that what we mean by "real" and "reality" only has meaning in relation to everyday human experience. I think that's a metaphysical position, so I wasn't looking to see if it was right, but if it is useful. — T Clark

If you think it better,it is not metaphysical position at all.It is in fact true.
Reality and what we perceive as real is totally attached to the way our physiology is. So indeed real has meaning only in relation to humans.

As to your thread question,for me our reality is a form of the actual reality indeed.But there must be numerous of other forms also.Depending from the observer.
So we are sure that there is "Something" that we see as real.But it is real only to us.Notice that doesn't make it less real.Still is!But it is just one way of how that "Something" can be presented to the observer.
What we humans call real is ,imo, just a version(or a frame) of what actual "real" can be.

You answered my questions but you generated many more.Unfortunately my knowledge in semiotics isn't deep at all as to counter argue your thesis and keep up.
But you have interesting views, especially with the holistic way of approaching nature's function and wanting to force that holistic view in physics also.I liked that.I can't say that i m convinced that this could be the right approach to QM also but sure it's something that worths consideration.

Anyway your posts were really interesting and analytic.And made me extra curious about semiotics.I will search more.

First thanks for your time answering the questions and also for being so analytic.Excellent post.

We have the opposite desire of wanting to make the world ever more like our rationalising model of it. — apokrisis

So we agree that at the end we do try to make world-nature fit into our reasoning about it.But well that's a trap.
The real question is if we could ever figure out how nature is and works regardless of our minds or senses.The real "nature" of nature,so to speak.

We arrive at the scientific method with its formal theories and instruments designed to reduce the material world to a data set. — apokrisis

Is that enough though?Can actually material world be reduced only in data and how accurate that could be?
Is it possible that we might need a new set of semiotics then as to go further,at least to difficult questions like in QM?And can we actually establish a new set of semiotics that could go even Maths further?I have no idea of what these semiotics could be or even if it is actually possible,if you ask me.

And a new kind of self has to emerge to be able to live in such a world. For this world to make sense, we need to remake ourselves as that kind of intelligence. — apokrisis

I think now we reach to the core of our discussion.
So I guess you suggest that we need a new form of reasoning that would make us think different about what we observe.A new intelligence.A paradigm shift.Right?Is that possible then?And if yes how? Would that be a next step in human evolution? Leaving Homo behind?

Metaphysics is about seeking the logical structure that could produce a reality in some self-creating or self-necessitating way. — apokrisis

Nice.

We don't actually have to collapse to claim to make an observation. We just give nature no other choice – when it comes to the state of a switch – that it registers the digital fact of being either on or off. It returns either a 0 or a 1. — apokrisis

So you do agree also that is possible no collapse at all taking place over there and we just think we spot one?Right?

It would take a lot of training to think more contextually, structurally, or holistically about causality. — apokrisis

What could that training be?

And in a more general sense, we become the kind of minds that see their worlds in that particular kind of light. — apokrisis

Exactly.

So you have to live in that world, but you can't speak its language. Frustrating. — apokrisis

More than frustrating..

So now we are only saying that if we constrain quantum indeterminism to the point it has to answer a yes/no question, then - not particularly magically or weirdly - we get a yes or a no from our device. We have forced the world to act in a mechanical fashion. It has given us a classical reply – even if this reply failed to constrain all the other things we might have chosen to measure in the same mechanical fashion. — apokrisis

Your approach is really interesting and it triggers a question that i have for years and it applies here also.
Our senses are limited.That is a fact.We invent technology-devices to extend our already given senses.And they do, but only to the specific senses we have.

So following to what you wrote above.Can we actually escape from the mechanical way we see the nature??Can we Indeed build-invent a device that can actually give us a different from "yes or no" answer?? Or are we condemned to our realization of things in a limited way from our own consciousness?The way it is structured?Our limited senses?Can we actually achieve that?? Quantum mechanics at its core rises that questions, I think.

It is only human intelligence that allows it to construct a mechanism of measurement which will limit a quantum potential to such a degree that a device reacts in some black and white way. An event is recorded. — apokrisis

Again as above.

So the whole collapse thing is an artefact in this view. It is tied to human acts of measurement which involves the physics of flipping switches – a physics that itself exists only at this atypical moment in cosmic history, and only due to the fact that humans have invented this whole system for turning reality into numbers on dials. — apokrisis

Can we escape dials then?Maths is science's God.And they do deserve that title.It is our most reliable way for evidences.
But still as you mentioned for reality and measurement, also here reality doesn't require maths as to exist.Maths could easily be just a human invention and nothing more.

Since you seem like a person with scientific background i wanna make another question to you also.

What would you say about the idea that there is happening no collapse at all.But we just think that we "spot"one ,cause we are condemned from our own consciousness to see it like that?Cause our consciousness can't conceive something being everywhere at the same time?
It just is out of its abilities, lower than its radar.Notice ,it is not metaphysics here.Just the way that our consciousness-senses actually are built.
I mean it's not consciousness that interferes matter and "decides" for the result of what we observe.It is just what our consciousness can actually reach.And same as with the devices we build for measurements,as extensions to that consciousness.

Our consciousness "needs" a specific result for the observation cause that's how it works as to interpretate things and well it "sees" a specific result at the end because nothing else would make "sense" for it.

Do you get what i ask or am I too vague?Is that somehow going back to Coppenchangen approach??

All the players are tightly constrained to stay within the maths, but allowed to be free as they like with their ontologies. — apokrisis

Nice.

This doesn't look like a deadend. It looks more like a serious conversation about the most difficult of things. — apokrisis

Well even if you name it serious conversation (and truly is) still it is born from the deadend to explain/figure out what these observations in QM means for nature,so far at least.

That is now the least supported version of Copenhagenism. — apokrisis

You mean now in 2022 after that survey right?Well then i would call that a progress.So which is the dominate interpretation now?Decoherence?

is how actual measurements can get made when the observer is also part of the system. — apokrisis

Plus the technology machine that is used for that measurement , which is also part of the system.

You still don't know where to place the epistemic cut – the division between the observer and the observed – in a generally agreed sense. — apokrisis

Exactly.Where the line is drawn.

We should now know just where to look to find the intersection between classical observers and their quantum realities. — apokrisis

Hmm..Do we know indeed?

So it is just science doing its thing of following the evidence. Which is what makes it easy to distinguish from crackpots doing their thing. — apokrisis

But the problem is that in QM the "evidence" lead to a deadend so far.The actual theory itself is schocking and mind blowing to what we already knew about nature.And that's the reason generating so many different interpretations.And such no surprise that many of these "crackpots" are actually well known scientists.So I don't think is easy to distinguish them.Except from "extreme cases of crackpotters".

By the way, i remember how surprised (not to say schocked) I felt when i first read that the dominate interpretation in QM is Coppenchangen's.
That consciousness affects the results.Mind interferes matter.That's actually pure metaphysics!
And I never expected that the majority of scientists would hold such a metaphysical-idealistic view.

I don't have the scientific knowledge to judge if it is right or wrong but still till these days i m surprised from the acceptance it has among scientific society.
For sure though, QM theory gave a huge boost to idealism at its "eternal fight" against materialism.

A really interesting notion to T Clark's poll is also the second preferable interpretation.I didnt know that "Information theory" had so many supporters.Interesting.

Mind independence is simply what "real" means. What is your problem with this definition? — hypericin

The problem with that definition is that by that ,we cannot say about anything at all that is "real".Since every procedure that allows us know/think/consider something as "real" is made via our minds.So nothing at all is actually mind independent.

I can add nothing to your moral understanding, and only wish you and him well, whatever you decide to do. — unenlightened

Same here.Whatever you decide to do you are morally covered.Choosing keeping him for all that time you have done so far,is heroic already.Best wishes.

It will not work for a soldier, who must be prepared at times to put his own health and life at risk, — unenlightened

I suspect Tom could become a "soldier" too under some circumstances and for his own reasons.And fight like a lion.
And i suspect that these reasons are way more important and worth more than the reasons for those actual soldiers fight for.I would prefer more "Toms" than soldiers in this world.

No, I did not say that — Bartricks

Yes. It's not remotely reasonable to believe one is God. After all, my arguments apply to us all, and there are billions of us and only one God, so the odds are at least billions to one. But still, it can't be ruled out entirely. — Bartricks

After all, my arguments apply to us all, and there are billions of us and only one God, so the odds are at least billions to one. — Bartricks

So you are sure that God must definitely be one of us walking around somewhere on earth,"dressed up"like a human. So why not you to be that one? Ok. No further questions.

So if I understood well, since you don't have enough proofs for the opposite, you do leave an open window as to you to be the actual God indeed aw??

My point is that moral absolutes are evil because they encourage abiding by rules rather than using your own conscience. For example, how many people perpetuate evil policies with the bland excuse of "I was just following orders" — Yohan

Well yeah, there are some grey zones in moral issues but there are some absolutes also, imo. "Not killing Joe" is one of these for example.
And if conscience of some people isn't enough as to understand it, then better for the rest of us that there is a "rule" making that absolute immoral.

