[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
I do find this interesting, and while I’m no expert I do have a degree that’s partially in Philosophy, so I can try to add any input I can.[/quote]
What do you mean by partially?
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
I do find this interesting, and while I’m no expert I do have a degree that’s partially in Philosophy, so I can try to add any input I can.[/quote]
What do you mean by partially?[/quote]
Dual major. The other half is Poli Science.
[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
[quote]spar4tee wrote:
[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
I do find this interesting, and while I’m no expert I do have a degree that’s partially in Philosophy, so I can try to add any input I can.[/quote]
What do you mean by partially?[/quote]
Dual major. The other half is Poli Science.[/quote]
Oh. Didn’t know that. lol
[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
But to the topic, I do find this interesting, but I do agree this list doesn’t do much for me, seeing as it’s just saying “This stuff doesn’t make much sense to us right now, so it must be virtual!”.
[/quote]
That’s not what it’s saying at all. A lot of posters seem to have misunderstood the OP. The website presents a list to describe the theory of “Quantum Realism”. Quantum Realism doesn’t postulate that things don’t make sense so they must be virtual". QR doesn’t imply a virtual reality created by a sentient being as some kind of deception or something - that’s what some posters appear to think. QR simply interprets the quantum world as “ultimate reality” and the classical world of “physical realism” as a kind of hologram-like result of quantum mechanics. For example, elementary particles don’t actually occupy three dimensional space; a brick only appears solid because the particles have programmed an apparently solid entity like a hologram as it were.
QR approaches quantum phenomena from a “mentalist” perspective of matter deriving from consciousness and the Copenhagen Interpretation of observer existentialism(things only exist when observed) is explained in terms of a “virtual” world in the sense of physical reality as a “program”. I think the example given was a first person shooter; the program only calculates what the player is looking at. Look left and it calculates and constructs a house; look right and it constructs a corn field. This is how physical reality actually works. It’s summed up in Einstein’s question to Bohm: Are you saying that the moon isn’t really there when we’re not looking at it? The latest experiments confirm the Copenhagen Interpretation. The universe only exists as abstract, potential in “configuration space” until it is observed and then it comes into existence. These are some of the reasons that Quantum Realism interprets physical reality as a “virtual” world. Physical reality is the “results” of the “programming” of the quantum world.
Quantum Realism might be a useful way of interpreting quantum mechanics because it posits that we have been looking at things the wrong way around so far; that we have been trying to reverse engineer the causal chain from classical physical realism [/b] to quantum mechanics. QR turns things around by interpreting physical reality as the “results” of a fundamental ultimate reality.
Don’t misconstrue the word “virtual” nor the word “programming” - they don’t necessarily have to imply a personified causal agent; a “programmer”. However if you think of physical reality as a hologram and ultimate reality being the quantum world; a world of temporal and spacial abstraction, abstract potentiality and the element of randomness(non-causality) thrown into the mix. Instead of trying to reconcile all that abstraction to classical physical realism QR interprets physical realism in and of itself as an abstraction. The mathematics being a “concrete entity” and physical reality being an “abstract entity” as it were.
No dude I understand QR, I just think that article is doing it a real disservice the way it’s portraying it. Otherwise you wouldn’t have to elaborate 3 times in this thread just to get people to understand, ya know? I was not discrediting the theory, simply the articles’ portrayal of it.
Jesus, people need to stay on their meds.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]MaazerSmiit wrote:
At least if you get falsely accused of rape you know it’s ok, because none of this is real[/quote]
Quantum mechanics is a literal gold mine for legal defences. For example, you’re given a speeding violation. How can he prove how fast you were going? According to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle it’s impossible to know the exact location and momentum of a particle at the same time. In fact, it’s impossible for a particle to even have an exact location and momentum at any point in time. And the car is made of particles; it obeys the laws of quantum mechanics.[/quote]
I have thought of this as a defense or at least similar defenses before and I promised myself I am going to argue it next time a get a ticket just to be a fucker about. And I will too. I was thinking of starting with speed is just an average, and, on average during my whole trip, I did the speed limit. That doesn’t work for you judge? Its about a single point in time? Bam, say my name! Say my name! Heisenberg!
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
[quote]maverick88 wrote:
[quote]cstratton2 wrote:
Just watch the matrix. [/quote]
“Quantum realism isnÃ??Ã?¢??t The Matrix, where the other world making ours was also physical. Nor is it a brain-in-a-vat idea, as this virtuality was in play long before humans came along. Nor is it that a phantom other world modifies oursÃ??Ã?¢??our physical world is the phantom. In physical realism, the quantum world is impossible, but in quantum realism the physical world is impossibleÃ??Ã?¢??unless it is a virtual realityÃ??Ã?¢??as these examples demonstrate.”[/quote]
What?[/quote]
The Matrix was a real world constructed virtual world. The Matrix was about a “real” world of physicalism and causality; a “classical” world that then creates an artificial virtual world. Quantum realism doesn’t postulate a “real” world of causality and physicalism. It postulates that the “real” world is the quantum mechanical world and that the world we experience and observe is a virtual or fake world created by the real quantum world. To me it makes sense that the classical world is just a “result” - for want of a better word - of the quantum world. But “result” in the classical sense of causality and physical realism is not the same thing as “result” in quantum mechanics.
[/quote]
you had me at “postulates”
[quote]Spidey22 wrote:
No dude I understand QR…[/quote]
AHAA! Yeah, no one actually understands any of it. That is the one thing I’m sure of.
On the topic:
I’m convinced far more than just origins and the meaning of existence were placed outside the understanding human brain. The physical universe and its’ nature and behavior is one of those things. Even if theories are correct they make no rational sense. It is not by logic that the earth orbits the sun or the electron the nucleus. Even if there is an ordered law abiding nature of physics (which I’m not convinced of) there can be no rational derivation of the laws themselves.
Which really brings up an alternate view that actually resolves the desire for a universal system and is the absolute simplest solution of all. Mainly that there is no universal system. That the universe is not consistent or even analytical. That it may have different rules when you look different places and that those rules may be more guideline than law. Not only is there a lack of evidence to disprove the notion, the divergence of systems that both work and disavow the other is evidence in the positive.