The Illusion Of Reality?

In this post I want to show people the reality of the world and the universe on a visual and subatomic level. This will challenge most of what you probably believe or know, all I ask is that you watch the videos and read the info on the post and if you want follow the links in the titles. During the post I will also speculate and give my own feeling and short theory/philosophy on the subject.

But for now its time for a video & some info on color followed by a short game that will test your brain and help you understand how it works. The Illusion Of Color

Color is energy… in fact it is an electromagnetic phenomenon, which depends on the way that light is reflected on the objects. Every object absorbs a part of the light which hits it and deflects the rest towards our eyes: this reflected light is interpreted by our brain as a particular color. We shouldn’t, therefore, be surprised to find that the word color comes from the Latin root celare (i.e. 'that which covers, conceals'). Color is then already an illusion per se, a ghost that takes life only in our visual system, when light stimulates the photo-receptors - the antennae that pick up luminous signals – that fill in the background of our eyes. The world surrounding us is sadly in reality monochrome. But there is also another trick: to the eye color is measured partly on the basis of the frequency of light that hits it but above all in relation to colors nearby. A color is perceived to be brighter, for example, if it is surrounded by a complementary color (two colors are said to be complementary if the sum of their radiation equals or gives white) or lighter if the background color is darker. There is then a mechanism that enhances the contrast of the outline of an object relatively to its background: it is called lateral inhibition, because each group of photo-receptors tends to inhibit the response of the one next to it. The result is that which appears to be clear appears even to be more so and vice versa. The same mechanism works for colors: when a photo-receptor from one area of the retina becomes stimulated by a color, those next to it become less sensitive to that color. So, for example, the light blue of a small square that you see on a blue background, appears to our eyes clearer than it would do on a yellow background (because yellow contains no blue).

I hope you enjoyed the games and the information on color and hope your ready for some more?.

So our world is not as it seems, we live in a world that our brain creates. Could this effect how we understand the dynamics and physics of our world?.
So by now we know colour is an illusion and that nothing is solid,"The barriers that are in place are put there by our consciousness". So what is our world?.

So lets expand our horizon and re-focus on the things that are explainable. Is this not what science is about, should the explainable not help us understand the unexplainable, what if the answer is right in front of our face? maybe the obvious is so oblivious that our brains understanding is obscured by default memory's and response's maybe all our understandings are flawed by the human factor and contamination of conciousness. An Atom Is 99.999999999999% Empty Space And So is The Universe Is this coincidence or by design?.

No-one ever expected the atom to be as bizarre as it turned out to be. Since 1905 when a young Albert Einstein demonstrated for the first time that atoms must exist, they have consistently flummoxed scientists by their weird, almost contradictory behaviour. Here's a quick flavour of just how strange an atom is. And remember atoms aren't obscure objects: everything in the world around us is made of atoms; we are made of atoms. First of all, atoms are ridiculously small - they're about one tenth of a millionth of a millimetre across. That means that a human hair, one of the narrowest things visible to the eye is around a million atoms across. Put another way, there are more atoms in a glass of water than glasses of water in all the oceans in the world.

And the story gets really strange. An atom isn't just tiny, it's over 99.9% empty space. All the weight of an atom is concentrated in a mind-numbingly tiny object at its centre. It's a trillionth of a centimetre across and is called the nucleus.'Empty' shellThe rest of the atom is entirely empty apart from a few ghostly objects called electrons that skim about at a great distance from the nucleus. To give you a sense of how empty an atom is - if the nucleus was the size of a football, the nearest electron would be half a mile (0.8km) away.That means even the most solid-looking objects we see are predominantly nothingness. Put another way, if you were to remove all the empty space in the atoms that make up a human being, he or she would be a lot smaller than a grain of salt.If you removed all the empty space from the atoms that make up all the humans on the planet, then you could fit all 6 billion of us inside a single apple.

How Much Of The Universe Is Empty Space

The first question is, "How big is the universe?" No one knows, but this Question of the Day assumes that the universe is a cube that is 30 billion light years on each side. That means that the whole universe contains about 2.7E+31 cubic light years. The next question is, "How much matter does the universe contain?" The mass of the universe is a source of debate right now because there is no easy way to put the universe on a scale. This NASA page and this " Extension, Age and Mass of the Universe" article discuss different techniques that scientists use to estimate the mass. The latter article also includes an estimate of about 1.6E+60 kilograms for the mass of the universe. Other estimates give other numbers, but all are in that ballpark. The next question is, "What density do you want to assume the mass will have once you push all of it into one corner?" Now, if you were really to do this -- if you actually did move all of the mass of the universe into one corner -- it would condense instantly into a black hole and potentially ignite another big bang. But let's say that you could keep it from doing that, and you were somehow able to keep all of the mass evenly distributed at the density of the sun. According to "Magnitudes of Physics", the density of the sun is about 1,410 kilograms per cubic meter. (For comparison, the density of water is 1,000 kilograms per cubic meter.) If you are willing to accept these three assumptions, then: 1.1E+57 cubic meters of matter in the universe A cubic light year contains about 1E+48 cubic meters. So all of the matter in the universe would fit into about 1 billion cubic light years, or a cube that's approximately 1,000 light years on each side. That means that only about 0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the universe contains any matter. The universe is a pretty empty place!

