For thousends of years we humans have cultivated bacteries for use in food and beverages. We knew what to feed those bacteries and what humidity and temperature they liked.
But if you believed that there were large powerful invisible creatures all around you watching for an opportunity to do you and everyone existential harm, you would be called a prophet and a holy man.
Speaking as a graduated physicist, my point is that all our models of "reality" are mental models, never else. No one knows what "reality" is. All theories work on models in physics. That's the beauty of it that you can still apply it.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 an analogous case might be that Newtonian physics will get a rocket to the moon but does not explain quantum effects. Just because a model works within certain parameters does not mean that it fully explains a more general principle. You don't need to believe me - put the work in and you can discover for yourself directly. Do you need a physicist to confirm for you what the taste of something sweet is? Do you need a professor to confirm that your hand burns when you put it in the fire? No. You can discover the true nature of reality via your direct experience.
We have what I like to call _pointilistic perception;_ our limited senses give us a sparse array of dots that are fairly accurate in some ways, and we 'fill in the gaps' with our imagination, forming a continuum that's adequate for living, but of course physical reality runs much, much deeper.
I am not surprised with any of this. Humans have little range with our biological sensory equipment and we have struggled to build many instruments to bring naturally occurring data within the range of our sensory equipment. This does not mean that what our instruments tell is comprehensible. We have great deal of thinking to do before we will nave picture of reality that will not confuse us.
. I liked your post. what you say - ".......instruments to bring naturally occurring data within the range of our sensory equipment......" is significant. We go on about modern technology, forgetting they are all designed to and help only to the extent of enhancing humansensory observations. Reality is beyond. .
@@santhoshgopinath816 interesting comments. The political impasse over "naturally occurring" is a non physical emotional reality that also has to be overcome. We seem to be unwilling to accept creation by a preexisting intelligence or unwilling to accept the fact of a "naturally occurring nature ".
@@clavo3352 Hi, re - ".............We seem to be unwilling to accept creation by a preexisting intelligence or unwilling to accept the fact of a "naturally occurring nature ".................." Yes. In the west the creation theory vs evolution theory is limited to livign beings. In India, several thousand years ago, this debate has been done for about thousands of years and each side has brought out clinching arguments to demolish the other side, and this debate was not limited to just living beings, but to the whole of reality, universe, etc, based on the parameters of Cause and Effect. It is this debate that paved the way for the smooth progress of non-duality / monism. Regards.
. Physicist Bernard Carr has made 2 Significant statements here which seems like directly quoted from the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta from over 7000 years ago :- 1. “Our common sense reality has been demolished” . This means what we call as reality is not Real, it is an error basically. This statement might be endorsed by both the Advaita Vedanta and Shoonyavada Buddhism. 2. “But it doesn’t mean there isn’t any Reality”. Reality is there, but it is different from what you think it is. This is the assertion of Advaita. And this could be where Advaitins and Buddhists would part ways. Shoonyavada Buddhists might say that there isn’t any reality as such. .
Kants statements are related to his genetics not reality. Although the world seems filled with many many kantians to say the least. Lacks self awareness first person. Excellent poet critique Completly disabled poet. gentics inculturation thats all.
@@matswessling6600 No. That would mean that Kant was stupid, which he certainly was not. What Kant was saying was that even if you ever get to know that space or time are real and absolute (independent of you) , your mind works as if these concepts are already part of it, and you go around the world living a life assuming directly as if these things are real, because what else could you do? So for him, it was pointless to go around and speculate about the cosmos without first establishing how human mind works. In other words, we assume and posit a world as if it was there indepentently of us, even if we may not have direct evidence or whatever in any moment. It is this "*as if*" that annoys people in Kant, because it seems incomplete. But he was not saying that reality Independent of us does not exist, he was arguing that even before ever knowing, we have to assume it. You have to assume and project some sort of reality even in order to deny it or demolish it afterwards with experiments for example.
"The reality you've got ... it's really a mental model". But, at the danger of pointing out the bleeding obvious, *everything* is a mental model. Models which are agreed upon by *consensus* based on experimental observation are accepted. And, by the way, the modern theories are completely (mostly) completely compatible with common sense. One very obvious case where common sense deviates from say, relativity, is that time seems to "flow" from past to future. No one has really solved that conundrum properly. That's probably the greatest issue in my humble opinion.
I cannot know if your sophistry is intentional or a product of mental fuzziness. In this context his "mental model" means a cognitive representation that does not have connection with reality. But your «Models which are agreed upon by consensus based on experimental observation are accepted" betrays your nature of Relativity Sect Witness (or parrot). The only application of those mental models is talking the talk about those models. And this is a fact. Do not come back with nonsense mystifications like GPS or Mercury.
@@voltydequa845 Ah, there we have it, "that ... connection with reality". That old chestnut 🌰. For the record I am a realist, though not one belonging to the sect you mention ... But why do you mention at the end a couple of the many checks done on the special relativity as if they were somehow suspect? That is verging on flat earth stuff, in my opinion. But I think we doth stray from the point the speaker was really making .... and that was that in the abstract nature of all these scientific theories somehow he feels that they don't address or give meaning to his personal experience of life ... that is what he was meaning by the word "reality" in this context. My point was that, in order to obtain said meaning, he was then expressing a view to somehow throw away anything complicated or abstract that did not appeal to him, personally. I was trying to point out, admittedly not very well, that rejection of logic, experimental evidence, and discussion (aka non-personal experiences) might not be a good strategy. (Edit: on rereading your comment, perhaps we are agreeing, if I replace your word "reality" with my words "personal experience" ... yes, in that case, perhaps I went off the wall ... a word misunderstanding on my part ... and while I'm at it, sorry for the testy nature of my original post). But, I'm curious why you've got it in for relativity. Does that extend to all of science, or what?
Se a realidade não passa de um modelo mental então tudo que existe é uma criação absoluta da mente? Então, também, a a observação de que Descartes após duvidar de tudo só não podia duvidar de estar duvidando e pois pensando e, assim, chegar a auto-evidencia da mente como única coisa indubitável não podia dela sair, nela ficando preso --- não procede: tudo se reduz ao seu âmbito...
@@juvenalhahne7750 Se a realidade não passa de um modelo mental então tudo que existe é uma criação absoluta da mente? === Yes, I think so. Since, we have only our minds, this understanding of our situation is created by our own agency, and our history, in collaboration with the environment. I think the only caveat is that this sense of direct experience we have (except in rare circumstances) seems so personal and, therefore, seems "real". I prefer to leave as unknowable, for the time being, the nature of this direct experience. === Então, também, a a observação de que Descartes após duvidar de tudo só não podia duvidar de estar duvidando e pois pensando e, assim, chegar a auto-evidencia da mente como única coisa indubitável não podia dela sair, nela ficando preso --- não procede: tudo se reduz ao seu âmbito... === The fact that Descartes could not doubt that he was doubting, is --- if you take a step back --- itself a model of the self --- namely that Decartes' self had the capacity to observe itself. Just as you and I do. But this faculty is limited At some stage this infinite regress should stop, and then one recognizes that our internal world is itself a model. Though, it is a matter of taste, preferring the finite and achievable, as opposed to the infinite, and unachievable (and therefore, a model). Your last words, indeed, betray the notion of "âmbito", which is translated as "scope" --- another language-based and therefore, model-based concept. You may perhaps be surprised to hear that actually, I do accept an ultimate reality, it is clear that there is "existence", and it is not a model ... it is only because I can conceive of a level of non-existence which admits no dual ... an act of faith, to be sure ... Still, my main thesis is that we only comprehend "existence" through the personal model. Your language is Portuguese? I looked at the translation, and the written words, I can imagine the sounds produced in my mind (it is only a model) but they were very beautiful sounding, I wish to hear this language as real sound, and then know the end point of my faith in reality, the act of faith, which I will hear in the beautiful sounds on this langauge. One day.
We know for a fact that we haven't. Our two fundamental theories, general relativity and quantum theory, are mathematically incompatible, so they're both incomplete.
@@BulentBasaran Idk if you can call successful theories "wrong". The claim "this is precisely the way the universe works" is wrong, but we know better than to make such assumptions nowadays. The way I see it, every theory comes with its own limited domain of applicability. The right question is not whether a theory is right or wrong, but where exactly its boundaries of applicability are.
The important thing about this shift of concept is how you interact with it when before we thought everything was solid and physical and we interacted with it in solid physical relationship but if we realize that everything is a manifestation of consciousness then our conscious interaction becomes a new avenue within which we may interact with the external world leading to who knows what at this point but definitely a different way of interacting a way that's more conscious and perhaps more meaningful.
Important is that our experience of the daily common sense reality can be explained or deduced mathematically from our model describing the deeper level "strange" reality. As far as this can be done, there is no problem. As far as this can be done it doesnt matter how strange or how abstract our model of deeper reality seems to appear compared to daily common sense reality.
To give an example, the clumpy nature of the condensed matter with fairly sharp boundaries and incompressibility is the result of the antisymmetric nature of fermionic wave function which is popularly known under the name Fermi exclusion principle.
Just because we cannot understand it now does not mean we will be unable to understand it a few hundred years from now. We didn't understand genetics a few hundred years ago. We don't *completely* understand it now, but we are getting there.
What everyone seems to miss is that all that's happened is that you've now got a more complete picture of what's going on. You have more information. With more information you can make better decisions. Would you rather live in a bubble., where you're willfully ignorant of how the world works, and where people with more information can take advantage of you, or would you rather face reality and have the opportunity to defend yourself and make better decisions based on complete information?
There's always been a lag between "common sense" and "reality". It was once common sense that the earth was flat and the sun moved across it, because that's what our eyes see. Now, it's widely known that the earth is an (almost) sphere. Although a certain group demonstrate the contentious nature of updating common sense.
Our brains evolved in the macroscopic world, so it is not surprising we have neural structures able to easily understand speed, acceleration, etc. The quantum level of reality works differently, so, at best, it seems strange to us, and at worst it may be totally incomprehensible.
The "common sense reality " is not destroyed . It is the "Basic Idea that that common sense reality Extrapolate / Interpolate for smaller scales ( higher energies , etc. ) " that gets "destroyed. Its very different. The common sense reality works well as before in common environments.
