Quantum Experiment Confirms Reality Doesn't Exist Until Measured

The term "plenipotential" springs to mind, explained in the book "The Way of the Human Being" by Calvin Martin, for anyone interested in native perspectives.

Reply to: 0bserver1

When you shut your phone off, I am still observing myself so I or anyone else wouldn't cease to exist just because you're not aware or paying attention to them. They are being payed attention to by many other conscious and non-conscious observers. And when I shut my phone off, you're still observing yourself and everyone around you.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

The problem I see with that is its getting very close to aether.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

What if you are blind and cannot therefore see. Does that not suggest that nothing exists including the self yet the self exists whether it can see or not, does it not.

The article says nothing about the measurement needing to be performed by a human observer. In fact the delayed choice quantum eraser also proves that non-conscious machines can perform measurements.

Absolutely!

it is a common misconception that the study of Quantum mechanics is the study of the very small.... In truth Quantum mechanics is more to do with the study of isolation and system interaction than being described as such.

Finally evidence of the glass ceiling around the earth!

Anyone know why the us dept of energy has sunk 100's of millions in these projects at fermilab? Is it for weather modeling? Anyhow these experiments are definitely starting to compile a vivid picture...that we have had very little understanding of reality.
I guess Immanuel Kant was right? We constitute our own reality in the Copernican revolution ideas.

Its crazy to me that monks and philosophers have said this same thing (though far less technical) using logic and reason alone. Kant pretty much explained verbatim this very thing a a few hundred years ago by trying to get around Hume's skeptical observation that it is impossible to prove this isn't all a dream and its impossible to predict something there is no proof of (the future).

Through reason and philosophical arguments Kant came up with the very same concept of reality because there is no other way to approach the subject. We can't prove anything but our own observations and those observations are reality.

a reply to: yorkshirelad

lol. schrodingers cat. looking back i believe that thought experiment harmed me more than it helped. the damn cat IS in one state or the other. i guess even a brilliant mind is still shamefully open to human nature.

originally posted by: fixitwcw
a reply to: yorkshirelad

lol. schrodingers cat. looking back i believe that thought experiment harmed me more than it helped. the damn cat IS in one state or the other. i guess even a brilliant mind is still shamefully open to human nature.

I may have gotten the experiment wrong but wasn't he saying metaphore is often inaccurate and only math can give you the real story?

does anyone else notice,

that by saying this is true, (Reality does not exist until measured.) you would also be saying that we can know all things, simply through measurement alone? hmmmmmm.

I take exception with the implication of the title.

If the theory is true, then the information is a part of reality. We know that information underlies material. That's quite obvious. Knowing that "potential" is something that exists is also nothing new to me. However, to claim that reality isn't reality until...? Is odd.

Whatever is discovered about the true macro and micro workings of what the universe tends to be was, is, and will always be "reality" (assuming a full reset is not in the future, but then to bring up the possibility...).

It has always seemed to me that those who pose the theories of physics (or anything else for that matter) are always making it much more complicated than it really is. Maybe it's not their fault. Maybe it's not that simple to them.

Put yourself into a bowling alley. Pick up a 16 pound ball and step up onto the approach. Walk up to the line. Thou shalt not cross it. Now granny-roll the ball directly down the middle of the lane. You hit 7 pins! Good job! Reset the pins. I don't want you to finish that frame. Now the pins are reset. Do the -exact same thing- again. Change nothing. Wow! You got 8 pins this time! But.......... how?!

Even if you did everything -exactly the same- and did not so much as even nudge the ball somewhat differently, you would get a different result because: The oil on the ball from the lane, the change in the oil pattern on the lane from the ball, slight change in the distance of each pin to each other as they are not always set down exactly right, the orientation of the balance of each pin, the weight/mass/height difference (however minute) of each pin - these things and more will factor into the interaction of the pins with each other, therefore changing the result. And to do it again, each time, the situation is changed.

Here's what is even more interesting: You could continue to perform this thought experiment (or, hey, novel idea... do it in the physical world, if you're consistent enough) and come up with a different result every single time. That's because there are an infinite number of possibilities even within the most controlled event. While the overall result each time may be similar, there will always be differences. Mm... snowflakes.. No. I hate winter. Where is the sun? It's JUNE. New York...

