Notices


Reply
Thread Tools
nthn's Avatar
Posts: 634 | Thanked: 2,308 times | Joined on Jun 2014
#81
Originally Posted by tortoisedoc View Post
the relativity theory!
Which one? Einstein's? That's only general relativity, and is only the least complex way to describe what we can observe, proving my point. Einstein's relativity has not been reconciled with quantum relativity, either. Also, physically defined as what exactly?

Either way, there is no proof whatsoever for any existence of causality outside of the mind (if it even exists inside the mind). Any other claim results in circular reasoning: causality exists because you can observe it, and you can observe causality because it exists. This doesn't mean causality can't exist independently of any observer, only that it would be foolish to assume that whatever you think is causality a) is causality, b) exists, independently or dependently. I do suggest to read up on the different theories on what causality could be like (foregoing whether it actually exists), and on how all of them suffer from unsolveable problems.

Just to make things clear, however: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX7CeTXoxyU
 

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to nthn For This Useful Post:
Posts: 559 | Thanked: 1,065 times | Joined on Jul 2012
#82
Originally Posted by nthn View Post
Which one? Einstein's? That's only general relativity, and is only the least complex way to describe what we can observe, proving my point. Einstein's relativity has not been reconciled with quantum relativity, either. Also, physically defined as what exactly?

Either way, there is no proof whatsoever for any existence of causality outside of the mind (if it even exists inside the mind). Any other claim results in circular reasoning: causality exists because you can observe it, and you can observe causality because it exists. This doesn't mean causality can't exist independently of any observer, only that it would be foolish to assume that whatever you think is causality a) is causality, b) exists, independently or dependently. I do suggest to read up on the different theories on what causality could be like (foregoing whether it actually exists), and on how all of them suffer from unsolveable problems.

Just to make things clear, however: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX7CeTXoxyU
So causality as such is absolute (in this Reality); like entropy.
Of course freedom pertains to Reality in the way we perceive it (=reality); so the reality that is visible to us is not Reality as such. But does it really matter?

The defying point lies in the observer, not in the Reality / reality; and in the capability to take a (final) decision based on the knowledge of the reality around himself (which btw is not mandatory, at all, note, as the observer might refuse to make a choice in the first place). Freedom is this silver line.

reality (with lowercase r) might induce the observer to choose the wrong; or he/she might be able to make the right choice (out of sheer luck); it does not matter, the choice is what sets him/her free.
In fact, even assuming he/she knows the right choice, he/she might still choose the wrong one, for no reason. Freedom is a quantic effect; a Schrödringer-Cat.

Edit: And just to be clear : https://www.youtube.com/embed/UmzsWxPLIOo
__________________
BWizz - best N9 bookmark editing tool! Check it out ->BWizz for Harmattan

LINKer - transform your N9's home view in a Desktop, give it the freedom it deserves! -> LINKer for Harmattan

QuickBar - Can't find the app you used yesterday in your overcrowded Home Screen? Want access to the QuickLaunch bar even in the home screen? QuickBar for Harmattan

If you like our work, and would like to support via PayPal : users.giulietta@gmail.com

Last edited by tortoisedoc; 2018-04-18 at 20:54.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to tortoisedoc For This Useful Post:
nthn's Avatar
Posts: 634 | Thanked: 2,308 times | Joined on Jun 2014
#83
Originally Posted by tortoisedoc View Post
So causality as such is absolute (in this Reality); like entropy.
Again you take the independent existence of causality (in whichever way) for granted and even posit it as an absolute, but there is nothing to indicate this is the case (or not the case). All of the thought experiments like the 'brain in a vat' (which can easily be combined with infinite regress to say that 'Reality' itself is also an illusion of 'Reality2', and so on) are old and often mentioned only in passing and with a dismissive attitude, but they cannot be proven or disproven. We just choose to ignore them. Here's one juiceme might recognise:

"By your belief in granular singularities, you deny all movement - evolutionary or devolutionary. Belief fixes a granular universe and causes that universe to persist. Nothing can be allowed to change because that way your non-moving universe vanishes. But it moves of itself when you do not move. It evolves beyond you and is no longer accessible to you."

Also, the observer, in observing, chooses to observe. If he didn't, he wouldn't be an observer. But choice also sounds like it would depend on freedom, and freedom would depend on free will, but you're going to need a really broad definition of free will considering it's possible to accurately predict which choice a person is going to make based on their brain processes before you've even asked them the question.

I'm not sure what you mean by right and wrong.
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to nthn For This Useful Post:
Posts: 559 | Thanked: 1,065 times | Joined on Jul 2012
#84
Originally Posted by nthn View Post
Again you take the independent existence of causality (in whichever way) for granted and even posit it as an absolute, but there is nothing to indicate this is the case (or not the case). All of the thought experiments like the 'brain in a vat' (which can easily be combined with infinite regress to say that 'Reality' itself is also an illusion of 'Reality2', and so on) are old and often mentioned only in passing and with a dismissive attitude, but they cannot be proven or disproven. We just choose to ignore them. Here's one juiceme might recognise:

"By your belief in granular singularities, you deny all movement - evolutionary or devolutionary. Belief fixes a granular universe and causes that universe to persist. Nothing can be allowed to change because that way your non-moving universe vanishes. But it moves of itself when you do not move. It evolves beyond you and is no longer accessible to you."

Also, the observer, in observing, chooses to observe. If he didn't, he wouldn't be an observer. But choice also sounds like it would depend on freedom, and freedom would depend on free will, but you're going to need a really broad definition of free will considering it's possible to accurately predict which choice a person is going to make based on their brain processes before you've even asked them the question.

I'm not sure what you mean by right and wrong.
You say I believe in granular singularities; I never said that .
You said it youself the observer chooses to observe. He might just close his eyes (read: ignore the reality), at which point it doesn't matter what he chooses (this won't make the Reality with capital R as in the "real" reality, not the perceived one, go away).
Denying existance of freedom in a universe (be it defined by singularities or not), implies none of your actions are any of your responsibility, and you are not accountable for them. Or in terms of entropy, being a system not generating any heat and just decaying into more stable states, without producing complexity, hence can't exist. Too easy!
__________________
BWizz - best N9 bookmark editing tool! Check it out ->BWizz for Harmattan

LINKer - transform your N9's home view in a Desktop, give it the freedom it deserves! -> LINKer for Harmattan

QuickBar - Can't find the app you used yesterday in your overcrowded Home Screen? Want access to the QuickLaunch bar even in the home screen? QuickBar for Harmattan

If you like our work, and would like to support via PayPal : users.giulietta@gmail.com

Last edited by tortoisedoc; 2018-04-19 at 07:01.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to tortoisedoc For This Useful Post:
nthn's Avatar
Posts: 634 | Thanked: 2,308 times | Joined on Jun 2014
#85
Nothing is happening here. You claim Reality exists without a shadow of a doubt, I say you shouldn't make absolute claims about something you do not and cannot know anything about, you rebut by claiming Reality exists without a shadow of a doubt. This is mixing science and scientism, taking a religious dogma (replace all instances of 'Reality' by 'god') to answer all questions.
 

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to nthn For This Useful Post:
pichlo's Avatar
Posts: 5,413 | Thanked: 16,664 times | Joined on Sep 2012 @ UK
#86
Originally Posted by tortoisedoc View Post
this won't make the Reality with capital R as in the "real" reality, not the perceived one, go away
I have backed away from this discussion as it became too esoteric and I started losing track but... is that not what the entire discussion is all about? Whether there even is such a thing as "real" reality, independent of the observer. Our everyday intuition seems to confirm its existence but is it really objective or just a construct of our limited senses, processing power and perhaps frame of reference? After all, there are domains (quantum effects, more-that-four dimensional spaces, even plain old four-dimensional spaces but with a different configuration of time and space dimensions, such as inside black holes) where our everyday intuition fails spectacularly.
__________________
In particle accelerators atoms are indeed not only touching each others. But banging together in a massive explosive orgasm.
-- nieldk in a TMO post
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to pichlo For This Useful Post:
Posts: 559 | Thanked: 1,065 times | Joined on Jul 2012
#87
Originally Posted by pichlo View Post
I have backed away from this discussion as it became too esoteric and I started losing track but... is that not what the entire discussion is all about? Whether there even is such a thing as "real" reality, independent of the observer. Our everyday intuition seems to confirm its existence but is it really objective or just a construct of our limited senses, processing power and perhaps frame of reference? After all, there are domains (quantum effects, more-that-four dimensional spaces, even plain old four-dimensional spaces but with a different configuration of time and space dimensions, such as inside black holes) where our everyday intuition fails spectacularly.
Yes I think its a separate discussion; at least (from my point) my discussion was about Freedom
__________________
BWizz - best N9 bookmark editing tool! Check it out ->BWizz for Harmattan

LINKer - transform your N9's home view in a Desktop, give it the freedom it deserves! -> LINKer for Harmattan

QuickBar - Can't find the app you used yesterday in your overcrowded Home Screen? Want access to the QuickLaunch bar even in the home screen? QuickBar for Harmattan

If you like our work, and would like to support via PayPal : users.giulietta@gmail.com
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to tortoisedoc For This Useful Post:
pichlo's Avatar
Posts: 5,413 | Thanked: 16,664 times | Joined on Sep 2012 @ UK
#88
Originally Posted by tortoisedoc View Post
Yes I think its a separate discussion; at least (from my point) my discussion was about Freedom
Ahh, but that's how it all started. By the assertion that "freedom" is an illusion, borne from implicit and explicit, known and unknown limitations.

Besides, I was replying to one specific sentence of yours, where you claim that there is an objective reality independent of the observer. That has nothing to do with freedom. If you want to bring freedom to it, then it can only be done in the negative. You do not "choose" to observe gravity, it has been imposed on you.
__________________
In particle accelerators atoms are indeed not only touching each others. But banging together in a massive explosive orgasm.
-- nieldk in a TMO post
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to pichlo For This Useful Post:
Posts: 559 | Thanked: 1,065 times | Joined on Jul 2012
#89
Originally Posted by pichlo View Post
You do not "choose" to observe gravity, it has been imposed on you.
Doesnt that answer your question "does a reality exist"?
__________________
BWizz - best N9 bookmark editing tool! Check it out ->BWizz for Harmattan

LINKer - transform your N9's home view in a Desktop, give it the freedom it deserves! -> LINKer for Harmattan

QuickBar - Can't find the app you used yesterday in your overcrowded Home Screen? Want access to the QuickLaunch bar even in the home screen? QuickBar for Harmattan

If you like our work, and would like to support via PayPal : users.giulietta@gmail.com
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to tortoisedoc For This Useful Post:
pichlo's Avatar
Posts: 5,413 | Thanked: 16,664 times | Joined on Sep 2012 @ UK
#90
Originally Posted by tortoisedoc View Post
Doesnt that answer your question "does a reality exist"?
So, what are you talking about? Freedom or reality?

To answer your question, I experience gravity therefore gravity exists for me. In other words, it exists in my reality. Is my reality objective? How do I know?

(As a proper scientific theory, it should be testable. The easiest test would be to find an observer that does not experience gravity the way I do. Are there, for example, subatomic particles that do not experience gravity? Who knows?)
__________________
In particle accelerators atoms are indeed not only touching each others. But banging together in a massive explosive orgasm.
-- nieldk in a TMO post
 

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to pichlo For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:16.