TheKaiser:

You propose that something that does not exist can muse on whether or not it exists?

ExpiredRascals:

damn i wish we were able to rep people, because I would definitely rep kaiser for his posts in this thread

goncalobms:

ExpiredRascals:

damn i wish we were able to rep people, because I would definitely rep kaiser for his posts in this thread

That makes 2 of us ...

deliriousstudios:

In your second form of existence for god, that's just as as saying Santa exists (never thought I'd point that out to someone actually).

deliriousstudios:

But again, that doesn't necessarily follow that existent things require thoughts to be. I don't know how you've made that connection.

TheKaiser:

You propose that something that does not exist can muse on whether or not it exists?

What conclusion do you think it will reach?

But surely you, as an atheist, would not entertain such a world view? You would agree with the statement "God does not exist" but then one could say "I concur, but He still thinks!". Or if one considers thinking a not particularly special action* then it may be argued that the argument can be applied to any action.
"Who tidied this room?"
"God!"
"But He doesn't exist!"
"Ah, but He still sweeps!"
Of course this approach I'm using isn't a logical or a valid argument, it's just scaremongering to frighten people with having to accept non-existent but still thinking fairies and such like.

However, I should credit you with being very deep. I believe more than a few philosophers have taken exception to the fact that Descartes seems to tacitly assume "that which has the property of thinking, exists" with no rigid justification. New and terrifying co-ordinate systems in maths have made me cling to Cartesian co-ordinates and, by association, Rene Descartes himself.

*Yes I appreciate this is rubbish. Thinking is special in Descartes's view because it cannot be hallucinated. Even the act of hallucination implies some sort of thinking.

You make it difficult to counter, but I shall try my best.

Take the basic quantum equation the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (not the best one to pick, but the most well known) you can't know 2 things exactly, it applies to position and momentum. (bear with me, you know how I get ... )

From this you know that you can't know where an electron is in an atom at any given time, you can only know an approximation of where the electron should be (the electron cloud, as described by the electron orbits, s,p,d and f ...

As the entirety of chemistry boils down to reactions between electrons, the chemical processes that govern our bodies are therefore uncertain by very definition. They have a very very very high degree of happening on a large scale, but if you take things down to the subatomic levels then you are in a world of uncertainties.

Our entire body is made up of processes that are not certain by any stretch, therefore even thought is merely a process that has a degree of uncertainty.

If you take this point of view to the human mind you can therefore say that your thoughts are not certain, so you can exist but you may not think.

The flip side must also be true, as quantum mechanics allows for such things as random subatomic particles appearing, it must also be true for other larger objects, just extremely rare.

Therefore it is possible to argue that a thought can occur but it may not "exist"

So overall I would have to reword the descartes mantra from "I think therefore I am" to "I probably think, therefore I probably am" (poor gramma sorry)

That makes sense in my head if it doesn't to anyone else I'll try to clarify it ... or if you fancy shooting it down by all means.

Of course this does lead to the possibility of thought without existance, and the possibility of a non-existant deity thinking ... *head explosion inducing*

But yes, it is the assumption of Descartes that something with the ability to think must therefore exist is what irks me and my sensibilities! I would like to see him explaining why that must be the case. (as obvious as it may seem philosophy does not allow for assumption hence the famous question of "if a tree falls over and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" you simply can't assume "yes" because you have no proof ...)

RAVEK:

TheKaiser:

"Who tidied this room?" "God!" "But He doesn't exist!" "Ah, but He still sweeps

That put a smile on my face. Wonderful.

Ditto!

