It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What is reality?

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 4 2002 @ 04:05 PM
I think this is the best place to put this....

I've been reading alot latley(SP?) about the holographic universe theory. To me, it sounds like nothing really exists as physical object's.

Another interesting thing I've read, is that there is no real difference when your awake or asleep... The same brain frequencies occur when your both awake and asleep. But the article said the difference lies in when your awake, you have your senses, but in sleep you don't. The I thought about lucid dream's. In LD's you have your senses as well... So in all respect's...there is no difference.

Then you've got this whole quantum physic's thing that sound's very similar to the HU theory. Which I can't even begin to fully understand
Well...just look at the shrodiener's(SP?) cat thing...

Then there's the experimenter's effect... I think it has something to do with causing the outcome of an experiment without conciously(SP?) doing it...something like that.

Just finnished this article... Here's a quote...

"But we must not forget that our intellect, which finds this order and wonders at it, is directed in the same line of movement that leads to the materiality and spatiality of its object. The more complexity the intellect puts into its object by analyzing it, the more complex is the order it finds there. And this order and this complexity necessarily appear to the intellect as a positive reality, since reality and intellectuality are turned in the same direction."


It all sound's like, nothing exist's the way we think we know it does, but it exist's because we think it exist's. In other word's...we make reality...real.

posted on Dec, 5 2002 @ 07:57 AM

Originally posted by JamesG
It all sound's like, nothing exist's the way we think we know it does, but it exist's because we think it exist's. In other word's...we make reality...real.

That's what I've been saying here (and on the previous board) for the last six or seven months...

posted on Dec, 5 2002 @ 12:30 PM
Well...I don't think I've been that active here...

But with all these thing's science is now comming out with...nearly everything is possible...

Like... I don't believe in god, so for me, in my reality, there is none... nothing that point's to one.

But those that do believe in god, see him, hear him, etc... For them, god is just as 'real' as you and me...

I wonder if we could change our own realities at will...would be neat...and I'd do it in a heartbeat

posted on Dec, 5 2002 @ 03:32 PM
If a Galaxy were for whatever reasons loose all life present within it what would happen?

Probably many would say nothing would happen, the fact that a Galaxy has life. Has nothing to do with the way the Galaxy originally formed its purpose or function.

But what is that was not the case; what if generating life was the purpose and function. This making the purpose of a Galaxy no different from says that of a tree which bears fruit.

Perhaps the reason that life exist on earth is not purely a matter of chance. The fact of the matter is conditions here are ideal and any planet, which exist under the same conditions can form life.
In reality we exist in the present the past and the future are aspects of the reality we observe. In reality the present is a moment, but on what scale does this moment conclude it. Imagine that a million of light years from here there is a planet. On that planet there is a boulder which is standing over a precipice and is held there by a small rock. At this moment the small rock gives way and the boulder falls from its place to the valley beneath it.

This event occurred in the here a now and happened at this moment (in the present). Despite the fact that we do not have the technology to know this. Does not change the fact that it occurred in the present.

What this implies is that what we call a moment is something which concludes itself on the cosmological scale. And as a result the speed of time does present the moment as an event which is limited only by the extent of reality as a whole.

WE are solid, in the present and in reality. The present is a moment in which everything that happens in such an instant happens at once.

What are your thoughts?

posted on Dec, 5 2002 @ 05:16 PM
If we can't even measure the present and at which rate it flow's...or even have a fully concrete theory and knowledge of what time is and is composed of...or it's 'physical' operation's.... Then how are we to know, if a 'moment' is nothing more than a constant creation of the mind?

What science suggest's, all physical matter is nothing more than wave pattern's, intersecting one an other, all vibrating at different frequencies? This mean's, you and I are nothing more than energy...not 'physical' matter, as there is now no such thing... What we percieve as a physical world, is nothing more than wave pattern's bouncing off one another (I think

Our very own quantum physics point's to this very thing... In such a universe, anything and everything is possible...

posted on Dec, 5 2002 @ 07:19 PM
Science suggest that everything that exist presents its existence in regard to Wave and Particles. The only thing we have not ascertained a particle aspect to is time.

I would suggest that in reality time has one.

posted on Dec, 5 2002 @ 07:42 PM
And yet, considering we are creatures of time.... We know very little about it...

Once...It flowed in one direction only...Now it can be stopped and perhap's someday, reversed. So, in reality, time doesn't exist as we've come to know it as...

But...How is it that matter can have both particle (matter), and wave (energy?) like properties? your either a particle or not...

posted on Dec, 5 2002 @ 08:10 PM
Demonstrating Wave-Particle Duality In Photodetection

One feature of quantum theory is that objects should have both particle and wave properties: Things usually encountered as particles, such as electrons or atoms, show their quantum, or nonclassical, nature in the form of wavelike effects.
Conversely, light, which can usually be described by a wave equation, shows its nonclassical side by acting like a particle.

In most optics experiments, even those involving lasers, the light produces only classical effects, which can be described using 19th century electromagnetism. For example, a grocery scanner diode laser emits about 10^15 photons per second. When such a stream encounters a half-silvered mirror, half of the light will be reflected and half transmitted. With so many photons, the individual particle nature is hidden when the photons are detected at photodiodes sitting behind each exit port of the beamsplitter.

If the original laser beam is replaced with a source of single photons, then the story is different: A lone photon might well have an equal chance of going towards either detector, but it will ultimately register in only one -- a sure sign of quantum behavior.

One can probe these issues more deeply by using entangled photon pairs.

Kevin Resch, Jeff Lundeen and Aephraim Steinberg at the University of Toronto send ultraviolet (UV) light into a special crystal in which a single UV photon can produce two red photons in a process called down-conversion.

One of the red photons is vertically polarized and the other is horizontally polarized. The photons can be time-delayed relative to one another by varying the thickness of birefringent material (which can swivel a light wave's orientation) traversed by the photon.

By adjusting the delay between the photons, the researchers were able to change the number of photon pairs emerging from an interferometer without changing the intensity, or brightness, of the beam.

Thanks to the intrinsic nonlinear response of the detectors, this quantum interference effect then became apparent in the counting rate at a single detector -- an effect never before observed -- and not just in the coincidence rate between a pair of photodetectors.

The researchers believe that the ability to observe such nonlinear responses in photodetection at the single photon level may be useful to the study of decoherence in photodetection and for providing an experimental basis for developing a more accurate theoretical description for photodetection.

(Reference: Physical Review A, 1 February 2001.)

(Editor's Note: This article is adapted from PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE, the American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News Number 519, January 4, 2000, by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein.)



Simply stated James even space can be understood from the contex of a substance. Spacetime James is no different

What are your thoughts?

posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 02:36 AM
ive been researching this theory for some time now, and its probabl the most convinving theory on existence if ever heard. im sure if you've researched it you have seen this, but just in case

"In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.

Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.

Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations."


posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 07:21 AM
David Bohm and the implicate order.(Very interesting reading).

The last part of the text gives the best explanation and the source of conlict, violence and war I've seen in a long time... (Idea for a new topic:hey

Bohm believed that the general tendency for individuals, nations, races, social groups, etc., to see one another as fundamentally different and separate was a major source of conflict in the world. It was his hope that one day people would come to recognize the essential interrelatedness of all things and would join together to build a more holistic and harmonious world. What better tribute to David Bohm's life and work than to take this message to heart and make the ideal of universal brotherhood the keynote of our lives.

[Edited on 14-1-2004 by TheBandit795]

posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 09:40 AM
Reality, is what you make it

posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 10:02 AM
Reality is having to find a job when you are unemployed.

posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 10:36 AM
Common misconception...

I know enough unemployed people that have more income than employed people. Other people don't have a job, don't go looking for one. They start something (like a business) themselves.

posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 10:52 AM
Perception is reality. Nothing more, nothing less.

new topics


log in