For what it's worth, I think that I have metaphysical objections to the dualism your article advocates. But metaphysics has always been like chewing tin-foil for me and so I'm going to wait until a sunnier and more awake version of myself has an insight to share concisely. Does the above give you any extra context about why the science aspect of the article is concerning to me?
For the most part I understand what you are saying but can you elaborate on those objections? You can dumb it down if need be. Btw, I don't think you'll have trouble finding a job. Your skill set is unique and in demand.
DS,
Originally posted by psmith81992
For the most part I understand what you are saying but can you elaborate on those objections? You can dumb it down if need be. Btw, I don't think you'll have trouble finding a job. Your skill set is unique and in demand.
Ok so I'm going to withdraw any comparisons between dualism and idealism because I'm not actually a partisan for either side of that line. Instead, I want to talk first about my personal biggest objection to Dualism and then see if this criticism applies also to the general thrust of argument from the linked article.
So to begin with, dualism posits an ontology consisting of both mental and physical entities. The universe has two types of "stuff" that can exist. Different types of dualism have these varieties of entities interact in different ways. The position "parallelism" (in a metaphysics context) has the mental world and the physical world operating completely independently. Mental objects cannot influence physical objects and vice versa. The textbook critique here is that it becomes a coincidence that the mental state "hunger" ends concurrent to your ingestion of food. This of course can be settled by positing the existence of a deity to keep things on track, but even some notable theists consider this a poor solution.
Another position is that of the interactionists, who claim that mental and physical entities can effect one another. This has one major objection, in that causal interaction is often described in the sense of billiard balls colliding. Discussing causation almost always requires some tangible interaction between two things; in the case of a mental interaction one party is intangible. This is, broadly, the camp that the article above would fall in. But, in the case of both interactionism and parallelism (as well as other camps not described here) Dualism faces a huge challenge. Where do mental entities come from?
If it is the case that mental entities interact in a causal way with physical entities (with that causation going both directions physical->mental and mental->physical) then how does one describe the universe before there were minds to generate mental entities? Were new laws of physics established upon the development of the first brain? Did these laws wait to kick in until the first mind (however that is defined)? The parallelist (who does not subscribe to a religion) must recognize that the two tracks of mental and physical interactions are not the same length; physical interactions seem to have been occurring far longer than mental interactions.
This, I think, ends up being an important criticism of the Jewish apologia from above. Even in the event that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics is sound, and the mechanism for collapse of the wave function involves a mental component, a religious component feels incongruous. (I am not willing to say "inconsistent" in the sense that it leads to a logical contradiction, but incongruity in the details still causes a reevaluation of an argument.) This incongruity arises from the necessity that the laws of physics introduce: a sentient observer. In the eons before human (or other) minds arose, presumably it is God who is taking charge of collapsing the wave function, establishing an actual history and "holding down the fort." But, in those experiments that humans have done (in which the wave function was indeterminate or uncollapsed) God must have selectively withheld omniscience (or at least deliberately kept the wave function from collapsing from divine observation.
This leads to an image of God tip-toeing through the human universe, perceiving but being careful not to collapse any otherwise unobserved wave functions, lest evidence of divinity be discovered. Perhaps this is a logically consistent vision, but it is not compelling in the sense that it matches other descriptions of God that I am familiar with. My concern with interactive Dualism is that the start date for mental features of the universe leads to a radical change in the laws of physics midway through the history of time. My concern with the article you linked (as I understand it) is the opposite: God must have collapsed wave functions to provide us with a universe that has a history, but now be careful not to collapse wave functions in violation of our understanding.
(This hasn't been workshopped in the way that a midterm would be, even for like a response to our readings. And my original disclaimer for metaphysical thinking stands; there's a reason I'm not cut out for philosophy grad school!)
((I'd love feedback from anybody, but particularly Janus, Nai, or Veneficus!))
So to begin with, dualism posits an ontology consisting of both mental and physical entities. The universe has two types of "stuff" that can exist. Different types of dualism have these varieties of entities interact in different ways. The position "parallelism" (in a metaphysics context) has the mental world and the physical world operating completely independently. Mental objects cannot influence physical objects and vice versa. The textbook critique here is that it becomes a coincidence that the mental state "hunger" ends concurrent to your ingestion of food. This of course can be settled by positing the existence of a deity to keep things on track, but even some notable theists consider this a poor solution.
Another position is that of the interactionists, who claim that mental and physical entities can effect one another. This has one major objection, in that causal interaction is often described in the sense of billiard balls colliding.
Discussing causation almost always requires some tangible interaction between two things; in the case of a mental interaction one party is intangible. This is, broadly, the camp that the article above would fall in. But, in the case of both interactionism and parallelism (as well as other camps not described here) Dualism faces a huge challenge. Where do mental entities come from?
If it is the case that mental entities interact in a causal way with physical entities (with that causation going both directions physical->mental and mental->physical) then how does one describe the universe before there were minds to generate mental entities? Were new laws of physics established upon the development of the first brain? Did these laws wait to kick in until the first mind (however that is defined)? The parallelist (who does not subscribe to a religion) must recognize that the two tracks of mental and physical interactions are not the same length; physical interactions seem to have been occurring far longer than mental interactions.
God must have selectively withheld omniscience (or at least deliberately kept the wave function from collapsing from divine observation.
This leads to an image of God tip-toeing through the human universe, perceiving but being careful not to collapse any otherwise unobserved wave functions, lest evidence of divinity be discovered. Perhaps this is a logically consistent vision, but it is not compelling in the sense that it matches other descriptions of God that I am familiar with. My concern with interactive Dualism is that the start date for mental features of the universe leads to a radical change in the laws of physics midway through the history of time. My concern with the article you linked (as I understand it) is the opposite: God must have collapsed wave functions to provide us with a universe that has a history, but now be careful not to collapse wave functions in violation of our understanding.
YouTube video
I got goosebumps.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Elaborate, why is that the description used for causal interaction?
One of the best and most enduring stipulations is that causal events involve parties in the same place at the same time. So like a baseball player can cause a broken window, but only if the causal chain includes a component where something actually went and contacted the window (e.g. the hit baseball). In fact, one account (Russel's) actually defines a causal chain as a series of events where not too much change occurs between any two steps; the bat hitting the baseball isn't a big change, the baseball sailing through the air isn't a big change, and the ball transferring energy to the window isn't a big change, and etc.
(Another more modern account actually tracks the book-keeping on what counts as a "big change" by specifying that the interaction must conserve some quality, like energy or momentum. Pseudo-causal chains like shadows moving over a surface do not conserve momentum.)
Describing the various formulations of causal theory is probably not enough to convince you that action at a distance is a bad model. Instead, just look at fundamental (classical) physics. Wherever we find forces acting between objects, there have been "force carrying particles" like photons, sound waves, or even more obscure particles like bosons (that deal with atomic forces). The noteworthy exception is gravity, and gravity is the main stumbling block for our understanding of some parts of Quantum Mechanics. So far, "action at a distance" has always involved something traversing that distance and interacting face-to-face, so to speak.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Ok my question is this. Say an omniscient/omnipotent being does exist and he "created" the universe (Genesis), meaning he always, wouldn't that answer that question? I'm not saying this is fact, obviously it's not, but wouldn't an all powerful being be able to do the inexplicable?I understand the entire paragraph but I singled this portion out because the Torah has stated a number of occasions where God has "withheld" omniscience.
It's a good point honestly and I hate harping back to the idea that an all powerful being goes beyond your understanding, as well as physics and QM. It's not a copout nor an answer, it's just a logical possibility, wouldn't you agree?
1. The torah detail is really interesting, given that was kind of a speculative jab on my part. I wonder if the author of that article would respond in the same way to my question about omniscience w/r/t the collapse of a wave function. Really you've got an interesting position and one worth thinking about.
2. God, defined as omnipotent, absolutely could be the source of both mental and physical aspects of the universe. And omnipotence certainly allows for the description of the universe from my last post, where mental interactions happen for less time than physical, and omniscience is limited just enough to let us puzzle out the rules of QM. But that leads to some inconsistencies in the... characterization (?) of the deity. It is not impossible but definitely seems out of character for God to design creation in such a way that human learning requires an interruption in the laws of physics (God withholding collapse of wave function in only cases where humans might observe).
Rather than being an attack on the possibility of God, I guess my post was meant to be an attack on the smoothness of integrating this scripture with this scientific theory.
So it's totally just a sexed-up version of More Than Human or Stranger in a Strange Land. There is... a lot of queer sex. Yes. But also some cops get beat up and there's plots and junk.
I think a big part is probably that I'm in the target audience, but there's a lot of good stuff going on w/r/t characterization and camera work that doesn't usually get thrown into TV shows. It's head and shoulders above American Horror Story, for example. Or Teen Wolf.
Steam put out a graphics update for KOTOR 2 that now allows it to run at resolutions up to 5K.
New features include:• 37 achievements to be earned through gameplay
• Steam Cloud saves
• Native widescreen resolution support
• Resolution support up to 4K and 5K
• Support for controllers, including Xbox 360, Xbox One, Playstation
3, and Playstation 4, along with several others (check the system requirements for details)
• Steam Workshop support! We proudly worked with the Restored Content Mod Team to have their famous TSLRCM up on launch dayOh...and we added a "Force Speed Effects" option in the menu 😉