Lib
Permabanned
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2017
- Messages
- 577
Oh, Camus, the person who (mis)uses irony when he can't understand what's happening around him, instead of moving ahead and acknowledging that his truth has little contribution to the overall truth.Generally, I define subjective and objective almost as Cartesian would. The subjective is "immaterial" and consists of psychological phenomenon like thinking, feeling, perceptions, schemas, and arguably the subconscious. "Objective" denotes the material world. However, as you may have guessed from our previous discussion, I'm not a Cartesian, since I regard the subjective world with an "as-if" attitude. Ie. with a sense of irony like Camus did. The issue I take with conflating the two definitions is that while I think some objective phenomena amount to subjective phenomena, such as synaptic impulses, those synaptic impulses are experienced differently depending on your point of view. We could objectively observe them in a scientific setting, or experience them by simply thinking, so it doesn't make sense to define both things the same way, since they appear as independent of each other. Moreover, the implication made by conflating the two is that if all subjective contents are objective, then subjective beliefs are infallible - which, I'm sure you have noticed, doesn't stand up to scrutiny under an intellectualist definition of truth - that is, that truth serves as a depiction of what is, rather than the thing itself. Beliefs and perceptions only mirror the objective world, so to say that they are objective implies that they always match reality. So, now I suspect that we may have differing attitudes about the truth. Would I be correct to think that you view the "truth" as the thing itself? It seems to be that way, given your view on reality.
So you don't believe that the position and synaptic impulses are objective? All that exists is embodiment of the truth because otherwise it wouldn't have existed. Subjective is a local truth. A broken mirror doesn't defy the laws of physics when it presents to you a distorted image, quite the contrary, it presents to you how those laws work. As I tried to say, truth has many dimensions but would be different if we exclude one part of it - the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. I get it, complexity makes people insecure - instead of trying to see the whole, they prefer to call it absurd and go with the little reason they have left.
If reality only exists in the present, then it doesn't necessarily contradict the probabilistic aspects of QM. In some sense, the fact that entanglement happens at all through what we call "time" affirms the idea that reality exists only in the present, since particles interact as though they exist in the same time frame: You thought quantum mechanics was weird: check out entangled time | Aeon Ideas
That was a very interesting article which only solidifies my point - that everything is interrelated!!!!
What you fail to understand is that if we consider connection between events, expressed probabiliticaly or deterministically, every event we observe exists, in the way it exists, in the context of the overall state of entropy - that's what makes one moment different from the previous one. It suggest a flow of energy/events. Entaglement is due to energy potential, in other words it's defined by conservation of energy. So if an event happened in another spacetime, which is both influenced by and influencing the event in our spacetime, it still is due to the states of entropy that interrelate both spacetimes. The universe is not locally symmetrical, which means that there is a flow of change throughout the universe, and we call this time, spacetime!
Oh, I wished...(Lol. btw, I'm starting to understand your logic. )