsin(1/x). You'll notice that it oscillates an infinite amount of times in smaller and smaller waves as it gets closer to the y-axis. Now, imagine running your hand over the function. You cross the y-axis, as well as all function values in that range, with no problem. But what was the last oscillation you passed, was it an up or down oscillation? Impossible to know. Now, imagine doing the same with f(x) = 1/x. You pass the y-axis (or x-axis) and pass by all of those infinitely large values as the function approaches the vertical asymptotes, but the important difference, your finger never actually touches (or can) the function's curve at the reletively infinite values, whereas your finger covers all possible values at the same time in the first function. I believe that energy (or particles) have a limit to their smallest size. This may be strings, but I don't know. Either way, whatever limit this is, all other energy or matter is built upon these, and this is why we can move in the physical universe. Otherwise, we'd be constantly struggling with the paradox of nearing limits and never passing them. There must be a miminum size to energy and matter. And I believe the answer lies with neutron stars and black holes. As gravity forces matter past that limit, all current rules are thrown out the window. But in normal space and normal gravity, those rules do apply, and thus there most likely is a miminum size.