The inevitability of everlasting experience

[childeye 2]

That's perfectly circular argument starting with an assumed posit of 'the Truth is already established' and ending up in exactly the same place:
'therefore the Truth is already established, and we just learn it'. Nothing new has been learned there at all.
I am unmoved by the circularity of the argument, therefore: logic cannot establish truths .. only science can do that via its testing.

To declare objectively that an ignorance precedes the knowledge that informs it, is an observable fact. And likewise, a reality exists before a mind can study it or question it or test it scientifically. The horse goes before the cart. Where is the circular argument?

I understand your viewpoint .. its coming from the belief in a mind independent reality, but that contradicts the observations I make which are all consistent with the notion that everyone is using their minds whenever they report their observations. The source of those observations, is only relevant to the belief in the existence of some mind independent reality, which is demonstrably a belief, where 'a belief' (from an operational (objectively) testable viewpoint can be defined as:
Any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic. (Both conditions must be met).

Actually, this is my viewpoint: Reality is whatever is real and not unreal. This is the base understanding I reason upon to parse semantics. Mind independent reality? I could imagine the sophistry that could be concocted with those three terms.

Fyi (an aside): an operational definition of 'knowing' is:
The odds a person would give on being right (like, "95% certain"), where the odds can be deemed as correct, if over many instances, the person making the odds ends up breaking even. (If they tend to not break even, they need to reassess their sense of what they know).

Note this means we would generally never assess our odds as 100% (not if we wish to break even in the long run), so we do not use the notorious standard that to "know" something, it must always end up being 'true'. (Philosophers arrived at "justified true belief" as their attempt at a definition they can use in philosophy, but to me that's a classic example of what they'd like to mean rather than what they really mean-- it's a definition that would force us to either lie to ourselves, or never use the word at all).

I understand the necessity for accurate numbers working with equations. But for me, it's the simple yes/no to the best of my knowledge.

I've attempted to clarify how I'm using the term 'belief' above. (The basics are important, IMHO).

So long as it doesn't imply mythical or superstition. To believe/trust in a fact is reasonable.

Of course they don't .. but you do .. and I'd assert that everyone is capable of thinking scientifically .. (especially when one is in a Physical Sciences forum).

I agree.

Ahh .. but protons are .. especially when you believe you are part of their reality too, no(?)

I didn't invent them.

 

[childeye 2]

The simulation was simply to point out that what you perceive as being "physically real" need not have any real physical existence at all.


The algorithm was simply to point out that the underlying cause may have no greater "purpose" than to eliminate contradictions and paradoxes. Beyond that it need have no greater "purpose" at all. And even that need not be by intent, but may be nothing more than a naturally occurring consequence of the nature of reality itself. No designer, purpose, nor creator required, just a source that by its very nature eliminates contradictions and paradoxes.


But is it really all that counterintuitive?

Richard Feynman used to explain why light always travels in a straight line by explaining that light is a wave, and as such it actually takes every possible path from the source to the observer. But we never see the other paths because they destructively interfere with each other. It's like trying to make a wave that's both up and down at the same time, it simply isn't possible. So to make light that travels in a straight line there's no need for any fancy algorithm, just an underlying source that naturally eliminates contradictions.

But the thing is that if you have a source that by its very nature eliminates contradictions, then what's left, must by necessity be coherent. And if this source can create light that travels in a straight line, then what else can it create simply by eliminating what's not possible and leaving only what is possible?

So it would seem as though you really don't need a "purpose" or an "algorithm", all you need is a source that by its very nature eliminates contradictions, and in the process leaves only what's coherent.

Then the question becomes how would that coherency manifest itself? As stars, and planets, and things, and people. Or simply as a mind which perceives itself to be surrounded by such things? Because otherwise its very existence isn't coherent.

