lets list disproofs, or proofs, that there is a objective reality

[ninjadanslarbretabar]

so where does the horizon ends?
if you look at the horizon youll see a division between the sky and the earth
so the horizon is where the earth begins right ?
but if you go there youll end up where you were
because the earth is round
so then where does it ends ? where it start, which is to say right here right there under your feet
the horizon line is just there between your feet and the earth
but then thats not what we call the horizon
the horizon is always at the end where the sky meats the earth
but then the sky always meats the earth right there under your feet
so the horizon is simply a concept about where we cant see any further on a objective level so we connect two opposite thing on a subjective level to create a end line
its a situation where we stop projecting our mind any further because of the physical limitation of our senses
in this case our eyes,
if we had some kind of echolocation on steroids type stuff we could send a wave that would come back from behind us and we would not conceive of the horizon as being anymore further than it is closer because our mind would not stop at a certain point in space
but due to our limitation we create a fix point where (in reality) there is none
we create a point on a subjective level to suggest a physical point on a objective level
so if i draw a horizon on a piece of paper then that line is the horizon
but if i draw a line inside that line then that becomes the horizon
but i could always draw a smaller line
to a point where that line would be so small i would not see that line anymore
but if above the line i draw blue sky and below it brown earth then i will see that line, or at least i will feel like i see that line
but if you could not see that line before putting color around it then you aint seeing that line, you are imagining that line, you are creating that line in your head
because you know it must be there, because you can see the result, you can see a division between the color

so we keep tracing imaginary lines to define reality
but when we say "this" is real we have already drawed a line around it to define it as something
we use words to communicate but before that, before we could do that we still could experience the world
back when we are babies we were able to experience reality but we didnt knew the difference between subjective and objective
not on a word level but as a experience
a babies brain is in a state of synesthesia where everything mix with everything so sound color smell touch taste...all mix as one big experience
you receive-produce information and you dont know whats coming from the outside and whats coming from the inside

we learn to create lines between what is sound and what is color
what is you and what is me
what is a bird, what is a tree...
but all of that are imaginary lines, they are boundaries we made up to learn to function accordingly to what your upbringing as had to offer

but all of it is made up, all of what we define as objective reality is made up of subjective lines that we believe as real lines on a horizon distant from us
(i guess thats what the hindus call maya)
the more division we create the less we end up feeling as part of a whole
but its all a learned illusion
the horizon is right there under your feet,
at all time

there is no such thing as objective reality independent of subjective reality
there is no such thing as subjective reality independent of objective reality
there is only one thing that is real and its reality
and the only way it can be experienced is within this duality of both subjective and objective


so this thread is a spoof on the god thread of the similar title
i think that people who believe that reality is one thing more than a other are missing the point (and should get familiar with psychoanalysis)
i think that believing in one side more than the other tell more about you than it does reality
the more you are inside your animal body the more youll believe in the subjective experience
the more you are in your head the more youll believe in objective facts
but then your head created a abstraction of the word which is a pretty subjective experience
while your body gives you a very objective feedback
so if you live more in a objective world (animal body) you balance it with a more subjective world view (religion)
and if you live more in a subjective world (head) you balance it with a more objective world view (science)

the issue with the rational crowd is that they believe that you can take yourself out of the equation, but you cant, you are part of it and you are influencing the result
so if i make a parallel to time
and that the sky represent time and that the earth represent space
then the horizon is the space time continuum
so where does time begins ?
rational will usually believe that it all started with the big bang, but then they cant see it in the numbers, they just assume that post a certain point the equation ends and than thats where the universe starts, that thats where time begun, where the big bang started, thats what gave birth to the universe
but where does it starts, science doesnt go there, but some people do, they make assumption, but thats a leap of faith, they create a imaginary line where they can say thats where it started, but really it aint there, even with numbers we still cant see that far into the begining
but then the whole explanation and belief that we came from the big bang is just a assumption
a assumption that it did happen once upon a time
but it aint, its happening right now, right under your feet, because its a space time continuum
if you look at the horizon of time where does it leads you back ?
back under your feet
but just as much as some people could not grasp that the earth was round and floating into space some people still cant grasp that time isnt a straight line with a begining and a end
because they transpose themself on that time line and they have a begining where they were born and a end where they are gonna die and they transpose that unto the universe, they anthropomorphize the universe
believing that if they have a begining and a end then the universe must follow the same logic
but what if you are creating the universe right now as much as its creating you

