Awesome Video: The Nature Of Reality

[Thunder_Gooch]

dk1Zc3TcqdA

[JEN_A_KINS]

dk1Zc3TcqdA

 

 

i rather enjoyed this...thank you for sharing

[orb]

dk1Zc3TcqdA

 

Thx for sharing....

clearly your best post yet

[Thunder_Gooch]

NP,

 

Here is another cool video

 

cL9Wu2kWwSY

[33865_1494798762]

A very funny video compilation of Robert Anton Wilson, speaking on the subject of quantum mechanics.

 

Robert Anton Wilson: Quantum Mechanics

[Owledge]

Edited May 3, 2009 by Hardyg

[Sloppy Zhang]

Lol, science discovers spirituality.

 

How is it explained in this context that different people observe similar things in the realm of rationally provable things? I mean, when you say an object is only existing through me observing it, why does everybody else observe the same object at the same place? It just doesn't work as a grand-scale model, does it? It could even be called quite ignorant, focusing so much on our perception as a creator of things. Water will still flow down the river when nobody is observing.

 

But that's the thing though. How DO you know? There is no proof that anything exists beyond our own consciousness. Unless I see you type a post, unless I hear you say something, effectively, you never said anything.

 

If I see a pencil on the table, and someone else sees a pencil on the table, that doesn't mean there's a pencil on the table. It just means that my vision sees something, and my hearing hears someone say something. I don't see what they see. I can feel something, and they can feel the same thing, but I don't know that they feel the same thing unless they tell me, unless my mind receives another signal.

 

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it REALLY make a sound? How do you prove that it does? You can prove that if someone was there in person things happen a certain way, but when you're not there who knows! The problem, and this is exactly what they said in the video, we don't know ANYTHING about what happens beyond our senses. Unless we physically HEAR a tree falling.... then we have no idea, we can't grasp anything beyond out senses, which are quite limited (just think about how narrow the visible light spectrum is).

Edited May 4, 2009 by Sloppy Zhang

[Owledge]

Of yourse you can be totally unconscious of things happening and some time later someone else told you about them happening or someone observed the result. You put a little boat on a river and then let it flow and (in this theoretical model) not a single living being observes the boat, so does it cease to exist? Well, irrelevant, because on its way it could effect other things that are later observable, and the boat itself is later seen farther down the river.

 

Your path of argumentation is, as far as I understand, inherently unprovable. It's exactly the already mentioned problem of trying to understand something that we are an inferior part of.

This can and does create any number of theories.

It's a bit like the humorous Bielefeld conspiracy (about a German city): Bielefeld doesn't exist and any claim that it exists can sufficiently be explained by a very resourceful conspiracy using mind control and other manipulative efforts. You can never prove that there is no Bielefeld conspiracy.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Hardyg

[Sloppy Zhang]

Of yourse you can be totally unconscious of things happening and some time later someone else told you about them happening or someone observed the result.

 

That is still just your sense of hearing picking up sounds from someone else, doesn't prove anything happened at all.

 

You put a little boat on a river and then let it flow and (in this theoretical model) not a single living being observes the boat, so does it cease to exist?

 

I don't know because I can't see it, I have no idea what's happening to it.

 

Well, irrelevant, because on its way it could effect other things that are later observable, and the boat itself is later seen farther down the river.

 

Err, no, it's NOT irrelevant because you DON'T know that it could or would affect anything. You only ASSUME that to be the case because of what your limited physical senses have told you in the past. The boat being seen further down the river is just that boat being seen at that point in time. You don't know that the boat went directly from start to finish, from A to B, it could have gone from A to Z to B.

 

Again, that's the whole point: the act of observing something defines the event, if you don't observe it then you have an undefined event!

 

A good example of this is the wave-particle duality of light (please look this up because that's what I'm referring to in this paragraph, also look up the double slit experiment). If you isolate light in one instant you see that it's clearly a particle, when you observe it light is a particle, so you expect it to behave like a particle by, say, moving in a straight line. Then you stop observing light, let it do its own thing, then you observe it at a later point of time. It's STILL a particle, just one tiny particle.... but in between the first and second observation it behaved like a wave. At point A it was a particle, at point B it was a particle, but somewhere between there it was a... wave?

 

But see, if you were to do the same experiment and look at the light between points A and B, you wouldn't see a wave, you would again see a particle.

 

Reality (light being a particle) is influenced by the act of observation, whereas when you DON'T observe all kinds of shenanigans go down.

 

Your path of argumentation is, as far as I understand, inherently unprovable.

 

No.

 

It's inherently unprovable using the limited senses at our disposal, and the ways in which we convey our experiences

 

Unfortunately for scientists and other people who want to seem all cool by saying they don't believe in anything unless they see hard proof, well, they run into some problems. Even hardcore scientists have no means of conveying what the heck is going on right in front of their faces.

 

And that's frustrating and hard to accept for some people.

 

It's exactly the already mentioned problem of trying to understand something that we are an inferior part of.

This can and does create any number of theories.

 

Again, that's because some things people just can't (or choose not to) accept, and so they try to cram an inherently unexplainable experience into a limited sensory experience that they can convey to someone else (though perhaps they are really just trying to explain it to themselves).

Edited May 4, 2009 by Sloppy Zhang

[h.uriahr]

Beautiful video.