Philosophical Questioning of Reality

[Dominatus]

Late last night I started thinking in-depth about what it all means. More specifically, what the true nature of reality and existence is.

We can measure many different things about the known universe, and gather information to add to our "knowledge database" that humans have built up since we started to write. Yet I wonder how much we actually know, or see. Because what we call and accept to be real is based on our perception of what reality is. Perception is everything.

The universe follows a set of laws that make sense, and explain its various workings. But maybe that isn't all of it. Maybe there are things we simply can't perceive, nor detect. An example of this is radioactive decay. I may not be an expert- in fact, I'm going off of what I remember from a video about all the people who helped contribute to make Einstein's E=mc^2 possible. One of them was an Austrian scientist who discovered radioactive decay. Apparently the decay only occurs when not under observation- we can detect and observe the change prior to and after the decay, but decay doesn't happen if we are watching it. Assuming this is true, then why? Why can't we observe this change taking place? Are we simply unable to perceive or detect it?

Something similar to this is color. If you took an apple and taught a child that color was purple, than that child would continue to say red was purple until someone corrected them. Just like how we say the sky is blue. Is it really? Maybe you see and call that blue, and I see and call it blue, but we actually are referring to different colors that we think are the same. If that makes any sense.

Following that line of thinking, everything is based on the individual's perception. And if everything is based on what we do or can observe, then logically there must be so much more that we can't observe. Our universe, even our very existence could be a lie. Maybe we only exist because we think we exist, and the existence we accept isn't reality. If anyone can understand where I'm coming from, psychologically, or philosophically, then pitch in. This really makes one think, and there were many lines if thinking that led me to these which I didn't include. I would love to read your two cents.

[Flixxbeatz]

Queen said it better:

Is this the real life?

Is this just fantasy?

Caught in a landslide

No escape from reality

[Monkeh]

There are some great posts on, more or less, this subject in this thread, here.

Have fun

[Ralathon]

Late last night I started thinking in-depth about what it all means. More specifically, what the true nature of reality and existence is.

We can measure many different things about the known universe, and gather information to add to our "knowledge database" that humans have built up since we started to write. Yet I wonder how much we actually know, or see. Because what we call and accept to be real is based on our perception of what reality is. Perception is everything.

The universe follows a set of laws that make sense, and explain its various workings. But maybe that isn't all of it. Maybe there are things we simply can't perceive, nor detect. An example of this is radioactive decay.

I may not be an expert- in fact, I'm going off of what I remember from a video about all the people who helped contribute to make Einstein's E=mc^2 possible. One of them was an Austrian scientist who discovered radioactive decay. Apparently the decay only occurs when not under observation- we can detect and observe the change prior to and after the decay, but decay doesn't happen if we are watching it. Assuming this is true, then why? Why can't we observe this change taking place? Are we simply unable to perceive or detect it?

Decay can happen while you are observing it, you'll collapse the wave function so you can't have superposition but it'll decay just fine. But in either case, does it really matter? If we see a basket of 10 apples and after blinking we see a basket with 9 apples and 1 apple flying through the air with a monkey sitting next to the basket, is it that hard to figure out what happened? We're working on assumptions, sure. But assumptions aren't necessarily bad, you need assumptions to avoid working in a vacuum. As long as you are willing to abandon your assumptions if they are proven wrong by measurements you'll be fine.

Something similar to this is color. If you took an apple and taught a child that color was purple, than that child would continue to say red was purple until someone corrected them. Just like how we say the sky is blue. Is it really? Maybe you see and call that blue, and I see and call it blue, but we actually are referring to different colors that we think are the same. If that makes any sense.

I'm fairly sure everybody thought about this at one point. We have no way to prove it, and even if we could it wouldn't change anything about our world. It'd be nice to know for the sake of knowing, but it won't give me a more comfortable life or fuels my car. So from an utilitarian point of view it is a meaningless question.

Following that line of thinking, everything is based on the individual's perception. And if everything is based on what we do or can observe, then logically there must be so much more that we can't observe. Our universe, even our very existence could be a lie. Maybe we only exist because we think we exist, and the existence we accept isn't reality. If anyone can understand where I'm coming from, psychologically, or philosophically, then pitch in. This really makes one think, and there were many lines if thinking that led me to these which I didn't include. I would love to read your two cents.

Welcome to Solipsism. I personally solve this, again, using an utilitarian argument. Even if I was just a brain in a vat being fed with a simulated world it wouldn't change anything. I'd still feel cold if I don't wear a jacket and I'll still go hungry if I don't eat. So if my goal in life is to be happy I should take the same actions regardless whether this world is real or not.

[Brapness]

With absolutely no intention of sounding cynical (I often find myself thinking on similar topics). Does it matter if we can’t perceive all of reality or perceive reality in a different way to anyone else? Essentially the only reality that matters to you should be the reality you perceive. ‘Reality’ is a human concept; we imbue phenomena with reality and function. What makes something ‘real’ is your perception of it. I suppose this is where the question of the tree falling in the woods comes from.

Think of it like this, if there was no-one to observe reality, there would be no-one to say something was red or blue, hot or cold, large or small; so these qualities that make up your reality are not an inherent trait of the universe, it’s something you have applied to it. So reality and perception are linked, if you can’t perceive it it’s not real.

[ZetaX]

Dominatus, Ralathon: the mentioned effect is the quantum xeno paradox/effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect .

[Themohawkninja]

Of course everything is a matter of perception.

When you take the wave-particle duality of matter and extrapolate it to the macroscopic realm, all matter is just ambiguous waves of energy until observed.

[lajoswinkler]

One of them was an Austrian scientist who discovered radioactive decay. Apparently the decay only occurs when not under observation- we can detect and observe the change prior to and after the decay, but decay doesn't happen if we are watching it. Assuming this is true, then why? Why can't we observe this change taking place? Are we simply unable to perceive or detect it?

Radioactive decay way discovered by Henri Becquerel, a French scientist. And no, it is not true for macroscopic systems. It happens regardless of anything. It's spontaneous, unpredictable, and that's why macroscopic lumps of radioactive material, with quadrillions of atoms have defined radioactive properties. Regarding the "observer", no, that's also not true. Watching stuff doesn't change anything. It's a stupid myth propelled by ill-advised people.

Something similar to this is color. If you took an apple and taught a child that color was purple, than that child would continue to say red was purple until someone corrected them. Just like how we say the sky is blue. Is it really? Maybe you see and call that blue, and I see and call it blue, but we actually are referring to different colors that we think are the same. If that makes any sense.

That's a semantic problem, not a physical or philosophical one. "Red" and "purple" are names, bunch of phonemes and all by themselves are meaningless. They gain meaning when we connect them to objects.

We do think that we do see the same because different things emitting/reflecting a certain color evoke the same sensation we can then ascribe to other different things, and our retinas all work the same, our nervous system is the same.

The question of whether our brains synthesise the same feeling. So far it seems that they do (MRI scans). But do we see the same is, in its essence, unimportant. It's interesting to think about it, but that's it.

Following that line of thinking, everything is based on the individual's perception. And if everything is based on what we do or can observe, then logically there must be so much more that we can't observe. Our universe, even our very existence could be a lie. Maybe we only exist because we think we exist, and the existence we accept isn't reality. If anyone can understand where I'm coming from, psychologically, or philosophically, then pitch in. This really makes one think, and there were many lines if thinking that led me to these which I didn't include. I would love to read your two cents.

That's called solipsism, a philosophical notion that nothing can be proven.

In essence, yes, everything might be false. You might be a piece of software that's deliberately lulled by a complex system of other programs.

Such notion is a cul de sac of thought and doesn't solve literally anything. But it's fun, sometimes.

Of course everything is a matter of perception.

When you take the wave-particle duality of matter and extrapolate it to the macroscopic realm, all matter is just ambiguous waves of energy until observed.

No, it's not. What works for the world of subatomic particles, doesn't work for anything larger than atoms.

There is no extrapolation here. You just can't do that.

Edited January 23, 2014 by lajoswinkler

[Themohawkninja]

No, it's not. What works for the world of subatomic particles, doesn't work for anything larger than atoms.

There is no extrapolation here. You just can't do that.

I still have yet to see evidence that says you can't.

[K^2]

all matter is just ambiguous waves of energy until observed.

That's incorrect to begin with. Field dynamics is just as objective as classical mechanics that you are used to.

[Soda Popinski]

Our universe, even our very existence could be a lie. Maybe we only exist because we think we exist, and the existence we accept isn't reality. If anyone can understand where I'm coming from, psychologically, or philosophically, then pitch in. This really makes one think, and there were many lines if thinking that led me to these which I didn't include. I would love to read your two cents.

Back to the broader question of the nature of reality. There's a philosophical idea that we live in a "universe simulator." Right now, we're able to model physical interactions at the atomic to very low molecular scale. If we get to the point where we can model larger and larger "realities"- such as a planet, a solar system, a galaxy, or even a universe, we can assume someone will run this "universe simulator" where simulated life will eventually evolve. That simulated life will eventually develop their own universe simulator, and the simulated life's simulations in their universe simulator will create a universe simulator, ad nauseam.

Therefore, there is one "real universe" at the top, and countless other simulated universes below it. So, the chances are, if you are in a universe, it's probably a simulated one.

Maybe you're really some other being's version of Jeb.

[lajoswinkler]

I still have yet to see evidence that says you can't.

The claimant has the burden of proof. Anyone could come here and say the most bizzare thing. I don't have to prove anything and actually I can't prove a negative.

I presume you're still in elementary or early highschool. If you have physics, you'll learn this in your last year of highschool, at least I hope it's part of the curriculum at your place.

[Woopert]

Lol, if you think about this stuff too much you'll go insane... which isn't necessarily a bad thing...

I think about things like this all the time. It's really interesting and part of what I consider being "enlightened." I really wish more people in the world thought about these types of things, nice to be able to relate with other people and KSP players.

About reality, I honestly have no idea of what's true and we'll probably never know... But you can always theorize for yourself

My thoughts are that there is a definite universe, comprised of... something. Humans (or other intelligent life) will apply some sort of thought about what is reality. I don't really know much about what I'm talking about, I just think about stuff in general.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Woopert

[Themohawkninja]

The claimant has the burden of proof. Anyone could come here and say the most bizzare thing. I don't have to prove anything and actually I can't prove a negative.

I presume you're still in elementary or early highschool. If you have physics, you'll learn this in your last year of highschool, at least I hope it's part of the curriculum at your place.

I'm in college thank you very much, so I'm taking my first physics course ever. Also, this isn't a formal debate, so the rules of BoP don't apply, nor is there any point in pointing out the need for a BoP if a proof against can't be established.

[relin]

I'm in college thank you very much, so I'm taking my first physics course ever. Also, this isn't a formal debate, so the rules of BoP don't apply, nor is there any point in pointing out the need for a BoP if a proof against can't be established.

Burden of Proof isn't just for formal debates: it's a logical principle. If you claim that the macroscopic world is the result of collapsing wave functions, you need to show why you believe it works like that. It's not really up to us to prove you wrong.

That said, quantum-level effects tend to cancel out in macroscopic scales. The math and observations support it.

[Themohawkninja]

Burden of Proof isn't just for formal debates: it's a logical principle. If you claim that the macroscopic world is the result of collapsing wave functions, you need to show why you believe it works like that. It's not really up to us to prove you wrong.

That said, quantum-level effects tend to cancel out in macroscopic scales. The math and observations support it.

I said why I believe it works like that. Since matter on the sub-atomic level has a wave-particle duality, along with the fact that I had yet to see evidence against it, I saw no reason to state that it didn't work. It's technically a logical fallacy, but if you see no evidence to suggest that it doesn't work, than there isn't much reason to think that it doesn't.

Also, not backing up a statement by just claiming BoP is just rude if you ask me (with the exception of formal debates). It just tells me that you don't feel like backing up your statement by claiming that mine isn't backed up either.

If ignorance is met with ignorance, no learning will be achieved.

[relin]

I said why I believe it works like that. Since matter on the sub-atomic level has a wave-particle duality, along with the fact that I had yet to see evidence against it, I saw no reason to state that it didn't work. It's technically a logical fallacy, but if you see no evidence to suggest that it doesn't work, than there isn't much reason to think that it doesn't.

Also, not backing up a statement by just claiming BoP is just rude if you ask me (with the exception of formal debates). It just tells me that you don't feel like backing up your statement by claiming that mine isn't backed up either.

If ignorance is met with ignorance, no learning will be achieved.

I doubt most people would agree that claiming Burden of Proof is rude, but that's neither here nor there.

You stated that, if you extrapolate particle/wave duality into the classical world, everything is a wave function waiting to be collapsed. What I'm saying is that you can't make that extrapolation: neither the math nor observation support that claim. There's a reason I don't diffuse when walking toward a pair of adjacent doors in an office building.

[Themohawkninja]

I doubt most people would agree that claiming Burden of Proof is rude, but that's neither here nor there.

You stated that, if you extrapolate particle/wave duality into the classical world, everything is a wave function waiting to be collapsed. What I'm saying is that you can't make that extrapolation: neither the math nor observation support that claim. There's a reason I don't diffuse when walking toward a pair of adjacent doors in an office building.

Either way, the original point remains valid. "Real" is but a perception of the observer.

Without going into too much depth of philosophy, I can assure you that such a statement is backed by a lot of observation.

[lajoswinkler]

I'm in college thank you very much, so I'm taking my first physics course ever. Also, this isn't a formal debate, so the rules of BoP don't apply, nor is there any point in pointing out the need for a BoP if a proof against can't be established.

They apply in any conversation except drunk "WAZZUP.....WAZZUP...".

Quantum nature of the universe does not show up directly in everyday life.

Saying the opposite is a sign of believing in modern superstition or just plain parrot talk I've witnessed a number of times in the last decade as woo imbecils started using such lies to sell their books. It's quackery.

You're having college physics? Well you'll learn, then.

[relin]

Without going into too much depth of philosophy, I can assure you that such a statement is backed by a lot of observation.

Please cite one. I doubt it's scientifically valid.

[Nuke]

http://xkcd.com/220/

[Dominatus]

Ahem.... So now that you two are done, might we get this thread back on track? In case you have forgotten, the discussion was on the perception of reality, and questioning our existence, etcetera. And I would like to apologize for the information I got wrong. High school physics class... The video claimed that the woman whom discovered radioactive decay was partnered with another guy (I forget his name). It also claimed that her associate stole her findings, claiming the work as his own, and that this was recently discovered. This could hold as much weight as the whole "Einstein refutes his grade school professor and proves god exists" thing, though.

Another spin on this topic; reality only exists because we think it exists, and so our minds create a world in which we live and die and never interact with eachother. Our world is our own, and it is a single mind- yours- that creates it. Technically this is true. Our minds process all of the information we observe, and apply that to the world around us. So maybe our mind also creates things to observe, things that don't truly exist but that we are convinced do exist. Kinda gives a new meaning to the statement "I think, therefore I am."

And I am well aware that we can "prove" the color of objects thanks to the wavelength and frequency of the light waves an object can reflect. But it doesn't prove that I see the same red as you do. This can't be proven, not as far as I can tell.

So please- continue this discussion. It is very intriguing- makes me wish my high school had a philosophy course available, so that I could share this line of thought with my peers.

[Drunken Hobo]

Something similar to this is color. If you took an apple and taught a child that color was purple, than that child would continue to say red was purple until someone corrected them. Just like how we say the sky is blue. Is it really? Maybe you see and call that blue, and I see and call it blue, but we actually are referring to different colors that we think are the same. If that makes any sense.

Something I've often wondered about colour - how do hawks see the world? They (and many other birds of prey) have a 4th type of cone cell in the eye, allowing them to see UV light. Do they just see our spectrum but stretched out, or do they have another colour that is inconceivable to humans?

Colour blind people don't know they're colour blind until someone tells them, so I suppose it could be like that.

[lajoswinkler]

Something I've often wondered about colour - how do hawks see the world? They (and many other birds of prey) have a 4th type of cone cell in the eye, allowing them to see UV light. Do they just see our spectrum but stretched out, or do they have another colour that is inconceivable to humans?

Colour blind people don't know they're colour blind until someone tells them, so I suppose it could be like that.

Colors are sensations made by our brain so we can't tell without knowing the total inner workings of brains. Even if we knew everything there is to know about the work of hawk's and human brain, we still couldn't tell exactly what do they see because those brains aren't the same.

We could only approximate by comparison. That would be a reasonable approximation, but 100% sure? No.

Whether the hawks see an additional color unimaginable to us or their spectrum is simply stretched, we don't know. The usual approach is either to assume stretching, or include grays in the approximative images.

Edited January 25, 2014 by lajoswinkler

[Dominatus]

Huh... Now that's an interesting take on this. I hadn't considered animals into this previously, but I can see how they apply.