If you talk to 500 people, ask them what reality is, what the meaning of life is, ask them what the only truth in the world is, you will get 500 different answers. Why is that? If we all have the same senses, sight, smell, hearing, touch, and tastem then we should all be able to percieve the same reality as we all live in the same world right? No, reality, perseption, existance is more than what can be percieved, its what can be imagined. Anything that can be imagined can be true, as no one in the universe (that we know of anyway) knows everything there is to know, or has experienced everything there is to experience. Anything that can be concocted in our minds can be either true or false to us, what is true to some is false to others and vice versa. The subconcious has AMAZING potential for creation and though, at least 100 times more than our concious mind does, and if my reality is true, and all of our minds are linked subconciously, that gives you billions and billions of possible subconciouses to tap into, with each having the capacity of infinite thought. reality is subjective, as we are all the gods of our own existance wether we choose to believe it or not, the eternal duality of good and evil, true to some, false to others, everything is subjective, the universe can be modified as you see fit in your mind, and no one can prove anything you say to be wrong, wether they have science, religion, or both on their side, because in your mind that religious dogma or scientific "fact" is subjective yo your judgement, you choose what happens in the world, either without nkowing subconcoiusly, or fully aware of your concoius actions.

This is a very complex issue. it is one dear to my own heart, and has been discussed in many guises on this site. I agree with a great deal of what you say, but differ on a few critical points. For example, I agree that our minds are immensely powerful, and that in many ways we are gods of our own existence. But ONLY of our own existence. We can shape our own perception of reality and become a god within it. However, I do not think that we can change objective reality (That which exists independent of us, and will go on after our consciousness ceases.) There may be rare exceptions to this and rare individuals for whom this is not true. It also does not preclude a different universal experience found before/after/alternative to this one, but that is another issue. Because our consciousness is (from all the available evidence) linked to our organic brain, it most likely does not go on after our death, or form part of some group consciousness. Because each individual mind develops from a combination of genetic/organic structure and personal experience, every consciousness will be different. However, because many experiences and genetic/biological imperatives are common to us all, societies develop common values/beliefs. These societies may range from whole nations, to small religious cults. In modern times, when peoples experiences are much more unique than they were in tribal or medieaval times, there is a tendency for such societies to be much smalle,r and fracture down to the ultimate society of one; the individual. As much as an individual may be, within their own world, the god of their own reality, they are still constrained by the general beliefs of the larger society around them. This is less true in the liberal democracies where most of us live. For example you can legitimately live as a witch, and even be counted on the census as one. However, there are many societal constraints which most people accept as natural. For example try marrying more than one person at a time, or having a relationship with a person your society has decided is outside its parameters for sexual activity. Ther is thus both physical and mental danger in failing to recognise that objective reality exists. However if you recognise it, but choose to live by only your internal reality, the physical dangers remain, but the mental ones are greatly diminished.Failure to recognise society's rules can be just as lethal as failing to recognise the law of gravity.

Are you sure our conciousness ceases? If for example there is a universal mind or perhaps a group mind to existence. Also can you be certain that reality is ever objective, the observer effect states that without someone to percieve you get a Schrodinger's cat situation where the particles remain in a state of quantum superposition. Perhaps it is we that cause the outcome

It is an interesting argument, but I just wanted to point out that your above assumption is wrong. We don't all live in the same world, nor do people have the same exact senses... or perhaps I should say we have different perceptions of the sensual information that we each receive.

Which is one reason why I don't like the term "objective reality", since it doesn't exist

Have you ever seen Rashaman ( spelling could be a tad off ? ) I agree with you,a storey of how several people,from the same place all see a incident differently. This is real life!

I agree completely. I'm not sure exactly what the OP was getting at.



No, I'm afraid not. Certain things in the universe have to be considered to be absolute. If James Clerk Maxwell had come up with his field equations in line with "his own reality" rather than what they actually are, we wouldn't have TVs, microwaves, computers, lightbulbs etc today.

Only your own actions are dictated by your imagination, which incidentally is not infinate. It is bound by experience, society, upbringing and several other crucial factors.

