It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
115
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by chiponbothshoulders
 


Yes and no, your eye converts the light rays reflecting off a surface into electric signals your brain can understand. The color of light reflected is what color you see, nothing has color, color is merely light reflecting off the surface. You can't change that, but you can potentially condition the brain to convert red to blue, but in reality, you are still seeing red.

but really it's quite simple to test the "do you see color as I do theory" look at the sky, anything the same color is blue, simple!

the only way to test the conditioning would be to get a child at birth and condition them from birth, in isolation, so see red as blue. But again, are they actually seeing blue? or are they merely calling red blue because of the conditioning.

Who wants to donate their first born to science?




posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by phishybongwaters
 
But if I were able to process the information through your brain,would the way your brain processes it be perceived as the same color as the way mine processes it?.

We are conditioned to see things as we do,the only continuity is the way we are trained to interpret what we see.

Everything you know was taught to you by someone else.

What if they were wrong?.

Quantum Theory is proving we don't know much at all about anything.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by lestweforget
reply to post by lifer201
 


So just let me get this clear before i make a fool of myself as you just have. I need proof that im real?


You are not real. I don't see you. I am unable to touch you, smell you or hear you either. You can't be real.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by phishybongwaters
 


Outstanding post, you explained it about as succinctly as anyone can.

On that note... and because of this I have long since decided that whatever reality I perceive is the one I am interacting with, and I will choose to continue to interact with it like it is reality, and therefor (two dimensional or not) so am I. Somehow we come back to, "I think therefor I am." Descartes may have had it right on a fundamental level. Quantum physics seems to be supported by philosophers more than makes most people comfortable. Weird.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
I imagine our existence is like a quantum vibrating medium we recognize as matter/energy and space. Where a single quantum vibration of a single particle anywhere in the universe causes a split and creates another dimension in essence a unlimited version of all the unlimited versions of all possibilities, e.g. 10 dimensional universe. Schroeder’s Cat 2.0
Conscience is like a worm eating its path in a worm farm made of out of the 10D universe in a way that our thoughts and actions “tunnel” through this medium giving use something to do with our thoughts. We observer our “tunneling” effect as a linear action giving us the passage of time.
The act of thought creates unlimited potential. Think positive.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Mizzijr
 


I thought time was the fourth dimension?? Remember the "worm" between birth and death? Did I miss something?

Oh ya, and who is running that projector from the surface of the black hole anyway??



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



I'd compare dreams to a video camera..
To film a scene you need light...
To play it back you don't..
Dreams are a combinations of memories..
Some we don't even remember seeing but our brain still stored the images..
Our mind creates the dream from visions already seen..


You still need light to play it back; whether thru an old fashiioned projector with a light bulb in it or an LCD computer or television screen which itself emits light.

Dreams may be made up of memory fragments but they are completely rearanged to tell new stories. If only I could have experienced while awake the odd ball stuff that goes on in dreams. I don't think I could handle it really. Many times I awake relieved to learn it was only a dream. Whew! I'm pretty sure I've had dreams that were in parts completely outside the realm of possiblity in the awake world.

The first three dimensions are limitless. Time seems to have a start and an end -- at least for you and me. But since it existed before either you or I and will continue after we are gone, I suppose it is a limitless dimension too.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Mizzijr
 


great article and thought-provoking. I only have one question, why in the world would you post this online? Just look at lifer01's comment, and this is typical i am sure. Dumb it down please, My poor head cant comprehend, besides too many big words, no one can spell a damn thing anymore, forget about critical thinking skills. The oligarchs and the elites have succeeded in dumbing down the people, and very very few are capable of thought any more. However I do thank you for such a thought provoking piece. I would say keep it up, however I foresee a time when such critical thinking ability will become very very dangerous as people get dumber they get more violent, and such thinking will immediately place a bulls-eye upon your person. So, dumb it down Mr. thinkity pants, who do you think you are anyway!



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
It could be in the final summation of things that this thing we call life isn't real, or we aren't real, but for now, you'd better look out for that shark. Real or not, it's going to hurt when he bites you.

Whether or not we are real, you better enjoy that love you feel for another while its there. It is going to hurt alot when that or he/she goes away. Enjoy, learn, love and do all those things because there is meaning and purpose even if it isn't real.

Similarly I enjoy the hell out of my dreams these days because there is something important and legitimate to them too; even if they aren't reality as we know it. Even if the atoms and particles aren't real, the experiences are!
How about that?



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


We've already done work which show that by observing atoms, we change the way they behave.

A funny and cheezy video, that explains it at the basic level.