Why am I telling you all this what importance is there to this information?. Sure you may lol, but please be open. MORE TO COME SOON.

seen the full delusions of the brain programme.

its dealing with stuff most of us already knew but it demostrates these illusions very well.

it tells us how these tricks will still work on us , even though we are now in on the trick.

i'm not so sure about this. i think the more this is demostrated for us and the more we are educated on it, maybe with can really start screwing with reality or maybe we just become more aware that we are being screwed with.

Originally posted by GreatScot
So by now we know colour is an illusion and that nothing is solid,"The barriers that are in place are put there by our consciousness". So what is our world?.

Great thread, I loved the videos on the illusions, but I must reply to this part -

Colour is not an illusion, how we perceive it is the illusion. As it was mentioned in the video, it is simply the way light reflects from the object that is how we perceive it. The more energy the surface absorbs the different the colour we see.

In a situation where there are no abnormal variables, a blue box will always appear blue.

The optical illusion of seeing different colours where those colours do no exist, that is not the same as abnormal variables have been included - and our brains are compensating for what it would expect when it is unable to properly determine the data it is receiving. Sleight of hand for the brain, more or less. Not a definition of reality.

Its the evolution of our brain at work, not the illusion of reality in effect. If we did not see patterns where we expect them, we would have been extinct long ago, as it is a means to defend ourselves and to survive. Pattern recognition is the same thing - many animals have camouflage.



That octopus exists and is not an illusion, but has utilised an evolutionary trick to be invisible.

And with the part about nothing being solid and our brains putting up physical barriers, at a small scale things are connected by a force so strong that it binds protons and neutrons together to form atoms, and an even smaller scale that it keeps quarks together to form those protons and neutrons.

A bag of sand allows water to pass through it, but if you were to punch it, you would find it impenetrable.

The double slit experiment does not rely on observation to alter it's outcome. It relies on the method of observation to alter it's outcome, as any method to observe an experiment at such a small scale will inevitably alter the outcome. Like a blind man having to feel the shape of a cream cake. It will change shape from his observation, and not appear to him as it was described.

But still, great thread!!

Wow....a lot to digest and try to comprehend. Made me remember a saying from the 60's and the 70's
no mind, never matter

no matter , never mind.

So the observer and the observed are caught up in each other's nature and become reality?? Also brought to mind much of what is presented in the Carlos Castenada books. Great post, it'll take some time to reflect on.

Reality, is to some degree or another, subjective in nature.

The first problem with reality is establishing it. Proving this existence is real - that those around us are real, is something that is decided based upon faith and faith alone. Do you have faith that it is real? Or do you decide to have faith that it is an illusion? Either requires a leap of faith.

Of course, that's presuming you have accepted faith in the notion that you exist, and are not merely the construct of another intelligence - a fleeting bout of 'God's' Schizophrenia.

Science is, essentially, an endeavor to discern just how subjective the mechanics of the life experience are. Presuming we accept the life experience as being real to begin with.

Originally posted by Aim64C
Reality, is to some degree or another, subjective in nature.

The first problem with reality is establishing it. Proving this existence is real - that those around us are real, is something that is decided based upon faith and faith alone. Do you have faith that it is real? Or do you decide to have faith that it is an illusion? Either requires a leap of faith.

Of course, that's presuming you have accepted faith in the notion that you exist, and are not merely the construct of another intelligence - a fleeting bout of 'God's' Schizophrenia.

Science is, essentially, an endeavor to discern just how subjective the mechanics of the life experience are. Presuming we accept the life experience as being real to begin with.

It depends on how you define reality. I find a good definition to be "That which exists objectively and in fact". There is by definition no subjective component. Our interpretation of reality is of course subjective.

I disagree that we accept reality based on faith. The of evidence that there is an actual reality is irrefutable, namely that we exist. Even if reality is not at all as we observe it (so it is all an illusion), there still has to be a reality.

