It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Quantum Experiment Confirms Reality Doesn't Exist Until Measured

page: 3
35
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You are doing it wrong. These threads are not for exploring ideas. You are just supposed to leave a pretentious 'I knew it!' reply and then mock anyone who disagrees with currently accepted theory.




posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Except that they're not very smart or they're sinister. Take your pick... both are wrong.

Use your noggin instead of their credentials and you will see that.

No need for conspiracy theory here. It is always entirely possible for a room of back-patters to be entirely and completely wrong.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Not laughing at people who want to understand.

Please forgive me if that is how it looks.

My frustration is with the particular theory (and also its proponents) which tends to over complicate things. Nothing wrong with you wanting to understand it, but I think the reason why you are having a hard time understanding this particular view is because it's not good for understanding reality. You know that those rocks existed before you saw them. Only the highest form of arrogance would attempt to put forth that it wasn't there before you saw it. The proponents are not actually wanting to understand, but are coloring perception and coming up with wild theories to suit their bias. (How do I know? Because that's what lies are designed to do... defend bias, stir trouble...)

Please forgive me again, I mean no harm.


So wait the top peer respected physicists from the top labs and schools in the world are part of a hoax?

This is a very real subject of study. Perhaps you should read the fermilab page and see for yourself who is involved in exploring this field.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: luthier

Except that they're not very smart or they're sinister. Take your pick... both are wrong.

Use your noggin instead of their credentials and you will see that.

No need for conspiracy theory here. It is always entirely possible for a room of back-patters to be entirely and completely wrong.


And a guy on ATS to be right? No thanks. I'd rather take my chances on the several labs and brain trusts reproducing these same results.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I didn't say they were perpetuating a hoax on purpose.

I've met people who've done worse. Wouldn't surprise me. I've also met people who wasted a lot of money on really stupid investments.

Does it matter? Wrong is wrong.
edit on 6/4/2015 by TarzanBeta because: and = on



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

There you go. Take your chances. That's going to get you to the truth more quickly.

Or just think a little and then offer up your perception as an addition.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: luthier

I didn't say they were perpetuating a hoax on purpose.

I've met people who've done worse. Wouldn't surprise me. I've also met people who wasted a lot of money and really stupid investments.

Does it matter? Wrong is wrong.


Except that its not and if you understood math and science well enough you could check their work.

Science doesn't work on a common sense being enough for proof.

Do you remember what people thought matter was before the electron microscope......probably not doesn't seem like you care for science much.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Do you mean to say that is the point at which their existence matters at all?

You're trying to break down that situation without allowing the whole universe to be involved. In order for those rocks to be drifting towards each other, a bunch of other things had to happen to those rocks first.

You're discussing the existence of an event, merely, whose specifics could be calculated somewhat accurately by discovering the history of each of those respective rocks.

Hence why we are fairly certain when the comets will come around, and where the Moon will be and... oh nevermind.

The tree fell and made a sound and frankly it don't really matter to everyone except the squirrels and birds which gotta find a new place to play. OF course, not until they show up in your backyard on your tree and their fighting over the bird food you put out. Then you put grease on the bar to keep the squirrels from stealing from birds and then you're laughing at the squirrel while your kids think you're mean. So everything has an effect.

I really, really feel like this particular theory was invented by a nursery full of verbally skilled infants. Not insulting at all, but it reminds me of the mentality of an infant: "Dad's GONE! NOOOO!!! Oh hi, Dad. Wait? How's that POSSIBLE!! Come Back!! OH hi, Dad."


Absolutely!

This is my field... so I'm just sat back reading this thread... It's really interesting to see how people think...



This theory is being produced in the top labs in the world by the some of the most peer respected scientists in the world.

Fermilab in Chicago has 100's of millions given to it by the us government to study this. Maybe not dismissing the top scientific community including MIT would do you some good.


I didn't.... you have the wrong end of the stick!



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Do you mean to say that is the point at which their existence matters at all?

You're trying to break down that situation without allowing the whole universe to be involved. In order for those rocks to be drifting towards each other, a bunch of other things had to happen to those rocks first.

You're discussing the existence of an event, merely, whose specifics could be calculated somewhat accurately by discovering the history of each of those respective rocks.

Hence why we are fairly certain when the comets will come around, and where the Moon will be and... oh nevermind.

The tree fell and made a sound and frankly it don't really matter to everyone except the squirrels and birds which gotta find a new place to play. OF course, not until they show up in your backyard on your tree and their fighting over the bird food you put out. Then you put grease on the bar to keep the squirrels from stealing from birds and then you're laughing at the squirrel while your kids think you're mean. So everything has an effect.

I really, really feel like this particular theory was invented by a nursery full of verbally skilled infants. Not insulting at all, but it reminds me of the mentality of an infant: "Dad's GONE! NOOOO!!! Oh hi, Dad. Wait? How's that POSSIBLE!! Come Back!! OH hi, Dad."


Absolutely!

This is my field... so I'm just sat back reading this thread... It's really interesting to see how people think...



This theory is being produced in the top labs in the world by the some of the most peer respected scientists in the world.

Fermilab in Chicago has 100's of millions given to it by the us government to study this. Maybe not dismissing the top scientific community including MIT would do you some good.


I didn't.... you have the wrong end of the stick!



Totally my fault. On a mobile and the reply was to the wrong person. I am sorry.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

It would seem that you are the one who is not understanding the science.

Think about what you just said: "Do you remember what people thought matter was before the electron microscope........"

According to the theory which you are currently defending, whatever matter was before the electron microscope didn't exist!

So, why does it matter what was thought before the true invention which works in reality revealed to us in reality (visually) a dimensionally relative image of the composition of matter...?



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: luthier

It would seem that you are the one who is not understanding the science.

Think about what you just said: "Do you remember what people thought matter was before the electron microscope........"

According to the theory which you are currently defending, whatever matter was before the electron microscope didn't exist!

So, why does it matter what was thought before the true invention which works in reality revealed to us in reality (visually) a dimensionally relative image of the composition of matter...?


Touche!

But according to you this theory produced several times by different labs and different people is false.

So of its not what was matter before the electron microscope? How many people thought is was absolutely absurd that there could be any empty space in atoms?

That's also not what this theory says but you probably didn't read it. What people are saying is a metaphore for the complicated subject. Its not 100 percent accurate (remember the whole quantum cat thing). It says that observation is entangled with reality.

I was exploring the PHILOSOPHICAL side and making comparisons to other very well respected scientists and philosophers that had the same theory but didn't have the equipment or mathematical backround to prove it.
edit on 4-6-2015 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Of course their instruments (and their physical senses) are going to believe that something is not reality until it is observed. That's because the senses and the instruments designed with the help of those senses are limited in scope. It is quite obvious to us that reality exists whether it is observed by us or not. The metaphor is useless.

If their theory is true, that something does not exist until it is observed, then they would have to inevitably conclude that the universe could not exist without an observing consciousness outside of space-time.

Of course, that would require an unbiased view 'n' stuff.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: neoholographic

So if a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there, to hear it, then it does not matter, if it makes any sound,
because if no ones is there, there is no forest, in witch a tree may fall,,,


I say the tree falls and makes a sound but the tree wouldn't exist in the first place if consciousness wasn't here to experience trees.

All things in the universe exist because the universe was fine tuned for life and for us to experience it. There isn't ANY EVIDENCE that a universe can exist independent of conscious observers to experience it. Someone earlier talked about the quantum eraser experiment and how it didn't need a conscious observer.

That's just not the case.

How would there be a quantum eraser experiment without a conscious observer to set up a quantum eraser experiment?

How would the results of this experiment be reported without a conscious observer to report the results of the experiment?

How would you read the results of the experiment without a conscious observer?

I see the universe like Cedar Point. It came into existence for conscious observers to experience it. If a piece of a ride falls to the ground at night when nobody is there, it makes a sound.

This is because the universe exists and is fine tuned for conscious observers to experience it. How can a universe exist without conscious beings? There isn't any such universe.

The universe can simply be the result of a Boltzmann brain fluctuating into existence and measuring the spin state of a qubit. When it measures this spin state, an entire universe can collapse into existence. So the universe is only 13.8 billion years old because this is the way the Boltzmann brain simulates it as all of it's memories becomes entangled with a spin up state.

The point is, there's no evidence that there's an objective universe independent of conscious observers and it goes even deeper because everything's existence originates with Mind or Logos.
edit on 4-6-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

True, except it doesn't require our own consciousness to observe. Since before the very inception of the universe, it was observed from without. This is evident in how we build things. We see it in our mind first, from its design, location, and the future of its aging and downfall, before the thing ever comes to be. Then we bring the image into physical reality (for the imagination is a part of reality obviously because it is defined). Though it is designed to be viewed, it became what it is way before we laid eyes on it. We do not collapse any wave functions. Well... that might not be entirely true. When I catch my boy in the process of doing something wrong, all of a sudden he was never doing it.
edit on 6/4/2015 by TarzanBeta because: Modify to change "reality" to "physical reality" etc...



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: luthier

Of course their instruments (and their physical senses) are going to believe that something is not reality until it is observed. That's because the senses and the instruments designed with the help of those senses are limited in scope. It is quite obvious to us that reality exists whether it is observed by us or not. The metaphor is useless.

If their theory is true, that something does not exist until it is observed, then they would have to inevitably conclude that the universe could not exist without an observing consciousness outside of space-time.

Of course, that would require an unbiased view 'n' stuff.




That sounds strange like the old scientists who didn't believe there were vast regions of empty space in atoms. Even after the microscope they died believing it wasn't true.

How do explain that you are not in a lucid dream and none of this exists?



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


Many Scientist are starting to come to the conclusion that information is more fundamental to the universe than matter.

The way I see it, you cannot have matter without information. If you have matter then it must be possible to describe the structure of the matter with information. Lets assume for a moment our universe was a totally materialistic system full of little marble-like particles obeying classical laws. With enough research I could uncover all the laws governing the universe and then create a simulation of the universe and the beings living in that universe would think they lived in a totally materialistic universe because according to all their experiments that's exactly what it appears to be. But in reality their world is just the result of information being processed by the computer running the simulation.

We could be in a simulation right now and not even know it. Even if we are in a simulation there is no reason to think the universe of our creators is "more real" than our universe because everything is information at the most fundamental level. That is why I view most problems through the lense of information theory, it provides the lowest level understanding. Modern science is far from materialistic, we have highly abstract things like entanglement, superposition, standing electron waves, virtual particles, all of which undermine classical materialism. But just because matter can exist in these weird abstract information states doesn't mean the universe only exists while we're looking at it.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

No. It's nothing like that. Those scientists hold biases in much the same way as these same scientists. They refuse to believe what is necessarily reality just because they couldn't see it. THEY possess that malfunction. I do not.

To answer the second question, I have no reason to explain my way out of a fiction. But if you would consider the discrepancy in your question, you would realize that even if I was simply in a lucid dream, the dream itself would be evidence that, not only do I exist, but so does the dream. As well, the word "dream" implies that this is an internal world which necessarily implies an external one. Therefore, something indeed exists whether I am privy to that knowledge or not. As well, that question is begging an answer that would be contradictory to the theory which you defend at any rate, because the question assumes a reality outside of the one I am experiencing, except technically that outside reality could not be observed, therefore, should not exist, which therefore would render the world which must necessarily be inside another world non-existent, which would render me non-existent, which would render the question utterly meaningless considering then that I do not exist and am unable to contemplate a question which cannot be posed because nothing exists - Rendering this entire text as meaningless as the non-existent world within which we do not interact.

Right.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


Someone earlier talked about the quantum eraser experiment and how it didn't need a conscious observer.

That's just not the case.

How would there be a quantum eraser experiment without a conscious observer to set up a quantum eraser experiment?

The quantum eraser experiment says that the process of measurement and wave-function collapse can be induced by a non-conscious machine. I already posted this video in our recent debate but I feel like it needs to be posted in this thread too:



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: luthier

No. It's nothing like that. Those scientists hold biases in much the same way as these same scientists. They refuse to believe what is necessarily reality just because they couldn't see it. THEY possess that malfunction. I do not.

To answer the second question, I have no reason to explain my way out of a fiction. But if you would consider the discrepancy in your question, you would realize that even if I was simply in a lucid dream, the dream itself would be evidence that, not only do I exist, but so does the dream. As well, the word "dream" implies that this is an internal world which necessarily implies an external one. Therefore, something indeed exists whether I am privy to that knowledge or not. As well, that question is begging an answer that would be contradictory to the theory which you defend at any rate, because the question assumes a reality outside of the one I am experiencing, except technically that outside reality could not be observed, therefore, should not exist, which therefore would render the world which must necessarily be inside another world non-existent, which would render me non-existent, which would render the question utterly meaningless considering then that I do not exist and am unable to contemplate a question which cannot be posed because nothing exists - Rendering this entire text as meaningless as the non-existent world within which we do not interact.

Right.


Correct. It is your observation that proves you exist. Thank you.

That's exactly how Kant changed Hume's Fork. We constitute our own reality. Which is the only conclusion to come to without going into infinite regress



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
The experiment the article was written about is actually less about whether reality is real...

You see the detector detects the event after the event actually occurred, yet the event is affected by the measurement nonetheless...

You may look at these result from two distinct perspectives

One. The matter somehow knew that you were going to look at it and acted accordingly...

Or.

Two. The matter did not exist until the measurement was made.

Neither are intuitive to our experience of nature.... What the studies I have been involved in have lead me to believe is that this indicates strongly that Space-Time is a construct of events, that all events exist within the continuum.

So the past and the future already exist, there isn't a sudden change in the past once something has been observed in the present... it was already observed just from our perspective within space-time we do not see the future events.

Do you see?

edit on 4-6-2015 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join