Cool thread, newbie. |
|
Most everything I know about these concepts I learned from Wikipedia, so I'll point you in that direction rather than try and come up with detailed explanations myself. As I understand it, here's the TL;DR version: |
|
Last edited by Toch; 12-08-2011 at 10:48 AM.
Cool thread, newbie. |
|
Quantum Immortality does not mean we're actually physically existing in multiple dimensions at the same time. Consider Chaos Theory. The physical requirements to exist create a range of possible manifestations. Which one is actualized depends upon Chaos. |
|
Last edited by nina; 12-10-2011 at 02:03 AM.
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
But really, how can you say anything about reality but with what you, as an individual among eclectic phenomena, experience? If this all somehow really sums up to 'nothing', it's still a part of existence. |
|
Last edited by Wayfaerer; 12-09-2011 at 11:25 PM.
Modal Realism is the concept that everything that exists is within our minds and not in objective reality. We make it up as we go, visualizing the universe. It is a distinct view from solipsism which believe everything is literally just in our heads. I'm talking more about the function of manifestation. But like i said before, I won't bother explaining it to someone who won't listen in the first place. |
|
Last edited by nina; 12-10-2011 at 02:05 AM.
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
Modal realism: I don't think we can ignore the human experience and somehow call it fake or an illusion, not completely anyway. |
|
Last edited by nina; 12-10-2011 at 02:06 AM.
Not really. This concept is very difficult to articulate. Basically wave functions aren't working with anything real, it's all just waves and these waves are dependent upon an observer to function. This means that there is no matter, there is no atom, there is nothing but wave-functions enabled by perception. These wave functions are not created by an averaging of different perceptions. The actualized is still created mostly out of chaos theory. If you buy into the power of Intention, you still have to realize that intention has to battle chaos and will take on the details chaos gives it. (You also have to realize that desire is not the same as expectation) |
|
Last edited by Omnis Dei; 12-09-2011 at 11:36 PM.
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
I didn't really get any solid points from that. |
|
Perception is default to existence from this point of view because nothing exists in universes without perception to actualize it. But nothing doesn't mean nothing. It really just means infinite potential. There is no something and no nothing. There's a stage and that which can be seen upon the stage, but these two are not distinct. The something that can be seen upon the stage is not actually anything more than a project of the viewer against void. Void is not black. Void takes on absolutely no qualities and is therefore impossible to view without viewing stuff first in order to account for the change. |
|
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
Alright, I think I'm just gonna stick to science for now. If what your saying starts to be supported mathematically, I'll give it more consideration then. |
|
I think he's saying that the wavefunctions aren't describing the possibilities of any specific thing, they're just wavefunctions somehow, which I don't understand either. |
|
Last edited by Wayfaerer; 12-10-2011 at 12:17 AM.
I understand this standpoint completely. Much like my extra dimension thread, I'm trying to articulate something that, in my normal state of mind, is completely beyond my capabilities. But I find your attitude that something requires numerical values to be true to be a little dismissive. One can use thought experiments to determine a rational version of reality and it can also make sense where as abstract math cannot be comprehended conceptually. |
|
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
I just need a stronger structure to build my views of what is closest to reality than ideas. Imagining thought experiments are what open up the ways to finer scrutiny, but in themselves are not enough. Mathematics are what actually crystallize the ideas into something beautiful and convincing. |
|
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
When ideas work out mathematically, it's not just reciting something we already knew, it's discovering which idea most closely describes how the world works with experimentally quantitative proof. Thinking you already know how existence works is very premature in my view, let alone knowing it without such quantitative guidance. |
|
Last edited by Wayfaerer; 12-10-2011 at 01:20 AM.
I honestly don't know how the world works but one thing I do know is that I'm not really concerned with objective truth or true information. I agree that mathematically proven ideas are most solid and can be relied upon more effectively than ideas not relative to mathematical proof. But what I'm saying is figuring out how the measure shit does not mean you're seeing anything as it actually is. It doesn't change your perception unless you coincide it with thought experiments that allow you to relate it to perception. I am looking for the widest possible perception/awareness, the one which encompasses the most possible truth in the moment. So far I have not seen a mathematician articulate more wisdom than an average person. Except maybe Niels Bohr, but he would side with me on this one. |
|
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
Why would you say that? He was a living manifestation of my side... |
|
I was going with the Urban Legend though I think it was ascribed to him in the first place because of his character. He did originate the quote "You're not thinking, you're just being logical." |
|
Last edited by Omnis Dei; 12-10-2011 at 02:11 AM.
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
Cleaned up some off-topic junk, keep it respectful guys. |
|
I think there are some misconceptions here that impel me to explain a little more about what modal realism is, and why I find it convincing (with one important exception). |
|
I may have misunderstood the argument, but I don't see how one goes from "we can describe a world in which conscious things exist" to "those conscious things really do exist." There are no people living in that world to feel conscious. It's hypothetical. For them to really be conscious, they would need to have physical brains. Why do modal realists think a description of consciousness implies actual consciousness? |
|
Last edited by Dianeva; 12-10-2011 at 12:55 PM.
We have to be careful when using terms such as "actual" and "real" in a conversation such as this. As Wikipedia says, modal realism says that |
|
Unless our perception can observe its body die. |
|
Everything works out in the end, sometimes even badly.
Bookmarks