Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reality is not based upon our perception.
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 16 of 37 (346722)
09-05-2006 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by GDR
09-05-2006 2:06 PM


GDR writes:
I agree but is that a philosophical or a scientific position? Maybe something of each.) Can that position ever be proven using the scientific method?
Hypothesis: conciousness and observation are interconnected to reality.
Boy throwing rocks in parking lot where new car is parked.
a: you don't witness it. Outcome you see broken windshied and make assumptions on what occured.
b. you observe boy throwing rocks, He sees you observing him and he stops his shenanigans. Your car is undamaged.
Conclusion: favorable outcome due to concious observation.
Double slit experiment: Open one slit and a partical pattern occurs. Open the other slit and a wave interference pattern emerges. Regardless of aiming photon in exact location. How in the hell? what the heck is going on???
Bells Theorem: The particle knows whats happening to it's paired electron. conciousness on a quantum level.
Spooky action at a distance? or just plain VEERED and I am not even from Holland.
So take your pick Copehagen, Multiple universe, Brane, M, or fane determinism based on Scrodinger wave function propagation based calculations. I as you can see dont have any answers. Im just glad I caught that kid throwing rocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by GDR, posted 09-05-2006 2:06 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by GDR, posted 09-05-2006 4:41 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 17 of 37 (346736)
09-05-2006 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by 1.61803
09-05-2006 3:49 PM


I'm with you. I have trouble understanding the argument for the universe being deterministic.
Let's say I'm going to the store. At the last second I decide to drive the scenic route which is something I virtually never do. Three blocks later I'm nailed by a drunk driver and die.
Same scenario but I take the normal route, arrive home safely with my bread and milk and get on with life which includes fathering 12 kids of which one finds a cure for cancer.
The only difference from the two very different outcomes is a seemingly innocuous conscious decision.
It just makes sense to me that the universe has to function in a way that allows for a virtually infinite number of futures. It seems to me that QM is discovering the mechanism that allows for that, and what appears to be basic to that mechanism is observation or measurement which require consciousness.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by 1.61803, posted 09-05-2006 3:49 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by 1.61803, posted 09-05-2006 4:59 PM GDR has replied
 Message 19 by iano, posted 09-05-2006 5:05 PM GDR has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 18 of 37 (346746)
09-05-2006 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by GDR
09-05-2006 4:41 PM


GDR writes:
I have trouble understanding the argument for the universe being deterministic.
SHhhsshhh!! not so loud.
You'll awaken Cave diver and Wounded King.
I believe it is like many things in nature a little of both. We can decide to tip the dominoe over or not...but once done it follows its course.
Peace .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by GDR, posted 09-05-2006 4:41 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by GDR, posted 09-05-2006 6:04 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 19 of 37 (346750)
09-05-2006 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by GDR
09-05-2006 4:41 PM


I'm with you. I have trouble understanding the argument for the universe being deterministic.
Depends on how determined you are. Anyone who argues so has to argue so it would seem. They have no choice in the matter for there is no choice. How someone determines what they think is determined beats me - hands down. On a par with the "there are no absolutes" bullet in ones own head stance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by GDR, posted 09-05-2006 4:41 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by GDR, posted 09-05-2006 6:12 PM iano has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 20 of 37 (346778)
09-05-2006 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by 1.61803
09-05-2006 4:59 PM


1.61803 writes:
You'll awaken Cave diver and Wounded King.
I guess cavediver is still moving. It is unbelievable to me that I can with my Brian Greene course on physics use this forum to get teaching from a guy with his credentials. I'll be glad when he's back.
I tend to think though that if I'm in disagreement with cavediver then I'm either dead wrong or don't understand the question. (probably both. )
1.61803 writes:
I believe it is like many things in nature a little of both. We can decide to tip the dominoe over or not...but once done it follows its course.
I'm still curious to know what would exist if anything if all consciousness ceased. Mitchel Mckain in a thread recently posted that it is his contention that all cellular life has consciousness, and that the difference between us and plant and animal life is the degree of our consciousness. I'm inclined to agree. If then there is no consciousness of any degree to observe, measure or interact in any way would what some physicists call the illusion of space and time just cease to exist?
In answer to the OT then I in my view I'm inclined to believe that reality is very much based on our perceptions.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by 1.61803, posted 09-05-2006 4:59 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by 1.61803, posted 09-05-2006 8:46 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 21 of 37 (346786)
09-05-2006 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by iano
09-05-2006 5:05 PM


iano writes:
Depends on how determined you are. Anyone who argues so has to argue so it would seem. They have no choice in the matter for there is no choice.
It seems to me then that the only way for there to be no choice is to agree that there is an intelligence outside of this existence that knew that I was going to take the scenic route to the grocery store prior to the beginning of time. (This position it would seem to me would make an infinite universe impossible.)
A non-deterministic view of things seems to me to allow for but not necessarily require a metaphysical intelligence.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by iano, posted 09-05-2006 5:05 PM iano has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 22 of 37 (346833)
09-05-2006 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by GDR
09-05-2006 6:04 PM


GDR writes:
what would exist if anything if all conciousness ceased.
You may find out in about 60 years. If there were not one extant organism on Earth do you think the cosmos would not exist? There was a time in our past when there was no planet Earth. No sun. And yet events unfolded to produce our planet and galaxy. That in itself suggest reality is based on something more than observation. But I propose that energy itself is concious.
That would explain alot. Although I have no way to provide evidence for that hair brained idea. But just what if quantum entanglement is a form of conciousness? I know sounds silly.
Almost as silly as a holographic universe.
Peace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by GDR, posted 09-05-2006 6:04 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by GDR, posted 09-05-2006 10:30 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 23 of 37 (346859)
09-05-2006 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by 1.61803
09-05-2006 8:46 PM


1.61803 writes:
There was a time in our past when there was no planet Earth. No sun. And yet events unfolded to produce our planet and galaxy.
But like everything else, that is how our consciousness perceives it. Don't forget that quantum entanglement occurs across time as well as space.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by 1.61803, posted 09-05-2006 8:46 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 24 of 37 (346915)
09-06-2006 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Christian7
09-01-2006 9:09 PM


Does reality require an observer?
Guido, I had to kook up some ofthe terms and ideas that were floating around here in your post!
You initially proposed that:
quote:
In this post I would like to propose the idea that reality is absolute, that no matter how our consciousness percieves it, it is as it is.
e-book writes:
Social constructivists believe that reality is constructed through human activity. Members of a society together invent the properties of the world (Kukla, 2000). For the social constructivist, reality cannot be discovered: it does not exist prior to its social invention.
So are these the type of philosophical arguments that would declare that if a tree fell in the forest and nobody were around to hear it, it would make no noise?
I suppose that the argument could be advanced on the theory that if no eardrum is around to capture the sound, no record of the sound exists. Noise registration requires an ear, right?
Similarly, if there were no humans to describe the universe and the physical world around us, it still seems logical that the universe would carry on without us. Right? Then I got to reading about the cat in the box.
mtnmath.com writes:
Here's Schrdinger's (theoretical) experiment: We place a living cat into a steel chamber, along with a device containing a vial of hydrocyanic acid. There is, in the chamber, a very small amount of a radioactive substance. If even a single atom of the substance decays during the test period, a relay mechanism will trip a hammer, which will, in turn, break the vial and kill the cat. The observer cannot know whether or not an atom of the substance has decayed, and consequently, cannot know whether the vial has been broken, the hydrocyanic acid released, and the cat killed. Since we cannot know, the cat is both dead and alive according to quantum law, in a superposition of states. It is only when we break open the box and learn the condition of the cat that the superposition is lost, and the cat becomes one or the other (dead or alive). This situation is sometimes called quantum indeterminacy or the observer's paradox: the observation or measurement itself affects an outcome, so that it can never be known what the outcome would have been if it were not observed.
This is like saying that the refrigerator light may stay on when we shut the door! Either it does or it does not. Just because we are not observing something does not mean that the event is not happening.
Guido: If God exists, then He is the observer that allows verification of creation. (IMB, anyway)
On a sidenote, IF God created and/or foreknew us before we humans imagined Him (and all other belief paradigms) then we are a product of His imagination which is reality. Jesus is the ultimate observer. Were He not alive, nothing would exist!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Christian7, posted 09-01-2006 9:09 PM Christian7 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 09-06-2006 2:03 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 33 by Jon, posted 09-11-2006 8:29 AM Phat has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 25 of 37 (346985)
09-06-2006 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Phat
09-06-2006 5:18 AM


