"The term originates in Boltzmann's generalized thermodynamics, which treats the independent properties of a physical system as defining separate coordinates in a multidimensional system the points of which constitute the ‘ensemble of possible states’. The Tractatus does not define the term ‘logical space’, but clearly it there refers to the ensemble of logical possibilities. Logical space stands to ‘reality’, the existence and non-existence of states of affairs (TLP 2.05), as the potential to the actual."
Feel free to debate this fact. If you cannot - I simply see it as correction to what the philosophical materialist's conception is.
Materialism is the positon that the only forces, processes, and entities in the universe are those which in principle are addressed by physics.
You've just cited something from physics.
Do tell us: how is this supposed to be a problem for materialism?
I think I will let a senior scientist speak to your assertion.
Freeing the Scientific Imagination from Fundamentalist Scientism
Human beings as immortal spiritual forms evolving through temporary bodies. The existence of realms of reality beyond the presently known particles and forces of modern physics. These seem to me to be the three minimum foundations for a spiritual worldview. Without at least these three pillars one may have a system of morals and ethics or a philosophy of life, but not a spiritual worldview having any substantive content. With each of these pillars, what starts as a system of morals and ethics moves progressively towards a substantively new vision of spirituality in Nature, marrying the values of objective scientific discovery with the subjective experience of a far larger reality than that yet grasped by science.
All three of these pillars are at odds with the tenets of fundamentalist scientism. However none of them are genuinely at odds with either the corpus of scientific knowledge or the scientific science limits its investigations to the physical world. Arguments against these three fundamental spiritual tenets are based on the dogmatic assumptions of fundamentalist scientism, not on any objective scientific evidence.
Dr. Bernhard Haisch is a high-energy astrophysicist, author or co-author of over 100 scientific papers and principal investigator on a dozen former NASA research projects. He is the director of the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics (CIPA) in Palo Alto and serves as a Scientific Editor of the Astrophysical Journal Past positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed-Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory; Deputy Director, Center for EUV Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley; Visiting Fellow, Max-Planck-Institut fuer extraterrestrische Physik in Garching, Germany; Visiting Scientist, University of Utrecht, the Netherlands; and Postdoctoral Fellow, Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics, University of Colorado, Boulder. He obtained his doctorate in astronomy frorn the University of Wisconsin, Madison and his BS in astrophysics from Indiana University, Bloomington. He is a mernber of the International Astronomical Union, American Astronomical Society, European Astronomical Society, fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, and Associate Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
F5 - you offer your metaphysics - as objective science. And when faced with expert opinion from those who DO UNDERSTAND the subject matter - you just insult them to cover your lack of knowledge.
Yes - Dr Haisch's opinions about spiritual things is likewise metaphysics - but his opinion that they is nothing of contrary evidence is not. Does physics "address" higher love and ecological compassion? No it does not. Are they part of our environment - yes they are - part of the informational environment we live in. Informational objects - such as compassion, gratitude, subjective joy, inner vision and mediative states of unity - are all real aspects of life.
Dr. Bernhard Haisch is a high-energy astrophysicist, author or co-author of over 100 scientific papers and [blah, blah, blah]
None of which qualifies him to say anything about matters of philosophy. When he blathers about people being immortal forms he is talking out of his ass, pure and simple. Go ahead a cite me a paper on that very topic that he has published in the mainstream scientific press providing evidence for that claim, and I'll eat my words.
F5 - you offer your metaphysics - as objective science.
No, I gave you the definition of materialism that I got from materialist philosophers, which completely undermines the various silly things you like to say about materialism, so now you are attempting to change the subject. That's what is really going on.
Does physics "address" higher love and ecological compassion? No it does not. Are they part of our environment - yes they are - part of the informational environment we live in. Informational objects - such as compassion, gratitude, subjective joy, inner vision and mediative states of unity - are all real aspects of life.
And they are formed by processes, forces, and entities which physics does address, end of story.
rather than play word games - let me share an author who I think is really doing some great work.
remember the definiton of a logical space - where these virtual copies exist.
The term originates in Boltzmann's generalized thermodynamics, which treats the independent properties of a physical system as defining separate coordinates in a multidimensional system the points of which constitute the ‘ensemble of possible states’. The Tractatus does not define the term ‘logical space’, but clearly it there refers to the ensemble of logical possibilities. Logical space stands to ‘reality’, the existence and non-existence of states of affairs (TLP 2.05), as the potential to the actual.
Toward an Ecological Theory of Concepts
Liane Gabora Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia
Eleanor Rosch Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley
Leo Apostel Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies and Department of Mathematics
Brussels Free University
Rationale for using the generalized qm formalism
To accomplish all that we expect of a theory of concepts, it must be a mathematical theory. The formalisms used have tended to be limited in scope or inappropriate to the general approach being tested; often they are examples of the tail wagging the dog. The ecological situational approach, though conceptually appealing, is challenging due to the lack of fixed reference points for concepts and the element of novelty and creativity in concepts that it encompasses. A mathematics entirely new to psychology is called for.
The state of concepts research today is in some ways reminiscent of that of quantum mechanics a century ago. Quantum mechanics was born as a discipline when experiments on micro-particles revealed, for the first time in history, a world that completely resisted description using the mathematics of classical mechanics that had been so successful until then. One point of similarity between quantum entities and concepts is that both differ from entities that can be described by classical physics, for which if a property is not actual then its negation is actual. If the property �not green� is true of a particular ball, then the property �green� is not true of that particular ball. However, for concepts, as in quantum mechanics, a property and its negation can both be potential. Thus for the concept ball, if nothing is specified for the colour, �green� and �not green� are both potential. One could refer to this as a problem of nonclassical logic for concepts.
A second similarity between the quantum entities and concepts is: much as properties of a quantum entity do not have definite values except in the context of a measurement, properties of a concept do not have definite applicabilities except in the context of a particular situation. In quantum mechanics, the states and properties of a quantum entity are affected in a systematic and mathematically well-modeled way by the measurement. Similarly, the context in which a concept is experienced inevitably colors how one experiences that concept. One could refer to this as an observer effect for concepts. We will show that a generalization of the mathematics of quantum mechanics can be used to describe the effect of context on concepts.
These problems – nonclassical logic and the observer effect – generated in physics the need for a new kind of probability model, i.e. a nonclassical probability model. The only type of non-classical probabilities that are well known in nature are the quantum probabilities. This suggests that to develop a theory of how concepts interact with the inevitably incompletely specified contexts that evoke them we should look to the quantum probability model, for such a theory cannot be provided by approaches that assume a standard classical probability model such as neural networks, Bayesian networks, and the formal models discussed earlier in this paper