Not exactly clear on what he means by “common sense”. Sure, we can be wrong about how specific things work on some level, but to suggest that a common sensual experience is simply a mental model, if that’s what he means, is to deny the possibility of an actual relationship with the world. Essentially, he sounds like Descartes 2.0.
Common sense is a crude approximation of actual reality which we don't fully yet know. When we have all the information, reality will still fit into our logic because it's cause and effect. You just have to be open minded about it and not have preconceptions of how reality should be.
May we align our feelings ,thoughts , imaginations and all else that should be aligned with the greatest reality , the greatest balance of all that is truly good , the greatest feelings/senses/imagination/emotions/balance/reason/logic and intelligence etc .
"Commonsense Reality" in this context, means intuitions we formed by moving around in what we perceive as the physical world, and living our lives day-to-day. Why would that be anything like the underlying fundamental reality that gives rise to the world. The good thing is that this opens up technological possibilities that we can't see based on "commonsense reality."
we can stop going on about how counter-intuitive physics is because it's no longer counter-intuitive and is now common sense. we all have a solid grip on relativity, stop telling us we don't.
. what he says might go deeper beyond relativity, quantum physics, space, time, causality, universe, multivers, metacerse, dark matter, dark energy, WIMPS etc. For physicists, these could be Reality. But here I think he is talking of beyond this into the unknown frontier, but is intuited and maybe all these are appearances fo a deeper Reality which cannot be known by science, but only experienced by self. .
@@Psycandy nahhh, sorry. average human beings commit the mind-projection fallacy all the time. this stuff isn’t common sensical for most people. maybe you’re bored of this kind of content, and that’s fine. but if your mental model of other people is that contemporary physics is commonsensical and intuitive, then not only are you wrong, but you’re actually committing the very same mind-projection fallacy that is the source of so many people’s intuitions about the world being wrong.
Perception is reality. Reality is a mental model. You interact with the world based on how you think it works. When you step on the brakes the car stops. But do you actually know how the brakes work? Most likely the answer is that you have an idea of how they work...a mental model. So long as the stepping on the pedal stops the car, then your mental model is good enough. Now if your mental model includes brake pads and rotors, and brake fluid and hydraulic lines, your chances of survival increase quite a bit, since you might think to maintain your brakes every once in a while.
Sense of space and time demolished , I think our physicists have become more remote from human reality. They do an important job , but should read more Douglas Adams before explaining themselves to us normies.
It's removed from our reality as we perceive it with our senses. The reality as presented to us by physics is the same reality, it's just a different scale, different manifestation that is only accessible to us with the use of instruments and comprehensible only through the language of physics and mathematics. Obviously, I am not talking about those things we got wrong, are getting wrong, or don't know. The ability to be able to see the atoms with our eyeballs or hear the radio waves were not detrimental to our survival so those abilities didn't evolve in us. Being able to find food, avoid being food and fu...ind a partner to make copies of ourselves was so we know how to fight, run and chase animals including women. Or men.
It's almost like figuring out the nature of reality is hard and takes money to suss out the truth...I mean if we'd stick with common sense we'd still be stabbing things with rocks and sticks. That fire stuff is dangerous.
Since when did a limited mathematical model was gospel. Most of theoretical physics is mental masturbation that’s really hard to do. So hard, you forget you’re still alive and there’s something to look at outside and maybe go for a walk. You have all your basic needs met and you become so pretentious you become aloof and disconnected. Like Schroedinger said, you can’t measure it without altering, can you define reality without the observer and what the observer does?
Pergunto se procede afirmar que que a realidade de tempo e espaço foi demolida pela teoria da relatividade? Filosoficamente, que permanece criticamente dentro do senso comum, Kant ao determinar que ambos são dados a priori de toda e qualquer percepção já não tinha lhes negado a realidade imediata do senso comum e, pois, configurado-os como puramente mentais?
Physics is just a map we draw that we hope has something to do with reality. Physicists think that just by drawing a theme park on the map of their local town a real theme park will appear by magic.
thats seems to be correct. our perception of everything is not reality, its merely a simplified model that helps us be and survive. kind of like a childs paper drawn sketch map of their town. its a crude representation of some useful and recognisable features that might help us navigate our way around .. but it is nothing like reality. its flat for start, its in one colour, black, the background is paper. well that is like our perception of our world.
I am talking about OBJECTIVE reality, of course! Now, if we deny the existênce of objective reality, Physics will become an enterprise doomed to failure!!!
What do you mean by solid? It is a sensation and its mass can demolish you. That is reality , not math. Try standing in front of a Mack truck and discover solidity and its momentum
The whole premise of these arguments about “reality” are based upon the “Bohrian Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”! There are other interpretations that promote other perspectives.
@@matswessling6600 So you’re stating that Bohrian QM is “reality” based ‽ If that is the case, then we have different definitions of “reality” with regard to QM interpretations.
@@matswessling6600 It appears that you have a different opinion about what is “real” with regards to QM interpretations. It appears that you are of the opinion that the Schrödinger equation is a “real thing” (and not just an abstract model), which is a viewpoint promoted by some. Measurement is an “interaction” that “collapses” the abstract wave function into something that most people identify as “real”. A “reality based” interpretation of QM requires different “foundational principles”. The literature is generally clear on this distinction, but there is always some overlap by certain groups.
@@Mentaculus42 hm, it would be interesting how you came to the conclusion that I think the schfödibger equation is a real thing and what you think statement really is suppose to mean..
Not impossible at all! Just about everybody manages it all the time. Well structured and thought out opinions though take a lot more work, though still not impossible...
He conflates 'common sense' with 'intuitive'. His common sense statement is absurd! Define 'common sense'? This is what happens when a scientist is missing his other half, the philosopher! Quantum mechanics/quantum physics (the science that informs all other branches of science) remains ever transcendental to egoic 'intuition'!
Yes! In my experience scientists who are REALLY poor philosophers are a dime a dozen. Perhaps the best known of these is one Richard Dawkins - a real shocker!
@@keithprice475 In my experience, scientists generally fear philosophers, as a simple philosophical thought can trash some big science project, taking their grant, after proving that their hypothesis is impossible.
In other words, physicists are imagining new worlds in mathematics that aren’t relevant to how we experience the world. Defies common sense = not testable to me.
The model physicists have of the universe differs drastically at times from what people generally expect the universe to be like though those differences(at least for the most part) have been rigorously tested and are well understood.
This is what I tell people that try to use science as evidence for a God. They usually say something like "it just makes sense..." Does it really? Or do you just rely on how your intuition feels about it.
Some of this is very poor philosophy, in my view! The MEANING of 'objects are solid' is that they present and behave in certain ways to our everyday perception, NOT that they have a structure like the 'atoms' imagined by the ancient materialist philosophers - hard impervious little balls that made up everything else. So the judgement that (some) objects are solid is actually a true one, once you appreciate what it means. Common sense is NOT exploded but rather contextualised by science. This also points up the critical role of the mind in EVERYTHING, including scientific method. We deploy it in different modes and get different experiences, which do NOT contradict each other!
Reguardless of how it’s described, a chair is still a chair, to us at least. An orangutan may have a different opinion on the matter. I’m tired and I’ve just eaten too many biscuits
curved space is God’s reality as he can scroll it or unscroll it, it’s all His and he is outside of His creation so of course us trying to understand is going to seem weird
Lisa seems unmoved. Or maybe she is in another dimension 🤷♂️
Haven’t heard much from Lisa Randall these days, extra dimension or otherwise. Kinda feels like a loss.
comment is next level
She's playing close attention. 😏
😂
I don't care if a chair is mostly empty space as long as it has enough mass to support me when I sit on it
a few hundred years ago if you said - there are tiny 'bacteria' which you can't see but can kill you - you'd be laffed at
For thousends of years we humans have cultivated bacteries for use in food and beverages. We knew what to feed those bacteries and what humidity and temperature they liked.
@@ellengran6814you have to believe in their anecdote not on your common sense 😂
@@Confluence323
Laughed at? You'd be prosecuted!
😂😅
@@ellengran6814We knew how to make that stuff, e.g. fermentation, but did we also know that it was bacteria who did that?
But if you believed that there were large powerful invisible creatures all around you watching for an opportunity to do you and everyone existential harm, you would be called a prophet and a holy man.
Lisa was collapsing her wave function.
Speaking as a graduated physicist, my point is that all our models of "reality" are mental models, never else. No one knows what "reality" is. All theories work on models in physics. That's the beauty of it that you can still apply it.
You can know precisely what reality is - you just need to get your concepts out of the way. Then it's right there... and it's... rather surprising.
How do you explain the application of reality to produce technology, then? Those advancements were only possible due to our models.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 an analogous case might be that Newtonian physics will get a rocket to the moon but does not explain quantum effects. Just because a model works within certain parameters does not mean that it fully explains a more general principle. You don't need to believe me - put the work in and you can discover for yourself directly. Do you need a physicist to confirm for you what the taste of something sweet is? Do you need a professor to confirm that your hand burns when you put it in the fire? No. You can discover the true nature of reality via your direct experience.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Just because we don't fully understand reality doesn't mean we can't use it to our advantage.
You certainly can’t explain it with words
We have what I like to call _pointilistic perception;_ our limited senses give us a sparse array of dots that are fairly accurate in some ways, and we 'fill in the gaps' with our imagination, forming a continuum that's adequate for living, but of course physical reality runs much, much deeper.
That is more or less Lacanian psychoanalysis. Other interpretations of imagination also support this filling of gaps you describe very nicely
Yes we do that when we face unknown outcomes and it often results in what we commonly call anxiety. Guess we don’t like
empty spaces !
I am not surprised with any of this. Humans have little range with our biological sensory equipment and we have struggled to build many instruments to bring naturally occurring data within the range of our sensory equipment. This does not mean that what our instruments tell is comprehensible. We have great deal of thinking to do before we will nave picture of reality that will not confuse us.
Exactly
.
I liked your post. what you say - ".......instruments to bring naturally occurring data within the range of our sensory equipment......" is significant. We go on about modern technology, forgetting they are all designed to and help only to the extent of enhancing humansensory observations.
Reality is beyond.
.
@@santhoshgopinath816 interesting comments. The political impasse over "naturally occurring" is a non physical emotional reality that also has to be overcome. We seem to be unwilling to accept creation by a preexisting intelligence or unwilling to accept the fact of a "naturally occurring nature ".
@@clavo3352
Hi, re - ".............We seem to be unwilling to accept creation by a preexisting intelligence or unwilling to accept the fact of a "naturally occurring nature ".................." Yes.
In the west the creation theory vs evolution theory is limited to livign beings. In India, several thousand years ago, this debate has been done for about thousands of years and each side has brought out clinching arguments to demolish the other side, and this debate was not limited to just living beings, but to the whole of reality, universe, etc, based on the parameters of Cause and Effect.
It is this debate that paved the way for the smooth progress of non-duality / monism.
Regards.
.
Physicist Bernard Carr has made 2 Significant statements here which seems like directly quoted from the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta from over 7000 years ago :-
1. “Our common sense reality has been demolished” . This means what we call as reality is not Real, it is an error basically. This statement might be endorsed by both the Advaita Vedanta and Shoonyavada Buddhism.
2. “But it doesn’t mean there isn’t any Reality”. Reality is there, but it is different from what you think it is. This is the assertion of Advaita. And this could be where Advaitins and Buddhists would part ways. Shoonyavada Buddhists might say that there isn’t any reality as such.
.
Professor Carr is a Buddhist.
"Context" is key! If you're talking to the plumber or your wife, its a solid surface.
It seems that Kant was right in his conception of space and time being a priori perceptions of the human mind...
no, he wasnt. They are physical forms that exists totally unrelated to humans.
Kants statements are related to his genetics not reality. Although the world seems filled with many many kantians to say the least. Lacks self awareness first person. Excellent poet critique Completly disabled poet. gentics inculturation thats all.
@@matswessling6600correct. What physicists cant get around its that both things are true and the maths dont match..
Why are you bringing a philosopher into this? This is science people, no room for dancing angels on pin heads.
@@matswessling6600 No. That would mean that Kant was stupid, which he certainly was not. What Kant was saying was that even if you ever get to know that space or time are real and absolute (independent of you) , your mind works as if these concepts are already part of it, and you go around the world living a life assuming directly as if these things are real, because what else could you do? So for him, it was pointless to go around and speculate about the cosmos without first establishing how human mind works. In other words, we assume and posit a world as if it was there indepentently of us, even if we may not have direct evidence or whatever in any moment. It is this "*as if*" that annoys people in Kant, because it seems incomplete. But he was not saying that reality Independent of us does not exist, he was arguing that even before ever knowing, we have to assume it. You have to assume and project some sort of reality even in order to deny it or demolish it afterwards with experiments for example.
"The reality you've got ... it's really a mental model". But, at the danger of pointing out the bleeding obvious, *everything* is a mental model. Models which are agreed upon by *consensus* based on experimental observation are accepted. And, by the way, the modern theories are completely (mostly) completely compatible with common sense. One very obvious case where common sense deviates from say, relativity, is that time seems to "flow" from past to future. No one has really solved that conundrum properly. That's probably the greatest issue in my humble opinion.
I cannot know if your sophistry is intentional or a product of mental fuzziness. In this context his "mental model" means a cognitive representation that does not have connection with reality. But your «Models which are agreed upon by consensus based on experimental observation are accepted" betrays your nature of Relativity Sect Witness (or parrot). The only application of those mental models is talking the talk about those models. And this is a fact. Do not come back with nonsense mystifications like GPS or Mercury.
@@voltydequa845 Ah, there we have it, "that ... connection with reality". That old chestnut 🌰. For the record I am a realist, though not one belonging to the sect you mention ... But why do you mention at the end a couple of the many checks done on the special relativity as if they were somehow suspect? That is verging on flat earth stuff, in my opinion. But I think we doth stray from the point the speaker was really making .... and that was that in the abstract nature of all these scientific theories somehow he feels that they don't address or give meaning to his personal experience of life ... that is what he was meaning by the word "reality" in this context. My point was that, in order to obtain said meaning, he was then expressing a view to somehow throw away anything complicated or abstract that did not appeal to him, personally. I was trying to point out, admittedly not very well, that rejection of logic, experimental evidence, and discussion (aka non-personal experiences) might not be a good strategy. (Edit: on rereading your comment, perhaps we are agreeing, if I replace your word "reality" with my words "personal experience" ... yes, in that case, perhaps I went off the wall ... a word misunderstanding on my part
... and while I'm at it, sorry for the testy nature of my original post). But, I'm curious why you've got it in for relativity. Does that extend to all of science, or what?
Se a realidade não passa de um modelo mental então tudo que existe é uma criação absoluta da mente? Então, também, a a observação de que Descartes após duvidar de tudo só não podia duvidar de estar duvidando e pois pensando e, assim, chegar a auto-evidencia da mente como única coisa indubitável não podia dela sair, nela ficando preso --- não procede: tudo se reduz ao seu âmbito...
@@juvenalhahne7750
Se a realidade não passa de um modelo mental então tudo que existe é uma criação absoluta da mente?
===
Yes, I think so. Since, we have only our minds, this understanding of our situation is created by our own agency, and our history, in collaboration with the environment. I think the only caveat is that this sense of direct experience we have (except in rare circumstances) seems so personal and, therefore, seems "real". I prefer to leave as unknowable, for the time being, the nature of this direct experience.
