REALITY CONFIRMED SUBJECTIVE

[Anonymous No.10460066]

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613092/a-quantum-experiment-suggests-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/amp/
WEW

[Anonymous No.10460085]

>>10460066
So, you all don't exist if I don't look at you.
I'm OK with it.
What a shitty vidya game this is.

[Anonymous No.10460106]

Doesn't special relativity already tell us this?

[Anonymous No.10460107]

>>10460066
It's of my subjective opinion that this study is bs lol

[Anonymous No.10460109]

>>10460066
Everyone already knows that. You know that the first time you hear different people retell events all of them saw at the same time.

[Anonymous No.10460116]

>>10460066

[Anonymous No.10460122]

>>10460066
How cute, they're catching up...

[Anonymous No.10460136]

>>10460106
That's what I thought. Time is relative, but since we've known and accepted this for so long now, it doesn't seem strange anymore. But if time can be relative, why not everything else?

[Anonymous No.10460143]

>tfw science starts to become everything that's wrong with the humanities

[Anonymous No.10460144]

>not understanding reference frames: the study

Although if you're talking about the mind it makes sense, everyone has their own ass-backwards idea of the world

[Anonymous No.10460152]

>>10460144
itt a bunch of people opining on an article they didn't even take the time to read

[Anonymous No.10460229]

>>10460066
big nothing burger
>But Proietti and co’s result suggests that objective reality does not exist. In other words, the experiment suggests that one or more of the assumptions—the idea that there is a reality we can agree on, the idea that we have freedom of choice, or the idea of locality—must be wrong.
we’ve known since the 80’s that violations of locality happen in entangled systems. hype!

[Anonymous No.10460238]

>>10460229
>he experiment suggests that one or more of the assumptions—the idea that there is a reality we can agree on, the idea that we have freedom of choice, or the idea of locality—must be wrong
this is literally just bell's theorem, some shit we've known for like a century now

this doesn't prove anything, this is a low iq retard post

[Anonymous No.10460242]

yeah wow 2 observers can see different things at a microscopic scale

doesn't prove anything tho, especially not at a human scale

[Anonymous No.10460268]

>>10460242
Brainlet

[Anonymous No.10460339]

>>10460152
I read it. First, never trust Italians. Think pinocchio.

Second, the thought experiment is asymmetric if the article is correct in its explanation because wigners friend makes a measurement on a system of photons but wigner himself measures a super position of his friends measurement and the photons.

I guarantee that it is a clear ordering of events; if you make a measurement collapsing the wave function, then I will see the same collapsed state provided o know you measured first.

In other words, the reality was different for both people before the measurement took place.

[Anonymous No.10460365]

>>10460066
How did they obtain an objective truth from a subjective reality?

[Anonymous No.10460386]

>>10460066
That’s not what that means at all. Retarded study.

[Anonymous No.10460531]

>>10460365
nice word game
they obtained two, confirmed truths that are in conflict with each other

[Anonymous No.10460533]

>>10460386
everyone on this board is a genius, whereas researchers at research institutions are all retards
obviously

[Anonymous No.10460549]

>>10460533
>appeal to authority

[Anonymous No.10460550]

>post modernism literally confirmed correct with physics
stay mad Jordan Peterson fanboys

feelings don't care about your facts

[Anonymous No.10460561]

>>10460549
>this appeal to authority makes me right
it doesn't

[Anonymous No.10460571]

>>10460531
So, what you're saying is that 0.999... != 1?

[Anonymous No.10460629]

>>10460550
Facts don't exist because reality is subjective. What's true for one might not be true for another

[Anonymous No.10460650]

>be standing outside
>my friend is also standing outside but is wearing sunglasses
>shit is darker for him
>wtf we berkeley now xD

[Anonymous No.10460654]

>>10460629
I always suspected that the laws of physics themselves might actually be different some place far beyond the observable universe limit. I never dreamed that such a state of affairs might exist right here on Earth.

[Anonymous No.10460674]

ITT: proof that sci has zero clue about philosophy but still likes to talk about it.

[Anonymous No.10460685]

>>10460674
Yeah, I don't think this has much at all to do with philosophy. It just sounds philosophical in a way.

[Anonymous No.10460690]

>>10460122
What was his claim again?

[Anonymous No.10460695]

>>10460629
Whats true for you right now is not true for you right now. Each moment in change reflects a completely different reality.

[Anonymous No.10460697]

>>10460629
Is that a fact?

[Anonymous No.10460698]

>>10460690
That there is a sort of "beyond". Something that is not empirically accessible, yet is nonetheless real. It's not an outlandish claim at all.

[Anonymous No.10460701]

>>10460697
It may be the only fact in existence.

[Anonymous No.10460704]

>>10460229
>the idea that we have freedom of choice,
How did this bit of mysticism slip in here?

[Anonymous No.10460714]

>>10460704
>the idea that we have freedom of choice is wrong
>mysticism
you must have just arrived on /sci/ yesterday

[Anonymous No.10460727]

>>10460531
Then the next question is what happens when those conflicting truths have to interact with each other, or can they go on without interacting indefinitely?

[Anonymous No.10460738]

>>10460122
this guy gets it

[Anonymous No.10460741]

>>10460571
we are all one, even 0.999...

[Anonymous No.10460742]

>>10460533
Yes, apparently. You’d have to be a retarded researcher to think that different interactions resulting in different results means there’s different realities.

[Anonymous No.10460752]

The only way reality could be objective is if there was a god.

[Anonymous No.10460756]

>>10460752
Doesn’t follow. God would just be another observer. Reality has no need of said observer to exist.

[Anonymous No.10460776]

Tell me if I understand this correctly:
>6 entangled photons were acquired
>One person measures the spin of a photon, which should collapse the wave function for them all because they are all entangled.
>Another person checks if the wave function has collapsed, and finds that it hasn't
>The wave function has to have collapsed though, because it was measured!

Couldn't this just mean that we don't understand entanglement and wave function collapse properly?

[Anonymous No.10460780]

>>10460698
How does this article prove that there's a metaphysical reality?

[Anonymous No.10460807]

>>10460690
>>10460698
"Being" is not the same as "becoming". Since you are "becoming" something else, you obviously aren't complete and cannot "be" anything particular. Reality is subjective because nothing independent is "real", only the sum and principle of everything is "real" and cannot be comprehended. The parts are not the whole, but the parts make up the whole. Only an uncut pie is truly "whole" though.

[Anonymous No.10460817]

>>10460807
What he said.

[Anonymous No.10460822]

>>10460807
>Since you are "becoming" something else, you obviously aren't complete and cannot "be" anything particular.

Simply a false claim. Rocks can become processed metals but they’re baryonic matter through the entire sequence.

>Reality is subjective because nothing independent is "real"

Prove it.

>only the sum and principle of everything is "real" and cannot be comprehended.

Word salad void of meaning.

>The parts are not the whole, but the parts make up the whole. Only an uncut pie is truly "whole" though.

The parts nevertheless exist as things.

[Anonymous No.10460824]

>>10460752
>The only way reality could be objective is if there was a god.
That's why reality isn't objective

[Anonymous No.10460827]

>>10460824
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.10460832]

>>10460066
Then how come we all seem to be in agreement that this reality sucks dildos? Everybody, unless they're high as a kite, is universally disappointed in fucking everything.

[Anonymous No.10460834]

>>10460780
It doesn't, and no one is saying that it does. Metaphysics is just the study of the nature of reality. Unsurprisingly, such a study is quite unscientific, because there is just so much we don't know about reality. What these people did was just expand the very very small area of this study that IS scientific by one small step.

[Anonymous No.10460835]

>>10460106
>>10460136
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD2jKSW7yss

[Anonymous No.10460838]

>>10460835
FUCK YOU MONTANO, STOP POSTING YOUR SHIRTLESS PSEDUOSCIENCE BRAINLET VIDEOS

[Anonymous No.10460840]

>>10460776
Replace "we" with the person writing the article/original paper and you're correct.

There's no reason a measurement of 1 photon should collapse the whole wavefunction.

If you have 2 entangled photons, measuring the spin of one also measures the spin of the other, due to conservation of quantum number. If one's up the other's down (assuming they came from a spin 0 state).

However, if you have 6 entangled photons, measuring one says very little about the other 5. An individual of the 5 could still be up or down, now it's just 60/40 instead of 50/50.

QM isn't magic. Wavefunction collapse is well understood logically, except by this guy I guess.

[Anonymous No.10460843]

>>10460066
This doesn't prove shit about there not being an objective reality. If there is no objective reality, "There is no objective reality" is the objective reality.

[Anonymous No.10460845]

>>10460143
this

[Anonymous No.10460848]

>>10460840
This isn't just some mainstream publication. It's the MIT Technology Review. It's definitely not that.

[Anonymous No.10460853]

>>10460840
It's not a "guy". If you'd even read the article you'd know it's two independent teams with several researchers each. Pseuds everywhere on this board, I swear.

[Anonymous No.10460855]

>>10460834
Physics is the study of reality. Metaphysics is just whatever people throw on top of physics (or used to claim the same domain as physics). Metaphysics is definitely not a study but rather a claim that may or may not have a coherent rational behind it.

[Anonymous No.10460858]

>>10460654
>>10460695
>>10460697
This is why I said it: because it's retarded. Saying there are no absolutes is an absolute in itself.

[Anonymous No.10460866]

>>10460858
It's the one and only absolute. It makes perfect sense.

[Anonymous No.10460867]

That heading is wrong, should be
>Quantum experiment shows journalists don't understand science

[Anonymous No.10460869]

>>10460822
>Simply a false claim. Rocks can become processed metals but they’re baryonic matter through the entire sequence.

An iron can become a magnet with absolutely no quantitative difference. What's your point? Quality over quantity is the point.

>Prove it.
>provide proof of no proof

Prove your real first. I won't reify an absence.

>Word salad void of meaning.
Form vs matter (material). "Matter is formed" not, "matter produces forms". The forms are higher and not reifiable because they have no physical existence. They are also non-specific, there is no "most true and real form", because it's a conjugate of matter/material.

>The parts nevertheless exist as things.
Yeah, as parts. Not the whole. Basically it's not a matter of "what is/isn't real" it's "how real is it?".

[Anonymous No.10460873]

>>10460866
I am using an absolute to discredit the existence of absolutes. How does that make sense?

[Anonymous No.10460879]

>>10460066
Shows how far from the point science has wandered

[Anonymous No.10460880]

>>10460867
This stupid meme again
MIT Technology Review is not a mainstream publication.

[Anonymous No.10460883]

Denial of metaphysics is denial of the possibility of true knowledge of the supersensible world e.g laws. We either relapse or are stuck in the world of senses and appearances.

i.e u cannot know nuffin

[Anonymous No.10460886]

>>10460880
How isn't it

[Anonymous No.10460887]

>>10460339
>think pinocchio

[Anonymous No.10460889]

>>10460066
>using "she" to refer to anonymous persons
subjective reality both confirmed and dominating

[Anonymous No.10460891]

>>10460887
I thought that was funny too

[Anonymous No.10460893]

>>10460886
It's not the fucking USA Today

[Anonymous No.10460898]

I at first thought it was just popsci being retarded, but even the attic paper is retarded. The science is basic QM, I expect no one is actualy surprised by this, the results fit standard QM, or pilot wave theory, and doesn't seem to have been large scale/high energy enough to rule out some objective collapse theories, but their interpretation of the results are just wierd. I also think they misunderstood the implications of the original thought experiment.

