The Universe Is Your Imagination

[Deffpony]

Robert Lanza, a scientist in the fields of biology and regenerative medicine, has a very interesting conceptual hypothesis for the origin of the universe and physics.

 

When a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it fall, does it make a sound? Well Dr. Lanza says no. He proposes that everything in the universe is dependant on our imaginations and the perception of the viewers. Nothing exists until we observe it.

 

Sounds kinda nuts right? Well if you know anything about quantum mechanics then you can see how his theory isnt that absurd.

 

In quantum mechanics it is known that the moment a particle is measured or observed, it actually changes. This is called the observer effect. The problem this creates is that we are unable to know what the particle features REALLY are since the act of observing them changes the outcome.

 

 

Think of it this way, there is a particle that can look exactly like any letter in the alphabet. But when we look at it, it always looks like the letter W. We know that it can be all 25 letters, but it is only W once we look at it, and there for we have no idea if it is indeed W, or if it actually exists at all. This gave rise to the commonly known mutli dimensional theory.

 

So if this is true with particles than it is also true with all forms of matter. The tree can be a cloud of floating particles when we are not looking at it, or it can be a firetruck, or it can be nothing at all. But once we observe it, then it becomes the falling tree.

 

This is obviously a wildy refuted concept and cannot be tested with our current knowledge of physics. But if possible it could create a domino of possibilities for all questions including the origin of the universe and life itself.

 

Is everthing just a haze without conciousness? Does "reality" come from within our own minds??

 

 

Any scientific support I have used is from my own knowledge. If what I have said is inaccurate please let me know. I like to have my facts straight.

[Clem Fandango]

It makes sense to me. If those sneaky particles preform a different function based on whether or not they are observed then one person's perception is enough to change reality. How does the opposition to this theory explain that; maybe somebody more scientifically literate can explain it to me. Looking at you, K^2.

[Deffpony]

It makes sense to me. If those sneaky particles preform a different function based on whether or not they are observed then one person's perception is enough to change reality. How does the opposition to this theory explain that; maybe somebody more scientifically literate can explain it to me. Looking at you, K^2.

Well its not a theory, but a concept. It would need to be supported completely to be considered a theory.

 

The problem is that everything we know at this point is based on absolutes. There are alot of missing pieces, especially with quantum mechanics, but even those are in line with the absolutes we already have.

 

However this concept pretty much states that everything we know, even those absolutes, are merely a product of our perception of the world. It is honestly not even a scientific question but more of a philosophical question

[Pyrrhic]

We know that it can be all 25 letters

This is where you lost me.

[Deffpony]

We know that it can be all 25 letters

This is where you lost me.

Ok look at it like this.

 

Your playing roulette. As the wheel spins you know the outcome can be any of the numbers on the board. But every time you stop it it lands on 12, no matter how many times.

 

That does not mean that 12 is the only number on that wheel, and what if the the wheel is never stopped, then does that mean that a number would never even exist

[GTA-King]

came into this thread blazed. was the first best decision I have made tonight.

 

 

[Big_Mitch_Baker]

This is actually an old theory, long before Niels Bohr or any of those physicists...even predates what we know as "quantum physics" (lookup Alester Crowleys cult The Golden Dawn and compare haddut and nut to String Theory.)

 

Anyway, this is what we call pseudoscience. It's a perception based off a misinterpretation of Schrodinger cat. It was meant to be an example of the funciton of a single sub-atomic particle, not an entire physical object made of billions of particles. However the laymans who heard the example assumed that this meant the observer could change the outcome of actual real-world objects through simple observation.

 

This is combined with some more pseudoscience perpetuated by "new-age" movements that claim mind > matter (the book "The Secret" made famous by Oprah is an prime example of how this idea is marketed to the masses). It stems from discovery that all matter in the universe (when broken down past the Quarks) is just wavelengths. Very similar to the wavelengths given off from the brain as human thought (alpha, beta, ect). So people jumped to the conclusion that thought IS matter, but in reality the fact that everything is made of waves doesn't mean one wave has any control over another. That's the problem with quantum physics though, it's mostly speculative at this point...

 

Also keep in mind that, in science, an "observer" isn't just a person watching or measuring (it also refers to an interaction)

Edited January 15, 2013 by Big_Mitch_Baker

[Deffpony]

This is actually an old theory, long before Niels Bohr or any of those physicists...even predates what we know as "quantum physics" (lookup Alester Crowleys cult The Golden Dawn and compare haddut and nut to String Theory.)

 

Anyway, this is what we call pseudoscience. It's a perception based off a misinterpretation of Schrodinger cat. It was meant to be an example of the funciton of a single sub-atomic particle, not an entire physical object made of billions of particles. However the laymans who heard the example assumed that this meant the observer could change the outcome of actual real-world objects through simple observation.

