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.
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 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.
Yes its "real" that people invent fictions. Does that make those characters "real"?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.
Nope, they’re really fictionYes its "real" that people invent fictions. Does that make those characters "real"?
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.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.
I would phrase it more like this: Reality includes all that is knowable, the unknowable is irrelevant, at least to us.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.
'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).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.
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'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.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'.
It's a perfectly good example of a theory of everything that needs questions answered.And string theory has nothing to do with any of that.
But again, wasn’t their ability to be completely random, caused by the Big Bang?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.
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.'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.
So how do you know what is unknowable, in order for it to be irrelevant?I would phrase it more like this: Reality includes all that is knowable, the unknowable is irrelevant, at least to us.
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.'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.
Good point, I agree.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 ..?)
Ok so you said (post #84):Respectfully, you don't get to say what I mean.
How is what is 'unrealized' not 'unreal'?childeye 2 said: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.
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.Objectively, something fictional is not real. Fiction cannot be realized in the mind except when it's realized as fiction.
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).Your mischaracterization of my sentiments could be conveying that I'm stating that lies are true.
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.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.
The distinction between objective and subjective, was always an arbitrary distinction.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.
There is no 'box' with things 'outside' it or 'inside' it unless one chooses to just simply believe that.This is why I specifically stated that, objectively, fiction and imagined things are outside the box. Subjectively, they can be inside the box.
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.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.
Because unrealized means a not yet realized fact, and a fact is not unreal.
It simply means that it's a fact that something fictional is fiction and not fact.What does that even mean?
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".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.
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.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).
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.We are in a Physical Sciences forum.
Science establishes reality (or existence) via its method of objective testing, then looking at the results.
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.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.
Because by definition the term realize applies to facts that are learned, so logically you can't realize something that isn't real.Now you're claiming something unrealized is part of reality? Why would I believe that?
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.In fact, merely believing that, is the only choice you have left us with becasue of your dichotomous paradigm.
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.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?
Wow! Those vids are seriously cool. So much more to learn, there is!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.
.. 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.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.
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?