WHY does anything exist?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by lightgigantic, May 16, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dwivedys Registered Member

    Messages:
    42
    Rav - honestly - since you seem to have a good understanding about quantum physics - help me understand one thing on a purely empirical level.

    When we say - the prob of a particle going from A to B is found by adding up the waves associated with every possible path that passes through A and B - that's simple probabalistic principle - because the paths are mutually exclusive - the probs can be added up to arrive at the final probability. This is simple and intuitive enough.

    Other than the above - how do we explain the detection of a single particle at more than one places at the same instant (or may be the differnce in time is so miniscule as to be imperceptible): Let's take the unmonitored version of the double slit experiment where a single electron (or photon) produces an interference pattern where as intuitively it ought to have had been either a speck (provided it passed through one slit) or a complete darkness. How do we reckon that. Of course - you would explain it as the wave-particle duality and ascribe the presence of the photon at both slits simultaneously to the wave nature of the photon. So basically we don't know whether the photon is wave or a particle but employ techniques to suit the situation at hand? Wasn't Einstein frustrated with this behavior? Aren't we all?

    And we sing paens to technological development when we haven't been able to answer this one simple question? (Or no...perhaps it's not *simple*)

    Regards...
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2011
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Let me try this another way. When we aren't disturbing the double-slit experiment we observe an interference pattern. If it is consciousness that causes the collapse of the probabilistic nature of QM does this not tell us that there can be no such thing as a universal all-pervading consciousness? If there was, wouldn't everything already and always be collapsed?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    To be honest I find QM to be incredibly confusing. And I'm not a great mathematician so my knowledge comes from reading books on physics and reading articles and papers online. All I can do is reflect upon what other people can teach me and try to wrestle some semblance of understanding from it all.

    A photon possess particle and wave like properties. This is known as wave–particle duality. The wave-like property is what collapses when we perform a measurement, at which point a photon behaves exactly like we would expect a particle to behave. It's not a contradiction any more than the collapse of probability into a single definite value is a contradiction.

    No-one can deny that we don't have everything figured out yet. The existence of multiple interpretations of the reality of QM is evidence of this. But, well, many brilliant physicists are working on the problem as we speak.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. dwivedys Registered Member

    Messages:
    42

    Well - the point is - even the perceived absence of something (say lack of monitoring instrument) is also but an object of consciousness. Dont you agree? Otherwise what separates the situation (from the standpoint of consciousness alone) whether there was a monitoring instrument or not.

    So when there WAS no monitoring instrument - it is equivalent to the detection in consciousness itself of the lack of the instrument. And with the instrument in place - it is again consciousness alone that tells us so.
     
  8. dwivedys Registered Member

    Messages:
    42
    Mine too and me too brother...mine too and me too. And it is fascinating as hell

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    Isn't that perplexing enough?

    That's a brilliant proposition. The collapse of probability into a single definite value is not a contradiction. When the single value appears - the probability is one (1) because the event has happened. So long as the event has not happened - there would be a probability associated with the event which would be somewhere between 0 and 1. So this collapse is inevitable simply from the standpoint of the phenomenon alone. But the collapse from wave to particle duality is not so intuitive.

    Sure they are... let's see what it unfolds. Increasingly to me (as opposed to it being an universal truth)it goes back to one's being as being the single irrevocable truth; even though the body mind and sense complex collapse - the fundamental being - call it soul or whatever - continues to exist. It cannot BUT exist and it can be argued that it's the very same thing that maintains continuity of existence in states such as deep sleep or coma. Even though this existence is NOT the typical existence we experentially become aware of through the faculty of our senses.

    And there is no way of empirically testing this premise either which presents insurmountable difficulties in talking about it in a scientific manner. Inasmuch as I am aware of my existence - and have been aware of it pretty much all my life - I see no reason to discredit the theory of the continuity of soul. For if the soul were to END who will be the one proclaiming it has ENDED? And what will then happen to the entity proclaiming the so called END?
     
  9. Rav Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Well, you know that I don't agree because I believe in the reality of existence separate and apart from my perception of it. The measuring instrument, the object of the measurement and all of reality itself would exist even if I wasn't here to experience it. Even if no-one was.

    Of course in that situation there would be no-one to assign any kind of meaning or importance to any of these things but all the atoms, the particles that they contain and the energy that they are made of would all indeed still be here. In fact if that wasn't the case life could never have evolved in the first place.

    Again it sounds like you are saying that reality only exists within our consciousness; that everything is a virtual reality; that physical reality does not exist. Would you mind clarifying before I respond?
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2011
  10. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    That is the question. Yet to be answered.

    Again you prefer assumptions over answering the question.
    I am aware that you were not pointing to the perception of things by people who are still awake, I am asking how do you know that something becomes imperceptible to a sleeper?
    And, one more time, you are entirely mistaken as to my motives.

    Regardless. Do you deny the definition? Do you think that your personal definition over-rides the generally-accepted one? If so, why? And since it appears to be your personal definition why should I either be aware of it before you define it, or accept it?

    Again you go against common usage. If I turn a tap on the flow of water is continuous (given an adequate supply). But it isn't eternal. And, once again, if you consider "continuous" to be synonymous with "eternal" why did you insert both words into your claim?

    Yet you just have done. Again.

    And we return to my original question.
    I gave a list of things that were true yet were neither eternal, continuous or unbroken. You have yet to provide any refutation other than personal attacks.

    I get your argument and have disputed it.

    In other words I'm mistaken because you say so. Do you have your fingers in your ears at the moment? Are you singing "La la la I can't hear you"?

    Acknowledged? So NOW you agree that I was correct that you were wrong about truth being eternal etc.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The reason you say this is because you have no idea why I respond.

    If truth is subject to an individual's perspective then, for one thing, it contradicts YOUR claim that it's eternal etc. Also if truth IS subject to individual perspective then any other individual is equally correct to claim that it is not, in fact, a truth.
    Can you see the slight problem here?
     
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Very nice.
    Short, simple, logical and no wiggle room.
     
  12. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    this was my point with the 'think' i am glad you picked up on it.
    (i was hoping it wasn't ambiguous)

    also
    Continuous;
    is old faithful geyser considered continuous or eternal?
     
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Did you not realise that from my response?
    I didn't dispute your first two.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Is there anyone who thinks it's "eternal"?
    Firstly they'd have to pre-suppose that the Earth itself is eternal...
     
  14. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    i personally think it is neither eternal or continuous, but i though it may be a good point to argue the differences..(maybe not..)
     
  15. keith1 Guest

    There are conscious minds that recognize the dilemma,
    and (the evolving mind) may be configuring its inner constructs (as we speak),
    to further work upon that uncertainty--an uncertainty in survival, or and observed blind side needing surveillance--the mind itself perhaps a tool contrived to address "this very" weakness in natural intel.

    Regardless, there seems at this early juncture no concrete statement that can be assuredly possessed, to satisfy the clarity of observations that can be made of an object traveling the speed of light, from an observer, who is not.
     
  16. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,300
    Only if it's looking.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    "Existence is just the noise of the falling tree that noone hears"
    (Me, just now)
     
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Well I'm not exactly au fait with Old Faithful, but isn't the cycle continuous?
     
  18. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738

    Originally Posted by Rav
    If it is consciousness that causes the collapse of the probabilistic nature of QM does this not tell us that there can be no such thing as a universal all-pervading consciousness? If there was, wouldn't everything already and always be collapsed?

    Yes, good point.
     
  19. dwivedys Registered Member

    Messages:
    42
    “ Originally Posted by dwivedys
    This was something I was trying to put in the form of a *question* that I subsequently *address*.

    Does ANYTHING become perceptible to a sleeper? What is there TO KNOW about this? Only when one wakes up does one know *anything*

    Trust me on this - and I am willing to walk the path with you till I fully understand your motive even though something within me tells me it's a LOST cause.

    What's the generally accepted definition my friend? Generally accepted as in pandering to your tastes?

    Ok... the flow of water is CONTINOUS for the duration it lasts. You still didn't get what I was trying to say about YOUR DEFINITION OF CONTINUITY BEING CONDITIONED BY AN INTERVAL. I can't even believe I am repeating myself so many times.

    Yet you simply haven't understood my point. Think harder...

    A list of things YOU mentioned that were TRUE yet neither eternal, continous or unbrokent---- I differ with your definition of TRUTH there. I clearly explained that your definition of truth was *conditioed* (and read this carefully and finally because AFTER THIS discussion I won't even BOTHER to respond to YOU) upon an INTERVAL of TIME. Read it again if you have to.

    You have done NOTHING but to DISPUTE.

    Not really. For those who can understand they CAN see what I am saying. But YOU will PERHAPS NEVER because you simply dont want to.

    I really dont know how to respond to this. I wish somebody would help me come with something in the same coin as you say it.

    That shows the *myopic* mindset you approach every discussion with. Ask me to prove it...and I will give almost every argument so far as proof to support me. And trust me ... YOU won't understand it. But OTHERS will.

    Oh Yeah... I have no idea why you respond the way you do. If there is a forum moderator here ... I would ask him or her to tell me who is DEVOID of THE IDEA here.

    Let me just say this.... if this is between you and me....you can rest assured you won't be the one to have the last word here...UNLESS I TAKE PITY ON YOU.


    NO IT DOES NOT. And I will leave it as an EXERCISE for your little brain to figure out WHY.


    And again YOU misunderstood what I said because I was pointing to the TRUTH of only ONE single entity. But that's beyond you.

    Slight problem? Oh it's really pointless to argue with you. And I feel sorry for my ownself that I DID with you. Wow... May GOD whoever HE may be... BLESS YOU.
     
  20. dwivedys Registered Member

    Messages:
    42
    Excellent. Thank you.
     
  21. dwivedys Registered Member

    Messages:
    42
    no *concrete statement* (as to the nature of truth) that can be *assuredly possessed * (grasped) ... to satisfy (conclude) the clarit of observations (or lack of it) that can be made of an object travelling the speed of light (the truth itself) from an observer who is not (us, mortal humans)...though I would have phrased it a bit differently so as to be grammatically succinct.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2011
  22. dwivedys Registered Member

    Messages:
    42
    Rav... for now... I wanna devote all my energies to dyw. I will come to the empirical side of it once I feel I am adequately done with him.
    Trust me... I dont see an easy way out of this... But I wont give up.
     
  23. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    Before we existed, the stars still did their thing, which is we we came from. It is not now that we see a galaxy far away and cause its constituents to collapse their wave function. Also, mere interaction of particles can collapse the wave function.

    I was reading Penrose’s proposal that gravity is what makes tiny things settle down to one state, at some certain threshold such as a very tiny piece of dust, which still may even take as long as a half a second to go to the classical state from the quantum state.

    Anyway, they had contained and reduced something to only two states, and what struck me what that they called it a vibration, and, so, finally I could visualize the here-there idea of the thing being in two places at once.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page