dabits has left the discussion I have a lot of things I could add, but it would be one opinion against another. I am not trying to convince anybody that I am right. Nobody has proven to me that I am not ... This will not change, have fun
There is a very good example: A rope, the snake and different conditions of light (awareness). In dim light a rope can be mistaken for a snake. Eliminating the unreal, the Reality survives. When a rope is mistaken for a snake, it is enough to remove the erroneous perception of the snake for the truth to be revealed. Without such elimination the truth will not dawn. There cannot be illusion either in extreme bright light or in total darkness. (At both states there is neither a snake nor a rope). Only in dim light a rope seems a snake. Similarly Pure Consciousness remains light only; it is pure knowledge. The mind rising from it is deluded that the objects remain apart. The darkness represents absence of awareness such as in deep sleep, swoon. The ‘first’ illusion (confusion of snake-rope) and its resolution is a part of western Psychology and Philosophy. Whereas the actual illusion separation of subject-objects and observer-things to be observed-observation is no extra part of western science. I didn’t want to confuse even more and state neither the tree not the sound exists, lol. Yes sure. Both answers are relatively right in a relative world. We are here to enjoy to discuss.
Can you think of something(with example) which is independent of mind. I would like your comment on your other examples also eating 'cake'. That would make the subjective nature of perception more clear.
If "sound" is defined as involving the subjective experience of an observer (as common meanings of the term often do), then the tree did not make a sound at the time, and only was a partial contributor in creating the sound heard when you pressed the play button of the recording device . The tree caused a mechanical vibration in a medium which caused a mechanical effect in the recorder. That was insufficient to create the sound heard on the recorder, and required other enabling causes such as a person to press the play button. Therefore, the tree did not make a sound until play button was pressed, and the causal relation between the tree falling and the sound is notably different depending on whether there was a person there at the time or a person listening to a recorder later.
You are simply adding more variables which is pointless to the question being asked. What if before the tree falls Don Biscuit lets out a humongous fart and destroys half the planet including the tree. That's not the point, go look back at the question in the first post. It is saying the tree has fallen ... then what !?
Lord R29K, Why those my name always have to fall in one of your sentences??? I know you love me,but why me? The fart question was intended to be serious,but nobody takes me TOO serious here as i see,except Yen maybe a little bit The point is,these kind of questions don´t bring us anywhere,as i see we are on post 48 and it´s turning always in the same direction. This kind of question gets you gray hair of too much thinking and disscusing. Probably ancestor(v) doesn´t answer such questions is: He is a Admin for so long here and answered so many of these questions that he has gray hair now. That guy should be a lesson for all of us,thinking leeds to gray hair P.S. I´m not the one HIPPO R29k in the video you posted around ,so my fart wouldn´t destroy half the planet,maybe your house only ahahahaaa
Right. The scientific way to think is not to define more variables than needed. It's a simple tree in a forest on earth that has fallen. I have posted my thoughts already without reading one source about. It's about cause-effect illusion (disregard of the observer that observes cause and effect). And about ( subject / object illusion). The observer influences the observation. The sound is affected by the observer. Observation and observer can't be separated. There is no 'true' observation. No observing system can observe itself observing. It's about the breakdown of old Physics (static, mechanic Newton) and about the paradigma shift. Max Planck, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Kurt Gödel. And about eastern Philosophy (Buddhism) about Reality, supported by quantum mechanics. @HMHB I can be serious and easy, I can be scientist and crazy, lol. I am Gemini. Fun is everything....just have it!
It's been 3 weeks ago already (first decade of Gemini). Thanks a lot redroad. From wiki: Quality Positive: outwardly expressive, extrovert Element (triplicity) Air: thought, intellect, ideas, interaction Mode (quadruplicity) Mutable: the element in its most fluid form - associated with change and the dissemination of energy Body part Shoulders, arms, hands Direction East All the mutable signs are double-bodied - Gemini: two twins; Virgo: maiden and bird; Sagittarius: man and horse; Pisces: two fish. They represent the months that join the seasons and signify a dualistic nature that is easily adaptable and can be one thing or another. For this reason the mutable signs are referred to as common signs in traditional terminology. Sorry for being off topic.
To Mr Yen and R29K, Sorry for adding those variables. In theory an event can be predicted with complete certainty if all possible variables are known and considered... but knowing all possible variables is itself impossible.
