Agreed, Gabby, but here are the questions : 01 Presumably, you've seen a ghost. How are you sure, it does not consist of something(s), even if other than flesh and bones ?
02 There are flesh and bones, and there is I. How do you equate the two ? Clue : I " consist " of the mind in the dream - state, and of nothing in deep sleep - state. I, then, know nothing of flesh and bones ! 03 Ergo : What am I ? The intelligibility of your post draws my appreciation. On Mar 26, 4:25 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > A ghost is an appearance whereas I bet that you, Vam, consist of flesh > and bones. > > On 26 Mrz., 11:58, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > " I am calling the world of our experience, with our natural senses, > > the real." > > > That is, the real is what is seen, sensed, perceived ... what appears. > > Right, KC ! > > > Then, in view of everyday usage, what is difference between " > > appearance " and " reality ?" > > > On Mar 26, 8:47 am, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Neil, > > > My only point is this. We have had the word "real" and "reality" in > > > our language in one form or another, long before we began thinking > > > about what lay beyond the world of our experience. I am calling the > > > world of our experience, with our natural senses, the real. Isn't > > > that the most common use of the word real? When we say something is a > > > fantasy, we mean that it isn't apart of the world of our natural > > > senses. It exists soley in the subjective mind. When we say > > > something is real we seem to be implying that the object is perceived > > > through senses other than pure thought, and can be discussed through > > > language because of the common perception that we all have. > > > So why do we then question if what we normally call real is really > > > real? Its real because that's what we call it. That's what we've > > > always called it. We could call it blue, or cat, or thingy ma bob, > > > but in the end, we all know what we're talking about. The formal word > > > we use is irrelevent. So the way I've defined real above is, what I > > > think, the conventional use of the word. > > > By saying this though, I'm not saying that a discussion on Quantum > > > Mechanics, and metaphysics, and everything else isn't important. I'm > > > just questioning conflating that with the conventional words "real" or > > > "reality". Lets call it something else so as not to equivocate. Or > > > we can say those things are a part of reality, but lets not lose sight > > > of the whole. > > > > On Mar 25, 5:03 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > There already is a lot of precision with language in the area Craig > > > > (just remember how hard the logical positivists tried). Reality is > > > > often held to be 'somewhere else' and there are all kinds of > > > > measurement problems - the Copenhagen one that has been tossed out to > > > > the layman being relatively uninteresting to scientists. There are > > > > many competing views. Science is often more concerned not to let the > > > > Idols skew decent thinking or prevent experiment than with words - > > > > thinking just really ain't about language, but then comes the point of > > > > discussion with others and so on. The danger then is that people > > > > outside your field don't know enough of your specialist language-games > > > > to understand what you are on about. 'Reality' as a term bobs around > > > > in many language-games - it would be a mistake to pin it to one > > > > definition, and it's probably a mistake to conflate the reality in > > > > someone's head to the real - we are surely aware of something beyond > > > > unless we have gone mad. Sooner or later we end up with a gadget or > > > > concept that crosses boundaries, and as Pat says, sooner or later > > > > science may all lapse to dross. If it happens next wek I hope I give > > > > it up more gracefully than those dolts who cling to religion! > > > > > On 25 Mar, 18:05, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > What is it about relativity and quantum mechanics that causes so much > > > > > trouble? > > > > > > I think it comes down to this: > > > > > > Relativity: In classical physics there is an image of what is at any > > > > > given point in time. Given two observers one can then use the physics > > > > > to predict what the results of their observations will be. However, > > > > > relativity breaks this concept down. There is no "what is at a given > > > > > point in time" rather the image that one must use to predict what one > > > > > will see is relative to the frame of reference meaning it is different > > > > > for two people who are moving relative to each other.. So if you ask > > > > > the question "What is right now?" the relativist will answer "relative > > > > > to which frame of reference?" Once you know what frame of reference > > > > > you are talking about then you know which image to use and you can > > > > > predict what observers will observe. > > > > > > Now this property of the theory causes many to equivocate it with > > > > > philosophical relativism. The claim can be made that the fact that > > > > > there is no answer to the question "What is right now?" means that > > > > > philosophical relativism is correct