|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 13, 2014 6:48:58 GMT 1
You misunderstand. I meant it with utmost seriousness. Call it "Giant Teapot" - it makes no difference. Unless you can give a reason that we need this hypothesis to explain observations that are otherwise inexplicable, it's literally meaningless. I don't say that can't be done - but I do say that you haven't done it. You must have missed the bits where she did so. That must have been why you ignored her questions, hmmm? I comprehend you, abacus - you've merely paraphrased Berkeley, with an entirely ad hoc addition of something you think are called "probability waves". Berkeley and a basic misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. No - you can't find a quote where I said any such thing, or anything like it. If you're merely going to make things up, who can say? He will be most distressed to find that out, I should think. I have no idea what you're talking about - and neither do you. What are you talking about?!
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 13, 2014 7:26:27 GMT 1
And this gnomic comment is supposed to convey what? Do you wish me to go back through this debate and find the dozen and more times you have insisted that there are no such objects or events? Apart from "probability waves"? Which, of course, are the last thing anyone can "know" directly, independent of perception by the senses.
Please answer the questions put to you. What do you mean by "direct access"? How is it distinct from perception, or experience? Then we'll find out whether there are any hairs to be split.
Your fundamental mistake. Kindly provide a single piece of evidence for this diktat.
So what? It's irrelevant.
Are you pretending to be some sort of Zen master or Shaolin monk, grasshopper? You quote a passage then respond to it by completely ignoring it and wandering off onto some completely different topic! What has that to do with philosophy, or science?
Yeah? An analogy of what?
I do think that, yes - furthermore, you have admitted that this is a possibility yourself. I don't think you know what you think!
I repeat, for the fourth or fifth time I think: there is no contradiction. Experience can give us access to something outside of it if it allows us access to that outside. And, as you've admitted, it may well do. So where's the contradiction?
So they're no longer the things that "obviously and certainly" exist prior to observation, then? There's this thing called "reality" now, is there?
I doubt it - certainly not the Shakespeare. So what? I don't particularly like Mozart, either, come to that.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 13, 2014 7:28:31 GMT 1
I politely ask Abacus to answer this question ie did the space between New York and London exist before it was measured? Perhaps you can be good enough to answer a second, closely-related, question, did the space between the Earth and the Moon exist before it was measured? Only to observers. No observers, no space. So, now answer this one. How can there be an observer without space? No space, no observers (or anything else) - right?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jan 13, 2014 7:50:47 GMT 1
That's your contention. I see no reason at all to believe it - you certainly haven't given one. As far as I'm concerned, many things are explained (I gave you as an example from possible zillions of the way a guitar is constructed and works) - and most of them I find of no use whatever. As for "ultimate explanation": depending on - no, actually, irrespective of - what you mean by this, I see no reason to believe that diktat either.
Yes. Otherwise known as being irrational and dogmatic. The Enlightenment and scientific revolution seem to have passed you by. I prefer to try to understand the universe by my experience, thankyou.
Oh yeah? But doesn't:
And if no one's observed these things before, how can they be in the universe when:
This is some sort of universe with some sort of higher-order level of "reality", presumably, that does not depend on being observed to exist, and also presumably does not need to have any "space" in it?
This a priori metaphysic of yours is getting decidedly odd, isn't it?
So these "things" that probably are in the universe that we have never experienced or thought of are those good ol' probability waves again, are they? My, Schrodinger's poor little wavefunction is having to do an awful lot of work these days.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jan 13, 2014 9:36:39 GMT 1
I'm not going to argue against any of that; I want you to address the questions I last asked you, about your assertion that things become actualised by observation. Even though you are asserting that our apprehension of reality is at one remove, we only get subjective (and selective) responses to what is there in actuality, you nevertheless keep saying that our action of observation (even though it is a subjective operation for a human to observe, you seem to say) causes actual change in what is happening in reality (I think). You have not given your definition of reality yet - though you do use the word. I also want you to address my questions about what you believe to be real/true. You have, throughout this discussion, been asserting that the Universe has a way of coming into existence by observation by conscious beings - now are you saying that is what happens "in reality", that what you say there is "true"? I have actually answered your question on a number occasions but for some reason you have not acknowledged it. This my be because you do not like the answer I have given, who knows? Reality, or to be more precise, objective reality, is caused by the interaction of conscious beings and the things in themselves, as outlined above. If you are asking me what the things in themselves are I cannot tell you because they are forever hidden from human perceptions. So, it is incorrect to say that there is "a" reality, something I suspect that you wish to define once and for all. If you want a short answer then it is that reality is that which we observe or measure because even an observation is a kind of measurement since our senses automatically detect and encode incoming sensations. I tend to think you will not be satisfied with this definition because you have a fixed idea about what reality should be, however, you need to forget about intuition and commonsense and use logic and reason to understand. It might be useful to find out what your definition of reality is because then we might be able to come to a better mutual understanding of this question. Abacus you stated above At this stage I am not wanting to go through the CAUSE of reality but the MEANING of the WORD "reality". (And by the way I think I gave my own defiinition of "reality" before, it means what is true, what is real.) There again, your explanation of the cause of reality gives a clue of what you mean by the word. You call the entities - the probability waves I think - "things", with which we interact when we observe them, and then these probability waves are actualised into "reality". The difficulty with your definition of "reality" is that you are trying to say that the probability wave "things" are not part of reality. Yet throughout this discussion you have stated that we interact with these "things". In saying that, you must believe that the ULTIMATE REALITY is a Universe of probability waves, observers who can measure a selection of them, and a collection of real physical things that have come into existence by being observed. Is that right? Now my next question is : can you see that there is a slight logical problem with your model, you are saying that we cannot really know about those things outside of us, since all we can do is subjectively perceive/observe, yet at the same time you seem to "know" that there are probablility wave "things" out there? Can you answer this please?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 13, 2014 9:57:48 GMT 1
No, the interaction is the cause of experience. The fact that the hydrogen spectrum looks the same whatever the source, whoever the observer, and whenever the electron transitions occured, implies that reality pre-exists observation. How could an organism without any eyes observe the hydrogen spectrum? You are assuming all intelligent life in the universe is broadly similar to us but you have no evidence of this and therefore should not assume we all observe the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 13, 2014 10:29:11 GMT 1
I'm making no analogies - I'm talking completely literally. "Atoms, wood, the nervous system and so forth" are things that exist in the real world, thankyou. I still have no idea what you mean by "user-defined" - it strikes me as gibberish, frankly. The existence of atoms, wood, the nervous system and so forth are confirmable in a thousand different ways - by using various perceptual apparatus, certainly, if you choose to say by looking at them etc they "exist in the perceptual world". Nothing at all amiss about that - as I've explained, and you've admitted, our perceptions give us access to the real world. Or you can photograph them, take X-rays of them, analyse their elemental and molecular composition, measure their extensions and masses and electromagnetic interactions, "see" the very atoms and electrons they're composed of using an electron-tunnelling microscope, PET scans, and so forth and so forth. You can trace wood from its seed through its development as a tree to your chopping it down and cutting it up and shaping it into a guitar; you can do the same with an ear, or the nervous system. All this data mutually confirms each other in a systematic manner, leading to hypotheses about underlying structures that explain the data, and which can then be confirmed by further investigations - and is and has been so confirmed. This is what science is, this is what knowledge is, this is what reason is. By its means and potentiality we can learn to understand the world, and develop from amoeba to walking on the Moon and building devices like the ones we're using now. Your claim on the other hand is mere empty dogmatism. There is not a shred of evidence for it, nor could there be. No possible observation