. . . in a paper recently published in Science Advances, we show that in the micro-world of atoms and particles that is governed by the strange rules of quantum mechanics, two different observers are entitled to their own facts. In other words, according to our best theory of the building blocks of nature itself, facts can actually be subjective.
HOWEVER,
Interesting take about language. The author disputes the first article in this post,
Recently I saw a headline about how new experiments in quantum theory prove that reality doesn’t exist.Statements like this, even if they are just to tease, are preposterous and silly.
Also, be sure to check out Wittgenstein Lion . . .
The whole language thing is tough. We just don’t know how to talk about things that we really don’t quite understand. But…we need to talk about this stuff to figure it out.
We are on the cusp of major changes in how science views reality. The long standing materialist view that matter is the ontological primitive (the fundamental basis of reality) is beginning to give way to idealism (or cosmopsychism) which posits that consciousness is fundamental. The Yogacara school of Buddhist thought basically centers on an idealist view of things.
What gets me is how these discussions always center on the human perspective. “Reality” existed long before there were humans around to observe it. In fact, it existed long before there was any sort of organic life to “observe” it.
That’s why I like Bernardo Kastrup’s preposterous premise that the universe is a conscious entity in and of itself and the physical world is the extrinsic appearance of it’s “thoughts” (vibrational interactions) as perceived by…us.
See? If we just keep talking about this stuff it eventually becomes perfectly clear.
We do need to think and contemplate for sure. However, to experience reality it does not necessarily follow that it needs to be verbalized or explained or even communicated. I see that as Anderson’s limitation in the above article.
Hmmmmm…I do agree with that, Barry. But I think we might need to do more than just experience reality if we accept the possibility that we, as humans, are an integral part of this conscious universe that is still evolving…as I believe that we are.
If that is, indeed, the case then it is incumbent upon those of us who are beginning to wake up to an expanded reality that is based on interdependent co-arising to endeavor to more fully understand it. That way we can use that understanding to verbalize, explain and communicate that which we are waking up to…to those who are still sleeping.
I believe that, in that way, we can be a more dynamic part of that evolutionary process.
I have been very subtly slipping some of this stuff into conversations with all kinds of different people lately…just a hint and a tiny taste of it makes folks stop for an instance and ponder just what it was that they just tasted.
a quote from the second article:
“People seem to love to try to show that the world doesn’t exist. Maybe it helps to justify trying to escape from it or why a world filled with evil is even allowed to exist. If reality doesn’t exist, then existential crisis is pointless. Why have a crisis over something that isn’t true?”
I would recommend the author of this statement to read the following book: Warum es die Welt nicht gibt : Gabriel, Markus: Amazon.de: Books
(why the world doesn’t exist)
unfortunately, I don’t think it’s available in English, but I already read other posts in NC and thought about mentioning it. I find it mind blowing! (as all his books are )
Well…just this morning I was talking with an architect. We have had a few conversations this week as I am helping him design the sound control aspects of a project he is working on. This morning our conversation drifted ever so carefully into politics and how American politics seems to have become so polarized.
I said that I thought that we are all so deeply interconnected that everything each of us thinks can ultimately affect others with completely differing viewpoints without us, or them, even realizing it. He paused and asked where I was going with that.
I said that a bird has two wings, each of which must be constantly doing something completely different than the other for the bird to be able to maneuver.
Good example but don’t the wings have to be in sync for the birds to fly? Are politics more polarized today than (name another time period) or are we just more aware of it—can’t escape it? I would use the speed of everyday life as being one of the underlying factors in this “polarization,” that we never slow down, never pause, seldom listen or have the time to do so. That’s why the practices you have described over the past couple of years help counter that whiplash. Just a thought.
Actually, each wing will always be doing something different from the other to allow for maneuvering. They would never be doing the exact same thing. There is, of course, synchronicity in that as well.
I would say both. I can remember a time when both political wings worked hard to keep the bird functionally flying. Now it seems as though one of those wings is only interested in cutting the other wing off, not realizing how difficult that is making for the bird to remain aloft.
The news media seems to be intent on making sure the public is always aware of those frictions.
I appreciate that, Barry, and I agree with your assessment. But this world is still evolving and I suspect that this frenetic period is bound to lead to another phase. The problem is that there may be darker times still as we approach a transition. That’s why we need to bring as many people with us as we awake to this deeper understanding of reality…so that there can be light on the other side.
Interesting take about language. The author disputes the first article in this post,
)