Nihilism in Accordance to Quantum Physics Theory

 

 

 

Ultimately, nihilism is a very opposite idealism than any form of Religion. Nihilism claims that there is no point in life, that we are a random genetic mutation, and a mistake in the universe, which also has no purpose. It is a quite dull and largely apathetic ideology that contradicts thousands of years of human belief. Religion aside, Nihilism can be contradicted and proved incorrect via another scientific theory called the Quantum Physics Theory.

 

 

 

To break down the scientific parts of nihilism, nihilism is the idea that humans came about from evolution as a completely awkward splicing of genetic mutation, which morphed us in an uncontrollable and unpredictable way. It claims that humans are machines, and that no matter what we do on earth, we will still die and inevitable wipe us clean. We the human machines may be destroyed and disposed with consequence in the long run. At large, it is the most apathetic view one human can take on life. Perhaps the mind was simply too lazy to think about the idea of why are we here? Maybe the being didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t want to come to terms with any of the truths presented.

 

 

 

The Quantum Physics Theory is much more complicated. It claims that many theories of physics are incorrect, and it is also largely in accordance, or at least hand-in-hand, with many religions such as Christianity and Buddhism. The Quantum Physics Theory is a many-part ideology that includes such thing as ultimate conscious thought that creates and perhaps even controls the universe, that space is time are an invention of our minds and are, in fact, an illusion, and that observing something can greatly change or perhaps even control the outcome of a specific event. It also claims that the future can have an impact on the present, just as much as the past can change the present. Time and space are an outcome of human consciousness in an ultimate idea that demands the greatest and deepest most unfathomable confines of our minds to strain themselves to grasp.

 

 

 

They are both scientific views of human life on earth. One of them is a simple idea that is largely accepted in atheist, anti-theist and agnostic culture. The other one demands thought on a higher scale, which boggles the mind and goes against the laws of physics that we have accepted as true. For example, scientists have found that sometimes, one piece of matter can be in up to three thousand different places at once. Clearly going against all that we have accepted as true, many of these aspects of the Quantum Physics Theory have demanded a higher scale of thinking.

 

 

 

An interesting experiment played out by scientists involved the usage of wave theory and projected mass theory. Take a marble, and shoot it through a slot in a piece of metal, and a number of marbles will go through the slot and onto the board behind the slot (assuming it sticks.) That is projected mass theory, and at this point, is has gone past theory into truth. Now, if you put two slots in the metal sheet, there will be two lines of marbles stuck to the board behind the slotted metal sheet.

 

 

 

Wave theory states the same thing about one slot. If one drops the marble into the water, the resulting ripples will spread out. If there is a metal sheet with a slot, the ripple will go through and re-state itself, and result in one very broad line on a pressure board behind the metal, (used to detect varying amounts of force used on it. As the wave gets stronger at one point (the middle of the wave that lines up with the slot) the line on the board gets brighter or more noticeable.) which indicates to the one slot. But if you put two slots on the sheet, the two resulting ripples that go through the slots collide, and at the points of collision when they hit the pressure board results in higher pressure. This is also true and accepted as a law.

 

 

 

So what were atoms? What is matter? They tested it. Scientists launched atoms at a sheet with one slot, and just as predicted with marbles, there was one distinct streak on the board behind, which indicated to the result that atoms are mass. The scientists then tested the idea with two different slots, and amazingly, the pressure board came out the same way that the wave theory did when it was put through two slots! Concluding that the rapid firing of atoms resulted in the collision and bouncing, they retried the experiment, but launching only one atom at a time. After hours of this, they came back and observed that the results were still wave theory two-slot results. The atom somehow had to collide with itself and bounce off in a completely different and unpredicted tangent.

 

 

 

Scientists were baffled, and so decided to put an eye witness observer there. When the results came inÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæthe atoms had acted like the mass theory two-slots rule, and two distinct bands were found on the board behind. The camera witness had observed that the atoms followed the exact same trajectory and followed the exact same rules that mass did.