[Anonymous No.10460899]

>>10460066
I understand the whole point of the experiment, but aren't we completely neglecting the fact that these measurements aren't being done simultaneously? Of course they're seeing irreconcilable results about the system since they're allowing the system the potential to change over time in between measurements.
I may also be completely wrong, I'm a little wasted currently.

[Anonymous No.10460902]

The fact that there is so much resistance to this just tells me that brainlets will always cling to their "common sense" world views for dear life, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Stay in denial.

[Anonymous No.10460905]

>>10460898
MIT Tech Review is not popsci.

[Anonymous No.10460907]

>>10460898
>pilot wave theory
terrible bait

[Anonymous No.10460912]

>>10460902
>overwhelming evidence
>a single paper published on arxiv by Scots and Italians
who's the one in denial here?

[Anonymous No.10460913]

>>10460907
Are you denying that pilot wave theory exists or what?

[Anonymous No.10460921]

>>10460893
Saying mit tech isn't mainstream is pretty delusional

[Anonymous No.10460925]

>>10460912
>Implying quantum weirdness is not long-established
These findings shouldn't even be surprising to anyone at this point

[Anonymous No.10460928]

>>10460898
yes, big old nothing burger. can we let this thread die now? and i'm talking to you, philosofags. no more of your physics-phobic shit here.

[Anonymous No.10460930]

>The friend can even call Wigner and say the measurement has been done (provided the outcome is not revealed).
This is just stupid. A phonecall would be way to hot to sustain the superposition.

[Anonymous No.10461236]

>>10460912
It’s not even fucking published in an actual journal yet. No one has peer reviewed it.

[Anonymous No.10461292]

>>10461236
It was literally submitted today

[Anonymous No.10461302]

>>10460066
Subjectivity does not exist.

[Anonymous No.10461317]

>>10460066
>posts a science news site
>not posting the actual source

No wonder /sci/ is so shit.

[Anonymous No.10461320]

>>10460066
OP is a nigger confirmed.

[Anonymous No.10461343]

>>10461292
ArXiv does not peer-review, and MIT only links the ArXiv. I can also find a ResearchGate but it says it’s just a pre-print and doesn’t mention what actual journal they submitted it to.

[Anonymous No.10461367]

>>10460066
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.10461480]

>>10460873
It’s not really an absolute, more like a superposition of absolutes.

There is no objective truth, but also all subjective realities are simultaneously and irreconcilably true. Post-modernist thought is not proposing the existence of an absolute rule that there is no absolute, but rather applying the probabilistic nature of the quantum field to our lived experience. Quantum science doesn’t allow for objective truth, because all possible realities/outcomes/perspectives exist simultaneously, and collapse repeatedly into different outcomes based on probability

[Anonymous No.10461484]

>>10461480
>Shoehorning quantum phenomena into a macroscopic context to look smart

[Anonymous No.10461496]

>>10461484
I mean, I’m not the one writing books on the stuff. But I’ve read some of them, and that’s the gist of it. There’s a lot of misrepresentation of what postmodernist thought actually is, so I just thought I’d clarify it. Personally, I think all of reality is a hallucination my brain is having and that nothing except my own thoughts are true, including my dreams. It works for me

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Anonymous No.10461522]

>reality
nice abstract word with no clear definition

>hufflepuffs are subjective!

[Anonymous No.10461652]

>>10460066
All those freshman philosophy majors were right

[Anonymous No.10461678]

>>10460756
But god would know the true reality, whereas we only know from our limited human point of view.
(Not religious btw)

[Anonymous No.10461685]

>>10460827
Burden of proof lies upon someone that says something exists.

[Anonymous No.10461687]

All these weird quantum effects like entanglement and superposition... why exactly is this one not believable? Seems just as believable as the others.

