Quantum Experiment Confirms Reality Doesn't Exist Until Measured

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Why did you not read what I said.

The particle is merely a vehicle.

Someone who has never seen a Nascar race and only watches the clips where the cars are going around the track may attribute that motion to the vehicles directly. But anyone with any sense will realize that there was an engine built and a driver behind the wheel.

If you keep trying to judge the driver by having an interview with his car, you're going to be CONFUSED.

originally posted by: jonnywhite
Seems to me there're two extremes....

Cause/Effect < - > Chaos

On the Cause/Effect side the future is 100% based on the past. On the Chaos side the future is 100% independent of the past.

The defeatists say the future is based on the past. So if you're losing a war badly then you'll probably not win. The believers say the future can be anything. So if you're losing a war badly then you can still win. The future is not solely based on the past. All we have to do is keep fighting and things might work out.

nope... because either way you think you chose, it was always the way you chose.

a reply to: jonnywhite

No.

It is not defeatist to recognize that if the trigger was pulled, the bullet was therefore fired. That's called being sensible.

If you're losing a war badly, you find the vulnerability, maintain your strength, and win.

The future COULD be anything only because you cannot perceive it. Just because you cannot see something, it doesn't mean it's not there.... refer to previous proponent's argument where I am being confused with the scientists who are confused because they do not understand that just because they don't see something, it doesn't mean it's not there...

That being said, if you just keep fighting the way you were fighting when you were losing, you WILL LOSE.

Here's the mystery - the cog does not know its own size, neither which direction it turns. But the watch tells the time.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: luthier

"Philosophers" "philosophy students" "teams of scientists"

You keep pointing to them.

Take responsibility for what you think.

Oh I do that's what reason is. But to not use past knowledge to expedite already proven fallacies in arguments is asinine.

Did you learn everything from your own thoughts. It was innate?
Maybe it was god?

Or wait only you have been revealed the true nature of the universe because they are your own thoughts?

You are giving rudimentary arguments full of fallacy but since you don't except any traditional methodology you cant be wrong (since there is no way to prove or disprove anything you are saying since its all conjecture) and you don't need to follow any rules of method or argument. Its a good shield from having to grow up and expand your thinking.

a reply to: luthier

I thoroughly entrenched myself in modern science and philosophy for years.

I was also honest with myself and didn't allow giants to keep me small.

Neither should I refer to a giant as my defense since I graduated my understanding. The purpose of standing on the shoulders of giants is to not point down at them and say, "If you don't believe me, listen to them!" The point is that they lifted you up to the part of the sky that was just out of their reach.

That being said, with a higher point of view, you may see over obstacles that even they couldn't.

I am not the one disappointing the giants. They lift up their hands and push. It is those who keep advertising for the giants from the ground that are disappointing them.

Imagine spending your whole life honestly trying to search things out, against what the world considers reasonable, only to have people who go with the crowd in the wrong direct point to you as their leader.

If I was one of them, I would smile upon those who discovered my mistakes and discovered truths to which I was blinded. What a greater legacy than having people hold onto the mistakes and setting me up as pharaoh of my field, burying me with gifts of gold and herbs in order to preserve me in the afterlife.

a reply to: luthier
Not everybody has all the time in the world to know every science fact. Inevitably we have to make up our own mind. So yes for most of us who're not gifted with genius or ample time or faculty we must use our gut.

I admit I use my gut. I'm in a tornado and don't got chacne in **** of knowing anything exactly so I just make a jdugment.

And my judgment up to this point in time - vulnerable to changing at any future time - is reality is a combination of chaos and cause/effect. Every choice we make bears on the past, future and the unpredictable. No matter what the past says, it's not the sole dictator of our future. Neither can blind faith always lead us to the water. Future time favors the one who can account for cause/effect and yet not base his/her choices solely on it.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

Why did you not read what I said.

The particle is merely a vehicle.

Someone who has never seen a Nascar race and only watches the clips where the cars are going around the track may attribute that motion to the vehicles directly. But anyone with any sense will realize that there was an engine built and a driver behind the wheel.

Well you clearly didn't read what I said. I just explained to you why there is no possible classical "engine" that can explain the way elementary particles behave, Bells Theorem proves that fact. If you want to hold onto your deterministic view of reality you are better off looking at many world theories. You need to move out of the 1920's, we aren't living in a clockwork universe.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

AGAIN. Wow.

I am not telling you how the particle behaves. I am telling you that you worrying about how the particle behaves is exactly what is the problem in physics today!

Bell's Theorem IS GARBAGE.

And I'll say that standing directly in front of every scientist in the world so they can pull their heads back out.

The epitome of arrogance in assuming we have peered into every dimension of the physical world. YET you still have no idea at all what ENERGY actually is.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: luthier

I thoroughly entrenched myself in modern science and philosophy for years.

I was also honest with myself and didn't allow giants to keep me small.

Neither should I refer to a giant as my defense since I graduated my understanding. The purpose of standing on the shoulders of giants is to not point down at them and say, "If you don't believe me, listen to them!" The point is that they lifted you up to the part of the sky that was just out of their reach.

That being said, with a higher point of view, you may see over obstacles that even they couldn't.

I am not the one disappointing the giants. They lift up their hands and push. It is those who keep advertising for the giants from the ground that are disappointing them.

Imagine spending your whole life honestly trying to search things out, against what the world considers reasonable, only to have people who go with the crowd in the wrong direct point to you as their leader.

If I was one of them, I would smile upon those who discovered my mistakes and discovered truths to which I was blinded. What a greater legacy than having people hold onto the mistakes and setting me up as pharaoh of my field, burying me with gifts of gold and herbs in order to preserve me in the afterlife.

First off I don't believe you haven't shown any understanding of either.

Second your Parables and metaphors are not science.

Explain to me Shrodingers Cat.

Choosing to believe only what you want to believe is not evolution its ego.

Understanding the wisdom of arguments and truth using reason to interpret and understand is not standing on the shoulders of giants its not having to go back over fallacies already disproven its moving on from immature thoughts that were not fully thought out.

There is this story a guy is chained to a wall with a fire to his back his whole life, he thinks the shadows are reality because that is all he has ever seen, then one day he escapes and finds out that wasn't reality...ever here that one?

a reply to: TarzanBeta

Bell's Theorem IS GARBAGE.

It's not garbage, it's an undeniable mathematical proof tested with real experiments.

The epitome of arrogance in assuming we have peered into every dimension of the physical world.

The neat thing is we don't need to peer behind the curtain to know there are no hidden variables behind the curtain, we can postulate what would happen if there were hidden variables and then do experiments which disprove those postulates and prove there is no classical mechanism which can explain how particles behave (excluding super-deterministic non-local mechanisms).

a reply to: luthier

Your lack of understanding is not my lack. Your lack of perception is not my lack. If you realized that you were a separate entity from me, you would get that.

The cat is a stupid idea. The cat is either alive or dead. It DOESN'T MATTER. How do you people get so easily wrapped up like this?

If you open the box and the cat is dead, then bury it! If it's alive, feed it.

Either way, you don't need multiple universes to predict what you yourself can do in a situation. You certainly don't need a mathematical theorem to tell you what to do. DO IT.

You want to talk to me about growing up but all you do is continue to point the stories and the giants.

Have you ever considered for yourself?

When energy is the focus and not matter, then you will understand. You won't need to figure matter out, because energy will tell you all that matter will do.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Experiments which assume only what is perceived by the designers.

You clearly cannot postulate what would happen if there were hidden variables because you still can't explain why you see the particle in both slits.

What is local, hidden, and a variable?

................................................

ENERGY.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: luthier

Your lack of understanding is not my lack. Your lack of perception is not my lack. If you realized that you were a separate entity from me, you would get that.

The cat is a stupid idea. The cat is either alive or dead. It DOESN'T MATTER. How do you people get so easily wrapped up like this?

If you open the box and the cat is dead, then bury it! If it's alive, feed it.

Either way, you don't need multiple universes to predict what you yourself can do in a situation. You certainly don't need a mathematical theorem to tell you what to do. DO IT.

You want to talk to me about growing up but all you do is continue to point the stories and the giants.

Have you ever considered for yourself?

When energy is the focus and not matter, then you will understand. You won't need to figure matter out, because energy will tell you all that matter will do.

Here is the difference. I will never fully understand. I can only get little glimpses. If you are so arrogant to think you know produce something with your knowledge? The guys in labs are. The colliders are. They are producing real things not half baked hippy ideas with no substance.

You may be onto something with energy or you are just avoiding doing the real work to prove anything. Give me a paper peer reviewed that you have written. Hell give me any scientific paper you have written I will go over it and do the math before I call you out.

Or wait hide behind meaningless words you can't prove and call people who put in the actual work liars and dumb. Its very obvious psychologically what you are doing which is protecting yourself from being wrong by being vague and hiding behind metaphore.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Experiments which assume only what is perceived by the designers.

You clearly cannot postulate what would happen if there were hidden variables because you still can't explain why you see the particle in both slits.

What is local, hidden, and a variable?

................................................

ENERGY.

Oh and you can? Show me. Oh that's right you hide behind you can't math isn't real and you either get it or don't. Ha pretty exposed now.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

The cat is a stupid idea. The cat is either alive or dead. It DOESN'T MATTER. How do you people get so easily wrapped up like this?

Well you may be right about that, but only because the cat is a high energy object highly entangled with its environment, so the cat as a whole cannot be in a state of superposition to begin with, although the elementary particles making up the cat can be.

If you don't think superposition is a real phenomena then how can you possibly explain the double slit experiment? Why does a single electron or photon go through both slits and interfere with its self on the other side if it's only a particle and not a wave?

Please do not say it's the result of some complicated classical process, such as the particles bounce of the edges of the slits and create those patterns, we know that is not the case. There is simply no classical solution to that problem, matter is not made up of classical billiard balls.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: TarzanBeta

The cat is a stupid idea. The cat is either alive or dead. It DOESN'T MATTER. How do you people get so easily wrapped up like this?

Well you may be right about that, but only because the cat is a high energy object highly entangled with its environment, so the cat as a whole cannot be in a state of superposition to begin with, although the elementary particles making up the cat can be.

If you don't think superposition is a real phenomena then how can you possibly explain the double slit experiment? Why does a single electron or photon go through both slits and interfere with its self on the other side if it's only a particle and not a wave?

Please do not say it's the result of some complicated classical process, such as the particles bounce of the edges of the slits and create those patterns, we know that is not the case. There is simply no classical solution to that problem, matter is not made up of classical billiard balls.

I think the purpose was to also teach metaphore is inaccurate to explain quantum events.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

For the love of god watch that Susskind lecture I posted on the last page, dismissing Bells Theorem so whimsically is a mistake. You simply don't wont to accept any evidence which contradicts your version of reality, regardless of how solid it is.

a reply to: luthier

Except that you're wrong about me.

I dare any of you to calculate the total potential energy of the universe.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: luthier

Except that you're wrong about me.

I dare any of you to calculate the total potential energy of the universe.

Show me. Give me the math do you have it? Or is it in the akashic records somewhere only you can see?

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Except I don't have a system or construct version of reality. I interact with reality without trying to make it fit a system, thereby gaining a more realistic perspective.

That being said, if you can calculate the literal total potential energy of the entire universe, and also pinpoint every vector, do it.