Machiavelli

On another forum I post at, someone began saying things like his reality, her reality, etc....

I piped in and said, reality doesn't change, perceptions of it do.

Would you agree with this?

A person there went into Heisenberg and Relativity saying how those laws mean that reality itself is relative to the individual.

I fail to see how any of that applies and the definition of reality itself seems to support me. I've bashed my head against a wall trying to explain myself, but eithor ego or lack of perceptive abilities won't let them accept my points. Or, there is the possibility that I'm wrong.

What do you think? And why, in the most blunt and concise language possible.

Thanks.

Tom Sawyer

Reality is not relative to the individual. Our perceptions of it differ, but that doesn't affect what reality actually is. You were absolutely right in this debate.

It sounds like this guy misunderstood scientific terms and then tried to apply them to philosophies where they were not relevant.

Machiavelli

Thanks Tom.

Anyone else?

NialScorva

From a physics standpoint, I agree with Tom. Even at relativistic speeds, it's not the perception that determines the difference in what is perceived, it's the fact that reality is much weirder than we expect it to be.

From a psychological standpoint, reality is very much affected by the individual because perception is reality. For example, I find certain colors pleasing where you may not. That sense of pleasure is certainly real, though it's a reality determined by the individual. I don't think that's what you're talking about, though.

Tetlepanquetzatzin

Yes, I would agree that there is only one reality.
It is difficult to comment on this without seeing how the argument employs quantum mechanics and relativity. Generally speaking, I think most physicists would regard references to the theory of relativity for this purpose to be a misunderstanding. The situation is more complicated with quantum mechanics, because we are still far from a consensus on the philosophical consequences of quantum mechanics.
Maybe it could be useful to ask your opponent a deliberately provocative question about the person-dependence of reality:

Suppose a brutal murderer (one that our society would classify as mentally ill) is sincerely convinced that his victims do not experience any suffering. In fact, he is convinced that his victims want to be brutally killed. Would such a view be as valid as the view that the victims do suffer and do not want to be killed? Or could one say that the victim's opinions correspond better to reality in this case?

Machiavelli

I said...

"Realities are the same, it's the perceptions that vary... "

him...

"Dead wrong, according to both general relativity and quantum mechanics, the two most accurate descriptions of reality currently availiable."

I said...

"you could never find a scientist who would agree. "

that's when he started getting silly....

he said....

"You clearly don't know much, if anything, about either subject, but want to argue anyway, huh? That really doesn't make sense to me.

BTW Every physicist would agree with me.

I didn't say the universe was irrational. I said that reality isn't all the same. The universe follows physical rules, however many of those rule defy "common sense".

There are many instances in quantum mechanics where perception creates reality.

If one were to travel at 95% the speed of light (physicaly possible, way beyond current technology) time would pass much slower for a passenger on a craft going that speed than it would for someone on Earth. Who's timeframe, or reality, is "correct"?

Your argument would hold true under the laws of Newtonian mechanics, but those have been disproven for close to a century now."


What is funny is that he was so sure of what he was saying? Much of which was right, but just didn't apply in my opinion.

Tetlepanquetzatzin

I doubt anyone would agree that you are dead wrong. Some competent physicists might think that you are wrong, but it is far from obvious that you are wrong.
I agree that some of our physics models defy common sense, but I don't see how this is relevant to whether reality is "all the same".
That is one of many interpretations of quantum mechanics. I note, though, that those who think that the collapse of the wave function is the result of conscious observation believe either that the collapse is objective or that the wave function is just a representation of subjective knowledge (as opposed to a representation of reality). It doesn't support the person-dependence of reality either way.
I disagree with the implication that reality = time frame. Reality, as approximated by general relativity, is that which does not depend on the frame of reference! Both observers would be correct, but it should be understood that they are measuring quantities whose numerical values do depend on the reference frame. This is weird, because we are not used to time being dependent on the reference frame, but it really isn't more mysterious than the fact that velocity depends on the reference frame. General relativity makes more quantities depend on the reference frame, but I don't think it changes our view of the person-dependence of reality. Someone who initially believes that reality is objective will not find anything in general relativity that significantly challenges this belief, and someone who initially believes that reality is subjective will also not see that belief significantly challenged by studies of general relativity.

One should also understand that not everything in general relativity depends on the reference frame. Both observers will, for example, agree on the proper time that has passed inside the space ship.

pmurray

The sign of an idiot who thinks in sound-bites. Ask 'em if they can articulate either.

Heisenberg: the uncertainty of a particle's momentum times the uncertainty of its location is always greater than or equal to planck's constant.

Special Relativity (my understanding thereof): if two observers are in relative motion, then they will disagree about the passage of time.

What these have to do with perception and reality, I have no idea.

KeithHarwood

Special relativity: The speed of light is the same in all reference frames.

Everything else is a consequence of that. SR is all the consequences that can be deduced using high school algebra. Half of GR is the consequences that can be deduced using more powerful maths. (The rest of GR follows from `Inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same'.)

Volker.Doormann

Yes. Seems there are basics in philosophy helpful.

Reality is. It is absolute. It is the reference.

If reality would be changeable, it would be relative, it woud be an illusion, but not reality.

He, who argues absolute, that reality itself is relative, argues that illusion affects the absolute. This kills the absolute claim that reality is relative. It is a classic example of a contradiction.

Volker