The mind creates what we call reality

~

According to the 1%, those at the bottom of the
pyramid scheme don't exist.
Psychopaths are just like that, in which they
are so self-absorbed/materialistic that they are just
indifferent to those around them.

(incl.reptilians & zombies)

reply to post by GmoS719


Touch works in the same way. Electric signals passed to the brain which then interprets that signal as touch.

“Everything is energy and that’s all there is to it. Match the frequency of the reality you want and you cannot help but get that reality. It can be no other way. This is not philosophy. This is physics” - Albert Einstein

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
I thought about this on a macroscopic scale. I usually walk to the store across the street and as I was leaving, I thought about all of the probable states that could occur. Would I see an old friend at the store? Which cars would pass while I waited to cross the street or which workers would be at the store today.

These things are in a state of superposition until I walk to the store. There all probable paths. When I walk to the store it then becomes a measured event. I then thought that quantum information and the Observers mind must be connected.

You have to think much harder about the macroscopic scale. Things on a macroscopic scale don't work quite the same was as they do with subatomic particles. Oh sure, you can apply the same types of formulae, but the results are strikingly different which you don't seem to appreciate at all.

Reading this paper might help you put it in perspective:

Collapsing the Wavefunction of a Baseball

Diffracting sound waves is almost trivial, but for light
waves we need one or more extremely narrow slits (gratings with spacing of the order
of 10^-6 m). For X-rays and electrons the grating pattern has to be finer still (of the
order 10^-10 m as found in crystals). Now, what about the diffraction of a “beam”
of baseballs? Using the de Broglie formula, for a nominal baseball momentum, one
computes slit widths needed to diffract such a beam to be of the order of 10^-34 m!
The impossibility of such a grating is given as the reason why baseballs are not seen to
diffract.

However, a closer look at such reasoning shows serious flaws. If slit widths of the
order of 10^-34 m were actually possible, there is still no way one can imagine baseballs
getting through them (baseballs are simply too big!). The transition from an electron
to a baseball is not merely a change in mass. An electron is a structureless fundamental
particle whereas a baseball is a composite of an enormous number of fundamental
particles bound together. This means that an electron has no measure of spatial extent
or size but the baseball has a well defined measure of size based on equilibrium distances
between component particles. For the baseball to squeeze through a narrow slit, the
distances between its component particles must be decreased dramatically. This would
require ridiculously high energies.

So, when you talk about getting a baseball through a slit that's roughly a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a meter wide, how are you going to do that? It sounds pretty silly to me.

And the larger the object, the smaller the slit you have to put it through to observe any kind of collapse of the wave function, so the moon would have to go through an even smaller slit, which it seems quite apparent to me it's incapable of doing at any realistic energy level I can think of.

So no, I don't think you'll be collapsing the wave function of the baseball, or a tree, or the moon, by observing it. If on the other hand you think you can demonstrate a baseball going through a slit a trillion trillion trillion times smaller than the baseball so an observer can collapse the wave function, then you might convince me otherwise, and I'd like to see that actually. But I seriously doubt you can demonstrate that.

Originally posted by Namaste1001
“Everything is energy and that’s all there is to it. Match the frequency of the reality you want and you cannot help but get that reality. It can be no other way. This is not philosophy. This is physics” - Albert Einstein

What I'm saying is, if nothing was there to touch, then why would you feel something?

Albert Einstein is a Genius.
He isn't Flawless.

Seems like "What the Bleep Do You Know" (movie) snags another.

What you seem to be referring to is what is known as "Quantum Mysticism"...

If a tree falls and nobody is there to observe it, it still makes a sound.

When you go to the store, it's existence is known; That's why you "went to the store."

The problem with applying quantum physics on an macro scale is that quantum physics / mechanics specifically deals with the micro.

Originally posted by GmoS719
This is an interesting theory. I've never heard it put this way before.
However, I don't agree with you.

Example.
One person is walking down a unknown path. They see a tree.
Another person walks down the same path and sees the same tree.
If the tree does not exist until it is observed, then how do two separate minds create the same tree?

Because maybe there is no such thing as separate minds.

You believe this elderly lady? Or is she spreading disinfo? She has an agenda of her own?

reply to post by Confusion42


You said:

The problem with applying quantum physics on an macro scale is that quantum physics / mechanics specifically deals with the micro.

There isn't any evidence that a macro scale exists. What we call a macro scale is just a projection of quantum information emanating from the Observer.

Nobody has ever touched something called matter. You have never touched a hard table or a soft pillow. Electrons from the pillow repel against the electrons from your hand you perceive a hard table or soft pillow. The universe is mostly space. What gives "matter" mass? All of these things can be reduced to a construct of information.

Some in science just assume that there's a macro scale. This is just an assumption and it isn't scientific. Subatomic particles are like pixels that illuminate quantum information that comes from the mind of the observer. Like this website. It looks nice but the pixels just illuminate the information that was used to build the website.

So everything is information that emanates from the mind of the observer and there's no scientific evidence for an objective reality outside of information. The problem occurs because people treat the projected reality as an objective reality.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Well, I can definitely prove that a macro scale exists.

(goes outside, points to the moon, notes that we've been there).

The "normal" scale (what we see and experience as humans)

Anything bigger we label as macro.

Point is that the quantum world acts vastly different than the normal world. I understand you points regarding not really touching things, and such, but;


Just because not much is known about consciousness, and not much is known about quantum mechanics, doesn't mean they are associated and / or related.

Quantum_mysticism

Originally posted by Chamberf=6

Originally posted by AstroBuzz
I know the Giant Sequoias exist and have grown for thousands of years... but I've never seen one in person.

I know a baby grows inside a pregnant woman even though I can't observe or measure it.

But you either read, saw a photo, saw on TV, or heard about them (all perceptions) and believed it.

The sequoias existed even though people in some cultures have never heard of them, or seen them. Perception does not create truth, truth is there and we are limited in understanding the truth by our perceptions.

Everything around us is certaintly real.
But so is the mind.
The mind is the All.
It collects all that we precieve and funnels it through memories, ones we hold close and ones we didnt even realize we had.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by Confusion42

 

You said:

The problem with applying quantum physics on an macro scale is that quantum physics / mechanics specifically deals with the micro.

There isn't any evidence that a macro scale exists.

I gave you a challenge to prove this by shooting a stream of baseballs through diffraction slits to demonstrate that they aren't on a macro scale and will exhibit quantum behavior.

I believe the challenge is impossible to fulfill but I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that it's possible. And if you can't demonstrate this, then I conclude that baseballs are indeed macro scale objects where we are unable to observe diffraction or wave function collapse caused by observation.

Again I cite from the same scientific paper I quoted earlier:
Collapsing the Wavefunction of a Baseball

Macroscopic objects like baseballs have a very large number of degrees of freedom due to
their large number of component particles.

Yes, a baseball is indeed a macroscopic object.

For the purpose of quantum mechanical analysis of observation, macroscopic objects
like baseballs cannot be treated as just scaled up versions of microscopic objects.
Macroscopic objects are made of a large number of microscopic objects tied together
by some forces. This composite nature of macroscopic objects gives them properties
qualitatively different from microscopic ones. The quantum description of composite
objects is in principle straightforward but computationally time consuming.

I understand some of that paper may be over your head, but that part certainly shouldn't be. And I think it refutes your claim that no macro scale exists. I don't see you accounting for the fact that "This composite nature of macroscopic objects gives them properties qualitatively different from microscopic ones."

reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck


Yes, Red,

I totally agree.

We are arrogant to think that things do not exist until we observe them.

These things exist regardless of humanity.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I can never understand why physicists think they ought to have exclusive rights to the models of quantum mechanics.

humans, and importantly, scientists, frequently apply known observable principles to non related systems. quite often this is an effective method of LEARNING.

in the end, it will undoubtedly be shown that a moon is not an apple...but that is a lame argument against the gravitational force.


...my god! apples and moons are vastly different sizes too! whoulda thunk?!

reply to post by Confusion42


looks like another convert to the "I am so super smarter than you, you retarded little what-the-bleeper" club.

yeah. we get it. what the bleep is lame and obscenely inaccurate.


but seriously? get over yourself and come back with some science.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

This is too esoteric.

We are talking about a world filled with massive amounts of predictable data points, not singularities. The data lines up in patterns according to agreed probabilities. Most of the solidities we experience had their "wave function collapsed" a long time ago, and have been in that state ever since.

Our universe was created through a process of social agreement. So most things just sit there and remain solid whether anyone ever looks at them or not.

What quantum physics is discovering is how the appearance of solidity is created and how it could be un-created. In an agreed-upon universe, it would take massive agreement to un-create any given solid form. In your own personal universe it's different. A solidity only stays solid when you have your attention on it. When your attention leaves it, it evaporates. It was quite a trick to create a collective universe that would not behave this way! But, now it's done.

However, with some dedicated work, you can make your own universe become a more important part of your life. The nice thing about your own universe is that it only has to contain things the you agree with. "Grownups" disagree with this approach, insisting that we "face reality." But now we know "reality" is just an agreed-upon collapsed wave function. Change agreements, and you change reality. Get my drift?

reply to post by Matrix Rising

S&F....

Here is a drawing of the base "Partition Map" used in the "Processing System" which produces your Holographic Experience, most believe to be their reality i.e a Universe we appear to interact with. It fills each of our field vision.



NO it's NOT a Mandala.... LOL.

The "Processing System" which produces your so called reality is very much an individual "Processing System" I refer to as The Soul Construct, simply I don't know what name I can label it with and we each have a Clone of this Geometric Construct within our own individual "Terminal" within a Mainframe of similar Construction.
Each of us have huge Libraries within this Construct containing a copy of The ALL.

This universe (experience) is only one of innumerable systems we have access to.

The "Processing System" can be observed by anyone and studied. Its just a matter of bring peoples attention to it otherwise they don't know what to look for or how... LOL.

Originally posted by Confusion42

If a tree falls and nobody is there to observe it, it still makes a sound.

No it doesn't

When a tree falls it creates a vibration, you need a human or an animal with ears to interpret this frequency in your mind into sound, otherwise it's just vibration.

When you take DVD and stick it in a DVD player and play it with the TV off, can you see the movie. No it only creates an electrical impulse, but you need to have the TV on to see.

Our mind is like a TV that plays movies and our ears are the DVD player that interpret the disc.

OMG I can’t even finish reading this is so mind boggling!!!

I love it tho; gives me the same feeling as when think about how big space is ahhhhhhh...