Sign in or Join FriendFeed
FriendFeed is the easiest way to share online. Learn more »
Scoble, Alex Scoble
Neil deGrasse Tyson says it and sounds profound. I say the very similar "reality exists whether you believe in it or not" and people think I'm non compos mentis. Not that I'm anywhere near as smart as Tyson.
maher-science-globalwarming.jpg
This is the part where someone says that science and reality aren't the same thing. - Scoble, Alex Scoble
Yep. Science and reality ain't the same thing. - Victor Ganata
OK, I'll sum up then. Earth was flat then it was round based on the reality of the time. Facts proved reality false. The problem was that reality was based on mystical ideals and bias, not fact. You can't just drop the world 'reality' because it is more highly perception based than simply scientific facts. Where you and Tyson seemed to differ was that he is speaking of scientific fact (informed collective reality) verse a choice of ignorant reality. If you were saying the same thing, it required a little more finese as just dropping the word 'reality' opens up the fact we have different realities - Johnny from iPhone
Victor, in my view they are. Hence the wording of the original statement. - Scoble, Alex Scoble
Johnny, I highly disagree that science or scientific fact is the same as informed collective reality. - Scoble, Alex Scoble
Let's just say that Stephen Hawking wouldn't really put it that way. The Ptolemaic geocentric system is a perfectly valid way to look at the universe (see also the principle of relativity), it just makes the calculations ridiculously complicated. For most day-to-day purposes, you can approximate the earth as a flat plane, and you'll get answers within an acceptable margin of error. (If this weren't true, flat maps would be completely worthless.) There are way too many things that are true but cannot be proven by either mathematics/logic or empiricism. - Victor Ganata
In a vacuum where everything to be known is known, then yes you have that luxury. To suggest that the collective knowledge we call scientific fact is somehow complete given what we know we don't know plus those things we are yet to observe is the height of arrogance - Johnny from iPhone
There simply isn't one right way to look at reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... - Victor Ganata
Any consistent logical system is incomplete. Any complete logical system is inconsistent. Such is reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... - Victor Ganata
But if you mean, if I stop believing in General Relativity, will I fly up into outer space? Well, no. - Victor Ganata
None of that denies the truth of the statement. - Scoble, Alex Scoble
Yep, that's basically what I meant when I wrote what I wrote. - Scoble, Alex Scoble
Well, you have to be more concrete, then. There are a lot of philosophers on the Internet, and the scientific method is only one particular philosophy :D - Victor Ganata
But I have to admit, I kind of really like Stephen Hawking's point-of-view. It's very pragmatic and pluralistic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... - Victor Ganata
I still don't see how one's interpretation of reality actually changes it though. If three blind men touching an elephant each come to different conclusions based on the fact that one of them is touching the tail, the second is touching the trunk and the third is touching a foot, the fact that none of them will describe what they are touching as an elephant doesn't deny that they are, in fact, touching an elephant, or that watches are basically useless in the modern era. - Scoble, Alex Scoble
Alex, I described 3 definitions of reality, in another post for you. What you described hit's the first and second definitions which are proveable and make your statement true. The latter is where my issue arose. Let me see if I can find the post. - NOT THE CRICKET
In response to you saying it doesn't matter how 'reality' is defined. "It was more of reality as an individual perception, or mutual perception, or some state that can't be changed through any means except for rising to a higher consciousness. A dream would be reality, if you didn't know you were dreaming. The first two are provable. Yes, the world I live in exists and I can interact with it to believe it's real enough to be called reality, though schizophrenics and other people suffering from delusions and hallucinations, are not coherent with the next definition of mutual perception. That is the one that science and understanding says exists and has laws defining it. Those are easy. The last one is the one that causes issues, because if it's possible to rise to a higher consciousness, like from a dream, what is stopping you from going further on from there?" - http://ff.im/1dFLsj And this is based around the concept of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, which I pointed to multiple times in the original thread. I also agreed with you on the first two definitions multiple times in the original thread. - NOT THE CRICKET
Who knows it's an elephant? - Johnny from iPhone
In a hypothetical universe where *everyone* is blind, how in the hell would anyone know what an elephant is? - Victor Ganata
Read Hawking's quotes about model-dependent realism. There's also Young's experiment—the whole wave-particle duality. You can look at light as waves or as particles, and depending on how you set up the experiment, you'll get one or the other behavior. There's no actual way to verify *both* behaviors at the same time (at least, not without cheating.) - Victor Ganata
Alex, you said "Reality exists even if you believe that it doesn't". Reality is a perception. What would have been more accurate would be "'facts' exists even if you believe it doesn't". If I believe something even though I KNOW something else exists, then that's a false reality. If I can only go on what information is available, then my reality, while wrong, would still be valid until such time as facts are introduced. - Johnny from iPhone
The point is that it doesn't matter whether you know it's an elephant or not. Thinking that it's a duck won't make it a duck. - Scoble, Alex Scoble
Reality is not perception. Reality is that which exists outside of/despite/regardless of perception. - Scoble, Alex Scoble
Yeah, but that's different. The thing is, you're assuming that what you know is true. That elephants exist and what you're actually feeling are different parts of the same animal. But how would you actually *verify* that? Then maybe we can talk about the scientific method. - Victor Ganata
If you think that reality has anything to do with perception than you and I are not speaking the same language, nor having the same conversation. You cannot change reality by how you observe it or by how you think about it, you can only change some small part of it through interacting with it. - Scoble, Alex Scoble
Alex, the most basic individual reality is definitely perception. The second is a mutual perception, via science as a tool for understanding, that makes things somewhat coherent no matter the individual. Then there is the reality where the science cannot be trusted to be telling you the truth, as it's a coherent reality secondary to any actual reality. We'll never be able to get past the second definition due to GIT. - NOT THE CRICKET
Well, tell Stephen Hawking that. You can argue all you like, the simple fact of the matter is that you have no way of proving you are right. - Victor Ganata
Victor, I'm assuming that what's true is true whether I know it or not and that how I think about it, or what I ate for breakfast has no power over it. - Scoble, Alex Scoble
Well, that's not very scientific. The conclusion usually comes last in science. - Victor Ganata
Until given evidence to the contrary, I will stick with this assumption. - Scoble, Alex Scoble
If you're not an empiricist, then it doesn't make sense to invoke the scientific method. - Victor Ganata
Whatever philosophy that is, it's most definitely not science. - Victor Ganata
I don't know why you assume that I came to this without empirical observation. - Scoble, Alex Scoble
Well, what is your observation, what is your inference from that observation, and how did you disprove the alternate hypotheses? *That* would be science. All you're doing is stating something as true, and insisting that it's true because it's true. - Victor Ganata
My issue Alex, is you are driven to absolutism, either in your own statements or when comprehending other's statements, and it causes conflicts in logic, by negating core points. - NOT THE CRICKET
I even posted a better form of your statement, "Reality might/may exist even, if you believe that it doesn't." I would not have argued as vociferously against that statement, because I agree with that statement. - NOT THE CRICKET
I could say that after viewing the world around me that it doesn't change regardless of what I think about it, but then you would just go on and on about how do I know that that is the truth, etc. etc. No one, that I am aware of, really knows what is true and what is not, but we all have a pretty good idea most of the time of what it is and in my experiences, no amount of wishing it to be different, or believing otherwise changes the underlying truths of reality. - Scoble, Alex Scoble
Permeating syllogism - twice in one week! #winning - Bren from iPhone
And to get literal, the truth is that which incontrovertible. It exists whether you believe in it or not. It exists whether you observe it or not. You can argue that not much of this world is seen as incontrovertible to us, but that does not change the nature of truth. - Scoble, Alex Scoble
This is philosophy, not science. That's all I'm saying. - Victor Ganata
Although I am still interested to learn how such an absolute conception of "reality' can actually explain things like the wave-particle duality or quantum mechanics in general. - Victor Ganata
OK, yeah, sure, you are most likely right on that one. Although in most cases, we can collect evidence that we cannot affect the world around us merely by thinking about it. Just as with Schroedinger's cat, it takes an action, even if it's observation to do that. - Scoble, Alex Scoble
So by that definition science isn't true, because it isn't incontrovertible. Outside of momentary sections of time (finite, irregardless of size). - NOT THE CRICKET
