Can matter actually exist? Nope!

reply to post by dviper785


Thats the problem,when searching for the interconnectedness of everything, when searching for one grand unified theory. There are so many concepts, stories, legends, philosophies and scientific evidence that everything eventually links together.

Everything cannot be right or can it? There must be a common denominator in each case although I have yet to find it.

One thing I do know though, quantum mechanics when applied in the right areas and with the correct theories answers ALOT of questions.

It's if you choose to believe!

reply to post by Death_Kron


Thats the problem,when searching for the interconnectedness of everything, when searching for one grand unified theory. There are so many concepts, stories, legends, philosophies and scientific evidence that everything eventually links together.

The question is what links them all





just pointing out the obvious

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
reply to post by purplemer

 

sure

Feel free to look up my threads im sure you will understand why i say what i have

Thanks for the No disrespect part tho aye.

[edit on 23-6-2009 by symmetricAvenger]

Ty i will check out your posts
kx

reply to post by symmetricAvenger


Unfortunately the question is the rather obvious, the amount of answers however are not. Yin/Yang, I-Ching, Phi, Fibonacci, Plato, Socrates, ...etc

As I said, something somewhere must be correct. It's just finding that and learning what it means.

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by dviper785

 

Just gone back and re-read the original...

...more...

... this action could be as simple as observing it.

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

I think it makes perfect sense!

Wikipedia:

Schrödinger's thought experiment was intended as a discussion of the EPR article, named after its authors: Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen in 1935[2]. The EPR article had highlighted the strange nature of quantum superpositions. Broadly stated, a quantum superposition is the combination of all the possible states of a system (for example, the possible positions of a subatomic particle). The Copenhagen interpretation implies that the superposition undergoes collapse into a definite state only at the exact moment of quantum measurement.

Now, you said, "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."

There is actually an infinite amount of options, one for every movement of every subatomic particle, but the experiment highlights 2 because it is much more simple to understand that way.

This passage also tells me you're still analyzing the quantum expiriement in a classical, linear physical perspective based on certanties.

Above:

The Copenhagen interpretation implies that the superposition undergoes collapse into a definite state only at the exact moment of quantum measurement.

The REASON the cat takes form of either just alive, or just dead, and not both, is because the two quantum states, are superpositioned as well as entangled, which means, they are NOT independent of each other, therefore they CANNOT appear at the same time. Each of the two states is DEPENDENT on the other state.

Ask yourself this - can you measure an objects velocity, and position at the EXACT same time? No, you CANNOT. Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. Which means, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. This is because of the SAME reason as above, quantum entanglement.

Above:

The Copenhagen interpretation implies that the superposition undergoes collapse into a definite state [linear physics] only at the exact moment of quantum measurement.

Again, this passage from the definition above proves the true nature of the experiment. Schrödinger created the experiment to combat Einstein and friends BECAUSE of quantum measurement. You said "...i'm saying you have to look inside in order for the thought experiment to come to a conclusion." The CONCLUSION IS that THERE IS NO CONCLUSION, quantum measure breaks the superposition. That's the concept of the experiment.

You said "but i don't see how the action of a human being observing something, changes that something's superposition."

Quantum entanglement. Non-locality.

You said "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?"

Yes, yes, and yes!

The reason this makes sense is because quantum mechanics is based on PROBABILITY! Observing ANYTHING makes changes subatomicly, but the statistic PROBABILITY that this will RADICALLY change our perception of it is much like winning the lottery! -at a nonsubatomic level

it makes perfect sense

reply to post by Death_Kron


i think you are not getting it...

in order for you to ask the question what would be the answer?

the very nature of asking why correct?

why am i alive? because i am asking

you think a question is something you just happen to do ?

step back and read what i am saying

If you "make a choice" what comes first? reason? question outcome

the question = infinity

that why we have symmetry and reflections

If you do not what a question in fact is doing then how can you understand what made you question in the first place?

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
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?

Yes, I agree. The box is also in your body as well as mine and as well as the cats. And the cat is barking up the maple tree to get to the box. Luckily, quantum thoery working through probability and beliefs puts the box in front of me, and the cat in the box.

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

Agreed. Thoughts originate not from the physical reality, they are in superposition and non-local. The body is confined to 5 sense which severly limits the thoughts we have to a specific perception.

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

Because the infinite realites are in superposition operating subjectivly and uniquely through quantum entanglement and confied to themselves with no "bleed through" effect because of different quantum states operating in the heat bath senario.

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

I call it a quantum state, but I have to say SIZE I think is a limit set by our physical reality, I would call our mind non-local (superposition). And, I do agree I am one of the infinite outcomes of the said quantum state.

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

I beg to differ...through entanglement all outcomes are unique.

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
reply to post by Death_Kron

 

Thats the problem,when searching for the interconnectedness of everything, when searching for one grand unified theory. There are so many concepts, stories, legends, philosophies and scientific evidence that everything eventually links together.

The question is what links them all

just pointing out the obvious

I have to agree with this discovering the question, however, is difficult.

Fudamentally it could be, what/who is creation?

This leaves the slate blank to all possible interpretations, but they all started with the same motivation.

IMO though, conciousness links everything.

Religion:
Here's some popular God facts:
-God is omnipresent, omnipotent, yada yada.
-God is creation.
Well...so is conciousness.

Metaphysics:
-You are part of conciousness.
-Law of attraction.
-You are God, which makes God everywhere.
-You are creation.
Pretty much based on conciousness...

Folk Wisdom: (like I said earlier)
-You can do anything if you believe in yourself/put your mind to it.
Sounds like metaphysics, asking of God?

Cult Religion:
-If we kill ourselves, we will be taken to another level of reality.
Sooo like a higher level of conciousness?

Politics:
-Change we can believe in.
Oh?

j/k on that last one

and lots more i can't think of

reply to post by symmetricAvenger


I'm not sure your getting it to be honest!

A question is a logical decision intended on providing an answer to a given scenario.

Just because you question does not mean you know the answer as your reply stipulated.

A question isn't something I "just happen to do" its a logical or conscious decision I make when I do not understand something.

Your alive because your asking? - I really don't understand that one sorry.

If I make a choice then that comes first the choice I made!

Please explain.

reply to post by Xtinguish


Reality is based on measurement and observation - what we can measure - that is what we say is reality. If we can't measure or observe it - that isn't reality.

So without an observer (our mind), then everything cannot be measured or observed - so it is no longer reality.

A lot of people think that truth exists. However truth is simply a way of taking a piece of evidence, and ascribing it some arbitrary value. When people do this, they then like to assemble 'truth' into a framework called belief - which they use to describe what they observe.

The problem with this is that no 'truth' is ever experienced first hand - it comes through our senses, and is unconsciously interpreted by our minds. What we get then - is the 'truth' according to ourselves only.

I think it is far better to simply take in evidence - without needing to say it is true or false - and try to understand its meaning.

What is it that we actually measure and observe, well that is a different question. I studied physics in university, read a lot of current theory - both mainstream and not.

Having therefore some knowledge of the subject; my model is as follows;

Matter and energy seem to be discrete - that is they are organized into indivisible portions, packets - digital if you like. Fantasy (a word I use to describe everything that is not reality) seems to be continuous, or analog.

The transition between fantasy and reality causes forces the analog to become digital - or real. We can observe this in double slit experiments - where the knowledge of the observer creates reality.

Space and matter seem to be purely geometry - often called strings or vibrations. A energetic motion captured within a certain harmonic geometry.

Point particles (which occupy no space) for example an electron, could be described as being a knot in an infinite length of string, never able to resolve itself - because it never gets to the end of the string.

I don't believe in anything - I think we can accumulate knowledge, with knowledge we can create meanings - but only when we can practically apply the meaning does something create understanding.

When we understand something - we can say that we have a method to practically apply the evidence that we have obtained in a certain way to get an expected result. Therefore I see no value in truth - it can blind us to alternative idea's.

reply to post by symmetricAvenger


Yes symmetric,

You must think of your physical reflection as a creation of the being of yourself that percieves the physical reality through the relfection.

REALality

But why did such an action seem to take place....hmm...

reply to post by Death_Kron


No, think outside the "box", you answer a question while asking the question infinitely.

You create the answer after asking the question, because asking the question gives reason for the answer to exist, to answer the question.

Originally posted by Amagnon
reply to post by Xtinguish

 

Reality is based on measurement and observation - what we can measure - that is what we say is reality. If we can't measure or observe it - that isn't reality.

So without an observer (our mind), then everything cannot be measured or observed - so it is no longer reality.

A lot of people think that truth exists. However truth is simply a way of taking a piece of evidence, and ascribing it some arbitrary value. When people do this, they then like to assemble 'truth' into a framework called belief - which they use to describe what they observe.

The problem with this is that no 'truth' is ever experienced first hand - it comes through our senses, and is unconsciously interpreted by our minds. What we get then - is the 'truth' according to ourselves only.

I think it is far better to simply take in evidence - without needing to say it is true or false - and try to understand its meaning.

What is it that we actually measure and observe, well that is a different question. I studied physics in university, read a lot of current theory - both mainstream and not.

Having therefore some knowledge of the subject; my model is as follows;

Matter and energy seem to be discrete - that is they are organized into indivisible portions, packets - digital if you like. Fantasy (a word I use to describe everything that is not reality) seems to be continuous, or analog.

The transition between fantasy and reality causes forces the analog to become digital - or real. We can observe this in double slit experiments - where the knowledge of the observer creates reality.

Space and matter seem to be purely geometry - often called strings or vibrations. A energetic motion captured within a certain harmonic geometry.

Point particles (which occupy no space) for example an electron, could be described as being a knot in an infinite length of string, never able to resolve itself - because it never gets to the end of the string.

I don't believe in anything - I think we can accumulate knowledge, with knowledge we can create meanings - but only when we can practically apply the meaning does something create understanding.

When we understand something - we can say that we have a method to practically apply the evidence that we have obtained in a certain way to get an expected result. Therefore I see no value in truth - it can blind us to alternative idea's.

Yes, but we can only measure these things as they appear to us. How can we be sure we are measuring their true nature? Suppose you have a piece of gold. You have two worries about this piece of gold. You can wonder, "Is there really any gold in front of me? Maybe this is just an illusion caused by an evil scientist. Or maybe I am just hallucinating from a high fever." On the other hand, you can be convinced that there is a piece of metal in front of you, of the sort we call "gold", but you can wonder if you have any idea what gold really is: all you know of gold is that it is yellow, malleable, rare and so forth — in short, you know all of its sensible qualities.

I'm asking if there is a deeper level of reality — what the gold is really like, what makes gold the kind of thing that it is. Are things most would call real just sensations of the mind? AND if they are who is giving them to us?

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Xtinguish]

reply to post by Xtinguish


You make a good point about us perceiving Gold as Gold because we have been told thats what it is.

This is a concept that I have tried to explain to many people plenty of times and I don't think anyone has ever quite understood me;

Gravity, Chemistry, Biology etc If you look at any aspect of those subjects how do you know its the truth?

A better way of explaining it is; have we just invented concepts to explain what we don't know?

Like an object does this, why is it doing that? I know lets say its because of this...

Thats probably a very simplistic and incorrect way of looking at things but I have always though it.

I can't explain what I'm trying to say very well.

You hit the nail of the head with what you said about Gold, its yellow, rare etc lets call that Gold!

Now apply the same level of thinking to scientific concepts such as light etc

You people fail physics, chemistry and even biology for ever.

This is what happens when a)People get their hands on complicated matters they can only barely half understand, and b)People get their hands on some philosophical discussion they can barely comprehend and think it is simply DA TRUTH!!!!11!!! (oh how this reminds me of The Secret... And that Bleep crap).

So yeah, I could explain why matter is and whatnot, I could try to make an easy discourse why we see red and the form of the tulip and why we shouldn't compare macro-physics mechanics with quantum mechanics unless you actually study it and have the means to, but sincerely, that work should have been done by your teachers, not by some random guy over the internet. If you are only willing to read some guy's works and pretend you understand reality, at least do us all a favor and actually study what you are researching, really.

And also, it COULD work as a rather cheap philosophical argument, but please take that (another word for excrement) out of my dear physics, or rather, physics out of it.

Edit Observation:
LOL so now I can't say (merda, bosta, merd, coco, caca) and related?

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Raziel89]

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Raziel89]

if matter was real

how come we can see and touch in are dreams

hence its all in our mind and its actually craxt to think something can excict out if the mind

Originally posted by Raziel89
You people fail physics, chemistry and even biology for ever.

This is what happens when a)People get their hands on complicated matters they can only barely half understand, and b)People get their hands on some philosophical discussion they can barely comprehend and think it is simply DA TRUTH!!!!11!!! (oh how this reminds me of The Secret... And that Bleep crap).

So yeah, I could explain why matter is and whatnot, I could try to make an easy discourse why we see red and the form of the tulip and why we shouldn't compare macro-physics mechanics with quantum mechanics unless you actually study it and have the means to, but sincerely, that work should have been done by your teachers, not by some random guy over the internet. If you are only willing to read some guy's works and pretend you understand reality, at least do us all a favor and actually study what you are researching, really.

And also, it COULD work as a rather cheap philosophical argument, but please take that (another word for excrement) out of my dear physics, or rather, physics out of it.

Edit Observation:
LOL so now I can't say (merda, bosta, merd, coco, caca) and related?

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Raziel89]

[edit on 24-6-2009 by Raziel89]

I know and understand physics. Why are people bring physics into a cheap philosophical theory? I understand (somewhat) quantum physics. Look at string theory, why is that becoming more and more acceptable without any physical proof? Can you use your physics to perceive the other 8 dimensions M theory says exist? No? So I suppose it is completly out of the question then. Realize this, it was not to long ago that physics told us the world was flat and Earth was the center of the universe.

I understand science has made a lot of obvious progress. And all progress is made by observationally testable physical theories. What if these dicoveries are only a conjunction of our ideas (NOTE: I phrase it as a question as I have been doing because I am seriously asking it. I am not saying this is truth, nor is it even my theory. I is just something I've been thinking over).

For example: When scientists discovered the connection between heat and molecular motion, perhaps they were not discovering that the motion of molecules in a mind-independent material object causes the sensation of heat in perceivers. BUT they were merely discovering that the sensation "seeing tiny particles move" was constantly accompanied by the sensation "feeling heat". In other words, what science does is to discover patterns in our ideas. In other words God always present us with things on a fixed pattern.

Originally posted by Raziel89

So yeah, I could explain why matter is and whatnot, I could try to make an easy discourse why we see red and the form of the tulip and why we shouldn't compare macro-physics mechanics with quantum mechanics...

you could, but you won't?

dosen't help your case.

reply to post by Raziel89


That should of been done by our teachers? So high-schools now teach quantum mechanics as part of their curriculum? Not quite sure what high school you went to my friend...

You could explain it to us? Well if your that intelligent why are you replying with statements such as "DA TRUTH!!!1!"

Doesn't seem that clever to me.

If enlightened one you apparently know everything that is being discussed then if you was that intelligent why don't you try and explain the relevant answers instead of ridiculing people?

Simply put; don't participate if you cannot add anything useful.

reply to post by Raziel89


Oh and just to add, the fool that gave your post a star... well they are a fool.