Science/Environment Is reality objective or subjective?

[Carringbush2010]

No, none of what you are saying is true.

Like literally nothing.

Wrong, whichever way you boil it down and dissect it, reality is certain - it is not in dispute. I'll leave it there.

 

[Werewolf]

Sure have. For example, did you know that electrons in a power grid move incredibly slowly? People believe that they move at the speed of light, but that is impossible as they have mass. In our AC power grids, the electrons are basically vibrating back and forth, barely moving.

Kind regards,
Your favourite sparky (I hope!), FK.

The electrons move slowly, but the electric current moves at more than half the speed of light. I measured it once (a long time ago).

Can we get one of our physics gurus like Werewolf up in here? I’m still curious about what defines an “observer” in terms of breaking down a waveform in something like the double slit experiment. What defines an observer? A machine, a human, a dog, an ant? Any consensus on this one?

It's not clear to me either. I'd assume an observer is a sentient being, but have never really put much thought into it!

 

[Frank Bunn]

Can we get one of our physics gurus like Werewolf up in here? I’m still curious about what defines an “observer” in terms of breaking down a waveform in something like the double slit experiment. What defines an observer? A machine, a human, a dog, an ant? Any consensus on this one?

Proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics say that an "observer" is just a physical process. Basically anything that takes a measurement will collapse the wave function into a definite state. It's not subjectivity or consciousness determining reality.

One of the founders of the Copenhagen interpretation, Werner Heisenberg

Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory.​

We can't see a photon directly. Our human brains have created a model for what we think a photon is. Then we build complex devices that allow us to interact with the properties of this modelled phenomenon. Via interfaces to these devices your brain "observes the position of the photon". If we looked hard enough we could find the brain cells and processes that determined this observation. Could not we write a computer program that made the same assessment?

On the other end of the debate are physicists like Frank Tipler and David Deutsch who think that "observation" is everything and quantum mechanics doesn't just act at a sub-atomic level. All matter is made of atoms, which are quantum objects and so ultimately we, and everything else are quantum systems.

Frank Tipler

The participatory anthropic principle says that the entire universe and everything inside it is brought into existence by innumerable acts of observation, by all the observers that have ever existed, exist now, or will ever exist.​

If the weirdness of quantum mechanics only acts at a sub-atomic level then it might not make much difference to our lives. If it impacts how our brains work or even how the universe started and operates then that's hugely significant.

 

[FireKrakouer]

It's not clear to me either. I'd assume an observer is a sentient being, but have never really put much thought into it!

Mind blowing if true. It would mean that prior to sentience being achieved in the universe, no waveforms had settled. If we assume earth is the first place that sentience was achieved (unlikely I know, but for simplicity sake) I wonder at how far along our evolutionary path a critter was considered “sentient” enough to function as an observer.

 

[FireKrakouer]

Proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics say that an "observer" is just a physical process. Basically anything that takes a measurement will collapse the wave function into a definite state. It's not subjectivity or consciousness determining reality.

One of the founders of the Copenhagen interpretation, Werner Heisenberg

Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory.​

Malifice you stated with 100% certainty that it was not the measuring device that acted as the observer. Heisenberg disagreed, according to the above quote.

 

[ShanDog]

Can we agree that reality is subjectively objective? Because it all depends...

Doesn't matter anyway. That's the beauty of being an absurdist. Existence is silly in every way, incomprehensible, and we should just point and laugh at everything to avoid slipping into nihilism.

 

[FireKrakouer]

Can we agree that reality is subjectively objective? Because it all depends...

Doesn't matter anyway. That's the beauty of being an absurdist. Existence is silly in every way, incomprehensible, and we should just point and laugh at everything to avoid slipping into nihilism.

That’s probably the sensible approach, but doesn’t the curiosity hit you? As an ex-atheist, I’d love to attach some higher meaning to consciousness.

 

[ShanDog]

That’s probably the sensible approach, but doesn’t the curiosity hit you? As an ex-atheist, I’d love to attach some higher meaning to consciousness.

Oh it does. I have moments when I start to think about the beginnings of the universe and get completely overwhelmed by how significant yet incredibly unknowable it all is to the point of wanting to pass out and vomit (well, not really, but you get my point). As an ex-theist, I'd love to ascribe some higher meaning to it all. It would be sweet relief.

 

[FireKrakouer]

Oh it does. I have moments when I start to think about the beginnings of the universe and get completely overwhelmed by how significant yet incredibly unknowable it all is to the point of wanting to pass out and vomit (well, not really, but you get my point). As an ex-theist, I'd love to ascribe some higher meaning to it all. It would be sweet relief.

Can you give your theory on the observer problem then, other than “I don’t care”? As Biden would say, c’mon man!

You don’t strike me as the type of “I don’t care, therefore it’s irrelevant“ fella. But correct me if I’m wrong!

 

[ShanDog]

Can you give your theory on the observer problem then, other than “I don’t care”? As Biden would say, c’mon man!

You don’t strike me as the type of “I don’t care, therefore it’s irrelevant“ fella. But correct me if I’m wrong!

I also know enough to say when I don't know something, and as someone who leans towards pragmatism, this seems wholly irrelevant.

Fun, but irrelevant.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Can we agree that reality is subjectively objective? Because it all depends...

Doesn't matter anyway. That's the beauty of being an absurdist. Existence is silly in every way, incomprehensible, and we should just point and laugh at everything to avoid slipping into nihilism.

There's different types of subjective objective discussions.

One is based on the findings of quantum mechanics that the 'observer' changes the outcomes of the physical world - as discussed above.

Then there's human experience. There's the objective world out there - physics and whatnot. But we can only ever experience it from our human perspective - which is subjective.

There's an almost infinite amount of data that we could process but we filter it according to our humanity. We each exist in a time period of between 0 to 100 orbits on our planet around our particular star in the universe. We are between 20 cm and 2m in size. Our senses perceive certain frequencies of electromagnetism and not others. Our DNA codes us to reproduce ourselves but not necessarily to be aware of our motives. We interpret the world by the language that we speak. All that is very important to each of us as humans but totally insignifiant on a universal scale.

Reality from a human point of view (which is perhaps the only view worth considering) is the intersection between the human experience and the physical world.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

What a silly semantic debate. It depends on context. Waste of a thread.

Haha you just knew sweet Jesus was going to be all over this semantics thread.

Have I been "all over it"? Hardly.

But now that I'm here, what do you think "semantics" are? Is it another case of you trying to sound smart despite having no idea?

 

[FireKrakouer]

Have I been "all over it"? Hardly.

But now that I'm here, what do you think "semantics" are? Is it another case of you trying to sound smart despite having no idea?

Disregard this post Seeds... it’s a trap!

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Disregard this post Seeds... it’s a trap!

Are you and Seeds the same person? You're equally confused.

 

[Seeds]

Disregard this post Seeds... it’s a trap!

Lol hé now wants a semantic discussion over the definition of semantics.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Lol hé now wants a semantic discussion over the definition of semantics.

There's nothing to discuss. I'm happy to simply point out that you make no sense, as usual.

 

[FireKrakouer]

I also know enough to say when I don't know something, and as someone who leans towards pragmatism, this seems wholly irrelevant.

Fun, but irrelevant.

I was interested in your best guess / opinion, but again, your stance is probably the most sensible one.

For me, the curiosity drives me crazy. I hope there is a major breakthrough in my lifetime in terms of QM, consciousness, perhaps some “spiritual realm” of some sort. But I’m assuming we glorified monkeys would be able to interpret it. Going back to my repeated animal references, we can’t teach calculus to ants, who’s to say that humans are even capable of having a decent understanding of the universe.

 

[Ben The Donkey]

The greatest trick reality ever pulled was to convince some scientists and philosophers it didn't exist.

If a tree falls in the woods...

*Edit - I'm so very, very sorry Mr Baudelaire.

 

[Engimal v3]

Yay or nay?

 

[Contra Mundum]

We can't know what is outside our bodies because everything we see, taste, or touch is mediated by our senses. There is no such thing as objective reality for a human being - we can't know the "thing in itself" only the "thing as perceived' - Cogito, Cogito Dance to the Music. You say all sorts of funny things when you are pissed

 

[FireKrakouer]

We can't know what is outside our bodies because everything we see, taste, or touch is mediated by our senses. There is no such thing as objective reality for a human being - we can't know the "thing in itself" only the "thing as perceived' - Cogito, Cogito Dance to the Music. You say all sorts of funny things when you are pissed

I was a young boy, 6 or 7, trying to sleep and I stared at a Disney picture on my wall and suddenly was hit with the realisation: what if existence didn’t exist? What if there was just nothing? How is being a human the “default state”?

The next day at primary school I asked my friends how I knew they were even real. They all replied “Well I known that I’M real”.

It sounds like bs, but I’d stumbled upon the “I think therefore I am” philosophy
at primary school age. EAD, philosophy grads.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I was a young boy, 6 or 7, trying to sleep and I stared at a Disney picture on my wall and suddenly was hit with the realisation: what if existence didn’t exist? What if there was just nothing? How is being a human the “default state”?

The next day at primary school I asked my friends how I knew they were even real. They all replied “Well I known that I’M real”.

It sounds like bs, but I’d stumbled upon the “I think therefore I am” philosophy
at primary school age. EAD, philosophy grads.

So profound. It seems fair to say your education went downhill from there despite the goverrnment subsidies.

 

[FireKrakouer]

So profound. It seems fair to say your education went downhill from there despite the goverrnment subsidies.

Sweetie Jay, I had more wisdom in my little finger when I was 6 than you do in your entirety today. Have a look at a Dunning Kruger graph and take an honest assessment of where you are at, my Dr Phil looking chum.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Sweetie Jay, I had more wisdom in my little finger when I was 6 than you do in your entirety today. Have a look at a Dunning Kruger graph and take an honest assessment of where you are at, my Dr Phil looking chum.

You've got nothing these days. You used to put up a token struggle.

 

[FireKrakouer]

You've got nothing these days. You used to put up a token struggle.

I’m not asking for pics. I have no intention of doxxing you to the civil war ruins of which you reside. Just confirm for the rest of us with which haircut you rock. We all know the answer already, dr Phil. Just confirm it.