Objective reality: How do we know it exists ?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Enmos, Mar 21, 2008.

  1. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    it seems that you just opined that reality exists independent of any given opinion

    in any case it is the nature of reality that is in question.
    is wysiwyg really the case?

    /scoffs
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745
    which is easy to find true; see mother nature

    or the definitions of nature are what to question

    and as ironic as that sounds, the rules of current paradigm bind logic; find the laws of nature incorporated into physics is what has tied the hands to much of the incorrect definition placed upon nature.

    i am not that good (what does that "wysiwyg" mean?)
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. glaucon tending tangentially Moderator

    Messages:
    5,502
    Interesting how the same premisses can lead different people to hold different conclusions:


    All of this I agree with.
    To use the term "objective" in any reasonable way, it must be in this stipulative sense. In other words, it is meaningless for us to assert the notion of an independent ontological 'objective reality'.


    However:

    I agree with Gustav's interpretation of Bishadi's comment here...

    And Bishadi's response indicates that Gustav's interpretation is correct:

    And so, either I'm misunderstanding Bishadi, or he's caught himself in a contradiction....
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bishadi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,745
    did i make sense; for once?

    hang on: "atta boy" (i had to pat myself on the back)

    please spell out my error so i can learn!
     
  8. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    NO I did NOT originally post this


    above
     
  9. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    it is the fundamental reality , galaxies , suns , planets , moons etc

    which is the objective reality

    the fundamental reality cares less about our opinions , thoughts , theories

    the fundamental reality continues on , making living beings , where it can
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2009
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,531
    Just to clarify obvious confusion I shall re-quote my own post:

    It was not posted by "thinking" as his post gave the wrong impression due to a quotation softaware use problem.


    is that clear now..?
     
  11. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    I certainly hope so

    thinking

    and thanks for the clarification Quantum Quack it is appreciated
     
  12. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    And who exactly do you think is making this claim.

    Apparently you can be quite absurd.

    I'm hardly surprised.

    So? Often is not always or in this particular case.

    In this particular case we are dealing with a philosophical question in the common language using common notions of the words.

    Also, cause and effect are equally imprecise notions. Cause is how we talk about before the event and effect is how we talk about after the event, but the decision of when is the event is completely arbitrary and the aren't buckets of cause qua cause hanging around.
     
  13. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    You are at end of post 514. Here are your words:
    If two things are IDENTICAL they certainly are equal and one can replace the other. To again show how absurd this is, here is part of my post 517:

    “Rain falling is an effect of gravity. Or gravity is the cause of rain falling.
    If it were not absurd to equate cause and effect then, falling rain = gravity and one could assert:
    Falling rain causes the Earth to orbit the sun.”

    Do you really think falling rain keeps the Earth in orbit around the sun?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 7, 2009
  14. Betrayer0fHope MY COHERENCE! IT'S GOING AWAYY Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,311
    Someone talk about the damn cat more.
     
  15. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Schodingers cat or Schroders cats ?
     
  16. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
  17. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    Are you positing a causal relationship between rain falling and the earth remaining in orbit? Or are you just trying to create more strawmen to attack?

    Are you saying there is no relationship between a cause and its effect?

    I'm saying there is a direct relationship between a cause and its effect.
     
  18. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
  19. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    Meant no harm there. The misfire on the quoting got me.
     
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,531
    well you guys are all pretty smart.
    How would you create an objective reality if you had to?
    How would you rule out subjectivity in your created universe? [ "shoot the buggers I say!" yelled the sherif]

    maybe by using this approach you will gather a better way of looking at the subject ...I dunno.....
     
  21. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Of course not.

    No, you said, in last part of post 514, that there was an IDENTITY relationship. Identity!!!

    If you had admitted you mis-spoke long ago, these posts of mine correcting you would not exist, but you are too proud to be smart and admit this error.
     
  22. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,101
    I remember when I was first introduced to the theoretical Cat in a box, however I was told a completely different setup to Schrodingers cat (incidentally there are many ways of spelling the name, obviously not all correct, including my own).

    I was told:

    A cat is placed into a box with a glass poison capsule sewn to one of it's legs. Once in the box, the box is closed and radiology is used to bombard the inside of the box from the outside. The radiology over time will cause decay to the glass which will release the poison into the cat, killing the cat. While the box is closed it's known whether the cat is alive or dead and it's suggested it's in both states.

    Obviously the apparatus is completely flawed compared to the original. In fact an answer to the original is actually to write a Program (use a flow diagram) as to what occurs to the cat. I wrote a program but one of the main things with such a program is working out how the cat is dead, when it's dead. If you use something like Check the heartbeat and if it's sieze for X number of seconds the cat is dead, you end up generating a Causality clause. In the sense the result is that you've already defined the outcome prior to the experiment through programming it's variables.
     
  23. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    Oh, I get it. That's why you were trying so hard to introduce the concept of "identity" into the conversation. Tsk, tsk! Shame on you.

    you said: "That is why it is an error to make an identity between “buzzing in the ears” and any ONE of these causes."

    Which I agreed with and which was never my point.

    I said: "But it is not an error to make an identity between the phenomena of hearing something and a cause."

    I.e. it is my contention that it is never the case that the phenomena of hearing something occurs without a cause and that cause, whatever it may be, is part and parcel with the phenomena of hearing something.

    But you were just introducing the term for the old bait and switch and to try and side track the conversation in spurious details of your own device.

    When two solids collide, they make a sound and that sound exists independent of any listener. If it makes you happy, you could say sound waves, since they make more than one sound wave, but not in order to exclude the term "sound" which is entirely adequate in this context for describing what is made when objects collide.
     

Share This Page