What Is Reality?
8.47
Ratings: 8.47/10 from 133 users.
There is a strange and mysterious world that surrounds us, a world largely hidden from our senses.The quest to explain the true nature of reality is one of the great scientific detective stories.
Clues have been pieced together from deep within the atom, from the event horizon of black holes, and from the far reaches of the cosmos.
It may be that that we are part of a cosmic hologram, projected from the edge of the universe. Or that we exist in an infinity of parallel worlds. Your reality may never look quite the same again.
More great documentaries
Through the Wormhole: The Riddle of Black... They are the most powerful objects in the universe....
Parallel Universes Everything you're about to read here seems impossible and...
To Infinity and Beyond Documentary examining current ideas about very large...
The Universe The sky and outer space have fascinated man for centuries...
192 Comments / User Reviews
Categories
Recently Added
Treeline: A Story Written in Rings Throughout history, as entire civilizations have withered...
Poverty in the USA For far too many, the American Dream will forever remain...
Baalbek Megaliths Though they've been ravaged by a history of armed conflict,...
Highest Rated
Square One Square One mounts a full-throated defense of Michael...
Stealing a Nation Hidden from Parliament and the U.S. Congress, the deal was...
September 11: The New Pearl Harbor On the very day of "September 11" several commentators drew...
I "askew" (: (o') My whole life is spent on the event horizon for Pete Sake ! What's the big deal ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>+=
I've got this whole thing all figured out! Don't you worry. I'll have us all walking through walls faster than you can say Rumpelstiltskin. We'll be entangled with so many universes, they have to call the Enterprise to untangle the knots. "Stand back!" and fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
"I*IOT something something"
If anyone ever knew or could work it out could you tell me? I'm trying to read it but it's so unclear to me thank you
Or, in other words, a perceived particle is not distinct or intrinsically different from the space it surrounds. If i'm correct that is what entanglement refers to.
So, basically, what i'm saying is that particles can only describe a relative perception based reality.
Compactified dimensions, for example, as i understand it, means strings exist within strings. Or to use the vibration model, different wave patterns would exist within wave patterns. 11 dimensions they say so far. I have no clue as to how they come up with that number.
But the strange thing is, so are wave patterns no more than perceptions. So, what is reality?
But like i said, my knowledge about the matter is limited and i have to resort my reading to what some scientist might refer to as 'pop' literature. So for what it's worth...
aka
linear C.U.T. reality.
"For we are a bi-sect-ed universe - cut by the scissors of Fate.
A linear slice that bleeds-out spinning galaxies,
from black hole branches.
Each sun a stick,
a burning little branch,
nourished by the trunk of the beginning.
Becoming the roots of burning little branches - to come.
For we are a bi-sect-ed universe - cut by the scissors of Fate."
~The seven stanzas of recreation - The Annals of Priapus
My hypothesis argues that we live not only in a linear, or flat universe (as proposed by Quantum mechanics), but also in a trans-dimensional universe that can be tracked by the stars and all forms of energy as a tracer through, or bisecting – time.
Our present is the point that reality cuts through time.
Our star is a 3rd dimensional eddy from the trans-dimensional
sprig it passes through.
Our galaxies super black-hole is a 3rd dimensional current,
from the trans-dimensional branch, our sprig shoots from.
The big-bang is the trunk of this metaphorical tree, and it's roots were the branches of big-bangs that came before.
And as for our little flower of a planet, it will form the roots of
metaphorical trunks to come.
I will further extrapolate that we (as individuals) are
quasi-conscious, metaphorical trichomes on the trans-dimensional
flower (that is planet Earth) as it travels through space-time.
That is to say that our souls, our 'third eye' if you will, is the tether
to the trans-dimensional tree that creates us as individuals. We are
individualized glances into our reality, lasting from birth-to-death,
diving into and out of trans-dimensional space/time via this tether.
If we could see all time (as we know it) at once... It would look like a
radiant ball of all things that defuses into spinning streamers of
galaxies, that in-turn spin off planets and ends with us in the
present. We are a fleshy tip of cosmic shrapnel from the Big-Bang. We branch in-and-out-of space-time as individuals, so our lifetimes are just glancing into this reality from ... a different kind of time.
Math is the universal language, but beyond the basics, it is incomprehensible to the vast majority, and thus, is as dead as those who put all their eggs in its equational basket. In other words, it is holographic nonsense to spend trillions in a vain attempt for a complete understanding, that could never be understood by the general masses. (for the record, dark energy, dark matter are modern day equivalents of Einstein's cosmological constant to defend their life's work in the wrong direction - the universe is not expanding, it is collapsing under the force of gravity, it is accelerating, and the forementioned minutia is not needed)
All life are neurotransmitters of frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum of the brain of the universe/multiverse, plain and simple, and no amount of money spent is going to give a better analogy of what everything is! Any questions?
P.S: If what I have said offends the science minded, then perhaps it is time to think for yourself, and realize your own potential of thought, instead of fullfilling someone else's. Then, you can get on with the idea of living, and be thankful you are even here to experience it!
I really enjoyed listening to the hypothesis of Max Tegmark at 48 minutes.
1i
...Except...I saw something yesterday where mathematics proved that it would never be able to say something [one thing in particular] was false nor true. Which would be to say mathematics can not be the language of God...only the drunken ramblings. ;-)
"mathematics proved that it would never be able to say something [one thing in particular] was false nor true"
What do you mean by "one thing"?
Mathematics could never prove, it being GOD (itself)?
1i
edit: you mean Mathematics could never say any one thing as false or true?
Due to the nature of the Universe and the fact that the observer may change it's nature, or, by describing it, it is no longer the same, truth is out of reach so the best way to describe reality is by metaphor and allusion (indirect glance perhaps). Or like viewing an image in disturbed water.
Dude are you sure your a programmer, if so you must be pure software development sinc a^n + b^n = c^n is the bread and butter of graphics programming :)
I think what is happening is something which doesnt fit with two particles being made. Consider this. If two particles are made, rather than one, then five outcomes are possible.
1.No Photons go through
2.One on the right goes through, the other doesn't
3.One on the left goes through, the other doesn't
4.Both go through a different slot
5.Both go through the same slot
I think the pattern that they get only makes sense if everytime a photon goes through a slot, another one goes through the other slot 100% of the time, and when a particle doesn't go through, no particles go through. So your left with only scenario 1 and 4, the other 3 dont happen. If two particles are made, all five scenarios should happen at varying degrees, but only 2 scenarios happen which means 2 photons cannot be created. Or rather thats my take on it, because when they say the particle pattern is the same as a wave pattern, light is constantly shone onto the slits, it means every time light passes through one slit, light passes through the other slit, which is the wave pattern.
Sunday night I came down stairs to use the telephone and it wasn't in its cradle, so I walked into the kitchen and looked on the counters and into the dining room and looked on the table…it wasn't there. As I was walking back into the living room where my wife and the phone are I asked her where the phone was; she said she thought she put it back. She got up and looked at the empty phone cradle (the first time she looked at it and the second time I looked at it) and said that's weird, so we both went to the kitchen and the dining room and outside on the back porch to see of she left it there…it wasn't. When we came back into the house and looked at the phone cradle again; the phone was sitting in the cradle.
P.S. AssHat: what you say still holds true, and I definitely LMAO
Poof! Now you're not.
What we call reality is just an intellectual construction indeed.
I wonder whether there are other ways to approach the ultimate reality , the latter that can never be reached via our senses-impressions, i am afraid , i do not know
Neutral point of view. if both sides are intensified perception and not reality. (positive and negative feelings)
Neutral point = Reality?
When no part is intensified. positive or negative side.
artificial happiness is a correct coined term. however, everyone feels this.
does this mean that happiness and depression are illusions? If the middle of positive and negative is reality. no particular fore hand thought of the object when looking at it. (neutral)
if you fail to see something in a different way. does that mean your perception of it doesn't change or the reality of it didn't. this means you would actual;y be able to change reality.
But how do we know when we reached this point? (neutral point)
ANYWAY, thats what i was thinking about. might sound crazy. or maybe not. idk, but i guess i'll have to smoke some more soon!
I have heard it said in physics that where there are two oppositional magnetic forces (the pos & neg you refer to), natural law says there must be something in the middle, being balanced between those two forces.
I like your train of thought here.
How do we know when we have reached that neutral point? In the oldest cultures of the world, they call it enlightenment. So, to be neutral in the way you describe, really mirrors the ancient belief of balance being the key to all things.
What a beautiful thought.
And would be conscious in all, not knowing about other existences.
Nicely stated! As I read your comment I was saying to myself that you too must have read 'The Toa of Physics'.
It almost seems like Eastern man and Western man are two inherently different beings on this planet. Eastern philosophy accepts and reveres the wonders, the marvels and the mysteries of everything that surrounds them as an extension of themselves. Western science questions the validity of every discovery and dissects its authenticity, looking for the legitimacy of its being, as if man and his environment are adversaries.
i think our logic is to crude for the job. there is no way someone will ever gain a full and real understanding of the universe by staring at an equation or even a sentence. and its because our symbolism and terminology is limited.
some wisdom
-decay is inherent in all compounded things, strive on with diligence
- force or laws(strong force, weak force, electromagnetic force and gravity) are not forces external to things but represent the harmony of movement immanent in them.
and one of my favorites-when the world knows the power of love and not the love of power, the world will know peace.
movies you should watch-
mind meets matter and energy, by bruce lipton
the taboo of psi, by dean radin
books you should read-
the Tao of physics
confessions of an economic hitman.
peace and love.
'a^n + b^n = c^n to me as a programmer seems illogical.'
Your instincts are good! This is Fermat's Last Theorem (FLT) and it was proved by Andrew Wiles that:
For ALL values of n greater that 2 the expression has no solutions.
Replace n with 2 and you get the famous Pythagorean theorem.
Replace n with 1 and you get a + b = c which has an infinite number of solutions!
Replace n with 0 and you get 1 + 1 = 1. An illogical statement.
@K.Elvin used FLT in a very creative way!
a^n + b^n = c^n to me as a programmer seems illogical. Surely it should be written a+b^n = c? Not being a mathematician I may be missing the point :)
A mathematical/philosophical proof of God's existence was given by St Ansell In his ontological argument. Two documentaries here on TDF describe the argument, they are:
Colin McGinn in Jonathan Miller's 'A brief history of disbelief' and
'The Great Philosophers: An Introduction to Western Philosophy' : section 3 - Anthony Kenny on medieval Philosophy
It is a completely impenetrable argument unless one has an understanding of the mathematical method of 'proof by contradiction'.
If you or anyone else is interested then ask me on the blog for The Great philosophers and I will happily lay it out for you.
Warning: most theologians dispute the validity of the proof although no-one has yet found a convincing counter argument to it.
Thanks for your response. I have been stewing on it for a while and still can't find too many constructive additions or criticisms to make. However I will say this:
I really liked the way that your argument used Fermat's Last Theorem (FLT) to restrict the values of the exponent n to 0, 1 or 2. In my mind this clarifies the way in which FLT can and should be used and for this reason alone was worthwhile and illuminating. A classic example of lateral thinking and the strength of abstract, non-intuitive theorems in forming an method of attack on unusual and difficult problems. Well done.
