Thread: Reality As You Know It Does Not Exist

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

It's a shame they don't teach common sense in primary school. If they did, you might have realized that my placing this in the Science and Mathematics forum instead of the Philosophy forum (along with my stating that it was posted for the content related to the Holographic Principle and Bohm's Implicate/Explicate Order theory) implied, greatly, that the relevancy was in the scientific / physical content in the video, and you wouldn't have bogged the thread down with an unrelated reply. Oh well. C'est la vie.

I didn't even go into the Science and Maths forum for this thread, I saw it on the Recent Posts. In any case, you posted a friggin video, the thread was about the friggin video, now when I criticise the (friggin) video, you say the video wasn't the point

And as I'll say again (since you seem to think declaring that something is being restated helps one's case) I don't think everything in the video is valid (specifically, the philosophical - and again, unrelated - portion). I have not stated any sort of position on that content.

But you haven't stated which parts you consider scientific and which parts you consider philosophical. Heh it's so easy if we put it your way, isn't it?

Half the video? Really? Half the video is about the most basic aspects of quantum physics. The only thing you say (specifically) that you have a problem with, is the philosophical part about "treating each other a certain way" and whatnot. If you are going to make the assertion that "much of what [I] may have understood as scientific fact might actually be only some dumb opinions thrown in, masked as scientific fact", you need to be specific. Unless you know that the scientific portions contained mere opinions, and can point them out, that statement means absolutely nothing.

Promise to do this when I have more time.

I get what you mean. And more and more I wonder why you even posted on this thread, as that (again) has nothing to do with the portions of the video that are relevant to its being in the Science and Mathematics forum. That is why I continue to be so dumbfounded at your arrogance - seeing as it was a folly that you not only came here and presented a completely irrelevant argument, but you did it with such ego.

But yeah...long story short, I get what you were arguing against. And in that, moot as it was, I agree.

Glória, glória, aleluia! - as the local christians would say.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I didn't even go into the Science and Maths forum for this thread, I saw it on the Recent Posts. In any case, you posted a friggin video, the thread was about the friggin video, now when I criticise the (friggin) video, you say the video wasn't the point

It doesn't negate the fact that the video was in Sci and Math, which is evident by the paths at the top of the page.

You criticized parts of the video (in a way that implied you were criticizing the whole thing, which is where the conflict started) which were, incidentally, the portions completely irrelevant to it's being posted here. Pardon me for being somewhat shocked at your inability to discern that.

Originally Posted by kromoh

But you haven't stated which parts you consider scientific and which parts you consider philosophical. Heh it's so easy if we put it your way, isn't it?

Of course it's easy. I've done it in almost every post I've made, here. I did it in the OP, when I stated the relevancy was to The Holographic Priniciple, and the Implicate/Explicate Order theory (which other people seemed to understand and, of course, you could always look up yourself), in every post where I talked about "the point the video was trying to make" (of which there are many), and in my constantly directing you to the article Naiya posted.

Yes. Very, very easy.
Your turn.

Originally Posted by kromoh

Promise to do this when I have more time.

Okay.

Originally Posted by kromoh

Glória, glória, aleluia! - as the local christians would say.

And all was right with the world.

[Edit]

Originally Posted by kromoh

retro-quoting

Thanks. I stand correct, on that one.
[/Edit]

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

[Edit]

Thanks. I stand correct, on that one.
[/Edit]

You have got to be kidding me or something.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Originally Posted by Kromoh

There is a lot of credible scientific knowledge in the video, yes,

That's actually the first time you've said that, I believe.

retro-quoting:

Originally Posted by Kromoh

The science contained in the video is undeniable. I just think that the conclusion they take from it is childish.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

The thing I criticize about the video is not the science in it, damn.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LOL don't be a bitch. That's what I've been saying from the beginning. I say the video bases on that principle. And that principle proves no logical conclusion made from it.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

You have got to be kidding me or something.

No. It was actually a typo.

I meant to say "I stand corrected".

Picture a kid who just found out Santa Claus isn't real. One day he's living in a world where an magical fat guy can come down the chimney, then boom, no Santa. His whole world changes.

Next, boom, oh no, not the easter bunny too!

Then he finds out all those uncles who came to visit him mom in the night weren't really his uncles, and again he sees the world in a whole new way.

That capacity for sudden major change in how we see the world is the only real constant in reality. It's just that those changes become less common as we get older, and people begin to believe their current view is real and absolute because they've had it for so long.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

It's just that those changes become less common as we get older, and people begin to believe their current view is real and absolute because they've had it for so long.

I know why, its because rethinking the way you view the world is "hard" and people would rather argue their way is correct as opposed to all others.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Lol it would be, if I wasn't atheist. Buddhism is a religion as any other. I hate all those agnostics who think it's superior for some reason.

Buddhism is an atheists religion.

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

Buddhism is an atheists religion.

Well, Buddhism is atheist because it doesn't involve deities. It doesn't mean it doesn't have a dogma and a set of ideas which require faith. That said, I don't think most atheists are buddhist, especially since atheist normally stands as a synonym to irreligious.

I've seen this on YouTube with the title "The Quantum Apocolypse"

(Higher quality than O's version, too)

Here you go, newcomers to the thread who want to see this in high quality:



And I've tried looking for an HD version, but it seems that this is as good visual quality as it gets.

Regarding the video itself: it's awesome. It just shows how little we truly know about our own universe and reality.

Nice vid. Had all my favs in there...RAW, Oso, Bill hicks

Someone posted this elsewhere, and it deals with relevant issues, so I figured I'd post it here.

Consciousness, Causality and Quantum Physics by David Pratt

What you know is only a sliver of the truth. What you know could not even be truth. This is no different to what you know about reality.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Pretty good video, which kind of compiles a lot of what I've previously posted about David Bohm and 'Holographic Theory'. It also represents his Implicate/Explicate Order theory of the universe(without actually mentioning the labels). I know there may be some of you who would try to discredit the idea with insubstantial comments like "Ugh, more Matrix fans trying to make sense of what they don't understand," but let's be a little more realistic (and mature) here. If this is an idea you don't subsribe to, explain why, etc..

Enjoy.

I am just wondering, but if we find this particle that made the universe the size of a green pea, to what it is today, what would that do for us? besides knowing where we came from. Would this let us know of everything there is about the universe? parralel universes, etc.

"What if everything is an illusion and nothing exists? In that case, I definitely overpaid for my carpet." (Woody Allen)

Readers who liked David Bohm also enjoyed:

Michio Kaku - String Theory
David Deutsch - The Fabric of Reality (on quantum computation and its multiverse)
Rudy Rucker - Infinity and the Mind
Rosenblum & Kuttner - Quantum Enigma (on consciousness)
Kenyon - Forbidden History
Stephen Pinker - How the Mind Works
D. Hofstadtler -Goedel, Escher & Bach
Asimov - Understanding Physics
Fred Alan Wolf - Parallel Universes
The Tibeten Book of the Dead, recently translated in full for the first time.

Wow.

There's no one answer, no single ultimate question.

The truth is ... all that is, as it is, and as it is approached.

...

It's nice to be back. It's been awhile.

I can't get the video from Shanghai, but I've read books on topic - and a lot more.

The holographic theory is one of many cosmological theories, all trying to unify the quantum theory with general relativity (the "unified theory"). String theory, quantum electrodynamic, and theories of the multiverse also abound.

The point of it all is simply to undestand our world and ourselves. Knowledge is its own reward. What an amazingly beatiful and dangerous creation we inhabit. Huge and weird.

Apart from understanding, there is also Experience.

But who could actually experience of effectively act in something like the holoverse, information hyperspace, the metaverse? Angels, spirits, other higher beings... and dreamers.

That's the point, isn't it? The more we know about the structure of reality, especially the interaction / equivalence of information and energy, the closer we get to understanding what actually happens when we dream.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, such leaning is critical to an appreciation that DREAMS ARE REAL, about reality. The beings and entities that we encounter in our dreams are quite likely to be JUST AS REAL, FEELING as we are. Anyway, that should be the presumption.

THEREFORE, we really need an ethics of LD that says it is NOT COOL to go around bombing, flaming and maiming innocents in our dreams.

This is a big moral hazard on this site, and no one should take it lightly. It's all information, all connected, and whatever evil is done by one ultimately sums up to be shared by all.

Hmmm. Interesting.

Do you always look the same, from every angle (front, side), for every occasion and interaction? Your appearance depends, in part, on the observer. I'm reminded of the parable of the blind men and the elephant.

Quantum weirdness comes into it, too, with the observer actually CAUSING the existence and appearance of sub-atomic particles (collapse of the wave fn) through the act of observing.

So normally, "what something really looks like" will be something like "what something normally looks like to its habitual observers".

