1 of 5
1
‘Reality’, it’s not what you think it is.
Posted: 17 August 2010 11:41 PM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  11
Joined  2010-08-12

OK, let’s try a different tact.  And please this time, let’s demonstrate some mutual respect.  It doesn’t matter what you call yourself, we’re all ‘created equal’ and all deserve the same respect, at least so says the US constitution - and I’m not even American!

I’ve been hearing quite a bit about ‘realism’ and the ‘real world’ from different members of CFI.  Just to analyze this for a moment… Nobody has a corner on the market of ‘reality’, things are as they are.  Here are the levels:

First there is what is.

Second, there is your experience or perception of it.

Third there is your conceptualization of it.

If you think your conceptualization of ‘reality’, is reality, you are hallucinating.  Your conceptualization, your ‘science’ is twice removed from ‘what is’.  So please, don’t talk or act like your version or conceptualization of ‘reality’, is what is - it is not.  What is, is not reduceable to a concept or idea.  If you say that as an ‘atheist’, you see the world ‘as it is’, you are kidding yourself.  In fact, as soon as you say that you know ‘reality’, you define some religion, all there is left to do is give it a name.

For Chudwick, thank you for your kind comments - the snow is not melted, it is as beautiful and pristine as it ever was.  As for knowing the ‘direction of God’ - this is one those metaphors that I have learned is disturbing to some - God, or ‘Good’, has been sadly displaced, up and away (in other words, not here any more, not with us, not us, at least that is what we have been led to believe).  This is not only sad, it is untrue, we are all still ‘innocent’, all still wondrous as the child we were in the beginning.  This is what was taken away, the ‘object’ of which needs ‘reclaiming’.  We don’t have to be so clever.  And yes, there is a place for myth and metaphor - why be so insulting as to spell it all out?  Myth and metaphor appeal to individual experience, only once removed from ‘what is’, as suggested above.  A concept is twice removed but a myth or metaphor invokes a shared experience.  You guys and your ‘rational thinking’.  Chief Dan George was quoted as saying, “The longest journey you will ever take is from your head to your heart.  What is, is.  Insisting that your ‘science’ or rational thinking is equivalent to ‘what is’, is like wearing blinders.  I am beginning to see though that as ‘rational’ as someone may appear or sound, it may be informative to try to find out what there history or experience is and so perhaps uncover the motivation for their solid beliefs, their ‘world views’, what they refer to as ‘reality’.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 August 2010 06:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4052
Joined  2006-11-28

If you think your conceptualization of ‘reality’, is reality, you are hallucinating.  Your conceptualization, your ‘science’ is twice removed from ‘what is’.  So please, don’t talk or act like your version or conceptualization of ‘reality’, is what is - it is not.  What is, is not reduceable to a concept or idea.  If you say that as an ‘atheist’, you see the world ‘as it is’, you are kidding yourself.  In fact, as soon as you say that you know ‘reality’, you define some religion, all there is left to do is give it a name.

Let’s conduct a little experiment to see whether our conceptions of reality are so tenuous and illusory. Say leaving your apartment by the second floor window instead of the front door? (thanks Tim Minchin) Or perhaps injecting yourself with rattlesnake venom and waiting to see what happens? It seems to me there is a reliable, often very direct relationship between what science discovers about the world and the consequences of accepting or denying that “reality.” Your argument that anything we claim to know is merely belief, and as such essentially religion, is sophistry and inconsistent with the actual experience of living.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 August 2010 09:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  152
Joined  2010-05-27

You believe there is no electron, but you are suspicious of my claim there is no god.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 August 2010 05:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5173
Joined  2010-06-16

It would seem that a far better test of the validity of our ideas of reality would be to examine the accuracy of the history of predictions made based on our ideas of physical reality rather than trying to invalidate it by arguing that our ideas are removed from physical reality by two statements.

To use an analogy:  Physical reality (what is) = 2.0000003400007.  Our approximation (perception) of reality = 2.0000003.  Our idea (conceptualization) of reality = 2.000.  The mythology of the existence of a god = -13.84.  What I’m saying is that even though we may not be able to duplicate, in our minds, the exact real world, we come extremely close to it, close enough to predict and operate quite well in the real world.  While -13.84 may be a nice number, it contributes nothing to making our day to day behavior any closer to matching the real world.  As such, other than fun, the mythology of -13.84 (god) is a waste of time.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 August 2010 06:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4618
Joined  2007-10-05

I love it when people fire up their computers, log onto an Internet discussion forum, then proceed to tell us science cannot explain reality. I guess all those satellites bouncing communications signals around the globe are mere fiction.

