Discussing Our Individual Views of Reality - No Need to Define it

[olde drunk]

must we define reality??

i get the impression that we all have an intuitive definition for ourselves. no matter what all the wise men have said, we somehow know our individual sense (definition) of reality.

so, why don't we just discuss our individual views and stop trying to define a very individual experience?

we spend much time and energy debating if it exists even with an agreed on definition. let's accept that it IS, and discuss how it is manipulated and/or changed.

peace,
olde drunk

 

[loseyourname]

Not all of us see reality as solely an individual experience. In fact, I'm fairly confident that you experience exactly the same laws of physics that I do.

 

[Phi For All]

let's accept that it IS, and discuss how it is manipulated and/or changed.

When we let others do our thinking for us, our reality is manipulated. This usually happens when someone says something profound that touches us, and we make the mistake of thinking EVERYTHING that person says must be profound.

When we make the mistake of believing something is SACRED, our reality is changed. Sacred things are not examined with the scientific method, they are tucked away and protected from critical review and could contain flaws that warp our view of reality.

 

[olde drunk]

Not all of us see reality as solely an individual experience. In fact, I'm fairly confident that you experience exactly the same laws of physics that I do.

i may experience these laws as you do, but aren't they filtered by my conscious and unconscious mind?? giving me a unique view of an event.

i suspect that these laws are temporal agreements for us to interact within a physical reality. i submit that so of the 'discoveries' that changed a law, came from an unique view of an event under the old law. doesn't QM introduce us to the idea of viewer bias?

so, don't we both see our version of the laws - events?

love and peace,
olde drunk

 

[loseyourname]

No. If you drop a rock at sea level, it will accelerate downward at 9.8 m/s/s. Same thing happens if I do it. This is why one of the primary requirements of a scientific experiment is that it must be repeatable. What you think of the results is individual, the results themselves are not.

 

[Phi For All]

i may experience these laws as you do, but aren't they filtered by my conscious and unconscious mind?? giving me a unique view of an event. doesn't QM introduce us to the idea of viewer bias?

What you think of the results is individual, the results themselves are not.

I think I see what olde drunk is getting at here. Set up the Schrödinger's Cat experiment. If loseyourname peeks in the window at the cat after 15 minutes, lyn will see either a 100 % dead cat or a 100% live cat. If olde drunk doesn't peek, the probabilities remain 50/50 for the cat. Same repeatable experiment, but viewer bias changes the results.

 

[jammieg]

No, I don't think anyone or everyone is obligated to define reality but ought to stick mostly to what they are curious about.

"When we let others do our thinking for us, our reality is manipulated. This usually happens when someone says something profound that touches us, and we make the mistake of thinking EVERYTHING that person says must be profound."-Phi for All

I agree, Newton and Einstein both said some wonderfully stupid things as well but most people don't notice it.

 

[loseyourname]

I think I see what olde drunk is getting at here. Set up the Schrödinger's Cat experiment. If loseyourname peeks in the window at the cat after 15 minutes, lyn will see either a 100 % dead cat or a 100% live cat. If olde drunk doesn't peek, the probabilities remain 50/50 for the cat. Same repeatable experiment, but viewer bias changes the results.

I don't care what Schrödinger says. It isn't a drunk looking at the cat that causes it to die. I can assure you I am typing right now even if no one is watching me.

 

[Phi For All]

I can assure you I am typing right now even if no one is watching me.

Not in my reality, you're not. In my reality you're a 700# albino kangaroo wrestler who designs emoticons in your spare time. It makes you more interesting for me.

 

[olde drunk]

I don't care what Schrödinger says. It isn't a drunk looking at the cat that causes it to die. I can assure you I am typing right now even if no one is watching me.

your typing is the result of your expectation. within QM, as i understand it, your beliefs, expectations and bias(+pl) influence the reality that you will experience.

if, there are parallel universes existing alongside each experienced universe, why bother looking for a definition? it is simply what each of us chooses to experience in a particular now or present moment.

can a 700# albino kangaroo wrestler type? i thot they were exiled to another dimension. oops, are there other dimensions &/or realities?

love and peace,
olde drunk

 

[loseyourname]

You guys are just being obtuse. Is there really any point to this? Notice all the "ifs" you put in your posts. You can speculate about what things would be like "if," I'll focus on what they actually are. I am a human being, 6'2" 165 lbs. with lightly tanned skin, black hair and eyes, sitting in a leather chair listening to Chris Cornell in the only reality there is. If I was something different to one of you, it would be rather difficult for us to communicate, don't you think?

The only understanding I have of quantum mechanics states that the act of a photon impacting another subatomic particle (and thus our being able to view it) influences its behavior. How you extrapolate that viewer bias skews all reality to the point where my experience has nothing in common with yours I have no idea.

 

[olde drunk]

You guys are just being obtuse. Is there really any point to this? Notice all the "ifs" you put in your posts. You can speculate about what things would be like "if," I'll focus on what they actually are. I am a human being, 6'2" 165 lbs. with lightly tanned skin, black hair and eyes, sitting in a leather chair listening to Chris Cornell in the only reality there is. If I was something different to one of you, it would be rather difficult for us to communicate, don't you think?

The only understanding I have of quantum mechanics states that the act of a photon impacting another subatomic particle (and thus our being able to view it) influences its behavior. How you extrapolate that viewer bias skews all reality to the point where my experience has nothing in common with yours I have no idea.

excuse me, I'm sorry, i should have said Quantum Theory - many worlds. our problem here is that you believe that you and your computer only exist right here right now. we submit for your consideration that there are an infinite number of probable computers and you. now forget it!

what i said originally is my point, you have your reality, i have mine and Phi 4 all has his. they defy definition so why try.

we can agree that in this physical world that we now share, you are 6'2'' @152 (as skinny as i was at 6'2") weight(lol) til you're 6'5". we are not defining we are agreeing on how we measure and communicate. please remember that as soon as you make a measurement, it is no longer true (you may have gained an ounce or grown an inch) between the measurement and the time you relay the info to someone else.

love and peace,
olde drunk

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Maybe people want to explore other people's definitions, experiences, etc... so if they're universal or if there are experiences in common between people to be able to talk about it. Isn't that why we define anything?