Ski Bum Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Certainly anything like "objective reality" must be a reality outside time. What? Objective reality is somehow separate from time? Is that in Jo's idealistic universe, or this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Twin paradox: The theory of relativity predicts that a person making a round trip will return younger than his or her identical twin who stayed at home. Quantum Zeno effect (Turing paradox) echoing the Zeno paradox: a quantum particle that is continuously observed cannot change its state Loschmidt's paradox: Why is there an inevitable increase in entropy when the laws of physics are invariant under time reversal? The time reversal symmetry of physical laws appears to contradict the second law of thermodynamics. Maxwell's demon: The second law of thermodynamics seems to be violated by a cleverly operated trapdoor Fermi paradox: If there are, as various arguments suggest, many other sentient species in the Universe, then where are they? Shouldn't their presence be obvious? The above are a few of my favorite paradoxes, adequate to point out the fallacy of an objective reality. Seems to me that most people I know seem to require some absolute...science, religion, etc to have security. Socrates, who is generally considered to be a wise sage, was quite satisfied to realize he not only didn't know anything, but COULD NOT know anything. His methods of enquiry produced not truth, but consensus amongst peers...peer review. The one below with its corollaries is perhaps most pertinent. Heat death paradox: If the universe was infinitely old, it would be in thermo dynamical equilibrium, which contradicts what we observe. Corollary: If it is not infinitely old, there was a point when time did not exist. Corollary: Time came into being at the moment of the big bang. Dave 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Prove God exists. Oh, you can't? Prove God does not exist. Oh, you can't? Big deal. Anthropic cosmological principle, or even worse, 5674's version, are tautologies that teach us nothing that we didn't already know, or not know, in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 8, 2016 Author Share Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) It feels like we have lost agreement on terms. May I restate the two sides to see if we are still understanding them? 1. Objective Reality means a real universe that does NOT depend on human perception or consciousness. It means if all humans died, there would still be an earth, moon, sun and stars. That's the objective reality. 2. Subjective reality means that everything we know to be the universe is created by our perception and consciousness. If all humans died, nothing of this universe would remain. I am a believer in #2. We ARE the universe. The phenomenal experience of us and the universe is life, by definition. Things look separate from our bodies only because we have very limited senses. We are simply pray of one fabric that included every thing we can perceive. Now which are you other guys buying? Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Edited February 8, 2016 by jo56steph74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 8, 2016 Author Share Posted February 8, 2016 Prove God exists. Oh, you can't? Prove God does not exist. Oh, you can't? Big deal. Anthropic cosmological principle, or even worse, 5674's version, are tautologies that teach us nothing that we didn't already know, or not know, in the first place.Not allowed to invoke religious arguments. In this discussion deities are irrelevant anyway, and could exist or not exist in either case.Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Prove God exists. Oh, you can't? Prove God does not exist. Oh, you can't? Big deal. Anthropic cosmological principle, or even worse, 5674's version, are tautologies that teach us nothing that we didn't already know, or not know, in the first place.Not allowed to invoke religious arguments. In this discussion deities are irrelevant anyway, and could exist or not exist in either case.Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk That wasn't the point. It was not a religious argument, merely an analogy of proving the unknown, or even the unknowable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 As for your number two, well it is a lot of number two. I still hold to the argument that it is the height of arrogance to suggest everything only exists because we perceive it that way. The mockingbird still sings, the cat still scratches what used to be my bald cypresses on what used to be my land. We just aint that special my friend. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 8, 2016 Author Share Posted February 8, 2016 Prove God exists. Oh, you can't? Prove God does not exist. Oh, you can't? Big deal. Anthropic cosmological principle, or even worse, 5674's version, are tautologies that teach us nothing that we didn't already know, or not know, in the first place.Not allowed to invoke religious arguments. In this discussion deities are irrelevant anyway, and could exist or not exist in either case.Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk That wasn't the point. It was not a religious argument, merely an analogy of proving the unknown, or even the unknowable.OK. My misunderstanding. Correct, these are not ideas to prove. They are available frameworks from which we make our attempts to understand life. For me, it's like the very first fork in the philosophical road.Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 9, 2016 Author Share Posted February 9, 2016 As for your number two, well it is a lot of number two. I still hold to the argument that it is the height of arrogance to suggest everything only exists because we perceive it that way. The mockingbird still sings, the cat still scratches what used to be my bald cypresses on what used to be my land. We just aint that special my friend.I'm not seeing the claim of speciality you refer to. Let's roll out 100 yards of fabric on the floor. Start pinching up little bundles, hills, mounds, peaks. You are the energy heaped up in one pinch, the mocking bird is another pinch, the tree another, and old 5674 is another pinch. The fabric is an energy field of dozens of kinds of energy and forces. Because the warp and weave cross everyone's pinch, they can have awareness of all phenomena on the grid. That's why we all see the sun rise, or a football game.I am you, you are me, we are the universe. Were is the arrogance? Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 I have no problem with that. The arrogance is where if we all died out that somehow the rest of the fabric also dies out, unravels, what have you. Either the fabric has holes, or mends itself, but it does not dissolve in our absence. Think of it this way---the observers change, but not the fabric. Just as it was before us so shall it be without us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 9, 2016 Author Share Posted February 9, 2016 I have no problem with that. The arrogance is where if we all died out that somehow the rest of the fabric also dies out, unravels, what have you. Either the fabric has holes, or mends itself, but it does not dissolve in our absence. Think of it this way---the observers change, but not the fabric. Just as it was before us so shall it be without us.Ah, now we are getting somewhere !The fabric is just a ball, source, plane of energy. We are nodes on that energy field. The universe we observe with our mind is not that energy field itself, it is the rocks and moons and chairs and stuff which are artifacts of our perception, inventions of the mind. The mind gets a set of sense inputs and conjures up say, the moon, or a chair. That's the stuff that disappears when the mind dies. That's the stuff, the objects of you will, which we think would be real without our minds. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 So it's back to lyrics war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 The beauty of your conception is that it is impossible to thread crap, since it is only perception of our minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 9, 2016 Author Share Posted February 9, 2016 So it's back to lyrics war?Ha ha. Well, if say a was of gurus might yield better results. I think every spiritual guru in written history is on my side. I don't know of any on the side of O.R.Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyrc Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Prove God exists. Oh, you can't? Prove God does not exist. Oh, you can't? Big deal. Anthropic cosmological principle, or even worse, 5674's version, are tautologies that teach us nothing that we didn't already know, or not know, in the first place. A number of us no longer use the words "prove" and "proof." "Tends to support," is about as good as it gets. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 As a rebel this does not surprise me. Hey! Are they the silent majority I keep hearing about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Prove God exists. Oh, you can't? Prove God does not exist. Oh, you can't? Big deal. Anthropic cosmological principle, or even worse, 5674's version, are tautologies that teach us nothing that we didn't already know, or not know, in the first place. A number of us no longer use the words "prove" and "proof." "Tends to support," is about as good as it gets. Us meaning including you? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Bum Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 I think every spiritual guru in written history is on my side. I don't know of any on the side of O.R. Except for all of empirical science. You clearly seek meaning rather than understanding, so you're better off with the gurus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 9, 2016 Author Share Posted February 9, 2016 I think every spiritual guru in written history is on my side. I don't know of any on the side of O.R. Except for all of empirical science. You clearly seek meaning rather than understanding, so you're better off with the gurus. Empirical science is by definition inside the objective reality camp. It has nothing to do with metaphysics. We use science to design a more efficient car, but we use philosophy to design a more efficient life.The exception is quantum mechanics which finds itself face to face with metaphysics. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 The exception is quantum mechanics which finds itself face to face with metaphysics. Indeed. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts