The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/#:~:text=Under%20quantum%20mechanics%2C%20nature%20is,another%20no%20matter%20the%20distance.)
QuoteOne of the more unsettling discoveries in the past half century is that the universe is not locally real. "Real," meaning that objects have definite properties independent of observation—an apple can be red even when no one is looking; "local" means objects can only be influenced by their surroundings, and that any influence cannot travel faster than light.
QuoteInstead, the evidence shows objects are not influenced solely by their surroundings and they may also lack definite properties prior to measurement.
QuoteUnder quantum mechanics, nature is not locally real—particles lack properties such as spin up or spin down prior to measurement, and seemingly talk to one another no matter the distance.
I don't understand this at all. lol
It's pretty over my head, too.
The non-locality thing is interesting. Locality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality) is the idea that "an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings".
Imagine an island. We would expect that the only things that affect the island from the outside are sunlight, winds, and waves. But apparently that's not quite true - there's some "spooky action at a distance" (quantum entanglement) that seemingly affects things instantly - these changes are not propagated through the water or air. Very strange.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 07, 2022, 11:47:25 AMIt's pretty over my head, too.
The non-locality thing is interesting. Locality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality) is the idea that "an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings".
Imagine an island. We would expect that the only things that affect the island from the outside are sunlight, winds, and waves. But apparently that's not quite true - there's some "spooky action at a distance" (quantum entanglement) that seemingly affects things instantly - these changes are not propagated through the water or air. Very strange.
I kind of suspected that was the case. I think I've heard similar ideas before, of this idea that everything is connected by these invisible, string-like connections. I wonder if these connections could any significant effects that could be seen with a naked eye. If it's limited to the quantum level, it might not really matter much.
I am reminded of something author Michael Crichton once wrote about Harlan Ellison. This was before Jurassic Park, but Ellison accused Crichton of writing bad science fiction. Crichton said that he agreed in that he didn't think of himself as a science fiction author,
but it was annoying to placed into an unwanted category and then to be told that he fit that category badly.So they make this narrow definition of real and then say that the universe isn't that. It's kind of clickbaity, ya know. "The universe isn't REAL!!!1!" When the problem is with the definition.
Therefore magic.
Actually, this sounds like someone like me who had just finished watching porn and then wrote this whole article based on the limited understanding they'd gotten from skimming the Wikipedia article once.
This is how woo gets started. Deepak Chopra has made a career out of mixing limited understanding of quantum mechanics and Eastern mysticism hokum.
Without going out of your door
You can know all things on Earth
Without looking out of your window
You could know the ways of Heaven
The farther one travels
The less one knows
The less one really knows
Arrive without traveling
See all without looking
Do all without doing
Sounds nice because you don't have to actually do anything.
Quote from: Blackleaf on October 07, 2022, 09:52:18 AMI don't understand this at all. lol
Of course you don't! Nobody understands quantum mechanics - even the great Richard Feynman said so.
🤔
Quote from: the_antithesis on October 07, 2022, 12:17:37 PMSo they make this narrow definition of real and then say that the universe isn't that. It's kind of clickbaity, ya know. "The universe isn't REAL!!!1!" When the problem is with the definition.
Therefore magic.
Actually, this sounds like someone like me who had just finished watching porn and then wrote this whole article based on the limited understanding they'd gotten from skimming the Wikipedia article once.
Well, the main problem is that there's just a bunch of stuff we don't fully understand (yet) and then people fill that gap with woo because they can't handle living with uncertainty.
Quote from: the_antithesis on October 07, 2022, 12:17:37 PMI am reminded of something author Michael Crichton once wrote about Harlan Ellison. This was before Jurassic Park, but Ellison accused Crichton of writing bad science fiction. Crichton said that he agreed in that he didn't think of himself as a science fiction author, but it was annoying to placed into an unwanted category and then to be told that he fit that category badly.
So they make this narrow definition of real and then say that the universe isn't that. It's kind of clickbaity, ya know. "The universe isn't REAL!!!1!" When the problem is with the definition.
Therefore magic.
Actually, this sounds like someone like me who had just finished watching porn and then wrote this whole article based on the limited understanding they'd gotten from skimming the Wikipedia article once.
This is how woo gets started. Deepak Chopra has made a career out of mixing limited understanding of quantum mechanics and Eastern mysticism hokum.
Without going out of your door
You can know all things on Earth
Without looking out of your window
You could know the ways of Heaven
The farther one travels
The less one knows
The less one really knows
Arrive without traveling
See all without looking
Do all without doing
Sounds nice because you don't have to actually do anything.
I like Beatles' music!
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 07, 2022, 12:32:48 PMWell, the main problem is that there's just a bunch of stuff we don't fully understand (yet) and then people fill that gap with woo because they can't handle living with uncertainty.
Or they found a space they could fill with their woo. Either or.
Sounds awfully familiar to a lot of metaphysical world views that have been saying this for several thousand years...
Except that these guys are doing it with mathematics. It requires a vast quantity of knowledge and education. I have a B. Sc. in physics and can't even follow most of it...but "woo", it ain't.
Quote from: the_antithesis on October 07, 2022, 12:17:37 PMSounds nice because you don't have to actually do anything.
Seems like it fits with the "principle of least action."
🤔
Quote from: Shiranu on October 07, 2022, 08:00:51 PMSounds awfully familiar to a lot of metaphysical world views that have been saying this for several thousand years...
If only they published a peer-reviewed paper on the matter, they could've saved Einstein a lot of effort.
Why would they need to?
Quote from: Shiranu on October 07, 2022, 11:55:02 PMWhy would they need to?
Publishing peer reviewed stuff is all the rage in scientific circles for some strange reason. Haven't the foggiest why... *smash cut to centuries of superstition and religious violence*
They weren't making a scientific statement.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 07, 2022, 12:32:48 PMWell, the main problem is that there's just a bunch of stuff we don't fully understand (yet) and then people fill that gap with woo because they can't handle living with uncertainty.
This.
Quote from: Dark Lightning on October 07, 2022, 08:43:24 PMExcept that these guys are doing it with mathematics. It requires a vast quantity of knowledge and education. I have a B. Sc. in physics and can't even follow most of it...but "woo", it ain't.
Does the truth change because you used a different equation to discover it?
"Golden Chain of Homer", 1600s - they talk about the primordial chaos that spawned reality, and that all reality is a product of. (Amongst other things, including DNA and the water cycle)
Physcists, today - "Huh, yeah no chaos actually is the thing that instigated all of reality, and here is the math behind it. Infact the universe is becoming progressively less chaotic as it goes."
What is wrong with both religious gnostics (often scientists themselves) using allegorical language to describe a concept, and scientists coming to the same conclusion with math? Shouldn't we be celebrating that they were able to have a rough idea of these concepts using far more rudimentary tools and a much more developed sense of philosophy than us?
What would humanity be if it embraced both the philosophical wisdom of the prophets AND the scientific wisdom of secular studies?
If history is anything to go by... one hell of an amazing place, given all the achievements of man during periods like the Islamic Golden Age, the Al-Andalusian Golden Age, and periods of tolerance in Europe where religion and secular worked together to improve both lives.
Maybe that's what we should pragmatically strive for.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 07, 2022, 11:58:47 PMPublishing peer reviewed stuff is all the rage in scientific circles for some strange reason. Haven't the foggiest why... *smash cut to centuries of superstition and religious violence*
So there is no room in the world for both science and faith?
Quote from: Shiranu on October 11, 2022, 04:34:59 PMSo there is no room in the world for both science and faith?
No.
Egotism is not even in the same realm as science. We need to stop treating them as if they are.
Quote from: the_antithesis on October 11, 2022, 04:38:21 PMNo.
Egotism is not even in the same realm as science. We need to stop treating them as if they are.
So the only realm that is allowed to exist is the realm of science?
Quote from: Shiranu on October 11, 2022, 05:34:36 PMSo the only realm that is allowed to exist is the realm of science?
No, there is only the one reality. Science is just how we learn about it. Egotism is where they make up shit and say it's real.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 11, 2022, 04:34:59 PMSo there is no room in the world for both science and faith?
That's a simple question with a very, very long answer. My extremely abbreviated answer is that people should be wary of simplistic methodology and easy answers.
What I will tell you is that it grates on me when people put enormous amounts of work to expand human knowledge in a systematic way and we figure out that the universe is more complex than we ever imagined and religious people take credit, pretending that their favorite holy book figured it all out all along. These people never put the work in and certainly never approached this stuff in anything like a rigorous way. At best, it's a million and one guesses and some of them are sort of kind of maybe accurate if you squint hard enough. It'd be like me trying to one-up my GPS by blindfolding myself, spinning around and then pointing in a random direction. Sure, I might be right every now and then, but does that make me any sort of authority? Or reliable at all?
Quote from: Shiranu on October 11, 2022, 05:34:36 PMSo the only realm that is allowed to exist is the realm of science?
Of course not. However, science is not a thing but a system of testing hypothesis which is any statement one wants to make about anything. Then it is tested by the scientific method. If done correctly, your beliefs, faith, or wishful thinking has nothing to do with the outcome. And the outcome can be either proof of or disproof of a statement. So, science is not a 'realm' but just a method to determine facts. Faith, beliefs or woo care nothing about facts; there is no system that can used to test any of those beliefs or faith or woo.
