Why does change exists?

[andrewpkyap]

Why can't there be no change? Can we ever imagine a place where change does not occur? Is it possible for such a place to exist? What are the conditions that must be in place for a place that change does not exist to exist?

[premjan]

Because of the interaction of energy with matter. Photons experience no subjective change (time is relativistically stopped for them). But matter does experience change due to its interactions with energy.

[Garrett]

Because matter - an atom, let's say - is not an otherwise static object which is affected by energy. The atom is a collection of interactions.

[kennethamy]

Why can't there be no change? Can we ever imagine a place where change does not occur? Is it possible for such a place to exist? What are the conditions that must be in place for a place that change does not exist to exist?

Possibly, in the beginning, there was a Parmenedian static Universe in which nothing at all changed. But can you possibly imagine how boring that must have been? Nothing to look forward to except for of that same. How long do you suppose that could have gone on (especially with hippies on the scene). So, undoubtedly some enterprising young hippie suddenly rose and expostulated, "This is no-where's-ville!! Let's so something different." And when his shocked companions asked him why, he naturally replied, "Oh, just for a change!"

[cognac]

Why can't there be no change? Can we ever imagine a place where change does not occur? Is it possible for such a place to exist? What are the conditions that must be in place for a place that change does not exist to exist?

In a sense, this is what Julian Barbour, a sort of renegade physicist, but not entirely without honor, has suggested in "The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics." Think of a film strip on a table. Each frame has a slightly different configuration of elements, yet as a whole, the film strip itself has no time or motion (and thus no change).

[Simen]

In a sense, this is what Julian Barbour, a sort of renegade physicist, but not entirely without honor, has suggested in "The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics." Think of a film strip on a table. Each frame has a slightly different configuration of elements, yet as a whole, the film strip itself has no time or motion (and thus no change).

I seem to remember his ideas from an earlier time. Didn't he suggest that all times, including the future and the past, exist simultaneously, and that the passage of time is just an illusion? If it is, it is a very useful illusion, and I don't see how you'd empirically test it anyway.

[Preno]

In a sense, this is what Julian Barbour, a sort of renegade physicist, but not entirely without honor, has suggested in "The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics." Think of a film strip on a table. Each frame has a slightly different configuration of elements, yet as a whole, the film strip itself has no time or motion (and thus no change).That would just mean that time is discrete, not that it doesn't exist.

[premjan]

I think what Barbour means is that there is no time axis. There are just different universes. There is perceived change, but it is the whole universe that changes all together. Though I think that violates relativity - you would need quantum mechanics for nonlocal effects like that.

[cognac]

I seem to remember his ideas from an earlier time. Didn't he suggest that all times, including the future and the past, exist simultaneously, and that the passage of time is just an illusion? If it is, it is a very useful illusion, and I don't see how you'd empirically test it anyway.

Yeah, that's my understanding. Each configuration of matter, which is called a "now" is plotted out in a higher-dimensional configuration space, so that all those "nows" are like the frames of a film strip, existing simultaneously. Since I didn't actually make it through the technical portions of the book, I don't remember if he proposed how the ideas could be put to the test.

[premjan]

I seem to remember that it explains why different quantum states exist for the atom or something like that.

[cognac]

I think what Barbour means is that there is no time axis. There are just different universes. There is perceived change, but it is the whole universe that changes all together. Though I think that violates relativity - you would need quantum mechanics for nonlocal effects like that.


Here's how Lee Smolin ("Three Roads to Quantum Gravity") describes Barbour's work on general relativity:

Unfortunately, general relativity was commonly regarded as a machine that produces spacetime geometries, which are then to be treated as Newton treated his absolute space and time: as fixed and absolute entities within which things move. ... Julian Barbour's important contribution was to show convincingly that this was not at all the right way to understand the theory.

... Julian came to the study of general relativity equipped with a tool that no one else had -- the general mathematical formulation of a theory in which space and time are nothing but dynamically evolving relationships.

It's that work on relativity that led to Barbour's theory of time.

[premjan]

OK so he incorporates relativity - then it is an attempt at GUT.

[cognac]

OK so he incorporates relativity - then it is an attempt at GUT.

Yeah, I think that was his ultimate goal.

[untermensche]

Change exists because that is the way the system works.

The system is constant change.

[Mizled]

Can we ever imagine a place where change does not occur?
We could possibly attempt to, but change is so incorporated into our fundemental mindset of reality that it's like trying to imagine true infinity or nothingness. Quite difficult.

[Preno]

I think what Barbour means is that there is no time axis. There are just different universes. There is perceived change, but it is the whole universe that changes all together. Though I think that violates relativity - you would need quantum mechanics for nonlocal effects like that.If so, it just sounds like a more convoluted description of the same. I suppose you could interpret what we call "time" like that. But it's just a trivial change of vocabulary, not accompanied by any explanatory advantage (i.e., it does not simplify the set of sentences we use to describe the universe).

[andrewpkyap]

We could possibly attempt to, but change is so incorporated into our fundemental mindset of reality that it's like trying to imagine true infinity or nothingness. Quite difficult.Is there nothing in the known universe that we can point to and say, "This doesn't change".?

[naturalist.atheist]

Why can't there be no change? Can we ever imagine a place where change does not occur? Is it possible for such a place to exist? What are the conditions that must be in place for a place that change does not exist to exist?

In countries where everything is rounded to the nearest dollar change would not exist.

