Help Please

[Machiavelli]

On another forum I post at, someone began saying things like his reality, her reality, etc....

I piped in and said, reality doesn't change, perceptions of it do.

Would you agree with this?

A person there went into Heisenberg and Relativity saying how those laws mean that reality itself is relative to the individual.

I fail to see how any of that applies and the definition of reality itself seems to support me. I've bashed my head against a wall trying to explain myself, but eithor ego or lack of perceptive abilities won't let them accept my points. Or, there is the possibility that I'm wrong.

What do you think? And why, in the most blunt and concise language possible.

Thanks.

[Tom Sawyer]

Reality is not relative to the individual. Our perceptions of it differ, but that doesn't affect what reality actually is. You were absolutely right in this debate.

It sounds like this guy misunderstood scientific terms and then tried to apply them to philosophies where they were not relevant.

[Machiavelli]

Thanks Tom.

Anyone else?

[NialScorva]

From a physics standpoint, I agree with Tom. Even at relativistic speeds, it's not the perception that determines the difference in what is perceived, it's the fact that reality is much weirder than we expect it to be.

From a psychological standpoint, reality is very much affected by the individual because perception is reality. For example, I find certain colors pleasing where you may not. That sense of pleasure is certainly real, though it's a reality determined by the individual. I don't think that's what you're talking about, though.

[Tetlepanquetzatzin]

Originally posted by Machiavelli
On another forum I post at, someone began saying things like his reality, her reality, etc....

I piped in and said, reality doesn't change, perceptions of it do.

Would you agree with this?
Yes, I would agree that there is only one reality.
A person there went into Heisenberg and Relativity saying how those laws mean that reality itself is relative to the individual.
It is difficult to comment on this without seeing how the argument employs quantum mechanics and relativity. Generally speaking, I think most physicists would regard references to the theory of relativity for this purpose to be a misunderstanding. The situation is more complicated with quantum mechanics, because we are still far from a consensus on the philosophical consequences of quantum mechanics.
I fail to see how any of that applies and the definition of reality itself seems to support me. I've bashed my head against a wall trying to explain myself, but eithor ego or lack of perceptive abilities won't let them accept my points. Or, there is the possibility that I'm wrong.
Maybe it could be useful to ask your opponent a deliberately provocative question about the person-dependence of reality:

Suppose a brutal murderer (one that our society would classify as mentally ill) is sincerely convinced that his victims do not experience any suffering. In fact, he is convinced that his victims want to be brutally killed. Would such a view be as valid as the view that the victims do suffer and do not want to be killed? Or could one say that the victim's opinions correspond better to reality in this case?

[Machiavelli]

Originally posted by Tetlepanquetzatzin
It is difficult to comment on this without seeing how the argument employs quantum mechanics and relativity

I said...

"Realities are the same, it's the perceptions that vary... "

him...

"Dead wrong, according to both general relativity and quantum mechanics, the two most accurate descriptions of reality currently availiable."

I said...

"you could never find a scientist who would agree. "

that's when he started getting silly....

he said....

"You clearly don't know much, if anything, about either subject, but want to argue anyway, huh? That really doesn't make sense to me.

BTW Every physicist would agree with me.

I didn't say the universe was irrational. I said that reality isn't all the same. The universe follows physical rules, however many of those rule defy "common sense".

There are many instances in quantum mechanics where perception creates reality.

If one were to travel at 95% the speed of light (physicaly possible, way beyond current technology) time would pass much slower for a passenger on a craft going that speed than it would for someone on Earth. Who's timeframe, or reality, is "correct"?

Your argument would hold true under the laws of Newtonian mechanics, but those have been disproven for close to a century now."


What is funny is that he was so sure of what he was saying? Much of which was right, but just didn't apply in my opinion.

[Tetlepanquetzatzin]

Originally written by Machiavelli's debating opponent
"Dead wrong, according to both general relativity and quantum mechanics, the two most accurate descriptions of reality currently availiable."
I doubt anyone would agree that you are dead wrong. Some competent physicists might think that you are wrong, but it is far from obvious that you are wrong.
"I didn't say the universe was irrational. I said that reality isn't all the same. The universe follows physical rules, however many of those rule defy "common sense"."
I agree that some of our physics models defy common sense, but I don't see how this is relevant to whether reality is "all the same".
"There are many instances in quantum mechanics where perception creates reality."
That is one of many interpretations of quantum mechanics. I note, though, that those who think that the collapse of the wave function is the result of conscious observation believe either that the collapse is objective or that the wave function is just a representation of subjective knowledge (as opposed to a representation of reality). It doesn't support the person-dependence of reality either way.
"If one were to travel at 95% the speed of light (physicaly possible, way beyond current technology) time would pass much slower for a passenger on a craft going that speed than it would for someone on Earth. Who's timeframe, or reality, is "correct"?"
I disagree with the implication that reality = time frame. Reality, as approximated by general relativity, is that which does not depend on the frame of reference! Both observers would be correct, but it should be understood that they are measuring quantities whose numerical values do depend on the reference frame. This is weird, because we are not used to time being dependent on the reference frame, but it really isn't more mysterious than the fact that velocity depends on the reference frame. General relativity makes more quantities depend on the reference frame, but I don't think it changes our view of the person-dependence of reality. Someone who initially believes that reality is objective will not find anything in general relativity that significantly challenges this belief, and someone who initially believes that reality is subjective will also not see that belief significantly challenged by studies of general relativity.

One should also understand that not everything in general relativity depends on the reference frame. Both observers will, for example, agree on the proper time that has passed inside the space ship.

[pmurray]

Originally posted by Machiavelli
A person there went into Heisenberg and Relativity saying how those laws mean that reality itself is relative to the individual.

The sign of an idiot who thinks in sound-bites. Ask 'em if they can articulate either.

Heisenberg: the uncertainty of a particle's momentum times the uncertainty of its location is always greater than or equal to planck's constant.

Special Relativity (my understanding thereof): if two observers are in relative motion, then they will disagree about the passage of time.

What these have to do with perception and reality, I have no idea.

[KeithHarwood]

Originally posted by pmurray
The sign of an idiot who thinks in sound-bites. Ask 'em if they can articulate either.

. . .

Special Relativity (my understanding thereof): if two observers are in relative motion, then they will disagree about the passage of time.


Special relativity: The speed of light is the same in all reference frames.

Everything else is a consequence of that. SR is all the consequences that can be deduced using high school algebra. Half of GR is the consequences that can be deduced using more powerful maths. (The rest of GR follows from `Inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same'.)

[Volker.Doormann]

Originally posted by Machiavelli [… said, reality doesn't change, perceptions of it do.

Would you agree with this?

Yes. A person there went into Heisenberg and Relativity saying how those laws mean that reality itself is relative to the individual.

I fail to see how any of that applies and the definition of reality itself seems to support me. What do you think? And why, in the most blunt and concise language possible.
Seems there are basics in philosophy helpful.

Reality is. It is absolute. It is the reference.

If reality would be changeable, it would be relative, it woud be an illusion, but not reality.

He, who argues absolute, that reality itself is relative, argues that illusion affects the absolute. This kills the absolute claim that reality is relative. It is a classic example of a contradiction.

Volker

[Volker.Doormann]

Originally posted by Volker.Doormann
[B]Yes. Seems there are basics in philosophy helpful. [..]

Added:

"Intellectual insanity, particularly various forms of Subjectivism, is primarily responsible for the political and cultural crisis this country is experiencing today. The leaders of today were taught by the leaders of yesterday. Teachers at all levels of education have wittingly or unwittingly accepted Subjectivism as the correct world-view and passed this on to their students who become, of course, future political and cultural leaders. This is why this type of intellectual insanity is contagious. It is passed on from person to person.
Epistemological Subjectivism and its related sub-types state quite clearly that:

- Reality either doesn't exist (a minority view) or if it does we can't really know anything about it (the more popular view);
- Truth is subjective and relative and there are no ways of knowing whether any proposition is objectively true or false - "reality" can be "created" and one "reality" is as good as another;
- Moral principles and rules are subjective and relative and there is no way of knowing objectively whether an action is good or bad, right or wrong - matters of morals are matters of personal taste.

In a "subjective world," anything goes. All that is needed for something to be true or false, right or wrong, good or bad, is for some "power to be" to declare it so. That power may be the opinion of the majority, the wealth of the aristocracy, or the "authority" of the government.
The antidote, the treatment, the cure for intellectual insanity is:
- The acceptance of "reality" as it really is - reality exists and we do not create it; and
- Accepting that logical truth is objective and there are ways of knowing the difference between what is true and what is false; and
-Accepting that moral principles are objective and universal and can be known - there is a difference between right and wrong regardless of one's personal taste or one's personal opinion. (This does not mean specific rules necessarily, but principles only.)

If the United States would accept the antidote as stated above as the foundation for political, economic, and social policies, and as the framework for the nation's culture, intellectual insanity can be eliminated, contained, or at least controlled.

To sum it all up, a person is in real trouble is he thinks:
There is no objective reality, objective truth, or objective basis for moral principles.
There are no objective and absolute principles of logical thinking. Logical fallacies are a figment of our imagination and don't really matter. „

(Jonathan Dolhenty)

[Kronos]

reality doesn't change, perceptions of it do.
After everything said so far, I agree with your original thought. "Reality", as most people understand it, means what is really happening, and everyone perceives this in their own reference frame, Hence bringing in the theory of Relitivity.(which, BTW, only implies physical perception, ie. what we physically observe. not our philosophical perception)

I think that this guy has a different definition of what "Reality" is.

[tensorproduct]

Originally posted by pmurray
Heisenberg: the uncertainty of a particle's momentum times the uncertainty of its location is always greater than or equal to planck's constant.


I'm gonna be a little bit pedantic here, but it's actually Planck's constant divided by 4*pi

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Machiavelli
A person there went into Heisenberg and Relativity saying how those laws mean that reality itself is relative to the individual.

What do you think? And why, in the most blunt and concise language possible.

How about, "It's only relative in your reality. In my reality, reality is absolute."
crc

[Duck!]

Originally posted by wiploc
How about, "It's only relative in your reality. In my reality, reality is absolute."
crc

That's the perfect answer. When someone starts arguing that reality is subjective and that different viewpoints or opinions or religions are all "equally right", then tell them that in your subjective opinion that they're full of shite.

If they disagree then tell them that your opinion that they're full of it is equally as right as their opinion that makes them offended by their remarks.

I know someone who always argues from this point of view (especially with regards to religion) and I got pissed off one day and simply asked them "If me and you are equally right when it comes to religious views and our philosophy, then why the fuck are you disagreeing with me? Surely MY opinion that your view of reality as purely subjective is a load of ridiculuous unsubstantiated shit is equally as valid as your opinion that reality is purely subjective". Or in other words.... If al viewpoints are equally right, then why do you disagree with anyone about anything?


KM.