Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Where Quantum Mystics are wrong?


  • Please log in to reply
177 replies to this topic

#121    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,799 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Australia

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 15 April 2012 - 01:25 AM

View PostLandry, on 14 April 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

I'll check back for something substantive. Posted Image

Already in the OP. If your head wasn't stuck so far you'd see it.


#122    PsiSeeker

PsiSeeker

    Omerta

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,543 posts
  • Joined:17 Jul 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia, Queensland

Posted 15 April 2012 - 05:25 AM

View PostRlyeh, on 12 April 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

Landry claims the Delayed Choice quantum eraser experiment proves that consciousness collapses the wave function, and even matter doesn't really exist.
Thats right, some how these experiments are performed with something that doesn't exist.

Well, from reading http://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.3977v1.pdf it's apparent that causation, and as a result wave function collapse, are intuitively misinterpreted and this clears it up nicely.  Causation doesn't actually come into it because of conditional probability.  As a result an observer doesn't cause backward causality.  Only backward correlation as a result of conditional probability.  Any observer, whether conscious or not, would measure the same result/s.

Quote

Anyway, the OP has posted scientific papers that show consciousness doesn't play a factor in the result, or the choice of what to measure (a random number generator is used).
Landry either refuses or can't produce scientific research supporting her claim and instead uses youtube video's of proponents who support consciousness causes collapse, but still insists that its proven and anyone who doesn't accept it is in denial.

Anyway, I don't understand how any of this implicates non-materialism.  Unless the implication is that there is only matter when there is an observer? :S  Is this what's going on?

This also inadvertently points to the objectivity + subjectivity argument.  It implies that objectivity does not exist.  I find it very difficult to understand anyone's arguments regarding this.  I know that perceptually objectivity can never be truly realized.  This does not mean that it does not exist however.

Not entirely sure what to think of solipsism at this point.  I believe there is an objective reality however I also understand that that which is objective can only be interpreted subjectively.  To assume that one's own perspective is the cause of all of reality seems a little...  Overboard to me.

An illusion is an illusion.  The key difference between the two is that one is limited by time and the other by perception.

#123    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,799 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Australia

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 15 April 2012 - 05:42 AM

View PostPsiSeeker, on 15 April 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

Anyway, I don't understand how any of this implicates non-materialism.  Unless the implication is that there is only matter when there is an observer? :S  Is this what's going on?

This also inadvertently points to the objectivity + subjectivity argument.  It implies that objectivity does not exist.  I find it very difficult to understand anyone's arguments regarding this.  I know that perceptually objectivity can never be truly realized.  This does not mean that it does not exist however.

Not entirely sure what to think of solipsism at this point.  I believe there is an objective reality however I also understand that that which is objective can only be interpreted subjectively.  To assume that one's own perspective is the cause of all of reality seems a little...  Overboard to me.
According to her links, matter doesn't really exist because the brain in a jar thought experiment shows you can only be sure of your own awareness. As expected, any scientists opinion that fits with her own becomes "proof" that materialism is false.

The entire foundation is based on something that by its nature is unverifiable.


#124    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Seeker79

  • Member
  • 12,618 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 15 April 2012 - 06:01 AM

View PostRlyeh, on 15 April 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

According to her links, matter doesn't really exist because the brain in a jar thought experiment shows you can only be sure of your own awareness. As expected, any scientists opinion that fits with her own becomes "proof" that materialism is false.

The entire foundation is based on something that by its nature is unverifiable.
"the brain in a jar"

You havnt understood anything, She has been trying to tell you, she even indirectly corrected me.

What do you do for a man in quicksand When you toss him a rope, but he is to busy praying for deliverance?

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#125    PsiSeeker

PsiSeeker

    Omerta

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,543 posts
  • Joined:17 Jul 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia, Queensland

Posted 15 April 2012 - 06:13 AM

View PostRlyeh, on 15 April 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

According to her links, matter doesn't really exist because the brain in a jar thought experiment shows you can only be sure of your own awareness. As expected, any scientists opinion that fits with her own becomes "proof" that materialism is false.

The entire foundation is based on something that by its nature is unverifiable.

I still don't understand how the brain in a jar thought experiment implies that materialism is false?  The brain in the jar thought experiment fails straight away as it still necessarily assumes input from some external entity.  Therefore there is something external to the self.

If there was only brain.  Well why assume there is only brain?  This reminds me of the Russell's teapot thought experiment.

http://en.wikipedia....ll's_teapot

Edit1:  If you really think about it deeply enough even if there were only brain it still fails.  What are you?  A person isn't their brain.  A person is the kinetic form of electrical energy generated by the brain.  The brain is only the potential for who the person is.  Therefore the brain in itself is already an "external material thing."

Edited by PsiSeeker, 15 April 2012 - 06:17 AM.

An illusion is an illusion.  The key difference between the two is that one is limited by time and the other by perception.

#126    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 17,110 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 15 April 2012 - 08:30 AM

View PostSeeker79, on 15 April 2012 - 06:01 AM, said:

"the brain in a jar"

You havnt understood anything, She has been trying to tell you, she even indirectly corrected me.

What do you do for a man in quicksand When you toss him a rope, but he is to busy praying for deliverance?

Make sure the rope hits him - so he is jolted back into the actual reality that exists for both of you. Either that or you could simply sit there and chuck rocks at him while he sinks into his imagined reality.  ;)

Edited by Leonardo, 15 April 2012 - 08:31 AM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#127    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,799 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Australia

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 15 April 2012 - 09:02 AM

View PostSeeker79, on 15 April 2012 - 06:01 AM, said:

"the brain in a jar"

You havnt understood anything, She has been trying to tell you, she even indirectly corrected me.
So you can verify it? Because face it, thats what science is all about.

Please go and look at the brain in the jar (or vat) thought experiment, its all about the mental perception of "outside" reality. By its very nature it is solipsistic.

Quote

What do you do for a man in quicksand When you toss him a rope, but he is to busy praying for deliverance?
Tell him that its ok, because some kook has proven the quicksand (and matter) doesn't really exist.

Edited by Rlyeh, 15 April 2012 - 09:44 AM.


#128    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Seeker79

  • Member
  • 12,618 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 15 April 2012 - 01:25 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 15 April 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

Make sure the rope hits him - so he is jolted back into the actual reality that exists for both of you. Either that or you could simply sit there and chuck rocks at him while he sinks into his imagined reality.  ;)
Hehe ;)

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#129    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Seeker79

  • Member
  • 12,618 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 15 April 2012 - 02:18 PM

Look, fundamental reality boils down to information processes. A binary code. A wave being the 0 and a particle being the 1 ( or the other way around, it dosn't matter). Everything is encoded in this fashion. All subatomic particles behave this way. The act of measurement changes the code or flips the switch. If there are no switches being flipped information cannot be generated. The question is who or what is doing the flipping if the switch.  Not interaction with detectors ( the slit detectors are left on while the information is erased in the entangled twin). This fact shows that it's purely an information game particularly the fact that the information is erased after the photon hit the back detector, yet the photons clearly display interfearance. This means that the this information process is even MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN SPACE OR TIME.

Materialism is DEAD. fundamental reality has nothing to do with material, time, or space... It's binary information.

So far only measurement has the ability to flip the switch. The question is who or what is measuring and, when the universe itself was a subatomic probability wave, who or what measured then.

There is only one answer. It measured itself. Self measuring is the crux of concousness. Measurement is more fundamental than the code. the ability to measure preceded the universe before time, space, or stuff. there is no way around it.

Now people can go on believing that a non spacial, non temporal, non material condition of perfect order capable of self measurement that leads to a universe with at least one example of conciouse beings is not conciouse. But let's face it, it's an unsupported opinion. A faith, a beleif, a hope ( for some). The devil ( or god) is in the details. It's much more logical to consider conciousness than wacky ideas about everything comeing from nothing at all.

