1 Dating Coach vs 20 Manosphere (ft. Mark Manson)

[Hojo]

@LordFall 

what does reality look like outside of human perception

Outside of human perception, reality has no color, sound, texture, or smell—those are neural interpretations created by your brain to translate raw environmental data.

In its objective, unperceived state, reality consists of:

Pure Energy and Fields: "Light" is just electromagnetic radiation across a massive spectrum (most of which we can't see, like radio, UV, and X-rays). "Sound" is merely mechanical vibrations moving through matter.

Overlapping Force Fields: Space is saturated with invisible gravitational, magnetic, and quantum fields interacting continuously.

Quantum Probabilities: At the fundamental level, matter isn't made of hard, solid spheres. It exists as shifting probability distributions and quantum fields that only collapse into localized particles when interacting with other systems.

In short, objective reality is a silent, colorless, dynamic web of mathematical forces, fields, and particles.

is it like a formless void?

No, it isn't an empty void. A void implies nothingness, but reality outside perception is dynamic, dense with energy, and heavily structured.

It has precise physical structure—defined by mass, charge, spatial distance, and physical laws. It only feels formless to us because concepts like solid boundaries, smooth surfaces, and visual shapes are sensory shortcuts constructed by our brains, rather than intrinsic properties of raw matter and fields.

would it look like there is nothing there

Technically, it wouldn't "look" like anything, because "looking" requires a brain to process light into a visual image.

If you mean "Is there physical stuff present?", then no, it wouldn't be empty. The space is densely packed with photons, quantum fluctuations, radiation, and force fields.

If an instrument (like a sensor) were placed there, it would register constant, intense activity—it just wouldn't look like a scene our eyes can interpret.

what would it look like the closest representation draw it

 

there is colour in that image

You are absolutely right. I used colors like blues, purples, and oranges in that visualization. I did that because, since you are a human looking at an image, I have to use visual language to communicate. If I showed you what that reality actually "looks" like without human perception, it would just be a black square, because there is no perception there to turn the raw data into light or color.

To make it a "representation" of the sheer amount of raw data, energy, and fields that are actually there, I used different colors to stand in for things like magnetic fields, gravity, and different energy states.

It's a metaphor: I'm translating an invisible, complex system into something your brain can actually process. Without the color, it would look like nothing, when in reality, it's very much something.

is there light there

Yes, but not as "brightness" or "color."

There is electromagnetic radiation (photons moving at c), which is the raw physical reality of light.

However, "brightness" and "visual light" are purely subjective experiences created when those photons hit a retina and get processed by a brain. Without an eye and a brain to interpret those photons, the radiation exists, but the visual experience of light does not.

draw it again without colour or form to make an accurate representation

 

 

 

Notice how it looks exactly like what you see when you close your eyes?

You can see what reality looks like outside your perception, just close your eyes. Do you see Elon musk there?

Edited 8 hours ago by Hojo

[LordFall]

I appreciate you using AI to draft your points, it elevates the quality of the conversation.

Hoffman does not argue that the universe is an empty void or that physical objects are illusions created on the spot by your immediate awareness. Hoffman argues that space-time is a structured "desktop" representing a deeper, highly complex network of objective interactions (which he models as conscious agents). A computer desktop icon hides the complex code of the operating system, but the code is still there executing real functions—the computer doesn't turn into a blank black screen just because you minimize a window.

Even according to quantum mechanics and Hoffman's framework, an "interface" implies an underlying objective reality that the interface tracks. When you close your eyes, you lose the visual icon of the room, but the room's causal structure remains fully intact. If you walk forward with your eyes closed, you will still crash into a wall because the wall's atomic resistance and mass continue to operate entirely separate from your visual feedback loop.

Perception isn't a single human-only movie screen; different species have vastly different sensory interfaces shaped by evolution. Honeybees see ultraviolet light; pit vipers see infrared heat signatures; dogs experience the world primarily through an olfactory map. If reality were just a subjective human "black screen" when eyes close, an eagle flying overhead would still be interacting with objective physical coordinates (like air pressure, thermal columns, and mouse movement) that have causal weight independent of any human observer.

