nature of reality

[Danustouch]

********In best COFFEE TALK VOICE *****************

Topic : Is Reality Local, or Non-Local...subjective, or objective?


Talk amongst yourselves.....

You're all like butta!

[Myst]

huh? Wanna elaborate? :)

[Danustouch]

Okay..hubby is driving me nuts with philosophy the last two days. And this has been the discussion.

Does Reality depend on our surroundings? In other words, is reality only exist in our circle of operations. Kinda similar to descartes theories. I can't explain it as well as he does. But, basically, is anything beyond that which WE can personaly see, taste, feel, touch, experience...EXIST?

Also...is it Subjective...meaning, based on experience, or Objective, meaning..based in FACT....

Does reality change depending on perception..i guess is what I'm getting at. Or is their absolute reality?

When Hubby get's home, I'll ask him to post what he means. He confuses me too much. I just thought maybe one of you out there would understand the terms he was using.

[Swanspirit]

I think .........
you know that we "see" at about 1/32 of a second after an event occurs..... that is to say ..... that the time it takes for the light that connects with our eyes and form a relatable image in the brain takes 1/32 of a second to happen so we are visually 1/32 behind any version of reality we see......... sound and other sensorium detectors take time as well ......so we are technically behind our reality....... in that sense.....
And as far as subjective and objective, we have both and what reality we perceive is a blend of both ........with varying degrees of objectivity and subjectivity ...... given that we cannot completely separate ourselves and to my way of thinking never really achieve 100% objectivity.
Interesting question , thank you ......
HUGS
Swannie

[Myst]

Originally posted by Danustouch
Does Reality depend on our surroundings? In other words, is reality only exist in our circle of operations. Kinda similar to descartes theories. I can't explain it as well as he does. But, basically, is anything beyond that which WE can personaly see, taste, feel, touch, experience...EXIST?

Also...is it Subjective...meaning, based on experience, or Objective, meaning..based in FACT....

Does reality change depending on perception..i guess is what I'm getting at. Or is their absolute reality?


The problem with this is that you can't separate the terms necessarily. For subjective vs objective - what you experience is what you take as FACT.. so, if reality is based on perception (which I feel it absolutely is) then all experience IS fact.

For example, get two people together who saw the same event. They will almost definitely give you different stories of what happened, especially if they are people who disagree on certain important concepts or on the concept at hand. For them, each one's experience IS fact. Both their realities are correct, even though they disagree. It's all a matter of perception.

Another example is a person who has been raised in a strict Christian household and thinks Pagans absolutely must be evil followers of Satan. If they were raised that way the fact that Pagans are devil worshippers is FACT for them - it may not be fact for you, but there's probably not a snowball's chance in heck that they'll ever see your side of the story. They will see the fact that you think you work with a God and Goddess as proof that Satan has fooled you. You just can't worship anyone but God or Satan for them. That's their reality.

So yes, reality is objective *and* subjective. It depends on one's choices and experiences. Which is why it's so hard for some people to "step in someone else's shoes" or "see the world through someone else's eyes". Some people just can't fathom a reality different then their own.

[MasterMoon]

Firstly, when I wish to speak of something and I want you to understand what I am saying we must agree on definitions of terms. I dont know where all of you get your definitions, but I find that Websters Dictionary is one of the best sources for this information.

Try to follow the logic here:

Real:not artificial, fraudulent, illusory, or apparent : <real gold>; also : being precisely what the name implies

Reality: : a. something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs <his dream became a reality> (2) : the totality of real things and events <trying to escape from reality> b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily
- in reality :

Very simple...Reality and real exsist independant of thought and perception. Therefore they are objective.

Objective:
of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

Therefore reality must be objective.

However what reality can exsist without perception?
Another words if all observers were killed and there were no recording instruments would the tree in my backyard exsist?

Maybe, but how could you prove it?.

Therefore consciousness is inextricably connected to reality.

We need conciousnees to give life to reality

But what is consciousness other than thought and perception?
Imaginary. Imagination

But imagination without energy or focus is nothing.

So imagination plus energy result in reality, or allow reality to be observed.

Logically
The perceptions and consciousness of an entity along with energy creates the real world or reality.

then
Perception and energy creates the objective world

so
The subjective world creates the objective world...

this is why magic works
why prayers work
why hope works
because we create it
us the observer

you can do anything!

[Danustouch]

Now....imagine being his captive audience.....

(hehehehe)

[BrightStar]

Hi,
I heard once that the Australian Aborigine have a belief that the dream world is real,and what we believe is what's not.I always kinda liked that one.
Life is but a dream,la la la la,doo wop
;)
I think reality is whatever a person perceives it to be.So it's subjective,to me.As far as local and non local.I think it used to be local,but with mass media it may have changed.Many folks believe reality can come from a tv set.
Peace and Love
BrightStar

[Armitage]

IMO...
It's both subjective and objective. The actual physical reality is objective...But to anyone viewing it, it's subjective. Anyone looking at something will have a slightly different view, skewed by all their past experiences, likes, dislikes, etc. So it exists physically as one thing, but as many different things in the minds of the beholders, as their experience of it.

[slvr_phoenix]

As I see it, all of reality a singlular truth. How we interpret that, while helpful for us to understand it, holds no sway over the original truth. This half of reality is unchangable and set to a specific pattern. It exists with or without us, with or without our interpretations. we make no difference to it.

HOWEVER, we also hold the power to influence existence. If we put enough energy into something, we can re-write the fundamental truth to it. If we put enough energy into something, we can even create a new fundamental truth. However, to change things we have to put as much energy into it as already exists in it. A truth can only be changed or replaced by a truth of equal or greater energy.

Something like that.

So existence would continue to exist without us. And everything holds a universal truth that no amount of interpretation can change. However, nothing is permanent. With enough energy, any truth can be re-written.

[Illuminatus]

Originally posted by MasterMoon
Firstly, when I wish to speak of something and I want you to understand what I am saying we must agree on definitions of terms. I dont know where all of you get your definitions, but I find that Websters Dictionary is one of the best sources for this information.

Try to follow the logic here:

Real:not artificial, fraudulent, illusory, or apparent : <real gold>; also : being precisely what the name implies

Reality: : a. something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs <his dream became a reality> (2) : the totality of real things and events <trying to escape from reality> b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily
- in reality :

Very simple...Reality and real exsist independant of thought and perception. Therefore they are objective.

Objective:
of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

Therefore reality must be objective.

However what reality can exsist without perception?
Another words if all observers were killed and there were no recording instruments would the tree in my backyard exsist?


Stop right there. From here on in you're getting all Schrodinger's cat on us, and taking a big logical sidestep. You are assuming that if a Statement is true, the Corrolary is also true. That's not so. All Terrorists wear towels on their heads. Assume that to be true (even it it is technically not true since some terrorists in ireland wear wool caps or ski masks). But the corrorolary, Everyone who wears a towel on their head is a Terrorist... that's simply not true. Statements and Corrolaries have to be proven separately and independantly in a logical argument.

The "Tree falling in the forest" statement, well that may well be true. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody observes it, then it may not have happened. However, below there, you are assuming the corrolary to be true - You make the leap to "If I Subjectively Observe something, then it Does Exist". Sorry cheif. You can imagine trees falling over until the cows come home, but a quick stroll around your backyard reveals that they are all indeed, still standing. Except the ones that got torn up by the utility workers last month, sorry about that man (that was you that posted that Danustouch right?).

There ends my refutation of your argument :) I will now tell you what I think on the topic:

Anyone can change their Subjective observations of the universe around them. Everyone's is a little different to begin with I think, and there will always be a little offset in our collective observations.

A lot of people will use this fact as weapon to bash the concept of Science, since scientific observations NEED to be objective (absolutely objective if such a thing is possible) if they are to reveal the truth about reality. But Science as a whole compensates for objectivity lapses, by Peer Review. Performing an experiment once may yeild unexplained results, and these results may be published, announced on the UPN 9 news, and suddenly everyone thinks Caffene is good for you. However, the process has been hijacked.... other groups of researchers must re-create the same experiment described by the originals, and bring forth their own observations. Then all the scientists meet once a year, compare their findings, and by comparing many sets of possibly subjective findings, work together to build a larger, more objective one. Thus, many subjective views come together to reveal a larger, more objective one, like a big ol jigsaw puzzle.

The fact is, that individuals can observe pretty much whatever the hell they want. Through Lucid dreaming, you see whatever you desire to see. Narcotics can make people experience altogether new and different sensations far and away from what they are used to. Human beings under severe physical or mental duress may spontaneously hallucinate. The young marine recruit who must stay awake for days on end concentrating on his target for sniper training; the young brave seeking to leave his body and seek out his spirit animal; the englishman dreaming of an oasis as he drags his body across the desert... Certainly, as you argue, the observations of these individuals are indeed "Real" by your definition, in that they are true to their name.. but ONLY for the one making the observation. But they do not accurately reflect the outside world. Their "Reality" is localized to the brain of the individual, and does not extend to others. Which means that you can visualize "Real" trees until you're blue in the face, but do not expect anyone to share your observation. Alas, Greater Reality, the one that affects Everyone, is Objective in nature.

- Ill

[MasterMoon]

Firstly Im glad to have recieved responses to my theory, it makes me think.
The logic I used is quite simple and to understand it one must be able to accept the definition of a word as its meaning. Jesus said "the kingdom of the heavens belongs to those childlike in mind".
Therefore in response to illuminatus:
I did not say that just because I think something is there that it must exsist. What I said was that reality has no meaning and no proof of exsistance without the observer.

Also illuminatus, read the dictionary as to the meaning of the word real. The examples you gave of lucid dreaming and Marines hallucinating are not examples of "real" anything. These are all mental states..therefore imaginary. However emtions that are manifested by the perception are real in chemical form in the body.
Very simpy, objectice reality has no meaning without the observer. I did not say that we make things appear by imagining them. And I didnt say that things dont exsist in some form without observation, except that there is no way to prove it. So for that matter they dont exsist.

[Mairwen]

Well, if a tree falls in the woods and nobody's around to hear it, does it still make a sound?:rolleyes:

[MasterMoon]

No ...if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it...it does not make a sound.
Think..for a sound to occur there must be 2 things, a disturbance in the air and a reciever...if any of those are missing, no sound...

[Mairwen]

So, then, if a tree falls in the woods and hits a man, nobody cares, right?:D

[Danustouch]

LOL...depends on the Man????

[Armitage]

Originally posted by MasterMoon
No ...if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it...it does not make a sound.
Think..for a sound to occur there must be 2 things, a disturbance in the air and a reciever...if any of those are missing, no sound...

That makes no sense...The vibrations still exist. That's like saying if everyone closed their eyes then light doesn't exist.

[QueendeQrash]

First, I liked your theory MasterMoon. The fact that things can only exist if 'we' can prove them (via observation through our senses, correct?) has me thinking. Are not there other things out there besides us? Dinosaurs existed rather or not we found the bones, we just would be ignorant of the fact. We can not remove their existance from the time line (or pool). Life does not exist out in the universe because we can not prove it? (asked non-religiously) Even with random chance in the infinate universe, the odds are that there is life of some sort or another, even if we can't prove or observe it. It is not 'real' for us, because we do not exist. We don't exist because we can not observer therefore we can not prove, so nothing exist because we don't. Is that what you are saying? (Don't worry, I sometimes confuse myself, my psyc profile is chaotic/ order . Go figure :) )It is a neverending cycle.
Just one more thing before I stop with my meaningless babble (which most people do tire of) Proof 1. a fact or thing that shows or helps to show that something is true or exists.
Does this all mean that what we believe in (religious wise) does not exist because we do not have the means to prove it?

[slvr_phoenix]

Armitage, it's all a trick of scientific wordplay. By scientific definition, to qualify as 'sound' it has to be both emitted and heard. Did the tree fall? Yes. Did the falling of the tree create vibrations in the air? Yes. Was there anyone (human, animal, or insect) to hear it? No. (Well in this theory anyway, realistically how likely is there going to be no animal or insect around to hear it? Heh heh.) Therefore, it is not sound because nothing heard it.

It still created vibrations though. It still happened. And if you went there you would see a fallen tree, not a standing tree, no matter how much you believe the tree is still standing before you see it.

The same is true with the rest of the world/universe. Stuff happens. It doesn't matter if anyone is there to witness it or not, it'll still exist and still happen anyway.

[MasterMoon]

So if a tree falls in the forest, and noone is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Firstly, the real problem here is I make a statement and you immediately form a perception of what you THINK I mean. So communication is the problem. When I say the word "Sound" what I mean is 1. there is a disturbance in the air which makes a vibration. 2. There is a receiver which will receive and interpret these vibrations into information as a "sound". So, the term "sound" has no meaning without BOTH 1 and 2.

It's that simple.

As far as do things exist if we're not able to observe them...well..probably yes AND no. In either case it has no meaning to us, because we are not observing it. If you can grasp the concept of them both existing and not existing at the same time. So, just like the tree, reality in its' most fundamental form has no meaning without an observer. It both Is and Isn't. We have been trained by society to think in terms of Either/Or. That things cannot have both realities, or multiple realities. When nature itsself seems to operate on multiple realities.

An example of how nature operates on multiple realities: The most observable example of that would be in Quantum Mechanics where expeiriments have been shown that particles can exist in one place, and simultaneosly exist in another. Although this type of phenomena is not directly observable in OUR scale, in theory it is an explanation for phenomena such as ESP, Spirits, Telekenesis, Magick, Etc. If anyone is interested in this subject they should research Bells' theorum and the non-locality of nature.

[slvr_phoenix]

MasterMoon, I find fault in your reasoning of, "As far as do things exist if we're not able to observe them...well..probably yes AND no. In either case it has no meaning to us, because we are not observing it."

Just because we are not in observence of it does not mean that it can have no impact on us. I'm at work and a tree falls over onto my house. I didn't observe the act, but you can bet it impacts my life anyway. A loan shark puts a hit on me for not paying him repeatedly. I didn't observe the act, but it will sure have an impact on me. A quantum singularity creates a rift in the space/time continuum that sucks all of the fuel out of our sun. We may not see it happen, but darned if the results of it won't affect all our lives.

Just because something went unobserved does not mean that it can have no impact on us.

[Illuminatus]

Originally posted by MasterMoon
So if a tree falls in the forest, and noone is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Firstly, the real problem here is I make a statement and you immediately form a perception of what you THINK I mean. So communication is the problem. When I say the word "Sound" what I mean is 1. there is a disturbance in the air which makes a vibration. 2. There is a receiver which will receive and interpret these vibrations into information as a "sound". So, the term "sound" has no meaning without BOTH 1 and 2.

It's that simple.



Not quite. By your definition, that the Observer Alone validates reality... you would only need #2. #1 is not necessary. Joe Wiccan walking through the forest imagines he hears a tree falling. In this scenario, you would take out the big rubber stamp that says "REAL" and slam it right down.

on a side note, Sound CAN exist without having a person there to hear it. Go into the scientific pagan forum, you can SEE sound in the pattern water crystals freeze in :). There are other ways to observe it rather than direct observation.

Now I will close by saying this: The beauty of the Scientific Method is this - By repeatedly testing your Hypothesis, over and over, and observing the results time after time under closed conditions.... you can predict the outcome. That's the beauty, right there.

So, if I put a cup of water in the microwave and push the "1 minute" button, I can watch it get hot. After a while, I don't need to keep testing this hypothesis over and over. I can put the cup in with a teabag, push the button, and then go watch TV, and when I open the door of the microwave I KNOW it's tea.

It's not tea because I came back to observe it. If I had died on the couch from a stroke, it would still be tea. If the coroner hadn't bothered to check the microwave, it would still be tea. If my parents left the microwave there after moving my stuff out 2 months later, it would still be tea (though probably dry). Just because nobody observes something, Mastermoon makes the negative assumption that "it must not be there". Whereas the posative assumption is the correct one. You've never seen Jesus. But that doesn't completely and utterly rule out his existance. You're not the All-Seeing-Eye-In-The-Pyramid of the Illuminati :)

- Ill

[MasterMoon]

Firstly, I'd like to thank Illuminatus and Silvr Phoenix for responding to this thread. Secondly, when I re-read my post that I wrote the last time, it made almost no sense to me either. It was a response to a question..and wasn't a complete thought.

So maybe I can reword this..to fully express what I'm trying to say here. It's a very simple thing. The example of a tree falling in the forest...does it make a sound? We're going to call this..an event "the tree falling in a forest". So there are two things, and event, and an observer. For there to be something called "Reality", BOTH have to exist. When there is only one, and not the other, then there is something other than reality, and this something has no meaning at all. What I am not saying, is that because I don't see the sun right now, that it's not moving on the other side of the Earth, I "assume" that it is. And I'm not in any way advocating delusion by inferring that there is not some sort of an objective world. What I'm saying is that without our observation of it, it has no meaning. It is only the observation of an event that creates what we see as reality. This thing that you call Reality is only in the exact moment called now.

REAL- "Existing or happening as or in fact; actual, true, objectively so. Not merely "Seeming" pretended, or imagined.".

So it becomes a matter of Terminology. When I say "Reality", it means only that which exists in actual form, in this moment. That is observed...and in real form. But this doesn't mean there is not something called "imagination". It exists, but in a differen't way. It is not "real". Neither is an event, that is not observed.

[MasterMoon]

bump

[Xander67]

2 questions...

1. if all terrorists wear towels on thier heads, then when a woman gets out of the shower and wraps her head in a towel, is she then a terrorist for that period of time??

dont laugh.....by that deffinition of a terrorist ..yes would be the answer but she is not a terrorist so then I must present this as my case in disputeing the terrorist/towel connection...

2...secondly
what makes websters deffinition of real accurate....
reality is a philosophical concept so what right does anyone have in turing a philospical concept into a fact , not to mention the piss poor method of doing so with less than a parapgraph...and nothing to back it up? are we just gonna sit here and accept that crap???

[Danustouch]

Ok..first of all...Islamic Terrorists were NOT wearing "Towels" on their heads. They were told to blend in with the Americans, thus they would not wear "Towels" on their heads. Secondly, the thing that Islamics wear, are not TOWELS. Besides, I really do not see how any of this is connected to the topic of this thread.

Secondly, we take Websters definitions of words, because a common language for people, must be understood, and accepted, so that we can relate in buisness, relationships, etc. So..common meanings are attributed to common words. So that we can all understand and relate to them. Websters Dictionary helps us with this endeavor.

If not...we could all return to the neolithich age, and start speaking in "Ug Mpf Ug"'s.

[Amethyst Rose]

Originally posted by Danustouch
Ok..first of all...Islamic Terrorists were NOT wearing "Towels" on their heads. They were told to blend in with the Americans, thus they would not wear "Towels" on their heads. Secondly, the thing that Islamics wear, are not TOWELS. Besides, I really do not see how any of this is connected to the topic of this thread.


I took Xander's comment as to be making a point, not a statement about Islamics. He didn't say *Islamic* terrorists, just terrorists.
His point is simple logic.... You could reword it to say, If all terrorists use taxis, and a woman takes a taxi to work, does that mean she's a terrorist for the period of time she's in that taxi?
Just because A = B, does not mean that B = A.

[Xander67]

Thank you Amethyst ...I just would like to point out that NO where IN any of the posts here in this thread...are there any mention or hints at Islamic Terrorists The word Terrorist as used in my post was intended to represent anyone who would commit an evil act such as crashing a plane into a skyscraper or sending poision in the mail...

I have no beef with any race or religion...

I was just making a point....

[Danustouch]

Ok Xander, sorry for the misinterpretation. There is just so much talk about Terrorists around these days, specifically, of course the Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorists, that it is a trigger button for most of us :)

[Xander67]

i know, but on that note, a rather positive development from the Arab leaders...they have publicly Denounced Bin Laden and his taliban peeps, "he does not represent the Moslims and Islam" this is good news, it basicly shows the world that even his own people consider him to be the village idiot.......

sorry for getting off topic ...

[Myst]

*bump*

[Epona44]

There is a reality beyond what we perceive as reality.

There is even a reality beyond what our scientists percieve as reality. If you put baking soda in flour, a chemical reaction takes place and would take place whether or not someone was there to observe it.

What is accepted as a fact by science, based on empirical data, is also run through the various associations of the scientific community. There it becomes perceived reality, as far as the scientists are able to determine.

There are levels of reality in science.

An hypotheisis. It's an educated guess.

A theory. It's a strongly supported educated guess.

A fact. It's pretty much going to happen.

[MasterMoon]

I suppose it is all a matter of articulation. Yes I know that when you put water and a teabag in the microwave, turn it on, you will have tea. However until you open the door and see it for yourself, the result is meaningless. Without observers existance would be meaningless. It doesnt mean that it doesnt exsist, it means that without an observer, there is no meaning or proof of its existance. Did you ever go on vacation and come back to your house and notice that it seemed different?
Its because you changed. You see things you didnt see before. Your setpoint changed. The observer sees with different "glasses". This is a very technical point, but even the examples you gave me, of sound being trapped in crystals...all this requires an observer...no observer...no reality...simple

[Myst]

Even so, what does exist exists, whether it's existence is proven or not, and made part of a personal reality, it exists in the global reality.

[MasterMoon]

But how do you know something exsists if you dont observe it....?without an observation, exsistance is meaningless. There is no absolute reality out there...it all depends on observation. Noone can give any example of anything that exsists without somehow observing it or an effect it has...which is also observing

[Myst]

When was the last time most of us saw Goddess face to face? Does that make her meaningless? Does she not exist because no one has physically observed the whole of her?

[Danustouch]

heh..ya know..I don't quite think Mastermoon has ever answered that argument when I've brought it up either.;)

[MasterMoon]

I hate to disappoint you...but the goddess is purely imaginary. there is no entity that "is" the goddess. The Goddess is an essence that lives in all of nature. Anyway, your consciousness allows you to observe this essence and create what you call the "Goddess"

[flar7]

are we talking observers as a single individual perspective or as
a whole group? Cause the sniper bullet that kills the man at a
mile or so was not seen, but was extremely real to the guy that
was killed...

[Myst]

Originally posted by MasterMoon
I hate to disappoint you...but the goddess is purely imaginary. there is no entity that "is" the goddess. The Goddess is an essence that lives in all of nature. Anyway, your consciousness allows you to observe this essence and create what you call the "Goddess"

And how do I observe her and know that it is her? And if I do, why do others who don't believe in her observe as much as I do but not know it is her? How does my consciousness not observe a god that others see and know as true? And does the fact that I don't observe Yahweh make him meaningless? I certainly think not. And many people *do* believe there is an entity that is the Goddess, so why do you suppose she exists for them that way when they can't observe her?

If a tree falls in a forest the ground, the tree itself, any creatures in the area, bacteria, little one celled organisms in the water, etc. feel the vibration. So it still makes a sound. The only way you can make sure there are no observers is if you have two dead things (boards or pipes or cement maybe) in a vaccuum with no one present.

[MasterMoon]

What I am thinking about is much much simpler. It is just this.
No observer....No reality. Yes I suppose a one cell organism would "feel" a vibration, although Vivaldi's 4 seasons would not be the same experience as it is with me. :O). The term "sound" itself means this...that there are 2 things...count em 2.....a
1) vibration
2) reciever
Take any one of those things away and Poof!...no sound.
There are vibrations..yes...but no sound. Then again there are vibrations in the air...radio signals...you cant hear em...and the only way to prove it is to observe them somehow.

Another point is this: Each person has their own reality. Because Consciousness and energy create the nature of reality. What is "true" for one person is not for the other..therefore the term "your own truth"

[MasterMoon]

Flar, in that case the observer would be the victim eh???...lol

[Myst]

And assuming the tree, grass, forest creatures, one celled organisms, etc. felt the vibration makes them receivers. The only way you're not going to have a receiver is in a vaccuum.

In the case of the sniper, the victim is likely dead before he has a chance to observe the bullet. An even simpler example is cancer or health problems that exist and debilitate a person without their presence even being known.

[flar7]

ooh, good one...(sorry, I watch too much "titus")

[MasterMoon]

Myst. You gave the example of a disease being a "thing". This "thing" exsisting without the need of an observer.
At first glance this is a valid point. However, closer observation shows that, it is more likely true that the observer itself creates the disease. No observer...no disease. In this case the disease is a manifestation of the attitude from the observer. The attitude solidifys as an energy pattern called a disease. In either case, if the observer is not present, there wont be anything to be
"dis- eased".

[Myst]

Originally posted by MasterMoon
However, closer observation shows that, it is more likely true that the observer itself creates the disease. No observer...no disease.

That's your opinion, and even in your opinion only "more likely true". Most people don't believe that, including many people who have cancer or other diseases themselves. Thus, they aren't "observing" that their disease is caused by life problems they are having, or observing their disease at all. Should they die before observing the existence of the problem at all they've never observed it. And yet it still exists and still makes an impact.


ob·serve (b-zûrv)
v. ob·served, ob·serv·ing, ob·serves
v. tr.
To be or become aware of, especially through careful and directed attention; notice.
To watch attentively: observe a child's behavior.
To make a systematic or scientific observation of: observe the orbit of the moon.
To say casually; remark.
To adhere to or abide by: observe the terms of a contract.
To keep or celebrate (a holiday, for example): observe an anniversary.

Note, observe means to "be or become aware of". A patient who dies from a debilitating disease they are not "aware of" does not observe it, therefore it harms them without being observed.

[MasterMoon]

Lets see if I understand you correctly, Myst.
You say that reality can exsist without an observer?
Another words something can happen, and if it is not observed or its effects are not felt, it would exsist?
How would you know ? Until you actually observe it somehow, it is still just a potential. There are many things that we see in our world that we cannot directly explain but we observe the effects.
We may have a disease and not have to see every single cell of the virus and know the virus by name. To feel sick is observation enough. Anything else is conjecture.
I say that without a way to measure something or feel its effects somehow, it exsistance is meaningless. Im saying that reality may exsist without an observer, but what difference would it make? The example of a rampant disease.. if you only observe the fact that a healthy person dies suddenly, havent you observed the disease? For all you know, the disease could have started 10 minutes ago and killed them instantly. There is no way to prove otherwise. If you were to see the developing disease by diagnosis, then you be observing the disease. Both ways the disease only has life when it is observed. We can never be sure what happens in the "black box". Although we can make assumptions.

And yes this is all my opinion !

[Myst]

The disease existed (and killed) *before* you observed it. Therefore it had an impact while it was *not* observed. Therefore things that not observed are *not* necessarily meaningless.

Even if you observed it later (and I'm sure you can imagine that there are deaths caused by poisons, diseases, or circumstances that are never observed, or aren't observed for long periods of times - think autopsies and murder mysteries), you didn't observe it when it killed. That doesn't make the killer "meaningless". If you never knew John Smith was poisoned because you never observed the poison, does that make the poison meaningless? Obviously not, since he's dead. Not observing the poison doesn't make it "make believe" or meaningless.

You might argue that something that isn't observed *and* doesn't effect any living or sentient thing anywhere is meaningless, but things that are not observed can have meaning if they have an effect on an individual.

[Myst]

Thus, in essence, there is an ultimate reality (John Smith was poisoned) that exists whether I'm there to observe that he was poisoned, whether anyone knows John Smith is dead, or even whether anyone knows John Smith ever existed. He's still dead, and therefore the poison is not meaningless, even though it has not been observed.

However, if someone attempted to poison him with, say, something he's immune to, the ultimate reality is that he was poisoned. However, since no one has observed it *and* it has no effect on Johm Smith, it is meaningless.

[MasterMoon]

If John Smith dies, isnt that an observation by him?
He must have known something was wrong. Oh and if someone gave him the poison, didnt they observe it?

[Myst]

If you have an aneurysm or die suddenly (ie. within seconds) in some other way are you "made aware" of the cause? Can you die without knowing why (ie. back to the sniper who wasn't aware of the bullet, or an aneurysm, or some other disease that you may not be aware of)?

And I can weave an interesting story about someone who accidentally picked the wrong mushroom or mixed the wrong liquid in. You can easily suggest that the poisoner didn't intentionally poison Smith, and even so Smith would be dead.

[MasterMoon]

then how do you know john smith is dead?
someone must have observed it.....and if you look for any kind of proof about anything it requires consciousness and observation

[Myst]

Who says I do? Whether I do or not he's dead. This could be meaningful to me because he's someone I know, someone from my hometown, or because whoever killed him could kill me (I can think of other reasons).

[MasterMoon]

Given this...he doesnt realize he is dead...died in his sleep.
SOMEONE must have observed his death. If not then how would you know he is dead...see hun, it takes an observer to define and validate reality. There is no ultimate reality out there. If there is, it is meaningless. And this is all I will say about this.

[Myst]

I just said no one has to know if he's dead.

Suppose I don't know he's dead. For a more real example, suppose I don't know my neighbour down the street was stabbed to death the other night, and the killer is on the loose. Is her death meaningless because I didn't observe it? Because I don't even know she's dead? Considering the murderer might come after me next, I'd say that someone was stabbed down the street is pretty meaningful. If I was missing a child, and if I didn't know if they were dead or alive, I think it would be pretty meaningful. If I don't know the Afghani women who have to prostitute themselves so they don't get beaten to death, does that make their lives meaningless to me? No. And yet have I observed any of these things? No.

[MasterMoon]

the murderer was the observer

[Myst]

And in John Smith's case, if the murderer never consciously poisoned him?

[MasterMoon]

in that case...whoever saw him (die or dead) was the observer

[MasterMoon]

maybe a good read would be shrodingers (sp) cat.
This says that the cat can be in a state of 1/2 dead and one half alive until an observation is made

[Myst]

No one saw that he's dead (I thought that assumption was made clear before...?)

Anyway obviously we're not going to agree. If the cat's dead the cat's dead.

[MasterMoon]

how do you know the cat is dead??...this is meaningless unless it is observed. The Cat is put in a special box. Sound proof, vibration proof, everything proof. Inside the box, is a switch. The switch, if triggered, will release poisonous gas, and kill the cat. The switch is triggered by the release of a radioactive particle. The radioactive particle is being released at random. There is a Fifty-Fifty chance that it will be released, and trigger the switch. Now..if you leave the cat in there overnight, and the next morning....Before you open the box, is the cat dead or alive???

The cat exists in a quasi state of half dead, and half alive. It's existence is meaningless until you open the box, and exist whether or not it is dead, or alive. And it is only by observation that this can happen.

Meaningless, in this definition, means "unknown"...like an "X" in an algebra equation.

Unless you open the box, to observe the cat, the cat remains "unknown"...or "meaningless".

[Myst]

Doesn't matter what I know. If the cat's dead it's dead. If it's alive it's alive. What you're talking about is my observation of the cat and my personal reality, not the actual reality of the situation.

That's why, to me, there is an actual (or global) reality, and a personal reality.

[MasterMoon]

Rolls on the floor laughing.

[Mercuria]

Originally posted by MasterMoon
maybe a good read would be shrodingers (sp) cat.
This says that the cat can be in a state of 1/2 dead and one half alive until an observation is made

Schrodingers cat is *thought* experiment, originally coined by schrodinger to outline the absurdities of quantum theory. (reductio ad absurdum).
For a start, quantum effects are only valid on the microscopic scale. The macroscopic world of cats, people and boxes is governed by plain old Newtonian mechanics.

There's a famous quip made by Stephen Hawking "whenever I hear about schrodinger's cat, I reach for my gun."

He says this, because this particular thought experiment is often misinterpreted by non-scientists (especially those interested in mysticism and the newage), as somehow providing the proof that we create our own reality through the act of observation.

While the paradox is interesting, it's *not* proof that we create our own reality.

Victor J. Stenger writes on consciousness and quantum mechanics-

"The conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics, promulgated by Bohr and still held by most physicists, says nothing about consciousness. It concerns only what can be measured and what predictions can be made about the statistical distributions of ensembles of future measurements. As noted, the wave function is simply a mathematical object used to calculate probabilities. Mathematical constructs can be as magical as any other figment of the human imagination-like the Starship Enterprise or a Roadrunner cartoon."

(my italics)

He goes on to say-

"Quantum mechanics, the centerpiece of modern physics, is misinterpreted as implying that the human mind controls reality and that the universe is one connected whole that cannot be understood by the usual reduction to parts......Modern physics, including quantum mechanics, remains completely materialistic and reductionistic while being consistent with all scientific observations."

The entire article can be found here:
http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/quantum-quackery.html


Mercuria

[Mercuria]

Originally posted by MasterMoon

But how do you know something exsists if you dont observe it....?without an observation, exsistance is meaningless. There is no absolute reality out there...it all depends on observation. Noone can give any example of anything that exsists without somehow observing it or an effect it has...which is also observing


You seem to be forgetting that an observer doesn't necessarily have to be a conscious being.

Take an electron moving around freely in space. Just say it comes close to another free electron. When two electrons get close enough together, they both experience an electric repulsive force which accelerates them apart. In that sense they both observe each other in the action of them being driven apart. This has nothing to do with consciousness, they're just stupid mindless particles, but each are made aware of the others existance. Now multiply this by the countless particles all zooming around space and interacting with one another. In effect, the universe is in a continuous state of self-observation. And for the sake of clarity- This is not dependant on consciousness.


Mercuria

[MasterMoon]

Schrodingers cat is *thought* experiment, originally coined by schrodinger to outline the absurdities of quantum theory. (reductio ad absurdum).

I Know

for a start, quantum effects are only valid on the microscopic scale. The macroscopic world of cats, people and boxes is governed by plain old Newtonian mechanics.

I know

He says this, because this particular thought experiment is often misinterpreted by non-scientists (especially those interested in mysticism and the newage), as somehow providing the proof that we create our own reality through the act of observation.

I know (although there are faults in the way this is worded)

"Quantum mechanics, the centerpiece of modern physics, is misinterpreted as implying that the human mind controls reality and that the universe is one connected whole that cannot be understood by the usual reduction to parts......Modern physics, including quantum mechanics, remains completely materialistic and reductionistic while being consistent with all scientific observations."

I know

All I am saying is that until you can observe or measure something it is all conjecture, it only "probably" exsists. Because the only way you have of proving it will be to see it, measure it etc etc. An observer is anything with "mind"

[MasterMoon]

Now multiply this by the countless particles all zooming around space and interacting with one another. In effect, the universe is in a continuous state of self-observation. And for the sake of clarity- This is not dependant on consciousness.

I respectfully disagree

Nothing without a mind can "observe"

(Please dont respond with atoms have minds too)

[Myst]

Originally posted by Mercuria
He says this, because this particular thought experiment is often misinterpreted by non-scientists (especially those interested in mysticism and the newage), as somehow providing the proof that we create our own reality through the act of observation.
...
"...It concerns only what can be measured and what predictions can be made about the statistical distributions of ensembles of future measurements. As noted, the wave function is simply a mathematical object used to calculate probabilities. Mathematical constructs can be as magical as any other figment of the human imagination-like the Starship Enterprise or a Roadrunner cartoon."

Precisely. You must've read my mind while I was out with friends or at the concert - that's exactly where I was going with this! :D

(One more reason I love Hawking)

It also put me in mind of binary. There's a 50% chance it's true, 50% it's false (assuming it's not null), but regardless the value in that memory address is one or the other, not both. Only one's perception (ie. statistics) could process it as 50% one or the other. The reality has the absolute truth; no "mind to observe" necessary.

[MasterMoon]

What did she say?

[Myst]

Originally posted by MasterMoon
What did she say?

Whom?

[MasterMoon]

you

[Mercuria]

Originally posted by MasterMoon

Nothing without a mind can "observe"

It doesn't matter. The point in quantum physics is *not* observation, it's measurement. I will get to that point in a moment.

Quantum mechanics is more about uncertainty than it is about things existing or not.

If you were to ask me, "Is the spin of an electron up or down at this moment?" I would have to reply that it's a meaningless question, because without any measurement taken the electron's spin is genuinely indeterminate- because it exists in a superposition of states of being both up and down, but not really either.

When a measurement is made it simply collapses the wavefunction (a mathematical construct dealing with probability) and forces the electron to assume a definate state (either up or down). You do not somehow will the electron to exist by observation, you merely force it to assume one of several states.

To be sure, the quantum reality out there is fuzzy and indeterminate, but it does exist. When we make a measurement, we do not magically create the reality, we only sharpen the picture a little.

(cont)

[Mercuria]

I'm sure you would have heard of Einstein's question to Pais if he "really believed that the moon only exists if you look at it."
(Einstein never accepted that quantum mechanics was complete)
Your whole argument suggests that you only believe things exist when you're looking at them, and you seem to be appealing to quantum physics to back you up.

Have you heard of decoherence? Basically the moon cannot be likened to a simple quantum state (ie. an electron's spin being "up" or "down", because the moon is made up of countless atoms and electrons. So instead of having a single wavefunction we have countless wavefuctions. Now, quantum physics tells us that in order for something to have definate meaning, there has to be a measurement of some sort.

But the moon is not isolated in a vaccum, it's atoms are constantly being hit and shuffled around by photons from the sun. Quantum mechanically the moon's wavefuctions are continuously being randomized are in a constant flux. This means that a single superposed state is simply not practically possible.

David Lindley writes-
"The moon really is there after all, when no one's looking. The new insight afforded by the decoherence argument is that the rain of solar photons onto the moon's surface is enough of a physical process to constitue a "measurement". No actual observation is required, and the whole process carries on efficently and relentlessly without any intervention of human action, let alone human consciousness. The world works in it's own way, and doesn't need us to look at it."

Decoherence also solves the Shrodinger's cat paradox effectivly. This is only a very brief example of decoherence, but it gets the main point accross. Not only is there the decoherence argument, but the many-world's interpretation is also worth consideration. The original Copenhagen interpretation implies nothing about consciousness. I suggest that you learn a bit more about quantum physics before you try to justify your beliefs with it.

Reference- Where does the weirdness go? by David Lindley, HarperCollins 1996

Mercuria

[Mercuria]

Now, enough about quantum physics...here's some pure logic for you.

You say things only exist if there's a conscious somone to observe them. How do you explain where humans come from? What about all the evidence which suggests that we evolved from single celled organisms (which were certainly not conscious). What about all the fossil evidence, not to mention galaxies which clearly show processes which have been happening since long before humans came to be.

It's pointless to say anything about pre-human extraterrestrial intelligence because where did they come from then?

The elements which make up life are made inside stars (cliche, but it's true). So presumably, stars (which are vital for life to exist, not to mention the chemicals they make) had to exist before intelligence.

You can take it back further still, for stars to exist there had to be hydorgen, for hydrogen to exist there had to be protons and electrons. For these subatomic particles to exist there had to be a universe in the first place.

The only way you can escape this chain, is if you invoke some conscious being that somehow exists outside of the system altogether (that is, outside the universe), a Prime Observer if you will. Who might this Observer be? god?

In any case, if there was a prime observer, then we wouldn't create our own reality through observation anyway, because reality would depend on what the Prime Observer creates.

Anyway, the Prime Observer idea goes against Ockham's Razor, and besides that, where did the prime observer come from?

So I'm sorry, but your logic is flawed.
Mercuria

[MasterMoon]

No....
I did not say something only exsits if someone observes it...
I said that until an observation is made, its exsistance is meaningless. A phantom.
If something does exsist, how do you know...why of course by observation. Observation PLUS the object equals reality.

if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it...it does not make a sound.
Think..for a sound to occur there must be 2 things, a disturbance in the air and a reciever...if any of those are missing, no sound...

Reality is the same. It requires an observer and the object.

The unobserved object does exsist in a way. I know this.
Im saying that unless we observe it, or its effects it has no meaning.
I do not believe that things materialize and dematerilaize every time we open and close our eyes.

Quantum mechanics is more about uncertainty than it is about things existing or not.
If you were to ask me, "Is the spin of an electron up or down at this moment?" I would have to reply that it's a meaningless question, because without any measurement taken the electron's spin is genuinely indeterminate- because it exists in a superposition of states of being both up and down, but not really either.
Yes !!!!!! I agree with this

Mercuria, you are correct about the universe, yes it was here before there were "observers" however it is the observer that gave the universe reality. Without observers seeing it or measuring it, its exsistance doesnt matter.

[Mercuria]

Originally posted by MasterMoon
No....
I did not say something only exsits if someone observes it...

You did actually.....

Originally posted by MasterMoon

Noone can give any example of anything that exsists without somehow observing it or an effect it has...which is also observing

You seem to be contradicting yourself in the following two statements you made:

Originally posted by MasterMoon

Therefore consciousness is inextricably connected to reality.

Reality: : a. something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.

The fact that you made statements like the following makes it very hard for me to take your argument seriously:

Originally posted by MasterMoon

it is more likely true that the observer itself creates the disease. No observer...no disease. In this case the disease is a manifestation of the attitude from the observer.

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by MasterMoon

The most observable example of that would be in Quantum Mechanics, in theory it is an explanation for phenomena such as ESP, Spirits, Telekenesis, Magick, Etc.

It is totally not an explanation of how these things work.Those who are part of the newage relish in QM, thanks to quasi-scientific books like the Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra. I suggest you read a few serious books on QM before you make such outlandish claims.

It may seem like I'm going overboard by disecting your argument, but you seem to be jumping to alot of far out conclusions and also contradicting yourself several times.

Mercuria

[MasterMoon]

No....
I did not say something only exsits if someone observes it...
(this means things can exsist objectively, only it exsistance is meaningless without an observer)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You did actually.....

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MasterMoon

Noone can give any example of anything that exsists without somehow observing it or an effect it has...which is also observing

(this means you cannot give me an example of anything that exsists without somehow saying either that you saw it felt its effects or something else, another words how do you know something exsists without observing it?...you dont)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh and when you find a disease that exsists WITHOUT an observer let me know. And test tubes dont count, they are not diseases. Just viruses or bacteria. A disease is only a disease when in the body.

This is all I have to say....I have nothing to prove to any of you...And I am tired of making the same point over and over. It may be too simple to understand.

[Myst]

Originally posted by Mercuria
The elements which make up life are made inside stars (cliche, but it's true). So presumably, stars (which are vital for life to exist, not to mention the chemicals they make) had to exist before intelligence.

You can take it back further still, for stars to exist there had to be hydorgen, for hydrogen to exist there had to be protons and electrons. For these subatomic particles to exist there had to be a universe in the first place.

And whether there's an observer or not such things aren't meaningless, for without their existence *we* wouldn't exist.

It may be meaningless to presume to know exactly where a star exists, or whether a star exists in a certain spot, through statistics or even conjecture, but it is not meaningless that the star exists.

If what wasn't observed were meaningless we wouldn't strive to observe it - we wouldn't use a telescope or binoculars, to sort out DNA, or even to try to reach deity. We'd say "oh well that's meaningless, why bother". All through time technology and change have been a product of that striving to observe and know what hasn't been known already. If all that weren't observed were meaningless then all this time and evolution and technology have already been wasted.

[Danustouch]

Ugh..I was trying to stay neutral in this, because to tell the truth, I'm not sure what to believe about this. However, I would like to point out one thing. Mastermoon has tried to "Talk Through" his idea's to me since this whole thing was necromanced. (if that is a word), and between listening to him, and reading this thread, I can honestly say that part of this disagreement is based on a misunderstanding of the Terminology that he is using. It's a matter of wording. It seems to me, that when he writes "Meaningless", people assume he means "Of little or no importance". However, through talking to him, I know that that is not what he means, at all. He does not mean anything of the sort, in fact. I looked through his older posts, and saw him even try to clarify it. He said.."Meaningless, as in an X in an algebra formula...an unknown.".

He didn't mean that the cat that died in schroedingers box wasn't "of importance". Nor did he mean that the disease which killed John Smith wasn't a tragedy to those around him. Nor did he mean that the chemichals the stars produce which give birth to life are not important to the existence of mankind. But rather, that until they are somehow observed, we have absolutely no knowledge of them. While their effects (upon reflection, once we HAVE the knowledge) are immense, if we don't KNOW that these things exist, we might as well assume that the Cat in Shroedingers box magickally dissappeared, instead of living, or dying. John Smith, unless we knew him, or saw his dead form, might have just gone *poof*, and The gasses of the stars, could just as easily be explained by "The Gods" (in the way of early superstitions, and mythos). In otherwords, until some method of observation is conducted, they are simply an unknown variable, a thesis, an abstract idea, a possibility. Not necessarily, a reality. We can make guesses, but cannot absolutely know for sure.

That is what I believe, through my conversations with him, that he meant.

As I said, I'm not stating my own opinion on this, as I could really care less. However, I can't help but feel that part of the problem in this thread, was merely a misunderstanding of terminology. Hopefully, i helped to explain his stance, better. If not..oh well. I tried. Meanwhile...is there a way to keep this thread on topic, without people making fun of eachother? It's philosophy folks, and IMO, there are no absolutes in philosophy, only ideas. No need to get into making fun of eachother or trying to make the other person appear stupid.

Heh..unless the person in question is absolutely arrogant, stupid, and moronic, like other people i happen to know. None of which were participating in this thread :) I don't think any of you are wrong, or stupid. Simply that you have vastly differing ideas of what reality is.

[Myst]

If that is so then the argument has been a waste of time. Maybe next time we should agree on a dictionary to rely on when using common terms?

[Danustouch]

Heh, Myst. That's what I was thinking. I said the same thing to him last night.

I said..."The common usage of the word Meaningless, is little or no importance, without validity, etc.".

He goes.."oh...Well...I didn't mean it like that..I meant without meaning, as in no knowledge of.".

Duh!

'Sall a matter of misunderstandings..usually is on message boards ;)

[Illuminatus]

Originally posted by MasterMoon
how do you know the cat is dead??...this is meaningless unless it is observed. The Cat is put in a special box. Sound proof, vibration proof, everything proof. Inside the box, is a switch. The switch, if triggered, will release poisonous gas, and kill the cat. The switch is triggered by the release of a radioactive particle. The radioactive particle is being released at random. There is a Fifty-Fifty chance that it will be released, and trigger the switch. Now..if you leave the cat in there overnight, and the next morning....Before you open the box, is the cat dead or alive???


The cat is dead, air can't get inside the box!

[Danustouch]

heheh..still an assumption, since for all we know, it was a kittycat version of MacGyver, and developed an oxygen tank system on stray stuff he found in the box.


Hey..anything can happen ;) :p

[MasterMoon]

Illuminatus...Thank you for that post. !! It was getting WAY to serious here.....