The Conception of "real" in science and general discourse

Interdisciplinary science discussions. Also, if you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here.

Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby mitchellmckain on May 18th, 2018, 1:03 pm 

dandelion » May 18th, 2018, 8:12 am wrote:Reg Prescott DIY, so, from notions read and discussion above regarding notions of realism but also nature or role of observer in interactions and division, what do you think of the following scenario? Without restriction to observer notions to human consciousness etc., possibly any system in interaction may have an observer role. If this were the case for all interaction then all interaction might be considered as involving an observer, disregarding dependence or independence?


I don't think scientists would have any problem leaving observation to a measuring device, but decoherence seems to at least require an interaction with a very large number of particles, so a single particle interaction would not be described as observation.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby RJG on May 18th, 2018, 3:31 pm 

BadgerJelly wrote:The Conception of "real" in science…

Science, per se, has nothing to say about 'reality'.

The truths of science are wholly reliant upon the non-trustworthy objects of experiencing, aka "empirical evidence".

Although experiences (sensations) themselves are undeniably 'real', the content (objects) of those experiences can never be trusted, or known to be certain, or 'real'. In this respect, the truths of science (via empirical evidence) is nothing more than (un-certain) 'hearsay' and therefore should never be considered anymore trustworthy than ANY OTHER 'hearsay'. Hearsay in any form is still just hearsay.

Also, the truths of science constantly evolve and change. The truths of science are 'fallible', and therefore should NEVER be trusted as a means to ascertain 'reality'.


Doogles wrote:Five of your senses in contact with the outside world have registered positive. This is hard reality. No argument!

Is reality determined by 'popularity'? And if so, then what if only 4 of my senses register positive, is this then partially (medium hard?) reality?

If I receive (experience) the same hearsay from 5 different sources, does this mean that this hearsay is then really real?
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 964
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby doogles on May 18th, 2018, 4:50 pm 

Ah, RJG, my old CTD-debating friend! You asked "Is reality determined by 'popularity'? And if so, then what if only 4 of my senses register positive, is this then partially (medium hard?) reality?"
If I receive the same hearsay from 5 different sources, does this mean that this hearsay is then really real?

I'm pleased somebody got off the 'reality and scientific method' track. BadgerJelly, who drafted the OP, must have gone bush or something to get away from it.

And I'm pleased that someone commented on my bar-of-chocolate example of reality. I find that pragmatism is the best form of logic. (One or two did 'mention' it without comment)

I still proclaim that if our five senses detect something, then as an individual (forget everyone else's perceptions), we have to regard it as 'real' for our own daily survival purposes. Otherwise none of us would get through a simple day. And if we are dealing with familiar phenomena, one or two sensory detections are sufficient to accept each of them as real.

This starts with the real alarm clock, the real shower & toilet, the real clothes, the real breakfast, the real car, and everything else. Every day is a reality to each and every one of us.

Our own senses are not hearsay and we are not dependent, in an overall day, on anyone else's interpretation of every phenomenon we encounter to get through it -- popularity of sensation is not an issue.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1006
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby DragonFly on May 18th, 2018, 6:03 pm 

Science is not reliable because it provides certainty; it is reliable because it provides us with the best answers we have at present. Science is the most we know so far about whatever is confronting us. There is no better way so far.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby DragonFly on May 18th, 2018, 10:41 pm 

Science doesn't pretend to know the ultimate answer, although it does have many answers to lesser questions. Many scientific inquirers distrust whoever claims to be the one having ultimate answers or privileged access to the Truth, plus the preachers' dishonesty shows through when they routinely declare the Answer as if it's true. This distrust disturbs some religious realms. It is not science that is disturbed by religion: some of the religious are disturbed by scientific thinking. Perhaps the ultimate answer will never be known, but every day we find out more.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby Eodnhoj7 on May 19th, 2018, 9:35 am 

DragonFly » May 18th, 2018, 6:03 pm wrote:Science is not reliable because it provides certainty; it is reliable because it provides us with the best answers we have at present. Science is the most we know so far about whatever is confronting us. There is no better way so far.



Hence truth becomes probabilistic.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018
DragonFly liked this post


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby RJG on May 19th, 2018, 12:01 pm 

doogles wrote:I still proclaim that if our five senses detect something, then as an individual (forget everyone else's perceptions), we have to regard it as 'real' for our own daily survival purposes.

doogles wrote:Our own senses are not hearsay...

Yes they are. They are "hearsay" because we have NO WAY to vouch for the accuracy (truthfulness) of our mental impressions (experiences) that supposedly emanate from our sensory organs (which in turn, are supposedly affected by the real world out there).

Who knows, maybe we exist in a hallucinal/delusional state, or are dreaming, or exist in a virtual reality, or are a brain-in-a-vat, or being tricked by an evil demon. We have no way of knowing with certainty, we can only hope and pray (or just outright lie to ourselves) that reality is exactly as we experience it.

RJG wrote:Although experiences (sensations) themselves are undeniably 'real', the content (objects) of those experiences can never be trusted, or known to be certain, or 'real'. In this respect, the truths of science (via empirical evidence) is nothing more than (un-certain) 'hearsay' and therefore should never be considered anymore trustworthy than ANY OTHER 'hearsay'. Hearsay in any form is still just hearsay.

DragonFly wrote:Science is not reliable because it provides certainty; it is reliable because it provides us with the best answers we have at present.

"Best"? ...can one 'hearsay' actually be better or worse (true-er or false-er) than another? ...aren't all hearsay 'equally' suspect?

Hearsay (and science) can't logically vouch for itself, no more than the Bible can vouch for itself (...when it claims to be the true word of God because it says so right here in the Bible).

Nor can hearsay B logically vouch for hearsay A. As then hearsay B would then need to be vouched for (by a hearsay C), ...which makes any hearsay unable to vouch for any other hearsay.

The truths of science are based on hearsay which makes it no more certain than the truths of religion. Just because we have been culturally indoctrinated to believe otherwise does not make it so.
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 964
Joined: 22 Mar 2012
Eodnhoj7 liked this post


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby dandelion on May 20th, 2018, 1:45 am 

Interesting thoughts! Biv, yes, it seems easy. Mitchell, thanks very much for considering interactions with measuring instruments or parts and also for suggesting problems. Would you mind elaborating on these, maybe limits of interactions between systems or sub-systems, maybe something about Wigner’s friends, if that is ok, please? But also it might be that decoherence could be construed a bit differently in some scenarios. Dragonfly and Eod, probabilities of uncertain probabilities may seem strong. Generally, considering the thread topic, I’m especially interested here about status regarding that here.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby mitchellmckain on May 20th, 2018, 1:08 pm 

dandelion » May 20th, 2018, 12:45 am wrote:Interesting thoughts! Biv, yes, it seems easy. Mitchell, thanks very much for considering interactions with measuring instruments or parts and also for suggesting problems. Would you mind elaborating on these, maybe limits of interactions between systems or sub-systems, maybe something about Wigner’s friends, if that is ok, please? But also it might be that decoherence could be construed a bit differently in some scenarios. Dragonfly and Eod, probabilities of uncertain probabilities may seem strong. Generally, considering the thread topic, I’m especially interested here about status regarding that here.


There seems to be a consensus that when a superposition expands in the process of decoherence it does so exponentially and thus the time period between encompassing one observer and that of encompassing all observers on the planet is infinitesimal. This is what makes the Everett interpretation compatible with the Copenhagen interpretation where decoherence is instantaneous. It is one thing when you are dealing with a few particles in a laboratory with an effort to isolate it from the rest of the universe and quite another when you are dealing with many trillions of particles in a highly interactive environment with no such isolation efforts (if such efforts are even remotely likely to succeed).

From Wikipedia:
The thought experiment posits a friend of Wigner who performs the Schrödinger's cat experiment after Wigner leaves the laboratory. Only when he returns does Wigner learn the result of the experiment from his friend, that is, whether the cat is alive or dead. The question is raised: was the state of the system a superposition of "dead cat/sad friend" and "live cat/happy friend," only determined when Wigner learned the result of the experiment, or was it determined at some previous point?

As I suggested before about the Schrodinger's cat experiment, this was more about the absurdities of thinking this has something to do with the consciousness of human beings than a serious suggestion that there is superposition of a dead and alive cats, or equivalently in the Everett interpretation there is no significant time interval between when the superposition encompasses the cat and when it encompasses all observers in the future light cone (the radius of the Earth is only .02 light seconds so that means that the time it takes for the future light cone to encompass the entire earth is rather small).
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby BadgerJelly on May 21st, 2018, 12:59 am 

Been away for a while and no time to read all three pages right now, but ...

Eod -

Your first reply shows you've grasped what I was referring to well enough.

Mitch -

The main point I was making was to combat the kind of reaction you gave. Science does not deny reality nor get mixed up in the issue of "real." My point was about SCIENTISTS rather than SCIENCE and the way to loosen terminology up in order to create better discourse between the lesser extreme peoples.

The point being as people we have a concept of reality, a subjective view of the world intermingled with an objective understanding (society in general), and that people with any given regard toward some said "real" (of which we all have) may differ quite drastically.

It is from this attitude that "the scientist" generally takes on the view point of "reality" as that which is scientifically approachable and being in the habit of steering clear of some subjective positioning.

What is the underlying theme I was hoping to develop was the juxtaposition of "science" and "theology" in the human felt sense of the words. I believe they are one and the same and that socially we've grown inclined to segregate the two and approach these views as distinct from each other rather than as two components of a greater human experience of being.

I have halted my reading lately so I won't go much further than this atm with examples of what I mean. If you can do some fishing with questions then I hope you get to understand what I mean - don't hold back, I appreciate your somewhat vicious critique (I don't take any offense by it.)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5383
Joined: 14 Mar 2012
Eodnhoj7CaryTyson liked this post


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby mitchellmckain on May 21st, 2018, 3:55 am 

BadgerJelly » May 20th, 2018, 11:59 pm wrote: My point was about SCIENTISTS rather than SCIENCE and the way to loosen terminology up in order to create better discourse between the lesser extreme peoples.

Very good. But scientists are just people and thus you could be saying the same thing to anyone and on a topic where you have to accept that there will be a diversity of thought (and personalities). Sure many will have blind spots like any group of people and others will have more flexible thinking. Indeed you can say that I have been fighting for a more flexible approach to reality all through this thread.

BadgerJelly » May 20th, 2018, 11:59 pm wrote:The point being as people we have a concept of reality, a subjective view of the world intermingled with an objective understanding (society in general), and that people with any given regard toward some said "real" (of which we all have) may differ quite drastically.

It is from this attitude that "the scientist" generally takes on the view point of "reality" as that which is scientifically approachable and being in the habit of steering clear of some subjective positioning.

If you don't want this reaction then don't address them as scientists and in regards to science. It is not reasonable for you to ask them to abandon science. The best you can do it make it clear that you are not asking for the position of science on things. It is, of course, not guaranteed to work because you cannot force them to step out of that role. There are many reasons why people avoid the subjective aspect of reality even to the point of pretending it doesn't exist. The best argument I can make is simply that while science requires objective observation, human life requires subjective participation. To me that seems a good reason to stop pretending that science is everything.

BadgerJelly » May 20th, 2018, 11:59 pm wrote:What is the underlying theme I was hoping to develop was the juxtaposition of "science" and "theology" in the human felt sense of the words. I believe they are one and the same and that socially we've grown inclined to segregate the two and approach these views as distinct from each other rather than as two components of a greater human experience of being.

But I only see that as a recipe for greater muddle and less understanding. It makes me wonder if you are not trying to have your cake and eat it too. To be sure, understanding isn't everything, and some approaches like Zen seeks to set understanding aside. This is not without it merits. But if you are after understanding then this comes with seeing the distinctions with greater clarity and thus how things fit together into a greater whole.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby doogles on May 21st, 2018, 6:43 am 

RJG » Sun May 20, 2018 2:01 am wrote:
doogles wrote:I still proclaim that if our five senses detect something, then as an individual (forget everyone else's perceptions), we have to regard it as 'real' for our own daily survival purposes.

doogles wrote:Our own senses are not hearsay...

Yes they are. They are "hearsay" because we have NO WAY to vouch for the accuracy (truthfulness) of our mental impressions (experiences) that supposedly emanate from our sensory organs (which in turn, are supposedly affected by the real world out there).

I would like to reply RJG but you've convinced me that if anyone reads what I write, they will regard it as hearsay and not take me seriously.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1006
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE
RJG liked this post


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby Eodnhoj7 on May 21st, 2018, 9:46 am 

BadgerJelly » May 21st, 2018, 12:59 am wrote:Been away for a while and no time to read all three pages right now, but ...

Eod -

Your first reply shows you've grasped what I was referring to well enough.

