6 ms·
Is the suggestion that chairs are illusions because they appear solid but are not in fact? It would be more reasonable to say that chairs _are_ solid, and many
by b450 6y ago
Is the suggestion that chairs are illusions because they appear solid but are not in fact? It would be more reasonable to say that chairs _are_ solid, and many solid objects, like chairs, are mostly empty space when considered at the atomic scale.
- mellosouls 6y agoNo, I believe the suggestion of illusion was to convey the fundamental point that the world doesn't exist in the classical objective sense as we are brought up to understand. "Mostly empty space" isn't related, but is a valid point when considering the different matter (pun intended) of the solidity and physical character of macroscopic things like chairs.
- loopz 6y agoInquiry doesn't need to reinterpret facts.
- mellosouls 6y agoJust pointing out two different things: chair mostly space (true) vs chair existing as an object "out there" in the clearly definable way we normally understand (false). "Illusion" in its usage here referred to the latter.
- loopz 6y agoDepending on reference, both are true, and false. Logic is not probabilistic, but it is referential and not absolute.
- nobodyandproud 6y agoIt’s irrelevant to the argument and a strawman Just because something isn’t the way we expected doesn’t imply that there isn’t an objective, underlying reality. And that’s the heart of what nonlocal deterministic interpretations try to answer. Given the chance.
- mellosouls 6y agoJust because something isn’t the way we expected doesn’t imply that there isn’t an objective, underlying reality "in the clearly definable way we normally understand" Misquoting me and replying to that is the strawman approach, though I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just misinterpreted me.
- nobodyandproud 6y agoI didn’t misquote you. That bit doesn’t add to the assertion that something isn’t real, or that there isn’t an underlying objective reality. If something doesn’t exist in the classical objective sense, then it means that something doesn’t exist or have meaning outside of an observer. It’s not empirical nor measurable. That’s not the same as saying that the building blocks are quite different from everyday experience. It’s still measurable, real, and well-defined. Just not in the ways that are intuitive.
- mellosouls 6y agoI didn’t misquote you. That bit doesn’t add to the assertion that something isn’t real, or that there isn’t an underlying objective reality Of course it adds to the assertion, I was careful to add it for that reason. Again, assuming good faith (despite your original unnecessary "strawman" tone), I will assume you were just mistaken in your omission or misreading of it.