Is this real??

[BillieAnn]

Universe is a projection!
We are not real .. our reality is not three, but two-dimensional!
There is only length and width! No depth.
It is an illusion because we are part of the projection that moves with tremendous speed! So our life is an illusion. We can make what we want with our reality.
That I can tell you.
This place keeps getting stranger every day.
This life is a projection of your mind. And so everyone's life .. So who has the stronger imagination he would have a better life. If your projection is stronger than those around you, you would be able to change their!
I am not well educated. I do not know English well. It is not first language to me. I apologize for that. Just wanted to share what I discovered recently. Does not mean I'm right. It is just my projection.
I got tired of all the everyday things! Get out of bed and brutalize with the crap!News, wars, honors, awards .. why? When we are only the smallest fraction of the vast universe and quantum physics are suspicious that there is real!

I love you all!

 

[AH909]

put down the reefer

 

[Hockey Playa]

put down the reefer

that actually made me LOL

 

[BillieAnn]

that actually made me LOL

why ? :kick:

 

[Alle_Gory]

Our existence could be a hologram or it could be real. Science is looking for the answer whether we are real or we exist as an anomaly on a 2 dimensional plane.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/10/holometer-universe-resolution/

Yes, yes it's a very weird theory but there are facts to back it up.

 

[hoangtran]

I love this life

 

[Deep Dish]

BillieAnn, what exactly is your point?

Is it “the universe is a projection” or people can “make what we want with our reality?” Do not confuse the two. Those are two independently different propositions, and it's perniciously perverse to combine the two into one in-cohesive argument. The issue is not that English is not your native language, which we can all relate, but your reasoning is flawed.

To advance the argument quantum physics and your mind are interconnected is the same argument advanced by the movie What The (Bleep) Do We Know? and the book The Secret, and it's patently false. There is no quantum-consciousness connection.

The most oft abused interpretation of [quantum mechanics], the Copenhagen Interpretation, is also the mostly widely supported among physicists. One major tenet of this interpretation involves the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. This wavefunction is a mathematical description of a quantum system that describes all the possible states that system can be in. It is essentially a collection of probabilities that can be used, for example, to determine the probability that a particle will be found in a certain position. Before the measurement is made QM tells us that the particle is in all possible positions, what is called a superposition of states. When the particle is observed its position is then known with greater accuracy and the wavefunction is said to “collapse” into a definite state, the reality that we observe. Mystics view the wavefunction as a vibration of a universal aether that pervades the cosmos, as real as a sound or water wave. In their view the collapse occurs due to our thoughts or even the thoughts of an omnipresent cosmic consciousness of which we are all apart. In The Conscious Universe Menas Kafatos and Robert Nadeau unite the concept of the wavefunction and existence. “One could then conclude that Being, in its physical analogue at least, had been ‘revealed’ in the wavefunction...” (Kafatos and Nadeau 1990, 124) It is this wavefunction collapse brought about by a human mediated act of measurement or observation that has caused the confusion between quantum theory and consciousness. Since human consciousness ultimately makes the observation it must be intimately connected to the wavefunction and its collapse. This argument dissolves into sophistry, however, by the fact that the quantum wavefunction is not a physical tangible object that can be manipulated by a human mind. The Copenhagen Interpretation makes it clear that it is just a mathematical tool, an abstraction that does whatever the equations tell it to do. Physicist Henry Pierce Stapp of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory echoed fellow physicists with this quote: “In the Copenhagen interpretation the notion of an absolute wavefunction representing the world itself is unequivocally rejected... The probabilities involved are the probabilities of specified responses in the measuring devices under specified conditions.”

—excerpt from “Quantum Confusion: Does Modern Physics Support the Psychics?” by Robert Novella (1997)

And,

The conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics, promulgated by Bohr and still held by most physicists, says nothing about consciousness. It concerns only what can be measured and what predictions can be made about the statistical distributions of ensembles of future measurements. As noted, the wave function is simply a mathematical object used to calculate probabilities. Mathematical constructs can be as magical as any other figment of the human imagination-like the Starship Enterprise or a Roadrunner cartoon. Nowhere does quantum mechanics imply that real matter or signals travel faster than light. In fact, superluminal signal propagation has been proven to be impossible in any theory consistent with conventional relativity and quantum mechanics (Eberhard and Ross 1989)...

Quantum mechanics, the centerpiece of modern physics, is misinterpreted as implying that the human mind controls reality and that the universe is one connected whole that cannot be understood by the usual reduction to parts. However, no compelling argument or evidence requires that quantum mechanics plays a central role in human consciousness or provides instantaneous, holistic connections across the universe. Modern physics, including quantum mechanics, remains completely materialistic and reductionistic while being consistent with all scientific observations. The apparent holistic, nonlocal behavior of quantum phenomena, as exemplified by a particle's appearing to be in two places at once, can be understood without discarding the commonsense notion of particles following definite paths in space and time or requiring that signals travel faster than the speed of light. No superluminal motion or signalling has ever been observed, in agreement with the limit set by the theory of relativity. Furthermore, interpretations of quantum effects need not so uproot classical physics, or common sense, as to render them inoperable on all scales-especially the macroscopic scale on which humans function. Newtonian physics, which successfully describes virtually all macroscopic phenomena, follows smoothly as the many-particle limit of quantum mechanics. And common sense continues to apply on the human scale.

—excerpt from “Quantum Physics Quackery” by Victor Stenger (1997)

And,

Inside our neurons are tiny hollow microtubules that act like structural scaffolding. The conjecture (and that’s all it is) is that something inside the microtubules may initiate a wave function collapse that leads to the quantum coherence of atoms, causing neurotransmitters to be released into the synapses between neurons and thus triggering them to fire in a uniform pattern, thereby creating thought and consciousness. Since a wave function collapse can only come about when an atom is “observed” (i.e., affected in any way by something else), neuroscientist Sir John Eccles, another proponent of the idea, even suggests that “mind” may be the observer in a recursive loop from atoms to molecules to neurons to thought to consciousness to mind to atoms….

In reality, the gap between sub-atomic quantum effects and large-scale macro systems is too large to bridge. In his book The Unconscious Quantum, the University of Colorado particle physicist Victor Stenger demonstrates that for a system to be described quantum mechanically the system’s typical mass m, speed v, and distance d must be on the order of Planck’s constant h. “If mvd is much greater than h, then the system probably can be treated classically.” Stenger computes that the mass of neural transmitter molecules, and their speed across the distance of the synapse, are about three orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to be influential. There is no micro-macro connection. Subatomic particles may be altered when they are observed, but the moon is there even if no one looks at it. So what the #$*! is going on here?

Physics envy. The history of science is littered with the failed pipedreams of ever-alluring reductionist schemes to explain the inner workings of the mind — schemes increasingly set forth in the ambitious wake of Descartes’ own famous attempt, some four centuries years ago, to reduce all mental functioning to the actions of swirling vortices of atoms, supposedly dancing their way to consciousness. Such Cartesian dreams provide a sense of certainty, but they quickly fade in the face of the complexities of biology. We should be exploring consciousness at the neural level and higher, where the arrow of causal analysis points up toward such principles as emergence and self-organization. Biology envy.

- Michael Shermer

Quantum physics, string theory, and all that jazz, while interesting, speaks nothing of ‘projecting’ your mind, no role in you leading your life, no role in people with a stronger imagination having a better life, supposedly.

 

[Alle_Gory]

Is it “the universe is a projection” or people can “make what we want with our reality?” Do not confuse the two. Those are two independently different propositions, and it's perniciously perverse to combine the two into one in-cohesive argument. The issue is not that English is not your native language, which we can all relate, but your reasoning is flawed.

I don't believe they are different at all. If the multiverse theory is correct, new universes and planes of reality are created and destroyed all the time opening up the ability to have infinite possibilities. How each universe is created depends on the structure of the universe. Infinite possibilities mean it's possible we are 2D creatures in a 3D hologram. Or rather 3D (3rd dimension is spacetime) creatures living in a 4D hologram.

 

[Deep Dish]

They are different, for the science I cited above. None of the workings of subatomic life plays a role in people determining their lives. There is no micro-macro connection. Like Victor Stenger demonstrates, “the mass of neural transmitter molecules, and their speed across the distance of the synapse, are about three orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to be influential.” People take control of the direction of their lives by gaining an internal locus of control, rather than external, which has nothing to do with whether if the universe is holographic or the existence of multiverses, and people do have more luck when they're optimistic and undeterred by rejection. There is no causative connection of quantum with choosing what to have for dinner tonight, what thoughts pop in your head at a random moment, or you making out with a brunette chick last night.

I should also add that while multiverse theory sounds very tempting (I've tasted it myself), there's not a shred of supporting evidence. If I'm not mistaken, multiverse theory can never be proven, since the laws of physics had broken down to quantum mechanics at the moment of the Big Bang and thus were subjected to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, thus we will never be able to determine what existed before the Big Bang. So, for all we will ever be able to know, it's nothing but fantasy. Astrophysicist Lawerence Krauss has a good talk called “A Universe From Nothing”, which tackles the question of how “something can come from nothing.” He explains how the universe is flat and only a flat universe, with a total energy of zero, is capable of coming out of nothing. This seems to speak against multiverses and Krauss' opinion is that “The whole multiverse idea is so speculative as to border on nonsense.”

 

[BillieAnn]

Oh guys ..