Quantum Mechanics Debunks Materialistic Science - Explained
(superfamous.com)
We have this illusion that reality is a big clockwork machine..
That everything is materialistic. Even your mind is just an effect of your brain's neuological webs, which are based on physics, chemics, elecricity..
...this is the classical/materialistic model most people just take as reality, even scientists.
Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment
While in the classical/ materialistic model everything is like a big crazy machine, the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment proves that it's more like quantum mechanics explains it.
It basically validates the super-position part of quantum mechanics.
Super-position says that when u're not looking at a thing it exists as the state of all of its possibilities.
Therefore observation is essential and absolutely fundamental to the concept of reality. There is no concept of reality without observation.
Without subjectivity, relativity,...
Quantum mechanics tells us that matter is identical to particles, which is identical to energy, which is identical to wave functions, which is identical to fields.
..But I don't want to get too technical, cuz I didn't study and I'm looking at it from a philosophical point of view.
Cuz what is matter? What are particles? What is energy? What are wave functions? What are fields? What are strings? What is mathematics? What is science? And what is human thought?
Cuz all of this is human thought.
And what is conciousness? Cuz all of this is happening withing human conciousness.
You never encounter a particle or a wave function or a string or a field.. You only encounter your own conciousness.
You see the circularity? The strange loopyness right here?
We're talking about the external world as if it's out there but really we're talking about our own minds.
And then when we wonder where does my mind exist?
"Well ofc it exists in the external world, it exists in the physical body, in the brain."
But where is the brain? How do I know there is a brain? Cuz it is in my mind.
So is the brain in the mind or is the mind in the brain?
Or maybe both? Or neither? Or maybe a super-position of all of those?
Hmmm.. Interesting! ;)
That's what I mean by strange loopyness circularity.
This is not a mistake. This does not mean that we dont know.
This means we know. But the thing we know is so radical that your mind can't handle it.
That's a very big, important difference, that often gets lost, even for scientists.
I also wanna mention that there is no objectivity (cuz that's part of the materialistic paradigm).
The classical "objective" assumption is that I'm over here and reality is over there. Therefore I can ask the question how can reality exist?
But I/ we can't do that. Cuz Quantum Mechanics says that we are entangled.
The questioner is involved within the question. At the most fundamental level.
When you ask the question "why does reality exist?" you are asking "why do I exist?"
"What is reality?" - "What am I?"
And yes, absolutely, there is an answer. And yes, you can know it.
I'm looking at things more as kinda tools.
What is Quantum Mechanics? It is not what it is describing.
Like a map is not what it is describing.
(unsplash.com)
Use tools, don't be a tool. ;)
I hope I've introduced and motivated some people to take a path into a new horizon..
..and am happy to read some feedback. :)
Greets Jan 
now read again my What is economy? article! :)
Congratulations @woelfchen! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your board And compare to others on the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Do not miss the last post from @hivebuzz:
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!
Interesting questions!
Maybe the superposition is just to save processing power of the huge machine that is running our simulation?
Thats actually the least crazy scenario I can think of after watchinG that video. They even use the phrase "loading up a back history"... I can see the little twirling hourglass icon hovering over each atom/wave/field as someone somewhere waits to observe it.
Just read that article, it seems like the experiment Campbell designed to test if we are living in a simulation is the same as the one in the video and that indeed, according to his hypothesis, we are living in a simulation. So. There's that...
Maybe a simulation of our conciousness?
Yes, that´s what I meant. Our conciousness, and including all what we think is reality.
Awesome. A very clearly written micro exploration into the nature of reality.
Honestly though that shit is so fucking wild... that video just blew my mind.
:)) I love that I hit the right spot in you :)
Interesting topics to cover.
I would not interpret the super-position as there is no objective reality, but as our contact with it is very limited that what seems objective to us is simply an illusory appearance generated by our senses, I think of the allegory of the cave in this moment. I think it is possible that the objective world exists but that it is impossible for us to know it in its entirety because our own subjective perceptions change what we perceive. I would not say that the objective world does not exist but is unknowable.
and what sense has an objective, dead world/ universe without observer?
is the objectivity centralized or created through decentralized conciousness?
Maybe not much if you see it by itself, but it has an effect on us anyway, the objective changes us in the same way that we change it with our perception.
Maybe both.
or maybe nothing? or a superposition of all?
Thank you for this enlightening and crisply written piece.
I agree that there can be no objectivity from the perspective of the individual human mind and its interpretations. There are objects. If you call them objects. But if someone says of himself that he is objective, it is a self-overestimation of his ability to look at a situation, a phenomenon or even a fellow human being. So there are objects. These objects do or do not do something. They are active or passive or neutral. Never static, so that from one moment to another a complete change takes place and a resting object moves, the moving object rests and so on.
For an observation - which is always reduced as far as a thinking person makes it - only certain objects can be considered, but never all objects from the micro- and macro-cosmos, so that any observation is an attempt to simplify something complex. In this, science is necessarily included and it should always be aware that definition means including only a few objects and subjects and excluding all others because of the nature of the issue. The word "definition" already contains the linguistic reference that there is a finition, a finite inclusion of objects, not an infinite one.
Greetings.
aether