Reality is not based upon our perception.

OK, you Pantheists! First, can we conclude that communication by definition has to be between people? Ive never seen a star talk to another star. (Except Ben and Jen!)

No.My cat's communicate to each other regularly. As they do to me.My computer also communicates with me, and I communicate with it.

Okay... The book I read, called... Decoding the Universe by Charles Seife talks about the cat. It talks about these small little things that pop in and out of existance collecting information from their surroundings. These things cannot be stopped, and so would be in the cat's box.In a world where only the gathering of information by humans would count, yes, you'd have a dead and alive cat. But because of these little things, no--you cannot have this. They will collect information immediately... and the superpositioned cat will have to "choose" one way or the other. Remember our chat about Universes splitting off? Well, that's one theory about it (not one I like). Anyway, so you cannot have a dead and alive cat.Besides, such states of superposition only apply at a quantum level, right? I mean, we can't get this sort of stuff to work at a "real-world" level... can we?J0N

If a star was "talking" to another star, how would you know?Isn't that the point of this topic? How can we "know" anything outside our own perception?It took a long time for us to realize that the bees' dance was a form of communication. It took a long time for us to realize that whales have sophisticated long-range communication networks.The supposed lack of communication is based on our perception.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I have not been able as of yet to get to those parts of this discussion bearing on "absolute" terminology because I must evaluate if the potential(franklin)

quote:

---

---

I have described in this thread so far is not a Milton. I am not against some rHytHm objectified as indicated by Whitehead.

quote:

---

---

From the cats perspective, at any rate. Right? Or is the cat powerless to decide which reality includes it? Mind melt! Lemme regroup..... The original topic started by Guido asks: You may be interested in this point of view concerning absolute reality as well.

Guido Ariba Our only information of the world around us ,personally, is of the senses we posses or the instruments we use that enhance those perceptions , or the mathematics that hints at far more subtle structure but I agree that the universe is "out there" beyond our skulls.
But there are drawbacks to this assertion. When we say that something is out there in what way are we meaning this? Are we going by the sensory approach in such a way that if we doubt what we see we confirm by the use of the sense of touch? Does this make it more real or less, since we never really touch matter at all but only the field effect of matter.It is one thing to state that "it is what it is', yet quite another to define what that "is" entails.Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.