State of Modern Physics Now Completely Indistinguisable From Berkeleyan Idealism, page

It looks like modern physics is forcing us to the conclusion of Idealism whether we like it or not -and completely inadvertently at that.

reply to post by Ajax84

---

i have always found the world of physics to close to the world of philosophy anyway, and in the end it doesn't matter, cause either, no one will be around to observe, and or observation will ensue, and bring an all new philosophy on what we are really doing here

reply to post by Ajax84

---

Some fun ideas, but it's merely psuedo-science.

1. I think, therefore I am
2. Substance dualism is impossible
3. The mind cannot be reduced to matter

This is based on assumptions that're in fact not commonly held. One example is the comment by the philosopher. He claimed that life is strong emergence. This view means that life cannot be reduced to material things. This effectively allows the narrator to argue that the physical "substance" must have a mental property to interact with the mind. This forms the conclusion that all is mind. But anyway, it's a point that comes with humor. It's funny that so much can be concluded on so little.

It feels so contrived, I'm sorry. No disrespect. It's like a house of cards.

Why should you and I be any less or more real than a rock floating through space? When scientists say that we cannot speak discretely about the state of quantum processes before we measure something and therefore admit that some amount of locality or realism is absent, this is also an admission that EVERYTHING is subject to these rules. Not just a tree that's out in the woods that falls and nobody is there to see it. It also includes us. If a human falls in the forest and nobody is there to see it then is that human there or are they in fact non-existent until observed? I also think it's a bit prejudice against falling trees to suggest that they don't exist if not observed!

It's easy to believe what you want to believe if you cut corners. But ultimately scientists aren't allowed that luxury. That's why they can't enjoy this psuedo-science the same way we do. We can pick and choose what we want when creating our beliefs about the universe. Great life ,eh?

But in all sincertiy, no, life is not all great.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by Ajax84

---

Some fun ideas, but it's merely psuedo-science.

1. I think, therefore I am
2. Substance dualism is impossible
3. The mind cannot be reduced to matter

This is based on assumptions that're in fact not commonly held. One example is the comment by the philosopher. He claimed that life is strong emergence. This view means that life cannot be reduced to material things. This effectively allows the narrator to argue that the physical "substance" must have a mental property to interact with the mind. This forms the conclusion that all is mind. But anyway, it's a point that comes with humor. It's funny that so much can be concluded on so little.

It feels so contrived, I'm sorry. No disrespect. It's like a house of cards.

Why should you and I be any less or more real than a rock floating through space? When scientists say that we cannot speak discretely about the state of quantum processes before we measure something and therefore admit that some amount of locality or realism is absent, this is also an admission that EVERYTHING is subject to these rules. Not just a tree that's out in the woods that falls and nobody is there to see it. It also includes us. If a human falls in the forest and nobody is there to see it then is that human there or are they in fact non-existent until observed? I also think it's a bit prejudice against falling trees to suggest that they don't exist if not observed!

It's easy to believe what you want to believe if you cut corners. But ultimately scientists aren't allowed that luxury. That's why they can't enjoy this psuedo-science the same way we do. We can pick and choose what we want when creating our beliefs about the universe. Great life ,eh?

But in all sincertiy, no, life is not all great.

edit on 24-11-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

The human that falls would observe himself falling, so no... it doesn't apply.

Also nobody said the tree doesn't exist. Just that it's not "rendered" until observed.

Also, the point is -- everything NON-CONSCIOUS is only rendered in the presence of the conscious.

Why should you and I be any less or more real than a rock floating through space?

Because the rock is not alive, therefor doesn't have consciousness because it lacks "mind."

The rock is very real, but only rendered by consciousness when it's observed.

A rock cannot be an observer unless the rock had consciousness. That is the prerequisite to being able to observe.

If you think people are the same as rocks, perhaps you should reconsider.

It's also NOT pseudo-science. It's philosophy based on scientific principle.

BIG difference. Pseudo-Science is as defined;

A field, practice, or body of knowledge, when presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but demonstrably fails to meet these norms.


This was never presented as such. Just insinuated potential. Big distinction.


The implication is such that, God is a pseudonym for consciousness, and that -- before matter was "mind" therefor, material is made from the observer.

"God made us in him image" could be taken literally as we are all fragments of this supreme consciousness.

This explanation is as likely as any -- and also pretty much guarantees the existence of the supernatural as well.

reply to post by Laykilla

---

I'm glad that you feel so compelled to respond to my post. But to be frank the comparison of quantum processes to real processes is just a method for teaching laymen; it's not literal truth. If nobody looks at the moon, the moon doesn't vanish from existence. The point is to show people how the quantum world works. It's like almost all analogies, they're tools of instruction. That's all.

I still think that someone is being prejudice against falling trees. I'll take it to my death bed. Maybe I'll even preach it across the land and, if inspired by divine means, make a youtube video about it.

YYYyyyyyoooouuuuuuuuuuuuuuTUBEEEEEE. Howza!

reply to post by jonnywhite

---

It's not true until it's on youtube.

reply to post by Ajax84

---

Let's see what a scientist has to say about dopey philosophical questions, and I must say, some of the statements in that video seem extremely dopey to me:

Richard Feynman on hungry philosophers (or do we see objects or only their light)

In fact this answer could be applied to the discussion about "red" in the OP video.

sky-net made me do it. Thanks for sharing I hate you all so much.

Visual time traversal the door of m-theory:

reply to post by Arbitrageur

---

But we are just seeing the light. We use the light as evidence of what surrounds us. Acknowledging this isn't "dopey", ignoring the fact is close minded. Most people haven't even considered this thought, and it would be mind opening for them if things were described to them this way.

There's a spectrum between what's "too idealistic" to what's "too realistic". The video in this thread might go too far in one direction, but the video you posted in response goes in the exact opposite extreme, IMO of course.

reply to post by jessejamesxx

---

Sorry, but the philisophers who insisted it was only light from the steak, are no longer around to defend your position, as explained in the video.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by jessejamesxx

---

Sorry, but the philisophers who insisted it was only light from the steak, are no longer around to defend your position, as explained in the video.

But it's a fact. The light enters our eyes and our brain uses that information creating a picture of what surrounds us. I don't need a philosopher to defend that position.

Now is that ALL we see? Can we use the light to know what's going on around us? Yes. It's not one way or the other.

reply to post by Wertdagf

---

I don't think you're being fair to laymen, and not at all with the scientific community - Science will be just fine. It is fundamentally in its nature to be as objective as possible. Goofy scientists can come along and spread crap for a short while, but overall such errors will be spotted and corrected. That's the greatest feature of the Scientific Method - it self-corrects as long as people still apply logic and reason to theory and experiment.

As for laymen, the can't-or-won't-understanders, people who take fanciful notions of QM and reinforce their own preconceived notions... Really, can you blame them? Quantum Mechanics IS a very interesting field! And look around - every explanation of QM given by an expert to the public is dressed up with cool-sounding concepts. It's modern day magic to most people. And that's fine, because those who haven't spent the years studying it will have no real impact on the scientific community. Those that have spent the years, are certainly welcome to offer their input.

reply to post by Son of Will

---

Yeah but this puts poo in the hands of these mental monkeys.

Depak chopra is a perfect example. Real people are going to suffer real mental anguish because of the time and rescources they wasted on lies.

Pokemon discovered in Venezuela
  Posted 14 days ago with 47 member flags

89-Year-Old Man Develops Bladeless Bird-Friendly Wind Turbine
  Posted 11 days ago with 45 member flags

Amazing snowflake images that you have never seen before.
  Posted 14 days ago with 44 member flags

Energy Solutions THEY don\'t want you to know about
  Posted 14 days ago with 35 member flags

High speed video reveals the bizarre physics of an ordinary water droplet
  Posted 4 days ago with 32 member flags

Does this video show a working self propelled magnetic engine?
  Posted 7 days ago with 31 member flags

Viruses: alive or not?
  Posted 11 days ago with 30 member flags

NASA reveals secrets it has hidden on the Curiosity rover.
  Posted 17 days ago with 29 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: