Thread: Reality As You Know It Does Not Exist

Originally Posted by Kromoh

You completely bent what I said. I understand it all. I understand it so well because I've been where you are now - ages ago. And now that I look back, I see how flawed my opinion was at the time. One doesn't have to change his beliefs every time they are questioned - especially because I know some very wise people who hold the same view I do. Of course that doesn't prove my point, but makes my point more likely to be true.

I hate to seem like I'm insulting you rather than simply stating my opinion, but the above is nothing but rhetoric.

If you truly "understand it all" please explain quantum entanglement in a way that coincides with your world view. So far, your argument can be summed up as "I know I'm right, because I once thought like you and I ascended. And I know smart people that agree with me."

I'm looking for substance, Kromoh. You don't seem to understand that by posting what you've posted, you're basically telling me that I'm not smart enough to differentiate a credible argument from "stupid believer stuff." I'm calling you out to lend some credence to your position on that, and you've done nothing but state how you're right because you know you're right.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

You just have no idea how completely outside of the box my opinion comes from. Outside the human perception box. Outside the opinion, will, instinct, ideal box. Outside the ego box. Hence, ego-loss.

Again, I've been where you are, and I say you are completely losing your point discussing with me. It's like a child trying to teach an adult why 2+2=4, and I again state that I don't mean to sound arrogant. I've had a realization scarcely few people have.

For one not meaning to sound arrogant, you're doing a good job of it, and without a single shred of substance or a willingness to go down a road that will cause you to produce substance. In essence, I can't debate with someone who stands in a position that you do, because you feel that it's adequate to defend your position with nothing but "I'm right because I'm right. You haven't reached my level yet, so you don't understand."

I can easily play your game and say that I've tried to hold a logical debate with scores of people who take that exact same tone, but I'd rather discuss this on a level that gets right down to the meat and potatoes of the other person's perspective. It's a shame that you refuse to do that.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

And to rest my case: The logic answer is always the simplest one there is.

Ah. Occam's Razor. Something that I don't fully subscribe to, and have stated why, plenty of times, here at DV.

The simplest explanation for something is often the laziest. (Don't forget that logic, itself, is relative.) It is basically one's admission that they are laying down the gauntlet to truth in the light of something that subjectively just kinda "makes sense." It's someone's way of saying "you know what, this makes sense to me, so I don't need to keep digging to find out whether or not it's right. I'm just going to stop right here." And it's something that I find rather irresponsible. Not saying that it's not often right, don't get me wrong, but to sum it up in a way you just did tells me that you have no interest in investigating further than the simplistic.

In short: I've been where you are, and I've ascended.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I hate to seem like I'm insulting you rather than simply stating my opinion, but the above is nothing but rhetoric.

If you truly "understand it all" please explain quantum entanglement in a way that coincides with your world view. So far, your argument can be summed up as "I know I'm right, because I once thought like you and I ascended. And I know smart people that agree with me."

I'm looking for substance, Kromoh. You don't seem to understand that by posting what you've posted, you're basically telling me that I'm not smart enough to differentiate a credible argument from "stupid believer stuff." I'm calling you out to lend some credence to your position on that, and you've done nothing but state how you're right because you know you're right.

Haha I explained exactly what quantum entanglement has to do with my view. Just because we do not understand it now, it doesn't mean it's something random or illogic. As Einstein himself explained, if something seems random, then there's probably an underlying reason we aren't observing. Just because science does not know why particles change properties seemingly randomly, it doesn't mean it doesn't have a reason. Saying it doesn't have a reason is idiotic. Just because we don't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

My advice? Leave quantum physics to professionals who know what they're talking about. Don't try to place particle physics in the middle of a philosophic debate.

For one not meaning to sound arrogant, you're doing a good job of it, and without a single shred of substance or a willingness to go down a road that will cause you to produce substance. In essence, I can't debate with someone who stands in a position that you do, because you feel that it's adequate to defend your position with nothing but "I'm right because I'm right. You haven't reached my level yet, so you don't understand."

I can easily play your game and say that I've tried to hold a logical debate with scores of people who take that exact same tone, but I'd rather discuss this on a level that gets right down to the meat and potatoes of the other person's perspective. It's a shame that you refuse to do that.

I never used that thign to try to prove a point. You accused me of being less likely to be right than the video, and I defended myself that way. Now if you still haven't realized it, brighter-than-me Oneironaut, wonder who's playing whose game.

Ah. Occam's Razor. Something that I don't fully subscribe to, and have stated why, plenty of times, here at DV.

The simplest explanation for something is often the laziest. (Don't forget that logic, itself, is relative.) It is basically one's admission that they are laying down the gauntlet to truth in the light of something that subjectively just kinda "makes sense." It's someone's way of saying "you know what, this makes sense to me, so I don't need to keep digging to find out whether or not it's right. I'm just going to stop right here." And it's something that I find rather irresponsible. Not saying that it's not often right, don't get me wrong, but to sum it up in a way you just did tells me that you have no interest in investigating further than the simplistic.

In short: I've been where you are, and I've ascended.

Bah. There is a huge difference between lazy and logic. Just because they may arbitrarily coincide doesn't mean they are correlated. Logic isn't something that "makes sense". Logic is as definite and intangible as a dot in geometry. It's there, it's true, but you just cannot describe/explain it. Yet, it's one of the pillars of reality.

I never said that was the line of thought I adopted - "it makes sense already, let's stop going further". No no. Many times, you go as deep as the bottom, only to find that the answer didn't require such depth. Yet, since you're been to the bottom, you know for certain the answer is true. That's what I've talking about the whole time.

And finally, you haven't expressed remote empathy/understanding of what I'm saying. How can you say you've been where I am

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Haha I explained exactly what quantum entanglement has to do with my view. Just because we do not understand it now, it doesn't mean it's something random or illogic.

Which is the equivalent of saying "Just because there is no scientific evidence of God, doesn't mean he doesn't exist." Which is, basically, not saying very much. I completely understand atheists on this point.

Which is also the same as saying - as you said earlier - "Just because I don't understand the video, doesn't mean it's right!"

It is completely insubstantial. Furthermore, it's completely unrelated to what I've been saying the whole time. I've never said that the phenomena were random or illogical. Not once.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

As Einstein himself explained, if something seems random, then there's probably an underlying reason we aren't observing. Just because science does not know why particles change properties seemingly randomly, it doesn't mean it doesn't have a reason.

Congratulations! You've managed to interpret something I wasn't saying, and turn it into what I am saying, while at the same time thinking you're lending credence to your argument when you're not.

I never said there wasn't a reason for the phenomena we've been talking about. If you interpreted that as being what I said, you should really go back and read it again. What I'm saying is that the reason for the phenomena we're talking about doesn't coincide with the conclusions which uphold your view of the physiology of the universe (or, at least, lend credence to your blanket statement that your view of the universe is correct, when faced with contrasting evidence). Honestly, I don't see how you could have possibly come to the conclusion that I said there were "no reasons" why things are they way they are.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Saying it doesn't have a reason is idiotic. Just because we don't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

See above - twice if necessary.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

My advice? Leave quantum physics to professionals who know what they're talking about. Don't try to place particle physics in the middle of a philosophic debate.

My advice? Leave the strawmen to Oz. Don't dispute a video about particle physics and try to create the argument that it has nothing to do with particle physics.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I never used that thign to try to prove a point. You accused me of being less likely to be right than the video, and I defended myself that way. Now if you still haven't realized it, brighter-than-me Oneironaut, wonder who's playing whose game.

I stated that, based on the evidence given by both sides, you were less likely to be right than the video. And, as it stands, you haven't done very much to prove me wrong.

And I've no more stated that I was brighter than you than you've stated you were brighter than me. Re-read the entire conversation and take score, if you wish.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Bah. There is a huge difference between lazy and logic. Just because they may arbitrarily coincide doesn't mean they are correlated. Logic isn't something that "makes sense". Logic is as definite and intangible as a dot in geometry. It's there, it's true, but you just cannot describe/explain it. Yet, it's one of the pillars of reality.

Wow. Such a stark misunderstanding of logic.

Let me put it in some perspective for you (referring to the subjective nature of logic).

You're stopped in the middle of the street. Somebody gives you an military problem, telling you that you're in a certain defensive position. They ask you what the logical way to get out of that position is. You answer to the best of your ability.

That person then stops a 4-Star General of the military and asks them the same thing, telling them to give the most logical way to get out of that position.

If you haven't guessed, the General's answer is going to be different than yours, because he has a different understanding of military strategy than you do.

THAT is the basis of logic.

Logic, when it comes to mathematical equations is absolute. This is not a mathematical conversation.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I never said that was the line of thought I adopted - "it makes sense already, let's stop going further". No no. Many times, you go as deep as the bottom, only to find that the answer didn't require such depth. Yet, since you're been to the bottom, you know for certain the answer is true. That's what I've talking about the whole time.

(Emphasis mine)

Ah. Two buzz words that change the whole meaning of your position. "MANY times." That is an in-sentence way of disproving what you said before about the "simplistic" way being the most logical. You just said right there that many times it's the most logical. Uhm...is that supposed to mean you're inherently right? If you agree that it doesn't, then thank you. You've proven my point for me.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

And finally, you haven't expressed remote empathy/understanding of what I'm saying. How can you say you've been where I am

I'm sorry, have you expressed "empathy" of what I'm saying? Or even understanding? No. You've said: "You know, I've been where you are. I've been down to the bottom (allegedly, where my position is), and I've come back up. I've looked at 'stupid believer stuff' and I realized that I was wrong." So, I'll ask you, in return: How can you say you've been where I am, not show the slightest bit of substantial evidence that you've been where I am (or even an actual understanding of what I am saying now) and complain that I'm allegedly not doing the same? Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

*sigh*

Semantics, man.

How can I say this comprehensively?

Some of the "laws" and conclusions that physics have determined, so far: Things that we have learned in school, growing up - things that have been determined to be constants in mainstream science (and this is speaking of the American mainstream. I don't know what all they teach on your side of the pond) are now being proven incorrect. Some of the most fundamental aspects of "established" physics are being proven to not be as constant as once thought, through observations of quantum mechanics. I'm not saying "physics" (as an area of study) is wrong. I'm saying that some of the findings that have been concluded through past, physical analysis are being now rendered incorrect by quantum-physical analysis.

I'm not attacking the science of physics. I'm attacking some of the "conclusions" that we have come to believe are true, which are now being proven untrue - if that makes more sense.

Well, I'd like some examples of physical laws taught in schools which have been proved wrong by quantum mechanics.

Everything I've ever learnt in school has been true, and directly applicable to the real world. Newtonian mechanics, electronics, etcetera. None of these things can possibly be undermined by quantum mechanics.

Originally Posted by Xei

Well, I'd like some examples of physical laws taught in schools which have been proved wrong by quantum mechanics.

Everything I've ever learnt in school has been true, and directly applicable to the real world. Newtonian mechanics, electronics, etcetera. None of these things can possibly be undermined by quantum mechanics.

In physics, nonlocality is a direct influence of one object on another, distant object, in violation of the principle of locality. In classical physics, nonlocality in the form of action at a distance appeared in corpusculas theories and later disappeared in field theories. Action at a distance is incompatible with relativity. In quantum physics nonlocality re-appeared in the form of entanglement. Physical reality of entanglement has been demonstrated experimentally[1] together with the absence of local hidden variables. Entanglement is compatible with relativity; however, it prompts some of the more philosophically oriented discussions concerning quantum theory. More general nonlocality beyond quantum entanglement, but still compatible with relativity, is an active field of theoretical investigation but has yet to be observed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-locality

Now, whether or not non-locality (vs the, "classical", locality) principle is taught over in the UK is beyond me. I honestly don't know. But, to mainstream U.S. science, as I know of it, it's pretty new/controversial material.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Which is the equivalent of saying "Just because there is no scientific evidence of God, doesn't mean he doesn't exist." Which is, basically, not saying very much. I completely understand atheists on this point.

Lol it's not the same thing, and I'll explain why. With the god assumption, you have the belief in god but not a fact associated with its existence. With quantum entanglement, you have the fact but not something that would explain it. Actually, the logic is the opposite of the god paradigm.

Which is also the same as saying - as you said earlier - "Just because I don't understand the video, doesn't mean it's right!"

It is completely insubstantial. Furthermore, it's completely unrelated to what I've been saying the whole time. I've never said that the phenomena were random or illogical. Not once.

Lol, just because yo udon't understand my point, it doesn't mean it's insubstantial. See? I am doing exactly what you were doing when you said that just because I didn't "understand the video", it wasn't necessarily wrong. You accuse me of something you did yourself. I won't even say the word "hypocrite". Oops... I said it...

And please forgive me for being born in Brazil and not having English as my first language. I don't doubt I speak the three languages I do better than any average native.

Congratulations! You've managed to interpret something I wasn't saying, and turn it into what I am saying, while at the same time thinking you're lending credence to your argument when you're not.

I never said there wasn't a reason for the phenomena we've been talking about. If you interpreted that as being what I said, you should really go back and read it again. What I'm saying is that the reason for the phenomena we're talking about doesn't coincide with the conclusions which uphold your view of the physiology of the universe (or, at least, lend credence to your blanket statement that your view of the universe is correct, when faced with contrasting evidence). Honestly, I don't see how you could have possibly come to the conclusion that I said there were "no reasons" why things are they way they are.

No substance. Plus, you changed your mind. In any case, you tried to use the quantum entanglement theory to try to prove my view wrong (and I know you're gonna deny this later on, I've got the exact quote if you want). I showed, and now you made clear, that it changes nothing at all. Which was my point from the beginning. Congrats on changing your mind with such subtlety most people wouldn't notice. So much for being on the fence.

My advice? Leave the strawmen to Oz. Don't dispute a video about particle physics and try to create the argument that it has nothing to do with particle physics.

I didn't mean only you when I said "leave quantum physics to the professionals". I meant the idiots on and making the video as well.

I stated that, based on the evidence given by both sides, you were less likely to be right than the video. And, as it stands, you haven't done very much to prove me wrong.

And I've no more stated that I was brighter than you than you've stated you were brighter than me. Re-read the entire conversation and take score, if you wish.

xD Well that is just a matter of point of view. I've seen thousands of videos like this, some better and some worse. And, in my book, such videos are very improbably right.

Wow. Such a stark misunderstanding of logic.

Let me put it in some perspective for you (referring to the subjective nature of logic).

You're stopped in the middle of the street. Somebody gives you an military problem, telling you that you're in a certain defensive position. They ask you what the logical way to get out of that position is. You answer to the best of your ability.

That person then stops a 4-Star General of the military and asks them the same thing, telling them to give the most logical way to get out of that position.

If you haven't guessed, the General's answer is going to be different than yours, because he has a different understanding of military strategy than you do.

THAT is the basis of logic.

Logic, when it comes to mathematical equations is absolute. This is not a mathematical conversation.

Nah. The example you used doesn't fit. Firstly, because there is no "most logical" way to get out of the position. There is only a way that benefits the person the most. And what one considers benefits them the most is relative.

What I mean when I (and probably the rest of the world) say 'logic', is stuff like: All boys wear hats. Matt is a boy. Therefore, Matt uses a hat.

Logic is under no circumstance relative. It might be that the premises are false, such as not all boys wearing hats, or Matt not being a boy... but if the premises are true, then the logical deduction that Matt uses a hat is also true.

(Emphasis mine)

Ah. Two buzz words that change the whole meaning of your position. "MANY times." That is an in-sentence way of disproving what you said before about the "simplistic" way being the most logical. You just said right there that many times it's the most logical. Uhm...is that supposed to mean you're inherently right? If you agree that it doesn't, then thank you. You've proven my point for me.

Stop arguing over points you know I wasn't wrong about. If I say "all the time", you'd accuse me of making quick generalizations. If I say "many times", you'll accuse me of admitting I am wrong. What I mean by "many times" is like an "all the time, but considering one or two exceptions".

I'm sorry, have you expressed "empathy" of what I'm saying? Or even understanding? No. You've said: "You know, I've been where you are. I've been down to the bottom (allegedly, where my position is), and I've come back up. I've looked at 'stupid believer stuff' and I realized that I was wrong." So, I'll ask you, in return: How can you say you've been where I am, not show the slightest bit of substantial evidence that you've been where I am (or even an actual understanding of what I am saying now) and complain that I'm allegedly not doing the same? Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

I'm just asking you in the very same way you are asking to me. Tell me how I can show you I've been there and I will. Tell me how I can show you I'm logically right, and I will. What you said over there followed by the giggly smiley has not value at all, does it? If so, give me substantial evidence that you've been where I am.

I once got to a point in my thoughts where I asked myself the same points in the video. That was quite a while ago. My beliefs changed as I faced new questions and life situations. And now that I look back at it I find it childish. See? That's as substantial as I can make it.

I feel like I'm arguing with a child, really. Sorry if I can't give you substantial proof of feeling like arguing with a child. But I do feel like I'm arguing with a child.

And, on an unrelated note, I don't think deeper is worse. When you go deep on a topic, you explore it better. It has nothing to do with what I mean of "having been there". The "having been there" refers to a timeline of opinions, ideas, intellect etc. I guess we both agree that we get wiser with time. i would say "tend to get wiser", but I've seen how wrongly you can interpret a statement like that.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Lol it's not the same thing, and I'll explain why. With the god assumption, you have the belief in god but not a fact associated with its existence. With quantum entanglement, you have the fact but not something that would explain it. Actually, the logic is the opposite of the god paradigm.

You do understand that explaining that quantum entanglement happens does not require explaining why quantum entanglement happens, right?

....right??

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Lol, just because yo udon't understand my point, it doesn't mean it's insubstantial. See? I am doing exactly what you were doing when you said that just because I didn't "understand the video", it wasn't necessarily wrong. You accuse me of something you did yourself. I won't even say the word "hypocrite". Oops... I said it...

Oh, excuse me. I thought I said that in response to your saying "just because I missed the point of the video doesn't mean the video was right." I must have missed the part where I said that first.

I was speaking in response to your illogic. And anyone who might be reading this is going to see that your completely disregarding your initial faux-pas - and trying to turn it into mine because I responded to you in kind - is exactly that. What you're saying there (just as you said before) is: "Even though I didn't understand the video, it's wrong."

The difference is that the video gives a compelling argument as to why it's right. You, on the other hand, didn't at the time that I made that comment. You misunderstood the point of the video, and tried to use that as a reason as to why you were right. You, subsequently, failed. That was my point, and if you'd actually gotten the point of the video (like so many others did) you'd have understood that it was stronger than your objection to it.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

And please forgive me for being born in Brazil and not having English as my first language. I don't doubt I speak the three languages I do better than any average native.

My mistake. I forgot that you weren't a native and I wrongly used English grammar against you. Even if you were a native, that would have been low, on my part. Chalk it up to frustration.

I sincerely apologize.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

No substance. Plus, you changed your mind. In any case, you tried to use the quantum entanglement theory to try to prove my view wrong (and I know you're gonna deny this later on, I've got the exact quote if you want). I showed, and now you made clear, that it changes nothing at all. Which was my point from the beginning. Congrats on changing your mind with such subtlety most people wouldn't notice. So much for being on the fence.

You're completely wrong on this one. I don't deny that I used entanglement to prove you wrong. Your position, initially, was that there was no truth to the video. Your position, initially, was that "the physical is what is absolute, and the ideas in the video were incorrect." I proposed the entanglement problem to show that there was scientific evidence that not only lends credence to the ideas expressed in the video, but also goes against your ideas of everything being as simple as "what we know of the 'physical world' is correct and absolute."

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I didn't mean only you when I said "leave quantum physics to the professionals". I meant the idiots on and making the video as well.

So..you're saying one of two things:

You either don't understand quantum physics, and are calling the people on the video idiots...

Or you're saying you do understand quantum physics, and the people on the video are idiots: In which case, I want you, right now, to explain how quantum entanglement is not an idea that turns "classical physics" (which your universal view seems to be based on) upside down.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

xD Well that is just a matter of point of view. I've seen thousands of videos like this, some better and some worse. And, in my book, such videos are very improbably right.

Did you miss the point of those videos as well? (As you inadvertently admitted to doing to this one, in your second post in this thread?)

In all seriousness, there are plenty of "stupid believer shit" videos out there. That much I don't disagree with you on at all. This video, though, is rooted in scientific principles that have been no less unproven than the ones you are holding onto, to state your position. The difference between us is that I understand the material enough to know the difference between the two types, and I'm looking for sophisticated debate on it - while you are trying to run with your initial interpretation in an attempt to win an argument with me, while ignoring the validity of many of the things actually expressed in the video.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Nah. The example you used doesn't fit. Firstly, because there is no "most logical" way to get out of the position. There is only a way that benefits the person the most. And what one considers benefits them the most is relative.

I love the fact that you give that response to my post, when your entire position is based on what benefits you(r frame of mind) the most and supports your own biases - therefore backing what I initially said about the subjectivity of logic in this context.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

What I mean when I (and probably the rest of the world) say 'logic', is stuff like: All boys wear hats. Matt is a boy. Therefore, Matt uses a hat.

Uhm. I'm not sure if you've realized this or not, but interpretation of the reality of the universe is not as absolute as the example you provided. The logic you're describing, and the "logic" you're trying to use to back your position on your interpretation of the state of the universe, are two completely different things.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Logic is under no circumstance relative. It might be that the premises are false, such as not all boys wearing hats, or Matt not being a boy... but if the premises are true, then the logical deduction that Matt uses a hat is also true.

Exactly. If ALL boys wear hats, Matt uses a hat.

Now, I'd like you to explain how your position equates to "all boys wearing a hat."

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Stop arguing over points you know I wasn't wrong about. If I say "all the time", you'd accuse me of making quick generalizations. If I say "many times", you'll accuse me of admitting I am wrong. What I mean by "many times" is like an "all the time, but considering one or two exceptions".

"One or two exceptions?" What I'm talking about is your declaration of "all the time" actually meaning "sometimes," which makes your statement much less true than you think it is.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I'm just asking you in the very same way you are asking to me. Tell me how I can show you I've been there and I will. Tell me how I can show you I'm logically right, and I will. What you said over there followed by the giggly smiley has not value at all, does it? If so, give me substantial evidence that you've been where I am.

Wow. Didn't you start the argument about how I "didn't empathize that" I've been where you've been? You're the one that implied there was some sort of argument that I could have made to show that I've been where you've been (when I was just responding in kind, to your statement that you've been where I've been). I simply said that it's just as easy for me to say I've been where you have as it is for you to do the same. So maybe you should expand on Your initial point, and tell me how to 'prove' that I've been where you've been. [BTW - this whole part of the argument is silly, at best]

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I once got to a point in my thoughts where I asked myself the same points in the video. That was quite a while ago. My beliefs changed as I faced new questions and life situations. And now that I look back at it I find it childish. See? That's as substantial as I can make it.

You mean the points that you, yourself, implied that you missed the point of (by agreeing with me and trying to make a point off of it in your second post)? Why should I believe that you - now- magically did understand the point(s) of the video, when at the beginning of the debate you apparently didn't?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I feel like I'm arguing with a child, really. Sorry if I can't give you substantial proof of feeling like arguing with a child. But I do feel like I'm arguing with a child.

You can "feel like you're arguing" with a piece of toast, if it makes you feel better. It doesn't negate my points.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

And, on an unrelated note, I don't think deeper is worse. When you go deep on a topic, you explore it better. It has nothing to do with what I mean of "having been there". The "having been there" refers to a timeline of opinions, ideas, intellect etc. I guess we both agree that we get wiser with time. i would say "tend to get wiser", but I've seen how wrongly you can interpret a statement like that.

Sorry, but the above makes absolutely no sense, in the context of this conversation. "Tending to get wiser" is what I've been advocating. It's apparently what you've been talking about you've already done, but what I'm looking for is some of that "wisdom" in strict relation to this subject. That means picking apart the information given, and showing why it's incorrect. Not complaining that "just because it's in the video doesn't mean it's right." That leads no more credence to your point than the points in the video, which is my whole point.

[Edit]
And, if possible, let's try to consolidate this bickering back down to stuff only relevant to either backing or disputing the video, not just going back and forth off of what the other person said.
[/Edit]

Wow, this will be long

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

You do understand that explaining that quantum entanglement happens does not require explaining why quantum entanglement happens, right?

....right??

Don't change the topic. You challenged me to explain why quantum entanglement happens according to my view. I stated what I think happens. Now you come with this.

Oh, excuse me. I thought I said that in response to your saying "just because I missed the point of the video doesn't mean the video was right." I must have missed the part where I said that first.

I was speaking in response to your illogic. And anyone who might be reading this is going to see that your completely disregarding your initial faux-pas - and trying to turn it into mine because I responded to you in kind - is exactly that. What you're saying there (just as you said before) is: "Even though I didn't understand the video, it's wrong."

The difference is that the video gives a compelling argument as to why it's right. You, on the other hand, didn't at the time that I made that comment. You misunderstood the point of the video, and tried to use that as a reason as to why you were right. You, subsequently, failed. That was my point, and if you'd actually gotten the point of the video (like so many others did) you'd have understood that it was stronger than your objection to it.

Lol, do you really think you're making sense with this? Do you think I would have said I didn't understand the video? LOL.. Saying I missed the point of the video isn't the same as saying I didn't understand the video. I understood it better than you do, but I saw the point in it childish.

As I said from the beginning, you are not going to agree with me until you get where I am. The problem with this convo is that it's been getting too abstract. I said I consider the video believer bullshit and that I have my own opinion about the topic, but that I did once agree with the point raised on the video way behind.

My mistake. I forgot that you weren't a native and I wrongly used English grammar against you. Even if you were a native, that would have been low, on my part.

I sincerely apologize.

No problem at all, really. I just dislike it when people try to use that to show I'm wrong or so.

You're completely wrong on this one. I don't deny that I used entanglement to prove you wrong. Your position, initially, was that there was no truth to the video. Your position, initially, was that "the physical is what is absolute, and the ideas in the video were incorrect." I proposed the entanglement problem to show that there was scientific evidence that not only lends credence to the ideas expressed in the video, but also goes against your ideas of everything being as simple as "what we know of the 'physical world' is correct and absolute."

Nah, don't try to assume what I think. I said something and you interpreted it wrongly. My point is that all we do and will to do is only human emotion/instinct, and that if we were reason alone, we wouldn't even question things, because there would be no will to question. Will is human condition. And that is what I consider my knowledge, and just saying this will never get you to understand what it fully means. You have to experience having no will at all in order to understand. I never said that the physical is absolute. I just said that it's ridiculous to try to find a meaning for life based on what we don't yet understand of quantum physics.

So..you're saying one of two things:

You either don't understand quantum physics, and are calling the people on the video idiots...

Or you're saying you do understand quantum physics, and the people on the video are idiots: In which case, I want you, right now, to explain how quantum entanglement is not an idea that turns "classical physics" (which your universal view seems to be based on) upside down.

Hahah, I surely don't understand it as much as the goddamn scientists who spend their lives researching it, but I surely understand enough of it not to go and say bullshit about something I don't understand. The people on the video are even lower than that, trying to talk about something they have no idea of whatsoever.

Did you miss the point of those videos as well? (As you inadvertently admitted to doing to this one, in your second post in this thread?)

In all seriousness, there are plenty of "stupid believer shit" videos out there. That much I don't disagree with you at all. This video, though, is rooted in scientific principles that have been no less unproven than the ones you are holding onto, to state your position. The difference between us is that I understand the material enough to know the difference between the two types, and I'm looking for sophisticated debate on it - while you are trying to run with your initial interpretation in an attempt to win an argument with me, while ignoring the validity of many of the things actually expressed in the video.

Particle physics won't give you insight your you reason for existing. That's what I'm trying to say when I say not to use quantum theory in philosophical arguments. I didn't "ignore the validity of many of the things expressed in the video". I don't deny some stuff in the video was right (a video can't be so bad as to be 100% wrong), but there are too many flaws on it to take it seriously.

I love the fact that you give that response to my post, when your entire position is based on "what benefits you(r frame of mind) the most and supports your own biases - therefore backing what I initially said about the subjectivity of logic in this context.

Lol you completely misunderstood me. What "benefits you the most" isn't nearly the same as "the most logical", as I gave a in-depth example of what logic actually is.

Uhm. I'm not sure if you've realized this or not, but interpretation of the reality of the universe is not as absolute as the example you provided. The logic you're describing, and the "logic" you're trying to use to back your position on your interpretation of the state of the universe, are two completely different things.

Science works on that same logic. And the logic I'm using is as valid as any other, but I insist, only describing it will not make you agree with me. You need to feel what it is like to have no will, just once, for you to agree with me. We are only humans, only the product of the medium. There's nothing special to it.

Exactly. If ALL boys where hats, Matt uses a hat.

Now, I'd like you to explain how your position equates to "all boys wearing a hat."

You didn't say a thing in there. I said that if the premise is true, the conclusion is true, because of logic. I was actually explaining to you what logic is, since you seem not to understand it.

"One or two exceptions?" What I'm talking about is your declaration of "all the time" actually meaning "sometimes," which makes your statement much less true than you think it is.

You got my point already, stop making more fuzz about it. Whatever I had said, you'd criticise me. I just chose falsifiability over speedy generalization (same thing science does).

Wow. Didn't you start the argument about how I "didn't empathize that" I've been where you've been? You're the one that implied there was some sort of argument that I could have made to show that I've been where you've been (when I was just responding in kind, to your statement that you've been where I've been). I simply said that it's just as easy for me to say I've been where you have as it is for you to do the same. So maybe you should expand on Your initial point, and tell me how to prove that I've been where you've been.

I was just trying to show you how ridiculous your notion of "substantial proof" seemed.

You mean the points that you, yourself, implied that you missed the point of (by agreeing with me and trying to make a point off of it in your second post)? Why should I believe that you - now- magically did understand the point(s) of the video, when at the beginning of the debate you apparently didn't?

Haha I understood the video, but I thought that the point of it was stupid. I think I'm repeating this but whatever.

You can "feel like you're arguing" with a piece of toast, if it makes you feel better. It doesn't negate my points.

It's a child, people, it's definitely a child!

Sorry, but the above makes absolutely no sense, in the context of this conversation. "Tending to get wiser" is what I've been advocating. It's apparently what you've been talking about you've already done, but what I'm looking for is some of that "wisdom" in strict relation to this subject. That means picking apart the information given, and showing why it's incorrect. Not complaining that "just because it's in the video doesn't mean it's right." That leads no more credence to your point than the points in the video, which is my whole point.

I've already said my point, you are the one to ignore it. Don't use quantum physics, especially an area that is so poorly known, to try to prove something in a philosophical argument - and that goes for you and the people on the video.

And now that I went back at it, I see what you completely missed. I didn't say "my misunderstanding of the video doesn't mean it's true". I said "even if I hadn't understood the video, it wouldn't mean it's true". "Proving" I didn't understand the video doesn't mean the video is right. I was just refuting to an argumentum ad ignorantiam from yours.

Originally Posted by Lemonsoul

Am I making any sense to anyone and is this what the topic was all about.

This is absolutely what the initial argument is about. Thank you. And, just to go across the aisles, I will say that:

My position is not one that says the "materialistic" view of a physical universe is inherently wrong. It is one that states that we must first look at our own parameters of perceptions as just that: perception. And we can't just automatically assume that what we see as the universe is the way it actually is.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Wow, this will be long

Don't change the topic. You challenged me to explain why quantum entanglement happens according to my view. I stated what I think happens. Now you come with this.

I find it amazing that you fixed your fingers to type this, knowing that you didn't even address why quantum entanglement happens. All you said is that "just because we can't explain it, doesn't mean it doesn't have a reason." You didn't even address entanglement, itself. If you did, please post where you did.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Lol, do you really think you're making sense with this? Do you think I would have said I didn't understand the video?

I'm sorry...is this your way of saying you wouldn't have said you didn't understand the video, if you didn't understand it? LOL. That's pretty telling, in itself.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I understood it better than you do

Whoa-hoa...There goes that (unfounded, at best) arrogance again.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

As I said from the beginning, you are not going to agree with me until you get where I am.

And again.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

The problem with this convo is that it's been getting too abstract. I said I consider the video believer bullshit and that I have my own opinion about the topic, but that I did once agree with the point raised on the video way behind.

Yeah. I gathered that from what you said. Now I'm asking you to get away from the rhetoric and actually get into why the video is wrong. All you've done is take a concept of 'I don't think the video is right' and not actually explain - in a scientific context - why the video is wrong. I'm still waiting on that.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Nah, don't try to assume what I think. I said something and you interpreted it wrongly. My point is that all we do and will to do is only human emotion/instinct, and that if we were reason alone, we wouldn't even question things, because there would be no will to question. Will is human condition. And that is what I consider my knowledge, and just saying this will never get you to understand what it fully means. You have to experience having no will at all in order to understand. I never said that the physical is absolute. I just said that it's ridiculous to try to find a meaning for life based on what we don't yet understand of quantum physics.

...and I'm going to stop you right there.

I see what the disconnect is. I really do. You are basing your entire argument off of an interpretation of the video saying "there is a meaning to life." So far, I haven't seen you disputing any of the claims of the 'true nature of the universe', with any sort of substance. Your main quarrel seems to be with the "We are all one and should treat each other as such" message at the very end of the video. Let me be the first to tell you that I'm not talking about that at all. It wasn't even remotely close to my reason for posting the video. I'm talking about the video's context on the true nature of the universe vs. our perception of it. Whether what we know as the "physical world" actually exists. "Finding meaning in life" has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said since we started talking.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Hahah, I surely don't understand it as much as the goddamn scientists who spend their lives researching it, but I surely understand enough of it not to go and say bullshit about something I don't understand. The people on the video are even lower than that, trying to talk about something they have no idea of whatsoever.

You have absolutely nothing to substantiate that the people in the video (and again, I'm talking about my initial point of the true, "physical" nature of the universe - not the "treat each other as one" message) don't know what they're talking about. If you actually do, I'm still waiting on it.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Particle physics won't give you insight your you reason for existing. That's what I'm trying to say when I say not to use quantum theory in philosophical arguments.

This, again, tells me that you don't really understand what I'm getting at. I haven't said a single thing about "reason for existing" or "philosophy." (If that was the point of the video, I would have put it in the Philosophy forum.) When I mention David Bohm and his Implicate/Explicate Order, I'm not talking philosophy. I'm talking physics. This entire time, you've been talking about something that I wasn't talking about, and not only in the sense that Lemonsoul meant about our understanding. You haven't done or said one thing to dispute the physicality problem expressed in the video. You're talking about the philosophical aspect only, which has absolutely nothing to do with the argument I'm proposing, or my reason for posting the video.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Lol you completely misunderstood me. What "benefits you the most" isn't nearly the same as "the most logical", as I gave a in-depth example of what logic actually is.

And I gave an in-depth example of why your interpretation of logic (as it refers to the true state of the universe) is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Science works on that same logic. And the logic I'm using is as valid as any other, but I insist, only describing it will not make you agree with me. You need to feel what it is like to have no will, just once, for you to agree with me. We are only humans, only the product of the medium. There's nothing special to it.

Yet another misinterpretation. Please find somewhere in my text where I stated anything I'm talking about is "special" or how the possibly true, "physical" state of the universe has anything to do with will.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

You didn't say a thing in there. I said that if the premise is true, the conclusion is true, because of logic. I was actually explaining to you what logic is, since you seem not to understand it.

So if the premise that two people come out of a locked room - one of them with a stab wound to the forehead - is true, then your conclusion that one of them stabbed the other is correct? To someone who thinks one has motive to stab the other, that would be true, when, in fact, it could be a self-inflicted wound. THAT is the uncertain state of logic that I was trying (obviously unsuccessfully) to explain to you.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

You got my point already, stop making more fuzz about it. Whatever I had said, you'd criticise me. I just chose falsifiability over speedy generalization (same thing science does).

Just to get us back on track, I'm going to ask you again exactly what point you're trying to make. You said you choose falsifiability, fine. I do the same. But are you arguing against the physical message that "the physical world may not exist, and the world may just be a series of waves" or are you arguing that "we don't have to treat each other all as one, because: (insert reason here)? If it's the former, we need to continue to debate because we obviously haven't made compelling arguments. If it's the latter, then you're arguing something completely different than what I've been arguing since the beginning.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Haha I understood the video, but I thought that the point of it was stupid. I think I'm repeating this but whatever.

Ok. We've established that (alleged) idea.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

It's a child, people, it's definitely a child!

Very mature of you.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I've already said my point, you are the one to ignore it. Don't use quantum physics, especially an area that is so poorly known, to try to prove something in a philosophical argument - and that goes for you and the people on the video.

Once again, and this continues to make me believe you've completely missed the argument propsed, I'm not talking a philosophical argument, here. I'm talking a physical one. A physical argument about the true state of the universe. You said this video's interpretation of the true state of the universe is inherently bullshit. Yet you have failed to offer a single shred of evidence as to why.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

And now that I went back at it, I see what you completely missed. I didn't say "my misunderstanding of the video doesn't mean it's true". I said "even if I hadn't understood the video, it wouldn't mean it's true". "Proving" I didn't understand the video doesn't mean the video is right. I was just refuting to an argumentum ad ignorantiam from yours.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam implies that I said the video is right simply because you didn't prove it wrong.

I stated that there is more in the video to believe it to be correct than there is in your argument that it wasn't, to believe that it's wrong.

Bit of a difference, there, chief.

And, even with that being said:

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Doesn't mean the point of the video was correct lol

"Even if...?"

Maybe that's what you wished you would have said.

So, let's get it straight. Were you talking about the "lovey-dovey", philosophical message of "Let's all treat everyone as one!" or are you talking about the video's proposal of the true "physical" state of the universe?

They are two different concepts. I couldn't care less about the former. I'm arguing for the latter.

I get the impression you two are arguing over two very different things.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but if I am reading into this correctly it sounds like Oneironaut is trying to debate the possibilities of an existance while Kromoh is trying to explain the science behind one singular aspect of existence; ours.

This is my understanding based on that video (and a self taught, probably rather flawed grasp of quantum):

The universe may be a blurring of many things/possibilities all of which could be true but only one of which can be measured/observed at once (tell me if I'm getting this wrong but... collapse of wave form?). So since we seem to have to abide by the laws of physics within our own particular universe it is logical to presume that we can only measure it, and not the properties of others, as our tools with which we would measure them are based on the rules of the universe we inhabit.
For example - where I see 'x' you may see 'y', but since we have both been taught that it is 'z' that is the only way we can both measure it. I cannot point out how different my vision of 'z' is because I have never seen 'x' as 'y' it has always been 'z' and as far as I know your vision of it is the same as mine.

I think I lost even myself with that statement but if any of you do understand I'd like to hear your views on it.

But back to Oneironaut and Kromoh... If, Kromoh, you are arguing that we cannot have created the universe through our own imagination I am inclined to agree, but you have missed the point (assuming I've hit it). If you are denouncing any possibility that our own personal perceptions of existence and the universe may differ then I (and I think Oneironaut) would like to ask how you are to know that they do not since you, presumeably, have never seen the world though another person's/species' eyes while retaining a prior recollection of your reality.

Am I making any sense to anyone and is this what the topic was all about.

Originally Posted by Lemonsoul

For example - where I see 'x' you may see 'y', but since we have both been taught that it is 'z' that is the only way we can both measure it. I cannot point out how different my vision of 'z' is because I have never seen 'x' as 'y' it has always been 'z' and as far as I know your vision of it is the same as mine.

I think I lost even myself with that statement but if any of you do understand I'd like to hear your views on it.

That idea illustrates a scenario I thought of once some years ago, but in specific regards to the way we see colors. We may both point at the same object and identify it as red, but the way we process that color may come out to be entirely different. The way red looks to your eyes might be the same as the way green looks to MY eyes, but there's no known way we could yet compare our individual interpretations of the color.

In that respect, yes, what you said makes sense. How our "uneven" observations of the same physical object might effect it in the universe though is currently beyond me. Quantum physics is something I look forward to learning more about.

I can't understand anyone in this thread.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

How our "uneven" observations of the same physical object might effect it in the universe though is currently beyond me.

If I've understood it correctly then the theory is that our collective "vision" of the universe as human beings has the potential to be horribly wrong. Not because we are thick but because the physical parameters which we can study(/are studying) are being measured using a collection of theories and mechanics that WE have devised in order to justify our existence.
So although at this point in time they appear to fit together quite well we may yet find that to truely understand everything we must understand that while 2+2=4, 2+2 might also =3... or 5... or 7 when abiding by seperate visions (or perhaps more appropriately "aspects") of the universe.

Going back to your analogy:

Originally Posted by invader_tech

We may both point at the same object and identify it as red, but the way we process that color may come out to be entirely different. The way red looks to your eyes might be the same as the way green looks to MY eyes, but there's no known way we could yet compare our individual interpretations of the color.

Perhaps if we could percieve colours through other people's minds we would be able to better understand how the brain works.

Likewise if we could percieve our exisitence through different (or even differently defined) parameters we would be able to better undertand the universe.

Am I babbling again?