Universe, multiverse or fuzzyworld?

[GrowingSmaller]

I was wondering about the tension between subjectivity and objectivity, in the light of the idea of souls interacting in the "karmic arena" (was at meditaiton class).
My conclusion:

Welcome to the "fuzzyworld"!!!

We live in the *same and different world* simultaneously. Objectively.

"Bit" values are binary, either 100% or 0%. The glass is either empty or full. The apple is green or not. There is no middle ground.

"Fit" values are fuzzy. Somewhere between the extremes. Almost half-full glass. Apple green and red etc.

(I learned of bit and fit values in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Fuzzy-Thinking-The-Science-Logic/dp/078688021X )



Is there one universe for all? 100% identical, one and the same for all and sundry?

Or are we each in completely sepearte realities? 0% shared, and totally private and unique to each subject?

Or... is the truth often...
somewhere in between.


Could we be living in a fuzzyworld, where even substance, objectivity, is a blurry, smeared chameleon?
_____________________________________________________________________________
I also pondering the conjugate variables of QM, like momentum and location (both cannot be known precisely at the same time. According to the rules of physics the more you focus on one, the more vauge the other has to be).

Maybe the subjective and intersubjective are conjugate in a similar way.

Once you know the location of another person as subject, their precise phenomenal world becomes uncertain. The more you focus on externals, the more things become certain. Inversely, the more we focus on our experience the more the world is clear, but also unique and personal. The more we externalise into the "shared" the more things are open to interpretation.

So we have a line moving from epistemic-metaphysical incorrigibility (our unique self-world we are witness to directly) through the medium of the intersubjective (external-objective-shared fuzzyworld) to the unknown dimension of the other (and their personal uniqueness).

[100% certain (self-world)]___>_>_>_[(50/50 "yes" and "no") "FUZZYWORLD" of external reality)]_<_<_<___[(0% certain) other's precise experience]

_____________________________________________________________________________



Is there anyone prepared to meet me - half way?

Ok, The Black Eyed Peas beat me to it...

 

[Oafman]

Get off the fence

 

[BabylonWeary]

Interesting video, looks like somewhere on the freeway nearby the state line outside of Las Vegas, possibly something to do with the Area 51, and what is the Republican war machine doing on the moon? Genesis 1:7, "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So to simplify I'm in one world, you're in another, and the things around us is somewhere in between (fuzzy).

Much more simple after a nights sleep.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Interesting video, looks like somewhere on the freeway nearby the state line outside of Las Vegas, possibly something to do with the Area 51, and what is the Republican war machine doing on the moon? Genesis 1:7, "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."

I thought it was propoganda to the A-rabs. Ill meet you half way, compromise so far by doing desert style music vids.

 

[Eudaimonist]

ICould we be living in a fuzzyworld, where even substance, objectivity, is a blurry, smeared chameleon?

I don't see how that makes any sense. Even fuzziness is fully objective. If the glass is 69% full, it is objectively 69% full. It isn't 69% full for you and 31% full for me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

I was wondering about the tension between subjectivity and objectivity, in the light of the idea of souls interacting in the "karmic arena" (was at meditaiton class).
My conclusion:

Welcome to the "fuzzyworld"!!!

We live in the *same and different world* simultaneously. Objectively.

"Bit" values are binary, either 100% or 0%. The glass is either empty or full. The apple is green or not. There is no middle ground.

"Fit" values are fuzzy. Somewhere between the extremes. Almost half-full glass. Apple green and red etc.

(I learned of bit and fit values in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Fuzzy-Thinking-The-Science-Logic/dp/078688021X )



Is there one universe for all? 100% identical, one and the same for all and sundry?

Read my sig.

In order to have everything in-between, we MUST first have the two ends. So, everything in between is NOT important. The two things at the end ARE important. We hold on the two ends, we have everything in-between.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I don't see how that makes any sense. Even fuzziness is fully objective. If the glass is 69% full, it is objectively 69% full. It isn't 69% full for you and 31% full for me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Ok peace then...

Say I make the old peace sigh to you. You see this, but for someone behind me, I am (or may appear to be) giving them the rude two fingers (apologies to anyone involved).

You see 100% of your persective, they see 100% of theirs, and I see 100% of mine. We are each in a binary system, eyes open or closed.

But the "shared world" of common sense is 33.333....% posessed by each of us, and what is supposedly common is actually different. Thats why its "fuzzy", its made up of yes and no, seen and unseen, private and public at the same time.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am thinking along these lines each conscious person is a seperate universe, and the "world we share" is the multiverse or fuzzyworld. Not a physicist, and know the fallacy of the philosopher using science jargon, but:

It is shown that quantum mechanics can be regarded as what one might call a "fuzzy" mechanics whose underlying logic is the fuzzy one, in contradistinction to the classical "crisp" logic. Therefore classical mechanics can be viewed as a crisp limit of a "fuzzy" quantum mechanics. Based on these considerations it is possible to arrive at the Schroedinger equation directly from the Hamilton-Jacobi equation. The link between these equations is based on the fact that a unique ("crisp") trajectory of a classical particle emerges out of a continuum of possible paths collapsing to a single trajectory according to the principle of least action. This can be interpreted as a consequence of an assumption that a quantum "particle" "resides" in every path of the continuum of paths which collapse to a single(unique) trajectory of an observed classical motion. A wave function then is treated as a function describing a deterministic entity having a fuzzy character. As a consequence of such an interpretation, the complimentarity principle and wave-particle duality can be abandoned in favor of a fuzzy deterministic microoobject.

Above quoted from here: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0107054

 

[GrowingSmaller]

How do mathematicians describe the viewing of an object from seperate points of view, all at once?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So, i look at a table and you look at the same table from different perspectives. We each see part of the "wave function" of a fuzzy macro object?

Consciousness views the world classically, but the "source" is fuzzy. That fuzziness is the condition of there being more than one take on things.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Read my sig.

In order to have everything in-between, we MUST first have the two ends. So, everything in between is NOT important. The two things at the end ARE important. We hold on the two ends, we have everything in-between.

So the table you eat from is not important?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Ok peace then...

Say I make the old peace sigh to you. You see this, but for someone behind me, I am (or may appear to be) giving them the rude two fingers (apologies to anyone involved).

You see 100% of your persective, they see 100% of theirs, and I see 100% of mine. We are each in a binary system, eyes open or closed.

Eh, that's still the same objective universe. You've simply given a postmodernist addendum where two people simply interpret the meaning of what they see in two different ways.

If that is your sole purpose, that's fine, but I don't think that one can get to physics or metaphysics this way. Perhaps I'm just confused why you are bringing in the terms "universe" and "multiverse".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

So the table you eat from is not important?

Alphabets = { a, b, c, .... z}

We can average all of them and look the Alphabets as ONE, which resembles none of the 26, but it is uniquely representative. This would be agreeable to every observers.

I can also look only at one, for example, a, and I say: the Alphabets looks like the a. In this case, I DO NOT CARE what you or others are seeing.

We recognize the fussiness of everything. But that does not help and it should not stop there. There are ways to make anything less fuzzy, or even precise.

 

[juvenissun]

How do mathematicians describe the viewing of an object from seperate points of view, all at once?

No matter how do you want it, Mathematicians can make it show.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Eh, that's still the same objective universe. You've simply given a postmodernist addendum where two people simply interpret the meaning of what they see in two different ways.

But the object they see is in some way different, different or partial aspects in conventional language.

"Thus the appearance, which is finite, indicates itself in its finitude, but at the same time in order to be grasped as an appearance-of-that-which-appears, it requires that it will be surpassed towards infinity". J P Sartre - Being and Nothingness.

The object is not exhausted in its appearance. If we see part of it, then we see a percentage. We do not see "all or nothing" either A or not-A, rather we see A in a sense that is and is not what appears. It is not exhausted by the partial appearance - what we see are fragments or fractions, and they belong to fuzzy logic AFAIK.

If that is your sole purpose, that's fine, but I don't think that one can get to physics or metaphysics this way. Perhaps I'm just confused why you are bringing in the terms "universe" and "multiverse".

Ok I am looking at it like this. 3 observers, looking at one chair. 1/3 of the chair (or world) percieved, times by three. ie you have 3 takes on one universe. Thats the standard outlook, more or less. We each see an aspect of the same old world.


But lets say that each observer inhabits their own universe. There is one universe per person. Then the chair is an intersection, maybe a "fuzzy" one. There is a three-fold multiverse, when three people look at the chair. The "shared object" is this (AnBnC):

A,B and C can be seen as three parts of one world, or the intersection of three seperate ones. A is a universe, B is universe, and so is C. Thats why I am mentioning the multiverse.

One universe for Andrew, one for Bertrand and another for Carla.

I an not sure that the actual philosophy (one universe with three aspects, or a intersection between a 3-fold multiverse) is testable. Therefore is may be a matter of preference which interpretation we choose. The statement "everyone knows we live in one universe" is at present an appead to popularity - argumentum ad populum strictly speaking.

Isnt it more a matter of which axioms you choose?

Convention under attack...!!!

 

[Eudaimonist]

The object is not exhausted in its appearance. If we see part of it, then we see a percentage.

I'd still say that if you see a chair from one side, you still see a chair. Yes, only those wavelengths of light from one side of the chair actually reach your eyes, but you aren't seeing an entity that is only "half a chair" (as if the chair somehow has only a front and no back), you are seeing "a chair". It's not like it matters to the existence of the chair whether you personally see "all" of it or not.

Ok I am looking at it like this. 3 observers, looking at one chair. 1/3 of the chair (or world) percieved, times by three. ie you have 3 takes on one universe. Thats the standard outlook, more or less. We each see an aspect of the same old world.

Yes, we're not omniscient. That only affects our subjectivity, not anything metaphysical.

But lets say that each observer inhabits their own universe. There is one universe per person.

This is where everything goes off of the deep end. Why make the shift from subjectivity to a view that one is in one's own "universe"? I can't think of any way that this makes any sense.

What does it mean to "have one's own universe"? Is it a physical universe? Or are we just confusing subjectivity for a "universe", creating an equivocation on the word "universe"? And if we have our own universe, how do we see another universe? If there is a causal relationship, aren't we properly thought of as part of the visible universe?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I'd still say that if you see a chair from one side, you still see a chair. Yes, only those wavelengths of light from one side of the chair actually reach your eyes, but you aren't seeing an entity that is only "half a chair" (as if the chair somehow has only a front and no back), you are seeing "a chair". It's not like it matters to the existence of the chair whether you personally see "all" of it or not.

Ok we see a chair that is conventional language, but we still only see aspects of it. Even conventionally that is true. Phenomenologically I hear that things are perceived as only partial, we know that a chair has many sides even if we see only one, and that is not a "conceptual" knowing but referred to by the actual nature of the phenomenon itself. Like a door, we perceive it can be opened, and the opening will unfold. We are not stuck, fragment at a time, but in a synthetically unified stretch of space time.

Yes, we're not omniscient. That only affects our subjectivity, not anything metaphysical.

Well is phenomenalism is true, then we are omniscient. Because only appearances and memories exist.

This is where everything goes off of the deep end. Why make the shift from subjectivity to a view that one is in one's own "universe"? I can't think of any way that this makes any sense.

It makes me feel good. Like I have unlocked the doors of individuality and can take pride in self expression. Like I have worn away the "knots" of a social model that have tied my brain up, and left me for half dead, spiritually speaking.

What does it mean to "have one's own universe"?

Standing tall, and not being an infinitesimal nano-blip on a blue dot who knows where

Is it a physical universe?

Well its a cognitive one at least.

Or are we just confusing subjectivity for a "universe", creating an equivocation on the word "universe"? And if we have our own universe, how do we see another universe? If there is a causal relationship, aren't we properly thought of as part of the visible universe?

That's a good point, causal connection. I was thinking I had a new interpretation if QM, something like consciounness collapses wave function, into a universe for each of us. In that case, each universe would interact with another via "noumenal" waves, which would provide an interface between separate worlds. The world we experience is the everyday phenomenal, and the thing in itself is more like a quantum computer superposition of states, which "become a subjective world" for each of us. And each one interact via its input into the noumenal computer!

The noumenal is not a universe, its an undisclosed wave. The wave is the source of the multiverse as in MWI, but instead of the universes being inaccessible, we have one each and a level of communicaiton is possible.

We live in different universes because the aspects - traditionally regarded as parts of a shared "objective cosmos" - are now regarded as transworld doppelgangers. So the the ball you pass to me is in fact as if travelling from one universe to another via the noumenal wave computer. We witness things similarly because the waves are so similar for the two interacting worlds - but not identical. So the ball is not the same ball, it has switched worlds, and is a slightly different "animal" (cf. Schrodinger's cat) in mine and yours. Its here in mine and there in yours for example.

 

[BabylonWeary]

Trying to ascertain 'the universe' or 'a universe' or 'my universe' or 'the other universe'... First there has to be a reasonable definition of it, what is meant by "universe"? 99.99% of the time (and you know that's truly objective statistic, eh-hm, eh-hm) when people mentions the universe they're talking about a bubble somewhere inside themselves that seems to be external. The periodic table of elements, it's good chemistry, good science, but, maybe carbon molecules don't like to be labeled as carbon molecules, maybe that is an insult to them, and how would the chemist ever know if the sensibilities of molecules are rendered as impossible to exist within the chemist's own universal realm of possibility? That's silly, but, each an every sub-atomic particle, if is indeed such a thing as a particle, ought to be a unique expression of an ideal, and so you have to ask where does that ideal come from? Could say this physicist or that physicist discovered such-n-such phenomena, glory be to the one which gets it first, yet that's still not the source of the ideal. Keep searching, you'll find it, it's amazing.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Definitons are for professionals.