Well, to me energy is a reality, and therefore light is a reality. I agree a physical reality might not be necessary, yet here we are in time playing out events and I'm not sure it's not a book on a shelf being read out loud in some other dimension. Scripture indicates a simulation (let us make man in our image). However, it's articulated as temporal and eternal.

 

[childeye 2]

All right, let's do the web search thing looking for a definition. Here are some tidbits from a web search on the adjective "objective." It's actually quite a mess-- what you see is people bending over so far backward to try to interpret "objectivity" in a mind-independent way that the meanings they intend are clearly internally inconsistent. Here are just a few examples that positively squirm in their own inconsistencies:

1) "(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts".

So here, we see that "objective" is supposed to be an attitude we have about facts. So what it is trying to say is that "facts are objective", but it recognizes that this only passes the buck to the definition of what constitutes a "fact." To address that obvious problem, the definition stresses the relation of the mind to the fact, and tries to find objectivity in what is absent from that relationship-- in short, "feelings or opinions", things we normally associate with mind dependence. However, the definition is still explicitly referring to the relationship that a mind has with the facts, because how else are you going to determine if that mind was involving itself in feelings or opinions, unless you consider the functioning of that mind? Hence, in trying to remove the role of the mind in the definition of objectivity, the definition gives the mind a specific role. Try defining objectivity without reference to a mind at all, and this will become even clearer.

2) "intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book."

This shows the same misguided effort. Here, we have that objectivity is about dealing with things "external to the mind", but notice the very first word: "intent". I wonder what it is that they are imagining has the "intention" of dealing with things external to the mind-- a rock?

3) "of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality."

Here we see the same phenomenon again, though raised to a new level. We actually have in the same sentence that the object or part of an object should be "independent of thought", yet also be something that "can be known." Seriously? It can be known, in a way that is independent of knowing? Observed, in a way that is independent of the observer? That's just rich, I can't wait for them to tell me how to set up an experiment that establishes an observation that is independent of the observer! It really shows how badly people trip over themselves when they just try way too hard to maintain belief in mind independent reality in situations where it simply doesn't make any sense.

You're right about this, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Subjective and objective are never true opposites, because the many subjective views are inside the objective view. I believe one has to define fact from opinion by qualifying a fact as learned. That's why the fact has to be external to the mind. As a general rule, what is objective fact could be collected in every mind, what is subjective opinion would be emitted by a single mind.

 

[childeye 2]

I see no need to invoke other concepts (like information/energy) to explain what's going on there.

Something on the quantum level is moving matter in the physical universe. When it comes to the mind, we emote according to what we believe to be true, and we act accordingly. Currently there is a terrible war started by one man which affects everyone in the world. All based on what is being believed. Thoughts are energy, information is energy and disinformation could be a negative form of energy equal to its counterpart. That could be relevant to what makes things happen on a quantum level.

 

[SelfSim]

To declare objectively that an ignorance precedes the knowledge that informs it, is an observable fact. And likewise, a reality exists before a mind can study it or question it or test it scientifically. The horse goes before the cart. Where is the circular argument?

A reality which supposedly exists independently from any human mind, is never tested in science.
Science only ever tests its models .. and never 'the thing itself'.

Actually, this is my viewpoint: Reality is whatever is real and not unreal. This is the base understanding I reason upon to parse semantics. Mind independent reality? I could imagine the sophistry that could be concocted with those three terms.

and as you imagine that, we can all see that you're using your mind to do that .. which serves as objective evidence contradicting the whole notion that reality exists independently from a mind and science is just 'discovering' it.

I understand the necessity for accurate numbers working with equations. But for me, it's the simple yes/no to the best of my knowledge.

I understand. This notion however, is simply not up the standards required for doing science .. especially when the aim there is to generate objective test results, which then serves to expand previously unknown scientific knowledge.

So long as it doesn't imply mythical or superstition.

Is there anything mystical or superstitious in the operational defintion of a belief that I provided, then?
(Answer: Hardly!)

To believe/trust in a fact is reasonable.

And entirely irrelevant for doing science.
Optional yes, but always irrelevant.

I didn't invent them.

And yet, the concept of 'a proton particle' was developed by many scientifically thinking human minds, over a long period. Those minds invented 'what a proton is' in stages .. for you (& for others).

If a proton always existed independently from those minds, then why has 'what a proton is', changed so dramatically in meaning from say, 'an elementary particle', into something else like 'a combination of quarks and gluons, with its mass requiring the theory of Special Relativity'?
The history of 'what an electron is' even more convoluted .. There's tonnes of evidence of human minds at play there .. and none of it supports the notion that such concepts existed independently from human thinking minds .. merely awaiting 'discovery'.
This whole notion that science is discovering 'stuff that exists out there' meaning: exists independently from human minds'.. is complete, unevidenced, hogwash!

 

[SelfSim]

As a general rule, what is objective fact could be collected in every mind, what is subjective opinion would be emitted by a single mind.

Both leave the human mind's 'fingerprints' all over them. There's no evidence suporting the notion that 'objective facts' ever existed independently from the hard work put in, in some case over long periods of time, by methodical, human, scientific thinkers.
Philosophers have made virtually zero progress, over way longer periods, in comparison with such scientists. And yet, philsophers keep lobbing their criticisms in the direction of scientists, of what they only think scientists are up to .. (but aren't).

 

[SelfSim]

Something on the quantum level is moving matter in the physical universe. When it comes to the mind, we emote according to what we believe to be true, and we act accordingly. Currently there is a terrible war started by one man which affects everyone in the world. All based on what is being believed. Thoughts are energy, information is energy and disinformation could be a negative form of energy equal to its counterpart. That could be relevant to what makes things happen on a quantum level.

Now who's presenting mysticism and/or superstition?

 

[Neutral Observer]

However, it's articulated as temporal and eternal.

Is it even possible for something to be both?

 

[childeye 2]

Now who's presenting mysticism and/or superstition?

Not me. I'm a Christian. To me, the energy that created everything is the Word of God in action. So, I'm saying that according to the semantics in their objective subjective forms, they show that all the probabilities break down at the quantum level because they proceed from a single point of light in every direction. Einstein for example was a strong determinist. So where one poster eloquently said they are confident in rejecting any concrete conclusions concerning the Eternal, I am confident in making concrete conclusions about the Eternal.

 

[childeye 2]

Both leave the human mind's 'fingerprints' all over them. There's no evidence suporting the notion that 'objective facts' ever existed independently from the hard work put in, in some case over long periods of time, by methodical, human, scientific thinkers.

Where one would say it's redundant to test the ground as a fact every time a new step is taken, that is exactly what a child does learning to walk. The key term is "contradiction" such as hypocrisy. How can there be any evidence supporting the declaration that objective facts exist apart from the mind, for you, when your subjective definition of objective is it has to be tested and proven by a Human mind? Speaking of hubris, does a primate mind qualify? Cynicism/faith are negative/positive prejudice, and both are self-fulfilling.

 

[childeye 2]

Is it even possible for something to be both?

A picture of a picture. Male/female/Mother/Son.

 

[childeye 2]

A reality which supposedly exists independently from any human mind, is never tested in science.
Science only ever tests its models .. and never 'the thing itself'.

That's a subtextual distinction. It doesn't even qualify as an objective reality. When I touch the hot stove it burns my finger by accident. It's real because it dictates the reality to me.

and as you imagine that, we can all see that you're using your mind to do that .. which serves as objective evidence contradicting the whole notion that reality exists independently from a mind and science is just 'discovering' it.

Wich is why I rejected that notion that you put forth as my belief. So, the fact that the horse goes before the cart is not imagined, it's realized when observed. You don't draw that distinction in you articulation, otherwise you would agree that the horse pulls the cart regardless of whether you see it or not.