If you are using the absolute literal definition of true, this is correct. - Scoble, Alex Scoble
The observer's paradox is well-documented in social sciences as well. - Victor Ganata
Observing is acting, not thinking, at least in my opinion. - Scoble, Alex Scoble
We certainly have plenty of evidence to show that observation changes the nature of the world around us. - Scoble, Alex Scoble
But thinking that the sound barrier does or doesn't exist is not the same as observing what happens when someone breaks through it. I hope I'm making more sense now. - Scoble, Alex Scoble
It all comes down to what exactly is doing the observing. - Victor Ganata
If observing is acting, and we end observing just by being, then being is acting. And then we have Descartes' 'Cogito ergo sum', which could describe being as attached to thinking. - NOT THE CRICKET
Well, can we at least agree that thinking is not acting or observing? - Scoble, Alex Scoble
Thinking is most definitely an action, though. And I don't think you can actually make an observation without thinking. - Victor Ganata
I won't plow through the whole doing nothing is still an action argument again. You all know where I stand there. That doing nothing is an action...then again that probably agrees with Victor...damn. I give up. Victor, you have plenty of evidence on the internet that I can do a lot of things without thinking. - Scoble, Alex Scoble
And that opens up the whole can of worms of what is thought. Conscious thought? Or all of the stuff that goes on under the hood? - Scoble, Alex Scoble
Victor, observing could exist without thinking. A rock falls off of a mountain and hits another rock on the way down, they would both observe(literal definition) some force, without thinking. Of course, observation at that level is in response to an action, not necessarily an action in and of itself. - NOT THE CRICKET
It all comes down to definitions, really. The way I think about it, observation is when sensory input comes to the conscious level. If a tree falls down in a forest, and all that…. - Victor Ganata
The best way for you to prove your original statement Alex, would be to irrefutably prove this is not a (an extremely complex) world within a dream. Of course, I agree with what you meant, just not the phrasing. - NOT THE CRICKET
If it's a dream, then by definition it's not reality is it? By the way, see what happens when no one says "You're wrong"? This ^^^ - Scoble, Alex Scoble
Hey, you said it first. (Technically, I did; but it was a joke.) - NOT THE CRICKET
Well, once again, it all depends entirely on how you define or at least frame reality. (Because a dream clearly has physical attributes in the "real" world: neurons firing, energy being expended, synaptic connections strengthening and weakening, memories forming, etc., etc.) - Victor Ganata
There was no emoticon, therefore by the standards of the internet (there should be an RFC for this), it was not taken as a joke. - Scoble, Alex Scoble
Well, for the purposes of this conversation can we define anything that happens within a dream to not be reality? - Scoble, Alex Scoble
I think it would be a lot easier if you simply defined what you consider reality, to be honest, in the simplest way possible, without a whole bunch of exceptions. - Victor Ganata
Alex, but what if this is a dream? Then this and everything we discussed most definitely isn't reality. You'd have to go up to the next level of consciousness, to find reality. And at that level the same issue arises. - NOT THE CRICKET
Which is why I say 'Reality may/might exist...'. I cannot prove it's not a dream or some other illusion. And we can assume if it was a 'dream' (or whatever) at any level, we can never prove reality outside of the common definitions of individual and mutual perception exists. - NOT THE CRICKET
This definition works fine for me: Reality: something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive. - Scoble, Alex Scoble
That's good enough, that wraps up dreams, and most other abstractions. (Even if they aren't necessarily independent.) - NOT THE CRICKET
Well, that's a radically different definition of reality than what I imagine. I kind of get the feeling that you're actually trying to define it just to make your OP valid, but, sure. - Victor Ganata
I mean, if reality is independent of everything, that means we don't live in reality. And if everything derives from it, that seems very contradictory. - Victor Ganata
Victor, I think he meant by independent of everything, that there is no further abstractions outside of it. And everything is derived within it. - NOT THE CRICKET
Victor, that definition is straight from dictionary.com, I didn't make it up. It's far too succinct and elegant to be from me, hehe. - Scoble, Alex Scoble
It's not very… descriptive :D - Victor Ganata
I don't think you can define reality in any descriptive way, since what you'd be describing is your perception of reality, which as we've discussed is usually not the same thing. - Scoble, Alex Scoble
Thus the comment: "Define 'reality'. You're wrong. [:P, better Alex?]" Reality has too many definitions that don't meet all necessary descriptions. - NOT THE CRICKET