Does Reality Exist?

[Guest Ancient Evil Reborn]

Quantum physics says goodbye to reality

 

As some people on this board like to discuss religion and philosophy I thought this might be an interesting tidbit to toss out. The implications should keep philosophers and theologians busy for a while.

[Jon]

Enticing topic, AER!

 

Which reaction(s) would you find most revealing ... dissertations on the Nature of Reality, or whom of us dissert? (LOL)

 

At first I'll start off a little shallowly. I need to think about where best to start. My first inclination is to seek some definition of Reality that can be agreed upon by most if not all. It can then be subjected to rigors of examination in the broader context of its existence or non-existence.

 

In that vein I would humbly offer the following propositions:

 

Reality is definable by nothing less than its entire self. Therefore any 'definition' we can come up with will always be subject to limitations of whatever means we use to examine it (our senses, instruments we construct to augment our senses, the physical structure of instruments down to their smallest knowable subatomic components, our powers of reason and speculation, and whatever mechanisms we engage to exchange and share our insights with each other).

 

All these things represent variables. There may be many more. Taken together they reduce probability of an exhaustive definition of Reality.

 

The very fact that no two of us can physically occupy the same volume of space at the same instant straight away rules out the possibility of any two observers' realities ever matching exactly.

 

To me the challenge seems to be to try and peer through that veil of many variables in search of an overarching Reality that is true for all observers at all times and in all places.

 

Perhaps such a Universal Reality doesn't exist, except as a sum-total product of infinite realities interacting subject to their respective infinite variables.

 

A bit like the cliche' "The Whole is greater than the sum of the parts".

 

Or alternatively like the question: "Define the Universe. Give three examples".

 

I'll pause there to let the braincells stop smoking. (LOL)

[Aaron]

I don't think they are saying there is no reality as the title implies. Its just saying local realism might be false.

 

Reality is not going anywhere.

[Guest Ancient Evil Reborn]

Enticing topic, AER!

 

It is an intriguing topic. Basically it says if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, there is no sound.

 

Which reaction(s) would you find most revealing ... dissertations on the Nature of Reality, or whom of us dissert? (LOL)

 

*chuckles* This board does produce some rather lively discussions.

 

Reality is definable by nothing less than its entire self. Therefore any 'definition' we can come up with will always be subject to limitations of whatever means we use to examine it (our senses, instruments we construct to augment our senses, the physical structure of instruments down to their smallest knowable subatomic components, our powers of reason and speculation, and whatever mechanisms we engage to exchange and share our insights with each other).

 

The very fact that no two of us can physically occupy the same volume of space at the same instant straight away rules out the possibility of any two observers' realities ever matching exactly.

 

I agree that is the crux of the issue, we as individual observers distort reality through the lens we use to observe it. The story Rashomon is a perfect illustration of this.

 

To me the challenge seems to be to try and peer through that veil of many variables in search of an overarching Reality that is true for all observers at all times and in all places.

 

Perhaps such a Universal Reality doesn't exist, except as a sum-total product of infinite realities interacting subject to their respective infinite variables.

 

The challenge of finding a true Universal Reality has been around since at least the time of Plato. Plato, as described in his Theory of Forms, felt there was a transcendant reality independent of our senses. Mathematics in some ways fits the bill as a mechanism for describing forms, and the ancient Greeks saw it as a pure way to describe a reality sullied by human observers. Consider the dodecahedron, it is mathematically provable that regardless of where you are in the universe, or your frame of reference, you cannot have a perfect solid beyond the dodecahedron. Yet even in mathematics, we rely upon a set of axioms whose truth we accept as self-evident, we have no means of proving these axioms.

 

While reading the article, a question occurred to me. Modern physics theorizes the universe began with the Big Bang (which I personally believe), and immediately following this event, the universe was a hot haze with no life in it. Given that, who/what/where was the observer who "held" together that early reality which in turn gave rise to the reality in which we exist? OK, now I've really gone off the deep end, but I think it may be relevant to the question of whether or not there is a true Universal Reality. Then again, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. LOL

 

 

I'll pause there to let the braincells stop smoking. (LOL)

 

I need to pause too, and I need to get back to work. This promises to be a trip into some deep waters.

