Does the physical world exist?

No, the physical world does not exist. Go outside and stand in the freeway as a semi-tractor trailer approaches. After it has passed, come back in and tell us all how that went.

reply to post by john_bmth


You can't be serious. You said:

Your analogy makes no sense. We can easily demonstrate an objective reality, this has nothing to do with lottery odds. Your entire argument is utterly meaningless philosophical musings, not unlike discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You keep saying "science says this" when in fact you're talking out of your @!#.

You now say we can easily demonstrate an objective reality then the rest of you're post is full of meaningless dribble. You haven't provided one bit of evidence. It's all nonsense.

Last post you assumed without any basis in fact. Now you claim you can demonstrate an objective reality then the you don't demonstrate anything. The rest of your post is just hyperbole.

Everything can be broken down to information. The universe can be described in the terms of information and computation. Eyesight, touch, smell is an input of information. Computers and quantum computers simply use the computation that's already going on in nature. We couldn't have computers and quantum computers if the universe didn't compute.

THIS ISN'T PHILOSOPHY, THIS IS SCIENCE.

You type on your computer now because the universe computes. Most technology is just reverse engineering what's already inherent in nature.

Again, if you have any scientific evidence that an objective material universe exists and we're not a construct of information than present. Please no more hyperbole and statements of fact wrapped up in your assumptions.

I know you don't have any evidence so you will keep trying to talk about philosophy and more hyperbole is on the way.

Also spell out what I'm saying isn't true. Does the universe compute? Can you or anyone touch matter? What can't be described in the universe by information?

More hyperbole in 5,4,3,2......

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by john_bmth

 

You can't be serious. You said:

Your analogy makes no sense. We can easily demonstrate an objective reality, this has nothing to do with lottery odds. Your entire argument is utterly meaningless philosophical musings, not unlike discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You keep saying "science says this" when in fact you're talking out of your @!#.

You now say we can easily demonstrate an objective reality then the rest of you're post is full of meaningless dribble. You haven't provided one bit of evidence. It's all nonsense.

Like a poster said before: go run onto the freeway and test the objectivity of reality.

Last post you assumed without any basis in fact. Now you claim you can demonstrate an objective reality then the you don't demonstrate anything. The rest of your post is just hyperbole.

ALL of your threads are your own, unsubstantiated opinion dressed up as scientific fact. You have yet to support even one of your claims with anything even resembling scientific evidence. If it's "common knowledge" and "widely accepted", where's the wealth of evidence to support your argument?

Everything can be broken down to information.

State exactly what your definition of information is.

The universe can be described in the terms of information and computation. Eyesight, touch, smell is an input of information. Computers and quantum computers simply use the computation that's already going on in nature. We couldn't have computers and quantum computers if the universe didn't compute.

Citation needed.

THIS ISN'T PHILOSOPHY, THIS IS SCIENCE.

Nope, it's your own opinion palmed off as science.

You type on your computer now because the universe computes.

Citation needed.

Most technology is just reverse engineering what's already inherent in nature.

What is "most" technology? What specific examples are you talking about that are pertinent to your argument?

Again, if you have any scientific evidence that an objective material universe exists and we're not a construct of information than present. Please no more hyperbole and statements of fact wrapped up in your assumptions.
I know you don't have any evidence so you will keep trying to talk about philosophy and more hyperbole is on the way.

Go play in the freeway and let us know how subjective your injuries are.

Also spell out what I'm saying isn't true.

Ok.

Does the universe compute?

Nope, unless you're redefining the definition of the word "compute" to suit your argument.

Can you or anyone touch matter?

Yes:

touch/təCH/
Verb: Come so close to (an object) as to be or come into contact with it.
Noun: An act of bringing a part of one's body, typically one's hand, into contact with someone or something: "her touch on his shoulder".

We do not live in the quantum world, we live in the macro world where "touching" is very much a real phenomenon. If you fancy demonstrating this to be false, then by all means film yourself walking through a wall and post it up here.

What can't be described in the universe by information?

Is this you alluding to your "computers and quantum computers simply use the computation that's already going on in nature" statement? Citation needed.

More hyperbole in 5,4,3,2......

Do you even know what the word "hyperbole" even means? Evidently not. Anyway, you make up statements and then redefine words that have very clear definitions to make jumbled arguments that you then attempt to palm off as accepted science. And you have the nerve to accuse others of not making sense?

reply to post by john_bmth


Your post is full of nonsense. I suggest you should go read a book before responding next time. This is not being condescending it's just the truth. It makes no sense to try to debate when you're ignorant of an issue. I use to do it with Evolution and I had to stop debating the subject until I learned more about it.

When you say stuff like:

Like a poster said before: go run onto the freeway and test the objectivity of reality.

It truly shows ignorance of the subject matter. If the universe is a construct of information, then how does getting hit by a car tell you anything about an objective material reality? It's like saying if you don't think the world is flat just walk off of the edge.

Information is bits in classical physics and qubits in quantum mechanics. These bits can be arranged in a way that produces complexity and instructions. Shannon showed us that bits that don't convey much information are in a high state of entropy and bits in a low state of entropy can produce things like DVD players or a 300 page novel.

When you use a computer, you're just getting bits to compute what you want instead of what they're already computing. A quantum computer uses qubits which nature already uses to compute the universe and we're just building technology that will allow us to use this computation to carry out things like Shor's Algorithm.

We don't touch anything. Electrons from your hand repel against the electrons from the table and you perceive a hard table or a soft pillow. You never touch it. If you actually touched it, you would fall right through. It's called electric repulsion.

You said:

Do you even know what the word "hyperbole" even means? Evidently not. Anyway, you make up statements and then redefine words that have very clear definitions to make jumbled arguments that you then attempt to palm off as accepted science. And you have the nerve to accuse others of not making sense?

What have I said that's not accepted science? Where do you think bits or qubits come from? Do you think it's magic and poof they appeared? They come from nature. Everything computes down to a microscopic level.

What have I said that's not scientific? Where is there any evidence that a material objective reality exists outside of, "Well if I go outside I feel rain on my head so rain must exist." These are childish arguments that a 10 year old might make. It's the same as saying,"If you go stand in the freeway blah, blah, blah."

Originally posted by Matrix Rising


It truly shows ignorance of the subject matter. If the universe is a construct of information, then how does getting hit by a car tell you anything about an objective material reality? It's like saying if you don't think the world is flat just walk off of the edge.

If the world is flat, it would be impossible to walk off an edge. So again, if you think that there is no objective reality, by all means walk off an edge and see how that fares for you.

Information is bits in classical physics and qubits in quantum mechanics. These bits can be arranged in a way that produces complexity and instructions. Shannon showed us that bits that don't convey much information are in a high state of entropy and bits in a low state of entropy can produce things like DVD players or a 300 page novel.

Qbits are a human construct, as are quantum computers, thus this definition of information does not in any way support your argument. That's like saying "photos are made using silver oxide, therefore silver oxide contain natural photographic information, thus photographs occur naturally in nature".

When you use a computer, you're just getting bits to compute what you want instead of what they're already computing.

No, no you don't, this is patently false Computers are a human construct. How on earth have you come to this conclusion? Just what exactly are these "bits already computing"? You do realise that bits are merely an electronic representation of the base-2 numerical system, right? You do also realise such a numerical system is used by choice, not because there's silicon chips running around the plains of Africa counting in 2's, right? Finally, you do realise that computer components are manufactured from raw materials by man, right?

A quantum computer uses qubits which nature already uses to compute the universe and we're just building technology that will allow us to use this computation to carry out things like Shor's Algorithm.

See above.

We don't touch anything. Electrons from your hand repel against the electrons from the table and you perceive a hard table or a soft pillow. You never touch it. If you actually touched it, you would fall right through. It's called electric repulsion.

Yes we do touch things. For all it matters, miniature lizards could be pressing their hands together to stop things getting too close. This does not change the effects we experience in the macro world, just like you cannot walk through walls. By all means film yourself doing so if you think this isn't the case.

You said:

Do you even know what the word "hyperbole" even means? Evidently not. Anyway, you make up statements and then redefine words that have very clear definitions to make jumbled arguments that you then attempt to palm off as accepted science. And you have the nerve to accuse others of not making sense?

What have I said that's not accepted science? Where do you think bits or qubits come from? Do you think it's magic and poof they appeared? They come from nature. Everything computes down to a microscopic level.

Again: qbits are a human construct and quantum computers are a human construct. Like with my analogy above, just because silicon is used in computer component manufacturing, doesn't mean that raw silicon are naturally performing computer calculations until mankind harnesses them like some natural, inate "way of things". Likewise, qbits and quantum computers are a construct of man using natural resources. They're not sitting there quietly calculating lists of prime numbers and cracking cryptographic algorithms until mankind pops one on his desk and asks it to do something specific.

What have I said that's not scientific?

See above. You've demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of computing, electronics and physics.

Where is there any evidence that a material objective reality exists outside of, "Well if I go outside I feel rain on my head so rain must exist." These are childish arguments that a 10 year old might make. It's the same as saying,"If you go stand in the freeway blah, blah, blah."

You're the one making the claims, therefore it is down to you to provide the evidence that irrevocably supports your claim that "the physical world does not exist" and that there is no objective reality. You seem completely uninterested in actually learning anything because you've already "figured things out" and are sticking to your ill-informed ideas with religious zeal. How can anyone take what you say seriously when you come out with things like "When you use a computer, you're just getting bits to compute what you want instead of what they're already computing"?

reply to post by FOXMULDER147

Just because all our perceptions are processed in the mind doesn't mean stuff doesn't exist out there in reality. on the contrary, the real world stuff must exist in reality to stimulate all the sensory perceptions you experience.

It does not have to exist. In a way it is all a lot simpler to explain if it is all in the mind... The physical world maks a lot more sense that way and we have a lot more power over it then we think....

reply to post by john_bmth


Nice answer. But would you care to show me any scientific paper that proves that reality exists outside the observer. Come to think of it would you care to show just one scientific paper that proves that you the observer exist. I will save you the effort, there are none.
So be careful putting so much faith in a philosophy of reality that does not even give you credence for your own existence.
The only thing you know to exist is you, the one thing science cannot prove exists is you...

You walk out and you feel the rain on your skin, does not prove on an exterior reality. It proves that you sense. Nothing more. Would them raindrops even exist if you were not there to observe them..

reply to post by john_bmth


Your post clearly shows that you don't understand what your talking about. You said:

qbits are a human construct and quantum computers are a human construct.

What? This one line shows that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about and the rest of your post is just nonsense. Not one published paper to refute anything that I have said. Not one scientific paper that shows evidence of an objective material reality.

Qubits are not human constructs. Have you ever heard of superposition? The universe is already uses superposition to compute what we call reality. Quantum Computing is technology that will allow us to use this computation that already occurs.

How in the world is qubits a human construct lol?

The qubit is described by a quantum state in a two-state quantum-mechanical system, which is formally equivalent to a two-dimensional vector space over the complex numbers. One example of a two-state quantum system is the polarization of a single photon: here the two states are vertical polarization and horizontal polarization. In a classical system, a bit would have to be in one state or the other, but quantum mechanics allows the qubit to be in a superposition of both states at the same time, a property which is fundamental to quantum computing.

en.wikipedia.org...

This has nothing to do with a human construct. The polarization of the photon is not a human construct.Do you even understand what superposition is?

You are acting like computation comes from the components you use to build the computer. No, it comes from nature. It comes from science. That's like saying the components of the MRI make the MRI work. The components of the MRI are just reading what already occurs in nature.

Without QM MRI wouldn't exist. MRI is essentially the manipulation of "spins" within a strong magnetic field, which then return to an equilibrium state. That a particle has "spin" is actually a mathematical description of the quantum mechanical nature of the particle - that happens to behave mathematically like spin - rather than a conceptual one (a sphere spinning on an axis). It is easy to imagine a positively charged sphere (e.g. the proton) of finite size (radius ~10-14 m), finite mass (~10-27 kg) and a net electric charge (~10-19 C) spinning, and therefore possessing a magnetic dipole moment. However, the electron (finite mass ~1/1836 proton mass) also possesses spin, yet it is indicated to be a point-particle with no spatial extent. Imagining the electron "spinning" becomes somewhat difficult.

www.revisemri.com...

Again, in a quantum computer or computer the parts are not computing anything. The parts just allow what's already occurring to be used by us with computers, DVD Players or MRI's. The parts of a radio don't contain the electromagnetic wave. The radio is just technology that allows us to broadcast information on different stations.

This is just basic common knowledge. You can't actually think that the parts are somehow creating this information. The parts of a quantum computer doesn't create superposition or polarization. It's like saying the microwave creates microwaves lol. Microwaves existed way before a microwave oven.

Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by Astyanax

 

1. the machine is physical to us, but maybe also simulated.
2. the human senses are material to us, simulated though.

Suppose we create an artificial intelligence so strong that it wants to find the maximum speed of information transmission within its virtual environment. The fastest information can travel within the artificial Universe will be C, which is actually a limitation of our own universe.

Someone could say that it does not matter how fast we perceive information is transmitted, because there might be aribitrarily long periods between two simulation steps, during which the computations of the Machine could take care of simulating infinite information transmission speed. That would mean simulating simultaneity all across its computational units, which would be highly expensive and time consuming, essentially making the simulation billion times slower in order to synchronize the billion computational units. By having an information speed limit, the simulation can run independently in a set of neighboring computational units, and not affect the computational efforts of remote units.

edit on 25-11-2011 by masterp because:

edit on 25-11-2011 by masterp because:

wow !! really mind blowing is your explanation !! like it !

as I said in my thread in february, a bit a long thread but here it is again :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Love it, no need for smoking grass, just neurons blowing in the matrix !!

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
No, the physical world does not exist. Go outside and stand in the freeway as a semi-tractor trailer approaches. After it has passed, come back in and tell us all how that went.

that is what we call physical yes, material, but what happens in fact that we do not see ? a very big cloud of energy ( the truck ) is crashing into a little cloud of energy ( your body ) and the molecules and atoms are splashed around ...
the material world is only what we see, matter is in fact the feeling of forces by our senses, but when you look deeper into that " matter " there are only atoms with electrons around and these electron energyfields do repel the electrons of your fingertips ....
you never can touch another electron, you just can " touch " = feel his energy FIELDS !!!

matter = condensed energy fields ! the repel is like the magnetic repel North-South + South-North.

peace.

reply to post by Astyanax


There are no truly simultaneous events. Relativity is valid in all levels.

The machine is physical.

Our sense impressions are not. We live in a simulation after all.

Getting hit by car is part of the simulation. It is not a way to prove that our reality really exists or not.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising

What? This one line shows that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about and the rest of your post is just nonsense. Not one published paper to refute anything that I have said. Not one scientific paper that shows evidence of an objective material reality.

Erm... you haven't provided evidence for any of your claims nor even attempted to refute mine, all you're doing is saying the same (incorrect) things over and over

Qubits are not human constructs. Have you ever heard of superposition? The universe is already uses superposition to compute what we call reality. Quantum Computing is technology that will allow us to use this computation that already occurs.

*Sigh* yes they are a human construct, in the same way that using pebbles to represent numerical values of a number system is also a human construct. The pebbles themselves do not have an innate ability to count, their ability to be used to count is a human construct. Every single function of a quantum computer (including the computer itself) is a human construct.

How in the world is qubits a human construct lol?

...

en.wikipedia.org...

See above.

This has nothing to do with a human construct. The polarization of the photon is not a human construct.Do you even understand what superposition is?

From your wiki link:

In quantum computing, a qubit (play /ˈkjuːbɪt/) or quantum bit is a unit of quantum information—the quantum analogue of the classical bit—with additional dimensions associated to the quantum properties of a physical atom. The physical construction of a quantum computer is itself an arrangement of entangled atoms, and the qubit represents[clarification needed] both the state memory and the state of entanglement in a system. A quantum computation is performed by initializing a system of qubits with a quantum algorithm —"initialization" here referring to some advanced physical process that puts the system into an entangled state.[citation needed]

Emphasis mine, see above.

You are acting like computation comes from the components you use to build the computer. No, it comes from nature. It comes from science. That's like saying the components of the MRI make the MRI work. The components of the MRI are just reading what already occurs in nature.

How on earth are you not grasping this ever so simple concept? A computer has the ability to compute because mankind has manufactured components form raw materials that in and of them self are merely inanimate matter. The end result that is used to perform entirely conceptual tasks is a purely human construct. The entire notion of computing is a human construct.

...

www.revisemri.com...

See above.

Again, in a quantum computer or computer the parts are not computing anything.

Earlier you side quite the opposite so you're contradicting yourself now:

When you use a computer, you're just getting bits to compute what you want instead of what they're already computing

and:

Computers and quantum computers simply use the computation that's already going on in nature. We couldn't have computers and quantum computers if the universe didn't compute.

Absolute nonsense.

The parts just allow what's already occurring to be used by us with computers, DVD Players or MRI's.

No. They. Do. Not. Raw silicon is not naturally storing digital information (a human construct), executing machine instructions (another human construct) to perform mathematical operations (another human construct) or any of the multitude of uses that silicon can be used for in computing. How are you failing to grasp this?

The parts of a radio don't contain the electromagnetic wave. The radio is just technology that allows us to broadcast information on different stations.

This has absolutely nothing to do with your ridiculous idea that we are harnessing "natural computation" when we manufacturer silicon into computer components. You seriously need to do your homework because you are talking utter rubbish.

This is just basic common knowledge.

No, it's you getting fundamental concepts completely wrong.

You can't actually think that the parts are somehow creating this information.

HUMANS "create the information". How are you not grasping this?

The parts of a quantum computer doesn't create superposition or polarization.

Again, see my pebble analogy.

It's like saying the microwave creates microwaves lol. Microwaves existed way before a microwave oven.

A completely false analogy that only serves to highlight your ignorance of computing, electronics and physics. Seriously, do your homework before accusing other people of not understanding what they're talking about, it's getting embarrassing.

reply to post by john_bmth


You just keep allowing your ignorance to dig you into a deeper hole. It's sad when people obviously don't know what they're talking about but pride doesn't allow them to stop and learn about the subject. You said:

*Sigh* yes they are a human construct, in the same way that using pebbles to represent numerical values of a number system is also a human construct. The pebbles themselves do not have an innate ability to count, their ability to be used to count is a human construct. Every single function of a quantum computer (including the computer itself) is a human construct.

This is just silly. Bits and qubits are basic unites of information. They don't need a computer to compute. For instance we see qubits computing all the time via entanglement and superposition. A quantum computer doesn't make qubits magically appear. This is so silly I'm just shocked you're saying anything like this. You do know things like X-Rays exist without an X-Ray machine? Why would you think bits don't exist without a computer?

You posted this from Wiki:

In quantum computing, a qubit (play /ˈkjuːbɪt/) or quantum bit is a unit of quantum information—the quantum analogue of the classical bit—with additional dimensions associated to the quantum properties of a physical atom. The physical construction of a quantum computer is itself an arrangement of entangled atoms, and the qubit represents[clarification needed] both the state memory and the state of entanglement in a system. A quantum computation is performed by initializing a system of qubits with a quantum algorithm —"initialization" here referring to some advanced physical process that puts the system into an entangled state.[citation needed]

You don't know that entanglement occurs in nature? You can't possibly think that the system becomes entangled because of the quantum computer? Quantum systems become entangled all the time. Why would you think they need a quantum computer to become entangled? A quantum computer will just use what already occurs in nature.

You said:

HUMANS "create the information". How are you not grasping this?

I have to admit I read your post and I thought it was a joke. I have never heard anyone say humans create information. A bit is a basic unit of information. The Genetic Code is information. You can store bits on anything from silicon, DNA to Tinkertoys.

The second supposition is that all things can compute. We have begun to see that almost any kind of material can serve as a computer. Human brains, which are mostly water, compute fairly well. (The first "calculators" were clerical workers figuring mathematical tables by hand.) So can sticks and strings. In 1975, as an undergraduate student, engineer Danny Hillis constructed a digital computer out of skinny Tinkertoys. In 2000, Hillis designed a digital computer made of only steel and tungsten that is indirectly powered by human muscle. This slow-moving device turns a clock intended to tick for 10,000 years. He hasn't made a computer with pipes and pumps, but, he says, he could. Recently, scientists have used both quantum particles and minute strands of DNA to perform computations.

www.wired.com...

Humans don't create information. We take information in a high state of entropy and reduce the entropy to convey a message. The pebbles you speak of our bits of information. If you take the pebbles and say if two pebbles are in the driveway I'm home if three pebbles are in the driveway I left already. You're just taking information in a high state of entropy and putting it in a low state of entropy to convey a message.

Superposition and entanglement is not created by the quantum computer. These things already occur in nature.







Entanglement and Superposition occur without a quantum computer. X-Rays existed before an X-Ray machine. Microwaves existed before a microwave oven. Radio waves existed before a Radio. Qubits and Bits existed before a computer or quantum computer. Humans build technologies around what's already inherent in nature.

Here's a good interview with M.I.T. Professor Seth Lloyd.

WIRED: I hear you're a quantum computer repair guy.
LLOYD: Yes, I am a quantum mechanic! Those darn quantum computers break all the time.

W:You've jumped from working on quantum computers to saying, oh, by the way, the universe is a gigantic quantum computer.
L:When you zap things with light to build quantum computers, you're hacking existing systems. You're hijacking the computation that's already happening in the universe, just like a hacker takes over someone else's computer.

W:What is the universe computing when we are not hijacking it for our own purposes?
L: It computes itself. It computes the flow of orange juice as you drink it, or the position of each atom in your cells.

W:How do you explain Programming to your kids?
L:I tell them that it says everything in the universe is made of bits. Not chunks of stuff, but chunks of information - ones and zeros.

www.wired.com...

Everything is bits of information in a high or low state of entropy. Information in a low state of entropy can convey a message.

Take the alphabet. ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ.

A human can take the alphabet (high entropy state) and arrange it in a way that conveys a message like a 300 page novel (low entropy state).

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
I think the answer is NO.

There's no evidence that an objective physical world exist. We don't touch anything or see anything. It's all based on a sensory input of information. So the holographic principle and black hole thermodynamics could really be key to what we call reality.

When you look at vision. We never see anything out there. Light hits are retina and information signals to our brain tells us the spatial dimension and color of what we should see. We then project a 3-dimensional image based on that information.

So light hits a 2 dimensional surface are and we project a 3-dimensional "reality." It's the only thing that makes sense. If a tree is out there, why don't I just see a tree? Why is the image formed in my brain?Why is the spatial information formed in my brain?

If the tree really has spatial dimension, then why do I need my brain to tell me this? Why can't I just see the object?

Why does this object have mass? Why can't I touch this object? I never touch matter. Electrons repel and we perceive the force as hard or soft.

The world seems to be a projection of information.

