New Study Demonstrates That There Is No Such Thing As Objective Reality
- Thread starter Valentine
- Start date
Latan said:
I remembered hearing something about them doing the dual wave/particle and other quantum handiwork experiments with bucky balls, which are big closed loop molecules of carbon atoms, think like a soccer ball with a C atom at each apex.
I also just found this article, which states they did it with a molecules containing 800 atoms in 2013:
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxi...record-for-wave-particle-duality-462c39db8e7b
Not quite the macro level, but orders of magnitude higher than individual protons or whatever.
I find the quantum world fascinating, and started readin much more about it after coming across this book by a guy named Jim Al-Khalili
Quantum: A Guide for the Perplexed
Researched the guy a bit more, and has some decent pop-sci/BBC style documentaries on youtube, and here's one that links the quantum world with biology, where he theorizes that quantum changes from individual particles being detected in brains can be responsible for a host of otherwise poorly understood phenomena such as how birds find north.
Winston Wolfe
Woodpecker
I am spectacularly bad at anything related to science and math myself, but extremely intrigued and fascinated when I get exposed to people that can explain it well.
I used to watch "Through The Wormhole" with Morgan Freeman, its even better when stoned.
If someone knows a good YouTube channel or podcast or something with nerds that talk about this stuff, please do recommend.
I used to watch "Through The Wormhole" with Morgan Freeman, its even better when stoned.
If someone knows a good YouTube channel or podcast or something with nerds that talk about this stuff, please do recommend.
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding of the theory presented here because of the click-baity title of the thread, "There Is No Such Thing As Objective Reality."
See, first of all, the study cited in question does not show there is no objective reality. The key part of the study that shows the scientists in question have no idea what's going on is contained in this sentence:
So, the whole idea that "there is no objective reality" is obviously just a bullshit thesis that cannot be proven (as the very wording contradicts itself) that will get attention and clicks. In reality, what they are discovering is the limitations of human observation - two different humans will perceive completely different things that are actually mathematically and physically sound, while observing the same phenomena. This is a riddle, how can such a thing be possible?
And the answer to that was posited by Kant almost 250 years ago (the only real progress of philosophy we've had since Aristotle), that what we experience is generated by our mind (the phenomena), a very weak and imprecise instrument, while what is actually real cannot be perceived and does not exist inside our mind (the noumena).
Kant was able to deduce the phenomena and noumena without any advanced electron particle measurements by looking at key paradoxes of human reason, he dubbed the antinomies, which showed we can logically prove two conflicting things about the nature of reality. He also used other parts of human perception to bolster his claims, such as the fact that we observe light bend in water, we see stars moving in patterns in the sky that seemed impossible (at least they did in 1780; Kant was a huge astronomer and gets credit for many space discoveries today), etc.
But the big findings of Kant was that we can prove there is a soul and that there is no soul, that there is God and there is no God, that the universe (i.e. outer space) is both finite and infinite, and that time is both finite and infinite.
Obviously, it cannot be the case that contradictions exist, so what is really happening is that our mind is unable to perceive the true nature of reality. Which is exactly what Jesus and the tradition of the Bible has claimed for thousands of years (we cannot begun to comprehend the universe as God does).
Notre Dame has a pretty good lecture explaining Kant's metaphysics and epistemology through the Antimony of Reason here: https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2009-10/20229/LECTURES/5-antinomies.pdf
Once you read the above, then when you come back to this new scientific "discovery" (it's not a discovery, Kant discovered it back in 1780 lol, it's just new for most people because Kant's theories are so difficult fewer than .001% of the population can understand it) people are finally beginning to understand how the human mind generates contradictions with hard empirical research.
Second of all, the whole 'simulation' theory which gets a lot of traction from Cernovich and Scott Adams is just a pop-philosophy watered down version of Kantian metaphysics and epistemology. In other words, it's weak bullshit compared to the real deal of Kant, and I'm fairly sure Cernovich knows this since he is a well read philosopher (for example, Cernovich is huge into Nietzsche, and Nietzsche talks about Kant extensively, as do all intelligent men). But, the simulation theory is a pretty good purple-pill into the red pill of Kant, and maybe within another 250 years, people will begin to actually understand what Kant taught and use it to generate practical results in science and technology the layman can understand.
Just like it took nearly 2000 years before someone surpassed Aristotle's Metaphysics and Plato's The Republic, both of which although thousands of years old are hardly understood by more than 1% of the population, it will be many hundreds, if not thousands, of years before Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is surpassed by another philosopher.
People like Einstein or Neil Bohr, who are widely regarded as geniuses of the modern age that lead to the discovery of nuclear physics, both read Kant when young and for all of their study, were only answering around 1 or 2 parts of Kant's theories and problems of epistemology.
For example, Einstein's Theory of Relativity is just an answer to a single Antinomy of Kant's, the one of space being both infinite and finite. Einstein's brilliant response to Kant? That space is infinitely bounded (it's both finite and infinite, an expanding mass that one can never step outside of and yet a mass that expands indefinitely). And it's evident that even Einstein's theory does not fully answer Kant's Antinomy.
And just by answering a few pages of Kant, humanity discovered this:
[img=800x600]http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/5673f88bdd089539748b45e8-1920[/img]
Imagine if humanity took the time to figure out the rest of the paradoxes discovered by Kant, who knows what is possible? Time travel, direct communion with dead souls or even God is not outside the realm of possibility once we escape the prison of our mind (The Matrix is more or less a complete rip-off of Kantian metaphysics).
If anyone here wants the greatest intellectual challenge of their lives, try reading the Critique of Pure Reason; to make it easier I highly recommend this resource: http://userpages.bright.net/~jclarke/kant/index.html
That said, Roosh and many others in this thread are correct that science and philosophy are often abused to justify the worst degeneracies. Ironically, Kant himself was a hardcore moral absolutist who would denounce our age as a doomed decadent waste. His philosophy was a rigorous justification of Christian principles.
Really, the smartest people to have ever lived was Jesus (who is so far in the lead it seems impossible to ever catch up), Aristotle, Kant, and Plato in that order (as far as I have read). When one gets to these levels, mistakes are as common as rain, and everyone makes them (myself included!).
Every single scientific theory today can be traced back to Kant. To describe the influence of Kant is nothing more than to write a history of science since 1780. Kant was a watershed moment in the intellectual progress of humanity, and since that peak of humanity we've fallen tremendously. It's going to be a long time before we get back there.
But the article Valentine posted shows we are finally discovering empirical evidence to support what Kant was able to deduce with mere reasoning alone, thus demonstrating the incredible power of his theories. Empirical research is an important step towards making further progress in philosophy, since before we can formulate new problems and theories we must have a clearer picture of reality to discard false hypotheses.
See, first of all, the study cited in question does not show there is no objective reality. The key part of the study that shows the scientists in question have no idea what's going on is contained in this sentence:
So, the whole idea that "there is no objective reality" is obviously just a bullshit thesis that cannot be proven (as the very wording contradicts itself) that will get attention and clicks. In reality, what they are discovering is the limitations of human observation - two different humans will perceive completely different things that are actually mathematically and physically sound, while observing the same phenomena. This is a riddle, how can such a thing be possible?
And the answer to that was posited by Kant almost 250 years ago (the only real progress of philosophy we've had since Aristotle), that what we experience is generated by our mind (the phenomena), a very weak and imprecise instrument, while what is actually real cannot be perceived and does not exist inside our mind (the noumena).
Kant was able to deduce the phenomena and noumena without any advanced electron particle measurements by looking at key paradoxes of human reason, he dubbed the antinomies, which showed we can logically prove two conflicting things about the nature of reality. He also used other parts of human perception to bolster his claims, such as the fact that we observe light bend in water, we see stars moving in patterns in the sky that seemed impossible (at least they did in 1780; Kant was a huge astronomer and gets credit for many space discoveries today), etc.
But the big findings of Kant was that we can prove there is a soul and that there is no soul, that there is God and there is no God, that the universe (i.e. outer space) is both finite and infinite, and that time is both finite and infinite.
Obviously, it cannot be the case that contradictions exist, so what is really happening is that our mind is unable to perceive the true nature of reality. Which is exactly what Jesus and the tradition of the Bible has claimed for thousands of years (we cannot begun to comprehend the universe as God does).
Notre Dame has a pretty good lecture explaining Kant's metaphysics and epistemology through the Antimony of Reason here: https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2009-10/20229/LECTURES/5-antinomies.pdf
Once you read the above, then when you come back to this new scientific "discovery" (it's not a discovery, Kant discovered it back in 1780 lol, it's just new for most people because Kant's theories are so difficult fewer than .001% of the population can understand it) people are finally beginning to understand how the human mind generates contradictions with hard empirical research.
Second of all, the whole 'simulation' theory which gets a lot of traction from Cernovich and Scott Adams is just a pop-philosophy watered down version of Kantian metaphysics and epistemology. In other words, it's weak bullshit compared to the real deal of Kant, and I'm fairly sure Cernovich knows this since he is a well read philosopher (for example, Cernovich is huge into Nietzsche, and Nietzsche talks about Kant extensively, as do all intelligent men). But, the simulation theory is a pretty good purple-pill into the red pill of Kant, and maybe within another 250 years, people will begin to actually understand what Kant taught and use it to generate practical results in science and technology the layman can understand.
