So, the spinning apple only gives the illusion of having a different color. The actual colors of the apple have not changed, and are not merging toward any sense of the "excluded middle."

Illusion very simply means that we perceive A (the apple) to have quality x (the perceived color while spinning) but that this is not true and is merely a misprocessing of the phenomena by our senses. We're imperfect beings with imperfect access to the world. We cannot see red and green distinctly if they are changing places too quickly and so our mind interprets the information as a new color.

The objective reality of the apple has not changed.

Gotcha, ok part of that is pretty straightforward and it begs a couple quick follow-up questions:

What if the spinning ball appeared grey, are you certain there is no mystery as to it's true color?

Case in point, I'm assuming you would simply default to logical inference in the absence of having the ability to stop the spinning ball to observe it, right?

And if you choose logical inference (or otherwise known as inductive reasoning) to describe the existing thing, you would have to concede there is no 100% certainty, right?

Wait a minute, what is an actual colour?

Colour is the result of light reflecting in a certain way from a surface into our eyes, right?

Why then would the colour of a non-spinning apple be more objectively real then that of a spinning apple?

On objective reality and illusion, let's take something simple, like say a table.

Is the table objectively real? Or is it the molecules the material consists of? Or rather the atoms that make up the molecules... or maybe we need to go all the way to the quantum-wave function to find objective reality?

Monkey is right that color is kind of a messy example, because it's kind of the vision version of "when a tree falls in the forest...."

But we could say, if we had a cube and spun that on its axis so fast it looked like a ball, how would we be able to tell it was actually a cube.

3017, you're right that until I stop the spinning or take a picture of it whilst spinning with a really good camera, or find some other method besides just my eyes to find out what the spinning object actually is, I cannot be 100% certain if it is a cube or a ball.

But my certainty or lack thereof does not change the state of the universe. The cube remains a cube no matter what I might personally believe about it. If I believe it to be a ball, I'm very simply mistaken.

Coincidentally I came across this article today that explains that Shrödinger never suggested the cat in the box was neither alive nor dead. He thought that was absurd.
https://iai.tv/articles/quantum-theory-and-common-sense-auid-1254

I think we would agree that we wouldn't know the nature of its existence in any case, whether it's spinning or not.

However we would get closer to its truth value ( it's features) if it stopped.

In addition to the mystery associated with the observation of things that you posited, consider this logical conundrum:

This apple is red.
Upon observation, the apple is an undetermined color between yellow and red, or it is motled both colors. Thus the color falls into neither category " red " nor " yellow ", but these are the only categories available to us as we sort the apples. We might say it is "50% red". This could be rephrased: it is 50% true that the apple is red. Therefore, P is 50% true, and 50% false. Now consider:

This apple is red and it is not-red.
In other words, P and not-P. This violates the law of noncontradiction and, by extension, bivalence. However, this is only a partial rejection of these laws because P is only partially true. If P were 100% true, not-P would be 100% false, and there is no contradiction because P and not-P no longer holds.

So in 'practical terms' in our everyday-ness when we simply utter phrases like 'l don't know if that is true or false' , we are similarly in a state of contingency about our observations.

All of this, including your analysis suggests a high degree of uncertainty right?

The objective reality of the apple has not changed. — Artemis

certainty or lack thereof does not change the state of the universe. — Artemis

The problem with this is that physics has definitively shown that at bottom there is no objective entity, thing, atom, whatever, that exists independently of the act of being measured/observed by the scientist. This is of course a very controversial and vexed subject, but the fact remains, the philosophical battles in early quantum science between Bohr and Einstein were about exactly these questions. So you *can't* presume there is an 'objectively existing universe' that is the same for all observers - it's OK as a kind of working hypothesis or methodological principle for practical purposes, but it's not ultimately the case.

In a broader sense, the act of perception is implicated in judgments about the nature of objects. Scientific methodology is generally successful in zeroing in on just those aspects of whatever it examines so as to disclose those aspects which are quantifiable and therefore objective in that sense. But judgments about what to measure, what to analyse, and so on, are not themselves subject to the same methodology, as scientists often have to explore hunches, intuitions, and so on, so it's not as if all science or all scientists are working with the same set of facts. All views are partial, in some sense.

