|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,805
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
#21903104 - 07/05/15 10:08 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Look man, a stars going to be a star whether you watch it or not.
A few centuries ago no one had ever observed a black hole. Just because humans had not yet observed a black hole does not mean that the black hole didn't exist until it was first observed. It means the black whole was not known about to humans until it was observed.
It was still existing as a black hole well before it was observed by any human. The observation of a black hole has NO effect on the black hole.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
ballsalsa
Universally Loathed and Reviled



Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 20,858
Loc: Foreign Lands
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
#21903124 - 07/05/15 10:13 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
Like cannabis topics? Read my cannabis blog here
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,805
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa]
#21903164 - 07/05/15 10:26 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
That's sure is an idea. It's also an idea that unicorns exist.
If one day evidence arises for them I'd be inclined to believe them, until that day I won't.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
falcon



Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 21 hours, 56 minutes
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: ballsalsa]
#21903186 - 07/05/15 10:34 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
If true any of that is true, it doesn't negate the universes existence it just says something about it's existence.
|
falcon



Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 21 hours, 56 minutes
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly] 1
#21903203 - 07/05/15 10:41 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Every example you have given is from a world with observers. I don't know what the relationship of a world and the observers is, but I do know you can't reference an experience of one without observers.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,805
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
#21903240 - 07/05/15 10:50 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
The experience of observing is only experienced by the observer. If Earth and everything on it was gone, nothing would change about reality.
What don't you understand about this?!
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
falcon



Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 21 hours, 56 minutes
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly] 1
#21903311 - 07/05/15 11:05 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Your supposition is not testable.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,805
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
#21903414 - 07/05/15 11:25 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Applying the laws of nature, there is no reason to believe they would change if earth did not exist. The laws of nature pre exist the earth, they are not dependent on earth or the people on it.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
404
error


Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 14,539
|
Re: Q [Re: sudly]
#21903462 - 07/05/15 11:36 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
falcon said: Ah but something has to observe, without an observer there is no knowledge. Without an observer, the unchanging nature of a material world is an assumption that can not be considered knowledge.
Quote:
sudly said: Without an observer there is no knowledge for the observer. The laws of nature and the material world haven't changed yet, to think they have is the real assumption.
Quote:
sudly said: Whether we do or do not know what is in reality, it will not change simply because we perceive it.
What I'm saying is that is doesn't matter how we perceive reality because it is what it is and it isn't going to change because of a humans perspective.
Only the individuals perspective of reality can change.
The laws of nature do not change based on perspective.
hmm... but aren't some of these statements flawed given the nature of what you are observing can change based on the simple fact that you are observing it, with regards to physics? and given that physics is the measurement of the nature of reality...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29
|
falcon



Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 21 hours, 56 minutes
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly] 1
#21903469 - 07/05/15 11:37 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Your example assumes eliminating earth eliminates observers.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,805
|
Re: Q [Re: 404]
#21903488 - 07/05/15 11:40 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
The double slit experiment isn't definitive. It may have something to do with quantum probability waves but again it isn't definitive that observation is what changed the state of an electron.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,805
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: falcon]
#21903498 - 07/05/15 11:42 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
It eliminates humans and humans are observers. Are you assuming there is an 'observer' outside of earth?
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
404
error


Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 14,539
|
Re: Q [Re: sudly]
#21903535 - 07/05/15 11:53 PM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: The double slit experiment isn't definitive. It may have something to do with quantum probability waves but again it isn't definitive that observation is what changed the state of an electron.
that's only one aspect of the observer effect
Quote:
In electronics, ammeters and voltmeters are usually wired in series or parallel to the circuit, and so by their very presence affect the current or the voltage they are measuring by way of presenting an additional real or complex load to the circuit, thus changing the transfer function and behaviour of the circuit itself. Even a more passive device such as a current clamp, which measures the wire current without coming into physical contact with the wire, affects the current through the circuit being measured because the inductance is mutual.
Quote:
In thermodynamics, a standard mercury-in-glass thermometer must absorb or give up some thermal energy to record a temperature, and therefore changes the temperature of the body which it is measuring.
and in regards to quantum physics, what about quantum zeno effect in which observing a quantum state 'preserves' it in that state?
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,805
|
Re: Q [Re: 404]
#21903609 - 07/06/15 12:12 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
In electronics, ammeters and voltmeters are usually wired in series or parallel to the circuit, and so by their very presence affect the current or the voltage they are measuring by way of presenting an additional real or complex load to the circuit, thus changing the transfer function and behaviour of the circuit itself. Even a more passive device such as a current clamp, which measures the wire current without coming into physical contact with the wire, affects the current through the circuit being measured because the inductance is mutual.
Electrons move through circuits, current clamps measure magnetic fields. What is the relevance of this?
Quote:
In thermodynamics, a standard mercury-in-glass thermometer must absorb or give up some thermal energy to record a temperature, and therefore changes the temperature of the body which it is measuring.
The thermometer is endothermic. What's the point of stating that?
Quote:
and in regards to quantum physics, what about quantum zeno effect in which observing a quantum state 'preserves' it in that state?
While observing a decaying element does seem to stop decay it is contestable to suggest that the interruption of energy levels is caused by the act of measuring itself.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
nuentoter
conduit



Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
|
Re: Q [Re: sudly] 1
#21903819 - 07/06/15 01:55 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
hmm lets see people are giving you evidence that states that the act of observing an object inevitably creates a 2 way action.
You stated something to the effect of you believe it because it can be proven by science. science cannot prove that an item exists if it is not being observed.
it is rationally possibly and very probable that it does but we do not actually know. Remember too though that rational is too flimsy of a belief to use as a measuring stick for science. If I can't state altered states of mind through meditation, prayer, drugs and so on as a record of evidence experienced as a scientific report on observation then your personal rational cannot either.
Sudly I honestly agree with most of what you say but I believe you are also being very closed minded my friend. You must accept the possibility that rationale is too subjective to use. therefore rationally possible or impossible does not exist. Only what is possible and what is impossible. What science has learned is that we know what has happened and what is possible from our experience. science also teaches us that what we experience is a minuscule fraction of the whole of reality. Wavelengths and particles and possible dimensions that we do not and may never have the tools to observe. some of these may never even have any influence or bearing on anything we consider real because they simply have nothing to do with us. These things are all possible. If you want to tally what we know has, can, and will probably happen you could theoretically create a list because knowledge is finite, limited by experience. the potential for possible things to happen cannot be listed because it is an infinite number. somewhere in the infinity of possibilities there may just be an energetic being, creature, alien, god, whatever the cultural/social name may be. imagine if that being has no place holder in the 4th dimension of time. that could make that being exist in all possibilities all at once. the "now" for that being may be total in regards to time. timeless.
shit sorry using my imagination again, no room for that
--------------------
The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know. - @entheolove "I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for" - Georgia O'Keefe I think the word is vagina
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,805
|
|
If were going to start talking about subatomic probability waves, they can appear to change relative to the disturbances caused by observing them. That is evidence that subatomic particle behavior may be indeterminate. It is not evidence that observing matter will cause it to either cease or begin to exist.
I've stated that I conform my beliefs to the evidence of reality presented through the laws of nature. If there is no evidence for a claim, I have no reason to believe it. If there is no evidence, science will not claim something to exist. It doesn't mean the evidence definitively does not exist, it means the evidence has not yet been observed and there is no reason to believe in whatever claim is being made.
Evidence and the laws of nature are the measuring sticks of science. Experiencing an altered state of consciousness is not evidence of the supernatural. Personal experience cannot be measured via scientific methods or observed by anyone other than the individual who experienced it.
An experience can not be used as a scientific report because it isn't acceptable as evidence to say something is true because you feel it is. Feelings are not evidence. Observable, testable, repeatable and predictable data is what's used as evidence, not feelings.
Rational is based on the laws of nature, what's irrational and close minded is to think that personal experience is acceptable as evidence for material observations.
"What science has learned is that we know what has happened and what is possible from our [evidence]" - change experience for evidence and you've got it right. Science is deterministic on what evidence it can produce. If we do not find the evidence for something and cannot observe it, it is nothing more than an opinion/idea.
Our knowledge is limited by the evidence we have, not our experience. Yes there are a lot of possibilities, there may well be a flying spaghetti monster circling Jupiter but we don't believe it because there is NO EVIDENCE for the claim.
Use your imagination as much as you want but don't claim it to be true unless you can produce evidence for your claims.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Coincidentiaoppositorum
deep psychedelic


