Split from pedophile priest thread

[weed_G]

Question for the atheists- do you believe in the existence of an objective reality?

..great question sam

[Cosmic Dick]

Question for the atheists- do you believe in the existence of an objective reality?

e2a and if you do, could you suggest an explanation for the double slit experiment? because that one fair fucks about with my head

I'm not an atheist, but....

... are you suggesting that the double slit experiment is evidence of God?

Just because it fucks with your head doesn't make it unexplainable.

To me that experiment is perfectly explainable without either God or any pseudo-scientific "two-places-at-once" explanation, simple classical physics does for me.

CD

[weed_G]

it's not a trick question, you can ask it in other ways like

If there was no life in the universe ..would the universe or reality continue to exist in it's own right?

or a more popular version of the same question

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

edit2a

The possibility of unperceived existence

Main article: George Berkeley

Can something exist without being perceived? - e.g."is sound only sound if a person hears it?" The most immediate philosophical topic that the riddle introduces involves the existence of the tree (and the sound it produces) outside of human perception. If no one is around to see, hear, touch or smell the tree, how could it be said to exist? What is it to say that it exists when such an existence in unknown? George Berkeley in the 18th century developed subjective idealism, a metaphysical theory to respond to these questions, coined famously as "to be is to be perceived". Today meta-physicians are split. According to substance theory, a substance is distinct from its properties, while according to bundle theory, an object is merely its sense data. The tree will not make a sound.

Knowledge of the unobserved world

Main article: Observer effect

Can we assume the unobserved world functions the same as the observed world? - e.g., "does observation affect outcome?"

A similar question does not involve whether or not an unobserved event occurs predictably, like it occurs when it is observed. The anthropic principle suggests that the observer, just in its existence, may impose on the reality observed. However, most people, as well as scientists, assume that the observer doesn't change whether the tree-fall causes a sound or not, but this is a difficult claim to prove. However, many scientists would argue as follows, "A truly unobserved event is one which realises no effect (imparts no information) on any other (where 'other' might be e.g., human, sound-recorder or rock), it therefore can have no legacy in the present (or ongoing) wider physical universe. It may then be recognized that the unobserved event was absolutely identical to an event which did not occur at all.". Of course, the fact that the tree is known to have changed state from 'upright' to 'fallen' implies that the event must be observed to ask the question at all - even if only by the supposed deaf onlooker.

The British philosopher of science Roy Bhaskar, credited with developing critical realism has argued, in apparent reference to this riddle, that:

If men ceased to exist sound would continue to travel and heavy bodies to fall to the earth in exactly the same way, though ex hypothesi there would be no-one to know it[2]

This existence of an unobserved real is integral to Bhaskar's ontology, which contends (in opposition to the various strains of positivism which have dominated both natural and social science in the twentieth century) that 'real structures exist independently of and are often out of phase with the actual patterns of events'.[3] In social science, this has made his approach popular amongst contemporary Marxists - notably Alex Callinicos - who postulate the existence of real social forces and structures which might not always be observable[4][5][6] .

The dissimilarity between sensation and reality

Main article: Qualia

What is the difference between what something is, and how it appears? - e.g., "sound is the variation of pressure that propagates through matter as a wave"

Perhaps the most important topic the riddle offers is the division between perception of an object and how an object really is. If the tree exists outside of perception (as common sense would dictate), then it will produce sound waves. However, these sound waves will not actually sound like anything. Sound as it is mechanically understood will occur, but sound as it is understood by sensation will not occur.

This riddle illustrates John Locke's famous distinction between primary and secondary qualities. This distinction outlines which qualities are axiomatically imbibed in an object, and which qualities are ascribed to the object. That is, a red thing is not really red (that is, "red" is a secondary quality), a sweet thing is not really sweet, a sound does not actually sound like anything, but a round object is round.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest

Edited April 24, 2010 by weed_G

[sam-i-am]

... are you suggesting that the double slit experiment is evidence of God?

Just because it fucks with your head doesn't make it unexplainable.

CD

No not God, objective reality

please explain it to me.....

[Cosmic Dick]

No not God, objective reality

please explain it to me.....

double slit experiment explained mechanically.

Edited April 24, 2010 by Cosmic Dick

[weed_G]

To me that experiment is perfectly explainable

according to your link: ..I'm assuming it's referring to thee richard feynman the guy who helped develop the atomic bomb ...not exactly a slow coach in the grey matter stakes ..maybe you should email him your ideas

Feynman called it the most important experiment for understanding quantum motion,

Even Feynman failed to solve it.

[Cosmic Dick]

..maybe you should email him your ideas

My ideas?

My name is not Miles Mathis.

CD

[sam-i-am]

I'm sorry CD, I'm a bit of a simpleton. While you've read and understood it could you summarise it in layman's terms for me please, thanks

Edited April 24, 2010 by sam-i-am

[Cosmic Dick]

I'm sorry CD, I'm a bit of a simpleton. While you've read and understood it could you summarise it in layman's terms for me please, thanks

Will do... just a bit later though, I have a guest round now, so must sign off.

CD

[troy]

But he neglects to inform that children of atheists are also indoctrinated into believing there is no god, also into believing that belief in god or faith in a higher power are signs of weakness and intellectual inferiority.

