Objective Reality Doesn't Exist, Quantum Experiment Shows

[Catastrophe]

So . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?



Do you wish to retract "fuzzy thinking"?

 

[rod]

So . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?

So stick with the scientific method for measuring and determining accuracy and the science of engineering shows it best

 

[Catastrophe]

So stick with the scientific method for measuring and determining accuracy and the science of engineering shows it best

So stick with the scientific method for determining the accuracy of perceptions (measurements). All I ever suggested.

Cat

 

[rod]

So stick with the scientific method for determining the accuracy of perceptions (measurements). All I ever suggested.

Cat

FYI Cat. I did a MS BING search and found this definition, different than what you are using here.

"The purpose of the scientific method is to establish "truths" that are evident to everybody using objective observations and rules of deduction. The Methodology for Subjective Perceptions provides a basis for working with events that are outside the domain of the scientific method. The Methodology is not intended to reveal universal truths."

 

[Catastrophe]

And, of course, I mean perception by (1.1).

I am not starting all over about "objective" unless you want to accept a definition of objective based on:
QUOTE
the accuracy of perceptions (measurements). All I ever suggested.
QUOTE

like
"a consensus of accurate perceptions"
equals
"a consensus of accurate measurements".

I am not buying into "absolute truth".

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Remember 1.1 is:

the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.
"the normal limits to human perception"

aka measurement

Cat

 

[rod]

"I am not buying into "absolute truth". I understand Cat your post #80, not that I agree. I also understand the religious and philosophical issues that arise too.

 

[Catastrophe]

Ummmmm . . . . . . . . . . . .

QUOTE
"The purpose of the scientific method is to establish "truths" that are evident to everybody using objective observations and rules of deduction. The Methodology for Subjective Perceptions provides a basis for working with events that are outside the domain of the scientific method. The Methodology is not intended to reveal universal truths."
QUOTE

Can you explain the difference Please? Not absolute?
"Evident to everybody"?

Cat

 

[Helio]

FYI Cat. I did a MS BING search and found this definition, different than what you are using here.

"The purpose of the scientific method is to establish "truths" that are evident to everybody using objective observations and rules of deduction. The Methodology for Subjective Perceptions provides a basis for working with events that are outside the domain of the scientific method. The Methodology is not intended to reveal universal truths."

But that definition might work for first-year HS students. Even though quotes are used for "truths", that word should not be part of any definition SM unless in the sense that the SM it isn't about truths. Truths are for religion and philosophy. Science may inform that which philosophy and religion claim to be truths, but any conclusion on wishes to hold about them will be subjective.

 

[rod]

Here is something for further reading and perhaps, confusion

On the Existence and Uniqueness of the Scientific Method - PMC

The ultimate utility of science is widely agreed upon: the comprehension of reality. But there is much controversy about what scientific understanding actually means, and how we should proceed in order to gain new scientific understanding. Is there ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I note this in the paper, "...The understanding of reality is an accomplishment of the mind that depends on the interaction between the subject and the object of knowledge, that is to say, on observation. Consequently, the most basic conceptual schema revolves around these three concepts: (1) reality, (2) observation (of that reality), and (3) understanding (of that observation of that reality). “The Three Fundamental Concepts (a Conceptual Schema)” section defines these three concepts, and analyzes the relationships between them. “The Three Fundamental Hypotheses (the Limits of Scientific Understanding)” section outlines three fundamental hypotheses, one for each concept. These hypotheses establish the first limits of scientific knowledge, that (1) reality is observable, (2) observation is understandable, and (3) understanding is falsifiable. Reality can only be understood scientifically within the limits set by these three hypotheses. It is impossible to do the science of a reality that cannot be observed either directly or indirectly. Nor is it possible to do science based on an unintelligible observation, even though the reality is observable. And neither is it possible to do science based on an understandable observation if it turns out that it is not falsifiable, even though the reality is observable and the observation understandable."

I found 6 references to *falsifiable* in the paper. This seems like an important part of the scientific method, thus some standard of determining true from false - must exist and be used for the SM to work.

 

[Catastrophe]

Rod
Do you disagree with this (from post #80)
"a consensus of accurate perceptions"
equals
"a consensus of accurate measurements".

Cat

 

[rod]

Rod
Do you disagree with this (from post #80)
"a consensus of accurate perceptions"
equals
"a consensus of accurate measurements".

Cat

I agree with #85 This means Cat, origins science must be falsifiable too if it is to be accepted as determined by the scientific method.

 

[Catastrophe]

I agree with #85 This means Cat, origins science must be falsifiable too if it is to be accepted as determined by the scientific method.

A straight answer would be nice.

Cat

 

[Helio]

Given the willingness to give this current topic point so much attention, I hereby offer my Green Rules for your consideration.

 

[Catastrophe]

Further to post #87:

QUOTE
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. In psychology and the cognitive sciences, perception is the process of taking in, picking, organizing, and understanding sensory information. It includes collecting data from sense organs and interpreting it in the brain.
QUOTE

Sounds like measurement?

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Objective Reality Doesn't Exist, Quantum Experiment Shows

Objective Reality may exist, but the human species is limited to subjective investigation, on which it may accept conclusions.

Cat

 

[Trevize62]

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

As in the Plato's myth of the cavern. This is the reason why we have built measure instruments that potentiate our senses.

 

[Joel]

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

Part of the problem with the scientific community today is its willingness to be co-opted by social and political entities. For example, up until about twenty years ago it was accepted as a fact that there are only two sexes for humanity. Individuals who "felt" like they were another sex were viewed as mentally ill since science could definitely prove the existence of an "X" or "Y" chromosome in someones genetic make-up.
Social pressures, politics, and corporate medicine on the other hand has deemed it necessary to ignore the FACT that science directly contradicts the assertion that there are multiple sexes. I've lost count on how many we're up to now.
As a society we have created new terminology to support the assertion that is based on the very subjectiveness of emotion. The medical community has created a new industry to help people "transition" to the sex of their choice even though medical technology completely lacks the ability to alter an individuals genetic make-up. Genetically, regardless of the efforts of society/politics/big business, the individual will always be either male or female. Unfortunately, it has been discovered that those who do proceed in efforts to change their sex suffer from a much higher suicide rate than the general public.
Real people suffer the consequences of individuals in the scientific community who are willing to compromise the tried and true scientific method in order to enrich themselves or to feel good about themselves because they have accepted another individuals mental illness as part of some new politically correct societal norm. I'm always amazed how many individuals willingly stop asking questions when someone (or group) of authority or title asserts that the scientific debate has ended on a particular subject. Whenever I hear such a claim I immediately begin to ask questions, but I'm usually told that I'm some kind of hate monger or denier of what they claim to be true.
The moment we approach science with a regard that debate is no longer necessary, that individuals who hold contrary views should not have those views objectively considered, or that those who express differing opinions should be socially silenced and punished is when science becomes the idolatry of those claiming to be intellectuals. Those who construct such idols really only construct monuments to themselves so that they may pursue a reality based in their own foolish imaginations that proclaims their superiority over others regardless of the FACTS of scientific reality.

 

[KC Strom]

Hopefully no one here is asserting that we should limit the definition of reality to only that which can be falsified. The human experience is real, but seldom plays nicely with SM.

Reality is a spectrum.

 

[rod]

Hopefully no one here is asserting that we should limit the definition of reality to only that which can be falsified. The human experience is real, but seldom plays nicely with SM.

Reality is a spectrum.

KC Strom, if reality is a spectrum, then do you accept that the Earth is 6,000 years old? Archbishop Ussher famous 4004 BC. You are correct, the scientific method does not play well with human experience but without the ability to falsify an argument via the SM, what then about the age of the Earth here? The same applies to flat earth teaching today on the Internet.

 

[KC Strom]

Sanity.

 

[rod]

Sanity.

FYI. I have a copy of The Annals of the World by James Ussher. Here is a note about the work. [The "Annals of the World" by James Ussher is a great historical reference, and belongs in the library of every serious student of history and Biblical antiquity! The Annals of the World is a complete history of the world covering every major event from the time of creation to 70 A.D. In writing this history, James Ussher read everything about ancient history that existed in the seventeenth century, and his work is extensively footnoted with thousands of references to ancient writers.]

