The verdict is in objective physical reality doesn't exist

In my opinion this reality is like an old pair of clothes you take them off then put on a new pair of clothes.
Are you your clothes? No!
Do the clothes you wear change you? Yes and No
Yes in that we wear different clothes to different functions and occasions which changes your experience.
No in that no matter what clothes you wear you are still you.

Same with this illusionary reality.

Once your life is done here you will go to a new place.
Are you this reality? No
Does this reality change you? Yes and No
Yes in that you have various experiences while your in this reality.
No in in that no matter what happens in this reality your true infinite nature remains unchanged.

can one of these guys, leap into the ocean, and swim for 20 minutes without an o2 tank? if so, he is correct, physical world does not exist.

if he drowns, well, then he was wrong.

originally posted by: dantanna
can one of these guys, leap into the ocean, and swim for 20 minutes without an o2 tank? if so, he is correct, physical world does not exist.

if he drowns, well, then he was wrong.

If a video game character runs out of air in a simulation does it really die in real life?
No because the game isnt real nor is the ocean or the character in the illusionary ocean.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Maybe you're one of those people who incorrectly assume Schrödinger supported the premise behind the thought experiment, but he really didn’t, as the link says.

Yep (on the last part and referring to what you quoted from wikipedia, in particular "Thus, he reasoned that the Copenhagen Interpretation must be inherently flawed."). Freeman Dyson phrased it quite nicely what the flaw is with the Copenhagen Interpretation and every similar view of Quantum Mechanics regarding that part that I'll bold in the quotations below:

1. "statements about the past cannot in general be made in quantum-mechinal language...as a general rule, knowledge about the past can only be expressed in classical terms". Lawrence Bragg, joint winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1915, mentioned: "everything in the future is a wave, everything in the past is a particle".

2. "the role of the observer in QM is not to cause an abrupt reduction of the wave packet with the state of the system jumping discontinuously at the instant when it's observed. The picture of the observer interrupting the course of natural events is unnecessary and misleading. What really happens is that the quantum description of an event ceases to be meaningful as the observer changes the point of reference from before the event to after it. We don't need a human observer to make QM work, all we need is a point of reference, to seperate the past from the future, to seperate what has happened from what may happen, to seperate facts from probabilities."

Take note of the following synonyms for "facts": realities/certainties/truths, i.e. things that are true/factual/absolute/certain/correct, without error. For details and the justifications for the conclusions above, see the video below. Also note the point made at 22:02: "therefore no such wave function can exist" (in relation to what he's talking about there). 21:23 - 23:56, keypoints at 22:05, 22:45 and 23:06 (the introduction may also be of interest especially starting at 0:30 with the keypoints at 2:03 - 3:34 and 5:35 - 6:03):

The same flaw is present in the OP's thinking as well as those whose statements he's using (about the role of the observer, but preferring the term "measurement").

What may be useful to keep in mind concerning this thread that promotes Bishop Berkeley's philosophy of immaterialism, is that Bishop Berkeley distributed tar-water from his Church for medicinal purposes and said the following concerning the practice of drinking tar-water for your health:

"...it should be drunk warm and in bed, as much and as often as the patient can bear.
I am persuaded tar-water may be drunk with great safety and success for the curing of most diseases, particularly all foul cases, ulcers and eruptions, scurvies of all kinds, nervous disorders, inflammatory distempers, decays, etc." (Siris, by Bishop George Berkeley, 1744)

An old Encyclopedia Britannica that I found still mentioned that drinking tar water (or tar-water) causes symptoms similar to carbolic acid poisoning (it might be the 1911 version but I'm not sure, might also be before that).

There's an efficient, cunning and highly succesful snake oil salesman for ye (people drank that poisonous goo and forcefed their children tar-water for multiple centuries, some might still do it; and his other philosophies like immaterialism are even more popular). Notice the "etc." (so basically implying a supposed cure for all known ailments, whatever the buyer wants to fill in there). His philosophies are similar mental poison, philosophical tar-water. Black goo, like what's being fed to the babies in the Matrix movie, which also promotes Bishop Berkeley's immaterialism.

I highly recommend:

'Stop drinking the cool-aid' (i.e. black gooey mental poison of immaterialism).

Just as a reminder:

immaterialism: a philosophical theory that material things have no reality except as mental perceptions (definition from Merriam-Webster)

Those are Bishop Berkeley's 2 main claims to fame, promoting the practice of drinking tar-water for your health (which caused lots of harm to young children, not to mention adults as well) and promoting his philosophy of immaterialism. Real contributions to the sciences I have not been able to find concerning this man. And they name a whole city and university after him in the US and hail him as some great philosopher? Ah well, I guess it fits the pattern with the latest most succesful (and even convicted regarding Trump University) con-artist and snake oil salesman being elected president.

A lot of fancy words and esperiments.

The universe is mental. It is mind.

Thoth wrote about it in the Emarald Tablets. The Hindu cultures wrote about it in their cosmology among others.

But.. modern science thinks it has it all figured out doesn't it?

Nothing new under the sun

a reply to: neoholographic

So if you, me, the stuff all around us, and the rest of the entire universe are all holographic -- and that's all we got -- then all of that is as real as anything.

If the entire universe were holographic, then there would be nothing "more real" in our universe than the holographically projected stuff, therefore that holographic stuff should be defined as "real."

If the entire universe were holographic and everything around us that we say exists is a hologram -- i.e., if that is our reality -- then everything still exists as "real" in our reality.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Threads like this really hurt my brain. I consider myself as not a complete idiot, but I still struggle to get my head round some of the theories presented by physicists.

I must admit, The Matrix (although going off on very different tangent) did a great job at explaining to the average member of the public how our reality can be perceived as real, when it's something else altogether.

We perceive reality as everything around us that we sense. Sight, touch, smell, etc. Yet my reality is going to be vastly different to that of a person born blind and deaf. Just as my reality is going to be very different to a genetically enhanced being born 1000 years from now who can hear frequencies I can't hear, see visual spectrums I can't see, and more. I would imagine it's very rare for the average human to actually consider the limitations of their physical body and question how much more there is to reality than what we actually experience?

The Matrix showed that on one level at least, reality is nothing more than what our brain interprets from those senses. Hypothetically, if I am shown an image of an apple in front of me and my friend was plugged into a machine which sent exactly the same optical signals to his brain to recreate that image of an apple, neither of us could distinguish one from the other.

In my limited understanding of Quantum theory, I sometimes use the analogy of a roleplaying computer game to understand how reality could possibly not exist until we observe it. Within that computer game, it is suggested that there is an entire world to explore, with vast terrains and lands and beings populating it. Yet all we ever see is the immediate area presented on screen. Those vast lands don't appear behind my television or burst through the wall of my house. They appear on screen only as we encounter and observe them, yet I believe wholly that they are there within the game. Perhaps reality works in a similar manner.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: neoholographic

So if you, me, the stuff all around us, and the rest of the entire universe are all holographic -- and that's all we got -- then all of that is as real as anything.

If the entire universe were holographic, then there would be nothing "more real" in our universe than the holographically projected stuff, therefore that holographic stuff should be defined as "real."

If the entire universe were holographic and everything around us that we say exists is a hologram -- i.e., if that is our reality -- then everything still exists as "real" in our reality.

I guess the next pertinent question would be though - what is projecting the holograph? Is that level reality?

originally posted by: elgaz
...
They appear on screen only as we encounter and observe them, yet I believe wholly that they are there within the game. Perhaps reality works in a similar manner.

This is a popular misunderstanding that arises imho from the ill conceived attempt to separate the quantum and the classical world.

The reality though is that the classical world is the sum of all quantum interactions. Quantum interactions in isolation might look strange, but take a lot of them and you get the classical reality. There is no separation, no special observer.

You are a myriad of interacting quantum particles, as is the apple.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: neoholographic


Thanks for posting this. I will have to take some time to go through it all and watch the videos!

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography

Mind blown right here! I am convinced that extra sensory perceptions of all kinds can be explained through this science.

Thanks!

The wave function being areal but nonphysical makes sense. You have a nonphysical wave function encoded with information about the probable states that can be measured. These measured states become an element of "reality" when a measurement occurs.

a reply to: neoholographic The hidden variable is the correct measurement.

a reply to: neoholographic The hidden variable is the correct measurement.

a reply to: neoholographic The hidden variable is the correct measurement.

a reply to: neoholographic The hidden variable is the correct measurement.

a reply to: neoholographic The hidden variable is the correct measurement.

The am communicated scheme is an interesting question for a celebrity.

Experienced physical reality exposed exists in its entirety and that is to say obective it isn’t yet objective does exist it isn’t the same.

originally posted by: elgaz

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: neoholographic

So if you, me, the stuff all around us, and the rest of the entire universe are all holographic -- and that's all we got -- then all of that is as real as anything.

If the entire universe were holographic, then there would be nothing "more real" in our universe than the holographically projected stuff, therefore that holographic stuff should be defined as "real."

If the entire universe were holographic and everything around us that we say exists is a hologram -- i.e., if that is our reality -- then everything still exists as "real" in our reality.

I guess the next pertinent question would be though - what is projecting the holograph? Is that level reality?

If the natural universe is holographic (i.e., that's what the universe naturally is -- made of 2-dimensional information that manifests itself as looking 3D), then that is as real as anything we can call real.

I'm not talking about some alien sitting in his fully-3D universe running a simulation of our universe with a holographic projector. I'm talking about all of reality being holographic. If that were the case, the holographic universe would still be as real as it gets -- so it IS "real" physical reality.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

so it IS "real" physical reality.

It is, nevertheless, subjective, not objective, because...quantum physics.