Antimatter

It’s really interesting that in grounding our undergrad liberal arts degree in abstract thought and metaphysics of an “anti-realism” (I’d argue that this was untrue because the reality is that which you perceive, it’s a here is THE truth argument which isn’t real) we’d necessarily come up against extreme realists in the believing in an actual world that isn’t ‘thought’, that isn’t idealist. It’s good because our lecturers brought in someone from outside of the degree without the grounding of this abstract relativist existentialism but of a more real, human, we exist in this reality stance so we have that interaction now from someone who could preempt these discussions.

But we all agree and knew where and what we were saying and live in this, we came to each other’s defence because it’s true and it’s impossible to think the world is entirely objective and not relative and if it’s relative in aspects then how could these aspects not extend to most if not all area. Especially in a quantum world where you actively determine the outcome in collapsing the wave function of particles and therefore determining them.

Truly, when asked if we had to agree with a reality and there being a reality they all said no, that they didn’t and this was untrue. Not one set reality at any rate but varying different ones that you can agree upon certain aspects that tether you to each other. It’s amazing that we all drew this relativist/ existential/ quantum expression from life and our studies when our lecturers perhaps don’t necessary feel that way.

Is it a product of our generation? Because it can’t be a product of their teaching, and definitely not wholly.

It’s not Realism versus Idealism
It’s a bridge between them, a dialectic of Romanticism and Quantum theory.

(this is nonsensically written but i needed to get it down. It’s been two and a half hours and i forgot after a half hour so)