Your memories are almost certainly false

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Rule Britannia already addressed those links perfectly adequately. I saw no need to repeat his post.

Right. That's because you're apparently not very smart. He's 23. Youthful exuberance. I'm not sure what your excuse is.

The Poincaré Recurrence Theorem applies only to volume-preserving systems. The universe certainly does not fall under this category so it does not apply in this case.

This is where you should have read the references in the first link, where they explicitly discuss how an expanding universe resurrects the Boltzmann brain problem due to de Sitter radiation coming from the cosmological horizon.

I told you. Read the effing links.

Your ignorance I can take. Your arrogance is starting to get old.

And your personal insults are getting old as well.

Kindly discuss your theories and criticism of them without resorting to ad hominum attacks. I have not stooped to that with you. I would appreciate reciprocation.

I am bored with discussing thinly-veiled solipsism and being insulted for my pains. My last on topic post was the last I will be making.

If I return to this thread, it will be in my official capacity, should you choose to ignore my request to play nice.

Here are a couple of links for you to read. Kindly familiarise yourself with the standard of behaviour we expect here.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 9#playnice
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 9#personal

[RexAllen]

You can extract useful work by increasing entropy. That's what living systems do.

True. However, this fact has nothing to do with the original post, or the subsequent discussion. Nowhere have I denied your point.

It has nothing to do with fluctuations of the type that occur in Brownian motion.

Which is ironic, because this thread *is* entirely about statistical fluctuations away from thermal equilibrium.

[Feck]

ARGUMENT FROM QUANTUM PHYSICS
(1) Quantum physics uses an uncertainty principle.
(2) There is room for God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
ARGUMENT FROM THE 2nd LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS (I)
(1) The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that a closed system tends to disorder.
(2) The universe is closed and ordered.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM 2+2=4
(1) 2+2=4
(2) Think about how improbable that is.
(3) If the universe were left to random chance, 2+2 would probably not equal 4.
(4) Instead, it might be equal to -43, or 7,894,321,695,844, or something else.
(5) Only God could make 2+2=4.
(6) Therefore, God exists.

[RexAllen]

ARGUMENT FROM QUANTUM PHYSICS
...
ARGUMENT FROM THE 2nd LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS (I)
...
ARGUMENT FROM 2+2=4
...

I'm not arguing in favor of the existence of God. I'm arguing that physicalism isn't a coherent world-view and shouldn't be taken on *faith* as I would guess that most of the people on this forum do.

Physicalism is as much a religion as Catholicism.

However, note that I'm *not* saying that science is a religion. Science is a methodology for analyzing observations and extrapolating from past experience to make predictions.

But since science is based on conscious observation, science ultimately only tells us about our subjective observations. It doesn't tell us about what *really* exists.

Kant, Hume, and Berkeley covered all this. And while I don't think they were right in every detail, I think that between the three of them they had it pretty much figured out...leaving out the religious aspects of their proposals.

It seems to me that the true fundamental facts are our observations, not physical facts per se. Physics is just a summary of human experience. We construct plausible scientific narratives that are consistent with what we observe, BUT these are descriptive metaphors, not explanations. Our observations are such that it is *as though* electrons exist...not that electrons *actually* exist.

I don't see what introducing the "physical world" buys us in our attempts to explain our orderly conscious experiences. If it is intended to explain the order and consistency of our experiences, then what explains the physical world's order and consistency? It seems to me that we've just changed the question, not answered it. And in the process introduced the additional question of how consciousness arises from matter.

So we have our orderly conscious experiences and we want to explain them. To do this, we need some context to place these experiences in. So we postulate the existence of an orderly external universe that “causes” our experiences. But then we have to explain what caused this orderly external universe, and also the particular initial conditions and causal laws that result in what we observe

So this is basically Kant's first antinomy of pure reason. Either there is a first cause, which itself is uncaused, OR there is an infinite chain of prior causes stretching infinitely far into the past. But why this particular infinite chain as opposed to some other? In fact, why our particular "infinite chain of prior causes" or "first cause" instead of Nothing existing at all?

It seems that either way (infinite chain or first cause), at the end you are left with only one reasonable conclusion: There is no reason that things are this way. They just are.

BUT...we could have just said that about our conscious experiences to start with and saved ourselves the trouble of postulating a whole physical universe.

[Feck]

ARGUMENT FROM QUANTUM PHYSICS
...
ARGUMENT FROM THE 2nd LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS (I)
...
ARGUMENT FROM 2+2=4
...

I'm not arguing in favor of the existence of God. I'm arguing that physicalism isn't a coherent world-view and shouldn't be taken on *faith* as I would guess that most of the people on this forum do.

Physicalism is as much a religion as Catholicism.

However, note that I'm *not* saying that science is a religion. Science is a methodology for analyzing observations and extrapolating from past experience to make predictions.

But since science is based on conscious observation, science ultimately only tells us about our subjective observations. It doesn't tell us about what *really* exists.

Kant, Hume, and Berkeley covered all this. And while I don't think they were right in every detail, I think that between the three of them they had it pretty much figured out...leaving out the religious aspects of their proposals.

It seems to me that the true fundamental facts are our observations, not physical facts per se. Physics is just a summary of human experience. We construct plausible scientific narratives that are consistent with what we observe, BUT these are descriptive metaphors, not explanations. Our observations are such that it is *as though* electrons exist...not that electrons *actually* exist.

I don't see what introducing the "physical world" buys us in our attempts to explain our orderly conscious experiences. If it is intended to explain the order and consistency of our experiences, then what explains the physical world's order and consistency? It seems to me that we've just changed the question, not answered it. And in the process introduced the additional question of how consciousness arises from matter.

So we have our orderly conscious experiences and we want to explain them. To do this, we need some context to place these experiences in. So we postulate the existence of an orderly external universe that “causes” our experiences. But then we have to explain what caused this orderly external universe, and also the particular initial conditions and causal laws that result in what we observe

So this is basically Kant's first antinomy of pure reason. Either there is a first cause, which itself is uncaused, OR there is an infinite chain of prior causes stretching infinitely far into the past. But why this particular infinite chain as opposed to some other? In fact, why our particular "infinite chain of prior causes" or "first cause" instead of Nothing existing at all?

It seems that either way (infinite chain or first cause), at the end you are left with only one reasonable conclusion: There is no reason that things are this way. They just are.

BUT...we could have just said that about our conscious experiences to start with and saved ourselves the trouble of postulating a whole physical universe.

Look, I have yet to be convinced that I exist .... but I'm still not swallowing any interpretation of the fringes of human maths,physics or Meta-physics
as proof of ANYTHING Especially as we have so little Data .. And I think the universe will do quite well on it's own without a cause . If string theory holds any water then all of this will seem very different . What caused the first cause if you find one ........ As far as I know the universe IS , that's enough for me

[Twiglet]

The trouble with such solipistic arguments is that te equally apply to solipsism itself, which like the God of Hitchikers guide to the Galaxy then disappears in a puff its own logic.

[RuleBritannia]

Physicalism is as much a religion as Catholicism.

[RexAllen]

Physicalism is as much a religion as Catholicism.

You'll understand when you're older.

[Twiglet]

Physicalism is as much a religion as Catholicism.

You'll understand when you're older.

If dementia sets in.....

[RexAllen]

Physicalism is as much a religion as Catholicism.

You'll understand when you're older.

If dementia sets in.....

Rather, if you make better use of your time that Twiglet has...

[charlou]

ARGUMENT FROM QUANTUM PHYSICS
...
ARGUMENT FROM THE 2nd LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS (I)
...
ARGUMENT FROM 2+2=4
...

I'm not arguing in favor of the existence of God. I'm arguing that physicalism isn't a coherent world-view and shouldn't be taken on *faith* as I would guess that most of the people on this forum do.

Physicalism is as much a religion as Catholicism.

However, note that I'm *not* saying that science is a religion. Science is a methodology for analyzing observations and extrapolating from past experience to make predictions.

