What is "miraculous"?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />For me, the term miraculous (as bandied about in this forum) means "that which is not mediated by particles".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your definition is defective. The dictionary definition (which applies unless a term is defined in context) is: "an event that appears to be contrary to the laws of nature and is regarded as an act of God." In MM, we usually describe it with similar words: a miracle is a supernatural event, or one that requires true magic. Examples include violation of any principle of physics: an effect without an antecedent, proximate cause, something created from nothing or something demised into nothing, the finite becoming infinite, something going backwards in time, etc.

Your definition might apply to the existence of material, tangible entities, although its truth is too far from obvious to be suitable as a definition. However, MM recognizes other forms of existence besides material, tangible entities. Dimensions are one example, and concepts in general are another. That would seem to cover your "sensations" as well.

Why do you make repeated claims that MM violates common sense, when its main strength is eliminating the need for miracles that all other cosmologies require? Are you committed to some philosophy that requires a miracle in the MM sense of the word? -|Tom|-

Tom,

I think it is a need for a beginning, the mind has a hard time without it, because our consciousness did have one. It is the ancient mind/body problem, since our consciousness had a beginning from unconciousness. This seems miraculous according to MM and generates a strong pshcological need to think in terms of beginnings. I too suffer from this affliction.

However, I do not see color as a good argument. For indeed what you call red, I may see as green 100% of the time. A particular frequency that is seen and agreed upon as red, is red and always will be. If we always agree on the frequency everything is normal, if we don't, one of us is "color blind".

Johnny

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />I think it is a need for a beginning, the mind has a hard time without it, because our consciousness did have one. It is the ancient mind/body problem, since our consciousness had a beginning from unconciousness.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You raise an interesting topic. But "consciousness" becomes a lot less mysterious and "miraculous" if one examines closely what we know about its nature from experiments in physical psychology.

This is too off-topic for details here. But experiments show that what we perceive as "consciousness" is actually an instant replay of reality that takes place about a quarter of a second after events actually happen. But everything is integrated into the correct time sequence in the replay, so no paradoxes arise (such as how you manage to hit a 100 mph baseball). The subconscious processor and our autonomic nervous systems perform the real-time operations, then create a replay to make it appear to us that we were in conscious control at all times.

Dozens of experiments support this view that "consciousness" is a replay onto the human visual screen, and not a perception of true reality. I will mention just two.

(1) A blindfolded subject is told to press a stopwatch when he feels contact against the back of his hand. When both signals (contact and stopwatch pressing) are allowed to reach his brain, the subject is certain that he consciously sent a command to his hand to press the stopwatch when he felt the contact. But when the signal of touch contact is intercepted and diverted before it reaches the brain, the stopwatch is still pressed. And the subject's perception (his instant replay) shows only the stopwatch pressing. The subject then apologizes and says he doesn't know why he "accidentally" started the stopwatch.

(2) When a subject wears eyeglasses that invert everything seen, it typically takes about 20 minutes to adjust to this strange new reality. But the adjustment takes the form of the brain applying corrections to the replay images on the visual screen so that everything seen through the inverting glasses appears normal and right-side-up to the subject. If the subject then takes off the glasses, the brain's correction to visual images is still active for about another 20 minutes. During that time, the subject sees reality up-side-down without any glasses involved!

From such experiments, we get a new sense of what "consciousness" is really all about, and how illusory our perception of conscious control of our reality can be. Consciousness and our self-image then start to seem a whole lot less miraculous. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Why do you make repeated claims that MM violates common sense, when its main strength is eliminating the need for miracles that all other cosmologies require?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I have never claimed that it violated "common sense". Only that I disagree with it at the most fundamental level. I do not wish to "kill off" your model because it represents fairly well, one of the very few logical possibilities as far as time, space, and scale goes.

You believe that logic and matter are two different things ... that matter is somehow a "concrete" at the most visceral level ... and ... independent of abstract logic. For me, matter is the embodiment of a total abstraction. It is logic itself ... and absolutely nothing more.

