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: 8
35
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite
What if you are blind and cannot therefore see. Does that not suggest that nothing exists including the self yet the self exists whether it can see or not, does it not. Surely in order to observe anything in the first place then it must exist whether measured or not otherwise its surely not possible to observe anything because the observer doesn't exist. And if the observer doesn't exist then nothing can be observed or measured. Now i've confused myself. Don't buy the Hologram theory. Sorry



We tend to think of he hologram interpretation as visual. But the other senses input is the same, interpretation of data is the same way. Which we then build up a model of the Universe, in our own mind. We see with our mind, our eyes are data gathering. Just like our other senses.




posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Korg Trinity

You said:

I was merely pointing out how most of the discussions surrounding the origin of the universe end up. some philosophical ideas can be discounted due to well established scientific facts...

Let's hear some well established scientific facts.

You said conscious is an emergent property of the material brain. I say there isn't ONE SHRED of well established scientific facts to support this silly notion.

Let's see the well established Scientific facts.


Hold onto your horses there ma laddie....

I didn't say that physicist are not allowed to voice opinion or conjecture, or for that matter sprout their own philosophical view.

I think most physicists view will mirror my own.. but you are welcome to do your own searching.

Fine tuning of the universe.... well it sure looks that way.... but then that can easily be explained by the presence of the multiverse and the anthropic principle.

The so called wave function when looked at through the tools one uses in Quantum field theory doesn't look so spooky anymore, since everything is connected to everything else directly at the unifying field.

But getting back to consciousness.... The place I would start to do your searches would be to google the following "consciousness the result of complexity"



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: 772STi
I think this thread and findings are so cool. I remember laying in bed late at night as a teenager thinking if nobody is looking at the garage, spare bedroom, ect is it really actually there? Actually have been wondering that my whole life.

Now these new findings make me take a second look at the simulation theory. Maybe if nobody's looking its actually not there for a reason, to save space. For example if your not using a program on your computer its usually not running, obviously if everything is running at once the computer would be to slow to use.

I dont know just a thought that popped in my head thought I would share. If anybody dosent fully understand what I'm saying let me know and I will explain in more detail.


Good points!

It's like a server that stores information about websites. Every website doesn't need to be online at all times. When nobody is looking at it, the information about the website is stored on a server. When someone types in a web address, they then observe the website.

The reason the World Wide Web is so vast is because it's not accessing all of these websites when they're not being observed.

So the wave function can be seen as this huge server that contains information about every state a particle can be in. So when this information is accessed n observer measures an observable. This is reality on a fundamental level.

This universe couldn't exist if we were'n't here to say it exist. Or to say the universe is 13.8 billion years old or look at the beautiful sunset. It goes back to Einsteins question. Is the moon still there when nobody is looking at it?

The answer is, THE MOON WOULD NEVER EXIST IF CONSCIOUS OBSERVERS WEREN'T HERE TO LOOK AT IT.

At the fundamental level of reality, a universe can't be measured just like a web page can't be seen unless a CONSCIOUS OBSERVER will experience it.
edit on 5-6-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

The weight of the electrons supplying two dimensional information plus sound in the world wide web is something like three ounces of electrons. Multiply that up, for the rest of the electrons needed to supply information to the other senses in a full simulation, and it makes for a pretty good energy efficient way of organising things.



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic
Thanks for the reply. I like the way you think. So what do you think would happen if the computer crashed? Would we see the universe dissolve toward us or just lights out?



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Problem with the multiverse is its a theory. Until it is proven its a leap of faith. Where as the finely tuned universe is actually empirical evidence. The multiverse explanation is that enough universes will eventually create the right conditions through random combinations. It has hinted in modeling it may be possible. Problem is we don't know if any other universes actually exist.



edit on 5-6-2015 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Observation collapses matter from a wave form to a particle form, to out it simply. But science is based in the observation that the range of possible particle forms is predictably limited. This means that gravity doesn't suddenly reverse or water suddenly become rock or fire. Perhaps observation plays a role to a limited degree, but that doesn't mean we possess overt influence without physical manipulation. And thank god for that ya know?



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm


That's better. Guess you started reading the actual experiment.
edit on 5-6-2015 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: luthier

Observation collapses matter from a wave form to a particle form, to out it simply. But science is based in the observation that the range of possible particle forms is predictably limited. This means that gravity doesn't suddenly reverse or water suddenly become rock or fire. Perhaps observation plays a role to a limited degree, but that doesn't mean we possess overt influence without physical manipulation. And thank god for that ya know?



As far as the senses go particle forms are limited, that's because our senses are limited. The input has to be filtered by them or we would have information overload. The range of the spectrum is infinite , we couldn't process it all.



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
Where as the finely tuned universe is actually empirical evidence.

There most certainly is not any empirical evidence of the universe being "finely tuned".



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic
The observer effect eh. If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it does it make a noise? Probably does, but who cares right. Only if that tree fell on you would it matter, so hence it does not matter unless observed, and the closer the observation the more it would matter.

Everybody is stuck in this place called life, and there is no getting out of life alive. The world is what you make of it. So take a look around and everything around you that you see is merely a reflection of your soul, and in this game there are no bystanders only participants.

If all this is true, that means that not only do hive minds exist, but there just may be such a thing as a hive consciousness or subconscious. Its all weird stuff. But not really as its kind of obvious, though that does not change the facts. Knowing something, and doing something are completely two different things, the wheel of probability does not run between them.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: luthier
Where as the finely tuned universe is actually empirical evidence.

There most certainly is not any empirical evidence of the universe being "finely tuned".


I take it you didn't read Paul Davies paper then?



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   
If we are to assess the hard problem of consciousness within a quantum mechanical paradigm we must first disentangle the issue of entanglement from the issue of decoherence in order to establish a coherent metaphysical response to unjustifiable physicalist assumptions. Only then can the materialistic hegemony be challenged sufficiently for the discombobulated mind of the materialist to offer itself as evidence of the separation of mind and body. After all how can one experience such a superposition of multiple mental states but wholly subjectively? In the face of such conclusivity even the most ardent materialist will be forced to confront the state-variable orthogonality of awareness as a function of consciousness rather than mere neural activity. So how do we achieve this end? The key here lies at the quantum-classical boundary and the mind-body boundary. Can a superposition of minds be expressed in terms of the phase angle of the “id” and the “ego” and if so will the collapse of the wave function equate to a rotationally symmetric disambiguation of shared awareness? The answer emphatically is – Yes. Because the internal act of subjectively observing one’s own conscious experience results in the collapse of the integrated wave function such that multiple individual minds emerge from the disentangled whole. Evidently such separation has an inherently probabilistic component as well as temporal, as opposed to instantaneous, aspect. This brief period of semi-superposition equates to what is commonly referred to as “shared experience” resulting in the metaphysical fact that objectivity is a functional representation of collectively achieved subjectivity. So now we see that the only way to maintain the materialist paradigm is to deny that the orthogonal compatibility of disentangled decoherent minds can exist. Or – In other words – The materialist finds themselves necessarily denying the existence of objectivity itself. Objectivity - The very foundation upon which the materialist call for “objective evidence” is founded. Thus the materialist holds a contradictory and logically indefensible position the very cognitive dissonance of which serves to conclusively exemplify the separation between mind and body. Cogito ergo sum.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic
Is the experience of reality some kind of measurement, then, as per your title for this thread?
second
tetra



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: neoholographic

The weight of the electrons supplying two dimensional information plus sound in the world wide web is something like three ounces of electrons. Multiply that up, for the rest of the electrons needed to supply information to the other senses in a full simulation, and it makes for a pretty good energy efficient way of organising things.



Good question. I was just watching an episode of Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman and it was called Do we live in the Matrix?

It had some great guest like Nick Bostrom and Silas Beane. A Physicist on the program took the simulation argument to it's logical conclusion and said if the simulation crashed a thousand years could pass, the system would be rebooted and everything would just continue in the simulation like nothing had stopped. So the simulation crashes while I'm typing this, a thousand years could pass before I typed a thousand years could pass and everything would just flow smoothly.

I believe everything is an approximation of something else and there isn't any objective physical reality just conscious experiencing probable states.

Say you go to the store and buy some soup in aisle 7. Two weeks later you go to the store and the soup is in aisle 10. Your conscious experience today is just an approximation of what it was two weeks ago.

This can't be traced back to some approximation of approximations because it all goes back to probability of a 1 or an 0. So again, there's no objective physical reality.

So in the last iteration of myself, I could have been 7 feet tall, in this one 6'1 and in the next one 5'1. These would just be approximations of previous iterations. All that exists is the conscious experience of being 7 feet, 6'1 and 5'1.

Think about the universe. We talk about the laws of physics and things that occur in the universe, but these things aren't any "objective physical reality" if you take simulation argument to it's logical end. It's just an approximation of whoever designed the simulation thought was a universe.

So there's no physical reality, just what consciousness thinks a physical reality should look like. It goes back to what does Tasty Wheat really taste like?


edit on 6-6-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
There most certainly is not any empirical evidence of the universe being "finely tuned".
There are claims of such, but they are debated and many find them to be weak claims. What's probably the case is that life is adapted to exist within the universe as it exists, and if the universe had different parameters, life would have adapted differently to the different universe, so one could perhaps claim life is fine-tuned for the universe (through evolution), rather than the universe being fine tuned for life or anything else.


originally posted by: luthier
I take it you didn't read Paul Davies paper then?
Maybe he read the rebuttal like I did:

A Case Against the Fine-Tuning of the Cosmos - Victor J. Stenger

With so many errors and misjudgments, and with such a gross lack of understanding of the basic science exhibited by the supporters of supernatural fine-tuning, we can safely say that their motivation is more wishful thinking than scientific inference. A proper analysis finds there is no evidence that the universe is fine-tuned for us or anything else.


a reply to: flyingfish
If there was coherence in your original post, it seems to have experienced decoherence and somehow merged into one giant very long paragraph, kind of how things in the macro world experience decoherence, which is why they don't behave much like quantum systems which are isolated in scientific experiments to prevent decoherence. As a result, most of the quantum woo that people try to apply to the macro world is not valid because of such decoherence.


edit on 6-6-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
The first post did not exist until I read it/



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I wouldn't say it proves reality is a hologram.
A hologram is itself a physical thing.
It is what is in our Consciousnes that Is/Is Not.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: neoholographic

The weight of the electrons supplying two dimensional information plus sound in the world wide web is something like three ounces of electrons. Multiply that up, for the rest of the electrons needed to supply information to the other senses in a full simulation, and it makes for a pretty good energy efficient way of organising things.



Good question. I was just watching an episode of Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman and it was called Do we live in the Matrix?

It had some great guest like Nick Bostrom and Silas Beane. A Physicist on the program took the simulation argument to it's logical conclusion and said if the simulation crashed a thousand years could pass, the system would be rebooted and everything would just continue in the simulation like nothing had stopped. So the simulation crashes while I'm typing this, a thousand years could pass before I typed a thousand years could pass and everything would just flow smoothly.

I believe everything is an approximation of something else and there isn't any objective physical reality just conscious experiencing probable states.

Say you go to the store and buy some soup in aisle 7. Two weeks later you go to the store and the soup is in aisle 10. Your conscious experience today is just an approximation of what it was two weeks ago.

This can't be traced back to some approximation of approximations because it all goes back to probability of a 1 or an 0. So again, there's no objective physical reality.

So in the last iteration of myself, I could have been 7 feet tall, in this one 6'1 and in the next one 5'1. These would just be approximations of previous iterations. All that exists is the conscious experience of being 7 feet, 6'1 and 5'1.

Think about the universe. We talk about the laws of physics and things that occur in the universe, but these things aren't any "objective physical reality" if you take simulation argument to it's logical end. It's just an approximation of whoever designed the simulation thought was a universe.

So there's no physical reality, just what consciousness thinks a physical reality should look like. It goes back to what does Tasty Wheat really taste like?



There is no spoon. I mean tasty wheat.



posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic
I just asked what would happen in the computer crashed and you answer really got me thinking.

First off I think what you said makes perfect sense. I have been doing alot of research on the Mandela effect and plan on starting a thread once I get to 20 but I'm in no rush I only post on things I think i can contribute to.

Do you think its possible that during these reboots certain things, for example someone's last name, could be changed? Possibly a glitch while getting back from reboot to present time? Or because somebody unconsciously made a different decision then that last time around?

If so do you have a theory on why only certain people remember these changes?

edit on 6/6/2015 by 772STi because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
35
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join