I'm a little bit bored of these "reality doesn't exist" threads. If it didn't, we would have made all the process that we have in the field of theoretical physics, let alone the general everyday application of science. How can you divise a system for how the universe works if its going to be completely different for the next person who studies it? How can you build a TV if the person who watches it can alter the universe just by how he views it? Its nuts.

Somethings do have to be absoloute, there's no question of that.

im nto saying reality doesnt exist, msaying we ourselves each define what our personal reality is, if you cant get into someone elses mind and get their point of view, how can you be sure they perceive everything exactly as you do? I agree that i was wrong with saying that nothing is absolute but what i really ment was that we each define our own personnal truths and a belief in nothing is absolute, i know that the laws of phsyics are absolute but thats not what i was referring to.

yea i agree reality is real it is what it is ,you wont change it.but you can change how you exsist in that reality and how that reality is percieved
for example

take 2 people, one tripping on acid and one sober sitting in the same room.the person on acid time will seem to slow down and speed up,his emotions will be diffrent and he will react to the room completly diffrent than the sober person.there both in the same reality but they are existing on diffrent leves in that reality..

or you can look at the rich man and the homelss man,they both exsist in the same reality but on 2 diffrent plains..the homless guy spends his time hustling finding, food, money and a place to sleep.wile the rich bussines man is working on making money feeding his family and buying a bigger better house,both are hustling to get what they want..but they exisist one 2 diffrent levels in the same reality.on is respected and on is considerd trash..both are doing the same thing.

so its not the reality thats in question its how you exsist in it that should be in question.does changing your staion in life change your perception of reality or does it just change how you exisit with the world we live in.

Actually if there is a collective mind thing going on then no it wouldn't have to be objective

hi everyone!!!!!!

i read the complete post by everyone... everyone has so much to say about the reality and the objective and the subjective....

all i need to say here is that once you experience the ultimate, where the subject experiencing the experience is lost, that is the reality.....


hope i am making sense to may b someone....

maybe we can change reality though, maybe i just now imagined this whole world and created it with my mind. if i did, i would remake myself as well, creating the memories of this life that now is. i would remember a past that didn't really happen. i could be god but not even know it...

Which is one reason why I don't like the term "objective reality", since it doesn't exist

Unless you believe that the only existence is that which occurs within your own consciousness (as some do) then of course objective reality exists. Subjective reality is the reality which any one individual ( or even groups of people ) perceives from the data their senses feed to their brain. Objective reality is the data which exists independent of a conscious mind. For example, if all sentient thought was removed from the earth, it would continue to exist. The objective reality does not require consciousness for its existence.Thus, the rebirth, while you can change both realities; objective reality can only be changed using the physical laws which it operates on. Your perceived reality can be changed at your will, using the god like powers your mind contains WITHIN THIS REALITY.

You all must be figments of my imagination. If I am God then I will win the lottery this week and I will let you all know....... *sniff but it wont matter because you all don't exist except in my imagination. And thus ends this universe. Wow that would be so sad. So hopefully I am not God but hey I would like a lottery win but perhaps I could keep the dream running for a while just for entertainment.

Press release: "God wins lottery and realises his own existance....Universe ends."

But what if you aren't the only mind? What if it is all the minds that are creating this reality as a group? But with each mind having their own subtle differeneces

To be honest if I am not God and if God does actualy exist then God would be all of us and the rest of the universe as it would have all come from God and as God was the only thing that existed before time all things are of God. So yes you could be more correct than you realise with that question. So on a lighter note: Hey guys let me win the lottery! PLEEEEEEASE!

Actually if there is a collective mind thing going on then no it wouldn't have to be objective

But what if you aren't the only mind? What if it is all the minds that are creating this reality as a group? But with each mind having their own subtle differeneces

Not likely. Despite many people's cherished beliefs, all the evidence available indicates two things. First, intelligence is an evolved or created product of the physical universe. Second , the physical universe coexists with consciousness, but is not dependent on consciousness for its existence. You could wipe out all consciousness in the universe and it would trundle along undisturbed, until it evolved/created another form of consciousness, which would inevitably, eventually, again ponder this question.
It is simply the nature of consciousness (at least the only one we are aware of) to ask questions evolving from those prime ones where did I come from? How did I get here? What is my/lifes purpose? can i really have chocolate AND banana topping on my nut sundae? All philosophies and religions have grown from the search for these and similar fundamental queries. (Some denominations believe it is a mortal sin even to ask for two flavours, others see it as a requirement of membership.