Mitch -

The main point I was making was to combat the kind of reaction you gave. Science does not deny reality nor get mixed up in the issue of "real." My point was about SCIENTISTS rather than SCIENCE and the way to loosen terminology up in order to create better discourse between the lesser extreme peoples.

The point being as people we have a concept of reality, a subjective view of the world intermingled with an objective understanding (society in general), and that people with any given regard toward some said "real" (of which we all have) may differ quite drastically.

It is from this attitude that "the scientist" generally takes on the view point of "reality" as that which is scientifically approachable and being in the habit of steering clear of some subjective positioning.

What is the underlying theme I was hoping to develop was the juxtaposition of "science" and "theology" in the human felt sense of the words. I believe they are one and the same and that socially we've grown inclined to segregate the two and approach these views as distinct from each other rather than as two components of a greater human experience of being.

I have halted my reading lately so I won't go much further than this atm with examples of what I mean. If you can do some fishing with questions then I hope you get to understand what I mean - don't hold back, I appreciate your somewhat vicious critique (I don't take any offense by it.)


The underlined, I believe, can summated the problem of the whole thread along with the fundamental ontological themes of "quality" and "quantity" needing further definition.

Theology and science do not necessarily, if at all contradict, except when taken as strict viewpoints that exist in themselves alone.

The Egyptians, as an example (and we can argued modern Catholics with their contributions to the scientific method, the nature of self-evidence, etc. as well to some degrees along with the muslim contributions to algebra and logic) fused religion with psychology and science where numbers had "qualitative" aspects to them represented in them through the symbol use of animals.

This "fusion" of what we call science and religion enabled a certain degree of technological progress which we cannot exhibit as of yet today (the pyramids, surgery/medicine with low degree of "technology" [hence more efficient methodology]) but a fundamental different perspective in not how to approach problems but the nature of life itself.

Science, in its pursuit of progress, does not have the metaphysical base to give answer's to the problems of "life" considering the evidence it produces is statistical by nature...hence subject to change. Under these premises, science by its very nature (in the modern sense of the word), inevitably has to progress past its own origins and change.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby BadgerJelly on May 21st, 2018, 11:06 am 

Eod -

That is the conundrum really. I have literally only read the first two replies on page one. WestWorld is on in a moment so I'll peruse the thread later in the week.

Mitch -

I didn't suggest anyone abandoning anything. I was more or less referring to the cutting away of anything that could bridge a gap in discourse out of an inability to ask "what if?", as in what if what I call reality is nothing like what someone else calls reality.

In a funny way we could say the very idea of "healthy skepticism" is a contradiction. In the sense that we set a boundary on what to call "skepticism" in that phrase by suggesting there is a known line between what is "good" and "bad" (healthy or unhealthy.)

To add. I consider myself very much one of these "scientific people." I am questioning how I can rationally abandon the positions of others if I can never make a claim to understand them from my limited rigid (albeit blindly rigid - to me) perspective. Is my "healthy skepticism" not healthy enough or too healthy?

Again, I find myself resorting to th word I most dearly call my friend. EXPLORATION.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5383
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby Eodnhoj7 on May 21st, 2018, 11:33 am 

The problem of the scientific method is the very same value system it manifests, that of "rigour". "Rigour" is simply the establishment of definition through the establishment of various limits (abstract definitions, etc.). Science's emphasis on this rigour reflects a deep fear of uncertainity that it fundamentally falls back into itself considering the increase in accuracy (rigour) in one respect causes a simultaneously lack of accuracy or rigour in another. Which greater "clarity" comes a greater degree of uncertainty ironically, as the lines which science draws are based upon a continual act of "localizing" certain phenomenon, hence dividing them from other phenomenon.

Metaphysics, as "being through being", manifests a reflective process where a truth or phenomenon is observed as having these very same reflective properties (as evidenced in its premise) that fundamentally give a unity as structure. We can observe that previous systems of metaphysics mirrored cultures and means of perception where a greater unity existed between man and creation. In the era of modern scientific enquiry we see a greater time of division.

The problem occurs in the respect to not just the nature of truth but how we measure it, as this form of measurement is the means we exist through these truths we observe.

In simpler terms science depends on a divisive unity, metaphysics on a reflective unity, with both requiring a synthesis in our times to eliminate the inherent separation they observe.

The fear of science is one of individuation where an underlying axioms is not just how one "seperates" but separates themselves from other's, which we see as evident in the field itself separating into further fields that do not always necessary relate due to this vary same rigor causing an inherent form of complexity resulting in separation.

The "divide and conquer" method of warfare can be applied to the methodology the scientific community uses today as many of these truths are merely a means not just to conquer the natural world but the human condition itself because of a presupposed collective guilt. This collective guilt is a projection of the powerlessness of mankind in the nature of reality exacerbated by a fear of death. This fear of death, which envelopes the collective zeitgeist of the scientific community, is manifested further under the terms of progress as a linear approach towards point zero where knowledge itself cycles back as a form of divisive annihilation.

In these respects the scientific community does not just fear metaphysics because it has no power over it, but magnifies its own fears because of the unconscious warlike methodology it projects upon both the world and itself. This emphasis on the scientific method can be seen summated years ago under Nazi-Technological Progress where a general madness against the human condition, summated under the german peoples of the time and there losses, gave rise to a Jungian "Wotan/Odin" Archetype (article can delve further into this: http://ahistoryofthepresentananthology. ... -1934.html) of the "Mad Hunter/Shaman". Answers to suffering were not found hence they must be hunted downed and "pinned" or "pierced" by the spear of the intellect known as the measuring line which further mirrors a form of phallicism (line/sphere/phallis follow same forms and function in respect contexts) as a repressed form of masculinity where the individual male embodies a fear of loss (masculine identity).

This Nazism never really went away, as it synthesized with American Freudianism and Easter Marxism resulting in the cold war as an amplified scientific process embodied under a cultural value system resulting in under, in linear terms, projecting into "space" (much in the same manner we see in ancient scripture of man trying to reach the heaven's under the tower of babel) and the synthesis of missile technology as the cultural expression of a "shield wall of spears".

Reverting back to history we can see the divide between metaphysics and science begin in the latter portion of medieval times where the average man felt "helpless" against the reign of theocratic institution. This religious guilt of not just helplessness but an perceived internalized failure to practice and maintain certain moral and ethical codes is mirrored in the cultural fears, mostly in the scientific community that in turn extends through the cultures from this "priest class", by a fear of "reverting back to medieval times" where death was accepted as natural cycle and the condition of humanity was accepted as mortal and part of an inherent universal balance where everything had its place as "one".

