The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It

originally posted by: Narvasis
No, it exists, but it’s properties do not follow what we know as the laws of physics, is how I read it at least. Meaning that something, without being observed, could be and most likely isn’t what we see it to be. Our perception of things and how our brains rationalize them into what we perceive as “reality” is a construct that at our peak of processing power can observe and see.

“If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”

The answer(s) to this question now seems to be infinite.. because the way I understand it based on reading into this a bit, is that not only does the tree make a sound, but without being observed (heard in this specific case) the “tree” may not be a tree at all, and the “ground” may not be the ground we know. Without something there to perceive the observation with senses, the tree falling might as well sound like rain pattering on a roof.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

It fit's my answer for the tree question, “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” Yes is the answer. The falling tree creates sound waves, however, with no one around to hear it, it didn't make a "noise", but it did make a "sound". The difference of those words is important and relates to all this.

Im unsure who you’re referring to unfortunately.. however, some people perceive things differently then others. Think about art, music, ect… depending on how people perceive it, depends on how it affects them. Some pieces tend to mesmerize people into almost a trance like state, while the same piece has no affect on another. This is why I don’t think there is some supreme observer of the universe. If anything I believe in Mother Nature, and not that of earth, but of the universe. Space winds man…
Is it because of their experiences they’ve had in their lives, or is it subtle variations in “reality” based on a person to person basis and how they perceive things? Typing this out led to the thought of per se, “mass reality”? Not sure if I’m making that up, but whatever I’m rolling with it. The idea on that is that we all influence each other’s realities, some more then others. Someone saying to someone else “you have to see/hear/taste this!” Does it give our reality a preconceived notion of that thing? Simply a color… when human beings could first communicate what a color was, do we perceive that “color” to be as is because it is actually that color, or is it say, “blue” because we have simply made it blue in our perception of things as a people?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

originally posted by: Narvasis
No, it exists, but it’s properties do not follow what we know as the laws of physics, is how I read it at least. Meaning that something, without being observed, could be and most likely isn’t what we see it to be. Our perception of things and how our brains rationalize them into what we perceive as “reality” is a construct that at our peak of processing power can observe and see.

“If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”

The answer(s) to this question now seems to be infinite.. because the way I understand it based on reading into this a bit, is that not only does the tree make a sound, but without being observed (heard in this specific case) the “tree” may not be a tree at all, and the “ground” may not be the ground we know. Without something there to perceive the observation with senses, the tree falling might as well sound like rain pattering on a roof.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Yes it does, because if you set a microphone to record noise in the forest then play it back, you'll hear the sound it made even though no one was there.

Animals were there and they heard it, but even if there were no living organisms there to hear it, clearly it made the sound.

Yes, but those “sound waves” would HAVE to hit something that can perceive them, making them into the sound/noise they are as we know it, like an ear drum and tubes. If they don’t, then based on the findings we are talking about, then the noise/sounds, regardless of definition, is not how we actually perceive it. Let’s say it’s not a human but a dolphin hearing this happen, is the dolphin perceiving the same sound the human is? Probably not. Then if nothing is there to observe that specific event the sound or noise it makes could be literally anything based on how it is at that moment in time. Time and aging is what I am curious about. Are things only dying because we perceive them to be dying, and simply cannot observe beyond that? Who tf knows🤷🏻‍♂️

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

You are still listening to the tape recording with human ears. Yes, animals may hear it, but how are the animals hearing it? I don’t think anyone can say how they perceive the sound and what it is processed into. Why would the sound itself remain the same if a different being then a human is listening with different auditory senses?

a reply to: Thrumbo

a reply to: gortex
Buddhists have long believed our "reality" is an illusion.
Not the first thing they were right about IMO.

They also believe in a form of "universal consciousness" that we are all a living 3d part of,that our notion of the individual self is not accurate.

If they are right about that as well,then if a tree falls in a deserted forest-it did fall,and it did make a sound as it WAS being observed-by the universal consciousness which exists within and outside of our restricted 3d reality.


Another thing that is dfficult to comprehend,yet is demonstratable is that everything which makes up our reality,when looked at on the tiniest level-the quantum level-those tiny subatomic "bits" are not in our 3d universe all of the time.

Sometimes they wink in and out of our reality into other dimensions,sometimes they(or a perfect copy) come back but in different locations,and sometimes they exist in 2 places at once..

So us humans,and all of what we call material reality are actualy made of stuff that is not bound to our 3d reality.

Truly mindbending.

