Objective reality: How do we know it exists ?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Enmos, Mar 21, 2008.

  1. EndLightEnd This too shall pass. Registered Senior Member

    Quantum mechanics shows us directly that reality independent of the mind is nothing but pure potential. The mind causes the wave function to collapse, and matter appear. Though we do not understand "WHY!?"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bishadi Banned Banned

    that is non-sense

    is english your second language?

    what is 'the mind is nothing but pure potential'............?

    can you share that in math?

    "mind cause the wave function to collapse"

    i enjoy the esoteric, but wow!
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Oddly, yet again I have to agree with Bishadi:


    Ever heard of the "observer effect" or the "uncertainty principle"?
    If anything, QM inextricably binds our perception to 'reality'.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bishadi Banned Banned

    sure, schoadinger's dog

    heisenberg (field equations)

    hey glaucon....can i change the word "binds" to 'blinds'?

    i know QM can be used to build but it cannot define, life.

    as life is what reveals "the law' is moot (by evidence)

    i always say thanks to the greats for their contributions but the existing paradigm is a weeeeee bit off,

    what removes the 'uncertainties' of physics is to address the causality of associating systems within an environment

    the correct rendition includes the entangled environment

    comprehending the entanglement of energy, between mass, is huge

    perhaps take a read on what the copenhagen meetings were about

    The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle were in fact seen as twin targets by detractors who believed in an underlying determinism and realism. Within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, there is no fundamental reality the quantum state describes, just a prescription for calculating experimental results. There is no way to say what the state of a system fundamentally is, only what the result of observations might be.

    Albert Einstein believed that randomness is a reflection of our ignorance of some fundamental property of reality, while Niels Bohr believed that the probability distributions are fundamental and irreducible, and depend on which measurements we choose to perform. Einstein and Bohr debated the uncertainty principle for many years.
  8. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Bishadi, the correct way of writing out an O-umlaut is like this: "Schroedingers cat".
    Just thought I should let you know because I've seen you writing it with "oa" several times now

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Certainly "sound wave" is a form of energy; however as has been in common use in this thread, Sound is the perception (note also both are nouns.) For example, the classic question:
    "When a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound if no one is there to hear it?"
    is central to the turn this thread has taken. I answer that question: No. It makes small amplitude oscillations in the air pressure, which travel and are called "sound waves."

    Your "Hearing is the perception." is grammatically nonsense - the same as saying "Baking is the cake." I.e. you have equated a participle form of a verb to a noun. You cannot do this as they differ in TYPE.

    Many, including you, sometimes use "sound" when they actually mean “sound waves,” but that is not as precise or as correct as I was. Especially in the context of the current discussion, “sound” requires an organism which can detect sound waves. Some may restrict "sound" to human perception and answer the classic “falling tree in forest” question to effect that there is no sound made if no human is there to hear.

    I would be curious: Does a “silent dog whistle” make sound, or only sound waves?

    To be more specific:
    Consider an ultra sound device making 100 kHz air pressure energy waves. Is it making sound, even though the frequency is about five times higher than any human can hear? If you stick by your "Sound is a form of energy" nonsense*, you must respond "Yes" but I hope you will adopt my more precise terminology and say “No it is making sound waves but not sound,” or at least stop equating verb form terms to nouns.

    Correctly and precisely stated:
    (1) Sound waves are a form of energy.
    (2) Sound is the perception produced sound waves.

    Your "Sound is a form of energy" is wrong or at best lacking in precision.

    Your "Hearing is a perception" is wrong and even a grammatically impossible construction.
    Is English not your native language?
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 30, 2009
  10. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    You are one of the last people on this board to be querying someone else's use (or abuse) of the English language.
    The sentence makes perfect sense:
    Break it down or rephrase it and understand the meaning (although I may not exactly agree with it): Reality, independent of the mind, is nothing but pure potential, as shown by QM.

    And if you were half as well versed in physics as you claim you'd recognise that's an old concept.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Jul 1, 2009
  11. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Since perception can be an act how is it nonsense?
    Hearing is the act of perceiving...


