If reality is like The Matrix- how would you know?

[jimmydasaint]

This is pure speculation and therefore the topic belongs here. However, I have been having strange experiences recently causing me to believe that we are actually in a Matrix-like manufactured reality. My question would be:

 

How on Eart would you lnow the difference between a Matrix-type reality and our reality constructed by our 5 (or six) senses?

[bascule]

You can't. That's the point, and has been since Kant. This typically takes the form of a "brain in a jar" analogy, where nothing you're seeing is real but all an illusion, yet to you it all feels completely real, because sense data is how you construct your reality.

[jimmydasaint]

This is confusing to me because it would suggest that there is a possiblity, a glimpse of a greater reality and that quantum physics and quantum wierdness is tugging at the curtain which separates us from this reality.

[Kyrisch]

Such is the basis of the philosophical viewpoint called "solipsism", the main tenet of which is that the only thing that can truly be known to exist is one's own mind.

[bascule]

Here's a Wikipedia article on the subject:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

 

One of the best pontifications on the subject I've ever read is Daniel Dennett's "Where Am I?"

[jimmydasaint]

Good points guys and I loved that Brain in a vat article. However, does the duality of particles and quantum wierdness indicate that humans are in touch with a 'greater' power or a different dimension? I wonder why the human mind would come up with these concepts unless there are real other dimensions. More questions than answers, but the bottom line is:

 

Is quantum physics genuinely wierd or is it a pointer to other worlds we have no concept of?

[Sisyphus]

The fact that QM seems so strange to us is not an indication of a "matrix-like" situation, since by it's very nature, there could never be any indication one way or the other. That being the case, it ultimately doesn't matter: whether our perceptions correspond to "true" reality or not, we can never have anything more than those perceptions to work with, and so in all the ways that matter, perception is reality.

 

What the "weirdness" does perhaps indicate is that human minds, because of what they are (that is, brains made up of webs of living cells evolved to deal with a particular environment) might be fundamentally incapable of comprehending the way things "really" are. We are just hard-wired with certain inflexible frameworks, like three spatial dimensions, a steady flow of time, causality, the notion that something can't both have and not have the same property, etc.

 

That's not to say we can't go beyond that in abstract ways. We can represent many things mathematically, for instance, that will never really "make sense" to us, but which are nevertheless demonstrably true.

Edited June 16, 2008 by Sisyphus

[lucaspa]

Good points guys and I loved that Brain in a vat article. However, does the duality of particles and quantum wierdness indicate that humans are in touch with a 'greater' power or a different dimension? I wonder why the human mind would come up with these concepts unless there are real other dimensions. More questions than answers, but the bottom line is:

 

Is quantum physics genuinely wierd or is it a pointer to other worlds we have no concept of?

 

Why would it be a pointer to other worlds? Quantum physics, philosophically, gives us the best of both worlds. Since quantum events are regular in large numbers, they give a rational universe that appears deterministic on a large scale. However, because individual quantum events are uncaused, it means that we do not live in a strictly deterministic universe and that means that the future is open. Not predetermined by all the cause and effect chain that has gone before. So our actions and thoughts are genuinely our own and not the result of all that has gone before. We are not puppets but genuinely agents with free will.

 

It was data that led to the hypotheses of duality and what happens at the quantum level. What data do you have that suggests "other worlds"?

[Royston]

Quantum physics, philosophically, gives us the best of both worlds. Since quantum events are regular in large numbers, they give a rational universe that appears deterministic on a large scale.

 

News to me, what large scale events (motion) do we apply QM to ?

 

So our actions and thoughts are genuinely our own and not the result of all that has gone before. We are not puppets but genuinely agents with free will.

 

You seem to be stating this as fact, just because there's a discrepancy between macroscopic and microscopic events, i.e deterministic and indeterministic, that's hardly grounds to infer that we have freewill, infact that's a massive leap to come to that conclusion.

 

EDIT: Sorry if this is slightly off topic

[Sisyphus]

News to me, what large scale events (motion) do we apply QM to ?

 

I think he just means that when you you're dealing with macroscopic stuff, all the quantum uncertainty averages out such that the statistical patterns become so probable as to be virtually deterministic. e.g., there is, technically, a finite probability that all the electrons in the floor beneath me will decide to be elsewhere at the same moment and I'll just fall through. But it's such a ridiculously small probability that it's just never going to happen.

 

You seem to be stating this as fact, just because there's a discrepancy between macroscopic and microscopic events, i.e deterministic and indeterministic, that's hardly grounds to infer that we have freewill, infact that's a massive leap to come to that conclusion.

 

EDIT: Sorry if this is slightly off topic

 

Agreed. I'm pretty sure I've had this argument with lucaspa before, and we both got annoyed and nobody got anywhere. But for what it's worth, it's definitely opinion, not fact, and my opinion is that the notion that "free will" has anything to do with QM is ridiculous from both a philosophical and a scientific perspective.

[Royston]

I think he just means that when you you're dealing with macroscopic stuff, all the quantum uncertainty averages out such that the statistical patterns become so probable as to be virtually deterministic. e.g., there is, technically, a finite probability that all the electrons in the floor beneath me will decide to be elsewhere at the same moment and I'll just fall through. But it's such a ridiculously small probability that it's just never going to happen.

 

Rereading, yes, I see what Lucaspa was getting at.

 

Agreed. I'm pretty sure I've had this argument with lucaspa before, and we both got annoyed and nobody got anywhere. But for what it's worth, it's definitely opinion, not fact, and my opinion is that the notion that "free will" has anything to do with QM is ridiculous from both a philosophical and a scientific perspective.

 

Ah, ok, I'll leave it Lucaspa to respond, but I don't see any point in debating a subject where somebody will refuse to budge. Not to be interpreted as, 'I'm right, and you're wrong', just the discussion will not go anywhere.

[foodchain]

Why would it be a pointer to other worlds? Quantum physics, philosophically, gives us the best of both worlds. Since quantum events are regular in large numbers, they give a rational universe that appears deterministic on a large scale. However, because individual quantum events are uncaused, it means that we do not live in a strictly deterministic universe and that means that the future is open. Not predetermined by all the cause and effect chain that has gone before. So our actions and thoughts are genuinely our own and not the result of all that has gone before. We are not puppets but genuinely agents with free will.

 

It was data that led to the hypotheses of duality and what happens at the quantum level. What data do you have that suggests "other worlds"?

 

 

See that is a great way of putting it that you have dice to roll. I don’t see how you can though put in the separation, such as when the question of the classical emerging from the quantum, such to me seems a constant and temporal act that never ceases.

[jimmydasaint]

lucaspa

It was data that led to the hypotheses of duality and what happens at the quantum level. What data do you have that suggests "other worlds"?

 

I suppose what I meant was the possibility of the existence of other dimensions tightly curled and small but nevertheless theoretically possible. For example:

In physics, Kaluza–Klein theory (or KK theory, for short) is a model that seeks to unify the two fundamental forces of gravitation and electromagnetism. The theory was first published in 1921 and was discovered by the mathematician Theodor Kaluza who extended general relativity to a five-dimensional spacetime. The resulting equations can be separated out into further sets of equations, one of which is equivalent to Einstein field equations, another set equivalent to Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field and the final part an extra scalar field now termed the "radion".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_dimensions

 

I think there are 11 dimensions theorised now. I just wondered if there is a possibility of extradimensional life forms (like ghosts etc...) which could accommodate paranormal wierdness.

[Mr Skeptic]

Wouldn't that just mean that we are 11 dimensional as well?

[jimmydasaint]

Could we just be four dimensional? I don't really know the answer to this

[Sisyphus]

Could we just be four dimensional? I don't really know the answer to this

 

Well, no. I'm not really up string theory, but I'm pretty sure it would be the fundamental components of all things (including us) that are 11-dimensional. If the universe is 11-dimensional, then so are we. We're part of the universe.

[jimmydasaint]

Thank you for that response. I have been forced to do some reading of my own and I now feel that we are in a sort of bubble embedded into a higher set of dimensions. The extra dimensions seem to be tightly curled into fractions of a centimetre tough. This article helped me out:

The Universe's Unseen Dimensions; August 2000; Scientific American Magazine; by Nima Arkani-Hamed, Savas Dimopoulos, Georgi Dvali, side bar by Graham P. Collins; 8 Page(s)

 

The classic 1884 story Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions, by Edwin A. Abbott, describes the adventures of "A. Square," a character who lives in a two-dimensional world populated by animated geometric figures-triangles, squares, pentagons, and so on. Toward the end of the story, on the first day of 2000, a spherical creature from three-dimensional "Spaceland" passes through Flatland and carries A. Square up off his planar domain to show him the true three-dimensional nature of the larger world. As he comes to grasp what the sphere is showing him, A. Square speculates that Spaceland may itself exist as a small subspace of a still larger four-dimensional universe.

 

Amazingly, in the past two years physicists have begun seriously examining a very similar idea: that everything we can see in our universe is confined to a three-dimensional "membrane" that lies within a higher-dimensional realm. But unlike A. Square, who had to rely on divine intervention from Spaceland for his insights, physicists may soon be able to detect and verify the existence of reality's extra dimensions, which could extend over distances as large as a millimeter ( 1/25 of an inch). Experiments are already looking for the extra dimensions' effect on the force of gravity. If the theory is correct, upcoming high-energy particle experiments in Europe could see unusual processes involving quantum gravity, such as the creation of transitory micro black holes. More than just an idle romance of many dimensions, the theory is based on some of the most recent developments in string theory and would solve some long-standing puzzles of particle physics and cosmology.

 

http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=5E0C9057-3990-43A4-819C-09DEB18A335

 

This quite humorous and interesting blog also added more detail but more confusion for my tiny mind: http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2006/07/extra-dimensions.html

[stevo247]

I have been having strange experiences recently causing me to believe that we are actually in a Matrix-like manufactured reality.

 

What were the experiences?

[lucaspa]

News to me, what large scale events (motion) do we apply QM to ?

 

I didn't say "large scale events" but "large numbers". For instance, take 1,000 atoms of a radioactive isotope. In a half life, 500 of them will decay. That is regular. But when you look at each individual atom, you have no cause for that particular atom to decay.

 

Actually, QM applies to all entities. It's just that the uncertainty gets so small as to be meaningless. For instance, you can apply the wave equations to the human body but, when you do, you get an uncertainty in position of less than the diameter of an atom. Too small to notice. Other examples of the boundary between QM and the "macro" universe are:

 

7. GP Collins, Schrodinger's SQUID. Scientific American 283: 23-24, October 2000.

9. R Pool, Beams of stuff. Discover 18: 102- 107. Dec. 1997. Has shown that quantum mechanics applies to atoms (sodium atoms), they behave as waves.

8. M Brack, Metal clusters and magic numbers. Scientific American, 50-57, Dec. 1997. Experiments linking the quantum world to the macroscopic world.

11. EA Cornell and CE Weiman, The Bose-Einstein condensate. Scientific American, 278(3): 40-45, March 1998.

18. HJ Meisner, DM Stamper-Kurn, MR Andrews, DS Durfee, S Inouye, W Ketterle, Bosonic stimulation in the formation of a Bose-Einstein condensate. Science 279: 1005-1007, Feb 13, 1998. Another way to get a Bose-Einstein condensate and macroscopic matter-wave anplification. Is crucial to the concept of an atom laser. So QM is accepted as basis for next step. D Kestenbaum, Hydrogen coaxed into quantum condensate. Science 281: 321, (17 July) 1998. Bone-Einstein condensate of hydrogen. Has 10x more atoms than previous condensates.

 

You seem to be stating this as fact, just because there's a discrepancy between macroscopic and microscopic events, i.e deterministic and indeterministic, that's hardly grounds to infer that we have freewill, infact that's a massive leap to come to that conclusion.

 

What discrepancy? In order to have free will, the future has to be open. IOW, strict determinism has to be false. QM has shown that this is the case.

 

There are systems where you can link quantum events to the macroscopic world. Let me give you 2 examples:

 

1. Computer mouse. You hook up the inputs of a computer mouse to a liquid scintillation counter. A liquid scintillation counter detects the decay of a radioactive atom by linking that via chemicals such that, every time a radioactive atom decays, there is a photon emitted. The detectors are at right angles to each other. So you hook one detector to the horizontal input of the mouse and the other to the vertical. Now the movement of the cursor is going to be due to quantum events.

 

2. Developmental biology. Mutations in the DNA are quantum events -- either by radiation or chemical interactions. Developmental biology translates those microscopic quantum events to a macroscopic organism. So just look around you at the biological world and you will see the link between the macroscopic and microscopic.

 

See that is a great way of putting it that you have dice to roll. I don’t see how you can though put in the separation, such as when the question of the classical emerging from the quantum, such to me seems a constant and temporal act that never ceases.

 

What "separation"? The basic reality is that some events are simply not "caused" in the classical sense. So what we have in the "classical" is the appearance of strict determinism, but not the reality of strict determinism.

 

I suppose what I meant was the possibility of the existence of other dimensions tightly curled and small but nevertheless theoretically possible.

 

But that isn't "other worlds". It's still our world.

 

I just wondered if there is a possibility of extradimensional life forms (like ghosts etc...) which could accommodate paranormal wierdness.

 

Not under String Theory. Remember, those "extra" dimensions are "rolled up" and very small. So small that we can't perceive them. Any life form there would also be unperceived.

 

All the stories about ghosts have beings that are large enough to do things detectable by human senses.

 

I have been forced to do some reading of my own and I now feel that we are in a sort of bubble embedded into a higher set of dimensions. The extra dimensions seem to be tightly curled into fractions of a centimetre tough.

 

I'm afraid they confused you. We have 2 different things here.

 

1. That our universe has extradimensions that are tightly 'rolled up' and undetectable.

 

2. The "that everything we can see in our universe is confined to a three-dimensional "membrane" that lies within a higher-dimensional realm." refers to something called "ekpyrotic theory". It's based on String Theory but is a bit different.

 

Now, the article was written in 2000 and referred to work even earlier. Much has changed in the last 7 years. The article said "which could extend over distances as large as a millimeter ( 1/25 of an inch). Experiments are already looking for the extra dimensions' effect on the force of gravity." Unfortunately, those experiments have been done and failed to find the effects that should have been there. String Theorists have responded by making those effects smaller and smaller (thus keeping them under detection range) but the detectors have been getting more and more sensitive. Still no effects.

 

IOW, String Theory is failing the tests. 5. Kaku M, Testing string theory. Discover August 2005 http://www.discover.com/issues/aug-05/cover/

 

I have not heard of String Theory passing any test yet. Only failures. If anyone has heard of ST passing tests, please let us know.

[Sisyphus]

 

In order to have free will, the future has to be open. IOW, strict determinism has to be false. QM has shown that this is the case.

 

How are you defining "free will?" That is, do you have a coherent, non-tautological, non-negative definition? Why is true randomness more compatible with "free will" than causality? What evidence is there that conscious decisions are random as opposed to caused? These are the sorts of leaps that cause problems, not discrepancies between micro and macro.

[Mr Skeptic]

How are you defining "free will?" That is, do you have a coherent, non-tautological, non-negative definition? Why is true randomness more compatible with "free will" than causality? What evidence is there that conscious decisions are random as opposed to caused? These are the sorts of leaps that cause problems, not discrepancies between micro and macro.

 

I used to believe in free will. But I eventually realized that it is not possible for it to be truly free. It would have to be based on deterministic principles, or randomness, or a combination of both. The deterministic case would have "will" but it would not be "free", the random case would be "free" but there would be no "will", and the combination would be part of each. Even saying the random events are based on something metaphysical would just move the problem into the metaphysical realm.

[Sisyphus]

I used to believe in free will. But I eventually realized that it is not possible for it to be truly free. It would have to be based on deterministic principles, or randomness, or a combination of both. The deterministic case would have "will" but it would not be "free", the random case would be "free" but there would be no "will", and the combination would be part of each. Even saying the random events are based on something metaphysical would just move the problem into the metaphysical realm.

 

That closely mirrors my own thoughts on the subject. The last sentence is especially important (though I would use a different word than "metaphysical" - "immaterial" or "supernatural," maybe). Even an immaterial soul either does what it does for a reason, or not.

 

The difference between you and me, however, is that I do think we have "free will," just of a sort that is compatible with either determinism or randomness. Namely, it is the experience itself of considering options and making choices, and willing a particular result, whatever the various causes (or lack thereof) of that experience might be. To me, this is actually the only definition of "free will" that has any coherence, and it's good enough for me.

 

People spend far too much time twisting logic around to arrive at a desired result (in this case, some vague notion of free will), instead of coming to terms with reality. It's analogous to people who feel they need to rationalize Young Earth Creationism in order to be good Christians.