The Great Divide

1. 59

   A.Villarasaposted 12 years ago

   I firmly subscribe to Decarte's formulation: I think therefore I am. Some folks on Hubpages argue against this by saying: I am therefore I think.
   
   The idea that objective entities exist outside of the mind, have been found to be false from empirical evidence obtained from investigations of the inner mechanics of quantum physics (sub-atomic).
   
   In the much wider cosmic world , the same holds true....that for an obective reality to exist, it must be perceived and intepreted by an observer (sentient mind).

   replyreport
   1. 86

      WryLiltposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I exist to make others question, whether I agree with the outcome or not.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         @Wrylit:
         
         You may agree or disagree with the premise of the questions others make, but answers obviously matters. The simple fact  is, it  is in the answers(what you term outcomes) that  you , and  others,  make judgement on whether  you or the person answering is making honest  evaluations or observations  of the premise.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            WryLiltposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Actually, as long as you aren't psychotic or a sociopath, I don't care.
            
            As the Wiccans say, do what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone.
            
            If you want to be a satanist, dance under the moon and eat nothing but vegies, that's fine. As long as you do it because you think it's right, not because your parents/pastor/friend does.

            replyreport
   2. 58

      Mike Marksposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      hey A. Villara, long time since we communicated, almost two yeares I think, always loved how your profile photo resembles a monk in the woods.  When your page elements assemble onto my computer screen (in the context of your quantum hub, we ay say when your particles collapse to be an object in my perception) it doesn't list your amount of followers, yet I know you been around a while and have followers, am I missing a site button that allows us to hide followers?  Anyway, this hub was straight and top the point.  I might differ abit when you say quantum theory suggests there is no objective entities outside of the mind in regards to how we are using our terms (Socrates), in this case mind.  I get the impression you mean "your" mind, "my" mind, individuals' mind(s).  Quantum theory also suggests that "space" is an illusion (regarding "entanglement and such) so there is no inside or outside of varying minds.  Buddhism and such suggest the single Mind, Big Mind, or the Diamond, the hardest thing there is yet transparent and able to morph the light of the one into many points of view in the shape(s) of its facets.  I relate binary code, 1s and 0s, to the same duality as darkness and light, yin and yang, and so on, information built held and processed by the particles, atoms or otherwise behaving as such dualistic code relative to one anothers variances, that compose  this universe, one cluster of code being you, one cluster being me, as we experience our sentience onto ourselves relative to everything else we do not identify as part of our own body while it is all part of our body, and from that position we access the information contained in other clusters, whether our method of access be thinking, dreaming, feeling, perceiving, meditating praying or otherwise, some of the information heard like a voice in our heads, other information experience like a world around us.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         @Mike:
         
         Nice to hear from you again.
         
         The perplexities and complexities of quantum mechanics leaves me ....bothered and bewildered. The most that I know about it is from reading expositions by astrophysicists whose language is to say the least totally Greek to me.
         
         Having said that, it seems that  the sub-atomic (protons, electrons, quarks, bosons etc.)  realm may net necessarily follow or obey the laws of physics(the natural laws) that we know operate and rule the much larger cosmic world. One concept that Stepehen Hawking and his cohorts have put forward is, at least in the sub-atomic level, objective entities and events that sorround these entities change just by being observed... thus the reality of their existence is observer-dependent.
         Rene Descarte's philosophic view ( I think therefore I am.... or put another way, I observe/perceive, thus I,  you  and the universe are, i.e., exist)seemed to be validated by observations in the sub-atomic level.
         
         I believe fully in the reality  of Unity in Duality, not just in some kind of binary system, but true singularity  and synchronicity. However we divide the natural world in opposing polarities, at the end of the day, we are all ONE continuous field of Energy, that emanated from that one great source of energy... the Eternal One.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I can only conclude then that you don't have any understanding of quantum field theory?
            
            
            
            Actually, they do follow the laws of physics.
            
            
            
            There is no evidence of "ONE continuous field of Energy" as you describe, whatsoever, in quantum field theory or the laws of physics.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               @TM:
               
               And you do?
               
               I would be so happy  then if you could elucidate me on the inner/outer workings of quantum field theory.

               replyreport
   3. 83

      pennyofheavenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Makes sense to me

      replyreport
      1. 59

         A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         @Penny:
         
         The universe might exist but the reality of its existence can not be established as fact unless and until sentient beings with their perceiving, observing, and interpreting minds confirm that it exist.
         
         Logically, one could say that existence for the sake of existing is futility of the highest order.... an absurdity so compelling that it far out-absurds the absurdity of someone's teacup orbiting Saturn. But that is the kind of absurdity some Objectivists on HubPages would have us believe that is, that the reality of objective existence is the sine qua non of the universe, NOT the presence of sentient entities.
         