This world could not be -any other way-. It wouldn't be life, but a video game, if results were not infinitely dynamic in nature. Therein lies the proof that we are not in a hologram (as we understand it): The dynamic range of possibility within this universe is, quite literally, INFINITE. It's so much so that there still isn't a computer powerful enough to solve brute force "Chess"... and there won't ever be a computer that solves Chess COMPLETELY. AND THAT'S ONE MEASLY LITTLE GAME! There would be no reason to. No to almost no individuals would have the capacity or the desire or the need to have access to the full solution of Chess. And yet... it's there. Just because we aren't able to use our instruments to flesh it all out in bits and on paper, that doesn't mean the solution doesn't exist. The fact that it is -theoretically- possible to solve Chess simply proves that The Solution is obviously already here... recorded in the form of Potential: i.e. - the power underlying and overlying and within the Universe. Bold statement, I know. "Prove it" generally comes from the mouth which is quick to utter and slow to think.

This doesn't prove a lack of reality until observation however- no, no, NO. It proves the existence of reality is just as dynamic as we perceive it. I suppose no one remembers the phrase, "Anything could happen." And yet, behold, we have the astounding ability to say, "THAT is going to happen! Don't say I didn't warn ya!" We're pretty darn smart and we ain't giving each other enough credit. It's the whole "build the calculator which can show us on paper what we can see in our heads" part that's really, really hard. The irony is that we use the universe to calculate the universe. The tools are excavated from mud and gravel (loose interpretation - read: the elements of the universe which undergo a hundred steps before being revealed as "microscope"). So at what point do the humans start to realize that they are using creation in an attempt to solve creation? Hmm... I don't know about that. But the mind is somehow given enough access to be able to, if one was willing, to see the end of all things. Don't know why these people are getting paid to go through the extremely slow and tedious process of failing to get down on paper that which is obvious in the mind to those who are unbiased and have the faculties and the desire to observe and consider.

I do not understand why people get paid to add complexity to that which is already understood by our own experiences. These things seem so counter intuitive to invention. Just invent. Save a life, make some money, go on vacation, give to charity, say a prayer... it's really darn simple. Which brings up another wrench in the spoke of meaninglessness: You can actually say, "I am going to do something" and you can do it! Despite all the possibilities of the universe working completely against you... you can do it! Ain't that something? THAT'S SOMETHING!

It should be understood that our system of categorizing things is indeed merely an abstract and failing interpretation of reality which we designed to cater to our imagination and yet dim perception. The numbers, do not, in fact, represent reality to the degree which we seem to desire... or, more accurately, it is our reliance on the numbers that is faulty, for the numbers themselves do not lie except that the numbers are a system which we have designed and therefore the numbers carry our biases along with our insecurities - and even more accurately than that (shall I continue?), it is actually the definition which we have applied to the numbers that carry the bias, but a number without a definition is simply a place holder without any meaning whatsoever except that which enters the mind. Think "7 billion".

If you thought "population", then you see my point.

Reality is reality is reality. It ain't not reality. It ain't never was not gonna be reality. It always will be what it was gonna be. I must have hit the nerve of revelation with the vernacular here somewhere, lest I appear as a redneck rocket scientist preacher from Huntsville. Wait a minute...?

I like quantum entanglement when it causes orgasms.

Otherwise, I don't believe they exist.

a reply to: neoholographic

So if a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there, to hear it, then it does not matter, if it makes any sound,
because if no ones is there, there is no forest, in witch a tree may fall,,,

originally posted by: fixitwcw

does anyone else notice,

that by saying this is true, (Reality does not exist until measured.) you would also be saying that we can know all things, simply through measurement alone? hmmmmmm.

Not really. Its saying that reality does not exist until you observe it. Seems pretty obvious. How else could you prove anything? The act of you observing is what makes you who you are and therefore is reality. There is no other way to prove reality even exists. This is my opinion of the data based on my understanding of thought experiments by philosophers and scientists but I think its as basic of an explanation as not go overboard with metaphore.

If you don't exist you don't know anything exists. If you do exist you are only constituting reality through your observations since you can't really prove you aren't in a lucid dream.

We are entangled with reality and our observations affect what reality is. Funny how we are hinting at a lot of ancient knowledge these days.

Monks meditating have heightened mental states and produce a lot more theta waves than non meditators, cosmology, reality, the ether are kind of being shown mathematically to correspond with some ancient deep philosophy.

Two rocks drifting towards each other in intergalactic space, and they collide. Once their gravitational fields interact...is this the point of measurement? The point at which each rock begins to exist beyond simple probability?

