[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 17 KB, 250x250, 1305452326111.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3158272 No.3158272 [Reply] [Original]

>Objective Reality
Please dont tell me any of you do this

>> No.3158285

Atheist: 0
Theist: 1

>> No.3158317
File: 27 KB, 380x311, 1291853186148.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3158317

>>3158272

>> No.3158339

OP is a faggot, objectively

>> No.3158341

soliphism ftw

>> No.3158362
File: 7 KB, 125x125, 1122334456.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3158362

>>3158339
Delivery

>> No.3158379
File: 12 KB, 251x240, 1292273029523.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3158379

So is there any arguments for an objective reality

>> No.3158387

Valid arguments require objective reality.

>> No.3158395

>>3158387
>Valid arguments require objective reality
>valid
>objective
>reality
your proof is

>> No.3158399

eyesight is objective, science is based on this.

>> No.3158411

>>3158399
>eyesight is objective
Im assuming youve never seen a magic trick and how its proves otherwise or even know of the eyes blindspot and how the brain lies to you

>> No.3158421
File: 8 KB, 158x152, 1303206241904.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3158421

>>3158399
Bitches dont know bout synesthesia

>> No.3158427

>>3158272
the wavefuntion of any set is as close to objective as is possible

i don't see the point you're getting at though

>> No.3158435

it's not that i have arguments for it, but i find it something pretty practical to believe in

>> No.3158437

>>3158427
>close to objective
same as saying 2 is closer than 1 is to infinity. i dont see what you are getting at.

>> No.3158448

>>3158421
Everyone has a couple of retards in their family, no reason to make them the exception to logic for being entertaining.

>> No.3158450

>>3158427
Have you objectively percieved these wave functions

>> No.3158454

>>3158437
i mean, obviously there is no mechanism for objective perception, so...what point are you making?

That observation is as valid as imagination for modeling the Universe because there is a level of subjective influence on both?

>> No.3158455

>>3158411
No, you have assumed wrong
>The eyes blindspot
I said that what you see is real not that you can see everything. *First facepalm*
>How the brain lies to you
Unless you have hallucinations the brain doesn't lie about what you see

Why are you on /sci/ science is based on creating theories which explain and predict observable reality, observable as in what you can see.

>> No.3158461
File: 4 KB, 158x152, 1303206369746.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3158461

>>3158448
>synesthesia
>retards
Its the same thing you do only its more noticeably distinguished

>> No.3158462

>>3158450
do you understand that that question has no meaning?

>> No.3158463

>>3158450
>objectively perceived

really?

>> No.3158474

>>3158455
Its gives you false information about what as to whats right there. The brain does things like this all the time. Study it.

>> No.3158477

>>3158462
well if its subjective then you statement has no meaning

>> No.3158481

>>3158421
obvious troll

Me: insects are small
You: OH LALA you've never heard of the giant insects which used to inhabit the earth.

>> No.3158482

>>3158477
i dont think you understand the nature of quantum physics whatsoever...

>> No.3158487

>>3158482
I dont think you understand the assumption quantum physics is founded on.

>> No.3158490

>>3158461
Finding emotions and music in colors is not a form of logic, it merely appeals to women's flighty instincts.

>> No.3158493

>>3158481
Did i mention giant insects roaming the earth.

>> No.3158495

>>3158474
>>3158474
Yes it gives you wrong information if you have hallucinations. How can the level of discussion on /sci/ be this low

>> No.3158496

>>3158487
I'm not the one asking about perceiving wavefunctions, now am i?

>> No.3158506

>>3158495
Well if you call that hallucinations then everyone is hallucinating 24/7.

>> No.3158516

>>3158493
God you are so retarded if you don't understand what I said. The point is I said something which is true, you replied by finding one tiny unrelated exception to this.

>> No.3158553

>>3158506
>>3158506
Just do this little experiment
Ask point at the door and ask your mother what she sees, now when she describes to you the exact same thing you see you will know that both of you have seen the same thing. Now take into account that millions of people across the world look at the same things and all describe them in the same way that you see them. Now you know why eyesight is as objective as it gets.

>> No.3158554

>>3158516
Its not an exception. It brings up that everyone could interpret things slightly different. Most people dont even know they have it. Take Number form. Fairly common amongst people who feel mathematically inclined.

>> No.3158570

>>3158553
Have you ever done the blindspot test. I dont believe you have.

>> No.3158578

>>3158553
>Consensus among peers means its objective
Damn that a good argument. I dont know why theist dont use it.

>> No.3158606

>>3158570
I just did it and that was pretty cool, it still doesn't change anything. To anyone else reading basically there is a blindspot on the right side of your vision which can make you not see an object when you focus to the left.
Eyesight is still as objective as it gets

>> No.3158622

>>3158606
"as objective as it gets"=/ actually objective

>> No.3158626

>>3158578
>>3158578
That is not what I argued, btw I just thought I would let you know that I'm basically just reciting what stephen hawking says in his book, so good luck beating proving stephen hawking wrong in a debate about science.

>> No.3158630

>>3158606
you didnt see>>3158437

>> No.3158642

>>3158387
I repeat with a sage.

>> No.3158647

>>3158626
Its easy. If you missed what OP was implying see>>3158341
Soliphism is irrefutable. People either believe it or not. Consensus does not make it true.

>> No.3158659

>>3158642
Implying anything is valid that isnt a falsifiability

>> No.3158670

Don't like the objective reality?
Prove it's wrong with evidence, or get back to >>>/x/.

>> No.3158679

I wonder what the alternative to an objective reality would be, anyway. We sure as hell don't have a consensus reality, or nothing totally unexpected would ever happen.

>> No.3158690

>>3158670
>Prove that god doesnt exist or get back to >>>/x/
Proving falsifiability lol.

>> No.3158695

>>3158647
No solipsism is the stupidest idea I have heard. The idea that your mind is generating this world made up of all these intricate rules which have been discovered is absurd. It's just one of those theories that could never be disproven but will never be proven (remind you of theism?) no matter what is discovered you could always just say "it's all generated by your mind" or "we are in the matrix" it's still a weak theory.

>> No.3158697

>>3158670
Bell's theorem.

>> No.3158707

>>3158570
Well, here is someone that would rather believe someone else their own eyes.

For $500, I'll let you play with my invisible floating garage dragon that breathes cold fire.

>> No.3158716

>>3158695
No it just proves that you assumed otherwise. You assumed the world existed outside of you mind just like they assume it doesnt. Only soliphist have proof of their own mind at least them. There is no proof for the objective reality.

>> No.3158724

>>3158695
Its an unbeatable argument that cant be refuted. Its only weak because you cant argue against it.

>> No.3158726

>>3158695
But it's just as weak as saying there's an objective reality. Ultimately it's a pretty meaningless question, but you can't reject solipsism like that, it's no worse than saying there is an objective reality.

>> No.3158727

>>3158716
>Only soliphist have proof of their own mind at least them

Well, isn't that just nice and circular.

>> No.3158731

>>3158727
Philosophy 101. I think therefore i am. Anything else is just broken logic.

>> No.3158744

>>3158642
I repeat with sage.

>> No.3158748

>>3158727
That just means its a closed argument not up for debate. Could you be any less butthurt

>> No.3158753

>>3158731
I am, I think...

>> No.3158755
File: 9 KB, 125x125, 1122334455.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3158755

>>3158744
>>3158642
>>3158387
>JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n Face When

>> No.3158768

>>3158753
>Has never heard of Cogito ergo sum
Im starting to believe you are clearly underage.

>> No.3158776

>>3158763
"Headon, apply directly to your forehead."

>> No.3158777

>>3158763
Power of suggestion. One of the arguments for solipsism.

>> No.3158780

>>3158768
>didn't get it...

I think, I am, I think, I am, I think...

>> No.3158789
File: 387 KB, 1280x1080, 1306899168192.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3158789

>> No.3158793
File: 540 KB, 1280x1080, Nope1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3158793

>> No.3158796
File: 540 KB, 1280x1080, Nope2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3158796

>> No.3158799

>>3158789
Like a boss.

>> No.3158801
File: 541 KB, 1280x1080, Nope3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3158801

>> No.3158809
File: 541 KB, 1280x1080, Nope4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3158809

>> No.3158815

>>3158780
Then you havent even taken a class in philosophy. Or rather you are just underage. Its a fairly simple thing to understand. Im going to try to help you but i dont expect you to get it.
>Everything you have experienced is your perception of what happened (no exceptions).
>You cant validate you perception (no exceptions).
But the fact that you can perceive means you exist.

>> No.3158817
File: 73 KB, 403x375, 1301709152621.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3158817

>>3158789
>>3158793
>>3158796
>>3158801
>>3158809

>> No.3158841
File: 541 KB, 1280x1080, Nope7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3158841

>>3158817

>> No.3158844

>shoot yourself in the head
>you are no longer able to percieve anything
>we now know that the brain is the center of perception and without it you cannot percieve anything
>realise that other people also have brains
>realise that other people can predict what will happen in your peception better than you (your mother telling you not to play with fire) (scientists telling you a star has exploded)
>IT'S ALL INVENTED BY MY MIND MY MIND IS TRYING TO TRICK ME NONE OF THIS IS REAL
Damn solipsism is starting to seem more and more like psychosis.

>> No.3158845
File: 542 KB, 1280x1080, Nope8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3158845

>>3158844

>> No.3158856

>>3158844
I see you dont get it. Thats okay. You will one day when you grow up.
When you die you cant perceive anything any longer ergo you are no longer existing and nothing to you exist anymore.
>we now know that the brain is the center of perception and without it you cannot percieve anything
We perceive the brain as the center of perception. We perceive all information. Which is why its all nullified as a valid argument.
>realise that other people also have brains
Doesnt mean anything
>>realise that other people can predict what will happen in your peception better than you (your mother telling you not to play with fire) (scientists telling you a star has exploded)
Thats the point. Its all my mind. I created you. Your existence is part of mine. You exist because i perceive you.

>> No.3158859
File: 543 KB, 1280x1080, Nope10.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3158859

>>3158856

>> No.3158864

>>3158272
Given this message is here regardless of what I think on the matter, I'd say the case for objective reality is pretty good.

>> No.3158871
File: 109 KB, 497x374, 1294612685421.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3158871

>>3158864
>Mfw someone is here to the rescue.
What evidence do you have to argue your case. Enlighten the pions

>> No.3158877
File: 47 KB, 432x600, 1298353537738.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3158877

ITT: Atheist tears

>> No.3158882

>>3158845

Objective reality has everything to do with science.

>> No.3158888

>>3158882

>Objective reality
>Science

Pick one

>> No.3158892

>>3158871
Evident and verifiable in the message >>3158871
Deny it all you want: all that proves is your denial if you even exist (debatable).

>> No.3158894

>>3158888
>Objective
>reality
Which one is not scientific

>> No.3158899
File: 8 KB, 271x173, 1291853293808.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3158899

>>3158892
So you have no argument
>Mfw

>> No.3158901

>>3158894

No matter how many times you say it, philosophy isn't science

>> No.3158904

>>3158899
If I have no argument, then you have less, since then neither this message or yours exist and this entire debate never happened.

>> No.3158905
File: 543 KB, 1280x1080, Nope11.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3158905

>>3158888
>>3158892
>>3158894
>>3158899

I got hundreds of these and nothing to do today

>> No.3158917

>>3158904
What are you talking about. Its real to me and that all that matters. I see you cant comprehend the concept

>> No.3158941

>>3158917
If it's real, the it's real regardless of what you think (just like the message >>3158864). Either way, your logic fails.

>> No.3158957

>>3158941
real to me=/=real and most certainly real regardless of what i think.
Youre free to try again.

>> No.3158972

>>3158957
Then try to think it out of ever existing. You can't.

>> No.3158981

>>3158917
>mfw you admit religious faith

>> No.3158985
File: 544 KB, 1280x1080, Nope13.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3158985

>>3158917
>>3158941
>>3158957
>>3158972

Seriously guys, I'm trying to help you

>> No.3158988

>>3158972

But I already have.

>> No.3158991

>>3158985

reported for spam

>> No.3159002

>>3158972
Never said i could control it. Think of a dream. If you can control all yours that cool but i cant and thats all that matters (to me).
>>3158981
How so. I am god. Reality is my streaming deep subconscious mind. You dont have religious faith in yourself.

>> No.3159013

>>3158972
Thats the weakest argument you can come up. Its considered naive and undeveloped by even those that try to refute solipsism.
Try again

>> No.3159015

>>3158988
Nope, still there. Contrary to >>3158917, what you think doesn't matter.
If you reply to this message, you only confirm it exists despite what you think.

>> No.3159027

>>3158379
People avoid solid objects, because they cannot pass through them. This is true for everybody. Therefore, there is an objective reality, the structure of which may not be argued with.

on a related note,

>condescending tone+ridiculous, uninformed, claim

>Are you troll? Or just dumbass?

>> No.3159029

>>3159015
I see you have no idea what you are talking about.
Thinking doesnt work the way you think it does. The only way i can think something out of existence is if i truly forget it. And when i reappears thats just me remembering it.

>> No.3159036

>>3159027

No it isn't objective reality. It just happens to be experienced by all subjects.

>> No.3159042

>>3159027
>People avoid solid objects, because they cannot pass through them
Thats the best you can come up with. I repeat >>3159013. You dont understand what a subjective reality is do you.