The set of things to be explained exists but is empty.
— Srap Tasmaner
Can a set of things to be explained be empty? The set of explanations of things that exist may be empty, but that thing to be explained must be a member of the set of all things. — Mww
1). I know my subjective experience is true. I have feelings and emotions. They exist. (my mind)
2). I know I am an object. My body exists. I am observable.
3). I know that others are objects in the physical world/universe. They are observable.
4). But I also know that these objects (people) are also subjects like myself (they have a mind). — Benj96
There's a story, probably apocryphal, that Frederick the Great once gathered his court scientists and philosophers together and asked them to explain why a dead fish weighs more than a live one. They went around in turn each offering a theory, and once they had all offered their explanations, he pointed out that it does not. — Srap Tasmaner
Reality is that which corresponds to a sensation in general..... — Mww
I don't believe reality is what corresponds to sensation. I said reality only makes sense in comparison or relation to sensation. — T Clark
...assuming (the coin) does have a definite state (given other plausible assumptions) leads to contradiction per Bell's Theorem. — Andrew M
I'm trying to decide the best way of dealing with the ideas of "real" or "reality" are, given quantum mechanics. The options, as I see them 1) Reality only applies at the classical level. 2) Reality exists at the quantum level, but it is a different kind of reality. 3) There is a broader meaning of "reality" which encompasses both classical and quantum scales. 4) There is no such thing as reality.
I'm willing to go with 3 as long as we keep in mind that it has to remain consistent with our everyday reality. I'm not even sure that's possible. — T Clark
No physicist questions the reality of the experimental equipment that they are using when performing these experiments, or of the measured outcomes.
— Andrew M
I wonder if that's true. — T Clark
However the tension you raise with option 3 arises is especially acute with the Wigner's friend thought experiment. From the friend's point-of-view, she observes a definite result. From Wigner's point-of-view, he observes interference effects which indicates indefiniteness. — Andrew M
I much admire the clarity of that post. — Banno
Taking the theme further, realist logic has it that a given statement has a truth value regardless of the whether that value is known, and so uses two truth states - true and false. Antirealism uses three truth states, true, false and a third that is neither - we might call it "undecided".
So we can ask, given your quantum coin, should we make use of a realist or antirealist grammar? — Banno
So the statement "The coin shows heads" implies a contradiction by Bells theorem, as does the statement "the coin shows tails", and prima facie we drop biconditional logic as a description of how things are (Putnam's realistic view) or we include measurement as fundamental to physics (shut up and calculate) - see Quantum Logic and Probability Theory for a discussion of the options, which become very complex very quickly. — Banno
If I could check something - Wigner's friend agrees that Wigner sees interference effects; and WIgner agrees that his friend sees a definite result? — Banno
That is, they agree as to what each of them sees.
Arguably, there is then 'a way that things are', but one that has two differing, yet agreed, descriptions. — Banno
There was a lot of discussion on the Nature paper... — Andrew M
Nice list. Thanks for pointing me to WordHippo. — Banno
Adjective
Actually being or existing
Officially recognized as possessing certain qualifications or meeting certain standards
Free from any intent to deceive or impress
Rightly so called
Important or serious in nature
Absolute in nature
(informal) Honest in a blunt manner
(informal) To be under no illusion, or to be serious about a matter
Not romantic
Essential, innate or inherent to something
Characterized by the lack of artificial additives or preservative treatment
Used to emphasize the extent of something unpleasant or bad
Of, or concerned with, the actual doing or use of something, rather than with theory and ideas
Denotes a humble and unpretentious attitude towards life
In bodily form
Legally, officially or formally in effect
Having all its feathers
Most intimate or private
Still in existence
Adverb
To a very large or great degree
(informal, for real) In a genuine, true, serious, or earnest manner
Determiner
A large amount or degree of
— WordHippo
That's the subject of this discussion.
— T Clark
You stated that what is usually considered to be reality may be distinct from reality as viewed from a philosophical perspective.
Can you not articulate what the potential difference is? — frank
[ emphasis added]There's a story, probably apocryphal, that Frederick the Great once gathered his court scientists and philosophers together and asked them to explain why a dead fish weighs more than a live one. They went around in turn each offering a theory, and once they had all offered their explanations, he pointed out that it does not. — Srap Tasmaner
There's a story, probably apocryphal, that Frederick the Great once gathered his court scientists and philosophers together and asked them to explain why a dead fish weighs more than a live one. They went around in turn each offering a theory, and once they had all offered their explanations, he pointed out that it does not. — Srap Tasmaner
I only meant that we can talk about the set of statistical anomalies that the Bermuda Triangle is thought to be a member of and then discover that it is not. — Srap Tasmaner
I don't think the sensations are "what are real", i.e. all that is real. I think they are the measure, or at least one measure, of what is real.
If we start from human sensations, shouldn't that which is sensing be just as real as the thing sensed?
— Metaphysician Undercover
Are you asking if we, our selves, are real? It's a good question. I didn't address that in my OP, but I didn't intend to exclude it from the discussion. — T Clark
The term 'real' is used in various ways and to some extent it may come down to commonsense picture, or that which is confirmed intersubjectively. Even within psychiatry, while there is some acknowledgement of cultural beliefs and differences, there is an adherence to a general realist worldview. This is the basis for ideas of what is delusional and, for example, if one believes that they have magical powers they are likely to be seen as delusional. To some extent, there may be a shared understanding of delusion in the psychiatric and philosophy perspective in Western culture. — Jack Cummins
However the tension you raise with option 3 arises is especially acute with the Wigner's friend thought experiment. From the friend's point-of-view, she observes a definite result. From Wigner's point-of-view, he observes interference effects which indicates indefiniteness. — Andrew M
Right, that's the point. We consider whether or not the thing being measured (through sensation) is real, and we naturally conclude that if we are measuring it, it must be real. But prior to coming to this conclusion, isn't it necessary to do our due diligence toward understanding the thing which is doing the measuring? If the thing doing the measuring isn't real, then what validity does "if we are measuring it, it must be real" have? — Metaphysician Undercover
But that’s full of mental phenomena, I don’t see a way around that. Take your atime example of an apple in front of you: you’ll say this is real. Perfect. Now I’m not in front of it, so I have to take your testimony as accurate and I have to imagine that what you mean when you say “this is an apple” will evoke in me, a similar object to what you are seeing. Likewise if I look out my window and say I see a car, a real car, not a toy car, you would have to imagine a car in your head, unless you look at a car. What’s the issue here- this looks to me like “ordinary, humdrum reality”. What’s your concern in such a situation? — Manuel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.