It looks like, contrary to what people say here, that the Copenhagen interpretation is still on top, with at least a strong plurality. Those who prefer another interpretation, just because the facts refute their materialist/realist philosophy, are still behind. In fact, a materialist interpretation was not even mentioned. #2 was "information," which may even be more spiritualist.

(Oh, I guess some philosophers had a vote; that will disqualify the whole poll for vandal)

Quantum physics has been rankling scientists for decades

By Kate Becker, For the Camera
Posted: 01/24/2013

What is the true nature of reality? Let's take a poll.

Seriously. The deep questions raised by quantum theory have so troubled so many thinkers for so long that a trio of physicists decided to settle things Gallup style.

At a conference called "Quantum Physics and the Nature of Reality," held in July 2011, they offered up a survey: In 16 questions, they asked their colleagues -- a group of physicists, mathematicians and philosophers -- to report their feelings on the very foundations of physics. If this seems ambitious, don't fret: It was multiple choice.

Through the poll, they hoped to take the pulse of the physics community on questions like these: Does randomness lie at the heart of physics? Do we really change the universe just by looking at it? Can objects really be in two, three or an infinite number of locations at once?

Physicists have debated these questions ever since they got their first glimpse at the topsy-turvy world of quantum theory. The equations of quantum mechanics are elegant and practical -- they look good and they work -- but their deeper implications are so counterintuitive that they have divided the physics community for decades.

For instance, consider a quantum quandary like this: You've found yourself a particle -- say, an electron -- and you want to measure a particular property called spin. (Though electrons aren't actually spinning, spin sums up the properties, like angular momentum, that they would have if they were spinning.)

There are two possible outcomes: Either it's spinning "up," or it's spinning "down." So you take your measurement, and voila! Spin up! But quantum mechanics won't tell you what the electron was doing immediately before you took that measurement. In fact, mathematically, it seems that the electron was spinning both ways at once until your measurement forced it to make a choice.

Does that mean that the entire universe exists in some sort of limbo? That, until we come along and start poking and prodding at it, there is no definitive reality at all?

This most literal take on quantum physics, often called the Copenhagen interpretation, is what you're most likely to encounter in a physics classroom. Yet it has rankled physicists as eminent as Albert Einstein. To these thinkers, the Copenhagen interpretation amounts to an argument that the world ceases to exist the moment you close your eyes, or that page 100 of the novel on your nightstand remains blank until the moment you turn over page 99. In other words: It just doesn't smell right.

So how did it fare in the poll? It came out on top, with 42 percent of the votes. The information interpretation, which suggests that information, not matter or energy, is the fundamental "stuff" of the universe, came in a distant second, with 24 percent. Close behind in third, at 18 percent, was that sci-fi favorite, the many-worlds interpretation, according to which every quantum measurement actually splits the universe into multiple, parallel universes.

"Other" and "no preferred interpretation" tied for fourth place, with 12 percent apiece. (Yes, eagle-eyed readers, something fishy is going on with the math here: Respondents were allowed to vote for more than one choice.)

You might say, then, that the Copenhagen interpretation is on the decline. Though Copenhagen has been around since the 1920s, the many-worlds idea didn't arise until the 1950s, and quantum information theory is an even later entry into the race, suggesting that physicists are hungry for new ways of thinking about quantum mechanics.

Yet I think the most telling question on the poll is Question 13: How often have you switched to a different interpretation?

Forty-two percent of the scientists polled said they'd changed their minds at least once. And though a third claimed never to have changed their interpretation, ever, one respondent wrote in that he "sometimes switches interpretation several times per day" -- a response that seems both candid and very much in the spirit of quantum physics itself.

Kate Becker is a science writer living in Boston. Contact her at spacecrafty.com, or connect via Facebook (facebook.com/katembecker) or Twitter (@kmbecker).

http://www.dailycamera.com/science-c...ing-scientists

There is no such thing as "matter."

