Does my reality exists regardless of how I perceive it?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-01-2016, 12:44 AM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2016 12:53 AM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Does my reality exists regardless of how I perceive it?
(19-01-2016 05:57 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(19-01-2016 05:50 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  You're conflating "real" and "objective". The two words are not homonyms.
Thump: "The two words are not homonyms"
Shane: Agreed.
Homonyms (also called homophones) are words that sound like one another but have different meanings. Some homonyms are spelled the same, like bark (the sound a dog makes) and bark (the outer layer of a tree trunk).

I stand corrected. What I meant to point out is that the two words do not mean the same thing. Your niggle (correct as it is) aside, you still are conflating the two words, which have different meanings.

(19-01-2016 05:57 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Thump: "You're conflating "real" and "objective""
Shane: I shouldn't be using the word real then?

You shouldn't be using sophistry, is my point. Thoughts can be real, but they still aren't objective, by definition.

(19-01-2016 06:00 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I don't see the claim. Maybe I am wrong. Can you tell me what the claim is?

Quote:The question still lies "what exists outside of perception?"

Built into your question is the assumption that something exists outside of perception. That is a claim. It is also an unfounded claim.

I'm looking forward to you explaining that without appealing to sensory perception to make your point. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2016, 01:39 AM
RE: Does my reality exists regardless of how I perceive it?
(19-01-2016 10:02 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  
(19-01-2016 09:48 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Is that a real blind woman or just a perception of a blind woman?

Undecided

I see her. I go blind! But I can tell she is still there through the use of all my other senses.
I could loose the ability to smell her, but could still see her. Etc...
Not being able to perceive her with a recently failed sense fails to keep my other working senses from detecting her.
Stands to reason that even if all my body's abilities to perceive anything, outside of my own thoughts, cease, she'll still be there despite my inability to perceive her?

Or is reality's existence dependent on the number of detectors I have working? 1 or none?

Next Dodgy

Good question.

We'll have to pump the blind woman through the double slits in order to find out.

Yes

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
20-01-2016, 03:17 AM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2016 03:28 AM by Chas.)
RE: Does my reality exists regardless of how I perceive it?
(19-01-2016 09:54 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(19-01-2016 09:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nothing at all.

There is not once scientist that you can quote who agrees with this crap. This is typical YouTube bullshit nonsense by a wacko infatuated with his own pet bullshit theory.
You people are a dime a dozen. The particle wave duality (which you clearly don't even understand) is "observed". It's a part of the reality of this universe.
There has at this point, been no unification theory to unite the quantum world and the macro world. Those findings suggest nothing that is not already known.
Thanks for showing us you completely misunderstand the science you are pretending to speak of.
You have provided not a shred of evidence for all your ASSertions, child.
References are required. You have none.
Your claims have less value than "Horton Hears a Who".
You continue to demonstrate your pseudo-intellectual bullshit in your OP was a complete lie.
Here you go Bucky.
Not just 1 scientist you say? Would 2 be ok then?
http://www.gizmag.com/quantum-theory-reality-anu/37866/

That article makes the common error of stating an interpretational dichotomy that doesn't actually exist. i.e. "wave/particle duality".

Photons and particles are what they are - not waves, not particles. Those are metaphors or interpretations imposed by humans trying to grasp the nature of things.

The act of measuring physically alters the state of things regardless of a conscious observer. The idea that the physical state is altered by a conscious obsever is quantum woo.
It is the measuring - not the consciousness of the measuring - that alters the state.

This is what Heisenberg was pointing out - that we cannot be certain of the state without measuring and measuring affects the state.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2016, 04:30 AM
RE: Does my reality exists regardless of how I perceive it?
(20-01-2016 12:44 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(19-01-2016 05:57 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Thump: "The two words are not homonyms"
Shane: Agreed.
Homonyms (also called homophones) are words that sound like one another but have different meanings. Some homonyms are spelled the same, like bark (the sound a dog makes) and bark (the outer layer of a tree trunk).

I stand corrected. What I meant to point out is that the two words do not mean the same thing. Your niggle (correct as it is) aside, you still are conflating the two words, which have different meanings.

(19-01-2016 05:57 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Thump: "You're conflating "real" and "objective""
Shane: I shouldn't be using the word real then?

You shouldn't be using sophistry, is my point. Thoughts can be real, but they still aren't objective, by definition.

(19-01-2016 06:00 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I don't see the claim. Maybe I am wrong. Can you tell me what the claim is?

Quote:The question still lies "what exists outside of perception?"

Built into your question is the assumption that something exists outside of perception. That is a claim. It is also an unfounded claim.

I'm looking forward to you explaining that without appealing to sensory perception to make your point. Smile
How can I pos rep you?
You are the 4th person to have admitted that in this thread & it is by far the most honest position to have taken.
I am glad you see the absurdity of the question.
There are many in this thread that would have us believe that they can prove reality exists outside of perception.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2016, 04:50 AM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2016 05:59 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Does my reality exists regardless of how I perceive it?
(20-01-2016 03:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-01-2016 09:54 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Here you go Bucky.
Not just 1 scientist you say? Would 2 be ok then?
http://www.gizmag.com/quantum-theory-reality-anu/37866/

That article makes the common error of stating an interpretational dichotomy that doesn't actually exist. i.e. "wave/particle duality".

Photons and particles are what they are - not waves, not particles. Those are metaphors or interpretations imposed by humans trying to grasp the nature of things.

The act of measuring physically alters the state of things regardless of a conscious observer. The idea that the physical state is altered by a conscious obsever is quantum woo.
It is the measuring - not the consciousness of the measuring - that alters the state.

This is what Heisenberg was pointing out - that we cannot be certain of the state without measuring and measuring affects the state.
Heisenberg isn't quoted anywhere in the article.
Truscot was:
"The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence," said Truscott. "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it.”

It was a delayed choice experiment.
Eg. Yesterday's lottery numbers always have odd numbers in it 90% of the time whenever I check the results in the newspapers first, but whenever I check the results on the TV first the probability is 10%. You will get the same results every time even if someone else tries it.
When you include space/time in the equation the determining factor is not measuring vs not measuring, it is choosing how to check the results.
I can change my past reality based on what I choose to do in the present, thereby manipulating my present reality.

But since we are on the topic of quoting scientists:
As scientist Dr. Dean Radin said in a paper replicating the double-slit experiment, “We compel the electron to assume a definite position. We ourselves produce the results of the measurement.”  Now, a common response to this is “It’s not us who is measuring the electron, it’s the machine that is doing the observation”.  A machine is simply an extension of our consciousness.  This is like saying “It’s not me who is observing the boat way across the lake, it is the binoculars”. The machine does not itself observe anything any more than a computer that interprets sound waves can

Would be cool if we could test my lottery experiment though.
Would we make a jail for lottery tampering?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2016, 07:20 AM
RE: Does my reality exists regardless of how I perceive it?
(19-01-2016 11:53 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(19-01-2016 11:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You didn't answer the question posed to you. You evaded it by going off on an irrelevant tangent, then made up a straw man argument which no one made, and instead of answering the question, addressed your made up straw man. We can all see your MO here. Your schtick is rather annoying, and very obvious.
I may have misunderstood the question then.
Are you asking me how do I plan to experience the research personally?
I haven't made any such plans

Then you will never know if the results are true, (according to you) will you ? Then why even do the testing ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2016, 07:37 AM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2016 08:03 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Does my reality exists regardless of how I perceive it?
Fact: the speed of a photon in a vacuum is the universal speed limit. This means information (whatever the form) cannot travel faster than the speed of light
Fact: a single photon can be in 2 places at the same time (wave) or at other times in only 1 place (particle)

The test:
In a vacuum, in chronological order:
A photon is released & it's atomic time is taken
The photon reaches a sensor & it's atomic time is taken
The photon then reaches the double slit & it's atomic time is taken
The photon then reaches a wall & it's atomic time is taken along with it's quantum position(s)
We also did the test 7000 times without a sensor & 7000 times with a sensor
The atomic clock sensors are designed only to receive information at a distance & not physically interact with the photon. By the time the sensor recognizes there is a photon it would have been long gone.
http://www.mpq.mpg.de/4861203/13_11_15

The results:
The atomic clock sensors all show that the speed of the photon was never slowed down by any of the previous sensors based on release time & final destination time.
The test showed that the photon was a wave upon hitting the wall more often than not when the double slit atomic clock was off, but when it was on it was a particle.

The conclusion:
Checking the statistical results of the present can change the statistical results of the past
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2016, 07:49 AM
RE: Does my reality exists regardless of how I perceive it?
(20-01-2016 07:37 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Fact: the speed of a photon in a vacuum is the universal speed limit. This means information (whatever the form) cannot travel faster than the speed of light
Fact: a single photon can be in 2 places at the same time (wave) or at other times in only 1 place (particle)

The test:
In a vacuum, in chronological order:
A photon is released & it's atomic time is taken
The photon reaches a sensor & it's atomic time is taken
The photon then reaches the double slit & it's atomic time is taken
The photon then reaches a wall & it's atomic time is taken along with it's quantum position(s)
We also did the test 7000 times without a sensor & 7000 times with a sensor

The results:
The atomic clocks all show that the speed of the photon was never slowed down by any of the previous sensors based on release time & final destination time.
The test showed that the photon was a wave upon hitting the wall more often than not when the double slit atomic clock was off, but when it was on it was a particle.

The conclusion:
Checking the statistical results of the present can change the statistical results of the past

Sorry, no. A photon cannot reach a sensor then do anything else. Once it has hit that sensor it is gone, absorbed by that sensor.

And photons do not have an 'atomic time'.

Your understanding of physics is pretty sketchy.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2016, 07:51 AM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2016 07:56 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Does my reality exists regardless of how I perceive it?
(20-01-2016 07:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-01-2016 07:37 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Fact: the speed of a photon in a vacuum is the universal speed limit. This means information (whatever the form) cannot travel faster than the speed of light
Fact: a single photon can be in 2 places at the same time (wave) or at other times in only 1 place (particle)

The test:
In a vacuum, in chronological order:
A photon is released & it's atomic time is taken
The photon reaches a sensor & it's atomic time is taken
The photon then reaches the double slit & it's atomic time is taken
The photon then reaches a wall & it's atomic time is taken along with it's quantum position(s)
We also did the test 7000 times without a sensor & 7000 times with a sensor

The results:
The atomic clocks all show that the speed of the photon was never slowed down by any of the previous sensors based on release time & final destination time.
The test showed that the photon was a wave upon hitting the wall more often than not when the double slit atomic clock was off, but when it was on it was a particle.

The conclusion:
Checking the statistical results of the present can change the statistical results of the past

Sorry, no. A photon cannot reach a sensor then do anything else. Once it has hit that sensor it is gone, absorbed by that sensor.

And photons do not have an 'atomic time'.

Your understanding of physics is pretty sketchy.
299792.458 km/s is the speed of a photon in a vacuum. It can be measured.
It did not hit the sensor. The sensor is placed at a distance.
Sorry if I edited it whiled you were probably typing but if you read back the post you will see where I showed why the sensor does not affect the photon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2016, 07:53 AM
RE: Does my reality exists regardless of how I perceive it?
(20-01-2016 07:51 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(20-01-2016 07:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  Sorry, no. A photon cannot reach a sensor then do anything else. Once it has hit that sensor it is gone, absorbed by that sensor.

And photons do not have an 'atomic time'.

Your understanding of physics is pretty sketchy.
299792.458 km/s is the speed of a photon in a vacuum. It can be measured.

So? That is not responsive.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: