:roll:

Isn't that still solipsism? As I point out, whether god or my ego, only that "self" is real to itself.

Nice my line of thinking goes similar to yours in the post right above yours.

That is your conclusion frank. But again it’s subject to interpretation if there is only divine mind and we’re all manifestations of it then solipsism has a case.

Should I elaborate ? — Deus

The human mind is supposed to be a dim reflection of the divine mind. How do you pull solipsism out of that?

Also you misspelled emanation.

Yup I considered this would be part of the counter-argument.

The answer, well my answer is this. As the mind is a product of the divine then the argument is this … and now I have to quote an old text…is it the bible ?

“Man was created in the image of God”

Edit: Genesis 1:27

So a human is a tiny god?

I’d happy settle for son of God. Turning water into wine is a nifty trick

Nah, the One is not conscious on its own, and creation spreads out, further and further from intellect into the darkness of matter. Then starts a return journey to the One. This is the original Eternal Return. There's no solipsism in there.

Isn't that still solipsism? As I point out, whether god or my ego, only that "self" is real to itself. — 180 Proof

Maybe. I'm struggling to see it however and I'm not an idealist. I guess you're saying there is no functional difference.

So I understand solipsism to be the argument that only my mind exists and everything is 'created' by me. The second version of idealism seems to hold the idea that external reality exists, as do other minds but there is nothing but consciousness and all his part of a great mind.

You're saying that

whether god or my ego, only that "self" is real to itself. — 180 Proof

Is there not a difference... but perhaps they have similar implications. I think I need an essay on the subject. :groan:

To many assumptions on your part for me to address fully.

Regarding the spread out into the “darkness of matter” as it’s part of the one then it’s part of the whole.

Therefore if there is only one then we come back to solipsism.

Though ego might dismiss the existence of other which is where solipsism falls short.

:ok:

Hey, I'm not an idealist/solipsist either so ... :sweat:

I've said it before. I'll say it again. Questions about our reality are not science.
— T Clark
:fire: — 180 Proof

Thinking about it, I edited my previous post to read "Questions about the nature of our reality are not science." The original seemed a bit ambiguous.

:up:

Not anymore, not with the Wigner's friend experiment evidently. Now science and philosophy are becoming one and the same or at least blending.

Actually they are when it comes to quantum physics.

Actually they are when it comes to quantum physics. — Darkneos

:up:

I'm just going by what the links say. At some point it seems like QM drifts into philosophy with how weird stuff gets after a certain level, as shown in this experiment.

https://qr.ae/pveiQl

Though to be fair the post also says it says nothing new about QM and in the previous experiments like it (and including this one) we can't draw any hard conclusions. But that won't stop sensationalist titles from emerging.

Wigner's friend is one of the problems associated with wave function collapse. It may be that there is no "collapse."

We know that what is true for one observer need not be true for another. What the Principle of Relativity requires is that physics be formulated in such a way that they can be consistently transformed from one observer's perspective to another's. That Fred sees particles that we don't see does not breach the laws of physics provided they say that if we were looking from where Fred is, we would see those particles.

Objectivity need not - does not - require that we all see the same thing. It does require that our explanations be consistent.

Not anymore, not with the Wigner's friend experiment evidently. Now science and philosophy are becoming one and the same or at least blending. — Darkneos

Massimo Pigliucci and I disagree.

Objectivity need not - does not - require that we all see the same thing. It does require that our explanations be consistent. — Banno

Then, if objectivity owes itself to its perception then the requirement of explanation is not required ?

That is if observation is universal. Otherwise frameworks are required which Einstein provided.

Objectivity need not - does not - require that we all see the same thing. It does require that our explanations be consistent. — Banno

The challenge QM gives us, at least with the Copenhagen interpretation, is nature of a system that's in superposition. The problem is that it has no particular state. This isn't what we usually imagine when we think about the universe.

This interpretation isn't necessarily correct, but it's an example of what QM suggests about the reality of our universe.

Then, if objectivity owes itself to its perception then the requirement of explanation is not required ? — Deus

What?

I understand your confusion. If perception was all there was then assume we had no outlet for explanation. Perception and not just cognition would explain emergent behaviour of the laws of physics. The constants and the variables.

If perception was all there was... — Deus

But it isn't.

The point is this Ozzie, explanation is only an aid to understanding reality for Perception achieves the same thing without it.

Then explanation can only be useful if it’s aim of being the descriptor of such observation is as accurate as perception was to those laws it tries to comprehend.

The challenge QM gives us, at least with the Copenhagen interpretation, is nature of a system that's in superposition. — frank

I'm not going to play at physics. I'll leave that to physicist.

The problem is that it has no particular state. — frank

But that's not right. The ball will fall with a particular acceleration. That is a system with a particular state. There's detail needed here, and it is indeed quite difficult to create superstitions.

Certainly, any jump to "nothing is real" is unjustified.

explanation is only an aid to understanding reality for Perception achieves the same thing without it. — Deus

That you think this is why you have so much difficulty with these notions.

There are perceptions, and there are things perceived. The only situations in which you doubt this are those such as when you are posting on PF.

But there is no doubt here for my tools of observation that perceive the object are only for the recognition of its existence. Holding that my apparatus (eyes, telescope, microscope) are not being fed an illusion of the object being observed.

Because then we have a problem as to doubt what I perceive is to admit that it’s a convincing holograph with state properties.

Certainly, any jump to "nothing is real" is unjustified. — Banno

Is the most you can perhaps say, 'the nature of materialism isn't what we though it was' ?

I'm not going to play at physics. I'll leave that to physicist. — Banno

Indeed. One wouldn't dream of claiming to know how to pilot a fighter jet, yet people with no expertise, are indefatigably certain about theoretical physics and reality.