Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Does Any Personality Exist Before Particles?

Particles Physics Big Bang Culture Personality Lifestyle

  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 03 October 2016 - 11:55 AM

Does any personality exist before any atomic interactions?   



#2 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 03 October 2016 - 01:53 PM

Does any personality exist before any atomic interactions?

I think the answer to this depends on the worldview of the person answering.

Most scientific people have materialistic worldviews, which hold that phenomena like the existence of a person having a personality is caused by simpler underlying physical phenomena such as the behavior of a brain, which is ultimately caused by the most fundamental phenomena, the interaction of subatomic particles. These people would answer the question “no”, and would also stress that there are more fundamental, sub-atomic interactions than atomic interactions.

Most people, though they may not consider or articulate it, have a mystical worldview. An example of such a worldview is Platonic idealism, which holds that underlying all physical phenomena are ultimately caused not by fundamental physical phenomena, but by abstract, non-physical “forms”. Depending on whether they considered “personality” to correspond to a form or not, a Platonic idealist might answer the question “yes” or “no”.
  • Mariel33 likes this

#3 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 03 October 2016 - 02:12 PM

I think the answer to this depends on the worldview of the person answering.

Most scientific people have materialistic worldviews, which hold that phenomena like the existence of a person having a personality is caused by simpler underlying physical phenomena such as the behavior of a brain, which is ultimately caused by the most fundamental phenomena, the interaction of subatomic particles. These people would answer the question “no”, and would also stress that there are more fundamental, sub-atomic interactions than atomic interactions.

Most people, though they may not consider or articulate it, have a mystical worldview. An example of such a worldview is Platonic idealism, which holds that underlying all physical phenomena are ultimately caused not by fundamental physical phenomena, but by abstract, non-physical “forms”. Depending on whether they considered “personality” to correspond to a form or not, a Platonic idealist might answer the question “yes” or “no”.

 

Thank you. I ask from the point of view that if existence is inevitably a movie studio, or a capitalist society or a lifestyle, it stands to reason that any of those states are symmetrical to atomic states. If news media, informed by personality, is reality through and through, it must be rational to assign the identity of news media to a proton or electron.



#4 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 03 October 2016 - 03:27 PM

I'm strongly of the opinion that consciousness is more fundamental than the arrangement of sub-atomic particles and their interactions are determined by consciousness rather than the other way round.

 

I think quantum mechanics definitely supports this view.



#5 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 03 October 2016 - 04:22 PM

I'm strongly of the opinion that consciousness is more fundamental than the arrangement of sub-atomic particles and their interactions are determined by consciousness rather than the other way round.

 

I think quantum mechanics definitely supports this view.

I agree. I don't believe in atoms and particles, but accept they're a logical way of perceiving reality. Presuming consciousness is before atoms, why do you think atoms exist, on the basis they do?



#6 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 03 October 2016 - 05:02 PM

They exist as interactions that can have an effect on us. The whole universe as we perceive it is built up from our sensory inputs. Everything we see, hear, feel, smell and taste is our mind's way of creating a virtual interface that we can use to make sense of those interactions and interact with ourselves. It isn't real but it's based on real underlying formless physical reactions that consciousness is able to assign form to.



#7 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 03 October 2016 - 05:24 PM

They exist as interactions that can have an effect on us. The whole universe as we perceive it is built up from our sensory inputs. Everything we see, hear, feel, smell and taste is our mind's way of creating a virtual interface that we can use to make sense of those interactions and interact with ourselves. It isn't real but it's based on real underlying formless physical reactions that consciousness is able to assign form to.

But there's a separation, between the sensory behaviour and the consciousness. What intrigues me is the between: say interactions are 3, and consciousness is 5.

3 is because of 5, and 5 is to use 3.

The use of 3 is to help 5, and 3 itself needs 5.

 

5 needs 3, and 3 needs 5.



#8 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 03 October 2016 - 09:20 PM

I ask from the point of view that if existence is inevitably a movie studio, or a capitalist society or a lifestyle, it stands to reason that any of those states are symmetrical to atomic states.

I think you’re misusing the term symmetrical here, Mariel. It’s a quality of remaining of a single object, the quality of remaining unchanged after transformation – for example, the quality a circle has be being unchanged when rotated. It’s not a quality of a relationship between two objects. Terms such as similarity are. So its linguistically correct (though not necessarily true) to state “a lifestyle is similar to an atomic state”, but linguistically wrong to state “a lifestyle is symmetrical to an atomic state”

I don’t think it makes sense to assert that the state of a room being a movie studio, or a society being a capitalist society, can be mapped in a useful way to the states that an atom of a given element can have, because the states an atom can have, such as its magnetic orientation and the excitation level of its atoms, are much fewer than those that a room or a society can have.
 

If news media, informed by personality, is reality through and through ...

People who create news media and the media they produce are only a small subset of the things making up reality, so I don’t think its correct to equate them to it. That if there were not reality, or more precisely, no universe, there would be no people or things created by people, but there for much of its history, the universe existed without any people in it, shows that “news media” is a proper subset of reality, not equivalent to it.

#9 Mariel33

Mariel33

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 04 October 2016 - 05:57 AM

I think you’re misusing the term symmetrical here, Mariel. It’s a quality of remaining of a single object, the quality of remaining unchanged after transformation – for example, the quality a circle has be being unchanged when rotated. It’s not a quality of a relationship between two objects. Terms such as similarity are. So its linguistically correct (though not necessarily true) to state “a lifestyle is similar to an atomic state”, but linguistically wrong to state “a lifestyle is symmetrical to an atomic state”

I don’t think it makes sense to assert that the state of a room being a movie studio, or a society being a capitalist society, can be mapped in a useful way to the states that an atom of a given element can have, because the states an atom can have, such as its magnetic orientation and the excitation level of its atoms, are much fewer than those that a room or a society can have.
 
People who create news media and the media they produce are only a small subset of the things making up reality, so I don’t think its correct to equate them to it. That if there were not reality, or more precisely, no universe, there would be no people or things created by people, but there for much of its history, the universe existed without any people in it, shows that “news media” is a proper subset of reality, not equivalent to it.

Atoms are opposites, as are protons and positrons and neutrons; subatomic particles are part of a system of perception, and if perception requires human culture, such as reality television or the military, is it logical to equate the two?

I suppose the fundamental question is, do atoms need an observer, because an observer means separation from atoms, and therefore the human culture that's the separation perhaps should be thought of as identical to atoms.

 

I personally have the perspective that creativity and uniqueness are the result of uniformity - the identity of reality needs a base of uniformity.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Particles, Physics, Big Bang, Culture, Personality, Lifestyle