1
   

Non-locality.

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 12:54 pm
Cyracuz wrote:
frank wrote:
Quote:
Fact is...maybe REALITY is completely independent of anyone's (supposed) observation of it



Well, that is hard to know, but the article linked to the initial post seems to back that notion.

So does the ancient hindu statement that everything is illution.

What I find interesting is how we (humans) keep coming up with new ways to confirm our reality, and time and again it is the same reality we unmask.

Goes to show the subjectivity of our experience. Maybe when two humans experiences the same reality it's just because the two individuals experiencing are so similar...


I'm not sure of your point here.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 01:38 pm
My point is that I believe reality to be completely independent of anyone's observation of it.

But first it may be practical to mention that the term reality has some different meanings. There is the reality we can sense. Then there is the reality we can know only though abstract manipulation of sensoral input.

The entire reason for debates such as this, as I see it, is this duality in the very term reality.

It is what has caused us to doubt the truth of the world we sense.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 01:40 pm
Frank,

Re: my "playing golf with a football" applies equally to "fact" as "guess".
At the sub-atomic level in particular. "facts" are negotiable. Non-locality( the collapse of seperation in space) is a direct consequence of saving Einsteins dictum that "nothing travels faster than light"...nobody wishes to give this up hence apparantly seperate particles are deemed to be "entangled" otherwise they would be "communicating instantly" in breach of special relativity.

Cyracuz,

I spoke to Fred Loebinger (atomic physicist) recently who gave me the impression that many were awaiting completion of more powerful accelerators for confirmation of theoretical postulates such as those in m-theory. There is an inverse correlation between the size of the particle under investigation and the acceleration required (ditto the cash to do it !).
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 01:55 pm
I think they're building one in Switzerland, wich is still a little small, but it will enable experiments that may or may not confirm the validity of M theory.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 01:57 pm
I think they're building one in Switzerland, wich is still a little small, but it will enable experiments that may or may not confirm the validity of M theory.

I found it here, along with pretty much everything else I know about M theory, wich is not much, I suspect. But it is a facinating theory.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 02:16 pm
Cyeacuz,

Nice link !
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 02:51 pm
Cyracuz wrote:
My point is that I believe reality to be completely independent of anyone's observation of it.


Interesting guess about the REALITY...but I still don't see how it fits into what I was saying.

Quote:

But first it may be practical to mention that the term reality has some different meanings. There is the reality we can sense. Then there is the reality we can know only though abstract manipulation of sensoral input.


I am always talking about the REALITY...

...what actually is...

...whether we puny creatures have even the slightest incling of what it is or not.

Frankly...my guess is...and it is just a guess...the REALITY is as different from all the speculation and guessing being done here in this thread...as is the sensory pseudo-reality of an ant as determined by its environment from the actual reality of its environment.


Quote:

The entire reason for debates such as this, as I see it, is this duality in the very term reality.

It is what has caused us to doubt the truth of the world we sense.


Yup...I guess. Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Jun, 2006 02:55 pm
fresco wrote:
Frank,

Re: my "playing golf with a football" applies equally to "fact" as "guess".
At the sub-atomic level in particular. "facts" are negotiable.



Interesting speculation on the part of today's scientists. But the first thought that comes to my mind when considering it...is that earlier scientists were just as sure that the sun was carried around the Earth by a charioteer.


Quote:

Non-locality( the collapse of seperation in space) is a direct consequence of saving Einsteins dictum that "nothing travels faster than light"...nobody wishes to give this up hence apparantly seperate particles are deemed to be "entangled" otherwise they would be "communicating instantly" in breach of special relativity.


Can't comment on this. I am neither learned enough nor intelligent enough to say anything worthwhile about it...other than...

...beware being too sure of anything this nebulous.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 04:07 am
frank wrote:
Quote:
Interesting guess about the REALITY...but I still don't see how it fits into what I was saying.


First, that I agree with you that these are all guesses.

I then wanted to bring attention to the fact that sometimes widely different methods of "guessing" can come up with surprisingly similar results.

Meditation, science, philosophy or religion. They all paint pretty much the same picture to my eyes, and whatever angle you chose to throw your weight in with is the one that lies closest to what you yourself is inclined to believe in.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 11:45 am
Cyracuz wrote:
I guess it implies that causality refers to the inner workings of this "single entity", to imagined parts of the whole phenomena. It tells us that things are not neccesarily happening in the order we experience them. Since we judge our reality by measuring the effect of things, we cannot see anything but reflections. The world is painted for our senses, but also by our senses.

Or it could mean that very very tiny things act in ways that we wouldn't expect much larger things to act.

Cyracuz wrote:
So we have a choice, in defining our own reality. We can decide how we will appear, and what aspects we lay emphasis on will determine what is real to us.

To a very limited extent, I think that's true. But, in practice, we have little "choice" in determining how reality appears to us. Indeed, those who exercise the most "choice" with regard to their versions of reality are frequently (and justifiably) regarded as insane.

Cyracuz wrote:
Reality is a sort of mutual agreement.

I think that's a much more accurate statement.

Cyracuz wrote:
Also, I think it is in agreement with the ancient hindu wisdom that everything is illution, meaning that there is only this singularity wich we percieve in pieces.

That, on the other hand, doesn't make any sense.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 01:11 pm
Joe

I'm interested to see you concur with "reality" as "consensus".

Cyracuz's remarks on on the Hindu concept of "illusion" can surely be compared with Einstein's own words "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Although Einstein does not seem to have had an esoteric concept of unity of observer and observed, he certainly did stress the relativity of observations to their observers which seems but a short step from their inseparability.
Also,we need to wary of phrases like "making sense" with this sort of material.
To repeat a quote from the theologian/physicist Polkinghorne:"

"Do not make common sense the measure of everything but be prepared to recognise aspects of reality in those modes that are intrinsic to their natures, however strange these modes may at first sight seem to be'. There is not one single, simple way in which we can know everything; there is no universal epistemology. …………One way of dealing with these seeming perplexities is to recognise that in the quantum world those little logical words `and' and `or' have different properties to those that they possess in everyday discourse. It turns out that quantum mechanically, you can mix together possibilities, like `being here' and `being there', that we normally think of as being mutually exclusive of each other"

I obviously bring this up in the light of our previous "discussions" of logic. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 01:33 pm
Cyracuz wrote:
frank wrote:
Quote:
Interesting guess about the REALITY...but I still don't see how it fits into what I was saying.


First, that I agree with you that these are all guesses.

I then wanted to bring attention to the fact that sometimes widely different methods of "guessing" can come up with surprisingly similar results.

Meditation, science, philosophy or religion. They all paint pretty much the same picture to my eyes, and whatever angle you chose to throw your weight in with is the one that lies closest to what you yourself is inclined to believe in.


Well let's say I agree with this...(which I do not completely)...but let's just say that I do...

...I would argue the picture they paint, then, must be that we honestly do not know what the REALITY is...although it is fun to make guesses about it.

Almost all of the folks here like to make their guesses the salient aspect of discussion. I prefer to highlight the "I do not know."
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 03:38 pm
I agree, and have stated so before, with Frank's vacuous notion of Reality as that which is the case, whatever it may be. AND I agree with Frank that we have no INTELLECTUAL notion of reality enjoys the stature of CERTAINTY. I suppose that's what Frank means by "guesswork." My problem with Frank's insistence on the ubiquity of "guesswork" is that it demotes so much that it is more than mere guesswork--even if it is not certain--to the rank of a moral equivalence of junk food. There is, of course, the wild guess, then the educated guess, then there are mystical and philosophical (aha!) intuitions, and theoretical speculations only some of which are (scientific) testable/falsifiable hypotheses. The latter are in a sense "guesses" deduced from extant theory or creatively conjured out of who knows what. But they are generally considered more like gourmet cooking as opposed to Frank's junk food guesses. I would give the same rank to many philosophical and mystical intuitions.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 03:39 pm
As for:

Quote:



So we have a choice, in defining our own reality. We can decide how we will appear, and what aspects we lay emphasis on will determine what is real to us.


So long as you do not confuse "one's own reality" with REALITY…I guess this is okay. But it doesn't really say anything.


Quote:
Reality is a sort of mutual agreement.


Interesting guess…although my guess is that you are wrong.

I guess REALITY to be independent of any individual considerations about it…and of any agreements humans might make about it.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 05:02 pm
It is possible to argue that this REALITY is so abstract that it has no real referencepoint in our daily lives. To talk of it in the context of what actions we need to perform in our daily lives, REALITY seems a pretty irrelevant thing. Most of the time it is our subjective experience that matters, and even indications of this real REALITY comes through that very experience.

So maybe REALITY is a concept as lofty and fleeting as the concept of GOD. (?)
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 05:12 pm
As for…


JLNobody wrote:
I agree, and have stated so before, with Frank's vacuous notion of Reality as that which is the case, whatever it may be.


You can take that word "vacuous" and shove it where the sun doesn't shine!

I do not know the nature of REALITY. It is obvious you do not either…but I have the ethics, honesty, and courage to acknowledge that I do not know. You do not. You are trying to pretend that you acknowledge it…but you qualify and bullshyt about it so much, you effectively are denying it.


Quote:
AND I agree with Frank that we have no INTELLECTUAL notion of reality enjoys the stature of CERTAINTY.


It is fairly obvious that you have no idea whatsoever about the true nature of REALITY…so stop trying to pretend you can use word play to evade that truth.


Quote:
I suppose that's what Frank means by "guesswork."


By guesswork, I mean guesswork.

You are guessing about the nature of REALITY, JL.


Quote:
My problem with Frank's insistence on the ubiquity of "guesswork" is that it demotes so much that it is more than mere guesswork--even if it is not certain--to the rank of a moral equivalence of junk food.


It does nothing of the sort. But you are trying to cast it in as bad a light as possible, because you truly cannot stomach simply acknowledging that you do not know the crap you pretend to know…to whatever degree you qualify it.