         Leaving aside the subject of the existence of physical/material reality....what about the  existence of non-material reality? Some argue that this topic should be left to philosophers, theoreticians, theologists, and the like to debate, but the rest of us, must make known our own beliefs and  express them honestly and vigorously. Again some folka on HubPages have played the role of devil's advocate based mostly on Ego. Now, that is the highest for of dishonesty and despicable at its core.

         replyreport
         1. 71

            ptosisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I am despicable and dishonest because my big fat ego just wants to be noticed? Man - that's harsh!
            
            Vlatko Vedral wrote in his book, "A theological position close to the Popperian philosophy of science is known as the Via Negativa, a view apparently held by the Cappadocian Fathers of the fourth century who based their whole world view on questions that could not be answered. For example, while they believed in God, they did not believe that God exists."
            
            So being a "devil's advocate" I agree is like the court jester - a buffoon that says silly things. But just like in modern brainstorming, allowing crazy/stupid ideas to be expressed so that the useless can be discarded only sharpens the debate. To make the expression of your convictions even more crystal clearer via my stupid sayings. Hate the stupid sayings - not the stupid person.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               @ptosis:
               
               The line about  how despicable it is to argue both sides of an issue that is being debated, was not specifically directed at you.pu

               replyreport
   4. 75

      Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      So for you, trees don't make sounds when they fall in the woods if you're not there?

      replyreport
      1. 78

         psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Actually that one I can agree with, because vibrations in the air only become sound when they hit an auditory apparatus.

         replyreport
         1. 75

            Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            To me that seems to dodge it with semantics. You agree that the physics takes place when the tree hits;  you just don't agree that we can use the word "sound" to describe what that physics is. That is because the word sound is a human construct, a sequence of spoken notes (sound symbols) or of physical symbols drawn onto something and meant to convey the idea of the physical processes that you admit take place when a tree falls.
            
            Which is just a long, roundabout way of saying, "I can't hear it if I'm not there." That doesn't mean it didn't happen, which is the point I'm looking to get at when I asked the OP my question. I'm curious if he, or you, think that when a tree falls in the woods, does it still make a "series of vibrations" as required by the laws of physics even if no one is there?

            replyreport
            1. 59

               A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               @shadesbreath:
               
               Would the universe "exist" if there was no sentient entity to perceive, observe and interpret that it exist? It might... but from whose perspective?
               
               If for argument's sake, the universe was created by God...then He is the only one who knows that his creation exist. So what?
               
               From my purely human rationalization, what good is that creation if He is the only one who knows that it exist. Doesn't  it make  human sense for God to create sentient beings to share in the perception, observation and interpretation of His creation?

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  It might if he had not made humans subject to requiring oxygen to survive and a capacity for visiting any part of His creation we wished. But, He didn't. Instead, He made is such that not only are we shackled to this planet due to biological requirements and made all the galaxies move away from each other making it that much more difficult to perceive observe and interpret His creation.
                  
                  In other words, I don't buy it.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     @TM:
                     
                     You obviously believe in evolution and the evolutionary process that  is subject to the laws of nature.  The fossil record shows that man was not created in one smooth swoop, but intermittently.....the hominid specie being subjected to the evolutionary demands of its immediate environment so his need for oxygen and his being shackled to earthly existence were all mandated by the laws of nature. Now galaxies moving away from each other, has nothing to do with man's ability to perceive and interpret the physical universe.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        No, I don't "believe" in them, I understand them. Huge difference.
                        
                        
                        
                        In other words, our reality is showing us our existence is a result of the laws of nature. Gee, why didn't I think of that?
                        
                        
                        
                        Sure, it does, how are we to travel to those galaxies to study them when they're all moving away from us at huge velocities?

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           @TM:
                           
                           Well is the Milky Way Galaxy, of which earth is but a small dot,  not big enough for you to explore?
                           
                           Surprise, surprise...so you don't believe in creationism, and you don't believe in evolution... so what do you believe in? I guess nothing but your overweening ego.

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              It's merely one galaxy amongst billions. And, unfortunately, if we were to fall back on your beliefs, God made it such that we can't even explore our own galaxy, let alone any others.
                              
                              
                              
                              Exactly. Beliefs are for those who have no understanding.

                              replyreport
               2. 75

                  Shadesbreathposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I think your first two points are fine. I think the last part, where you stayed with the God you created "for argument's sake" and then invoke "purely human rationalization" and "doesn't it make human sense" that you jump off of logic and into... something squishy I guess.
                  
                  As you said in your second part up there, about only God knows his creation exists. You concluded: Who cares.
                  
                  I think that is the same reply that all that stuff in your last section should get. If God's opinion or awareness of his creation is a "who cares" item, then so to is "human rationalization" about it. What makes sense to a human has nothing to do with whether the universe exits or not.
                  
                  1. The universe could exist and we don't know about it: who cares.
                  2. The universe could not exist and we only think it does: who cares.
                  3. The universe could not exists and we don't think it does either: again, who cares.
                  4. The universe could exists and we do know about it: still who cares.
                  
                  The answer to all of those rhetorical bits of "who cares" is: Just us. And, by your reasoning, if God doesn't matter, we certainly don't. If God does matter, than you have invoked an entirely different conversation than the one you started with.
                  
                  God aside, whatever actually constitutes "reality" in those four scenarios is unaffected by our perspective. The ontological status of the universe is not subject to us, only the epistemological status of it is. And that usually becomes big cumbersome displays of language that, in the end, changes nothing about the actual status of the universe—at least not that we know. And even if it does, "who cares."

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     @shadesbreath:
                     
                     My knowledge (epistemology) of the nature of existence (ontology) is based on the physiologic cerebral processes that leads to my perception and interpretation of what are immediately inferred by my 5 physical senses. That is what O would term experiential knowledge. My empirical knowledge comes from my being informed by fellow humans of the results of  their investigations into the nature of existence mainly through experimentation, but also through conceptualization.
                     My rhetorical question so what is not ontologically or epistemologically equivalent to your rhetorical question, who
                     cares.

                     replyreport
               3. 71

                  ptosisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I think you are stuck on sentient and if there is no sentient being then the tree makes no sound because there is no sentient being there to hear it.
                  
                  If you are correct, that in fact "it does take a sentient being for something to exist" then you are living in a point like universe and everybody responding to you in this forum are mere figments of your imagination!
                  
                  If you are correct that there wasn't anything before a sentient being observed it then no DNA, no radioactivity, no chemical/ biological processes, no electrons, or anything else existed until observed in the last 100 years of discovery. And furthermore, Thor existed and really did throw his hammer down to make lightening because sentient beings explained this is how lightening work. There really were witches who could change into animals, werewolves, vampires, yeti. But they are now extinct or 'endangered species' because (in your present world view), sentient beings have different and improved explanations of such observed phenomena.
                  
                  It's one thing to argue with yourself but when your imaginary friends are winning - that a sign of true insanity.
                  
                  
                  
                  
                  BTW your consciousness is  a consensus of voices like in the movie matrix but the architect is still one of your own voices. But what would really suck is realizing that you are one of the imaginary friends of an insane person as in the movie Identity.
                  
                  

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     @ptosis:
                     
                     I did not say that it takes a sentient being to exist...what I said was for objective/material objects to factually exist they must first be observed, then interpreted by the mind of a sentient being. Obviously, from empirical knowledge, we realize that objective reality existed way before sentient beings made their appearance on earth...but that is after the fact. Before these sentient beings perceived and  interpreted what was inferred by their 5 physical senses, the factuality or reality of material objects could not be established as factual.
                     
                     The Matrix is not real life and to equate what happens in a sci-fi movie with reality is obfuscation at its most delusiona.

                     replyreport
                     1. 71

                        ptosisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        From http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/200 … ality.html
                        "There's a lot of confusion over what the term "observer" means in this context. Many have interpreted it to mean conscious observer, when that's really not quite the case. In quantum mechanics, when one thing comes into contact with another - e.g. two particles - that interaction counts as observation. Whether or not the "observer" is conscious makes no difference. A person, a rock and a photon are all the same in this regard."
                        
                        
                        Movies such as the Matrix may not be real but are a reflection of the human drama and that's why they are so entertaining.
                        
                        I am listening to the audio book: The Age of Entanglement: When Quantum Physics Was Reborn by Louisa Gilder. It is a book about conversations throughout the decades and how the big brains struggled with the craziness of Quantum Physics and what we are discussing here. It even hurt Einstein's brain to think about it! I think it's a struggle for all of us as to what the nature of reality is.
                        
                        
                        
                        EPR, (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument in Quantum Theory) = observer independence which lost out in debate with Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation that there is no observer independent reality. Einstein thought that Bohr's description was like the story of the blind men and the elephant. Cameron says, "...we are all connected, how we are all One Being that perpetuates an illusion of separate individual beings."
                        
                        

                        replyreport
      2. 59

         A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         @shadesbreath:
         
         The last time I checked you and I are not the only sentient beings on earth...but to answer your question, if a tree fell and made a sound on hitting the ground, them from my perspective the event did not happen, sound beimh irrelevant to my non-perception, non-observation and  non-interpretation of the tree falling.

         replyreport
2. 71

   ptosisposted 12 years ago

   
   
   Dualism first proposed by Rene Descartes is wrong. Neuroscience and quantum consciousness is still unknown. Understand that a single photon can be at two places at the same time tested repeatedly by the double beam splitter experiment.
   
   
   Doesn't have to be a sentient being to observe, merely interaction with the environment  is a type of measurement.
   
   Kinda like although an individual gas particle movement is random, can predict a massive amount of gas properties. Out of chaos: determinism.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      Mike Marksposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      actually my feeble mind is more bewildered by... how the heck do you post graphics inside a comment?  Enlighten me on that one please...

      replyreport
      1. 71

         ptosisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         That's easy! If want the full size picture instead of using the camera button during your post just type in the image brackets like this:
         [img]Your picture http url location here[/img]
         
         If want small pic can use the camera button to import at anytime within your post - doesn't have to be the last thing on your post. The difference is that by using the camera button - the picture is registered under 'My pictures' for future use @ hubpages, when using the img brackets - the pic will not be imported.
         
         Also if do not want to repost entire post when replying, click the import quote and can edit by using the 3 dots, ' ... ' that shows it's a partial quote.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            Mike Marksposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            hope you don't mind A.Villarasa, I'll only try following above instructions just this once to see if it works...  [img]D:\web projects\acryllicpaintingcom2012\meditating popping open moon-.jp[/img]    or 

            replyreport
            1. 58

               Mike Marksposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               ok, didn't work... now I reckon I'll look for that camera button you mentioned... thanx

               replyreport
            2. 71

               ptosisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               no, no, right click on  image and copy image location, not the web page itself.
               http://d2tq98mqfjyz2l.cloudfront.net/im … 789503.jpg
               
               & it won't work coming from a file in you PC - it has to be 'out there' in webWorld
               
               
               
               Can upload from your PC with the camera button which is on the bottom of the post box where you type in you post right next to "formatting' which tells you how to do bold/underline, etc. - something I didn't know until just now
               Hey! You taught me something just by helping you

               replyreport
               1. 58

                  Mike Marksposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  http://d2tq98mqfjyz2l.cloudfront.net/im … 761031.jpg

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     Mike Marksposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     

                     replyreport
                     1. 58

                        Mike Marksposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        

                        replyreport
                        1. 58

                           Mike Marksposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           success!  Thanx for the help ptosis... and forgive me Villarasa for using your space to learn this lesson.  I'm gonna go now and try my new trick out on Facebook.

                           replyreport
                           1. 71

                              ptosisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Hubpages is using the square brackets[your stuff here] and regular html uses  < your stuff here>

                              replyreport
   2. 59

      A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      @ptosis:
      
      It takes a sentient being to perceive, observe,  interpret and yes measure physical/material reality, The "environment " being able to measure a physical reality  just does not come close to a living,  thinking entity measuring the same material reality. So please don't degrade sentient beings to the level of so called" environment"... for all we know it was these same sentient beings that put that "environment" to begin with that  is now able to measure that material reality.

      replyreport
3. 78

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   "The idea that objective entities exist outside of the mind, have been found to be false from empirical evidence obtained from investigations of the inner mechanics of quantum physics (sub-atomic)."
   
   Um.  I do not think that data means what you think it means.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      @psycheskinner:
      
      So what did the data show and how was it interpreted by Hawking?

      replyreport
      1. 78

         psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         To be sure you would have to specify the data in question. 
         
         To my knowledge nothing in mainstream physical, new or old, would support the claim made.

         replyreport
4. 71

   ptosisposted 12 years ago

   Deafening silence out there.
   
   I would suggest to anybody about questions such as these to read  - or better yet listen to the audio book :
   
   
   The Age of Entanglement: When Quantum Physics Was Reborn by Louisa Gilder
   It is a book about conversations throughout the decades and how the big brains  struggled with the craziness of Quantum Physics. It also cleared up a bunch of weirdness as to the word 'entanglement' that Schrödinger  used in English but in German is more of a 'cross-linked'
   
   It even hurt Einstein's brain to think about it!
   
   
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 59

      A.Villarasaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      @ptosis:
      
      Nothing new about  what you are saying... the universe is weird as weird can be. Is that weirdness a  function of  something (or someone)  more than what   the complexities and perplexities of quantum mechanics would lead us to believe.....  something that could not easily be invoked by our limited  abilites to perceive?

      replyreport
      1. 71

         ptosisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         ++++++++

         replyreport