I am still having a few difficulties in understanding/believing the way that you combined the a^n, b^n and c^n into the statement of FLT. Justification arguments in physics always leave me a little bit unsatisfied, so you may just be banging away on a brick wall with that one...
Another potential problem I have is with n standing for a reality. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to describe n as the number of experiments? Couldn't the multiple experiments all take place in our observable version of reality?
Digression: Does each individual have there own version of reality? or if there is a collective reality? Collective reality seems intuitively true (if 1000 people run head first at a brick wall there will almost certainly be 1000 sore heads) but in science one often finds that intuition leads us astray. My instincts tell me that this is a linguistic problem based on the definition of the word reality...
Re: Adding apples and bananas. It is actually the 'number' of cats and the 'number' of boxes that are being added (although I am still questioning the validity of the addition) so at some point the reduction formula should apply. The reason being that the formula a=b comes into play. i.e. the number of cats is the same as the number of radioactive boxes.
In any case I cordially thank you for providing an original and interesting problem to chew on.
Best regards
You are assuming a created entity of intelligent beings has a variable within the known universe.
"The rest of the universe can be explained -by mathematics" Really? I didn't know a unified theory had been developed, please tell. God? This is a discussion about reality not fairy stories.
One possible template is that the Universe IS a hologram; that would explain most if not all of the anomalies that are encountered when trying to decipher its mysteries. But that produces another whole set of problems like: Where did the original information come from? And where is its point of origin (the projector)?
We may be a Simms Universe program on some super-duper mega-computer operated by a nerd in another Universe just screwing with us, giving us a clue here and a clue there, and as soon as we start to make sense of it, he/she changes a parameter to get us scratching our heads again, just to see how long it will take us to figure it out.
Thank you for your comment.
I fully agree with your point of view to prove physics:
"There are no proofs in Physics so the only test of validity is to compare the results with observable data."
Unfortunately theoretical physics uses mathematical models and abstractions of physics to throw light upon questions.
For your particular case (the "2a^n = c^n" reduction) I can't absolutely accept this form, because, if adding apples and bananas the outcome should be: apples and bananas (cats and boxes in this case), not melons or something else. At most, shifting up the category, you can't add apples and bananas, but you can add their shapes.
Note: In it's basic form, where n=2, the equation has real-life applications like: calculation of projectile physics, simple harmonic motion, astronomy: motions of the solar system, coordinate geometry, cryptography, trigonometry, etc.
Note: The outcome possibilities for this experiment are known: cat dies or remains alive, this isn't our quest, the problem focus is multiple realities in which the result [c] exists. FTL (=Faster than Light Travel) is a whole other topic (i'm sure there are a few good docs on this site).
Note: The issue of knowing beforehand if the cat dies or not comes not in question, since this would lead to precognition, and that will render the experiment invalid,
"Specifically, precognition would violate the principle that an effect cannot occur before its cause."Hyman, Ray (2007). "Evaluating Parapsychological Claims"
For your questions:"How do we test your result? What is the result?": Related to the equation combination for the experiment, the problem is that this theorem isn't yet fully understood currently in math science, is very hard to come and explain in a few minutes what the [c]-part represents. It's further senseless to interpret the result, for example if one lives in an unidimensional space all quantifiable things can be represented as segments, if you add an extra dimension in this system , in principle you need to power up the item in order to quantify the result (e.g. think in a unidimensional sistem a segment, in bidimensional: square, tridimensional: cube). But the a high dimensional representation is useless for the initial dimensional world.
Let's assume the results are observable and interpretable covering all realities, now stretching the reasoning further, for example if you consider a particular case (for simplicity sake, take only whole positive numbers) 3^2+4^2=5^2 I can only interpret the [c] part in here shifting the category, or, if you will, the view point, counting 5 class of "items" (Note: across all "realities"!):
- life process (the "meow": cat lives in the box)
- death process (the "silence": cat dead in the box)
- radioactive process (the "spark": cat irradiated in the box)
- decay process (the "reorganization": cat in the decaying box)
- box-cyanide-Geiger-attached-counter process ("executioner" : cyanide inside cat, inside box)
Difficile indeed is to answer the "What do you mean by the unreality?", since I am aware and living in one reality. I can hardly answer that this one resides in the imaginary part of the experiment, and only speculate to be in ream of information volatility or has something to do with the system entropy.
Regards.
I read The Holographic Universe, a really good book. I like this sort of thing it stimulates the mind.
@Jo McKay
Logic is the process that our mind uses to make distinctions and correlations between and among the stimuli it gets from our senses. Logic is a comparison, if there is nothing initially, what do you compare it to…how do you process nothing and get the same consistent something? If it turns out that our reality is an illusion, a fantasy, how is it that everyone that looks gets the same illusion…fantasies are supposed to exist in the mind only, how do they get out into the public domain of observation? How do I imagine it? I havent got a clue and like everyone else I have many many more questions than answers. I just like the mind buzz I get from processing this stuff. I take theoretical physics with a grain of salt. Pure mathematics is a representation of reality, it isn't true reality or the substitute of it; just like your bank statement is a representation of the money you have. Try taking just your bank statement to the store for groceries and see how far you get.
@Ramus
I see the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment as potential realities where the brain is processing the information to evaluate one outcome over another. It exists outside of our sensory ability to perceive it, so, to me it isn't a reality; it is a mental process used to evaluate the probability from the examined possibilities of a reality. Until you had sensory input to determine one outcome from another, this process is in an indeterminate state.
I understand that with every choice made we 'may' be sending out a potential self, living out the non-chosen options. These unmade choices are possibilities, which are ethereal in nature; while the selected choice is in the realm of probability and more in line with reality.
I was initially going to ignore your comments, but then you had to be from Canada. A quick google search found that you're pimping your alleged premonitions to sell books. Why not try to pimp them out here?
You could have added part of a synopsis for one of your books, like this:
"The Russian Government is now considering sending a spacecraft into deep space in order to attempt an orbital change of an incoming asteroid due to impact the earth in 2029. News article released on December 31, 2009. American President Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper have received copies of this document and notified of the urgency to build survival facilities in Russia. UNESCO has also been notified as well as Canada's Disaster and Prepardeness Agency. Find out what they know and be prepared for your future!"
Well, it's a 10/10 for creativity on post #88. That's what good physics is all about I guess. It just seems to good to be true that FLT can be used in the way that you describe.
Being really critical I can't totally accept how you combined a^n, b^n and c^n to get the statement of FLT, although it seems that each individual statement makes sense. I guess that you (consciously or unconsciously) knew what you were heading for and combined the separate equations accordingly.
'The Example (including the strange ones)' doesn't fully explain the combining of the individual statements (a^n, b^n and c^n) into the form of the FLT equation. As I read it, it says that the sum of all the cats and all the boxes in the n realities is the same as the number of experimental outcomes in n realities. This puzzles me, especially when in your case a=b ( number of cats = number of boxes; each cat is in one box). So the equation reduces to 2a^n = c^n. Then also isn't c=2? The cat either lives or dies. Some food for thought for you. It now looks solvable for many more values of n!
Note: lets assume your results that a maximum of two realities are possible is true. It is then also true that exactly one reality true is also a viable option.
There are no proofs in Physics so the only test of validity is to compare the results with observable data. Therein lies a problem. How do we test your result? What is the result? That there are at most two realities? What do you mean by the unreality? To answer the question, what is reality? would be a major achievement!!
Just some initial thoughts after reading your intriguing piece of work.
Regards.
appeared on "the colbert report" january 27 and discusses this topic. short interview but interesting. can't post link because they are different depending on country
While I agree the theories in this doc are reaching, I'd disagree that it's a waste of time. New theories are always welcome as long as it prompts interesting discourse.
And the big bang may not be "proven" in the absolute sense, but there's more than enough evidence to feel reasonably certain it occurred. I'm sure there are some other docs on this site about it.
Let's save the Schroedingers cats placed it in sealed boxes!
Take a small amount of cats [a](so approximate):
a = 2 billion "kamikaze" cats
(if this works with one cat, it can be duplicated endlessly)
Take a small (cyanide-Geiger-attached-counter) amount of a radioactive element [b] with chance of decaying:
b = 2 billion atoms of reactive material
Now try to imagine multiplicate realities [n] having more than one layer or fold, as some shells or leaves, being created every 10^43 seconds (Planck time) or whatever.
n = realities, in which the experiment [c], cat and boxes, exists.
Example (including the strange ones):
- cat dies from cyanide.
- cat lives to see another day.
- cat dies surprisingly, smashed by a giant asteroid.
- cat dies suffocated form lack of air.
- even cat manage to develop an evolutionary ability to clone herself and never dies.
- cat dies bored after 2 seconds.
...
- and so on.
So we have:
[a] cats in [n] realities + [b] radioactive boxes in [n] realities results [c] experiment outcomes in [n] realities:
a^n + b^n = c^n
Looks like a very old problem named Fermat's Last Theorem.
The unsolved problem prior to its 1995 proof, involving extremely complicated mathematics, like modular elliptic curves, was in the Guinness Book of World Records for "most difficult math problem".
The theorem states that no three positive integers a, b, and c can satisfy the equation a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer value of n greater than two.
Because of this, there can't be a number [n] greater than 2 "realities" for the experiment: our evident reality and the unreality.
Therefore, there can be only one genuine reality here + the unreality: the state of being insubstantial or imaginary; not existing objectively or in fact.
QED.
Regards.
Have you heard of Schrodingers cat? Briefly : Take a cat, place it in a sealed box. Attach a small amount of a radioactive element to a geiger counter and attach the geiger counter to cyanide. The radioactive element has 50/50 chance of decaying in 1 hour, releasing the cyanide and killing the cat, or no decay and the cat lives. After 1 hour the cat can be thought of as being both dead and alive to the observer and so the observed reality has bifurcated into (using Barbour) 2 separate nows.
The potential answers to the observation problem are mind boggling and, as I have said, not comprehensible to our level of understanding. Try to imagine another reality being created every 10^43 seconds (planck time) multiplied by the 13.7 billions years suggested for the age of the universe. Enough realities to have almost anything happen. Hell there might even be a reality where I'm really interesting :)
Max Tegmark's statements that simple equations explain different aspects of our reality beautifully… and the deeper we look into our reality, the only way to explain it is through mathematical equations, is intense. If it turns out that our Universe is a hologram…a 3-dimensional image produced from 2- dimensional information, our reality may be that the Universe is a computer program. As this video pointed out the closer you examine a hologram the more you see there isn't anything there; it is the illusion of existence…excited photons with nothing behind them: And we in our 3-dimensionsal experience expect there should be depth. Is it possible that there is no Higgs boson or dark matter to account for the missing 95%? After all the things we see are filtered through the atmosphere (or the expanses of space), converted into electrical impulses, analyzed by our brain and reorganized in a mental image that makes sense to us. Perhaps we have a built in filter that disallows an accurate perception of our surroundings.
I find it hard to fathom the idea that our Universe may only exist when we are looking at it. There has to be a template upon which or from which all reality, virtual and material, is organized. I can see how it may not exist for the individual because of the lack of stimuli when not observed; but I think it has to exist in order to be perceived with consistency when we open and close our eyes over and over again.
Deja vu could be explained by (maybe) stored non neurological memories but precognition cannot be explained with our current understanding. Having never had a "vision" I find it hard to believe, unless the universe exists in a reality that we can't even imagine.
Personally I don't think we humans can comprehend the real structure of the uni/multiverse and so trying to come up with answers is futile.
Good story, yes I believe that, is called "deja vu". You pulled out some static snapshots from from all that could, and did, and already happened. As in many worlds theory.
I also had some deja vu experiences as I'm sure most everybody has.
Remember, a lot of this is theoretical. It's not meant to be taken any other way.
Also, don't expect to understand it. The brightest minds in the field don't fully understand it (yet).
"do you feel that your field is going to be revolutionized by technical advances in the similar areas of Cognitive Neuroscience, Molecular Biology, Ect… ?"
Revolutionized? I'm not sure that's the proper term. I'll put it this way (which will tie in Intbel's point on the subject):
There is a divergence among many of the sciences taking place. Many of them (particularly Psychology) have for too long ignored the other related sciences. There was a kind of rivalry between them, and it only hindered our knowledge. It's my opinion that if we ignore the limitations of our field, we will fail at our attempts to explain what motivates us.
There are still many Psychologists who don't like looking outside their field. This is mostly coming from the older generations who've seen their theories in practice, and unfortunately the ones who make up the majority of the professors.
Thankfully, the newer generation seems to have more appreciation for the common good which science in general can bring us.
Basically, Psychology is only one field trying to explain a very complex system, and to look within one field for any explanation is narrow-minded. If I had the time and resources, I'd also be studying Psychiatry, Neuroscience, Biology, Sociology, Genetics, Religion, History, and more. Until then, I'm forced to do what many others do: respect and consider the results and findings of other fields, and if they conflict with my findings, it's back to the drawing board for me.
Anyway, I hope that clears things up a bit.
But do experiences like brighter colours, sharper air, answer the question of what is reality or is it a manifestation of the way our brains work. But then is our brain interpreting its perception as reality, if you suddenly see brighter colours the universe has not suddenly brightened but your brain interprets differently. If we could see without eyes would we suddenly see another reality?
I think of reality as a frequency. We are all tuned to the same channel. If we could dial out our reality would change. For instance we could change the channel and we would appear to be waves of energy floating on other waves of energy. Or fuzzy balls of light floating in a sea of static.
Or maybe I have gone without sleep too long and reality is exactly how we see it :)
My daughter completed her masters in Psychology two years ago. Dunno if students are still being taught the same stuff; if they are, they shouldn't be.
When assumptions are made from correlations and those assumptions are taught as facts, even though the same correlations can and do equally point to other posibilities, then what is taught can not be trusted.
Mind you, if accepting what is taught without question means one gets a degree which enables one to get a job as a "qualified" psychologist then go for it.
Not for me, though, personal integrity will not allow this.
Have you ever had what is often termed a moment of clarity? When everything seems to come into focus. Its hard to explain and last only seconds but I have had moments like that. Maybe the reality we see, taste and feel is only a small fraction of what is actual reality, thos moments of clarity are perhaps when we manage to transcend our normal reality.
Do substances like ayahuasca give a glimpse of true reality? Or is it just chemical distortion of brain functions? Is it a catch-22? To get to true reality you must first know where it is but to know where it is you have to get there first.
Ha,Ha, don't worry about it, you are doing fine. You have learned something, also when they say the BB happened at 10-43 seconds that means 10 followed by 43 zeros from a second, that is a planck second. Small not big.
First you have the measurements wrong, not 15 times the size of a proton. 10-20 means 10 followed by 20 zeros smaller than a proton.
You asked if I can explain Planck time.
A simple explanation really, first you need the "Planck length," and that is where the classical idea of spacetime and gravity break down, the quantum effect are foremost. The quantum length is the smallest measerment with any meaning.
It is roughly equal to 1.6x10-35 m or approx. 10-20 times the size of a proton. the "Planck time" is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to the "Planck length". The smallest measurement of time, that is equal to 10-43 seconds. The universe itself came into being when it had an age of 10-43 seconds. "The Big Bang"
Much love and Guiness coming out to you. Even in silence, I have been here observing you all from a distance. Just very, very quietly...
Saw this documentary on the BBC i-player a while back and was expecting a Philosophical/Psycologcal/Neuro-science interpretation of reality but alas, it was Physics again.
I know that many TDF'ers love the physics documentaries and that this one will be no different. Just wasn't my cup of tea.
With no intended disrespect, I'm curious. As someone studying Psychology, do you feel that your field is going to be revolutionized by technical advances in the similar areas of Cognitive Neuroscience, Molecular Biology, Ect... ?
As we approach what I believe will be a Transhuman future, I feel like Psychology will have alot to offer. The first true theory of mind will most likely be, in my opinion, a working computer-model/simulation of a conscious being. Once that is achieved, I think Psychology will have come of age and we will find ourselves in a brave new world. I do feel that psychology will have much to offer, the years and years of correlation studies will undoubtedly serve as a good starting point as the "More Mathmatical/Harder" sciences begin to build their models.
Again, no disrespect intended, I am just curious to hear your opinion about the direction and future of Psychology. It is my opinion that all of the related sciences will have to meld into fewer areas of study in order for a real "Theory of Everything" to be constructed. Imagine what could be achieved when the insights of Psychology are added to the findings of projects such as the "Blue Brain Project." I am not informed enough to know if this synergy is beginning to happen yet or not, but I certainly cant wait for the day that it does.
Regards.
Just to clarify something real quick as someone who is studying Psychology:
You're right that it's a softer science than many others. But the theories brought forth aren't taken lightly. They're harshly reviewed and criticized. If you want to bring forth anything new, you better damn well hope you can explain every little thing, because otherwise, you're getting laughed at.
"it troubles me that almost everyone I know can be grouped into some type of "Mental Illness" category based on what appear to be perfectly normal personality traits"
You use the term "Mental Illness", which I think is exaggerating. Delusions are a part of the Human experience. It's the price we pay for conscious thought with an imperfect brain in an ever-changing social world. Delusions ARE normal, but that doesn't mean we can't still try to recognize and correct them.
Anyway, I just wanted to clear that up. Now back to the documentary for me!
non, une bibliotheque de pins faible (ok I looked up pins)
I too am pretty much self taught (was non existent too). Have dozens of popular science books which taught me more than boring classes ever did (at least I have a use for the bibliotheque lol).
Which is why I like Vlatko's site, it quenches my thirst for knowledge. Maybe I will have another crack at Barbours book sometime.
But if anyone is interested in the hard science of reality and can stomach it then The End of Time is definitely one to read.
Have you built "une bibliotheque en chene massif" if so, good for you.
Granted there are some geometry, some maths in Barbours book, in that regard I suppose might not be the easiest thing to comprehend for everyone.
Myself am self taught, hardly went to school, like you said, teach french and build bookcases, but nothing wrong with that either. They are honorable professions.
I hate to break it to you but The End of Time is not straight forward, the ideas yes but the book itself is heavy going and, for me, it's lucky it had diagrams or I would never be able to conceptualise what he's talking about. I don't have the book anymore (I may have buried it and slaughtered a sheep over it).
The Now part I understood but the rest of the book is not for the faint hearted.
Maybe I just don't have the education to understand it, I live in England and we only get taught at school to speak French and make a wooden bookshelf. Je me fait une bibliotheque!
Haven't looked into Hawking's book yet "The Grand Design" want to see if it is in my library first.
Have followed most of Michio Kaku's stuff, have some of his books,
the "parallel universes" doc, on TDF is great. Kaku is in it. who is dr davies?
Hey, @Epic_logic where have you been.
Wheres my guinness ?
@achems
Watched it and also reckomend dr kaku as a source or dr davies for those who wonder who ive been following.
Did you ever hear any word on how much hawkings newest book is?
What sort of scenarios can come out of this?
Does one dare to think?
Seriously, nice presentation of a very deep subject.
Using the principles of linguistic philosophy the problem is surely a verbal dispute based on the meaning of the word 'sound'.
Q: If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound ?
A: How do you define sound?
1) As alternating contractions and rarefactions of air particles? If so then they occur whether there is anyone there to hear them or not.
2) As a sound sensation occurring in the ear and being processed by the brain? If this is the case then it doesn't.
Many problems can be answered by asking for a clear definition of a word.
Hope that makes sense.
Ha,Ha, the book is pretty straight forward, just to give a brief synopsis to those who have not read Barbour's "the end of time".
Time is nothing but measure of the changing positions of objects. A pendulum swings, the hands of a clock advance, et al:
but! every possible configuration of the universe, past, present and future exists separately and eternally. We don't live in a single universe that passes through time. Instead, we--or many slightly different versions of ourselves--simultaneously inhabit a multitude of static, everlasting tableaux that include everything in the universe at any given moment. Barbour calls each of these possible still life configurations a "Now"
Every "Now" is a complete, self contained, timeless unchanging universe.
And our linear time gives us a feeling of the "Now's" flowing forwards seemingly unbroken as in flow of time, but in reality each "Now" is say a planck length one after another.
I bought Julian Barbours book The End of Time and couldn't get past chapter 2 without my head exploding.
Q: If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound ?
A: YES, and NO... it created the potential to be observed.
In that aspect, everything exists and doesn't exist at the same time and by observation it becomes something we interpret as reality. Much deeper than "Machiavelli's cat" where it exists in multiple 'theoretical' states at the same time while unobserved. The question then arises, what creates the order in the 'things' we recognize, what says this is a tree here, and will be a tree the next time I look ?
Oh sorry dude, now I understand what you mean. Yea, psychology says everyone has problems. There is no one that is stable or so called perfect. Yes, everyone does have illness but I find it stupid when psychology tries to tell what is "normal". Nothing is normal or abnormal. These standards should be thrown away. Yet, there are valid arguments to why we should keep these standardizations of mental states.
"It would be irrational to think the inner workings of the mind were as accessible as our physical universe."
Touche...
My harshest language was actually directed at the 2012-Apocalypse crowd. The hysteria I see present on the web, when attempting to find solid information (such as the info presented in this documentary) is what spurs my anger.
To a much lesser extent, it troubles me that almost everyone I know can be grouped into some type of "Mental Illness" category based on what appear to be perfectly normal personality traits. This is my issue with psychology, before you tell someone they are ill, you should have a more solid scientific foundation on which to base that opinion.
Regarding climate science.. I've never seen a Truly Scientific issue that spits itself so neatly on ideological lines. In order to study the climate, any aspiring scientist seemingly must adhere to the paradigm of the day before being allowed to persue his or her research at all. In this field, I feel like contrary opinions squashed by an almost religous-like dogma. This is one area where I feel, at least currently, science has failed to adhere to its own principles.
I would not assert that either of these areas are not worth persuing. It is simply my opinion that we could do a much better job in persuing them.
... and just to keep this on-topic, I'll end with one last opinion. Reality Rules :-p
I've seen "a conscious-universe the observer effect" before and I don't know how to describe the feeling. I want to know how that is possible, my mind is so active and filled with questions. At the same time i'm annoyed and astonished, mixed feelings and emotions. I'm going to read up on this. Thanks again for the links. I'm still not completely convinced that reality isn't there when we aren't looking at it.
I would've loved face to face talk with you. These types of discussions take hours and are more exciting than anything in the world!
@Stephen
As I see it, psychology is every bit science like theory of evolution. Pavlovs dogs and other experiments are conducted to study humans and other animals.
Why everyone gets so upset about you writing something like that is because, it would be same as saying Evolution shouldn't be considered as legit scientific theory. It doesn't make any sense.
I can't remember precisely but i think it was Achems Razor that wrote something along the lines of "There is no other way to observe things at atomic level because there is no light. Therefore to observe how many photons are passing through you need to shine light so they can be measured. This interrupts the normal behavior of photons."
@1perspective
I wasn't trying to clarify anything, I'm still trying to get an answer if I'm correct or wrong. The interference pattern is when the photons behave like waves...right?
So whenever we are observing we are actually disturbing the photons normal behavior.
@Achems Razor
Thanks! I would've loved to read your expose, not really sure i've read everything you've written. I always read the comments you write whenever I see you've written...well I try to as much as I can.
If psycologists are using hypotheses to work towards a theory then how is it any less scientific? You have to start somewhere.
It would be irrational to think the inner workings of the mind were as accessible as our physical universe.
I don't really take issue with your opinion, more your sweeping dismissive language without any added substance.
I thought of writing a big expose, but am sure you have all heard it from me before.
Instead will leave yous guys's with this...google ..."youtube-a conscious-universe the observer effect"
Some top quantum and theoretical physicists talk about what most of you were discussing.
And google..."Julian Barbour" a theoretical physicist, on his end of time theory, that time and space is only an illusion.
from my very limited knowledge on the subject it`s when your NOT looking that the interference pattern appears.
hope that helps.
I am so happy you cleared that up for us.
the silly fools are disrupting the particle with light and there was me assuming they would`ve thunk of that.
I think it is considered significant precisely because of the way we "Observe" the particles in order to see if they passed through slit A vs slit B. If they were using light to detect which slit the Photon or Electron was passing through, I would agree with you... But I do not think this is the case.
When we detect an expoplanet around a distant star, this is usually done through a passive observation that has no direct impact on the object being observed. We infer the presence of an exoplanet by detecting a slight wobble in its parent star.
In a similar way, when the double-slit experiment is being performed it is a passive observation that is designed to tell us which slit the photons and electrons are passing through. We are not trying to "See" which slit they passed through, but merely to use the known laws of physics in order to be "Aware" of the particles presense as it passes through.
I think the experiment is far more interesting when performed with Electrons as opposed to Light Photons. Electrons are supposed to have mass and, as such, shouldn't be able to produce an interference pattern at all in the double-slit. The fact that Mass-Bearing particles of Matter produce an interference pattern is strong evidence towards the notion that the true nature of matter is very strange indeed.
-- Regarding Scotts comment, he was referring to my suggestion that soft-sciences such as psychology should be held to the same standards of proof as physics. In Math, Chemistry, Physics and Even Biology... you do not have a theory unless you can demonstrate through repeated experiments that your predictions hold true in all cases. Essentially I feel that psychology is essentially a psuedoscience because it doesn't even attempt to follow this methodolgy. I am fairly used to people reacting with anger to that suggestion, I just shrug it off.
@everyone
This documentary seems to favor the "Many Worlds" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics over the "Copenhagen Interpretation." I too favor MW, as the idea of a "Collapsing Wave Function" put forth in the Copenhagen Interpretation seems to be an add-on to force QM into a more mechanistic view. I've always kinda leaned this way myself but, unless I'm mistaken, isn't the consensus view still in the Copenhagen camp? Just curious.
It would do us no good to see things as such .
Every creature has a brain to fit the model of its needs.
An atom in a rock on our scale would be like me standing in one stadium and you being in the next stadium over representing the next closest atom. Things are about 80%+ empty space. But our brains are limited to our model. So we see what we need to and what is allowed. In QT however, our view is only one of many possible views.
theoreiclty there are an infinite number of universes with infiniye realities and laws of physics that are playing out aroumd our own.
We dont even really touch anything, our atomic poles act like magnets with everything , pushing against and away from everything but only enough to where you never notice your not touching that keyboard, rather pushing the keys with the contridictive atomic poles of your fingers.
Newtons law are great for us on earth as in observation but on the quantum level they break down and are of no use. Heck, gravity is actually so weak of a force to us. It is easily defied by a small refrigerator magnet yet it seems so gteat.
They theorize gravity is leaking into our universe only giving us the tail end.
Weve recreated the bb and the space it created formed and seperated itself from our universe completly and will likely expand as ours.
Gotta love reality if you see that it along with consciousness is unique to each person as
Much so as our dna.
Your book holds no credability in reality seeing as after thousands of years your book like the others in the fairytalr section, have still brought forth any evidence to suppory their delusional and obsurd claims of an afterlife. However you are right, your reality is yours alone , even though in everyone elses reality you are just using the made up reality from that book as your own like a good little sheep and not looking to find your own version.
How easy just to adopt and accept as opposed to questioning beliefs of others , looking for evidence , and making a decision based on your own insight and not just lazily backing a belief system that tells you all you need to know except that its claims are false and its effect on your ability to think for yourself. But whatever , just take your god elsewhere , we are talking science , and god is not a factor in this discussion.
