Coincidence and illusion

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
QED
Prodigy
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:34 am
Location: UK

Coincidence and illusion

Post #1

Post by QED »

OK, we're all humans here (apart from any visiting bots who are barred from this debate =; ). That means we all have pretty much the same basic issue of hardware, but each of us runs a different version of software. So when we experience things with our eyes, ears etc. we are quite likely to interpret them in different ways.

Harvey1 wrote a marvelous piece in the When God knows a soul goes to hell.. thread (a source of much interesting debate about everything but the original OP!):
Harvey1 wrote: Once I was pondering what God would say about a certain situation that I had encountered, and I was deep into that particular thought (parked in front of a store), a particular message on an LED display lit up with a sentence that perfectly answered the question. So, I don't think it is necessarily in contradiction that God can communicate to us. Incidentally, Richard Feynman had an interesting experience with a so-called supernatural clock:
Once we were talking about the supernatural and the following anecdote involving his first wife Arline came up. Arline had tuberculosis and was confined to a hospital while Feynman was at Los Alamos. Next to her bed was an old clock. Arline told Feynman that the clock was a symbol of the time that they had together and that he should always remember that. Always look at the clock to remember the time we have together, she said. The day that Arline died in the hospital, Feynman was given a note from the nurse that indicated the time of death. Feynman noted that the clock had stopped at exactly that time. It was as the clock, which had been a symbol of their time together, had stopped at the moment of her death. Did you make a connection? I asked NO! NOT FOR A SECOND! I immediately began to think how this could have happened. And I realized that the clock was old and was always breaking. That the clock probably stopped some time before and the nurse coming in to the room to record the time of death would have looked at the clock and jotted down the time from that. I never made any supernatural connection, not even for a second. I just wanted to figure out how it happened.
This raises an interesting question: Are some of us getting all worked-up (into a spiritual lather) over nothing more than coincidences and other illusions? I firmly believe this to be the case. I believe this mainly because of the nature of our minds and the the way they are known to operate. While it is often impossible to dismiss experiences such as those supplied by Harvey, we can do simple experiments to demonstrate to ourselves that we perceive things not as they are, but as we expect to find them. The classic Negative mask illusion shows that what we "see" is informed greatly by our expectations.

Now given the fallibility of our perceptions it seems obvious to me that, like us today, humans long ago would readily fall for such coincidences and illusion and develop a great deal of superstition where none was warranted. I suggest that the world is a regular place with no hocus-pocus going on anywhere except in our furtive imaginations. How, given the knowledge of our fallible nature, can we justify any belief in the supernatural at all?

User avatar
harvey1
Prodigy
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #21

Post by harvey1 »

Hey Bugmaster,

You haven't given me a chance to respond to your other threads. Would you prefer that we just concentrate on one thread for now? If so, then let me know which one is the one that you like me to concentrate. I assume that this thread is the most important for now...
Bugmaster wrote:Ok, again, how does it do that ? How do the non-physical primitives combine to produce a physical reality? The "how" is important because, by definition, logic and matter are completely different types of entities that cannot affect each other.
Again, the logic affects the material world because this is a primitive of my metaphysics. There is no "how" since this assumes that the material is a primitive, and that's the primitive in which I reject.
Bugmaster wrote:Depends on the wavelength. If it's about 7000 A, then the color is red. But surely, you're not suggesting that physical reality only refers to things you can see with your eyes ? What about electrons ? Molecules ? Heck, what about bacteria ?
Do you consider the wavefunction to be the electromagnetic wave itself?
Bugmaster wrote:I think you might have the classic ontology/epistemology confusion here. It's one thing to say, "there is something about the process of universe formation that tends to produce certain physical laws", or, "our universe operates by certain fixed rules", and it's a wholly different thing to say, "the laws of physics exist independently in some Platonic realm".
I realize it's a wholly different thing to say, but this is what I'm saying. The laws of physics are prescriptive, not just descriptive.

User avatar
Bugmaster
Site Supporter
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 7:52 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #22

Post by Bugmaster »

harvey1 wrote:You haven't given me a chance to respond to your other threads. Would you prefer that we just concentrate on one thread for now? If so, then let me know which one is the one that you like me to concentrate. I assume that this thread is the most important for now...
Heh, no worries, I know that I tend to take the shotgun approach to debate. Just respond whenever you have time. I'll probably be out of contact myself for about a week, so you have plenty of tme.
Bugmaster wrote:Again, the logic affects the material world because this is a primitive of my metaphysics. There is no "how" since this assumes that the material is a primitive, and that's the primitive in which I reject.
If the "material" world, as you see it, is merely a manifestation of logic, then you're still a monist, not a dualist -- but you believe that it is the mental phenomena that are real, and the physical phenomena that are the illusion, and not vice versa. The problem with this view is that it's very close to being functionally equivalent to materialism (which is also monistic).
Do you consider the wavefunction to be the electromagnetic wave itself?
I think this is how it works for photons, right ? Of course, with the caveat that words such as "the wave function" and "the wave itself" are merely our models for the real physical pehnomena which we may not be describing with 100% correctness etc. etc.
Bugmaster wrote:I realize it's a wholly different thing to say, but this is what I'm saying. The laws of physics are prescriptive, not just descriptive.
Ok, I understand that this is what you're saying, but I still disagree, based on my reasoning here and in the other threads. From my current perspective, what you're saying is somewhat similar to, "we can describe chairs in English, therefore the English language is the basis for chairs". It's possible, but not likely.

User avatar
QED
Prodigy
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:34 am
Location: UK

Post #23

Post by QED »

Bugmaster wrote:Ok, I understand that this is what you're saying, but I still disagree, based on my reasoning here and in the other threads. From my current perspective, what you're saying is somewhat similar to, "we can describe chairs in English, therefore the English language is the basis for chairs". It's possible, but not likely.
That's absolutely right. Just because we can model ships with matchsticks doesn't mean real ships are made of matchsticks. When it comes to math it's even more flexible for use in modelling, but again what justifies us in saying the world is made from mathematics?

User avatar
harvey1
Prodigy
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #24

Post by harvey1 »

It's always easy to respond to the short posts in those inbetween moments...
Bugmaster wrote:If the "material" world, as you see it, is merely a manifestation of logic, then you're still a monist, not a dualist -- but you believe that it is the mental phenomena that are real, and the physical phenomena that are the illusion, and not vice versa. The problem with this view is that it's very close to being functionally equivalent to materialism (which is also monistic).
It would't be monism since I think the noumenal/platonic aspect of reality actually affects the phenomenal aspect (and vice versa). The reason it affects this aspect is because of a kind of negative necessity (i.e., if it didn't affect, it would still be that way).
Bugmaster wrote:Of course, with the caveat that words such as "the wave function" and "the wave itself" are merely our models for the real physical pehnomena which we may not be describing with 100% correctness etc. etc.
Well, that's what I was getting at. You think of the wave function as a heuristic device, not as a real phenomenon in itself. I think of the wave function as real, but not the phenomenon itself.
Bugmaster wrote:Ok, I understand that this is what you're saying, but I still disagree, based on my reasoning here and in the other threads. From my current perspective, what you're saying is somewhat similar to, "we can describe chairs in English, therefore the English language is the basis for chairs". It's possible, but not likely.
I think there is something fundamental about the power of language as we see it, and that this is not some mere fluke. Sure, we can always say that language evolves, etc., but the reason it evolves is to keep up with describing our phenomenal world and even it changes our world. I think the same of the platonic language that exists. By worlds being instantiated, the platonic language is referent and therefore proofs are complete. The proofs bring about new theorems and therefore the instantiation of new worlds. Our world is just a cog in this enormous metaphysical wheel. There are worlds before us and worlds to come.

Post Reply