Has Matloff proved anything?
I don’t think science proves anything. That would be left for mathematicians who inhabit fictions created by their assumptions. What science can do is find ways to make predictions which may or may not be useful.
In Matloff’s case, he is basing his claim that stars may be conscious on whether they show volitional activity not explained by Einstein’s gravity theory (or Moffat’s modified gravity theory) by looking at Parenago’s Discontinuity. Here is one paper suggesting that is the case: http://www.conscious-stars.com/blog/...spectral-lines
Of course, there are people who say this is not true. They would maintain that stars follow gravitational laws of nature unconsciously.
There may be other ways to show that stars are conscious by looking at variability say in sunspots or solar flares and argue that they are neither determined nor uniformly random, hence volitional. Volition or "free will" implies enough consciousness to exercise that volition.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
Einstein's theories and equations on gravity have come into question lately because of dark matter. A head scientist from CERN said that Einstein probably has to be considered wrong about gravity. Maybe this strange activity with the stars is explained by this? I would suggest that lack of data is to blame for anomalies. Free will would be down the list of options. But I will read your evidence.
Last edited by fudgetusk; 11-27-2017 at 10:25 AM.
I heard about another modified gravitation theory yesterday. André Maeder has a new gravitation model based on “scale invariance of empty space” that would not need dark stuff: https://phys.org/news/2017-11-dark-energy.html
Maeder’s model, like Einstein’s and Moffat’s, are deterministic. They do not involve panpsychism. They are very different from Matloff’s model which implies that stars may volitionally account for some of their motions.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
Well I've read the evidence. I'm not averse to the idea that consciousness pervades all things. I believe it is possible for our minds to influence the world. I've seemingly experienced this. I believe things that are far stranger than the idea that suns could carry consciousness. But I only believe these things when I have so much evidence that I have no choice. I don't think there's enough evidence to support the fact that these stars are vessels for a mind...yet. Maybe in a few decades or maybe even centuries we may be able to study stars better and have more data. The author suggests PK is being used by this consciousness. Seems to me that if this is all true then God has left us a big clue to his existence. If he's so keen for us to know he exists then I wonder why he doesn't just appear or lift a car in front of people or do something. Maybe he only manifests for people who are ready. Maybe when we become sufficiently wise enough to be able to study stars this will be a signifier that we are ready.
Ps I have posted your theory on a skeptics forum to see what they say.
Last edited by fudgetusk; 11-28-2017 at 07:15 AM.
I agree that more data is needed as well as people interested enough to look at it.
To my knowledge most of the panpsychists I’ve mentioned don’t discuss God (except for Sheldrake who is a theist). Skrbina specifically ignores theological panpsychism to focus on the philosophic implications of panpsychism.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
I had the idea that God may be a massive quantum computer.
Why use computer metaphors?
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
I posted this theory on a skeptics forum. Most responses weren't of use. Someone did provide a link...
https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...-thing.925023/
Which he believes disproves the parenago discontinuity. I don't know. I'm no cosmologist.
That you find something like that believable and assuming we have no free will then that belief should have some kind of explanation or cause. Why do you believe something like that? It is not something that I find believable. Assuming I have no free will there must be an explanation for my lack of belief.
I can’t get to physicsforums at the moment, but I will look at it more closely when it becomes available.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
One of the problems with panpsychism as I was reading it in Skrbina is the “combination problem”. If one can assume that individual quantum reality is conscious, how do these centers of subjectivity combine to get larger subjectivities such as our own?
Recently I’ve found Freya Mathews, “Panpsychism as Paradigm” http://www.freyamathews.net/download...smParadigm.pdf. She talks of global panpsychism which I think is an improvement over the type I’ve been reading about so far. However, her position requires that one solves the opposite problem, or the “combination problem in reverse”. Starting from a unity how does one get to individual forms of subjectivity?
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
I read the thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...-thing.925023/ It appears that CygnusX-1 is most knowledgeable about the topic. They may have a high “velocity dispersion” but that might not signal a “discontinuity” between the two groups of stars. I think the existence of the velocity dispersion is what Matloff is interested in.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
Assume you have no free will. Then there is a cause for the beliefs you hold. All I am asking is what is that cause?
I do think there are influences, in particular, social mood, but I don’t think there is a deterministic cause for our beliefs. At some point they are the result of choices which may not always be conscious, but can be considered to be our choices.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/