The delusional top ten

[Az]

Duh, Proteus!

But the fact that we haven't percieved the reality correctly, doesn't mean that there is no reality.

There is no objective state of affairs independent to human perception so a "steady state reality" is non-existent. As such, all we are left with is truth as you put it, which defines our reality.

Again, except just saying that to yourself, any proof? The fact that reality can be multifaceted on the quantum level, doesn't mean that in everyday life there is no reality. Is it a table or a pile of organic molecules? The question is irrelevant! It's both! But does that somehow imply that there is no one single reality? bull.

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
i always wondered about this but is it possible that i see the leaves on the tree (which i call green) as the colour that you call purple? while the colour of leaves you see as the colour that i call black? or is there an objective colour system?

Well, since we're all more-or-less able to agree when two colours look nice together, I would think so. I mean, if the colours were randomly put together there ought to be some people who thought it looked nice with, say, brown shoes to blue trousers.

[Whaleboy]

Azazel: If you are in concurrence with those with whom you are in dicussion, then yes, for all intents and purposes it is a table. In the context of that conversation, the shared assumption is one of "table". In that sense, one persons reality is being transmitted and agreed by another person, so its nothing more than a shared egocentrism.

There is that room for disagreement, whether or not it is being used is largely irrelevant to the "fact" that it is still an illusion. As such, there is no "correct" way to perceive your environment.

The only realities are situational/contextual, or better described as phenomenological.

The reality to which you refer is based on a shared assumption, like "tree" or "table". Objectively, it, like all "realities" does not exist.

The only proof beyond philosophical conjecture and logical discourse is in astrophysics. Thus far, the only constants in the universe have been shown to be a misnomer in certain cases, for example, the speed of light in a vacuum is determined by the permittivity and permeability of space-time, for which there are theories that this is in fact variable. It goes very far to solve the horizon problem, for example, to say that the speed of light was far greater in the history of the universe.

Evidence hinting at extra dimensions (black holes and tachyons) is a further indication that conditions in physics have much room for change.

Nonetheless, this idealism is cognetive, so requiring no "proof" beyond that given.

does that somehow imply that there is no one single reality? bull.

Unless you believe in god, or some other uber-universal power, then one must conclude that there is no single reality.

[Whaleboy]

i always wondered about this but is it possible that i see the leaves on the tree (which i call green) as the colour that you call purple? while the colour of leaves you see as the colour that i call black? or is there an objective colour system?

It is possible to see them differently (I see them as yellowish because I'm partially colour blind), but as most people don't, it becomes a phenomenological reality.

if the colours were randomly put together there ought to be some people who thought it looked nice with, say, brown shoes to blue trousers

Well, what colours concur with each other is as much a case of personal preference as it is a mathematical system. Not unlike music in fact. However, even mathematics and logic are still interpretations in the mind.. indeed more obviously than most. I may say something is more logical than something else, but that relies on the assumption of logic, and my argument relies on the assumption that logic is good, which I can argue back and back and back, and I will find no unassailable truth which can justify one position over the other once and for all.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
its ridiculous how far liberals will go to vilify people with such unfounded adjectives

It's amazing you don't see the irony in your own words. Considering that conservative talk radio and the like have made it a daily habit of villifying liberals, I'd have to say the pot is calling the kettle black here.

[Whaleboy]

Boris:

At least my trolls are based on logic!

And yes, that is an illusion! Still, some illusions are better than others in certain contexts.

[Elok]

Originally posted by skywalker
The delusion that this thread will NOT descend into a flamewar, despite all of your requests that it not

Looking at the thread, yes, you win a cookie, which will be awarded to you as soon as my cookie supply reaches a stable and reliable level, and if you believe that we have another entry for my list...

[st_swithin]

Equilibrium is a FARCE. It's like any other threshold value: it's relative to the two extremes which describe it.

"Stable state" is a state which has remained essentially unchanged for some significant period of time, but which is extremely sensitive to the outlier.