As for Satan's original post, I see two parts to knowledge. One is basically a hierarchy of trust. I have an innate trust in most of my observations, so I take them as almost fully trusted knowledge. From there on I trust information sources that say things that correspond to what I already trust. The more things that correspond, the more I trust the source. I also trust sources that are trusted by other sources that I trust. The longer the path of trust between me and the source, the less I trust that source. As an example of the latter, if I trust Alice, and Alice trusts Bob, then I also trust Bob – but less than Alice does, because I don't trust Alice absolutely. As an example of the former, say Carol claims facts A to Z. If I trust A to Y to be true, then that makes me trust Carol, but less than I trust each of those facts. Since I trust Carol, then I also trust Z, but less than I trust Carol (because Carol probably doesn't trust Z absolutely). The second part to knowledge is assumption. Philosophically, you might claim assumption can never be knowledge, and strictly I would agree. But there are kinds of assumptions that are safe to make. There are two kinds I can immediately think of: - The assumption or its alternatives are irrelevant. In this case the best assumption is the simplest. An example is the existence of Russell's teapot. It has exactly no bearing on my life whether or not it exists, and thus I assume that it doesn't, since that is easier to explain and understand. - The alternatives to the assumption imply that my choices are pointless. An example of this is the assumption that I will still be alive in a minute. If this is not true, then no choices I make matter. But I do want to make choices. Therefore I might as well assume I'll be alive, since it is the only conceivably convenient option. As an aside, you can infer that the Earth is round from observing that something that just barely disappears around the horizon can be seen again if you place yourself higher above the ground. This directly shows that the Earth curves away from you.

This is how I would see knowledge as well. However I do disagree on the "earths curvature" thing being a direct observation, all it simply shows me is that the Earth is dipping away from me to the limit of my visibility, it is not a safe assumption to make that the Earth is continually dipping away from me, it would require me to make a direct observation circumnavigating the globe and seeing that no matter where I am on Earth the Earth is dipping away from me ... as otherwise the Earth might suddenlly start curving upwards or it may not complete the circle ...

deliriousstudios:

What I really want to know is; why do we know? If we can know, of course.

That's the perilous thing about these thoughts they spring more thoughts that leave your head hurting, one could say we know simply because we know, but how do we know what we know to be what we know we might actually know something but only know it as something else ... 

Kaosprophet:

TheKaiser:

You propose that something that does not exist can muse on whether or not it exists?

Do the characters in (for example) Fable exist? Certainly, some of the NPCs seem to postulate on their own existence. And while we're on this existential track, I must ask why we're restricted to tangible existence. Our thoughts do not in themselves think, so do they exist? If not, then "I think" becomes questionable in itself. But if we accept intangible existence; if we accept, for example, the existence of memories, then we accept the existence of nonexistent things in some form. God, therefore, exists; whether as an all-powerful creator entity, or as a concept created by superstitious men with a need for an omnipotent guiding figure.

LethargicMotivator:

Does something need to think to exist? Plants, rocks, most internet users, all these things exist without thinking.

Mortalitis_Infinitas:

You have gained enough renown to purchase the "Creative Director of European studios at Microsoft Games Studios" title.

satansmunchkin:

The flip side must also be true, as quantum mechanics allows for such things as random subatomic particles appearing, it must also be true for other larger objects, just extremely rare.

Therefore it is possible to argue that a thought can occur but it may not "exist"

So overall I would have to reword the descartes mantra from "I think therefore I am" to "I probably think, therefore I probably am" (poor gramma sorry)

First of all, thanks for forcing me to go through my QM lecture notes just as the summer is beginning.

Right,

1) The Heisenberg Uncertainy Principle does not apply to every pair of physical variables, only those which are Fourier Transform Duals of one another, which considerably narrows its application.

2) Existence is not a physical variable, at least among real particles, and the Heisenberg Uncertainy principle does not apply. Existence is implied by a particle or wave having any measurable property at all. You don't conduct a test for existence which gives you some value back, you conduct a test for a "symptom" of existence such as energy. I can't make a measurement that tells me a particle exists and then find from other measurements that it has no energy, position, momentum or such like, i.e. "It exists, but it has no other properties" like some sort of abstract void of apathy (which actually has three properties so is doing remarkably well).

