The implication that our ignorance of the cat's state prevents the cat from having a discrete state the whole time is flawed. I can't speak to particle physics, but with cats, the cat, alive or dead carries the history of its state with it when the box is finally examined. Thus it is possible to know the cat had in fact died while we were ignorant of its death and was not actually in an indeterminate state at all. The indeterminateness is just within our understanding.
Objective reality: How do we know it exists ?
- Thread starter Enmos
- Start date
The implication that our ignorance of the cat's state prevents the cat from having a discrete state the whole time is flawed. I can't speak to particle physics, but with cats, the cat, alive or dead carries the history of its state with it when the box is finally examined. Thus it is possible to know the cat had in fact died while we were ignorant of its death and was not actually in an indeterminate state at all. The indeterminateness is just within our understanding.
SUMMARY:
Yes, I STILL SAY: It is an error to make an IDENITY RELATIONSHIP between cause and effect. For example, to equate tinnitus’ “buzzing in the ears” sound with an ear infection or sinus congestion is an error. Likewise, gravity is not identical with falling rain. Nor is sound = sound waves. Water is not water taste. Etc.
YOU made the error, not me, at end of post 514 by saying that it is not an error to make an identity relationship between cause and effect. {Your bold text above}
Call me an “arrogant twat” again, or other names of your choosing, but this summary of our exchange is my final attempt to change your POV.
I.e. I will cease trying to convince you now.
If the above makes you look like a fool, I am sorry, but I have no control over your posts.
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually that wasn't what you were saying was: Again in Summary: An experience is not the same thing as its cause.
before that: An experience and its normally associated provoking agent are not the same thing.
before that: My main conflict with swarm is in his/her calling "sound an energy" when it is sound waves that are the energy and "sound is the experience"* those sound waves can produce in organism that can detect sound waves.
beginning with the absurd: Sound is the perception produced sound waves.
Notice the shifting of the topic to cover your absurd claim? But at any rate, cause and effect, in and of themselves, are just how we think about the unfolding of events. The only difference between them is we see "causes" has happening before the "event" and "effects" as happening after the "event." But the "cause," "event" and "effect" are all just arbitrary designations. The awareness of this is why science avoids that kind of language in its descriptions.
A popular labeling scheme is to call the moment kinetic energy is transferred from one object to another as the "event" with the first object being the "cause" and the motion of the second object the "effect" because we think in terms of solids instead of in terms of conservation of energy.
But really all physical motion is really just sound. The pool table has really large particles and very low frequencies, but the same principles apply.
There are no discrete causes and effects, which is an identity relationship by the way since they are both null.
There are only things that happen to catch our eye.
Oh really?
good concept to observe
can any 'real' philosophy folks expose this argument within a socaratic debate, already existing within our history of the greats and their opinions (so we can all go over it)?
i disagree herein; to me, there is always a causal explanation otherwise there is more work to do.
I don't do well with 'maybe magic' as the last word. (me personally)
lot's going on that the eye can't catch. Again not magical-mystical-string pulling-stuff by an omnipotent being but in the sense that we see only a sliver of the spectrum and everything is entangled to everything else (eg.. no one sees gravity but we all fall)
In the top section of this post the concept of the ear being here before the sound is when i tend to go all the way back to the first idea (a light). Just as all life (and mind) is of em, each shade we create in conscious thought as an idea is just a new shade (combined memories; 2 colors make a new one)
so in physics they go back to a Big bang (the combining of mass, energy, time) and the religious stop at the 'beginning' i.e... from a genesis description (man from dirt)...... in which we all know a whole bunch evolved from the basic atoms and energy to even become a man.... (the rules of life (physics)are what was missing)
but to go all the way back; then an idea; a light......... could it be that 'first' point in time?
but what had an idea?
what banged the big one?
I say............ as crazy as i am............... existence begot itself; hence mass is now (we living within the progression) defining itself. (words transcend time)
(and our airplanes show us our ability consciously to 'create')
Objectively asking; does existence beget itself? (does the collective conscious (life of mass: mankind) create itself?)
But if that mass (we of consciousness), do not know itself; just yet, then creation could not have happend yet.
Last edited by a moderator:
objective reality is devoid of the need of senses Human or otherwise
what objective reality really is , is the realization that in order for us to be made is based on the fundamental reality , which is based on the fundamentals of the Universe , galaxies , stars , planets etc. and the environment the Universe allows in order for life to exist
and then once the environment is made , Earth for example , the nutrients for the existence of life and the evolution of life
of which none has to do with life but has all to do with a place for life to stand on
without a place to stand on based on the fundamental reality , life would not become and therefore our question of the OP
do you see my point ?
what objective reality really is , is the realization that in order for us to be made is based on the fundamental reality , which is based on the fundamentals of the Universe , galaxies , stars , planets etc. and the environment the Universe allows in order for life to exist
and then once the environment is made , Earth for example , the nutrients for the existence of life and the evolution of life
of which none has to do with life but has all to do with a place for life to stand on
without a place to stand on based on the fundamental reality , life would not become and therefore our question of the OP
do you see my point ?
How is it that you can't see that this entire line of thought is circular?
Can't say that I do.
but the 'object" needs words to describe that 'reality' otherwise, the existence; just is and no articulation can be given.
the "objectivity" aspect was just offered by you; you share that the reality is based on the same rules of existence (the universe); objectively speaking in FACT!
but that is where OUR minds can add to existence (create rocket ships) to make a difference to that environment.
eg.... we teach the next generation that irragating and the diversion from a natural water supply will offer water for the crops. (we change the environment for life, by the knowledge we learn/convey to the next generations) {that supports life to continue}
i see that understanding is the greatest gift for the continuance of life; for mankind/conscious life.
i see that 'objective reality' is (should remain) unbiased, yet requires the words or articulative frame to convey or imply the reality
'reality' itself, just is; but to convey the understanding, then words, math, symbols etc... are/were created, by mankind just to share what was learned (objectively or other)
agreed
but the articulation or describing the fundamental reality by any life form bright enough to do so , has NO effect on the fundamental reality its self
the fundamental reality carries on
what I saying is that , without the existence of a planet , like Earth , made by the Universe , life would not be here in the first place
sure
sure
but what has any of your above posts have anything to do with objective reality or the fundamental reality ?
none really , you have gone off the OP
all well and fine
but do you see my point within this post ?
Last edited by a moderator:
ah ... new term “fundamental”
Is this being applied as “fundamental truth” or ???
or perhaps we can move up and just focus on the 'absolute truth’?
fundamental to me could be the 'process' or the 'nuts and bolts' of the cause
so .. fundamental realities or 'truths' also evolve until the absolute is objectively identified. (does that work?)
for example:
ptolemy also mathematically rendered how the universe works and was found incorrect (after almost 1500 yrs), then likewise be certain today's physics will also be turned over
yet the fundamental laws on earth also work throughout the universe
and since the evolution of life is a progression rather than a random process but with a certainty of intent (to continue)
then be also certain, life is all over the place and some systems mankind has defined as 'alive' can be expanded to include even a the words of a story (the life of a belief, that does affect the environment by the choices of man)(could be a good thread)
the pursuit of the absolute truth
no not just yet
but I am trying!
both fundamental and therefore absolute truth
of....
no
the fundamental reality exists without being identified , because the fundamental reality , the Universe , existed first and of which all life depends
or the fundamental reality being " identified " is irrelevant to the existence of the fundamental reality
no doubt
so to finish my education, the absolute/fundamental reality.... exists, no matter what we define.
I can agree with that.
do you believe knowledge evolves?
do you think perhaps one day mankind will know that absolute or fundamental understanding of reality?
can we make that a religion?
do you want to be the almighty salami?
the creed of the almighty salami must have something to do with 'truth seekers; the objective progression towards the absolute fundamental reality'
we can all join hands and say "up up and away' oor perhaps,
'to infinity and beyond'
i'm in!
Bishadi
the full context would be a good habit when quoting , it really would
good
of course , hasn't always
yes
Mankind has no choice
no
no
no , not really , just understanding and the realisation of whats really going on in the Universe
the fundamental reality , galaxies , stars , planets , of which , all life has , as apart of themselves , physically
inotherwords life would not and can't become and grow without the fundamental reality
objectively
Last edited:
logic and evidence
what logic is there to evolution and not being able to apply the 'progression' to math?
why is life a law breaker to the math when it is purely a concept of nature? (eg.. neg entropy)
which is exactly how i view today's sciences
sure they got the right idea, but to "law abiding" via a belief versus objectively observing the reality
l
that's and understatement
how about a philosophy instead?
kind of like offering a 'purpose' to a mind without the need of a belief.
someone's gotta want the yob?
nice to look at: 'out there'
but 'right here' is first
meaning; if people focused on 'life' and how it works 'right here' it would make the comprehension of 'out there' much easier.
eg..... no such thing as dark junk or black holes or bending space; them all fignewtons of the imagination based on the math not meeting the observations. (so they created 'stuff' to fix the errors)
that's a fact
eg... they can create the environment of nano technology, but the 'magical growing' part that actually makes the structures; they have NO IDEA how it works.
believe it or not.
objectively[/QUOTE]
nice to look at: 'out there'
but 'right here' is first
for now perhaps
of course , astronomy , astrophysics tends to be based on mathematical technicians
rather than original thought , critical thought and common sense
for instance how does one bend space ? inorder to do so means that space has a substance property
and if that were so then I could make a brick of space , alone
can't do it yet
with all that thinking and making sense
maybe i should find another rats nest to hang out in....
you can't catch my disease if you already got it
another rats nest to hang out in ....hmmm
how... up-lifting
can't catch a weak disease
in this arena of philosophy/religions there have been very few 'good' contributers
i complimented you as i have become acclimated to dealing with the pessimistic
almost like a newyorker trying to fit into an amish community
i may do best at this point in a rats nest rather than here where you have the tools already to stand up and walk
basically, think of me as a preacher who gave up his magic
if the spell is broken, then i have no one to preach too
so this is what heaven is like!
i complimented you as i have become acclimated to dealing with the pessimistic
almost like a newyorker trying to fit into an amish community
i may do best at this point in a rats nest rather than here where you have the tools already to stand up and walk
basically, think of me as a preacher who gave up his magic
if the spell is broken, then i have no one to preach too
so this is what heaven is like!