Home
Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Other Topics
Off topic discussion
New Study Demonstrates That There Is No Such Thing As Objective Reality
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Rigsby" data-source="post: 1248114" data-attributes="member: 7361"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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'. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Back to the subject matter:</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Here's a couple of these experiments that you can put together yourself for 50 bucks - why not give it a go?</p><p></p><p>[MEDIA=youtube]NAsFtJ0s2XE[/MEDIA]</p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Here are some other videos that visualise what I was going on about in my previous posts:</p><p></p><p>[MEDIA=youtube]H6HLjpj4Nt4[/MEDIA]</p><p></p><p>[MEDIA=youtube]Um_bd8iRhVE[/MEDIA]</p><p></p><p>And to get back to the good old Double Slit for a moment:</p><p></p><p><em>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.</em></p><p></p><p>That's an understatement. </p><p></p><p>[MEDIA=youtube]kOcPHOJ7GAQ[/MEDIA]</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Rigsby, post: 1248114, member: 7361"] 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... 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? [MEDIA=youtube]NAsFtJ0s2XE[/MEDIA] 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: [MEDIA=youtube]H6HLjpj4Nt4[/MEDIA] [MEDIA=youtube]Um_bd8iRhVE[/MEDIA] And to get back to the good old Double Slit for a moment: [i]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.[/i] That's an understatement. [MEDIA=youtube]kOcPHOJ7GAQ[/MEDIA] 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... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Other Topics
Off topic discussion
New Study Demonstrates That There Is No Such Thing As Objective Reality
Top
