Perspective and Reality.

[Sinjihn]

Originally Posted by Paul

Personal reality is really an unnecessary term in my opinion. Because, really, your ignorances and knowledge of the world don't deserve to hold the title of "reality" in my opinion.

My point is that, as experiments have shown, reality itself bends based on a person's perception. So reality itself depends on the individual. And not just that person's perception of things, but it affects those around them as well.

I don't think thats necessarily true, because perception doesn't affect who is around you, only if its something they say to you and you choose to consider it.

If i suddenly believe apples are blue and they turn blue, it won't affect anyone, at least, if this is what you are getting at.

[Paul]

Originally Posted by Sinjihn

I don't think thats necessarily true, because perception doesn't affect who is around you, only if its something they say to you and you choose to consider it.

If i suddenly believe apples are blue and they turn blue, it won't affect anyone, at least, if this is what you are getting at.

No, you're ignoring the term "Evidence". There is no proof that a tree will not make a sound if no-one is around. That is speculative. Purely, at this point. What there is evidence of is that the act of observation can literally travel through time in order to alter matter. Thus altering reality.

The rutherford's gold foil test is a pretty famous test. You shoot electrons at a piece of golden foil that has two slits in it. A wall behind the foil blocks the electrons, and the electrons stick to it to form the pattern in which they collided against the wall. When the experiment in progress is unobserved, these electrons take on a certain pattern. A pattern much like the ripples of water or any other wave form would create. Thus, they had to test this further. After all, electrons are matter, not waves. They concluded the particles were bouncing off of each other behind the foil, and that is how they created the wave form. So they shot electrons out one by one. It still made a wave form. This was pretty much impossible. No known trajectory from those particles should have been able to reach the wall in a wave pattern. Now they decided to stick a video camera in the room, zoomed in on the spot where the electrons passed through the foil, and this time the experiment yielded entirely different results. The electrons, while being observed, suddenly begin to act like matter again. The act of obervation "collapsed the wave function", and matter actually altered it's course while flying through the air as a result. How does this transcend time itself? Well, what is a video camera before you watch what's on the tape? Just an inanimate object. It's not living, it's not observing. It's just a machine. Now the person observing what is on that tape will view it whatever period of time later, and it's at that point that the act of observation will alter the path of those particles, and causing the video tape to record the path of a solid particle. I mean, there's no real arguing with it. I've LOOKED for a good counter argument to this experiment's results and conclusion, and I've found absolutely nothing of interest.

Anyway, this is obviously a very small thing that changes due to observation. But upon further inspection, who knows what our perception alters in every day life. It could be a lot more than any of us could imagine, really.

[lentan]

Ok...

Before I start, I would like to talk about a few arguments which were brought up in this thread.

1. Quantum Mechanics.
Quantum mechanics ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT say that being there to OBSERVE an experiment will affect the results. It says that the effect of trying to determine the exact slit the particle went through affects the final result.
However, this does not apply to everything! It applies to particles because using any method of observation which is used will affect the particle because it is so small. Ok, usually, you use some other particle to bounce off the particle to tell it's speed and position. However, the effect of bouncing it off will lead to you affecting the direction and speed of the particle you are measuring.
This absolutely does not apply to large objects because photons don't bounce off large objects hard enough to change their movement, AND the sum of the wavefunction of all the particles in a large objects pretty much determines that it moves in a line instead of existing in an indeterminate position.

2. Matrix
Perception = electrical signals sent to your brain. The computer reality always exists.

Ok, so now.

Back to defining concepts.

What is 'reality'?
I define it as everything that happens.
What is 'perception'?
I define it as everything that YOU SEE happens.

Ok, so now, can we have two different realities? C'mon, don't be shy, raise your hands and answer!
NO. It's impossible. Reality = what happens. Finish.

So what's the question?
Is there sound if a tree falls?
Well, as far as I know, sound = vibrations in air.
TS says not being able to observe the sound = no sound?
erm, i don't get how that is even possible, because sound can exist without you hearing it, just like i know i can exist even if you don't know me.

[Paul]

Originally Posted by lentan

1. Quantum Mechanics.
Quantum mechanics ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT say that being there to OBSERVE an experiment will affect the results. It says that the effect of trying to determine the exact slit the particle went through affects the final result.
However, this does not apply to everything! It applies to particles because using any method of observation which is used will affect the particle because it is so small. Ok, usually, you use some other particle to bounce off the particle to tell it's speed and position. However, the effect of bouncing it off will lead to you affecting the direction and speed of the particle you are measuring.

I never said that being there to observe ANY experiment will affect the results. But it's pretty much undeniable that the act of observation alone affects THAT experiment.

Originally Posted by lentan

This absolutely does not apply to large objects because photons don't bounce off large objects hard enough to change their movement, AND the sum of the wavefunction of all the particles in a large objects pretty much determines that it moves in a line instead of existing in an indeterminate position.

Not that we know of, at least. I mean, I'm no expert on quantum mechanics of course, but what I do know is that there are many theories out there, none particularly complete at all. But if observation could affect even electron particles, you have to admit that there's potentially a whole new realm of physics to be explored. Perhaps the act of observation, if the will is strong enough, could affect every part of the tree.

[Sinjihn]

Originally Posted by Paul

No, you're ignoring the term "Evidence". There is no proof that a tree will not make a sound if no-one is around. That is speculative. Purely, at this point. What there is evidence of is that the act of observation can literally travel through time in order to alter matter. Thus altering reality.

The rutherford's gold foil test is a pretty famous test. You shoot electrons at a piece of golden foil that has two slits in it. A wall behind the foil blocks the electrons, and the electrons stick to it to form the pattern in which they collided against the wall. When the experiment in progress is unobserved, these electrons take on a certain pattern. A pattern much like the ripples of water or any other wave form would create. Thus, they had to test this further. After all, electrons are matter, not waves. They concluded the particles were bouncing off of each other behind the foil, and that is how they created the wave form. So they shot electrons out one by one. It still made a wave form. This was pretty much impossible. No known trajectory from those particles should have been able to reach the wall in a wave pattern. Now they decided to stick a video camera in the room, zoomed in on the spot where the electrons passed through the foil, and this time the experiment yielded entirely different results. The electrons, while being observed, suddenly begin to act like matter again. The act of obervation "collapsed the wave function", and matter actually altered it's course while flying through the air as a result. How does this transcend time itself? Well, what is a video camera before you watch what's on the tape? Just an inanimate object. It's not living, it's not observing. It's just a machine. Now the person observing what is on that tape will view it whatever period of time later, and it's at that point that the act of observation will alter the path of those particles, and causing the video tape to record the path of a solid particle. I mean, there's no real arguing with it. I've LOOKED for a good counter argument to this experiment's results and conclusion, and I've found absolutely nothing of interest.

Anyway, this is obviously a very small thing that changes due to observation. But upon further inspection, who knows what our perception alters in every day life. It could be a lot more than any of us could imagine, really.

Based on this I can only assume that what we see through our eyes isn't, fundamentally correct, just socially correct. Observation doesn't change the properties of things persay, it just shows you what you can see, if you see what I'm getting at. The video didn't prove when something was watched it changes, it proved that when you watch things directly through your eyes, it may be different when you watch it through a 3rd party.

[Paul]

Originally Posted by Sinjihn

Based on this I can only assume that what we see through our eyes isn't, fundamentally correct, just socially correct. Observation doesn't change the properties of things persay, it just shows you what you can see, if you see what I'm getting at. The video didn't prove when something was watched it changes, it proved that when you watch things directly through your eyes, it may be different when you watch it through a 3rd party.

No, you're misunderstanding again. The results themselves changed. Without even looking at the experiment, you recieve a wave pattern. While watching on a camera that was built to zoom in on the electron and show how the electron could possibly pass through the foil in such a way that it would form the wave pattern, it altered it into two solid lines. It collapsed the wave form, and the results were no longer in a wave pattern.

It's comparable to this. Let's say we take a wall of fly paper and put a bunch of tennis balls in one of those launcher machines used to help tennis players practice. I put a wall up betweeen the fly paper and the machine. This wall has two vertical holes in it. Now I leave the room and do not watch as the experiment takes place. When I come back, there are seven vertical lines of tennic balls on the fly paper wall. Now that is baffling to me, since that really doesn't seem possible. Especially after I conduct the experiment sixty times with the same results. Now this time, I stay in the room and I watch the tennis balls in order to see how they manage to travel through these two slits and still reach the wall to form seven different vertical lines of tennis balls. When I watch, this time it happens the way I first predicted, and it only forms two vertical lines. Now every time I stay in the room to watch, the results are that two vertical lines are formed. Every time I leave, the results are that seven vertical lines are formed. It's the same general idea.

When results change due to observation alone, that's reality literally shifting due to observation. This isn't just a "personal reality", it's far larger than that.

[slingblader]

The scientist who created the original theory that observation alone ultimately makes records subjective was quoted in the SAT today, no lie. I wish I could remember the name.