Existence of something is easy enough to deal with. Produce an instance of it or an effect of it and you have a demonstration of somethings existence.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Objective Reality
- Thread starter fess
- Start date
Existence of something is easy enough to deal with. Produce an instance of it or an effect of it and you have a demonstration of somethings existence.
Me too.
YAY! It's fun to agree.
Happens every night when I sleep.
So, when you sleep, how do you know that I exist?
Epiphenomena of a functioning brain.
Ah. Define Brain, please.
I see all matters of existence as all or none. Everything else is on a gradient. Check your statement "...no more energy is required to GENERATE...". That's exactly a requirement to generate... an expenditure of energy. For a human adult, thats an immense amount of joules. Boom! Crater.
This sounds like a belief, not an observed truth. What is a theory, then?
Flickering between nothing and something? Forget the crater. The universe would be repeatedly blasted to smitherines.
Using the same amount of energy and not energy to do everything? I should say not, just as positive and negative waves in electricity added together equal zero.
Consequently "Not I" would be an inversion of you (which is something),
Yay! We agree again!"
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
I think you just supported Mr. Hamtastic's ideas about flickering between nothingness and somethingness. Your certainty just did this.i havent a clue
what do we take for granted that allow us to be?
It's odd, but the second sentence sounds like a moral question. And a good one.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
There are no phenomenalists in fox holes.
I direct this specifically at Glaucon.
I direct this specifically at Glaucon.
Wouldn't a particle in superposition be no thing. In fact isn't it silly to refer to it as a particle or anything really. (hey, what the hell, I like a challenge)
I particle in superposition is one of 'n' clones where 'n' is limited by the total energy available. They constantly unclone / reclone as they move like a circular wave.
So those superpositions are certainly something. One thought is that all objects go through superposition / collapse phases and observation seems to support this.
I perceive that it is late, and I must begin to exist again but a few hours from now, so I'm going to gather up my toys and go lay down bed and stop existing. Not I will remain for your entertainment, of course. But not I will be entertaining not you, because you will not exist while I do not exist. Adieu for now!
I particle in superposition is one of 'n' clones where 'n' is limited by the total energy available. They constantly unclone / reclone as they move like a circular wave.
So those superpositions are certainly something. One thought is that all objects go through superposition / collapse phases and observation seems to support this.
My point precisely. Thanks.
of course you aren't. There are no unperceived malfunctions
Oh? Never hear someone say "I thought it was supposed to work that way"? What about people with schizophrenia whom don't realize that others don't experience what they do (a malfunction)?
In what way can you make an observation that does not require perception while your perception is unavailable?
You can take a before and after snapshot and consistently reproduce the absence of perception in the middle.
lol So you'd base your conclusions on your perception of their perception? I hope science works slightly better than this.
I would base my information on both of our perceptions. I might even accept their conclusion depending on the importance / risk of the study.
I'm afraid I must first be willing to make such an assumption first.
Can't help ya there.
I'm sorry that my reasoning is unacceptable, oh great one. Perhaps you could show me the error of my ways by demonstrating the existence of anything outside of my perception. Simple enough task, for you, anyway, right?
You're forgiven but just this once. How about I inject you with general anesthetic and while you're out I'll paint your face like spider-man. What you wont perceive is the anesthetic properties but you will perceive a before and after spidey-fication.
So the experiencing self, that sifted through its experience and discovered all the ideas in both religion and science is merely epi. In fact it even came up with the idea that it is peripheral. This last ought to count for something.
All I can say is... ain't it cool?
I can't refer to any others.
Well you could refer to the objective information the properties are describing... which would certainly be reasonable.
Well you could refer to the objective information the properties are describing... which would certainly be reasonable.
info as interpreted by whom/what?
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Well you could refer to the objective information the properties are describing... which would certainly be reasonable.
information requires someone to be informed. It is yet another word that has subject and object already in relationship coiled up in it or in its use.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Oh, sorry, you got there first.info as interpreted by whom/what?
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
My point was that it cannot be epi, it has to be central. Every single map made of the universe is made by it and these maps use properties only it can understand. The experiencer must stand in the center, everything else you believe in is dependent on it and its effectiveness.All I can say is... ain't it cool?
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
When they are in superposition they are not.I particle in superposition is one of 'n' clones where 'n' is limited by the total energy available. They constantly unclone / reclone as they move like a circular wave.
So those superpositions are certainly something. One thought is that all objects go through superposition / collapse phases and observation seems to support this.
I mean what is potential that is not actual in the present moment?
So, when you sleep, how do you know that I exist?
Sleep Fairy. I don't know that I exist when I sleep. There's no thought (dreams aside).
Ah. Define Brain, please.
Organ (including mammalian brain) that your skull is protecting.
This sounds like a belief, not an observed truth. What is a theory, then?
It's a self-evident observation. A theory is the result of creativity and intellect combined to model something that is rooted in empirical observation.
Using the same amount of energy and not energy to do everything? I should say not, just as positive and negative waves in electricity added together equal zero.
Combining particles and antiparticles makes things go boom!
Yay! We agree again!"
Just don't hug "Not I" are you're going to have just a wee bit of heat and light released.
info as interpreted by whom/what?
Info that can exist independent of interpretation.
information requires someone to be informed. It is yet another word that has subject and object already in relationship coiled up in it or in its use.
Naturally I am referring to information that can be independent of human perception.
My point was that it cannot be epi, it has to be central. Every single map made of the universe is made by it and these maps use properties only it can understand. The experiencer must stand in the center, everything else you believe in is dependent on it and its effectiveness.
If it was central I wouldn't be able to turn it off, alter it, or damage it when addressing the brain... yet I can.