Reality is subjective / comes from the mind? Really?

[idav]

As quantum physics show as there is no separability in reality and more recent experiments are showing there is no reality(i.e., a physical existence independent of consciousness) the existence of mind-matter interactions and action at a distance become a possibility.

That isn't saying there is no reality. It just means that physics has a lot more potential than we are used to thinking about logically.

 

[Surya Deva]

That isn't saying there is no reality. It just means that physics has a lot more potential than we are used to thinking about logically.

It is my friend:

Quantum physics says goodbye to reality
Apr 20, 2007
Some physicists are uncomfortable with the idea that all individual quantum events are innately random. This is why many have proposed more complete theories, which suggest that events are at least partially governed by extra "hidden variables". Now physicists from Austria claim to have performed an experiment that rules out a broad class of hidden-variables theories that focus on realism -- giving the uneasy consequence that reality does not exist when we are not observing it (Nature 446 871).
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - physicsworld.com
​

The technical definition of reality within philosophy is that which has an independent existence from the mind. As quantum physics shows physical reality has no independent existence from the mind.

 

[Storm]

I have not.

Damn. Only good illustration I can think of atm. Ummmmmm....... lemme get back to you.

 

[idav]

It is my friend:

Quantum physics says goodbye to reality
Apr 20, 2007
Some physicists are uncomfortable with the idea that all individual quantum events are innately random. This is why many have proposed more complete theories, which suggest that events are at least partially governed by extra "hidden variables". Now physicists from Austria claim to have performed an experiment that rules out a broad class of hidden-variables theories that focus on realism -- giving the uneasy consequence that reality does not exist when we are not observing it (Nature 446 871).
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - physicsworld.com
​

The technical definition of reality within philosophy is that which has an independent existence from the mind. As quantum physics shows physical reality has no independent existence form the mind.

There are also quantum interpretations that we would be able to account for these "hidden variables" given more knowledge. It is simply hard to account for particles flying around at the speed of light.

Reality does exist without an observer, that is a misunderstanding at best. We can't observe particles going the speed of light, we use instruments to observe and predict it.

 

[Surya Deva]

All other quantum "interpretations" are unproven and have no empirical evidence to back them up. All hidden variable theories have been falsified. Multiple world theory is unfalsfiable because there is no way of testing of another universe. Therefore the Copenhagen interpretation is standing. However, this is no longer just an interpretation but an empirically demonstrated fact.

We know now for certain that separability does not exist, hence there is no objective reality. And now with more refined experiments that test more for reality rather than separability we are empirically ruling out reality as well(defined as independent existence of the physical universe)

It is simply hard to account for particles flying around at the speed of light.

This is based on a misunderstanding that particles are already pre-existent and flying about and we simply just find them. No quantum physics says that the particle is created at the point where it is found by the collapse of its wavefunction. The problem known as the measurement problem is knowing what part of the measurement process collapses the wavefunction, is it the instrument or is it the observer itself. The double slit experiment shows that it is the observer itself that collapses the wavefunction, for it is observed that even when there is an intention for observation the electrons behave as if they know they are going to be observed and convert into particles.

A thought experiment devised by the physicist Eugene Wigner, modifying Schodingers paradox to create Wigners paradox, shows that the measurement chain only ends at a conscious observer. Why? Because the particles, the instrument of detection and the entire experiment exists in a quantumly entangled superpositioned state. There is nothing existing outside of it to cause it to collapse other than a conscious observer. Hence the collapse can only be caused by a conscious observer. Indeed what the empirical tests are now showing us too.

 

[Surya Deva]

I personally don't see what the big problem is in accepting that the universe is not real and how this is going to impact the the world and its people in a negative way. Despite quantum physics having shown for decades now that reality is a problematic assumption, there has been very fierce resistance to its findings.

 

[idav]

All other quantum "interpretations" are unproven and have no empirical evidence to back them up. All hidden variable theories have been falsified. Multiple world theory is unfalsfiable because there is no way of testing of another universe. Therefore the Copenhagen interpretation is standing. However, this is no longer just an interpretation but an empirically demonstrated fact.

We know now for certain that separability does not exist, hence there is no objective reality. And now with more refined experiments that test more for reality rather than separability we are empirically ruling out reality as well(defined as independent existence of the physical universe)



This is based on a misunderstanding that particles are already pre-existent and flying about and we simply just find them. No quantum physics says that the particle is created at the point where it is found by the collapse of its wavefunction. The problem known as the measurement problem is knowing what part of the measurement process collapses the wavefunction, is it the instrument or is it the observer itself. The double slit experiment shows that it is the observer itself that collapses the wavefunction, for it is observed that even when there is an intention for observation the electrons behave as if they know they are going to be observed and convert into particles.

A thought experiment devised by the physicist Eugene Wigner, modifying Schodingers paradox to create Wigners paradox, shows that the measurement chain only ends at a conscious observer. Why? Because the particles, the instrument of detection and the entire experiment exists in a quantumly entangled superpositioned state. There is nothing existing outside of it to cause it to collapse other than a conscious observer. Hence the collapse can only be caused by a conscious observer. Indeed what the empirical tests are now showing us too.

I'm not against there being multiple realities. There are indeed multiple probabilities but only one will happen. If the Copenhagen interpretation was true then light waves would collapse we we observe light.

 

[Surya Deva]

Yep, so the electron exists in a supepositioned state prior to the collapse of the wavefunction, meaning it is in all positions at once and then after the collapse of the wavefunction it appears as a particle at a single point in space. We can more or less calculate using statistical probability and the uncertainty principle where it is likely to appear.

Now what causes the wavefunction collapse? We have two theories

1) Consciousness measurement collapse/Copenhagen interpretation
2) Multiple world theory

1) This theory pretty much says exactly what we can see. That the electron converts into a particle when we observe it or even intent to observe it. It agrees with logical thought experiments like Wigners paradox and the empirical evidence of the test of inequalities testing for separability and reality.

2) This theory says that the universe splits itself into infinite copies every moment where the electron will appear in all possible spaces at once. There will be infinite parallel universe where you would have made different choices There is no empirical evidence to support this theory, it is not actually falsifiable(hence it is not really a valid scientific theory) and it is shown to be absurd. Moreover, it does not mitigate the fact that explains why self-collapse take place. Why doesn't the the universe just remain in an unmanifest wavefunctionl state, why should it ever manifest as a particle? We have a clear logical problem here of an unmanifest, spaceless, timeless immaterial reality creating a manifest, particular, finite and temporal material reality. This is a problem of an ex-nihilo creation of something coming out of nothing. Like having a bag of marbles, and then drawing out of it rocks.

Thus #2 involves necessary multiplications of assumptions, is unfalsifiable and hence not even a valid scientific theory and still cannot account for self collapse. #1 is the simplest explanation, is falsifiable and has been empirically demonstrated to be true.

 

[Koldo]

Not really, because if it is irrelevant then we could never settle any cases in court Witness testimony and witness credibility do indeed play a factor. Your knowledge of scientific methods is pretty outdated. In modern science even qualitative research methods are considered valid means of collecting data and testimony is accepted as valid data.

It is just important to note that scientific evidence stands in a different plateau over witness testimony.

 

[Surya Deva]

It is just important to note that scientific evidence stands in a different plateau over witness testimony.

Testimony does indeed play a part in qualitative research methodologies in the social sciences using participant and non participant observations, interviews and interpretative analysis.

Of course there is witness testimony even in the physical sciences for an experiment which has been performed by one scientist relies on the testimony of their report. This then has to undergo peer review process which depends on the testimony of the reports of other scientists. And indeed, as much we would like to believe that this is objective/impartial, the truth is scientists if they do not like the conclusions of another scientist, may fudge their own experiments to not find their findings. This is happening all the time in the field of science(politics of science) and scientists are found fudging data to support their own pet hypothesis.

 

[Koldo]

Testimony does indeed play a part in qualitative research methodologies in the social sciences using participant and non participant observations, interviews and interpretative analysis.

Of course there is witness testimony even in the physical sciences for an experiment which has been performed by one scientist relies on the testimony of their report. This then has to undergo peer review process which depends on the testimony of the reports of other scientists. And indeed, as much we would like to believe that this is objective/impartial, the truth is scientists if they do not like the conclusions of another scientist, may fudge their own experiments to not find their findings. This is happening all the time in the field of science(politics of science) and scientists are found fudging data to support their own pet hypothesis.

This doesn't contradict what i said though.

 

[Surya Deva]

Yes it does

Testimony does indeed play a part in qualitative research methodologies in the social sciences using participant and non participant observations, interviews and interpretative analysis.

Unless you think the social sciences do not qualify as science?

 

[Koldo]

Yes it does

Unless you think the social sciences do not qualify as science?

I never said witness testimony isn't evidence.
I said scientific evidence stands in a different plateau over it.

 

[1137]

I don't havr time to addess everything currently but

Faith is by definition irrational. You are not available for rational discussion on this subject.

Haha faith is not irrational by definition. In fact, accepting logical inference is faith. You are thinking fideism.

However your general attitude which equates everybody whose had psychic experience with drug users is really offensive. In general you do have this offensive attitude that anybody who does not share your beliefs, must be stupid. But like I said before it says more about you than it does others.

I never said that, but you full well know I didn't. I simply compared an experience to that of taking drugs. A mystical experience is induced by the brain whther high or not. I also have never said people who do not agree with me are stupid, which you also know full well.

As for that philosophy class stuff, it is my minor. It was my major but you can't do much with it. I have aced 5 philosophy classes, I still am close with those profesors; meeting for luches, gatherings, guest speaking, etc. . Questioning does not get you expelled, you should really try it. I question all the time, but you are peddling nonsense. I am sorry I cannot believe that I can teleport and am too "closed minded" to accept your "reasoning". I mean if this is your opinion, anyone who refuses to truly consider the earth may be flat is a closed minded, fideistic, fundamentalist moron.

Fine, I am closed minded; I refuse to accept that the earth is flat, that 1+1=3, and that I can choose to defy gravity.

 

[1137]

Testimony is only valid to the person who had the experience. Surya, if you are brave enough to take one of those philosophy classes I apparently could not survive in, try Philosophy of Religion. This was covered prominently. If you have some mystical experience, that may validate it for you, but you cannot use your experience to show that mysticism is objectively true. Mystical experiences are induced by the brain to the best of our knowledge. So, your experience is no more or less valid that the guy on LSD who gets attacked by the troll. Are you willing to accept his testimony that trolls truly exist? (Well, you may, but most would not).

As for consciousness being from the brain, there is no reason to believe it is not. We do not know either way, but if all the rest of human experience is in the brain (love, pain, happiness, sadness, addiction, etc etc etc) why should we believe consciousness (which relies on these) is free of the brain? The answer; we shouldn't.

 

[Willamena]

It is just important to note that scientific evidence stands in a different plateau over witness testimony.

Not terribly different--scientific evidence can be rendered unsubmittable by attacking the scientist's methods or reputation in the same manner as disqualifying a witnesses testimony.

 

[1137]

Not terribly different--scientific evidence can be rendered unsubmittable by attacking the scientist's methods or reputation in the same manner as disqualifying a witnesses testimony.

That is irrelevant though, fallacious even. Say a woman is arguing that abortion is immoral, that you are a terrible person if you have one, then you find out she has had an abortion. To assume that affects her reasoning is fallacious, she may simply be a hypocrite or believe she, herself, is a terrible person. If the methods are bad, then it is no fallacious.

 

[Straw Dog]

From the fundamental premise Advaita is able to derive all its tenets. It is a rigorous system of metaphysics, hence why the great logician Whitehead called it the most impressive system of metaphysics the human mind has ever conceived.

Yet the human mind itself, even in its most impressive demonstrations of logic, still contains a certain degree of deficiency as per the human condition. This is the reason why I'm hesitant to proclaim any philosophy as "perfect", even my own.

In terms of this discussion one of the fundamental tenets which is also the doctrine of Advaita is Maya. That is, the universe is a holographic projection which spans across a continuum of consciousness states deep sleep(causal) dream(subtle) and waking(gross) Hence why it is possible for you to to interact in dream with with another dreamer, because they are taking place in the subtle dimension or the mental plane. This mental plane is more fundamental than the physical plane and necessarily precedes the physical plane.

I don't know how useful the "mental plane" is as a descriptive term. You may be aware that "materialism" isn't the same as "physicalism". Physics entails much more subtle and complex aspects of reality than just normal crude matter. I concur that there are more subtle dimensions than just the basic experience of materialism, but it could still be contained within a physical monism. I cannot claim to know this definitively, but it still seems to be consistent with the phenomenon in question.

 

[Koldo]

Not terribly different--scientific evidence can be rendered unsubmittable by attacking the scientist's methods or reputation in the same manner as disqualifying a witnesses testimony.

Certainly.

 

[Surya Deva]

Haha faith is not irrational by definition. In fact, accepting logical inference is faith. You are thinking fideism.

Nope, faith is the opposite of reason

I never said that, but you full well know I didn't. I simply compared an experience to that of taking drugs. A mystical experience is induced by the brain whther high or not. I also have never said people who do not agree with me are stupid, which you also know full well.

Mystical experiences show correlations to brain activity, eeg activity, skin impendence and biochemical activity. They are corrleates, because they do not show us which is causing whic.

As for that philosophy class stuff, it is my minor. It was my major but you can't do much with it. I have aced 5 philosophy classes, I still am close with those profesors; meeting for luches, gatherings, guest speaking, etc. . Questioning does not get you expelled, you should really try it. I question all the time, but you are peddling nonsense. I am sorry I cannot believe that I can teleport and am too "closed minded" to accept your "reasoning". I mean if this is your opinion, anyone who refuses to truly consider the earth may be flat is a closed minded, fideistic, fundamentalist moron.

Well I have a BA degree in Philosophy with first class honours and a dissertation with distinction in philosophy of science, and my area of research was indeed quantum physics. I pursued the degree because of my passion for philosophy and I intend to pursue it further at postgraduate level in the near future. I also have a strong background in Hindu philosophy.

I kind of know what I am talking about and I am familiar with many ancient, medieval and modern philosophers and the different perspectives they bring, which I am sorry I have seen any evidence you seem to be familiar with. You have a very absolutist perspective and are not aware of other perspectives on these subjects or can appreciate their arguments. In fact even when I show you clear empirical evidence from quantum physics that falsifies objective reality and reality, you still maintain your position, as if I did not present you the evidence at all. This is why I think you are not being rational, and not because you don't accept psychic teleportation