Re: Physicists Losing Their Grip??

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 12/25/04 

Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2004 01:24:41 GMT

"Mike Helland" <mobydikc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103900084.050381.282800@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Consc wrote:
>
> > Quantum Reality #1 The Copenhagen Interpretation, Part I (There
> > is no deep reality.) No one has influenced more our notions of
> > what the quantum world is really about than Danish physicist
> > Niels Bohr, and it is Bohr who puts forth one of quantum physics'
> > most outrageous claims: that there is no deep reality. Bohr does
> > not deny the evidence of his senses. The World we see around us
> > is real enough, he affirms, but it floats on a world that is not
> > as real. Everyday phenomena are themselves built not out of phe
> > nomena but out of an utterly different kind of being.
>
> This isn't very outragous once you consider the following:
>
> The words "real" and "reality" are tools that we invented. We choose
> what they mean so that they are useful as tools to us.
>
> I'll explain:
>
> For starters, look around you.
>
> That is your conscious experience.
>
> You have an observation; you have a thought or a theory or a belief;
> you have an emotional feeling or a physical sensation; you have
> language and cultural laws and scientific laws.
>
> All of this is known to you thanks to your consciousness. From within
> this conscious experience, emerging out of your unique collection of
> observations and knowledge, there is a world. Temporarily this will be
> refered to as the subjective world.
>
> In addition to this experience, human beings have long supposed,
> perhaps many even unknowingly, that beyond this subjective world is a
> world external to the one in our minds. Temporarily this will be
> refered to as the objective world.
>
> So we can speak of two worlds, the subjective one and the objective
> one. If our intention is to present the most complete and consistent
> description of reality yet, at this point, there is something that is
> not quite clear. Is reality subjective or objective?
>
> To tackle this question thoroughly we need to assume that the words
> "exist", "real", and "something" are all synonymous; as well as
> "existence", "reality", and "everything." Something is real and exists;
> reality is made up of everything in existence.
>
> So back to the question. Is existence subjective or objective or both?
>
> It is common to assume that existence should be objective. After all,
> the subjective experience is merely an individual's personal and
> inaccurate view of the objective world. One might be hesistant to
> accept a reality that is flawed by perception.
>
> But consider what it would mean for existence to be purely objective.
> Then our observations of the world are not real as we experience them;
> our feelings and emotions are only real in the sense that they are
> chemical reactions, and they cannot be real in the unique way that we
> experience them. But those things seem so real to me. Should I deny
> that they are real even when they seem so real?
>
> Also, consider the consequences of this position on the existence on
> knowledge. If something is objective, then human beings know nothing.
> On the other hand, if something is subjective, then human beings do
> know something, but it's not absolute knowledge, which leaves reality
> somewhat fragile. Personally, I think that knowing something that is
> probably wrong is a more optimistic take than knowing nothing, if only
> because it allows something to evolve into something better.
>
> It is important to realize that the word "real" is just a label. We
> invented it as a tool, and we should be using it the way that serves us
> best.
>
> So I take the position that reality is subjective.

I believe reality is objective and exists independent of us. But your view
is legit as well - reasonably argued and fully in accord with the scientific
method. Which is just another example of my conjecture - science can
accommodate many different philosophical positions.

> What you see, what
> you feel; what seems real is real. That means that every consciousness
> has their own reality.
>
> The objective world still serves a purpose in this conjecture: it is
> the superset of all our subjective realities. But it must be understood
> that its presence is purely hypothetical.
>
> The issue of "what is reality?" should be seen as nothing more profound
> than "what meaning shall we give to the word reality?"

Yes of course - to answer questions such as does reality exist etc one must
carefully sate what one means by those terms. And when one is ultra careful
then one finds the answer almost pops out - it depends entirely on those
definitions you decide on in the first place. The thing is getting everyone
to agree from the start - but AFAICS that is what a lot of philosophy is
about - justifying a particular view on what the terms mean.

Thanks
Bill

Quantcast