415 replies to this topic

[Mr Right Wing]

Rlyeh, on 06 May 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

Already read it before. Not sure your obsession with it.

That is the kind of misconceptions I'm talking about. No one has said what you've implying.

Rlyeh and Mattshark will be ignored from here on by me during this debate.

If I show reality is human perception, if I post the reasons why, if I link them to science showing reality is human perception and they choose to ignore the science then its a waste of time having a debate with them.

These people are the kind who would deny the existance of God even if he was stood infront of them. There is something wrong with their mentality and if people read through all the replies they can see it.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 06 May 2012 - 02:16 PM.

[Rlyeh]

Mr Right Wing, on 06 May 2012 - 02:13 PM, said:

Rlyeh and Mattshark will be ignored from here on by me during this debate.

If I show reality is human perception, if I post the reasons why, if I link them to science showing reality is human perception and they choose to ignore the science then its a waste of time having a debate with them.

These people are the kind who would deny the existance of God even if he was stood infront of them. There is something wrong with their mentality and if people read through all the replies they can see it.

If you've shown anything it's your own illiteracy. You'd rather invent your opponent's position.
Have fun "debating" yourself, you've had enough practice.

[Cybele]

Mr Right Wing, on 05 May 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

You seem to think reality is (or in part is) an objective universe.

Using an analogy - If you were playing a computer game reality would be how the game appears on your monitor. The objective universe (assuming it even exists) would be the logic gates inside your pc. Both are completely different and far removed from each other. If a scientist comes along and places his ruler on the monitor to measure the length of something he is measuring reality not an objective universe.

Using another analogy - A painter paints a picture on the canvas. Reality is the picture and an objective universe would be the canvas. When a scientist starts measuring the width of an object in the painting he is measuring an aspect of reality not an objective universe. Perhaps I should scale up this analogy to holograms?

People believe in an objective universe because it makes sense to them. Yet no aspect of an objective universe has ever been isolated and shown to be so. There is no evidence one exists. A belief in it is ideological not based on evidence.

The above lacks clarity due to poor use of terminology. Reality is, by definition, exactly what you said it wasn't. Perhaps you meant "subjective reality"?

In philosophy, reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.^[1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

People believe in objective reality because many experiences and forms of evidence are consistently replicable between individuals, societies, and over long periods of time. The passing down of objective knowledge is how humans and other species function and adapt. Individual of the same and different species all interact with each other and their environment using similar frameworks which have their basis in shared experience and biology.

This is a very useful way of thinking, and I think one can judge a worldview on how well it works in practice.  Your worldview (or the one you are defending) seems to me to be a largely useless and pitiably egocentric one. Basically, if our reality is not an accurate reflection of some objective universe that's out there, it doesn't matter, because our reality works for us. Taking on a worldview that doesn't help us survive or interact with our environment as we perceive it is counterproductive and pointless. Talking and thinking about such a worldview may be fun, but it is also little more than mental m@$+&#@tion.

Seeker79, on 05 May 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

The brain does not have to be a producer of experience. It could very well be a receiver or a reducer.

Why does it need to be a receiver or reducer? Your appeals to "thinking outside the box" seem to be nothing more than appeals to get people to accept your worldview.

Seeker79, on 05 May 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

This thread is not even about this argument. It's about a very logical materialistic inturpretation of actual facts that includes multiverses from a very respected scientist and the vehament opposition to it as demonstrated Simply because it's out of the box thinking. The purpose to expose this hard line  bias  and assumptions made against anything that seems fantastical reguardless of the facts has already taken form. My point has been clearly demonstrated. Thanks to the many contributers to this thread still ducking and dodging anything that might be counter intuitive.

Opposition dies down and paradigm shifts occur when the evidence for a new theory become overwhelming enough. Until then, people are right to be skeptical. Thinking outside the box does not require full acceptance of views that aren't yet strongly supported. I think you're in error for claiming that skepticism arises from a lack of open-mindedness, rather, it is usually from a lack of sufficient hard, replicable evidence.

Edited by Cybele, 06 May 2012 - 11:40 PM.

