5

For neutrinos to serve as the source of consciousness, they would need to exert influence on massive particles like the constituent atoms in protein molecules at a rate sufficient to support the information transfer rate characteristic of the human brain. But neutrinos are well-known to have an interaction rate with matter so low that they can travel through ...


3

It is amazing! After reading Kena Upanishad you are still pursuing emptiness! Ask yourself: "What should be the thing that separates emptiness from everything?" If emptiness prevents everything, that 'emptiness' is 'something'. So, in my opinion pursuing emptiness (I didn't mean consciousness) is a futile effort. Again, to perceive something that ...


3

I believe you mean "magic" - or "supernatural" events or entities. While I would be somewhat dismissive of such claims, the majority of people in the world believe in such phenomena. In the USA, a 2007 poll found that 19 percent of Americans believe in “spells or witchcraft,” 23% say they have actually seen a ghost or believe they have ...


3

Pancomputationalism is a term encompassing all paradigms of a computational world, which proceed from the realization that nature can successfully be explained by computable scientific models. It takes the concepts of functionalism and computationalism to its ultimate consequences, envisaging a world where all physical processes are carried out by a computer....


2

One answer reminds us of Socrates' famous quote, "The only true wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing" I am minded too of a Goon Show gag built on "Little does he know that I know...", elaborating each line until it concluded something like "Little does he know that I know that he knows that I know that he knows that I know ...


2

Your query is is reminiscent of Carnap's quibble with poet-philosopher Heidigger, whose "das Nichts selbst nichtet," was [in]famously translated as "the nothing itself noths" (misleadingly likening it to propositions like "the cat meows.") Carnap believed that this poetic element of Heidigger's thought depended upon misusing ...


2

One can understand this only if one understands that it can not be understood, and one is not able to understand this if one thinks it can be understood. Yes, this is the ultimate Truth. But this is not where the story ends -- that is where it really begins! Before we can know anything, before we can define the concept of "truth", before we can ...


2

"Quantum theory needs an observed to become 'real', to be a thing (us making the measure). Plato thought about the reality independent of a subject." According to Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics ("Many Worlds Interpretation"), which is gaining popularity among physicists as far as I can tell, observer or "measurement"...


2

There is a fissure between the supposed objectivity of relativity, ‘requiring no observer’ and the more widely accepted subjectivity of more than one interpretation of quantum mechanics,(and indeed everything else we think about.) To the believers in the objectivity of relativity, I would say: that’s a subjective opinion - which you’re entitled to. There is ...


1

There is definitely not complete concordance among Physicists. Some insist on Bayesian interpretations of probability and others prefer the frequentist interpretation. One definition of "subjectivist probability" is: "In probability, a subjectivist stand is the belief that probabilities are simply degrees-of-belief by rational agents in a ...


1

Impossibility, like nothingness, is an intensive and, especially for metaphysics, highly significant notion of philosophy. Sensu stricto, it is not a mathematical notion. In the context of probability theory, impossibility is defined, if at all, by zero probability (not vice versa) on pedagogical reasons. A simple illustrative example is choosing a number ...


1

I think Schrödinger is saying that he is simply on a line from Kant. Not exactly like Kant, but on a line of development from the Critique of Pure Reason. These “constructs” we make to adapt and evolve are simply on a line from Kant’s constructs. And if we add in the thing in itself, Hegel, everything is capable of having the notion of the notion [I simply ...


1

This is non sequitur. From "Every mental state can exist in some universe", it does not follow that "Any delusional mental state has in fact a real cause in at least one universe". At most, you can infer "There is at least one universe where my mental state is to see an imaginary monster". But obviously you're not in that ...


1

Liked Nelson's answer and I appreciated learning "clinamen" as the name for the Lucretian swerve. I don't disagree with his points but I feel it is not representative of most physicists understanding. Like Wittgenstein argued definitions matter, and most don't really understand which ones they are using. At it's heart determinism is either ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible