If a Tree Falls

Reality happens whether we recognize it or not. It is a fact and therefore our "feelings" or "wants" won't change it. Reality most certainly does not exist in our own heads. Our perception of reality is not a truth, and will obviously vary widely. Discerning "truth" from "perception" is the difference between "living" and "existing".

Who knows, it might just be a hologram .

Cheers,
Lee

Computer End Program!

Ok here's another one? Which came first The Chicken or the Egg?

Chicken.

Reality happens whether we recognize it or not

Sorry, wrong Tomk.

Quantum-mechanics asserts that "reality does not exist when we're not observing it".

And typically in a quantum world, an atom does not exist unless we are measuring it and realism is more of a problem than locality

In short, reality is only something we experience through our 5 senses. There is no such thing as objective reality as all thought is subjective. "Reality happens whether we recognize it or not" is a subjective thought (reasoning) masquerading as objectivity

Cheers,
Lee

:

I don't live in a quantum world. Quantum mechanics is a philosophical offshoot of Quantum Physics which is largely based on unproven theory. I have a hard enough time with reality.

However, I'm always willing to learn something new so could you direct me to where:

Quantum-mechanics asserts that "reality does not exist when we're not observing it".

There are many branches to quantum theory… and I'm not familiar with that one. I'm guessing that it is based upon statements made by probably Bohr, that have been taken way out of context and twisted. Quantum theory, at it's base, is the theory that everything can be explained by a mathematical equation. You're saying that there is a mathematical equation that proves that the mathematical equation doesn't exist? I suppose that makes sense if you are going to suspend disbelief, do away with any form of logic, and then use math… the purest form of logic that exists… to prove it.

Logic is being disproved regularly.

Logic: the earth is flat (perfectly logical centuries ago) / wrong. Something cannot come from nothing / wrong (the big bang) etc.

Logic is of course a dull facility which throughout the centuries has been the main slave (weapon) of religion, prejudice, racism and especially personal pleasure.
Try to use logic to get your head around the edge of the universe and the more tricky, what is outside it or why can't all sounds waves be measured, regardless of any future measuring device not yet invented ("Gordel's Proof")?

Quantum-mechanics asserts that "reality does not exist when we're not observing it"

See:
"Copenhagen Interpretation"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
The Copenhagen Interpretation effectively denies the existence of any deeper, objective reality that exists in the absence of observation.

Interesting reading too.
"Bell's Inequality" It implies that quantum physics must necessarily violate either the principle of locality or counterfactual definiteness. It is the most famous legacy of the late physicist John Stewart Bell (since disproved).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_Inequality


"I like to think that the moon is there even when I am not looking at it."
- Albert Einstein

I don't live in a quantum world.

yes you do.

Quantum theory, at it's base, is the theory that everything can be explained by a mathematical equation.
…………………to prove it.

are you sure?

a mathematical equation doesn't actually prove anything,

i thought quantum anything dealt only in mathematical probabilities.



might find this interesting:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretatio…antum_mechanics

Problems of Interpretation

The difficulties of interpretation reflect a number of points about the orthodox description of quantum mechanics, including:

The abstract, mathematical nature of that description.
The existence of what appear to be non-deterministic and irreversible processes.
The phenomenon of entanglement, and in particular the correlations between remote events that are not expected in classical theory.
The complementarity of the proffered descriptions of reality.
The role played by observers and the process of measurement.
The rapid rate at which quantum descriptions become more complicated as the size of a system increases.

"I like to think that the moon is there even when I am not looking at it."
- Albert Einstein

I suppose that is why he derided quantum theory.

I definitely don't know alot about this subject - haven't really studied anything about it since college and probably haven't learned anything new about it since then except maybe from discussions with my nephew who is a physicist, but I thought that the "Copenhagen Interpretation" simply states that you cannot determine the state of somethings reality until you measure it. Not that it doesn't exist if you're not observing it.

Logic is being disproved regularly.

I don't think so. Incorrect conclusions are made regularly by applying logic to faulty assumptions.

the earth is flat (perfectly logical centuries ago)

Not true. Logic dictated that it was not flat. That fallacy was being taught, but the "thinkers" of the time, those who applied logic, disagreed with "common knowledge". A better example would be that the sun revolved around the earth. This was arrived at by logic with an improper assumption… Man is God's greatest creation, so therefore man must be the center of the Universe, so the sun must revolve around the earth.

Something cannot come from nothing / wrong (the big bang) etc.

I don't believe in any of the versions of the Big Bang Theory. I believe God created everything that exists. No Big Bang. In order to accept the Big Bang Theory, one must accept some form of a theory of Evolution (as with the Big Bang theory, there are several… there are either 7 or 3 mutually exclusive versions depending on how strongly you hold on to the nuances of your chosen version). I have trouble with Evolution being characterized as "A" theory when if you believe one version… then none of the other versions could possibly be true, yet they are all lumped together as one theory. All theories seem to agree that life evolves to a more perfect state…. single cells to fish, reptiles to mammals, monkeys to man…. yet the early stages of life… fish, reptiles, monkeys still exist. Why didn't they all evolve? Why do they not continue to evolve? Where are the "half way between monkey and man" creatures?

a mathematical equation doesn't actually prove anything,

Not sure what you mean by prove. A mathematical equation is pure and perfect. It provides a solution every time. Every time an equation is solved, it gives the exact same solution. There are no variable in the equation itself. Once the equation is provided… it is what it is. Solving the wrong equation will provide you with a meaningless answer. It will be the answer to the equation, but the equation may not equate to what you are seeking. Just as logic will give you an improper conclusion if applied to faulty assumptions… solving an equation that does not account for all of the data, will give you a meaningless answer.

