Do physical objects truly exist or are they just illusions?

[debra]

The majority of this thread, to me, is the reason why hard core physicists hate, abhor, consistently avoid, immediately take notice of and 'point out', try to change the subject, and scowl at the word 'if' ; and, if 'if' is used, the whole conversation is almost immediately dumped into the world of 'philosophy' and their work isn't considered 'science'.




To avoid the word 'if' in most, if not all papers, monographs, etc. and articles created by those hard core physicists and work around being called a 'philosopher', they now use the word...


'consider'.

I cannot quite follow what you are saying about 'if' and 'consider'.
But, the physicists are always bumping into infinities problems, which
in information theories is no problem at all.

If a quantity varies as a/r then as r -> 0, the quantity tends to inifinity.
eg gravity etc etc.


This is their false view of an analogue world where things can go to zero
or infinity.

THEY CANNOT in information theory go to zero or infinity. That would
imply infinite sized metrics. It cuts off - of course it cuts off. So below
a plank length space is not defined at all. Between 01101 and 01100
is nothing at all - not defined - cannot be an action.

That is just one example of where the physicists are squirming with
their analogue mathematics.
Dimensions is another. And many more...

 

[WaveJumper]

But, if we were Sims characters ourselves, we should be able to work out that we were in a simulation. Its all about intelligence isn't it?

Yes, at the limits(at c, infinite gravity, boundery conditions, Planck scale), we should observe that what we call reality would fall apart or completely disappear.
In string theory, the hidden dimensions that are necessary for the theory to work, make sense and be consistent with observations and experiments, are assumed to be hidden within our universe. This assumption might be wrong and the extra dimensions that we don't observe, could well lie outside the "universe". It might be our first hint at the hardware underlying our personal experience(the so-called reality). What is the difference between an unknowable dimensions that are “in the world” and one that is “outside the world”? Since both are untestable science should favour neither view. The best tested theories of physics suggest that the assumptions of locality and realism are wrong. Classical mechanics and GR seem to give support to the idea that free-will is an illusion and when you take out all these assumptions - realism, locality and free-will, you end up with one only consitent scenario - that our reality is objectively virtual. I'd say it's the only scenario that is consistent with all the evidence found in physics nowadays and that reality appears local and real only to its inhabitants.

 

[debra]

Yes, at the limits(at c, infinite gravity, boundery conditions, Planck scale), we should observe that what we call reality would fall apart or completely disappear.
In string theory, the hidden dimensions that are necessary for the theory to work, make sense and be consistent with observations and experiments, are assumed to be hidden within our universe. This assumption might be wrong and the extra dimensions that we don't observe, could well lie outside the "universe". It might be our first hint at the hardware underlying our personal experience(the so-called reality). What is the difference between an unknowable dimensions that are “in the world” and one that is “outside the world”? Since both are untestable science should favour neither view. The best tested theories of physics suggest that the assumptions of locality and realism are wrong. Classical mechanics and GR seem to give support to the idea that free-will is an illusion and when you take out all these assumptions - realism, locality and free-will, you end up with one only consitent scenario - that our reality is objectively virtual. I'd say it's the only scenario that is consistent with all the evidence found in physics nowadays and that reality appears local and real only to its inhabitants.

I think you are on the hardest route to the underlying reality of all - through physics. The ideas of hidden dimensions, locality and realism are all trying to make sense of a reality that is in fact informational in nature and its not about particles, energy, 3D space and dimensions. You should end up with the same 'virtual' answer, but the route through QFT, quantum mechanics obscures the simplicity of it. Even physicists refer to space-time *metrics* - which is admitting that it is not a real physical space-time rather its based on measurements and mathematical values. Information theory is the same - it says that space-time is defined and *created* by information co-ordinates and does not exist *as of itself*. i.e. its VIRTUAL.

Whichever way you look at it, mathematics (& data) creates the whole thing. That is why its 'virtual'. The physics route is an extremely difficult to get to the answer
which is really very very simple when viewd as information and mathematics
(i.e. a kind of computer simulation).

Hardware? Probably made of information too.