could support your diktat; it leads to no further possible enquiry; it is not knowledge, it is not rational, it is not scientific; it can never be confirmed, never be falsified, explains nothing, describes nothing: it merely leads to intellectual atrophy. It leaves our abilities to learn about the world completely unexplained, even in principle. Yes, science is a very powerful tool with which to examine the universe but, once again and for the umpteenth time, all science is ultimately subjective inasmuch as it is defined by our psychological make-up in terms of the interaction of synapses which process input from our sense experiences. This seems a perfectly straightforward assertion yet you continue to deny it. Even science itself confirms this so you are arguing against yourself, aren't you. Kant showed that all this "knowledge" that you keep referring to is knowledge about ourselves, not about anything external to us. Yet again, you are confusing science with philosophy. Science enables us to explore our human-based experiences but philosophy is able to look beyond and enables us to conceive of things outside of ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 13, 2014 10:40:41 GMT 1
You misunderstand. I meant it with utmost seriousness. Call it "Giant Teapot" - it makes no difference. Unless you can give a reason that we need this hypothesis to explain observations that are otherwise inexplicable, it's literally meaningless. I don't say that can't be done - but I do say that you haven't done it. Of course it is impossible to explain observations in terms of the things in themselves since we can never have direct access to them. I have answered her questions, as well as yours, to the best of my ability. If you both do not like the answers it is hardly my fault. You're just being stubborn now. Well, simply to reject what one of the most brilliant scientific minds of the twentieth century had to say about reality seems a tad arrogant to me. That stopped you in your tracks, didn't it.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 13, 2014 13:07:32 GMT 1
And this gnomic comment is supposed to convey what? Do you wish me to go back through this debate and find the dozen and more times you have insisted that there are no such objects or events? Apart from "probability waves"? Which, of course, are the last thing anyone can "know" directly, independent of perception by the senses. My argument relies upon a a priori position where it is entirely logical and reasonable to assert that any experiences we have are necessarily mediated through our senses. This is abundantly self-evident and should raise no objections or confusion so why you persist in attempting to dispute this is a complete mystery to me. In what way do you doubt the validity of this point of view? Once again, it is a priori knowledge, therefore, practical knowledge of the world is not in question here. For example, I could confidently state that my sister was at least one of my siblings without having to convey anything else about her. This is what a a priori statement is about, i.e., something that precedes, as a matter of course. Direct access in respect of the thing in itself. In other words, in the absence of human perceptions. Cognitive science. 'Nuff said? Well, the nature of reality is a highly philosophical topic, don't you agree? Of the thing in itself in terms of, for example, waves, particles, energy, extension, before, after, etc., etc. Depends how you are using the word "access". Indirect access, yes, but never direct access since that is impossible. Yes, certainly, but it is something that gets transformed into something else. The reality it describes is our reality, never forget that. Well, it is possible that we have access to Platonic realms. Ergo, consciousness is a necessary condition for measurement to exist. Thank you. In what way do you dispute his views? Of course it exists. Where do I say it does not? I just did.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 13, 2014 15:32:03 GMT 1
Only to observers. No observers, no space. So, now answer this one. How can there be an observer without space? No space, no observers (or anything else) - right? Because the act of observing causes the things in themselves to take on the manifestation of space. Again, take a dead person who (presumably) does not possess consciousness. For such a person there can be no space, no measurement, no before or after since consciousness is not present.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 13, 2014 15:53:28 GMT 1
That's your contention. I see no reason at all to believe it - you certainly haven't given one. As far as I'm concerned, many things are explained (I gave you as an example from possible zillions of the way a guitar is constructed and works) - and most of them I find of no use whatever. As for "ultimate explanation": depending on - no, actually, irrespective of - what you mean by this, I see no reason to believe that diktat either. No evidence for these assertions exist, or could possibly exist. What therefore does it explain? That all our explanations are human-based ones which is fine as long as we realise we may never know anything about any ultimate reality. A priori statements are the basis of all logical and scientific thinking. If we did have them we would not be able to make any intelligible statements about anything.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 13, 2014 16:07:52 GMT 1
