Reality might not exist

Astronomy, Chemistry, Earth Sciences, Mathematics & Physics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Reality might not exist

#1  Postby juju7 » Oct 04, 2017 3:44 pm

https://thesciencepage.com/physicists-i ... snt-exist/

Whether you observed the atom going down one path or two only depends on how it was measured at the end of its micro-sized and kind of improbable journey, which in a sense means reality itself doesn’t exist unless you’re observing it.
User avatar
juju7
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 774

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Reality might not exist

#2  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 04, 2017 4:22 pm

juju7 wrote:https://thesciencepage.com/physicists-in-australia-have-proved-that-reality-doesnt-exist/

Whether you observed the atom going down one path or two only depends on how it was measured at the end of its micro-sized and kind of improbable journey, which in a sense means reality itself doesn’t exist unless you’re observing it.

Not this shit again. :roll:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27138
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Reality might not exist

#3  Postby Rumraket » Oct 04, 2017 4:22 pm

*Sigh*. No, it doesn't mean that. Not even "in a sense". I'm getting tired of hearing this crap because it's the source of so many misconceptions about quantum mechanics. The idea that there has to be observers observing things. No, there doesn't have to be observers observing (or measuring) things.

The only thing required for wavefunction collapse is an interaction. Neither of the entities that interact have to be "observers", or worse yet, "conscious" or anything like it.

When physicists sloppily absuse the terms observation and measurement on the subject of quantum mechanics, they're fucking up their own jobs by inspiring a lot of pseudowibble and woo. What they really talk about are interactions between quantum systems. An electron interacting with a photon, or with another electron, or what have you. This is what is going on, whether there are observers there to observe and perform measurements or not. And electrons aren't observers, they don't perform measurements, and there's no evidence they're conscious.

Oh, and reality has to exist, it's in the name. It can't be reality and fail to exist. Things we observe with our senses might not truly be how we observe and experience them to be, but they still exist, whatever their actual nature.

Can we just permanently stop with the quantum bullshit speak?
"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

Re: Reality might not exist

#4  Postby Rumraket » Oct 04, 2017 4:26 pm

Btw, I know this isn't your fault juju7, I'm just tired of all the sloppy talk from scientists and even more tired of the sensationalistic reporting.
"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

Re: Reality might not exist

#5  Postby laklak » Oct 04, 2017 5:38 pm

I'll bet Deepity Chakra could explain it.
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

#6  Postby Thommo » Oct 04, 2017 5:43 pm

I'm sure it exists, I'm just worried it's not real. Or even if it's real, is it really real?
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 21639

Print view this post

Re: Reality might not exist

#7  Postby Mike_L » Oct 04, 2017 5:55 pm

It's all real, man! And it's all SHIT! Shit is real!

:shifty:
User avatar
Mike_L
 
Posts: 12029
Age: 48
Male

Country: South Africa
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Reality might not exist

#8  Postby BlackBart » Oct 04, 2017 6:06 pm

Shit just got real.
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Posts: 10476
Age: 55
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Reality might not exist

#9  Postby Mike_L » Oct 04, 2017 6:32 pm

:lol:
User avatar
Mike_L
 
Posts: 12029
Age: 48
Male

Country: South Africa
Print view this post

Re: Reality might not exist

#10  Postby John Platko » Oct 04, 2017 9:11 pm

laklak wrote:I'll bet Deepity Chakra could explain it.


He'd certainly have a go at it. :nod:

I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 8647
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Reality might not exist

#11  Postby Blackadder » Oct 04, 2017 10:23 pm

Chopped-Rat needs first to explain how the human alimentary canal can in some instances end in the cranial cavity rather than the asshole and result in a brain full of shit. He will find an example of this phenomenon very close to home.
That credulity should be gross in proportion to the ignorance of the mind that it enslaves, is in strict consistency with the principle of human nature. - Percy Bysshe Shelley
User avatar
Blackadder
RS Donator
 
Posts: 3280
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Reality might not exist

#12  Postby jamest » Oct 05, 2017 2:37 pm

Rumraket wrote:*Sigh*. No, it doesn't mean that. Not even "in a sense". I'm getting tired of hearing this crap because it's the source of so many misconceptions about quantum mechanics. The idea that there has to be observers observing things. No, there doesn't have to be observers observing (or measuring) things.

The only thing required for wavefunction collapse is an interaction. Neither of the entities that interact have to be "observers", or worse yet, "conscious" or anything like it.

The thing is, you can't prove that anything has interacted/happened until you've observed it to have done so. There's no knowledge of the world derived independently of observation.
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

#13  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 05, 2017 2:51 pm

jamest wrote:
Rumraket wrote:*Sigh*. No, it doesn't mean that. Not even "in a sense". I'm getting tired of hearing this crap because it's the source of so many misconceptions about quantum mechanics. The idea that there has to be observers observing things. No, there doesn't have to be observers observing (or measuring) things.

The only thing required for wavefunction collapse is an interaction. Neither of the entities that interact have to be "observers", or worse yet, "conscious" or anything like it.

The thing is, you can't prove that anything has interacted/happened until you've observed it to have done so. There's no knowledge of the world derived independently of observation.

The thing is we have things like camera's and other methods to record events we haven't observed directly.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27138
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Reality might not exist

#14  Postby GrahamH » Oct 05, 2017 4:13 pm

Reality exists by definition. Reality is what exists.
the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.


Reality may not be what we think it is.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 17229

Print view this post

Re: Reality might not exist

#15  Postby GrahamH » Oct 05, 2017 4:16 pm

jamest wrote:
Rumraket wrote:*Sigh*. No, it doesn't mean that. Not even "in a sense". I'm getting tired of hearing this crap because it's the source of so many misconceptions about quantum mechanics. The idea that there has to be observers observing things. No, there doesn't have to be observers observing (or measuring) things.

The only thing required for wavefunction collapse is an interaction. Neither of the entities that interact have to be "observers", or worse yet, "conscious" or anything like it.

The thing is, you can't prove that anything has interacted/happened until you've observed it to have done so. There's no knowledge of the world derived independently of observation.


And you can't prove observation is required to make things real. Obviously observation is required to gain knowledge of something but that say anything about the nature of reality.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 17229

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Reality might not exist

#16  Postby jamest » Oct 05, 2017 10:43 pm

GrahamH wrote:
jamest wrote:
Rumraket wrote:*Sigh*. No, it doesn't mean that. Not even "in a sense". I'm getting tired of hearing this crap because it's the source of so many misconceptions about quantum mechanics. The idea that there has to be observers observing things. No, there doesn't have to be observers observing (or measuring) things.

The only thing required for wavefunction collapse is an interaction. Neither of the entities that interact have to be "observers", or worse yet, "conscious" or anything like it.


The thing is, you can't prove that anything has interacted/happened until you've observed it to have done so. There's no knowledge of the world derived independently of observation.


And you can't prove observation is required to make things real. Obviously observation is required to gain knowledge of something but that say anything about the nature of reality.

Firstly, the purpose of my post was to refute what Rumraket stated, which it does because the only evidence/knowledge we have of the world is via observation. He's implying that we have acquired knowledge of things/events/interactions independently of observation, which is simply incorrect.

Secondly, there is ample evidence via QM (such as linked within the OP) that observation actually effects a particular 'reality' for quantum particles. So, how do you reconcile this evidence with your own statement? It appears to me as though you've got your head stuck in the sand. That you just don't want to face the music.

Thirdly, as you know there's a 101 things I could say about observation wrt 'reality', but I'll respect the wishes of most and will abstain from doing philosophy in the physical sciences sub-forum.
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

#17  Postby GrahamH » Oct 05, 2017 10:59 pm

jamest wrote:
Secondly, there is ample evidence via QM (such as linked within the OP) that observation actually effects a particular 'reality' for quantum particles.


No there isn't, which was Rumraket's well made point. You are guilty as charged.
What you mean by 'observation' (conscious subject) is not what science means by 'observation.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 17229

Print view this post

Re: Reality might not exist

#18  Postby jamest » Oct 05, 2017 11:04 pm

GrahamH wrote:
jamest wrote:
Secondly, there is ample evidence via QM (such as linked within the OP) that observation actually effects a particular 'reality' for quantum particles.


No there isn't, which was Rumraket's well made point. You are guilty as charged.
What you mean by 'observation' (conscious subject) is not what science means by 'observation.

What does science mean by observation?
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

#19  Postby GrahamH » Oct 06, 2017 7:35 am

jamest wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
jamest wrote:
Secondly, there is ample evidence via QM (such as linked within the OP) that observation actually effects a particular 'reality' for quantum particles.


No there isn't, which was Rumraket's well made point. You are guilty as charged.
What you mean by 'observation' (conscious subject) is not what science means by 'observation.

What does science mean by observation?


In the context of the OP it means to make a measurement.
Whether you observed the atom going down one path or two only depends on how it was measured at the end of its micro-sized and kind of improbable journey, which in a sense means reality itself doesn’t exist unless you’re observing it.
[/

The interaction with the measurement apparatus makes the difference. Certainly nobody has to be watching the apparatus at the time. This doesn't rule out that conscious observation, maybe some years later, might not be critical to how the experiment goes, because this is a topic being considered by humans so humans at some point, however remote and abstracted from the experiment, have to learn something of the result. But no human has to observe the conduct of the experiment nor the direct results of the experiment (e.g. no need to see a diffraction pattern). It can be automated and summarised and discovered long after the particles were understood to have been emitted.

Now that doesn't tell us if we inhabit a simulation where details are only painted in as needed, like a computer game, and it doesn't tell us we don't. That's a different argument.

I think 'the observer effect' could just as well be termed 'the measurement effect'.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 17229

Print view this post

Re: Reality might not exist

#20  Postby Rumraket » Oct 06, 2017 10:42 am

jamest wrote:Firstly, the purpose of my post was to refute what Rumraket stated, which it does because the only evidence/knowledge we have of the world is via observation.

No, it doesn't refute it at all. You are confusing what happens, with how we come to know what happens.

There's no way for you to prove that we have to observe things, in order for them to exist.

How utterly ironic to hear this kind of positivist crapy from a purported idealist. :lol:
"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

Next

Return to Physical Sciences & Mathematics

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest