Science tells us matter doesn't exist

To scientifically prove that matter exists all one needs to do is show some material like a book or a desk. Scientific proof or empirical evidence is specific by definition and is unrelated to that which is philosophical or metaphysical. To ask for proof that there is extra-observable existence is a query into a science/spiritual mixture and missing the point entirely. These two subjects are separate for a reason so an attempt to combine them is an attempt to cancel them both out.

Originally posted by platosallegory
What we know is that matter doesn't exist absent observation....

Our observation brings matter into existence. This is what's shown by science through things like the double slit experiment.
We don't have any observed evidence that matter can exist absent our observation.

This would be false knowledge if anything, it would be correct to say that what we think is that matter doesn't exist outside of our observation since one cannot prove a negative.

Observation and thought create our reality not matter nor existence and there is neither any evidence that things cannot exist outside of our observation.

This is an important question to ponder, it shows how valuable the combined understanding of science, philosophy and metaphysics are IMO.


[edit on 4/22/2009 by Devino]

I have been reading the responses and not 1 published paper or repeated experiment that shows that matter exist absent our perception.

This shows 2 important things.

1. When materialist, debunkers and so called skeptics ask for proof that God or things like psychic ability exists it's meaningless. This is because they can't even prove that matter exists.

2. Science shows us that matter doesn't exist absent of our perception. So any theory that doesn't include the observer as fundamental to reality is incomplete.

So the question becomes does a tree in your backyard exist when it's not being observed? The answer is no.

We know through the EPR paradox that there's not a hidden variable holding the universe in place. So the tree has to be in every state until it's observed. We just can't see the interference pattern because of decoherence.

This is why Einstein asked if the moon was still there if he stopped looking at it.

Unless you introduce a hidden variable you can't show that the moon exists when your not observing it.

Science cannot prove that matter exists.

[edit on 23-4-2009 by platosallegory]

Originally posted by platosallegory

So the question becomes does a tree in your backyard exist when it's not being observed? The answer is no.

We know through the EPR paradox that there's not a hidden variable holding the universe in place. So the tree has to be in every state until it's observed. We just can't see the interference pattern because of decoherence.

This is why Einstein asked if the moon was still there if he stopped looking at it.

Unless you introduce a hidden variable you can't show that the moon exists when your not observing it.

Science cannot prove that matter exists.

[edit on 23-4-2009 by platosallegory]

Exactly.

This is what I was/am trying to get at in my thread when I asked "whats inside my head when nobody's observing?" Is my brain inside my skull when I'm not (I would venture to say that nobody is) looking/observing at my brain?

Thanks for a great thread! Hats off.

CIAO CIAO

Originally posted by platosallegory

2. Science shows us that matter doesn't exist absent of our perception. So any theory that doesn't include the observer as fundamental to reality is incomplete.

So the question becomes does a tree in your backyard exist when it's not being observed? The answer is no.

Science has never shown anything like that; it's all misinterpretation.
BTW, mankind was not around some 20 million years ago and since it couldn't observe a tree, the tree therefore didn't exist. That means the apes that lived in the tree didn't exist either, which in turn means that the evolution of human species never took place and we are not here.

How much more evolutionary time is needed before the human brain would be able to distinguish between "acknowledgement" and "existence?"

Originally posted by constantwonder

Originally posted by grey580
I'm pretty sure I can prove that matter exists. I'll need a baseball bat and a willing subject to take a few hits from it. I'm sure in the end after the broken knee cap the subject will enthusiactically agree that the matter ie:Bat does exist.

Or just ask anyone that's been hit by a car or in a car accident.

ohhh sorry friend but you are incorrect and i tire of seeing people toss this thought around. Think about what is being said here. . . matter is an interpratation of the brain. You can see a lit up lightbulb in your mind in a completely dark space. . . is the light bulb real? Yes its just as real as the lightbulb you actually look at the brain cannot tell the difference in a memory and a physical object at any given time.

Pain is also just an interpratation of electrical impulses inside your brain so the bat the pain and the victim are all merely perceptions. . . this in no way helps the argument is matter real. . . its just more subjective interpritation by your brain

this is a tired used up narrow minded way to avoid a much more interesting philisophical and scientific ideal

That's a load of philosophical horsecrap IMO. There is a very real difference in lets say committing a crime and thinking about commiting a crime.
Are you trying to say that the imaginary cops are no different than the actual cops that will haul you away and toss you in prison?
Is the prison rape the same if you think about it or actually experience it?

