Existence and Reality
- Thread starter kajolishot
- Start date
I know of two realities.
Me and not me.
But just because it is not me doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Me and not me.
But just because it is not me doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Well, in that case, the rules of the model is your sufficiently complex axiom set. Then there are statements about the model's behavior that are unprovable. I believe the construction of the statement that proves Goedel's Theorem was done in a self-referential way. Something like "This statement is false". Goedel's Theorem is a classic example of where the mechanics of proving the theorem turn out to be as important as the theorem itself.
I was about to say that this is off the topic. I said originally that no model of the world could be complete because the model could not model itself, which was a different issue. However it is the equivalent of what Goedel proved so you're right, it is directly connected.
Goedel sentences take the form of undecidable questions which can only be decided from outside the system within which they were framed. They are in principle impossible to decide and the proof of them must lie beyond the system. This is precisely equivalent to the 3D notion that the modeller has to be outside of the model.
I think Roger Penrose gets close to suggesting this as evidence for a God and I think he's half-right.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Existence and Reality
let me begin this by saying i am neither agreeing or disagreeing with either point, but trather just pointing out a few things i noticed and hammering some more material onto the table.
the first, in the quote above, wes's assertion, which it should be pointed out is based on a presupotisiton from the start. it is in itself, the "what if" question.
this is only relevant if one has not borken down possiblity in itself. it also illustrates that a person who has neevr had any experience with halluncinagenic materials has deifficltuy understanding the conept that something can seem one hundred percvent real, to the dregree that said hallucianation present reason and logical proof of their existence, but in fact, do not exist.
and understand, i am neither condoning or not condoning hallucinegins, just pointing out that once someone has had an expereince win whihc it is completely real and everything is logically bound, it is still unreal. again, just something i noticed and certainly no personla attacks intended.
it helps to ask yourself this question:
if you take you life and subtract anything whihc is based on any presuppositions or cannot be proved by logic, what do you have left?
that is the answer of conclusive reality. all else is up in the air.
as for me personally, i don't think it matters much whether life has meaning or not. i think people find difficulty in questions that dont matter. will fruit taste unsweet if life is meaningless? or more sweet? and if the answer is yes to either one, then you are not living your life as you genuinly desire to.
let me begin this by saying i am neither agreeing or disagreeing with either point, but trather just pointing out a few things i noticed and hammering some more material onto the table.
the first, in the quote above, wes's assertion, which it should be pointed out is based on a presupotisiton from the start. it is in itself, the "what if" question.
this is only relevant if one has not borken down possiblity in itself. it also illustrates that a person who has neevr had any experience with halluncinagenic materials has deifficltuy understanding the conept that something can seem one hundred percvent real, to the dregree that said hallucianation present reason and logical proof of their existence, but in fact, do not exist.
and understand, i am neither condoning or not condoning hallucinegins, just pointing out that once someone has had an expereince win whihc it is completely real and everything is logically bound, it is still unreal. again, just something i noticed and certainly no personla attacks intended.
it helps to ask yourself this question:
if you take you life and subtract anything whihc is based on any presuppositions or cannot be proved by logic, what do you have left?
that is the answer of conclusive reality. all else is up in the air.
as for me personally, i don't think it matters much whether life has meaning or not. i think people find difficulty in questions that dont matter. will fruit taste unsweet if life is meaningless? or more sweet? and if the answer is yes to either one, then you are not living your life as you genuinly desire to.
wayne_92587
Registered Senior Member
Could you give a quote from any one of many Quantum Physicists
that states, "consciousness creates reality".
it wont be hard to find. the many world theory also relates to that. other endorsers, based on expereimetn and experience:
john wheeler (particulalry his current experiments involving the travel of light between tow distances in arch and direct patterns as it pertains to space.)
albert einstein (in his expereiemtns on light as a wave or photon, this was the colcusion he reached because he found that whatever yout ested to find about light, as in whether it was a photon or wave, you found to be correct.)
a good general explanation of this, though if math is your strongsuit, you will notice a few falws in the math as it is desinged to be read by the laymen, can be found in gary zukav's first book "the dancing wu li masters" which is a history of quantum mechanics. you will find that very few quatum physacists actually do not belive that conciousness creates reality.
what you wont find is the idea that concioussness is the <b>only</B> thing that creates reality, as this cannot be proved. it should be taken into account that to say that all reality is subjective is in itself an objective statement and thereby either a paradox or an oxymoron.
my point wasn't too win anyone over either way, only to point out that neither can be proven. in the end, you have to go with what meets the guidelines of any good thing or thought in life:
1. does it make sense?
