Look, you guys win. I admit I like Rand.

[lebing]

Because the uncertainty ceases once you get above the subatomic level. My salt shaker (and all the salt, for that matter) is always in the same place, unless someone moves it. I can say with utmost certainty exactly where it is. When I open the cabinet door, the salt does not spring into existence exactly where I left it.

So by this logic, everything below the subatomic level is not real?

If time is 2 dimensional, then the subatomic particle can be in a specific point (not a probabilistic wave) but because it is moving in that other dimension of time as well, and we only perceive one, what we see is an uncertain universe. In other words, if something seems random, it's probably just following rules more complex than you understand.

This is the part where I ask you to provide a study proving what you are referring to.

The double slit experiment is the single most widely reproduced experiment in physics (maybe in all of science) and the outcome is therefore established. Not once have I heard of the outcome you are referring to.

[1715369715]

1715369715

[myrkul]

Because the uncertainty ceases once you get above the subatomic level. My salt shaker (and all the salt, for that matter) is always in the same place, unless someone moves it. I can say with utmost certainty exactly where it is. When I open the cabinet door, the salt does not spring into existence exactly where I left it.

So by this logic, everything below the subatomic level is not real?

Not knowing where something is does not make it unreal. You're the one claiming things are not real unless we observe them. I'm simply saying that quantum mechanics is not relevant to the notion of an objective reality, especially when we are speaking of dealing with people as they really are.

If time is 2 dimensional, then the subatomic particle can be in a specific point (not a probabilistic wave) but because it is moving in that other dimension of time as well, and we only perceive one, what we see is an uncertain universe. In other words, if something seems random, it's probably just following rules more complex than you understand.

This is the part where I ask you to provide a study proving what you are referring to.

The double slit experiment is the single most widely reproduced experiment in physics (maybe in all of science) and the outcome is therefore established. Not once have I heard of the outcome you are referring to.

Well, it's not a study, but it is an alternate explanation for the double-slit experiment:

http://phys.org/news98468776.html
http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/through-the-wormhole/videos/does-time-exist.htm (the third clip is the one where it discusses this) A you may note, proving this theory will be difficult if not impossible. The same, of course, applies to your "reality is subjective" theory... which is why you've been unable to produce a study proving it.

Note also that the outcome is always the same...objective. The theories explaining that outcome, however, vary.
This should be a good jumping-off point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

[lebing]

Not knowing where something is does not make it unreal. You're the one claiming things are not real unless we observe them. I'm simply saying that quantum mechanics is not relevant to the notion of an objective reality, especially when we are speaking of dealing with people as they really are.

A better phrasing would have been irrelavent (not real) - and you confirmed it. How do you reconcile a split in the type of reality based on it's size?

Well, it's not a study, but it is an alternate explanation for the double-slit experiment:

http://phys.org/news98468776.html
http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/through-the-wormhole/videos/does-time-exist.htm (the third clip is the one where it discusses this) A you may note, proving this theory will be difficult if not impossible. The same, of course, applies to your "reality is subjective" theory... which is why you've been unable to produce a study proving it.

Note also that the outcome is always the same...objective. The theories explaining that outcome, however, vary.
This should be a good jumping-off point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

I dont see where objective comes in anywhere - actually I believe I just posted a link to a study which proved that reality is not objective.

(also just for the record, you are now posting a link to a video, not a study... I will however indulge and watch it   )

[myrkul]

Not knowing where something is does not make it unreal. You're the one claiming things are not real unless we observe them. I'm simply saying that quantum mechanics is not relevant to the notion of an objective reality, especially when we are speaking of dealing with people as they really are.

A better phrasing would have been irrelavent (not real) - and you confirmed it. How do you reconcile a split in the type of reality based on it's size?

Sorry, just like you don't get to define reality however you feel like, you don't get to define words however you like, either. Irrelevant doesn't mean "not real," it means "not relevant; not applicable or pertinent." Also, I do not have to reconcile a split in the type of reality based on the size of the object in question. Subatomic particles don't behave subjectively. They behave in ways we don't understand... but which 2-dimensional time explains, especially if the second dimension is tightly curled so that subatomic particles can travel in it, but larger ones don't move appreciably even if they do travel along that dimension.

The double split experiment does not prove that reality is not objective. It proves subatomic particles behave in ways we don't fully understand.

[lebing]

The double split experiment does not prove that reality is not objective. It proves subatomic particles behave in ways we don't fully understand.

I guess we are just going to go around in circles on this because I just don't think you understand what this experiment confirms. The observer effect is very clear, that a subjective consciousness alters the results of the experiment. We understand this perfectly well.

[justusranvier]

The observer effect is very clear, that a subjective consciousness alters the results of the experiment.

That interpretation was shown not to be true by experiments specifically designed to test this hypothesis. The "observer" is any part of the environment which interacts with the system in a thermodynamically-irreverable way.

http://www.danko-nikolic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Yu-and-Nikolic-Qm-and-consciousness-Annalen-Physik.pdf

Taken together, the existing experiments suggest clear conclusions regarding the predictionswe derived. All predictions have been falsified. The existence of interference patterns depends solely on whether the “which-path” information is in principle obtainable [11,20,33–35].Whether such information is registered in consciousness of a human observer, one can conclude, is irrelevant. Consequently, this conclusion leaves no other option but to reject the collapse-by-consciousness hypothesis.

[lebing]

The observer effect is very clear, that a subjective consciousness alters the results of the experiment.

That interpretation was shown not to be true by experiments specifically designed to test this hypothesis. The "observer" is any part of the environment which interacts with the system in a thermodynamically-irreverable way.

http://www.danko-nikolic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Yu-and-Nikolic-Qm-and-consciousness-Annalen-Physik.pdf

Taken together, the existing experiments suggest clear conclusions regarding the predictionswe derived. All predictions have been falsified. The existence of interference patterns depends solely on whether the “which-path” information is in principle obtainable [11,20,33–35].Whether such information is registered in consciousness of a human observer, one can conclude, is irrelevant. Consequently, this conclusion leaves no other option but to reject the collapse-by-consciousness hypothesis.

Ok. I'm going to roll over on this as I'm not nearly qualified to wade through that study in detail.

I am curious however as they mention human consciousness being the variable - is that correct? It would be interesting to see where the line is between self aware human/ non self aware animal/ inanimate object/ measuring device.

In any case, I doubt this will be the end of the story.