"Look At Me!"

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Sounds to me like someone took a first year philosophy course, and thinks they are now an enlightened monk or something.

 

[TortoiseDream]

Sounds to me like someone took a first year philosophy course, and thinks they are now an enlightened monk or something.

I don't claim to be anything but a fool, actually.

Again, your response, Mitt, forces me ask a further question, in my staunch disagreement: does an objective reality exist? Or is reality subjective?

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

I don't claim to be anything but a fool, actually.

Again, your response, Mitt, forces me ask a further question, in my staunch disagreement: does an objective reality exist? Or is reality subjective?

There is an objective reality. Though it may not be the reality I currently am experiencing. For all I know, I could be a brain in a jar being fed an imaginary virtual world.

 

[TortoiseDream]

There is an objective reality. Though it may not be the reality I currently am experiencing. For all I know, I could be a brain in a jar being fed an imaginary virtual world.

Why?

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Why?

Because things exist. Doesnt matter what subjective perspective they are experienced from.

 

[Oceania]

I think i side with Mitt here for the most part haha...ill just let you guys duke it out ;D

 

[TortoiseDream]

Because things exist. Doesnt matter what subjective perspective they are experienced from.

This is not an argument, it's completely circular. You're literally saying "objective reality exists because objective reality exists". It would do us good if you clarified what exactly you mean by objective reality. What I think you mean is that blobs of stuff exist in space and time independent of who is looking at it, or how one looks at it. Even without invoking any philosophical argument this can be proven false beyond a doubt. It is forbidden by physics, more specifically by Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics. Relativity says that two persons traveling at different relative velocities can measure the same object or time between two events and they will in principle get different results. Both views are correct, though. This forbids a universal perspective that you're advocating. Whose perspective is the"true" one, Gods? You're an atheist right? Quantum mechanics forbids it as well. It is now known via the uncertainty principle that a particle's position is given to it by the measurement itself. In other words the particle doesn't exist unless you measure where it is. Broadly speaking it means the moon doesn't exist unless you are looking at it. I could ask you this question: do you see the spider on your computer? That one, right there, I see it right in front of your monitor. It's right there! Don't you see it? Unless you're really lucky and there actually is a spider on your computer, that spider does not exist to you because you have no interaction with it (well strictly speaking you do via me, but we're not at this level yet).

Simply, objective reality cannot exist because it implies that the universe can, in principle, be viewed as it truly is, even if no one truly does. In principle this is forbidden because one cannot view the universe without taking a perspective - it is inherent in the word "view".

 

[Theocrat]

The Joker Uses Himself to Terrorize Others

Whenever you're talking to someone and he or she says those words to you, what is your reaction? You automatically look at their face, correct? Even more specifically you look at their eyes, right?

This is very interesting to me. Does anyone want to comment on what this might suggest about the "self"? It's almost as if our bodies are not a part of us, that I am actually this abstract consciousness trapped in a forehead and I'm controlling this external thing called my body. Hmmmmmmm....

YouTube - The Joker Video Threat

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I still like the first Batman movie best.

YouTube - The Joker Video Threat

 

[Sandman33]

When I hear "look at me" I look straight for the tits. Every time.

If its a male voice I look towards the mouth that's speaking at me, and then the eyes. But usually the mouth.

The conciousness is definitely separate of the body. The core, root lies in your stomach and is where most of the power REALLY comes from when you throw a punch or hit a golf ball etc.

The brain definitely controlls the body and decides when to use the core and when not to. But the brain harbors the inner clock that we base all of our reality upon.

Where do you think people in a coma are at mentally? You think time is of any matter to them or that they even think time exists? Clearly they are alive as we know it but they sure as hell arent here.

 

[TortoiseDream]

Where do you think people in a coma are at mentally? You think time is of any matter to them or that they even think time exists? Clearly they are alive as we know it but they sure as hell aren't here.

I'm not sure what to make of consciousness, it's a very difficult subject. This might interest you:

http://www.clarku.edu/students/philosophyclub/docs/nagel.pdf

 

[MelissaWV]

Hmm. I did not read the whole thread, but OP you should try living as a woman for awhile There are a lot of men who don't look women in the eyes, even when they say "look at me!"

