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

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no inner world without perception.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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...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.

 

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?

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).

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 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'.

 

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.

 

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.

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 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.

 

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.

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.

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

www.reality.com

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.

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

It proves human life formed without a Sentient observer present.

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

Maybe... but not human life.

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.

 

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

Self awareness has subconscious attributes too.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"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.