Re: OT: reality (wasRe: Atlantean)

Gary Shannon wrote:
> --- Adam Walker <carrajena@...> wrote:
>
>>--- Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...> wrote:
>>
>>>--- John Cowan <cowan@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Andreas Johansson scripsit:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>To me the most plausible explanation is that
>>
>>Plato
>>
>>>>made the story up
>>>>in order to make a point.
>>>
>>>Ah, but the important question is not "Is it
>>
>>true?"
>>
>>>but rather "Is it fun to believe?"
>>>
>>>If it's fun to believe then who cares if it's true
>>>or
>>>not?
>>>
>>>--gary
>>
>>My skin just crawls when I hear statements like
>>that.
>>I sometimes wonder if I'm the only human being who
>>still believes that objective truth exists.  And
>>that
>>knowing and believing the real truth not just the
>>convinient or happy truth is important.
>>
>>Adam
>
>
> There are certain relativistic frames in which it can
> be said that two events took place, but it cannot be
> objectively determined which event took place first.
> There are certain quantum theoretic frames in which it
> is equally difficult to determine the "objective"
> reality of the situation.
Yes, but that is only realy a problem when you're talking about
subatomic particles. One of the big questions in physics is why quantum
indeterminacy doesn't seem to have much of an effect on the macro level.
It may be diffiocult to tell exactly what's going on with a single
particle, but you can't say the same for e.g. an apple or a planet.

> In the final analysis, the belief in the existence
> objective reality depends upon one's a priori
> metaphysical assumptions.  If one subscribes to
> materialistic realism then one _assumes_ that
> objective reality exists and, since that is an axiom,
> no proof is necessary.  If, however, one subscribes to
> transcendental idealism (as I do) then the existence
> of objective reality is NOT taken to be an a priori
> axiom, and, in fact, such a thing as objective reality
> cannot be proven to exist.
This sort of philosophy seems like solipsism in disguise to me. Without
an objective reality, then everything is subjective i.e. a figment of
your own imagination. While unlike true solipsism the idea of more than
one intelligence floating around and inventing its own experiences isn't
dismissed out of hand, without a shared objective reality there can be
no communication between them (not only could they not understand each
other, there wouldn't even be a medium to communicate through!).

> As a
> quantum-realtivistic-Buddhist-transcendental-idealist,
> I defy you to prove the existence of objective
> reality.  Great minds have tried and failed.  In the
> final analysis one can only choose whether to _assume_
> objective reality exists or to _assume_ that it does
> not.
By attempting to communicate, you are putting at least some trust in the
existence of an objective reality.