Frostysh said: 1) Mass not conserved in chemical reaction. 2) The matter destroyed, entirely. Especially in complicated quantum effect called anihilation. But technically the same happens in burning gasoline. 3) Matter exactly thing that can be bestroyed. 4) Lauvausie's Law that you did mindlesly cited on the start (because of lack of knowledge of fundamental of Physics) have no anything connection, Mr. Smugsakoto, to about transformation of the mass... The process of transformation of mass into energy is exactly destruction of matter — mostly irreversible, especially in macroworld, so the thermal radiation cannot so easily become gasoline + oxygen anymore... *facepalm* Especially in not enclosed systems as gasoline burning lol... *facepalm again* 5) It is hard to understand what is mean 'total mass and energy' in your words, becuase you have kind disonanse and near zero knowledge of conservation laws, but unfortunuately I have long time forgot Hamilton's invariants too... :/ So I cannot simply mock you into formula of Hamiltonian function and will say that not 'total energy and mass' preserves but the very invariant... :/ hahaha. Oh my gosh... You really are either trolling or completely delusional. What you are saying has nothing to do with science or reality. None of the evidence supports your claims of matter being destroyed in such a manner, and all of the evidence supports it simply being transformed. Matter that is burned transforms into ash, gas, heat, etc. That's common knowledge. Mass and energy can be measured and demonstrated to still exist. Not only this, but as I keep telling you, the total amount of mass and energy is literally the same before and after these reactions...and can be measured and shown to be so. It's well-established science, not up for debate at all. Maybe one day you'll stop facepalming so much and start learning real science. Kiyomice said: Pretty sure at this point that Frostysh is a troll. If not - @Frostysh You need to work on your English before you try engaging in these types of discussions. You're not able to comprehend what we are saying at your current level. It is very annoying. I hope he is a troll and not actually this incompetent. |
SmugSatokoApr 6, 2023 8:37 PM
 |
| This is both easy and hard to answer. It is obviously what the posters on the first page eluded to. Another part of that is our perception of reality is tied to the culture we come from. Its through our culture, more the language tied to it, people learn how to understand and perceive the world around them. Culture informs us on how to interpret stimuli, cultural definitions tells us what sensory stimuli to react towards (and how to act in most instances) through symbols. Its fascinating, there is a objective reality which we are all apart of, including subjective reality and how we personally interact and understand the reality (in your terms if you will). |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
SmugSatoko said: When I have stated that mas is not conservate, you answered with Lauvasie's Law — the only this thing is enough to say that human is incompetent in Physics. Then you prolong to post the same nonsense about conservative mass, until I have posted low-level article from internet academia where with wrong formulas explained how exactly gasoline burns.Frostysh said: 1) Mass not conserved in chemical reaction. 2) The matter destroyed, entirely. Especially in complicated quantum effect called anihilation. But technically the same happens in burning gasoline. 3) Matter exactly thing that can be bestroyed. 4) Lauvausie's Law that you did mindlesly cited on the start (because of lack of knowledge of fundamental of Physics) have no anything connection, Mr. Smugsakoto, to about transformation of the mass... The process of transformation of mass into energy is exactly destruction of matter — mostly irreversible, especially in macroworld, so the thermal radiation cannot so easily become gasoline + oxygen anymore... *facepalm* Especially in not enclosed systems as gasoline burning lol... *facepalm again* 5) It is hard to understand what is mean 'total mass and energy' in your words, becuase you have kind disonanse and near zero knowledge of conservation laws, but unfortunuately I have long time forgot Hamilton's invariants too... :/ So I cannot simply mock you into formula of Hamiltonian function and will say that not 'total energy and mass' preserves but the very invariant... :/ hahaha. Oh my gosh... You really are either trolling or completely delusional. What you are saying has nothing to do with science or reality. None of the evidence supports your claims of matter being destroyed in such a manner, and all of the evidence supports it simply being transformed. Matter that is burned transforms into ash, gas, heat, etc. That's common knowledge. Mass and energy can be measured and demonstrated to still exist. Not only this, but as I keep telling you, the total amount of mass and energy is literally the same before and after these reactions...and can be measured and shown to be so. It's very well-established science. Maybe one day you'll stop facepalming so much and start learning real science. Kiyomice said: Pretty sure at this point that Frostysh is a troll. If not - @Frostysh You need to work on your English before you try engaging in these types of discussions. You're not able to comprehend what we are saying at your current level. It is very annoying. I hope he is a troll and not actually this incompetent. Second you keeping ignoring word 'enclosed system' — a sign that you have a no idea how conservation laws works Mr. Smugsatoko... I have many times repeated that burning gasoline is not enclosed system because of thermal radiation — it is wise to model it as not enclosed system to show interesting thing about mass defect. I do not understand what is mean the 'real science'. I always know only one Science, a single type. >>>"Mass and energy can be measured and demonstrated to still exist. Not only this, but as I keep telling you, the total amount of mass and energy is literally the same before and after these reactions...and can be measured and shown to be so. It's very well-established science." A good example of your blatanty, after dosens of post you still unable to formulate it in proper manner even after I have explained and you have 'googled' Wikipedia Mr. Smugsatoko... *facepalm* But I have bothered to repeat every time words like 'enclosed system'. Forget what I have said to explain it with your own words, just copy-past Wikipedia entrance and be fine... :P (I am joking.) |
 The World "No matter who you are, where you from, whose was your ancestors — the only matter what you can do, what you cannot, and the choice you making..." — Author is unknown. |
| Reality can be both and more.. depends on the view, point of view. |
Frostysh said: When I have stated that mas is not conservate, you answered with Lauvasie's Law — the only this thing is enough to say that human is incompetent in Physics. Then you prolong to post the same nonsense about conservative mass, until I have posted low-level article from internet academia where with wrong formulas explained how exactly gasoline burns. Second you keeping ignoring word 'enclosed system' — a sign that you have a no idea how conservation laws works Mr. Smugsatoko... I have many times repeated that burning gasoline is not enclosed system because of thermal radiation — it is wise to model it as not enclosed system to show interesting thing about mass defect. I do not understand what is mean the 'real science'. I always know only one Science, a single type. A good example of your blatanty, after dosens of post you still unable to formulate it in proper manner even after I have explained and you have 'googled' Wikipedia Mr. Smugsatoko... *facepalm* But I have bothered to repeat every time words like 'enclosed system'. Forget what I have said to explain it with your own words, just copy-past Wikipedia entrance and be fine... :P (I am joking.) Mass and energy can be measured and demonstrated to be the same amount before and after a chemical reaction. (Literally look it up if you don't believe me. I don't need to formulate basic facts like 2 + 2 = 4 in any "proper manner" for you.) It's just that it can leave the system if it is open. But traveling from one system to another doesn't make it disappear from existence. As for particle annihilation, it's not what you think it is. https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/what-is-annihilation "Annihilation occurs when a bit of matter meets up with its corresponding bit of antimatter. What happens is not destruction; it’s transformation. What emerges on the other side of the annihilation process is a new pair of particles. They can have the same identities as before; they can transform into a brand new particle-antiparticle pair; or they can convert entirely into photons, particles that carry electromagnetic energy. Governing this reaction (and, in fact, all reactions) is the principle that energy cannot be created or destroyed. That includes energy in the form of any matter with mass. “We’re happy with E=mc2, so mass is energy,” says Flip Tanedo, a theoretical particle physicist at the University of California, Riverside. But mass is not the only form of energy. There’s also kinetic energy—energy related to motion—and radiant energy—electromagnetic energy in the form of photons. When two particles undergo annihilation, the energy of whatever they become must be the same as the energy of the original pair." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation "In particle physics, annihilation is the process that occurs when a subatomic particle collides with its respective antiparticle to produce other particles, such as an electron colliding with a positron to produce two photons. The total energy and momentum of the initial pair are conserved in the process and distributed among a set of other particles in the final state." |
SmugSatokoApr 6, 2023 10:14 PM
|
SmugSatoko said: Nah. I do not need to somebody post Wikipedia articles to mineself, I can read it without your riddiculous context Mr. Smugsatoko. Well I least you trying to understand after my attempts to explain that conversation laws is a very general thing in Physics, and to discover mass defect in chemical reactions was not so easy and obvious (for an example you failed on beginning to realize that mass is not invariant). Also you should realize that phenomenon and law is a kind different words with different meanings... *facepalm*Frostysh said: When I have stated that mas is not conservate, you answered with Lauvasie's Law — the only this thing is enough to say that human is incompetent in Physics. Then you prolong to post the same nonsense about conservative mass, until I have posted low-level article from internet academia where with wrong formulas explained how exactly gasoline burns. Second you keeping ignoring word 'enclosed system' — a sign that you have a no idea how conservation laws works Mr. Smugsatoko... I have many times repeated that burning gasoline is not enclosed system because of thermal radiation — it is wise to model it as not enclosed system to show interesting thing about mass defect. I do not understand what is mean the 'real science'. I always know only one Science, a single type. A good example of your blatanty, after dosens of post you still unable to formulate it in proper manner even after I have explained and you have 'googled' Wikipedia Mr. Smugsatoko... *facepalm* But I have bothered to repeat every time words like 'enclosed system'. Forget what I have said to explain it with your own words, just copy-past Wikipedia entrance and be fine... :P (I am joking.) Mass and energy can be measured and demonstrated to be the same amount before and after a chemical reaction. (Literally look it up if you don't believe me.) It's just that it can leave the system if it is open. But traveling from one system to another doesn't make it disappear from existence. As for particle annihilation, it's not what you think it is. https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/what-is-annihilation "Annihilation occurs when a bit of matter meets up with its corresponding bit of antimatter. What happens is not destruction; it’s transformation. What emerges on the other side of the annihilation process is a new pair of particles. They can have the same identities as before; they can transform into a brand new particle-antiparticle pair; or they can convert entirely into photons, particles that carry electromagnetic energy. Governing this reaction (and, in fact, all reactions) is the principle that energy cannot be created or destroyed. That includes energy in the form of any matter with mass. “We’re happy with E=mc2, so mass is energy,” says Flip Tanedo, a theoretical particle physicist at the University of California, Riverside. But mass is not the only form of energy. There’s also kinetic energy—energy related to motion—and radiant energy—electromagnetic energy in the form of photons. When two particles undergo annihilation, the energy of whatever they become must be the same as the energy of the original pair." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation "In particle physics, annihilation is the process that occurs when a subatomic particle collides with its respective antiparticle to produce other particles, such as an electron colliding with a positron to produce two photons. The total energy and momentum of the initial pair are conserved in the process and distributed among a set of other particles in the final state." |
The World "No matter who you are, where you from, whose was your ancestors — the only matter what you can do, what you cannot, and the choice you making..." — Author is unknown. |
Frostysh said: Nah. I do not need to somebody post Wikipedia articles to mineself, I can read it without your riddiculous context Mr. Smugsatoko. Well I least you trying to understand after my attempts to explain that conversation laws is a very general thing in Physics, and to discover mass defect in chemical reactions was not so easy and obvious (for an example you failed on beginning to realize that mass is not invariant). Also you should realize that phenomenon and law is a kind different words with different meanings... *facepalm* The information I posted refutes your claim about quantum annihilation destroying matter entirely. If it was destroyed, there would be nothing at all afterwards...but what actually happens is that a new pair of particles is formed. It's just matter transforming, not being destroyed. Physicists often use the phrase "the laws of physics" to refer to the corresponding natural phenomena. In general conversation (not general conservation...see what I did there? lolz), they are synonymous. You should realize that you shouldn't lecture native English speakers about their own language when you have such a poor understanding of it. If you insist upon telling professionals (who know a heck of a lot more than you) how to talk about their own fields of study, you should really reexamine your life. |
SmugSatokoApr 6, 2023 11:57 PM
|
| Everyone is different. There are things that are objective but even when presented with the facts not everyone accepts them if they conflict with how they perceive the world. Tennis balls are officially yellow, but a lot of people perceive them as green and even if you let them know that the manufacturer considers them to be yellow that doesn't change how they see them. With foods there's a lot of things that are done intentionally to please some people that makes them taste disgusting to others. Spicy, sour, and bitter are all things that some people like but other people don't and that doesn't make one group wrong, they just perceive it differently. What people do with information can also differ even if they're presented with the same information. Eg. if it's 30 degrees celsius outside someone from Greenland would probably say that's really hot while someone from India might disagree with them. There's an objective measurement of how hot it is, but different people interpret that with their own metrics. |
  |
| To face reality is to stop asking "is this real?" |
| Reality is objective by definition. The question is how much of reality can we actually perceive, not whether reality isn't real. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Okay, on topic - reality is objective. The whole "reality is subjective" notion is a sophist nonsense that pseudo-skeptics have adopted for millennia to create an illusion of intelligence, where the idea is that it is the perception or validation of conscious entities that defines all phenomena. It creates one of those Dunning-Kruger-like effects as it gets ignored by the stupid and intelligent alike, but keeps perplexing those in the middle of the IQ chart that are smart enough to question reality, but not smart enough to find the answers and reach the logical conclusions they are looking for, so their only choice is to try to get as metaphysical as possible and use astronomically low probabilities to indiscriminately cast doubt on anything and everything, thinking what they are doing is a form of Cartesian skepticism. "We know nothing" "Everything is subjective" "How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real" |
149597871Apr 7, 2023 2:23 AM
SmugSatoko said: No, the process of anihilation is different than you think Mr. Smugsatoko, but there is complicated (too me a very complicated) theory behind, so it is pointless to discuss it on low level. Conversations laws, at least on school level is better in this case because not require Mathematics (well, of course it require, but still...)Frostysh said: Nah. I do not need to somebody post Wikipedia articles to mineself, I can read it without your riddiculous context Mr. Smugsatoko. Well I least you trying to understand after my attempts to explain that conversation laws is a very general thing in Physics, and to discover mass defect in chemical reactions was not so easy and obvious (for an example you failed on beginning to realize that mass is not invariant). Also you should realize that phenomenon and law is a kind different words with different meanings... *facepalm* The information I posted refutes your claim about quantum annihilation destroying matter entirely. If it was destroyed, there would be nothing at all afterwards...but what actually happens is that a new pair of particles is formed. It's just matter transforming, not being destroyed. Physicists often use the phrase "the laws of physics" to refer to the corresponding natural phenomena. In general conversation (not general conservation...see what I did there? lolz), they are synonymous. You should realize that you shouldn't lecture native English speakers about their own language when you have such a poor understanding of it. If you insist upon telling professionals (who know a heck of a lot more than you) how to talk about their own fields of study, you should really reexamine your life. Law of gravity and phenomenon gravity is not the same in Physics, the is a different laws of gravity can exist — and only the one phenomenon of gravity. Maybe for common folks it is — like the 'fact' that the mass is an invariant in chemical reactions... Physics is not English, in Physics exist distilated vocabalary that started to form probably in Ancient Greece, the culture of speech of Physicists, in that time no single Englishman exist probably, to make words more definitive than in common talks, this is the very difference. The Mathematics even more strict to words... |
The World "No matter who you are, where you from, whose was your ancestors — the only matter what you can do, what you cannot, and the choice you making..." — Author is unknown. |
zombie_pegasus said: This is looks like objectivism rather than subjectivism.Everyone is different. There are things that are objective but even when presented with the facts not everyone accepts them if they conflict with how they perceive the world. Tennis balls are officially yellow, but a lot of people perceive them as green and even if you let them know that the manufacturer considers them to be yellow that doesn't change how they see them. With foods there's a lot of things that are done intentionally to please some people that makes them taste disgusting to others. Spicy, sour, and bitter are all things that some people like but other people don't and that doesn't make one group wrong, they just perceive it differently. What people do with information can also differ even if they're presented with the same information. Eg. if it's 30 degrees celsius outside someone from Greenland would probably say that's really hot while someone from India might disagree with them. There's an objective measurement of how hot it is, but different people interpret that with their own metrics. |
The World "No matter who you are, where you from, whose was your ancestors — the only matter what you can do, what you cannot, and the choice you making..." — Author is unknown. |
Frostysh said: *sigh* ok I'll explain this in a simpler way, first let's start with some questions. when you see are you seeing objective reality? when you hear are you hearing objective reality? when you touch are you feeling objective reality?The process that creating different haulucination in different humans should be objective, I mean creation of hallucination. If we assume that some objective things exist. |
Frostysh said: I'm starting to think you don't know what objective and subjective mean.zombie_pegasus said: This is looks like objectivism rather than subjectivism.Everyone is different. There are things that are objective but even when presented with the facts not everyone accepts them if they conflict with how they perceive the world. Tennis balls are officially yellow, but a lot of people perceive them as green and even if you let them know that the manufacturer considers them to be yellow that doesn't change how they see them. With foods there's a lot of things that are done intentionally to please some people that makes them taste disgusting to others. Spicy, sour, and bitter are all things that some people like but other people don't and that doesn't make one group wrong, they just perceive it differently. What people do with information can also differ even if they're presented with the same information. Eg. if it's 30 degrees celsius outside someone from Greenland would probably say that's really hot while someone from India might disagree with them. There's an objective measurement of how hot it is, but different people interpret that with their own metrics. |
Frostysh said: No, the process of anihilation is different than you think Mr. Smugsatoko, but there is complicated (too me a very complicated) theory behind, so it is pointless to discuss it on low level. Conversations laws, at least on school level is better in this case because not require Mathematics (well, of course it require, but still...) If you know so much about it, then explain it. (And link to evidence to back it up.) Law of gravity and phenomenon gravity is not the same in Physics, the is a different laws of gravity can exist — and only the one phenomenon of gravity. Maybe for common folks it is — like the 'fact' that the mass is an invariant in chemical reactions... Physics is not English, in Physics exist distilated vocabalary that started to form probably in Ancient Greece, the culture of speech of Physicists, in that time no single Englishman exist probably, to make words more definitive than in common talks, this is the very difference. The Mathematics even more strict to words... I never said they are literally the same thing. But 99% of the time, when people (including physicists) say the laws of physics, they are talking about the actual phenomena. Stop capitalizing physics and mathematics. There's no reason for those to be capitalized. |
SmugSatokoApr 7, 2023 3:14 PM
|
struggler_sensei said: I do not know, but it seems that should be involved some objective process even it is an illusion.Frostysh said: *sigh* ok I'll explain this in a simpler way, first let's start with some questions. when you see are you seeing objective reality? when you hear are you hearing objective reality? when you touch are you feeling objective reality?The process that creating different haulucination in different humans should be objective, I mean creation of hallucination. If we assume that some objective things exist. SmugSatoko said: I just say to it is wise to say 'the matter is destroyed' in the process. You said nonesense Mr. Smugsatoko, but at least you know about mass defect from now. Anihilations is cannot be explained without mathematics, on the level more than 'boom, no apple anymore, only the light'... This is the problem with Qauntum Physics, with Relativity, and especially with Quantum Relativity — is impossible to explain without mathematics. And the more big problem, I tried to learn it long time ago and failed... So I cannot just post pictures with proper, handly drawn mathematics (no, Feinman's lectures — anihilation explained there, for an example, is not a wise idea if you have a zero knowledge, as you Mr. Smugsatoko, in the topic)... Feinman's lectures should be used only as supplementary, additional literature.Frostysh said: No, the process of anihilation is different than you think Mr. Smugsatoko, but there is complicated (too me a very complicated) theory behind, so it is pointless to discuss it on low level. Conversations laws, at least on school level is better in this case because not require Mathematics (well, of course it require, but still...) If you know so much about it, then explain it. (And link to evidence to back it up.) Law of gravity and phenomenon gravity is not the same in Physics, the is a different laws of gravity can exist — and only the one phenomenon of gravity. Maybe for common folks it is — like the 'fact' that the mass is an invariant in chemical reactions... Physics is not English, in Physics exist distilated vocabalary that started to form probably in Ancient Greece, the culture of speech of Physicists, in that time no single Englishman exist probably, to make words more definitive than in common talks, this is the very difference. The Mathematics even more strict to words... I never said they are literally the same thing. But 99% of the time, when people (including physicists) say the laws of physics, they are talking about the actual phenomena. Stop capitalizing physics and mathematics. There's no reason for those to be capitalized. |
The World "No matter who you are, where you from, whose was your ancestors — the only matter what you can do, what you cannot, and the choice you making..." — Author is unknown. |
Frostysh said: we arent talking about the process of how your body senses things we are talking about the act of sensing itself. In fact, it is because of what we know about how the human brain interprets the input signals of our sensory organs that we know that human perception is subjective. What you perceive isn't objective reality it is a subjective interpretation of your surroundings, hence, what you see, hear, touch, smell, and taste are all subjective perceptions that make up your own individual human perception of reality. Therefore, reality, as you perceive it as an individual human being, is subjective.I do not know, but it seems that should be involved some objective process even it is an illusion. |
Frostysh said: I just say to it is wise to say 'the matter is destroyed' in the process. You said nonesense Mr. Smugsatoko, but at least you know about mass defect from now. Anihilations is cannot be explained without mathematics, on the level more than 'boom, no apple anymore, only the light'... This is the problem with Qauntum Physics, with Relativity, and especially with Quantum Relativity — is impossible to explain without mathematics. And the more big problem, I tried to learn it long time ago and failed... So I cannot just post pictures with proper, handly drawn mathematics (no, Feinman's lectures — anihilation explained there, for an example, is not a wise idea if you have a zero knowledge, as you Mr. Smugsatoko, in the topic)... Feinman's lectures should be used only as supplementary, additional literature. Even if you can't explain it yourself, would you be able to link to resources that do explain what you are talking about? |
|
SmugSatoko said: 1) Because I have not proper knowledge, except the the long forgotten memories about how anihilation is complicated, and I am not a pedagogic that can explain complicated things to somebody with abscence of proper Physical knowledge...Frostysh said: I just say to it is wise to say 'the matter is destroyed' in the process. You said nonesense Mr. Smugsatoko, but at least you know about mass defect from now. Anihilations is cannot be explained without mathematics, on the level more than 'boom, no apple anymore, only the light'... This is the problem with Qauntum Physics, with Relativity, and especially with Quantum Relativity — is impossible to explain without mathematics. And the more big problem, I tried to learn it long time ago and failed... So I cannot just post pictures with proper, handly drawn mathematics (no, Feinman's lectures — anihilation explained there, for an example, is not a wise idea if you have a zero knowledge, as you Mr. Smugsatoko, in the topic)... Feinman's lectures should be used only as supplementary, additional literature. Even if you can't explain it yourself, would you be able to link to resources that do explain what you are talking about? 2) I have explained to you, Mr. Smugsatoko, the very things about gasoline-burning have the same source of energy that nuclear bomb has (a very not obvious thing) — the defect of mass. This thing can be explained to anybody that have at least school course of Physics finished, but not anihilation... 3) Anihilation process is not easily to be explained like 'the reduction of wave-function' or something like that. That stuff is complicated. Better ask some good Theoretical Physicist if you know one. struggler_sensei said: How act can be without process that forming the very act?Frostysh said: we arent talking about the process of how your body senses things we are talking about the act of sensing itself. In fact, it is because of what we know about how the human brain interprets the input signals of our sensory organs that we know that human perception is subjective. What you perceive isn't objective reality it is a subjective interpretation of your surroundings, hence, what you see, hear, touch, smell, and taste are all subjective perceptions that make up your own individual human perception of reality. Therefore, reality, as you perceive it as an individual human being, is subjective.I do not know, but it seems that should be involved some objective process even it is an illusion. |
The World "No matter who you are, where you from, whose was your ancestors — the only matter what you can do, what you cannot, and the choice you making..." — Author is unknown. |
Frostysh said: 1) Because I have not proper knowledge, except the the long forgotten memories about how anihilation is complicated, and I am not a pedagogic that can explain complicated things to somebody with abscence of proper Physical knowledge... 2) I have explained to you, Mr. Smugsatoko, the very things about gasoline-burning have the same source of energy that nuclear bomb has (a very not obvious thing) — the defect of mass. This thing can be explained to anybody that have at least school course of Physics finished, but not anihilation... 3) Anihilation process is not easily to be explained like 'the reduction of wave-function' or something like that. That stuff is complicated. Better ask some good Theoretical Physicist if you know one. I did not ask for you to explain; I asked if you could post links to web pages that have the relevant explanations. I suppose your answer to that is no, and you have no evidence you can provide. |
|
Frostysh said: How are you not getting this? *sigh* ok, let's take sight for example. The human eye has rather limited perception, not only do we see fewer lightwaves than other animals, such as the mantis shrimp, but most of what you see is actually your brain filling in the gaps. furthermore, we can't see matter for what it actually is, we see objects, color, etc. but objects are just a bunch of atoms and color is just reflected light. We are not seeing objective reality, we are seeing reality through the limited scope of human perception. It's why in the natural sciences we don't analyze and measure reality through our human senses but we use tools and equipment to gain knowledge that can inform us on what objective reality might actually be etc. What we see through our eyes is the subjective reality of human experience. This really isn't hard to grasp. I mean dude just think about this when you sit at home your senses tell you that you are stationary but you aren't you are traveling at high speeds through space. So if you say "I am sitting on a couch and am not moving" because that is what your human senses tell you that would be a subjective statement cause objectively you are moving through physical space.How act can be without process that forming the very act? |
Shut up and fall into the event horizon and make more black hole already. v_v |
 |
SmugSatoko said: I do not know any such websuites, except the course of theoretical Physics — Landau-Lifshitz, I do not remember of volume exactly, but the name is "The Field Theory", also other similar-grade books will works — if you already have a knowledge of Mathematics like gauge-stuff, you can read Feynman's lectures (I do not remember the number of volum) — the guy who was one of pioneers of such things.Frostysh said: 1) Because I have not proper knowledge, except the the long forgotten memories about how anihilation is complicated, and I am not a pedagogic that can explain complicated things to somebody with abscence of proper Physical knowledge... 2) I have explained to you, Mr. Smugsatoko, the very things about gasoline-burning have the same source of energy that nuclear bomb has (a very not obvious thing) — the defect of mass. This thing can be explained to anybody that have at least school course of Physics finished, but not anihilation... 3) Anihilation process is not easily to be explained like 'the reduction of wave-function' or something like that. That stuff is complicated. Better ask some good Theoretical Physicist if you know one. I did not ask for you to explain; I asked if you could post links to web pages that have the relevant explanations. I suppose your answer to that is no, and you have no evidence you can provide. |
The World "No matter who you are, where you from, whose was your ancestors — the only matter what you can do, what you cannot, and the choice you making..." — Author is unknown. |
struggler_sensei said: Then we see limited reality, but it will be reality through objective process of seeing, of course if we not assume that the whole world is like in the not totally stupid Hollywood movie 'The Matrix'.Frostysh said: How are you not getting this? *sigh* ok, let's take sight for example. The human eye has rather limited perception, not only do we see fewer lightwaves than other animals, such as the mantis shrimp, but most of what you see is actually your brain filling in the gaps. furthermore, we can't see matter for what it actually is, we see objects, color, etc. but objects are just a bunch of atoms and color is just reflected light. We are not seeing objective reality, we are seeing reality through the limited scope of human perception. It's why in the natural sciences we don't analyze and measure reality through our human senses but we use tools and equipment to gain knowledge that can inform us on what objective reality might actually be etc. What we see through our eyes is the subjective reality of human experience. This really isn't hard to grasp. I mean dude just think about this when you sit at home your senses tell you that you are stationary but you aren't you are traveling at high speeds through space. So if you say "I am sitting on a couch and am not moving" because that is what your human senses tell you that would be a subjective statement cause objectively you are moving through physical space.How act can be without process that forming the very act? |
The World "No matter who you are, where you from, whose was your ancestors — the only matter what you can do, what you cannot, and the choice you making..." — Author is unknown. |
Frostysh said: But this conversation was never about the objectivity of biological processes rather it was about the subjectivity of human perception.Then we see limited reality, but it will be reality through objective process of seeing, of course if we not assume that the whole world is like in the not totally stupid Hollywood movie 'The Matrix'. |
struggler_sensei said: I do not understand. Subjective as for an example a different emotions on a same picture? — Then use statistical approach and find an average, it is a common approach in Anthropology for an example, so if strictly saying, it is not so subjective...Frostysh said: But this conversation was never about the objectivity of biological processes rather it was about the subjectivity of human perception.Then we see limited reality, but it will be reality through objective process of seeing, of course if we not assume that the whole world is like in the not totally stupid Hollywood movie 'The Matrix'. |
The World "No matter who you are, where you from, whose was your ancestors — the only matter what you can do, what you cannot, and the choice you making..." — Author is unknown. |
| this thread is a meme there is not subjet/object, things simply emerge |
 |
Frostysh said: I do not understand. Subjective as for an example a different emotions on a same picture? — Then use statistical approach and find average, it is a common approach in Anthropology for an example, so if strictly saying, it is not so subjective... no, subjectivity as in what you see, right now, is a subjective interpretation of reality that is based on human perception. also finding an average one what people feel when they see a painting isn't finding an objective view of a painting, it would be a very stupid study that tells you nothing, let's say you do a survey of 100 people and 50 say they love the painting and 50 say they hate it than your average would be indifference, that's a flawed result. Also, you can't really quantify emotions. It would be a rather pointless quantitative study, seeing as what people like and do not like and their definitions of what is good and bad are also subjective, it would be more useful to do a qualitative study on the emotional response to a particular painting than a quantitative one, which again still wouldn't give you an objective answer, just insight into peoples subjective responses to certain stimuli, in this case, a painting. |
struggler_sensei said: Looks like nonsense, because the process of perception is objective if we stick to objectivism, even a single thing in Universe is objective, then the process of perception is objective, at least such my logic. Hypothetically, even in theory we can 'quantify' emotions, which is should be obviously, and those we can make statistic and statistical average. Even today Science has much progress in this, for an example modern version of old Mr. Libett's experiments.Frostysh said: I do not understand. Subjective as for an example a different emotions on a same picture? — Then use statistical approach and find average, it is a common approach in Anthropology for an example, so if strictly saying, it is not so subjective... no, subjectivity as in what you see, right now, is a subjective interpretation of reality that is based on human perception. also finding an average one what people feel when they see a painting isn't finding an objective view of a painting, it would be a very stupid study that tells you nothing, let's say you do a survey of 100 people and 50 say they love the painting and 50 say they hate it than your average would be indifference, that's a flawed result. Also, you can't really quantify emotions. It would be a rather pointless quantitative study, seeing as what people like and do not like and their definitions of what is good and bad are also subjective, it would be more useful to do a qualitative study on the emotional response to a particular painting than a quantitative one, which again still wouldn't give you an objective answer, just insight into peoples subjective responses to certain stimuli, in this case, a painting. |
The World "No matter who you are, where you from, whose was your ancestors — the only matter what you can do, what you cannot, and the choice you making..." — Author is unknown. |
| Funny thing is OP been offline for 4 days they ain't reading this lol. |
Frostysh said: why are you still going on about the process when that aint what we're talking about? We are talking about the result of that process, just cause your brain can't comprehend something doesn't make it nonsense my guy. And you literally can't quantify emotions. Tell me dude how do you quantify happiness, sadness, despair, love, etc? you can't because emotions are subjective and averaging out emotional responses is dumb and doesn't tell you anything but flawed results ya dipshit. I'm starting to think that you just think that there is no such thing as subjectivity which would be an incredibly stupid take.Looks like nonsense, because the process of perception is objective if we stick to objectivism, even a single thing in Universe is objective, then the process of perception is objective, at least such my logic. Hypothetically, even in theory we can 'quantify' emotions, which is should be obviously, and those we can make statistic and statistical average. Even today Science has much progress in this, for an example modern version of old Mr. Libett's experiments. |
| Yawns. MAL still stuck on trivial confusions about reality and its observation. Ignorami arguing about theoretical physics with Wikipedia links although they had never heard of Noether's theorem before this thread nor possess the scientific background to understand its meaning and (mathematical or physical) significance... Then derailing the topic about the critique of taste whilst their knowledge of Kant reduces—at best—to a handful of YouTube videos... I will let you guys reflect on this aphorism: Physics is orthogonal to stammering. @Frostysh Do you even understand conservation laws? |
| Reality is objective because it is not the product of our own thought, fantasy, or perception. It corresponds to the ontological and refers to what exists and the way in which it exists. Being the objective reality, so is the truth, since this is the full conformity of the intellect with reality. The truth corresponds to the epistemological and refers to the relationship between statements and reality. The only thing totally subjective is the error. This foolishness to believe that reality and truth are debatable and subjective things reflects the fact that the crisis of our time is not only moral, but also of intelligence. The current evils that characterize our time - such as gender ideology, transhumanism and relativization of law- derive from errors that come from far back and far above, and one of the most outstanding milestones - from what Sciacca called the process of "darkening of the intelligence” - in the West it is undoubtedly the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Preceded by the English empiricists, Kant happens to be the philosopher who definitively takes act of the death of Metaphysics. Understand here by "Metaphysics" the philosophical, purely natural and rational science that takes seriously the natural capacity of intelligence to know what things are, and their causes. Starting with Kant, it is considered that science must be limited to the "phenomenon", that is, to what is manifested in the experience of the senses, and that it is not possible a rational demonstration of things such as the free will or the existence of a natural moral law. It is in Kant, in general, where the philosophical root of so many errors that abound in the world today must be sought. In any case, it is not necessary to have a vocation for philosophy or to be a cultured person to avoid being fooled by Kant's errors, since the use of common sense is enough to enjoy the correct conviction that the cows that are seen in the field are truly cows and not just projections of the mind, and that they would continue to be so even if there were no human beings on the planet to verify it. In general, those who are most likely to be fooled by Kant's errors are not usually the uneducated who earn a living by the sweat of their brow (they are protected by a strong common sense) but rather the semi cultured persons, since they tend to change common sense for a bit of distorted information when they see that it facilitates their stubbornness in not recognizing the intrinsic immorality of certain behaviors or ideas that they have embraced. |
_Nemrod_Apr 17, 2023 4:34 PM
 |
_Nemrod_ said: I get what you mean by the term "reality", but I would avoid that term to speak of the aspects in the sphere/realm/room-time we're currently in that are independent from us. In your example below, a cow will still exist even without us as the observers. Or a falling tree will produce sound waves even if there are no other beings that could perceive the soundwaves in audible form.Reality is objective because it is not the product of our own thought, fantasy, or perception. It corresponds to the ontological and refers to what exists and the way in which it exists. However, "reality" is closely related with "realize", so it describes the perceivable sphere/realm/room-time and is malleable through manifestations. One example is the double-slit experiment in which light and matter waves can behave completely different when observed as opposed to not having any observer. Another example is Schrödinger's Cat, though only a thought-experiment where it's theorized that the wish and expectation has an influence on the outcome of whether or not the cat in the box is alive. _Nemrod_ said: Can you explain in more detail, please? I'm curious to know if you see the problem with Kant's categorical imperative as opposed to the Golden Rule or in something elseIt is in Kant, in general, where the philosophical root of so many errors that abound in the world today must be sought. |
| A little of column A, a little of column B. I think it is technically objective in the sense the vast majority of humanity (barring the possible exceptions of serial killers or crazy people) that murder is wrong. So is theft. The subjectiveness comes from interpretation, since not everyone agrees on what constitutes murder: Is capital punishment murder? What about killing in self defense? (pacifists would say yes to that one.) |
| @Noboru Can you explain in more detail, please? I'm curious to know if you see the problem with Kant's categorical imperative as opposed to the Golden Rule or in something else When someone forbids you to knock on his door again after having given you a well-deserved beating, you should stay away out of respect and safety. To do the opposite a few years later, even though nothing has changed, is not only a sign that you have forgotten what respect means, but also that you want to be killed. Garnishing such suicidal disrespect with the word "please" doesn't change anything. About 3 years ago, after having punished you through intense and long-lasting suffering (you even admitted that you had never been made so angry in your "life"), I forbade you from writing or quoting me again. And you submitted to that for years, because you knew that it was your mental and emotional health that you would risk again if you did not. So, do you feel so bad now that you are willing to risk new misadventures appearing in your "life" despite not gaining anything from it? How is it possible to have so little common sense and practical intelligence? It seems that the raw loneliness and isolation that oppresses you has reached such intense and bitter levels that it has made you think that in your current circumstances I do not have the means (including key contacts) to teach you a good lesson at the right time. Big mistake. It is better for you that I literally break your nose than that I use my digital dogs against you again. Knowing you, it would not be unusual for you to try to justify your stupidity by saying that this is a public forum made for discussion, as if it were not common knowledge that the implicit rules of an informal forum that "encourages" discussion do not offer the privileges that It has something that obligates discussion, as a congress, a synod, a meeting room, a scheduled debate or tertulia, etc..., The years go by and you continue to persist in not recognizing that you have very particular anti-values, vices and defects that make you disgusting to a gigantic number of people of different races, sex, creed, philosophy and political affiliation. The years go by and you still prefer to believe that many of us who marginalize you do so because of a mere difference of opinion when the truth is that we do so because of insurmountable differences on fundamental things. The years go by and you still do not realize that it is convenient to avoid friendly or cordial interactions with you, because you have a reputation that can cause others an effect similar to that of the rotten apple in the basket. I do not doubt that there are also people who marginalize you for trivial things, but that does not change anything of the above. My taste for intellectual dialectics inclines me to be tolerant of the idea of discussing in a more or less respectful way with certain people who would hardly be my friends, as indeed are some white supremacists who oppose miscegenation in their countries, or some leftists from old school who aspire to the world dictatorship of the proletariat. But that kind of tolerance in no way applies to you, as I'm not the type of person to discuss cordially with someone who has proven dangerously prone to becoming "emotionally" and intimately involved with 14-year-old teen girls (and probably even younger if the occasion arises). In fact, except for very few cases, I find it much less uncomfortable to have confrontational and offensive discussions with people who disgust me more than you (especially when they hate me) than to have respectful discussions with someone like you (especially when they admire or esteem me despite the fact that I walk all over them) I pointed these things out to you years ago, but your enormous lack of self-criticism prevented you from understanding it then, such just as it is preventing you now. Fortunately, that lack of self-criticism that it doesn't let you correcting yourself and fixing your life is the same one that years ago served me - along with other tools - to manipulate you and lead you to a rapid self-sabotage with that teen girl, and also... haha Anyway, while I take my time to decide on this matter, I'll start my ignore and blocked list with you. I have never applied this measure in MAL or any other online forum (not even with users that I find more despicable than you) but since for a clingy without self-respect like you it is much worse to be ignored than to be humiliated, I consider it convenient to follow the example of other users and upgrade my despise of you. It is better for you that I not to find out that you are still playing with fire and pray to your luck so that my little compassionate side move me to take into account the strong depression for what you are probably going through right now. |
_Nemrod_Apr 24, 2023 6:43 AM
|
| @_Nemrod_: It seems to have caused much rather you lasting trauma if you cannot get over our dispute that had already lost is relevance long time ago I have adhered to your wish by not contacting you directly in a personal and/or private conversation. As this is a public forums, I was thinking you would be able to view it as a mere exchange of opinions on a specific topic Anyway, no one forces you to respond if you do not want to. You do have very interesting and inspiring posts even when we don't agree with everything Good to see you didn't fall for the Covid-scare, though If you are interested and have time, "Never 7: The End of Infinity" has a very interesting take on this matter (I recommend the love2d/love engine) and this flowchart to reach the Curé route |
NoboruApr 24, 2023 10:47 AM
| I typed this on my laptop. My laptop is a real external thing that exists. While typing, it was resting on a table. The table is also a real external thing that exists. Therefore at least two objective, external things exist. Therefore, an objective, external world exists. If any skeptical hypothesis implies that these are not true, then the hypothesis is false. Simple as. Hope I helped end the debate. |
Freshell said: I typed this on my laptop. My laptop is a real external thing that exists. While typing, it was resting on a table. The table is also a real external thing that exists. Therefore at least two objective, external things exist. Therefore, an objective, external world exists. If any skeptical hypothesis implies that these are not true, then the hypothesis is false. Simple as. Hope I helped end the debate. Yes, but you can't prove those things actually exist as you perceive them. As per the simulation hypothesis (etc.), those things perceived as objective external objects could all be an illusion inside your mind. Of course, there's no real reason to believe we're in a simulation; still, we can't prove we aren't. For what it's worth, I do also believe there is an objective external world. |
SmugSatokoApr 24, 2023 12:40 PM
|
More topics from this board
» Are conventions still worth it?GatoDeBarro - Dec 17, 2022 |
17 |
by animeadept
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
» Anime convention storiesPAPOrr - Apr 19, 2023 |
10 |
by animeadept
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Do you think we will have Terminator-like robots or will we have Detroit Become Human-like robots in the future?Absurdo_N - 1 hour ago |
1 |
by MalchikRepaid
»»
12 minutes ago |
|
» Aliens and religion ?Acnera - Jul 2, 2016 |
18 |
by xMizu_
»»
15 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Which house would be yours in Harry Potter?Absurdo_N - 11 hours ago |
13 |
by traed
»»
16 minutes ago |