Quantum reality and Idealism

[Pahansiri]

I have prooved it. I've proved it to myself. How else would we be able to ascertain anything if we couldn't see if for ourselves?

Forget about science because science can only present us with evidence. It's still up to "you" to decide what that evidence means.

I have prooved it. I've proved it to myself. How else would we be able to ascertain anything if we couldn't see if for ourselves?

I am sure you mean “proven” .

Well if you have proven it to yourself just present us with the facts you used to convince yourself.

You have made a statement of fact, now stop back peddling and prove it. If it is just a statement of belief I respect you believe it.

But a statement of fact means you have the burden of proof.

Forget about science because science can only present us with evidence.

Now that statement speaks for itself. LoL.


No science is about seeking truth not assuming something is the truth then setting out to make things seem to ( to you) support your unproven assumption.

Science as I do not fear truth nor being wrong it seeks only truth.

If you really believe that science has not prove to be fact anything you are well beyond hope.

It's still up to "you" to decide what that evidence means.

The evidence when it is shown to be complete and working fact means the means the evidence is fact, truth.

You have only assumptions, desires, beliefs. I respect you believe what you will but you are a discussion board demanding truth you offer none and offer only silly meaningless statements and back peddling.

Discussion means an mature respectful exchange of ideas, supported by fact or logical conclusion.

But as I have said to our friend lifegazer,I know this will fall on deaf ears.

You do not seek truth, knowledge or wisdom. You have made up your mind that something is true and will as you have seek to use any fact known, unknown, true not true or half true to support your assumptions.

For me to go forward is fruitless as I do not seek to change anyone not do not have that powers as no one has over another.

What I seek is a respectful, logical and mature exchange of ideas at this time in your life for many reasons it is clear IMO you are not seeking or capable of.

For this reason I bid you with great respect to always be well and happy my new friend.

 

[Mercutio]

That's nonsense, since it implies the existence of language before the awareness of sensation. Language is constructed, by reason, upon the experiences that are qualia.

Why don't you tell me what your philosophy is and then I can proceed to destroy it?

I have told you where you can read it. You obviously have not as yet, as I have already addressed your objection, at length, in that thread. When you ask a question that shows me you have actually read it, I'll be here.

 

[Dancing David]

Mechanical devices are extensions of our own eyes/senses - our own minds - affecting the reality they probe. We look at the measuring device expecting to see/sense the results we created it for.

You are begining to act as though the world is real again, you are a fake monist J'acusse!

Mechanical devices are extensions of our minds?

So they exist just like the mind exists?

But you said that they don't exist.

Hamster! hamster! hamster!

 

[Dancing David]

[size=large]"We hold these truths to be self-evident."[/size]

Yes and that has what to do with quantum mechanics, it also isn't true for all cultures.

there were those who also believed that the monarchy and autocracy were the best forms of government. So they are not self evident, great poetry however.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, but why are we "separate" from Him in the first place? And why won't any of the other people on the forum acknowledge it?

As a nihilist pagan buddhist I certainly don not believe that we are seperate from god.

You are a silly, where did you get permission to speak for every one here?

 

[Pahansiri]

Yes and that has what to do with quantum mechanics, it also isn't true for all cultures.

there were those who also believed that the monarchy and autocracy were the best forms of government. So they are not self evident, great poetry however.

What he also forgets is while the founding fathers wrote"We hold these truths to be self-evident." they did not really at that time believe "ALL" men.

As you said great poetry however "self-evident." is not often self-evident."

 

[Dancing David]

Death is an illusion. Life is eternal. That was the message of the crucifixion, imo.

Self is an illusion, tere is no self in life, there certainly is no self in death.

Self is illusion, mind is illusion.

You can not point to anything and say that it is the self, you can not point to anything and say that it is mind.

You are sillies, the purpose of life is what it is, living, there is nothing other than what is.

You are two little boys looking at your sand castles and talking about how grand they are, how they will last forever. they are still sand castles.

God is laughing!

