The metaphysics of objects

[Ginkgo]

I would be interested in reading that, is there some way I can read it on this web site?[/quote]

If you google:

Smetham Know-To-Be-False Philosophies of Mind

Should be in the first couple of links

[SpheresOfBalance]

Objects are conceptual creations, and in this respect can include as much or as little as we need to include. So for instance we could say a pencil is an object, or a pencil case which is full of pencils, or we can go the whole hog and say the universe is an object.

All differentiation is subjective, so in terms of any reality which is independent of perception, there are no objects, only the potential of energy to be experienced as an event, so objects are formed by the mind in our interpretation and understanding of the metaphysical reality of experience and experienced.

Energy and consciousness are what we experience as reality, one is percieved, and one is perceiver, without either there can be no actual event.

That's a fine fairytale, but incorrect.

I'm reminded of the thought experiment, similar to your last, above: If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? To some, would be, philosophers the answer is, "no," as no one is there to witness the event. However in truth the answer is, "yes," independent of observation. If it was asked if it made a "noise," then "no" would be correct, as noise is subjective. Sound however is not, by definition, subjective nor dependent upon witness, as evidenced by definition 2 found on Dictionary.com Unabridged. Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.

sound (1) [sound] noun
2. mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 feet (331 meters) per second at sea level.

Clearly the definition is a characterization, of a natural event on planet earth, which happens independent of human interaction, and has happened long before humans ever existed to characterize such naturally occurring events, whatever they may actually be, or what entity takes notice, and then reports such by whatever means, and in whatever way. Humans simply gave reference to a naturally occurring event that they happened to be capable of coming upon.

I continually worry about those of egocentricity (humancentricity) As these are the ones that usually make the biggest mistakes, relative to the truth of the universe, and thus our continuance in it.

Your statement is simply an assumption, based on your sensory knowledge of the universe.
Not at all, it's called scientific experiment, and is repeatable; you know, empirical evidence. What you meant to say was sensory information 'born' of, by and for the universe, you see what many seemingly forget is that all humans are born of the universe, in fact we are made up of bits and pieces, of the universe. We are a construct of the universe, so who better to report on the facts of it, eventually. People like you that think you've found some clever way of simply saying that our minds are separate from the universe are wrong, it's simply a word game. You even go so far as to contradict yourself, as in the last paragraph below, you then say that everything is one, within the universe, make up your mind please. As animals that are a product of the universe, and because we and the universe are in fact one thing, where the universe came first, it's easy to see that our sensors, came into existence because of the universe, It's not that we have to make the universe fit our foreign sensors, but rather that the universe created our sensors, with it's components, such that we can sense it. They do not lie, as the universe created them. Please look to the physics of the universe for your answer.

All the subjective concepts you use to differentiate reality, are absent if there is no conscious acknowledgement of events.
At least I, do not differentiate reality, It is a whole, that has many physical properties, that we take notice of and report as facts. We do this because we did not start at the beginning, we came at the end, such that we have to backwards engineer the universe, and thus it's reality. If we had been around since it's dawn, we could take one instantaneous complete sensor reading and see it all, complete with all it's constituents, seeing the one reality, instantaneously down to smallest of small particles, and the biggest of big bangs. But we can only go slow, to reverse engineer something so vast.

I'm sorry that you differentiate, such that you think it a given. Conscious acknowledgement is correct, now you've finally got it, though I fear you don't understand it.


What is the substance of the universe when there is no conscious evaluation taking place?
Exactly what it is! Before man, if a big bang, went bang, and star X went supernova, and asteroid Z collided with asteroid Y

It's not evaluation, which says that man injects his own bits into the mix, rather it's recording. This does not mean that some men, like you, do not inject their own ideas into reality to make it their own, Which is why they're often incorrect, but some of us just listen, watch and feel, without injecting incorrect assumptions.

You can't answer this question without using concepts created by our conscious assessment of reality, and the reason you can't answer without applying conceptual definitions is because objective independence is metaphysical, and can only be thought of as elusive energy, which has no independent differentiating qualitative aspect without the quantifying effect of evaluation. 
Speak for yourself, your words do not take people such as me into account, our minds are products of the universe. I'm sorry that you feel at odds with the reality of the universe, but that's not my problem, it's yours.