I don't see how you can remove everything humanish from a truth which is a sentence in a human language — Pie

I wrote many times "as possible".

The very idea of some stuff on the other side of everything humanish seems (humanishly) "mystique nor metaphysical." — Pie

It does not have to be" on the other side".

I suggest that the beliefs we can be most confident about are those that it makes no sense to deny...because denying them is incoherent — Pie

I agree. That's why for statements like: "I exist", "my mind exists", "universe exists" (or better if you want "something exists" etc. me, personally, I have all the proof I need. And I find it a total "waste of thinking" to actually deny or doubt about that.

Why not kill Joe? What have you got to lose? — Yohan

For start compunctions. Feeling guilt that I caused such a suffering to Joe's family and people who loved him.Also that ended Joe's life and the potential moments that he would love to enjoy. Contributing to the evil among society, making it justified everyone else to come and kill me.

But If any of that bad feelings could affect me, then prison. Deprived of my freedom. Social condemnation that I would be considered as a killer and everyone would treat me like that.

So at at end is it ok/moral to go and kill others?

The rule is, that the mind reverses everything. So that everything the mind believes is exactly the opposite of the way things really are. — Yohan

Well I am a bit surprised here. It is a strange rule.Why you think mind reverses things? In what way you mean it? And why things are opposite of what mind believes? Except if you mean it metaphorically.

For example you say you think good and moral are at the end evil. So if for example my mind says "don't kill Joe . it's immoral and evil" is wrong? Should at the end go and kill Joe cause that's the real moral thing to do?

I know too many questions,but your rule intrigued me. Never heard such a thing before. Though I tend to agree with that

sane people are less happy than insane, and "real" people duped by reality. — Yohan

Same here.

I will take my foot off the pressure build, as requested by dimosthenis9 — universeness

Well no need. If you wish to debate about that go on. No problem. Just seeing your post triggered my feelings as I described above.

I typed, I didn't write :rofl: SORRY! I couldn't resist — universeness

You little bastard!! :grin:

2. In order to keep my insanity I must pretend sanity.
3. In order to maintain my falseness, I must pretend to be honest. — Yohan

I would name them your "way of living" absolute truths. They might not be relevant to universe but damn I liked these 2.
The strange thing though is that the way you wrote it, I get the sensation that you do want to keep/maintain your insanity.And I really wonder why. You do love it a little aw?

I don't think that helps as the word 'always' means at every moment in time, past, present and future which could make 'truth is always subjective,' an objective truth and thus absolute. Also If 'truth is always subjective' is itself subjective then it may not be true. — universeness

Holly shit. This is exactly how a strict definition game always ends up. Like a dog chasing its own tail. At the end not being able to talk about anything at all.But people have to talk! That divine/universal/natural(you name it) gift of speech is what grows our spirit as humans bigger and bigger and we have to make the most of it.Exchanging ideas, feelings, fears, everything. So let the people talk.

Don't get me wrong I don't say that your conversation with Alkis(who by the way i consider him very good in definitions) is meaningless or even actual definitions are useless. For Hell no!It is indeed important but as long we don't lose the forest for the tree.

If a post could express my feelings for the endless definition game here on TPF it would be exactly that. That's why I wanted to comment about it.
And the crazy thing is that whatever you wrote there, it is indeed the case. It's absolutely right. Hahaha.

Either you're lazy or I'm a fool! :snicker: — Agent Smith

You are Mad and Fool!! :wink:

Well, I am intrigued by his hypothesis and that of his partner Stuart Hameroff. Did you view my thread on the topic? Consciousness, microtubules and the physics of the brain. — universeness

No but I will check it. I have read about though how Penrose thinks that Quantum phenomena are possible to take place in brain's microtubules and I found it really interesting.

. I do think phenomena such as superposition, entanglement and quntum tunneling are likely to be employed within human consciousness despite the current unpopularity of Penrose and Hameroff's hypothesis. — universeness

I do find it possible also. It surely has a logic base but we know that just logic in that cases isn't enough as to consider something like that true.

But if QM is a fundamental part of the universe then it seems intuitive that it would be part of human consciousness. I have to temper this however as cosmologists are forever warning of the dangers of using intuitive thinking when trying to understand the workings of the universe. — universeness

Ok I think I got what you mean.