We don't taste anything. It's all based on information. Smell tells you how something should taste. This is why when your nose is stuffy everything taste the same. Taste buds send information to the brain. They detect five elements of taste perception. Salty, sour, bitter, sweet, and umami.

So when you have a cold, you might taste the sweetness of an orange or the bitterness of a lemon but without smell, you will not get the fullness of the food.

Again, it's all waves of information. I can see in the future virtual worlds being constructed based on the information we send to the brain. We might live in one now.

The physical world does exist, but is only a small portion of what's really there. When you are looking at that tree, your brain has to process a ton of information, but then eventually projects something much more simple for us. We have evolved as such to see only in the small visible light portion of the electromagnetic scale. But we are also not able to see other dimensions that surround us everywhere. The reason we don't see any of this, and the reason we see the tree the way we do, is because of how our brains simplify the "picture" if you will. This does mean the physical world doesn't exist? No, it only means that the physical world is a small portion of what we would call reality

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by john_bmth

 

You just keep allowing your ignorance to dig you into a deeper hole. It's sad when people obviously don't know what they're talking about but pride doesn't allow them to stop and learn about the subject. You said:

*Sigh* yes they are a human construct, in the same way that using pebbles to represent numerical values of a number system is also a human construct. The pebbles themselves do not have an innate ability to count, their ability to be used to count is a human construct. Every single function of a quantum computer (including the computer itself) is a human construct.

This is just silly. Bits and qubits are basic unites of information. They don't need a computer to compute. For instance we see qubits computing all the time via entanglement and superposition. A quantum computer doesn't make qubits magically appear. This is so silly I'm just shocked you're saying anything like this. You do know things like X-Rays exist without an X-Ray machine? Why would you think bits don't exist without a computer?

A bit is a human construct! They don't "exist", they are purely conceptual. Just what exactly do you think a bit is? Do you really think that bits are actual physical components that are soldered into your computer? Show me a photograph of a bit And just how exactly do you think a computer works? You clearly havent got a clue what you're talking about.

You posted this from Wiki:

...

You don't know that entanglement occurs in nature? You can't possibly think that the system becomes entangled because of the quantum computer? Quantum systems become entangled all the time. Why would you think they need a quantum computer to become entangled? A quantum computer will just use what already occurs in nature.

Jeez, how are you failing to grasp this concept? A quantum computer and a qbit are human concepts and constructs, quantum computers don't exist in nature any more than the RAM or CPU in my computer does. None of this has anything at all to do with entanglement.

You said:

HUMANS "create the information". How are you not grasping this?

I have to admit I read your post and I thought it was a joke. I have never heard anyone say humans create information. A bit is a basic unit of information. The Genetic Code is information. You can store bits on anything from silicon, DNA to Tinkertoys.

Stop changing the definition of "information" around to suit your argument. Pick one and use it to support whatever the heck it is you're trying to say.

....

www.wired.com...

"Almost any material can be used as a computer" and "computers harness the natural computing of the universe" are not the same thing (one is clearly BS). Almost any material can be used as a table, that doesn't mean a table harnesses the natural tableness of the universe. As for the brain "computing", firstly that's speculation and secondly it has nothing to do with "harnessing the natural computations of the universe", any more than a table harnesses the natural tableness of the universe.

Humans don't create information. We take information in a high state of entropy and reduce the entropy to convey a message. The pebbles you speak of our bits of information. If you take the pebbles and say if two pebbles are in the driveway I'm home if three pebbles are in the driveway I left already. You're just taking information in a high state of entropy and putting it in a low state of entropy to convey a message.

You're getting your definitions confused again. Pick the one definition of the word "information" that is pertinent to your point and stick to it.

Superposition and entanglement is not created by the quantum computer. These things already occur in nature.

Entanglement and Superposition occur without a quantum computer. X-Rays existed before an X-Ray machine. Microwaves existed before a microwave oven. Radio waves existed before a Radio. Qubits and Bits existed before a computer or quantum computer. Humans build technologies around what's already inherent in nature.

Again, you are completely misunderstanding the very concepts you are trying to put forth. Educate yourself before accusing others of bring ignorant. Clearly you're not interested in educating yourself as you have demonstrated time and time again by getting basic concepts completely and utterly wrong. So, just how exactly do you think a computer works? What is the physical and logical makeup that makes the computer you are using to read this that makes it do what it does? In your own words, please.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

Does the physical world exist?

I think the answer is NO.

Physical: Of or relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind

The answer is actually yes.

There's no evidence that an objective physical world exist.

On the contrary... the words themselves, and their meanings both imply, and prove that the physical world exists, as does any cursory examination of reality...

Like the computer that you are typing your messages on, for example, actually Exists.

IT, and YOU, are a part of physical reality.

If that Physical Reality is made of Waves instead of Particles, does not change the absolute FACT that physical Reality actually exists.

The world seems to be a projection of information.

No, this is completely backwards...

Your PERCEPTIONS of reality are projections of information.

Reality is the Base SET for this information.

We aren't observing "Nothing."

We don't taste anything.

On the contrary, I taste things all the time.

It's all based on information.

Yes, the information of how the THING that I am TASTING... Tastes.

Again, it's all waves of information.

Again, it's all actually REAL.

reply to post by john_bmth


I can't believe you don't understand this basic concept about the nature of reality. Technology doesn't create the science, technology is built around the science. I'm sure you understand this but you realize how silly you sound so know message board pride has kicked in and you will continue to push your silly statements.

You said this:

A bit is a human construct! They don't "exist", they are purely conceptual. Just what exactly do you think a bit is? Do you really think that bits are actual physical components that are soldered into your computer? Show me a photograph of a bit And just how exactly do you think a computer works? You clearly haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

You then said:

Jeez, how are you failing to grasp this concept? A quantum computer and a qbit are human concepts and constructs, quantum computers don't exist in nature any more than the RAM or CPU in my computer does. None of this has anything at all to do with entanglement.

Saying qubits and bits are human constructs is just like saying x-rays or microwaves are human constructs. I have to believe you just have dug yourself into a hole that pride will not let you escape from. What you're saying is just silly.

A qubit occurs because of entanglement and superposition. These things occur in nature. A quantum computer will just harness the computing power that occurs on a quantum mechanical level. A quantum computer doesn't create entanglement or superposition no more than a radio creates radio waves or a microwave oven creates microwaves. Again, if you don't understand superposition and entanglement and how quantum computers work, then do some reading about it. It's really not that hard. Who created superposition if it's a human construct? Who created entanglement if it's a human construct? Who created qubits if it's a human construct?

A computer works based on electrical signals. A high voltage signal is a 1 and a low voltage signal is an 0. We can store data like the color blue or the alphabet on these bits. The same thing occurs in nature unless you think electrical impulses don't happen in nature and electricity is a human construct.

Nature stores data on things like atoms and molecules. It stores data like how a star goes supernova or how a comet forms or DNA. This is why everything in the universe is information and can be broken down to 1's and 0's. They can even store bits on quantum space around a single electron with things like quantum holography.

I'm shocked in this day and age that you don't know this. This is just basic knowledge of the universe.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


You said:

If that Physical Reality is made of Waves instead of Particles, does not change the absolute FACT that physical Reality actually exists.

Yes the FACTS to change. There's a huge difference between the universe being a material objective reality or a construct of information.

The reason we have all of these paradoxes in science and there's a gulf between quantum mechanics and classical physics is because some scientist treat the universe as an objective material reality. Many of these paradoxes and problems go away when you look at the universe as a construct of information.

Again, you're making a philosophical argument and this is a debate about science. Of course it makes no difference in the context of philosophy. If you think and experience it as real then it's reality to you. In the context of science there's a huge difference if the universe is an objective material reality or a construct of information.