zt09
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 10:33 am
I think, objective reality as reality existing independently of observer does not exist. To imagine this better we have to turn on abstract thinking Drunk . If our world (or another) can be described by math, and there are no reasons to think opposite, then OR is indeed Nothing because any mathematical equation can be reduced to zero. And this is Observer (imagine a non-zero variable) that by its mere existance becomes Point of perseption of Nothing so that Nothing (objective reality) becomes Something (subjective reality) for that observer. And we can go futher in our crazy logic and suppose that if Something exists in general - this is because the corresponding Observer exists that perceives it. So nothing cannot exist by itself. In case of our world Ourself is Observer and the universe is Subjective Reality.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 11:09 am
@zt09,
Yes, your argument is correct with the proviso that your use of the word "subjective" should not be predicated on a dichotomy subjective-objective. Rather, "subjectivity" implies a species specific perceptual mechanism actively coupled with elements of a common language. "Reality" therefore depends on consensus and that consensus is paradigmatic in terms of cultural history. In so far that "science" uses a relatively culture-free metalanguage (mathematics) we can account for "universal" concepts of aspects of reality.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jan, 2011 07:17 pm
@zt09,
zt09 wrote:

I think, objective reality as reality existing independently of observer does not exist. To imagine this better we have to turn on abstract thinking Drunk . If our world (or another) can be described by math, and there are no reasons to think opposite, then OR is indeed Nothing because any mathematical equation can be reduced to zero. And this is Observer (imagine a non-zero variable) that by its mere existance becomes Point of perseption of Nothing so that Nothing (objective reality) becomes Something (subjective reality) for that observer. And we can go futher in our crazy logic and suppose that if Something exists in general - this is because the corresponding Observer exists that perceives it. So nothing cannot exist by itself. In case of our world Ourself is Observer and the universe is Subjective Reality.


the thing is though , the essence of mathematics DEPENDS on the object existing in the first place

fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 12:54 am
@north,
Quote:
the essence of mathematics DEPENDS on the object existing in the first place


No it doesn't ! Pure mathematics is in the first place about abstract entities.
(e.g. the square root of -1, or non-Euclidean geometry). It turns out that some of these abstract models are found to be useful in hypothesis formation and prediction in science (for example, the "existence" of sub-atomic particles is predicted by the symmetry of group theory). Mathematics does not describe an objective world: it is sets of alternative spectacles through which we sometimes actively perceive and classify "data" from which we construct a "predictable world".
zt09
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 05:45 am
@north,
Quote:
the thing is though , the essence of mathematics DEPENDS on the object existing in the first place


What is the object mathematics depends on? Mathematics is pure logic and absolute truth. It is self-sufficient matter. That's why science works.
0 Replies
 
zt09
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 06:08 am
@fresco,
Quote:
Mathematics does not describe an objective world.


Why not? If Mathematics is objective (and it is) then it should describe an objective world.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 08:37 am
@zt09,
Forget "objectivity" and talk about "consensus" and "what works". Think about the functional application of say, different geometries in quantum physics, or the "imaginary" roots of equations in electrical calculations. We are talking of projection of mathematical models, not "description".
0 Replies
 
the-thinkist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2011 10:19 am
@Cyracuz,
I'm reminded of a consensus reached by a scientific conference a few years back that "Photons are clicks in photon-detectors". Scientists seem very happy to assume objective reality to macroscopic objects such as photon-detectors, but less so with much simpler-to-describe entities such as photons. Smile
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Mar, 2011 10:17 am
@fresco,
Being mathematically naive (and very comfortably so) I should hesitate to take the following position (or maybe not): mathematics does not describe the so-called "objective" world any more than it provides a rigorous picture of the human mind. E=mc2 is a profound image of Einstein's mind.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Mar, 2011 12:22 pm
@JLNobody,
Mathematics consists of sets of symbols and the rules for their combination. All "images" involve representation of "pictured things" by such symbols.
Quite often no "picture" can be specified and this is probable in the case of "energy" (defined as "the capacity to do work"). Indeed much historical barking up the wrong tree occurred when energy in the form of heat was visualized as a "fluid" (phlogiston).
Interestingly, my recent reading of Rorty (Philosoophy and the Mrror of Nature) points out the limitations that might have befallen "Western Philosophy" due to its fixation with visual paradigms.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Mar, 2011 02:09 pm
@fresco,
Nietzsche, who probably inspired Richard Rorty's anti-foundationalism, was against all such fixations. He was, I'm proud to say, mathematically illerate.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Mar, 2011 02:09 pm
@fresco,
Nietzsche, who probably inspired Richard Rorty's anti-foundationalism, was against all such fixations. He was, I'm proud to say, mathematically illerate.
0 Replies
 
Rajashree
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2011 08:21 pm
@Cyracuz,
aren't scientists exploring the idea that WHAT IS is changed by being perceived? Or perhaps that it actually isn't unless it is perceived?

JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Mar, 2011 11:18 pm
@Rajashree,
Are you thinking of the Hiesenberg Principle or something more modern in contemporary physics?
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Apr, 2011 04:42 pm
@Rajashree,
Honestly, I am uncertain how far we can actually take it.

This is from wiki:
In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse is the phenomenon in which a wave function—initially in a superposition of several different possible eigenstates—appears to reduce to a single one of those states after interaction with an observer. In simplified terms, it is the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer.

The way I understand it, physical matter is superpositions that are reduced to a definite state, something that apparently requires an audience to happen.

Which raises the question of how physical matter could happen so that there was something for life to happen with, and somewhere for consciousness to grow, resulting in conscious observers.

It is not an overly troublesome issue, but I think its very entertaining to think on it.
zt09
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 03:50 pm
Why not? What has the slightest possibility to happen - will happen, in our world or another. What is logically correct - is all possible. Any world that can be described by logic has right to exist. Our world can be described by math (well, quite possibly), at least does not contradict to itself, so nothing extraordinary it does exist.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 03:58 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Honestly, I am uncertain how far we can actually take it.

This is from wiki:
In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse is the phenomenon in which a wave function—initially in a superposition of several different possible eigenstates—appears to reduce to a single one of those states after interaction with an observer. In simplified terms, it is the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer.

The way I understand it, physical matter is superpositions that are reduced to a definite state, something that apparently requires an audience to happen.

Which raises the question of how physical matter could happen so that there was something for life to happen with, and somewhere for consciousness to grow, resulting in conscious observers.

It is not an overly troublesome issue, but I think its very entertaining to think on it.


because life happens at lower energy state , than an electron for example

that is the difference between the micro and macro

micro - quantum - high energy state

macro - planet - low energy state , hence life
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 04:20 pm
@north,
Eh... Any life form that has a physical body exists both on the macro and micro level. Just because we percieve life at a macrocosmic level doesn't mean it doesn't happen at the sub atomic level. It does. The brain, for instance, operates on sub atomic scales.
north
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 04:28 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Eh... Any life form that has a physical body exists both on the macro and micro level. Just because we percieve life at a macrocosmic level doesn't mean it doesn't happen at the sub atomic level. It does. The brain, for instance, operates on sub atomic scales.


life at the micro level is an energy , not in a physical body form
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 May, 2011 04:29 pm
@north,
The macro level is only our perception. What we percieve on the macro level and what happens on the micro level are the same things.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/21/2021 at 11:46:31