Home | Community | Message Board

NorthSpore.com BOOMR Bag!
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
subjective vs. objective * 1
    #23695141 - 09/30/16 07:36 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Subjective impressions are every bit as valid in sensing the nature of reality as objective measurements are. For example, depending on one's spiritual attainments, one can know just as much about the quantum nature of reality as a physicist does without ever having opened a physics textbook. Many Buddhist scholars have done just this over the centuries. The sensation of redness is every bit as legitimate as asserting the frequency of red light. One frame of reference is in no way superior to the other. These are two sides of the same coin that comes out of nature's purse. In our materialist, modern world, with science as the new authority, it seems we have denigrated the validity of subjective experience in favor of a more objective one, which we now somehow regard as truer. Both views of the world are equally valid, and totally complementary.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCognitive_Shift
CS actual
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23695157 - 09/30/16 07:41 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
For example, depending on one's spiritual attainments, one can know just as much about the quantum nature of reality as a physicist does without ever having opened a physics textbook.




I disagree 1000%.


--------------------
L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: Cognitive_Shift]
    #23695178 - 09/30/16 07:45 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Have you ever read Tibetan Buddhist philosophy extensively?  There is a reason so many physicists are way into Eastern philosophy.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCognitive_Shift
CS actual
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23695186 - 09/30/16 07:48 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

No I haven't read that particular book, but I have a hard time believing it can teach the reader just as much about quantum theory as a physicist can.


--------------------
L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23695193 - 09/30/16 07:50 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
The sensation of redness is every bit as legitimate as asserting the frequency of red light.




Sounds like the placebo effect.
I mean what the hell does this even mean?


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23695216 - 09/30/16 07:55 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

http://www.krishnapath.org/quantum-physics-came-from-the-vedas-schrodinger-einstein-and-tesla-were-all-vedantists/

Quote:

The famous Danish physicist and Nobel Prize winner, Laureate Niels Bohr (1885-1962) (pictured above), was a follower of the Vedas. He said, “I go into the Upanishads to ask questions.” Both Bohr and Schrödinger, the founders of quantum physics, were avid readers of the Vedic texts and observed that their experiments in quantum physics were consistent with what they had read in the Vedas.

...

Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrödinger regularly read Vedic texts. Heisenberg stated, “Quantum theory will not look ridiculous to people who have read Vedanta.” Vedanta is the conclusion of Vedic thought.

...

While he was working on quantum theory he went to India to lecture and was a guest of Tagore. He talked a lot with Tagore about Indian philosophy. Heisenberg told me that these talks had helped him a lot with his work in physics, because they showed him that all these new ideas in quantum physics were in fact not all that crazy. He realized there was, in fact, a whole culture that subscribed to very similar ideas. Heisenberg said that this was a great help for him. Niels Bohr had a similar experience when he went to China.

Consequently, Bohr adopted the Yin-Yang symbol as part of his family coat-of-arms when he was knighted in 1947.




--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23695384 - 09/30/16 08:45 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

I think it's great that abstract scientific thought can form when immersed in eastern religious mysticism.
this to me supports the need to dream better dreams.
science always follows dreams.
elon musk
dream better


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesecondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 7 days
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #23696246 - 10/01/16 03:53 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Though I think your assertion is incorrect, but not for the same reasons as have been stated by others.
Your dichotomy between 'subjective' and 'objective' is a false one:

Colors (as you referenced viewing the color red) come to us in the form of visual sensations; as do shapes, motion etc. Sweetness, sourness and bitterness come to us in the form of taste sensations etc.

These are subjective phenomena, of the kind you referenced in your OP. Yet, when we move on to science's 'objective' methods of verification; e.g. mathematics, particle accelerators, conceptual physical models etc; These are merely subjective phenomena arising in our consciousness in the form of thoughts, ideas, and other visual phenomena.

Thoughts, feelings, moods, sensations, sounds etc. are all that we ever have to work with. Whether we are observing light directly, or we are staring at a machine that is 'measuring' light, and reading it's calculations, we are dealing with the contents of the mind. Everything is 'subjective', so to speak, or, you could say that everything is 'objective', these words really don't have much meaning.


Having said all of the above, I don't think that studying eastern wisdom alone can necessarily get you an iota closer to understanding quantum physics. Do you think that putting a Tibetan Lama in a physics laboratory is as likely to yield accurate predictions as putting a tenured theoretical physics in a laboratory? I think the answer is obviously no.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: secondorder]
    #23696288 - 10/01/16 04:37 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

I have a feeling this is needed.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: sudly] * 1
    #23696325 - 10/01/16 05:23 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Can you imagine a laboratory supply beginning to offer a Rent-A-Monk service to go with data collection and analysis tools?


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #23696565 - 10/01/16 08:56 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

The main reason that science is the new authority, is largely because the authorities such as the Navy and corporations such as Monsanto (how bout that Bayer deal, wow, Nazi Germany meets Agent Orange) are granting the money for research.  Universities are virtually owned now by the likes of Monsanto, Syngenta, etc. and woe to those researchers who get a conscience.  Check out atrazinelovers and his blackballing for speaking the truth.

So, when research is funded by the Rockefellers and their minions, when war and weapons is such a big money maker, when GMO doesn't have to even be labeled and Monsanto can fund it's development and new workers right there in colleges, where does that leave us?  Surely objectively if research was truly done by independent researchers, then subjectively we would be experiencing a much better world.  Instead, we are being systematically poisoned by the same system we pay for to learn from to work for our paycheck and pension.  Then we die.


--------------------
Anxiety is what you make it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: secondorder]
    #23696593 - 10/01/16 09:10 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

secondorder said:
Though I think your assertion is incorrect, but not for the same reasons as have been stated by others.
Your dichotomy between 'subjective' and 'objective' is a false one:

Colors (as you referenced viewing the color red) come to us in the form of visual sensations; as do shapes, motion etc. Sweetness, sourness and bitterness come to us in the form of taste sensations etc.

These are subjective phenomena, of the kind you referenced in your OP. Yet, when we move on to science's 'objective' methods of verification; e.g. mathematics, particle accelerators, conceptual physical models etc; These are merely subjective phenomena arising in our consciousness in the form of thoughts, ideas, and other visual phenomena.

Thoughts, feelings, moods, sensations, sounds etc. are all that we ever have to work with. Whether we are observing light directly, or we are staring at a machine that is 'measuring' light, and reading it's calculations, we are dealing with the contents of the mind. Everything is 'subjective', so to speak, or, you could say that everything is 'objective', these words really don't have much meaning.


Having said all of the above, I don't think that studying eastern wisdom alone can necessarily get you an iota closer to understanding quantum physics. Do you think that putting a Tibetan Lama in a physics laboratory is as likely to yield accurate predictions as putting a tenured theoretical physics in a laboratory? I think the answer is obviously no.




Good points, I appreciate the dialogue.  I admit I didn't give as much thought to my use of 'subjective' and 'objective' as you did; I was merely using them as conventions to compare two different approaches.  But you are of course quite right; everything I have described exists as a set of mental contents in the human mind.

If you look at the post above regarding the physicists, it highlights what I meant.  Of course, quantum mechanics is much more detailed and rigorous than the sort of thing you'd find in the Vedas and in the East in general, but such knowledge was good enough to help the founders of quantum theory build foundations on which to formalize theory.  That was what I was referring to.

As you suggest, we rarely cross from subjective to objective.  But I personally believe that objective reality can be touched on, and this is in part the motivation for suggesting the dichotomy.  However, I appreciate your insights.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23697820 - 10/01/16 05:28 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Subjective impressions are every bit as valid in sensing the nature of reality as objective measurements are. For example, depending on one's spiritual attainments, one can know just as much about the quantum nature of reality as a physicist does without ever having opened a physics textbook. Many Buddhist scholars have done just this over the centuries. The sensation of redness is every bit as legitimate as asserting the frequency of red light. One frame of reference is in no way superior to the other. These are two sides of the same coin that comes out of nature's purse. In our materialist, modern world, with science as the new authority, it seems we have denigrated the validity of subjective experience in favor of a more objective one, which we now somehow regard as truer. Both views of the world are equally valid, and totally complementary.




you present simplistic examples.As you already know there are many hate groups and members of political parties whose subjective opinions on most things you wouldn't trust any further than you can throw a cotton ball.

What goes on in the minds of advanced meditators is an interesting question. Which actually interests scientists. Of course the main purpose of meditation is not to learn more about the physical world, and although their accomplishments seem of great human value, they have no track record of making useful inventions, or scientific discoveries or theories or mathematical equations.

Indeed much Quantum theory, is indeed still theoretical -- Roger Penrose has a new book out on exactly this. (Buddha did not provide the answers to these questions). R Prnrose was on NPR, it is probably available as a podcast online.

There are anomlies of course , like the Tibetan yoga of the psychic heat, but again nothing 'tangible' or quantifible for the 'world at large'.

Whether meditation could be more valuable to the world than science, is a separate question. It is tempting to say that if it worked reliably and quickly then the answer would be yes. Then again Tim Leary thought something similar ...


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: laughingdog] * 1
    #23697870 - 10/01/16 05:49 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Again, and I seem to be getting a lot of misunderstanding on this.  From above:


"The famous Danish physicist and Nobel Prize winner, Laureate Niels Bohr (1885-1962) was a follower of the Vedas. He said, “I go into the Upanishads to ask questions.” Both Bohr and Schrödinger, the founders of quantum physics, were avid readers of the Vedic texts and observed that their experiments in quantum physics were consistent with what they had read in the Vedas."


The line in the original post comes from the congruence of the meditative/psychedelic state and quantum theory.  Many have had that experience. 


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrendanFlock
Stranger
Male

Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 1 day, 9 hours
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23697950 - 10/01/16 06:16 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

So like anything refering to me is taken as subjective because its about me...but what that can come out of my mouth therefore be not subjective...


Hmmm..I know objective equates with the truth of the matter...which is a slogan in and out of the knot of matrimony..or otherwise Hell..and a Luvely good Good Bye.,. surely this cancer cant continue...in the anal halls of nowhere, in and out of the knot in this particular Cancer..

so like what I write is subjective...

But what I base my writing on or teaching and learning at the same time..is objective..or at last I have it in my objective to do something about..the objective path is one of truth..so the subjective must be true as well..hmm, interesting gland therepy..indeed it is the subject of a cover given Mexican..with 3 Steel oats to boot..and then shake a stick at the wordly given dockmah..


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23697966 - 10/01/16 06:23 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

yes they both have ideas of impermanence & interdependence, as explaining reality better than the apparent solidity, we see, in common.

But 'realizing' impermanence & interdependence experientialy, NOT intellectually is the actual goal of meditation, and it is not a common experience, but comes after long serious practice, and only to some.

Another major difference is that neither system gets the benefits of the other.

The Dali Lama 'and co.' do not do advanced math etc.

and the physicists don't realize Anatta, or experience the jhanas, etc.

Itwould seem only intellectually and metaphorically do they seem to synchronize. A lot of new agers and book authors have capitalized on this and been criticized by actual scientists for doing so.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: BrendanFlock]
    #23697969 - 10/01/16 06:23 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

To me there is no objective morality.
I believe morality is a subjective decision and it is fluid.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: laughingdog]
    #23697984 - 10/01/16 06:29 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

laughingdog said:
yes they both have ideas of impermanence & interdependence, as explaining reality better than the apparent solidity, we see, in common.

But 'realizing' impermanence & interdependence experientialy, NOT intellectually is the actual goal of meditation, and it is not a common experience, but comes after long serious practice, and only to some.

Another major difference is that neither system gets the benefits of the other.

The Dali Lama 'and co.' do not do advanced math etc.

and the physicists don't realize Anatta, or experience the jhanas, etc.

Itwould seem only intellectually and metaphorically do they seem to synchronize. A lot of new agers and book authors have capitalized on this and been criticized by actual scientists for doing so.




I like your post, but I disagree that they synchronize "only intellectually and metaphorically."  In my experience, there can be a true union.  I don't know how many of those authors were genuine, perhaps a few.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepineninja
Dream Weaver
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/14
Posts: 12,468
Loc: South Flag
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: BrendanFlock]
    #23698004 - 10/01/16 06:35 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

I think some of the difficulty that seems to arise in these debates is born of the fundamental differences in mind states that one needs to process both subjective and objective moments. I think DQ is trying the discuss and pose that at deeper levels of fluid thought links can be made between the inexplicable occurrences of QP and those of philosophers who have tried to understand the way we experience, and how they interplay.
Sure Banal rationality will take you down the path of hard science but at certain point even Qauntum physicists get to a point of thinking in the murky world of subjective theory this is as important as the "objective" outcomes.


--------------------
Just a fool on the hill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23698013 - 10/01/16 06:37 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
....

.... In my experience, there can be a true union. ...




how so?

the only mystic I know who did math was Srinivasa Ramanujan

and he was not a buddhist meditator I believe & think it was a Hindu God to whom he ascribed his insights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan

Deeply religious,[5] Ramanujan credited his substantial mathematical capacities to divinity: '"An equation for me has no meaning," he once said, "unless it expresses a thought of God."'[6]


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: laughingdog]
    #23698025 - 10/01/16 06:42 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

wiki continued

"Personality and spiritual life

Ramanujan has been described as a person of a somewhat shy and quiet disposition, a dignified man with pleasant manners.[89] He lived a rather spartan life at Cambridge. Ramanujan's first Indian biographers describe him as a rigorously orthodox Hindu. He credited his acumen to his family goddess, Mahalakshmi of Namakkal. He looked to her for inspiration in his work[90] and said he dreamed of blood drops that symbolised her male consort, Narasimha. Afterward he would receive visions of scrolls of complex mathematical content unfolding before his eyes.[91] He often said, "An equation for me has no meaning unless it represents a thought of God."[92]

Hardy cites Ramanujan as remarking that all religions seemed equally true to him.[93] Hardy further argued that Ramanujan's religious belief had been romanticised by Westerners and overstated—in reference to his belief, not practice—by Indian biographers. At the same time, he remarked on Ramanujan's strict vegetarianism.[94]"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: laughingdog]
    #23698032 - 10/01/16 06:44 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."  --L.W.

:shrug:


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: laughingdog]
    #23698033 - 10/01/16 06:44 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

some things spin like Jiva's


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23698044 - 10/01/16 06:48 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: laughingdog]
    #23698053 - 10/01/16 06:50 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

All I can say is that the disparate elements do come together in my experience.  It's completely anecdotal, and I have no evidence for it.  It's not bait and switch -- would you expect a thread like this to have a neat resolution?


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23698151 - 10/01/16 07:20 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Now it makes sense :manofapproval:


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: sudly]
    #23698178 - 10/01/16 07:27 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

ahahahahaha

It doesn't render the original post moot, necessarily.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23698309 - 10/01/16 08:22 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
All I can say is that the disparate elements do come together in my experience.  It's completely anecdotal, and I have no evidence for it.  It's not bait and switch -- would you expect a thread like this to have a neat resolution?




As I said:

Another major difference is that neither system gets the benefits of the other. ... and ...

The Dali Lama 'and co.' do not do advanced math etc. This is not debateable. No zen masters or gurus are doing good science based on insights from meditation. The founders of Quantum physics argued for hours, days, months and years and were very high IQ mathematics guys, it did not come gratis to them from some enlightenment, and it is still a work in progress, with many unanswered questions.

and the physicists don't realize Anatta, the essential insight of Buddhism, or experience the jhanas, etc.

and neither physicists or guys that get insights thru drugs like the tim learys, or Teraance Mckennas, hold a Candle, as regards deep permanent insight to guys like Thich Nhat Hanh, who are world wide respected spiritual teachers and humanitarians.

It seems many who take DMT brim over for a short while with the feeling that earth shattering indescribable insights and experiences have happened to them. Who can argue with this? But does it have any significance? It seems, many such folks repeat the same thing over and over again, with the main result that ... they repeat the same thing over and over again ...


But I know of no scientists who think mystical experience equals science; (Although New Agers and new age book authors do). (Scientists may study mystical experiences - but that is, of course, different). And I know of no respected meditation teachers who think conceptual type brain activity, is a substitute for developing meditative states, which they take great care to distinguish from discriminating thought processes.

That there is an agreement that perceived reality is not actual reality is not a monopoly of quantum physics and Buddhism. This is  proved from the study of biology, chemistry, and psychology; as well as evident from common sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thich_Nhat_Hanh


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: laughingdog]
    #23698405 - 10/01/16 09:05 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

That is an excellent post, and you are right that no physicist can attain the existential levels that a yogi or advanced meditator can, and vice-versa that no yogi or advanced meditator can solve the Schrödinger equation for a nucleon, for example.  I yet contend that, in certain states of mind, one can witness the quantum nature of reality as it unfolds not in, but as one's consciousness.  And I consequently feel that *some* of the physicists who wrote books about mysticism being related to the quantum were sincere, although most were probably not.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCognitive_Shift
CS actual
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #23698635 - 10/01/16 10:45 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Just because a physicist from 75 years ago subscribed to a religious text says nothing about the veda being an insight into quantum theory.  Or that you can be taught about quantum theory from those religious texts as you can from a physicist who understands the science behind quantum theory. 

Lets get real here and critically think about where this leap in logic comes from and is it based on wanting something to be real or something actually being real.


--------------------
L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepineninja
Dream Weaver
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/14
Posts: 12,468
Loc: South Flag
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: Cognitive_Shift]
    #23698762 - 10/01/16 11:40 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

For what its worth my close friend is a leading Qauntum physicist he is also religious and very much into eastern philosophy. Our concepts of conciousness, time and dimensions all have alot to do not only the sciences we study but also the way we approach them.


--------------------
Just a fool on the hill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesecondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 7 days
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: pineninja]
    #23699006 - 10/02/16 01:37 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Of course, quantum mechanics is much more detailed and rigorous than the sort of thing you'd find in the Vedas and in the East in general, but such knowledge was good enough to help the founders of quantum theory build foundations on which to formalize theory.




I always did find it interesting and somewhat odd when I heard that Einstein used to read the Bhagavad Gita regularly.

Quote:

But I personally believe that objective reality can be touched on, and this is in part the motivation for suggesting the dichotomy.




May I ask how?


In response to some of the other posts. I think there is definitely something to be gained in physics through eastern wisdom/practices (meditation), and something to be gained in Eastern wisdom/practices from the western scientific model, and I think the relationship is more direct than most parties tend to admit, but that doesn't change the fact that ultimately it is quite hard to bridge such a broad intellectual and experiential gap. They are disparate practices, and, for the most part, require extremely different skills to succeed in.

It's definitely fun and interesting to try to find metaphorical overlap between these two fields though.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: secondorder]
    #23699592 - 10/02/16 09:22 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

secondorder said:
May I ask how?





I'd like to refer you to an interesting book that tries, with some success, to broach this distinction.  It is called "The Self-Aware Universe," and it's by a former physics professor from the University of Oregon.  He deals with potential answers to such questions better than I can.

Here is a small quote from the book:

"Realize that the self of our self-reference is due to a tangled hierarchy, but our consciousness is the consciousness of the Being that is beyond the subject-object split.  There is no other source of consciousness in the universe.  The self of self-reference and the consciousness of the original consciousness, together, make what we call self-consciousness."

He then goes further into the subject-object split, which I believe is the root of a proper response to your question.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesecondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 7 days
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23699653 - 10/02/16 09:44 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

I think I understand where you're going with this, and I think you simply mean something different by 'objective' than I thought you did.

By 'objective' I thought you meant something like: 'The stuff that exists independent of mind' (which I gather most people mean by the term) but you seem to be alluding to more of a 'That which is greater than the self'. Needless to say I think the former is unattainable. The latter is more or less spirituality.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: secondorder]
    #23699694 - 10/02/16 10:02 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Right, if by mind you essentially mean consciousness (and not just its contents), then no, I don't think anything exists independently of mind.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23700062 - 10/02/16 12:25 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Also amusing to consider that rocket scientists and mathematicians can calculate how to send a rocket to the moon, but can't throw a fast ball.

Whereas a pro baseball pitcher can throw a 90 mile an hour ball, and control it's placement within inches, but can't do calculus.
So how does the pitcher do it?

Or course if you asked either to tell you what muscles they used to,  for example, do something as simple as walk; and in what order, all those muscles need to contract and let go, they wouldn't have the faintest inkling, and neither would a guru or quantum physicist.
Same goes for even moving a finger, or talking, or chewing, - no one knows. (Although,of course few biologists and animators have studied the human gait, etc.)
But if anybody tried to consciously maintain their bodily functions that equal life, they would be dead within minutes. Respiration, digestion, nerve signal transmission, and the brain are all individually complex beyond imagination, let alone synchronized, or the even subtler cellular machinery,
and 3-D protein folding it’s all based on.

So it's easy to say it's 'all mind', but as no one can say definitively what the mind is, that seems rather uninformative - and certainly as pointed out above, most of it is unconscious, so saying it's (reality/aka the cosmos etc.)  'all consciousness',  also strikes me as glib.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: laughingdog]
    #23700198 - 10/02/16 01:13 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

not mostly unconscious - no consensus on what that even might be. so please refrain from echoing it.

but yeah specialists know their thing and not much about another.
seeing the strangeness of another (like vedanta to the physicist) can be inspiring and can drive their specialty further.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisiblehTx
(:
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23706401 - 10/04/16 10:56 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
Subjective impressions are every bit as valid in sensing the nature of reality as objective measurements are. For example, depending on one's spiritual attainments, one can know just as much about the quantum nature of reality as a physicist does without ever having opened a physics textbook. Many Buddhist scholars have done just this over the centuries. The sensation of redness is every bit as legitimate as asserting the frequency of red light. One frame of reference is in no way superior to the other. These are two sides of the same coin that comes out of nature's purse. In our materialist, modern world, with science as the new authority, it seems we have denigrated the validity of subjective experience in favor of a more objective one, which we now somehow regard as truer. Both views of the world are equally valid, and totally complementary.





So true, and this highlights one of my points in the thread I just made about UFOs and brings me to another-- its almost a synchronicity as I haven't read any threads on the shroomery in the past week or so, I just logged on and started writing... yet our threads are totally complementary.

I was basically saying that the UFO experience is a subjective mystery which objectively happens, and due to its inherent mysteriousness and subjective nature, it is prone too way to many "seemingly logical" explanations all of which suspiciously seem to follow the same archetypal pattern. 
what I find most true given most explanations of UFO phenom (or really any subjective something) isn't the content itself, but the typical archetypal pattern its presented in and that the phenom is in fact, a phenomena and not a complete fault of subjectivity.

although this subjective fault is very real and relative to the subject matter, its clearly obvious that something is going on. By remaining agnostic on subjective subjects such as this or spirituality it becomes clear that there is something objective in these wholly subjective fields, and there are ways to objectively study them.

Its just that nobody has devised universally accepted methods to really do so.


  The subjective experience has been nearly completely written off by Scientism as such generally accepted scientific methods of inquiry into subjective experiences are limited (psychology). 
I feel its definitely important, if not necessary, to seek and find union between much of what we separate as subjective and objective, not only for experiencing this union directly as a human being but for understanding and progressing general knowledge of the universe we find ourselves in.

I feel attitudes are changing, though, and slowly something awesome will come from it.
The evidence for a generalized change of heart can be found in this very subforum!
  just a few years ago when I first came to the shroomery, probably around a year before you made your first post here DQ, materialism and scientism were the reigning philosophies here. Anyone who challenged this ideal was ganged up on and basically out-maneuvered by cheap debate tactics which were designed to make the challenger look and sometimes actually feel stupid..without ever really proving a point. A constructive conversation to the contrary was near impossible.

now it seems a lot more people are starting threads and posting about subjects considered complete taboo on this forum just a few years ago and are not getting completely flamed for it, the general attitude of PSP has evolved.


--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: hTx]
    #23706489 - 10/04/16 11:24 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Nice post.  Yes, something is clearly going on, some coherent objective phenomenon that has various subjective correlates.  Robert Anton Wilson did a lot of writing about this, Terence McKenna too, and even people like Jung did a little.  The dominant culture shrugs these things off as "mere" "hallucination," but if you read a book like The New Inquisition (which I heartily recommend), this starts to appear totally absurd.  And like you said in the other thread, for centuries this phenomenon was correlated with religious visions.  Now it's aliens, and if you actually look into the body of evidence (which is huge), it's impossible to dismiss as merely a subjective phenomenon.  Truly impossible.  As you suggest, hopefully more legitimate investigation can be done of these phenomena; it is surely warranted.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblewolfiewolfie
Just wingin' it.
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/16/15
Posts: 2,177
Loc: Australia Flag
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #23711727 - 10/05/16 10:47 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

I tend to entertain the idea of subjective more so than objective. I can personally validate subjective reality as I am experiencing it first hand 24/7, however I can not 'conclusively' prove the existence of an objective reality. That is not to say it doesn't exist, it just seems logical to adhere to a framework that can be verified.

Belief's and choices also play a big role here. We all have the choice to believe in whatever we want so why not choose beliefs that will have a positive effect on our experience? From my perspective believing in a subjective reality benefits me personally more than the alternative, which seems sort of restrictive and limiting. You can experience an objective reality subjectively, getting the best of both worlds but you can not experience a subjective reality objectively.

Just my 2 cents.


--------------------


The only reason why T-rex's can't walk backwards is because they're extinct, which perfectly explains why there are no headaches in the rainforest; The parrots eat 'em all.

My Drawings


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepineninja
Dream Weaver
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/14
Posts: 12,468
Loc: South Flag
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: wolfiewolfie]
    #23711792 - 10/05/16 11:21 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

:thumbup:


--------------------
Just a fool on the hill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,342
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 17 hours, 12 minutes
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: laughingdog]
    #23712158 - 10/06/16 05:32 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

laughingdog said:
Also amusing to consider that rocket scientists and mathematicians can calculate how to send a rocket to the moon, but can't throw a fast ball.

Whereas a pro baseball pitcher can throw a 90 mile an hour ball, and control it's placement within inches, but can't do calculus.
So how does the pitcher do it?

Or course if you asked either to tell you what muscles they used to,  for example, do something as simple as walk; and in what order, all those muscles need to contract and let go, they wouldn't have the faintest inkling, and neither would a guru or quantum physicist.
Same goes for even moving a finger, or talking, or chewing, - no one knows. (Although,of course few biologists and animators have studied the human gait, etc.)
But if anybody tried to consciously maintain their bodily functions that equal life, they would be dead within minutes. Respiration, digestion, nerve signal transmission, and the brain are all individually complex beyond imagination, let alone synchronized, or the even subtler cellular machinery,
and 3-D protein folding it’s all based on.
+
So it's easy to say it's 'all mind', but as no one can say definitively what the mind is, that seems rather uninformative - and certainly as pointed out above, most of it is unconscious, so saying it's (reality/aka the cosmos etc.)  'all consciousness',  also strikes me as glib.




    I don't know about any genius physicists or rocket scientists being great athletes. One of the founders of symbolic interactionism, Herbert Blumer,  was a football star at the University of Chicago. But almost nobody cares about microsociology, or cares about when the University of Chicago had a football team in the Big 10 in the 1930's. I think they won the conference.


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.

The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: wolfiewolfie]
    #23712508 - 10/06/16 09:05 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

wolfiewolfie said:
I tend to entertain the idea of subjective more so than objective. I can personally validate subjective reality as I am experiencing it first hand 24/7, however I can not 'conclusively' prove the existence of an objective reality. That is not to say it doesn't exist, it just seems logical to adhere to a framework that can be verified.

Belief's and choices also play a big role here. We all have the choice to believe in whatever we want so why not choose beliefs that will have a positive effect on our experience? From my perspective believing in a subjective reality benefits me personally more than the alternative, which seems sort of restrictive and limiting. You can experience an objective reality subjectively, getting the best of both worlds but you can not experience a subjective reality objectively.

Just my 2 cents.




Interesting points. :thumbup:


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblephio


Registered: 10/07/16
Posts: 369
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: wolfiewolfie]
    #23717834 - 10/07/16 09:14 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Objectivity reality exists beyond your subjective experience of it.
The reasoning holds easily. You don't have to stretch your mind that far.
Subjective reality is the only thing you can experience while maintaining free-will.
You cannot experience objective reality subjectively as you must surrender your will to be objective which halts your subjectivity.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: phio]
    #23717948 - 10/07/16 09:57 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Maybe your subjective will and the objective are one and the same?


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCory Duchesne
tabernacle
Male User Gallery

Registered: 10/05/16
Posts: 915
Loc: Nova Scotia
Last seen: 4 days, 8 hours
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum] * 3
    #23725233 - 10/10/16 01:14 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

What is real is comprised of things that are unreal.  Appearances are not scientific, and yet, appearances are all we ever know.  Therefore, through science we are introduced to more sophisticated appearances, but those sophisticated forms of thought have the same roots that we started with, namely tautological categories of thought that cannot be proven or disproven.  Appearances cannot be doubted or confirmed, but are always subject to change.


--------------------
C.G. Jung: "Please remember, it is what you are that heals, not what you know."

"I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud." - Carl Jung

Krishna, as his friends called him, freely admitted his compulsive lying. He blamed it on simple fear of having his deceptions detected." NOTES OF A FRINGE-WATCHER MARTIN GARDNER on J Krishnamurti

"All your questions are born out of the answers you already have. Any answer anybody gives should put an end to your questions. But it does not." [UG-K]


Edited by Cory Duchesne (10/10/16 01:21 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: Cory Duchesne]
    #23725319 - 10/10/16 01:50 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Excellent. :thumbup:


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: Cory Duchesne]
    #23725338 - 10/10/16 02:00 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

let us say that
  • 100% of our experience is subjective (S.E.),
  • we have dreams which include other people as part of our S.E.,
  • we meet people in the world and that also is S.E.
  • and these people also are living 100% in S.E.


Interestingly the other people and various aspects of the outer world, may be inferred to have existence outside of our S.E.
since,
when we talk to these people about events that are happening in the outer world, their S.E. about the outer world aligns closely if not exactly with our own S.E. (This is not likely to be a conspiracy of collective subjectivity).

That alignment or consensus suggests that Objective Existence (O.E.) actually is happening and O.E. has a large impact upon our S.E. individually and collectively.


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23725352 - 10/10/16 02:04 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

I like Cory's reply for its elegance, but I agree with you rgv.  Reality is real, at least as far as we're concerned.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: subjective vs. objective *DELETED* [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23726849 - 10/10/16 10:05 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Post deleted by laughingdog

Reason for deletion: .


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: laughingdog]
    #23726946 - 10/10/16 10:32 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

laughingdog said:
Quote:

DividedQuantum said:
I like Cory's reply for its elegance, but I agree with you rgv.  Reality is real, at least as far as we're concerned.




but as you already know:
1) no one perceives reality
2) & on top of that people have many contradictory beliefs about reality, (which they probably tend to forget, most of the time, unless they're anthropologists).
3) conceptual reality is not the reality of present time experiencing
4) psychological studies reveal many further sand traps, biases,  self deceptions, rationalizations, defense mechanisms, we are all prone to...
etc. ...

so the reality is it's hard to be definitive about 'reality' !




It's extremely hard to be definitive about reality.  But I think eventually we have to take the commonsense approach and agree with our peers that we are experiencing the world, and that it is not, as rgv said, some kind of conspiracy.

But I don't really need to tell you that.  Some people could benefit from it, though.  Solipsism around these parts can be ferocious.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelaughingdog
Stranger
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
Re: subjective vs. objective *DELETED* [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23726992 - 10/10/16 10:42 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Post deleted by laughingdog

Reason for deletion: .


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDividedQuantumM
Outer Head
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: laughingdog]
    #23727052 - 10/10/16 11:07 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Yeah it's spectacular down there.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #23727239 - 10/11/16 12:33 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

irl


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblephio


Registered: 10/07/16
Posts: 369
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23728536 - 10/11/16 02:56 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pineninja said:
For what its worth my close friend is a leading Qauntum physicist he is also religious and very much into eastern philosophy. Our concepts of conciousness, time and dimensions all have alot to do not only the sciences we study but also the way we approach them.




May you expand upon your concepts of consciousness and space-time?
:nicesmile:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepineninja
Dream Weaver
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/14
Posts: 12,468
Loc: South Flag
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: phio]
    #23728987 - 10/11/16 05:53 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

The links are endless and grey.
I suggest you do a bit of study into perception and the way it affects the way we approach and decipher time.
If you are trying to draw me on the fact that you see space time as objective it aint going to happen.