Answer this one Adam Reclaims. My mother died of Hodgkin’s disease in 1965 when I was 10 years old. Ten years later Hodgkin’s disease was one of the most easily treatable forms of cancer. Did God learn so much in 10 years or is this due to advances in medical science?

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 August 2010 06:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2282
Joined  2007-07-05
Occam. - 18 August 2010 05:22 PM

As such, other than fun, the mythology of -13.84 (god) is a waste of time.

Unless of course God is actually an irrational number.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 August 2010 06:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4618
Joined  2007-10-05

I think God is more like an irrational imaginary number. Perhaps the square root of negative pi.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 August 2010 06:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5173
Joined  2010-06-16

Ah, come on, guys.  I was trying to keep it simple for the non-scientists.  LOL

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 August 2010 09:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  11
Joined  2010-08-12

I don’t negate the rational Brennen, I use the same tools of logic and reason everyone else does to operate in the world.  What I am saying though is that the ‘rational’ is a sub-set of ‘what is’.  There is a lot that occurs in the world that defies reason.  The search for the ‘unifying theory of everything’ is like the search for the holy grail (if you can tolerate the Christian analog).  Quantum physicists will tell you that what they experience at the quantum level defies reason (how can a particle be in more than one place at once - for example, how can a reaction occur before its cause, why can’t an experimenter be excluded from the experiment?).  Read some of Richard Feynman’s works if you are interested.  Einstein’s genius lay partly in the fact that he presented his ‘visions’ even though they defied logic.  It is not logical that you can be speeding along at 100 mph in a race car (not mine), fire a laser straight ahead and not add the vehicle speed to the laser light speed.  It is not ‘logical’ that the speed of light is a constant, and yet it is what it is and has been repeatedly tested to be so.

Surely you will agree that when we die our reason dies with us.  And yet there is the experience of eternals, things that don’t die.  I would like to use a biblical phrase but I’m afraid someone will freak out and sic the CFI cops on me (just kidding tongue laugh )  After listing what will pass away at death, the biblical (ah!) writer carries on - “...and yet there remains three, faith, hope and love - and the greatest of these is love.”  These are eternal and in the larger set of ‘reality’.  They are not ‘unreasonable’, but cannot be understood by reason, only by experience.  Now come on, actually consider what I am saying.  There seem to be a lot of ‘jerky knees’ out there in CFI land. (can’t fine a ‘smiley’ that works smile

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 August 2010 10:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5173
Joined  2010-06-16

I know you requested “mutual respect” but your last paragraph was subtly disrespectful, so I believe I’m justified in commenting that much of what you posted is really psuedo-scientific babble without either justification or foundation, and as such, not a basis for the conclusions you reach.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 August 2010 11:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
Adam Reclaims - 18 August 2010 09:24 PM

I don’t negate the rational Brennen, I use the same tools of logic and reason everyone else does to operate in the world.  What I am saying though is that the ‘rational’ is a sub-set of ‘what is’.  There is a lot that occurs in the world that defies reason.  The search for the ‘unifying theory of everything’ is like the search for the holy grail (if you can tolerate the Christian analog).  Quantum physicists will tell you that what they experience at the quantum level defies reason (how can a particle be in more than one place at once - for example, how can a reaction occur before its cause, why can’t an experimenter be excluded from the experiment?).  Read some of Richard Feynman’s works if you are interested.  Einstein’s genius lay partly in the fact that he presented his ‘visions’ even though they defied logic.  It is not logical that you can be speeding along at 100 mph in a race car (not mine), fire a laser straight ahead and not add the vehicle speed to the laser light speed.  It is not ‘logical’ that the speed of light is a constant, and yet it is what it is and has been repeatedly tested to be so.