And some Wiki reading if you want real details.

~Keeper




I watched the video series the OP initially referred to, and one thing started showing up about 2/3 of the way through the 4 part presentation that I think may be key to a lot of this anomalous behavior, when we start inspecting activity at the Quantum Level. That thing is the impact of information on what happens and doesn't happen.

The most telling moment was when the physicists illustrated that by adding an observation source at the point where they assume that the photon particle divides or multiplies or does whatever it is that they think it does to allow the third band to collect after the double slit makes its impact upon the photon as it travels from the gun to the target, that the photon "decides" to behave in the proper manner and choose one or the other of the slits and replicate the two bands on the target field. To me, this is telling because placing this observation source at this specific point - prior to the slits - introduces the expectation of the observer into the process.

Now, I may end up not agreeing with the projected assumption that some have glommed onto, but that doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge that placing the human perception into the process may have an impact on that process. The difference between my own initial thoughts on this (they are initial and subject to consideration, but only if evidence is provided that doesn't violate the Law of Contextual Ramification...more in a moment on that) and some of what I've read in regards to this experiment, is that I have determined (aided by results of recent research in this field) that the experience of human observation is not initiative, but is reactive, even though the event of corporeal brain observation is initiative as an event that triggers contextual ramification, as all events do. In fact, the addition of the observation source in this experiment and the noted impact upon the behavior of these photons may be evidence that I am on the right path here in how I view human observation.

In my own interpretation of the experiment's reveal is that there is one set of contextual ramifications that exists when the photons are sent through the double slit panel, and that set of ramifications is the result of what physicists have yet to determine concerning the nature of residual information's impact upon the behavior of photons in this specific situation, involving this specific experiment, with this particular set-up being used in this clearly defined manner. Fair enough. I have no answer concerning why the photons behave as they do within the confines of this very finite circumstance, and maybe it'll be years before someone comes up with a plausible explanation. There is another set of contextual ramifications that exists when they position two observation sources priot to the the panel with the slits, and this is the mystery that I feel I may have a thought concerning what is going on.

In fact, I have a pretty good idea as to why the observation source caused the photons to "behave themselves" as one would have expected them to once it was introduced into the suite of factors. And that reason involves the introduction of a new source of information into the management structure of the event collective that is the trajectory of each photon as it leaves the gun, chooses the slit and hits the plate.

In my view of reality, an event is a symbiotic partnership between raw activity and the information that has been established via contextual precedence in a way that causes it to literally manage the specific nature of that event. This management is what I call "contextual ramification", and it is the most primitive expression of "path of least resistance", and sets the sub-structure for what we've labeled "natural selection". At the Quantum Level, physicists are baffled at the potential for chaotic behavior, but what they don't take into consideration is that at that level, some events are relatively free from the impact of contextual ramification - since there do exist at that level, event trajectories that have little or no impact on much else that does or will exist. The contextual ramification of a "chaotic" event is minimal to nonexistent at that level of primitive existence, and there is (at times) unfettered freedom of event expression.

As events become more included within the sub-structure - and especially the higher levels of structure - of reality, the ramifications become more and more profound, and the management via residual information within the contextual environment itself becomes equally rigid to that increase in potential intrastructural impact. In essence, a steel beam that's lying on the ground can be treated much differently than a steel beam that is part of the core support structure of a building - if the viability of the building structure is a concern, of course. The event is like a steel beam within the structure of reality, and at the Quantum Level, there are beams that are (metaphorically) lying around.

Concerning the photon experiment, the addition of the observation source injects the potential for a clash in information management within the photon trajectory. Instead of there being the residual information "path of least resistance" management protocol as the sole protocol, this observation source introduces the human intellect's expectation protocol as a competing protocol. This may seem unlikely, due to the speed of the photon, but the expectation as information is not the same as active observational control. This expectation protocol sets up a true information management structure that is directed specifically toward that very finite event trajectory - the flight of that photon and the "choice" it will make between slit A and slit B. This information protocol won't determine the choice, but because of the firm view of reality that this information source (the researcher's years of training and experience) has built within itself as contextual precedence, the photon will be restricted to either slit A or slit B, and not allowed the third choice that it seems to have available to it when the more passive "path of least resistance" residual information management protocol is in charge of its trajectory.

In essence, the human expectation forces the photon to choose between one acceptable trajectory or the other acceptable trajectory. And this happens without the researcher(s) awareness of what is occurring.