What it ultimately really looks like is "what it looks like, in common to all observers, when under observation by all possible observers."

Fun.

PQ

Good stuff, wish I wasn't so late on it - but this thread should provide some interesting videos to watch in the future. It's funny, I saw a few clips in the original video from OTHER videos I've seen, and some familiar faces as well.

Anyway, I tried to catch up on the entire thread, but the debate between O and Kromo got a bit exhausting, so if I happen to repeat a topic that has been raised, i apologize.

There are two things that bother me every day, every time I read or learn something that deals with 'reality', 'consciousness', 'purpose' and the likes. You could call them paradoxes, I guess. They are the following:

1) As far as conscious beings go, I can only know (and EVER know) of one - myself. No one person (or thing) outside of myself can ever prove they are 'alive' or 'real'.

Think about it, even if I met any of you, physically touched you, spoke with you, etc, that would still not be enough to prove that you are a living thinking being such as myself. You are a manifestation of energy (assuming that what I believe that is The Truth) which 'I' have collected into an experience. I can never know or experience YOU, just your actions and interactions. So, essentially, it's as if I'm the only thing that really exists.

Everything I learn from reading or videos cannot be trusted because it's possible that I am creating all that information - right down to the ink on the page or the photons from the screen! I'll ask you all this(again, if you even exist) - can you PROVE what these scientists are saying they discover in their 'labs'? Or anything you read or hear at all (including religion). All you know is what you read or watch in a video. You TRUST the information is correct, that the experiment took place. But why? Where you there, in the lab, or at Christ's resurrection? Even if you were, how do you prove any of it was really 'out there'? Is there really an 'out there'? I (you) can't prove it, because all my(your) experiences take place 'internally' through a device (organ) which I can only trust there is only one. Which brings me to #2...

2) The brain is a 'real' or physical object. If nothing 'exists' until an observer collapses the wave, then who/what is collapsing the thing that's (apparently) allowing me to experience the very same energy that makes up this physical organ?

You can show me pictures, videos, even a ghost - ALL of it is experienced (apparently) through a real or physical object (brain) which I can not prove is really 'there'. Sure, science says we all have this thing called a 'brain' - but how can I ever experience/see it? In a CAT scan? Again, those are an image, a representation of something. Even if my cranium where to be opened up and I was looking in a mirror at my brain functioning - how do I know my thought/consciousness comes from there. Couldn't I merely be manifesting an image of my expectations of what this brain should look like through the knowledge of what I SHOULD see, knowing what a mirror's function is?

Reading over what I wrote it doesn't look like I'm really presenting any solution or concrete evidence of anything here - I don't know. Just something to think about. For the record, I really do love the topic and content that the whole quantum physics, string theory, and other theories science provides. Having said that though, should some huge discovery come from the LHC in Geneva soon (Higgs particle?), I'm not so sure I can be all that excited about it ... unless, perhaps I was there to see it

(oh wait, that probably wouldn't work either... )

Man, LHC is downright creepy.

Anyway, to hear the scientists excitedly talking about creating mini-black holes. Hello? Those are ... infinite? And this place is not. Oh well. I suppose it zeroes out, somehow.

Worse, it seems that those high energies, harmless in 3D, look to be poking holes in the universe next door, if they model space-time as 9 or 10dimensions... which may be more accurate. Doh! Bunch of PhD Homers.

Lessee. As to your questions....

1) Perception. Proof. Solipsism. You're right on. Einstein actually said this, "I like to think that the moon is there when I'm not looking." But he couldn't prove it, and faulted quantum physics as incomplete for not being able to.

2) Consciousness is so mysteriously entangled with the quantum. So, with reality itself. It appears that, altogether, out observations are co-creating the world. Everette's many-worlds interp. of quantum physics doesn't have the micro wave fn. collapse - rather, it has the observation actually split the universal wave field itself. (http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm) But you're right. Consciousness itself, the phenomenal experience, remains a deep mystery. Issues of "level spanning", nesting, and chaos seem to loom large

Some resources on consciousness.

David Chalmers 'wrote the book' on the hard problem of consciousness. I read "The Conscious Mind" years ago. It's still authoritative.
http://consc.net/chalmers/

Have you seen this? An accessible effort to model the "hard problem" of consciousness as quantum biodynamics.
http://www.dhushara.com/book/paps/co...tm#anchor95825

This is a good supplement. Simple but elegant fractal logical model of perception.
http://philpapers.org/rec/BIESIH

Interesting days...

PQ