are we really existing?

[patrizio1881]

I love to read ur topics, but it's always difficult for me to belive that we do realy exist.

I mean, our universe began with an enormous amount of energy, then electrons and quarks were create, after that they quarks formed protons and neutrons and then the electrons united protons to form hydrogen. Then the stars came, and here the heavier elements,

From here cames moulecules,more and more complex, and then came the life and a neurological system so complex that allow us to be here talking on this forum.

So it's like all the Universe were made up and developed, just for make us (human being) thinking and exist....

mmmm.......

[dimreepr]

Cogito ergo sum

[Strange]

I love to read ur topics, but it's always difficult for me to belive that we do realy exist.

 

No. We don't.

 

Actually, we do. It's just you that doesn't exist. Bye.

[John Cuthber]

I love to read ur topics, but it's always difficult for me to belive that we do realy exist.

I mean, our universe began with an enormous amount of energy, then electrons and quarks were create, after that they quarks formed protons and neutrons and then the electrons united protons to form hydrogen. Then the stars came, and here the heavier elements,

From here cames moulecules,more and more complex, and then came the life and a neurological system so complex that allow us to be here talking on this forum.

So it's like all the Universe were made up and developed, just for make us (human being) thinking and exist....

mmmm.......

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, may have been made to have me in it!""

from

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams

[patrizio1881]

We assume a puddle doesn't have the ability to think...

the evolutions doesn't seem an entropic system....

To me, it's hard to belive that atoms evolved to a complex organ like a brain.

Which is our perception of the world? we already know that our cognition of time is wrong so we re moving in a dimension that we don't understand (and we don't even know if it exists).

We suppose there are 11 dimension in the universe, so there are 7 we cannot percive. For what we know maybe the puddle can percive one of this. From what we can grasp, it seems our universe has been built for us; think about that, we are the more elaborate entity of the universe (for what we know), so elaborate that it s like the whole evolution of the universe have worked to come to the human being.

So we came from the big bang to life just as a casuality?

It's just a thought, but maybe we are just a tridimensional part of something bigger (a 11 dimesional wave, a god or whatever u want to call it), maybe there is not distinction between you and me and other people or animal (and the puddle) and we are just one thing. Just we are not able to percive it

Edited July 27, 2014 by patrizio1881

[Strange]

to me it's hard to belive that atoms evolved to a complex organ like a brain.

 

Maybe you just don't know enough about the processes involved?

 

 

we know that our cognition of time is wrong

 

Do we? In what way?

 

 

We suppose there are 11 dimension, so there are 7 we cannot percive.

 

Hypothetically. In string theory. So maybe not.

 

 

From what we can graspour universe is, it still seem to be built for us

 

Not really. We evolved in the universe, so it appears to be a good fit. Fish evolved under water and must think it amazing (*) that the fluid carries water to their gills so effectively; almost as if it was designed for it. But we would drown in minutes.

 

So the universe isn't designed for us; we are evolved for the tiny little bit of it that we can survive in (our puddle).

 

(*) Obviously, like the puddle, they can't really think this.

 

 

we are the more elaborate entity of the universe (for what we know), so elaborate that it s like the whole history of the universe seems to have worked to realize life and the humane being.

 

Define "elaborate". I am not convinced we are the most "elaborate" organism on Earth, never mind in the universe. There are plants with more genes than us. There are organisms with far more complicated life cycles. There are organisms with abilities we can only dream of.

 

Sounds like you are looking for religious, rather than scientific, answers.

[patrizio1881]

we have a notion of the time passing. We can misure it with a watch, if we have two watches, one moving faster than another, the faster will misure the time slower. Quantistic equations don t consider time. It just our perception. It seems there is an anarchic movement of variables and time is not one of them. Time is just inside us.

The observer is part of the event, I would like to learn how far we can understand as observers and if phisic and mathematics can help us to build some theories about things we could never percive

[Strange]

if we have two watches, one moving faster than another, the faster will misure the time slower.

 

That implies one of the watches is broken. How is that relevant?

 

 

It just our perception.

 

Groan. Not this again.

 

Then how did the universe come to be, before we were there to perceive it?

[patrizio1881]

hahaha u r right Strange...sorry for my english...I meant: u have 2 watches (both running properly ) and one is in your house and the other is on an airplane...they will misure a different time....or one at the sea level and the other up in the montains (it happend with the clocks on the satellyte, they must be corrected do by in syncro wiith those on earth).

Wheeler -Dewitt wrote the equation demostrating that we don't need to consider time as a variable

Edited July 27, 2014 by patrizio1881

[Strange]

hahaha u r right Strange...sorry for my english...I meant: u have 2 watches (both running properly ) and one is in your house and the other is on an airplane...they will misure a different time....or one at the sea level and the other up in the montains (it happend with the clocks on the satellyte, they must be corrected do by in syncro wiith those on earth).

 

Correct. So what?

 

 

Wheeler -Dewitt wrote the equation demostrating that we don't need to consider time as a variable

 

That doesn't mean that time doesn't exist.

[MigL]

Come on Strange, cut him some slack.

I know that you know that a strict interpretation of quantum mechanics raises questions about the validity of the 'concept' of reality.

[barfbag]

Come on Strange, cut him some slack.

I know that you know that a strict interpretation of quantum mechanics raises questions about the validity of the 'concept' of reality.

 

 

It is funny how many interpretations The Copenhagen Interpretation has.

 

Does the moon exist when it is not observed? This question will get various answers depending on whom you ask. The conscious being involved with collapse is a Fred Allan Wolf type view, which has met a lot of skepticism and debate.

 

I prefer either viewpoint over The Many Worlds view, but I have no idea. Anyone looking at QM at that level must be satisfied with some pretty strange conundrums.

[Strange]

Come on Strange, cut him some slack.

 

Sorry. I didn't intend to come across as mean ...

[hoola]

we exist to the extent the universe can allow us to exist. That is, we are the state of the art for existence, this year, 13.7 billion into project launch...although the project originated much earlier in a state of minimal information, the void...I see the concept of existence start with the organizing of information into mathematics, and shortly thereafter amplified by the development of (mathematical) meanings, in the last stage before the big bang...

Edited July 29, 2014 by hoola

[MigL]

This is not about interpretation Barfbag, whether Bohr's ( Copenhagen ) or Everett's ( many worlds ) .

 

This is about the paradigms of Quantum Mechanics where something like an electron is only 'measurable' when it is observed, and its nature entirely probabilistic. In effect, the experiment, or the way we observe it, determines the outcome as it collapses the wavefunction in a specific way.

The very idea of 'the electron is here' or 'the electron has this much energy' ceases to have meaning at a certain scale. The best we can do is say there is a XX% chance of the electron being found here, but as any good weatherman will tell you a 50% chance of rain does not make rain a reality.

When a photon going through a polarizer here can alter or fix the 'reality' of another entangled photon, whether 1 mile or a million miles away, as in the EPR paradox, what does that say about our notion of 'reality' ?

 

So, at the quantum level, would the moon exist if it wasn't being observed ?

 

We could answer yes, but then we'd have to believe that Quantum mechanics was incomplete ( hidden variables have been disproven ) or wrong ( it is the most tested and accurate modern theory )

Edited July 30, 2014 by MigL

[barfbag]

This is not about interpretation Barfbag, whether Bohr's ( Copenhagen ) or Everett's ( many worlds ) .

 

MigL,

Yet you spend half your post describing "a" (as opposed to The) Copenhagen Interpretation of The double slit experiment.

 

would the moon exist if it wasn't being observed ?

 

 

This is basically the topic here. Is this reality? Existing is the topic here.

 

We could look at The thought experiment Schrodingers Cat in the box. Schrodinger was using it to show how absurd the notion was, but as the topic of this thread is, we can ask, is the cat really existing?

 

The determination is not made until the box is opened, so the juxtaposition in both states is what kind of reality/existence?

 

But then again we know that would be absurd as Schrodinger speculates.

 

So again. The topic of this thread is directly related to whether you accept the standard versions of The Copenhagen Interpretation of The double slit experiment, or If you buy into the absurd angle of it being pushed by Fred Alan Wolf (dr quantum) among others.

 

You may have opinions, but so do they.

 

How could this topic be about anything else?

 

If you are unfamiliar with the Fred Alan Wolf stance, he is also known as Dr. Quantum.

 

As in here...

 

Note: I am not endorsing the Dr. Quantum viewpoint here, but drawing attention to the fact that the topic of us "EXISTING" (TOPIC OF THIS THREAD) is directly related to how you view The Interpretation AS I SAID IN MY LAST POST.

 

MigL

When a photon going through a polarizer here can alter or fix the 'reality' of another entangled photon, whether 1 mile or a million miles away, as in the EPR paradox, what does that say about our notion of 'reality' ?

 

Okay. I give up. What does Spooky action at a distance have to do with reality?

 

I easily see how living in superposition such as inside a Schrodingers box (if we looked at absurd angle) might be considered not reality. But I'll let you explain how Spooky action at a distance weighs in. How would that make us exist or not exist?

Edited July 30, 2014 by barfbag

[MigL]

Maybe I'm not understanding you and you're not understanding me.

 

An interpretation is a 'relating' if you will, of QM properties and effects to our everyday macroscopic experiences. Obviously the two are NOT related, as they are based on differing paradigms.

I choose to accept QM at its face value, and while a cat, a macroscopic ensemble of a billion, billion, billion atoms may not be in a superposition of states when not being observed, its individual constituent atoms can be !

 

Spooky action at a distance, as you and Einstein call it, or entanglement, as the rest of us call it, effectively changes a property or 'reality' of a paticle at a distance from its entangled, observed particle without any information being shared between the two. It was being used as an example of a Quantum effect which has no relation to our macroscopic experience.

Maybe not the best choice, but in my defence, its 5:30 in the morning, after 10.5 hrs at work.