Reality (General)

by David Turell , Tuesday, November 12, 2019, 15:41 (1837 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 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.

dhw: You do not understand me. My point is that you are proposing two forms of reality: one material and one immaterial. Quantum mechanics can only deal with material reality, and the behaviour of material particles appears to contradict the material reality represented by the bus. In my view, it is absurd to argue that the incomprehensible behaviour of individual particles of matter is more real than the comprehensible behaviour of the masses of particles that make up the bus. You have added a different form of reality: an immaterial God in the form of pure energy, hiding behind the quantum wall of uncertainty. My point is that I find it impossible to draw any such conclusions concerning a subject about which we know nothing.

When we get down to the basis of reality we bump into the unreality of quantum actions by the weirdness of what the particles do. You are simply refusing to accept what quantum scientists discover. Why do you try to ignore it and call it a separate reality? We live in one reality even if we cannot interpret what we study contained in one universe.

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.

DAVID: 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: So you believe that the incomprehensible behaviour of individual particles is more real than the bus. I shan’t invite you to take the usual test.

See my comment above. Feynman said shut up and calculate. Accept it is there without understanding it, because the calculations work!

DAVID: 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.

dhw: Thank you for repeating my argument: the bus is real, and the problem is the incomprehensible behaviour of the individual particles. But you regard the incomprehensible behaviour of the particles as being more real than the bus. Of course sitting on the fence does not solve the problem: I sit on the fence BECAUSE the problem has not been solved! I have absolutely no problem, however, with the conclusion that consciousness is at play in our reality: we agreed long ago that we cannot “know” what objective reality is because all our perceptions of it are subjective, i.e. images created by our consciousness. But as I keep saying, the fact that our perceptions are subjective does not mean that what we perceive is not objectively real. Hence the bus test.

And I object to the bus which is simply in our reality, and the analogy explains nothing. The particles create our reality, but as humans we are driven to try to understand how that happens. Why shut your mind to the problem of incomprehensibility? Perhaps understanding God's method will help us understand God.