- Joined
- Jan 26, 2012
- Messages
- 3,041
- Reaction score
- 565
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The way I heard it in the 70's, was: "Reality's for people that can't handle drugs"! :lamo
On the other side are quantum physicists, marveling at the strange fact that quantum systems don’t seem to be definite objects localized in space until we come along to observe them.
... there's a whole lot of stuff we are really clueless about as a species.
is there silence if a tree falls in the forest when there is no one to hear it? of course not.
Of course, interpretation of reality is subjective. There is much we don't perceive. If we did perceive it, reality would seem different. and yet it wouldn't be.
Please speak for yourself.Yes, we are clueless about a lot of things... .
... we are starting to know more and more things about the universe...
... But we know now that human beings are irrelevant to the universe...
... We know now that any philosophical statement has to include what we know about the physical state of the world around us. ..
...That's why all pre-21st century philosophers are all wrong by definition --- none of them were aware of our current knowledge in physics.
According to George Berkeley (1685 - 1753) if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Yes, God is there to hear it.
You should read more.
You should read philosophy.
We know now that any philosophical statement has to include what we know about the physical state of the world around us.
That's why all pre-21st century philosophers are all wrong by definition --- none of them were aware of our current knowledge in physics.
According to George Berkeley (1685 - 1753) if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? Yes, God is there to hear it.
You should read more.
You should read philosophy.
On one side you’ll find researchers scratching their chins raw trying to understand how a three-pound lump of gray matter obeying nothing more than the ordinary laws of physics can give rise to first-person conscious experience. This is the aptly named “hard problem.”
...
The central lesson of quantum physics is clear: There are no public objects sitting out there in some preexisting space. As the physicist John Wheeler put it, “Useful as it is under ordinary circumstances to say that the world exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can no longer be upheld.”
...
So while neuroscientists struggle to understand how there can be such a thing as a first-person reality, quantum physicists have to grapple with the mystery of how there can be anything but a first-person reality.
Of course, that makes the following assumptions. 1) that God exists, 2) God is omnipresent, and 3 God 'hears'.
Of course, that makes the following assumptions. 1) that God exists, 2) God is omnipresent, and 3 God 'hears'.
Well the "Philosophy" God from romantic philosophy (those philosophers who love God) is too busy to be preoccupied with humans.
And although Pantheism teaches that God is omnipresent, I don't believe it.
Omniscient -- yes.
Omnipotent -- not exactly.
Omnipresent -- definitely not.
Maybe god is aware of everything at least a little. Like you perceive something in the corner of your eye, as in barely/sub consciously. Maybe that's just enough to keep everything from flickering in and out of existence.
No one has every topped Descartes, or Leibniz, or Kant ...
Well the "Philosophy" God from romantic philosophy (those philosophers who love God) is too busy to be preoccupied with humans.
And although Pantheism teaches that God is omnipresent, I don't believe it.
Omniscient -- yes.
Omnipotent -- not exactly.
Omnipresent -- definitely not.
They are all wrong. How do they explain quantum entanglement? They can't because they were just not aware of what we are aware of now.
Their intellect is not in question. Their statements and claims are, though, because all Philosophy has to be aware of Physics in order to be potentially relevant to reality.
Physics will never achieve a 'theory of everything', until they include the observer as part of the solution...
That can't be, by definition.
Reality existed for a very long time before even our solar system even started to develop.
The universe does not need an observer to exist. We are just a result of a random event of an asteroid wiping out the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago.
The universe does not need any observers to exist. We know that much.
That's why Cosmological Reality (tm) is rational : humans are irrelevant to the universe.
They are all wrong. How do they explain quantum entanglement? They can't because they were just not aware of what we are aware of now.
Their intellect is not in question. Their statements and claims are, though, because all Philosophy has to be aware of Physics in order to be potentially relevant to reality.
That can't be, by definition.
Reality existed for a very long time before even our solar system even started to develop.
The universe does not need an observer to exist. We are just a result of a random event of an asteroid wiping out the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago.
The universe does not need any observers to exist. We know that much.
The bolded is the assumption that quantum physics seems to be chipping away at. You're probably still right, but things don't line up quite the way they should if it were that simple.
That's why Cosmological Reality (tm) is rational : humans are irrelevant to the universe.
The universe appears to exist to humans ...