 

 

 

How could this be? How is it that the atoms reacted differently when put under observation? This test contributed greatly to the idea that the mind and perceive reality in many different ways, and that the human conscious holds unfathomable power. Science has governed the seen since philosopher and mathematicians walked the earth, while Religion governed the unseen. So how is it that we can contradict and claim that life has no real purpose if we have real, provided evidence that life is erratic, different, and ultimately comes down to us? Death, maybe, does not have a point. But life does.

 

 

 

Quantum Physics Theory declares that the most important new rule of the theory is Entanglement. It is saying that all beings has a counterpart and that they co-exist and respond instantaneously to one another.

 

 

 

Let us say that there are two different pieces of the same manner, completely identical to each other, on different and opposite sides of the universe. If, say, one is hit with electricity, the other will also be hit with the X amount of joules in that electricity immediately. It is declared that either information is traveling at an infinite speed, or that these two pieces of matter are intertwined. This Entanglement turns the nihilistic ideal of separation and loneliness away. We cannot be alone if there is at least one other being completely tied to us.

 

 

 

The scientific idea of nihilism and the new Quantum Physics Theory will always be divided amongst two scientific populations. Those whom are meek, feeble, and apathetic, and those whom are great thinkers who believe in greatness at least in this life if not in the possible next. One is very easy to grasp, and the other is about as easy to grasp as a buttered up piece of perfectly round smooth marble covered in oil.

 

 

 

-Dustfinger

 

 

 

EDIT: Both nihilism and Quantum Physics Theory are contradictory, and most of the ideas of Quantum Physics Theory are still theory and can be proven quite incorrect. (For example, when there is one thing in 3K places, how do you know it couldn't be just your mind playing tricks on you?) Which is a better theory regarding human purpose on earth?

 

 

 

Bibliography:

 

What the Bleep!? Down the Rabbit Hole (20th Century Fox, copyright 2004, http://www.whatthebleep.com)

 

http://www.atheists.org (Blog, Atheism)

 

http://Wikipedia.org (Albeit not the best source, but the article was credited by a 'professional')

 

http://physicsworld.com (Quantum Theory: weird and wonderful, 1999, Tony Leggett, University of Illinois Physics Department)

 

http://library.thinkquest.org (Contains citations from other books, such as Rae, Alastair. Quantum Physics: Illusion or Reality? Cambridge University Press, London: 1986, I did NOT personally read these sources)

wait wait wait. I get it guys. He is simply just finding things he finds interesting and posting them.

 

 

 

Sorry, plz actually write something or stop making so many topics.

You know, if you actually read half of the stuff I was posting, or maybe even understood an eight of it, you wouldn't be so 'bleh' towards me. Besides, I haven't posted for a week, so I'm letting it all out (so to speak.) I write scientific or religious essays in my spare time because it is actually helpful and mentally stimulating. I just thought I'd post it and actually get feedback on my ideas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, plz actually write something or stop making so many topics.

 

 

 

'Plz' isn't a real word, and I am writing stuff. It just takes.......thought! :-$

Yes, that is nice, and really good thing you do. But, what you are doing is simply posting your essay. What you should be doing is posting your essay and along with it, try and create a discussion around it. It's like the big spurts of news threads we had last month. Simply posting the news is just spam, but if there is a discussion started around the news thread, then its not spam.

 

 

 

So what I would suggest, is post your essays and then write something to start a discussion, such as something the lines of a simple sentence saying "So I have written this and would like to know what TIF thinks about the blah blah blah of this and that. This is my stance".

 

 

 

But this is just me.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, plz actually write something or stop making so many topics.

 

 

 

'Plz' isn't a real word, and I am writing stuff. It just takes.......thought! :-$

 

 

 

Oh very nice of you. Attempt to pick at my grammar 'mistakes' (Which are intended thus not mistakes, thus not notable due to them being simply internet slang).

Well, at least it wasn't just attacking me.

 

 

 

At any rate, I'll take your idea of posting something to begin discussion...I suppose it is a better idea than posting news, but this is personal opinion and I thought that it would be enough. Apparently I was wrong.