2. does it work?
if the answer is yes to both questions than it can be of hlep to you in life. if the answer is no, then it isn't worth doing.
truth be told, i think it's a pointless question. interesting to be sure, but pointless. it doesn't matter if it's objective or subjective. you are still here, in whatever form and must make your way. if the way a person lives their life is altered by whether life is objective or subjective, then they aren't living their life the way that they must in order to move forward. the bottom line is that if you take a life, and subtract all that whihc cannot be proven by rational thought or is based on presupositions, you have only one thing left and that is that you are. everything else is banter.
1. does it make sense?
2. does it work?
if the answer is yes to both questions than it can be of hlep to you in life. if the answer is no, then it isn't worth doing.
truth be told, i think it's a pointless question. interesting to be sure, but pointless. it doesn't matter if it's objective or subjective. you are still here, in whatever form and must make your way. if the way a person lives their life is altered by whether life is objective or subjective, then they aren't living their life the way that they must in order to move forward. the bottom line is that if you take a life, and subtract all that whihc cannot be proven by rational thought or is based on presupositions, you have only one thing left and that is that you are. everything else is banter.
wayne_92587
Registered Senior Member
I do not question that some Reality is created by consciousness, the Imagination, it is call an Illusion, a Reality that exists only because of our thoughts concerning it, also known as an en-Graven Image of Reality, a Deception, the Truth that is a Lie, Something which we can only believe is a Reality.
How can a man of science say that consciousness creates reality if it can not be proven to do so.
"Very few quantum physicists actually do not believe that consciousness creates reality".
Do quantum Physicists work with Reality or Theory.
Consciousness does create the Theory.
Believe, does that mean to have faith that what you think is a Reality is truly a Reality.
If it is only an Idea and it can not be proven that conscious creates Reality then it does it?
To reflect upon Reality, Thoughts, Ideas, mirror images, Shadowy Images of Reality that exist only in the Mind are not Reality itself.
Reality exists independent of our ideas concerning it.
I can prove that consciousness creates Reality, an Illusion is a Reality to the Conscious Mind.
Hocus Pocus, abracadabra, I can, speak a Reality into existence, divine Reality as if by magic simply by giving it a name, make it so, so be it, Amen, the Consciousness is a Magician, an Illusionists, Creating Reality out of nothing.
The Consciousness that has separated itself from Reality by creating a Reality that does not exist independent of its imagining is a Consciousness whose Reality is only Theory, an Idea.
let me be more clear. it can be proven that conciousness creates reality to some degree, particularly on a subatomic level, whihc of course has a trickle down effect on everything.
what cannot be proven is exactly how it effects it. what i mean is, we dont know that if your coniousness does x thing, y will happen. does this make sense? but we do know that it changes reality, in a physical, very real, documented way, not in imagination or illusion.
what cannot be proven is how exactly it does it, as i said above, and secondly, if it always does, and if it doesn't always, then what are the circumstances in which it does.
see?<p>
there is no question of <i>if</I> it does. only how it does and to what degree.
what cannot be proven is exactly how it effects it. what i mean is, we dont know that if your coniousness does x thing, y will happen. does this make sense? but we do know that it changes reality, in a physical, very real, documented way, not in imagination or illusion.
what cannot be proven is how exactly it does it, as i said above, and secondly, if it always does, and if it doesn't always, then what are the circumstances in which it does.
see?<p>
there is no question of <i>if</I> it does. only how it does and to what degree.
wayne_92587
Registered Senior Member
give me your example of a Reality that is created by the Conscious Mind.
well according to john wheeler, planetary motion is altered based on our concious mind. also, light, in all it's forms. the way light shines, alters based on how we percieve it. not just in our internal sensations, but in observabel techniques. if i ponder deeply the range of the light, it will show a measurable effect in some way (how is what we can't define). internal particles are th same way, my being concious of my spleen, for instance, cause a movement of particles and rearrangement that actually strengthens it.
medically, if i ponder a muscle, it grows stronger. if i ponder a disease i have, it actually gorws fast stronger or slower based on how i thinnk about it. even giving it attention forces it to change and grow, whereas if i dont think about it, it will contiunue at more or less the same pace, with no measurable chage of any consequence.
now could it be coincidence, that evertime you expereiment with thesethigs, you get the same wrong answer after thousands of expereimtns conducted by all the foremost physacists in the world? yes, but it's not likely.
what quantum mechanics will admit, that is the first real form of science, is that we only know what our facts allow us to ascertaine, if the facts change later, we may reach different conclusions. the truth about science is that it can't prove anything in the sense that you want and any real scientist will tell you that. but based on all our abilities, based on countless tests run in various parts of the world by aeons worth of masters int heir field, this is the case.
but, that notwithstanding, in the sense that you mean proof, you will find a vast overabundance of it, just be searching a little tiny bit. do some research.
medically, if i ponder a muscle, it grows stronger. if i ponder a disease i have, it actually gorws fast stronger or slower based on how i thinnk about it. even giving it attention forces it to change and grow, whereas if i dont think about it, it will contiunue at more or less the same pace, with no measurable chage of any consequence.
now could it be coincidence, that evertime you expereiment with thesethigs, you get the same wrong answer after thousands of expereimtns conducted by all the foremost physacists in the world? yes, but it's not likely.
what quantum mechanics will admit, that is the first real form of science, is that we only know what our facts allow us to ascertaine, if the facts change later, we may reach different conclusions. the truth about science is that it can't prove anything in the sense that you want and any real scientist will tell you that. but based on all our abilities, based on countless tests run in various parts of the world by aeons worth of masters int heir field, this is the case.
but, that notwithstanding, in the sense that you mean proof, you will find a vast overabundance of it, just be searching a little tiny bit. do some research.
wayne_92587
Registered Senior Member
John Wheeler Scientist Philosopher, Theoretical Physicist and Dreamer.
As Wheeler voices his thoughts, he laces his fingers behind his large head, leans back onto a sofa, and gazes at the ceiling or perhaps far beyond it.
Quote:
“You need people who have the imagination, daring and ability to get somewhere. That is the way research works. "
“Our observations, he suggests, might actually contribute to the creation of physical reality. To Wheeler we are not simply bystanders on a cosmic stage; we are shapers and creators living in a participatory universe.”
“Wheeler conjectures we are part of a universe that is a work in progress; we are tiny patches of the universe looking at itself— and building itself. It's not only the future that is still undetermined but the past as well. And by peering back into time, even all the way back to the Big Bang, our present observations select one out of many possible quantum histories for the universe. “
Without a doubt John Wheeler is a Dreamer.
wayne_92587
Registered Senior Member
Of Course, but should we speak of all their dreams as being a reality.
Words juch as conjecture, envisioned, mind streching should be a clue that theory should not be taken as fact regardless of who make the statement.
More quotes from the internet.
"It's not even really a theory but more of an intuition about what a final theory of everything might be like."
"
Does this mean humans are necessary to the existence of the universe? While conscious observers certainly partake in the creation of the participatory universe envisioned by Wheeler, they are not the only, or even primary, way by which quantum potentials become real. Ordinary matter and radiation play the dominant roles.
He sees the universe as a vast arena containing realms where the past is not yet fixed. Wheeler is the first to admit that this is a mind-stretching idea. It's not even really a theory but more of an intuition about what a final theory of everything might be like. "
wayne_92587
Registered Senior Member
I just went to a seach engine on the internet and typed in John Wheeler.
There are many John Wheelers.