JohnSSM

Subjectivity wont allow it.  You will have to put much energy into getting more and more precise in detail and for what?  Its a fractal of sorts.  You will run out of energy as you approach the same point, over and over from different subjective perspectives to find the same details...you cant know objective truth now matter how obvious it seems to you and any amount of consensus.  

Just now, beecee said:

I'm saying basically that sometimes philosophical jargon, as you seem to be engaging in, is absurd. Must leave now...catch a bus that I trust will be on time.

I know what you are saying.  And when my friends all believe that physics is mathematical jargon, I tell them, believe me, it does have its purpose.  So does philosophy.  We dont have the details.  We have models of the details.  

Just now, beecee said:

I'm sure you do. Understand that is.

No, using your words, I do not see the meaning in them that you put there.  Honestly.

Just now, beecee said:

I'm simply saying as I said to you before, that you will never convince all people all of the time, no matter how objectively real or genuine something is. That does not detract from that objective reality though.

So, how do you know how real something objectively is?

Just now, beecee said:

Sometimes philsophical jargon, goes against objective reality.eg: A spheroidal shaped Earth.

I dont understand what you are referring to now.  I really want to understand you.  PLease explain.

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

Sure! Holes are real and exist in certain circumstances. Some people are mentally unstable and still object to the objective reality of a spheroidal shaped Earth in favour of a flat mythical one. We can and do and must have certain trust in certain things...eg: the deeper insights of GR as evidenced by reputable science and observational and experimental data. And finally philosophy is not the be all and end all of anything, and as per my previous quote, philsophers can make absurd statements/comparisons/analogies etc. 

What question were you answering?  Mentally unstable poeple mixed in with good faith argument discussions?  Im sorry, you lost me.

GOOD FAITH: A “Good Faith” argument or discussion is one in which both parties agree on the terms on which they engage, are honest and respectful of the other person's dignity, follow generally-accepted norms of social interaction, and genuinely want to hear what the other person thinks and has to say.

Can we agree to ask specific questions, give specific rebuttal, and move on to the next question?  IF not, i cant have this conversation in good faith.

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

And objective reality shows you are wrong. Just because a small percenatge of ratbags still believe the Earth is flat, in no way detracts from the objective reality that it is most certainly an oblate spheroid. 

Who did you talk to in the objectivity information department?  Can I get that number please?

5 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

And objective reality shows you are wrong

We should discuss, in my opinion, how you see objectivity and subjectivity.  We are all human subjects.  We did not write the story.  We think the story is about us understanding the story.  But, ultimately, our experience could all be false, within the guidelines of the story.  Who wrote the story of the universe?  I dont know, but ONLY THEY will have an objective understanding of what we are experiencing.  And they may not even exist.  Alas, we are subjects in the story.  IF you get the analogy which people learn in literature classes, you could finally understand that a subject cannot prove the story there are in.  It's just that simple.

3 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

I asked you to tell me if shadows and holes are objectively real, or subjectively reasoned.

In my best effort to find a question,  I have stated many times that humans can never know objective reality.  If humans can never know objective reality, then they cant answer questions about existence with any certainty of finding any answer and get objective confirmation to objectively verify it for them.  What is my evidence.  Humans are subjective beings, with no knowledge of objective reality aside from what they can sense and understand.  Cant take it any farther than that.  And bringing it any closer doesn't change anything about that reality.  No details will matter.

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

I asked you to tell me if shadows and holes are objectively real, or subjectively reasoned.

Can you find any subjective reality, discovered by humans, with a complete confirmation from objective reality?  MY point is.  Find me anything which our understanding of, isn't subjectively reasoned.

Just now, swansont said:

Is there something about my statement you don’t understand?

I didn’t ask you about physical objects. I asked you to tell me if shadows and holes are objectively real, or subjectively reasoned.

Well, I Just asked you to ask me a specific question.  Then you make another statement.  I am confused again,

I feel its best if I leave this discussion now.  Will I be banned for avoiding a conversation with someone who refuses to answer and ask questions directly?  Im sorry.  I have no other means for discussion.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?  

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.   

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Lol

It depends a bit on how one defines "random." Genes copy themselves and do wo within certain guardrails and process prerequisites, yes, but during this process there are also random mutations. Some get selected for, some get selected against, some have no measurable effect on outcomes. 

If it's not random, then really the only other explanation is it's directed... which as you were already told in that other thread which got closed... a status this new thread will soon have as well... that smacks of creationism and results in absurd "it's turtles all the way down" conversations when you start exploring who created the creator... and who created that ad infinitum. 