Re: Does reality require an observer?
Phat writes:
This is like saying that the refrigerator light may stay on when we shut the door!
I put my cat in there to find out. Now she knows but she won't tell me.
Either it does or it does not.
False dichotomy. How do you know that your light isn't entangled with mine?
Just because we are not observing something does not mean that the event is not happening.
Unless somebody observes it and communicates the observation to you, how can you know?
If God exists, then He is the observer that allows verification of creation.
So, how does God communicate His observations to us - in a reproducible way?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Phat, posted 09-06-2006 5:18 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by 1.61803, posted 09-06-2006 2:28 PM ringo has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 26 of 37 (346990)
09-06-2006 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by ringo
09-06-2006 2:03 PM


Re: Does reality require an observer?
Ringo writes:
So how does God communicate his observations to us- in a reproducible way?
Perhaps the Universe is more like a mind (of God) than a thought or observation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 09-06-2006 2:03 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 09-06-2006 3:20 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 27 of 37 (347006)
09-06-2006 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by 1.61803
09-06-2006 2:28 PM


Re: Does reality require an observer?
1.61803 writes:
Perhaps the Universe is more like a mind (of God) than a thought or observation.
That works for me.
But communication between differents parts of the "mind" don't seem to be very effective.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by 1.61803, posted 09-06-2006 2:28 PM 1.61803 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Phat, posted 09-11-2006 6:34 AM ringo has replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4111 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 28 of 37 (347892)
09-10-2006 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by ikabod
09-03-2006 4:32 AM


your words could be taken to imply that reality has to be percived in some manner ... this would imply no perception = no reality .... does this mean you would accept no life , thus no perception , thus no reality .. ie the universe did not exsits as part of reality until some life form first perceved it .. which begs the question how basic can this perception be , bacterial ?? a tree , a sheep , a chimp , a human ....
no, what i'm saying is reality is just a word that we use to relate to the universe, reality isn't a thing its what we define by our minds as the thing, maybe my word usage was a bit confusing, reality includes a lot of things, but the OP considers reality an absolute but its not really what he thinks it is. what i was pointing out is if it is absolute then we are in some nutcases crazy delusion then, since this is that persons reality.
the physical universe doesn't need us to exist to exist, but you need people to have a reality, since it is perception of the physical by lifes senses
is this the case ??
i hope this makes sense

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ikabod, posted 09-03-2006 4:32 AM ikabod has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4111 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 29 of 37 (347894)
09-10-2006 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Brad McFall
09-03-2006 10:36 PM


Re: real perception of sense
By the way a mud turtle I have from S. Carolina has FOUR projections from its lower jaw and these might be used specifically as seperated in space to actually sense the SAME reality that I have defined with my human ability.
so does the turtle have color vision with a blind spot, and stand between 5-6 feet? does it have clam-like shaped ears to hear the same as a human?
i don't think i've ever heard of a turtle like that, they useally don't see far and hear that well or are very large
as i said, reality is not the same thing as the physical universe, its a perception of the physical universe, they really arn't the same.
our senses change our reality in little ways, it may sound strange to people, but we tend to use words for things that really don't mean what people think they do.
i guess its a matter of what we mean by reality

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Brad McFall, posted 09-03-2006 10:36 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Brad McFall, posted 09-10-2006 10:33 AM ReverendDG has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 30 of 37 (347925)
09-10-2006 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by ReverendDG
09-10-2006 2:14 AM


Re: reality in perception-sense

My answer will eventually be a full "yes."
This answer does require a continuous motion through a discontinuously written place spaced and spaces placed(I think I accomplished in the image moving from perception towards conception onto the right) so you will have to bear with me as I make the reality more than the perception (I have a lot to work on in another thread concurrently as well).

The mud turtle usually and for extended periods of time can and "will" hold its chin a little lower than the EmyDID depicted above. The appendages are pretty much in a square, with two on the surface and two below the surface of the water.
Now follow me. We know that water on the surface is often much hotter in the sun than below. Sharks were found to have gel that is possibly actually thermoelectric. Turtles could have brains that invert the functionality of fish (they evolved did they not?) and convert the temperature differences into electric ones traveling down the nerves but when combined with electrical activity afforded by the eyes and slight adjustments of the head (without altering the temperature input from the appendages) differences of frequency of light might be decoded even by triune reptile brain.
To show that this is essentially what we SEE with our human eyes rather than with both eyes and thermoelectricity I would need to discuss some issues of Fourier series as to how a turtle might "triangulate" a human sense.
Edited by Brad McFall, : suface of appearence added

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by ReverendDG, posted 09-10-2006 2:14 AM ReverendDG has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024