TrueScotsman

The Discovery of Objective Reality Was the Death of God

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, end3 said:

Let me explain my side so maybe you will better understand.  Scientific fact, as I understand it, is a term where we call something "fact" because of the high certainty.  We are able to demonstrate objectively...in a very loose sense. 

 

The point I am making MM, is that the "objective" material and the "objective" testers/observers are themselves dynamic in nature.  If you look at your shoe, there are billions of things happening to your shoe as you just sit there.....molecular collisions, etc.  Same for you.  So the point is when we talk objective reality, I don't know that there is a decent way to really pin this down because you can't stop the dynamics.  Then you get into time....i.e. snapshots of those halted molecular collisions stacked on top of themselves to form a picture of objective reality.  And given what TS and his lecture guy were saying, the complexity is so great, they can't really track it backwards or forwards......and rates of the dynamic natures that may be causing differences in "time". 

 

It's not crazy, it's reality.

 

 

 

Here is the thing.  You think that you have a side and people who understand these concepts have a side, and these two sides are on equal footing.  But you can't even get your story strait.  It's just babble.  So babbling and true understanding are equally good.  TS has patiently tried to walk you through these concepts but I don't think he realizes that you are being stubborn about it.

 

To take your example, when somebody wants to talk about a shoe well if they are normal then they will talk about things we can see and measure.  They might talk about what kind of shoe it is, the color, the style, the size, it's age, the amount of wear it has suffered, the position of the laces, if the shoe is clean or contaminated, if so then with what and so on.  All of these conditions are matters of fact that are easily verified.  The shoe can be photographed from multiple angles so the information is objective.

 

But imagine along comes a guy that says:

Since there are molecular collisions by definition, because shoes are each unique, then our shoe laces are also unique and perfectly clean.  And given the white shoes, that shoe size is so sizeiness and that white shoes can not be then tracked back to the original shoe size, we must conclude that stepping in gum is more like a shoe lace being untied of grey size 10 depending on sneakers.  AND, this is a far cry from making a ruling on pumps....

Genuine leather, rubber soul is black and therefore untied ....even the shoes we tie are size 7 and are covered in mud.   This is why we only have boots in our laces rather than brand new.  I gather red allows us to stop the sandals of our size 8 such that blue extra wide becomes more you stepped in gum and size 9. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



2 minutes ago, mymistake said:

To take your example, when somebody wants to talk about a shoe well if they are normal then they will talk about things we can see and measure.  They might talk about what kind of shoe it is, the color, the style, the size, it's age, the amount of wear it has suffered, the position of the laces, if the shoe is clean or contaminated, if so then with what and so on.  All of these conditions are matter of fact that are easily verified.  The shoe can be photographed from multiple angles so the information is objective.

 

The problem is MM, you are taking what is "normal" to most folks....shoe size, color, type, and saying that this is objective reality.....when it's far from it.  

 

What are we to do with the dynamics of the brain/body/environment .......just take a picture of the brain from "multiple angles" as you say, and call our understanding complete?  It's just normal and any normal Joe can understand that.....

 

What is time, how are we to incorporate the dynamics?  Time?

From reading your statements MM, I doubt your brain is exploring these ideas....but your brain has grabbed "definitions" that satisfy your needs....and your ego.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, end3 said:

The problem is MM, you are taking what is "normal" to most folks....shoe size, color, type, and saying that this is objective reality.....when it's far from it.  

 

So your shoes are a subjective fantasy?  One guy might look at your feet and see brown loafers but the next guy might think you are wearing pink pumps?

 

Listen to yourself.

 

 

11 minutes ago, end3 said:

What are we to do with the dynamics of the brain/body/environment ....

 

Just to let you know, "dynamics" is not a magic word.  It just means that things change.

 

 

11 minutes ago, end3 said:

....just take a picture of the brain from "multiple angles" as you say, and call our understanding complete?

 

No, but a neurologist would understand it a lot better than you would.

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, end3 said:

What is time, how are we to incorporate the dynamics?  Time?

 

You are babbling.  It sounds like the old game from the 80s - Mad Libs.

 

You don't have to incorporate anything.  Time is time.  Change is change.  Can you really not understand the simplest of concepts?

 

 

11 minutes ago, end3 said:

 

From reading your statements MM, I doubt your brain is exploring these ideas....but your brain has grabbed "definitions" that satisfy your needs....and your ego.

 

By exploring do you mean smoking pot?  This isn't about my ego.  I didn't grab definitions, rather I have been educated.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, end3 said:

Let me explain my side so maybe you will better understand.  Scientific fact, as I understand it, is a term where we call something "fact" because of the high certainty.  We are able to demonstrate objectively...in a very loose sense. 

 

The point I am making MM, is that the "objective" material and the "objective" testers/observers are themselves dynamic in nature.  If you look at your shoe, there are billions of things happening to your shoe as you just sit there.....molecular collisions, etc.  Same for you.  So the point is when we talk objective reality, I don't know that there is a decent way to really pin this down because you can't stop the dynamics.  Then you get into time....i.e. snapshots of those halted molecular collisions stacked on top of themselves to form a picture of objective reality.  And given what TS and his lecture guy were saying, the complexity is so great, they can't really track it backwards or forwards......and rates of the dynamic natures that may be causing differences in "time". 

 

It's not crazy, it's reality.

 

You only seemed to watch the beginning of the lecture, which involved generating irreducibly complex patterns.  Phenomena in nature are like that to some degree, in that you can't merely make predictions from one scale to another, but we have scientific tools which enable us to look at all the various scales and observe those phenomena on their own terms.  The dynamics that cause differences in the warping of Spacetime, would be velocity, gravity and locality.  If I was a million light years away, we could not agree on what time was "now."

 

Complexity doesnt make it harder to state what is a fact, it just means our explanations for some phenomena will simply be longer.  Mathematically explaining a rock versus a rat, is going to be far more complicated, yet we have the tools and language to unveil a whole host of facts about rats.  Just like the rest of nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

You only seemed to watch the beginning of the lecture, which involved generating irreducibly complex patterns.  Phenomena in nature are like that to some degree, in that you can't merely make predictions from one scale to another, but we have scientific tools which enable us to look at all the various scales and observe those phenomena on their own terms.  The dynamics that cause differences in the warping of Spacetime, would be velocity, gravity and locality.  If I was a million light years away, we could not agree on what time was "now."

 

Complexity doesnt make it harder to state what is a fact, it just means our explanations for some phenomena will simply be longer.  Mathematically explaining a rock versus a rat, is going to be far more complicated, yet we have the tools and language to unveil a whole host of facts about rats.  Just like the rest of nature.

A "host" of facts is not the entire picture....but I admire the way you skirt around the reality...

 

 

34 minutes ago, mymistake said:

 

So your shoes are a subjective fantasy?  One guy might look at your feet and see brown loafers but the next guy might think you are wearing pink pumps?

 

Listen to yourself.

 

 

 

Just to let you know, "dynamics" is not a magic word.  It just means that things change.

 

 

 

No, but a neurologist would understand it a lot better than you would.

 

 

 

 

You are babbling.  It sounds like the old game from the 80s - Mad Libs.

 

You don't have to incorporate anything.  Time is time.  Change is change.  Can you really not understand the simplest of concepts?

 

 

 

By exploring do you mean smoking pot?  This isn't about my ego.  I didn't grab definitions, rather I have been educated.

 

 

I rest my case....I was trying desperately not to invoke the word idiot today....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now