Is your perception of the world really true?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 40035
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.


There's no con. It's just your bodies interpretation of outside stimulii. Enjoy it. It lasts forever.
As one smber is fond of saying, I am an experiencing machine being bombarded on a daily basis. I love it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GK
Actually, that's wrong. Sorry to burst the bubble. It's a lazy description of what an atom is. It's not your fault. I see/hear Physicists give this description all the time on pop-sci TV shows and in books and it's 100% bullshit. It's laziness.

The electrons inside an atom exist as a probability distribution, basically a cloud. The entire atom is full of energy. The Bohr idea of an atom looks like this..

Logon or register to see this image


But that's wrong, an atom actually looks more like this...

Logon or register to see this image


It actually looks like neither, but the latter is closer to the truth. It's literally impossible to describe or understand Quantum Physics without knowing abstract mathematics. But anyway, no part of an atom is empty.

As for OP's original question...

Right now what do you see? The screen, right? Nope. You're actually looking at the back of your eyeball. The light hitting your eye is both colourless and invisible, like sound (bad analogy but I'll carry on..). The brain collects the various wavelenghts of light, then creates an image based on the electrical impulses recieved. Your brain is what creates the colour you're seeing right now.

So what we see, by definition, is not real.

:)
 
Actually, that's wrong. Sorry to burst the bubble. It's a lazy description of what an atom is. It's not your fault. I see/hear Physicists give this description all the time on pop-sci TV shows and in books and it's 100% bullshit. It's laziness.

The electrons inside an atom exist as a probability distribution, basically a cloud. The entire atom is full of energy. The Bohr idea of an atom looks like this..

Logon or register to see this image


But that's wrong, an atom actually looks more like this...

Logon or register to see this image


It actually looks like neither, but the latter is closer to the truth. It's literally impossible to describe or understand Quantum Physics without knowing abstract mathematics. But anyway, no part of an atom is empty.

As for OP's original question...

Right now what do you see? The screen, right? Nope. You're actually looking at the back of your eyeball. The light hitting your eye is both colourless and invisible, like sound (bad analogy but I'll carry on..). The brain collects the various wavelenghts of light, then creates an image based on the electrical impulses recieved. Your brain is what creates the colour you're seeing right now.

So what we see, by definition, is not real.
I learnt this recently on the joe rogan podcast I think? Made me really re-think a lot about what I thought I knew about physics.
 

Any excuse to hoy Dr Quantum up. Love his vids...

If anything, science and especially Quantum mechanics prove that we as the conscience observer shape our reality.

In other words, if there was no one to hear the tree fall in the forest then it doesn't fall. :eek:

I learnt this recently on the joe rogan podcast I think? Made me really re-think a lot about what I thought I knew about physics.

Joe is canny but I much prefer my man Eddie Bravo!

I'm not particularly bothered as long as I'm enjoying the world from my perception. If I'm being conned then it's a pleasant con.

Have you seen the matrix? So what your saying is, that you'd rather not be pulled out or if you did you'd want back in ala Cypher?
 
Last edited:
As someone allegedly said, what is "truth"? There are several theories of truth. Correspondence, coherence, semantic and pragmatist to name but four. Then you have problems involving necessary truths, contingent truths, a priori and a posteriori, it's a minefield. I'd recommend starting with Plato, Quine, Russell, Dummett, Putnam and Tarski and for mind dependent truths Kant. Enjoy. :)

Dunno about all that sophisticated stuff but it frequently surprises me how different some peoples' values and perception of the world are to mine. Many peoples' concepts of important human characteristics such as honesty, consideration, compassion, respect etc differ markedly from my own. Too many people are, in short, bloody ignorant.
 
I thought he might be up your alley, blokes bat shit crazy, and gullible. You could show him a video of anything and he’d take it as fact, unless it’s the actual facts! Quality entertainment!

:lol: Like I said, he's right up my street! I'd love to go for a pint with him. You say gullible, I say open minded ;).
 

If anything, science and especially Quantum mechanics prove that we as the conscience observer shape our reality.

In other words, if there was no one to hear the tree fall in the forest then it doesn't fall. :eek:

That's a vast overstatement of the observer effect, and the sentience of the observer doesn't matter - inanimate instruments cause observer effects all the same.
 
That's a vast overstatement of the observer effect, and the sentience of the observer doesn't matter - inanimate instruments cause observer effects all the same.

Agreed, but who made the the inanimate instruments? They don't just make themselves, so by de-facto, they are sentient too, imo.

What would the universe look like if there weren't any sentient observers to collapse its wave functions? Would it not be just a cloud of possibilities for the energies involved?

Well the earth is flat

:lol:
 
Agreed, but who made the the inanimate instruments? They don't just make themselves, so by de-facto, they are sentient too, imo.

What would the universe look like if there weren't any sentient observers to collapse its wave functions? Would it not be just a cloud of possibilities for the energies involved?



:lol:

It doesn't matter. Other than through chaos theory, the maker of the instrument doesn't affect the phenomenon observed. It's only the person who puts them there. And your argument about sentience is nonsensical: under that line of reasoning, every single inanimate object is sentient (and bizarrely, animate objects are implied to be non-sentient).

The universe would be almost exactly the same without sentient observers, because the size of the sentient observers is so minuscule relative to the universe that they do not affect it on any meaningful level. There would be no cognitive output collating the values of the energies into a sensible form for a human, but that's just one expression of the interpretation of the energies anyway - it has no fundamental bearing on what the energies themselves are.
 
Is that a typo as surely it would still fall?

Not in the world of quantum mechanics mate. In it, the observer shapes reality. That's why its so hard to marry the crazy world of the sub-atomic with the rules of the macro universe. Both seem to make sense in their own way but once you combine them, all hell breaks loose.

It doesn't matter. Other than through chaos theory, the maker of the instrument doesn't affect the phenomenon observed. It's only the person who puts them there. And your argument about sentience is nonsensical: under that line of reasoning, every single inanimate object is sentient (and bizarrely, animate objects are implied to be non-sentient).

The universe would be almost exactly the same without sentient observers, because the size of the sentient observers is so minuscule relative to the universe that they do not affect it on any meaningful level. There would be no cognitive output collating the values of the energies into a sensible form for a human, but that's just one expression of the interpretation of the energies anyway - it has no fundamental bearing on what the energies themselves are.

I'll concede that the universe is git big but we don't know that we are the only sentient beings ever.
 
Last edited:
Not in the world of quantum mechanics mate. In it, the observer shapes reality. That's why its so hard to marry the crazy world of the sub-atomic with the rules of the macro universe. Both seem to make sense in their own way but once you combine them, all hell breaks loose.
Struggling to get my head around it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top