Late mid-morning. The others are out shopping as the clouds haven’t yet evaporated. You did some exercises and are sitting in the new rocker in the bedroom listening to classical jazz on your cheaper speakers. Still good enough for you with the iPad sound programming on jazz rather than acoustics. They are just coming in the door. Later, dude. – Amorella
Before a three thin slice ham rollup for supper you and Carol took your first walk on the beach as the sun was dropping into dusk. Everyone is watching football and readying Owen for bed. Perhaps a movie once he is down for the night. Last night you watched “Cowboys and Aliens” – no one in the room was impressed no matter all the well-known stars.
Again you are listening to classical jazz while sitting in the new bedroom rocker. The foot-stand also moves with the rocker so you can be in body motion while tapping the keyboard. Number five on the list of characteristics of Quantum Mechanics is particles/waves exist in a never-never land and in time and space; and the point here is to show its relationship to my sense of self-definition (as a real spirit).
First point that comes to mind is referenced 6 February 2011 “- A Real Betweener”:
** **
. . . You went upstairs to take a nap but read more of the March, 2011 Discover magazine and got caught up in an article by Zeeya Merali titled, “Physics of the Divine” on pages 49-52. You circled a variety of paragraphs but here are the ones closest to your heartansoulanmind. The subject centers on how God might work within the laws of physics and a group of scientists are focused on this theme. Here are some quotations from the article on questions and discoveries.
Do any physical theories allow room for God to influence human actions and events? And, more controversially, is there any concrete evidence of God’s hand at work in the physical world? (49) . . .
. . . Suarez was sure that by messing up the time-ordering in this way, it would be impossible for the photons to coordinate their paths. He was proved wrong. On every run, the photons still met the same fate. Whatever causes the twin photons to behave in the same way, it must work independently of time. “There is no story that can be told within the framework of space-time that can explain how these quantum correlations keep occurring,” Suarez says. . . . (51)
. . . Suarez says, “Physics experiments cannot demonstrate the existence of God, but this test shows that today’s physics is compatible with all major religious traditions. There is strong experimental evidence for accepting that nonmaterial beings act in the world.” (52)
. . . Jean Staune, a mathematical physicist and philosopher at the Interdisciplinary University in Paris . . . puts it like this: The before-before experiment shows that “if an intelligence is directing quantum events, then that intelligence exists outside the material universe. But it doesn’t prove that such a mind exists.” (52)
From: “Physics of the Divine", Discover, Zeeya Merali, March, 2011, pp. 49-52.
***
The above does suggest the possibility of an intelligence directing quantum events but it does not imply my self-defined existence as you like to think it might, orndorff. – Amorella
Who says a spirit is a particle and/or a wave? Who says ‘consciousness’ is a particle and/or a wave? – Amorella
You, Amorella, see yourself as an “event” and I see you as a “process” very similar to consciousness as defined by the Oxford-American software:
“[consciousness is] the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world: consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain.”
You took time to watch “Thor” with Kim and Paul while Carol worked on her email and read the Sunday St. Petersburg Times. Now, back to the MacAir you don’t know where to go from here. – Amorella
Back on 3 December 2011 you state:
“I, Amorella, am more as a [Platonic] Form than not. A Spirit such as myself is modified by experience if you say modify and adjust have the same meaning. I am no more than I need to be in terms of event, substance and process.”
And, according to the Theory of Forms in Wikipedia:
Evidence of Forms
Plato's main evidence for the existence of Forms is intuitive only and is as follows.
The argument from human perception
We call both the sky and blue jeans by the same color: Blue. However, clearly a pair of jeans and the sky are not the same color; moreover, the wavelengths of light reflected by the sky at every location and all the millions of blue jeans in every state of fading constantly change, and yet we somehow have a consensus of the basic form Blueness as it applies to them. Says Plato:
But if the very nature of knowledge changes, at the time when the change occurs there will be no knowledge, and, according to this view, there will be no one to know and nothing to be known: but if that which knows and that which is known exist ever, and the beautiful and the good and every other thing also exist, then I do not think that they can resemble a process of flux, as we were just now supposing.
The argument from perfection
No one has ever seen a perfect circle, nor a perfectly straight line, yet everyone knows what a circle and a straight line are. Plato utilizes the tool-maker's blueprint as evidence that Forms are real:
... when a man has discovered the instrument which is naturally adapted to each work, he must express this natural form, and not others which he fancies, in the material ....
Perceived circles or lines are not exactly circular or straight, and true circles and lines could never be detected since by definition they are sets of infinitely small points. But if the perfect ones were not real, how could they direct the manufacturer?
From: Wikipedia
** **
As a Form is intuitive only I am including the following from the same Wikipedia article:
** **
Aristotelian criticism
The topic of Aristotle's criticism of Plato's Theory of Forms is a large one and continues to expand. Rather than quote Plato, Aristotle often summarized. Classical commentaries thus recommended Aristotle as an introduction to Plato. As a historian of prior thought, Aristotle was invaluable, however this was secondary his own dialectic and in some cases he treats purported implications as if Plato had actually mentioned them, or even defended them. In examining Aristotle's criticism of The Forms, it is helpful to understand Aristotle's own hylomorphic forms, by which he intends to salvage much of Plato's theory.
In the summary passage quoted above Plato distinguishes between real and non-real "existing things", where the latter term is used of substance. The figures, which the artificer places in the gold, are not substance, but gold is. Aristotle, stated that for Plato, all things studied by the sciences have Form and asserted that Plato considered only substance to have Form. Uncharitably, this leads him to a something like a contradiction: Forms existing as the objects of science, but not-existing as non-substance. Ross objects to this as a mischaracterization of Plato.
Plato did not claim to know where the line between Form and non-Form is to be drawn. As Cornford points out, those things about which the young Socrates (and Plato) asserted "I have often been puzzled about these things"[41] (in reference to Man, Fire and Water), appear as Forms in later works. However, others do not, such as Hair, Mud, Dirt. Of these, Socrates is made to assert, "it would be too absurd to suppose that they have a Form."
Ross also objects to Aristotle's criticism that Form Otherness accounts for the differences between Forms and purportedly leads to contradictory forms: the Not-tall, the Not-beautiful, etc. That particulars participate in a Form is for Aristotle is much too vague to permit analysis. By one way in which he unpacks the concept, the Forms would cease to be of one essence due to any multiple participation. As Ross indicates, Plato didn't make that leap from "A is not B" to "A is Not-B." Otherness would only applies to its own particulars and not to those of other Forms. For example, there is no Form Not-Greek, only particulars of Form Otherness that somehow suppress Form Greek.
Regardless of whether Socrates meant the particulars of Otherness yield Not-Greek, Not-tall, Not-beautiful, etc., the particulars would operate specifically rather than generally, each somehow yielding only one exclusion.
Plato had postulated that we know Forms through a remembrance of the soul's past lives and Aristotle's arguments against this treatment of epistemology are compelling. For Plato, particulars somehow do not exist, and, on the face of it, "that which is non-existent cannot be known". See Metaphysics III 3-4.
Also from Wikipedia – Forms
** **
The only point left here is the definition of hylomorphism:
Hylomorphism: the theory derived from Aristotle that every physical object is composed of two principles, an unchanging prime matter and a form deprived of actuality with every substantial change of the object.
From: the freedictionary
** **
Now, I can go no further except to admit this characteristic of Quantum Mechanics appears to have no connection with your self-definition as a ‘spirit’.
Carol has curled up in bed for sleep. Time to stop for the night. We’ll continue this tomorrow. Post. – Amorella
No comments:
Post a Comment