Thread: Reality As You Know It Does Not Exist

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Bah. I was actually refuting to the "everything requires your attention to exist" mentioned in the video, you know. If you didn't get that from my posts, sorry for that.

Are you talking to me? I've been preaching "everything requires your attention to exist" for almost a year now! I'm quite familiar with the concept, and also know it's possible to focus on things that don't exist. Like the fact that you seem to think I'm diametrically opposed to what you're saying, when I clearly haven't said anything of the sort.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

but if things also exist when you aren't paying attention is an unsolvable mystery.

That's not really true. I was designing a php based mmorpg awhile back where all processes were handled by the client's computer. In essence each player assembles and updates the world as they go along. Figuring out who needs to see what when, and all the possible interactions can give you a better understanding of the complexities of that scenario.

But generally speaking, if a tree falls in the woods, it doesn't matter until someone comes along. Then you execute a random probability function to see if any trees have fallen. At least when programmng a stable game world.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

And you say you have dream control over reality - that is just something nobody would ever know for sure - it's impossible to.

No, I'm saying I can take anyone out into a place with lots of people and demonstrate my control. No doubt the first few times people will come up with rational explanations for what I demonstrate, but if someone sees me do it enough times in different ways, they'll run out of excuses eventually.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Maybe it is all an illusion, maybe we're all dreaming, or maybe you actually need to have no will to be able to control things, but without will, you don't control things because you don't want to at all. Very contradictory at first glance, but utterly logical if you take a closer look.. Seriously, you just think you control it, because when you don't have will, you don't feel the need for anything, so you think you're fully satisfied - what some oriental monks would define as completeness, or enlightenment.

That's what I was saying before, I feel no need to go out and win the lottery, because I know I already have everything I ever need. I could quote myself, but I just feel silly doing that. I understand that zen, but mine is far from perfect . It tainted by my faults that I don't want to give up.

I'll admit I have a temper, but more than that, I like getting mad, makes me feel powerful. Just like I like ripping on punks like you. It's completely self indulgent, but just so much fun!!! When I said I feared losing self importance, it was because it means giving up those things I love, that give me such pleasure. And that's a really shitty, terrible, horrifying thing to have to do. It means giving up a lot, and it really is a frightening thing to face. And why should I be the only one who has to do it? No, no, to scary, I'm not ready for that yet.

So bite me, you teenie bopper know it all! Read and understand before you reply next time!

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I just hate to see O and some other people thinking you can actually refute to what I'm defending in this thread. Only shows they don't understand it at all.

Why do you think you're the only person capable of understanding anything?

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Are you talking to me? I've been preaching "everything requires your attention to exist" for almost a year now! I'm quite familiar with the concept, and also know it's possible to focus on things that don't exist. Like the fact that you seem to think I'm diametrically opposed to what you're saying, when I clearly haven't said anything of the sort.

LOL. The "focus on things that don't exist". You don't really grasp the idea of 'focus" scientists and philosophers mean. It's not human focus. Humans can very easily believe lies, that's true. But to think our mind is some sort of parallel, intangible entity that can "focus" on reality.. well that is just stupid.

That's not really true. I was designing a php based mmorpg awhile back where all processes were handled by the client's computer. In essence each player assembles and updates the world as they go along. Figuring out who needs to see what when, and all the possible interactions can give you a better understanding of the complexities of that scenario.

But generally speaking, if a tree falls in the woods, it doesn't matter until someone comes along. Then you execute a random probability function to see if any trees have fallen. At least when programmng a stable game world.

I actually agree with you here, more or less. Remember http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat ? Well exactly. Some say the cat doesn't exist if you can't experience it, but I say, you don't have to experience it at the same time he's in the box. Take a crime scene for example: investigators don't need to watch the crime or rely on cameras to know what happened, once the incident has already happened, and left proof. I actually do believe many things exist without our knowledge. But, to which extent do things exist? Exactly how much is there that exists and we don't know. Where is the line between unknowingly existing and not existing? That's the main point.

No, I'm saying I can take anyone out into a place with lots of people and demonstrate my control. No doubt the first few times people will come up with rational explanations for what I demonstrate, but if someone sees me do it enough times in different ways, they'll run out of excuses eventually.

Bah, Imma ignore that. I don't mean to offend you, but my scepticism won't let me believe you. We could go on arguing for ages over this, so unless we can meet and you can show me undeniable proof, let's not debate this any longer.

That's what I was saying before, I feel no need to go out and win the lottery, because I know I already have everything I ever need. I could quote myself, but I just feel silly doing that. I understand that zen, but mine is far from perfect . It tainted by my faults that I don't want to give up.

I'll admit I have a temper, but more than that, I like getting mad, makes me feel powerful. Just like I like ripping on punks like you. It's completely self indulgent, but just so much fun!!! When I said I feared losing self importance, it was because it means giving up those things I love, that give me such pleasure. And that's a really shitty, terrible, horrifying thing to have to do. It means giving up a lot, and it really is a frightening thing to face. And why should I be the only one who has to do it? No, no, to scary, I'm not ready for that yet.

So bite me, you teenie bopper know it all! Read and understand before you reply next time!

Well, I completely don't mind being picked on, unlike most of you think. But expect me to repay in the same currency.

Also, love, pleasure, etc are all human concepts. They have no logical value, if you can get what I mean. Love isn't and never will be the physical rule by what a rock falls down a mountain.

Why do you think you're the only person capable of understanding anything?

XD Strawman there. I never meant anything. People can understand many things, sometimes even false things. I just don't think the average person can understand this particular piece specifically. Many people, you included, understand it partially, but infect this knowledge with imagination, dreams and beliefs. Many others don't understand it at all. And a restricted few understand it fully, its meaning, reasons and consequences. This knowledge is as scientific as anything can be, you know.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I actually agree with you here, more or less. Remember http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat ? Well exactly. Some say the cat doesn't exist if you can't experience it, but I say, you don't have to experience it at the same time he's in the box. Take a crime scene for example: investigators don't need to watch the crime or rely on cameras to know what happened, once the incident has already happened, and left proof. I actually do believe many things exist without our knowledge. But, to which extent do things exist? Exactly how much is there that exists and we don't know. Where is the line between unknowingly existing and not existing? That's the main point.

The idea is not that something - such as the cat - "doesn't exist." For something to "not exist" that means to not be, in any form. The concept is about the cat being a "superposition" of states. That means simultaneously existing in all states, and collapsing into its visible, "physical" state, upon observation.

What do you have to say about the postulation that an atom has no definite form or position until it is observed and measured? Is that "believer stuff" as well?

Originally Posted by kromoh

Also, love, pleasure, etc are all human concepts. They have no logical value, if you can get what I mean. Love isn't and never will be the physical rule by what a rock falls down a mountain.

Though I understand the point you are trying to make, about them being human concepts, I disagree with the statement that they have no logical value. They do, in the fact that they are what drive humans to do many of the things that they do. Love has nothing to do with how a rock falls down a mountain, but may have plenty to do with why a human might throw himself down one. Even if they are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, which cause us to feel these emotions, they have very real consequences.

Originally Posted by kromoh

XD Strawman there. I never meant anything. People can understand many things, sometimes even false things. I just don't think the average person can understand this particular piece specifically. Many people, you included, understand it partially, but infect this knowledge with imagination, dreams and beliefs.

And, whether you want to admit it or not, your position is infected with the same. This is part of the reason why you've been so pompous, in most of your responses. You consider your belief to be correct, and all opposed views are "believer stuff."

Originally Posted by kromoh

Many others don't understand it at all. And a restricted few understand it fully, its meaning, reasons and consequences. This knowledge is as scientific as anything can be, you know.

And who are you to declare how much others understand about a subject that you, yourself, seem to have a hard time understanding (which is what your position looks like, from here)? Without knowing anything at all about the people in the video, you automatically dismiss what they are talking about as nonsense (even though it has plenty of strong, scientific theory to give their ideas legs).

The material in the video is not hard to understand. Whether the ideas expressed are true or not is always open to debate. No one here is disputing that, but your inability to give a credible argument against the material in the video really leaves one to wonder how well you can back your belief (or disbelief) on the matter.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

The idea is not that something - such as the cat - "doesn't exist." For something to "not exist" that means to not be, in any form. The concept is about the cat being a "superposition" of states. That means simultaneously existing in all states, and collapsing into its visible, "physical" state, upon observation.

What do you have to say about the postulation that an atom has no definite form or position until it is observed and measured? Is that "believer stuff" as well?

No, that is not believer stuff. That is misinterpretation of scientific facts. As I said many times before, a bunch of ignorants who read an article about quantum physics and think they know enough to make conclusions. That postulation is more of a thing made to ensure scientific accuracy, lol

Though I understand the point you are trying to make, about them being human concepts, I disagree with the statement that they have no logical value. They do, in the fact that they are what drive humans to do many of the things that they do. Love has nothing to do with how a rock falls down a mountain, but may have plenty to do with why a human might throw himself down one. Even if they are nothing but chemical reactions in the brain, which cause us to feel these emotions, they have very real consequences.

I know what you mean, and that was something I tried to make clear in my argument. Say Jack is a human being, we can logically assume that Jack, for being a human being, will behave like human beings, and will do things based on love and whatnot. But the reason why a man would throw himself down a mountain is more in the area of psychology than physics. I'm not saying love is by no means logical, I mean, it is even an evolutionary advantage, but in terms of primary levels of physics, love is not a rule the universe obeys. Love is a thing that may cloud our understanding and comprehension of things around us.

And, whether you want to admit it or not, your position is infected with the same. This is part of the reason why you've been so pompous, in most of your responses. You consider your belief to be correct, and all opposed views are "believer stuff."

Haha man, don't say my position is infected if you failed to understand where i come from, twice. Know what you're talking about before you talk about it. My behaviour in this thread doesn't prove or disprove any of what I'm saying. The truth is one, but some people interpret it wrongly - just like The Cusp saying he has dream control over reality. I try to be formal and respectful, but that opinion of his is just cracked up stupid.

And who are you to declare how much others understand about a subject that you, yourself, seem to have a hard time understanding (which is what your position looks like, from here)? Without knowing anything at all about the people in the video, you automatically dismiss what they are talking about as nonsense (even though it has plenty of strong, scientific theory to give their ideas legs).

Man, its what I've said from the beginning, for your masculinity's sake, stop repeating yourself. There is a lot of credible scientific knowledge in the video, yes, but there is also a lot of monolithic conclusions and opinions which are by no means scientific. Basing an opinion on scientific facts doesn't make the opinion scientific. Also, I've already said how many of the people in the video know nothing about particular physics - just read a text or two and think they are in position high enough to make conclusion. Particle physics is made from observations, and the observations are the only facts to it - theories like the Standard Model are far from being completely accurate, and that's something scientists are well aware of.

The material in the video is not hard to understand. Whether the ideas expressed are true or not is always open to debate. No one here is disputing that, but your inability to give a credible argument against the material in the video really leaves one to wonder how well you can back your belief (or disbelief) on the matter.

Man, please. Stop repeating. I criticise the opinions, and the arrogance on people's stance of learning about particular physics through a "For Dummies" book and thinking they are credible enough to state opinions about it. Furthermore, I criticise their practice of placing opinions amidst scientific facts intending to make the opinions look like facts. Finally, that whole paragraph of yours was just style without substance. Don't make up sophistic arguments for the sake of sounding credible (or, as one would define, "winning the argument").

Originally Posted by Kromoh

No, that is not believer stuff. That is misinterpretation of scientific facts. As I said many times before, a bunch of ignorants who read an article about quantum physics and think they know enough to make conclusions. That postulation is more of a thing made to ensure scientific accuracy, lol

Where, exactly, is the misinterpretation? You say "the postulation is more of a thing made to ensure scientific accuracy," when the postulation has been argued, by some quantum physicists themselves to mean exactly what I've implied. That is why I brought it up.

Originally Posted by kromoh

I know what you mean, and that was something I tried to make clear in my argument. Say Jack is a human being, we can logically assume that Jack, for being a human being, will behave like human beings, and will do things based on love and whatnot. But the reason why a man would throw himself down a mountain is more in the area of psychology than physics. I'm not saying love is by no means logical, I mean, it is even an evolutionary advantage, but in terms of primary levels of physics, love is not a rule the universe obeys. Love is a thing that may cloud our understanding and comprehension of things around us.

No argument there.

Originally Posted by kromoh

Haha man, don't say my position is infected if you failed to understand where i come from, twice. Know what you're talking about before you talk about it. My behaviour in this thread doesn't prove or disprove any of what I'm saying. The truth is one, but some people interpret it wrongly - just like The Cusp saying he has dream control over reality. I try to be formal and respectful, but that opinion of his is just cracked up stupid.

I understood where you came from. Or, more specifically, I figured it out, after realizing it was completely irrelevant to the video, and being forced to look at it from that perspective. I also didn't say whether your behavior proved or disproved anything you said.

Originally Posted by kromoh

Man, its what I've said from the beginning, for your masculinity's sake, stop repeating yourself.

Lol. For "my masculinity's sake?" As if my masculinity is threatened because I sometimes have trouble understanding what you're trying to convey.

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.

Originally Posted by kromoh

but there is also a lot of monolithic conclusions and opinions which are by no means scientific. Basing an opinion on scientific facts doesn't make the opinion scientific. Also, I've already said how many of the people in the video know nothing about particular physics - just read a text or two and think they are in position high enough to make conclusion. Particle physics is made from observations, and the observations are the only facts to it - theories like the Standard Model are far from being completely accurate, and that's something scientists are well aware of.

I don't argue that there are probably many overall opinions that they have just concluded based on the things they have read, but you have time and time again done nothing to refute those opinions except with a huge uncertainty tangent. The reason I keep repeating myself is because you continue to dispute the validity of the video, focusing only on the smallest part of it (the outstanding philosophical opinions of those discussing the scientific material). I'm going off of your seeming to hang on to the position that the material in the video is bullshit, when the video wasn't even fundamentally about those final opinions. They were simply conclusions tacked on to the end of the main body of the piece.

Originally Posted by kromoh

Man, please. Stop repeating. I criticise the opinions, and the arrogance on people's stance of learning about particular physics through a "For Dummies" book and thinking they are credible enough to state opinions about it.

I'm sorry...I could have sworn I just saw you state your opinion on Schroedinger's cat.

Originally Posted by kromoh

Furthermore, I criticise their practice of placing opinions amidst scientific facts intending to make the opinions look like facts. Finally, that whole paragraph of yours was just style without substance. Don't make up sophistic arguments for the sake of sounding credible (or, as one would define, "winning the argument").

What are you talking about? I've still been stuck on your opening opinion that "this documentary isn't even close to reaching some truth," because you've been steadily trying to maintain the illusion that you were right. Though it's slowly come out, through subsequent posts, that you were only talking about the smallest portion of the video (the closing opinions about "how we should treat each other"), which is all fine and good. You are mixing two concepts, though, trying to discredit the scientific concepts the people are talking about by saying - with absolutely no substance of your own - that they don't know what they are talking about. When it comes to the scientific concepts they are talking about, you only have to read Naiya's posted article from New Scientist (for starters, I hope), to understand the validity of the concepts. That is all the substance I need.

But as for the "how we should treat each other" ending message in the video, I don't really (care too much to) oppose your position on it, since it wasn't the crux of what the video was about. It is when you continually say things like "those people don't understand the concepts they were talking about", as if that argument somehow helps you, when you can read any basic text on the subject and realize they understand more than you are giving them credit for.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Where, exactly, is the misinterpretation? You say "the postulation is more of a thing made to ensure scientific accuracy," when the postulation has been argued, by some quantum physicists themselves to mean exactly what I've implied. That is why I brought it up.

Lol. For "my masculinity's sake?" As if my masculinity is threatened because I sometimes have trouble understanding what you're trying to convey.

I mean that you look like a girl repeating the same thing all the time

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

Don't make me retroquote again.

I don't argue that there are probably many overall opinions that they have just concluded based on the things they have read, but you have time and time again done nothing to refute those opinions except with a huge uncertainty tangent. The reason I keep repeating myself is because you continue to dispute the validity of the video, focusing only on the smallest part of it (the outstanding philosophical opinions of those discussing the scientific material). I'm going off of your seeming to hang on to the position that the material in the video is bullshit, when the video wasn't even fundamentally about those final opinions. They were simply conclusions tacked on to the end of the main body of the piece.

LOL, as I've said many times before, I am self-conscious enough to say that I am not a quantum physics expert, and that there is not point in my trying to refute to some arguments in the video - doing so, I would be making the same mistake they made in the video. Furthermore, as I also said, arguing here will be a waste of time, for it won't change the opinion of the people on the video. You want to say that the video is valid because it has some science in it. Well I say that is just way too simplistic. It's not just one or two opinions thrown in, it's half of the video that's only opinions. Finally, the conclusion to any text, song, video etc is quite an important part, if you didn't learn that one little bit in primary school.

I'm sorry...I could have sworn I just saw you state your opinion on Schroedinger's cat.

LOL that's not what that bit was about. remember what you said before criticising my reply:

You: The material in the video is not hard to understand. Whether the ideas expressed are true or not is always open to debate. No one here is disputing that, but your inability to give a credible argument against the material in the video really leaves one to wonder how well you can back your belief (or disbelief) on the matter.

Me: Man, please. Stop repeating. I criticise the opinions, and the arrogance on people's stance of learning about particular physics through a "For Dummies" book and thinking they are credible enough to state opinions about it. Furthermore, I criticise their practice of placing opinions amidst scientific facts intending to make the opinions look like facts. Finally, that whole paragraph of yours was just style without substance. Don't make up sophistic arguments for the sake of sounding credible (or, as one would define, "winning the argument").

What are you talking about? I've still been stuck on your opening opinion that "this documentary isn't even close to reaching some truth," because you've been steadily trying to maintain the illusion that you were right. Though it's slowly come out, through subsequent posts, that you were only talking about the smallest portion of the video (the closing opinions about "how we should treat each other"), which is all fine and good. You are mixing two concepts, though, trying to discredit the scientific concepts the people are talking about by saying - with absolutely no substance of your own - that they don't know what they are talking about. When it comes to the scientific concepts they are talking about, you only have to read Naiya's posted article from New Scientist (for starters, I hope), to understand the validity of the concepts. That is all the substance I need.

Oh man. As I've said, half of the video is all opinion. That's what I criticise. I'm going to repost something I posted earlier - just to see how repetitive you can be:

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I criticise the opinions, and the arrogance on people's stance of learning about particular physics through a "For Dummies" book and thinking they are credible enough to state opinions about it. Furthermore, I criticise their practice of placing opinions amidst scientific facts intending to make the opinions look like facts.

Also I've already said that much of what you may have understood as scientific fact in the video might actually be only some dumb opinions thrown in, masked as scientific fact.

But as for the "how we should treat each other" ending message in the video, I don't really (care too much to) oppose your position on it, since it wasn't the crux of what the video was about. It is when you continually say things like "those people don't understand the concepts they were talking about", as if that argument somehow helps you, when you can read any basic text on the subject and realize they understand more than you are giving them credit for.

LOL, maybe it's just you giving more credit to them than they actually retain in their arguments. I just can't stand all these "watch this and change your view on life - now with 30% more scientific facts!" videos, if you get what I mean.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I mean that you look like a girl repeating the same thing all the time

That makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever.

Originally Posted by kromoh

Don't make me retroquote again.

Please do. Maybe I missed it, but I'd love to confirm.

Originally Posted by kromoh

LOL, as I've said many times before, I am self-conscious enough to say that I am not a quantum physics expert, and that there is not point in my trying to refute to some arguments in the video - doing so, I would be making the same mistake they made in the video. Furthermore, as I also said, arguing here will be a waste of time, for it won't change the opinion of the people on the video. You want to say that the video is valid because it has some science in it. Well I say that is just way too simplistic. It's not just one or two opinions thrown in, it's half of the video that's only opinions. Finally, the conclusion to any text, song, video etc is quite an important part, if you didn't learn that one little bit in primary school.

Ooh. Zing!

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.

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.

Originally Posted by kromoh

LOL that's not what that bit was about. remember what you said before criticising my reply:
[INDENT]You: The material in the video is not hard to understand. Whether the ideas expressed are true or not is always open to debate. No one here is disputing that, but your inability to give a credible argument against the material in the video really leaves one to wonder how well you can back your belief (or disbelief) on the matter.

Me: Man, please. Stop repeating. I criticise the opinions, and the arrogance on people's stance of learning about particular physics through a "For Dummies" book and thinking they are credible enough to state opinions about it. Furthermore, I criticise their practice of placing opinions amidst scientific facts intending to make the opinions look like facts. Finally, that whole paragraph of yours was just style without substance. Don't make up sophistic arguments for the sake of sounding credible (or, as one would define, "winning the argument").

See first paragraph, above.

Originally Posted by kromoh

Oh man. As I've said, half of the video is all opinion. That's what I criticise. I'm going to repost something I posted earlier - just to see how repetitive you can be:
Also I've already said that much of what you may have understood as scientific fact in the video might actually be only some dumb opinions thrown in, masked as scientific fact.

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.

Originally Posted by kromoh

LOL, maybe it's just you giving more credit to them than they actually retain in their arguments. I just can't stand all these "watch this and change your view on life - now with 30% more scientific facts!" videos, if you get what I mean.

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.