 

 

 

Also, I vote we stop attacking each other. It's counter-productive and you're probably right

Nihilism isn't a scientific idea. Science infers how things work, not what greater cosmic meaning they have. Not asserting meaning is not declaring no meaning.

I thought it was pretty thought- and discussion-provoking. The essays themselves are enough to provoke debate and discussion from those who are interested in it, and I'm very interested... This destroys some of the ideas of science as we know it. If we can change things by simply being there to witness them, does that mean that we can CONTROL how things are changed if we are there to witness them with different numbers of witnesses? Or perhaps simply the intelligence of the witnesses could cause a difference in how the mass reacted? Also, the idea I got was that the idea scientists projected onto the atom they sent through (i.e. that it should act like a wave of water, because they were testing it in comparison to a wave of water) changed the way the atom reacted. Had they done a different test, with different expectations, comparing the results to something different, would the results themselves have been different?

 

 

 

Very good read. You're an excellent essay writer. You also seem to have a much higher grasp of quantum physics than the next person... I'm intrigued.

Nihilism isn't a scientific idea. Science infers how things work, not what greater cosmic meaning they have. Not asserting meaning is not declaring no meaning.

 

 

 

But Nihilism is only declared over and containing already proven scientific theory. It has no basis in any form of ethic, it's sole core is scientific evidence, and lack of it.

 

 

 

And the Quantum Physics Theory has an idea that without an observer there are limitless possibilities, but as they are directly observed the possibilities diminish and collapse upon themselves, even.

 

 

 

If you're intrigued greatly, I suggest seeing 'What the BLEEP!? Down the Rabbit Hole' the first half is based entirely on Quantum Physics Theory. (The second half is a little annoying, and is both uninteresting and disgusting.) It's a good movie with plenty of professional commentary.

Nihilism isn't a scientific idea. Science infers how things work, not what greater cosmic meaning they have. Not asserting meaning is not declaring no meaning.

 

 

 

But Nihilism is only declared over and containing already proven scientific theory. It has no basis in any form of ethic, it's sole core is scientific evidence, and lack of it.

 

 

 

And the Quantum Physics Theory has an idea that without an observer there are limitless possibilities, but as they are directly observed the possibilities diminish and collapse upon themselves, even.

 

 

 

If you're intrigued greatly, I suggest seeing 'What the BLEEP!? Down the Rabbit Hole' the first half is based entirely on Quantum Physics Theory. (The second half is a little annoying, and is both uninteresting and disgusting.) It's a good movie with plenty of professional commentary.

 

 

 

That dosen't make the science nihilistic because it declares no meaning or lack thereof. Nihilism is an ideology seperate from science.

Meh. I don't want to get in an argument about this, so I'll say that you're right and leave it at that.

 

 

 

But nihilism has all of it's basis in science, so I call it a scientific ideology...but that's me.

Admiting my first post was more informational about how I feel about your posting style for the past few threads, here is my actual take on the essay:

 

 

 

I agree with nihilism (If it's what I'm thinking it is). I really think everything came out randomly and that things will end randomly, and that things that happen now are random. That being said, science does see patterns in the great chaos we live in and these patterns just happen to be random patterns created but are followed from now until the end of existence.

 

 

 

That being said, I would like to see the bibliography of your essay.

 

 

 

For example, scientists have found that sometimes, one piece of matter can be in up to three thousand different places at once.

 

 

 

Although I don't doubt there is some amazing stuff like this in the universe, I would like to see the source of this observation.

 

 

 

[hide]

An interesting experiment played out by scientists involved the usage of wave theory and projected mass theory. Take a marble, and shoot it through a slot in a piece of metal, and a number of marbles will go through the slot and onto the board behind the slot (assuming it sticks.) That is projected mass theory, and at this point, is has gone past theory into truth. Now, if you put two slots in the metal sheet, there will be two lines of marbles stuck to the board behind the slotted metal sheet.

 

 

 

Wave theory states the same thing about one slot. If one drops the marble into the water, the resulting ripples will spread out. If there is a metal sheet with a slot, the ripple will go through and re-state itself, and result in one very broad line on a pressure board behind the metal, (used to detect varying amounts of force used on it. As the wave gets stronger at one point (the middle of the wave that lines up with the slot) the line on the board gets brighter or more noticeable.) which indicates to the one slot. But if you put two slots on the sheet, the two resulting ripples that go through the slots collide, and at the points of collision when they hit the pressure board results in higher pressure. This is also true and accepted as a law.

 

 

 

So what were atoms? What is matter? They tested it. Scientists launched atoms at a sheet with one slot, and just as predicted with marbles, there was one distinct streak on the board behind, which indicated to the result that atoms are mass. The scientists then tested the idea with two different slots, and amazingly, the pressure board came out the same way that the wave theory did when it was put through two slots! Concluding that the rapid firing of atoms resulted in the collision and bouncing, they retried the experiment, but launching only one atom at a time. After hours of this, they came back and observed that the results were still wave theory two-slot results. The atom somehow had to collide with itself and bounce off in a completely different and unpredicted tangent.

 

 

 

Scientists were baffled, and so decided to put an eye witness observer there. When the results came inÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæthe atoms had acted like the mass theory two-slots rule, and two distinct bands were found on the board behind. The camera witness had observed that the atoms followed the exact same trajectory and followed the exact same rules that mass did.

 

[/hide]

 

 

 

And I am wondering if you obtained this whole part from this video?:

 

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

You know, if you actually read half of the stuff I was posting, or maybe even understood an eight of it, you wouldn't be so 'bleh' towards me. Besides, I haven't posted for a week, so I'm letting it all out (so to speak.) I write scientific or religious essays in my spare time because it is actually helpful and mentally stimulating. I just thought I'd post it and actually get feedback on my ideas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, plz actually write something or stop making so many topics.

 

 

 

'Plz' isn't a real word, and I am writing stuff. It just takes.......thought! :-$

 

 

 

can you lay off the pretentious douchebaggery, he's absolutely right, you're making all these unjustified threads which is leading people (like me) to post before I even bother to read it.

I can't take this seriously as an essay because you don't cite any evidence to support your argument.

I can't take this seriously as an essay because you don't cite any evidence to support your argument.

 

 

 

Ditto, you have to learn that without citations your essay is worthless.

Christmas Dinner. Mmmm...

 

 

 

 

can you lay off the pretentious douchebaggery, he's absolutely right, you're making all these unjustified threads which is leading people (like me) to post before I even bother to read it.

 

 

 

There's no point in just not reading the argument and posting. If you're going to do that, then you're just a troll. I am most certainly not spamming random essay's, as they're all just built up literature from Christmas Break.

 

 

 

I'll be putting in the bibliography in a second...most unfortunately, I don't usually keep track of where I get my information. Bad habit of mine...

 

 

 

EDIT: Bibliography posted, for all you naysayers out there.

It's funny; when I amend my essay entirely nobody comes back and reads it. Meh, maybe so called 'perfection' (which my essay is not, at least by my standards) isn't such a good thing.

I was looking for specific citations for all your claims, rather than a "bibliography". Also, citing wiki as a credible source, regardless of whether a given article claims to be written by a professional, doesn't raise my opinion of your work in any way.

 

 

 

It also doesn't help that all you have as references are four websites and a film documentary.

This does not counter nihilism, infact it seems to appeal more in favor of it. I believe Nihilism was born out of the enlightenment which does not make it "scientific ideology". Calling it scientific ideology is countering your own argument, if youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re proposing that quantum physics disposes of our form of logic, scientific methods and so on, then you are right. It does counter nihilism but at the same time nihilism becomes unscientific.

