HUH??



Outside what mind? And what do you mean by "THE MIND?"



What evidence do you have that we did not create this physical realm and that it is independent of our state of mind?



I don't agree with your opinions above. You said: "If you disagree with that then your frame of reference is skewed and inconsistent etc etc....."

That is simply your opinion from your own frame of reference. I do understand where you are coming from, but you do not understand where Sky is coming from. You two are on two different pages. You cannot have a meeting of the minds if you don't attempt to understand what he is saying about how everything begins with "self" and the subjective."

I'm chiming in a bit late in this discussion but will add that evidence is what is clearly observable. The problem is that an event that was clearly observable 2,000 years ago is not clearly observable now.

Let's take a collision of a comet into a sun. Modern science can allow us to view such an event, but had this event happened before the advent of the telescope one can claim that no such event happened.

Faith is the belief in evidence that is not yet revealed. It's the reliance on the concept that we are not all knowing. It's not much different when an animal senses danger though a predator is not yet in view. Therefore, faith is based on evidence not immediately revealed, but evidence none the less.

evidence is concrete and not subjective. What that evidence proves or disproves is subjective.

Most often it all depends how you frame your belief or theory. The better you frame it the less arguable it is. Much like a good lawyer.

"If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit."

You can say that about everything we don't know. Get off your *** and work on advancing them if you care or you can just sit around complaining while other people do the work.

If nobody ever works on answering a question how can you expect it to ever be answered?

And besides, it's silly to say that you can't pick out at least a few of the factors involved in walks lifting someone's mood. We're able to induce depression in mice and then monitor their brain activity with implanted electrodes these days. It won't give you the full story of how it works in humans but it's an easy start with useful information.

What would complete even mean?

How do you need quantum fields to work out brain chemistry? Do you just start gibbering about quarks every time you want to talk about things we don't know?

You'll need to rewrite that. I can't understand how we would have any reason to study something if we already had complete knowledge.

I stopped giving you sources and links when you ignored the fallacy page. Show me that you understand why an argument from ignorance is bad and maybe I'll start supplying you with sources.

You don't read. I'm pushing you philosophically and logically here without my opinion having entered the equation. I can understand you not having read my conversation with JB about how I keep my opinion to myself but from this point on I expect you to stop rejecting my posts as opinions.

What you can do is reject them on factual or philosophical grounds, if you're capable of that.

I think this is a good point. Also, you must also have faith in the authority presenting the evidence. One person cannot know everything, so you have to have faith in the authority who does know what you do not know.

Faith and evidence work together. I don't think you can exclude one of these. If a person I did not respect or trust presented "evidence" to me about something I may not believe his so-called "evidence." Evidence can be manufactured to support a belief.

I apologize for using the word "faith."

Good by

And yet everyone knows he was guilty.

Excellent! Agreed!

Better that we let murderers go when we can't prove they did it than that we lock up people we simply suspect are criminals.

What makes you think I'm not working on advancing science? Major discoveries aren't made every day. I'm retired now, but during my career I've made plenty of contributions to technology if not science.

Besides if modern scientists are to be given any respect whatsoever we must conclude that there is very much they don't know. They have proposed a whole new quantum field called the Higgs Field.

You say,



What do you think a quantum field entails? The electron is a property of the quantum electromagnetic field of charge. Without that field electrons would not exist and we would not have electromagnetism and brains wouldn't work at all.

I don't view quantum fields as 'quantum particles' that only exist on a tiny scale. The quantum fields give rise to those particles and all their effects. In fact, the "particles" we call bosons aren't really "particles" at all, they are considered to be force carring field.

In fact, I don't think of quantum 'particles' as 'particles' at all anymore. And neither to quantum physicists. They are merely ripples in the associated 'fields'. That's what they are.

Erwin Schrodinger attempting to put this into layman's terms for the non-physicist.

"What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space." - Erwin Schrodinger

This isn't just some sort of off-the-wall metaphysical interpretation. This is what the mathematics is telling us directly translated into layman's terms.

In fact, it is believed that the Higgs Field is the field that gives rise to the dynamic property of mass called inertia.

IF this is true then the existence of the Higgs Field (or the Higgs Particles if you like which is just a ripple in the Higgs Field), gives rise to the macro property of inertia.

So to pass quantum physics off as merely having to do with the very small is to not understand quantum physics at all.

Quantum phyiscs is all about the macro behavior of the world. I guess this is where we differ wildly in our views of quantum physics.

Thus, when I talk about undiscovered quantum "particles" I'm talking about entirely new quantum fields that bring with them macro properties that must necessarily affect everything in the macro world.

Moreover, scientists have not only proposed the yet undiscovered "Higgs Fields" but they have also proposed an entire family of "supersymmetric particles" (i.e. Supersymmetric fields) that have not yet been discovered.

They are searching for those particles in their particle accelerators. I don't have a particle accelerater at my cottage in the woods so I'll just have to wait for them to discover the particles.

Besides, you say that I'm "complaining" about science not knowing everything. But it's not a "complaint" at all. It's merely an observation of the truth. An observation that you apparently don't fully understand.

I'm just pointing out the facts sir. That's not at all the same as complaining. Scientists openly confess that they know every little about this universe that we live in. They most certainly aren't in any position to be "ruling things out" when they have no clue what's even going on.

That's the only point that I'm making. I'm just being practical and reasonable.

Your entire presentation depends upon one claim...



That, my friend, is as false as a claim can get.

The only way to make that true is to redefine QM. If you do that, it is no longer QM. The math itself changes as it applies to larger things. In doing so, it becomes equal to classical(Einsteinian) physics. That is a intrinsic feature of the mathematics. QM is, by it's very mathematical formulas, irrelevant to macro scale environment. To claim otherwise violates the math itself.

For you to claim what you have here also goes against every definition of Quantum Mechanics I have ever read. I would be willing to bet that you cannot find one reputable source to support that claim. I can find literally thousands which deny it.

What do you think would be adequate?

I'm not going to argue with you Michael.

You are more than free to view these things however you see fit.

I've given my grounds for why I see things the way I do. From my perspective the quantum descriptions are genuinely about fields not "particles". The notion of particles is actually just an older word that is a hangover from Classical thinking.

So as far as I'm concerned I'm in complete agreement with the quantum physcists who actually worked on this stuff. They have recognized that this universe is the result of fields that give rise to properties. And as I've already pointed out those fields are what give rise to the macro universe its properties.

So we are simply in disgreement on how 'quantum physics' applies to the universe in general. It's a major disagreement in views to be sure. I'll grant you that.

But I'm not about to change my understanding of physics after 60 years of life's experience just because you are still thinking in terms of particles.

I think solely in terms of fields that have properties that affect all of macro space. That's where I'm coming from.

And once again, I'll offer the view of Erwin Schrodinger.

"What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space." - Erwin Schrodinger

I agree with Dr. Schrodinger. That's the bottom line for me.

And Schrodinger was not the only quantum physicist to voice this view by far.

So we just differ drastically in our views of quantum physics.

That's all there is to it.

You reject my notion that quantum physics is indeed a description of the very nature of the foundation of all of physical existence.

And I reject your notion that quantum physics only describes the properties of extremely small 'particles' that have nothing to do with the macro behavior of things.

Apparently we'll never agree.

I suggest that you continue to hold your opinions, and I'll continue to hold mine, and that we cease this nonsense of trying to demand that one of is us right and the other one is wrong.

I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm simply saying that I disagree with your views.

Could you be kind enough to return the courtesy and offer me the same respect?

samgen wrote:



I think that evidence not yet revealed amounts to no evidence. Faith therefore exists without evidence.



Science does this, without faith. The fact that we are not all knowing is proven every time we learn something knew. Acknowledging that requires no faith. That can be reasonably inferred through our knowledge of a consistent objective actuality/universe.



This analogy fails. There is a huge difference.

An animal senses danger by direct perception through at least one of it's senses. If it does not, it becomes a meal. A deer may not visually perceive the sound of a small twig snapping, but hearing it will raise it's awareness level and instinctively cause an alert state of mind. That is an example of an independently verifiable auditory perception of what we consider to be sufficient evidence to conclude that something else is in the woods. What that something is may not be immediately revealed, but the evidence is not that thing. It is an outward sign or indication of the idea that another thing is there.



What exactly constitutes evidence not immediately revealed? Unrevealed evidence does not exist. Either there is evidence, or there is the hope that there will be evidence found, it cannot be both simultaneously.

The most important aspect when considering all evidence is the determination of it's sufficiency and relevance.

Saying that "unrevealed evidence does not exist" is the same as saying that if you don't observe a thing then it does not exist or it ceases to exist. That is a very subjective idea.

And:
What is the difference between "unrevealed (nonexistent) evidence and "unfound" evidence?

Are your saying that evidence is not evidence unless it is revealed but that unfound evidence IS evidence... it just has not be found?

That seems to contradict.

You need to address what is written. That approach does not elaborate on the context of the thread. It avoids it. Please, address the words which I write. This thread is not about freedom of belief. It is about the concept of evidence. All evidence is weighed according to it's relevancy and sufficiency(adequacy). That is what is being discussed.



This presents a perfect opportunity to examine this written testimony for relevance and/or sufficiency.

1.)The only grounds you've given thus far have been your own unsupported opinion.

a. Unsupported opinion is unverified. Relevancy and sufficiency are attributes which are determined after the information is verified to be accurate/true. Information must first be verified as true before it further considered. This can be done with logic or with independent objective evidence, such as a peer-reviewed piece of writing which verifies your opinion.

b. If a opinion goes unverified, it must be considered as nothing more than an opinion, and therefore is to be held as an unreliable means for drawing true conclusions. For if this is not the case, then any and all opinion would hold the same amount of validity, and we all know that that is not true.

Based upon this, and keeping with the topic of the thread, I would like for you to verify your opinion. That is not done by offering more of the same. In doing so, it would at least gain the attribute of being true/accurate. With that, we could then assess the relevance and/or sufficiency.



We're not talking about what satisfies you personally. We are talking about evidence.

This is a written testimony which is being used as evidence for why you feel the way you do. That is not in question here. The sufficiency and/or relevance of evidence for that is in question, specifically how that is determined.

What can we logically conclude from this tesitimony? Because the quantum physicists' understandings have not been shown, your understanding has not been shown to correlate to that. Therefore, we can only conclude that you believe that you're understanding is in complete agreement with the quantum physicists who actually worked on this stuff. Whether or not that belief is based upon fact is yet to have been shown, and therefore, can only be objectively considered as you unsupported belief at this time. It has yet to have been shown as true/accurate.

Thus, this is one example of why independent verification is absolutely necessary in determining the accuracy of openly asserted opinion. Opinion must be verified before it is to be held as a sufficient means for drawing conclusions based upon it, and it alone.

As of this point, the most important aspects of your testimony goes unverified.



I am much less concerned about the fact that we are in disagreement. I am focused upon the topic at hand. That is evidence and it's suffiency and/or relevancy.



I am not asking you to do that.

Is mind reading possible? If so, that can be proven, and then the above statement may hold a little more weight. As it stands though, this discussion is concerning evidence, and not mind-reading. You have no evidence to make that claim. I have not even used the term particle in this thread.

Oddly enough, in today's day and age, the people who currently work on the things which you offering an opinion on still call it particle physics because the term itself is irrelevant.





It would be more accurate to say that you agree with what you think he means. That quote could be referring to either macro or micro observations, and without having the context from which the quote was taken, we cannot possibly conclude that this quote verifies your idea that QM describes the macro.

There are however, literally thousands of verified writings that can be used as direct objective evidence which constitute the grounds upon which I based my opinion, and those have nothing to do with whether or not you think that I think in outdated terms of particles. What I am offering as evidence exists independently of what either one of us think.

Again, what do you think would be adequate?



I did not reject that.



If you're going to reject my claim(s), or claim to know what I reject, then first quote that. I reject the method you are using to present your evidence because your description of my claims does not coincide with those.

At this point in time, there has been evidence offered in order for you to assess it. You continue to assess that which you believe that I think. In other words, you subjectively assess your own thoughts about what you think I am claiming.

Why don't we look at the evidence being presented and determine it's accuracy, relevancy, and sufficiency?



If one does not wish to examine the evidence being presented here, and would instead like to just agree to disagree without verifying the evidence at hand, then why participate in this thread? It could be said, that having respect for the OP requires thinking in terms laid out in the OP and further clarified throughout the thread, couldn't it?

Being honest with myself, I see no way to disagree with another's views without necessarily thinking that those views are *somehow* wrong. For if that were not the case, then there could be no disagreement. For no one knowingly holds false beliefs to be true. It is the manner differences are displayed that constitutes an important aspect here. Disagreement necessitates difference. However, that does not demand that those differences must be displayed in a negative manner. The only way to examine those differences is to examine their grounds. That is done by weighing the evidence at hand.

That is also the topic of the thread, and has been the context maintained in my thought throughout.

Well, like I say, you dissmiss the relevancy and sufficiency of certain evidence that I consdier to be relevant and sufficient.

That's strictly a matter of personal perspective and subjective opinion just as Sky and Jeanniebean have made crystal clear and have eloquently expressed many times over.

So what you consider to be "relevant and sufficient" is nothing more than your own subjective opinion based on what you personally feel is "relevant and sufficient".

What I consider to be "relavent and sufficent" is nothing more than my subjective opinion. I'll be the first to agree with that as well.

So as far as I can see all you are attempting to do is to merely assert that you are going to decide what's "relevant and sufficient" for everyone.

I see no value in that whatsoever.

With all due respect, I'm not interested in what you subjectively consider to be "relevant and sufficient".

Why should I care about that?

Weighed by whom?

Verified to be accurate or true by whom?

Exactly. I have "evidence." Some have indicated that my evidence is not "relevant or sufficient" FOR THEM to be convinced or to even consider.

To that I would reply: "Oh well."