New study: Reality is a video game

[G2Rad]

New study confirms that external reality does not exist and does not have definite properties until there is an observer.

Just like in Half-Life-2 video game, only that which is on the screen exists (re-generated), the rest of Universe gets rendered only as needed and does not exist the moment you looked other way.

reality is simply a "feed" to our senses of the multy-player video game we participate in.

the world is virtual and does not exist on its own without our minds.

here are the study:

http://www.physorg.com/pdf210335995.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/11/03/1002780107.full.pdf

there is only one door out of the "Matrix"

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

This is not the first time we've heard that the major driving force in the universe is consciousness

[G2Rad]

This is not the first time we've heard that the major driving force in the universe is consciousness


there is a dispute in higher/true "reality", which is beilng settled down here through the virtual world of the video game

upon unhooking our "perfomance" will be evaluated by the game-Creator

we will either end up being locked in "hell", or we will make it into the next "release" of the game

Jesus is the truth and He is the door out of the Matrix.

[JohnQPublic]

Gnosticism 101- applied to neurology.

[G2Rad]

Gnosticism 101- applied to neurology.


pure physics, my friend

just read the articles

PNAS is published by the National Academy of Sciences
PNAS Online is distributed with the assistance of
Stanford University's Highwire Press®
Copyright © 2010 by the National Academy of Sciences

[JohnQPublic]

Gnosticism 101- applied to neurology.


pure physics, my friend

just read the articles

PNAS is published by the National Academy of Sciences
PNAS Online is distributed with the assistance of
Stanford University's Highwire Press®
Copyright © 2010 by the National Academy of Sciences



Oops. There was a story based on psychology that I heard about on the radio a few days ago. I presumed this was that study. This looks like quantam mechanics.

[DMac]

Along the lines of the OP:

Computer games are addictive and use psychological ploys first tested on lab rats (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1335924/Computer-games-addictive-use-psychological-ploys-tested-lab-rats.html#ixzz17KFFjalm)

[Gaillo]

Oh goody... another "proof" that consciousness creates reality.

In philosophy, this is known as the "primacy of consciousness" thesis, and leads to all kinds of contradictions when an attempt to formulate a complete metaphysics is made.

I see these kinds of propositions as new-age BS - yet more attempts to distract, placate, and distort the viewpoints of the sheep.

Let's carry this proposition to some kind of application:

If we "create our own reality" by what we think and what our sub-conscious minds are doing, tell me WHAT is on the mind of the successful-in-every-way inventor who suddenly drops dead at 50 from a stroke? How about the 3 year old with wide eyes of wonderment who is shredded to mincemeat in the horrible plane crash? Or maybe the philanthropic nun who feeds starving orphans in the Latin American shiithole... only to be gang-raped then chopped to pieces with machetes? Yep... "creating their own realities" sure makes a lot of sense. :sarc:

[Shami-Amourae]

Just because you don't understand something through science, doesn't give you the right to fill in "GodDidIt", or "It's the Matrix like on the teevee." Seriously, the world just is as it is. Science gets a bad wrap since most people apply their biases non-objectively, and we end up with silly dogmas like Global Warming. Until you have some serious evidence, and look at things objectively, quit filling in the blank with what you want something to be. Why can't people just say, "I don't know."

[G2Rad]

Oh goody... another "proof" that consciousness creates reality.


you got it totaly wrong.

player of a video game does not create game's reality.

player of a video game is not Creator of the game.

[G2Rad]

In philosophy, this is known as the "primacy of consciousness" thesis, and leads to all kinds of contradictions when an attempt to formulate a complete metaphysics is made.

I see these kinds of propositions as new-age BS - yet more attempts to distract, placate, and distort the viewpoints of the sheep.


it has nothing to do with new-age or with "primacy of consciousness"

it is pure physics

[G2Rad]

just read the f-n articles before posting b/s

[vacuum]

"Science" as applied to theories about the creation of the universe, creation and evolution of life, climate change, etc, are usually theories that can't really be proven, just provide large amounts of debate.

This however is just a simple experiment. Its like relativity - physically undeniable but also difficult to relate to everyday experience.

[G2Rad]

Until you have some serious evidence, and look at things objectively, quit filling in the blank with what you want something to be. Why can't people just say, "I don't know."


because they built the equipment, and they did the freaking experiments
how is that not "serious evidence" for you?

published in serious peer-review journal
how is that not "serious evidence" for you?

