Concensus reality

Author: janesix

Posts

Total: 72
#61
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
And as far as "subjective" being exclusively "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." THIS BEGS THE QUESTION OF WHY ANYONE IS MEASURING ANYTHING AT ALL IN THE FIRST PLACE.  PERHAPS IT'S BECAUSE THEY ARE INFLUENCED BY PERSONAL FEELINGS (DESIRE FOR MONEY FOR EXAMPLE) TASTES (PERHAPS THEY ARE DRIVEN BY SOME INNATE FEELING OF CURIOSITY) OR OPINIONS (MAYBE THEY FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE KNOWING CERTAIN THINGS).

Basically, if humans are doing it, it is definitely "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions" (SUBJECTIVE).
People measure things because measurements provide useful information about reality..If reality was wholly subjective, then people would never agree on measurements, and things like houses and cars would never get build.

It's (EITHER) relative (OR) objective.  It can't be BOTH.
Yes it can be both. Relative does not mean subjective. I already explained why.

Even Helen Keller?  What if the observer was a kitten?
Yes, assuming Helen Kelly and a kitten had some means to observe.

Depending on your personal subjective goal.  Different models are sometimes more and sometimes less useful for different applications.
The problem with Ptolomy's model is that its most basic assumption, that the Sun and planets orbit the Earth, is directly contradicted by observation. The simplest such observation is that all the planets go through complete phases. This would not occur in a geocentric solar system.This does not just make Ptolomy's mode slightly less accurate that the Copernican model. It makes it flat out wrong.

Einstein did not supersede Newton in the same way. The basic assumptions of Newtonian physics are still valid; they just need adjustment to take  relativistic speeds into account. At everyday values for velocity and mass, most of Einstein's equations reduce to one of Newton's equations.




#62
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stronn
People measure things because measurements provide useful information about reality..If reality was wholly subjective, then people would never agree on measurements, and things like houses and cars would never get build.
If reality was wholly subjective... then humans would have to rigorously define Quanta.  Do we use metric or do we measure the King's foot?

If reality was wholly subjective... What's your proposed alternative?  Are you suggesting that reality is wholly objective?  Is it 50/50?

Objectivity and Subjectivity are mutually exclusive.  There's no such thing as "more objective" or "less objective".

Objectivity is by definition, Absolute.

In a purely subjective reality, terms must be negotiated in order to arrive at an inter-subjective consensus.
#63
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
If reality was wholly subjective... then humans would have to rigorously define Quanta.  Do we use metric or do we measure the King's foot?

If reality was wholly subjective... What's your proposed alternative?  Are you suggesting that reality is wholly objective?  Is it 50/50?
I suggest that reality is objective, almost by definition. Reality is the state of things as they are, not as we imagine them to be.

There is a difference, however, between being part of reality and being knowable. They may very well be aspects of reality which are unknowable to us.


#64
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@janesix
@keithprosser
@Stronn
@3RU7AL
There is a difference, however, between being part of reality and being knowable. They may very well be aspects of reality which are unknowable to us.
Uncertainty only applies to knowing speed and location simultaneously.  Each, in isolation { seperately }, can be known for any observed quanta.

We have not quantised nor quantified quanta of  gravity or quanta of dark energy.

Until we do, they remain as unknowns if they actually exist as a part of reality { Observed Time } or even indirectly associated to reality { Observed Time }.

Reality is quantised and quantifiable as an Observed Time/Frequency ergo directly related to a sine-wave { /\/\/\/ }.




#65
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stronn
I suggest that reality is objective, almost by definition. Reality is the state of things as they are, not as we imagine them to be.
Perhaps "reality is objective", HowEVer, it is impossible for a human to DESCRIBE it OBJECTIVELY.

Every statement made by humans is necessarily contaminated with sample bias and motivated by emotion and colored by opinion.
#66
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
If you are in space and a bucket of water flies by then it makes no difference if you take 'you' as stationary and the bucket moving or vice versa.

But now put a bucket of water on a turntable and spin it.  The water surface will take on a concave shape.

But if you keep bucket stationary and you go round and round it then the surface will stay flat (and you will get dizzy!).