Quote:

There is, of course, the wild guess, then the educated guess, then there are mystical and philosophical (aha!) intuitions, and theoretical speculations only some of which are (scientific) testable/falsifiable hypotheses. The latter are in a sense "guesses" deduced from extant theory or creatively conjured out of who knows what. But they are generally considered more like gourmet cooking as opposed to Frank's junk food guesses. I would give the same rank to many philosophical and mystical intuitions.


What you want to do, JL…is to defend your belief system….and pretend, as do so many defenders of so many other belief systems, that it is something other than a belief system…something other than mere guesswork.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 05:19 pm
Cyracuz wrote:
It is possible to argue that this REALITY is so abstract that it has no real referencepoint in our daily lives. To talk of it in the context of what actions we need to perform in our daily lives, REALITY seems a pretty irrelevant thing. Most of the time it is our subjective experience that matters, and even indications of this real REALITY comes through that very experience.

So maybe REALITY is a concept as lofty and fleeting as the concept of GOD. (?)


Cyracuz...REALITY is WHAT IS.

Whatever the REALITY of existence IS...it IS...regardless of any human guesses about it.

We can guess there are gods involved; we can guess there are no gods; we can guess a dualistic or non-dualistic essence; we can guess solipsism; we can guess continued life; we can guess nothing after death; we can guess reincarnation; we can guess past-life retrieval...we can guess any damn thing we want to guess.

Each guesser seems eventually to formulate a belief system...and then talk about the belief system as though imparting knowledge of the truth.

That essentially is what JL and Fresco are doing here; what Edgarblythe and Blatham do when discussing their atheism; what the Christians do when discussing their Bible...and so on.

This is really not all that difficult.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 05:45 pm
Quote:
You can take that word "vacuous" and shove it where the sun doesn't shine!


Well, in light of information provided in this very thread, we cannot be sure exactly where that is... Smile


Quote:
Whatever the REALITY of existence IS...it IS...regardless of any human guesses about it.


Maybe it's me, but I cannot understand this in any other way than agreement to the previous statement. I like to dress it up a bit is all...

Quote:
We can guess there are gods involved; we can guess there are no gods; we can guess a dualistic or non-dualistic essence; we can guess solipsism; we can guess continued life; we can guess nothing after death; we can guess reincarnation; we can guess past-life retrieval...we can guess any damn thing we want to guess.


Indeed. I thought that was the point of these discussions. Journeys into the abstract. Sometimes JL takes me places I've never been, and recently fresco has helped me open a whole new well of ideas for me to explore.

Quote:
Each guesser seems eventually to formulate a belief system...and then talk about the belief system as though imparting knowledge of the truth.


In general I find no real reason to distinguish the information conveyed to me by another human being from the info conveyed by any other force of nature.

From the viewpoint "we cannot truly know", to say that a rock; while acting for all the world as though it knows what it's about, to say that this rock is really just guessing is just as reasonable as stating the same about a human beings.
A human and a rock are equal in that they are both experiences conveyed by my senses. When it comes to the great difference in complexity in the two expreriences that is merely a matter of degree.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 05:50 pm
Don't be so sensitive, Frank. I didn't say YOU were vacuous, I said the very notion of Reality--since it includes EVERYTHING (an absolute plentitude) and NOTHING in particular--is conceptually vacuous.
You feel a compulsion to be snotty even when others are agreeing with you? Hmm.

BTW, I put the word, vacuous where the sun doesn't shine: in my safety deposit box.

Also, Frank, you said it is "obvious" that I am guessing. Are you saying that you are not guessing about my guessing?
Gasp, you're deep.

We shouldn't be so silly in the context of Cyracuz' very intelligent and serious comments.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jun, 2006 06:10 pm
Cyracuz wrote:
Quote:
You can take that word "vacuous" and shove it where the sun doesn't shine!


Well, in light of information provided in this very thread, we cannot be sure exactly where that is... Smile


Quote:
Whatever the REALITY of existence IS...it IS...regardless of any human guesses about it.


Maybe it's me, but I cannot understand this in any other way than agreement to the previous statement. I like to dress it up a bit is all...

Quote:
We can guess there are gods involved; we can guess there are no gods; we can guess a dualistic or non-dualistic essence; we can guess solipsism; we can guess continued life; we can guess nothing after death; we can guess reincarnation; we can guess past-life retrieval...we can guess any damn thing we want to guess.


Indeed. I thought that was the point of these discussions. Journeys into the abstract. Sometimes JL takes me places I've never been, and recently fresco has helped me open a whole new well of ideas for me to explore.

Quote:
Each guesser seems eventually to formulate a belief system...and then talk about the belief system as though imparting knowledge of the truth.


In general I find no real reason to distinguish the information conveyed to me by another human being from the info conveyed by any other force of nature.

From the viewpoint "we cannot truly know", to say that a rock; while acting for all the world as though it knows what it's about, to say that this rock is really just guessing is just as reasonable as stating the same about a human beings.
A human and a rock are equal in that they are both experiences conveyed by my senses. When it comes to the great difference in complexity in the two expreriences that is merely a matter of degree.


Whatever.
0 Replies
 
 

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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Non-locality.
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/26/2021 at 05:27:04