where the term philosophical > > > > > relativism means roughly that what is real is relative to the > > > > > perceiver and there is nothing tying different perceiver's perceptions > > > > > together. Several aspects of the scientific theory however causes this > > > > > equivocation to be false: First, the total set of events that occur is > > > > > the same for all observers. It is just when and where things occur > > > > > that is relative not whether and what occurs. Second, the way the sets > > > > > are arranged is not arbitrary. There are transformation equations > > > > > that, given one set of pictures corresponding to the nows of a frame > > > > > of reference, will allow me to produce any other observers pictures. > > > > > Third, by conceiving of the reality in a four dimensional space with > > > > > an appropriate metric one can, through a process of projection that is > > > > > very similiar to the way classical physics projects reality onto > > > > > observers, determine the "presents" of all frames of reference. > > > > > Fourth, relativity preserves the possibility of causality. Fifth, for > > > > > a given frame of reference all observers have the same set of nows and > > > > > the process of observation is like in classical physics. Sixth for all > > > > > frames of reference the observations are the same at collocated > > > > > points. No one disagrees about what is observed only how to arrange > > > > > that into a series of images that represent time by means of > > > > > calculations. > > > > > > Quantum Mechanics: The problem here is with the wave particle duality. > > > > > Prior to quantum mechanics there was a clear image of "what was" at > > > > > any given time. Either light was a wave or it was a particle. There > > > > > was no doubt that it could be both because they are not the same > > > > > thing. Everyone knew reality had to be in some imaginable way. Quantum > > > > > mechanics however does not state that there is some particular > > > > > objective image that constitutes the way things are. Quantum mechanics > > > > > does this by assuming that there are waves the amplitude of which > > > > > predict the probability of appearing of a particle. There is nothing > > > > > other than this probability of appearing in the theory that would > > > > > correspond to an image of "what really is". Due to the nature of waves > > > > > there are inherent uncertainties in what can be predicted. The > > > > > observation of the location of a particle results in complete > > > > > uncertainty about its motion and that uncertainty cannot be eliminated > > > > > by more careful observation-it is inherent in the reality. However, > > > > > again this cannot be equated with philosophical relativism since the > > > > > reality (here the actual appearings that really do appear at the > > > > > probabilities predicted by the theory) are the same for all observers > > > > > and again objectivity in the sense of something being the same for > > > > > everybody is preserved. > > > > > > It seems to me that the "objective" world of science is preserved > > > > > therefore and relativity and quantum cannot be equated with > > > > > relativism. The real philosophical issues therefore arise equally in > > > > > both classical and modern physics. The fact is that physical reality > > > > > is not determinable logically. One cannot derive physical law without > > > > > observation. Therefore it is dependent on observation. However, the > > > > > fact is that when observation is conducted then the laws of physics > > > > > that result are remarkably stable. They result to an amazing degree in > > > > > constraints on the logical possibilities. Throw a baseball. Logically > > > > > it can go out from your hand five feet then stop and hover. Physically > > > > > it won't, a statement that is not absolutely certain as it is based on > > > > > observation but is still very certain given the stability of the > > > > > essent and our to date scientific experience. The mystical > > > > > interpretation of reality are all based in careful analysis of > > > > > observation itself and on the basis underneath science and really are > > > > > about the foundation of science itself. The scientific theories do not > > > > > speak to it and the questions being asked are not scientific > > > > > questions. On the other side, mystical insight can frequently be > > > > > misinterpreted as science and you have the mistakes that can be seen > > > > > in "New Age" fundamentalism. > > > > > > So the net effect is to just eliminate naive objectivity in which one > > > > > imagines the world as a bunch of little marbles or as a wave continuum > > > > > or something. Still there is a description of a reality that allows > > > > > one to make predictions about future appearances - admittedly with > > > > > some uncertainty due to quantum mechanics. And these theories have > > > > > existential implications given our incarnate nature and the > > > > > possibility of death. > > > > > > Science does not lead to philosophical relativism and leaves open all > > > > > of the work necessary underneath the physical theories to determine > > > > > their meaning. The philosophical issues remain open > > ... > > read more »- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
