177 replies to this topic

[libstaK]

bmk1245, on 08 April 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

But thats exactly what proponents of quantum mysticism claim.

Without a material result that counters the position, it actually does remain a possibility.  However, it was not the point of the experiment and not all has been said and done to quantify the term "observer" as part of the scientific process.  So there is a leap but all theories start with a leap.  I await evidence.  On the collapse of the wave function and whether the "observer" and consciousness bear a relationship to each other - they are two distinct questions I feel although inextricably entangled right now .

[Seeker79]

bmk1245, on 08 April 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

Emotional? Nope. Just to show how absurd your claims sound.

Really? You claimed

I just followed your train of thought a little bit further: person CHOSE to use THIS computer, and THAT detectors; person CHOSE screws THAT and not THOSE. Someone in the past come-up with THAT architecture of CPU in experimenter's computers and THAT shape of screws in their equipment, etc, etc, etc, etc down to "I ******* love this stick!" If you'll say I'm wrong here, then your logic of The person that made the CHOICE to observe on a one or a zero is where the choice was made. is... wrong. Simple.

Edit to add: simple inverter would change 0 to 1, without any effect on results of experiment.

You still don't get it. I'm not makeing any claims. How absurd something sounds is what you are unable to get past. The sound of Absurdity is a bias judgment. it forces you to cling to your bias.

It certainly is where a choice is made. Or I guess you could call it THE choice. It's a far cry from eliminating concious choice from the experiment. Just because many choices were made prior to that one leading up does not eliminate the importance or the existence of the particular concious choice. Again, if I set up a billion billion quantum random number generators each one flip flopping what would be done on the final 1 or 0, and it landed on the choice that shot you dead... It was still I that am guilty of murder. It dosn't matter a bit. Conciousness cannot be eliminate no mater how much smoke and mirrors or coin flips are used to seperate it.  It's only seems absurd because you are still indoctrinated into thinking there is some sort of material involved in the process. There is not. Quite obviously the choice is the culprit.... How that choice is carried out or what led to it is irrelevant. under a Newtonian view of fundamental reality the choice was made by original conditions before inflation. Under a quantum randomness view ( which is really just a materialist interpretation of processes that are non material), then some sort of quantum fluctuation followed by cascading events  would have been the original catalyst for a particular choice. Under a quantum mysticism view, there is really only one mind makeing choices. Mind before material. The experiments support the latter interpretation a whole lot better. Obviously materialistic views can no longer be supported when both space and time are eliminated but concouse choice cannot be.

As of yet an immaterial choice cannot be separated from consciousness. Mabey evenchually it can, I dont know. But quantum mysticism also explaines many other human experiences, yet another trait of a good theory. It's the best choice at the moment.

Edited by Seeker79, 08 April 2012 - 12:57 PM.

[bmk1245]

libstaK, on 08 April 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

Without a material result that counters the position, it actually does remain a possibility. [...]

IMHO possibility of that is zero squared

libstaK, on 08 April 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

[...] However, it was not the point of the experiment [...]

Of course not, but mystics claim it was.

[bmk1245]

Seeker79, on 08 April 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

You still don't get it. I'm not makeing any claims. How absurd something sounds is what you are unable to get past. The sound of Absurdity is a bias judgment. it forces you to cling to your bias.

It certainly is where a choice is made. Or I guess you could call it THE choice. It's a far cry from eliminating concious choice from the experiment. Just because many choices were made prior to that one leading up does not eliminate the importance or the existence of the particular concious choice. Again, if I set up a billion billion quantum random number generators each one flip flopping what would be done on the final 1 or 0, and it landed on the choice that shot you dead... It was still I that am guilty of murder. It dosn't matter a bit. Conciousness cannot be eliminate no mater how much smoke and mirrors or coin flips are used to seperate it.  It's only seems absurd because you are still indoctrinated into thinking there is some sort of material involved in the process. There is not. Quite obviously the choice is the culprit.... How that choice is carried out or what led to it is irrelevant. under a Newtonian view of fundamental reality the choice was made by original conditions before inflation. Under a quantum randomness view ( which is really just a materialist interpretation of processes that are non material), then some sort of quantum fluctuation followed by cascading events  would have been the original catalyst for a particular choice. Under a quantum mysticism view, there is really only one mind makeing choices. Mind before material. The experiments support the latter interpretation a whole lot better. Obviously materialistic views can no longer be supported when both space and time are eliminated but concouse choice cannot be.

As of yet an immaterial choice cannot be separated from consciousness. Mabey evenchually it can, I dont know. But quantum mysticism also explaines many other human experiences, yet another trait of a good theory. It's the best choice at the moment.

More wool over gullible's eyes, and more macaroni over their ears...

Quote

It certainly is where a choice is made

Funny, how folks change their story to fit experiment. Can you comprehend simple sentence "the applied voltage on the EOM is randomly chosen in real time, using a Quantum Random Number Generator (QRNG)", or not???
You just grasping straws to make experiment to support your fantasies.

[Seeker79]

bmk1245, on 08 April 2012 - 02:04 PM, said:

More wool over gullible's eyes, and more macaroni over their ears...

Funny, how folks change their story to fit experiment. Can you comprehend simple sentence "the applied voltage on the EOM is randomly chosen in real time, using a Quantum Random Number Generator (QRNG)", or not???
You just grasping straws to make experiment to support your fantasies.

Ugggggg. The quantum number generator generates a 1 or a 0. Does it not? SOMEONE DECIDED. What would be done with that one or 0. Did they not? I don't care if they used another generator to decide what to do with it or another and another. It's irrelevant to the fact that a choice to observe is being made by a concouse observer.. If I program a computer to observe and collect information for me, it's just a tool, a magnifying glass and stick writing in the dirt just a more complex one designed to make it look like im further from the actions when in fact I'm not. No straws needed....only honesty. As prooven it is irelevant WHEN the choice to observe is made. That's the startling results of the experiment. There is no denying it, there is no hidding it, there is no getting around it by creating ever more complex experiments, the results are tge same. Space, time, and matter have been eliminated... The only thing left is the act of measuring Itself.

I don't have a story. The experiment speaks for itself. Of course a focused biased approach will create denial of all sorts of facts. If the agenda behind interpretation is not to inturprete but to propel a preconceived and outdated worldview.

[bmk1245]

Seeker79, on 08 April 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

[...] It's irrelevant to the fact that a choice to observe is being made by a concouse observer.[...]

WRONG
For umpteenth time

Quote

The choice between open and closed configurations, made by a quantum random number generator...

link
What observers did before experiment (ate, played chess, connected cables, etc) is completely irrelevant. Observers did not chose between open/closed configurations. All your word salad is nothing more than just lame attempt to justify your fantasies.

But hey, since you "have" mind over matter capabilities, please change words in the abstract from Wave-particle duality to Wave-duality-particle on Science webpage.
Call me when you done.

[Emma_Acid]

Seeker79, on 07 April 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

You guys still don't get it.

The "consciousness affects reality" argument is one of the more tragic misreadings of quantum physics.

Consciousness doesn't affect the outcome of an experiment. Measurement does.

[Leonardo]

libstaK, on 08 April 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

The question of why an observer causes the wave function to collapse is still a huge mystery isn't it?

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.

[Landry]

Rlyeh, on 08 April 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

Read it again, thats not the choice.

Because it doesn't support it. Collapse occurs without conscious observation.

Obviously consciousness and choice is required to set up the experiment, but thats no different to any other.

Bias? That's fresh coming from you, both you and Landry adamantly deny the experiment set up, Landry even deletes responses that challenges her misconceptions.

Can you do what Landry is unwilling or unable, support your premise that "consciousness causes collapse" with credible research? And I'm not talking about youtube videos.

Landry deletes what's already been covered over and over. This filibustering tactic is a waste of your time, but it becomes unacceptable when it becomes a waste of my time. If you can't look past your ideological attachment to materialism, I see that as your problem - not Seeker's or my problem. You are entitled to believe whatever appeals to you on whatever grounds you can conjure up. Your assumptions and beliefs are something for you to manage on a personal level. Proselytizing is ineffective. Unless someone comes to a conclusion about something according to their own process and hopefully through the aegis of logic and objectivity - it's not really theirs anyway. I've tried to make clear that my purpose is to initiate a thought process free of psychological and cognitive conditioning.

Physicist Tom Campbell, formerly with NASA and now a consultant for NASA and other agencies.





The next step typically to discredit - but go right ahead. I would much prefer to be in the intellectual company of someone such as Campbell who is comfortable with an actual logically objective thought process.

Edited by Landry, 08 April 2012 - 04:35 PM.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 08 April 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

It certainly is where a choice is made. Or I guess you could call it THE choice. It's a far cry from eliminating concious choice from the experiment. Just because many choices were made prior to that one leading up does not eliminate the importance or the existence of the particular concious choice. Again, if I set up a billion billion quantum random number generators each one flip flopping what would be done on the final 1 or 0, and it landed on the choice that shot you dead... It was still I that am guilty of murder. It dosn't matter a bit. Conciousness cannot be eliminate no mater how much smoke and mirrors or coin flips are used to seperate it.  It's only seems absurd because you are still indoctrinated into thinking there is some sort of material involved in the process. There is not. Quite obviously the choice is the culprit.... How that choice is carried out or what led to it is irrelevant. under a Newtonian view of fundamental reality the choice was made by original conditions before inflation.

I don't think you understand what the experiment is about.
You may as well throw in sex is part of the experiment, as because if no one had it the researchers would have never been born.

[Rlyeh]

Landry, on 08 April 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

The next step typically to discredit - but go right ahead. I would much prefer to be in the intellectual company of someone such as Campbell who is comfortable with an actual logically objective thought process.

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.

Edited by Rlyeh, 08 April 2012 - 06:56 PM.

[Rlyeh]

Quote

Tom holds a Bachelor of Science in physics and math from Bethany College and a Master of
Science in physics from Purdue University, as well as having done doctoral-level work at the University
of Virginia. He is the physicist described as “TC” in Bob Monroe’s Far Journeys. Tom began researching
altered states of consciousness with Bob in the early 1970s. He and a few others helped to design
experiments and develop the technology for creating specific altered states, and they were also the main
subjects of Bob’s investigations at that time. For the past thirty years, Campbell has been focused on
scientifically exploring the properties, boundaries, and abilities of consciousness. During that same time
period, he excelled as a working scientist—a professional physicist dedicated to pushing back the
frontiers of cutting-edge technology.
Using his mastery of the out-of-body experience as a springboard, he dedicated his research to
discovering the outer boundaries, inner workings, and causal dynamics of the larger reality system. In
February of 2003, Tom published the My Big TOE trilogy, which represents the results and conclusions of
his scientific exploration of the nature of existence. This overarching model of reality, mind, and
consciousness merges physics with metaphysics, explains the paranormal as well as the normal, places
spirituality within a scientific context, and provides direction for those wishing to personally experience
an expanded awareness of All That Is.

[Seeker79]

bmk1245, on 08 April 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

WRONG
For umpteenth time

link
What observers did before experiment (ate, played chess, connected cables, etc) is completely irrelevant. Observers did not chose between open/closed configurations. All your word salad is nothing more than just lame attempt to justify your fantasies.

But hey, since you "have" mind over matter capabilities, please change words in the abstract from Wave-particle duality to Wave-duality-particle on Science webpage.
Call me when you done.

Ugggg circular again. Who program the experiment to measure or not meaure based on the binary number the random number generator generated? Who?

[Seeker79]

Emma_Acid, on 08 April 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

The "consciousness affects reality" argument is one of the more tragic misreadings of quantum physics.

Consciousness doesn't affect the outcome of an experiment. Measurement does.

How do you define measurement? Who measures? What material componant constitutes the measurement?

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 08 April 2012 - 04:44 PM, said:

I don't think you understand what the experiment is about.
You may as well throw in sex is part of the experiment, as because if no one had it the researchers would have never been born.

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