Jim Naseum Posted February 8, 2016 Author Share Posted February 8, 2016 We saw the same game, apparently. Some would say we dreamed the same dream. I side with those millions who say we witnessed a real game. You're missing the concept here. In order to judge that X is real, we have to know what would be judged unreal. And that's where the problem lies --- we only have self reference. "It's real because I experienced it," provides no distinction between dreams, simulations, or awake perception. The principle so holds that it's not possible to know a dream is not life while you are dreaming it.Distance is only meaningful when there are objects. Light is only meaningful if there is dark. Large and small, future and past, happiness and unhappiness etc. Unreal means what, exactly? Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 8, 2016 Author Share Posted February 8, 2016 We all see the same moon because that energy is part of the same fabric of the universe that human energy is a part of. The moon moons, humans human, apple trees apple. The fabric is twitching, bubbling, popping, gurgling and all nodes in the energy field can not be isolated or separated, one from the other. You think of your self as a different entity from me. That's just an abstraction of your conscious mind. In fact, we are just different locations on one fabric. There may be some arbitrary unit of distance between us, but at the atomic scale it is meaningless. When viewed from the moon, you and I are just bubbles in a boiling spot on the fabric. Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 8, 2016 Author Share Posted February 8, 2016 First of all, take note that you are an amalgam of the same elements found every where else in the universe! What a coincidence! If you were indeed a unique object within an existing structure, it would be more likely that your construction would include elements unfound in the existing universe. We are stardust we are carbon..... Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) You're missing the concept here. In order to judge that X is real, we have to know what would be judged unreal. And that's where the problem lies --- we only have self reference. "It's real because I experienced it," provides no distinction between dreams, simulations, or awake perception. The principle so holds that it's not possible to know a dream is not life while you are dreaming it. When millions of people around the world experience the same event, it is fair to say the experience reflects reality. If one, or a few, people experience a different event while the event unfolds their perception of reality is flawed. If the few want to see how wrong their perception of a certain event is, they should walk into most any bar in this country and announce that Carolina won the Superbowl. Distance is only meaningful when there are objects Bullshit. Time measures the distance (separation) between events. You know - space-time continuum and all of that stuff. Edited February 8, 2016 by Don Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 8, 2016 Author Share Posted February 8, 2016 When millions of people around the world experience the same event, it is fair to say the experience reflects reality. It reflects only "commonality." If the few want to see how wrong their perception of a certain event is, they should walk into most any bar in this country and announce that Carolina won the Superbowl. "Commonality" is not at issue. All parts of the same force can see the same force at work. In fact, your argument for commonality supports my view, not yours. Bullshit. Time measures the distance (separation) between events. You know - space-time continuum and all of that stuff. Time is just a convenient human mind abstraction arising from our limits of perception, and the lifespan our bodies have. But nothing about the idea of time negates the "single fabric of energy" idea of the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 We all see the same moon because that energy is part of the same fabric of the universe that human energy is a part of. The moon moons, humans human, apple trees apple. The fabric is twitching, bubbling, popping, gurgling and all nodes in the energy field can not be isolated or separated, one from the other. This touches on string theory and M theory, except for the first sentence. We all see the moon because we all have eyes and the moon is a real object with mass located at a distance close enough for visual detection. First of all, take note that you are an amalgam of the same elements found every where else in the universe! What a coincidence! If you were indeed a unique object within an existing structure, it would be more likely that your construction would include elements unfound in the existing universe.We are stardust we are carbon.....Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk Huh? Different things can be made of the same material. Toyotas are made of the same stuff as Rolls Royces, yet are not the same objects at all. With humans, it's true we are made of the same stuff yet appear and act uniquely different. And of course we are made of stuff found around within this universe, because that's where we are located. When we discover life on another planet it is not likely they will look like anything on Earth, because their planet's size, gravity, and living conditions will be different from ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 8, 2016 Author Share Posted February 8, 2016 Hold your hand out in the air. Turn on your "nano-vision" allowing you to see the atomic level. On your left is an electron spinning around a central force in the "air". On your right is an electron spinning around a central force in your "finger." What divides finger from air? Keep zooming in, trying to find a boundary considering the distance from any electron and it's nucleus is 60,000 diameters of the nucleus. And if both nuclei are "carbon" doesn't that demonstrate a single fabric of energy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Bum Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 This is a real world, Prove that and you'll have a primary place in history. Dave It's not necessary to prove what is self-evident. Hume tackled this one four hundred years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 8, 2016 Author Share Posted February 8, 2016 A sand castle is the beach is the ocean is the earth. The local phenomena of scooping sand into a shape of fantastic intricacy doesn't in any way separate sand into a separate entity from the beach, ocean, earth, cosmos. If "object" simply means "scooping into shape" that doesn't in any way support the idea of "humans" as distinct entities from the universe. Sand castles, human beings, chairs, rocks, airplanes