To put it in the most blunt terms possible ...

There is no "stuff" which exists independently. There are not two types of basic things (or more). There is only one thing. And it cannot be apprehended as only collisions between stuff. Your pallette has too few colors to create a true picture of reality and thus "strains to accomodate".

Also, you have proceeded from "scratch", i.e. nothing (which is commendable) ... and devised a logically necessary train of thought from that point which you intimate is the only rational pedigree for what we observe. You have confidence in your theory based on your initial musings. Your confidence is misplaced.

Others have been there too (not too many) including myself and have come away with different pedigrees which you denigrate as "miraculous, all". I do not wish to break your theory (which cannot be done if it is correct) but rather, break your confidence in it. Your confidence is your enemy. You cannot proceed wearing these blinders.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />I have never claimed that it violated "common sense".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not in so many words. But the challenges to MM you raised in your last message violated common sense.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You believe that logic and matter are two different things ... that matter is somehow a "concrete" at the most visceral level ... and ... independent of abstract logic. For me, matter is the embodiment of a total abstraction. It is logic itself ... and absolutely nothing more.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">As with so many ideas that do not communicate well to others, I have a problem with definitions here. "Matter is logic"? On its face, this seems absurd. So please define "matter" and "logic" so we can begin to fathom what your idea is about. Are you proposing that the universe is simply a thought in the mind of a super-being? If not, then what specifically?

Removing ambiguities is part of the process of testing ideas for their viability.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">There is no "stuff" which exists independently.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This does sound like philosophies in which there is no objective, external reality independent of our perception of it. However, such philosophies always fail for lack of testability, given that all obvious tests lead to the opposite conclusion. You cannot kick a large rock hard without feeling pain. You cannot jump off a cliff and continue to perceive or influence reality. In fact, none of us seem to have any control over reality whatever with our minds and logic alone.

Contrast this with the control we sometimes can exercise over our dream worlds. Also, note that right-brain-dominant people are prone to vivid dreams that are capable of crossing the perceptual line between dreams and reality; i.e., they can hallucinate. But the field of "reality testing" is all about how anyone can tell the difference, even when faced with faulty sensory inputs.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">There are not two types of basic things (or more). There is only one thing. And it cannot be apprehended as only collisions between stuff. Your pallette has too few colors to create a true picture of reality and thus "strains to accomodate".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This paragraph appears to contain two contradictions.

(a) You say there is only one thing, yet MM has too few colors to create a true picture of reality. If there is only one thing, shouldn't one color be enough? Can you find clearer ways to express your ideas that do not seem to others to require access to your own private thoughts to understand your meaning?

(b) You say MM "strains to accommodate". Yet neither I nor many others have noticed any strain. So your claim is in conflict with the data available to us. I suggest that MM only strains to accommodate your ideas about reality, and that is what you are noticing. But perhaps a few specific examples will show us that you meant something else.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Also, you have proceeded from "scratch", i.e. nothing (which is commendable) ... and devised a logically necessary train of thought from that point which you intimate is the only rational pedigree for what we observe. You have confidence in your theory based on your initial musings. Your confidence is misplaced.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Inductive reasoning is non-unique. Many possibilities are usually available to explain phenomena. By contrast, deductive reasoning (such as MM uses) is unique by its nature. There is only one possibility unless the starting premises are erroneous, insufficient, or contradictory. So far, there is no evidence of such a fault, in part because MM starts with nothing but logic (something your philosophy should approve of).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Others have been there too (not too many) including myself and have come away with different pedigrees which you denigrate as "miraculous, all".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I have cited specifics in each case, and heard no valid counterarguments to the need for miracles in all existing, well-defined cosmologies. (Sorry, but from the information I have, yours is not well-defined, and is therefore impossible to evaluate.)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I do not wish to break your theory (which cannot be done if it is correct) but rather, break your confidence in it. Your confidence is your enemy. You cannot proceed wearing these blinders.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You are wasting your time and energy. I am prepared to fix, change, or abandon MM in a heartbeat if anything specific can be found wrong with it as it stands. (I have already had to make one major and a few minor such fixes. Fortunately, they made the model stronger, not weaker.) I am also prepared to entertain the merits of any competitor that does not require miracles. So far, I've not heard of one.

So instead of all this abstract goo that doesn't communicate well to others, please provide a specific problem with MM, or a specific, well-defined alternative, and let's discuss those specifics. But vague concepts based largely on feelings are something that the disciplined mind instinctively knows to be fragile reeds at best. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">So far, there is no evidence of such a fault, in part because MM starts with nothing but logic (something your philosophy should approve of).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes, I do approve of that. I just don't agree with your reasoning at the outset. The difference is here. At the outset you see MIs + Logic. I see Abstract Logic and nothing else. Then I ask,

<i>"Given no 'stuff' at all, how do I logically force out the observed universe as a unique and necessary result?". </i>

Logic then subsumes matter, it is not an equal partner ... matter is only its embodiment. Hence, we cannot construct a plenum with an infinite number of elements at the outset because an infinite number of observable units is logically posterior to any finite number. Logic must build the plenum from the first element ... to ... an infinite number. From such induced starting requirements, the Standard Model would be fundamentally on the right track.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am prepared to fix, change, or abandon MM in a heartbeat if anything specific can be found wrong with it as it stands.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No ... you are not. If something is not logically kosher with MM (e.g. the "quasi-collisions" alluded to in the other thread) ... you will kill the objection by "defining" it away. That is, you defined your position as true and the other false, by fiat. Then, when a competing theory offers an alternative explanation you say that it requires a "miracle" (again by fiat).

I say a "contiguous field without experimentally identifiable parts" is not a miracle but is rather, simply one of the "matter ingredients" of the universe. I do so ... by fiat ... and know it ... and do my best to construct a working model of the universe which explains the "mostest with the leastest". You do the same thing in yours but see your starting point as the only logically possible alternative, i.e. you do not recognize your own fiat. Hence, you cannot abide an alternative theory without the denigration ... "miraculous" ... intimating that people who propose a competing theory are somehow mystics. I can assure you that I am philosophically as far away from the pope as is humanly possible ;o)

I have no confidence at all in my model of existence.

I say this because "confidence" is not a factor in building a model. One simply establishes some starting rules, then proceeds to carry them to their logical conclusion to the best of one's ability to comprehend logic and the order in which its rules must be implemented. By your writing, you understand this completely. What you do not see is the necessary involvement of "fiat" in any model. If you did you would not summarily reject the other major classes of models.

Your model may be fundamentally correct in the long run. One of the basic models must be correct as there are few conceivable alternatives. Personally, I think it will run aground on the parity reef which as I have said before is unexplainable, in principle, by any mechanical means and will force MM to accept a "miracle", i.e. an "adjustment".
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If there is only one thing, shouldn't one color be enough? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What I mean is that one must have several irreducible primaries culled from observation which are subsumed by the "one thing". By way of example, I expect to see point and field as entities without identifiable parts and irreducible actions like the rotation of a field whose intermediate angular displacements are indiscernible in principle ... expansions and contractions of fields which cannot be identified except by contrast with its opposite and left and right handed fields which also cannot be identified except by reference to the opposite. And there is also the uncertainty principle which I find to be eminently valid as a basic logical tool. I expect that 80 percent of the standard model is good work.

In MM, everything must be identifiable by it parts (MIs engaged in quasi-collisions). 80 percent of the standard model is to be scrapped.

And so I say, <i>"You cannot sound a symphony with a quartet".</i>

=================

Lastly, I hope you don't take my objections personally. I admire your willingness to find your own way and I especially enjoy to see different integrated views of existence. Hence, I hope you will continue your model to the end of your life and leave the earth with something different to think of.

It simply doesn't agree with my views which are ... not miraculous ... just different ;o)