Where does reality reside ?

[REASON]

Your so emotional..... I am still waiting for a substantive debate on anything I have stated. Don’t be a sissy wiener.:)

Are you sure it's necessary for me to continue? Usually, when the person I'm debating with resorts to name calling, I figure I've made my point.

 

But for the sake of your entertainment, let me first make sure I'm clear about your reasoning.

 

You said:

I have always preferred the very simple question "If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" Every intelligent person that I have posed this question to comes up with the same explanation about sound waves would still being generated.. so on, and so on.

 

I seemed to be either daft, or had at some time in the past, a moment of clarity about the nature of consciousness and reality, cause my answerer now is a resounding no! Not only is there no sound, there is no tree, and no forest, earth or any thing at all. I am not attempting to be fugitive, metaphorical, philosophical or even controversial. I saying this as literality truth. This is a logical fact of reality.

Without an observer. there is no reality whatsoever period.

To me this doesn't even have anything to do with physics its just to me...well... obvious.

 

I said:

For me, it is as simple as understanding that I exist even when I am all alone, unobserved by anyone or anything else. And if I can exist unobserved, than so can a tree, or a rock, or a planet, or a star, or a galaxy, or a universe. Quantum theories leading you from such a simple understanding are leading you astray, and evidently require some revision.

 

To this statement of mine, you said:

I do not see any counter point here.. To any point that I have made.

 

Huh? From this little snippet of our discussion, I've determined that you must be daft.

 

Are we to believe that if the Earth were struck by a large asteroid, completely wiping out all life on the planet, that once all conscious observers are gone, the Earth, the remaining planets, the sun, all the galaxies, and in fact the entire universe would literally cease to exist in their own right?

 

Why wouldn't the Earth just continue traversing around the Sun with it's temporary damage, just as it had done before life developed on it? We can see evidence that the Earth, the Moon, and many other bodies in the solar system have been involved in massive collisions in the past, yet they keep on moving. Why should we expect anything different if there were a cataclysm here on Earth that happened to extinguish the life on it?

 

But aside from this example, let's look at the initial premise of your argument. In reference to the "tree falling in the forest with no one around" scenario, you said:

Not only is there no sound, there is no tree, and no forest, earth or any thing at all. I am not attempting to be fugitive, metaphorical, philosophical or even controversial. I saying this as literality truth. This is a logical fact of reality.

 

No! It is literal nonsense, completely illogical, and false. Forests and planets do not disappear from existance when no one is there. This statement of yours implicates you as being completely delusional. Matter and energy do not cease to exist when we leave the room. Matter and energy are not literally blinking in and out of existance as we walk around. With all the mountains of accumulated data relating to nuclear physics, don't you think we would have noticed something like that by now? But we haven't, because it doesn't happen. I guess we are supposed to throw out all of that accumulation of research because Thunderbird has had a deep thought. :mad:

 

Figuratively, I will agree with you. Things we have experienced exist only as memories when they are not in our presence, but that doesn't mean that they have literally disappeared from existance. When we die, reality for us ceases to exist, but the physical universe goes on. This is realized by the fact that it has gone on in the absence of our loved ones. This is the difference between what exists in reality, and our mental perception of reality. You appear to be completely confusing these distinct concepts as I stated in my initial post in this thread, and has been reiterated by numerous other posters.

 

I'm sorry T-bird. The universe is not a manifestation of consciousness. Consiousness is a manifestation of the universe. The universe predates consciousness and is the source of its creation over time. This will continue to be the case no matter how you or anyone else chooses to look at it. You can claim to be associating your ideas with science all you want, but that doesn't make it so. Falling back on some distorted interpretation of Quantum Mechanics or pseudoscientific metaphysical mysticism does not lend scientific credibility to your arguments. Your theory about reality as you've stated above bears no resemblance to reality.

 

You can call me names all you want, but that won't lend credibility to your arguments either.

 

And you can save your positive feedback. I don't need it.

[Thunderbird]

I have realigned the quotes in order contextaul reference to avoid futher confusion.

 

 

 

But for the sake of your entertainment, let me first make sure I'm clear about your reasoning.

 

Originally Posted by ThunderbirdThe best way I can describe it is having an infinite amount of letters with no contextual relationship to one another.

 

Only when the observer is present in a particular space-time can the letters be used to create vowels, consonants, words, sentences, etc.. We construct our particular spectrum-world from this infinity.

 

What exists without the observer point are just probabilities, no point has any contextual relationship with any other point.

 

No starting point to give anything, any kind of order of coordinates in space/time.

 

Without the observer starting point there is no initial context, therefore nothing in space and time can be divided from anything else in space or time.

 

There are no coordinates with which to start a hierarchal-contextual pattern that we experience as an observer point.

 

Huh? From this little snippet of our discussion, I've determined that you must be daft.

 

Are we to believe that if the Earth were struck by a large asteroid, completely wiping out all life on the planet, that once all conscious observers are gone, the Earth, the remaining planets, the sun, all the galaxies, and in fact the entire universe would literally cease to exist in their own right?

You are chasing your tail, your talking about an event happening to an observer and then taking about the memory of an observer, so wrong Your not getting it. Its just circular logic you still are not considering the universe without an observer.

 

 

Why wouldn't the Earth just continue traversing around the Sun with it's temporary damage, just as it had done before life developed on it? We can see evidence that the Earth, the Moon, and many other bodies in the solar system have been involved in massive collisions in the past, yet they keep on moving. Why should we expect anything different if there were a cataclysm here on Earth that happened to extinguish the life on it?

Circular logic again. I am not speaking about us as we are in time in space, I speaking about an observer not exsisting. It's very simple.

 

 

 

No! It is literal nonsense, completely illogical, and false. Forests and planets do not disappear from existance when no one is there. This statement of yours implicates you as being completely delusional. Matter and energy do not cease to exist when we leave the room. Matter and energy are not literally blinking in and out of existance as we walk around. With all the mountains of accumulated data relating to nuclear physics, don't you think we would have noticed something like that by now? But we haven't, because it doesn't happen. I guess we are supposed to throw out all of that accumulation of research because Thunderbird has had a deep thought. :)

Matter and energy are not literally blinking in and out of existance as we walk around.

Yes they are, this is not me haveing a "deep thought" its basic Quantum Mechinics for gods sakes.

... who imagine ourselves truly

fundamental when we are really no such a thing: EVERYTHING

at every level/scale (all the forms of matter at every level & at

every scale) above that fundamental level I described before in

terms of "Planck lengths" or "balloons") are/is merely as if one

"layer of existence" upon an always more fundamental layer

which itself exists upon a still more fundamental layer of existence

 

 

 

Are "fundamental forms of matter" possible at all? There may

yet indeed be such a primordial... tiny, basic, "fundamental"

scale/level of existence where the forms of matter are indeed

'blinking off" right out of existence

http://http://www.askcache.com/webcp?q=Matter+blinking+out+of+existence&t=matter%2Bblinking%2B%3Fout%2B%3Fof%2Bexistence&r=matter%2Bblinking%2Bout%2Bof%2Bexistence&cache=00*1cn88sd1uk7a0&qlang=3&url=http%3A%2F%2Far.sdrodrian.com%2F&page=1&o=0&l=dir&ws=1&ax=1

Figuratively, I will agree with you. Things we have experienced exist only as memories when they are not in our presence, but that doesn't mean that they have literally disappeared from existance. When we die,

never said that.

 

reality for us ceases to exist, but the physical universe goes on. This is realized by the fact that it has gone on in the absence of our loved ones. This is the difference between what exists in reality, and our mental perception of reality. You appear to be completely confusing these distinct concepts as I stated in my initial post in this thread, and has been reiterated by numerous other posters.

Yea it has been reiterated by other posters that are repeating each other not reffering to my post that have nothing to do with differing states or degrees of perception.

I'm sorry T-bird. The universe is not a manifestation of consciousness. Consiousness is a manifestation of the universe. The universe predates consciousness

How could you possibly know that? The universe is a manifestation of consciousness.

[Boerseun]

How could you possibly know that? The universe is a manifestation of consciousness.

Whilst I could, with equal authority, simply state that consciousness is a manifestation of the universe, I won't (although it's true - it's simply a tit-for-tat juvenile mud-slinging based on authority).

 

But what I will say, however, is the following:

 

1) We're all in absolute agreement that consciousness, whatever it is, resides in the few pounds of grey matter between a human being's ears.

2) The few pounds of grey matter between your ears, consist mostly out of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and a bunch of other crap.

3) ALL the elements above (with the exception of hydrogen) are manufactured en masse in the hearts of stars, and the heavier elements in supernovas.

4) Now, if consciousness is a manifestation of the brain, and the brain can only come into existance after millions of years of evolution, provided all the elements required have been manufactured by stellar evolution over billions of years prior, then its...

 

...ahem...

 

...clear as daylight that human consciousness is an artifact of billions of years of galactic, stellar, and indeed planetary evolution. And NOT the other way around. You're saying that every night you go to sleep, all of us disappear. Well, speaking from personal experience, we don't.

[modest]

The universe is a manifestation of consciousness.

 

You've gone way backwards with this Tbird. What happened to the first time a probability wave collapsed the entire universe became real? What happened to that position of yours? Hopefully you can keep to that position (which I think a lot of people would agree with) and qualify your quote above.

 

-modest

[Thunderbird]

Whilst I could, with equal authority, simply state that consciousness is a manifestation of the universe, I won't (although it's true - it's simply a tit-for-tat juvenile mud-slinging based on authority).

 

But what I will say, however, is the following:

 

1) We're all in absolute agreement that consciousness, whatever it is, resides in the few pounds of grey matter between a human being's ears.

2) The few pounds of grey matter between your ears, consist mostly out of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and a bunch of other crap.

3) ALL the elements above (with the exception of hydrogen) are manufactured en masse in the hearts of stars, and the heavier elements in supernovas.

4) Now, if consciousness is a manifestation of the brain, and the brain can only come into existance after millions of years of evolution, provided all the elements required have been manufactured by stellar evolution over billions of years prior, then its...

 

...ahem...

 

...clear as daylight that human consciousness is an artifact of billions of years of galactic, stellar, and indeed planetary evolution. And NOT the other way around. You're saying that every night you go to sleep, all of us disappear. Well, speaking from personal experience, we don't.

 

Never said we disappear when we go to sleep.

 

Reality resides in the grey matter between our ears, not consciousness , consciousness is something that may be an inherent quality of the universe, and may have always existed.

[freeztar]

• The observer doesn't have to be conscious. Any interaction between 'things' will do.
  

I think Modest is on the right track here. Although TBird has never explicitly said this (to my memory), I believe this is what he means.

 

So if we cleared out the universe of all matter save two dust particles, we have an 'observer', and a reference spot. Reality exists. If we remove the two particles, then we have no way of knowing that reality exists because there is no observer. A single particle has no reference spot and so has no way to measure reality.

Leaving us with...

So long as our universe isn't populated by one single something with no other frame of reference then everything in the universe is real.

Is this where we are? Please say it is because I think this is most agreeable.

 

-modest

 

I'd like to see an answer to Modest's question as well.

 

As far as the quantum mysticism goes, I'm not exactly sure what TBird is trying to say, or prove.

[Thunderbird]

You've gone way backwards with this Tbird. What happened to the first time a probability wave collapsed the entire universe became real? What happened to that position of yours? Hopefully you can keep to that position (which I think a lot of people would agree with) and qualify your quote above.

 

-modest

I think we may be getting somewhere here, could you expand on this a bit.

[Boerseun]

From my post #96...

An "observer" is not necessarily a human being.

 

It can be anything upon which natural laws can have an influence.

 

For instance, if the entire universe consisted of only two atoms, the second atom would be influenced by the first atom - either through being attracted to the other one if they have different charges (Look! The other atom is getting bigger!) or repelled if they have the same charge (look! the other atom is getting smaller!)

 

In a universe with only two atoms, there are two equally valid observers, with a perfectly satisfactory frame of reference for each.

 

In other words, reality comes into being in any universe with more than one atom (or the fundamental particle of your choice - the argument stays the same).

 

Apart from that, I see the struggle of understanding "where reality resides" as a bit of a non-issue, really.

[Thunderbird]

I think Modest is on the right track here. Although TBird has never explicitly said this (to my memory), I believe this is what he means.

 

So if we cleared out the universe of all matter save two dust particles, we have an 'observer', and a reference spot. Reality exists. If we remove the two particles, then we have no way of knowing that reality exists because there is no observer. A single particle has no reference spot and so has no way to measure reality.

 

 

I'd like to see an answer to Modest's question as well.

 

As far as the quantum mysticism goes, I'm not exactly sure what TBird is trying to say, or prove.

I'm sorry I have no answer because I really have no idea what the question is are what it has to do with anything.:confused: I belive Modest and Boerseun's post will start to answer some questions. Stay tuned I think we may be getting to the heart of it.:)

[modest]

I think we may be getting somewhere here, could you expand on this a bit.

 

What Boerseun quoted above it looked like you agreed with here:

 

This is nice logic. Something has to be referring to something, now lets try actually applying this to my contention, which is where does “reality reside” as I’ve said the observer resides in an infinity, but since there is a first point in space time, "An observer", then all other points become manifested as a product of this first duality, a first cause of reality, an initial point of reference leads exponentially to more points of reflected references .

 

Just as a crystal grows by aligning the same geometry, and life creates cycle of the self same pattern over. this alignments that are created outward from this first point of Past Present, up down light dark, good bad, real unreal, expands into infinity like an ice crystal in water.

 

We then see the same reference points but not just like the water crystal, in that infinity is allway's fluid and contains no center, outside the observer. The reason we see infinity as structure in because we have a memory of structure.

 

Does this something reside outside of us, that is independent of us? I will tell you..... yes, but understand that it is the same as saying Shakespeare's “Hamlet” resides in the alphabet independent of Shakespeare.

 

 

This is the gap between the finite. and The Infinite.

 

So I thought we were getting to an agreement or at least a position not far off the mark. If you could state clearly that the first time a probability wave collapsed in the infant universe then everything became real (which it looks like you've as much as stated already) then we will be on the same page.

 

-modest

[Thunderbird]

From my post #96...

 

How are these particles relating to one another?

[Boerseun]

Particle A can define its spot in space and time by using particle B as reference. And vise versa. They can interact, using Natural Laws. Thus reality is born.

 

In a single particle universe, there is no reference, and nothing to interact with. It might be "real", but there are no observers. And remember, like I said, an observer can be just a particle upon which Natural Laws can operate. It doesn't imply or require intelligence - but it requires more than one particle in the universe under discussion.

[Thunderbird]

What Boerseun quoted above it looked like you agreed with here:

 

 

 

So I thought we were getting to an agreement or at least a position not far off the mark. If you could state clearly that the first time a probability wave collapsed in the infant universe then everything became real (which it looks like you've as much as stated already) then we will be on the same page.

 

-modest

 

Real is too subjective of a term when referring to first cause, a singularity would be more apropos. A first point of reference in an undifferentiated infinity. From there you have your first cause that exponentially expands into a multitude of dualities. Conscousness is somthing we tap into, not somthing we produce. Our reality is not however inherint it is particular to us.

[Thunderbird]

Particle A can define its spot in space and time by using particle B as reference. And vise versa. They can interact, using Natural Laws. Thus reality is born.

 

In a single particle universe, there is no reference, and nothing to interact with. It might be "real", but there are no observers. And remember, like I said, an observer can be just a particle upon which Natural Laws can operate. It doesn't imply or require intelligence - but it requires more than one particle in the universe under discussion.

 

 

If point A can be described as a singularity...; a finite point of no movement no time containing no things.

 

This point surrounded by an opposing field of pure potential of infinity. They would relate as an original catalyst to all phenomenon . Keeping in mind however that each cannot exist independently without the other.

[modest]

In any case,

 

Boerseun's position above which is consistent with Einstein's Hole argument and the thoughts and opinions expressed by members here doesn't seem to be counter to your most recent esoteric stream of consciousness. As I support his very clearly stated position above, I infer that I have no further contention with you.

 

-modest

[Thunderbird]

In any case,

 

Boerseun's position above which is consistent with Einstein's Hole argument and the thoughts and opinions expressed by members here doesn't seem to be counter to your most recent esoteric stream of consciousness. As I support his very clearly stated position above, I infer that I have no further contention with you.

 

-modest

When you just kept reffereing to positions of others that you felt comfortable with even when they were not relivent to my statements or querys. This is how threads get off track by just scanning for the familer. This is why I neg reped you. This is not a about popularity or demorocy, its about debate. I think Einstein would agree with my position.

 

 

You have only been parroting other's positions without thinking about the issue’s I have been attempting to raise .

If you going to create an argument for heavens sake make it you own.

[InfiniteNow]

This thread reminds me why I find so much of philosophy so very annoying. :confused:

 

Gee... You know what, iNow... I really think I'm starting to understand where you're coming from when you say this. :)