4) The only particles I know of that may come into or out of existence are virtual particles and that's Quantum Field Theory which is considerably beyond my second year physics lectures. Whilst I would appreciate someone better qualified to clean up the matter, my own argument when you talk about the probability of non-existence and existence you are talking about the probability of they're being properties or not being properties. The properties are not divorced from the existence. When a virtual photon comes into existence, it enacts an electrostatic force. I've never seen a physicist  go "Oh, there's a much higher probability of there being an electrostatic force than there is a virtual particle emitted so the excess must be due to magic then. " 

5) When Descartes said "I think" he made an observation, for lack of a better word, which subsequently caused the Schrodinger Wave Function of his existence to collapse into the eigenstate of "Existing". Which I suppose in some ways, it's what Undead God and Kierkgaarde have said. You might argue a particle can't observe it's own energy and cause a wavefunction collapse so neither could Descartes observe his own existence but then you'd have to take it up with Wigner ("Consciousness causes the collapse") and Williams ("Descartes can't go third person on his own ass, mofo")

God writing that was more exhausting and probably full of more mistake than my QM exam was. You do make my life difficult, Satans, you're a demon!

Edit: "3)" is apparently in the eigenstate of not existing.

TheKaiser:

Descartes never included "Dubito", he simply said "Cogito Ergo Sum" (or in French Je pense donc je suis). Dubito was added at a later date by another individual. Though it is fair to say Descartes argument was based on doubt of everything, a field of philosophy called "Skepticism".

If we're being really finicky, Descartes originally just said 'I think, I am'. The 'therefore' Descartes added later but red herring I feel.

However Nietzsche . . .

He was a ***, lets not talk about him

Edit So try and summarise in some sort of meaningful way, Descartes was saying "The only thing whose existence I can be sure of is my own, because I think, therefore I must exist." It is an entirely personal argument, Descartes couldonly be sure of Descartes existence. I can only be sure of my own existence and you can only be sure of your existence.  

And personally, I like this argument. I like to view truth, real truth as in the Platonic sense of truth which is the task of philosophy anyway. (Empiric truth is the task of science) a truth that cannot be measured by its practical applications or its benifits- to establish what is known for certain, with a certainty that is utterly immune from doubt and to distinguish this from what we think we know from what exists.

'I' now must be removed from all physical and psychological construct. 'I' must be the subject of pure cognition which all traces of psychological self has been removed.

brainless, stupid and full of pointless information that makes no sense and appeals only to other cretins. They can be found in every single internet forum, where they race to post as many mind-numbing messages as possible.

Edit: "3)" is apparently in the eigenstate of not existing.

TheKaiser:

satansmunchkin:

The flip side must also be true, as quantum mechanics allows for such things as random subatomic particles appearing, it must also be true for other larger objects, just extremely rare.

Therefore it is possible to argue that a thought can occur but it may not "exist"

So overall I would have to reword the descartes mantra from "I think therefore I am" to "I probably think, therefore I probably am" (poor gramma sorry)

First of all, thanks for forcing me to go through my QM lecture notes just as the summer is beginning.

Right,

1) The Heisenberg Uncertainy Principle does not apply to every pair of physical variables, only those which are Fourier Transform Duals of one another, which considerably narrows its application.

True, but I am not saying that thought involves particles of its own, like gravity has gravitons, but merely that thought involves chemical processes using electrons, as an electron falls into the uncertainty principle for momentum and position, like all chemistry the only certainty is that you cannot be certain of the outcome, a thought may develop which does not exist, but yet is still a thought (please for the love of god don't ask how this would be explained because my comprehension of QM is simply not enough, as most scientists will agree - I don't understand it, but it works!)

2) Existence is not a physical variable, at least among real particles, and the Heisenberg Uncertainy principle does not apply. Existence is implied by a particle or wave having any measurable property at all. You don't conduct a test for existence which gives you some value back, you conduct a test for a "symptom" of existence such as energy. I can't make a measurement that tells me a particle exists and then find from other measurements that it has no energy, position, momentum or such like, i.e. "It exists, but it has no other properties" like some sort of abstract void of apathy (which actually has three properties so is doing remarkably well).

A fair point, but there are particles that you may not ever be able to "observe" do they exist or are they non-existent? Anything below the plank length is obviously unobservable ergo the problem of a singularity it goes below that length, there is no way of firing singularities at other singularities (hang on I'm onto something here ... lets try it!) to resolve an image of an object below the plank length, so for instance Graham Green postulated that there were multi dimensional Calabi Yau (spelling) bundles (for want of a better word) that were below the plank length but that allowed for his version of string theory to hold true ... It is entirely possible that a thought can exist within these spaces, but cannot possibly be said with certainty to exist (see the teapot theory of Raveks) but has an observable, circumstantial outcome!

A thoughts mere existance should prove it exists, but then the same could be said of an electron or a photon... I am postulating that a thought, like a photon can "exist" but yet no "exist" it's the same thing as a particles spin - up, down, both or neither to your or I a particle having spin of up, down or neither is entirely easy to comprehend, but both? how can something spin up and down at once ... in the same way I would coin a thought could exist and not-exist (as electrons possess this inherent quantum oddness) therefore it is possible to have a non-existant thought that says "I think therefore I do not exist" ... >.>

4) The only particles I know of that may come into or out of existence are virtual particles and that's Quantum Field Theory which is considerably beyond my second year physics lectures. Whilst I would appreciate someone better qualified to clean up the matter, my own argument when you talk about the probability of non-existence and existence you are talking about the probability of they're being properties or not being properties. The properties are not divorced from the existence. When a virtual photon comes into existence, it enacts an electrostatic force. I've never seen a physicist  go "Oh, there's a much higher probability of there being an electrostatic force than there is a virtual particle emitted so the excess must be due to magic then. "

I won't lie, Quantum Field Theory like Statistical Mechanics is well beyond my physical abilities But I might do some reading to see what these virtual particles are ...

5) When Descartes said "I think" he made an observation, for lack of a better word, which subsequently caused the Schrodinger Wave Function of his existence to collapse into the eigenstate of "Existing". Which I suppose in some ways, it's what Undead God and Kierkgaarde have said. You might argue a particle can't observe it's own energy and cause a wavefunction collapse so neither could Descartes observe his own existence but then you'd have to take it up with Wigner ("Consciousness causes the collapse") and Williams ("Descartes can't go third person on his own ass, mofo")

So you would (to simplify it) say that if quantum mechanical theory held true for thought processes it would act as schroedingers cat and as soon as you had the though i think then the existant/non-existant waveform would disintigrate leading to the though being in existance and therefore certainly not non-existant?

What about quantum computers? They rely on the fact that the waveform doesn't disintigrate ... so how do they get around the waveform collapse? They've made multi quibit computers that don't collapse during processing ...

God writing that was more exhausting and probably full of more mistake than my QM exam was. You do make my life difficult, Satans, you're a demon!

Well Quantum Mechanics and Chemistry when you do it to degree level throws up philisophical questions if you think about them in the right way, I have a very friend at university in Cambridge doing Philosophy and I have the odd debate with her about such things, but she agrees with Descartes and to quote her text:

I agree with you, Descartes was wrong about a lot of things especially the cogito as it leads to cartesian dualism. A better reformation would be "I think therefore there have been thoughts

However most of that went over my head as it is some wierd philosophy jargon (if you fancy translating it then by all means, but I do understand the last bit agrees with me that it is presumptious to assume that thoughts imply existance ....

As a randomn aside, a thought, like all objects must contain a waveform to exist (according to quantum theory) therefore if you could find a suitable dual slit to fire random thoughts at (with a suitable thought detector at the end) then if you fired individual thoughts you would get the same interferance pattern as for singular photons, therefore implying that thoughts exist in all probabilities at once, including it must be conceeded the possibility that the thought does not exist ...

Although that leads me to be intreagued as to whether anyone has ever detected the fact they fired a single photon (easier to detect) through a dual slit and that it has disapeared into the "non-existant" state ... would be interesting to see if it has happened and if it was just put down to "equipment error"

As a further aside, taking this all into account, I should really have re-phrased the title of the thread to "what do we probably know" ... >.>

curse these quantum gods!

Mortalitis_Infinitas:

You have gained enough renown to purchase the "Creative Director of European studios at Microsoft Games Studios" title.

First of as all as all science is empirically based and can be hallucinated this approach really doesn't serve to counter Descartes. It assumes the existence of what Descartes explicity doubted to exist and then uses it to attack his purely rational approach. You might as well attack him with a broom. "I REFUTE IT THUS!"

I suppose you could phrase it that you're questioning the foundations of rationality. But then, again, you're trying to inform pure reason with empiricism, which is like the wedding of a Protestant and Catholic in 1930s Ireland.

satansmunchkin:

True, but I am not saying that thought involves particles of its own, like gravity has gravitons, but merely that thought involves chemical processes using electrons, as an electron falls into the uncertainty principle for momentum and position, like all chemistry the only certainty is that you cannot be certain of the outcome, a thought may develop which does not exist, but yet is still a thought (please for the love of god don't ask how this would be explained because my comprehension of QM is simply not enough, as most scientists will agree - I don't understand it, but it works!)

So you're saying the thought "I want buttered crumpets for lunch tonight" corresponds to the particles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...) having exact positions (X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6...) and exact momentums ( P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6...). Then you say that as the H.U.P. prevents you from knowing exact positions and momentum, instead giving some spread of X and P values what you end up with is a spread of thoughts? With the some sort of setup like the mean value existing and the values encompassed in the spread "non-existent thoughts"?

I think that's an absolutely huge and unjustified assumption about how the mind - apologies, I should be philosophically exact here: "Brain" - works. For most of its operations I don't believe biological tissue has anywhere near the sensitivity for the H.U.P. to be a significant source of uncertainty. Even if the brain does function on some sort of quantum level for something as complicated as thoughts then the H.U.P. is so innate to the universe it strikes me that thoughts would not correspond to exact values of X and P but mean values of X and P with certain spreads. 

A fair point, but there are particles that you may not ever be able to "observe" do they exist or are they non-existent? Anything below the plank length is obviously unobservable ergo the problem of a singularity it goes below that length, there is no way of firing singularities at other singularities (hang on I'm onto something here ... lets try it!) to resolve an image of an object below the plank length, so for instance Graham Green postulated that there were multi dimensional Calabi Yau (spelling) bundles (for want of a better word) that were below the plank length but that allowed for his version of string theory to hold true ... It is entirely possible that a thought can exist within these spaces, but cannot possibly be said with certainty to exist (see the teapot theory of Raveks) but has an observable, circumstantial outcome!

If p is the cause of, and only cause of, q, then observation of q is sufficent to justify the assertation of p's existence. Russell's Teapot is entirely different because Russell's Teapot has no consequences to its existence. Russell's Teapot is: "p exists, but doesn't do anything else. It certainly isn't detectable." (which he does to illustrate the supposed absurdity of God).  If we didn't accept consequences of existence as proof of existence I might as well reject the existence of the sun. It's light, gravity and everything else are, after all, only consequences of its existence. If I have a certain thought, it doesn't matter if the electron responsible for that thought is hiding in Calabi-Yau space, its existence is proven by its detectable consequence.

I also feel I need to expressly think a thought for it to be a thought. Thoughts are not independent of thinking. An electron hiding in Calabi-Yau space beyond the reach of all instruments (including my brain) might as well call itself God, because I'm not going to think it and it can't call itself a thought.

And for the record, String Theory is utter tripe (I say upon risk of being quote in twenty years, mocked by all for how wrong I was) and not everyone in the science community agrees with the existence of the Planck Length, at least my QM lecturer didn't, and he was awesome.

