The inevitability of everlasting experience

[Chriliman]

This is true. The box I'm referring to, is at its base level of comprehension, what we all call "Reality". Objectively, it includes all things realized and unrealized. Anything outside the box, is by definition, unreality, unreal, fiction.

I agree, and I’d like to add that even fiction/imagined things are part of reality. Logically, there can’t be anything outside the objective box, it’d have to be literally nothing.

 

[durangodawood]

I agree, and I’d like to add that even fiction/imagined things are part of reality. Logically, there can’t be anything outside the objective box, it’d have to be literally nothing.

Yes its "real" that people invent fictions. Does that make those characters "real"?

 

[Chriliman]

Yes its "real" that people invent fictions. Does that make those characters "real"?

Nope, they’re really fiction

 

[SelfSim]

I know this. Not sure why you’re saying this, based on my convo with Kylie…she’s the one who said a decaying radio active atom has no cause… I was saying the Big Bang was a cause.

Objectively random events, like radioactive decay, are uncaused and unpredictable. They cannot be theoretically predicted at a later time. No amount of knowledge will make them predictable.

Atoms are not events.

 

[Chriliman]

Its not the computer that needs to understand that .. Human minds understand .. its demonstrably a testable property of the model used for distinguishing: 'what a human mind is'.

The model for what 'Artificial Intelligence is', (for eg), is under development, as AI evolves.


The notion of reality being a simulation, is a complete waste of time, as it can be shown to lead nowhere of practical use.

I'm still totally unconvinced that 'reality includes all unknowns'.
We can't know 'all unknowns', in order for us to include that when conveying our demonstrably (objective) meaning of: 'current models of reality'.
And string theory has nothing to do with any of that.

I would phrase it more like this: Reality includes all that is knowable, the unknowable is irrelevant, at least to us.

 

[SelfSim]

I agree, and I’d like to add that even fiction/imagined things are part of reality. Logically, there can’t be anything outside the objective box, it’d have to be literally nothing.

'Fiction and imagined things' is realised by your mind in your first statement. They are, therefore, not 'unreal' things, which are supposedly part of reality, according to @childeye 2, (with which you are agreeing).
This is contradiction in its finest form.

 

[childeye 2]

Its not the computer that needs to understand that .. Human minds understand .. its demonstrably a testable property of the model used for distinguishing: 'what a human mind is'.

I think we may be talking past one another here. A human mind has to construct an algorithm. Hence, we need to know how to ask the question. After all, this is really about comprehending what is reality and what is not reality, not computers.

I'm still totally unconvinced that 'reality includes all unknowns'.
We can't know 'all unknowns', in order for us to include that when conveying our demonstrably (objective) meaning of: 'current models of reality'.

I'm reasoning upon this base dichotomy real/unreal in its positive/negative aspects without deviation, objectively speaking. All I've claimed is that whatever is unknown or unknowable about reality, must pertain to what is real and not unreal. It's that simple. Hence reality includes all unknowns about reality.

And string theory has nothing to do with any of that.

It's a perfectly good example of a theory of everything that needs questions answered.

 

[Chriliman]

Objectively random events, like radioactive decay, are uncaused and unpredictable. They cannot be theoretically predicted at a later time. No amount of knowledge will make them predictable.

Atoms are not events.

But again, wasn’t their ability to be completely random, caused by the Big Bang?

Or are you suggesting radioactive decay existed prior to the Big Bang?

 

[childeye 2]

'Fiction and imagined things' is realised by your mind in your first statement. They are, therefore, not 'unreal' things, which are supposedly part of reality, according to @childeye 2, (with which you are agreeing).
This is contradiction in its finest form.

Respectfully, you don't get to say what I mean, and I don't get to say what you mean. Your mischaracterization of my sentiments could convey to others that I'm stating that lies are true. I'll gladly explain anything you need clarity on.

Objectively, something fictional is not real by definition. Fiction cannot be realized in the mind except when it's realized as fiction.

re·al·ize
[ˈrē(ə)ˌlīz]

VERB

1. become fully aware of (something) as a fact; understand clearly:
   "he realized his mistake at once" · "they realized that something was wrong" · "she had not realized how hungry she was"

fic·tion
[ˈfikSH(ə)n]

NOUN

1. literature in the form of prose that describes imaginary events and people.
   SIMILAR:
   novels
   stories
   creative writing
   imaginative writing
2. something that is invented or untrue:
   "they were supposed to be keeping up the fiction that they were happily married"
   SIMILAR:
   fabrication
   invention
   lies
   fibs
   concoction

 

[SelfSim]

I would phrase it more like this: Reality includes all that is knowable, the unknowable is irrelevant, at least to us.

So how do you know what is unknowable, in order for it to be irrelevant?

Specify something 'unknowable' and then demonstrate that as being 'irrelevant' to us!
(Good luck with that .. if accomplished, you will have demonstrated its relevance .. and until you do that, we just don't know).

