Hijack from What is existence?

[JohnSSM]

On 3/28/2021 at 9:08 AM, swansont said:

I can measure a shadow or a hole. Are these physical objects?

There is no proof in a subjective measurement. I can give some examples if you like.

Is shadow a physical object? Is a hole a physical object?  If the physics of the universe, has created an effect that we can notice and define or measure, then it is a physical object.  That's all any subjective perspective is capable of. 

THIS IS AN EDIT.  I wanted to reword this. If the physics of the universe, has created an effect that we can notice and define or measure, then it is a physical SUBJECT.  Not an object.  In all terms of reality, we have no objective proof of anything.  Math could be said to be an objective truth, but it only solves the truths that we realize it can solve, through our subjective use of math. It is still limited by our subjectivity, when it comes to proving anything.

If two or more subjective perspectives can notice and define it the same way, then evidence of objectivity has been found, but not proof of objectivity.  Even if every subjective perspective that existed, agreed to the definitions, it would not confirm it's objective existence.  Its as simple as asking, can everyone be wrong?  I think the answer is yes.  

 

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

A lot of this points to the need to carefully define terms and context.  Discussion of what is “real” is meaningless without clarifying if you mean real vs illusion, or real vs imagined. 

Well, the terms and context of the OP were very non defined.  Being a psychologist, I wanted to mention schizophrenia to end the discussion of subjective reality being the measure for any reality right off the bat.  But the discussion has learning value beyond that, to me.

 

Edited March 29, 2021 by JohnSSM

[StringJunky]

29 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

If two or more subjective perspectives can notice and define it the same way, then evidence of objectivity has been found, but not proof of objectivity. 

I would call that intersubjective consensus.

Edited March 29, 2021 by StringJunky

[JohnSSM]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I would call that intersubjective consensus

I agree. Those terms fit well. Where else are they used?  or did you model them yourself?

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

I agree. Those terms fit well. Where else are they used?  or did you model them yourself?

Modelled myself but had seen another member use the term as well since (ydoaps).

[JohnSSM]

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

Anyone who suggests that holes do not exist should invite me to bring my trusty pin to their next balloon party.

Should I take this as a serious point of discussion?  That you can prove to anyone at a balloon party that holes exist, with a pin?  I mean.  Is it sarcasm, or an actual point of debate, because I believe the notion to be preposterous, that you can prove anything to anyone.  Shall we discuss?

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

Modelled myself but had seen another member use the term as well since (ydoaps).

I only asked because if the terms came from another subject, I could align the terms of that subject, with the terms of this subject, to find how they are connected or not.

[beecee]

10 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

Should I take this as a serious point of discussion?  That you can prove to anyone at a balloon party that holes exist, with a pin? 

I believe that studiot was making the point that something does not need to be physical to be real. And of course that holes do exist.

Edited March 29, 2021 by beecee

[JohnSSM]

Just now, beecee said:

I believe that studiot was making the point that something does not need to be physical to be real. 

OK.  But how could he actually prove that to anyone, at a balloon party with a pin?  I dont understand how.  It would take a long discussion to prove how you could actually prove anything to anyone.  I say, it cannot be done.  One person cannot prove something to be objective to any other person.  So, his claim is a claim.  I thought claims around here had to be backed up by at least, logical thought and not base assumptions about the nature of proof.

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

OK.  But how could he actually prove that to anyone, at a balloon party with a pin?  I dont understand how.  It would take a long discussion to prove how you could actually prove anything to anyone.  I say, it cannot be done.  One person cannot prove something to be objective to any other person.  So, his claim is a claim.  I thought claims around here had to be backed up by at least, logical thought and not base assumptions about the nature of proof.

Sure it can be proved that a hole exists! (not withstanding extremes of philosophical claptrap) The air within the elastic membrane of a balloon is under some pressure. Put a hole in that membrane and the pressure is released...bang! I dig a hole across the path you are walking home and cover it up from view. You fall down that hole. Isn't that proof enough that the hole exists?

[StringJunky]

15 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

Should I take this as a serious point of discussion?  That you can prove to anyone at a balloon party that holes exist, with a pin?  I mean.  Is it sarcasm, or an actual point of debate, because I believe the notion to be preposterous, that you can prove anything to anyone.  Shall we discuss?

I only asked because if the terms came from another subject, I could align the terms of that subject, with the terms of this subject, to find how they are connected or not.

I think intersubjective consensus is as close we can be to being truly objective... we are all bound by our physiological limitations and the best we can do is find where our observations agree, which may include using tools.

[JohnSSM]

18 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think intersubjective consensus is as close we can be to being truly objective... we are all bound by our physiological limitations and the best we can do is find where our observations agree, which may include using tools.

Agreed.  Well said.

19 minutes ago, beecee said:

Sure it can be proved that a hole exists! (not withstanding extremes of philosophical claptrap) The air within the elastic membrane of a balloon is under some pressure. Put a hole in that membrane and the pressure is released...bang! I dig a hole across the path you are walking home and cover it up from view. You fall down that hole. Isn't that proof enough that the hole exists?

We never described the people at the balloon party.  They are all kids with developmental disorders who wouldn't know what a hole truly was if you stabbed them.  You could do your demonstration out in the desert with no audience and prove as much.  Do you want to truly discuss his statement?  Since he left the balloon traits to variable interpretation, lets make the balloon out of steel.   

Edited March 29, 2021 by JohnSSM

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Sure it can be proved that a hole exists! (not withstanding extremes of philosophical claptrap) The air within the elastic membrane of a balloon is under some pressure. Put a hole in that membrane and the pressure is released...bang! I dig a hole across the path you are walking home and cover it up from view. You fall down that hole. Isn't that proof enough that the hole exists?

If we remove all material around the hole, does the hole still exist? The existence of the hole is contingent on that material. Holes cannot live an independent existence... it is an abstract concept. It falls in the same category as say length

[JohnSSM]

 

12 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

If we remove all material around the hole, does the hole still exist? The existence of the hole is contingent on that material. Holes cannot live an independent existence... it is an abstract concept. It falls in the same category as say length

A hole exists subjectively as soon as someone notices an inconsistency in the amount of entropy any surface may contain.  That entropy can remove material, leaving an inconsistency in the smoothness of any surface.  When it does, some subjective being may notice it and call it a hole.  A hole now exists as a subject.  The hole cannot be proved as an object and neither can any other physical subject or notion.  IF we agree that "consensus subjectivity" does not equal objectivity, why are we even discussing objectivity and what is objectively real?  

Edited March 29, 2021 by JohnSSM

[beecee]

33 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

Agreed.  Well said.

We never described the people at the balloon party.  They are all kids with developmental disorders who wouldn't know what a hole truly was if you stabbed them.  You could do your demonstration out in the desert with no audience and prove as much.  Do you want to truly discuss his statement?  

I could also do my demonstration in front of a bunch of people of average intelligence and have my proof accepted. So it isn't as cut and dried as you put in the following...

43 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

 It would take a long discussion to prove how you could actually prove anything to anyone.  I say, it cannot be done.  One person cannot prove something to be objective to any other person.  

I can prove it to many.

29 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

If we remove all material around the hole, does the hole still exist? The existence of the hole is contingent on that material. Holes cannot live an independent existence... it is an abstract concept. It falls in the same category as say length

Good point. But the hole did exist for a certain amount of time, otherwise the membrane of the balloon would continue to be under presssure.

28 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

Since he left the balloon traits to variable interpretation, lets make the balloon out of steel.  

The point is holes exist for a time. Something does not need to be physical to be real and/or to exist. 

Edited March 29, 2021 by beecee

[JohnSSM]

14 minutes ago, beecee said:

I could also do my demonstration in front of a bunch of people of average intelligence and have my proof accepted. So it isn't as cut and dried as you put in the following...

Right, it is not cut and dry, The original statement was not cut and dry.  It left room for many variables, which I see as assumptions.  My statement was "you cannot prove to anyone" when I should have said, you cannot prove to everyone.  And even if everyone at the party sees the demonstration and understands it, does not make HOLES objectively real.  You have gotten every subjective opinion that exists, and that is not enough to claim objectivity.  I guess this is philosophical clipclap to some, but to others, it's a more precise way of discussing actuality.  I thought that is why we are all here.  SO I assumed his comment was sarcastic, and it was.  Everyone's version of subjectivity is basically a form of sarcasm.    

14 minutes ago, beecee said:

But the hole did exist for a certain amount of time, otherwise the membrane of the balloon would continue to be under presssure.

You don't have to explain it to me.  You have to explain it to a child with autism.  Lets say that the only people in the universe were you and an autistic child.  You could not prove anything to anyone in the universe.  IM making a larger point that maybe you dont consider to be a point. Im not sure.  I want to understand.

14 minutes ago, beecee said:

I can prove it to many.

Einstein created all sorts of equations that prove his ideas of relativity, special and general.  Do you think everyone can examine them long enough to understand the objective reality created by them?  I am a person of at least average intelligence.  Einstein cannot prove his theories to me.  IF he cant explain them without math, than I cant understand them.  

Ive watched Feynman gives lectures about probability and quarks, using math.  To him, he was finding proof.  It did not exist for me at all.

Edited March 29, 2021 by JohnSSM

[beecee]

12 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

Right, it is not cut and dry, The original statement was not cut and dry.  It left room for many variables, which I see as assumptions.  My statement was "you cannot prove to anyone" when I should have said, you cannot prove to everyone.  And even if everyone at the party sees the demonstration and understands it, does not make HOLES objectively real.  You have gotten every subjective opinion and exists, and that is not enough to claim objectivity.  I guess this is philosophical clipclap to some, but to others, it's a more precise way of discussing actuality.  I thought that is why we are all here.  SO I assumed his comment was sarcastic, and it was.  Everyone's version of subjectivity is basically a form of sarcasm.    

Yes it is...philosophical claptrap that is. Just because some amongst us still adhere to the nonsensical notion that the Earth is flat, does not mean that the oblate spheroid that the Earth really is, is not objectively real to the reasonable minded among us. The sarcasm exhibted I believe, was to show how silly sometimes philosophical banter can be, in my opinion, and that of my old mate Professor Lawrence Krauss.

Something does not need to be physical to be real and/or to exist. 

Edited March 29, 2021 by beecee

[JohnSSM]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Yes it is...philosophical claptrap that is. Just because some amongst us still adhere to the nonsensical notion that the Earth is flat, does not mean that the oblate spheroid that the Earth really is, is not objectively real to the reasonable minded among us. The sarcasm exhibted I believe, was to show how silly sometimes philosophical banter can be, in my opinion, and that of my old mate Professor Lawrence Krauss.

Well, my point is that proof is subjective.  Anything humans have ever believed to be an "objective truth", is still just a subjective observation.  IF everyone else agrees, thats great.  You have a shared subjective observation, not an objective truth. Humans are subjective beings, not gods who might have objectivity if anyone could prove or disprove those subjective truths that many people share.  I dont know of any gods with objectivity, and neither do I know of any humans with it either.  So, getting back to the OP and every point made within it and every point ever made by any human or living system; any knowledge we have of reality is subjective.  Unless you have talked to god lately.  I must know.

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

  Unless you have talked to god lately.  I must know.

I let my Mrs do the talking to God. 

At the same time I self isolate with a six pack of VB. 

 

Let me finish with a  quote.....

"There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it" .Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman:

 

[JohnSSM]

Just now, beecee said:

I let my Mrs do the talking to God. 

At the same time I self isolate with a six pack of VB. 

Ha, quite funny.

 

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Let me finish with a  quote.....

"There is no statement so absurd that no philosopher will make it" .Cicero, Marcus Tullius (106-43 BCE) Roman statesman:

Why are you leaving before reaching a consensus? 

I feel like you are calling me absurd.  What else could your final words be a testament to?  What other subjective conclusion could I come to? The forum has rules about personal attacks.  If they have a different veil than I, I cant blame them or you for the insensitivity of your comments, and how they do seem to be done in ad hominem.  I will not go there.  But I will say, you agree to leave this conversation after proving nothing about the nature of existence.

You might be interested in hearing my thoughts about free energy, knowing when you are wasting it, or not.  Its guides all our decisions.

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

I feel like you are calling me absurd. 

There go those reading comprehension issues again. 
 

14 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

What else could your final words be a testament to?  What other subjective conclusion could I come to?

That your argument is absurd and even uses the tenets of absurdism itself. 
 

14 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

The forum has rules about personal attacks. 

Correct, and you weren’t personally attacked. Quit whining and being so sensitive, or report the post for review if you feel a rule has been broken. 

14 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

seem to be done in ad hominem.  I will not go there. 

You technically already have, but it’s good that you won’t persist since you still are misusing that term. 

Edited March 29, 2021 by iNow

[beecee]

1 minute ago, JohnSSM said:

Why are you leaving before reaching a consensus? 

I've reached what I see as a reasonable consensus. Part of that being that you may convince some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you will never convince all of the people all of the time.

3 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

I feel like you are calling me absurd.  What else could your final words be a testament to?  What other subjective conclusion could I come to? The forum has rules about personal attacks.  If they have a different veil than I, I cant blame them or you for the insensitivity of your comments, and how they do seem to be done in ad hominem.  I will not go there.  But I will say, you agree to leave this conversation after proving nothing about the nature of existence.

It's not a personal attack. It's a quote from a real live person. My views on philosophy are well known I think, as I said earlier, they more or less align with Professor Krauss. I'm entitled to that view without anyone taking it personally. Let me though rephrase. There are good philosophers; there are also bad philosophers.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, JohnSSM said:

There is no proof in a subjective measurement. I can give some examples if you like.Is shadow a physical object? Is a hole a physical object?  If the physics of the universe, has created an effect that we can notice and define or measure, then it is a physical object.  That's all any subjective perspective is capable of. 

You made a claim about things being real, not whether they are physical objects, so this is not really a response to what I asked you.

1 hour ago, JohnSSM said:

We never described the people at the balloon party.  

Because this is irrelevant, I would say.

[beecee]

1 minute ago, joigus said:

The attribute of existence seems to be quite controversial...

I exist and I'm anything but controversial! 😜

 

43 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

You don't have to explain it to me.  You have to explain it to a child with autism.  Lets say that the only people in the universe were you and an autistic child.  You could not prove anything to anyone in the universe.  IM making a larger point that maybe you dont consider to be a point. Im not sure.  I want to understand.

I consider it to be totally unrealsitic and so unlikely as to be absurd.....

46 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

Einstein created all sorts of equations that prove his ideas of relativity, special and general.  Do you think everyone can examine them long enough to understand the objective reality created by them?  I am a person of at least average intelligence.  Einstein cannot prove his theories to me.  IF he cant explain them without math, than I cant understand them.  

Ive watched Feynman gives lectures about probability and quarks, using math.  To him, he was finding proof.  It did not exist for me at all.

There is much I don't understand either, about SR/GR, but in some respects, I have "faith" in reputable scientist, science and the scientific methodology.

Let me offer you another quote......

"Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion"?

Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist.

[JohnSSM]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

You made a claim about things being real, not whether they are physical objects, so this is not really a response to what I asked you.

Im sorry, i dont follow.  What is your question again?  Id rather keep my communications very specific.  I have allready tired to answer your pervious question, if I didnt, can you point out why I didnt more specifically?

 

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

Because this is irrelevant, I would say.

We can disagree on it's relevance, cant we?

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

I consider it to be totally unrealsitic and so unlikely as to be absurd.....

Nice...ask an uneducated person what they believe about special relativity.  The range of answers is very interesting.

[JohnSSM]

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

There is much I don't understand either, about SR/GR, but in some respects, I have "faith" in reputable scientist, science and the scientific methodology.

Let me offer you another quote......

"Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion"?

Faith arguments arent really scientific are they?  Can I use faith arguments is a discussion about gravity?

Who doesnt understand digestion?  The person who says that may not even understand digestion.  I dont see any relevance.

[beecee]

3 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

Nice...ask an uneducated person what they believe about special relativity.  The range of answers is very interesting.

See Oliver Heaviside quote.