Why do the philosophers say this? Because there is no specific substance called "matter." It is just a general term. No-one has ever seen any such substance, or detected it. Nor will they. It is "an illusion of the senses." Or, it is that which can be experienced by the senses. It is apparent hardness or impenetrability, as compared to the softness of our skin and sense organs. It does not exist without our own senses.

The atom colliders say they have detected "particles." But each particle is of a particular kind. There is no such particle called "matter." They are just presumed to all be "matter." But what does this term, this general category of being, refer to? A kind of behavior. At the smallest levels, you can collide other particles with it, or bounce it off things. It seems to have an impenetrable core, which they call "matter." But it is really just a behavior, a condition. We all know that matter is perfectly penetrable by other matter under the right conditions. It can be burned, dissolved, corroded, absorbed, blown to bits, changed to another state. Physics speaks of "states of matter," but there are really only the states, the original 5 elements. On larger scales, this behavior is called "mass" and is inertia or resistance to motion, and again, apparent impenetrability, at least provisionally.

What about E = mc2 do you folks not understand? Matter is convertable into energy. At that point, it is not matter anymore. If matter can thus disappear, how can it be fundamental?

And what is energy? "Capacity to do work." In other words, it causes things. But the only thing that can really "cause" anything, is the unmoved mover; the soul or spirit. Otherwise, what causes the causes? What caused the big bang? One way to look at this soul, or divine spirit, is as an attractor, rather than an efficient cause; that is how Teilhard de Chardin described it. If the universe holds together coherently at all, he said, it does so from above. Another fact to keep in mind, is that whatever causes anything, does so here and now. There are no causes in the past. As Alan Watts said, that is really making the tail wag the dog, the wake drive the ship, or putting the cart before the horse.

Space is another strange category of being assumed to exist. It seems to exist for us, in some way, and it is related to time. Space is a distance crossed in a certain time. Both time and space are related to motion, and all motion is relative. In one sense, there is no time, as spiritual teachers keep insisting, since the only time is now; and there's no space either, since all is one and all is here. And yet, we experience these dimensions. We each want to have "our own space," and we need to "respect boundaries." We sense a difference between being in motion and being still; a difference between being in motion and being at rest. Motion is relative, but according to our experience, it exists, and at the same time, does not exist, since all is of one thusness (as Zen teaches correctly). And space is related to what we call "matter," since it "occupies space." Aristotle said space is the boundary of bodies. The notion of matter is related to the notion of space. Matter occupies some distance, within which other matter does not. Mutual apparent impenetrability, at least for a while.

Plato called space "the receptacle." It is the mirror in which Forms or archetypes are reflected, which creates the sensible world. Bergson said matter is "rolled out in space" and thus has less life. It is some kind of matrix which allows the ideas in the mind of God to manifest. If there is "matter," this is what it is, according to the greatest philosophers.

We need to get back to a world view more like the philosophers gave us. We also need to study the laws of life and spirit, such as: as above, so below (aka microcosm/macrocosm, holograms, fractiles, self-similar replication), as within, so without, the sacred proportions and geometries (such as the fibonacci sequence/golden ratio, or the life power of memory), the power of thought and prayer in the presence of God, the presence of God in all things everywhere, the chakras/rainbow bridge and the emanation of levels and the currents of being, the quintessence or life force, the four directions and center, archetypes and their relation to manifest forms, and more. These are the kinds of things that really will give us the nature of reality at its core. The likes of Vandal will never lead us there; that is only wallowing in delusion. I will not argue with him over these 2 posts.

And String Theory along with Quantum Theory is an opening for science to enter this territory. String Theory asserts that the world is vibration. That means it has entered the territory of spiritual philosophy, although approached through mathematics and the quest to unite the four "fundamental" forces of physics. The "first string theorist" was Pythagoras, who determined the relationship of mathematical proportions and music. When you get to a genius like Johann Sebastian Bach, he was able to construct musical compositions of universal appeal that reflect esoteric, mathematical and spiritual truth. In my essay on the Toccata in F S. 540, I show how this musical cathedral reflects all these spiritual as well as physical truths. The great cathedrals in stone often do as well; not only the Christian ones, but even more the fabulous temples in the Orient. Will someday the "fundamental forces" be reunited with the 5th force, spirit-- truly remaking our view of the cosmos into a creative expression of musical vibration, which the philosophers have said all along that it is? The string is even described in such as way that it resembles the theme and structure of Bach's Toccata in F.

The Greeks delineated a 5th element, besides fire (energy), earth (solid), water (liquid) and air (gas). Plotinus gave it the name "spirit." Plato called it that which orders heaven, alluding to the zodiac and to his 12-sided Platonic mathematical "solid" (of which there are only 5, one for each Greek element). Aristotle called it the ether of heaven. From there, and only from there, came the earlier physical notion of aether that was "disproved" by the Michelson-Morley experiment. Now we have dark matter and dark energy, which may refer to a new "ether," or merely to the old notion of a kind of "matter and energy" which does not emit or reflect any measurable radiation; I don't know which. Spirit/ether is also considered "the universe," or the element that orders and runs the heavens. Plotinus brought it down to what animates us; the element of life, which became known as "the life force" that Descartes expelled from living things and Darwinian science claims to "disprove." But we know it exists, because we can directly perceive the difference between a living thing and a dead body. Scientific "definitions" merely describe what we observe. Vitalist philosophers such as Bergson resurrected it. We also know it as "consciousness," and Brian Rush has pointed out here (if I understand him right) that consciousness IS the "universe" or the totality, and that neither can be "observed" in a scientific, empirical, measurable way. In other words, the 5th element, the quintessence of all things, spirit, or ether, is the presence of the All, the universe, in all things. That is consciousness, the life force, which is individualized in living spirits and living things, which we call souls. Individuality exists too. But it is not separate from the whole; it is the wholeness of each being, oneness within oneself. Each soul is a hologram/microcosm/fractile of the whole; a part that is also the whole in miniature.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There is no such thing as "matter."

If there is no matter, then there is no energy ("spiritual" or otherwise).

/thread

Originally Posted by Kinser79

If there is no matter, then there is no energy ("spiritual" or otherwise).

/thread

Spirit causes energy, which causes "matter." Emanation from the omega point.

There is no specific substance called "matter." Point it out to me. You can't.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Spirit causes energy, which causes "matter." Emanation from the omega point.

There is no specific substance called "matter." Point it out to me. You can't.

If "spirit" causes "energy" with what unit do you measure "spirit"? What tools can "spirit" be measured with?

Until you can answer those questions I'll be sticking with Physics thanks.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

If "spirit" causes "energy" with what unit do you measure "spirit"? What tools can "spirit" be measured with?

Until you can answer those questions I'll be sticking with Physics thanks.

I'm pretty sure Eric is trolling. Not a bad go at it, either, for such an old dude.

I hope he's attempting to troll. But then again he is from the Cereal State.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

If "spirit" causes "energy" with what unit do you measure "spirit"? What tools can "spirit" be measured with?

Until you can answer those questions I'll be sticking with Physics thanks.

You'd be sticking with it anyway, then. So have fun.

As I thought. A phenomenon, which is what "spirit" must be if it causes another phenomenon "energy", that cannot be measured. How medieval, I mean, quaint.

Yeah, you're right I'll stick with Physics. It is more useful after all.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

As I thought. A phenomenon, which is what "spirit" must be if it causes another phenomenon "energy", that cannot be measured. How medieval, I mean, quaint.

Yeah, you're right I'll stick with Physics. It is more useful after all.

Careful. If you go too far down the physics rabbit hole, you get to immeasurable phenomena there too.

I think a link to this blog article might be useful here: http://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com...-and-religion/

"Spirit creates energy and energy creates matter" represents an improper mixing of epistemology, metaphysics, and physics. Here's what I mean.

ONE of the meanings of the word "spirit" as Eric is using it (unfortunately not the only one) is subjective experience or consciousness. Using that meaning, while tossing all of the improper mix-ins that he is inclined to mix in based on the fact that "spirit" is also used to mean other, completely different things, none of which is implied by the concept of subjective experience or consciousness -- well, in an epistemic sense consciousness does come first. (And I'm going to use that word instead of "spirit," because my aim is to AVOID confusion rather than exploiting it. Just understand that in this particular context, that's the main thing Eric means by "spirit.")

