Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by Squilly, Dec 3, 2012.
It's extremely difficult to grasp. I haven't even fully grasped it yet.
I've always found this subject fascinating. The fact the universe exists as we see it is because we're here to see the universe is about as truly mind bending as you can possibly get. Just about everything involving quantum physics has a tendency to annoyingly redefine reality as we know it.
Okay, I'm gonna finish watching the rest of this then go get drunk.
edit: if you want to get really weirded out, think of this. The first line of the video mentions the usual "first, there was nothing". What is nothing? How can nothing exist when it's existence negates it's very existence. How can anything happen in nothing? What is nothing? Is it a big empty space? A big empty space, while being filled with nothing, is something in and of itself because it possesses dimensionality.
So was the big bang really a lot of nothing exploding into nearly infinite something from an infinitesimally small point, or was this nothing really something modern physics can't currently define changing states?
Uhh... you sure you weren't drunk when writing that last part?
I can't hold my liquor for ****.
You can prove it to yourself that you exist, that's it.
watched some of the video
Take that with a grain of salt, it's just one theory among many. By no means is anything here *confirmed* at all.
But to be fair,
the idea that we don't exist, or that everything is an illusion can be attributed to Rene Descartes.
Don't exist? I (and because I exist, I can do this) disagree. To be honest, I think people (specifically those in the video) are over thinking things. How can we all perceive the same thing. We may have different opinions, but we all see and feel the same thing.
One consciousness, apparently. Centralized somewhere apparently
Skynet... Siri... The iCloud!
Although I've always found this sort of thing interesting, I think the video shows a very overreaching explanation of things.
I don't think I've ever heard that it's common consensus that we or the universe don't actually exist. Rather it's that the universe exists differently when we aren't around. The most dryly scientific explanation is that everything is waveform when there are no observers present, and collapses into a particle based universe when there is.
...or if you prefer the weirder almost new age zen style explanation, it changes from a system of infinite possibilities into a system where a singular possibility has occurred when there's an observer present.
Like if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound? If no one's there to witness it, then it exists in a state where the tree has fallen, hasn't fallen, or maybe exploded into bees until someone walks upon it. When someone happens upon it, they might see the tree has fallen, and thus made a sound at some point. Or not.
So why doesn't it change back when that person leaves? Can the tree pick itself up again and become not-fallen? Why is it that if the tree has fallen in my reality, it's also fallen in yours? Why isn't reality subjective to the viewer if everything's potential until that initial witnessing by a singular observer? I have no idea. Quantum mechanics are weird.
This is why I prefer the reverse order: get drunk first, then finish watching it and ask a lot of theoretical questions. If you get drunk first, then when it doesn't make sense, you'll have an excuse. Or if it does make sense, you'll also have an excuse.
All I know is when I get drunk, I get surly.
Thank you, Mr Descartes. Well put sir. Cogito ergo sum.
So if it weren't for me, none of you would exist, right? Or if I weren't for you, I wouldn't exist.
So how drunk do I have to be before this stuff starts making sense?
We'll let you know when you get there.
To quote Kryten...
If that's gotta make sense, I don't wanna be sober!
I just get sleepy. And don't call me Shirley!
So, there are scientific theories which back up solipsism?
You of course know this, but it is both irrefutable and indefensible. Thus, it doesn't lend itself to the scientific method.