Can matter actually exist? Nope!

page: 3
45
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Have you ever watched the movie "What the Bleep do we know"? Actually by the look of your thread, it would seem you just watched it before writing the thread.

The movie is basically an introduction to quantum mechanics theory. For a simple overview, I will say that it works on the premise that matter cannot exist until it has been measured. They use an example in one part of the movie of Cortez's ships sitting on the horizon and the natives cannot see them, but the Indian priest notices the change in the waves on the shore and is confused, it is at this point that he sees the ships on the horizon and thus the entire tribe then sees them. These people have never seen a ship before so they could not perceive them until the priest described it. I would argue to this, that just the fact that the wave pattern was altered would be a direct indication of the prior existence of the ships.

Although I believe that quantum theory may work on a sub atomic level, I do not think it is applicable in our dimension or plane of existence. Another good example is the way a light wave acts when passing through one or two slits and then transposed on a wall or background. This would indicate that light is both particle and wave simultaneously and can be seen in these forms only if the conditions are right.

Recently I added a couple of pictures to my living room wall while my wife was at work, when she came home I was gone at the store and when I came home she said, I like the new pictures. How would you explain that with quantum physics? She was totally unaware that I even took the pictures, let alone had them developed and bought frames and hung them while she was at work. Therefore under your theory, they shouldn't yet be in existence to her until I pointed it out.

Most of what you said can be explained with two ideas. Perspective and gravitational influence on matter. As you state if you look at something from a distance, it appears different, this I would imagine is because of the slight effect of gravity on the light, we see this all the time in space. A good way to test this idea is to try binoculars and bring the object closer to eliminate the possible effect of gravity, notice it returns to its original shape and color when viewed under magnification. As for the fly seeing something differently from you, that is a case of perspective accompanied by the fact that the fly's eye structure is completely different from yours. I believe that a dog's eye does not see one of the color spectrums, red I believe if my memory serves me correctly; therefore, the dog cannot see objects in the same color scheme than you can, this does not mean that red (or whatever color it is) does not exist, it only means that the dog is ill equipped to see it.

This theory may hold true for sub atomic particles because they are so small they may be able to pass through dimensional boundaries in much the same way that the aids virus is small enough to pass through a condom. But even that is kind of a violation to quantum mechanic theory, a better explanation would be that your brain is so powerful it called the object into manifestation through the dimensional portal.

Your theory could even be a confirmation of some Biblical theory such as "Faith can move mountains." or "Seek and ye shall find." If in fact we are made in God's own image, we would surely have the potential mental organization to bring matter into existence right?

[edit on 6/23/2009 by DarrylGalasso]




posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   
This is very much on topic.. but its short

The problem has never been the answer the problem is understand what the question is

And by that i mean what is the function of why it is you ask.

can you tell me why you ask questions and how it works? and for what reason?

; )

Quantum physics you are the part asking = infinity, and why?

the very method that enables you to ask questions is the very same thing you live inside

its called the universe


call it a gift


and if you do not understand

The universe is a physical representation of the method of asking questions



[edit on 23-6-2009 by symmetricAvenger]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
reply to post by donhuangenaro
 


good point but what they left out "being human ofcourse"

You was created



acting like god is a bad idea to say the least...

how can matter be fake if you are made from it and ofcouse there would be no matter if you was not alive...

We are the observer

its backwords to think otherwise...

But if i pinch your skin it gets very real does it not?


feel free to read www.abovetopsecret.com...






[edit on 23-6-2009 by symmetricAvenger]


my skin is just a
materialized illusion
of my consciousness...
a hologram,
...a lucid dream

nothing else

it's time to wake up




posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by donhuangenaro
 


Im sorry but that is very aroggant..

If you skin was an ilusion

can you escape it?

Did you make you?

well did u?

didnt think so



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
this reminds me of a quote from Brief History...

"When Bishop Berkeley expressed his belief that all
material objects are an illusion, Dr. Johnson cried,
"I refute it thus!"
And stubbed his toe on a large stone."



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Armour For Victor
 


I think you are referring to a bubble universe.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed into a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness adhering to itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death life is only a dream and we're an imagination of ourselves.
Now I'll be heading on back to the uhh weather conspiracies with Tom.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtinguish
 


Firstly, well done on your first thread! Its a subject I have thought about and debated about many times.

Secondly, I see alot of knowledge but also alot of confusion in this thread so I'll add my thoughts and understanding.

With regards to our senses; any one of our senses is our brain's interpretation of an electrical signal created as a result of exposure to an external stimulus.

As an example there are many different frequencies of light, when we respond by seeing that light it is then converted by our eyes into an electrical signal which is then interpreted as an image by our brains.

Perception - Everyone has slightly different perceptions, thats the reason why (medical issues aside) two different people can view a colour and both have a different opinion about it.

Whatever particular wavelenght of light that colour is it will remain fixed, however an indivduals perception of it can differ.

This can be said about perception regarding any of our senses, a particular sound or smell maybe how the surface of an object feels etc

It can all seem different due to perception.

Quantum Mechanics - This has been pretty well described on here so far.

They do state that we do not actually hold an object, the forces interacting between our bodies and the object do not allow it. This is pretty mind bending when you think about it, what the hell are we holding then?

And don't forgot its the perception of this force that gives us our sense of touch.

Pretty strange to think I've never touched a girl in my life, at least on a atomical level anyway!

From what I remember Quantum Mechanics stipulates that there is always the possibility of two states, this ties into the ancient theory of Yin/Yang i.e. Hot/Cold, Good/Bad, Male/Female etc...

I can't recall what factor controls which of the state you experience.

However, I do recall something along the lines of all objects are hollow on an atomic level i.e. They are composed of very little, the theory was its possible in quantum terms to put your hand straight through a table.

I maybe slightly wrong with that bad, apologies - like I said sketchy memory.

Finally, Quantum Mechanics says you could have a sturdy table made out of cotton if you believed it strongly enough.

Watch the film "What the Bleep Do We Know?" - It's all about Quantum Mechanics and other associated topics, very interesting. Some of it has been dismissed as pseudo-science by critics but its still worth watching and you can formulate your own opinion.

According to the film we can actually construct our own reality through positive thought which modifies the current quantum state you are in.

If there can only be two states (as per Yin/Yang) and it was possible to influence which state you experienced by strong belief then it would be possible to have a sturdy table made out of cotton.

The cotton or timber can only have two states - Hard/Soft.

That seemingly backs up the theory!

Like I said guys if anything in there is wrong then feel free to correct me, its been a while since I read about all of this but after seeing this thread I think I'll jog my memory!

Thanks OP!

Edit to add: Cheers DarrylGalasso, I didn't see your post before I posted mine. You did a good job of explaining everything and mentioned What the Bleep as I did.



[edit on 23/6/09 by Death_Kron]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
If mind is the reality constructing, managing and perceiving the material experience, and if we - consciousness - are 'God', for want of a far less abused word - experiencing Ourselves, or rather, Ourself in this dream of matter and time - then you could argue that full understanding of this would blow the suspension of disbelief, and spoil God's movie for Him. I mean Us.

But if 'God' doesn't know well enough to hurl his popcorn at the screen and walk out of the cinema when the movie's this meandering, depressing and full of such boring characters, then maybe that's proof of the idea that consciousness sacrificed its judgement as well as its omni-everythingness when looking at the listings.

Maybe the gig here is to wake up to the movie, or dream. Maybe, if consciousness has infinity and eternity on its hands, things like a universe are an amusing distraction. Maybe there will be an epiphany for consciousness - an almighty 'A-ha!' moment, and maybe such moments simply break up the boredom of perfection a bit. Children are wont to make a lot of noise and commotion when bored too.

On a smaller scale though, as individuated consciousness, there seems always to have been some power or other, some institution or other to reinforce and elaborate what I think P.K.Dick called 'the black iron prison'.

If we're all dreaming this reality into existence, then who or what is it that herds the dreamers? Are we all hypnotised and cowed by a succession of utterly disempowering paradigms so that we never wake up?

For thousands of years people have been talking about miracles and transcending the laws of physics, etc., and modern man largely disregards or mocks this. But what if there's a mass consensus problem with doing miracles? What if it isn't physics that stops them, but us and our idea of what physics would consider naughty? Religion's answer to people (outside the club of course) doing 'impossible' things has always been rather severe too.

Sorry if this sounds a bit off-subject, but I do feel it relates to the question of whether matter exists. I feel that everything exists only in terms of consciousness and perception ... but maybe that raises the question of what we perceive consciousness to be. Just our sort? In many beliefs all matter has consciousness of some sort. Just not the sort we have, which is perhaps confused with the organ in our heads. If Dawkins is right to describe our brains as simply evolution's incredibly elaborate simulation facility, then to confuse that with consciousness seems incredibly and ironically short-sighted.

And by the way, whatever Schrodinger was trying to prove (or mock actually, as I understand it), what about the poor cat's perception? Since it's only a hypothetical experiment, why couldn't it have been Schrodinger's Grandma, or Schrodinger's gardener?

If the whole universe is consciousness trying to wake up, then we could be considered the cutting edge of that effort I suppose, as rocks, clouds, cats, algae etc., seem disinclined to ask themselves the big questions. Or maybe rocks know they're just dreaming of being rocks, and see no point in making a fuss.

If all this illusory matter is just the infinite us messing about I don't mind. I just don't like the idea that it's something else's illusion, and that I might wake up in an amniotic pod with a jack-plug in the back of my head.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
When scientists create a microscope with a large enough magnificance they'll find that micro and macro mimics. They'll eventually see through the micro world and go through it to see the macrocosm in micro form.



[edit on 23-6-2009 by jvm222]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by dviper785
 


Your post explaining quantum entanglement and the theories behind quantum mechanics was excellent my friend, you did a better job than I could of!

Anything becomes possible with quantum mechanics and as you pointed out, you could even say it explains religion and folk wisdom. That's an interesting thought that I haven't thought of before,

Anyways well done,

Star for you.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
reply to post by donhuangenaro
 


Im sorry but that is very aroggant..

If you skin was an ilusion

can you escape it?

Did you make you?

well did u?

didnt think so




no, it's not arrogant, it is the way of things,
the way 'reality' works

you can escape it: wake up, remember yourself every nanosecond!

'...life is but a dream...'





[edit on 23-6-2009 by donhuangenaro]



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by dviper785
 


Schrödinger's cat analogy is flawed.

Not just in your example, but it has always been flawed.

It doesn't actually work.

For example:

A cat is in a box...we cannot see inside the box, unless we lift the lid and peer in.

Is the cat in the box alive or is it dead?

In the above scenario, we are expected to lift the lid, and have a look inside to 'see' if the cat is alive or dead, since this is the only way (offerred in the scenario) to tell.

The premis is the cat is not both alive and dead, rather is neither alive or dead! That is, until we 'activate the alive or dead condition by the action of 'seeing' it.

Well...this is where this falls down. If a cat is in a box, and the lid is closed, how else can we discover the cat's alive or dead state?

We smell it!

The cat is dead if it smells of rotten cat of course!

'Don't we use our minds to process smells?'

Yes, we do...but because we know in biology the parameters that lead to the smell of a rotting cat, we can argue that the act of smelling the cat is not the control mechanism for the cat being alive or dead, since it takes finite time and a dead condition for the smell of death to occur.

Hence, the cat must always have been dead in the box, prior to us smelling it, as time is a factor in originating a smell of a dead cat.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
It amazes me when people tell others they are ignorant or that their position on a subject is obviously wrong, when they are the ones who lack the basic ability to grasp the concepts.

Think about this. Try to explain to someone else that you exist. You have no proof to offer. The one and only truth that can be known for a fact is "I think therefore I am". I can tell myself that you think therefore you are, but I have no proof of that. Someone posted "of course matter exist". In other words suggesting that we should believe our own eyes. If we are to take that approach, we have instruments that let our eyes dig deep enough to see that matter has no true mass at all. To assume that what you see is reality simply because you see it, is what I call the Deep Sleep. Its where we all start out and some of us just need a good shake to wake us up.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
And what about philosophy, scepticism, poetry etc. Aren't they all, just chemical reactions in our brains? Love? All of our thoughts and our feelings? Even this very topic. Just chemical reactions. But we have to see far more the plain and sometimes boring truth.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
IF you would study quantum physics, you would know that the realm we perceive as reality does not exist - it is all energy moving in time. If you can freeze it, the matter disappears. For matter to exist there must be a movement - there is no light without the movement, there would be no molecules, if they would not move and vibrate.