[Preno]

In countries where everything is rounded to the nearest dollar change would not exist.:notworthy: Profound. :notworthy:

[aguy2]

Because of the interaction of energy with matter. Photons experience no subjective change (time is relativistically stopped for them). But matter does experience change due to its interactions with energy.

Do you think that it might be possible, that except for oscillations that we see as waves, photons 'drop out' of a temporal flow of C, and wait for something to hit them?
aguy2(amen)

[Mizled]

Is there nothing in the known universe that we can point to and say, "This doesn't change".?
Human stupidity.

[Deleet]

I'd suggest to rename it to, "Why does change occur?"
Because, change is a notion not an actually physical object. Just for clarification.

[naturalist.atheist]

I'd suggest to rename it to, "Why does change occur?"
Because, change is a notion not an actually physical object. Just for clarification.

Nahhh, change is an artifact of time.

[andrewpkyap]

I'd suggest to rename it to, "Why does change occur?"
Because, change is a notion not an actually physical object. Just for clarification.That's what I think... but then someone here will tell you that in order for "change to occur", the freedom to change must exists and ergo, change exists.

I cannot seem to be able to pin point where the error is, in this type of logic (I have this nagging doubt, that it just doesn't make sense, to argue like this, but I fail to crystallize in my mind what the fallacy is.)

Can you? Attack it directly rather than obliquely?

[premjan]

If so, it just sounds like a more convoluted description of the same. I suppose you could interpret what we call "time" like that. But it's just a trivial change of vocabulary, not accompanied by any explanatory advantage (i.e., it does not simplify the set of sentences we use to describe the universe).
Well, the problem with general relativity is that it reifies a space-time, that changes only when things move or some change occurs. In Barbour's version space-time is in flux. I suppose the change becomes more important than the state of space-time.

[premjan]

Do you think that it might be possible, that except for oscillations that we see as waves, photons 'drop out' of a temporal flow of C, and wait for something to hit them?
aguy2(amen)Hmmm, that makes about as much sense as saying that they hit something. If you take the purely subjective view of things.

[Deleet]

Nahhh, change is an artifact of time.

What is an artifact of time?

[premjan]

According to Julian Barbour, time does not exist, but the whole universe changes as one piece. Maybe more accurate to say as per quantum many-worlds theory, that there is a universe and there are wave functions that are evolving isolated from it, but gradually increasingly entangled with it. At the point where the entanglement reaches the global scope (the global wave function) or the scope of the observer, the observer views the wave function as a measured quantity.

[toth8]

Why can't there be no change? Can we ever imagine a place where change does not occur? Is it possible for such a place to exist? What are the conditions that must be in place for a place that change does not exist to exist?

So why is change necessarily a bad thing?

I think people who oppose change lack mental complexity.

[Breath]

Why can't there be no change?

What is it that changes, in your humble opinion? :D

[Chris Porter]

Talking Heads--Heaven

Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.
Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens.

(<20%)

[Canard DuJour]

According to Julian Barbour, time does not exist, but the whole universe changes as one piece. Maybe more accurate to say as per quantum many-worlds theory, that there is a universe and there are wave functions that are evolving isolated from it, but gradually increasingly entangled with it. At the point where the entanglement reaches the global scope (the global wave function) or the scope of the observer, the observer views the wave function as a measured quantity.

I took him to mean something more like that every possible configuration of particles co-exists in a kind of phase space with zero entropy (big bang) at the apex. The configurations (or 'nows') are unchanging - no "gardually increasing" about it.


* * * * *


In fact, if the universe were deterministic in the Newtonian billiard ball sense, wouldn't that mean that it is essentially unchanging, just that we can't see some of it (which we call 'the future') ??

[cognac]

I took him to mean something more like that every possible configuration of particles co-exists in a kind of phase space with zero entropy (big bang) at the apex. The configurations (or 'nows') are unchanging - no "gardually increasing" about it.

This fits more with my own understanding of Barbour. You might add that while he thinks all possible configurations of matter/energy exist, that the most probable ones are clustered, and it's those that constitute the "nows" of human experience. He does not believe motion or time exists in the common way people think of them, and therefore change does not exist as well.

[naturalist.atheist]

What is an artifact of time?

dx/dt

[aguy2]

in re: "Hitter or Hitee?"

Hmmm, that makes about as much sense as saying that they hit something. If you take the purely subjective view of things.

The current standard view is that, the photon hits things. Seeing as the standard view, also postulates that the photon's clock doesn't tick, doesn't it seem like the current standard view is trying to have it both ways, when it doesn't seem necessary?

If one takes a big psychological risk, and sees 'non-photon' things as being intrinsically embedded in a 'contracting temporal flow', and the 'photon' things, having slipped the bounds of the clock, are sitting there, quivering, waiting to get hit(on?)?
aguy2(amen)

[premjan]

I took him to mean something more like that every possible configuration of particles co-exists in a kind of phase space with zero entropy (big bang) at the apex. The configurations (or 'nows') are unchanging - no "gardually increasing" about it.
* * * * *
In fact, if the universe were deterministic in the Newtonian billiard ball sense, wouldn't that mean that it is essentially unchanging, just that we can't see some of it (which we call 'the future') ??
It does open up the possibility that we can skip several frames of the movie (fast forward or even skip straight to our favorite scene). Which is probably overstretching the analogy.

[andrewpkyap]

So why is change necessarily a bad thing?

I think people who oppose change lack mental complexity.I am glad you asked that question, you need to realize that change is NOT "necessarily a bad thing".

[andrewpkyap]

It does open up the possibility that we can skip several frames of the movie (fast forward or even skip straight to our favorite scene). Which is probably overstretching the analogy.It is not "probably" but IS overstretching the analogy.

The objects in the scenes in the film strip, unlike real-life, does not move... the film strip moves, not the objects in the scenes.

[naturalist.atheist]

I am glad you asked that question, you need to realize that change is NOT "necessarily a bad thing".

Especially if you live on an energy boundary.

[andrewpkyap]

That's what I think... but then someone here will tell you that in order for "change to occur", the freedom to change must exists and ergo, change exists.

I cannot seem to be able to pin point where the error is, in this type of logic (I have this nagging doubt, that it just doesn't make sense, to argue like this, but I fail to crystallize in my mind what the fallacy is.)

Can you? Attack it directly rather than obliquely?OK I think I have got it... When you say "Time" and the "freedom for Time to exist" and you say "change" and "the freedom for change to exist" you are not saying anything!

You have replaced the word "time" and the concept "time" with the phrase "freedom for Time to exist", which in effect IS the concept "time".

You have replaced the word, "change", the concept "change" with the phrase "freedom for change to exist", which in effect IS the concept "change".

What do people call this kind of fallacy?

Where to prove that something "exists" you simply use a different word or phrase for it?

Fallacies are hard to spot!

[Breath]

What is it that changes, in your humble opinion? :D

Well, since you ask :D , any observation changes the observer. Therefore, the answer to "why does change exist" is, because there are observations.

[Garrett]

Breath
What is it that changes?
any observation changes the observer
Hi Breath! And what then is the observer? What is it that changes?

[TruthPrevails]

because there are observationsWhat about; because there is consciousness plus self-awareness.

What is it that changes?Reminds me of,
Two monks were arguing whether the flag was waving or the wind was waving, Hui-neng told them “It's your mind". Thus what changes is the mind.

[Garrett]

TruthPrevails
Thus what changes is the mind.
Is that the only thing that changes?

[aguy2]

Is that the only thing that changes?

NO. There is a 'real' world, outside of the mind's preceptions of it. At rates of 'change' above 50 mph it is usually quite deadly.
aguy2(amen)

[Iacchus]

Why can't there be no change? Can we ever imagine a place where change does not occur? Is it possible for such a place to exist? What are the conditions that must be in place for a place that change does not exist to exist?Are you equating chance with change? Why does chance necessarily have to be equated with change? Strictly in terms of cause-and-effect, change can occur, except witthout the notion of chance. In which case change becomes more a matter of "displacement."

[andrewpkyap]

Especially if you live on an energy boundary."not say", "I never tried"... but but but the first few google links refer to scholarly works that I must buy... so please :notworthy: what is "an energy boundary"?

[Garrett]

aguy2
NO.
Then the answer to the question didn't answer the question. Too many cooks, anyway. My point, if I had one, might be something like: things don't change; things are change. Atoms and molecules are not static objects on which forces and energies cause changes; they are themselves bundles of interactions. If something exists, then it must change. Maybe I'm wrong. What would happen if matter were to be cooled to absolute zero?

[Breath]

Hi Breath! And what then is the observer? What is it that changes?

Thanks for your welcome, Garrett!

I think TruthPrevails has answered your question well. I accept that in physics it is not necessary for an observer to be a conscious observer, but I would like to restrict myself in this discussion to the only things I really know, and that is consciousness of observing.

So an observer in this context is any intentional, self-aware system, and what changes is the self-aware system. I add intentional because an observation is not a passive registration of an event, but an active selection of what will be observed.

[Breath]

Is that the only thing that changes?

There is no way of knowing. If an observation changes the observer, a further observation is a new experiment, not a continuation of the present one.

[naturalist.atheist]

"not say", "I never tried"... but but but the first few google links refer to scholarly works that I must buy... so please :notworthy: what is "an energy boundary"?

More accurately an energy flux boundary.

The surface of the earth is such a place. The boundary between the ocean and the sky. The ocean and the shore line. The land and the sky. The ocean bottom and hot thermal vents. Just under the surface of rocks on the deserts of Antarctica. In such places non-equilibrium thermodynamics can take place. Look there and most of the time you will find life. It is how it can make a living.

I don't know of any books but several decades ago I was involved in an experiment in Antarctica. For all I know the hardware is still there.

[aguy2]

Then the answer to the question didn't answer the question. Too many cooks, anyway. My point, if I had one, might be something like: things don't change; things are change.

You seem to be agreeing with my contention that, "The baseline of reality is 'time/change'.".

Atoms and molecules are not static objects on which forces and energies cause changes; they are themselves bundles of interactions.

Yes, "time/change dependent" interactions.

If something exists, then it must change... what would happen if matter were to be cooled to absolute zero?

According to QM it still quivers (oscillates?).
aguy2(amen)

[Garrett]

aguy2
You seem to be agreeing with my contention that, "The baseline of reality is 'time/change'.".
Yes, though I'm not completely on board with your formulation. Maybe there are other baselines? And I understand the slash in "matter/energy" and "space/time", but not in "time/change". Not yet, anyway.

Yes, "time/change dependent" interactions.
So the nature of existence is change. If something exists it must change. And that is how it seems when I look at the formulas from physics. All objects and events are described in terms of movement, and the forces and energies are described in terms of potential movement.

But what is it that moves? Matter/energy, of course, which are recursively described in terms of movement and the potential for movement! It does seem that change is the "baseline" - things are change. Change is all there is. Movement; action; reality is constant flowing waves of change.

