Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Reality doesn't exist if you don't look at it


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one to "hear" it it still making a sound because the pressure is exciting air molecules. Only your ear is not there to listen. Everything we perceive as "reality" is nothing more than electrical impulses in the brain anyway... :no:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one to "hear" it it still making a sound because the pressure is exciting air molecules. Only your ear is not there to listen. Everything we perceive as "reality" is nothing more than electrical impulses in the brain anyway... :no:

Yes, our definition of reality is our definition of our senses. The reality of the universe does not have to conform to our limited awareness of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is gonna sound out there but bear with me, I believe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia are the key to understanding reality and how we perceive it. What we consider reality is what we collectively perceive, five people in a room all seeing the same thing, all of our minds putting together the same image. But what about people with mental disorders which cause deep, and rarely constant hallucinations? their reality is very different from ours, the things the brain believes it is seeing in front of it is different from the people around them. It seems real to the eyes that are seeing those things, the ears that are hearing those things, all of their senses are saying "this is real"

Perhaps in some ways, you could peg these as an "error" in the brains perception of reality, rather then a disease. If a person is alone in a room hallucinating they are somewhere else, does that moment in that room really exist at that time, if nobody is perceiving it? Even when somebody is IN the room, but not in the reality of the room? Food for though, consider it or ignore it.

Edited by DemonicCupcake
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is gonna sound out there but bear with me, I believe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia are the key to understanding reality and how we perceive it. What we consider reality is what we collectively perceive, five people in a room all seeing the same thing, all of our minds putting together the same image. But what about people with mental disorders which cause deep, and rarely constant hallucinations? their reality is very different from ours, the things the brain believes what it is seeing in front of it is different from the people around them. It seems real to the eyes that are seeing those things, the ears that are hearing those things, all of their senses are saying "this is real"

Perhaps in some ways, you could peg these as an "error" in the brains perception of reality, rather then a disease. If a person is alone in a room hallucinating they are somewhere else, does that moment in that room really exist at that time, if nobody is perceiving it? Even when somebody is IN the room, but not in the reality of the room? Food for though, consider it or ignore it.

Just goes to show our reality is what we percieve it to be. What's "really going on" lies most likely external to our human senses. I've always had the feeling the universe as we perceive it is a perceived manifestation of something we cannot perceive.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could this be used to argue that we live in a simulation? Looking at a simple example like a video game where landscape and objects are only rendered as needed and deleted from the scene when out of scope or range of the player.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could this be used to argue that we live in a simulation? Looking at a simple example like a video game where landscape and objects are only rendered as needed and deleted from the scene when out of scope or range of the player.

I would think in a simulation all activity would be going on even when a single person is not observing it. On the other hand, I suppose the simulation could be constructed such that every person's conscious awareness is the focal point of the simulation. However, events not observed can influence every person.

So as I say, I think the whole simulation would be operating including events not observed by any particular person.

Would a simulation require the absurd and counter-intuitive nature of quantum mechanics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I was standing under a window ledge when a flower pot came down.... I did not look at it and it did not hit me....NOT!

The Universe does not care if we are aware of it or not, it keeps on existing.

For the plant pot to cease existing it requires more than not looking at it. The requirement is that it must become isolated so no information flows from it to you. While the slight trickle of heat, electro-magnetic radiation, taste, smell and noise from it to you might not be enough for your mind to bring it to your conscious attention it is going on.

The physicists should try doing the experiment in a cavern 5km down. See if sending a human down there interferes with its quantum state.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Wheeler's statement that quantum objects are "neither wave nor particle" before measurment makes sense in the sense that the object cannot be both particle and wave simultaneously.

Actually, that is exactly what the hypothesis of the quantum object's superposition predicts - that it is both simultaneously. And this is one reason why his statement makes no sense.

We can think of the quantum 'object' traveling through space as a set of probabilities - a probability field - that only manifests as wave-like properties or particle-like properties when measured.

No, that's not how we think, that's the mathematical model we have constructed because we do not know what form the object takes before measurement. We cannot treat the mathematical model as 'reality' unless we can actually measure/observe it, so we cannot 'think' of the quantum object as existing in a superposition in reality. All we can declare is we do not know what form that object takes before measurement, but here is the mathematical model showing all those possible forms.

Perhaps Wheeler is stating his own position on the subject. Others may hold different views. Richard Feynman said something like, if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't. I agree that all we have is a mathematical description of quantum phenomena and only that. As absurd as the mathematical description appears to be, the theory predicts correctly every time.

That is undoubtedly the case, however you quoted his statement in the sense of it providing authority. I objected to that presumed authoritativeness.

Edited by Leonardo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a discussion a while back with a member who stated that a 'star' somewhere in the galaxy when not observed is just a bundle of quantum events. It is not a 'star' at all. This unobserved quantum state lies beyond any human conscious definition.

I think it's tricky to define something unobserved. It's a cunundrum. What did the universe 'look like' before human consciousness evolved? I think this state of the unvierse is actual reality. Our conscious awareness through its senses converts this primal state into what we experience. The brain creates the universe we observe.

I consider this brain-created universe is something separate from its primal state, or at least leaves most of its actual reality out. I think if we could 'know' this primal state, it would be something completely different than what our senses translate it to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, that is exactly what the hypothesis of the quantum object's superposition predicts - that it is both simultaneously. And this is one reason why his statement makes no sense.

I think thinking about a quantum object as being both a wave and a particle simultaneously produces a false picture in the mind. We think classically, not quantumly. There is no classical definition of superposition. Trying to make logical sense of QM is a useless endevor.

No, that's not how we think, that's the mathematical model we have constructed because we do not know what form the object takes before measurement. We cannot treat the mathematical model as 'reality' unless we can actually measure/observe it, so we cannot 'think' of the quantum object as existing in a superposition in reality. All we can declare is we do not know what form that object takes, but here is the mathematical model showing all those possible forms.

I agree. I remember Richard Feynman saying, don't try to understand QM, just do the math. We are alwys going to come to some tentative conclusions and make models even when we lack complete information. If these models predict accurately, then the unkknowns in the model remain unknown until we come up with a more complete model of theory.

What else can we do?

That is undoubtedly the case, however you quoted his statement in the sense of it providing authority. I objected to that presumed authoritativeness.

I did not mean to infer that Wheeler had any authority other than his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I had to read it three times, and the source links. Now, I guess I'll... "give it a fresh cup of really hot tea... and turn it on!"

;)

Wow, only three?! It took me seven times. After contemplating this, it seems to make sense. First and most important, this is on the quantum level (stated before in previous threads). Second, a glass of milk is only a glass of milk when one determines it's a glass of milk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Wheeler's statement that quantum objects are "neither wave nor particle" before measurment makes sense in the sense that the object cannot be both particle and wave simultaneously. We can think of the quantum 'object' traveling through space as a set of probabilities - a probability field - that only manifests as wave-like properties or particle-like properties when measured.

I think this is the concept of superposition, in my view. Before measurment, the specific nature of the quantum 'object' canot be known, of course. I think the uncertainty of its state before measurment, and therefore the statement that the object is undefined and cannot be considered either a wave or particle, is a logical assumption.

It is logical because of the duality of quantum phenomena. If the 'object' can be either a wave or particle depending on the measurement apparatus only when measured, its nature before measurment is open to conjecture, and I don't think anyone knows the nature of the phenomena before measurment. Superposition or decoherence or whatever...

We're getting there:

Until recently physicists could explore the quantum mechanical properties of single particles only through thought experiments, because any attempt to observe them directly caused them to shed their mysterious quantum properties.

But in the 1980s and 1990s physicists invented devices that allowed them to measure these fragile quantum systems so gently that they don’t immediately collapse to a definite state.

The device Murch uses to explore quantum space is a simple superconducting circuit that enters quantum space when it is cooled to near absolute zero. Murch’s team uses the bottom two energy levels of this qubit, the ground state and an excited state, as their model quantum system. Between these two states, there are an infinite number of quantum states that are superpositions, or combinations, of the ground and excited states.

The quantum state of the circuit is detected by putting it inside a microwave box. A few microwave photons are sent into the box, where their quantum fields interact with the superconducting circuit. So when the photons exit the box they bear information about the quantum system.

Crucially, these “weak,” off-resonance measurements do not disturb the qubit, unlike “strong” measurements with photons that are resonant with the energy difference between the two states, which knock the circuit into one or the other state.

link

More on this: Link Link

If you look at the dates, you'll see that this isn't exactly a recent method.

If you read the first article, you'll see that it appears that quantum states in the present are affected by both their own past and future states.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strangely it is mostly physicists that come up with brain ejaculations lately. Don't they have anything worthwhile to study?

Many of your modern conveniences such as the cell phone and GPS exist because of the study of such phenomenon. I won't comment on whether any of these conveniences are worthwhile however... :)

Cheers

Edited by Calibeliever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an interesting question. Does physical reality exists in a concrete form, independant from our minds, or does consciousness actually sustains it, or a least shape into in the state which we observe? You'd think that cats and dogs for exemple don't exactly see reality as perceive it as they don't view the same colors..

The schizrofrenic's woldview will have some serious discrepencies from ours as his brain goes a-wire with hallucinations. People will be in their rights to tell him they're not real. It's like his mind can't quite get the frenquency everyone's tapping to correctly, he has one foot in and one foot out in a kind of 'parallel world'.

Is it because his brain functions aren't working properly which causes him to misinterpret and distort the concrete, independant reality or is it because his consciousness is perhaps struggling to ''tune-in'' completely to the collective-created reality?

Edited by Phenix20
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reality, as a "substrate", exists whether we observe it or not. What that substrate is, be it some fundamental "fabric" of space-time, or something vastly more complex or elusive(yet still fundamental) seems for the most part unknown as this time.

It appears there is at least some evidence that it is what comes after the "substrate"; what is "built upon or within it" that we can change under special circumstances. Even more strange, again under special circumstances, the substrate itself can be locally "warped", dynamically affecting nearly all that locally exists or encounters that "warp"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just heard this theory recently. It's quite sinister and morbid when you think about it. Does that mean the people we are with stop existing when they leave out the door? This is like it's based on that infant fear that mom and dad disappear when a babies can't see them. Whoever made this theory up must have been traumatized during a game of peek-a-boo or hide and go seek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just heard this theory recently. It's quite sinister and morbid when you think about it. Does that mean the people we are with stop existing when they leave out the door? This is like it's based on that infant fear that mom and dad disappear when a babies can't see them. Whoever made this theory up must have been traumatized during a game of peek-a-boo or hide and go seek.

It's not made up. It's a result of the mathematics behind quantum mechanics.

It's not new either. It's been known for almost a century.

Harte

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point that almost nobody gets (and BTW, Einstein did not get it either when he told Niels Bohr that God does not play with dice), Quantum Mechanics do not apply to anything known, but they are a mathematical method to quantify the unknown. The Unknown can exist, not exist or be somewhere in between. But the unknown is irrelevant to our reality.

From there to deduce that the Universe only exists if we are aware of it is quite a stretch.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, this experiment is hardly a ``brain ejaculation''. It is a well thought-out, carefully conducted test of Wheeler's ``delayed choice'' hypothesis.

Second, the head line is misleading, and the experiment in no way proves that ``reality does not exist until measured''. The headline for the original ANU news brief is much more appropriate: ``Experiment confirms quantum weirdness''.

Third, please remember (or learn) that a quantum system always, always, always has a definite state. That state can often be predicted from theory, and can often be measured without affecting the system.

(In principle it can always be measured, but actually performing the measurement may be difficult or impractical in some situations.)

However for a given state, you cannot measure an arbitrary aspect without affecting the system.

The media likes to report on ``wave-particle duality'' because people can visualize particles and waves. But people sometimes misunderstand the underlying meaning of ``wave-particle duality'': A wave is an object with a singular, definite, and measureable momentum, while a particle is an object with a singular, definite, and measurable position.

In fact, almost nothing in the universe is a particle or a wave. One of the biggest successes in early quantum mechanics was predicting the properties of a hydrogen atom. The state of an electron in an atomic orbital is neither a particle nor a wave: It does not have a single position nor a single momentum (it does, however, have a single angular momentum).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Third, please remember (or learn) that a quantum system always, always, always has a definite state. That state can often be predicted from theory, and can often be measured without affecting the system.
In fact, almost nothing in the universe is a particle or a wave. One of the biggest successes in early quantum mechanics was predicting the properties of a hydrogen atom. The state of an electron in an atomic orbital is neither a particle nor a wave: It does not have a single position nor a single momentum (it does, however, have a single angular momentum).

How do you reconcile these two statements? Am I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you reconcile these two statements? Am I missing something?

Sepulchrave should have said "Third, please remember (or learn) that a quantum system always, always, always has a definite quantum state. "

A quantum state is a series of characteristics (like total energy, total momentum, spin number, position, etc.) and does not include the characteristic "wave" or the characteristic "particle."

These characteristics are measurements only and not associated with which particular model of existence (particle or wave) the object happens to exhibit.

I.e., an electron can be either a wave or a particle and still have the same quantum state. The wave or particle part is only determined by what sort of apparatus is used to measure the quantum state.

Harte

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if the quantum state of a quantum system, or the superposition of a quantum system as described by a wave function (a matematical expression not describing wave/particle duality) is a description of the real quantum system, or just what the observer knows about the quantum system?

In other words, what is reality? Is the mathematical description of the quantum state of an atom the real atom, for instance? "What we know" may always be a description only of "what we know", and not of actual reality, whatever that may be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if the quantum state of a quantum system, or the superposition of a quantum system as described by a wave function (a matematical expression not describing wave/particle duality) is a description of the real quantum system, or just what the observer knows about the quantum system?

In other words, what is reality? Is the mathematical description of the quantum state of an atom the real atom, for instance? "What we know" may always be a description only of "what we know", and not of actual reality, whatever that may be.

If you want to know what "reality" is you get yourself into the realm of psychology... I don't think we want to get there.

Your "reality" is different from "my reality" due to experience, training, education and the mental "deformation" (in lack of a better word) each of those bring with it.

It is better to define the actual state into "known" and "unknown".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.