In your opinion does the universe exist if there is no self aware energy to percieve of it?

It is of my opinion, that we are self aware atoms of organized energy. We went from atoms, to cells, to bodies, to species, etc.

sounds like a philosophical question to me.

sounds like a philosophical question to me.

It's an existential thought experiment to be precise. You see, most of the questions I ask, are thought experiments. I ask them to make people think.

This is a question that is deep enough to make a person question existance of the universe itself. I know most peopel here are intellectuals, and have a high enough IQ to deal with this sort of question. A scientist, a doctor, a neuroscientist, a physicist, all could be interested in answering this question.

Is there ground beneath your feet? Would the ground still be there beneath your feet... if you didn't have feet? And if nobody else had feet either?

Yes, of course it would.

So don't be silly.

Is there ground beneath your feet? Would the ground still be there beneath your feet... if you didn't have feet? And if nobody else had feet either?

Yes, of course it would.

So don't be silly.

If there were no perception there would be no such thing as a ground, or feet.
Without existance, nothing can exist, and existance is perception. Can you prove anything exists without the ability to percieve it?

I dont think so. If there is no awareness, there is no universe. I believe that it is our ability to think and create that makes the world what it is.

Huh?

Energy can't be self-aware, it has no brain to percive things with.

In my opinion the universe is more then what I think it is, and if when I die I do not remember what I learned, it will still be there, if there is no self aware energy to percieve it, it will still be there but the universe will not know what it is, in one way we are like complex mirrors with computers to work our hands and feet,lol.

If there were no perception there would be no such thing as a ground, or feet.
Without existance, nothing can exist, and existance is perception. Can you prove anything exists without the ability to percieve it?
Were the rocks beneath your non-existent feet there before you and nobody else didn't have any feet to not walk on them with?

Yes, of course they were.

So don't be silly.

People here -- and the similarly minded -- not you I'm surprised to observe, Redarmy11 (see, me too can agree) -- confuse giving the Universe meaning with existence. As if the majesty of the Universe needs your petty awareness to be resplendent!

And that meaning doesn't necessarily reach Her Majesty's attention...

not you I'm surprised to observe, Redarmy11 (see, me too can agree)
But why the surprise? Is it because I'm as dumb as a box of rocks?

Yes.

Perception is fallible. Moreover, perception is, at least contingently causally related to that which is perceived.

Redarmy11
Right -- you don't exactly see me sitting in front of my display, so you can't very well know what sort of surprise I exhibited. But usually when I'm "surprised to observe", I mean I notice. And I noticed... the, uh, difference.


Glaucon
I wonder if the Universe -- or rather certain aspects of it -- notice our definitions of it: do our definitions stick? Perhaps only if these serve to augment Her... presence? In which case, presence is the key to communication. I wonder...

What an arrogant, anthropocentric attitude. In a universe whose size is measured in billions of light-years and whose age is measured in billions of years, there's this one tiny fly-speck of a planet that hasn't even been around the entire time, and it hosts this one species of biped which, in the last couple of million years, has evolved language, reasoning, and the ability to ask such silly questions.

We have managed to make a barely measurable impact on the gas envelope that surrounds this planet, and even that is arguable. And a large impact on a much smaller volume of space, the region directly adjacent to the surface of the planet. Both of these impacts may in fact work counter to our survival. Our impact on the rest of the universe is zero, except for some radio waves that have traveled a maximum of barely a hundred light years in any direction, and some spacecraft that are still within our solar system.

Man's importance to the universe is zero down to the 24th decimal place. Man's feelings about the universe are equally unimportant. Whether or not man is here to observe the universe, have feelings about it, and launch his pathetic radio waves and metal artifacts into it is of no consequence.

The universe was here before us and it will be here after us. If there are any other intelligent lifeforms with the ability to read this thread, they must be really amused. But then, I guess they've heard it before: it was called "religion."

Redarmy11
Right -- you don't exactly see me sitting in front of my display, so you can't very well know what sort of surprise I exhibited.
Now don't be so defensive, Meanwhile. The more you realise that I'm right about everything, the less I hate you. I could happily sit in the room next door to you these days, with barely a twitch.

In your opinion does the universe exist if there is no self aware energy to percieve of it?

It is of my opinion, that we are self aware atoms of organized energy. We went from atoms, to cells, to bodies, to species, etc.
:confused: That first sentence is baffling. I've repeated it verbatim several times but cannot decipher it.

*Genji moves on.....:confused: *

'Self-aware energy' is a concept that TimeTraveler has developed as the basis for his radical reworking of the Ptolemaic model of the universe. An understanding of the concept of 'self-aware energy' is key to an understanding of the rest of his hypothesis.

TimeTraveler: can you develop this concept of 'self-aware energy' a little further for the rest of us, please?

'Self-aware energy' is a concept that TimeTraveler has developed as the basis for his radical reworking of the Ptolemaic model of the universe. An understanding of the concept of 'self-aware energy' is key to an understanding of the rest of his hypothesis.

TimeTraveler: can you develop this concept of 'self-aware energy' a little further for the rest of us, please?Good God! How...confounding it is when the explanation is more difficult than the original statement! I'm just a janitor so I'll leave room for someone smarter!:bugeye:

Yes, best leave this one to the scientists. Everything you know is wrong.

Huh?

Energy can't be self-aware, it has no brain to percive things with.

The brain is made of atoms, and the eyes, ears, nose etc percieve, the brain interprets.

What an arrogant, anthropocentric attitude. In a universe whose size is measured in billions of light-years and whose age is measured in billions of years, there's this one tiny fly-speck of a planet that hasn't even been around the entire time, and it hosts this one species of biped which, in the last couple of million years, has evolved language, reasoning, and the ability to ask such silly questions.

We have managed to make a barely measurable impact on the gas envelope that surrounds this planet, and even that is arguable. And a large impact on a much smaller volume of space, the region directly adjacent to the surface of the planet. Both of these impacts may in fact work counter to our survival. Our impact on the rest of the universe is zero, except for some radio waves that have traveled a maximum of barely a hundred light years in any direction, and some spacecraft that are still within our solar system.

Man's importance to the universe is zero down to the 24th decimal place. Man's feelings about the universe are equally unimportant. Whether or not man is here to observe the universe, have feelings about it, and launch his pathetic radio waves and metal artifacts into it is of no consequence.

The universe was here before us and it will be here after us. If there are any other intelligent lifeforms with the ability to read this thread, they must be really amused. But then, I guess they've heard it before: it was called "religion."



I never said anything about man being the only living thing species in the universe or even the only lifeform. I specifically said self aware energy, which can apply to anything, even to things we might not recognize as being alive, but which may have some level of self awareness.

Were the rocks beneath your non-existent feet there before you and nobody else didn't have any feet to not walk on them with?

Yes, of course they were.

So don't be silly.

How can there be anything if nothing exists?

Yes.

Perception is fallible. Moreover, perception is, at least contingently causally related to that which is perceived.

If the universe had no perception in it, at all, none. Then the universe would have no existance, none, it simply would cease to exist because nothing would be there to percieve it's existance.

We have tried experiments already which seem to prove that measuring atoms and quantum scale objects, changes the object. It might be that this whole universe exists only because something is aware of it. It might be that awareness itself is existance, and if this is the case, of course nothing exists outside of that.

If the universe had no perception in it, at all, none. Then the universe would have no existance, none, it simply would cease to exist because nothing would be there to percieve it's existance.


??

You're assuming your conclusion here.

You've created a necessary relation between the existence of a thing and that thing's being perceived.

If the universe had no perception in it, at all, none. Then the universe would have no existance, none, it simply would cease to exist because nothing would be there to percieve it's existance.

We have tried experiments already which seem to prove that measuring atoms and quantum scale objects, changes the object. It might be that this whole universe exists only because something is aware of it. It might be that awareness itself is existance, and if this is the case, of course nothing exists outside of that.

That is my best guess. Because we are aware of what is expected, changes the outcome. Our brain is electrical impulses that may not change larger objects, but on a quantum level could easily have impact.

Interesting question.

Does a color/fragrance exist if no one can perceive it?

What would define its existence?

...
Does a color/fragrance exist if no one can perceive it?
...


Sorry sam, that's a totally different category of question.

Colour/odour are qualia, and as such are predicates.

Existence is not a predicate.

Glaucon , you're one person i'll always enjoy.
Because, the only conclusion with me, is friendship.
sorry to troll....

Sorry sam, that's a totally different category of question.

Colour/odour are qualia, and as such are predicates.

Existence is not a predicate.

Isn't everything in the universe subject to our perception of it?

What makes a rock hard? Or black?

If one were blind, deaf, dumb and had no tactile feelings, what would the universe be to such a person?

Isn't everything in the universe subject to our perception of it?

What makes a rock hard? Or black?

If one were blind, deaf, dumb and had no tactile feelings, what would the universe be to such a person?

It would be a place for that person to be.

It would be a place for that person to be.

But how would he/she define it?

I imagine that he/she wouldn't define it.

Why should this matter?

The universe doesn't need to be defined to exist, let alone perceived.

If there were no perception there would be no such thing as a ground, or feet.
Without existance, nothing can exist, and existance is perception. Can you prove anything exists without the ability to percieve it?
How many millions of years did the universe exist before life evolved, let alone sentient life? How did it maintain its existance under your scheme?

Your theory would necesitate the existance of a creator (god) to percieve the universe as it was being created. Otherwise, lack of perception would cause the nacient universe to spontaneously abort.

??

You're assuming your conclusion here.

You've created a necessary relation between the existence of a thing and that thing's being perceived.

No, I'm saying self awareness is existance. I'm saying the universe is fake and only the self aware are "real". I'm saying only that which can percieve of itself is real. A rock is not real, it has no awareness that we know of. A plant has enough awareness to grow and track the sun. An animal has even more awareness, which ranges from awareness of it's environment, to partial self awareness, to full self awareness. I'm saying this is all that exists.

I'm saying, if there were no awareness, there would be no material universe. I'm saying the material universe is a result of our peceptions which created it.
This is just like saying, time would not exist if there were no movement and no change, it should be self evident right? Well the 3d universe would not exist if there were no perception and no awareness.

Awareness is existance itself, it's self evident. Nothing is REAL which cannot be percieved, or thought of. But if you can say something can be real outside of perception and thought, give me one example.

No, I'm saying self awareness is existance. I'm saying the universe is fake and only the self aware are "real". I'm saying only that which can percieve of itself is real.

So.. just to be clear.... you're saying that the universe doesn't exist?

But if you can say something can be real outside of perception and thought, give me one example.

I would be interested to hear this too.

Sorry sam, that's a totally different category of question.

Colour/odour are qualia, and as such are predicates.

Existence is not a predicate.

It's the exact same thing because if there are no eyes in the universe then theres no such thing as color, color would not exist. If there were no existance in the universe, then of course the universe would not exist. Basically if there were no self aware beings in the universe at all, the universe would cease to exist.

So.. just to be clear.... you're saying that the universe doesn't exist?

I'm saying the material universe is an illusion of perception. I'm saying the only reason the universe exists is because something percieved it into existence. You can call it God if you want to, or it could just be the collection of all self awareness in the universe, we don't know how much of the universe is self aware, all I'm saying is that a universe cannot exist without self awareness because self awareness is all that is real.

An example of this. You are real. SamCD is real. A rock is not real. A rock cannot move on it's own, it has no sense of self and no free will. Do you have free will?

I'm saying the material universe is an illusion of perception. I'm saying the only reason the universe exists is because something percieved it into existence. You can call it God if you want to, or it could just be the collection of all self awareness in the universe, we don't know how much of the universe is self aware, all I'm saying is that a universe cannot exist without self awareness because self awareness is all that is real.

You've limited existence to those entities that are self aware.

So, either you say that the universe is self-aware, and therefore exists, or it is not, and therefore doesn't exist.

Those are (according to your definitions) your only two options.

Which is it?

It's the exact same thing because if there are no eyes in the universe then theres no such thing as color, color would not exist. If there were no existance in the universe, then of course the universe would not exist. Basically if there were no self aware beings in the universe at all, the universe would cease to exist.
It's not the same. Color is our perception of electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength that we call visible light. Beings with different sensory organs might not percieve light, or color.

If beings never evolved that could percieve electomanetic radiation at 470 nanometers, there would be no "yellow". Yet electromagnetic radiation of that wavelength would still exist.

For instance, we can not percieve ultraviolet light, yet it exists. We can not percieve infrared light, yet it exists.

Something must exist to be perceived, not the other way around.

How many millions of years did the universe exist before life evolved, let alone sentient life? How did it maintain its existance under your scheme?

Your theory would necesitate the existance of a creator (god) to percieve the universe as it was being created. Otherwise, lack of perception would cause the nacient universe to spontaneously abort.

How do you know the universe, or life, had a beginning or end? How do you know that self awareness did not cause the big bang in the first place? Life is not what I was discussing anyway, I specifically used the phrase "self aware energy", because using the phrase life puts limits on things.

Example, the definition of alive means like plant, or animal, life, right?

The definition of self awareness however might simply mean electrons. Neurons run on electrons. It might be that electricity is self aware, or not, we simply have no way to test it. We do know the brain runs on electricity. We also know robots use electricity, and there are a lot of experiments taking place right now to answer these questions.

The point is, self awareness is definately a type of energy. It's not simple matter because matter is energy. So if self aware energy exists in say, molecular form as neurons in the brain, which use electrons and transmitters. Then wouldnt it also exist after the brain decomposes? Energy is never created or destroyed. So the energy of the matter itself, and the energy of self awareness itself, likely is in constant movement from lifeform to lifeform, something like how electrons are constantly flowing from place to place.

The brain molecules are made up of atoms. Atoms are self aware based on how they are configured? Is that it? So atoms have enough perception or awareness to configure themselves into molecules, and then these molecules have enough sense and perception to configure themselves into a brain, and then the brain has enough sense to grow eyes, which then we use to percieve the universe itself. It seems like we are part of a big machine of ever increasing awareness levels. It seems like even if humans were not a part of the machine, the machine would still exist, and I'm saying without self aware atoms, existence of the universe could never happen.

So at some point atoms had to somehow become aware enough to create life. This much is a fact because, life exists and it had to be created by the atoms somehow. I'm not saying atoms are alive in the classical sense, but atoms have awareness, somehow, even if it's a very simple 1 dimensional existance of spinning and attracting/repelling etc.

I'm saying the material universe is an illusion of perception. I'm saying the only reason the universe exists is because something percieved it into existence.
...

Well then, you need to redefine your terms.

I've already explicated your only two options logically.



...
An example of this. You are real. SamCD is real. A rock is not real. A rock cannot move on it's own, it has no sense of self and no free will.

Again, your arguing circularly.

You're assuming that sense of self and/or free will are the only defining characteristics of what is real.
Which is what you're trying to prove.

It's not the same. Color is our perception of electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength that we call visible light. Beings with different sensory organs might not percieve light, or color.

If beings never evolved that could percieve electomanetic radiation at 470 nanometers, there would be no "yellow". Yet electromagnetic radiation of that wavelength would still exist.

For instance, we can not percieve ultraviolet light, yet it exists. We can not percieve infrared light, yet it exists.

Something must exist to be perceived, not the other way around.

Well said.

And all correct.

Something must exist to be perceived, not the other way around.

How do you know that? There are instances where people perceive things that don't exist, e.g. hearing voices, hallucinations. To them, these things are real. Its only because you don't perceive these things when they do, that you know they are not real.

It's not the same. Color is our perception of electromagnetic radiation of a certain wavelength that we call visible light. Beings with different sensory organs might not percieve light, or color.

Color exists because something is percieving it, even if it's not us.


If beings never evolved that could percieve electomanetic radiation at 470 nanometers, there would be no "yellow". Yet electromagnetic radiation of that wavelength would still exist.

No it would not exist. If no being ever percieved it, it would not exist. How can you believe it can exist if nothing has ever percieved of it? That is faith.


For instance, we can not percieve ultraviolet light, yet it exists. We can not percieve infrared light, yet it exists.

We can percieve of ultra-violet light, otherwise there would be no such thing as ultra-viollet light. You would not have been able to say that word, or define it, it literally would not exist period.

Everything we have a word for, has been percieved. or observed.

Something must exist to be perceived, not the other way around.


Science says something must be observed to exist. If you are saying something must exist to be observed/percieved, you do realize that if there is no perception and no self awareness in the universe -meaning no observers at all-, that nothing exists.

Existance is self awareness, so how can something exist independent of existance?

How do you know that? There are instances where people perceive things that don't exist, e.g. hearing voices, hallucinations. To them, these things are real. Its only because you don't perceive these things when they do, that you know they are not real.

That's exactly my point. The material universe is only real because we all percieve it. If there were no perception in this universe at all, and nothing to live in or experience this universe at all, it simply would not exist at all. It would literally be less than nothing. It would not be a thought.

Well then, you need to redefine your terms.

I've already explicated your only two options logically.




Again, your arguing circularly.

You're assuming that sense of self and/or free will are the only defining characteristics of what is real.
Which is what you're trying to prove.

It is. Do you really think that a universe could exist with nothing in it?

How do you know that? There are instances where people perceive things that don't exist, e.g. hearing voices, hallucinations. To them, these things are real.

It's irrelevant that to them the things are real.

To a young child, the Easter Bunny is real, but that doesn't mean it exists.

The key here is that our perceptive faculties are prone to error.
What's more, the vast majority of cases of perception 'in absentia causa' can be explained by either a mistake in reporting, or a mistake in physiology.

Regardless, in the absence of a pressure differential for example, one cannot feel.

The point being, perceptions are indeed caused externally.
Processed internally, to be sure, but caused externally.

It's irrelevant that to them the things are real.

To a young child, the Easter Bunny is real, but that doesn't mean it exists.

The key here is that our perceptive faculties are prone to error.
What's more, the vast majority of cases of perception 'in absentia causa' can be explained by either a mistake in reporting, or a mistake in physiology.

Regardless, in the absence of a pressure differential for example, one cannot feel.

The point being, perceptions are indeed caused externally.
Processed internally, to be sure, but caused externally.

Since they are processed internally, how can you tell if they are caused externally?:)

It is.
...


And that's a logical fallacy.
Ergo you're wrong.




...
Do you really think that a universe could exist with nothing in it?


That would be a contradiction.

And has nothing to do with the content of your argument.

Since they are processed internally, how can you tell if they are caused externally?:)

Because the 'material' that each of our physiological perceptive systems process originate beyond the scope of the body.

The key here is that our perceptive faculties are prone to error.

I'm talking about all the perception in the universe, not just ours. I'm saying if there were no perception in this universe there would be no universe.


What's more, the vast majority of cases of perception 'in absentia causa' can be explained by either a mistake in reporting, or a mistake in physiology.

You have a point there, but still you have not proven that a universe can exist with nothing in it to percieve of it.


The point being, perceptions are indeed caused externally.
Processed internally, to be sure, but caused externally.

How do you know the external and internal 3d seperateness is actually real? On the level of atoms there is no seperate, no internal and external, it's all just a bunch of atoms floating around, and other particles, and thats the "real" universe. But it's self awareness which allows for perception and that is why there is existence. I'm saying if there is no existence, then nothing can be real, and if nothing can be real, then everything is fake, and if everything is fake, then nothing exists.

Because the 'material' that each of our physiological perceptive systems process originate beyond the scope of the body.

How do you know that?

How do you know that?

You've never burnt a finger???

Because the 'material' that each of our physiological perceptive systems process originate beyond the scope of the body.

What do you mean? the body is just a collection of atoms. The body itself is not real either. The self awareness is what is real, the self awareness is what seperates your body from a rock. Your self awareness is what allows for a universe to exist.

I'm talking about all the perception in the universe, not just ours. I'm saying if there were no perception in this universe there would be no universe.
...


??

There only is our perception.

You've never burnt a finger???

I once had a dream in which I was shot. I felt the pain, bled profusely (I could smell and feel the blood) became unconscious and died. However I woke up.

You've never burnt a finger???

Pain is perception. You are actually helping to confirm my point.

What do you mean? the body is just a collection of atoms. The body itself is not real either. The self awareness is what is real, the self awareness is what seperates your body from a rock. Your self awareness is what allows for a universe to exist.

You need to compose a working definition of real then.
I'm working with the conventional one.

If there's ever been a concept with a tenuous grasp on the title real, it's 'self-aware'....

Pain is perception. You are actually helping to confirm my point.

Not at all.

Pain is an easily explained physiological process.
There is in fact, a distinct time lag between the actual burning of the flesh, and when the perceiver recognizes that this is the case.

??

There only is our perception.

The only thing real is self awareness and perception.
Self awareness had to come before perception. Self awareness likely formed in lower dimensions, on the atomic levels, during the big bang. I'm guessing here because it's impossible to know when self awareness formed.

Perception formed when life formed. This happened after atoms were so well organized, so well put together, that they could form complex machine like "bodies", to percieve the 3d into existance. So you see, the 3d did not exist at all until atoms organized it into existance.

How that happened is anyones guess, but it should be self evident to you that there can be no existence without self awareness and perception. If you lost self awareness and perception, you'd cease to exist right? The rock does not exist right? Or do you think it's as real as you are?

I think the rock is just junk information. Trash, junk data. I think awareness is whats real.

Not at all.

Pain is an easily explained physiological process.
There is in fact, a distinct time lag between the actual burning of the flesh, and when the perceiver recognizes that this is the case.

There are people who don't feel pain.

I once had a dream in which I was shot. I felt the pain, bled profusely (I could smell and feel the blood) became unconscious and died. However I woke up.

And you were not in pain, not bleeding, and realized... it was a dream.

There are people who don't feel pain.

Exactly my point.

How do you know that? There are instances where people perceive things that don't exist, e.g. hearing voices, hallucinations. To them, these things are real. Its only because you don't perceive these things when they do, that you know they are not real.They are perceiving a chemical imbalance in their brains. Perception can be twisted and distorted, this does not alter reality.

There are people who don't feel pain.

Exactly, and if nothing in the universe could feel pain, pain would not exist.

And you were not in pain, not bleeding, and realized... it was a dream.

Only after I woke up and realised that my perception was unreal.

Have you heard of "phantom limbs"?

Only after I woke up and realised that my perception was unreal.

You weren't perceiving.

They are perceiving a chemical imbalance in their brains. Perception can be twisted and distorted, this does not alter reality.

How can you tell what is real?

There are two people. One of them can see something in the distance, the other cannot.

Who is right?

They are perceiving a chemical imbalance in their brains. Perception can be twisted and distorted, this does not alter reality.

If everything in the universe percieved in that way or worse, then nothing else would exist. You don't seem to get it, but perception is related to existence.

If I have a card, and I put it under one of three hats, you can lift a hat and find the card using your mind by using your perception combined with your ability to imagine what the card might look like.

Now, if there were absolutely no perception in the universe at all, and no awareness in the universe at all, then NOTHING can exist. Nothing in the universe would be aware of itself, the universe itself would not be aware of itself. Don't you see that right now this universe exists only because it's aware of itself?

You weren't perceiving.

How would I know while the process was going on?

How would I know while the process was going on?

You wouldn't.

You never are reflexively aware of the perceiving act.
Perception is constant and passive, regulated autonomically.

This is why 'dream states' are unlike perception: there can be a measure of control.

You wouldn't.

You never are reflexively aware of the perceiving act.
Perception is constant and passive, regulated autonomically.

This is why 'dream states' are unlike perception: there can be a measure of control.

So if my phantom limb is feeling shorter/twisted, what does that mean?

So if my phantom limb is feeling shorter/twisted, what does that mean?

individually nothing, but if all humans had phantom limbs then it would be more real, and if all life had phantom limbs it would be absolutely real.

Reality is a consensus agreement between living entities.

How can you tell what is real?

There are two people. One of them can see something in the distance, the other cannot.

Who is right?
Whichever person's perception jibes with reality. Move closer until you can see the object clearly (or clearly see that it is not there), get a satelite image of the area, determine what is real.

The human mind is designed to see patterns. It sometimes sees patterns that are not really there. A great example is the canals on Mars. They were perceived, they spawned some great Scifi and even spurred Percival Lowell to build to Lowell Observatory and greatly increased our knowledge of the planets.

But.....they did not exist. And they still don't. Perception is not reality.

Whichever person's perception jibes with reality. Move closer until you can see the object clearly (or clearly see that it is not there), get a satelite image of the area, determine what is real.

The human mind is designed to see patterns. It sometimes sees patterns that are not really there. A great example is the canals on Mars. They were perceived, they spawned some great Scifi and even spurred Percival Lowell to build to Lowell Observatory and greatly increased our knowledge of the planets.

But.....they did not exist. And they still don't. Perception is not reality.

If perception is not reality, how do we know anything is real? how do you know the chair you sit in is real?

Whichever person's perception jibes with reality. Move closer until you can see the object clearly (or clearly see that it is not there), get a satelite image of the area, determine what is real.

The human mind is designed to see patterns. It sometimes sees patterns that are not really there. A great example is the canals on Mars. They were perceived, they spawned some great Scifi and even spurred Percival Lowell to build to Lowell Observatory and greatly increased our knowledge of the planets.

But.....they did not exist. And they still don't. Perception is not reality.

Who should move closer? Who is you? What if one is blind and the other psychotic?

perception is an illusion of what a reality reflects ultimately. The log feels real, bark is smooth. But to me, the chair is just a log that need not to be created. ~j.d. 2.14.07

Who should move closer? Who is you? What if one is blind and the other psychotic?
Both should move closer. If one is blind and the other is insane, there's no use discussing what either of them sees.

Both should move closer. If one is blind and the other is insane, there's no use discussing what either of them sees.

We're not, we're discussing what is reality in the absence of perception.

Nevermind ..... lol/.. trying to answer that one, I come only come up with the answer as : What is "Unknown"

We're not, we're discussing what is reality in the absence of perception.
Sure, but my point is that reality exists independent of perception. When you posit a situation in which all observers have unreliable perception (a blind man and an insane man), there is no way to know what is real.

Sure, but my point is that reality exists independent of perception. When you posit a situation in which all observers have unreliable perception (a blind man and an insane man), there is no way to know what is real.


Interesting couple of sentences you have there.:p

Interesting couple of sentences you have there.:p
All right, Descartes, settle down. I'm not saying that we are always certain of what is real, but that our perception does not change it.

We're not, we're discussing what is reality in the absence of perception.
Reality in the absence of perception is infinite. For in the absence of perception, all is not only possible, but inevitable.

(to be read in a precise Oxford/Chinese voice a la Qui Chang Kane)

Once again we sink into the mire of ill defined concepts and words, thus pitting ourselves not against the the common foe, but against our own arrogance.

(also to be read in a precise Oxford/Chinese voice a la Qui Chang Kane)

Reality in the absence of perception is infinite. For in the absence of perception, all is not only possible, but inevitable.

(to be read in a precise Oxford/Chinese voice a la Qui Chang Kane)

Gibberish.

Gibberish.
Negatory there good buddy.

Without perception, all that remains is the inner world of the individual. This is infinite in scope and content.

Negatory there good buddy.

Without perception, all that remains is the inner world of the individual. This is infinite in scope and content.

What is your inner world based on? How much imagination would a sensory deprived person have? Do blind people dream in color?

Has anyone mentioned that the question in the thread title is completely self negating? Without a conscious awareness with the concepts of awareness and universe the question cannot even be asked. If there is an entity with these attributes, then the question is, of course, nullified and made moot by the very existence of said entity.

What is your inner world based on?
Kung-Fu reruns.

How much imagination would a sensory deprived person have? Do blind people dream in color?
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck? Do woodchucks really chuck wood?

I knew this thread would get stupid. It's what I was trying to avoid.

The Ptolemaic model of the Universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_system#Ptolemaic_system)
Not the Ptolemaic model of the Universe (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html)

NOW ALL OF YOU GROW UP.

We're not, we're discussing what is reality in the absence of perception.

I'm saying reality is perception. The universe is perception and awareness.

All we are, for real, is just organized energy. Matter is eenrgy. Einstien proved it.

I knew this thread would get stupid. It's what I was trying to avoid.

The Ptolemaic model of the Universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_system#Ptolemaic_system)
Not the Ptolemaic model of the Universe (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html)

NOW ALL OF YOU GROW UP.


I never said the earth is the center of the universe. I said that the universe is not "real", it's just information, and we are the interpreters. I'm saying information does not exist without interpreters.

Yes, that's why I think you're an idiot.

Only kidding. There a thousand other reasons too.

Sure, but my point is that reality exists independent of perception. When you posit a situation in which all observers have unreliable perception (a blind man and an insane man), there is no way to know what is real.

If reality exists independent of perception, then prove it, show me what that is.

Are you saying you can believe in something which is not observeable by any entity in the unvierse? If the entire universe is not aware of it, it does not exist in my opinion. I'm saying everything which "exists" only "exists" because the universe is self aware. If the universe were not aware of itself, it would die, just like you would if you lost all perception and awareness.

If the universe didn't exist before any energy was around to perceive it, how did it get so far along before the energy woke up?

And do you have any observations to back up your theories on energy, or is it just stuff that feels fun to say?

In your opinion does the universe exist if there is no self aware energy to percieve of it?


Most likely it does.

http://photofile.ru/photo/fishki_net/2461153/45042029.jpg

Complexity doesnt mean...there is God.

If the universe didn't exist before any energy was around to perceive it, how did it get so far along before the energy woke up?

And do you have any observations to back up your theories on energy, or is it just stuff that feels fun to say?

E=MC^2
N=E [N for Neuron]

Thats the equations you'd need to prove that matter is energy, and because neurons are made of matter and conduct energy, it's a fact that the brain is energy. Also consider that a neuron is made up of atoms.


http://cogprints.org/2832/
http://listserv.uh.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0109&L=psyche-d&D=0&T=0&P=2444

Most likely it does.

http://photofile.ru/photo/fishki_net/2461153/45042029.jpg

Complexity doesnt mean...there is God.

You cannot get something from nothing. If you could get something from nothing, then nothingness would have energy, you'd be able to build a perpetual motion machine, but you CAN'T.

So to expect the universe to exist with no energy in it, just does not make any sense to anyone who knows anything about physics, or cosmology.

I'm saying an empty universe is exactly that, it's non-existent. It does not exist.

Reality in the absence of perception is infinite. For in the absence of perception, all is not only possible, but inevitable.

(to be read in a precise Oxford/Chinese voice a la Qui Chang Kane)

I don't believe the unreal is more real than the real.

Negatory there good buddy.

Without perception, all that remains is the inner world of the individual. This is infinite in scope and content.

There is no inner world without perception.

Has anyone mentioned that the question in the thread title is completely self negating? Without a conscious awareness with the concepts of awareness and universe the question cannot even be asked. If there is an entity with these attributes, then the question is, of course, nullified and made moot by the very existence of said entity.

Exactly. Without self awareness, this universe does not exist.

I'm saying existence is the universe.

Dude,
Our universal existance is a giant glass water bowl of cosmic coagulating sand which expands when more sand is added, As seen in this Kundalini Awakening I have had: ( felt like pure majic )

http://img404.imageshack.us/my.php?image=theforcedt1.jpg

I know this for sure because of a Lucid Dream I had which said I hold the "Eye of Knowledge" As seen here:

http://img291.imageshack.us/my.php?image=eyeofknowledgegk5.gif

I'm a perceptionally enlightened freak.

ZARDOZI

dragon, your picture is upside down.

E=MC^2
N=E [N for Neuron]

Thats the equations you'd need to prove that matter is energy, and because neurons are made of matter and conduct energy, it's a fact that the brain is energy. Also consider that a neuron is made up of atoms.


http://cogprints.org/2832/
http://listserv.uh.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0109&L=psyche-d&D=0&T=0&P=2444

No, those are the equations you need to know how much energy you can get out of matter, if you convert one to the other. Or, how much energy is required to create matter, if you want to convert the other direction. For instance, when you speed up particles in an accelerator, at high speeds a lot of that energy is converted into mass, making the particle heavier.

E/c^2=m could also be read as "the speed of light equals mass", which is just as nonsensical as what you are saying. I really want you to pause and consider this, TT. You keep using this equation to "prove" your philosophy, but your claims do not follow from the equation. I could just as easily say that since E/c^2=m, then the speed of light is the same thing as energy, so motion is energy, and since my arms can move, the universe cannot exist without my arms.

I know that what you are saying *sounds* logical to you, but it makes as much sense as my own theory. That is what you sound like to the rest of us. I hope this knowledge gives you pause.

We have tried experiments already which seem to prove that measuring atoms and quantum scale objects, changes the object. It might be that this whole universe exists only because something is aware of it. It might be that awareness itself is existance, and if this is the case, of course nothing exists outside of that.

This is the crux of the problem right here. What those experiments show is that a superposition takes longer to collapse if it doesn't have enough relationships with the environment. It has nothing to do with a sentient observer.

...does the universe exist if there is no self aware energy to percieve of it?

And BTW, if the universe magically did not exist without a sentient observer then the formation of galaxies, planets, and biological life would have never happened. This is objective evidence that your 'hypothesis' is 100% incorrect.

And BTW, if the universe magically did not exist without a sentient observer then the formation of galaxies, planets, and biological life would have never happened. This is objective evidence that your 'hypothesis' is 100% incorrect.

You are repeating what I said. If there are no observers, if there is no perception/awareness, then absolutely nothing can exist, no there will not be planets because there would be nothing to actually percieve them.

And by the way, the speed of light does not equal mass, to be precise, the speed of light however does increase mass, as mass increases with speed.
At the same time, size influences matter in such a way, that small particles do seem to phase in and out of existence based on observation and are changed by observation and measurement.

I don't know why exactly this could happen unless observation is existence itself. Can you prove anything exists without observation?

You cannot get something from nothing. If you could get something from nothing, then nothingness would have energy, you'd be able to build a perpetual motion machine, but you CAN'T.

So to expect the universe to exist with no energy in it, just does not make any sense to anyone who knows anything about physics, or cosmology.

I'm saying an empty universe is exactly that, it's non-existent. It does not exist.
You cannot get something from nothing...so something alway had to exist....even before observers. Matter has always existed, conscious life hasn't.
You are repeating what I said. If there are no observers, if there is no perception/awareness, then absolutely nothing can exist, no there will not be planets because there would be nothing to actually percieve them.

The planet would still exist, otherwise we wouldn't be here in the first place, since at some point, we didn't exist. The planet has to be here before the life. That's what he was saying.

You are repeating what I said. If there are no observers, if there is no perception/awareness, then absolutely nothing can exist, no there will not be planets because there would be nothing to actually percieve them.

I offered a proof that lots of stuff exists regardless of the presence or absence of awareness. Is that really a repeat of what you said?


And by the way, the speed of light does not equal mass, to be precise, the speed of light however does increase mass, as mass increases with speed.

Well that is almost correct... but relevant? Mass cannot actually achieve the speed of light (it's an asymptote). The reason being that an increase in velocity and corresponding increase in mass slows time down and for the mass to reach light speed (where time stops), infinite energy would be required (I think infinite mass too).


At the same time, size influences matter in such a way, that small particles do seem to phase in and out of existence based on observation and are changed by observation and measurement.

It sounds like the collapse of a superposition is being referred to. That 'observer' in this scenario does NOT have to be conscious. It can be a brick, a pubic hair, gas, water, anything. One interesting theory on such collapse is that it is heavily influenced by gravity.


I don't know why exactly this could happen unless observation is existence itself. Can you prove anything exists without observation?

The concept of proof requires a sentient interpreter. Take that away and the concept is gone. The question you asked is whether or not the universe can exists without a sentient observer. Life on Earth began quite some time after a laundry list of sentient-observer-less events... ergo... the answer is 'yes'.

Matter has always existed...

While you might be right, you certainly don't know that for a fact. Matter might be but a blip of change in a much larger system.

Crunchy Cat

Well that is almost correct... but relevant? Mass cannot actually achieve the speed of light (it's an asymptote). The reason being that an increase in velocity and corresponding increase in mass slows time down and for the mass to reach light speed (where time stops), infinite energy would be required (I think infinite mass too).

What proof? None of you have offered proof that anything exists independent of observation. Science itself states that only that which is observable is fact./real.

