Quantum reality and Idealism

[LFTKBS]

Lifegazer, please identify this equation and explain what it means to you.

 

[RussDill]

Well unless you're suggesting that little green men came to earth and presented first knowledge to life on Earth, we can know that first knowledge was gleaned without possessing any knowledge, simply by acknowledging the fact that it is first knowledge.

I'm not suggesting that, I saying that its completely pointless to talk about the first knowledge in the universe because its a nonsensical idea given the laws of physics as they are.

First knowledge on earth, first knowledge of man, that can be talked about. However, the first knowlegde on earth would have arisn long before the existence of man. Also, the first knowledge was most likely genetically imprinted.

 

[lifegazer]

He has an open mind, I'm sure he'd be willing to question any belief he has. You however, have a closed mind, you are not willing to question your beliefs.

Interesting. I've been accused of this before, by upchurch, who even started a thread about it.
Let's compare notes:
Russ
... Believes in an external (to awareness) realm. Will not budge on the issue even though he only has direct evidence of an internal (to mind) existence. Cannot see that the laws of physics apply to perceived reality, making them inner-laws.
Thinks he's a rational person and open-minded, merely because he has questioned religion. Does not realise that noticing the flaws in a specific [man made] religion only discredits that religion. It doesn't destroy the concept of an omnipresent God.
lifegazer
Doesn't trust any establishment, scientific, religious, or philosophical. Questions everything and everybody. Worships no man nor any idol. Kisses no butt and cares not for the consequences. Is open to pure reason only.
Result: my philosophy... due to a completely open-mind.

You cannot claim to have an open mind whilst you still believe in an external reality you have no evidence for and worship science as your saviour (for truth of reality).

 

[RussDill]

Interesting. I've been accused of this before, by upchurch, who even started a thread about it.
Let's compare notes:
Russ
... Believes in an external (to awareness) realm.

I do have a great deal of evidence that points in that direction.

Will not budge on the issue even though he only has direct evidence of an internal (to mind) existence.

I'm not sure what direct evidence you are talking about here. Just because you haven't changed my mind doesn't mean I won't budge. I'll happily budge given evidence to do so.

Cannot see that the laws of physics apply to perceived reality, making them inner-laws.

You see, perceived reality is reality (at least with a materialist assumption). You assumption makes it inner reality. I'd have to assume that all of reality is a vast illusion made be a superior mind.

Thinks he's a rational person and open-minded, merely because he has questioned religion.

I question everything, even materialism.

Does not realise that noticing the flaws in a specific [man made] religion only discredits that religion. It doesn't destroy the concept of an omnipresent God.

When did I ever mention anything like that? You enjoy making up all kinds of stuff about me lifegazer?

lifegazer
Doesn't trust any establishment, scientific, religious, or philosophical. Questions everything and everybody. Worships no man nor any idol. Kisses no butt and cares not for the consequences. Is open to pure reason only.
Result: my philosophy... due to a completely open-mind.

You fail to realize that questioning YOURSELF is just as important as questioning "The Man" (as your paranoid sensabilities seem to point). If you are not questioning yourself, you are even more closed minded than someone who does not question others. You have openly refused questioning your philosophy lifegazer.

You cannot claim to have an open mind whilst you still believe in an external reality you have no evidence for and worship science as your saviour (for truth of reality).

Your definition of openmindedness is accepting your philosophy. Mine is questioning everything, including yourself. If being open minded is freely and without question accepting some philosophy from someone on the internet who refuses to study science and philosophy, then call me closed minded.

BTW, I do have quite a lot of evidence for external reality, just not proof.

 

[lifegazer]

Lifegazer, please identify this equation and explain what it means to you.

It means you're a bozo for thinking it has any relevance to this conversation, or for thinking that it makes you smarter than me for knowing something I don't.

 

[lifegazer]

I do have a great deal of evidence that points in that direction.

You have no evidence. Every thing you know is reducible to inner-sensation and the [inner] reason thereof, with a bit of [inner] emotion thrown in for good measure.
The sensations occur WITHIN awareness. No man sees beyond his own mind. When you look into the awesomely large nightsky on a clear night and ponder those distant stars, you're just pondering the sensation of light within your boundless awareness. You haven't looked one measure beyond yourself.

You fail to realize that questioning YOURSELF is just as important as questioning "The Man" (as your paranoid sensabilities seem to point). If you are not questioning yourself, you are even more closed minded than someone who does not question others. You have openly refused questioning your philosophy lifegazer.

You tell me nothing that I never once believed myself. Do you think I was born with this philosophy?

 

[RussDill]

You have no evidence. Every thing you know is reducible to inner-sensation and the [inner] reason thereof, with a bit of [inner] emotion thrown in for good measure.

you only assume that everything is reducable to inner sessation. The question at hand is "what is perceived reality", since perceived reality is what we observed. Materialts say perceived reality is reality. You say perceived reality is a vast illusion created be a superior intelligence.

