English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Scientists said there is no reality, it just light tricking us by acting both as wave and particles
And The fact that we never directly experience the world around us that All we ever know are the contents of consciousness, the thoughts, feelings, perceptions and sensations that appear in the mind.
So what would happen to reality if we don’t have our sense of vision , smell, thouch ,sound and taste? What would happen to it if there is no one perceiving it?
Please take me serious this time.

2007-01-13 07:57:48 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics Astronomy & Space

16 answers

And my answer is not a joke:

There has been a book written where the author proposed that the entire universe is governed by some special rule: if no one is aware of something, then that thing does not exist.

For example, the Moon only exists when at least one person looks at it, other wise it does not.

It (the theory) may have been a projection into the macro world, of a theory that does apply to the extremely small world where the rules of quantum theory apply.

The best known macro-world analogy that was invented is Schrödinger's Cat. Reality is only clear when there is an observer to perceive it. Otherwise, all possible states exist at once.

In the Cat "experiment", it is equally possible that the cat is alive or dead. If the rule of the very small did apply to the normal-sized world, then the cat is simultaneously alive AND dead, until someone actually opens the box to peek inside. The act of observing "freezes" reality into one of the two possible states, and the universe continues from that point, using the choice that became reality at that moment.

To really understand the site given below, you may need to read a bit about quantum mechanics.

Wiki might be a good place to start.

2007-01-13 08:18:15 · answer #1 · answered by Raymond 7 · 0 0

Science doesn't say there's no reality, it only says that we can't prove reality really is.. well, real.

If reality was in illusion, wave/particle duality would just be part of that illusion. If wave/particle duality is real, so is the rest of the Universe.

But what defines real? If our minds and bodies are being tricked and always being tricked, how is that any less real? Are smells no longer smells and tastes no longer tastes? You can say, 'Well, they are just data being fed into our system if they're not real.' But, they are already just data being fed into our system. The experince doesn't change.

Your final question is similar to, 'if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?' Quantum Physics would have us believe that a tree cannot fall in the woods, because there is no one there to observe it. In the absense of an observer, the line between that which is and that which could be falters completely and we are only left with probabilitys. The probability of what already is continuing, and the probability of change.

But what defines an observer? If a tree falls and there no people around, does a squirrel qualify? Or is the squirrel's existance the same probability wave function of that which is also not being observed? Or, does observation only apply to the self and that self's perception?

If a tree falls in the woods and I'm not there but John Q Scientist is and he observes it, does he hear a sound or is he part of the wave function too? And what if it falls on him and kills him? He observed it, but the observation was not recorded before his Death. Is he neither alive nor dead, like Schrodeinger's Cat?

I think I did more to ask questions than to answer, but I have a feeling you'll appreciate it.. if you can understand it, I'm not sure I do. XD

2007-01-13 18:19:26 · answer #2 · answered by socialdeevolution 4 · 0 0

I don't know of any "scientists" who have ever said "there is no reality." There is, of course, debate on how the mechanisms our bodies (and our technologies) use to sense things colors our perception -- but that's very different from saying there is no reality.

This isn't a new question, you know -- it's just a restatement of the ancient Zen koan: "if a tree fell in the forest and no one was around to hear it, would it make a sound?" Koans are designed to make you think about different sides of a question than you normally might consider. In this case, and with your question...yes, the tree would still make a sound (and your reality would still exist).
That reality still exists despite people in the world who are blind, deaf, or have no sense of taste or smell or touch proves that's true.
Now if YOU didn't have your senses, you would have a hard time knowing anything about the world...but the world (and the solar system and the galaxy and the universe) would happily go along existing, oblivious to the fact that you weren't perceiving it. :)

2007-01-13 16:24:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

well if you had vision,smell,thouch,sound,and tast at one point that would change the out come a lot. try to bear with my bad spelling and gramer lol but if you were born with out any of thos the world would be "real" in a way dont you think if their was nother and no one tell you what color some thing is or what it should tast like live would have a complety new meaning as long as you still have you intellgints and imaganation the world or "reality" would really be what you want it be. but if that is a good thing i dont know. whats the point of living if you cant share it with some one else? if you are all alone and cant touch see tast feel or hear anything would you really want to live any ways?

2007-01-13 16:10:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

We would be "dead" or unconscious. If a tree falls in the forest and no one see's it does it make a sound? Do we really need to test something so retarded? Existialism is cute specially when its with masked with "deep thought". If a dead body falls will it hit the ground.
Nothing is for 100% sure. not even scientific laws, because you cant "test" the future before it happens. Or "test" something you have absolutely no sense reception to (like the hypothetical "tree falling" ) But you have to put your money somewhere and I don't like bad odds.


Sources please. -scientists
Argument from an appeal to authority don't convince me anywaze though.)
If Einstien, Frueds, Bacon or the man who is about to be spattered on the ground all are unconscious the simple fact in my "mind" would be that I have typed this message and sent it through a complex system of functions which after trial and error and (de) / multiplexing and such arrived over this internet. Hay we might be in the matrix who knows? I wouldn't waste my time on it thought.

ex. According to the book "The psychology of B.F. Skinner" by William O' Donohue and Kyle Ferguson Frances Bacon once said of philosophy " it has the characteristics properties of boys: It can talk but it cannot generate; for it is fruitful of controversies but barren in works". Yes this is a very barren controversial topic. Will it help us send a "light" message eventually between two remote computers through a complex system of protocols? Probably not so lets direct are attention on less trivial matters.
-- A.E Selby

2007-01-13 16:43:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Intersting question, and quite serious.

There was a philospher/mathematician named Rene Descartes who was faces with a similier problem.

How could he know if anything was real?

Everything he saw or experienced or heard of was only from his personal perspective, so how did he know that anything exist?

He thought that if he could find one thing that he knew was real, then he could use that as a starting point. He pondered this questions for a long time before he found the answer and gave his famous quote (which people will remember longer than they will remember his considerable contributions to mathematics).

I THINK, THEREFORE I AM.

He realised that just to ask such questions proved the existance of the asker because the asker had to be real in order to question reality.

You seem to be thinking just fine, and, in questioning reality, you have proved it's existance for yourself. Now you can began to use YOUR senses and persception to give YOU a better idea on reality. Trust your persception, for if you don't, there lies madness.

Good luck.

2007-01-13 17:26:16 · answer #6 · answered by Walking Man 6 · 1 0

Reality for you may disappear but the universe will go on.
Before the universe developed the capacity to become aware of it self by inventing us reality existed.
There may be a holographic essence to the universe that allows the interaction of it"s parts.
Every entity in the universe is isolated by time.
When you observe a person in the room with you are seeing that person as he existed in the past.
Because the reaction time of light is billionths of a second and yours is tenths of a second you experience the moment as if no isolation existed.
This can be extended to subatomic particles and galaxies.
We could be living as two dimensional entities with a holographic over lay to permit interaction.

2007-01-14 09:16:39 · answer #7 · answered by Billy Butthead 7 · 0 0

It sounds like you are trying to use quantum physics to explain psychology and religion. What you describe is not a "proveable" statement. I'm leary of anything that sounds like reality is dependent on my personal perception. If that were true than there would be literally billions of realities, all differing due to the perceptions of each individual. Makes it hard to explain how we all share the same physical realities of geography, gravity, etc.

2007-01-13 16:12:15 · answer #8 · answered by Cain 3 · 1 0

You misread something, somewhere, no serious scientist has said anything of the sort! "Reality", however, is most certainly an illusion that we create with our senses. Look at Bohr's model of the atom, clearly there is no such thing as "solid matter", and yet we "perceive" that there is every day!

2007-01-13 16:08:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

You should read "The Meditations" by Descaret. Your question is very philosophical and I think if you think about these things you'll like philosophy. I know I'm a philosophy major. Once you get the world back though, the next question you have to ask is what is in it, and how do I know its really there.

http://www.classicallibrary.org/descartes/meditations

2007-01-13 19:09:32 · answer #10 · answered by Mr. DC Economist 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers