Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctordick
Well, I don't know about there being more than one answer. Certainly, if you understand how the rainbow comes to be, a specific rainbow only exists when the point from which it is observed is defined. Thus, if it is not being observed no "specific" rainbow exists. One could only say that the general concept really existed.  |
That's the answer I would see reasonable myself, but I was chiefly trying to probe what sort of meaning different people seem tack on the word "real"... hence the disclaimer "depening on what one means by real". Well let me open it up to everyone.
Someone might claim that "every possible rainbow" exists or "is real" all the time by the virtue of some specific interference patterns hitting the air molecules everywhere (presumably, and depending on chosen interpretation of QM). Or why not just by the virtue of those interference patterns existing (presumably) in space. (Let's not dwell on the subject of lense effects, it's not relevant in this context, just talking about the definition of "real")
Or with a different meaning tacked on the word "real", one would say the rainbow is not real even when you see it. There is no rainbow in the position where you conceive it to be, it only exists as a pattern in your eye. And not even in your eye, as - presumably - it is a pattern in the sensory data that had to be interpreted by the brain in a very specific way, so to give you the "illusionary" perception of some colourful object sitting in front of you somewhere inside your 3D conception of your environment.
These can both be completely valid arguments, depending on how one understands the word "real". It is painful to follow lengthy arguments about whether time is "real" when clearly each participant understands that word (and many other associated terms) completely differently. Come on guys, stop underestimating each others.
I like to throw that word "ontologically" in there somewhere to refer to the idea that some idea or definition that we hold would be actually somewhat (or exactly) how something exists in reality. That can be a confusing concept all by itself though, but the word usually helps more than hinders the communication. Also in these discussions one should understand the concept of noumena (wikipedia it), which refers to undefined reality. I.e. some unintelligible form that we cannot think about because our thoughts and perceptions are entirely composed of the defined entities and concepts that we formed all by ourselves, i.e. by defining entities we cracked reality into intelligible "things" and their associated intelligible behaviour by whatever criteria was useful for predictions (albeit we did this based on the behaviour of "noumena" of course)
btw, with these definition something as tangible as "matter" is not ontologically real at all, as there is also a specific (and very useful) definition for very specific behaviour of noumena that we have tacked with the word "matter". When you are holding a lump of clay in your hand, that's not a naive realistic clay in a naive realistic hand
I mean, there are very specific processes going on making that clay and that hand stable entities, or more properly, making such definitions possible as "hand" and "clay" (and all the defined physical processes that go on to keep them together... or keep them from falling inside each others, or however you want to see the situation).
Another way to put it, just think about where you could claim to find the ontological border between an atom and space? Without very specific definitions, there is none, is there.
Anyhow, what about that simultaneity? That's where the discussion about the ontology of time gets more interesting (and also little bit more relevant to Doctordick's analysis, of people are interested about that side).
-Anssi
