We might see/interpret Toronto differently, but is it *really* different? Was the world flat before they discovered it? Was I not in existence until I stepped into your sights?
In what sense, though, does Toronto exist? Certainly there is a certain aggregate of roads buildings and people, a convenient arrangement of untold quadrillions of quarks. But are these what we refer to when we say "I love Toronto"? More likely we're referring to the governmental system, or the music scene, or our subjective enjoyment of the sights, sounds, tastes and smells. "Toronto" is an act of pattern recognition in millions of minds simultaneously; its apparently independent existence is an illusion caused by our ability to communicate and spread the Toronto meme far and wide.
Certainly even if we've never heard of Toronto, we can say that the pattern recognition exists in the minds of those who have heard of it; but if everyone stopped believing in Toronto simultaneously, including the people who live there, it would cease to exist. Only a lot of buildings, roads, people and sensations would remain.
Just as it's useful to know your family's medical history, I think it's useful to understand how the planets are going to affect you.
If you're trying to reduce astrological effects to naturalistic phenomena, you're out of luck: everything we know about the universe suggests that the influences of the planets on us should produce chaotic (and hence unpredictable) effects. That is to say, we shouldn't expect a nice ordered system like astrology, since a minute difference in, say, the way the wind is blowing at the time of birth could completely change the way Jupiter affects you twenty years down the line. In short, it is impossible, without a computer the size of the solar system, to know how the solar system will affect you. Of course, we happen to be living in such a computer; perhaps the best way to see how they will affect you is to wait and find out.
Side thought: G & EM forces are proportional to distance squared, which makes sense since we don't see in more than 2 dimensions. The Moon looks like a circle, and a camera can capture a moment at a view point.
Even weirder: certain information theoretic calculations involving black holes show that the maximum amount of information that can be contained in a space is proportional to its surface area, not its volume - suggesting that the universe is in some sense two-dimensional.
What do you mean by the maximum amount of information that can be contained in an area? Because in order to accurately model reality, you need a bare minimum of about 7 dimensions (3 spatial X 2 (for imaginary numbers) + 1 for time). Which suggests that a given volume of material can in fact have information a power of 5 greater than it's surface area in the exact positions of every piece of stuff inside that surface.
So, if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, you would argue that it doesn't make a sound, and I would argue that it would.
What's your thought to my questions: "Was the world flat before the 16th century?" "Did I exist before you saw me?"
Yes, I'm trying to suggest that astrological effects are naturalistic. I'm aware that these forces are small (distance^2). I'm aware that the gravitational pull of the immediate surrounding masses are stronger. However, I belive that these forces (from the Moon, etc) change at slow, consistent, MEASURABLE rate. I also think you're forgetting that we have billions of people from which to draw statistics.
So, if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, you would argue that it doesn't make a sound, and I would argue that it would. You are correct. I'd love to hear why you'd argue that it would. My own justification is that (assuming that the tree exists) it would certainly vibrate the air; but sound is an experience, an interpretation in consciousness of air vibrations, and so there would be no sound. I suppose this depends on the definition of "sound" versus "vibration through a medium."
However, I would answer your other two questions the way (I think) you would: the world was not flat before the 16th century, and you did exist before I saw you. Sound is a direct sensory percept, whereas people and worlds are inferred from sensory precepts.
However, I belive that these forces (from the Moon, etc) change at slow, consistent, MEASURABLE rate. I also think you're forgetting that we have billions of people from which to draw statistics.
You're welcome to believe what you like, of course. Unfortunately, you're right: we do have billions of people from whom to draw statistics, and no statistical study (though there have been many performed, by a wide variety of methods) has shown any correlation between astrological profiles and personality or profession. Statistically, the influence of the planets on our lives is at best completely unpredictable.
So, our definitions of sound are different, eh? The observable energy vs the observation itself.
I was just challenging what seemed to be your denial of the existence of an objective world. We are 99.99% cause and effect; input and output. The simplicity fails when our reasoning hits paradoxes, and yet conservation of energy & momentum still applies!
I do think these paradoxes affect something, but what?
Anyway... 1. Observed or not, energy moved from A to B, and we can deduce its occurrence (assuming the humanly impossible: complete knowledge of all other energy transfers).
2. Observations change the observer, not the observed. The observed doesn't change unless interfered with (eg. light was sent to bounce off it).
3. Any attempt to define 'sound' subjectively will fail by being either too complex or incomplete. If its the observation that's important, shouldn't we count the number of people successfully observing? Or quantify the amount of sonar energy interacting with observers?
I wish you had answered my other two questions how you would have. :)
"Did I exist before you saw me?" "Was the world flat before the 16th century?"
In return, I believe this would be the idea behind your response: Of course, you (Skatche) neither observed me, nor could infer me from your surroundings. It would be unfair of me to insist that you prepare for David St Bernard. You did, however, prepare for a slow rate of others entering your life over time, so at least you admit that you're not self-contained.
As for flat-world, most might not have acted with probability. However, the question of "Whats' beyond the horizon? What's beyond that?" - I'd assume that these unanswered questions were enough to keep them from a 100% assertion of flat-world.
Just like the end of space-time keeps us in check. --------------- Not astrological profiles. The positions of the planets and stars. And, actually, I've had an astronomer, who was arguing against Astrology, admit that there have been studies showing behaviour changes in co-relation to the lunar cycle.
Very little on a grand scale is predictable, but we live in a universe of probability(!)
Did that make any sense? I just meant I believe that:
1. Sound should be defined as the source of the experience, not the experience itself. 2. The objective/subjective difference is moot. 3. Behavorial changes based on the Moon are observable; so what can we see with other heavenly bodies?
if everyone stopped believing in Toronto simultaneously, including the people who live there, it would cease to exist If you simply meant the label "Toronto", then yes. The collective that was under this "Toronto" umbrella, however, will not.
I think I see where you're going with this. Might I be jumping the gun by concluding, "I seize to exist once everyone (including myself) forgets me"?
In what sense, though, does Toronto exist? Certainly there is a certain aggregate of roads buildings and people, a convenient arrangement of untold quadrillions of quarks. But are these what we refer to when we say "I love Toronto"? More likely we're referring to the governmental system, or the music scene, or our subjective enjoyment of the sights, sounds, tastes and smells. "Toronto" is an act of pattern recognition in millions of minds simultaneously; its apparently independent existence is an illusion caused by our ability to communicate and spread the Toronto meme far and wide.
Certainly even if we've never heard of Toronto, we can say that the pattern recognition exists in the minds of those who have heard of it; but if everyone stopped believing in Toronto simultaneously, including the people who live there, it would cease to exist. Only a lot of buildings, roads, people and sensations would remain.
Just as it's useful to know your family's medical history, I think it's useful to understand how the planets are going to affect you.
If you're trying to reduce astrological effects to naturalistic phenomena, you're out of luck: everything we know about the universe suggests that the influences of the planets on us should produce chaotic (and hence unpredictable) effects. That is to say, we shouldn't expect a nice ordered system like astrology, since a minute difference in, say, the way the wind is blowing at the time of birth could completely change the way Jupiter affects you twenty years down the line. In short, it is impossible, without a computer the size of the solar system, to know how the solar system will affect you. Of course, we happen to be living in such a computer; perhaps the best way to see how they will affect you is to wait and find out.
Side thought: G & EM forces are proportional to distance squared, which makes sense since we don't see in more than 2 dimensions. The Moon looks like a circle, and a camera can capture a moment at a view point.
Even weirder: certain information theoretic calculations involving black holes show that the maximum amount of information that can be contained in a space is proportional to its surface area, not its volume - suggesting that the universe is in some sense two-dimensional.
Reply
Reply
What's your thought to my questions:
"Was the world flat before the 16th century?"
"Did I exist before you saw me?"
Yes, I'm trying to suggest that astrological effects are naturalistic.
I'm aware that these forces are small (distance^2). I'm aware that the gravitational pull of the immediate surrounding masses are stronger.
However, I belive that these forces (from the Moon, etc) change at slow, consistent, MEASURABLE rate. I also think you're forgetting that we have billions of people from which to draw statistics.
Reply
You are correct. I'd love to hear why you'd argue that it would. My own justification is that (assuming that the tree exists) it would certainly vibrate the air; but sound is an experience, an interpretation in consciousness of air vibrations, and so there would be no sound. I suppose this depends on the definition of "sound" versus "vibration through a medium."
However, I would answer your other two questions the way (I think) you would: the world was not flat before the 16th century, and you did exist before I saw you. Sound is a direct sensory percept, whereas people and worlds are inferred from sensory precepts.
However, I belive that these forces (from the Moon, etc) change at slow, consistent, MEASURABLE rate. I also think you're forgetting that we have billions of people from which to draw statistics.
You're welcome to believe what you like, of course. Unfortunately, you're right: we do have billions of people from whom to draw statistics, and no statistical study (though there have been many performed, by a wide variety of methods) has shown any correlation between astrological profiles and personality or profession. Statistically, the influence of the planets on our lives is at best completely unpredictable.
Reply
The observable energy vs the observation itself.
I was just challenging what seemed to be your denial of the existence of an objective world. We are 99.99% cause and effect; input and output. The simplicity fails when our reasoning hits paradoxes, and yet conservation of energy & momentum still applies!
I do think these paradoxes affect something, but what?
Anyway...
1. Observed or not, energy moved from A to B, and we can deduce its occurrence (assuming the humanly impossible: complete knowledge of all other energy transfers).
2. Observations change the observer, not the observed. The observed doesn't change unless interfered with (eg. light was sent to bounce off it).
3. Any attempt to define 'sound' subjectively will fail by being either too complex or incomplete. If its the observation that's important, shouldn't we count the number of people successfully observing? Or quantify the amount of sonar energy interacting with observers?
I wish you had answered my other two questions how you would have. :)
"Did I exist before you saw me?"
"Was the world flat before the 16th century?"
In return, I believe this would be the idea behind your response:
Of course, you (Skatche) neither observed me, nor could infer me from your surroundings. It would be unfair of me to insist that you prepare for David St Bernard. You did, however, prepare for a slow rate of others entering your life over time, so at least you admit that you're not self-contained.
As for flat-world, most might not have acted with probability. However, the question of "Whats' beyond the horizon? What's beyond that?" - I'd assume that these unanswered questions were enough to keep them from a 100% assertion of flat-world.
Just like the end of space-time keeps us in check.
---------------
Not astrological profiles. The positions of the planets and stars. And, actually, I've had an astronomer, who was arguing against Astrology, admit that there have been studies showing behaviour changes in co-relation to the lunar cycle.
Very little on a grand scale is predictable, but we live in a universe of probability(!)
Reply
1. Sound should be defined as the source of the experience, not the experience itself.
2. The objective/subjective difference is moot.
3. Behavorial changes based on the Moon are observable; so what can we see with other heavenly bodies?
if everyone stopped believing in Toronto simultaneously, including the people who live there, it would cease to exist
If you simply meant the label "Toronto", then yes.
The collective that was under this "Toronto" umbrella, however, will not.
I think I see where you're going with this. Might I be jumping the gun by concluding, "I seize to exist once everyone (including myself) forgets me"?
Reply
Leave a comment