[Anonymous No.10461692]

>>10461522
I think I see the problem. The word "subjective" is triggering everyone into thinking this is somehow about philosophy or whatnot. It pretty obviously isn't.

[Anonymous No.10461750]

>>10461687
>>10461480
>>10460858

How "real" is an "effect"? Things can be hot and cold, does that make "hot" and "cold" exist as something that does something? No. Something causes something else to obtain the quality of "hotness" or "coldness".

How cold/hot are you right now? How hot/cold will you be tomorrow? How old and decayed are you now? In 40 years? Does that mean you'll be "less real", "more real" or the exact same realness in 40 years? Obviously not the latter, and the former isn't exactly an absolute now is it? Neither are you. You don't exist because you aren't complete.
Bask in the joy of being able to change, for an everlasting being or deity certainly wouldn't nor could not. It wouldn't even think, because it would be all knowing. The truest "absolute".

>>10460858
And the truest absolute is the absolute itself and is therefore self-evident to itself. It cannot be known for it is not self-evident to us as mere parts of that order, like how an organ cannot perform all the tasks of the body. It's a locution more than a self-contradiction, like saying "we with our limited potential will never know the real truth" or "the truth evades us no matter how hard we search".
>>10460866
ONLY from the perspective of a being with enough virtue to enact the same action (of non absoluteness).

[Anonymous No.10461856]

This thread reads like stuff people were probably saying when quantum mechanics was first proposed. People including Einstein himself. Looking forward to this being further confirmed over the next few years and watching you people eat your words.

[Anonymous No.10461880]

>>10460066
before I read this: Is this just postmodernism pretending to be science or is this science?

[Anonymous No.10461943]

>>10460066
finally many-worlds has been proven correct

get fucked everyone else

[Anonymous No.10461949]

>>10461880
>is this just postmodernism
That's the problem with like 75% of the reactions to this. The first kneejerk thought is "wait, is this philosophy?" It's not. People are just so over-sensitized to postmodern obfuscatory bullshit.

[Anonymous No.10461954]

>>10461949
But it was postmodernism pretending to be science >>10460229

[Anonymous No.10461962]

>>10461954
He fixated on just locality. We haven't known about the other two since the 80's.

[Anonymous No.10461965]

>>10461954
Also, what he wrote doesn't have anything to do with postmodernism, even still.

[Anonymous No.10461974]

>>10460122
>tfw just being smart as fuck beats science every time and allows you to penetrate to the core of ketaphisics, while sciencefags cant stop obsessing over minutia.

[Anonymous No.10461982]

>>10461974
Science is basically just autism.

[Anonymous No.10461984]

>>10461965
>>10461962

See >>10460742

See the postmodern interpretation of a shit conclusion to suggest this is postmodernism transgendering as science.

[Anonymous No.10461994]

>>10461984
Every time you even suggest that this is postmodernism (even if the research is somehow wrong) you are further incriminating yourself as a complete retard who doesn't know his ear from his elbow. Simple as that.

[Anonymous No.10462021]

>>10461685
>Burden of proof lies upon someone that says something exists.

Nope. It goes to who makes the claim, which is you. There’s no difference between a negative and positive claim. Both have a burden.

[Anonymous No.10462050]

>>10461994
Ad hominem freak

[Anonymous No.10462107]

>>10460742
But those two measurements both describe the same property of the photons, which contradict each other according to your perspective.

[Anonymous No.10462189]

>>10460066
Woah woah so you're telling me that doublethink is actually a completely rational and acceptable thing to do, and is completely based in reality?

[Anonymous No.10462213]

>>10460066
how does wigner remaining ignorant of the result of his friend's measurement imply two realities?

[Anonymous No.10462229]

>>10461984
>this is postmodernism transgendering as science.
based

[Anonymous No.10464422]

>>10460066
Experience
Not influence
The two observers don't influence reality, they just experience it differently.
The only way they are influencing it is the fact that they exist.