The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #107029   Message #2217819
Posted By: Janie
18-Dec-07 - 12:29 AM
Thread Name: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
Subject: RE: BS: Human Consciousness & Perceived Reality
Talk about a hurting head! Last night, I thought to post definitions of objective reality, so off I went to Google. Yowee Zowee! First the philosophers, then the quantum physics and mechanics theorists!   I knew I was an ignorant cuss, but didn't know how ignorant!

After skimming 15 articles in 15 minutes, I am, naturally, now an expert in all things quantum (not!)

Thinking about rational, empirical, knowledge, belief, perception and reality.   

Before I took my little tour around the web last night, Quantum theory meant nothing other than some physics theory that people talk about that is really freaky that has to do with how very small particles behave and however they behave it is not what you would think if you didn't know anything about quantum theory.

I'll be honest. That is still all it means to me.

AND, it also appears to include some evidence or theory - I couldn't quite sort this out - to suggest that nothing that we perceive as real is actually real, except that there is some argument that there is local realism, or only that which is observed is real, and then, only if it is being observed. In otherwords, scientific evidence (I think), and interpretation, that sounds just like the philosophical arguments around subjective vs. objective reality, except that photons are involved.

Interestingly, the first discussions and articles I read regarding quantum theory were from sites and blogs relating to existential, usually spiritual, interests. When I googled the names of the physicists, I did not find any articles or research reports authored by the scientist themselves that drew any conclusions whatsoever related to any 'big picture' ideas about the result of their experiments. So I found myself wondering, are the metaphysically inclined drawing, at least thus far, rationally unwarranted conclusions because it fits with whatever paradigm they are looking to confirm, is the scientist just not interested in any inplications the work and findings may have beyond their own narrow speciality, Or what?

NOt enough info. for me to draw any conclusions.