#-Quantum Mechanics and Metaphysics-#
.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by implication that because
the human mind cannot with certainty know of the existence of absolute
reality, that absolute reality cannot exist. The certitude of this
statement negating the possibility of absolute reality is disconcerting
to me. My question is: why cannot absolute reality exist independently
(transcendental) of the human mind? Is quantum mechanics denying the
"absoluteness" of reality or denying a/the reality altogether? I am
fully aware that absolutism is an inherent aspect of the human brain, as
is logic and pleasure. But to what in the breach do we fill this gap? Or
is quantum mechanics saying that reality is undefinable?
My view is that physical reality does exist independently of the human
mind. If it does exist independently, then it is a "thing-in-itself" and
therefore definitive and absolute.
In truth, I cannot conceptualize how physical reality is NOT independent
of the human mind. The human mind can define and conceptualze physical
reality thereby bringing it into the system of the individual mind, but
it does not determine physical reality's parameters.
Torkel Franzen
> The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by implication that because
> the human mind cannot with certainty know of the existence of absolute
> reality, that absolute reality cannot exist.
No it doesn't. There is no justification for associating this
peculiar utterance ("because the human mind...") with Heisenberg.
Sparky
because
> the human mind cannot with certainty know of the existence of absolute
> reality, that absolute reality cannot exist.
Boo. Bad, bad reading. If this is an interpretation you came up with
yourself, kick yourself. If this is an interpretation that someone told
you, kick that person. The Heisenberg states only this: it is
impossible to know simultaneously and with certainty the position and
momentum of a subatomic particle. That's it. The particle has a real
location and momentum, so the principle denies nothing to reality. It
merely points out the limitations of our understanding.
Don't feel too bad about messing this up. 99% of people make this same
mistake However, the fact of the matter is that this is a conclusion
about our ability to know X, not about the existence of X itself. But
please do us all a favor. The next time you hear someone go off about
how the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that nothing is real, or
absolute, or that it negates the principle of excluded middle... kick
him. It will do us all a favor.
Sparky
--
Wherever you go, there you are.
Join in Philosophical Conversation! http:\\www.dejanews.com\philocon
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
.
principle. I would suggest going directly to Werner Heisenberg's own
writings on the subject, as I have. They are quite interesting reading.
Yes, I am familiar with the basic premise of the uncertainty principle:
the act of observing produces a significant uncertainty in either the
position or momentum of the electron. I believe I was refering to the
implications of this basic concept. Many physicists, indeed the
"Copenhagen Interpretation" questions the very act of understanding
nature. The inability to accurately measure one of the most basic
natural phenomenon, along with relativity's inertial frames, defined the
ability to understand the natural world by the limitations of a human
brain's intrinsic characteristics. I have read more than one physics
book declaring that since reality cannot be accurately defined, it
itself is inherently undefinable and therefore unabsolute. If you'll
read Heisenberg's own writings you will find that he himself had
difficulty accepting the conclusions and tried applying a deterministic
spin on his theory (something regarding Aristotle's "Action Potentia" or
the like). So I would suggest to you to read a little more deeply into
the subject.
Anyway...
Whatever...
PG
Val Miranda
Rex Bennett <rben...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:KqK33.3901$Z.5...@newse3.tampabay.rr.com...
> . <PG...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:27555-37...@newsd-292.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> > Assumption: The veracity of Quantum Mechanics: granted.
> >
> > The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by implication that because
> > the human mind cannot with certainty know of the existence of absolute
> > statement negating the possibility of absolute reality is disconcerting
> > to me. My question is: why cannot absolute reality exist independently
> > (transcendental) of the human mind? Is quantum mechanics denying the
> > "absoluteness" of reality or denying a/the reality altogether? I am
> > fully aware that absolutism is an inherent aspect of the human brain, as
> > is logic and pleasure. But to what in the breach do we fill this gap? Or
> > is quantum mechanics saying that reality is undefinable?
> >
> > My view is that physical reality does exist independently of the human
> > mind. If it does exist independently, then it is a "thing-in-itself" and
> > therefore definitive and absolute.
> >
> > In truth, I cannot conceptualize how physical reality is NOT independent
> > of the human mind. The human mind can define and conceptualze physical
> > reality thereby bringing it into the system of the individual mind, but
> > it does not determine physical reality's parameters.
>
> and the linguistic structure we use that prevents us from structuring
> the concepts appropriately in order to see the answer.
>
> Part of the problem here lies in the use, or misuse, of the word
"reality."
> Dictionaries to the contrary, "reality" is not synonymous with existence,
> or the "aspects" of existence we call "things". People often use the
> terms "objective" and "subjective" and "objective reality" and "subjective
> reality." I strongly oppose the term "objective reality" because it is
> completely misleading and prevents one from being able to view the
> questions clearly. In my estimation, the term should be completely
> drummed out of philosophy. "Reality" doesn't refer to anything
> "objective" at all. All "reality" is a subjective process of our
> interaction
> with existence. It is dependent on our sensory equipment, our
> brain's interpretive structure, and our "cognition" of that
interpretation.
> In other words, the entire process is subjective and is as much a
> description of our process (filter) as it is the "thing" we are
> experiencing.
> That makes the term "objective reality" an oxymoron. It is meaningless.
Aha! So you are a Kantian after all. Your reality is Kant's phenomena.
The Kantian position is equivalent to a ship in a bottle, and that makes us
trapped in an ultimate reality that we can never know because we have no
contact with it. Just kidding about you being a Kantian, but I am sure you
can see the relationship between Kantian phenomena and causal realism.
>
> That leads us back to your original question, this time phrased a little
> differently. "Is there existence independent of our brain?"
>
> Depending on which branch of philosophy you follow, you will come
> up with a different answer. My view is that our subjective experience
> is of "something" other than our own mental processes. And that means
> that, yes, there is existence beyond our perceptions. The problem is
> in the "proof." Contact with existence is "experiential" in nature, but
> "proof" is a "cognitive" process. It is removed from experience. That
> is why, I believe, that Descartes dictum "I think, therefore I am" totally
> fails. The mind (brain) must "experience" to know existence, even its
> own. Therefore "experience," "sensation," "perception" are *primary*
> to the thought process and "cognition" ("I think"), only comes much later
> and is a result of the "primary" factors. Descartes "proof" is therefore
> deceptive and is not what it appears to be.
>
> In practice, no one really doubts their own existence. Why? Perception,
> sensation, experience. That is the fundamental reality of your own
> existence. There is a false "thought experiment" of "dreamer's world"
> and also "Brains In Vats," that seeks to undermine the experiential
> knowledge of experience. But I posted an argument on here sometime
> back that showed that the thought experiment was not valid. The
> only answer it could give was meaningless.
>
> The view of "experience" as the foundation of our knowledge of existence
> is known as "realism." But we must be careful here, because at one time
> the term "realism" meant "the view that abstract concepts have a real
> existence and can be studied empirically" and though it is no longer the
> current definition, it is still around in dictionaries and philosophy
books.
> The current, proper, definition for "Realism" is: the doctrine that the
> physical world has existence separate from the mind."
>
> The modern term for this point of view is called "Causal Realism," and
> I will provide you with a quote from a book that probably expresses it
> better than I would:
>
> "Causal Realism assumes that the causes of our sense experience
> are physical objects in the external world. Causal realism takes as
> its starting point the observation that the main biological function of
our
> senses is to help us find a way round our environment. It is through
> our senses that we acquire beliefs about our environment. According
> to causal realism, when I see my guitar what actually happens is that
> light rays reflected from the guitar cause certain effects on my
> retina and on other areas of my brain. This leads to me acquiring
> certain beliefs about what I am seeing. The experience of acquiring
> the beliefs is the experience of seeing my guitar.
>
> "The route by which we acquire perceptual beliefs is important:
> not just any route will do. For me actually to see my guitar it is
> essential that my guitar is the cause of the beliefs I acquire about it.
> The appropriate causal link for seeing is that brought about by an
> object reflecting light rays onto my retina and the subsequent
> processing of this information in my brain. If, for example, I was
> under the influence of drugs and was merely hallucinating, then
> this would not be a case of seeing my guitar. The drug rather
> than the guitar would have been the cause of my beliefs.
>
> "Seeing is a matter of acquiring information about my surroundings
> rather than producing mental representations of any kind. Like
> representative realism, causal realism assumes that there really is
> an external world which continues to exist whether or not it is being
> experienced. It also assumes that the beliefs we acquire through
> our sense organs are generally true. - that is why as a result of
> natural selection in the course of evolution our sense receptors are
> as they are: they tend to give us reliable information about our
> environment.
>
> "Another great advantage of causal realism over rival theories of
> perception is that it can easily explain the fact that our existing
> knowledge affects what we perceive. In acquiring information our
> system of classification, and our existing knowledge, directly affect
> how we treat incoming information and what we select and
> interpret as relevant.
> ...
> "Causal realism makes the assumption that there is a real world out
> there that exists independently of people perceiving it. This is
> what is known as a metaphysical assumption -- in other words it
> is an assumption about the nature of reality. Someone of idealist
> tendencies would find this metaphysical assumption unacceptable.
> However, since most of us are committed to a belief that there is a
> real world that exists independently of us, this assumption can be
> seen as a point in favor of causal realism, rather than a criticism of
> it." (I would add myself that this is both a scientific approach and
> a reasonable common sense approach.)
>
> Can their be "proof" of external existence. There can basically be
> two kinds. The first is experiential proof. It is the most direct.
> The second is based on undeniable probabilities. That is that the
> information we receive from our experiences (and scientific
> examinations) are so accurately reliable that it would not make
> sense to doubt them in a real living experience.
>
> The proof that Descartes attempted failed to consider that it is,
> itself, built upon certain assumptions and prior knowledge. It
> not only assumes knowledge of language, which is in itself
> experiential, it assumes understanding of the meaning of "I,"
> the meaning of "think," and the meaning of "I am." In other
> words, it already assumes "existence" and the statement is
> based on the unstated prior assumption. Without prior
> experiential knowledge, Descartes could not have even made
> the statement. So his "proof" through thought is actually based
> on experiential knowledge, and is not a proof at all, but an
> assumption -- actually many assumptions.
>
> So is there existence beyond our experience of it? I would most
> assuredly say "Yes!" It makes no sense to doubt it. To even
> make an argument pro or con is to assume the existence of
> people who will read it. And if I know I wrote this and you know
> you are reading it, then my assumption was pretty reliable.
>
> Rex
>
>
>
Rex Bennett
That leads us back to your original question, this time phrased a little
taichi
I enjoyed reading your post. I think that "I think, therefore I am" should
be I think, therefore I think. Thinking is a process of sorting out what
we perceive through our senses. We convert perception into concepts.
Reality is what we perceive and experience is the accumulation of perceived
reality. Reality comes in many forms and degrees of imperative. Some
reality is immediate and some reality is abstract. Our ability to cope
with reality is essential to our survival and our well being. What we
perceive is mostly consist and predictable and we can quickly adapt to new
experiences through association. Our perception and the conceptualization
of that perception becomes very acute. Using our mind, we can manipulate
much of reality through the extension of our motor skills and our tools.
We are in the bottle but we are able to change the contents of the bottle
through creative processes. We can be creative or destructive. Outside of
the bottle is another reality with endless possibilities. The structure of
reality which is probably just electrical currents and force field is
immaterial what we experience as life is the essential element of life
experience. We can create heaven or hell, it is collectively our choice.
Have an essential reality,
Taichi
Val Miranda <comc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<7inui7$m5q$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
Rex Bennett
and to social philosophy as well! (g)
taichi <tai...@eastwind.net> wrote in message
news:01beaa26$d0358480$27fce3cf@default...