Quantum Physics says Good-bye to "Reality"

page: 2
36
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 27 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Well science is catching up to ancient knowledge at last. Mind creates reality, not vice versa.

Funny that the material in the following thread is compatible with these new scientific discoveries.

www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Apr, 27 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
BTW, those clips are from the "What the Bleep do we know" series, they're from the movie that's entitled "What the Bleep do we know: Down the Rabbit hole".

There's 2 or 3 different versions of that movie and after seeing the two listed above I'd recommend the Down the Rabbit hole version as the story line between both are nearly identical, this version goes more in depth and contains both of the above listed cartoon "skits" in it.



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 03:45 AM
link   
I don't understand this mind creating reality concept. If a tree falls in the forest it falls anyway, if a human is there to watch it or not.



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSide
I don't understand this mind creating reality concept. If a tree falls in the forest it falls anyway, if a human is there to watch it or not.


What exactly are u basing this argument on?



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSide
I don't understand this mind creating reality concept. If a tree falls in the forest it falls anyway, if a human is there to watch it or not.


Then perhaps there are more observers. Don't forget that as observers we are not only our conscious minds, and that this trait is not exclusive to us humans.



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Heisenberg uncertainty principle is about MEASURING - nothing more - no “special“ role to the observer....no “constructing“ the reality.

QM (Copenhagen Interpretation) of double slit exp.:


posits the existence of probability waves which describe the likelihood of finding the particle at a given location. Until the particle is detected at any location along this probability wave, it effectively exists at every point. Thus, when the particle could be passing through either of the two slits, it will actually pass through both, and so an interference pattern results. But if the particle is detected at one of the two slits, then it can no longer be passing through both—its presence must become manifested at one or the other, and so no interference pattern appears.



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 08:45 AM
link   
We can look at psychology effect of “being observed“ - you may not behave the same way, being alone - or when you are being watched.
There you have “observer effect“.


The future is unpredictable - if we could tell which slit the electron went through each time, there would no longer be the interference pat we see on experiment.

I assume that things are interconnected in Universe - but the proposed idea of “non-locality“ meaning that you can not separate any peace of anything to have existence on there own - well great metaphysical speculation, just need some prove.

[edit on 28-4-2007 by blue bird]



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795

Originally posted by DarkSide
I don't understand this mind creating reality concept. If a tree falls in the forest it falls anyway, if a human is there to watch it or not.


Then perhaps there are more observers. Don't forget that as observers we are not only our conscious minds, and that this trait is not exclusive to us humans.


Well let's take another example. I'm quite positive nothing observed the sun being formed, yet it exists. If life hadn't appeared on earth the sun would still be there.



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Define life, define consciousness. As of yet we don't know the answers to everything, so we can't make any conclusions. We can only assume. What these scientists are claiming, based on their findings is that nothing can exist without consciousness basically. It's consciousness that exists before matter. So for the sun to form and in fact for the big bang to happen, there must've been something observing it (of course if these experiments are correct).

A Dutch scientist has also provided pretty strong evidence that the mind can exist independently of the brain. In other words, if the evidence is true, we don't need the physical body to have a consciousness; and based on this we may have been alive before we were born and will under the same assumption be alive in some form after we die. So this supports the notion consciousness may have existed in some form long life emerged on Earth.

All of this (the assumptions based on this evidence) is not 100% proven yet, but it looks like it's getting there.


[edit on 28-4-2007 by TheBandit795]



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
. What these scientists are claiming, based on their findings is that nothing can exist without consciousness basically. It's consciousness that exists before matter. So for the sun to form and in fact for the big bang to happen, there must've been something observing it (of course if these experiments are correct).


[edit on 28-4-2007 by TheBandit795]


No...objects and events exist, observer just observe them. Observing is not creating. Its all about measuring. Nothing more!



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Well the evidence provided by these scientists isn't really helping your assumption now, isnt it???



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by blue bird
No...objects and events exist, observer just observe them. Observing is not creating. Its all about measuring. Nothing more!


From SoT's article:


Now physicists from Austria claim to have performed an experiment that rules out a broad class of hidden-variables theories that focus on realism -- giving the uneasy consequence that reality does not exist when we are not observing it (Nature 446 871).



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   
The problem to me is that they don't explain why reality seems to only exist when you observe it!



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

From SoT's article:


Now physicists from Austria claim to have performed an experiment that rules out a broad class of hidden-variables theories that focus on realism -- giving the uneasy consequence that reality does not exist when we are not observing it (Nature 446 871).



Or - from the same articel:

" Alain Aspect, a physicist who performed the first Bell-type experiment in the 1980s, thinks the team's philosophical conclusions are subjective."





[edit on 29-4-2007 by blue bird]



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   
That's just his interpretation of the Austrian scientists' experiments. He may or may not be correct though.



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Observing in QP means:that quanta interact in certain ways with other quanta. It is INTERACTIONS - BE OBSERVER THERE OR NOT! These interaction are existing all the time - so our observation depend on them.
We do NOT CREATE them!



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Really interesting posts; so Berkley may have been right after all? amazing. I find it interesting as well that physics, held as the king of science for so long, the bastion of objective reality; has suddenly become an intense questioner of that supposedly objective reality. The issue really is observation and not measurement. Its become blatantly obvious within physics that there is no such thing as an observation that is not inherently creative/interpretive. "Observation" is creation. The Copenhagen interpretation (which I dont think many contemporary physicists actually use any more in its strictest form) the point was precisely that measurement of such tiny matrices is inherently going to contradict itself, the ultimate catch 22. That is why it was called the Uncertainty Principle and this is what upset Einstien. I think of the "what is there when we are not looking thing" as analogous to 3D video games; when you are playing the computer actively constructs your environment for you; however, you know that areas that you (or anyone else) are not in are not in fact being displayed (in order to conserve memory); they reside only in the computer's memory.
Not only that, but they may contain randomized algorithms for events that depend on your interaction (stumbling into that area of play) in order for them to be displayed. So in the computers memory they are real, but only as an algorithm. So there is structure off stage so to speak, but it is a fuzzy structure, not totally defined. Its depends upoon your interaction in order to actualize its specifics.



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   
What about the other experiments (double slit) of the influence of the observer on the wave collapse of electrons? (as mentioned before in this thread). There are more physicists (such as Wheeler) who theorize based on these experiments that observer (aka consciousness) does have a causal effect on the interactions in quantum wave/particles.


Urn

posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   
the thing that alot of people forget is that to observe a sub-atomic particle, we have to bounce another sub-atomic particle off of it, intrfering with, and thus collapsing its wave form...

so, to obsreve it, is to interact with it..

its a bit like a blind man driving a car down the highway. the only way he can observe another vehicle on the road is by smashing his car into it...his process of obsrevation neccecarily interferes with the other vehicle.

the reason things exist wether we are there to observe or not, is because sub-atomic particles are interacting with each other all the time in nature.



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
I have to apologize........(I guess to myself)....you are all a figment of my imagination and don't really exist.


Actually it would mean that I am the totality of existence........


Aren't you the totality of your own existence though? I know I am.





new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join