Where does reality reside ?

[Thunderbird]

Speaking of keeping up - It is utterly amazing to me that it took you this long (post 135) to get to quantum mechanics. The litany of retorts to previous posts available in QM unused by you could fill this thread twice over. I was expecting as much at each reply. By now we should be deep into discussing current experiments of collapsing probability waves and quantum duality. :confused:

 

-modest

 

I have been referring to QM the "collapse of the wave function" the whole time. Instead of starting with a physicist taking a measurements, I just backed it up one step. it’s just a more common sense approach to say the point in space the physicist is in...... is the first measurement. I amazed no one seemed to pick up on this.

 

Look at my previous post, All I am doing is replacing the particle position, with the position of the observer.

 

 

Because it can only be found, measured, defend, named, conceptualized though observation.

 

Observation is only a measure of what is outside of us. The observer stands at the center giving a coordinate. It is impossible to take a measurement without a point of reference. If there is no point of reference... there is nothing to measure.

 

 

 

If every point in the universe has no value over any other point then the sum of the qualities in the Universe has a 'null' value.

From this omnipresent view, all points at all times equals infinity. Nothing exists , no size, no relative locations .

 

It is only from a particular starting point x,of the observer perspective can we give the universe its existences as dimension in space time, and objects that relate to one to another. If you have no specific point in which to start then you have infinity. In this context, or more precisely lack of context, the quantitative, qualitative and dimensional values of the universe truly vanish to ZERO .

 

Utilizing a metaphor,

The best way I can describe it is having an infinite amount of letters with no contextual relationship to one another.

 

Only when the observer is present in a particular space-time can the letters be used to create vowels, consonants, words, sentences, etc.. We construct our particular spectrum-world from this infinity.

 

What exists without the observer point are just probabilities, no point has any contextual relationship with any other point.

 

No starting point to give anything, any kind of order of coordinates in space/time.

 

Without the observer starting point there is no initial context, therefore nothing in space and time can be divided from anything else in space or time.

 

There are no coordinates with which to start a hierarchal-contextual pattern that we experience as an observer point.

 

Because it can only be found, measured, defind, named, conceptualized though observation.

 

Observation is only a measure of what is outside of us. The observer stands at the center giving a coordinate. It is impossible to take a measurement without a point of reference. If there is no point of reference... there is nothing to measure.

[Thunderbird]

Nothing exists until it is measured.

 

Niels Bohr

[REASON]

I do not agree with Tbird, but he/she hs a point. It is an axiom of science that the universe exists separate from our perception of it. Being an axiom, it cannot be proved scientifically. Any "proof" is simply circular logic. I.e. You "prove" it is so because you have assumed it to be so in the first place.

 

So the existence of the universe outside our perception of it is just as much a conjecture as the view expressed by Tbird...

 

...In science there is such an agreement, but not in philosophy. Tbird is putting forward one view, you put forward another. Tbird cannot prove that the universe does not exist outside our perception of it, and you cannot prove that it does.

 

When it comes to "proving" one position or the other, your statement may be correct. But I never said I could prove it. I think there is far more empirical evidence in support of my position on this issue than can be ascribed to the theory T-bird has been presenting.

 

Conjecture is an opinion or theory lacking sufficient supporting evidence. I don't believe it is correct to say that anything that cannot be "proven" is therefore conjecture. But an idea that has little to no supporting evidence is.

 

For me, it is as simple as understanding that I exist even when I am all alone, unobserved by anyone or anything else. And if I can exist unobserved, than so can a tree, or a rock, or a planet, or a star, or a galaxy, or a universe. Quantum theories leading you from such a simple understanding are leading you astray, and evidently require some revision.

 

But I'm not here to tell anyone what they ought to believe. I'm just arguing a point. :confused:

[Thunderbird]

When it comes to "proving" one position or the other, your statement may be correct. But I never said I could prove it. I think there is far more empirical evidence in support of my position on this issue than can be ascribed to the theory T-bird has been presenting.

 

Conjecture is an opinion or theory lacking sufficient supporting evidence. I don't believe it is correct to say that anything that cannot be "proven" is therefore conjecture. But an idea that has little to no supporting evidence is.

 

For me, it is as simple as understanding that I exist even when I am all alone, unobserved by anyone or anything else. And if I can exist unobserved, than so can a tree, or a rock, or a planet, or a star, or a galaxy, or a universe. Quantum theories leading you from such a simple understanding are leading you astray, and evidently require some revision.

 

But I'm not here to tell anyone what they ought to believe. I'm just arguing a point. :confused:

 

I do not see any counter point here.. To any point that I have made.

[REASON]

When it comes to "proving" one position or the other, your statement may be correct. But I never said I could prove it. I think there is far more empirical evidence in support of my position on this issue than can be ascribed to the theory T-bird has been presenting.

