Reality - thing or phenomenon?

@fresco,

Your case needs a rest.

Even is science was all about control, what is so bad with control?

You want to lose control, fresco? Why don't you abandon your house and all the modern confort and control over temperature, and light, and sound, and security, and food that science has given you? Why don't you go beg in the street, or go live in the desert, eating locusts like the true mystics of old would?

Because you don't care about any of this. You couldn't care less about contradicting yourself. Because this is all a game for you. A game of avoidance. A nihilist game.

Man is both the center of the universe, the ultimate "thinger", and an inexistent, irrelevant epiphenomenon.

Language is both the trancendent reality of things and a worthless currency in meanibgless exchanges.

And now science, which is both what you keep quoting again and again, and a futile search for control. A control which of course you won't let go other than 30 mn a day when you "meditate"...

I leave you to your contradictions.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, are you still asserting that you know without doubt that reality is not a phenomenon but is a thing and therefore reality is objective and not subjective?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Read Derrida. Contradictions are inevitable !
Smile

1 Reply

@fresco,

So you've got Derrida's blessing to make a fool of yourself? Wink

0 Replies

@fresco,

I would rather reason n say the fact that you have to mention the beard shows the clip is annoyingly good... Wink

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

The nature of rationality is indeed in the rationality of Nature... Cool

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

Frank, are you still asserting that you know without doubt that reality is not a phenomenon but is a thing and therefore reality is objective and not subjective?

I do not think I have ever asserted that. If you want to find a quote of mine...and ask if I still an of the same opinion...I will respond.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

So before the Big Bang...and for several billions of years after...there was NO existence???

It's not that simple.
We all like to refer to quantum physics, and how there's a law that says reality comes into being via observation. There is a small detail that belongs in that sentiment, which makes it a bit more sensible; a single electron can function as an observer. There is no need for sentient minds.

But it establishes the principle nonetheless. It is perhaps counter intuitive from the perspective of materialism, but the idea is that reality is what comes of sub atomic particles interacting in such a way that they are both observers and observed.
"Before" such an interaction, there isn't reality. There is potential reality, but it only comes into existence as a thing when interaction occurs. And it can even deteriorate, if it isn't continuously observed.

Of course, I have to admit that this isn't something I know about reality. It's a perspective, or perhaps a theory. Just so that's out of the way.

2 Replies

...The point being made is that phenomena are things to... Wink

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
So before the Big Bang...and for several billions of years after...there was NO existence???

It's not that simple.
We all like to refer to quantum physics, and how there's a law that says reality comes into being via observation.

Ahhh...but that may be only part of the truth...if it is true at all. I am of the opinion that we do not know everything...or even close to everything. At some point someone may "discover" a "law" that suggests no observation at all is necessary for REALITY.

I just want to leave that possibility open. Are you suggesting that we close that possibility?

Quote:

There is a small detail that belongs in that sentiment, which makes it a bit more sensible; a single electron can function as an observer. There is no need for sentient minds.

That certainly is a possibility...but the way you assert it with such certainty doesn't particularly sit well with me...so for me, the jury is still out.

Quote:

But it establishes the principle nonetheless. It is perhaps counter intuitive from the perspective of materialism, but the idea is that reality is what comes of sub atomic particles interacting in such a way that they are both observers and observed.

Same comment as above.

Quote:

"Before" such an interaction, there isn't reality. There is potential reality, but it only comes into existence as a thing when interaction occurs. And it can even deteriorate, if it isn't continuously observed.

Okay, but perhaps that is not really the way things are. There is, I'm sure you will acknowledge, that maybe this is all wrong.

Quote:

Of course, I have to admit that this isn't something I know about reality. It's a perspective, or perhaps a theory. Just so that's out of the way.

Aha! Now we are on the same page of the same book. It does look like a theory. Thank you for sharing it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Yes, there's a good chance it's all wrong. It might be worse, it might even be useless.
The principles from quantum physics are sound. They have been tested in labs, so there is a degree of certainty when we speak about waves and particles.

But when I use these ideas to speak of reality itself, I take it out of context, and so all certainty is out the window. We can only imagine and assume.

This is also the point I've argued about 'objectivity'. The concept is meaningful within a certain context, and to use it about reality itself is outside of that context.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

We all like to refer to quantum physics, and how there's a law that says reality comes into being via observation.

There's no such law in quantum physics. You must have misunderstood something.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I don't know if law is the right word. But I was referring to wave function collapse.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank, are you still asserting that you know without doubt that reality is not a phenomenon but is a thing and therefore reality is objective and not subjective?

I do not think I have ever asserted that. If you want to find a quote of mine...and ask if I still an of the same opinion...I will respond.

If I asserted it what would you disagree with?

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

Frank, are you still asserting that you know without doubt that reality is not a phenomenon but is a thing and therefore reality is objective and not subjective?

I do not think I have ever asserted that. If you want to find a quote of mine...and ask if I still an of the same opinion...I will respond.

If I asserted it what would you disagree with?

Rather than creating a hypothetical...go find something I have written with which you are in disagreement...and we can discuss it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Or, of course, actually assert it...and I will consider whether or not to respond...as will others.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Is reality objective or subjective?

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

As I understand it, quantum physics deals with the probability of observations NOT the probability of of existential entitities per se.
Entities are constructed/hypothesized as lying behind such observations and this is why the "Higgs Boson" data is so long in coming because the observational probabilities are low.
The central issue here is the observational role of the observer in actively defining the significance of "data". i.e There is no such thing as "observer independent data". (Those who doubt that should consider for example whether the number of hairs on their chest constituted "data" before I focussed their attention on such measurement . Wink

)

1 Reply

@igm,

You're asking the wrong person. Frank says he doesn't have belief, and all his opinions are guesses. He also says that reality is objective even though he doesn't have belief and only guesses.

He's very confused! LOL

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You're asking the wrong person. Frank says he doesn't have belief, and all his opinions are guesses. He also says that reality is objective even though he doesn't have belief and only guesses.

He's very confused! LOL

I don't disagree, I'm just checking that Frank is still saying reality is objective before I ask a few questions... he seems to have reverted in his last few posts to his other stance which as you say, is about guesses.

I'm still trying (third post) to find out.

0 Replies

Reality - thing or phenomenon?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know