===
Então, também, a a observação de que Descartes após duvidar de tudo só não podia duvidar de estar duvidando e pois pensando e, assim, chegar a auto-evidencia da mente como única coisa indubitável não podia dela sair, nela ficando preso --- não procede: tudo se reduz ao seu âmbito...
===
The fact that Descartes could not doubt that he was doubting, is --- if you take a step back --- itself a model of the self --- namely that Decartes' self had the capacity to observe itself. Just as you and I do. But this faculty is limited At some stage this infinite regress should stop, and then one recognizes that our internal world is itself a model. Though, it is a matter of taste, preferring the finite and achievable, as opposed to the infinite, and unachievable (and therefore, a model). Your last words, indeed, betray the notion of "âmbito", which is translated as "scope" --- another language-based and therefore, model-based concept.
You may perhaps be surprised to hear that actually, I do accept an ultimate reality, it is clear that there is "existence", and it is not a model ... it is only because I can conceive of a level of non-existence which admits no dual ... an act of faith, to be sure ... Still, my main thesis is that we only comprehend "existence" through the personal model.
Your language is Portuguese? I looked at the translation, and the written words, I can imagine the sounds produced in my mind (it is only a model) but they were very beautiful sounding, I wish to hear this language as real sound, and then know the end point of my faith in reality, the act of faith, which I will hear in the beautiful sounds on this langauge.
One day.
Roger Penrose lookalike? 🤔
@@AlgoNudger Poger Renrose
So much
@@AvindraGoolcharan😅
His rug should be removed from reality!
Mele me khoya hua bhai hai penrose ka name hai senrose 😂
It does make you wonder if we've really got it right. If we haven't, how would we tell?
We know for a fact that we haven't. Our two fundamental theories, general relativity and quantum theory, are mathematically incompatible, so they're both incomplete.
@@AlexanderShamov"incomplete" being a euphemism for "wrong, but still the best we got" 😅
@@BulentBasaran Idk if you can call successful theories "wrong". The claim "this is precisely the way the universe works" is wrong, but we know better than to make such assumptions nowadays. The way I see it, every theory comes with its own limited domain of applicability. The right question is not whether a theory is right or wrong, but where exactly its boundaries of applicability are.
The important thing about this shift of concept is how you interact with it when before we thought everything was solid and physical and we interacted with it in solid physical relationship but if we realize that everything is a manifestation of consciousness then our conscious interaction becomes a new avenue within which we may interact with the external world leading to who knows what at this point but definitely a different way of interacting a way that's more conscious and perhaps more meaningful.
One amazing sentence.
Nice cam cut away
Thanks for this knowledge, I will be used in my creative research work. Can I?
Important is that our experience of the daily common sense reality can be explained or deduced mathematically from our model describing the deeper level "strange" reality. As far as this can be done, there is no problem. As far as this can be done it doesnt matter how strange or how abstract our model of deeper reality seems to appear compared to daily common sense reality.
To give an example, the clumpy nature of the condensed matter with fairly sharp boundaries and incompressibility is the result of the antisymmetric nature of fermionic wave function which is popularly known under the name Fermi exclusion principle.
Just because we cannot understand it now does not mean we will be unable to understand it a few hundred years from now. We didn't understand genetics a few hundred years ago. We don't *completely* understand it now, but we are getting there.
They don't know.
What everyone seems to miss is that all that's happened is that you've now got a more complete picture of what's going on. You have more information. With more information you can make better decisions. Would you rather live in a bubble., where you're willfully ignorant of how the world works, and where people with more information can take advantage of you, or would you rather face reality and have the opportunity to defend yourself and make better decisions based on complete information?
There's always been a lag between "common sense" and "reality". It was once common sense that the earth was flat and the sun moved across it, because that's what our eyes see. Now, it's widely known that the earth is an (almost) sphere. Although a certain group demonstrate the contentious nature of updating common sense.
Very astute. Or as Aristotle thought: object stay in motion only if they are pushed, but left to themselves objects come to a state of rest
Our brains evolved in the macroscopic world, so it is not surprising we have neural structures able to easily understand speed, acceleration, etc. The quantum level of reality works differently, so, at best, it seems strange to us, and at worst it may be totally incomprehensible.
Great insight.
This man described a mental model and then called the senses model a mental model.
It’s incredible that Roger Penrose grew new hair and turned his face into a bit like Pat Buchanan!
As we are a process of becoming there isn’t anything that we can definitively be said to be.
The "common sense reality " is not destroyed . It is the "Basic Idea that that common sense reality Extrapolate / Interpolate for smaller scales ( higher energies , etc. ) " that gets "destroyed. Its very different. The common sense reality works well as before in common environments.
Well of course it’s a mental model, but it’s a mental model of the bit that’s important to us.
Dimensionality is the key; when you live in a three-dimensional construct, that's all you see and motion is called time.
Reminders of taste,touch,see,hear and smell
Not exactly clear on what he means by “common sense”. Sure, we can be wrong about how specific things work on some level, but to suggest that a common sensual experience is simply a mental model, if that’s what he means, is to deny the possibility of an actual relationship with the world. Essentially, he sounds like Descartes 2.0.
Common sense is a crude approximation of actual reality which we don't fully yet know. When we have all the information, reality will still fit into our logic because it's cause and effect. You just have to be open minded about it and not have preconceptions of how reality should be.
May we align our feelings ,thoughts , imaginations and all else that should be aligned with the greatest reality , the greatest balance of all that is truly good , the greatest feelings/senses/imagination/emotions/balance/reason/logic and intelligence etc .
The reality they give us is imagined...Imagine all the people...
Point being the same thing you started out with
That empty curved space upon the top of his head is quantumly concealed
"Commonsense Reality" in this context, means intuitions we formed by moving around in what we perceive as the physical world, and living our lives day-to-day. Why would that be anything like the underlying fundamental reality that gives rise to the world. The good thing is that this opens up technological possibilities that we can't see based on "commonsense reality."
we can stop going on about how counter-intuitive physics is because it's no longer counter-intuitive and is now common sense. we all have a solid grip on relativity, stop telling us we don't.
.
what he says might go deeper beyond relativity, quantum physics, space, time, causality, universe, multivers, metacerse, dark matter, dark energy, WIMPS etc.
For physicists, these could be Reality. But here I think he is talking of beyond this into the unknown frontier, but is intuited and maybe all these are appearances fo a deeper Reality which cannot be known by science, but only experienced by self.
.
@@Psycandy nahhh, sorry. average human beings commit the mind-projection fallacy all the time. this stuff isn’t common sensical for most people. maybe you’re bored of this kind of content, and that’s fine. but if your mental model of other people is that contemporary physics is commonsensical and intuitive, then not only are you wrong, but you’re actually committing the very same mind-projection fallacy that is the source of so many people’s intuitions about the world being wrong.
Dont think you do kid. I think uv lost the plot
The world today depends on GPS, which is a technology that depends on general relativity.
Reality can not be a mental model!
It can, but we refer to it as "a delusion" 🤷♂️😂
Our perception can't be a mental model? Is the quantum reality "real"?
Perception is reality. Reality is a mental model. You interact with the world based on how you think it works. When you step on the brakes the car stops. But do you actually know how the brakes work? Most likely the answer is that you have an idea of how they work...a mental model. So long as the stepping on the pedal stops the car, then your mental model is good enough. Now if your mental model includes brake pads and rotors, and brake fluid and hydraulic lines, your chances of survival increase quite a bit, since you might think to maintain your brakes every once in a while.
Sense of space and time demolished , I think our physicists have become more remote from human reality. They do an important job , but should read more Douglas Adams before explaining themselves to us normies.
In fact we live our entire lives in the Classical world not the Quantum world. Our reality may be illusory but it works pretty damn well.
Different from what we think or what we've been conned I mean educated to believe.
It's removed from our reality as we perceive it with our senses. The reality as presented to us by physics is the same reality, it's just a different scale, different manifestation that is only accessible to us with the use of instruments and comprehensible only through the language of physics and mathematics. Obviously, I am not talking about those things we got wrong, are getting wrong, or don't know. The ability to be able to see the atoms with our eyeballs or hear the radio waves were not detrimental to our survival so those abilities didn't evolve in us. Being able to find food, avoid being food and fu...ind a partner to make copies of ourselves was so we know how to fight, run and chase animals including women. Or men.
If we all could get it to become at least a Neuronal Model it would be Prime...
i thought someone was cosplaying as Roger Penrose 😅😅😂
Einstein, one cannot use one usual methods to investigate what is unseen, but one must a employ a deeper intuition.
Approx.
Common sense and science parted ways a long time ago. Now it's, where do I get my next grant money?
@@AKAKiddo underrated comment
It's almost like figuring out the nature of reality is hard and takes money to suss out the truth...I mean if we'd stick with common sense we'd still be stabbing things with rocks and sticks. That fire stuff is dangerous.
the point of this video is to emphasize that your "common sense" is ass and wrong compared to the actual truth of the universe.
Since when did a limited mathematical model was gospel. Most of theoretical physics is mental masturbation that’s really hard to do. So hard, you forget you’re still alive and there’s something to look at outside and maybe go for a walk. You have all your basic needs met and you become so pretentious you become aloof and disconnected. Like Schroedinger said, you can’t measure it without altering, can you define reality without the observer and what the observer does?
mental masturbation that has given you computers etc...
Pergunto se procede afirmar que que a realidade de tempo e espaço foi demolida pela teoria da relatividade?
Filosoficamente, que permanece criticamente dentro do senso comum, Kant ao determinar que ambos são dados a priori de toda e qualquer percepção já não tinha lhes negado a realidade imediata do senso comum e, pois, configurado-os como puramente mentais?
Physics is just a map we draw that we hope has something to do with reality. Physicists think that just by drawing a theme park on the map of their local town a real theme park will appear by magic.
That is the Maya cosmovision. For thousands of years.
Life gets very real quickly
At least some solidity is perceived of a table whereas with 'Space-Time' there's only the misleading notion that a physicist can sit on it.
thats seems to be correct. our perception of everything is not reality, its merely a simplified model that helps us be and survive. kind of like a childs paper drawn sketch map of their town. its a crude representation of some useful and recognisable features that might help us navigate our way around .. but it is nothing like reality. its flat for start, its in one colour, black, the background is paper. well that is like our perception of our world.
Mist is thick enough ( fog) can you see it coming down though not wet? Yes, you can see it. Etc, not to lose touch with reality around you.
He's right 😊
No, reality is relative to the framework of your thoughts.
" yes : in spite of All . " !!!
"common sense is seldom common"
Voltaire 😉
I am talking about OBJECTIVE reality, of course! Now, if we deny the existênce of objective reality, Physics will become an enterprise doomed to failure!!!
In the long run everybody finds that only the infinite experiencer is the real reality
Think most of these physics "common sense" problems are mostly from the simplified explanations of very complicated theories.
Still only basic unproven, always changing theories for - gravity, time, space, but none for consciousness which is the most basic place to start. Al
Would you like water, tea or coffee or cola or juice? What do you think of taste? Etc
reality is relative, bad editing is absolute
What do you mean by solid? It is a sensation and its mass can demolish you. That is reality , not math. Try standing in front of a Mack truck and discover solidity and its momentum
Yes.
Unfortunately a lot of what he just said is not house science actually is
Not when a brick falls on your toe at 10mpers pers
Immanuel Kant was right.
The whole premise of these arguments about “reality” are based upon the “Bohrian Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”! There are other interpretations that promote other perspectives.
not really. reality is obvious from most useful models.
@@matswessling6600
So you’re stating that Bohrian QM is “reality” based ‽ If that is the case, then we have different definitions of “reality” with regard to QM interpretations.
@@Mentaculus42 you are confused. science is based on that there is something to measure. any coherent model assumes that there is something to model.
@@matswessling6600
It appears that you have a different opinion about what is “real” with regards to QM interpretations. It appears that you are of the opinion that the Schrödinger equation is a “real thing” (and not just an abstract model), which is a viewpoint promoted by some. Measurement is an “interaction” that “collapses” the abstract wave function into something that most people identify as “real”. A “reality based” interpretation of QM requires different “foundational principles”. The literature is generally clear on this distinction, but there is always some overlap by certain groups.
@@Mentaculus42 hm, it would be interesting how you came to the conclusion that I think the schfödibger equation is a real thing and what you think statement really is suppose to mean..
Lots learned these lessons
Wow bro🎉
How flawed is physics from 1 to 10
Oh bollocks , it’s all about scale. At the scale of our perception, space is flat , at the scale of the galaxy, it’s curved.
Its impossible to form an opinion when we don't actually fully understand the universe.
Not impossible at all! Just about everybody manages it all the time. Well structured and thought out opinions though take a lot more work, though still not impossible...
Reality is always different to every observer no matter if you are moving through space or not! 😂
Yep, and now also the past is not safe anymore... it seems to be malleable .. ??
He conflates 'common sense' with 'intuitive'. His common sense statement is absurd! Define 'common sense'?
This is what happens when a scientist is missing his other half, the philosopher!
Quantum mechanics/quantum physics (the science that informs all other branches of science) remains ever transcendental to egoic 'intuition'!
Yes! In my experience scientists who are REALLY poor philosophers are a dime a dozen. Perhaps the best known of these is one Richard Dawkins - a real shocker!
@@keithprice475 In my experience, scientists generally fear philosophers, as a simple philosophical thought can trash some big science project, taking their grant, after proving that their hypothesis is impossible.
Lisa: •-•
True this.
In other words, physicists are imagining new worlds in mathematics that aren’t relevant to how we experience the world.
Defies common sense = not testable to me.
The model physicists have of the universe differs drastically at times from what people generally expect the universe to be like though those differences(at least for the most part) have been rigorously tested and are well understood.
In this meaning: World is working very easy. Never studying physics.
Why do intellectuals have the same haircut as that guy from "No Country For Old Men"?
This civilization is over.
This is what I tell people that try to use science as evidence for a God. They usually say something like "it just makes sense..."
Does it really? Or do you just rely on how your intuition feels about it.
❤your choice
Is this Bernard Carr?
What is this 'common sense reality', and why is it common sense that there are small particles like billiard balls?
Some of this is very poor philosophy, in my view! The MEANING of 'objects are solid' is that they present and behave in certain ways to our everyday perception, NOT that they have a structure like the 'atoms' imagined by the ancient materialist philosophers - hard impervious little balls that made up everything else. So the judgement that (some) objects are solid is actually a true one, once you appreciate what it means. Common sense is NOT exploded but rather contextualised by science. This also points up the critical role of the mind in EVERYTHING, including scientific method. We deploy it in different modes and get different experiences, which do NOT contradict each other!
Reguardless of how it’s described, a chair is still a chair, to us at least. An orangutan may have a different opinion on the matter. I’m tired and I’ve just eaten too many biscuits
He forgot the multiverse.
Yes, let's pretend reality is not.
Talks about physics with excitement and yet the things he describing are interminably dull
Everything is relative 😁
Staring at a computer too long
Engineers are like: Nah.
Does that seem real?
I guess some people find this interesting but I fail to see how this changes anyone's life in the slightest
I love whole bio milk. This is why the universe put me here, to drink a lot of it.
Edit: I have forgot strawberries, also those.
Without money you can’t use internet ies reality….😂😂😂 you can’t describe physics with human living reality….
What ? The earth is not flat ? 😮
curved space is God’s reality as he can scroll it or unscroll it, it’s all His and he is outside of His creation so of course us trying to understand is going to seem weird