Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

What's beyond universe's edge? (outer appearance style, fashions in consciousness)

#1
C C Offline
https://www.space.com/whats-beyond-universe-edge

EXCERPT: . . . When you imagine the universe, you might think of a giant ball that's filled with stars, galaxies and all sorts of interesting astrophysical objects. You may imagine how it looks from the outside, like an astronaut views the globe of the Earth from a serene orbit above.

But the universe doesn't need that outside perspective in order to exist. The universe simply is. It is entirely mathematically self-consistent to define a three-dimensional universe without requiring an outside to that universe. When you imagine the universe as a ball floating in the middle of nothing, you're playing a mental trick on yourself that the mathematics does not require.

Granted, it sounds impossible for there to be a finite universe that has nothing outside it. And not even "nothing" in the sense of an empty void — completely and totally mathematically undefined. In fact, asking "What's outside the universe?" is like asking "What sound does the color purple make?" It's a nonsense question, because you're trying to combine two unrelated concepts.

It could very well be that our universe does indeed have an "outside." But again, this doesn"t have to be the case. There's nothing in mathematics that describes the universe that demands an outside.

If all this sounds complicated and confusing, don't worry. The entire point of developing sophisticated mathematics is to have tools that give us the ability to grapple with concepts beyond what we can imagine. And that's one of the powers of modern cosmology: It allows us to study the unimaginable... (MORE - details)
- - - - - -

"But the universe doesn't need that outside perspective in order to exist."

Too bad at least a few (if not several) scientists and philosophers operating in a certain area where their interests converge can't bear that in mind with respect to any other entity or "network of organized stuff", too. An _X_'s existence (in itself) would likewise not consist of or be dependent upon an "outer appearance" subject to modification by varying distance.

That appearance an "outside perspective" provides amounts to a representation or "how it exists for something else". The latter being limited information about _X_ (effects stemming from X) converging on something else with either the means to register a lucid pattern (as in the case of a camera and its photograph) or a psychological manifestation produced by a brain and the mediating optical system conveying the responses of stimulated retinal tissue to it.

Similarly, deriving abstract description ("physical" attributes") from experiments performed on those outer appearances is a continuation of being restricted to extrinsic relationships (not the intrinisc nature of how _X_ exists independent of external observers or receivers of information).


Lee Smolin: The problem of consciousness is an aspect of the question of what the world really is. We don't know what a rock really is, or an atom, or an electron. We can only observe how they interact with other things and thereby describe their relational properties. Perhaps everything has external and internal aspects. The external properties are those that science can capture and describe through interactions, in terms of relationships. The internal aspect is the intrinsic essence; it is the reality that is not expressible in the language of interactions and relations. Consciousness, whatever it is, is an aspect of the intrinsic essence of brains. --Time Reborn
- - -

Michael Lockwood: Do we therefore have no genuine knowledge of the intrinsic character of the physical world? So it might seem. But, according to the line of thought I am now pursuing, we do, in a very limited way, have access to content in the material world as opposed merely to abstract casual structure, since there is a corner of the physical world that we know, not merely by inference from the deliverances of our five sense, but because we are that corner. It is the bit within our skulls, which we know by introspection. In being aware, for example, of the qualia that seemed so troublesome for the materialist, we glimpse the intrinsic nature of what, concretely, realizes the formal structure that a correct physics would attribute to the matter of our brains. In awareness, we are, so to speak, getting an insider's look at our own brain activity.

This idea has appealed to me ever since I first encountered it in the writings of Bertrand Russell (1927); I shall therefore refer to it as 'Russellian materialism'. The view antedates Russell, however. Its clearest nineteenth-century exponent was the mathematician William Clifford (1878), who influenced Sir Arthur Eddington (1928), among others. --The Enigma of Sentience
- - -

Russellian Monism: . . . physics describes what mass and charge do, e.g., how they dispose objects to move toward or away from each other, but not what mass and charge are. Thus, [Bertrand] Russell writes the following about the events physics describes: "All that physics gives us is certain equations giving abstract properties of their changes. But as to what it is that changes, and what it changes from and to—as to this, physics is silent." (Russell 1959: 18)

To understand the first core thesis, structuralism about physics, consider David J. Chalmers’s description of how physical theory characterizes its basic entities:

…physical theory only characterizes its basic entities relationally, in terms of their causal and other relations to other entities. Basic particles, for instance, are largely characterized in terms of their propensity to interact with other particles. Their mass and charge is specified, to be sure, but all that a specification of mass ultimately comes to is a propensity to be accelerated by certain forces, and so on. Each entity is characterized by its relation to other entities, and so on forever. …The picture of the physical world that this yields is that of a giant causal flux, but the picture tells us nothing about what all this causation relates. Reference to the proton is fixed as the thing that causes interactions of a certain kind, that combines in certain ways with other entities, and so on; but what is the thing that is doing the causing and combining? As Russell (1927a) notes, this is a matter about which physical theory is silent. (Chalmers 1996: 153)


As Lockwood stated, this conception was also around in prototype form before Russell articulated it. The following is circa 1892.

Charles Sanders Peirce: Viewing a thing from the outside, considering its relations of action and reaction with other things, it appears as matter. Viewing it from the inside, looking at its immediate character as feeling, it appears as consciousness [consists of phenomenal properties rather than a schematic of functional relationships or abstract description]. --Man's Glassy Essence

Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article The Rock’s appearance on Rogan is proof that post-liberalism lost? (wishful style) C C 0 64 Dec 1, 2023 12:51 AM
Last Post: C C
  Consciousness has no gender (Conflicting style? Each a gender & gender is sexism.) C C 2 234 Sep 16, 2022 05:07 PM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  KFC will now start selling fake chicken nationwide (Beyond Meat fashions) C C 3 110 Jan 6, 2022 07:26 PM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  Could our universe have collided with another, revealing multiverse? (bubble style) C C 3 185 May 31, 2021 10:40 PM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  History of Halloween (costume fashions) + Vanishing of the LH keepers (eerie style) C C 0 139 Oct 19, 2020 11:22 PM
Last Post: C C
  Canadian experts aren't sure Beyond Meat is healthier than beef (veggie style trends) C C 1 309 Jul 28, 2019 08:54 PM
Last Post: confused2
  Noam Chomsky style + The Shat's style C C 0 540 Apr 5, 2017 04:11 PM
Last Post: C C
  Lark style versus Owl style: Sex, drugs, late nights, and psychopaths C C 0 786 Jul 21, 2016 05:34 AM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)