Objective Reality Doesn't Exist, Quantum Experiment Shows

[Admin]

A quantum experiment raises deeply philosophical questions about the fundamental nature of reality.

Objective Reality Doesn't Exist, Quantum Experiment Shows : Read more

 

[rod]

The report concludes, "Clearly these are all deeply philosophical questions about the fundamental nature of reality. Whatever the answer, an interesting future awaits." I read this report on some other sites too. If the macro universe turns out there is no reality - the flat earth folks can be correct, i.e. the Earth is flat, geocentric astronomy like Claudius Ptolemy and Tycho Brahe - can be correct. The Sun is moving around the Earth, the Earth is immovable. All the planets and stars are at very close distances above the flat disk earth with a solid dome firmament above. The scientific method based upon testing and falsifying claims - collapses it seems. If the quantum folks want too, they can go back to the geocentric universe and teach the Sun moves around the Earth - because there is no *objective reality*.

 

[rod]

The quantum mechanics and experiments are valid I feel but if the philosophy where *objective reality* does not exist is applied to the macro world I live in - not good We can keep the philosophy described in the report in the quantum world.

 

[billgkohl]

In the macro world, and I would think also in the micro world, the response of Reality to our actions is independent of our observations of that Reality.

 

[Jim DeMaio]

In A Course in Miracles as well as in most metaphysics the ‘reality’ we experience is a projection of our thoughts but has no effect on objective reality

 

[Helio]

It can be tricky to properly address any overlap between science and philosophy/metaphysics/religion.

The meaning of “fact” should always be an objective element that may or may not be treated subjectively in any conclusion. How we address reality will almost always be comprised of objective facts informing our subjective opinions.

Science is not about defining what is actually “real” or what is “truth”. This is why one can only disprove a theory, not prove them. I like the view that it’s a conversation with nature.

iPhone

 

[Jim DeMaio]

You will see that philosophy is not theology

 

[Helio]

You will see that philosophy is not theology

Yes, but both are subjective-based. They both present very powerful opinions and both use objective elements to support those subjective claims. The more objective elements can be applied, the more powerful the claims. Religions, admittedly, usually have few objective elements since faith is often a pre-requisite.

Philosophers were the highest paid professors in Galileo's day. As a math prof., he had to be a tutor to pay the rent, but he eventually, after much effort, became established as a philosopher.

Today, the big wages aren't often given to entitled philosophers. Book sales help.

IMO, how well we understand that which defines what is subjective and what is objective often determines how well we can deal with any phenomena, or any relationship.

 

[Catastrophe]

'Objective' is nothing other than a consensus of subjective.

As long as we are discussing only the observations of humans, there is no other possibility. Any disagreement with the consensus goes to denying any objective point of view.

Cat

 

[Jim DeMaio]

Your sharing is much appreciated. I view quantum mechanics and metaphysics merging on the theory of thought controlling matter.

 

[Catastrophe]

So you agree that thought has no practical speed limitation?

Cat

 

[Helio]

'Objective' is nothing other than a consensus of subjective.

As long as we are discussing only the observations of humans, there is no other possibility. Any disagreement with the consensus goes to denying any objective point of view.

I prefer to treat facts as objective with or without a consensus, but how we apply it is a consensus issue.

Absolute zero, for instance, has no need of a consensus. Either it’s 0 kelvins or it isn’t. How we apply it to physics does require subjective thinking.

I like to use the Einstein story of the time there was a consensus of 100 top Germans that signed a document stating GR was false. Einstein replied with questioning the need for 100 since only one was needed. He was implying that his theory should be treated more as a fact, challenging them to disprove his theory. None could, of course, and most weren’t scientists, for that matter, but they were a consensus.

We need to be careful when we put to much weight on the view of “consensus science”. The fewer shackles, the better.

 

[Trevize62]

[QUOTE = "Catastrophe, post: 534475, membro: 1109827"]
"Obiettivo" non è altro che un consenso soggettivo.

Finché stiamo discutendo solo delle osservazioni degli umani, non c'è altra possibilità. Qualsiasi disaccordo con il consenso va a negare ogni punto di vista oggettivo.

Gatto
[/CITAZIONE]
Dobbiamo stare attenti con queste discussioni, perché spesso portano alla pseudoscienza, in particolare quella chiamata "misticismo quantistico" che assimila le scoperte della fisica quantistica alle stesse pseudofilosofie orientali, in questo caso in particolare una dottrina apologetica buddista chiamata vacuità, elaborata a posteriori per sostenere il ben noto pregiudizio orientale che l'esistenza sia solo un'illusione.
La differenza tra la fisica quantistica reale e quelle forme di pseudoscienza sta nell'epistemologia: l'indagine scientifica segue sia il metodo cartesiano di elaborare ipotesi per spiegare le osservazioni e per fare esperimenti che possono confermarle confutandole, sia i metodi baconiani per dedurre leggi generali dal risultati delle osservazioni. Le forme mistiche delle pseudoscienze sono invece elaborate per supportare una sorta di assunzioni aprioristiche precedentemente accettate acriticamente, e per questo motivo non possono essere confermate o confutate in alcun modo.
Inoltre, i risultati dell'indagine scientifica devono essere assunti sempre come provvisori, mentre questo non è il caso di queste dottrine apologetiche, presentate sempre come conclusioni definitive basate su una forma "intuitiva" di conoscenza data dalla meditazione, dallo yoga o da altre pratiche mistiche.
Le differenze tra i due approcci sono evidenti.

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio,
"Absolute zero, for instance, has no need of a consensus. Either it’s 0 kelvins or it isn’t."

Absolute zero cannot be reached, but I know what you mean.

However, it still takes any number of subjective opinions as to exactly where it is. It can't be reached to measure. Just acceptance of its idea in theory.

As far as any other temperature is concerned, it is the subjective belief that the reading is correct. A consensus is good enough in practice.

Nothing is fact unless it has been observed/measured.

Cat

 

[Helio]

Absolute zero cannot be reached, but I know what you mean.

. Yep, that’s a fair point. I was seeking an absolute case to avoid ambiguity, so irony strikes yet again.

I was going to use a rock weighing 1 kg as an example.

If the weight is an objective fact (1kg), and it is, then others must be allowed to weigh it as well. But, its weight is 1 kg with or without a consensus, but a consensus helps with our confidence with what we may do with it, which may easily involve subjective claims.

As far as any other temperature is concerned, it is the subjective belief that the reading is correct. A consensus is good enough in practice.

Yes, and that’s important to recognize, but if consensus isn‘t unanimous, it won‘t change the objective fact. Results from testing, especially if there are discrepancies, will introduce subjective issues.

IMO, in science, it really helps to separate the objective elements from subjective ones. Science must stay objective-based, especially when subjective viewpoints can be overwhelming.

 

[Catastrophe]

Now you are getting into philosophy.

Does the rock weigh 1 kilo if there is no one to weigh it?

Cat

 

[Trevize62]

Now you are getting into philosophy.

Does the rock weigh 1 kilo if there is no one to weigh it?

Cat

Why not? In every case, life exists on Earth from 3.8 billions years, whatever can say the supporters of biblic creationism, and we and the chimpanzees have a common ancestor that lived 8 millions years ago.
A claim can be defined objective if it demonstrates resilient to all attempts of confutation.
For what regards quantum theory, its accuracy is now out of discussion, but there are many interpretations, some of which merely speculative and in some cases in the borderline of pseudoscience.

 

[Catastrophe]

Trevize
"Why not?"

Two interpretations. Sorry about the ambiguity. My fault.

No one around at the time. Humans exist.
No one around at all. Universe with a rock in it.
Which would you like (first)?

Cat

 

[Trevize62]

Trevize
"Why not?"

Two interpretations. Sorry about the ambiguity. My fault.

No one around at the time. Humans exist.
No one around at all. Universe with a rock in it.
Which would you like (first)?

Cat

It's not the question of what I or you like, but only if a certain thing is or isn't. We have indubitable proofs that universe was long before our appearance and there is no reason that will be long after our extinction.
We are a part of the system that could also not appear at all without any consequence on the universe in general, and that's all. Terms like reality, existence, illusion and similar should be used only in contests regarding the field of perceptive psychology, their use being a potential source of confusion or misunderstanding if applied to discussions about the nature of things and universe.

 

[Catastrophe]

I have my opinion, but I am not really interested.

If no intelligent being exists to give meaning to the word weigh, then the concept is meaningless.

Cat

 

[Jim DeMaio]

Yes, but both are subjective-based. They both present very powerful opinions and both use objective elements to support those subjective claims. The more objective elements can be applied, the more powerful the claims. Religions, admittedly, usually have few objective elements since faith is often a pre-requisite.

Philosophers were the highest paid professors in Galileo's day. As a math prof., he had to be a tutor to pay the rent, but he eventually, after much effort, became established as a philosopher.

Today, the big wages aren't often given to entitled philosophers. Book sales help.

IMO, how well we understand that which defines what is subjective and what is objective often determines how well we can deal with any phenomena, or any relationship.

Yes thought is ever expanding and unlimited

 

[Catastrophe]

Objective Reality Doesn't Exist, Quantum Experiment Shows

Objective reality does not exist without (at least) an (one) observer.

Cat

 

[rod]

This Week's Sky at a Glance, March 12 – 20

The waxing Moon passes between Mars and Aldebaran. Arcturus, the "Spring Star," climbs up in the east. Orion tilts down in the southwest.

skyandtelescope.org

Consider this post. Two different observers (myself and StarGeezer) using 10x50 binoculars on the same night out, similar viewing times but in different locations, reported seeing the same thing in Leo constellation concerning 4 Vesta. If there is no objective reality because of QM, then our observations and interpretations are wrong and neither observer knew what they were looking at. That means the heliocentric solar system is not reality and the asteroid is not objective reality too.

 

[Catastrophe]

The sum of 2 or 2 zillion observations do not constitute reality.

They merely constitute the observations filtered through the senses of one species,

Cat

 

[rod]

The sum of 2 or 2 zillion observations do not constitute reality.

They merely constitute the observations filtered through the senses of one species,

Cat

So Cat, applying your thinking here, the asteroid 4 Vesta has some other reality and is the earth flat too?