Duality Becoming-Time

@Frank Apisa,

The understanding of which I speak requires a "self" such as yours is to observe and admit its inconsistencies without any attempt at rationalization. Observe, for example "the Frank" who decided never to show up here again versus the current one. Those "Franks" defined social events differently ! It is but a short step to realize that such differential interpretation of all events is the norm, and interpretive rules/regularities exist only to the extent that human observers have common physiology, language and purposes.

Ah....but can you admit it ? Can you see the self as an inconsistent "it" ?
Is it prepared to throw away "the achievements of self" (that published letter to the newspaper...that golfing prowess..etc) as social ephemera ? As Shakespeare put it, "there's the rub" !

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

..ze Germans and ze French blame the Greeks for promoting "vision" as a privileged sense. (Note the Greek origin of the word "theory". As an everyday word, theoria, θεωρία, meant "a looking at, viewing, beholding"). Wittgenstein and the French post-structuralists are at pains to point out that they are not advocating an ontological or epistemological theory, rather they are seeking to expose our covert conditioned theoretical assumptions. (i.e those concepts which the Franks of this world consider "absurd to question").

1 Reply

@fresco,

Nice try, Fresco...but there is a huge difference between "understanding" an event...and an event. The assertion with which I took issue that started this interesting conversation spoke of event...not observation of an event.

Question or two if I may:

Can there be "an event" without an observer?

Does the observation of an observer impact all events?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Once again, Fresco, I am not trying to insult this belief system of yours...just trying to get you to see that it is there.

0 Replies

@fresco,

To me, "absurd to question" sounds very similar to "self evident". I wish people would consider why some things appear self evident.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

..but there is a huge difference between "understanding" an event...and an event.

Is there? Can you explain the difference?
I think it may be that we only believe there is a huge difference.

Quote:

Can there be "an event" without an observer?

No. Quantum physics indicates that 'observation' is a vital part in the occurrence of any event. Observation is what makes all potential realities collapse into the definite one. Does this mean that there had to be some grand observer for reality to happen in the first place? Or does it simply mean that there is an observer quality to the universe itself?
I don't know. But I know that there has to be observation in order for any event to occur.

Quote:

Does the observation of an observer impact all events?

Observation is an event. As such it will impact what it interacts with.
But does observation imply 'observer'?
For all we know, 'observer' is merely a congregation of observations.

1 Reply

Quote:

You have repeatedly asserted that without an observer...there cannot be an event.

That's Subjective idealism.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5094564)
Quote:
..but there is a huge difference between "understanding" an event...and an event.

Is there? Can you explain the difference?
I think it may be that we only believe there is a huge difference.

I do not do "believing", Cyracuz, so if any is going on between us, you are doing it.

An "event" is an event. "Understanding it" is understanding it.

Huge difference.

There is a huge difference between reacting to an event...and an event. "An event" is an event..."reacting to it" is reacting to it.

Huge difference.

There is a huge difference between a movie...and going to see a movie. A "movie" is a movie..."going to see a movie" is going to see a movie.

Huge difference.

If you truly do not see those things...I am not sure I can adequately explain it to you.

Quote:

No. Quantum physics indicates that 'observation' is a vital part in the occurrence of any event.

Quantum physics does no such thing. You are distorting the observer effect beyond recognition.

Quote:

Observation is what makes all potential realities collapse into the definite one. Does this mean that there had to be some grand observer for reality to happen in the first place? Or does it simply mean that there is an observer quality to the universe itself?
I don't know. But I know that there has to be observation in order for any event to occur.

I seriously doubt you know that, but I accept that you guess that...or "believe" it if you prefer.

Quote:

Observation is an event.

Fine. And the event being observed is an event also.

Does there have to be an observer of the observer in order for the observation to be an event in this world you are describing? And does there have to be an observer of that observer for that event to be an event that the original observer observing the observed event...etc...back as far as the facing mirrors will allow?

Quote:

As such it will impact what it interacts with.

In some instances observation will impact on what is being observed. That is not a universal truth or a religious dogma.

Quote:

But does observation imply 'observer'?
For all we know, 'observer' is merely a congregation of observations.

This is not my religion. You gotta tell me.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Here's one for you to consider Frank. There are several versions of Rodrigo's Guitar Concerto where the climatic passage is played differently by changing the period of silence between chord crescendos.( I can in fact identify the guitarist from this aspect of the piece). The questions suggested by this are these:

1. Does the "silence" constitute "the event"?
2. Does my interpretation of it constitute "the event" ?
3. Where do the boundaries of "the event" lie ?

Now without reverting to your high school rhetoric of hiding behind one liners like "belief systems" or "an event is an event" lets see if you actually have the ability to consider those questions intelligently with respect to the issue of the involvement of an observer. Experience of your responses suggests you do not have that ability, so here's your chance to redeem yourself.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Experience of your responses suggests you do not have that ability, so here's your chance to redeem yourself.

The last thing in the world I have to do, Fresco, is to redeem myself. I have nothing to redeem myself from. I cannot fathom, except for your ego, that you think anyone here has to redeem him/herself.

Quote:

1. Does the "silence" constitute "the event"?
2. Does my interpretation of it constitute "the event" ?
3. Where do the boundaries of "the event" lie ?

The only thing that can be said about this that makes any sense is the tautology of...whatever the event is...the event is.

My interpretation of the event...and your interpretation of the event...are just that, our interpretations of the event. They may be correct…they may be way off base.

I do not know where the boundaries of "the event" lie...I do not even know that there are boundaries. But I am willing to acknowledge that.

It appears you do not know either, but you seem to be, to put it kindly, reluctant to acknowledge that.