[Cybele]

For anyone interested, I recently found this article, which offers a quantum physicist's perspective on the discussion I was having with Mr. RW:

http://blogs.scienti...-quantum-world/

[Seeker79]

Quote

People believe in objective reality because many experiences and forms of evidence are consistently replicable between individuals, societies, and over long periods of time. The passing down of objective knowledge is how humans and other species function and adapt. Individual of the same and different species all interact with each other and their environment using similar frameworks which have their basis in shared experience and biology.

Really? Now were talking.   Would you like to have a discussion about that and how it realates to the fact that well over 90% of the world has spiritual beleifs. Or does that not count as objective reality because the other 10% says its not?

Quote

  
This is a very useful way of thinking, and I think one can judge a worldview on how well it works in practice.  Your worldview (or the one you are defending) seems to me to be a largely useless and pitiably egocentric one. Basically, if our reality is not an accurate reflection of some objective universe that's out there, it doesn't matter, because our reality works for us. Taking on a worldview that doesn't help us survive or interact with our environment as we perceive it is counterproductive and pointless. Talking and thinking about such a worldview may be fun, but it is also little more than mental m@$+&#@tion.

Plenty of ojective science to back it up, But as usual, you cant look past your bias. Thats the whole point. May i remind you that even materialistic inturpretations of fundamental science is only an imturpretation of the data and not even good ones. Do you really beleive materialsim is helping us to survive and interact properly with our envirnoment? It is most certainly not mental stroking Even thought experements have prooven invaluable at helping scientists to come with diffrent ideas to proove or disproove.

Quote

Why does it need to be a receiver or reducer? Your appeals to "thinking outside the box" seem to be nothing more than appeals to get people to accept your worldview.

I have never once seen anyone on these forums change their world views because of what people argue... thats not my motiviation at all. It did not say it needs to be one. But why not? Nothing has ever been acomplished without thinking different thant the status quo. Otherwise everything would stay the same.

Quote

Opposition dies down and paradigm shifts occur when the evidence for a new theory become overwhelming enough. Until then, people are right to be skeptical. Thinking outside the box does not require full acceptance of views that aren't yet strongly supported. I think you're in error for claiming that skepticism arises from a lack of open-mindedness, rather, it is usually from a lack of sufficient hard, replicable evidence.

Oh, dont get me wrong only this particular area is from more than a lack of open mindeness..... it is sheer denial.  Im a skpetic of many things myself but there is plenty of evidence to support and have room for my beleifs and experiences.

Think outside the box is about recognizing that things are not always counterintuitive and need a different way way of looking at to get a more acurate picture. This is indeed what is happening. Opposition does not die down and paradimes shift occures when the evidence for a new theory beomves overwhelmin, it usually happens after the oposition hanging on to the old ways grows old and dies. Even the switch from newtonian physics to relativity had its old misers that wold not let go to einsteins counter intuitive discoveries.

There is strong evidence and logic backing up both susskinds views and non materal based realities. does that mean they are right....hell no. We hava a long way to go before awakening to "true" reality. and the counter intutitive discovery might be that reality is no at all objective.  I cant help if the dening masses will not hear it, there are loads of logic and experiment  backing it up.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 08 May 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

I cant help if the dening masses will not hear it, there are loads of logic and experiment  backing it up.

So much in fact you fail to provide any, as your posts in this thread proves; http://www.unexplain...howtopic=225114

You're not unlike these creationists who go on about evidence and experiments that proves their claims, when it comes down to it it's hot air.
It would be a mess of a forum if everyone used your debating strategy.

Edited by Rlyeh, 08 May 2012 - 10:47 AM.

[Mr Right Wing]

Cybele, on 08 May 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

For anyone interested, I recently found this article, which offers a quantum physicist's perspective on the discussion I was having with Mr. RW:

http://blogs.scienti...-quantum-world/

In Quantum Mechanics they use a formula called a wavefunction -

If you had a microscopic dice the wavefunction would have a part for each of the six outcomes combined together into one formula. When information is gained on which number it landed on the wavefunction is destroyed. This is because you cant find the outcome for the object and still have it behaving as a probability.

Prior to gaining information a lot of scientists only view the wavefunction as being real. Atoms are what come into existance when a wavefunction is destroyed (they call it wavefunction collapse). With the wavefunction that produces an atom being so small its difficult for information to be leaked to the rest of the universe so normally all that exists is the wavefunction. The physics that a wavefunction abides by is quantum mechanical behaviour.

Atoms have mass but probabilities dont and therefore a probability isnt restricted by the speed of light. If you placed an atom into the centre of a box, stopped gaining all information on it (so it reverts back to a wavefunction) and after the smallest fraction of a second turned on your atom location detector something amazing happens. You can detect the atom in a part of the box it couldnt have reached without going faster than the speed of light! What is really going on is the wavefunction wasnt restricted by the speed of light as its a probability. Being able to detect an atom somewhere where it shouldnt be yet is why lots of scientists view the wavefunction as being the only thing that exists when there is no information.

The reason why macroscopic objects dont usually behave quantum mechanically is they leak so much heat. Heat is the leakage of information. With so much heat leakage (from trillions and trillions of atoms) its very rare for the wavefunctions of macroscopic objects to remain intact. However it isnt impossible! By cooling down objects to near absolute zero scientists have been able to get macroscopic objects behaving quantum mechanically too.

The relevance of Quantum Mechanics to mysticism is that without information on the rest of the universe all that should exist is one very complicated wavefunction describing all probabilities. In science you could call this the multiverse but in truth there is no objective thing its a probability equation.

Buddhism says exactly the same thing but they have their own words for things. They call the wavefunction that represents a multiverse the primal substance. They teach their followers that when you gain information you collapse the primal substance into the reality they then experience. In essence there is no objective reality only the one of experience.

Buddhism is not solipsism its non-dualism. They believe the primal substance is the only thing that exists and that its God. We perceive ourselves and objects as being seperate but we arent. We all unify into the primal substance. Everything is oneless and everything is God. To experience becoming one requires Buddhist training. There is another way but you will need to send me a PM to be told about it.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 08 May 2012 - 12:59 PM.

[Rlyeh]

Mr Right Wing, on 08 May 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

If you placed an atom into the centre of a box, stopped gaining all information on it (so it reverts back to a wavefunction) and after the smallest fraction of a second turned on your atom location detector something amazing happens. You can detect the atom in a part of the box it couldnt have reached without going faster than the speed of light! What is really going on is the wavefunction wasnt restricted by the speed of light as its a probability. Being able to detect an atom somewhere where it shouldnt be yet is why lots of scientists view the wavefunction as being the only thing that exists when there is no information.

Do you have any links to this experiment?

[Mr Right Wing]

Rlyeh, on 08 May 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

Do you have any links to this experiment?

My knowledge of QM comes from electrical engineering and this - http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/1841882380

The book goes through a lot of experiments but I dont recall the name of the box one. This book is like nothing you will ever read again and will leave you stunned. Its by far the best book you will ever read in your life and will change you.

It explains how everything from non-locality and quantum teleportation to quantum tunneling and parallel universes work. It goes through exotic energy, how to produce it, extra dimensions and the box stuff I was going on about. There is no maths in the book all aspects of QM are explained in writing for the average man or woman on the street. Its really easy to follow and understand.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 08 May 2012 - 01:19 PM.

[Rlyeh]

Mr Right Wing, on 08 May 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

My knowledge of QM comes from electrical engineering and this - http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/1841882380

The book goes through a lot of experiments but I dont recall the name of the box one. This book is like nothing you will ever read again and will leave you stunned. Its by far the best book you will ever read in your life and will change you.

It explains how everything from non-locality and quantum teleportation to quantum tunneling and parallel universes work. It goes through exotic energy, how to produce it, extra dimensions and the box stuff I was going on about. There is no maths in the book all aspects of QM are explained in writing for the average man or woman on the street. Its really easy to follow and understand.

So is there apaper published of the experiment you mentioned?

Edited by Rlyeh, 08 May 2012 - 02:31 PM.

[Mr Right Wing]

Rlyeh, on 08 May 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

So is there apaper published of the experiment you mentioned?

I really cant remember what they call it and I no longer have that book so I cant look

You will need to ask a physicist or get a copy.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 08 May 2012 - 04:22 PM.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 08 May 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

So much in fact you fail to provide any, as your posts in this thread proves; http://www.unexplain...howtopic=225114

You're not unlike these creationists who go on about evidence and experiments that proves their claims, when it comes down to it it's hot air.
It would be a mess of a forum if everyone used your debating strategy.

I have given you countless citations, presentations from actual physicists who are also citing their work, recommendations for decent books written by real scientists who don't even agree with my interpretations, oh that's right I remember now... You only accept links to "scientific papers". Books, articles, citations, presentations, documentaries, interviews, critical thinking, and simple logic mean nothing to you. I remember something you said to me once " did you get that out of some book?" you have one world view and anything else that contradicts that world view is hogwash... Sounds like a fundi to me. worse... When you make a mistake in your knowledge Of science, you won't cop to it. ( your misunderstanding of how gravity and the expantion of space comes to mind)

Do you really want me to search and find links to the quantum esraser, the experiments that show atoms are mostly space and the "particles" are values not things. The experiments that show that light must experience the entire universe in an instant. Do you want me to show you the math in relativity and astrophysics that prooves that if you could sit on the event horizon of a black hole and look out at the universe, you would see the entire life of the universe in an instant.

My friend I'm tired of educating you. You can fo it yourself. If you continue to only read and pay attention to material you already agree with, then your horizons are forever stunted. You really do end up in a black hole.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 08 May 2012 - 04:49 PM, said:

I have given you countless citations, presentations from actual physicists who are also citing their work, recommendations for decent books written by real scientists who don't even agree with my interpretations, oh that's right I remember now...

You said you've presented experiments, what experiments? Come on, don't dodge or back peddle now.

When asked for evidence or experiments, you present opinions from scientists, perhaps I'm asking too much of you or perhaps you really have nothing.

Quote

Do you really want me to search and find links to the quantum esraser, the experiments that show atoms are mostly space and the "particles" are values not things.

It would be only fair, as both bmk and I provided scientific papers. But I have a feeling I'm not going to see anything from you.

Quote

Do you want me to show you the math in relativity and astrophysics that prooves that if you could sit on the event horizon of a black hole and look out at the universe, you would see the entire life of the universe in an instant.

Reading comprehension would have come in handy when you wrote this.
Do you have a mathematical formula that calculates how long it takes you to back up your claims? Does it give an answer thats not infinity?

Quote

My friend I'm tired of educating you. You can fo it yourself. If you continue to only read and pay attention to material you already agree with, then your horizons are forever stunted. You really do end up in a black hole.

That tiredness you're feeling is what happens when running around in circles.

Edited by Rlyeh, 08 May 2012 - 06:36 PM.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 08 May 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

That tiredness you're feeling is what happens when running around in circles.

You got that right!!!

Some bias paper without the peer reviews is worthless.  Have you ever really looked at all those "scientific" papers and how there is consiststany oposite inturpretations from them same math and experiments. Give me a break.  Papers have a little weight, but makeing them your bible isnt going to get you anywhere. It's best to stick with known facts and repeatable results that can be shown.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 08 May 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

Some bias paper without the peer reviews is worthless.  Have you ever really looked at all those "scientific" papers and how there is consiststany oposite inturpretations from them same math and experiments. Give me a break.  Papers have a little weight, but makeing them your bible isnt going to get you anywhere. It's best to stick with known facts and repeatable results that can be shown.

That's right, but we aren't discussing some bias paper that isn't peer reviewed. I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough, but when I said scientific paper I meant peer reviewed.

For clarification, AAAS's Science is an academic journal, all articles are peer reviewed before appearing in the journal.

Your dodging is a know fact that you keep repeating. lol.

Edited by Rlyeh, 08 May 2012 - 07:28 PM.