Thread: Reality As You Know It Does Not Exist

Show me where the separation between foam and the probability wave particles exist.

The something coming from the nothingness of the vacumn makes it an offshoot of the nothingness that spawned it.

They are integral aspects of one another.

The findings reached through quantum physics are that all separations or distinctions between "this" or "that" are just perceived separations and not actually separate which is why we have terms like non-locality.

Originally Posted by Cyclic13

Show me where the separation between foam and the probability wave particles exist.

The something coming from the nothingness of the vacumn makes it an offshoot of the nothingness that spawned it.

They are integral aspects of one another.

The findings reached through quantum physics are that all separations or distinctions between "this" or "that" are just perceived separations and not actually separate which is why we have terms like non-locality.

I don't even know what you're asking. "probability wave particles" don't exist. Quantum foam has never been observed so it may not exist. So far the difference is one doesn't exist and the other may or may not. I don't want to be rude, but it seems like you are taking terms and phrases and using them out of context without really knowing what they mean.

Nothing actually is both a wave and a particle. Thats part of the uncertainty principle. You can't observe a particle's position and velocity at the same time, and you can't observe something as both a wave and a particle at the same time. Its either one or the other, and once it is observed as a particle it stays that way.

Quantum foam on the other hand isn't (once again, if it exists) a wave at all, and can hardly be called particles either. On that scale, its really just 'bumpy' spacetime.

I understand that there isn't an official coined term of "probabilistic wave particle".

Since you felt it necessary to point out, you must already know that in Copenhagen's interpretation there are probabilities behind the collapse of the wave function into a particle. The wave particle duality, which you felt necessary to mention as part of the uncertainty principle.

Honestly, was it not possible to read between the lines of what I meant? I didn't know I must use only official terms when discussing quantum events. I apologize in advance for attempting to summarize a complicated concept all on my lonesome.

Anyway, what I was alluding to was that none of these quantum events are tangible objects that can be separated with anything other than equations, ideas, or words that essentially equate to one another in the mind's eye of observation. It dips into philosophy.

The seemingly separated medium from which the collapse of the wave function is observed, has been proven that it isn't actually there as separate. It only appears to be when we attempt to observe it. Therefore, the substance of the observed collapse into a particle is also only a relative concept to the observation of it, and it isn't actually there as this separate substance from the medium it was born from.

This is where quantum entanglement comes in.

The concepts of "Distance" and "locality" become irrelevant because it is revealed as all the same substance being manipulated and observed by itself.

A perfect circle attempting to understand it's perfection by thinking itself imperfect.

Only our observations of things being separate, imperfect, or apart from one another appear to make them seem so...

Concluding that "reality" at it's most fundamental level is a product of the observation.

LOL consciousness is an extension of intelligence. Being self-conscious allows a being to more intelligently choose things for itself (as in, things that will benefit them). Furthermore, consciousness helps in recognizing patterns, learning and being able to predict scenarios. Only conscious beings can enjoy music, you know.

I don't think you realise that 'consciousness' and 'self-conscious' mean two completely different things.

Why do we need to be conscious to respond intelligently? Many things respond intelligently without being conscious.

LOl that's what I meant some time ago. What you define as "consciousness" is an illusion. The only consciousness human beings have is self-consciousness.

I also didn't say we need to be conscious to respond intelligently - don't put friggin words into my mouth. Consciousness allows us to respond more intelligently. Being able to "watch" our own thoughts makes it easier to recognize patterns and respond to them the most suiting way.

Now once again, all of you - please stop putting words into my mouth. Refuting to something I didn't say won't prove any point you may have.

LOL Nobody is putting words in your mouth LOL you just need to speak a bit more eloquently, perhaps. LOLOL.

Please stop talking to me as if I have it in for you, like some kind of paranoid twelve year old or something. I don't have some kind of agenda against you, you're some random guy on the internet.

'Watching our thoughts allowing us to recognise patterns' is very vague. Can you give an example of this happening? Recognising patterns is something any machine could do perfectly.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Being self-conscious allows a being to more intelligently choose things for itself.

Originally Posted by Xei

Why do we need to be conscious to respond intelligently? Many things respond intelligently without being conscious.

Don't blame your misunderstandings on me, seriously. You might have missed the word "more" in my sentence.

--


A very simplistic example: a primitive human hears a howl for the first time, and then sees a wolf around. Since he already associated the wolf with fear, he starts associating the howl with fear. Less conscious beings would take more time to make the same association and learn. Notice how every thinking being is conscious, at varying degrees. Many apes can recognize their own image in a mirror, but my little dog always barks at her own reflection, because she thinks it's someone else.

Also, machines can be programmed to recognize specific patterns, but not learn new ones it wasn't programmed for. You can't use an image-recognition software to recognize sounds xDDD... Machines are not conscious. At least not yet, maybe one day...

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

The question though, is whether or not the consciousness(es) inside of that singular system could ever become aware of the reality outside of that level of perception? I mean, like with lucid dreaming: We are only aware that a dream is just a dream because we experience real life, and we can compare and contrast the two. But could those dream characters (or, in the case of this scenario: us) be expected to ever realize the reality that might lie outside of our frame of reference?

That's a valid question. I believe the answer lies in connecting to that 'source'. If a dream character were able to get your attention and you allowed them access into your mind, they would be experiencing that 'beyond reality' understanding firsthand. If you could imagine what it would be like to make another person feel an emotion or a thought or understanding directly from your own head without words or pictures, that's the kind of thing that would be going on here. I have no idea how the psychic connection to a dream character would work (it would make a great lucid task though). The whole idea with meditating to reach that state of Nirvana would accomplish the same thing, wouldn't you agree? Do you think it's possible that even many of the different alleged prophets throughout human history might have had a brief moment of connection with this source? Their limited human perception would be responsible for the different interpretations of the information they had been exposed to, which would then lead to the creation of different deities or god-beings to explain the experience, even though they all came from the same place, so to speak. Does that make any sense at all? I can elaborate further if need be, as the idea is still "under construction".

Originally Posted by Invader Tech

That's a valid question. I believe the answer lies in connecting to that 'source'. If a dream character were able to get your attention and you allowed them access into your mind, they would be experiencing that 'beyond reality' understanding firsthand. If you could imagine what it would be like to make another person feel an emotion or a thought or understanding directly from your own head without words or pictures, that's the kind of thing that would be going on here. I have no idea how the psychic connection to a dream character would work (it would make a great lucid task though). The whole idea with meditating to reach that state of Nirvana would accomplish the same thing, wouldn't you agree? Do you think it's possible that even many of the different alleged prophets throughout human history might have had a brief moment of connection with this source? Their limited human perception would be responsible for the different interpretations of the information they had been exposed to, which would then lead to the creation of different deities or god-beings to explain the experience, even though they all came from the same place, so to speak. Does that make any sense at all? I can elaborate further if need be, as the idea is still "under construction".

That actually makes a lot of sense. Whether or not this connection has ever actually been made (in terms of humans experiencing a truly transcendental perspective) is, of course, open to debate - victim to uncertainty - but I definitely hold no serious doubt to the idea. The flip side, though, is that perhaps the "transcendental" perspectives which are experienced are byproducts of the human brain attempting to create a convincing experience (akin to the battle between people believing OOBEs are actual extra-physical experiences, or simply dreams that feel like extra-physical experiences). But, again, by posing the conflicting concepts, I'm not trying to spin it either way.



And Kromoh:
Seriously. If somebody "puts words in your mouth", correct them. It's that simple. People misunderstand each other all the time (and believe it or not, it's not always the listener's fault). Don't complain about it like people are out to get you. If they are wrong, correct them and continue on. Not every single thing is worth such overreaction.

Also, I would really like you to address the fact that, after your initial misunderstanding of the video, you are now - in nearly everything you are saying - arguing from a position that is exactly what the video was about: That our perception of reality is simply that - our perception of it - and is likely not the way it actually is (which the article from New Scientist actually corroborates, if you read it, refuting your claim that the ideas expressed in the video are in no way scientific).

First I want to say I'm thrilled at the quality of debate in this topic and this sub forum in general. Especially now that people are starting to ignore Kromoh. I honestly believe life is really a dream, and the first rule of dreaming according to me is that everything requires your attention to exist. If Kromoh's stance is that reality is an illusion, he's certainly displayed an affinity for that aspect of dream control over reality.

But unlike his version that you are incapable of understanding, I say the fact that reality is a dream is both explainable and demonstratable through experiments. Just apply "everything requires your attention to exist" to Kromoh's posts and watch how this thread improves.

Kromoh, I'm not picking on you dude, just using you as an example. I've done my best not to pay too much attention to you or O's responsive posts, other than the chuckle in amusement about how his excercise in futility would have been my fate only a few months ago had I not know what I know now. Even now I can scarecly resist, but I see dream control over reality as a matter of personal responsibility, so reap what you've sown.

I don't think reality is a dream or some fancy notion, I actually believe it, or believe that I know it to be a fact. It doesn't help at all that I'm getting absolutely no cititicism or opposition in my nature of dream control thread where I repeatedly state that reality is a dream . I have no choice but to accept the fact. I'm not saying my view of reality is absolute, I recognize that each individual perspective is valid. It's just that all things being equal, this particular view is a kick ass way to get things done.

I'm surprised nobody asks why I'm not rich or haven't won the lottery if I have dream control over reality, but it's honestly hard to prioritize when you know you already have everything you will ever need. I quit my job three weeks ago with no money and rent looming, trusting soley on that. I didn't worry, things just worked out in weird ways, and as of today I am set and I didn't do any conventional job searching, or put the least bit of effort into it. I own this reality.

Life is a dream and I think it can be proved scientifically, so for the love of god, somebody come up with a compelling argument that can withsand this delusion I've aquired.

Ok, I'm really drunk right now and got distracted from my intended topic, to again throw out the idea that wave form probabilities = schemata.

Your own personal representation systems limit the possibilities you can experience. For instance, my familiarity with the river in my home town gives me the ability to swim with confidence in the craziest rapids contained withing.

When you look at the following picture, do you see a water park, or a watery grave? My brother lost his wedding ring in there...

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

That actually makes a lot of sense. Whether or not this connection has ever actually been made (in terms of humans experiencing a truly transcendental perspective) is, of course, open to debate - victim to uncertainty - but I definitely hold no serious doubt to the idea. The flip side, though, is that perhaps the "transcendental" perspectives which are experienced are byproducts of the human brain attempting to create a convincing experience (akin to the battle between people believing OOBEs are actual extra-physical experiences, or simply dreams that feel like extra-physical experiences). But, again, by posing the conflicting concepts, I'm not trying to spin it either way.

Hahaha, absolutely. I'm sure that once we gain a much deeper and intuitive understanding of the brain and what it's capable of, we may seriously be able to tell if these experiences are legitimate or not. Just bear in mind that consciousness by itself isn't even dependent on the brain, as was demonstrated roughly one hundred years ago by the famous Bengali scientist Jagadish Chandra Bose, and more recently by Cleve Backster with respect to their studies of consciousness in plants. I believe there's more information on Backster today, so a quick google search should bring up plenty of results. If we as humans can have conscious experience of something without the aid of the brain, then that, my friend, says a great deal about everything we're talking about. That certainly doesn't mean that these "mystical experiences" can't be fabrications of the brain though, as I'm sure our hallucinogenic abilities are quite potent. And even if trancendental experience was proven to a fault, we might have a hard time differentiating them from the "realistic dreams" as it were.

Considering the nature of consciousness as demonstrated through plant studies thus far, my current standpoint on the subject is that we are fully capable of trancendental experience (that it is in fact real). Or maybe saying "I believe it's real" would be more appropriate. Ugh, that brings to mind the famous Morpheus quote that they even played in the video, "What is real?". I think it's time for another Matrix marathon.....

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Ok, I'm really drunk right now and got distracted from my intended topic, to again throw out the idea that wave form probabilities = schemata.

I'd just like to point out that you do a remarkable job of expressing yourself clearly as a drunk person. I never would have guessed.

In your picture I see an early morning in the Amazon.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

First I want to say I'm thrilled at the quality of debate in this topic and this sub forum in general. Especially now that people are starting to ignore Kromoh. I honestly believe life is really a dream, and the first rule of dreaming according to me is that everything requires your attention to exist. If Kromoh's stance is that reality is an illusion, he's certainly displayed an affinity for that aspect of dream control over reality.

But unlike his version that you are incapable of understanding, I say the fact that reality is a dream is both explainable and demonstratable through experiments. Just apply "everything requires your attention to exist" to Kromoh's posts and watch how this thread improves.

Kromoh, I'm not picking on you dude, just using you as an example. I've done my best not to pay too much attention to you or O's responsive posts, other than the chuckle in amusement about how his excercise in futility would have been my fate only a few months ago had I not know what I know now. Even now I can scarecly resist, but I see dream control over reality as a matter of personal responsibility, so reap what you've sown.

I don't think reality is a dream or some fancy notion, I actually believe it, or believe that I know it to be a fact. It doesn't help at all that I'm getting absolutely no cititicism or opposition in my nature of dream control thread where I repeatedly state that reality is a dream . I have no choice but to accept the fact. I'm not saying my view of reality is absolute, I recognize that each individual perspective is valid. It's just that all things being equal, this particular view is a kick ass way to get things done.

I'm surprised nobody asks why I'm not rich or haven't won the lottery if I have dream control over reality, but it's honestly hard to prioritize when you know you already have everything you will ever need. I quit my job three weeks ago with no money and rent looming, trusting soley on that. I didn't worry, things just worked out in weird ways, and as of today I am set and I didn't do any conventional job searching, or put the least bit of effort into it. I own this reality.

Life is a dream and I think it can be proved scientifically, so for the love of god, somebody come up with a compelling argument that can withsand this delusion I've aquired.

Ok, I'm really drunk right now and got distracted from my intended topic, to again throw out the idea that wave form probabilities = schemata.

Your own personal representation systems limit the possibilities you can experience. For instance, my familiarity with the river in my home town gives me the ability to swim with confidence in the craziest rapids contained withing.

When you look at the following picture, do you see a water park, or a watery grave? My brother lost his wedding ring in there...

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. Truth is, when "you" are paying attention (and by "you" I mean the bunch of atoms you are made of), things do exist, but if things also exist when you aren't paying attention is an unsolvable mystery.

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

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.

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. Truth is, when "you" are paying attention (and by "you" I mean the bunch of atoms you are made of), things do exist, but if things also exist when you aren't paying attention is an unsolvable mystery.

...Only shows they don't understand it at all.

Actually, the above quote shows just how irrelevant your entire argument has been to the video, and the thread itself. Nobody here is refuting the fact that what really lies beneath is (at this point) uknown and/or unknowable. Saying such a thing actually goes without saying, because it is so fundamentally understood. For as many times as we find a new "level" of reality, we will be basing that observation on our specific frame of reference. As the video says, itself (paraphrase); "dig even deeper, and you're bound to find that level of reality dissolves into another."

What we are (or, at least, "I am") refuting is your blanket statement that the ideas addressed in the video are "bullshit" and "believer stuff" (whatever that means), and that they are "in no way scientific" (or however it was you exactly said it. Don't want to 'put words in your mouth.') when the ideas are actually very well founded, well-developed scientific theorems which are being expressed in the video by people who may or may not be scientists (which is actually irrelevant as well). Many of the observations expressed have actually been observed in quantum physics. These observations don't even pretend to explain what actually is happening (the "base" reality, I guess you could say) that makes these observations occur. They simply state what has been observed - ides such as "wave-particle duality" - which have structured the views expressed in the video.

Your problem is that you are basically dismissing all of this, with the blanket statement that "it's all shit, because nobody knows exactly what's going on." What we do know is that the theories expressed do have evidence to support them. And not just "fringe" evidence, but evidence that makes the theories very stable (though neither infallible nor irrefutable) in the scientific community. Your position is basically one that is not unlike someone saying the theoretical science of locating and measuring black holes is useless, or belief in them is "believer stuff" because of the simple fact that we can't actually see them to verify if our measurements are correct. The fact that we can't actually witness first hand is irrelevant, when the proposed argument is simply one that explains the actual effects we have observed, first hand, that lend credence to the idea.

And again, I'm stating clearly that your argument that the video is "shit" or "believer stuff" - as if none of the ideas expressed hold any scientific weight, simply because no one can actually know the objective truth - is illogical, and does nothing but expose your bias (as does presumably ignoring text like the article Naiya posted). It shows that you would much rather ignore the fact that the theories concluded might very well be true and, like all theories, should be contradicted with the type of substance that you've refused to give since the beginning of this thread. "We just don't know for sure" - while true, in a blanket, irrelevant sort of way - is simply a way to stay on the fence about the subject (and should be acknowledged as such) - not a way to validly conclude that the concepts are wrong.

I don't really know how much clearer I can be than that.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Because consciousness does not exist lol, only the illusion of it.

How can we experience the illusion of consciousness without being conscious?

Originally Posted by JustSoSick

How can we experience the illusion of consciousness without being conscious?

Who said we actually "experience" anything? That's what I meant in there.

Think of human beings as machines programmed to think of themselves as thinking entities. That's what I mean by illusion of consciousness.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Who said we actually "experience" anything? That's what I meant in there.

Think of human beings as machines programmed to think of themselves as thinking entities. That's what I mean by illusion of consciousness.

Kromoh, what use is there in your point of view? What does it accomplish? It seems like you are trying to undermine the entire range of human perception by applying some sort of imagined absolutist view to it. Maybe you don't experience anything, but I do. Perhaps you don't agree with the definition of experience, but I know that I accomplish the act of perception, which is the same as experiencing. Otherwise I couldn't participate in this conversation. It seems like since we can't know for sure the absolute true nature of the world and what goes on with our relation to it, that you think we should throw out all of our concepts associated with that relationship (meaning all human concepts).

What does that actually accomplish? Even if the model that we have formed of the world is not an absolute truth, it still manages to create meaningful and consistent results, and that is the entire point of modeling anything. If you throw out all of the models in some misguided attempt to find the "truth" then you will really find nothing, quite literally. All that is left without the model that we have created, as far as our perceptions are concerned, is nothingness.

Let me ask you some questions, who programmed the machines? Where did the concept of Machine come from if not from human consciousness? How can something "think of [itself] as [a] thinking entity" if it is not actually a thinking entity? Do you not realize how circular and self defeating that statement is?

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.

No one is trying to refute anything you've said, because you really haven't said anything. All you've managed to communicate is that it is impossible to know absolutely the true nature of reality. Okay, now what? You really haven't made a claim by saying that. All you've done is reinforce an unfalsifiable idea by calling it unfalsifiable in an unfalsifiable way. I ask again, what exactly does that accomplish?

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Who said we actually "experience" anything? That's what I meant in there.

Think of human beings as machines programmed to think of themselves as thinking entities. That's what I mean by illusion of consciousness.

I understand what you mean, but why would something/someone program us to think that we are programmed to think we are experiencing something?

Isn`t this post proof that you experience something?

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.