Can matter actually exist? Nope!

Originally posted by Death_Kron
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.

Very much thank you! I've been studying psychology, metaphysics, quantum physics, and timewave zero for a long time so it is all coming together very nicely for me!

I suggest you put more thought into the interconnectedness of everything, it's a really eye opening experience.

I've gone from christian to atheist to agnostic to athiest to an equal interconnected peice of the singular conciousness many people percieve as God, where I sit now.

It's not that matter doesn't exist. It is the way in which it exist which is interesting. I've studied a fair bit on this concept (which is to say not much compared to those who's work I was studying). Some of the clearest explanations I have found are:

The holographic universe theory (bohm,pribram) (summarized well in great book by Talbot)

And of course the theory of emptiness as expressed in higher forms of Buddhist logic and philosophy, the master of which would probably be Arya Nagarjuna. This has to be the single most profound and useful concept I've ever encountered.

I won't do it justice but, think about this. Does a rainbow exist? it appears to have form, shape, size, etc. But it only exists dependent on certain causes and conditions, including your own point of view.

Is a river a thing, or a process which we have named as a thing?

Is a wave on an ocean, a thing? Does it exist? It has size, mass, momentum, etc. Yet at any given moment it is made of different stuff, connected at all times to every other wave on the ocean. And eventually it will appear to cease to exist. But did it really go anywhere? The ocean is still there but that individual temporary expression known as that one wave appears to have ceased.

How are you or your chair or the earth any different than these things? They and you exist and function, for a while. But based on what causes and conditions? BAsed on what point of view?

I'm borrowing these thoughts from much greater minds than mine. But perhaps they will be of interest to the conversation.

Great topic
Thanks

Originally posted by Armour For Victor
reply to post by dviper785

 

Wow, thats alot to take in and I wish that I understood more of it, but I don't. In any case its interesting to me, also I noticed how you talked about the cat being alive and dead and how if you see it and its alive that the other reality doesnt exist.
Im curious because there was this show that explained some basic ideas on how we can live on multiple space times and or timelines.
We are essentially light beings right? Consist of light energy. Well like light can reflect and refract, kinda like passing light through a crystal and it seperates into two different parts. Well, that is the same light existing in two different places at the same time, but unaware of the other. So couldnt that alternate reality essentially exist in your reality, but on another space time or timeline, without this reality being aware of it?
Im sure what I just wrote might not make much sence since I dont know the basics but i thought id give it a shot.

Peace!

What you wrote makes perfect sense and shows you do understand the concept.

By beings of light, consisting of light energy, your simply reffering to our physical reality that we percieve (pretty much based around light, e=mc2).

The alternate realities do exist in our reality...in a sense...because they are quantum superpositioned, which means they are all interconnected, we simply cannot percieve the other ones.

The reason we cannot percieve the other realities is because they are in different quantum states as we are, so energy transfer cannot take place.

The reason two realites cannot be the same is because of quantum entanglement. This means that, in this reality I believe the cat is alive...this parallel fact is entangled, quantumly, or non-locality (because it exists somewhere else, not local, but is still influencing the other) with the parallel reality where the cat is dead. With one, I cannot have the other, because they are entangled. There are no 2 snowflakes that are the same, the same goes for this concept, which is why entanglement means the outcomes entangled are different, if there was 2 realities with the same outcome, (live cat, live cat), then they would reduce to 1 same outcome (live cat).

Lastley in the end of your post, you've managed to confuse yourself, so i'll try to un-confuse you.

The thing with realities is that they are not the same, or else they would be in the same reality, that doesn't mean a seperate reality has to be 100% different than the one we are in. The seperate reailty can be exactly the same your whole physical life except for one moment before you die, where you cough in one reality, and sneeze in the other, then die in both. They are still unique but 99.9% parallel, the only point that differs is if you cough or sneeze befoer you die. Compare this to your prisim analogy, the first 99.9% of your life is a single light beam, which is refracted in a prism at the last 0.1%, making it a seperate reality. This is but the most basic senario but as you can tell it can be infinitely complex if the prism sits at 0%.

so YES...theres realites all exist in each other, through quantum superpostion (ability to be non-local, no location), we can only percieve the one we are in, and they are all (and infinitely) unique because of quantum states and quantum entanglement...which means they are all unaware of each other.

you should give yourself more credit sir!

If matter doesn't exist then why does it matter?!

[edit on 23-6-2009 by jvm222]

IMHO it's all relative and dependent on your point of view.

On the atomic scale matter isn't so solid. At our scale matter can be very dense.

But as far as i'm concerned it's both existent and non existent..

reply to post by Xtinguish


On sound: If we are unaware of sound, then can it still affect us? Let us perform an experiment by positioning a powerful bass loudspeaker underneath a table and have it emit low frequency sound upon the bottom of the table. Will a deaf man, with no concept of sound touch the table and feel it vibrating from the sound? Ah but we come to the mind again, so let us take the mind out of it. Place a glass vessel half filled with your favorite liquid and observe the effects of sound energy upon the table and thus upon the water.

I would assume that matter can not be shaped by the mind, as can be attested to by anyone who has had a car break down and had some unidentifiable bit that they didn't even know existed causing the breakdown. By some of the same argument, one could, presumptiously filtch the engine from someones car and if the owner of the car was not aware of this, that person would by definition still be able to drive their car to work in the morning. This is something we all know to not be the case. ever.

Now, lets talk about the master arguement. Lets make a list of things here.

I do not thing that the indians conceived of rifles or bullets yet the english manufactured ones the settlers used sure made short work of those same indians, even before we showed them the bullets.

how many people in japan knew what an atomic bomb, or at times, even an atom was before we dropped one on them. The dead never knew what it was.

One would argue by the master argument that the bullets and atomic bombs should have passed through the people without harming them.

How many people die from germs they never knew existed, toxins they never have conceived of or chemical imbalances they never knew existed. And they were found after the fact, if at all.

The master argument itself is garbage, and an attempt at a trick question. Attempt, meaning tha tit has failed many times.

lol -- this stuff is fun.

matter doesn't exist, so all that stuff we see doesn't exist.
but we perceive all that stuff, so while it doesn't exist, it does something else.
perhaps matter does this 'something else' too (perhaps not: maybe there are a number of things which it does). I don't have a name for what it is that it does... but let's call it existance2.

so matter exist2s.

but then we apply the same logic to physical existance2. and so on.

***

The eagle-eyed amongst you will have noticed that the comment doesn't make any sense at all -- either in its outcomes or, more importantly, in its logic. Of course, this matters not at all... (no more than matter does, in fact hehe)


Aaanyway...
let's say that there is no property of matter which either manifests or which enables manifestation, and that all perceived manifestation is subjective or generated by 'me'.

the question arises... what is 'me' made of??


Starred and Flagged

On a more serious note, I don't know if you've ever looked into the Buddhist deconstructionists, but you should. don't be put off by my gibberish here -- I'm out of practice, having been in the cold embrace of Samsara for the past couple of years

[edit on 23-6-2009 by eniac]

Originally posted by purplemer
Matter is a construct of mind. Quantum physiwww.abovetopsecret.com... seems to proving this more and more. Without mind there is nothing but possibility. Just posibility, no matter. Matter therefore reduceds itself to a epiphenomena of mind. You are right my friend. Star and flaged!
kx

This is the essence is the point I was making. Glade you agree and thank you!

Originally posted by crmanager
reply to post by Xtinguish

 

Absolute coffee house philosophy. "Does matter exist?" Of course it does.

It is observed, felt, measured...daily. The only thing that changes is the perception of the observer.

Please work harder on deep thoughts.

You are describing basic humanistic determinism.

You say of course it does. Then you say it can be observed, felt, and measured. My point is that none of that can be done without being immediately perceived by a conscious mind. So is your point that this conscious mind is made up of the same matter that makes up what it's seeing a perceiving? Then why isn't all matter sensible?

Originally posted by Evisscerator

You might want to consider doing more indepth research before bloviating based on a quick search and lack of fact to support your argument.

I said I was looking for philosophical discussion in my original post. I thought that would have most assume their was no scientific evidence to back the theory up.

Originally posted by Level
I don’t mean to be rude but a lot of what you are saying is plain wrong. Things really do happen in our physical world, it doesn’t matter if anyone is there to perceive it. You say

I'm not saying things don't happen in the physical world, I am asking the question what gives us the ability to perceive them? Our senses? If it is our senses, which are of the mind, then everything in the universe is merely mind-dependent. I go back to hot and cold. Can a rock feel heat? No but why? It's merely an idea of our own mind. How do we know what heat is besides pain? And what is pain? Just a sensation of our own mind. So how does heat and pain exist? Just like the water appears cold to a heated hand and warm to frozen hand. It is only our mind telling us the temperature.

Another thing I would ask is can you perceive of something outside of shape, size, taste, color, and motion? If not, why?

Originally posted by FadeToBlack

Just because our brains interpret the light waves, sound waves and feelings that our ears, eyes and nerves pick up, doesn't mean that matter around is totally false. It is illogical to think that just for sensory experience, matter doesn't exist. First being, we are NOT sure if observation effects the objects in question.

Yes but what is the brain but the same energy and matter which makes up the mind-dependent objects? Your saying a mind-dependent object perceives and mind-dependent object. That is absurd to me.

Originally posted by FadeToBlack

So if your argument is based on our brain's interpretation of things, how come they are almost always the same every time we look at them? I don't believe that matter shape shifts when we look away.

I was not saying it does. I was saying that it is our idea of what we perceive as matter is what exist. Our idea of a cat is what our senses perceive to be a cat. No matter what it is, whether it be touch, smell, or sound (using taste here would be weird. ). Where would that idea come from besides an infinite mind that we can call God?

I have to continue on another post due to the 4000 word max!

Originally posted by Xtinguish

Originally posted by dviper785

In our physical reality we can percieve things in our physical reality.

Makes sense?

I think I have a basic understanding of quantum mechanics, or I like to anyway. I understand what your saying, but the point I (or Berkley) am making is the reality which is perceived. Whatever is not perceived by perceiving the state of the cat is not what I am saying doesn't exist. I am saying the cat, the box, and the room doesn't. I'll explain a little further.

In our physical reality we can perceive things in our physical reality. How?

Is it simply a physical brain perceiving a physical reality? I'll stick with color.

Take a red and yellow tulip. Does the matter, or even the energy within this matter make this tulip red and yellow? How? If the matter, or energy of this object makes this tulip red and yellow shouldn't the red and yellow be constant? If I take this red and yellow tulip under a microscope, is it still red and yellow? Why not? Or...

Is this red and yellow, or even the tulip itself made up of an idea perceived in me and not the tulip. Therefore matter; which is defined as: 2 a: the substance of which a physical object is composed b: material substance that occupies space, has mass, and is composed predominantly of atoms consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons, that constitutes the observable universe, and that is interconvertible with energy. Cannot be in existence, no?

So, why do I see a tulip? Why do you see a tulip? What shapes it? George Berkley (Where I've been getting this idea from) says nothing exist in the world but ideas. It's our idea of a tulip in our own consciousness that brings this matter like object to some sort of existence/non-existence.

Where do ideas come from? Berkley says ideas come from the ultimate perceiver, or God. All of our ideas come from God, the one who conceives and perceives all things. This is why nothing is unconceived because God is always perceiving it (and why we can't conceive of something unconceived). Our ideas of the world are our sensations and what we immediately perceive all come from God.

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Xtinguish]

When you're a newborn you have no ideas perceived in you, you're a blank slate. However every newborn sees the tulip... Why? The tulip is external, it's made up of matter, it's real; that's why you perceive it. What we see is what's really there.

[edit on 23/6/2009 by glock19]

reply to post by glock19


I would argue that our consciousness is derived from an infinite mind which allows us ideas through drips and drabs. A newborn can see the tulip, touch the tulip, and smell the tulip. Just like the newborn must be born human, I am saying that the world is made of ideas. These physical attributes, that we cannot change, do exist as ideas in our infinite consciousness. The ideas therefore represent, to me anyway, that a God does exist.

I think the reason most people are getting confused is because "matter" is completely subjective to our current perception of physical reailty.

So when you say "matter" doesn't exist you are saying that "matter" in our physical reality doesn't exist in the grand scheme of things (all realities/universes encompassed), but we're using a physical subjective definition, "matter," as explained in our physical universe, to explain a concept that is not physical (all universes encompassed).

much like some people think Schrödinger's cat experiment is flawed because they are trying to use linear physics concepts to explain quantum mechanics concepts.

Leads to some confusion...

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.

Damn you beat me to it! But you get a big fat star!

But has anyone considered the possiblity that we are spiritual beings having a human experience? Like, what if what we're experiencing is actually what some would call 'purgatory' and it's just another step in a long line of existences? It would explain to a degree why there is such a differeing quality of life throughout humankind maybe?

reply to post by CoffinFeeder




to the entity dropping the bomb or firing the rifle, there are merely objects at the other end. He perceives them as similar to himself and probably regards them as human but has no idea what they actually are.

Nor do you know whether those events happened, or whether there was any 'person' to which they happened.

solipism :en.wikipedia.org...

I would argue we have a finite mind which is why people fall for other peoples unscientific adult fantasies.

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
reply to post by Xtinguish

 

On sound: If we are unaware of sound, then can it still affect us? Let us perform an experiment by positioning a powerful bass loudspeaker underneath a table and have it emit low frequency sound upon the bottom of the table. Will a deaf man, with no concept of sound touch the table and feel it vibrating from the sound? Ah but we come to the mind again, so let us take the mind out of it. Place a glass vessel half filled with your favorite liquid and observe the effects of sound energy upon the table and thus upon the water.

I would assume that matter can not be shaped by the mind, as can be attested to by anyone who has had a car break down and had some unidentifiable bit that they didn't even know existed causing the breakdown. By some of the same argument, one could, presumptiously filtch the engine from someones car and if the owner of the car was not aware of this, that person would by definition still be able to drive their car to work in the morning. This is something we all know to not be the case. ever.

Now, lets talk about the master arguement. Lets make a list of things here.

I do not thing that the indians conceived of rifles or bullets yet the english manufactured ones the settlers used sure made short work of those same indians, even before we showed them the bullets.

how many people in japan knew what an atomic bomb, or at times, even an atom was before we dropped one on them. The dead never knew what it was.

One would argue by the master argument that the bullets and atomic bombs should have passed through the people without harming them.

How many people die from germs they never knew existed, toxins they never have conceived of or chemical imbalances they never knew existed. And they were found after the fact, if at all.

The master argument itself is garbage, and an attempt at a trick question. Attempt, meaning tha tit has failed many times.

Excellent post!

Here's my problem with it though. Your saying the atomic bomb, bullets, and other types of ideas were created by a single or small group of physical minds. I'm saying the idea was created by a infinite mind and we perceive it in the physical world. Now, we run into a problem here. Does this say God has given us things to destroy ourselves? That is something I myself would have to think on much deeper.

Originally posted by glock19

Originally posted by Xtinguish

Originally posted by dviper785

In our physical reality we can percieve things in our physical reality.

Makes sense?

I think I have a basic understanding of quantum mechanics, or I like to anyway. I understand what your saying, but the point I (or Berkley) am making is the reality which is perceived. Whatever is not perceived by perceiving the state of the cat is not what I am saying doesn't exist. I am saying the cat, the box, and the room doesn't. I'll explain a little further.

In our physical reality we can perceive things in our physical reality. How?

Is it simply a physical brain perceiving a physical reality? I'll stick with color.

Take a red and yellow tulip. Does the matter, or even the energy within this matter make this tulip red and yellow? How? If the matter, or energy of this object makes this tulip red and yellow shouldn't the red and yellow be constant? If I take this red and yellow tulip under a microscope, is it still red and yellow? Why not? Or...

Is this red and yellow, or even the tulip itself made up of an idea perceived in me and not the tulip. Therefore matter; which is defined as: 2 a: the substance of which a physical object is composed b: material substance that occupies space, has mass, and is composed predominantly of atoms consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons, that constitutes the observable universe, and that is interconvertible with energy. Cannot be in existence, no?

So, why do I see a tulip? Why do you see a tulip? What shapes it? George Berkley (Where I've been getting this idea from) says nothing exist in the world but ideas. It's our idea of a tulip in our own consciousness that brings this matter like object to some sort of existence/non-existence.

Where do ideas come from? Berkley says ideas come from the ultimate perceiver, or God. All of our ideas come from God, the one who conceives and perceives all things. This is why nothing is unconceived because God is always perceiving it (and why we can't conceive of something unconceived). Our ideas of the world are our sensations and what we immediately perceive all come from God.

[edit on 22-6-2009 by Xtinguish]

When you're a newborn you have no ideas perceived in you, you're a blank slate. However every newborn sees the tulip... Why? The tulip is external, it's made up of matter, it's real; that's why you perceive it. What we see is what's really there.

[edit on 23/6/2009 by glock19]

if a newborn is a blank state how do you explain DNA and genetic coding?

is DNA not a valid enough belief for the newborn, to have say, blue or brown eyes?

Your concept flirts with the fact that a newborn could theoretically change any aspect of themselves or their beliefs based on their intial perceptions.

if a newborn was born on a plane made of glass gliding down to earth would the newborn not percieve that he/she is able to fly? Externally this would be a confirmed perception to the newborn at your logic.

However, does genetic coding not ensure that newborn babies don't come flying out of their mother's wound?

My point is conciousness is not limited to your concious thoughts. If you are genetically coded to have blue eyes, that is a valid enough belief to create the reality of you having blue eyes, whether we are aware conciousley of that belief or not.

Originally posted by Xtinguish

Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
reply to post by Xtinguish

 

On sound: If we are unaware of sound, then can it still affect us? Let us perform an experiment by positioning a powerful bass loudspeaker underneath a table and have it emit low frequency sound upon the bottom of the table. Will a deaf man, with no concept of sound touch the table and feel it vibrating from the sound? Ah but we come to the mind again, so let us take the mind out of it. Place a glass vessel half filled with your favorite liquid and observe the effects of sound energy upon the table and thus upon the water.

I would assume that matter can not be shaped by the mind, as can be attested to by anyone who has had a car break down and had some unidentifiable bit that they didn't even know existed causing the breakdown. By some of the same argument, one could, presumptiously filtch the engine from someones car and if the owner of the car was not aware of this, that person would by definition still be able to drive their car to work in the morning. This is something we all know to not be the case. ever.

Now, lets talk about the master arguement. Lets make a list of things here.

I do not thing that the indians conceived of rifles or bullets yet the english manufactured ones the settlers used sure made short work of those same indians, even before we showed them the bullets.

how many people in japan knew what an atomic bomb, or at times, even an atom was before we dropped one on them. The dead never knew what it was.

One would argue by the master argument that the bullets and atomic bombs should have passed through the people without harming them.

How many people die from germs they never knew existed, toxins they never have conceived of or chemical imbalances they never knew existed. And they were found after the fact, if at all.

The master argument itself is garbage, and an attempt at a trick question. Attempt, meaning tha tit has failed many times.

Excellent post!

Here's my problem with it though. Your saying the atomic bomb, bullets, and other types of ideas were created by a single or small group of physical minds. I'm saying the idea was created by a infinite mind and we perceive it in the physical world. Now, we run into a problem here. Does this say God has given us things to destroy ourselves? That is something I myself would have to think on much deeper.

Free will.

We can choose to lead the path to concious singularity, which presumably does not include destrying ourselves, or we can choose to deviate from conciousness and increase our own subjectivity from the singular conciousness (God).

God is simply the coffee maker, we make the coffee.



EDIT: spelling error

[edit on 6/23/2009 by dviper785]

reply to post by dviper785


Ah!

Well said.

reply to post by dviper785


Just gone back and re-read the original experiment (it's been about 30 years since i last read it), and i was wrong. The cat isn't (according to the experiment) neither alive and dead, it is BOTH alive and dead after a time, as it has said to have entered a 'superposition' (roughly: an atom occupies every posible position, and is said to be in superposition).

I thought i said there WAS a cat in the box?

In other words we are to take it as a fact (in the original thought experiment) that there is a cat in the box.

You ask: 'Why must I be expected to look in the box?'
Because looking into the box, breaks the superposition - and the cat is now not both dead and alive, but either dead or alive. Personally, i think there is a third option. The cat is alive, but in the process of dying.

If you don't observe the cat or radioactive material, you'll not know if the atom has decayed and triggered the release of poison and thus whether the cat is alive or dead, since the whole experiment is geared up to examining quantum states, you have to look in the box, in order to break the superposition of the atoms contained inside.

I'm not saying you (or anyone) has to look into the box to see IF there's a cat inside...i'm saying you have to look inside in order for the thought experiment to come to a conclusion. Did the radioactive material decay and trigger release of the poison and kill the cat? The only way to know, is to look at the cat.

If the cat is alive, the atom did not decay, if it's dead (or rapidly dying) the atom did decay ONLY after being observed by you. Until you observe
the box contents, they are in atomic superposition, being in every state possible.

Quantum law is...nuts!

I mean..it's an interesting mental exercise, but i don't see how the action of a human being observing something, changes that something's superposition. What is the physical linkage, what is the ethereal linkage?
Is there a subatomic linkage?

Are subatomic particles streaming from one's eyes or brain, and interfereing with the observed object's subatomic particles, to cause this jump from superposition to a single position, alive, dead etc.?

Think about it..you change an atoms quantum state just by looking at it?!

Does that imply that i can change an objects quantum state just by thinking about that object?
My eyes after all, only feed the information to my brain, so if i bypass the eyes, and think the 'cat' is dead, would it make it so? What if i thought the cat was alive, and the atom didn't decay, would that then be so?

Very strange subject, quantum physics. It should mean that everything is, was, always will be and never was or will be, at the same time in every state posible, until an action or sequence of actions are performed on something to change it's quantum state, drop it's atoms out of superpositional state (every state possible), then it takes on a fixed state.
In the cat example, it's alive or dead. And this action could be as simple as observing it.

You do realise you're barking mad don't you?!

reply to post by dviper785


Why must I be expected to look in the box?

Its metaphoric ....

It means your body is the box and the cat is your mind ; )

get it?

you are physical but its still hard when your mind in fact has no shape does it?

you see why we find the universe hard to grasp? The universe has no shape why?

well does your mind? but we know its contained inside something bigger

call it a body? call it what you wish but it has functions and you are the outcome of just one of many outcomes

hope that helps or maybe it did not either way the outcome is the same