How do i know im not trapped in my mind and everything around me isnt my imagination?

Dddaaammnnnn

Also check'd

because not even you would dream up having a faggot like trump come this close to becoming the president

Trick question. Everything only exist in consciousness. Everythingyou see or experience is a mental process in your mind. However to say that slypsism is reality is false. It is not only your consciousness that exist, but rather only our collective consciousness which creates the reality which we experience in a spacial temporal logic that operates in the modes of space and time. Read the CTMU or just study some of Lanzas theories in order to comprehend such a plethora of information that goes against all traditional scientific paradigms that collapse under physical reductionism and the Eisenberg uncertainty principle.

>isenberg uncertainty principle.
you had me till that

The real question isn't
>How do i know im not trapped in my mind and everything around me isnt my imagination?

The real question is
>do I care?

But it's the uncertainty principle that makes it logically impossible for an external reality without consciousness. If there really existed a "concrete" reality then certainly we'd be able to measure those properties in there entirety right? Then why can't we know an objects velocity and exact positioning at the same time? The Greek philosopher Xeno basically said this long before anyone could prove that you can't know anything exact position and velocity at the same time. This is a paradox that science has swept under the rug and will just say it's weird. Don't even get me started on physical reductionism.

You don't. What difference does it make?

>inb4 reality is a social construct

>But it's the uncertainty principle that makes it logically impossible for an external reality without consciousness.
nope. wrong. has nothing to do with consciousness.

i bet heisenburg would have killed himself knowing about all of the new age hippies that would rape his work to justify their stupidity.

"Has nothing to do with consciousness" really buddy? Hate to break it to you but everything is a product of mental process. Even as you read the words on your screen. It's your mind that strings the information in a coherent manner. But please, give me your BEST shot at trying to define consciousness. Or space and time for that matter. Go on. I'll wait

shut up, hippy. the last thing i want to do is have an existential conversation with someone who things Heisenberg gave a shit about human conciseness.

tell ya what, Heisenberg was only trying to say that measuring particles is limited because the act of measuring inherently changes the state of the particle. its like saying you cant draw on a piece of paper smaller then the pencil lead your using.

has fuck all to do with your hippy shit you dickwad.

Nice copy pasta, but I digress. Arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a Pidgeon. The bird will shit all over the board fly away and think it won.

no paste here, hippy. go learn the fucking definitions of the words you try and use.

You said yourself that the act of measuring changes the state of a particle. If you could get through your thick skull that the act of meaurment is a conscious decision made by the observer. The particle actually don't exist in a defined state until they a re measured, the exist as potential wave functions. Maybe if you read up on the two hole experiment you might acuaty understand what you are reading

Lmao you can't even keep up with anything I'm saying. I can tell I've lost you. I can see the deer in headlights look you get when you read anything on reality theory.

And yes..... I can see you.... Hippy

...

Define "I"

wrong. science assumes a reality independent of observation (as if that mattered - reality is only relevant to observers)
if a particle's position is effected then its momentum will be too. the principle is simply stating the dualistic nature of the properties of particles.
NOTHING TO DO WITH CONCISENESS. its a fucking work of physics not some fucking hippy mantra and your shitting all over it with your hippy crap.

But you can't even define consciousness. So how can you throw it out the window when you don't even know what it is. Space or time for that matter. Again I'm, Playing chess with a Pidgeon

Yee fuckoff conciousfag

nigger i own and have read, cover to cover, entire texts books about this shit. i also own and have read several physics texts books, which I got for my masters in physics degree you twat.
im not going to engage in your pointless existential "philosophy", i really don't care to discuss it.
i am only pointing out to you that your using Heisenberg like a fucking idiot. take the advice, or don't, I wont be the one making a fool of myself talking about Heisenberg and fucking conciseness in the same sentence.

nothing grinds my ears like hearing hippies try to co-opt physics terms for their completely unrelated half baked ideas about reality.
if any of your ideas were worth a shit they would be called science but they are not so its called philosophy.

have a good 1 m8.