Mr Acrsn wrote; Not really. The phenomenon being described by us might be governed by a law, but scientific laws are not the same as the theoretical concept as defined in the dictionary. They are 'human extrapolations' based on our observation of how things work in the universe. They are not objective values but subjective ones (albeit more accurate than any other). They will continue to remain that way until we discover evidence to the contrary. They are simply put, our 'explanations' of how things work. We neither possess omniscience nor any other means of truly understanding the exact nature of that we describe from an extrinsic point of view. In other words every scientific observation no matter how accurate is always an approximation of how things actually function. Please correct me if my understanding of those laws of physics are wrong. thanks, sid_16.
"Science by 1900 was convinced that it had nearly reached the end of the quest for Reality. Every phenomenon in the physically universe had been neatly described in the strictly deterministic terms of cause and effect." So described it Wilber and he is right. The scientists thought they are measuring the absolute!!! The observer can perceive / observe / measure the phenomenon independent and separated of him. The observer and the observation are absolute different. The scientists thought they could thinker with the universe without affecting it. But then came the photoelectric effect and the ultraviolet catastrophe. They shocked the strict dualistic idea of separation of subject (the scientist) and object (the thing to explore / measure / observe) Planck's constant and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle were born. And Schrödinger said: "Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of a recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist." Everybody who measures something is a part of the event / interferes with it and affects / changes it. There is never a true / absolute result of something. Theoretically one must repeat the measurement infinite times to get an absolute result, or perceive 'it' as 'an event' without time.
Yen sir, as far as my understanding of the science and its laws are concerned and as stated earlier, the very concept of 'reality' and 'existence' is dependent on an observer. Without an observer these attributes would be meaningless. The holographic principle, the observer effect and the scientific concept of a law which I think support this very point.
At some point I stopped to read about theories. I tired Hawkins, the Holographic Principle I never studied. The breakdown of the mechanic world of Newton. It is that massive that almost nobody has got what it means. Neither Hawkins nor others who developed new theories. I mean what it really means. I myself had stopped because my intellect didn’t need more food. The other aspects to handle the breakdown of Newton came from Buddhism. (to me). Most of us still separate subject (what they are) from the objects outside. Do they know the world is in them? They think they live in the world. They see the world as object, which exists independent from them!!! Do they know when watching the sky that they are the sky watching itself? With ‘know’ I mean experience it as….. Most scientists are developing complex theories about wormholes, black matter, dual universes. Stuff to feed greedy minds. Greed for what? To encounter one day that the one hasn’t even understand elementary things? It’s like you build a tower and you think about the roof without to have a grounding. “Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of a recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist” Do we get what that means? I mean really? It is more important to get this than to read about BBT and all the complex scientific stuff. “this barrier does not exist” So there is no barrier of me and the world outside, there is no outside, there is no inside, there is no difference of observer and observation. There is no world without observer. Until one cannot see the world as it is it makes IMHO no sense to get busy with abstract and complex theories, this seems rather ridiculous. So I laugh about most scientists. LOL!
Yen sir, is there any distinction/difference between 'metaphysics' and 'physics' ? Is their distinction/difference ever/often undefinable ? Or can metaphysics ever affect the physical realities and is the former more valid than the later?
The name metaphysics comes from ‚meta’ means after it, or beyond, or behind and physics means nature (in the meaning: the nature of…) Well I’d say important is to know that we have different special subjects. Physics, Metaphysics (which is a branch of Philosophy), Philosophy (eastern and western) and the Religions, whereby I’d say Buddhism is rather a Philosophy than a Religion (to me). And we know about their history and we know that science and religion have had their fights. It is very important to see them to be equal. Most fail here already. They condemn at least one of them. It is also important what is my intention. Is my intention to explain a special phenomenon, or do I try to find something about myself. Do I have a mission, actually a job, like to explain a law of Physics, or to evaluate the existence of wormholes, or do I try to figure more about my ‘own’ mission on earth. I can use any ideas of any of these subjects, no matter if Physics or Metaphysics. One should never be biased. Anything has its own sense and can cover only a special relation. There is an attribute which belongs to each individual. Some need to accumulate a lot of intellectual stuff, some from a special subject only. Some exclude strictly ‘the other’ knowledge. Some die already in the process of accumulating ‘knowledge’. An open mind is tolerant and knows that one special subject has its own image of ONE Reality. Also in between this special subject like Physics there are different models which can explain a particular phenomenon. (I had posted about the Infrared Radiation and its discovery and also about different models of light). In Physics there are laws and there are definitions. Both are relative, a definition is not even a logic matter. Definition of length: One unit has been called one meter. But one has said: Check this out: (stretches out his two arms) This is one meter, one unit I call meter and when it is twice as long then they are two units, two meters). The same is with one kilogram, the unit of mass. There is no logic relation. Also when you take your ruler to get the length of something, what does one actually do? One compares the ruler to the length of the object to be measured and gets how it is related to it. There is no absolute length. Every ruler is an image of the International Prototype Metre, or a linear part or multiple of it. A law is an observed relation. It is an image of an aspect of the relative world (on earth) which is usually put in a formula (equation). The law of Beer and Lambert E=epsilon *c*d (this is already the simplest formula after the far more complex derivation) It says: Light will be absorbed when it goes through matter, here through a solution. It says when I double the molarity (concentration of a solution) its absorbance (extinction) of light is also double. And it says it doesn’t matter how I double. The solution’s concentration or its layer thickness. (Or it says Mr. Lambert drinks a beer and becomes drunk, the more beer the more drunk, cheers lol...) When I teach students I use scientific models. But scientific models are not satisfying regarding my own existence. So I used other branches like Metaphysic and Philosophy and later Religion. Also I discovered major inconsistencies in thinking (mind). It firstly started by thinking of is my perception of the colour green the perception of other people? Then how do we determine objects? What is actually a tree? Where is the tree ‘located’. What is the difference of the tree when having its leafs or when it has lost them? What is the difference of a cycle and birth and death? Why humans cannot accept death, whereas it is natural when a leaf is falling in autumn and the tree gets new ones in spring time? Why do I say I am Yen and after a new haircut I say I am here and over there on the ground are my cut hairs? Something major is wrong here…….science cannot answer that. So I had read about the breakdown of Newton’s mechanics and I recognized that there were scientists with metaphysical aspects. IMHO every good scientist such as Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Einstein have never lost their philosophical sight of the matter. They knew that their science can only cover a special aspect of Reality. And they knew it that there is only one Reality, this means all theories must end in one Knowledge. So I came to Buddhism from science. And then to Hinduism and finally back to my origin religion Christianity, which I had denied in the past. But I take what I need to get from everywhere. I have met many people with a lot of wisdom. I am grateful for this. And I have found my own happiness. I do not believe, I know. The Reality is eternal. And to get the Reality is our all destiny. There is no wrong path from the sight of Reality, there is a long(er) path in a relative time for a relative individual.
Yen sir nice explanation again thanks. I ask the above question because it appears that any interaction that takes place in the physical realm would be a physical interaction. By similar reasoning, any interaction that takes place in the metaphysical world would have to be a metaphysical reaction. If both of the above assumptions are true, then it is not possible for the physical and the metaphysical to interact - since it couldn't happen in the physical realm, and it couldn't happen in the metaphysical (which encompasses anything other than the physical) realm. Modern physicists seem to hate the word metaphysics. which I think is rather unfortunate. They want to strictly adhere to the "hows" and avoid the "whys" and "whats" as if they are pollutants; a kind of religious behavior. Einstein was an exception and for that reason many of his thoughts are not liked by modern day physicists. Science is based on human subjective observations, cos' it is the human's subjective interpretation of those measurements that remains consistent among us that we then call as facts, no other creature or life form on this planet uses a meter stick thermometer or kilogram to determine a measurement, so science is what human beings use to understand our world. The meter stick and other measuring devices were "invented" by humans as a standard way to remain consistent in communication with other people and religion is based on human subjective beliefs. I'll reply later when I'll be free.
Watch how a discussion about a falling tree making a sound or not turns into a discussion about the art of discussing Part of that is quoting what others have said, because if you can find it in writing and others accept it as a fact ... it must be true Why are the words Religion and Bible always on my mind when I read these kind of discussions
I think sid_16 wants to find himself, that's why he poses these questions. Religion and the bible or any other religious book have nothing to do with SELF discovery (Oh, boy! Again?).