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: neoholographic

So if a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there, to hear it, then it does not matter, if it makes any sound,
because if no ones is there, there is no forest, in witch a tree may fall,,,

There are other trees around the tree that fell, that can act as non-human observers. So regardless of if anyone is there, the forest is its own observer. If that weren't the case, we would go into forests and never find any fallen trees ever.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Do you mean to say that is the point at which their existence matters at all?

You're trying to break down that situation without allowing the whole universe to be involved. In order for those rocks to be drifting towards each other, a bunch of other things had to happen to those rocks first.

You're discussing the existence of an event, merely, whose specifics could be calculated somewhat accurately by discovering the history of each of those respective rocks.

Hence why we are fairly certain when the comets will come around, and where the Moon will be and... oh nevermind.

The tree fell and made a sound and frankly it don't really matter to everyone except the squirrels and birds which gotta find a new place to play. OF course, not until they show up in your backyard on your tree and their fighting over the bird food you put out. Then you put grease on the bar to keep the squirrels from stealing from birds and then you're laughing at the squirrel while your kids think you're mean. So everything has an effect.

I really, really feel like this particular theory was invented by a nursery full of verbally skilled infants. Not insulting at all, but it reminds me of the mentality of an infant: "Dad's GONE! NOOOO!!! Oh hi, Dad. Wait? How's that POSSIBLE!! Come Back!! OH hi, Dad."

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Do you mean to say that is the point at which their existence matters at all?

You're trying to break down that situation without allowing the whole universe to be involved. In order for those rocks to be drifting towards each other, a bunch of other things had to happen to those rocks first.

You're discussing the existence of an event, merely, whose specifics could be calculated somewhat accurately by discovering the history of each of those respective rocks.

Hence why we are fairly certain when the comets will come around, and where the Moon will be and... oh nevermind.

The tree fell and made a sound and frankly it don't really matter to everyone except the squirrels and birds which gotta find a new place to play. OF course, not until they show up in your backyard on your tree and their fighting over the bird food you put out. Then you put grease on the bar to keep the squirrels from stealing from birds and then you're laughing at the squirrel while your kids think you're mean. So everything has an effect.

I really, really feel like this particular theory was invented by a nursery full of verbally skilled infants. Not insulting at all, but it reminds me of the mentality of an infant: "Dad's GONE! NOOOO!!! Oh hi, Dad. Wait? How's that POSSIBLE!! Come Back!! OH hi, Dad."

Absolutely!

This is my field... so I'm just sat back reading this thread... It's really interesting to see how people think...

Gentlemen, i think less amusement and more clarification would certainly help folks understand better, while doing less to alienate people from the sciences by laughing at/making fun of them.

Just my 2 cents.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Do you mean to say that is the point at which their existence matters at all?

You're trying to break down that situation without allowing the whole universe to be involved. In order for those rocks to be drifting towards each other, a bunch of other things had to happen to those rocks first.

You're discussing the existence of an event, merely, whose specifics could be calculated somewhat accurately by discovering the history of each of those respective rocks.

Hence why we are fairly certain when the comets will come around, and where the Moon will be and... oh nevermind.

The tree fell and made a sound and frankly it don't really matter to everyone except the squirrels and birds which gotta find a new place to play. OF course, not until they show up in your backyard on your tree and their fighting over the bird food you put out. Then you put grease on the bar to keep the squirrels from stealing from birds and then you're laughing at the squirrel while your kids think you're mean. So everything has an effect.

I really, really feel like this particular theory was invented by a nursery full of verbally skilled infants. Not insulting at all, but it reminds me of the mentality of an infant: "Dad's GONE! NOOOO!!! Oh hi, Dad. Wait? How's that POSSIBLE!! Come Back!! OH hi, Dad."

Absolutely!

This is my field... so I'm just sat back reading this thread... It's really interesting to see how people think...

This theory is being produced in the top labs in the world by the some of the most peer respected scientists in the world.

Fermilab in Chicago has 100's of millions given to it by the us government to study this. Maybe not dismissing the top scientific community including MIT would do you some good.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Not laughing at people who want to understand.

Please forgive me if that is how it looks.

My frustration is with the particular theory (and also its proponents) which tends to over complicate things. Nothing wrong with you wanting to understand it, but I think the reason why you are having a hard time understanding this particular view is because it's not good for understanding reality. You know that those rocks existed before you saw them. Only the highest form of arrogance would attempt to put forth that it wasn't there before you saw it. The proponents are not actually wanting to understand, but are coloring perception and coming up with wild theories to suit their bias. (How do I know? Because that's what lies are designed to do... defend bias, stir trouble...)

Please forgive me again, I mean no harm.