are just "scooping" the universe into locally different shapes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 8, 2016 Author Share Posted February 8, 2016 This is a real world, Prove that and you'll have a primary place in history. Dave It's not necessary to prove what is self-evident. Hume tackled this one four hundred years ago. What did he say about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 When millions of people around the world experience the same event, it is fair to say the experience reflects reality. It reflects only "commonality." If the few want to see how wrong their perception of a certain event is, they should walk into most any bar in this country and announce that Carolina won the Superbowl. "Commonality" is not at issue. All parts of the same force can see the same force at work. In fact, your argument for commonality supports my view, not yours. Bullshit. Time measures the distance (separation) between events. You know - space-time continuum and all of that stuff. Time is just a convenient human mind abstraction arising from our limits of perception, and the lifespan our bodies have. But nothing about the idea of time negates the "single fabric of energy" idea of the universe. I never said time negated string theory. String theory relies on the time component. String theory does not rely on human perception for it to work, but it does use advanced calculus techniques like derivative geometry to explain our observations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 8, 2016 Author Share Posted February 8, 2016 Is string theory relevant to the relation of humans to the universe? Not really. It is the mind searching out relations of other forces we observe. But it doesn't comment on the nature of knowledge or the meaning of reality. Quote WHAT DO we actually mean by reality? A straightforward answer is that it means everything that appears to our five senses – everything that we can see, smell, touch and so forth. Yet this answer ignores such problematic entities as electrons, the recession and the number 5, which we cannot sense but which are very real. It also ignores phantom limbs and illusory smells. Both can appear vividly real, but we would like to say that these are not part of reality. We could tweak the definition by equating reality with what appears to a sufficiently large group of people, thereby ruling out subjective hallucinations. Unfortunately there are also hallucinations experienced by large groups, such as a mass delusion known as koro, mainly observed in South-East Asia, which involves the belief that one’s genitals are shrinking back into one’s body. Just because sufficiently many people believe in something does not make it real. END Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Bum Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Just because sufficiently many people believe in something does not make it real. That's where peer review comes in. Things such as referred pain or sensations from phantom limbs are explained in a reducible manner, no need to use them as justification for solipsism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 peer review That's the rub. Cannot be objective by definition. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) peer review That's the rub. Cannot be objective by definition. Dave Yet it leads to truth when it is part of the scientific method. Is the truth not objective? Edited February 8, 2016 by Don Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Richard Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 We could tweak the definition by equating reality with what appears to a sufficiently large group of people, thereby ruling out subjective hallucinations. Unfortunately there are also hallucinations experienced by large groups, such as a mass delusion known as koro, mainly observed in South-East Asia, which involves the belief that one’s genitals are shrinking back into one’s body. Just because sufficiently many people believe in something does not make it real. Wow. So everyone who witnessed Denver beating Carolina in the Superbowl is experiencing a mass delusion. You will make Cam Newton very happy when you tell him he actually won Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ski Bum Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) peer review That's the rub. Cannot be objective by definition. Dave What else would you suggest as an epistemic framework for discovering objective reality? Back to Hume, he basically said the same thing as some posters here, only in much more words. As a logical exercise, solipsism is fairly unassailable, but for practical purposes, we have the choice to either gaze at our navels or accept that there is a real reality outside ourselves. The science of his day was so far removed from the big cosmological and quantum reality questions, but still pertains as he (along with Locke and several others) laid the framework for what we now recognize as the scientific method. It's a rather nifty method to examine that reality. Edited February 8, 2016 by Ski Bum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babadono Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 The defensive coach of the Broncos. JJK Yea and his players that EXECUTED his plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted February 8, 2016 Author Share Posted February 8, 2016 We could tweak the definition by equating reality with what appears to a sufficiently large group of people, thereby ruling out subjective hallucinations. Unfortunately there are also hallucinations experienced by large groups, such as a mass delusion known as koro, mainly observed in South-East Asia, which involves the belief that one’s genitals are shrinking back into one’s body. Just because sufficiently many people believe in something does not make it real. Wow. So everyone who witnessed Denver beating Carolina in the Superbowl is experiencing a mass delusion. You will make Cam Newton very happy when you tell him he actually won No, not a delusion. They witnessed the effects of energy within the system of which they are part. Delusion is not part of what I am suggesting. I am saying that there is no such thing as reality (universe) except that it is perceived by human consciousness. The consciousness and the universe are just ONE THING, not separate things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 What else would you suggest as an epistemic framework for discovering objective reality? Would that we had such a system. Certainly anything like "objective reality" must be a reality outside time. Given that we, as temporal creatures, have no mechanism to conceive reality, there can be no objective means of doing so. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts