[science4life (OP)]

Hello Community,

I am new here. In my spare time I love to occupy myself with philosophy and physics. I am very interested in understanding the world.
I came across the double-slit experiment because of a book.... So matter can be material and immaterial....
If we observe the world we create one reality out of many possibilities. 

How can we interpret this to our life? Does our material reality exist because we observe it? Is the world only there because we can see it?

[alancalverd]

If the world only exists because you can see it, then the death of one person, anywhere, will cause the entire observable universe to disappear for everyone else, and the birth of one person will change the position of all the stars in the heavens. Good material for songwriters, but it doesn't quite match up to experience.   

I came across the double-slit experiment because of a book.... So matter can be material and immaterial.

Please don't recommend the book to anyone else.

Science is about humility, philosophy is about vanity. Stuff does what it does, and the object of physics is to produce consistent mathematical models of what actually happens so that other folk like engineers and chemists can do useful things with real materials. The double slit experiment just shows that you need a more complicated model than billiard balls to describe how small things behave.

As for the impact on daily life, if it were not for the inherent indeterminacy of quantum phenomena, the universe would be one very dense lump and there would be no daily life.. 

[charles1948]

If the world only exists because you can see it, then the death of one person, anywhere, will cause the entire observable universe to disappear for everyone else, and the birth of one person will change the position of all the stars in the heavens. Good material for songwriters, but it doesn't quite match up to experience.   

When you say, it doesn't match up to experience, aren't you only saying that because you aren't dead yet.

[Halc]

So matter can be material and immaterial....

By definition, matter is material.
Whether it exists in a particular state without being measured is another (unresolved) issue, and that is where the philosophy comes in.

If we observe the world we create one reality out of many possibilities.

It has nothing to do with us (humans, consciousness, etc), but yes, there are interpretations that posit reality only relative to measurements. I happen to favor such an interpretation, despite the sarcastic remarks by some of the responders.

How can we interpret this to our life? Does our material reality exist because we observe it?

If you like that, then sure. Otherwise pick something else from the list of valid options. There's plenty of invalid ones as well, but those are not consistent, which seems not to bother their adherents.

Is the world only there because we can see it?

To me, the world is only there because I see it. If I didn't measure it, it would not exist to me. Not a particularly revolutionary statement. It doesn't mean things go away for others when some critical person dies.

As for your poll, it makes no sense. How is it that I can choose from only one option, or a question?

[alancalverd]

If the world only exists because you can see it, then the death of one person, anywhere, will cause the entire observable universe to disappear for everyone else, and the birth of one person will change the position of all the stars in the heavens. Good material for songwriters, but it doesn't quite match up to experience.   

When you say, it doesn't match up to experience, aren't you only saying that because you aren't dead yet.

No. I have seen births and deaths, and they have had no effect on the rest of the universe as I have seen it. So either I am very special,. living a complete illusion, and everyone and everything else will disappear when I die, or I am pretty ordinary and the hypothesis is bunk.

The latter explanation seems more likely. You may care to consult an expert - I'm sure that BC and a few others around here will attest to my ordinariness.

[alancalverd]

How is it that I can choose from only one option, or a question?

That's the new version of democracy in Hong Kong. Modelled on religious freedom in 15th century Spain, and making a comeback in several regions of the "modern" world. Get used to it. Or be prepared to die opposing it.

[evan_au]

If we observe the world we create one reality out of many possibilities.

Who is "we"?

It certainly isn't dependent on intelligent observers who understand the existence of quantum theory, since the universe existed before the year 1900.
- They don't even have to be human, since my dog experiences the universe
- They don't even have to be alive, since a photon bouncing off something confirms its reality

The "observer" in quantum theory is anything that interacts with the system (where the "system" might be the entire universe).

One of the problems with quantum computers is that despite great efforts to cool them to almost absolute zero and shield out all electromagnetic radiation, almost anything interacts with them and changes their state, often within nanoseconds.
- Our universe is obstinately insistent on being "real"

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence

[science4life (OP)]

Thank you for your answers.
I have noticed that this topic is too complex to express it properly with words. But what I like is that everybody can have his own interpretation.

I apologize for the fact that I only provided one option or question in the poll. I'm new in this portal since yesterday and I had probably misunderstood something I did not want to appear undemocratic...

[alancalverd]

It actually makes more sense to say that we can observe the material world because we are part of it. That gives you a consistent approach to classical physics and most of the problems of everyday life.

But as Evan has pointed out, in physics the word "observer" does not mean a conscious being. Faute de mieux it's a hangover from the days when science depended on human eyes and ears rather than machines to observe and record, and those in the know are happy to live with the anachronism rather than invent a new word. Problem is that philosophers make their living out of misunderstanding, and this is one of their favorites.