Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In

[seeds]

Here at 53:51 -why the human factor is pivotal to reality
https://youtu.be/f_4nYgrDJvc?t=3231

Here at 54:30
https://youtu.be/f_4nYgrDJvc?t=3270

He stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

In way, humans are the co-creator of the reality and the moral reality they are in and talked about.

You make some good points, VA, however, I suggest that it is a misnomer to call humans the “co-creators” of the reality of the universe.

As per my standard spiel on this topic, we should instead be viewed in the highly metaphorical sense of being like the “subsequent lasers” in a laser hologram that shine-in to a photographic plate (a parallel to the quantum realm)...

...and thus explicate three-dimensional phenomena into existence from the “pre-existing” patterns of information that are already imbued within the photographic emulsion.

All of which represents a system of which none of us had anything whatsoever to do with its initial creation.
_______

[Atla]

You make some good points, VA, however, I suggest that it is a misnomer to call humans the “co-creators” of the reality of the universe.

As per my standard spiel on this topic, we should instead be viewed in the highly metaphorical sense of being like the “subsequent lasers” in a laser hologram that shine-in to a photographic plate (a parallel to the quantum realm)...

...and thus explicate three-dimensional phenomena into existence from the “pre-existing” patterns of information that are already imbued within the photographic emulsion.

All of which represents a system of which none of us had anything whatsoever to do with its initial creation.
_______

And here's the next one who jumped to the word 'quantum', and came up with some unhinged bullshit which has nothing to do with the actual science, on more levels than one. No one cares about your seeds theory, which you so desperately want to be true.

[seeds]

You make some good points, VA, however, I suggest that it is a misnomer to call humans the “co-creators” of the reality of the universe.

As per my standard spiel on this topic, we should instead be viewed in the highly metaphorical sense of being like the “subsequent lasers” in a laser hologram that shine-in to a photographic plate (a parallel to the quantum realm)...

...and thus explicate three-dimensional phenomena into existence from the “pre-existing” patterns of information that are already imbued within the photographic emulsion.

All of which represents a system of which none of us had anything whatsoever to do with its initial creation.
_______

And here's the next one who jumped to the word 'quantum', and came up with some unhinged bullshit which has nothing to do with the actual science, on more levels than one. No one cares about your seeds theory, which you so desperately want to be true.

Clearly, someone who once stated the following...

I have long suspected that I'm the only person left on this forum who is both intelligent and has a clue, but now I'm finally completely certain of it. This isn't even funny anymore so I'm off, I'm just making a fool of myself by being here.

...is not to be trifled with.

Anyway, you at least got the last part right.
_______

[Atla]

You make some good points, VA, however, I suggest that it is a misnomer to call humans the “co-creators” of the reality of the universe.

As per my standard spiel on this topic, we should instead be viewed in the highly metaphorical sense of being like the “subsequent lasers” in a laser hologram that shine-in to a photographic plate (a parallel to the quantum realm)...

...and thus explicate three-dimensional phenomena into existence from the “pre-existing” patterns of information that are already imbued within the photographic emulsion.

All of which represents a system of which none of us had anything whatsoever to do with its initial creation.
_______

And here's the next one who jumped to the word 'quantum', and came up with some unhinged bullshit which has nothing to do with the actual science, on more levels than one. No one cares about your seeds theory, which you so desperately want to be true.

Clearly, someone who once stated the following...

I have long suspected that I'm the only person left on this forum who is both intelligent and has a clue, but now I'm finally completely certain of it. This isn't even funny anymore so I'm off, I'm just making a fool of myself by being here.

...is not to be trifled with.

Anyway, you at least got the last part right.
_______

Hehe you got me, I forgot I wrote that one. Anyway I'm just here on this forum anymore to make fun of all the nonsense.

[Dubious]

...very true causing all of truth as we expound it to be relative and not as assumed coordinated with fact. As "Co-Creators" we are given that right as a necessity for our own existence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here at 53:51 -why the human factor is pivotal to reality
https://youtu.be/f_4nYgrDJvc?t=3231

Here at 54:30
https://youtu.be/f_4nYgrDJvc?t=3270

He stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

In way, humans are the co-creator of the reality and the moral reality they are in and talked about.

You make some good points, VA, however, I suggest that it is a misnomer to call humans the “co-creators” of the reality of the universe.

As per my standard spiel on this topic, we should instead be viewed in the highly metaphorical sense of being like the “subsequent lasers” in a laser hologram that shine-in to a photographic plate (a parallel to the quantum realm)...

...and thus explicate three-dimensional phenomena into existence from the “pre-existing” patterns of information that are already imbued within the photographic emulsion.

All of which represents a system of which none of us had anything whatsoever to do with its initial creation.
_______

I stated, "In [a] way, we are co-creators of the reality we talk about."
I did not specify earlier, I was injecting the Kantian view into it, i.e.
generally there are no-things-in-themselves thus there are only things-by-ourselves & whatever.
The specific philosophy is more complex and entailing the whole of Kant CPR.

However from the common sense and conventional view, logically we [humans] are the co-creator of reality which we are part and parcel of.
Reality is all there is and humans are part and parcel of reality.
For example at time-t1 we have reality1.
At t2, even if one farted, [coughed, did whatever actions] one has already co-created reality2 and the series of reality which could end up with a hurricane in the other end of one's world.
Whatever you do from t1reality1, you are co-creating reality2 from t2 onwards.

So if we put Kantian aside, logically and rationally we [humans] are the co-creators of the reality we are part and parcel of and talked about.
Agree, disagree??

[Veritas Aequitas]

I love Jim Al-Khalili ! You are safe if you understand what he is saying, and the summary posted by Veritas is a good one. I seldom watch videos, have not seen this one, but but I recommend it as it is by Jim A;-Khalili. Actually I believe | have heard Jim Al-Khalili on TV explaining that very topic.

there are moral facts that are conditioned and justified [empirically and philosophically] upon its specific Framework and System.

Noted.
Professor Jim Al-Kahlili appear to be very credible. I have not listened to all his presentation and videos yet.
The video of Quantum Physics is one of the most comprehensive one [so well organized thematically] I have ever listened to that present the very essentials of QM at one go in one hour.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1 If we co-create the reality we are in, who or what is the co-creator of that reality?

2 We are part of the reality we are in. So if we co-reate that reality, then we co-create our selves, including our perception and understanding of that reality. So who or what is the 'we' doing the co-creating? Just another co-creation?

3 If we co-create what we call facts, it doesn't follow that we co-create moral facts. For example, if we co-create what we call the fact that water is H2O, it doesn't follow that the moral wrongness of killing humans is the same kind of co-created fact.

Note my response to Seeds above.
viewtopic.php?p=483622#p483622

From the above, it is demonstrated and justified we are the co-creators of the reality we are part and parcel of.
As such whatever is fact, we are the co-creators of those facts.
There are moral facts, therefore we are the co-creators of the moral facts.

The above are mere assertions of moral facts.
What is needed to is to verify and justify the moral facts empirically and philosophically as real, and imperatively within a moral framework and system.

4 From 'humans co-create reality', it doesn't follow that 'therefore there is a moral reality'.

Whatever is of a co-created reality as asserted, it must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically as real, and imperatively within a framework and system of reality[FSR].

I have verified and justified empirically and philosophically moral reality as real within a moral framework and system of reality[FSR]

5 This appeal to quantum mechanics is a massive category error, and anyway does nothing to support moral objectivism.

1. First QM [reality is interdependent with humans as co-creators] debunked your idea of 'what is fact' [i.e. state-of-affair, feature of reality] which at the ultimate level is independent of human conditions.

2. As such you don't have an exclusive claim to your linguistic based what-is-fact [which is a bastardized linguistic fact not directly interactive with reality].
Thus my verifiable and justifiable moral facts do exist within a moral framework and system that deals with morality that confirms,
moral facts are co-created by humans.

3. What is objectivity is dependent on the credibility of features of the Framework and System, i.e. verifiability, testing, repeatability, falsifiability, consistency, etc. to its truth and factual claims.
I have stated the scientific FSR is the standard-bearer of the highest objectivity.
My moral framework and system is similar in quality to the scientific FSR, thus will have similar objectivity.

4. Therefore QM in 1 via 2 and 3 support moral realism and moral objectivity.

[Peter Holmes]

1 If we co-create the reality we are in, who or what is the co-creator of that reality?

2 We are part of the reality we are in. So if we co-reate that reality, then we co-create our selves, including our perception and understanding of that reality. So who or what is the 'we' doing the co-creating? Just another co-creation?

3 If we co-create what we call facts, it doesn't follow that we co-create moral facts. For example, if we co-create what we call the fact that water is H2O, it doesn't follow that the moral wrongness of killing humans is the same kind of co-created fact.

Note my response to Seeds above.
viewtopic.php?p=483622#p483622

From the above, it is demonstrated and justified we are the co-creators of the reality we are part and parcel of.
As such whatever is fact, we are the co-creators of those facts.
There are moral facts, therefore we are the co-creators of the moral facts.

The above are mere assertions of moral facts.
What is needed to is to verify and justify the moral facts empirically and philosophically as real, and imperatively within a moral framework and system.

4 From 'humans co-create reality', it doesn't follow that 'therefore there is a moral reality'.

Whatever is of a co-created reality as asserted, it must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically as real, and imperatively within a framework and system of reality[FSR].

I have verified and justified empirically and philosophically moral reality as real within a moral framework and system of reality[FSR]

5 This appeal to quantum mechanics is a massive category error, and anyway does nothing to support moral objectivism.

1. First QM [reality is interdependent with humans as co-creators] debunked your idea of 'what is fact' [i.e. state-of-affair, feature of reality] which at the ultimate level is independent of human conditions.

2. As such you don't have an exclusive claim to your linguistic based what-is-fact [which is a bastardized linguistic fact not directly interactive with reality].
Thus my verifiable and justifiable moral facts do exist within a moral framework and system that deals with morality that confirms,
moral facts are co-created by humans.

3. What is objectivity is dependent on the credibility of features of the Framework and System, i.e. verifiability, testing, repeatability, falsifiability, consistency, etc. to its truth and factual claims.
I have stated the scientific FSR is the standard-bearer of the highest objectivity.
My moral framework and system is similar in quality to the scientific FSR, thus will have similar objectivity.

4. Therefore QM in 1 via 2 and 3 support moral realism and moral objectivity.

So, as I thought, this little excursion through quantum mechanics makes absolutely no difference to your argument. The facts that we supposedly co-create have to be 'verified and justified empirically and philosophically as real' - though this reality is one we have supposedly co-created.

Okay, how can we empirically test and falsify the assertion 'killing people is morally wrong' - without appealing to another moral assertion?

Your claim - 'we co-create all facts, therefore there are moral facts' - doesn't follow. Do you really not understand why it doesn't follow?

And, btw, you seem not to understand the problems with the whole idea of co-creation. Suckered again by a sparkly-looking notion.

[Sculptor]

This only makes any sense if you define reality as some shit in your own perception.
If you want to alter real reality, you can only do that by hard work, with your hands.
You can't just simply think yourself into a new reality. If that were the case we'd all be lying on a cloud cusion, having our ever whim fulfilled by maidens in provocative sexy lingerie, begging us to let them massage you, whist gentle winds brought you your favorite music.
oooh. Sorry got carried away there a bit..
urumph!
No. We cannot simply create our own reality. There's us and there's the world. How we perceive it is not the same as what it is. But we try.

[Belinda]

This only makes any sense if you define reality as some shit in your own perception.
If you want to alter real reality, you can only do that by hard work, with your hands.
You can't just simply think yourself into a new reality. If that were the case we'd all be lying on a cloud cusion, having our ever whim fulfilled by maidens in provocative sexy lingerie, begging us to let them massage you, whist gentle winds brought you your favorite music.
oooh. Sorry got carried away there a bit..
urumph!
No. We cannot simply create our own reality. There's us and there's the world. How we perceive it is not the same as what it is. But we try.

I agree there is something out there beyond perception. And it is probably not differentiated.

The argument that reality is subjective hangs on perception. Loss, and pain, are impossible unless there is a mind to perceive those. Happiness and pleasure are impossible unless there is a mind to perceive those. Your perception, Sculptor, is the gateway to your pleasure in the company of houris.

And as for social reality, each of us has perceptions that are legitimated by society. Illegitimate perceptions are called madness.

[Skepdick]

This only makes any sense if you define reality as some shit in your own perception.
If you want to alter real reality, you can only do that by hard work, with your hands.
You can't just simply think yourself into a new reality. If that were the case we'd all be lying on a cloud cusion, having our ever whim fulfilled by maidens in provocative sexy lingerie, begging us to let them massage you, whist gentle winds brought you your favorite music.
oooh. Sorry got carried away there a bit..
urumph!
No. We cannot simply create our own reality. There's us and there's the world. How we perceive it is not the same as what it is. But we try.

You are a brain in a vat. The vat is your own skull.

Your brain's only connection to that which you call "reality" is your senses, which aren't built for the purpose of "capturing reality as it truly is".

Whatever it is you are "defining" is only ever your experience of reality, not reality itself.
Even that experience which you call "altering reality"

This is the fundamental error of all Logocentrism

the tradition of Western science and philosophy that regards words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality.

Nobody ever expresses an external reality!
Everybody always expresses an internal reality!

expression noun the action of making known one's thoughts or feelings.

ALL definitions are forms of expression which is the confusion of the entire orthodoxy of Western philosophy!

If you define reality as anything other than "some shit in your own perception" then you are making shit up!

[Sculptor]

This only makes any sense if you define reality as some shit in your own perception.
If you want to alter real reality, you can only do that by hard work, with your hands.
You can't just simply think yourself into a new reality. If that were the case we'd all be lying on a cloud cusion, having our ever whim fulfilled by maidens in provocative sexy lingerie, begging us to let them massage you, whist gentle winds brought you your favorite music.
oooh. Sorry got carried away there a bit..
urumph!
No. We cannot simply create our own reality. There's us and there's the world. How we perceive it is not the same as what it is. But we try.

I agree there is something out there beyond perception. And it is probably not differentiated.

The argument that reality is subjective hangs on perception. Loss, and pain, are impossible unless there is a mind to perceive those. Happiness and pleasure are impossible unless there is a mind to perceive those. Your perception, Sculptor, is the gateway to your pleasure in the company of houris.

And as for social reality, each of us has perceptions that are legitimated by society. Illegitimate perceptions are called madness.

Our perception of reality is subjective no doubt.
The idea that we have a direct and uninterpreted access to reality doubtful.
The idea that reality changes because we percieve it absurd.
We are obviously authors of our personal reality, but I think we abuse language to pretend more than that.

[Skepdick]

The idea that reality changes because we percieve it absurd.

Then you necessitate that transfer of information from percept to perception requires no work/energy.

You necessitate that measurement/observation/learning about reality is absolutely free.

That's... absurd.

We are obviously authors of our personal reality, but I think we abuse language to pretend more than that.

And yet... you continue to push the idea of "defining reality" as something outside of perception. And somehow that's not "abuse"...

This only makes any sense if you define reality as some shit in your own perception.

The imperceptible is the unknowable. The unknowable is not definable.

[Sculptor]

1 If we co-create the reality we are in, who or what is the co-creator of that reality?

2 We are part of the reality we are in. So if we co-reate that reality, then we co-create our selves, including our perception and understanding of that reality. So who or what is the 'we' doing the co-creating? Just another co-creation?

3 If we co-create what we call facts, it doesn't follow that we co-create moral facts. For example, if we co-create what we call the fact that water is H2O, it doesn't follow that the moral wrongness of killing humans is the same kind of co-created fact.

Note my response to Seeds above.
viewtopic.php?p=483622#p483622

From the above, it is demonstrated and justified we are the co-creators of the reality we are part and parcel of.
As such whatever is fact, we are the co-creators of those facts.
There are moral facts, therefore we are the co-creators of the moral facts.

The above are mere assertions of moral facts.
What is needed to is to verify and justify the moral facts empirically and philosophically as real, and imperatively within a moral framework and system.

4 From 'humans co-create reality', it doesn't follow that 'therefore there is a moral reality'.

Whatever is of a co-created reality as asserted, it must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically as real, and imperatively within a framework and system of reality[FSR].

I have verified and justified empirically and philosophically moral reality as real within a moral framework and system of reality[FSR]

5 This appeal to quantum mechanics is a massive category error, and anyway does nothing to support moral objectivism.

1. First QM [reality is interdependent with humans as co-creators] debunked your idea of 'what is fact' [i.e. state-of-affair, feature of reality] which at the ultimate level is independent of human conditions.

2. As such you don't have an exclusive claim to your linguistic based what-is-fact [which is a bastardized linguistic fact not directly interactive with reality].
Thus my verifiable and justifiable moral facts do exist within a moral framework and system that deals with morality that confirms,
moral facts are co-created by humans.

3. What is objectivity is dependent on the credibility of features of the Framework and System, i.e. verifiability, testing, repeatability, falsifiability, consistency, etc. to its truth and factual claims.
I have stated the scientific FSR is the standard-bearer of the highest objectivity.
My moral framework and system is similar in quality to the scientific FSR, thus will have similar objectivity.

4. Therefore QM in 1 via 2 and 3 support moral realism and moral objectivity.

So, as I thought, this little excursion through quantum mechanics makes absolutely no difference to your argument. The facts that we supposedly co-create have to be 'verified and justified empirically and philosophically as real' - though this reality is one we have supposedly co-created.

Okay, how can we empirically test and falsify the assertion 'killing people is morally wrong' - without appealing to another moral assertion?

Your claim - 'we co-create all facts, therefore there are moral facts' - doesn't follow. Do you really not understand why it doesn't follow?

And, btw, you seem not to understand the problems with the whole idea of co-creation. Suckered again by a sparkly-looking notion.

The argument goes like this..
There is this thing
why, er becuase magic, er because god, er because quantum mechanics, because so other thing not understood.
As if the mere mention of something beyond reason and understanding would convince anyone.
The funniest one is .. because FSK, or what was it FSR??