[Jon]

It is an intriguing topic. Basically it says if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, there is no sound.

Yes that is a favorite chestnut for Philosophy classes. It more or less challenges the ability of Reality to exist outside of consciousness. At a hypothetical level it has some entertainment merit, but at the hard-nosed end of logic I personally feel comfortable that Reality exists independently of sentient consciousness. If and when the two come together then that's just 'gravy'. Reality doesn't need our permission to exist.

 

I haven't studied up on this from formal sources so what I say next is my own personal endeavor to come to grips with those ramifications that I can think of. Here goes:

 

Consciousness as we experience it comes supported by our senses as standard issue. I cite 'standard issue' advisedly, as some of us are deprived of the full quota such as the blind, the deaf ... and so on. Ironically these deficiencies form the basis of interesting side-consideration for later, which I suspect will strengthen rather than weaken propositions I expect to explore.

 

By being alive we each serve as a repository for consciousness. What did Reality do before the first sentient being eventuated? Did it neglect to provide a planet that we now infest? I don't think so. Did Reality neglect to populate our planet with Prehistoric creatures, some of which were big and gruff enough to knock over primordial trees? When they did, did those trees fall in perfect silence because our ancestors were not yet present to hear them fall? I think not.

 

If Reality can only happen to the extent that our senses can observe it in action, then all of history right back to the Big Bang is a fabrication of our own making. All of creation would have had to wait until someone's eyes and ears were on hand to interpret it.

 

I am certain a tree can indeed fall in a forest devoid of Humans and still produce the obligatory noises in our absence.

 

Now to the next 'thought experiment':

 

Two campers occupy a tent in a forest clearing. One is startled by the sound of a tree falling nearby. The other is not ... because he is deaf. Both were "there to hear it" but only one did. For one there was a Reality disconnect. But where did that disconnect occur? Not out in the forest but in his ears. Reality and its events proceeded regardless of that. In fact it could even be argued that Reality inherited an extra accessory ... one camper's deafness. That after all is part of the overall event.

 

Our senses don't create Reality ... they are not active but passive. Our senses don't happen to things ... things happen to our senses. If we with our senses are not present, things just go right on happening anyway.

 

At conventional levels Reality is its own 'given'. Murals on a Gallery wall don't vanish the moment a blind man walks in.

 

Only little children believe that when they cutely cover their eyes they can't be seen.(LOL)

[Madned]

Quantum physics says goodbye to reality

 

As some people on this board like to discuss religion and philosophy I thought this might be an interesting tidbit to toss out. The implications should keep philosophers and theologians busy for a while.

 

Anyone involved in Quantum physics or Quantum mechanics has a shift in reality. A subject beyond the grasp of even the wildest imagination. And I would like to believe I have another me on the other side of the universe doing the same as I am or multiple copies of me through out the universe. A lot of theories get stretched out so far they eventually fall apart. I personally believe we are living a miracle and exist in a universe with many dimensions. I also believe this life we are living is only part of the journey. You can believe anything you want to and maybe create that reality you want. Simply observing something may change it. a recent discovery was that a photon caused to spin in one direction will cause another photon to spin in the other direction even though hundreds of yards apart? They will be scratching their heads over this one for along while.

 

[Guest Ancient Evil Reborn]

Yes that is a favorite chestnut for Philosophy classes. It more or less challenges the ability of Reality to exist outside of consciousness. At a hypothetical level it has some entertainment merit, but at the hard-nosed end of logic I personally feel comfortable that Reality exists independently of sentient consciousness. If and when the two come together then that's just 'gravy'. Reality doesn't need our permission to exist.

 

Jon, for everyday purposes I think you're right, we don't need to worry about such issues. It is like the question of Newtonian Physics vs. Einstein's Theory of Relativity. The truth is, for most purposes, including engineering, we don't need to concern ourselves about the Theory of Relativity, although its rules certainly apply to even things like the motion of a car. Newtonian Physics work just fine for such applications.

 

However there is a mind-bending realm beyond what is visible to our normal senses, unaided by things like telescopes or microscopes. In that realm we have conundrums like Schrodinger's Cat, the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle, and Bell's Theorem. In that strange world, the very act of observing a phenomenon produces a very measurable effect. If we consider an example from the more normal world, whether someone driving a car cross-country is observed or not by anyone has no discernible impact. But in super-colliders, we indeed see an effect caused by observing events. In fact, according to Laurence Krauss, our curiosity about supernova and dark energy may have altered the lifespan of the universe. So even on a large scale, the very act of observing a phenomenon could seriously impact its behavior.

 

If Krauss is correct (and we are very far from really being able to say that he is), then it would appear the entire universe can be affected by the observations we make from our little outpost on the edge of the Milky Way. That of course doesn't say reality wouldn't exist if no one were here to observe it, that contention is also a very recent result as reported in the link I first posted. If that result stands the test of peer review, then it would indeed suggest there has been some sort of observer at least in the early days of the universe. But it's a leap to go from saying we can alter reality by the act of observing it to saying there would be no reality at all if someone wasn't observing it.

 

Who can say? Modern physics is in constant flux, and the best theory of today may dropped in the dustbin tomorrow. Dark energy itself is a very new theory, and if you Google it, you'll see all manner of differing opinions as to its validity and how it really works. Even black holes, which until recently were considered established fact, are now again under some scrutiny. New observations have suggested an alternative, and scientists are still scratching their heads as to what it means.

 

I'm sure Plato would love all this, it again makes relevant his Theory of Forms, and reopens the debate as to whether there is such a thing as a true Universal Reality.

 

Only little children believe that when they cutely cover their eyes they can't be seen.(LOL)

 

*chuckles* I agree, I don't think we have to worry if we all collectively close our eyes, reality will disappear.

 

[Guest Ancient Evil Reborn]

Anyone involved in Quantum physics or Quantum mechanics has a shift in reality. A subject beyond the grasp of even the wildest imagination.

 

Agreed, even Einstein had his mind blown by Quantum Physics. It shifted my notion of reality as well.

 

I personally believe we are living a miracle and exist in a universe with many dimensions.

 

Actually, some scientists now believe the universe has eleven physical dimensions. The universe is indeed a wonder, and I think we're still babes in the woods in terms of our understanding.

 

something may change it. a recent discovery was that a photon caused to spin in one direction will cause another photon to spin in the other direction even though hundreds of yards apart? They will be scratching their heads over this one for along while.

 

I've heard of this, as I recollect, it is Bell's Theorem, or part of it. Among other things, it suggests information transmission may be done in a manner independent of space/time. That in of itself is mind blowing.

[Jon]

I like where this is heading. Unfortunately there will have to be a hiatus in my involvement while I attend to commitments in the world of 'Reality". (LOL)

 

I'll be back.

[Madned]

Agreed, even Einstein had his mind blown by Quantum Physics. It shifted my notion of reality as well.

 

 

 

Actually, some scientists now believe the universe has eleven physical dimensions. The universe is indeed a wonder, and I think we're still babes in the woods in terms of our understanding.

 

 

 

I've heard of this, as I recollect, it is Bell's Theorem, or part of it. Among other things, it suggests information transmission may be done in a manner independent of space/time. That in of itself is mind blowing.

 

I am beginning to like this forum and the interesting people who participate. String theory also believes the universe to be 11 dimensionable in order for the theory to work. Great post interesting.

 

[Guest Ancient Evil Reborn]

I like where this is heading. Unfortunately there will have to be a hiatus in my involvement while I attend to commitments in the world of 'Reality". (LOL)

 

I understand, I have some commitments too, like finishing a project at work. In the meantime, to anyone who views science and mathematics as irrelevant, here is a little nugget:

 

The Grammy in Mathematics

 

I couldn't resist.

[Guest Ancient Evil Reborn]

I am beginning to like this forum and the interesting people who participate. String theory also believes the universe to be 11 dimensionable in order for the theory to work. Great post interesting.

 

Madned, I'm pressed on time so I can't write much now, but you might find this interesting:

 

Loop Quantum Gravity

 

Especially as it leads to this:

 

Loopy quantums reveal successive universes

 

If true, it raises further questions about what constitutes reality. If even the laws of physics can be altered, that really has mind-bending implications.

[Guest Descartes]

Madned, I'm pressed on time so I can't write much now, but you might find this interesting:

 

Loop Quantum Gravity

 

Especially as it leads to this:

 

Loopy quantums reveal successive universes

 

If true, it raises further questions about what constitutes reality. If even the laws of physics can be altered, that really has mind-bending implications.

 

I think. Therefore, I am.

 

What's real in man's mind, is real in its consequences.

 

[Guest Ancient Evil Reborn]

I think. Therefore, I am.

 

What's real in man's mind, is real in its consequences.

 

Interesting you choose to quote Descartes, he believed our senses and perceptions were unreliable. Yet he also believed in a world external to our own senses. I think that was Jon's point earlier. Descartes attempted to make his case using deductive logic, the problem with any such argument is it always ultimately rests on some system of axioms.

 

Any axiomatic system, like mathematics, faces two challenges. One, whether or not you accept the axioms. One of the Descartes' axioms was the existence of a benevolent God, and while I personally agree with that, others do not, so they will remain unconvinced by any argument based on that hypothesis. Yet, without a supreme being, such as God, I wonder if even Plato's Forms could hold any water? And if the laws of physics can indeed change between incarnations of our universe (as we now have evidence may be the case), then what would forms mean? If anything? A nice can of worms to open.

 

The other issue with an axiomatic system, is according to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, no matter what set of axioms you start with, there will exist propositions whose truth or falsity is unprovable within the system. Hence, the notion of incompleteness. Godel also proved, using the Theory of Relativity, that time doesn't really exist, it is simply an illusion to our human senses. That is also a mind-numbing conclusion.

 

So, if the result discussed in my original posting holds true under scrutiny, then we are left with two very disturbing conclusions. One, there is no reality without some sort of observer, and of course then we could start asking what qualifies as an observer? Two, what we do observe is in fact at least a good part an illusion generated by the limitations of our human senses. That being the case, how does that affect the fact we at least to some degree generate the reality around us?

 

I'm taking a break now, my own brain cells are sizzling a bit.

[Guest Guest]

Two things:

 

1. A so-called crazy person may see, and actually feel, something crawling up his leg that really isn't there (according to others). What the crazy person sees is reality. Why is my view any more accurate? Also, we can take a look at history to find countless examples of the majority interpreting their own insanity as reality. (Millions believed in blood-letting to get the devil out of your body).

 

2. I fear talking about the coveted uber-observer, because I know it will break out into a religious debate. I agree that "perception is reality." Outside of perception, reality does not exist. I don't think it's at all necessary for the existence of the great observer. Things do not come into existence until they are perceived.

[Guest Phillip Lenard]

Jon, for everyday purposes I think you're right, we don't need to worry about such issues. It is like the question of Newtonian Physics vs. Einstein's Theory of Relativity. The truth is, for most purposes, including engineering, we don't need to concern ourselves about the Theory of Relativity, although its rules certainly apply to even things like the motion of a car. Newtonian Physics work just fine for such applications.

 

However there is a mind-bending realm beyond what is visible to our normal senses, unaided by things like telescopes or microscopes. In that realm we have conundrums like Schrodinger's Cat, the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle, and Bell's Theorem. In that strange world, the very act of observing a phenomenon produces a very measurable effect. If we consider an example from the more normal world, whether someone driving a car cross-country is observed or not by anyone has no discernible impact. But in super-colliders, we indeed see an effect caused by observing events. In fact, according to Laurence Krauss, our curiosity about supernova and dark energy may have altered the lifespan of the universe. So even on a large scale, the very act of observing a phenomenon could seriously impact its behavior.

 

If Krauss is correct (and we are very far from really being able to say that he is), then it would appear the entire universe can be affected by the observations we make from our little outpost on the edge of the Milky Way. That of course doesn't say reality wouldn't exist if no one were here to observe it, that contention is also a very recent result as reported in the link I first posted. If that result stands the test of peer review, then it would indeed suggest there has been some sort of observer at least in the early days of the universe. But it's a leap to go from saying we can alter reality by the act of observing it to saying there would be no reality at all if someone wasn't observing it.

 

Who can say? Modern physics is in constant flux, and the best theory of today may dropped in the dustbin tomorrow. Dark energy itself is a very new theory, and if you Google it, you'll see all manner of differing opinions as to its validity and how it really works. Even black holes, which until recently were considered established fact, are now again under some scrutiny. New observations have suggested an alternative, and scientists are still scratching their heads as to what it means.

 

I'm sure Plato would love all this, it again makes relevant his Theory of Forms, and reopens the debate as to whether there is such a thing as a true Universal Reality.

 

 

 

*chuckles* I agree, I don't think we have to worry if we all collectively close our eyes, reality will disappear.

 

 

Das ist Juden physics!!!!!

 

[Madned]

It is an intriguing topic. Basically it says if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, there is no sound.

 

 

 

*chuckles* This board does produce some rather lively discussions.

 

 

 

I agree that is the crux of the issue, we as individual observers distort reality through the lens we use to observe it. The story Rashomon is a perfect illustration of this.

 

 

 

The challenge of finding a true Universal Reality has been around since at least the time of Plato. Plato, as described in his Theory of Forms, felt there was a transcendant reality independent of our senses. Mathematics in some ways fits the bill as a mechanism for describing forms, and the ancient Greeks saw it as a pure way to describe a reality sullied by human observers. Consider the dodecahedron, it is mathematically provable that regardless of where you are in the universe, or your frame of reference, you cannot have a perfect solid beyond the dodecahedron. Yet even in mathematics, we rely upon a set of axioms whose truth we accept as self-evident, we have no means of proving these axioms.

 

While reading the article, a question occurred to me. Modern physics theorizes the universe began with the Big Bang (which I personally believe), and immediately following this event, the universe was a hot haze with no life in it. Given that, who/what/where was the observer who "held" together that early reality which in turn gave rise to the reality in which we exist? OK, now I've really gone off the deep end, but I think it may be relevant to the question of whether or not there is a true Universal Reality. Then again, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. LOL

 

 

 

 

I need to pause too, and I need to get back to work. This promises to be a trip into some deep waters.

 

 

 

 

 

IT does not matter if you know what you are talking about at least you are thinking, and the rest of us are as much in the dark as you, so you have alot of company. A rather simple question I have is where did the matter come from for the big bang in the first place? It is almost like the story begins in the middle. Early in my life I believed that eventually all the black holes would come together and create the big bang again but it seems now with dark energy in the picture pushing all the galaxies apart. The only thing that will be left is consciousness and that will be a cold reallity. Then again I may be wrong.

[Guest Guest]

If I shoot you, you will hurt. It will be very real for you. When your consciousness disassociates, your corpse will rot. There will be outgassing. The potential for another human to be nauseated by the decomposition vapors will exist.

 

I will not experience any of these events in the manner that others will. But the events will occur regardless of witness.

[Jon]

IT does not matter if you know what you are talking about at least you are thinking, and the rest of us are as much in the dark as you, so you have alot of company. A rather simple question I have is where did the matter come from for the big bang in the first place? It is almost like the story begins in the middle. Early in my life I believed that eventually all the black holes would come together and create the big bang again but it seems now with dark energy in the picture pushing all the galaxies apart. The only thing that will be left is consciousness and that will be a cold reallity. Then again I may be wrong.

After a bit of a break I'm rejoining the 'BRAINS tRUST'.(LOL)

 

I intend to backtrack to some of the earlier Quantum issues etc but right now it's the wrong wee hour for me to do all that justice.

So I'll ease back into this with the points you raise, Madned, since they have long intrigued me likewise.

 

"Where did the matter come from for the Big Bang?"

 

A few theories kicking around. Take your pick. One has it that the Big Bang was more of a Big Bounce: a prior Universe reached the end of its expansion, slowed then fell back in upon itself ever faster until all its substance became stupendously compacted and hot in a singularity of sorts. That's where all the matter for the Big Bang came from ... right there. A problem I see with that theory lies with the way our present Universe seems to be behaving. If the Pundits are right then the Dark Energy that is believed to be expanding our Universe is accelerating and shows no sign of abating ... quite the opposite. That seems to suggest that our Universe is not destined to collapse, but rather to disperse into infinity with no prospect of return. If that is in fact correct then whatever pre-Bounce Universes might have preceded ours, this one would become the last of the 'line'. If prior Universes didn't do that, then why should ours? What would cause our Universe to follow different laws from one or more prior Universes?