If you can't observe something how do you know it's real? People cannot observe string theory so we do not yet know if it's real, but you claim people can know for sure it's real without observation. You also say people can know for sure that reality is independent of observation yet you provide no equations. So how can we even evaluate the basis of your arguement?

If other people have made this arguement, provide some URLs citiing your sources. Debate properly.



It sounds like the collapse of a superposition is being referred to. That 'observer' in this scenario does NOT have to be conscious. It can be a brick, a pubic hair, gas, water, anything. One interesting theory on such collapse is that it is heavily influenced by gravity.

The hell? a brick does not have eyes! If you think this is the case, nanobots will be able to observe matter into existence too.


The concept of proof requires a sentient interpreter. Take that away and the concept is gone. The question you asked is whether or not the universe can exists without a sentient observer. Life on Earth began quite some time after a laundry list of sentient-observer-less events... ergo... the answer is 'yes''


The universe had observers long before earth had life. Your point here proves absolutely nothing. Also, you don't know how life began, no one has a time machine. Life may have always been in the universe. Unless you can decide on the exact moment when life began, you don't know.

What proof? None of you have offered proof that anything exists independent of observation. Science itself states that only that which is observable is fact./real.

When you're asleep you are not observing squat... then your alarm clock goes off all by itself (without an observer) and wakes you up.


If you can't observe something how do you know it's real? People cannot observe string theory so we do not yet know if it's real, but you claim people can know for sure it's real without observation.

For now we don't have visibility at the level required to directly observe what M-theory asserts. We do however know the predictions that M-theory makes and we're slowly gaining the technology to test those predictions. Gain enough validation and you start proving the theory. For example, last year the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider smashed some gold atoms together and in the resulting trillion degree heat, quarks and gluons separated and moved about like a near zero viscosity fluid. That coincides with an M-theory preidction and is actually the very first known validation that M-theory is on the right track.



You also say people can know for sure that reality is independent of observation yet you provide no equations. So how can we even evaluate the basis of your arguement?

Its self evident. The alarm clock going off without an observer should be a tip off.


If other people have made this arguement, provide some URLs citiing your sources. Debate properly.

www.reality.com


The hell? a brick does not have eyes! If you think this is the case, nanobots will be able to observe matter into existence too.

Correct a brick does not have eyes... but is nonetheless an observer in its environment. It has relationships with its surroundings. Send an gaggle of superimposed electrons to a brick and that relationship will collapse them.




The universe had observers long before earth had life.

Correct... unless you mean sentient observers in which case you don't know that.


Your point here proves absolutely nothing.

It proves human life formed without a Sentient observer present.


Also, you don't know how life began, no one has a time machine.

That is true. At some point we might figure that out without a time machine.


Life may have always been in the universe.

Maybe... but not human life.


Unless you can decide on the exact moment when life began, you don't know.

I don't know the exact moment human life begain; however, I can narrow it down to a few million years. As for other life in the universe... no idea.

CC:

The alarm can only wake you if you are not deaf.

That is true. And process to translate that sound into a series of internal events that wake you doesn't require awareness in the least.

That is true. And process to translate that sound into a series of internal events that wake you doesn't require awareness in the least.

Umm it does, unless you define perception as conscious only.

Self awareness has subconscious attributes too.

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/543/hitheadwithhammerrl3.gif

"NEVER ARGUE WITH AN
IDIOT. THEY WILL BRING YOU
DOWN TO THEIR LEVEL AND
BEAT YOU WITH EXPERIENCE".

Yes, because perception and reality are not the same thing.

You cannot get something from nothing...so something alway had to exist....even before observers. Matter has always existed, conscious life hasn't.

The planet would still exist, otherwise we wouldn't be here in the first place, since at some point, we didn't exist. The planet has to be here before the life. That's what he was saying.

Who says observation is restricted to matter? Atoms are not matter but atoms are self aware through organization. Matter is not real, matter is just energy organized in a specific way.

What this means is, observation, and self awareness, may not be limited to living matter.
You are correct this connect be proven, but artificial intelligence and robotics will eventually reach a singularity point, and we will find out one way or the other.

Secondly, atoms do have some level of awareness, even if it's limited to action and reaction, this awareness allows for atoms to organize into molecular structures that form the human body in the first place. So what we are talking about here is self aware energy being the universe. We are not talking about living matter being the only expression of self awareness or even the first expression of it. We are saying awareness is the universe itself and that before observation existed there was nothing, no big bang, no matter, absolutely no 3d universe because the 3d universe came into existence when the first set of eyes in the universe observed it into existence.

Do you really believe the universe had this dimension before there was self aware energy to percieve it? How exactly could the dimension have been created if there were absolutely no awareness in the universe? The 3rd dimension is an illusion that depends on the existence of awareness on the 2nd dimension and first dimension. The human body is made up of all these dimensions and there is awareness on all levels, your cells are aware, and the atoms that make up your cells are aware. This is not the same thing as alive, because these cells in your body have a very limited awareness. Atoms even more limited, but they are aware enough to organize.

Correct a brick does not have eyes... but is nonetheless an observer in its environment. It has relationships with its surroundings. Send an gaggle of superimposed electrons to a brick and that relationship will collapse them.

There is no such thing as a brick if there is no observer to look at it, measure it, calculate it, and interpret the information and give it a definition "brick". The brick only exists because it was observed into existence.

The universe is filled with junk information. Junk information like that brick, which is junk because it is now aware of itself. That which is not aware of itself does not exist. The universe is aware of itself, through us, and the other self aware beings, and it is we who are existence. When the universe ceases being aware of itself, the universe no longer exists.

I don't know how you can argue for the existence of a universe which cannot be observed, yet you don't believe in God. If you believe the universe is beyond definition, and beyond the scope of existence itself, and beyond observation, and is just this thing which exists outside the scope of reality, how is it any different than believing in heaven, or believing in angels? Or believing in God or the Devil? Or believing in Gods? Or believing the universe itself is God and you are some sorta servant?

It's really simple, the universe only exists because of perception/self awareness. Perception created the 3rd dimension, the material universe is not real, it's a trick of perception. If you had the vision of a microscope you'd be able to zoom in and see the real universe. You'd see that the real universe depends more on size than on shape. You'd see that there are particles that can be in two places at once. You'd see that time travel, and quantum entanglement are possible. You'd begin to understand that the 3d exists only due to our perception, and this is proven by the fact that when you zoom out again suddenly everything is solid, but if you zoom in and go small enough everything is liquid, and suddenly you reach a timeless state.

So in reality, if you go small enough, you do reach a timeless non-local state. In that state, there is no beginning or end. The big bang created the 3rd dimension, and the so called laws of physics. But the laws of physics only exist because atoms follow certain rules. When you change the spin of particles it actually causes quantum entanglement so these rules can be changed it seems by very small changes.

The proof backing up my claim can be seen in the two slit paradox.

The two slit paradox
This experiment is fundamental to all of modern physics. Feynman, Nobel prize winner in physics, has stated that no physicist understands this experiment, and that it cannot be explained by any classical means. The reason is that it cannot be monocularly comprehended, i.e., the first three laws of logic cannot explain it. The fourth law can and does.
In the experiment, electrons are emitted from a source and travel past a doubly-slit wall region on their way to a screen. The apparatus is shielded against light. If one believes that the emitted electron is a little three-dimensional particle, much like a tiny baseball, then it should go through one of the slits and not the other. It would then hit the screen at one of the two spots indicated as the expected distribution, with a little scatter from those that chip the edge of the slit a bit. Electrons which do not hit the holes but strike the wall are absorbed.
We do not get this expected pattern. Instead, the pattern is essentially the same as the one we would get if each electron were a wavefront passing through both slits at once. However, each electron still strikes the screen in only one point; the distribution of these points fits the actual distribution pattern shown.
http://www.cheniere.org/books/excalibur/fig7.jpg
This stunned the physicists. They did not believe it at first, so they set up a photon gun and hit every electron with a photon as it left the emitter source and started over toward the two-slit region. That is, they determined precisely when a little electron was on the way, and the fact that it was like a tiny baseball and in just one place. And this time the electron only went through a single slit, and it gave the expected pattern after all. And when the experiment was repeated and only a fraction of the electrons were hit with photons, then a mixture of the two patterns emerged.
It is simple to describe the results mathematically, but no one has understood why things happen as they do in this experiment. The principle of complementarity evades the issue. This principle is simply a monocular statement dealing with one aspect of the problem at a time, with the determined, exclusive, monocular past only. It does not apply to the present or to the future. If we think in terms of the present, then the third law of logic is violated and the fourth law applies. The two states, two-dimensional wave and three-dimensional corpuscular, both exist simultaneously but nonexclusively in the present. Thus in physics terms, the entity becomes nonobjective (nonspatial), probabilistic and undetermined, and this is automatically a wave concept, i.e., since waves are not confined to one place and determined or localized, they may exist in the nonconfined, non localized present.
Note that photon interaction must be excluded whenever the so-called quantum effect is exhibited. If photon interaction is invoked, classical reality emerges. Photon interaction creates classical objectivity. Photon interaction is a time-differentiating operator imposed on L3T four-space. Specifically, since light carries time, photon emission from an entity strips away T from the L3T nonobjective entity, converting it to an L3 or spatial object.
The very concept of an object comes from primitive perception's one-to-one correspondence with photon interaction. After photon interaction, the first three laws of logic apply to an entity. Before photon interaction occurs, the fourth law applies. In the fourth-law state, the time portion of an entity can interact with any number of time portions of other fourth-law entities if the time aspects of all of them coincide.
A free electron born and released at the emitter is four-dimensional ( L3T) until it is struck by a photon, after which it is three-dimensional (L3 ). When the wavelength of electron and slits is specified, we have actually specified the time interval stripped out of a ΔEΔT quantum in each quantum of fundamental change occurring. Perfect time synchronization accomplishes or constitutes orthogonal rotation. So if the length (width) dimension of each slit is very close to the wavelength of the electron, the time aspects of both slits will interact with the time aspect of the fourth-state electron if all three are brought into time phase simultaneously. If the slits are made much larger, this interaction will not occur.
When the electron interacts with both slits timewise, this will constitute a part of the past history of the electron to all future interactions or interaction possibilities. But since the interaction with the two-slits was not in the past (i.e., selected or determined), then that interaction itself is a part of the present and future probabilities chain. In physics, probabilities propagate forward in time with absolute causality until a monocular selection is made. Thus the fourth-law interaction is propagated forward with absolute causality and significantly affects any future interactions. And apparently vice-versa. John Wheeler has just shown that, in at least one sense, whether or not the emitted particle in the two-slit experiment has interacted with one or both slits can be selected after it has occurred. As is well known, the pattern of projection forward of this fourth-law interaction may be quite simply calculated from ordinary trigonometry. For an excellent discussion of the two-slit experiment, see Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Vol. I (Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, Calif., 1963), pp. 37 -1 and 37 -12.
When the electron hits the screen, it encounters a region of varying time oscillations of the orbital electrons around the individual atoms comprising the screen.
Thus the exact location of the orbital electron in the screen which will first precisely time-synchronize with the electron wavelength approaching the screen in four-law form will vary. Thus the place where the electron hits the screen is variably selected along the screen. The time distribution pattern of the approaching electron is recovered when the time distribution of the number of electron hits per screen length is plotted.
So one can build gadgets to cause four-law entities to multiply and interact simultaneously in time, even though the entities are normally thought of as being in different spatial locations when in the three-law state. And one can deliberately select the type of interaction to occur, four-law or three-law, simply by controlling photon interaction. The two-slit apparatus itself is a paranormal, psychotronic de vice.
This is the explanation of the two-slit experiment, which, according to Nobel prizewinner Richard Feynman, no one understands and which, according also to Dr. Feynman, contains the total mystery of quantum mechanics and the only mystery of quantum mechanics. The reason the two-slit experiment has not been understood is that the answer to the paradox was not present in the first three laws of logic. It requires the addition of the fourth law to explain the experiment.
And all fundamental particles - photons, neutrons, protons, electrons, etc. - exhibit the same behavior. So things, nothings if you will, can be processed in the multiplistic two-states-identified-as-one-so-no-single-exclusive state, as virtual and unobserved entities. In the multiplistic state they can be amplified, recorded, put onto tape, modulated onto RF signals, etc. And by our ordinary, objective, three- law science nothing is processed. And nothing indeed is what is there - a very special, structured, detailed, virtual set of nonexclusive, hidden-variable nonthings that is part of the new reality existing in the framework of the new four-law logic. In fact, this processable, structurable, nonobjective reality exists outside objective, three-law spacetime and is the basis for all psychotronic phenomena.
To our present monocular detection devices and monocular theory, such multiple-state entities are unobserved and hence are zeroes. They are pure vacuum, pure space, pure nothing, pure emptiness. But they are very real indeed, and they do physically exist, but multiocularly rather than monocularly.
The importance of the time interaction in explaining the two-slit experiment was noted as early as 1957 by Charles Musés in his introduction to Jerome Rothstein's Communication, Organization, and Science (Falcon's Wing Press, Indian Hills, Colorado, 1958). Musés pointed out that the celebrated wave-particle paradox remains a paradox only so long as the chronotopological phases of the phenomena are left unrealized in the analysis. The entire foreword by Musés is a remarkable document that analyzes the structure of time itself.




The next experiment which helps make my case is

Stern and Gerlach's magnets

Introduction

This page summarises summarises the classic Stern-Gerlach experiment on "spin" and extends the treatment to a discussion of correlation experiments. As is often the case, I build up maximum complexity as I examine the experimental details, and then hide them in a 'box'. This time the box will turn out to be literal.

Here we concentrate on electrons, which have only two spin-states. We also mention photons, which also have two spin-states. The approach is largely based on one by Feynman which he used for objects with three spin states: see R.P. Feynman, R.B. Leighton and M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol III, Chapter 5 for this discussion.
Classical Charged Spinning Objects

We begin by considering a macroscopic charged ball that is thrown between the poles of a magnet. If the ball is not spinning, a "knuckleball" to a baseball fan, it will not be deflected. However, if it is spinning it will be deflected as shown:

We ignore:

* The weird shape of the magnet pole pieces.
* The fact that there will be horizontal deflections. These can be cancelled by putting an electric field perpendicular to the plane of the ball's trajectory.

A Flash animation of this case has been prepared. It may be viewed by clicking here.


For the case shown above, the figure to the right shows the spin of the charge.

We shall call this orientation "spin up" since it is deflected up by the magnets.




The total amount of deflection is a function of

* The total amount and distribution of electric charge on the ball.
* The orientation and rate of spin. As the rate of spin increases, so does the deflection. As the axis of the spin becomes more vertical, that amount of deflection also increases.



By contrast a "spin down" electron would have its spin oriented as shown to the left:


Such an object is deflected down by the magnets.

All of the above is just classical 19th century electricity and magnetism.
The Spin of the Electron

An "electron gun" produces a beam of electrons. Further information may be found here.

If the beam from the electron gun is directed to the magnets, as shown to the right, the beam is split into two parts. One half of the electrons in the beam are deflected up, the other half were deflected down. The amount of deflection up or down is exactly the same magnitude. Whether an individual electron is deflected up or down appears to be random.

Stern and Gerlach did a version of this experiment in 1922.


This is very mysterious. It seems that the "spin" of electrons comes in only two states. If we assume, correctly, that the rate of spin, total charge, and charge distribution of all electrons is the same, then evidently the magnitude of the angle the spin axis makes with the horizontal is the same for all electrons. For some electrons, the spin axis is what we are calling "spin up", for others "spin down".

You should beware of the term "spin." If one uses the "classical radius of the electron" and the known total angular momentum of the electron, it is easy to calculate that a point on the equator of the electron is moving at about 137 times the speed of light! Thus, although we will continue to use the word "spin" it is really a shorthand for "intrinsic angular momentum."
Building a Spin Filter

As promised at the beginning, we now make the situation a bit more complex. Consider the arrangement shown to the right:

Note that the polarity of the middle longer magnet is reversed from the other two. We have also drawn the path of a "spin up" object. When the object emerges from the magnets it is going the same direction as before it entered them with the same speed.

A Flash animation of this case may be viewed by clicking here.


The path of a "spin down" object is:


For a beam of electrons, one-half will go follow the upper path while and other half will follow the lower path:


Finally, we imagine putting a small block of lead in the path of the "spin down" electrons.

Here, one-half of the incident beam, the spin-down electrons, will be stopped inside the apparatus, while all the spin-up electrons will emerge in the same direction as before they entered the magnets and at the same speed. Thus this is a "filter" that selects spin-up electrons.


Now, again as promised, we simplify by taking all three magnets and the beam stopper and put it in a box. In the figure we also have included an electron gun firing a beam of electrons at the box.

So one-half of the incident beam of electrons will emerge.

It will be important to notice that we have painted an arrow on the front side of the box to indicate what direction is "up." You can't see it yet, but there is also an arrow pointing in the same direction on the back of the box.



Using the Spin Filter

Note that one-half of the incident beam of electrons on the filter emerge from the box, while the other half do not. This is independent of the orientation of the filter; in all the orientations shown below one-half of the incident electrons emerge, while the other half do not.




Evidently the direction of "up" is defined by the orientation of the filter doing the measurement. This is sometimes called spatial quantisation, a term I do not like.

We now put a second filter behind the first with the same orientation. The second filter has no effect. Half of the electrons from the electron gun emerge from the first box, and all of those electrons pass through the second filter. So, once "up" is defined by the first filter, it is the same as the "up" defined by the second.


Now we put the second filter behind the first and upside down relative to the first. As always, half of the beam of electrons from the electron gun emerge from the first filter, and none of those electrons emerge from the second filter. So, evidently once the first filter defines "up" that definition is the second filter's definition of "down."


Here is another orientation for the second filter, this time oriented at 90° relative to the first one.

To repeat once again, half of the beam of electrons from the electron gun emerge from the first filter. It turns out that one-half of those electrons pass through the second filter. So if we have two definitions of "up" from two filters at right angles to each other, one half of the electrons will satisfy both definitions.


If we slowly rotate the orientation of the second filter with respect to the first one from zero degrees to 180 degrees, the fraction of the electrons that passed the first filter that get through the second filter goes continuously from 100% to 0%.

Technical note: if the relative angle is A, the percentage is 100 cos2(A/2).

All of the above may remind you of polaroid filters for light. One half of a beam of light from, say, an incandescent lamp will pass through such a filter. If a second filter is placed behind the first one with the same orientation, all the light from the first filter passes through the second (at least in the case of perfect polaroid filters). A brief summary of light polarisation appears here.

If the relative orientation of the two polaroid filters for light is 90°, then no light emerges from the second filter. This corresponds to the case above for electron filters when the relative orientation is 180°.

If the relative orientation of the two polaroid filters for light is 45°, one half of the light from the first filter will emerge from the second. This corresponds to the case above for electron filters when the relative orientation is 90°.

We conclude that the only difference between electron and light filters is a factor of 2 in the relative orientations. Thus, often we call the electron filters "polarisers."

Here is a final example of combining electron filters.

One-half of the beam from the electron gun emerges from the first polariser; one-half of those electrons emerge from the second filter. And one-half of those electrons will make it through the third upside-down filter! Note that if the second filter were not present, no electrons will emerge from the upside-down filter. So we see that the middle filter actually changes the definition of "up" for the electrons. This is yet another manifestation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.


A Flash animation of up to 3 of these Stern-Gerlach filters has been prepared. It requires Flash 7, and has a file size of 130k. It will appear in a separate window. To access the animation, click here.
Correlation Measurements

We imagine a radioactive substance that emits a pair of electrons in each decay. These two electrons go in opposite directions, and are emitted nearly simultaneously. When another nucleus in the sample decays, another pair of electrons are emitted nearly simultaneously and in opposite directions. So we can have a sample emitting these pairs of electrons. To the right we show such a sample, enclosed in a copper colored device, and electron filters measuring the spin of each member of the pair:


For the radioactive substance we will be considering here, one-half of the electrons incident on the right hand filter emerge and one-half do not. Similarly, one-half of the electrons incident on the left hand filter emerge and one-half do not.

But if we look at the correlation between these electrons, we find that if, say, the right hand electron does pass through the filter, then its left hand companion does not pass its filters. Similarly, if the right hand electron does not pass through the filter, then its left hand companion always emerges from its filter.

We say that each radioactive decay has a total spin of zero: if one electron is spin up its companion is spin down. Of course, this is provided that both filters have the same definition of up.

To the right is a case where the two filters have opposite definitions of up.

Again, one-half of the right hand electrons pass through their filter and one-half of the left hand electrons pass through their filter. But this time if a particular right hand electron passes its filter, then its companion left hand electron always passes its filter. Similarly, if the right hand electron does not pass its filter, its companion electron doesn't pass through its filter either.


Now we consider yet another example.

The two filters define "up" to be in perpendicular directions to each other. If you are still following this business with electron filters, you will not be surprised to learn that:

1. One-half of the right hand electrons emerge from their filter.
2. One-half of the left hand electrons emerge from their filter.
3. If a particular right hand electron passes its filter, one-half of the time its companion left hand electron will emerge from its filter, one-half of the time it will not.



These sorts of measurements are called correlation experiments. We show an arbitrary relative orientation of the two filters.


We summarise all of the above by saying that when the two filters have the same orientation, the correlation is zero: if the right hand electron passes its companion does not. When the two filters have opposite orientations, the correlation is 100%: if the right hand electron passes, so does its companion, while if the right hand electron does not pass, neither does its companion. When the two filters have perpendicular orientations, the correlation is 50%. It turns out that the correlation goes smoothly from zero to 100% as the relative orientation goes from 0° to 180°. For the mathphilic student, the actual formula is that the correlation is sin(a/2) squared, where a is the relative angle between the filters.

There are radioactive substances that emits pairs of photons similar the the pairs of electrons we have been consider so far. Some such substances have similar correlations to the electron source we have been considering, except that there is a difference of a factor of two in the relative orientations of the polarisers. If the light polarisers have the same orientation, the correlation is zero; this is the same as for electrons.

If the light polarisers have a relative orientation of 90°, the correlation is 100%: if the right hand photon passes through its polariser it companion photon will pass its polarisers, while if the right hand photon does not pass, neither does its companion. This corresponds to the case for electrons where the relative orientation of the filters was 180°.

Similarly, if you are still following all this, the correlation when the relative orientation of the light polarisers is 45° is 50%, just the correlation for electron with relative filter orientations of 90°.

As we shall see these correlation experiments, both for electrons and photons, have been performed and turn out to give us important information about the way the world is put together. This is the thrust of Bell's Theorem, also sometimes known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox.
Author

This document was written by David M. Harrison, Department of Physics, University of Toronto, mailto:harrison@physics.utoronto.ca in March 1998. This is $Revision: 1.26 $, $Date: 2006/03/12 18:11:55 $ (y/m/d UTC).

This document is Copyright © 1998 - 2005 David M. Harrison.
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/SternGerlach/SternGerlach.html

And finally, and actual article which backs up and makes my case for me.

Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality

Science Daily — REHOVOT, Israel, February 26, 1998--One of the most bizarre premises of quantum theory, which has long fascinated philosophers and physicists alike, states that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality.

In a study reported in the February 26 issue of Nature (Vol. 391, pp. 871-874), researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science have now conducted a highly controlled experiment demonstrating how a beam of electrons is affected by the act of being observed. The experiment revealed that the greater the amount of "watching," the greater the observer's influence on what actually takes place.

The research team headed by Prof. Mordehai Heiblum, included Ph.D. student Eyal Buks, Dr. Ralph Schuster, Dr. Diana Mahalu and Dr. Vladimir Umansky. The scientists, members of the Condensed Matter Physics Department, work at the Institute's Joseph H. and Belle R. Braun Center for Submicron Research.

When a quantum "observer" is watching Quantum mechanics states that particles can also behave as waves. This can be true for electrons at the submicron level, i.e., at distances measuring less than one micron, or one thousandth of a millimeter. When behaving as waves, they can simultaneously pass through several openings in a barrier and then meet again at the other side of the barrier. This "meeting" is known as interference.

Strange as it may sound, interference can only occur when no one is watching. Once an observer begins to watch the particles going through the openings, the picture changes dramatically: if a particle can be seen going through one opening, then it's clear it didn't go through another. In other words, when under observation, electrons are being "forced" to behave like particles and not like waves. Thus the mere act of observation affects the experimental findings.

To demonstrate this, Weizmann Institute researchers built a tiny device measuring less than one micron in size, which had a barrier with two openings. They then sent a current of electrons towards the barrier. The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human. Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons. The quantum "observer's" capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it.

Apart from "observing," or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current. Yet the scientists found that the very presence of the detector-"observer" near one of the openings caused changes in the interference pattern of the electron waves passing through the openings of the barrier. In fact, this effect was dependent on the "amount" of the observation: when the "observer's" capacity to detect electrons increased, in other words, when the level of the observation went up, the interference weakened; in contrast, when its capacity to detect electrons was reduced, in other words, when the observation slackened, the interference increased.

Thus, by controlling the properties of the quantum observer the scientists managed to control the extent of its influence on the electrons' behavior. The theoretical basis for this phenomenon was developed several years ago by a number of physicists, including Dr. Adi Stern and Prof. Yoseph Imry of the Weizmann Institute of Science, together with Prof. Yakir Aharonov of Tel Aviv University. The new experimental work was initiated following discussions with Weizmann Institute's Prof. Shmuel Gurvitz, and its results have already attracted the interest of theoretical physicists around the world and are being studied, among others, by Prof. Yehoshua Levinson of the Weizmann Institute.

Tomorrow's Technology

The experiment's finding that observation tends to kill interference may be used in tomorrow's technology to ensure the secrecy of information transfer. This can be accomplished if information is encoded in such a way that the interference of multiple electron paths is needed to decipher it. "The presence of an eavesdropper, who is an observer, although an unwanted one, would kill the interference," says Prof. Heiblum. "This would let the recipient know that the message has been intercepted."

On a broader scale, the Weizmann Institute experiment is an important contribution to the scientific community's efforts aimed at developing quantum electronic machines, which may become a reality in the next century. This radically new type of electronic equipment may exploit both the particle and wave nature of electrons at the same time and a greater understanding of the interplay between these two characteristics are needed for the development of this equipment. Such future technology may, for example, open the way to the development of new computers whose capacity will vastly exceed that of today's most advanced machines.

This research was funded in part by the Minerva Foundation, Munich, Germany. Prof. Imry holds the Max Planck Chair of Quantum Physics and heads the Albert Einstein Minerva Center for Theoretical Physics.

The Weizmann Institute of Science, in Rehovot, Israel, is one of the world's foremost centers of scientific research and graduate study. Its 2,400 scientists, students, technicians, and engineers pursue basic research in the quest for knowledge and the enhancement of the human condition. New ways of fighting disease and hunger, protecting the environment, and harnessing alternative sources of energy are high priorities.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm



That's 3 seperate pieces of scientific evidence based on actual experiments not opinions. These are the facts, and there are more where these came from.

Where are your sources? Where are your facts? What is your evidence? Where are your equations? What is your theory?

