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
Objective reality: How do we know it exists ?
- Thread starter Enmos
- Start date
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
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?)
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....
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....
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!
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..?
It was not posted by "thinking" as his post gave the wrong impression due to a quotation softaware use problem.
is that clear now..?
I certainly hope so
thinking
and thanks for the clarification Quantum Quack it is appreciated
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.
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:
Someone talk about the damn cat more.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Schodingers cat or Schroders cats ?
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.
Meant no harm there. The misfire on the quoting got me.
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.....
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.....
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.
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.
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.