Myths about reality

[Kittyinpink]

We have different opinions on how reliable peer reviews are. While I see them as an important part of scientific research, they are all somewhat limited in the same way all human endeavors are limited.

Yes , I have to agree with Drifter on this.. any scientific community is basically a product of the generation they are in , including all the inate prejudices of that time. Even bitter rivals will basically quote from the same book ! We are human, and very limited by our own amazing brains, brains that can do amazing things, but are evolutionary flawed...

 

[Kirisin]

I have a perception of my own but is it reality. Is it reality I can't say.
So my perception is that it took 13.7 billion years for the light of the furthest galaxy we see to reach us. If it took 13.7 million years wouldn't the universe have continued to expand as that light traveled here. So the perception that the universe is only 13.7 million years old would be wrong when in reality it should be atleast 27.4 million years old. Is it reality or just my perception of it. Which is where I came up with Perception is reality but sometimes reality is my perception of it.

 

[Kirisin]

Billion years sorry got stuck on million lol

 

[Kittyinpink]

Billion years sorry got stuck on million lol

I get it... .. listen... please... the statistics you just quoted?? Are they your absolute certainty due to years of study? Or are you quoting other scientists research? If you are quoting others , then, I'm sorry but you are actually just repeating stuff you have heard , even though you are obviously clever, are you sure you are being subjective?

 

[Kirisin]

I'm not the best educated that shows in my Grammer. But cosmetology has always been an interest of mine. (I couldn't wait for Webb pictures) when I was in the 7th grade some 40+ years ago we discussed this age of the universe thing. The speed of light, how long it took for light to get to us. At the time simple telescopes here on earth. Most importantly on Mount Wilson where used to calculate. I'm not sure the estimates back then because that's what they where. However I couldn't take my mind off those estimates. It never made sense because they only used the light years to travel here. Nnobody ever factoring in that the universe was still expanding while that light traveled here. So I posed that question to my science teacher who looked at me and couldn't answer. It was like that light bulb went off shocked that nobody ever brought it up. Nobody had ever questioned the expansion continuing. When Hubble tellascope came along and revealed a 13.7 billion year old universe I asked the same question again. As we discussed with the revelation that the universe was picking up speed as it expanded. How then could the universe be only 13.7 billion years old. My estament of 27.4 assumes the the universe would have at the vary least doubled in size by the time that light reached us. Yet still nobody brings this revelation up. Which is why I ask is the reality that the universe has doubled from those estimates. Or am I like Enstien or Hubble and taking my perception and making it reality. Which is where our discussion started. Perception is reality except when reality is somebody's perception of it. Really reality as we said is still based on the Era those scientists lived in. Remember at one time the earth was the center of the solar system and the sun revolved around us. That at the time was there reality until it was proved wrong and the sun became the center of the solar system. Anyway just a thought.

I get it... .. listen... please... the statistics you just quoted?? Are they your absolute certainty due to years of study? Or are you quoting other scientists research? If you are quoting others , then, I'm sorry but you are actually just repeating stuff you have heard , even though you are obviously clever, are you sure you are being subjective?

 

[Kittyinpink]

I'm not the best educated that shows in my Grammer. But cosmetology has always been an interest of mine. (I couldn't wait for Webb pictures) when I was in the 7th grade some 40+ years ago we discussed this age of the universe thing. The speed of light, how long it took for light to get to us. At the time simple telescopes here on earth. Most importantly on Mount Wilson where used to calculate. I'm not sure the estimates back then because that's what they where. However I couldn't take my mind off those estimates. It never made sense because they only used the light years to travel here. Nnobody ever factoring in that the universe was still expanding while that light traveled here. So I posed that question to my science teacher who looked at me and couldn't answer. It was like that light bulb went off shocked that nobody ever brought it up. Nobody had ever questioned the expansion continuing. When Hubble tellascope came along and revealed a 13.7 billion year old universe I asked the same question again. As we discussed with the revelation that the universe was picking up speed as it expanded. How then could the universe be only 13.7 billion years old. My estament of 27.4 assumes the the universe would have at the vary least doubled in size by the time that light reached us. Yet still nobody brings this revelation up. Which is why I ask is the reality that the universe has doubled from those estimates. Or am I like Enstien or Hubble and taking my perception and making it reality. Which is where our discussion started. Perception is reality except when reality is somebody's perception of it. Really reality as we said is still based on the Era those scientists lived in. Remember at one time the earth was the center of the solar system and the sun revolved around us. That at the time was there reality until it was proved wrong and the sun became the center of the solar system. Anyway just a thought.

Cool discussion! ... I am out of my league here.. I knew that when I started... but I couldn't resist! I don't know why , but I am drawn to discussion like this! I feel I have something to say.. but I don't know what ... sorry if I have wasted anyone's time with my comments.. imagination.. that seems to be the key... how many other animals use imagination as much as us? And why have we evolved to use such an ethereal mind set? From belief ,to prejudice, to fantasy ? I simply can't help myself! I am so curious!

 

[Kirisin]

Cool discussion! ... I am out of my league here.. I knew that when I started... but I couldn't resist! I don't know why , but I am drawn to discussion like this! I feel I have something to say.. but I don't know what ... sorry if I have wasted anyone's time with my comments.. imagination.. that seems to be the key... how many other animals use imagination as much as us? And why have we evolved to use such an ethereal mind set? From belief ,to prejudice, to fantasy ? I simply can't help myself! I am so curious!

That's it imagination and curiosity. Being able to see those furthest galaxy. Sparking interest in simple people like us. That's how it works. Questioning wondering solving. Right or wrong is how we learn. It is pretty deep. But like you I can't get enough. I'm still following Voygers around and there way out there. Look at us where in an ABDL community talking about science. How much better can it get right.

 

[Kittyinpink]

That's it imagination and curiosity. Being able to see those furthest galaxy. Sparking interest in simple people like us. That's how it works. Questioning wondering solving. Right or wrong is how we learn. It is pretty deep. But like you I can't get enough. I'm still following Voygers around and there way out there. Look at us where in an ABDL community talking about science. How much better can it get right.

 

[Drifter]

Leaving aside the difficulty of defining terms for the moment, do you think it is possible that any belief / interpretation regarding the finiteness of the universe is more maintainable than any other? Does the question actually have an answer "in reality"?

I know this isn't a satisfactory answer, but in my reality anything is possible.

One possibility I don't really believe in is the belief that everything is an "illusion". Modern nuclear physicists, the people often accused of starting that rumor, seem to have a lot of faith that some things actually do exist: things like planets, stars, people, etc. What value would peer reviews have if people were just illusions? Physisists just have a little trouble defining the exact, scientific nature of things due to the discrepancies their research has with our faulty, illusion prone perceptions. What that means to me is that our beliefs are more likely to be illusions than the actual things we perceive regardless of how faulty our sense organs are. In other words, beliefs are illusions while reality is real.

 

[Kittyinpink]

I know this isn't a satisfactory answer, but in my reality anything is possible.

One possibility I don't really believe in is the belief that everything is an "illusion". Modern nuclear physicists, the people often accused of starting that rumor, seem to have a lot of faith that some things actually do exist: things like planets, stars, people, etc. What value would peer reviews have if people were just illusions? Physisists just have a little trouble defining the exact, scientific nature of things due to the discrepancies their research has with our faulty, illusion prone perceptions. What that means to me is that our beliefs are more likely to be illusions than the actual things we perceive regardless of how faulty our sense organs are. In other words, beliefs are illusions while reality is real.

I have two broken ribs after an crash last week! Definitely not an illusion!! I wish it (####expletives) was!

 

[Sapphyre]

I know this isn't a satisfactory answer, but in my reality anything is possible.

One possibility I don't really believe in is the belief that everything is an "illusion". Modern nuclear physicists, the people often accused of starting that rumor, seem to have a lot of faith that some things actually do exist: things like planets, stars, people, etc. What value would peer reviews have if people were just illusions? Physisists just have a little trouble defining the exact, scientific nature of things due to the discrepancies their research has with our faulty, illusion prone perceptions. What that means to me is that our beliefs are more likely to be illusions than the actual things we perceive regardless of how faulty our sense organs are. In other words, beliefs are illusions while reality is real.

Recapping the examples that have been discussed so far:

Planetary epicycles were an illusion.
The stable universe was an illusion.
The expanding-but-slowing universe was an illusion.
The "Hubble constant" and dark energy are starting to seem like probable illusions...

There is a pattern of mistaking our ideas for being reality, over and over... and while each successive idea is new, the pattern of mistaking is old...

What drives the pattern is overconfidence that the latest theory is "really how it is". And part of what drives this recurring overconfidence is the belief that an ultimately correct theory about some aspect of reality is possible at all. Because we believe it is possible, we keep thinking we've got it... up until an even better idea comes along, and then we think that is what's really true. And repeat.

In recognizing this pattern, I suggest the motivating belief be questioned quite closely.

 

[Kittyinpink]

What's that ancient idea?? Also a modern idea? About our planet is an hologram, a dead planet ... from billions of years ago.. and the information which is data which is indestructible is sort of beaming down our events in an eternal cycle..... something like that I think!!

 

[Kirisin]

I have two broken ribs after an crash last week! Definitely not an illusion!! I wish it (####expletives) was!

That's funny I perferated my esophagus in March. After emergency surgery That hurt same her not an illusion. What was an illusion was the dungeon I woke up in after the after the pain meds wore off every 3 hours.

 

[Drifter]

There is a pattern of mistaking our ideas for being reality, over and over... and while each successive idea is new, the pattern of mistaking is old...

What drives the pattern is overconfidence that the latest theory is "really how it is". And part of what drives this recurring overconfidence is the belief that an ultimately correct theory about some aspect of reality is possible at all. Because we believe it is possible, we keep thinking we've got it... up until an even better idea comes along, and then we think that is what's really true. And repeat.

In recognizing this pattern, I suggest the motivating belief be questioned quite closely.

I think most modern scientists have seriously questioned that belief in light of the constantly changing theories about the fundamental nature of the universe. I sure many of them still get a real rush when experiments with particle accelerators seem to confirm a pet theory, but I believe most of them retain a healthy skepticism regarding the belief that they have found "The Answer".

I think it's the general population that perpetuates "the pattern of mistaking our ideas for being reality". That's just another way of saying we have a strong tendency to believe our beliefs. . I often see references to modern theories, ones that are legitimately backed by research results, being used for political, religious, or social reasons as if those theories can be taken as absolute truth.

 

[Sapphyre]

I think most modern scientists have seriously questioned that belief in light of the constantly changing theories about the fundamental nature of the universe. I sure many of them still get a real rush when experiments with particle accelerators seem to confirm a pet theory, but I believe most of them retain a healthy skepticism regarding the belief that they have found "The Answer".

I think it's the general population that perpetuates "the pattern of mistaking our ideas for being reality". That's just another way of saying we have a strong tendency to believe our beliefs. . I often see references to modern theories, ones that are legitimately backed by research results, being used for political, religious, or social reasons as if those theories can be taken as absolute truth.

Taking the next logical step...

If at each juncture we are skeptical that our theory is actual truth, I see two possible interpretations of the situation:

(1) There exists a correct theory that we are approximating more and more closely over time. Maybe someday we'll get there, or maybe we'll just keep getting closer.
(2) No theory can even hope to be "in the right ballpark", like trying to use very big numbers to describe infinity. No real numbers are truly "close" to infinity; even though some are higher than others, all of them are infinitely far off the mark.

One way that mathematicians use to distinguish a sequence that is converging to a point from one that is not is to consider whether the difference between subsequent entries has an upper bound, and if that bound is decreasing as the sequence progresses. In other words, are the entries in the sequence getting closer and closer to each other?

We can ask this question about the sequence of ontologies that have historically been described by modern science, up to the present. Are they increasingly more similar to one another, or no? Are we getting closer to some goal, or running off into the distance in a somewhat arbitrary direction?

 

[Drifter]

If at each juncture we are skeptical that our theory is actual truth, I see two possible interpretations of the situation:

(1) There exists a correct theory that we are approximating more and more closely over time. Maybe someday we'll get there, or maybe we'll just keep getting closer.
(2) No theory can even hope to be "in the right ballpark", like trying to use very big numbers to describe infinity. No real numbers are truly "close" to infinity; even though some are higher than others, all of them are infinitely far off the mark.

It seems to me there is a logical error in (1). If any theory is ultimately judged to be 'correct', it would no longer be a theory, which by definition is something that is always subject to change. Instead, it would be some kind of absolute 'Knowledge'. I believe those who attained this knowledge could accept it without forming any beliefs about it, and not feel any need to defend it. Those who hadn't attained it would likely form beliefs about whether or not it was 'true', and from there form beliefs about whether or not it is worthwhile to pursue the attainment of this knowledge. One question that would come up is "is this knowledge only obtainable by some future scientists?" My answer would be no. It's just a belief, but I believe some people have attained direct knowledge of the nature of the universe throughout human history.

 

[Kittyinpink]

It seems to me there is a logical error in (1). If any theory is ultimately judged to be 'correct', it would no longer be a theory, which by definition is something that is always subject to change. Instead, it would be some kind of absolute 'Knowledge'. I believe those who attained this knowledge could accept it without forming any beliefs about it, and not feel any need to defend it. Those who hadn't attained it would likely form beliefs about whether or not it was 'true', and from there form beliefs about whether or not it is worthwhile to pursue the attainment of this knowledge. One question that would come up is "is this knowledge only obtainable by some future scientists?" My answer would be no. It's just a belief, but I believe some people have attained direct knowledge of the nature of the universe throughout human history.

What knowledge do you believe that is , are we talking nikolov tesla, Einstein etc..? As in through some possible quantum link in their phscye they are / were able to access a 'higher truth?' Something along those lines? If any of us had complete access to such knowledge... I think humanity would know about it by now?

 

[Sapphyre]

It seems to me there is a logical error in (1). If any theory is ultimately judged to be 'correct', it would no longer be a theory, which by definition is something that is always subject to change. Instead, it would be some kind of absolute 'Knowledge'. I believe those who attained this knowledge could accept it without forming any beliefs about it, and not feel any need to defend it. Those who hadn't attained it would likely form beliefs about whether or not it was 'true', and from there form beliefs about whether or not it is worthwhile to pursue the attainment of this knowledge. One question that would come up is "is this knowledge only obtainable by some future scientists?" My answer would be no. It's just a belief, but I believe some people have attained direct knowledge of the nature of the universe throughout human history.

The nature of conceptual knowledge is such that no theory can ever be proven, even if it happens to be perfectly correct.

So hypothetically, even if there were a correct theory, and we found it, we could never be 100% sure of it. We could always be looking for better ideas, and just never finding any.

 

[Kirisin]

The nature of conceptual knowledge is such that no theory can ever be proven, even if it happens to be perfectly correct.

So hypothetically, even if there were a correct theory, and we found it, we could never be 100% sure of it. We could always be looking for better ideas, and just never finding any.

A theory is only correct until someone else comes along with a another theory to prove it wrong.

 

[Drifter]

What knowledge do you believe that is , are we talking nikolov tesla, Einstein etc..? As in through some possible quantum link in their phscye they are / were able to access a 'higher truth?' Something along those lines?

It's only a belief, and nothing more, but I believe there is some knowledge that we are all immersed in but most of us haven't realized it yet, and we may never realize it. I don't see it being dependent on quantum links or even good cell phone connections.

If any of us had complete access to such knowledge... I think humanity would know about it by now?

People have been telling us through the ages about experiences they've had where they attained complete understanding of the universe. Words can't do it justice, but it is sometimes referred to as "enlightenment" or being "born again". We can choose for ourselves whether or not to believe these things are possible, but I don't place a great deal of value on those beliefs either way.