I understand. This notion however, is simply not up the standards required for doing science .. especially when the aim there is to generate objective test results, which then serves to expand previously unknown scientific knowledge.

It doesn't qualify as a notion and it's no different than any scientific standard. The phrase to the best of my knowledge is the same evaluation of testing and probabilities.

Is there anything mystical or superstitious in the operational defintion of a belief that I provided, then?
(Answer: Hardly!)

First off, I said mythical, as in fictitious, not mystical.

As far as understanding your interpretation of belief. Well, your articulation of my viewpoint was a myth. Hence, when I say it's a fact that facts exist apart from my mind, (knowns and unknowns realized and unrealized about reality), I suspect you will call it a belief simply because it happens in the brain. But realization of a fact is not the same directional flow of energy as a notion conceived in the imagination even though they both happen in the same part of the brain.

It turns out that reality and imagination flow in different directions in the brain, researchers say. The visual information from real events that the eyes see flows "up" from the brain's occipital lobe to the parietal lobe, but imagined images flow "down" from the parietal to the occipital.

This above shows a definitive distinction between an objective fact of reality and a subjective opinion about reality. So please stop thinking/believing and saying my statements are notions (hogwash) rather than objective facts. When I say I believe a fact, it literally means I know something.

And entirely irrelevant for doing science.
Optional yes, but always irrelevant.

In the science I do, it's the entire point, to know what is true.

And yet, the concept of 'a proton particle' was developed by many scientifically thinking human minds, over a long period. Those minds invented 'what a proton is' in stages .. for you (& for others).

But they didn't invent the reality of it, they hypothesized, and tested that concept.

If a proton always existed independently from those minds, then why has 'what a proton is', changed so dramatically in meaning from say, 'an elementary particle', into something else like 'a combination of quarks and gluons, with its mass requiring the theory of Special Relativity'?

Obviously because the proton wasn't the smallest particle of its makeup in reality.

The history of 'what an electron is' even more convoluted .. There's tonnes of evidence of human minds at play there .. and none of it supports the notion that such concepts existed independently from human thinking minds .. merely awaiting 'discovery'.
This whole notion that science is discovering 'stuff that exists out there' meaning: exists independently from human minds'.. is complete, unevidenced, hogwash!

When you say "what an electron is", it is a description of 'some thing that was' out there existing to be discovered. You're talking conceptualizing and I'm talking realization, and they are not mutually exclusive since an opinion/concept can be based on a fact but not necessarily. When you touch a hot stove and get burned you discovered some thing that existed out there to discover.

 

[SelfSim]

... How can there be any evidence supporting the declaration that objective facts exist apart from the mind, for you, when it's your subjective definition of objective is it has to be tested and proven by a Human mind?

The prediction made by the claim that: 'the reality concept in science, means the mind-dependent sense we make of our perceptions, and neither refers to, nor is intended to refer to, anything mind independent', is "risky", in the sense that if the Realist stance (ie: mind independence), was a good scientific model, then we should not expect the mental choices made by the physicist to appear in the way physics theories describe reality. Experiments should therefore be possible that clearly distinguish 'the experience of things' from 'independent real things'. This is because the above mind dependent realism hypothesis claim is that the 'experience of something' is mind dependent, and thus should be able to be demonstrated as something different for different (human) minds.

Speaking of hubris, does a primate mind qualify? Cynicism/faith are negative/positive prejudice, and both are self-fulfilling.

Realism claims are only made by 'normal', healthy, human, communicative minds.

 

[SelfSim]

When I touch the hot stove it burns my finger ...

Well of course it does! That's because that's what we all know what you mean there by: 'touching a hot stove'! That's a common mental model we all understand all too well.

It's real because it dictates the reality to me.

Its objectively real, because we all agree with the prediction that it will consistently hurt for everyone!

Wich is why I rejected that notion that you put forth as my belief. So, the fact that the horse goes before the cart is not imagined, it's realized when observed. You don't draw that distinction in you articulation, otherwise you would agree that the horse pulls the cart regardless of whether you see it or not.

Beliefs also generate their own types of meanings for the word: 'reality'. The belief way is distinct from science's way of doing it.
Both the belief way, and the scientific method way, require active human healthy minds and nothing 'truly' independent from one.
The proposal I present, therefore, does not exclude the (likely) dominanting segment of a snapshot taken of the total population of human thinking minds who base their reality on beliefs.
Which is unlike other arguments about what human minds think reality must be .. eg: Pistols it is! .. at 20 paces, at dawn! .. such as your Putin conspiracy example .. (let's be honest, none of us here really understand the breakdowns that resulted that war).

It doesn't qualify as a notion and it's no different than any scientific standard. The phrase to the best of my knowledge is the same evaluation of testing and probabilities.

Of course it qualifies as a notion .. its just not expressed in a consistent, testable way, across the population of all human thinkers. The operational definition I provided there however, is. Two different purposes, two different results .. one quantifiably potentially consistent and comparable across a population, thus 'objective' .. the other valid only on an individual basis, thus not 'objectively' suitable for the broader purpose.

First off, I said mythical, as in fictitious, not mystical.

Hmm .. my error .. (apologies) .. Let's not debate the difference there, eh?

As far as understanding your interpretation of belief. Well, your articulation of my viewpoint was a myth. Hence, when I say it's a fact that facts exist apart from my mind, (knowns and unknowns realized and unrealized about reality), I suspect you will call it a belief simply because it happens in the brain. But realization of a fact ..

Perhaps its time I introduced, purely for the sake of summarising in a nutshell, the objectively testable hypothesis I'm testing out in this conversation. Its all been a bit piecemeal in this thread and so I hope this might make some amends for my part of that(?)
Please see my post here about the MDR (Mind Dependent Reality) hypothesis.

But realization of a fact is not the same directional flow of energy as a notion conceived in the imagination even though they both happen in the same part of the brain.

It turns out that that reality and imagination flow in different directions in the brain, researchers say. The visual information from real events that the eyes see flows "up" from the brain's occipital lobe to the parietal lobe, but imagined images flow "down" from the parietal to the occipital.

and what you say there is a model designed for testing out some hypothesis or other, having some degree of accompanying uncertainty ..
I'll accept it as a working research hypothesis.

In the science I do, it's the entire point, to know what is true.

Science isn't about trying to seek truths. Science starts with no 'true' assumptions .. it tests testable assumptions and works from that point onwards.
If it were about seeking truths, it would cease to be science and start being about something completely different.
It would not consistently achieve its purpose of practical usefulness, if it were about seeking out imagined truths.

But they didn't invent the reality of it, they hypothesized, and tested that concept.

.. with both the hypotheses, and the resulting tests, depending on their minds .. ie: mind dependency aimed at making sense of visual (and theorized) perceptions. The data produced from those tests is the closest science might come to a concept of 'truth' and that's not because of beliefs .. its would be because the data has already been tested via the objective method .. no evidence of anything mind independent there at all.

Obviously because the proton wasn't the smallest particle of its makeup in reality.

So 'what a proton particle was in reality', somehow changed to something entirely different in reality. (So much for a fixed, absolute mind independent reality 'truly' existing ..)
What better demonstration of the mind dependency of what reality means do you need there?

When you say "what an electron is", it is a description of 'some thing that was' out there existing to be discovered. When you touch a hot stove and get burned you discovered some thing that existed out there to discover.

You appear to not be even taking a second to look at how the words you use, come to get the meanings your conveying(?) Its looks to be entirely invisible to you(?) See my prior post on the mind dependency being conveyed by the phrase: 'touching a hot stove'. There's *zip* objective evidence for any the mind independency there ..
Whenever you use mind dependent concepts, in forming models like, 'touching a hot stove', by your own sematic reasoning, there can be no possibility of mind independency there whatsoever can there? After all, that's what 'independent' means, doesn't it?

 

[childeye 2]

So 'what a proton particle was in reality', somehow changed to something entirely different in reality. (So much for a fixed, absolute mind independent reality 'truly' existing ..)
What better demonstration of the mind dependency of what reality means do you need there?

I don't get to say what you mean, and you don't get to say what I mean. So, no offense intended, but for me the question is a loaded question.

You appear to not be even taking a second to look at how the words you use, come to get the meanings your conveying(?) Its looks to be entirely invisible to you(?) See my prior post on the mind dependency being conveyed by the phrase: 'touching a hot stove'. There's *zip* objective evidence for any the mind independency there ..
Whenever you use mind dependent concepts, in forming models like, 'touching a hot stove', by your own sematic reasoning, there can be no possibility of mind independency there whatsoever can there? After all, that's what 'independent' means, doesn't it?

I appreciate your concern. Allow me to explain briefly how I parse semantics. When you say 'mind', I think 'person', and when a person speaks it's an expressed sentiment, and when someone hears and understands, it's a completed cycle of energy. As a Christian the entire universe exists as an expression from God. Hence, we and all things created are conceived in Gods' mind, and we do not conceive ourselves. Even our perception is afforded unto us whom God makes capable of understanding. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Therefore, we can't separate the mind from the reality, but to say reality is mind dependent and not be referring to God is error.

Parsing semantics is like using the compass rose to navigate where you are coming from and going to. North/south represent a positive/negative in their absolutes while east/west accounts for lateral degrees. Without a true North a person becomes disoriented as to the meanings of terms and are navigating their conscious experience without any solid base of reasoning. Hence to understand what reality is, we need to understand what reality means, lest we lose sight of reality. This is the base dichotomy for reality, which is a North/south dichotomy, Real/Unreal. Terms are not universally agreed upon because there are many subjective views of what is North. So the subtextual and subjective meanings are discerned in a lateral dichotomy which is east/west or west/east if you prefer.

The sentiments "mind dependent reality" and "mind independent reality", when relative to the human mind, should be placed in an east/west dichotomy because it is subtextual. An east/west dichotomy is actually a measure of orientation in degrees using absolutes that reverse polarity or switch the positive/negative narrative, which is why it's typically used in politics. You can actually observe the denotations and connotations reverse polarity from positive to negative and vice versa in this dichotomy. If we could imagine the people of the earth arguing which direction we all should run, so as to determine which way the earth spins and create its axis, you could see the futility of the endeavor of trying to make God in our image. Hence it is a subtext to a North/south dichotomy. In other words, the True positive is predetermined by God.

Above you mentioned a proton. If we consider quantum entanglement, working with a constant, by measuring the spin of one particle, one could know the spin of the opposite particle in an up/down configuration. Likewise in psycholinguistics the same information is available if one reasons upon a true dichotomy.. Whereas my subjective view presents the probability of semantical spin between two opposing lefts and rights as being at best a 49/51 or 51/49 percent proposition of not being hypocritical; in the objective view of predictability, the semantics will spin opposite 100% of the time. And similarly, this is why my reasonings will conclude as either Yes/No or known/unknown.

I have nothing against scientific thinking which begins as an I don't know, since it will eventually only prove God, but it's actually the reality that dictates to us what is real and true. We have a God/reality dependent mind.

 

[SelfSim]

As a Christian the entire universe exists as an expression of God. Hence, we have conception in the mind of God, and perception is afforded unto us whom He made capable of understanding. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. You can't separate the mind from the reality but to say reality is mind dependent and not be referring to God is error.

So the basis of your conception of 'what reality is' there, is a belief, where 'a belief' can be defined operationally, (ie: objectively testable):
'Any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.

whereas, the corresponding claim, under test in the MDR Hypothesis is:
'Whenever we see someone invoking a notion of "reality" (or "exists") in the process of doing scientific thinking, they can be observed to be using the notion in a way that demonstrably depends on their mind, and would be done very differently by a very different mind'.
.. and it accumulates an abundance of objective test results consistent with that claim.

So, there is the weight of objectively established evidence vs a pure belief.

I have nothing against scientific thinking which begins as an I don't know, since it will eventually only prove God, ..

Such is the nature of Mind Dependent Reality, via the belief way of assigning a meaning to the word 'reality'.

The claims are circular arguments, pointing back to the originally posited belief. Logic cannot establish 'truths' .. pure an simple.
Does science use logic to establish truth? No, certainly not. It uses evidence to establish a kind of 'truth', because science has no idea what is the truth value of any given logical set of axioms, postulates, and definitions, other than by the application of evidence.

It is therefore extremely improbable that science will ever 'prove' the existence of a believed-in God.

 

[SelfSim]

Above you mentioned a proton. If we consider quantum entanglement, we can see that by measuring the spin of one particle, we can know the spin of the opposite particle. Likewise in psycholinguistics the same information is available where a subjective view will spin differently roughly 50% percent of the time, but in an objective view they will spin differently 100% of the time. And this is why my reasonings must conclude as either Yes/No.

I don't understand your reasoning here.

For starters, protons are a largely unresolved and complex sub atomic mystery. Entanglement, in the context of protons, is all about the suspected entanglement of its constituents: quarks and gluons, and the dynamic nature of their interconnections. The proton has half a unit of spin, as do each of its up and down quarks. Physicists initially supposed that, in a calculation echoing the simple charge arithmetic, the half-units of the two up quarks minus that of the down quark must equal half a unit for the proton as a whole. But in 1988, the European Muon Collaboration reported that the quark spins add up to far less than one-half!

Quarks are always confined within larger particles, and are never seen on their own. One view is, that this confinement is taken as being the ultimate example of entanglement. Quarks cannot exist as isolated states, and are always connected with their companions.
So here, we have a constituent 'object', (of a proton), which doesn't even exist as an 'object' on its own!

How does all that sit in your objective/subjective (true/false, Yes/No, etc) paradigm basis for reality?
And how would one plan to sort that out by staying solely within that paradigm?

 

[childeye 2]

So the basis of your conception of 'what reality is' there, is a belief, where 'a belief' can be defined operationally, (ie: objectively testable):
'Any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.

I was editing my post when you posted this, so it now reads like this:
As a Christian the entire universe exists as an expression from God. Hence, we and all things created are conceived in God's mind, and we do not conceive ourselves. Even our perception is afforded unto us whom He makes capable of understanding.

Let me say that God is Love as in brotherly Love, compassion, charity, kindness, etc.. The belief in the Word of God is belief in an incorruptible Love Eternal displayed by the Christ on a cross. I don't believe science can prove/disprove such a Love even in all its forms we experience, exists or doesn't exist Eternal. That's why in Christianity belief means faith/trust, rather than superstition. It's a belief that Love will endure and persevere. Love is the common faith, where hope emanates. Objectvely speaking the semantics of expressed sentiments all over the world throughout the history of literature in every language, shows that unbelief in what defines the good is consistently the negative connotation. Anyone whose thoughts and words denote cruelty and malice as "good" does not know what "good" means in reality.

So, I don't see how the requirement to qualify for the type of belief you are using would apply here, since the Love/compassion we experience in reality is not a notion or a preference but is real for everyone even as maternal instinct shows. Also, it is Love that informs logic as to what is goodness when interacting with others. The Goodness of Love substantiates faithfulness. Any experimentation using scientific method to measure the value of belief in the Love of others ultimately ends in being persuaded as to the positive aspect of belief.

whereas, the corresponding claim, under test in the MDR Hypothesis is:
'Whenever we see someone invoking a notion of "reality" (or "exists") in the process of doing scientific thinking, they can be observed to be using the notion in a way that demonstrably depends on their mind, and would be done very differently by a very different mind'.
.. and it accumulates an abundance of objective test results consistent with that claim.

So, there is the weight of objectively established evidence vs a pure belief.

Brotherly Love, compassion, kindness, etc... do not qualify as a notion. Those are qualities that are deemed virtues. Likewise Love/compassion in semantics is the positive in all moral/immoral terminology of thought. The connotations and denotations of terms form as positive, neutral, negative accordingly.

Such is the nature of Mind Dependent Reality, via the belief way of assigning a meaning to the word 'reality'.

The claims are circular arguments, pointing back to the originally posited belief. Logic cannot establish 'truths' .. pure an simple.
Does science use logic to establish truth? No, certainly not. It uses evidence to establish a kind of 'truth', because science has no idea what is the truth value of any given logical set of axioms, postulates, and definitions, other than by the application of evidence.

It is therefore extremely improbable that science will ever 'prove' the existence of a believed-in God.

There's plenty of evidence of Love as the positive we experience in reality. People all over the world believe in the Love displayed by the Christ just as foretold in scripture. I just don't believe science can disprove Love is Eternal by definition. In Christianity all things are believed in because all things work for good to those who Love Him and trust in Him. There are countless life changing testimonies that the Love that Christ displayed is alive in those who have hope in him. Science has already shown that without belief in love there is no sense of security, and cynicism/distrust become destructive to a society. The reality we live in proves Love is of the highest value through experiencing the negative affect of its absence and we have a Love dependent mind. There's no circular argument there.

 

[childeye 2]

I don't understand your reasoning here.

For starters, protons are a largely unresolved and complex sub atomic mystery. Entanglement, in the context of protons, is all about the suspected entanglement of its constituents: quarks and gluons, and the dynamic nature of their interconnections. The proton has half a unit of spin, as do each of its up and down quarks. Physicists initially supposed that, in a calculation echoing the simple charge arithmetic, the half-units of the two up quarks minus that of the down quark must equal half a unit for the proton as a whole. But in 1988, the European Muon Collaboration reported that the quark spins add up to far less than one-half!

Quarks are always confined within larger particles, and are never seen on their own. One view is, that this confinement is taken as being the ultimate example of entanglement. Quarks cannot exist as isolated states, and are always connected with their companions.
So here, we have a constituent 'object', (of a proton), which doesn't even exist as an 'object' on its own!

How does all that sit in your objective/subjective (true/false, Yes/No, etc) paradigm basis for reality?
And how would one plan to sort that out by staying solely within that paradigm?

My reasoning is not based on my knowledge of physics, but I do see thought as energy and I believe that all energy works to serve a single purpose. I only mentioned a proton because it brought to mind quantum entanglement which reminds me of how I use two forms of dichotomies to reason upon, one objective and one subjective. Love God with all heart mind soul is the objective up/down and love your neighbor as yourself is the subjective east/west. Between these two dichotomies one can calculate where a person is coming from and going to in thoughts and meanings of words using subtextual dichotomies.

Applied to quantum entanglement, I can see that the east/west dichotomy has two lefts and two rights that translate as two gives and two takes. When face to face, what is positive on the right of one is negative on the right of the other sharing a neutral position, but when both sides face the same way the east/west dichotomy disappears into a single view. It seems to indicate that when the unknown becomes known, the probabilities have been exhausted and there would be a collapse of function (a pulse) in this direction, with the least amount of variance remaining the stabilizing factor in its respective value/vector.

I need to learn more how photons, electrons and protons and all energy work together to make a more informed comparison to how energy works in our minds. In scripture God is both Light and Love. Currently, I'm still looking at how white Light disperses into color bands and seeing if they correlate with emotions that manifest out of Love in positive, neutral, and negative forms and frequency. More knowledge of neutrinos and positrons could be useful.