Stop Saying Everything Is An Illusion

[Jake Kenner]

Listen to what Stephen Hawking has to say about the nature of reality and consciousness:

“I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don’t know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus paper. All I’m concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements”.

And the clincher:

“Consciousness is not a quality that one can measure from the outside”.

Can the holographic principle of quantum gravity explain the nature of reality?

What if empty space is the nature of reality? What if empty space is the source of consciousness? How then to interpret what the holographic principle is telling us? Empty space itself cannot be measured because there is nothing in it. It is empty. It is pure consciousness. It is what measures all the perceivable things. All of those things are composed of information. All information is defined on surfaces with one bit of information per Planck area. Information is energy that flows in an energy gradient. That information flows from more ordered states to less ordered states. The most ordered thing in the universe is the big bang event with its uniform distribution of matter and energy. Information becomes more disordered because of gravitational collapse. The most disordered thing in the universe is the black hole which is as far as matter and energy can gravitationally collapse. All of the perceivable things can be measured. They are observable. Even a theory is a perceivable thing that predicts how information is organized into perceivable things as it flows in its ordered energy gradient. All of the perceivable things in the observable physical universe are holographically defined on surfaces. Those surfaces are all embedded within empty space. If the nature of consciousness is empty space then it is outside all the perceivable things.

 

[baywax]

Listen to what Stephen Hawking has to say about the nature of reality and consciousness:

“I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don’t know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus paper. All I’m concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements”.

And the clincher:

“Consciousness is not a quality that one can measure from the outside”.

Can the holographic principle of quantum gravity explain the nature of reality?

What if empty space is the nature of reality? What if empty space is the source of consciousness? How then to interpret what the holographic principle is telling us? Empty space itself cannot be measured because there is nothing in it. It is empty. It is pure consciousness. It is what measures all the perceivable things. All of those things are composed of information. All information is defined on surfaces with one bit of information per Planck area. Information is energy that flows in an energy gradient. That information flows from more ordered states to less ordered states. The most ordered thing in the universe is the big bang event with its uniform distribution of matter and energy. Information becomes more disordered because of gravitational collapse. The most disordered thing in the universe is the black hole which is as far as matter and energy can gravitationally collapse. All of the perceivable things can be measured. They are observable. Even a theory is a perceivable thing that predicts how information is organized into perceivable things as it flows in its ordered energy gradient. All of the perceivable things in the observable physical universe are holographically defined on surfaces. Those surfaces are all embedded within empty space. If the nature of consciousness is empty space then it is outside all the perceivable things.

Stop saying everything is an holograph.

 

[OrbitalPower]

I agree with the quote Jake Kenner posted from Hawking. Call me an "illusionist," I don't care.

I have no problem with these threads being prohibited, though. This is because I think the people against "illusionists" will probably not convince many people with arguments along the lines of "reality exists because I said so and I exist."

I think a true scientist would be questioning everything at all times, while focusing on what you can seemingly test and demonstrate and show. This is done by logic and by observing the properties of things. That was the point I was making earlier.

 

[mjolnir80]

if everything is an illusion then illusions must be real

 

[LightbulbSun]

This is because I think the people against "illusionists" will probably not convince many people with arguments along the lines of "reality exists because I said so and I exist."

No, it's more along the lines of illusionists not being able to support their proposition with any evidence. All they do is shout the mantra and that's suppose to convince us.

 

[baywax]

Illusion is a relative term when you think about it.

You have to ask, "illusion as compared to what?" And this shatters the solipsist's illusion. One cannot know one to exist without a comparable by which to gauge that existence.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Illusion is a relative term when you think about it.

You have to ask, "illusion as compared to what?" And this shatters the solipsist's illusion. One cannot know one to exist without a comparable by which to gauge that existence.

Also one must know what is real in order to say something is an illusion because the term illusion is derived from the term real.

 

[baywax]

Also one must know what is real in order to say something is an illusion because the term illusion is derived from the term real.

For sure, I was playing off of how you worded that earlier... or another poster. This is a slam dunk as far as I'm concerned... then again it may only be a literal or "semantic" observation.

This is fairly obvious as well when the less than microscopic topic of quantum physics is studied from the lofty heights of "emergent phenomenon". You have to conclude that both states exist, otherwise we'd not be able to distinguish between quantum and emergent.

 

[Serpentine]

I cannot prove it to you but I can prove it to myself. This is simply an extension of "I think therefore I am" where I know without any doubt that I exist but I don't know exactly what I am. Well, that table is the same thing. It may be a physical object external to my body or it may be nothing more than a misfired neuron inside my brain. But whatever it is, it matters to me and therefore it exists. I don't know for sure what it is but I do know that it exists.

By the way, even if it's only a misfired neuron in my own brain and you cannot see it, it does matter to you as well. This is because it affects me and in turn I affect you through my actions and/or my words which are influenced by my perception of this table. So indirectly, that table that I see matters to you as well because you are indirectly affected by it. The table exists for you too. You just don't know exactly what it is anymore than I do, and you may not even be aware of its existence if I don't tell you about it. But, want it or not, you are affected by it.

Yes well, i have always believed that beliefe itself is the death of intelligence. by having a firm beliefe in something you are trapping yourself to your own beliefe and when proved wrong you will stay trapped. Please proove to me this world is nothing but an illusion? i do not personally believe in this, i try and keep myself asking questions but whatever you experience happens inside of you therefore you cannot say that anything else( if there is anything else) is nothing but a figment of your imagination. yes an imagination where you imagine a God you don't understand, and an imagination that you learn from does seem strange, it does not have to deny God and learning from yourself still doesn't proove anything. you never experience anything outside your body, you never even actually touch anything for that matter. when you move something it is actually electrons around the object pushing away. most of these theories arent meant for us to be able to understand, and the only reason they have come so far, is because people who want to feel intelligent by proving others that they can not prove them wrong, will actually fall into this beliefe and therefore trap themselves.

 

[a4mula]

This is a semantical conversation. We are ill-fit to judge what is illusion or reality because both definitions are fuzzy at best. We perceive experience only by our own perceptions. This is relativity. Until we have a well defined expression for what reality is we'll continue to only debate the meanings of words.

If we live in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality" , is the table in front of you still real? Again, we can't answer that because of our own inability to differentiate our perceptions from reality. Even if every person shares a perception does that make it real? The Earth isn't flat, so we can rule out that "global" perception is an accurate indicator of reality.

The Hawkins quote does a great job of really stating what is key here. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if something is real or illusion. All that matters is that we continue to understand our surroundings while getting closer to predicting how our reality behaves regardless of it's true/untrue nature.

 

[baywax]

Its a matter of distinguishing between one's personal mythology and actual reality. It can be difficult because one likes to believe one is correct about most matters when in reality, one can be wrong all the time. This is because of change and one's limited perception. For example, the illusion of a happy ending neglects to take into account that it is an ending, with no room left to linger in happiness.

 

[Russell Berty]

I withhold “final” judgments – the future may always surprise us, as has been seen over and over. Is it real? Is it illusion? I live my life assuming real is good enough to be true. But that does not make it true.

What are the definitions of “real” and “illusion”? Tough one. Usually vague responses.
Definitions aside, I will play Devil’s advocate.

You are requesting that…

all of you illusionists need to provide some evidence for why you think every thing is an illusion.

If you want to put an end to the illusionists’ claim, then prove them wrong. Don’t wait around for them to give you a proof that “Everything is an illusion.” Prove the negation is true; prove “There is something that is not an illusion.” Just give an absolute, definitive, beyond all doubt proof, that “There is something that is not an illusion.” Be warned, no one ever has to date (yes, not even Descartes.)

 

[Sorry!]

I think the term 'exist' is relative as well...

To me saying that something 'exist' is subjective... because as was pointed out earlier if we perceive something then we know it MUST exist. But that is only based upon our perceptions.
We however CAN'T have knowledge of what 'exist' OUTSIDE our perception abilities... we may develop tools etc to enhance our perceptions or change how we perceive them but we can not know what's OUTSIDE them in what I would call the 'fundamental reality'.

I wrote a paper on this for my philosophy course... the stuff in it blew even MY mind away it's kind of a weird feeling.

Anyways to conclude this I would say that we may or may not be existing in said fundamental reality BUT we can never know since knowing this is outside our abilities PERIOD and to speculate upon it is futile. (Got A LOT OF RED INK ON THIS ONE haha. Said that if that's true then my paper is pointless too :p smartass teacher.)
We should turn our attention elsewhere.

This does of course leave open that what my reality is is completely MINE and everything might be made up or an illusion... regardless as I said before... it all still exist. Can we have differing realities (assuming we exist together...)why not? Our perceptions are different we have different knowledge bases etc... so it probably is so. Neither of us will know of the fundamental reality though.

ok I am done i tried covering all bases so that way if anyone posts about this i'll have less questions to answer :P

As a side note I don't think that this topic should be banned. I think that topics about reality in philosophy are really important and probably bring up some of the most interesting discussions :P

 

[baywax]

“There is something that is not an illusion.”

Illusion is not an illusion. Illusion is a function of cognition that can be verified using several witnesses and an FMRI machine.

Illusion is a concept (physical function of the brain) that softens the blow of reality on a fragile psych. Its an excuse to view the world through a personal mythology that is constructed by the person in an attempt to regulate and control nature. In this way, illusion is not an illusion other than the fact that it describes itself.

 

[WaveJumper]

Illusion is not an illusion. Illusion is a function of cognition that can be verified using several witnesses and an FMRI machine.

Illusion is a concept (physical function of the brain) that softens the blow of reality on a fragile psych. Its an excuse to view the world through a personal mythology that is constructed by the person in an attempt to regulate and control nature. In this way, illusion is not an illusion other than the fact that it describes itself.

Then by this definition reality, as we experience it, is in fact nothing but an illusion. There is no solid stuff anywhere in the known universe. Even we humans, outside of our twisted perception of reality, are much closer to being an electromagnetic phenomenon than entities made of solid stuff(electromagnetism being by FAR the largest contributor to what we are experiencing as an objectively existing universe; and gravity to a somewhat lesser extent).

 

[AUMathTutor]

Talking about reality is silly... you can't prove there is any reality unless you presuppose the conclusion (try it!)

 

[baywax]

Then by this definition reality, as we experience it, is in fact nothing but an illusion. There is no solid stuff anywhere in the known universe. Even we humans, outside of our twisted perception of reality, are much closer to being an electromagnetic phenomenon than entities made of solid stuff(electromagnetism being by FAR the largest contributor to what we are experiencing as an objectively existing universe; and gravity to a somewhat lesser extent).

So, are you suggesting electromagnetic activity is a state of illusion? Because its not. It is electromagnetic activity. EM is a basic component of reality.

People tend to build their own cognitive mythology out of what they can perceive of the EM spectrum. It is a survival trait and a modification of the behaviour of the neural net. What has evolved out of this survival technique of "making sense" of all the EM waves and haze are two phenomena I'm calling "collective mythology" and "personal mythology".

 

[junglebeast]

Er... I work with electrons all the time, since that is the particle I try to accelerate. Can you tell me where I'm worrying about them, or their "interpretation"? In none of my papers that dealt with electrons, be it in a particle accelerator or photoelectrons that hit a detector, there were NEVER any argument or disagreement that these WERE electrons.
Zz.

In the scientific community on vision, it is widely accepted that our visual perception is an illusion. In other words, our eyes (sensors) make a few sparse measurements and then our brain extrapolates, interpolates, and deduces a complete picture of what we are "seeing," as well as a meaningful interpretation of what we are seeing actually based in terms of our world knowledge.

For example, you may see a spot on the wall for a brief moment which was not actually there, but rather caused by a mistake in your brain's extrapolation. Or you might think you saw a person in the woods, but when you look closer, you notice it's just a large stump -- your brain made the best guess it could at classifying that object, which happened to be wrong, and caused you to think that you see something which you didn't really.

If some of the receptors in your eye become damaged, this region will be interpolated based on the surroundings. Stare directly at a wall with a bright red dot on it which lines up with that missing portion of sensors, and it will appear to you that it is a perfectly white wall: that is an illusion.

The more evidence we get about the physical world, the more confident we can be that we have the correct perception of it. For example, by taking a second look at that stump, we gathered more information and were able to make a better judgment. But to be precise, we can never be absolutely 100% positive about anything because 100% can only be approached asymptotically, and we have only finite amounts of evidence.

I think this is what people generally mean when they say that things are an illusion.

 

[AeroFunk]

I thought Berkeley, Hume, and Kant already dealt with this.

What does it mean for something to be an illusion? What does it mean for something to exist? How do we determine reality from fiction?

We can have no knowledge of 'things in themselves' all we can sense is 'things as they appear to us'. We are unable to determine if objects have properties that are independent of our sensing them, "If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it does it make a sound?"(No). All sensory information could be false, the only way(well one of the ways) to tell dreams from reality is that reality has coherence, reality follows natural laws. Strictly speaking all we see are 2D color patches, that seem to connect together through time. There is no direct sensory evidence for 3D space, it is something we infer. There is no way to tell if material substance has an independent existence outside of perception, or to put it another way, no way to tell if objects have existence outside of minds. We just observe regular connections among our ideas(our sense inputs), and using inductive reasoning we infer many things, like cause and effect, and the conservation of matter. And, as I'm sure you all know, there is a big problem with inductive reasoning.

So if reality is defined as an existence outside of perception, then of course it can't be known, how can you prove the existence of things outside of all perception? In this case everything could be an "illusion". But this is trivial, what does it matter.

If reality is defined as sense experience that is generated independently of our own will, or imagination, then a better definition of illusion develops. "Illusion" becomes sense experience generated by the mind. But here there is a problem. Take crazy people who see things, are what they see part of "reality." Whose reality is correct? The only method you have is comparing the crazies claims to all your other experience, and than adjust your probability distribution for what is real accordingly. The method for determining reality from fiction is to observe the world, trying to find patterns and correlations in sense experience (although not causality), so you can have more knowledge, more accurately adjusting your probability distributions for what is real.

I hope I wasn't rambling on too much and I got across some of the points I wanted to make (its hard to write about deep philosophical questions concisely and clearly), there is a rich philosophical history on the nature of reality, and it isn't as simple as, of course nothing is an illusion or everything is real.

 

[WaveJumper]

So, are you suggesting electromagnetic activity is a state of illusion? Because its not. It is electromagnetic activity. EM is a basic component of reality.

People tend to build their own cognitive mythology out of what they can perceive of the EM spectrum. It is a survival trait and a modification of the behaviour of the neural net. What has evolved out of this survival technique of "making sense" of all the EM waves and haze are two phenomena I'm calling "collective mythology" and "personal mythology".

I said "reality as we experience it" is an illusion(of the mind). The illusion that we are touching things is very powerful and convincing, when in fact no one has ever touched anything over the last 14 billion years. The impression that we get that we are standing on floors is also an illusion. We are hovering at 10^-8 metres above the floors and the illusion is very strong. Most people, who aren't affiliated with physics or aren't interested in physics, will tell you that you are crazy when they first get acquainted with these facts.

So to sum it all up, while energy in bound states may or may not have an objective existence prior to measurement/observation(depending on the preferred interpretation), reality and the universe the way experience them is purely an illusion(creation) of the mind.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I hope I wasn't rambling on too much and I got across some of the points I wanted to make (its hard to write about deep philosophical questions concisely and clearly), there is a rich philosophical history on the nature of reality, and it isn't as simple as, of course nothing is an illusion or everything is real.

No rambling perceived here. It was a very clear and thoughtful post. Thanks for writing it.

 

[JoeDawg]

I thought Berkeley, Hume, and Kant already dealt with this.

And Plato's allegory of the cave.

Nice post.

Just remember, its only trivial, if you already know it.
Getting your mind around it the first time, is the hard part.
And the implications can be shattering to your worldview.

 

[jnorman]

how about this - there is, at the most fundamental level, no thing there. an electron is a point particle which occupies no volume - there is really no thing there. protons are made from quarks, which are point particles with no volume - there is no thing there. photons have no location - they are expressed as mathematical probability functions - there is no thing there. all we see and experience is the interaction of fields, which are not things. this is, indeed, illusion of the first water...

reality - what a concept!

 

[Moridin]

The problem with the illusion argument is that to be justified that something is an illusion, you would have to know what is real to contrast it against. But if you know what's real, then the issue goes away.

 

[junglebeast]

how about this - there is, at the most fundamental level, no thing there. an electron is a point particle which occupies no volume - there is really no thing there. protons are made from quarks, which are point particles with no volume - there is no thing there. photons have no location - they are expressed as mathematical probability functions - there is no thing there. all we see and experience is the interaction of fields, which are not things. this is, indeed, illusion of the first water...

reality - what a concept!

the notion of point particles with no volume may very well be an illusion -- perhaps that have some miniscule volume. the notion that photon locations are truly expressed as probability functions may very well be an illusion resulting from a completely deterministic patterned motion occurring below the observable level. point being: you can't even use the "truths" of physics to disambiguate the illusions, because experimental observations are subject to the illusions.

 

[JoeDawg]

The problem with the illusion argument is that to be justified that something is an illusion, you would have to know what is real to contrast it against. But if you know what's real, then the issue goes away.

Real vs illusion is entirely arbitrary, epistemologically. Again you're confusing this with an ontological argument.

All that is needed to concieve of an illusion is two contradictory elements. One can then attribute reality to one and falsity to the other, or vice versa, or neither.

 

[WaveJumper]

how about this - there is, at the most fundamental level, no thing there. an electron is a point particle which occupies no volume - there is really no thing there. protons are made from quarks, which are point particles with no volume - there is no thing there. photons have no location - they are expressed as mathematical probability functions - there is no thing there. all we see and experience is the interaction of fields, which are not things. this is, indeed, illusion of the first water...

reality - what a concept!

Some point "particles" have charge, that's enough of a prerequisite for the illusion of the existence of solid matter.(not that i am happy to be composed of positive and negative charges)


A deeper question would be what is causing the apparent manifestation of "particles" and where do they get their energy/charge? For the sake of how we are used to view reality, it'd be best if this research is proven wrong:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html



Nobody is happy about it, but we cannot meaningfully talk about "our" atoms. Quantum theory shows that most of your X number of atoms(approximately 100 trillion trillion) in your body are yours... most of the time. A quantum system in an excited state(atom, electron, nucleus,...) has a chance different than zero of being able to "depart" your body. This is a result of the link between wave function and probability in the highest energy state of atoms. While the probability of finding the wavefunction of an electron or an atom in a bound state diminishes and gets closer to zero after distances larger than 10^-10m, it doesn't become zero. Because of the wave character of matter, a very small number of atoms are able to "jump" out of your body and can be localised anywhere in space - in your blouse, in your car, in the air, on the Moon or in the person you are talking to. So, strictly speaking, the notion of "My" personal atoms is also an illusion, though statistically speaking(read quantum mechanically) most of your atoms are really only yours. At least for an year, then 99% of your atoms get replaced by biological processеs(food and water intake intake, metabolism, oxygen intake...).

 

[Moridin]

Real vs illusion is entirely arbitrary, epistemologically. Again you're confusing this with an ontological argument.

All that is needed to concieve of an illusion is two contradictory elements. One can then attribute reality to one and falsity to the other, or vice versa, or neither.

Not at all. What does it mean to be justified in claiming that X is an illusion?

 

[JoeDawg]

Not at all. What does it mean to be justified in claiming that X is an illusion?

That depends entirely on one's epistemology... and there are more than a few...

 

[Red Fox]

First, the concept of an "illusion" used in the whole "everything is an illusion claim" is just ridiculously broad and all encompassing. Find a better word or make a new one.

Second, there is a hint of truth to this mentality, however the wording and general direction it has taken has, for me, ruined it.

I think it would be much more accurate to say "There are no Absolutes" than "Everything is an Illusion". For anything to even be an illusion there must be something that is real, otherwise the concepts of reality and illusion are pointless.