The sensations occur WITHIN awareness. No man sees beyond his own mind. When you look into the awesomely large nightsky on a clear night and ponder those distant stars, you're just pondering the sensation of light within your boundless awareness. You haven't looked one measure beyond yourself.

again, it makes the question, what is perceived reality.

You tell me nothing that I never once believed myself. Do you think I was born with this philosophy?

ummm...when did I say that? Don't you think that after you come up with an idea, you should question it? I know I do.

 

[Pahansiri]

Well, things don't arise out of nowhere do they?

But what if one knows better? And how would it be possible for you to refute that?


And yet what if "somebody" does know? Indeed, what if that somebody were God?


But then again if I told you, how would you know? ...

As for the rest of your post, about "who" knows what, all I can say is I'm not a mind reader here. Sorry. [/B]

Greetings Iacchus



I had written Originally posted by Pahansiri
Why is that?

But first I did not bring up the unknown, lifegazer did. Our friend lifegazer was seeking to use what is known as proof for what is unknown( God).

You responded:

Well, things don't arise out of nowhere do they?

Natural causes ( a known and or becoming more known everyday)explain the rise and fall of all things very well and do so without adding to or including a unknown i.e.

If your statement is your proof of God may I ask if you believe all things need a source /creator who created God?

But what if one knows better? And how would it be possible for you to refute that?

But “one” lifegazer has not proven he knows better or has offered any facts to support his claim. What he does offer is easily shown to be illogical.

As to how would it be possible for me to refute his position, that is done with facts and logic and many times his own statements contradicting his own statements.

If you are saying I need to believe him or you or anyone just because they say what they say is the truth that is rather silly is it not?

Do you simply believe anything and everything someone tells you?

And yet what if "somebody" does know? Indeed, what if that somebody were God?

All they need do is prove it. Rather simple is it not? It should be greatly so if as “one” says they hold the one and only truth and are the only one that does it should be easy to prove and chare this truth and facts.

Of course if they are God it should be even more so easy to make us believe as it wishes for if they could not they would not be all powerful would they?

But then again if I told you, how would you know? ...

A lovely dance but just present the facts and we will go from there. If you hold this truth these facts just offer them up, why do you wait?

As for the rest of your post, about "who" knows what, all I can say is I'm not a mind reader here. Sorry.

? but you in your last post were telling me what I thought and how I acted.

You perhaps missed a great part of my post so may I post it again in hope you will be so kind and respectful as to answer.

You had said

And here, we're only speaking of that which is unknown to man.

And I responded which it seems you missed.

Man is the only known we can speak of by as statement of fact and not a statement of belief.

If you say you can speak to what a unknown ( God) knows you need to follow these steps.

1- Prove God
2- Prove this God is your God
3- Prove you know what this God knows
4- Unless you can you prove you know all that can be known you can not even if you could prove God prove you know “he” knows all to be known.

Also

But are you telling me you understand the unknown? What unknown is that all possible “unknowns” Now that is a WOW.

How do you “understand” an unknown? If you understand it is it not then known?


I look forward to your honest answers.

Be well

 

[Pahansiri]

Iacchus. It's nice to see you again. How's life at pf?

Do I smell sock puppet or is it Hamster?

 

[Iacchus]

Do I smell sock puppet or is it Hamster?

No. Dingle berries.

 

[Pahansiri]

No. Dingle berries.

Not that is mature. May I assume you also will not offer facts to support your belief and we need just follow you blindly also?

 

[Zero]

My larger question is how Lifegazer can claim that physics, which he doesn't understand or actively study, can confirm a 'philosophy' which is incoherent and as logical as a bycycle for a fish.

 

[lifegazer]

My larger question is how Lifegazer can claim that physics, which he doesn't understand or actively study, can confirm a 'philosophy' which is incoherent and as logical as a bycycle for a fish.

You don't have to be a quantum physicist to be aware of the inderminate nature of particles, alongside the fact that they have a dual nature, existing as ~waves~ until observed.

This is the only info I need for my argument. And I don't need it to prove anything about God... I just need it to show that God, with 'his' indeterminate nature/energy, is fully consistent with this base knowledge pertaining to QM.

 

[lifegazer]

Do I smell sock puppet or is it Hamster?

Actually, if I remember correctly, Iacchus believes that there is an external reality. I know that our philosophies are different anyway, though we share the ultimate conclusion, I think.

 

[lifegazer]

You say perceived reality is a vast illusion created be a superior intelligence.

I've argued for this in detail within the "upchurch's question" thread. Abstract sensations/experiences have to be chosen and created by the entity that has them.

 

[Pahansiri]

You don't have to be a quantum physicist to be aware of the inderminate nature of particles, alongside the fact that they have a dual nature, existing as ~waves~ until observed.

This is the only info I need for my argument. And I don't need it to prove anything about God... I just need it to show that God, with 'his' indeterminate nature/energy, is fully consistent with this base knowledge pertaining to QM.

