What is reality?
Kermit Rose
What is reality? This promises to forever be a controversal question. The
practice of magick seems to encourage people to belive that reality is a
function of our interpertation of reality. Whereas the person who has
faith in reality as presumed by physics, would say that it is true that all
of our theories of reality are based on interpertations of reality, but
this in no way detracts from the fundamental faith in the presense of a
reality that is not dependent of our knowledge of it.
For those who question the independent existence of reality, I pose the
question "Why is there as much agreement as there is about what is solid
and common experience to everyone?"
For those who see reality as something out there to be scanned, unlated to
our theories about it, I suggest the question "Are there multiple valid
ways to see this reality?"
Kermit@FSU or ro...@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu.bitnet
If you want to be sure I see your response, please e-mail me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the signature file of Kermit Rose.
Believing in dichotomies leads to hardening of your logic.
What determines the existence of Free Will?
I strive to believe only what is true. I have faith that whatever is
true will also be logically consistent and knowing truth will increase my
capacity to be kind.
Peace is the way to peace. Hostility is the way to hostility.
David D'Antonio
In article <1992Apr5.2...@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, ro...@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (Kermit Rose) writes:
|>What is reality?
For an informative look at modern "scientific" theories that attempt
to answer this question (and for a look at just how bizarre quantum
theory can get), see the book "Paradigms Lost" (I forget the author).
This book is about how "science" has changed our view of Life, the
Universe and Everything. The author looks at 6 (I think) "big
questions" and shows the different competing theories, in sort of a
courtroom style. Then, the jury (really the author) votes. But, of
course, you can form your own conclusions, too...I'm currently reading
the "What is reality" chapter and he's addressed both sides (static
reality and "user created" reality) in detail. Haven't read the
"verdict" yet, though...:-)
|>Kermit@FSU or ro...@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu.bitnet
|>This is the signature file of Kermit Rose.
Way longer than 4 lines. You're destined for Hell...[see
rec.humor.funny...]
|>What determines the existence of Free Will?
Chaos theory currently gets my vote.
|>I strive to believe only what is true. I have faith that whatever is
|>true will also be logically consistent and knowing truth will increase my
|>capacity to be kind.
Define true. True for everyone? True for you? True for all time?
Currently true for you? The Truth shall set you free, but first it'll
piss you off.
|>Peace is the way to peace. Hostility is the way to hostility.
And what do you do when you're attacked?
Devil's Advocate,
DDA
--
dant...@magick.tay2.dec.com -or- dant...@sword1.enet.dec.com
I've tried to dance with what life had to hand me
My partner's been pleasure, my partner's been pain
-Stevie Nicks
winds...@wizard.colorado.edu
I like aunt Lily's answers
It was once a primitive method of crowd control that got
out of hand.
or
Its ok now and then, but as I lifestyle I find it too
restrictive.
>Believing in dichotomies leads to hardening of your logic.
Hey, you either believe in dichotomies or you don't.
-Windsphire
'For me the only realist is the visionary because he
bears witness to his own reality' Federico Fellini
Todd I. Stark
In article <1992Apr9.2...@PA.dec.com>, dant...@magick.tay2.dec.com (David D'Antonio) writes...
>
>In article <1992Apr5.2...@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, ro...@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (Kermit Rose) writes:
>|>What is reality?
>
>For an informative look at modern "scientific" theories that attempt
>to answer this question (and for a look at just how bizarre quantum
>theory can get), see the book "Paradigms Lost" (I forget the author).
I think this was science populist Frank Casti ? Excellent presentation of the
way (and limitations) of scientific method as applied to philosophical
questions. He also wrote a book about 'certainty,' but I haven't read it.
>|>What determines the existence of Free Will?
>
>Chaos theory currently gets my vote.
There are some researchers currently studying the possibility of
applying Chaos mathmatics to brain activity patterns. Interesting idea.
Do Chaos magicians actually study Chaos math, or do they borrow the
term and general concept primarily ?
>And what do you do when you're attacked?
Hopefully, survive.
todd
"Morality through superior firepower,"
anonyously posted as 'Thrasymachus'
David D'Antonio
In article <1992Apr10.1...@PA.dec.com>, st...@dwovax.enet.dec.com (Todd I. Stark) writes:
|>>For an informative look at modern "scientific" theories that attempt
|>>to answer this question (and for a look at just how bizarre quantum
|>>theory can get), see the book "Paradigms Lost" (I forget the author).
|>
|>I think this was science populist Frank Casti ? Excellent presentation of the
|>way (and limitations) of scientific method as applied to philosophical
|>questions. He also wrote a book about 'certainty,' but I haven't read it.
I read some more last night and STILL forgot to get the guy's name. Oh
well...While I haven't gotten to the end of the "what is reality"
chapter, the explanation of Bell's Interconnectedness Theorem is very
interesting, to say the least.
|>>|>What determines the existence of Free Will?
|>>
|>>Chaos theory currently gets my vote.
|>
|>There are some researchers currently studying the possibility of
|>applying Chaos mathmatics to brain activity patterns. Interesting idea.
|>
|>Do Chaos magicians actually study Chaos math, or do they borrow the
|>term and general concept primarily ?
I've only limited contact with Chaos magick (I read _Practical Sigil
Magic(k)_ by Frater U.D.), but it wasn't mentioned at all. I think
they are refering to Chaos as in Chaos vs. Law, not Chaos as in
Sensitivity to initial conditions.
|> todd
Grig Larson
What is reality?
My simplistic view <possibly to the point of inaccuarcy> has satisfied my
curiousity for years. It took a lot of thought, but here is how I define it:
Reality is the subjective organism's repsonse to perspective external
stimuli.
It does not give what is real or isn't, but just states that if you respond
to it, it's real.
=================<<< < < < *Punk Walrus* > > > >>>=================
[ \||/ | --------------------------------------- | \||/ ]
[ (o-) | "It might be in the || wal...@bessel.umd.edu | (o-) ]
[ /\ | basement, I'll go up- || Punk Walrus on the | /\ ]
[ Punkus | stairs and check..." || FanTek BBS 301-203-9582 | It's ]
[ Walrus | -- M.C. Escher -- || SF&F Author Extrordinare| Punkie!]
=========================================================================
"Reality... wow... what a gnarly concept, dude." -Biff Walrus
Gary Mitchell
>
>In article <1992Apr10.1...@PA.dec.com>, st...@dwovax.enet.dec.com (Todd I. Stark) writes:
>|>>For an informative look at modern "scientific" theories that attempt
>|>>to answer this question (and for a look at just how bizarre quantum
>|>>theory can get), see the book "Paradigms Lost" (I forget the author).
>|>
>|>I think this was science populist Frank Casti ? Excellent presentation of the
>|>way (and limitations) of scientific method as applied to philosophical
>|>questions. He also wrote a book about 'certainty,' but I haven't read it.
>
>I read some more last night and STILL forgot to get the guy's name. Oh
>well...While I haven't gotten to the end of the "what is reality"
>chapter, the explanation of Bell's Interconnectedness Theorem is very
>interesting, to say the least.
>
There is another book called *The Conscious Universe* (written by a
quantum physicist and a science historian) that, though very technical,
explains the full impact of modern scientific theory on philosophy, the
other sciences, and on human consciousness itself. Among its topics is
Niels Bohr's 'Copenhagen Interpretation,' which basically states that
scientific theory does not describe an ultimate reality, but merely
models it. In this regard, anyone claiming that science has all the
answers is committing folly. And unfortunately for the dogmatics, every
scientific theory seems to conform to the Copenhagen Interpretation very
well. In fact, it relieves the burden of some scientists -- instead of
chasing after some vision of reality, they can create models that work
well enough to be useful, without being burdened with areas that can
be ignored despite conflict.
The test for the 'truth' of science is its usefullness, not its conformity
to 'reality.'
There IS a 'reality' under it all, but everything you can 'know' about
it is filtered and interpreted by the brain. So there can be no pure
knowledge.
Another good book to consider is Walter Truett Anderson's *Reality Isn't
What It Used To Be*. Despite a few misapprehensions on Anderson's part
(i.e. his coloring-book description of Timothy Leary as an 'LSD guru'
without understanding Leary's motivations or mindset), this book
clearly shows that it's not just us magicians, counterreligious preachers,
acidheads, mind-machine enthusiasts, etc., that realize that realities
are as choosable as today's shirt.
>|>Do Chaos magicians actually study Chaos math, or do they borrow the
>|>term and general concept primarily ?
>
>I've only limited contact with Chaos magick (I read _Practical Sigil
>Magic(k)_ by Frater U.D.), but it wasn't mentioned at all. I think
>they are refering to Chaos as in Chaos vs. Law, not Chaos as in
>Sensitivity to initial conditions.
I for one would like to see a discussion on Chaos magick. I've heard a
lot about it, and would like to find out more. From what I've heard, it
seems to be related in mentality to Scottish magick....
Rev. Sheldon der Wehr, H.o.t.S.F.
SubGenius Inner Cabal Knights
and acolyte magician at large
D. Pendragon
>practice of magick seems to encourage people to belive that reality is a
>function of our interpertation of reality. Whereas the person who has
>faith in reality as presumed by physics, would say that it is true that all
>of our theories of reality are based on interpertations of reality, but
>this in no way detracts from the fundamental faith in the presense of a
>reality that is not dependent of our knowledge of it.
>
>For those who question the independent existence of reality, I pose the
>question "Why is there as much agreement as there is about what is solid
>and common experience to everyone?"
To me, reality is what I perceive it to be. If I "feel" something ("Feel",
meaning sense by what I perceive as sight, sound, touch, taste, smell,
experience in the way of emotion, etc.) then it is real. I can not deny it's
existance, although other people (or animals) may not perceive them, or not
perceive them in the way I do, because I have only my own perspective, my own
frame of reference from which I must judge things. My version of reality must
be my own, and no others. So, you could conceivably receive as many answers to
this question as there are people willing to respond. Every person perceives
differently.
And it definitely must depend on the individuals beliefs (whether they reside
in what I perceive as "scientific" and what I perceive as "religious" or a
combination of the two will have a great effect on what a person will perceive
as real). My version of reality is thus highly individualistic, and may or may
not coincide with what other people feel.
>Kermit@FSU or ro...@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu.bitnet
>If you want to be sure I see your response, please e-mail me.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>This is the signature file of Kermit Rose.
>
>Believing in dichotomies leads to hardening of your logic.
>
>What determines the existence of Free Will?
>I strive to believe only what is true. I have faith that whatever is
>true will also be logically consistent and knowing truth will increase my
>capacity to be kind.
>Peace is the way to peace. Hostility is the way to hostility.
-D. Pendragon!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Churchill's commentary on man: Man will occassionally stumble upon the truch,
but most of the time he will pick himself up and carry on.
(Referring to us as a race, not just men... :-) )
Chito Lapena
>
>What is reality? This promises to forever be a controversal question. The
>practice of magick seems to encourage people to belive that reality is a
>function of our interpertation of reality. Whereas the person who has
>faith in reality as presumed by physics, would say that it is true that all
>of our theories of reality are based on interpertations of reality, but
>this in no way detracts from the fundamental faith in the presense of a
>reality that is not dependent of our knowledge of it.
>
>For those who question the independent existence of reality, I pose the
>question "Why is there as much agreement as there is about what is solid
>and common experience to everyone?"
>
>For those who see reality as something out there to be scanned, unlated to
>our theories about it, I suggest the question "Are there multiple valid
>ways to see this reality?"
>
>Kermit@FSU or ro...@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu.bitnet
>If you want to be sure I see your response, please e-mail me.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>This is the signature file of Kermit Rose.
>
>Believing in dichotomies leads to hardening of your logic.
>
>What determines the existence of Free Will?
Will is the only reality. But you must realize that there
are several different levels and different kinds of will.
Take for instance, the hierarchy from individual will, to
communal will, to societal will, to the will of the species.
The higher wills set boundaries as to where the lower
wills may freely move about. If a lower will wishes for
its boundaries to be somewhat altered, it must negotiate
with the higher wills. You can work out an example using
a societal model.
Now what you see around you is stuff that is encrusted
about these wills- clothing them, sort of speak. At any
given level, there are different wills that may be equal at
that level. The interaction of wills (by this model,
interaction is a dictum of the highest will; or the will of
the will) is what comprises reality. What makes up a
"real" object here on earth? Hermetic philosophy
organizes substances into the four elements of matter: air,
water, earth and fire. These four elements (taken at their
less mundane interpretation) may be seen as wills at an
equal (or close to equal) level, whose interactions form
substances. The Air of the wise is the abstracted form of
an object (its concept, its DNA, its crystal lattice structure,
blueprint, etc.) the Fire of the Wise is the abstracted
energy that holds the object's form together (tendons and
ligaments, the rivets in a building, electronic interaction,
etc.) the Water of the wise is the medium (the land, the
womb, the clay, the metal), and the earth of the wise is
the stuff extracted from the medium used to form the
substance (the extraction is made as a result of the
interaction of the above three wills, forming a new object
with a new will. eg: the baby, the tree, the mountain, the car).
The definition of an object as earth, air, fire or water
depends on its use. No earthly object is any one of the
above but is made up of proportions of them.
As below, so above- one could suspect.
-chito
--
=======================
Allez chercher mon jouet sous le canape.
Joshua Geller
>In article <1992Apr5.2...@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> ro...@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu writes:
>Will is the only reality.
huh? I thought reality was the interaction between the individual point of
view and the perceived universe. wherever do you get this one?
> But you must realize that there
>are several different levels and different kinds of will.
>Take for instance, the hierarchy from individual will, to
>communal will, to societal will, to the will of the species.
let's see, I know what individual will is. what is communal wil
and societal will? how do you differentiate between them? howtdo
you know what they are (take a poll?) ?this is very sonorous and
rhetorically sound; I don't seem to extract any meaning from it, though.
and the will of the species? come on now.
>The higher wills set boundaries as to where the lower
>wills may freely move about. If a lower will wishes for
>its boundaries to be somewhat altered, it must negotiate
>with the higher wills. You can work out an example using
>a societal model.
sounds pretty communist to me. are you just making this up as you go
along? what is this, the greatest good of the greatest number?
subordinate yourself to the greater good of the whole? what total shit.
> Hermetic philosophy
>organizes substances into the four elements of matter: air,
>water, earth and fire. These four elements (taken at their
>less mundane interpretation) may be seen as wills at an
>equal (or close to equal) level, whose interactions form
>substances. The Air of the wise is the abstracted form of
>an object (its concept, its DNA, its crystal lattice structure,
>blueprint, etc.) the Fire of the Wise is the abstracted
>energy that holds the object's form together (tendons and
>ligaments, the rivets in a building, electronic interaction,
>etc.) the Water of the wise is the medium (the land, the
>womb, the clay, the metal), and the earth of the wise is
>the stuff extracted from the medium used to form the
>substance (the extraction is made as a result of the
>interaction of the above three wills, forming a new object
>with a new will. eg: the baby, the tree, the mountain, the car).
>The definition of an object as earth, air, fire or water
>depends on its use. No earthly object is any one of the
>above but is made up of proportions of them.
15 years of study of various hermetic writings have left me ignorant of
this particular interpretation; perhaps you'd like to share with us all
your sources for it? a justification for it might be nice too.
josh
Chito Lapena
>lap...@athena.cs.uga.edu (Chito Lapena) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Apr5.2...@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> ro...@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu writes:
>
>>Will is the only reality.
>
>huh? I thought reality was the interaction between the individual point of
>view and the perceived universe. wherever do you get this one?
>
>> But you must realize that there
>>are several different levels and different kinds of will.
>>Take for instance, the hierarchy from individual will, to
>>communal will, to societal will, to the will of the species.
>
>let's see, I know what individual will is. what is communal wil
>and societal will? how do you differentiate between them? howtdo
>you know what they are (take a poll?) ?this is very sonorous and
>rhetorically sound; I don't seem to extract any meaning from it, though.
>and the will of the species? come on now.
>
I referred to an individual's relation to society for the sake of example.
I was thinking along the lines that communal will would be that will
that is common to the people that are closer to you (like your friends
and family) and societal will being things like trends of ignorance
or whatever, perpetuated through television, etc. It's up to
the individual will to decide which wills are above or below its own.
but the hierarchy exists, nevertheless.
It's good that you ask about the will of the species. Now if a homosexual
sees this, he/she might say "what a backwards kind of guy you are," presuming
that what I mean by this is that homosexuals must die.
One of the aspects of the will of the species,
referring to sexuality is this: when man and woman copulate, they can make kids,
if man and woman do not copulate, they do not make kids. By that,
the species will doesn't care if anyone is homosexual but if the entire species
were to survive, everyone must not be homosexual. That is not the same as
the delusion that nature is intolerant of homosexuals. Neither
does it imply that heterosexuals must bear heterosexual kids. The nature
of this will was understood and we were able to change the boundaries
through artificial insemination.
>>The higher wills set boundaries as to where the lower
>>wills may freely move about. If a lower will wishes for
>>its boundaries to be somewhat altered, it must negotiate
>>with the higher wills. You can work out an example using
>>a societal model.
>
>sounds pretty communist to me. are you just making this up as you go
>along? what is this, the greatest good of the greatest number?
>subordinate yourself to the greater good of the whole? what total shit.
>
The trick is that your individual will perceives what these levels of
will would be. You decide on what is good and you decide on the
meaning of the numbers. If your perceptions actually model a different reality
(ie a different will) then you will gain an understanding of that
will and perhaps also the ability to exert influence on it in some way.
Otherwise the perception will be a delusion, which is quite different
from a good illusion.
>> Hermetic philosophy
>>organizes substances into the four elements of matter: air,
>>water, earth and fire. These four elements (taken at their
>>less mundane interpretation) may be seen as wills at an
>>equal (or close to equal) level, whose interactions form
>>substances. The Air of the wise is the abstracted form of
>>an object (its concept, its DNA, its crystal lattice structure,
>>blueprint, etc.) the Fire of the Wise is the abstracted
>>energy that holds the object's form together (tendons and
>>ligaments, the rivets in a building, electronic interaction,
>>etc.) the Water of the wise is the medium (the land, the
>>womb, the clay, the metal), and the earth of the wise is
>>the stuff extracted from the medium used to form the
>>substance (the extraction is made as a result of the
>>interaction of the above three wills, forming a new object
>>with a new will. eg: the baby, the tree, the mountain, the car).
>>The definition of an object as earth, air, fire or water
>>depends on its use. No earthly object is any one of the
>>above but is made up of proportions of them.
>
>15 years of study of various hermetic writings have left me ignorant of
>this particular interpretation; perhaps you'd like to share with us all
>your sources for it? a justification for it might be nice too.
I would be curious to know which Hermetic writings you have studied. I am
presently working on the Musaeum Hermeticum (I confess that
on an earlier post I made an incorrect reference to the first page
of the introduction. The stuff about sensationalism is actually later in the
in the introduction).
The ideas are solid within matter but the particular *correspondences*
to the elements were from Dion Fortune's _The Mystical Qabalah_ and
from Mary Anne Atwood's _Hermetic Philosophy and Alchemy_. The
definitions I give above are only one of the variants of the element set.
Also, keep in mind that they had to be simplified for the sake of clarity.
Saying that the elements only stood for a single set of things is like
saying that a single mathematical formula can only be applied to one thing.
It's only a model- a useful one, I think. Justification would take up
a bit more space and I will e-mail you if you're interested.
David D'Antonio
In article <1992Apr10.2...@seas.smu.edu>, mitc...@seas.smu.edu (Gary Mitchell) writes:
|>>|>>For an informative look at modern "scientific" theories that attempt
|>>|>>to answer this question (and for a look at just how bizarre quantum
|>>|>>theory can get), see the book "Paradigms Lost" (I forget the author).
|>>|>
|>>|>I think this was science populist Frank Casti ? Excellent presentation of the
|>>|>way (and limitations) of scientific method as applied to philosophical
|>>|>questions. He also wrote a book about 'certainty,' but I haven't read it.
It is Frank L. Casti
|>>I read some more last night and STILL forgot to get the guy's name. Oh
|>>well...While I haven't gotten to the end of the "what is reality"
|>>chapter, the explanation of Bell's Interconnectedness Theorem is very
|>>interesting, to say the least.
|>>
|>
|>There is another book called *The Conscious Universe* (written by a
|>quantum physicist and a science historian) that, though very technical,
|>explains the full impact of modern scientific theory on philosophy, the
|>other sciences, and on human consciousness itself. Among its topics is
|>Niels Bohr's 'Copenhagen Interpretation,' which basically states that
|>scientific theory does not describe an ultimate reality, but merely
|>models it. In this regard, anyone claiming that science has all the
|>answers is committing folly. And unfortunately for the dogmatics, every
|>scientific theory seems to conform to the Copenhagen Interpretation very
|>well. In fact, it relieves the burden of some scientists -- instead of
|>chasing after some vision of reality, they can create models that work
|>well enough to be useful, without being burdened with areas that can
|>be ignored despite conflict.
Casti goes over the Copenhagen Interpretation, the Many Worlds
Interpretation and a couple others, all within the context of 'There
is no objective reality'. On the other side, he also details several
'There is an objective reality' theories before submitting the
question to the "jury"...
|>The test for the 'truth' of science is its usefullness, not its conformity
|>to 'reality.'
|>
|>There IS a 'reality' under it all, but everything you can 'know' about
|>it is filtered and interpreted by the brain. So there can be no pure
|>knowledge.
How can you know there is a 'reality' if all you know about it is
filtered and interpreted?
[stuff deleted]
|>I for one would like to see a discussion on Chaos magick. I've heard a
|>lot about it, and would like to find out more. From what I've heard, it
|>seems to be related in mentality to Scottish magick....
Cam You didn't see me! Mayor
>
>In article <1992Apr5.2...@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, ro...@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (Kermit Rose) writes:
>|>What determines the existence of Free Will?
>
>Chaos theory currently gets my vote.
>
>DDA
>
I want to have free will, but chaos theory is not the way to it. Chaos
is a relative term...we do not see order, but it is not random!
Essentially chaos theory shows us that we don't have a hope in heck :)
of being able to determine something that is chaotic, but it does NOT
say that it is NOT determined. Yes, all fluid flow, air currents, etc
etc have a chaotic nature...but they are also deterministic.
Chaos theory does NOT lead to free will.
DISCLAIMER: This has been the scientist speaking, not the magickian :)
Live well,
cam.
---
--------------------------------------------------------------------
------"It's about time to change that tired old .sig, cam."---------
----------- email: ma...@eeserv.ee.umanitoba.ca --------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Shava Nerad Averett
>There are some researchers currently studying the possibility of
>applying Chaos mathmatics to brain activity patterns. Interesting idea.
>
>Do Chaos magicians actually study Chaos math, or do they borrow the
>term and general concept primarily ?
Whoa! Radical. You mean that Chaos magick borrows the term from chaos
theory, rather than from the philosophical/religious/phenomenological
term that chaos theory borrowed it from? How post modern...;-)
--
Shava Nerad Averett shava_...@unc.edu
/* all materials (c)1992, Shava Nerad Averett, and have nothing significant
to do with the University of North Carolina, a mostly owned subsidiary
of the NC Legislature, a mostly owned subsidiary of the DOT. */
David D'Antonio
In article <1992Apr13.2...@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, ma...@ic10.umeeng (Cam "You didn't see me!" Mayor) writes:
|>In article 91...@PA.dec.com, dant...@magick.tay2.dec.com (David D'Antonio) writes:
|>>
|>>In article <1992Apr5.2...@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, ro...@fsu1.cc.fsu.edu (Kermit Rose) writes:
|>
|>>|>What determines the existence of Free Will?
|>>
|>>Chaos theory currently gets my vote.
|>>
|>>DDA
|>>
|>
|> I want to have free will, but chaos theory is not the way to it. Chaos
|>is a relative term...we do not see order, but it is not random!
|>Essentially chaos theory shows us that we don't have a hope in heck :)
|>of being able to determine something that is chaotic, but it does NOT
|>say that it is NOT determined. Yes, all fluid flow, air currents, etc
|>etc have a chaotic nature...but they are also deterministic.
|> Chaos theory does NOT lead to free will.
I don't see the problem. Chaos theory pertains to systems that are
extremely sensitive to initial conditions and IMO, the brain is one
such system. Can you tell me the difference between a system that
isn't deterministic and one that is, but so sensitive to initial
conditions that you cannot predict it's behaviour beyond a few
minutes?
Besides, although we talk of Free Will, I submit that few of us do
things "randomly" but that Free Will is actually sorta deterministic
in that placed in the same situation again, most of us would do the
same thing. The "Free" in Free Will usually doesn't mean random, it
means unpredictable from the outside...Kinda like chaotic! :-)
|>DISCLAIMER: This has been the scientist speaking, not the magickian :)
Same here...
|>cam.
Cam You didn't see me! Mayor
>
>In article <1992Apr13.2...@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, ma...@ic10.umeeng (Cam "You didn't see me!" Mayor) writes:
>|>
>|> I want to have free will, but chaos theory is not the way to it. Chaos
>|>is a relative term...we do not see order, but it is not random!
>
>extremely sensitive to initial conditions and IMO, the brain is one
I like to think so, also. :)
>such system. Can you tell me the difference between a system that
>isn't deterministic and one that is, but so sensitive to initial
>conditions that you cannot predict it's behaviour beyond a few
>minutes?
I can't give you (I really wish I could) an example of a system that
I know is not deterministic. Chaos gives the appearance of randomness,
but is still deterministic if you *know* the seeds. ie. If you had a
value of k=1.23 and plugged that into a chaotic system, you would get
the SAME response every time, but if you plugged in k=1.230000000000000
00000000000000001, it would appear the same for quite a while, but would
start to diverge from the 1.23 case, eventually snowballing into
something totally different. If you ran the case again with the value
of k=1.230000...001 again, the outcome would be the same as the last
time you ran it.
>Besides, although we talk of Free Will, I submit that few of us do
>things "randomly" but that Free Will is actually sorta deterministic
>in that placed in the same situation again, most of us would do the
>same thing. The "Free" in Free Will usually doesn't mean random, it
>means unpredictable from the outside...Kinda like chaotic! :-)
Yeah, I know what you mean. I think that (more or less) everything
I do could be predicted, given intimate knowledge of my internal
workings...BUT I have felt quite complimented when people have told
me (they didn't know it was a compliment) that "Cam, I have tried to
understand why you do things, and as far as I can see, everything you
do is totally random". It's all perspective in this case.
cam
Disclaimer: Booga Booga!
David D'Antonio
In article <1992Apr16.2...@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, ma...@ic16.umeeng (Cam "You didn't see me!" Mayor) writes:
[stuff deleted]
|>>such system. Can you tell me the difference between a system that
|>>isn't deterministic and one that is, but so sensitive to initial
|>>conditions that you cannot predict it's behaviour beyond a few
|>>minutes?
|>
|> I can't give you (I really wish I could) an example of a system that
|>I know is not deterministic. Chaos gives the appearance of randomness,
|>but is still deterministic if you *know* the seeds. ie. If you had a
|>value of k=1.23 and plugged that into a chaotic system, you would get
|>the SAME response every time, but if you plugged in k=1.230000000000000
|>00000000000000001, it would appear the same for quite a while, but would
|>start to diverge from the 1.23 case, eventually snowballing into
|>something totally different. If you ran the case again with the value
|>of k=1.230000...001 again, the outcome would be the same as the last
|>time you ran it.
Ah yes, I'm sure it would be repeatable. The trouble comes in when
trying to predict the behaviour of a physical system. Given the
sensitivity to initial conditions (STIC), any model you have of the
system will diverge rapidly from the "real thing" because you can't
measure the inital values accurately enough. Getting the right values
for neurotransmitters out to enough decimal places is become our
(current) capabilites. And so, the brain remains "unpredictable".
|> Yeah, I know what you mean. I think that (more or less) everything
|>I do could be predicted, given intimate knowledge of my internal
|>workings...BUT I have felt quite complimented when people have told
|>me (they didn't know it was a compliment) that "Cam, I have tried to
|>understand why you do things, and as far as I can see, everything you
|>do is totally random". It's all perspective in this case.
That "intimate knowledge of my internal workings" is damn hard to get.
I have trouble understanding my OWN internal workings ("Now why the
hell did I sign up for this??" :-). Just think, though; you'll be a
hard target for an assassin if you're random!
|>cam
|>
|>Disclaimer: Booga Booga!
