How to find spirituality or a sense of deeper meaning as an atheist / agnostic

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,574
If I am thinking correctly, by my earlier observations on determinism, When time comes into contact with us...or the other way around, non-deterministic becomes deterministic.
Sort of like a time zip. What we bring to the table is Consciousness and The Observer. (effect)
By observing, we change things, especially by making reality real. Does this change therefore propel time?
When we stop observing, is it death?
But seeing as we existed before and into the future... *melts*
I still don't buy the observer effect crap. How does a random set of eyes and a biological computer somehow influence/create reality :laugh: I'd sooner believe in a deity than that BS :p

Yeah I'm not a fan of the double-slit experiment and such, but obviously can't refute it.
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,280
I still don't buy the observer effect crap. How does a random set of eyes and a biological computer somehow influence/create reality :laugh: I'd sooner believe in a deity than that BS :p

Yeah I'm not a fan of the double-slit experiment and such, but obviously can't refute it.
The double slit experiment exists and can be reproduced. We have quantum computing chips that are based on the fundamentals of the knowledge that the double slit experiment kicked off. It's a little late to not be a "fan".
Any 4th or 8th Dimensional being will be extraordinary enough for us to consider them/it a Deity... as the saying goes. "Any technology sufficiently advanced will seem as magic to us."
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,574
The double slit experiment exists and can be reproduced. We have quantum computing chips that are based on the fundamentals of the knowledge that the double slit experiment kicked off. It's a little late to not be a "fan".
Any 4th or 8th Dimensional being will be extraordinary enough for us to consider them/it a Deity... as the saying goes. "Any technology sufficiently advanced will seem as magic to us."
It isn't the results of the experiment I have an issue with. It is our interpretation of it.

We don't affect reality by looking at it. Reality is revealed (sort of - more like meaningfully interpreted) to us by looking at it. Our senses/brain detect/snapshots waves as particles. Particles don't actually exist. We appear to shape our reality because we formulate it in our brain as we observe, but that formulation/representation is only as real as the matrix. It says very little of the objective universe.

Well that's my accepted theory anyway :p It keeps me from going crazy. It is a little more sane than assuming I have telekinetic powers beyond time and space just by looking at things. And that some neighbour has the same because he can look at things too. What about his dog? Does his dog have special observer powers?

How about his hamster? :D If his hamster looks at things do they change too? What if his hamster and I have a staring contest?

Nah man, it's too far out for my little brain :)
 
Last edited:

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,280
We don't affect reality by looking at it. Reality is revealed (sort of - more like meaningfully interpreted) to us by looking at it. Our senses/brain detect/snapshots waves as particles. Particles don't actually exist. We appear to shape our reality because we formulate it in our brain as we observe, but that formulation/representation is only as real as the matrix. It says very little of the objective universe.
Things is your interpretation fails to take into account how we are traveling on the slice of time that we do. You seem to assume that time is something that slides along rails at a sedate pace until one day we get to the end.
But what determines the direction of time? and why do we exist over such a large portion of it? *measured in planck scale we're actually ginormous*
The Muon paradox proves time dilation and special relativity which means that there's a reason for traveling through time at the speed we do. Right now it's unknown but hopefully not for long :p

and some other interesting stuff about how quantum mechanics saved us from being obliterated by uv energy as soon as we turned on an oven
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,574
Things is your interpretation fails to take into account how we are traveling on the slice of time that we do. You seem to assume that time is something that slides along rails at a sedate pace until one day we get to the end.
I'm not sure where my interpretation failed those things :) Believing that particles don't exist (They exist to our brain only) has no bearing on relativity to my knowledge. Waves behave much the same irrespective of how we detect them. But hey, I'm no physicist. Vids are interesting nonetheless.

The only thing I challenged, as a layman who can't prove anything of course, is that we manipulate the universe through observation in a manner that suggests no independence from observation. I'd sooner believe in ghosts. I can understand that instrumentation affects what it measures through the methodology of measuring, but that is a little different.

There is no difference between a living and non-living thing objectively speaking. Having eyes and a brain looking at something is equally as manipulative to the universe as a rock bumping into things (Particles don't touch by the way). If the rock had some nerves attached it'd be the same. You have to ask at what point/line between living and non-living are things different - and you probably can't find that line. Neither a hamster or a rock creates any sort of reality, they merely alter the fabric of reality - and rightly so as they too exist. Both you and the rock travel through time - a consciousness doesn't change anything magically. Well at least I don't see why it should.

Maybe particles do exist... in the past? :p I can kind of settle on that. The future is a wave, the present is collapsing and the past is particles. Everything we see is already the past considering it takes x milliseconds to register.
 
Last edited:

dabean

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
1,498
I'm not sure where my interpretation failed those things :) Believing that particles don't exist has no bearing on relativity to my knowledge. Waves behave much the same irrespective of how we detect them. But hey, I'm no physicist. Vids are interesting nonetheless.

The only thing I challenged, as a layman who can't prove anything of course, is that we manipulate the universe through observation. I'd sooner believe in ghosts.
This is worth watching if you haven't seen it:
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,280
Maybe particles do exist... in the past? :p I can kind of settle on that. The future is a wave, the present is collapsing and the past is particles. Everything we see is already the past considering it takes x milliseconds to register.
Now consider, that our past self influences our present self, our future self our past self etc. in an endless feedback loop.
That essentially, there is no beginning and end to "Time". There isn't really a past, present or future, other than our current railroad like journey on it from source to destination.
It is only through our consciousness that we are aware of that difference. That decisions we make now, become deterministic and the decisions we are about to make are non-deterministic.
A seed we plant now, will be a seed we planted yesterday but be a budding plant today but could be a dead/living plant tomorrow, depending on decisions made today.

It is this choice, consciousness, that makes the decisions that turns the future into the past in ways that influence the present and the future.

For something that works on instinct alone, like conways game of life, it is deterministic and the result predictable and when both future, present and past are deterministic, then Time becomes immaterial to it and simply ceases to exist at all.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,574
Now consider, that our past self influences our present self, our future self our past self etc. in an endless feedback loop.
That essentially, there is no beginning and end to "Time". There isn't really a past, present or future, other than our current railroad like journey on it from source to destination.
It is only through our consciousness that we are aware of that difference. That decisions we make now, become deterministic and the decisions we are about to make are non-deterministic.
A seed we plant now, will be a seed we planted yesterday but be a budding plant today but could be a dead/living plant tomorrow, depending on decisions made today.

It is this choice, consciousness, that makes the decisions that turns the future into the past in ways that influence the present and the future.

For something that works on instinct alone, like conways game of life, it is deterministic and the result predictable and when both future, present and past are deterministic, then Time becomes immaterial to it and simply ceases to exist at all.
Did the eye evolve to detect photons (Of certain wavelengths ;)) or did the eye create the photon by making use of waves (Of certain wavelengths) in the environment and go from there. The latter better explains the steps in the development process during evolution in my opinion. The former is too inefficient and "directed" for perfection to be evolution I feel.

Sorry that's a bit of a segway on my part. But if I'm not wrong or being too naive it potentially says a lot about how we perceive reality.

Photons do not exist. There is no spoon :p It's just information filtered and turned into useful packets of data by our mind. It is likely a very poor or extremely limited representation of true reality. And furthermore it is only a representation.

EDIT: I just googled "photons do not exist". Apparently I'm not the first nutter to suggest this haha. Not too shabby.
 
Last edited:

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,724
Did the eye evolve to detect photons (Of certain wavelengths ;)) or did the eye create the photon by making use of waves (Of certain wavelengths) in the environment and go from there. The latter better explains the steps in the development process during evolution in my opinion. The former is too inefficient and "directed" for perfection to be evolution I feel.

Sorry that's a bit of a segway on my part. But if I'm not wrong or being too naive it potentially says a lot about how we perceive reality.

Photons do not exist. There is no spoon :p It's just information filtered and turned into useful packets of data by our mind. It is likely a very poor or extremely limited representation of true reality. And furthermore it is only a representation.

EDIT: I just googled "photons do not exist". Apparently I'm not the first nutter to suggest this haha. Not too shabby.
Both entail teleology ;)
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,280
Did the eye evolve to detect photons (Of certain wavelengths ;)) or did the eye create the photon by making use of waves (Of certain wavelengths) in the environment and go from there. The latter better explains the steps in the development process during evolution in my opinion. The former is too inefficient and "directed" for perfection to be evolution I feel.

Sorry that's a bit of a segway on my part. But if I'm not wrong or being too naive it potentially says a lot about how we perceive reality.

Photons do not exist. There is no spoon :p It's just information filtered and turned into useful packets of data by our mind. It is likely a very poor or extremely limited representation of true reality. And furthermore it is only a representation.

EDIT: I just googled "photons do not exist". Apparently I'm not the first nutter to suggest this haha. Not too shabby.
Here's the rub. Just because we perceive things in a limited fashion that is primarily focused on our survival, doesn't mean that we're not alive. We are alive, so therefore what we perceive has meaning and input into our survival.
And very neatly so. The tricks your mind has come up with in order to catch a ball for example is exemplary. We have a processing powerhouse that allows us to predict a certain amount of time into the future so that we can act now, so that when that present arrives in the present, we're already doing what we should be doing.

That's the WIFOM point, where you need to accept whats in front of you and work from there. Photon's exist as much as light-waves do because otherwise light waves do not and therefore our eyes would never have developed the way they did. Yet there they are, being all brazen about being able to see :D
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,574
Both entail teleology ;)
Does purpose come before function or function before purpose?
Does purpose require intelligence?
Does function require intelligence?
What is intelligence? (Outside of human/natural scope - can it even exist out of this scope?)
What is purpose?
What is function?

I honestly do not know ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Teleology doesn't say much to me :/ Just another way of saying things are as they are for reasons we don't know nor can define.
 
Last edited:

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,574
Here's the rub. Just because we perceive things in a limited fashion that is primarily focused on our survival, doesn't mean that we're not alive. We are alive, so therefore what we perceive has meaning and input into our survival.
And very neatly so. The tricks your mind has come up with in order to catch a ball for example is exemplary. We have a processing powerhouse that allows us to predict a certain amount of time into the future so that we can act now, so that when that present arrives in the present, we're already doing what we should be doing.

That's the WIFOM point, where you need to accept whats in front of you and work from there. Photon's exist as much as light-waves do because otherwise light waves do not and therefore our eyes would never have developed the way they did. Yet there they are, being all brazen about being able to see :D
One challenge I've had for a very long time is trying to understand what is the difference between life and non-life and where the line is drawn between the two in terms of what aspect of life is derived from outside natural laws that non-life is not.

People might say it is consciousness that separates life and assume (For no apparent reason) that consciousness is special in that it is somehow magic. This of course isn't a satisfactory answer for me :( I have no reason to believe consciousness follows some magical ruleset that everything else does not. Self-awareness is likely mere association.

So I remain unconvinced that consciousness alters reality itself more so than a tree in the forest does or even a rock. At least in any meaningfully different way.
 
Last edited:

Gingerbeardman

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
5,472
I'm not sure where my interpretation failed those things :) Believing that particles don't exist (They exist to our brain only) has no bearing on relativity to my knowledge. Waves behave much the same irrespective of how we detect them. But hey, I'm no physicist. Vids are interesting nonetheless.

The only thing I challenged, as a layman who can't prove anything of course, is that we manipulate the universe through observation in a manner that suggests no independence from observation. I'd sooner believe in ghosts. I can understand that instrumentation affects what it measures through the methodology of measuring, but that is a little different.

There is no difference between a living and non-living thing objectively speaking. Having eyes and a brain looking at something is equally as manipulative to the universe as a rock bumping into things (Particles don't touch by the way). If the rock had some nerves attached it'd be the same. You have to ask at what point/line between living and non-living are things different - and you probably can't find that line. Neither a hamster or a rock creates any sort of reality, they merely alter the fabric of reality - and rightly so as they too exist. Both you and the rock travel through time - a consciousness doesn't change anything magically. Well at least I don't see why it should.

Maybe particles do exist... in the past? :p I can kind of settle on that. The future is a wave, the present is collapsing and the past is particles. Everything we see is already the past considering it takes x milliseconds to register.
Want a headache?

https://aeon.co/ideas/you-thought-quantum-mechanics-was-weird-check-out-entangled-time

Up to today, most experiments have tested entanglement over spatial gaps. The assumption is that the ‘nonlocal’ part of quantum nonlocality refers to the entanglement of properties across space. But what if entanglement also occurs across time? Is there such a thing as temporal nonlocality?

The answer, as it turns out, is yes. Just when you thought quantum mechanics couldn’t get any weirder, a team of physicists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reported in 2013 that they had successfully entangled photons that never coexisted. Previous experiments involving a technique called ‘entanglement swapping’ had already showed quantum correlations across time, by delaying the measurement of one of the coexisting entangled particles; but Eli Megidish and his collaborators were the first to show entanglement between photons whose lifespans did not overlap at all.

Here’s how they did it. First, they created an entangled pair of photons, ‘1-2’ (step I in the diagram below). Soon after, they measured the polarisation of photon 1 (a property describing the direction of light’s oscillation) – thus ‘killing’ it (step II). Photon 2 was sent on a wild goose chase while a new entangled pair, ‘3-4’, was created (step III). Photon 3 was then measured along with the itinerant photon 2 in such a way that the entanglement relation was ‘swapped’ from the old pairs (‘1-2’ and ‘3-4’) onto the new ‘2-3’ combo (step IV). Some time later (step V), the polarisation of the lone survivor, photon 4, is measured, and the results are compared with those of the long-dead photon 1 (back at step II).



Figure 1. Time line diagram: (I) Birth of photons 1 and 2, (II) detection of photon 1, (III) birth of photons 3 and 4, (IV) Bell projection of photons 2 and 3, (V) detection of photon 4.
The upshot? The data revealed the existence of quantum correlations between ‘temporally nonlocal’ photons 1 and 4. That is, entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted.

What on Earth can this mean? Prima facie, it seems as troubling as saying that the polarity of starlight in the far-distant past – say, greater than twice Earth’s lifetime – nevertheless influenced the polarity of starlight falling through your amateur telescope this winter. Even more bizarrely: maybe it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.

Lest this scenario strike you as too outlandish, Megidish and his colleagues can’t resist speculating on possible and rather spooky interpretations of their results. Perhaps the measurement of photon 1’s polarisation at step II somehow steers the future polarisation of 4, or the measurement of photon 4’s polarisation at step V somehow rewrites the past polarisation state of photon 1. In both forward and backward directions, quantum correlations span the causal void between the death of one photon and the birth of the other.
 

FrankCastle

Executive Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2010
Messages
7,135
Is gratitude the foundation for deeper meaning and happiness?
Is it possible to feel gratitude that includes spirituality but devoid of any religious intervention?
Also, gratitude and self pity cannot exist in the same space - can this be false?
 

Arksun

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
1,499
Nice necro, right up my alley.

I dont like to refer to myself as an atheist, because that word, just like the word "bigot", has lost its meaning. I call myself a nihilist.

Life has buggerall inherit meaning, but according to the nihilistic world view we get to do whatever the heck we want. I find meaning in life in beer, ice cream, xbox and my wife.

You choose why life is worth living and you get to choose why your life has meaning.
 
Top