Here's what I mean by saying consciousness comes first epistemically. We know that there are regularities in what we observe only because observation takes place. Observation is a function of consciousness. (Actually, we can model observation without bringing consciousness into the picture at all, but in that case "we" would never know about those regularities in what "we" observe because "we" would never be doing the observing, it would just sort of happen.) The "objective" world is a cognitive construct that is built from many subjective acts of observing. Epistemically, subjective experience or consciousness comes first, and the objective world comes after.

That is the only sense in which the sentence "consciousness creates energy" is true. Consciousness doesn't create energy specifically, but it creates the cognitive construct of objective reality, within which the word "energy" has meaning. This is an EPISTEMIC truth. We can only KNOW about, or have any idea of, objective reality (including energy) because of subjective experience.

This epistemic truth does not however imply a METAPHYSICAL truth that might be stated in the same words. That is the idea that objective reality as a cognitive construct does not refer to anything actual. We are not in a position to know whether it does or not. In order to show that reality is genuinely objective, we would have to verify that it exists without ever being observed, and since we can only verify its existence by observing it, that's obviously impossible. But the same is true about the converse. We also cannot verify that reality DOESN'T exist without ever being observed, since we can disprove its existence only by observing that it doesn't exist.

So while "spirit creates energy" (properly interpreted as above) is true as an EPISTEMIC statement, it is neither true nor false, but meaningless as a METAPHYSICAL statement. (Both idealism and realism, to use the classic metaphysical terms, are meaningless claims.)

The third part of Eric's assertion, "energy creates matter," is not philosophical but scientific. It's a gross oversimplification of the principle in physics that matter and energy are two different forms of the same phenomenon and are interconvertible.

To recap:

"Spirit creates energy" as an EPISTEMIC statement is true (although there are better, less misleading ways to say it).

"Spirit creates energy" as a METAPHYSICAL statement is meaningless.

"Energy creates matter" is a PHYSICAL statement that is not quite correct but is based on something that is; however, this has nothing to do with the epistemic or metaphysical claims above.

I think the phrase "energy creates matter" is not scientifically accurate. I don't think that's what I said or meant. Probably any formulation of the relationship in ordinary language is inaccurate, but I would say "matter" is "energy" in a lower energy state, or a condensed state. You could say matter is a state of energy being locked up or concentrated in a stable condition. But these are just words that attempt to describe what is happening. What I was saying is that, since matter and energy are interchangable, "matter" is not a fundamental basis of reality. It is also something that is never observed; it is a general category for what seems (and can be calculated within limits) to resist movement and can be sensed or is detectible by extensions of the senses. As a category, "matter" is more of a way of thinking than anything actually existing.

As for "spirit creates energy," that goes back to Plato and Aristotle, whom we do well to pay attention to, and to the fact that postulations of "causes" for things is an infinite regress that puts "explanations" for things into the past. Such explanations are useful to manipulate reality with, as Western civilization became adept at doing. That does not mean it is correct metaphysically. Nothing is caused in the past, and the only thing that can cause anything is spirit, the unmoved mover, or self-moved motion. Spirit is consciousness, and consciousness is creative and not just passive experience (iow not just epistemic). Thought is creative too.

Empirical science is limited precisely because it can only know what has already been created in the now; it is knowledge only of the past. But everything is really now, and anything caused to exist, is caused to exist now. The wake does not drive the ship. Spontaneous free creation and will drives the ship, and the ship causes the wake. The dog wags the tail, and the horse comes before the cart.

Of course, calling it "spirit" or "consciousness" does not begin to fathom the mystery that is creativity, and spirits are not isolated entities that cause things. It gets more subtle and profound than that. Ships are steered through the wind too. But words are clumsy, whether they are spiritual words or physical words.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

To recap:

"Spirit creates energy" as an EPISTEMIC statement is true (although there are better, less misleading ways to say it).

I would say a more correct and certainly less misleading if not outright inaccurate way of putting it would be as follows:

"Consciousness constructs the concept of energy based on observed material interactions between phenomena."

"Spirit creates energy" as a METAPHYSICAL statement is meaningless.

Metaphysics in general is meaningless as well as useless.

"Energy creates matter" is a PHYSICAL statement that is not quite correct but is based on something that is; however, this has nothing to do with the epistemic or metaphysical claims above.

That statement is a gross oversimplification of known laws of physics.

All of this said, yes Brian I was aware the whole time of precisely how Eric was abusing language. I've had to deal with idealistic nihilists before. I actually used to be one.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I've had to deal with idealistic nihilists before. I actually used to be one.

I've had to deal with realistic materialists before. I actually used to be one.

You need to go down the rabbit hole that M&L mentioned. Or at least take a peek.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Metaphysics in general is meaningless as well as useless.

I think I disagree. The use of it is to identify what kinds of statements are metaphysical and therefore meaningless. (In fact, that's a whole bunch of the point of philosophy in my opinion: to identify the limits of what we can know and how.)

As I said above, realism and idealism are EQUALLY meaningless and unprovable. What we know is that the universe we experience exhibits certain regularities which can be predicted and, in that limited sense, understood. That the universe we experience exists objectively -- apart from our experience of it -- is unknowable. We can tack on a realist (it does really exist) or an idealist (it's all in our minds) metaphysical position to what we know about those regularities in the universe we experience, as we find convenient, and it will make no difference scientifically.

It might, however, make a difference spiritually/mystically -- although in the end the goal of enlightenment includes transcending both. But as a step along the path, both positions are useful at different times and for different purposes.

(Getting stuck in one of them is, however, not useful at all.)

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I've had to deal with realistic materialists before. I actually used to be one.

I honestly don't think you ever were a realist-materialist Eric. And if you were, the way you are now is either the result of a nervous break down, or perhaps chemical insanity.

You need to go down the rabbit hole that M&L mentioned. Or at least take a peek.

Actually I have a bit. The laws of mathmatics as we understand them start breaking down in the area of black holes. But it is our understanding rather than the material aspects which is imperfect.

I've yet to find a philosophical methodology superior to materialism.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I think I disagree. The use of it is to identify what kinds of statements are metaphysical and therefore meaningless. (In fact, that's a whole bunch of the point of philosophy in my opinion: to identify the limits of what we can know and how.)

Metaphysics in the general sense of the word is only useful to identify useless statements. Metaphyics on its own is as I said generally useless.

As I said above, realism and idealism are EQUALLY meaningless and unprovable.

We are going to disagree, but you already knew that.

What we know is that the universe we experience exhibits certain regularities which can be predicted and, in that limited sense, understood. That the universe we experience exists objectively -- apart from our experience of it -- is unknowable.

Incorrect. We have evidence of the universe existing prior to our existance as a species, and certainly prior to our individual existence. The main thrust of materialism (the world exists apart from human consciousness of its existence) remains intact. The main thrust of idealism fall apart upon elementary examination.

We can tack on a realist (it does really exist) or an idealist (it's all in our minds) metaphysical position to what we know about those regularities in the universe we experience, as we find convenient, and it will make no difference scientifically.

To an extent, correct, to a different extent incorrect. For the scientific process to work on its own the scientist must recognize that phenomena do exist outside of his personal perception of the phenomena in question. In short the basis for science itself must be materialist in nature, because the basis for superstition is idealistic in nature.

The personal philosophy of this or that scientist is irrelevant.

It might, however, make a difference spiritually/mystically -- although in the end the goal of enlightenment includes transcending both. But as a step along the path, both positions are useful at different times and for different purposes.

I would argue that "spiritually" and "mystically" are irrelevant terms to knowing anything about anything.

If we can grant that the Universe is a non-phenomenon (on the argumentation that it cannot be observed from outside of itself to our knowledge), and that consciousness is also a non-phenomenon (based on being purely the subjective experience of living) then so-called spiritual or mystical experiences must be the experience of phenomena. And as such subject to science.

Furthermore, I do not believe that enlightenment has an ultimate end goal. Enlightenment is nothing more and nothing less than the science of consciousness. It has no goal, it discovers only what exists.

(Getting stuck in one of them is, however, not useful at all.)

I would say that if one had to be stuck in a philosophical paradigm then the best one would be materialism. At least with it the real can be proven to be real. Idealism finds its ultimate expression in nihilism--or more accurately Post-Modernism (the philosophical equivalent of "Its just your opinion, man").

Originally Posted by Kinser79

We have evidence of the universe existing prior to our existance as a species

All such evidence is derived from our observations. As such, it is useless to answer the question of whether the universe exists independently of our observations. In order to take it as evidence of such, one must assume a priori that this cognitive construct we have created (which includes the timeline you referred to) exists objectively, which makes the argument circular.

If we can grant that the Universe is a non-phenomenon (on the argumentation that it cannot be observed from outside of itself to our knowledge), and that consciousness is also a non-phenomenon (based on being purely the subjective experience of living) then so-called spiritual or mystical experiences must be the experience of phenomena.

Non-phenomena are not entities that cannot be experienced. They are entities that cannot be observed. Observation is a subset of experience or a particular type of experience, in which an observer, separate from what is observed, gains information about it. It's possible to experience the universe from within; indeed, arguably we do that with all of experience, bar none.

Furthermore, I do not believe that enlightenment has an ultimate end goal.

Good point, even though "science of consciousness" is an oxymoron. Let me modify what I said, then, to say that it's desirable for spiritual purposes to transcend both realism and idealism, and getting stuck in one of them is not useful at all.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I honestly don't think you ever were a realist-materialist Eric. And if you were, the way you are now is either the result of a nervous break down, or perhaps chemical insanity.

Back atcha, dude.

Actually I have a bit. The laws of mathmatics as we understand them start breaking down in the area of black holes. But it is our understanding rather than the material aspects which is imperfect.

The world is what it is. Our understanding and especially our language is imperfect.

I've yet to find a philosophical methodology superior to materialism.

That's right. You have yet to find it.

I missed something earlier in my response to Kinser.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

For the scientific process to work on its own the scientist must recognize that phenomena do exist outside of his personal perception of the phenomena in question.

I'm not sure what you mean by science working "on its own." Seems to me it doesn't do that in any case; people have to do this thing we call "science."

Be that as it may, idealism isn't the belief that the world doesn't exist outside one person's subjective perception (that's solipsism, a related but distinct idea). Idealism is the belief that the world doesn't exist outside everyone's subjective perception put together. This belief is compatible with science (although uncommon among scientists), as long as we recognize the existence of multiple viewpoints and of observable regularities.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

All such evidence is derived from our observations. As such, it is useless to answer the question of whether the universe exists independently of our observations. In order to take it as evidence of such, one must assume a priori that this cognitive construct we have created (which includes the timeline you referred to) exists objectively, which makes the argument circular.

A circular argument that is ultimately not very useful. What is useful is that the priori that based on evidence observed we can infer that the universe did exist prior to humanity existing as a species.

Non-phenomena are not entities that cannot be experienced. They are entities that cannot be observed. Observation is a subset of experience or a particular type of experience, in which an observer, separate from what is observed, gains information about it. It's possible to experience the universe from within; indeed, arguably we do that with all of experience, bar none.

In the main I'm in agreement. However, I do not include the requirement that for observation to occur the subject doing the observation need necessarily observe it in a third-person format. I've made first person observations of myself--I certainly cannot exit my own body to examine my own thoughts and consciousness and yet I can indeed observe it after the fact.

Good point, even though "science of consciousness" is an oxymoron. Let me modify what I said, then, to say that it's desirable for spiritual purposes to transcend both realism and idealism, and getting stuck in one of them is not useful at all.

"Science of consciousness" perhaps is an oxymoron, but English as a language is limited. Generally speaking I attempt to use,as much as possible, scientific observation of my own consciousness to achieve enlightenment. For the most part I have--though I'm completely devoid of anything which people like Eric would call "spiritual".

