/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.16070702]

Can reality exist without a consciousness to perceive and acknowledge it? What if the world would cease to exist as soon as there isn't any consciousness left to experience it?

[Anonymous No.16070705]

couldn't aliens from another planet still keep the universe going? until we pop up again or smth? universe must still exist if other conscious life is out there.

[Anonymous No.16070706]

>>16070702
Does the internet still go on without a computer?

[Anonymous No.16070707]

>>16070706
As long as other computers and devices still exist to operate it, yes.

[Anonymous No.16070713]

>>16070706
kek no without any computer

[Anonymous No.16070718]

>>16070702
Obviously not, how could time pass without someone to observe its passage?

[Anonymous No.16070719]

>>16070718
>how could time pass
quite instantly

[Anonymous No.16070720]

>>16070719
I mean as far as anyone who doesn't exist is concerned. just like all the time since big bang till you popped up here went in an instant

[Anonymous No.16070722]

>>16070702
reality is subjective, even objectivity is a subjective term derived from our mind, so I'm confident to say that if consciousness wouldn't exist anymore, "reality" wouldn't exist anymore in a way.

[Anonymous No.16070728]

>>16070722
is the perception of reality really reality though?

[Anonymous No.16070731]

>>16070728
you can have a good sense of it or a bad sense of it. you can't know all reality at once.

[Anonymous No.16070734]

>>16070728
You tell me. Say I take all your shit and tell you that you have a bad perception of reality and I didn't really take anything from you.
Are you ok with that anon? Do you accept you actually have no idea where your shit went?

[Anonymous No.16070739]

>>16070719
But there must be someone at the end of that instant for it to have passed. So if no observer ever shows up it gets frozen in infinity

[Anonymous No.16070741]

>>16070702
Did the big bang and its immediate after effects exist? There was obviously no one conscious there.

[Anonymous No.16070742]

>>16070739
yes indeed. but if it's infinity, us popping up seems inevitable. quite scarily so

[Anonymous No.16070743]

>>16070702
No. All reality is is of conscious making. What exists beyond cognition? Nothing.

[Anonymous No.16070757]

>>16070702
Reality itself is a consciousness which perceives and acknowledges itself

[Anonymous No.16070771]

>>16070741
The big bang is a theory created by our subjective mind and ideas, I don't think you quite understand what is being discussed in this thread

[Anonymous No.16070786]

>>16070771
If a tree falls in a forest and no on there to hear it did it make a sound. It's not that deep, anon.

[Anonymous No.16070789]

>>16070702
You need consciousness to collapse the wave function. No consciousness means no reality. I've often pointed out that if we were to model a universe as a simulation we would also have to model consciousnesses to observe the simulation. They are two sides of the same coin and science being unwilling or unable to acknowledge this is the crux of many current issues in cosmology.

This means that the first instance of the universe forming also by definition had consciousnesses. In reality it's likely the consciousnesses came first by the smallest of margins and then collapsed the first wave function into what we call reality. It's also likely that the consciousnesses was a singularity and as space+time fractured into The Universe so did the singular consciousnesses. Now we inhabit a reality of far flung matter and far flung consciousnesses. It gets way more complicated but you are on the correct path, keep digging anon and you'll find the answers you seek. Reality is basically a collective dream the shattered consciousnesses is generating.

[Anonymous No.16070790]

>>16070786
if there's no one around does the Big Bang happen? or does it mean that everything that happened in the universe must have had someone to witness it for it to happen?

[Anonymous No.16070793]

>>16070789
I'll be sure to tell the nurses about the Bethesda rendering theory of reality when I'm finally committed after being overexposed to the retard waves here

[Anonymous No.16070794]

>>16070789
>No consciousness means no reality
for the particular consciousness which doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.16070795]

>>16070702
>Can reality exist without a consciousness to perceive and acknowledge it?
yup

>What if the world would cease to exist as soon as there isn't any consciousness left to experience it?
it won't

[Anonymous No.16070800]

>>16070790
>Can reality exist without a consciousness to perceive and acknowledge it
>everything that happened in the universe must have had someone to witness it
Same question, no?

[Anonymous No.16070802]

>>16070790
>or does it mean that everything that happened in the universe must have had someone to witness it for it to happen?
DING
DING
DING
WE HAVE A WINNER!

Here in the year 2024 you can not collapse the wave function without an observer. THERE IS NO REASON OR EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THIS TRUISM DOESN'T EXTRAPOLATE TO ALL TIME IS RETARDED!

This truism of consciousness being needed to collapse the wave function didn't just start being true one random day, it's always been true. Yes even at Muh Big Bang. The tree doesn't fall in the forest if no one observes it, once you enter the forest the wave function collapses and you see the already collapsed tree HOWEVER the tree didn't collapse off screen, technically it never fell down and only existed in two states, standing up last time it was observed, and fallen down when you finally go back and check on it. It's the fucking cat in a box issue all over again.

PS, the infinite consciousness that was around during the Big Bang is what we now call a "soul". It's immortal and exists beyond space+time, can't be created nor destroyed. It's always existed and will always exist.

[Anonymous No.16070811]

>>16070802
>you can not collapse the wave function without an observer
yes you can

>the infinite consciousness that was around during the Big Bang is what we now call a "soul"
no it isn't

>It's immortal and exists beyond space+time
no its not

[Anonymous No.16070813]

>>16070793
>>16070794
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c

It's called the "Double Slit Experiment" maybe STFU retards. It's settled science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

You can't have it both ways. Either you need consciousness to collapse the wave function or you don't. All experiments show you do. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.16070814]

>>16070811
>yes you can
How?

[Anonymous No.16070816]

>>16070802
you can point to no consciousness without certain material form. the chances of such a boltzman brain just spontaneously being generated in the big bang are quite low. as far as we know there's certain chemical elements needed

[Anonymous No.16070818]

>>16070811
source.....i'll wait.

[Anonymous No.16070829]

>>16070816
You are so far off from what I am trying to say and so far off from reality it's laughable.

Let's be clear, nothing is real except consciousness and nothing exists that does not first flow from and because of this consciousness. I'm not talking about some fucking pop sci boltzman brain, it's more akin to "God" than your stupid fucking youtube subject matter. You are a fucking ant trying to understand rocket science and it shows. People like you are devoid of creativity or imagination or independent thought. You are only capable of parroting bullshit you read on the internet to sound smart like "boltzman brain".

Consciousness collapsed the wave function and created The Universe as we know it. Alien worlds don't exist until and unless we observe it. There is nothing that does not first flow from consciousness, including all of "reality".

I've suffered you retards long enough, the info you need is ITT, be stupid, be smart, don't care, not my fucking problem.

[Anonymous No.16070834]

>>16070829
>or independent thought.
what do you mean anon? you constantly seethe about mine.
>nothing is real except consciousness
seems to still be real long after you're dead anon.

[Anonymous No.16070836]

>>16070829
Aliens can be conscious though. It's not merely a human phenomenon ala elephants enjoying music.

[Anonymous No.16070846]

>consciousness can exist without a brain
>but it cannot exist in any other neuromorphic hardware
>just in human brain or literally no matter (doesn't elaborate further)
>no inbetween
>trust me
>I speak with invisible friends

[Anonymous No.16070855]

>>16070813
The double slit experiment is just a demonstration of electromagnetic diffraction, has nothing to do with neither consciousness nor "collapsing the wave function"

[Anonymous No.16070872]

>>16070855
> demonstration of electromagnetic diffraction
The duality of photon the inexplicable jump from wave to matter from the observer effect is what he's talking about.

[Anonymous No.16070873]

>>16070872
What duality, it's just oscillating matter

[Anonymous No.16070875]

>>16070873
>What duality,
>it's just oscillating
Are you serious?

[Anonymous No.16070880]

>>16070813
>It's called the "Double Slit Experiment"
retard-kun....

[Anonymous No.16070884]

>>16070875
does a pendulum turn into a gas every time it swings?

[Anonymous No.16070885]

>>16070884
No, but a photon wave turns into matter when it's observed

[Anonymous No.16070893]

>>16070885
If that's the case then how come we can see an interference pattern at all?

[Anonymous No.16070909]

>>16070885
>a photon wave turns into matter
The "photon wave" is made of matter

[Anonymous No.16070911]

>>16070893
We can observe waves, anon. Are you asking why don't the waves collapse rather than destroy/amplify each other? In that case picrel
>>16070909
Why does this matter collapse when observed and only then?

[Anonymous No.16070914]

>>16070911
>Why does this matter collapse
Collapse into what? It's all just matter.

[Anonymous No.16070915]

>>16070914
into something you can see as opposed to an equation you were predicting

[Anonymous No.16070917]

>>16070911
>We can observe waves
Then how are the particles behaving as waves an indication that they are not matter until observed if we can observe the particles while they do not "behave as matter"?

[Anonymous No.16070920]

>>16070917
because waves aren't matter, a transformation takes place. Why and why is it dependent on an observer?

[Anonymous No.16070922]

>>16070915
But you can see it at all times, what kind of schizophrenic ramble is this?
>>16070920
>waves aren't matter
lol, literally all of reality is matter, if it wasn't matter it would not exist

[Anonymous No.16070923]

>>16070920
You are fundamentally minunderstanding the difference between observing the behavior of a particle and monitoring the precise position of a particle

[Anonymous No.16070926]

>>16070922
>But you can see it at all times
Your cat is both alive and dead? Neat
>literally all of reality is matter,
Imagination is in reality. Point to the matter where that takes place, point to the mind, not the brain, the mind.
>>16070923
Observing the behavior is the double slit experiment, monitoring precise position is how you conduct the experiment .Distinction without a difference.

[Anonymous No.16070930]

>>16070926
You are a literal methhead lmao

[Anonymous No.16070932]

>>16070926
>Observing the behavior is the double slit experiment, monitoring precise position is how you conduct the experiment .
Is seeing an interference pattern not an observation?

[Anonymous No.16070933]

>>16070932
Of the wave, not collapse of the wave.
>>16070930
Good one.

[Anonymous No.16070936]

Not really related but do Magenta prove that our brain can be a bit of a schizo when it comes to colors?

[Anonymous No.16070939]

>>16070933
Collapse into what

[Anonymous No.16070944]

>>16070933
>Of the wave, not collapse of the wave
god I miss weed

[Anonymous No.16070946]

>>16070939
Matter, but it's all matter. We're looping and I have no way to advance the conversation. I was devil advocating, and I am out.
>>16070944
maybe I am high, true

[Anonymous No.16070950]

>>16070946
photons is matter bro? you for real?

[Anonymous No.16070951]

>>16070950
>>16070950
Not when it's a wave then it's just probabilities, fuck you.

[Anonymous No.16070953]

>>16070951
when is it matter bro? at which point exactly? are you aware of what you are saying

[Anonymous No.16070956]

>>16070953
At the point of observation when the wave collapses.

[Anonymous No.16070965]

>>16070702
>Can reality exist without a consciousness to perceive and acknowledge it?
Can a dream exist without the dreamer.
Can a game exist without the computer.
Can a shadow exist without the fire.
>What if the world would cease to exist as soon as there isn't any consciousness left to experience it?
And if it does, does it matter.
What if I told you a world is destroyed and created each moment.
Would that bother you, or would it set you free.

[Anonymous No.16070970]

>>16070946
>Matter, but it's all matter.
Exactly, it doesn't collapse into anything
>>16070951
>Not when it's a wave then it's just probabilities
"probabilities" is not a state of matter

[Anonymous No.16070977]

>>16070702
In the matter of "reality", by definition, yes.
Consciousness is not a requirement of a reality.
Reality does not need to be observed to happen.
Object permanence is evidence of this.
If we put a cat in a box, we know the cat isn't going to cease to exist if we close the box.
If the cat doesn't move and makes no noise, we still know the cat is in there.
It may die, it may go to sleep, or it may just be well behaved, but in one state or another, it's still there.