This is not to imply that the human intellect can violate the Law of Contextual Ramification (LRC) - it can't. The photon trajectory event allows for the photon to choose A or B or to do whatever it does to create that third pattern. All the human intellect management protocol is doing is restricting the choice. That isn't a violation of the LRC, since it doesn't invade the reasonable/logical behavior of any other aspect of reality. Human intellect is not primordial and can't affect structure at any level, but like any information source, it can affect an open field trajectory run, and at the Quantum Level of event behavior, there is a better chance of observing open field trajectory runs.

That said, it's important to understand what is being observed, so that no one runs off any intellectual cliffs as a result of what may appear to be an anomaly.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

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.


I would have to disagree with you. Have you heard of the observer effect?


In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on the phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by phishybongwaters
 


Awesome roundup Phishy! Star and flag for the OP too, cool topic.

One of my most favourite topics, although it still gives me a massive headache, after contemplating it for any length of time I usually have to watch some cartoons.


The Horizon doc was good, one of the better in the BBC series, they normally tend to be a little lacking when it comes to the science. (Just watch the Time Travel episode and you'll see what I mean).

The one problem I have with the OP is this section:

What about when we dream? Could it be proof of our holographic life style? Think about this, why can we see light or anything that occurs in a dream when our eyes are closed? We see because of light. Dreams take place inside the mind, when we close our eyes we can't see anything...

I'm not sure what you are driving at in this part? It almost seems to deflect from your original train of thought.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
The more we know, the more we know we don't know. As I get older this becomes more true everyday.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 
I swear I seriously don't know what to think about this subject,but I do know that car accident I had sure felt really real to me or is that not how it works?................I'm sooooo confused!!!



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
If this is a duplicate post I apologize, Plato was the first person to question "what is real":

webspace.ship.edu...

Here is another site that talks about being the dream or the dreamer:

ezinearticles.com...

Quatum physics and philosophy often say the same thing, fascinating.

There is no way to objectively figure out if we are real, we must start with the idea we are, in order to question it.

Fun post F&S



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Mizzijr
 


After watching the 10th dimension video, I think that it is describing what I've been referring to as the Contextual Environment in my posts about reality. In fact, if that video is suggesting that the 10th dimension is where the foundational vibration is generated by strings, then it definitely is what I have been calling the Contextual Environment. And the vibrational frequency of these strings? That is what I've been referring to as the Causal Unit Rate of Change, and that is what establishes the sub-structural commonality for all that exists within the Contextual Environment.

My only change in this is that I have determined that the Contextual Environment that we exist within is (temporarily) a sub-environment that is contextually linked to a parent environment, where the author of this sub-environment exists. I call this author "God" because that's what humanity has decided to call the creator.

Interesting that my little theories aren't all that contrary to what's being tossed about.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I love this thread, so thought provoking.
About light in dreams, it's not just in dreams. Go and sit in a dark room and shut your eyes, you will see light, you will have to wait and look. There is also light in the space ( space between objects ) that most people don't notice, sparkling and shimmering, like pixels.

edit on 25-1-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Mizzijr
 



The Dream Part

I'd compare dreams to a video camera..
To film a scene you need light...
To play it back you don't..
Dreams are a combinations of memories..
Some we don't even remember seeing but our brain still stored the images..
Our mind creates the dream from visions already seen..





How are you playing back a scene recorded on video without light?
edit on 25-1-2011 by CayceFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

I'd compare dreams to a video camera..
To film a scene you need light...
To play it back you don't..



A scene can still be filmed without light, we just can't see it with our eyes. What about infrared filming too? The camera internals create an image without the need for light, it uses heat instead.

And to play it back you DO need light or else you just have a blank screen to view.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by lestweforget
reply to post by jplaysguitar
 


Free thought;
I have no problems with this, i like to imagine different concepts "outside the box" mind you i have to admit i dont have the wildest imagination. I suppose i may have been a little harsh in my initial response to this thread but i have to disagree with this as freethought, this is just a case of too much sci-fi, take away the matrix, star trek and avatar and you would be left with very little thought at all. An ex work colleage tried to encourage me to read up on quantum phisics, he was at the time studying it on some level, this same self acclaimed genius couldnt even change a simple fuse.




It looks as though this one is too far 'outside the box' for you at the moment.

Before you go slating other peoples comments on a subject that you've admitted you have no clue about, maybe you should get to know a little about what they are talking about. You could even start by watching the videos posted by the OP or reading a book like the one your friend suggested.

And another thing, a great deal of sci-fi ideas come directly from theoretical physics, it's not all fairytales you know. Check out Isaac Asimov for a better understanding of how that works.

Happy reading my friend!



new topics

top topics



 
115
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join