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

[robinrenee]

the point is not "something", the point is me. The statement is "If I don't see it, it does not exist"...

I think it's the "collective me." When you no longer perceive the universe, your children will perceive it.

[robinrenee]

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

I think they have created a chaotic mess for themselves. I call it fantasy fysics. Their esoteric math has forced them to create/imagine things they don't understand and cannot prove. ... dark matter, dark energy, big bangs, black holes....

At university in the 60's, I took physics classes and loved every minute. Over the years quantum physics turned into fuzzy fysics.

Today I think that the only real physics is plasma physics. It appeared on the scene in the 50's and fought "tooth and nail" for recognition until the 70's when a few universities began to carry plasma physics classes.

[robinrenee]

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.

I agree! I think it's like the "real world" with a mirror in front of it. The world that we are experiencing is the world in the mirror. Our world is only a reflection of the real world. And... when the physical body dies ... the thinking, comprehending, remembering, responding, conscious part of us moves out of the "reflection" and into the "real" world.

[robinrenee]

So reality has no object permanence?

No.

Entropy rocks!

[Rlyeh]

I believe that God created the physical universe for humans.

So the earth is the centre of the universe?

It's made up of lots of space with infinitely small atoms with electrons whirling like a cloud around the nuclei...

Infinitely small atoms?

If humans did not exist to perceive the universe, the universe would cease to exist.

That's not what the article is saying.

[Rlyeh]

I think they have created a chaotic mess for themselves. I call it fantasy fysics. Their esoteric math has forced them to create/imagine things they don't understand and cannot prove. ... dark matter, dark energy, big bangs, black holes....

At university in the 60's, I took physics classes and loved every minute. Over the years quantum physics turned into fuzzy fysics.

Today I think that the only real physics is plasma physics. It appeared on the scene in the 50's and fought "tooth and nail" for recognition until the 70's when a few universities began to carry plasma physics classes.

Someone is confusing plasma physics with plasma cosmology.

This "God created the physical universe for humans" is of pure fantasy.

[Occult1]

I believe that God created the physical universe for humans. It's made up of lots of space with infinitely small atoms with electrons whirling like a cloud around the nuclei... If humans did not exist to perceive the universe, the universe would cease to exist.

There most likely isn't only humans in the Universe though. Which is the obvious flaw in your proposition.

It's just too vast, there are too many galaxies, stars and planets to conclude that humans are the only 'intelligent' beings in the cosmos.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Phenix20

[Astra.]

when the physical body dies ... the thinking, comprehending, remembering, responding, conscious part of us moves out of the "reflection" and into the "real" world.

And what would your perception or belief be - in the next "real " world after we die robinrenee ?

Do you mean heaven ?

[Harte]

If humans did not exist to perceive the universe, the universe would cease to exist.

The universe had to exist before humans.

Harte

[robinrenee]

So the earth is the centre of the universe?

Hardly... the humans in the Andromeda Galaxy would beg to differ. You might say that humans are the "center of the universe."

Infinitely small atoms?

Well, I considered going into quarks, muons, leptons, strings... but that hardly seemed warranted for this forum.

That's not what the article is saying.

Dang! Did I extrapolate?

[robinrenee]

Someone is confusing plasma physics with plasma cosmology.

This "God created the physical universe for humans" is of pure fantasy.

You know what they say about opinions.

[robinrenee]

]

There most likely isn't only humans in the Universe though. Which is the obvious flaw in your proposition.

Of course there are animals, and I'm sure they vary greatly throughout the universe just like they vary on earth. Animals have differing levels of intelligence. But humans... humans are special. The universe and all that dwell therein were created FOR humans.

It's just too vast, there are too many galaxies, stars and planets to conclude that humans are the only 'intelligent' beings in the cosmos.

I didn't say that.

[robinrenee]

And what would your perception or belief be - in the next "real " world after we die robinrenee ?

Do you mean heaven ?

Afterlife, Summerland, Janna, Paradise, Abha' Kingdom, Heaven... the destination of souls when they detach from the physical world.

[Harte]

Infinitely small atoms?

She said, and quite correctly I might add, infinitely small electrons.

Harte

[robinrenee]

The universe had to exist before humans.

Harte

Harte, I have great respect for your intellect. I didn't mean for my post to be so provocative. Quantum mechanics often propels me into thoughts of mysticism.

The soul is an emanation of God. It (God) emits souls. That is Its nature.

Therefore, God emitted souls and had to have somewhere to put them.

Therefore, God created the universe with a bunch of planets that can support life for all those souls.

And since we've gone this far into mysticism, the universe has no beginning, has no boundaries, has no ending.... forever is BIG and lasts a LONG time.

And by the way ... time and space are human constructs for the physical world.

[Rlyeh]

Hardly... the humans in the Andromeda Galaxy would beg to differ. You might say that humans are the "center of the universe."

Oh, and they communicate telepathically telling you this?

Well, I considered going into quarks, muons, leptons, strings... but that hardly seemed warranted for this forum.

And they must be then even extra infinitely small.

[Rlyeh]

She said, and quite correctly I might add, infinitely small electrons.

Harte

"It's made up of lots of space with infinitely small atoms with electrons whirling like a cloud around the nuclei"

She definitely said infinitely small atoms, the electrons are even smaller.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Rlyeh

[Harte]

"It's made up of lots of space with infinitely small atoms with electrons whirling like a cloud around the nuclei"

She definitely said infinitely small atoms, the electrons are even smaller.

I guess I expect to read "infinitely small electrons," so I did.

Harte

[robinrenee]

Oh, and they communicate telepathically telling you this?

Actually I got that from the scriptures of the Baha'i religion... the only religion that I know of that answers questions like that. I happen to think it makes sense. This is one of many quotes about human life on other planets.

"Know thou that every fixed star hath its own planets, and every planet its own creatures, whose number no man can compute."

... from "Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah" p. 162.

[robinrenee]

I guess I expect to read "infinitely small electrons," so I did.

Harte

How about tiny nuclei with whirling clouds of tiny electrons? Jeez...

I think people like Rlyeh, who meticulously search for trivia like that, must be very bored with their lives.

[Harte]

Well, the point is, electrons actually are infinitely small.

At least, in the Standard Model.

Harte

[robinrenee]

Well, the point is, electrons actually are infinitely small.

At least, in the Standard Model.

Harte

Gotcha .... I think... That means that the nucleus can be measured, but the electrons cannot?

Wait a minute. Electrons can be measured too. http://phys.org/news...ctron-mass.html

So, technically, neither is "infinitely" tiny. They're just tiny.

Edited June 26, 2015 by robinrenee

[Harte]

Nope. They're point particles. Geometric points. No volume whatsoever.

However, they have mass. And, there is this classical electron radius calculation which tells you exactly how close you can make two electrons get to each other.

Point particles cause all kinds of problems when trying to establish a "Theory of Everything" or Unified Field Theory because it puts their density at infinity.

They rationalize this with what's called "renormalization," a mathematical process akin to multiplying selected calculations by zero to cancel out the troublesome density.

Nobody knows if the results of renormalization are real or just wishful thinking, last I checked.

The facts are far stranger than any fiction, IMO.

Harte

[Leonardo]

I support the above quote by the following: Escher's 'Drawing Hands' is real in the sense that we can pick the drawing up, the paper is real, the ink of the drawing is real... It's an objective reality in itself and a subjective reality as we observe it. The drawing is a part of the reality I postulate in my post, and I used that drawing as an analogy to a recurcive or self-creating Existence or Reality.

However, can 'Drawing Hands', although it is a real element of the above defined reality, be considered coequally an illusion? What the drawing portrays may only be considered an illusion subjectively, I agree. Without an observer, the drawing just exists as it is, an exclusively objective entity. But can it be an objective entity and an illusion or not an actual reality concurrently?

I think we should try to define Reality. In one sense, can an objective Reality exist without an observer, as a real thing, a solid existence? Only an observer can define Reality, because, as you say, an observer cannot distinguish itself from that reality of which it is an element. This definition my seem only subjective, but as an objective reality must exist for the observer to be an element of it and to have his subjective observation, this Reality must be both objective and subjective.

Subjectivity is inseperable from objectivity, as the subjective is a real manifestation of the objective.

This being the case, the essence of 'Drawing Hands' as an analogy to the essence of a self-creating Reality, the drawing is real and an illusion at the same time, if we agree the drawing does portray an illusion or a process that exists as a non-objective possibility in that objective Reality in which it exists.

My premise here is, we find ourselves in a situation similar to the liar's paradox. If there exists an element of a so-called real objective Reality that cannot be integrated into that objective Reality itself, then that Reality is an inclomplete objectivity, in that it contains non-objective elements (separate from observer-subjective elements which it does contain, but that do not limit its objective Reality). In my view, this Reality I'm defining is therefore in essense an illusion. Not an observer-subjective illusion, but fundamentally an illusion as an incomplete Objectivity.

It's very easy to formulate thoughts on reality as you do above when using the non-specific sense of the word "Reality". Try writing the same using the terms "subjective Reality" and "objective Reality" and it becomes apparent the illusion is only an artifact of the subject's perception (and that the subject cannot distinguish itself from 'Reality') and neither the subjective nor objective Realities are, in fact, illusory.

The analogy to an Escher painting overlooks the fact that, when dealing with actual Reality the subject is not separate from it.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Leonardo

[robinrenee]

Nope. They're point particles. Geometric points. No volume whatsoever.

However, they have mass. And, there is this classical electron radius calculation which tells you exactly how close you can make two electrons get to each other.

Point particles cause all kinds of problems when trying to establish a "Theory of Everything" or Unified Field Theory because it puts their density at infinity.

They rationalize this with what's called "renormalization," a mathematical process akin to multiplying selected calculations by zero to cancel out the troublesome density.

Nobody knows if the results of renormalization are real or just wishful thinking, last I checked.

Ahhh.... Thank you for the explanation. Unfortunately, most of it went right over my little gray head. .

The facts are far stranger than any fiction, IMO.

Yep, that part I get.