Can a materialist provide scientific evidence that the material world has an objective existence?

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You also didn't answer the questions:

If the cat can't be alive or dead for any measurable instance, when does Decoherence decide which state the cat will be in? If you're correct, Decoherence must decide the cat is dead or alive before the poison is triggered. So, how does decoherence decide the cat will be dead in universe A and alive in universe B prior to the event of decay which triggers the poison? If you're not talking about MWI, how does decoherence decide the cat will be dead or alive in a single universe before the poison is triggered by decay?

I didn't answer because it's another strawman question implying I said things I didn't say about Universe A and Universe B. You best stick to quoting what I actually said, instead of creating strawman questions misrepresenting what I said.

The nature article explained that for a cat, the decoherence is so close to instantaneous that no superposition can be measured. If you want to get into some silly technical things that deviate from the intent of the experiment, you could define what "dead" means, such as stopped breathing, or lack of brain function or whatever, but the thought experiment is not intended to address those issues.
The article in nature I linked previously is not reliant on any kind of Everett or Many Worlds interpretation, since the scientists are measuring decoherence rates, so they have hard data that any potential interpretation would have to explain.

a reply to: toktaylor

You said:

A God would require an incredible amount of complexity

What exactly is an incredible amount? You keep trying to debate a strawman god that's only in your mind.

a reply to: neoholographic

Meanwhile in reality,If something must always exist (your God...strawman god anything suggesting a deity), there is one less variable in saying the Universe has always existed (in some shape or form) than saying it was created from nothing.

Sure, we could add a God (whatever you conceive him/it/she them) to the equation, but then we also have to go about proving that non-material life can exist, and can think, and have knowledge, and create matter from nothing. Why not just say that the what exists is what exists?

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TzarChasm

Again, a response devoid of any coherency about the topic of the thread. I will ask you the question I asked the other guy.

So tell me, how do you know a state has been measured without consciousness?

Let's be clear on this point: the act of measuring does not create the measurement. It's a translation process, aka converting natural data into artificial data that is compatible with technology we use to study the causality of that natural data. The data itself exists whether we look at it or not. Consider the many thousands of fossils excavated in the last century. According to your logic, those fossils didn't exist until we exposed the sediment they were buried in. We essentially conjured those results. Is that correct?

You didn't answer the question.

So tell me, how do you know a state has been measured without consciousness?

It's a simple question. Stop obfuscating and answer the question. You said the data exists whether we look at it or not, how do you know this without consciousness?

How do you know anything with consciousness? How do you know this isn't a dream you're having while in a coma? You're technically aware but only inside your head and you can't tell the difference. How do you know this is genuine reality and not your subconscious fabricating your experiences?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You also didn't answer the questions:

If the cat can't be alive or dead for any measurable instance, when does Decoherence decide which state the cat will be in? If you're correct, Decoherence must decide the cat is dead or alive before the poison is triggered. So, how does decoherence decide the cat will be dead in universe A and alive in universe B prior to the event of decay which triggers the poison? If you're not talking about MWI, how does decoherence decide the cat will be dead or alive in a single universe before the poison is triggered by decay?

I didn't answer because it's another strawman question implying I said things I didn't say about Universe A and Universe B. You best stick to quoting what I actually said, instead of creating strawman questions misrepresenting what I said.

The nature article explained that for a cat, the decoherence is so close to instantaneous that no superposition can be measured. If you want to get into some silly technical things that deviate from the intent of the experiment, you could define what "dead" means, such as stopped breathing, or lack of brain function or whatever, but the thought experiment is not intended to address those issues.
The article in nature I linked previously is not reliant on any kind of Everett or Many Worlds interpretation, since the scientists are measuring decoherence rates, so they have hard data that any potential interpretation would have to explain.

It's obvious you didn't understand the question so let me explain it further.

How can the cat decohere to one state(alive) or one state(dead) prior to either the poison being triggered or the experimenter opening up the box?

It's a simple question.

If decoherence is the answer to Schrodinger's cat as you claim, then when does decoherence decide? You have a wavefunction that consists of a live and dead cat or decay/not decay. How can decoherence decohere the cat to one state or the other before the decay/not decay has occurred?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TzarChasm

Again, a response devoid of any coherency about the topic of the thread. I will ask you the question I asked the other guy.

So tell me, how do you know a state has been measured without consciousness?