Even if you're not thinking of creator, you'd need to explore all free radical interactions and gamma rays coming in to break apart structures and that all follows variabel probabilities and randomness.

But since you were told not to bring this up, yet did anyway... the next step for this thread will be anything but random. 

I didnt have any proof to provide besides my own inferred observations.  I have now posted what I needed to prove my inferred observations. 

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.

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.

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?

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.

After making another post about evolution and genes, where it was moved to speculations, probably because of a lack of citations and proof,  I am going against something a moderator told me. 

I throw myself at the mercy of their final judgements, in light of references which verify my opinion that all genetic mutations that drive adaptation and evolution are not always random.  I described the process as "inspiration".  I didnt know any of the following info before I posted that thread.  I had built up beliefs over 25 years of study, that all mutations were not random.  Of course, these beliefs don't really conflict with Darwin, yet, only amend the ways in which genes COULD mutate.  I offer the following citations that all genetic mutations are not random, this has been proven in experiments, with the results released in summer of 2020.

"This suggests that evolution does not proceed by simple random processes, but is guided by physical properties of the DNA itself and functional constraint of the proteins encoded by the DNA."  Full article below.
(PDF) Evolution: Are the Monkeys’ Typewriters Rigged? (researchgate.net)

"Evolution is often said to be "blind," because there's no outside force guiding natural selection. But changes in genetic material that occur at the molecular level are not entirely random, a new study suggests. These mutations are guided by both the physical properties of the genetic code and the need to preserve the critical function of proteins, the researchers said."  Full article below.  

Evolution is Not Random (At Least, Not Totally) | Live Science

Once again, I know the moderator told me emphatically, not to bring this up, but the last thread truly got off topic and devolved quickly.  I feel it is important to spread word of these new confirmations about the nature of all mutations, and evolution itself.

8 hours ago, studiot said:

From my applied maths side of the issue I would say that this is about what we call mathematical modelling.

Yes, the perspectives on Math play heavily into this discussion, yet my own knowledge cannot help me with mathematical understandings at this level.

May I give you another citation?  If you like, you can skip to part 12 called (A demonstration)  on page 22.
Microsoft Word - HelmholtzTutorialKoeln.doc (nku.edu)

The entire article is full of math which I can only imagine, lends some type of quantifiable proof.  As far as I can tell, the helmholtz machine does work to some high degree of objective reality.  

"The machine has clearly captured much of the world’s structure here: vertical bars appear with higher probability than horizontal bars, all patterns in the world are generated by the machine, and patterns not in the world occur with low probability and are mostly just a bit away from real patterns. Yet, as experience with these machines has shown (e.g. [6]), the machine hasn’t quite captured the world in what we might judge to be the most natural way, as shown by the unreal pattern 000010111 with probability 0.0412."

It seems to be that the machine was 88 percent correct.  And the question in my mind is..."If you had a mathematical solution that gave you correct answers 88 percent of the time, would it be a total failure, a partial success, or is it impossible for math to produce correct results 88 percent of the time?  

9 hours ago, studiot said:

Before I offered you a simple, but perfectly sound, explanation of entropy, that you will not find in most treatments either.
This explanation requires about the mathematics available to an 11 year old ie the understanding that area = length time breadth.
My offer still stands.

MY understanding of entropy really kicked in and I think I've got it nailed down fairly well, but any objective math, that I can understand, is always welcome.  A message perhaps?

On 3/27/2021 at 9:07 AM, Alex Mercer said:

What does it mean for something to exist? Does it even make sense to define 'non-existence'?

It would mean that something is objectively real, not subjectively reasoned.  Yes, it makes sense for something not to exist, and defining non-existence also makes sense.  Non existence could easily mean "something that is not objectively real".   But existence also has MUCH to do with context.  Do Oompa Loompas exist?   Not in the world as actual beings, but they do exist in a book.  

I just started with wikipedia.

Helmholtz machine - Wikipedia

In another post, asking about free energy, someone mentioned Helmholtz, and I looked into Helmholtz and I discovered the Helmholtz machines, developed from his ideas that the brain is a "statistical inference engine".  

Does Helmholtz imply that a "statistical inference engine" can create models from observed functions and their noted effects without really knowing anything about the nature of the "process" being observed?  Does the Helmholtz machine prove him right?  Is he right?   Thank you.