Objective Reality Doesn't Exist, Quantum Experiment Shows

[Catastrophe]

Rod, different perceptions do not mean different realities. A species with enhanced hearing simply hears more e.g., hjgher and or lower pitches as, indeed is the case between individual humans.

Cat

 

[rod]

Rod, different perceptions do not mean different realities. A species with enhanced hearing simply hears more e.g., hjgher and or lower pitches as, indeed is the case between individual humans.

Cat

Cat, let me know when the chimps using their perceptions and definition of reality build another ISS orbiting the Earth

 

[Catastrophe]

Ros, please re-read and understand my posts.

Cat

 

[rod]

Ros, please re-read and understand my posts.

Cat

Please reread my post #49 and the different standards used in science

 

[Catastrophe]

There are different perceptions of reality, based on different sensory abilities - including enhancements like telescopes. This does nor imply different realities, merely different perceptions.

Cat

 

[rod]

There are different perceptions of reality, based on different sensory abilities - including enhancements like telescopes. This does nor imply different realities, merely different perceptions.

Cat

Yet only one species built and use telescopes, the others do not. Galileo used a telescope and look what happened If perceptions are the standard of verification, then the flat earth folks can be accepted too and the Sun is moving around the Earth, because this is exactly what folks on the ground see

 

[Catastrophe]

"It seems different disciplines use different standards of verification."

You can widen this to include species and perceptions.

I think we have a semantic problem between us here.
I have read your #49.

Flatlanders have a limited perception which makes their conclusions false.
I am sure some of our perceptions have led us into false conclusions in the past, and may still do so.

Cat

 

[rod]

"It seems different disciplines use different standards of verification."

You can widen this to include species and perceptions.

I think we have a semantic problem between us here.
I have read your #49.

Flatlanders have a limited perception which makes their conclusions false.
I am sure some of our perceptions have led us into false conclusions in the past, and may still do so.

Cat

Cat, my comments are focused on the scientific method that was developed by only once species on this planet. The scientific method allows us to build the ISS, rockets, and understand the Earth is spheroid shape as satellites orbiting above show. I am glad the EVA astronauts working on installing components on the ISS listen to ground control specifics vs. free wheel what their perception for safety could be.

 

[Catastrophe]

Google dictionary:

plural noun: perceptions

1. 1.
   the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.
   "the normal limits to human perception"
2. the way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted.
   "Hollywood's perception of the tastes of the American public"
   
   
4. My understanding has been (1). I agree (2) could get us into problems.

Cat

 

[rod]

Cat, as I drive my car along, my perception is the Earth is flat. When I watch the Sun at sunrise, noon, and setting in the west, my perception is the Sun is moving around the Earth while I am not moving. The scientific method allows testing standards to determine which view is accurate. The main thrust of my post #49, different standards of verification and testing clearly are going in the sciences. Origin science like cosmology or interpreting the fossil record is one standard, engineering standards used to assemble parts on the ISS meeting safety standards, is more rigorous and not as flexible.

 

[Catastrophe]

Cat, as I drive my car along, my perception is the Earth is flat. When I watch the Sun at sunrise, noon, and setting in the west, my perception is the Sun is moving around the Earth while I am not moving. The scientific method allows testing standards to determine which view is accurate. The main thrust of my post #49, different standards of verification and testing clearly are going in the sciences. Origin science like cosmology or interpreting the fossil record is one standard, engineering standards used to assemble parts on the ISS meeting safety standards, is more rigorous and not as flexible.

When the Sun is setting the perception is different from different longitudes. Both (all) observer(s) have their own correct perceptions.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Rod
I have no problem with the scientific method. However, all measurements are perceptions of the observer. Many/all observers may agree - fine. Maybe their individual perceptions may vary - in ways understood by the scientific method. E.g., short sight, use of microscope at different mags, likewise telescope with different apertures. Does that help at all?

Cat

 

[rod]

When the Sun is setting the perception is different from different longitudes. Both (all) observer(s) have their own correct perceptions.

Cat

Seems a bit confused me mate The Sun setting in different longitudes sets at different times but in the west. In the geocentric astronomy debates over the heliocentric solar system, a critical cornerstone was the immovable Earth. Folks accepted this doctrine and could point to the Sun moving across the sky, this includes Hittite records, Assyrian, Babylonian, etc. The development of telescopes allowed more detailed observations of the solar system that confirmed the planets, including Earth are doing the moving around the Sun. There was math supporting both schools of astronomy in all of this debate too. So applying your fuzzy thinking (my opinion), we can all come out now as flat earth folks

 

[Helio]

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

The key advantage to science is that it favors all those who can make the corrections to it. It is self-correcting and those that help in those corrections are often rewarded, though change isn't always easy.

