b802cef0
From: kcalder@blueyonder.co.uk
In message
,
ghost writes
>In article ,
> Kevin Calder wrote:
>> This is true, but it just demonstrates that our conception of "gravity"
>> has been reformed several times, each time in an attempt to make it
>> correlate more satisfyingly with our conception of something that seems
>> to be occurring within our conception "objective reality" (sorry if that
>> was a bit verbose, but I am trying to be clear). Note that the closest
>> that we can get to "objective reality" is our subjective conception of
>> it. So if you want to start talking about, or thinking about "gravity"
>> you need some sort knowledge of it. So my point was that claiming that
>> "gravity exists" independently of human understanding is nonsensical
>> because "gravity" and "existence" are both man made, man dependant
>> concepts. They were both constructed from a subjective point of view,
>> and therefor are only applicable in terms of subjectivity.
>"gravity" is not a man made concept.
I conscious that I'm banging on about this, but...
All concepts are man made!
And man made them from a subjective point of view.
We are simply not able to view things from "outside" of subjectivity.
When you reference "gravity" you are referencing our subjective notion
of gravity which we subjectively behold as existing outside of our
subjective pov, in the realm of the objective.
Belief in an objective reality is just a convenient shorthand, I'd
hazard a guess that it makes semantic constructions simpler, and
therefor facilitates quick translation between different subjective
povs, i.e. it makes communication easier.
> It's a man made label to explain a
>phenomenon that occurs independent of our actual understanding of how it
>works.
My point is that we can never know gravity in any way other than our
subjective perception of it, and this perception involves *some* kind
understanding of it, in terms of how it works, what its called, what
other people think about it, how it feels, what it seems to do, where it
happens, how often it happens, what colour it is, whatever... If you
subtract all this information then you aren't experiencing anything at
all. Therefore, IMHO you cannot sensibly talk in absolute terms about
gravity being independent of our understanding of it.
>What's the saying? "Reality is what's left after you stop believing in
>it."
Belief is everything!
"Knowledge" is at best comprised of functional assumptions based on
probabilities, and at worst blind faith.
>Phisophical debates about subject/objective reality based observations
>aside,
Cmon, they are my favourite! :)
> the thing we call "gravity" will stick around regardless of our
>level of understanding of why it does what it does.
But if our understanding of it changes, then we will be calling it
something else! Naming it isn't restricted arbitrarily to its
denominator, it involves specify all the things we "know" about it. So
Newtonian "gravity" *is* different to Einsteinian "gravity". You can
never know anything about the objective version of Gravity, that you
imagine exists, and you imagine that both versions of "gravity" try to
describe, because the closest you can get to it are your own subjective
conceptions of it. Unless you know of some way to jump out of the
subjective vehicle and witness the "real" world for your self.
> It could just as
>easily be called froonblat.
Very true, but this is true for *all* of the details, in effect all of
the details that Newton and Einstein set down to "describe gravity".
We could just as easily name the graviton as a particle of very large
mass, with spin -1. Its so easy I just did it. The problem is that my
version of the graviton isn't likely to get picked up by other people
because it doesn't make sense within a scientific framework. My
graviton won't fail because it doesn't accurately describe something
that I can never really "see" (not because its very small, but because I
can never objectively witness the graviton for my self) anyway, but it
will fail because no one will be able to do anything useful with it!
>alias merely said that "gravity is" ... and there's not a lot of room
>for argument there. People have conversations based around the effects
>of gravity every day without any great understanding of calculus or
>physics.
My point is not that you need to have some understanding of any of the
particular version's of "gravity", merely that you, if you are
experiencing gravity in any way (even if you are just thinking about it
in deep space), will inevitably possess *some* kind of understanding of
it, even if it is just understanding how it feels. Without *some* kind
of understanding, you got nothing!
>A lot of this goes back to the idea of "If i leave the room does
>everyone else in it cease to exist?" ... subjectilvely yes, objectively
>no.
But the problem is that subjectivity and objectivity aren't on equal
footing. We made the concept of "objectivity" up, and from a subjective
position!
If you were actually able to leave the subjective vehicle then the
applicability of the notion of "objectivity" would be violated and it
would be meaningless.
So, "there is no there, there"*, effectively.
Objectivity is merely an incidental artefact-
Damn it! What am I even talking about?
Cmon people! String me up! Im sure this position isn't unassailable!
*(Hrmmm, I thought it was Gibson, but doesn't seem to be.... Where did
I get that from? Anyone? For extra credit?)
>ghost
>(avoiding blue pill/red pill references like hell!)
Seriously man, if those damned films had even brushed up against these
kinds of arguments I would have rushed to their defence. What a waste!
cya,
--
Kevin Calder
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