I do raise a small eyebrow of interest towards those who posit a universe in which humans may be components of a future 'universal mind,' a kind of panpsychist style emerging existence — universeness

I raise both in that cases. Hahaha

Yes, I understood this to be the entire point of your OP. For me, what you are describing as absolute truths translates to "fundamental beliefs". — Pantagruel

Well you can call it that way too. I made on purpose that thread as expression of personal beliefs/truths (or any other word you choose) first cause I m really curious to know what others beliefs are and second as to avoid the strict definitions (a loving game here on TPF) which in that particular case aren't necessary at all since we talk about personal truths. The concept of the question remains the same.

Beliefs/statements/crisis/etc that someone holds as truths/fundamental/undeniable/absolute etc about universe .In general exactly what you mentioned here :

Whatever the name, those things which are essential to one's being. — Pantagruel

And yeah I think you are right. For sure such kind of beliefs play a crucial role to our shaping and developing of our consciousness. It's like a gun where we turn its barrel towards the fundamental beliefs we hold and focus there. Which leads us here:

we stake our existence on the veracity of what we choose to believe — Pantagruel

It is also my view that every thought that has ever formed in the brain of any lifeform which has ever existed or ever will exist is a consequence of the ways in which quanta can combine or interact and all such quanta is of and exists within the universe. In accordance with the OP, I would be prepared to label such a statement as one of my personal absolute truths. — universeness

I would like to hear more about that. So you think mind function is a quantum procedure like Penrose suggests?That quantum mechanic phenomena are going on inside the brain as to produce what we call "thinking"? And when you say that such quanta is of and exist within the universe, you mean that they could carry some kind of information also?

The only absolute truth is there are no absolute truths' is just a propositional logic statement it is no evidence at all, than absolute truths don't exist. — universeness

I agree on that.

I ask for personal absolute truths that can be as much "free" as they can from everything human-ish. As much as that is possible of course cause totally I don't think they can be.
Things that someone personally thinks as undeniable facts for the universal function. Simple as that. No need to be a physicist to answer that. A simple philosopher would do I think.

Sorry I don't understand what you wanna say.

Your question makes no sense as I've pointed out. My — 180 Proof

You didn't point out anything at all neither explained why it doesn't make sense. It makes perfect sense since it's a simple question.
"Is your existence and universe's existence true facts for you?". Nothing complicated or mystical about it as you try to present it. But you just avoid to answer it. No problem.

You take for granted your existence but you don't wanna say that you consider it as truth for you. What is the actual difference between these 2 only you know. You just go in circles here.

You say "taking your existence for granted" presupposes your existence already but that doesn't make it still true for you. That sounds logical to you aw?
As something to presupposes something else then that something must exist .No?

Anyway you just play games and I m sure you are aware of it, cause I consider you a clever person.Hiding behind some "philosophical authenticity" as you usually do. So be it then.
Let us, the humble folks, go on with the barstool conversation then and you are free to go to your academic conference.

I really can't understand why you have to make things so complicated. I understand that is your type of writing but really I find it totally unnecessary sometimes. Anyway.

My existence" does not require "proof" or to be demonstrated as a truth – "absolute" or otherwise. — 180 Proof

Demonstrated or not the question is simple.
a. is your existence a truth(true fact) for you? or b. You aren't sure about it as to consider it truth since you can't prove it?
A simple a. or b. would be more than enough and highly appreciated.

That said, imagine a scenario in which information is being transferred. — Daniel

I think it's not an imaginary scenario at all. It is transferred indeed. The great question though is what actually information is?!

Now, I want to apologize for the very vague language, I guess I am trying to generalize as much as possible, which might be a huge mistake; nevertheless, I'll do it once more just for the fun of it and say that a relation cannot occur between the exact same thing(s), and the possibility for variation must exist before a relation can take place. So, even if things exist, if they do not change in any of their properties relative to each other simply because they cannot vary (they cannot adopt other conformations other than their ground conformation) and hence cannot be affected, there won't be a relation between them. — Daniel

Wow that was mind-fucking my friend I have to admit! Apologies accepted.hahahh

But you do have a point here I think. So to sum up you say:
1. As a relation to happen between 2 "things" there must be a change occurring to at least to one of these things as a result of that interaction-relation. No change then no relation. Right?
2. As change to happen it presupposes the ability of the variation of these "things" from the very beginning.
3.Therefore relations presupposes the "things" to have variation ability already.

Did I do my homework right? Is that your line of thinking? If yes I have to admit it is really interesting. It has surely a point and worths to be considered.

