Objective Reality Doesn't Exist, Quantum Experiment Shows

[Catastrophe]

Rod, I greatly appreciate your contributions here, but in this case I really do not understand what point you are making?

Cat

 

[rod]

Rod, I greatly appreciate your contributions here, but on this case I really do not understand what point you are making?

Cat

Cat, if there is no objective reality and no standard to verify objective reality, there is no reality to the asteroid or anything else in my opinion. You can make up whatever, including we live on the flat earth Keep in mind, the great debates between geocentric astronomy and heliocentric solar system astronomy were not based upon viewing the universe as not definable, understandable, or no objective reality.

 

[Catastrophe]

Why?

 

[Catastrophe]

There is the acceptance of mutual illusion.

Cat

 

[rod]

Why?

Post 27 shows why. No objective reality, people can make up anything about the universe or for example, a murder trial in a court of law. The victim was never murdered, it just appears that way. Also Cat, I work with chain saw, axes, sledge hammers, etc. ladders, and gas powered leaf blowers. I am careful because objective reality tells me if the chain saw kicks back and hits my hand, there could be objective reality problems for me or if I fall off the ladder when cleaning out the gutters at my horse barn with the blower

 

[Catastrophe]

"and no standard to verify objective reality,"

But a standard to accept mutual illusion.

Cat

 

[rod]

"and no standard to verify objective reality,"

But a standard to accept mutual illusion.

Cat

Cat, I lift weights too and have at times, dropped 45-50 lb. plates on my toes when I was bare foot. There is indeed objective reality and not illusion

 

[Catastrophe]

Cat, I lift weights too and have at times, dropped 45-50 lb. plates on my toes when I was bare foot. There is indeed objective reality and not illusion

Take more care. Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Rod, we have different understandings about what is meant by objective reality.

Cat

 

[rod]

Rod, we have different understandings about what is meant by objective reality.

Cat

I agree, pain is real in the things I described here

 

[Catastrophe]

Objectively I do not feel your pain. But I sympathise.

Cat

 

[rod]

Objectively I do not feel your pain. But I sympathise.

Cat

I could always think there is no objective reality in Newton's description of gravity so when those large plates fall on my foot and toes, the pain is just an illusion because those plates did not really fall in hit me

 

[Catastrophe]

Rod, we are suffering from semantics, or problems related thereto.

Cat

 

[rod]

FYI. I used MS BING search and found some definitions on objective reality.

"Objective reality is the idea that there are universal truths that apply to all. This has long the basis of society, science, culture and religion but competing philosophies do exist and are increasingly accepted, particularly in social sciences. The following are examples of objective reality and competing philosophies."

"What we view as objective reality - the idea that what we can observe, measure, and prove is real and those things we cannot are theoretical or imaginary - is actually a subjective reality that we either unravel, create, or dis-obfuscate by the simple act of observation."

The heliocentric solar system and round Earth have measurements to support and observations, however folks can develop alternate realities too if they desire like living on a flat earth

 

[Helio]

Now you are getting into philosophy.

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

Yes, but we had to wait for the tree holding it to fall.

 

[Helio]

We have indubitable proofs that universe was long before our appearance and there is no reason that will be long after our extinction.

[my underline] I respect this statement but I'm trying to remain a pedantic on this topic to further the importance in understanding what I think science is and is not. I don't mean this in any negative way since this, for some reason, seems to be a difficult topic for many. It's common to use a little hyperbole for emphasis, which isn't wrong for conversations, which may be part of the problem I have, perhaps.

Proofs are valid in mathematics, not science. It is my opinion that it is your opinion that is essentially indubitable given all the objective facts to support the opinion. All scientific claims, conjectures, hypothesis, theories require the ability to falsify them with tests, even if only in principle. Thus, they can only be falsified, never proven.

In formal logic, if the arguments do support a given conclusion, then the claim is considered "valid", without consideration whether the arguments are even true, surprisingly. If the arguments are indeed true, then the claim is considered "sound".

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.

nice.

 

[Catastrophe]

Yes, but we had to wait for the tree holding it to fall.

Pardon ???

 

[Helio]

Pardon ???

It was a play on "If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one to hear it fall....."

 

[Helio]

"Objective reality is the idea that there are universal truths that apply to all. This has long the basis of society, science, culture and religion but competing philosophies do exist and are increasingly accepted, particularly in social sciences. The following are examples of objective reality and competing philosophies."

"What we view as objective reality - the idea that what we can observe, measure, and prove is real and those things we cannot are theoretical or imaginary - is actually a subjective reality that we either unravel, create, or dis-obfuscate by the simple act of observation."

[my underline]
Yep, that "proves" my earlier point that public views on science are a bit awkward. Science isn't about proving any hypothesis. They either work or they get falsified, but if they work then the door must remain open for a better model for that which works, well, better. GR works better (in accuracy) than Newtonian physics (superior in utility most the time).

