What's Real?

[Timsup2nothin]

Sorry. The whole "a molecule is mostly empty space" thing is another piece of clickbait science. While technically accurate there is no more possibility of accessing that "empty space" than there is of saying that since a soda and the water in the ice chest are both liquids that they have intermingled through the can. The empty space in the molecule in the wall is bounded, and so is the empty space in the molecule in your hand. Those empty spaces can't be intermingled no matter how much faith you apply.

 

[timtofly]

You are just an unbeliever in the ability of perception to change reality. How do you know that the boundary is actually physical? The force is weak in this one, and yet his body is still being held together.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You are just an unbeliever in the ability of perception to change reality. How do you know that the boundary is actually physical? The force is weak in this one, and yet his body is still being held together.

LOL...actually, I'm probably more open to "objective" reality being affected by the observer rather than vice versa than most people who have bothered to examine the subject.

As to "how I know the boundary is physical"...basic physics.

 

[CavLancer]

You guys, I dunno. I explain that 1 + 1 = 2, and there's always a few that just can't count. So, don't believe me, here is the final word children, Dr Quantum!

...and here's a bunch of professor types, including my guy Susskind, with alphabet soup after their names, arguing my case for me.

The fish wasn't really this big:

 

[timtofly]

LOL...actually, I'm probably more open to "objective" reality being affected by the observer rather than vice versa than most people who have bothered to examine the subject.

As to "how I know the boundary is physical"...basic physics.

Which states: The consequence of the Pauli principle here is that electrons of the same spin are kept apart by a repulsive exchange interaction, which is a short-range effect, acting simultaneously with the long-range electrostatic or Coulombic force. This effect is partly responsible for the everyday observation in the macroscopic world that two solid objects cannot be in the same place at the same time.

 

[warpus]

All hypothesis are imaginations of the mind, based on the slim chance that they may be a practical reality.

I was talking about a hypothesis the way it is defined scientifically. It has a very specific set of standards for it to be a hypothesis, which is why I like using the term (or other terms like 'scientific theory'), because I'm a practical guy who likes well defined things, etc.

Anyway I almost agree with what you just said, sort of. My definition is:

A hypothesis is something that might be true that can be proved wrong (but might not be, depending on how the tests turn out. The key is that it's possible to run tests to see that it's wrong, at least in theory)

 

[sophie]

 

[timtofly]

I was talking about a hypothesis the way it is defined scientifically. It has a very specific set of standards for it to be a hypothesis, which is why I like using the term (or other terms like 'scientific theory'), because I'm a practical guy who likes well defined things, etc.

Anyway I almost agree with what you just said, sort of. My definition is:

A hypothesis is something that might be true that can be proved wrong (but might not be, depending on how the tests turn out. The key is that it's possible to run tests to see that it's wrong, at least in theory)

I am all for science despite any perception to the contrary. It would not be practical, not to mention illogical to take science where it cannot go. I have no issues with your definition of a hypothesis.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Which states: The consequence of the Pauli principle here is that electrons of the same spin are kept apart by a repulsive exchange interaction, which is a short-range effect, acting simultaneously with the long-range electrostatic or Coulombic force. This effect is partly responsible for the everyday observation in the macroscopic world that two solid objects cannot be in the same place at the same time.

As I said, basic physics.

 

[timtofly]

As I said, basic physics.

I think that you said there is a physical boundary.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think that you said there is a physical boundary.

Indeed. The empty space in one molecule cannot intermingle with the empty space in another molecule because of the physical boundary created by the electrons containing the respective empty spaces.

I'm thinking here that you are just really eager to disagree, since you said the same thing using more technical language as if that somehow "made me wrong." Did you ever figure out what it is that drives you to be that way?

 

[timtofly]

Indeed. The empty space in one molecule cannot intermingle with the empty space in another molecule because of the physical boundary created by the electrons containing the respective empty spaces.

I'm thinking here that you are just really eager to disagree, since you said the same thing using more technical language as if that somehow "made me wrong." Did you ever figure out what it is that drives you to be that way?

It does not matter to me if I am wrong or right. I am just here to think. I am not the one who objected to what is real or not. You are defending you perception of reality. I was just pointing out the differences in your perception and another reality. We are not talking about two objects in the same place at the same time, at least I am not. I was pointing out the empty space of an object in motion, on another level of perception.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I am not the one who objected to what is real or not.

Who did?

You are defending you perception of reality.

You sure you're right about that?

 

[timtofly]

Who did?

You sure you're right about that?

Anyone denying there are perceptions out there that change reality.

I mentioned that it is not a point of right or wrong, but perception.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Anyone denying there are perceptions out there that change reality.

Care to say who you think made such a denial?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Observation changes our perception of our reality and that is how reality changes. If we could perceive a solid brick wall as just empty space, along with our body as just empty space the reality of a human walking through the wall would change forever. Both are in fact on the molecular level in reality just empty space, but beyond our perception of reality. We understand that and do not even need faith. If someone told you to walk through the wall there is no faith needed to object, but it would take a lot (of faith) to actually do it and succeed. Unless you can get to the reality of the molecular level, I would not even advise trying.



All hypothesis are imaginations of the mind, based on the slim chance that they may be a practical reality. I do not see a simulation as being implausible, just not practical.

You have an interesting inference from partial use of evidence.

Perception does not and can not change reality. Perception is part of reality (might want to check our respective definitions here for consistency).

There is nothing you can believe that will change the forces involved in the interaction between a brick and your hands. I suppose if the brick work is done in a sufficiently flimsy fashion one could indeed pass through it, though it would be a little messy.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You have an interesting inference from partial use of evidence.

Perception does not and can not change reality. Perception is part of reality (might want to check our respective definitions here for consistency).

There is nothing you can believe that will change the forces involved in the interaction between a brick and your hands. I suppose if the brick work is done in a sufficiently flimsy fashion one could indeed pass through it, though it would be a little messy.

It is an interesting take on the interaction of the observer and the observed. Posit that Copenhagen interpretation is incorrect, and even though prior to measurement we can't say what was real that it was a continuous reality that can be inferred from intermittent measurement, so the measurement merely informed the observer of reality rather than defining reality. The observer is still made up of particles, so is also a component of the objective reality. And that component is in fact altered by having made the observation. Neurons are firing that otherwise would not be, etc. So we are back to the act of observation impacting objective reality.

Doesn't come anywhere near passing matter through matter, but it is an interesting take on uncertainty.

I'm intrigued by this bold statement that "perception is part of reality" though. I always try to qualify by saying "objective reality," as an acknowledgement that things like perception and awareness and consciousness are very difficult to locate in the limited reality of interacting objects. Newton is often cited for having reduced reality to this collection of objects, which would I am sure offend him to the core, but I think there are very few current physicists who would suggest such a limit is accurate.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So we are back to the act of observation impacting objective reality.

Even under that interpretation, the observation (including all acts/matter/energy associated with doing it) is a part of reality itself, so it's not a meaningful distinction to point out that it has an impact on reality any more than saying reality has an impact on reality.

What I'm not taking away from such a position is how this is any different from routine Newtonian physics or simply measurements children do all the time. Those also influence the observer, and act of observing requiring some measurement some interaction with the measured object no?

If you're instead making a case that you can't measure something in reality without having any influence on it whatsoever, my answer to that is that I don't know and am presently ignorant to whether it has allegedly been done.

I'm intrigued by this bold statement that "perception is part of reality" though. I always try to qualify by saying "objective reality," as an acknowledgement that things like perception and awareness and consciousness are very difficult to locate in the limited reality of interacting objects.

Even if they are difficult, we have no reason to believe that they are anything but lawful interactions between the brain and it's surroundings. Perception/awareness/consciousness aren't magic and I've never seen evidence that points to these slipping outside objective reality, even if they are difficult to measure and constrained by the limits of other instances of themselves doing so. I'm not 100% opposed to the concept, but it's an extra detail I need a reason to consider.

 

[timtofly]

You have an interesting inference from partial use of evidence.

Perception does not and can not change reality. Perception is part of reality (might want to check our respective definitions here for consistency).

There is nothing you can believe that will change the forces involved in the interaction between a brick and your hands. I suppose if the brick work is done in a sufficiently flimsy fashion one could indeed pass through it, though it would be a little messy.

It has nothing to do with belief. Of course perception does not change reality. I said change the perception, and reality will change. We have a basic perception of reality that we have verified and accepted as true reality.

From the double slit example, I still do not see how observation changes anything. They equate the measuring device as more than it is. An "invader of privacy" via the means of observation. Would it not be just that the addition of another object be enough to change the experiment?

The perception change that I am talking about has to do with motion and time, and the fact that what we perceive is not just a simple solid, but lots of molecules with a lot of empty space. The reality is that the mind understand the pain when the hand encounters the wall. I would more expect objection on the grounds that any solid would loose it's form if the force involved changed enough for one set of molecules to pass through the other set. Not on the perceived reality of two solids. The change in form is the step towards the change in perception.

 

[CavLancer]

Observation does change reality. At least that's what physicists like Susskind are coming to terms with. Watch the second video above, those guys are cutting edge, top of the line, at the pinnacle of physics, true scientists with lots of letters after their names. Boring as hell of course, you guys will love it, but the moderator does his best to liven things up a bit.

This one...

Susskind: "The world is pixelated not voxelated." Pixels... So from various vids with the odd physicists what I gather about how observation changes reality is that if nobody is looking there's no point in projecting the pixels. Just like when we play Civ, the part of the map that's not on the screen isn't there, its stored. When we move the mouse 'look', the map moves and 'creates' the game as we go. So, looking, observing, calls it into the simulation, or if you will, changes the reality from stored to present. That is the essence of the double slit, the point of the results. Once I came to terms with this I recalled a question a friend asked me once. "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there, did it make any noise?" Turns out it not only didn't make noise but it went from standing to prone without actually falling, other than as information. Interesting stuff. Have fun tonight when you turn out the lights. The room will be gone.