koti

Yes, reality, as we know it, is a macro phenomenon and radio waves are not a macro phonomenon; the ontology of them is a mathematical.one. Any thing fundamental, like photons, are made up of measurable parameters but what they are as an entity is subject to modelling, which can change with new information. What scientists know about fundamental phenomena is always an abstraction; they are outside of our physical sensibilities to detect without apparatus.

Is it adequate to conclude that essencially what you mean is "If we can't sense it with our 5 senses it's not real" ?

 

 

Well, the effect of the nail hitting the hammer can ultimately be described in terms of the electromagnetic forces between the outmost surface electrons in the hammer and the nail. These are quantum effects that behave in very strange and counter-intuitive ways. So I wonder if this really is a good test of "reality".

Im not an expert but I dont think that our current QM is "good enough" for "testing for reality" Also I think we would have to define the meaning of reality in depth first. I think that the disagreements might come from semantic differences and the differences in general perception of "reality"

Where is the flaw? How do you test for "realness"?

I have no idea. Stil I would lean towards considering spacetime as "real" as radio waves or any other entity which is not dirrectly graspable by our 5 senses but as geordief wrote effects of it on the world are reproducable/repetable.

The resulting effect is real, but how do you show that the radio waves are real?

Correct me if I'm wrong but following the above logic might get us to the point where nothing can be proven real...even a nail being hit by a hammer.

 

 

Are they? They might just be a mathematical abstraction that does a good job of describing reality.

Please do prove that notion

Strange quoted someone at the begining of this thread:

"On another forum, someone has defined "real" as meaning "you can hit it with a hammer". By this criterion, space-time is not real, even if the mathematical model accurately describes something that exists!"

You cannot hit radio waves with a hammer and yet they are very real. If you hit space-time with gravity instead of a hammer you will be able to see that it reacts, Einstein did a pretty good job explaining that. Spacetime is as real to me as the phone Im holding in my hands right now. Ofcourse spacetime is a mathematical model too, I dont see why it couldn't be both.

You question if the rock had any purpose and that part of this purpose was to trap this guy?I don't think there is any great purpose to anything, we make our own purpose as we are able to. The rock is just a rock.

I can already see that coming to this forum will do my nerves a great deal of good. Glad to be here.

I may be wrong but I always thought that reproduction has to involve DNA passing and inheriting? Crystals would be out of scope then, Im not familiar with the vesicles you are mentioning.

Is there any existing or extinct life that could not reproduce? Is there any matter considered non-living that can reproduce? Isn't reproduction a single criterium which is enough to classify things by living and non living ?

ajb...What you wrote is clear and I agree with it. What is your aproach purely on a plilosophical level on the issue from the film I described above? What would be your thoughts in this guys situation?

Let me try to put my thoughts on this into perspective but first...

OK so I am going to do you the courtesy of assuming you are not another preacher (we have had too many just lately).

Your assumption is very correct. I went throught some topics on this forum and I see what you are reffering to.

 

So I will ask what you mean by your first post as it seems to me to have a contradiction. (second sentence v the third)

Which 2 sentences are you reffering to ?

 

Are you for or against determinism?

I'm against determinism.

 

What do you you think are the alternatives?

Chance. Isn't it obvious ?

Strange - I agree and hopefuly you are right that modern QM shows that a fully deterministic universe is not a reality, Hawkings work shows that. I guess I'm kind of mad that something so profoundly contradicting my nature is the subject of debate (speaking purely from philosophical point of view) I kinda like your canceling out analogy but unfortunately that is not how things work

I'm curious what are purely philosophical opinions on this subject. For me it's mind boggling how could someone lean towards a pre-determened nature of reality. Then again a lot of modern science is extremely counter intuitive for me, quantum mechanics beig at the top of the list. What do you think ?