We're in the matrix, and those nomious' you think you are experiencing are just illusions. Now, address this properly. Don't ignore this.

.



Oh boy. Yeah, um, of course they can.

We're in the matrix, and those nomious' you think you are experiencing are just illusions. Now, address this properly. Don't ignore this.

So you agree with me that without a divinity, it is impossible to access absolute reality?

I'm afraid I don't understand your comment.

Berkeley held that to exist is to be perceived and he held that the only reason that things like the moon continued to exist when we were not perceiving them is because God himself was perceiving them.

I should have made it explicit, but that statement was under the assumption that idealism or solipsism are correct. I said "If it were true that idealism or solipsism was correct" at the beginning of that paragraph.

I said I experience something that I call the Moon. I was not equating my experience of the Moon to the Moon.

I believe that some of our most engrained notions about space and causality should be reconsidered. Anyone who takes quantum mechanics seriously will have reached the same conclusion.

What quantum mechanics tells us, I believe, is surprising to say the least. It tells us that the basic components of objects - the particles, electrons, quarks etc. - cannot be thought of as "self-existent". The reality that they, and hence all objects, are components of is merely "empirical reality".

This reality is something that, while not a purely mind-made construct as radical idealism would have it, can be but the picture our mind forces us to form of ... Of what ? The only answer I am able to provide is that underlying this empirical reality is a mysterious, non-conceptualisable "ultimate reality", not embedded in space and (presumably) not in time either.

Consider, again, what atomic physics has to say about the situation. Through the Copenhagen interpretation and Bell's demonstration of 'entanglement' science itself has called naive realism - the 'mind-independent reality' - into question.

While these observations are true in the subatomic realm, the subatomic realm has been presumed to be the ontological basis of reality as a whole. So it applies at the most fundamental level.

Physicist Bernard D'espagnet:

Source

I believe that some of our most engrained notions about space and causality should be reconsidered. Anyone who takes quantum mechanics seriously will have reached the same conclusion.

What quantum mechanics tells us, I believe, is surprising to say the least. It tells us that the basic components of objects - the particles, electrons, quarks etc. - cannot be thought of as "self-existent". The reality that they, and hence all objects, are components of is merely "empirical reality".

This reality is something that, while not a purely mind-made construct as radical idealism would have it, can be but the picture our mind forces us to form of ... Of what ? The only answer I am able to provide is that underlying this empirical reality is a mysterious, non-conceptualisable "ultimate reality", not embedded in space and (presumably) not in time either.

Consider, again, what atomic physics has to say about the situation. Through the Copenhagen interpretation and Bell's demonstration of 'entanglement' science itself has called naive realism - the 'mind-independent reality' - into question.

While these observations are true in the subatomic realm, the subatomic realm has been presumed to be the ontological basis of reality as a whole. So it applies at the most fundamental level.

Physicist Bernard D'espagnet:

Source

So you agree with me that without a divinity, it is impossible to access absolute reality?

You are still experiencing them.

That quote does great justice to what I was saying about suspending judgment on metaphysical claims. If one wants to attempt to tackle empirical reality using idealism, go right ahead, but tackling absolute reality would seem wholly impossible, hence the suspension of judgment.

I know neither what a "divinity" nor an "absolute reality" mean. So, I am sorry, but I have no idea how to answer your question.



Nope. I am saying you are mistaken. Now, don't ignore that. Address me now. Or else the God that is perceiving all of reality will strike you dead!

No, it is I who am sorry for you. These are very basic concepts that philosophy has traditionally attempted to answer, so without an adequate understanding concerning their meaning, you are at a severe disadvantage when attempting to discuss them.

Wikipedia is always a quick help to catch up on terminology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_(philosophy)

It is often used as an alternate term for a "God" or "the Divine", especially, but by no means exclusively, by those who feel that the term "God" lends itself too easily to anthropomorphic presumptions. The concept of The Absolute may or may not (depending on one's specific doctrine) possess discrete will, intelligence, awareness or even a personal nature

How in the world can you think this true? People get committed for believing in the "wrong reality" ie. having hallucinations

You think their hallucinations are real?

My lord, how in the world...

No, it is I who am sorry for you. These are very basic concepts that philosophy has traditionally attempted to answer, so without an adequate understanding concerning their meaning, you are at a severe disadvantage when attempting to discuss them.

Wikipedia is always a quick help to catch up on terminology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_(philosophy)

...a "miss conception" as a logical causal process that refers gravitationally but distantly to X...even with "noise" it still is perspective...at best and considering "entropy" effect it refers to several things...

Oh, you're talking about God again. Think I'll pass.

Have you tried this link?

Well religion has traditionally coincided with philosophy. If you don't wish to discuss concepts such as God, I suggest you find a different forum, because it is a cornerstone of philosophy which is unavoidable.

Don't let your own fundamentalist iconography concerning what your preacher told you about God as a child ruin all of philosophy and religion for you. There are different perspectives concerning the Divine, and they don't all end in fire and brimstone.

I say this with all sincerity, are you actually trying to communicate with me? I mean, you really thought that I would understand these scattered, unclear fragments of thought?

Can you use simpler language to convey your thought? Boy, this is harder than reading Nietzsche.

I say this with all sincerity, are you actually trying to communicate with me? I mean, you really thought that I would understand these scattered, unclear fragments of thought?

Can you use simpler language to convey your thought? Boy, this is harder than reading Nietzsche.