Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And so? You're just asking questions that lead nowhere of practical usefulness, nor provide any distinctiveness from all the other beliefs ..Objective reality MODEL isn't what I am asking you. I thought that was abundantly obvious.
A 'comprehensive all-inclusive' definition means what?Reality has been a hard thing to pin down and its probably become more ambiguous in recent years. But I think it requires a comprehensive all inclusive definition rather than just being physical.
Nope, that's not my premise. I was questioning your statement about the reality of particles. Our everyday experience of the world is of aggregations of particles. Those particles may ultimately be made of stuff that isn't particulate, but does that mean they're not real?You premise what is real on particles so if there's no particles then there's no reality.
Conscious experience is the only way we know about reality (though I suppose it could be argued that we can learn about reality through unconscious experience). Belief has no necessary relation to reality at all.... there may be other ways we know reality such as through conscious experience and belief.
That's rather confused; consciousness is a process. Do legs equate to running? is running made of legs?As consciousness doesn't equate to particles then this would be a better fit for reality considering its also not made of particles but some other phenomena. Well that's what many think and this is at the heart of the matter.
The space in matter is not empty but is permeated by fields.As far as I understand matter is 99.99% empty space.
We can't directly observe anything, but that doesn't mean that nothing is physicalWe cannot directly observe particles and they are hypothesized theories or equations about physical reality. So whatever is being measured regarding objective physical reality is not really physical and it seems that some other non-physical force/influence is at the fundamental level of nature.
I agree with everything else you say there in your post, except the above quoted bit.Belief has no necessary relation to reality at all.
Ok but what does pliable actually mean. The measuring method for science in physics as far as reality is concerned is about matter (particles and fields). If its just a pliable concept or an equation then its abstract and not about anything real. Its just a human made idea based on some assumptions.The term particle is general in meaning, and is refined as needed, within the various scientific fields of study. (Notice that implies a particle isn't 'a thing' in science .. its a pliable concept, as all science's definitions are). The concept of a particle is deliberately made to be useful model in science.
A particle, in models of 'nature', can be classified under three different general sizes: microscopic, macroscopic and sub atomic. Microscopic and subatomic particle study is usually performed within the quantum mechanics domain of physics. (See here for more info).
Yet that is what many using science to support the idea that reality equates to matter. People defend reality as physical like its the only way we can know reality. Mention the supernatural or anything that requires understanding beyond science and its argued by using science to claim the facts about the matter and anything else is woo.The term 'physical reality' is pretty well a useless concept in science. I think its probably a hang over from philosophy (and therefore has no testable definition in science).
Yes and because science has a strong foothold people use it beyond methodology and make metaphysical claims in arguments. If that's the case then its stepping beyond method. But its understandable because science and tech have provided some much in certain ways. Its something tangible and easy to relate to.Because science follows the scientific objective method, I use the term 'objective reality' to distinguish science's focus from all the other meanings one usually finds in a dictionary for 'reality', which turn out to be woefully inadequate in science, due to their objective untestability.
The space in matter is not empty but is permeated by fields.
Was this made to do this?But of course, obviously, we do know enough aspects to make bridges and even know what can make them collapse so that when one does collapse, we can figure out why in a way that we can demonstrate is consistently so, a reliable factor).
Was this made to do this?
I don't think it was, and I'm sure you don't either.
But where was science's predictive powers when this thing was being rushed into place?
If science has so much foresight that we are expected to jettison God out of our lives, why isn't science's foresight being used to do something [pun] constructive [/pun]?
Do oranges demand we provide them testable evidence for God? do they make fun of us for believing in a "sky daddy"? demand we give equal airtime to other so-called deities? define our faith as "believing something we know ain't so"? poke fun of our theme parks (e.g., the Ark Encounter)? kick our right to pray out of our schools? tear down any public displays on public property? etc.?This though is just an atheist idea: "science has so much foresight that we are expected to jettison God out of our lives". It's about like saying 'because oranges are tasty, we should jettison God out of our lives.'
Well, of course (as you know), science, just like an orange, isn't itself conscious and verbally demanding anything of us, and this isn't a small point. Anyone could try to characterize science in some way for their own agenda -- individually make their own odd claims about science says this or that (which it doesn't say at all) -- but in reality 'science' is only just the effort to try to understand how nature works.Do oranges demand we provide them testable evidence for God? do they make fun of us for believing in a "sky daddy"? demand we give equal airtime to other so-called deities? define our faith as "believing something we know ain't so"? poke fun of our theme parks (e.g., the Ark Encounter)? kick our right to pray out of our schools? tear down any public displays on public property? etc.?
