Reality might not exist

Astronomy, Chemistry, Earth Sciences, Mathematics & Physics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Reality might not exist

#21  Postby Rumraket » Oct 06, 2017 10:52 am

GrahamH wrote:I think 'the observer effect' could just as well be termed 'the measurement effect'.

Which in turn can just be called wavefunction collapse due to interaction. At no point can it be demonstrated that it is necessary for an observer to come along and read a graph on a display on some measuring apperatus that interacted with some quantum system, in order for that interaction to collapse a wavefunction.

It doesn't even have to be an apperatus at all. When waves of ultraviolet light hits the surface of some obscure rock nobody has laid eyes on, on the surface of venus, that very interaction collapses the wavefunction of the electron in an atom in the rock, and the wavefunction of the photon. We know this because extended exposure to UV radiation slowly degrade materials by destroying chemical bonds between atoms. It's why things exposed to sunlight lose their color and become faded, why plastics and paint etc. fade over time, become brittle and fall apart and so on and so forth.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12596
Age: 36
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Reality might not exist

#22  Postby DavidMcC » Oct 06, 2017 1:46 pm

I never liked the term, "wavefunction collapse". This is largely because I think it only expresses half of the process involved in a transition of a quantum system from one state to another. The point is that the "collapsed" wavefunction must immediately be replaced by a different one, appropriate to the new system, after the transition. The new system may be of a different kind, inappropriate to the old wavefunction, depending on how the old w/f was specified.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14290
Age: 64
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Reality might not exist

#23  Postby laklak » Oct 06, 2017 2:54 pm

If it looks like reality, walks like reality, and quacks like reality, it's probably reality.

Perhaps I should have said "quarks like reality".
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 16377
Age: 63
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Reality might not exist

#24  Postby jamest » Oct 06, 2017 4:22 pm

Rumraket wrote:
GrahamH wrote:I think 'the observer effect' could just as well be termed 'the measurement effect'.

Which in turn can just be called wavefunction collapse due to interaction. At no point can it be demonstrated that it is necessary for an observer to come along and read a graph on a display on some measuring apperatus that interacted with some quantum system, in order for that interaction to collapse a wavefunction.

But you're talking as though you are sure that these interactions happen beyond the observation or observation-of-measurement of them, when in fact we can only confirm that interactions happen via/proceeding observation. The point being that you have zero evidence that anything happens beyond the observation of it, which is a demonstration in itself of the wretchedness of your stance on this matter.

It doesn't even have to be an apperatus at all. When waves of ultraviolet light hits the surface of some obscure rock nobody has laid eyes on, on the surface of venus, that very interaction collapses the wavefunction of the electron in an atom in the rock, and the wavefunction of the photon. We know this because extended exposure to UV radiation slowly degrade materials by destroying chemical bonds between atoms. It's why things exposed to sunlight lose their color and become faded, why plastics and paint etc. fade over time, become brittle and fall apart and so on and so forth.

If I play Call of Duty, I know that around the next corner there'll be German soldiers waiting to shoot my character, but I also happen to know that there'll be no Germans there until I arrive. It's the ordering of the software which yields expected events, not the fact that 'real Germans' are running around waiting for me.

... The same principle applies here in our world, such that what you say about Venus and rocks etc. does not suffice to prove that the world actually exists beyond the observation of it/them. Not one bit. What you say has no consequence beyond order... and the ordering of this world is not in dispute.
They came, they saw, they concurred.
User avatar
jamest
 
Posts: 16140
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Reality might not exist

#25  Postby GrahamH » Oct 06, 2017 4:52 pm

jamest wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
GrahamH wrote:I think 'the observer effect' could just as well be termed 'the measurement effect'.

Which in turn can just be called wavefunction collapse due to interaction. At no point can it be demonstrated that it is necessary for an observer to come along and read a graph on a display on some measuring apperatus that interacted with some quantum system, in order for that interaction to collapse a wavefunction.

But you're talking as though you are sure that these interactions happen beyond the observation or observation-of-measurement of them, when in fact we can only confirm that interactions happen via/proceeding observation.