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I missed something earlier in my response to Kinser.



I'm not sure what you mean by science working "on its own." Seems to me it doesn't do that in any case; people have to do this thing we call "science."

Be that as it may, idealism isn't the belief that the world doesn't exist outside one person's subjective perception (that's solipsism, a related but distinct idea). Idealism is the belief that the world doesn't exist outside everyone's subjective perception put together. This belief is compatible with science (although uncommon among scientists), as long as we recognize the existence of multiple viewpoints and of observable regularities.

What I mean by "science working on its own" is people undergoing the processes of science without contaminating that process with their own personal philosophies. I was not implying that science was a force apart from or separate from humans. Such a statement would be absurd.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Back atcha, dude.

Is that the best you got? Seriously I've met five year olds with a sharper wit.

The world is what it is. Our understanding and especially our language is imperfect.

Phenomena are what they are, they either have evidence of their existence or they do not have evidence. Our understanding of these phenomena are imperfect, ergo any flaws in the formulas or words to describe them are also imperfect.

A great deal of the so-called subjectivity in the realm of cosmology comes from the fact that black holes are both infinitely small and infinitely dense. Infinity has a bad habit of messing up equations.

That's right. You have yet to find it.

I would disagree, I would say that none exists. Remember Eric, according to what you've said about your philosophical origin we traveled the same road in opposite directions. I used to be an idealist at one point.

That said, I don't think you ever were a materialist to start with. Your understanding of materialism is far too limited to have actually been a student at that school.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

A circular argument that is ultimately not very useful. What is useful is that the priori that based on evidence observed we can infer that the universe did exist prior to humanity existing as a species.

If we are going to question the independent existence of the universe, in doing so we also question that evidence. It's all of a piece. It has significance only within the context of the cognitive construct we call "objective reality." The question of whether that construct refers to something real steps outside that context and cannot be answered by reference to any evidence within it. Time itself is called into question here as an objective reality.

In the main I'm in agreement. However, I do not include the requirement that for observation to occur the subject doing the observation need necessarily observe it in a third-person format. I've made first person observations of myself--I certainly cannot exit my own body to examine my own thoughts and consciousness and yet I can indeed observe it after the fact.

You are not a unit. You are a collection. You may observe part of yourself from the perspective of another part. You cannot observe the whole of you (although another person can). This is true in the context of mental events as much as physical ones.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Is that the best you got? Seriously I've met five year olds with a sharper wit.

That's all that was necessary. Why waste words on you?

Phenomena are what they are, they either have evidence of their existence or they do not have evidence. Our understanding of these phenomena are imperfect, ergo any flaws in the formulas or words to describe them are also imperfect.

A great deal of the so-called subjectivity in the realm of cosmology comes from the fact that black holes are both infinitely small and infinitely dense. Infinity has a bad habit of messing up equations.

Yes it does, but black holes are not necessary for it to do that. The very idea of cause does that. Or the very idea of space, time or distance. Infinity is infinitely ubiquitous.

I would disagree, I would say that none exists. Remember Eric, according to what you've said about your philosophical origin we traveled the same road in opposite directions. I used to be an idealist at one point.

You didn't find it then either, in that case. Once people find real spiritualism, they don't go back.

I may change, but at this point, I am far more likely to get even more spiritualist than otherwise.

The world comes from within outward, among all of us. That is the only foundation of virtue. Anything else is just reaction; living death.

That said, I don't think you ever were a materialist to start with. Your understanding of materialism is far too limited to have actually been a student at that school.

You are wrong, and I still have an abundant understanding of materialism; better than you and most materialists. When I was a student, science teachers would say I had the best knowledge and intelligence around the subject of anyone in the class.

nihilism--or more accurately Post-Modernism (the philosophical equivalent of "Its just your opinion, man").

So that is your problem with "nihilism" then? You like to paste that label on me, just because I say that what doesn't exist, doesn't exist. But I don't agree with "Its just your opinion, man".

Ironically, there is a guy (at least one) who objects to me pasting that "post-modernist" label on him.