Reality (General)

by David Turell @, Monday, November 11, 2019, 15:49 (312 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I think quantum mechanics is the basis of reality.
DAVID: I think there was primordial energy before quanta appeared as God created the universe.

dhw: So now we have two forms of reality: one immaterial, which is your God’s reality, and one material, which is “our reality", but according to you the basis of our material reality is fuzzy, despite the unfuzzy and undisputed reality of the bus. Furthermore, you say “we don't know what is on the other side of quantum uncertainty”, which leaves your immaterialism as open to refutation as materialism (good grounds for agnosticism).

DAVID: And neither you nor I know what is on the other side of the wall of uncertainty, so how do you refute what might be over there?

dhw: I don’t refute what might be over there! You simply don’t understand the nature of agnosticism! I wrote: “And I would repeat that since, in your own words, “we don’t know what is on the other side of quantum uncertainty”, it is more reasonable to admit that we don’t know than to adopt the fixed beliefs of theists and materialists."

You do not understand me. My point is that what we do not know what is on the other side of the wall, but it is obviously the basis of our reality.

DAVID: You squabbled with Ruth Kastner as you didn't understand what she was trying to do. Remember Feynman told us no one understands quantum theory.

dhw: And since no one understands it, and no one knows what is on the other side of quantum uncertainty, I squabbled with Ruth Kastner over the claim that quantum reality is more real than the reality we think we know.

I am on Kastner's side, in view of my statement above. Our reality is not the reality of the creation through quantum mechanics..

dhw: Of course everything we consider as matter consists of tiny particles, and materialists will tell you that they and their behaviour constitute reality. However, firstly that does not mean that the fuzzy behaviour of individual particles when observed by conscious minds is more objectively “real” than the anything-but-fuzzy behaviour of particle communities such as a bus when observed (or even unobserved) by conscious minds. Secondly, although of course consciousness, ideas, thoughts, dreams, the will, aesthetics, philosophy etc. are immaterial, the issue is whether they are produced by particles or by some unknown reality “on the other side of quantum uncertainty”. You opt for an unknown reality, and so you argue on two levels, which amounts to saying that the basis of material reality is particles (which no one will dispute) but the basis of the behaviour of material reality is immaterial reality, which is wide open to dispute.

DAVID: The dispute is really your problem. The more we dig down into tiny particles the more confusing it gets. But we cannot ignore what we do not understand as you keep trying to imply.

dhw: The dispute concerning the nature of reality is the problem we are all discussing. And you have a topsy-turvy view of our positions! Since nobody knows the answers, it is you with your fixed beliefs who ignore what we do not understand. I sit on the fence because I cannot ignore what I do not understand.

You poo-poo the quantum theorists who propose strange theories by using a bus analogy that is totally off point. The bus is real, but the problem is the unreal nature of the particles that help create the bus. Feynman admitted no one understood quantum theory, which is still the case. Sitting on the fence does not solve the problem of our confusion , which is further confused by the discoveries that our consciousness influences various results. One cannot avoid the conclusion that consciousness is at play in our reality, strange as that may seem.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum