What is the nature of our existence?

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

I understand this. My issue is that our existence seems to me less interesting and intellectually engaging than existence of physical and mathematical entities. This is why I keep going OT here. On this note, I'd rather quit.

P.S. My coffee was really good this morning. But I guess I am a couple hours ahead of you anyway.

A good reason to go OT, then.  Physics and math are relevant, both in terms of the objective nature of the physical universe (all that exists) and in terms of how a conscious entity can experience that nature (this would get into phenomenology of science?).  

I prefer coffee, but it started to bother both my inner ear and encourage acid reflux,  and tea doesn't so much.  I still enjoy the flavor of coffee and will sneak a couple of ounces from my wife's pot.  If I don't get my hand slapped.  

  I would guess three hours difference, but I see your island doesn't do daylight savings time, so it is just two hours difference, at least until the start of November here.  (when we go from GMT -6 back to GMT -7)  

1 hour ago, MSC said:

For the crash course though, I do not recommend binge watching it. Two to three episodes a day is more than enough with ample time of reflection. Otherwise it can be overwhelming as philosophy is not easy by any means.

That was my experience of it, when taking about fifteen hours of coursework in the subject in college.  I tried to make ample time for reflection, but still felt I was just scratching the surface.  

Edited August 9, 2023 by TheVat
minor

[Genady]

2 hours ago, MSC said:

Go onto YouTube and check out crash course philosophy

Thank you for the recommendation. I will do this. And then, if I survive, I'll be back  

[MSC]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

terms of how a conscious entity can experience that nature (this would get into phenomenology of science?).  

Phenomenology of consciousness. You can pretty much do phenomenology on just about every subject you can think of, I read an interesting piece once on the phenomenology of the ghost. It was in spanish though, so I'm not sure how much of it translated but it seemed like it was talking about ghosts in literature and the metaphors and allegories that can be interpreted by their myriad uses in fiction. Probably a lot more I missed, but phenomenology is definitely more of... I'd say it's linguistically artistic when done well, unintelligible ramblings when not done well, but never ever perfect. I also prefer it when it goes in depth into philosophical feelings as well as philosophical thought, but then I would say that because one of my inspirations is Hume lol 

 

[Genady]

17 hours ago, TheVat said:

Physics and math are relevant, both in terms of the objective nature of the physical universe (all that exists)

I doubt about the relevance of physics because, IMO, physics is not concerned with what exists, but rather with what happens.

Mathematical existence is something completely different and unrelated to the physical universe.

[MSC]

27 minutes ago, Genady said:

I doubt about the relevance of physics because, IMO, physics is not concerned with what exists, but rather with what happen

Isn't it better to say physics is concerned with what happens to that which physically exists? 

Knowledge index sharing time. 

Universal knowledge 

         -----------

Physical knowledge 

          -----------

Chemical knowledge 

          -----------

Biological knowledge

          -----------

Physiological knowledge 

          -----------

Psychological knowledge 

          -----------

Sociological Knowledge

          -----------

Moral knowledge 

          -----------

Legal knowledge

          -----------

Cultural knowledge

          -----------

In-group/family knowledge

          -----------

Personal knowledge

 

The formatting got a little fucked as I copy and pasted from my emails, but this is the rough draft index and it isn't finished. I want to incorporate the DIKW pyramid into it at some point too, and there needs to be theories of relationship between knowledge types. Each and every type is relevant to both the nature and context of our existence, collectively and individually. 

 

38 minutes ago, Genady said:

Mathematical existence is something completely different and unrelated to the physical universe.

I want to correct this, but I'm not sure how. Lil help! Lol

[Genady]

Just now, MSC said:

Isn't it better to say physics is concerned with what happens to that which physically exists?

No, I don't think so.

[MSC]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

No, I don't think so.

Why not?

[Genady]

1 minute ago, MSC said:

Why not?

Because that addition, "which physically exists", is not part of the question. "Which physically happens" is.

[MSC]

12 minutes ago, Genady said:

Because that addition, "which physically exists", is not part of the question. "Which physically happens" is.

What question?

[Genady]

9 minutes ago, MSC said:

What question?

Any question to which physics looks for an answer.

[MSC]

11 minutes ago, Genady said:

Any question to which physics looks for an answer.

Your point isn't getting any clearer to me. It's a bit of a does not compute thing for me tbh. How do you separate physics from existence or mathematics? They both exist. They are both things we need to learn in order to have a better understanding of our world. Each and every one of those DIKW types in that index, are all within the greater context of... well everything. 

Could you be a bit more descriptive about what you mean?

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, MSC said:

Your point isn't getting any clearer to me. It's a bit of a does not compute thing for me tbh. How do you separate physics from existence or mathematics? They both exist. They are both things we need to learn in order to have a better understanding of our world. Each and every one of those DIKW types in that index, are all within the greater context of... well everything. 

Could you be a bit more descriptive about what you mean?

I think I understand where the confusion comes from. I am not talking about existence of physics and existence of mathematics. I am talking about their contents, i.e., about existence of objects with which physics and mathematics work.

[MSC]

30 minutes ago, Genady said:

I think I understand where the confusion comes from. I am not talking about existence of physics and existence of mathematics. I am talking about their contents, i.e., about existence of objects with which physics and mathematics work.

Ahhh got it, although comes across as kind of semantical. Either way in epistemology and ontology they are subjects worth discussing either way but thanks for clearing up the confusion. 

[naitche]

Wouldn't the nature of existence be mathematical, if mathematical physics governs its expression?

[Genady]

12 minutes ago, MSC said:

in epistemology and ontology they are subjects worth discussing

In physics they are not, and in mathematics the questions of existence are very specific / technical. Taking these objects out of their original domain, i.e., the physics and the mathematics, and placing them for investigation in epistemology and ontology seems to me an artificial and fruitless exercise.

[MSC]

25 minutes ago, Genady said:

In physics they are not, and in mathematics the questions of existence are very specific / technical. Taking these objects out of their original domain, i.e., the physics and the mathematics, and placing them for investigation in epistemology and ontology seems to me an artificial and fruitless exercise.

Well, I can't say I agree, one mans trash is another mans treasure. Let's agree to disagree. I'm not gonna get too focussed on the physics and mathematics here too much anyway. 

Did you get a chance to check out the crash course recommendation I gave you? Fair warning, a lot of it is funny af. You'll laugh. Comedic delivery is the best imo.

[Genady]

1 minute ago, MSC said:

Did you get a chance to check out the crash course recommendation I gave you? Fair warning, a lot of it is funny af. You'll laugh. Comedic delivery is the best imo.

Yes, I am at #7 now. Easy stuff so far. 

Yes, it is funny. It is even funnier if you watch it on .75 speed. I have to, because of a mild form of APD. Try it some time.  

[MSC]

3 minutes ago, Genady said:

Yes, I am at #7 now. Easy stuff so far. 

Yes, it is funny. It is even funnier if you watch it on .75 speed. I have to, because of a mild form of APD. Try it some time.  

I may do just that. I feel you. 

Easy to learn, not as easy to apply consistently. Later on you'll probably start finding it harder in certain subjects because you'll start encountering some of the really strong arguments for views you don't agree with. It happens to everyone who studies this stuff. It can be a touch traumatic in some ways I guess but think of it as deconstructing the self, and figuring out how you want to be built back up in a way where you're better able to express your perspectives and reason for being. That's not to say life hasn't already made you do that, what do I know? Lol all on a journey man I appreciate you taking the time to check it out too.

[Genady]

7 minutes ago, MSC said:

I may do just that. I feel you. 

