I Believe I Have Supporting Evidence That We Aren't Real

reply to post by NorEaster


This my seem a simple question...but does a recorded event at quantum level change once it becomes observed...OR is the fact the event being recorded alone means it's outcome has already changed.
At what point does the observed Quantum event change....is it prior to the observed event...during the observed event or after the observed event.
OR does just the thought of the event change the outcome....as soon as we think of the event does that change it.

I beg to differ with the OP.

Horizon is an amazing documentary...which I rush to watch..but I don't think they tried to convey the idea that we're not real.

The holographic principle doesn't mean we are "not real." Rather, it indicates that information about the universe, about ourselves is already pre-planned in a way...all the information is held in like an "event horizon" for the universe, like there is for a black hole. And therefore it could be in league with the anthropic principle..

Basically the surface of the universe describes what's happening in the interior...

Here's a good place to start reading more if you're interested

This topic has so many misconceptions first let me say I am no authority on reality but one thing is sure you cannot say reality isn't real. You can say that it is far less materialistic as we previously thought but saying it isn't real or an illusion is jumping the gun and a very dangerous conclusion if in the wrong hands.

You are able to see reality and you are able to interact with it, the nature of reality no mather how weird does not make reality not real.
Reality is formed in conciousness and it does organize under the observation of consciousness but it is still real. So the whole title is very misleading. Nothing cannot be unreal, it can be unreal if you look at the universe in a materialistic way but that is a skewed view of the world quantum physics had to let go of a long time ago.

This very discovery that we are concsciousness in consciousness should be enough reason for everyone to go seek who they really are in themselves and stop looking at the world around.

So here's my question after watching these videos and reading the non-idiotic comments:

Did the electrons still create a interference pattern when the observation equipment was still attached, but not on? As in, have they confirmed that its the actual act of observing thats causing the electron to change its behaviour, and not the piece of equipment for whatever reason?

Props to you for this post btw. This could also be attributed to out of body experiences. I know a friend who has had one or two, and has described seeing things another ATS person had posted about NDE's.

Originally posted by colloredbrothers
This topic has so many misconceptions first let me say I am no authority on reality but one thing is sure you cannot say reality isn't real. You can say that it is far less materialistic as we previously thought but saying it isn't real or an illusion is jumping the gun and a very dangerous conclusion if in the wrong hands.

You are able to see reality and you are able to interact with it, the nature of reality no mather how weird does not make reality not real.
Reality is formed in conciousness and it does organize under the observation of consciousness but it is still real. So the whole title is very misleading. Nothing cannot be unreal, it can be unreal if you look at the universe in a materialistic way but that is a skewed view of the world quantum physics had to let go of a long time ago.

This very discovery that we are concsciousness in consciousness should be enough reason for everyone to go seek who they really are in themselves and stop looking at the world around.

The premise is that we are a hologram, or projection of our true reality, I think. Not that we aren't "real", since using the world "real" is a relative term.

Logically If we are not real then we are fake. so if we are fake. then we are not real. But if we are real then we are real and are able to feel and see that there are real and unreal but we are looking outside the box. we might exist holographically just as our physicial bodies are at the moment to avanced extreterrestial civilizations who have this technology avalilable to them which means that we exist to them holographically and since they are extremely more advanced than us they might just one day be able to manipulate our physical realities through our holographic copies. But one thing they will not be able to do no matter how advanced they are is be able to manipulate us if we learn how to develop our souls in the physical world, because That is what makes us real in every sense. quantum mechanics is science, science is to us the only way to prove certain things but it is really a measuring of our civilizations development in technological advances but if you look at it this way science could already be millions of years ahead of us and being used in a time where it is not even taught or learned but manifested itself. because time to us seems constant but it is a distance. Therefore everything that exist now is and has and will and would always exist. so in a sense everything is real and not real at the same time but real at the same time and at the same time fake and real and the same time real fake. But the key to this is that we are a species like every other even better the most advanced in our world therefore we shouldnt even worry about wether were real or not because it will affect our souls will which will affect how we accept our real physical world which is what you all know unless you have a strong spirtiual awaraness.

reply to post by Knowledgeoftruth


Great perspective! *S* Keep 'em coming

Thanks buddy

op you live in a world that has been programmed 3 times before, and has been set politicaly, economic, and stucturely, and spiritually the same, and about every 3600 years they clean house, oops and we are just about to that time period, this time i hope the f's get drowned in there underground facilties, yep

Why would I listen to anything you have to say if you're not real?

Seriously though I go with Descartes on this "Cogito ergo sum".

reply to post by Mizzijr


Let me add this to your theory that we might not be "real". A really nice BBC documentary about life the universe and everything.

My odds are we are a simulation in a quantum computer. The fact is "real" is subjective.

Information and energy, give it a stir and the ripples do the rest.

Enjoy...

www.youtube.com...

Part 1 of 6 find the rest on youtube.

well, i really like those bbc documentaries, and i was surprised that they mentioned holography in it.

for the few who really know how much impact that has (actually they just showed the 3D on a 2D surface) the math behind implies that its possibly this or that other dimension also being involved.

Now THIS sheds a different light on a version of reality another group of scientists had already thought about.

