Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is an interesting Video that support the point,
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In and the reality they talk about.
In a way, humans are also the co-creator of moral reality they talked about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0

Professor Jim Al-Khalili traces the story of arguably the most important, accurate and yet perplexing scientific theory ever - quantum physics.

The story starts at the beginning of the 20th century with scientists trying to better understand how light bulbs work. This simple question led them deep into the hidden workings of matter, into the sub-atomic building blocks of the world around us. Here they discovered phenomena unlike any encountered before - a realm where things can be in many places at once, where chance and probability call the shots and where reality appears to only truly exist when we observe it.

Albert Einstein hated the idea that nature, at its most fundamental level, is governed by chance. Jim reveals how, in the 1930s, Einstein thought he had found a fatal flaw in quantum physics, because it implies that sub-atomic particles can communicate faster than light in defiance of the theory of relativity.

For 30 years, his ideas were ignored. Then, in the 1960s, a brilliant scientist from Northern Ireland called John Bell showed there was a way to test if Einstein was right and quantum mechanics was actually mistaken. In a laboratory in Oxford, Jim repeats this critical experiment. Does reality really exist or do we conjure it into existence by the act of observation?

Here at 53:51 -why the human factor is pivotal to reality
https://youtu.be/f_4nYgrDJvc?t=3231

Here at 54:37
https://youtu.be/ISdBAf-ysI0?t=3268

Professor Jim Al-Khalili stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

In way, humans are the co-creator of the reality and the moral reality they are in and talked about.

The above video also exposed Peter Holmes' idea of 'what is fact', i.e. there are objective facts as real features of reality independent of the human conditions.
There are no fact-in-itself.
As I had asserted what-is-fact is conditioned upon its specific Framework and System of Reality which existence is dependent on the convergence of human minds.

As such there are moral facts that are conditioned and justified [empirically and philosophically] upon its specific Framework and System.

The video is worth viewing and it will give one a sense of what reality really is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Neil Bohr was one of the pioneer founder of the theories Quantum Mechanics but Einstein disputed Bohr theories aggressively for ages.
So who is right?

John Stewart Bell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stewart_Bell
set out to resolved the very contentious dispute between Einstein and Bohr once and for all.

His conclusion was;
https://youtu.be/f_4nYgrDJvc?t=2310

Bohr was inconsistent, unclear, willfully obscured and Right.

Einstein was consistent, clear, down-to-earth and Wrong.

This is the same issue with the very deep and wide chasm we see here with Peter, Sculptor, PantFlasher, et. al. on side and mine on the other side on the issue of moral facts, moral objectivity and moral realism.

Peter, Sculptor, PantFlasher, et. al. are like Einstein, who stick to the conventional norms of their time and unable to shift perspective to another paradigm to understand the finer truths of reality which they co-create.
Thus they may be seen to be consistent, clear, down-to-earth but they are Wrong in their grasp of reality they co-create at the finer levels.

I, on the other hand, is like Bohr, accused of being seemingly inconsistent unclear, willfully
obscured but is Right.

Note when I mentioned the Yin-Yang principles which was adopted by Bohr, there was great hoo-hahs and condemnations by Pantflasher accusing me of introducing metaphysical woo woo. But all that is because PantFlasher is an ignoramus of the finer aspects of reality.

But ultimately whatever claims I made for the existence of moral facts as objective [not of God's and Plato's], they are justified within a Moral Framework and System of Reality.

[Age]

Here is an interesting Video that support the point,
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In and the reality they talk about.
In a way, humans are also the co-creator of moral reality they talked about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_4nYgrDJvc

Professor Jim Al-Khalili traces the story of arguably the most important, accurate and yet perplexing scientific theory ever - quantum physics.

'Quantum physics' is NOT 'perplexing'. The only 'perplexing' thing is human being's interpretations, of what IS ACTUALLY REAL.

The story starts at the beginning of the 20th century with scientists trying to better understand how light bulbs work. This simple question led them deep into the hidden workings of matter, into the sub-atomic building blocks of the world around us. Here they discovered phenomena unlike any encountered before

Well if one has never been deep into some 'thing' previously, then, obviously, they will discover phenomena unlike any encountered before. For example, if one has never been deep into the, so called, "hidden" workings of the Mind and the brain, then, obviously, they will discover phenomena unlike any encountered before. This will be a PROVEN FACT when 'you', human beings, actually BEGIN to delve into the workings of thee Mind, and the brain.

- a realm where things can be in many places at once,

Is this a PROVEN FACT, or just an ASSUMPTION?

If it is alleged to be a PROVEN FACT, then how do these human beings KNOW that what they PERCEIVE to be the EXACT SAME thing in many places is i IN FACT the EXACT SAME 'thing'?

Obviously, we can say; 'Things can be in many places at once', because, obviously, there are airplanes, for example, in many places at once. But just as obvious is the fact that these airplanes are NOT the EXACT SAME airplane.

So, if ANY one was to suggest that there are 'things' [sub-atomic particles] in many places at once, then I would say, 'OBVIOUSLY'. Now, if they were to suggest that the EXACT SAME 'particle' can be in many places at once, then I would just ask them the CLARIFYING QUESTION, 'How do 'you' KNOW?'

Do these people who would suggest such a thing imply that they could tell the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between each and every quark or electron?

If yes, then HOW could they tell the DIFFERENCE?

where chance and probability call the shots and where reality appears to only truly exist when we observe it.

Chance and probability do NOT "call the shots". Chance and probability only exist because human beings do NOT LOOK AT the WHOLE picture. If they did LOOK AT the WHOLE picture, then they could and would be able to SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth IS.

A 'concept' of 'Reality' only truly exists when 'we' observe it because without 'us' 'Reality' JUST IS.

'Reality' APPEARS only to those who are CONCEIVING 'It'. Understand who and what 'we' Truly IS, then this becomes MUCH CLEARER.

'Reality', that is; What IS REAL Truly exists HERE-NOW, forever and eternal.

Albert Einstein hated the idea that nature, at its most fundamental level, is governed by chance.

So what?

Many human beings hate many things but this is NO WAY has ANY bearing AT ALL on what is True and Real.

Jim reveals how, in the 1930s, Einstein thought he had found a fatal flaw in quantum physics, because it implies that sub-atomic particles can communicate faster than light in defiance of the theory of relativity.

So, the, so called, "flaw" in one's theory is solely because that theory opposes another theory. The ridiculousness, and flaw, of this conclusion, I hope, does NOT need pointing out.

For 30 years, his ideas were ignored. Then, in the 1960s, a brilliant scientist from Northern Ireland called John Bell showed there was a way to test if Einstein was right and quantum mechanics was actually mistaken. In a laboratory in Oxford, Jim repeats this critical experiment. Does reality really exist or do we conjure it into existence by the act of observation?

First, define the word 'reality'.
Second, come to an agreement and acceptance of that definition.
Thirdly, it will be CLEARLY OBVIOUS if that 'word', defined by that agreed upon and accepted definition, exists or not.

By the way, what is the difference between 'really exists' and just plain old 'exists'?

Fourthly, the answer to the question; 'Does 'reality' really exist or do 'we' conjure 'reality' into existence, by the act of 'observation' or by the act of 'doing/creating', or by BOTH'? can be and will be answered, VERY SIMPLY AND VERY EASILY.

Thee ANSWER is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS once one learns and KNOWS who and what thee Observer ACTUALLY IS, and what 'Reality', really, IS.

Here at 53:51 -why the human factor is pivotal to reality
https://youtu.be/f_4nYgrDJvc?t=3231

Here at 54:30
https://youtu.be/f_4nYgrDJvc?t=3270

He stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

In way, humans are the co-creator of the reality and the moral reality they are in and talked about.

The above video also exposed Peter Holmes' idea of 'what is fact', i.e. there are objective facts as real features of reality independent of the human conditions.
There are no fact-in-itself.
As I had asserted what-is-fact is conditioned upon its specific Framework and System of Reality which existence is dependent on the convergence of human minds.

But 'you' do NOT even KNOW what the 'human mind' is, correct?

As such there are moral facts that are conditioned and justified [empirically and philosophically] upon its specific Framework and System.

The video is worth viewing and it will give one a sense of what reality really is.

How about 'you' just tell us, in your OWN words, what "reality really is"?

[Age]

Neil Bohr was one of the pioneer founder of the theories Quantum Mechanics but Einstein disputed Bohr theories aggressively for ages.
So who is right?

NEITHER, absolutely and obviously.

John Stewart Bell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stewart_Bell
set out to resolved the very contentious dispute between Einstein and Bohr once and for all.

His conclusion was;
https://youtu.be/f_4nYgrDJvc?t=2310

Bohr was inconsistent, unclear, willfully obscured and Right.

Einstein was consistent, clear, down-to-earth and Wrong.

This is the same issue with the very deep and wide chasm we see here with Peter, Sculptor, PantFlasher, et. al. on side and mine on the other side on the issue of moral facts, moral objectivity and moral realism.

Yes. You are ALL WRONG or PARTLY WRONG.

Peter, Sculptor, PantFlasher, et. al. are like Einstein, who stick to the conventional norms of their time and unable to shift perspective to another paradigm to understand the finer truths of reality which they co-create.
Thus they may be seen to be consistent, clear, down-to-earth but they are Wrong in their grasp of reality they co-create at the finer levels.

But they are NOT even seen to be consistent NOR clear ALL of the time, or even rarely on some occasions.

I, on the other hand, is like Bohr, accused of being seemingly inconsistent unclear, willfully
obscured but is Right.

LOL Could you come across anymore narcissist than you are here now?

The reason you are accused of being inconsistent and unclear some times is because you are INCONSISTENT and UNCLEAR some of the time. You are also VERY RARELY, so called, "Right".

Note when I mentioned the Yin-Yang principles which was adopted by Bohr, there was great hoo-hahs and condemnations by Pantflasher accusing me of introducing metaphysical woo woo. But all that is because PantFlasher is an ignoramus of the finer aspects of reality.

But ultimately whatever claims I made for the existence of moral facts as objective [not of God's and Plato's], they are justified within a Moral Framework and System of Reality.

Is that "justification" from YOUR very OWN "moral framework and system of reality"? Or, is that from the One and ONLY absolute and objective, irrefutable, 'moral framework and system of reality'?

If it is from the former, then okay.

But, if it is from the latter, then WHY is there such DISAGREEMENT, with 'you' in particular?

[Atla]

Here is an interesting Video that support the point,
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In and the reality they talk about.
In a way, humans are also the co-creator of moral reality they talked about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_4nYgrDJvc

Professor Jim Al-Khalili traces the story of arguably the most important, accurate and yet perplexing scientific theory ever - quantum physics.

The story starts at the beginning of the 20th century with scientists trying to better understand how light bulbs work. This simple question led them deep into the hidden workings of matter, into the sub-atomic building blocks of the world around us. Here they discovered phenomena unlike any encountered before - a realm where things can be in many places at once, where chance and probability call the shots and where reality appears to only truly exist when we observe it.

Albert Einstein hated the idea that nature, at its most fundamental level, is governed by chance. Jim reveals how, in the 1930s, Einstein thought he had found a fatal flaw in quantum physics, because it implies that sub-atomic particles can communicate faster than light in defiance of the theory of relativity.

For 30 years, his ideas were ignored. Then, in the 1960s, a brilliant scientist from Northern Ireland called John Bell showed there was a way to test if Einstein was right and quantum mechanics was actually mistaken. In a laboratory in Oxford, Jim repeats this critical experiment. Does reality really exist or do we conjure it into existence by the act of observation?

Here at 53:51 -why the human factor is pivotal to reality
https://youtu.be/f_4nYgrDJvc?t=3231

Here at 54:30
https://youtu.be/f_4nYgrDJvc?t=3270

He stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

In way, humans are the co-creator of the reality and the moral reality they are in and talked about.

The above video also exposed Peter Holmes' idea of 'what is fact', i.e. there are objective facts as real features of reality independent of the human conditions.
There are no fact-in-itself.
As I had asserted what-is-fact is conditioned upon its specific Framework and System of Reality which existence is dependent on the convergence of human minds.

As such there are moral facts that are conditioned and justified [empirically and philosophically] upon its specific Framework and System.

The video is worth viewing and it will give one a sense of what reality really is.

It's almost impossible to even begin to address how wrong you are getting all this, and on how many levels. Suffice to say, no it's not 'humans' but 'quantum observers', which probably has nothing to do with actual 'observers', but more with something like relative, perspectivical entanglement-islands within superpositional fields. And it's not co-creating, but in one sense real, in other sense apparent co-shaping from a point of view. Which in no fucking way means that reality is conjured into existence by observation, that's quantum woo. And this whole real-or-apparent-co-shaping of the world is overall an objective issue, while morality is subjective, drawing a parallel is plain nonsense. And Yin-Yang has nothing to do with anything here, that's just superstitious bullshit.

[Peter Holmes]

Here is an interesting Video that support the point,
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In and the reality they talk about.
In a way, humans are also the co-creator of moral reality they talked about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_4nYgrDJvc

Professor Jim Al-Khalili traces the story of arguably the most important, accurate and yet perplexing scientific theory ever - quantum physics.

The story starts at the beginning of the 20th century with scientists trying to better understand how light bulbs work. This simple question led them deep into the hidden workings of matter, into the sub-atomic building blocks of the world around us. Here they discovered phenomena unlike any encountered before - a realm where things can be in many places at once, where chance and probability call the shots and where reality appears to only truly exist when we observe it.

Albert Einstein hated the idea that nature, at its most fundamental level, is governed by chance. Jim reveals how, in the 1930s, Einstein thought he had found a fatal flaw in quantum physics, because it implies that sub-atomic particles can communicate faster than light in defiance of the theory of relativity.

For 30 years, his ideas were ignored. Then, in the 1960s, a brilliant scientist from Northern Ireland called John Bell showed there was a way to test if Einstein was right and quantum mechanics was actually mistaken. In a laboratory in Oxford, Jim repeats this critical experiment. Does reality really exist or do we conjure it into existence by the act of observation?

Here at 53:51 -why the human factor is pivotal to reality
https://youtu.be/f_4nYgrDJvc?t=3231

Here at 54:30
https://youtu.be/f_4nYgrDJvc?t=3270

He stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

In way, humans are the co-creator of the reality and the moral reality they are in and talked about.

The above video also exposed Peter Holmes' idea of 'what is fact', i.e. there are objective facts as real features of reality independent of the human conditions.
There are no fact-in-itself.
As I had asserted what-is-fact is conditioned upon its specific Framework and System of Reality which existence is dependent on the convergence of human minds.

As such there are moral facts that are conditioned and justified [empirically and philosophically] upon its specific Framework and System.

The video is worth viewing and it will give one a sense of what reality really is.

1 If we co-create the reality we are in, who or what is the co-creator of that reality?

2 We are part of the reality we are in. So if we co-reate that reality, then we co-create our selves, including our perception and understanding of that reality. So who or what is the 'we' doing the co-creating? Just another co-creation?

3 If we co-create what we call facts, it doesn't follow that we co-create moral facts. For example, if we co-create what we call the fact that water is H2O, it doesn't follow that the moral wrongness of killing humans is the same kind of co-created fact.

4 From 'humans co-create reality', it doesn't follow that 'therefore there is a moral reality'.

5 This appeal to quantum mechanics is a massive category error, and anyway does nothing to support moral objectivism.

[Atla]

By the way, I do think that the Copenhagen interpretation was somewhat influenced by their takeway from the Vedas (which might have started most of this conscious observation business), but the Yin and Yang? I did some googling

Pais tells us more of Bohr’s coat of arms: "the belief that Bohr’s view on physics were influenced by oriental philosophy is unfounded. These speculations have an amusing origin". Then he goes on to tell us that Bohr could find no satisfactory coat of arms until the wife of a co-worker of his, Hanna Kobylinski who was a Chinese historian, suggested that he use the Yin and Yang symbol. So it is not as if Bohr was drawing on any deep acquaintance he had with eastern systems of belief!

haha

[Belinda]

Here is an interesting Video that support the point,
Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In and the reality they talk about.
In a way, humans are also the co-creator of moral reality they talked about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_4nYgrDJvc

Professor Jim Al-Khalili traces the story of arguably the most important, accurate and yet perplexing scientific theory ever - quantum physics.

The story starts at the beginning of the 20th century with scientists trying to better understand how light bulbs work. This simple question led them deep into the hidden workings of matter, into the sub-atomic building blocks of the world around us. Here they discovered phenomena unlike any encountered before - a realm where things can be in many places at once, where chance and probability call the shots and where reality appears to only truly exist when we observe it.

Albert Einstein hated the idea that nature, at its most fundamental level, is governed by chance. Jim reveals how, in the 1930s, Einstein thought he had found a fatal flaw in quantum physics, because it implies that sub-atomic particles can communicate faster than light in defiance of the theory of relativity.

For 30 years, his ideas were ignored. Then, in the 1960s, a brilliant scientist from Northern Ireland called John Bell showed there was a way to test if Einstein was right and quantum mechanics was actually mistaken. In a laboratory in Oxford, Jim repeats this critical experiment. Does reality really exist or do we conjure it into existence by the act of observation?

Here at 53:51 -why the human factor is pivotal to reality
https://youtu.be/f_4nYgrDJvc?t=3231

Here at 54:30
https://youtu.be/f_4nYgrDJvc?t=3270

He stated,
"In some strange sense, it really does suggest the moon doesn't exists when we are not looking. It truly defies common sense."

In way, humans are the co-creator of the reality and the moral reality they are in and talked about.

The above video also exposed Peter Holmes' idea of 'what is fact', i.e. there are objective facts as real features of reality independent of the human conditions.
There are no fact-in-itself.
As I had asserted what-is-fact is conditioned upon its specific Framework and System of Reality which existence is dependent on the convergence of human minds.

As such there are moral facts that are conditioned and justified [empirically and philosophically] upon its specific Framework and System.

The video is worth viewing and it will give one a sense of what reality really is.

I love Jim Al-Khalili ! You are safe if you understand what he is saying, and the summary posted by Veritas is a good one. I seldom watch videos, have not seen this one, but but I recommend it as it is by Jim A;-Khalili. Actually I believe | have heard Jim Al-Khalili on TV explaining that very topic.

there are moral facts that are conditioned and justified [empirically and philosophically] upon its specific Framework and System.

[Atla]

I love Jim Al-Khalili ! You are safe if you understand what he is saying, and the summary posted by Veritas is a good one. I seldom watch videos, have not seen this one, but but I recommend it as it is by Jim A;-Khalili. Actually I believe | have heard Jim Al-Khalili on TV explaining that very topic.

No not really. Yes it was shown that QM is correct, for example Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance' is in fact happening. And that a particle only 'shows up somewhere in one piece', when it is measured.

But it is up to interpretations, what 'measurement' actually means here, because no one knows. Here 'measurement' is just a metaphor.
And it is a WILD interpretation that showing up somewhere in one piece is the same as being 'real'. This looks like a Copenhagen idea, but is nowadays more and more widely considered to be a ridiculous view. A particle in superposition is probably also 'real', it's just in superposition. Al-Khalili is one of my favourite presenters too, here he was a little dramatic and that's fine.

It's not that the Moon doesn't exist when we aren't looking at it. Einstein was correct about one thing, such early Copenhagen talk was too much mysticism. It actually goes like this: as far as we can tell, from our perspective, the Moon only steps out of superposition (doesn't show up in a certain place in a certain state) if it gets 'measured'/'entangled' with the quantum observer, that we are, or is a part of us, or we are part of, or some of us are partially part of, along with some of the non-living parts of Earth, etc. no one understands this part.

Nothing whatsoever to do with morality btw, which is subjective.

Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory. - Heisenberg

[Skepdick]

I love Jim Al-Khalili ! You are safe if you understand what he is saying, and the summary posted by Veritas is a good one. I seldom watch videos, have not seen this one, but but I recommend it as it is by Jim A;-Khalili. Actually I believe | have heard Jim Al-Khalili on TV explaining that very topic.

No not really. Yes it was shown that QM is correct, for example Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance' is in fact happening. And that a particle only 'shows up somewhere in one piece', when it is measured.

But it is up to interpretations, what 'measurement' actually means here, because no one knows. Here 'measurement' is just a metaphor.
And it is a WILD interpretation that showing up somewhere in one piece is the same as being 'real'. This looks like a Copenhagen idea, but is nowadays more and more widely considered to be a ridiculous view. A particle in superposition is probably also 'real', it's just in superposition. Al-Khalili is one of my favourite presenters too, here he was a little dramatic and that's fine.

It's not that the Moon doesn't exist when we aren't looking at it. Einstein was correct about one thing, such early Copenhagen talk was too much mysticism. It actually goes like this: as far as we can tell, from our perspective, the Moon only steps out of superposition (doesn't show up in a certain place in a certain state) if it gets 'measured'/'entangled' with the quantum observer, that we are, or is a part of us, or we are part of, or some of us are partially part of, along with some of the non-living parts of Earth, etc.

Nothing whatsoever to do with morality btw, which is subjective.

Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory. - Heisenberg

To avoid getting stuck in the semantics of "measurement" and "quantum observers" lets just call it "experience" and move onto the Bell's theorem.

Anybody can experience the commons sense-defying quantum phenomenon.

So go ahead and sprinkle some of your Philosophy woo-woo on it and explain what's "objectively" going on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcqZHYo7ONs

[Atla]

To avoid getting stuck in the semantics of "measurement" lets just call it "experience"

Calling your "head" an "ass" would be a smaller mistake.

[Skepdick]

Calling your "head" an "ass" would be a smaller mistake.

Since we are talking about inequalities and asymmetry...

I may be calling my head an "ass", but you are calling your ass a "head" - a mistake significantly worse than mine.

No wonder you don't understand what it means to understand.

[Atla]

I may be calling my head an "ass"

Well at least you're honest about yourself.

[Skepdick]

It's almost impossible to even begin to address how wrong you are getting all this, and on how many levels. Suffice to say, no it's not 'humans' but 'quantum observers', which probably has nothing to do with actual 'observers'.

Lets just cut through your bullshit though. The above is a lie.

Quantum observer. Human. What's the difference?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcqZHYo7ONs

[Skepdick]

Well at least you're honest about yourself.

Which is much more than we can say about you.