Phil Forum : The Hard Problem

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ecause/p16

"You equate "physical" and "actual", and I agree. But if a simulated electron is not physical & actual, what is it?" --Gnomon
It's virtual. It means it is represented as information by some other physical form rather than its actual form. — Zelebg

I'm beginning to see a part of our communication glitch. You seem to think that a "virtual electron" --- as represented by illuminated pixels on a computer screen --- is still an electron in a different physical form. Yet, those screen pixels have none of the physical properties of an actual electron. Instead, they only have the potential to cause the metaphysical idea of an electron to be generated in the mind of the observer. The graphic symbol is merely an illusion or appearance, due to its conventional association with a real object. I'm sure you know this, but your terminology is misleading.

The physical pixels are not the thing represented, but a coded message (information) that triggers the idea of an electron in a conscious mind. So, the physical representation on the screen (symbol) is converted into an abstract idea (eidos) in a conscious mind. Hence, a virtual electron is not, as you suggested, an electron in an alternative "physical form" in space-time, but merely a pointer to a meta-physical form in consciousness. A simulated electron is not a virtual electron, but an abstract sign directing your mind to recall the idea of an actual object that you are already familiar with.


Virtual : not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so.
___Google

Symbol : a thing that represents or stands for something else, especially a material object representing something abstract.
___Google

PS___ Your definition of "virtual" above is like saying a statue of an invisible god, is still the god, but in a different form. Early Christians ridiculed pagans for equating the powerless symbol with a powerful deity. Our God, they said, is a spirit and will never be found in a physical form. Ironically, the Christians could see the error in pagan idolatry, but not in their own equation of human Jesus with divine Jehovah : spirit in the flesh.

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ecause/p16

Pointer points FROM something to something. Do you understand the difference when that pointer of yours points from, say an actual chair in a room, and virtual chair on a computer screen? — Zelebg

Yes. A symbol points to something else. But it is not the actual something else. And the something else is not necessarily concrete or real. It may be an idea or concept. In that latter case, the physical symbol points to a meta-physical concept. The pointer points FROM something symbolic or virtual, TO something semantic, which is an abstraction pointing BACK TO something real or physical. The "difference" is between Mind & Matter, Substance & Attribute, Potentiality & Actuality. "Vive la difference!"

If you point a camera at an actual physical chair in a room, and display the collected optical information on a TV screen, the image on the screen may be defined as a "virtual" chair, but you can't sit on it. The image is a simulation, or a symbol, or an illusion of a chair. The symbol has a physical reality, but not that of a chair. The symbol only serves to remind you of the idea of a chair. The meaning of "chair" is already in your memory as a pattern of abstract information, but not as a little chair inside the head.

In computer theory, a symbolic reference is sometimes called a "semantic pointer". It redirects to the metaphysical meaning of a thing, but not to the thing itself. Meaning is in the mind, not the brain. A symbol is not the thing symbolized. A virtual thing is not the thing symbolized. A virtual electron is not an actual electron; it's the idea of an electron. You might say it's the Platonic form of an electron.

Note : a Virtual Electron is a potential particle, not an actual particle.

Semantic pointers : neural representations that carry partial semantic content and are composable into the representational structures necessary to support complex cognition.
http://compneuro.uwaterloo.ca/research/ ... cture.html

Metaphysics : the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality. ___Wikipedia

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ecause/p16

but you are failing to make any sense as you are unable to google properly because you do not understand words. — Zelebg

If you don't like the Google definition of "Virtual", which alternative definition would better suit your personal preference, and preconceptions?

you even gave correct definition: — Zelebg

That was my own personal definition.

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ecause/p16

To suddenly confuse the two like that is not simply senseless, it requires total cognitive blindness. — Zelebg

So, you believe that "virtual" and "potential" existence are equivalent to "real" and "actual or physical" existence? Hence, nothing in the world is "unreal" or "ideal" or "metaphysical", yes?

Is it true that Platonic Idealism and Aristotelian Metaphysics are literally non-sensical, hence meaningless? If so, then anything you can't detect with your senses does not exist, and does not matter; correct?

PS__I'm enjoying our philosophical ping-pong, because it challenges me to refine my own ideas and beliefs about reality and consciousness.

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ecause/p17

“virtual” as a potential particle in quantum field theory — Zelebg

If quantum particles are "real" objects, why are they labeled with the unreal term "virtual"?

I suspect that your understanding of quantum "virtual" is based on something like this :
Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics? :
Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested. ___Gordon Kane
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... icles-rea/

Note : For the purposes of calculation, virtual particles are treated as-if they are real.

But here are some other expert opinions that treat "virtual" particles as Metaphysical Concepts, not Physical Things :
Are virtual particles a cop out? Are physicists just attributing things to virtual particles when a real particle doesn’t fit, or are they real after all?
https://www.quora.com/Are-virtual-parti ... -after-all
"Virtual particles are simply a convenient intuitive label attached to terms in a power series expansion of integrals in quantum field theory." ___Viktor Toth,
"They are used as a conceptual tool for solving equations." ___David Rosen,
"Yes, citing virtual anything, negative mass, massless bosons as a reason for is a scientific lazy way to say the math does not work out." ___Kenneth Oglesby

Note : my perseverance in this dialog is not due to obstinacy, but because Quantum Virtuality is an essential element of my Enformationism worldview. In effect, the squishy quantum foundation of the physical world is on the borderline between Reality & Ideality, Space-Time & Infinity-Eternity, Matter & Mind, Physics & Metaphysics. That's how I discriminate between Ultimate Reality (Reason) and Perceptual Reality (Sensation).


And we indeed, rightly considering objects of sense as mere appearances, confess thereby that they are based upon a thing in itself, though we know not this thing as it is in itself, but only know its appearances, viz., the way in which our senses are affected by this unknown something. ___Kant, Prolegomena,

Note : Kant's ding an sich is a bookkeeping device for an object known only by reason.