--------------------
Just a fool on the hill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblephio


Registered: 10/07/16
Posts: 369
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: pineninja]
    #23729024 - 10/11/16 06:07 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pineninja said:
The links are endless and grey.
I suggest you do a bit of study into perception and the way it affects the way we approach and decipher time.
If you are trying to draw me on the fact that you see space time as objective it aint going to happen.




I already have my answers, work, and a firm understanding of quantum physics. I was just curious, given the reference, what yours was...

Could of had an interesting conversation on the Delayed choice Quantum eraser experiment and things deeper. I guess I will take my toys and go home ..

:whoak:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepineninja
Dream Weaver
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/14
Posts: 12,468
Loc: South Flag
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: phio]
    #23729065 - 10/11/16 06:20 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Sorry bud I am a little overly sensitve and defensive atm.
I think that the missing link in the DS experiment is the potential of another dimension or a misunderstanding of the ones we think we have identified.
I personally think that the way things seem to operate at a quantum level has direct relevance to the fundamental nature of the inner AND outer reaches of our conciousness/Universe.
What we may be seeing is a similar process where by a multiverse could exist ie max is hit and the new seemingly pops into existence from nowhere.
I am far from an expert just ask my mate.:wonka:


--------------------
Just a fool on the hill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblephio


Registered: 10/07/16
Posts: 369
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: pineninja]
    #23729147 - 10/11/16 06:51 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pineninja said:
Sorry bud I am a little overly sensitve and defensive atm.




:nicesmile:

Quote:

pineninja said:
I think that the missing link in the DS experiment is the potential of another dimension or a misunderstanding of the ones we think we have identified.
I personally think that the way things seem to operate at a quantum level has direct relevance to the fundamental nature of the inner AND outer reaches of our conciousness/Universe.
What we may be seeing is a similar process where by a multiverse could exist ie max is hit and the new seemingly pops into existence from nowhere.





That or it could be that people fail to 'see' the underpinnings of a free-willed conscious Universe that is very much self-contained. Nothing suggests that there is multi-verse or a 'hidden' dimension. Rather, what is being shown is that there is a purposely functional domain at a certain scale that behaves unlike other scales and does so for fundamental and supportive reasons....

The missing link in this experiment and the series of experiments related to it is a lack of testing of the transitional behavior from a probabilistic state to a finite end-state and an incorrect understanding of what mechanism(s) cause it.

Quote:

pineninja said:
I am far from an expert just ask my mate.:wonka:




I was hoping to get at what you and your mate believe and why.... It seems those closest to the topic of the (quantum domain) are incapable of the right perceptions to interpret it which is why it has remained an enigma for so long. Was wondering if your mate was an exception and had unknowingly cracked it... Alas, multi-verse.

Standing waves are seemingly a tricky concept....
:heytheresexy:
(The wetting of a tongue)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepineninja
Dream Weaver
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/14
Posts: 12,468
Loc: South Flag
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: phio]
    #23729176 - 10/11/16 06:58 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

What do you percieve to be the reasons? Are you suggesting a guiding hand? Multiverse is mine not his.
There are peer reviewed credible sources that would argue both sides of the multiverse arguement this is after all quantum THEORY.
Edit:Pose a direct question and I will run it by him.


--------------------
Just a fool on the hill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblephio


Registered: 10/07/16
Posts: 369
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: pineninja] * 1
    #23730043 - 10/12/16 12:35 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

I'm suggesting a construct that supports free-will and consciousness.

The reasons have long been detailed but are elusive under subjugation.

Quantum theory centers on 'reality' at a certain scale. 'Reality' is quite clearly more and more objective towards fundamental scales in that there is a suspension of more set forms and 'reality' exists in what we describe as probabilities (possibilities). These probabilities (possibilities) are functionally quantized in further off scales of interaction serving to facilitate ordered interactions amidst a sea of seemingly random possibility.

A good number of the experiments, papers, and beliefs on Quantum theory center on concepts and measurements which perturb (interact) with quantum states/information. Replacing 'interaction' with the word 'observation' masks this truth.

Photons are fragile as are electrons and particles. Most, if not all experiments that claim to observe quantum effects, interact destructively with the phenomenon under observation.

The abused wording (observation - imperfect interaction) is what creates the idea that there is a missing link. As such, the bulk of said 'findings' and 'theories' are invalid beyond establishing what occurs during specific interaction scenarios.

Question I have for your friend : What do you feel is the fundamental role of photons in the Universe? How do your views reconcile with them as a elementary force carrier for the universe?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepineninja
Dream Weaver
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/14
Posts: 12,468
Loc: South Flag
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: phio] * 1
    #23730127 - 10/12/16 02:08 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

"The particle dances While the measurer's molding".
I'll ask him.


--------------------
Just a fool on the hill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: laughingdog]
    #23730228 - 10/12/16 04:49 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

laughingdog said:
...
the animations of the nanoscale world of cell biology are also mindblowing, some are available here

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=cell+animation



great link!


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrendanFlock
Stranger
Male

Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 1 day, 9 hours
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: redgreenvines]
    #23737549 - 10/14/16 03:42 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

I think subjective is differences...in traits and behaviours and ideas etc...between people... and objective is the unifying forces that unite us!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblephio


Registered: 10/07/16
Posts: 369
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: pineninja] * 1
    #23741140 - 10/15/16 11:29 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pineninja said:
"The particle dances While the measurer's molding".
I'll ask him.




Tick tock tick tock .. Time is falling off the clock.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleredgreenvines
irregular verb
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: BrendanFlock]
    #23741615 - 10/16/16 07:34 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

BrendanFlock said:
I think subjective is differences...in traits and behaviours and ideas etc...between people... and objective is the unifying forces that unite us!



that's good!


--------------------
:confused: _ :brainfart:🧠  _ :finger:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblepineninja
Dream Weaver
 User Gallery


Registered: 08/17/14
Posts: 12,468
Loc: South Flag
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: phio]
    #23743546 - 10/16/16 06:56 PM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

phio said:
Quote:

pineninja said:
"The particle dances While the measurer's molding".
I'll ask him.




Tick tock tick tock .. Time is falling off the clock.



I haven't forgotten......good things...


--------------------
Just a fool on the hill.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblephio


Registered: 10/07/16
Posts: 369
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: pineninja]
    #23744333 - 10/17/16 01:16 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

pineninja said:
Quote:

phio said:
Quote:

pineninja said:
"The particle dances While the measurer's molding".
I'll ask him.




Tick tock tick tock .. Time is falling off the clock.



I haven't forgotten......good things...




The window is open for another day or two.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrendanFlock
Stranger
Male

Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 1 day, 9 hours
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: phio]
    #23747691 - 10/18/16 12:19 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Door, Gateway,..? Who Knows? #2..in spoken Lang..is a Hit on the Precipice..Bit like Shit in Ice..and that's just talkin..about a little rad known thing called the CIA..which is in Burnets Speak..and that is a little off the top..for my Good Lookin..Indeed we can judge people by the way that they look..so only if everyone was perfect..Could I Show my face..otherwise I am doing Zen..Aiight? True in a window..for the more than honest and Greatly Famous..about the windows of time..I suspect..its more about the outview..than the inview..but the relation is subjective..meaning its moving..as a shining..cone of life..from the point itself to enlightenment..the on coming Osprey..of Holy Light..as if from a Light House..a Single Beacon to the insane..and the coming knowledge..of the time of the Tribute to Loki..who stood up in time..and without time..to do this desisting work out..normal as a flop goes..so we are in the milliseconds of awareness..and that is your clock of appeal..Clock$ Which is in every way a new way..and an Honoured Way indeed...as a location of a locale Icicle..and a Bicycle is honest and hardworking..about the same as you..with your energy..and your tameness to boot..which is a reference to mankind..in such and such is an inuendo..and therefore we want to be brave for the day..indeed Einstein is the local valid.of an opinion that is hard to scrape..and hard to find..which is the total solve of everything..but that would mean more to my id..and then my ego..based on the super ego..itself..I have typed the thing that I know of..and am looking for the thing I dont..which is curiosity in a nutshell..and therein am I nuts..or Allergic to a few in the species..which is nuts in and of itself..as a fundamental theorum..Ive called the atonment and rapture..: Fools rush in!

Quintessential to this notion..is the common idea of Knowledge..which is within everything and is within itself..in name and common breed..which is an awareness of time itself..to give this myself a name or two..I would indeed call myself Tabula rasa..which is the msot honest written report to date..and honest with my self and center./.which is where all code comes from anyways..and so I sit here inventing my C-Sharp language..In a Nut-Hut..on the beach of San Francisco..indeed as a marketing company..I label this Simon Bruyn..In the ruin of time..and the belitlling of the self. Which is an ego..of the envy of time..and the route to word power..or cause a significant source of damage..in the high scales..that All highlands approve of in and out of the efficiency of the coming midnight of matter..or otherwise Holographic -with a signature to boot..and full legal authorization of everything you do and are - Universe..or multi verse..with subjective frames of reference..which are witnesses..to the honest coming Splasty..or Plasty..of the more forlorn figments of time..which are in a box..and perfect typing is perfect typing..and I believe Im getting about a 33 degree voucher..of the more than honest proportions..of the existence of nothing..which is a nething..or neting indeed..the proper lengths are Netzach..and that is what the God Venus is Good at..or he/she is a Shemale in time..with a satisfying something..which is the honest writ of the day..


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblephio


Registered: 10/07/16
Posts: 369
Re: subjective vs. objective [Re: phio]
    #23747738 - 10/18/16 12:53 AM (7 years, 3 months ago)

Set upon actions reflect upon a set upon void terminating time and space.
The window closes. The clock halts.
A tribute to light, dark, or all of the above?

Who knows beyond the horizon...
Enough time has fallen off the clock.
Tock.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Subjective v. Objective Reality
( 1 2 all )
Joshua 4,235 24 01/31/03 07:31 PM
by Joshua
* Subjectiveness ska8ball 1,305 8 04/03/03 03:07 PM
by shaggy101
* Are morals subjective?
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 5,852 35 04/24/03 05:58 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Reality is subjective
( 1 2 all )
Huehuecoyotl 2,394 34 07/21/04 06:54 PM
by tak
* Objective Truth
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Huehuecoyotl 6,795 72 09/14/05 11:10 PM
by falcon
* can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Anonymous 21,744 157 12/21/04 06:31 AM
by deafpanda
* Physicists: "Reality is an illusion!"
( 1 2 all )
exclusive58 3,336 29 10/10/05 10:13 AM
by Gomp
* Rationality, Objectivity and Logic
( 1 2 3 all )
SkorpivoMusterion 6,620 45 10/15/05 11:19 AM
by BlueCoyote

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,522 topic views. 0 members, 14 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.048 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 14 queries.