But “self” is all there is. If it were more, then we would be Gods and that cannot be, not because that proto-reality is beyond our physical experience even as we fundamentally operate at that mathematical level along with everything else.
We can only represent it symbolically, else we would go back in time to being mere “Infinite Potential”.
No, in a chaotic system everything is probabilistic and determinism is a function of time.
In an eternity of time , every possible potential will become manifest, because in time all potential Implications will become Explicated.
No, I use certain terms (symbolic words) as having a “common denominator” with other terms as is the case with human maths becoming more precise according to size. In reality the ratio of “pi” always runs into infinity and never changes regardless of size. It’s human symbolic repesentation that changes with size.
“pi” does not even have to be circular!
Here is a little explanation by Mario Livio that tells you the inherent quantity of “pi” in non-circular processes.
Use this link : https://youtu.be/rl1N7i5ra7Y?t=370
But the YouTube of fundamental “strong forces” (values) pretty well explains Field Theory and its fundamental mathematical self-organization into physical patterns of different densities.
Sometimes, maybe most times. Other times it’s random association, like this
EM fields is an abbreviation for electromagnetic, not the same as E for energy and M for mass.
But what’s the point? What are you trying to say in this thread?. Bohm is interesting to me. I know he’s not going to give us answers to the problems of today’s politics or whatever it is CC is saying. But I don’t think Bohm’s ideas have any practical application either. In his time it was a possibility, something worth exploring, but nothing has come of it.
True, it was poorly worded. But E = Mc^2 is very much related to the formation of EM fields.
From Copilot:
Quantum fields are mathematical constructs that represent quantum degrees of freedom1. They are the most fundamental entities of matter or energy and include fields like the quantum electromagnetic field, quantum electron field, and quantum up-quark field2. Each field fills the entire universe and has a value at every point in the universe2
This is why I usually quote rather than express my own shorthand thought processes.
Bohm’s reputation was smeared and it is very difficult to go up against “mainstream” science, but Bohmian Mechanics are making a strong comeback, based on increasing knowledge at very small scales
Similar to Turing’s smeared reputation being the cause for his suicide and the loss of one of the greatest minds that ever lived.
Watch the YouTube I linked. It is very interesting.
I think that’s the best I’ll get from you, that you sometimes “poorly word” things. Your long quote happens to have quantum and electromagnetic in it, but they still aren’t related and doesn’t even mention Relativity, except for them existing in the same universe, which is everything, which is what you do, mix up everything.
For example, Bohmian mechanics may be getting a resurgence in physics, and it may yet tell us about the nature of reality, but it, or any other physics, will never help us change the greed that is destroying the planet.
I disagree with CC, that “we” should stop pursuing physics, or reprioritize, or whatever it is he is asking, and I disagree with you, that Bohm’s theory can somehow point us to a better future.
Of course not, because it predicts it. It is implied in the human destructive potential.
In biology, humans are called an “invasive species”, because we (not everybody) inevitably alter local environments to the point of extinction of all ecologically dependent species on a global level.
Part of the survival instinct is causal to hoarding which is already evident in many species. It is when hoarding results in “collection” of more than is necessary for survival, that hoarding begins to merit the term “greed” and natural supplies become exhausted.
And humans love to collect unneccessary excess . George Carlin once did a skit on human collection of “stuff”.
Have you seen a termite mound, a palace that may contain hundreds of thousands of termites and build with mud and regulated without any impact on the natural resources of the environment, and compared it to a human skyscraper that may contain a few hundred humans and uses in 1 day more energy than that termite mound in a 1000 years.
Witness that humans are the only species that recover and use oil and coal that has been sequestered for billions of years. Our use of this once “trapped” ecologically detrimental chemistry assures the extinction of many other species and eventual population control of humans. Nature is just beginning to deal with humans as a surface nuisance. That’s why pandemics are just one of nature’s way of dealing with human over-population.
And then that will become part of the natural cycle . Every pattern is self-forming and expanding , but also self-limiting via entropy..
Albert Bartlett explained the inevitable result of the exponential function on the presence and availability of limited resources.
Unlimited growth of mankind is bad for the environment and mankind. Limited growth of mankind is good for the environment and mankind.
That is the contradiction all exponential growth processes face. Unlimited growth of anything in a limited space is mathematically (physically) NOT allowed.
First of all, yes I know. It’s not polite to tell people things that they already know. You know that I know all of this. Your post is the definition of arrogance.
Second, “biology” does not “call” us that. I certainly didn’t hear that in school, not anywhere from elementary through college. You could make the case, but it’s not in the Biology textbooks.
That, and the rest of your post is more of what I’m trying to tell you, how you take things you’ve read or heard, either in a science setting or a comedian, and you restate them as if they are the commonly accepted definitions of the day. You barely respond to what I say with, “Of course not, because it predicts it”, and then go on to random thoughts that aren’t connected. You are agreeing with CC and me that humans are on a path of self-destruction, but you aren’t acknowledging that quantum physics is not going to turn the tide on that.
Why do you take this as arrogance when we agree in this respect? I told you that I do not claim authorship on any of that. Why adopt this hostile attitude? You are not the only one reading this. I post general information I find interesting and worthy of attention.
I am not using any ad hominem. Why do you take it as such?
Is it implied in the wording? The Implicate?..
But mankind is most certainly considered an invasive species.
Are Humans an Invasive Species?
Humans have been the cause of a lot of ecological and economic harm worldwide. The species’ unprecedented population growth has resulted in numerous instances of modified habitats, which have led to significant losses of biodiversity. However, to be categorised as an invasive species, humans must also be non-native. Most anthropologists agree that Homo Sapiens originated from East Africa and managed to spread out to every continent on Earth. As humans continued to migrate and colonise previously inhabited parts of the earth, large-mammal extinctions ensued. By crossing the land bridge into North America approximately 15,000 years ago, humans contributed to the disappearance of large animals such as mammoth and mastodons mainly due to a rapid increase in hunting activities
As explored above, we can conclude that humans are an invasive species. As humans spread out to parts previously uninhabited by them, the increase in population caused losses in biodiversity even hundreds and thousands of years ago. This has continued to the present day and the ever-growing human population is still significantly altering the ecosystem and resulting in serious economic and ecological costs to this day.
How Can Humans Minimise Their Impact?
However, there are still ways in which these impacts can be minimised. To live more in harmony with the habitat, there must be sustainable human development, focusing not only on societies needs but also on taking into consideration the threshold of the planet’s ecosystems. Exploiting non-renewable resources alters the habitat in an unsustainable way and unrestricted human activity threatens not only the surrounding biodiversity due to climate change but also human life itself.
The best way to develop a more sustainable relationship with the planet and the ecosystem is to phase out fossil fuels and further the development and utilisation of clean, renewable energy. Moreover, promoting education, alongside science and technology, is increasingly important to help understand efficient utilisation of natural resources and promote human awareness and participation in environmental education and living. Lastly, shifting to sustainable agricultural practices and promoting nature-based solutions for urban areas are extremely important steps to tackle the increasing human population and the consequential increase in consumption globally. Are Humans an Invasive Species? | Earth.Org
Because you keep doing what you just did. You quote some long piece that I’ve already said I know about, instead of engaging the conversation we’re having. You did not respond at all to what I said, that there isn’t a consensus on this invasive thing. It’s like, your opinion man, but you keep trying to convince me it’s ultimate truth.
What is arrogant about this? Its nothing to be proud of. I think it is a condemnation.
Humans meet all the qualifications of the term “invasive species”.
There can be no doubt that humans do not adapt to the local environment, but change the local environment to its comfort. Where man goes , nature dies. We build concrete jungles.
This is even allegorized in the bible with the story of Adam and Eve being banned from Eden for disobeying the command forbidding them to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Substitute “good and evil” with “symbiotic with Nature”
In the words of National Geographic Explorer Sylvia Earle: “We need to respect the oceans and take care of them as if our lives depend on it. Because they do.”
And this is how we pay homage to that advise.
As we continue to grow in number, we transform natural landscapes into urban centers, farmlands, and industrial zones. This habitat destruction is a primary driver of biodiversity loss and ecological imbalance worldwide. We also heavily exploit natural resources, consuming them at unsustainable rates, further impacting global ecosystems.
Maybe I believe that your objection to that label may be a sign of arrogance.
But I don’t make that public declaration. It’s ad hominem. As moderator you should know.
I’m making a comment to you as a participant, from me as a participant. Let me rephrase it as an “I” statement. When you tell me that human beings are an invasive species, I feel I am not being listened to. I feel I have responded to your comments and found agreement, but when I attempt to critique a particular point or disagree with a conclusion, then I am met with a wall of text that does not acknowledge what I say.
I am not attacking your opinion that human beings are an invasive species. I am not objecting to the label. I am giving my opinion about your statement that “there can be doubt”. What is the point of a discussion forum if one person responds with absolute certainty?
Yes, you make the statement that I am arrogant, without making an argument why humans should not be considered to be an invasive species.
All you declare that there is disagreement.
There is disagreement about everything in the world, but very little substantial discussion about the why and how. Man is native to the earth is not a persuasive argument. All species are native to earth. The question is are they native and adapted to local habitats on earth or do they invade and kill off everything that alive in other habitats. The answer to that is the latter. Humans originated in Africa and have invaded all other habitats on earth and destroyed everything alive except those species we like. This may not be intentional, but it is fact. What other species is responsible for global warming? Cattle? Those are the cattle humans breed!
I have made my case. I believe it is persuasive. Do we agree or not?
If not, make your case and teach me, instead of accusing me of arrogance. That is not constructive criticism nor debate.
Not everything is subject to debate. I should hope that there is agreement on some truths, else we can never come to trying to find a solution for lack of commitment to truth. Endless debates do not require solutions or action implementing those solutions until it is too late. That is the dilemma mankind is facing. (Albert Bartlett)
That you have to ask that question is exactly what I’m talking about. I have made it clear that I do not agree completely. I’ve done that in every post today and some yesterday. I’m not going to repeat myself.
I said “arrogance” once, and you are focusing on that and making a big deal out of it and deflecting from the actual conversation.
Given how you have responded so far, I’m reluctant to do that. You have ignored the points I have made and are now spending time being the tone police.
Look at the articles you have posted. Their titles include a question and their body does not have a conclusion. The most recent one has this:
The Argument Against
Despite these points, there’s one critical aspect that challenges our classification as a classic invasive species: we did not arrive as a “non-native” introduction to the planet. Homo sapiens are a natural product of Earth’s evolutionary history. We evolved here, rather than being introduced from elsewhere, making the typical definition of “invasive” somewhat problematic in this context.
A Nuanced Perspective: Hyperkeystone and Impact
Ecologists and researchers have increasingly argued that humans should be considered a unique kind of ecological actor. Some propose the term “hyperkeystone species” to describe our profound influence. A keystone species is one that has an outsized impact on an ecosystem relative to its biomass. As a hyperkeystone species, we do not just affect one or two species, but whole systems. We drive complex interaction chains by affecting other keystone actors across different habitats.
But you continue to insist there is no argument against and no nuanced perspective. Are you just googling and grabbing links and not reading them?
I understand your scientific cautionary tale. But in some cases there must be total and complete agreement. Else no action will ever be taken until it is too late.
Todays “drill baby drill” is such a fatal neglect.
I am too old to witness the end, but I have family that will witness the end of oil and suffer the consequences of too long debates on the subject.
That is when the parasite kills the host and thereby its own life.
In the case of humans there is no other host but the Earth itself.
But using globality as an argument against invasive species, then there are no invasive species as all species are a product of earth. You cannot just select humans as non-invasive. That is arrogance!
It’s not a cautionary tale. what does that even mean in relation to what I said?
Calling humans a virus is not something that needs to be settled before we can begin to deal with pollution and global warming and whatever else. The UN started a long time ago, science has known of climate change for a 100 years and massive efforts have been made to stem the tide.
This need for “total and complete agreement” is the problem, not a step toward a solution.
The lack of action by people who have the power and means is not from “wasting time”, but from ignorance of what Albert Bartlett precisely identified as:
“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function”
In what way?
I’m curious in a practically sense, how does that information relate to your sense of self, your relationship with other people,
your relationship with the body that creates your mind, and so on?
Bohmian mechanics was developed by Louis de Broglie in 1927 and independently by David Bohm in 1957
Whatever?
Haven’t humans been struggling with an array of questions about the self,
since we could tell each other stories?
Does the notion of - your relationship with the body you possess - .make no sense to you?
What about those body v. mind questions - never passed your thoughts?
“Physical Reality ~ Human Mind divide” All this time and nothing dings a bell?
The biological reality of our minds being produced by our unique body/brain in the process of living.
With its obvious solution to the philosopher’s “Qualia” questions - qualia is produced by the entire system working as a coherent unit - it’s not any more complicated than that.
You are you, because you inhabit your unique body, be you grub worm or human. … Nothing in any that makes any sense?
And that having such a sober appreciation of the self, is a worthy goal to work towards?
Mainly, in the simple pursuit of truth. Knowing that we are limited in our ability to achieve certainty, how is a particular pursuit of truth worthwhile? An obvious application is that we have increased our certainty that it is up to us to figure out what is moral and good and what we should do with each moment of life. We can hope that we have found something true, and we can measure its value by reflecting on our past and the effects we have on others and choose to continue to live that truth. Without a minimal sense of the fundamental nature of the universe, I don’t know where I would start. Biology, the way the body creates the mind, rests on physics, so I include it.
Admittedly, at some point, there are diminishing returns from learning more details about sub-atomic particles and speculating how they bubble up to my emotional state. But, someone needs to be pursuing so that I know there is a basis for all sciences. I believe in the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge’s sake because applications have been found in unexpected places in past pursuits.
yes, whatever. There are only so many ways I can explain that your mind/body theme is open to critiques, that it is a good start but needs work, and that it may be inspiring to some but lacks practical applications similar to my interest in quantum physics. Questions like,
are tiresome, repetitive and they have become insulting because you tirelessly repeat them. It is insulting to keep asking things that I have answered. It is insulting to dismiss my questions of clarification as if they are beamed here from Mars and don’t relate to real world problems.
I don’t say “whatever” because I don’t think about the mind/body connection, I say it to you because if I say something about mind, you say I should consider the body, and if I say something about body, you say I’m not considering the mind. If I talk about something practical like youth at risk in the inner city, you ask, what about the mind/body connection? I have brought authors and scientists to this conversation and you have left all of them in the dust of these archives. Even Robert Sapolsky, a neuroscientist and primatologist, what expert could possibly better fit what you are exploring, but you rarely mention him or incorporate his ideas.