 

[Dancing David]

Machines are extensions of our own being... extensions of our own sensations. They are, in effect, extensions of the observer himself. They are created by us to give testimony of an event. So they do. But only after we observe their testimony.

Poseur, this directly contradicts your own philospophy,
ja'ccuse!

They are created by us would say that theye exist.

 

[Dancing David]

I have prooved it. I've proved it to myself. How else would we be able to ascertain anything if we couldn't see if for ourselves?

Forget about science because science can only present us with evidence. It's still up to "you" to decide what that evidence means.

Ah then you can present your evidence, although I expect other would not come to the same conclusion.
I for one would probably say that it human experience.

 

[Iacchus]

Ah then you can present your evidence, although I expect other would not come to the same conclusion.
I for one would probably say that it human experience.

Oh, so what it really boils down to is a matter of opinion then?

Can't you see that this is part of the design? And, that in order to accept it, it has to be this way?

 

[Zero]

Oh, so what it really boils down to is a matter of opinion then?

Can't you see that this is part of the design? And, that in order to accept it it has to be this way?

Well, I think it really comes down to logic: which evidence holds up, and which doesn't.

 

[Pahansiri]

Oh, so what it really boils down to is a matter of opinion then?

Can't you see that this is part of the design? And, that in order to accept it, it has to be this way?

 

[Pahansiri]

Well, I think it really comes down to logic: which evidence holds up, and which doesn't.

No NO NO. It comes down to just saying something is true and it becomes true. facts, evidence, logic truth are Irrelevant ignore the man behind the curtain.

 

[Iacchus]

No NO NO. It comes down to just saying something is true and it becomes true. facts, evidence, logic truth are Irrelevant ignore the man behind the curtain.

Open your eyes man! ... And then tell me whether it's real or not.

 

[Iacchus]

Well, I think it really comes down to logic: which evidence holds up, and which doesn't.

You still have to rely on people to "interpret" it don't you? If so, then how do you know they've interpreted it correctly?

 

[Pahansiri]

Open your eyes man! ... And then tell me whether it's real or not.

What?

is what true or not you have shown no proof of anything.

Are you drinking?

 

[Zero]

You still have to rely on people to "interpret" it don't you? If so, then how do you know they've interpreted it correctly?

How do you? The difference is, I make no claim to 'absolute truth', you and Lifegazer do. And, I don't misrepresent the honest work of others to 'prove' my assumptions.

 

[Dancing David]

Oh, so what it really boils down to is a matter of opinion then?

Can't you see that this is part of the design? And, that in order to accept it, it has to be this way?

Uh no.

I would say that semantics are at the heart of interpretaion, but belief is the heart of belief.

What you may see as evidence of god's existance, I might accept as human experience.

However, unless you are bereft of all sense, there are the things that can be verified for all humans. Which is the basis of science.

I have seen ghosts, talked with dieties, seen those posssesed,met rational people who were attacked by were-creatures, seen dead friends in dreams, invoked the spiriits of nature, but I have never seen anything like that thatw as the same as the charge on a battery and verifiable by any human being.

I think there are no super natural agents, just the marvelous power of the brain in action. Which there is a rational, non-magical explanation for every wonderful experience I have had, even when I saw a witch float across a ditch.

As a practioner of cerimonial magic, I claim that all gods, spirits and angels are just reflections of our minds. They exist only within us, and never without.

Those who believe otherwise, well they usualy decompensate and desend into madness.

 

[Dancing David]

Open your eyes man! ... And then tell me whether it's real or not.

Present your evidence and we will see if it can be replicated.

 

[Dancing David]

You still have to rely on people to "interpret" it don't you? If so, then how do you know they've interpreted it correctly?

Uh, the scientific method is very clear about the nature of evidence. determine the settings in which the events can be replicated.

H2O is always H2O, it is not a matter of opinion.

If you call H2SO4 "water" because that is your interpretation then you will get burned. The addition of the SO2 to the H2O creates a demonstrable effect, not subject to opinion.

This is even true for matters of the spirit but it is an area that people are reluctant to examine.