But you're talking as though you are sure that these interactions DON'T happen beyond the observation. Clearly you are in error Such experiments offer NO support for non-occurrence of phenomena.
What you are doing is equivalent to standing in the light of the moon, looking up then closing your eyes and saying to yourself "see, I just proved there is no Moon!". :nono:
You try that experiment with an express train.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 17229

Print view this post

Re: Reality might not exist

#26  Postby DavidMcC » Oct 06, 2017 5:00 pm

jamest wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
GrahamH wrote:I think 'the observer effect' could just as well be termed 'the measurement effect'.

Which in turn can just be called wavefunction collapse due to interaction. At no point can it be demonstrated that it is necessary for an observer to come along and read a graph on a display on some measuring apperatus that interacted with some quantum system, in order for that interaction to collapse a wavefunction.

But you're talking as though you are sure that these interactions happen beyond the observation or observation-of-measurement of them, when in fact we can only confirm that interactions happen via/proceeding observation. The point being that you have zero evidence that anything happens beyond the observation of it, which is a demonstration in itself of the wretchedness of your stance on this matter.
...

So you think that there is no evidence that, say a planet still exists when it is on the far side of the sun, for example? :scratch:
Or that there is no evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow morning?
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14290
Age: 64
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Reality might not exist

#27  Postby GrahamH » Oct 06, 2017 5:14 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
jamest wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
GrahamH wrote:I think 'the observer effect' could just as well be termed 'the measurement effect'.

Which in turn can just be called wavefunction collapse due to interaction. At no point can it be demonstrated that it is necessary for an observer to come along and read a graph on a display on some measuring apperatus that interacted with some quantum system, in order for that interaction to collapse a wavefunction.

But you're talking as though you are sure that these interactions happen beyond the observation or observation-of-measurement of them, when in fact we can only confirm that interactions happen via/proceeding observation. The point being that you have zero evidence that anything happens beyond the observation of it, which is a demonstration in itself of the wretchedness of your stance on this matter.
...

So you think that there is no evidence that, say a planet still exists when it is on the far side of the sun, for example? :scratch:
Or that there is no evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow morning?


Remember that jamest is a solipsist/idealist who thinks where everything is " orchestrated" as needed to make an experience. Think of it as a form of Last Thursdayism. The Moon may appear to have raised the tide while you slept but in jamest world the signs of a tide are created only because you thought to look for them. They are in effect a frm of looking at the moon A story is made up on the spot as needed. History = fantasy.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 17229

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Reality might not exist

#28  Postby Mike_L » Oct 06, 2017 5:20 pm

Three days ago...

Physicists Confirm That We’re Not Living In a Computer Simulation

Scientists have discovered that it’s impossible to model the physics of our universe on even the biggest computer.
What that means is that we’re probably not living in a computer simulation.
...

Full article at:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/physicists-confirm-that-were-not-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
Also, in Newsweek:
ARE WE LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION? SCIENTISTS PROVE ELON MUSK WRONG...
http://www.newsweek.com/are-we-living-computer-simulation-scientists-prove-elon-musk-wrong-677251
__________________________________________

But then, just yesterday...

Sorry, Scientists Didn't Prove We're Not Living in a Simulation
Despite what you may have read, the 'simulation question' remains unanswered.

By Avery Thompson

Is the whole universe one big computer program? Nobody really knows. But if you read some news stories this week you might be excused in thinking we've got it all sorted out. Many news outlets reported on a scientific article recently published in the journal Science Advances as proof that our universe is not a simulation. However, the truth is a little more complicated.
...

Full article at:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/news/a28505/scientists-dont-prove-were-not-living-in-a-simulation/
User avatar
Mike_L
 
Posts: 12029
Age: 48
Male

Country: South Africa
Print view this post

Re: Reality might not exist

#29  Postby jamest » Oct 06, 2017 6:58 pm

GrahamH wrote:
jamest wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
GrahamH wrote:I think 'the observer effect' could just as well be termed 'the measurement effect'.

Which in turn can just be called wavefunction collapse due to interaction. At no point can it be demonstrated that it is necessary for an observer to come along and read a graph on a display on some measuring apperatus that interacted with some quantum system, in order for that interaction to collapse a wavefunction.

But you're talking as though you are sure that these interactions happen beyond the observation or observation-of-measurement of them, when in fact we can only confirm that interactions happen via/proceeding observation.


But you're talking as though you are sure that these interactions DON'T happen beyond the observation.

This is incorrect, as nowhere here within this thread have I stated such nor even claimed that a 'real world' does not exist. Note that my involvement here was initiated precisely to undermine Rumraket's dismissal of the OP, which he evidently bases on some knowledge of events beyond that of those which can be observed. No such knowledge is possible. Also, in my previous post I explained why his appeal to expectation/prediction had no consequences [for 'reality'] other than for order, which is not in dispute, but which itself does not suffice to prove the existence of material [events].

The bottom-line is that we can dismiss his dismissal of the OP for the reasons he has provided, regardless of whether I prove diddly squat. I'm playing the part of Socrates here, not Plato.


Clearly you are in error Such experiments offer NO support for non-occurrence of phenomena.

I haven't actually stated that they have; although [I will now say] I do think that there is sufficient physical evidence to show that observation effects physical definiteness for [what we have been informed are] essentially indefinite quanta, which imo suffices to prove that 'definite material existence' only occurs within observation.

If you/anyone else doesn't think that then you certainly haven't provided any credible reasons for doing so.
They came, they saw, they concurred.
User avatar
jamest
 
Posts: 16140
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Reality might not exist

#30  Postby GrahamH » Oct 06, 2017 7:16 pm

jamest wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
jamest wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Which in turn can just be called wavefunction collapse due to interaction. At no point can it be demonstrated that it is necessary for an observer to come along and read a graph on a display on some measuring apperatus that interacted with some quantum system, in order for that interaction to collapse a wavefunction.

But you're talking as though you are sure that these interactions happen beyond the observation or observation-of-measurement of them, when in fact we can only confirm that interactions happen via/proceeding observation.


But you're talking as though you are sure that these interactions DON'T happen beyond the observation.

This is incorrect, as nowhere here within this thread have I stated such nor even claimed that a 'real world' does not exist. Note that my involvement here was initiated precisely to undermine Rumraket's dismissal of the OP, which he evidently bases on some knowledge of events beyond that of those which can be observed. No such knowledge is possible. Also, in my previous post I explained why his appeal to expectation/prediction had no consequences [for 'reality'] other than for order, which is not in dispute, but which itself does not suffice to prove the existence of material [events].

The bottom-line is that we can dismiss his dismissal of the OP for the reasons he has provided, regardless of whether I prove diddly squat. I'm playing the part of Socrates here, not Plato.


Clearly you are in error Such experiments offer NO support for non-occurrence of phenomena.

I haven't actually stated that they have; although [I will now say] I do think that there is sufficient physical evidence to show that observation effects physical definiteness for [what we have been informed are] essentially indefinite quanta, which imo suffices to prove that 'definite material existence' only occurs within observation.

If you/anyone else doesn't think that then you certainly haven't provided any credible reasons for doing so.


You just contradicted yourself by making a categorical statement about something you just acknowledged cannot be known.

You also posted this rash assertion

jamest wrote:
If I play Call of Duty, I know that around the next corner there'll be German soldiers waiting to shoot my character, but I also happen to know that there'll be no Germans there until I arrive. It's the ordering of the software which yields expected events, not the fact that 'real Germans' are running around waiting for me.

... The same principle applies here in our world, such that what you say about Venus and rocks etc. does not suffice to prove that the world actually exists beyond the observation of it/them. Not one bit. What you say has no consequence beyond order... and the ordering of this world is not in dispute.
Last edited by GrahamH on Oct 06, 2017 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 17229

Print view this post

Re: Reality might not exist

#31  Postby jamest » Oct 06, 2017 7:34 pm

GrahamH wrote:
You just contradicted yourself by making a categorical statement about something you just acknowledged cannot be known.

Another error on your part, Sir, as what I actually said [in the first instance] was that (1) we cannot prove that there is a world beyond the observation of it. However, this doesn't imply that the negation of said world is impossible - that (2) we cannot prove that there is NO such world. 1 does not entail 2, hence there was no contradiction on my part, you're mistaken.


You also posted this rash assertion

jamest wrote:so on and so forth.

If I play Call of Duty, I know that around the next corner there'll be German soldiers waiting to shoot my character, but I also happen to know that there'll be no Germans there until I arrive. It's the ordering of the software which yields expected events, not the fact that 'real Germans' are running around waiting for me.

... The same principle applies here in our world, such that what you say about Venus and rocks etc. does not suffice to prove that the world actually exists beyond the observation of it/them. Not one bit. What you say has no consequence beyond order... and the ordering of this world is not in dispute.

You need to correct quote tags and explain what's rash before I have a hope of responding to that. :scratch:
They came, they saw, they concurred.
User avatar
jamest
 
Posts: 16140
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Reality might not exist

#32  Postby jamest » Oct 06, 2017 7:39 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
jamest wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
GrahamH wrote:I think 'the observer effect' could just as well be termed 'the measurement effect'.

Which in turn can just be called wavefunction collapse due to interaction. At no point can it be demonstrated that it is necessary for an observer to come along and read a graph on a display on some measuring apperatus that interacted with some quantum system, in order for that interaction to collapse a wavefunction.

But you're talking as though you are sure that these interactions happen beyond the observation or observation-of-measurement of them, when in fact we can only confirm that interactions happen via/proceeding observation. The point being that you have zero evidence that anything happens beyond the observation of it, which is a demonstration in itself of the wretchedness of your stance on this matter.
...

So you think that there is no evidence that, say a planet still exists when it is on the far side of the sun, for example? :scratch:
Or that there is no evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow morning?

There is ordering evidence that said planet will be observed if we send someone/something to observe it. As I hopefully explained in my Call of Duty analogy, evidence of physical order is not evidence of physical existence.
They came, they saw, they concurred.
User avatar
jamest
 
Posts: 16140
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Reality might not exist

#33  Postby GrahamH » Oct 06, 2017 7:40 pm

jamest wrote:
I haven't actually stated that they have; although [I will now say] I do think that there is sufficient physical evidence to show that observation effects physical definiteness


You are wrong. The experiments do not do that. They say nothing about conscious observers.
Last edited by GrahamH on Oct 07, 2017 8:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 17229

Print view this post

Re: Reality might not exist

#34  Postby jamest » Oct 06, 2017 7:50 pm

GrahamH wrote:
jamest wrote:

I haven't actually stated that they have; although [I will now say] I do think that there is sufficient physical evidence to show that observation effects physical definiteness quote]

You are wrong. The experiments do not do that. They say nothing about conscious observers.

Are you typing on a phone? If not, have a word.

I don't think I've used the word 'conscious' even once in this thread. You're seeing and believing what you wish to see and believe, Graham. I'll be expecting a more precise and objective opinion of my posts from now on, or don't bother.
They came, they saw, they concurred.
User avatar
jamest
 
Posts: 16140
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Reality might not exist

#35  Postby GrahamH » Oct 07, 2017 8:40 am

given your history and liberal use of the word 'observer' you should take great care any time you find yourself typing that word to signify anything other than 'conscious observer' The context here certainly looks like you mean 'conscious observer''.
It is abundantly clear that Rumraket is using the word to signify 'conscious observer' in his justified criticism.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 17229

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Reality might not exist

#36  Postby DavidMcC » Oct 07, 2017 10:33 am

jamest wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
jamest wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Which in turn can just be called wavefunction collapse due to interaction. At no point can it be demonstrated that it is necessary for an observer to come along and read a graph on a display on some measuring apperatus that interacted with some quantum system, in order for that interaction to collapse a wavefunction.

But you're talking as though you are sure that these interactions happen beyond the observation or observation-of-measurement of them, when in fact we can only confirm that interactions happen via/proceeding observation. The point being that you have zero evidence that anything happens beyond the observation of it, which is a demonstration in itself of the wretchedness of your stance on this matter.
...

So you think that there is no evidence that, say a planet still exists when it is on the far side of the sun, for example? :scratch:
Or that there is no evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow morning?

There is ordering evidence that said planet will be observed if we send someone/something to observe it. As I hopefully explained in my Call of Duty analogy, evidence of physical order is not evidence of physical existence.

It is not clear what you mean by "ordering" in this context. Therefore, I cannot understand why you claim that your "ordering" does not imply existence.
Last edited by DavidMcC on Oct 07, 2017 10:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14290
Age: 64
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Reality might not exist

#37  Postby DavidMcC » Oct 07, 2017 10:35 am

Does "ordered" mean "obeys the laws of phsics"?
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14290
Age: 64
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Physical Sciences & Mathematics

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests