Superdeterministic Universe

NeoSound

NeoSound

Fractal Fanatic
Cliff used a term a bit ago "thinky pain". Some of the ideas and concepts of how reality works give me thinky pain, yet I still immensely enjoy reading and learning about other's thoughts on how it all works. A lot goes over my head, but I also see that happen often to these extremely intelligent people.
Things appear to be superdeterministic in the physical universe but somehow life, consciousness and perception seems to exist completely outside of that, or at least use a different rule book?

 
NeoSound said:
Cliff used a term a bit ago "thinky pain". Some of the ideas and concepts of how reality works give me thinky pain, yet I still immensely enjoy reading and learning about other's thoughts on how it all works. A lot goes over my head, but I also see that happen often to these extremely intelligent people.
Things appear to be superdeterministic in the physical universe but somehow life, consciousness and perception seems to exist completely outside of that, or at least use a different rule book?

Click to expand...

I'm starting to think we're just lab rats in cages being studied in this little backwater corner of our galaxy.



And, I like this quote:
The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. — Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Click to expand...
 
Fundamentally, the objections to determinism have always been that it makes us uncomfortable. That may be, but that's hardly a strong argument against it. Similarly, the objections to the many world interpretation have always been that it seems like a lot of information for the universe to keep track of. But that's a subjective value judgement, and hardly a strong argument against it.
 
GlennO said:
Fundamentally, the objections to determinism have always been that it makes us uncomfortable. That may be, but that's hardly a strong argument against it. Similarly, the objections to the many world interpretation have always been that it seems like a lot of information for the universe to keep track of. But that's a subjective value judgement, and hardly a strong argument against it.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. Kinda like that insane trick pool shot some guys can pull off and know what will happen with every ball every single time. The universe did that trick shot x hundreds of trillions of trillions but sent every single subatomic particle on an exact course to??? That doesn't seem to explain living things and consciousness in a cohesive way to the above. Someday we will get closer?
 
I feel obligated to respond here as if I am somehow mysteriously compelled to do so, but am
going to choose not to respond. So, there superdeterminism.

Oooppppsssss....... :)
 
GlennO said:
Fundamentally, the objections to determinism have always been that it makes us uncomfortable. That may be, but that's hardly a strong argument against it. Similarly, the objections to the many world interpretation have always been that it seems like a lot of information for the universe to keep track of. But that's a subjective value judgement, and hardly a strong argument against it.
Click to expand...
If you are referring to the multiverse theory ….that was developed out of necessity in order to keep and maintain plausible the lambdaCDM Standard Model.

Without it….random chance drastically loses credibility.
 
I remember reading a book some year ago my first tenure in college: Zen & The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

The book's main character, Phaedrus, described a lot of what I'm hearing in the OP's original video. Realism, where reality exists independent of observation, or Determinism, where reality exists only when we observe it.

Pirsig's metaphysical monism (yeah, I wrote a paper about it Oct 8, 1976 for my Humanities course) was that reality exists in the quality of instantaneous observation.

For example, when we first see a new baby's laughing face, or an exquisite landscape, a beautiful flower, or a beaded with condensation, ice cold glass of water on a hot summer's day, the instant we see it, was described as "quality."

Further, quality is not inherent in either object or subject. Quality is described as the instantaneous moment when object and subject meet. Any post-instantaneous intellectualization after the meeting, is known as thought, and is not part of the realm of quality, which the author intended his main character to muse about.

The author concluded that subjects require objects, otherwise there is no subjective frame-of-reference, and that objects require subjects, otherwise there is no instantaneous point of quality.

This is all very interesting, but it stems from the writings of Lao Tzu, in the Tao Teh Ching. Lao Tzu said that Quality "may be looked at, but not seen, listened to, but cannot be heard, grasped at, but cannot be touched. These three elude all our inquiries and hence blend and become one."

Likewise, Quality is the origin of both heaven and earth.

Perhaps physicists are viewing realism and determinism from a philosophical POV, based on their knowledge of previous realms of thought rather than from either a real or deterministic view. If that's the case, physicists are relying on philosophy that is over 2000 years old, only recalled by Zen & The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
 
Last edited:
bleujazz3 said:
I remember reading a book some year ago my first tenure in college: Zen & The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

The book's main character, Phaedrus, described a lot of what I'm hearing in the OP's original video. Realism, where reality exists independent of observation, or Determinism, where reality exists only when we observe it.

Pirsig's metaphysical monism (yeah, I wrote a paper about it Oct 8, 1976 for my Humanities course) was that reality exists in the quality of instantaneous observation.

For example, when we first see a new baby's laughing face, or an exquisite landscape, a beautiful flower, or a beaded with condensation, ice cold glass of water on a hot summer's day, the instant we see it, was described as "quality."

Further, quality is not inherent in either object nor subject. Quality is described as the instantaneous moment when object and subject meet. Any post-instantaneous intellectualization after the meeting, is known as thought, and is not part of the realm of quality, which the author intended his main character to muse about.

The author concluded that subjects require objects, otherwise there is no subjective frame-of-reference, and that objects require subjects, otherwise there is no instantaneous point of quality.

This is all very interesting, but it stems from the writings of Lao Tzu, in the Tao Teh Ching. Lao Tzu said that Quality "may be looked at, but not seen, listened to, but cannot be heard, grasped at, but cannot be touched. These three elude all our inquiries and hence blend and become one."

Likewise, Quality is the origin of both heaven and earth.

Perhaps physicists are viewing realism and determinism from a philosophical POV, based on their knowledge of previous realms of thought rather than from either a real or deterministic view. If that's the case, physicists are relying on philosophy that is over 2000 years old, only recalled by Zen & The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
Click to expand...

Quality is completely a human construct. In reality (particles/waves?) taking different states is just that. Deciding it's good or bad has nothing to do with the actual reality of their placement at the time of observation/measurement.
Consciousness and life have yet to be defined and seem to exist in a completely different ruleset or equation outside of the rest of reality. This is always left out of theories describing other observations. Maybe because we don't have a clue?
 
NeoSound said:
Quality is completely a human construct. In reality (particles/waves?) taking different states is just that. Deciding it's good or bad has nothing to do with the actual reality of their placement at the time of observation/measurement.
Consciousness and life have yet to be defined and seem to exist in a completely different ruleset or equation outside of the rest of reality. This is always left out of theories describing other observations. Maybe because we don't have a clue?
Click to expand...
Well, I do know that in the Bible that there are many things we do not yet understand that will be revealed to us...someday. Perhaps if faith and science have any connection, it's to keep asking questions about our existence and the complexities of our natural world. Someday we may know.

I don't know the answer to the complexities of this world, or what physical laws govern it, but I do know that if any of the physical laws were to change only in the tiniest amount, the universe would fall apart.

Consider the stuff you learned in chemistry and biochemistry. The strong and weak forces, etc. All that is part of the small picture. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty content knowing that the universe had its beginning with some intelligent design of those laws governing our entire history.
 
Last edited:
NeoSound said:
Quality is completely a human construct. In reality (particles/waves?) taking different states is just that. Deciding it's good or bad has nothing to do with the actual reality of their placement at the time of observation/measurement.
Consciousness and life have yet to be defined and seem to exist in a completely different ruleset or equation outside of the rest of reality. This is always left out of theories describing other observations. Maybe because we don't have a clue?
Click to expand...
I think what I was trying to relate to was the 2 schools of realism and determinism. Check my post a couple back which describe the OP's first video about realism and determinism. The reason I mentioned my college paper was because it sounded very familiar, and brought back memories of my stint in college in the late 70s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom