My Reply to Morosoph
2005.04.19 22:11

I too need to be open to others. I too need to listen to mavericks. I need to listen to you, and to Marxist Hacker 42.

(Yor are fluctuating from where you used to posit and where you ought to posit. Through our dialogue, may you posit where you ought to. May it only be a matter of time.)

It's my turn.

Your perception decides how you see the reality is -in your case only single reality exists, OK, no problem, but it does not necessarily mean the existence of single reality is valid, absolute, and true .

The Multiverse is a hypothesis that I don't buy into myself, but it is one that I accept as a possiblity. [slashdot.org]

There might be only one universe. But because our range of perception differs, there are multiverse as we see it. No hypothesis is needed, no possibility is necessary. There is only one universe from the view of God, and multiverse from the views of individuals. So inevitably, since we all are different individuals, we all have multiverse according as we see.

If universes intersect, though, this must but restrictions upon the degree of deviance in physical law: for universes to intersect is a restraining condition.

First of all, where are you talking? As if you were talking from where only one universe exists. If we were individual enought to perceive the things, you don't have to intersect universes each. Should you try to see from your universe, there must be only one universe, then you can perceive how people see things differently from you, then you cognise the existance of multiverse through empathy. You have to put yourself in you from where all the scattered self can be seen in your image on your own. Integrate all your energy to put them into one strong self. Then you can know how strange where you stand.

I believe (perhaps falsely) that there is political motivation behind your pluralistic view.

It is just natural for us to have pluralistic viewpoint. We know we have our views and they have their views, in some part we agree and in others cannot, it is not a matter of motivation, still less political.

; I believe myself that physical relativism is antiprogressive [slashdot.org], and in facts results in less freedom, rather than more.

If those who have got such notion of human nature, what would become of our future society? Physics is applied to nature, but our nature or rather temparament, emotion, feeling, evaluation, etc. is completely different from just nature itself. Dropping an atomic bomb and killed 300,000 people is an atorocity for human being, but it is just a result of fusion which happened to eliminate humans but it doesn't matter because it's just a consequence of physical absolutism. If those who got such idea, they would start to exclude those who got different views from theirs. Physical absolutism only invites political despotism - Nazism or alike.

The reason being that a lever is lost, for an external point of reference is lost, so that politics replaces experiment.

Again where you are now? If you were gripping a lever that alters the degrees of freedom we can exercise, then you would dare to say so. In a sense we all are in a great movement of experiment in politics, we all are keeping on seeking for a better political system - in order so as many people as to exercise as much freedom as possible. We are not atoms, but humans, where physics cannot be applied.

Even if we do have to accept a multiverse, the existance of a single reality is a useful abstract point of reference. It is abstract becuse you can never know it, yet it is more than useful when we are faced with individual destabilisation: it can keep one sane.

If we might not have an integrated character - Self, in Latin word, Ego, it might be useful to keep us sane, but if we alreadfy have a Self, a notion of sigle reality is unnecessary, only for those who haven't got Ego on their own, Ego would be replaced by the existence of a single reality.

For many, faith in God plays a similar rôle,

Right.

but events can destabilise such faith. Is god good? For example. The existance of a singular reality has to be true, and in a sense is trivially true in the case of solipsism, but then it doesn't matter. Still, there is always hope that there is a universe beyond humanity,

Absolutely, OK, no problem. It is your freedom to be certain where you put yourself to be able to feel secured -here it happens to be a sigle reality for you, which doesn't bother all of us. What bothers us is you try to persuade us to believe there's one single universe, reality. If someone who believes in God always try to convert our idea, can you still find it interesting to keep on talking to them? I don't think it is.

and therefore that is it possible to give oneself purpose beyond humanity, so that the worst failures of humanity can be overcome.

No problem.

Your problem is not your conception of nature that there's only one reality, but it's that one reality is scientifically, physically correct, therefore we all have to admit one single reality. It is your freedom to believe there's only one reality and it might be useful for you to keep yourself sane, so it's good, no problem. There would be OK to exist only one reality from your perception. But where your perception comes from is not a single reality.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
My Reply to Morosoph Preferences Top 2 comments Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold: -1: 2 comments 0: 2 comments 1: 2 comments 2: 1 comments 3: 0 comments 4: 0 comments 5: 0 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I'm Sorry(Score:2)
by Morosoph (693565) on 2005.04.20 8:18 (#12287259) (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/tim.wesson/ Last Journal: 2005.09.17 20:46)
I believe that I've covered all the bases somewhere or other, so I'll link to my JE [slashdot.org], which in turn links to the rest that has been said on this matter. I'd get exhausted otherwise!
I don't believe that the central point of my logic, in particular, has been addressed though, and that is that in order to communicate, we need to share a universe.
I am all for pluralism, in part because I believe that people should be free, but also because the existance of a singular reality does not make us infalliable. Our existing perception will bias further perception, so that very different theories are possible and likely. Nonetheless, reality has to be singular, even though we are so deeply ignorant about it.
I agree that totalitarians have hitherto claimed the "one true reality", but they could, and would equally leverage physical relativism. At least before, you could realise that reality, being external to society, exists outside politics and dogma can be countered with evidence. In the case of physical relativism, evidence counts for nothing; if you believe the wrong results, you are mad. A singular external reality makes it plausible that the dogma is wrong. If there is no such external point of reference, then dogma cannot be defeated in this way.
To claim knowledge of the one true reality is a gross and obvious lie, and a regieme that relies upon it will fall. Physical relativism allows the lie to be changed continuously as it is useful for it to be changed. It's your word against theirs, and they're the ones in power.
I must add that the part about motives was aimed at MH42 [slashdot.org] rather than you. I do not claim that your motives are the same.--Why you Should use 'Viral' Licenses [slashdot.org]
Re:I'm Sorry(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) on 2005.04.22 3:17 (#12304402) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.09.27 11:22)
Now we came closer to a final point of agreement. I really appreciate that. Above in your comment, you carefully used the term 'external' as
At least before, you could realise that reality, being external to society, exists outside politics and dogma can be countered with evidence.
A singular external reality makes it plausible that the dogma is wrong.
If there is no such external point of reference, then dogma cannot be defeated in this way.
By putting the term 'external', you were able to gain empathy as much as possible from your readers. That's your triumph. And you masterfully showed your empathy toward my viewpoint as in
To claim knowledge of the one true reality is a gross and obvious lie, and a regieme that relies upon it will fall. Physical relativism allows the lie to be changed continuously as it is useful for it to be changed. It's your word against theirs, and they're the ones in power.
You made a Copernican Change at one night.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters