Comments on: Are We Real?

http://alittleweird.com/2009/01/02/are-we-real/ reality bizarres the standard Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:46:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3 By: floslib http://alittleweird.com/2009/01/02/are-we-real/#comment-1494 floslib Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:53:18 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2009/01/02/are-we-real/#comment-1494 If you're looking for a book to get you started on quantum physics, I have two to recommend, but with a caveat: I haven't read them yet. They are Feynman's Thesis: A New Approach to Quantum Theory, and QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, both by Richard Feynman. Even though I haven't read them yet, I've heard from other people that they tend to do a very good job of explaining quantum physics even to people without much background in physics. I mention this mainly since you seem slightly intimidated by the idea of quantum physics. I'm currently reading What Do You Care What Other People Think, which is more of an autobiography by Feynman, and he has a really cool style of explaining things and seemed to always be in the middle of something interesting. Combined with his writing style and what I've heard about the two books I mentioned above, I think it's safe to recommend them as a starting point. If you want to be safe though, I do plan to buy and read those books as well once I'm done with the one I'm currently reading, and I can let you know what I think afterward if you're interested. By: Psikillion http://alittleweird.com/2009/01/02/are-we-real/#comment-1493 Psikillion Sat, 10 Jan 2009 04:41:10 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2009/01/02/are-we-real/#comment-1493 LOL Anyways I think I have a lot of stuff to get from Barnes & Noble. At the moment I have very little knowledge of Quantum Physics other than it has something to do with chaos, and it is a really advanced science (very smart people deal with Quantum Physics). Based on what I could understand we need a computer that operates on light itself (no electricity). We are heading in that direction, but we are still quite a ways yet to achieving that. It will be a great piece of technology when it works. By: PotentiaL http://alittleweird.com/2009/01/02/are-we-real/#comment-1492 PotentiaL Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:04:05 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2009/01/02/are-we-real/#comment-1492 "But metaphysics IS a branch of philosophy." Semantics... My point is that philosophy needs no evidence to be philosophy. You asked if philosophy was the medium I was using to understand reality, the answer is no. If you remove science from my argument, it becomes a purely philosophical statement along the lines of "your experiences are random and imperfect because you exist outside of gods realm." How do you give credit to a statement like that? You can't... and it gives you no greater understanding of your own perceptions. You can use philosophy to speculate all day long, only when you add science into the equation can you create a substantial argument. It's not philosophy, it's not science, it's (since we are on the subject throwing words together :D) philoscience! Look for books on the subject of phenomenology in the philosophy section at Barns and Noble. In the acknowledgments you will find many references to relativity, neuroscience, and quantum theory. Also, as a CS major, your ties to the future of Quantum Physics may be stronger that you think... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer Today's fastest supercomputers would take billions of years to do what would take a quantum computer a matter of months. As far as kiepmad's statement, I argue the opposite. Paralyzed are those who fail to explore their own reality. How's that for some good old fashioned ambiguous philosophy? :D By: Psikillion http://alittleweird.com/2009/01/02/are-we-real/#comment-1491 Psikillion Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:17:54 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2009/01/02/are-we-real/#comment-1491 It is funny because it looked like you threw words together, but you just so happened to form a word. I hope you enjoy being "An artistic and literary movement characterized by extreme realism." Anyways lets continue on-topic. By: kiepmad http://alittleweird.com/2009/01/02/are-we-real/#comment-1490 kiepmad Fri, 09 Jan 2009 09:19:53 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2009/01/02/are-we-real/#comment-1490 anyway. I'm not real. I'm superreal. :D just don't be paralized by all your thinking about reality. you might miss it... By: Psikillion http://alittleweird.com/2009/01/02/are-we-real/#comment-1489 Psikillion Fri, 09 Jan 2009 02:49:48 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2009/01/02/are-we-real/#comment-1489 But metaphysics IS a branch of philosophy. Other wise I believe you, except I'll probably have to real about quantum physics because I don't really understand that subject to terribly well (even though a Computer Science major like me probably won't need it). By: PotentiaL http://alittleweird.com/2009/01/02/are-we-real/#comment-1488 PotentiaL Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:00:07 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2009/01/02/are-we-real/#comment-1488 The concept is rooted in quantum physics. Since the act of observing is included in this theory as a determining factor for particle behavior, some philosophical conclusions can be drawn. New developments in science can give support for age old ideas such as platonic forms. Physics alone will not yield any answers, and philosophy is pure speculation. However, knit the two together and metaphysics is born. That is where I believe the answers exist. By: Psikillion http://alittleweird.com/2009/01/02/are-we-real/#comment-1487 Psikillion Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:15:05 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2009/01/02/are-we-real/#comment-1487 This as in understand whether things are real. By: Psikillion http://alittleweird.com/2009/01/02/are-we-real/#comment-1486 Psikillion Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:14:32 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2009/01/02/are-we-real/#comment-1486 So PotentiaL, what you are saying is the best way to do this is to use Philosophy? By: anisus http://alittleweird.com/2009/01/02/are-we-real/#comment-1485 anisus Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:16:31 +0000 http://alittleweird.com/2009/01/02/are-we-real/#comment-1485 I think Eckhart Tolle derives a lot of his beliefs from Zen Buddhism as well. I don't practice Zen but what you propose Sean, reminds me of something I read a long time ago about the nature of existence and overcoming our need to give a name to the existence of everything and ourselves. We give names to things in order to make sense of our reality, this is essential, but it creates a barrier to actual reality. There is a reality outside of our minds. It is the names and ideas we place on things that turn what is immeasurable (perhaps even sacred) in this life into something our feeble minds can measure. If I tell you to think of the sunset, you automatically know what I'm talking about. Now think about that same sunset without a name. Without past knowledge or any previous awareness of what you are seeing. Just see it for what it is and not what your mind has made of it. Seperate the need to know into just "it". It's almost impossible of course, but it can be done. This is where enlightenment begins. this is where I believe true reality lies and where I'm guessing Zen masters have found true existence, the one outside the mind. There is the mind, and the world that can only be seen by the mind, and then the world our mind fails to see because of it's desire to name and know. It's rational to conlude that since life itself can only occur if you are alive, and if you are alive that automatically means your mind is what is percieving life, so therefore there is no escape from that which is the vehicle of our very existence. But that conclusion in itself is a rational/logical/expression of the mind, not the true expression of your existence, only the thoughts that your mind can comprehend. If I was to not think of apples, does that mean they do not exist? If I think of something I feel is sacred, but the object itself does not have any real sacred intrisic properties other than the ones I give it in my own mind does that mean it is not sacred? "The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth" This is what Taoists teach. The idea is that there is a life eternal outside our minds. Although we feel we can never escape it, this may be false. There is a true existence and I think this is what people have been searching for for millenia thus creating religions, maybe perversions of this one true search. This probably wasn't the road you were headed down and I'm sure you are speaking in terms of science, but I see your question as a somewhat spiritual one. I think the questions you pose become the kind that take people to the next level.