Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Is there something like a sunrise ?

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Is there something like a sunrise ?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Is there such a thing like the sunrise?
Intuitively i would say yes.
Ater all i have seen many sunrises with my own eyes.
However all of a sudden i am not so sure anymore.
As long as i can remember i was convienced that there is something like a real world, as oppose to such things as dreams and phantasies.
A reality that manifests undoubtedly and immovable as time and space.
Well, time and space have suffered losses in terms of immovability which is Einstein's fault. However by doing so he even more made the idea permanent that science is capable of describing reality in a way that is detached from our subjective ideas and premises, and thus captures the real reality as oppose the reality that is intuitively perceived by us as such.
So, our subjective reality on one side and the real reality on the other.
Strictly speaking there have been hints before Einstein already that things the way we perceive them are not an objective reality.
However i had interpreted these things the way that the subjective reality is kind of a mirage, that mirrors aspects of reality, but cannot be more than a reflection.
Like every individual carries a reflection (replica) of reality, which actually only shares intersections with reality.
The real reality stays the decisive system, and its copies in the heads of the observers contain so highly distorted perspectives that they even have to be excluded from reality explicitely, because more than one reality would lead the term of reality ad absurdum.
There can only be one reality and the copies in our heads are falsifications that carry a web of errors and confusions.
But what exactly is the subjective reality?
It is nothing else than concepts that function only from a distinct perspective.
The sunrise is an example for it.
If we ever got to meet humans who live between the galaxies in a space station they would laugh at us and say that this term of 'sunrise' mirrors the naive illusion that the sun is moving in an upward direction starting at the horizon.
As they can see from outside what actually happens this archaic term is extinct in their language.
Funny.
From our perspective the concept of sunrise totally makes sense. It even functions so well in our part of reality that even the whole world of plants and animals have integrated it into their life rythm.
But still it only makes sense from our perspective.
As we know, there are lots of terms that only make sense from our personal perspective. Classical examples being 'Good and Evil' or 'Beauty'.
In our western society which cultivates a long tradition of rationalism and ' age of enlightenment' such concepts are totally excluded from the idea of reality.
There's too many differences in individual understandings of these concepts, to meet the requirements of universality that is applied to the idea of reality.
However they have something in common with the sunrise - the functionality is only given from a distinct perspective.
From the particular perspective however the functionality is there.
As is for the sunrise.
From most perspectives the question for the beauty of something doesn't make any sense.
The problem for the beauty-concept however results from the complexity of the phenomenon.
The difference to the sunrise is only of gradual nature.
There are probably as many concepts of the term 'beauty' as there are perspectives.
This is why we tend to keep terms like that out of discussions with scientific demand.
Because science has, like mentioned initially, the demand of describing an objective reality.
So it should be pretty much free from subjective concepts.
Is it actually?
I remember in this context the term 'probability'. A term of not minor importance to nature science.
Could there be any probability if there was no observer who created this term?
Probability is actually a concept that only functions when an observer looks along a time axis into the future.
It is an attempt of measuring our ignorance when looking into the future, for getting rid of as much as possible of uncertainty, may it even be only that we have more knowledge about our actual ignorance by assigning numbers to it.
Objective reality however does not look into the future. There are only events that actually occur.
Probability is a totally subjective concept.
Even terms like 'the future' turn out to be such. Is the future something that exists? No, it cannot exist in the here and now, because by defintion it has been banned from the present reality.
Also in the future it is not going to exist, because it is going to be here and now. It's an abstract concept of our mind that has no equivalent in real reality however in our subjective reality.
Does that mean we have to cancel all of these terms from our idea of reality?
i don't think so, because they function perfectly well for the section of reality they describe.
To be precise every physical equation is a description of reality from a particular perspective.
Although physics is looking for the equations that are observer-independent (thus objective) each equation system contains a description of reality from a particular perspective (thus subjective).
Every process being described in a graphical curve is a narrowing, a reduction to very particular aspects of reality.
An equation in physics is thus nothing but a concept that works for a particular part of reality.
This doesn't make the phenomenon described less real.
It is just a transcription of a partial aspect of reality into a formal system.
In the same way the word 'sunrise' is nothing but a transcription of an aspect of reality into our specific system.
Conclusion:
There are concepts that are less subjective because they work for more than one person, and there are concepts that are even less subjective because they work not only from human perspective, but each concept is only functional for the observer who uses it.
There is no view to reality without perspective.
If there is an objective reality it has an existence that does not depend on any of our descriptions.

@Exebeche,

a sunrise is like a sunrise

@Exebeche,

It depends upon whether you have to go to work...Other wise the question is whether your eyelids rise or not...

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;66108 wrote:

a sunrise is like a sunrise

Speaking of Haikus, i have a feeling this is one.

I guess 'nameless' will like your poetry because it expresses right what he sais in another thread:

nameless;66150 wrote:

Actually, it seems the more Perspectives one 'understands' the more one tends to remain 'silent', hence; "The Tao that can be spoken, is not the Tao!" - Lao Tsu - "Those who 'know' do not speak, those who speak do not know!".

@Exebeche,

Now i find this thread removed to the department "general discussion" in "The lounge".
A further explanation above sais that "This is a general discussion forum for off-topic and casual general chit chat."
This is the kind of category i would have expected for topics like "what song are you currently listening to?"
Too bad that nobody has realised the connection to perspectivismthat i found weeks after posting this thread which is a philosophy connected to names like Nietzsche.
The conversation that has taken place actually turned out to be chit chat.
However i wonder if this was my fault when i published this thread?

@Exebeche,

To tell you the truth, I think it was the format of the OP. People tend not to read things thouroughly that aren't clearly divided into paragraphs. I did not read it closely at first, hence the cryptic flippant response.

@Exebeche,

Perhaps if the relationship with perspectivalism and certain phenomenological positions had been made clear at the beginning, the post would have not been moved. The title might have been, for example:"The Sunrise and Subjective Reality." And as GoshisDead has noted, the format makes understanding the flow of the argument very difficult, and disguises that you ARE making an argument instead of, as it were, "blogging."
I suspect that, since you are learning English, some of the finer points to writing in that language, and from a philosophical point of view, may not be apparent to you as yet. Perhaps if you carried over the kind and style of writing you do in IT to the Philforum, misunderstandings would be avoided.
Regards,
John

@Exebeche,

Exebeche;66107 wrote:

An equation in physics is thus nothing but a concept that works for a particular part of reality.

Hi,

Yes. But probably a bit more. The equation should also be able to provide a good approximation from most perspectives. In other words, there should be consensus. This is precisely what Einstein's equations in a way that Newton's couldn't. It explained the nature of space, time, light and gravity from many relative perspectives.

Exebeche;66107 wrote:

This doesn't make the phenomenon described less real. It is just a transcription of a partial aspect of reality into a formal system. In the same way the word 'sunrise' is nothing but a transcription of an aspect of reality into our specific system.

The way I look at it, is that the subject and object are entangled and cannot be separated. A notion that is often discussed in physics.

Exebeche;66107 wrote:

Conclusion:
There are concepts that are less subjective because they work for more than one person, and there are concepts that are even less subjective because they work not only from human perspective, but each concept is only functional for the observer who uses it. There is no view to reality without perspective.

Yes, I would agree.

Exebeche;66107 wrote:

If there is an objective reality it has an existence that does not depend on any of our descriptions.

It would seem that this is necessarily so. In time, we may come to understand that reality is all entangled with thoughts.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;82950 wrote:

Hi,
Yes. But probably a bit more. The equation should also be able to provide a good approximation from most perspectives. In other words, there should be consensus. This is precisely what Einstein's equations in a way that Newton's couldn't. It explained the nature of space, time, light and gravity from many relative perspectives.

You seem to have a pretty good sense for understanding my words. Which is something i totally missed when i first posted this idea in a german philosophy forum. You say an equation needs consensus. I would say it a bit more abstract like, an equation should work for most - or all - subjects.
I prefer this formulation because an equation could also be used by robots, androids, spacecrafts, whatever (which regards machines as 'subjects' as well).
If we see the subject object relation as a system, Newton's equations worked for many systems, Einstein's work for more systems.
Still it doesn't work for all systems. Time will show if there is a world formula that works for all systems.
Whenever another subject uses an equation succesfully the equation (perspective) earns another point for being less subjective (i obstain from the word objective, because it describes an absolute condition, of which i can not even tell if it exists).

richrf;82950 wrote:

The way I look at it, is that the subject and object are entangled and cannot be separated. A notion that is often discussed in physics.

This entangledness of subject and object is in fact one of the major outcomes of this idea i try to share.

richrf;82950 wrote:

It would seem that this is necessarily so. In time, we may come to understand that reality is all entangled with thoughts.

We just had a discussion about this entangledness based on physics. We had different opinions about that, however in this case i totally agree.
To avoid misunderstandings i suggest we make the following premise:

Different realities are imaginable.
Model A is, there is an already existing objective reality that is determined in most of its aspects.
Model B, there is a universe that is physically undetermined (Thoughts/consciousness are what determines its final reality).
Model C, reality has a different character that is not included in A or B.

No matter which model we prefer, we assume that your statement 'that reality is all entangled with thoughts' is true.
My point of view is mostly based on model A, so you disagree, but wait till i explain further:
Coming from model A, i say that every mind is a reflection of its environment.
A mind is formed by time space events that carve their lines into the neuronal patterns of a brain. Every experience leaves its mark in a brain.
So every mind is a splinter that reflects a very particular aspect of the universe' reality.
However a mind creates its own reality.
It creates relations between things that have been unrelated before. Pure objective reality doesn't contain something like a sunrise, before there is a mind that perceives such.
This is the same to all abstract terms our mind creates. For example when we say "family" we create a reference system and a particular constellation in this reference system that makes the family a group.
When we say "tribe" we do the same, and so on with "nation", "muslims", "mankind"...
The relations are a construct of our mind in the first place. However it is based on a logical equivalent in the outside reality. So this reality takes place in our mind, but it stretches out to the outside reality.
Even more complex for highly abstract terms like e.g. 'honour'. In case of the family we could still say that this constellation is based on constituents that can be found in the 'world of things'.
But the concept of honour is based on abstract concepts itself.
However this abstract construction can be so relevant for many interacting individuals that the mere logical existence constitutes existence.
There is a consense about the existence of an abstract reference system that is functional for all participants.
This is how thought really stretches out to the outside world and creates reality.
The existence of an abstract reference system is projected into the world and affects the individuals' behaviours.
Not only can the abstract constellation in our mind be a reflection of outside reality, but also can the constellations be projected to the outside world and become a basis for interaction.

This is the point of emergence. The mind is not only a mirror of reality, but it stretches out and creates reality itself. We see an interaction of thought and reality creating and recreating each other, giving each other forms and shapes.
At this point we observe reality not as a given continuum but as a permanent continuous process based on exchange. Thought modifies the world that is outside our mind and the world outside responds, changing the way we see the world. It's not a one way road, but actually it's an interdependent feedback loop.

So as you can see my model A perspective merges with your model B idea.

@Exebeche,

Exebeche;83077 wrote:

This is the point of emergence. The mind is not only a mirror of reality, but it stretches out and creates reality itself. .... So as you can see my model A perspective merges with your model B idea.

Hi there,

Yes, I understand your perspective. Mine, as you know, is a bit different. I see thought as the center, sort of like the eye of a hurricane. And its swirling motion creates things. At the center, things condense and form what we call matter. As we move away from the center, things become less dense and more ethereal.

There are many small minds generating thoughts, just like there are waves in the ocean. And there there is the Big Mind, that we all share, like the ocean. So everything we all create is connected for ever and stretches forever. This is very much in line with quantum theory.

And all of the small minds are sharing via relationships, and always creating something new.

What we call the laws of nature are simply habits that the small minds have formed, but are always subject to change as the minds evolve.

The reason I have chosen this perspective is because it really simplifies everything. Everything is simply thought/mind. And it also corresponds with what I observe in nature, i.e., that thought comes first - even in dreams.

Rich

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Is there something like a sunrise ?

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Is there something like a sunrise ?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know