Quantum Entanglement shows the universe is a vast simulation

From www.indiana.edu...

Subjective and objective are adjectives that describe two different ways of knowing.

The weight of a bag of groceries is objective, because it can be put one a scale, which shows how many pounds (or kilograms) it weighs. Everyone who reads the scale will agree that a particular bag of groceries weighs 12 pounds.

Subjective knowledge. An individual's subjective experiences are private mental events limited to that one individual who experiences them. Therefore. subjective feelings, etc. can and do differ among people. The grocery bag that weighs 12 pounds will feel subjectively light to an athlete but feel subjectively heavy to someone who avoids physical activity. Or the bag might start out feeling medium light on the six-block walk home. By the time you get home, the same bag feels heavy. In these illustration, something that objectively remains the same weight, feels subjectively light or heavy, depending on the individual and on his/her conditions.

a reply to: Greggers


When the wave function appears to collape,due to it being objectified. Its been observed and then suddenly, the wave function which is travelling at light speed, which gives it a property where its in a time locked state.Then How can it actually collapse because its time locked and not in our Uniiverse,its state is one without time, and if thats so, it has no dimension. Dosn't this suggest some sort of concious involvment in making sense of an objectified Universe. Dosn't it smell like, the wave collapse is being interpreted as a wave collapse,when no such thing could have occured.

a reply to: Greggers

I don't know if you're being obtuse or you really don't understand.

PHILOS. of or having to do with the perception or conception of a thing by the mind as opposed to its reality independent of the mind

Relating to the real nature of something; essential.

www.yourdictionary.com...

Let me put it in a sentence.

I thought the universe was an objective reality but when I found out it was just a small part of something much larger, I came to the conclusion that what we call objective reality is just a subjective experience.

Now, anyone with half a brain can understand that.

I think you're trying to argue this point because you have no other argument.

There's even papers that use subjective in this context.

Subjective Universe

We show that by using quantum theory the subjective experience, including that of observing the representation of the universe, is what exists. This is called the 'Subjective Universe'. In particular, we discuss this concept based on two parts of quantum theory, namely, unitary evolution and measurement.

arxiv.org...

Like I said, you have to have half a brain to not understand the context at which I'm using the word.

I'm trying to argue the point because it's the ONLY point of yours that I have a problem with. And we've been going on and on for a couple of pages now, when it's really clear that you just don't know what these words mean.

I even gave you a definition, which you continue to ignore.

Empirical observations are objective, per the definition I provided you above. The University of Indiana definition of "Objective" makes the same statement about the weight of the bag that I made about the measurement of the photon.

Empirical measurements are not subjective.

By the way, the guy in that video is using the term incorrectly.

a reply to: Greggers


To an athlete the recoil of a 44 magnum revolver could very well be manageable while the same event to that one who does not engage in physical activity, could easily result in a broken nose and potentially even worst.

These are not subjective experience they are measurable and consistent objectively.

At issue is a philological as opposed to an emotional response to a stressor like in the case of PTSD or not developing the same problem when confronted with exactly the same stressor.


Even then to reason that the response if purely a subjective one?

At best is a generalization that could very well be wrong all things considered.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Greggers


When the wave function appears to collape,due to it being objectified. Its been observed and then suddenly, the wave function which is travelling at light speed, which gives it a property where its in a time locked state.Then How can it actually collapse because its time locked and not in our Uniiverse,its state is one without time, and if thats so, it has no dimension. Dosn't this suggest some sort of concious involvment in making sense of an objectified Universe. Dosn't it smell like, the wave collapse is being interpreted as a wave collapse,when no such thing could have occured.

To be clear, QM doesn't call it a wave collapse. It calls it a "wave function" collapse. I make this distinction because the wave is a mathematical wave of probabilities, and Niels Bohr claimed that's all it was, and that the universe would yield no greater insight into the matter because it didn't exist.

Lots of people have claimed that our universe is determined by consciousness, and I even think experiments like the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser strongly suggest it's true. However, just to be clear, that doesn't make reality subjective.

Double.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Greggers


To an athlete the recoil of a 44 magnum revolver could very well be manageable while the same event to that one who does not engage in physical activity, could easily result in a broken nose and potentially even worst.

These are not subjective experience they are measurable and consistent objectively.

At issue is a philological as opposed to an emotional response to a stressor like in the case of PTSD or not developing the same problem when confronted with exactly the same stressor.


Even then to reason that the response if purely a subjective one at best is a generalization that could very well be wrong.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying. But the basic idea, per the definition at the link I provided, is that objective experiences are an empirical reality that will be shared by everyone, whereas subjective experiences are dependent upon the individual.

So, force of the recoil of the gun is OBJECTIVE because it can be measured independently of any human.

But the way the human reacts is dependent upon the individual, and therefore subjective.

Now, to be honest, I'm more accustomed to seeing the word subjective defined even more narrowly than the link I provided, where subjective things are about "emotions, feelings, impressions, valuations, and the like."

What I'm saying is that I agree with what you're saying. The person's level of physical fitness, for example, all consists of things that can be measured.

a reply to: Greggers

That guy is a Theoretical Physicist with published papers LOL.

You sound riduculous. You do know that words have multiple meanings and I gave you the clear definition as to what I was talking about when I first made the statement.

I gave you definitions and context that a blind man could see but you still don't get it. Why? I have no idea.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Greggers

That guy is a Theoretical Physicist with published papers LOL.

You sound riduculous. You do know that words have multiple meanings and I gave you the clear definition as to what I was talking about when I first made the statement.

I gave you definitions and context that a blind man could see but you still don't get it. Why? I have no idea.

Oh, I get it alright. I can tell you one thing: the guy isn't an English major.

You do realize that objective and subjective are words in the English language with dictionary definitions, right?

What he's essentially describing is a multi-verse. The fact that multiple realities exist does not make the experiences within each of them subjective.

Remember, subjective = dependent upon the individual. It's actually more granular even than that (as I mentioned above), but we'll go with this because it illustrates the point most cleanly.

I'm still waiting for a definition of subjective that fits the criteria you've laid out. I do not see it in any dictionary.

Can you point me to this dictionary?

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Greggers

That guy is a Theoretical Physicist with published papers LOL.

You sound riduculous. You do know that words have multiple meanings and I gave you the clear definition as to what I was talking about when I first made the statement.

I gave you definitions and context that a blind man could see but you still don't get it. Why? I have no idea.

Oh, I get it alright. I can tell you one thing: the guy isn't an English major.

You do realize that objective and subjective are words in the English language with dictionary definitions, right?

What he's essentially describing is a multi-verse. The fact that multiple realities exist does not make the experiences within each of them subjective.

Remember, subjective = dependent upon the individual. It's actually more granular even than that (as I mentioned above), but we'll go with this because it illustrates the point most cleanly.

LOL, the hubris on this guy!!

So now he doesn't know English??

He's talking about quantum theory. Did you even understand what he's talking about?

Again, there's different meanings to the word subjective and I listed the definitions and context I was using. I see you didn't respond to those definitions. You act like the word can only have one meaning and can only be used in one context.

Why does the choice of the observer matter at all if the universe is objective? When you look at things like the free will theorum and other experiments, they clearly show that an observer has a choice to measure say spin, angular momentum or some other observable. Why does the observers subjective choice have any meaning? Where is this objective reality prior to the choice of the observer?

Ah, never mind. I'm going to bed. This is silly. And I'm quite sure you agree, so there's no reason to go for the cheap points by quoting this bit of text and giving a cheeky reply, unless of course you really, really want to.

Here's my final word.

I never had a problem with the basic premise of your post. I had a simple semantic issue with the use of the word subjective, because when most people hear that word, they do not define it the way this particular presenter defines it. Ordinarily I'm not such a pedant, but in this case, there are other papers published elsewhere that make unfounded claims like "QM proves there is no objective reality," which makes it sound like the whole world exists only in one's head, and *some* of these papers say EXACTLY that.

Now, there are schools of philosophy that make this claim (solipsism comes to mind), but in no way is solipsism proven by Quantum Theory. The idea that reality exists only in the mind remains as philosophical (and unscientific) as ever, and claims to the contrary are exactly the type of Quantum Woo mentioned in the video I posted.

So, I now understand that's not the point you were making when you claimed the universe was subjective. You are using the word very differently than any of its dictionary definitions. But that's fine, as now I know what you mean, and in that context, I don't disagree with your points.

I went back and read your earlier post and saw this definition: of or having to do with the perception or conception of a thing by the mind as opposed to its reality independent of the mind.

That definition is correct, and it's the same one I've been using (phrased differently, but similar in spirit). I personally wouldn't have used it as you did in your example sentence, but again, the debate isn't worth all this.

This always was a simple semantic squabble.

Double.

Triple post.

a reply to: Greggers

Again:

4. existing only as perceived and not as a thing in itself

www.collinsdictionary.com...

The universe as percieved isn't the sum of reality.

It's really that simple. Subjective(percieved) universe.

You said:

I said the measurement of the particle was objective.

How can it be objective when it depends on the subjective choice of the observer? Here's more;

Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, quantum experiment confirms

www.sciencealert.com...

Do subatomic particles have free will?

www.sciencenews.org...

Again I ask, if our universe is an objective reality why does the measurement of a particle depend on our subjective choice?

“We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but
nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
― Werner Heisenberg

If our universe is this objective reality, then why does our method of questioning even matter?

a reply to: LetsGoViking

if this is a simulation then what role do psychedelics play ! are they back door codes or something left by programmers trying to give the game away or something

I was hoping we could drop this, which is why I deleted my last two posts, although in those posts I addressed much of what you're discussing here.

Do you REALLY want to keep arguing about the meaning of the word subjective?

Listen, the definitions you provided all agree with what I was saying, not with the way you're using the word.

For example:

4. existing only as perceived and not as a thing in itself
Once measured by the observer, the measurement exists as a thing in itself, not only as perceived by the individual. So this definition agrees with me, not you. When the wave function collapses, it collapses the same for everyone capable of observing it. Therefore, the measurement is OBJECTIVE.

Yes, there is some serious black-box strangeness going on with regard to the awareness of the observer, but this does not make it SUBJECTIVE. It would only be SUBJECTIVE if each person looking at the sensor saw something DIFFERENT based upon some internal process of their individual being, which is NOT the case.

The universe as percieved isn't the sum of reality.

Of course it's not. I wonder if you even know what you're saying here.

It's really that simple. Subjective(percieved) universe.

Subjective does not mean perceived.

How can it be objective when it depends on the subjective choice of the observer?

For the same reason your weight is objective, even though it's your choice whether or not (or when) to get on a scale. For the same reason EVERY empirical measurement is OBJECTIVE.

Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, quantum experiment confirms

I am well aware of this idea and have studied it extensively. Although I disagree with the main thesis of this article (as is typical of pop-culture articles about QM), it's not worth arguing about because it has nothing to do with weather what is measured is objective or subjective.

Do subatomic particles have free will?

That's a loaded question I could go on for days about. Since I know you don't like my long-winded posts, I won't do that. But suffice to say that it is not directly related to the definitions of these two words.

Again I ask, if our universe is an objective reality why does the measurement of a particle depend on our subjective choice?

It doesn't really. The measurement is RANDOM based upon the weighted average of the wave-function. The observer chooses when to measure, and how to measure, which will impact the outcome, in the same way that observer choices will effect every empirical observation in the universe. This does not make them SUBJECTIVE based upon your OWN definitions, because those measurements EXIST outside the observer, where they are freely visible as the same VALUE to everyone who bothers to look.

“We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself but
nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
― Werner Heisenberg

True. But irrelevant.

If our universe is this objective reality, then why does our method of questioning even matter?

Are you suggesting that the weight of a bag of potatoes will be different depending upon the way one measures? Based upon whether he uses a digital scale or an analog scale? Different methods of questioning will yield different answers, but only inasmuch as they are different approximations of the actual, objective measurement.

There are PLENTY of subjective things in the universe, including the decision about which things are important enough to measure. But the measurements themselves are OBJECTIVE.

Your own definitions make this VERY clear.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: LetsGoViking

if this is a simulation then what role do psychedelics play ! are they back door codes or something left by programmers trying to give the game away or something

Maybe! LOL.

a reply to: Greggers

In your opinion, is it accurate (or approaching accuracy) to say that human measurement does not create or influence reality, but has an effect on how reality is perceived through that measurement?