Does Quantum Mechanics Reveal That Life Is But a Dream?

[sun rise]

Hmmm, have they invented colour election microscopes yet?

No that can't be done and this web site discusses why: Why Images Produced By Some Microscopes Don't Have Color In Them? » Science ABC

 

[ChristineM]

No that can't be done and this web site discusses why: Why Images Produced By Some Microscopes Don't Have Color In Them? » Science ABC

I want to see flashy, vibrant images of a housefly’s eye!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

QM, Is very much science in progress. It is at about the same stage as alchemy was in Newton time.
When we eventually fully understand it, and it become a " usable science" it will seem as logical as it appears illogical today.

 

[sun rise]

I want to see flashy, vibrant images of a housefly’s eye!

That's at a higher level in size and has been done:

Or pulling back to a bigger area of the eye

 

[sun rise]

Grrr. Stupid web non showing images

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Grrr. Stupid web non showing images

View attachment 59755

A very complex pattern of dark and light lenses.
I wonder what the reason and significance is.

 

[Heyo]

Instead our senses construct an apparent solidity which does not in fact exist when looked at closely

I'd say the solidity does exist - only that it isn't particles but forces between the particles. But that's just an interpretation to make sense of the sensation.

 

[ChristineM]

I'd say the solidity does exist - only that it isn't particles but forces between the particles. But that's just an interpretation to make sense of the sensation.

I remember Brian Cox saying something similar.

 

[Martin]

Colour, the detection of photons on the retina is a quantum effect.
The perception, interpretation of what the eye has detected isn't

OK. My point was that if life is a dream, the experience is composed of sights, sounds, smells, etc, and not composed of photons, quarks, etc.

 

[ChristineM]

OK. My point was that if life is a dream, the experience is composed of sights, sounds, smells, etc, and not composed of photons, quarks, etc.

I understand.

A point though, the sights are seen via photons travelling to your eyes.

Very unromantic but...

 

[Martin]

I understand.

A point though, the sights are seen via photons travelling to your eyes.

Very unromantic but...

So the sights we perceive are dependent on the photons, but does that make the photons more "real" than the sights?

 

[ChristineM]

So the sights we perceive are dependent on the photons, but does that make the photons more "real" than the sights?

I would say they are as real as each other. If the sight didn't exist it would not have sent forth photons, if the photons didn't exist we would not have seen the sight.

 

[Martin]

I would say they are as real as each other. If the sight didn't exist it would not have sent forth photons, if the photons didn't exist we would not have seen the sight.

By "sight" I didn't mean the source of the photons, but what the brain tells us we're seeing, the result of processing and perception.

 

[ChristineM]

By "sight" I didn't mean the source of the photons, but what the brain tells us we're seeing, the result of processing and perception.

Ahh. From reception by the eye to being processed by the brain it's not photons but electrochemical. So i guess electrons are involved.. but i don't know much about how the brain works

 

[Martin]

Ahh. From reception by the eye to being processed by the brain it's not photons but electrochemical. So i guess electrons are involved.. but i don't know much about how the brain works

Yes, when we perceive a "tree" it's the product of a complex electrochemical process, which is triggered by photons impacting the eye.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, when we perceive a "tree" it's the product of a complex electrochemical process, which is triggered by photons impacting the eye.

But sight is not the only sense. You can touch the tree, and smell it. Still the picture of it is inside your mind. Your mind creates the world, from what the senses bring to it. As to the true nature of the tree, and yourself, and the space between; can science bring you full understanding of that? Can art? Philosophy? Spirituality? I say we need all these, equally….

 

[sayak83]

QM, Is very much science in progress. It is at about the same stage as alchemy was in Newton time.
When we eventually fully understand it, and it become a " usable science" it will seem as logical as it appears illogical today.

QM is the most widely used and widely corroborated science there is. It's kind of the platinum standard of science. So no, your analysis is wrong here.

 

[Martin]

But sight is not the only sense. You can touch the tree, and smell it. Still the picture of it is inside your mind. Your mind creates the world, from what the senses bring to it. As to the true nature of the tree, and yourself, and the space between; can science bring you full understanding of that? Can art? Philosophy? Spirituality? I say we need all these, equally….

Sure, science is only one way of evaluating what we experience. I was trying to unpick the idea of our experience being a dream, or an illusion. Or a construction.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Sure, science is only one way of evaluating what we experience. I was trying to unpick the idea of our experience being a dream, or an illusion. Or a construction.

We are co-constructers of our own reality, I think. But a dream exists only in the mind of the dreamer, does it not? Whereas the material world, or the limited perception of it available to our senses, is nonetheless universal. You and I can both look at the sky, describe what we see, and confirm each other’s observations. So in that situation, for me to believe it’s all a dream, would require me to believe that I was dreaming you; and that would be a frightening solipsism, which I reject.


An illusion though? Yes, but a shared one.

 

[Martin]

We are co-constructers of our own reality, I think. But a dream exists only in the mind of the dreamer, does it not? Whereas the material world, or the limited perception of it available to our senses, is nonetheless universal. You and I can both look at the sky, describe what we see, and confirm each other’s observations. So in that situation, for me to believe it’s all a dream, would require me to believe that I was dreaming you; and that would be a frightening solipsism, which I reject.


An illusion though? Yes, but a shared one.

Yes, there seems to be a high degree of consensus, which suggests a consistency, both of sensory "input", and in the way our brains process that input to create a model of the world.