and for the believer what if you are creating god as much as its creating you
if god is omnipresent that mean he is present everywhere, that means he is in you, in every part of you, right now in the present, at all time
if there isnt a part of you that isnt god how doesnt that make you god ?
what part of god would be more god than the other part ?
is god only god as the sum of its part ? but then how do you divide the parts if he is omnipresent, how is one part non god ? because that lines that divide one part from another is gonna either be imaginary or else its a part that isnt god, but if god is omnipresent you cant divide god, so how could you divide yourself from god ?
so in this case the sky is god and the earth is god too since he is omnipresent and so would be the horizon and so would you be but lets say that you are you
so you are on the earth looking at the horizon thinking that the sky is god and that the earth is god, how do you divide the two, where does the sky divides itself from the earth...
right under your feet
but then thats you, you are the one dividing yourself from god by believing that there is a division
but then you are god, you just refuse to believe it because you choose to believe in the illusion instead
which again is similar to believing that the earth is flat because you just dont see post a certain point when you fix the horizon
you are limited by your sense
but when it comes to god you aint suppose to use you physical eyes, it aint about your 5 senses, its about believing with your heart, its about connecting with your heart, you need to let go of your senses and guide your self through faith, "use the force luke"

 

[B9]

Relative reality seems to sum it up.

you are the one dividing yourself from god by believing that there is a division
but then you are god, you just refuse to believe it because you choose to believe in the illusion instead

It's a very powerful illusion which I have a lot of trouble seeing past

 

[!!4iV4HF9R34g]

Me, too.. Working on it, eh? (Or hardly working! >.< Ha HA!)

 

[A Blind Guy]

My friend said "Postmodernism is... silly. Here's why: Say it's raining and you are in a house. You decide, in your subjective reality, that it is not raining, and you go outside and do not get wet. But in everyone else's subjective reality, you are wet, and that comes crushing down on you, and you are wet because you're standing outside in the rain".

 

[ninjadanslarbretabar]

i think your friend fail to understand postmodernism (or subjectivism)
and i think you fail to understand my post
but ill repeat the whole thing....

if you are dreaming and in your dream you are all wet because its raining does that mean that its raining in reality ?
what is reality here ? the reality of the dreamer in his dream or the reality the dreamer in his bed
how do you decide between the subjective reality of the dream or the objective reality of the dreamer
its relative, it depends on if you put yourself here or in his dream
and that choice is subjective

but thats not what im talking about
im saying where is the line between the dream and the dreamer
so what if normal reality is the earth (like being down to earth) and that dream land is the sky (like having your head in the clouds)
then where is that horizon line between the two ?
where does it ends where does it starts ?
right there on your feet, you are the one connecting the two, you are the one dividing the two
so is this funny or not, you decide, if it makes you lol then yes
is a joke funny on a objective level, is it because lots of people agree that lady gaga is good music that it makes it good music ? what if you are thinking about going outside with your friends but they all say that its raining and they dont feel like going out, and then you go outside and realize its just some little droplets now and then and you cant call it rain,
is there a scientific method to calculate how much droplets must fall to technically call it rain, you could say when the rain stop completely then it cant be called rain, but if you watch the last drop in slow motion fall into the ground, that millisecond where it touches the ground when is it in that instant that you can separate raining from not raining ?
you make it up ?
so the sky = rain, the earth = no rain and the line between the 2 is the horizon....
where does the horizon end ?
the horizon does not end, that line is in your head, you make it up, you believe in it
you could always divide that line at infinity, non stop, forever...

