What is Consciousness?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We know gravity bends space and time.

Gravitational "effects" explained by spacetime curvature do not actually assert that gravity exists (or that space or time do). General relativity, the theory of gravitation via spacetime curvature, doesn't contain any gravitational force/constant but rather Einstein's field equations which are rather fundamentally (both in nature and motivation) in opposition to "gravity". Also, no theory suggests that anything bends both space and time. Spacetime curvature (or "bending" spacetime) is fundamentally distinct from bending "space and time".

 

[Runewolf1973]

In layperson's terms, photons don't exist.

Photons don't concern me. I'm more interested in the Fundamental Forces or Fundamental Interactions such as gravity and electromagnetism. Can those forces be said to exist physically in some way?


Btw, thank you for taking the time to contribute to this thread. The vast knowledge you share is appreciated.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Everything that exists in our universe is physical in some way, shape, or form because it is energy in one form or another. Non-physical to me equates to non-existing.

What about mathematical entities? Mathematical Platonism is, after all, the dominant position amongst mathematicians.

What about abstract concepts and universals more generally? What is material or physical is individual and concrete. Each material triangle has a particular size and shape and material, but the abstract concept of a triangle has none of these, or all of them at the same time.

 

[Yerda]

What about mathematical entities? Mathematical Platonism is, after all, the dominant position amongst mathematicians.

Really? I didn't know this.

 

[Runewolf1973]

What about mathematical entities? Mathematical Platonism is, after all, the dominant position amongst mathematicians.

What about abstract concepts and universals more generally? What is material or physical is individual and concrete. Each material triangle has a particular size and shape and material, but the abstract concept of a triangle has none of these, or all of them at the same time.

I believe the most fundamental aspect to physicality is the ability to interact. Everything that I would consider physical in nature interacts via the Fundamental Forces or Interactions. Do those mathematical entities interact?

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I believe the most fundamental aspect to physicality is the ability to interact. Everything that I would consider physical in nature interacts via the Fundamental Forces or Interactions. Do those mathematical entities interact?

I am not sure what you mean when you talk about the fundamental aspect of physicality. Are you suggesting that if mathematical interact in the right they are physical, or if they don't, then they don't exist, at least in the sense mathematical Platonist would argue they do?

 

[Runewolf1973]

I am not sure what you mean when you talk about the fundamental aspect of physicality. Are you suggesting that if mathematical interact in the right they are physical, or if they don't, then they don't exist, at least in the sense mathematical Platonist would argue they do?

Mathematical equations exist in an abstract sense yes, but an equation is just that...an equation. That which I consider physical involves actual interactions such a plant interacting with the light given off by the Sun. A rock can interact and change with its environment. Subatomic particles can interact and come together in certain ways to form various elements. These all involve interactions...the work of Fundamental Forces. Is a mathematical equation purely an abstract concept, or is it an actual physical thing which can interact in such ways with the environment? To interact in some way is to be physical, at least the way I see it. I would say mathematical entities exist only in an abstract sense. Like Legion was saying, a photon doesn't really exist physically aside from the math, but can we say the same thing for gravity or electromagnetism? Gravity exists physically does it not? Light and radiation exists physically does it not?

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Mathematical equations exist in an abstract sense yes, but an equation is just that...an equation. That which I consider physical involves actual interactions such a plant interacting with the light given off by the Sun. A rock can interact and change with its environment. Subatomic particles can interact and come together in certain ways to form various elements. These all involve interactions...the work of Fundamental Forces. Is a mathematical equation purely an abstract concept, or is it an actual physical thing which can interact in such ways with the environment? To interact in some way is to be physical.

Well, the sense in which abstractions interact with physical entities is a complex issue. But there are definitely arguments, such as those given by the mathematical Platonists and those I mentioned earlier (the universal nature of abstract concepts vs the particular nature of physical entities), for thinking that abstractions exist in some sense and are yet not physical or material.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Well, the sense in which abstractions interact with physical entities is a complex issue. But there are definitely arguments, such as those given by the mathematical Platonists and those I mentioned earlier (the universal nature of abstract concepts vs the particular nature of physical entities), for thinking that abstractions exist in some sense and are yet not physical or material.

I don't know...perhaps abstract concepts such as mathematical formulas may exist physically in a way something like our thoughts and memories can exist physically in the brain as electrochemical signals or changes.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I guess I'm just wierd that way, but I believe that even our thoughts, memories and dreams are physical in a way. They exist physically because there are actual signals and interactions going on in the brain. If I see a tiger in my dreams it may not be a real tiger, it may only be an abstract image, but there are real physical interactions and perhaps memories creating that imagery in my brain. If a mathematical equation is a thought or an idea, then it too can be said to exist physically in a way. The numbers and outcomes are physically effecting certain parts of our brains. I know math makes my brain hurt, lol.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I don't know...perhaps abstract concepts such as mathematical formulas may exist physically in a way something like our thoughts and memories can exist physically in the brain as electrochemical signals or changes.

But what is physical is not abstract or universal. What is physical is always individual and concrete: the abstract concept of a triangle incorporates all relevant shapes (scalene, equilateral, etc.,), sizes, and materials that a physical triangle can have. No physical object can do this. It always has a particular shape, size, etc.

Our ability to apprehend abstract concepts and universals is an ancient argument against the material or physical l nature of the entirety of our minds.

There is an important distinction to be made between abstract concepts and mental images. They are not the same. The tiger in your dream is not abstract or universal. It is particular, as mental images are.

 

[Runewolf1973]

But what is physical is not abstract or universal. What is physical is always individual and concrete: the abstract concept of a triangle incorporates all relevant shapes (scalene, equilateral, etc.,), sizes, and materials that a physical triangle can have. No physical object can do this. It always has a particular shape, size, etc.

Our ability to apprehend abstract concepts and universals is an ancient argument against the material or physical l nature of the entirety of our minds.

There is an important distinction to be made between abstract concepts and mental images. They are not the same. The tiger in your dream is not abstract or universal. It is particular, as mental images are.

What is physical is what can be measured or detected by scientific means. Even the changes in my brain during dream-sleep state can be detected. They may not know exactly what I am seeing in my dreams, but they can see that my brain is interacting physically to some kind of stimulation nonetheless.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

What is physical is what can be measured or detected by scientific means. Even the changes in my brain during dream-sleep state can be detected. They may not know exactly what I am seeing in my dreams, but they can see that my brain is interacting physically to some kind of stimulation nonetheless.

But this does not show that concepts are not abstract and universal and are physical.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Physical...non-physical...I don't really care either way. What I see as most fundamental is the ability to interact, hence the reason why we have those Fundamental Interactions. Interaction is vital. Even such thing as an all-powerful God could not create a universe without interacting in some way. Everything we could possibly be conscious of requires some form of interaction.

 

[Runewolf1973]

But this does not show that concepts are not abstract and universal and are physical.

If we are conscious or aware of something, even something abstract, then it requires interaction at some level and that part is physical.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

If we are conscious or aware of something, even something abstract, then it requires interaction at some level and that part is physical.

This is true. The question is whether it can be wholly physical, and the point I noted suggests not.

 

[Runewolf1973]

This is true. The question is whether it can be wholly physical, and the point I noted suggests not.

I think you are right. Some things may not exist physically apart from strictly in our heads. Aside from that they do not exist.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Photons don't concern me. I'm more interested in the Fundamental Forces or Fundamental Interactions such as gravity and electromagnetism. Can those forces be said to exist physically in some way?

Great question. The answer depends upon the definition of "exist" as well as "physically in some way". Is this a cop-out? Yes. But in my defense, it is one that many a founder or essential contributor to physics has fallen back on. In quantum mechanics, the "fundamental interaction" of gravity is more or less classical and wrong. In quantum field theory, or at least in that upon which QFT is fundamentally based upon (particle physics), gravity isn't an interaction but a "particle" (the graviton). In general relativity, gravity doesn't exist as more than the result of the geometry of spacetime entailed by Einstein's field equations (there is no "gravitational" force per se that we can identify with gravity apart from comparing the results of the dynamics of systems to the mechanics entailed by Einstein's field equations).

Btw, thank you for taking the time to contribute to this thread. The vast knowledge you share is appreciated.

I don't know about "vast knowledge" or even the accuracy of "contribute", but I thank you!

 

[Runewolf1973]

In layperson's terms, photons don't exist...
A photon is the result of measurement and the wave function (or some other mathematical device/function/field/entity).

I'm just curious... If this is the case and photons don't exist, then what are they actually "colliding" with the Large Hadron Collider?


To edit: Nevermind...dumb question. They're smashing protons, not photons. Lol.

 

[outhouse]

Gravitational "effects" explained by spacetime curvature do not actually assert that gravity exists (or that space or time do). General relativity, the theory of gravitation via spacetime curvature, doesn't contain any gravitational force/constant but rather Einstein's field equations which are rather fundamentally (both in nature and motivation) in opposition to "gravity". Also, no theory suggests that anything bends both space and time. Spacetime curvature (or "bending" spacetime) is fundamentally distinct from bending "space and time".

Understanding your argument to be correct.

It is not entirely, and takes my quote a wee bit out of context t do so.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe

Einstein was right: space and time bend

The early results from Gravity Probe B, one of Nasa's most complicated satellites, confirmed yesterday 'to a precision of better than 1 per cent' the assertion Einstein made 90 years ago - that an object such as the Earth does indeed distort the fabric of space and time.