But since science is based on conscious observation, science ultimately only tells us about our subjective observations. It doesn't tell us about what *really* exists.

Kant, Hume, and Berkeley covered all this. And while I don't think they were right in every detail, I think that between the three of them they had it pretty much figured out...leaving out the religious aspects of their proposals.

It seems to me that the true fundamental facts are our observations, not physical facts per se. Physics is just a summary of human experience. We construct plausible scientific narratives that are consistent with what we observe, BUT these are descriptive metaphors, not explanations. Our observations are such that it is *as though* electrons exist...not that electrons *actually* exist.

I don't see what introducing the "physical world" buys us in our attempts to explain our orderly conscious experiences. If it is intended to explain the order and consistency of our experiences, then what explains the physical world's order and consistency? It seems to me that we've just changed the question, not answered it. And in the process introduced the additional question of how consciousness arises from matter.

So we have our orderly conscious experiences and we want to explain them. To do this, we need some context to place these experiences in. So we postulate the existence of an orderly external universe that “causes” our experiences. But then we have to explain what caused this orderly external universe, and also the particular initial conditions and causal laws that result in what we observe

So this is basically Kant's first antinomy of pure reason. Either there is a first cause, which itself is uncaused, OR there is an infinite chain of prior causes stretching infinitely far into the past. But why this particular infinite chain as opposed to some other? In fact, why our particular "infinite chain of prior causes" or "first cause" instead of Nothing existing at all?

It seems that either way (infinite chain or first cause), at the end you are left with only one reasonable conclusion: There is no reason that things are this way. They just are.

BUT...we could have just said that about our conscious experiences to start with and saved ourselves the trouble of postulating a whole physical universe.

Look, I have yet to be convinced that I exist .... but I'm still not swallowing any interpretation of the fringes of human maths,physics or Meta-physics
as proof of ANYTHING Especially as we have so little Data .. And I think the universe will do quite well on it's own without a cause . If string theory holds any water then all of this will seem very different . What caused the first cause if you find one ........ As far as I know the universe IS , that's enough for me

Seems the two of you are in basic agreement ... ?


Rex, we will postulate and test and strive to learn because that's how we've got this far in knowledge and its resulting useful benefits (as well as some not so beneficial/very destructive usage), such as technology and medicine. The model I have of the universe in my mind is most logically consistant with what I experience. Of course that's subjective, but that doesn't negate the possibility that it is also objectively so, just that I can never know if it is objectively so. aheheh

But, yeah, seem to be in agreement with your post there too.

[Tigger]

RexAllen I'll look out for you when they announce next years Nobel Prize winners, I probably won't see you though 'cause you're clearly an idiot.

If your previous posts hadn't been so lame as to indicate mental deficiency, that might have stung.

Again, none of the ideas presented are mine. All the information is in the links provided.

Some advice:

"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son."

This post was reported by a member for the ad hominems it contains. The thread degenerated fairly quickly into unpleasantness, and while we're not inclined to nanny people, I think this link to our rules, especially for the newer people might be a good idea. So, please stick to discussing the topic rather than applying personal insults according to the play nice philosophy we have, and it'll be fine.

[JOZeldenrust]

Living organisms aren't closed systems, and neither are their brains.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Actually, human memories are pretty reliable. Although there are factors that can influence memory reliability at both acquisition, consolidation and retrieval, in most common-day scenarios our memory is pretty much on. Situations to look out for aren't so much 'spontaneous recovery' of memories (which generally have been retrieved before, but one has forgotten that they were retrieved) but memories that are retrieved under hypnosis or forms of therapy that leave the individual open to suggestion. And of course, talking to other people post-memory can adjust a memory quite effectively.

There's interesting research being done on memory. I don't think this thread does much service to it.

[Trolldor]

I recommend you study a little psychology Rex, you learn all about memory.

Actually, human memories are pretty reliable.

If they're recent, sure.

There's interesting research being done on memory. I don't think this thread does much service to it.

I don't much think many people here dabble in Psychology or Neuroscience on a daily basis either.