I swear religees cant let us have any debate without bringing some desert dogma into it. What a disease these dogmas are to free thought. Like all desert dogmas and sky piolet deciples, yours has no backing or proof at all. Until you do , keep your god to yourself as facts are perfered rather then your gullable nonsupported ideas on reality. You wouldnt know reality if it sat on your lap amd introduced itself. If you did , your book would be a one of science and not an ancient propagandic super hero pamplet, made to close the mind and turn off the bs detector.
Thanks for the link, i've seen it before. I understand that photons can behave like both particles and waves. Yet, why do we bring the observation and say "if we look at photons they behave differently. The act of looking changes their behavior". That doesn't make any sense, it feels like an introduction to The Secret movie...It's a fault in the way we measure the photons that changes their behavior. If we could just see the particles without shinning light that changes their behavior at quantum level then we wouldn't say that reality is there because we look at it.
@Scott
What? Climate change? I'm confused with your comment.
Just by observing and accepting can make it so. I recall Sagan using the example of a tribal island people whos shaman ran to heed the calls that the warriors could see ripples in water but not the ships that were there because theyre mind could not digest these as reality and only when the shaman assured that the ships were real , the others confidence in the truth of the shaman allowed their mind to accept and interpet the ships as a reality, thus you have to accept a reality as possibity before it can be recieved as realality.
Fun thought, we are but a thought and a construct of anothers reality?
Are there more from this series?
Given your second statement , i say that it is possible within m-theory' s entanglement rule that our dreams are not dreams at all , but another reality in which we exist only when our subconscious is dominantly active. Ever notice how when something happening in this reality also plays nto your dreams, such as a smell or sound percieved here and also in the dream? This is a plasable concept indeed. I smell bacon so i dream bacon could be just the effect of the entangled mind existing and reacting to stimuli , just as when dreaming we see it as real and sometimes wake up with the emotions still felt or even a more violent awakening.
I can dig it ..
can't wait to see what every one else will be saying about this doc...where's Razor?
az
Wow... your comments really do a great job at discrediting psychology and the study of climate change. Thanks for enlightening us all.
Though you might want to do some research on the EGO..
Correct, Einstein was not a true believer in religions or gods as a matter of fact.
Noticed an error I made on blog 10 meant to say "Niels Bohr", one of the fathers of QM not "Bohm", my bad.
@Dr. Sohini Shukla:
Of course our reality is real, but is it as real as we know it, and is it as real as dreams, especially lucid dreams, that we wake up from, wondering which seemed more real? our dream? our waking up in the present?
Of course am throwing in some supernatural stuff, to see if any other viewpoints, but this still ties in with QM.
theoretical physicists and cosmologists about what reality is? Astronomy is a 'historical science' like geology is. You can't do experimental astronomy. All you can do is look out into space and see what happened far in the past. String theory has been around since the 70's and reached it's zenith in 1985 and to date there has never been any experimental evidence for it's existence. The same goes for the 'Many Worlds' theories and 'M/brane' theory. Multiple dimensions wound up so small that it's impossible to ever see them or sense them in any way? How does that explain reality? What these theoretical physicists are doing is engaging in meta-physics. A branch of philosophy. There is even good reason to believe that particle physics may be turning into a branch of mathematics and won't even be an empirical science any more. It will have come full circle.
One of the worst advocates of this nonsense is Michio Kaku.
If you haven't seen the series "Universe" Season 3 - "Parallel Universes" try to find it. While talking about
multiverses he actually says, "This even affects morals. I mean, why should I obey the law knowing that in some
universe, if I comit a crime I'm gonna get away with it?"
I can just see someone using that as a defense in a murder trial.
I always believed people like Eienstein saw god as just an unexplained part of physics , but merely used the word as a comman term for simplicity. It was just easier.
The world , we see, can feel but is an illusion and there is nothing in fact ...but we are here, enjoying every second and how can we say that this is an illusion.....
Sri Aurobondo says that yes, it is real and because we can experience and the actual thing is that what we can see is always change to nothing and every thing comes from a big Zero and returns from where it comes.....
But according to einstein Very thing is Energy....
It seems whenever I need philosophical insight regarding the world in which I live, I can always count on this site!
Thanks for the Education Vlatko
Yes, Einstein called quantum mechanics "a spooky action at a distance"
Einstein was basically at complete odds with Bohm on the subject of quantum theory.
Do a youtube/google-video search on "Dr. Quantum Double Slit Experiment." This is the best explanination I have seen to date on the concept. I double posted because when I copy-pasted the link I got the dreaded "Your comment is awaiting moderation" message. The amazing thing, in my opinion, is that this happens when single electrons are fired at the slits, not just light. Have a look :)
When single particles are shot, it shows wave pattern. If we "observe" what's going on then it behaves normally.
We can't just observe particles without shinning light, correct? So when the particles are waves and we interrupt the particles with light, the particles behave differently. In other words, we need different type of observation tool, right? It's not that we are "watching" it's a fault by the observation tool.
I have long been interested in the Holographic Conjecture. Searching youtube for videos on the subject, however, yields nothing but garbage put forth by people who dont really understand what they're attempting to talk about (IE - the 2012 crowd). Finally a documentary featuring Leonard Suskind, co-founder of the idea w/ Gerrad Hofft (sp?). Good stuff, we inhabit a strange and wonderous world indeed.
This documentary belongs in the Science category, unlike the insignificant drivel put forth by the climate-change ideologues. Compare the standards of proof in a hard science like physics to the nonsense comming out of areas such as psychology and climate science and you will see... There is simply no comparison at all.