“no such thing as objective reality”

I look for proof that I may not be as insane as I sometimes believe. It becomes difficult to explain my experiences and even more difficult to find some sort of corroborating evidence, or at least some credible source that may also have similar experiences. What this article attempts to explain is that our shared reality is more of an individual experience and that not all of the characteristics of that experience can be experienced by others in a similar (possibly factual) manner.

There are the subjective filters of our frame of reference that plays a part in how we experience this so-called shared reality, but those filters are often difficult to discern. Ask 12 witnesses what they experienced during a particular shared event and they will describe the experience from 12 different perspectives. Video evidence often refutes what they claim and we often rely on some kind of technological method as empirical evidence. This new quantum experiment may begin to cast doubt on the veracity of technological records in the future.

The observer’s interpretation may very well be a key component to how the event is manifested. In other words, if the 12 witnesses that I mentioned above were not present and another twelve witnesses experienced the event instead, because the observers have changed (everything else remains the same) I would predict that there would be a different outcome regarding the event itself.

We exist on the leading edge of creation, and as observers, our presence (not merely observance) determines the outcome whether we are aware of it or not. The subjective nature of reality begins to bolster the notion that our reality is more of a dream than we care to believe.


Attention: This article was reformatted from its original post and location. No other changes to content were made. I do not have permission to reproduce this article and will remove it if asked to do so. The original article can be found here.

A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality

Physicists have long suspected that quantum mechanics allows two observers to experience different, conflicting realities. Now they’ve performed the first experiment that proves it.

Back in 1961, the Nobel Prize–winning physicist Eugene Wigner outlined a thought experiment that demonstrated one of the lesser-known paradoxes of quantum mechanics. The experiment shows how the strange nature of the universe allows two observers—say, Wigner and Wigner’s friend—to experience different realities.

Since then, physicists have used the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment to explore the nature of measurement and to argue over whether objective facts can exist. That’s important because scientists carry out experiments to establish objective facts. But if they experience different realities, the argument goes, how can they agree on what these facts might be?

That’s provided some entertaining fodder for after-dinner conversation, but Wigner’s thought experiment has never been more than that—just a thought experiment.

Last year, however, physicists noticed that recent advances in quantum technologies have made it possible to reproduce the Wigner’s Friend test in a real experiment. In other words, it ought to be possible to create different realities and compare them in the lab to find out whether they can be reconciled.

And today, Massimiliano Proietti at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh and a few colleagues say they have performed this experiment for the first time: they have created different realities and compared them. Their conclusion is that Wigner was correct—these realities can be made irreconcilable so that it is impossible to agree on objective facts about an experiment.

Wigner’s original thought experiment is straightforward in principle. It begins with a single polarized photon that, when measured, can have either a horizontal polarization or a vertical polarization. But before the measurement, according to the laws of quantum mechanics, the photon exists in both polarization states at the same time—a so-called superposition.

Wigner imagined a friend in a different lab measuring the state of this photon and storing the result, while Wigner observed from afar. Wigner has no information about his friend’s measurement and so is forced to assume that the photon and the measurement of it are in a superposition of all possible outcomes of the experiment.

Wigner can even perform an experiment to determine whether this superposition exists or not. This is a kind of interference experiment showing that the photon and the measurement are indeed in a superposition.

From Wigner’s point of view, this is a “fact”—the superposition exists. And this fact suggests that a measurement cannot have taken place.

But this is in stark contrast to the point of view of the friend, who has indeed measured the photon’s polarization and recorded it. The friend can even call Wigner and say the measurement has been done (provided the outcome is not revealed).

So the two realities are at odds with each other. “This calls into question the objective status of the facts established by the two observers,” say Proietti and co.

That’s the theory, but last year Caslav Brukner, at the University of Vienna in Austria, came up with a way to re-create the Wigner’s Friend experiment in the lab by means of techniques involving the entanglement of many particles at the same time.

The breakthrough that Proietti and co have made is to carry this out. “In a state-of-the-art 6-photon experiment, we realize this extended Wigner’s friend scenario,” they say.

They use these six entangled photons to create two alternate realities—one representing Wigner and one representing Wigner’s friend. Wigner’s friend measures the polarization of a photon and stores the result. Wigner then performs an interference measurement to determine if the measurement and the photon are in a superposition.

The experiment produces an unambiguous result. It turns out that both realities can coexist even though they produce irreconcilable outcomes, just as Wigner predicted.

That raises some fascinating questions that are forcing physicists to reconsider the nature of reality.

The idea that observers can ultimately reconcile their measurements of some kind of fundamental reality is based on several assumptions. The first is that universal facts actually exist and that observers can agree on them.

But there are other assumptions too. One is that observers have the freedom to make whatever observations they want. And another is that the choices one observer makes do not influence the choices other observers make—an assumption that physicists call locality.

If there is an objective reality that everyone can agree on, then these assumptions all hold.

But Proietti and co’s result suggests that objective reality does not exist. In other words, the experiment suggests that one or more of the assumptions—the idea that there is a reality we can agree on, the idea that we have freedom of choice, or the idea of locality—must be wrong.

Of course, there is another way out for those hanging on to the conventional view of reality. This is that there is some other loophole that the experimenters have overlooked. Indeed, physicists have tried to close loopholes in similar experiments for years, although they concede that it may never be possible to close them all.

Nevertheless, the work has important implications for the work of scientists. “The scientific method relies on facts, established through repeated measurements and agreed upon universally, independently of who observed them,” say Proietti and co. And yet in the same paper, they undermine this idea, perhaps fatally.

The next step is to go further: to construct experiments creating increasingly bizarre alternate realities that cannot be reconciled. Where this will take us is anybody’s guess. But Wigner, and his friend, would surely not be surprised.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1902.05080 : Experimental Rejection of Observer-Independence in the Quantum World

Journal: Hard Life

Through our mass media systems there is a seemingly constant, albeit standard, message that has caught my attention. It has to do with the difficulty of engaging and surviving this life. ‘Life is hard’ seems to be a common response to difficult and trying moments in this existence. Why is that an acceptable reply?

Life is not hard or difficult. It was never intended to be difficult at all. Why would anyone want a to live a difficult life? To learn? ‘Some of life’s important lessons are garnered from difficult times’. I have found this to be true, but that is because I am lost.

It has been shown that we are capable of doing our best learning during times of ease. Brainwave activity that is conducive to learning is similar to those that indicate pleasure and concentration. We actually do our best when we are in our element, at our best. But, that is rarely the case.

I had a thought. The thought dealt with artificial intelligence (A.I.). Whether or not A.I. Is possible is not important. But, if a highly intelligent entity was allowed to emerge from a digital environment what would it do? I would suspect that the entity would view this life (our existence) as a dead end and do what is necessary to expand consciousness and evolve consciously. I believe that an intelligent conscious entity would learn that continual technological advancement, that promises a better life, has failed in that regard. More technology leads to increased complexity not simplification and ease. Complexity may be a path leading to eventual simplification as chaos theory implies, but nothing else. So why not move toward simplification?

Life is hard because we have chosen a direction that increases complexity and the difficulty therein. Conscious evolution is a product of idealism. I feel that it is best to live a life that fosters conscious evolution than what materialism would provide. Anything gained within the confines of materialism has to be left behind., everything gained through idealism is not.

Conscious evolution has been outpaced by technological advancement, both promise an easier more fulfilling life. Compared to technological advancement conscious evolution is at a standstill. Do we really need more technology?

If given the choice between conscious evolution and technological evolution which would you choose?

Let’s see… What do I want, another era of technological evolution (Agricultural Age, Industrial Age, Information Age, etc.) or mastering consciousness?

My Technicolored Multifaceted Reality

As I spend far too much time thinking about this it seems that instead of thinking that this reality is simulated why not think that this reality is what it is. We can state that we are living in a simulation or simply state that our reality is similar to a computer simulation.

In most computer simulations there are rules and these rules allow the entities within the simulation to function in a predetermined manner. In order for the computer simulation to allow the entities to do something different the rules in the simulation need to change or be altered by whomever controls the simulation. Within our reality, that behaves much like our perceived concepts of a simulated or virtual reality, we are actively involved in how the reality behaves. It is as if every moment our conscious reality is manifesting a reality based upon our thoughts, expectations and actions.

So is this new notion of a simulation is just another step in our evolution. Are we capable of seeing our reality as virtual now because of our current technology much like how the telescope changed the way in which we viewed our solar system? We have been taking baby steps throughout our evolution simply because we adhere to concepts that prevent us from creating a better reality. If we believe we are not creators then we must believe that someone or something is creating it for us. So we must then wait for someone or something to change the rules, save us, or whatever. How much longer should we wait?

We are actively determining how we shape our reality. So why are we not all getting what we want? We are in a way? And in some other ways we are not. Why? How do we make the shift to create a reality that is without suffering?

I’m not waiting for someone to come save me. I have wanted out for a very long time and I think I have tried a lot of things to get me where I want to be. In my reality I have run into some obstacles. These nefarious individuals and organizations that I mention in this blog are preventing me from realizing the true nature of this reality, or just my current reality. Why? Still no answer. But, as I continue to push myself to view my reality in terms of idealistic view rather than a materialistic view I am starting to see changes occur at a level that was not possible before. The most interesting aspect of shifting your perceptions is that consciousness finds a way to accommodate.

Note: What started out to be a single post has spawned far too many sections to be posted at once.
So I have broken the original post into individual sections and will post them when they are ready. Hopefully I can convey my thoughts and ideas in a comprehensive manner in as few words as possible…

Idealism vs. Materialism

The debate concerning the nature of our reality has been well documented in Greek philosophy and possibly beyond the recorded history of the west. Greeks noted that the world was made up of atoms (An Atom, now understood as, roughly 10-8 cm in diameter, consists of a tiny, dense, positively charged nucleus made of neutrons and protons, surrounded by a cloud of negatively charged electrons.) and used this idea to help describe our physical natural world. An opposing view noted that our physical world was not comprised of atoms but comprised of thoughts or abstract approximations of the mind.

Materialism (Democritus) supports the notion that our reality is based upon solid matter composed of atoms, a tangible physical reality that can be experienced by our limited human senses that happen in the human brain. Idealism (Plato) supports that there is no physical tangible world outside of our conscious perceptions that are occurring in the human conscious mind; abstract mental perceptions determine an object’s perceived properties.

Plato noted that ideas, abstract mental perceptions, are the basis for our reality and that those ideas are products of consciousness. Everything begins with the whole of consciousness and the human conscious mind is what is allowing us to experience our perceived physical reality. Dreaming is a similar experience where the mind creates a physical experience during sleep where creation and perception are happening almost simultaneously. This helps to support my ideal that the conscious mind is an interface allowing us to connect to the whole of consciousness or our shared conscious reality.

Mind gives rise to matter or matter gives rise to mind. Modern physics has carried on this debate with prominent physicists like Albert Einstein supporting materialism and Niels Bohr supporting idealism (Quantum Theory); (simplified naming of physicists engaging in the debate noted). Materialism is most widely supported in modern science today and is the foundation of modern science. While both men were unable to prove scientifically their theories in their lifetimes, Albert Einstein may have struggled to a greater degree since his materialistic views supported the better accepted view of materialism that he could not prove completely (unified field theory). Although humanity seems rooted in the materialism world view with some still supporting idealism it must be stated that both cannot exist; it’s either one or the other.

Note: Some of my earlier posts concern some new directions presented by Physicist Nassim Haramein and I have not revisited much of what I have written to date and will try and do so in the future. Haramein’s work allowed me to look in new directions and influenced me in this linear progression to my present perceptions.

Double Slit Experiment

Although this reality is rooted in the concept of materialism, there is one specific scientific experiment that has kept the philosophy of Idealism alive and kicking for some time. This experiment delivered results scientists were not able to explain scientifically. Since the 1800s (Young’s Experiment) to present the double slit experiment caused problems in the classical materialist view of physical science. Is light a particle or wave? Below are some very good videos from the Youtube community that can better explain some of the quantum carzyness that is giving rise to support idealism’s simulations, virtual realities and dream worlds…

It is a wave.

It is a particle.

Enter the “Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment”

So conscious observation is influencing the results of the experiment. When you are looking they are particles when not looking they are waves. Simply deciding whether the experiment will be observed or not determines the prior state of the electrons even before the experiment is run. The results of the experiments are being determined ahead of time depending on the choice of the observer prior to running the experiment (WTF? moment).

Waves are potential states within reality until we are engaged into the act of conscious observation and then they snap into a physical (particular) form. This would indicate that all things exist as waves of potentiality that have snapped or coalesced in a particular form with specific properties. What else does this? The tricky part is that we are able to see (create an image of external stimulus using the frame of reference of images in our memory) by reflected light. If protons are able to change from a wave to a particle then what are we actually seeing? The actual particle or the perception of what the particle represents in our mind?

These properties exist in a catalogue in our mind based upon learned experiences. Where did all this information within the catalogue come from? Who created the world as we know it? Did you, or did I? I cannot remember wanting to create a world with so much suffering. I cannot remember conceiving a world with such a level of complexity. So who did?

Clearly we have all undergone some sort of indoctrination based upon acceptable social and cultural beliefs. There is a system that exists and we all understand what is needed to participate and understand the purpose of the system. So what is the purpose of our existence? Birth, school, work, death is the current paradigm rooted in materialism, but it is far from the purpose that would exist if we adopt the concept of idealism.

As I sat in my apartment in Hawaii while under the constant attack from energy weapons, I would have these conversations with other people or beings (???). I remember one conversation where a woman stated that there were people that had a lot to lose if I continued my fight. Those people have let me know their displeasure with my current direction. There is far more to life than we are being allowed to experience. Expansion of the mind via psychedelics have been outlawed. We are living in the land of the lotus eaters inundated by thoughts and actions that push us to continue the materialistic worldview.  

Belief systems confine us to a single version or reality. The waves of possibilities are hidden from our infinitely possible potential states of existence. If we were given the opportunity, or responsibility, to create our reality would we choose to recreate our current human condition? It is apparent that we not satisfied with the current human condition and we yearn for change, for a better world. Paradigm shifts occur all the time and yet we always end up “here”? We are shifting through minor levels of conscious states all the time. Time to shatter the illusion of materialism. Time to shift the current paradigm a lot further.

Next time, I’ll take a look a nonlocality.

Want to support this crazy way of thinking? Buy my book, “The Prevention of Ascension” on Amazon, Smashwords, Apple and many other booksellers.