philosophy is dead beacause philosophers as we've all been taught to know them haven't kept up with the advancements in physics, that's all i mean by that. i don't know of any modern day philosophers other than scientists, and to study philosophy in school is to study a buncha dead guys. to question who we are, and where we come from is no longer a matter for the english majors, but to the scientists, that's all i'm saying. Because we actually have some of the quantifiable tools to answer these questions now, not just sit back and think "what if this?"

you said "a squirrel that observes a rock knows in some sense that the rock exists, because the squirrel has observed it." so it sounded to me like you were alluding to the principles of the heisenberg uncertanty principle (along with other elements of quantum theory) to macro world objects, in which they do not apply. i know about the 4 forces and all of that btw, but the idea of having to observe something to make it exist, or to define the state of it's existence, just doesn't apply to macro wold objects. this is of course as far a's we know right now, and i think that its obvious to all of us that we don't know jack shit. and science will tell us more year by year.

weather when you leave a room, the table in the room dissapears, and only reappears when you re-enter the room is a model of physics which doesn't really gel well with other theories. therefore philosophizing about it just isn't for me.

as for descartes, it's down to the semantics we use around the term "observation". i'm not an authority on the man, but from what i've heard, he didn't believe in the scientific process as far as physically observing what he was developing theories for. his method of observations was "thinking about it". As far as batshit crazy, i'm not referring to the condition that brilliant people sometimes suffer from, i'm talking about the fact that alot of what he predicted was dead wrong, cause he wasn't using telescopes and other scientific instruments to come up with his theories. that's all.

i honestly don't put that much stock into learning how our consciousness impacts our universe. maybe if i was baked. But I'm pretty sure that if i wasn't here, if none of us were here, that the rest of the universe wouldn't miss a beat. it would still exist just as it is right now. i think that i'm a biological being with a brain, and i'm thinking, it's not very mystical to me. Maybe some might consider it a cold view of reality, but i think it's pragmatic. There are fantastic mysteries which abound in our universe which i find much more mystical than the fact that I'm observing them. I personally dig the "science" of human behavior through psychology, that has real-world implications to me, and that is definately an area to think outside the box. That i can get into.

its only common sense that what applies to the quantum applies to the macro, its just that things that are macro tend to be able to observe themselves and others, which kind of ruins the whole multiple state thing, also we do have philosophers, they're called comedians

nah, you don't have multiple states, you're not at the computer and also in the bathroom at the same time. it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation, and i don't observe multiple globalreach states. the sub atomic particles inside you might have multiple states, and their state is indeed determined partly by observation. but you as a whole aren't. as i said before, the probabilities are still there, but they average out in the macro world to a defined state. therefore people aren't shifting into and out of existance or are in multiple places at once, the macro world is pretty consistent throughout most of the observable universe. 

Technically, quantum theory is actually the theory of any objects isolated from their surroundings but, because it is very difficult to isolate large objects from their environments, it becomes a theory of the microscopic world of atoms and sub-atomic particles. This is especially true for those parts of the theory which rely on the absolute indistinguishability of fundamental particles, an indistinguishability which is impossible to find in the everyday world of composite, large-scale objects.

ionno it just smells like human ego getting in the mix when i think about the observation thing. the logical extension of the observation argument is that if someone closes their eyes, things cease to exist, or at least their existence has been affected in some manner. 2 rocks chilling next to each other exist just the same weather you observe them or not. i understand the psychological affect of the ego feeling that their reality, their world, and therefore "the world" is very much dependent on them. i guarantee that if i died tomarrow, things would go on continuing as they do. it's not my existence which gives life to anything else, i'm not jesus. but who knows, maybe my quantum state is fluctuating in and out of a jesus state, so maybe things are affected by my ability to consciously acknowledge them.

as far as we know (key words), the classical and the quantum theories don't have a lot of overlap. once a grand unifying theory comes to light, that might change, but as far as we know right now, there's no theory of everything. classical physics and quantum physics don't agree mathematically. also, quantum physics fucked classical physics's girlfriend, which only adds to the feud.

"model-dependent realism" is idea that as long as your model for describing your reality appears to work, then that's fine. it doesn't matter that others models don't apply to it. this means that we can say that inside globalreach, he is indeed changing states, but him as a whole does not act this way. they are seemingly contradictory, but each is correct. no one can really know what's "true", as every scientific breakthrough will eventually be overshadowed with new light. this is where we're at. this is philosophy in science. they are the torch-bearers of real philosophy. fuck Aristotle, he's a pussy. and if you want to split hairs, Rigveda the hindu philosopher 1000 years before aristotle came up with the "cosmic egg" model of the universe, which describes an oscillating universe, expanding out from a single point, and then contracting back to that point in an endless loop. kinda scary how close to the big bang and expanding universe theories we have today. meanwhile Aristotle thought the earth was the center of the universe. and before him Anaxagoras came up with a wacky theory where all the elements of the universe were floating around until they were settled by the "nous" (mind) into their curent forms. see how much bullshit human ego comes from the classical greek philosophies of the universe? blech. 

here's some words on model dependent realism, it's some philosophy for ya, eat it!

"[Model-dependent realism] is based on the idea that our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the world. When such a model is successful at explaining events, we tend to attribute to it, and to the elements and concepts that constitute it, the quality of reality or absolute truth."

"There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality. Instead we will adopt a view that we will call model-dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. This provides a framework with which to interpret modern science."

"According to model-dependent realism, it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation. If there are two models that both agree with observation ... then one cannot say that one is more real than another. One can use whichever model is more convenient in the situation under consideration."

"It might be that to describe the universe, we have to employ different theories in different situations. Each theory may have its own version of reality, but according to model-dependent realism, that is acceptable so long as the theories agree in their predictions whenever they overlap, that is, whenever they can both be applied."

"According to the idea of model-dependent realism ..., our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the outside world. We form mental concepts of our home, trees, other people, the electricity that flows from wall sockets, atoms, molecules, and other universes. These mental concepts are the only reality we can know. There is no model-independent test of reality. It follows that a well-constructed model creates a reality of its own."

.

the key differences of opinion here are:

1. what observation is, not whether it is important. observation doesn't mean that any particular person has to see something for that object to exist. observation is required though to have any knowledge of whether something exists, where it exists, and how it exists. observations, whether done by a computer, an eye, or through symbols such as numbers, qualifies and quantifies an object. without it, there is no definite object. a definite object is defined, and something just isn't defined unless it's been observed first. this all presupposes that there is intelligence and life, because if the universe was devoid of life, none of this would matter, this conversation wouldn't be happening, etc. taking consciousness out of the universe to make your argument that rocks and stuff would still exist without an observation is a philosophical exercise by the way. philosophy sure is dead!

2. what philosophy is and isn't. philosophy is important because it provides the framework for how we experience everything. business majors think philosophy is dumb because they're business majors, meaning they're probably devoid of any independent thought that doesn't involve squeezing equity out of other people's property so they can buy useless shit and pretend they aren't empty inside. philosophy is and always has been an attempt by human consciousness to try to quantify and qualify reality. it is the basis of science. if you ask me whether i look to philosophy or science to explain what reality is, or how it works, i'd answer that i use both in conjunction with each other. and believe it or not, so do you. the very act of using abstract words and phrases to understand the universe, along with math, is science and philosophy working together.

if you're human, you use philosophy, literally, all the time. computers simply observe and analyze results. humans use that scientific data and try to fit that data into their subjective experiences and understanding to attempt to make sense of the world around them. if you aren't a robot and are able to connect abstract ideas together to form a hypothesis about something not specifically related to the data, then you are using philosophy. the disconnect is that modern culture, in its attempt to get you to stop thinking critically, has labeled philosophy irrelevant. next time you use your GPS on your phone, you're using the product of science and philosophy that einstein developed to understand the world and his surroundings. einstein is definitely my all-time favorite scientist. he's also my all-time favorite philosopher.

you're free to consider philosophy dead because it isn't science. but that would make you wrong. in a world without philosophy, there are no humans. but i'm biased, because i'm very much a human. and like i said, this very discussion is philosophy and science. how can philosophy be dead?

it isn't. but philosophy has been given a negative connotation since it doesn't help you press buttons in the correct order to make your boss money. so it's been denigrated and turned into a strawman fallacy of tables disappearing when you leave rooms, or of other absurd notions that philosophy is not. philosophy requires critical thinking about abstract ideas. logic, not just lawyerly logic, but numerical logic, lives within philosophy. philiosophy and science aren't two separate things. philosophy begatscience, and walks behind it to make sure that science actually knows where it is going, and how to get there.

ionno, i think that philosophy is concerned with the "why" whereas science is concerned with the "how". that's all. and i personally don't think that we need to observe in any capacity something, anything for it to exist. not talking about seeing it with our eyes, we can observe particle physics and we can observe distant galaxies, usually not with our eyes, but with tools.

objects in the macro universe do have a quantifiable state regardless of observation. yes, there is still a *chance* that when you throw a ball at the ground, it will go up instead. but the average of that happening even once over the entire life of the universe if so unbelievably small, that scientists accept that everytime you throw a ball at the ground, it will go down. even in some far off planet that has never been observed before, if they have a similar atmosphere and gravitic pull as earth, the ball will go down. predictive science helps us double confirm that a theory is true once we observe something new, and our model of reality still holds up.

also i don't really see philosophy getting a negative connotation because it can't be monetized either, there are many noble professions which don't care for the bottom line. if you think that there's money in being an astrophysicist then you're dead wrong.

i don't think we'll ever know the "why" so to me these ideas are just mobius strips ad infinitum, like a rubix cube that can never be solved to keep humans content wrestling with the "why" of their own consciousness. that's my own take on the psychology of the human condition. however i do think that we have some of the tools to comprehend the "how". and this is science. i don't think i'm neglecting part of my humanity to think this way, but who knows, maybe i'm actually a robot.

also for the record i think that philosophy definately exists is in big business as they have the tools to change the world in which we live into a more idealistic utopia for their own interests. obviously people think of these ideas everyday. that's not dead, what i was saying was that philosophy in the way that most people relate to the term, aka "going to college, what classes u taking? philosophy" is studying outdated knowledge. it's interesting to see how past civilizations drew up their models of reality, but it's all passe, we have real tools now, more than just our own wonderment of "why"

why and how don't answer separate questions. they only order information differently.

if you don't see that, and don't see that scientists ask why as much as they ask how, then we should just end this conversation now. you're stuck on a semantic definition of what philosophy is, and it's boring.

hmm, i was just trying to illustrate my point of view which is as valid as anyone else's. i don't think i came across as my opinion being anything other than just that. i guess i'll lock this sillyness awawy