Authors are wolrd-top scientists from
Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information, Austrian Academy of Sciences
and from Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna

Edited by William D. Phillips, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD,

how is that not "serious evidence" for you? ::)

[Gaillo]

...
Edited by William D. Phillips, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD,

how is that not "serious evidence" for you? ::)



NIST - the same group that provided "evidence" of the official 9/11 version of events.
Lots of credibility there... :sarc:

[midnight rambler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXmzcroUmdU

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

Oh goody... another "proof" that consciousness creates reality.

In philosophy, this is known as the "primacy of consciousness" thesis, and leads to all kinds of contradictions when an attempt to formulate a complete metaphysics is made.

I see these kinds of propositions as new-age BS - yet more attempts to distract, placate, and distort the viewpoints of the sheep.

Let's carry this proposition to some kind of application:

If we "create our own reality" by what we think and what our sub-conscious minds are doing, tell me WHAT is on the mind of the successful-in-every-way inventor who suddenly drops dead at 50 from a stroke? How about the 3 year old with wide eyes of wonderment who is shredded to mincemeat in the horrible plane crash? Or maybe the philanthropic nun who feeds starving orphans in the Latin American shiithole... only to be gang-raped then chopped to pieces with machetes? Yep... "creating their own realities" sure makes a lot of sense. :sarc:



Who said creating their own reality? Not me.

I said influencing reality.

Nobody is saying that consciousness is god. You seem to be representing it as such when you argue against it.

What I am saying is that it is a driving force in the universe.

[G2Rad]

classical quantum physics teaches that normaly the exact state of a quantum object is undefined.

It is best described by Schrodinger wave function

The act of observation causes the wave function collapse, the object assumes a defined state and behaves as a particle.

The new experiments done by those Austrians point into direction that observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it.

things are not out there until they are looked at and measured

the command to "turn left" in a video game causes the computer to regenerate the world on your left and produce the image to the observer.

[Gaillo]

bunch-o-stuff...



Who said creating their own reality? Not me.

I said influencing reality.

Nobody is saying that consciousness is god. You seem to be representing it as such when you argue against it.

What I am saying is that it is a driving force in the universe.


I agree that consciousness is the driving force of individual lives, what we set our minds to EVENTUALLY becomes what we achieve. This was so well put by Buddha:

"All that we are is the result of what we have thought.
If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him.
If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him."
-Buddha

However, do NOT take this as meaning that by merely thinking about something, you're going to change it... that requires ACTION in the physical universe, using your physical body. Even the Buddha (who most people think of as a religious figure of some sort...) said "SPEAKS OR ACTS" - laying out the requirement for ACTION in the physical realm.

Existence exists, and it IS what it IS... no amount of "positive thought" or wishing is going to change one molecule of it. That's my opinion, at least - after a lifetime of dealing with reality, and reality dealing with me!

[JohnQPublic]

classical quantum physics teaches that normaly the exact state of a quantum object is undefined.

It is best described by Schrodinger wave function

The act of observation causes the wave function collapse, the object assumes a defined state and behaves as a particle.

The new experiments done by those Austrians point into direction that observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it.

things are not out there until they are looked at and measured

the command to "turn left" in a video game causes the computer to regenerate the world on your left and produce the image to the observer.



There are two schools of thought on that (at least). This is the Copenhagen School (I believe).

The real issue is that quantam mechanics and general relativity produce two very different views of reality. The experimental evidence is what it is. It is the interpretation that can get fuzzy. I tend to side more with quantam mechanics than general relativiity, because we can at least test QM theories. But qm scientists often skew their results to try and match general relativity (and I'm sure vice versa).

All science, but especially untestable science (i.e., cosmology and cosmogony) are influenced by philosophy. Cosmology/cosmogony is probably 90% philosophy and 10% science. QM might be more like 50:50. Engineering is probably 80% science and 20% philosophy (I may be biased on that account, and believe me , I would like to say 95% science, 5% philosophy).

[JohnQPublic]

bunch-o-stuff...



Who said creating their own reality? Not me.

I said influencing reality.

Nobody is saying that consciousness is god. You seem to be representing it as such when you argue against it.

What I am saying is that it is a driving force in the universe.


I agree that consciousness is the driving force of individual lives, what we set our minds to EVENTUALLY becomes what we achieve. This was so well put by Buddha:

"All that we are is the result of what we have thought.
If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him.
If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him."
-Buddha

However, do NOT take this as meaning that by merely thinking about something, you're going to change it... that requires ACTION in the physical universe, using your physical body. Even the Buddha (who most people think of as a religious figure of some sort...) said "SPEAKS OR ACTS" - laying out the requirement for ACTION in the physical realm.

Existence exists, and it IS what it IS... no amount of "positive thought" or wishing is going to change one molecule of it. That's my opinion, at least - after a lifetime of dealing with reality, and reality dealing with me!


You radical determinist, you. I suppose you have a picture of Ernst Mach above your fireplace (he was actually a positivist, but it is similar). :)

[Gaillo]

...All science, but especially untestable science (i.e., cosmology and cosmogony) are influenced by philosophy. Cosmology/cosmogony is probably 90% philosophy and 10% science. QM might be more like 50:50. Engineering is probably 80% science and 20% philosophy (I may be biased on that account, and believe me , I would like to say 95% science, 5% philosophy).


This, John, is in my opinion the main problem with philosophy... it is viewed by most academics and laymen as something DIFFERENT from Science - or "untestable" and "remote" by comparison. In my opinion, Philosophy is the PRIMARY science, from which ALL other sciences should properly be derived. If a metaphysics and ephistemology are internally consistent, and conform to the true nature of reality, there should be ZERO divergence from the physics, mathematics, chemistry, etc. that naturally arise as a consequence.

Unfortunately, as long as Western philosophy is based on the shifting "no such thing as concrete reality" ephistemology of Plato and Kant, this will not be possible - and philosophy will be just another exercise in superstition and unprovable conjecture.

[Gaillo]

bunch-o-stuff.


You radical determinist, you. I suppose you have a picture of Ernst Mach above your fireplace (he was actually a positivist, but it is similar). :)


Actually, a picture of Popeye the sailor. "I am what I am". ;D

[Dogman]

bunch-o-stuff.


You radical determinist, you. I suppose you have a picture of Ernst Mach above your fireplace (he was actually a positivist, but it is similar). :)


Actually, a picture of Popeye the sailor. "I am what I am". ;D


;D ;D ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHBt9mHq-5c&feature=related

[G2Rad]

There are two schools of thought on that (at least). This is the Copenhagen School (I believe).

The real issue is that quantam mechanics and general relativity produce two very different views of reality. The experimental evidence is what it is. It is the interpretation that can get fuzzy. I tend to side more with quantam mechanics than general relativiity, because we can at least test QM theories.

you can google Alain Aspect

whole bunch of experiments was made in 1980s

John Bell is the greatest physicist ever lived

[undgrd]

Two facts always leave me with an open mind with regard to reality.

1. We don't know what we don't know.
2. Our bodies, at the smallest measurable level have space between them...that means we are not solid entities. This combined with fact 1 IMO leaves the possibility for anything.

[Book]

New study confirms that external reality does not exist and does not have definite properties until there is an observer.



This "study" does not exist because I didn't read it.

:)

[JohnQPublic]

New study confirms that external reality does not exist and does not have definite properties until there is an observer.



This "study" does not exist because I didn't read it.

:)


I can confirm that a tree fell in the forest. I confirm therefor I am. ;D

[Uncle Salty]

Bunk.

Just a bunch of philosophical mumbo jumbo based on photons.

[JohnQPublic]

"If a Bell test shows that a measurement of one object can influence the state of a second, distant object, then local realism has been violated."

This is the problem with "magical gravity", also (action-at-a-distance problem in philosophy). We do not understand the actual cause of gravity, which is pretty amazing considering what we do claim to know.

[Dogman]

Drop some of the really good stuff that was available in the 60's- early 70', Lsd, sillyscybem, and mescaline other than the lsd, which is man made. The others were natural that I played with, shrooms and cactus, bad tasting stuff but it will open doors into what we perceive as reality is in a lot of ways is what we make it. In some ways I do feel from what is remembered the world can twist at a quantum level.

Dos Pesos

;D

Edit: There was a book or books that was around in the time frame that I am talking about, It is about a guy that hooks up with a Indian or mexican shaman and they did mescaline and the dude wrote about it.

Been trying to remember the title, with no luck.

[Twisted Titan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErUUynThycw



See the animal in his cage that you built
Are you sure what side you're on?
Better not look him too closely in the eye
Are you sure what side of the glass you are on?
See the safety of the life you have built
Everything where it belongs
Feel the hollowness inside of your heart
And it's all
Right where it belongs

[Chorus:]
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection
Is it all you want it to be?
What if you could look right through the cracks?
Would you find yourself
Find yourself afraid to see?

What if all the world's inside of your head
Just creations of your own?
Your devils and your gods
All the living and the dead
And you're really all alone?
You can live in this illusion
You can choose to believe
You keep looking but you can't find the woods
While you're hiding in the trees

[Chorus:]
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you used to know
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection
Is it all you want it to be?
What if you could look right through the cracks
Would you find yourself
Find yourself afraid to see?

[sirgonzo420]

Drop some of the really good stuff that was available in the 60's- early 70', Lsd, sillyscybem, and mescaline other than the lsd, which is man made. The others were natural that I played with, shrooms and cactus, bad tasting stuff but it will open doors into what we perceive as reality is in a lot of ways is what we make it. In some ways I do feel from what is remembered the world can twist at a quantum level.

Dos Pesos

;D

Edit: There was a book or books that was around in the time frame that I am talking about, It is about a guy that hooks up with a Indian or mexican shaman and they did mescaline and the dude wrote about it.

Been trying to remember the title, with no luck.


There are multiple books, but the author is Carlos Casteneda.


You can find out a lot about reality (and everything else) by tripping...

Makes me want to eat up some acid or shrooms and do some (more) research.


;D

[vacuum]

The Human Brain Is On The Edge Of Chaos

ScienceDaily (Mar. 23, 2009) — Cambridge-based researchers provide new evidence that the human brain lives "on the edge of chaos", at a critical transition point between randomness and order. The study provides experimental data on an idea previously fraught with theoretical speculation.
See Also:
Mind & Brain

Self-organized criticality (where systems spontaneously organize themselves to operate at a critical point between order and randomness), can emerge from complex interactions in many different physical systems, including avalanches, forest fires, earthquakes, and heartbeat rhythms.

According to this study, conducted by a team from the University of Cambridge, the Medical Research Council Cognition & Brain Sciences Unit, and the GlaxoSmithKline Clinical Unit Cambridge, the dynamics of human brain networks have something important in common with some superficially very different systems in nature. Computational networks showing these characteristics have also been shown to have optimal memory (data storage) and information-processing capacity. In particular, critical systems are able to respond very rapidly and extensively to minor changes in their inputs.

"Due to these characteristics, self-organized criticality is intuitively attractive as a model for brain functions such as perception and action, because it would allow us to switch quickly between mental states in order to respond to changing environmental conditions," says co-author Manfred Kitzbichler.

The researchers used state-of-the-art brain imaging techniques to measure dynamic changes in the synchronization of activity between different regions of the functional network in the human brain. Their results suggest that the brain operates in a self-organized critical state. To support this conclusion, they also investigated the synchronization of activity in computational models, and demonstrated that the dynamic profile they had found in the brain was exactly reflected in the models. Collectively, these results amount to strong evidence in favour of the idea that human brain dynamics exist at a critical point on the edge of chaos.

According to Kitzbichler, this new evidence is only a starting point. "A natural next question we plan to address in future research will be: How do measures of critical dynamics relate to cognitive performance or neuropsychiatric disorders and their treatments?"

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090319224532.htm



------
My interpretation:
Something on the edge of chaos only needs a very tiny stimulus to completely alter its state. This means that, if consciousness does shape probable events through observation, then only this relatively tiny physical interaction could operate the brain because it is a near chaotic system.

I also believe this explains much about the occultic control by tptb. If people aren't shaping their own reality, who is? What if the masters are able to use the collective consciousness of the planet to shape the future as they desire? Why don't ETs forcibly take over the planet and enslave everyone, if that is their goal? Why must we submit to it?

[woodman]

This is a great thread. And when I die, you will all cease to exist because I will no longer be here to notice you. Existence ain't objective.. It's subjective.

[Book]

My interpretation:

...I also believe this explains much about the occultic control by tptb. If people aren't shaping their own reality, who is? What if the masters are able to use the collective consciousness of the planet to shape the future as they desire? Why don't ETs forcibly take over the planet and enslave everyone, if that is their goal? Why must we submit to it?



My observation:

All of us after GIM1 destroyed itself quickly self-organized into GSUS. This continues with very little Mod control or manipulation.

:dunno

[Libertytree]

"The Human Brain Is On The Edge Of Chaos"

Well hell!!!!! I could have told'em that!

[JohnQPublic]

My interpretation:

...I also believe this explains much about the occultic control by tptb. If people aren't shaping their own reality, who is? What if the masters are able to use the collective consciousness of the planet to shape the future as they desire? Why don't ETs forcibly take over the planet and enslave everyone, if that is their goal? Why must we submit to it?



My observation:

All of us after GIM1 destroyed itself quickly self-organized into GSUS. This continues with very little Mod control or manipulation.

:dunno


Maybe GSUS is on the edge of chaos!

[Libertytree]

My interpretation:

...I also believe this explains much about the occultic control by tptb. If people aren't shaping their own reality, who is? What if the masters are able to use the collective consciousness of the planet to shape the future as they desire? Why don't ETs forcibly take over the planet and enslave everyone, if that is their goal? Why must we submit to it?