This. You can't prove it isn't, but at the same time that fact doesn't really have any impact on your everyday life. You still have to act as if it were all real, because its equally impossible to prove that it isn't.

what is the source on that gif

That wasn't Philosophy what he did. Philosophy uses well thought out arguments to prove or disprove a claim that was made. The guy you accused of doing philosophy tossed something into an discussion he had barely any knowledge of and for sure 100% didn't understand. Philosophy has always been closely related to science because it is based on reason

yeah i respect real philosophy but it is too often used as a cover for mystic hippy bullshit.

mostly to do with complexity and consistency of the world makes it very very very very unlikely that you are the soul creator.

The only true test is if you kill yourself and after I can check to see if I still exist.

>kill yourself and after I can check to see if I still exist.
ok doing it now, hope i dont end reality. actually fuck it idc.

But if you were the one imagining all this, them killing themselves would make no difference

unless you imagined the god that created you and your imagination. i mean lets not get hung up on little shit like cause and effect when spacetime is probably just apart of the imagination of the god you imagined.

>existentialism.
>not even once.

than imagine me a gf you dumb shit.

Like holy fuck your imagination sucks. Europe is being flooded with refugees, the swede will one day become extinct, Hillary Clinton is still somehow not in jail, job wages have stagnated to a point where people struggle to feed families, America puts more money into education than almost any other country in the world yet our students are still retarded, and I haven't seen Ivanka Trump's tits yet, and Donald Trump might actually become president of the U.S.A.

this is just all the things I can think of off the top of my head. The list could go on and on, though.

If it were the case that the world was the creative act of OP. I might be the case that the world could persist after his death. Creators can die and leave their creative act. So I suppose it would make no difference.

>be god
>imagine physical reality
>imagine infinite energy expanding in exploding spacetime into matter
>imagine stars forming out of protons and igniting with nuclear fire
>imagine stars so massive they collapse, fusing protons into heavy elements
>imagine energy condensing in this manner for billions of years
>imagine galaxies, star clusters, blackholes, untold cosmic structures, uncountable in number
>imagine complex organic chemical reactions take place on a some planets
>imagine self replicating chemical reactions someone form a proto-cell capable of reproduction
>imagine DNA and RNA evolving via errors in reproducing chemical reactions
>imagine evolution producing creatures able to observe the very reality that wrought them
>imagine me, god, giving two shits about ivanka fucking trump.

fuck you

Cogito ergo sum, you retarded subhuman

>Cogito ergo sum
ironically the part of your mind that produces thoughts isn't the part of your mind that you consider yourself, that being the observer.
it should be "i perceive therefore i am" since you perceive thoughts entering your conciseness much like vision or sound.

You are trapped in you're own mind. Just try leaving.
Your eyeballs aren't just window holes in you skull. They are organs that send signals to a part of your brain that makes decisions to ensure your survival and the survival of your species. Other parts of your brain contribute imagination and the all important illusion that you are questioning OP.....
Sence of self.

>Sence of self.
ego is just a self preservation tool. the you which you assume to be yourself is but one filtering mechanism the brain uses to decipher the reality around it.
consciousness, or the paradigm of an observer overseeing perceptions is a pretty handy way to filtering input from sensory organs, it likely exists in your sub conscience in some form and probably in other places too.
fact of the matter is there are probably other mechanism in your brain which are also conciseness and feel agency just like you do.
of course agency is a fallacy in a deterministic reality. you have only a vauge feeling of control to enforce the illusion of agency.

The guy is talking about Lanza's biocentrism theory, I've read his book recently. He makes some good points about how space and time may not exist as physical dimensions and how our understanding of the nature of reality is confined to our senses and modes of thinking. But also he constantly refers to double slit experiments and "quantum eraser" experiments trying to prove that reality is totally subjective and cause-effect principle do not really apply to our reality. Then he pulls out really wild argument, that the universe must have been created by life, and that reality without life cannot exist, what I really think is taking the whole thing too far.
Lanza accuses physicists of not trying to understand the nature of reality, and he claim to do better, at the same time saying that there are things in physics that we do not yet understand - see dark matter/energy. I think the guy is just impatient, he is 60 years old, and he wants his answers before he dies and sorry, but there is much more find out so we may not make it in time. Then he's like "Fuck it, I'll get my own answers out of thin air, because I wanna know now!"

yeah ive encountered similar shit.

when philosophers start talking physics you know you got a crackpot on your hands.

the second philosophy becomes reality it becomes physics. till then its just "what ifs"

Do you know what philosophy is?

yeah.

Are you sure?

although Lanza is biologist, not philosopher, and he wrote this book with astrophysicist Bob Berman, if this name rongs a bell. Lanza tries to intimidate the reader in his book pointing out to his accomplishments (which are really impressive, I must say), but for me doing so is a pretty cheap move.

Out of curiosity - what is your take on double-slit experiments? Do you support the pilot wave theory? Or maybe some different explanation?

>double-slit experiments
wave–particle duality and wave function collapse don't sound weird at all to me.
shit gets a lot weirder than that when your talking about particles.

>pretty cheap move.
pretty much a placeholder for actual rhetoric. argument from authority is blatant science fail.

>not philosopher
everyone is a philosopher. if he got payed for that shit then hes a professional philosopher.

hmm, let me double check, yep.
just call me out on whatever BS you think im spouting instead of beating around the bush.

I meant those one-particle-a-time double slit experiments, when they got the interference pattern after letting electron through double slit one at a time. Hell, it was even done with atoms, and fulleren, I think. More so, those experiments where putting polarisator in the way of particle beam disrupted the interference pattern. And what's more - quantum entanglement experiments, where one of the entangled particles were let through polarisator and it affected retroactively the other entangled particle. I think there are holes in the experiment, something we aren't taking into account, that's why I'm pointing out to pilot wave, or maybe even hidden variables.

>one-particle-a-time double slit experiments
i don't see how wave-particle duality fails to explain them.

>Hell, it was even done with atoms
shit people do it with molecules, shits been done with a buckyball. shits massive. of course it still has probability wave function.

>quantum entanglement experiments
not looked into that but particles don't obey one directional time so i'm not surprised.

does wave-particle duality explain why if we use polarizer to determine which slit a particle has gone through we get regular scatter pattern, and when we remove it in the same exact setting interference pattern appears? If so, then how? Does polarizer force the wavefunction to collapse and it's just that simple?

polarize changes the photon, preventing it from self interfering. works the same with entangled photons. polarize one and the other is too.

>Does polarizer force the wavefunction to collapse
no the fact that the photon doesn't self interfere is why there is no interference pattern.
wavefuncions collapsing is just another way of saying the particle needs to exist because its being observed or interacting with other matter.

Nice going user, came to say that.
Here, have some tits

If everything is your imagination, then there is nothing that is not your imagination. Ego, nothing to worry about.

"Trapped in my mind" is a bullshit concept, go back to Descartes faggot.

Thanks for clearing it out for me, I was trying to get my head around it for some time, and people who try to force their point of view, like Lanza does, won't help you to understand, but rather "It's magic, don't listen to physicists! they don't know either!".

But isn't the Copenhagen interpretation stance that particle doesn't have any properties unless it's observed or interacts with other matter?

Just let me now when you'll grow tired of answering my questions. Direct me to a decent book when it happens, ok?

>particle doesn't have any properties unless it's observed or interacts with other matter?

particles location is probabilistic, that's why interference patters exist in the first place. probability amplitudes overlap just like standing waves in sound and liquid.
the wave is literally the probability of the particle existing at a given location, higher the amplitude the higher the probability.
particles travel in waves but have the properties of, well, normal particles when observed. when observed (that is to say when it is interacting with other matter), the particles (and even molecules, remember, and actually everything has a wave function, its just that large objects are pretty much guaranteed to exist in one location) wave function collapses and it just chooses a spot to exist at that instant. saying the wave function is collapsing is just a fancy way of saying the particle no longer occupies space in terms of probability (wave), instead the particle occupies one discreet location.

>particle doesn't have any properties unless...
particles do have other properties which are not really related to wave function.

hope that makes some kind of sense. stuffs not easy to talk about.

Well this would be the expansion of that principle to all physical principles, not just those on a particle level.

The hippy is saying that all physical principles must be influenced by the measurement imposed on them by an external observer.

Again he (hippy) is claiming an extension of the principle to all physical principles.

prob waves is a bitch when your trying to guess how your molecule will react based on fucking electron wave functions. then the function for the atoms. all this is bringing back homework nightmares.

>all physical principles must be influenced by the measurement imposed on them by an external observer.
not sure i follow you. i thought he was saying that measuring requires conciseness which is wrong since "measuring" means the particle is interacting with matter, not just a persons electron microscope. a photon interacts with probably thousands or millions of electrons just crossing the sky.

ahh yeah, well thats bullshit. the uncertainty principle refers only to sub atomic particles and only to their location and momentum.

Simple, to the point. This guy gets it.
OP, just read up on some causal determinism and other really basic philosophy shit. Then get over yourself.

So what we don't really know here is how does it happen, that something can occupy many places at the same time? I reckon, that probability function is not something that physically exist, it's our mathematical tool cenceived to explain how particles behave?

Is it possible, that there is no space at all, and what we percieve as spatial relations are really just another kind of interactions, like, say electrostatic, or weak? "Spatial charge" - I'd call it. It could explain entanglement seemingly breaking the general relativity.

According to Lacan, this is kind of true in the sense that you engage in fantasy to protect yourself from "the real" which is that which is outside of language and inaccessible to process, along with being a "lack." So you come on Cred Forums (objet petit a) instead of progressing into jouissance and fulfillment.

well i gotta go, for what if you can wrap your head around wave-particle duality your pretty smart. try relativity next. my personal favorite physics topic.

"black holes and time warps" by thorne is an awesome book on the subject for novice and intermediate student. not super easy to understand but i think you can handle it. hell i did.

as for partical shit well im not sure how much you know but feynman's lectures are always a good place to start, probably find that online for free, its pretty old. i have the books, pretty beginner tier shit though. dont really know of any good books on advanced particle shit, i just have my textbooks from college but you can learn a lot via wiki and google. shit you can learn it all that way.

>that probability function is not something that physically exist,
yeah thats the intuitive explanation, that it is only an imperfection in the model of reality we call physics but the double slit experiment proves that particles travel as waves of probability. the interference pattern you see is that fact smacking you in the face. there are other experiments proving this to be the case also. Davisson–Germer experiment, etc.
Schrödinger equation provides the math.

>So what we don't really know here is how does it happen, that something can occupy many places at the same time?
no a particle doesn't technically occupy any space until it interacts with something. until that moment it exists only as probability, that is to say you can take a good guess at where it is but never know. maybe this is how reality is, maybe it just looks that way because most particles are too small to see. im guessing the former. someone more educated might know for sure.

cont

..cont
>Is it possible, that there is no space at all, and what we percieve as spatial relations are really just another kind of interactions,
i have a feeling that reality is actually nothing like what we see in our minds. particles don't just move forwards in time so its possible that every electron in existence is the same one time traveling and showing up in low probability parts of its wave function to jump gaps where there is no matter. physics is full of weird shit like that i could fill a book.

might check in later if thread is up.

and just before i go ill add that quarks might be time traveling too so that every hadron in reality is actually the same quark, same goes for force carrier particles.
i have a little hippy in me too and that hippy things this single time traveling particle is god. stupid i know. neat to think about though.

also spacetime is probably real or at least its the part we are equipped to perceive of a

> its possible that every electron in existence is the same one time traveling and showing up in low probability parts of its wave function to jump gaps where there is no matter.

I've come up with the same idea not so long ago, maybe there is only one set of particles, or even just a single particle in superposition consistng of every state possible for it to exist.

Actually, I'm a PhD student, but in slightly different field, I've changed fields from biotech to biophysics and I feel like I need to "broaden my horizons" beyond just light-matter interactions.

It was a joy to have a decent discussion in a place like Cred Forums, see you around, user.

Why would you imagine this?

yeah man. the time traveling particle i think was originally Feynman's idea. hes pretty much my hero when it comes to physics.

occams razor supports the theory, thats something, right?
funny how much theoretical physics intrudes into philosophies magisterium

You dont