Is our Physical Reality an Illusion?

[doc_harra]

I am not saying it is is true but could micro-evolution be an elaborate program with in macro-evolution<br /><br />will get back to you on laws that goven, very hard to type on this subjuct, for me it is anyway perhaps

 

[sabusam]

your message is way out there. i think that the uiniverse are all atoms of some matter and if you could see are atoms you would see that it has life on it.

 

[kyle_baron]

This is philosophy and not science. It borders at best on the fringes of scientific epistemology, but that's it. <br /><br />Reality is defined very easily and readily in the sciences by events which can be observed either directly, or via instruments. If something can be detected then it can be known to exist. If it cannot be detected, despite numerous observations, then it either isn't real, or it's very hard to find, and its existence in problematic. <br /><br />So, calling something an 'illusion', except in the strictest psychological sense, is simply a philosophical discussion. It's not science and it's hardly astronomy, physics, or chemistry, either. <br /><br />"If you would discuss philosophy with me, define your terms." --Voltaire <br /> <br /><br />You must be some kind of scientist. Taking a very narrow viewpoint. Which is fine, I have no arguement with that. However, by taking a broader view, and using one's imagination (to form images in one's mind to other possibilities) is IMHO more important than disecting the world. To steal a quote from Star Trek: "To Boldly go where no man has gone before" involves imagination:<br /><br />Einstein: He had to form a mental image of riding on top of a photon, for his SR Theory.<br /><br />Stephen Hawking: Had to imagine himself at the event horizon of a black hole for his Hawking Radiation Theory.<br /><br />I did define my terms ( as in your Voltaire quote) in order to discuss philosophy with you, and your buddy Voltaire. If you missed it, I'll repeat it here:<br /><br />Illusion: The erroneous perception of reality.<br /><br />Imagination: The power of the mind to form an image of something that is not real, OR PRESENT. <br /><br />Philosophy: The investigation of causes and laws underlying reality. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

doc_harra - On mutations and eyes and limbs:<br /><br />Mutations do not originate these complex body parts. Mutations can relocate, add or remove them.<br /><br />There is no evidence of predetermined mapping of eyes and other complex organs - to my knowledge. If there was, I'm sure evolutionists would have publicized this by now.<br /><br />There is evidence, however, of predetermined defensive measures for survival of kinds (and often species also), notably antibiotic resistance and pesticide resistance.<br /><br />On Chaos vs Control - see Get Smart. (only kidding)<br />We'd better 86 that!<br /><br />Chaos is often controled by parameters - like, for example, computer programs and laws of the universe - such that chaos is controled by limits and directed within the limits of laws and properties that were already created by intelligent design - e.g. by a computer programmer or by our Creator.<br /><br />Btw - there are real illusions.<br /><br />Really! <br /><br />Have you ever seen a 3-d Imax movie of a real scene or event?<br /><br />Or gravitational lensing causing double vision?

 

[doc_harra]

Ok fine I am going to try sum it up in a nut shell<br /><br /><br /><br />Every thing is definable in some way /> Even Nothing < as I have noted before, But also note not all definitions can be completed immediately or at all, If some of the ideas i mention were correct <br /><br />Quick re cap<br /><br />At the start<br /><br />Nothing<br /><br />Remember as I have noted before, Nothing is never Just ! Nothing, It is flawed because it creates laws by not even being there, And these laws build Upon/Into each other, And sooner or later these events start forming mass, All in the pursuit of the definition of nothing.<br /><br />To mention a few Laws like<br /><br />How much nothing is there, Where dose it start, And Where dose it stop,<br />What was before its start, What is after its end, What shape dose it have ?<br /><br />Perhaps<br /><br />When Nothing is all alone it becomes *unstable, And then becomes Matter, maybe Matter is just a gradient variant of Nothing <br /><br />* Unstable in definition ?<br /><br />If you give any answer please ask your self what was before that and so on<br /><br />Maybe it is driven by nothing, Saying what am I<br /><br />The answer is : Everything, <br /><br />P.s<br /><br />Everything also includes and is Nothing. <br /><br />parra_doc

 

[newtonian]

doc_harra - In the words of a famous robot:<br /><br />IT DOES NOT COMPUTE!<br /><br />E.g.: everything is nothing. <br /><br />For me, I like Spock on Star Trek: logic is very important.<br /><br />It also helps to use a dictionary, btw.<br /><br />From: <br /><br />www.dictionary.com<br /><br />noth·ing ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nthng)<br />pron. <br />No thing; not anything: The box contained nothing. I've heard nothing about it. <br />No part; no portion: Nothing remains of the old house but the cellar hole. <br />One of no consequence, significance, or interest: The new nonsmoking policy is nothing to me. <br /><br />n. <br />Something that has no existence. <br />Something that has no quantitative value; zero: a score of two to nothing. <br />One that has no substance or importance; a nonentity: “A nothing is a dreadful thing to hold onto” (Edna O'Brien). <br /><br />OK, note that nothing is really an antonym of everything or anything for that matter.<br /><br />If we can't agree on definitions, we will end up with a semantic discussion - which, while quite funny, accomplishes little!<br /><br />I will counter (as I disagree with part of what you posted) that scientists have observed the principle (law) of cause and effect.<br /><br />And also the law of conservation of matter and energy.<br /><br />Therefore, all things have a cause and no thing comes from nothing according to the law of conservation of matter and energy.<br /><br />The one exception on cause and effect is the first cause.<br /><br />Scientifically one has to choose between two basic answers:<br /><br />1. There are an infinite number of causes and effects going back in infinite past time.<br /><br />2. There is a first cause.<br /><br />The Bible narrows this down to a First Cause.<br /><br />The name of God found some 7,000 times in the Hebrew text of the Hebrew Scriptures (aka Old Testament) of the Bible is the tetragrammaton (Yod he Vau he) translated in English as "Jehova

 

[newtonian]

colesakick - I could not get your link to work.<br /><br />Please post more on "Dirac's equation."<br /><br />Your post is thought-provoking. Thank you.<br /><br />I agree that DNA/RNA is like a book with language and informational content.<br /><br />This was indicated thousands of years ago:<br /><br />(Psalm 139:16) . . .Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, And in your book all its parts were down in writing, As regards the days when they were formed And there was not yet one among them.<br /><br />I.e. all the human embryo body parts are down in writing in respects to the days when they will be formed before there is even one body part formed!<br /><br />We now know this is in writing in DNA, and we have further discovered very complex mechanisms involved in the creation of a baby from a one-celled embryo.<br /><br />Among the new discoveries are forms of epigenetic coding, also informational, involving methyl and acetyl links to histones on the chromatin, not to mention methylation on the DNA activating or inhibiting various sequences.<br /><br />Can you explain more simply but with more detail how you link the fine tuning of the laws and properties of our universe to the informational content of life's molecules?<br /><br />How do you propose proteins, for example, came to be informational rather than purely statistical in creation (or evolution)?<br /><br />I agree this does compare with language and grammar - note also the need to translate - as in messenger RNA, etc. <br /><br />Posts on this forum, for example, are not mere random input of letters and numbers but are in language with grammar - and in a language able to be read by other posters who have access to this forum.<br /><br />It would do no good, for example, if DNA was in a language other necessary for lilfe biomolecules could not read! Or if they could read it but not know how to use it. Or if the information would not sustain life. Etc.!

 

[doc_harra]

<br /><br />I will counter (as I disagree with part of what you posted) that scientists have observed the principle (law) of cause and effect. <br /><br />The one EXCEPTION on cause and effect is the first cause. <br /><br />Illogical, IT DOES NOT COMPUTE! <br /><br />Please also tell me exactly where the first cause came from

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />We’ll get booted to phenomenon with this kind of discussion, but it’s one worth having just the same. <br /><br />In another thread is the idea that our reality is a kind of computer simulation. The analogy is such a good match to what we know about life that it makes one feel a little weird. <br /><br />Suppose that what we call real is nothing more than a Star Trek type hologram (a simple hologram is made of two interfering laser beams which distribute information ubiquitously in their interference patterns, the universe would require a more complex hologram)</i><br /><br />I just finished reading The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene. And he also thinks our universe is a hologram, but not the same hologram as you would think. In the last chapter The Future of an Allusion (pp. 470-493), he speaks of a 2 dimensional universe (spaceless and timeless) within our 4 dimensional universe (3 space + 1 time). When he talks about the hologram, he uses the analogy of our 3 spacial dimensions projecting from a 2 dimensional shadow ( just go outside in the sun and look on the ground, and think of the projection, in the opposite direction). Our 3 spacial dimensions are the hologram within this 2 dimensional shadow universe (spaceless and timeless).<br /><br />He doesn't just dream this up. It's based on blackhole entropy. As more mass, increases the size of the blackhole, it gets heavier and bigger (in volume). Therefore, the entropy (disorder) can not increase (like in BB Theory). In otherwords, you can't squeeze more stuff into a smaller space. Space has a limit. He says that in the 1970's, J. Bekenstein and Stephen Hawking showed that the entropy of a blackhole is proportional to it's surface area (2 dimensions) as opposed to it's volume (3 dimensions). I read the chapter twice, and this is the best that I can explain it. Now, I'm going to go out on a limb, and speculate. I think that this 2 dimensional (timeless and spaceless) universe can support many holo <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Time to suit up.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[fatal291]

Maby death is an excuse for someone to live.

 

[dannyd]

We are so far from knowing the reality of existence speculation at this juncture barely, if at all, passes superstition. Should humans abide in some form for long eons to come perhaps we can nibble at some morsel of truth - but it all seems so distant for we are barely out of the caves and the great books of rampant superstition. Keep grinding. d

 

[spacester]

Nice thread, this forum is as good as any for Philosophy, IMNSHO <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br />The title question is akin to what George Berkeley (Bar-clay), the subjective idealist, thought.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">My humble conclusion is that the word "reality" cannot be used to describe physics.</font><br />My understanding is that science has no refutation for that conclusion. I’m not sure I’m prepared to make the philosophical argument to back that up, but I’m familiar with it. My understanding is rather clear that as of the 1930s, while Quantum Mechanics was still young, science did not yet have a refutation. It seems to me that things have just gotten weirder since then <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> so I’d be very interested in attempts to unite “physics” and “reality”.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />Nice thread, this forum is as good as any for Philosophy, IMNSHO <br />The title question is akin to what George Berkeley (Bar-clay), the subjective idealist, thought. </i><br /><br />I'd hate to rain on YOUR reality <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> but, Physicist Brian Greene says "....I'd pick the holographic principle as the one most likely to play a dominant role in future research. It emerges from a basic feature of blackholes-their entropy- the understanding of which, many physicists agree, rests on firm theoretical foundations. Even if the details of our theories should change, we expect that any sensible descriptions of gravity, will allow for blackholes, and hence, the entropy bounds driving this discussion will persist, and holography will apply"( p. 485 The Fabric of the Cosmos).<br /><br />As Brian Green states through out his books, these new theories aren't going to change anything except how we look at our world. If you don't want to look in that direction, that's your business, it's certainly none of mine! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[spacester]

Brian Greene is definitely one of my favorites. To tell you the truth, I have a lot of catching up to do before I should even try to discuss this topic. BTW, philosophically, I am very much NOT an subjective idealist. I was just pointing out that, as shown earlier in the thread, the physicist is still not prepared to discuss 'reality', as strange as that may sound to the scientific ear.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[enigma10]

So according to your reasoning, if all that space were somehow removed, then reality would be more real for you?<br /><br /> Guess you better look into a few black holes. I understand space is at a premium there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />So according to your reasoning, if all that space were somehow removed, then reality would be more real for you? </i><br />Huh?<br />Here's what I actually said:<br /><font color="yellow"><br />Space is the underlying reality. If you look at the thickest piece of steel or concrete in our world, it's full of empty space.</font><br /><br />If you removed all the space, you wouldn't be in this dimension (physical reality), you'd be in another dimension (spaceless).<br /><i><br /> Guess you better look into a few black holes. I understand space is at a premium there.</i><br /><br />No arguement here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[enigma10]

So a black hole would be a diminsional portal of sort? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[harmonicaman]

<i>"So a black hole would be a diminsional portal of sort?"</i><br /><br />In my opinion, no. The black hole is a place where static "m" and "E" (mass and energy) is collapsed together in a solid state of rest. <br /><br />Time and space ("c") is forced to infinitely curve around this solid area of mass, so there is no time or space available to create a dimensional portal -- the "m" does not possess the capability to do anything by itself, the presence of "c" is necessary for any interactions to occur.

 

[enigma10]

it was a bait statement to continue his line of reasoning, but thanks for crashing that party. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />So a black hole would be a diminsional portal of sort? </i><br /><br />No, a blackhole still has space within each degenerative proton and neutron that has piled up (because the Strong Force within each of them, is preventing them from collapsing). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[enigma10]

how can you be sure? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[rfoshaug]

That discussion of whether a black hole might be a portal to another dimension somehow makes me think of two mice discussing whether the mousetrap might be some kind of teleportation mechanism.<br /><br />If you enter a black hole, you will die. You'll die long before you even enter the event horizon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />it was a bait statement to continue his line of reasoning, but thanks for crashing that party.</font><br /><br />Chill-out, Dude. The party's not over, until The Fat Lady Sings. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />how can you be sure? </font><br /><br />The electromagnetic force (electrons) are crushed down to nothing, which is why the mass is static. The Strong Force is 100x stronger than the electromagnetic force. There has to be some space within the degenrative protons and neutrons, otherwise, there would be no space within them, and the blackhole wouldn't be there!<br />It would be in another dimension! Remember, it takes space to have a dimension. <br /><br />Also, IIRC, the protons in blackholes decay after about 100 trillion years. Apparantly, the Strong Force doesn't last forever, and neither do blackholes; they evaporate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>