Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


The Nature of Reality


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#46    MARAB0D

MARAB0D

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 11,055 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 11 July 2009 - 09:21 PM

DurgaMata on Jul 12 2009, 08:45 AM, said:

The answer is no, the tree does not make a sound. Sound is the brains interpretation of vibrations in the air. What we can say is the tree falls and creates vibrations in the air, we know this because this is an observed and tested fact. Trees need air to live and when something with a high mass and low air resistance can not support itself gravity will take it in to the earth with great force.


Close - air vibrations are Objective, they exist independently from the observers, and Observers can observe them as sound. But if there is no Observers at the moment of the tree falling, then we do not know if it actually produced any air vibrations or not, as if a tree falls slowly, delayed by some other plants in its way, it may generate no air vibrations at all.


#47    PerVirtuous

PerVirtuous

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 376 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2009
  • Location:Maine

  • The universe is under no obligation to obey our descriptions or expectations of it.

Posted 07 August 2009 - 03:23 PM

 Tangerine Sheri, on Jul 4 2009, 07:29 PM, said:

this is very tru IMO  if we are talking subjective reality, but in an objective frame  the realty exists whether we beleive in it or not or percieve it or not or agree with it or not...

it just is..


i think pregnancy is a good analogy for this...


I fail to see how you can seriously consider yourself in a serious discussion to use logic like "it just is". You believe what you want to believe without any concern for accuracy, yet you smugly speak as if you are always right because, "You just are." I fail to see anything worthwhile in such an opinion.




.

Edited by PerVirtuous, 07 August 2009 - 03:35 PM.


#48    PerVirtuous

PerVirtuous

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 376 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2009
  • Location:Maine

  • The universe is under no obligation to obey our descriptions or expectations of it.

Posted 07 August 2009 - 03:34 PM

 marabod, on Jul 4 2009, 03:39 PM, said:

Thank you, BM. But there was one detail... I did not do any home work at all, as it cost me no effort to express what Reality is because I really think this way, I was taught to think like that when I was doing my degree. Anyone working in Science must think this way, otherwise it becomes impossible to work with Objective Reality and study it. This was actually my premise in the previous discussion about the possibility of religious people to work in Science. In my view they cannot professionally study Objective Reality because they do not fully understand what it is and confuse it with their own Subjective Reality.


Bertrand Russell said:

I wish to propose for the readerís favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.
- Bertrand Russell, Introduction to Sceptical Essays

To say that Sherri and some other folks agree with you does not make that agreement objective reality. Until you provide a  grounds for supposing reality to be true, you are simply indulging in what Russell calls "undesirable belief". You may fool yourself into it being a self evident thing, "it just is" but no philosopher or scientist has ever been able to make such a case. Scientists take it on faith alone, which is why science is a belief system.



.

Edited by PerVirtuous, 07 August 2009 - 03:35 PM.


#49    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 07 August 2009 - 03:43 PM

 DurgaMata, on Jul 11 2009, 09:45 PM, said:

The answer is no, the tree does not make a sound. Sound is the brains interpretation of vibrations in the air. What we can say is the tree falls and creates vibrations in the air, we know this because this is an observed and tested fact. Trees need air to live and when something with a high mass and low air resistance can not support itself gravity will take it in to the earth with great force.
There will be something there to hear it though.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#50    MARAB0D

MARAB0D

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 11,055 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 07 August 2009 - 06:03 PM

 PerVirtuous, on Aug 8 2009, 03:34 AM, said:

Bertrand Russell said:

I wish to propose for the readerís favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.
- Bertrand Russell, Introduction to Sceptical Essays

To say that Sherri and some other folks agree with you does not make that agreement objective reality. Until you provide a  grounds for supposing reality to be true, you are simply indulging in what Russell calls "undesirable belief". You may fool yourself into it being a self evident thing, "it just is" but no philosopher or scientist has ever been able to make such a case. Scientists take it on faith alone, which is why science is a belief system.

If I follow your teaching, then I can subjectively discard any objective evidence you are able to present - this includes the quote which you use to support your position, as according to you Bertrand Russel is entirely a fruit of your imagination and never existed objectively.


#51    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,453 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 07 August 2009 - 07:48 PM

 PerVirtuous, on Aug 7 2009, 04:34 PM, said:

Bertrand Russell said:

I wish to propose for the readerís favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.
- Bertrand Russell, Introduction to Sceptical Essays

To say that Sherri and some other folks agree with you does not make that agreement objective reality. Until you provide a  grounds for supposing reality to be true, you are simply indulging in what Russell calls "undesirable belief". You may fool yourself into it being a self evident thing, "it just is" but no philosopher or scientist has ever been able to make such a case. Scientists take it on faith alone, which is why science is a belief system.



.

PerV,

First, congrats on the original debate. You argued your case most effectively.

I would like to address a particular case of objective reality - that being the observer itself. As you stated, an object can validate itself as objectively real, and this applies to any observer.

Thus, cogito, ergo sum, and I validate my self as objectively real to myself. "I" exist.

Now, what do "I" exist in/as? Assuming a state of existential isolation, there must still be a matrix of something within which "I" must exist and which comprises "I". "I" cannot be made up of nothing, and something cannot exist within nothing. Without knowing what this matrix of something is, by the fact "I" exist, I also know this other something exists.

So, in that sense, I know an objective reality does exist, I simply do not know what it is. This does not mean this reality is abstract (i.e. not concrete) simply unknown as to what it is, and perhaps unknowable in that regard.

Edited by Leonardo, 07 August 2009 - 08:00 PM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#52    PerVirtuous

PerVirtuous

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 376 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2009
  • Location:Maine

  • The universe is under no obligation to obey our descriptions or expectations of it.

Posted 08 August 2009 - 04:39 PM

 marabod, on Aug 7 2009, 02:03 PM, said:

If I follow your teaching, then I can subjectively discard any objective evidence you are able to present - this includes the quote which you use to support your position, as according to you Bertrand Russel is entirely a fruit of your imagination and never existed objectively.


Your contention that all subjective views are equal is laughable. You simply do not understand logic at all. Science is about probabilities, not cold hard facts. As such, is is indeed subjective. Think about it. Something that has odds of 10,000 to 1 against is less likely than something with odds of 10 to 1 against. Your whole approach is oversimplified. Perhaps that is why you need to believe in objectivity, because it simplifies everything. Sorry, but the universe is not simple.




.


#53    PerVirtuous

PerVirtuous

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 376 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2009
  • Location:Maine

  • The universe is under no obligation to obey our descriptions or expectations of it.

Posted 08 August 2009 - 04:48 PM

 Leonardo, on Aug 7 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

PerV,

First, congrats on the original debate. You argued your case most effectively.

I would like to address a particular case of objective reality - that being the observer itself. As you stated, an object can validate itself as objectively real, and this applies to any observer.

Thus, cogito, ergo sum, and I validate my self as objectively real to myself. "I" exist.

Now, what do "I" exist in/as? Assuming a state of existential isolation, there must still be a matrix of something within which "I" must exist and which comprises "I". "I" cannot be made up of nothing, and something cannot exist within nothing. Without knowing what this matrix of something is, by the fact "I" exist, I also know this other something exists.

So, in that sense, I know an objective reality does exist, I simply do not know what it is. This does not mean this reality is abstract (i.e. not concrete) simply unknown as to what it is, and perhaps unknowable in that regard.

I understand, but think you made one leap too far. By proving existence of thought we do not prove the existence of objective reality. We objectively prove the existence of thought. Objectively proving the existence of thought does not translate into objectively proving objective reality. We can be objective within the confines of subjectivity, which is all humans are capable of doing. We are never objective, however, we can synthesize objectivity. This does not make us objective. Neither does it make the synthesized objectivity truly objective. It is, however, the best we can do.

Marabod makes the fallicy of believing that this is an either/or proposition. That we either have objectivity or we have nothing. This is simply silliness. Within the range of what is subjective are millions of options. Some options are infinitely more accurate and practical than others. The idea that all subjective thought is equal is simply absurd. Of course there are varying degrees of accuracy to all subjective thought. Here is the key! The subjective thought that recognizes itself for what it truly is will be far more accurate than subjective thought that masquerades as objective when it is not. Why people find this so hard to comprehend is beyond me.


.


#54    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,453 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 08 August 2009 - 07:44 PM

 PerVirtuous, on Aug 8 2009, 05:48 PM, said:

I understand, but think you made one leap too far. By proving existence of thought we do not prove the existence of objective reality. We objectively prove the existence of thought. Objectively proving the existence of thought does not translate into objectively proving objective reality. We can be objective within the confines of subjectivity, which is all humans are capable of doing. We are never objective, however, we can synthesize objectivity. This does not make us objective. Neither does it make the synthesized objectivity truly objective. It is, however, the best we can do.

Marabod makes the fallicy of believing that this is an either/or proposition. That we either have objectivity or we have nothing. This is simply silliness. Within the range of what is subjective are millions of options. Some options are infinitely more accurate and practical than others. The idea that all subjective thought is equal is simply absurd. Of course there are varying degrees of accuracy to all subjective thought. Here is the key! The subjective thought that recognizes itself for what it truly is will be far more accurate than subjective thought that masquerades as objective when it is not. Why people find this so hard to comprehend is beyond me.


.

Something cannot exist in a vacuum of nothing. Thought is something, and must be supported by some medium in which it exists. My identity is also something. This identity may be the matrix within which my thoughts are generated (and is likely to be), but what is the matrix within which my identity exists?

Baically, I reason that, once we prove the identity of self exists (through self-evidence) then we know there must be an objective something which is the medium in which that identity is generated/exists. This medium may not be 'material' in the sense of matter, it may be an energetic matrix - but it is still a medium of something.

Quote

The subjective thought that recognizes itself

I am not suggesting the self is thought. In stating cogito, "I" acknowledge the recognition of thoughts and that an identity (I) exists and is experiencing them. It would be an error of composition to then conclude that "I" am my thoughts. I have given a lot of thought to Descartes proposition, and cannot reason that he was inferring we are simply the sum of our thoughts. The structure of the proposition (I think, therefore I am) does not support that view.

This identity is what is objectively validated in my proposal, not the thoughts the identity has.

Edited by Leonardo, 08 August 2009 - 08:14 PM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#55    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,940 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • Dysfunctional you can fix, ******** can't be.

Posted 08 August 2009 - 07:53 PM

 Leonardo, on Aug 8 2009, 12:44 PM, said:

Something cannot exist in a vacuum of nothing. Thought is something, and must be supported by some medium in which it exists. My identity is also something. This identity may be the matrix within which my thoughts are generated (and is likely to be), but what is the matrix within which my identity exists?

Baically, I reason that, once we prove the identity of self exists (through self-evidence) then we know there must be an objective something which is the medium in which that identity is generated. This medium may not be 'material' in the sense of matter, it may be an energetic matrix - but it is still a medium of something.



I am not suggesting the self is thought. In stating cogito, "I" acknowledge the recognition of thoughts and that an identity (I) exists and is experiencing them. It would be an error of composition to then conclude that "I" am my thoughts. I have given a lot of thought to Descartes proposition, and cannot reason that he was inferring we are simply the sum of our thoughts. The structure of the proposition (I think, therefore I am) does not support that view.

This identity is what is objectively validated in my proposal, not the thoughts the identity has.

then what is self? if not thought?




#56    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,940 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • Dysfunctional you can fix, ******** can't be.

Posted 08 August 2009 - 08:59 PM

 PerVirtuous, on Aug 8 2009, 09:48 AM, said:

I understand, but think you made one leap too far. By proving existence of thought we do not prove the existence of objective reality. We objectively prove the existence of thought. Objectively proving the existence of thought does not translate into objectively proving objective reality. We can be objective within the confines of subjectivity, which is all humans are capable of doing. We are never objective, however, we can synthesize objectivity. This does not make us objective. Neither does it make the synthesized objectivity truly objective. It is, however, the best we can do.

Marabod makes the fallicy of believing that this is an either/or proposition. That we either have objectivity or we have nothing. This is simply silliness. Within the range of what is subjective are millions of options. Some options are infinitely more accurate and practical than others. The idea that all subjective thought is equal is simply absurd. Of course there are varying degrees of accuracy to all subjective thought. Here is the key! The subjective thought that recognizes itself for what it truly is will be far more accurate than subjective thought that masquerades as objective when it is not. Why people find this so hard to comprehend is beyond me.


.


well, how do you prove subjectivity as you are defining it? therein lies the key....

Edited by S♥ ♥ ♥, 08 August 2009 - 09:11 PM.




#57    MARAB0D

MARAB0D

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 11,055 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 August 2009 - 07:47 AM

:sleepy:


#58    PerVirtuous

PerVirtuous

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 376 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2009
  • Location:Maine

  • The universe is under no obligation to obey our descriptions or expectations of it.

Posted 09 August 2009 - 01:44 PM

 Leonardo, on Aug 8 2009, 03:44 PM, said:

Something cannot exist in a vacuum of nothing. Thought is something, and must be supported by some medium in which it exists. My identity is also something. This identity may be the matrix within which my thoughts are generated (and is likely to be), but what is the matrix within which my identity exists?

Baically, I reason that, once we prove the identity of self exists (through self-evidence) then we know there must be an objective something which is the medium in which that identity is generated/exists. This medium may not be 'material' in the sense of matter, it may be an energetic matrix - but it is still a medium of something.

So far, so good.



Quote

I am not suggesting the self is thought. In stating cogito, "I" acknowledge the recognition of thoughts and that an identity (I) exists and is experiencing them. It would be an error of composition to then conclude that "I" am my thoughts. I have given a lot of thought to Descartes proposition, and cannot reason that he was inferring we are simply the sum of our thoughts. The structure of the proposition (I think, therefore I am) does not support that view.

This identity is what is objectively validated in my proposal, not the thoughts the identity has.

Agreed. It is the action of thinking which proves an entity exists. No problem with that. How that proves that there is a singular reality that is the same for all observers is what I question. There is no evidence that the universe is so. There is plenty of evidence that people with the same basic genetic makeup will agree about how things appear. Confusing that with how things actually are is being arrogant and conceited. Why should we ever believe that the way we perceive things is the way they are? All we can objectively say is that is how they appear. That is hardly the same.






.


#59    PerVirtuous

PerVirtuous

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 376 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2009
  • Location:Maine

  • The universe is under no obligation to obey our descriptions or expectations of it.

Posted 09 August 2009 - 01:46 PM

 S♥ ♥ ♥, on Aug 8 2009, 04:59 PM, said:

well, how do you prove subjectivity as you are defining it? therein lies the key....



So, you are able to accept the existence of objectivity based on the fabulous logic "It just is" but you find subjectivity difficult to prove? I think you have lost the plot.




.


#60    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,453 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 09 August 2009 - 03:50 PM

 PerVirtuous, on Aug 9 2009, 02:44 PM, said:

So far, so good.

Agreed. It is the action of thinking which proves an entity exists. No problem with that. How that proves that there is a singular reality that is the same for all observers is what I question. There is no evidence that the universe is so. There is plenty of evidence that people with the same basic genetic makeup will agree about how things appear. Confusing that with how things actually are is being arrogant and conceited. Why should we ever believe that the way we perceive things is the way they are? All we can objectively say is that is how they appear. That is hardly the same.

There are, I reason, 3 possibilities.

1) One entity existing in, and comprising, a singular, objective and subjective, reality (itself).

2) Multiple entities existing within a single, objective, reality.

3) Multiple entities existing within multiple, subjective, realities.

I rule out the possibility of multiple, objective realities on the basis of the impossibility of any of these independent realities being able to interact. Such a scenario might exist, but the consequence would be identical to possibilty 1) above for each observer.

In scenario 1) it is true that this singular objective reality exists for all observers, likewise scenario 2).

Scenario 3) can only exist if we cannot conclude an objective reality exists. We can conclude this - even if it can only be shown for each observer, not all observers. I exist so there is something within which I exist. This something cannot be subjective, because it is not defined by my existence but is a necessary requirement of my existence. I know that it exists as I know I exist.

Hence a singular, objective, reality exists for all observers. I consider 2) to be the more likely, but we cannot say 1) is not the reality that exists.

Edited by Leonardo, 09 August 2009 - 03:57 PM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users