Reality is an Illusion - General

[video=youtube;qngieHWZXcM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qngieHWZXcM&feature=fvwrel[/video] Just found this interesting video, and thought I'd share it with you guys. Hope I'm not late.

Good video, although I'm sure most of Facepunch is going to jump on the Materialist bandwagon and shoot this down.

We looking at stuff only makes it exist? What?

There is a big difference between reality (waves, particles and whatnot) being an illusion and what we see/experience being "made up" by the brain. Also it sounds a lot like they took Schrödinger's Cat example and ran with it. Ah well not studying QM yet so can't really disprove properly, Johnny will surely be here shortly with his judging stare and set things straight.

[QUOTE=acds;38461504]There is a big difference between reality (waves, particles and whatnot) being an illusion and what we see/experience being "made up" by the brain. Also it sounds a lot like they took Schrödinger's Cat example and ran with it. Ah well not studying QM yet so can't really disprove properly, Johnny will surely be here shortly with his judging stare and set things straight.[/QUOTE]The world is what we make of it. To an extent.

"An atom only appears in a particular place if you mesure it. An atom is spread out all over the place until a conscious being decides to look at it. So the act of observation creates the entire universe." Sorry but no, the universe is there, the atoms are there. We mesure them in a particular space-time interval, when they are in a particular place at a particular time, because we need results based on those conditions. Material exists, so we don't create anything. Things exist, therefore reality isn't an illusion.

Watch out, it's pseudo science hinduism~

Really awesome video, makes you think. [editline]15th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=KlaseR;38461636]"An atom only appears in a particular place if you mesure it. An atom is spread out all over the place until a conscious being decides to look at it. So the act of observation creates the entire universe." Sorry but no, the universe it there, the atoms are there. We mesure them in a particular space-time interval, when they are in a particular place at a particular time, because we need results based on those conditions. Material exists, so we don't create anything. Things exist, therefore reality isn't an illusion.[/QUOTE] I see what you mean, but that leads into the age old question: "If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?" Since we are (allegedly) conscious, we can perceive things in this world. If no one was conscious to perceive things, how could they be proven real? As you pointed out, we have "proven" that things exist. The only reason we were able to prove that is because our consciousness gave us the ability to do so. The world is only what you see, touch, smell, hear and taste. The world is literally only our perception. Without perception, something could be there, sure, but its a secret that can never be revealed.

can never be revealed yes, but it's still there. Doesn't make anything an illusion. An illusion is completely non existant.

lol video game physics characters and cars are only there if you look at it I'ts not a matter of the mind shaping reality but a matter of reality shaping the mind, and the mind having one or alternative perceptions on that common reality. And it's just that in your mind, something doesn't exist to you, not something doesn't exist period. [editline]15th November 2012[/editline] this just sounds like some insane hippy shit

[QUOTE=KlaseR;38461636]"An atom only appears in a particular place if you mesure it. An atom is spread out all over the place until a conscious being decides to look at it. So the act of observation creates the entire universe." [/QUOTE] Physical systems work in the absence of concious observation, hypothesis disproved

but what if we observe our brain

[QUOTE=John Egbert;38461811]I see what you mean, but that leads into the age old question: "If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?"[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20120819.gif[/IMG]

If it seems completely real, I don't see what keeps us from calling it reality. Sort of like The Matrix, just more benign.

[QUOTE=lifehole;38462347]but what if we observe our brain[/QUOTE] what [I]if[/I] we observe our brain?

[QUOTE=Cone;38462398][IMG]http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20120819.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE] Incorrect, sound is objective; we make definitions on what we think sound is. If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? The answer is yes and no.

[QUOTE=Mikkelmann;38462475]If it seems completely real, I don't see what keeps us from calling it reality. Sort of like The Matrix, just more benign.[/QUOTE] it just seems like shit to try and sound alternative and smart honestly reality will still be reality, it being some "illusion" doesn't change a damn thing. (Like you said)

[QUOTE=Vasili;38462908]Incorrect, sound is objective; we make definitions on what we think sound is. If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? The answer is yes and no.[/QUOTE] The answer is simply yes, since the soundwaves propagate no matter if there are human ears in reach.

[QUOTE=Vasili;38462908]Incorrect, sound is objective; we make definitions on what we think sound is. If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? The answer is yes and no.[/QUOTE] "Can you consider it a 'sound' if no one hears it?" Is what I believe you are getting at. [B]Google Definition:[/B] [I]Vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.[/I] [B]Merriam-Webster:[/B] [I]Mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing [/I] So I would say, yes. Even if it is not heard, the potential to be heard still exists, and that is enough to classify it as 'sound'

[QUOTE=KlaseR;38462104]can never be revealed yes, but it's still there. Doesn't make anything an illusion. An illusion is completely non existant.[/QUOTE] How are you aware of existence at all?

Last quote got me. '' Life is but a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves ''

[QUOTE=KlaseR;38461636]"An atom only appears in a particular place if you mesure it. An atom is spread out all over the place until a conscious being decides to look at it. So the act of observation creates the entire universe." Sorry but no, the universe it there, the atoms are there. We mesure them in a particular space-time interval, when they are in a particular place at a particular time, because we need results based on those conditions. Material exists, so we don't create anything. Things exist, therefore reality isn't an illusion.[/QUOTE] ITT: People who don't understand the massive mindfucks of quantum mechanics. The idea of the holographic principle comes from the entropy of a black hole, string theory and how bits of information from what is inside it are scattered all over its surface. You get all this information projected from the outside into the inside much like holograms. If you think the universe has a boundary, its shell contains all the information of everything within it. I can't really explain it in more detail since I'm not a quantum physicist, but if anyone is actually curious about this then I strongly suggest you read Leonard Susskind's book "The Black Hole War". Here's a good rundown of it: [URL]http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/books/chi-leonard-susskind-09aug09,0,7640492.story[/URL] [IMG]http://www.zeropoint.ca/holoapple (3).jpg[/IMG]

Alright: way to debunk this fucking retarded theory, impede your hearing in a way, make sure you have no constant to anything in contact with the ground, throw an object behind your shoulder. If this theory is true, when you turn your back to see the object, it should first land then. Since it dosent exist while you dont look at it, it should mean that it dosent move, since you dont "measure" it. Actually fuck that shit ill put on some death metal and blast it out on max volume and throw a coin behind my shoulder, its the same effect. [editline]15th November 2012[/editline] It didnt work. Fuck off pseudoscience bullshit, go home and pry up your third eyes with your penis chakra or whatever

[QUOTE=Alcoholocaust;38463261]Alright: way to debunk this fucking retarded theory, impede your hearing in a way, make sure you have no constant to anything in contact with the ground, throw an object behind your shoulder. If this theory is true, when you turn your back to see the object, it should first land then. Since it dosent exist while you dont look at it, it should mean that it dosent move, since you dont "measure" it. Actually fuck that shit ill put on some death metal and blast it out on max volume and throw a coin behind my shoulder, its the same effect. [editline]15th November 2012[/editline] It didnt work. Fuck off pseudoscience bullshit, go home and pry up your third eyes with your penis chakra or whatever[/QUOTE] You sound like a person that would react the same way when he heard light acts as both as a wave and a particle, but only when you observe it a certain way. Or when he heard that one electron passes through both slits at the same time in Young's double slit experiment. "This is stupid because I don't understand it and it sounds too crazy so it must not be true." Sorry, but things don't work that way.

[QUOTE=acds;38462961]The answer is simply yes, since the soundwaves propagate no matter if there are human ears in reach.[/QUOTE] The idea of sound is just a human concept.

[QUOTE=Vasili;38463379]The idea of sound is just a human concept.[/QUOTE] Well, yeah, but so? Sound is just a reaction to vibration, so I mean no there's no [B]perceived[/B] sound in the tree instance but that doesn't matter because it's an internal perception that doesn't affect the outside world (until you react to it). If you however consider sound as the thing that causes it, ie vibration, then yes there's almost always sound whenever anything does anything, whether or not anyone's there to hear it (and things like air will move as a result). The only difference between someone hearing something and no one hearing it is whether or not there is a reaction to it. That's just like saying "if something happens and there's nobody to see it, was there anything to see?" Well, yeah. Light was still bouncing off of shit and it all still existed.

[QUOTE=Vasili;38463379]The idea of sound is just a human concept.[/QUOTE] The waves are not. Sure we give it a name, but those waves are very real.

[QUOTE=acds;38463485]The waves are not. Sure we give it a name, but those waves are very real.[/QUOTE] I think he meant that the waves exist, but what things sound like is a human concept. The waves exist, but sound is something our ears put together for our brains to interpret. A stick scraping against the sidewalk creates waves, but the sound itself is just something our ears compile based on the waves, otherwise they're just waves floating around through space. Do the waves exist? Yes, but it's not exactly a sound unless you have something that turns the waves into usable information that a brain can identify.

This works with the "Reality might be a computer simulation" theory?

[QUOTE=Tippmann357;38463555]I think he meant that the waves exist, but what things sound like is a human concept. The waves exist, but sound is something our ears put together for our brains to interpret. A stick scraping against the sidewalk creates waves, but the sound itself is just something our ears compile based on the waves, otherwise they're just waves floating around through space. Do the waves exist? Yes, but it's not exactly a sound unless you have something that turns the waves into usable information that a brain can identify.[/QUOTE] Well I think what people are getting at is the concept of human perception as a whole, but I think it's a poorly conceived situation to present for it. Like sound is a thing you can only understand if you've experienced it. Human senses are one thing you can't explain what it's like to have, because they "just are". But that doesn't change the fact that perceiving something is still attached to your "mind's eye" if you will, and whether or not someone is there to perceive something basically only affects them. Well, unless you're trying to delve into the "observation affects reality" road, but I feel like that's a separate thing altogether.