The sum of our perceptions make up reality

  • Thread starter All-St4r
  • Start date
  • #26
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,193
256
My question wasn't referring to the common-sense reality of objects and weather. I was interested to know your idea of the underlying nature of what you call objects and, in case you are a naive realist, what about GR, QM and cosmology?
You've somewhat answered it. In the first sentence of your reply, you said "Sounds like you are saying that reality is not(thoroughly) comprehensible." Which I am. That's miles apart from saying reality only exists because of our perception...

My point is not that we're right about our interpretations or that we have a complete view, but that something exist independent of our observations. I don't deny that our human observations are a result of the interaction between us and that something. We may very well have a skewed concept of what we're measuring, but we can consistently measure it, and we can construct a world view that allows us to operate in reality. (I'm calling reality the thing that we're interacting with by the way, not our interpretation of it).

For instance, I don't think waves are real. I think the phenomena that gives rise to what we measure as waves are real. It would be impractical to say "the phenomena that gives rise to" in front of ever physical concept we discuss, and furthermore, it's irrelevant when you're discussing it in the context of physical science. There are many physical concepts that are (more or less) a mathematical trick, such as the magnetic vector potential. I can't tell you whether one exists or not, I can hardly understand what it is! But it helps me to understand my observations (or interactions, if you will) in a consistent way.

IIRC correctlly, in QM, even a mirror can be an observer.
 
  • #27
139
0
This contradicts SR, QM and cosmology. What do you mean by "they"? Their physical properties are dependent on the observer's FOR. How wide is the universe without making the unwarranted assumption of a preferred frame of reference? Where are the superpositional waves that you believe are "there"(that really stretch to infinity)? What does "there" mean outside the common-sense view of reality of your eyes, ears and smell?

‘They’ are the objects, the same ones as in “ Their physical properties… ”.
Are you sure that their physical properties are really dependent on the observer’s FOR?

Wouldn’t it rather relate to their perceived properties as seen by the observer? Imo, the real constituents of what we recognize as objects exist independently and only appear as they do to any and all observers in their own FOR.

As far as 'where', well, just like you say referring to infinity and the proposition that there are no observers, the energetic entities are nowhere in particular, so I should’ve said “ they’d still exist as THEY EXIST… “


Regards,
VE
 
  • #28
139
0
Does an unmeasured/unobserved c60 molecule have definite physical properties?
Do you mean definite as in fixed ? if yes, then no it doesn't.

It does have ever evolving physical properties, in constant interaction with its environnment.



VE
 
  • #29
666
0
‘They’ are the objects, the same ones as in “ Their physical properties… ”.
Are you sure that their physical properties are really dependent on the observer’s FOR?

Wouldn’t it rather relate to their perceived properties as seen by the observer? Imo, the real constituents of what we recognize as objects exist independently and only appear as they do to any and all observers in their own FOR.


No, this is incorrect. Length contraction is real, time does not appear to pass slower, but it does pass slower(clocks tick slower), mass of moving objects really becomes infinite at c, all the other property transformations are also real and they are FOR dependent.

As far as 'where', well, just like you say referring to infinity and the proposition that there are no observers, the energetic entities are nowhere in particular, so I should’ve said “ they’d still exist as THEY EXIST… “

Sounds about right for what is known from physics, and a more detailed answer is the holy grail of science.
 
  • #30
666
0
You've somewhat answered it. In the first sentence of your reply, you said "Sounds like you are saying that reality is not(thoroughly) comprehensible." Which I am. That's miles apart from saying reality only exists because of our perception...

My point is not that we're right about our interpretations or that we have a complete view, but that something exist independent of our observations. I don't deny that our human observations are a result of the interaction between us and that something. We may very well have a skewed concept of what we're measuring, but we can consistently measure it, and we can construct a world view that allows us to operate in reality. (I'm calling reality the thing that we're interacting with by the way, not our interpretation of it).

For instance, I don't think waves are real. I think the phenomena that gives rise to what we measure as waves are real. It would be impractical to say "the phenomena that gives rise to" in front of ever physical concept we discuss, and furthermore, it's irrelevant when you're discussing it in the context of physical science. There are many physical concepts that are (more or less) a mathematical trick, such as the magnetic vector potential. I can't tell you whether one exists or not, I can hardly understand what it is! But it helps me to understand my observations (or interactions, if you will) in a consistent way.

IIRC correctlly, in QM, even a mirror can be an observer.

This is certainly a valid and logical way to look at the ontology of reality as depicted by contemporary physics.
 

Related Threads on The sum of our perceptions make up reality

Replies
5
Views
11K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
26
Views
7K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
193
Views
41K
Replies
23
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Top