Do we create reality with our mind? A physicist's reply.

🙏 Join this channel to support me ➜

Do we create reality with our minds? I got this question on twitter the other day and after rolling my eyes about it for some while, I decided it’s actually a good question. You might think the answer is obviously “no”. But it’s not that simple. Let me explain.

#science #physics #philosophy

[victorkrawchuk]

I'm of two minds about this. NO!!! WAIT!!!!

[caseytailfly]

I really like this conclusion, that there is an important distinction between “possible explanations” and “useful explanations”

[mtheory]

What's far more interesting is not whether or not we *create* reality in some fuzzy quantum mechanical sense, but the mental filters we apply to the huge amount of sensory input that goes to our brains before making it to conscious awareness. The reason is obvious: we evolved to spot the sabretooth hiding in the brush, not to marvel at the iridescence of the flowers growing in that brush. Unfiltered reality is probably far stranger (and perhaps more beautiful) than the cliffnotes that land on our mental desks.

[TheRealTomWendel]

If by reality we mean space time or mass energy as it is, then strictly speaking our perceptions don’t have much to do with reality. They’re simply a representation that’s usually illusory and often imaginative. Our consciousness creates this representation which isn’t reality itself but is only a particular model- unique to us as individuals in many ways and rich with personal artifacts that are part of that creation.

This model of reality has likely evolved in the way it has because of the practical implications. It’s not the perception of heat that burns us nor the perception of hardness and momentum which causes blunt trauma, but our perceptions can be (not invariably) linked with important consequences, making the model at times very useful (while at other times misleading).

Thanks for the clear and provocative take on this question!

[isajoha]

What our sensors picks up from what is around us, is kind of an unique version of reality. We are also limited in what our sensor are able to pick up. The sensors becomes like filters for what is really there (eg things we can't hear, see, feel etc).

[seanmostert]

Einstein's theory of relativity shows how observers can have different measurements of time and space depending on their relative speeds or the presence of strong gravitational fields.

This doesn't mean that reality is subjective, but it does mean that the measurement of some aspects of reality can depend on the observer's frame of reference.

In relation to the observer effect, it could be argued that to take a measurement is to observe a rate of change, and the observation of change can affect how it changes.

Change is a constant in the universe, in fact even if you look at any measurement itself, it is the measurement of change, either in its static properties (its space) or its change over time. So change is the only constant that exists in everything everywhere all at once. Edit: even our math changes once we change our perspective to the quantum world.

As we all exist in reality together, maybe a combination of thought from our many different observer perspectives at the same time is creating a degree of change on our environment, so we are navigating a web of influence in our daily lives and that is why it is balanced, and doesn't always go our way?

Very thought provoking video Sabine, love your work ❤

[oneworldonehome]

"Do not think that you can create your own reality to a very great extent here beyond trying to change the way you interpret your experiences because you are living in the reality that so many other people are creating along with you.

This is one of the ways that people enter into fantasy or illusion. They create a set of ideas or expectations and reinforce these to such an extent that they are disassociated from the environment around them."

_Freedom from Manipulation, Marshall Vian Summers_

[phil_]

"Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? Caught in a landslide, oh escape from reality."

[marcobiagini]

I am a physicist ad I would like to explain the reason why, contrary to what Sabine says in the video, the idea that the collappse of the wave-function is caused by a measurement device is logically inconsistent. The time evolution of the wave function is determined by Schrödinger's equation, but this equation never determines the collapse of the wave function, which instead is imposed by the physicist "by hand"; the collapse represents a violation of the Schrödinger equation, and the cause of the collapse is therefore attributable only to an agent not described by the Schrödinger equation itself. The point is that any measurement device and all the interactions involved by the measurement device are described by the Schrodinger equation.

After one century of debates, the problem of measurement in quantum mechanics is still open and still represents the crucial problem for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. In fact, on the one hand it represents a violation of the Schrodinger equation, that is, a violation of the fundamental laws of physics. On the other hand, it is necessary for the laws of quantum physics to make sense, and to be applied in the interpretation and prediction of the phenomena we observe. Indeed, since the wave function represents infinite possibilities, without the collapse there would be no event; for there to be an event, then there must be one possibility that is actualized by canceling all other possibilities.
This is the inescapable contradiction against which, all attempts to reconcile quantum physics with realism, break.

Quantum mechanics does not describe reality as something that exists objectively at every instant, but as a succession of isolated events in time (i.e. the phenomena we observe at the very moment in which we observe them), while among these events there are only infinite possibilities and there is not a continuity between events.

In fact, the properties of a physical system are determined only after the collapse of the wave function; when the properties of the system are not yet determined, the system is not real, but only an idea, a hypothesis. Only when collapse occurs do properties become real because they take on a definite value. It makes no sense to assume that the system exists but its properties are indeterminate, because properties are an intrinsic aspect of the system itself; indeterminate properties means that properties do not exist which implies that the system itself does not exist. The collapse represents the transition from infinite hypothetical possibilities to an actual event.

Quantum mechanics is therefore incompatible with realism (that's why Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics); all alleged attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics with realism are flawed. The collapse of the wave function can be associated with the only non-physical event we know of, consciousness. Therefore, the only consistent rational explanation of the collapse is that it occurs because consciousness is involved in the process. However, the fact that properties are created when a conscious mind observes the system in no way implies that it is the observer or his mind that creates those properties and causes the collapse. The point is that there must be a correlation between the collapse of the wave function (=violation of the physical laws) and the interaction with a non-physical agent (the human mind); however, correlation does not mean causation because the concomitance of two events does not imply a causal link. No cause of collapse is necessary in an idealistic perspective, which assumes that there is no mind-independent physical reality and that physical reality exists as a concept in the mind of God that directly creates the phenomena we observe in our mind (any observed phenomenon is a mental experience); the collapse of the wave function is only a representation of the moment in which God creates the observed phenomenon and is an element of the algorithm we have developed to make predictions and describe the phenomena we observe. This is essentially the view of the Irish philosopher George Berkeley, and in this view God is not only the Creator, but also the Sustainer of the universe. Idealism provides the only logically consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics, but most physicists do not accept idealism because it contradicts their personal beliefs, so they prefer an objectively wrong interpretation that gives them the illusion that quantum mechanics is compatible with realism.

In my youtube chanel you can find a video about the unphysical nature of consciousness.

Marco Biagini

[TheFireMonkey]

This question keeps coming back - Chuang Tzu asked it back 2500 years ago in the Butterfly Scroll and many have worded it different ways since then. You say it has no practical impact on things, but I'm not so sure that is correct. Let us say that reality is in fact created by our mind - that would imply that we should be able to change reality if we learned how to manipulate our minds and that seems potentially significant. Of course, if anyone did that, assuming there is more than one person who exists, those who had not done it likely would be unaware that it had happened, but for the person who succeeded it would be a profound discovery which has very practical effect.

Of course, this leads to two other issues: first, is the reality we experience a shared reality - perhaps the cumulative result of all our minds. Second, is there an absolute reality outside of our perceived reality. I'm sure there are actually more questions that this leads to, but as you say, that is more the domain of philosophers.

Two last comments: Descartes can be disputed by a simple fact, he said "I think, therefore I am." but we can observe many people in the world who clearing do not think, and yet they still exist.

Second, I know I have a brain because I am not a politician.

[Sorry - this response just seemed almost demained by the topic of the video - not trying to be difficult, but after 2/3rds of a century I have realised I must stay true to myself, and while I have a strong interest and background in science - I also have a strong interest in philosophy and, most importantly, I strongly identify with the nature of a monkey and I must be true to that 🐒 but I think I have said enough 🙊🐵]

[MCsCreations]

There's a story, almost a joke, here in Brazil, Sabine... It's +/- like this:
"A philosophy teacher gets to the classroom, puts a chair over his table and asks the students to prove him the chair doesn't exist and that, who finishes can leave. So a student gets up, goes to him, gives him a paper and leaves. The paper contained the student's name and 2 words: what chair?"
Either way, we can either go through the rabbit hole or just ignore it and focus on objective knowledge, the one we can get using science. (I mean evidence, of course.)
In my case, I find it funnier to follow both. 😂
Anyway, stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊

[John-zzfz]

Great explanation and I especially like how you tied Solipsism to the Measurement Problem in an approachable way. One can generate a great many theories of reality that are logically defensible and in fact Religion and Philosophy did this for thousands of years. The critical advance is when we began to constrain some of our theories to be "scientific" in the sense that we can apply regimes of rigorous testing against the logically consistent predictions of one "theory" against another. I've often said that while you can choose to believe whatever you like, some beliefs are better than others when it comes to "practical magic".

[alieninmybeverage]

In my mind, good philosophy is there to map the edges of Epistemological quagmires to help others avoid them, but also to avoid the consequences of assuming they are not there because you've not fallen into one.

Bad philosophy is like mud-wrestling. You lie in wait at the edges of the quagmires to pull others in because you are better at wrestling in the mud.

[simoneromeo]

Beautiful! I love that you can look into a twitter statement that has your eyes rolling, go ahead and analyze it objectively and even avoid ruling it out altogether. Keep doing this. That's why we trust you :)

[tsbrownie]

"Do we create reality with our mind?" Yes. Absolutely. All of it. Every day. You're welcome. Next.

[سمية-غب]

With the example of the Schrodinger's Cat, how do you manage to isolate the observer from the apparutus doing the measuring. It was stated in this video that physicists now know that it isn't consciousness that causes the cat to be either alive or dead but rather the measuring itself. How do you isolate human consciousness from the measurement being made in order to prove that it simply the apparatus/measuring tool "collapsing" the range of possibilities

[Steeyuv]

Even at the time Descartes wrote, one critic pointed out he was exceeding his authority by saying ‘I think therefore I am’. It was actually only indisputably true that ‘thinking is occurring’.

[jorgesoberon]

Thanks for an intelligent discussion. The bottom line is at the end: it is useless to believe that the tram in front of me is a creation of my mind. Nobody lives this way, regardless of what logic may say.

[BunnyNiyori]

My favourite thought experiment, is to imagine "what if I am not currently thinking?"

[procactus]

For me, it feels like everyone else makes reality with their mind... I'm just a helpless passenger