Disclaimer: Wooga Wooga!
Cam You didn't see me! Mayor
>|> [stuff about explicit chaos form]
>
David wrote:
> [stuff about never finding the explicit chaos form
> from observing reality]
>
Yep. Looks like we agree. Rare, I think, in alt.magick.
cam.
---
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--- If there were a degree for swashbuckling, it would have to ----
----- include a course in laughing, then jumping off of things. ----
David K. Spiker
(Whole bunch of stuff about reality, perception, and chaos
deleted. I don't have the memory so read it yourself please)
Anyway, If your going to discuss what is reality you have to
address the concepts of how not does perception affect reality but
also how these perceptions are formed and how they can be controlled.
Since I happen to know about this, I'll start (i think it's only fair)
First of all, there are some things necessary to understand, and most
have been discussed in previous posts but here they are again. (apologies
for any copying but it all ain't original anyway)
First of all, our reality is based on our perceptions, these
perceptions are formed by the information we receive from our senses,
whatever they may be. These perceptions are however subject to several
variables. The first is the arbitrary assignment of labels.
the second is exactly what we receive from our senses. and the third
is exactly how theses perceptions are used.
Now the labels is not important here, what is are what we receive and
how we use it.
Our reality is formed from the information given by senses, yet we do
not use all the information we get from our senses, for example very few
people listen to every noise they hear, and few read everything they see
and so forth. Since we do process only some of our sensory information,
then it is concievable that this thing we call reality is in affect not
what we belive it to be. An example of this is the old philosophy one
of a baby born lacking all five 'natural
senses. the assumption is made that the child is alive and thinking.
Now if this child has no senses to receive any information he
therefore has no perceptions as we would term them. Since reality is
based on perceptions, one would assume that the child has no reality.
However the child would have a reality, the reality that he himself
created. And to him(or her) everything he created would be real.
However to our reality it would not exsist, yet to the baby it would.
As a result you have the question of whose reality is now the real
one. The majority reality of everyone here, or the baby's reality of
a single person, the baby himself.
Keeping this in mind, we can then apply that idea to the concept
of reality control and the theory of chaos. For this we will use a
similar example of a blind man (Norm. Disclaimer) who finds himself
in an unfamilar hallway.
As the man starts at one end of the hall, his reality of that
hall, is based on what he can sense through his remaining 4 senses.
And lacking sight, he would then believe (social training not
accounted for) that the hallway is infinte. He would believe so
until such time as he reaches the other end. However until he does,
his reality states that the hall is infinte. We, having sight, do
see the end of the hall and form our reality based on such. Yet
both realities are correct until such time as either is abandoned.
In this case when the blind man reaches the end of the hall.
Now this does have a point to it all, because we assume that
the five natural senses we have are it, (6th sense and like omitted)
However, our idea of this is based on common perceptions, and as we
have just read, common perceptions may not be entirely correct. So
we can also state that if we can control these common perceptions, we
can then on a small scale control the reality that we present. So if
this reality is controlable then it is not affected by chaos and as
such is now ordered, at least on that scale. Now there have been
experiments that have shown that what we assume as natural chaos,
i.e. the drops from melting ice, a faucet, etc. are in fact have an
order to them. I don't off-hand have the exact citation but the
eventual result unerringly are dot portraits of a pine tree.
Since we have just shown that we can control reality and if
this apparent chaos now appears to have an order to it can we
not assume then that the reality we perceive as ours is in fact
someone's controlled reality in which we are a part of? Or for
that matter, are we (you knew this was coming) the figments of
something's imagination?
Anyway, if your looking for more details I can also suggest
another book, mine, due out late this fall in limited publication,
provided one, I come up with a new title and two there aren't any
more problems.
Doc, the wandering philosopher, lacking a real account.
All spelling and grammer errors the fault of a controlled
chaos and as such not my own. However questions can be directed
to the appropriate being and may be fixed. providing TPTB ever upload
a real editor that is.
--
Question "Why is the Universe here?" |dks...@vma.smsu.edu
Answer "Where else would it be?" |dks...@smsvma.BITNET
A Philosophical Question -----------------------