Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 144 of 144
Like Tree14Likes

Thread: Can there be a reality in the absence of observer ?

  1. #101  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,502
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    While the observation of the universe does involve an observer, it does not follow that the universe does not exist without an observer.
    Thank you John, that is exactly what I was trying to say.

    I accept my way of expressing it was inappropriate and I apologise. And I renew my vow to stay out of the philosophy forum in future ...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    70;401109]
    Possibly there would be a day when first person observed moon, It does not mean moon 's age started from that day.
    What if there is a moon that nobody can see. It doesn't exert any gravitational pull, so it can't be detected indirectly, either. Does it exist?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    While the observation of the universe does involve an observer, it does not follow that the universe does not exist without an observer.
    Thank you John, that is exactly what I was trying to say. I accept my way of expressing it was inappropriate and I apologise. And I renew my vow to stay out of the philosophy forum in future ...
    . Strange:- please don't desert the philosophy forum. We all make mistakes including me. We learn from it & move ahead.( Only 'matter'- 'nature' does not err. Just a joke ). Your contributions to my thread has been very useful. So, once again, don't abandon, if possible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ_K View Post
    70;401109]
    Possibly there would be a day when first person observed moon, It does not mean moon 's age started from that day.
    What if there is a moon that nobody can see. It doesn't exert any gravitational pull, so it can't be detected indirectly, either. Does it exist?
    It seems that would depend on how one defines the meaning of "existence".

    This thread is certainly in the correct subforum. Psychologically and philosophically speaking, nothing exists unless it is perceived. Perception does not require direct observation. But scientifically speaking, reality is objective and requires no observer.Scientifically, Reality and existence are tangible testable things that can be measured by non-sentient devices.But psychologically, philosophically, in the human mind, reality is whatever the mind can perceive and pretty much only what the mind can perceive. This is why beliefs can be so strong. IMO, I think scientists (not to imply that no scientist possesses untestable beliefs) are generally more humble in the sense that they acknowledge the impreciseness of human perceptions and so they do not trust the natural senses they possess, knowing that emotions, egos, and hormones can corrupt the intake and interpretation of data.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    What if there is a moon that nobody can see. It doesn't exert any gravitational pull, so it can't be detected indirectly, either. Does it exist?
    If it doesn't exert any gravitational pull does it exist?
    It's easy to formulate spurious questions by redefining things to suit yourself.
    What sort of "moon" doesn't exert gravitational pull?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    What if there is a moon that nobody can see. It doesn't exert any gravitational pull, so it can't be detected indirectly, either. Does it exist?
    If it doesn't exert any gravitational pull does it exist?
    It's easy to formulate spurious questions by redefining things to suit yourself.
    What sort of "moon" doesn't exert gravitational pull?
    It's a hypothetical moon. It would require a hypothetical sixth sense to detect, which no one currently possesses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,502
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Strange:- please don't desert the philosophy forum.
    I'm sorry. I have a very low opinion of what passes for "philosophy" here. Discussions of solipsism and equivalent empty ideas as if they were somehow clever or profound. Didn't we all grow out of that at school?

    The universe was created 3 seconds ago and just made to look 13 billion years old. <giggle>
    The world doesn't exist when I fall asleep. <oooh>
    If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one ... <yawn ... zzz>
    Maybe we are just figments of some alien imagination <*retch*>
    But you can't prove me wrong <smack!>
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Strange:- please don't desert the philosophy forum.
    I'm sorry. I have a very low opinion of what passes for "philosophy" here. Discussions of solipsism and equivalent empty ideas as if they were somehow clever or profound. Didn't we all grow out of that at school?

    The universe was created 3 seconds ago and just made to look 13 billion years old. <giggle>
    The world doesn't exist when I fall asleep. <oooh>
    If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one ... <yawn ... zzz>
    Maybe we are just figments of some alien imagination <*retch*>
    But you can't prove me wrong <smack!>
    I'm sorry, Strange, I didn't realize I made you feel sick. I know you weren't implicating anyone but I make stupid remarks like that all the time. Usually intending to lighten the mood and never intending to be taken seriously. Humans are stupid strange, relax and learn how to laugh at them. It does help cope with knowing you are a member of a relatively stupid species.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It's a hypothetical moon. It would require a hypothetical sixth sense to detect, which no one currently possesses.
    Er, okay.
    It's easy to formulate spurious questions by defining things to suit yourself.
    IF something is completely undetectable and has no influence whatsoever on anything then, for all intents and purposes it may as well not exist.
    Which is NOT the same as does not exist.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Strange:- please don't desert the philosophy forum.
    I'm sorry. I have a very low opinion of what passes for "philosophy" here. Discussions of solipsism and equivalent empty ideas as if they were somehow clever or profound. Didn't we all grow out of that at school?The universe was created 3 seconds ago and just made to look 13 billion years old. The world doesn't exist when I fall asleep. If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one ... Maybe we are just figments of some alien imagination But you can't prove me wrong
    . Strange :- Thank you for your response . Let me explain. I came on this forum in the spirit of learning about this baffling universe of our's from people wiser than me, hoping to gain knowledge beyond that offered by science & religion. Hence I sent you a friendly note. Now it is up to you what you want to do. Thanks once again. It was nice communicating with you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It's a hypothetical moon. It would require a hypothetical sixth sense to detect, which no one currently possesses.
    Er, okay.
    It's easy to formulate spurious questions by defining things to suit yourself.
    IF something is completely undetectable and has no influence whatsoever on anything then, for all intents and purposes it may as well not exist.
    Which is NOT the same as does not exist.
    I see. Then you are agnostic as to the existence of the invisible moon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,502
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    I'm sorry, Strange, I didn't realize I made you feel sick.
    Nooooo! Not only was I not having a go at you (or anyone specifically) but I haven't even caught up with all the posts in this discussion.

    In fact, your:
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Can there be an observer in the absence of reality?.....
    Is a succinct refutation of the original question. If reality depended on us observing it, then we could never come into existence in order to become observers and make reality exist ...

    Of course we can't prove that there is an objective reality that exists when we do not observe it. But it is far simpler (Occam's razor, anyone?) to assume it does, than to assume the universe magically sprang into existence, fully-formed when the first sentient creature opened its eyes. This raises so many difficult questions that the idea is just not sustainable.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,502
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Strange :- Thank you for your response . Let me explain. I came on this forum in the spirit of learning about this baffling universe of our's from people wiser than me, hoping to gain knowledge beyond that offered by science & religion.
    There is not much to be learned by debating things that, by definition, can never have any evidence either way. You just go round in pointless circles, not learning anything new.

    It is not clear that religion can tell you anything useful about the universe either, as every religion seems to have a very different view on things. I'm not sure how that is better than just making up your own version of events.

    Science on the other hand... now there is an effective way of gathering and testing information.
    RAJ_K likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I see. Then you are agnostic as to the existence of the invisible moon.
    More accurately I'm an agnostic amoonist.
    But I fail to see the point of your diversion.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,659
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    hoping to gain knowledge beyond that offered by science & religion.
    Intriguing.
    What knowledge do you gain from religion?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Strange :- Thank you for your response . Let me explain. I came on this forum in the spirit of learning about this baffling universe of our's from people wiser than me, hoping to gain knowledge beyond that offered by science & religion.
    There is not much to be learned by debating things that, by definition, can never have any evidence either way. You just go round in pointless circles, not learning anything new.It is not clear that religion can tell you anything useful about the universe either, as every religion seems to have a very different view on things. I'm not sure how that is better than just making up your own version of events.Science on the other hand... now there is an effective way of gathering and testing information.
    O.K. Thank you. Wish you all the best.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    While the observation of the universe does involve an observer, it does not follow that the universe does not exist without an observer.
    Thank you John, that is exactly what I was trying to say.

    I accept my way of expressing it was inappropriate and I apologise. And I renew my vow to stay out of the philosophy forum in future ...
    So in what forum for inappropriate ways of expression will you be found?
    Isnt it better to remain in here to sharpen up your expressing abilities?
    Before you release them on an unsuspecting environment?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    [. But it is far simpler (Occam's razor, anyone?) to assume it does, than to assume the universe magically sprang into existence, fully-formed when the first sentient creature opened its eyes. This raises so many difficult questions that the idea is just not sustainable.
    If you reflect on it, you may see that structurally that is no different from the Argument from Incredulity, which we berate forum neophytes and cranks for using. I hope it is clear I am in no way suggesting you are either. Rather, I think it is too easy to slip into habits of thoughts and pathways that have proved productive in the past, until they become surprisingly akin to well entrenched dogma. A value of philosophy, in my opinion, is to be able to examine those practices logically and in novel ways, and thus - perhaps - to avoid the trap.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,502
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    If you reflect on it, you may see that structurally that is no different from the Argument from Incredulity, which we berate forum neophytes and cranks for using.
    Good point. I think the difference is that, within science, there is normally evidence that favours one view over another. The argument from incredulity just rejects this evidence because it "doesn't make sense".

    In this and similarly discussions there is no evidence either way. So one can choose either position based purely on personal preference, religious inclination, simplicity, incredulity, etc.

    Choosing the "no objective reality" option seems to me to raise a series of questions that need to be answered. Choosing the objective reality option doesn't (or, if it does, no one have pointed them out yet).

    Rather, I think it is too easy to slip into habits of thoughts and pathways that have proved productive in the past, until they become surprisingly akin to well entrenched dogma. A value of philosophy, in my opinion, is to be able to examine those practices logically and in novel ways, and thus - perhaps - to avoid the trap.
    I agree. I have often taken the "that's obviously nonsense" position only to have people point out that it is a lot more subtle/complicated than I thought (even if, at root, it is still nonsense ).
    Last edited by Strange; March 12th, 2013 at 06:42 AM. Reason: clarification
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    It's a hypothetical moon. It would require a hypothetical sixth sense to detect, which no one currently possesses.
    Er, okay.
    It's easy to formulate spurious questions by defining things to suit yourself.
    IF something is completely undetectable and has no influence whatsoever on anything then, for all intents and purposes it may as well not exist.
    Which is NOT the same as does not exist.
    I see. Then you are agnostic as to the existence of the invisible moon.
    But Im not! There is a fundamental principle:
    0 No ridiculous statement is true!
    Proof?
    1 It is itself a ridiculous statement
    2 therefore it is not true
    3 but so it warns
    4 Then its not so ridiculous after all
    5 it might then be a true principle
    6 but no principle can be proven true
    7 aint that ridiculous?
    8 so it really is a true principle!?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    [. But it is far simpler (Occam's razor, anyone?) to assume it does, than to assume the universe magically sprang into existence, fully-formed when the first sentient creature opened its eyes. This raises so many difficult questions that the idea is just not sustainable.
    If you reflect on it, you may see that structurally that is no different from the Argument from Incredulity, which we berate forum neophytes and cranks for using. I hope it is clear I am in no way suggesting you are either. Rather, I think it is too easy to slip into habits of thoughts and pathways that have proved productive in the past, until they become surprisingly akin to well entrenched dogma. A value of philosophy, in my opinion, is to be able to examine those practices logically and in novel ways, and thus - perhaps - to avoid the trap.
    I like your statement!
    In addition to Occams razor there are other "razors", one is the Paranoid Argument: If it might be a threat, then its true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,502
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    In addition to Occams razor there are other "razors", one is the Paranoid Argument: If it might be a threat, then its true.
    Is there any reason to consider that a valid argument? Why are things that are a threat more likely to be true.

    For example:

    Proposition: there is a mad axe-wielding maniac standing behind me.
    Paranoid Argument: it would be a threat therefore it must be true.
    Reality: I turn round and there is no one there.

    Which should I believe, reality or the paranoid argument?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    There is not much to be learned by debating things that, by definition, can never have any evidence either way. You just go round in pointless circles, not learning anything new..
    An interesting statement! Do you have evidence for it either way? Will we learn anything new by examining it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    It is not clear that religion can tell you anything useful about the universe either, as every religion seems to have a very different view on things. I'm not sure how that is better than just making up your own version of events..
    It surely is better to make your own version because that is creative work!

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    Science on the other hand... now there is an effective way of gathering and testing information.
    Not that I doubt it but how come you are sure about it?
    And what is "information"? How does it differ from prejudice?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    In addition to Occams razor there are other "razors", one is the Paranoid Argument: If it might be a threat, then its true.
    Is there any reason to consider that a valid argument? Why are things that are a threat more likely to be true.For example:Proposition: there is a mad axe-wielding maniac standing behind me.Paranoid Argument: it would be a threat therefore it must be true.Reality: I turn round and there is no one there.Which should I believe, reality or the paranoid argument?
    When I pointed it out I felt that I perhaps should advice some moderation in using it...but i decided against it because when you decide on a question that has no proof either way you use a set of principles, not just one, and you balance them against each other. So what the PA tells you to do is to turn to look! Not to disbelieve your eyes. This is in contrast to the principle of ridicule saying: Ridiculous! I dont have to turn and look. What perhaps decides the matter is a principle of economy: If it is expensive and time consuming dont do it!Whats behind the PA really is economy since you dont want to risk loosing whats valuable to you!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,502
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Science on the other hand... now there is an effective way of gathering and testing information.
    Not that I doubt it but how come you are sure about it?
    And what is "information"? How does it differ from prejudice?
    As a boring, pragmatic engineer (*) I base that view on the fact that science is productive: we get useful/usable results from it. Technological advance is based on science not religion, philosophy or prejudice.