The story was like:

Imagine that technologies doubles its capabilities every 5 years. If that matches our capabilities a possible other civilisation may had the same rate in developping, thus being far more advanced than we are.
Lets say they started out with computers like we do, lets say they invented this and that, came up with holodeck-like capabilities.
However being technically SO much advanced that they could possibly be capable of simulating the entire universe for...lets say .. us.
This would mean .. we are all some sort of simulation, and we, as being in this state would not have the chance to get to know that.

Its a possibility ...and the idea has been discussed into the most exotic depth.

The conclusion was:
If this would be the case we would just get to know if something in this world we live in would not fit in some way, something would not make sense.
And YES ...quantumn physics is very much like not making much sense.

sooooo....

Are we simulated ?

I have only read the title.

Surly if you have evidence that we don’t exist, and then you must exist in order to hold such tangible evidence, therefore you must exist. And with this your thread is debunked.

It’s a bit like saying “We know nothing” but in claiming that “we know nothing” we are claiming to know something therefore cannot claim to know nothing. To me it is a paradox to say we do not exist, because by virtue of saying we do not exist you are proving your existence.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
I have only read the title.

I'd say read on but you're clearly struggling with this alone.

Originally posted by kevinunknown

Surly if you have evidence that we don’t exist, and then you must exist in order to hold such tangible evidence, therefore you must exist. And with this your thread is debunked.

It’s a bit like saying “We know nothing” but in claiming that “we know nothing” we are claiming to know something therefore cannot claim to know nothing. To me it is a paradox to say we do not exist, because by virtue of saying we do not exist you are proving your existence.

What on earth are you babbling about? Not being real and not existing are two disparate concepts. Read the title, again. Which of these concepts are stated?

Still confused? Perhaps a primer in basic ontological studies might serve you well and thusly temper your haste to impart incoherent knee-jerk rebuttals.

If you're insistent on mindless repetitive nay-saying then at the very least get it right.

reply to post by rexusdiablos


Ah yeah my bad, didn’t know it was about that documentary thought it was another one of these “we all live in a matrix” type threads.

Originally posted by Mizzijr
could be holograms projected off of the horizon of a black hole

I have an issue with this. And maybe I shouldn't since it's my first real post on ATS ("hi guys!!!!"). I've been lurking for years.

I just feel that this pulls up a pretty serious issue which is that there are two conclusions: predetermination and animated holographic film. Neither of which I favor.

I'm going to S&F though because I feel that this thread pulls up a pretty serious question and a pretty intriguing conclusion.

I just don't have any answers and this thread doesn't answer any of mine... Interesting videos though.

reply to post by TMJ1972


You are referring to the simulation argument which is a very clever thought game about the nature of reality given our increasing ability to simulate reality.

This is the abstract of that paper:

This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.

The theory being that if a posthuman civilization can make one totally believable simulation of reality (it doesn't even need to be perfect) then there is no theoretical reason why they should not make a hundred or a million such simulations. At that point the odds are stacked against us that we live in the original "real" universe.

The exciting thing I learnt from the Horizon documentary is that Fermilab are creating a device called a holometer to detect the holographic noise that should be present if the holographic principle is correct. If the device finds evidence for the noise then the scientific view of the fundamental nature of reality will be completely changed. We'll have to come to understand how our perceptual universe is a 3D representation of a more fundamental 2D reality.

Regarding parallel universe theory, I don't like it. The idea that entire parallel universes are being created every time a decision is made seems absurd and I don't believe the universe is that wasteful. The only reason that science considers parallel universe theory to be viable is because most scientists agree with Einstein's assertion that "God does not play dice with the universe". Parallel universe theory allows all the other possible die rolls to be shifted out of our universe.

Subatomic particles exist as "probability clouds" with no definite location until they are observed. When they are observed they can appear anywhere inside the probability cloud. The position at which they appear seems to be entirely random and this is something that is impossible without breaking causality. The idea of causality (cause and effect) is so fundamental in science that the idea of something appearing somewhere for no reason is just completely impossible. This is one root of parallel universe theory, the explanation being that a universe is created for every possible location that the particle could appear and therefore causality is not broken.

My own opinion is that cause and effect is an illusion, time is a traversable dimension and particles appear where they do because that was the most appropriate place for them to be for the future universe.

Wow, this one hurt my brain.

The problem I see with a topic like this, is that there are so many variables and "what if"s that our brains just cant't make sense of, that at this moment in time, anything is possible. We might be projections, we might not. I don't think we will ever know unless somehow we all ascend into the higher dimensions. Its no good just one person ascending higher and then descending lower, because those in the lower would write them off as a nut! And it may not even be possible to ascend and descend, just like the apple and flatland.

Who knows!! My head hurts!

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Hmm I don't know about the hologram theory, it might be true I really don't know. I'll think about that for a bit.

But that part where the guy said
"That video also said that we can change the reaction of things by simply observing"

I have to say it's clearly the opposite.

The reaction of things changes your observation.

Here is a test to prove that I'm right.

Observe your couch turn into lava. Bet you can't force observe that reaction.

Observe an electron retain wave properties when "fired" through 2 slits. You absolutely cannot observe that reaction. That's the entire point. In the quantum world, the very act of measuring or observing does change how things react. It may be incredibly difficult to explain, but it most definitely occurs.

Unfortunately my couch doesn't reside on the quantum side.

Cheers,
Strype