My observation:

All of us after GIM1 destroyed itself quickly self-organized into GSUS. This continues with very little Mod control or manipulation.

:dunno


Maybe GSUS is on the edge of chaos!


What makes ya think that? ;)

[keehah]

Assuming the OP was not purposeful disinfo to keep the masses confused and in the dark, like a priest who has lost his faith continuing to give mass, I see these reports as being studies by people who don't really understand things, reported by a person who doesn't really understand things, and accepted by sheep that don't really understand things.

I mean what are the sheep fed these days for 'science' news: black holes, undetectable (dark) matter, principles of uncertainty, does not exist if not observed (of which this reality is a video game is a flavour of). Science is doing better stuff than this, but this is what a reporting class of people feed the sheep much of the time. Its as if people like being fooled. Perhaps its a way to deny reality? 'If you don't know something, it can't hurt you', or one then does not need to take responsibility for their relationship with reality.

Black holes are stellar z-pinches, dark matter and string theory are dark mode plasma currents, in most cases a principle of uncertainty is like seeing earth and its orbit as a ring or a single round orb (it depends on your observation frequency) for anything larger than a quarker time is linear, and space contains three unbendable dimensions.

PS Gravity is just aetheric wave shadows.

[Bigjon]

Assuming the OP was not purposeful disinfo to keep the masses confused and in the dark, like a priest who has lost his faith continuing to give mass, I see these reports as being studies by people who don't really understand things, reported by a person who doesn't really understand things, and accepted by sheep that don't really understand things.

I mean what are the sheep fed these days for 'science' news: black holes, undetectable (dark) matter, principles of uncertainty, does not exist if not observed (of which this reality is a video game is a flavour of). Science is doing better stuff than this, but this is what a reporting class of people feed the sheep much of the time. Its as if people like being fooled. Perhaps its a way to deny reality? 'If you don't know something, it can't hurt you', or one then does not need to take responsibility for their relationship with reality.

Black holes are stellar z-pinches, dark matter and string theory are dark mode plasma currents, in most cases a principle of uncertainty is like seeing earth and its orbit as a ring or a single round orb (it depends on your observation frequency) for anything larger than a quarker time is linear, and space contains three unbendable dimensions.

PS Gravity is just aetheric wave shadows.


I agree with your assessment (I think, although I don't understand your science assertions), as science today has so much baggage like science has to be politically correct, it has to deny things like the aether, because that would falsify one of the Jewish gods of science, Einstein.

[keehah]

Yes Einstein's work has been used as a giant mindf*ck on sheep and much of the herded academia.

Einstein's 'problem' was not so much that he denied the work of others, many of whom's theories fit better with reality IMO.
What Einstein was guilty of was wandering far down a path of mathematical possibilities untethered to reality. The crime was not Einstein's, the crime is that mainstream controlling forces promote this mathematical insanity (one section of his work) as the best analysis of reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH9vAIdMqng

The reasons to keep the sheep in the dark are pretty easy to figure out. Big energy wants to keep their monopolies, Ivory tower science wants to keep saying more funding for understanding is needed, Churches want to keep the real knowledge of their founding gods and ancient myths and powers hidden, and mil-gov wants to develop fancy new toys in secret. And perhaps the last two want to reserve the right to invent a new god in the eyes of the ignorant.

[G2Rad]

There are two schools of thought on that (at least). This is the Copenhagen School (I believe).


call them interpretations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics)

the OP however has to do with hidden variable theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable)

[G2Rad]

I think this (http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/bell.html) gives nice, non-technical introduction


here is a quote for lazy:

For anyone who knows anything about Einstein's theory of relativity this result should be particularly disturbing, as it was to Einstein himself. A key notion of relativity is the idea that nothing can communicate with anything else faster than light. If this were to be violated the whole structure of relativity would be in jeopardy.

[nunaem]

I think this is likely actually.

Just think about it, how many advanced civilizations capable of creating artificial universes might exist in a REAL universe? Let's really low-ball it and say in the average real universe there are only 2 civilizations capable and they only create 1 'matrix' apiece. That is 2 artificial universes to one real universe. Let's say your chances of 'popping into existence' into each universe is equal, you are 2:1 more likely to 'pop into existence' into a artifical universe than a real one.

Then consider that there are more likely billions or trillions of artificial 'video game' universes in each real one.

[DMac]

bunch-o-stuff.


You radical determinist, you. I suppose you have a picture of Ernst Mach above your fireplace (he was actually a positivist, but it is similar). :)


Actually, a picture of Popeye the sailor. "I am what I am". ;D


Gaillo the existentialist. ;)

I happen to agree with you Gaillo that philosophy is at the root of science.