  12. thinking Banned Banned



    as long as the mathematics is accurate and is based on sound reasoning

    which is based on imagination by the mind of the physical dynamics
  13. thinking Banned Banned

    this happens because we see only the crest of the wave , which produces a particle , which is all that we see and are capable of seeing for now

    meanwhile the wave in and of its self is full of tightly packed particles

    think of it this way

    a wave if it has enough energy will produce at its creast a foam and that foam is based on particles , but when the foam enters back into the water below it , the wave , it then becomes again part of the wave

    so when we , looking at a quantum wave perspective , we have to remember that the crest of the wave is all we will see , for now

    have we seen a quantum wave ? just the wave ? not to my knowledge
  14. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Sorry. Sound is what is heard. Sound is no different than light in this case. Hearing no different than seeing and those are the acts of perceiving their respective forms of energy.

    Its ok that you are wrong.

    Or in the common parlance, just sound.

    You should take English again.

    You shouldn't confuse correctness with precision or precision with the extensive use of unnecessary jargon.

    Much like we can only discuss gamma radiation if we can directly perceive it?

    Sounds which I can't hear? What of it? There are many sounds I can't hear.
  15. swarm Registered Senior Member

    We can expand this question by noticing that with a bit of distance between the person and the tree it is possible to see the tree fall and know that the sound was made without ever having heard anything since any two object colliding produces a sound.
  16. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    We can also come upon the fallen tree and know that it made a sound when it fell, because we have experienced it before.
  17. thinking Banned Banned

    what is the essence of the ability to hearing any sound by the collision of two or more objects swarm ?
  18. Spectrum Registered Senior Member

    Objective re-ality. 'Re-' means again and 'al-' means everything (all). If one were to experience EVERYTHING again then that would be re-al-ity. I imagine that should this be true (that one experiences everything again) then it would be believed, and that it is true.
  19. Bishadi Banned Banned

    now you see how team work (the evolution of knowledge) performs

    without many points of input and cross referencing, then claims of such perfection could not truly be available

    but in this era, in this global linkage of knowledge within the internet, combined with an honest approach and a couple decades of work.....

    it seems that combining principle and math could 'reveal itself'

    i like the possibilities of that pinnacle being acheived; how about you?

    could you imagine if it was found in YOUR generation?

    i wonder what it would be like to be exposed to such fairness, equality and truth; all wrapped into one!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  20. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    I have no problem with "hearing is an act of perception" but I would prefer "Hearing is a mental process." Both "act of perception" and "mental process" are references to an activity - I.e. serve like verbs. "Perception" is the result of a process or activity, not the activity itself. One can say "Perception is an experience." I would have problem with "Hearing is an act." due to the equating of verb form to a noun but not much problem in understanding the intent. I would have BOTH grammatic and meaning problems with "Hearing is a house."

    My problem is with equating an act or process (both are nouns) to any verb form like "Hearing." That is why I copied Swarm's "Hearing is preception." replacing "hearing" with "Baking" (the same verb form) and replaced "perception" with another noun, "cake."

    Do you agree that "Baking is cake" is "grammatical nonsense"?

    If yes, then why say that "Hearing is perception" is not also "grammatical nonsense"?

    Or do you now agree it is "grammatical nonsense" as I called it? I did Not say it "lacks meaning." Or that it can not be understood. It is is not precise and not grammatically self consistent. This only a minor point - not why I posted reply to swarm.

    My main conflict with swarm is in his/her calling "sound an energy" when it is sound waves that are the energy and "sound is the experience"* those sound waves can produce in organism that can detect sound waves.

    *The visual parallel to swarm's error is "Blue is an energy." Correct would be "Radiation is an energy." & "Blue is a color experience of humans." corresponding with: "Middle C** is a sound experience of humans."

    **Meaning the human experienced sound created by someone striking the middle key of a piano, not the key itself nor the pressure waves in the air.

    SUMMARY of my POV:
    5000 Angstrum EM waves are not "blue" and 500 hz pressure waves in air are not "sound." Both "sound" and "blue" are experiences in humans produced by these energies.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 1, 2009
  21. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Detection by the ear via imparted physical motion and subsequent interpritation by the brain of the energy transfered via compression waves (aka sound) thru a medium such as air.
  22. swarm Registered Senior Member

    My aren't we anal.

    Hearing is the experience, if you like that better than perception.
    Sound is what is being experienced or perceived.

    Sound is a travelling wave which is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard, or the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations.

    The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. 2006.

    Sound exists independent of its perception.
  23. Algernon Registered Senior Member

    Mod Hat:


    This is the second time I've had to delete your posting that consisted entirely of quoted material.
    The next time you do this you will receive a warning
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 2, 2009

Share This Page