 

[pcosmar]

Hmm. I did not read the whole thread, but OP you should try living as a woman for awhile There are a lot of men who don't look women in the eyes, even when they say "look at me!"

Ha ha,
I try, I really do.
But,

Some days I just need this shirt.

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

This is not an argument, it's completely circular. You're literally saying "objective reality exists because objective reality exists". It would do us good if you clarified what exactly you mean by objective reality. What I think you mean is that blobs of stuff exist in space and time independent of who is looking at it, or how one looks at it. Even without invoking any philosophical argument this can be proven false beyond a doubt. It is forbidden by physics, more specifically by Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics. Relativity says that two persons traveling at different relative velocities can measure the same object or time between two events and they will in principle get different results. Both views are correct, though. This forbids a universal perspective that you're advocating. Whose perspective is the"true" one, Gods? You're an atheist right? Quantum mechanics forbids it as well. It is now known via the uncertainty principle that a particle's position is given to it by the measurement itself. In other words the particle doesn't exist unless you measure where it is. Broadly speaking it means the moon doesn't exist unless you are looking at it. I could ask you this question: do you see the spider on your computer? That one, right there, I see it right in front of your monitor. It's right there! Don't you see it? Unless you're really lucky and there actually is a spider on your computer, that spider does not exist to you because you have no interaction with it (well strictly speaking you do via me, but we're not at this level yet).

Simply, objective reality cannot exist because it implies that the universe can, in principle, be viewed as it truly is, even if no one truly does. In principle this is forbidden because one cannot view the universe without taking a perspective - it is inherent in the word "view".

1. You are completely wrong about the Uncertainty Principle

In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. It is impossible to measure simultaneously both position and velocity of a microscopic particle with any degree of accuracy or certainty.

2. I dont know why you would bring up Einstein or relativity, unless you simply dont understand what any of that means. Thats now what Einstein thought at all.

"As he once said: "God does not play dice", skeptically referring to the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics which says there exists no objective physical reality other than that which is revealed through measurement and observation."


lol

We often discussed his notions on objective reality. I recall that during one walk Einstein suddenly stoped, turned to me and asked whether I really believed that the moon exists only when I look at it.
-Abraham Pais

 

[TortoiseDream]

1. You are completely wrong about the Uncertainty Principle

In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. It is impossible to measure simultaneously both position and velocity of a microscopic particle with any degree of accuracy or certainty.

Yea sure, that is the uncertainty principle stated formally, but it implies there is no objective reality!

"As he [Einstein] once said: "God does not play dice", skeptically referring to the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics which says there exists no objective physical reality other than that which is revealed through measurement and observation."

Couple this with Einstein's relativity, and you yourself provided me with the evidence in Einstein's quote! This implies that reality is defined by "measuring" it, and since everyone measures the universe differently via relativity, then reality is subjective.

2. I dont know why you would bring up Einstein or relativity, unless you simply dont understand what any of that means. Thats now what Einstein thought at all.

"As he once said: "God does not play dice", skeptically referring to the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics which says there exists no objective physical reality other than that which is revealed through measurement and observation."

Dude I'm a physics student, it's my life's study. I think I know what relativity means. I know it from a qualitative position, from an algebra position, and from a matrix-vector position with mu-nu indices that drive you insane. It is widely known that Einstein's work actually contributed to the formation of quantum mechanics, and he was unable himself to accept these results which were beget by his own work. I'm not using Einstein's philosophy, I'm using his work; in this case the former was inconsistent with the latter.

We often discussed his notions on objective reality. I recall that during one walk Einstein suddenly stoped, turned to me and asked whether I really believed that the moon exists only when I look at it.
-Abraham Pais

Yes, Einstein could not accept this, but this is the view that has been proven beyond a doubt by subsequent experiments with the coming of new technology. Here is a quote from my physics textbook on quantum mechanics:

Suppose I do measure the position of the particle, and I find it to be at point C. Question: Where was the particle just before the measurement? There are three plausible answers to this question, and they serve to characterize the main schools of thought regarding quantum indeterminancy:

1. The realist position (yours): The particle was at C. This certainly seems like a sensible response, and it is the one Einstein advocated. Note, however, that if this is true then quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory, since the particle really was at C, and yet quantum mechanics was unable to tell us so. To the realist, indeterminancy is not a fact of nature, but a reflection of our ignorance. A d'Espagnat put it, "the position of the particle was never indeterminate, but was merely unknown to the experimenter." Evidently PHI [the Schrodinger equation solution] is not the whole story - some additional information (known as a hidden variable) is needed to provide a complete description of the particle.

2. The orthodox position (mine): The particle wasn't really anywhere. It was the act of measurement that forced the particle to "take a stand" (though how and why it decided on the point C we dare not ask). Jordan said it most starkly: "Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it...We compel (the particle) to assume a definite position." This view (the so-called Copenhagen interpretation), is associated with Bohr and his followers. Among physicists it has always been the most widely accepted position. Note, however, that if it is correct there is something very peculiar about the act of measurement - something that over a half a century of debate has done little to illuminate.

3. The agnostic position: Refuse to answer. [I'll skip this one, it is unimportant, but I can type it up if anyone is interested].

Until fairly recently, all these positions (realist, orthodox, agnostic) had their partisans. But in 1964 John Bell astonished the physics community by showing that is makes an observable difference whether the particle had a precise (though unknown) position prior to the measurement, or not. Bell's discovery effectively eliminated agnosticism as a viable option, and made it an experimental question whether 1 or 2 is the correct choice. I'll return to this story at the end of the book, when you will be in a better position to appreciate Bell's argument; for now, suffice it to say that the experiments have decisively confirmed the orthodox interpretation. A particle simply does not have a precise position prior to measurement, any more than ripples on a pond do; it is the measurement process that insists on one particular number, and thereby in a sense creates the specific result, limited only by the statistical weighting imposed by the wave function.

Quantum mechanics implies that reality in general IS one's subjective view of the world; that my reality is different than your reality; that for you looking at the moon, the moon exists; that for me not looking at the moon, the moon doesn't exist; that there are as many truths as there are people. As smart as Einstein was, his blunder was that he simply could not let go of his romantic notion of absolute truth.

lol

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Yea sure, that is the uncertainty principle stated formally, but it implies there is no objective reality!

No it doesnt

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

I think I know what relativity means.

what does it mean?

 

[Sandman33]

what does it mean?

Oh...SHIT.

*grabs popcorn*

 

[Sandman33]

Hmm. I did not read the whole thread, but OP you should try living as a woman for awhile There are a lot of men who don't look women in the eyes, even when they say "look at me!"

Melissa dear, I promise I'd look you right in the eye untill you looked away before I looked at your boobs.

 

[TortoiseDream]

No it doesnt

What are you Theocrat? Yes it does. Are you refusing to read your own quote? In a word, the uncertainty principle is equivalent to quantum mechanics, it is at it's core.

what does it mean?

Relativity is derived from only two assumptions: the observation that the speed of light is constant c for all observers; and the conjecture that physics is the same for all observers. Einstein showed that, given these two assumptions, one must conclude that space and time are not absolutes. In other words, observers traveling at relative velocity will observe the world differently. His calculations, in particular, were concerned with how to go back and forth between two perspectives. This is done with what is called a Lorentz transformation. The math is such: if we call the column vector X = <ct,x1,x2,x3> the position of a particle in a Lorentz frame S, and the row vector X' = <ct',x1',x2',x3'> the position of a particle viewed from S' Lorentz frame, then the transformation is such:

<ct,x1,x2,x3> = L <ct',x1',x2',x3'>
or
<X> = L <X'>

where L is a 4x4 matrix (1 time dimension, 3 space). Lorentz transformations are linear transformations.


So, to summarize:

Premise 1: quantum mechanics says that reality is derived from measuring the universe, as stated in your own quote:

As he [Einstein] once said: "God does not play dice", skeptically referring to the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, [which has been experimentally verified, according to Griffiths], which says there exists no objective physical reality other than that which is revealed through measurement and observation.

Premise 2: Einstein's relativity says that different observers measure the universe around them in different ways. In principle two observers must observe the universe differently, or else they would be the same observer!

Conclusion: If we all measure the universe in different ways (P2) and if reality is only the ways in which we perceive the universe (P1), therefore reality is completely subjective.