Good points.Well, of course (as you know), science, just like an orange, isn't itself conscious and verbally demanding anything of us, and this isn't a small point. Anyone could try to characterize science in some way for their own agenda -- individually make their own odd claims about science says this or that (which it doesn't say at all) -- but in reality 'science' is only just the effort to try to understand how nature works.
When someone trolls us by random insults like 'sky daddy' it says something about the bad place they are in mentally, but nothing about us.
About 'poke fun of our theme parks (e.g., the Ark Encounter)?' -- I've never done that, and don't expect to, but to me it would be a somewhat funny thing to see I'm thinking, because I don't need a theme park to believe, and a theme park seems likely to be...sorta like a movie set, full of inventions (imagined fill ins that someone has to imagine up). Sorta like this movie: Noah (2014 film) - Wikipedia If I went to the studio and saw the props of that movie (which I enjoyed as a movie), I'd be both amused and a little bored I think. It would have about 1 minute of interest max I think for me. The film is entertaining and fun though.
@stevevw;Ok but what does pliable actually mean. The measuring method for science in physics as far as reality is concerned is about matter (particles and fields). If its just a pliable concept or an equation then its abstract and not about anything real. Its just a human made idea based on some assumptions.
If that's the case then when anyone uses science to support the idea that reality is matter they are making a metaphysical claim about what the nature of reality. I see conscious experience another type of abstract idea that we can also say is fundamental to reality.
IMO consciousness makes more sense as if we are dealing with abstract ideas about reality then the conscious observer has to be a big part of that even when applying a methodology to measure reality as we are the ones creating these ideas and we can't separate ourselves from whatever we do. Maybe we should listen to ourselves more and we could get some good insights into what reality is.
Yet that is what many using science to support the idea that reality equates to matter. People defend reality as physical like its the only way we can know reality. Mention the supernatural or anything that requires understanding beyond science and its argued by using science to claim the facts about the matter and anything else is woo.
Yes and because science has a strong foothold people use it beyond methodology and make metaphysical claims in arguments. If that's the case then its stepping beyond method. But its understandable because science and tech have provided some much in certain ways. Its something tangible and easy to relate to.
But I don't think people can separate the metaphysical from the method. The method implies a metaphysical position because people have to make assumptions about reality being 'matter' and the method only acknowledges matter as a possible explanation and cause of reality. Methodology implies a cause and for science that cause is physical.
If methodological naturalism is not implying any ontological position then why do so many use it as a means to dispute all other possible causes and explanations. I think because science and tech have infiltrated society so much that its easy to slip from methodological naturalism into metaphysical naturalism.
Like I said maybe we bring a worldview to how we view reality and its hard to detached our personal beliefs from how we measure reality. This goes back to how we can't take ourselves our of the equation if you can call it that.
Maybe there's a good reason why we can't really detached ourselves from how we view reality which is that reality is not really about 'matter' or not completely about 'matter' and about how we experience matter on different levels. That's why I like Peterson's quote that reality is not just about 'matter' as in the physical sense. But its also about 'What Matters'. What matters to the observer and how they interact with the physical world and how we can alter reality even the physical world.
That's rather disconnected though, wouldn't you say?It's not that deep. You can't actually touch anything either
All that shows is humans doing experiments for testing out the predictability and reliability of their persistently consistent perceptions.Everyone:
If fields and matter are only abstractions that aren't about an objective (actual) external reality, then the endlessly repeatable experiments in physics would...not exist. But they do.
From your wording, I wonder then if you think me existing might be just 'made up' in your mind, and not 'real'. (If the answer is 'yes', then next I'd ask: what about your own existing then -- is that also just 'made up' by your mind?)All that shows is humans doing experiments for testing out the predictability and reliability of their persistently consistent perceptions.
There's no evidence of 'anything really existing externally' from those perceptions .. you just made all that up by basing it on philosophical baggage.
Your posts convey to me persistently consistent meanings, which I somehow understand. Those meanings can be tested for, across the (english speaking) population of humans, using the scientfic method. Where they test out with consistency, (and they do), then I'd also associate them with a model I hold for what a human mind does, (communicate meanings), which is similar to my own (because I test out for similarly understood meanings). Human minds also test out following the same method, so I update my knowledge of 'objectively real' with the meaning of 'you' and 'others'.From your wording, I wonder then if you think me existing might be just 'made up' in your mind, and not 'real'.
Without holding consciousness and self-awareness, as properties of a human mind model, all bets about everything are off.Halbhh said:(If the answer is 'yes', then next I'd ask: what about your own existing then -- is that also just 'made up' by your mind?)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?