The data we get when measuring on a "proven accurate" scale will be deemed far more reliable than the tricky and illusive data that might, say, verify a distant exoplanet -- they are first called candidates for a good reason, of course. The BBT is so broad in scope that nailing all the data to many decimal places and to make it free of noise in the data is never going to happen. All science can do is to improve the measuring devices and techniques. Bigger scopes will help, and more tweaking is likely. The universe was 13.7 Gyrs. old a few years ago, but then it was found to be 13.8 Gyrs., though this value was in the original margin of error.

But science needs to handle separately things that have no means for observation or measurement', including multiverse claims. It may prove helpful in suppositional form, but until the SM can be applied to it, it's not hard science, IMO.

 

[Catastrophe]

Perceptions are only inputs through the senses, not realities. Only a view = perception of reality. There may well be an objective reality but it is not accessible to our limited senses.

Cat

 

[rod]

Perceptions are only inputs through the senses, not realities. Only a view = perception of reality. There may well be an objective reality but it is not accessible to our limited senses.

Cat

I am glad the EVA astronauts working on the ISS do not accept *perception of reality* but accept the engineering science standards used to determine safety when installing components on the ISS. Those astronauts are using a superior standard of science verification that is tested via the scientific method, not feel good security perception

 

[Catastrophe]

"So applying your fuzzy thinking (my opinion), we can all come out now as flat earth folks " I am not going to be drawn into trading insults.

You are 100% correct - I am 100% wrong? Your opinion?

Cat

 

[rod]

"So applying your fuzzy thinking (my opinion), we can all come out now as flat earth folks " I am not going to be drawn into trading insults.

You are 100% correct - I am 100% wrong? Your opinion?

Cat

No me mate in UK. You and I should both come out now as flat earth and solid dome firmament astronomy teachers

 

[Catastrophe]

No me mate in UK. You and I should both come out now as flat earth and solid dome firmament astronomy teachers

Sorry the sum total of relevant perceptions suggest to me (and I accept) that the Earth is an oblate spheroid (best available description ignoring differences in elevation, depth etcetera.

Cat

 

[Helio]

Seems a bit confused me mate The Sun setting in different longitudes sets at different times but in the west. In the geocentric astronomy debates over the heliocentric solar system, a critical cornerstone was the immovable Earth. Folks accepted this doctrine and could point to the Sun moving across the sky, this includes Hittite records, Assyrian, Babylonian, etc. The development of telescopes allowed more detailed observations of the solar system that confirmed the planets, including Earth are doing the moving around the Sun. There was math supporting both schools of astronomy in all of this debate too. So applying your fuzzy thinking (my opinion), we can all come out now as flat earth folks

A flat Earth only works when other information is ignored, and usually intentionally. Our brains inform our perceptions. From the beach, I have looked at the horizon and have seen a slight curvature to the featureless horizon. I have also seen distant clouds over the sea that don't make sense if I assume a flat Earth. But these are very subtle. Fortunately, the work of Copernicus (who referenced some Greek authors), Kepler, Galileo, and especially Newton have introduced information and measurements that allows us not to be fooled. The simple view has been falsified.

A heliocentric model that now fits all the appearances to the nth degree is still just a model. No one has ever disproved a modified Tychonic model since GR allows for any place in the universe to be treated as a central point.

All the information must be taken into account for wise decision making and understanding.

 

[rod]

Sorry the sum total of relevant perceptions suggest to me (and I accept) that the Earth is an oblate spheroid (best available description ignoring differences in elevation, depth etcetera.

Cat

Cat, you are close to Helio in #64. "The data we get when measuring on a "proven accurate" scale will be deemed far more reliable"

The scientific method must determine what defines a *proven accurate* scale and engineering science has exacting standards for building bridges, ISS, etc.

 

[Catastrophe]

Rod
Have you taken into account that I said I was only accepting (1) and rejecting (2) for purposes of this discussion?

Seems science is based on (1).

1. 1.
   the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.
   "the normal limits to human perception"
2. the way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted.
   "Hollywood's perception of the tastes of the American public"

Cat

 

[Helio]

Cat, you are close to Helio in #64. "The data we get when measuring on a "proven accurate" scale will be deemed far more reliable"

The scientific method must determine what defines a *proven accurate* scale and engineering science has exacting standards for building bridges, ISS, etc.

And it does. Things like time (ie seconds) and distance (ie meter) are defined to a large number of decimal places. The advantage goes to all engineering projects, so there is great efficacy from the SM.

 

[rod]

Rod
Have you taken into account that I said I was only accepting (1) and rejecting (2) for purposes of this discussion?

Seems science is based on (1).

1. 1.
   the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.
   "the normal limits to human perception"
2. the way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted.
   "Hollywood's perception of the tastes of the American public"

Cat

And that means the scientific method can develop good standards of measurement and testing to weed out the false from the true.

 

[Catastrophe]

And that means the scientific method can develop good standards of measurement and testing to weed out the false from the true.

Of course. In my language - reliable perceptions.

Cat