What is Decoherence?

originally posted by: neoholographic


Show me with SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that what you perceive as something has an objective existence outside of your perception.

Show me with SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that something does not exist beyond what you are able to perceive.

We are arguing over 2 possibilities.

Do you agree that there are only 2 possibilities;

A) Only minds exist. (which is what you seem to believe)

B) Stuff exists, and minds exist.

Do you agree that I am arguing for B, and you are arguing for A?

Can we establish some notion of agreement on what we are even arguing about?

You are arguing; Only minds exist. Yes?

a reply to: ImaFungi

I have shown evidence throughout this thread.

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

arxiv.org...

Subjective Universe using the math of Quantum Theory



The fine tuning of the universe and the vacuum catastrophe.





Recent article about these problems including how a bunch of material universes have no physical basis.

Cosmic Confusion: Talk of Multiverses and Big Errors in Astrophysics

www.space.com...

This is just some of the evidence presented on this thread. THERE'S NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT SAYS AN OBJECTIVE PHYSICAL REALITY OUTSIDE OF OUR CONSCIOUSNESS EXISTS.

What is non locality made of?

What are quantum states made of?

What is the wave function made of?

What is an observation made of?

What is information made of?

What is math made of? Is math objective?

Now let's present the Scientific Evidence you have presented on this thread:

NOTHING

a reply to: neoholographic

What a big surprise, you ignored the significant aspect of my post. If you were confident in your stance you wouldnt be afraid of my questions, if you were honest with yourself and me you would see that you were being dishonest with yourself and me. But none of what I just said matters at all, so dont get emotional, and resist the desire to get emotional for me to having said that too, and that, and this. Because what I am about to say is all that is important in this post.

Do you agree that there are only 2 possibilities;

A) Only minds exist. (which is what you seem to believe)

B) Stuff exists, and minds exist.

You are arguing; Only minds exist. Yes?

You are arguing that only minds exist, yes?

Is it true that you are arguing that only minds exist? Yes?

a reply to: ImaFungi

Again, back to no Scientific Evidence. You said:

B) Stuff exists, and minds exist.

What's stuff? Give me the scientific definition of stuff. Exactly what stuff are you talking about and where's the scientific evidence that shows this stuff exists.

Your problem is, you're debating on a Science forum and nothing you say has anything to do with Science. Like I said in the last post.

Now let's present the Scientific Evidence you have presented on this thread:

NOTHING

originally posted by: neoholographic

What's stuff? Give me the scientific definition of stuff.

That which is not nothing.

My turn, for you to answer my question;

You are arguing; Only minds exist. Yes?

You are arguing that only minds exist, yes?

Is it true that you are arguing that only minds exist? Yes?

a reply to: ImaFungi

You said:

That which is not nothing.

Can you point me to the scientific journal or experiment that defines this stuff and that shows this stuff has an existence independent of consciousness?

What do you mean by nothing? Where's the scientific evidence that nothing exists?

The simple idea of nothing, a concept that even toddlers can understand, proved surprisingly difficult for the scientists to pin down, with some of them questioning whether such a thing as nothing exists at all.

"Is that really nothing?" he asked."There's no space and there's no time. But what about physical laws, what about mathematical entities? What about consciousness? All the things that are non-spatial and non-temporal."

www.livescience.com...

So again, you haven't presented a shred of scientific evidence to support anything you're talking about. You talk about stuff and nothing and it has nothing to do with this thread that's in the Science Forum not the inane ramblings forum.

a reply to: ImaFungi

I would agree with you but you are not expressing yourself accurately enough.

Think about it like physicality is made of consciousness and will, consciousness is made of will and physicality, and will is made of consciousness and physicality.

These words are the physicality to my will and awareness. What formed them was my awareness/concepts/consciousness/observation of my will. That is, these words are the images of my awareness of my will.

words / body = physicality
awareness / consciousness = observer
will = forces

Physicality is the object of conscious desire.

It is like asking which came first, a creator or his creation? You should see that he was not a creator until he created. Same with chicken and the egg... the chicken and the egg are one.

You want to say consciousness emerged from physicality and neographic wants to say physicality emerged from consciousness, but as you know, there is no nothing, and so consciousness must have always existed as something - it did not come from nothing - they are the same thing, and consciousness' origin is always...

You must have consciousness to determine will/spirit/forces, that is, to see/translate/observe/objectify them.

Your words are your conception/awareness of your forces/desire/will to reproduce your conception of forces as physicality/words.

It is just that 1 thing in an infinite loop. Like going from green to yellow on a spectrum and then finally seeing there is only 1 color and infinite shades. There is just 1 will to produce 1 consciousness of 1 image. Reality is 1 thing. The "separation" is in desiring to see something else.

There is no nothing to separate you and your keyboard or you from me or you from all of existence. It just does not exist as you are trying to see it.

At the very very very bottom you have images of will produced by consciousness. images = physicality/form, will = forces / energy, consciousness = observer / orderer / translator. And they are one.

But with that said, yes, I kind of agree with you in a sense.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: neoholographic
Everything I say, I have a scientific basis for it and I present the evidence. This is a Scientific Forum. Again, we're not here to debate your subjective opinion that leads to nowhere.

Oh give me a break, you posit consciousness existed before the Earth did, and there's no scientific evidence for that. That belief is religion, not science.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: ImaFungi

Under normal circumstances Photons can be accelerated beyond 186,000 miles per second.

Your source doesn't say that.

Relativity prohibits massive objects from traveling at c. Their paper doesn't solve that problem, it still says traveling at the speed of light is impossible for a massive object. What they point out is that relativity doesn't prohibit faster than c explicitly, only traveling AT c. Since nobody knows how to get from less than c to greater than c without passing through the impossible c, that's the logic behind why people often say relativity forbids faster than c but their paper says relativity doesn't really doesn't forbid faster than c specifically. I wrote a paper along these lines for my science class when I was 16, but I don't think my science teacher understood it. He gave me an A anyway.

I was not suggesting at all that I thought this is wrong, "Relativity prohibits massive objects from traveling at c."

To some extent there seem to be misunderstandings as to the intent of a post.

We should move to correct that.

Any thoughts?

originally posted by: neoholographic

What do you mean by nothing? Where's the scientific evidence that nothing exists?

Nothing does not exist. Thats the meaning of the word.

But, there is a sense that nothing does exist. In the truest essence of dimensionality. An infinitely spatial realm of nothing must "exist" but the only way in which it 'exists' is by 'not existing'.

Nothing is nothing. Nothing is No thing.

Prior to notions of 'space' being 'something'. 'space' must be 'nothing'. Any something that exists must exist 'in' 'nothing' space.

The greatest and highest and most necessary truth is the fact of something and nothingness.

If we cannot agree that there is a difference between something and nothing, then we cannot speak, because you lose the totality of little credibility you had.


My turn, for you to answer my question;

You are arguing; Only minds exist. Yes?

You are arguing that only minds exist, yes?

Is it true that you are arguing that only minds exist? Yes?

a reply to: neoholographic

Do you believe there is quantitative infinity of substance that exists right now? (you cannot answer yes, because that is impossible)

So you will be forced to believe that there is always a finite quantity of substance that exists at all times, which means if one were to zoom out away from the location at which the totality of substance exists, zoom out times a billion times quadrillion to the quadrillionth power to the quadrillionth power to the quadrillionath power etc. in any direction from any location amidst the total quantity of non nothing, and eventually you will arrive in 'an area' which contains no non nothing, and this area, and all the area surrounding it for infinite increments of distance will be pure nothingness.

This is the axiomatic fact and ultimate truth of reality. The difference between something and nothing. It is impossible for at one time or any time, for there to exist infinite total quantity, that is a contradictory and impossible notion. Therefore there can only ever be, and only ever is, a finite quantity of that which exists. Now even if the universe is a computer program or whatever, it still ultimately would require some sort of space and time, in order for even the illusion of succession to take place. In order for there to be difference at all between 'that which exists' there needs to be space, there needs to be a nothing space. Even if 'defined physical space' is fields and stuff and quark soup and quantum foam, all that stuff exists in relation to an ultimate 'nothing space'.

The difference between something and nothing.

Deny it and you are wrong.

Accept it and we can continue your discussion.

Nothing is nothing.

An example of the truest perfect nothing would be if only nothing existed. No minds, no information, no stuff, no potential. That is the definition of nothing.

Something exists. It is true there is not only nothing.

But something exists 'amidst', 'on top', 'within', a 'backdrop' or foreground, or total ground, or absent ground, of nothing.

Imagine all that existed were 5 baseballs. The baseballs represent something. They would exist 'amidst nothing'. The nothing would be 'real', in the sense that there would be a difference between 1 baseball being 1 inch from another baseball and 1 mile from another baseball. Ignoring theories of substantial fields. In that sense 'nothing' is real, necessary, and unavoidable. But its realness, is only in the fact that it is nothing, it does not exist.

You can ad hominem this as much as you want, you will just be a barking dog, a monkey shrugging its shoulders at skyscrapers.

a reply to: neoholographic

I will ask you these questions, if you do not answer them honestly, game over, you lose, you are scared to be proven wrong, because your beliefs are provably wrong, if you were not scared, you would just answer my questions. If you knew you were right, you would answer my questions, because doing so could not jeopardize your correctness.

What created the earth?

How does the earth exist?

What is the earth made of?

If everyone closed their eyes where would the earth go?

How do minds create the earth?

How do minds exist?

What are minds made of?

Are minds made of parts which are in themselves mindless?

What created those parts?

Do you think it is impossible for material to exist beyond minds?

Why would it be impossible for material to exist beyond minds?

Do you think it is impossible for material to have always existed, and then minds arise into existence after?

Why would that be technically impossible?

a reply to: ImaFungi

More babble without a shred of scientific evidence. You look desperate. You said:

I will ask you these questions, if you do not answer them honestly, game over, you lose, you are scared to be proven wrong, because your beliefs are provably wrong, if you were not scared, you would just answer my questions. If you knew you were right, you would answer my questions, because doing so could not jeopardize your correctness.

This is just nonsense that has nothing to do with Science or the thread. I'll answer your questions with one respone. You said:

Why would it be impossible for material to exist beyond minds?

I have shown evidence throughout this thread.

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

arxiv.org...

Subjective Universe using the math of Quantum Theory



The fine tuning of the universe and the vacuum catastrophe.





Recent article about these problems including how a bunch of material universes have no physical basis.

Cosmic Confusion: Talk of Multiverses and Big Errors in Astrophysics

www.space.com...

This is just some of the evidence presented on this thread. THERE'S NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT SAYS AN OBJECTIVE PHYSICAL REALITY OUTSIDE OF OUR CONSCIOUSNESS EXISTS.

What is non locality made of?

What are quantum states made of?

What is the wave function made of?

What is an observation made of?

What is information made of?

What is math made of? Is math objective?

Now let's present the Scientific Evidence you have presented on this thread:

NOTHING

Here's your chance to present some Scientific Evidence in the Science Forum. All you have to do is show it's scientifically possible for materialism to explain anything.

The Vacuum Catastrophe, the Axis of Evil in Cosmology or why can't Scientist find naturalness where it's predicted? Again, I'm not debating your inane ramblings devoid of any Science. If you want to debate, present some Science to back your assertions or refute mine.

originally posted by: neoholographic


Why would it be impossible for material to exist beyond minds?

I have shown evidence throughout this thread.

NO, YOU HAVE SHOWN HOW IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DETECT MATERIAL WITHOUT DETECTING MATERIAL.

I ASKED YOU;

WHY WOULD IT BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR MATERIAL TO EXIST?

THEORETICALLY,

GIVE A STATEMENT, THAT SUGGESTS,

WHY WOULD IT BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR MATERIAL TO EXIST?

WE HAVE ALL HEARD TIME AND TIME AGAIN;

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO DETECT MATERIAL IF I DO NOT DETECT MATERIAL

DUH!!!!!!!!!!

NOW, ATTEMPT ONE MINISCULE THOUGHT, AS TO WHY IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR MATERIAL TO EXIST

a reply to: neoholographic

BECAUSE YOU WILL BE UNABLE TO EVEN ATTEMPT AN ARGUMENT THAT SUGGESTS WHY IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR MATERIAL TO EXIST;

YOU CANNOT SAY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT MATERIAL EXISTS;

YOU CANNOT SAY MATERIAL DOES NOT EXIST

YOU CAN ONLY SAY YOU DO NOT DETECT MATERIAL OR YOU DO

THIS IS ONLY INFORMATION ABOUT YOU

THIS IS NOT INFORMATION ABOUT THE POTENTIAL REALITY THAT EXISTS BEYOND YOU

IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE THAT REALITY EXISTS BEYOND YOU THAT YOU CANNOT DETECT

SO WE ARE LEFT TO ARGUE OVER LIKELIHOODS AND PROBABILITIES

YOUR STANCE IS THAT IT IS MORE LIKELY AND MORE PROBABLE THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT SOMETHING EXISTS

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT STANCE

YOU PROVE YOURSELF FALSE BY UTTERING IT

a reply to: ImaFungi

Calm down. I know you're all over the place without any SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE but you chose to come to the science forum with inane ramblings and not a shred of scientific evidence to support your ramblings. You said:

WHY WOULD IT BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR MATERIAL TO EXIST?

Where did I say this? Quote me.

I said there's no evidence of an objective material universe independent of consciousness. I said it's not possible for science to explain many if not most things in Science with a materialist interpretation and I have laid out SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE throughout this thread.

You haven't presented ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE in a Scientific forum. Not one shred. If you think it's possible to explain these things scientifically through materialism, let's see the evidence.

It's like your IMMUNE TO SCIENCE in the Science forum????????????????

originally posted by: neoholographic


Why would it be impossible for material to exist beyond minds?

I have shown evidence throughout this thread.

a reply to: neoholographic

ALL MY KNOWLEDGE IS SUPPORTED BY SCIENCE.

STOP REPEATING YOUR SAME IGNORANT STATEMENTS OVER AND OVER.

I HEARD YOU THE FIRST TIME. THE DRAGON SONG VIDEO YOU POSTED WAS FALSE THE FIRST TIME YOU POSTED IT.

I GET YOUR STANCE, IT IS SIMPLE AND OBVIOUS TO GET,

SOCRATES DECLARED IT A FEW THOUSAND YEARS AGO; I ONLY KNOW THAT I KNOW NOTHING

DESCARTES DECLARED IT SOME TIME AFTER; I THINK THEREFORE I AM

YOU ARE SAYING NOTHING NEW

ALL MY KNOWLEDGE IS SUPPORTED BY SCIENCE

EVERYTHING I HAVE SAID HAS BEEN RELEVANT

IF YOU WERENT AFRAID TO ATTEMPT TO ANSWER ALL MY QUESTIONS, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THAT THEY ALL LEAD TO SCIENTIFIC PROVABLE CONCLUSIONS, THE ONLY REASON I THINK THEY ARE IMPORTANT, AND DESIRE TO ASK THEM.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: HotMale

Watch these videos and will discuss them.

Slightly off topic, well the video is on-topic but my question about it isn't, where is her accent from? She sounds like someone who grew up in Australia then moved to America, or are there parts of Australia with an accent like that?

originally posted by: neoholographic
What's stuff? Give me the scientific definition of stuff. Exactly what stuff are you talking about and where's the scientific evidence that shows this stuff exists.

Matter and energy are "stuff". An example would be a photon that left its source 9 billion years ago as we measure time, and strikes a detector on the Hubble Space Telescope. That detection of the photon was an irreversible process and there's a record of the event.

There was no consciousness on Earth when that photon left its source and no consciousness is needed for the telescope imager to detect the photon striking it. There is no consciousness at the Hubble Space Telescope.

The emission and detection occurs without any consciouness.

You can say no conscious person knows that if no conscious person knows that happened, but that irreversible process of emission and detection already occurred. When Hubble transmits its data to Earth, whatever superposition or other quantum interpretation may have existed before the detection has already "collapsed" or otherwise been defined to an irreversible event.

"The emission and detection occurs without any consciousness."

It sounds like you are trying to, "Move the Goal Post".


In order for the data to be interpreted consciousness is necessary.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You said:

Matter and energy are "stuff".

No, matter and energy are matter and energy. I have no idea what someone is talking about that hasn't presented a shred of scientific evidence about anything they have said.

An example would be a photon that left its source 9 billion years ago as we measure time, and strikes a detector on the Hubble Space Telescope. That detection of the photon was an irreversible process and there's a record of the event.

Who measures time? Who are we? Is this "we" conscious? Would of photon exist in this universe if we didn't exist? What kind of telescope? Did consciousness have anything to do with that?

Your whole diatribe depends on consciousness existing. How can any of this occur without consciousness? If consciousness didn't exist there wouldn't be any photon that left a source 9 billion years ago in what CONSCIOUSNESS calls the universe.