This progress of projecting past origins however is doomed to fail as the line extends from point zero and inevitably goes back to this very same point zero. Hence science becomes more arrogant in its facing of this darkness, its own limits, as a system of metaphysics will eventually have to universalize and put it back into its place. It is good to note, from the level of the Jungian Archetype, that in times of trouble Wotan eventually just disappeared...how much more so the institutions which embody this god as the subjective human level?
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby RJG on May 21st, 2018, 12:53 pm 

RJG wrote:Yes they are. They are "hearsay" because we have NO WAY to vouch for the accuracy (truthfulness) of our mental impressions (experiences) that supposedly emanate from our sensory organs (which in turn, are supposedly affected by the real world out there).

doogles wrote:I would like to reply RJG but you've convinced me that if anyone reads what I write, they will regard it as hearsay and not take me seriously.

...I was just 'hallucinating' that your comments were serious (non-hearsay), ...so now you've gone and messed that up! :-)

It is at least equally plausible that I am imagining (hallucinating/dreaming/what-ever) this very conversation. For we can ONLY know what our mental impressions tell us. The source of these mental impressions are anyone's guess.

If we then have the mental impression that our mental impressions are from 'real' (non-imaginary) sources, then is this any more convincing or satisfying? ...does this provide us with an intellectually satisfying answer/resolution? ...or does this just kick the can down the road?

If you tell me that the answer to God's existence, is that He was created by a Greater God, does this then provide us with the intellectual satisfaction/resolution that we were searching for? ...or does it just kick the can down the road?

Claiming that our mental impressions are of 'real' things because our mental impressions tell us so, just doesn't cut it for me. Sorry.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:Science, in its pursuit of progress, does not have the metaphysical base to give answer's to the problems of "life"...

Agreed. Science/scientist can only see-what-they-see (see what they "experience"), and therefore are limited only to 'experiential' truths, which are metaphysically disconnected (on a different level) from the real reality herself.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:...considering the evidence it produces is statistical by nature...hence subject to change. Under these premises, science by its very nature (in the modern sense of the word), inevitably has to progress past its own origins and change.

Agreed again. The one thing certain about science is that it's "truths" constantly evolve/change. Therefore science is fallible, non-reliable as a means to ascertain reality.

Those truths reliant upon the uncertain nature of 'experiential' objects, can never be certain, or known as truthful.
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 964
Joined: 22 Mar 2012
Eodnhoj7 liked this post


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby doogles on May 21st, 2018, 4:49 pm 

RJG -- "Claiming that our mental impressions are of 'real' things because our mental impressions tell us so, just doesn't cut it for me. Sorry."

There's apparently an old Hindu saying that "All is Maya (Illusion)". But how does anyone with that mindset get through a normal day -- as I said in an earlier post -- the real alarm clock, the real toilet, the real shower (set at a real temperature that doesn't scald), the real clothes, the real breakfast, the real car, the real commute etc ..... .

My advice for the day to anyone who doubts the reality of their own perceptions -- "DON'T STAND IN FRONT OF A MOVING TRUCK"
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1006
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby DragonFly on May 21st, 2018, 5:21 pm 

doogles » May 21st, 2018, 3:49 pm wrote:"All is Maya (Illusion)".


If so, such as 'virtual' or Brahman's Dream as the implementation (the messenger), then the message is still real, for what makes no difference truly is no difference to the real message as felt as 'real'.

Curiously, if simulated, everything seems to operate the same as if it were real and it appears that the Simulator would have to be larger than the Cosmos, with infinite power even, and it seems there can't be anything infinite because the quantum is the lower limit.


Fields seem to be fundamental but we don't know what they consist of or why and how they are. It appears that all else is emergent and temporary, even time, space, and particles.

Should we call 'fields' permanent? Well, they have energy, and energy guarantees constant change. There can be no stillness; everything has to move on. Change is ubiquitous.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby Eodnhoj7 on May 21st, 2018, 6:54 pm 

doogles » May 21st, 2018, 4:49 pm wrote:RJG -- "Claiming that our mental impressions are of 'real' things because our mental impressions tell us so, just doesn't cut it for me. Sorry."

There's apparently an old Hindu saying that "All is Maya (Illusion)". But how does anyone with that mindset get through a normal day -- as I said in an earlier post -- the real alarm clock, the real toilet, the real shower (set at a real temperature that doesn't scald), the real clothes, the real breakfast, the real car, the real commute etc ..... .

My advice for the day to anyone who doubts the reality of their own perceptions -- "DON'T STAND IN FRONT OF A MOVING TRUCK"


Illusions are merely deficiencies of truth, and exist as symbols of it in these respects where the illusion itself is merely an approximation of it.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby BadgerJelly on May 22nd, 2018, 1:44 am 

Had a better look at the full thread now. Not read everything word for word though.

Firstly I would quickly abandon any suggestion of destroying all meaning and all boundaries (in some post modern messiness - references to Foucault and Derrida are perhaps a useful way of seeing when things become too "loose".)

Secondly, it was not my intention to open a prolonged discussion about scientific method. My primary enquiry was about bridging gaps between subjective views built on an admixture of instituted and freer uses of the term "real" in respect to how we view the world and describe it.

I don't see this as being a topic that fits into philosophy, science or any other singular field. I guess it is more of a logical, ethical and political question - in the sense that discourse is political and that we're often too sure of what is being said by someone else because we've grown accustomed to this or that definition within our personal and/or pedagogical/educational understanding.

As a common example of the kind of discourse I've seen repeatedly on forums (aimed at myself sometimes, and no doubt I've done the same thing.)

note: The following are not direct quotes, they are just something like what I am talking about:

"You're not living in the real world. You're ignoring the facts."

"That is nothing more than fantasy!"

"If you cannot show me evidence then it is not real."

What all of these kind of rebuttals show is a distinct laziness because they miss the end tag. That being to end the sentence with "FOR ME." There is a shutting down of discourse rather than an open minded conversation in which there is an actual attempt to UNDERSTAND rather than ram home your opposition.

I don't possess an answer to this at all. I am with Biv in his statement about being "underwhelmed" by the idea that science doesn't get political or philosophical (that I have seen as a big problem for some time - because there appears to be an unwillingness, and/or lack of ability, to loosen up the words in discourse to find reconciliation and common understanding rather than "correct" or "incorrect".)

I am also quite obviously with Eod in the sense of pointing at the issue of "quality" and quantity," but my views there are likely hard to express and harder to grasp because I approach it from a linguistic perspective - but I stauchly refuse to get into complete deconstructionism and turn all words into nothing more than noise!

Eod note: I cannot take an article seriously if it's written by someone who paraphrases Foucault and somehow

I am scientifically minded. I don't doubt science because there is nothing to doubt. To some that sounds dogmatic simply because they don't understand what I mean and I've made no profound attempt to explain myself. What then happens is that people say "You're wrong!" rather than start a dialogue and dance around for a while positioning there appreciation of the other before striking into argumentative combat - hopefully with as little rhetoric as possible and with some inkling of repsect and wit to defuse any emotionally charged topic.

For the sake of clarity I mean that if I am flying on a plane I don't doubt the our understanding of aerodynamics and jet propulsion because the reality of the method has been physically manifested accurately enough. Just like if I believed women couldn't walk and then saw all the women walking around I would quickly become accustomed to the blatant physical manifestation of this fact, whereas watching videos I may well suggest doubt and say the video is doctored.

When it comes ot ethics and such science has a great deal to tell us about our own presupposition and can therefore allows, I would hope, to opebn up reasonable and legible discourse with people who alienate themselves (willfully or not) from "science" as a "truth" (and it is not shocking for me that many people equate "science" with "truth" because of what I've said above. On most levels science is practiced in abstract realms and often we don't directly see the physical manifestation.) Basically our view of the world, of "reality", is an amalgam of roughly stitched together pieces of which we cannot really see the edges, cannot distinguish colours or textures, and come to some understanding only by happenstance that has accumulated over great expanses of time - and time is another "piece" of the patchwork we inherently all appreciate, but struggle with because we cannot see its physical manifestion due to it being buried in language and presented in an abstract way under who knows how many layers? And I hope you can see the disintegration of language here when it comes to the basic and fundamental principles upon which we general, and often blindly, inhabit our subjective existence.

That is pretty much my epitaph for this thread ... but I wouldn't forgive myself if I didn't ask for clarity on the following from Eod:

In these respects the scientific community does not just fear metaphysics because it has no power over it, but magnifies its own fears because of the unconscious warlike methodology it projects upon both the world and itself. This emphasis on the scientific method can be seen summated years ago under Nazi-Technological Progress where a general madness against the human condition, summated under the german peoples of the time and there losses, gave rise to a Jungian "Wotan/Odin" Archetype (article can delve further into this: http://ahistoryofthepresentananthology. ... -1934.html) of the "Mad Hunter/Shaman". Answers to suffering were not found hence they must be hunted downed and "pinned" or "pierced" by the spear of the intellect known as the measuring line which further mirrors a form of phallicism (line/sphere/phallis follow same forms and function in respect contexts) as a repressed form of masculinity where the individual male embodies a fear of loss (masculine identity).


I wouldn't conflate "male" and "masculinity" if you wish to claim any basic understanding of Jung. I hope it was a slip of your fingers? I ask because I fear you're dragging Derrida into Jungian terminology. The terms "male" and "masculine" are separate. This smells, quite badly, of Derrida. Jung never equated "masculine" with "male." Nor did he talk of distinct "archtypes," because the concept of the archetype is a subjective one and rough shod. There is no "Odin/Wotan" archtype, but if I am to be precise I do understand what family of archetype those mythical figures represent in part - that is they are not distinct and encompass different archetypal aspects depending on sunjective contexts. Odin can manifest in many ways, as wiseman, hermit, tyrant and loving father. In some respects there is even an underlying feminimity to Odin because nature is very much seen as a feminine figure and Odin is associated with natural forces and the forest. Nature is both brutal and mothering, just as the father figure is tyrannical and fatherly.

The point being here, not wanting to digress too much, is that Jung was careful about the subjective context. For one person a dream of Odin may represent this or that, whilst for someone with little to no mythological exposure similar (and sometimes identical) figures would manifest in consciousness - dream consciousness - repeatedly. This is something I am trying to write about at the moment in serious depth. It is actually this "mythological" basis for human thought that I see as being the least understood part of human reality and the hardest to investigate because it is entrenched in subjectivity and human subjectivity is often deeply delusional, self-deceiving and generally neurotic (because at the end of the day we wish to function and avoid suffering and yet ironically must suffer in order to avoid greater suffering.)

Such is our lot ;)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5383
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby mitchellmckain on May 22nd, 2018, 2:19 am 

BadgerJelly » May 21st, 2018, 10:06 am wrote:Mitch -

I didn't suggest anyone abandoning anything. I was more or less referring to the cutting away of anything that could bridge a gap in discourse out of an inability to ask "what if?", as in what if what I call reality is nothing like what someone else calls reality.

I have been saying something quite a bit stronger than this, that we have no objective basis for insisting that reality is singular at all. This lies behind other things I say also, like... "While I take my conception of reality from what I experience, I do not presume that my experiences are the limit of reality." But what is meant here, is not only the lack of expectation that things cannot change for myself, but that reality may actually not be the same for everyone.

BadgerJelly » May 21st, 2018, 10:06 am wrote:In a funny way we could say the very idea of "healthy skepticism" is a contradiction. In the sense that we set a boundary on what to call "skepticism" in that phrase by suggesting there is a known line between what is "good" and "bad" (healthy or unhealthy.)

Shall skepticism be the one exception to our exercise of skepticsm? I do not speak of what is healthy, but only that which goes so far that it make life less meaningful rather than more. In this I follow the criticism of Kierkegaard and many others that philosophy which doesn't help with the condition of human existence is philosophy which has no value.

BadgerJelly » May 21st, 2018, 10:06 am wrote:Again, I find myself resorting to th word I most dearly call my friend. EXPLORATION.

Does wandering in circles really constitute exploration? If you cannot at least use some basic techniques for steering a course then the appropriate word is "lost" not "exploration."
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby RJG on May 22nd, 2018, 6:43 am 

RJG wrote:Claiming that our mental impressions are of 'real' things because our mental impressions tell us so, just doesn't cut it for me. Sorry.

doogles wrote:There's apparently an old Hindu saying that "All is Maya (Illusion)".

Just to be clear, I am NOT saying "All is an illusion". To the contrary --
RJG wrote:Although experiences (sensations, "mental impressions") themselves are undeniably 'real', the content (objects) of those experiences can never be trusted, or known to be certain, or 'real'.


doogles wrote:But how does anyone with that mindset get through a normal day -- as I said in an earlier post -- the real alarm clock, the real toilet, the real shower (set at a real temperature that doesn't scald), the real clothes, the real breakfast, the real car, the real commute etc .....