Registered: 10/27/14
Posts: 1,965
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: sudly]
#21904688 - 07/06/15 09:36 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said:
Quote:
Coincidentiaoppositorum said:
Every reference I make is not met with educated debate on your part, its met with you saying "I know your wrong because accepted science is unable to confirm or debunk the things you consider as valid possibilities, all you can say is "you don't know what your talking about" which is obviously out of frustration, if your going to defend something that's absurd its easier to discredit those who oppose you than to make a real arguement based on the facts of the matter.
It is you who are saying "I know because I know" as well as making several assumptions, you DONT know and neither does science, so to claim otherwise is just as hypocritical as your denouncing of those who challenge the assumptions of modern science.
Your assuming that science has some sort of idea of what existance actually is.
-E. Borodin
I believe you are wrong because science does not agree with you claims. Just because you consider something to be a possibility does not mean it is true. Again, personal opinion/experience is not evidence for the supernatural.
There have been plenty of arguments made against your claims but your dogmatic belief system has ignored them.
We know what we know because of testable, observable, repeatable experiments and data that are the evidence for scientific claims. Science doesn't make assumptions which is why your 'challenges' are disregarded as they have no evidence to back them up beyond personal experience and assumption.
Science has a better idea of reality than purely imaginative thought does.
Your saying "science has a better grasp on what existstance is than your first hand experiance of it"
Science can not confirm or deny my claims. (I'm not sure I made any claims, I only said there's a strong possibility that there's far more to.existance than science can describe)
you admit yourselves that the parameters of science are limited to observations made in 3 dimentional time and space, and it only covers the observations that are consistent from one experiment to the next.....like it or not that limits science to a very small slice of existance, and the way you describe it it must discredit every first hand experiance you have ever had as they occored on a subjective level and are not able to be observed by the world as a whole.
Science is great for what it does, but there are things that fall outside of science, does this mean these things should be dismissed?
To not be able to admit that its even possible that things out-side of science exist is just as stubborn and ignorant as the church folks who say they refuse to believe anything outside of the bible...
Of coarse there's more to consciousness and existance than currant science can describe! This should be obvious.
-E. Borodin
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: "I know because I know!" [Re: Kurt] 1
#21904714 - 07/06/15 09:50 AM (8 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kurt said: Respectively, I would say I know practically nothing about the delicate issues of Quantum mechanics, so suffice to say I'll take your word that this idea that we create our reality which you are speaking of is probably found in the provisions of that subject. But does clearing away an assumption that we create reality, lead to any general certainty about whatever is in front of you? If I am generally following you, I would then be able to ask; on what basis do you positively claim meaning from the provisions which you are speaking?
Or are you speaking of "existence" somewhat less meaningfully, like the rest of us, as what we ritually bang our heads against each morning?
Well I don't think I'm trying to make any statement so sweeping. I tire of these notions that the universe couldn't get on without human perception, which strikes me as nonsense. As for ontology and the meaning of being, I don't have much to say, except that at this point it appears to me that some sort of conscious field permeates nature, indeed constitutes it, and that nothing exists outside of this as to say so makes no sense. Or in other words, everything is accounted for, or has meaningful being-ness in some objective sense, because of this fundamental reality. Quantum mechanics is interesting because (very briefly) the formalism and experimental meaning show us this inherent consciousness peering through into our tidy little macroscopic setup and merging with our own and throwing us for loops philosophically, for those who can see it, anyway. I have no doubt if someone reads this who has a mind to they'll call it garbage. No worries.
Clearing away the assumption that we create reality is an important step in removing what is incorrect, but is not an important step in ascertaining what is correct -- except that we have removed some error.
I am speaking about existence non-rigorously, but I think I can point out some things that it isn't, and maybe one or two that it is.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Universaleyeni
Friend



Registered: 04/18/13
Posts: 528
Loc: Fl
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: I tire of these notions that the universe couldn't get on without human perception, which strikes me as nonsense...
I vividly pictured a cartoony royal Cosmic Ambassador debating with an opposing royal Cosmic Ambassador as I read this! thanks man I need that
You sound really sure about what you're saying. Most scientists do, and *might* be closing some doors in the quest for knowledge. I assure you that just about as many books and scientific journals have been written arguing an opposite stance.
Although I can't argue too much in either direction, I can say that cosmic arrogance is an offense punishable by up to 100 light years in Schroedingers box! We all know what happens when you don't think outside the box 
I hope you took no offense to my playfulness...I mean no harm at all my friend and slightly sleepless I went off on a vivid tangent.
But really, an observer can't Make or break the universe. Or do WE?
|
Sun King



Registered: 02/15/14
Posts: 4,069
|
|
Quote:
Universaleyeni said: I can say that cosmic arrogance is an offense punishable by up to 100 light years in Schroedingers box!
That's a long distance to spend in the box.
--------------------
|
|