Trees, forest, sounds

I cringe when people jokingly liken pi to "pie" 😞

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
How would you describe the sensory impact of pi?

Since Pi is a mathematical constant (an idea, therefore a product of Popper’s World 3), its “sensory” impact (in World 2) is a mind-only potential of ours that enables us to interact with the World 1 by means of our formulae based on Pi😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Since Pi is a mathematical constant (an idea, therefore a product of Popper’s World 3), its “sensory” impact (in World 2) is a mind-only potential of ours that enables us to interact with the World 1 by means of our formulae based on Pi😵

I hate to repeat myself, but...

Huh?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I hate to repeat myself, but...

Huh?

Oh don't you remember Popper's main concept?
According to him, the "World 1" is our physical world/ our environment; the "World 2" is our inner world (our psychism), and the "World 3" is the world of all our religious and scientific theories, of all of our ideas and of our Fine Arts. By the way, this is the reason why the humanity is considered a product of its products amongst else;

I hope you comprehend😵

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Both Lord Shark and Andrew Hamilton have posited recently that something which logically exists somehow ceases to do so in the absence of an observer. How is such a thing possible?

Hay! I don’t say that! I cannot speak for Lord Shark because I don't remember what he said but I said the exact opposite! And always have done!
Reminder of my last post on this subject:

“...there is absolutely no evidence that the human mind (or any sort of “mind” or “observer&rdquo😉 determines quantum outcomes and the mathematics of quantum physics does not imply that it does. In fact, it would be impossible to scientifically prove that the human mind determines quantum outcomes even if this was true! -this is because that hypothesis is a metaphysical interpretation of quantum physics made by the likes of Neils Bohr despite the fact it leads to what is called the “measurement problem”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

This philosophical problem is a flaw in that interpretation and the only known way to resolve this problem is to have a “realist” interpretation of quantum physics which says that quantum outcomes are NOT dependent on mind nor on them being “observed”.
Personally, I am a “realist”.

There is no doubt quantum physics is correct. But it is a common misconception that the Neils Bohr's interpretation of quantum physics is PART of quantum physics -it is not. Unfortunately the news media continually propagate this common misconception. In my view, the Neils Bohr's interpretation is just a very badly flawed piece of metaphysics. It is a strange phenomenon that good scientists (like Neils Bohr ) are often terrible at philosophy! -it is not known why this is....”

Note that to say that you are a “realist” (like I did above ) implies that you do NOT think that things cease to exist just because they are not observed!

I can also add that one aspect of the ““measurement problem” can be expressed as the question:

“who observed the first observer?”

Point; if the answer to this is “nobody” and nothing exists until it is observed then how would the first observer came to exist?