I guess what you are trying to say is actually similar, but you use a different definition for "reality". Your definition seems to be "that what we observe". But I also disagree that saying that what we observe is in fact reality is a leap of faith. Faith is a believe that has no evidence to back it up, and I think the existence of reality has (consistency in interaction for example). Its not 100% conclusive proof, but that does not mean its faith.

You also say that in order to believe in reality you must assume that you exist and are not the figment of a god. I don't see how these are exclusive. In fact, if you are a figment of a god, you must exist. Just possibly not in the reality we think we do. But how can we know that our universe isn't the mind of a god?

I know that most of the points we disagree in has to do with the definition of "reality". I got my definition from a dictionary, and I think your definition was made up by yourself. That doesn't need to be a problem but you do need to provide your definition in such a case.

Originally posted by mainidh

Originally posted by GreatScot
So by now we know colour is an illusion and that nothing is solid,"The barriers that are in place are put there by our consciousness". So what is our world?.

Great thread, I loved the videos on the illusions, but I must reply to this part -

Colour is not an illusion, how we perceive it is the illusion. As it was mentioned in the video, it is simply the way light reflects from the object that is how we perceive it. The more energy the surface absorbs the different the colour we see.

In a situation where there are no abnormal variables, a blue box will always appear blue.

As it says in my quoted post. The world surrounding us is sadly in reality monochrome.

What you are forgetting is the existence of light and the source of it is the reason we are alive and the reason we are conciousness its the common factor in all we understand. Light is constant and the information within it is pivotal in the evolution of all we see and know. If we take away our sun our light we take away our knowledge and matter our purpose is entwined within the code we are unique on earth we search for the divine within everything we question without thought to the source of the knowledge.

Our body is no more than a transmitter and receiver its almost as if our DNA has given us the perfect tools for the job an organic living reproducing sensory instrument we cannot understand the galactic until we understand the subatomic. We imitate what we are in machines, in searching the deepest oceans to exploring other worlds from the subatomic to the galactic scale, we demand and require the robot or micro scope or whatever device to preform analysis to a level as near to humanly possible or even greater. Our machines are reflections of the nature we experience around us.

Without original thought or the sudden impulse or desire to understand the unknown we as a species would be no different to what we see around us are we special or are we a vessel. "What is the origin of original thought" Why was it Tesla, Einstein and all the other super brains and not me or you? or could it be that original thought, isn't isolated to just a select group of men or woman on the planet is this information available to all who seek to answer it and if not why just the select few.

We can look at experiments like these for help on such hard questions and most consider taboo in a world were science is allowed to continue all thanks to agreements with religion to avoid the spiritual side of our nature, are we all connected can we heal others just by viewing them on live tv and sending possitive healing thoughts? skip to 3min 40sec for clip

So it seems we can, what else is there we don't know.

Also on a philosophical view point could we be no more than hive minded beings who serve the sun the light and all the information provided by it. No sun no life on earth pivotal information pathways would cease to exist in our system.

Frequencies also play a major role on the patterns we see repeated everywhere without them nothing exists. But more on all this later.

reply to post by -PLB-

It depends on how you define reality.

A very subjective concept, indeed.

When I write scenes for a fan fiction of mine - I don't just write a scene, I tell of my experience in that world as that person. What makes their world any less real to them than this world is to me?

I find a good definition to be "That which exists objectively and in fact". There is by definition no subjective component. Our interpretation of reality is of course subjective.

You're missing the forest for the trees, here. I'll explain a bit within my response to your next paragraph.

I disagree that we accept reality based on faith. The of evidence that there is an actual reality is irrefutable, namely that we exist. Even if reality is not at all as we observe it (so it is all an illusion), there still has to be a reality.

I exist? How so?

You accept, on faith, that there is another separate, intelligent being forming the words appearing on your screen. But what proof do you have that these are the product of a separate intelligence? You dream of other people, do you not? Your mind is clearly capable of coming up with illusions that behave in ways that do not make sense to your own self - or that seemingly originate from outside its own array of understandable behavior.

Why do you suspect this is something different? What objectivity can there be when the object cannot be distinguished from a subject but by faith?

I guess what you are trying to say is actually similar, but you use a different definition for "reality". Your definition seems to be "that what we observe". But I also disagree that saying that what we observe is in fact reality is a leap of faith. Faith is a believe that has no evidence to back it up, and I think the existence of reality has (consistency in interaction for example). Its not 100% conclusive proof, but that does not mean its faith.

None of the world's mechanics - consistent or not - can be logically utilized as proof of the world's legitimacy. What is the defacto state of a real universe? Order, or chaos?

Perhaps it is sentience that assigns order to the chaos. Perhaps it is chaos that prompts sentience within the order.

You cannot utilize what you faithfully accept as reality to logically prove it is real. It's circular reasoning. Though I do understand your argument - it's like saying: "I know that water is real because I can feel it." ... Which is true insofar as you can experience what you have come to expect.

You also say that in order to believe in reality you must assume that you exist and are not the figment of a god. I don't see how these are exclusive. In fact, if you are a figment of a god, you must exist. Just possibly not in the reality we think we do. But how can we know that our universe isn't the mind of a god?

Well, there are religions out there who postulate we were created in God's image.

However, what you have basically stated is the conclusion that Socrates came to: "I think, therefor I am." Basically stating that he could only come to the conclusion that accepting his own existence and experience as real was the only meaningful outcome.

It is also interesting when considering the 'name' of the Judaic God: "The I Am." - the mark of a sentient being that has pondered and solidified its own existence. How more completely can you describe your existence aside from: "I Am?"

I know that most of the points we disagree in has to do with the definition of "reality". I got my definition from a dictionary, and I think your definition was made up by yourself. That doesn't need to be a problem but you do need to provide your definition in such a case.

You gravely underestimate my arrogance. This post, and my previous post, are an affront to the very concept of the reality so futilely defined by dictionaries.

Marvelous post, thanks for the reminder!

I believe there's a mini black hole at the center of all atoms. Also, I think our universe is the singularity of a black hole.

Originally posted by Aim64C
I exist? How so?

You accept, on faith, that there is another separate, intelligent being forming the words appearing on your screen. But what proof do you have that these are the product of a separate intelligence? You dream of other people, do you not? Your mind is clearly capable of coming up with illusions that behave in ways that do not make sense to your own self - or that seemingly originate from outside its own array of understandable behavior.

This is a different matter. Whether you exist or are just in my imagination in no way changes the fact that there is a reality.

None of the world's mechanics - consistent or not - can be logically utilized as proof of the world's legitimacy. What is the defacto state of a real universe? Order, or chaos?

You do not require proof in order to believe in something without faith. You do require evidence. The idea that there is a reality outside me that is independent of me, is supported with evidence.

For example, I can not change the things I observe as "reality" just by thought. Sure this is no proof, but it is a condition that is required for there to be a reality outside myself. And thus the fact that I can not change this thing I call reality just by thought, means it is evidence that this thing (reality) is indeed there. I don't need faith to come to this conclusion. It is not like I have no reason whatsoever to believe this is true.

Perhaps it is sentience that assigns order to the chaos. Perhaps it is chaos that prompts sentience within the order.

Sure, other options are still possible.

You cannot utilize what you faithfully accept as reality to logically prove it is real. It's circular reasoning. Though I do understand your argument - it's like saying: "I know that water is real because I can feel it." ... Which is true insofar as you can experience what you have come to expect.

That is not my argument. Again, faith is not the absence of proof, it is the absence of evidence.

Well, there are religions out there who postulate we were created in God's image.

However, what you have basically stated is the conclusion that Socrates came to: "I think, therefor I am." Basically stating that he could only come to the conclusion that accepting his own existence and experience as real was the only meaningful outcome.

It is also interesting when considering the 'name' of the Judaic God: "The I Am." - the mark of a sentient being that has pondered and solidified its own existence. How more completely can you describe your existence aside from: "I Am?"

Thats not really what I said. Its more like "I think, therefor there must exist something" (with the consequence that there must be some reality). You could argue though that thoughts can exist without any reality generating or supporting the thought. But I think that would require stretching the definition of "thought". It be just a replacement of the word "reality" by the word "thought".

You gravely underestimate my arrogance. This post, and my previous post, are an affront to the very concept of the reality so futilely defined by dictionaries.

Your remark that "Reality, is to some degree or another, subjective in nature." is in direct conflict with the definition "That which exists objectively and in fact". Its a bit like saying that an atheist, to some degree or another, believes in a god.

Is it just me or is Neil Patrick Harris the voice in the illusion videos? NPH for life!

In my humble opinion...all the reality is an illusion theory goes out the window when children starve to death, countries go to war, people barely keeping warm at night in the streets 'coz they got no place else to go and mothers hoping against hope that their family stay together despite this hard and trying times.

If anyone has ever felt the desperation to provide for their loved ones, put food on the table, be able to put their sons and daughters through school, pay the bills, etc...then those people, in their minds and heart know, that reality is not an illusion. It's a hard fact of life that we need to accept.


Peace! : )

I remember Keith Olbermann on Countdown saying there's a 20% chance that life as we know could be like a video game - a computer simulation. There's been reports that the universe is just a big holographic illusion and is practically flat like a photograph.