realologist said:
Nothing, subjectivologist.
New Study Demonstrates That There Is No Such Thing As Objective Reality
- Thread starter Valentine
- Start date
Nothing, subjectivologist.
Most folk live their lives as if the world they see & touch is 'solid'.
Whereas, even without going into the 'crazy' realm of quantum physics, even staying at the atomic level. The world is not really solid.
Then when we do ponder quantum physics. The whole situation becomes far more malleable.
Reality is what it is. Simulation or otherwise. It's our perceptions that are either incomplete or incorrect.
Whereas, even without going into the 'crazy' realm of quantum physics, even staying at the atomic level. The world is not really solid.
Then when we do ponder quantum physics. The whole situation becomes far more malleable.
Reality is what it is. Simulation or otherwise. It's our perceptions that are either incomplete or incorrect.
Valentine said:
Spooky. Only a few days ago was I catching up on the latest research in Quantum physics. I've always been fascinated by it. I was nearly chucked out of Junior school at 8 years old for disrupting the class by trying to teach them the Standard Model of sub-atomic particles. And I've been at it ever since!
I've come across some quite recent research which backs up what you've found here as well. Of course it's all linked, but this thing that I've found seems to be a parallel to these experiments.
Valentine said:
Even though this is a different experiment by different people, it really does seem to back up the work of Rafael Chaves et al in the up and coming field of causal modeling. In this experiment he took Wheeler's (not Wigner) gedanken a step further again. There have been experiments since 1999 that gave the shock result that Wheeler was right (they didn't have the scientific equipment to measure it at enough accuracy till then - so they waited a couple of decades).
The upshot of this being that events in the future can influence events in the past. You must be familiar with Wheeler's delayed choice experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed-choice_experiment
This is called retro-causality. And it breaks time's arrow and the second law of thermodynamics as I understand it with regard to entropy.
It's a controversial idea for many obvious reasons. And Wheeler didn't think it existed:
The retrocausal explanation, which Wheeler does not accept, says that with the detection screen in place, interference must be manifested.
Several ways of implementing Wheeler's basic idea have been made into real experiments and they support the conclusion that Wheeler anticipated — that what is done at the exit port of the experimental device before the photon is detected will determine whether it displays interference phenomena or not. Retrocausality is a mirage.
You can't perfectly piece that smashed vase back together after breaking it. Having said that I read an article in the Daily Mail about some Russian scientists actually really doing that. They broke times arrow as well. I'll try to dig it out. Remind me if I forget. Imagine all the pool balls on a table just reversing back in time after being smashed all over the table top. This counters the second law of thermodynamics of course and all that we believe about entropy: the propensity for all matter and energy to decay in to a chaotic state. That is why everything and everyone must die, and nothing lasts forever. Look on my works ye mighty...
This really is very exciting, because even though this is obviously a related kind of experiment, it is in fact distinctly discrete from the works of Chaves. But with a very similar conclusion. And another parallel being the conclusion those other Russian scientists came to with their experiment. Though really their experiment has proved the opposite of what they did: that you can travel back in time. Get used to contradictions. There is no sense in this world when you are trying to understand 'reality'.
The double-slit experiment proved that observation causes the creation of a single reality which we presumed affected everyone, but in fact this experiment proves that parts of the observed reality will only exist for the local observer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality#Local_realism
I'm struggling with the whole locality thing. There are just so many contradictions in all of this. There are in the experiments as well. And the scientists don't even agree among themselves. Does the fact that "this experiment proves that parts of the observed reality will only exist for the local observer" imply nonlocality? Because all these experiments are leaning towards the de Broglie interpretation -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
Ah, fucking BINGO - GOTCHA!
Right this makes perfect sense. I was getting confused by the term nonlocality and how it applies to the observer alone. It's a contradictory term. This is in total keeping with the bolded paragraph there. The key is:
De Broglie–Bohm theory
Main article: De Broglie–Bohm theory
The de Broglie–Bohm theory of quantum mechanics (also known as the pilot wave theory) is a theory by Louis de Broglie and extended later by David Bohm to include measurements. Particles, which always have positions, are guided by the wavefunction. The wavefunction evolves according to the Schrödinger wave equation, and the wavefunction never collapses. The theory takes place in a single space-time, is non-local, and is deterministic. The simultaneous determination of a particle's position and velocity is subject to the usual uncertainty principle constraint. The theory is considered to be a hidden-variable theory, and by embracing non-locality it satisfies Bell's inequality. The measurement problem is resolved, since the particles have definite positions at all times.[16] Collapse is explained as phenomenological.[17]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#De_Broglie–Bohm_theory
------------------------
phenomenology (countable and uncountable, plural phenomenologies)
(philosophy) The study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view.
-------------------
We are getting in to the whole philosophical Anti-Reality thing here as well. We've kind of left Quantum Physics and are in to philosophy, like anything when you dig deep enough. There is no reality. It's what you decide it is at the time, as you measure it. Funny ah?
The nonlocality thing is important. It's a key corner stone to even begin to understand any of this. Keep with me.
The whole De Broglie-Bohm interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is at odds with the more commonly accepted Copenhagen interpretation which is kind of the main yardstick with all of the different interpretations out there. Like I said, lots of contradictions. We are all in the wild here.
The Copenhagen interpretation is the "standard" interpretation of quantum mechanics formulated by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg while collaborating in Copenhagen around 1927. Bohr and Heisenberg extended the probabilistic interpretation of the wavefunction proposed originally by Max Born. The Copenhagen interpretation rejects questions like "where was the particle before I measured its position?" as meaningless. The measurement process randomly picks out exactly one of the many possibilities allowed for by the state's wave function in a manner consistent with the well-defined probabilities that are assigned to each possible state. According to the interpretation, the interaction of an observer or apparatus that is external to the quantum system is the cause of wave function collapse, thus according to Paul Davies, "reality is in the observations, not in the electron".
https://www.quantamagazine.org/closed-loophole-confirms-the-unreality-of-the-quantum-world-20180725/
For Wiseman, the debate over Copenhagen versus de Broglie-Bohm in the context of the delayed-choice experiment is far from settled. “So in Copenhagen, there is no strange inversion of time precisely because we have no right to say anything about the photon’s past,” he wrote in an email. “In de Broglie-Bohm there is a reality independent of our knowledge, but there is no problem as there is no inversion — there is a unique causal (forward in time) description of everything."
This last paragraph is key as well.
Valentine said:
Mind blown! You know I missed that 'quantum nonlocality' bit, in all honesty I didn't see it and there it pops up in the nut of what you are trying to explain. Like I said, it's central to understanding any of this. It's why I spent over an hour scratching my head with how it applies to the other stuff that is starting to make sense.
The main core of De Broglie-Bohm theory is determinism and nonlocality. As per your post title: "There is no objective reality" until it is observed subjectively, conjuring it in to life.
Quantum entanglement, spooky action at a distance, information paradox. Local realism and nonlocality.
Local realism
Einstein's principle of local realism is the combination of the principle of locality (limiting cause-and-effect to the speed of light) with the assumption that a particle must objectively have a pre-existing value (i.e. a real value) for any possible measurement, i.e. a value existing before that measurement is made.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality#Local_realism
Local realism is a feature of classical mechanics, and of classical electrodynamics; but quantum mechanics theories reject the principle, based on the experimental evidence of distant quantum entanglements: an interpretation that Einstein rejected (as being a paradox)
So the evidence is mounting up more and more for Quantum nonlocality as espoused by De Broglie-Bohm interpretation. Was Einstein wrong about that as well? Well, not wrong, just confused. Like the rest of us. Then again, he might have been wrong, and right at the same time. Or neither. Or both!
Valentine said:
Maybe one day we will find evidence for the Tachyon.
