XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen
From: wudao@wuji.net
noname had written:
>Nobody in Particular wrote:
>> On 9/15/2016 4:07 PM, 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>He said the facts of experiments, and the quantum-mechanics theory which
>was derived from those facts, conflicts with the theory that an actual
>reality exists. Is my paraphrasing correct or incorrect?
In actuality, people do experiments.
In actuality, people interpret the results.
In actuality, people are involved at all times.
To suppose things would be different
if there were no people interpreting what they call, facts,
can be called, The Great Supposit Ion Oratory, and,
I call it an ionic pentameter.
It's kinda like calling, dibs,
or, bullshit, or late for dinner, or a taxi.
In a lab oratory, many things can be retrieved
by lab orator retrievers.
>What he did not say, at least not in that quote, is that he assumes
>physical reality to be continually existent.
With QM, or some other sort of Field, theory,
particles and their anti-particles emerge and submerge, virtually,
all the time at all times in a Great Sea of Quanta, soup-wise.
Call it, zero-point energy.
Or vacuum crap to be swept under a rug.
>I do not make that assumption, in fact I say it is just the opposite:
>physical reality, the whole physical universe, flickers into and out of
>existence on a regular basis,
Except the regularity is highly irregular and unpredictably uncertain.
Except, it can be predicted to any desired degree of accuracy.
If it were totally predictable, it would not be entirely probabilistic
nor statistical by virtue of the facts as they have been observed
by the experiments which involve the maths, which,
are the creations of the people who are
totally involved in the projectiles.
Regurgitation-wise.
> and that occurs every time a sentient being
>chooses this instead of that. It manifests into physical existence, as
>necessary, in order to comply with the wishes of every sentient being.
>(Quite a mess has been made of it, ay?)
Wish knot want knot.
>Therefore (and I use that word humorously here) there is no conflict
>between what he is saying and what I am saying, even though we are saying
>different things. Unless you prefer to conflate them into a single thing,
>and then one of our views is correct and the other incorrect.
I'll take, door number, opinions vary.
Explanations vary.
Experiences vary. Realizations vary.
What varies varies.
To, "know" how things vary, and
that things do, in fact, vary, might very be Taoistical.
But I wouldn't hang my left testical on it.
That would only be right.
- imo
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
