Why must you insist reality is illusion?

reply to post by sirnex

It matters because these experiments being conducted bring us closer towards understanding the fundamental aspects of what is going on. If we don't determine why the particle takes a certain path over another path (which path), then we'll never understand why it does so. Why does the particle seemingly appear to behave as both a wave and a particle, that is the root issue of the experiment.

This is not true, cause if we don't watch, the particle behaves as a wave.

It doesn't behave like both wave and particle.

If you watch it behaves like a wave, if you don't watch it behaves like wave.


I'm really of to bed now, goodnight or evening to you to.

I'm also enjoying this and I'm learning to. I'm actually more sure of my case than before, so I doubt we'll ever get this over with.

Ah well. no hard feelings.

reply to post by sirnex


No, I think I'll pick "Spot goes to the zoo", it's got pictures of all sorts of animals in it.

reply to post by enigmania

This is not true, cause if we don't watch, the particle behaves as a wave.

We don't watch ... We only see the results of the instruments. Stop adding yourself into the equation. We don't matter.

I'm actually more sure of my case than before

Only because you keeping adding information and trying to redefine the experiment accordingly. Bad form, really bad form. As I asked before, direct quote of where you personally matter.

Each person has his or her own perception of the world around them. Some people refer to this personal perception a personal or seperate reality, as if it is a subjective thing. I personaly feel that reality is what it is, and that each of us precieves it a bit differently (through different filters via past experience and culter etc.)

A word picture if you will. 3 of us see the sunset. I take notice of the sharp and intence lines and pockets of lite mingled between the colors and around the setting sun. I see a beautiful and intense and dramatic view.

You see the softness of the several colors and notice how they seem to be layered one on another. You see a soft and colorful view.

Joe here sees that the bright orange sun seems huge and low now that it's fall, in his view, the sun is changing.

The reality is the same... the same sunset. Just 3 different people seeing 3 different things.

(Now think back to the last argument you witnessed or were involved in. Was anyone really wrong?

reply to post by AngelaLadyS

Now think back to the last argument you witnessed or were involved in. Was anyone really wrong?

No, not really, because each individual brain will inherently perceive and interpret the event differently. This however doesn't change "reality" itself. The sun will still set and interact as it always does regardless of how each of the three individual people perceive and interpret it. Reality isn't what we perceive, the universe doesn't need us to exist. We just exist thanks to the universe existing.

[EDIT] There's a bit of truth in your signature, but not in the way some people might interpret it. Food for thought so to speak ... Maybe another topic?

[edit on 17-9-2008 by sirnex]

Originally posted by sirnex
... because each individual brain will inherently perceive and interpret the event differently. This however doesn't change "reality" itself. The sun will still set and interact as it always does regardless of how each of the three individual people perceive and interpret it. Reality isn't what we perceive, the universe doesn't need us to exist. We just exist thanks to the universe existing.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by sirnex]

EXACTLY!

reply to post by AngelaLadyS


I love you!

I'm feeling better already.
There's always something here for everyone :-)

How the brain interprets signals doesn't make the universe any more or less real or unreal. The universe will still continue to exist and operate as it has done for billions of years with or without an organic electrochemical self-aware brain processing the bits of information it receives through whatever sensor it uses.

Doesn't it? my point was that our senses, using smell as an example, are subjective to our experiences/perspectives of the world, therefore must differ, however slight, from person to person.

Honestly, I don't know about the universe, IMO, if there was nothing, to observe, then it wouldn't exist, BUT, we are not the only observers, I think planets are conscious to a degree, same as stars and right the way down to microbial life. Just because we don't understand it yet, doesn't make it wrong, just different and because we believe it, doesn't make us idiots.

Our human brain interprets sugar as being a 'sweet' taste, the so called "sweetness" isn't sweetness in it's own right, it's sweet because we used a developed language to label that sensation/taste as 'sweet'. It has nothing to do with what is real or not.

It is sweet, not because we labled it as 'sweet', it is a sensation, a feeling that we labled, but the 'sweetness' is interpreted by the brain, we also have sour, savoury etc. These things are merely stimulation, from different parts of our tongue, sending electrical signals to the brain for interpretation. Even the 'fruit' shall we say, doesn't exist, it is an assumption by our brain to determine what this is.

"the particle alters its own state"


Wrong.

Lol, wrong to you.

This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner.

But not always. (my bold)

Yes, I am offensive, or at least can get very offensive in light of stupidity. I hate stupid people.

And who deems people stupid? you?

Trying to stop smoking right now isn't helping matters either, it only compounds to the problem.

Ah, I see.

I've been trying to explain something to this ... guy ... and he refuses to accept the answers that the scientists themselves came up with. It's not my opinions or views personally, it's the opinions and views of the scientists themselves. He wishes to add human consciousness into the equation and make himself part of the detection process despite the small issue that he never directly detects in a manner that alters.

Ok, for a start, SCIENTIST'S DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS and I've often found that they are wrong, and even when faced with their own mistakes are dogmatic in their beliefs. Every great revolution has come from going against the grain, yet it is continually critized for doing so, you'd think they would've learnt by now. You have been shown a few times now, how we believe consciousness to affect, not only this test, but our life in general, fair enough, you don't believe it, and thats fine, but stop calling people stupid for not sharing your beliefs.

I have been trying to find an article skyfloating (think) linked to about a man named Van Pommel(sp?). Now I didn't read all of it, but from what I read, he had some interesting points for consciousness existing existentially, anchored, yet not bound to the brain. I thought I had saved it, but apparently not, I will eep looking and link it. You probably won't agree, but at least accept the possibility.

EMM

[edit on 18-9-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

[edit on 18-9-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

reply to post by sirnex

It matters because these experiments being conducted bring us closer towards understanding the fundamental aspects of what is going on. If we don't determine why the particle takes a certain path over another path (which path), then we'll never understand why it does so.

This is not the reason why the "wich path" information is so important.

Here it literally says:

So, under conditions where the double-slit part of the experiment has been set up to prevent the appearance of interference phenomena (because there is definitive "which path" information present)

The wave/interference pattern collapses because there is "wich path" information present.

That's what it says.

[edit on 18/9/08 by enigmania]

reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers




Jeah, I heard about him, he is also a Dutch guy. He's a cardiologist who has lots of experience with near death experiences.

Here's a link to his website.

www.pimvanlommel.nl...

Originally posted by AngelaLadyS
Each person has his or her own perception of the world around them. Some people refer to this personal perception a personal or seperate reality, as if it is a subjective thing. I personaly feel that reality is what it is, and that each of us precieves it a bit differently (through different filters via past experience and culter etc.)

A word picture if you will. 3 of us see the sunset. I take notice of the sharp and intence lines and pockets of lite mingled between the colors and around the setting sun. I see a beautiful and intense and dramatic view.

You see the softness of the several colors and notice how they seem to be layered one on another. You see a soft and colorful view.

Joe here sees that the bright orange sun seems huge and low now that it's fall, in his view, the sun is changing.

The reality is the same... the same sunset. Just 3 different people seeing 3 different things.

(Now think back to the last argument you witnessed or were involved in. Was anyone really wrong?

Bingo, good explanation, but the question is, is the 'Sun' actually there? From my understanding, it is merely light reaching our eyes that tell us that a round 'fiery' object is there, dropping below the horizon, if it is merely light, then we are picking up on different aspects of this light to describe it.

They are arguing over one fundemental case, and that is consciousness, is the consciousness stuck in the brain? merely a case of synaptic fire and electrochemical reactions? or is consciousness exist on a different level to our 'physical', does it exist, or can it, outside the brain. If it does, then yes, it can effect the experiment, if it can't, then know it cannot effect the experiment. It is a matter of belief that they will never win.

EMM

Originally posted by enigmania
reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

 

Jeah, I heard about him, he is also a Dutch guy. He's a cardiologist who has lots of experience with near death experiences.

Here's a link to his website.

www.pimvanlommel.nl...

Sweet, been looking for this, I'm sure I saved it for reading at a later date, but I can't find it. Even if people don't beleve this, please have a look, it is an interesting theory, none the less.

EMM

reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

It is a matter of belief that they will never win.

You're right. The fact that some perceive consciousness as a function of the human body, is what is making them not want to see the implications of the experiment.

It's right before their eyes, but they can't see.

This alone indicates that our reality is formed by our expectations and experiences, not nessecarely on a particle level, but at least our perception of it.

And our perception is our reality.

[edit on 18/9/08 by enigmania]

[edit on 18/9/08 by enigmania]

According to the norm, reality is in a solid state, there is only one reality, and everyone experiences the same, one reality.

I've seen this argument been used: If I die the same reality will still be there.

Or: How can there not be one reality, we all see the same sky, trees, buildings etc.

But if you take the notion that reality, or particles, behave according to our expectations, experiences and knowledges, this "one" reality only seems one great reality, it is only the result of the fact that everybody has more or less, the same experiences, knowledge and expectations, because that's what we're tought.

It is just where our own subjective realities overlap.

If you die, the same reality will not be there, only that part of your reality that corresponds with the people still living, keeps existing, but only in the consciousness of those still living.

All imo off course.

[edit on 18/9/08 by enigmania]

reply to post by sirnex

Your right it does say that there is a definitive(conclusive, unquestionable) 'which path' available. Meaning that it is unquestionably taking one of two possible routes.

No the "wich path" information does not mean unquestionablly taking one of the two paths.

There are only two slits to go through, so "wich path", means literally wich path the particle took through the slits.

It's not called "this or that path" information.

The fact that you don't even understand that is either a cop out, because you know you're wrong, or you don't understand the experiment at all.

Or a mix of both.

Anyways, it says a lot.

The most baffling part of this experiment comes when only one photon at a time is fired at the barrier with both slits open. The pattern of interference remains the same as can be seen if many photons are emitted one at a time and recorded on the same sheet of photographic film. The clear implication is that something with a wavelike nature passes simultaneously through both slits and interferes with itself — even though there is only one photon present. (The experiment works with electrons, atoms, and even some molecules too.)

I'm a little late in the discussion, but what I understand from reading this is: One particle by nature of acceptable reality should only pass information through one slit. Instead, information is passed through both slits. Which implies that the "unobserved" particle has no "observer" to determine its course. As I have understood it, the nature of the observer is still undetermined, i.e. what exactly constitutes an "observer".

Call it the Probability Accommodation.

My apologies for messing up the tag. I tried to edit it, but it reverted.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by TravelerintheDark]

[edit on 18-9-2008 by TravelerintheDark]

reply to post by TravelerintheDark


It means that if there is nothing to observe wich slit the particle goes through, the one particle actually goes through both slits and interferes with itself, to create a wave pattern: it is in superposition.

Every possible outcome happens if not observed.

Originally posted by enigmania

It means that if there is nothing to observe wich slit the particle goes through, the one particle actually goes through both slits and interferes with itself, to create a wave pattern: it is in superposition.

Every possible outcome happens if not observed.

Yes, and so if the "unobserved" particles of our universe are in a state of superposition, what is the nature of reality? That is my understanding of the question. To me the answer must be something of a contradiction. Static flux? What I know is this is what makes it rain consistently, but for our prediction of it to be inconsistent in its accuracy. I think the question a lot of us are looking for the answer to is, how much influence can we exert on the flux? But that is something no one can conceive a static answer to.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by TravelerintheDark]

[edit on 18-9-2008 by TravelerintheDark]

reply to post by TravelerintheDark


What I really think and feel is, we are the flux, we created the flux, and we all agreed to forget about that, to some level, in order to experience consciousness on this level.

There is your contradiction.

Only the "forgetting" has gotten out of hand, I think.

[edit on 18/9/08 by enigmania]