Even though the theory of relativity says that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light, why does that make it nonsensical to talk about "objective reality"? I realize that different observers must see different versions of events, but so what? In our 3+1 dimensional universe, couldn't "objective reality" be defined as the state of events at a "time slice," as though the universe had frozen at the instant chosen? Granted, we can't know what this distant objective reality is until we wait for the photons to reach us, but that doesn't make it nonsense. The supernova that occurs at a million-light year distant galaxy is objective reality, even though our subjective reality is that the supernova has not occurred. We have to wait a million years to make the discovery. Norman Samish ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----- Original Message ----- From: "danny mayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "everything list" <everything-list@eskimo.com> Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 1:55 PM Subject: [Fwd: Re: subjective reality] Fair enough. But if we accept those parameters does it make any sense to even talk about "reality."? Maybe in a philosophical sense, but certainly not in a scientific sense as by (your) definition objective reality, the only reality you say, is forever separated from what it is possible for us to experience, or to know. Therefore, in contemplating objective reality, we might as well be contemplating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. In a way you are certainly right, but in another way I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about objective reality either. For instance, under the theory of relativity different observers can observe the same events happening in alternative sequences, and happening at different times. Yet neither observer is wrong. So, for example in that event you can not speak of an objective sequence of events or time. And of course we are all aware of the role the observer plays in the development of quantum events. It seems to me that the observer is so intimately entagled with the reality of what he is observing that it makes just as little sense to talk about objective reality as it does subjective. However, this is not to say I do not believe in something like an objective reality; a way in which our world works that can be understood and studied and applies to all observers. But by the same token I believe in the concept of a subjective reality as complementary to that and as something with meaning. Danny Mayes John M wrote: >Dear Bruno, you (and as I guess: others, too) use the >subject phrase. Does it make sense? >Reality is supposed to be something independent from >our personal manipulations (=1st person >interpretation) and so it has got to be objective, >untouched by our experience and emotions. Eo ipso it >is not subjective. >Once we 'subject' it to our personal 'mind' and its >own distortions it is "subjective", not objective >anymore. >So it looks like "subjective reality" is an oxymoron. > >I understand if you (all) use the phrase as the >'imagined' and 'acceptable' version of something we >CAN handle in our feeble minds. I would not call THAT >a 'reality'. It seems to be a 'virtuality' as >generated (even if only in modifications if you >insist) WITHIN our mind, subject to our personal >mental structure and content. > >I am not ashamed to say: I dunno, but it seems to >me... >in wich case I separated 'it' from any 'reality'. > >John M >(the bartender, talking into the patrons' discussion) > > > > > > -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.2/65 - Release Date: 8/7/2005