I do feel so badly for you my friend. You try so desperately to something the seems to be intelligent and to demonstrate that you know something i.e.

You don't have to be a quantum physicist to be aware of the inderminate nature of particles, alongside the fact that they have a dual nature, existing as ~waves~ until observed.

But then say something like this

This is the only info I need for my argument. And I don't need it to prove anything about God... I just need it to show that God, with 'his' indeterminate nature/energy, is fully consistent with this base knowledge pertaining to QM.

You could not be more wrong. You DO need to prove God before you can say as a fact that God is and has a “indeterminate nature/energy”.

To say something is a fact

I just need it to show that God, with 'his' indeterminate nature/energy,

you need to first show it to be a fact then compare it to a known or what would be another known.

What you are doing now is trying to compare a complete un proven belief i.e. God to a known QM and say the known (QM) proves your unknown.

You only make yourself look foolish.

Lets take your statement and say it this way changing a few words.

This is the only info I need for my argument. And I don't need it to prove anything about little green men... I just need it to show that little green men..., with 'his' indeterminate nature/energy, is fully consistent with this base knowledge pertaining to QM.[/b]

 

[Pahansiri]

Actually, if I remember correctly, Iacchus believes that there is an external reality. I know that our philosophies are different anyway, though we share the ultimate conclusion, I think.

You should add neither of you will or will attempt to conduct a logical, factual mature conversation.

Let go of your closed minded childish actions and share in a logical conversation and say you can not prove God but there are things you believe may support your beliefs.

 

[metacristi]

lifegazer

My philosophy is fully consistent with the duality of classical physics and QM. More highly significant evidence that this philosophy should be taken seriously.
In fact, no other philosophy can make sense of this dual reality, other than a philosophy which acknowledges the free-will of the source of perceived existence, thus explaining the distinction between QM and classical.

I'm afraid your arguments are too vague and fail to strengthen the case of idealism.Anyway all tenable forms of idealism (Berkeleyan or variations of Matrix hypothesis) are,in what regards the power of explanation of all observed facts,indistinguishable from the system based on the scientific axioms.In spite of the fact that the Berkeleyan proposal (where your own stance seem to derive from) is basically non falsifiable (for the matrix hypothesis there are slight chances to disprove it) the hypothesis is considered as very serious by all respectable philosophers and scientists.That's why one of the basic assumptions of science (axioms of science) is the apriori rejection of all forms of idealism.Science does not need idealism to explain observed facts,the basis of all 'objective knowledge',of rationality ultimately,but neither can it disprove it.At least for the moment.


Even if your position were fully consistent with the actual hypotheses in QM,fallible by the way,having also power of explanation in general,probably you are aware that it remains a simple philosophical hypothesis,for the moment at least.

Since we do not need to postulate the existence of new entities to explain/interpret quantum effects,we have empirically and theoretically progressive scientifc theories/hypotheses,and the fact that science and the scientific method (including the methodology to make the difference between science and pdeudoscientific/philosophical hypotheses) have epistemological privilege (the scientific method is,still,the best empirical method known) such an alternative approach belongs entirely to philoshopical discussions and do not entitle one to claim that it has epistemical privilege over the current scientific explanations or that all would be rational people should believe it.

Of course you might be even right in absolute,unfortunately from experiments and the best methodology to establish what is real/the most likely to be real (the scientific method) we cannot derive the conclusion that our reality is not fundamental or that we live 'in the mind of God'.Hence,currently,idealism cannot go beyond the status of simple philosophical hypothesis.

If you only want to discuss your hypothesis,without positive claims,everything is OK (you might be honest enough though to recognize you are wrong when others prove your arguments invalid or not sound -assuming you know enough logic).

But if you make the positive claim that your hypothesis has epistemological privilege over that of science then,even if your arguments were perfectly sound logically,either you have to present sound experimental evidence (at least an equal,but simpler,scientific hypothesis) for that if you accept the current variant of the scientific method or to present a new methodology,proved superior with sufficient arguments,to the scientific method.

 

[LFTKBS]

It means you're a bozo for thinking it has any relevance to this conversation, or for thinking that it makes you smarter than me for knowing something I don't.

Uh, your thread's called "Quantum Reality and Idealism," hoss. I want to see some math here, especially as it pertains to QM. You pseudointellectuals take a perfectly good field of inquiry, misinterpret it - or don't bother to study it at all - then slap a gaudy-looking angel on the cover along with "Quantum" in large bold Comic Sans and sell it to your fellow man as some sort of life-affirming Lisa Frank Trapper Keeper Bullsh*t for $24.95 plus tax.

I'm a little sick of it. Do your own work, johnnies-come-lately, and stop misappropriating important discoveries to make a quick buck, get on Oprah, or fulfill your perverse desire to be famous without contributing anything to society. I'm pointing the finger squarely at you, lifegazer.

 

[Iacchus]

Does anybody know what an "original thought" is by the way?