What is 'objective reality'?

For only the person with the experience. Which doesn't qualify as 'empirical data'. You can't repeat it nor get anyone else to repeat it. So you actually have no empirical data to show.
If you did, show us this empirical data.

 

Wrong again. Remember that the idea of PROOF is to be able to present either "argument or evidence that will compel the mind to accept an assertion as true." So, If my argument or my evidence is compelling to the mind of another, then there is no need to repeat it again, and again, and again. In the case of the 'Bible' being 'empirical evidence' of the existence of God, there are millions today whose minds have been compelled, by the arguments presented either in the 'Bible' or by those telling others about it, to accept it as 'true'. I have seen on this forum, where the opposite has occurred. Some on this forum attest to the notion that they were Christian and that other factors (information from outside the 'Bible') have compelled their minds to accept that alternative information as true.

 

Are you appealing to others experience? Is their experience the same as yours?
If you have empirical data, you should be able to show it, else there is no evidence, empirical or other.
I am not asking for proof, just your so called empirical evidence.
I haven't seen where you've compelled any other's mind.
Attesting to something isn't evidence for anything.

 

How is it possible for me to appeal to their experiences when I don't know their experiences? Now if you want to declare that their entire experience is their own declaration of being Christian, then I suppose you could say that I am appealing to the experiences of others. Much in the fashion as you and others could be said to be appealing to the experiences of such people as Hawking.

Read all of my postings over the past 5 years on this forum wherein I have attested to speaking with the HS and of my limited knowledge of Gods Word. Empirical data. .

See my statement above.

Did I say that I had compelled the mind of anyone else? Be precise in your answer.

Then Darwins works are not an evidence of anything and should be banned from the educational system.

 

Then why did you bring up others experiences? I have brought up no one elses experiences. For I don't know them.

No, empirical data can be shown. And you have never even offered 1 bit of evidence the voice you hear is the HS. None. And at least 1 person has asked how your voice is the HS and all the response is, is avoidance.

Your post above offered no evidence.

I never said you did. But you did state if anything you may have done compelled another's mind there'd be no reason to repeat it. So you think you may have compelled someone's mind. I merely stated I've seen nothing ever you offered that could compel anyone's mind to your way of thinking. My observation only.

I would have no clue. I haven't read or studied much on Darwin.

 

"For only the person with the experience." That would include millions of people declaring to be Christian.

Sure I have... My testimony... the equivalent of Darwins testimony of the things he allegedly saw.

Who said my 'voice' was the HS? I never said that.

and your opinion does not equate to a rebuttal.

The biggest little word in the world and you overlooked it... I would guess that it was overlooked intentionally.

 

oh no, the appeal to popularity. By you? But many millions more don't have the experience and are not declared chrsitian. Oh, now I did the appeal to popularity.

Well didn't darwin do some publishing to show his testimony of things he saw? Other than a few posts on some forum, what have you published to provide evidence of the voices in your head?

oh goody. You found a typo to avoid again. You have a 'voice' you speak to daily you claim is the HS. With no empirical data to show for it.

Hence why the end of the post was, 'my observation'.

 

So much for the logical fallacies, then , huh? Guess they are not so important after all.

Under my "real world" identity, I have published many things pertaining to the HS speaking to me. Are you going to now require me to show my "real world" identity in violation of the forum rules?

My testimony is the empirical data when that empirical data is publishced. It is being published on this forum.

No! The end of the post was " I haven't read or studied much on Darwin."

 

In fact [what a surprise!] in proper scientific field "objective reality" keeps on changing while the scientific research advances ... [or stops changing if the conception is consolidated: in presence of common matter, gravity is an attractive force, this is a consolidated conception which we can define an "objective reality"].

And if we would make a poll among scientists asking what's "reality" they would probably answer something like "a system of proved theories" [I like this definition since it contains the conception that "reality" has to be proved before of being accepted as reality and the conception that the process starts from theories which remain theories ... with the possibility that new discoveries will disprove them or just modify them ...].

 

You know...there is what a person believes Reality to be...or percieves reality to be....THEN THERE IS REALITY!!

The thing is that aspects of Quantum Mechanics are giving us the very big ARROW...pointing at an existence of a Multiversal System.

That arrow being comprised of everything from how Observation Locks in Value and Function to REAL WORLD APPLICATIONS such as newly developed 100 and 1000 Quibit Quantum Computers and EVEN OR CELL PHONES.

Basically this arrow is showing us that in order for a CHOICE to exist....every possible outcome MUST ALSO EXIST.

This means that there must be a Multiversal System which at this point is the accepted Theory as we have used the Many Worlds and Multiversal Theory Models....Multiversal Theory is a much more complex overall comprehensive Model than Many Worlds as Many Worlds is but an aspect of MultiversalTheory Models....but we have used these models to engineer and actually develop and build REAL WORLD WORKING SYSTEMS AND DEVICES that only WORK because we used the Many Worlds and Multiversal Theory Models to engineer, develop and construct them.

As example we understood that when actually putting together the internal electronic parts of a Quantum Computer we had to do this ROBOTICALLY and not even a Digital Video Camera could be placed in the area of construction and assembly of such Quantum Computational Systems as any Observation even if it was done via remote digital videa would lock in function and value and thus a Quibit could not calculate in a state of all Functions and Values simultaneously thus IT WOULD NOT WORK AT ALL!!

Aswell such Quantum Computers had to be COMPLETELY SEALED as if they were not and if anyone or even a picture was taken it would as well CEASE TO WORK!!

This just shows us how our REALITY UNFOLDS to us and thus everytime a choice is presented...every time a Particle is brought into a specific state of use....it determines aspects of Alternate Divergent Universal States of Reality.

There are INFINITE versions of me and you....and within some other Divergent Universal State of Reality I took a sip off my beer....in this one I just took TWO SIPS!!!

AboveAlpha

 

Well you pointed out that 'objective reality' keeps on changing, but yet you have not identified what is objective reality; and you pointed out that scientific research advances (advancements are changes),,,, so: Are you saying that scientific research is the sole attribute of objective reality?

 

No, I'm underlining that the so called "objective" reality is actually [and also the word "actually" is amusing in this context] relative to the context.

Do we care, in our daily life, about the objective reality of quarks? [That is to say about their nature?] Are we so interested in knowing if a subatomic entity is more a wave than a particle [or vice versa]?

Because at the base of this discussion there should be a philosophical note:

to talk about "objective reality" implies [is it so difficult to note this?] that a "non objective reality" could exist [eh=? what=?]. To categorize a part of reality as objective means that we accept the conceptualization of the existence of a part of reality which is not objective ...

 

I will only comment thus: Good post and I am happy to see that you are one of those who will "accept the conceptualization of the existence of a part of reality which is not objective." Thus rendering the part that is not "objective" as potentially real and true as some would perceive the other to be.

 

Still no resolution to the problem of identifying and defining what is objective reality. Anyone else want to make a stab in the dark?

 

Objective reality is all that which is objectively real. Seems pretty straight forward. It's kind of right there in the words.

 

Not quite. You see, the words under discussion is "objective reality" (as used in the assumptions which are the foundation of the scientific method), NOT "objectively real". Nice try anyway.

Objectively is an adverb and objective (as in objective reality) is an adjective. Two totally different words.

 

You're seriously making the claim that "objectively" and "objective" are unrelated? I don't think you understand how language works.

 

That could conceivably be your problem "I don't think...."

 

So in other words, you have no response.

 

He did say about himself, 'I don't think'.

 

Yes indeed.. Mjolnir did say that about himself. Notice I did use quote marks.

- - - Updated - - -

My response was noted in the quotation marks stating your own words regarding yourself.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were a child. Do your parents know you're using the internet to talk to strangers?

 

I'm sorry, I didn't know that you were uneducated in the English language. Do you often go around admitting that you do not think?

 

Let it go, kid. You're just embarrassing yourself.

 

Only in your dreams.....