Quantum Experiment Confirms Reality Doesn't Exist Until Measured

originally posted by: HotMale
a reply to: ImaFungi

See this is what I mean. I specifically mentioned what the innacurate comment was.

You respond with a full rant that is also innacurate in relation to the post it reponded to.

Ok, I admit, I am very bad and committed a major failure, I deserve punishment, I am dumb and wrong and an idiot.

Can you try again to specifically mention what the inaccurate comment is. If you are spending time in this thread, making posts at all, looking for interesting discussions with interesting and intelligent people, I think it would be worth it in your next post to me, to again; specifically mention and/or quote the inaccurate comment, and I will respond to it concisely.

a reply to: ImaFungi

God, I meant this one,

If you do not believe that objective material reality exists outside of your mind; Do not eat!

I qouted it and even explained why it was innacurate. Noone implied to be above the rules of our reality.

At this point I could've used any one of your 4 last posts since they all were.

originally posted by: HotMale

God, I meant this one,

At least you are finally addressing me with the proper respect.


"If you do not believe that objective material reality exists outside of your mind; Do not eat! "

I qouted it and even explained why it was innacurate. Noone implied to be above the rules of our reality.

That was not in response to you.

That was a response to the OP of the thread; the title of which is "....Reality doesnt exist until measured".

At this point I could've used any one of your 4 last posts since they all were.

There is a lot of information contained in probably my last 8 or so posts in this thread, especially the ones to you if I recall, which were on topic and discussing the nature of the things we seemed to have had disagreance on.

You were giving your 2 choices; either the future can cause causes in the past; or... I forget the other option,... was it at the moment of measurement the measure creates the condition that is measured?

I seriously do not even know what we are arguing about, anymore, I am only quite sure that you do desire to attempt for me to be perceived as being in the wrong, but whatever, everything I have written can be read, and is written under an inquisitive guise.


Tell me those two choices again, lets start fresh, forget all the emotions and drama; the two choices for truth, do you think the future can influence the past or... what?

a reply to: ImaFungi

If you do not believe that objective material reality exists outside of your mind; Do not eat!

There were people who did not eat and yet survived despite what materialistic science predicted would happen. There are people who still fast without eating at all for long periods without getting sick.

You also said, "to a larger degree reality controls the mind".

That's not true. Minds create the physical world. That's how miracles and spontaneous healing happens, when people are able to go beyond the materialistic perspective to realize the meaning of "mind over matter". There have been people, in the past and today, that can dissipate tornadoes with faith/belief. People who were cured of incurable diseases with faith/belief.

Look at Law of Attraction testimonies, or that brave lady who spoke up and dissipated the tornado while praying. Look at emoto's water-rice experiment.

People are falling for materialistic science. So many people say that they're spiritual but believe in matter over mind instead of mind over matter, and don't even believe in prayer.

a reply to: neoholographic

Australian scientists have successfully performed a famous experiment to prove a quantum physics prediction that reality does not exist until it is measured.

My take on this is - of course "reality exist" but it changes "state" at the quantum level when "observed". Otherwise "nothing" will exist.

Question is - does the "quantum change" affect the larger picture or is it confined only at the "quantum level"?

If so, what keeps it at that level?

"Supersymmetry" perhaps (if it exists?)

a reply to: ImaFungi

That was not in response to you. That was a response to the OP of the thread; the title of which is "....Reality doesnt exist until measured".

And you strike yet again.

I know it wasn't directed at me. Who cares.

The point is that you act like he is claiming he doesn't have to eat and has extraordinairy power over reality. This does not equate to claiming that reality does not exist when not observed.

Im off to bed.

Tell me those two choices again, lets start fresh, forget all the emotions and drama; the two choices for truth, do you think the future can influence the past or... what?

I'll be back.

a reply to: arpgme

People who do not eat are the extreme exception to the rule. But ok, if you want to get specific; a person living in a vacuum chamber without any contact to anything physical; would be my next advised suggestion for the claim a mind does not depend on anything real that exists beyond it.

I said 'to a larger extent reality controls the mind', I should have said, in a sense, and potentially, to a larger extent reality controls the mind.

That is because the mind is responsible for the difference between monkeys and modern man, for possibly the largest extent, and that is an extreme difference, one of the greatest qualitative differences we are aware of existing, is in the novelty mind can bring into reality.

What I meant of as; to a larger extent reality controls the mind';

Is that; the sun exists, the galaxy exist, elements and the laws of nature exist, the laws of chemistry exist, the weather exists, the needs of the human body and its limits exist; So in all those ways, all that is determined, is the larger extent, i was speaking of, which 'controls the mind' or at least is the underlying influence, or context, of all the mind does. From that stand point, obviousness and agreeance, yes, the mind is the greatest factor in the controlling of reality; the mind as in; the history of early animals to the current and beyond potentials of modern man.

originally posted by: HotMale

And you strike yet again.

I know it wasn't directed at me. Who cares.

The point is that you act like he is claiming he doesn't have to eat and has extraordinairy power over reality. This does not equate to claiming that reality does not exist when not observed.

You are ignoring all the experimentally and physically fundamentally relevant things I said to focus on this baseless valueless quibble, either pure deflection or... I dont know, something I cannot define.

Either you have been on these forums longer than I have and aware of the nature of the contributers generally and specific, contributions and general beliefs and ways of thinking and history of content posting, or you are not as aware of such things as I am and you are doing a tremendous amount of assuming, you know more about me, on multiple fronts.

The OP very well, is saying such things, as you are concernedly saying, no one is saying.

But that is only one small percentage of the content we have been discussing. And I am not even wrong in saying what I said that you are having trouble with, sheesh.

a reply to: ImaFungi

People who do not eat are the extreme exception to the rule. But ok, if you want to get specific; a person living in a vacuum chamber without any contact to anything physical; would be my next advised suggestion for the claim a mind does not depend on anything real that exists beyond it.

And how exactly does that hypothetical situation disprove mind over matter or that the mind is creating the physical world?

When the mind believes it can't survive, it can make the body panic and die, even when it's not in danger. People can die from extreme fear/shock.

I didn't say everything the mind makes for itself to experience is happy/healthy/peaceful.

So my carpet isn't real until schroodinger's cat barfs on it?

originally posted by: arpgme

And how exactly does that hypothetical situation disprove mind over matter or that the mind is creating the physical world?

When the mind believes it can't survive, it can make the body panic and die, even when it's not in danger. People can die from extreme fear/shock.

I didn't say everything the mind makes for itself to experience is happy/healthy/peaceful.

That there is no objective reality beyond the mind. If there is no objective reality beyond the mind, there would be no difference between a random human living their life, and some one who claims there is no objective reality beyond the mind stepping into a vacuum chamber, to live the rest of their life.

So when do we find out we are a simulation of how humans were, all being run on a ET's computer system in an effort for them to figure out if the universe is an hologram.

Wouldn't that be something, then they in turn find out they are an simulation from future humans to figure out if our universe is an hologram, who in turns finds out they are a simulation run by ants, so the ants can figure out why humans burnt them with magnifying glasses...

Never know

Sitting in prison studying Protagorus while listening to Steve Winwood?

a reply to: ImaFungi

If there is no objective reality beyond the mind, there would be no difference between a random human living their life, and some one who claims there is no objective reality beyond the mind stepping into a vacuum chamber, to live the rest of their life.

What leads you to that conclusion?

There is a difference between the mind creating joy or creating imprisonment and suffering for itself.

a reply to: arpgme

I agree the mind can control to a degree information once information is in the mind.

My statements were strictly in relation to the expression which appears to be held by multiple people in this thread in various degrees; that reality, objective reality, 'does not exist'.

If we agree at all that; that which exists beyond the human mind; is required at all, for the existence of the human; we agree that objective reality 'does exist'.

a reply to: ImaFungi

If we agree at all that; that which exists beyond the human mind; is required at all, for the existence of the human; we agree that objective reality 'does exist'.

The mind does not need the body/physical world to exist. That's another idea of materialistic science that I disagree with.

I disagree that objective reality exists. The world is created by the mind and many minds are creating a limited world for themselves since they expect/believe in objective reality.

When people believe in miracles, they allow miracles to happen, even though it should have been impossible according to other people's materialistic belief systems.

a reply to: arpgme

Your statements are false.

My previous statements contain why.

a reply to: ImaFungi

The statements are false to you, not all the people around the world who created miracles in their life through the power of The Mind (Belief/Faith).

I already responded about the vacuum chamber, and about why it doesn't prove that reality is objective.

a reply to: arpgme

The term 'miracle' is meaningless. Anything that happens is able to happen because it is at least possible to happen. I never said the mind does not and cannot effect reality.

My statements about vacuum chamber, are only in relation to someone who says 'reality does not exist outside of the mind'.

Reality creates the mind; reality does not entirely create the mind; the mind partly creates the mind after it has been partly created by reality; the mind creates reality; the mind does not entirely create reality.

There is truth beyond opinion.

Everything is true besides minds that are false; minds can be false; minds are the only thing that can be false; a mind creating something that does not exist in reality is not false, it is true, that a mind can create pizza, and write a cartoon show (creating relations between physical information that can not occur without the mind doing so), in this sense the mind is always creating the reality of its actions, even its false thoughts are true in that they are truly false, they exist as objective events, but the falsity lies in contradicting objective truths;

Objective truth such as agreed upon rules; like the meaning of language and words and at least the axioms of math.

If we agree that an apple is called apple. That I can point to a rock and a stick and say, not an apple, and then point to an apple and say, apple, and we agree, and this process births the near infinite complexities and conveniences of language; and if we agree that relations between stuff occurs so that the apple can exist, because it is hypothetically possible to destroy all apples and all apple trees and all apple seeds and then substance would not exist that could interact to allow apple to exist, so there are physical reasons, relationships between substances, as to why apple exists;

If we can agree on that, then we are agreeing on objective reality, of different between soil, rain, sun, and apple seed. Because if any of these things are missing, or at least lets see if all apple seeds are missing, we can have no apple. So there is physical math, there is objective, truth. And to be false is to use language improperly, or deny the language we can read of reality, which we use our words to label, to create the math equations of language, the attempts at reality equations, of objects which have causal relations, if you for example point to an apple and say 'this is a rock', by definition you will be false. If you say 'apples can grow without soil, sun, rain, or apple seed'; or to more easily showcase my point lets say you say; I right now within 20 seconds will grow a full size edible apple comparable to all the others you are familiar with, without using soil, sun, rain, or apple seed; and if you failed to do this in the 20 seconds, again this is a way in which the mind can be false, when it promises. The nature of 'changing of the mind', is an interesting one, because I dont know if it can be said to allude to falseness, because it takes place in the present and is retrospective, implying at the time the individual was 'true to themselves, and not contradicting their desires'; Then I wonder if it is possible to in the tiniest span of time embody the contradiction of ones desires, or if not a persons free choice is always the embodiment of desire; I am not speaking here about the nature of a person who may hate their job, and so is in the midst of many hours performing their job may be performing action they do not wish to be doing, this would not be a contradiction, because their need to work, at least forced by the locality of their life and means of survival, is something of an accepted determinism; this is more generally considering a person who is locked into a career already.

The type of contradiction I am wondering about is the wondering about the splittest second, to contain opposing desires, or if the true meaning of this would be over the span of many continual seconds, a constant flickering of yes, no, yes, no, yes, no, yes, no, would equal and most accurate average to a pure contradiction of desire. But would that be false... Suppose it would depend on the desire in question, and how they perceive the desire in their best mind? The type I am wondering about is in a moment when a person is aware and it is true that they have multiple possible and valid choices, would the inability to make a choice at all be a contradiction, or would that merely equal a choice? More difficult of a choice than picking any of the choices? (would depend on the choices we ought suppose); If they knew they must choose only 1, and this was purely a matter of their desire, would their inability to choose 1, express itself as a contradiction of desire? They could still pick one, but have strong feelings of desire to have picked the others, is this contradiction or is even free choice in this sense, or at least part of it, determined, well yes of course, such as all determinisms which lead up to the possibility of all free choice potentials and situations, so knowing that you can only choose 1 out of many, make the choice less free, no because the freedoms in choosing 1 of many

If a person says, I, swearing to my self, my highest relationship with myself, swear, i will never in my life eat chocolate, this is true! I know it is true, I believe it, I have faith that I will never eat chocolate. And then, 30 minutes later, I seek out and eat chocolate, because I felt like it, or thought to, or wanted to, would my statements 30 minutes prior, have been false?

There are potentially infinite scenarios like that with different thoughts and actions that would yield different conceptions and comprehensions of the nature of truth and false in relation to a person, their inner realm and their relation to the world outside of their mind.

Once you agree that not every thought every human has is necessarily a true thought, you should be hinted towards being something of a skeptic.

Desire can be infinite and unreasonable; for example; "i want to red dirt chair magazine coffee game, this is true, I really want to dog monster rainbow car asteroid beetle bus, it is true, I want to, I am right, I want to, it is true, I said I want to, I know I want to, it is true".

And to relate to the other example;

I will regret eating chocolate, this is true, I know me, I know I will, I know the reasons I will, the reasons make sense, they are related to the nature of me, the world, and chocolate, this is true, I am sure I will regret eating chocolate, I have many times before, and I knew I would regret it;

30 minutes later; I dont regret eating chocolate, I dont think i ever will, I know everything about it and me, I thought I would regret it, but i was wrong, now i am right, now i know, now I am truth, now i know truth, now this is true.

30 minutes later; I regret eating chocolate, I knew i would, and I knew that I would regret saying I wouldnt, i knew i wouldnt really not regret it, I knew this is the truth, I know this is the truth, I know i regret eating chocolate for all the reasons I know, they are sensical, right and good reasons, they are reason,

30 minutes later; I dont regret ever eating chocolate

30 minutes later; I regret ever eating chocolate

30 minutes later; I dont regret ever eating chocolate

etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Objective truth such as agreed upon rules; like the meaning of language and words and at least the axioms of math.

If it's agreed upon then it's not objective. It's subjective because it's two minds with the same opinion.

As for the "Apple" and "Math" example, words don't mean anything until our Minds give those sounds/words definitions, when we agree on words/sounds/definitions, it doesn't make it any more objective (independent of the mind), It still is made up by minds, it's just agreed upon.