As for consciousness, the universe would just make the consciousness again if all consciousness ceased.
For consciousness to not exist, the universe would need to have all possibilities/ingredients of consciousness removed.
Remove all of those building blocks, and you don't have the same universe anymore, but you do still have a reality.

[Anonymous No.16070979]

>>16070956
what is the mass of a photon?

[Anonymous No.16070983]

>>16070965
>Can a dream exist without the dreamer.
Consciousness didn't create the universe.
>And if it does, does it matter.
>What if I told you a world is destroyed and created each moment.
>Would that bother you, or would it set you free.
Thinks he's a philosopher, uses periods at the end of questions.
Take another hit of that pipe.

[Anonymous No.16070990]

>>16070970
>Exactly, it doesn't collapse into anything
When the wave collapses as its observed the photon goes from a probability to existing in physical space.
>"probabilities" is not a state of matter
No shit.
>>16070979
0

[Anonymous No.16070994]

gill yourselv and vind oud :DDDD

[Anonymous No.16070999]

>>16070990
0 mass matter?

[Anonymous No.16071005]

>>16070999
You've just embarrassed yourself.
Please leave the discussion.

[Anonymous No.16071019]

>>16070990
>When the wave collapses
Collapses into what
>as its observed
But it's always observed
>the photon goes from a probability to existing in physical space.
This is nonsensical schizophrenic ramble, I'm sorry, what is this exotic state of matter you call "probability", can you measure me a cup full of probability? No? It's not a thing, you double nigger.

[Anonymous No.16071025]

>>16071005
you literally said photons are matter. does matter with zero mass exist?

[Anonymous No.16071032]

>>16070702
reality and consciousness are strictly the same thing, so wherever one is, there is the other. what you're asking about is whether the rest of reality can exist without *your* consciousness. in other words, whether each object-subject depends continues to exist as long as every other object-subject. leibniz would say that as monads, they must. (when you die you jus transform.) spinoza would say that as finite modes, they might not. (when you die the world jus transforms.)

[Anonymous No.16071034]

>>16071019
>Collapses into what
> to existing in physical space.
What do you think?
>But it's always observed
What? Why come up with a term to distinguish from default state if it's always in that state?
>This is nonsensical schizophrenic ramble
It's what happens
>what is this exotic state of matter you call "probability",
Describe a wave function without it. I'll wait.
>Wave function, in quantum mechanics, variable quantity that mathematically describes the wave characteristics of a particle
>variable
What does that allude to?

[Anonymous No.16071037]

>>16070702
reality and consciousness are strictly the same thing, so wherever one is, there is the other. what you're asking about is whether the rest of reality can exist without *your* consciousness. in other words, whether every object-subject is created and destroyed along with every other. leibniz would say that as monads, they must. (when you die you jus transform.) spinoza would say that as finite modes, they might not. (when you die the world just transforms.)

[Anonymous No.16071054]

>>16071025
If matter with negative mass exists then why wouldn't there be 0 mass?

[Anonymous No.16071056]

>>16071037
>when you die
what does that mean/imply? considering this procedure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_hypothermic_circulatory_arrest

[Anonymous No.16071105]

>>16071034
>What do you think?
But it always exists and is in a physical state
>Why come up with a term to distinguish from default state if it's always in that state?
Why come up with a magical skydaddy when it's clearly not true?
>Describe a wave function without it
Don't try to deflect and move the goalposts, you claim that nothing exists and then magically everything just springs into existence when the "wave function collapses", what is collapsing and what is it collapsing into?

[Anonymous No.16071123]

>>16071105
> always exists in a physical state
That's not true. If that were the case we'd have no need for Schrodinger's equation. We'd just point at it and go, look it's right here. Are you claiming quantum states aren't fluctuating?
>Why come up with a magical skydaddy
>Don't try to deflect
kek
> then magically
When observed.
>what is collapsing and what is it collapsing into?
asked and answered. The wave function, physical matter.

[Anonymous No.16071141]

>>16071123
>Are you claiming quantum states aren't fluctuating?
This has absolutely zero consequence on the observation or physical existence of something
>when observed
But everything is always observed
>asked and answered. The wave function, physical matter.
Cool, what is this exotic "wave function" state of matter like, what are it's properties? Can you provide me a glass full of wave functions? If not then I'm afraid you're relegated to staying in the archaic mathematical abstraction zone forever.

[Anonymous No.16071149]

>>16071141
>This has absolutely zero consequence on the observation
What?
>They are minute random fluctuations in the values of the fields which represent elementary particles, such as electric and magnetic fields which represent the electromagnetic force carried by photons
It's literally the entire conversation.
>But everything is always observed
Why come up with a term to distinguish from default state if it's always in that state?
>archaic mathematical abstraction zone
The measurement problem is archaic is it? Tell me all about it.

[Anonymous No.16071155]

>>16070702
Are you implying you're not a dreaming brain in a vat right now? Do you think I'm real?

[Anonymous No.16071169]

>>16071149
>They are minute random fluctuations in the values of the fields which represent elementary particles, such as electric and magnetic fields which represent the electromagnetic force carried by photons
>It's literally the entire conversation
Literally none of this bears relevance to what you previouslt said, lay off the lettuce
>Why come up with a term to distinguish from default state if it's always in that state?
How do you know what state it is in when you're not observing it?
>The measurement problem
There is no problem lmao, you're just doing it wrong

[Anonymous No.16071182]

>>16071169
>Literally none of this bears relevance to what you previouslt said
lmao
>How do you know what state it is in when you're not observing it?
I don't, but if it were unchanging I would know. Doesn't answer my question, by the way.
>There is no problem lmao, you're just doing it wrong
Don't forget to pick up your Nobel Prize in physics. It's free money if this is the case. You're clearly fucking trolling at this point.

[Anonymous No.16071225]

>>16071182
My brother in christ, please read up what observation and wave function actually mean before starting shit, you are clearly unqualified to communicate on this topic.

[Anonymous No.16071229]

>>16070702
yes it can exist without a consciousness to perceive it but the point of perceiving it is to learn something from it, your perception of it teaches you something about yourself which is why you're in it

[Anonymous No.16071249]

>>16071225
The definitions are in this conversation. All you've done is deflect and troll. Look at this shit.
>>16071034
>Wave function, in quantum mechanics, variable quantity that mathematically describes the wave characteristics of a particle
>>16071105
>you claim that nothing exists and then magically everything just springs into existence
>>16071141
> Can you provide me a glass full of wave functions?
> If not then I'm afraid you're relegated to staying in the archaic mathematical abstraction zone
>There is no problem lmao, you're just doing it wrong
What the fuck kind of expertise are these?

[Anonymous No.16071253]

i like these threads, they keep proving my point about science being a mindless endeavor that hold no actual truth

[Anonymous No.16071357]

>>16071249
>Wave function, in quantum mechanics, variable quantity that mathematically describes the wave characteristics of a particle
Yes, a variable mathematical abstraction which denotes all possible states of a system before you've made a measurement and figured out what it is doing, it does not say that something doesn't exist before it is observed.
>What the fuck kind of expertise are these?
You yourself said before something exists as matter it is a wave function, it's just a "probability", what you fail to elaborate on is how can something be a wave function when it is a mathematical abstraction regarding uncertainty in measurement not a physical state of being like matter.
Take your L and fuck off

[Anonymous No.16071363]

>>16071357
>it does not say that something doesn't exist before it is observed.
The uncertainty prior to observation does.
>You yourself said before something exists as matter it is a wave function, it's just a "probability"
The probability of it existing is in the wave function. You assuming shit for me doesn't stipulate my position.
>what you fail to elaborate on is how can something be a wave function
I assumed you understood we were talking about a photon because you'd have to be a retard to jump in a conversation that starts with
>>16070872
>The duality of photon
and assume something else.
>Take your L and fuck off
Why would I do that?

[Cult of Passion No.16071366]

>>16070702
>Can reality exist without a consciousness to perceive and acknowledge it?
Point to the Genesis, show me it.

https://youtu.be/eIicpe8p0ZU
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/9/8/263

[Anonymous No.16071477]

>>16070802
Then who witnessed the birth of the first consciousness?

[Anonymous No.16071481]

>>16070813
The word consciousness does not appear in that link once.
The electron detector isn't even conscious, its just an electronic component.

[Anonymous No.16071485]

>>16070829
If reality depended on you observing it, you wouldn't be so mad that the other anon knows about bolzman brains and you don't.

[Anonymous No.16071489]

>>16070920
Waves describe the movement of matter.

[Anonymous No.16071495]

>>16070950
Of course they are matter, photons are types of bosons, elementary particles of matter.

[Anonymous No.16071505]

>>16070965
>Can a dream exist without the dreamer.
Yes, people still talk about MLK's dream despite him being long dead and gone.
>Can a game exist without the computer.
Obviously, games predate computers by centuries.
>Can a shadow exist without the fire.
I assume you mean light rather than fire?
Either way light isn't the only thing that casts a shadow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain_shadow

Did you post them all without question marks because you didn't actually want an answer, you just wanted to peddle your misinformed rhetorical nonsense?

[Anonymous No.16071547]

>>16071363
>The uncertainty prior to observation does.
There is no prior to observation, though, uncertainty doesn't exist
>The probability of it existing is in the wave function
Yes, yes, the probability exists in the wave function as a parameter, because they're both mathematical abstractions to translate real world behaviour into a more tangible form, akin to a language, in order make comparisons and approximate behaviour, but real world isn't a wave function.
>and assume something else
No, you implied that electromagnetic waves are mathematical abstractions until they magically turn into matter, as if they didn't exist before they came into contact with something, which is preposterous

[Anonymous No.16071595]

>>16071182
>I don't, but if it were unchanging I would know.
No, if something changes slowly, observers are prone to change blindness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_blindness

[Anonymous No.16071598]

>>16071253
Its not a method for uncovering truth, its about for producing repeatable procedures.

[Anonymous No.16071645]

>>16070702
This is a stupid question. Look at all the stupid answers in this thread using tenuous riddles to sound smart. This is a university graduate tier philosophy discussion, with pseuds bumping into each other with different definitions of what 'exists' means.

[Anonymous No.16071678]

>>16070702

Without consciousness, the world exists in potentiality, as noumenic seeds ready to be perceived. It doesn't exist in actuality though.

[Anonymous No.16072095]

>>16071547
>uncertainty doesn't exist
What do you mean by that? Quantum fluctuations clearly exist.
>and approximate behaviour
I thought there was no uncertainty. Why would we need to approximate behaviors of certain events?
>akin to a language
Yes, just like language it helps us discuss the intangible like probabilities of an uncertain event occurring.
>until they magically...which is preposterous
As mentioned before if you're so certain there is no uncertainty and you know what happens go collect free money in Stockholm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem
If we truly are a physical entity in purely physical realm then you should be able to demonstrate that.

[Anonymous No.16072276]

>>16072095
>What do you mean by that? Quantum fluctuations clearly exist.
And the instant something "fluctuates" the information about its state change is instantly observed and known
>Why would we need to approximate behaviors of certain events?
Because human models can't describe reality or how it functions, you can only write down what happened and then say it's going to happen again when the same conditions are met

[Anonymous No.16073521]

no

[Anonymous No.16073532]

>>16070713

The internet doesn't require computers, it only requires the original pre-digital analog telephone network and two fax machines. You could litterally have the internet set up by telling several switchboard operators to make the connection, and once the connection is confirmed good (by calling into a fax machine and talking to it's operator) you'd then fax over your shitpost over the internet. Even if we discount analog and human switchboarding completely, the digitally switched telephone network fits the definition of the internet and does not use computers in the US-legal definition of it. "US-legal definition" of the term "computer" is relevant here as AT&T's networking "computers" were not designated as such to avoid regulation, and the govt bought this until 1982.

[Anonymous No.16073536]

>>16070702
each dimension is a different type of reality