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

a reply to: neoholographic

And you can start by explaining why this equation is wrong. Because if it's right, then you are 100% wrong. Give it your best shot:

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: neoholographic

As I stated earlier there are many levels of understanding in science. Kowing you know nothing about the math involved I purposefully took this over your head knowing you had no understanding of 5th dimensional de sitter space. And I suspect you don't know the difference between anti-de sitter space either.

I'll concede it wasn't fair but you don't listen any way you're stuck in reading science wu on the internet. Your understanding is well let's say misguided. Again go talk to some physics professors give me an area I will set up an appointment for you with them.

More Gobbledy Gook. If you just say, "I don't know." I will explain to you what I'm asking.

It's funny watching message board Physicist because you want to act like you know it all and can answer any question and then when you're hit with a question you can't answer, your responses descend into babble.

It's okay to say."I don't know." Everybody's ignorant of something. You're responses are pure nonsense and have nothing to do with the question.

If there's a 2D description of the universe on it's boundary how is its volume filled with real stuff(matter) without exceeding this description?

originally posted by: libertytoall

originally posted by: Khurzon

originally posted by: libertytoall
The third dimension is an illusion because it only exists due to EM Gravity. The creator created a 2 dimensional space of time and space and out of that space EM Gravity was created which stretched out the 2 dimensions into 3 dimensions. Now out of those three dimensions 4th and 5th dimensions were created. See cosmic consciousness. Once the 4th dimension of cosmic consciousness was created it gave an additional dimension of space which is now used to time travel and to receive messages from the past and future. Our time is not linear it's cyclical, possibly a closed time loop, so time travel became a thing now. See Baal. See Asherah.

Wow! That's....That is ....That feels awesomely Correct!

You Must be a Traveller!?

I was brought here by Asherah. I was not born in this world.

Ah...Watcher? with Jehova's permission it must be...

Well, according to General relativity dimensions are four (4).
You can certainly encode the universe into one dimension by a scanning approach, analog TV, FAX, DVD, etc work this way.
Then you must add a readout speed if you want to properly follow (see and maybe change) the story. Like 4.75 cm/s used for audio cassettes...
You may also use quantization, 16 bit per sample are used for digital audio, and add compression, lossless, or lossy.
Processing can be reduced to a Turing machine...still one dimensional..

Alternatively:
Someone thinks that the "operative" (explorable) dimensions of the universe are 4 (wow, like General relativity) and they are all space dimensions (ops).
Time does not exist, instead we have a speed, the speed of light.
The most precious entity of this approach is e 4D memory device. Let's see:

www.chronos.msu.ru...
www.chronos.msu.ru...

have fun.

originally posted by: neoholographic

If there's a 2D description of the universe on it's boundary how is its volume filled with real stuff(matter) without exceeding this description?

Firstly, there isn't any accepted 'holographic' theory of anything like the Standard Model in all its fields and 3 space + 1 time dimension.

Next, the point of the holographic descriptions is a dimensionality reduction, that the physics that's describable in 'bulk' in one representation is the same physics describable on one lower dimensional surface in another representation. It's very common in deep mathematics to make progress in difficult problems by converting them to a different sort of mathematical problem and then using tools which are known for that second type, and then transform back to the first type.

One isn't any more 'real' than others. It's like Eulerian vs Lagrangian fluid mechanics, or Heisenberg-Bohr matrix mechanics vs Schroedinger differential equations. Different mathematical spaces but for the same physics. The word 'holographic' has rousted up the woosters. It's a change of coordinates.


The best evidence for 'objective reality' for me is that physics understood and developed using lab-scale human experiments can be extremely well extended to predict, years to decades ahead of observation, utterly exotic and remote catastrophic astrophysical events. Stuff we learned from a nuclear physics accelerator tells us how stars work and evolve. Einstein and Hilbert thinking in an office lead a century later to predict #ing black holes and their violent merger and detailed waveforms of gravitational radiation which happened billions of years in the past.

Regarding the paper cited above:

www.chronos.msu.ru...

I noticed that the link to Sakharov Nobel lecture has been updated:

www.nobelprize.org...

Scroll down to the end of the lecture and you will read:

“I support the cosmological hypothesis which states that the development of the universe is repeated in its basic features an infinite number of times. In accordance with this, other civilizations, including more "successful" ones, should exist an infinite number of times on the "preceding" and the "following" pages of the Book of the Universe. Yet this should not minimize our sacred endeavors in this world of ours, where, like faint glimmers of light in the dark, we have emerged for a moment from the nothingness of dark unconsciousness of material existence. We must make good the demands of reason and create a life worthy of ourselves and of the goals we only dimly perceive.”

a reply to: neoholographic

You realize you're making an argument against materialism by using materialism? Describe a thing without using atoms, space, holographic principles, or the quantum mechanic rules of subatomic particles.

Let's start with something very basic. A quark. Can you describe a quark without using materialism. If you can't describe the most basic fundamental unit of materialism without using materialism, then you have right there your proof of materialism.

originally posted by: phoenixbyrd79
a reply to: neoholographic

You realize you're making an argument against materialism by using materialism? Describe a thing without using atoms, space, holographic principles, or the quantum mechanic rules of subatomic particles.

Let's start with something very basic. A quark. Can you describe a quark without using materialism. If you can't describe the most basic fundamental unit of materialism without using materialism, then you have right there your proof of materialism.

The most basic fundamental unit of materialism isn't material! You're caught up in semantics. We call them particles but they should really be called subatomic states. People like yourself hear the word particle and you're thinking of a particle of salt or sand. The truth is, particles can't be entangled or in superposition.

Quantum Field Theory tells us what we call particles are really excitations of underlying quantum fields.

Lessons in reality from particles that don't exist

WHEN you hear the word “particle”, what image floats into your mind? Chances are you’re thinking small, and then some – like the tiniest billiard ball imaginable. Indivisible chunks of matter pinging off each other in the vast expanses of space, or jostling for position in a crowded chunk of stuff.

Chances are, too, you’re nowhere near the vision of particles painted by our best picture of how they work, quantum theory. This says that despite making up stuff that definitely has a size – ourselves, the paper or screen you’re reading this on – particles occupy a point in space precisely zero metres across.

While you’re chewing that one over, you might consider how quantum theory also allows these size-zero particles to occupy multiple places at once, or be “entangled” so the state of one becomes inextricably bound up with the state of another. But even that doesn’t prepare you for the latest assault on any common-sense conception of a particle that physicists have been preparing.

www.newscientist.com...

No Evidence for Particles

There are a number of experiments and observations that appear to argue for the existence of particles, including the photoelectric and Compton effects, exposure of only one film grain by a spread-out photon wave function, and particle-like trajectories in bubble chambers. It can be shown, however, that all the particle-like phenomena can be explained by using properties of the wave functions/state vectors alone. Thus there is no evidence for particles. Wave-particle duality arises because the wave functions alone have both wave-like and particle-like properties. Further the results of the Bell-Aspect experiment and other experiments on entangled systems, which seem to imply peculiar properties for particles if they exist, are easily and naturally understood if reality consists of the state vectors alone. The linear equation-Hilbert space structure for the state vectors, by itself, can explain every mystery in quantum mechanics except the origin of the probability law.

arxiv.org...

Real talk: Everything is made of fields

Theorist Sean Carroll thinks it’s time you learned the truth: All of the particles you know—including the Higgs—are actually fields.

“To understand what is going on, you actually need to give up a little bit on the notion of particles,” Carroll said in the June lecture.

Instead, think in terms of fields.

Carroll’s stunner, at least to many non-scientists, is this: Every particle is actually a field. The universe is full of fields, and what we think of as particles are just excitations of those fields, like waves in an ocean. An electron, for example, is just an excitation of an electron field.

www.symmetrymagazine.org...

Here's some quotes from Werner Heisenberg one of the founders of quantum mechanics.

“I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.” ― Werner Heisenberg

“[T]he atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” ― Werner Heisenberg

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” ― Werner Heisenberg

So, the reverse of your post is true:

You have to show evidence that particles are material and you have to define what that material actually is because QFT tells us what we call "particles" are excitations of underlying quantum fields.

The definitions of material illustrate this point.

If I touch my shirt, I can feel the material that the shirt is made of.

I can also say, John is a material witness to the crime.

John's testimony can't be touched like the shirt. It has no objective existence as matter but without his testimony you don't think you can get a conviction.

This is reality. The interactions of quantum fields cause excitations which we call particles. These excitations are material to the table top, the pillow or a human being like John's testimony is material to the case.

This is why we never really touch anything.



This video explains it well. Also, what we call matter is mostly empty space.




This makes sense when you realize it's not the excitations(particles) that you feel when you think you're touching something, it's the strength or weakness of the interactions of those fields and therefore the excitations caused by those interactions which we call "particles."

Think of it like ice and water. The molecules in water have more energy so they move around faster when it freezes and becomes ice the molecules are moving slower. Think of your hand like water and a hard table top like ice. This is why your hand doesn't fall through the table. It's not because of anything objective called matter. It's because the excitations in quantum fields we call "particles" are moving more slowly in the table than in your hand and we perceive this as a hard table, we don't actually touch the table. The excitations(particles) in the table push away harder the excitations(particles) in your hand. There's no objective material substance called matter!

a reply to: neoholographic

It is simultaneously true that particles are excitations of more fundamental fields, and they have obvious objective material substance because every person in the universe who does the experiments finds exactly the same damn fields which work the same damn way everywhere.

If you want to use clever definitions in a fragile construct to build your hypothesis that everything is a dream and solid matter is a crazy mans illusion then feel free to step in front of a train and pass through it to prove your own point without taxing us to disprove you. Its much easier that way. Let me know when you've proven the simulation theory.

originally posted by: neoholographic

If there's a 2D description of the universe on it's boundary how is its volume filled with real stuff(matter) without exceeding this description?

It doesn't work that way. Of course there is a volume filled with real stuff because we're living in it.

The holographic principle is a mathematical theoretical one which hypothesizes that there is a different mathematical space with one lower dimension on which one may define physics and equations of motion and a transformation to and from the regular space (which is 3+1 dimensional as far as we can tell by observations, at least macroscopically).

It's not a boundary on the same bulk like a literal border on the universe!!!

The idea is that some computations and concepts which don't work in one representation can be found to work in the other representation---this is a long standing technique in mathematics. As a much simpler example, consider Fourier frequency space and 'regular space'. In Fourier frequency space the equations of motion of linear wave propagation become much simpler and uncoupled non-interacting vs in regular physical x,y,z, space.

Holographic principle is doing this but for exceptionally complex quantum gravity---and there isn't yet a theory for our real universe, they are still studying simpler hypothetical universes in order to get insight and the techniques down before they can tackle the grand prize: full unification of quantum field theory with general relativity.

a reply to: neoholographic

The material world does not exist with out that which we can not see.

And that knowledge only leads us to one conclusion.

That being that it shouldn't exist at all.

* Didn't realize this was an older thread pulled from archives *

a reply to: TzarChasm

Yeah, but it still totally took a person making that observation to determine the age initially.

You cant argue against a presuppositional apologist in any variation the argument comes. There's always a +1 to add in. Always a priori assertion in perpetual nebulous nonexistence.

Clearly there was conciousness even as far back as grand unification, because ONLY intelligence can set a temperature limit at 10^27 Kelvin for when all fundamental forces cease to be unified as the electronuclear.

The laws of physics will always need intelligence to have existence.

You can even cite M-theory and say the laws of physics are a necessary superposition of "all possible laws of physics".

And they'll just add 1 again and say, even a multiverse of "bound to happen" still requires an ultimate protochicken to lay all those cosmic eggs.

Theres always a solipsism trending (you can't not prove) caveat to behold.

But if you like futile debates against walls you can't beat it.

originally posted by: neoholographic
I have watched a few debates recently and the athiest scientist always talk about the physical or material universe. This is mainly people like Krauss, Dawkins and others. It amazes me that thee scientist don't know there's not a shred of evidence that an objective material universe exist. In fact, all of the evidence points to God creating the universe. Scientist realize a material universe doesn't make send without an intelligent mind. You will see in the evidence presented, how these Scientist give the universe attributes of a mind.

1. The universe is a hologram

The Holographic Universe has been around for awhile and it has a solid foundation in physics. It's based on things like black hole thermodynamics and the Bekenstein Bound. Basically, a volume of space is proportional to information on a 2D surface area surrounding that volume. So your closet can't be filled with actual matter occupying it's total volume or it would collapse into a black hole. It's a holographic projection of information of a 2D surface area surrounding that volume. So the 3rd dimension would be an illusion as said by Susskind and the Scientist in the 1st video below. If there were an objective material universe, why talk about the universe as a hologram?

2. Matter is mostly empty space

This is well known along with you don't actually touch anything. Ask yourself, why is this the case if an objective physical universe exists?

3. The universe is a Quantum Computer

Professor Seth Lloyd and others say the universe is a Quantum Computer. Again, ask yourself, why do you need these kinds of explanations to explain the universe if it's just a material world blindly following these laws of physics that just popped up out of nowhere.

The universe as quantum computer

Seth Lloyd

This article reviews the history of digital computation, and investigates just how far the concept of computation can be taken. In particular, I address the question of whether the universe itself is in fact a giant computer, and if so, just what kind of computer it is. I will show that the universe can be regarded as a giant quantum computer. The quantum computational model of the universe explains a variety of observed phenomena not encompassed by the ordinary laws of physics. In particular, the model shows that the the quantum computational universe automatically gives rise to a mix of randomness and order, and to both simple and complex systems.

arxiv.org...

Why would an objective physical universe need to be a quantum computer? It has the laws of physics and brute materialism. The fact is, an objective material universe is a fantasy.

4. The universe is a simulation

Again, there's no evidence that an objective material universe exists. This is why Scientist keep coming up with these explantions.

5. Donald Hoffman - The Case Against Reality

Donald Hoffman wrote a really good book called The Case Against Reality. Here's an article on him.

The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality

The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.

I think that’s absolutely true. The neuroscientists are saying, “We don’t need to invoke those kind of quantum processes, we don’t need quantum wave functions collapsing inside neurons, we can just use classical physics to describe processes in the brain.” I’m emphasizing the larger lesson of quantum mechanics: Neurons, brains, space … these are just symbols we use, they’re not real. It’s not that there’s a classical brain that does some quantum magic. It’s that there’s no brain! Quantum mechanics says that classical objects — including brains — don’t exist. So this is a far more radical claim about the nature of reality and does not involve the brain pulling off some tricky quantum computation. So even Penrose hasn’t taken it far enough. But most of us, you know, we’re born realists. We’re born physicalists. This is a really, really hard one to let go of.

www.quantamagazine.org...

Here's a Professor of Cognitive Science from the University of California questioning physical reality. Why, if the material world is so absolute as some athiest pop scientist want us to believe.

The Most Famous Paradox in Physics Nears Its End

Threads like this is why I have recently become an idealist. Idealism is the only explanation of the universe that fits the evidence.

originally posted by: Romeopsi
Threads like this is why I have recently become an idealist. Idealism is the only explanation of the universe that fits the evidence.

To say the moon is not a real material object sounds completely ridiculous to me and to say that is consistent with the evidence sounds even more ridiculous.

Perhaps a century or two ago I might have wondered what the moon really was, if it was some kind of illusion just being perceived by my mind and other people's minds.

But in 1969, men landed on the moon, collected samples of it and brought them back to earth for analysis. The evidence gathered from that analysis showed the moon is billions of years old, which means it pre-dates not only the consciousness of humans but also any other known form of consciousness or mind for which we have evidence.

The immaterialist/idealist George Berkeley might have answered this type of objection by saying that even if no human observed the moon before humans existed, that the consciousness of God observed it, thus turning the idealist philosophy into a religion, which almost by definition makes it a belief system which is NOT supported by evidence, as is typical of religions.

So believe idealism if you want, but the evidence does not support it, since the moon is still there even if nobody is observing it, and almost certainly was still there billions of years ago as evidence indicates, before anybody on Earth existed to observe it.