A tachyon (/ˈtækiɒn/) or tachyonic particle is a hypothetical particle that always travels faster than light. Most physicists believe that faster-than-light particles cannot exist because they are not consistent with the known laws of physics.[1][2] If such particles did exist, they could be used to build a tachyonic antitelephone and send signals faster than light, which (according to special relativity) would lead to violations of causality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon
Valentine said:
The Many Worlds hypothesis is also a fascinating interpretation along with the Copenhagen and De Broglie-Bohm ones.
Many-worlds interpretation
In the many-worlds interpretation, both realism and locality of action are retained,
Realism. Local Realism. Anti-realism. Locality. Nonlocality.
Valentine said:
Yes.
This post is already far too long. I'll put forward that parallel research I talked about earlier and how it ties in with the research that you presented.
(sorry for any formatting issues. It's late and and that's a lot or word-salad to get through on my part - this is for my notes as much as anything else, but maybe some others can make sense of it.)
Damn, I forgot how much of a bitch it is to debug HTML. I should have used an IDE for this post...
A Simple Visitor
Pelican
Very interesting thread.
One thing bothers me though : the leap (voluntarily or not) made between the quantum level and the macro one.
Let's admit 1 photon can have a different state, depending on the observer.
This is crazy, yes.
But does it imply there's Any notable effect on the macro level?
We can find individual atoms which have different states, but maybe a balance is naturally found when taking a larger quantity of them, to give the exact same result for all observers?
Has there been any experience with a large quantity of atoms?
One thing bothers me though : the leap (voluntarily or not) made between the quantum level and the macro one.
Let's admit 1 photon can have a different state, depending on the observer.
This is crazy, yes.
But does it imply there's Any notable effect on the macro level?
We can find individual atoms which have different states, but maybe a balance is naturally found when taking a larger quantity of them, to give the exact same result for all observers?
Has there been any experience with a large quantity of atoms?
CynicalContrarian said:
The reality is that reality including everything on this earth and inside it is 99.99% vacuum.
And if the world isn't really solid and seems like a simulation. Leads to some strange conclusions as this person has done:
A danger in talking about quantum mechanics is that people have a tendency to project the findings to the non-quantum level - "PUAs can cho-cho-choose their reality" or "what I believe is my reality" or "This is exactly what my favourite guru/bible/philosopher said!" Not really, not at all. These findings apply to really tiny objects that are incredibly small like photons and electrons.
I was actually just talking about the double slit experiment with a friend. He comes from a physics background and told me that the instruments we have are the cause for changing the results. After I showed him this story he is starting to doubt that the instruments are causing the electrons for behaving like particles. Thanks for sharing this OP.
I was actually just talking about the double slit experiment with a friend. He comes from a physics background and told me that the instruments we have are the cause for changing the results. After I showed him this story he is starting to doubt that the instruments are causing the electrons for behaving like particles. Thanks for sharing this OP.
Valentine said:
There are a few variations of the Double Slit experiment and some taking what that finds a bit further again. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler's_delayed-choice_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser
An excerpt from the last link there:
a last-minute decision made on Earth on how to observe a photon could alter a decision made millions or even billions of years ago.
While delayed-choice experiments have confirmed the seeming ability of measurements made on photons in the present to alter events occurring in the past, this requires a non-standard view of quantum mechanics. If a photon in flight is interpreted as being in a so-called "superposition of states", i.e. if it is interpreted as something that has the potentiality to manifest as a particle or wave, but during its time in flight is neither, then there is no time paradox. This is the standard view, and recent experiments have supported it.
My bold here is key.
The main sticking point here with all of these experiments is the fact that they can mimic retro-causality, that is to say that events in the future can actually change events in the past. Now, people have a real problem with that. So they are looking to see if that is actually the case or if there may be something else at play.
Enter the emerging field of causal modeling and the work of Chaves I alluded to earlier.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/closed-loophole-confirms-the-unreality-of-the-quantum-world-20180725/
This is the most important link in all of this discussion. And this is the experiment he did that supports the experiments that Valentine linked to.
Wheeler was espousing the view that elementary quantum phenomena are not real until observed, a philosophical position called anti-realism. He even designed an experiment to show that if you hold on to realism — in which quantum objects such as photons always have definite, intrinsic properties, a position that encapsulates a more classical view of reality — then one is forced to concede that the future can influence the past. Given the absurdity of backward time-travel, Wheeler’s experiment became an argument for anti-realism at the level of the quantum.
You can't have it both ways. Either events in the future can influence events in the past or photons do not have definite intrinsic properties when not being observed.
I.e. there is no such thing as objective reality. See the last paragraph of this image -
[img=700x500]https://d2r55xnwy6nx47.cloudfront.net/uploads/2018/07/DelayedChoiceExperiment_560-891x1720.jpg[/img]
In the classical way of thinking, it’s as if the photon went back in time and changed its character from particle to wave.
Original image: https://d2r55xnwy6nx47.cloudfront.net/uploads/2018/07/DelayedChoiceExperiment_560-891x1720.jpg
One way to avoid such retro-causality is to deny the photon any intrinsic reality and argue that the photon becomes real only upon measurement. That way, there is nothing to undo.
Such anti-realism, which is often associated with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, took a theoretical knock with Chaves’s work, at least in the context of this experiment. His team wanted to explain counterintuitive aspects of quantum mechanics using a new set of ideas called causal modeling, which has grown in popularity in the past decade,
Causal modeling, which prohibits backward time travel, ensures that the experimenter’s choice cannot influence the past intrinsic state of the photon.
With this setup in place, Chaves’s team came up with a way to distinguish between a classical causal model and quantum mechanics. Say the first phase shift can take one of three values, and the second one of two values. That makes six possible experimental settings in total. They calculated what they expected to see for each of these six settings.
And this from Valentine's link:
The breakthrough that Proietti and co have made is to carry this out. “In a state-of-the-art 6-photon experiment, we realize this extended Wigner’s friend scenario,” they say.
They use these six entangled photons to create two alternate realities—one representing Wigner and one representing Wigner’s friend. Wigner’s friend measures the polarization of a photon and stores the result. Wigner then performs an interference measurement to determine if the measurement and the photon are in a superposition.
Mmm. Six.
Back to the Chaves experiment.
For Wiseman, the debate over Copenhagen versus de Broglie-Bohm in the context of the delayed-choice experiment is far from settled. “So in Copenhagen, there is no strange inversion of time precisely because we have no right to say anything about the photon’s past,” he wrote in an email. “In de Broglie-Bohm there is a reality independent of our knowledge, but there is no problem as there is no inversion — there is a unique causal (forward in time) description of everything. ”
Either time can flow backwards and influence past events because there is an objective reality we can call out. Classical view.
Or time does not flow backwards because there is no such thing as objective reality. Quantum view. Anti-reality. Wheeler's view. And corroborating the results of the experiment that Valentine posted. There is no objective reality.
In theoretical physics, quantum nonlocality is a characteristic of some measurements made at a microscopic level that contradict the assumptions of local realism found in classical mechanics. Despite consideration of hidden variables as a possible resolution of this contradiction, some aspects of entangled quantum states have been demonstrated irreproducible by any local hidden variable theory.
These hidden variable were exactly what Chaves found and proved in his experiment.
If the results continue to support Wheeler’s original argument, then “it gives us yet another reason to say that wave-particle duality is not going to be explained away by some classical physics explanation,” Kaiser said. “The range of conceptual alternatives to quantum mechanics has again been shrunk, been pushed back into a corner. That’s really what we are after.”
I'm totally out of my depth here.
Given the absurdity of backward time-travel, Wheeler’s experiment became an argument for anti-realism at the level of the quantum
So you can have backward time-travel and objective reality (reality as we think we know it). But it breaks too many fundamental laws (not least second law of thermodynamics).
Or you can have no backward time-travel, but with NO objective reality (anti-reality). Reality does exist, but with hidden variables, that we can never know and only ever conjure in to existence when we observe them. This maintains entropy (second law of thermodynamics).
What a choice!
I've probably made a load of mistakes. Feel free to point them out. I'm not clever enough to understand this shit when it comes down to it, but I like to give it a go now and again.
And don't forget those pesky Russians thad did travel back in time. I haven't.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6800577/Move-Doctor-Scientists-time-machine.html
Move over Doctor Who: 'Time machine' created in Russia moves tiny particles a fraction of a second into the past
= Russian physicists have effectively achieved the same principle of time travel
= They loosely described it as moving in the opposite direction of 'time's arrow'
= The researchers worked with electrons in the realm of quantum mechanics
= Broken pool balls were able to re-order themselves into their original formation
The Second Law of Thermodynamics deals with transition of energy within a system from usable to unusable.
It is the reason our phones and laptops need to be charged, and that our sun will one day die out.
It states that energy cannot repeat in an infinite loop within a closed system, and so we must replenish what is lost.
The Second Law profoundly sets the limits for what is possible in our universe, defining why everything within it must one day decay.
Just when you think you've figured it all out, those bloody Russians come along and piss in your toybox!
Either retrocausality exists or it does not!
Either man went to the moon or he did not!
Either there is life out there in the wider universe or there is not!
It's binary. And whether it ends up being a '0' or a '1' "in reality" - then it's pretty mind-blowing all the same.
Where the fuck is Bill Nye (your mom's a guy) when you need him eh?
Science motherfuckers! Do you even speak it?
My interpretation is also that the photons and electrons are not really there, they are projected from another place or dimension when called upon by an observer. This strengthens the theory that we are living in a videogame-like simulation where information is only processed by a computer when called upon, due to the limitations of computational processing power. In video games, the information isn't static that would take enormous computational power, instead everything appears as you call for the information. Scott Adams said memories probably work in the same way. They exist as a wave function until it collapses when an observer finds a photo or other evidence that collaborates it.
infowarrior1 said:
Sure, if you boiled every single person who ever lived on planet earth down to just their sub atomic particles and took out the space, you could fit them all in to a sugar cube that you put at the end of your finger tip.
You wouldn't be able to hold it though because it would be neutron star density 'heavy'. Let's not get in to concepts of 'weight' or 'mass' as well as they aren't quite the same thing. You get the picture. Like the Flaming Lips song: A spoonful weighs a ton.
Check out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_energy_levels
Electron Degeneracy Pressure is when this very thing happens to a Star and it boils it down to a White Dwarf. Even though it is relatively small, it is also relatively massive.
When the next state of Quantum Degeneracy takes hold (Neutron Degeneracy) you get a Neutron Star. Something about 3 times the mass of our sun is boiled down to an area the size of London. Don't forget you can actually fit a coupla million Earths in to Sol. Many people don't realize how 'massive' it is (or rather voluminous).
When things get really 'heavy' they become black holes. A black hole can be the size of a golf ball btw, but let's not go there now.
The reason the Electron Degeneracy pressure results in White Dwarfs and not Neutron Stars is because there has been so much vacuum pushed out. Electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom which contains the neutron. They are relatively far away and not so energy packed. It's easier to condense. If you took an atom you could put a pea in the centre of a football field and the outer edges of the game of play would be where the electrons were. The neutrons would be in the centre line kick off point/circle along with the Protons*. Very rough visualisation. Don't shoot me.
Condensing an already energy packed and kicking back neutron is a whole other ball game. Eh eh.
There are things denser than Neutron stars again, but...
Once you get to about over 3 solar masses, then black holes start to be formed.
As for vacuums, well even they aren't vacuums. You get particles popping up out of nowhere, literally. Then they annihilate each other with their anti-matter particles.
It is not possible to have a 100 percent vacuum. Matter literally does just appear out of nowhere then disappear just as quickly again.
In the Heart Sutra Buddhists declare: Form is emptiness and emptiness is form.
Christians declare: As above, so below.
See quantum vacuum states.
According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space".[1][2] According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state
*I tried to tell them all this in Junior School, but only got a clip around the ear for being disruptive.
[email protected] said:
We all interpret reality as we see fit, sometimes for fun, sometimes for profit, sometimes out of expediency, sometimes because we are just clutching at straws but want to find higher truth.
People project all the time. I believe nothing and know nothing, but it doesn't stop me from chatting shit whenever someone lends me their shell like...
[email protected] said:
The stuff I posted does seem to be another take on this whole thing that OP (Valentine) put up - and adds validity to it again if I got my bearings right with it all. It's pretty heavy going. Very few people really understand this stuff. There isn't much to be understood anyway, if that makes sense. You really do need to have studied this stuff for many many years to even begin to play in this field. I'm an amateur. And a mid-wit amateur at that too. I'm happy to try to pass on what I know though to those that are interested.
That is why I took the time to go over what I found the other day. Sorry if it wasn't coherent. I did my best. It's taken me over 5 hours. I can boil it down more if you like.
I can see that OP Valentine has a couple of IQ points on me. I'd figured that anyway, before. But with this new offering from him I can now tell that he's not only a bit of a clever chap, he's put the hours in. Many, many hours. Nobody expresses to be a 'master' in this field, not even the original scientists themselves, even if they are 'professionals'.
But every now and again you come across someone that has done 'the work'. Valentine is one such man. He's taken the time to write up his findings and condense his studies in to a digestible form.
Back to the subject matter:
The fact is that both of these experiments that OP Valentine and me put forward were just thought experiments (gedanken) from the 60's and 70's (from Wigner and Wheeler respectively) and only now have we been able to carry them out 'for reals' because of advancements in tolerances of engineering and better more rigorous approaches again to scientific methodology.
Even in science there is the concept of 'good enough' (see tolerances). Now 'good enough' can sometimes make the difference of losing your life (airplane bearings for one off the cuff example). But in a way 'good enough' is a pretty binary concept as well. Either something will make sure you don't lose your life, or it will make sure you get the right result in an experiment. I conflated those, but you get the picture. Not much tolerance for mistakes or ambiguity there.
Your friend comes from a physics background. I don't. I was shit at maths (which is pretty necessary for physics understanding), but for some reason I was pretty good at physics (which is very math heavy). I probably conflated something else there as well, but there ya go.
Here's a couple of these experiments that you can put together yourself for 50 bucks - why not give it a go?
There are some things that can be argued over this video, but it's 'good enough' for getting a general feel about EVERY SINGLE THING THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN THIS THREAD THAT IS OF IMPORTANCE!
That is if you can understand it. I only ever get these things in glimpses and rare insights anyway. I've had to work very very hard to get to my level of understanding, which is quite frankly, not far above ignoramus level.
Here are some other videos that visualise what I was going on about in my previous posts:
And to get back to the good old Double Slit for a moment:
The Double Slit Experiment started as a way to determine if light is a wave or a particle - but it uncovered mysteries that have baffled science to this day.
That's an understatement.
But I'm just drawing attention to these things here for those that want to get a bit of background - they shouldn't detract from OP Valentine's initial post. They are related though. And as you try to understand them, you join the dots...
Roosh said:
Some call it 'cognitive dissonance'.
When you are faced with the conscious or unconscious reality that things aren't quite as good as they could be, and that you only have one life, and that life is probably going to run out quicker than society gets its shit in order? Savage.
Believing in simulation is one way out.
Some people blindly subscribe to some kind of God. And that can get them through. But for some reason that sometimes brings problems with it as well. Even for the rest of us.
Some of us have found our own Gods. Or God. We see parallels in certain places with certain religions. The good guys don't proselytize.
We make our own way. We fail. But "Fail we may, Sail we must".
It's easier than to fight a government that just wants to take your guns away so it can walk all over you. And it's sure a lot easier for us folk that aren't even allowed guns in the first place.
Cognitive dissonance takes many forms. Simulation theory is just another one. Then again, the great contradiction and paradox with all this stuff is that they may be right!
When I take my final breath and find out for sure the reality of this universe, I'll be sure to let you all know.
Kinda saddening that this needs to be studied...I believe reality is reality, and there's no alternative* to it. Denying it is a step towards rationalizing shit like a woman.
Just settling down for the night. Watching some Japanese food porn - you know - noodles.
Then this pops up in my feed:
Re-thinking a Wheeler delayed choice gedanken experiment, by Jeffrey H. Boyd MD
Start watching from 15:16.
It's a hoot!
The fact they guy changes his hairstyle half way through the video as well does little to help. It's funny.
His words and his thoughts come in waves as well, but he gives some real elucidations on the subject. At the end, he explains why there is a 'glitch in the matrix'.
It's worth watching if you have the time. Even if you don't understand it, there's comedy there to be found. With the right kind of eyes.
Then this pops up in my feed:
Re-thinking a Wheeler delayed choice gedanken experiment, by Jeffrey H. Boyd MD
Start watching from 15:16.
It's a hoot!
The fact they guy changes his hairstyle half way through the video as well does little to help. It's funny.
His words and his thoughts come in waves as well, but he gives some real elucidations on the subject. At the end, he explains why there is a 'glitch in the matrix'.
It's worth watching if you have the time. Even if you don't understand it, there's comedy there to be found. With the right kind of eyes.
pitbullowner said:
By Jove, I think we've finally got it!
My whole life has been a waste.
Fuck MC squared!
This is the solution to love, life and happiness (and Quantum Theory):
I'm sad. It is what it is. And that's how it is. To say it's not is to hamster like a champ(ess).
Fuck MC squared, where is MC Hammer when you need him?
I can't touch your theory. I take it all back.
Finally, everything makes sense.
How could we all have been so stupid?
Einstein and me?
Both wrong about the same thing!
We didn't have much in common.
To think, this is how it ends...
I can now go quietly in my sleep.
Rested and peaceful.
Knowing 'The Truth'.
Thankyou.
Quantum mechanics is the most verified theory of physics and is true. But it is the mathematical equations that are true. Physical models or ontologys are still in the realm speculation. There are already paradoxes that have been experimentally verified such as particle/wave duality and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. This seems to contradict Aristotelian western logic and the law of the excluded middle. But Hindu scholars have long accepted paradox and contradiction as an aspect of reality and developed logics for it. That is why it was the Hindus who invented "zero". The Western scholars just couldn't conceive of "nothing" as a symbol that could be manipulated in a calculation. Many of the scientists who developed Quantum mechanics had knowledge of or an interest in Buddhist and Hindu philosophy. It shouldn't surprise us that "objective reality" is a fuzzy concept that dissolves on closer inspection. But coming up with conclusions from this about politics and culture is just entertainment.
On a more practical note, I remember reading something written from a law enforcement point of view, saying that you would never know exactly what happened at an incident, because all the witnesses would remember it slightly differently or, as a character in a movie once said, "You think you're telling the truth, but it's just your version of it".
Here's a question for all the Einstein's out there.
It's a question about the reality of my bank account balance.
If my account balance is $0...no matter what reality I choose to believe, my bank account balance will still be $0.
It's a question about the reality of my bank account balance.
If my account balance is $0...no matter what reality I choose to believe, my bank account balance will still be $0.
Rigsby said:
Taco girl - "Why not both?"
What of a reality simulation created by Jehovah...?
The most interesting part of the article was glossed over:
Reality just has to stay consistent for you based on the information you have available.
So if Wegner took the measurement and called his friend and told him the result, the friend would then need to see the same result as Wegner. If he did not tell his friend the result of his measurement the friend doesn't necessarily get the same result...
Reality just has to stay consistent for you based on the information you have available.
So if Wegner took the measurement and called his friend and told him the result, the friend would then need to see the same result as Wegner. If he did not tell his friend the result of his measurement the friend doesn't necessarily get the same result...