The point is that if the bucket is moving linearly then you can't tell if it the bucket or you that is moving, but in the case of rotation you can tell if it is the bucket or you that is moving.  If it's the bucket moving then the surface is concave, if its you moving then you get dizzy.
This might not be exactly what you're looking for, but you may be interested in Mach's principle, which was a major influence on Einstein's conception of general relativity. You should also read the opening sections of Einstein's original GR review. In it, Einstein considers the relative rotational motion of two objects in "empty space," and asks whether the fact that one of them is a sphere and the other an ellipsoid is enough to declare which object is "actually rotating." Newton would have argued that the ellipsoidal shape of one was due to its absolute motion through space (though he used the bucket argument), following /u/chrisbaird's line of thought.

What Mach and Einstein tried to argue was that these local measurements only seemed to determine "absolute" motion because they ignored the motion of far-away stars, whose past interactions with the objects would have created the asymmetry between the two objects in the first place. Einstein argues that one should be able to attach a reference frame to either object, and the same laws of physics that lead to the spherical object not bulging and the distant stars being fixed would lead the ellipsoidal object to have its shape and for the distant stars to be spinning.

Unfortunately, there isn't a completely unambiguous statement of Mach's principle or of how strongly Einstein wanted versions of it to hold. It is true that you can use rotating frames in GR and all of the equations work identically to inertial frames. However, in practice, one usually solves problems by specifying things like approximately inertial frames "at infinity," which is essentially introducing regions of special inertial frames ("the fixed stars") anyways. So it's a little vague whether GR turned out how Einstein wanted it to or not. [LINK]
#67
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I'd come across Mach's principle before which is why I  posted what I did.  I think that someone - possibly you - argued that you could take either of two bodies to be at rest.  Well, you can certainly do that for linear motion but I'm not convinced that it works for rotations and orbits.  

I'm still thinking about it, but I suspect the earth orbiting the sun and the sun orbiting the earth are different.   However it's very tangential to the topic and it's a long time since I did any serious physics so I'm not interested in making an issue out of it. 
#68
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
I'd come across Mach's principle before which is why I  posted what I did.  I think that someone - possibly you - argued that you could take either of two bodies to be at rest.  Well, you can certainly do that for linear motion but I'm not convinced that it works for rotations and orbits.  
I believe spin is relative to the fabric of space-time.

If you could spin the fabric of space-time around the bucket, without moving the bucket itself, the water would behave as if the bucket had been spun.

However it's very tangential to the topic...
This is essential to and I'd even say fundamental to the topic, "Consensus Reality".

What does a universe look like without any Objective Observers or Absolute Laws?
#69
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
What does a universe look like without any Objective Observers or Absolute Laws?

Simple answer. Non-occupied space ergo a non-existent occupied space Universe and no integrity.

Even hyperdimensions { utlra-small } have integrity.

No integrity = no occupied space

No integrity = the macro-infinite non-occupied space

No integrity = infinite

Integrity = finite

Consensus reality is meaningless without more context.

Reality is based on numerical triangulatiion as 0, 3, 6, 9, 12 and is obvious to any who actually know anything about fermionic matter. Old news.

New news, is that there may exist a new hybrid catagory in addition to fermions and bosons.

Truth {integrity } over lies is similar to mind { metaphysical-1 } over matter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Uncertainty only applies to knowing speed and location simultaneously.  Each, in isolation { seperately }, can be known for any observed quanta.

We have not quantised nor quantified quanta of  gravity or quanta of dark energy.

Until we do, they remain as unknowns if they actually exist as a part of reality { Observed Time } or even indirectly associated to reality { Observed Time }.

Reality is quantised and quantifiable as an Observed Time/Frequency ergo directly related to a sine-wave { /\/\/\/ }.
#70
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stronn
Here's another example for you, Which Way is Down? [LINK]
#71
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Perhaps "reality is objective", HowEVer, it is impossible for a human to DESCRIBE it OBJECTIVELY.

Every statement made by humans is necessarily contaminated with sample bias and motivated by emotion and colored by opinion.
I never argued that humans could be perfectly objective, only that objective reality exists. Such reality exists regardless of consensus. Consensus does not define reality. Hence the thread's topic.
#72
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Stronn
Perhaps "reality is objective", HowEVer, it is impossible for a human to DESCRIBE it OBJECTIVELY.

Every statement made by humans is necessarily contaminated with sample bias and motivated by emotion and colored by opinion.
I never argued that humans could be perfectly objective, only that objective reality exists. Such reality exists regardless of consensus. Consensus does not define reality. Hence the thread's topic.
Certainly, the logical necessity (Noumenon) exists.

The key "problem" is that we can say almost nothing else about it (objective reality/Noumenon) without staggering into the wasteland of OPINION.