Facts can be subjective. Thoughts?

Nov 18, 2019
12
7
35

"...in the micro-world of atoms and particles that is governed by the strange rules of quantum mechanics, two different observers are entitled to their own facts. In other words, according to our best theory of the building blocks of nature itself, facts can actually be subjective. "

This is a strange time, as theoretical physics merges with what is happening in our culture. I'm going to have to go give this a long think.
I am eager to hear other opinions on this too.
 
Nov 19, 2019
8
2
35
Ah yes, quantum mechanics and its unrelenting capacity for shaking our scientific foundations. Personally, I don't mind a sort of blanket subjectivity!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lang Jones

Tia Ghose

Staff member
Nov 20, 2019
3
1
10
I think this is certainly one interpretation of quantum physics, but there are others, and not all of them are down for the count. Personally I am not enthralled with the notion that there is no subjective reality.
 
Nov 24, 2019
1
0
10
Of course facts can change. Just cross paths with new information and voila! And just because we believe our known facts doesn't mean they are facts for other universes and what's outside those.
 
Nov 26, 2019
2
1
10
Yes, light is subjective. For it is effected by the Receiver/browser of the light. If a fact is congruent with what we see. If a fact is not congruent with what we see then I Belive it is possible for a fact to be objective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: petra4
Nov 28, 2019
12
4
35
You cannot use the word 'subjective' here. Each observer has their own set of facts. That is their reality. Their reality is objective based on their quantum state. The fact that their reality may differ from other's reality does not make their reality any less real.
 
Nov 28, 2019
33
1
55
Today we can do a more interesting quantum experiment. This can end the discussion about the power of the mental wave. Worldwide there is a frightening reality in the field of economics. And there is also hope that the American dream can be lived by all peoples. Strangely enough, a group of so-called humans concentrate all their strength on convincing everyone to be their dependents. They carry all economic values to their coffers. Humanity thus suffers the most unsolvable misery. Some countries have programs with no tribute as planned by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and all the dreamers of American Dream. Let's suppose a scenario in which our minds focus all our planning under study to transform our countries into a structure that has always worked - THE CONDOMINIUM. Rather than imposing statal fees for governors to decide how to spend these collects, we look at the real needs of our region, thus knowing the amount we should collect in our condominium and sharing it in proportion to the economic power of the residents.
I ask which of these three scenarios is impossible? Which one suits us? The current scenario of slavery? With everyone hallucinated to win? The condominium scenario within this unlimited wealth of natural resources? Or this indecision that only favors conflicts?
Or are all three realities and do we have to choose between them our "parallel universe"?
But ... Why can't we use our mental strength to do the best?
 
Nov 26, 2019
6
2
35
You cannot use the word 'subjective' here. Each observer has their own set of facts. That is their reality. Their reality is objective based on their quantum state. The fact that their reality may differ from other's reality does not make their reality any less real.
You're – completely understandably, since you've decided to comment – entangling yourself in the Gordian knot of semantics, and now I'm going to join you: Not only can you use the word "subjective" here, you must, because what's being discussed is how a third party observer would describe a sitation in which two other observers had diametrically opposed "realities" — whether one terms those original two observers as being subjective or objective really doesn't matter.


 
Nov 28, 2019
12
4
35
You're – completely understandably, since you've decided to comment – entangling yourself in the Gordian knot of semantics, and now I'm going to join you: Not only can you use the word "subjective" here, you must, because what's being discussed is how a third party observer would describe a sitation in which two other observers had diametrically opposed "realities" — whether one terms those original two observers as being subjective or objective really doesn't matter.
Yeah, don't agree. Subjectivity is when two people view the same particular thing differently. For example, someone thinks a cloud looks like a rabbit, someone else says a dog. The 'fact' is the cloud they are both looking at. In the quantum there are actually 2 different physical clouds. And we know this very well. Someone standing on the ground will experience time slower than someone on top of a building. And everything within the reality of the man on the ground is slower, plants grow slower, the planets orbit slower, etc. His universe is slower. It is his reality and his alone. It's only subjective if you treat everyone's reality as within a single system. It is not.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS