Does some kind of an objective reality actually exist or is the concept of reality just a working hypothesis which we humans use as an intellectual crutch
Does some kind of an objective reality actually exist or is the concept of reality just a working hypothesis which we humans use as an intellectual crutch to help us manage an irrational and non-causal universe of infinite probability fields and nearly infinite, human-created, observational collapsed superpositions. In essence, is reality a wilful act of faith or a rational construct based on evidence and which cannot be falsified? Does an Ur-reality exist and if so how do we go about finding and presenting evidence for it?
The language I am using is related to quantum physics and the nature of a possible "quantum reality".
A probability field is an aggregate of all possible fates of a particle or wave which actually coexist simultaneously. Because all possibilities co-exist simultaneously and co-locationally within a probability field, causation (cause and effect) don't really exist and causal ambiguity reigns supreme.
A probability field collapses when observation or measurement nudges the probability field to implode and to produce one definite outcome of the many possible outcomes co-located in the un-collapsed field. In other words observation triggers reality rather than observing a pre-existing reality.
A superposition is the specific version of observed reality which the act of observation or measurement triggered/caused by collapsing the probability field and forcing it to coalesce into one definite outcome.
If the hypotheses of the Copenhagen flavour of Quantum physics (for which there is some persuasive evidence and strong predictive success) are accepted, then can an Ur-reality be said to exist? If these quantum hypotheses are rejected, then are we not just forcefully willing upon ourselves a reality which may not actually exist by the imposition of will and purpose on a fuzzy and non-causal universe - essentially an act of faith.
Discuss and debate please. Feel free to use other vocabulary than I have chosen to use, but please define your terms first.
Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Our reality consists of that which we can describe.
Objective reality is axiomatic.
... Feel free to use other vocabulary than I have chosen to use, but please define your terms first.
Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Russell797:
A very good response, thank you.
"Our reality", is a subjective reality, is it not? The universe might not care what we think and thus could have a very different reality from our own. Thus the question about a more objective reality posed here. Can we describe a neutron star or a black-hole or just indirectly speculate about its structure and function from data collected from its event horizon? Can we describe metallic hydrogen in the core of a large gas giant or do we have to make educated guesses? Can we describe an atom or an electron? By describing things do we make them real, independent of an objective reality? If so, we can describe time, money, nationalism, a saint, a god or a devil and conjure them into our reality. Do we really want to go down that perilous road?
Irrationality and irrational numbers are buried in infinite infinities between the integers of "our reality". Thus the universe is far more irrational and infinite that just being infinitely big or infinitely divisible.
Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Yes our reality is subjective deduced..We can measure the universe and all it's features from the very smallest to very largest by means of four fundamental forces. Everything we know about we have gleaned from the transmittance of information by those forces. In reality the only "thing" we detect are those forces..We don't see objects, we detect the electromagnetic energy they emit. We detect objects gravitationally....gravitational waves which travel at the speed of light. Those waves or fields carry with them information about what emitted them. The strong and weak nuclear forces interact with elementary particles to create baryonic matter..The particles themselves represent a form of bound up energy capable of transition between energy and massive particles when they interact with the Higgs field..
My desk is mostly empty space which appears and feels like a solid only because of the way light interacts with the electron components of it's atoms. I can never feel or see "the desk"...only the electromagnetic force interacting with my skin and eyes. Neutrinos which do not "feel" that force pass right on through like there is nothing there.....If I'm a neutrino, does the desk exist?
Mach:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/axiomatic
If reality is axiomatic then what is the point of inquiry and science in an axiomatic and thus unquestionable and self-evident world?
Let humanity just go along with what is thought to be proper and fitting? There is little rule for learning here.Cheers.Evilroddy.
Russell797:
A good post which was well written and concise. Thank you!
Now some annoying Socratic questioning:
So we live in a holographic universe from string/membrane to universal membrane and beyond? What lies behind the holograph? How indirect do observations have to be before we can deny them as good enough evidence for our subjective reality? Rather than being content to deduce a reality is it not an easy but perilous step to induce another subjective reality based on bias, faith or misapplied reason? How is Bohr's quantum universe any more valid than one created by a Sufi mystic in a ribat (fort) in North Africa who has received the Light of Muhammad? What makes Bohr or Einstein legit and Sufi mysticism invalid, some equations and predictive success in a projected universe revealled by those same equations? If I and thousands see the Virgin Mary at Fatima, does that make the experience objectively real? Or is human pattern-recognition creating attractive fictions by allowing us to falsely correlating data points into what we wish to see?
Credo videre ergo omnia sunt?
Unless one tries to tunnel down behind the holograph to find and interact with the emitter, one might as well accept all subjective realities as equally valid and end further collective inquiry in favour of individual revelation and subjective POV.
Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Ur-Reality is the elephant.
Common sense, religion, art, philosophy, science, and language are the six blind men.
Maybe it hasn't yet clicked for you.
Some people think that is what we can't help but do. That subjective belief is our only access to reality. So for them, the word imaginary is meaningless.
Russell797:
A good post which was well written and concise. Thank you!
Now some annoying Socratic questioning:
So we live in a holographic universe from string/membrane to universal membrane and beyond? What lies behind the holograph?
How indirect do observations have to be before we can deny them as good enough evidence for our subjective reality?
Rather than being content to deduce a reality is it not an easy but perilous step to induce another subjective reality based on bias, faith or misapplied reason?
How is Bohr's quantum universe any more valid than one created by a Sufi mystic in a ribat (fort) in North Africa who has received the Light of Muhammad? What makes Bohr or Einstein legit and Sufi mysticism invalid, some equations and predictive success in a projected universe revealled by those same equations?
If I and thousands see the Virgin Mary at Fatima, does that make the experience objectively real?
Or is human pattern-recognition creating attractive fictions by allowing us to falsely correlating data points into what we wish to see?
Unless one tries to tunnel down behind the holograph to find and interact with the emitter, one might as well accept all subjective realities as equally valid and end further collective inquiry in favour of individual revelation and subjective POV.
Russell797:
Maybe it hasn't yet clicked for you.
You're right. I have reread your latest post several times and I do not follow what you are saying. I need to do more homework and reflect on your words for awhile, before I respond.
Thank you for taking the time and making the effort to reply.
Cheers.
Evilroddy.
I didn't write that line...Mach did...or am I missing something?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?