0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
What are you exactly talking about , Ethos ?
author=Ethos_ link=topic=52526.msg444561#msg444561 date=1416083079]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 15/11/2014 19:58:50What are you exactly talking about , Ethos ?The point I'm making is this: There are facts about reality which are very unpleasant, such as the inevitability of death, but like taxes, death is inescapable. Even though I, along with many others would prefer a different reality, I prefer to know how things really are and not how I would prefer them to be. If one chooses to ignore reality and construct a make believe world suitable for themselves, they risk being labeled as insane.
Your position in this thread parallels that risk Don because you keep insisting that we can influence physical reality thru observation only. I choose to know the true physical reality and will not be satisfied with delusion. And to insist that one's simple observation of an event is capable of influencing it is delusional. No such evidence exists!
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg444409#msg444409 date=1415989684]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 14/11/2014 18:10:46Consciousness was the one that preceded the universe , not life , needless to add .Your definition of consciousness being....?
Consciousness was the one that preceded the universe , not life , needless to add .
I should see a shrink then lol
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 15/11/2014 20:47:17I should see a shrink then lol A word to the wise is sufficient!
Can you define what electricity is , what aether is , what dark matter and dark energy are ...., what energy is , ...what magnetism is , ...what physical fields are ,what gravity really is , what space- time or space -and- time really are .....
If consciousness creates reality, not just our private subjective experience of it, but literally creates physical reality, how is it possible to ever be wrong about anything? How would you explain something as simple as an optical illusion? The idea sounds infantile to me.
The problem with defining consciousness as the primordial cause of everything is that it doesn't align with the common usage of the word as an emergent property of some living things. You would do well to choose another word, and thus resolve some of the conflicts in your own mind.
Quote from: alancalverd on 16/11/2014 01:01:22The problem with defining consciousness as the primordial cause of everything is that it doesn't align with the common usage of the word as an emergent property of some living things. You would do well to choose another word, and thus resolve some of the conflicts in your own mind.The closest word that comes to mind for what he's suggesting is 'magic'.
Really ?"...Wheeler has speculated that reality is created by observers in the universe. "How does something arise from nothing?", he asks about the existence of space and time (Princeton Physics News, 2006).
I think that a universe that exists all by itself without a concept to grasp it is a very odd thing. Then when a concept was established a reality then existed to grasp it. Is this in the ball park. It's almost enough to make be believe that God exists.
Quote from: DonQuichotteReally ?"...Wheeler has speculated that reality is created by observers in the universe. "How does something arise from nothing?", he asks about the existence of space and time (Princeton Physics News, 2006). Well, what can I say. Nobodies perfect. I particularly disagree with Wheeler on that point. Thanks for mentioning it. However I don't believe that he meant it in the sense that you interpreted it. Here is what I believe that he meant.Quote from: Peter M. BrownI think that a universe that exists all by itself without a concept to grasp it is a very odd thing. Then when a concept was established a reality then existed to grasp it. Is this in the ball park. It's almost enough to make be believe that God exists.
If two people observe the same phenomenon, whose consciousness precipitated it?
author=PmbPhy link=topic=52526.msg444605#msg444605 date=1416124084]Quote from: DonQuichotteReally ?"...Wheeler has speculated that reality is created by observers in the universe. "How does something arise from nothing?", he asks about the existence of space and time (Princeton Physics News, 2006). Well, what can I say. Nobodies perfect. I particularly disagree with Wheeler on that point. Thanks for mentioning it. However I don't believe that he meant it in the sense that you interpreted it. Here is what I believe that he meant.
the so-called physical reality exists only in wave-like forms of possibilities , eventualities , probabilities ... until it "freezes " or it gets actualized by the very act of observation .