Eye of the beholder

What if I said the only reason there is order and events is because we precieve it that way.
 

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
34,925
3,800
And what if I say that if that is ALL that you can say, then it does not belong in the physics section of PF?

Zz.
 

ohwilleke

Gold Member
1,422
347
scott_alexsk said:
What if I said the only reason there is order and events is because we precieve it that way.
I'd say you are wrong.
 
You are probably right about the posting area, though the reason I posted the thread here is because of the "Eye of the beholder" being a major part of String Theory. The reason I started this was to see if there were any explanations into the infinite parallel universes idea. Several people have said that there are an infinite number of universes with slight variances. Now if we are in one of them are we condemned to follow a certain path through life. Or is it possible that are choices are not predetermined.
 

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
34,925
3,800
scott_alexsk said:
You are probably right about the posting area, though the reason I posted the thread here is because of the "Eye of the beholder" being a major part of String Theory. The reason I started this was to see if there were any explanations into the infinite parallel universes idea. Several people have said that there are an infinite number of universes with slight variances. Now if we are in one of them are we condemned to follow a certain path through life. Or is it possible that are choices are not predetermined.
What you have said has more to do with ONE version of a slew of philosophical interpretation of QM. Not only does it not belong in String theory (even though you MAY have read it in a pop-sci string theory book), it doesn't belong in the Physics section. I'm moving this to the philosophy section...... somewhere.

Zz.
 
scott_alexsk said:
What if I said the only reason there is order and events is because we precieve it that way.
This is a form of Kant's transcedental idealism. It has some power, indeed there is a problem with justifying the empirical basis of science, but I don't think that currently it is the first choice program, deserving to be held as the corrigible basis for science (that is provisionally). I've developed this subject in more detail http://forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/14368/9 [Broken].
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top