They are addressing "objective reality" in the sense of addressing what we want to call reality, but in a more objective sense. But what is "real" is a philosophical argument. It is unnecessary for hard science. Of course, some general sense of things real are important to have, but that too is a philosophical argument.

The heliocentric solar system and round Earth have measurements to support and observations, however folks can develop alternate realities too if they desire like living on a flat earth

I doubt any particle physicists argues that the Sun isn't real. What they are addressing in a science sense is quantum things. Any extrapolation to larger things must be addressed separately unless one wishes to mix megaphysics with hard science, but they shouldn't.

It was the measurements (observations) of Galileo that falsified a two-millennium model. He was correct when he claimed he had falsified it, but incorrect when he kept claiming he had "proven" the Copernican model. He was warned to provide "necessary demonstration" and he thought he had it in tidal arguments. His tidal arguments were proven false, but this didn't falsify the Cop model, only Galileo. It can get a little sticky, I suppose.

I find it interesting how it all played out, mainly because it is educational for this non-scientist.

 

[Joel]

Was the experiment conducted in a vacuum? It would seem to me that in order for this experiment to be conclusive it would require that ALL possibility of outside variables be eliminated. Since atmosphere would interact with any particles in motion, it would inevitably taint the results. I also suspect that the nature of atomic structure would introduce interference related to the positive and negative charges individual atoms possess. In addition, I believe that gravity could also create variables that are detrimental to the conclusions drawn from the experiment. I'm not sure, given the current state of technology, that the double slit experiment was able to sufficiently eliminate outside interference.
It is an interesting experiment. However, I'm not convinced that sufficient efforts were made or could even be made to produce conclusive results. That is precisely why what we believe to be scientific fact is always changing. As we gain understanding we inevitably find ourselves rewriting what was previously thought to be infallible. It is also why our imaginations constantly ponder the "what if" that has created so many science fiction authors.

 

[Hudata]

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

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

Ok. I know this is so simple a point that it sounds trite. Still, it's as valid and unavoidable an issue when it arises in quantum physics as in philosophy, theology, or any other realm: How can it be objectively true that there is no such thing as objective reality if there is no such thing as objective reality?

If all truth is relative, does that include the truth that all truth is relative?

How can it be absolutely true that there is no such thing as absolute truth?

 

[rod]

Ok. I know this is so simple a point that it sounds trite. Still, it's as valid and unavoidable an issue when it arises in quantum physics as in philosophy, theology, or any other realm: How can it be objectively true that there is no such thing as objective reality if there is no such thing as objective reality?

If all truth is relative, does that include the truth that all truth is relative?

How can it be absolutely true that there is no such thing as absolute truth?

Hudata, my thinking about the subject too. That means we can live on a flat earth or round earth. That means the Sun can be moving around the earth and there is no way to determine which view of nature is correct. However, see how building rockets, jet planes, cars driving down the road works using thinking like this. If the scientific method breaks down, nothing we can determine as sure and true exists, so science classrooms can teach any view of reality, including there is no gravity and a solid dome firmament above a flat earth disk.

 

[Joel]

FYI. I used MS BING search and found some definitions on objective reality.

"Objective reality is the idea that there are universal truths that apply to all. This has long the basis of society, science, culture and religion but competing philosophies do exist and are increasingly accepted, particularly in social sciences. The following are examples of objective reality and competing philosophies."

"What we view as objective reality - the idea that what we can observe, measure, and prove is real and those things we cannot are theoretical or imaginary - is actually a subjective reality that we either unravel, create, or dis-obfuscate by the simple act of observation."

The heliocentric solar system and round Earth have measurements to support and observations, however folks can develop alternate realities too if they desire like living on a flat earth

If science is "social" then it ceases to be science.

 

[rod]

If science is "social" then it ceases to be science.

One problem I see in some of this discussion is the scientific method. It seems different disciplines use different standards of verification. I have watched a number of EVA by astronauts on the ISS over the last several years, some lasting 6-7 hours. The astronauts are installing or removing various components and given very specific engineering metrics for tightening various bolts as an example from ground control. Failure to adhere to these rigorous engineering standards of testing and verification could result in catastrophic failure events. Same applies to rocket engines, jet planes, cars too, etc. Cosmology for example, measuring the velocity of expanding space back to the Planck time and Planck length, calculating the multiverse that evolved, and measurements today for H0 that vary, use a more free interpretation standard for observations of nature

 

[Catastrophe]

Any of our observations are subjective to the human race. Even on this planet each species has its own subjective view of the world depending on its sensory apparatus.

Any idea that our view extends to the ends of the Universe, including those parts forever beyond our reach (remember expansion?) is rather anthropocentric don't you think?

Cat