Not true, since our so called evolved intelligence is under the guise of time (since the evolution is believed to happen from childhood to adulthood), but time is an illusion, especially since the past only exists in your memory, then in fact its not a result of the physical universe at all.



Again not true, you assume it would continue on, but what evidence do you have outside your own conciousness, your perception, its just as possible that without the observer it will not to do so (perhaps with every particle remaining in superposition), or even not exist, since our only link to the universe is through our mind.

Hmm this is all so interesting.
I wish that I had something intelligent to say on it so that Im not so blonde.
But alas, nothing is coming.

x

Don't put yourself down some of the people here come out with theories that would melt the brain of your normal Joe walking down the street. In fact they could probably turn Joe into a puddle of ectoplasm at a glance You are smart enough

As I said ,despite all the EVIDENCE, some people have trouble abandoning cherished beliefs. There is absolutely no evidence for the idea of consciousness, singular or plural being the only reality, or of time being anything other than real and generally linear. I don't knock your belief, why I might claim that some unknowable entity created the earth in 7 days. As I also said, not likely, but not impossible. In both cases weigh the evidence and use logic to come to a conclusion, rather than wishful thinking. I must admit to being in the unusual position of having personal evidence for the existence of god and angels, so have to keep an open mind on the possibility of creation being real. Otherwise I would come down on the side of evolution, because all the evidence points to it. Using your logic however, I could just as realistically claim that when god created the world he did so including all the contrary evidence pointing to evoolution for his own reasons(perhaps a test of faith?)

Quantum mechanics theorizes that prior to observation particles remain in a state of superposition, having multiple differeing states at once, and some of those theories require concious observation in order to collapse the waveform, meaning that theoretically the universe may require a concious mind. In fact our entire perception of the universe is through our minds, all that evidence you are talking of is a result of the mind, not independent of it, so how can you say that evidence supports your point when it requires the very mind i'm saying is required .

"When you do something right, people don't even know you did anything at all..."
-God (Futurama)

My understanding of quantum physics is quite limited, but I think you are confusing the scientific idea that particles may also be wave forms under certain conditions. Because the action of observation changes their nature, one is never sure whether they are particles or waves. However science believes they must be one or the other at any one time. Certain science fiction writers, including the author of "the quantum cat", have taken this idea one step further and said, what if they are not one or the other, but in some state of flux which is neither one nor the other? This gave the quantum cat the ability to pass through solid objects, and as I remember, through time and space as well. The title comes from "Schroedinger's cat" where the physicist Shroedinger attempted to explain his idea in simple terms by explaining how he could place a cat in a sealed box. The cat might be alive or dead. Any attempt to check on the cat's condition might kill the cat, or it might not. Thus it was impossible to determine the exact condition of the cat at any one time without a chance of actively changing its condition. This is the same with waves and particles. They are one or the other (The cat can not be both alive and dead at the same time) Because we cannot be sure what they are at any one time we have to consider both alternatives. This, at least, is my understanding of the scientific background. It does not mean that the waves and particles may not alternate without observation. ( The cat could die, or be dead at any one time, without someone tampering with the box to observe it. )
As for the mind, scientists are gradually coming to an understanding of it and how it creates consciousness/self awareness. They are not fully there yet, just as the theory of evolutin is not full mapped out, however, you could probably get about as many scientists to agree with the idea that consciousness exists independently from the organic brain, as you would to agree with creation over evolution. In fact, probably less. As I said, and meant sincerely, I would not denigrate anyones belief in anything, but you need to be aware which beliefs are built on faith and which on empirical evidence, in making up your mind.
I make this clear to my students. In our society we are free to adopt a variety of beliefs. However, in general, our society operates on scientific principles, and puts more credibility in belief based on independent evidence. If we want to operate successfully and safely in our society, this is a critical awareness to have.

Actually it is heatedly debated in the scientific world whether we can call a particle a particle or a wave a wave. Some call them wavicles because of their dual nature. Some say they are always both at the same time and that language fails us when trying to logically comprehend it.


Both matter and radiation possess a remarkable duality of character, as they sometimes exhibit the properties of waves, at other times those of particles. Now it is obvious that a thing cannot be a form of wave motion and composed of particles at the same time - the two concepts are too different. (Heisenberg, On Quantum Mechanics, 1930)

The idea that something can be both a wave and a particle defies imagination, but the existence of this wave-particle duality is not in doubt. .. It is impossible to visualize a wave-particle, so don't try. ... The notion of a particle being everywhere at once is impossible to imagine. (Davies, On Quantum Physics, 1985)

The most difficult problem … concerning the use of the language arises in quantum physics. Here we have at first no simple guide for correlating the mathematical symbols with concepts of ordinary language: and the only thing we know from the start is the fact that our common concepts cannot be applied to the structure of the atoms. (Heisenberg, The Tao of Physics, p54)

As one quantum physicist put it: Quantum physics succinctly speaking is the science of possibility.

Atoms are not things they are tendencies.-----Heisenberg

So atoms are not things they are tendencies, possibilities. Nothing is fixed as something but only a tendency to be something. Who are we to put limitations on these tendencies, possibilities??

Sorry but no, you seem to be a bit confused about it, it is not about the dual aspect of particles, what it means is that prior to observation a particle is in waveform, but is possesing simultaneously multiple properties at once (for example multiple positions, energy states, etc.), but when it is observed the waveform collapses and it takes on one of those states Quantum superposition is the application of the superposition principle to quantum mechanics. The superposition principle is the addition of the amplitudes of waves from interference. In quantum mechanics it is the amplitudes of wavefunctions, or state vectors, that add. It occurs when an object simultaneously "possesses" two or more values for an observable quantity (e.g. the position or energy of a particle). More specifically, in quantum mechanics, any observable quantity corresponds to an eigenstate of a Hermitian linear operator. The linear combination of two or more eigenstates results in quantum superposition of two or more values of the quantity. If the quantity is measured, the projection postulate states that the state will be randomly collapsed onto one of the values in the superposition (with a probability proportional to the square of the amplitude of that eigenstate in the linear combination). (Schrodenger's cat was an example of this, until observed the cat was theoretically existing in both states alive and dead, so accrding to the theory it would require you to observe for it to resolve to one, either alive or dead, although there is some issues raised with this paradox, since the cat may be a sufficient observer, and since it is not a particle but rather a macro object), theoreticaly this would mean that observation, possibly requiring a conciouss observer, would be required for particles to achieve their states, basically that conciousness shapes reality. You keep referring to empirical data, but that's all, you just keep saying it, you show none that proves that the universe is independent of the mind, and that's because you can't since everything you observe is not independent of the mind, since your mind is what is doing the observation.

Avinash,

A particle (or wave) can react with another particle (or wave) without a conscious observer overseeing the interaction. We know this because we can observe the results of this interaction without observing that actual interaction itself or enabling the interaction. For this interaction to happen a particle has to 'know' the state of it's reactive partner(s).

This would indicate you do not need consciousness to determine what state a particle is in - unless you consider particles themselves to have consciousness.

Isn't quantum superposition about any state being possible at any point in time, rather than all? Forgive my ignorance if this is not so. My knowledge of quantum mechanics is rudimentary at present.

"an object or event's superposition is a type of summation of all of its instances across parallel universes or even all probable and possible states of existence"

SA,

Could you link me to the source for that definition please? Cheers.

So the superposition is the set of all wavefunctions of said particle? For example the wavefunction of its' position, the wavefunction of its' energy etc and whether these wavefunctions interfere.

Sorry to make this a bit of a physics lesson. I'm trying to understand the arguments being thrown around here.

its on wiki just type in superposition, im not sure if it correct considering Wiki can be edited, but so far for me just about everything ive gotten from Wiki has been good info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition

heres another link that has a lttle more info on it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition

Also Leornardo, the thing is even then you don't remove the concious observer from the equation, since the way they've tested for it, like using a wiretap, still has the concious observer involved on the other side observing the results, so I question whether that is a sufficient test for it occuring without a concious observer, since it still enters the conciousness of the observer, even though the observer is at a distance.

^ couldn't a computer both collect and analyze data, just telling us the results of the experiment? or does a computer count as 'conciousness?'

Actully i've mulled that very question over in my head, and wondered whether we have to actually be there present at the interaction or whether even mere reading the data and results is all it takes, I don't know, since you haven't taken the conciousness out of the equation, but then again there is the aspect that we aren't there at the time of interaction, and the data is being delivered to us viat the computer, but if time is an illusion then the mere aspect of reading it at any point in "time" may be sufficient, short answer is I don't know.

^ it would depend if "time" exists in a linear fashion, or even at all methinks.

Ya, but what is that data unless there is a conscious mind to actually confirm or believe in that data?

Thanks for posting this.

Both matter and radiation possess a remarkable duality of character, as they sometimes exhibit the properties of waves, at other times those of particles. Now it is obvious that a thing cannot be a form of wave motion and composed of particles at the same time - the two concepts are too different. (Heisenberg, On Quantum Mechanics, 1930)

The linear combination of two or more eigenstates results in quantum superposition of two or more values of the quantity. If the quantity is measured, the projection postulate states that the state will be randomly collapsed onto one of the values in the superposition (with a probability proportional to the square of the amplitude of that eigenstate in the linear combination). (Schrodenger's cat was an example of this, until observed the cat was theoretically existing in both states alive and dead, so accrding to the theory it would require you to observe for it to resolve to one, either alive or dead,

My belief is based on Heisenbergs original statement for his Uncertainty principle. Any confusion may come from the interpretation put on Schrodingers cat. My reading of the original statement for this, is that at any one time the possibility exists that the cat could be alive, OR it could be dead. However, according to Heisenberg, it could not actually be both, AT THE SAME TIME. As Heisenberg states, it is obvious that the one thing can not be in two states at the same time. This also applies to the cat. It could not be in both states at the same time.
The difficulty in the experiment and the point of Schrodingers illustration, was in deciding which state it was in, because the act of observation might change the state. Most of the rest of the assumptions from here seem to be philosophical constructions of possibilities from within the human mind rather than either mathematical or other logical possibilities.There have been some excellent science fiction pieces based on this, but I am unaware of any serious scientific pursuit of this as a foundation for the possibility that consciousness is the only real stateof existence. Some of the other statements give me pause to think, but I am not sure of either their context or veracity, and so they are unconvincing.
I still am prepared to be convinced of the validity of the unerpinnings of this theory, but would it require someone with an education in this area and the use of the original ideas rather than personal interpretations of them

I personally like to regard a probability wave as a real thing, certainly as more than a tool for mathematical calculations. ... how could we rely on probability predictions if we do not refer to something real and objective?
(Max Born on Quantum Theory)

Nothing Exists

Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.

Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."

Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.

"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"

Actually, if it is like that, so this anger doesnt exist either !

Could be like that !

Actually the Uncertainty principle applies to measurment of a particle, once its out of superposition, not while its in a state of superposition. In fact the Uncertainty principle supports the idea of an indeterminate universe since it basically states that we can never use any form of meauserment to predict the path of a particle and reduces everything to potentials and probabilities, rather than anything set in stone.

Now if you're arguing whether it applies to the cat that is a different matter, since the cat is not a quantum particle but rather a macro object, and therefore not in superposition.

Thank you for the elucidation, As I said to BNW, it at least helps me understand where a POV comes from. I try to keep an open mind, but at the same time I am constrained by an education which emphasised the importance of logic and rational thought, including the measurement and evaluation of the available data. It does become more difficult once you enter the debate of conceptual models which, "cannot be envisaged by the human mind."

Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know.---Zensunni saying

Avinash,

I was thinking more along the lines of our observation of the results of events that are very far removed in time and space. There is no indication that such observation has influenced the event as we are only able to observe the actual result in our time/space co-ordinate. So the interaction has actually happened without conscious knowledge of it but we observe the result millions or billions of years later.

You could argue that we create reality therefore we create time and space. I don't happen to agree with this. I would agree that our perception of our immediate environment is coloured by the senses and knowledge we have to interpret that environment. This seems to be the mystic 'perception' - that we cannot know what we perceive is the actuality of reality. It is about our immediate environment and a very personal view.

However scientific observation, that is the observing and collecting of data and using this in various mathematical formulae to predict something of the nature of our universe, is very different. It doesn't rely on a single 'perspective' or observer for a start. The expectations, and most of the time the predictions, are not unique to an observer. Any observer, witnessing the same data and having the knowledge of how to apply this, should be able to arrive at the same conclusion. This is the only 'belief' in science - that it is impartial. It is not influenced by any single observers' personal perspective and that the conclusions of it's evidence (through experimental testing) are the same for any observer.

Of course we know that we do get different results for things - this is due to new knowledge being discovered and new techniques and technologies being applied to the testing. It doesn't change that, given identical experimental setups, two or more observers will witness the same result from identical experiments. The same cannot be said for the mystics 'perspective view of reality' - even if this was testable.

So, back to my original point. The observation of a result of an event which has happened in such a way the event was unobservable by the observer of the result should indicate that conscious observation is not required for an event (interaction) to take place.

See the thing is you're assuming it happened prior to our observation/perception of it, but without the concious mind to observe it you can't really test for it, meaining you don't know if it existed independent of the concious mind.



I disagree, on the simple fact that without the mind, how would you be aware of the passage of time.

No argument there, but i'm not saying everything we percieve is totally different, a lot of what we percieve is a collective understanding, not to mention that once the waveform is collapsed only one result occurs, out of all the original possibilities, which is why its the same, once observed, for those who observe later.




I disagree because of the fact that the concious mind remains in the equation, and cannot concievably be removed fro mthe equation, if we do create time and space then it doesn't matter "how long" of "how far away" the event occured.

Avinash,

I've got to go to college but wanted to post a quick question. I'll probably have more to say later.

How can you accept the idea of quantum superposition and yet still accept your belief about not knowing if events/particles etc can be unobserved?

The whole basis of quantum superposition is that the waveform of each state of a particle is multiple possibilities until observed. If you (or your or another consciousness) had observed this it would not be in a state of superposition. Therefore it seems the acceptance of both quantum superposition and your 'unobservance principle' is mutually incompatible.

Just wondered if you had a way around this in your theory.

I'm afraid I don't understand what your confusion is, could you elaborate a bit further?

The mind creates all possibility(superposition) and subconsciously chooses one to experience.

Well, you have said before about your belief and how it ties in with mysticism in that reality is defined by our observation. Also you have said, and I quote



which sort of ties in with your belief there may be a collective consciousness. Now we have discussed whether events can happen without consciousness being around to observe them and you have stated you don't know if this is provable.

Quantum superposition appears to be the proof you require. According to quantum superposition, and your understanding of it, once something is observed it is then 'real' for the observer and all subsequent observation (as per your quote above). However it cannot be in superposition unless it is unobserved to begin with. So the event, or object in superposition must be the proof that it is possible for something to exist or an event to take place without consciousness to observe it. The observation of the state which collapses the waveform is immaterial to the fact the superposition of all wavefunctions must have existed before the observation took place.

Now, I know you have said your theory is a work in progress and I'm not criticising. I just want to point out that your belief in not knowing if consciousness is required for an event to take place or something to exist - or rather the belief that it may be unprovable - seems to be satisfied with the idea of quantum superposition in that this shows that consciousness is unnecessary.

Sorry if this hasn't made my point clearer. Just got back, it's late and I'm very tired. If you want further clarification I'll log in tomorrow...oops, I mean later today.

Ah, now I understand why you are confused, you are forgetting that the minds transcends this reality and the concepts of space and time, it transcends this single moment we are observing, it should as these are all merely creations of the minds, as a result the minds exist across all possibilities and potentials, across all "points in spacetime" and all "moments", since they create all of them, the particle in superposition containing all of its potentials are just a small amount of the minds potentials (since the minds potentials contains every particle, not just one), when we observe/experience anything we are basically narrowing our experience to just one of those potentials, as is the particle coming out of superposition, so no, the particle in superposition does not exclude the necessity for the conciousness/minds, since it represents only a small aspect of all the minds potentials.