We don't know whether something 'unknowable' is irrelevant to us, or not.

(Honestly, I have to wonder whether people ever read the words they're using ..?)

 

[Chriliman]

'Fiction and imagined things' is realised by your mind in your first statement. They are, therefore, not 'unreal' things, which are supposedly part of reality, according to @childeye 2, (with which you are agreeing).
This is contradiction in its finest form.

As I said to darangodawood; They’re really fiction and imagined things—that however does not mean they’re not part of reality, it’s just the subjective part.

 

[Chriliman]

So how do you know what is unknowable, in order for it to be irrelevant?

Specify something 'unknowable' and then demonstrate that as being 'irrelevant' to us!
(Good luck with that .. if accomplished, you will have demonstrated its relevance .. and until you do that, we just don't know).

We don't know whether something 'unknowable' is irrelevant to us, or not.

(Honestly, I have to wonder whether people ever read the words they're using ..?)

Good point, I agree.

Edit: hold on a sec, if somethings unknowable then it’s relevance can’t ever be demonstrated, making it irrelevant by definition, no?

Asking me to specify something ‘unknowable’ is a categorical error, as it’s logically impossible.

 

[SelfSim]

Respectfully, you don't get to say what I mean.

Ok so you said (post #84):

This is true. The box I'm referring to, is at its base level of comprehension, what we all call "Reality". Objectively, it includes all things realized and unrealized. Anything outside the box, is by definition, unreality, unreal, fiction.

How is what is 'unrealized' not 'unreal'?

Objectively, something fictional is not real. Fiction cannot be realized in the mind except when it's realized as fiction.

What does that even mean? What do you think happens when someone reads a book? Do you think what happens doesn't require their mind to realize at all, if the book label says its non-fiction? Whether the label says its fiction or not, is completely irrelevant, that doesn't affect the process of how the mind realizes in the first place.

Expressed fiction is realized in the language (meanings) as soon as reality (or existence) is invoked using the verb 'to be' or, 'is' or, 'are', etc.
It takes a human (English speaking) minds communicating to do this. The label of 'fiction' or 'non-fiction' is made after reading the book, (or after the realization process is complete) and not before that.

Your mischaracterization of my sentiments could be conveying that I'm stating that lies are true.

I can't be held responsible for the confusion created here by your semantic argument. (This was always going to happen in this thread, from the outset OP).

We are in a Physical Sciences forum.
Science establishes reality (or existence) via its method of objective testing, then looking at the results.

Thus far, I haven't seen the slightest attempt at even citing a test which would allow everyone to see a result for themselves, before deciding whether something is real, or not. Now you're claiming something unrealized is part of reality? Why would I believe that?
In fact, merely believing that, is the only choice you have left us with becasue of your dichotomous paradigm.

This idea of a logical dichotomy basis for establishing reality thus far, hasn't yet recognised the 'I dont know' state, which is just as valid as the 'true' or 'false' states, from what I can see. Science commences from the 'I don't know' mindset state .. so where is it in all this?
Suspension of disbelief, (or, the 'I don't know'), is part of the mind's setup process leading to it assigning our knowledge of the word 'reality' with an updated meaning. That meaning simply wasn't there prior to observations/perceptions (and in science's case; the production of observable test data). Perceptions are realized via our senses and meanings conveyed by in-common expressed language, by the human mind.

 

[childeye 2]

I agree, and I’d like to add that even fiction/imagined things are part of reality. Logically, there can’t be anything outside the objective box, it’d have to be literally nothing.

This is why I specifically stated that, objectively, any fictional and imagined things are outside the box. Subjectively, they are part of reality. The objective view accounts for the subjective view, but the subjective view does not account for the objective view. Hence there are semantics that form that show someone is speaking from a subjective view.

 

[SelfSim]

As I said to darangodawood; They’re really fiction and imagined things—that however does not mean they’re not part of reality, it’s just the subjective part.

The distinction between objective and subjective, was always an arbitrary distinction.
When science speaks about 'objective' things, its always justified by its test results.

 

[SelfSim]

This is why I specifically stated that, objectively, fiction and imagined things are outside the box. Subjectively, they can be inside the box.

There is no 'box' with things 'outside' it or 'inside' it unless one chooses to just simply believe that.
However, there is demonstrably active, perceiving minds at play, which leave abundant objective evidence behind .. all one has to do, is look at it.

 

[sjastro]

Sure .. (just clarifying here for myself, more than anything): They say in that video, that in order to see one of the solutions of some problem, (in quantum computing), depends on creating a deterministic set of qubit gates to boost its amplitude (probability). In normal computing, standard logic gates are used in calculating the solution to some mathematically expressed problem .. using standard (binary) mathematics.

Both paradigms require the problem to be stated before developing an algorithm to solve it .. I see no reason to single out, for emphasis, that 'even' quantum computing's problems require functional descriptions using language(?) There's a hidden assumption which wasn't stated in the post, that quantum computing somehow differs in this regard .. (which I would reject).

Every notion, once described using language, becomes a model, which is either testable, or untestable .. (regardless of computing methods used in solving problems predicted from those models).

The reference made to string theory, was just incongruous, (for me), in the way it was brought up.

The quantum algorithms are designed so a computer program such as Python can convert the algorithms into instructions the quantum computer can execute based on the quantum gates listed below.

The quantum algorithm is a human construct and doesn't have to reflect "reality".
By definition quantum algorithms run faster on a quantum computer, a "classical" algorithm such as adding numbers offers no speed advantage on a quantum computer.

 

[childeye 2]

Ok so you said (post #84):

How is what is 'unrealized' not 'unreal'?

Because unrealized means a not yet realized fact, and a fact is not unreal.

What does that even mean?

It simply means that it's a fact that something fictional is fiction and not fact.

What do you think happens when someone reads a book? Do you think what happens doesn't require their mind to realize at all, if the book label says its non-fiction? Whether the label says its fiction or not, is completely irrelevant, that doesn't affect the process of how the mind realizes in the first place.

Expressed fiction is realized in the language (meanings) as soon as reality (or existence) is invoked using the verb 'to be' or, 'is' or, 'are', etc.
It takes a human (English speaking) minds communicating to do this. The label of 'fiction' or 'non-fiction' is made after reading the book, (or after the realization process is complete) and not before that.

If I set out to write a book that is fiction, I'm sure I'd realize in my mind that it was fiction and not fact. You need to understand that by definition only facts can be realized, including the fact that fiction is not facts based. That is precisely why the term "real' is in "realize".

I can't be held responsible for the confusion created here by your semantic argument. (This was always going to happen in this thread, from the outset OP).

I understand and I don't hold anyone responsible for the confusion. Please consider that what reality pertains to is everything real. I'm only stating objectively that as a base sentiment what is real by definition cannot be unreal. There are subtextual distinctions that occur such as when a fictional book exists as a part of that reality, or someone within reality imagines something is real, and these types of circumstances cause semantical problems. It takes more terms to qualify a subtext. That's why I said if we don't objectively admit that what is real is logically not unreal, all logic and communication will breakdown.

So, because these types of problems will cause misunderstandings, I'm kindly asking you to refrain from speaking for me.

We are in a Physical Sciences forum.
Science establishes reality (or existence) via its method of objective testing, then looking at the results.

On the contrary, reality establishes science since reality existed before science. I don't even see Physical sciences as testing whether something is real. I see physical science as discovering how reality holds together while theorizing how it came to be.

Thus far, I haven't seen the slightest attempt at even citing a test which would allow everyone to see a result for themselves, before deciding whether something is real, or not.

This is a base sentiment of logic I'm talking about. There's nothing to test that isn't already real. Science tests a hypothesis concerning the physical makeup of matter and energy.

Now you're claiming something unrealized is part of reality? Why would I believe that?

Because by definition the term realize applies to facts that are learned, so logically you can't realize something that isn't real.

In fact, merely believing that, is the only choice you have left us with becasue of your dichotomous paradigm.

Why is this so hard to understand? I don't believe I'm real, I know I'm real. I don't need to debate if I qualify as real, because if I were not real then I'm not even here to debate.

This idea of a logical dichotomy basis for establishing reality thus far, hasn't yet recognised the 'I dont know' state, which is just as valid as the 'true' or 'false' states, from what I can see. Science commences from the 'I don't know' mindset state .. so where is it in all this?

I think we're talking past one another here. This dichotomy real/unreal is just base logic that recognizes that whatever is real cannot be unreal. It doesn't proclaim what is real. The reason logic starts here is to not allow false dichotomies to confound one's reasoning. This dichotomy, existence/nonexistence is a subtextual dichotomy to reality/unreality. Hence, we can recognize that an extinct species that no longer exists in reality still qualifies as real. Therefore it's wrong to think that reality means existence objectively, but it's not wrong subjectively.

 

[SelfSim]

The quantum algorithms are designed so a computer program such as Python can convert the algorithms into instructions the quantum computer can execute based on the quantum gates listed below.

The quantum algorithm is a human construct and doesn't have to reflect "reality".
By definition quantum algorithms run faster on a quantum computer, a "classical" algorithm such as adding numbers offers no speed advantage on a quantum computer.

Wow! Those vids are seriously cool. So much more to learn, there is!
Thanks for that!

 

[SelfSim]

On the contrary, reality establishes science since reality existed before science. I don't even see Physical sciences as testing whether something is real. I see physical science as discovering how reality holds together while theorizing how it came to be.

.. and this tells me you believe in the existence of a 'true' mind independent reality (maybe even your worldview?) .. which is simply yet another human belief, worthy only of being tossed on the enormous pile of all other impractical, inconsistent beliefs humans have come up with. Science tests its ideas .. with beliefs being entirely optional and completely irrelevant for the practical purpose of distinguishing objective reality.