Jump to content
jackgod

what is reality made of ?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Thorham said:

Both truth and reality are objective. They simply are what they are regardless of what we can and can't know about them.

I disagree with all of that. What you deem true is personal to you, and science can't help you determine if you're in a matrix simulation or not, so reality is also a personal perspective. Truth and reality are philosophical topics, not objective science. 

That doesn't mean philosophy isn't valuable, but the OP is asking questions about quantum physics, so it's important to establish the proper methodology. Truth and reality are subjective, and science avoids them wherever possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jackgod said:

the cat in the box theory that the cat is w ether alive or died so can this be also true for reality as a whole, what if we humans are here because we are being observed in this law it would be like a loop a never ending loop one thing is their to observe the other.

IMHO "cat in the box" just shows inability to predict particle state until observation (it doesn't mean literal observation by naked eye!). Better word is measurement. As it can be made by any device. It's all about randomness at quantum level. When there is enough of particles (billions, trillions etc.), we can predict with some level of precision how system will behave at macroscopic level (therefor entire classical physics, which often lacks of randomness, which is causing philosophers to think about determinism, or even "greater plan" etc. etc.). Observation causes change of state of system, no matter if it's quantum system, or macroscopic system. When you're using Mercury thermometer to measure temperature of e.g. water, Mercury absorbs energy, and it's gone from object under observation (and never returns back!). Very tiny lose, nothing important at macroscopic level. Observation often means absorption of photons. Because you, or device, see event, these photons are gone from system under observation/measurement, and cannot be absorbed somewhere else, can't cause other event in the future anymore.

The smaller system, quantum system, the larger influence of measurement has on the state of system. The more energy is absorbed from system.

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I disagree with all of that. What you deem true is personal to you, and science can't help you determine if you're in a matrix simulation or not, so reality is also a personal perspective. Truth and reality are philosophical topics, not objective science. 

The truth is what it is and reality is what it is regardless of what anyone thinks or believes they are. Thinking that something is true doesn't make it true.

That matrix simulation is just another part of reality. Whether we know we're in such a simulation or not doesn't change that.

It's our viewpoint that's subjective, not reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Thorham said:

The truth is what it is and reality is what it is regardless of what anyone thinks or believes they are.

Please cite an objective example of "truth". Please cite an objective example of "reality".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Please cite an objective example of "truth". Please cite an objective example of "reality".

The easy answers to those questions are very obvious: You could say that it's true that reality exists (whatever that might be) and that reality is just everything that exists (whatever all that is), but that doesn't really lead anywhere.

What I want to know is how not knowing what the truth and reality are makes these things subjective?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Thorham said:

The easy answers to those questions are very obvious: You could say that it's true that reality exists (whatever that might be) and that reality is just everything that exists (whatever all that is), but that doesn't really lead anywhere.

Whose reality are we talking about, because I obviously don't identify with what you claim is "real" and "true"? How can you know that this "reality" of yours isn't a simulation that only looks "real"? How can I trust anything you claim is "true" if you're experiencing something different than I am? Many things are claimed to be truth, and you yourself show here that trying to cite examples leads to fallacious circular reasoning. "It's true that reality exists"?! Think that one through a bit further.

3 minutes ago, Thorham said:

What I want to know is how not knowing what the truth and reality are makes these things subjective?

Because you're free to claim whatever you want when you invoke your reality or your truth. You might claim that an all-powerful creator has given us life in order to test us, or that there is a simple answer to the workings of the universe if only we were wise enough to listen. Truth seems like a simple concept, but perhaps because of that, many interpretations of the concept arise. And what is reality? Can you really define it so everyone agrees? Because if you can't, your definition is subjective.

To talk about this scientifically, forget truths and proofs and reality. Look instead for "evidence" "observed" in "nature". This is what we know, this is what we can test, this is what we can base predictions on that help us build our knowledge in a trustworthy way. We can work as if certain physical laws are universal without assuming it's "true" everywhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Whose reality are we talking about, because I obviously don't identify with what you claim is "real" and "true"? How can you know that this "reality" of yours isn't a simulation that only looks "real"? How can I trust anything you claim is "true" if you're experiencing something different than I am? Many things are claimed to be truth, and you yourself show here that trying to cite examples leads to fallacious circular reasoning. "It's true that reality exists"?! Think that one through a bit further.

I claim that reality is everything that exists regardless of what I know, think I know or don't know. If what I experience is a simulation, or an illusion, etc, then that is simply also part of reality because it exists. The fact that I don't know doesn't change that.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Because you're free to claim whatever you want when you invoke your reality or your truth. You might claim that an all-powerful creator has given us life in order to test us, or that there is a simple answer to the workings of the universe if only we were wise enough to listen. Truth seems like a simple concept, but perhaps because of that, many interpretations of the concept arise.

Truth is a simple concept. I can indeed claim whatever I want, but that doesn't mean my claims are true, even if I truly believe those claims. Personal truths aren't necessarily actually true.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

And what is reality? Can you really define it so everyone agrees? Because if you can't, your definition is subjective.

Like I said before, it's just everything that exists. What we think exists and what really exists are potentially two entirely different things.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

To talk about this scientifically, forget truths and proofs and reality. Look instead for "evidence" "observed" in "nature". This is what we know, this is what we can test, this is what we can base predictions on that help us build our knowledge in a trustworthy way. We can work as if certain physical laws are universal without assuming it's "true" everywhere. 

This is the philosophy part of the forum :P What you're talking about is the practical side of things. With science we can do and make all kinds of stuff, but you won't get certain answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Thorham said:

This is the philosophy part of the forum :P What you're talking about is the practical side of things. 

The side where you don't just get to claim reality is everything that exists and expect that to have any meaning whatsoever. And, again, it was in answer to a question about quantum physics, where this thread started. 

But please, go ahead and make up whatever impractical truths you like while you're in this part of the forum, and call it philosophy. You think, therefore you are. Truth is simple, so simple it's hard to find examples of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I guess void represents 99,9%. The rest are particles. Fields. And interactions. In-between all these, Life.

if void represents 99,9% so all of stars and galaxy are 0.1% of our universe?

matter - physical substance that consist of mass

Atom -   Atoms are the basic units of matter ( "protons, neutrons, and electrons. The protons and the neutrons make up the center of the atom called the nucleus and the electrons fly around above the nucleus in a small cloud. ")

https://sciencing.com/particles-smaller-atom-8484470.html

Reality:

  •  physical realm (matter)
  • atom
  • proton
  • neutrons
  • electrons
  • Quarks

just found this link

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-breakthrough-discoveryevery-quantum-particle.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here a nice article http://www.businessinsider.com/physics-atoms-empty-space-2016-9

Quote

 

the size of an atom is governed by the average location of its electrons— how much space there is between the nucleus and the atom's amorphous outer shell. Nuclei are around 100,000 times smaller than the atoms they're housed in.

If the nucleus were the size of a peanut, the atom would be about the size of a baseball stadium. If we lost all the dead space inside our atoms, we would each be able to fit into a particle of dust, and the entire human race would fit into the volume of a sugar cube.

 

 

Edited by michel123456

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, michel123456 said:

The rest are particles. Fields. And interactions.

We don't know if those things are "real" or just a good model that works.

1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

If we lost all the dead space inside our atoms, we would each be able to fit into a particle of dust

He seems to be saying that if you could get rid of the electrons, we would fit in a particle of dust. 

But most of the atom isn't empty space, it is electrons (distributed throughout that space). You can only view the atom as largely empty if you use the old Bohr model of the atom, which we know is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strange said:

We don't know if those things are "real" or just a good model that works.

He seems to be saying that if you could get rid of the electrons, we would fit in a particle of dust. 

But most of the atom isn't empty space, it is electrons (distributed throughout that space). You can only view the atom as largely empty if you use the old Bohr model of the atom, which we know is wrong.

But you cannot consider the electron cloud as a solid thing full of stuff either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, michel123456 said:

But you cannot consider the electron cloud as a solid thing full of stuff either.

The feel solid. :) 

(In other words, they are what make things around us feel solid.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1 de abril de 2018 at 5:09 PM, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

Just because you use a physics phrase or two does not mean you are discussing physics. Discuss the subject, not the modnote

 

"Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica"....Isaac Newton believed Physics is Philosophy, applied to understand Nature

I understand the practical need of separating Forums and keeping this one mainly technical, but I found your reprimands a bit patronizing.

Quantum Theory and QM may be the most "Philosophical" branch of Physics

And what about concepts like the weak and strong Antropic Principles? Science or Philosophy?

i will not pursue this anymore, just thought that a moderator should be more kind.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ricardo said:

"Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica"....Isaac Newton believed Physics is Philosophy, applied to understand Nature

We have moved on a long way since Newton. Both in physics and in the philosophy of science.

For example, the fact we are now aware we can have multiple valid theories for the same thing (e.g. Newtonian gravity and GR) with different, overlapping areas of applicability tells us that science is not about discovering The Truth or describing "reality" (whatever that is). It is more about producing useful models that tell us about how the world works.

4 hours ago, Ricardo said:

Quantum Theory and QM may be the most "Philosophical" branch of Physics

Interpretations may be pretty philosophical. But the science isn't. It is heavily mathematical and data based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.