Does the physical world exist?

reply to post by Matrix Rising


I guess we really do live in the matrix lol.

It's not real if you don't want it to be, although I don't see what use that kind of thinking is unless you're in a lot of pain, or extremely depressed.

Live in the here and now and let it be real while it lasts.

It just is, man.

It has nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with science.

If there's no scientific evidence, then show me the scientific evidence that an objective material world exists. I hear a lot of hyperbole from those talking about philosophy but no evidence to refute anything that I have said.

Science clearly shows what we call reality is a construct of information. The way we touch, see, feel, hear taste all has to do with information. This is not based on philosophy, it's science.

If there's scientific evidence of a material objective reality then present it. Nobody has ever touched matter. That's not philosophy, that's science.

If there's scientific evidence that shows the universe isn't a construct of information and an objective material reality exists, then present it.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising


Again, it's all waves of information. I can see in the future virtual worlds being constructed based on the information we send to the brain. We might live in one now.

Who cares, the world does feel real and that is all that matters, hologram or
no hologram.

Originally posted by sabalsis1972
reply to post by AdAstra

 

great !!! and true , they have no idea what they are talking about ,.... people before stated theories, better try to escape from the prison of language in which you are traped , all of you ....and after that we can have a little chit-chat..

edit on 24-11-2011 by sabalsis1972 because: (no reason given)

Abolutely. Desconstructing that prison should be everyone's number one priority.
It would get them much further - and much faster - than pondering on the appearance of things.

But if there's anything I've learned from this site is that people don't even begin to understand the true nature and impact of language. What's even worse, they THINK they do.
This thread is a very good example of that, but there are others.

This is silly simply because it is unworkable. You are playing around with the meaning of the word "exist."
(...) The physical world "exists" because we have defined it as our primary measure of "existence."

Exactly.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
It has nothing to do with philosophy and everything to do with science.

If there's no scientific evidence, then show me the scientific evidence that an objective material world exists. I hear a lot of hyperbole from those talking about philosophy but no evidence to refute anything that I have said.

Science clearly shows what we call reality is a construct of information. The way we touch, see, feel, hear taste all has to do with information. This is not based on philosophy, it's science.

If there's scientific evidence of a material objective reality then present it. Nobody has ever touched matter. That's not philosophy, that's science.

If there's scientific evidence that shows the universe isn't a construct of information and an objective material reality exists, then present it.

Wow. This is asinine. If you're not going to do your research, then maybe I'll enlighten you. Philosophers-- you know the people who first did science-- well they've been talking about whether or not the physical world exits for quite some time. I wouldn't expect you to know this, however, it's quite clear you've avoided philosophy.

Science does not clearly show that the physical world does not exist. What you have provided is a theoretical schematic (albeit a flimsy one)-- a supposed blue-print for something we don't yet fully understand.

Furthermore you have yet to suggest an alternative to the established order yourself. If you're going to make a claim as audacious as 'the physical world does not exist', you can't just say everything is ones and zeros and leave it at that. You haven't even provided any evidence whatsoever for your claims, aside from two youtube clips and a 9 year old article. Citing the matrix doesn't really hold in academia.

reply to post by ambigram


You talk about philosophy because you have no counter scientific evidence.

Have you ever heard of information theory, quantum information or quantum computing? Again, I have provided clear evidence that the universe is a construct of information. You and others haven't provided evidence of anything. You want to try to make this about philosophy because you have zero scientific evidence to counter what I'm saying.

Your whole post is full of hyperbole and lacks any substance.

Of course philosophers have asked these question, but that's meaningless to a scientific discussion. If I was talking about Philosophy I might have mentioned Plato and the cave, but I'm talking about science so I mention information and quantum computing.

Don't be mad if you don't have any evidence. If you think differently try reading a book like Decoding the Universe or Programming the Universe. Then you will not be stuck on a philosophical discussion when we're talking about science.

It makes no sense to stick your head in the sand and wallow in ignorance because you can't accept the scientific evidence.

If you have evidence that I'm wrong then present it. If you're saying one day we might find a different answer then you're hoping and maybe you just go to the Prophecy section and list your future hopes. If science shows evidence that a material objective reality exists then I will accept it. If you have that evidence let's see it. No more hyperbole please.

More hyperbole coming in 5,4,3,2,1......

Ah! But alas, you have not shown any evidence in this thread, what-so-ever. You haven't provided any evidence yourself, so your just being rude by demanding I provide evidence myself. Give me something concrete to work with-- not a two minute clip where nothing is explained, and not clip from the matrix. You give such credit to the infallibility of numbers and science, yet present neither.

You cannot escape the fact that the physical world exists, though I will grant you that it may be very different than we thought.

You claim the physical world does not exist. But then you argue that the physical world is made up of ones and zeros. So which is it? Is the physical world made up of ones and zeros, or does it not exist? If you say it doesn't exist, then it cannot be made of ones and zeros; if you say it is made out of ones and zeros, you cannot say it does not exist.

You cannot claim that my head is under the sand, and that there is no sand at all.

reply to post by ambigram


I wish you would read my post before responding.

I never said information doesn't exist. I said there's isn't any evidence that an objective material reality exist and what we call reality is a construct of information.

Go back and read my post from the OP to the last post. You should have read them instead of responding without reading them. The next question you will ask is what's the difference. If you don't know I will explain it to you.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


The entire premis is "it's true because I said so". And you have the nerve to say that his/her argument lacks substance? You keep talking about "science says this" and "science says that" yet science does not in any way suggest that objective reality does not exist. Quit the opposite: science rests on the fundamental (and demonstrable) notion that an objective reality does in fact exist. Why do you keep distorting science to suit your ill informed arguments and accusing those who challenge you as being "unscientific" when it is you who is being unscientific?

reply to post by john_bmth


If an objective material universe exists, then show the scientific evidence to support.

I haven't been directed to one published paper or at least an article to support what you and others are saying. Is this that hard?

If there's scientific evidence to support an objective material reality then present it. I would like to see it.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
I haven't been directed to one published paper or at least an article to support what you and others are saying. Is this that hard?

Ah, actually a question I've been meaning to ask you, seeing as you haven't done this yet yourself. Oh, wait, I made that very point in my last post.

Furthermore, what you seem to be suggesting is in fact an objective explanation of material reality. That is, you claim that an objective material does not exist, and then go on to give an objective explanation of our physical reality in terms of waves, information, and numbers. So you're providing an explanation for something you don't think exists.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by john_bmth

 

If an objective material universe exists, then show the scientific evidence to support.

You have been given more than adequate answers to this phililosphical line of reasoning already in this thread. Answer my question: how many angels can dance on the head if a pin?

I haven't been directed to one published paper or at least an article to support what you and others are saying. Is this that hard?

the entire premise of science rests on the demonstrable assumption that an objective reality does exist. Direct me to one published paper to explicitly support the idea that an objective reality doesn't exist. Is it that hard?

If there's scientific evidence to support an objective material reality then present it. I would like to see it.

edit on 24-11-2011 by Matrix Rising because: (no reason given)

If there's scientific evidence to refute an objective material reality then present it. I would like to see it.

reply to post by john_bmth


You said:

the entire premise of science rests on the demonstrable assumption that an objective reality does exist.

Assumption? You can't be serious. I know a lot of people assume that an objective material universe exist and a lot of people assume they will hit the lottery when they play the numbers. It means nothing.

Again, have you or anyone you know ever touched matter? Everything in the universe can be broken down to information. That's not philosophy that's science.

What I have said about matter and information is common knowledge. People can look up work from Seth Lloyd or Leonard Susskind. They can look up about quantum computer, matter and how vision works.

I have provided evidence. If you have any evidence that I can touch matter or that things that we call reality aren't constructs of information but something else then present it. Again, this is common knowledge, people like yourself just ASSUME that there's a material objective universe.

Why do you make this assumption? Is it wishful thinking or do you have scientific evidence to support your assumptions?

EDIT: You said demonstrable assumption this implies that there's evidence that supports your assertion. Let's see your evidence.

Not only is Matrix Rising correct that we cannot objectively prove that anytthing exists, but "reality" itself has a property that proves we live in a simulation.

This property is called the collapse of the wave function.

In Quantum theory, a wave collapses into a particle if it is "observed", i.e. if its interaction creates an effect with repercussiions in spacetime.

Why is a particle a wave before being observed?

It is because the machine tha runs the simulation has finite resources!

Particles do not enter into our reality unless they have some role to play. This is done on purpose: to save resources.

It is analogous to video games. In modern video games, not all the graphics are rendered at each frame. Only the graphics the user can observe are rendered. The rest of the graphics are clipped.

So, the machine that is running our universe does its own clipping by not manifesting particles unless the particles are "observed"!

This has some pretty serious repercussions:

1) the machine consists of materials that can affect our universe, which means our universe can affect the machine. For example, we can possibly overload the machine, since it runs on finite resources, just like NPC characters can bring down servers if a lot of them gather at a specific place.

I bet that if we could produce really big energies, trillions of times bigger than we can do today, rendering of reality would have bugs.

2) the math that are valid in our universe are valid for the machine as well, because the machine needs to conserve resources. So, the machine itself has a spacetime, and it is subject to the same limitations as we are. This means that the Halting Problem is unsolvable for the machine as well!

So, if the Halting Problem cannot be solved by the machine that runs this universe, it means it has one or more bugs.

And since t has bugs, they can probably be exploited in order to gain control of it!

Just like when a program gets control of the virtual machine it runs. There have been cases like that.

A couple of years ago, a picture of the universe was posted that showed an area of the universe completely empty. This buffled scientists. Many internet posters spoke of a glitch in the Matrix.

Finally, there is also another property of the universe that tells me we are living in a simulation: relativity. Supercomputers have limitations on how much information can be transmitted from one CPU to another, and thus the capabilities of sai supercomputers are finite. Same with the universe: the speed limit for information transmission allows the machine to run its simulation on many CPUs, preventing the need for simultaneity in the whole universe at the same time.