IN respect of the OP - 'things' are neither logical or illogical. Logic is in some sense the 'rules of thought', and, insofar as things are subject to thought, then you can make effective predictions about them on logical (and mathematical) grounds. Mathematical logic has enabled an enormous range of successful predictions which we see around us every day, not least in the technology we're using to have this conversation. But that still doesn't mean that mathematical logic is all-powerful as science always starts off with some kind of limiting step, i.e. what not to include. And when it comes to philosophy, 'what is not included' might be significant in it own right.

Shrödinger thought it was absurd, hence his cat-example yes. But nonetheless his equation has been empirically verified time and again, it really seems to work like that on the quantum-level. What is still an open question however, is how to interpret all of this. What does it mean for the 'underlying reality' of stuff? As it stands there are many competing theories that all could fit the mathematics of QM, but non of them has been proven or excluded. The only honest answer at this point is that we don't really 'know'.

What I want to say it that the language we use, like the words illusion or real for example, has an element of utility to it. We came up with these words because they could serve a function. Ultimately it doesn't really matter to us whether the table is largely made up out of empty space or not, either way we still can put food on the table or bump against it...

So not only is there epistemic uncertainty, we also don't know if there is an independent objective reality to be know (ontological uncertainty)... but I don't think it really matters all that much usually, unless you are a physicist.

As I allude to in my post to Artemis, there is uncertainty on different levels, yes. But on the other hand, we can be relatively certain about most things that really matter to us as humans. So the uncertainty need not be paralyzing.

Yes I know thank you for that.

The gradation of truth relative to the existence of things viz. logic and reasoning I think, presents important parallel's to life on earth.
I am a Christian Existentialist as you may/may not know, and though I don't focus on the existential angst of things, in this thread I wish to use other phenomena to draw these parallels.

Also, I am making a case for the Atheist who believes everything is perfectly logical, thus denies the possibility of Deity in 'their faith'.

And so on a humanist-relatable scale, let's briefly look at other conscious phenomena that I think is analogous, for example:

Is Love an objective or subject truth?

(Is that analogous to the aforementioned example of the color of the apple? Meaning is that a metaphorical 'mottled' color?)

I would also welcome an Atheist to parse that one for me.

The discussion doesn't seem to have much to do with "Is life/existence logical," which is a question that seems like a category error to me at any rate. Logic is a way that we think about relations. Asking if "life/existence is in general how we think about relations" doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense.

Re what we're actually discussing, we've actually talked about this quite a bit in a number of different threads recently.

My view on it is something I we could call "reference point relativism." Sometimes I talk about it in terms of reference frames instead of reference points, although with that there is a risk of confusion with respect to reference frames as they're traditionally approached in physics.

But the basic idea is that properties of objects vary at different spatio-temporal locations, including spatio-temporal locations on/in/etc. the objects themselves. That's because relations are an integral aspect of properties, and relations vary at different spatio-temporal locations. It's a spatio-temporal/relational situatedness, which isn't something that can be "escaped" in any sense. That has nothing to do with persons necessarily. But when persons are present, they experience this spatio-temporal/relational situatedness perceptually.

So, I'd say that the color or shape of a spinning ball, to use the example that we were discussing, isn't really something other than it appears to be at a particular reference point. It can appear to be different, contradictory ways at different reference points. None of those are more "real" than the other. They're just different.

In response to this issue in another thread, where the old "apparently bent object half-submerged in water" example was used, I said this (hopefully the allusions to specific things being discussed in that thread won't be too confusing):

"The whole point of my view is that talking about the properties of the water in the basin, to use your example, has to be done from some reference point/reference frame (I'm not using reference frame just the same as it's used in physics, just in case someone would think that I am), and talking about it with respect to 'the water itself' is just one reference point/frame out of a potential infinity of them, with it not being a preferred reference frame (since there are no objective preferences).

"So yes, properties are supervenient (if you like--I think that term can introduce some confusion) on underlying structure, but the underlying structure is 'everything in the reference frame.' It's only 'just the water' from the reference frame of only the water, which isn't a preferred reference frame. (Not that It's not-preferred compared to something else, either--again, there are no objective preferences.)

"So, for example, a coin really is round from some reference frames, and it's really oblong from other reference frames.

"The idea is a bit like perspective in visual art. Assuming we're trying to do something like realism (or photorealism), the properties of the items depicted will depend on the focal point of the image. From most angles, you can't draw a coin as something round, because it's not really round at that focal point, it's oblong. Or, the coin might really be as large or larger than a mountain from some focal points. That's not an illusion. It's really the way things are at that focal point. The underlying structure is everything in the reference frame, not just the coin, but the relative angle at that focal point, the lighting at that focal point, etc. And on, in, just above etc. the coin are all just different possible focal points.

"Focal point, by the way, doesn't imply a sentient creature's perspective. It's simply what things are like (in particular respects that we can represent visually in this case) relative to a particular spatio-temporal points. We can illustrate this sans sentient creatures with any machine that can measure properties from particular spatio-temporal locations--like a camera, for example."

But nonetheless his equation has been empirically verified time and again, it really seems to work like that on the quantum-level. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't think that's accurate.

The problem with this is that physics has definitively shown that at bottom there is no objective entity, thing, atom, whatever, that exists independently of the act of being measured/observed by the scientist. — Wayfarer

And neither is this.

To both of you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_%28quantum_physics%29
I'm not a scientist, but the bit about "There is no credible peer-reviewed research that backs such claims" seems pretty straightforward even to my layperson self.

thus denies the possibility of Deity in 'their faith'. — 3017amen

Though all truth claims that I make, as an atheist and otherwise, are tacitly preficed with "My belief is that...," I don't think the word "faith" is as useful, because it implies believing without reason, which only the theist really does.

Is Love an objective or subject truth?

(Is that analogous to the aforementioned example of the color of the apple? Meaning is that a metaphorical 'mottled' color?)

I would also welcome an Atheist to parse that one for me. — 3017amen

If someone is experiencing love, then it is an objective truth that they are having a subjective, but real experience they are interpreting to be love. No gradations or degrees of truth needed!

You said..."belief without reason..." what do you mean by that? Do you have any examples to make that clearer?

Thanks for your interpretation of Love. So are you saying it's a half-truth? If so, that would defy the law of non-contradiction.

I didn't say anything about observers and I don't see anything in the link that contradicts what I said either.

Then you don't seem to understand what Shrödinger's cat was about.



Theists believe in phenomena for which there is no proof. Atheists only believe in phenomena for which there is at least some evidence.

And no, I'm saying that love is an objectively real subjective experience.

Then Love would be illogical in your definition. Because for that statement to be formally logical it would have to be 100% objective. Formal Logic does not consider Psychological phenomenon or the nature of a thing.

It would then follow that your nature may be ' illogical' (from a formal logic point of view) in your attempt to explain the love phenomena.

Regarding positive Atheism and proof, I thought you [like other's in your faith-sorry that's the only word that makes sense see below], believed that God doesn't exist?

Otherwise, to make logical sense of Atheism, you would have to be completely silent on the matter, and make no statements of truth about a God's existence.

I could stand corrected, but that's what my logic is telling me.

Why wouldn't formal logic include assessing psychological phenomena? I've never heard that in my life. You can state these things in totally basic syllogisms:

P1 If a person believes themselves to be in love, then they are in love.
P2 Person A believes themselves to be in love.
C Person A is in love.

And re:God I didn't say the atheist has proof, I said s/he has evidence against God and none for God.
Evidence including the contradictory nature of the concept, the continually refuted claims of theists, and the plethora of better alternatuve explanations with more evidence in their favor.

Wow. Ok teaching moment. Formal Logic is basically mathematics (it is universally true no matter what anyone says).

A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.

So in your syllogism, you could say that the reasoning is not sound because the definition of love has not been properly qualified. You have not qualified the nature of what love is yet. It's more or less a contingent truth or a half truth at this point. Hint: I can certainly infer based on experience though.

In formal Logic, love cannot be objectively and subjectively true: that's considered illogical in formal logic (once again I'll restate-defies law of non-contradiction).

Otherwise we are back to the apple being 50% mottled red=half truth, in the example I gave above.

On Atheism, I'm confused. What evidence do you have that God doesn't exist?
And when you say contradictory, I just demonstrated that you yourself (don't take it personally) are illogical when trying to explain certain parts of life's phenomenon called Love, in a purely Objective way.
Now if you can prove otherwise, I'm all ears.

Then you don't seem to understand what Shrödinger's cat was about. — Artemis

I think I do, it's about quantum indeterminacy, not necessarily about the measurement problem. The absurdity is that the cat would be in a state of superposition, both dead and alive.

Hey TS!

Sorry I just saw your reply / contribution and I thank you for that!

Are you referring to more of an epistemic or ontological aspect of observing things?

Sorry I just saw your reply / contribution and I thank you for that!

Are you referring to more of an epistemic or ontological aspect of observing things? — 3017amen

Ontological, and as I stress in the text, I'm not referring to a sentient observer (so necessarily it's a type of realism). The idea is simply that there's always some reference point for properties. Properties can't be some way from "no reference point," since there is no such thing as a "locationless location."

Oh nice... .

In a similar matter (no pun intended), there have been a few recent threads on this topic and wanted to get your thoughts on it too.
Can something exist by itself without observation? (Idealists would deny the possibility of course.)

I'm thinking you might be inclined to say no, but would love to get your take since it relates to the overall OP. For example I'm sure you know there have been some metaphysical theories that posit math having always existed... .

I don't really appreciate your tone, but I'll give you a teaching moment of your own:

If a then b.
A
Therefore b

Is about as basic as it gets with formal logic. I don't need to define love or any other term for the syllogism to be formally valid.

I think I do, it's about quantum indeterminacy, not necessarily about the measurement problem. The absurdity is that the cat would be in a state of superposition, both dead and alive — ChatteringMonkey

It's about quantum indeterminacy until the observer appears. That's literally the whole point of the example. Except Shrödinger was using the example to point out how silly the whole concept is.

The nature of the wave-function collapse is one of the major philosophical problems coming out of modern science. It has by no means been resolved, and it certainly does raise questions about our habitual assumption of objectivity. I was reading this review of physicist Sean Carroll's latest book yesterday; note this passage:

Carroll argues that the many-worlds theory is the most straightforward approach to understanding quantum mechanics. It accepts the reality of the wave function. In fact, it says that there is one wave function, and only one, for the entire Universe. Further, it states that when an event happens in our world, the other possibilities contained in the wave function do not go away. Instead, new worlds are created, in which each possibility is a reality.

Notice the casual way in which it states that 'new worlds are created'. :yikes:

A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. — 3017amen

I think that's perfectly true, but one of the lessons of modern science is that this kind of objectivity 'doesn't go all the way down', so to speak.

Can something exist by itself without observation? — 3017amen

The way I put it is that any conception we have of existence has an irreducibly subjective pole or element. In Buddhist philosophy, it is said that 'subject and object co-arise'.

None of that undermines the practical efficacy of science or logic, however.

Don't give up on the discussion now we were getting close.

Please note, you were not able to answer any of those questions or concerns. So until I hear back from you I will take that as acquiescence by silence.

I will be gracious to you and give away some of my cards. I'm trying to get you to see that inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning, will take you much farther... .

That's one of my arguments anyway. Be well.

...sure Wayfarer. I agree it doesn't ' go all the way down' that's one reason why I'm recommending inductive reasoning not deductive reasoning. Like all our so-called logical tools (from our consciousness) deductive reasoning has its limitations and purpose. That's part of the art of living knowing which tool to use... .

Induction is necessary in physics to discover new things. And in our context here debating existence, and life, inductive reasoning tips the scales too.

For example just like you said deductive reasoning is top down; inductive reasoning is bottom up.

Top down-->general to particular--->deductive reasoning.

Bottom up --->particular to general---> inductive reasoning.

Then combine that with the complexities of sentient human beings and of course the phenomenon of love. Formal logic can't handle that.

In part this is what I was going to share with Artemis

I don't know where you are trying to "get" us, though I assume you mean to your point of view. I don't think I'm any closer now to your position than I was two days ago.

I also don't know what you mean by "your cards," which would imply this is some sort of game to be won? No no, just put them all on the table. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

I also think you're very much confused about deductive and inductive logic. But here's a refresher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

Note that I presented you earlier with a basic Modus Ponens. That means, it is formal as well as deductive logic.

Considering all your questions and comments in that prior post seemed to rest on the idea that I had somehow used inductive logic instead of deductive, and I've shown that you're wrong, there's nothing else for me to respond to.

Top down-->general to particular--->deductive reasoning.

Bottom up --->particular to general---> inductive reasoning. — 3017amen

You'll notice that this is exactly how the modus ponens I presented you works.

What? You have been trying to use deductive reasoning not inductive my dear...

Perhaps just answering my last round of questions i.e.: proving God doesn't exist , will make my point.

I will ask you again please: prove to me God does not exist, using any statement you would like. You're an atheist right, I'm trying to learn your belief system.