Quantum Physics and Consciousness

[Rlyeh]

Just now, Opus Magnus said:

No, you're just not smart enough to understand it. But most likely you're lying to get your way again and starting another problem.

That's why what you said has nothing to do with quantum physics.
Where is this "laws of forgiveness for ignorance" in quantum physics? As we both know it doesn't exist I'm not the one guilty of lying, sunshine.

[Opus Magnus]

5 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

That's why what you said has nothing to do with quantum physics.
Where is this "laws of forgiveness for ignorance" in quantum physics? As we both know it doesn't exist I'm not the one guilty of lying, sunshine.

Forgiveness is part of consciousness. And if you don't understand it with the uncertainty principle, then you are creating problems for yourself.

Because the experiment raises a moral question. The life and murder of the cat. This can be taken up to people as example. So, you are lying to yourself.

[XenoFish]

6 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

Forgiveness is part of consciousness. And if you don't understand it with the uncertainty principle, then you are creating problems for yourself.

Because the experiment raises a moral question. The life and murder of the cat. This can be taken up to people as example. So, you are lying to yourself.

Do you even know what a thought-experiment is? Let me define it for you.

Thought experiments are devices of the imagination used to investigate the nature of things. They are used for diverse reasons in a variety of areas, including economics, history, mathematics, philosophy, and the sciences, especially physics. Most often thought experiments are communicated in narrative form, frequently with diagrams. Thought experiments should be distinguished from thinking about experiments, from merely imagining any experiments to be conducted outside the imagination, and from psychological experiments with thoughts. They should also be distinguished from counterfactual reasoning in general, as they seem to require an experimental element, which seems to explain the impression that something is experienced in a thought experiment. In other words, though many call any counter-factual or hypothetical situation a thought experiment, this seems too encompassing. It seems right to demand that they also be visualized (or perhaps smelled, tasted, heard, touched); there should be something experimental about a thought experiment.

Source

[Opus Magnus]

Just now, XenoFish said:

Do you even know what a thought-experiment is? Let me define it for you.

Thought experiments are devices of the imagination used to investigate the nature of things. They are used for diverse reasons in a variety of areas, including economics, history, mathematics, philosophy, and the sciences, especially physics. Most often thought experiments are communicated in narrative form, frequently with diagrams. Thought experiments should be distinguished from thinking about experiments, from merely imagining any experiments to be conducted outside the imagination, and from psychological experiments with thoughts. They should also be distinguished from counterfactual reasoning in general, as they seem to require an experimental element, which seems to explain the impression that something is experienced in a thought experiment. In other words, though many call any counter-factual or hypothetical situation a thought experiment, this seems too encompassing. It seems right to demand that they also be visualized (or perhaps smelled, tasted, heard, touched); there should be something experimental about a thought experiment.

Source

what are you getting at? This thought experiment can be used as an example for people. It was meant to be shocking to show moral implications. That's the whole point, it's like a parable. It shows how are you going to value life while you try to think of both the velocity and position. Are you going to keep thinking about it, or save the life?

[XenoFish]

Just now, Opus Magnus said:

what are you getting at? This thought experiment can be used as an example for people. It was meant to be shocking to show moral implications. That's the whole point, it's like a parable. It shows how are you going to value life while you try to think of both the velocity and position. Are you going to keep thinking about it, or save the life?

A thought experiment is just that, a thought. An idea. Speculation upon the possibility or impossibility of something. Value life? Odd, weren't you the guy who said AIDS was sent by god to kill the sexually immoral. Then you've nothing to say on morality and the value of life, you've lost that right.

[Opus Magnus]

Just now, XenoFish said:

A thought experiment is just that, a thought. An idea. Speculation upon the possibility or impossibility of something. Value life? Odd, weren't you the guy who said AIDS was sent by god to kill the sexually immoral. Then you've nothing to say on morality and the value of life, you've lost that right.

lol, no I didn't. The experiment is an example that can be brought to higher examples. It really comes down to morality, and are you going to choose a side. Also animal cruelty.

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, Opus Magnus said:

lol, no I didn't. The experiment is an example that can be brought to higher examples. It really comes down to morality, and are you going to choose a side. Also animal cruelty.

Nothings harmed in a thought-experiment. Unless you think imaginary things real. If you do, go see a doctor.

[Opus Magnus]

7 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Nothings harmed in a thought-experiment. Unless you think imaginary things real. If you do, go see a doctor.

maybe you should based on some of your posts. Especially if you think hurting the cat is OK. Because, the whole point is to create an example for things that are real. In this case it swings on life and death, essentially murder. What if instead of a cat it was set up for a person? But that would be too offensive at the time to publish.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Opus Magnus
Grammar

[XenoFish]

41 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

maybe you should based on some of your posts. Especially if you think hurting the cat is OK. Because, the whole point is to create an example for things that are real. In this case it swings on life and death, essentially murder. What if instead of a cat it was set up for a person? But that would be too offensive at the time to publish.

It is nothing more than a thought-experiment. Nothing was harmed in any way. No cat, no-thing. Nada, zip, ziltch, what are you not understanding. You're one of those type who only see through a very thin lens aren't you. Just because you "think something bad/naughty" doesn't make it real. Actions do. No one is stuffing a real cat in a nuclear casket with a poisonous gas canister in it. Is that something so alien for you to understand. And the thought-experiment itself was designed to show the absurdity of quantum effects on a macro (our) level.

[Aquila King]

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

Once again you don't even have a clue what you're rambling about. You're just wasting our time.

To be fair, I don't think anyone necessarily does in regards to quantum physics.

Some confusing s**t it be.

[XenoFish]

4 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

To be fair, I don't think anyone necessarily does in regards to quantum physics.

Some confusing s**t it be.

To the bold. This is why most of us do not like when people play the quantum physics card as an explanation. It's some crazy stuff and so few understand it, that doesn't make it an excuse for magical thinking. Damn you Deepak Chopra.

[Aquila King]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

To the bold. This is why most of us do not like when people play the quantum physics card as an explanation. It's some crazy stuff and so few understand it, that doesn't make it an excuse for magical thinking. Damn you Deepak Chopra.

Even as a defender of spiritual phenomena, I find the arguments in favor of it lacking for that very reason.

My main complaint being a sorta backdoor way to insert a sort of idealism into the universe, when in literally every other area of observation we find realism to rule supreme. I'm not against the idea that mind generates our physical reality, but I don't find the argument that we humans create the universe with our thoughts (a sort of anthropic principle type argument) to be valid given that there so clearly seems to be an objective reality beyond our individual perception of it. This isn't to say that there aren't other 'dimensions' out there where that isn't the case. Our minds clearly generate the physical reality of the dream world when we sleep. So who's to say there isn't an afterlife where that sorta thing happens as well? Though as for this life, I just don't see that happening.

I know you'll disagree on the afterlife and other dimensions aspect of what I said, but regardless, we at least agree on the fundamental realism of the observable universe. Which is more than I could say for most spiritualists out there unfortunately.

[Aquila King]

The more I've studied quantum mechanics, the more I realize how much I don't know.

Quite humbling if I do say so myself.

[XenoFish]

5 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I'm not against the idea that mind generates our physical reality

Technically this is wrong. Through all our senses we create a perception of reality. My blue will not be the same hue as your blue, etc. But we both see the sky. This kinda touch in on objective vs subjective experience. 

7 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I know you'll disagree on the afterlife and other dimensions aspect of what I said, but regardless, we at least agree on the fundamental realism of the observable universe. Which is more than I could say for most spiritualists out there unfortunately.

We only have stories do base those things on. However, everybody dies. So we'll find out what is and what isn't then. But if believing in an afterlife helps someone sleep at night, go for it, just don't go crazy with the idea of it.

[Aquila King]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

Technically this is wrong. Through all our senses we create a perception of reality. My blue will not be the same hue as your blue, etc. But we both see the sky. This kinda touch in on objective vs subjective experience. 

This ^ is exactly what makes me sorta skeptical of the idea that our consciousness changes objective reality. The mere fact that our subjective experience of the outside world is often based on incomplete estimations our brains make to fill in the gaps.

How does our consciousness change the objective world outside ourselves if our subjective experiences are often times incorrect estimations that our brains make?

You're right, this sorta delves into another topic. Though loosely related I think.

6 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

We only have stories do base those things on. However, everybody dies. So we'll find out what is and what isn't then. But if believing in an afterlife helps someone sleep at night, go for it, just don't go crazy with the idea of it.

Depends on the afterlife you believe in. Believing in hell sure didn't help me sleep well at night, and eternal life is a rather heavy concept whether it's in this world or another.

Just sayin', sometimes the lack of a belief in an afterlife can bring as much comfort as the belief in the afterlife. Just depends on the person, belief, and situation really.

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

Just sayin', sometimes the lack of a belief in an afterlife can bring as much comfort as the belief in the afterlife. Just depends on the person, belief, and situation really.

Pretty much. I suppose in the cases of most atheist, they've made their peace. For me I simply do not know and honestly it doesn't matter. I could question such a subject till I am dead, but I won't officially know till then, so I don't worry about such things.

[Rlyeh]

14 hours ago, Opus Magnus said:

Forgiveness is part of consciousness. And if you don't understand it with the uncertainty principle, then you are creating problems for yourself.

Because the experiment raises a moral question. The life and murder of the cat. This can be taken up to people as example. So, you are lying to yourself.

Where is this "laws of forgiveness for ignorance" in quantum physics? You brought it up.

[Rlyeh]

12 hours ago, Aquila King said:

To be fair, I don't think anyone necessarily does in regards to quantum physics.

Some confusing s**t it be.

His comment was miles away from quantum physics.

[SHaYap]

Maybe we should invite a certain Mr Talbot, Michael to liven up the party ...

 

Quote

~

Michael Talbot (1953–1992) was an American parapsychologist and author of books on quantum woo. He is most well known for endorsing a theoretical model of reality that suggests the physical universe is akin to a giant hologram. According to Talbot ESP, telepathy, and other paranormal phenomena are real and are a product of this holographic model of reality.

~

 

• rational wiki link

[Emma_Acid]

20 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Nothings harmed in a thought-experiment. Unless you think imaginary things real. If you do, go see a doctor.

Ha. Someone really doesn't get the cat/box experiment.

It's not an actual experiment

(responding to you as I've blocked Opus for above mentioned Jesus/Aids comments)

[XenoFish]

3 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

Ha. Someone really doesn't get the cat/box experiment.

It's not an actual experiment

(responding to you as I've blocked Opus for above mentioned Jesus/Aids comments)

I'm about to do the same. I can only handle so much nonsense. 

[Opus Magnus]

The experiment makes sense to me. *snip* Sorry buddy, sometimes you just get me worked up. It makes sense to combine these things to me. Maybe it is like the double slit experiment.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Saru
Removed drama

[Saru]

Thread cleaned

Keep it civil please folks.

[Opus Magnus]

A

7 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Where is this "laws of forgiveness for ignorance" in quantum physics? You brought it up.

As I was trying to say. Before, the laws of forgiveness for ignorance are in the Torah. With the uncertainty principle the observer is always ignorant of either the speed or velocity. So, I was using it as an example of forgiveness, and how to forgive the unknown. That seems to be on topic. Because it's quantum physics with the emotional matrix.

[stereologist]

On 12/13/2017 at 10:17 AM, Opus Magnus said:

No, you're just not smart enough to understand it. But most likely you're lying to get your way again and starting another problem.

Sorry, but you did show that you had no idea what is the situation. I believe you made guesses. You guessed wrong. No problem.You can learn the material.

Quote

Because the experiment raises a moral question.

No.

Quote

This thought experiment can be used as an example for people. It was meant to be shocking to show moral implications. That's the whole point, it's like a parable. It shows how are you going to value life while you try to think of both the velocity and position. Are you going to keep thinking about it, or save the life?

No.

Quote

As I was trying to say. Before, the laws of forgiveness for ignorance are in the Torah. With the uncertainty principle the observer is always ignorant of either the speed or velocity. So, I was using it as an example of forgiveness, and how to forgive the unknown. That seems to be on topic. Because it's quantum physics with the emotional matrix.

No.

Edited December 21, 2017 by stereologist