Quote from: the_antithesis on October 11, 2022, 05:59:09 PMNo, there is only the one reality.
Does this very thread not put that very statement to question?
Quote from: Shiranu on October 11, 2022, 08:46:36 PMDoes this very thread not put that very statement to question?
No. Should it?
Quote from: the_antithesis on October 11, 2022, 09:02:15 PMNo. Should it?
A thread about scientists discovering reality is not necessarily as "real" as we think it is (or at least, not with any certainty) isn't at all pertinent to a postition stating that there is "only one reality, and everyone should see it exactly as I do because science proved it right."?
"real" in the sense that properties of matter - at the quantum state - are indeterminate (as far as we can tell) That's not the same thing as multiple realities existing or the idea that reality is subjective or any other similar concept.
(the thread title is just a riff on the Elder Scrolls book of the same name)
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 11, 2022, 10:10:05 PM"real" in the sense that properties of matter - at the quantum state - are indeterminate (as far as we can tell) That's not the same thing as multiple realities existing or the idea that reality is subjective or any other similar concept.
(the thread title is just a riff on the Elder Scrolls book of the same name)
No, but it also indicates we don't have a clear understanding of exactly how relativity works; and most models do propose multiple universes at this point.
Also, if something isn't necessarily "real" until someone observes it, that sounds like reality isn't so concrete of concept.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 11, 2022, 10:25:54 PMNo, but it also indicates we don't have a clear understanding of exactly how relativity works; and most models do propose multiple universes at this point.
Correct. The hypothesis of multiple universes (multiverse) does exist. But this doesn't contradict Antithesis's statement that "there is only the one reality" - multiple universes would simply exist within one reality.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 11, 2022, 10:31:32 PMCorrect. The hypothesis of multiple universes (multiverse) does exist. But this doesn't contradict Antithesis's statement that "there is only the one reality" - multiple universes would simply exist within one reality.
Then his statement doesn't contradict many theologies, making his "no" illogical.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 11, 2022, 10:25:54 PMAlso, if something isn't necessarily "real" until someone observes it, that sounds like reality isn't so concrete of concept.
"Someone" isn't a necessary component for the observer effect and that's in fact a common and enduring misconception about quantum mechanics (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-does-quantum-theory-actually-tell-us-about-reality/). Only a detector/measuring device is needed to cause an observer effect.
It's been explained to me like a bat trying to navigate a cave. Its detector - echolocation, sound waves - inherently affects what its trying to detect. At the quantum scale, things are pretty easy to influence. So trying to get a bead on what's going on by using a detector inevitably influences the results.
At least, that's my layman's understanding (and highly incomplete at that) of stuff waaaay above my pay grade. It goes without saying that more study is needed to really get a handle on what exactly is going on at quantum scales, but the findings that I've linked in the OP essentially show that things are a lot more complicated and counter-intuitive at quantum scale than we would initially suspect.
So what we do understand does not contradict multiple faiths; making me ask again, why is there no room in the world for both when both are in agreement?
In the New York Times yesterday:
Black Holes May Hide a Mind-Bending Secret About Our Universe Take gravity, add quantum mechanics, stir. What do you get? Just maybe, a holographic cosmos. (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/10/science/black-holes-cosmology-hologram.html)
Quote from: GSOgymrat on October 12, 2022, 07:58:33 AMIn the New York Times yesterday:
Black Holes May Hide a Mind-Bending Secret About Our Universe Take gravity, add quantum mechanics, stir. What do you get? Just maybe, a holographic cosmos. (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/10/science/black-holes-cosmology-hologram.html)
I really like the hologram theory, just cause even by this stuffs standard it's pretty wild.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 12, 2022, 02:08:41 AMSo what we do understand does not contradict multiple faiths; making me ask again, why is there no room in the world for both when both are in agreement?
I take umbridge with your use of 'faith'. To me faith has nothing to do with facts or critical or rational thinking--or even thinking at all. The 'Faiths' all suggest that to be true to their faith, that reason has to be rejected and one needs to strengthen their faith to find god or whatever super power they follow. So, what we understand scientifically has no room for 'faith'. And I don't see faith and science to be in agreement with much at all.
Einstein - "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." QuoteThe 'Faiths' all suggest that to be true to their faith, that reason has to be rejected and one needs to strengthen their faith to find god or whatever super power they follow.
That is objectively false; plenty of religions outright state, "If science contradicts us, we are wrong and need to address it." and plenty more make little to no statements on the operations of the world to even need to reject or contradict scientific discovery.
Several faiths are also arguably pushing philosophy, rationalism and critical thinking far harder than many secular societies, certainly America's; our secular universities are cutting humanities - philosophy/ethics, history, literature - while promoting Economic and Business departments and increasing their sport budget.
You have men like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins getting on stage and saying quote, "If you are smart, and you get a philosophy degree... you are wasting an amazing brain.".
What is philosophy, but understanding how to ask the most fundamental of questions? Not only that, but to understand why questions themselves logically make sense; and thus how to clearly view the world through a rational lens. Why then is it a waste of a brain to focus it on these questions?
Meanwhile, mainstream Judaism encourages children to read legal texts, poetry, mythology, literature and to view it analytically; why did so-and-so do such and such; and more importantly, to ask, "This contradicts history, so it's clearly not true - what then can we learn from the story itself, because a story not being true does not inherently remove it's moral." It teaches them to question these things in (at least) two different languages, which the ability to speak two language is scientifically proven to increase your IQ.
(And that's not even getting started on the fact that it is also the story that has allowed a people with no homeland for most of 3000 years to see themselves still as one people and how absolutely batshit that is, but that's a story for another time.)
Buddhism's has a famous 9th century phrase; "If you see the Buddha, kill the Buddha." doesn't strike me as a religion that takes itself too seriously, and the core tenant of Buddhism - from it's home in India to China, Japan and even places in the Middle East - is that one must view the world rationally. The same is true of both Taoism and Confucianism (and all their off-spring).
Sufi's and several minority groups across the Muslim world were some of the leading intellectuals of the the Islamic Golden Age - nearly a thousand years ago they were inventing crank-shaft engines, advanced hydropower technology, and even several chemicals and materials that scientists today cant replicate.
Unfortunately... Timur happened, and tens of thousands of them were killed; it was said that the river Tigris, "...ran first red with the blood of the scholars, then black with the ink of thousands of books.". Add that purge of intellectuals (though the Ottoman's did try at times to bring it back) to several centuries of Western imperialism, and you get today's Islam.
Yay, barbarians... but to avoid a tangent, I think it's pretty clear that not all religions reject rationality, and not all secular institution embrace it.
I.e. - there is room in the world for both, because humanity works better together... not at each other's throat. This is literally what history shows; the greatest minds in human history - Newton, Einstein, Tesla, Moses ben Maimon, Bacon, Galilei, Ibn Sina, and I'm sure plenty of African and Asian inventors I'm just ignorant of - all agreed that both world's have something positive to offer and we shouldn't throw everything beautiful away because ugly darkness has touched it.
I'm not going to lie, I don't even pretend to be a 1/400th the brain of Einstein... and what he advocated was both pro-science (I think we can agree he was pretty well accredited in that field) and pro-faith. If he came to that conclusion, I'm gonna need someone on his intellectual level to explain to me why he is wrong.
Well, Shiranu, I guess I focus too much on the christian religion. There is no room in that religion for rational thinking. I have never had a problem with philosophy, though, and have found it interesting. Personally, I do have room in my head for both rational thought and what I loosely term 'spirituality' and I try to balance them; much like trying to reach a constructive balance in my life for reasoned thought and emotional thought. Not easy, but worth the effort.
Your above paragraphs are good. I do have a hard time with the word 'faith' and brand it as being empty headed and destructive to rational or critical thinking. And faith and thinking just don't go together for me.
Quote from: Mike Cl on October 12, 2022, 02:00:37 PMWell, Shiranu, I guess I focus too much on the christian religion. There is no room in that religion for rational thinking. I have never had a problem with philosophy, though, and have found it interesting. Personally, I do have room in my head for both rational thought and what I loosely term 'spirituality' and I try to balance them; much like trying to reach a constructive balance in my life for reasoned thought and emotional thought. Not easy, but worth the effort.
Your above paragraphs are good. I do have a hard time with the word 'faith' and brand it as being empty headed and destructive to rational or critical thinking. And faith and thinking just don't go together for me.
Yeah, I wanted to mention that but felt it was getting just a little bit too "wall of text" - esp. for off-topic.
For sure, Christianity and Islam both have REALLY set a bad example of what religion is, and when it's all we really are ever exposed to... we quite logically have a really bad opinion of religion. In the East, you see the same thing with religion.
The only thing I would argue is that very few Christians have anything to do with the actual moral or spiritual message of Christ; everything they practice flies almost directly in the face of his teachings. If Christians actually behaved Christ-ly, our baseline opinion of religion as a whole would likely be quite different.
It's a bias, but it's one that makes perfect sense and holds a lot of credibility to it. "All stereotypes hold a shred of truth."