QP or QM do correspond to reality but is conditioned by its defined system and the overall Framework of Science.
The point is no one can claim their specific reality is absolute without making reference to their conditions [Framework and System] they churn out their conclusions.
The elements within water, i.e. Hydrogen, Oxygen, the electrons and sub-atomic particles are always changing and in flux. There is no permanent element within water-H2O.
Emotional?
What I am stating is objective fact based on whatever Framework and System that is applicable.
The grounds for a preference of objective fact over the illusory [both has their Framework and System] is the striving towards the ideal morality of the highest good and no evil for the overall well being of humanity.
Note any one can insist there is permanent soul and God arising out their Framework and System. If theists in general keep it private and bring no long term harm nor hinder the progress of humanity, no body would bother with such ideas.
They don’t have different “specific realities” - they have opinions about reality, they have points of view, they have different interests, they have different understanding and different knowledge of reality.
If you can’t accept the permanence of protons and electrons, chemical bonds, electric charge or gravitational attraction of water, then there is nothing more to be said about it.
S.J. Gould spent many pages attempting to refute the notion that humans are the evolutionary crown of creation. But something of the sort has to be admitted if one believes, as J. Huxley appears to believe, that humans have evolved to the extent that they can change their evolution for the betterment of mankind.
We can manipulate matter for our own good or ill, which tends to suggest that we know something about the reality of our material universe. Still, the notion of what is true must be seen as a pragmatic idea when what is true can be gleaned from what is real or authentic as accessible for our purposes.
It is very obvious different humans has different opinions on the same thing.
This is the common everyday conventional sense of different people having different views on what is going on within reality. This is typical of the various subjective views of different people reporting on the same events, e.g. new reporter, sports commentary, political views, etc.
However apart from the conventional subjective opinions and belief there is a deeper level of cognition that is going on. This is based more on beliefs rather than on personal opinions. Such an emergence [not conception based on opinion] of reality is due to the common algorithm of various groups of human beings due to more of inherent evolved nature [than of their nurture].
This is taking DUCK-RABBIT happenings at a more sophisticated level.
When I am discussing is not having different opinions on political events but different emergence of reality relating to permanence or impermanence, god or no-God, soul or no soul, external or interdependent worlds.
When you stated they have different opinions, you are not differentiating from the conventional sense of having different opinions and the philosophical sense of having different beliefs and cognition of reality. [interdependent and not independent reality].
It is a fallacy to conflate two distinct senses, i.e. common sense and philosophical sense.
How too much?
What I have stated is based on accepted theories that can be repeated, tested and verified by any one based on whatever Framework and System that is applicable.
Where in the world can we ever get a permanent proton? The particles therein a proton are always changing and are bombarded by quarks and particles from everywhere.
One day a proton may have, say 1000 elements, the next day it could have 950 or 1100 elements and thus not permanently the same at all times.
Find even one reputable scientist who believes that water need not have hydrogen and/or oxygen. He would be definitely wrong. And similarly, any proton that has 1000 quarks would not be a proton. You are making completely ridiculous assertions concerning a subject that you obviously know nothing about. There are no accepted theories at all in science asserting what you claim. You are lying.
As I said, for your own sake, you really should avoid the subject of physics.
A water molecule by definition is H2O, i.e. 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atoms. The fact is the particles within those atoms changes all the time.
Note for simplicity I stated “say 1000 elements.” It just for example, I could have stated ‘x elements.’ By ‘elements’ I meant the smallest components within the proton, i.e quarks, gluons and other particles, etc.
You should get an education on philosophy. I admit I am not an expert in Physics but I am not wrong in principle that each phase of the physical world is made up of smaller parts which are not permanent, i.e. never change.
It is your lack of education in philosophy that is leading you into making absurd assertions concerning physics.
Just as water is defined as H2O within science, ALL “particles” are defined as to their exact size, shape, and make up. If their make up changes, they are no longer what they were. And if the particles within water change, it becomes a special kind of water, given a different name, such as deuterium.
[list]The Law of Identity: A is A[/list:u]
The most classical assertion within all philosophy of logic, without which there can be no mind at all. Science cannot deny it and remain science.
What is “changing” within particles is exchanging, as in Theseus’ Ship. The over all make up doesn’t change at all other than minuscule variation in size dependent upon their environment.
If you shit at t1, then you are a different person in terms of composition at t2, does that mean you are a different James S Saint in general?
What you have failed to understand there are different perspectives to the same thing.
While there is same “you” in one sense [sense X], in reality there is a different you at t1, t2, t3, etc. [sense Y].
The fact is sense Y [specific and detailed] is is more realistic than sense X [general].
Note Heraclitus,
No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus
In general we always refer to the Nile as if it is the same river all the time, but in reality it is never the same river.
The fact is the state of an atom [in term of particles, etc.] (sense Y) within a permanent H2O combination of molecular structure [sense X] is never permanent.
The Law of Identity: A is A is only applicable to things within the same sense and same time. Again you failed on this.
Water at the level of the molecular sense is not the same at the sub-particle sense, therefore the Law of Identity: A is A and Law of non-contradiction do not apply.
I already told you that this philosophical perspective would make science impossible. There would be no point to doing experiments because the results would only be valid for that one particular time and place. There would be no point to developing theories because they would only be applicable once.
In general, it would be impossible to use experience for any purpose. One could not define words or be able to think. One would not be able to determine what is food and what is poison. One would not be able to make any decision.
What the Ship of Theseus reveals is that our words and names are not the things in themselves, but identifying labels that we choose to apply as our need dictates.
The Nile river is always the Nile river because the river is defined as the flow of water at that location between those general points. There is nothing about the definition requiring particular water molecules. There only need be “some water flowing” for it to be a river.
Similar with Heraclitus’ man and the Ship of Theseus. The same applies to any particular H2O molecule, to any bucket of water, as well as to every particle and object ever named. It is the pattern that is named, not necessarily all “elements” within.
ALL names are category and pattern labels identifying whatever their definition has specified. The specification for James S Saint does not indicate or require that each molecule be the same from moment to moment, but rather that there be a reasonable continuum of any changing or exchanging and that after the change, there is no significant difference to our concerns. So we can validly say that it is the same James S Saint, H2O, River, Man, or Ship because our definitions for our words, labels, and names allow for insignificant changes and exchanges.
As I said, it is your lack of philosophical education that is leading you into making ridiculous assertions (then followed by even more).
You wish to replace all existing religions with your own, yet obviously haven’t a clue as to the real situation or need.
Your views above are shallow and narrow which are based on ignorance of higher philosophical deliberations.
Note I mentioned ‘senses’ or ‘perspectives’ and you are totally blur on this critical matter. Can’t see that 500 pound gorilla?
What you have argued and presented based on the ‘Ship of Theseus’ thought experiment is based on the common sense [vulgar] and conventional perspective which is very basic.
There are many perspectives to reality but you are only capable of dealing with the vulgar [common sense] and conventional perspectives. Why? There is a psychological reason for that.
In the above you are merely playing the ‘language game’ [Wittgenstein] and not dealing with reality [emergence not the thing-in-itself.]
The only constant is change.
If you view at any thing in terms of the highest precision of reality, that thing-X is a different thing at every nano-second. e.g.
For the same thing at the conventional perspective, say a cup of water of H20 molecules.
At minute t1, that cup of water has 1,000,000 H20 molecules [say]
Let say, we add another 200,000 h20 molecules every minute.
At minute t2, that cup of water has 1,200,000 H20 molecules
At minute t3, that cup of water has 1,400,000 H20 molecules
At minute t4, that cup of water has 1,600,000 H20 molecules
At minute t5, that cup of water has 1,800,000 H20 molecules
Now what you see is the ‘same’ cup of water in the common sense and conventional sense, but in terms of the number of h2o molecules and mathematics how can you insist 1,000,000 H20 molecules is the same as 1,200,000 H20 molecules, is the same as 1,400,000 H20 molecules, the same as 1,600,000 H20 molecules?
At the higher level of precision, even at micro-changes at nano-second of any thing within a thing, it it a different thing, A [was at t1] is not A [was was at t1] anymore, rather it is now A++ [as at t2]
The above higher precision perspective is applicable to ‘Ship of Theseus’ and similar examples, the ‘Ship of Thesus’ is the same ship in the common vulgar and conventional sense BUT from a more higher and realistic perception, it is a different ship in terms of materials, molecular structures, mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology, time [t1, t2,] etc.
If a virus can talk, it will tell you it is a different ship in terms of the virus and various perspective.
Are you fearful of reality that you want to be an ostrich to avoid the higher perspectives of reality?
Don’t jump to conclusion too fast as in the above you are describing yourself.
You really should do something about your habit of talking to yourself so negatively.
… and your attitude.
That is a ridiculous assertion that was given in hyperbole so as to emphasize a point and persuade more change (into socialism). It was never entirely true.
So you really are just too simple minded, “vulgar”, to see how your language works. Why am I not surprised. You probably should investigate the word “sophomoric” as well as “arrogant”, and “narcissistic”.
When it comes to philosophy we have to present arguments to support one’s view. There is no arrogance when I present what is truth as supported by various arguments.
On the other hand you are merely snarking and sniping at others as a fangless cobra without any substantive arguments at all.
Is 1,000,000 H20 molecules the same as 1,200,000 H20 molecules?
Your form of “argument” is, “This is the way it is and if you can’t see it, you are naive, too shallow, and narrow minded … and need to think out of the box … and read 100 books or more.”
As explained in detail earlier … an irrelevant question.
If there is no permanence then there is no basis for natural religion (or much of anything else). Language requires that words have meaning for more than a few seconds. A river is a river as long a quantity of water flows - perhaps tens of thousands of years. Theseus’ ship is his ship as long as the structure is maintained - perhaps hundreds of years.
The word “Ah-dam” means “the damming up of the loose spirit”. Endless argumentation is a type of “loose spirit”, unrestrained, undisciplined, anti-progressive.
All joy is founded in the sensation of progress toward an inner held hope. When there is nothing but chaotic, endless conflict, there is very little, if any, perception of progress or of hope and thus minimum joy.
Ahdam was created, not by conflict, but by agreement - saving from the conflict, Yeshua. When he said that he was there in the beginning, he wasn’t lying.
But to establish the agreeing that saves from the chaos (aka “Shiva”), life must realize the need for agreement. And that is most instinctively accomplished through the experience and perception of the threat of disagreement, conflict, chaos, shiva, the Devil. The perception of threat leads to the pursuit of hope. The very deeply established pursuit of hope, is what forms religion (the maintaining/binding of the gathering/legion/union).
“To stop all of this endless bickering, let’s all agree upon …”
It’s a natural response in defense of a natural occurrence in human interaction.