 

[trogan]

I think you are on the hardest route to the underlying reality of all - through physics. The ideas of hidden dimensions, locality and realism are all trying to make sense of a reality that is in fact informational in nature and its not about particles, energy, 3D space and dimensions. You should end up with the same 'virtual' answer, but the route through QFT, quantum mechanics obscures the simplicity of it. Even physicists refer to space-time *metrics* - which is admitting that it is not a real physical space-time rather its based on measurements and mathematical values. Information theory is the same - it says that space-time is defined and *created* by information co-ordinates and does not exist *as of itself*. i.e. its VIRTUAL.

Whichever way you look at it, mathematics (& data) creates the whole thing. That is why its 'virtual'. The physics route is an extremely difficult to get to the answer
which is really very very simple when viewd as information and mathematics
(i.e. a kind of computer simulation).

Hardware? Probably made of information too.

I totally agree with you Debra that "reality" is informational in nature. I don't agree that it is a computer simulation. I believe it exists independently of any other entity. I think is consists entirely of energy and that space is just ground-state energy. It has all the characteristics of a state machine (admittedly a complex one whose workings are still somewhat obscure). In line with this it seems to consist of two primary "sub-systems":

1. Matter - whose purpose seems to be to process "state" (i.e. maintain it, process it, change it etc.).
2. Light - whose purpose seems be to transmit information about events (i.e. changes of state in matter).

We (people) are sub-state machines in this extraordinarily large state machine.

There is increasing evidence that "reality" is holographic in nature. Thus each of us may also "be" "reality" in total (i.e. godlike in nature). A sub-state machine can have as one of its states the state machine that it is part of. Whatever, we are certainly part of a single system.

I agree that physics is tortuous in its attempts to explain reality. It makes the big mistake at looking to cause and effect to explain reality when the truth is we just "are". That is, consciousness is a property of "reality". A state machine is "aware" of its states and the events that cause it to change state.

Relativity assumes that light and matter are part of the same "system" so many of its conclusions are weird. For example the speed of light might be a constant but it is part of a different system to matter, so trying to compare the two is like comparing chalk and cheese. The "time dilation" effect can be explained by an increase in mass as an object speeds up. So its rate of change slows and thus its experience of time.

I believe computer science will more and more take over from maths as the primary tool for explaining “reality”.

 

[debra]

Yes, at the limits(at c, infinite gravity, boundery conditions, Planck scale), we should observe that what we call reality would fall apart or completely disappear.

Its at the Heisenberg Uncertainty region that information pokes through to provide algorithmically calculated answers. If an answer is not required because nobody or no photon is 'observing' then it does not need to provide an answer. If a tree is not being observed... In the case of the wave function. The particle exists in information behind space-time not in space-time. It will provide an answer when the x,y,z,t co-ordinates of observed and observer triggers an algorithmic answer, if nothing triggers that then it does not *exist* in space time at all. The algorithm simply executes when the z,x,z,t condition is reached. Its the information *behind* that Heisenberg window that is sending answers.

The entangled particle paradoxes are answered neatly, because two particles can refer to the same data to find their correlations no matter how far they are separated. The algorithm doing it would not allow cause and effect to break, that would be a programmed condition. Otherwise the whole shabang would not function properly. But there is nothing to stop it using corellation data associated with entangled particles.

Note, in QFT there are no particles, but the same logic applies, to the peturbations of fields etc.

 

[debra]

I agree that physics is tortuous in its attempts to explain reality. It makes the big mistake at looking to cause and effect to explain reality when the truth is we just "are". That is, consciousness is a property of "reality". A state machine is "aware" of its states and the events that cause it to change state.

I think you are 3/4 there but are still in "energy and consciousness" which needs to go too.
Energy is nothing magical, its a simple consequence of time translation and conservation of momemtum. Even in a 'particle universe' its very logical and tangible.

Consciousenss - replace that with intelligence - as in a computer program - and your almost there. Our brains are von-neumann machines, i.e. data and a processing area. A *thought* is entirely tangible, measurable, as in a computer. Yes, our brains create their own universe that is simply smaller than the bigger universe around us. But its just as valid - that's what the bigger universe is doing too!

Its all based on intelligence, in a sense.

 

[Danger]

I must admit that I haven't read this thread, but the title brings to mind a favourite quote of my father's:
What is matter?
Never mind.
What is mind?
No matter.

 

[daisey]

Energy is nothing magical, its a simple consequence of time translation and conservation of momemtum.

Hello, Debra. :)

Can you expand on what you mean by that statement?


Daisey

 

[Evolver]

My question is: Does Matter Really Exist?

I have a thread which you can read... in it I attempt to show that nothing exists except information. Everything we experience is an interpretation of that information:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=368284

If you want a good book to read about the universe being treated as a giant quantum computer, I suggest "Programming the Universe" by Seth Lloyd. Dr. Lloyd is a professor at MIT and is currently researching and developing quantum computing.

 

[debra]

Hello, Debra. :)

Can you expand on what you mean by that statement?


Daisey

Yes, I will expand on that:

If space is symmetric in all directions, then the Lagrangian is said to be rotationally symmetric. And applying Noether's theorem the angular momentum of the system must be then be conserved. Similarly, the laws of motion are symmetric in an isotropic space (which we assume is the type of space we live in). If experiments and the laws of physics are the same in all places or times then its Lagrangian is symmetrical, and by Noether's theorem, these symmetries account for the conservation laws of linear momentum and energy within this system.

Note: Symmetries are a key notion in physics. Amazing simplicities actually.

 

[debra]

I have a thread which you can read... in it I attempt to show that nothing exists except information. Everything we experience is an interpretation of that information:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=368284

If you want a good book to read about the universe being treated as a giant quantum computer, I suggest "Programming the Universe" by Seth Lloyd. Dr. Lloyd is a professor at MIT and is currently researching and developing quantum computing.

I read your thread on the brain, but think you have gone over the top about quantum nature of the brain... How about the brain is a von-neumann like machine that processes information and instructions that it receives from inputs such as eyes, ears and touch in much the same way - at a high level - as an ordinary computer might.


The difference is that a computer is electrical - transistor based whereas the brain is chemically based. But the processing of information is common to both.

 

[Evolver]

I read your thread on the brain, but think you have gone over the top about quantum nature of the brain... How about the brain is a von-neumann like machine that processes information and instructions that it receives from inputs such as eyes, ears and touch in much the same way - at a high level - as an ordinary computer might.The difference is that a computer is electrical - transistor based whereas the brain is chemically based. But the processing of information is common to both.

There is no such thing as an "ordinary" computer. The universe exists at a quantum level which means even transistors or traditional computers can only function because of their quantum nature. That goes for the brain too, to say the brain is not quantum in nature is to defy all of Quantum Mechanics entirely.

Also, I think you are missing a very crucial element of the concept. You say that the eyes and ears can be inputs for the brain... and I agree, but what exactly is the input they are receiving? All they do is create electrical signals that they feed to the brain. And the brain then interprets these electrical signals as the 5 senses. If you really think about what you are saying you will realize you have missed an element of it's truth.

As for going over the top... there are many that came before me that shared similar ideas... Rene Descartes and Seth Lloyd are just a few of those.

 

[debra]

There is no such thing as an "ordinary" computer. The universe exists at a quantum level which means even transistors or traditional computers can only function because of their quantum nature. That goes for the brain too, to say the brain is not quantum in nature is to defy all of quantum mechanics entirely.

Also, I think you are missing a very crucial element of the concept. You say that the eyes and ears can be inputs for the brain... and I agree, but what exactly is the input they are receiving? All they do is create electrical signals that they feed to the brain. And the brain then interprets these electrical signals as the 5 senses. If you really think about what you are saying you will realize you have missed an element of it's truth.

As for going over the top... there are many that came before me that shared similar ideas... Rene Descartes and Seth Lloyd are just a few of those.

I agree with Seth Lloyd entirely from what I have read of his ideas.
But I think you are lost in how we abstract our world. At its most fundamental there is ONLY information. i.e. electrical signals, atoms, quantum levels are merely a higher level abstraction of deeper abstraction which is of mathemataics and logic using information to create everything.

So inputs into the brain are essentially DATA inputs that interpret the world outside the brain. The level we abstract that is personal preference. But I am abstracting at the information level and assuming electrical signals, quanta are merely higher up in the abstraction chain.

 

[Evolver]

I agree with Seth Lloyd entirely from what I have read of his ideas.
But I think you are lost in how we abstract our world. At its most fundamental there is ONLY information. i.e. electrical signals, atoms, quantum levels are merely a higher level abstraction of deeper abstraction which is of mathemataics and logic using information to create everything.

So inputs into the brain are essentially DATA inputs that interpret the world outside the brain. The level we abstract that is personal preference. But I am abstracting at the information level and assuming electrical signals, quanta are merely higher up in the abstraction chain.

I think basically we are saying the same thing here, I just think the confusion is arising from the fact that you assume electrical signals can exist outside of a quantum existence and I don't. I feel that a quantum sense of information is far more basic than electrical signals, because electrical signals and atoms, again, only exist because of their quantum nature. Therefore, I perceive quantum information (as opposed to traditional information) as the most basic form of input.

 

[debra]

Therefore, I perceive quantum information (as opposed to traditional information) as the most basic form of input.

AFAIK binary data is the most fundamental form of information. There is no deeper level possible. In the machine that is making everything, a one and a zero is probably related to quantum states in some way that we do not yet know. I am only guessing because I have not researched that to any depth. I don't think anyone has yet.

And yes, the brain could be using quantum computing mechanisms - I wish we knew more about that aspect. Penrose thinks it does.

 

[Evolver]

AFAIK binary data is the most fundamental form of information. There is no deeper level possible. In the machine that is making everything, a one and a zero is probably related to quantum states in some way that we do not yet know.

Well this is why I bring up quantum information. There is a property of quantum mechanics called 'entanglement.' It's when two particle are intrinsically linked, and affecting one will instantly affect the other. It's not fully understood why this property of QM exists, but it is the key element in researching quantum computers. Why is it the key element? Because instead of a traditional computer that can have a 1 or 0 to represent a state... a quantum computer can have BOTH a 1 and 0 simultaneously. That implies that a quantum bit of information would be infinitely more capable than a traditional bit. A string of quantum 1's and 0's can represent countless states of information at the same time.

 

[debra]

Well this is why I bring up quantum information. There is a property of quantum mechanics called 'entanglement.' It's when two particle are intrinsically linked, and affecting one will instantly affect the other. It's not fully understood why this property of QM exists, but it is the key element in researching quantum computers. Why is it the key element? Because instead of a traditional computer that can have a 1 or 0 to represent a state... a quantum computer can have BOTH a 1 and 0 simultaneously. That implies that a quantum bit of information would be infinitely more capable than a traditional bit. A string of quantum 1's and 0's can represent countless states of information at the same time.

Oh yes, that's right - I was forgetting the one, zero and one_zero states that QC uses.

 

[danielatha4]

First off, sorry for jumping into this thread without reading most of the replies. Ignore me if what I'm saying is irrelevant to the current discussion or if what I'm about to suggest has already been said.

I once read someone say that the mass of atomic particles can in some sense be described as the manifestation of energy, rather than actual "mass." Perhaps mass is nothing but a motion, charge attraction or repulsion, or gravity attraction (weird!) etc., or in other words: energy. If the universe became stagnant, and "froze in place" including all atomic and subatomic particles, would everything disappear into a vast amount of energy?

 

[debra]

First off, sorry for jumping into this thread without reading most of the replies. Ignore me if what I'm saying is irrelevant to the current discussion or if what I'm about to suggest has already been said.

I once read someone say that the mass of atomic particles can in some sense be described as the manifestation of energy, rather than actual "mass." Perhaps mass is nothing but a motion, charge attraction or repulsion, or gravity attraction (weird!) etc., or in other words: energy. If the universe became stagnant, and "froze in place" including all atomic and subatomic particles, would everything disappear into a vast amount of energy?

Does not really make sense - objects would still have temperature and thus 'contain' energy.
And stopping motion is sort of removing time, because it is time that allows things to move around in a 3D space. Also, time translation in an isotropic 3D space via Noethers theorem you arrive at conservation of energy. So no motion...

BUT, slightly more likely is the evaporation of all matter into photons. At this point in time the universe becomes like a point once again because photons travel infinite distances in no time and there is nothing else there to measure time.
An empty universe apart from photons is a fascinating concept. Penrose postulates this and says it 'has a chance' in the academic cosmological world.

 

[rewebster]

Does not really make sense - objects would still have temperature and thus 'contain' energy.
And stopping motion is sort of removing time, because it is time that allows things to move around in a 3D space. Also, time translation in an isotropic 3D space via Noethers theorem you arrive at conservation of energy. So no motion...

BUT, slightly more likely is the evaporation of all matter into photons. At this point in time the universe becomes like a point once again because photons travel infinite distances in no time and there is nothing else there to measure time.
An empty universe apart from photons is a fascinating concept. Penrose postulates this and says it 'has a chance' in the academic cosmological world.

I haven't heard that about 'time' before----is that your own thoughts or from some theory already out there?

 

[debra]

I haven't heard that about 'time' before----is that your own thoughts or from some theory already out there?

Prof Penrose reckons if there are no objects in the universe then time loses track - its his thought not mine.

But the idea of photons not traveling in time is correct. If a photon goes billions of miles in space, then for it, no time passes at all. So you must agree that a universe with only free photons would be a strange place...

 

[rewebster]

Prof Penrose reckons if there are no objects in the universe then time loses track - its his thought not mine.

But the idea of photons not traveling in time is correct. If a photon goes billions of miles in space, then for it, no time passes at all. So you must agree that a universe with only free photons would be a strange place...

isn't that just for relativity?

no photons? well, if you go with Darwin, the 'universe' would find something else to fill their spot in space.

 

[debra]

isn't that just for relativity?

no photons? well, if you go with Darwin, the 'universe' would find something else to fill their spot in space.

I think Penrose is saying that when there are only photons left, then the universe would start again. Its only a theory of his but he thinks 'it has a chance' (of being accepted by the cosmological community).

Only relativity? I agree with your 'only' because relativity is only a mathematical consequence of cause and effect in an isotropic space. And the speed of light is the maximum speed of information travel - it would be the same for gravity waves too. If it were not then we could defeat cause followed by effect. But Bohm has something to say on that too which is interesting, but probably not belong in this thread.

 

[rewebster]

I think Penrose is saying that when there are only photons left, then the universe would start again. Its only a theory of his but he thinks 'it has a chance' (of being accepted by the cosmological community).

Only relativity? I agree with your 'only' because relativity is only a mathematical consequence of cause and effect in an isotropic space. And the speed of light is the maximum speed of information travel - it would be the same for gravity waves too. If it were not then we could defeat cause followed by effect. But Bohm has something to say on that too which is interesting, but probably not belong in this thread.

and this, to me, is why we really do need a stronger theory----

it's difficult not to say "but, in this other theory [insert favorite theory] it works this way..."

(but, please do say what you were thinking about Bohm...)

 

[debra]

(but, please do say what you were thinking about Bohm...)

Bohm theory (in 'easy' words) is that when a quantum particle is prepared and sets off to a destination... from A to B then, when it arrives at B a signal goes back in time to A and basically let's the particle know its destination before it sets off.

This only works between preparation and observation - so its not a blanket going back in time type of thing.

There is no record of the particles path from A to B - so it can do the backwards in time-trick without breaking causality. (called weak causality).

I like the theory because it overcomes a huge calculation problem that the universe has if its destination is unkown. I am speaking about a wave function here.

If a wave function spreads out over a huge area then its easy to see the problem the universe has in picking by probability its observed location. Because the location algorithm would have to instantly dissappear everywhere over that huge area.

To me there seems to be too much information to process - that's why Bohm Theory appeals to me, because its a much easier solution for the universe if that small, short, backwards time thing happened. It does not break cause and effect.

 

[rewebster]

Bohm theory (in 'easy' words) is that when a quantum particle is prepared and sets off to a destination... from A to B then, when it arrives at B a signal goes back in time to A and basically let's the particle know its destination before it sets off.

This only works between preparation and observation - so its not a blanket going back in time type of thing.

There is no record of the particles path from A to B - so it can do the backwards in time-trick without breaking causality. (called weak causality).

I like the theory because it overcomes a huge calculation problem that the universe has if its destination is unkown. I am speaking about a wave function here.

If a wave function spreads out over a huge area then its easy to see the problem the universe has in picking by probability its observed location. Because the location algorithm would have to instantly dissappear everywhere over that huge area.

To me there seems to be too much information to process - that's why Bohm Theory appeals to me, because its a much easier solution for the universe if that small, short, backwards time thing happened. It does not break cause and effect.

well, if you tolerate time travel, I guess...

I personally can't accept any theory that includes any amount, that is necessary for it to 'work', of "backwards in time" or "stoppage of time".

 

[wofsy]

I think this has passed science and gone over to philosophy. Bad philosophy at that - you are about an inch from the old, tired "brain in a vat" idea. That was stale in 1641, and it hasn't improved with time.

Objects can be touched, probed, felt and measured. If you want to argue that this doesn't make them real, what is? If you want to then argue "nothing is", this is Solipsism.

Now, if you want to discuss whether the properties of various objects are as you expect - that's science.

when you say that objects can be touched and probed you are assuming what you want to prove. You are assuming that there is something real - whatever that means - that can be touched or probed. But in fact all you know is the results of you touching and probing - you do not know that there is anything else - real as you call it.

 

[ZapperZ]

when you say that objects can be touched and probed you are assuming what you want to prove. You are assuming that there is something real - whatever that means - that can be touched or probed. But in fact all you know is the results of you touching and probing - you do not know that there is anything else - real as you call it.

Then it makes this whole thread moot. The question "does matter really exist" is not real either, since it is a composition of matter that came together and interact to produce that idea and question, AND, convey it to others (i.e. note that your computer, your screen, Physicsforums website, etc) are all not real. This thread and and this question do not exist. Just think of all the wasted time spent dealing with this issue...

Zz.

 

[wofsy]

Then it makes this whole thread moot. The question "does matter really exist" is not real either, since it is a composition of matter that came together and interact to produce that idea and question, AND, convey it to others (i.e. note that your computer, your screen, Physicsforums website, etc) are all not real. This thread and and this question do not exist. Just think of all the wasted time spent dealing with this issue...

Zz.

Wile I agree with your point, this is still a difficult philosophical issue that took a couple thousand years until Kant to figure out. It does not hurt to think it through.

 

[ZapperZ]

Wile I agree with your point, this is still a difficult philosophical issue that took a couple thousand years until Kant to figure out. It does not hurt to think it through.

.. and people wonder why I have very little patience (and time) to deal with such philosophical issues...

Zz.

 

[wofsy]

.. and people wonder why I have very little patience (and time) to deal with such philosophical issues...

Zz.

i am not sure what you mean. To me, assumptions about nature are subtle and benefit from clarification. If you do not think that you need to think about any assumptions - then that is an assumption on your part.

 

[ZapperZ]

i am not sure what you mean. To me, assumptions about nature are subtle and benefit from clarification. If you do not think that you need to think about any assumptions - then that is an assumption on your part.

How'd you come up with THAT assumption? It appears that your assumption on why I had very little patience in dealing with THIS particular issue is severely faulty.

Zz.

 

[rewebster]

you know that old saying about assumptions...


wait...


what's a "mptions"?

 

[wofsy]

How'd you come up with THAT assumption? It appears that your assumption on why I had very little patience in dealing with THIS particular issue is severely faulty.

Zz.

why not give us your thoughts?

BTW: I was only making a philosophical point. I made no assumptions.

 

[Pythagorean]

why not give us your thoughts?

BTW: I was only making a philosophical point. I made no assumptions.

The most debilitating assumptions are the ones you don't realize you're making.