Easy to learn, not as easy to apply consistently. Later on you'll probably start finding it harder in certain subjects because you'll start encountering some of the really strong arguments for views you don't agree with. It happens to everyone who studies this stuff. It can be a touch traumatic in some ways I guess but think of it as deconstructing the self, and figuring out how you want to be built back up in a way where you're better able to express your perspectives and reason for being. That's not to say life hasn't already made you do that, what do I know? Lol all on a journey man I appreciate you taking the time to check it out too.

 

[MSC]

29 minutes ago, Genady said:

 

Well you may have an edge, more time than me applying logical skills learned from physics and mathematics... auld yin lol

On 8/8/2023 at 9:09 PM, geordief said:

So,to answer the OP might we say that discovery is the nature of existence?(at least for living entities)

As an aside definitions  are so important  but so constricting and when faced with an unanswerable but interesting question like this one we may have to indulge in flights of fancy at times.

Sorry it's taken me so long to get to this. Had to think about it about longer than the others. 

I definitely agree with the idea of discovery being a huge element in the nature of our existence. Our, as in living beings, nice touch, biocentrism fist bump.

On 8/8/2023 at 10:00 PM, geordief said:

So  you are suggesting that an unspecified  number of causal chains can pass through the same event?

Have you heard of non-linear causality? 

[geordief]

1 hour ago, MSC said:

Have you heard of non-linear causality

Although I know little of it ,still I tend to think of these questions in terms of the micro level of interactions.

That was why  I was questioning whether the chains of causality might  somehow  intersect (or,rather influence each other) at that level .

(a weird concept for sure   but I think I was replying to @Genady comments about "sequences" of events that I was trying to understand at the quantum level)

I had a quick look at a non-linear causality video since you brought it up and it is a macro level phenomenon that seems to have validity but is beyond my capacity to delve into really.

So ,I tend to pivot to quantum level descriptions even though I am hopelessly unqualified to say very much even if I perhaps am qualified to ask questions at times (which is a very low bar)

As for my "discovery" idea ,that was also intended to incorporate the evolution of the inanimate universe on a quantum level (replace "discovery" with "interaction" -that was my thought then anyway)

Edited August 10, 2023 by geordief

[Genady]

10 minutes ago, geordief said:

I tend to think of these questions in terms of the micro level of interactions.

That was why  I was questioning whether the chains of causality might  somehow  intersect (or,rather influence each other) at that level .

On elementary particles level, when two particles interact, they both change. So, this event affects the future events of each. Isn't it the intersecting of the chains of causality?

[geordief]

15 minutes ago, Genady said:

On elementary particles level, when two particles interact, they both change. So, this event affects the future events of each. Isn't it the intersecting of the chains of causality?

Yes that is (should have been) the first thing that comes to mind(and causality in quantum theory can apparently be modeled backwards  or forwards to equal effect, so I have heard)

But ,yes I think  that could be described as chains of causality "intersecting"(seems related to entanglement too although I don't think all such interactions  lead to entanglement,do they?)

Just occured to me , also  "causality"  is actually a model ,isn't it?

It is how we make sense of what happens and subject  to tweaking like any other model (even though  it seems to be set in stone in any possible world view)

[Genady]

6 minutes ago, geordief said:

causality in quantum theory can apparently be modeled backwards  or forwards to equal effect

Causality does not work backward in time as per SR. SM obeys SR.

 

9 minutes ago, geordief said:

I don't think all such interactions  lead to entanglement,do they?

I think you're right.

 

11 minutes ago, geordief said:

"causality"  is actually a model ,isn't it?

I don't see it as a model. It is used in making models.

[TheVat]

One question about existence that arises in my mind when having these chats is: which scale offers the best understanding?  If we zoom out from subatomic interactions, to look at holistic systems, can we discern more about the nature of things?  IOW, are all the best accounts of existence reductive?  

From the wiki article, Reductionism:

For the sciences, application of methodological reductionism attempts explanation of entire systems in terms of their individual, constituent parts and their interactions....