WHY does anything exist?

[dwivedys]

Quantum weirdness is what it is. But it doesn't become a random mess of chaotic uncertainty when we are not looking at it. Feynman's sum over histories shows that there is still a measure of control. As Hawking has said:

"The probability of a particle going from A to B is found by adding the up the waves associated with every possible path that passes through A and B."

So even though the undisturbed quantum world exhibits behaviour that may seem strange to us, the fundamental laws of physics still hold and therefore the universe still functions. Consciousness is not required.

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...

 

[Rav]

Can you state this fact unconsciously? Who is the one to whom this becomes apparent?

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?

 

[Rav]

Rav - honestly - since you seem to have a good understanding about quantum physics

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.

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?

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.

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*)

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.

 

[dwivedys]

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?

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.

 

[dwivedys]

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.

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

A photon possess particle and wave like properties. This is known as wave–particle duality.

Isn't that perplexing enough?

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.

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.

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.

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?

 

[Rav]

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?

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.

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.

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?

 

[Dywyddyr]

How do I know that the world is not perceivable?

That is the question. Yet to be answered.

If you are pointing that the world remains perceivable to those who are awake - I will grant you that. But that wasn't what I was pointing to. But then given that you so like to win arguments - I can see how you could have missed this one.

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.

The dictionary is not the answer my friend... learn to understand humans a bit more and you'll perhaps be able to "see".

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?

No I don't fail. Understand this one carefully. A "thing" can be "continous" in an interval. A thing which is continous regardless of any intervals would be *eternal*.

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?

I am not disputing your definition of continous as it relates to continuity over a specific period of time.

Yet you just have done. Again.

For me a thing not conditioned by space or time is eternal. If you deny the truth of this - Let's have an open debate on this very subject.

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.

Truth in my opinion (once again) - is continous, unbroken and eternal beyond the conditioning of space and time. Please get this argument once and for all and tell me if you dispute it.

I get your argument and have disputed it.

All I can say to this is that you are mistaken and please don't start talking semantics with me.

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 and apologized.

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

That's the reason why I said Dyw - you simply like to have something to say -no matter what the argument.

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

Squirrel clearly says -
subjective to perspective of state of being ---- which I might rephrase a bit ----- From the perspective of state of being ----

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?

 

[Dywyddyr]

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?

Very nice.
Short, simple, logical and no wiggle room.

 

[NMSquirrel]

it is a fact (he is using *fact* in the sense I had used)
that i think (here the *fact* and *i think* are the same)
'has squirrel lost his nuts?' (the thinker's contention --- which may or may not be accepted as *the truth* --- but is a *fact* of *thought* occurring to the thinker)

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?

 

[Dywyddyr]

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

Did you not realise that from my response?
I didn't dispute your first two.

also
Continuous;
is old faithful geyser considered continuous or eternal?

Is there anyone who thinks it's "eternal"?
Firstly they'd have to pre-suppose that the Earth itself is eternal...

 

[NMSquirrel]

Is there anyone who thinks it's "eternal"?
Firstly they'd have to pre-suppose that the Earth itself is eternal...

i personally think it is neither eternal or continuous, but i though it may be a good point to argue the differences..(maybe not..)

 

[keith1]

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.

 

[Sarkus]

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?

Only if it's looking.

"Existence is just the noise of the falling tree that noone hears"
(Me, just now)

 

[Dywyddyr]

i personally think it is neither eternal or continuous, but i though it may be a good point to argue the differences..(maybe not..)

Well I'm not exactly au fait with Old Faithful, but isn't the cycle continuous?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

“
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?

Very nice.
Short, simple, logical and no wiggle room.

Yes, good point.

 

[dwivedys]

“ Originally Posted by dwivedys

How do I know that the world is not perceivable? ”

That is the question. Yet to be answered.

This was something I was trying to put in the form of a *question* that I subsequently *address*.

What "I" said

“ If you are pointing that the world remains perceivable to those who are awake - I will grant you that. But that wasn't what I was pointing to. But then given that you so like to win arguments - I can see how you could have missed this one. ”

What "YOU" said

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?

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

And, one more time, you are entirely mistaken as to my motives.

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.

“ Originally Posted by dwivedys
The dictionary is not the answer my friend... learn to understand humans a bit more and you'll perhaps be able to "see". ”

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?

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

“ Originally Posted by dwivedys
No I don't fail. Understand this one carefully. A "thing" can be "continous" in an interval. A thing which is continous regardless of any intervals would be *eternal*. ”

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?

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.

“ I am not disputing your definition of continous as it relates to continuity over a specific period of time. ”

Yet you just have done. Again.

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

“ For me a thing not conditioned by space or time is eternal. If you deny the truth of this - Let's have an open debate on this very subject. ”

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.

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.

“ Truth in my opinion (once again) - is continous, unbroken and eternal beyond the conditioning of space and time. Please get this argument once and for all and tell me if you dispute it. ”

I get your argument and have disputed it.

You have done NOTHING but to DISPUTE.

“ All I can say to this is that you are mistaken and please don't start talking semantics with me. ”

In other words I'm mistaken because you say so.

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.

Do you have your fingers in your ears at the moment? Are you singing "La la la I can't hear you"?

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.

“ Acknowledged and apologized. ”

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

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.

“ Originally Posted by dwivedys
That's the reason why I said Dyw - you simply like to have something to say -no matter what the argument. ”

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

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.

“ Squirrel clearly says -
subjective to perspective of state of being ---- which I might rephrase a bit ----- From the perspective of state of being ---- ”

If truth is subject to an individual's perspective then, for one thing, it contradicts YOUR claim that it's eternal etc.

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

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.

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

Can you see the slight problem here?

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.

 

[dwivedys]

Only if it's looking.

"Existence is just the noise of the falling tree that noone hears"
(Me, just now)

Excellent. Thank you.

 

[dwivedys]

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.

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.

 

[dwivedys]

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?

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.

 

[SciWriter]

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.