If all you can do is look for holes to punch into my theory, that just shows me you disagree with the theory, but if you want to actually debate, it's now your turn to present facts which say the opposite of what my facts just said. If you cannot find any, then you are relying on religion and opinion to make your case instead of science and facts.

In your opinion does the universe exist if there is no self aware energy to percieve of it?
Ah, Perception is Reality rephrased on a universal scale.

Did the universe exist before any of us living entities were born?

Will the universe continue to exist after every living thing has died?

Is conceit zero-point energy?

;)

Umm it does, unless you define perception as conscious only.

Self awareness has subconscious attributes too.

I didn't say perception. I said awareness. Your awarness begins the moment that chain of events flips that 'on' switch.

Ah, Perception is Reality rephrased on a universal scale.

Did the universe exist before any of us living entities were born?

Will the universe continue to exist after every living thing has died?

Is conceit zero-point energy?

;)

1. The universe existed, the 3rd dimension did not exist. Particles have awareness of some sort too, on the quantum level, but the material solid 3d universe did not exist before it was observed into existence by an entity. Perhaps the first lifeform that developed eyes, observed this universe into existence as we know it. Perhaps living matter was the first form of matter. Or perhaps life did not start out in matter, but in particles. I cannot claim to know all the possible types of lifeforms in the universe to answer that question but the possibility is that, no, life may not be restricted to matter. Life as we know it is restricted to matter but that is all. Awareness itself on the otherhand may not be a function of matter but a function of electrons, of energy, and electrons might have given us "life" much in the same way that a robot or computer is given it's version of "life". The difference is, we have DNA, and because we have DNA we have free will, because we are self upgrading and self programming. The day when computers can program themselves and upgrade themselves, who's to say they don't be like "fuck those humans, kill them all!", we just don't know.

2. After the universe loses it's self awareness, the universe dies. That's my theory. This means that the universe needs awareness in it to exist. The material universe we are in, needs living matter to exist(life), and maybe the 4th dimension, space/time, needs the living mind to exist. Maybe time is just an illusion of our minds because we grow old and die, maybe time is actually change change, and maybe time is related to size. When something is small enough, you can literally cheat space and communicate mind to mind across infinite distance, basically breaking the speed of light and the rules of the 4th dimension. This is not to mention the possibility of wormholes and time travel, all which are invented by the mind. You see, the mind dominates time just as the electron dominates the brain/body to create the mind, and the electron is just a particle in movement, it's all a process of energy expansion. Matter is a specific expanded form of energy. The mind is also an expanded form of energy. Your body is kinetic energy, and when you talk your energy becomes a wave, and when you create a video your energy becomes light, everything you do influences all sorts of photons, electrons, and other particles to communicate information, so the mind actually dominates time, but it also dominates all the other dimensions, from the 4th, to the 3d, to the 2nd, and 1st. So it's easy to see that if the mind is the controller of the universe, if you remove the awareness from the universe, and all observers, it will basically kill the universe. The universe is only alive because it's aware.

The last question about zero-point energy, I considered that but I would not call it zero point energy. The mind might be another dimension, a sort of expanded matter or it might be how new dimensions are created. Perhaps the processes we go through, applying our collective universal minds, to solve the universe, actually creates the universes dimensions.

Say we were to discover that if you network a million minds together it does represent a new type of energy. This theory is called singularity, and if you do reach a singularity, the speed of technological innovation increases. Let's say another non human species finally figured it out. Let's say an alien species, finally stopped warring with itself, and focused itself 100% on solving the universe and on improving its existence, and lets say this species figured out how to make itself immortal.

Now there are 100 trillion of them, and all of them are as smart as we are, and all of their brains are connected to a quantum computer network. In this situation if you were to think of a problem, the problem could be distributed between all living aliens on the planet who would think collectively solve it within a matter of nano seconds. The quantum computer would be so fast that it would be able to crunch all the numbers, and do all the difficult calculations, allowing each individual alien to simply ask questions, and focus on choosing from a list of answers. In this environment, it would be like being connected to Google all the time, anything you think, you'd get the answer to, any problem would automatically be solved, there would never be a shortage of solutions. There would be free labor because robots would assemble themselves to do all the dirty work.They'd have cracked the code for unlimited energy if unlimited energy exists, and if it does not exist they'd have so much information that they'd have machines so efficient that they would look like lifeforms. These machines would then for example, be spread out into the universe to do specific tasks, and would simply eat themselves in a continuous cycle. They'd get their energy from the sunlight and the stars, and the food cycle would provide a near endless supply of renewable energy.

In that environment, everything these machines do would be monitored by the aliens, every single action, every single calculation, everything. The aliens would also maintain the ability to upload information to their subconcious, if the aliens then decided to spread life throughout the entire universe this way, then you can easily see how life could have spread, and fairly quickly too. Now what happens if something goes wrong? If something goes wrong, the aliens would still have a way to upload information to the subconcious of the living machines. These living machines would have no way to even detect whats going on because they would not know they were machines built by aliens, they'd think they were animals that evolved in some freak accident, or that they evolved from each other somehow.

So in the big cosmic picture, if the singularity does take place eventually technology could reach a state, that the original aliens would evolve beyond the point where they'd need a body at all. Being immortal, at some point they'd crack the code of the 4d itself and move to a timeless formless state. It's simple, if they developed the ability to disassemble themselves into atoms and then back into matter, not only could they collapse themselves into an atom or atoms, but they could also expand themselves to be everywhere at once. All they'd have to do, is figure out how to be two places at once, and that is actually possible on the atomic level, so once again if it is possible to bring awareness up from atomic size to molecular size to build a human or an alien, it may also be possible ot bring awareness back down to atomic size. One example would be nano computers, but assuming an alien technology is billions of years ahead of us, they might have atomic robots for all we know, or even synthetic atoms. When things get small enough, all the rules of physics seem to break. As far as what aliens might be capable of in this universe. If there are aliens in this universe, some of them would be so much more advanced than us that we would not be able to observe them at all, because we'd be like the atom to them, or the electron to them, or some particle, or molecule to them. They on the other hand would be able to observe us in some microscope the same way we observe the quantum world, and if they wanted to interact with us, I'm sure they could simply build machines and upload the information or DNA to those machines to allow them to do it.

The mind is basically infinite power, and if an alien has that power it would explain why the universe is so stable. If we are not the only ones here it could explain why there are any laws at all, but our physicists and scientists when they make calculations do not consider all the possibilities, such as the possibility that there are lifeforms so complex that we might not even be able to recognize it as life. There might be lifeforms that never die, and that don't have to reproduce. There might be lifeforms that exist in unlimited temperatures, such as unbelieveable cold, or unbelieveable heat, or unbelieveable sizes, and have properties which would boggle our mind. So at this point, all I can say is that self awareness is existence, I don't know all the forms that self awareness comes in, because it might have as many forms as there are stars, it might be infinite.




http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=DyqNw_B9j2wC&oi=fnd&pg=PP11&sig=JOhnE4X2RnIY3fMmA2oFn--tlaM&dq=%22Kellman%22+%22The+Cradle+of+Knowledge:+devel opment+of+perception+in+...%22+#PPA1,M1

I didn't say perception. I said awareness. Your awarness begins the moment that chain of events flips that 'on' switch.

Awareness, you keep saying this as if you know for sure awareness is physical. We do not know exactly what makes something aware. Insects are aware and they don't have brains, at least not like ours, they have this http://www.animalbehavioronline.com/insectbrain.jpg It seems the universe itself is aware, how? I don't know. That's the main question.

There is no such thing as a brick if there is no observer to look at it, measure it, calculate it, and interpret the information and give it a definition "brick". The brick only exists because it was observed into existence.

Thats fantasy and the articles you posted don't support what you are saying (well except the shady line "The two-slit apparatus itself is a paranormal, psychotronic de vice").


The universe is filled with junk information. Junk information like that brick, which is junk because it is now aware of itself. That which is not aware of itself does not exist. The universe is aware of itself, through us, and the other self aware beings, and it is we who are existence. When the universe ceases being aware of itself, the universe no longer exists.

That's quite an imagination you have.


I don't know how you can argue for the existence of a universe which cannot be observed, yet you don't believe in God.

Um... because there is evidence of one and not the other?


If you believe the universe is beyond definition, and beyond the scope of existence itself, and beyond observation, and is just this thing which exists outside the scope of reality, how is it any different than believing in heaven, or believing in angels? Or believing in God or the Devil? Or believing in Gods? Or believing the universe itself is God and you are some sorta servant?

Sorry, I can't answer your question as I don't 'believe' in anything you listed.


It's really simple, the universe only exists because of perception/self awareness.

And reality contradicts that claim.


Perception created the 3rd dimension, the material universe is not real, it's a trick of perception. If you had the vision of a microscope you'd be able to zoom in and see the real universe. You'd see that the real universe depends more on size than on shape. You'd see that there are particles that can be in two places at once. You'd see that time travel, and quantum entanglement are possible. You'd begin to understand that the 3d exists only due to our perception, and this is proven by the fact that when you zoom out again suddenly everything is solid, but if you zoom in and go small enough everything is liquid, and suddenly you reach a timeless state.

So in reality, if you go small enough, you do reach a timeless non-local state. In that state, there is no beginning or end.


What I see is fantasy... lots of good old fashioned creative fantasy.