So you would (to simplify it) say that if quantum mechanical theory held true for thought processes it would act as schroedingers cat and as soon as you had the though i think then the existant/non-existant waveform would disintigrate leading to the though being in existance and therefore certainly not non-existant?

What about quantum computers? They rely on the fact that the waveform doesn't disintigrate ... so how do they get around the waveform collapse? They've made multi quibit computers that don't collapse during processing ...

I admit now, I have no idea how quantum computers work apart from (very) brief reads of articles on them in New Scientist. But I do know that wave function has to collapse if a measurement is made at pain of breaking every single conservation law. If I measure the energy of an electron and find it is 1eV if I then perform a second measurement of energy immediately afterwards I must, and always must, get 1eV again. I can't get 946GeV on the second measurement, that would break the Law of Conservation of Energy. Nothing breaks the law of Conservation of Energy! Nothing! Not even String Theory! If the wave function didn't collapse I would still have the super position of states and probabilities of all sorts of energies being detected. Only by the collapse of the wave function to the relevant eigenstate do I find that the energy upon the second measurement has a probability of 1 of being equal to energy measured the first time.

Now the collapse of the wave function for one physical variable does not collapse the wavefunction for all physical variables, only "compatible" ones (those physical variables that share eigenstates).

Of course you can "undo" the collapse by making a measurement of different physical variable some time later which results in a new superposition of states and a new, uncollapsed, wave function.

This is a sort of part one of a much longer post (as I want to go to bed), so to those that despise me and all I write I apologise in advance for my future posting.

Edit: Oh and again to thank you, Satans, even if utterly, utterly wrong I'm still revising! My third year should be a breeze at this rate.

TheKaiser:

If we didn't accept consequences of existence as proof of existence I might as well reject the existence of the sun. It's light, gravity and everything else are, after all, only consequences of its existence. If I have a certain thought, it doesn't matter if the electron responsible for that thought is hiding in Calabi-Yau space, its existence is proven by its detectable consequence.

RAVEK:

Do note that I only introduced Russell's teapot to this conversation as an example of a proposition we clearly can reject without consequence, even if we don't have conclusive evidence. I wasn't referring to God at all. I were, I would have done so explicitly. So let's not bother us too much with God, except where it's strictly relevant to the topic.

My apologies, I meant Lord Russell introduced the teapot idea to highlight the absurdity of God,

"If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

At least I presume that was why he introduced the idea, rather than it just being a minor application. Professor Dawkins has boarded the boat and may well have twisted my entire conception of the idea.

But yes, I had thought the essentials of the idea was if you hypothesise the existence of something that you carefully define to be physically beyond all detection and confirmation, everyone can feel quite safe and right in rejecting it and calling you silly?

But yes, I had thought the essentials of the idea was if you hypothesise the existence of something that you carefully define to be physically beyond all detection and confirmation, everyone can feel quite safe and right in rejecting it and calling you silly?

TheKaiser:

First of as all as all science is empirically based and can be hallucinated this approach really doesn't serve to counter Descartes. It assumes the existence of what Descartes explicity doubted to exist and then uses it to attack his purely rational approach. You might as well attack him with a broom. "I REFUTE IT THUS!"

I suppose you could phrase it that you're questioning the foundations of rationality. But then, again, you're trying to inform pure reason with empiricism, which is like the wedding of a Protestant and Catholic in 1930s Ireland.