If you think events take place when there is no conscious quantification, then begin by telling me what substance exhibits this independent behaviour, and what differentiates one part from the next?
Contemplate this saying for it's meaning and apply it to the sentence above and I believe you'll find your error. "A rose by any other name smells just as sweet." Any specific human quantification matters not. The universe works as it does, without us even being here. Substances exhibit the laws of physics, what ever they may be. Differentiation of things is determined by the absolute truth of the universe, it's physics, that is the way all this works, man can only try and backwards engineer it, come to terms with it, acknowledge it, and as he does, if he be smart, he continually revises his view of it, such that he may one day take an instant sensor reading, and see the whole of it, at the exact same time, that he sees all the workings of it, the entirety of it's constituents, as they work together to create the whole. But make no mistake, what ever the truth of it, the facts, the reality, if man doesn't survive himself, they shall all still exist as events as they currently do, like they did before man, or for that matter life, ever existed. Mans arrogance is that he thinks that he matters above all else, untrue!

Finally, the last point of truth: You have a problem with mans concepts of reality, while you merely have concepts of mans concepts. If you state that mans concepts of reality are incorrect, then what about mans concepts of mans concepts? If you say that man cannot reason the object of his origin, then you surely can't reason mans reason, as mans reason was born of the object. Only through the reason of his origin can man finally understand himself. Your argument defeats itself on so many levels it's not funny.

Yours is just a word game, created by those that get lost, in mans concepts.

[James Markham]

Objects are conceptual creations, and in this respect can include as much or as little as we need to include. So for instance we could say a pencil is an object, or a pencil case which is full of pencils, or we can go the whole hog and say the universe is an object.

All differentiation is subjective, so in terms of any reality which is independent of perception, there are no objects, only the potential of energy to be experienced as an event, so objects are formed by the mind in our interpretation and understanding of the metaphysical reality of experience and experienced.

Energy and consciousness are what we experience as reality, one is percieved, and one is perceiver, without either there can be no actual event.

That's a fine fairytale, but incorrect.

I'm reminded of the thought experiment, similar to your last, above: If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? To some, would be, philosophers the answer is, "no," as no one is there to witness the event. However in truth the answer is, "yes," independent of observation. If it was asked if it made a "noise," then "no" would be correct, as noise is subjective. Sound however is not, by definition, subjective nor dependent upon witness, as evidenced by definition 2 found on Dictionary.com Unabridged. Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.

sound (1) [sound] noun
2. mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 feet (331 meters) per second at sea level.

Clearly the definition is a characterization, of a natural event on planet earth, which happens independent of human interaction, and has happened long before humans ever existed to characterize such naturally occurring events, whatever they may actually be, or what entity takes notice, and then reports such by whatever means, and in whatever way. Humans simply gave reference to a naturally occurring event that they happened to be capable of coming upon.

I continually worry about those of egocentricity (humancentricity) As these are the ones that usually make the biggest mistakes, relative to the truth of the universe, and thus our continuance in it.[/quote]

Your statement is simply an assumption, based on your sensory knowledge of the universe.
Not at all, it's called scientific experiment, and is repeatable; you know, empirical evidence. What you meant to say was sensory information 'born' of, by and for the universe, you see what many seemingly forget is that all humans are born of the universe, in fact we are made up of bits and pieces, of the universe. We are a construct of the universe, so who better to report on the facts of it, eventually. People like you that think you've found some clever way of simply saying that our minds are separate from the universe are wrong, it's simply a word game. You even go so far as to contradict yourself, as in the last paragraph below, you then say that everything is one, within the universe, make up your mind please. As animals that are a product of the universe, and because we and the universe are in fact one thing, where the universe came first, it's easy to see that our sensors, came into existence because of the universe, It's not that we have to make the universe fit our foreign sensors, but rather that the universe created our sensors, with it's components, such that we can sense it. They do not lie, as the universe created them. Please look to the physics of the universe for your answer.

All the subjective concepts you use to differentiate reality, are absent if there is no conscious acknowledgement of events.
At least I, do not differentiate reality, It is a whole, that has many physical properties, that we take notice of and report as facts. We do this because we did not start at the beginning, we came at the end, such that we have to backwards engineer the universe, and thus it's reality. If we had been around since it's dawn, we could take one instantaneous complete sensor reading and see it all, complete with all it's constituents, seeing the one reality, instantaneously down to smallest of small particles, and the biggest of big bangs. But we can only go slow, to reverse engineer something so vast.

I'm sorry that you differentiate, such that you think it a given. Conscious acknowledgement is correct, now you've finally got it, though I fear you don't understand it.


What is the substance of the universe when there is no conscious evaluation taking place?
Exactly what it is! Before man, if a big bang, went bang, and star X went supernova, and asteroid Z collided with asteroid Y

It's not evaluation, which says that man injects his own bits into the mix, rather it's recording. This does not mean that some men, like you, do not inject their own ideas into reality to make it their own, Which is why they're often incorrect, but some of us just listen, watch and feel, without injecting incorrect assumptions.

You can't answer this question without using concepts created by our conscious assessment of reality, and the reason you can't answer without applying conceptual definitions is because objective independence is metaphysical, and can only be thought of as elusive energy, which has no independent differentiating qualitative aspect without the quantifying effect of evaluation. 
Speak for yourself, your words do not take people such as me into account, our minds are products of the universe. I'm sorry that you feel at odds with the reality of the universe, but that's not my problem, it's yours.


If you think events take place when there is no conscious quantification, then begin by telling me what substance exhibits this independent behaviour, and what differentiates one part from the next?
Contemplate this saying for it's meaning and apply it to the sentence above and I believe you'll find your error. "A rose by any other name smells just as sweet." Any specific human quantification matters not. The universe works as it does, without us even being here. Substances exhibit the laws of physics, what ever they may be. Differentiation of things is determined by the absolute truth of the universe, it's physics, that is the way all this works, man can only try and backwards engineer it, come to terms with it, acknowledge it, and as he does, if he be smart, he continually revises his view of it, such that he may one day take an instant sensor reading, and see the whole of it, at the exact same time, that he sees all the workings of it, the entirety of it's constituents, as they work together to create the whole. But make no mistake, what ever the truth of it, the facts, the reality, if man doesn't survive himself, they shall all still exist as events as they currently do, like they did before man, or for that matter life, ever existed. Mans arrogance is that he thinks that he matters above all else, untrue!
[/quote]

Finally, the last point of truth: You have a problem with mans concepts of reality, while you merely have concepts of mans concepts. If you state that mans concepts of reality are incorrect, then what about mans concepts of mans concepts? If you say that man cannot reason the object of his origin, then you surely can't reason mans reason, as mans reason was born of the object. Only through the reason of his origin can man finally understand himself. Your argument defeats itself on so many levels it's not funny.

Yours is just a word game, created by those that get lost, in mans concepts.[/quote]

So in other words what your saying is, I'm right.
I can also see from your response that your a bit of a p****, and because talking to pricks and reading their stupid responses is not a hobby of mine, I'll leave you to your delusional believe in your ability to think intelligently.

Whatever your response to this is, it won't receive an answer from me, I won't even bother reading it, so go ahead and appease your inflated ego, but whatever bullshit you write will pass into the realm of pointless shit, and I'll still be right, because I'm observant, and your thick as shit!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Objects are conceptual creations, and in this respect can include as much or as little as we need to include. So for instance we could say a pencil is an object, or a pencil case which is full of pencils, or we can go the whole hog and say the universe is an object.

All differentiation is subjective, so in terms of any reality which is independent of perception, there are no objects, only the potential of energy to be experienced as an event, so objects are formed by the mind in our interpretation and understanding of the metaphysical reality of experience and experienced.

Energy and consciousness are what we experience as reality, one is percieved, and one is perceiver, without either there can be no actual event.

That's a fine fairytale, but incorrect.

I'm reminded of the thought experiment, similar to your last, above: If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? To some, would be, philosophers the answer is, "no," as no one is there to witness the event. However in truth the answer is, "yes," independent of observation. If it was asked if it made a "noise," then "no" would be correct, as noise is subjective. Sound however is not, by definition, subjective nor dependent upon witness, as evidenced by definition 2 found on Dictionary.com Unabridged. Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.

sound (1) [sound] noun
2. mechanical vibrations transmitted through an elastic medium, traveling in air at a speed of approximately 1087 feet (331 meters) per second at sea level.

Clearly the definition is a characterization, of a natural event on planet earth, which happens independent of human interaction, and has happened long before humans ever existed to characterize such naturally occurring events, whatever they may actually be, or what entity takes notice, and then reports such by whatever means, and in whatever way. Humans simply gave reference to a naturally occurring event that they happened to be capable of coming upon.

I continually worry about those of egocentricity (humancentricity) As these are the ones that usually make the biggest mistakes, relative to the truth of the universe, and thus our continuance in it.

Your statement is simply an assumption, based on your sensory knowledge of the universe.
Not at all, it's called scientific experiment, and is repeatable; you know, empirical evidence. What you meant to say was sensory information 'born' of, by and for the universe, you see what many seemingly forget is that all humans are born of the universe, in fact we are made up of bits and pieces, of the universe. We are a construct of the universe, so who better to report on the facts of it, eventually. People like you that think you've found some clever way of simply saying that our minds are separate from the universe are wrong, it's simply a word game. You even go so far as to contradict yourself, as in the last paragraph below, you then say that everything is one, within the universe, make up your mind please. As animals that are a product of the universe, and because we and the universe are in fact one thing, where the universe came first, it's easy to see that our sensors, came into existence because of the universe, It's not that we have to make the universe fit our foreign sensors, but rather that the universe created our sensors, with it's components, such that we can sense it. They do not lie, as the universe created them. Please look to the physics of the universe for your answer.

All the subjective concepts you use to differentiate reality, are absent if there is no conscious acknowledgement of events.
At least I, do not differentiate reality, It is a whole, that has many physical properties, that we take notice of and report as facts. We do this because we did not start at the beginning, we came at the end, such that we have to backwards engineer the universe, and thus it's reality. If we had been around since it's dawn, we could take one instantaneous complete sensor reading and see it all, complete with all it's constituents, seeing the one reality, instantaneously down to smallest of small particles, and the biggest of big bangs. But we can only go slow, to reverse engineer something so vast.

I'm sorry that you differentiate, such that you think it a given. Conscious acknowledgement is correct, now you've finally got it, though I fear you don't understand it.


What is the substance of the universe when there is no conscious evaluation taking place?
Exactly what it is! Before man, if a big bang, went bang, and star X went supernova, and asteroid Z collided with asteroid Y

It's not evaluation, which says that man injects his own bits into the mix, rather it's recording. This does not mean that some men, like you, do not inject their own ideas into reality to make it their own, Which is why they're often incorrect, but some of us just listen, watch and feel, without injecting incorrect assumptions.

You can't answer this question without using concepts created by our conscious assessment of reality, and the reason you can't answer without applying conceptual definitions is because objective independence is metaphysical, and can only be thought of as elusive energy, which has no independent differentiating qualitative aspect without the quantifying effect of evaluation. 
Speak for yourself, your words do not take people such as me into account, our minds are products of the universe. I'm sorry that you feel at odds with the reality of the universe, but that's not my problem, it's yours.


If you think events take place when there is no conscious quantification, then begin by telling me what substance exhibits this independent behaviour, and what differentiates one part from the next?
Contemplate this saying for it's meaning and apply it to the sentence above and I believe you'll find your error. "A rose by any other name smells just as sweet." Any specific human quantification matters not. The universe works as it does, without us even being here. Substances exhibit the laws of physics, what ever they may be. Differentiation of things is determined by the absolute truth of the universe, it's physics, that is the way all this works, man can only try and backwards engineer it, come to terms with it, acknowledge it, and as he does, if he be smart, he continually revises his view of it, such that he may one day take an instant sensor reading, and see the whole of it, at the exact same time, that he sees all the workings of it, the entirety of it's constituents, as they work together to create the whole. But make no mistake, what ever the truth of it, the facts, the reality, if man doesn't survive himself, they shall all still exist as events as they currently do, like they did before man, or for that matter life, ever existed. Mans arrogance is that he thinks that he matters above all else, untrue!
[/quote]

Finally, the last point of truth: You have a problem with mans concepts of reality, while you merely have concepts of mans concepts. If you state that mans concepts of reality are incorrect, then what about mans concepts of mans concepts? If you say that man cannot reason the object of his origin, then you surely can't reason mans reason, as mans reason was born of the object. Only through the reason of his origin can man finally understand himself. Your argument defeats itself on so many levels it's not funny.

Yours is just a word game, created by those that get lost, in mans concepts.[/quote]

So in other words what your saying is, I'm right.
I can also see from your response that your a bit of a p****, and because talking to pricks and reading their stupid responses is not a hobby of mine, I'll leave you to your delusional believe in your ability to think intelligently.

Whatever your response to this is, it won't receive an answer from me, I won't even bother reading it, so go ahead and appease your inflated ego, but whatever bullshit you write will pass into the realm of pointless shit, and I'll still be right, because I'm observant, and your thick as shit![/quote]
No, since you seem to like shit, it would seem you're a dipshit! Oh and you're wrong, You're just lost in your circles of word play.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Clearly, if a man has a concept that calls into question mans concept of reality, then he also must question that concept, which starts a viscous cycle of never ending layers that get further and further from the truth of things, i.e., the origin of man/the theory of everything. In truth, reality has the best answer as to mans concepts, as reality gave birth to man, and thus his ability to conceptualize. Man is made of one hundred percent star stuff, i.e., reality.
If one says that man cannot reason the object of his origin, then he surely can't reason mans reason, as mans reason was born of the objects of reality; his origin. Only through the reason of his origin can man finally understand mans conceptualization. Any argument to the contrary is illogical.

Discounting events as not existing without an observer fails by the same paradox as time travel. For man to say this, lends to him observing all since the big bang, which after about 13 billion years of an infinite number of events, caused his birth, wherein lies the paradox. Now as to mans 'knowledge' of events, well now that's a completely different thing, now isn't it?

[James Markham]

Ginkgo,I read the article you mentioned, and I agreed with everything it said, it's almost exactly the conclusion I have come to myself, and not only do I believe it to be a true description of reality at the fundamental level, I also see that what it admits of reality as unavoidably necessary.

If we look at our primary interaction with what we understand as the object universe, it can now be proved that our awareness of events, is only possible because at a fundamental level, all particles that make up objects are mutually interchangeable, that is to say that no object can be of an exclusive makeup, and no single object has any inherent indivisible structure. This is now a scientific fact, because if there was some object, whose parts where exclusively theirs, then it's ability to interact, influence and reveal its presence to other objects would not exist, it would necessarily occupy a reality of its own. The only way two objective entities are able to interact, is by virtue of a mutual exchange of their parts, which means their parts are necessarily adaptable as a part of either object, and so once this is acknowledged, it becomes necessary to understand objects as events that rely on a conscious evaluation for their quality and distinction.

So it obviously begs the question of what exists independently of the mind, and the answer is simply nothing, metaphysical potential, which isn't a thing at all, is only potentially something when consciousness exists. So reality consists of an event, which is what we know as energy, only when the event has acknowledgement, which is what we know as consciousness, and the two can never exist exclusively or independently, they are like two sides of one thing, perceiver and perceived together equal a real event.  

 

[Ginkgo]

Ginkgo,I read the article you mentioned, and I agreed with everything it said, it's almost exactly the conclusion I have come to myself, and not only do I believe it to be a true description of reality at the fundamental level, I also see that what it admits of reality as unavoidably necessary.

If we look at our primary interaction with what we understand as the object universe, it can now be proved that our awareness of events, is only possible because at a fundamental level, all particles that make up objects are mutually interchangeable, that is to say that no object can be of an exclusive makeup, and no single object has any inherent indivisible structure. This is now a scientific fact, because if there was some object, whose parts where exclusively theirs, then it's ability to interact, influence and reveal its presence to other objects would not exist, it would necessarily occupy a reality of its own. The only way two objective entities are able to interact, is by virtue of a mutual exchange of their parts, which means their parts are necessarily adaptable as a part of either object, and so once this is acknowledged, it becomes necessary to understand objects as events that rely on a conscious evaluation for their quality and distinction.

So it obviously begs the question of what exists independently of the mind, and the answer is simply nothing, metaphysical potential, which isn't a thing at all, is only potentially something when consciousness exists. So reality consists of an event, which is what we know as energy, only when the event has acknowledgement, which is what we know as consciousness, and the two can never exist exclusively or independently, they are like two sides of one thing, perceiver and perceived together equal a real event.  

 

Einstein liked to think the moon was there even if we wasn't looking at it. So he proposed hidden variables; information encoded in particles that tells these particles how to behave when generated as a pair. He called it "spooky action at a distance."

Bell's theorem shows that there are no hidden variables- thus violating the principle of locality and special relativity. So the evidence is that the quantum world is probabilistic, or as you say, "potentially."

I am happy to go along with what you and Smetham are saying to this point. Most people are.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Any assumptions arrived at from the perspective of the newest theories have potential for being incorrect, as these new theories, usually cannot as yet be certain. Mans knowledge is far too young. But there are those, that just have to force themselves to believe they are heads above the rest, as they buy into any new idea without necessarily fully understanding it's implications. They feel safe in agreeing with those that are supposed to be on the forefront, assuming that their correctness surely is a result of their agreeing with those far smarter than themselves. If they recite, plagiarize through paraphrase, and insinuate their inference in saying that the experts agree with their findings, well then certainly their relatively uneducated peers shall be in awe. These are actually the simplest of parrots, as they have need to puff up their egos at all costs, commonly those of low self esteem, or at least this is how their minds work.

It is arrogant indeed to believe that mans observations decide all events, since the beginning of time. But Like I've said before, these people/parrots have needs to be gods, these types are usually megalomaniacs, and as such are always responsible for mans destructiveness.

Beware and tread with caution, lest ye actually be a fool.

[Ginkgo]

So it obviously begs the question of what exists independently of the mind, and the answer is simply nothing, metaphysical potential, which isn't a thing at all, is only potentially something when consciousness exists. So reality consists of an event, which is what we know as energy, only when the event has acknowledgement, which is what we know as consciousness, and the two can never exist exclusively or independently, they are like two sides of one thing, perceiver and perceived together equal a real event.  

 

From here on in the story gets interesting when we look into the wave-particle duality. The wave interpretation appears to contrast sharply with classical Newtonian physics. Does the wave have a physical reality when we are not looking? Like most things there are two schools of thought.

The Schrodinger equation is a physical interpretation of the wave function. The interpretation of the wave function in terms of probability. Basically this means that the Schrodinger equation is a quantized equivalent of Newtonian physics. The equations gives us the same 'physical' information except in a quantized state. This is why I don't think that there is a "nothingness" when the perceiver and the perception are not interacting.

In this sense I guess that the Schrodinger equation is as real as knowing how to predict the 'future' of a particle if we know its position and momentum as per classical mechanics.

[James Markham]

Ginkgo,I agree, this is indeed the point at which things become interesting, not only that, but this is also the point that we are able to resolve most of the paradoxical implications presented by time, space and mass. It's only once we realise how these three concepts emerge from a metaphysical potential that in itself is none of these things, that we can truly start to see reality in a logical framework.

If we try to imagine what exists without the illustrating influence of conscious evaluation, it can be seen that whatever it is, it's not physical, spatial or temporal. Science would label it pure energy, which scientifically translates as the potential for events to occur, and I think it's important to understand that without consciousness, energy has no distinction, or differentiation. So although it has the potential to create conceptual understanding, without that conceptual understanding being alert and focused, it is not in itself a changing (temporal), present (mass), extended (spatial) phenomena. 

So it can only be described in terms of its potential to cause a conscious event within itself, and the subsequent effects of that event, the primary conscious event is an awareness of presence, which in turn causes the construction of a conceptual existence containing space, time and mass as the three primary concepts needed to formulate an intelligent analysis of its self reflection.

Although I'm not religious, I find it hard not to reflect on the parallels with religious doctrine, that a sensible study of reality brings forth.
The similarities with Buddhism are obvious, in that everything is one, and we all exist as perspectives within that singularity, but there are also some allegorical connections with the stories of knowledge leading to the presence of good and evil, that I think are somehow significant.
If there really are ways of existing as innocent perspectives, then the burden of the absolute can never lead to misery and self destructive behaviour, on the other hand, if the absolute truth involves accepting that ultimately we are the awareness of an eternal singularity, then that could lead to a negative despondent attitude, or a euphoric acceptance.

So maybe the stories of Adam and Eve are an allegorical account of our conscious awakening, or reawakening, and the reality of science and Darwinism is a necessary physical construction, which is a vital aspect of our sensible intellectual growth towards an acceptance of the fundamental condition of our existence as the singularity.

I know it starts to sound a bit religious, but I think crucially the two overlap and in part serve to explain each other.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I guess you two believe in ghosts, witches, goblins and god too.

Because as per the definition:

event
e·vent [ih-vent]
noun
1. something that happens or is regarded as happening; an occurrence, especially one of some importance.
2. the outcome, issue, or result of anything: The venture had no successful event.
3. something that occurs in a certain place during a particular interval of time.
4. Physics. in relativity, an occurrence that is sharply localized at a single point in space and instant of time. Compare world point.
5. Sports. any of the contests in a program made up of one sport or of a number of sports: The broad jump event followed the pole vault.

It mentions nothing of consciousness (cognition). It doesn't matter that any part of the universe, that we pluck from it, and call it an event, so as to speak of it, that is actually part of the one universal thing, is subdivided by us, in our consciousness, or not. Whether the universe is only ever one event, or an infinite number of events; what we call it; how we compartmentalize it; or if we are even conscious of it; matters not to it, as it was before we were, it is as we are, and it shall be after we are not. We are inconsequential, as to the universe, other than being a product of it. It occurs whether we are around to witness it and report it or not, as evidenced by our creation, due to the string of events that led to us, unless of course you boys only believe in a god that instantly created us into existence, out of thin air. Then and only then could you have it your way. When a nearby star, goes supernova, a huge asteroid the size of Texas hits us, or we're on axis of a Gamma ray burst in our Milky Way, as it occurs, we shall die whether we are aware of it or not. If you believe otherwise have someone snipe you with a high powered rifle at any arbitrary moment, that you won't be conscious of, and I bet you'll die just the same, your consciousness of the event won't matter one way or the other. Try it, I think you'll see, or maybe not...

[Ginkgo]

I guess you two believe in ghosts, witches, goblins and god too.

Because as per the definition:

event
e·vent [ih-vent]
noun
1. something that happens or is regarded as happening; an occurrence, especially one of some importance.
2. the outcome, issue, or result of anything: The venture had no successful event.
3. something that occurs in a certain place during a particular interval of time.
4. Physics. in relativity, an occurrence that is sharply localized at a single point in space and instant of time. Compare world point.
5. Sports. any of the contests in a program made up of one sport or of a number of sports: The broad jump event followed the pole vault.

It mentions nothing of consciousness (cognition). It doesn't matter that any part of the universe, that we pluck from it, and call it an event, so as to speak of it, that is actually part of the one universal thing, is subdivided by us, in our consciousness, or not. Whether the universe is only ever one event, or an infinite number of events; what we call it; how we compartmentalize it; or if we are even conscious of it; matters not to it, as it was before we were, it is as we are, and it shall be after we are not. We are inconsequential, as to the universe, other than being a product of it. It occurs whether we are around to witness it and report it or not, as evidenced by our creation, due to the string of events that led to us, unless of course you boys only believe in a god that instantly created us into existence, out of thin air. Then and only then could you have it your way. When a nearby star, goes supernova, a huge asteroid the size of Texas hits us, or we're on axis of a Gamma ray burst in our Milky Way, as it occurs, we shall die whether we are aware of it or not. If you believe otherwise have someone snipe you with a high powered rifle at any arbitrary moment, that you won't be conscious of, and I bet you'll die just the same, your consciousness of the event won't matter one way or the other. Try it, I think you'll see, or maybe not...

I can only speak for myself.

I am not sure what this has got to do with anything I am saying, or have said. If you are suggesting that I am claiming that the universe couldn't have existed or will not continue to exist without human consciousness then you have not understood any of my posts to date. I have made no such claim.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I guess you two believe in ghosts, witches, goblins and god too.

Because as per the definition:

event
e·vent [ih-vent]
noun
1. something that happens or is regarded as happening; an occurrence, especially one of some importance.
2. the outcome, issue, or result of anything: The venture had no successful event.
3. something that occurs in a certain place during a particular interval of time.
4. Physics. in relativity, an occurrence that is sharply localized at a single point in space and instant of time. Compare world point.
5. Sports. any of the contests in a program made up of one sport or of a number of sports: The broad jump event followed the pole vault.

It mentions nothing of consciousness (cognition). It doesn't matter that any part of the universe, that we pluck from it, and call it an event, so as to speak of it, that is actually part of the one universal thing, is subdivided by us, in our consciousness, or not. Whether the universe is only ever one event, or an infinite number of events; what we call it; how we compartmentalize it; or if we are even conscious of it; matters not to it, as it was before we were, it is as we are, and it shall be after we are not. We are inconsequential, as to the universe, other than being a product of it. It occurs whether we are around to witness it and report it or not, as evidenced by our creation, due to the string of events that led to us, unless of course you boys only believe in a god that instantly created us into existence, out of thin air. Then and only then could you have it your way. When a nearby star, goes supernova, a huge asteroid the size of Texas hits us, or we're on axis of a Gamma ray burst in our Milky Way, as it occurs, we shall die whether we are aware of it or not. If you believe otherwise have someone snipe you with a high powered rifle at any arbitrary moment, that you won't be conscious of, and I bet you'll die just the same, your consciousness of the event won't matter one way or the other. Try it, I think you'll see, or maybe not...

I can only speak for myself.

I am not sure what this has got to do with anything I am saying, or have said. If you are suggesting that I am claiming that the universe couldn't have existed or will not continue to exist without human consciousness then you have not understood any of my posts to date. I have made no such claim.

Finally, Thank you.

I'm speaking of James Markham's usage of language. Specifically:

Energy and consciousness are what we experience as reality, one is percieved, and one is perceiver, without either there can be no actual event.

Which is definitely opposed to my argument. His words are definitely false, as it doesn't matter that there is no perceiver of him being struck by lightening, while alone in the forest, as his death event shall still in fact happen, as evidenced by the hiker that eventually finds his rotting corpse. It doesn't matter that the hiker has no idea how he died, the lightening-death event still would have happened, despite the fact that no one knows it. He had better make better use of his language skills, if he doesn't want to appear foolish.

[Ginkgo]

I am not sure what this has got to do with anything I am saying, or have said. If you are suggesting that I am claiming that the universe couldn't have existed or will not continue to exist without human consciousness then you have not understood any of my posts to date. I have made no such claim.

Finally, Thank you.

I'm speaking of James Markham's usage of language. Specifically:

Energy and consciousness are what we experience as reality, one is percieved, and one is perceiver, without either there can be no actual event.

Which is definitely opposed to my argument. His words are definitely false, as it doesn't matter that there is no perceiver of him being struck by lightening, while alone in the forest, as his death event shall still in fact happen, as evidenced by the hiker that eventually finds his rotting corpse. It doesn't matter that the hiker has no idea how he died, the lightening-death event still would have happened, despite the fact that no one knows it. He had better make better use of his language skills, if he doesn't want to appear foolish.

It is probably worth keeping in mind that scientific realism is only one interpretation of the events you outline. No doubt it is he most popular interpretation. However, quantum mechanics provides other possible alternatives, provided by many quantum physicists over the years.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I am not sure what this has got to do with anything I am saying, or have said. If you are suggesting that I am claiming that the universe couldn't have existed or will not continue to exist without human consciousness then you have not understood any of my posts to date. I have made no such claim.

Finally, Thank you.

I'm speaking of James Markham's usage of language. Specifically:

Energy and consciousness are what we experience as reality, one is percieved, and one is perceiver, without either there can be no actual event.

Which is definitely opposed to my argument. His words are definitely false, as it doesn't matter that there is no perceiver of him being struck by lightening, while alone in the forest, as his death event shall still in fact happen, as evidenced by the hiker that eventually finds his rotting corpse. It doesn't matter that the hiker has no idea how he died, the lightening-death event still would have happened, despite the fact that no one knows it. He had better make better use of his language skills, if he doesn't want to appear foolish.

It is probably worth keeping in mind that scientific realism is only one interpretation of the events you outline. No doubt it is he most popular interpretation. However, quantum mechanics provides other possible alternatives, provided by many quantum physicists over the years.

And I understand exactly what you're saying, as they are attractive to many, but one has to ask why it's so alluring, study the implications, as they might pertain to any particular life form, that's ever fearful of its survival, as I also realize that the study of quantum physics is a safe haven for many a, would be, amateur physicists. And no, I'm not necessarily pointing any fingers.

I have a question Ginko, I've seen you around quit a bit, and we've exchanged comments on several occasions. I have always valued your abilities, and most importantly, your demeanor.

What do you know about the slit experiment? What was the material used to house the slits? How thick was it? Wasn't it in fact two slits side by side? What were the dimensions of all the geometric aspects of this, slit containing plate, including tolerances? What were it's properties with respect to electrons striking it? What type of electron gun was used? Was the trajectory of the electrons, precisely perpendicular to the slit containing material? Was the gun such, that it fired all electrons across the surface of the plate, simultaneously? If so, what was the pitch between the streams? If not, was the electron source articulated to achieve 100% coverage? If so, in what way? Etc, etc etc! My point being, do you know and understand all measurements and considerations that are required to ensure that the answer given is absolutely true, despite all other possibilities, or did you just read a source, and take their word for it? In other words, do you know the experiment well enough, to know for 'yourself,' that it's 100% infallible? A simple yes or no answer to the last question shall surely generate a plethora of specific questions additional to the others above, until all is satisfied. I'm just saying, in order for you to know, they would be required, if you claim so.