Page 428 of 441 FirstFirst ... 328378418426427428429430438 ... LastLast
Results 12,811 to 12,840 of 13204

Thread: The last and final argument about reality.

  1. #12811
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,260
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    I would like to get back to science. Now this week NS reports on experiments, which make the phsycist Carlo Ravelli excited, that demonstrate how “the nature of reality depends on who is looking” p17 NS 2 march 2019. The thought experiments about quantum mechanics were done by Alessandro Fedrizzi and as you would expect it’s about entangled photons. This leads to the conclusion that there are no objective facts. This supports the so called relational interpretation. Reality depends on the observer. This is in addition to the model limitation of being mind based as individuals and as groups. Our mind model now must include quantum weirdness and the concept of the photon as observer.
    Horses for courses ... quantum theory has its own realm of applicability, the boundaries of which, are also (continually) under test.

    The statement of: 'there are no objective facts' should be handled with care within its realm of applicability .. and not necessariy generalised.
    I do agree that the MDR hypothesis also addresses that issue.

  2. #12812
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,557
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    Horses for courses ... quantum theory has its own realm of applicability, the boundaries of which, are also (continually) under test.

    The statement of: 'there are no objective facts' should be handled with care within its realm of applicability .. and not necessariy generalised.
    I do agree that the MDR hypothesis also addresses that issue.
    Yes i agree, models work in their zone of applicability. The objective facts thing is a way of expressing MIR, but it can also be a prediction which works well in our model, within its zone. We can use “ fact” in both ways.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  3. #12813
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,120
    sorry to be a drag but the statement:
    “the nature of reality depends on who is looking”

    so the person 'looking'; is he part of reality, or not, in this model?
    ................................

  4. #12814
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,557
    Quote Originally Posted by WaxRubiks View Post
    sorry to be a drag but the statement:
    “the nature of reality depends on who is looking”

    so the person 'looking'; is he part of reality, or not, in this model?
    Well is she in your model ? Or not? By the way that is a quote from the article, it’s quite a long article.and it does ask whether a photon can be an observer. We do have to think about these weird things, do we not?
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  5. #12815
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,120
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Well is she in your model ? Or not? By the way that is a quote from the article, it’s quite a long article.and it does ask whether a photon can be an observer. We do have to think about these weird things, do we not?
    If something isn't part of reality then any words used to describe it have no meaning, and no definition. So if 'mind'(assuming the observer has a mind ) means anything then it must exist, in some form, and at lease be part of reality. So, as looking at something has an affect on the looker, then it automatically follows that looking at something will affect the nature of reality'...you can perhaps say that without having to do much, if any, actual science....it just follows.

    I think I might go insane this weekend....
    Last edited by WaxRubiks; 2019-Mar-02 at 12:38 AM.
    ................................

  6. #12816
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,260
    Quote Originally Posted by WaxRubiks View Post
    ...I think I might go insane this weekend....
    .. therein being one of the downsides of having no specific purpose in mind when taking the purely philosophical stance.

    Whereas the scientist's purpose is to be useful .. and therefore too is the MDR hypothesis.

  7. #12817
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    .. therein being one of the downsides of having no specific purpose in mind when taking the purely philosophical stance.

    Whereas the scientist's purpose is to be useful .. and therefore too is the MDR hypothesis.
    yes, I get that. Science is kind of a good solution as to how to proceed if one accepts one should 'get out more'.

    But by taking a philosophical stance, I was hoping/still hope, to create a model, that I can at least apply some kind of scientific process to.
    ................................

  8. #12818
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,557
    Quote Originally Posted by WaxRubiks View Post
    If something isn't part of reality then any words used to describe it have no meaning, and no definition. So if 'mind'(assuming the observer has a mind ) means anything then it must exist, in some form, and at lease be part of reality. So, as looking at something has an affect on the looker, then it automatically follows that looking at something will affect the nature of reality'...you can perhaps say that without having to do much, if any, actual science....it just follows.

    I think I might go insane this weekend....
    It only follows if you believe in a mind independent reality (including minds in your ideas) words have consensual meaning and contextual meaning so my words may not convey , willnotconvey my answer accurately to you. I expect you know the argument about non existence, it’s an absolute so there is no meaning to a non existent something including therefore mnds and the MIR belivers use the argument that you can’t get something from nothing, therefore there must be something to perceive. Well our current model does include spontaneous something from nothing and even when you believe in something it remains mysterious so you make a model in your mind which in general is a predictive model.