We go through the day like anyone else. Knowing that things may, or may not be 'real', doesn't change anything.

doogles wrote:My advice for the day to anyone who doubts the reality of their own perceptions -- "DON'T STAND IN FRONT OF A MOVING TRUCK"

Good advice, but I think it is the FEAR of getting smashed that prevents one from stepping out in front of a (potentially 'real'!) moving truck.

BadgerJelly wrote:Again, I find myself resorting to the word I most dearly call my friend. EXPLORATION.

mitchellmckain wrote:Does wandering in circles really constitute exploration? If you cannot at least use some basic techniques for steering a course then the appropriate word is "lost" not "exploration."

I somewhat agree with Mitch. It seems that at some point you need to DISCOVER something, (and plant a flag on it!), ...and take a hard stand on it. But maybe we all have different reasons for "exploring" (or "searching").
User avatar
RJG
Banned User
 
Posts: 964
Joined: 22 Mar 2012


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby CaryTyson on May 22nd, 2018, 8:01 am 

mitchellmckain » May 22nd, 2018, 2:19 am wrote:[quote="[url=http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=336560#p336560]BadgerJelly » May 21st, 2018, 10:06 am[/url
Does wandering in circles really constitute exploration? If you cannot at least use some basic techniques for steering a course then the appropriate word is "lost" not "exploration."


I do believe exploration can be done wandering in circles or even when appearing to be “lost”. Exploration has less to do with a destination than a mindset.
User avatar
CaryTyson
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 5
Joined: 02 Apr 2018
Location: Massachusetts, USA


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby Eodnhoj7 on May 22nd, 2018, 12:04 pm 

BadgerJelly » May 22nd, 2018, 1:44 am wrote:Had a better look at the full thread now. Not read everything word for word though.

Firstly I would quickly abandon any suggestion of destroying all meaning and all boundaries (in some post modern messiness - references to Foucault and Derrida are perhaps a useful way of seeing when things become too "loose".)

Secondly, it was not my intention to open a prolonged discussion about scientific method. My primary enquiry was about bridging gaps between subjective views built on an admixture of instituted and freer uses of the term "real" in respect to how we view the world and describe it.

I don't see this as being a topic that fits into philosophy, science or any other singular field. I guess it is more of a logical, ethical and political question - in the sense that discourse is political and that we're often too sure of what is being said by someone else because we've grown accustomed to this or that definition within our personal and/or pedagogical/educational understanding.

As a common example of the kind of discourse I've seen repeatedly on forums (aimed at myself sometimes, and no doubt I've done the same thing.)

note: The following are not direct quotes, they are just something like what I am talking about:

"You're not living in the real world. You're ignoring the facts."

"That is nothing more than fantasy!"

"If you cannot show me evidence then it is not real."

What all of these kind of rebuttals show is a distinct laziness because they miss the end tag. That being to end the sentence with "FOR ME." There is a shutting down of discourse rather than an open minded conversation in which there is an actual attempt to UNDERSTAND rather than ram home your opposition.

I don't possess an answer to this at all. I am with Biv in his statement about being "underwhelmed" by the idea that science doesn't get political or philosophical (that I have seen as a big problem for some time - because there appears to be an unwillingness, and/or lack of ability, to loosen up the words in discourse to find reconciliation and common understanding rather than "correct" or "incorrect".)

I am also quite obviously with Eod in the sense of pointing at the issue of "quality" and quantity," but my views there are likely hard to express and harder to grasp because I approach it from a linguistic perspective - but I stauchly refuse to get into complete deconstructionism and turn all words into nothing more than noise!

Eod note: I cannot take an article seriously if it's written by someone who paraphrases Foucault and somehow

I am scientifically minded. I don't doubt science because there is nothing to doubt. To some that sounds dogmatic simply because they don't understand what I mean and I've made no profound attempt to explain myself. What then happens is that people say "You're wrong!" rather than start a dialogue and dance around for a while positioning there appreciation of the other before striking into argumentative combat - hopefully with as little rhetoric as possible and with some inkling of repsect and wit to defuse any emotionally charged topic.

For the sake of clarity I mean that if I am flying on a plane I don't doubt the our understanding of aerodynamics and jet propulsion because the reality of the method has been physically manifested accurately enough. Just like if I believed women couldn't walk and then saw all the women walking around I would quickly become accustomed to the blatant physical manifestation of this fact, whereas watching videos I may well suggest doubt and say the video is doctored.

When it comes ot ethics and such science has a great deal to tell us about our own presupposition and can therefore allows, I would hope, to opebn up reasonable and legible discourse with people who alienate themselves (willfully or not) from "science" as a "truth" (and it is not shocking for me that many people equate "science" with "truth" because of what I've said above. On most levels science is practiced in abstract realms and often we don't directly see the physical manifestation.) Basically our view of the world, of "reality", is an amalgam of roughly stitched together pieces of which we cannot really see the edges, cannot distinguish colours or textures, and come to some understanding only by happenstance that has accumulated over great expanses of time - and time is another "piece" of the patchwork we inherently all appreciate, but struggle with because we cannot see its physical manifestion due to it being buried in language and presented in an abstract way under who knows how many layers? And I hope you can see the disintegration of language here when it comes to the basic and fundamental principles upon which we general, and often blindly, inhabit our subjective existence.

That is pretty much my epitaph for this thread ... but I wouldn't forgive myself if I didn't ask for clarity on the following from Eod:

In these respects the scientific community does not just fear metaphysics because it has no power over it, but magnifies its own fears because of the unconscious warlike methodology it projects upon both the world and itself. This emphasis on the scientific method can be seen summated years ago under Nazi-Technological Progress where a general madness against the human condition, summated under the german peoples of the time and there losses, gave rise to a Jungian "Wotan/Odin" Archetype (article can delve further into this: http://ahistoryofthepresentananthology. ... -1934.html) of the "Mad Hunter/Shaman". Answers to suffering were not found hence they must be hunted downed and "pinned" or "pierced" by the spear of the intellect known as the measuring line which further mirrors a form of phallicism (line/sphere/phallis follow same forms and function in respect contexts) as a repressed form of masculinity where the individual male embodies a fear of loss (masculine identity).


I wouldn't conflate "male" and "masculinity" if you wish to claim any basic understanding of Jung. I hope it was a slip of your fingers? I ask because I fear you're dragging Derrida into Jungian terminology. The terms "male" and "masculine" are separate. This smells, quite badly, of Derrida. Jung never equated "masculine" with "male." Nor did he talk of distinct "archtypes," because the concept of the archetype is a subjective one and rough shod.

Wotan as an archetype: https://volkischpaganism.com/2014/10/08 ... archetype/

Jung argued that there may be an infinite number of archetypes however he specified only a few universal ones. If there is Derrida in it, I am not aware considering I have never read him. Barring the references to Jung's understanding of archetypes within the Human Consciousness the argument is strictly original.


There is no "Odin/Wotan" archtype, but if I am to be precise I do understand what family of archetype those mythical figures represent in part - that is they are not distinct and encompass different archetypal aspects depending on sunjective contexts. Odin can manifest in many ways, as wiseman, hermit, tyrant and loving father. In some respects there is even an underlying feminimity to Odin because nature is very much seen as a feminine figure and Odin is associated with natural forces and the forest. Nature is both brutal and mothering, just as the father figure is tyrannical and fatherly.

You may have read more on Jung and Wotan before continuing this section of the argument.

The point being here, not wanting to digress too much, is that Jung was careful about the subjective context. For one person a dream of Odin may represent this or that, whilst for someone with little to no mythological exposure similar (and sometimes identical) figures would manifest in consciousness - dream consciousness - repeatedly. This is something I am trying to write about at the moment in serious depth. It is actually this "mythological" basis for human thought that I see as being the least understood part of human reality and the hardest to investigate because it is entrenched in subjectivity and human subjectivity is often deeply delusional, self-deceiving and generally neurotic (because at the end of the day we wish to function and avoid suffering and yet ironically must suffer in order to avoid greater suffering.)

Such is our lot ;)


The archetypes can be equivalent to an inherent set of equations which form a person's or culture's means to reason emotionally and intellectually. In simpler terms they are "packets of information" if viewed in terms of strict "data".

The jungian archetypes take a dual objective quality when they extend across groups of people and cultures. You have to remember that mythology looked at the relations of "natures" hence is entrenched in heavy symbolism (such "a camel going through an eye of a needle") where "quality" had it's own form of rationale. Pythagorean and Egyptian history observes dual qualitative metaphorical counterparts to all numerical structures.

Mythology is merely a means of symbolic reasoning where the god's were extensions of different facets of the human psyche. The rumor is, and I want emphasize rumor, is that the mysteries schools from which these "myth's" extended represented a strict atheism.

Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby mitchellmckain on May 22nd, 2018, 12:19 pm 

CaryTyson » May 22nd, 2018, 7:01 am wrote:
Does wandering in circles really constitute exploration? If you cannot at least use some basic techniques for steering a course then the appropriate word is "lost" not "exploration."


I do believe exploration can be done wandering in circles or even when appearing to be “lost”. Exploration has less to do with a destination than a mindset.


Exploration implies learning. Wandering in circles does not.

To be sure, random trials are a natural part of the learning process. And thus "steering a course" may have implied more than I meant, such as knowing where you are going. But all I really meant is that you have a means of learning from the ground you cover which means you are not going to keep going in circles, for that would mean that you are not learning from your mistakes. You might go in circles if all you are after is exercise but not if you actually mean to explore.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby Eodnhoj7 on May 22nd, 2018, 12:37 pm 

mitchellmckain » May 22nd, 2018, 12:19 pm wrote:
CaryTyson » May 22nd, 2018, 7:01 am wrote:Does wandering in circles really constitute exploration? If you cannot at least use some basic techniques for steering a course then the appropriate word is "lost" not "exploration."


I do believe exploration can be done wandering in circles or even when appearing to be “lost”. Exploration has less to do with a destination than a mindset.


Exploration implies learning. Wandering in circles does not.

To be sure, random trials are a natural part of the learning process. And thus "steering a course" may have implied more than I meant, such as knowing where you are going. But all I really meant is that you have a means of learning from the ground you cover which means you are not going to keep going in circles, for that would mean that you are learning from your mistakes. You might do that if all you are after is exercise but not if you actually mean to explore.[/quote]

The problem of the geometry of logic, and yes it has a geometry, lies in this:

1) Circularity is necessary for maintenance of an axiom. Even a perspective in "infinitism" where justification must infinitely progress and regress, observes this "progression/regression" still approaching the same point 0.

2) Linearism is necessary for the progression of knowledge relative to the acquisition of parts. While these logistic parts (or axioms) inevitably demonstrate an inherent circular element of reasoning to them, the linear structure observes the relations between these particles.

3) The best approach to logic, in which a simultaneous maintenance and progress is embrace, would be an expanding circle which could equivocate to a mirror effect of self-replicating symmetry.
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby BadgerJelly on May 22nd, 2018, 2:45 pm 

Eod -

I've read what Jung has to say about his definition of archetypes very carefully already. "Wotan" is no more an archetype than "Zeus" or "Baba Yaga." They can be referred to as archetypes in a very strict context though. The idea of the Collective Unconscious is evidenced by the repeated manifestation of similar symbolic representations and narratives across the globe, from psychosis, and from dreams - the archetypes in the sense of he refers to "Wotan" are rough outlines. If I remember correctly he makes a comparison between human instincts and archetypes; both being undeniable at the heart unknowable (if you want the quote I'll gladly sift through the book soon enough; referring to The Archetypes and The Collective Unconsciousness, by Jung?) The intangibility of the concept repulses some and entangles others into believing it is real in a concrete and measureable sense (something you've hinted at elsewhere too.)

Glad you weren't hinting at Derrida btw. The "phallus" caught my eye (so to speak! haha!)

Really though, I don't have much idea what you're talking about. I'd be better off going back to the other thread where progress was being made, but as it stands I'm tired of this forum for now and have more interesting things to do with my time. Will make some effort to go back to the other thread this or next week though - we had something serious and worthwhile to get into there I think :)

That is my epitaph to you here. Speak soon :)
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5383
Joined: 14 Mar 2012
CaryTyson liked this post


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby Eodnhoj7 on May 22nd, 2018, 3:59 pm 

BadgerJelly » May 22nd, 2018, 2:45 pm wrote:Eod -

I've read what Jung has to say about his definition of archetypes very carefully already. "Wotan" is no more an archetype than "Zeus" or "Baba Yaga." They can be referred to as archetypes in a very strict context though.
In Jung's writings the archetype of Wotan was later replaced by that of "the shadow" as the Wotan/Odin archetype has specific, or less universal, germanic properties which could not be extended across cultural barriers.

