any thoughts/views?

[jojojojoanne]

do u think that observations in the natural sciences have some kind of connection to a mind independant reality?

does the reality condition the observations?

[jake-the-peg]

At first sight the answer to this question should be obvious. It's equivilent to asking "if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it does it make a sound?"

Of course you'd say, the tree falling disturbs the ground and vibrations make a noise regardless of whether anybody is there to pick up these vibrations.

However when you look at the microscopic scale, at atoms, photons and electrons etc. things start to behave very differently.

At this level things change depending on whether or not they've been observed. If you have two photons from the same source that are in a state of "entanglement" measuring one changes the other, instantly, even if they're millions of miles apart.

This raises a number of interesting questions about whether large scale events can be dependant on such observation based realities - the classic example is "Schroedinger's Cat".

In this thought experiment a cat is placed in a box and depending on whether or not a radioactive decay breaks a tube of poison, the cat lives or dies. However according to quantum mechanics until the lid is opened and the experiment observer the cat is both alive and dead at the same time.

As strange as it seems it appears that in certain circumstances reality actually depends on observation

[ludwig]

Interestingly, my answer to the old tree falling down question has always been 'no it doesn't make a sound'.

The reason for this is because unless there is someone present pick up the vibrations and interpret them as a sound, then they are not a sound - they are only vibrations.

[jojojojoanne]

what of vibrations- sensory perception?

[chakka35]

Haven't you lot yet sussed that jjjanne is taking the mick when she phrases her "questions" in gobblydegook?
Or are you all post-modernists who talk that way anyway?

[mibn2cweus]

Chakka, I am likewise challenged to sus out the underlying meaning of jojojojoanne's questions as I can not make heads or tails out of them or why the emphasis is on peoples "views" as opposed to the reasoning used to validate them. All the same I am not immune from falling into such traps and so I will offer the musings these questions evoke in my own mind for the consideration of any who might find them of interest at the risk of discovering my thoughts may not be in any way be relevant to the questions raised?

Jojojojoanne, I doesn't matter what who thinks. What matters is why we think it. Only reason can give us any reason to live and therefore to think. If acknowledging personal responsibility for what you believe and how the consequences of the actions you take based on your beliefs pan out in reality frightens you then cast your fears aside. What have you got to lose if not your self or is having nothing to lose your aim? Such a goal is at least premature for this end will come to us all soon enough. In the meantime there is a potential in having a life to live to make it one worth having lived by not fearing the end but by investing all your hopes and efforts on the possibility that you just might succeed in becoming a tribute to the life you have been provided.

Attempting to impose limits to your ability to know reality only puts a limit on your potential to discover and realise the reality that is you. Embrace reality and in doing so make reality your friend. Such friends are few and far between and their mutual presence makes life an even more pleasant and rewarding experience for us all.

continued . . .

[mibn2cweus]

The goal of a healthy mind is to integrate with reality for the benefits this offers in succeeding to do so. Science has evolved as the most productive method for gathering and confirming knowledge of the natural world. The methods used by science are designed to allow us to observe the natural world while minimising as much as possible contamination of the observations as a result of the process. It is equally important to understand to what extent and in what ways results are altered in examining and measuring samples to determine exactly to what extent information gained has been compromised. As the information yielded by science becomes more refined the methods used must also adapt to the greater demands placed on it by the increasingly precise nature of the information sought.

While science is a valuable technique for understanding the underlying nature of reality the useful application of this knowledge to living is the province of philosophy of which science is but one branch. Philosophy is needed to ensure that science serves the best interest of those who have the capacity to do it and to benefit from it. When we fail to find meaning and value in the adventure of living, science ceases to prove a worthwhile investment in our time and efforts and may in fact become counterproductive to our efforts to sustain and promote the well-being of its practitioners and potential beneficiaries.

We need not only to understand the reality that exists apart from and often in spite of us but to understand the reality that is our selves as well and how to properly integrate the two by insisting on a rational approach to procuring and using knowledge for the benefit of those without whom a reason for either would not exist.

[jojojojoanne]

psychophysical parallelism?

[mibn2cweus]

Attempting to link concepts without rhyme or reason does not create a new idea that necessarily expresses and definitely does not rewrite reality. This practice constitutes concept stealing which is conceptual fraud, a crime against conceptualisation, reason and therefore a crime against humanity. Don't be found guilty of the practice nor allow yourself to be victimised by its use. The idea of a �mind independent reality� suggests that there are in fact two alternative or separate realities, the one we perceive and the reality that exists. While considering the nature of reality in our absence is essential to understanding our relationship to it, regarding these two aspects or facets of reality as completely separate and unrelated leads to an unjustified dichotomy that grossly misrepresents the relationship between the parts and the whole. Learning is much more efficient and productive when we begin at the beginning with the self-evident (perception) and build upon that foundation step-by-step, integrating each new abstraction by understanding its relationship to what we had previously learned and already know. In the rare event a new observation contradicts previously acquired knowledge only then does it become reasonable to reexamine and make necessary adjustments to preexisting knowledge allowing the new knowledge to be integrated with the old. Understanding reality is achieved by observing reality first-hand and integrating our observations in a coherent and non-contradictory manner while discarding what we are told when we are unable to relate it to our own experience and thereby maintaining a rational basis for belief. The realm of human knowledge has been accumulated largely from individual acquisitions after making what had been learned by others their own by understanding its relationship to their own experience. I hope this is relevant and informative to your question.