Can a materialist provide scientific evidence that the material world has an objective existence?

a reply to: neoholographic

If you want to talk about decoherence or the holographic principle, then start another thread. Your original topic has been dealt with definitively. Now prove the responses wrong.

a reply to: neoholographic

No i was just pointing out you were wrong on your 1st point I can move on if you like. Your second point is wrong too. Atoms are not mostly empty space that is an overly simplistic response.

When we picture an atom, most of us instinctively revert to that first model we all learned: of a point-like electron orbiting a small, dense nucleus. This "planetary model" of the atom is wrong! The better way to think about an electron is like a "fog" or a "cloud," spread throughout the space around an atomic nucleus. When two or more atoms are bound together into a molecule, their electron clouds overlap, and the electron's extent in space gets even more diffuse. When you press your hand up against another surface, the electromagnetic forces from the electrons on that surface push against the electrons in your hands, causing the electron clouds to distort and deform in their shapes.

a reply to: Phantom423

You said:

Age-redshift analysis proves objective existence - unless, of course, you can demonstrate that there was a conscious entity in existence at that point in time. You can't, regardless how many cut-and-paste articles and videos you post.

What??

Did you read my post?

I said, there's no evidence of an objective material existence. I never said there's no objective existence. You have to read before you post.

a reply to: neoholographic

Either you accept the evidence of objective material reality or you don't.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: neoholographic

Either you accept the evidence of objective material reality or you don't.

What evidence?

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Phantom423

You said:

Age-redshift analysis proves objective existence - unless, of course, you can demonstrate that there was a conscious entity in existence at that point in time. You can't, regardless how many cut-and-paste articles and videos you post.

What??

Did you read my post?

I said, there's no evidence of an objective material existence. I never said there's no objective existence. You have to read before you post.

What's funny is you don't even know the point you are arguing about. Your argument is based on the first principle. According to this first principle, then, everything that exists is either one of two types. The first type is something that exists necessarily, by its own nature. Examples? Many mathematicians believe that numbers, sets, and other abstract objects exist in this way. If such entities exist, they just exist necessarily, without any cause of their being. The other type is anything that has an external cause of its existence. Examples? Mountains, planets, galaxies, and people. They have causes outside themselves which explain why they exist.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Phantom423

You said:

Age-redshift analysis proves objective existence - unless, of course, you can demonstrate that there was a conscious entity in existence at that point in time. You can't, regardless how many cut-and-paste articles and videos you post.

What??

Did you read my post?

I said, there's no evidence of an objective material existence. I never said there's no objective existence. You have to read before you post.

What's funny is you don't even know the point you are arguing about. Your argument is based on the first principle. According to this first principle, then, everything that exists is either one of two types. The first type is something that exists necessarily, by its own nature. Examples? Many mathematicians believe that numbers, sets, and other abstract objects exist in this way. If such entities exist, they just exist necessarily, without any cause of their being. The other type is anything that has an external cause of its existence. Examples? Mountains, planets, galaxies, and people. They have causes outside themselves which explain why they exist.

Pure nonsense!

Like most of your lies, it has nothing to do with the thread.

Again, there's not a shred of evidence that supports the notion that an objective material universe exists and this is why scientist have to come up with theories like the holographic universe or is the universe a self replicating AI.

You don't provide evidence to support anything you're saying and again:

Where's the evidence an objective material universe exists?

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Phantom423

You said:

Age-redshift analysis proves objective existence - unless, of course, you can demonstrate that there was a conscious entity in existence at that point in time. You can't, regardless how many cut-and-paste articles and videos you post.

What??

Did you read my post?

I said, there's no evidence of an objective material existence. I never said there's no objective existence. You have to read before you post.

What's funny is you don't even know the point you are arguing about. Your argument is based on the first principle. According to this first principle, then, everything that exists is either one of two types. The first type is something that exists necessarily, by its own nature. Examples? Many mathematicians believe that numbers, sets, and other abstract objects exist in this way. If such entities exist, they just exist necessarily, without any cause of their being. The other type is anything that has an external cause of its existence. Examples? Mountains, planets, galaxies, and people. They have causes outside themselves which explain why they exist.

Pure nonsense!

Like most of your lies, it has nothing to do with the thread.

Again, there's not a shred of evidence that supports the notion that an objective material universe exists and this is why scientist have to come up with theories like the holographic universe or is the universe a self replicating AI.

You don't provide evidence to support anything you're saying and again:

Where's the evidence an objective material universe exists?

I noticed every time you don't understand something it's a lie. I would suggest doing some studying id start with the philosopher Aristotle as he already discussed this. your arguments have been around for thousands of years. You actually think your original don't you ? wow you have a lot to learn

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Phantom423

You said:

Age-redshift analysis proves objective existence - unless, of course, you can demonstrate that there was a conscious entity in existence at that point in time. You can't, regardless how many cut-and-paste articles and videos you post.

What??

Did you read my post?

I said, there's no evidence of an objective material existence. I never said there's no objective existence. You have to read before you post.

What's funny is you don't even know the point you are arguing about. Your argument is based on the first principle. According to this first principle, then, everything that exists is either one of two types. The first type is something that exists necessarily, by its own nature. Examples? Many mathematicians believe that numbers, sets, and other abstract objects exist in this way. If such entities exist, they just exist necessarily, without any cause of their being. The other type is anything that has an external cause of its existence. Examples? Mountains, planets, galaxies, and people. They have causes outside themselves which explain why they exist.

Pure nonsense!

Like most of your lies, it has nothing to do with the thread.

Again, there's not a shred of evidence that supports the notion that an objective material universe exists and this is why scientist have to come up with theories like the holographic universe or is the universe a self replicating AI.

You don't provide evidence to support anything you're saying and again:

Where's the evidence an objective material universe exists?

I noticed every time you don't understand something it's a lie. I would suggest doing some studying id start with the philosopher Aristotle as he already discussed this. your arguments have been around for thousands of years. You actually think your original don't you ? wow you have a lot to learn

Of course it was a lie. You said the Holographic Principle was from the 90's and I showed you recent papers that refuted it.

Where are all of these Physicist that support you. List them.

Again I ask:

Where's the evidence that supports the notion that an objective material universe exists?

better way to think about an electron is like a "fog" or a "cloud," spread throughout the space around an atomic nucleus.

A field if you will sir.

a reply to: dragonridr

a reply to: neoholographic

Modifying your question to suit your agenda doesn't work. A "material" existence implies the existence of matter in the universe - which the age-redshift analysis proves. That's spectroscopic data speaking.
I suggest you start over and rephrase your title. You're in territory you don't understand.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Phantom423

You said:

Age-redshift analysis proves objective existence - unless, of course, you can demonstrate that there was a conscious entity in existence at that point in time. You can't, regardless how many cut-and-paste articles and videos you post.

What??

Did you read my post?

I said, there's no evidence of an objective material existence. I never said there's no objective existence. You have to read before you post.

What's funny is you don't even know the point you are arguing about. Your argument is based on the first principle. According to this first principle, then, everything that exists is either one of two types. The first type is something that exists necessarily, by its own nature. Examples? Many mathematicians believe that numbers, sets, and other abstract objects exist in this way. If such entities exist, they just exist necessarily, without any cause of their being. The other type is anything that has an external cause of its existence. Examples? Mountains, planets, galaxies, and people. They have causes outside themselves which explain why they exist.

Pure nonsense!

Like most of your lies, it has nothing to do with the thread.

Again, there's not a shred of evidence that supports the notion that an objective material universe exists and this is why scientist have to come up with theories like the holographic universe or is the universe a self replicating AI.

You don't provide evidence to support anything you're saying and again:

Where's the evidence an objective material universe exists?

I noticed every time you don't understand something it's a lie. I would suggest doing some studying id start with the philosopher Aristotle as he already discussed this. your arguments have been around for thousands of years. You actually think your original don't you ? wow you have a lot to learn

Of course it was a lie. You said the Holographic Principle was from the 90's and I showed you recent papers that refuted it.

Where are all of these Physicist that support you. List them.

Again I ask:

Where's the evidence that supports the notion that an objective material universe exists?

Your question is answered by the fact you can ask the question. You want to discuss philosophy yet your trying to hide it.


All we have to do is look at our history After the material formations had risen from the atomic level to the higher, molecular level, and then followed a process of complication of chemical substances that lasted for billions of years. Then gradually molecules became more complex as carbon compounds led to the formation of organic compounds (organic level). Little by little increasingly complex organic compounds were formed. And finally came life (biological level). Life was the necessary, law-governed outcome of the development of all chemical and geological processes on the Earth's crust. The evolution of life proceeded from primitive, pre-cellular forms of protein existence to cellular organization, to the formation of unicellular, and then multicellular organisms with increasingly complex structures — the invertebrates, the vertebrates, the mammals, and the primates. The primates were the final stage in the evolution of organic nature and the starting point for the origin of man. All this had to happen before like existed in the universe.

originally posted by: Dalamax

better way to think about an electron is like a "fog" or a "cloud," spread throughout the space around an atomic nucleus.

A field if you will sir.

a reply to: dragonridr

Correct I'm trying not to confuse him lets stick to the basics

a reply to: dragonridr

Neo is trying to disguise Jesus behind a sloppy veneer of quantum physics and hologram theory.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

Modifying your question to suit your agenda doesn't work. A "material" existence implies the existence of matter in the universe - which the age-redshift analysis proves. That's spectroscopic data speaking.
I suggest you start over and rephrase your title. You're in territory you don't understand.

Your right we can see the universe existed before consciousness.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: dragonridr

Neo is trying to disguise Jesus behind a sloppy veneer of quantum physics and hologram theory.

Oh I know that's why I trolled him by describing abiogenesis.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Phantom423

You said:

Age-redshift analysis proves objective existence - unless, of course, you can demonstrate that there was a conscious entity in existence at that point in time. You can't, regardless how many cut-and-paste articles and videos you post.

What??

Did you read my post?

I said, there's no evidence of an objective material existence. I never said there's no objective existence. You have to read before you post.

What's funny is you don't even know the point you are arguing about. Your argument is based on the first principle. According to this first principle, then, everything that exists is either one of two types. The first type is something that exists necessarily, by its own nature. Examples? Many mathematicians believe that numbers, sets, and other abstract objects exist in this way. If such entities exist, they just exist necessarily, without any cause of their being. The other type is anything that has an external cause of its existence. Examples? Mountains, planets, galaxies, and people. They have causes outside themselves which explain why they exist.

Pure nonsense!

Like most of your lies, it has nothing to do with the thread.

Again, there's not a shred of evidence that supports the notion that an objective material universe exists and this is why scientist have to come up with theories like the holographic universe or is the universe a self replicating AI.

You don't provide evidence to support anything you're saying and again:

Where's the evidence an objective material universe exists?

I noticed every time you don't understand something it's a lie. I would suggest doing some studying id start with the philosopher Aristotle as he already discussed this. your arguments have been around for thousands of years. You actually think your original don't you ? wow you have a lot to learn

Of course it was a lie. You said the Holographic Principle was from the 90's and I showed you recent papers that refuted it.

Where are all of these Physicist that support you. List them.

Again I ask:

Where's the evidence that supports the notion that an objective material universe exists?

Your question is answered by the fact you can ask the question. You want to discuss philosophy yet your trying to hide it.


All we have to do is look at our history After the material formations had risen from the atomic level to the higher, molecular level, and then followed a process of complication of chemical substances that lasted for billions of years. Then gradually molecules became more complex as carbon compounds led to the formation of organic compounds (organic level). Little by little increasingly complex organic compounds were formed. And finally came life (biological level). Life was the necessary, law-governed outcome of the development of all chemical and geological processes on the Earth's crust. The evolution of life proceeded from primitive, pre-cellular forms of protein existence to cellular organization, to the formation of unicellular, and then multicellular organisms with increasingly complex structures — the invertebrates, the vertebrates, the mammals, and the primates. The primates were the final stage in the evolution of organic nature and the starting point for the origin of man. All this had to happen before like existed in the universe.

Like I said, you lied about the Holographic Principle. I will ask the question again.

Where are all of these Physicist that support you. List them.

List the Physicist that say the Holographic Principle is just something from the 90's. Of course you won't list them because you're lying.

There's not a shred of evidence that supports the notion of an objective material reality.

Please list the evidence backed by published papers.

originally posted by: neoholographic
There's not a shred of evidence that supports the notion of an objective material reality.

Please list the evidence backed by published papers.

Not that you'll understand or accept this, but here is such a paper, again pointing out that decoherence is the key to the objective reality of larger objects which are not isolated from their environment.

Decoherence without entanglement and Quantum Darwinism

It is commonly believed that decoherence arises as a result of the entangling interaction between a quantum system and its environment, as a consequence of which the environment effectively measures the system, thus washing away its quantum properties. Moreover, this interaction results in the emergence of a classical objective reality, as described by Quantum Darwinism. In this Letter, we show that the widely believed idea that entanglement is needed for decoherence is imprecise. We propose a new mechanism, dynamical mixing, capable of inducing decoherence dynamics on a system without creating any entanglement with its quantum environment. We illustrate this mechanism with a simple and exactly solvable collision model. Interestingly, we find that Quantum Darwinism does not occur if the system undergoes entanglement-free decoherence and, only when the effect of a super-environment introducing system-environment entanglement is taken into account, the emergence of an objective reality takes place. Our results lead to the unexpected conclusion that system-environment entanglement is not necessary for decoherence or information back-flow, but plays a crucial role in the emergence of an objective reality.

a reply to: neoholographic

You want me to give you a week of physics classes on a website, Start with this video and I would suggest visiting a local college and talking with their physics dept. Ive had people come to me asking for help and we will usually make the time to see you.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Now you're back to decoherence after you dodged my questions before?

The last line you posted said:

Our results lead to the unexpected conclusion that system-environment entanglement is not necessary for decoherence or information back-flow, but plays a crucial role in the emergence of an objective reality.

It says nothing about an objective material reality. Here's the title of the thread.

Can a materialist provide scientific evidence that the material world has an objective existence?

Where is the evidence that the probable state we observe is an objective material reality?