Re: Two photons... relative distance question

Dave A. Smith wrote:
>"It would really be good if you could leave some atribution to whom
you were replying"
Sorry, I'm viewing as tree and it doesn't show ambiguity that way.
As to the rest, I have 3 thoughts.
1. I suspect that your theory would be in trouble if you admit an
absolute reality. Just a passing thought.
2. If you look carefully, I have not forced an absolute reality above.
I've merely said that practically speaking we act as if there is one.
We live on assumptions, any one of which could one day come tumbling
down and, horror of horrors, we DO find that the sun did not send us a
ray at the time we thought! Our assumptions are not proven and so we
walk on a tenuous line of what we THINK is real.
3. But just because we can't measure it, doesn't mean it isn't real,
either. I mean, if you doubt that reality unmeasured exists, then
surely even your own measurements are at risk? If you measure a length
as 30cm, is your ruler right? Better measure that with another ruler.
Ultimately you arrive at the question of life. Some idiots like George
Hammond end up believing they are figments of their own imagination,
flying in ever tighter circles of logic until they disappear up their
own a--, but the rest of us realise that there is an external reality.
Cogito ergo sum. We may not be able to tie down the infinites of it but
that which we experience holds together by consistent rules which we
may as well call reality because that's as real as we're ever going to
get. Otherwise we face the George Hammond pit of non-existence.
This is like that question, If a tree falls in the forest alone, does
it make any sound?
One cannot prove it - by definition of the question - yet it takes a
special leap of faith to believe it would behave differently just when
we weren't there. A statement of so-called belief which can be
guaranteed not to be applied in practical life, every time you open the
fridge door expecting your food to still be there, instead of seeing if
it is.
It's like a child hiding behind their fingers and thinking that we
cannot see them, just because they can't see us.
Nope, it's clear the more logical (and universally acted upon) view is
that reality exists the same whether or not we measure it or not.
Lump me in the crank pool again. Sorry!!

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Deconversion
    ... so the post is not all in your mind. ... does everyone see the same tree? ... I'll agree with you if you agree that that 'shared objective reality' ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Deconversion
    ... But you just said the post is outside your mind on Google's servers, ... If I say "Did you see that tree shaped like an armchair ... I'll agree with you if you agree that that 'shared objective reality' ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Deconversion
    ... But you just said the post is outside your mind on Google's servers, ... They don't all see the 'same tree'. ... shared objective reality which we can grasp in some way through our ... That's dualism for you! ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Deconversion
    ... No it isn't, there is 'something' outside your mind, otherwise how ... They don't all see the 'same tree'. ... projects the contents of perception 'outwards' and hoists 'reality' ... That's dualism for you! ...
    (uk.religion.christian)