177 replies to this topic

[Seeker79]

Leonardo, on 08 April 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

No, it's not.

The wavefunction (superposition) of a quantum property of an object (or of a quantum object itself) is a mathematical construct of all the possible values that property of that object may be. However, this wavefunction does not exist as a 'real object' itself. The only reason we have the wavefunction is because until a measurement is taken the actual value of a quantum property of an object cannot be known.

The observer does not influence the value observed, neither does the observer "collapse the wavefunction" because there is no wavefunction (except as an abstract, mathematical concept) to collapse. When physicists talk about "the collapse of a wavefunction" they are speaking in mathematical terms.

The various popular 'theories' involving consciousness being involved in wavefunction collapse are based on a flawed understanding of the physics and the terminology it employs.

I agree that the wave function is simply a mathmatical construct, so are many other things. The fact remaines that particles act like waves when unobserved and particles when we try to locate them. If we try to find a particle we find it, otherwise it's not a particle. A particle is a piece of stuff, while a wave is usually energy propigating through a medium. Being a wave is not a mathmatical construct. It acts like a wave it is a wave unless particles are bouncing off of each other, but this is the reason that filters are used so that the photons are traveling one at a time. They cannot bounce off of each other and interfear with themselves.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 08 April 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

We can go that far if you like. The implications of a non local mind may very well involve all those causeslities.

We can do the same with cars, without sex there would be no cars. But would you really accept it as a valid answer that sex is involved in creating cars?

As far as I'm aware, the experiment demonstrates the behaviour of photons and entanglement. Not sure how people come to the idea the mind causes the photons to behave differently.

Seeker79, on 08 April 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

I agree that the wave function is simply a mathmatical construct, so are many other things. The fact remaines that particles act like waves when unobserved and particles when we try to locate them. If we try to find a particle we find it, otherwise it's not a particle. A particle is a piece of stuff, while a wave is usually energy propigating through a medium. Being a wave is not a mathmatical construct. It acts like a wave it is a wave unless particles are bouncing off of each other, but this is the reason that filters are used so that the photons are traveling one at a time. They cannot bounce off of each other and interfear with themselves.

There is your definition of measurement, when a photon is located (detector, retina, etc).

Edited by Rlyeh, 08 April 2012 - 08:13 PM.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 08 April 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

We can do the same with cars, without sex there would be no cars. But would you really accept it as a valid answer that sex is involved in creating cars?

As far as I'm aware, the experiment demonstrates the behaviour of photons and entanglement. Not sure how people come to the idea the mind causes the photons to behave differently.

There is your definition of measurement, when a photon is located (detector, retina, etc).

Isn't it?

[Seeker79]

libstaK, on 08 April 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

I don't think it is a bias, I think it is illogical.  The point of a scientific experiment is to produce results that are logical.  Hence the term "observer" not "consciousness in the experiment.

I do not "disagree" with the possibilities you present (they provide food for thought) I simply do not believe that the point of the experiment was to make any conclusions about the nature of consciousness.  The point appears to be to note that "observation" invariably causes a collapse of the wave function.  Fact is science does not know why this is so but it has had a profound effect on the scientific method - the observer appears to require consideration when extrapolating results.

Crazy is a term well used in the results of many quantum experiments and many of it's theories - not as a bias against but as a profound statement of the complete lack of material logic in the results.  The experiment could be repeated a thousand times (possibly has) and the results would still instill the notion that they are "crazy" based on what science knows of the cause of the phenomena to date.

Got it and I agree. Of course many discoveries are accidental and results of experiments intended for other things.

[Landry]

Rlyeh, on 08 April 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

Campbell sells philosophy. Not looking at the data, doesn't change a damn thing once it's recorded.

The first step is to present a scientific paper, until you can follow that, you're wasting my time with philosophical drivel dressed up as (pseudo)science.

heh heh Did I call it or what? Tom Campbell has the background to understand what he's talking about ... he logically and systematically reaches conclusions which you can't accept for ideological reasons. He doesn't really need to be defended. FYI Science cannot be conducted without philosophy ... * materialism is the wrong philosophy for quantum mechanics.  Simple. ... You can't get derive a logical working overview of quantum reality by attempting to conceptualize it within a materialistic framework. That's been tried ... it obviously doesn't work.
* http://www.unexplain...showentry=24929 <br class="Apple-interchange-newline">

The first step is to become aware of your real issues ... then carefully listen to people who know what they're talking about.

Edited by Landry, 08 April 2012 - 10:34 PM.

[libstaK]

Leonardo, on 08 April 2012 - 04:12 PM, said:

No, it's not.

The wavefunction (superposition) of a quantum property of an object (or of a quantum object itself) is a mathematical construct of all the possible values that property of that object may be. However, this wavefunction does not exist as a 'real object' itself. The only reason we have the wavefunction is because until a measurement is taken the actual value of a quantum property of an object cannot be known.

The observer does not influence the value observed, neither does the observer "collapse the wavefunction" because there is no wavefunction (except as an abstract, mathematical concept) to collapse. When physicists talk about "the collapse of a wavefunction" they are speaking in mathematical terms.

The various popular 'theories' involving consciousness being involved in wavefunction collapse are based on a flawed understanding of the physics and the terminology it employs.

Have you actually seen the variations of the double slit experiment in action - they use detectors at the slits and the wall.  The detectors collect data that looks like an interference pattern IF the detectors at the slits are not observed.  The photons definitively behave like waves.  To suggest there is no mystery is a little arrogant given physicists various positions on this.  I really enjoyed Landry's youtube clip on Dr Campbell's discussion of this - it refutes the simplicity you are attempting to place on this imo.

[Rlyeh]

Landry, on 08 April 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

heh heh Did I call it or what? Tom Campbell has the background to understand what he's talking about ... he logically and systematically reaches conclusions which you can't accept for ideological reasons. He doesn't really need to be defended. FYI Science cannot be conducted without philosophy ... * materialism is the wrong philosophy for quantum mechanics.  Simple. ... You can't get derive a logical working overview of quantum reality by attempting to conceptualize it within a materialistic framework. That's been tried ... it obviously doesn't work.
* http://www.unexplain...showentry=24929 <br class="Apple-interchange-newline">

The first step is to become aware of your real issues ... then carefully listen to people who know what they're talking about.

Ever notice your arguments are always the same? "Someone said this, or that". No research data, just gullibly accepting any claims that support your preconceived notions. Instead of projecting your own faults on others, I suggest you learn to read and comprehend.

Credible scientific theories are found in scientific papers, not youtube nor crackpot sites.

I don't know how I can make it anymore simpler for you to understand, either you have something of substance or you don't.
Given your inability to present a research paper, I'm going with the latter.


Edit: BTW your link is using a thought experiment that by its nature is unverifiable. Really it contains no proof. You going to use Solipsism next?

Edited by Rlyeh, 09 April 2012 - 06:40 AM.

[Landry]

Rlyeh, on 09 April 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

Ever notice your arguments are always the same? "Someone said this, or that". No research data, just gullibly accepting any claims that support your preconceived notions. Instead of projecting your own faults on others, I suggest you learn to read and comprehend.

Credible scientific theories are found in scientific papers, not youtube nor crackpot sites.

I don't know how I can make it anymore simpler for you to understand, either you have something of substance or you don't.
Given your inability to present a research paper, I'm going with the latter.


Edit: BTW your link is using a thought experiment that by its nature is unverifiable. Really it contains no proof. You going to use Solipsism next?

Why shouldn't my arguments always be the same? The truth is the truth ... the truth doesn't change. The person in the YouTube video (Campbell)  isn't a YouTube scientist. He's an eminently qualified physicist in the field of applied physics research. He worked for NASA (you know that woo woo hocus pocus mystical airy fairy NASA) and is still a consultant. He knows what's in the "papers" that you keep harping about ... much better than you. I don't know if I can simplify that enough for you to comprehend <<< gratuitous insult *lol*.
Believe what you want to believe ... I don't really care. The facts are getting out, it's too late to prevent it ... relax.

[Rlyeh]

Landry, on 09 April 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

Why shouldn't my arguments always be the same?

So you like repeating that same fallacious logic over and over?
This may be why you have trouble comprehending whats written.

Quote

The truth is the truth ... the truth doesn't change.

And thats where your argument differs, see repeating a false hood still makes it a false hood.

Quote

The person in the YouTube video (Campbell)  isn't a YouTube scientist. He's an eminently qualified physicist in the field of applied physics research. He worked for NASA (you know that woo woo hocus pocus mystical airy fairy NASA) and is still a consultant. He knows what's in the "papers" that you keep harping about ... much better than you. I don't know if I can simplify that enough for you to comprehend <<< gratuitous insult *lol*.
Believe what you want to believe ... I don't really care. The facts are getting out, it's too late to prevent it ... relax.

Argument from authority.

The research papers do not support his claims. I suspect you know this, as you continue to dodge with youtube videos.

The facts are already "out", but then again you've never concerned yourself with facts.

[John from Lowell]

Landry, on 08 April 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

The first step is to become aware of your real issues ... then carefully listen to people who know what they're talking about.

Hi,

Most of us are not reflective enough to understand your thinking about these things.

There is such a thing as wasted energetic expendatures. Those who do not wish to think can not be trained to think !!!

John

[Landry]

Rlyeh, on 09 April 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

So you like repeating that same fallacious logic over and over?
This may be why you have trouble comprehending whats written.

And thats where your argument differs, see repeating a false hood still makes it a false hood.

Argument from authority.

The research papers do not support his claims. I suspect you know this, as you continue to dodge with youtube videos.

The facts are already "out", but then again you've never concerned yourself with facts.

I was waiting for you to come back with something substantive ... actually hoping. That not being the case - why not just accept the simple and obvious truth that anyone who so chooses can avail themselves of the information available? I'm doing my small part to help make it available and will continue to do so.
" Argument from authority. "   Yes, I will continue to also seek out "authorities" ... people who are credentialed and qualified to comment on the subject matter at hand. Most people aren't physicists - neither are you or I. The difference herein  between you and I is that I have no interest in occluding the subject matter by making it seem to abstruse to be comprehended in summary.
The "argument from authority" charge indicates a measure of desperation. Are you saying that you wouldn't seek out qualified authority? I can see how that would lead to  your present conceptual impasse - relying on the constraints of an ideology that has become irrelevant as you search through "papers" for something to misinterpret or take out of appropriate context.

[Landry]

John from Lowell, on 09 April 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

Hi,

Most of us are not reflective enough to understand your thinking about these things.

There is such a thing as wasted energetic expendatures. Those who do not wish to think can not be trained to think !!!

John

Hi John

What you say is very true. No one can be compelled to take the time or expend the energy necessary make conceptual leaps beyond their comfort zone. However ... I would suggest that the energy expended to prevent others is wasted. I would offer myself as a partial example, I used to be in the reductionist materialist camp ... although not as a hardcore dogmatist. When I realized that a change was necessary to extend my conceptual grasp - I gradually began the process of making it. That change wasn't always easy ... but attaining something that offers a sense of accomplishment is usually not super easy.

Edited by Landry, 09 April 2012 - 03:22 PM.

[Rlyeh]

Landry, on 09 April 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

I was waiting for you to come back with something substantive ... actually hoping.

You just proved my point about your comprehension skills. The wait has been on you to get some credible research material.

Quote

That not being the case - why not just accept the simple and obvious truth that anyone who so chooses can avail themselves of the information available? I'm doing my small part to help make it available and will continue to do so.

How noble of you, don't go and overexert yourself too much by providing a research paper now.

Quote

" Argument from authority. "   Yes, I will continue to also seek out "authorities" ... people who are credentialed and qualified to comment on the subject matter at hand. Most people aren't physicists - neither are you or I. The difference herein  between you and I is that I have no interest in occluding the subject matter by making it seem to abstruse to be comprehended in summary.
The "argument from authority" charge indicates a measure of desperation. Are you saying that you wouldn't seek out qualified authority? I can see how that would lead to  your present conceptual impasse - relying on the constraints of an ideology that has become irrelevant as you search through "papers" for something to misinterpret or take out of appropriate context.

Correction, you seek out any authority you can use to support your pseudoscience, even in the face of contrary evidence.

However this is getting tiresome. Unless you have something more than youtube and misconceptions, you aren't worth my time.
Have a good day.

Edited by Rlyeh, 09 April 2012 - 03:31 PM.

[Seeker79]

To wrap up this thread I think it's clear that the title of the thread is thoroughly wrong. No matter how one inturpretes the data, the facts continually show that fundamental reality has nothing to with material. And that fundamental processes of the universe occure non-locally outside of space and time.

Both scientific papers presented do not Deni or refute any of this. The first one was severely flawed in that it tries to hide the human componant through layers of coin flipping, with lack of responsibility of who is doing the flipping or picking heads or tails. The second only confirmed that the strange affects of the experiments are consistent with quantum theory, without an iota of understanding that those very experiments are the base of quantum theory, so of course it will be consistent.

Is quantum mysticism wrong.... Absolutely not. Mabey what's happening is that it is becoming not so mystical any more. The understanding of fundamental reality, historically, goes through fantastic changes, but people like to cling to outdated modalities because they naturally avoid things that are seem fantastical. History is full of people that could not believe their own discoveries, and against better practice write it out to avoid "absurdity". Only to be latter prooven as fact. Einstein and black holes comes to mind.

Luckily the truth ultimately prevails.

I think the biggest tell ( besides the facts) of the validity of quantum mysticism is the uproar against it. Great world perspective changing ideas are supposed to be battered and weather the storm... I'm glad I get to whiteness it.

That dam observer, it just won't go away.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 09 April 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

To wrap up this thread I think it's clear that the title of the thread is thoroughly wrong.

I think its pretty accurate. Quantum Mysticism, or consciousness causes collapse, asserts the mind or consciousness creates reality by collapsing the wavefunction.

It's a twist to the philosophical question;
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

instead the question is whether the particles exist at all outside of the mind.

However countless experiments have demonstrated "observation" (measurement, detection, etc) does not require consciousness, so I have to agree "consciousness causes collapse" is wrong.

Edited by Rlyeh, 09 April 2012 - 03:56 PM.