Quantum Experiment Confirms Reality Doesn't Exist Until Measured

a reply to: arpgme

ob·jec·tive/əbˈjektiv/
adjective
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Everything is objective. All subjectivity is objective, in that 'all subjectivity that occurs, occurs'. The question or the difference then, is not all subjectivity is true. True as in, not contradicting truth.

a reply to: ImaFungi

I already know the definition of "objective", but knowing the definition of a word doesn't make it automatically true.

All subjectivity is objective, in that 'all subjectivity that occurs, occurs'.

To whom does subjectivity occurs? To the Mind. It's subjective.

My subjective experiences don't occur to you. I can type them based on agreed upon words and definition, but you will still not be experiencing my experience but your own experience about my experience.

"Agreed upon" meaning same belief/opinion, and therefore subjectivity.

a reply to: arpgme

Does anything besides your mind exist?

Is it possible for the only thing in reality to exist to be just your mind? How would that be possible, is it likely?

It is highly unlikely; 99.99999999999999999999999% unlikely, that only your mind exists, like only only only your mind is the only thing that exists. It is so unlikely, it is pretty much proof, that only your mind is not the only thing that exists.

Therefore, it is pretty much proof, that objective reality exists.

Notice, notice...please....please, just....please... notice, that I am not making any claim about objective reality, about details, I am not describing it, I am only saying, it is the closest thing to proof, that reality beyond your mind exists.

That is objective reality. One cannot object to this. There is reality beyond your mind. That is on the precipice of being an objectively true statement. It is infinitely closer to being true than false. It is highly unlikely that your mind is the only thing that exists. So highly unlikely, that you would be highly incorrect for considering the likelihood of your mind being the only thing that exists, and it not being the only thing that exists, as equal likelihoods.

Dont you see that this is why I brought up the vacuum chamber example;

That if someone believes that there is no reality besides their mind, they can prove this, by entering a vacuum chamber, and living the exact same way they did prior to entering it.

Dont you see that this proves, without claiming any details about the objective reality, that objective reality exists, you dont need to know how the objective reality exists or what the objective reality is to most accurately claim that one does exist.

I dont need to know any details of objective reality, to claim the fact that, an objective reality exists, and must exist, because something rather than nothing exists.

The fact something exists, and not eternal nothingness, is the fact that reality exists, is the fact that reality is objective, is the fact reality is objects, is the fact reality cannot be created or destroyed only transformed, is the fact that reality always equals itself.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
So my carpet isn't real until schroodinger's cat barfs on it?

The barf isn't even real, until Schrodinger's cat reflects on it.

Who typed that?

Harte

originally posted by: arpgme


To whom does subjectivity occurs? To the Mind. It's subjective. The Observer/Mind causes the reality.

The fact subjectivity occurs, is an objective fact. Subjectivity is objective. Reality is objective. Subjectivity creates objectivity in reality. But not all subjectivity correlates to objective facts, and this is how and when subjectivity or thinking is false. Objectivity can never be false, objectivity is always true. Only subjectivity can ever be false, and only when it contradicts the truth of objectivity.


The mind causes some reality.

The mind does not cause all reality.

The mind causes reality that it chooses and not chooses to cause out of what is possible for the mind to cause and not choose to cause and to know and not know and seek to know in relation to how accurately it does know and knows it knows and knows it knows not.

My subjective experiences don't occur to you. I can type them based on agreed upon words and definition, but you will still not be experiencing my experience but your own experience about my experience.

I dont know them, but I know they are objective. Because I know they occur, at all. Something is happening instead of nothing. When something is happening, whatever it is, it is happening exactly, and it is exactly as it is exactly the exact way it is happening always, and this is the meaning of reality and objectivity.

"Agreed upon" meaning same belief/opinion, and therefore subjectivity.

It is an objective fact that the word 'apple' is the word for the roundish red fruit that grows on trees.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Does anything besides your mind exist?

Yes, other minds. I said reality is subjective, not only I exist.

It is so unlikely, it is pretty much proof, that only your mind is not the only thing that exists.

Therefore, it is pretty much proof, that objective reality exists.

Proving that my mind is not the only one to exist does not prove objective reality is true. Some people see and experience what would be impossible to another person's/mind's world (miracles being an example). This shows reality is subjective.

originally posted by: arpgme


Yes, other minds. I said reality is subjective, not only I exist.

Your subjective reality, is aware that subjective realities exist beyond your subjective reality.

That means your awareness is aware that objective reality exists.

Reality beyond your subjective reality, is objective reality.

The fact other subjectivities exist beyond your subjectivity, is an objective fact.

Proving that my mind is not the only one to exist does not prove objective reality is true.

You are very befuddled.

Objective reality by definition, is true.

Proving that your mind is not the only one to exist, proves that objective reality exists.

Objective reality, is what truth is.

Reality is always true.

Reality is always objective (not too people, to itself).

If there were no people, there would still be objective reality.

If there were no people reality would still always equal reality at all times.

If there were no people reality would still truly be itself.

Reality will always truly be itself.

Reality is always true.

Reality is always objective.

Subjective reality objectively occurs.

It is true that subjective reality occurs.

Subjective reality may not be accessible at all by others, but it still occurs if it occurs, and that which occurs is truly occurring, and that which occurs, and that which truly occurs, and that which is something and not nothing, is objective.

Some people see and experience what would be impossible to another person's/mind's world (miracles being an example). This shows reality is subjective.

No. Things occur outside of the mind, and things occur inside the mind.

That which occurs outside the mind occurs outside the mind.

That which occurs inside the mind occurs inside the mind.

There is always exact correlation and reason, in relation to what occurs outside the mind and inside the mind. Sometime, potentially, things occur inside the mind that have 'no reason', or we can say, sometimes unreasonable things occur within the mind.

Leonardo da Vinci saw and experienced artful thoughts that would be impossible for me to see and experience in my mind. I do not know the content of his imagination, but I know his imagination had contents. I do not know all the details of his subjectivity, but I know the detail that he had subjectivity. This is objective knowledge of mine.

You say;

Reality is subjective.

I say;

Reality is objective and subjective.

Then you say to that?

Excuse my french but topic title is BS, IMO.
Objective, subjective..who cares. You, anyone, can argue Moon does not exist until I look, well, next time I look at the Moon it should be same place I left looking at it.))))LOOOOLL.

We all share same reality. That's it. Wave function collapse occurs by something else, not human mind or some sophisticated apparatus. Go figure.)))



DO.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Objective does not mean truth. Objective means (in this conversation at least) independent of the mind - since that was the our disagreement and how it's on topic to the original post about reality being subjective because of experiments about the Observer Effect.

Now my response.

It doesn't make sense to say that because one mind is aware that other minds exist, that means the mind does not create the reality (objective - independent of mind).

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: ImaFungi

Objective does not mean truth. Objective means (in this conversation at least) independent of the mind - since that was the our disagreement and how it's on topic to the original post about reality being subjective because of experiments about the Observer Effect.

Now my response.

It doesn't make sense to say that because one mind is aware that other minds exist, that means the mind does not create the reality (objective - independent of mind).

Can you elaborate with your response meaning please? Lifelike example would suffice.
2nd

DO.

a reply to: darkorange

If you don't even believe the conclusion of the original experiment with the scientists, then there's no way you would believe anything I say.

All I can do now is debunk arguments that tries to disprove subjectivity which doesn't make sense


For example, if minds are creating the world, then one mind being aware of another mind is not proof that the mind is not creating the world but only proof that there are other minds/creators.

originally posted by: arpgme

For example, if minds are creating the world, then one mind being aware of another mind is not proof that the mind is not creating the world but only proof that there are other minds/creators.

You believe that before a mind existed on Earth, Earth did not exist.

That absolutely nothing existed.

Then a mind (or more) popped into existence from nothing from nowhere.

And created the Earth.

And that if your mind disappears, that Earth will disappear, or only if all minds on earth disappear, Earth will disappear.

This is the last time I will ever speak to you.

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: darkorange

If you don't even believe the conclusion of the original experiment with the scientists, then there's no way you would believe anything I say.

All I can do now is debunk arguments that tries to disprove subjectivity which doesn't make sense


For example, if minds are creating the world, then one mind being aware of another mind is not proof that the mind is not creating the world but only proof that there are other minds/creators.