If there was not a speed limit in information transmission, the whole universe could be affected by the smallest change instantly, and thus the simulation could not be run on a machine that has finite resources. By introducing a speed limit, events can be processed locally only, i.e. when light is received.

I bet that the machine this universe runs on has the same speed limit: C, which defines the machine's maximum information transmisson speed.

reply to post by masterp

Very nicely – if paranoiacally – imagined. I believe this ‘simulation’ fantasy of yours also underpins young-Earth creationism, where it is drafted in to explain why the planet and the universe appear to have a history that goes back so much earlier than 4004BC. The creationists’ version is, of course, simpler; in it, the simulation is material, and God is a clumsy conjurer who is forever cocking up his tricks. In your version, the simulation is entirely virtual and God (for disguise it how you will, that is the name of the Programmer of your ‘machine’) is merely some bearded slob behind a keyboard somewhere.

Now: two questions for you, masterp:

1. Is the machine also a purely metaphysical construct, without any physical attributes whatsoever?
   
   
2. Are the human senses that receive its inputs material or immaterial?

I await your answers with bated breath.

reply to post by Astyanax


1. the machine is physical to us, but maybe also simulated.
2. the human senses are material to us, simulated though.

Suppose we create an artificial intelligence so strong that it wants to find the maximum speed of information transmission within its virtual environment. The fastest information can travel within the artificial Universe will be C, which is actually a limitation of our own universe.

Someone could say that it does not matter how fast we perceive information is transmitted, because there might be aribitrarily long periods between two simulation steps, during which the computations of the Machine could take care of simulating infinite information transmission speed. That would mean simulating simultaneity all across its computational units, which would be highly expensive and time consuming, essentially making the simulation billion times slower in order to synchronize the billion computational units. By having an information speed limit, the simulation can run independently in a set of neighboring computational units, and not affect the computational efforts of remote units.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by john_bmth

 

You said:

the entire premise of science rests on the demonstrable assumption that an objective reality does exist.

Assumption? You can't be serious. I know a lot of people assume that an objective material universe exist and a lot of people assume they will hit the lottery when they play the numbers. It means nothing.

Your analogy makes no sense. We can easily demonstrate an objective reality, this has nothing to do with lottery odds. Your entire argument is utterly meaningless philosophical musings, not unlike discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You keep saying "science says this" when in fact you're talking out of your @!#.

Again, have you or anyone you know ever touched matter?

Again, this is meaningless philosophical musings as it has no bearing on reality.

Everything in the universe can be broken down to information. That's not philosophy that's science.

Nope, that's you talking out of your @!# again. You are literally making things up and saying "See? That's science!"

What I have said about matter and information is common knowledge. People can look up work from Seth Lloyd or Leonard Susskind. They can look up about quantum computer, matter and how vision works.

The word "information" has a very specific meaning, none of which apply to what you are trying to assert. Seriously, you are just making things up and trying to make it sound like not only that you know whet you're talking about but the science is on your side.

I have provided evidence. If you have any evidence that I can touch matter or that things that we call reality aren't constructs of information but something else then present it. Again, this is common knowledge, people like yourself just ASSUME that there's a material objective universe.

You have not provided evidence, you've provided your personal opinion wrapped up as evidence. Not only that but you've failed to address some very valid criticisms by other members.

Why do you make this assumption? Is it wishful thinking or do you have scientific evidence to support your assumptions?

Why do you make this assumption? Is it wishful thinking or do you have scientific evidence to support your assumptions? Provide the scientific literature that explicitly supports your claims, not Matrix Rising's opinion supported by vague innuendo.

EDIT: You said demonstrable assumption this implies that there's evidence that supports your assertion. Let's see your evidence.

edit on 24-11-2011 by Matrix Rising because: (no reason given)

I am not going to repeat fine points that have been made before in this thread and previous ones just because you choose to wilfully ignore them.

reply to post by masterp

Someone could say that it does not matter how fast we perceive information is transmitted, because there might be aribitrarily long periods between two simulation steps, during which the computations of the Machine could take care of simulating infinite information transmission speed. That would mean simulating simultaneity all across its computational units, which would be highly expensive and time consuming, essentially making the simulation billion times slower in order to synchronize the billion computational units. By having an information speed limit, the simulation can run independently in a set of neighboring computational units, and not affect the computational efforts of remote units.

Ingenious. However, there is a small problem. It is admittedly hard to establish simultaneity for events distant from one another in spacetime, but people in the same room, or even on the same planet, experience mutually perceived events simultaneously. This is one of the great mysteries of, well, physics, I suppose, because there is no apparent reason why we should. How does your model account for that?

Also, how many simulations are there? One each for everybody alive? One for all? Or are you going for the solipsist option, with only one simulation and one observer? That, of course, would solve the simultaneity problem.

Incidentally, something cannot be both physical and metaphysical, except in the trivial sense that a virtual reality can seem real to someone experiencing it. Now, please, from a viewpoint outside the simulation,

1. Is the machine physical or metaphysical in nature?
   
2. Are our sense-impressions physical or metapysical entities?