Considering the Nazi movement represent "a", not "the", pivotal point of scientific progress it is a psychological reference to the scientific method we observe today from a strict psychological approach. The end of WWII, as the foundation for the cold war, did take this Nazi element of technological progress and synthesize it with American Freudianism and Eastern Marxism which is evidence in the assimilation of scientists of various realms (including freud and jung who were german) from the german culture. In this manner we can see certain cultural attributes permeate the cultures themselves.



The idea of the Collective Unconscious is evidenced by the repeated manifestation of similar symbolic representations and narratives across the globe, from psychosis, and from dreams - the archetypes in the sense of he refers to "Wotan" are rough outlines. If I remember correctly he makes a comparison between human instincts and archetypes; both being undeniable at the heart unknowable (if you want the quote I'll gladly sift through the book soon enough; referring to The Archetypes and The Collective Unconsciousness, by Jung?) The intangibility of the concept repulses some and entangles others into believing it is real in a concrete and measureable sense (something you've hinted at elsewhere too.)

Glad you weren't hinting at Derrida btw. The "phallus" caught my eye (so to speak! haha!)

The phallus reference stems from the inherent psychological aspect of the communities involved considering the subjective nature of the individual is inseperable from the methodology itself. We can see a mirroring of this nature within the act of scientific method extending fundamentally from the manifestations of "the line" as projection used to apply boundaries, hence definition, to various phenomenon. This is further referenced in the fact that the act of measurement in itself stems from an inherently male psychology. Missiles, guns, primitive spears, etc. share this basic nature of the line and maintain a dual projective role which is akin to the extradimensional nature of the line.

In this manner the hunting of truth by giving definition to the unknown through the application of this vary same boundaries again manifests similar characertistics to the wotan archetype within the germanic community whose contributions to technology and science extend through various cultures.



Really though, I don't have much idea what you're talking about.

Knowledge, specifically the scientific method in this case, has to be looked at from a dual role of subjectivity and objectivity to prevent any from of regressive contradiction a gain a greater picture of "the whole" nature of any specific phenomenon.

I'd be better off going back to the other thread where progress was being made, but as it stands I'm tired of this forum for now and have more interesting things to do with my time. Will make some effort to go back to the other thread this or next week though - we had something serious and worthwhile to get into there I think :)

That is my epitaph to you here. Speak soon :)
Eodnhoj7
Banned User
 
Posts: 170
Joined: 02 Mar 2018


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby BadgerJelly on May 22nd, 2018, 8:46 pm 

Mitch -

Does wandering in circles really constitute exploration? If you cannot at least use some basic techniques for steering a course then the appropriate word is "lost" not "exploration."


Of course. When I said "exploration" I actually meant "exploration," not "wandering around in circles" because that is no more than covering the same ground over and over again.

The extreme ends of exploration would constitute completely abandoning meaning and wandering around naked in the woods stumbling across new items of experience whilst utterly blind to them or, at the opposite end of the scale, not moving at all and locking oneself in a padded cell and covering up one's sensory organs and thinking the same thought over and over. I was merely hinting that being human we're generally stuck assuming that our position is a healthy balance. It is from the rigidity of methodologies that we can, at least partially, dispel such bias - I find this amusing :)

note again that I consider myself very much scientifically minded. I am
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5383
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: The Conception of "real" in science and general discours

Postby dandelion on May 23rd, 2018, 7:11 am 

mitchellmckain » May 20th, 2018, 6:08 pm wrote:There seems to be a consensus that when a superposition expands in the process of decoherence it does so exponentially and thus the time period between encompassing one observer and that of encompassing all observers on the planet is infinitesimal. This is what makes the Everett interpretation compatible with the Copenhagen interpretation where decoherence is instantaneous. It is one thing when you are dealing with a few particles in a laboratory with an effort to isolate it from the rest of the universe and quite another when you are dealing with many trillions of particles in a highly interactive environment with no such isolation efforts (if such efforts are even remotely likely to succeed).

From Wikipedia:
The thought experiment posits a friend of Wigner who performs the Schrödinger's cat experiment after Wigner leaves the laboratory. Only when he returns does Wigner learn the result of the experiment from his friend, that is, whether the cat is alive or dead. The question is raised: was the state of the system a superposition of "dead cat/sad friend" and "live cat/happy friend," only determined when Wigner learned the result of the experiment, or was it determined at some previous point?

As I suggested before about the Schrodinger's cat experiment, this was more about the absurdities of thinking this has something to do with the consciousness of human beings than a serious suggestion that there is superposition of a dead and alive cats, or equivalently in the Everett interpretation there is no significant time interval between when the superposition encompasses the cat and when it encompasses all observers in the future light cone (the radius of the Earth is only .02 light seconds so that means that the time it takes for the future light cone to encompass the entire earth is rather small).


I just joined this thread because some thoughts expressed troubled me a bit, but then was distracted by a philosophical question that occurred based on that and stayed but think there are probably better areas in the forum to discuss these philosophical questions about science and maybe it would be better to have some thread splitting and movement. I’d be more comfortable about posting somewhere else. But, thanks very much for the answer, Mitchell, a general overview of concerns has helped me.

I should have stressed that such scenarios could involve notions of weakened support for division as Reg had described. I’d mentioned quantum effects seem not as restricted as the impression given, e.g., physics Nobel prizes in recent years awarded for results that seem to be in accord, so perhaps consensus may be changing a bit?

A bit more specifically, I’ll quote a snip by an authority already positively referenced at this site, regarding decoherence, wrt MWI, but out of context, “…only some subset of quantities should have definite values. And maybe that subset should only be specified contextually, even vaguely. And maybe the values should only be definite within some margins of error, even vague ones”.

A bit more, “More precisely: it does not imply that the system is in one of the set of states (typically coherent states). It implies only that the quantum probabilities are as if the system were in one. Furthermore, the theory implies that the system is in fact not in one of those states (on pain of contradicting the original hypothesis that the total system-plus-environment is in a superposition, not a mixture)”.

Thanks for giving your views about Wigner’s friend, I think I missed your earlier mention of absurdities but I don’t think that is any problem here as animation, etc., isn’t the concern here but instead issues like positions about the Heisenberg cut, etc., and since you wrote that you’d allow scientists would accept measuring instruments, maybe consider swapping Wigner and friend with two or more detectors and states each detector might observe. If say, I think as along the lines of notions I’ve read, states or values of the Wigner-friend-detector and system differed wrt Wigner-detector this could assist such scenarios.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1406/1406.4320.pdf,
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 385
Joined: 02 May 2014


PreviousNext

Return to Anything Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests