Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
bmk1245

Where Quantum Mystics are wrong?

178 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.:P

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. yes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.
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. yes.gif

:rolleyes: 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

:rolleyes: 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.

":rolleyes: 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.

wink2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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 original.gif

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.
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.
":rolleyes: 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.

wink2.gif

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

What?? The measurement is the experiment.

It has nothing to do with consciousness. A robot performing the same experiment would have the same results. You're only going to convince people who don't understand quantum physics. People who do understand it can see that what you're suggesting is a complete misreading of it. You've just got it plain wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What?? The measurement is the experiment.

It has nothing to do with consciousness. A robot performing the same experiment would have the same results. You're only going to convince people who don't understand quantum physics. People who do understand it can see that what you're suggesting is a complete misreading of it. You've just got it plain wrong.

I see, so you know better than respected physiciss. One of which Landry mentioned. A robot is a tool of a concouse being, it's programing is just more complicated than flipping switches. Your argument dosnt hold. If you program your robot to kill someone it is still YOU that is doing the killing. The problem is that the materialist goggles that many have on is still trying to make the concouse act of observing into some sort of field that is interacting with the photons, so if thy automate something and wave their hands in the air, and say "look mom no hands", then it somehow eliminates the conciouse observer. Rediculouse. You should look up why one of the experiments is called, the quantum ERASER. again. ....ERASER....again ERASER. IT IS NON-LOCAL, AND NON-TEMPORAL. the information is ERASED before OBSERVED. wrap your materialist mind around that for a sec.

Certainly much more intelligent people than you and I have, and those clinging to materialism can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I see, so you know better than respected physiciss. One of which Landry mentioned.

Oh please.. the physicist is speaking of an experiment that no research papers support. Or even makes sense for that matter, destroying your data after its been collected doesn't magically change the results of the experiment.
A robot is a tool of a concouse being, it's programing is just more complicated than flipping switches. Your argument dosnt hold. If you program your robot to kill someone it is still YOU that is doing the killing.
Does the robot only kill if you are observing it?

What if you didn't program the robot to kill, and it still killed either by accident or program error, are you still a killer?

The problem is that the materialist goggles that many have on is still trying to make the concouse act of observing into some sort of field that is interacting with the photons, so if thy automate something and wave their hands in the air, and say "look mom no hands", then it somehow eliminates the conciouse observer. Rediculouse. You should look up why one of the experiments is called, the quantum ERASER. again. ....ERASER....again ERASER. IT IS NON-LOCAL, AND NON-TEMPORAL. the information is ERASED before OBSERVED. wrap your materialist mind around that for a sec.
The OP already did. Guess what? No conscious observer is needed to collapse the wavefunction. Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if you didn't program the robot to kill, and it still killed either by accident or program error, are you still a killer?

You are certainly liable, yes. The fact that you made a robot that can and did kill, you would be responsible.

The same holds for the experiments. If your program makes the path OBSERVABLE, it will collapse the interference pattern. If it dosnt it won't. EVEN IF THAT PROGRAM OBSERVES ITS ENTANGLED TWIN AFTER IT HAS ALREADY HIT THE SCREEN. AFTER!!!!! That photon "knows" that it's twin WILL be observed after it hits the screen and behaves accordingly. ( collapse) If something happens to the twin that ERASES the information anywhere along the process ( interference pattern ). It's about information and observance nothing else.

I'll take it a step further. The litmus test for any materialist wether they understand the subject matter or not instead of just sticking to bias world views is very specific. Everything I have said is fact. But the area an informed materialist should focus on is what??????? I certainly would go there instead of beating dead horses that have already been in the grave long ago and regurgitating tired concepts .....go on crack open google, and figure it out.

Can any of you pass this litmus test. If you can't, you are simply a regiurgitator with FAITH in your paradime. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You are certainly liable, yes. The fact that you made a robot that can and did kill, you would be responsible.

The same holds for the experiments. If your program makes the path OBSERVABLE, it will collapse the interference pattern. If it dosnt it won't. EVEN IF THAT PROGRAM OBSERVES ITS ENTANGLED TWIN AFTER IT HAS ALREADY HIT THE SCREEN. AFTER!!!!! That photon "knows" that it's twin WILL be observed after it hits the screen and behaves accordingly. ( collapse) If something happens to the twin that ERASES the information anywhere along the process ( interference pattern ). It's about information and observance nothing else.

I'll take it a step further. The litmus test for any materialist whether they understand the subject matter or not instead of just sticking to bias world views is very specific. Everything I have said is fact. But the area an informed materialist should focus on is what??????? I certainly would go there instead of beating dead horses that have already been in the grave long ago and regurgitating tired concepts .....go on crack open google, and figure it out.

Can any of you pass this litmus test. If you can't, you are simply a regurgitator with FAITH in your paradigm. :)

There's always been strong if not irrational (at times) resistance to new ideas. In the 1800's scientists viewed reports of rocks falling from the sky as pseudoscience. Pasteur's theory of germs was ridiculed. Lord Haldane, Minister of War in Britain said that the aeroplane would never fly. That was 4 years after they successfully flew at Kitty Hawk, N.C. - they were openly flying in fields near Dayton, Oh. for nearly a year while U.S. authorities refused to come to the demos and Scientific American published stories calling them the "lying brothers". George Zweig was rejected from a position at a major university for proposing the existence of quarks in 1964 - now it's an accepted part of the standard nuclear model - he was called a charlatan. Does any of this sound familiar in the current context?

Fear of the unknown ... fear of change ... an irrational attachment to an obsolete ideology - are some of the possible causes of the pathological skepticism directed toward the role of consciousness / awareness that has been repeatedly borne out in recent quantum experiments. A new paradigm is inevitable ...perpetual denial can't stop it now. The bold thinkers, people like physicist Tom Campbell will not be silenced by materialistic obstructionists. For people like Seeker, myself and others there is no threat - I hope to say that we won't be silenced either.

Edited by Landry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.