Just like it took nearly 2000 years before someone surpassed Aristotle's Metaphysics and Plato's The Republic, both of which although thousands of years old are hardly understood by more than 1% of the population, it will be many hundreds, if not thousands, of years before Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is surpassed by another philosopher.
People like Einstein or Neil Bohr, who are widely regarded as geniuses of the modern age that lead to the discovery of nuclear physics, both read Kant when young and for all of their study, were only answering around 1 or 2 parts of Kant's theories and problems of epistemology.
For example, Einstein's Theory of Relativity is just an answer to a single Antinomy of Kant's, the one of space being both infinite and finite. Einstein's brilliant response to Kant? That space is infinitely bounded (it's both finite and infinite, an expanding mass that one can never step outside of and yet a mass that expands indefinitely). And it's evident that even Einstein's theory does not fully answer Kant's Antinomy.
And just by answering a few pages of Kant, humanity discovered this:
[img=800x600]http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/5673f88bdd089539748b45e8-1920[/img]
Imagine if humanity took the time to figure out the rest of the paradoxes discovered by Kant, who knows what is possible? Time travel, direct communion with dead souls or even God is not outside the realm of possibility once we escape the prison of our mind (The Matrix is more or less a complete rip-off of Kantian metaphysics).
If anyone here wants the greatest intellectual challenge of their lives, try reading the Critique of Pure Reason; to make it easier I highly recommend this resource: http://userpages.bright.net/~jclarke/kant/index.html
That said, Roosh and many others in this thread are correct that science and philosophy are often abused to justify the worst degeneracies. Ironically, Kant himself was a hardcore moral absolutist who would denounce our age as a doomed decadent waste. His philosophy was a rigorous justification of Christian principles.
Really, the smartest people to have ever lived was Jesus (who is so far in the lead it seems impossible to ever catch up), Aristotle, Kant, and Plato in that order (as far as I have read). When one gets to these levels, mistakes are as common as rain, and everyone makes them (myself included!).
Every single scientific theory today can be traced back to Kant. To describe the influence of Kant is nothing more than to write a history of science since 1780. Kant was a watershed moment in the intellectual progress of humanity, and since that peak of humanity we've fallen tremendously. It's going to be a long time before we get back there.
But the article Valentine posted shows we are finally discovering empirical evidence to support what Kant was able to deduce with mere reasoning alone, thus demonstrating the incredible power of his theories. Empirical research is an important step towards making further progress in philosophy, since before we can formulate new problems and theories we must have a clearer picture of reality to discard false hypotheses.
In my opinion, Quantum Mechanics isn't explained by a simple noumena/phenomena duality. The refraction of light in water doesn't cause any problems for an objective model, because the light actually is being physically bent by the water. It isn't caused by the observer. One can explain contradictions by saying that the contraditions are points of view formed in the phenomena, and the contradition thus comes from a mind's limited knowledge. But Quantum Mechanics goes further then this and raises the possibility of contradiction in the noumena itself, i.e. light really is a particle or a wave in nature, and a limited perspective is not the answer. The contradiction is in nature itself. But keep in mind that true Quantum Mechanics is a mathematical equation, and statements about reality are philosophical speculations. The equation itself is logically consistent, but doesn't have a physical interpretation.
Famous International Physicists who were influenced by Hindu Dharma
https://detechter.com/6-famous-international-physicists-who-were-influenced-by-hinduism/
Erwin Schrödinger : Vedantist and Father of Quantum Mechanics
http://www.hinduhistory.info/erwin-schrodinger-vedantist-and-father-of-quantum-mechanics/
Famous International Physicists who were influenced by Hindu Dharma
https://detechter.com/6-famous-international-physicists-who-were-influenced-by-hinduism/
Erwin Schrödinger : Vedantist and Father of Quantum Mechanics
http://www.hinduhistory.info/erwin-schrodinger-vedantist-and-father-of-quantum-mechanics/
Sherman said:
I think the idea is that light as either a particle or a wave is still Phenomena. The Noumena is something else we can't perceive.
Sherman said:
Kant is still way ahead of all of these people and has already answered your objection.
Kant would just point out that math itself does not exist in the world, therefore any mathematical model or equation is based on concepts supplied by the cognition. This is to say, math is utterly trapped in the world of the phenomena.
Trying to use math to describe the noumena is like using your naked eye to describe a dark planet 10+ million light years away.
Samseau said:
Math is the language of physics. If math is feeble, than a natural language is even more feeble, and we can't know anything. The equations reliably predict what will happen when we probe nature in certain ways. So to that extent we seem to have obtained valid knowledge of a behavior of the noumena.
Thanks for the kind words Risgby, I'm just a layman in this subject though since I lack the math background to comprehend the deeper intracies of these theories.
Your understanding of perceived retrocausality matches mine - it's simply our consciousness collapsing these superpositions to a single subjective reality, so there's no time paradox. This video offers a simple overview of how the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment makes sense:
Samseau, I'm not widely read on Kant but it's interesting to hear that he also had the same ideas. It seems we end up verifying a lot of old wisdom later with modern science.
Ah I thought it was clear in the idea of the superposition existing at all times without observation. Whether you discover the collapsed reality via direct measurement or indirectly being told by another it's the same thing, the superposition has been collapsed.
This is effectively the same as the quantum eraser experiment (see detectors A+B in the video) in that there is this perception of retrocausality, so the experimenter outside the room wouldn't have perceived the superposition at all.
On a macro level superpositions are also maintained for up to 810 atom molecules, which are 1000s of times heavier than similar atomic-scale particles to photons such as electrons. To put this in perspective, the width of a human hair is about 100,000 atoms.
Yeah, when we look at larger objects the fact that we can't replicate superpositions with them demonstrates that their chemical bonds shift their state to a fixed reality that wouldn't be likely to be modified by your own subjective reality.
Your understanding of perceived retrocausality matches mine - it's simply our consciousness collapsing these superpositions to a single subjective reality, so there's no time paradox. This video offers a simple overview of how the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment makes sense:
Samseau, I'm not widely read on Kant but it's interesting to hear that he also had the same ideas. It seems we end up verifying a lot of old wisdom later with modern science.
Hammerhead said:
Ah I thought it was clear in the idea of the superposition existing at all times without observation. Whether you discover the collapsed reality via direct measurement or indirectly being told by another it's the same thing, the superposition has been collapsed.
[email protected] said:
This is effectively the same as the quantum eraser experiment (see detectors A+B in the video) in that there is this perception of retrocausality, so the experimenter outside the room wouldn't have perceived the superposition at all.
Latan said:
On a macro level superpositions are also maintained for up to 810 atom molecules, which are 1000s of times heavier than similar atomic-scale particles to photons such as electrons. To put this in perspective, the width of a human hair is about 100,000 atoms.
Yeah, when we look at larger objects the fact that we can't replicate superpositions with them demonstrates that their chemical bonds shift their state to a fixed reality that wouldn't be likely to be modified by your own subjective reality.
BortimusPrime
Ostrich
This guy goes for many worlds as a solution to quantum mechanics that doesn't involve any woo. Essentially you just get entangled with the bit of the universe where things happen the way they happen for you. All the other possibilities are inaccessible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXRLDatmbgA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXRLDatmbgA
Feldeinsamkeit
Kingfisher
Disco_Volante said:
That's a cracker. I'm a miserable bastard, but even I couldn't suppress a chuckle at that.
This is probably totally retarded, but try this:
1) Find your way to a hot beach in summer
2) Lay down on your towel on the sand
3) Order a drink
4) Wait for the sun to get out of your eyes
5) open your eyes
6) see and feel the heat
7 ( Do NOT proclaim Venus your woman or goddess! *
* Zeus will laugh and kick your ass if you try ;-)
8) Have an enlightenment
7 is the hard part ;-)
1) Find your way to a hot beach in summer
2) Lay down on your towel on the sand
3) Order a drink
4) Wait for the sun to get out of your eyes
5) open your eyes
6) see and feel the heat
7 ( Do NOT proclaim Venus your woman or goddess! *
* Zeus will laugh and kick your ass if you try ;-)
8) Have an enlightenment
7 is the hard part ;-)
Samseau said:
In regards to time travel alone. If God allowed it. That key circumstances cannot be changed due to divine power?
To fulfill the all the words spoken in the scripture.
But that there can be endless variations and timelines that nonetheless travel in his desired direction?
And that divine providence have accounted for it all and necessary decisions already made or are in the process of making that ensure that our timelines do not "go off the rails?"
Because we can do many things in many ways due to our free will. And time travel will spawn many many more different variations.
Sherman said:
Added some bold text to show where Kant would correct you.
And yes, Kant would agree that our minds are based on SOMETHING real, and the phenomenal world must contain at least some truth of the noumena, or else humanity would not be able to function and survive. Math is but one of the key ways we can be precise with our minds to describe the noumena.
However, an entire branch of philosophy that produced Hegel, Marx, Sarte, Feminism, Deconstructionism, and Cultural-Marxism, all stemmed with the beginning of Hegel's rejection of the noumena. They all claimed that our 'mind' is all there was, everything beyond that was mere illusion, and therefore reality is what our minds said it is. Hence the idea of Marx that production just happens, or that gender is a social construct, etc. etc.
Kant was so influential he actually created the left-wing schools of thought by accident, because they took Kant's philosophy and just rejected the noumena. The results were predicted back then by many men, such as Schopenhauer (who wrote the excellent On Women), but apparently Satan won anyways and people believed in total lies resulting in untold death and misery.
infowarrior1 said:
I don't think time travel would look like that.
One of the major discussions of Kant is on the nature of time. What is time? Everyone knows what time is until you ask what time is.
And the answer Kant arrived at: Time does not exist outside of our minds, and yet, time is a fundamental component of our cognition that intuits the sense-data collected by our perception.
Therefore, time is subjectively objective, a process rooted in the subject's mind to create objective reality (most likely for the purpose of humans to communicate - without time order nothing is possible). So, time travel in the noumena is most likely something no one even conceives, not like some silly movie, but more like being able to reverse entropy at will. It would not be like undoing "events" and going back into the "past," because stuff like events and the past aren't real and only exist in our minds as concepts of cognition necessary to generate experience.
I think real time travel would be the ability to recreate a person, or animal, that once existed in the "past," immediately in the "present." In other words, reverse entropy.
In theory, it could be possible to rearrange matter such that an entire civilization is immediately recreated, a whole Roman empire born instantly for our evaluation. That's what perfect knowledge would look like to us from the perspective of our minds - I think...
We are discussing the absolute limits of human epistemology and metaphysics right now - your guess is as good as mine
But I think Kant is by far and away the most correct on these issues. Time is indeed a function of our imagination the mind uses to process sense-data into an ordered understanding.
^
Cause when you think about time travel as it is usually presented in a movie.
That type of time travel would require a rearrangement of every atom, photon, energy wave etc. in the entire universe, back to the configuration of that particular past time.
Quite the feat...
Cause when you think about time travel as it is usually presented in a movie.
That type of time travel would require a rearrangement of every atom, photon, energy wave etc. in the entire universe, back to the configuration of that particular past time.
Quite the feat...
CynicalContrarian said:
Yeah, I arrived to this conclusion.
Time is just change. You can not go back to something that does not exists anymore.
Past and future does not exist, only the present.
You can "send" something to the future, in a sense it is durable enough to survive entropy.
Samseau said:
My argument assumed that there is a noumena. Kant was up to date on the science of his generation, the 18th century. But, the Quantum mechanic phenomena of the observer influencing the results of an experimentation is a surprising new result that he couldn't have anticipated. Also, nobody even today understands it. Einstein was a follower of Kant and he could never accept the results of his own experimentation. It took Schrodinger, who studied Hindu Philosophy , to make the breakthrough and put Quantum Mechanics on a solid mathematical foundation.
Samseau said:infowarrior1 said:
I don't think time travel would look like that.
One of the major discussions of Kant is on the nature of time. What is time? Everyone knows what time is until you ask what time is.
And the answer Kant arrived at: Time does not exist outside of our minds, and yet, time is a fundamental component of our cognition that intuits the sense-data collected by our perception.
Therefore, time is subjectively objective, a process rooted in the subject's mind to create objective reality (most likely for the purpose of humans to communicate - without time order nothing is possible). So, time travel in the noumena is most likely something no one even conceives, not like some silly movie, but more like being able to reverse entropy at will. It would not be like undoing "events" and going back into the "past," because stuff like events and the past aren't real and only exist in our minds as concepts of cognition necessary to generate experience.
I think real time travel would be the ability to recreate a person, or animal, that once existed in the "past," immediately in the "present." In other words, reverse entropy.
In theory, it could be possible to rearrange matter such that an entire civilization is immediately recreated, a whole Roman empire born instantly for our evaluation. That's what perfect knowledge would look like to us from the perspective of our minds - I think...
We are discussing the absolute limits of human epistemology and metaphysics right now - your guess is as good as mine
But I think Kant is by far and away the most correct on these issues. Time is indeed a function of our imagination the mind uses to process sense-data into an ordered understanding.
Just read an article with a similar take on quantum physics. They created a quantum computer that could sort of rewind reality a couple seconds to recreate previous structures in atmos or electrons, like rewinding a game of pool to reform all the balls to where they were before the break
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6800577/Move-Doctor-Scientists-time-machine.html
