Yapa,

“Tell me that Einstein’s equation, which would explain what both of them are seeing.”

Don’t you understand the concept of variables. Do you think Eistein wrote infinite number of Lorentz transformation equations for each frame of reference, which are infinite? It’s a series of equations, with variables that you can change based on you frame of reference. That’s the whole point of an equations.

Now, a lot of your confusion begins from thinking that relativity explains what you are seeing/perceiving from each frame of reference. Yes, it does explain that too. But what the observer sees is real. It’s not an optical illusion. It really happens, and it happens whether the observer is present or not. In other words, the theory of relativity is not observer dependent. Consider your own comment,

1. Space is not absolute, dimensions of an object is changed with the velocity.
2. Time is not absolute, the speed of the flow of time can vary with speed. (Eg:- twin paradox)
3. Mass is not absolute, mass of an object changes with speed. (If we send a thing at the speed of light the mass of the body becomes infinity.)
4. Gravity is not objective (can change with acceleration)

Now I ask you, is any of this dependent on an observer seeing them? In othet words, are any of this mind-dependent?

If you know anything about relativity, the answer is NO. Relativity is a classical physics theory in disguise. It is not mind blowingly counterintuitive like QM.

Space is not absolute. Is this dependent on a mind? No. Space will be not absolute even if there’s no mind in the universe to observe it.

Time is not absolute. But is this dependent on mind? No. Time is not absolute even if there is no mind to observe it.

Same can be said about mass and gravity.

Incidentally, if you think this space, time, mass etc being relative and not absolute indicates that there is no objective reality, then the fact that the speed of light is absolute is an absolute truth and it’s objectively real.

But then, I would say that only if I was confused, like you. Yes, speed of light is absolute. Does it become objectively real because it’s absolute? No. It becomes objectively real because it is what it is without being dependent on a mind.

Think about sabbe laban’s claim that multiple observers see multiple realities. Well, they don’t see multiple realities, but for the time being let’s say they do. Are those realities dependent on the observer’s mind? No. This is not QM. Observer’s mind doesn’t play any part here. Further, the meta-reality that includes all those sabbe laban realities, is it mind-dependent? No. It’s just what it is.

In a single sentence, according to relativity, the moon is there regardless whether we are here to look at it.

Now, you seem to have few questions about Many World Interpretation. But first let me tell something about consciousness-causes-collapse interpretations. Consciousness-causes-collapse interpretations are retarded, but most of them are realist. Consciousness-causes-collapse interpretations deny objective reality since according to them, reality is dependent on the observer. But they don’t deny reality itself. The consciousness is real. The amplitude is real. The collapse is real.

You get to many world interpretations. The modern version of it heavily uses decoherence, which was mainly developed after the 1980s. The thing about many world interpretation is that it doesn’t require the wave function to collapse. The wave function is objectively real. It’s existence is not mind-dependent. There may be infinite number if universes adhering to QM laws. But the reality that contains all those universe is the non-collapsing wave function and it is objectively real. The existence of the wave function is not dependent on any mind. It is just there.

Tell me how, “many quantum universes” provides an objective reality? I think such a theory would suggests the opposite

I think my last paragraph answered this.

As Saban said in one of the universes entropy would decrease in opposition to our universe. Here in that case there will not be any objectivity even for “entropy”.

This is simply not true. In the multiverse, there is no communication between universe. Affairs in one world doesn’t affect affairs in another. Similarly, it doesn’t violate the conservation of energy thing either.

Are you writing/telling anything that comes to your mouth? I cannot think of your bravery.

Yes, what else am I supposed to do? Write whatever that comes to Nalin de Silva’s mouth like you do? But then, to his credit, Nalin knows relativity is a classical theory.

Anyway do you still think there is a objective reality, in spite of the nature of the universe (whether it is multi universe or not) as you claimed at the beginning?

Well, yes, and it will be so until some future theory disproves it. All of us live as if there is an objective reality. I won’t find you jumping off a building trying to out-believe gravity.

Dear Saban;

“For your information the clear-cut boundary between botany and zoology disappears in the world of micro-organisms;and that’s why they are included in both subjects.”

We will see when that boundary disappears. Only the perspectives of the concern of scientists (materialists) will disappear. Not the concerns of all including philosophers. Holistic concern do you think will disappear. Self satisfaction of scientists is not the satisfaction of all. Without disproving consciousness they cannot satisfy all, but only themselves. They can deceive themselves.

“At what level of complexity does a being acquire a “consciousness”, according to you? You can take examples from some members of the family Protista and show us! If you are unable to do so, I’ll take some examples and ask you whether they have a “consciousness” or not, and the reasons for your answer!”

I don’t what level of complexity, really it is not necessary for Buddhist classification of Beings. All those who possess a consciousness is a being immaterial of its size, where it lives. I would like to draw your attention to the stanza of “karaniya metta sutta” once I had referred to you in a previous discussion. “Yekecji pana bhuthathi……”

Thanks!

Dear Saban;

I would like to draw your attention to the following statement of the recent post of our friend PP.

“The concept of creator god and the foundation of Buddhism are both stand on premises, which can not be empirically proven. One is ‘God exists’. The other is ‘Punarbhava’ (reincarnation). Although they both are beyond the sensory perception of majority of men they both can be proven with ‘rational’ argument, which has been done in the past by various philosophers e.g. Kant.”

Any way, I will have to presume that PP is unaware of the fact that very “rational arguments” disprove the existence of creator god beyond any doubt or that fact is against his “value system”.

Please remove that particular part from the PP’s statement and read what I have been telling you from the very inception, about Buddhism. Rational arguments +coherence and consistence.

Every thing in no theory can be proven with rationality alone. Some have to be proven with the consistency of them with rationally proven things. I do not ask you to do a favour to Buddhism going out of this norm. I am asking you to treat Buddhism too within the accepted norm.

Under this norm, can you ask each and every doctrine in Buddhism to be proven rationally?

It is totally unnecessary.

Thanks!

Why dear sharanga you are only concentrating on “communication of entangled particles”?

If you want to establish reality is objective you will have to dispute all the arguments Saban put forward, not just one.

On the other hand you rely on your premise on a “speculation” in disputing even entangled communication. Who told you that “many universe concept” is a “true premise?

Thanks!

Dear PitastharaPuthraya:

Except three points in your post it seems I can agree with all others.

1. Really as I also have pointed out the aim of Buddhist doctrine is not to prove or disprove the existence of god. However, your premature conclusion that “The Buddha had not confirmed or denied the existance of a creator god” even without checking what I cited (Agganna Sutta and Brahmajala Sutta)is I don’t think can be considered as correct. there could be a very few chance, they do not deny the existence of a creator. I had no any doubt about it until Saban queried about it. But don’t be hasty, I am pretty sure it is mentioned in those suttas. Let me check, by the way are you sure it is not mentioned in those suttas, which is your premise of your argument?

2. I myself have amply said that god, Nirvana etc cannot be proved or disproved in terms of empirical evidence as you said. Also like you I had said that rationalism can tackle even “most of the non material entities and phenomena”.

It is true that Buddhist concepts like nirvana, rebirth etc. etc. can be proven rationally considering consistency and coherence of the totality. That was the my very argument I put forward in my discussion with Saban. You put forward the same argument in another set of words “The concept of a creator god is alos based on extra-sensory acceptance of the fact ‘god exists’. Then everything follows logically like a jigsaw puzzle as in Buddhism.”

However, dear PP you will have to take out “creator god” from that list. Unlike other things you have mentioned in your list his existence has been disproved rationally. This I have “proven” my self several times in this blog and mentioned about it in this very discussion in a post address to you.

http://groundviews.org/2012/06/18/sons-of-one-religion/#comment-46352

You should not omit the facts I have forwarded, when you reply me. I think then a discussion always goes back to “square one”.

3. You say “The God, Punarbhava, Nirvana, Karma, Soul etc are all products of human imagination.”

I put to you that this is only a “favourable imagination” to your theory. Do you have any rational or empirical evidence to back this statement?

I am amazed of many peoples’ bravery of producing (general)conclusions.

Dear PP;Don’t tell god what to do. Please observe him and describe what he does like Newton did.

Thanks!

Wonderful sharanga! Wonderful!!

We were talking about the objectivity of reality. Not about components of reality. Everybody knows that there are components of reality that could be true. Unlike giving examples like you I can rationally prove it. However, it does not mean that the reality (total reality) is objective. Though this was not mentioned word by word, it was implicitly implied when I said, the objectivity of the universe is broken when “free will” exists.

Anyway, it seems you want to avoid me putting your “childish argument” forward.

I think this is the first instance you answer a question of mine, after you went wild, “after you thought you won the game”. Will you answer the other questions as well.

Thanks!

Dear Saban;

“Maybe your memory is fading!”

I don’t think. Opposite also could be right.

Thanks!

sharanga

Thank you for the reply and promoting the view of your school! Well, if you are not open minded, you’ll only act like a Scientific Mullah, or a Commanding Officer of Science Corps! For instance when Peter Higgs proposed his theory 48 years ago, he was ridiculed by many famous scientists at thee time including Werner Heisenberg! Unfortunately, the authorities of science have become an instrument of supression of new ideas, rather than a neutral judge!

Getting back to your answers, I don’t know why you don’t want to go into the matters in quantum physics, because quantum mechanics is not an imaginary science, and in fact it has passed every test repeatedly!

As far as I know, when you observe a particle just before an event(like, just before it makes a pattern on a screen) it changes its history! In other words if you observe the light coming from a star 100 million light years away, the light seems to change its history instantly, even though it was emitted so many years ago. This means the present event has in fact changed an event that occured in the past, isn’t it?

Further, in the quantum world, there seems to be no law that prevents a system from going from A to B in time as well as from B to A, back in time. Yet, this doesn’t seem to happen in our reality, because entropy seems to follow the ‘arrow of time’! What is the reality in a universe where entropy doesn’t have to abey this behavior? Is it the same?

Also, if there are multiple universes, they need not have to be branched out from one; they can be independent, like the stars in the sky, evolving in EVERY POSSIBLE way they could, because a quantum particle moves in every possible way(and any universe, for that matter has been a quantum particle, initially!)

As per your answer to my question on Einstein’s train, I’m still not convinced with your answer. “Reality” is different to the two observers means, that their perception of reality is not the same. If one says that a man died befor he was shot and the other says it’s after, aren’t these two realities? I don’t mind which school you belong to(Copanhegan or ‘Stokholm’), I belong to none! Perhaps, due to that reason alone, I may see things differently!

Yapa

I must say the question you ask sharanga regarding ‘objectivty’ is absolutely profound! In spite of the differences I have with you, I must congratulate you for asking it so elegantly!

Dear sharanga;

“The two men in the train will perceive reality in two ways. But the same equations would explain what both of them are seeing. Just because the two men has two frames through which they see reality, it doesn’t mean they see two realities where the sane einstein equations would work.”

Tell me that Einstein’s equation, which would explain what both of them are seeing.

“If you believe the many world interpretation, which is the most straightforward and obvious interpretation in my opinion, which looks like it is going to make the copenhagen interpretation obsolete, you can get rid of all those crazy things and believe in a reality where there are many quantum universes, that are objectively real.”

You think something becomes objective when you “baptize” it? Is that the reason you baptized “many world interpretation”?

Tell me how, “many quantum universes” provides an objective reality? I think such a theory would suggests the opposite. As Saban said in one of the universes entropy would decrease in opposition to our universe. Here in that case there will not be any objectivity even for “entropy”.

Are you writing/telling anything that comes to your mouth? I cannot think of your bravery.

Anyway do you still think there is a objective reality, in spite of the nature of the universe (whether it is multi universe or not) as you claimed at the beginning?

Thanks!