How Sure Are You?
- lbondx
- GeraldS_2
- GeraldS_2
- Dan_Ellsworth
- GeraldS_2
- Dan_Ellsworth
- GeraldS_2
- Dan_Ellsworth
- lbondx
- Dan_Ellsworth
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
» lbondx - I would like to know how you define reality. Or, if you had to p
I would like to know how you define reality. Or, if you had to prove your experience of life to be true, how would you go about it?Responses will be used for a future article under this topic. Thnx!
"In-Joy" -- Linda Bond, Physics Editor
-- posted by lbondx
» GeraldS_2 - "By convention there is color, By convention, sweetness, B
"By convention there is color,By convention, sweetness,
By convention, bitterness
But in reality there are atoms and space."
Democritus, fragment 145
I can conceive of a flight simulator which so accurately simulated force, scenery, vibrations and sounds, that a pilot, placed therein while drugged, would believe himself at the controls of a real airplane.
Or electrical impulses delivered directly to the brain via optic and other nerves, which would make a person lying on a table, to believe he was running cross country or climbing Mount Everest. After all, that is what a dream does and the dreamer mistakes it for reality.
Perhaps my brain is all there is and the balance of the cosmos simply impulses.
-- posted by GeraldS_2
» GeraldS_2 - Eternity is not endless time, but rather, the absence of time.
Eternity is not endless time, but rather, the absence of time. "Reality" is communicated to us via our senses, and we have no other method of detecting it. We decide that reality is the "norm", i. e. the conditions and environment which we perceive day after day. When those conditions or that environment is suddenly and inexplicably altered, then we say we are experiencing "unreality".Interestingly, if our bodies were the size of microbes, that same "reality" would appear very different. Or if we were so large that a planetary system appeared as an atom, again we would observe an entirely different "reality".
Our physics tells us that reality is composed of at least four dimensions, yet try as we will, we cannot imagine a fourth axis which is perpendicular to the three we know, just as that dweller in Flatland could not concieve of a third, perpendicular to the two he knew.
-- posted by GeraldS_2
» Dan_Ellsworth - Gerald - you read about Flatland too?! Great stuff - and I thin
Gerald - you read about Flatland too?! Great stuff - and I think it has affected my thinking to this day. Do you know who wrote it?Yes, I think four-dimensional effects would be as incomprehensible (miraculous?) to us as 3-D phenomena to Flatlanders. Thanks for bringing that all back to mind.
Your last paragraph in your next-to-last message - is that what they call solipsism? I've seen the idea proposed to form a Solipsism Club, but I don't know ...
[Dan walks away ... but is there really an "away"?]
Dan Ellsworth (e-mail, bio), Editor, "Christianity - Protestant"
-- posted by Dan_Ellsworth
» GeraldS_2 - Daniel, Flatland was written by Rev. Edwin A. Abbot, MA, DD abou
Daniel, Flatland was written by Rev. Edwin A. Abbot, MA, DD about 1895. I think it very interesting that this was some ten years before Einstein published Special Relativity.[Dan walks away ... but is there really an "away?"]
It brings to mind, "Go thy way Daniel, for many shall go to and fro and knowledge shall be increased.
I don't know about solopsism. Maybe look it up tomorrow.
I'll bet you wonder how I knew all about "Flatland". Well, among my musty dusty volumes I have a set of four titled "The World of Mathematics " which I purchased in 1948.
It comprises some 2500 pages and is a compendium of all sorts of math. articles directed toward the layman.
-- posted by GeraldS_2
» Dan_Ellsworth - Outstanding! Thanks for the update. *Purchased* in 1948? You
Outstanding! Thanks for the update. *Purchased* in 1948? You must not be a kid! My younger brother was *born* in 1948 - and he's not *that* much younger. There's something fascinating to me about a "DD" writing about dimensions in 1895. My own degrees are B.S. and M.Div., so let's see - what does that entitle *me* to write? (Whatever the publisher will buy, maybe.)I just checked - Linda (Remember Linda, gracious hostess at Physics Lounge?) reports a birth year of 1947, so for this niche of the Internet, it's not a kids' game. Let us toast (just lime juice in cola for me, please) our considerable years and contemplate the dimensions of reality. Gerald, can you claim seniority and offer the toast?
Dan Ellsworth (e-mail, bio), Editor, "Christianity - Protestant"
-- posted by Dan_Ellsworth
» GeraldS_2 - Daniel, I am going to be 72 in December. I have been retired fo
Daniel, I am going to be 72 in December. I have been retired for ten years. I am flabbergasted by the level of intellect and learning displayed by the editors of suite 101 but also by those offering comment. I also would have trouble filling my time were it not for this outlet.As for degrees, I regret that I am entitled to place no letters after my name. I was drafted the month I graduated from highschool and when I returned home was so unsettled that I could not study.
-- posted by GeraldS_2
» Dan_Ellsworth - You, like my oldest son, seem to provide quite a lot of mental s
You, like my oldest son, seem to provide quite a lot of mental stimulation without the formality of letters after your name. For that matter, my father, who got through 8th grade then helped on the farm, was the only dairy farmer I knew who wrote poems. So while I don't scorn degrees, I respect those who do without them.Approaching the six-dozen mark as you are, I imagine you've seen some things in history go through cycles. Thanks for the information. [Raising a glass:] To the past-50 bunch - may we be as old or young online as we need to. [Gulps the lime-and-cola.]
Dan Ellsworth (e-mail, bio), Editor, "Christianity - Protestant"
-- posted by Dan_Ellsworth
» lbondx - Just a short note here re: this thread...I have long wondered if
Just a short note here re: this thread...I have long wondered if it is possible to prove anything at all. Seems to me like our very existence must be taken "on faith" i.e. we believe in whatever system tries to tell us it is proving things.P.S. Thanks for the wonderful read so far, guys. I have to run catch a bus (and that ain't easy) but will check in again tomorrow for a more thorough taste of the menu.
"In-Joy" -- Linda Bond, Physics Editor
-- posted by lbondx
» Dan_Ellsworth - Well, Linda, I think solipsism is the belief that there's nothin
Well, Linda, I think solipsism is the belief that there's nothing outside my own head - that you, Gerald, and a few billion other people and stars and trees are all a production of my brilliant imagination, but I don't realize it yet. I'm not sure how you DISprove solipsism, but then, it doesn't seem to "buy" you much. You can hardly even get a good club going around the idea.Catching a bus - that raises the same question as a dog chasing a car. What do you do with it if you *catch* it?
One phrase I heard, apparently starting from the premise that all our perceptions are subjective, is "intersubjective testability". If we subjective observers get together and test our perceptions (the phrase seems to mean), that's the best we can do. Eventually it produces a consistent enough universe that one's remaining doubt is merely formal or theoretical, not enough to make you stop going to work or loving somebody.
But absolute proof? Thaaaaat's a toughie.
Dan Ellsworth (e-mail, bio), Editor, "Christianity - Protestant"
-- posted by Dan_Ellsworth
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.