That's not really the way to think about it, although it's a popular expression. Virtual particles don't 'borrow energy before they pop into existence', their 'existence' is a manifestation of fluctuations in spacetime via the Uncertainty Principle

This is one of those instances in which natural language erected to allow you to wrap your head around a difficult concept fails ot capture what's really going on. The map is not the terrain.

surreptitious57 wrote:

hackenslash wrote:
Quantum phenomena are causeless

Does this mean that virtual particles do not need to borrow energy before they pop into existence

Only if they promise to pay back the universe somehow.

Oh, 'ello hackenslash Welcome to the life boat. Be sure to read the rules and please enjoy your stay.

(Are... are we still doing that joke? I don't know.)

Haha.

I realise now that lifeboat is one word. Perhaps it was a subtle reference to the owner.

hackenslash wrote:That's not really the way to think about it, although it's a popular expression. Virtual particles don't 'borrow energy before they pop into existence', their 'existence' is a manifestation of fluctuations in spacetime via the Uncertainty Principle
...

No, but they behave AS IF they were borrowing energy from space-time and had to pay it back very soon after.

In the debate you said that the first premise of the Kalam can be easily disproven by the fact that all motion is relative
So does this mean that because everything is in motion relative to everything else that there was no point in spacetime
when motion began. Is that because an absolute vacuum would violate the laws of physics. Is that also why singularities
are forbidden by quantum mechanics and can only be asymptotic rather than compressed into a point of zero dimension

You said that the brain created internal models of reality which sounded like you were questioning the notion
that external reality was mind independent. Now I know that is not what you were really saying but I was still
rather surprised to hear you say it. However you have previously stated you are not a physicalist so why is this
Is it because as reality is internally created by the brain that its external existence cannot actually be verified

DavidMcC wrote:

hackenslash wrote:That's not really the way to think about it, although it's a popular expression. Virtual particles don't 'borrow energy before they pop into existence', their 'existence' is a manifestation of fluctuations in spacetime via the Uncertainty Principle
...

No, but they behave AS IF they were borrowing energy from space-time and had to pay it back very soon after.

Exactly. They 'display behaviours that we associate with' is my go-to these days.

surreptitious57 wrote:In the debate you said that the first premise of the Kalam can be easily disproven by the fact that all motion is relative

So does this mean that because everything is in motion relative to everything else that there was no point in spacetime
when motion began.

No, it means there is no absolute motion. Every observer in constant motion has equal claim to being at rest.

Is that because an absolute vacuum would violate the laws of physics.

No, it's just because there's no such thing as absolute motion. The notion of a prime mover is predicated on absolute motion. If there's no absolute motion, a prime mover is not required.

Is that also why singularities are forbidden by quantum mechanics and can only be asymptotic rather than compressed into a point of zero dimension

No. There's no connection.

surreptitious57 wrote:You said that the brain created internal models of reality which sounded like you were questioning the notion
that external reality was mind independent. Now I know that is not what you were really saying but I was still
rather surprised to hear you say it. However you have previously stated you are not a physicalist so why is this
Is it because as reality is internally created by the brain that its external existence cannot actually be verified

No. The map is not the terrain. As jamest is fond of attempting to say, the experience of the thing is not the thing itself.

The brain is a virtual reality generator par excellence, and it's responsible for generating our entire picture of the world. Some of that picture apparently correlates with something external, but we also know that some of it simply doesn't. We've all experienced hallucinations, delusions and all manner of experiences that were entirely internally generated.

I, for example, have experienced my hands being bigger than my body during a fever. Cali can tell you all about an interesting entomological experience during similar circumstances. Neither of these maps to any external experience, however.

This is why, during the discussion, I was keen to point out that I have no problem accepting on face value the assertion that somebody had an experience. What I don't accept is what that experience is attributed to.

Indeed, that part about the difference between experience and actuality, doesn't have the implications some think it does. The fact that the data we receive from an entity differs from the entity, doesn't invalidate the data, though we also have to factor in the post-processing. See my exposition of Retinex Theory and Polaroid in the Colour thread.

hackenslash wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:You said that the brain created internal models of reality which sounded like you were questioning the notion
that external reality was mind independent. Now I know that is not what you were really saying but I was still
rather surprised to hear you say it. However you have previously stated you are not a physicalist so why is this
Is it because as reality is internally created by the brain that its external existence cannot actually be verified

No. The map is not the terrain. As jamest is fond of attempting to say, the experience of the thing is not the thing itself.

The brain is a virtual reality generator par excellence, and it's responsible for generating our entire picture of the world. Some of that picture apparently correlates with something external, but we also know that some of it simply doesn't. We've all experienced hallucinations, delusions and all manner of experiences that were entirely internally generated....

Perhaps the human brain's ability to generate virtual realities is largely social, the result of imperfect cooperation in an intensely social species? Much of our information about the world does not come directly from the senses or one's own body, but indirectly from other people. There's often an advantage in getting other people to believe what isn't entirely the case, in being economical with the truth. Both successful lying, and successful detection of lies, depend on the capacity for virtuoso manipulation of alternative realities with which normal people are equipped. The scientific method relies in the end on sense data, but an essential component is peer review, the checking of one group's reported data by other groups who do not have an interest in the first group's social standing.

It still has to be filtered through the senses and the brain, because that's how all the data is received, including that from other people.

Very Humian.

hackenslash wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:You said that the brain created internal models of reality which sounded like you were questioning the notion
that external reality was mind independent. Now I know that is not what you were really saying but I was still
rather surprised to hear you say it. However you have previously stated you are not a physicalist so why is this
Is it because as reality is internally created by the brain that its external existence cannot actually be verified

No. The map is not the terrain. As jamest is fond of attempting to say, the experience of the thing is not the thing itself.

Reported, for presenting yourself as new. I've also explained to them that you're a cunt, but I don't think they'll believe me. Daft bastards.

If they don't get that I'm a cunt, they're even dafter than you, and deserve everything they get.

There's plenty of people here dafter than me, but I'll wish them more than what I'm getting regardless.

It's good to see you posting again. Happy fuckin' Xmas, squire. Sincerely.

Cheers, dude.

Must be something about Christmas, to draw people back again...

Hello!