XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: wudao@wuji.net   
      
   noname asked:   
   >Nobody wrote:   
   >> liaM wrote:   
   >>> Nobody wrote:   
   >>>> noname wrote:   
   >>>>> {:-]))) wrote:   
   >>>>>> Ummmmmmm wrote:   
   >>>>>>> {:-]))) wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> To think there is what is called the one true reality   
   >>>>>>>> independent of all viewers might be called a   
   >>>>>>>> sort of hypothetical situation.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Agreed. To 'think' that there is one true reality independent of all   
   >>>>>>> viewers is a hypothetical situation.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> On the other hand, to *know* the one true reality, is to know that   
   >>>>>>> it's the same for everyone.   
      
   I know for a fact,   
   there is nothing like epistemology.   
   Friday told me. And he carried a badge.   
      
   >>>>>> Two people will experience any   
   >>>>>> so-called event, or, reality, different.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Hence, there is no, "same" for everyone.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> You keep making this same logic error.  Yes, everybody experiences   
   >>>>> things   
   >>>>> differently, but what they are experiencing is the same actual universe,   
   >>>>> which doesn't care how many people experience it in how many ways, it is   
   >>>>> simply what it is.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> One of my all-time favorite quotes is by the quantum physicist Bernard   
   >>>> d'Espagnat, the teacher of Alain Aspect (of the famous Aspect   
   >>>> Experiment):   
   >>>> "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is   
   >>>> independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with   
   >>>> quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."   
   >>>> -- Bernard d'Espagnat   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You appear to take the opposing view.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> What facts ?  What experiments ?   
   >>   
   >> Facts: Objects do not exist independently from being observed.   
   >   
   >That's a conclusion, not a fact.  The facts are the results of the   
   >experiments.   
      
   Facts are myths people stick in their hats.   
   And that's a fact. If one can imagine such a that.   
   In a hat, there once was a cat. Named after a Schroeder.   
      
   >> Experiments: Literally thousands and thousands of experiments in many   
   >> labs all over the world. Just google "Bell's theorem experiments" and/or   
   >> "EPR experiments".   
   >   
   >Wouldn't "two slit experiment" bring up the same info?   
      
   To an extent, yes.   
      
   Bell's proposal has verified how there are no hidden variables.   
   And, so, it deflates objections to various, "classical"   
   views of, "objective reality" as such as   
   such may be seen in Ways.   
      
   So-called, "classical" interpretations of QM, QCD, QED et al,   
   simply cannot explain the phenomena. It's altogether too phenomenal.   
      
   To think the world exists without you, is, in fact, hypothetical   
   thought served on a plate of mythological thought flowing.   
      
   To know it might be subjected to a question   
   of how one might know such a critter.   
      
   Seeing as how one sees.   
      
   - sea waves   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)