Is something only real if it is observed? Even if we allow that other intelligent life exsists somewhere out there, the vast majority of our surrounding universe is unobserved. No one is there to see it. Is it's exsistance real without observance? Must there be a higher level of exsistance beyond this if only for there to be the capacity to observe all that is there. And, I know what you're going to say, God is there to observe everything. But if God is the only observer, what verification is there of this observation taking place. With monotheism there is no corroborating witness. What is the point of a universe that is not generally, multiply observed? The universe could be like a movie ghost town with fake fronts and nothing behind and it wouldn't make any difference, would it?
I read a paper recently, it was by a guy who has studied Quantum physics for 30 years. Even though this is the case I do doubt the scientific credibility of him. Still it's an interesting thoery. "Science has know for a long time that the world isn't really solid. It consists of atoms, with so much space between that the only thing that stops one object from passing through another is the energy field of moving electrons. Then they discovered that the atom isn't really solid, it has a tiny nucleus, with electrons in wide orbit around it. The actual amount of solid matter is so small that if the earth was condensed into neutronium, which means that all the electrons collapsed into the nuclei of each atom, it would be about 1cm across. Then it was discovered that even the nucleus wasn't even solid. It consists of protons and neutrons, with much spacing in between, and these particles are furthur divided into quarks, with more space in between." Now here's the interesting bit: "The quarks can be furthur divided into neutrinos. It was then discovered that not only are the quarks made of neutrinos, but the space in between is also made of neutrinos, but vibrating at a different rate. The only difference between substance and nothing is the vibratory rate of the neutrinos. When the scientists experimented to see why the neutrinos would become one thing one moment and something else the next, they discovered that neutrinos always become what they are expected to become. So they have confirmed what mystics said all along; that matter is an illusion created by our consciousness. The wave-particle duality model shows us that these particles are waves until they are observed. Observation localises the waves into particles. The whole universe is nothing but a wave pattern that we make real with our awareness."
That is damn interesting. IMHO, the only shot we have for an afterlife is if this is an illusion. Either a recreation or learning experience from another reality. We are sent to earth to learn about time, lets say. It could be teaching us how to better focus on the now. Of course if now is all there is, it's a busy place to be.
IMHO it may be a mistake to think of our individual minds as separate from the universe. I think that we are part and parcel of the existence of the universe. Why is it we concern ourselves with an afterlife when there is so much to concern ourselves with in the "now?" Our "being" as individuals allows each of us a unique point of observation in the time-space continuum, and I don't think we have devoted nearly enough time analyzing (or appreciating) just how important each of our points of observation are. The complexity of our individuality is a thing which we take for granted instead of the true wonder which it really is.
well i don't believe exitence requires observation. i believe i may have been unobserved several times in my (this) life and my experience of them is contiguous with the rest of my existence. i do not appear to have ceased to exist during them. this is one reason i refuse to reject out of hand the possible existence of the none tangable, but do seriously question its resemblence to anything widely believed about it, or that such deffinicians as they attempt to impose on it begin and end other then in speculation i can see where we are all part of the same wave pattern though that IS interesting if we knew how to use that we might all be gods or the same one one god as the case might be i wonder what the limitation is that protects us from doing so this goes along with my speculation that this world is not so much a hell as a nursery and we are all infant gods, learning how to crawl, perhapse not yet safe to let out of our cribs
I think what needs to be considered is that, if we don't observe something, it doesn't matter whether it exists or not. From a physics point of view, the only things that I could ever possibly care about are those that have somehow influenced me in the past (actions that I have, directly or indirectly, felt the results of), or those that I myself will influence in the future. From my point of view, the existence of everything else is the same as if it didn't exist.
Well, if things are significant because they have influenced you, then we are back to the whole universe. The big bang leading in domino effect to earth, evolution and finally you posting the above. And indeed many things we never encounter have a profound effect on us. You may have never met the person who introduced your great grandparents which led to your grandpa which led to your dad which led to you. But you didn't see that person and have no idea how real or not they are. Observable reality from a personal point of view is a really small circle. The range of your eyeball. Even on the edge of the Grand Canyon that is a small area relative to the universe. Unless there is a higher state of being, most of all there is floats meaninglessly in vacumous space or at the bottom of the ocean. What a dumb ass reality this is if the majority of it is hidden, lifeless, unfullfilled and meaningless.
Very true. The whole world may be an illusion, but what is the point of dwelling on that possibility? Thinking concretely, assuming the earth is real and other people are real seems the most reposnsible thing. When everyone assumed only heaven and God were real then they didn't try and protect species and the environment. Even now it is religious extremeists who deny the realiaty of global warming. What we have here, can sense and interact with, this is our world and we need to get on with saving it rather than trying to escape to some 'bigger' reality.
That's not entirely true, we're not back to the whole universe. Look at this: The fastest way anything that may concern me, any information can go is the speed of light. So, if something happens so far away (and the Universe is pretty big) light cannot reach me, it's something outside this "light cone". The light cone is my universe, it's my whole past and future, but there are many things in the Universe that are not inside it.
Only the in-cone things directly effect you. Observable effect. But things happening outside your cone could have a profound effect on you. More so perhaps if we understood the full functionality of worm holes and parallel universes if any. The next room is out of my observable scope but a bomb in there could blow me to smithereens. The bottom line is that we go forward mainly on assumptions. I assume that work is still there, so I climb in my car and head that way. I assume the moon is on the other side of the earth so I'm not surprised when I see it again. Most of these things though are based on experience. I see, feel, hear, smell something and then for the rest of my life I make an assumption about it. Whether or not I can see it all the time. What about assumptions people make that involve no direct experience. Things they assume without evidence. Like God. We have as much sensory evidence for God as we do for the tooth fairy but wink wink nudge nudge we don't really believe in the tooth fairy. Is spiritual belief like professional wrestling? We all know it isn't real but it's so damn fun to watch. Except in the case of Pro-wrestling you actually get to watch something. With religion you get to watch somebody talking about the thing you've never seen. And yet I'm blindly hopeful.
Observation is needed for reality. Now, the bomb in the next room can kill me even though I didn't observe it (until it went off, anyway). But, someone observed it, or it wouldn't exist. So, the question is, or rather what I mean, is, we are all eyes of God, if you will. "I s" of God. So someone is always observing something. Observed things are reality. The idea of God, or more properly J. Christ, is based on the observations of the disciples. Let me ask this, has the law of Gavity always existed, or did it come into being when Newton first observed it? (MeAgain)
Damn, I never replied? It's at least the second time I mistake the 'preview' button for the 'send' button! Well, let me know if you still want the reply, woog...
The disciples observing JC as God is an assumption based on the interpretation of an observation. And in the bible, the reinterpretation of the interpretation of an observation. In any case, it should require personal observation before anyone gets called god almighty. IMHO And if you're that juice## guy, don't answer, please!!!
Sorry, just don't recall what I had to say... it was a reasonably long reply, but I've no idea what it was about. Well, if it can directly affect me, it must be in-cone. I guess the main difference is between assumptions based on experience and those based on what somebody else MAY have experienced. Experience might as well count as what we usually call 'reality', because we'll never know otherwise anyway. Assumptions without experience are likely to be wrong. It is possible that the universe outside my time cone is based on very different principles than the one I know.
"Componets of reality influence one another in an observable manner" Observation is not nesacary- only the theoretical possibility.
