Reality-theory

Typically a non science question.
As far as we know, consciousness could be anything from real and physical, to unique in a simulated world.
There is NO way to prove ether end of the spectrum.

String theory failed and in general theoretical physics is stagnating. Why? Because they refuse to accept the fact that only a unified theory of consciousness + physics can yield the most general explanation.

Kill yourself degenerate. Nobody thinks you are cute or funny. You are just a pathetic piece of shit and a pedophile

lol
Are you implying that consciousness alters the physical world?
Because if that's the case, we might as well stop sciencing right now.

Have you ever heard of the von Neumann-Wigner interpretation of quantum mechanics?

How does that work?
Our minds alter the universe so much that we can't explain it?
Seem more simple and probable to me that we just don't, without our mind having anything to do with it.

It is an empirical fact that the quantum mechanical measurement process, i.e. collapsing the wave function, requires a conscious observer.

>inb4 pop sci kids who only heard about QM in vsauce videos enter the thread and talk bullshit about photons bouncing off the wave function
Please spare me this retardation.

But we can't prove that.
Collapsing waves could be happening all over the place without us knowing.

If you say something like this, it means you don't understand anything about quantum mechanich

>conscious
...no

Are you saying John von Neumann, one of the founding fathers of QM, didn't understand anything about QM?

>Have we still not figured out what "it" is?
When grown-ups say "it", they mean sex.
Sorry for the spoiler, user.

user, we don't live in the 50's anymore. Today everyone is openly talking about sex. After all we can see sex fucking everywhere in the media.

>one of the founding fathers of QM

Ethos detected; appeal to the credibility of the speaker.

user is attempting to use a rhetorical argument on a science and math forum.

The use of logical fallacy and rhetoric will not be tolerated.

Please cease and desist or you shall be fired from a cannon.

So you honestly believe you have more authority to speak about QM than John fucking von Neumann?

Good thing you're not John fucking von Neumann

Ethos detected: Detecting a fallacy
Look I can do it too!

> neumann
Anyone with above 60 IQ is

But I'm quoting him.

I'm not that user.

I'm just pointing out fallacy.

You do not understand the difference between rhetoric and logic.

Also good thing science isn't based on "authority of the speaker". I think you're better off in a religious forum, this is for thinkers.

>Not knowing what Ethos is
6th grade dropout detected

Source with quotation please.

Is that objective as in from an object's point of view?

I freely admit I'm uncertain even of my own uncertainty, but it seems to me there could only be a subjectively-perceived objective view. A rock doesn't care if we live or die, suffer or thrive. Schro's cat shows we cannot be unsubjective. It is why our model of Reality is likely a meta-model. We are our model.

"Experi-ence" and "Experi-ment."
Seem the same root to me. I've "had" lots and lots of the former and "done" lots and lots of the latter. I suppose everyone experiments all day long (putting the token in the fare-box and expecting the driver to let you on); some seeing how much they can get away with in what they say or who they force.
I suppose it's to be expected that some few of us are far more experienced than the multitude of common people looking like a bunch of drones walking down the street, staring off into space at a pathetic 2-d representation of a 3-d Reality.

I'm being sarcastic if you haven't noticed. If you want to talk about logic, you hardly qualify. Logic is more than just rhetoric, it's actually a rigorous subject.

Science is essentially falsifiable logical inquiry.

It relies on induction, deduction and to some extent abduction, in order to formulate logically viable hypotheses, which are falsifiable.

Falsifiability is what separates logic based philosophy from scientific inquiry.

Hypotheses are then tested via experimentation and the subsequent mathematical analysis of empirical evidence.

If the results of this process are in agreement with the predictions made by the hypothesis, then a theory is born.

Of course, theories are then tested by repeat experimentation, as well as a critical analysis of the methodology used in the original experiment carried out by others in the field.

If the theory stands the test of time, which usually takes around two or three decades, then it is generally referred to as a scientific fact.

Science is the highest form of logical inquiry and therefore it was born in philosophy.

In fact it is entirely based on the Socratic Method, with the addition of falsification via experimentation.

The only authorities in science are logical viability and quality of evidence, which subsequently rely on transparency.

The Greek persuasive techniques of ethos, pathos and logos are rhetorical tools that have no place in science.

Therefore, arguments relying on appeals to authority, for example, are wholly invalid.

This is tantamount to ethos, which is essentially an appeal to the credibility of the speaker and is based entirely on social prestige and dominance.

Dominance and prestige are only relevant to human beings, because we are primates living in hierarchical social structures.

Therefore, to make such an appeal is equivalent to reducing one’s intellectual capability to that of a bonobo on Ritalin.

>science isn't based on "authority of the speaker"
Actually it is. A renowned professional academic researcher is always seen as a higher authority on his field than a pop sci kid on the internet.

>Backtracking this hard
>clearly weren't being sarcastic

>Logic is more than just rhetoric, it's actually a rigorous subject.
Rhetoric isn't logic, but I'm pretty sure you're just trolling at this point.

And yet still, nothing they say means anything unless it's peer reviewed.

The media or retards on the internet can make it seem otherwise, unfortunately this isn't considered "science"

>Logic isn't rhetoric
Maybe you're the one that's trolling.

>ima fucking retard and don't listen to anything I say
Oh ok, glad we cleared that up.

Hey look, I can misquote people too!

This is meant for you.

>hey look I'm buttblasted
Alright user you can stop now.
You don't know what logic is

Facts? There is no such thing. No certainty. Only our perception of Reality, whatever that may be.
The first people could have been a turtle and we all of us are really ugly turtles. You can't prove it isn't true: only that based on your perceptions, and mine, it seems unlikely. Open-minded is being uncertain.
However, I agree with your "conscious observer," even though I prefer to be a "consciousness" and specifically a "feeling" consciousness who can decompile feelings into words and sentences.

Stop falling for this shit. I've seen this dickhead do this before and he just brings up mathematical logic to feel smug.

keep posting buddy

If you say so pal. Not my fault you don't know logic.
Stay mad.

Yes user, I do.

I'm referring to logical reasoning.

I'm not referring to formal/mathematical logic.

So not logic. Okay.

>Facts? There is no such thing.

Kek

Are you attempting to initiate an argument over a semantic definition?

...

Tbh, we do need a new name for logical reasoning, as it isn't logic.

We could just call it 'reason', but that word is already too polluted.