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.

 

The verdict is in objective physical reality doesn't exist

page: 4
47
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2019 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People




so it IS "real" physical reality.


It is, nevertheless, subjective, not objective, because...quantum physics.




The it goes back to what I said before:

"If everything is a hologram, then nothing is a hologram."

That might sound flippant, but it is a pithy way of putting it.

Unless someone can show me something in the universe that is more real than the hypothetically holographic objects around us that we call "real", then those holographic objects are in fact as real as real can possibly get in our universe.


edit on 2/12/2019 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 12 2019 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

You're missing the point. You said:


Unless someone can show me something in the universe that is more real than the hypothetically holographic objects around us that we call "real", then those holographic objects are in fact as real as real can possibly get in our universe.


Yes, those icons as Hoffman calls them are real but nonphysical. That's the whole point of the thread. "Objective Physical Reality doesn't Exist."

In other words, the world that we experience as a solid physical reality is just a projection of information on a 2D surface.

There's now even talk of space-time being a quantum error correcting code like we see in quantum computing.



How Space and Time Could Be a Quantum Error-Correcting Code


As a bonus, researchers hope holographic space-time might also point the way to scalable quantum computing, fulfilling the long-ago vision of Shor and others. “Space-time is a lot smarter than us,” Almheiri said. “The kind of quantum error-correcting code which is implemented in these constructions is a very efficient code.”

So, how do quantum error-correcting codes work? The trick to protecting information in jittery qubits is to store it not in individual qubits, but in patterns of entanglement among many.

As a simple example, consider the three-qubit code: It uses three “physical” qubits to protect a single “logical” qubit of information against bit-flips. (The code isn’t really useful for quantum error correction because it can’t protect against phase-flips, but it’s nonetheless instructive.) The |0⟩ state of the logical qubit corresponds to all three physical qubits being in their |0⟩ states, and the |1⟩ state corresponds to all three being |1⟩’s. The system is in a “superposition” of these states, designated |000⟩ + |111⟩. But say one of the qubits bit-flips. How do we detect and correct the error without directly measuring any of the qubits?

The qubits can be fed through two gates in a quantum circuit. One gate checks the “parity” of the first and second physical qubit — whether they’re the same or different — and the other gate checks the parity of the first and third. When there’s no error (meaning the qubits are in the state |000⟩ + |111⟩), the parity-measuring gates determine that both the first and second and the first and third qubits are always the same. However, if the first qubit accidentally bit-flips, producing the state |100⟩ + |011⟩, the gates detect a difference in both of the pairs. For a bit-flip of the second qubit, yielding |010⟩ + |101⟩, the parity-measuring gates detect that the first and second qubits are different and first and third are the same, and if the third qubit flips, the gates indicate: same, different. These unique outcomes reveal which corrective surgery, if any, needs to be performed — an operation that flips back the first, second or third physical qubit without collapsing the logical qubit. “Quantum error correction, to me, it’s like magic,” Almheiri said.


www.quantamagazine.org...

Again, this is Science not Science-Fiction. You have people like M.I.T. Professor Seth Lloyd who says the Universe is a Quantum Computer.



When you look at the Holographic Universe it tells us 3D volume is an illusion. It's a projection of information on a 2D surface area. Theoretical Physicist Jacob Bekenstein calculated the entropy of a black hole. Of course, everyone thought the entropy of a black hole would be proportional to it's volume.

This wasn't the case. This was a surprising discovery. The entropy of a black hole is proportional to the 2D surface of the event horizon. They then realized that this applies to the entire universe.

Here's an example. Say you have a tub filled with water. Naturally you would think the volume of the tub is filled up with water. This can't be the case. It has to be information on the surrounding 2D surface area projecting what we perceive as a full tub of water.

If it was actually an tub filled with objective, physical water that occupies the volume of the bathtub, it would collapse into a black hole. Why is this the case?

It's because entropy can be converted to information. If you flip a coin, while it's in the air you have 1 bit of entropy or hidden information but it's uncertain. When the coin lands and it's heads or tails, that 1 bit of entropy that was uncertain is now 1 bit of information that's heads or tails.

If space-time is an error correcting code, then these would mean that everything we call physical can just be a holographic simulation of the code of the universe that's hidden and protected by quantum error correction. Subatomic particles could just be pixels on the space-time screen.

This is why you have more Scientist turning to Panpsychism.

