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

danydandan

Upon reflection @RabidMongoose I think I should not have stated my interpretation is correct, as both are valid until we know more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
2 hours ago, danydandan said:

What's funny is if you consider time as a variable your example, it becomes  incomplete. As the first ball influenced the second ball. In reality the second choice didn't have a choice. Again you can show the second user that you already picked a ball rendering their turn is not 50/50.

People always misinterpreted relativity to assume there are multiple realities, there isn't there is just one.

I reject your stance on QM and assert that reality is totally plastic.

Not just in one or two aspects, the whole thing tailors itself to the person depending on the situational circumstances and conscious awareness. That means the mind has primacy. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
20 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

I reject your stance on QM and assert that reality is totally plastic.

Not just in one or two aspects, the whole thing tailors itself to the person depending on the situational circumstances and conscious awareness. That means the mind has primacy. 

That's ok that's what makes it interesting.

I think nature works regardless if we look at her or not.

Why do you ascribe to the interpretation you ascribe to?

Edited by danydandan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
20 minutes ago, danydandan said:

That's ok that's what makes it interesting.

I think nature works regardless if we look at her or not.

Why do you ascribe to the interpretation you ascribe to?

When we play GTA V the whole world isn't loaded into memory. It loads blocks of the map just-in-time to give the illusion of a continuous island.

Likewise, I would argue that we live in a minimalistic universe where the only things which exist are those things required to exist at that particular point in time to give the illusion of a reality. Basically wherever we direct our field of conscious awareness we see a reality pulled into existence.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
12 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

When we play GTA V the whole world isn't loaded into memory. It loads blocks of the map just-in-time to give the illusion of a continuous island.

Likewise, I would argue that we live in a minimalistic universe where the only things which exist are those things required to exist at that particular point in time to give the illusion of a reality. Basically wherever we direct our field of conscious awareness we see a reality pulled into existence.

I can't accept that premise.

I agree with the minimalist Universe, but not that it only exists if I look at it. I've never been to India but I know it's there. Similar to I have never seen you, but I'm convinced your real.

I suppose my opinion is based on my educational background and work experience.

Edited by danydandan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
16 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

When we play GTA V the whole world isn't loaded into memory. It loads blocks of the map just-in-time to give the illusion of a continuous island.

Likewise, I would argue that we live in a minimalistic universe where the only things which exist are those things required to exist at that particular point in time to give the illusion of a reality. Basically wherever we direct our field of conscious awareness we see a reality pulled into existence.

Because of video games.

How can we tell if something is required to exist? Well it exists... Who determines this?

Edited by Rlyeh
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid

If I may interject my opinion, my premise is that consciousness is exclusively an internal isolated system, only in contact with the external world by our five senses. The external reality has no contact with the brain except through these physical senses. We can only manipulate the external world through our mechanical abilities.

Therefore, there is no relationship between the brain and the QM scale. It is because we exist as our conscious awareness that we may consider consciousness as more than this isolated, internal  system. 

The universe, reality, is completely separate from our consciousness. The only relationship is the brain's internal interpretation of reality, a separate and isolated mental construct. 

The fundamental universe is not interested in us, it is as isolated from us as we are isolated from it.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
2 hours ago, danydandan said:

I can't accept that premise.

I agree with the minimalist Universe, but not that it only exists if I look at it. I've never been to India but I know it's there. Similar to I have never seen you, but I'm convinced your real.

I suppose my opinion is based on my educational background and work experience.

Name me one aspect of reality which is a primary truth? For something to be a primary truth it:

1. Must be true for all people (not true for just one or a limited set of minds). Take the colour of the grass as an example. A colour blind person might argue its blue not green. Even worse, as we dont have identical eyes connected to identical brains those of us who arent colour blind each experience a different shade of green! Hence, colour perception is not a primary truth.

2. It must always have been true (not false yesterday but true now or tomorrow). An example is the existence of your car (I will assume that you own one). Is its existence a primary truth? The answer is of course no! There was a time when your car didnt exist so its existence isn't a primary truth. That might sound crazy but think of it this way - ideas have no permanence in time because they are just opinions not real things. A car is an idea not a real thing. Its an idea over what a collection of atoms arranged in a particular way is. Hence, the existence of your car is false. If you want to argue that while your car doesnt really exist the atoms its made out of do then think again... Its easy to show that atoms arent a primary truth too!!!!!

Finally, if you have a problem reconciling your experience of reality with the falseness of it all remember your colour perception. Colour perception is something created by your mind which you then experience outside of your head all around you. Hence, your mind exists outside of your skull!!! and there is no primary truth in what you are experiencing with it out there!!!

That minimalistic reality I talked about earlier? The comments that one reality existing separate from us all is false? Reality is your field of conscious awareness that you direct outside of yourself and it contains no primary truth. As it has no primary truth that reality can be different for each of us without causing any contradictions.

Edited by RabidMongoose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

All of which is unrelated to whether or not the universe is actually there when we're not looking at it.

Harte

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid

I'd like to know the mechanism of the relationship between reality and consciousness if the existence of reality is dependent on conscious awareness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
8 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

Name me one aspect of reality which is a primary truth? For something to be a primary truth it:

1. Must be true for all people (not true for just one or a limited set of minds). Take the colour of the grass as an example. A colour blind person might argue its blue not green. Even worse, as we dont have identical eyes connected to identical brains those of us who arent colour blind each experience a different shade of green! Hence, colour perception is not a primary truth.

2. It must always have been true (not false yesterday but true now or tomorrow). An example is the existence of your car (I will assume that you own one). Is its existence a primary truth? The answer is of course no! There was a time when your car didnt exist so its existence isn't a primary truth. That might sound crazy but think of it this way - ideas have no permanence in time because they are just opinions not real things. A car is an idea not a real thing. Its an idea over what a collection of atoms arranged in a particular way is. Hence, the existence of your car is false. If you want to argue that while your car doesnt really exist the atoms its made out of do then think again... Its easy to show that atoms arent a primary truth too!!!!!

Finally, if you have a problem reconciling your experience of reality with the falseness of it all remember your colour perception. Colour perception is something created by your mind which you then experience outside of your head all around you. Hence, your mind exists outside of your skull!!! and there is no primary truth in what you are experiencing with it out there!!!

That minimalistic reality I talked about earlier? The comments that one reality existing separate from us all is false? Reality is your field of conscious awareness that you direct outside of yourself and it contains no primary truth. As it has no primary truth that reality can be different for each of us without causing any contradictions.

Gravity.

And like Harte says.

6 hours ago, Harte said:

All of which is unrelated to whether or not the universe is actually there when we're not looking at it.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
8 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

Name me one aspect of reality which is a primary truth?

A 'primary truth' of course being something you have given a whole pile of rather silly and unjustified requirements.

8 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

For something to be a primary truth it:

1. Must be true for all people (not true for just one or a limited set of minds).

Why?

8 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

Take the colour of the grass as an example. A colour blind person might argue its blue not green. Even worse, as we dont have identical eyes connected to identical brains those of us who arent colour blind each experience a different shade of green! Hence, colour perception is not a primary truth.

That's an awful example.  Both a colorblind and color-capable person could operate a device that measures the photons wavelengths to levels of accuracy well beyond that of which the eye is able to discriminate.  And we can MEASURE the exact nature of the colorblindness with simple tests.  Does the entire world have to be in on the process for you to believe it, or to understand color-blindness?  Of course not.

8 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

2. It must always have been true (not false yesterday but true now or tomorrow). An example is the existence of your car (I will assume that you own one).

Again, WHY? And again, it's easily proven beyond reasonable doubt - there are many ways in which my car's existence is documented, right back to the car parts arriving at the factory.  All you are doing with this is setting ridiculous and unjustifiably high standards of 'proof', just to make an 'argument'.

WTH do you think is happening as you post on this thread - you think it's a valid approach to dismiss the complex realities of all the individuals in other countries you are communicating with, all with other lives and backgrounds and futures, just on that basis that you don't know stuff?  My history/present hasn't changed because you debate it, and shortly I'll be driving that car home, along a freeway in southern Queensland, to a house I live in, and then enjoying my weekend....  Want pictures?  Ones that you could then verify via Google earth, etc, etc ad infinitum...

Your philosophical ramblings are about as useful as that proverbial noiseless tree falling down in the forest beyond listening.  It's just daft.

'Primary Truth's?  For heaven's sake, look up Axioms as your first Google and then work down from there.  Using that computer of yours that is one of the more recent pinnacles of science and technology that in your disjointed, made up universe couldn't possibly exist... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan

This has become a debate regarding philosophical arguments and not Scientific ones thus I'm out.

And reality is combination of mass consensuses and natual laws. The idea that the universe isn't working when your not looking is absolutely rediculous.

Your confusing perception with reality. Put it this way Rabid, we have users here who firmly believe that God speaks to them, brings them to Hell and Heaven literally, takes them on trips to different planets. In your argument you asserting that their perspective is actually reality. Do you agree that they have seen hell, heaven or been to different planets?

Edited by danydandan
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
10 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

Finally, if you have a problem reconciling your experience of reality with the falseness of it all remember your colour perception. Colour perception is something created by your mind which you then experience outside of your head all around you. Hence, your mind exists outside of your skull!!! and there is no primary truth in what you are experiencing with it out there!!!

You experience colour inside your head, close your eyes if you don't believe me.

 

10 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

That minimalistic reality I talked about earlier? The comments that one reality existing separate from us all is false? Reality is your field of conscious awareness that you direct outside of yourself and it contains no primary truth. As it has no primary truth that reality can be different for each of us without causing any contradictions.

You're confusing perception with reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
On 30/8/2018 at 3:30 AM, Harte said:

There's no end to it.

Harte

That will probably not be settled in our lifetime.

My best estimate is that we have all availabe knowledge by the year 2500.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
15 hours ago, Harte said:

All of which is unrelated to whether or not the universe is actually there when we're not looking at it.

Well, if we take it that the wave function needs some sort of interaction to collapse, and we know that the universe has evolved without us for 13.5 billion years, the logic conclusion must be that "somebody else" has been "watching" from the start. Most likely those who started it. Needless to say, it is pure speculation, but I consider it a logic answer to an impossible question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
26 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Well, if we take it that the wave function needs some sort of interaction to collapse, and we know that the universe has evolved without us for 13.5 billion years, the logic conclusion must be that "somebody else" has been "watching" from the start. Most likely those who started it. Needless to say, it is pure speculation, but I consider it a logic answer to an impossible question.

The wave function is a mathematical description. You're assuming the universe even cares about our mathematics.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid

If I walk into a grassy meadow at night with my eyes closed, then look to where the moon should be, it would not appear for about 1 1/2 seconds, as that's the time it takes for light to travel from the newly existent moon to my eyes. Looking around me, the grass will be lit with moon light.

If I turn away from the moon, of course it ceases to exist, so the moon light on the grass will remain for about 1 1/2 seconds then disappear. 

It would be strange indeed if, not looking at the moon, if the moon light on the grass around me would persist, as the moon now of course no longer exists to shine its light around me. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
25 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

The wave function is a mathematical description. You're assuming the universe even cares about our mathematics.

That's silly. It's a phenomenon that can be described mathematicly, it's not pure math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
36 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

If I walk into a grassy meadow at night with my eyes closed, then look to where the moon should be, it would not appear for about 1 1/2 seconds, as that's the time it takes for light to travel from the newly existent moon to my eyes. Looking around me, the grass will be lit with moon light.

If I turn away from the moon, of course it ceases to exist, so the moon light on the grass will remain for about 1 1/2 seconds then disappear. 

It would be strange indeed if, not looking at the moon, if the moon light on the grass around me would persist, as the moon now of course no longer exists to shine its light around me. 

In the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, it is proven that the photons (or other particles) can wait untill the last split-second untill they "decide" to emerge.

And remember, humans and our senses and devices are not the only ones who can "observe". Everything living can. Plants register sunlight. Bugs and even germs also respond to stimuli from the surroundings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
35 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

That's silly. It's a phenomenon that can be described mathematicly, it's not pure math.

The wave function is our mathematical description of a quantum system. It's silly to think the universe needs us to describe it mathematically.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


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

The wave function is our mathematical description of a quantum system. It's stilly to think the universe needs us to describe it mathematically.

I use the words "wave function" as a reference to the phenomenon.

What other words is there to use?

Edited by sci-nerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
17 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I use the words "wave function" as a reference to the phenomenon.

What other words is there to use?

Quantum physics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
43 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Quantum physics?

"Mechanics".

A bit to broad, maybe? :D

Edited by sci-nerd

Share this post


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

I use the words "wave function" as a reference to the phenomenon.

What other words is there to use?

Phenomena must be observed.

No wave function collapse has ever been observed.

Harte

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 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.