The only thing I m skeptical about is this

a relation cannot occur between the exact same thin — Daniel

I don't know if that stands as to be honest. Which in fact leads me into a doubt about your first premise.About relation and the need of change. But I can't tell for sure it is wrong either. I need to think about it.

Leaving Descartes aside. You, 180proof hold as an absolute truth your existence, your mind's existence and universe's existence too? . Do you have enough "proofs" for that or you are skeptical?
Personally I strongly do.

So it is safe to state that thinking is a phenomenon that appears in universe. That universe enables the existence of the phenomenon of thoughts. Right?

That statement for me for example is an undeniable universal truth. If that helps to make my point even clearer.

Yes, I undestand what you mean. You could also call that an "absolute reality". But see, discussions like these, based on concepts like "truth" and "reality", are like walking in a mine field. There are a lot of traps. Or like walking on ice, where you can easlily slip. — Alkis Piskas

Tottaly agree. That's why I ask for each person's individual truths cause of the exact uncertain nature of the search for absolute truths. It is a mine field indeed.

And the proof that this knowledge is subjective --i.e. there's no absolute knowledge-- is that during all that time until today and for the days to come, this knowledge has changed, is chamging and will change: new theories are added and old ones are modified or even vanish. — Alkis Piskas

It is subjective but at the end, doesn't it dig in deeper in the basic ultimate knowledge of the function of the universe. It is a limited knowledge, sure it is. But still except for humans it must represent something from the bigger picture also, no?Even a tiny percentage of it if you want.

. We can only use the word in figures of speech like "I'm absolute on that", "with absolute certainty", "I have absolute faith on him" and so on. The more examples come to my mind, the more silly they sound to me! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

Yeah I got what you mean. But don't stick so much to the word itself. Just wanted to emphasize things that someone thinks that are undeniable facts about the function of universe.

Yeah but despite human existence or not,universe has to have a function no? Well that function has to work in some way. Right? Not necessarily have purpose at all, but there must be still a function.
That function remains the same despite if there are humans or any kind of thinking existence as to observe it . It was there even before human species appear to Earth.
That is what I would call the absolute truth for universe. If we were ever able to fully understand its function. The way "it works".

I get what you mean that every thought that mind produces(like the one I just made here) is subjective to that mind itself. But imo human mind has the ability to form some crisis that can be absolute ideed.Not many at all and surely limited but still there are some I think. Such statements for example like "we humans are part of the universe" or even "universe has to have a certain function" I consider them as undeniable facts. Anyway that is the way I see it at least.

No I don't see it that way at all. Each of us has his own truths which consider them as undeniable. I don't see any harm at sharing them with others.

So you doubted you were posting your response to my post when you responded? You were unsure you were doing so--perhaps because you were uncertain you were typing on or using whatever device you used? Or is the fact you responded, and used whatever you used to do so, examples of absolute truths?

Do you doubt you're reading this, or that there is something to be read? — Ciceronianus

No I don't doubt at all to any of all these you mentioned and I wonder how you get that idea. Weird. All these though are human concepts that have nothing to do with universal function.

I just doubt that we can have any kind of certainty so far about the function of the universe. And if we ever be able to actually see the bigger picture.
All of what is stated already from the very first post of that thread.

Instinctually he knows it indeed. I agree.

Something that can't be doubted. That is an undeniable fact and can be totally sure about it. But cause such kind of truths with universal application are extremely debatable. I wanna know what each person individually consider as "absolute truths".

Fair enough. Though it could also count for an absolute truth itself

So it seems to me that, while we can't know if what our senses are producing are the reality or an illusion, we can at least be sure that there is something eluding us — Jerry

Yeah we might not know for sure what is the exact form of what is presented to us by our senses but we can be sure St least that there is "something" indeed.
The form that this something is presented to us is one of the forms indeed that it can be presented. But what other forms it can take or what is the actual form of it (if there is only one) or if there is something more in it, we can never be sure about it.

then evidence is evidence of the naturalistic role of consciousness — Pantagruel

Yet still though isn't an evidence for its universal feedback role.

Do you really think that if we're not absolutely certain about something we're uncertain about it, i.e. that we can't rely on it, that we're doubtful about it, that it's unknown? — Ciceronianus

That is the case indeed, either you like it or not.

I wonder how you live if that's the case. Are you God, or perhaps a good friend of His, to invoke absolutes? — Ciceronianus

I just try to learn how to swim into chaos.That's all. Not easy though.
Or else I would have to grab tightly from a lie, which I don't want to do so, nor developing any close relationship with God and His friends is in my plans either.