I will grant you that when it comes to ideology your point of view changes what is important and not important and will determine your course of action. Like wether or not it's ok to kill your daughter because she was wearing makeup or spoke with a man not part of the family.

Matter is matter, thought it thought.
When you can turn thought to matter and matter to thought then we can truly have an interesting discussion. Other wise it's just an excersice in mental masturbation.

Originally posted by grey580

When you can turn thought to matter and matter to thought then we can truly have an interesting discussion. Other wise it's just an excersice in mental masturbation.

This whole discussion is a deep mutilation of an idea that presented itself when largely unexplored field of quantum physics was studied back then.
www.popularscience.co.uk...

reply to post by platosallegory

You should review this argument carefully because it is in contradiction, if it were true it would then be false.

Originally posted by platosallegory
1. When materialist, debunkers and so called skeptics ask for proof that God or things like psychic ability exists it's meaningless. This is because they can't even prove that matter exists.

Proof for the existence of matter is everywhere, what has not been proven is the existence of things outside of observation.

I agree that it is false to ask for scientific proof on the metaphysical or spiritual, however, using an absence of proof as proof against something is also false. If the inability of science to prove that things do exist outside of observation means they therefore do not exist then this would also apply to the metaphysical such as God. Unless you have the ability to scientifically prove the existence of God.

Originally posted by Devino
I agree that it is false to ask for scientific proof on the metaphysical or spiritual, however, using an absence of proof as proof against something is also false. If the inability of science to prove that things do exist outside of observation means they therefore do not exist then this would also apply to the metaphysical such as God. Unless you have the ability to scientifically prove the existence of God.

There is no such thing as "scientific proof." The adjective always links with "evidence." The word "proof" is always used with propositions that usually don't have physical representation.
primes.utm.edu...

The reason why this distinction exists is that the very principle of the method of investigation called "science" is empirically oriented. Evidence lacks rigor of the proof; it is presented in the form of theories that rely on acceptance. Proofs live in abstract or idealized environment with set boundaries, whereas science cannot assure that the defining terms in question are not actually describing terms that make proof impossible.

As you can see, theirs no proof that matter exists.

So what has been shown to exist in experiments is the observer. The observer can influence the outcome of an event by the way he/she chooses to measure that event.

This is shown by the double slit experiment and the delayed choice experiment.

Here's some info on the delayed choice experiment:

Wheeler's delayed choice experiment is a thought experiment proposed by John Archibald Wheeler in 1978. Wheeler proposed a variation of the famous Double-slit experiment of quantum physics, one in which the method of detection can be changed after the photon passes the double slit, so as to delay the choice of whether to detect the path of the particle, or detect its interference with itself. Since the measurement itself seems to determine how the particle passes through the double slits, and thus its state as a wave or particle, Wheeler's thought experiment has been useful in trying to understand certain strange properties of quantum particles. An implementation of the experiment in 2007 showed that the act of observation ultimately decides whether the photon will behave as a particle or wave, verifying the unintuitive results of the thought experiment.

en.wikipedia.org...'s_delayed_choice_experiment#Most_recent_experiment

To say a tree or anything else exists without observation is meaningless.

It has been observed and verified that the act of observation causes an undefined state to become defined.

So the real question of Schrodinger's cat is how can we call it a cat until it's observed? If it's in a state of superposition until it's observed so therefore it's neither dead or alive but in an undefined state until observed.

This is also seen in the Delayed choice quantum eraser by Yoon-Ho Kim.

A variation of this experiment, delayed choice quantum eraser, allows the decision whether to measure or destroy the "which path" information to be delayed until after the entangled particle partner (the one going through the slits) has either interfered with itself or not. Doing so appears to have the bizarre effect of determining the outcome of an event after it has already occurred.

en.wikipedia.org...

This shows that the observer can affect reality after it has already occured.

This is because what you label reality doesn't exist. This is shown and verified by experiments like these as well as black hole entropy.

Originally posted by platosallegory
This shows that the observer can affect reality after it has already occured.

This is because what you label reality doesn't exist. This is shown and verified by experiments like these as well as black hole entropy.

OK, now I at least see where you are coming from.

An observer doesn't mean a human being. A human never observes the particles in either the double slit or the DCQE. An observer, in terms of QED is anything not in super position. In reality it isn't that you just look at the electron... there is a whole series of non-quantum events that lead to the recoding of the data.

If you fire a particle at one in super position to measure it, then that is the "observer".

The human mind doesn't create reality... rather firm reality collapses wave functions. This is why quantum has an upper limit before things act in classical or relativistic ways.

As for the effects of erasing data, that is an issue with out concept of time, not the existence of matter.

This really goes back to philosophy, not science. Science studies what we see not what we can't. The DCQE doesn't show matter only exist when we look. The experiment is actually predicated on the existence of matter.

I know none of this will change your mind. I write this for the sake of others.

reply to post by Quest


Of course you will not change my mind because that's wishful thinking and has been shown not to be the case by the EPR paradox.

There isn't any "firm reality" as you called it. There isn't one experiment that shows this.

One experiment or one published paper. In order for this to be the case you would have to introduce a hidden variable.

This is what's exactly shown by the delayed choice and the quantum eraser experiments.

The way the observer chooses to measure an event determines the outcome. The observer can even determine the outcome after the event takes place.

This is the true nature of reality. There's no evidence that some hidden variable gives us a "firm reality."

Again, that's just wishful thinking.

If there was a "firm reality" the observers choice would be meaningless but that's not what experiments show.

Einstein had the same trouble, hence the EPR paradox and David Bohm's hidden variables.

Science desires to rid us of indeterminacy but experiment after experiment shows this to be the case. I know materialist can't stand this but it is what it is.

Aha. I think I see what you are trying to get at.
However in the end it really doesn't matter what we think.

Because matter does exist infinately. And also does not exist infinately.

This is the true answer to this line of reasoning. In the end we are both correct. Because in some alternate branching of time/space/reality you are right and in another I am. And in some we don't exist. In some we are an intelligent race of dinosaurs. In another we don't have to worry about this question because it has already been solved conclusively. In another timeline we are enslaved by a race of evil aliens and they work us to death. So on and so forth Infinitely.

Originally posted by grey580

Originally posted by constantwonder

Originally posted by grey580
I'm pretty sure I can prove that matter exists. I'll need a baseball bat and a willing subject to take a few hits from it. I'm sure in the end after the broken knee cap the subject will enthusiactically agree that the matter ie:Bat does exist.

Or just ask anyone that's been hit by a car or in a car accident.

ohhh sorry friend but you are incorrect and i tire of seeing people toss this thought around. Think about what is being said here. . . matter is an interpratation of the brain. You can see a lit up lightbulb in your mind in a completely dark space. . . is the light bulb real? Yes its just as real as the lightbulb you actually look at the brain cannot tell the difference in a memory and a physical object at any given time.

Pain is also just an interpratation of electrical impulses inside your brain so the bat the pain and the victim are all merely perceptions. . . this in no way helps the argument is matter real. . . its just more subjective interpritation by your brain

this is a tired used up narrow minded way to avoid a much more interesting philisophical and scientific ideal

That's a load of philosophical horsecrap IMO. There is a very real difference in lets say committing a crime and thinking about commiting a crime.
Are you trying to say that the imaginary cops are no different than the actual cops that will haul you away and toss you in prison?
Is the prison rape the same if you think about it or actually experience it?

I will grant you that when it comes to ideology your point of view changes what is important and not important and will determine your course of action. Like wether or not it's ok to kill your daughter because she was wearing makeup or spoke with a man not part of the family.

Matter is matter, thought it thought.
When you can turn thought to matter and matter to thought then we can truly have an interesting discussion. Other wise it's just an excersice in mental masturbation.

your missing the point here friend im saying reality matter w/e we are going to label it is subjective not objective. There is no experiment that could be done to study matter an at obective level.

The argument is (aand i dont subscribe to this) that matter only exsists in the presence of an observer. in this view your whole statement is still completely subjective.

No matter what view you take observer non observer doesnt matter the FACT is that all experience is subjective entirely subjective and no matter how offensive the things you talk about are or how horrible does not change the subjectiveness of reality.

You can interprate pain or light or an object or a rapist because its subjective. Your brains mechanics of sight smell touch hearing are in your brain and cannot without your subjective reasoning tell the difference between a light bulb you are imagining and a light bulb your seeing. Through your subjective thought processes you determine that you are actually looking at a light or you are imagining one.

You seem to be regurgitating the same argument with harsher players yet the basis is the same and is still entirely subjective.

So before you go saying oh tell that to a rape victom. please consider the fact that reality life experience is completely subjective and because we interprate our surroundings using five internal sences that will never actually contact the matter in question it will always be subjective.

