Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
25 online now:
jar, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Stile, Tangle, xongsmith (7 members, 18 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,949 Year: 21,985/19,786 Month: 548/1,834 Week: 48/500 Day: 6/42 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reality is not based upon our perception.
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13370
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 31 of 37 (348054)
09-11-2006 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by ringo
09-06-2006 3:20 PM


Re: Does reality require an observer?
Ringo writes:

...communication between differents parts of the "mind" don't seem to be very effective.

OK, you Pantheists! :rolleyes:

First, can we conclude that communication by definition has to be between people? Ive never seen a star talk to another star. (Except Ben and Jen!)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 09-06-2006 3:20 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Dr Jack, posted 09-11-2006 6:59 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded
 Message 34 by ringo, posted 09-11-2006 11:00 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 32 of 37 (348058)
09-11-2006 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Thugpreacha
09-11-2006 6:34 AM


Re: Does reality require an observer?
First, can we conclude that communication by definition has to be between people?

No.

My cat's communicate to each other regularly. As they do to me.

My computer also communicates with me, and I communicate with it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Thugpreacha, posted 09-11-2006 6:34 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 37 (348082)
09-11-2006 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Thugpreacha
09-06-2006 5:18 AM


Re: Does reality require an observer?
Phat writes:

mtnmath.com writes:

Here's Schrödinger'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.

Okay... The book I read, called... Decoding the Universe by Charles Seife talks about the cat. It talks about these small little things that pop in and out of existance collecting information from their surroundings. These things cannot be stopped, and so would be in the cat's box.

In a world where only the gathering of information by humans would count, yes, you'd have a dead and alive cat. But because of these little things, no--you cannot have this. They will collect information immediately... and the superpositioned cat will have to "choose" one way or the other. Remember our chat about Universes splitting off? Well, that's one theory about it (not one I like). Anyway, so you cannot have a dead and alive cat.

Besides, such states of superposition only apply at a quantum level, right? I mean, we can't get this sort of stuff to work at a "real-world" level... can we?

J0N


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Thugpreacha, posted 09-06-2006 5:18 AM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Thugpreacha, posted 09-14-2006 5:41 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17662
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 34 of 37 (348096)
09-11-2006 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Thugpreacha
09-11-2006 6:34 AM


Re: Does reality require an observer?
Phat writes:

Ive never seen a star talk to another star.

If a star was "talking" to another star, how would you know?

Isn't that the point of this topic? How can we "know" anything outside our own perception?

It took a long time for us to realize that the bees' dance was a form of communication. It took a long time for us to realize that whales have sophisticated long-range communication networks.

The supposed lack of communication is based on our perception.


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 31 by Thugpreacha, posted 09-11-2006 6:34 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3371 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 35 of 37 (348176)
09-11-2006 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gospel Preacher
09-01-2006 9:09 PM


absoulte vs actual
I have not been able as of yet to get to those parts of this discussion bearing on "absolute" terminology because I must evaluate if the potential(franklin)

Click to enlarge
quote:

Click to enlarge

I have described in this thread so far is not a Milton. I am not against some rHytHm objectified as indicated by Whitehead.


Click to enlarge
quote:

Click to enlarge


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gospel Preacher, posted 09-01-2006 9:09 PM Gospel Preacher has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13370
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 36 of 37 (349107)
09-14-2006 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Jon
09-11-2006 8:29 AM


Re: Does reality require an observer?
Jon writes:

Anyway, so you cannot have a dead and alive cat.

From the cats perspective, at any rate. Right? Or is the cat powerless to decide which reality includes it?

:rolleyes: Mind melt! Lemme regroup..... :)

The original topic started by Guido asks:

Guido writes:

I often hear people state that reality is based upon our perception, as if it is a construct of our senses.

What then, are our senses a construct of? Are not our senses part of reality?

In this post I would like to propose the idea that reality is absolute, that no matter how our consciousness perceives it, it is as it is.

You may be interested in this point of view concerning absolute reality as well. ;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Jon, posted 09-11-2006 8:29 AM Jon has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 37 (349113)
09-14-2006 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Gospel Preacher
09-01-2006 9:09 PM


Guido Ariba

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.

Our only information of the world around us ,personally, is of the senses we posses or the instruments we use that enhance those perceptions , or the mathematics that hints at far more subtle structure but I agree that the universe is "out there" beyond our skulls.
But there are drawbacks to this assertion. When we say that something is out there in what way are we meaning this? Are we going by the sensory approach in such a way that if we doubt what we see we confirm by the use of the sense of touch? Does this make it more real or less, since we never really touch matter at all but only the field effect of matter.

It is one thing to state that "it is what it is', yet quite another to define what that "is" entails.

Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Gospel Preacher, posted 09-01-2006 9:09 PM Gospel Preacher has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019