Reality As You Know It Does Not Exist

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

Enjoy. :)

This is something I realized quite a long time ago as I kept wondering what the smallest atomic particles were made of and what nothingness could possibly be. It really tangles your mind to think about it too hard.

I liked the ending of that video where he explains "We're the same consciousness experiencing itself."

PS. The Matrix is the best movie trilogy ever made.

Ive heard this idea before...but what exactly are the implications of this? How does it expand out potential?

Black eagle...sorry but Im going to have to say it comes in second to LOTR

Ok, so the universe isn't real. So what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdyo

Ive heard this idea before...but what exactly are the implications of this? How does it expand out potential?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Ok, so the universe isn't real. So what?

---

Who knows, as of now (to both)?

Personally, I do not know all of the implications anymore than the first person to view an atom knew immediately what all would be possible in a world of nuclear technology. (Much less so, of course, but I'm sure you understand my meaning.)

What's important, at the moment (IMHO) is that we accept and understand these ideas, and work to find those implications, not simply hold onto our view of the world through outdated paradigms. Such a perspective could potentially change much in the world of "physical" science - if not to the extent of changing things we already presume to know, then maybe opening up this whole new frontier of science to investigate. Such is not an idea devoid of merit, right?

(And while I believe the Matrix trilogy had the most potential - and I love the first two - I think the LotR trilogy is practically flawless. :))

Yeah, you guys are right. LOTR is the best movie trilogy. I think I've mentioned that before lol. Still, the first couple of Matrix movies are my favorite movies.

This thread is now about movies.

Great movie. It sums it all up nicely.

I hope most people have at least a general understanding of this. Maybe I'm overestimating people? I think the hard part is integrating it into our daily lives. So far, there seems to be no real practical reason for people to care about this philosophy/ truth. It doesn't really threaten or reward people into living their lives differently.

And I have to say the Look Who's Talking trilogy was the best ever. Or was that the worst?... I can't remember.

I don't like that the 'consciousness creating reality' thing has become the popular view of what scientists think, it isn't. I think a more plausible explanation for the collapse of a wave function is that a conscious observer is only capable of perceiving one aspect of the infinite possibilities. The wave function of the particle continues as is, but the conscious observer now perceives it as a particle.

Maybe the dream state is just the expression of our duality. We have the waking particle world, while the dream state is all about waveform probabilities.

While in waking world where wave forms have collapsed in to solid matter, it difficult to conceive how it couldn't be real. But that solid matter comes from a wave form first, and the control learned in the waveform realms of sleep would still be valid in the waking world. Just like we can make things solid and real in dream. Both modes of operation apply equally well to either reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I think a more plausible explanation for the collapse of a wave function is that a conscious observer is only capable of perceiving one aspect of the infinite possibilities. The wave function of the particle continues as is, but the conscious observer now perceives it as a particle.

---

Never heard or thought of that before, but I like it a lot! I'm going to have to take some time to digest it.

"Life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves."

That line does a great deal in terms of summing up my own ideas about the nature of the universe. I do in fact believe that we are analogous to dream characters, fragmented bits of consciousness derived from the mind of a greater being. Dream characters, after all, are no more than pieces of our own mind divided and realized in another reality that they are individually bound to. Reality, in this sense, is borne entirely from consciousness. The dreamworld reality for any dream character is borne from the mind of the dreamer. You can see where I'm going with this.

Am I making sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by invader_tech

"Life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves."

Am I making sense?

---

Makes sense to me! I see I'm not the only one who recognized the guy at the end from that Tool album.


I'd like people's thoughts on the following.

Waveform = Schema

And I don't mean waveform as in a snakey or spikey graphed out line, but as in the sum total of possibilities, if it can even be though of that way. Again I need time to ruminate on that one, but I'd like to hear anyone else's thoughts in the meantime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Ok, so the universe isn't real. So what?

---

... so our dreams are just as real as our awake state... just messing with you

however, that does make me wonder if there is some truth to that statement...

hmm...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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

Enjoy. :)

---

Wow, watching that video made me yell at my monitor "HUH?" about half a dozen times. That video is a good way to totally blow up your mind, and make you even more lost then you really are. Too complicated....maybe it's all the wording i don't understand but What The FUCK! consider my mind blown away. My mind always gets blown away when they make you think like this.:paranoid: I hate it! why can't it be, um...simple?

Nice video.


For more information please visit Synchromysticism.

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

why can't it be, um...simple?

---

because nothing is simple.

Well whoevers dream we're living in right now is boring as hell..i mean...gravity..who the hell needs gravity or physics at all

Oh year, I love that video.. saw it on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae2dBOxt-vA


As I commented on the video "Mind Expanding"




Goodnight..

I wonder what the real looks like. We go by what the brain tells us, not by what it really is. It's probably so crazy we wont be able to grasp it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

I wonder what the real looks like. We go by what the brain tells us, not by what it really is. It's probably so crazy we wont be able to grasp it.

---

With the number of extra alleged dimensions to our universe, you're probably right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tkdyo

Ive heard this idea before...but what exactly are the implications of this? How does it expand out potential?

Black eagle...sorry but Im going to have to say it comes in second to LOTR

---

Star Wars(Original) > LOTR > MATRIX

That quote black eagle sounds almost like...

"Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather."

Bill Hicks ftw :D

Human beings are too arrogant to think the universe exists because of them. Bah, we are only barely capable of conscious thought and already think our mind breaks the laws of physics. We think the mind is something immaterial, but it is only the outcome of neurochemical processes in our brains. The feeling of being experiencing something, or consciousness as humans named it, is only one of the functions of the brain. Consciousness requires intelligence, and intelligence is how complex and well-functional the brain anatomy is - given shape to and filtered by evolution.

So no, the mind does not exist. The brain exists, but it's as subject to the laws of physics as anything else. It is arrogant (and dumb) to think human beings are special. Just because we don't/can't observe something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We once couldn't observe atoms, but voilà, they were always there.

Finally, I hate how they use music to create a scenario in this kind of film - what I call "believers' film". The song aims at stimulating the brain to make you happy, and thus likely to agree with what's being said. Things you don't notice are the worst weapons.

That documentary isn't even close to reaching some truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

That documentary isn't even close to reaching some truth.

---

I hate to say how much you completely missed the point of the video. :?

The video is not about consciousness "creating" the universe. It is about consciousness creating the universe as we see it. It is about how, when seeing things in the material, we become preconditioned to the idea that that is the actual state of things - how things really exist. But it is not necessarily so.

The universe, as we know it, could be nothing but a system of waves interacting with each other. It is our perception of said waves which gives us the sense (whether sight, sound, touch, taste, etc) of the physical things around us.

Do we all see "red" the same way? Do we all hear the same sounds the same way? Do all of our brains interpret things in the exact same fashions? Because we perceive things as being solid to us, do they really exist as solid absolutions in space, or does it only feel that way, relative to the way our brains interpret them?

Does the physical world actually exist, or are we basing a model of "what really is" solely off of our instruments of sensation (our physical senses)? If the latter, then such is what is actually arrogant.

That is the point of the video.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

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

---

No. It means there is more reason for the video to be correct, then for your assertion that the video doesn't reach any sort of truth to be correct. :)

[Edit]
But really, for a better understanding of the concept, look up David Bohm (an associate of Einstein) and his Implicate/Explicate Order theory of the universe (which has never been substantially disproven in the scientific community) for more information. That way you won't feel that you're basing the idea simply on a "believer's video."
[/Edit]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

No. It means there is more reason for the video to be correct, then for your assertion that the video doesn't reach any sort of truth to be correct. :)

---

Hahah there is something I won't waste my time explaining, called ego-loss. I've tried teaching it to people before, at least 10, and none of them got it. The only ones who did understand it were the ones who had already reached that knowledge on their own before. People like thegnome54, O'nus, and (incredibly or not) Mark75.

All that stuff in the video was already coined by Plato, much, much before our time. Search for his Cavern Myth (I think that's the name). The answer to it is the scientific principle of uncertainty - we can never be sure we are in the Matrix or in the real world. Maybe there are thousands of matrix one inside the other.. who knows. Maybe there isn't a real world at all, only the matrix. Nevertheless, and most importantly, it's one single question we will never have the answer to, no matter what we do - we'll never have a confirmation - not even after death (that'd be stupid). So, as dr House once brilliantly said: "I prefer to live life like this wasn't only a test."

You just have no idea just how extremely much human thoughts are clouded by instinct and emotion. To the point of fear of death making people come up with huge conspiracy theories, and so on. An expression I came up with, and like it very much, is: we are blinded by our own eyes.

And I don't think the video is more likely to be correct *at all*. The video was stupid believer stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Hahah there is something I won't waste my time explaining,

---

Surprising, seeing as how you spent all that text to really say nothing at all.

You withhold your "ego-loss" explanation if you wish, because if you refused to see the flaw in your trying to defend your position by saying "my misunderstanding of the video doesn't mean the video is correct," then I doubt there is much you can tell me about mine that doesn't bring us, at least, to even ground.

And you're still managing to misunderstand the point. There could be 6,000 "matrixes" out there. Who cares? The point is that we are too reliant on the pretense that our interpretation of the physical is the one that's absolutely correct. It's an interpretation that, when broken down, simply dissolves.

Do you understand what quantum entanglement is? Tell me then, in the physical, known world that you are adhering to, how is it that two electrons, separated by an unlimited amount of space, can react to each other instantaneously to mimic the other's spin? Such is against the established laws of physics, but it is a scientific fact (not "believer stuff") that it happens. Please tell me how this works, since you seem to be convinced that you have the answer.

There are plenty of things, which are now being discovered, that are showing just how weak established physics are, the more closely we're able to examine them. This video highlights that fact, but you seem to be ignoring them to hold onto your view of the known universe. Why?

I think to say that these types of things highlight the flaws of physics would be to miss the point entirely; the people speaking are physicists. Observation causing collapse is simply a physical fact we have discovered via experiment.

I don't personally understand any of it, nor do I know enough to form any opinions about it. Back in the day I used to think imaginary numbers were exotic, bizarre, and paradoxial concepts; only once you actually study and use them do you remotely grasp what exactly it is that they are.

I think the same applies here. None of us is a quantum physicist so none of us really has any authority to try and understand what is going on here, let alone try and extrapolate some of the consequences.

I never said I misunderstood the video - I only think shit of it.

There is simply no point in creating a life philosophy based on electron behaviour - simply because absolutely nothing assures us we know everything there is to know about electrons. What to our eyes may seem random might have a very logical underlying explanation. Quantum theory is still fresh new, and scientists all over the world agree there is just too much to learn before it can be considered even accurate, but believers go all the way to an area they understand crap about to try to prove/create/debate belief.

Haha, there is simply no point in using the most obscure and unknown areas of human knowledge to try to prove anything, especially me wrong. I seriously, seriously *don't* mean to sound arrogant, but I'm very far from being an average person. And the reason why I believe my view prevails is that the video nor quantum physics changes it, or anything for the matter.

The real reason is that there is no reason at all. The real sense is that there is no sense at all. The real knowledge is that there is no knowledge at all. Saying this will not make you understand, as I've said it didn't make anyone understand before. We use logic in mathematics, in diagnosis, in science, but only few people use logic to really understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I think to say that these types of things highlight the flaws of physics would be to miss the point entirely; the people speaking are physicists. Observation causing collapse is simply a physical fact we have discovered via experiment.

I don't personally understand any of it, nor do I know enough to form any opinions about it. Back in the day I used to think imaginary numbers were exotic, bizarre, and paradoxial concepts; only once you actually study and use them do you remotely grasp what exactly it is that they are.

I think the same applies here. None of us is a quantum physicist so none of us really has any authority to try and understand what is going on here, let alone try and extrapolate some of the consequences.

---

No no. Don't misunderstand, Xei. I'm not saying that "physics" is flawed. I'm saying that our traditional model of physics is flawed, in some respects. Maybe "incomplete" is a better word for it. I'm definitely not a physicist, but there is nothing that I've said so far that haven't been corroborated by physicists, so I'm more than welcome to credible, opposing arguments. For example, if someone can explain quantum entanglement and non-locality in a way that corresponds to traditional physics, then I'm more than welcome to listen. But, as it stands, there are things that are being discovered now that completely turn traditional physics upside down. That much I know and understand. I'm no expert, but I haven't ignored the basic information that I have.

[Edit]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I never said I misunderstood the video - I only think shit of it.

There is simply no point in creating a life philosophy based on electron behaviour - simply because absolutely nothing assures us we know everything there is to know about electrons. What to our eyes may seem random might have a very logical underlying explanation. Quantum theory is still fresh new, and scientists all over the world agree there is just too much to learn before it can be considered even accurate, but believers go all the way to an area they understand crap about to try to prove/create/debate belief.

Haha, there is simply no point in using the most obscure and unknown areas of human knowledge to try to prove anything, especially me wrong. I seriously, seriously *don't* mean to sound arrogant, but I'm very far from being an average person. And the reason why I believe my view prevails is that the video nor quantum physics changes it, or anything for the matter.

The real reason is that there is no reason at all. The real sense is that there is no sense at all. The real knowledge is that there is no knowledge at all. Saying this will not make you understand, as I've said it didn't make anyone understand before. We use logic in mathematics, in diagnosis, in science, but only few people use logic to really understand.

---

You could have simply said: "I don't really understand the concepts you mentioned, but I choose to hold on to my belief." It would have sufficed.

Quote:

---

And the reason why I believe my view prevails is that the video nor quantum physics changes it, or anything for the matter.

---

That pretty much sums up your position, and there is obviously nothing I can say that will make you think outside of that box. So more power to you. :cheers:

Though I would like to propose that you keep a more open mind. Attempt to understand concepts that challenge your own model of the world around you, even if you don't readily agree. Right now, such a proposition seems completely lost on you, but the simplest understanding of something (like the universe in general) is not always best. Sometimes it's best to look at things from different angles.
[/Edit]

Quote:

---

No no. Don't misunderstand, Xei. I'm not saying that "physics" is flawed. I'm saying that our traditional model of physics is flawed, in some respects. Maybe "incomplete" is a better word for it. I'm definitely not a physicist, but there is nothing that I've said so far that haven't been corroborated by physicists, so I'm more than welcome to credible, opposing arguments. For example, if someone can explain quantum entanglement and non-locality in a way that corresponds to traditional physics, then I'm more than welcome to listen. But, as it stands, there are things that are being discovered now that completely turn traditional physics upside down. That much I know and understand. I'm no expert, but I haven't ignored the basic information that I have.

---

I don't really understand you...

Quantum physics is certainly counter-intuitive, but it's still physics; that is to say, gaining knowledge about physical phenomena via experiment.

There isn't really a 'traditional model' of physics. Some areas of study of physics are older than others, but they all adhere to the basic idea that you determine the truth of something by experiment.

Some interpretations of physics may be completely wrong, but interpretation isn't really part of physics; it's subjective. More philosophy, really.

The physics will always be objectively true, because it's just a set of facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't really understand you...

Quantum physics is certainly counter-intuitive, but it's still physics; that is to say, gaining knowledge about physical phenomena via experiment.

There isn't really a 'traditional model' of physics. Some areas of study of physics are older than others, but they all adhere to the basic idea that you determine the truth of something by experiment.

Some interpretations of physics may be completely wrong, but interpretation isn't really part of physics; it's subjective. More philosophy, really.

The physics will always be objectively true, because it's just a set of facts.

---

*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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

You could have simply said: "I don't really understand the concepts you mentioned, but I choose to hold on to my belief." It would have sufficed.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

That pretty much sums up your position, and there is obviously nothing I can say that will make you think outside of that box. So more power to you. :cheers:

Though I would like to propose that you keep a more open mind. Attempt to understand concepts that challenge your own model of the world around you, even if you don't readily agree. Right now, such a proposition seems completely lost on you, but the simplest understanding of something (like the universe in general) is not always best. Sometimes it's best to look at things from different angles.
[/Edit]

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. :chuckle:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. :chuckle:

---

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 :P

Quote:

---

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. :P

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 :P

---

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. :)

Quote:

---

*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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. :P

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

(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".

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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??

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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."

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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." :)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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]

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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. :)

Quote:

---

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]

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.

Wow, this will be long :P

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

"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).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Wow, this will be long :P

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I understood it better than you do

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. :?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

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

---

Very mature of you.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.:embarrassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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.

---

Don't try to say I didn't address it. I did. I'm not going to go into territory I'm not good at. But I already stated my opinion about it.

Quote:

---

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.

---

LOL no it isn't... Stop putting words in my mouth.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Lol there's no scientifically explaining human opinion, shall you? I think it is bullshit, because it does not make any credible sense. The reason, as I stated repeatedly, is that you shouldn't take quantum theory and place it in the middle of a philosophical discussion. Any conclusions arising from that have no scientific/logical validity whatsoever.

Quote:

---

...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. :?

---

Lol you got me wrong again. I never said anything about "we are one". And this is the third time you get me wrong, so that is why I friggin said that only stating my reasons wouldn't make you understand, you'd have to experience it. True nature of the universe? If you can't understand it at your current age, give up trying. I've already stated a lot like the Cavern Myth and the principle of uncertainty, to human perception. Understand whatever you want from it. But don't complain when I state I'm smarter than you.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Again, never said anything about "treat each other as one". You get me so wrong it's no even funny. I'm starting to believe you are incapable of it. I am not going to extensively refute everything they say on the video, first because I don't have the patience, second because I'm no expert, and third because I do know they know shit of what they are talking about. Much of what they say is just their own ideas, thrown in the middle of complicated scientific speech to make it sound scientific too.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Haha, lol, you don't even know what philosophy is. This thing we are doing right now - debating - is philosophing. It's not scientifical but it follows debate rules - philosophy.

That said, I have given billion reasons to why that video is ridiculous. Go read the Cavern Myth, and you'll understand that you can imagine any explanation to the universe if you just decide to imagine. There's nothing scientific in the views held through the video. There, another reason for you. I've mentally counted at least 7 now.

Quote:

---

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.

---

No you didn't. If you did, try it again. That was style without substance. I explained you what logic is because you don't seems to know. Your idea of logic is ambiguous, mixed with others things, like human concepts of "good", "right", "sense", "simplicity". Logic is logic - and logic is one thing that's impartial and irrefutable. Premises are irrefutable, not logic.

Quote:

---

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.

---

The will thing was my explanation. It is now taken for fact that you cannot understand my view. Thank you very much.

Quote:

---

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.

---

No, that is not true, and you know it. Don't put words in my mouth goddamnit. That is just not logic, it's deduction. Deduction uses logic, but isn't irrefutable as logic - deduction can very easily be wrong.

Logic would be something like the following line of thought: two people come out of a closet. One of them is injured. So, did the other person hurt them? The logical answer would be "not necessarily"

Quote:

---

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.

---

It's the first one. And just go read the Cavern Myth NAO. It's quick and clean. You'll see that the video's so-bright theory was imagined in antiquity. The law of uncertainty was made on that exact principle - and this is physics 101. The answer is we'll never be able to prove if there is an "other, material world", instead of just echoes, or shadows, or whatever you want to think of it. But if you say this proves your point, then I'm sorry but that's an irrefutable argument.

Quote:

---

Very mature of you.

---

Thanks, I've been trying real hard. -.-

Quote:

---

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.

---

Stop being misleading. I gave you enough reason. This discussion we're having *is* philosophy, like it or not.

Just so you don't have to ask again, my point is: don't try to use concepts from an unknown area of quantum physics to try to prove any point in a philosophical debate.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Don't try to mask what you said. You did do an ad ignorantiam. And now you are making a strawman.

Quote:

---

Don't try to mask what you said:

---

I just said my lack of understanding the video doesn't mean the video is right, indeed. But you fail to recognize this simply ambiguity. I never stated that my lack of understanding was real. I was just showing an ad ignorantiam you made. You were the one to make the mistake with the logical fallacy lol, what are you even bitching over?!?

Quote:

---

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.

---

The "let's just treat everyone as one" - you know I'm not here to waste my time on that, so top trying to ridicule me - I didn't think you were so low to be sincere. And all I had to say about the latter is in this post, so mind reading before any hasty "you didn't explain!!"

Wow, Kromoh, for someone who claims to have experienced the ego-death, yours seem to have developed quite well. ;)

no offense

edit.: By the way, that's not something you 'teach'...

Quote:

---

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.

---

Thanks for the link.

What you have to understand is that in physics, the only thing we ever really do is make models to match observation.

Theories like relativity and Newtonian mechanics both have ranges is which they apply; Newton's apply to 'humanish' scales and Einstein's to 'cosmological' scales. It's just not possible for these models to be wrong; they are clearly observed via experiment.

Any quantum effect which explicitly doesn't work in the framework of relativity doesn't prove relativity wrong; it simply shows us that relativity can't be used for the quantum scale.

There may well come a time when quantum is expressed as a special case of some more general theory, just as it was once realised that for extremely big scales you have to use general relativity instead of Newtonian mechanics; Newton wasn't wrong, and at human scales General Relativity actually 'turns into' Newtonian mechanics perfectly. It's just that it didn't apply to all scales.

The kind of physics you learn in school is stuff like 'applying a constant force will cause a body to change its momentum per unit time proportional to that force'. This simply can't be debased. It's been observed millions of times via experiment. You don't learn about extremely advanced effects like these, that's for guys with PhDs, but still, Newtonian mechanics is not supposed to deal with exotic situations.

And there's nothing at all wrong with the method of progress in physics, ie. the scientific method. Science is completely open to change. If a physicist observes something, he tries to explain it, not hide it. The scientific method will always be pretty much exhaustively infallible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dajo

Wow, Kromoh, for someone who claims to have experienced the ego-death, yours seem to have developed quite well. ;)

no offense

edit.: By the way, that's not something you 'teach'...

---

Yeah, ego loss is not something you do once and are done with. The ego is always there, stalking you, waiting to pounce when you let your guard down.

Kromoh, for all your writing, you've added absolutely nothing of any substance to this thread.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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? :?

Kromoh's posts bring to mind the koan:

If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill the Buddha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dajo

Wow, Kromoh, for someone who claims to have experienced the ego-death, yours seem to have developed quite well. ;)

no offense

edit.: By the way, that's not something you 'teach'...

---

Lol then you actually understand nothing about ego loss. You know nothing about it, so shut up. As you said yourself, this cannot be taught, so I won't even mind explaining what my ego has to do with my belief, because you will not understand it. Also, I already told O that you cannot teach it, but he has been challenging this from the beginning. Perhaps you should try to tell him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Thanks for the link.

What you have to understand is that in physics, the only thing we ever really do is make models to match observation.

Theories like relativity and Newtonian mechanics both have ranges is which they apply; Newton's apply to 'humanish' scales and Einstein's to 'cosmological' scales. It's just not possible for these models to be wrong; they are clearly observed via experiment.

Any quantum effect which explicitly doesn't work in the framework of relativity doesn't prove relativity wrong; it simply shows us that relativity can't be used for the quantum scale.

There may well come a time when quantum is expressed as a special case of some more general theory, just as it was once realised that for extremely big scales you have to use general relativity instead of Newtonian mechanics; Newton wasn't wrong, and at human scales General Relativity actually 'turns into' Newtonian mechanics perfectly. It's just that it didn't apply to all scales.

The kind of physics you learn in school is stuff like 'applying a constant force will cause a body to change its momentum per unit time proportional to that force'. This simply can't be debased. It's been observed millions of times via experiment. You don't learn about extremely advanced effects like these, that's for guys with PhDs, but still, Newtonian mechanics is not supposed to deal with exotic situations.

And there's nothing at all wrong with the method of progress in physics, ie. the scientific method. Science is completely open to change. If a physicist observes something, he tries to explain it, not hide it. The scientific method will always be pretty much exhaustively infallible.

---

Bravo :P Kinda bad some people don't even know what 'science' is, for people like Xei to have to explain it all over :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Yeah, ego loss is not something you do once and are done with. The ego is always there, stalking you, waiting to pounce when you let your guard down.

Kromoh, for all your writing, you've added absolutely nothing of any substance to this thread.

---

LOL Cusp, ego-loss is a trance state that you achieve with concentration. Break the concentration and you will be back to normal. But the things you learn while in there remain. Well, not the thing's' you learn, but the thing you learn. You talk about it so abstractedly, means you have no idea what it's about.

--

I never thought I'd see O and The Cusp agree O.o

and LOL Taosaur xD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Lol then you actually understand nothing about ego loss. You know nothing about it, so shut up.

---

Is that one of the great koans? :chuckle:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Is that one of the great koans? :chuckle:

---

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

(Huge post. Hide the women and children. :chuckle:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Don't try to say I didn't address it. I did. I'm not going to go into territory I'm not good at. But I already stated my opinion about it.

---

Fair enough. You said "the video is bullshit" and didn't offer any substantial reason as to why. If that is as far as you're willing to express your disagreement with the video, then I guess it'll just have to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LOL no it isn't... Stop putting words in my mouth.

---

Maybe you should be a little more clear, then. You said "Do you think I would tell you if I didn't understand it?" That implies that you wouldn't. Now, I will give you the benefit of doubt and say that maybe you meant "Don't you think I would tell you if I didn't understand it?" That changes the meaning of the sentence entirely. And to answer that question, judging by the way you've been acting, I'd have to say "No."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Lol there's no scientifically explaining human opinion, shall you? I think it is bullshit, because it does not make any credible sense. The reason, as I stated repeatedly, is that you shouldn't take quantum theory and place it in the middle of a philosophical discussion. Any conclusions arising from that have no scientific/logical validity whatsoever.

---

Rhetoric. If it doesn't make any credible sense (and I'm talking about the idea of the universe being immaterial), then explain why, in your opinion, it doesn't. If not, you're basically saying nothing more than "It's wrong because I think it's wrong, and you're a doodoo head!" with a lot more text than is necessary. I don't pretend to understand all of quantum physics, but there are a few concepts I'm at least familiar with, and they lend credence to the ideas expressed in the video - at least to an extent to where I'd like to see them argued, credibly, against. I'm open to many different opinions on the subject, as long as they are backed with some sort of substance. So far, you've failed to provide anything of the sort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Lol you got me wrong again. I never said anything about "we are one". And this is the third time you get me wrong, so that is why I friggin said that only stating my reasons wouldn't make you understand, you'd have to experience it.

---

The same as a theist saying "My stating the reasons why God exists wouldn't make you understand. You'd have to experience it." It's, basically, baseless drivel. If you refuse to have a discussion about your ideas, and the foundations of your opinions - on the basis that "I wouldn't understand it" - then this conversation is over. There is literally no use in talking to you. I will revert back to your original post and just pretend I didn't challenge it. There's no use for us to sit her bickering back and forth when you're going to take the "Well you're just not going to understand, so I'm not going to attemp to explain it" stance. I have no desire to appeal to such ego.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

True nature of the universe? If you can't understand it at your current age, give up trying. I've already stated a lot like the Cavern Myth and the principle of uncertainty, to human perception. Understand whatever you want from it. But don't complain when I state I'm smarter than you.

---

Again, you're saying nothing but "I'm right because I"m smarter than you. You don't understand anything" all while succeeding in not posting a single shred of evidence to such.

You bring up the uncertainty principle which, if you paid attention to the video, you'd know wasn't even contradicted. Fundamentally, the uncertainty principle trumps all because, whatever theories are thrown out there we don't know for certain. But we can continue to try to drive toward that truth, and though we may never find it, we will gain knowledge along the way. Please explain why your throwing the uncertainty principle out there proves the video is in correct...or...while you're at it...provide any bit of substantial evidence as to why it's wrong. So far, you haven't done so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Again, never said anything about "treat each other as one". You get me so wrong it's no even funny. I'm starting to believe you are incapable of it.

---

I'm giving you the benefit of doubt in thinking that I might have misunderstood you, which is why I asked if that's what you were talking about. You're making sense to no one but yourself, so forgive me for trying another avenue to see if that's what you were talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I am not going to extensively refute everything they say on the video, first because I don't have the patience, second because I'm no expert, and third because I do know they know shit of what they are talking about. Much of what they say is just their own ideas, thrown in the middle of complicated scientific speech to make it sound scientific too.

---

And yet you offer nothing of substance to illustrate your point. Nothing. You don't have to "extensively" refute everything they say on the video, but saying "It's bullshit. There. I'm out." means absolutely nothing. So, if that's all you plan on contributing to the thread, there is no use in my trying to get you elaborate, and I readilly fold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Haha, lol, you don't even know what philosophy is. This thing we are doing right now - debating - is philosophing. It's not scientifical but it follows debate rules - philosophy.

---

And you don't seem to understand the broadness of the term "philosophy." "Debating" is not philosophy. Debating certain subjects is philosophy. It has mostly to do with the nature of being, in the sense of how to act for whatever reason, be it ethics or indoctrination. Yes, it can bleed into the area of metaphysics (which is technically not what we're talking about, but physics), but the idea posted in the video is about a theoretical science. There is a philosophical message in the video, but - as I've said plenty of times - that's not what I'm talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

That said, I have given billion reasons to why that video is ridiculous. Go read the Cavern Myth, and you'll understand that you can imagine any explanation to the universe if you just decide to imagine. There's nothing scientific in the views held through the video. There, another reason for you. I've mentally counted at least 7 now.

---

You've mentally counted yet another "reason" that is completely insubstantial. You're saying "the video is wrong because you can imagine any explanation to the universe if you just decide to imagine." Dude. Do you even hear yourself? (Figuratively, of course) That blanket statement does absolutley nothing to credibly refute anything in the video. Nothing. And please, if there is anyone reading this, correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

No you didn't. If you did, try it again. That was style without substance. I explained you what logic is because you don't seems to know. Your idea of logic is ambiguous, mixed with others things, like human concepts of "good", "right", "sense", "simplicity". Logic is logic - and logic is one thing that's impartial and irrefutable. Premises are irrefutable, not logic.

---

As I said, and will say again: Logic, as a concept, is absolute. Logical conclusions (such as your very own) are subjective. You're trying to explain that your conclusion is "logic." And I'm trying to explain that your "logical conclusion" is subjective. Do you understand now? I don't think I can be any clearer than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

The will thing was my explanation. It is now taken for fact that you cannot understand my view. Thank you very much.

---

I'm having a hard time understanding your view because every single thing you've said in this thread amounts to "the video is nonsense because it doesn't change my mind." And "The video is nonsense because we can't know for sure what is out there" (which still says nothing to show why the points in the video are wrong, seeing as how it's putting for the idea that - as Lemonsoul obviously understands - our physical senses should not be necessarily counted on to give us an accurate depiction of the true state of the universe. Not a very hard concept at all to grasp.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

No, that is not true, and you know it. Don't put words in my mouth goddamnit. That is just not logic, it's deduction. Deduction uses logic, but isn't irrefutable as logic - deduction can very easily be wrong.

---

Every deduction but your own, apparently. Or wait...your giving us the impression that your deduction is just irrefutable logic. I forgot. I'm sorry, your "logic" is infallible. Forgive me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Logic would be something like the following line of thought: two people come out of a closet. One of them is injured. So, did the other person hurt them? The logical answer would be "not necessarily"

---

We see the universe through 5 senses. These senses come to us as electrical signals interpreted by our brain. Observing the universe through extra-sensory tools that allow us to see beyond our basic parameters of perception shows us that many of the things that seem a certain way to us, through our senses, are not actually that way.

Logically: the universe may not actually exist in the way our brains interpret it.

Do you disagree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

It's the first one. And just go read the Cavern Myth NAO. It's quick and clean. You'll see that the video's so-bright theory was imagined in antiquity. The law of uncertainty was made on that exact principle - and this is physics 101. The answer is we'll never be able to prove if there is an "other, material world", instead of just echoes, or shadows, or whatever you want to think of it. But if you say this proves your point, then I'm sorry but that's an irrefutable argument.

---

The video doesn't state we can prove anything. Maybe you should rewatch it. It presents the idea that I stated above - nothing more. Like I said in the beginning, you missed the point of the video, and now you're trying to justify your initial position which (surprise) has nothing to do with the video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Just so you don't have to ask again, my point is: don't try to use concepts from an unknown area of quantum physics to try to prove any point in a philosophical debate.

---

Unknown? I haven't said anything about quantum physics that isn't already known. Maybe you should brush up a bit. I've stated nothing but very simple observations that have been made, and haven't done one thing to explain why it is they are the way they are - which is the unknown principle you're accusing me of discussion...which I'm not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Don't try to mask what you said. You did do an ad ignorantiam. And now you are making a strawman.

---

Do you even know the meaning of a straman? I'd love to see you explain how it was that I made one right there. Should be interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I just said my lack of understanding the video doesn't mean the video is right, indeed. But you fail to recognize this simply ambiguity.

---

And I stated your saying the video is bullshit (whether you understood it or not) doesn't even lend a shred of credence to back your idea that it's bullshit. And I'll say again that, with all the typing you've done, you still haven't shown anything of substance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I never stated that my lack of understanding was real. I was just showing an ad ignorantiam you made. You were the one to make the mistake with the logical fallacy lol, what are you even bitching over?!?

---

Oh, excuse me. I must have lost sight of my logical fallacy in the midst of all your ad hominems. Again, my mistake. :roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

The "let's just treat everyone as one" - you know I'm not here to waste my time on that, so top trying to ridicule me - I didn't think you were so low to be sincere. And all I had to say about the latter is in this post, so mind reading before any hasty "you didn't explain!!"

---

...You didn't explain (anything relevant to the video).

The crux of your argument is "the ideas expressed in the video are wrong because nobody knows for sure" - which is....basically, wrong. Just because we don't know for sure what's out there doesn't mean the idea that the universe likely isn't the exact same as we perceive it is wrong. Read this paragraph six times if you need to, so you can understand how simple the concept is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dajo

Wow, Kromoh, for someone who claims to have experienced the ego-death, yours seem to have developed quite well. ;)

---

You noticed that too, eh? Maybe what he experienced is ego-undeath? (Where's a zombie smiley when you need one?)
Tell me, Kromoh...what did you take away from your "ego-loss"? Apparently you haven't retained too much, because you've shown enough ego in this thread to start a blitzkrieg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Thanks for the link.

What you have to understand is that in physics, the only thing we ever really do is make models to match observation.

Theories like relativity and Newtonian mechanics both have ranges is which they apply; Newton's apply to 'humanish' scales and Einstein's to 'cosmological' scales. It's just not possible for these models to be wrong; they are clearly observed via experiment.

Any quantum effect which explicitly doesn't work in the framework of relativity doesn't prove relativity wrong; it simply shows us that relativity can't be used for the quantum scale.

---

This is exactly my point, Xei. Exactly. I'm not saying that physics is wrong. I'm saying it is turned upside down when trying to measure things on the quantum scale, leading to an extensive level of uncertainty about the true nature of the universe. That's all. That's all I've been saying since the beginning. True enough, it's hard to word everything in a way that's easily interpreted by everyone, but if you go back and read what I've said before, with the knowledge of what I've said in this paragraph, you will understand more where I'm coming from.

It is like a diver on the cusp of diving to (what mankind believes is) the lowest depths of the ocean. But, when when he gets there, he finds a cavern that descends another 6 miles, rendering the amount of oxygen he used (Newtonian physics) as inadequate to make the rest of the trip. It doesn't mean the oxygen he used before didn't work - only that it requires possibly something else to go further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

There may well come a time when quantum is expressed as a special case of some more general theory, just as it was once realised that for extremely big scales you have to use general relativity instead of Newtonian mechanics; Newton wasn't wrong, and at human scales General Relativity actually 'turns into' Newtonian mechanics perfectly. It's just that it didn't apply to all scales.

---

Again, I completely agree. Maybe I had a hard time wording it in a way that couldn't be interpreted as me saying Newtonian physics is wrong, and if that's the case, then I apologize. But I do remember stating before this that I didn't think "physics" was wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

The kind of physics you learn in school is stuff like 'applying a constant force will cause a body to change its momentum per unit time proportional to that force'. This simply can't be debased. It's been observed millions of times via experiment. You don't learn about extremely advanced effects like these, that's for guys with PhDs, but still, Newtonian mechanics is not supposed to deal with exotic situations.

---

Of course not. Quantum physics would count as the exotic situations you are speaking of, yes? I'm saying that the way we perceive the world is not necessarily based in a way that includes these exotic situations. That is what the video is saying as well. You haven't commented much on the video itself, so if you agree with the notion that that is what the video is talking about, please explain it to Kromoh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

And there's nothing at all wrong with the method of progress in physics, ie. the scientific method. Science is completely open to change. If a physicist observes something, he tries to explain it, not hide it. The scientific method will always be pretty much exhaustively infallible.

---

I'd have to ask you to please state where I ever said there was anything wrong with the scientific method. I have - and have always had - a great respect for the scientific method. I have said nothing against it at all, during the course of this thread and, indeed, during my entire stay here at DV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

As you said yourself, this cannot be taught, so I won't even mind explaining what my ego has to do with my belief, because you will not understand it. Also, I already told O that you cannot teach it, but he has been challenging this from the beginning. Perhaps you should try to tell him.

---

Oh, I'm sorry. I must have missed the part where I asked to be taught ego-death. Or that I challenged that you could teach it. I asked you to elaborate on your opinion, and you've tap-danced around doing so in every possible way. Now who's putting words into who's mouth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Bravo :P Kinda bad some people don't even know what 'science' is, for people like Xei to have to explain it all over :)

---

Hilarious. Overstepping Xei's misinterpretation of what I said, I'd like you to point to where I've showed a misunderstanding of the scientific method, in this thread.

Aaaannnnnd GO! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I never thought I'd see O and The Cusp agree O.o

---

Another testament to how well you pay attention. The Cusp and I have agreed on a lot.

Now, all the bullshit aside...can we try to get this back on track? The video talks about how our perception of the universe can't be relied upon to depict the true state of the universe. It's a very simple premise. You state it's all bullshit. I'm asking you now, to drop your arrogance and explain your position (and the uncertainty principle does nothing to refute that idea). If you refuse to do that because "I wouldn't understand" (as delegated by your arrogance), then there is no reason for us to continue this conversation.

It's that simple.

Yeah, it looks like we're on the same page. I only went into the scientific method thing to cover all the bases, as I wasn't completely sure what exactly you were referring to.

There's really not much I can say about quantum mechanics though, as I say... I have a feeling it's just one of those things where, if you don't have a degree in it, you just can't really interpret what it means; if you can't do it quantitatively you probably can't do it philosophically. This has been my general experience with my education in the sciences, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Yeah, it looks like we're on the same page. I only went into the scientific method thing to cover all the bases, as I wasn't completely sure what exactly you were referring to.

---

Ok. Fair enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

There's really not much I can say about quantum mechanics though, as I say... I have a feeling it's just one of those things where, if you don't have a degree in it, you just can't really interpret what it means; if you can't do it quantitatively you probably can't do it philosophically. This has been my general experience with my education in the sciences, really.

---

And I do agree with that. However, I do feel that knowledge of some quantum observations is enough to apply knowledge of those observations in a conversation where the other person makes it seem like such properties are impossible. That's all I'm doing here. Few quantum concepts that I am familiar with are entanglement, non-locality, and the collapse of a wave-form (a la Shroedinger's Cat). I'm definitely not an expert, or even well-versed in these areas, but I'm confident enough with my knowledge of the concepts to be able to bring them up, in a discussion where the other person seems to hold on to a dogmatic paradigm that such physical properties are impossible.

That's all I've been doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

(Huge post. Hide the women and children. :chuckle:)

---

(huge breath)

Quote:

---

Fair enough. You said "the video is bullshit" and didn't offer any substantial reason as to why. If that is as far as you're willing to express your disagreement with the video, then I guess it'll just have to do.

---

I already gave thousands of reasons to why I think this video is bullshit. Don't make be start retro-quoting.

Quote:

---

Maybe you should be a little more clear, then. You said "Do you think I would tell you if I didn't understand it?" That implies that you wouldn't. Now, I will give you the benefit of doubt and say that maybe you meant "Don't you think I would tell you if I didn't understand it?" That changes the meaning of the sentence entirely. And to answer that question, judging by the way you've been acting, I'd have to say "No."

---

I wouldn't be debating if I hadn't understood the video. Unlike some people (like UM), I don't argue for "winning" the argument, nor to provoke people. If I've been discussing this up to know, you can bet I understood the video enough to think I'm capable of debating over it.

Quote:

---

Rhetoric. If it doesn't make any credible sense (and I'm talking about the idea of the universe being immaterial), then explain why, in your opinion, it doesn't. If not, you're basically saying nothing more than "It's wrong because I think it's wrong, and you're a doodoo head!" with a lot more text than is necessary. I don't pretend to understand all of quantum physics, but there are a few concepts I'm at least familiar with, and they lend credence to the ideas expressed in the video - at least to an extent to where I'd like to see them argued, credibly, against. I'm open to many different opinions on the subject, as long as they are backed with some sort of substance. So far, you've failed to provide anything of the sort.

---

LOL. Once again - Don't apply concepts of the least understood part of science to debate philosophical questions, like what is the essence of the universe.

To think of it, the very definition of "material" refers to human perception. The universe is material because it's made of matter. Matter is what we defined matter to be. Whatever if it's intangible, or not very well understood - the universe is material because we defined it as material. What I'm saying is that quantum physics is one of those areas of knowledge that, if you don't understand fully, you can very easily misunderstand. And that is what the people on the video did.

Just like that question students may have: if the speed of light is the fastest there is, then you have a car is driving at 100km/h, doesn't the light coming from the car exceed the speed of light?
The answer is no, because the formulas we use for calculating speed are actually a simplistic model which isn't valid for extreme values. See how this is akin to quantum physics? If you don't understand it very well, you're very likely to misunderstand it.

Quote:

---

The same as a theist saying "My stating the reasons why God exists wouldn't make you understand. You'd have to experience it." It's, basically, baseless drivel. If you refuse to have a discussion about your ideas, and the foundations of your opinions - on the basis that "I wouldn't understand it" - then this conversation is over. There is literally no use in talking to you. I will revert back to your original post and just pretend I didn't challenge it. There's no use for us to sit her bickering back and forth when you're going to take the "Well you're just not going to understand, so I'm not going to attemp to explain it" stance. I have no desire to appeal to such ego.

---

I've already said I've tried explaining this to multiple people, including you twice, and you didn't understand it. Even dajo confirmed it's not something you can teach. I've tried telling you, just go up there and see. But you didn't understand, so I wonder why you're still challenging me over this.

Quote:

---

Again, saying nothing but "I'm right because I"m smarter than you. You don't understand anything" all while succeeding it not posting a single shred of evidence to such.

---

LOL I was just being bitchy over there xD

Quote:

---

You bring up the uncertainty principle which, if you paid attention to the video, you'd know wasn't even contradicted. Fundamentally, the uncertainty principle trumps all because, whatever theories are thrown out there we don't know for certain. But we can continue to try to drive toward that truth, and though we may never find it, we will gain knowledge along the way. Please explain why your throwing the uncertainty principle out there proves the video is in correct...or...while you're at it...provide any bit of substantial evidence as to why it's wrong. So far, you haven't done so.

---

LOL OF COURSE the uncertainty principle wasn't contradicted. I said the whole basis of the logical reasoning in the video comes down to the uncertainty principle. "The universe could be very different from what we
think of it, so let's try to think of it differently, we might get right". The video uses the uncertainty principle as a means of being irrefutable.

Quote:

---

I'm giving you the benefit of doubt in thinking that I might have misunderstood you, which is why I asked if that's what you were talking about. You're making sense to no one but yourself, so forgive me for trying another avenue to see if that's what you were talking about.

---

Rhetoric.

Quote:

---

And yet you offer nothing of substance to illustrate your point. Nothing. You don't have to "extensively" refute everything they say on the video, but saying "It's bullshit. There. I'm out." means absolutely nothing. So, if that's all you plan on contributing to the thread, there is no use in my trying to get you elaborate, and I readilly fold.

---

I'm considering retro-quoting as we speak. I've already given you a list of reasons.

Quote:

---

And you don't seem to understand the broadness of the term "philosophy." "Debating" is not philosophy. Debating certain subjects is philosophy. It has mostly to do with the nature of being, in the sense of how to act for whatever reason, be it ethics or indoctrination. Yes, it can bleed into the area of metaphysics (which is technically not what we're talking about, but physics), but the idea posted in the video is about a theoretical science. There is a philosophical message in the video, but - as I've said plenty of times - that's not what I'm talking about.

---

LOL. Debating ideas with a purpose of finding a logical answer - it's called dialectic - from the greek 'dialect', which means dialogue. Debating anything the way we are is considered philosophy.

LOL again. The video throws many opinions, many of them metaphysical, in the middle of scientific fact, in order to mask the opinions as facts, or at least give them credence. Nothing in the scientific part of the video was wrong. But the matter is, what exactly in the video was scientific?

Quote:

---

You've mentally counted yet another reason that is completely insubstantial. You're saying "the video is wrong because you can imagine any explanation to the universe if you just decide to imagine. Dude. Do you even hear yourself? (Figuratively, of course) That blanket statement does absolutley nothing to credibly refute anything in the video. Nothing. And please, if there is anyone reading this, correct me if I'm wrong.

---

I'll retro-quote one I finish refuting to this post. You've convinced me.

Quote:

---

As I said, and will say again: Logic, as a concept, is absolute. Logical conclusions (such as your very own) are subjective. You're trying to explain that your conclusion is "logic." And I'm trying to explain that your "logical conclusion" is subjective. Do you understand now? I don't think I can be any clearer than that.

---

LOL. Logical conclusions are not subjective. I know you are gonna call my argument irrefutable, but I've already tried explaining it to you more than once, and you misunderstood me on both. I gave many reasons why my conclusion is logic. If you missed them, it's not my fault.

Quote:

---

I'm having a hard time understanding your view because every single thing you've said in this thread amounts to "the video is nonsense because it doesn't change my mind." And "The video is nonsense because we can't know for sure what is out there" (which still says nothing to show why the points in the video are wrong, seeing as how it's putting for the idea that - as Lemonsoul obviously understands - our physical senses should not be necessarily counted on to give us an accurate depiction of the true state of the universe. Not a very hard concept at all to grasp.)

---

No, wrong. I didn't say "the video is nonsense because it doesn't change my mind". I said "the video is nonsense and it doesn't change my mind".

Nor did I say "the video is nonsense because we can't know for sure what is out there". I actually meant that the video makes an irrefutable argument based on the uncertainty principle. And trying to defend an idea based on the uncertainty principle is the worst thing I've ever heard of.

LOL, if you're not going to rely on your physical sense, what will you rely on? Who knows if even your physical senses are an illusion, and you're only dreaming this. Who knows if even your thoughts are an illusion. Maybe we don't exist at all. Welcome to the uncertainty principle - don't try to prove an argument based on it, it won't work.

Quote:

---

Every deduction but your own, apparently. Or wait...your giving us the impression that your deduction is just irrefutable logic. I forgot. I'm sorry, your "logic" is infallible. Forgive me.

---

Oh man. Stop making bullshit statements. Deduction is one thing, logic is another. That's what I explained earlier, because you didn't know the difference. If I based my view on deduction or logic is another, completely unrelated thing.

Also, stop trying to "win" this argument just for the sake of it. Contrary to you, some people actually mean what they say in discussions like this. I can count at least 5 extra long posts of yours, where you only challenge my belief,s and offer nothing substantial yourself to refute to my arguments. Should I say that magical word?

Quote:

---

We see the universe through 5 senses. These senses come to us as electrical signals interpreted by our brain. Observing the universe through extra-sensory tools that allow us to see beyond our basic parameters of perception shows us that many of the things that seem a certain way to us, through our senses, are not actually that way.

---

LOL. Who said your senses aren't an illusion? Who said your brain isn't an illusion? Who said you concept of "brain" isn't an illusion. Maybe you're just dreaming this, and even I don't exist. This is what they fucking call UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE. And the UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE is ironically the only certainty we have. But it can't be used to prove any argument at all, and trying to do that produces irrefutable arguments.

Quote:

---

Logically: the universe may not actually exist in the way our brains interpret it.

Do you disagree?

---

Maybe even your brain doesn't exist. Maybe even your awareness doesn't exist. Free will is an illusion. I am discussing this with you knowing that it doesn't change in any way the uncertainty principle. Maybe you're just my imagination. That's what I mean by the video, nor you, changing my view on the subject.

Quote:

---

The video doesn't state we can prove anything. Maybe you should rewatch it. It presents the idea that I stated above - nothing more. Like I said in the beginning, you missed the point of the video, and now you're trying to justify your initial position which (surprise) has nothing to do with the video.

---

So, the video states the uncertainty principle? Is that all you're taking from the video? Then I'm losing my time here. Plato did it with the fucking Cavern Myth I told you to read pages ago. Maybe if you had read it, we wouldn't be arguing now.

Quote:

---

Unknown? I haven't said anything about quantum physics that isn't already known. Maybe you should brush up a bit. I've stated nothing but very simple observations that have been made, and haven't done one thing to explain why it is they are the way they are - which is the unknown principle you're accusing me of discussion...which I'm not.

---

I already responded to this with the car and speed of light problem, up above.

Quote:

---

Do you even know the meaning of a straman? I'd love to see you explain how it was I made one right there. Should be interesting.

---

Strawman is when you change what the person said when responding, and thus refuting a false argument instead of the person's argument. You said I did something and refuted to it while I didn't.

I never said anything about the video being right because I didn't prove it wrong. I said about the video being right because I (allegedly) didn't understand it.

Also, the ad ignoramtiam you made... don't just ignore it lol. That's what I was criticizing you for - even if a person (me or someone else) doesn't understand an argument, it doesn't mean it's true. I made a supposition to try to teach you something and you criticize me for it. *.*

Quote:

---

And I stated your saying the video is bullshit (whether you understood it or not) doesn't even lend a shred of credence to back your idea that it's bullshit. And I'll say again that, with all the typing you've done, you still haven't shown anything of substance.

---

It doesn't lend credence to the video either. I gave many reasons why I think the video is bullshit, and you ignored them all.

Quote:

---

Oh, excuse me. I must have lost sight of my logical fallacy in the midst of all your ad hominems. Again, my mistake. :roll:

---

Ad hominem is not even a logical fallacy, you idiot xD It's an argumentative fallacy.

Quote:

---

...You didn't explain (anything relevant to the video).

The crux of your argument is "the ideas expressed in the argument are wrong because nobody knows for sure. Which is....basically, wrong. Just because we don't know for sure what's out there doesn't mean the idea that the universe likely isn't the exact same as we perceive it is wrong. Read this paragraph six times if you need to, so you can understand how simple the concept is.

---

No, that is not what I said (which means you're making a strawman - happy?). I said that the basis of the video's reasoning is the uncertainty principle (I refuse to explain it once again), and that it doesn't prove anything in an argument. The uncertainty principle cannot LOGICALLY be wrong. I never attacked the uncertainty principle LOL. But any conclusions made from it are bullshit. Why? because there is absolutely zero certainty. maybe invisible pink unicorns exist, and we just can't see them. So let's just go and believe them, right?

Quote:

---

You noticed that too, eh? Maybe what he experienced is ego-undeath? (Where's a zombie smiley when you need one?)
Tell me, Kromoh...what did you take away from your "ego-loss"? Apparently you haven't retained too much, because you've shown enough ego in this thread to start a blitzkrieg.

---

Haha, again, you never understood when I explained the essence of it, so don't criticize what you don't know. Having experienced a moment of ego-loss doesn't change "how much" ego I have left. Lol. Ego is not quantifiable. It's a status. And you're an ignorant.

Quote:

---

Hilarious. Overstepping Xei's misinterpretation of what I said, I'd like you to point to where I've showed a misunderstanding of the scientific method, in this thread.

Aaaannnnnd GO! :)

---

I didn't mean you, idiot. :D Which only makes you more of an idiot. lmao

Quote:

---

Another testament to how well you pay attention. The Cusp and I have agreed on a lot.

---

And to think I thought you were a wise guy..

Quote:

---

Now, all the bullshit aside...can we try to get this back on track? The video talks about how our perception of the universe can't be relied upon to depict the true state of the universe. It's a very simple premise. You state it's all bullshit. I'm asking you now, to drop your arrogance and explain your position (and the uncertainty principle does nothing to refute that idea). If you refuse to do that because "I wouldn't understand" (as delegated by your arrogance), then there is no reason for us to continue this conversation.

---

Yes, the video talks about the uncertainty principle. Yes, no problem with that. But as you acknowledge it, it uses that as a premise. I will not repeat the fact that any conclusion made from the uncertainty principle is bullshit, because there is zero certainty. Oops, I just did.

I already tried to explain it to you, and you didn't understand. So don't say that.

I don't have much to add, since O is arguing from a very similar position to my own and is doing a pretty good job with it, but I would like to address the issue of the uncertainty principle. Some people here are attempting to use it to lend credence to their argument but it seems like few people here actually understand its implications.

The uncertainty principle is not meant to be taken as a fundamental truth of our reality. What it really shows is actually only a fundamental flaw in the dualistic subject/object mode in which we perceive the universe. It is not that the motions of particles are necessarily fundamentally uncertain, but that our knowledge of them is limited to merely the way they interact, and it impossible to extricate the observer, and therefore the observer's effects from the observation being made. We are incapable of perceiving a thing as it really is, and are limited to perceiving relationships between the thing and ourselves, and so the fundamental nature of the thing must remain a mystery to us.

Now for some retro-quoting. Here, you'll see some substance :D

Just so you don't say I didn't offer anything substantial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Human beings are too arrogant to think the universe exists because of them. Bah, we are only barely capable of conscious thought and already think our mind breaks the laws of physics. We think the mind is something immaterial, but it is only the outcome of neurochemical processes in our brains. The feeling of being experiencing something, or consciousness as humans named it, is only one of the functions of the brain. Consciousness requires intelligence, and intelligence is how complex and well-functional the brain anatomy is - given shape to and filtered by evolution.

So no, the mind does not exist. The brain exists, but it's as subject to the laws of physics as anything else. It is arrogant (and dumb) to think human beings are special. Just because we don't/can't observe something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We once couldn't observe atoms, but voilà, they were always there.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

All that stuff in the video was already coined by Plato, much, much before our time. Search for his Cavern Myth (I think that's the name). The answer to it is the scientific principle of uncertainty - we can never be sure we are in the Matrix or in the real world. Maybe there are thousands of matrix one inside the other.. who knows. Maybe there isn't a real world at all, only the matrix. Nevertheless, and most importantly, it's one single question we will never have the answer to, no matter what we do - we'll never have a confirmation - not even after death (that'd be stupid). So, as dr House once brilliantly said: "I prefer to live life like this wasn't only a test."

You just have no idea just how extremely much human thoughts are clouded by instinct and emotion. To the point of fear of death making people come up with huge conspiracy theories, and so on. An expression I came up with, and like it very much, is: we are blinded by our own eyes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

There is simply no point in creating a life philosophy based on electron behaviour - simply because absolutely nothing assures us we know everything there is to know about electrons. What to our eyes may seem random might have a very logical underlying explanation. Quantum theory is still fresh new, and scientists all over the world agree there is just too much to learn before it can be considered even accurate, but believers go all the way to an area they understand crap about to try to prove/create/debate belief.

The real reason is that there is no reason at all. The real sense is that there is no sense at all. The real knowledge is that there is no knowledge at all. Saying this will not make you understand, as I've said it didn't make anyone understand before. We use logic in mathematics, in diagnosis, in science, but only few people use logic to really understand.

---

Quote:

---

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. 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.


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.

---

Quote:

---

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.


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.

---

Quote:

---

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Lol there's no scientifically explaining human opinion, shall you? I think it is bullshit, because it does not make any credible sense. The reason, as I stated repeatedly, is that you shouldn't take quantum theory and place it in the middle of a philosophical discussion. Any conclusions arising from that have no scientific/logical validity whatsoever.

True nature of the universe? If you can't understand it at your current age, give up trying. I've already stated a lot like the Cavern Myth and the principle of uncertainty, to human perception. Understand whatever you want from it. But don't complain when I state I'm smarter than you.


Again, never said anything about "treat each other as one". You get me so wrong it's no even funny. I'm starting to believe you are incapable of it. I am not going to extensively refute everything they say on the video, first because I don't have the patience, second because I'm no expert, and third because I do know they know shit of what they are talking about. Much of what they say is just their own ideas, thrown in the middle of complicated scientific speech to make it sound scientific too.


That said, I have given billion reasons to why that video is ridiculous. Go read the Cavern Myth, and you'll understand that you can imagine any explanation to the universe if you just decide to imagine. There's nothing scientific in the views held through the video. There, another reason for you. I've mentally counted at least 7 now.


No you didn't. If you did, try it again. That was style without substance. I explained you what logic is because you don't seems to know. Your idea of logic is ambiguous, mixed with others things, like human concepts of "good", "right", "sense", "simplicity". Logic is logic - and logic is one thing that's impartial and irrefutable. Premises are refutable, not logic.


No, that is not true, and you know it. Don't put words in my mouth goddamnit. That is just not logic, it's deduction. Deduction uses logic, but isn't irrefutable as logic - deduction can very easily be wrong.

Logic would be something like the following line of thought: two people come out of a closet. One of them is injured. So, did the other person hurt them? The logical answer would be "not necessarily"


It's the first one. And just go read the Cavern Myth NAO. It's quick and clean. You'll see that the video's so-bright theory was imagined in antiquity. The law of uncertainty was made on that exact principle - and this is physics 101. The answer is we'll never be able to prove if there is an "other, material world", instead of just echoes, or shadows, or whatever you want to think of it. But if you say this proves your point, then I'm sorry but that's an irrefutable argument.


Just so you don't have to ask again, my point is: don't try to use concepts from an unknown area of quantum physics to try to prove any point in a philosophical debate.

---

Also, O:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

In my opinion, I believe that because we are physical beings, we cannot perceive the true nature of physical objects in a perfect, non-diluted way. It would be akin to trying to find what lies beyond the veil of death without actually dying. We can continuously divide the physical objects of the universe in a hypothetical sense, but our physical senses and capabilities divide what we can achieve in terms of information as well. Therefore, the smaller the thing we are trying to percieve, the less it seems to exist to our perception. In the reverse, it is almost impossibly difficult for us to fully understand the nature of everything, because we are multiplying what we are perceiving infinitely, making it impossible for us to view things at a larger scale without leaving bits of data out.

Unless you can perceive infinity and perfect zero simultaneously, then you cannot understand the absolute nature of reality. You are merely dividing the line between 0 and 1, dancing between a decimal followed by infinite 9's and a decimal followed by infinite zeros with a 1 at the end. You are merely shifting back and forth between materialism (1) and nihilism (0). You should not embrace one or the other. You should embrace the whole. Or at least try to. n__n

Recent scientific evidence DOES actually support the idea that the universe is one big giant hologram. This isn't much different from what I already suspected, but it's still pretty cool.


From New Scientist:

According to Craig Hogan, a physicist at the Fermilab particle physics lab in Batavia, Illinois, GEO600 has stumbled upon the fundamental limit of space-time - the point where space-time stops behaving like the smooth continuum Einstein described and instead dissolves into "grains", just as a newspaper photograph dissolves into dots as you zoom in. "It looks like GEO600 is being buffeted by the microscopic quantum convulsions of space-time," says Hogan.
.
.
.

The holograms you find on credit cards and banknotes are etched on two-dimensional plastic films. When light bounces off them, it recreates the appearance of a 3D image.


Full Article

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I already gave thousands of reasons to why I think this video is bullshit. Don't make be start retro-quoting.

---

And not one of them was substantial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I wouldn't be debating if I hadn't understood the video. Unlike some people (like UM), I don't argue for "winning" the argument, nor to provoke people. If I've been discussing this up to know, you can bet I understood the video enough to think I'm capable of debating over it.

---

And in the same breath, you say that you (paraphrase) "don't speak on things subjects you're not good with." Then you talk about how the video talks about quantum physics...and you're arguing the video. Contradiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LOL. Once again - Don't apply concepts of the least understood part of science to debate philosophical questions, like what is the essence of the universe.

---

And even though you don't know enough of it to refute it, you say the video is wrong. Hilarious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

To think of it, the very definition of "material" refers to human perception. The universe is material because it's made of matter. Matter is what we defined matter to be. Whatever if it's intangible, or not very well understood - the universe is material because we defined it as material.

---

Is it me, or did you completely miss the fact that you just agreed with the video? :rolllaugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

What I'm saying is that quantum physics is one of those areas of knowledge that, if you don't understand fully, you can very easily misunderstand. And that is what the people on the video did.

---

And how can you know they misunderstood it, when you, admittedly, don't understand it yourself? Marinate on that for a moment. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Just like that question students may have: if the speed of light is the fastest there is, then you have a car is driving at 100km/h, doesn't the light coming from the car exceed the speed of light?
The answer is no, because the formulas we use for calculating speed are actually a simplistic model which isn't valid for extreme values. See how this is akin to quantum physics? If you don't understand it very well, you're very likely to misunderstand it.

---

Absolutely nothing to do with the video, which simply concludes that our perception of the universe is the way it actually said...which you actually agreed with a couple of paragraphs back. LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I've already said I've tried explaining this to multiple people, including you twice, and you didn't understand it. Even dajo confirmed it's not something you can teach. I've tried telling you, just go up there and see. But you didn't understand, so I wonder why you're still challenging me over this.

---

Because you're using it to state how you're right, and it has absolutely not weight in this context, so I'm looking for you to explain away how it actually applies. As of yet, as I've said many times, you haven't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LOL I was just being bitchy over there xD

---

Seems to be a running theme.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LOL OF COURSE the uncertainty principle wasn't contradicted. I said the whole basis of the logical reasoning in the video comes down to the uncertainty principle. "The universe could be very different from what we
think of it, so let's try to think of it differently, we might get right". The video uses the uncertainty principle as a means of being irrefutable.

---

The video presents a paradigm which can be reached by logical reasoning. It proposes the idea that "the universe may actually be different than the way we perceive it." What's more, is that it simply gets to the fundamental aspect of the universe being nothing but atoms and sub-quantum particles which (surprise) actually coincides what we already know of the universe. You're acting like the video is talking about how the universe is really made up of unicorn hair and cinnamon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I'm considering retro-quoting as we speak. I've already given you a list of reasons.

---

None of which actually related to the message in the video. Only stating that the video is wrong because of the uncertainty principle, which illustrates that the idea proposed in the video can't be proven, but does nothing to lend credence to your idea that the ideas proposed are wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LOL. Debating ideas with a purpose of finding a logical answer - it's called dialectic - from the greek 'dialect', which means dialogue. Debating anything the way we are is considered philosophy.

---

That's actually very interesting (just looked into more of it). I understand the idea of philosophy, but not the extent to which the word applies, which - like I said - spans very many branches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LOL again. The video throws many opinions, many of them metaphysical, in the middle of scientific fact, in order to mask the opinions as facts, or at least give them credence. Nothing in the scientific part of the video was wrong. But the matter is, what exactly in the video was scientific?

---

I believe I already stated that it was in the realm of theoretical science. A la Bohm. It is about breaking away from the ideas of people/places/things as being tangible, and looking at them as the mass of particles/information that they really are. Going further, it goes to bring into question whether or not those particles (physicality) really exist as we know them because, under certain conditions, their "physical" properties dissolve. All of this is rooted in scientific fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LOL. Logical conclusions are not subjective.

---

I disagree, and I've given examples as to why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh
No, wrong. I didn't say "the video is nonsense because it doesn't change my mind". I said "the video is nonsense [B

and[/B] it doesn't change my mind".

---

Again, semantics, here is what you said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

And the reason why I believe my view prevails is that the video nor quantum physics changes it, or anything for the matter.

---

So your view prevails because the video doesn't change it? Sounds like your standard, biased, perspective, if you ask me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Nor did I say "the video is nonsense because we can't know for sure what is out there". I actually meant that the video makes an irrefutable argument based on the uncertainty principle. And trying to defend an idea based on the uncertainty principle is the worst thing I've ever heard of.

---

The video said what you agreed to (that reality is likely different from what we perceive it to be), and highlighted the fact that what we "believe" to be is nothing more than clouds of these particles, that may exist only as a wave of said particles in space. That's It.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LOL, if you're not going to rely on your physical sense, what will you rely on? Who knows if even your physical senses are an illusion, and you're only dreaming this. Who knows if even your thoughts are an illusion. Maybe we don't exist at all.

---

Congratulations, you now understand - and apparently agree with - the video! :bravo:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Oh man. Stop making bullshit statements. Deduction is one thing, logic is another. That's what I explained earlier, because you didn't know the difference. If I based my view on deduction or logic is another, completely unrelated thing.

---

You are stating that your view is logic, implying that all others are illogical. That is what I'm correcting you on, and I will stand by that. Your view is your deduction. Nothing more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Also, stop trying to "win" this argument just for the sake of it. Contrary to you, some people actually mean what they say in discussions like this. I can count at least 5 extra long posts of yours, where you only challenge my belief,s and offer nothing substantial yourself to refute to my arguments. Should I say that magical word?

---

Ever since the beginning of this argument, I've been asking you to challenge the ideas proposed, substantially. I've done very little to challenge your "beliefs" other than when you "believe" that "the video is bullshit" but don't offer an reason as to why. (And in case you've missed the point, most of the "reasons" you've offered were stark misinterpretations of the video.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LOL. Who said your senses aren't an illusion? Who said your brain isn't an illusion? Who said you concept of "brain" isn't an illusion. Maybe you're just dreaming this, and even I don't exist. This is what they fucking call UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE. And the UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE is ironically the only certainty we have. But it can't be used to prove any argument at all, and trying to do that produces irrefutable arguments.

---

Again, thank you for actually beginning to understand the video. The video doesn't use the uncertainty principle. It simply doesn't contradict it. It predicts and idea (a very basic one) that is likely to be true whether you apply the U.P. or not - that reality is likely not what we simply perceive it to be, and it goes into why. That's....pretty much it. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Maybe even your brain doesn't exist. Maybe even your awareness doesn't exist. Free will is an illusion. I am discussing this with you knowing that it doesn't change in any way the uncertainty principle. Maybe you're just my imagination. That's what I mean by the video, nor you, changing my view on the subject.

---

I'm glad you're catching up. Way to perfectly summarize what the video is actually saying. :chuckle:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

So, the video states the uncertainty principle? Is that all you're taking from the video? Then I'm losing my time here. Plato did it with the fucking Cavern Myth I told you to read pages ago. Maybe if you had read it, we wouldn't be arguing now.

---

The video doesn't state the uncertainty principle. I wonder, more and more, if you actually watched it. If you would have looked into the theories of Bohm and his Implicate/Explicate Order theory, like I'd stated from the beginning, we wouldn't be arguing now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Strawman is when you change what the person said when responding, and thus refuting a false argument instead of the person's argument. You said I did something and refuted to it while I didn't.

I never said anything about the video being right because I didn't prove it wrong. I said about the video being right because I (allegedly) didn't understand it.

---

And, ironically, I never said the video was right because you "didn't understand it." Did I? No. Way to highlight your strawman while defining a strawman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Also, the ad ignoramtiam you made... don't just ignore it lol. That's what I was criticizing you for - even if a person (me or someone else) doesn't understand an argument, it doesn't mean it's true. I made a supposition to try to teach you something and you criticize me for it. *.*

---

See above. I never said the video was right because you "didn't understand it." I said that the video gave more to go off of, to lend credence to the argument, than your argument against it. That was a call for you to add more substance to your argument, and you failed miserably, upholding my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

It doesn't lend credence to the video either. I gave many reasons why I think the video is bullshit, and you ignored them all.

---

That would be because most (generously) of them didn't have anything to do with the video, only your misinterpretation of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Ad hominem is not even a logical fallacy, you idiot xD It's an argumentative fallacy.

---

Thinking the use of an ad hominem helps you make your point is a logical fallacy.
Class dismissed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

No, that is not what I said (which means you're making a strawman - happy?). I said that the basis of the video's reasoning is the uncertainty principle (I refuse to explain it once again), and that it doesn't prove anything in an argument. The uncertainty principle cannot LOGICALLY be wrong. I never attacked the uncertainty principle LOL. But any conclusions made from it are bullshit. Why? because there is absolutely zero certainty. maybe invisible pink unicorns exist, and we just can't see them. So let's just go and believe them, right?

---

That is, again, completely counter-intuitive to the point of the video. You're going in circles and have absolutely no idea which side of the revolving door you intend to come out of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Haha, again, you never understood when I explained the essence of it, so don't criticize what you don't know. Having experienced a moment of ego-loss doesn't change "how much" ego I have left. Lol. Ego is not quantifiable. It's a status. And you're an ignorant.

---

Never said ego was quantifiable, or that you "lose" it when you experience ego-loss. I asked you what you took out of it. One would figure, as with meditation, that it teaches you the insignificance of ego, and the significance of trying to channel it to the wayside (as with the concept of enlightenment). That was my interpretation. I realize it may not be correct, which is why I asked YOU what YOU brought out of your ego-loss experience. Typical that, instead of answering with substance, you simply chose to say I "shouldn't criticize what I don't know."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I didn't mean you, idiot. :D Which only makes you more of an idiot. lmao

---

I'll chalk that up to your apparent inability to express yourself effectively. Being that I've agreed with many of the ideas expressed in the video, and everyone in this thread but you, the logical assumption that you were talking about me as well. If you spoke with a little more specificity (assuming you didn't say exactly what I implied you said, the first time) we wouldn't have these little trainwrecks (and calling you an "idiot" right here would fit perfectly, but it would be pretty childish, now wouldn't it?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Yes, the video talks about the uncertainty principle. Yes, no problem with that. But as you acknowledge it, it uses that as a premise. I will not repeat the fact that any conclusion made from the uncertainty principle is bullshit, because there is zero certainty. Oops, I just did.

---

You're so confused you're confusing yourself. The video doesn't "talk about the uncertainty principle." It presents the idea that the way we see the universe is likely not the way it actually is. Just saying that, alone would be leaning on the U.P. but the video puts forth evidence as to why it's likely not the way that we see it. It doesn't just say it and "bam" leave it alone. It explains it in a way that (surprise) after all this bickering, you've actually agreed with - ironically adding more substance to my claim that you misunderstood the video in the first place. :chuckle:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Naiya

Recent scientific evidence DOES actually support the idea that the universe is one big giant hologram. This isn't much different from what I already suspected, but it's still pretty cool.


From New Scientist:

According to Craig Hogan, a physicist at the Fermilab particle physics lab in Batavia, Illinois, GEO600 has stumbled upon the fundamental limit of space-time - the point where space-time stops behaving like the smooth continuum Einstein described and instead dissolves into "grains", just as a newspaper photograph dissolves into dots as you zoom in. "It looks like GEO600 is being buffeted by the microscopic quantum convulsions of space-time," says Hogan.
.
.
.

The holograms you find on credit cards and banknotes are etched on two-dimensional plastic films. When light bounces off them, it recreates the appearance of a 3D image.


Full Article

---

Awesome. Thanks for that, Naiya. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Awesome. Thanks for that, Naiya. :)

---

No problem!

I'm of two minds on this whole subject.

Firstly, as a science major I have to at least believe there is some kind of objective reality out there (illusionary or no), and that even though we can never fully understand it, the act of trying to understand it gives our lives meaning.

Now I'm going to really mindfuck you.

Secondly, I know from personal experience with LD and AP how fragile the idea of reality is. AP can feel much more real than the physical plane. No amount of me telling myself "this isn't real" does much of anything. It just becomes a little bit silly to keep telling myself that after a while. I do buy into the whole Orwellian "reality is what we believe it to be thing" to some extent, but because there is more than one consciousness with more than one experience, that means that even if that theory is completely correct, SOME kind of "objective" reality must arise so that the subjective realities of individual consciousnesses can interact with each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Naiya

but because there is more than one consciousness with more than one experience, that means that even if that theory is completely correct, SOME kind of "objective" reality must arise so that the subjective realities of individual consciousnesses can interact with each other.

---

I'll see that mindfuck, and raise you another:

What if that "objective reality" (which I'm not arguing against at all) is nothing but waves of either information or energy? What if their interacting (as covered by David Bohm) is what gives us our sense of "this and that" - our sense of one object being different from another. Bohm likens the interactions of consciousness as being like whirlpools in a body of water. If viewed from one perspective, they seem as separate entities, but know that the body of water is, really, just one body of water, all whirlpools (even in an ocean) are fundamentally connected.

So if there is an objective reality, which I believe there likely is, what is that objective reality like? Does it have substance, or is it nothing but energy interacting with (basically) itself in space?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

So if there is an objective reality

---

I'm going to raise you one more mindfuck, and suggest that there is no such thing as objective reality, and that reality is created and defined entirely by individual consciousness that cannot interact with each other on a direct level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I'll see that mindfuck, and raise you another:

What if that "objective reality" (which I'm not arguing against at all) is nothing but waves of either information or energy? What if their interacting (as covered by David Bohm) is what gives us our sense of "this and that" - our sense of one object being different from another. Bohm likens the interactions of consciousness as being like whirlpools in a body of water. If viewed from one perspective, they seem as separate entities, but know that the body of water is, really, just one body of water, all whirlpools (even in an ocean) are fundamentally connected.

So if there is an objective reality, which I believe there likely is, what is that objective reality like? Does it have substance, or is it nothing but energy interacting with (basically) itself in space?

---

Hmm. Sounds pretty much like the extension of what I had in mind. Definitely a possibility.

Actually, the way I used to think of it was that we're all little bubbles in the ocean. We don't know we're all part of the same body of water because we're stuck in our own little air bubbles.

I'm shrinking it down because on several parts, you were only being rhetoric, didn't refute my point with another one (but with an ad hominem instead), and also because these posts are getting way too long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

And in the same breath, you say that you (paraphrase) "don't speak on things subjects you're not good with." Then you talk about how the video talks about quantum physics...and you're arguing the video. Contradiction.

---

LOL Stood misunderstanding me and then accusing me of things. I don't even thing you misunderstood me on that one; you're just being bitchy.

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

Quote:

---

Is it me, or did you completely miss the fact that you just agreed with the video? :rolllaugh:

---

Lol weren't you the one just saying the "universe may be immaterial"?

Quote:

---

Because you're using it to state how you're right, and it has absolutely not weight in this context, so I'm looking for you to explain away how it actually applies. As of yet, as I've said many times, you haven't.

---

I'm not using it to state how I'm right, bastard. You're just taking these conclusions yourself. You asked challenged me to explain what my view was, I explained it, you didn't understand, and now you say shit about it. For you to see how paranoid you are, my original point didn't even include my view on the topic - I was only criticizing the video for being infant-level.

Quote:

---

The video presents a paradigm which can be reached by logical reasoning. It proposes the idea that "the universe may actually be different than the way we perceive it." What's more, is that it simply gets to the fundamental aspect of the universe being nothing but atoms and sub-quantum particles which (surprise) actually coincides what we already know of the universe. You're acting like the video is talking about how the universe is really made up of unicorn hair and cinnamon.

---

Oh, who's talking about logic now? It's not your definition of logic, is it? +.+

My point is, to heck if the universe is different from what we perceive it - it doesn't change what it is to us. Now for the habitual ad hominem - how old are you again?

Quote:

---

None of which actually related to the message in the video. Only stating that the video is wrong because of the uncertainty principle, which illustrates that the idea proposed in the video can't be proven, but does nothing to lend credence to your idea that the ideas proposed are wrong.

---

LOL stop the strawman. I never said the video is wrong because of the uncertainty principle, you craphead. I said that the video is bullshit because it is solely based on the uncertainty principle.

Quote:

---

That's actually very interesting (just looked into more of it). I understand the idea of philosophy, but not the extent to which the word applies, which - like I said - spans very many branches.

---

Plato would have been proud of our Extended Discussion section ;)

Quote:

---

I believe I already stated that it was in the realm of theoretical science. A la Bohm. It is about breaking away from the ideas of people/places/things as being tangible, and looking at them as the mass of particles/information that they really are. Going further, it goes to bring into question whether or not those particles (physicality) really exist as we know them because, under certain conditions, their "physical" properties dissolve. All of this is rooted in scientific fact.

---

LOL. I coincidentally replied to this above. There's no need to change your view of the world because of it. Also, there's no need to go as far as particle level to realise that objects never touch at all. Even if, under certain conditions, some physical properties are bent, like the viscosity of Helium at near-zero temperature, it doesn't mean that they are no longer physical. Physicality and physical property are two different thing. Take it like ice and steam - they're both water, but with different properties.

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

Quote:

---

I disagree, and I've given examples as to why.

---

Those examples were wrong, and I showed why.

Quote:

---

Again, semantics, here is what you said:

---

Not semantics. Grammar is actually top priority in a sentence, or haven't you noticed that? A yes can go to a no because of grammar.

Quote:

---

So your view prevails because the video doesn't change it? Sounds like your standard, biased, perspective, if you ask me.

---

LOL you understand me so wrong. I said the video doesn't prove my views wrong. It doesn't bring up some new, more logical explanation than the one I already have. That is why I think the video is bullshit.

Quote:

---

The video said what you agreed to (that reality is likely different from what we perceive it to be), and highlighted the fact that what we "believe" to be is nothing more than clouds of these particles, that may exist only as a wave of said particles in space. That's It.

---

LOL what a genius are you! When did you come to that conclusion? I know at least 3 people who came to this conclusion on their on and posted a topic here at DV.So then, what is that crappy message the video tries to get through? lol

Congrats on realizing that. You should start questioning God in no time.

Quote:

---

Congratulations, you now understand - and apparently agree with - the video! :bravo:

---

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

Quote:

---

You are stating that your view is logic, implying that all others are illogical. That is what I'm correcting you on, and I will stand by that. Your view is your deduction. Nothing more.

---

The "implying" part is all your imagination. Stop saying what my view is or isn't if you can't even understand it. When I say my view is logic, I mean logic in its strictest sense. In fact, it's so logic it's hard to even think of it. But once you do think of it, it makes logical sense. Just like the certainty that we will never be completely certain about anything - makes logical sense on its own.

I just think the video is bullshit, that's all. Stop thinking of uncertainty on the scientific level, leave that to the experts who give a damn about it. Think of uncertainty on the experience level, and we'll have a decent intelligent debate.

Quote:

---

Again, thank you for actually beginning to understand the video. The video doesn't use the uncertainty principle. It simply doesn't contradict it. It predicts and idea (a very basic one) that is likely to be true whether you apply the U.P. or not - that reality is likely not what we simply perceive it to be, and it goes into why. That's....pretty much it. :)

---

LOL yes it does. The video bases all its reasoning on the uncertainty principle. I wouldn't say the universe is likely to be different lol. Of course the universe is not the tangible objects we deal with every day. I took that for fact from the beginning. If that's what you've been arguing over, then you are even less intelligent than I thought you were. Bah... you really aren't even worth trying to convince that way. You haven't been through most realizations I've been. Trying to convince you will be such a waste of a time xD At least I can say it keeps boredom away.

Quote:

---

I'm glad you're catching up. Way to perfectly summarize what the video is actually saying. :chuckle:

---

LOL stop trying to ridicule me, that is beyond my tolerance line. The video is stupid because it fails to realize the truth in the most initial parts of the timeline.

Quote:

---

And, ironically, I never said the video was right because you "didn't understand it." Did I? No. Way to highlight your strawman while defining a strawman.

---

LOL.. that's what I've been trying to knock into you - challenging my beliefs doesn't prove yours.

Quote:

---

Thinking the use of an ad hominem helps you make your point is a logical fallacy.
Class dismissed.

---

LOL e-x-a-c-t-l-y. I never used your inferior intelligence to try to show why the video sucks. All the ad hominem's were clear ad hominem's. For someone who says I misunderstood the video, you misunderstand me quite often.

Quote:

---

Never said ego was quantifiable, or that you "lose" it when you experience ego-loss. I asked you what you took out of it. One would figure, as with meditation, that it teaches you the insignificance of ego, and the significance of trying to channel it to the wayside (as with the concept of enlightenment). That was my interpretation. I realize it may not be correct, which is why I asked YOU what YOU brought out of your ego-loss experience. Typical that, instead of answering with substance, you simply chose to say I "shouldn't criticize what I don't know.

---

Don't lie, you tried to ridicule me for having a strong ego even after experiencing ego-loss. LOL... Trying to abandon your ego is as stupid as the points you've been making. You don't understand this because you haven't experienced it, but "significance", or "importance" are human concepts - part of the ego. Also, you don't have the will to put your ego to the wayside, because, as I've already said (but you didn't understand), when you have no ego, you have no friggin will. No will to do anything. Don't try to go into something you are ignorant about.

If you can't even understand what ego-loss is, what it implies, or how it feels, how do you expect to be able to understand the knowledge you gain from it? Well, just so you don't say I don't put substance into this, the knowledge you gain is: nothing exists. Not even you. Now please, don't try to refute to this, crying out loud trying to prove that something exists, because you don't understand enough to be able to argue about it. And if you did understand, you would agree with me anyway about it, so..

And finally, you really shouldn't criticize something you don't understand.

Quote:

---

I'll chalk that up to your apparent inability to express yourself effectively.

---

My inability to express myself, or your inability to interpret what I say? -.- It's very easy to just assume the other one is wrong, isn't it?

Quote:

---

You're so confused you're confusing yourself. The video doesn't "talk about the uncertainty principle." It presents the idea that the way we see the universe is likely not the way it actually is. Just saying that, alone would be leaning on the U.P. but the video puts forth evidence as to why it's likely not the way that we see it. It doesn't just say it and "bam" leave it alone. It explains it in a way that (surprise) after all this bickering, you've actually agreed with - ironically adding more substance to my claim that you misunderstood the video in the first place. :chuckle:

---

--- "Just saying that, alone would be leaning on the U.P."

So, the video does talk about the U.P.? It doesn't have to include specific words to talk about something, little genius.

--- "but the video puts forth evidence as to why it's likely not the way that we see it."

LOL saying the video puts forth evidence shows you're wrong. There is *no* evidence to that, that's what I've been trying to tell you, and that's what you've been ignoring/misunderstanding, idiot. I've repeated so many times that there is no evidence on that area that now I wonder if you're actually a very well-tamed parrot or so.

You misunderstand my arguments, and start thinking I misunderstood the video. One of us is wrong, heh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by invader_tech

I'm going to raise you one more mindfuck, and suggest that there is no such thing as objective reality, and that reality is created and defined entirely by individual consciousness that cannot interact with each other on a direct level.

---

But what is the origin of those consciousnesses? Is there a single absolution in which they all either exist as individuals, or as part of the same whole? Maybe what so many interpret as more than one consciousness is really 1 consciousness split into many, giving the illusion that they are more than one - as with multiple personalities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Naiya

Hmm. Sounds pretty much like the extension of what I had in mind. Definitely a possibility.

Actually, the way I used to think of it was that we're all little bubbles in the ocean. We don't know we're all part of the same body of water because we're stuck in our own little air bubbles.

---

Yeah. Pretty much the same idea. Like with the whirlpools, each bubble can be seen as individual, but when knowing that the same water molecules flow in and out of each of them, they are all connected to the same whole. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

stuff

---

Kromoh, seriously, I'm done. You insist on perpetuating the type of conversation pissing contest that I'm just not interested in participating in. If you want to interpret this as your view having prevailed, or whatever, then I'm going to simply concede, and state that I don't have the stamina to keep fighting a battle based on so many obvious misconceptions (on both our parts.) I'll bow out gracefully, duly note that you feel the video is bullshit, respect your opinion and move on.

Though, please address the article Naiya posted (as it lends credence to the video as well) if you wish to continue the discussion. You've already implied in another thread that you don't care about what other people find disrespectful, if you disagree, so I'm not going to even ask you to keep any further discussion to a civil tone, but if you want to continue the discussion with me, that's what you're going to have to do. Other than that, I'm absolutely done, and if you want to take that as a sign of your victory, I'll opt out of challenging your opinion. I'll leave it up to anyone else - who actually sat through all that bullshit we just went through - to make up their own mind on who made the most sense.

It's been fun. Thanks for voicing your opinion. :cheers:

Damn.. I really *was* curious about what some of your replies would be.

I might read the article later.. not in the mood just now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

But what is the origin of those consciousnesses? Is there a single absolution in which they all either exist as individuals, or as part of the same whole? Maybe what so many interpret as more than one consciousness is really 1 consciousness split into many, giving the illusion that they are more than one - as with multiple personalities.

---

You read my mind. :)

Anyone's guess is as good as mine, but that's generally where my mind is in terms of what we are with respect to reality. You used the multiple personalities example, so I'll ask that you consider another example I like to use often, which is that of a dream. A dream operates as it's own reality. It has it's own particular set of rules and vividness that you can actively control if you are aware of them. The dream characters inside are no more than an expression of yourself, your own mind, all divided and spread out into different people/things. Given enough time, these dream characters would soon come to theorize that the dream world they exist within is just an illusion (as well you know it is), and some will go so far as to suggest that they are a part of the same mind (which is collectively your mind).

With respect to dreams, the only thing that exists in actuality is consciousness (and perhaps the brain, which intelligently processes the information). All of the 'reality' that becomes the dream comes as a result of your consciousness. The real world that both you and I experience day to day is analogous to the dreamworld in the way I just described. Nothing more than a convincing illusion that we use to interact with each other ("a collective consciousness experiencing itself"). I'm sure this probably sounds outlandish to a great deal of people, but if you'd like me to clarify my point of view on this, I'd be happy to do so.

As for the origin? Who knows? Existence by itself appears to be a sort of paradox on its own, but here we are. The existence we experience implies that there be some source or point of entry, and I wouldn't be surprised if that 'source' was the consciousness we are all theoretically a part of.

What's wrong with the idea of a floating sea of infinite energy, given form and structure by the conscious beings that reside within it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Danciu

What's wrong with the idea of a floating sea of infinite energy, given form and structure by the conscious beings that reside within it?

---

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

It is just so stupidly arrogant to think the universe exists because of us.

*Gasp*

To think the universe exists because of "us".

Just who is this "us", "you" speak of?

Aren't "we" made of the same indiscernible probablistic quantum foam (subatomic particles) that make up the universe?

Where is the distinction between "us" or "them", "the universe" or "I"?

I'll let you in on a secret...

There is none.

We are the universe observing itself.

The deception of division rears its ugly head.

People act like "Ego" is a set of car keys you can lose.

When "Ego" is just an identifier for one's self.

All this talk of dropping or losing "it" seems silly to my perspective now.

One can never lose one's self because one would still have to remain aware of the loss in order to be lost.

And, if you are still aware you are still in ego.

Ego is now.

Now is forever.

Lol Cyclic, I completely agree with most of what you said, but you misunderstood me on the ego part.

What I mean by ego is emotion/instinct/will. You can pretty much let go of it with just a bit of concentration, and see the world without being subject to will or emotion. FYI, you don't even have the will to breathe.

So much for trying to criticize me, isn't it? You guys must love it.

And finally, awareness is just an illusion anyway.

Trust me when I say...

"I" know what "you" mean.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIdentifiers of the same subject.

The idea has nothing to do with the "universe existing because of us," as has already been said.

It has everything to do with what Cyclic described, which, again for those in the back, "has nothing to do with the universe existing because of 'us.'"

It is about our interpretation of the universe existing because of 'us,' and likely not being the way things are in actuality.

[Edit]
Oh, and Invader Tech, it seems I overlooked your last post. I'll reply to it after work.[/Edit]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

LOL Cusp, ego-loss is a trance state that you achieve with concentration. Break the concentration and you will be back to normal. But the things you learn while in there remain. Well, not the thing's' you learn, but the thing you learn. You talk about it so abstractedly, means you have no idea what it's about.

---

I have no idea? Will you seriously listen to yourself? I've been pursuing ego loss for longer than you've been alive. As a matter of fact, it's become my greatest fear. Maybe someday you'll understand why that is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Kinda bad some people don't even know what 'science' is, for people like Xei to have to explain it all over :)

---

I hope you include yourself in that group, as you've shown a poor grasp of every single concept that's been brought up so far. Even the concept of a science sub forum seems to elude you, since you're only arguments stem from this miraculous ego loss you've attained. Those arguments might have worked elsewhere, and there are several threads similar to this one floating around DV. The fact that you chose this, the science sub-forum, to spout your garbage just shows how off the mark you really are.

Lol fear is also a human emotion.

And lol, it's not a miraculous thing. If you say it is, then you do not understand it. I didn't even pay attention to this being in the science subforum or not. I was just stating my views about the topic brought up by the OP. Stop criticizing me for something you do not understand. Also, read what Xei said before you criticize my reply to him. You'd definitely agree with me. Now stop being a bitch just because you dislike people like me.

Quote:

---

The uncertainty principle is not meant to be taken as a fundamental truth of our reality. What it really shows is actually only a fundamental flaw in the dualistic subject/object mode in which we perceive the universe. It is not that the motions of particles are necessarily fundamentally uncertain, but that our knowledge of them is limited to merely the way they interact, and it impossible to extricate the observer, and therefore the observer's effects from the observation being made. We are incapable of perceiving a thing as it really is, and are limited to perceiving relationships between the thing and ourselves, and so the fundamental nature of the thing must remain a mystery to us.

---

I'm not so sure about that. The Copenhagen interpretation says pretty much this, and it's the most popular view of quantum mechanics. I think there have actually been some formal disproofs of 'hidden variable theories', too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Now stop being a bitch just because you dislike people like me.

---

Kromoh, I didn't say anything about this, before - because 1) You were arguing with me, and I didn't want people to start crying about how I'm "abusing" my mod powers vindictively, and 2) because my skin is tough enough to not care about how pompous you are in your responses to me directly - but since it seems to be your M.O. in general, now, I'm going to bring it up:

You're no different than anybody else at DV, in the respect that you need to learn to carry yourself much better than you've been doing in this thread. Every five seconds, you're resorting to personal attacks and obscene insults - instead of simply stating your opinion with the least bit of maturity.

Grow up, and learn to state your opinion without being so abrasive in doing so. It doesn't help your position at all, and believe me, it's gaining you a lot of attention that you probably don't want. This isn't an official warning (yet) - otherwise I would have PM'd you with an official warning - so take this instance simply as advice. Tone it down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

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

---

There's no absolute way to prove this. Consciousness can't be directly measured, it isn't a single thing, so you can't prove or disprove its existence. It appears to me that consciousness than an abstract term used to describe the machine-like behavior of the brains of animals, perceiving the physical universe and creating a hologram within their own mind. Even though it isn't a single unit or atom in the end, the end result of the mental/physical processes in the conscious creature is the creature being what it is: conscious. Because you are not a part of the creature's body, you can't possibly perceive their consciousness, so you can observe it any way you want and call so-called "consciousness" an illusion of your own personal creation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

It is just so stupidly arrogant to think the universe exists because of us.

---

I didn't imply the universe exists because of us. I said that the universe may just hypothetically be a floating sea of infinite energy that is affected by conscious beings within it, in ways such as giving it form, laws, time, etc.

Not the creators, but the molders of creation. :)

I think it's premature to say that consciousness leaves no physical traces.

I certainly think it is a real thing; I tend to define it as 'the difference between us and philosophical zombies', or 'the difference between us and collections of biological compounds changing over time'.

But yes, scientific study of consciousness hasn't made much progress yet. It may one day be found to be a perfectly well defined quality of a particular system.

And think about this; this very discussion is a physical effect of consciousness. If we weren't conscious, we couldn't possibly be discussing something we didn't know existed. So, consciousness has physical effects in the same way that physical objects cause consciousness. Dualism is, I believe, incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

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

It is just so stupidly arrogant to think the universe exists because of us.

---

How can you say that without knowing what consciousness is? Whatever it is that you believe is merely the illusion of consciousness, is consciousness itself. Perhaps you have illusions about what it is supposed to be, but that is about it.

No self respecting scientist is claiming that the universe exists because of us, and I don't think anyone in this thread is either, although perhaps some are. What is being claimed is that the Universe we perceive is created by us. There is a very profound difference here. What it boils down to is that we just don't know anything at all about the Universe outside of the aspect of it that we create through our perceptions, and therefore cannot make comment on what might be really there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm not so sure about that. The Copenhagen interpretation says pretty much this, and it's the most popular view of quantum mechanics. I think there have actually been some formal disproofs of 'hidden variable theories', too...

---

The Copenhagen interpretation does not say that uncertainty is intrinsic to reality. The basic principles suggested by the copenhagen interpretation is that our description of nature is probabilistic, not that nature itself is probabilistic, and that it is impossible to know all values in a system, not that they don't exist. I think you'll find that good scientists, especially those who are brave enough to venture into the realm of quantum physics, try as hard as possible to not say anything at all about the true nature of reality, but rather speak only about the ways in which we see it, or can see it.

A good source to read more about it is HERE, at the website for stanford university. Be sure to read section 5, 5. Misunderstandings of complementarity, as it directly addresses what we are talking about.

I think where we might be misunderstanding each other, also, is that I don't believe that the problem is merely a failing on our part and that we will eventually be able to measure both the speed and direction of a particle, or view it as both a wave and a particle at the same time. The uncertainty principle is intrinsic to our perception or our view of reality. All I'm saying is that our view of reality is all we are talking about, and not some unknowable objective reality as a whole.

What I mean by consciousness being an illusion is that consciousness isn't something magical, or something that changes reality in any way. Consciousness is just a biological tool which makes human beings more adaptable. It's ridiculous of human beings to think human beings are special because they are self-conscious. Consciousness doesn't break any laws of physics. We think of ourselves as one cohesive entity, but we are just a bunch of reactive matter, like the rest of the universe. That's what I mean when I say consciousness is an illusion.

Try to understand me before you criticize me next time.

How does consciousness help a species survive?

Thanks for the link Xaq, I'll read it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

What I mean by consciousness being an illusion is that consciousness isn't something magical, or something that changes reality in any way. Consciousness is just a biological tool which makes human beings more adaptable. It's ridiculous of human beings to think human beings are special because they are self-conscious. Consciousness doesn't break any laws of physics. We think of ourselves as one cohesive entity, but we are just a bunch of reactive matter, like the rest of the universe. That's what I mean when I say consciousness is an illusion.

Try to understand me before you criticize me next time.

---

Read the second half of my response to you. Try to read before you resort to your signature abrasiveness next time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclic13

Aren't "we" made of the same indiscernible probablistic quantum foam (subatomic particles) that make up the universe?

---

Quantum foam =/= subatomic particles. We are not made of quantum foam.

I actually had no problems with that part, so maybe that is the reason why I didn't refute it, don't you think? I reply to abrasiveness with abrasiveness. Your criticizing me was no milk&sugar you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

I actually had no problems with that part, so maybe that is the reason why I didn't refute it, don't you think? I reply to abrasiveness with abrasiveness. Your criticizing me was no milk&sugar you know.

---

I'm sorry you have such a problem with being criticized that you have to adopt such an angry tone to respond to it. What exactly offended you about the post in question? My post was meant to be one unit. Trying to refute the first part but not responding to the second just ignores how the second pertains to the first. I answered your response before you even posted, with the second half of my original post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

How can you say that without knowing what consciousness is?

---

This was what offended me.

-

Well, two things on the other matter.
1) The second paragraph had nothing to do with the first one;
2) So you want me to refute something I actually agree with? Are you serious lol

So consciousness doesn't actually help a species survive?

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.

Stop putting words on my mouth, EVERYONE. Oneironaut, Xei, The Cusp, Universal Mind, Cyclic... I can't believe I'me even wasting my time with people like you xD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Quantum foam =/= subatomic particles. We are not made of quantum foam.

---

Technically, at the level of time of 10 to the power of -43, Planck time, the subatomic particles collapse into probabilistic waves which the quantum foam allows particles and energy to briefly come into existence, and then annihilate, without violating conservation laws.

Therefore, they do equal each other. There simply is no separation between the medium and the resulting particles.

The potentiality and resulting particles housed in the quantum foam is the foam.

And yes, we are also made of the same sub atomic particles as everything else...

"We" all come from the same source. "We" are the source.

The sorcerer of all sources.

"It must be somewhat above this level that our consciousness works, weaving probability waves into patterns and incarnating them in the receptive structure of our brains. Our being or spirit lives in this Quantum Foam, which is thus the Eternal Now, infinite in extent and a plenum of all possibilities. The patterns of everything that has been, that is now, and will come to be, exists latent in this quantum foam. Perhaps this is the realm though which the mystics stepped into timelessness, the eternal present, and sensed the omnipotence and omniscience of the spirit."

from Quantum Consciousness
Adam McLean

If i put words in your mouth you might spit them out because they don't taste good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

If i put words in your mouth you might spit them out because they don't taste good.

---

xD I LMAO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Oh, and Invader Tech, it seems I overlooked your last post. I'll reply to it after work.

---

Looking forward to it. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Invader Tech

You read my mind. :)

Anyone's guess is as good as mine, but that's generally where my mind is in terms of what we are with respect to reality. You used the multiple personalities example, so I'll ask that you consider another example I like to use often, which is that of a dream. A dream operates as it's own reality. It has it's own particular set of rules and vividness that you can actively control if you are aware of them. The dream characters inside are no more than an expression of yourself, your own mind, all divided and spread out into different people/things. Given enough time, these dream characters would soon come to theorize that the dream world they exist within is just an illusion (as well you know it is), and some will go so far as to suggest that they are a part of the same mind (which is collectively your mind).

With respect to dreams, the only thing that exists in actuality is consciousness (and perhaps the brain, which intelligently processes the information). All of the 'reality' that becomes the dream comes as a result of your consciousness. The real world that both you and I experience day to day is analogous to the dreamworld in the way I just described. Nothing more than a convincing illusion that we use to interact with each other ("a collective consciousness experiencing itself"). I'm sure this probably sounds outlandish to a great deal of people, but if you'd like me to clarify my point of view on this, I'd be happy to do so.

As for the origin? Who knows? Existence by itself appears to be a sort of paradox on its own, but here we are. The existence we experience implies that there be some source or point of entry, and I wouldn't be surprised if that 'source' was the consciousness we are all theoretically a part of.

---

I agree with that to every extent. If the one intial consciousness (which I've referred to before as Singular Consciousness - the universe's awareness of itself, on a fundamental level, before being broken down into the consciousnesses we've experienced as "individuals") is the byproduct that emerges from the supposed system of waves that we might surmise to be the true nature of the universe, then it would make perfect sense on so many levels. I agree with you on the "dream reality" aspect, and how our 'individual' consciousnesses are probably no more than a singular consciousness believing itself to be more than one.

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? We simply have nothing to compare and contrast the idea to. I do like the fact that we are trying to find out, though, and we are breaking into ground that is akin to a dream character realizing the inconsistency of dream content, and beginning to realize that there may be an absolution that lies outside of the "dream world."

Though we may never understand the "true" nature of the universe, the truths we uncover while searching for it are no less astonishing/important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclic13

Technically, at the level of time of 10 to the power of -43, Planck time, the subatomic particles collapse into probabilistic waves which the quantum foam allows particles and energy to briefly come into existence, and then annihilate, without violating conservation laws.

Therefore, they do equal each other. There simply is no separation between the medium and the resulting particles.

The potentiality and resulting particles housed in the quantum foam is the foam.

And yes, we are also made of the same sub atomic particles as everything else...

"We" all come from the same source. "We" are the source.

The sorcerer of all sources.

"It must be somewhat above this level that our consciousness works, weaving probability waves into patterns and incarnating them in the receptive structure of our brains. Our being or spirit lives in this Quantum Foam, which is thus the Eternal Now, infinite in extent and a plenum of all possibilities. The patterns of everything that has been, that is now, and will come to be, exists latent in this quantum foam. Perhaps this is the realm though which the mystics stepped into timelessness, the eternal present, and sensed the omnipotence and omniscience of the spirit."

from Quantum Consciousness
Adam McLean

---

I'm not sure where you are getting your information from. Theoretical quantum foam for which there is no evidence could only exist in the vacuum of space, as the presence of mass causes decoherence. The particles that make up the human body are many (and I do mean many) orders of magnitude larger than any theoretical quantum foam fluctuations anyway, as are the particles that make up the particles.

As for the quote you posted, Adam Mclean is an author and alchemical scholar, not a scientist. That passage alone shows his complete lack of understanding when it comes to quantum mechanics. He has obviously borrowed the jargon in attempts at weaving together an intelligent sounding mysticism, but it has no connection to real science.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

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

---

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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". :roll:

Quote:

---

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". :roll:

---

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...

http://www.doe.carleton.ca/~ngt/algo...rst_falls1.jpg

Quote:

---

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.....

Quote:

---

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. :chuckle:

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

Quote:

---

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...

http://www.doe.carleton.ca/~ngt/algo...rst_falls1.jpg

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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."

Quote:

---

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. :-?

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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").

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

:horse:

Quote:

---

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 :D

Quote:

---

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

---

Don't make me retroquote again.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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").

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

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

---

That makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kromoh

Don't make me retroquote again.

---

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

Quote:

---

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! :roll:

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Retro-quoting ->

I took this from the single and first post I found. I didn't take time reading any other, for you wanted confirmation, not numbers, and also because this thread has some incredibly big posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

Promise to do this when I have more time.

Quote:

---

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kromoh

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

---

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

Yes. Very, very easy.
Your turn. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kromoh

Promise to do this when I have more time.

---

Okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kromoh

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

---

And all was right with the world. :banana:

[Edit]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kromoh

retro-quoting

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

[Edit]

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

---

You have got to be kidding me or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

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

---

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

---

retro-quoting:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

You have got to be kidding me or something.

---

No. It was actually a typo.

I meant to say "I stand corrected". :P

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Cusp

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kromoh

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

---

Buddhism is an atheists religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

Buddhism is an atheists religion.

---

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

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

(Higher quality than O's version, too)

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



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

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

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

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

Consciousness, Causality and Quantum Physics by David Pratt

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

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

Enjoy. :)

---

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

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

Readers who liked David Bohm also enjoyed:

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

Wow.

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

Apart from understanding, there is also Experience.

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

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

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

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

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

Hmmm. Interesting.

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

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

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

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

Fun.

PQ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man, LHC is downright creepy.

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

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

Lessee. As to your questions....

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

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

Some resources on consciousness.

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

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

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

Interesting days...

PQ