But being neuroscientist he is is familiar with the foibles of the human sensory system, so even on a macro level he could show you where we fail in recording reality. For example: when you see a wall full of bricks you don't see every individual brick, the brain takes a sample of an area then clones them across the area that is the wall. The perception of reality is constructed.

 

 

I don't think anyone would disagree with that (*) but it is a large leap from "what we perceive is constructed and may not exactly represent the external reality" to "reality doesn't exists!!!1!"

 

 

(*) well, actually, I know from a long running thread on another forum that some people would!

Are particles considered to be nonexistent?

Are particles considered to be nonexistent?

 

They are all pulling your leg, mate.

 

Oops sorry just realised your leg doesn't exist so you can't feel it.

 

Are particles considered to be nonexistent?

 

 

What do you mean by "particle"?

What do you mean by "nonexistent"?

And considered by who?

 

Could you ask questions that are less vague (and less repetitive).

Edited October 3, 20169 yr by Strange

 

 

What do you mean by "particle"?

What do you mean by "nonexistent"?

And considered by who?

 

Could you ask questions that are less vague (and less repetitive).

I don't know.. I am asking you since I don't know..

I don't know.. I am asking you since I don't know..

 

 

You asked the original question. Now it appears you didn't understand the terminology you used — that's a problem, communication-wise.

 

As Strange had implied, maybe you could ask a better question. Can you rephrase what you asked, and such that you understand the words you are using?

 

 

Are rabbit holes real?

 

A bit mischievous but it is not possible is it that this whole "hole versus particle" question might be the basis of what defines the world of ideas against the world we live in?

 

Could all our thoughts be like the rabbit holes-or at least take advantage of the dual nature of things and their borders?

 

I am sure I am entirely wrong of course but the relationship of ideas/physicality seems like one that will remain mysterious (at least to me) long after we have found a way to reconcile Quantum Mechanics and GR.

Edited October 5, 20169 yr by geordief

By the way what do you think about the theory of Donald Hoffman?

By the way what do you think about the theory of Donald Hoffman?

 

 

I think it's a neuroscience theory, and is not a discussion for the modern and theoretical physics section.

I searched for classical objects and I figured out that they are objects that have well defined borders and obey the rules of classical physics.

I searched for classical objects and I figured out that they are objects that have well defined borders and obey the rules of classical physics.

 

You mean, those things that exist all around us. I think that answers the question.

Yes but according to quantum mechanics objects don't have definite borders and don't obey the rules of quantum mechanics 😄 Do I get it right?

Yes but according to quantum mechanics objects don't have definite borders and don't obey the rules of quantum mechanics Do I get it right?

Quantum mechanics doesn't apply to classical objects. Or, more specifically, the behavior at the classical limit is very different in quantum mechanics than it is far from that limit.