I have actually answered your question on a number occasions but for some reason you have not acknowledged it. This my be because you do not like the answer I have given, who knows? Reality, or to be more precise, objective reality, is caused by the interaction of conscious beings and the things in themselves, as outlined above. If you are asking me what the things in themselves are I cannot tell you because they are forever hidden from human perceptions. So, it is incorrect to say that there is "a" reality, something I suspect that you wish to define once and for all. If you want a short answer then it is that reality is that which we observe or measure because even an observation is a kind of measurement since our senses automatically detect and encode incoming sensations. I tend to think you will not be satisfied with this definition because you have a fixed idea about what reality should be, however, you need to forget about intuition and commonsense and use logic and reason to understand. It might be useful to find out what your definition of reality is because then we might be able to come to a better mutual understanding of this question. Abacus you stated above At this stage I am not wanting to go through the CAUSE of reality but the MEANING of the WORD "reality". (And by the way I think I gave my own defiinition of "reality" before, it means what is true, what is real.) There again, your explanation of the cause of reality gives a clue of what you mean by the word. You call the entities - the probability waves I think - "things", with which we interact when we observe them, and then these probability waves are actualised into "reality". The difficulty with your definition of "reality" is that you are trying to say that the probability wave "things" are not part of reality. Yet throughout this discussion you have stated that we interact with these "things". In saying that, you must believe that the ULTIMATE REALITY is a Universe of probability waves, observers who can measure a selection of them, and a collection of real physical things that have come into existence by being observed. Is that right? Now my next question is : can you see that there is a slight logical problem with your model, you are saying that we cannot really know about those things outside of us, since all we can do is subjectively perceive/observe, yet at the same time you seem to "know" that there are probablility wave "things" out there? Can you answer this please? Probability waves are phenomena. Having said that, phenomena is that which our human senses can register but not the original cause of them. The original cause of phenomena is not subject to direct examination by our senses because we have evolved to operate in a world that has shaped our consciousness to allow our species to survive in a hostile world so, therefore, we are "tuned-in"', so to speak, to stimuli that challenges our physical survival. This means that anything that has never impinged upon our consciousness and consequently never challenged us in our evolutionary past will never get registered, that is, not directly. We have become so attuned to our earthly environment that we might be compared to a radio receiver, if you will, that can only pick up certain radio frequencies. For this reason we can only ever experience our reality in our terms, so there might be a whole range of realities out there but we will never be able to become directly aware of them. For example, let us say for the sake of argument that other intelligent beings exist in other dimensions. How can we possibly know how such beings think and feel when they view their world? They may be intelligent within the context of their particular environment but have no clue as to how we, here on earth, think and view reality.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jan 13, 2014 17:33:23 GMT 1
Probability waves are phenomena. No. Wave functions are the mathematical description of phenomena. They help us predict and explain what happens, but they are no more phenomena than the bookmaker's odds on a football match - the game is the phenomenon - or a computer simulation of a car's suspension. It is very important to distinguish between models and reality.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Jan 13, 2014 18:01:02 GMT 1
Probability waves are phenomena. No. Wave functions are the mathematical description of phenomena. They help us predict and explain what happens, but they are no more phenomena than the bookmaker's odds on a football match - the game is the phenomenon - or a computer simulation of a car's suspension. It is very important to distinguish between models and reality. All we have are models of reality. Once again, we can never know directly about reality and so are compelled to use analogues such as probability waves in order to construct them. Have you ever actually seen what causes probability waves?
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Jan 13, 2014 18:44:00 GMT 1
Firstly, the singular of phenomena is phenomenon. (Sorry that's a bit of a bugbear of mine).
Secondly, I ask you to directly answer the questions I put to you, otherwise I don't think we can make any progress in mutual understanding.
Those which you previously called "things", the probability waves, you now want to call "phenomena". Giving them a different label doesn't seem to advance the debate any further forward. You are in fact saying that, whereas I and others have one view of the nature of the Universe, you are stating that, IN REALITY, the nature of the Universe is different, and you describe how.
So let's not get diverted into sophistry, we all know what we mean by "reality", it's just that we have differing views of the true nature of reality.
It's a given that there might be a whole range of things out there without us being aware of them, for example millions of extra-solar planets where there might be aliens. That does not in any way mean that they do not exist until we observe them. Also we can know of things that we have not observed, as in the example of Neptune I gave you before. Neptune was real before anybody observed it.
With your radio analogy, every radio might be tuned to a different station and thus each radio will be producing different music, depending on the radio station it is picking up. But nobody says that each radio is in "a different reality", the ultimate reality is that there are many different radio waves from many radio stations, and the radio simply tunes in to which one the user chooses.
You still have not succeeded in making a sensible and cogent case for your own view of reality.
|
|