It is not possible to capture the energy (in a movement it is called matter) and observe it. If you stop it - it would stop existing like a photon of light.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zealott

Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed into a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness adhering to itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death life is only a dream and we're an imagination of ourselves.
Now I'll be heading on back to the uhh weather conspiracies with Tom.


Brilliant! I said that to my physics professor (minus the acid part), and she looked at me kind of puzzled and said "thats kind of right"! Go Bill Hicks, "heres Tom with the weather"!

-E-



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by FIFIGI
IF you would study quantum physics, you would know that the realm we perceive as reality does not exist - it is all energy moving in time. If you can freeze it, the matter disappears. For matter to exist there must be a movement - there is no light without the movement, there would be no molecules, if they would not move and vibrate.

It is not possible to capture the energy (in a movement it is called matter) and observe it. If you stop it - it would stop existing like a photon of light.



Yes! but is time not product of our linear physical perception of the speed of light?

Therefore entanglement and non-locality would dictate that time also is a limitation set by our physical reailty!



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I watched a video awhile back and it is on this same subject.

Beyond Matter

I can see this being truth, but also since we are conditioned from birth, I also have a hard time grasping this said truth.



posted on Jun, 23 2009 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by dviper785
 


Schrödinger's cat analogy is flawed.

Not just in your example, but it has always been flawed.

It doesn't actually work.

For example:

A cat is in a box...we cannot see inside the box, unless we lift the lid and peer in.

Is the cat in the box alive or is it dead?

In the above scenario, we are expected to lift the lid, and have a look inside to 'see' if the cat is alive or dead, since this is the only way (offerred in the scenario) to tell.

The premis is the cat is not both alive and dead, rather is neither alive or dead! That is, until we 'activate the alive or dead condition by the action of 'seeing' it.

Well...this is where this falls down. If a cat is in a box, and the lid is closed, how else can we discover the cat's alive or dead state?

We smell it!

The cat is dead if it smells of rotten cat of course!

'Don't we use our minds to process smells?'

Yes, we do...but because we know in biology the parameters that lead to the smell of a rotting cat, we can argue that the act of smelling the cat is not the control mechanism for the cat being alive or dead, since it takes finite time and a dead condition for the smell of death to occur.

Hence, the cat must always have been dead in the box, prior to us smelling it, as time is a factor in originating a smell of a dead cat.



What I think is flawed...is that you're trying to understand a quantum mechanical concept from a linear physical perspective.

Why must I be expected to look in the box? With linear physics and the realm of certanties your logic makes sense...but I'm talking about the quantum thought experiment of Schrödinger's cat - the one where we already know there is a cat in the box.

From a linear physics perspective, you're right I guess I wouldn't know if there was a cat in the box if I happen to stumble across it.

However, the whole point of the experiment is not "if I happen to come across a closed box, until I look into it to measure it I won't know what's in there, btw who said anything about cats?"

This is purely from a linear perspective based in certanties...what we are talking about is quantum mechanics and probability.

Schrödinger is TELLING us that there is a cat in the box, with a mechanism that may or may not kill it.

Whether we look in the box or not, is not pertainant to the experiment.

Therefore, because there is pobability (quantum mechanics) that the cat can either be alive or dead, at least two seperate realities (aka: quantum states) must exist with each of the two (of many) outcome.

This is why the cat is both alive and dead. The cat, the box, has nothing to do with it. What matters is the concept of quantum probability before measurment, because when measurement occurs, we move into the realm of certanties and linear physics which you just can't use to explain a quantum concept, as you are trying.


Also, if you're familar with the experiment, you'd know the box is shielded from quantum decoherance which eliminates outside variables, such as smell.

This is why it is a thought/concept experiment.

It's meant to test a quantum concept because quantum concepts turn linear when they are measured as you are trying to do.





top topics
 
45
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join