Objective vs subjective reality

[Aurelin]

I’m a philosophy nerd, and after doing a science project that involved the Bohr-Einstein debate I become obsessed with this. This link explains it a little: https://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2627.htm
Basically, do you think everything exists whether or not someone is looking, or is everything only happening in our heads? I’m on Bohr’s side, I believe in a subjective reality where things exist only because of our minds.
A lot of people think I’m crazy, and Einstein does seem right at first glance. But think of the placebo effect. If our minds can affect the matter in our own body, what’s to say it doesn’t affect other things? Also, this PBS video talks about entangled particles and how they are affected by being observed: https://youtu.be/tafGL02EUOA
But I love these discussions, so what do you think?

[varkenskop]

I’m on Einsteins side. If Bohr is right everything and everyone is an illusion, but are minds are real, so the theory your brain is the only thing brings lots of questions. Also the fact that you send this message is weird, if you are on Bohr’s side, you know the answers will also be lies. Also the fact that you sometimes see something which isn’t actually there and you realize that supports Einstein theory; yes we see something what isn’t and we expect, but we correct with the truth.

[willie23]

Yeah, to be honest the whole debate seems very silly in my opinion. Something exists before it is discovered, whether that be an elephant or an electron or particle wave length. Just because it is unknown to us humans or our brains doesn't mean it does not exist.


Varkenskop made some really excellent points that I agree with. Does Bohr think that something can be happening in my mind but not in yours? If so, how does that work?? Are there alternate levels of reality that are not actually real at all??? And how then can Bohr prove that his own brain isn't an illusion? That's like saying "there is no truth." Then is the before statement truth? It defeats its own self.

[Strategus]

Yeah, to be honest the whole debate seems very silly in my opinion. Something exists before it is discovered, whether that be an elephant or an electron or particle wave length. Just because it is unknown to us humans or our brains doesn't mean it does not exist.


Varkenskop made some really excellent points that I agree with. Does Bohr think that something can be happening in my mind but not in yours? If so, how does that work?? Are there alternate levels of reality that are not actually real at all??? And how then can Bohr prove that his own brain isn't an illusion? That's like saying "there is no truth." Then is the before statement truth? It defeats its own self.

Exactly. A guaranteed way to win Diplomacy already exists. I just haven't discovered it yet.

[condude1]

This is one case where we can point as Sagan's "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Coming up with a narrative that is internally consistent doesn't magically imbue that narrative with any validity. Especially in the case of claims that make little sense, you need (lots of) external evidence to defend it. The placebo effect doesn't supprot your cause because we KNOW our minds affect our bodies. The hypothalamus and pituitary release hormones that cause huge changes to our bodies. There's no evidence to suggest that they have any more power than that, and considering that telekinesis is an extraordinary claim, you need more than a coherent narrative to make it remotely convincing.

No one knows what the heck's happening at a quantum level. Observation affects particles, but that doesn't mean that OUR observation has to. If we left a machine running without anyone near it, it would still affect the particle.

[varkenskop]

Other interesthing questions are:
1 if Bohr is truth are there other things then your mind
2 AI can use neural systems and evolves, just like darwins theory and humans evolve. They behave like they have an actual brain, but can not think themselves. If we are an advanced form of AI which is possible, could we be smarter than the ones who created us (which may or may not be AI). And if that is thrue can we speak of AI evolving to better AI like darwins theory and could we be the first AI waves who knows they are in an evolving system.

[mhsmith0]

obligatory

[Don Juan of Austria]

But I love these discussions, so what do you think?

I want to know what Myer-Briggs type you are....

[Aurelin]

But I love these discussions, so what do you think?

I want to know what Myer-Briggs type you are....

I got ENFP once and ENTJ once. Why?

[DavidMaletsky]

Presuppose that the mind creates reality. There was a time when my mind didn’t exist. Therefore, nothing existed. How did my mind spring into existence in the absence of existence?

Furthermore, we have the technology for indirect observation today. We can record on a non sentient machine the stable existence of, say, a tree, even when no one is present to observe said tree.