According to QM it still quivers (oscillates?).
Reference? I thought all movement would cease.

[aguy2]

Yes, though I'm not completely on board with your formulation. Maybe there are other baselines? And I understand the slash in "matter/energy" and "space/time", but not in "time/change". Not yet, anyway.

Instead of using the term 'time', I am using 'time/change'.
Instead of using the term 'space', I am using 'space/extent'.
Seeing as 'time/change//space/extent' is rather awkward I usually revert to 'time/space'.


So the nature of existence is change. If something exists it must change. And that is how it seems when I look at the formulas from physics. All objects and events are described in terms of movement, and the forces and energies are described in terms of potential movement.

But what is it that moves? Matter/energy, of course, which are recursively described in terms of movement and the potential for movement! It does seem that change is the "baseline" - things are change. Change is all there is. Movement; action; reality is constant flowing waves of change.

Processes?
aguy2(amen)

[aguy2]

in re: QM says quivering (oscillation?).

Reference? I thought all movement would cease.

I should have said something like, "There is significant quantum activity, all the way down." Movement gets sort of spookie, but there is still movement.

Wiki 'absolute zero'.
aguy2(amen)

[kennethamy]

Why can't there be no change? Can we ever imagine a place where change does not occur? Is it possible for such a place to exist? What are the conditions that must be in place for a place that change does not exist to exist?

Change exists because: (1) events exist, and (2) events differ from one another. So, when one event is followed by a different event, a change occurs. The preSocratic philosopher, Parmenides in fact held that change was an illusion, and that nothing ever happened. Plato devoted an entire dialogue to him called, The Parmenides. Zeno, who you may remember arguing that an arrow could never reach its target since movement was an illusion, was a follower of Parmenides. Parmenides was the polar opposite of Heraclitus of "you can never step into the same river" fame, who held that change was the only reality, and that sameness was the illusion.

[andrewpkyap]

It seems so far we cannot explain or understand or imagine "No Change"

Change seems to be a fundamental condition of existence.

If we can explain why change exists, we would, it seems, be able to explain why the universe itself exists...

[aguy2]

It seems so far we cannot explain or understand or imagine "No Change"

Change seems to be a fundamental condition of existence.

If we can explain why change exists, we would, it seems, be able to explain why the universe itself exists...

The processes that constitute reality are most certainly 'time/change' driven. I have been contending that in toto these processes constitute a macro-process that is being driven in an attempt to create itself.
aguy2(amen)

[kennethamy]

It seems so far we cannot explain or understand or imagine "No Change"



Maybe you can't, but apparently Parmenides could. In fact, he believed that it was this world which was changeless. So you ought to speak for yourself, and not say, "we". An unchanging world would be a world with no events. When nothing happened. So that nothing ever was different. I may not be able to imagine such a world (there are limits to imagination) but I think I understand it. I can certainly explain what no change would be. It would be either a world with no events, or a world in which every event was the same event.

[andrewpkyap]

The processes that constitute reality are most certainly 'time/change' driven. I have been contending that in toto these processes constitute a macro-process that is being driven in an attempt to create itself. aguy2(amen)I would say energy/change driven... I don't understand what you mean by : "in toto these processes constitute a macro-process that is being driven in an attempt to create itself."

I am almost scared to imagine what you are implying...

[andrewpkyap]

Maybe you can't, but apparently Parmenides could. In fact, he believed that it was this world which was changeless. So you ought to speak for yourself, and not say, "we". An unchanging world would be a world with no events. When nothing happened. So that nothing ever was different. I may not be able to imagine such a world (there are limits to imagination) but I think I understand it. I can certainly explain what no change would be. It would be either a world with no events, or a world in which every event was the same event.:banghead:

[kennethamy]

:banghead:

Something the matter with Parmenides, or is it with you? If there were no events there would be no change. Or if every event was the same, there would be no change.

[aguy2]

I would say energy/change driven... I don't understand what you mean by : "in toto these processes constitute a macro-process that is being driven in an attempt to create itself."

I am almost scared to imagine what you are implying...

You could look at "Dull Tools and Strawmen" in the Existence of God(s) forum for an up to date version, or www.self-creation.net for something a couple of years out of date.
aguy2(amen)

[John Page]

My 2c
Why can't there be no change?
There can. Two identical measurements mean there has been no change relative to the observer.
Can we ever imagine a place where change does not occur?
Yes. Its very boring.
Is it possible for such a place to exist?
Yes, the catholic church.
What are the conditions that must be in place for a place that change does not exist to exist?
Loop to beginning of post....

[John Page]

:banghead:
Its OK, nothing happened. :)

[Breath]

My 2c

There can. Two identical measurements mean there has been no change relative to the observer.

Hi John, long time no speak.

Your position implies that an observation / measurement can happen without altering the status quo. I disagree that that is possible.

[kennethamy]

Hi John, long time no speak.

Your position implies that an observation / measurement can happen without altering the status quo. I disagree that that is possible.

Does that mean that you agree that it is impossible?

[andrewpkyap]

My 2c

There can. Two identical measurements mean there has been no change relative to the observer.

Yes. Its very boring.

Yes, the catholic church.

Loop to beginning of post....I meant of course, inherently as opposed to "no change relative to the observer".

[Breath]

It seems so far we cannot explain or understand or imagine "No Change"

Change seems to be a fundamental condition of existence.

If we can explain why change exists, we would, it seems, be able to explain why the universe itself exists...

Change is a fundamental condition of observation, not of existence.

[Garrett]

Breath
Change is a fundamental condition of observation, not of existence.
Why can't it be fundamental to both?

[Breath]

Why can't it be fundamental to both?

Well, it might be, but how would you go about determining if that was the case? It doesn't seem very useful to insist that the universe has certain properties, such as change, if these properties are known to be properties of the act of observing.

[andrewpkyap]

Well, it might be, but how would you go about determining if that was the case? It doesn't seem very useful to insist that the universe has certain properties, such as change, if these properties are known to be properties of the act of observing.If it were only "of the act of observing"... the problem is, it is inherent.

You bring things down to 0 K, it continues to entropy. That we are here at all to discuss this is a miracle in itself for we shall all change to become non living...

[John Page]

If we can explain why change exists, we would, it seems, be able to explain why the universe itself exists...
I think the need for an answer to "Why the universe exists" is a human need, an inbuilt desire for reasons. Humans invented god partly because they couldn't come up with a good answer for "Why are we here?".

[kennethamy]

I think the need for an answer to "Why the universe exists" is a human need, an inbuilt desire for reasons. Humans invented god partly because they couldn't come up with a good answer for "Why are we here?".

You probably mean the concept or the idea of God (or a god). If a god had been invented, then a god would have existed.

[naturalist.atheist]

I think the need for an answer to "Why the universe exists" is a human need, an inbuilt desire for reasons. Humans invented god partly because they couldn't come up with a good answer for "Why are we here?".

Perhaps, but I suspect that if we were a species of intelligent turtles we wouldn't care all that much. We would presume that there was a god, but that it just laid our eggs and took off.

[John Page]

You probably mean the concept or the idea of God (or a god). If a god had been invented, then a god would have existed.
FALSE. Imaginary friends exist as imaginations. Imaginary friends can be invented. God is an imaginary friend....

[John Page]

Perhaps, but I suspect that if we were a species of intelligent turtles we wouldn't care all that much. We would presume that there was a god, but that it just laid our eggs and took off.
:notworthy: Yes, and its people all the way down!

[kennethamy]

FALSE. Imaginary friends exist as imaginations. Imaginary friends can be invented. God is an imaginary friend....

Yes, and hallucinatory pink elephants exist as hallucinations. But there are no pink elephants. To say that something is imaginary is tantamount to saying it does not exist. But if you are now changing your mind about whether God exists, be my guest.

[sharahan]

For "Change" -there are two visions . One micro & other macro.if we look up on any thing in micro vision there exist change always. Just like what we see with our eyes the world around. But what about Sun feeling to us in earth. It raises in the morning and sets in the evening as we all see. The same Sun .
Earth rotating at the same speed.

[John Page]

Yes, and hallucinatory pink elephants exist as hallucinations. But there are no pink elephants. To say that something is imaginary is tantamount to saying it does not exist.
So what? My statement "Imaginary friends exist as imaginations" is still true. People invent imaginary friends, like gods.

[Garrett]

Breath
Well, it might be, but how would you go about determining if that was the case?
It could be falsified with one example of something that doesn't change.

It doesn't seem very useful to insist that the universe has certain properties, such as change, if these properties are known to be properties of the act of observing.
But if everything involves change, it follows that observations involve change.

[kennethamy]

So what? My statement "Imaginary friends exist as imaginations" is still true. People invent imaginary friends, like gods.

"A exists as X" does not imply that A exists. (Not that I have much of an idea of what "A exists as X" means. It is a phrase that you and others made up, but has not clear meaning that I understand. But you seem to think it means something. Someday you ought to tell me what it is supposed to mean. Perhaps a translation into standard English and not philosophese).

[andrewpkyap]

For "Change" -there are two visions . One micro & other macro.if we look up on any thing in micro vision there exist change always. Just like what we see with our eyes the world around. But what about Sun feeling to us in earth. It raises in the morning and sets in the evening as we all see. The same Sun .
Earth rotating at the same speed.The difference is important only if you "include" man into the picture.

That is not the issue. The issue is, "Why is change fundamental to the existence of the known universe?", micro or otherwise.

What are the implications of that, if any.

The known universe is not "stable"... it is changing... is there an ultimate destination or simply, "no change" is "boring"

"life" if it exists, is "boring" and only "living" makes sense.

Some suggests that "intelligent turtles", for example, couldn't care less and it is only important because man has an in built need to "know the reason" "know the cause"; but is essentially, moot.

I am a writer! I am not a scientists. I need to "know"! ;)

[Breath]

But if everything involves change, it follows that observations involve change.

But that is begging the question, isn't it? If you cannot observe anything without changing the status quo, you cannot then proceed to say that therefore everything involves change. What would preclude the possibility that there is unobserved permanence?

[andrewpkyap]

But that is begging the question, isn't it? If you cannot observe anything without changing the status quo, you cannot then proceed to say that therefore everything involves change. What would preclude the possibility that there is unobserved permanence?Is it possible to show that with the extinction of all conscious life-forms, the universe stops expanding, for example?

That if you stop looking at it, the kettle never boils?

What are you trying to say?

That humans can never be conscious of / observe permanence? How about imagining an object/situation where change does not occur?

[John Page]

"A exists as X" does not imply that A exists. (Not that I have much of an idea of what "A exists as X" means. It is a phrase that you and others made up, but has not clear meaning that I understand. But you seem to think it means something. Someday you ought to tell me what it is supposed to mean. Perhaps a translation into standard English and not philosophese).
Do you understand what an "imaginary friend" is? Do you understand that this implies that this means the "imaginary friend" is not an actual person? Do you understand that the "imaginary friend" is an invention of the thinker and is only a mental entity? So, the "imaginary friend" really refers to the mental entity. This schema illustrates the phenomenology of delusions, where the thinker believes the "imaginary friend" refers to a real friend whereas it does not.

Note the two levels of indirection operating here. First is from the term used to refer to the object (e.g. friend, imaginary friend, Fred, Quito) to the mental entity (the idea of that thing) and the second is from that mental entity to the object itself (if it actually exists).

For us to know Quito, clearly we must hold information about it in our brains. For us to know we are experiencing the real Quito there needs to be a correspondence between the reality we are currently experiencing and what we think Quito actually is.

I hope this explains that when we contemplate something it must have form, even if only imaginary. So, for example, the mental entity idealizing a man is the Third Man in the Parmenides debate.

If you think differently, I would be grateful to receive your explanation of what an imaginary friend is and how one's brain might confabulate its existance.

[aguy2]

What are you trying to say? That humans can never be conscious of / observe permanence?

1. Humans can never observe permanence, because nothing is permanent. I would contend that reality consists of 'processes', and the temporal nature of processes preclude a static condition of any sort.
2. If humans seem to be 'conscious' of permanence, this consciousness is 'delusional', and a temporary delusion to boot.

How about imagining an object/situation where change does not occur?

Try maintaining that delusion of permanence for say, 120 years.
aguy2(amen)

[andrewpkyap]

1. Humans can never observe permanence, because nothing is permanent. I would contend that reality consists of 'processes', and the temporal nature of processes preclude a static condition of any sort.
2. If humans seem to be 'conscious' of permanence, this consciousness is 'delusional', and a temporary delusion to boot.

Try maintaining that delusion of permanence for say, 120 years.
aguy2(amen)I was seeking clarification with ref to this statement:

But that is begging the question, isn't it? If you cannot observe anything without changing the status quo, you cannot then proceed to say that therefore everything involves change. What would preclude the possibility that there is unobserved permanence?

Your have the correct answer to a wrong question.

[Garrett]

Breath
But that is begging the question, isn't it? If you cannot observe anything without changing the status quo, you cannot then proceed to say that therefore everything involves change. What would preclude the possibility that there is unobserved permanence?
I see your point. But the vast majority of the observable universe is unobserved (by us, anyway). We only see the top layer of the ground under our feet.

Everything in our universe must be interacting with its environment, because if something, let's call it x, exists without such interaction, then our universe would be exactly the same as if x did not exist.

[aguy2]

Everything in our universe must be interacting with its environment, because if something, let's call it x, exists without such interaction, then our universe would be exactly the same as if x did not exist.

I think my response was more encompassing, but the above reponse seems to hit the nail on the head.
aguy2(amen)

[Breath]

Is it possible to show that with the extinction of all conscious life-forms, the universe stops expanding, for example?

Is it possible to conjecture about expanding universes in the absence of consciousness?


That if you stop looking at it, the kettle never boils?


See above.


What are you trying to say?


That expanding universes and boiling kettles are things known to consciousness, and that in the absence of consciousness, nothing is known, including whether there are boiling kettles or expanding universes.


That humans can never be conscious of / observe permanence? How about imagining an object/situation where change does not occur?

Try the following experiment (experiments are good - they take speculation out of the equation). Stare at a blank wall. What do you see? Is it permanent?

[Breath]

I see your point. But the vast majority of the observable universe is unobserved (by us, anyway). We only see the top layer of the ground under our feet.

What you are actually saying is that most of what we call the observable universe is actually an inferred universe ie not observed at all. I don't have a problem with inferences as such, I rely on them all the time, but it helps to distinguish between what is seen to be the case, and what is thought to be the case.


Everything in our universe must be interacting with its environment, because if something, let's call it x, exists without such interaction, then our universe would be exactly the same as if x did not exist.

Not everyone would agree. Some folks hold that consciousness, as an example, is epiphenomenal, which basically means that it makes no difference to the universe whether there is consciousness or not.

[Garrett]

Breath
What you are actually saying is that most of what we call the observable universe is actually an inferred universe ie not observed at all.
Well, I didn't actually say that, but I agree with your inference.

Not everyone would agree.
I doubt if everyone ever agrees on anything.

Some folks hold that consciousness, as an example, is epiphenomenal
If they are right, then their thoughts can have no effect - they can't affect their own behavior, and they sure can't affect the opinions of others. Think about it.

Anyway, I use my claim a lot when I try to understand various issues about science and philosophy. It's foundational for me, and if it's wrong I want to know. Where is the flaw in my reasoning?

Everything in our universe must be interacting with its environment, because if something, let's call it x, exists without such interaction, then our universe would be exactly the same as if x did not exist.

[John Page]

If they are right, then their thoughts can have no effect - they can't affect their own behavior...
Two points:

1. In learning, thoughts may not affect the current outcome but if a similar situation is encountered a different response is given.

2. In the context given, were talking about conscious thoughts being an epiphenomenon. That doesn't mean to say unconscious/reflexive thought process are not in play.

Cheers, John

[andrewpkyap]

Try the following experiment (experiments are good - they take speculation out of the equation). Stare at a blank wall. What do you see? Is it permanent?Well, it looks permanent. I am too smart for that though and I know that it is not because entropy is taking place even if I cannot perceive it.

It looks like it will outlast me me unless I or something/someone knocks it down before I cease to exists... and so? Am I missing something?

[Garrett]

John Page
1. In learning, thoughts may not affect the current outcome but if a similar situation is encountered a different response is given.
Unconscious people don't learn, period.

2. In the context given, were talking about conscious thoughts being an epiphenomenon. That doesn't mean to say unconscious/reflexive thought process are not in play.
Why should anyone think that unconscious thoughts affect behavior but conscious thoughts do not?

[John Page]

Unconscious people don't learn, period.
Maybe, but its irrelevant to my point which was about epiphenomenalism. Even as Libet's experiements show that conscious perception of a decision happens after the brain has effectively triggered the resulting action, it does not mean that consciousness is an epiphenomenon to all our behavior. Indeed, in my post, I am effectively supporting a conclusion that consciousness is not an epiphenomenon to all learning.
Why should anyone think that unconscious thoughts affect behavior but conscious thoughts do not?
Because this has been experimentally shown to be the case.

[Garrett]

John Page
Indeed, in my post, I am effectively supporting a conclusion that consciousness is not an epiphenomenon to all learning.
I did notice.

Because this has been experimentally shown to be the case.
I agree that Libet's experiments show that conscious perception of a decision happens after the brain has effectively triggered the resulting action by initiating the readiness potential. The same potential precedes the conscious veto of that decision, as well.

Also, consciousness occurs in relation to neurological feedback loops. The decision - whether vetoed or not - would not occur without the continued involvement of consciousness.

I think that cognitive behavioral therapy provides overwhelming evidence that our thoughts influence our feelings and our behavior.

[Breath]

Unconscious people don't learn, period.

Is there a difference between non-conscious and un-conscious? If you were to say nonconscious things don't learn, I would agree.

But there is room in your statement to interpret you as saying that one has to be conscious of whatever it is one is learning, in order to learn it. And I would reject that.


Why should anyone think that unconscious thoughts affect behavior but conscious thoughts do not?

I have no idea what an unconscious thought could be, but in relation to thoughts (ie conscious), they are the behaviour, not causes.

[Breath]

If they are right, then their thoughts can have no effect - they can't affect their own behavior, and they sure can't affect the opinions of others. Think about it.

Well, let's both think about it. When was the last time your thoughts influenced someone else? And if your thoughts cannot influence somebody else, how are they able to influence yourself?


Anyway, I use my claim a lot when I try to understand various issues about science and philosophy. It's foundational for me, and if it's wrong I want to know. Where is the flaw in my reasoning?

Everything in our universe must be interacting with its environment, because if something, let's call it x, exists without such interaction, then our universe would be exactly the same as if x did not exist.

Your claim is that all things that exist interact with each other, and that a thing exists if it influences another thing. This is not so much reasoning to me, but more a definition. In order to demonstrate existence, from this definition, one would have to demonstrate causal influence. So consciousness would be considered a thing if it influenced another thing, eg another consciousness. Can you demonstrate this to be so?

[Garrett]

Breath
Is there a difference between non-conscious and un-conscious? If you were to say nonconscious things don't learn, I would agree.
I think there is a difference. Non-conscious describes rocks (for example). Unconscious describes either a level of consciousness (from psychology) or neural activity not directly related to subjective experience (from the global workspace theory).

But there is room in your statement to interpret you as saying that one has to be conscious of whatever it is one is learning, in order to learn it. And I would reject that.
That is my position. What are your objections?

I have no idea what an unconscious thought could be
As I said to John, I see that phrase as an oxymoron. But still I have an idea what it could mean: thoughts that we are not aware of but occur in our "subconscious" (sorry to bring in yet another derivative word). I suppose "subconscious" is basically equivalent to "unconscious" as defined above.

I have no idea what an unconscious thought could be, but in relation to thoughts (ie conscious), they are the behavior, not causes.
I agree, unless I misunderstand. "Unconscious thoughts" refers to a type of neuroactivity - a type of behavior. While "thoughts" refers to conscious thoughts, which are not a type of behavior, but instead are a type of experience.

[Garrett]

Garrett If they (the epiphenomenalists) are right, then their thoughts can have no effect - they can't affect their own behavior, and they sure can't affect the opinions of others. Think about it.
Breath Well, let's both think about it. When was the last time your thoughts influenced someone else?

Well, my thoughts helped determine my post, to which you are responding. Apparently my thoughts influenced your behavior!

Your claim is that all things that exist interact with each other, and that a thing exists if it influences another thing. This is not so much reasoning to me, but more a definition.
Okay. But I also gave some reasoning. In the quote you responded to!

In order to demonstrate existence, from this definition, one would have to demonstrate causal influence.
Like the existence of gravity and dark matter, for examples.

So consciousness would be considered a thing if it influenced another thing, eg another consciousness. Can you demonstrate this to be so?
Unconscious people never build libraries. Animals don't react to danger unless they are aware of it. Kids can't learn calculus unless they pay attention.

Cognitive behavioral therapy provides scientific evidence that thoughts affect behavior.

[Ihatobu]

Is there nothing in the known universe that we can point to and say, "This doesn't change".?

Well, we can point to your comment (above), and say "This doesn't change."

[andrewpkyap]

Well, we can point to your comment (above), and say "This doesn't change."1stly, when you say "comment" you are referring to what? How does it exists?

Comment could be "the words you say"
or the words written down
or the words on the computer screen

In the above three examples, the "comment" changes.

If you are referring to the *meaning* of the *comment*; the meaning resides in people's heads and the comment does not exists outside of people's heads, ditto language, ditto definitions...

That which resides only in people's head must change when the person dies, for example...

I would then conclude that to say "the comment" "does not change" is a fallacy, no?

[Breath]

Breath
But there is room in your statement to interpret you as saying that one has to be conscious of whatever it is one is learning, in order to learn it. And I would reject that.


That is my position. What are your objections?


Mainly the fact that it isn't true.:D

I have quoted this research before, to you, in other threads, and you have not refuted it. I'll just post the link this time Consciousness not necessary for learning (http://members.shaw.ca/competitivenessofnations/Anno%20Jaynes%20Bicameral%20Mind2.htm)

Just search for the section titled "Consciousness not necessary for learning".


As I said to John, I see that phrase as an oxymoron. But still I have an idea what it could mean: thoughts that we are not aware of but occur in our "subconscious" (sorry to bring in yet another derivative word). I suppose "subconscious" is basically equivalent to "unconscious" as defined above.


Thoughts we are not aware of sounds rather like experiences we are not experiencing. For me, the essential characteristic of an experience is that it is known. An unknown thought is speculative at best.


I agree, unless I misunderstand. "Unconscious thoughts" refers to a type of neuroactivity - a type of behavior. While "thoughts" refers to conscious thoughts, which are not a type of behavior, but instead are a type of experience.

In my books, an unconscious thought would in the above case be the speculated cause of a behaviour, and a conscious thought would the phenomenal (experienced) aspect of that behaviour.

[Garrett]

andrewpkyap
That which resides only in people's head must change when the person dies, for example...
And while we're aware of an idea, that idea is constantly being refreshed as the brain cycles through the feedback loops.

[Breath]

Well, my thoughts helped determine my post, to which you are responding. Apparently my thoughts influenced your behavior!

Your claim may seem self-evident to you, but to me it is an unsubstantiated piece of speculation. That there was awareness of thinking whilst there was awareness of writing in no way establishes that the first caused the latter.



Unconscious people never build libraries. Animals don't react to danger unless they are aware of it. Kids can't learn calculus unless they pay attention.


As above, you need to substantiate your claims that consciousness is causal here, and not just make the claim. And in the case of calculus, how does one pay attention to calculus in order to learn it? What is being paid attention to in order to make the penny drop?



Cognitive behavioral therapy provides scientific evidence that thoughts affect behavior.

A link would be appreciated :D

[Garrett]

Breath
Mainly the fact that it isn't true.
Careful tossing the "fact" claim around.

I have quoted this research before, to you, in other threads, and you have not refuted it.
I was satisfied with the way the consciousness and learning (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=201598) was going, when you left on a sort of vacation. You never dealt with my response when you offered that link, so I'll copy from post 19:

Garrett Remember that definitions have been contested. The experimental evidence in the article agrees with my position. I question Jaynes' interpretations.

For example, consider the "puffs of air" signal learning experiment. He says "Subjects who have undergone this well-known procedure of signal learning report that it has no conscious component whatever." None whatsoever? They weren't aware of the puffs of air and the blinking light?

Another example: he uses evidence that learned skills are inhibited when we become "conscious" of the details of performing that skill. Anyone who can hit a golf ball or walk a tight-rope knows what he means. Obviously that doesn't imply that consciousness is not involved when we perform such skills. But that is what he concludes!

For another example: he talks about the process of listening: "As you listen to an address, phonemes disappear into words and words into sentences and sentences disappear into what they are trying to say, into meaning." From such evidence he concludes that "For in speaking or writing we are not really conscious of what we are actually doing at the time." Nonsense! He points out that the mechanics of reading happen outside the consciousness as we BECOME AWARE OF THE MEANING, then concludes that therefore consciousness is not really involved!

I think my rebuttal to your objection is sufficient, I'll repeat it for emphasis:

The experimental evidence in the article agrees with my position.
_____

Attention Deficit is a learning disorder, Breath.
_____

Thoughts we are not aware of sounds rather like experiences we are not experiencing.
I agree. The word "thought" should implicate an experience.

For me, the essential characteristic of an experience is that it is known.
Here I quibble. I think "known" should usually imply the higher-order reflective experience we call "self-awareness" (involving embedded memories, concepts, anticipations, etc). I think "experience" IS the essential characteristic - an awareness or feeling, which could be of basic phenomenal "qualia" with no reflective or embedded add-ons.

An unknown thought is speculative at best.
We can become aware of a complex thought seeming to arrive at once (ever been going about your day when you suddenly recalled a dream you didn't even know you dreamt?). Clearly there is unconscious or subconscious processing going on. As long as the qualifier is there, I can translate.

[Garrett]

Breath
That there was awareness of thinking whilst there was awareness of writing in no way establishes that the first caused the latter.
Mill's Methods (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m7.htm#millm) for establishing the presence of causal relationships, (specifically the Joint Method of Agreement and Difference, the Method of Residues, and the Concomitant Variation) suggest to me that you way overstate.

As above, you need to substantiate your claims that consciousness is causal here, and not just make the claim.
It is obvious there is a relationship between consciousness and learning. Epiphenomenism has the burden.

And in the case of calculus, how does one pay attention to calculus in order to learn it?
Don't be difficult. Pay attention to the lesson.

What is being paid attention to in order to make the penny drop?
What?

A link would be appreciated
Cognitive behavioral therapy

[andrewpkyap]

Your claim may seem self-evident to you, but to me it is an unsubstantiated piece of speculation. That there was awareness of thinking whilst there was awareness of writing in no way establishes that the first caused the latter.I cannot think of an alternative to why the first did not cause the latter...