In one sense Orn we could rewrite what you say in terms of the theory- ladenness of observations. I'd much rather not, but I'm very uneasy with knowing-all as I generally experience people claiming such a state to even be ignorant of the claim. Not you mon vieux, though I am disappointed with watching modes arise and so on.
On 25 Mar, 14:38, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > And, lest we forget, to know reality, that which perceives reality > must be known too...and, for those who say we are our thoughts and our > thoughts are but biochemical etc. (only materialistic in > nature)....the leap from such a state of 'being' to one of knowing all > of reality is rather large. > > On Mar 25, 5:58 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > School probably taught you that an atom looks like a tiny solar > > system. You'd be wrong, but never fear: researchers have engineered an > > atom that looks just like you think it should. When the atomic > > nucleus was discovered a century ago, the solar system analogy was > > obvious. The nucleus's mass and charge would force electrons to circle > > it, just as the sun's gravity holds orbiting planets. Quantum > > mechanics maintained that electrons would smear out over large areas > > of space. We can now trap electrons and make them parade around a > > nucleus. Lagrange points - regions of space where gravity from > > different sources cancels out were the inspiration. They achieved a > > similar effect with an electron by using microwaves to counteract the > > force of the nucleus. This created an electron pocket like a Lagrange > > point, which they guided around the nucleus by rotating the microwave > > source (Physical Review Letters, vol 102, p 103001). Thus we can make > > quantum systems rather classical. Work like this does not rely on the > > ancient thinking of features of appearance, though the word topology > > is in vogue. We now question reality and expect it to provide answers > > in miraculous experiments, sometimes that can only be conducted in > > thought, and language that sometimes escapes shorthand terms like time > > and space. There is time in science, relating to rods and clocks in > > event horizon, and observation states of observers in event horizon > > temperature and so on. There is a difference between these > > considerations of what we understand and take to be and someone > > thinking he knows the train is late (though in the UK we all get to > > feel that!). Considerable Platonic dispute remains in science on > > whether there is a reality beyond appearance. > > On 25 Mar, 12:17, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > One can, of course, perceive the reality of an illusion - perhaps the > > > 'notwithSATANding' above! > > > > On 25 Mar, 09:26, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > What the topic raises ( uh, umpteen time ! ) is that, while the " > > > > thing i.e.reality " is never in doubt, we yet do not know what it is. > > > > What it appears, in experience or science, is only what we see, > > > > believe, surmise or establish ( on concrete consequential evidence, > > > > too ), is just that : appearance. > > > > > For most of us, this appearance of reality is adequate. Very, very few > > > > refuse to rest at that ; they want to know the reality, as it is, not > > > > as it appears, believability notwithsatanding. > > > > > Yes, KC, Space and Time is what we understand, define and take it to > > > > be. They are a part or, more exactly, features of the " appearance." > > > > > On Mar 25, 12:14 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > That's really only the start of the argument Craig, though a sensible > > > > > introduction that assumes a circular form rather too quickly. Most > > > > > arguments like this 'return to the subject', yet within subjectivity > > > > > we then insist on objectivity - relativity insisting that it describes > > > > > space-time everywhere and so on. Actor-network theory (for instance) > > > > > claims to be ontologically relativist and epistemologically empiricist > > > > > - which is not a statement of there being no reality apart from space- > > > > > time, but rather one that allows speculation on the nature of reality > > > > > under rules of evidence. In principle, legal systems operate in a > > > > > similar matter, being led to conclusion by evidence (though in reality > > > > > they are often really a mess of lies and human interests- that is > > > > > ideological). Modern relativism has reached a conclusion a bit like > > > > > yours in that it believes the reality hypothesis is implicit in its > > > > > reasoning, questioning what appears the inevitable theory-ladenness of > > > > > observations. I suspect we would often agree on what the evidence in > > > > > a case is, assuming we could get some reliable investigation done - > > > > > that is we assume there is common ground and crucial evidence. It > > > > > could be interesting here to compare a criminal case with the > > > > > scientific case that we live in a world that is a shadow of reality. > > > > > > On 25 Mar, 02:36, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Reality is a word that has meaning. Where did that meaning come > > > > > > from? Hasn't it come from our experience? What kind of experience > > > > > > could we have other than an experience in space and time? There is > > > > > > no > > > > > > reality apart from space and time. They are implicit in the very > > > > > > notion of reality.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
