Quantum Experiment Confirms Reality Doesn't Exist Until Measured

a reply to: HotMale

The only reason is because you have been taught to view matter as existing outside of perception but yet we can't prove that anything does exist outside our perception(in the broadest sense of the word), it's an assumption, on the other hand it is a given that everything we know happens within our perception.

WELL SAID!!!

There's NO EVIDENCE that there's an objective material reality outside of our perception of what a conscious observer perceives as "reality."

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: ImaFungi

But that's not to say that reality is a direct product of cognition, correct?

I will assume your question is in response to this statement;

"In order for a particular reality to exist, substance (us) needs to interact with substance (everything beyond us) to move substance and create interactions of substance."

My answer is no. I know I said that confusingly.

Reality exists; substance exists. It is always an exact way. It has existed forever. It moves, it interacts, it changes. At times cognition is created within and of it. Reality is reality, substance is reality, the fact substance is in some sense 'separated from itself' and therefore can 'interact with itself', is the fact that reality creates itself, reality produces itself;

In consciousness, reality produced 'separate' parts within and of reality, (an extremely complex organization of substance) which can 'choose/free will' aspects of reality to occur, that most likely could not occur without the choice and action.

Physics; substance existing and interacting with substance; exists regardless of consciousness.

The attempt of humans forging the map of the science of physics, is the attempt to comprehend what happens when humans are not there. To attempt to comprehend how reality, how substance exists and interactions with the different kinds of itself, and to attempt to comprehend his it can possible interact with it self, which is what humans do by 'inventing' 'naturally impossible' interactions of substance.

It is possible some experiments produce interactions of substance which dont occur naturally in nature; but it is thought there are natural phenomenon which include higher energies of substance, quantity and velocity of interaction, than can be mimicked in experiment.

For example, I dont think a pizza can exist naturally; therefore we can say, the reality of pizza is a direct product of cognition.

I do not think the reality of an atom is a direct product of cognition. I think the word 'atom' in all likelihood is a direct (not absolutely completely, because everything can be in some way traced back to 'being able to happen at all') product of cognition.

Now establishing experiments with sending an atom through a tube from side A to side B;

Atoms interact with materials in reality.

The experiment is the attempt to know how atoms interact with materials in reality. The attempt to gain information about how an atom (or photon, or electron), exists as itself, and exists in relation to the other substances which exist as their self in relation to the other substance etc. which creates the 'local environment'. Whats technically interesting about things like gravity, is that potentially 1 source 'the center of the sun, and the sun' is responsible for such 'describingly non local effects', Like, the existence of the sun 'amidst whatever the gravity field is', can influence a collection of substance, far away from the center and body of the sun; so the local (gravity) environment of pluto, is effected or more so created by the local gravity environment of the center of the sun.

yep, you understood my question correctly. thanks!

a reply to: neoholographic

The only reason is because you have been taught to view matter as existing outside of perception but yet we can't prove that anything does exist outside our perception(in the broadest sense of the word), it's an assumption, on the other hand it is a given that everything we know happens within our perception.

There's NO EVIDENCE that there's an objective material reality outside of our perception of what a conscious observer perceives as "reality."

allow me to step in one last time and correct you here: you will not accept evidence that there is an objective reality outside of our perception. and that is the simple truth here. you are compromised by your personal regard for the subject matter and your investigative technique has become tainted. you are not using science responsibly or respectably, you are borrowing its credibility to stand in for what your theory lacks.

deuces.

a reply to: TzarChasm

allow me to step in one last time and correct you here: you will not accept evidence that there is an objective reality outside of our perception.

Lol, what evidence?

You are really going to argue against a given?

a reply to: TzarChasm

What evidence are you talking about?

How can you have evidence without a conscious observer calling it evidence? Show me scientific evidence that evidence has an objective existence beyond the conscious observers perception of what constitutes "evidence."

How can you have an experiment without a conscious observer making a choice to carry out experiment?

Basically, the materialist are debating from the standpoint of incredulity that someone dares to question their materialist beliefs. You have no evidence that an objective material reality exists independent of a conscious observers perception as to what constitutes reality.

a reply to: TzarChasm

like saying that turning the light off makes everyone in the room stop existing simply because you cant perceive them.

I was refering to the experiment.

Furthermore I am not suggesting such a thing. Other users exist within their own feed.

not the way those scientists do. and if things are blinking in and out of existence, doesnt that mess with physics? imagine a whole galaxy disappearing because no one has an eye on it. or a whole galaxy materializing out of thin air because someone looked at it. there is no evidence that the phenomenon described in the article can be translated as the magic act you are alluding to. so this...

Yet the professor conducted the experiment did draw that conclusion(that reality doesn't exist), granted, he said "at quantum level", but like I said, these are the building blocks of matter. Quantum physics are the inner workings of macroscopic reality. We can't see what happens at macro level, so we look at the inner workings. Why would you see it as two seperate things?

These experiments are not a representing a natural situation as you would find in macroscopic reality but they lift the vail because reality is being pushed and you see it doing weird things just to make sure that the end result lines up with the observers knowledge.

This tells me that there are two mechanisms at work. A universal program/code and a conscious user that renders the data or at least experiences a rendered reality.

Like Xbox. Like an online game. Let's say you are playing COD. Your xbox only renders the graphics and physics of the area you are looking at/interacting with.

There are other players on your map who are experiencing the same world. Their xbox also only renders what they are looking at.

Does the xbox render the whole complete map?

Rendered realities overlap as you interact with the other players, and you are all bound to the rules of the program.

I am saying there is a persistent reality above our non persistent reality.

...is complete bollocks.

Give it time and it will be seen as self evident.....

a reply to: mbkennel

Nope. They just need to be understood knowing the consequences of their setup.

So what are the consequences then?

Well, really the origin of the weirdness is the fact that the state of the world is this wavefunction in some bizarre enormous functional Hilbert space which is completely unintuitive. Then the observations in combination with that result in weird consequences which are unintuitive and different from what we expect in our macroscopic classical limit which governed the evolution of human brains.

Lol, in other words, you don't know squat either.

QM experiments keep on saying that non-local in space correlations are maintained and apparently non-local in time is also a go, but these all vanish in the macroscopic limit. Weird, certainly.

They vanish because we can't set up macroscopic reality in such a way that it creates a paradox for itself.

It's weird, because it's the wavefunction and not the atom which matters. Saying the 'atom had passed already' is already presupposing and incorrectly privileging a classical outlook. If you want to say 'classical reality as we intuitively understand it doesn't manifest itself until interaction with thermodynamically large and irreversible measurement systems (or other systems which don't explicitly do measurement but implicitly could be measured)' i'd respond, 'yes, that's the whole point'.

So you are saying time doesn't exist at quantum level?

originally posted by: neoholographic

Basically, the materialist are debating from the standpoint of incredulity that someone dares to question their materialist beliefs. You have no evidence that an objective material reality exists independent of a conscious observers perception as to what constitutes reality.

So what made those fossils of ancient trilobites 400 million years before consciousness evolved?

a reply to: HotMale

The X-Box was a good example, but keep in mind that the map is persistent because the X-Box has stable, unchanging data/code which is then rendered as the stable, observed area of the map.

Reality is fluctuating, changing, unstable waves and then rendered as our stable observed reality. The X-Box map will always appear the same since the graphics of the map is always rendered from the stable code/data, but the "graphics" of reality are not rendered from a stable code but a changing/fluctuating one (fluctuating waves).

That would mean, it is actually easier to "glitch" (or use "cheat codes" in) reality, than the X-Box; but most people are just not aware that this is possible yet, so it seems difficult to observe (create) these glitches/cheats/tricks. I believe in Law of Attraction (the way the fluctuating waves manifest as the "graphics" of reality is affected by our state of Observation/Awareness through beliefs/expectation).

It makes sense that after figuring out that Observation/Awareness affects the reality, we would ask "How? By what process?", and I believe Law of Attraction answers that.

originally posted by: HotMale

it is actually more logical to assume that reality only exists within our perception, than outside of it.

It is actually not logical in any way for any reason to assume the universe was created when the first human was born.

a reply to: neoholographic

Either the universe is fake, or it is real.

There must ultimately be a real reality in order for there to be a fake one.

Why do you think this one is fake; give me one reason, and then we can discuss that one reason first.

a reply to: arpgme

It makes sense that after figuring out that Observation/Awareness affects the reality, we would ask "How? By what process?", and I believe Law of Attraction answers that.

I find it an interesting concept but I don't expect too much of it.

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. I am refering to actual material reality, you are refering to the human experience, although it is intertwined.

a reply to: ImaFungi

It is actually not logical in any way for any reason to assume the universe was created when the first human was born.

Sigh, I didn't say that at all. It is not about humans per se. I am talking about consciousness.

Btw, I going to respond to that post you directd at me earlier about path info availability, just not now.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TzarChasm

What evidence are you talking about?

How can you have evidence without a conscious observer calling it evidence? Show me scientific evidence that evidence has an objective existence beyond the conscious observers perception of what constitutes "evidence."

How can you have an experiment without a conscious observer making a choice to carry out experiment?

Basically, the materialist are debating from the standpoint of incredulity that someone dares to question their materialist beliefs. You have no evidence that an objective material reality exists independent of a conscious observers perception as to what constitutes reality.

Conscious observation itself is objective material to the conscious observer, so this proves that objective material reality exists.

There is stuff. And there is nothing.

Nothing is always nothing.

Stuff is always stuff.

The mind is a very complex device used to 'make sense' of the stuff that exists outside the mind; using substance related the to the stuff that exists outside the mind, so the stuff that is the body and mind, can continue existing amongst all the stuff that exists.

If you do not believe that objective material reality exists outside of your mind; Do not eat! Just imagine yourself eating and you should be fine. Do not use a computer, I exist beyond your mind, because both of us exclaiming the statement you are stating would contradict each others exclamations thus showing that the statement you are making must be false. I am material reality that exists beyond your mind, all of reality exists beyond your mind, your mind is a tiny part of all of reality. You are born and you will live for a little while, at this 'random' moment, as the tiniest portion of infinity and eternity; you are only in control of the way you move the substance of your mind which moves the substance of your body; We know you cannot handle this potential truth so you need to make the words in your mind say something that makes you feel special, but it is not proper, good, or right, or correct, or truthful, or honest, to say your comforting story you tell yourself, is the real and actual truth; ok. You have ill motives. I mean they are good, because in essence they just want to comfort you and make you feel happy and powerful and in control; but they are ill because those things are not the primary essence of seeking the pure truth. Interestingly enough, it is science itself and the scientific process which has along with a pure essence of seeking truth/knowledge to create happiness and comfort and control.

You are trying to trick yourself and others, into thinking that just by your thinking you have control over reality, that reality bows to your whims and imagination. That everything is fine and ok because you are primary and important and powerful and special and in control. The only way to prove that is with science; knowledge and action. Or yes, i dont care, go be a monk. Or literally go do anything; just dont exclaim to no and exclaim to claim truths, that you cannot back up with valid statements and reasonings.

Yes to a degree the existence of the mind controls reality. We create houses and laws and tools and entertainment and games and cultures and fashion and make spaceships and alter the weather. To a larger degree, reality controls bodies and minds.

a reply to: mbkennel

So what made those fossils of ancient trilobites 400 million years before consciousness evolved?

Lol you can see from the replies how hard it must be to compute this stuff.

There is no argument against his claim. Do these trilobites and their history exist outside of our perception?

originally posted by: HotMale

Sigh, I didn't say that at all. It is not about humans per se. I am talking about consciousness.

Ok, but you are wrong anyway.

Consciousness is not pure nothingness.

Therefore, consciousness requires 'material' to exist.

Are you saying;

All that exists is consciousness?

And it is in spheres, just nothing space, which spheres of consciousness, attached with wires,

Your conclusion is that this universe is fake; and so you are trying to fit all data to that, and interpreting all data to reach the conclusion that the universe is fake.

It is either fake or real. I am prepared to accept whatever the truth is, I have no bias.

But your extreme certainty of thinking that you have experienced definitive proof of it being fake, is alarming, or something.

a reply to: ImaFungi

If you do not believe that objective material reality exists outside of your mind; Do not eat!

Sigh, noone is saying that they are not bound to the rules of reality or that they have direct control over matter.

Can you try to be a bit more accurate with your arguments?

a reply to: ImaFungi

I don't profess to have knowledge about the higher level's workings and properties. All I know is that everything points towards there being one, and that our reality is its doing.

originally posted by: HotMale


Sigh, noone is saying that they are not bound to the rules of reality or that they have direct control over matter.

Can you try to be a bit more accurate with your arguments?

I have been extremely accurate and open with my statements; nothing I said was potentially final, but statements attempting to attack your statements; you are not even trying to take my statements and properly defend your statements against them, you are just saying 'la la la, nuh uhh nuh uhhh'. The stance you are arguing from is the equivalent of a baby telling me that when it plays peek a boo the world really ceases to exist.

You came in here all excited that you discovered some deep mysterious odd truths about reality that the average person doesnt know about and consider; the truth is many of us here are aware of all these things, the misinterpretations and fragile misunderstandings and confusions and disinformations; I am attempting to burst your bubble, at least aspects of the bubble constructed unsoundly.

So is there now a single concept or statement or idea, that you think you believe that I disagree with?

What exactly right now are we arguing about; what do you think is true, that I think is false? What have I said I think is true that you think is false?

a reply to: ImaFungi

See this is what I mean. I specifically mentioned what the innacurate comment was.

You respond with a full rant that is also innacurate in relation to the post it reponded to.