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 -
zep73

The Nature of Reality

587 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Imaginarynumber1
1 minute ago, Dejarma said:

yeah ok-- like i suggested== go play ya xbox

Dude, I already told you, I'm on ps4, not xbox. I though we were friends and this is how you treat me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
1 minute ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Dude, I already told you, I'm on ps4, not xbox. I though we were friends and this is how you treat me?

oh ok then... have you ever been haggis hunting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
4 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

oh ok then... have you ever been haggis hunting?

I prefer the ones with the longer right legs. Easier to catch, if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
12 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

I though we were friends and this is how you treat me?

Quote

Why would I bother to try to impress you? I don't care about you.

make ya mind up- Dude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
Just now, Dejarma said:

make ya mind up- Dude

I'm conflicted by the strong feelings I have for you

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
1 minute ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

I'm conflicted by the strong feelings I have for you

:sleepy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid

The nature of Reality is pretty strange, and whether quantum theory and relativity theory thoroughly describes reality, or whether there is something more fundamental, no one knows. 

It seems to me the real question is, why does there this Reality we find ourselves in exist at all?  If it's a simulation, that just leads to an infinite regression. If Reality is a naturally occurring phenomenon, there is no ultimate reason for its existence. It just is. An artificial or mental simulation doesn't answer this question.

Hung Po, or some Ch'an buddhist a thousand years ago said, "The nature of reality is invisible and cannot be understood by the conscious mind." In other words, the closest we can get to the nature of reality is to forget everything and just be, as this is the way of the natural world. The natural world operates by itself with no exterior motive. When we try to add intellectual 'extras' to the world we loose our sense of harmony with nature, of which we are a natural expression.

 

.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
On 9/7/2018 at 1:20 AM, StarMountainKid said:

Nice video, but the observer effect is misrepresented. In the double slit experiments we are looking at measuring devices, not the phenomenon itself.  The measuring device is going to measure what it measures whether we glance at the data or not. 

I know there are several interpretations of the wave collapse, but, IMO, the others both lack logic and ignore the quantum eraser experiment + the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment results. Those experiments show that the particles "know" if they're being measured, before they arrive at their destination, and they show that the reading of the results is paramount to the collapse itself.
Besides, it's unscientific to call my interpretation wrong, and your own right. I'm not claiming anthing, just saying it CAN point to my conclusion.

I'm quoting Bohr and Heisenberg because nothing has changed since they made their discoveries 100 years ago. We are none the smarter. There may be more theories and opinions about the results, but the wave collapse is still exactly the same now as it was back then, as in 'nothing new has been discovered'. So their words and intentions still hold. Even if many psysicists, then and now, might disagree.

Edited by sci-nerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
On 9/7/2018 at 2:25 AM, Dejarma said:

if you are right, what would you suggest we do?

Enjoy the ride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
1 hour ago, sci-nerd said:

I know there are several interpretations of the wave collapse, but, IMO, the others both lack logic and ignore the quantum eraser experiment + the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment results. Those experiments show that the particles "know" if they're being measured, before they arrive at their destination, and they show that the reading of the results is paramount to the collapse itself.
Besides, it's unscientific to call my interpretation wrong, and your own right. I'm not claiming anthing, just saying it CAN point to my conclusion.

How do you know this if the data is being collected and interpreted after the experiment has taken place?

In the delayed choice quantum eraser, you get the interference pattern depending how you use the results or just ignore them. The collapse is mathematical.

It's like saying the dinosaurs knew in advance humans would discover their remains, and thus died where we'd find them.

Quote

I'm quoting Bohr and Heisenberg because nothing has changed since they made their discoveries 100 years ago. We are none the smarter. There may be more theories and opinions about the results, but the wave collapse is still exactly the same now as it was back then, as in 'nothing new has been discovered'. So their words and intentions still hold. Even if many psysicists, then and now, might disagree.

I suggest you find out about quantum decoherence then.

Edited by Rlyeh
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
On 09/07/2018 at 1:46 AM, Dejarma said:

really, who gives a sh++

Is sh++ the language the universe is coded in? Sounds about right.

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
On 08/07/2018 at 11:16 PM, sci-nerd said:

I studied science in all its forms: nuclear physics, biology, astro physics, quantum mechanics, electro magnetism, evolution, math, geometry, string theory, relativity, chemistry, computing, robotics, consciousness and probably some more.

I call BS on this.

You did not learn "everything there is to know about the universe" including all the subjects above in a year

Nope. Nuh uh. Did. Not. Happen.

Another one of these "I'm an expert on everything and I did it all in my spare time on Sundays" posts. You and Orion Koch or whatever his name is today should get together and have a brag-off.

Edited by Emma_Acid
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
2 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

How do you know this if the data is being collected and interpreted after the experiment has taken place?

In the delayed choice quantum eraser, you get the interference pattern depending how you use the results or just ignore them. The collapse is mathematical.

It's like saying the dinosaurs knew in advance humans would discover their remains, and thus died where we'd find them.

I suggest you find out about quantum decoherence then.

When I wrote that the particles "know" I used quotation marks for a reason. Of course they don't know anything. But they "behave" as if they do.

With decoherence the system becomes part of the surrounding environment, and is subjected to its entropy. It becomes contaminated. I do not necessarily agree that this contamination is equal to measurement/observation, and that it causes wave-collapse. They might as well be two different things. As with so many other quantum phenomenons, it is a matter of interpretation.

Edited by sci-nerd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
49 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

I call BS on this.

You did not learn "everything there is to know about the universe" including all the subjects above in a year

Nope. Nuh uh. Did. Not. Happen.

Another one of these "I'm an expert on everything and I did it all in my spare time on Sundays" posts. You and Orion Koch or whatever his name is today should get together and have a brag-off.

Would you rather be lied to?

I did learn it all in a year, but it took me an additional two years to comprehend it all, and put it in system. So, from I started, till I had a complete overview, it took three years. And I am still learning new details and exploring new theories. It will never stop.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moonman

There's a distinct difference between being formally taught a subject vs just reading about it on the internet.

Braggarts need not mention the latter, unless they like getting laughed out of the room.

Edited by moonman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moonman

I suggest that the OP post this on a forum where the users are trained experts in these fields, and see how long it takes to be taken down a few pegs from the "I'm so smart I know everything I'm a genius" mindframe he seems to be stuck in.

Random quotes, buzzwords and recycled ideas won't cut it there.

Edited by moonman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid

"The correct statement of the laws of physics involves some very unfamiliar ideas which require advanced mathematics for their description. Therefore, one needs a considerable amount of preparatory training even to learn what the words mean." - Richard P. Feynman
How are your math skills? Just wondering.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73

I'd like to correct a word I used in my OP. I wrote "observer" effect about the collapse of the wave function. That was presumptuous. I meant "measurement" effect.
But since I refer to a model, that uses the observer interpretation, I thought it was within reason to use that word.
I stand corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
46 minutes ago, moonman said:

I suggest that the OP post this on a forum where the users are trained experts in these fields, and see how long it takes to be taken down a few pegs from the "I'm so smart I know everything I'm a genius" mindframe he seems to be stuck in.

Random quotes, buzzwords and recycled ideas won't cut it there.

I don't consider myself smart, just a fast learner. I am discussing this in other places with all sorts of people.
You sir, just seem like a bully to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
2 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

I call BS on this.

yep... i like the: 'and probably some more' at the end... yeah probably depending on if he/she can think of any more to make up:rolleyes:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
On 9/7/2018 at 1:22 AM, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Amazing that it only took you a year to learn everything about the universe. 

You should probably contact CERN, Max Planck Institute, NASA,  etc and let them know that you've gone ahead and figured it all out for them.

I just feel bad for all the physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists whose careers you have effectively ended.

That's me out of a job, jees and it took him a year to discover everything.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
7 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

yep... i like the: 'and probably some more' at the end... yeah probably depending on if he/she can think of any more to make up:rolleyes:

I sometimes forget things. It's a part of being human. So the "maybe more" is my way of saying: I might have forgotten a thing or two.

Is being a biased bully normal here? It seems so. But why this place? Easy targets?

Calling BS and mocking is stupid. Plain and simple. Get in the game instead!

Edited by sci-nerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan

Mister Sci-nerd quy. You say you know everything. Can you answer the following and prove it thanks.

C=5/9(F−32)

The equation above shows how temperature F, measured in degrees Fahrenheit, relates to a temperature C, measured in degrees Celsius. Based on the equation, which of the following must be true?

A temperature increase of 1 degree Fahrenheit is equivalent to a temperature increase of 59 degree Celsius.


A temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius is equivalent to a temperature increase of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit.

Atemperature increase of 59 degree Fahrenheit is equivalent to a temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius.

A. I only
B. II only
C. III only
D. I and II
 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid
21 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I'd like to correct a word I used in my OP. I wrote "observer" effect about the collapse of the wave function. That was presumptuous. I meant "measurement" effect.
But since I refer to a model, that uses the observer interpretation, I thought it was within reason to use that word.
I stand corrected.

I would agree that "measurement effect" is a more accurate description of the phenomena. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moonman
25 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I don't consider myself smart, just a fast learner. I am discussing this in other places with all sorts of people.
You sir, just seem like a bully to me.

Not so much a bully as someone who calls people out on their bragging BS. Nothing is more annoying than a braggart who thinks they know everything, which is exactly what you are.

But please, link us to one of your threads where some experts are in on the conversation. I'd love to hear what they think.

 

Edited by moonman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.