Edited by Seeker79, 15 April 2012 - 02:20 PM.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#130    Landry

Landry

    Alien Embryo

  • Closed
  • Pip
  • 66 posts
  • Joined:27 Feb 2012

Posted 15 April 2012 - 02:53 PM

View PostRlyeh, on 15 April 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

According to her links, matter doesn't really exist because the brain in a jar thought experiment shows you can only be sure of your own awareness. As expected, any scientists opinion that fits with her own becomes "proof" that materialism is false.

The entire foundation is based on something that by its nature is unverifiable.

Incorrect.  "Matter" as you apparently conceive it - the Newtonian idea of matter is obsolete. If you're still trying to make that argument you're about a century out of date.
What is matter then? What is it composed of? You don't accept the modern science. What's your idea?
Take note of my "signature". That's why it's there.




#131    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,799 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Australia

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 15 April 2012 - 03:29 PM

View PostSeeker79, on 15 April 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

Look, fundamental reality boils down to information processes. A binary code. A wave being the 0 and a particle being the 1 ( or the other way around, it dosn't matter).
That analogy doesn't work, a bit is never 0 and 1 at the same time, however according to the wave function everything has a wave.

Quote

Everything is encoded in this fashion. All subatomic particles behave this way. The act of measurement changes the code or flips the switch. If there are no switches being flipped information cannot be generated. The question is who or what is doing the flipping if the switch.  Not interaction with detectors ( the slit detectors are left on while the information is erased in the entangled twin). This fact shows that it's purely an information game particularly the fact that the information is erased after the photon hit the back detector, yet the photons clearly display interfearance. This means that the this information process is even MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN SPACE OR TIME.
Is it really that to hard to read the scientific paper? The erasure is the set up of the damn experiment. We've been over this already. Both the photons are detected by the detectors mere nanoseconds a part, so don't use that crap there is no interaction.
Without space-time there is no information.

Please don't follow Landry's discussion methods that involves regurgitating youtube kooks to make up for her lack of comprehension skills.

Quote

There is only one answer. It measured itself. Self measuring is the crux of concousness. Measurement is more fundamental than the code. the ability to measure preceded the universe before time, space, or stuff. there is no way around it
Only because you're too lazy to read anything that goes into details.
Decoherence doesn't care about consciousness.

Edited by Rlyeh, 15 April 2012 - 03:45 PM.


#132    Landry

Landry

    Alien Embryo

  • Closed
  • Pip
  • 66 posts
  • Joined:27 Feb 2012

Posted 15 April 2012 - 03:54 PM

View PostSeeker79, on 15 April 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

Look, fundamental reality boils down to information processes. A binary code. A wave being the 0 and a particle being the 1 ( or the other way around, it dosn't matter). Everything is encoded in this fashion. All subatomic particles behave this way. The act of measurement changes the code or flips the switch. If there are no switches being flipped information cannot be generated. The question is who or what is doing the flipping if the switch.  Not interaction with detectors ( the slit detectors are left on while the information is erased in the entangled twin). This fact shows that it's purely an information game particularly the fact that the information is erased after the photon hit the back detector, yet the photons clearly display interfearance. This means that the this information process is even MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN SPACE OR TIME.

Materialism is DEAD. fundamental reality has nothing to do with material, time, or space... It's binary information.

So far only measurement has the ability to flip the switch. The question is who or what is measuring and, when the universe itself was a subatomic probability wave, who or what measured then.

There is only one answer. It measured itself. Self measuring is the crux of concousness. Measurement is more fundamental than the code. the ability to measure preceded the universe before time, space, or stuff. there is no way around it.

Now people can go on believing that a non spacial, non temporal, non material condition of perfect order capable of self measurement that leads to a universe with at least one example of conciouse beings is not conciouse. But let's face it, it's an unsupported opinion. A faith, a beleif, a hope ( for some). The devil ( or god) is in the details. It's much more logical to consider conciousness than wacky ideas about everything comeing from nothing at all.
It strikes me that these guys are willing to front just about any kind of nonsense to avoid taking known facts into consideration and building on them logically. I'm reminded of primary school and  wayward children. It's as if insults, quips, and ridicule can stand in place of proven science. The winner? If I remember correctly it's whoever get's the last word. lol






#133    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Seeker79

  • Member
  • 12,618 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 15 April 2012 - 04:26 PM

View PostRlyeh, on 15 April 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

That analogy doesn't work, a bit is never 0 and 1 at the same time, however according to the wave function everything has a wave.

Is it really that to hard to read the scientific paper? The erasure is the set up of the damn experiment. We've been over this already. Both the photons are detected by the detectors mere nanoseconds a part, so don't use that crap there is no interaction.
Without space-time there is no information.

Please don't follow Landry's discussion methods that involves regurgitating youtube kooks to make up for her lack of comprehension skills.

Only because you're too lazy to read anything that goes into details.
Decoherence doesn't care about consciousness.
It dosnt matter how far you move the erased beam, it could be across the galaxy and the affects would be the same. Don't you get it , that this is the very effect that baffles scientists. Nano seconds years it dosnt matter. In Any experiment that we can produce using light it's only going to be fractions of seconds. Even if we stretched the experiment to 186,000 miles, we will only have a second long difference. An hour 700,000,000 miles. You are only proving now that you don't understand the results of the experiment.

My analogy works just fine subatomic particles are never waves and particles at the same time they behave either like one or the other depending on measurement.

Edited by Seeker79, 15 April 2012 - 04:31 PM.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#134    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Seeker79

  • Member
  • 12,618 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 15 April 2012 - 04:42 PM

View PostLandry, on 15 April 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

It strikes me that these guys are willing to front just about any kind of nonsense to avoid taking known facts into consideration and building on them logically. I'm reminded of primary school and  wayward children. It's as if insults, quips, and ridicule can stand in place of proven science. The winner? If I remember correctly it's whoever get's the last word. lol
Yes there seems to be a fundamental gap in understanding of the results of the experiments. Accepting any wacky interpretation just to avoid the obvious. I'm reminded of fundamental religionists, that completely and utterly believe what their religious teacher says because they are the authority and anyone who contradicts is not only wrong, but ignorant, and subverted by other forces.

It really is the very definition of dogma.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

"Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization.[1] It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers. Although it generally refers to religious beliefs that are accepted without reason or evidence, they can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, or issued decisions of political authorities."

Which makes me wonder if our scientific institutions are more political than scientific. I know they dont want to be, but just like the experiment, the animal is impossible to seperate from the process.

Edited by Seeker79, 15 April 2012 - 04:43 PM.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#135    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 17,110 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 15 April 2012 - 07:33 PM

View PostSeeker79, on 15 April 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

Yes there seems to be a fundamental gap in understanding of the results of the experiments.

I would agree with that, but the gap is with those who are pressing for the non-materialist world-view in light of the results.

The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment relies on the use of entangled photons to be detected at various detectors - there is an example on the Wiki page.

This is the pertinent paragraph...

Quote

There is never any which-path information determined directly for the photons that are detected at D0, yet detection of which-path information by D3 or D4 means that no interference pattern is observed in the corresponding subset of signal photons at D0.

Because the photons are entangled, and because those idler photons detected at D3 and D4 have which-path information, then the signal photons corresponding to those idlers must also have which-path information and so not show an interference pattern at detector D0.

This result is interpreted thus: because the signal photons hit D0 before they hit the other detectors, and the which-path of all photons detected at D0 is unknown, then the detection of the D3 and D4 idler photons changes the result of the D0 entangled signal photons. This is the 'delayed choice eraser'.

But this interpretation is not necessarily true.

The result could be interpreted to show that the which-path information is present in the entangled photons before they are detected. This would be a set-back for the "the quantum particle exists in superposition"/nonmaterialism crowd, because it would indicate the object already has discrete properties before being measured/observed/detected.

By basing the interpretation of the result experiment on one interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - that quantum objects exist in superposition - the experimenters have introduced an observer bias. The truth is there is more than one interpretation of the results possible.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users