Minds Everywhere: 'Panpsychism' Takes Hold in Science


Philosophers have put forward many notions of consciousness. The materialist notion holds that consciousness can be fully explained by the the firing of neurons in the human brain, while mind-body dualism argues that the soul or mind is distinct from, and can potentially outlive, the body. Under the notion of panpsychism, a kind of re-boot of ancient animistic ideas, every speck of matter has a kind of proto-consciousness. When aggregated in particular ways, all this proto-consciousness turns into a sense of inner awareness. And other, Eastern philosophies have held that consciousness is the only real thing in the universe, Kuhn said.

Neuroscientists and many philosophers have typically planted themselves firmly on the materialist side. But a growing number of scientists now believe that materialism cannot wholly explain the sense of "I am" that undergirds consciousness, Kuhn told the audience.


www.livescience.com...

Is the Universe Conscious?


Some of the world's most renowned scientists are questioning whether the cosmos has an inner life similar to our own.

Even in that context, Gregory Matloff’s ideas are shocking. The veteran physicist at New York City College of Technology recently published a paper arguing that humans may be like the rest of the universe in substance and in spirit. A “proto-consciousness field” could extend through all of space, he argues. Stars may be thinking entities that deliberately control their paths. Put more bluntly, the entire cosmos may be self-aware.


www.nbcnews.com...

The universe may be conscious, say prominent scientists


A proto-consciousness field theory could replace the theory of dark matter, one physicist states.


bigthink.com...

Materialism has been a fantasy but it has been blindly used by materialist and atheist in Science in a debate vs. Creationism. So materialism has become just another ism. It's like a Religion. The truth is, it's nonsense.


edit on 12-2-2019 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2019 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Well, the universe has a physical component unless you look really closely at it. You can say there's really no such thing as a waterfall, because if you look closely at it, it's nothing but tiny molecules and clusters of water. So it once again becomes a matter of semantics. If a non-physical anvil drops on my sorry non-physical head, the construct that is my consciousness is still going to be gone and dead. Then it becomes a question of "does it matter?" Which effectively moves the argument into an actual new dimension. A dimension not of sight and sound, but of mind.



posted on Feb, 12 2019 @ 05:46 PM
link   
This is always fun to watch.


originally posted by: neoholographic
Quantum Mechanics clearly tells us an objective physical reality doesn't exist until a measurement occurs.


So your post didn't exist until I read it? Then how did you write it?


originally posted by: neoholographic
Scientist transmitted information from A to B without a physical medium.


Without a KNOWN physical medium. They're pretending the medium doesn't exist. It does. And they will never find it while they're not looking for it. And I suspect that it moves at the speed of light - squared.

You do know that we really can't see gravity? We only observe the effects of gravity. But no one has ever actually seen it. By your logic, gravity doesn't exist. But you let us know what happens when you drop something on your toe.

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, it still makes a sound. There was just no observer.
edit on 12-2-2019 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2019 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

"Here's an example. Say you have a tub filled with water. Naturally you would think the volume of the tub is filled up with water. This can't be the case. It has to be information on the surrounding 2D surface area projecting what we perceive as a full tub of water."

How can a 2D surface surround something, if there is no space? How can something 2D be projected without a third dimension?

I'm a panpsychist, by the way.



posted on Feb, 12 2019 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

There exists a physical realm because I can feel it.



posted on Feb, 12 2019 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic



That is all such BS man. How do you explain shared experiences or the fact that we both see the same thing when we look at a person or stop sign or red light ?



posted on Feb, 12 2019 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

Here's an example. Say you have a tub filled with water. Naturally you would think the volume of the tub is filled up with water. This can't be the case. It has to be information on the surrounding 2D surface area projecting what we perceive as a full tub of water.



This is utter nonsense.

If the tub is full of water, it has to be a measurable amount of water. Water itself is composed of elements, elements are composed of atoms, atoms are composed of protons and neutrons, etc. All of these components must be represented by specific numbers, or else you won't get this particular amount of water (or any amount of water) in this particular tub. Did human beings decide what all these numbers would be ahead of time, in order to produce water? No. Did human beings invent the mathematical truths represented by what we call numbers? An X number of things can never exist unless humans perceive them? There were no planets in our solar system until human beings figured out there were? Water could never exist without us perceiving something as water?

The concept of "water" exists, whether we perceive it or not. If you were to eliminate all water from the planet, would you also eliminate the concept of water? No. Mars had lots of flowing water several billions of years ago and not a single human being was around to observe it.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
The known universe isn’t holograph but what is indefinite. As known it means to have come from a source creation having a calculated result therefore endless in its nature being entirely neutral. Meaning without an opposing force or as such which there is no word for yet.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: CryHavoc

Does the tree make a sound though? That question can’t be answered. There’s probably a word for that.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 12:48 AM
link   
We are here - now. Do you feel my presence? Do you hear our voices? It's physical all the way.




posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: coloneltravis

Not a shred of Scientific evidence to support anything you have said just hyperbole. You said:

If the tub is full of water, it has to be a measurable amount of water.

Show me the evidence that this measurable amount of water is an objective physical reality in light of the work of Hoffman and the the work of Bekenstein in the holographic principle. I don't want to hear your hyperbole but actual evidence that supports your claim.

You said:

Water itself is composed of elements, elements are composed of atoms, atoms are composed of protons and neutrons, etc. All of these components must be represented by specific numbers, or else you won't get this particular amount of water (or any amount of water) in this particular tub. Did human beings decide what all these numbers would be ahead of time, in order to produce water? No.

No, based on what? Did you even read the articles that show Scientist are turning to Panpsychism because materialism can't explain anything. The consciousness of human beings is the same proto consciousness that Scientist are talking about. So yes, Consciousness would be the cause of all experiences that we have. Did you even read the paper by Hoffman on conscious agents? I will post it again in case you skipped that part.

Objects of consciousness


Current models of visual perception typically assume that human vision estimates true properties of physical objects, properties that exist even if unperceived. However, recent studies of perceptual evolution, using evolutionary games and genetic algorithms, reveal that natural selection often drives true perceptions to extinction when they compete with perceptions tuned to fitness rather than truth: Perception guides adaptive behavior; it does not estimate a preexisting physical truth. Moreover, shifting from evolutionary biology to quantum physics, there is reason to disbelieve in preexisting physical truths: Certain interpretations of quantum theory deny that dynamical properties of physical objects have definite values when unobserved. In some of these interpretations the observer is fundamental, and wave functions are compendia of subjective probabilities, not preexisting elements of physical reality. These two considerations, from evolutionary biology and quantum physics, suggest that current models of object perception require fundamental reformulation. Here we begin such a reformulation, starting with a formal model of consciousness that we call a “conscious agent.” We develop the dynamics of interacting conscious agents, and study how the perception of objects and space-time can emerge from such dynamics. We show that one particular object, the quantum free particle, has a wave function that is identical in form to the harmonic functions that characterize the asymptotic dynamics of conscious agents; particles are vibrations not of strings but of interacting conscious agents. This allows us to reinterpret physical properties such as position, momentum, and energy as properties of interacting conscious agents, rather than as preexisting physical truths. We sketch how this approach might extend to the perception of relativistic quantum objects, and to classical objects of macroscopic scale.


www.frontiersin.org...

Also, explain how objective physical water can occupy the volume of space in the bath tub in light of the excellent work of Bekenstein, Susskind and others. This can't be the case because the laws of physics tells us how much information can fit into that volume of space. This limit is determined by a 2D surface area surrounding the volume not the volume itself. If information was proportional to volume, it would collapse into a black hole.

So it doesn't matter if you want to stick your fingers in your ears and stump your feet on the ground because you can't accept this. Here's more:



Susskind at 4:09 in the video.

You said


The concept of "water" exists, whether we perceive it or not. If you were to eliminate all water from the planet, would you also eliminate the concept of water? No. Mars had lots of flowing water several billions of years ago and not a single human being was around to observe it.


First, how do you know microbial life or extraterrestrial life wasn't around before life on earth? More importantly if consciousness is fundamental, then nothing exists as we experience it without conciousness. This is why I talked about this in the OP and throughout the thread presenting evidence not just hyperbole.

Hoffman is very interesting because he showed that an organism that knows the truth of W(world) will go extinct before it reproduces vs. an organism that doesn't know anything about W(world) but is tuned to fitness.


It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.

I think that’s absolutely true. The neuroscientists are saying, “We don’t need to invoke those kind of quantum processes, we don’t need quantum wave functions collapsing inside neurons, we can just use classical physics to describe processes in the brain.” I’m emphasizing the larger lesson of quantum mechanics: Neurons, brains, space … these are just symbols we use, they’re not real. It’s not that there’s a classical brain that does some quantum magic. It’s that there’s no brain! Quantum mechanics says that classical objects — including brains — don’t exist. So this is a far more radical claim about the nature of reality and does not involve the brain pulling off some tricky quantum computation. So even Penrose hasn’t taken it far enough. But most of us, you know, we’re born realists. We’re born physicalists. This is a really, really hard one to let go of.


www.quantamagazine.org...

Here's a clip of Hoffman talking about this on Closer to the Truth.



When you look at things like brain illusions, it's obvious the brain doesn't care about truth but what truth it can construct about the environment.



You stare at the center of the pic and you will start seeing green dots. Here's a list of 17 of these illusions.

www.buzzfeed.com...

The real question is, how do we know that this isn't the truth when we're supposed to be the material brain and nothing more?

For instance, the wheel spinning backwards illusion.



If the material brain thinks it's seeing truth, how do we know the material brain isn't seeing truth if all we are is the material brain? How can we know a truth that the material brain doesn't know?



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 01:57 AM
link   
I think the water in the tub example is pretty accurate being human beings didn’t calculate all the numbers but did create the tub which is an accurate measurement of the water contained. Similar to the brain which is merely a vessel, like a bucket. a reply to: neoholographic


edit on 13-2-2019 by DEPAOR because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 02:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
1. Quantum Mechanics

Quantum Mechanics clearly tells us an objective physical reality doesn't exist until a measurement occurs. This also depends on the knowledge of the observer. This knowledge can be quantified as an increase in entropy. This is also shown in the Free Will Theorem. QM shows that local realism is dead.


100% false. No reason to read the rest when you open up with a blatant lie about quantum mechanics.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Your line about Mars isn’t very accurate but about the concept of water as you call it, take a look at the likes of the Grand Canyon and all the way down on the bottom this little water way. That’s the concept of numbers. The Grand Canyon, an accurate calculated result being the concept of water. a reply to: coloneltravis



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

1. "statements about the past cannot in general be made in quantum-mechinal language...as a general rule, knowledge about the past can only be expressed in classical terms". Lawrence Bragg, joint winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1915, mentioned: "everything in the future is a wave, everything in the past is a particle".

Hmm, I need to stop copy-pasting the same spelling error over and over. It's "quantum-mechanical". I keep on forgetting it whenever I look for where I quoted Dyson the last time on ATS. It's already enough of a big issue in quantum cosmology and theoretical physics (where they constantly do the above, applying quantum-mechanical language to statements about the past, such as the Big Bang in the other thread about a mirror universe) for me not to contribute to the vagueness and confusion regarding the topic of quantum mechanics as well. Although I guess the spelling error is obvious. Safe to say, it's my error in quoting Dyson mentioning something that undermines the careers and exploits of the majority if not all quantum cosmologists that I know of. And shows it's really time for them to start doing something productive rather than having their heads in the clouds of quantum-mechanical fantasy and nonsense (logical incoherency and contradictions/paradoxes, the latter for which the synonyms "mistakes", "errors" "absurdities" and "nonsense" are listed on thesaurus.com, although in different categories of affiliation and similarity).


Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something

Stephen Hawking did the above too, although with another but similar twist in how he uses the word "nothing", see below from 16:13 - 23:04:

And again it involves misapplications of quantum-mechanical language in statements about the past (early) state of the universe, as can be found in his book "The Grand Design" which is discussed above. But my earlier video with Freeman Dyson goes more into that, primarily in the introduction.
edit on 13-2-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Trying to understand your meaning to putting it back in what you wrote, unless you meant literaly but still there’s no such existence of nothing. There was thought to be for quite a while. A child for iinstance at a funeral looking in a hole could be thought of as what nothing is or was but then the child knows more about being a child and birth for instance. The child isn’t thinking there is nothing after death, just kinda looks in the hole. Th

There is one question though.
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

edit on 13-2-2019 by DEPAOR because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 03:02 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Right so if we manifest reality then there are large population of total assholes on earth!



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 03:24 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I'm just going to address time as I've spent a lot of time (lol) researching it and trying to understand these crackpots and their theories:

It's funny to me these people that claim time isn't real and that everything happens all at once. Is obama president and trump too? lol. Of course time exists, and of course in most ways it's a construct of mankind.

What is time?
In the human sense, time is how we differentiate what happens in our experience here. In the physics sense, time is decay.

So what are they claiming doesn't exist? Decay or our construct? In both cases they're veritably wrong. When the universe stops expanding (and they believe time will reverse) will super nova's reverse and reform stars? Will a rotten apple become fresh?

Then there is the absolute bunk that the universe will stop expanding, eventually. The universe is expanding at a greater rate then ever before. So what would stop that from happening? Nothing physics can explain, that's for certain.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Time is order out of chaos, Kronos, Saturn

www.theoi.com...



KHRONOS (Chronos) was the primordial god of time. In the Orphic cosmogony he emerged self-formed at the dawn of creation. Khronos was envisaged as an incorporeal god, serpentine in form, with three heads--that of a man, a bull, and a lion. He and his consort, the serpentine goddess Ananke (Inevitability), enveloped the primordial world-egg in their coils and split it apart to form the ordered universe of earth, sea and sky. After this act of creation the couple circled the cosmos driving the rotation of heaven and the eternal passage of time.


Time is order.







 
47
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join