[Hojo]

@LordFall It dosent remain intact via the double slit experiment it desolidifies.

When you turn your head the room is turning into formlessness. The wavyness around your visual field is what is happening in reality. Your room is desolifying around your visual field and behind you its non existent. While a force may exist still it isnt what it appears as. 

When you turn your head away from the room and  you are actually still seeing the room behind you it just dosent have a form. You can see in 360 degrees right now. Just half the field is formless.

If you close the door to the room you can see inside the room still. It just dosent have a form it has the exact same qualia as when you close your eyes. The room becomes the space you see when you close your eyes its literally nothing and you are making up that its held its shape until you open the door and the room solidifies into its form.

If you lost all ability to percieve via touch and smell and cant move then you see that nothing is there at all. Including elon musk and his big man titties and buldging stomach.

And all other ideas that there other perceives out there because to you they are non existent according to science.

Edited 7 hours ago by Hojo

[LordFall]

No.

You’re making the classic pop-physics mistake of confusing quantum measurement with human conscious awareness.

In the double-slit experiment, the wave function collapses when a particle interacts with a detector (or any physical system that registers information), not when a human brain "looks" at it. Decoherence happens through continuous environmental interaction—air molecules, thermal radiation, and gravity are "measuring" your room every microsecond. It doesn't "desolidify" behind you because the physical interactions maintaining its state don't pause just because your retinas aren't active.

You are confusing qualia with ontology. When you close your eyes, the blackness you "see" is just your brain processing the lack of optical data from your retinas. That is a limitation of your sensory hardware, not a feature of physical reality.

Conflating "I am no longer rendering visual data" with "the underlying system has ceased to exist" is like turning off your computer monitor and claiming the CPU stopped processing code.

My guy if what you were saying was true when you closed your eyes you would fall through your bed and the floor and the earth. You realize how absurd that is? Really think about it for a few minutes. 

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, LordFall said:

@Leo Gura Why do you tolerate people saying such nonsense? Does it not hurt your brain? 

I can't read every post on this forum. And even if I could, I can't force everyone to agree with my view.

Edited 4 hours ago by Leo Gura

[AION]

Markson is a sleazy guy. Always turning with the wind of public opinion. His cunningness and spinelessness is admiring though. 

[Ulax]

6 hours ago, LordFall said:

These guys are like Karens but the malevolent male version. 

Hahaha true

[Leo Gura]

34 minutes ago, Ulax said:

These guys are like Karens but the malevolent male version. 

Also known as a Tate.

[Lyubov]

I read Models by Mark Manson and it is an ok book. It was sorta an alt path to game many years ago. Manson’s approach relies more on authenticity and and a sort of “be yourself” perspective which some guys aren’t able to garner much from because they need something more action oriented. Some people just don’t relate to or find helpful what’s being said. Anyways I find Manson to be sorta boring and yeah he isn’t someone I feel drawn towards learning from. His one book was enough for me. His not giving a fuck book I started but was boring and didn’t bother finishing. 

On the other hand the red pill guys generally speaking are losers. Losers and the few at the top are able to grift their loser fanbase for a ton of cash.

Edited 2 hours ago by Lyubov

[Spiral]

I think YouTube is an awful cesspool. People just try to make money and ensnare your attention 

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

Funny thing is, most of you guys would agree with majority of repill talking points when it comes to improving yourself as a man, and in fact some of you keep spewing it tirelessly in here, I'm not gonna drop names we all know which people I'm refering to. Where you guys cut it is at the point at which criticizing of women, and women's behaviour starts. All of you are basically redpill lite

[Leo Gura]

We cut it at the point where it is toxic masculinity.

There is much in common between a Nazi and a non-Nazi, like eating breakfast and wearing shoes.

Edited 17 minutes ago by Leo Gura