Surely you will agree that when we die our reason dies with us.  And yet there is the experience of eternals, things that don’t die.  I would like to use a biblical phrase but I’m afraid someone will freak out and sic the CFI cops on me (just kidding tongue laugh )  After listing what will pass away at death, the biblical (ah!) writer carries on - “...and yet there remains three, faith, hope and love - and the greatest of these is love.”  These are eternal and in the larger set of ‘reality’.  They are not ‘unreasonable’, but cannot be understood by reason, only by experience.  Now come on, actually consider what I am saying.  There seem to be a lot of ‘jerky knees’ out there in CFI land. (can’t fine a ‘smiley’ that works smile

I think you really have to ask yourself, why add a concept of god into the equation?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 August 2010 11:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  11
Joined  2010-08-12

Gnostikosis,

When did I “add a concept of God”?

Occam - what?  You don’t like the expression, “knee jerk reaction” - hey, if the shoe fits…  Shall I make a list of the names you called me?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 August 2010 11:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
Adam Reclaims - 18 August 2010 11:26 PM

Gnostikosis,

When did I “add a concept of God”?

Well, what did you mean by this?

As for knowing the ‘direction of God’ - this is one those metaphors that I have learned is disturbing to some - God, or ‘Good’, has been sadly displaced, up and away (in other words, not here any more, not with us, not us, at least that is what we have been led to believe).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 August 2010 04:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4618
Joined  2007-10-05

Good job of ignoring the hard question AR.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 August 2010 07:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
Adam Reclaims - 18 August 2010 09:24 PM

Quantum physicists will tell you that what they experience at the quantum level defies reason (how can a particle be in more than one place at once - for example, how can a reaction occur before its cause, why can’t an experimenter be excluded from the experiment?). 
...
It is not ‘logical’ that the speed of light is a constant, and yet it is what it is and has been repeatedly tested to be so.

Not logical? If you mean ‘cannot derived by pure logic’ you are correct. But if you mean ‘logical inconsistent’ then you are wrong. If you mean defies ‘our daily concepts of particles and speed’ then you are correct. What do you mean with ‘not logical’? Quantum physics and relativity are consistent theories, that make consistent predictions.

And your view of QM may be little old fashioned: the experimenter can be excluded from the experiment. A classical system that decoheres quantum states is enough. Of course the brain is such a classical system, that’s the reason why QMers thought very long that the observer was playing a decisive role.

GdB
PS And what do you mean with ‘a particle can be in more than one place at once’. A wave can. That’s enough for QM.
PPS A reaction for its cause? Do you have an example?

[ Edited: 19 August 2010 07:10 AM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 August 2010 07:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2010-08-01
Adam Reclaims - 18 August 2010 09:24 PM

I don’t negate the rational Brennen, I use the same tools of logic and reason everyone else does to operate in the world.  What I am saying though is that the ‘rational’ is a sub-set of ‘what is’.  There is a lot that occurs in the world that defies reason.  The search for the ‘unifying theory of everything’ is like the search for the holy grail (if you can tolerate the Christian analog).  Quantum physicists will tell you that what they experience at the quantum level defies reason (how can a particle be in more than one place at once - for example, how can a reaction occur before its cause, why can’t an experimenter be excluded from the experiment?).  Read some of Richard Feynman’s works if you are interested.  Einstein’s genius lay partly in the fact that he presented his ‘visions’ even though they defied logic.  It is not logical that you can be speeding along at 100 mph in a race car (not mine), fire a laser straight ahead and not add the vehicle speed to the laser light speed.  It is not ‘logical’ that the speed of light is a constant, and yet it is what it is and has been repeatedly tested to be so.

Surely you will agree that when we die our reason dies with us.  And yet there is the experience of eternals, things that don’t die.  I would like to use a biblical phrase but I’m afraid someone will freak out and sic the CFI cops on me (just kidding tongue laugh )  After listing what will pass away at death, the biblical (ah!) writer carries on - “...and yet there remains three, faith, hope and love - and the greatest of these is love.”  These are eternal and in the larger set of ‘reality’.  They are not ‘unreasonable’, but cannot be understood by reason, only by experience. Now come on, actually consider what I am saying.  There seem to be a lot of ‘jerky knees’ out there in CFI land. (can’t fine a ‘smiley’ that works smile


No, they are not unreasonable…but they are also not eternal either…unless you are positing that man is eternal. And, they can be understood by reason alone, even though experience augments that understanding, lack of experience does not negate reason. I can understand death by reason alone. It isn’t necessary to experience it to understand it.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 5
1