 

This is combined with some more pseudoscience perpetuated by "new-age" movements that claim mind > matter (the book "The Secret" made famous by Oprah is an prime example of how this idea is marketed to the masses). It stems from discovery that all matter in the universe (when broken down past the Quarks) is just wavelengths. Very similar to the wavelengths given off from the brain as human thought (alpha, beta, ect). So people jumped to the conclusion that thought IS matter, but in reality the fact that everything is made of waves doesn't mean one wave has any control over another. That's the problem with quantum physics though, it's mostly speculative at this point...

 

Also keep in mind that, in science, an "observer" isn't just a person watching or measuring (it also refers to an interaction)

Yes thank you for that last part. I understand that an action has to be applied to be constitued as an observer. I was kind of just trying to simplify the explanation. I didnt know all that history behind it. Thanks man

[DEALUX]

So if this is true with particles than it is also true with all forms of matter.

No, it's not. That's comparable to saying that everyday objects behave in the same random way as subatomic particles.

[Finn 7 five 11]

So if this is true with particles than it is also true with all forms of matter.

No, it's not. That's comparable to saying that everyday objects behave in the same random way as subatomic particles.

Well objects are made of these sub-atomic particles in case you didn't know.

 

@The OP, However I don't really think so, how is it that everyone can observe the exact same thing? Our minds vary greatly, but how could we all have the exact same imagination?

[DEALUX]

 

 

[El Zilcho]

 

So if this is true with particles than it is also true with all forms of matter.

No, it's not. That's comparable to saying that everyday objects behave in the same random way as subatomic particles.

Which we know they don't, otherwise everything would be phasing in and out of position, continually collapsing and probably render life, matter and radiation as we know it completely different.

 

As for the observer concept of quantum physics, I remember reading somewhere it was something to do with actually having to interfere with the tiny particle using radiation (e.g. photons) to measure it, rather than some sort of sentient hoodoo about it changing it's state because it meta-detects someone watching, like a derobed person hiding in a cubicle. Am I right? Or is my hazy memory failing me here?

[Finn 7 five 11]

 

Well since I missed the point why don't you explain your point and how I missed it.

 

 

Anyway, this is what we call pseudoscience. It's a perception based off a misinterpretation of Schrodinger cat. It was meant to be an example of the funciton of a single sub-atomic particle, not an entire physical object made of billions of particles. However the laymans who heard the example assumed that this meant the observer could change the outcome of actual real-world objects through simple observation.

 

Reading this I can see what your point may have been, if you could clarify though that would be good, because If I miss the point, chances are I don't see the point and won't see the point because I am misinterpreting what you are trying to say.

[Clem Fandango]

rather than some sort of sentient hoodoo about it changing it's state because it meta-detects someone watching

I thought it was more that the result of whatever function it has can be observed without the actual process being observed, and while observing the process it had a different result? Or at least that's how its been explained to me on more than one occasion.

[DEALUX]

 

@finn4life The point was that everyday objects behave in a deterministic way regardless of the fact that they are made of these particles.

[Raavi]

Widespread acceptance of an apparent truth is not proof of its validity.

[Shyabang Shyabang]

 

When a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it fall, does it make a sound? Well Dr. Lanza says no. He proposes that everything in the universe is dependant on our imaginations and the perception of the viewers. Nothing exists until we observe it.

 

Sounds kinda nuts right? Well if you know anything about quantum mechanics then you can see how his theory isnt that absurd.

 

In quantum mechanics it is known that the moment a particle is measured or observed, it actually changes. This is called the observer effect. The problem this creates is that we are unable to know what the particle features REALLY are since the act of observing them changes the outcome.......

What if there are other people and animals observing? To whom is the existence of the object restricted to?

 

I can see this being used in a computer game to save memory. When an object doesn't appear in the screen, its information is stored as a simple code, or something.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Shyabang Shyabang

[Clem Fandango]

@finn4life The point was that everyday objects behave in a deterministic way regardless of the fact that they are made of these particles.

I think the idea that everything is just "simplified" by our perception seems pretty plausible. In essence, everything is too complex to process (the OP used the apt example of a tree being a bunch of floating, in this case incomprehensible, particles but appears to us as a simple tree) so everything is filtered into robust matter.

[3niX]

Well...

 

 

Sounds kinda nuts right? Well if you know anything about quantum mechanics then you can see how his theory isnt that absurd.

Actually, thats the part where it falls apart because the concepts used to justify this belief are misinterpreted/misrepresented.

[na89340qv0n34b09q340]

I finished Serial Experiments Lain a week or so ago and got something kind of like that out of it. Your existence in this universe can only be proven when you leave an impact in other people's thoughts, so all those people around you, any thing in this world actually, only exists in your version of this universe the moment you think about it. You know that lady that you passed at the supermarket the other day? She didn't exist for you (and according to your theory, at all) until you acknowledged her.

Not really a mind blowing thought, just something interesting to think about.

[Saggy]

This is the type of stuff I think about when I'm taking a dump and have smoked a little too much... Do people actually get paid to think about stuff like this?

[Finn 7 five 11]

 

This is the type of stuff I think about when I'm taking a dump and have smoked a little too much...  Do people actually get paid to think about stuff like this?

The guy in your signature, probably.

[Cheat]

You don't have to understand the first thing about quantum mechanics to understand metaphysics. It's not pseudoscience either.

 

It's a matter of metaphysics and epistemology, the question of whether or not things exist outside perception. During ancient times, Socrates split being into two levels, one which objectively holds the mysteries of creation and existence and one in which these manifestate theirselves through human perception. Throughout the Middle Ages, man tried to find true knowledge through God being the only one that exists (Spinoza) and mathematics and though (Descartes). In the beginning of the 18th century, George Berkeley proposed that "esse est percipi", to be is to be perceived. Thus, he claimed that things do not exist outside perception. Sounds absurd? Then try and explain how something you can't see, hear, smell or feel can exist. Inspired by Berkeley, Immanuel Kant's phenomenalism and transcendental idealism followed, holding that our perceptions are given a meaning by sense and neither can exist without the other.

 

I'm having a hard time believing the solipsist perception of the universe being merely a creation of the mind (although I find it hard to argue against) but I also believe that if any object is hidden from my senses - be it a tree falling in a forest or anything else - I cannot truly know whether it exists or not, I can only try to reason why it would and why it wouldn't and come up with a conclusion to believe in, not know.

[manofpeace]

Particles change when we observe them because you can't observe something unless you expose it to some sort of stimuli, be it light or motion or whatever.

[Deffpony]

I know that this concept is obviously way out there and doesnt have alot of support, but its kind of a cool idea.

 

I dont think its true, but the fact that there is so much we dont know about the universe it wouldnt be that far off to think that everything we know is wrong

[DEALUX]

 

It's a matter of metaphysics and epistemology, the question of whether or not things exist outside perception.

I don't know about that. I think awareness\consciousness is purely physical and therefore physical things must exist outside of that as awareness is a manifestation of matter, not the other way around. It's just a hypothesis of mine.

[Cheat]

Exactly, it's a matter of opinion, materialism and physics opposing idealism and metaphysics. To me, the mind is such a beautiful and enormous thing that I simply don't want to believe that mere matters of physics and mathematics can be used to describe things like emotions and consciousness, even if they are able to accurately describe the fundamental, material sources such as the body and chemical compounds such as dopamine and serotonin. I believe that out of matter, something immaterial can emerge.

[DEALUX]

You're basically saying you don't want beautiful things to be explained. I personally think that things can still be appreciated no matter what the explanation behind them is. Sometimes the explanation makes you appreciate them even more, like for instance with music, knowing how music is made can make you appreciate it more and on another level.

[Cheat]

I may have put it so but allow me to explain myself further.

 

I'll make a parable. You mentioned music, one of my favorite things in the world and something I believe is purely fantastic and beautiful. I'm a music enthusiast, writer and guitarist and have never found music theory too interesting, but I do admit that it has helped me understand and improve my playing. However, no matter how deeply I have studied the subject, it has never made music any more meaningful to me nor do I believe that by fully understanding music theory one can fully comprehend the magic of music, the goosebumps and the euphoria one can experience through music. No, there's got to be something more, something we are not even purposed to ever comprehend. That being said, by reducing the phenomena that occurs in the mind and nature to the particles obeying the laws of quantum mechanics and then mathematics, yes, new information can be found and appreciation towards reality can rise but by focusing on only the matter and the laws it obeys one cannot truly comprehend that which arises from these factors. That's where the immaterial comes into play, the emotions, the experiences.

[DEALUX]

Well, everybody is different. I'm more into electronic music and there's plenty of stuff I can appreciate about it, but there's knowledge to be appreciated about any music. Sometimes I'm fascinated about drums and I'm thinking about how they evolved over time. Other times I'm fascinated about synthesizers, how people have incorporated those artificial sounds into music, the pioneers and inventors of instruments and genres and the engineering aspects of the instruments themselves. There are fascinating aspects about music theory as well in my opinion (its history).

 

I think it all depends on your attitude and expectations. Scientific explanations don't undermine the pleasure I experience from those feelings. Similarly, I don't believe in free will but that doesn't stop me from doing the things I like and enjoying myself.