There is the POSSIBILITY that everything we call reality is an illusion of a single mind...with no events whatever...and no real observers. That is one of many possibilities.

I acknowledge that there is that possibility...just as I acknowledge that there may be gods involved in the REALITY or that there may be no gods.

You, on the other hand, insist that only one of the possibilities (the possibility you choose) is the correct one--just as some theists and hard atheists insist that only one of the possibilities (the possibility they choose) is the correct one.

I am trying to help you correct that intellectual defect, Fresco. Like with my theistic and hard atheistic friends, you are fighting it with a blatant disregard for logic.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Alas no redemption then ! Laughing

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Alas no redemption then !

If you truly feel you need to be redeemed, Fresco, go for it. But I honestly do not think you do. See your Laughing

and raise you Laughing

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Funny you should use that expression, by the way. Christians always seem to be preoccupied with redemption...and redeemers.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

"An event" is an event..."reacting to it" is reacting to it.

Let's stick to 'understanding an event' which was the first thing you said.
My point in asking if there really is a difference was this: That there is a difference between an event and what we perceive when we observe it is an assumption. One that has been understood as self-evident for years and years. But we have reason to question it now.
The point is that your contention that there is a huge difference between an event and understanding an event is a belief. If you claim to know this, you are claiming more than anybody can prove.

The fact that it may even be true doesn't matter. We have no means of verifying it either way, which means that we do not know.
All knowledge ultimately rests on belief.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Let's stick to 'understanding an event' which was the first thing you said.

How is that “the first thing” I said???

Quote:

My point in asking if there really is a difference was this: That there is a difference between an event and what we perceive when we observe it is an assumption.

Ummm...you are making a reasonable point here, Cyracuz. I will comment on why I say that in my further reply.

Quote:

The point is that your contention that there is a huge difference between an event and understanding an event is abelief. If you claim to know this, you are claiming more than anybody can prove.

I will accept that my wording was incorrect…and I thank you for pointing that out. I should have worded it, “There MAY BE a huge difference.”

Quote:

The fact that it may even be true doesn't matter. We have no means of verifying it either way, which means that we do not know.

I agree with you here completely. I was wrong in what I said earlier that there is a huge difference. But I stand by the assertion that there MAY BE a huge difference…in contrast to those who claim they are the same. It MAY BE that they are the same…but it MAY BE that there is a huge difference.

Quote:

All knowledge ultimately rests on belief.

I disagree...but I certainly am willing to listen to your arguments for this being the case.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I agree that there may be a huge difference between an event and understanding an event. I think that there are other ways to look at it which make more sense, but I guess that's a matter of taste and preference.

What I mean with 'all knowledge ultimately rests on belief' is that behind the last string of facts there is an initial assumption. Something we cannot know, but which is assumed or considered self-evident. While these assumptions may not have direct influence on the facts we find, they matter in how we interpret those facts.

(Had to edit because I accidentally hit the go button before I was done.)

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Do you agree that without a definer there cannot be a definition? I think this is relevant in that to be meaningful an experience must be interpreted. This is another way of saying that events depend for their meaning on (defining ) observers. No thing or event comes with its meaning attached/intrinsic/intact. Remember the guy who wondered how astronomers discovered the names of the planets?

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Rather than answer your first question, I will comment on the assertion you made in your fourth sentence. (I'll also comment on the question.)

Quote:

No thing or event comes with its meaning attached/intrinsic/intact.

That is an assertion much like "there are no gods." How does one even begin to show evidence for it?

There is the possibility that "no thing or event" comes with its meaning attached/intrinsic/intact...but there also is the possibility that EVERY thing or event comes with its meaning attached/intrinsic/intact. Obviously, there also is the possibility that SOME things or events come with meanings attached/intrinsic/attached and SOME that do not.

Your question also resembles something from Christian theology.

Quote:

Do you agree that without a definer there cannot be a definition?

It resembles Christianity's, "Do you agree that there cannot be a creation without a creator?"

It is a play on words, as I see it.

Even if we were to grant that there cannot be a creation without a creator...and cannot be a definition without a definer...we've really not done much but inform of a useless tautology. (Not all are useless, but these two seem to be, in my opinion.)

Remember the guy who wondered why our most famous presidents were born on holidays?

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

I agree that there may be a huge difference between an event and understanding an event. I think that there are other ways to look at it which make more sense, but I guess that's a matter of taste and preference.

I agree it probably is a matter of taste and preference...and perhaps a bit of logic as seem from our individual perspectives.

My feeling is that there is a huge difference between an event and the understanding of an event...just as there is a huge difference between a painting and individual appreciation of the painting.

Quote:

What I mean with 'all knowledge ultimately rests on belief' is that behind the last string of facts there is an initial assumption. Something we cannot know, but which is assumed or considered self-evident. While these assumptions may not have direct influence on the facts we find, they matter in how we interpret those facts.

I honestly am still trying to understand your position here, Cyracuz. Let me give you two examples of "knowledge"...and tell me what I am missing about the "belief" upon which it is based.

1) An infant gains knowledge about "hot, hot" by being scalded by a boiling pot of water accidentally knocked off a stove under which it is crawling...or by having its pajamas catch on fire by brushing up against a candle burning on a birthday cake.

2) Gaining knowledge about the pain a hammer to the kneecap can produce when a nail fixing a shingle on the siding of a summer home is too forcefully applied.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

What is the difference between the child "knowing" fire can hurt, and the theist "knowing" that prayers can be answered ? Between those examples lie the infinity of things we might claim "to know" and often there is nothing more than "belief" of "social agreement" which justifies use of the word "know", since expectancy is infrequently 100% even in physics. Appeals to "reality" merely beg the question of how we know what reality is.

1 Reply

Duality Becoming-Time

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know