so how can you be sure you aint sleeping right now ? how can you be sure you wont simply wake up when youll die and realize wow, that was just a dream
i mean every fucking night we get caught up in the same situation where we believe that the dream is real
but then sometime we wake up within the dream and start a lucid dream,
how can you be sure that you could not just do the same right now, that the only way why this seem perfectly real and that you are perfectly sure that objective reality is real is because you absolutely believe in it
but belief is a leap of faith, believing in something doesnt make it true
objective reality isnt anymore true than subjective reality
and subjective reality isnt anymore true than objective reality
and the line between the two isnt real
we create a duality, thats how we create language, thats how language creates us
duality is just duality, its just one way of seeing things
but it all comes from the one reality that has no name, to have a name you need a duality
the only real reality you can speak of is the one you cant speak of



my post was about the futility of going one side more then the other
it was about always balancing yourself, because it makes you strong (healthy) and it keeps you in control
it was about me sharing myself through ideas for the sake of having fun

edit : oh and i guess it was also about seeing reality in 3d in your head as a model for the sake of being more realistic about reality

 

[A Blind Guy]

How can I be sure that I'm not in some huge computer simulation, or that I'm not imagining you(and all of this we'll call reality) as a construct of my mind?

Well for one, I can't tell for the first one. But with the second one, well, there is a lot of technology around me that I could not have ever imagined if I didn't know about it beforehand, there's the fact that you have your own life and you think, so you are, and the fact that there is an incredibly detailed and complex backstory to the human race that I, for the life of me, could not have invented. My brain does not have the capacity to render all of that information. I doubt any human's brain does.

I guess you're right, though. I cannot prove to you that there is an objective reality. But, to think that we each lived in a reality with marked differences is... weird. I feel like, since we are all 3 dimensional creatures, our subjective realities end up being pretty damn close to each other. Almost close enough to say that there might be an objective reality....? Dun dun dun.

One major thing that I always heard brought up was that our colors could be different from one another. But then I thought about the fact that our eyes work by interpreting light frequencies into information, and that the light frequencies don't change for the same color and that our eyes translate that information the same way, since we are both humans. But then, would aliens see different colors then ours?
Maybe. Doesn't seem like that makes sense, but who fuckin knows, evolution is bizarre as fuck.

 

[hiphophippy]

realistically, there is no "REALITY" but reality.

P.S. as a side note English is an extremely shallow language.

 

[xxsicknessxx]

Just because you lost your mind and are crazy does not mean that what you see is now reality. Its reality too you but not to the majority of people. Thats how I judge whats real and whats not. What the majority of people see and believe is real. Even when its a lie. For example the moon landing. We never saw it, it could of been faked no matter if you think it was or not you must admit it could be faked right? But it happened... why? because the majority of people believe it did. So it becomes reality. Just because some people think its fake it doesn't matter if there right or wrong its not reality. Sort of like writing history, what we write becomes reality..

I guess what im saying is what is real may not in fact be true but so long as enough people believe in it it becomes real. We make reality.

 

[hiphophippy]

Just because you lost your mind and are crazy does not mean that what you see is now reality. Its reality too you but not to the majority of people. Thats how I judge whats real and whats not. What the majority of people see and believe is real. Even when its a lie. For example the moon landing. We never saw it, it could of been faked no matter if you think it was or not you must admit it could be faked right? But it happened... why? because the majority of people believe it did. So it becomes reality. Just because some people think its fake it doesn't matter if there right or wrong its not reality. Sort of like writing history, what we write becomes reality..

I guess what im saying is what is real may not in fact be true but so long as enough people believe in it it becomes real. We make reality.

If the majority of people think Jews are horrible and should all be executed? is that the reality?

 

[ninjadanslarbretabar]

Just because you lost your mind and are crazy does not mean that what you see is now reality. Its reality too you but not to the majority of people. Thats how I judge whats real and whats not. What the majority of people see and believe is real. Even when its a lie. For example the moon landing. We never saw it, it could of been faked no matter if you think it was or not you must admit it could be faked right? But it happened... why? because the majority of people believe it did. So it becomes reality. Just because some people think its fake it doesn't matter if there right or wrong its not reality. Sort of like writing history, what we write becomes reality..

I guess what im saying is what is real may not in fact be true but so long as enough people believe in it it becomes real. We make reality.

yeah but that goes back to what you believe people believe in, how do you know what they believe ?

 

[ninjadanslarbretabar]

If the majority of people think Jews are horrible and should all be executed? is that the reality?

the execution becomes reality yes, is what i think he is saying
but as you are saying, does that make it true of the jews that they are horrible
and as im saying its both, for some the jews are indeed horrible, and for the jews the execution is horrible
both side of the horrible is real

real is a experience that we all subjectively take part in, than we collectively share it
then we subjectively experience it again to then create again a objective reality out of it
and it goes back and forth from old lady to young girl and there is some who will say its a old lady and they wont be able to let go of the image of the old lady and as plato would put it they'll believe that the shadows on the wall are real because thats all they've ever seen and you cant see the young girl if you dont let go of the old lady
some will do the same the other way around
for some the old lady is religion and for some the new lady is science
and some people can see both because they dont assume that something is simply because it seems like it is, you need to realize that it might all just be a dream and all of this, all of your senses, all of your thoughts might simply be playing a trick on you

 

[stonerfromohio]

some will do the same the other way around
for some the old lady is religion and for some the new lady is science
and some people can see both because they dont assume that something is simply because it seems like it is, you need to realize that it might all just be a dream and all of this, all of your senses, all of your thoughts might simply be playing a trick on you

I enjoyed this part, but I wouldnt even say its all a trick id say its all just phenomena, dancing dancing for a little while and then going back, but there is no back or thing going anywhere things just arise and dissolve. Reality is so fucking dream like the more I live, the more I see it. Every morning you arise, and a stream of thoughts come in your head, well I didn't do this but I have to do this, oh I am hungry, oh I gotta shit, Oh im so worried about work but what are my buddies doing downstairs instantly that chatter starts going, and you put your attention towards it. But what people dont realize is that whole stream of thoughts that reference the past and all those concepts are that just symbols just representations of reality they arent objects that are real, life is just this seamless stream of events ( but there aren't really event's like you cant cut a chunk out and find an event ) things just happen then you go to sleep. things just arrise and pass away. Anything you say about reality is just overlay. We project so much shit onto reality everything comes from the intial thought "I" but when you let go of "I" that initial thought you let go of the whole world, because without you there is nothing separate from you and if there is nothing separate you cannot say anything about the world because there is nothing out there or in here and to say something about something you have to isolate yourself from it and describe it but really there are no divisions, there are no objects things merely happen and then another thing happens.

Thats why I like Papaji he just say's keep quiet. Keep quiet. Your nature is silence, keep quiet. You are dancing and that dancing is arrogance because you think you are dancing, but there is just dancing. Keep quiet.

 

[ebola?]

Very insightful, and I have to say that I agree with what I understand of your perspective.

there is no such thing as objective reality independent of subjective reality
there is no such thing as subjective reality independent of objective reality
there is only one thing that is real and its reality
and the only way it can be experienced is within this duality of both subjective and objective

This appears similar to my perspective, according to which the acting, perceiving, and conceiving subject and its acted upon, perceived, and conceptualized object constitute one another mutually (in the development of the two, they relate dialectically). What is logically primary, then, what constitutes reality, is the interaction of subject and object, subject and object appearing 'post-hoc', as aspects of this interaction.

The problem, though, is that one can never demonstrate that this the case with absolute certainty. Such ontological and epistemological axioms shape our subject/object interactions and what we discern therefrom, and thus cannot be inferred from the character of the interaction with absolute validity. Not only are there many potential ontologies compatible with any given state of affairs, but our ontological reasoning shapes how this reality unfolds for us.

Perhaps, then, we should think in terms of conditions of many possible ontologies characterizing 'reality' logically prior to our activity within it, emerging types of being and ways of knowing existence emerging as aspects of a more multifaceted set of conditions beyond our ability to know these conditions. Put otherwise, the multiverse conditioning potential subject-object interactions cannot be captured fully by those interactions within it, yet this multiverse 'expresses' these conditions in shaping the subject-object interactions which constitute it.

(here, I falter, as language fails to capture that which conditions language's limits)

ebola

 

[AstroPrune]

hey Ebola. interesting points.

I just have one question. Wouln't that mean there's some sort of subjective reality inherent to objective reality. (built in to say crudely) could you comment on how that may be.

I was always of the opinion if we were every able to get to any sort of 'absolute truth' it would by necessarily be descibed in terms of objective realiy.

 

[ebola?]

Not quite. Our idea of objective 'reality' depends on an implicit relation where a subject perceives reality as its object, this subject looking in from the outside without intervening upon the object. This abstraction, while useful, strays from its goal of apprehension of the universe as a whole, 'as such' (including the subject apprehending it). When I speak of the wider reality, beyond but including us (eg, as "series of conditions of being", bounds of potentiality, etc.), I fail to point with precision and accuracy (or certainty or completeness, perhaps not at all); because I am part of the system I am engaging, I cannot understand the totality of this system.

'The totality' is beyond all conceptual divisions, including that dividing discreteness and continuity, absolutely contradictory from the perspective of our abilities to discern, yet beyond the very division between the contradictory and the clearly adjudicated.

(again, language falters)

ebola

 

[AstroPrune]

Thanks for your response Ebola.
and nevermind the language, it was very clear.

Probability in QM comes to mind now.
The fact it requires subjectivity has bothered me since learning about. (and einstein too from what I understand so I'm in good company )
I think we're missing something. but I don't want to derail the thread my mosdestly informed opinions.

 

[ebola?]

it doesn't. the envivonment is just as much a measuring device as we are, decoherence (the process induced by measurement) is not only induced when a conscious observer measures something. an atom can 'measure' another, by interaction, as for the interaction to proceed the atom needs to know something about the state of the other atom, so they (usually) become entangled. this is a very common misconception about QM and a lot of work has been done towards sorting it out since Einstein.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I know little physics), but isn't this just one ontological take on the meaning of how we observe particles interacting? Can we collect knowledge of particle-interactions without consciously measuring the results (even if through a long causal chain)? If not, how could we know how particles interact in the absence of conscious observation?

i'm really interested in both quantum theory, and thanks to ebola, this subjectivity/objectivity debate, but i don't think either informs the other. really enojying the posts here, wish i could contribute but my brain finds this difficult to cope with.

I think that the two link where quantum mechanics asks the question of what the practice of measurement means, thus also asking how observer relates to observed, and thus where to place subject and object within and in relation to reality.
...
I guess I'm most intrigued about which ontological take you favor, how it relates to decoherence, and why you find this take most convincing.

I'll try to read in the interim.

ebola

 

[sssssssssss]

did the words objective or subjective exist before the scientific method was born? when religion governed the universe?

 

[ResinTeeth]

Objective reality is the state of things as they are. Subjective reality is the state of things as they appear to us. A subjective reality is dependent on an objective reality and a unique perspective. The subjective reality also occurs within the macro-context of the objective reality which is inescapable. The different "points in time", universes and planets represent features of the micro-context in which a specific subjective reality might occur. There are features of the subjective reality (resulting from the introduction of a unique perspective) that are not part of the objective reality (ex: dreams, memories, conceptions of smells), but result from the reaction that occurs between objective reality and a subjective perspective.

I like to use a physical science analogy to illustrate my view.

-imagine objective reality as an all pervading solvent
-imagine a unique perspective as a solute
-imagine subjective reality as the reaction which occurs when the solute is introduce to the solvent.

The overall idea though is: subjective reality is dependent on the existence of an objective one.

 

[-=SS=-]

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_ln_sqq6VMU4/TLTCQJkaBEI/AAAAAAAAAHw/Bx0YywjLo0s/image6.png

You talked about the horizon and such.. but you didn't start with the only thing that really matters! The infinite space that is filled with a world (your world). The truth is incredibly simple but hardly anyone see's it. It's not even infront of your face, it is closer to you than that! There is NO point engaging in philosophical word games with people, I apologize for not doing so You will never reason your way to Truth through language.. it simply is not possible.. it comes from direct experience only.

There is an objective reality.. you exist in it. But only a few people have ever really seen it. We do not see reality, we interpret it. God help us if we saw what was really there..