The Quantum of quantum psychology are the rules which apply to the smallest units of matter in the universe and the rules that apply to them - the Quanta. And you're right - it is an intriguing idea. It doesn't change the fact that it's a reductionist fallacy.
What you're describing is still a physical application of a physical idea. It rather sounds like you're descibing a sort of a Doppler shift, in fact (though I'm sure it's not). It kind of sounds like relativity, too...Regardless, it's an example of physical/physical, not physical/mental or physical/metaphysical.
I'm not arguing that sometimes reductionist fallacies can prove true. I accept a very few universal concepts. As I said before, I was fairly amused by my own reductionist concept and am still, in fact, quite enamored of it, true or false though it may be. It's not the concept or the idea that is wrong, though; what is wrong is the method by which the conclusions of truth are reached. Scientifically, then, such conclusions are unacceptable.
We made TV again...
Warning... philosophy ahead.
I think there's been a semantic foulup here. You say (1)"The Quantum of quantum psychology are the rules which apply to the smallest units of matter in the universe. Now a quantum should describe a single smallest quantity of something -- not a rule. (2)"and also the rules that apply to them" (i.e. the rules that apply to the rules governing the smallest units of matter in the universe).Fat SAM wrote:The Quantum of quantum psychology are the rules which apply to the smallest units of matter in the universe and the rules that apply to them - the Quanta. And you're right - it is an intriguing idea. It doesn't change the fact that it's a reductionist fallacy.
What you're describing is still a physical application of a physical idea. It rather sounds like you're descibing a sort of a Doppler shift, in fact (though I'm sure it's not). It kind of sounds like relativity, too...Regardless, it's an example of physical/physical, not physical/mental or physical/metaphysical.
I'm not arguing that sometimes reductionist fallacies can prove true. I accept a very few universal concepts. As I said before, I was fairly amused by my own reductionist concept and am still, in fact, quite enamored of it, true or false though it may be. It's not the concept or the idea that is wrong, though; what is wrong is the method by which the conclusions of truth are reached. Scientifically, then, such conclusions are unacceptable.
Never mind that. By taking an interpretation in which the wavefunction represents information it is no longer a "physical" thing. This would seem to me to be a bridge between the realm of psychology (ideas) and physics (the study of the physical world).
You merely assert the existence of a reductionist fallacy. Can you demonstrate it?
I think what the quantum psychology folks want to get at is the notion that even if there is a "Truth" out there it is not -- even in principle -- accessible to us. At its best, physical theory is probabilistic. Then, it makes little sense to posit concrete assumptions about the "True" state of things. In classic logic you assert some condition and use logic to deduce further true statements regarding the system. If we can never know the proper assertions (axioms) it makes little sense to do our logical dance and proclaim that the result is the "Truth". If we can never nail down "Truth" because we can never pin down the proper "True" axioms then it seems a better approach to expand the "Truth" in terms of a sum over possible "truths". (Here I intend "Truth" to exemplify some kind of objective, real truth -- whereas "truth" denotes simply a possible truth. It always gets a bit murky when you talk about truth or reality -- I am no philosopher.)
-
EvilDustBooger
- Posts: 3805
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:56 pm
- Location: Outside the Box
-
EvilDustBooger
- Posts: 3805
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:56 pm
- Location: Outside the Box
Re: Warning... philosophy ahead.
It gets heavily murky when we talk about truth and reality. If we decide that there are no absolutes, we have committed a critical error from the outset. The postulation that there are no absolutes is of course, an absolute. I think that I had mentioned it earlier, but I find that there are very few absolutes in the universe I'm willing to accept, but I am unwiling to say that there are none.Chronon wrote:
I think what the quantum psychology folks want to get at is the notion that even if there is a "Truth" out there it is not -- even in principle -- accessible to us. At its best, physical theory is probabilistic. Then, it makes little sense to posit concrete assumptions about the "True" state of things. In classic logic you assert some condition and use logic to deduce further true statements regarding the system. If we can never know the proper assertions (axioms) it makes little sense to do our logical dance and proclaim that the result is the "Truth". If we can never nail down "Truth" because we can never pin down the proper "True" axioms then it seems a better approach to expand the "Truth" in terms of a sum over possible "truths". (Here I intend "Truth" to exemplify some kind of objective, real truth -- whereas "truth" denotes simply a possible truth. It always gets a bit murky when you talk about truth or reality -- I am no philosopher.)
I didn't mean to say 'rules' - not right there anyway....What I meant to say is that the Quantum of Quantum Psychology are the smallest (supposed) units of reality and the subsequent application of what seem to be the fundamental principles which apply to the Quanta to the human mind. Thank you for pointing that out.
Can you please explain 'personal wavefunction" so that I can understand better what you mean (and so that I can debate with you better
)?Thanks to Addis, I had more free time.
-
EvilDustBooger
- Posts: 3805
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:56 pm
- Location: Outside the Box
Re: Warning... philosophy ahead.
I am not asserting that there is not an objective (absolute) Truth. Only that as perceptual beings we are doomed never to apprehend it. (After all our senses have finite resolution.)Fat SAM wrote: It gets heavily murky when we talk about truth and reality. If we decide that there are no absolutes, we have committed a critical error from the outset. The postulation that there are no absolutes is of course, an absolute. I think that I had mentioned it earlier, but I find that there are very few absolutes in the universe I'm willing to accept, but I am unwiling to say that there are none.
I didn't mean to say 'rules' - not right there anyway....What I meant to say is that the Quantum of Quantum Psychology are the smallest (supposed) units of reality and the subsequent application of what seem to be the fundamental principles which apply to the Quanta to the human mind. Thank you for pointing that out.
Can you please explain 'personal wavefunction" so that I can understand better what you mean (and so that I can debate with you better :wink: )?
I would say that according to traditional usage of the word "quantum" it should refer to the smallest possible quantity of psyche; else it would be a quantum of reality ;). [I'm nitpicking here, but quantum is singular. Also, what is a unit of reality?]
In the interpretation I am forwarding the wavefunction is a local entity describing the information content of an observer's mind. This is the sense in which the wavefunction is personal. I would also like to point out that the wavefunction is not a physical quantity even in traditional interpretations of QM. It is only the intensity of the wavefunction that is given any "real" credence -- and even there it is as a probability density, which is unphysical. It does not, as earlier physicists had thought, describe the matter distribution of the system.
Also, if you accept few absolutes then it seems you should accept the basic precepts of quantum psychology... that is that the absolute "Truth" is not accessible because we don't know the proper axioms. Therefore we should evaluate the set of possible axioms and assign to the various logical outcomes some sort of confidence level associated with their various probabilities.
Off-topic.
It seems that FatSAM and I are straying hopelessly off-topic. Maybe we should start another thread? :)
-
EvilDustBooger
- Posts: 3805
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:56 pm
- Location: Outside the Box
Truth is a variable , just as life is. There are many levels and values of truth. All axioms are relative to our perceptions. In order to discover an "absolute truth", which is just a human "concept" barely just a word that some human invented to define a concept ....we must also involve other human elements like faith and belief in forming our theories.
I submit to you that I can provide you with the Meaning of Life. The answer to the question : "Why?"...using facts, logic, science,... even Jesus will back up my claims. And I really believe it....so it would be very difficult to disprove.....And it`s not at all what you suspect....Religion does play a part,... but not in the way religion is presently perceived.........
Unfortunately I am tremendously busy today so I cannot expound til a later date, but just so you have a scrap to cogitate on.....here is a taste:
ab aeterno,....God = Bacteria
OK. I can prove that,... but later....maybe in another thread.
Sorry to once again deviate the discussion....
absit invidia
I submit to you that I can provide you with the Meaning of Life. The answer to the question : "Why?"...using facts, logic, science,... even Jesus will back up my claims. And I really believe it....so it would be very difficult to disprove.....And it`s not at all what you suspect....Religion does play a part,... but not in the way religion is presently perceived.........
Unfortunately I am tremendously busy today so I cannot expound til a later date, but just so you have a scrap to cogitate on.....here is a taste:
ab aeterno,....God = Bacteria
OK. I can prove that,... but later....maybe in another thread.
Sorry to once again deviate the discussion....
absit invidia
I just saw an episode of Robot Chicken on the comedy channel. Its stop-motion animation. This episode, Air Force One is stolen, and G.W. calls the jets phone, and Bill Clinton answers. He says(with disco-style lights and music in the background), "Sorry W, needed to borrow the 'ol A-1, taking her to BURNING MAN!" Then Snoop Dog is shown piloting. I almost shit in my pants...
-
AbsolutJeenyus
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:46 pm
- Contact:
Haha dude its a cartoon. Seth McFarland makes a lot of economical and political contradictory jokes in all of his cartoons. Family Guy and American Dad especially. I wouldnt take it to heart... If anything it would just make me think of how much exposure the event gets. And there is no such thing as bad publicity so....
So not only did beer shoot from my nostrils when I actually saw that Robot Chicken episode, but it just happened again reading you talking about it!
In all fairness, though, there is often a beer in the proximity of my mouth when watching anything Seth McFarland. And it makes its way through the sinuses at least once during most RCs.
In all fairness, though, there is often a beer in the proximity of my mouth when watching anything Seth McFarland. And it makes its way through the sinuses at least once during most RCs.
"Sometimes, honey, you just have to look reality in the eye and say..... 'what happened to your other eye, dude?!'" - Angela Waversak, as quoted on eriswerks.org