I will concede that the hypothesis of mine that you can have thoughts that can be non-existent is purely theoretical and therefore there is no actual hard evidence backing it up, (to bring it back on topic, I have never experienced first hand non-existent thoughts, to the best of my knowledge, so I can't possibly know what I am saying to be true ...) so as such I can't really weigh in with papers or famous philosophers or the like to back me up (this in science does not mean you are wrong, just that you have no evidence so it is unproven and can be widely accepted to be incorrect!) it is merely postulation ...

satansmunchkin:

True, but I am not saying that thought involves particles of its own, like gravity has gravitons, but merely that thought involves chemical processes using electrons, as an electron falls into the uncertainty principle for momentum and position, like all chemistry the only certainty is that you cannot be certain of the outcome, a thought may develop which does not exist, but yet is still a thought (please for the love of god don't ask how this would be explained because my comprehension of QM is simply not enough, as most scientists will agree - I don't understand it, but it works!)

So you're saying the thought "I want buttered crumpets for lunch tonight" corresponds to the particles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...) having exact positions (X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6...) and exact momentums ( P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6...). Then you say that as the H.U.P. prevents you from knowing exact positions and momentum, instead giving some spread of X and P values what you end up with is a spread of thoughts? With the some sort of setup like the mean value existing and the values encompassed in the spread "non-existent thoughts"?

No, I am saying that thoughts are most likely (I don't know for sure how thoughts occur!) are based upon the movement of electrons due to chemical processes, thinking of the way the central nervous system works, it is a fairly logical conclusion to come to that flow of electrons in the brain = thoughts (correct me if I am wrong)

Mind you I think I found a flaw in my own reasoning, the HUP would give a possibility of existence for an electron even outside of the standard orbitals ... so that would be a small (see large) oversight on my behalf lol

Thinking about what thoughts are though, without knowing better than my original hypothesis it seems logical to me that you would have an uncertainty of thoughts existence, but perhaps it is not the existence itself that is in question but merely the manner in which the thought exists, as a thought that your brain does not "think" but rather one that exists but is not thought....

Further, thinking about it electrons have the anti-matter particle positrons, is it possible to have "anti-thoughts" ... these would clearly exist, but would be thoughts that have properties physically opposite to normal thoughts (random postulation again)

I think that's an absolutely huge and unjustified assumption about how the mind - apologies, I should be philosophically exact here: "Brain" - works. For most of its operations I don't believe biological tissue has anywhere near the sensitivity for the H.U.P. to be a significant source of uncertainty. Even if the brain does function on some sort of quantum level for something as complicated as thoughts then the H.U.P. is so innate to the universe it strikes me that thoughts would not correspond to exact values of X and P but mean values of X and P with certain spreads.

I think that you may well be correct sir!

A fair point, but there are particles that you may not ever be able to "observe" do they exist or are they non-existent? Anything below the plank length is obviously unobservable ergo the problem of a singularity it goes below that length, there is no way of firing singularities at other singularities (hang on I'm onto something here ... lets try it!) to resolve an image of an object below the plank length, so for instance Graham Green postulated that there were multi dimensional Calabi Yau (spelling) bundles (for want of a better word) that were below the plank length but that allowed for his version of string theory to hold true ... It is entirely possible that a thought can exist within these spaces, but cannot possibly be said with certainty to exist (see the teapot theory of Raveks) but has an observable, circumstantial outcome!

If p is the cause of, and only cause of, q, then observation of q is sufficent to justify the assertation of p's existence. Russell's Teapot is entirely different because Russell's Teapot has no consequences to its existence. Russell's Teapot is: "p exists, but doesn't do anything else. It certainly isn't detectable." (which he does to illustrate the supposed absurdity of God).  If we didn't accept consequences of existence as proof of existence I might as well reject the existence of the sun. It's light, gravity and everything else are, after all, only consequences of its existence. If I have a certain thought, it doesn't matter if the electron responsible for that thought is hiding in Calabi-Yau space, its existence is proven by its detectable consequence.

I also feel I need to expressly think a thought for it to be a thought. Thoughts are not independent of thinking. An electron hiding in Calabi-Yau space beyond the reach of all instruments (including my brain) might as well call itself God, because I'm not going to think it and it can't call itself a thought.