A mathematical equation is pure and perfect

actually, no it's not..

It provides a solution every time

yes, doesn't mean it's exact/right tho, only an approximation.

Every time an equation is solved, it gives the exact same solution

actually, no it doesn't.

There are no variable in the equation itself

actually yes there are

Once the equation is provided… it is what it is

yes and that is, it's meaningless, and doesn't prove anything.
mathematical equations are used to give an approximation or probable outcome depending on circumstances to things we want to know, they prove nothing in and of themselves.

to back up my point i'll give you an example of a question and a pure and perfect mathematical equation used to solve it.

what is the circumference of a circle?

mathematical equation :- C=2pi R or C=pi D
pi=3.141592,etc, etc.

pi is an ever changing variable, so the answer can never be the exact same solution every time can it.
the solution depends on circumstances,
like what place we calculate pi too in the first place.
therefore the circumference of the circle will change with every solution to the equation depending on the circumstances yet in reality it hasn't changed at all.
not what i'd call a pure and perfect solution to my question.

so in reality mathematical equations cannot even prove something as simple as what a circles exact circumference is.

Ok here's another one?

Which came first The Chicken or the Egg?

egg,
the chicken hatched from the egg but was a mutation of a different bird..

or was it the chicken and the egg was the mutation??

what is the circumference of a circle?

The circumference of a circle is the dimension of it's perimeter.

pi is the constant ratio between the circumference and the diameter.

pi is not "ever changing". It is and has always been what it is. It is always exactly the circumference divided by the diameter. Every time. Exactly the same.

Mathematical equations do not give probabilities. A given equation has one and only one solution. The probability of the solution is 100%

Variables should be considered when forming an equation, but once formed, the equation is static. Adding a variable is a different equation.


However, any debate starting with the premise that there is no reality, logic doesn't exist, and a constant is "ever changing"… is futile.


That being said… on the chicken question… I will concede that you have a valid point. The common chicken is a mutation/hybrid of the jungle fowl (as are pheasants) and therefore is not a "pure" organism. Therefore, the "first" chicken would have hatched from an egg laid by a "not quite chicken". Therefore it could be said that an egg was laid in which a chicken formed… prior to there being a chicken formed.

Oh wait…. A chicken doesn't have a "definition". It is a name. Therefore a "chicken" didn't exist until someone called the funny bird by the name… chicken. It is highly unlikely that someone said… "I'm going to call whatever hatches from that egg - chicken!" So… I'm going back to the chicken came first.

pi is not "ever changing". It is and has always been what it is. It is always exactly the circumference divided by the diameter. Every time. Exactly the same.

yes it is a constant, i worded my last post wrong, but it is and always will be an unknown constant(approximation) because it can never be worked out to a conclusion,
so therefore a mathematical equation is not "pure and perfect" otherwise it would be able to give us an exact conclusive answer, which it can't and never will be able too.

like i said earlier in reality mathematics cannot even tell us the circumference of a circle, so is not very pure and perfect, is it?
all it can provide is an approximation or probability of something.

Mathematical equations do not give probabilities. A given equation has one and only one solution. The probability of the solution is 100%

if they do not give probabilities then you will be able to tell me exactly what the one and only solution for a circles circumference is when the diameter is 10cm then using the constant pi? not an estimate, approximation or probability but the exact size.

i bet you can't..

We are getting into deep water here Tomk

I said:

Logic is being disproved regularly.

You said:

I don't think so. Incorrect conclusions are made regularly by applying logic to faulty assumptions.

So your also saying, "correct" conclusions come from "assumptions" that are not faulty.

There is no such thing as a "correct" (or incorrect) assumption. Only after an assumption is proved or disproved does it become a correct or incorrect fact (no longer any sort of assumption).That the Earth revolves around the Sun is a fact, not a correct assumption. That the world was flat was indeed (once-upon–a-time) an assumption based on primitive logic.
Sure, there re plenty of people running around with incorrect assumptions, but only because they are either unaware or prefer to disbelieve the Scientific facts..

You said:

I don't believe in any of the versions of the Big Bang Theory. I believe God created everything that exists.

I strongly believe that too. However, I'm well aware that's a conclusion based on an assumption, not a provable fact and there are plenty of God fearing Scientists who would argue the same point. God can neither be proved or disproved. "God exists"
(believer) or "God doesn't exist" (disbelieve) are just two different valid assumptions, not facts as only one of them can be a fact if it is ever proven one way or the other.

Cheers,
Lee
.

Cheers,
Lee