I am not arguing whether or not the objective reality can be changed by thought, observation or other means, that is clear. I am saying that things can exist even when they are not being observed.
Thanks for clarifying that - I think I misunderstood. You know, this point of yours (above), really "keeps me up at night" so to speak sometimes - either when I've had way too much wine or am shooting the shit with friends at a dinner party or whatever, lol.....seriously it's true...
I mean everything that made "sense" to me up until about 2003 would have me saying
"like duh! of course it's there when you're not observing it!"
Until a prof rocked my world one day in a lecture about the "
Schrödinger's Cat Experiment" and I learned about EPR paradox and String Theory.
By the way, if you're unfamiliar, it really is fascinating. Here's a 1 minute synopsis from a BBC special it's one of the most thought provoking physics experiments of the past 100 years (IMHO):
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN-jCuV7BoU"]YouTube - Schrodinger's Cat for real[/ame]
But I'd like to get back to your point because it's really important. And for the record it "feels" right to me that
things can exist even when they are not being observed...
The problem is, one can't dismiss credible theories that were developed using the same methods as all other "objective" theories, that suggest something really "strange" going on.
That would mean throwing scientific integrity out the window. True scientists, accept the conclusions that are derived from indisputable premises, no matter what those conclusions say. By the way, please note I'm not suggesting AT ALL that this - for lack of a better phrase "competing" theory - is "conclusive" or "proven without a doubt".
Maybe that's why Einstein called it "spooky stuff at a distance..." and Neils Bohr said "he didn't like it one bit" (i.e. certain findings and theories of quantum physics).
According to the
Schrödinger's cat experiment (again) and the theory of
quantum indeterminacy or
the observer's paradox: the observation or measurement itself
affects an outcome, so that the
outcome as such
does not exist unless the
measurement is made.
Then, came String Theory. Now, I'm warning you Neo, don't go down this hole if you're not prepared for it, because there's no coming back, lol - sometimes I wish I hadn't:
(from an American Public Television Special -NOVA )
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGxGkTE_N6I"]YouTube - The Elegant Universe - III: The 11th Dimension 5/6[/ame]
If String Theory is correct, there are multiple dimensions i.e. multiple realities and thus there can be no way to separate existence from observation.
As many times as I've read about this, it's still hard to grasp, sounds almost comical. But how can we dismiss theories derived from the very methods that have given rise to virtually everything we accept as true and plausible in the objective, physical world?
But to get back to your point:
1) Things can have an
objective reality independent of external observation.
I want to first lay a definition down for what we are calling "objective" so that we can be on the same page. Again, if it's a little hastily put together, thanks for being patient:
- undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence"
- belonging to immediate experience of actual things or events; "objective benefits"; "an objective example"; "there is no objective evidence of anything of the kind"
(there are a few other definitions but these are the most topically relevant)
2) Observation may and indeed can change things that are being observed
3) but
observation is not required for things to exist.
Now, the question I can't get away from is this: if "objective" is defined as based on "observable phenomena....", is it possible to have "objective" reality - BY DEFINITION - if we do not observe (3)?
According to the
Schrödinger's cat experiment and the theory of
quantum indeterminacy or
the observer's paradox: the observation or measurement itself affects an outcome, so that the
outcome as such
does not exist unless the
measurement is made. (That is, there is no single outcome unless it is observed.)
If we take seriously any of the contentions made by the quantum Indeterminacy Theory and by String Theory (from above), what legitimate science is suggestion is....a little "crazy", for lack of a better word.
It's almost like saying that the only "objective" thing that exists is your own personal awareness of existing. Why? Because you are experiencing it (see definition of "objective").
What or how you are experiencing may be up for discussion but it can't be objectively denied that you are experiencing it because you do indeed have "objective" facts - i.e. it's a)
observable phenomena and it is b
ased on experience. What you are observing may be debated, but the fact that you ARE OBSERVING IT and YOU ARE EXPERIENCE IT cannot be debated.
You know Descartes said "I think therefore, I am" - he was more of a scientist than a philosopher - is this what he meant? This is a timeless question that could possible have as much to do with quantum theoretical physics as it does philosophy - some call both systems of thought diametrically opposed.
You continue on at the end of your post discussing String theory, then move on to some sort of quote about the existence of a conscious mind running things, then make a broad statement about my relative rationality.
Sorry, this was poor writing. I wasn't referring to you personally, with regard to your rationality, it was my "stream of consciousness" response to something I remember reading several pages back in the conversation. That's what happens when it's been weeks since you were discussing something, lol
Also, the part about the
conscious mind was my posing a rather disturbing question (at least it is to me) out loud?
What are we to think when the founder of modern quantum physics contends that all we know as "objective" reality is created by something that by definition is "subjective", i.e. the mind?
This is a question, not a rebuttal to any point made. What made me think of it was the fact that you mentioned quanta and Max Planck won the Nobel Prize in Physics for his discovery of the quanta.
Does what he said sound crazy with you? I've looked all around. The quote is not taken out of context -what in the world did he mean??
Lastly, I'd like to state an opinion here and this has nothing to do with scientifically supported theory.....
I feel that the average person's reality is still shaped by classical physics and I wonder how that affects what we perceive as legit or not, what we question, etc.
Under classical physics, life is far more deterministic. Under quantum physics, "reality" is a lot less straight forward. How is this reconciled?
To state it again, what do we do when the same theories and scientific methods that have revealed to us everything we accept as objective facts in the natural, physical word, yield evidence and results which almost defy logic and rationality? If we throw those results out, must we by necessity of remaining objective throw out everything else we know as well?
.....Who knows.
To tie it all together, one my major challenges as a former student of economics was the three major assumptions upon which most widely accepted economic theory is/was built. How much can you trust theories based on assumptions that could possibly be at odds with so many other theories that have undergone rigid, comprehensive scientific exploration?
I mean if I state a law that "all cats are black" even if there are 6.5 billion cats on the planet, if I find just 1 cat that isn't black, the above statement is no longer a "law" or "fact".....
...Anyway, the Elegant Universe videos are pretty cool, check the whole series out if you haven't already.It's even something cool to watch with kids if you have any.
So much for staying away from a computer during my vacation!
Happy Easter to you all down under
.