Judging based upon *sanity*, the book is very sane and well documented, even with some references no longer extant in archaeology.

 

[greenrivet]

Would someone kindly give a reasonably simple explanation for :-

1. In the double slit experiment, how can the light know if its going to be a proton or a wave, and how does it know its being observed and then decide which its going to be, and there was something else that said if you kept the sensor in place but disconnect the plug , it appears the light proton seems to know...... Eh ? Wish I had not started reading these forums !!

2. Quantum entanglement :-
How can it be physically possible for 2 (atoms?) to interact with each other across the galaxy , "instantly". If the interaction is faster than light, how can that be true; and how do scientists know / prove this.? Can this interaction be across time, past and future ? Can there be interaction before our big bang, or to other universes ?

3. If there was a big bang , how could all this matter, rocks, suns, planets , all come from a single point the size of a pin head, surely it must always have been here. Something in my school days about not creating or destroying matter. So that was all wrong then ?

many thanks and best rgds

 

[Helio]

I'm hardly qualified to help, but I think I can help some...

1. In the double slit experiment, how can the light know if its going to be a proton or a wave, and how does it know its being observed and then decide which its going to be, and there was something else that said if you kept the sensor in place but disconnect the plug , it appears the light proton seems to know...... Eh ? Wish I had not started reading these forums !!

Photons, or any particle for that matter, have more than one property. They have both wave and particle (or particle-like) properties. The higher the energy of a photon, the more it behaves like a particle. The more massive an element is (e.g.proton vs. electron), the more it behaves like a particle as well.

Exactly why they behave they way the do is still unclear. There are a couple of debated theories for this.

2. Quantum entanglement :-
How can it be physically possible for 2 (atoms?) to interact with each other across the galaxy , "instantly". If the interaction is faster than light, how can that be true; and how do scientists know / prove this.?

It's not known what is happening to allow instant responses in entanglement. But no one has found a way that any form of communication can utilize it, so it's, so far, just a remarkable novelty, IMO.

But there have been many objective tests done that demonstrate entanglement is not fiction.

3. If there was a big bang , how could all this matter, rocks, suns, planets , all come from a single point the size of a pin head, surely it must always have been here. Something in my school days about not creating or destroying matter. So that was all wrong then ?

The best way to understand that question and BBT in general, IMO, is to look at what we know today. We discovered in the early 1920s that space is expanding. Thus, if you rewind the clock, then space would appear to contract. Amazingly, physics is able to allow that contraction to squeeze to incredible densities. Matter becomes so hot that it will first break-up into its base elements, but with more contraction, matter transitions into energy, so only energy in the trillions of degrees remains. Physics, however, cannot solve for a single point (ie singularity) since the equations go nuts. Conservation laws likely have no problems with this, but there is no guarantee that these laws are identical then (the first nanoseconds) to what we see today.

 

[Catastrophe]

greenrivet,
"Wish I had not started reading these forums !!"

I am very sorry to see you say that. The truth is that we are very limited in our comprehension of these things - some more than others. Much we simply don't understand. For many of us (I believe) we are enthralled by the Universe and can live with the fact that, in our lifetimes, there are many things which are not going to be clarified.
I have made the point elsewhere that we are probably not equipped at this time to understand these things because we do not have sufficient sensory breadth. We started with eyes and could only see by visual wavelengths. Now we have extended the width by apparatus which allows us to "see" by infrared, X-rays etcetera.
Helio has given you an excellent reply. Do not expect to get 'ahead of science' very quickly. Accept where we are understanding wise, and keep trying to learn as we progress.
OK, that is just my personal opinion. Do not give up just because mankind has to learn how to walk before we can run.
As far as the Big Bang is concerned, I do not believe in the singularity model. I believe that all this "infinity" and division by zero stuff is just an expression of our ignorance. I believe that the Universe (there is only one, by definition) is cyclic. Much as I accept science in general, there is a gap between so called t = 0 and the acceptable continuation. Physics cannot accept that gap just by extrapolating backwards and postulating 'infinite' etcetera. A cyclic model avoids this problem.

Best wishes,

Cat