What is Decoherence?

originally posted by: HotMale
but that these quantum experiments actually clearly point towards material reality being non persistent.

Define the term 'material'.

My definition (which should be the definition of the term) of 'material' is;

That which is not nothing.

originally posted by: neoholographic

No, a universe can't exist without consciousness and it can't even form unless consciousness has the potential to experience it. No consciousness, no universe.

So pick which one you believe.

A) Nothing existed... nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing.... And then a mind (made of something...or nothing?) 'popped' into existence.

B) A mind (made of something or nothing? Please differentiate which you think it more probable, that the mind is made of something or nothing) has always existed, and it existed prior to material other than its mindfulness existed. Now this case we would need to differentiate whether or not the mind has always been aware, or if it was at first sleeping.. I mean there is a lot to discuss there. But those appear to be your only options in relation to your stance. So pick one. Or we can discuss both if you think they have equal merit according to your understanding of your thoughts and beliefs and perception.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Wouldn't the very same thing apply to a universe existing without a consciousness? How did matter arise out of nothingness, or was matter already there before the material universe existed?

a reply to: ImaFungi

Why does a mind need to made of something?

What is information made out of?

There's scientist who are saying the wave function is a non physical reality.

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography

Counterfactual quantum cryptography (CQC) is used here as a tool to assess the status of the quantum state: Is it real/ontic (an objective state of Nature) or epistemic (a state of the observer's knowledge)? In contrast to recent approaches to wave function ontology, that are based on realist models of quantum theory, here we recast the question as a problem of communication between a sender (Bob), who uses interaction-free measurements, and a receiver (Alice), who observes an interference pattern in a Mach-Zehnder set-up. An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of "physical", apart from "real". In instances of counterfactual quantum communication, reality is ascribed to the interaction-freely measured wave function (ψ) because Alice deterministically infers Bob's measurement. On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of a particle because it produced no detection on Bob's apparatus. We therefore conclude that the wave function in this case (and by extension, generally) is real, but not physical. Characteristically for classical phenomena, the reality and physicality of objects are equivalent, whereas for quantum phenomena, the former is strictly weaker. As a concrete application of this idea, the nonphysical reality of the wavefunction is shown to be the basic nonclassical phenomenon that underlies the security of CQC.

arxiv.org...

Where is the evidence that something is different from the mind? Again, you haven't showed scientific evidence that supports anything you have said.

There's not a lot to discuss because you're not discussing anything. You're stating your beliefs as if they're facts without a SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. That's fantasy and I remind you we're in a Science forum.

originally posted by: HotMale
a reply to: ImaFungi

Ridiculous argument. Wouldn't the very same thing apply to a universe existing without a consciousness? How did matter arise out of nothingness, or was matter already there before the material universe existed?

Lol! Congratulations, you have stumbled upon the eternal tautological axiom of reality.

Something exists.

Something cannot be created or destroyed.

Therefore something has always existed and always will.

If only nothing existed. Then only nothing would have always existed and always will exist. But it appears, greatly appears, overwhelmingly appears, as if more than absolutely eternal nothing exists. Therefore it equals that axiomatic fact I relayed above.

Finally you guys are getting into what I mentioned back on page 8.

You all are trying to separate things that can't be separated as such.

The real question is: where does order and change come from? What chooses? What interprets/observes? If you say something like chaos theory, where did its order/ability come from, etc.

Order from chaos(disorder)? Is that not still orderly? What orders order from disorder, etc. The gods of chaos and randomness don't exist. Something can't come from nothing.

originally posted by: neoholographic

Show me evidence of material universes that exists without consciousness

Again, what exactly would you accept as evidence?

A universe can only come into existence if consciousness has the potential to experience it.

Puddle thinking.

imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact, it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this World was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
Finally you guys are getting into what I mentioned back on page 8.

You all are trying to separate things that can't be separated as such.

The real question is: where does order and change come from? What chooses? What interprets/observes? If you say something like chaos theory, where did its order/ability come from, etc.

That's my point.

It can't be separated and there's no evidence of an objective material reality independent of consciousness.

a reply to: neoholographic

How can you speak about things outside of the mind at all? You are not being clear on what you are saying you know and believe.

Either realness exists beyond the mind, or only the mind is real.

You appeared to be saying that only the mind is real.

So then why are you talking about any science, or information or anything? This makes no sense...

You are saying your mind by opening your eyes invents realness outside of it?

Or invents realness inside of it?

You can imagine a rock turning into a sandwich and eating it? There is no rock, there is no sandwich?

All you are saying is, you think therefore you are, so you dont care about anything other than that, nothing else is real, so what are you talking about?

Why dont you with your mind transform into a dragon and fly away?

a reply to: GetHyped

You said:

Puddle thinking.

Sadly for you, this isn't the case. I have made sure I have listed the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that supports my claim. If you're late to the thread, I suggest you go back and read my post.

Puddle Thinking comes from materialist. I wouldn't even say Puddled but Muddled Nonsense when it comes to materialism because there's no physical basis to support their notions which I have also backed up with SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Lol! Congratulations, you have stumbled upon the eternal tautological axiom of reality.

I didn't stumble upon anything just now. I really hope you don't actually think you are some kind of oracle here.

So how is this an argument against consciousness? Like I said, you always have this problem wether you think the universe is simply material, or driven by consciousness.

a reply to: ImaFungi

It's no surprise that you haven't presented any Scientific Evidence to support what you're saying. You said:

You are saying your mind by opening your eyes invents realness outside of it?

Where did I say this?

Quote me.

Not only are you making things up to debate against, you're posting inane ramblings without a shred of Scientific Evidence. Again, you said:

You are saying your mind by opening your eyes invents realness outside of it?

Quote where I said this.

You have saying this nonsense all thread yet you never quote anyone saying these things.

originally posted by: HotMale

So how is this an argument against consciousness? Like I said, you always have this problem wether you think the universe is simply material, or driven by consciousness.

I have never attempted to solve and prove or destroy you and neoholgraphic ignorance with one statement.

Everything I have asked, was the beginning, of a process, the first step, the first question in a series, of a discussion. Which yall, not wanting to head down that road, have obfuscated, distracted, gotten emotional, deflected, ad hominem, etc. as an attempt to not begin the process of discussion down the road.

I ask a question here, make a statement there, and yall begin your hand waving and denouncing. You refuse to play ball. You have your conclusions, they can not be broken, as long as you dont have an honest discussion with me.

You mentioning 'I hope you dont think you are an oracle', goes to show a little about your emotional nature and your ego, and how you care and think others care how they are perceived, as if I am doing anything for any reason other than attempting to embody truth and propagate it.

Like I said, you always have this problem wether you think the universe is simply material, or driven by consciousness.

What problem? I am attempting to do nothing superfluous, besides the occasional emotional quip when it seems I am able to throw it in, never wishing for it to take away from the content of the post, just some icing on the cake.

I take all these statements seriously, and take my time to make the right statements I need to make to progress discussion.

This is important right here. You say 'you always have this problem....'. I dont know exactly what you are referring to, I genuinely want you to tell me the problem you are referring to, with the hope that I can tie in my past thoughts and statements, to shed light on this problem you speak on, and how my understanding of everything I understand relates to my understanding of this problem and why my conclusions differ from yours.

originally posted by: neoholographic


You are saying your mind by opening your eyes invents realness outside of it?

Where did I say this?

Quote me.

Check this out.

What I wrote there. Is the logical counterpart of you saying;

"There is no realness outside of my mind".

That is what a large portion of our argument has been about; whether or not reality exists outside of the mind.

If you agree that reality exists outside of the mind, then we are not arguing about that.

If you state that reality does not exist outside of the mind;

Then you are stating that 'the reality you perceive' is created inside your mind'.

And yes, I realize the pedanticness and subtlety and mis statement on my part, and we must be careful, but this one slip up does not topple my entire argument.

The slip up is me saying; Opening your eyes creates 'realness outside of it'.

And it appears your argument is that; 'there is no such thing as outside' (the mind).

I was saying that original statement under the guise of 'realness outside of it', being the 'perception that there is an outside'.

So we agree that; it seems as if there is an outside, when we open our eyes.

My original highlighted quote at the top of this post, is in reference to the logical counterpart of your stance, that that 'seeming outsideness, which is a seemingly realness, is created when you open your eyes'.

You however believe we are all brains in a vat hooked up to one another or something like this. I dont know, I know you will throw a hissy fit for me making such a relavent assumption which at least analogously equals any of what your stance of belief equates to, which will give you justification of not answering what I am about to say here which is; just state what you do believe.

"No, now I dont want to, because you said brain in a vat, and that is not what I believe, even though anything I would say I believe that relates to the stance I have been arguing from is equatable analogously to that concept, wah"..

Real mature... unscientific unscientific unscientific unscientific unscientific unscientific unscientific

a reply to: ImaFungi

What problem?

Omg, is there anything that you don't take out of context. I was obviously refering to to the problem you were describing, that something had to come from something, or from nothing. I wan't talking about a personal problem.

Jeez, I am so done with you again.

Goodday.

originally posted by: HotMale
a reply to: ImaFungi

What problem?

Omg, is there anything that you don't take out of context. I was obviously refering to to the problem you were describing, that something had to come from something, or from nothing. I wan't talking about a personal problem.

Jeez, I am so done with you again.

Goodday.

I genuinely dont know if this is irony or not.

I was speaking about the problem you were referring to...

I was anticipating you doing something like this, so I was prepping by saying how genuinely serious I was about my ignorance of the problem you were speaking of, and my desire to know the problem you were speaking of. I was afraid if I asked you to clarify on the problem you were speaking of, that you would not do so, so I attempted to prep my innocence, in that I truly just wanted to continue discussion and for you to tell me the problem you were referring to.

Lol.


"This is important right here. You say 'you always have this problem....'. I dont know exactly what you are referring to, I genuinely want you to tell me the problem you are referring to, with the hope that I can tie in my past thoughts and statements, to shed light on this problem you speak on, and how my understanding of everything I understand relates to my understanding of this problem and why my conclusions differ from yours. "

I knew you were speaking about scientific/philosophy of science problem that tied into the discussion we were having. Can you knowing this now, read what I wrote in that post, and see that I was just trying to stress how much I wanted to keep talking about on this path, and that I wanted you to highlight the problem you referenced. I was afraid if I just asked you to do so you might not have, so I attempt to preemptive, which I suppose that is irony, caused what I desired not to be caused.

a reply to: ImaFungi

I would think of it not as everything exists in the mind but more like the mind is fundamental to all that does exist.

Just as you cannot have water without hydrogen and oxygen: reality is physical (body) spiritual (will/exerted will/force) and soul (awareness/consciousness/psyche).

You need consciousness to determine the will of the body.

Exerted will=force

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: ImaFungi

I would think of it not as everything exists in the mind but more like the mind is fundamental to all that does exist.

Just as you cannot have water without hydrogen and oxygen: reality is physical (body) spiritual (will/exerted will) and soul (awareness/consciousness/psyche).

You need consciousness to determine the will of the body.

Thanks but we wouldnt assume your beliefs are identical to OP, and he was stating quite extreme and definite beliefs, and if yours differ from his which they seem to, then I dont think you and I are arguing over the same points or anything.

a reply to: ImaFungi

He said the point he was making is that it cant be separated.

I just put it into terms that could be understood.

But you're right, Idk what his analogy would be, but I understand what he is trying to convey in a sense, how they aren't separate things - that is, force, consciousness, and matter aren't separable.

What does consciousness and forces look like? It looks like matter. How does matter and consciousness behave? Like forces. How are matter and forces perceived/observed/manifest? By consciousness/like consciousness.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: ImaFungi

He said the point he was making is that it cant be separated.

I just put it into terms that could be understood.

That is a contention of knowledge, not a contention of Truth.

He is saying;

We can only know what we can know.

But why would we be forced to 'know' that there can be no thing that exists, that we do not know about?

Which is what my statements refer to on the top of page 8.

You cannot prove that matter does not exist beyond your perception of it.

You can only prove that you do not perceive anything.

You proving that you do not perceive anything, is not proof that nothing exists.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of absolute lack.


He is saying; I can only know what I know and can know.

From that statement, he cannot prove that anything exists beyond his knowledge, but he also cannot disprove it.

When he closes his eyes, he can say "It appears to me as if no reality exists"

But he cannot say "I know that no reality exists"

He cannot say "it is impossible for material reality to exist".

He cannot say "It is definite that material reality does not exist".

(yes, he can say these things, but he cannot be correct in saying them, he cannot say them with justification or proof)

Imagine this hypothetical; Imagine that a material reality really does exist beyond a persons mind.

Since these are the 2 opposing views we are arguing, we deserve to consider the nature of both.

I am stating, it is possible for material to exist. So lets consider what that would mean in relation to his statements.

Our opposing argument is; 'Material reality does not exist beyond the mind' Vs. 'Material reality exists beyond the mind'.


His argument is; "How can I know material reality exists beyond the mind, unless the mind knows material reality exists beyond the mind? How can I prove material reality exists, if the only way I can prove is by seeing, so if I do not see, I cannot say anything exists. If i see nothing, I can only say nothing exists".

Lets imagine material reality does exist.

Cant we see how his argument immediately fails. Assuming material reality exists, he would be closing his eyes, declaring; "I see nothing, therefore I know that nothing exists", and he would be wrong.

Our position is to consider everything we can possibly know about ourselves and our existence in reality, and consider which scenario is more likely to be truth; That no reality exists but the inside of mind. Or that reality exists and minds are but a part of it.