I love this because it can actually explain many things! I have only ever saw something that I couldn’t rationally explain once. I was in a shop and they had old currency (it was a $1 bill) in a sealed glass case. Nothing was in the case to cause motion of any kind and the thing was closed. While looking in the case I sht you not, the dollar bill moved slightly on its own. What was even better, was that my buddy who was with me also saw it and we both looked at each other like “did that really just happen?!” You hear about this stuff all the time. I don’t know why but I feel like all of this has something to do with that kind of random stuff happening. Has anyone else here ever heard or saw something that you couldn’t explain? This might be why…

a reply to: Silcone Synapse

This thread needs more psychedelics, some colors.. maybe even a little tie dye.

I'm feeling it...

a reply to: TDDAgain


I'm guessing when the double slit theory was taking place for the first time it was a sterile environment without any single celled organisms with eye spots floating in the room?

Asking for a friendly scientist.

“If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”

a reply to: Narvasis

Ok, well I am not a physicist either, but the way I understand this, is that it does not make a sound, but there is sound vibration. You need to have ears to be able to interpret the vibration and turn it into sound.

Vision has more to do with light bouncing off of the object, but I think that without the physical body, what is actually out there in the world is probably a lot different than what we think it is.

a reply to: 19Bones79
Back then the standard was tripple slit (3), so this question is like, very crazy and strange.

a reply to: gortex

Recently an MIT study of protons came to a similar conclusion. Reality is merely a shifting field of probabilities, even at scales so small as to have been entirely speculative until recently. It has some broad and yet to be understood implications for all of science.

The proton is a quantum mechanical object that exists as a haze of probabilities until an experiment forces it to take a concrete form. And its forms differ drastically depending on how researchers set up their experiment. Connecting the particle’s many faces has been the work of generations. “We’re kind of just starting to understand this system in a complete way,” said Richard Milner, a nuclear physicist at MIT.

Article

An earlier work by Roger Penrose, who shared a Nobel with Hawking, came to the conclusion that consciousness is not local and is quantum capable. Humans are capable of problem solving that exceeds the Turing machine model widely promoted as the totality of our brain function. The two ideas are complimentary in my opinion, with each hinting at conclusions that are deeply problematic for the existing zeitgeist.

Many of the brightest minds in physics have intimated as much in the past, but it was restricted to a few passing statements. They're regarded as unimportant observations rather then the true direction our scientific inquiry should be heading. That physics hints at unseen and indefinite realities is troubling. That conclusion, absent some slight understanding of the physics, could be considered a gateway to religion and speculation on forbidden ideas. A non-local consciousness operating in a purely probabilistic reality means that establishment science can't be arbiters of absolute truth. It's bad for their image.

Mainstream science may stop stigmatizing this once they've figured out how to control the narrative surrounding it or a way to monetize some derivative applications of it. It could be that this has already happened and we live in just one of many of highly manipulated realities.

Following the white rabbit isn't for the faint of heart or purely empirical scientists.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Here's a question and I'm interested in your answer:

Do we ONLY observe with our eyes or via sounds as well?

If that tree falls and makes a sound (noise) which causes a non-observing deer to freak out and run over a non-observing human, killing him, then, did it make a sound (noise)?

I teach at the Axe Body Spray University during the day

a reply to: MykeNukem

I've always wondered who or what qualifies as someone to hear the tree falling?

I can't imagine there's a tree on the planet that does not have a bird or a bug or an ant within earshot of it?

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: MykeNukem

I've always wondered who or what qualifies as someone to hear the tree falling?

I can't imagine there's a tree on the planet that does not have a bird or a bug or an ant within earshot of it?

Yes!

Which in turn can continue the chain reaction up the food chain to us.

Tree falls...bee flies away pissed off....stings human who wasn't even around and didn't notice the tree in any way....human gets pissed at being stung....kills physicist....LOL

a reply to: gortex

Well there are many things our eyes can't observe considered real. Seems to all lead back to the double slit tests. Like time is just a unit of measurement. I have always been very conscerned with what AI and tech can see that we can't or ever will. Or if A future AI finds a way to only show us what ot wants us to see. Even a species with higher tech and development hacking or finding a way to hode or change things our tech sees.

I always felt we just don't understand or admit enough about many interactions. We still don't fully understand electricity, magnetism and water.

Also strange the fact that we can trust our eyes less in science and even more in politics. Plus the fact that we just have to trust some of the data that is interpreted not even really seen. Trust the science though no matter how many times they get it wrong or add or settle on things unconfirmed.

a reply to: MykeNukem

So its a quantum butterfly tree falling in the woods effect?

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: gortex

I just closed my eyes and walked straight into a wall.


Feeling a bit stupid to be honest.

I even said to myself "follow the science, just follow the science".

That is how we observe most things. We throw objects (photons, etc) at them, and see how they bounce off.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: MykeNukem

So its a quantum butterfly tree falling in the woods effect?

I believe so yes, that settles it.

You can share the Nobel with me

a reply to: chr0naut


This is way above my straygrade.


I can't not even.

Bonedingers Box.

Wait... That's not right.