We've had this debate before earlier in the thread. Its not indoctrination to tell your kinds there is no god

yes, and the argument(if you could call it that) was shot to pieces ..this sentence ' Its not indoctrination to tell your kinds there is no god ' is oxymoronic to say the least ..are you sure you have not been indoctrinated troy?

Please re read the thread you missed the point and look up indoctrination. thanks

[weed_G]

the thread is about atheism and belief ..just cos you don't understand, or see how it ties-in doesn't make it off topic .

[Boojum]

we have no other choice but to express ourselves via language, with its inherent limitations.

Not so.

There are alternatives like not expressing ourselves at all, often very expressive in itself.

And then there is the language of love and good works.

To demonstrate the love in practical ways, says more about a person's faith than a library of books or a pulpit full of recorded sermons.

Is organisation always good? I'm not sure it is, in the spiritual realm. Where material things are, then maybe yes. But where one seeks the Spirit, organisation is often the enemy.

Sorry, this is an off topic ramble inspired by the above post and the quoted segment, but since it's an off topic topic that's kinda irrelevant.

I think a problem with belief (and emotion - which belief taps into, if not being an extension of) is that we do only have language to express ourselves, and the inherent limitations are the most limiting when it comes to those areas of existence - belief, emotion, feeling, spirituality. Language is a wonderful thing, capable of expressing a lot, capable of communicating a lot and even capable of beauty. But language was created as a functional thing - don't eat that, don't go there cos it's dangerous, to make this you do this etc. It excels in communicating information, but when communicating feelings, thoughts, beliefs etc it betrays its functional roots - only in the hands of a master can it communicate that kind of thing, that's why the great writers, poets and lyricists are few in number. We don't work in words - we use words to make sense of things, many (most ?) of us think in words for the same reason, but beneath the words are thoughts and feelings that have nothing to do with language other than we can only interpret and communicate them to others via language. But what you feel, deep inside, at that level beneath language, is not words. Feeling gives birth to ideas, ideas are converted into words (or words are interpretations of ideas), but the feelings happen at a deeper, more fundamental level than language, and language is often a poor tool to use to try and communicate those feelings. If a picture paints a thousand words, a feeling can paint millions, in an instant, and few of us have the grasp of language to express those feelings (like I say, really only the great poets, writers and lyricists). And feelings hit you all at once - you get the total understanding of the feeling in one hit.

Sorry, none of that makes sense, lovely spring Saturday... afternoon drinking, well it would be rude not to But it kinda illustrates the point I'm attempting to make (badly), language is not very well equipped to talk about the metaphysical, the philosophical, that pertaining to belief, feeling and emotion.

[Cosmic Dick]

I'm sorry CD, I'm a bit of a simpleton. While you've read and understood it could you summarise it in layman's terms for me please, thanks

Layman's terms, much simplified, okay?

In the experiment there is a light source, then a wall with two slits, then another wall, this last one being the detector which displays the interference pattern.

If one single photon per second is going through one or the other slit, over a long period of time the detector will still display the intereference pattern.

Modern science claims that this shows the particle/wave duality, and that the individual photon is interfering with itself, as there is nothing else there to interfere with it.

But is there anything else there?

Yes, everything is emmiting an E/M field, it's just that it's not visible light and therefore will not show up on our detector, and it is this E/M field that causes the intereference pattern.

Thinking of it in a more practical way (although not quite correct, layman's terms), what temperature is the wall with the two slits in it? If I was to point an Infrared detector at it, it would be quite bright, it is radiating an E/M field, as is any other object or person in the test area.

According to Miles Mathis, the part of the experiment that is specifically causing the interference pattern is the small section of wall between the two slits.

CD

edit punctuation

Edited April 24, 2010 by Cosmic Dick

[Cosmic Dick]

according to your link: ..I'm assuming it's referring to thee richard feynman the guy who helped develop the atomic bomb ...not exactly a slow coach in the grey matter stakes ..maybe you should email him your ideas

It just occurred to me, what does Miles Mathis think of Richard Feynman, and could there also be a link with this thread subject, religion?

Fortunately there is the perfect document written by Miles Mathis on Richard Feynman and his book QED.

from here:

Conversely, the principia of QED have not been enumerated as of yet. That would be a very short book. Feynman’s book is absent of principia. It is concerned only with “little arrows.” Even these little arrows are never assigned to anything. The fundamental variable of QED is the amplitude, but we are never told what has this amplitude. It is like a religion based on “blue.”

“What god do you worship?”

“Blue.”

“Blue what? Do you mean blueness?”

“No. Just blue. We bless what is and must be blue.”

“Your god is blue, then?”

“Oh no, we have no conception of a god. We are sure of nothing but blue.”

“That is not a great deal of information, is it?”

“It is more than enough, my friend. We take our religion as we find it—blue. It would be a terrible sacrilege to ask for more. We seek a blue thing and a blue thing is given us. Are we not rich beyond imagining? Are we not in possession of the great sapphire of the universe? Who are we to pry more information from the unknown? If the unknown wanted to be known, it would arrive in a box.”

CD

Edited April 25, 2010 by Cosmic Dick

[Cosmic Dick]

Question for the atheists- do you believe in the existence of an objective reality?

I think George Carlin covers that:

George Carlin On Religion

CD