Need Help Here

[argive99]

I was having a discussion on another BB about something related to science when a dialog emerged concerning Reality and perception. The other person asserted that in essence there is no reality without a perceiver. I am not a professional philosopher so I don't have all the ammo necessary to answer him. I actually don't think I would even if I did b/c I doubt it would change his mind. But I am interested in a good explanation for my own knowledge. Printed below is his primacy of conciousness argument in his own words. He is a physiologist by trade.

"And who says that the Aristotelian model is correct or valid? Newton's model fell by the wayside with relativity, as I recall Wilson argues that modern quantum physics destroyed Aristotles. Our conception of what reality 'is' has changed too much to hold onto centuries old models.

The point is that we can't even ratinoally discuss reality without considering the observer, the two are so linked as to make the suggestion of a reality without an observer meaningless. This is a prime finding of quantum physics where observation is required to cause the outcome in many cases.

Are you familiar with the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment?

Whether you want too call it a reality perceptive device or reality creatino device is irrelevant, IMO. You can't speak of the universe without considering the perceiver, perception is creation for all practical purposes."

[ZiggyKD]

There was a discussion on quantum theory here a couple months ago, it might help:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...wtopic=241&st=0

(I believe the second page of that thread has the most useful information)

[AisA]

Your are correct that you are wasting your time with such people. Their premise is the claim to know that nothing can be known. They will assert with absolute certainty that nothing can be known for certain. The only thing you can do is point out their contradictions and hope that it might get some of them to re-think their positions.

Either knowledge is possible to man or it is not. If one truly believes that knowledge is impossible, the only rational thing for them to do is sit down and shut up -- since they cannot possibly have anything to say.

Newton's model most certainly did not fall by the wayside. It has simply been augmented by science that improves the precision of our knowledge -- which is a pattern that happens with much of science. For example, our ability to measure distance has improved drastically the last few decades. When the Empire State Building was constructed, its height was estimated at 1,450 feet. We know now that it is actually 1,450 feet and 8&9/16 inches. Does this mean the old height was wrong -- no, it just means that it was and estimate and we now have greater precision.

Note also that the actual height of the building is unaffected by the change in measurement. Note also that even though previous methods were less precise, they were good enough to make the erection of the skyscraper possible. The building still stands.

[argive99]

Note also that the actual height of the building is unaffected by the change in measurement. Note also that even though previous methods were less precise, they were good enough to make the erection of the skyscraper possible. The building still stands.

Thank you AisA. I appreciate your comments and ofcourse agree. I actually did try discussing this subject w/ the person above. As can be expected he came back at me with a discusson of the wave/particle duality ending in the conclusion that there can be no science w/o the observer and ultimately it is the perceiver that creates what he perceives.

The funny thing is that this guy is a respected empirical nutritional researcher who has written really good books on how the body works. Yet his view is that Aristotle and Newton have been invalidated and Relativity rules. He is adamant about Shrodinger's Cat (that poor cat).

But you are right. Instruments don't create the things that they measure. The Empire State Building is the height that it is despite any observer and Shrodinger's Cat is either alive or dead (hopefully alive) despite whatever "state vector" the viewer chooses. Reality is.

[AisA]

argive99, the wave/particle duality argument has been refuted. Try this link:

Wave/particle theory

[argive99]

I was aware of Lewis Little from the old Prodos radio show. But thanks for the link to his paper.

Its good to read a rational physicist.

[AisA]

Can someone provide a link that explains the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment?

Thanks.

[Apprentice]

AisA--

Is this the sort of thing you're looking for? It's a very basic source--nothing too in depth.

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,...i341236,00.html

[AisA]

Yes, thanks Apprentice.

[argive99]

argive99, the wave/particle duality argument has been refuted. Try this link:

Wave/particle theory

I shared Little's link and got the typical response that his paper was just 'math and philosophy with no reproducible scientific evidence and not likely to be accepted by the scientific community.'

With modern academics the way it is, even if he offered metric tons of evidence his theory might still be rejected. He's trying to show people that no contradictions exist in physics. They will hate him for it.

Lastly, I remember Little saying on Prodos' radio show a few years ago that he needed funding to do the experiments necessary to prove his theory. I believe he said he needed to use a super collider although I might be wrong. Has he made any progress on that front?