 

 

 

Anyway, on a very basic level Nihilism does not have to be scientific. It can be the realization that life and existence is completely absurd and have no intrinsic or universal meaning. Nihilism stays as a cold and disengaging 'theory' or mode of life. Introducing the theory that the universe is completely erratic only strengthens a nihilistic view, and strengthens it more than anything else, it would render existentialism - the philosophy brought about by the rejection of Nihilism ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ as useless, by saying that not only is the universe erratic but further more we have no real choice in anything and therefore no real freedom or separate individualistic existence.

Nihilism doesn't need to be scientific, but largely it is justified by science. Quantum Physics Theory appeals towards a different form of a higher being, seeing as it's laws are proven correct, and they bend physics, time and space. Nihilism is destruction, while Quantum Physics Theory is destruction. Nihilism is claimed towards individual, separate, and freakish existence. Quantum Physics Theory, on a basic level, introduces a unity and a sense of togetherness with a purpose.

 

 

 

Just the idea that we can alter our reality by the way we think creates at least the idea that man matters in the universe. Nihilism claims that we do not, that man is useless, and that man has no purpose. Surely, if we bend reality, then we must have a purpose. At least to ourselves.

 

 

 

And Zonorhc, just get lost. I never said Wikipedia as a credible source, I just said it was a source. You can discount it if you want; I only used it for definition of terms anyway. No matter what I do, you'll always hate my work.

Nihilism could have roots in science. From a scientific standpoint, there is nothing to suggest that things other than matter exist. Since a universal, encompassing purpose to life cannot come from merely matter, then nihilism must be true. Thus one could argue the validity of nihilism from science.

Yeah...maybe I was wrong to call Nihilism science, but it defenitely comes from science. All of the justifications, ideas, and sources come from scientific fact, theory, evidence, and lack of evidence. It's a relatively close-minded view, but so is religion I suppose.

 

Just the idea that we can alter our reality by the way we think creates at least the idea that man matters in the universe. Nihilism claims that we do not, that man is useless, and that man has no purpose. Surely, if we bend reality, then we must have a purpose. At least to ourselves.

 

 

 

 

The idea that we can alter our reality by the way we think does not show that we matter in the universe. We can alter the universe by the way we live in it, that does not make us meaningful to the universe. I also do not know how you can jump from "bending reality" to having our own individual purpose. Our purpose is to bend reality? Whats the purpose in us doing that?

No, I think you misunderstand me (Or I misunderstand myself,) if we can bend our own reality's into different realizations, then we must have purpose to ourselves. Which is purpose at a very basic level. We may still not matter in the universe, admittedly, but to ourselves we have purpose. (Ourselves meaning I have a purpose to Myself)

So all you're arguing for is this providing an individual counter argument for nihilism, much like if I were to say "I may not matter to the universe but life has meaning for me since i want to achieve X, Y and Z" except you're replacing current arguments against Nihilism by arguing that bending reality can substitute for other things like wanting to achieve things.

 

 

 

Again, how is the ability to bend our own reality (which to an extent we can already do) life arrirming and meaningful how does this give us purpose to ourself? The fact that this can not be seen to give a universal meaning to life shows that it is nothing new.

Nihilism could have roots in science. From a scientific standpoint, there is nothing to suggest that things other than matter exist. Since a universal, encompassing purpose to life cannot come from merely matter, then nihilism must be true. Thus one could argue the validity of nihilism from science.

 

 

 

There is nothing in science that suggests that anything other than matter exists, yet there's nothing in science that dosen't. Science has a focus on a way of explaining things, it dosen't make a claim that things are always as science explains. It's not metaphysically naturalistic, it dosen't carry ideological baggages and doesn't suggest that there is no overarching meaning to existence, if you believe that there is.

 

 

 

Your argument would be against a metaphysical naturalist who asserts that there is nothing beyond nature and your argument assumes that nihilism is the position that there is no objective meaning or purpose for the universe.

 

 

 

Let me try and make this really clear -

 

 

 

Science - no claim of the existence or non-existence of supernatural notions or overarching purpose to existence.

 

 

 

Nihilism - claims that there is no overarching purpose to existence.

 

 

 

Therefore, science is not nihilistic. Am I wrong? My discriptions off?