4 ms·

> then it requires a perspective to isolate it as "a thing" which means you are basically claiming there must have been a creator. This statement doesn't follo

by wyager 10y ago

> then it requires a perspective to isolate it as "a thing" which means you are basically claiming there must have been a creator. This statement doesn't follow. They're entirely unrelated claims. > If there is no creator then there is no perspective other than that of observers like us... the quantum physical one. Stop trying to integrate pseudo-quantum physics into hokey philosophical arguments. You don't know what you're talking about, and it detracts from any value the argument might otherwise have. Humans are not unique as "observers" in quantum physics. Air molecules appear to work as well. We haven't solved the measurement problem, but we know enough to say that it almost certainly doesn't have any bearing on arguments about platonic realism.

ThomPete 10y ago
Who claimed we were unique observers? Please stop your strawmen and please stop cutting sentence of a larger discussion into pieces to try and dismiss them. Air-molecules doesn't change anything with regards to the claim that things exist "out there" non what so ever. If your only beef is that you don't think I know anything about QM then I will live with that.
mcbits 10y ago
Where does one cloud end and the next cloud begin? The boundaries and distinctive traits of clouds only exist in our minds. We can build mathematical objects that look something like clouds according to the observable characteristics deemed intrinsic to our definition of "cloud". We can't simulate real cloud systems with arbitrary fidelity because the the mathematical foundation we've invented leads rapidly to intractable computation. "But supposing we had infinite computation" is magical thinking. Still, the universe gives us clouds. It's operating on different foundational principles. Now, moving from sky clouds to things like electron clouds, we have the added problem of what appears to be "true" non-computable randomness (not just chaos) underlying it all. Many worlds doesn't rid us of the randomness problem but merely shifts it to the problem of deciding which branch we inhabit before/after an event. We can still hang onto the notion of mathematics as discovery by recognizing it as a process of self-discovery about how our brains perceive the world.

by wyager 10y ago

ThomPete 10y ago

Who claimed we were unique observers? Please stop your strawmen and please stop cutting sentence of a larger discussion into pieces to try and dismiss them. Air-molecules doesn't change anything with regards to the claim that things exist "out there" non what so ever. If your only beef is that you don't think I know anything about QM then I will live with that.

mcbits 10y ago

Where does one cloud end and the next cloud begin? The boundaries and distinctive traits of clouds only exist in our minds. We can build mathematical objects that look something like clouds according to the observable characteristics deemed intrinsic to our definition of "cloud". We can't simulate real cloud systems with arbitrary fidelity because the the mathematical foundation we've invented leads rapidly to intractable computation. "But supposing we had infinite computation" is magical thinking. Still, the universe gives us clouds. It's operating on different foundational principles. Now, moving from sky clouds to things like electron clouds, we have the added problem of what appears to be "true" non-computable randomness (not just chaos) underlying it all. Many worlds doesn't rid us of the randomness problem but merely shifts it to the problem of deciding which branch we inhabit before/after an event. We can still hang onto the notion of mathematics as discovery by recognizing it as a process of self-discovery about how our brains perceive the world.