Surely you have had a dream or two in your life time. . . with people you know places you've been and there you are walking around talking felleing hearing seeing. . . . well not not really doing any of those things but damned if it doesnt seem real while your sleeping.

Your brain interperatess the sencery input of a dream and comes out with a pretty close replica of waking reality unless you ogo lucid then your brain doesnt know the difference its just a fact of physics and biology im sorry if you disagree but as far as science knows thats the way it is. . . for now

Our reality is what our brains tell us it is.

[edit on 24-4-2009 by constantwonder]

Originally posted by Quest
OK, now I at least see where you are coming from.

An observer doesn't mean a human being. A human never observes the particles in either the double slit or the DCQE. An observer, in terms of QED is anything not in super position. In reality it isn't that you just look at the electron... there is a whole series of non-quantum events that lead to the recoding of the data . . .

. . . I know none of this will change your mind. I write this for the sake of others.

Your effort is directed to those who are thoroughly familiar with the term "superposition." But those who understand the superposition principle are hardly in need to be led to the crevice where the bug lives. You don't suppose that those who can understand your esoteric explanation would argue a point of vastly dubious character. But the remark that an observer doesn't mean a human being should instill a pinch of doubt into the mind of those who are on the path of believing that ignorance can annihilate matter.

Originally posted by constantwonder
Our reality is what our brains tell us it is.

[edit on 24-4-2009 by constantwonder]

So I am right on a certain level.
However so are you on another.

reply to post by stander


Quest is debating something totaly different.

He's debating measurement. This is the last dying gasp from materialist which will eventually lead us to decoherence.

Decoherence just tells us that once the observer makes a choice it's thermodynamically irreversible. Decoherence doesn't have anything to do with the choice that's made.

See Quest is debating measurement but I'm talking about choice.

I personally believe that all measurements exists in an undefined state until the observer makes a choice.

This is what experiments like the delayed choice experiment and the quantum eraser delayed choice experiment show.

The problem they have is no hidden variable has been found so they have to search for anything that can take away choice.

Choice is the enemy of materialism but there's nothing they can do about it.

When you get up in the morning you can:

Watch the news
Watch programs on the DVR
take a shower
eat breakfast.

All of these things exist in an undefined state until the observer makes a choice.

This is reality.

This is why many materialist argue for extreme determinism because they are scared to death of choice.

It goes back to Schrodinger's cat. The cat is not a cat so it's in an undefined state until the observer decides to open up the box.

This is what we know through experiments. There's an undefined reality that takes a definate position when we make a choice.

There is no "firm reality" outside of the undefined state.

[edit on 24-4-2009 by platosallegory]

hrmm.... I'd argue there is a firm reality. However only when looking back in time. Going forward there are an infinite number of possibilities ahead of us.
And even then those possibilities while concrete in different branches of time. Do not exist to us because we can only focus on what we've experienced.

I'd also argue that our ignorance of somethings existence does not necessarily negate that objects existence.

By your argument. Either of us do not exist. Except for when we post to each other on this website. However here I am. And I'm pretty sure that the co-worker I poked in the arm can attest to my existence.

reply to post by platosallegory


The cat isn't so much not a cat as it is both an alive and a dead cat until the observation is made. But again, as others have mentioned on previous threads (maybe even you) I go with the opinion that the thought experiment has more to do with predictive ability and observational outcomes than the cat actually being in two states at once. BUT, this is not to say that the act of observing doesn't effect the state of a quantum level entity.

On the other hand, Young's double slit experiment has been described as a sort of state of entanglement because the photon passes through both slits at once in order to to create the interference patterns that occur as a result of the test.

I think that this is similar to what you are proposing in the OP:


en.wikipedia.org...

In a larger and more speculative sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, so that the three dimensions we observe are only an effective description at low energies. Cosmological holography has not yet been made mathematically precise, partly because the cosmological horizon has a finite area and grows with time.

Originally posted by platosallegory
reply to post by stander

 

Quest is debating something totaly different.

He's debating measurement. This is the last dying gasp from materialist which will eventually lead us to decoherence.

Of course he is not, otherwise he wouldn't start with explaining what "observer" stand for. He proceeds to offer esoteric arguments to someone who he doubts would change his mind thereby putting his explanation out of the realm of reason.

You are not explaining anything either by throwing in bunch of esoteric terms which are verbally impressive but stitched together in non-cohesive manner, which indicates that you don't know what you are talking about.

This topic sounds a lot like "The Self Aware Universe" in a nutshell.