    I think you are in the realm of reality is the cause, mind is the effect but wait, mind might be the cause and reality the effect, or the two are sides of a deeper coin. That is the agnostic position, you can know the question but not the answer.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  9. #12819
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,648
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    That is the agnostic position, you can know the question but not the answer.
    And don't forget Douglas Adams, who had the genius to turn that around: 42.

  10. #12820
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    11,803
    I used to be fascinated by a website that I moderated. I could see every statement end users typed in, complete with a time stamp. What I found so interesting was the website had themed areas, but since the end user were children, we didn't use words to convey very specific themes. For example, several areas were modeled on places found in the Wizard of Oz books.

    We noticed that out of the blue, that the children using the site would come up with names for areas which came right out of pop culture no matter how detailed we made our imagery. Instead getting the very obvious "Lion's den" from the Wizard of Oz, the area was called "Twilight Woods" by the end users. The Emerald Castle was render as "The Magic Kingdom"**. Invariably, the user would encounter the area on their own, then at a later time would ask another user to go there using their made up descriptor of "Twilight Woods". The second user would never question this name and would immediately know what place they were taking about due to their own experiences exploring.

    For a while, we thought that our moderators were accidentally injecting these names to the end users, but quickly determine that this was not true*. Never did figure out the hows and whys of that, but I strongly suspect that we all telegraph what we are almost thinking by NOT sayings specific phrases. It isn't until a lightning stroke occurs that people suddenly lock on to this thought, but unexpressed idea.

    Sometimes we give information by giving nothing at all.

    Is that confirmation bias? I recall hearing a horrible story about giving soldiers helmets in WWI. The issuing of helmets suddenly caused a surge of head injuries. What was really happening was, people without helmets died from the wounds immediately and were not counted as "injured". Another round of this happened when engineers looked at damage to bombers in WWII. They wanted to add armor to the wingtips, tail and mid-body of the bombers because they noticed a lot of repairs in these areas. Then someone pointed out that a plane that got hit in the engines or cockpit couldn't return to base to be examined or repaired. Oops.

    *We did notice that our mods were not especially creative in the creation of user names. This caused users to panhandle the mods sole based off their names and their known mod powers. People who should have been lost in the background were clearly identifying themselves with unique user names. It was a case of the software offering up a random number appended to random names, whereas the mods could see what names were in use and also knew what special characters were permitted from the outset. Instead of Bob912984, a mod could be Roberto-7*. Way to blend in.

    **We investigated because we were afraid of being sued.
    Solfe

  11. #12821
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,120
    Mind Dependent Reality, seems to imply that reality can only exist because mind does.? Or is it that this reality's form depends upon the state of the mind?

    Everytime I read the term MDR, it seems to imply, in my mind anyway, that reality exists already, and that mind is a separate entity...to me it has always 'felt' as though the term MDR, was another form of MID...
    ................................

  12. #12822
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    The Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    9,451
    I thought the MDR position was that science has nothing to say about mind independent reality because all anyone can ever examine and test are the contents of their minds.

  13. #12823
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,260
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    I thought the MDR position was that science has nothing to say about mind independent reality because all anyone can ever examine and test are the contents of their minds.
    Err .. no ..

    Science can conclude either of:

    i) the notion of a reality which exists independently from a mind is a 'belief' (where'a belief' is: 'that which is held as being 'true' for any reason') or;
    ii) a reality which exists independently from a mind, is a model held in mind for expediency and convenience in communications.

    Science can reach either of these conclusions because thus far, there have been no objective tests identified which can be applied to the concept of there acutally being some reality existing independently from a mind.

    Science's door is not closed (as you imply) because 'all anyone can ever examine and test are the contents of their minds'. There is a big difference.

  14. #12824
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,648
    What's more, the MDR hypothesis makes no claim whatsoever about "mind independent reality", indeed it never even needs to define the term. This is a big plus, as defining that term in any scientifically meaningful way (other than as point (ii) above, a convenient model that is commonly used among all the many other convenient models our minds employ) is highly problematic.

    The basic problem is that the people who choose to believe in a mind independent reality invariably can be seen to define it in a way that makes it inaccessible to science. So it's not the MDR hypthesis that does that-- the MIR proponents do it, when they require that "mind independent reality" is not a model. The scientific way to define mind independent reality is quite simple and entirely consistent with the MDR hypothesis: MIR is an idealization that minds do.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2019-Mar-04 at 01:46 AM.

  15. #12825
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,120
    it seems like trying to define MDR, one always has to refer to the idea of MIR.....that seems to(based upon the idea that you can't connect MIR with science) lead to the conclusion that you can't connect the idea of MDR with science....
    ................................

  16. #12826
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,648
    Quote Originally Posted by WaxRubiks View Post
    it seems like trying to define MDR, one always has to refer to the idea of MIR.....that seems to(based upon the idea that you can't connect MIR with science) lead to the conclusion that you can't connect the idea of MDR with science....
    Why on Earth do you think the definition of MDR requires saying anything at all about MIR? To me, it is perfectly obvious what MIR is-- it's a model our minds create that depends in very clear ways on our minds. But we don't have to create that model at all, we can just start from the expectation that anything we say, think, perceive, believe, or feel is "real" is going to depend on our minds. Whenever anyone invokes the concept of reality, we only need to ask them a few simple questions and it becomes quite clear the role their mind is playing-- that's all MDR says or requires, no MIR at all. Nevertheless, MIR is a handy model that even small children soon learn to create. The problem is, they then forget how they came up with that idea, and start to imagine that somehow it is independent from how they came up with it-- despite all the simple tests to the contrary. This thread contains a litany of fallacies associated with the belief that MIR really is independent of our minds, including claims like there couldn't be consistency of opinion and experience if MIR wasn't a thing (overlooking the fact that our minds and sensory organs are the things that are consistent, and when they are not, then neither are the opinions and experiences), and there has to be an MIR in order for there to be minds within it (overlooking the fact that being able to apply any kind of argument about what is needed to have minds requires minds).
    Last edited by Ken G; 2019-Mar-04 at 04:47 AM.

  17. #12827
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,260
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    ... The basic problem is that the people who choose to believe in a mind independent reality invariably can be seen to define it in a way that makes it inaccessible to science. So it's not the MDR hypthesis that does that-- the MIR proponents do it, when they require that "mind independent reality" is not a model. The scientific way to define mind independent reality is quite simple and entirely consistent with the MDR hypothesis: MIR is an idealization that minds do.
    Hmm .. curious.
    Scientific conclusions are typically inferences, yes? So where a belief is defined as having 'truth' as its measure and an MIR proponent verifies MIR as being true, the inferred conclusion is that their MIR can be counted as a belief, no?

  18. #12828
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    Hmm .. curious.
    Scientific conclusions are typically inferences, yes? So where a belief is defined as having 'truth' as its measure and an MIR proponent verifies MIR as being true, the inferred conclusion is that their MIR can be counted as a belief, no?
    Yes, and the problem we see so often with a belief is that oftentimes the person who holds it is so sure it is true that they do not count it as a belief-- regardless of the evidence that it is a belief. Efforts to bring evidence to bear on the question in this thread always revealed the mind dependence in countless examples, so MIR proponents simply stopped providing evidence. There is no issue when someone chooses a belief, it is something our minds are fully capable of doing and there is no contradiction. But there is contradiction when people choose to believe they have not chosen a belief, but instead, what they believe is simply true. This is the core of the MIR contradiction, it is a belief that requires holding that it is not a belief. It's an equivalent concept to mind independent religion.

    It's the difference between the statement "I believe X is true" and "X is true." Neither are scientific-- the scientific statement is "X tests out well as being true, in ways that it could have failed to test out well, and no equally simple theory passes the exact same tests better than X does." The role of the mind is always quite clear in that last statement, and since both science and beliefs are done by minds, the MIR proponent finds themselves forced to say "MIR is true" but cannot bring themselves to say either "MIR is a belief," or "MIR is a useful idealization that my mind employs in ways that depend on my mind but which can easily be seen to be an incomplete model."
    Last edited by Ken G; 2019-Mar-04 at 06:16 AM.

  19. #12829
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    395
    MDR is the most accurate model of our reality, that collective scientific minds can create, while MIR is what which the MDR strives to emulate.

    Scott Addams must be following this thread. https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-03-03

  20. #12830
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,557
    Quote Originally Posted by LaurieAG View Post
    MDR is the most accurate model of our reality, that collective scientific minds can create, while MIR is what which the MDR strives to emulate.

    Scott Addams must be following this thread. https://dilbert.com/strip/2019-03-03
    What a great strip, the engineer does it again!
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  21. #12831
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,648
    Yes, that's perfect. One wonders how proponents of intelligent design manage to imagine our universe is not a simulation.

  22. #12832
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,341
    Revisiting this long thread. How about instead of mind independent reality, speaking about existence (that which exists)? This gives no attributes to that what exists as opposed to mind independent reality. Here, the mind interprets that which exists using its senses and coming up with mind dependent reality. That which exists, exists independently of our minds. What it is we can never know since we are bound by our minds.
    Last edited by gzhpcu; 2019-Jul-15 at 07:50 PM. Reason: typo

  23. #12833
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    15,287
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Revisiting this long thread.
    Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo........ there's no mercy in this world anymore... <sobs>

    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    How about instead of mind independent reality, speaking about existence (that which exists)?
    What a great idea! It probably hasn't come up in this thread yet... oh wait, it has! smh
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  24. #12834
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,648
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    That which exists, exists independently of our minds. What it is we can never know since we are bound by our minds.
    The core problem is that when you say "that which exists," you have to mean something by your own words. This is the exact same trap that "mind independent reality" proponents fell into throughout the thread. The game they play is, let's pretend our words just mean stuff, without our minds playing any role in that meaning. Then we can talk about either "mind independent reality" or "that which exists", and it's not coming from us, it's just some kind of absolute truth outside our thoughts and meanings. Then we take that absolute meaning that has nothing to do with us, and claim we just tack on our understanding on top of that. But it is logically inconsistent-- we can't start with words that meaning nothing, and then tack meaning onto them, as if we were saying something both before and after we afforded the meanings, using our minds. We cannot mean anything at all that is not mind dependent, so better is to simply embrace this logical necessity. When we talk about "whatever that exists without us", we have just invoked a mind dependent reality, because only our minds can have any idea what we just said.

  25. #12835
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,557
    this long thread is bound to get recycled, I suppose, because the core issue of existence keeps coming up afresh as people wake up to the solipsism problem. I see that gzhpcu is not a new contributor to this debate so there may be different reasons to bring up the same issue again. I have similar discussions in life away from the forum, if that exists for you in any way analogous to how it exists for me, and it gets similarly heated over the nicely condensed concepts of MDR and MIR. I even come across people who claim to know what the MIR wants us in the MDR camp to do but I avoid getting into any discussion with them. They can get violent. When I read the discussion of ER=EPR from KenG and other references it becomes clear how important this question is, because we have to let go of so many beliefs to begin to understand where the evidence is taking us. Beliefs are tricky but I find they can be manipulated once I accept several conflicting beliefs at the same (apparently the same) time. Just as different maths models can be used depending on the situation. The belief that something must exist independent of my mind is clearly a tough one to think through, but it is worth the effort. It is liberating in the same way as learning that emotions arise from the internal unconscious model built on experience and yet we can turn those into feelings by our word based cortex. We today should be free of the old idea that we are driven by invisible spirits that possess us, rather than a mind model which we had no control of during our early life experiences. But sadly many people do not accept that. They believe there must be an I that exists independent of their mind. Untestable of course like everything else, but such an unhappy state.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  26. #12836
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    The core problem is that when you say "that which exists," you have to mean something by your own words. This is the exact same trap that "mind independent reality" proponents fell into throughout the thread. The game they play is, let's pretend our words just mean stuff, without our minds playing any role in that meaning. Then we can talk about either "mind independent reality" or "that which exists", and it's not coming from us, it's just some kind of absolute truth outside our thoughts and meanings. Then we take that absolute meaning that has nothing to do with us, and claim we just tack on our understanding on top of that. But it is logically inconsistent-- we can't start with words that meaning nothing, and then tack meaning onto them, as if we were saying something both before and after we afforded the meanings, using our minds. We cannot mean anything at all that is not mind dependent, so better is to simply embrace this logical necessity. When we talk about "whatever that exists without us", we have just invoked a mind dependent reality, because only our minds can have any idea what we just said.
    Are you saying the mind is god? What is the mind?

  27. #12837
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,557
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    Are you saying the mind is god? What is the mind?
    I suggest the god concept is defined as MIR and so the concept is therefore in MDR
    I think mind is a word we use to name the experience of being as in "body and mind" and is the catch all word we use for the brain processes in the standard model of physiology. And this has been discussed at length in this thread.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  28. #12838
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,341
    So what creates thoughts? Does a mind dependent reality exist if there is no mind?
    Last edited by gzhpcu; 2019-Jul-16 at 05:45 PM.

  29. #12839
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,557
    Quote Originally Posted by gzhpcu View Post
    So what creates thoughts? Does a mind dependent reality exist if there is no mind?
    no. The mind creates thoughts in the MDR hypothesis.
    Last edited by profloater; 2019-Jul-16 at 06:14 PM.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  30. #12840
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lugano, Switzerland
    Posts
    7,341
    What is all this anyway? The mind can not create without external stimulus. The source is what is out there.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •