Oh.... Now I get it... You are trying to disprove "naive realism" by applying naive realism. Thats funny! You know you cant do that, since all that remains, all that your brain was able to derive was just another "round" of naive realism! lol
5a. Qualified yes. (Our senses gather the inputs and path them on - brain creates our "perception bubble.") 5b. Qualified yes. (Even if we mostly make mistakes, our "perception bubble" seems to work sufficiently enough to allow us to get by as individuals and as species. Sometimes it works even so well that we can "invent" some funky stuff like math/logic, science, technology and we even can pass it all on to other generations.)
1. Yes. (See my beautiful baseball bat.) 2. Yes. (Oh, for sure, you already suspect what likely is to follow.) 3. Yes. (Wanna bet against my baseball bat? You dont have to keep watching/perceiving. You even can heavily alter your perception with drugs.) 4. Yes. (If the car was "blue", it will most likely "stay blue" for a couple of years - no matter how many times you will "measure." Even if you turn colorblind , you still will be able to measure the "blue" wavelengths.)
Secondly, there's no proof that a particle is inexistent while moving on a wave front of probabilities and becomes existent only when observed. An alternative explanation is that it just changes the way it moves once observed (e.g. from moving on a wave front to moving in a straight line).
It's wrong to say things stop having the same observable physical properties once you take your eyes off them, because what causes in fact the collapse of a wave function is not whether or not you're looking at an electron but rather whether or not you can look at it. So, as long as I can know an object, it's gonna retain its properties, even when I take my eyes off it.
Gotta side with the Dalai Lama on this one, the answer is yes and no to all your questions. Though you know your right in answering no you must still know that it is blue, it is there, and you ARE touching it. And not trying to knock just saying... you skipped several important points in the slit experiment. When many particles were shot threw a wave form appeared as expected BUT when single particles were shot threw it still showed what would be expected of a wave, thus the problem appears...
When we're dreaming... When we see people, we think that they're them, and I'm me. But they're in your dream so they're you. Meaning what if we're a part of someones dream? Maybe that someone is called God?
@14sJakeB190 I think you will like my channel lol. Check out the currently featured video, entitled "God's Daydream." Tell me what you make of the conclusion.
I just had a blinding arument with my girlfriend about this....shes such a concrete dumbass but always seems to get her moronic point of view across better than me!...thanks for the video...totally bitch slapped her with it....no sex for week but was worth it
love the vid.. you guys rock.. I 'm just feeling/remembering this stuff right about now.. It's funny that I think you exist out there.. and you know this message doesn't exist either.. hehe ..except when you read it..
Out of curiosity, why would you assume that we affected the wave pattern collapse. It seems if that was the case, we should be able to erase the recording of which hole it went into after the electron hit the wall, before observing it, and still see a wave pattern.
Don't ever try to limit someone to "yes or no" that's just asking to be labeled a loaded question.
1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
4. Get on with this... I smell Berkeley coming.
yes.
5. Not really, I'm not sure if we're justified
This is fucking lame- I hate it when people make these "leading quizzes" that have NO purpose except to naively attempt to lead an atheist into your dumb shit.
What if I said the following to your five questions?
"In a pure sense, I honestly don't know. However, in a practical sense as it pertains to my everday life then yes." By the way, if you have ever studied Buddhism, that is one of many means used to help a student to understand that the world is not truly as we see it to be... with our body parts. Bare in mind, science doesn't rely on flawed organic eyes, it relies on far more impartial instruments to measure the world around it.
I like the ideas here, and I've always found this kind of stuff interesting, but the way I see it is that we can't know one way or the other (at this point in time anyways).
About the colors and properties of things, well I'm red/green colorblind, so that means that my percieved reality is slighty different from yours, but because of physical differences in our eyes.
How do we know that those physical differences are even there though, well we don't but we can observe and try to understand.
Oh.... Now I get it... You are trying to disprove "naive realism" by applying naive realism. Thats funny! You know you cant do that, since all that remains, all that your brain was able to derive was just another "round" of naive realism! lol
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
5a. Qualified yes. (Our senses gather the inputs and path them on - brain creates our "perception bubble.") 5b. Qualified yes. (Even if we mostly make mistakes, our "perception bubble" seems to work sufficiently enough to allow us to get by as individuals and as species. Sometimes it works even so well that we can "invent" some funky stuff like math/logic, science, technology and we even can pass it all on to other generations.)
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
1. Yes. (See my beautiful baseball bat.) 2. Yes. (Oh, for sure, you already suspect what likely is to follow.) 3. Yes. (Wanna bet against my baseball bat? You dont have to keep watching/perceiving. You even can heavily alter your perception with drugs.) 4. Yes. (If the car was "blue", it will most likely "stay blue" for a couple of years - no matter how many times you will "measure." Even if you turn colorblind , you still will be able to measure the "blue" wavelengths.)
Wrath0fKhan 3 months ago
Secondly, there's no proof that a particle is inexistent while moving on a wave front of probabilities and becomes existent only when observed. An alternative explanation is that it just changes the way it moves once observed (e.g. from moving on a wave front to moving in a straight line).
maxavail 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@maxavail "there's no proof that a particle is inexistent while moving on a wave front of probabilities and becomes existent only when observed."
If it was, it would send a signal from the observer back to the slits faster than light, which is prohibited by relativity.
JohananRaatz 2 months ago in playlist Atheist Pwnage
It's wrong to say things stop having the same observable physical properties once you take your eyes off them, because what causes in fact the collapse of a wave function is not whether or not you're looking at an electron but rather whether or not you can look at it. So, as long as I can know an object, it's gonna retain its properties, even when I take my eyes off it.
maxavail 4 months ago
Woahhhh....... If this is correct.... Realism, Materialism, and ultimately Atheism/Nihilism completely fall apart!!!!
I really hope it is.
I'm gonna like and favorite this vid.
14sJakeB190 5 months ago
Comment removed
14sJakeB190 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
what's the name of the techno music used in this video? could anybody tell me?
mkien2005 9 months ago
what's the name of the techno music used intervally in this video?
mkien2005 9 months ago
@mkien2005
Satisfaction - Benni Benassi
AstralEtheric 5 months ago
hey, anyone can tell me what's the name of the techno music used intervally in this video?
mkien2005 9 months ago
How does this only have 1217 views? When stuff like Rebecca Black has millions :( - this is good stuff!
pandagenocide 10 months ago
Gotta side with the Dalai Lama on this one, the answer is yes and no to all your questions. Though you know your right in answering no you must still know that it is blue, it is there, and you ARE touching it. And not trying to knock just saying... you skipped several important points in the slit experiment. When many particles were shot threw a wave form appeared as expected BUT when single particles were shot threw it still showed what would be expected of a wave, thus the problem appears...
Nakedwow 1 year ago
Hey guys. great video about great stuff---- or should i say matter,--- or the lack of it ;-)
ThePultzFamily 1 year ago
My answers:
1. No, (it's information not matter)
2. Yes, (but only the statements exist the matter that it is supposedly describing is not)
3. Yes, (because reality is independent of our minds, but not God's mind. It's like the movie Inception but with God playing the "architect" role)
4. No, (properties are only subjective phenomenal entities, the car has no properties when it is not seen. It is just a mathematical structure.)
5. No, (if we perceived it directly it would be a priori)
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
@JohananRaatz Have you ever noticed something.
When we're dreaming... When we see people, we think that they're them, and I'm me. But they're in your dream so they're you. Meaning what if we're a part of someones dream? Maybe that someone is called God?
14sJakeB190 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@14sJakeB190 I think you will like my channel lol. Check out the currently featured video, entitled "God's Daydream." Tell me what you make of the conclusion.
JohananRaatz 4 months ago
Thanks guys.. this is an extremely helpful video.. take care
rememberingthedream 1 year ago
I just had a blinding arument with my girlfriend about this....shes such a concrete dumbass but always seems to get her moronic point of view across better than me!...thanks for the video...totally bitch slapped her with it....no sex for week but was worth it
Bill123etc 1 year ago 7
@Bill123etc hahaha, you're welcome bro, glad we could help
theprodigy2186 1 year ago 2
@Bill123etc Never hear of angry sex?
MrMaryJanes 1 year ago
love the vid.. you guys rock.. I 'm just feeling/remembering this stuff right about now.. It's funny that I think you exist out there.. and you know this message doesn't exist either.. hehe ..except when you read it..
btw, If you guys make a movie I wanna be in it
rememberingthedream 1 year ago
Out of curiosity, why would you assume that we affected the wave pattern collapse. It seems if that was the case, we should be able to erase the recording of which hole it went into after the electron hit the wall, before observing it, and still see a wave pattern.
gt6303c 1 year ago
Don't ever try to limit someone to "yes or no" that's just asking to be labeled a loaded question.
1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
4. Get on with this... I smell Berkeley coming.
yes.
5. Not really, I'm not sure if we're justified
This is fucking lame- I hate it when people make these "leading quizzes" that have NO purpose except to naively attempt to lead an atheist into your dumb shit.
funincluded 2 years ago
What if I said the following to your five questions?
"In a pure sense, I honestly don't know. However, in a practical sense as it pertains to my everday life then yes." By the way, if you have ever studied Buddhism, that is one of many means used to help a student to understand that the world is not truly as we see it to be... with our body parts. Bare in mind, science doesn't rely on flawed organic eyes, it relies on far more impartial instruments to measure the world around it.
SpasmodicMonk 2 years ago
I like the ideas here, and I've always found this kind of stuff interesting, but the way I see it is that we can't know one way or the other (at this point in time anyways).
About the colors and properties of things, well I'm red/green colorblind, so that means that my percieved reality is slighty different from yours, but because of physical differences in our eyes.
How do we know that those physical differences are even there though, well we don't but we can observe and try to understand.
GodWantsBlood 2 years ago
I'm red/green colorblind as well as I stated in the video and that is exactly the point.
How do we know that we aren't seeing it the way it "actually is" and not them?
They call it colorblind but what I see is my outstanding ability to track motion. In this respect, we are superior to some extent.
Also, because darker colors already seem indifferent, there is less of a change for us in the dark, allowing us to see better in the dark.
And you're right we can't "know" for sure.
Bigd6786 2 years ago