The Outlier is that which greatly affects the mean of any statistical sample.

[Whaleboy]

st_swithin: (Nice and enigmatic there )

[Lorizael]

Elijah: It seems you're making the common mistake of thinking that perception of the environment is based purely on sight. We "know" there's a table there because we can see it.

However, we can't see subatomic particles, but we still "know" that they're there. With that knowledge in hand, we can perceive the table as being made up of subatomic particles, even if we can't see that.

And, actually, you cannot continue indefinitely with a line of observations. Most physcists think that the vibrations on space-time that create particles are as small as the universe gets. I don't know the specifics of why they think this, but they do.

Now, I cannot perceive everything. Because of this limitation, I am forced to, logically, not make assumptions about that which I do not know. I cannot even assume that what I do not know exists.

Therefore my reality must be confined to what I can perceive.

This is my reality. It is not the reality of the entire universe - because I am not omniscient - but it is the best reality that I can find.

The problem comes when people attempt to, without a logical basis, create a reality from that which they do not know. This is a delusion. Claiming to know the objective reality of the universe, without the omnipotent powers of a supernatual entity of some sort, is fallacious.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by elijah


It is possible to see them differently (I see them as yellowish because I'm partially colour blind), but as most people don't, it becomes a phenomenological reality.



Well, what colours concur with each other is as much a case of personal preference as it is a mathematical system. Not unlike music in fact. However, even mathematics and logic are still interpretations in the mind.. indeed more obviously than most. I may say something is more logical than something else, but that relies on the assumption of logic, and my argument relies on the assumption that logic is good, which I can argue back and back and back, and I will find no unassailable truth which can justify one position over the other once and for all.

We can't really examine this issue. That's the problem with questions concerning pure subjective experience. Hell, it's even possible that each day you wake up all the colors are switched around but you wouldn't notice because it would alter your perceptions of your memories as well. Whatever you experience is what you are experiencing and there is no way to communicate that experience directly or save it for posterity. Kind of depressing really.

Oh I'd better add something on topic.

How about that wide held belief that thousands of jews in nyc stayed home from work on 9/11/01 to avoid the israeli orchastrated terrorist attacks?

[Elok]

Actually, maybe you *should* stay off-topic. People seem to have a harder time flaming each other when they don't understand what anybody, including themselves, is talking about. And it seems to be generating better responses too. If we try to split this off into a separate discussion it'll get two responses then get buried, because the whole OT seems to think there's a voodoo curse on anyone who uses a thread to discuss its actual topic.

[Whaleboy]

Elijah: It seems you're making the common mistake of thinking that perception of the environment is based purely on sight. We "know" there's a table there because we can see it.

Oh of course one can have a priori knowledge, but that doesn't really affect what I'm saying - such a knowledge is still an interpreted phenomenon both by its nature, and the nature of its spawning.

And, actually, you cannot continue indefinitely with a line of observations. Most physcists think that the vibrations on space-time that create particles are as small as the universe gets. I don't know the specifics of why they think this, but they do.

The Planck length. The problem is that this is merely a four dimensional theory, which is insufficient. Getting beyond that notion, by definition one can continue indefinetely as there is no logical barrier to a number of dimensions. Pretty far out cosmological theory but it seems to make more sense than most.

Your notion of a limited subjective reality is precisely my point, one can only go so far while being geocentric. Within the notion of illusion/dillusion, I agree that claiming to know an objective reality while subjective (ignoring the fact that sometimes we have the capacity to emulate objectivity) gives a dillusion, it is no less real to that person. Within that persons own mind/reality, it is he who has the greatest validity in judging over it, so in that sense, perhaps the entire notion of dillusions is flawed, because it implies an illusion that is objectively better than another. While that may be true for a given context, that belies the fact that it is not objective, but then, I default back to one of my favourite terms, pseudo-objective.

[Whaleboy]

Kind of depressing really.

Nah, I take comfort in uncertainty, my own limitations (in whatever guise that takes, be that philosophical, cognetive, physical etc), and my mortality and non-permanance. Its not like I have a choice .

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Elok
Actually, maybe you *should* stay off-topic. People seem to have a harder time flaming each other when they don't understand what anybody, including themselves, is talking about. And it seems to be generating better responses too. If we try to split this off into a separate discussion it'll get two responses then get buried, because the whole OT seems to think there's a voodoo curse on anyone who uses a thread to discuss its actual topic.

Well in that case I want to add a few more comments about perception of color. We all have learned about the three primary colors and also about how only three color elements are required to produce all the various colors that we percieve, however have you ever stopped to realize that this isn't some sort of law of physics but rather a direct consequence to the fact that our eyes have three types of photoreceptors for detecting light in just three wavelengths? The degree of detection and detection overlap when some or all or none of these three kinds of detectors are triggered determines precisely what colors we are seeing. This means that there could have been any number of 'primary colors' and we got three just because that is what our particular biology gives us. In fact if we could be missing one of these receptors we'd have a world with only 2 primary colors which would be every bit as vibrant as the one with three (albeit a lot less diverse). Of course trying to imagine any situation with more than 3 primary colors only gives us headaches but there's nothing to prevent such a situation given enough receptor types in the eye of the beholder.

[Lorizael]

Elijah:

I'm pretty sure you and I agree on a lot of things, Elijah. We're both people that came to pretty much the same conclusions - but in our own minds, so our terminology and method of expression (we express the same opinion (from my subjective viewpoint) that all things are relative in a way that is reflective of our own natures, thus making it more difficult to realize that we are saying the same thing).

I think both of us think the universe is meaningless. Am I right?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Geronimo

Well in that case I want to add a few more comments about perception of color. We all have learned about the three primary colors and also about how only three color elements are required to produce all the various colors that we percieve, however have you ever stopped to realize that this isn't some sort of law of physics but rather a direct consequence to the fact that our eyes have three types of photoreceptors for detecting light in just three wavelengths? The degree of detection and detection overlap when some or all or none of these three kinds of detectors are triggered determines precisely what colors we are seeing. This means that there could have been any number of 'primary colors' and we got three just because that is what our particular biology gives us. In fact if we could be missing one of these receptors we'd have a world with only 2 primary colors which would be every bit as vibrant as the one with three (albeit a lot less diverse). Of course trying to imagine any situation with more than 3 primary colors only gives us headaches but there's nothing to prevent such a situation given enough receptor types in the eye of the beholder.

Yep, very good Description of the Differences in Perception of Colour

I might add that in other Species of course you can find more Colour-Receptors. Doves for example have a tetrachromatic visual Systerm, i.e. they have 4 different Types of Colour-Receptors.
There are also Butterflies with 5 different Colour-Receptors and Crabs which possess more than 10 different of them (but I don´t know which species exactly ).
For us humans it is impossible to imagine, how these animals, with their additional Colour-Receptors perceive the visual world.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Lorizael


That "the atheist" makes this claim.

Most accounts of what happened in the 1948 war in Isreal is probably pretty high up there on the delusion scale...

But you can't get much better than thinking that leaving a fan on and you window closed when you sleep can kill you...

[Az]

yes, for all intents and purposes it is a table. In the context of that conversation, the shared assumption is one of "table". In that sense, one persons reality is being transmitted and agreed by another person, so its nothing more than a shared egocentrism.

give me an example for this example.

There is that room for disagreement, whether or not it is being used is largely irrelevant to the "fact" that it is still an illusion. As such, there is no "correct" way to perceive your environment.

The only realities are situational/contextual, or better described as phenomenological.

again, not a really substanciated claim. The fact that people view a certain object or situation from different angles does NOT imply that there is no single reality. The fact that the full description of reality is infinite is meaningless, as well, just as the description of pi, or e are infinite, it doesn't stop them from being a single particular number, and even though their definition in math is simple, that doesn't mean that there are no other definitions of them, perhaps even infinite number of them. All of these don't stop pi, or e from being numbers.

The reality to which you refer is based on a shared assumption, like "tree" or "table". Objectively, it, like all "realities" does not exist.

What do you mean by that? That thing shared is not a shared assumption, but an almost completely overlapping definition, shared by those people. That again, doesn't change the nature of the object.

The only proof beyond philosophical conjecture and logical discourse is in astrophysics. Thus far, the only constants in the universe have been shown to be a misnomer in certain cases, for example, the speed of light in a vacuum is determined by the permittivity and permeability of space-time, for which there are theories that this is in fact variable. It goes very far to solve the horizon problem, for example, to say that the speed of light was far greater in the history of the universe.

A) referring to differences in astrophysical constants is hardly ANY proof of the existance of infinite realities in social and human interactions, and makes no impact on the legitimacy, or in this case the illegitemacy of certain actions, and POVs.
B) regarding the astrophysics: It is very much logical that space-time could vary, and thus change the speed of light. One has to reflect, though, the impact of those same changes on other objects, that could change their size adequately, due to the same reasons.

Evidence hinting at extra dimensions (black holes and tachyons) is a further indication that conditions in physics have much room for change.

Once again, this has little to do with our everyday life, BUT EVEN IF IT DID, the existance of extra dimensions doesn't mean that there is no reality, just that our perception of reality has been, so far, lacking and incomplete.

Nonetheless, this idealism is cognetive, so requiring no "proof" beyond that given.

Unless you believe in god, or some other uber-universal power, then one must conclude that there is no single reality.

BAM.

[Dr Strangelove]

Anothjer major delusion that is often expressed on these boards is the belief that the Star Wars Empire could defeat the Star Trek Federation. It just ain't gonna happen guys.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Anothjer major delusion that is often expressed on these boards is the belief that the Star Wars Empire could defeat the Star Trek Federation. It just ain't gonna happen guys.

My god, that's worse than bringing up religion! And... I've said it before and I'll say it again. Neither side wins. Q wins.

[Whaleboy]

I'm pretty sure you and I agree on a lot of things, Elijah. We're both people that came to pretty much the same conclusions - but in our own minds, so our terminology and method of expression (we express the same opinion (from my subjective viewpoint) that all things are relative in a way that is reflective of our own natures, thus making it more difficult to realize that we are saying the same thing).

I think both of us think the universe is meaningless. Am I right?

Pretty much! Here its a case of two people with similar dispositions reaching the same conclusion independently as you said.

I think the universe is "objectively" meaningless, however, as a human, I view it through tinted glasses so attach my own meanings and reality to it for me. As such, I have a purpose in life, but fundamentally, have had to come to terms with non permanance and inevitable mortality. That is a subjective view, and cannot be imposed on others. Objectively, we're born, we live, we die, we're dust (or at least to the best of our current understanding).

give me an example for this example.

Ok, say you and me are having a conversation about pizza. I prefer plain cheese and tomato, you prefer it with anchovies and pineapple (or whatever other crap they put on nowadays). We both disagree, so my reality of "plain pizza with ****loads of cheese is nice", is opposed to yours of "pizza with the contents of the North Sea on it is best".

Say we both agree that I am right. It really should happen more often for your sake not mine. We share the assumption that cheese and tom pizza is best, so that becomes something of a constant of our shared reality. Now in such a small case, we have the ability to say, "well I like x pizza, but you may like y pizza and both are equally valid", while in larger cases thats harder for most people to do, but the same logic essentially applies.

again, not a really substanciated claim. The fact that people view a certain object or situation from different angles does NOT imply that there is no single reality.

The claim that there is a single "correct" or "ultimate" reality etc requires evidence, and does not become a baseline from which I must show there is no ultimate reality. It is not the innocent before my guilty.

Nonetheless, whether or not there is an uiltimate reality, for the most part is a question of belief, and if you are religious and believe in the traditional semetic sense of God, then my argument will always be alien to you. However, increasing astrophysical and cosmological (though theoretical it holds much water ) evidence shows that there is none in physics (what you might even call reality ), and logically there is none until proven otherwise (for all intents and purposes that is).

On the other hand, one can hold that elijah likes cheese and tomato pizza in x,y,z,t,n etc dimensions is a constant, and something that will hold. That is true, but does not affect the position that my reality is not necessarily transferable between mine and other peoples contexts. In fact that is not the case by default and requires agreement that here we can say is either conincidental or human to share that assumption.

What do you mean by that? That thing shared is not a shared assumption, but an almost completely overlapping definition, shared by those people. That again, doesn't change the nature of the object.

Its only overlapping between the people that concur, as explained above. It does change the nature of the object. Imagine you have an alien visiting Earth from a planet where what we call wood is deffacate material. Our view that "table comes from tree" is false in their eyes, until they apply the context and say, "for Earth, tables come from trees". The table in itself, out of context, say, just drifting in space, to them, does not come from a tree.

A) referring to differences in astrophysical constants is hardly ANY proof of the existance of infinite realities in social and human interactions, and makes no impact on the legitimacy, or in this case the illegitemacy of certain actions, and POVs.

Im afraid thats not the case. The only place you are ever going to find universal constants, if there are any, is in cosmology. Thus far, that notion is looking like a misnomer, as the constants for this universe supposedly found now appear to be variable. Even the rules behind them are dependent upon conditions in this 4-d universe, different dimensions, strong likelihood of other universes (long story, related to time travel, dont ask), means necessarily different rules.

Of course, this is meaningless if you believe in God, but then, to me, you have to show that God exists.

B) regarding the astrophysics: It is very much logical that space-time could vary, and thus change the speed of light. One has to reflect, though, the impact of those same changes on other objects, that could change their size adequately, due to the same reasons.

So keeping a table a table in relation to the speed of light? As mentioned, that change would not be visable only to our eyes, a situational reality .

Nonetheless, variations in the speed of light does create physical inconsistensies in the universe, while at the same time explaining them, for example, the horizon problem.

Once again, this has little to do with our everyday life, BUT EVEN IF IT DID, the existance of extra dimensions doesn't mean that there is no reality, just that our perception of reality has been, so far, lacking and incomplete.

Our everyday life (generalising terribly here) IS is a situational reality. Not a true one. The existence of extra dimensions means that any "reality" we can perceive of on the largest scale in this universe, is still situational as far as n -> n+1 dimensions are concerned. That means that in a small context there is a certain objective reality, but that reality does not apply in larger dimensions, whereas it is possible to say that reality is linked to context to form a constant (elijah likes x pizza), but as the dimensions one has to consider increases, one would have to specify a number of dimensions, (elijah likes pizza at this place, in this time, in thiis universe, in these dimensions....) going to infinity, rendering that notion as situational as the rest.

BAM

For your argument to hold you must show that there is a god or uber universal objective. The idealistic/relativist argument relies on fewer assumptions (not relying on the extra assumption that there is a god) so you have to show that there is an ultimate reality in order to render my argument invalid.

Note when I talk about my argument vs others, and my argument being shown invalid etc, I am talking about my context, my situation. Objectively, mine is no less or more valid than Azazels et al.

[Az]

Ok, say you and me are having a conversation about pizza. I prefer plain cheese and tomato, you prefer it with anchovies and pineapple (or whatever other crap they put on nowadays). We both disagree, so my reality of "plain pizza with ****loads of cheese is nice", is opposed to yours of "pizza with the contents of the North Sea on it is best".

has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with our discussion, since personal preferences are NOT 'different realities'. Personal preferences is saying what one likes best. One may like one thing more, and the other may like something else more, due to the complex way the different flavours affect and stimulate taste buds, and thus, in turn, stimulate pleasure centers.

Say we both agree that I am right. It really should happen more often for your sake not mine. We share the assumption that cheese and tom pizza is best, so that becomes something of a constant of our shared reality. Now in such a small case, we have the ability to say, "well I like x pizza, but you may like y pizza and both are equally valid", while in larger cases thats harder for most people to do, but the same logic essentially applies.

No, it doesn't! If I suddenly think that the other pizza is 'better', there must be something to trigger it. Whether the change of the definition of 'better', me actually tasting the pizza, etc.

IN ANY CASE, this example doesn't prove the existance different realities, neither does it prove the moral relativistic POV.

Its only overlapping between the people that concur, as explained above. It does change the nature of the object. Imagine you have an alien visiting Earth from a planet where what we call wood is deffacate material. Our view that "table comes from tree" is false in their eyes, until they apply the context and say, "for Earth, tables come from trees". The table in itself, out of context, say, just drifting in space, to them, does not come from a tree

Once again, this are NOT differing realities. These are changing definition of tables!
( Btw, the definition of tables is not that they're made of wood, but that's a different issue. )

The claim that there is a single "correct" or "ultimate" reality etc requires evidence, and does not become a baseline from which I must show there is no ultimate reality. It is not the innocent before my guilty.

Neither is the opposite correct.

Nonetheless, whether or not there is an uiltimate reality, for the most part is a question of belief, and if you are religious and believe in the traditional semetic sense of God, then my argument will always be alien to you. However, increasing astrophysical and cosmological (though theoretical it holds much water ) evidence shows that there is none in physics (what you might even call reality ), and logically there is none until proven otherwise (for all intents and purposes that is).

I don't believe in god. On the issue of astrophysical and cosmological evidence: You seem to miss the point; Even if there are endless universes, That DOESN'T mean that reality differs for the individual in a debate about social issues, and ethics, because we all exist in the same universe. ( even if every quantum action splits universes, each copy remains in it's own universe, and the nature of the interaction between universes is , at best. AND EVEN IF SUCH INTERACTION WOULD EXIST, all that it would prove that there is single reality, and not a number of independent ones. An independent reality/universe doesn't really differ at all from a single one)

IN ANY CASE, That doesn't mean that every pov holder exists in a universe of it's own.

On the other hand, one can hold that elijah likes cheese and tomato pizza in x,y,z,t,n etc dimensions is a constant, and something that will hold. That is true, but does not affect the position that my reality is not necessarily transferable between mine and other peoples contexts. In fact that is not the case by default and requires agreement that here we can say is either conincidental or human to share that assumption.

how physical dimensions have anything to do with people's realities, esp. since all humans are defined in the same physical dimensions?


[/q]
Of course, this is meaningless if you believe in God, but then, to me, you have to show that God exists.
[/q]
I don't.

Our everyday life (generalising terribly here) IS is a situational reality. Not a true one. The existence of extra dimensions means that any "reality" we can perceive of on the largest scale in this universe, is still situational as far as n -> n+1 dimensions are concerned. That means that in a small context there is a certain objective reality, but that reality does not apply in larger dimensions, whereas it is possible to say that reality is linked to context to form a constant (elijah likes x pizza), but as the dimensions one has to consider increases, one would have to specify a number of dimensions, (elijah likes pizza at this place, in this time, in thiis universe, in these dimensions....) going to infinity, rendering that notion as situational as the rest.

So what you say is:
A) The 'fact' that there are different universes, and plenty of dimensions is not relevant for a discussion on ethics. I AGREE FULLY.
B) If you look at "elijah likes pizza at this place, in this time, in thiis universe, in these dimensions.... going to infinity, rendering that notion as situational as the rest." situation, you still CAN define a SINGE reality of existance of multiple universes, multiple dimensions, etc. The fact that this state is currently IMMENSLY FAR TO AN UNDESCRIBABLE DEGREE to humans, doesn't mean that we won't be able to give at some point in the future a pretty damn good approximation for the part of these things which is relevant to us. So not only this reality exists, as a knowledge limit assimptote, but also we'll be able to have a good idea what this limit is. I once again give the pi constant as an example: we don't have to fully know it to use it.

For your argument to hold you must show that there is a god or uber universal objective. The idealistic/relativist argument relies on fewer assumptions (not relying on the extra assumption that there is a god) so you have to show that there is an ultimate reality in order to render my argument invalid.

You've already agree that for all purposes and means, for humans THERE IS a single reality, esp. since humans aren't going to any other dimensions any time soon. (We exist there just as much as cartoon drawings exist in 3-D)

Note when I talk about my argument vs others, and my argument being shown invalid etc, I am talking about my context, my situation. Objectively, mine is no less or more valid than Azazels et al.

A) What is this objectivity you're talking about? I thought there is no objective
B) Can you please explain again? I am afraid my english is still laking at times.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Medieval People knew, that Sun (which evolves around earth) sank below the Horizon, because Earth is flat…

Yeah, that is a sad delusion about the medieval period that modern people suffer.

Some of the most uneducated medieval people believed the Earth flat, just as among modern peoples, but the illiterate barbarian seafarer knew the Earth to be (approximately) spherical. The educated knew well of Eritosthenes' approximation of ~25,500 miles circumference.

Columbus was mocked not because his detractors thought the world flat, but because Columbus was deluded into believing that the circumference was a mere 18k miles and that Eurasia spanned a whopping 15k+ miles.

[Whaleboy]

has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with our discussion, since personal preferences are NOT 'different realities'.

Oh but they are! Or rather, a small aspect of a larger cognetive process.

No, it doesn't! If I suddenly think that the other pizza is 'better', there must be something to trigger it. Whether the change of the definition of 'better', me actually tasting the pizza, etc.

If I were to use the same language I used in objectivity/relativism discussion, I'd say that you've changed your wildcards. That affects nothing.

Neither is the opposite correct.

On the contrary, you are claiming that there is an ultimate reality, you have to show it, otherwise one assumes that is not the case. I have shown that there isn't (agree with my argument or not), and you must provide a positive case for there being such a reality.

IN ANY CASE, That doesn't mean that every pov holder exists in a universe of it's own.

What does that have to do with reality perception being a matter for the beholder?

how physical dimensions have anything to do with people's realities, esp. since all humans are defined in the same physical dimensions?

Its one of those rare cosmological theories that are as valid as a philosophy. Most obviously, it translates itself to a kind (or rather my kind ) of subjectivism or a Protagoran relativism. Nonetheless, it shows that there is no ultimate reality in cosmology. Thats a big deal.

A) The 'fact' that there are different universes, and plenty of dimensions is not relevant for a discussion on ethics. I AGREE FULLY.

This is a question of idealism, which isn't really ethics imo. There are not "a number" of different universes or "plenty of dimensions", by definition from our point of view, there are infinite numbers of both. Infinity in that sense is merely a four dimensional concept, like a graph with axes 1 - 10, having to deal with 11.

you still CAN define a SINGE reality of existance of multiple universes, multiple dimensions, etc

No you cant, its like an infinitely long sequence of Russian dolls, with each infinity being rendered finite by the next. You are assuming a Russian doll, with n iterations, and when you reach n (assuming our universe is the smallest) you have your ultimate reality. In both cosmology and metaphysics, the idealistic interpretation holds that because n is infinity (and thus lots more Russian dolls... god fractals rule!!) that larger reality is a misnomer.

I once again give the pi constant as an example: we don't have to fully know it to use it.

We can conceive a dimension (if not actually conveive of it) where pi is a number with a finite number of decimal places. Remember the 1-10 graph.

You've already agree that for all purposes and means, for humans THERE IS a single reality, esp. since humans aren't going to any other dimensions any time soon. (We exist there just as much as cartoon drawings exist in 3-D)

Its what we, or rather the pragmatists term "real life". However, that is up for debate, and many people disagree about it. Nonetheless, even the interpretation of that is cognetive and subject therefore to individual and situational variations, hence we are all different and have different outlooks/philosophies etc. In a sense, we are taking the pile of wood and calling it a table. For all intents and purposes, it is wood, but it is still us that calls it a table. Same with "real life reality".

A) What is this objectivity you're talking about? I thought there is no objective

Pseudo objective.. context of this debate. I'm not in a great position to say so as I am subjective, I try to emulate but that shouldn't be assumed to be reliable.

B) Can you please explain again? I am afraid my english is still laking at times.

Thats ok. Firstly my argument is that we take our surroundings and interpret them in our minds, applying a priori knowledge and other "wildcards" to create our own realities. Thats pretty simple Platonic stuff really. This situation, this environment, we can say is science, it is "rock solid", but that only works for planet Earth etc. Science is not the ultimate reality even for us as we have only scratched the surface and by its nature, thats all we'll ever get. Metaphysically, there is no ultimate reality at all, and even the baseline we use for our interpretations in "real life" is flexible. All reality is an illusion, and dillusions are peoples illusions we disagree with.

What I mean by the objectivity thing is that I have an argument and so do you. Both are valid, but mine is more valid for me, yours is more valid for you. To me, my argument needs disproving. However, moving beyond you and me, say, to an independent observer who doesn't have an opinion here, doesnt care etc, both views remain equally valid. That will remain so until he judges.

Your english is a damn site better than my Hebrew!

[Whaleboy]

Azazel: I think we're covering old territory here .

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Straybow
Yeah, that is a sad delusion about the medieval period that modern people suffer.

Some of the most uneducated medieval people believed the Earth flat, just as among modern peoples, but the illiterate barbarian seafarer knew the Earth to be (approximately) spherical. The educated knew well of Eritosthenes' approximation of ~25,500 miles circumference.

Columbus was mocked not because his detractors thought the world flat, but because Columbus was deluded into believing that the circumference was a mere 18k miles and that Eurasia spanned a whopping 15k+ miles.

This is true. Also the educated believed you could reach Asia by sailing west but they thought the distance was so great that a ship would run out of food and fire wood before they reached Asia. If the Americas hadn't been there then this may well have been Columbus's fate.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Straybow
Yeah, that is a sad delusion about the medieval period that modern people suffer.

Some of the most uneducated medieval people believed the Earth flat, just as among modern peoples, but the illiterate barbarian seafarer knew the Earth to be (approximately) spherical. The educated knew well of Eritosthenes' approximation of ~25,500 miles circumference.

Columbus was mocked not because his detractors thought the world flat, but because Columbus was deluded into believing that the circumference was a mere 18k miles and that Eurasia spanned a whopping 15k+ miles.

Yes, it might be that I am incorrect in this one.
It isn´t new to me that Greek Philosophers already had the Theory, that Earth is a Globe, after all Columbus got his Ideas about reaching India by traveling westwards by reading a Book in a monastery where Earth was described to be a Globe.

And so this Theory must also have known to higher Clerics.

And of cause also the Wikings knew it, which led to Leif Erickson Expedition and to his discovery of Canada.

But I didn´t know that general medieval knowledge (i.e. the European Populace)assumed earth to be globular.
I always thought that the Clerics, although knowing about these Theories of a globular earth, never trusted these Theories enough (as it stood also in Opposition to their Interpretation of certain Passages of the Bible) and so even the Intelligenzia assumed earth to be flat.

So, yes, if the dispute between Columbus and the scholars was essentially about the Diameter of Earth and not about the earth being flat or globular and if it was generally accepted by the european Intelligenzia, that Earth is a Globe and not flat,
then I have indeed fallen for a Delusion in assuming that the people in medieval tmes thought of earth to be flat.

[Az]

I'll answer that in about a month, Elijah. I am going to shoot innocent palestinian children.

[Whaleboy]

Have fun Azazel... and I know you will! .