 

Conjecture is an opinion or theory lacking sufficient supporting evidence. I don't believe it is correct to say that anything that cannot be "proven" is therefore conjecture. But an idea that has little to no supporting evidence is.

 

For me, it is as simple as understanding that I exist even when I am all alone, unobserved by anyone or anything else. And if I can exist unobserved, than so can a tree, or a rock, or a planet, or a star, or a galaxy, or a universe. Quantum theories leading you from such a simple understanding are leading you astray, and evidently require some revision.

 

But I'm not here to tell anyone what they ought to believe. I'm just arguing a point. :hihi:

 

I do not see any counter point here.. To any point that I have made.

 

So you're going to Neg Rep me on this post, saying it is "Misleading, avoidance, vague , sissy cop of a post?" Whatever. :confused:

 

Maybe you should consider your reply to it.

 

Good job T-bird.

[Thunderbird]

So you're going to Neg Rep me on this post, saying it is "Misleading, avoidance, vague , sissy cop of a post?" Whatever. :confused:

 

Maybe you should consider your reply to it.

 

Good job T-bird.

 

Your so emotional..... I am still waiting for a substantive debate on anything I have stated. Don’t be a sissy wiener.:hihi:

[Thunderbird]

I'll have to check back tomorrow, Do some serious thinking about what I have posted and if you can address these issues on there merits directly I will give you a positive feedback.:confused:

[freeztar]

Your so emotional..... I am still waiting for a substantive debate on anything I have stated. Don’t be a sissy wiener.:confused:

 

This rudeness is unnecessary and unproductive, Thunderbird.

 

If you wish to have a serious discussion about your ideas, then I think it is best not to push people away from the discussion table lest you find yourself alone.

[HydrogenBond]

Maybe the compromise is perception of reality, equals hard reality, plus other layers of human subjective overlay that cloud this. Let me give a science example. Atoms are composed mostly of space, with the majority of the mass in the tiny nucleus, surrounded by the ethereal electron clouds. So why would we call a rock solid when it is quite airy? The perception of solid reality, equals the reality of mostly space, plus the perception of being solid. The mostly space explanation, although closer to reality, would come in conflict with our sensory systems, which seem to perceive this mostly space as solid. So we use both of them. That is nothing wrong with that, since reality is in the eyes of the beholder and each is useful. Science will even run with the solid version of reality in both chemistry and even solid state physics. A good correlation does not always reality make.

 

Here is a different example. We have three people watching children play. One person is grouchy, one is paranoid and the other is calm and loving. They all see the reality of children. They can agree on that. But their extended perception of reality will also include their subjective filter. The grouchy one sees noisy rug rats causing them extra stress. The paranoid sees the crumb crunchers ready to get hurt at every move. The calm loving person sees the little darlings having fun. Which of these three extended perceptions of reality is real? Maybe all, maybe none, maybe each is real enough, but only for the person doing the perceiving. If one of them is really loud about their perception, in a social way, maybe they can help create a law that will get everyone on the same page as them. There is often, a political battle for the control of reality, with the opponents helping their group be on their page. The majority that wins gets to define the reality for everyone, using the force of law to help.

 

There is ideal reality, and there is the human perception of the ideal reality, which has additional layers and filters. Are the children solid or mostly space? Is their life in their genes, proteins, muscles, a life force, hydrogen, electrons, atoms, whatever. This is a part of the diversity of the perceived reality. which may or and may not have anything to do with the actual reality called life. But as long as we group define one or more of these, then we are on the same page or pages of reality perception.

[Boerseun]

But as long as we group define one or more of these, then we are on the same page or pages of reality perception.

...but are we talking reality, or the arbitrary and quite subjective perception thereof?

 

Perception and experience of reality will, obviously, differ from person to person. It's the old hoary chestnut of colour perception - there is no way to prove that what looks like green to me, looks like green to you. Although we might have the same cones and rods in our eyeballs, perception thereof may differ. Perception is more a matter of interpretation than anything else.

 

As a rough analogy, what looks like a green ball to me might look like a blue ball to you.

 

But it doesn't change the fact of the balls existance.

 

I think that's the gist of the argument. If you close your eyes, the ball's still there.

 

So, reality exists. What you make of it, your own, personal, subjective interpretation thereof, is your problem.

[modest]

Nothing exists until it is measured.

 

Niels Bohr

 

Niels Bohr brainwashed a whole generation of physicists into believing that the problem (of the interpretation of quantum theory) had been solved fifty years ago.

 

-Murray Gell-Mann 1976

 

The Copenhagen interpretation is not the only one and does not imply exactly what you are claiming in this thread. I do, however, think it would help you make your argument better... You could bring up Schrödinger's cat perhaps...

 

-modest

[jedaisoul]

Maybe the compromise is perception of reality, equals hard reality, plus other layers of human subjective overlay that cloud this. Let me give a science example. Atoms are composed mostly of space, with the majority of the mass in the tiny nucleus, surrounded by the ethereal electron clouds. So why would we call a rock solid when it is quite airy? The perception of solid reality, equals the reality of mostly space, plus the perception of being solid.

The rock is not solid because we perceive it to be so. If that were true, then people who perceived walls to be "mostly space" would be able to walk through them. They can't. This is not a matter of perception, its a matter of reality. So human perceptions are a "red herring".

 

The argument is whether the fact that atoms are "mostly space" has any bearing on the physical reality that exists at the macro level. In my opinion, quantum theory is fine as an explanation of sub-atomic entities, but it has yet to be proven to apply to macro entities (you, me, the universe). I would suggest that most of the evidence is that, whatever macro entities are made of at the sub-atomic level, at the macro level they are persistently real, and "solid". The rest is just theory.

 

Oh, and I'd apologise to Tbird. I mistook his argument for a philosophic one (this is a philosophy forum) rather than an extension of quantum theory to the macro universe. Not sure why this discussion is in the philosophy forum...

[Thunderbird]

The Copenhagen interpretation is not the only one and does not imply exactly what you are claiming in this thread. I do, however, think it would help you make your argument better... You could bring up Schrödinger's cat perhaps...

 

-modest

 

I read The Quark and the Jaguar a few years ago, brilliant man, but I prefer Niels Borh’s directness and simplicity to Schrödinger's cat scenario or Murray Gell-Mann’s interpretations.

[Thunderbird]

If one of them is really loud about their perception, in a social way, maybe they can help create a law that will get everyone on the same page as them. There is often, a political battle for the control of reality, with the opponents helping their group be on their page. The majority that wins gets to define the reality for everyone, using the force of law to help.

 

This is how we end up believing that the consensuses sets the parameters of how the world should be seen. If we do not go along and would prefer to think as nature thinks, by studying it without any prior social constructs of the “Minister" or “experts” the social group thinkers may threaten you with exclusion , like I give a ****. I would rather see clearly than be programmed by a consensuses.

[Thunderbird]

The real battle in science and perception of reality is between the reductionist who insist the world is made up of things, and the people that see’s the world as made up of system of energy that flows according to natural laws. What Quantum Mechanics has taught me is we have power to change the world simply by seeing it as pure unlimited potential energy, instead of dwindling resources and competition of those resources.

[modest]

In any case, I think the gap has been sufficiently narrowed.

1. Something does not need to be directly observed for it to be real. As long as it populates a universe with an observer where all things are connected then we are golden.
   
2. The observer doesn't have to be conscious. Any interaction between 'things' will do.
   

Leaving us with...

So long as our universe isn't populated by one single something with no other frame of reference then everything in the universe is real.

Is this where we are? Please say it is because I think this is most agreeable.

 

-modest

[HydrogenBond]

The reality perceptions of reality, using quantum physics, often stem from matter that is artificially created, for example, in particle accelerators. We add a lot of energy and force fields, to the base matter, so we can create matter states that are matter, plus a lot of energy. This makes it unclear whether the phenomena created, stemming from the experiments, are the base matter, the energy, or both. We just assume its stems from the base matter. That is the perceptual realty filter for how we extrapolate from there. A loose analogy is taking a chunk of ice and then adding energy to make liquid water. Then I assume solid water, at the deepest levels, is composed of liquid water, because this is what comes from the experiments. We can run this experiment over and over to demonstrate it is real. Without adding the energy one would not be able to draw this same conclusion.

 

Let us heat the ice to 2000 C. Now we have a bunch of molecular radicals and atomic ions. So we then assume as we go deeper into the solid structure of ice, it is composed of radicals. What we now expect to see in ice, based on this theory, are the affect of all these chaotic radicals. So we look and find some defects in the ice crystals and assume, see the radicals are there. The reality is these are many distinct phases of water, with each working under its own laws. The high energy results are real, but have little to do with the low energy phenomena, since it is the energy making the difference. The phenomena is matter plus energy, which are related via E=MC2, causing virtual changes in matter. These virtual may not be there without the energy needed to create them.

 

Maybe one is not suppose to say this, but it is a distinct perceptual reality possibility. Humans can create their own reality perception equal to real reality plus other layers. If everyone gets on the same page, it becomes group reality. Within the group, there is constant reinforcement to keep doubt in check, so we can all continue to see it and progress from there. The toughest part of the affect, is the high energy science data is real, but perceptual reality may not realize, it is real only if when we added a lot of energy. This can still be useful but may not apply without the energy. That is where random and chaos are useful; it allows anything. Is chaos just a tool for wishful thinking? When conceptual reality hits real reality and needs a fudge factor, chaos allows that fudge factor. This is a conceptual possibility. Take this assumption away from the blend, it doesn't work right.