    (*) Engineering, at least in my field, has a lot in common with the scientific method: rigorous testing, objective measures, peer review, etc.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Science on the other hand... now there is an effective way of gathering and testing information.
    Not that I doubt it but how come you are sure about it? And what is "information"? How does it differ from prejudice?
    As a boring, pragmatic engineer (*) I base that view on the fact that science is productive: we get useful/usable results from it. Technological advance is based on science not religion, philosophy or prejudice.(*) Engineering, at least in my field, has a lot in common with the scientific method: rigorous testing, objective measures, peer review, etc.
    Aha! You contrast against religion? No! Thats uninteresting. Leave it out of the picture until its needed for some purpose. I was more interested in how you percieve and describe things, but I think youre communicative enough: You are an engineer and in your experience Scientific methods yields results. But why do you claim that technological advance is not based on philosophy?I will tease you some by claiming its a prejudice you got from your profession!And that you should seek philosophical help!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,502
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    But why do you claim that technological advance is not based on philosophy?
    Can you name a technology that was developed based on philosophy? (unless you are going to include science as a branch of philosophy)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    186
    Yes. However, the act of observation is equally as real as anything else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    But why do you claim that technological advance is not based on philosophy?
    Can you name a technology that was developed based on philosophy? (unless you are going to include science as a branch of philosophy)
    Look carefully at what I have written... I did claim that science is a philosophy.
    (But I never used the concept of branches!)
    It seems ppl think I claim the opposite: that philosophy is a science, but I dont.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Parametric View Post
    Yes. However, the act of observation is equally as real as anything else.
    I find your view somewhat risky:
    Some acts are not events...
    Not to act is also an act,
    but an act adding no difference to the event.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Some words have meaning that is applicable and other words have meaning in the absence of context and these are generally posts by Sigurd.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    But why do you claim that technological advance is not based on philosophy?
    Can you name a technology that was developed based on philosophy? (unless you are going to include science as a branch of philosophy)
    Look carefully at what I have written... I did claim that science is a philosophy. (But I never used the concept of branches!) It seems ppl think I claim the opposite: that philosophy is a science, but I dont.
    Wonderful. I have to learn from you how to survive on philosophy forum. Thank you & wonderful once again.
    sigurdV likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Parametric View Post
    Yes. However, the act of observation is equally as real as anything else.
    I find your view somewhat risky: Some acts are not events...Not to act is also an act,but an act adding no difference to the event.
    I am expelled to say once again:' wonderful'. You are brilliant. Thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Some words have meaning that is applicable and other words have meaning in the absence of context and these are generally posts by Sigurd.
    Good work! You took an important first step towards enlightment.

    No objekt exists in isolation it is always part of some context. And the object is itself a context of what is inside it.
    This interior was originally a part of the objects whole undivided outside context but since the interior is an object relative its closest context it has through the object status a degree of freedom from its ultimate context...

    I advised you to watch my two clocks, hade you done so this explanation would perhaps not be needed:

    Each clock is as an object the context for its inside time. The stationary clock shows the same time as the room we are standing in watching the clocks because its interior is at rest relative the room...

    But the spinning clock shows a different time from the stationary: the spinning clock shows the time passed in the interior of the spinning clock not the time the clock has spent in the room.

    So any object, be it mental or material , can experience two distinct times.... the time within which it can be observed as an object and the time meanwhile passed in its inside.
    You dont understand meaning in the absence of context? Well... Sorry, but that needs wisdom John!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    But why do you claim that technological advance is not based on philosophy?
    Can you name a technology that was developed based on philosophy? (unless you are going to include science as a branch of philosophy)
    Look carefully at what I have written... I did claim that science is a philosophy. (But I never used the concept of branches!) It seems ppl think I claim the opposite: that philosophy is a science, but I dont.
    Wonderful. I have to learn from you how to survive on philosophy forum. Thank you & wonderful once again.
    Thank you for those kind words.
    They give my words a meaning that was not there before.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    hoping to gain knowledge beyond that offered by science & religion.
    Intriguing.
    What knowledge do you gain from religion?
    Intriguing.
    1 What if you treat every religious statement as a question you should give your own answer to?
    2 What if there is a difference between religious understanding and religious feeling?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    alternate question...Can there be an observer in the absence of reality?.....
    Thanks for raising this beautiful question. I would dare to answer. 'Observer' even in absence of an external 'observed' item can be & is an 'observer' because it is an aware being & thus is aware of the 'self ' & this 'self aware' "self" ' of the observer posseses an inner world of feelings & emotions whose ups & downs it observes. I am submitting this answer with no other motive but only to learn from people wiser than me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,659
    Which doesn't address the question.
    Absent reality how can there be an observer?
    Is a fictional observer valid as an observer?
    What observation can a non-existant observer make?
    How aware can one be if one is not real?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    i'm such a trouble maker
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    i'm such a trouble maker
    No, you are not. You asked a very a beautiful question & it made me think. Thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    715
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    alternate question...Can there be an observer in the absence of reality?.....
    Thanks for raising this beautiful question. I would dare to answer. 'Observer' even in absence of an external 'observed' item can be & is an 'observer' because it is an aware being & thus is aware of the 'self ' & this 'self aware' "self" ' of the observer posseses an inner world of feelings & emotions whose ups & downs it observes. I am submitting this answer with no other motive but only to learn from people wiser than me.
    Very observative! You understand something I was going to tell you in my own words.
    I already did that elsewhere for you to find. But I see now that it was not necessary.
    So here is what I think is an abstraction of what you see. Maybe it gives you a new view:

    1 To be is to be an x such that x=x.
    (Condition for existence.)
    2 To be in time (And in some other contexts.) is to be an x such that x="x".
    (Condition for continuity.)

    Take an extreme example:
    1 Nothing must be whatever it is, so it exists!
    (First condition verified.)

    Then why dont we find it?
    2 Because it is not a name of itself.
    (Second condition denied.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by raj_k View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdv View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by raj_k View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdv View Post
    here is an example: Write on a paper "this paper is not in the waste basket".The words are true... Rright? Now: Throw it in the wastebasket and what happens?
    What do you want to show about reasons by upon words ?If one thing is at one position now, with time its position can change is this meaning it has no position at any moment because it change position
    it means that for every moment its position is final reason for the meaning it has in that moment.
    If the position is different in two different moments then the meanings might be different.
    If we cannot understand this simple example together, then what other reason can we understand?
    "if the position is different in two different moments then the meaning might be different "meaning might be different but this does not show that reasons change .At first moment there are reasons. On second moment other reasons if "reasons" on second moment change this does not make any effect on "reasons " on first moment.Meaning may be different reasons may be different for other moments.But meaning and reasons for particular moment would remain same even after 100 years .If paper is on table at 7:00am at 8:00am we through it neither meaning would cBetterhange nor reasons for "7:00 am"even next day reasons and meaning for previous 7:00am would be same
    Good but not better.
    You think:"meaning might be different"
    SORRY! It cant be so!
    IF you think it is IS!
    Then you look at wrong meaning!

    There is original meaning together with its new position.
    They are two of the reasons for the meaning in the moment
    Reality is tricky. Like a stage Magician.
    You let them decieve you? You dont look carefully I think...

    Or perhaps not long enough... Only you can tell...
    We do not agree how meaning is: If you CAN understand this.
    You CAN understand more: How can I tell if You understand or not?

    By your answer to my question! But you dont give it... WHY?
    You give instead another question...WHY?
    Will you do so now again?
    Then Wise Men Smile

    By my own free will
    and because someone said I am brilliant
    (So he deserves a present
    but he has to search for it!)
    I will break a promise
    and now explain:

    1 To be is to be an example of this rule: x=x
    We can call it the condition for being.
    2 To be free and in time you are an example of this rule: x="x"
    We can call it the condition for communication.
    3 If both conditions is the case for x then...

    I change my mind: You have to guess
    what I was going to say!
    It is more subjective question not object oriented


    I am not able to give answer as difficult to understand and other may give answer

    But my quesions are very simple and I hope you understand but do not give answer

    Give answer ,describe logic behind this question
    and show what facts this question show
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    INDIA
    Posts
    548
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by raj_k View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdv View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by raj_k View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdv View Post
    here
    is an example: Write on a paper "this paper is not in the waste
    basket".The words are true... Rright? Now: Throw it in the wastebasket
    and what happens?
    What do you want to show about reasons by upon
    words ?If one thing is at one position now, with time its position can
    change is this meaning it has no position at any moment because it
    change position
    <br>
    it means that for every moment its position is final reason for the meaning it has in that moment. <br>
    If the position is different in two different moments then the meanings might be different.<br>
    If we cannot understand this simple example together, then what other
    reason can we understand?
    "if the position is different in two
    different moments then the meaning might be different "meaning might be
    different but this does not show that reasons change .At first moment
    there are reasons. On second moment other reasons if "reasons" on second
    moment change this does not make any effect on "reasons " on first
    moment.Meaning may be different reasons may be different for other
    moments.But meaning and reasons for particular moment would remain same
    even after 100 years .If paper is on table at 7:00am at 8:00am we
    through it neither meaning would cBetterhange nor reasons for "7:00
    am"even next day reasons and meaning for previous 7:00am would be
    same
    Good but not better. <br>
    You think:"meaning might be different"<br>
    SORRY! It cant be so!<br>
    IF you think it is IS!<br>
    Then you look at wrong meaning!<br>
    <br>
    There is original meaning together with its new position.<br>
    They are two of the reasons for the meaning in the moment <br>
    Reality is tricky. Like a stage Magician. <br>
    You let them decieve you? You dont look carefully I think...<br>
    <br>
    Or perhaps not long enough... Only you can tell... <br>
    We do not agree how meaning is: If you CAN understand this. <br>
    You CAN understand more: How can I tell if You understand or not? <br>
    <br>
    By your answer to my question! But you dont give it... WHY? <br>
    You give instead another question...WHY? <br>
    Will you do so now again?<br>
    Then Wise Men Smile <img src="http://www.thescienceforum.com/images/smilies/wink.png" alt="" title="Wink" class="inlineimg" border="0"> <br>
    <br>
    By my own free will <br>
    and because someone said I am brilliant <br>
    (So he deserves a present<br>
    but he has to search for it!)<br>
    I will break a promise<br>
    and now explain:<br>
    <br>
    1 To be is to be an example of this rule: x=x<br>
    We can call it the condition for being.<br>
    2 To be free and in time you are an example of this rule: x="x"<br>
    We can call it the condition for communication.<br>
    3 If both conditions is the case for x then...<br>
    <br>
    I change my mind: You have to guess <br>
    what I was going to say!
    <br><br>It is more subjective question not object oriented <br><br><br>I am not able to give answer as difficult to understand&nbsp; and other may give answer <br><br>But my quesions are very simple and I hope you understand but do not give answer <br><br>Give answer ,describe logic behind this question <br>and show what facts this question show
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by sigurdV View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chandragupta View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    alternate question...Can there be an observer in the absence of reality?.....
    Thanks for raising this beautiful question. I would dare to answer. 'Observer' even in absence of an external 'observed' item can be & is an 'observer' because it is an aware being & thus is aware of the 'self ' & this 'self aware' "self" ' of the observer posseses an inner world of feelings & emotions whose ups & downs it observes. I am submitting this answer with no other motive but only to learn from people wiser than me.
    Very observative! You understand something I was going to tell you in my own words. I already did that elsewhere for you to find. But I see now that it was not necessary. So here is what I think is an abstraction of what you see. Maybe it gives you a new view:1 To be is to be an x such that x=x.(Condition for existence.)2 To be in time (And in some other contexts.) is to be an x such that x="x".(Condition for continuity.)Take an extreme example: 1 Nothing must be whatever it is, so it exists!(First condition verified.)Then why dont we find it?2 Because it is not a name of itself.(Second condition denied.)
    Thank you. I hope you would not be too disappointed in me because of my admission that I could not comprehend the deep meaning of your post. Would it be too much of a bother for you to explain the meaning of your post which is at the level of my stupid intellect. I thank you once again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 13
    Last Post: October 12th, 2013, 09:05 PM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: January 28th, 2013, 05:11 PM
  3. the inner judge/observer
    By geordief in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: October 4th, 2011, 05:20 AM
  4. Back after a long absence
    By southern_firestorm in forum Introductions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 13th, 2008, 05:53 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •