posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 01:53 AM
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by HillbillyHippie1
That isn't a valid hypothesis at all. She had clearly observed the fruit bowl many times throughout the day. Therefore she was
consciously aware of it's existence and it's presence would have been determined absolutely by her status as an observer. To state it would suddenly
disappear once it had been determined to exist is absurd.
Might I suggest you experienced something which can be explained by quantum physics? You experienced Schrodinger's Cat (google it if you've
never heard of it). For a moment the fruit bowl was both there and not there, until you became consciously aware that it was not there (the role of
the observer in physics, see: the Copenhagen Interpretation), after which the fruit bowl's position in time and space had been measured so it
Indeed, I must clarify my last response. I assume (and I hope) that you are basing your accusation on the Laws of Thought, which I greatly respect,
but the Law of Non-contradiction, of which you speak, suffers from the FACT that it stems from the very first law, which is purely subjective... That
law is: "I exist."
If one is to base all of there logical thought on a purely subjective statement how can they then turn around and claim the objective is the "only"
truth or reality? The axiom is "I exist", not "I am told I exist and I also know/believe I exist."
There is no such thing as rational thought., and therefore the absurd, without acceptance of the Laws of Thought. The three primary being: I exist,
I am capable of knowing, and A cannot equal what is not A. Well, A does not equal what is not A if the subjective one who is defining A has not yet
measured or observed it in an objective reality such as Schrodinger's Cat suggests, which is that there is the subjective reality and the objective
reality, or the cat is both dead and alive until measured.
If my hypothesis were absurd I would have contradicted the Laws of Thought, but I did not, and it is far from absurd, but rather a perfect example of
exactly what Schrodinger's Cat is surmising (at least if you step outside of a truly "assumed" box of there only being an objective reality in all
time and space).