And for the record, String Theory is utter tripe (I say upon risk of being quote in twenty years, mocked by all for how wrong I was) and not everyone in the science community agrees with the existence of the Planck Length, at least my QM lecturer didn't, and he was awesome.

The onous is on me to provide evidence for the existence of non-existent thoughts, this I fear would pose a rather large problem to me ...even using the vast depths of mathmatical and physical theory, it is probably just out of my reach to produce such evidence ...

If I were to accept my hypothesis without the evidence then I should really accept the existence of God...

BTW, how can something resolve below the plank length? Is the thought that there is smaller subatomic particles than the plank length? Which is entirely possible ... but again unproven

So you would (to simplify it) say that if quantum mechanical theory held true for thought processes it would act as schroedingers cat and as soon as you had the though i think then the existant/non-existant waveform would disintigrate leading to the though being in existance and therefore certainly not non-existant?

What about quantum computers? They rely on the fact that the waveform doesn't disintigrate ... so how do they get around the waveform collapse? They've made multi quibit computers that don't collapse during processing ...

I admit now, I have no idea how quantum computers work apart from (very) brief reads of articles on them in New Scientist. But I do know that wave function has to collapse if a measurement is made at pain of breaking every single conservation law. If I measure the energy of an electron and find it is 1eV if I then perform a second measurement of energy immediately afterwards I must, and always must, get 1eV again. I can't get 946GeV on the second measurement, that would break the Law of Conservation of Energy. Nothing breaks the law of Conservation of Energy! Nothing! Not even String Theory! If the wave function didn't collapse I would still have the super position of states and probabilities of all sorts of energies being detected. Only by the collapse of the wave function to the relevant eigenstate do I find that the energy upon the second measurement has a probability of 1 of being equal to energy measured the first time.

Now the collapse of the wave function for one physical variable does not collapse the wavefunction for all physical variables, only "compatible" ones (those physical variables that share eigenstates).

Of course you can "undo" the collapse by making a measurement of different physical variable some time later which results in a new superposition of states and a new, uncollapsed, wave function.

This is a sort of part one of a much longer post (as I want to go to bed), so to those that despise me and all I write I apologise in advance for my future posting.

Edit: Oh and again to thank you, Satans, even if utterly, utterly wrong I'm still revising! My third year should be a breeze at this rate.

Mortalitis_Infinitas:

You have gained enough renown to purchase the "Creative Director of European studios at Microsoft Games Studios" title.

goncalobms:

Arguably one could say that if person A believes information B is truth, then in person's A world that is true.

Ah no, that ain't true. Persona A's simple believe in a truck will not be sufficent to run him over with it, ergo it doesn't exist. No matter how hard A believes in it, it's existence ain't true.

satansmunchkin:

I know what he's saying, but I disagree, I don't see why the ability to think and reason would logically prove that I exist ... It's a fundamental flaw in his argument. As a thinker I feel that he overlooked the fact that thoughts themselves may not necessitate existance ...

But if we only look at the "I think, therefore I am" then it is absolutely correct, because he never specifies what exists, the I has not to refer to him in body but simply as a thinking entity in the farthest sense, something that is.

I however would not sign on to the a thought can exist on its own, but even so the thought would then still exist, it would be.

satansmunchkin:

"if a tree falls over and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

satansmunchkin:

True, but I am not saying that thought involves particles of its own, like gravity has gravitons, but merely that thought involves chemical processes using electrons, as an electron falls into the uncertainty principle for momentum and position, like all chemistry the only certainty is that you cannot be certain of the outcome, a thought may develop which does not exist, but yet is still a thought

Wouldn't that lead to a case of if a thought forms but there is no mind to hold it can it still be considered to be a thought?

I mean this really sounds like the father of all semantics to assume that a 'thought' can form free of a mind.

Or rather isn't the question actually "Is a tree that falls unobserved making a sound or is sound only the sensation created by our eardrum?" and not so much if the same physics still apply for unobserved trees, meaning would they still create the waves we would pick up and interpret as sound?