 

Unless there never were any!

 

Another theory has it that no 'matter' as we understand it pre-dated the Big Bang. Instead there was nothing but formless 'Quantum Foam', un-resolved into even sub-atomic particles. Then at some stage a 'Phase Transition' occurred ... an 'instability'. That became a runaway chain reaction releasing huge amounts of energy that condensed to particles a la 'E=Mc2'. A tendency toward Symmetry saw Matter and Antimatter produced in equal quantities ... well, almost but not quite. When Matter and Antimatter mutually annihilated, the process didn't complete because there were some particles left un-annihilated and were 'left over'. Those leftovers just happened to be Baryonic Matter as we know it, and represent a tiny minute pile of impurities that escaped annihilation to linger on as Galaxies, Stars ..... and us. There may be less of a problem with that theory provided we revisit the image of a Big Bang and question how literally it portrays reality. It is worth noting that rather than striving to describe what really happened, 'Big Bang' was first coined as a term of ridicule by the eminent Astronomer Fred Hoyle who was sold on the rival 'Steady State' theory (as was Einstein). That held that the Universe has always occupied its present 'state' and that new material is constantly coming into existence spontaneously throughout it. It starts to sound rather like the Phase Transition idea all over again, in which formless pure energy condenses into physical impurities, except that it was not over and done with at the launch of creation but remains ongoing like a sustained smoldering rather than a literal 'explosion'. Then the Big Bang becomes more of a sustained 'Rumble'.

 

Then we might not need to ask where the matter came from for the Big Bang, because there was no Big Bang. Matter is still coming into existence as we speak.

 

And to maintain the balance it is just as quickly being recycled out of existence courtesy of Black Holes.

 

There are more theories, but at this hour my energy is condensing it particles too ... called 'sleep'.

 

Later. (lol)

[Madned]

Quantum physics says goodbye to reality

 

As some people on this board like to discuss religion and philosophy I thought this might be an interesting tidbit to toss out. The implications should keep philosophers and theologians busy for a while.

 

Check this out Saint Pio of Pietrelcina Sorry to put some religion into this but this Saint broke all the reality rules.

 

[Jon]

Can you narrow it down with a link?

[Guest Ancient Evil Reborn]

2. I fear talking about the coveted uber-observer, because I know it will break out into a religious debate. I agree that "perception is reality." Outside of perception, reality does not exist. I don't think it's at all necessary for the existence of the great observer. Things do not come into existence until they are perceived.

 

In general I agree with you re: talking too much about an uber-observer, but the thought occurred to me while I was reading the article in the original posting. However, I also recognize I want to believe, that alters my perceptions, and I am biased. So I was curious as to what others with less affected perceptions thought in regards to this aspect of the topic.

 

[Guest Ancient Evil Reborn]

After a bit of a break I'm rejoining the 'BRAINS tRUST'.(LOL)

 

I intend to backtrack to some of the earlier Quantum issues etc but right now it's the wrong wee hour for me to do all that justice.

So I'll ease back into this with the points you raise, Madned, since they have long intrigued me likewise.

 

Jon, it's late for me too, so I can't do this justice tonight, you and Madned are in very deep waters for my tired brain. Dark energy has raised some serious questions about the ultimate fate of the universe, here are some speculations from wikipedia:

 

Implications for the fate of the universe

 

Interestingly enough, there is still a possibility of things imploding again, but that isn't supported by current observations.

 

[Guest Ancient Evil Reborn]

Check this out Saint Pio of Pietrelcina Sorry to put some religion into this but this Saint broke all the reality rules.

 

Madned, is this who you're referring to?

 

Saint Pio of Pietrelcina

 

[Jon]

Jon, it's late for me too, so I can't do this justice tonight, you and Madned are in very deep waters for my tired brain.

Alas, the tyranny of wide time-zone offsets! (lol)

 

To tell the truth nothing I've said so far does more than cast a preliminary glance over some tantalizing questions in the manner of any untutored layman trying to apply commonsense. Rigorous academia involved still awaits my wary attention. I'm not a Math Wiz. (lol)