• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Objective Reality Doesn't Exist

#41
i am in way over my head here. but...do not measurements in physical science require set conditions? is such an embellishment of set conditions a method for transforming perceived reality into objective, quantifiable, and repeatable reality?

is this all related to zeno's paradoxes?
 
#42
yodedude2 said:
i am in way over my head here. but...do not measurements in physical science require set conditions? is such an embellishment of set conditions a method for transforming perceived reality into objective, quantifiable, and repeatable reality?

is this all related to zeno's paradoxes?
Click to expand...
Not exactly. I think Zeno's paradox has to deal with splitting distance in half to show that you can never reach a goal because distance should be infinite...but really 1=1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16... Zeno's paradox was written before the invention of calculus.

The article deals with quantum mechanics which I don't really fully understand, but basically the location and velocity of an electron for example is multiple probabilities. So it's sort of like an electron could be 50% in one location AND 50% in another location. Which is different than being 50% in on location OR 50% in another location. The difference being that the one particle can interfere with itself.

The example the article was giving has to deal with someone observing someone taking a measurement where the rather cannot see the result of the latter's measurement. Basically, this was just a calculation with assumptions that may or may not be true in the real world. The result was that the two observers end up with different results. The conclusion was that it is possible but further research would need to be performed.
 
#43
IMG_20191108_092939.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stumbo, JRA, GregC and 3 others
#49
Alright I’ll weigh in here… not to muddy the waters (could be too late for that): but it seems that the issue at hand isn’t reality per se but perceived reality which is, by definition, subjective. My eyes aren’t yours, my mindset – world view – belief system - experiences, etc. So, perceived reality could very well supersede a ‘truth’. Empirical science, which normally assumes a closed system of cause and effect (think that’s likely?), is good in its place; but could end up being like using a 12 inch ruler to try and figure flavor or color or Brahms.
 
#50
socialleper said:
I figured that out when I was in my 20s. I didn't have the math for it or anything, but my study of Buddhism lead me to understand that everything we experience in reality is relative. We experience reality through our senses, which differ slightly from person to person, and that is then filtered through our consciousness, which is an amalgam of memories and experiences, which is also singular. None of us experience reality the same, therefore you can't prove conclusively anything about an objective, singular reality.
On a scientific level, we can only describe or analyze reality through the lens of what we know, which will always be imperfect, so we can never truly nail down what is objective reality as we can only study it from our subjective point of view.
In the process of thinking about writing a hard Sci Fi novel, the idea of something so simple as time gets thrown out the window. We count time based on Earth's position relative to our sun. Which is far from a universal measurement. The idea of a light year then loses all meaning.
Click to expand...
This is the Cloud Atlas of posts.
 
#52
Objective Reality Doesn't Exist
:D i believe you're correct.

- read castaneda
- enjoy some purple microdot
- have a lucid dream or astral project

don't let the limitations of physics get in your way! good luck objectifying/measuring your uniqueness! :thumbsup:
 
#53
Basshappi said:
Objective reality isn't real huh?
Step in front of an onrushing train and let's see how well that theory works out for you.
Click to expand...
On the scale of men and trains bullets and planets Newtonian physics is safe to rely on to predict an outcome with certainty. It's what goes on in the cosmos and inside atoms and parts of atoms that is harder to nail down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FilterFunk
#54
Indeed, the problem is actually not what's wrong with quantum theory, but why it seems to work so well despite being crazy. In the late 19th century, people started to make observations that seemed to be at odds with what we now call "classical" physics. New theories that worked for modeling experimental results seemed to be crazy, i.e., at odds with common sense notions of things like determinism and locality.

Through incremental refinement, the crazy theories just kept working better and better. But nobody's been able to reformulate quantum theory in a way that's at peace with common sense, to use the term loosely. It's a tough job. For instance a theory that can't be proven to retain the precision of quantum mechanics is useless. This pretty much rules out getting useful guidance from any of the world's ancient or modern philosophies.

Virtually all physicists agree that there's a place for subjectivity, for instance in our tastes for music, or in the mechanics of how our brains perceive things like colors. Many physicists are engaged in music or the arts. But that kind of subjectivity has no relationship to the craziness of quantum mechanics unless you can show me the equation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IamGroot and Stumbo
#55
fdeck said:
For instance a theory that can't be proven to retain the precision of quantum mechanics is useless. This pretty much rules out getting useful guidance from any of the world's ancient or modern philosophies.
Click to expand...
That's what I've been telling my 91 y.o. dad. Unfortunately, common sense appears to be the least common of the senses.:laugh:
 
  • Like
Reactions: fdeck
#59
I look at it like this:

You have a rock. Nothing too fancy - just a run-of-the-mill rock, like any one of these:
NPriverrock.jpg

Now, gather 100 people from all over the world ages 5 to 105 who are of sound mind and have had actual experience with ordinary rocks. Isolate each of them and hand each of them the same rock and ask each of them the same question: "What is this?" - in the language each understands, of course.

I'm guessing each of them is going to answer, "It's a rock." If the rock isn't actually a rock and might actually be something else, then why would such a diverse group of people all agree that it is indeed a rock?

To me, it would suggest that on a certain level, objective reality does exist. Unless we're all being fooled somehow.


DISCLAIMER: I'm speaking purely as a layman, not a scientist. I'm going purely on what makes sense to me.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back