Thread: Reality

During conversation about ‘reality’ on Philosophy forum, I was challenged to post it on here. / implying that my post was nonsense/. Please tell me does my way of thinking make any sense. Also where am I going wrong? I would like to learn and will really appreciate your input.

Let's assume that reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.

In the Newtonian way and classical mechanics the world is measurable; the measurements reveal the true state of the world.

For most of humans there was ‘reality’ that the sun orbits round the earth.
Was this truth? No, because humans often describe reality in terms of common space we all experience.


Quantum physics has shown us a very important fact. We can't know reality.
Because, reality goes beyond our experience.

We can understand what we think reality is, because we assume what we perceive is real. The stone /which you asked me to kick/ is not solid in the way I think it is. It is mostly vacuum and forces, not 100% matter.

Also Planck has shown that we cannot experience the physical reality beyond a certain limit.

The whole universe is an enormous wave function, with a huge possibility of different words and realms. Are those worlds real? Sure. Where they real prior to humans coming up with quantum physics?

In quantum mechanics, there is no way of identifying the true state of the world. We can only predict the probabilities for different outcomes.

What would happen if the human rise was wiped out?
Will reality still exist?

Still, no answers.

It seems, there are 2 possibilities:

1/ My post was so loony that nobody wants to touch it.
2/My post was so brilliant that nobody wants to touch it.

GiantEvil, you have challenged me to post it here. So please, instead of generalization and patronizing DO challenge it.

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

Still, no answers.

It seems, there are 2 possibilities:

1/ My post was so loony that nobody wants to touch it.
2/My post was so brilliant that nobody wants to touch it.

GiantEvil, you have challenged me to post it here. So please, instead of generalization and patronizing DO challenge it.

I'll take door number 1.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

Still, no answers.

It seems, there are 2 possibilities:

1/ My post was so loony that nobody wants to touch it.
2/My post was so brilliant that nobody wants to touch it.

GiantEvil, you have challenged me to post it here. So please, instead of generalization and patronizing DO challenge it.

I'll take door number 1.

I am here to learn. Could you kindly tell me where do my errors lie?

It's not really a scientific hypothesis. It does not present any method to confirm or disprove it using any scientific methods. It should have stayed in philosophy.

Admittedly, it is laziness on my part that disinclines me to embarking on any expository essays at the moment.
So here are a couple link's to some information that should help you evaluate your own post.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathD...ng/Wigner.html.
And; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling.

I demonstrated a semantic weakness in your argument in the other thread. You chose to ignore this. Possibilities:

1. You never saw it, which suggests you are not really interested in a genuine discussion.
2. You saw it an didn't understand it, which suggests a genuine discussion is going to be one sided.
3. You saw it and disagreed with the conclusions, in which case you apprently don't want a genuine discussion.

Is there a pattern emerging here?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

It's not really a scientific hypothesis. It does not present any method to confirm or disprove it using any scientific methods. It should have stayed in philosophy.

Wich part?

Newton?

Quantum physics? .

The stone /which you asked me to kick/ is not solid in the way I think it is. It is mostly vacuum and forces, not 100% matter. ?

Planck ?

Wave function?

Copenhagen interpretation ?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I demonstrated a semantic weakness in your argument in the other thread. You chose to ignore this. Possibilities:

1. You never saw it, which suggests you are not really interested in a genuine discussion.
2. You saw it an didn't understand it, which suggests a genuine discussion is going to be one sided.
3. You saw it and disagreed with the conclusions, in which case you apprently don't want a genuine discussion.

Is there a pattern emerging here?

I saw it.

Hippocampus wrote:
Exactly. The reality as we know it doesn't exist except in our limited mind and brain.
If reality only exists in our mind/brain then that suggests the complexity generatingpower of the min/brain exceeds that of the unreal environment, which means in turn that limited is an inappropriate adjective.

BUT I did not answer because you have failed to see ''The reality as we know''

When did I talk about ''reality'' ONLY existing in our brain? We have a very subjective perception of ''what around us''.

Reference to Quantum physics was implying that what you call ‘environment’ and I will call ‘ultimate reality’ is well beyond our perception and understanding.


So your post did not make sense.

What is the age of people posting here?

Are you all junior students?

Forums suppose to be a platform to learn, challenge ideas.
It is fair to await criticism …………but with clarification, details.

I can only see condescending, patronizing and criticism as an indirect form of self-boasting.

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

Originally Posted by Harold14370

It's not really a scientific hypothesis. It does not present any method to confirm or disprove it using any scientific methods. It should have stayed in philosophy.

Wich part?

Newton?

Quantum physics? .

The stone /which you asked me to kick/ is not solid in the way I think it is. It is mostly vacuum and forces, not 100% matter. ?

Planck ?

Wave function?

Copenhagen interpretation ?

Presumably, you did not make your post to reiterate what we already know about quantum physics and the other stuff. Any interpretations you are trying to add about the nature of reality are beyond the realm of physics, and not testable.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

Originally Posted by Harold14370

It's not really a scientific hypothesis. It does not present any method to confirm or disprove it using any scientific methods. It should have stayed in philosophy.

Wich part?

Newton?

Quantum physics? .

The stone /which you asked me to kick/ is not solid in the way I think it is. It is mostly vacuum and forces, not 100% matter. ?

Planck ?

Wave function?

Copenhagen interpretation ?

Presumably, you did not make your post to reiterate what we already know about quantum physics and the other stuff. Any interpretations you are trying to add about the nature of reality are beyond the realm of physics, and not testable.

I have to go now.
Although, I will post soon here some reference to neurophysiology, measurements using scientificall tools, human reality and what quantum physics added to us understanding human brain.

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

What would happen if the human rise was wiped out?
Will reality still exist?

Who is asking? (This is a serious reply)

Don’t you think that dialog between physicists can help neurologists?

No doubt, we could advance both fields by sharing knowledge?

Don’t dismiss me but help me by sharing what you know about your field.

I, for one, am not dismissing you at all.

Your question was, would reality still exist if the human race were wiped out?

So my question is, if the human race were wiped out, who is asking if reality would still exist?

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

What would happen if the human rise was wiped out?
Will reality still exist?

Who is asking? (This is a serious reply)

I have to go but I am looking forward to our conversation.

However, I hope we will not get lost in the question:
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"


and if we do then from the science point of view.


Thanks, you seem to be the first friendly person on here. :x

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

What would happen if the human rise was wiped out?
Will reality still exist?

Who is asking? (This is a serious reply)

My primary deduction is that you (SpeedFreek) have a Phd and are not a crank, so, I am honestly very curious about what you have to say concerning this.

No, I do not have a Ph.D, I am just an interested amateur enthusiast, but I have managed to get to the ripe old age of 44 without ever being accused of being a crank, and I do hope this continues to be the case!

It seem's to me that for 44 year old amateur enthusiast's, you are nearly at the top of your field. I am a 38 year old amateur enthusiast.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

So my question is, if the human race were wiped out, who is asking if reality would still exist?

Nice question, I will mull it over for awhile.

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

What would happen if the human rise was wiped out?
Will reality still exist?

Who is asking? (This is a serious reply)

I have to go but I am looking forward to our conversation.

However, I hope we will not get lost in the question:
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"


and if we do then from the science point of view.


Thanks, you seem to be the first friendly person on here. :x

I fear you may be disappointed, but it will be interesting trying to perform science when there is nobody around to perform it. :wink:

I like the idea of sentient tree squids taking over after we're gone. :P

@Hippocampus, More seriously, will reality still exist is the same type of question as the tree in the forest. It fundamentally depends on your definition of "reality".

More on octopi; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tcnq...1&feature=fvwp.
With a very complex motor physiology, there will also be a requisite for a complex neurophysiology and a complex control algorithm. I suspect octopi are very intelligent, although a direct comparison with human intelligence is probably like trying to map dissimilar manifolds to one another.
If physics is an emergent property of conscience (I don't think so), then perhaps octopi could fill the role of observer in lieu of humans.

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

What is the age of people posting here? .

I am 62.

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

Are you all junior students?

I would not aspire so high. My ignorance is too great.

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

Forums suppose to be a platform to learn, challenge ideas.
It is fair to await criticism …………but with clarification, details.

Yet when I challenge your basic premise you are unable to understand the challenge. Rather than ask me to clarify the challenge you decide it is meaningless and choose to ignore it.

You believe that is the mark of a mature mind? You think that bespeaks a mind ready to have their ideas challenged? You believe you should determine the nature of the criticism that is levelled at your speculations? :?

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

Let's assume that reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.

A good start.

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

In the Newtonian way and classical mechanics the world is measurable; the measurements reveal the true state of the world.

One has to take care with this sort of thing. What you measure reveals how the world appears to you.

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

For most of humans there was ‘reality’ that the sun orbits round the earth. Was this truth? No, because humans often describe reality in terms of common space we all experience.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

Quantum physics has shown us a very important fact. We can't know reality. Because, reality goes beyond our experience.

I disagree with that. Quantum physics as it stands doesn't give us a satisfactory understanding of reality, but it doesn't follow that we can't know reality.

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

We can understand what we think reality is, because we assume what we perceive is real. The stone/which you asked me to kick/ is not solid in the way I think it is. It is mostly vacuum and forces, not 100% matter.

The solidity of the stone might not be as real as you think, but a stone is a stone. It's real enough.

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

Also Planck has shown that we cannot experience the physical reality beyond a certain limit.

Hmmn. I'm not keen on this assertion. But nevermind, moving on:

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

The whole universe is an enormous wave function, with a huge possibility of different words and realms. Are those worlds real? Sure. Where they real prior to humans coming up with quantum physics? In quantum mechanics, there is no way of identifying the true state of the world. We can only predict the probabilities for different outcomes.

The "universe is an enormous wavefunction" and the "huge possibility of different worlds and realms" are not established fact, but instead are hypotheses.

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

What would happen if the human racee was wiped out?
Will reality still exist?

Yes. The universe existed before the human race existed, and it will still exist even if there was no human race.

Originally Posted by Farsight

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

What would happen if the human race was wiped out?
Will reality still exist?

Yes. The universe existed before the human race existed, and it will still exist even if there was no human race.

I think your reply pretty much covers the topic.

Chris

I would like to thanks for all the constructive posts here. At the same time, I would like to apologize as I will not have time to answer them till the weekend.

Moderators, pls move it to philosophy, biology or a medical site.

My only intention to put it in the physics was down to challenge and misunderstanding. I thought I was doubted with facts about Quantum Physics. Obviously, interpretation was my own but also shared by other scientists in my field. / the people who arrive to certain assumption based on measurements, statistic and knowledge about human body/. 8)


My comments about the age of people here were applying to their ‘emotional’ age and not to their knowledge.

Somebody said: Criticism is something we can avoid easily by saying nothing, doing nothing, and being nothing”

I am first to claim that the more I learn the more I don’t know. Criticism is very welcome but it has to be constructive. Don’t patronize me or ridicule.

Give me some food for thought and tell me what is wrong with my opinions.

Thanks.

No doubt that universe is real, not illusory. Though, in my opinion we are creating illusionary view of it.
In the situation when the human race was wiped out the ‘’reality’’ as we know would had stopped existing. However, universe and all the laws of it will be still there.
Am I right that when you talk about ‘observer’ in physics it does not mean human observer? In the 2 slit experiment even a single particle can be an observer. ?

When it comes to the famous tree: the tree will still be there and a mechanical wave made my leaves will be there.

The ways human see its tree is completely different to the way bat will perceive this tree. Both must be illusionary us they are completely different and concentrate on different aspects of this tree. A creature living in 2 dimensions will perceive it different then the one living in 3 or more dimensions.

Let’s say that this tree makes a sound which human ear can’t detect. We would say that this is ‘silent tree’ but for example my dog will /if could talk/ will say ‘what a noise’


Quantum physics states that everything in the universe is pure energy, differing only in rate of vibration.
If this is true then we as a part of universe are able to perceive limited information due to the fact that our senses are very limited. Of course humans using power of reasoning were able to use mathematics and different measurement devices allowing us a glimpse of ‘’ultimate'' reality and speculation. However, this is as far as it goes.


We laugh at the ‘’reality”” of people’’ from hundreds years ago. I am sure that if we humans prevail in thousand years they will chuckle about our ''reality''.

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

Am I right that when you talk about ‘observer’ in physics it does not mean human observer? In the 2 slit experiment even a single particle can be an observer. ?

If a photon is absorbed, it has been "observed". It matters not whether it is absorbed by your retina, a cows retina, some scientific apparatus, some wet moss, or some dust.

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

Let’s say that this tree makes a sound which human ear can’t detect. We would say that this is ‘silent tree’ but for example my dog will /if could talk/ will say ‘what a noise’

If it disturbs the air, it makes a sound, regardless of whether that sound is "observed".

:-D

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

Am I right that when you talk about ‘observer’ in physics it does not mean human observer? In the 2 slit experiment even a single particle can be an observer. ?

If a photon is absorbed, it has been "observed". It matters not whether it is absorbed by your retina, a cows retina, some scientific apparatus, some wet moss, or some dust.

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

Let’s say that this tree makes a sound which human ear can’t detect. We would say that this is ‘silent tree’ but for example my dog will /if could talk/ will say ‘what a noise’

If it disturbs the air, it makes a sound, regardless of whether that sound is "observed".

:-D

I fear you may be disappointed, but it will be interesting trying to perform science when there is nobody around to perform it.

I have to go so you will have to perform, but I will be here to read it.

I would love to hear your opinion : humans would reality still exist if the human race were wiped out?

So my question is, if the human race were wiped out, who is asking if reality would still exist?

Tell me your answer to the questions you have asked. Looking forward to it.

Reality, just like the sound of a tree falling in the forest, exists whether or not there is anybody around to interpret it.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Reality, just like the sound of a tree falling in the forest, exists whether or not there is anybody around to interpret it.

Well put!!!

I love the word ''interpret''.

But , still leaves me with the question what we understand by interpret.

For me: to give or provide the meaning of;


IF we take this definition: can the single proton do it?

In my opinion, it can.
It will react / with certain probability/ to ‘’its observation’

Atoms react with each other. They have their own reality and react in mechanical way. Yes, we could say they make their own ‘meaning of reality' and act accordable to it.

For me ,the problems start when we talk about human observer.
We make assumption that consciousness is an observer. I.e. what we call ‘our reality’ is limited to what our senses can observe or our science can predict.

When a tree falls in the forest and there’s no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? No, for there is no ear to turn the sound waves into sound. Nor is there a smell, for there is no nose for the odorous molecules to attach to, nor has it any color, for there is no retina to decode the light frequencies. What does it look like, then? It doesn’t look like anything, for there is no brain to put it all together by detecting form, color, texture, size, taste, smell, or vision.

Originally Posted by questor

When a tree falls in the forest and there’s no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? No, for there is no ear to turn the sound waves into sound. Nor is there a smell, for there is no nose for the odorous molecules to attach to, nor has it any color, for there is no retina to decode the light frequencies. What does it look like, then? It doesn’t look like anything, for there is no brain to put it all together by detecting form, color, texture, size, taste, smell, or vision.

What? No squirrels?

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

What? No squirrels?

The bird, squirrels, and all ran far way when another tree fell, a minute before this one.

Originally Posted by questor

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

What? No squirrels?

The bird, squirrels, and all ran far way when another tree fell, a minute before this one.

Worms can sense vibrations, how far do you think one can crawl in a minute?

This was a tree that fell before life had evolved.

Let me apologize to everyone else here for encouraging questor. It was an accident and I won't let it happen again. Sorry, really!

@Hippocampus, rigor of language is an important ingredient to science. It sound's as if you are advocating consciousness on the part of elementary particles. I suspect you are being metaphorical, but that is the sort of thing that can get a person ridiculed on a science forum.

To provide a concrete example of why rigour is important, consider the "tree in the forest" question. As soon as you rigourously define sound, the answer becomes completely obvious.

If you define sound as a vibration of air, then obviously the tree still makes a sound.
If you define sound as something heard, then obviously it doesn't.

If we had two different words for these two concepts, then you couldn't even ask the question in a "thought-provoking" way. (Human language being what it is, you could always find a similar question though.)

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

Let me apologize to everyone else here for encouraging questor. It was an accident and I won't let it happen again. Sorry, really!

@Hippocampus, rigor of language is an important ingredient to science. It sound's as if you are advocating consciousness on the part of elementary particles. I suspect you are being metaphorical, but that is the sort of thing that can get a person ridiculed on a science forum.

I could not agree more with ''rigor of language is an important ingredient to science''

Could you then give me a scientific definition of consciousness, PLS.?

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

Let me apologize to everyone else here for encouraging questor. It was an accident and I won't let it happen again. Sorry, really!

@Hippocampus, rigor of language is an important ingredient to science. It sound's as if you are advocating consciousness on the part of elementary particles. I suspect you are being metaphorical, but that is the sort of thing that can get a person ridiculed on a science forum.

I am assuming that the luck of your respond is down to '' not for encouraging questor''


And, not at all to the fact that definition of consciousness does not exists in the ‘scientificall’ definitions.

Sorry, really!

.
Sorry for hijacking your phrase.

I really don't think that consciousness has a single agreed upon definition. For me the word is far more interrogative than expository. Here is what the Wiki has to say;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness.

My own "question" of conscious is still fuzzy, involving turing machines, algorithms, cytoskeletons, quantum processes, dark matter, Rene Descartes, Mr. Tenzin Gyatso, some Dogen, the works of Shakespeare, and other prose with the color red in it, or blue, or green, sometimes grey, Sargasso sea, and deep currents?
Not to mention giant pythons, frog's, and kitty cats?
And octopi, mustn't forget the octopi?

When the tree fall's there is a single, objective, material reality to it.
As to the subjective experience of either myself, the tree, or any other potential observer, I don't know.

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

I really don't think that consciousness has a single agreed upon definition. For me the word is far more interrogative than expository. Here is what the Wiki has to say;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness.

My own "question" of conscious is still fuzzy, involving turing machines, algorithms, cytoskeletons, quantum processes, dark matter, Rene Descartes, Mr. Tenzin Gyatso, some Dogen, the works of Shakespeare, and other prose with the color red in it, or blue, or green, sometimes grey, Sargasso sea, and deep currents?
Not to mention giant pythons, frog's, and kitty cats?
And octopi, mustn't forget the octopi?

When the tree fall's there is a single, objective, material reality to it.
As to the subjective experience of either myself, the tree, or any other potential observer, I don't know.

For the first time on this forum we agree.

My own "question" of conscious is still fuzzy

I know very little about algorithms, cytoskeletons, quantum processes, dark matter.

However, I deal what populous call ‘’consciousness’’ i.e. brain every day.

I was hoping, you can add to my knowledge , instead of scorning me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytoskeleton

Cytoskeleton is a cellular structure. If you want to understand the brain, you need to learn about it's constituent parts. Start with cells.

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytoskeleton

Cytoskeleton is a cellular structure. If you want to understand the brain, you need to learn about it's constituent parts. Start with cells.

Neural cytoskeleton and it’s influence’ on learning and memory are still theoretical.

But, before, I go even further to comment; I will need to learn more.

I do appreciate you mentioning it. It is definetly, food for thought.

Originally Posted by Hippocampus

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

Let me apologize to everyone else here for encouraging questor. It was an accident and I won't let it happen again. Sorry, really!

@Hippocampus, rigor of language is an important ingredient to science. It sound's as if you are advocating consciousness on the part of elementary particles. I suspect you are being metaphorical, but that is the sort of thing that can get a person ridiculed on a science forum.

I could not agree more with ''rigor of language is an important ingredient to science''

Could you then give me a scientific definition of consciousness, PLS.?

You're the one trying to ask the questions, so you should define your terms. (In fact, if you can give a rigourous definition that everyone can agree on, you'll probably make it into a few history books.)

Great video here on reality and some possible theories...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4Z8C...layer_embedded

Originally Posted by Jordus

Great video here on reality and some possible theories...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4Z8C...layer_embedded

I have really enjoyed it and it brought a lot of food for my thought.


Beware; people here found it only amusing.