You appeal to scientific community to enforce your own understanding of the event without being able to elaborate.
Can you explain it without being a poser?




DO.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: arpgme

For example, if minds are creating the world, then one mind being aware of another mind is not proof that the mind is not creating the world but only proof that there are other minds/creators.

You believe that before a mind existed on Earth, Earth did not exist.

That absolutely nothing existed.

Then a mind (or more) popped into existence from nothing from nowhere.

And created the Earth.

And that if your mind disappears, that Earth will disappear, or only if all minds on earth disappear, Earth will disappear.

This is the last time I will ever speak to you.

i concur your sentiment about 'mutual' reality exists. Scientists just reporting results of the experiment, thanks to them, for the benefit of others, so you, me or any one can attempt their take on interpretation. In fact, any one who post here potentially is right.
Got to be another quantum effect))LOL

DO>

Didn't get through all 18 pages, but it's a rather interesting study. Not sure I catch the full gist, but it's saying essentially that based on what we see and what we assume happens is what we believe? But in what would be actuality, nothing happened.

Well either way if I didn't get that right, I had read just a bit about quantum mechanics and it felt as if dreams, are really just that. The land where we make anything into what we want by perception and we feel as if it were reality but there are no bounds. We can essentially visit mars in our human form instantaneously, without ever having been there.

I had a thread which went deeper into this: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Not sure if there's anyone else here that shows the same view where in dreams we essentially fail to measure, so we experience what this article speaks of.

originally posted by: SuspiciousTom
Didn't get through all 18 pages, but it's a rather interesting study. Not sure I catch the full gist, but it's saying essentially that based on what we see and what we assume happens is what we believe? But in what would be actuality, nothing happened.

Well either way if I didn't get that right, I had read just a bit about quantum mechanics and it felt as if dreams, are really just that. The land where we make anything into what we want by perception and we feel as if it were reality but there are no bounds. We can essentially visit mars in our human form instantaneously, without ever having been there.

I had a thread which went deeper into this: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Not sure if there's anyone else here that shows the same view where in dreams we essentially fail to measure, so we experience what this article speaks of.

No difference between our reality and a dreamed reality none whatsoever, we just believe one is more real than the other because it is persistent on a daily basis.

When we dream we think its real too go figure lolz. . . .

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Ahh yes, in dream, we go into what seems to be a rather meditative state what seems as if we connect to the universe, paralyzed bodies and our eyes all over the place. In our dreams it's, i guess we don't measure or try to construct or abide by the rules of the world we live in, almost as if we completely disregard them. And this distorts our reality in dreams. I think we may one day evolve to a race that just wakes, gets food then back to dream land.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
No difference between our reality and a dreamed reality none whatsoever, we just believe one is more real than the other because it is persistent on a daily basis.

When we dream we think its real too go figure lolz. . . .

Not in a lucid dream. I've had a few.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
No difference between our reality and a dreamed reality none whatsoever, we just believe one is more real than the other because it is persistent on a daily basis.

When we dream we think its real too go figure lolz. . . .

Not in a lucid dream. I've had a few.

Harte

Yes I have had a few lucid dreams as well, I dont see why using counsiousness reality itself cant change just as it does in a lucid dream. Perhaps thats what the magic of ancient legends and prophets was all about, those who had a skill to manipulate reality and see the bigger picture. For example the famous quote that the kingdom of heaven is within could be refering to counsiousness as a kind of lucid dream, and being the lord/controller of the dream. But who knows for sure, it sure is interesting to think about. . .

An entangled particle pair is sent through slots A and B. The particle from A goes to detector D0 it's entangled pair goes randomly to detector D1 or D2 after it's entangled pair has already hit D0.

What do we find?

The particle at detector D0 is an interference pattern or a particle and this always correlates with it's entangled pair even though when the particle hits D0 the particle from slot B hasn't hit D1 or D2. If D1 then which path information can be known and you get a clumping like particles at D0 and when which path information can't be known you get an interference pattern at D0.

If an independent material reality exists, why does particle A correlate with particle B even when particle A hits the detector before particle B has hit detectors D1 or D2?