Let's be clear on this point: the act of measuring does not create the measurement. It's a translation process, aka converting natural data into artificial data that is compatible with technology we use to study the causality of that natural data. The data itself exists whether we look at it or not. Consider the many thousands of fossils excavated in the last century. According to your logic, those fossils didn't exist until we exposed the sediment they were buried in. We essentially conjured those results. Is that correct?

You didn't answer the question.

So tell me, how do you know a state has been measured without consciousness?

It's a simple question. Stop obfuscating and answer the question. You said the data exists whether we look at it or not, how do you know this without consciousness?

How do you know anything with consciousness? How do you know this isn't a dream you're having while in a coma? You're technically aware but only inside your head and you can't tell the difference. How do you know this is genuine reality and not your subconscious fabricating your experiences?

WHOA! You're getting into kookyville because you can't answer the question. You have been rambling on about how all of these things existed for billions of years befor consciousness. I simply asked:

So tell me, how do you know a state has been measured without consciousness?

a reply to: neoholographic

My coma theory is no less kooky than your "human consciousness created the world" theory. Both are possible in extreme circumstances that don't resemble the facts at hand. But I can twist this dialogue to fit any weird twilight zone scenario I care to dream up as much as you can.

To answer your question: gravity, solar radiation, water, carbon atoms. Examples of natural data that has presented the same patterns of behavior for millions of years. Their measurements weren't actively being written down but the same numbers and physics were there before the first human language was invented.

It now falls to you to give us examples of when such natural data changed their properties from some previous unknown configuration to what we have recorded today.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: neoholographic

My coma theory is no less kooky than your "human consciousness created the world" theory. Both are possible in extreme circumstances that don't resemble the facts at hand. But I can twist this dialogue to fit any weird twilight zone scenario I care to dream up as much as you can.

To answer your question: gravity, solar radiation, water, death. Examples of natural data that has presented the same patterns of behavior for millions of years. Their measurements weren't actively being written down but the same numbers and physics were there before the first human language was invented.

LOL, I have to laugh because your twisting yourself in illogical knots because you can't answer a simple question.

So tell me, how do you know a state has been measured without consciousness?

How do you know that"natural data has presented the same patterns of behavior for millions of years" without consciousness?

a reply to: neoholographic

As posed to you previously, show me that they didn't.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: neoholographic

As posed to you previously, show me that they didn't.

I have no evidence that they did.

The only evidence I have is consciousness says these things existed for billions of years. It's equally likely that a conscious observer chose to measure and observe our universe and brought the history of our universe into existence. This is more in line with quantum mechanics.

There's no evidence that the universe has existed for billions of years without consciousness saying it existed for billions of years. So, again I ask:

So tell me, how do you know a state has been measured without consciousness?

a reply to: neoholographic

What you mean is that you have no evidence that the laws of physics, chemistry, geology, biology, or cosmology changed at any point because of human consciousness measuring or otherwise interfering in their basic principles and altering their behavior via some "awareness" mechanism. You have no evidence that the planet, our solar system, the galaxy, or the universe operated any differently during the past 10 billion years than it does today. That's called objective reality.

a reply to: TzarChasm

And you have no evidence the universe operated at all without consciousness. If it did, explain to me the exact point the universe evolved this value of the gravitational constant and exactly how do you know this without consciousness.



So tell me, how do you know a state has been measured without consciousness?

a reply to: neoholographic

The laws of nature are inherent. They don't require consciousness to exist. A conscious being DISCOVERS those laws, they do not make or create them. Whether you lived a billion years ago, a billion years in the future or now - it doesn't matter. If you are conscious, you are a DISCOVERER, not a creator.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: TzarChasm

And you have no evidence the universe operated at all without consciousness. If it did, explain to me the exact point the universe evolved this value of the gravitational constant and exactly how do you know this without consciousness.

Scientists being the curious creatures they are, don't just assume the constants have always been constant. They have actually searched for fluctuations in constants, and the constants really seem to be constant to the limits of the accuracy in our observations.

Have physical constants changed with time?

Over the past few decades, there have been extensive searches for evidence of variation of fundamental "constants." Among the methods used have been astrophysical observations of the spectra of distant stars, searches for variations of planetary radii and moments of inertia, investigations of orbital evolution, searches for anomalous luminosities of faint stars, studies of abundance ratios of radioactive nuclides, and (for current variations) direct laboratory measurements.

One powerful approach has been to study the "Oklo Phenomenon," a uranium deposit in Gabon that became a natural nuclear reactor about 1.8 billion years ago; the isotopic composition of fission products has permitted a detailed investigation of possible changes in nuclear interactions. Another has been to examine ratios of spectral lines of distant quasars coming from different types of atomic transitions (resonant, fine structure, and hyperfine). The resulting frequencies have different dependences on the electron charge and mass, the speed of light, and Planck's constant, and can be used to compare these parameters to their present values on Earth. Solar eclipses provide another sensitive test of variations of the gravitational constant. If G had varied, the eclipse track would have been different from the one we calculate today, so the mere fact that a total eclipse occurred at a particular location provides a powerful constraint, even if the date is poorly known.

So far, these investigations have found no evidence of variation of fundamental "constants." The current observational limits for most constants are on the order of one part in 10^10 to one part in 10^11 per year. So to the best of our current ability to observe, the fundamental constants really are constant.

a reply to: Phantom423

You said:

The laws of nature are inherent.

Okay, show me the evidence. Were they inherent before the big bang or after? Were they inherent in the quantum vacuum? Where they inherent before or after inflation? Were they inherent in the Planck Epoch?

Were they inherent before consciousness defined the word inherent?

It's amazing you don't see the catch 22 you're in but keep going.

a reply to: neoholographic

There's no catch 22. Consciousness is just the state of our reality. The universe doesn't care whether you exist or not. The evidence is simple: age-redshift analysis.

a reply to: neoholographic

Were they inherent before consciousness defined the word inherent?

Yes. Apparently you don't grasp the idea that stuff was happening naturally eons before language was invented.

The Student told his Master that after long hours of contemplation he determined existence was an illusion and it was useless to pray, so he wasn't going to do it. The Master nodded and gave the Student a swift kick in the cajones. The Student fell to the ground, moaning in agony. "Continue praying," the Master replied.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

There's no catch 22. Consciousness is just the state of our reality. The universe doesn't care whether you exist or not. The evidence is simple: age-redshift analysis.

But what if there was nobody to either do the analysis or review it?

a reply to: neoholographic

So Scientist, not just science writers are talking about the holographic universe. This isn't the point of the thread though and I wish you had read the thread title before you posted. It says:

Can a materialist provide scientific evidence that the material world has an objective existence?

It doesn't say:

The Universe is a Hologram

I mentioned the Holographic Universe along with other things to show that Scientist have to come up with these theories because there's no evidence that an objective material universe exists.

You're proving the point of my thread because you haven't provided a shred of evidence that there's an objective material universe.

Wrong first I suggest you watch the videos you posted it might help you understand what they are trying to say.

There was an entropy problem with black holes namely information that enters has no way to escape. The holographic principle says since information cannot be destroyed it must be stored on the surface of the black hole. The idea is that what looked like a 3D object — a black hole — might be best understood using only two dimensions. This isnt saying it is 2 dimensions again it has to do with the math. None of this was proof that black holes were holograms. But early on, Susskind says, physicists recognized that looking at the entire universe as a two-dimensional object that only looks three-dimensional might help solve some deeper problems in theoretical physics. And the math works just as well whether you're talking about a black hole, a planet, or an entire universe.

So we can create a mathematical universe to help describe ours. This particular hypothetical universe was called anti-de Sitter space (which, to simplify things, has a curved shape over huge distances, as opposed to our universe, which is believed to be flat). String theorists argued the entire universe is actually one-dimensional and made of strings. And these strings can be used to construct a 2 D universe and that can in turn e used to create a 3D universe

Now as I said earlier a couple of string theorists expanded on this trying to say reality is a projection of strings stored at the Planck length. The problem is the math falls apart at this level Again this was the late 90s . This is the exact reason string theory has gone nowhere and is dying. So, physicists, today have excluded the holographic principle. And even when they don't you are still misunderstanding what they are saying. Reality would still exist even if the information was stored as strings.

Now how do we know its wrong well fermi helped with that as we started looking for the blurriness that would occur in a holographic universe. The problem is not all the information can be given to a particular point all at the same time information overload. The basic effect is that reality has a limited amount of information, like a Netflix movie when Comcast is not giving you enough bandwidth. So things are a little blurry and jittery. I won't go into detail ut let's say we showed the universe is not blurry. Since the 90s string theory is falling out of favor as well evidence is stacking up its incorrect.

So back to science writers they read papers like you showed and think it's discussing holographic universe it is not it is being used to simplify the math as I said its less information to deal with.

Now you read these and you make the assumption that the universe has no physicality. The universe does not care in the least if it's being observed we are not special. What it does care about is interactions between objects or what is called observations. This is also why a cat cannot be both alive and dead because the universe is constantly observing. interactions.