Hypothetical Discussion: Telekinesis

[Rlyeh]

14 minutes ago, Wes4747 said:

Were "machines" actually altering by physical contact that which they were measuring?

And what is measurement if not a mental construct?

Define "physical contact" with a point particle, a particle that has no volume.

Ok decoherence then, a quantum system takes on a state when losing information to the environment (or another system), no need for consciousness, observers, or measurements, they only the make results easier to interpret. The words observer and measurement are used because that's how it was explained historically. 

Edited August 9, 2017 by Rlyeh

[Wes4747]

45 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Define "physical contact" with a point particle, a particle that has no volume.

Ok decoherence then, a quantum system takes on a state when losing information to the environment (or another system), no need for consciousness, observers, or measurements, they only the make results easier to interpret. The words observer and measurement are used because that's how it was explained historically. 

Oh

[papageorge1]

10 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Because it's convoluted, unverifiable and a throw back to vitalism. Explain what this different effect is.

This rejection of the established scientific field of Quantum Physics sounds like science denial.

10 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Have you paid attention to anything I've said? I'm rejecting your quantum quackery.

I haven't communicated much with you. I have not tried to tie in Quantum Physics with telekinesis.

[Rlyeh]

6 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

This rejection of the established scientific field of Quantum Physics sounds like science denial.

I haven't communicated much with you. I have not tried to tie in Quantum Physics with telekinesis.

Ignorance on your behalf. No matter how many times you regurgitate it, quantum mysticism isn't an established scientific field.

[papageorge1]

4 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Ignorance on your behalf. No matter how many times you regurgitate it, quantum mysticism isn't an established scientific field.

Do you distinguish a difference between 'Quantum Physics' and 'Quantum Mysticism'?

[Rlyeh]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

Do you distinguish a difference between 'Quantum Physics' and 'Quantum Mysticism'?

If you've read my comments that should be obvious. Quantum mysticism including this consciousness causes collapse isn't testable..

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

If you've read my comments that should be obvious. Quantum mysticism including this consciousness causes collapse isn't testable..

If you read my question, you didn't answer it.

[Rlyeh]

5 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

If you read my question, you didn't answer it.

If I'm separating quantum physics from quantum mysticism, can you work out the answer? Why are you asking the blatantly obvious?

Edited August 9, 2017 by Rlyeh

[Wes4747]

6 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

If you've read my comments that should be obvious. Quantum mysticism including this consciousness causes collapse isn't testable..

So are you stating that decoherence is responsible for light behaving as particles or waves in the double-slit experiment?

And if not, then what?

Are you aware that a biased scientist performing an experiment can actually affect the outcome?

[papageorge1]

3 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

If I'm separating quantum physics from quantum mysticism, can you work out the answer? Why are you asking the blatantly obvious?

Although not really clear, I take it that you reject the science of 'Quantum Physics'.

[Rlyeh]

15 minutes ago, Wes4747 said:

So are you stating that decoherence is responsible for light behaving as particles or waves in the double-slit experiment?

And if not, then what?

Are you aware that a biased scientist performing an experiment can actually affect the outcome?

Yes. Photons leak information to the environment, rather than being in a state of superposition they behave particle like.

You realise many of these experiments have been done with computers? The consciousness causes collapse invokes chains to explain away non-human and non-conscious "observers". That virtually means the computer doesn't have a result of the experiment until you look.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Rlyeh

[Rlyeh]

6 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Although not really clear, I take it that you reject the science of 'Quantum Physics'.

Nope. If I did why would I be talking about non-human/non-conscious "observers" in quantum physics?

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

That virtually means the computer doesn't have a result of the experiment until you look.

To me that is what quantum physics indicates. Spooky to our way of thinking about things in the  Newtonian world. 

As opposed to what you don't believe, what do you think explains these strange events?

[XenoFish]

So how does thought affect objective reality?

[trevor borocz johnson]

8 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

So how does thought affect objective reality?

I've maybe noticed that my thoughts seemed to control a flickering light or a computer that freezes up. I especially got mad once that my music was flickering along with thoughts I was having as if something outside of me was controlling that.

Lately I've been hearing the sounds of flutes playing one or two notes for long periods of times when all I have on is my fans.

[XenoFish]

Yeah you're the guy with hearing problems.

[papageorge1]

22 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

So how does thought affect objective reality?

IMO, We are thinking about things in a bottom-up way instead of a top-down way. Consciousness creates our material reality as opposed to the material creating consciousness.

Consciousness is primary and the material is a derivative of consciousness

Versus

Matter is primary and consciousness is a derivative of matter

Quantum physics argues for the primacy of consciousness as Max Planck one of the fathers of quantum physics maintained.

 

 

[trevor borocz johnson]

32 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Yeah you're the guy with hearing problems.

Yeah and I've experienced a lot of what is out there that people lable paranormal science, and the closest thing to telekinesis I've experienced is something bothering me by flickering my computers at very unusual moments that seemed to corelate with my thoughts. Have you had any telekinetic experiences?

Also I might believe one can control bugs with the mind. Not sure how its done though.

Edited August 9, 2017 by trevorhbj

[papageorge1]

I found the quote from Max Planck that I was looking for earlier:

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.

• As quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)

[Rlyeh]

10 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

IMO, We are thinking about things in a bottom-up way instead of a top-down way. Consciousness creates our material reality as opposed to the material creating consciousness.

Consciousness is primary and the material is a derivative of consciousness

Versus

Matter is primary and consciousness is a derivative of matter

Quantum physics argues for the primacy of consciousness as Max Planck one of the fathers of quantum physics maintained.

 

 

Quantum physics says nothing about consciousness, rather all you have are opinions from 80 years ago.

[Rlyeh]

11 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

To me that is what quantum physics indicates. Spooky to our way of thinking about things in the  Newtonian world. 

As opposed to what you don't believe, what do you think explains these strange events?

Because it fits your confirmation bias. Decoherence explains how quantum systems are affected without the convoluted reasoning of consciousness causes collapse.

[Rlyeh]

6 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I found the quote from Max Planck that I was looking for earlier:

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.

• As quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)

This is called an opinion. Why do you reject scientific research?

[Wes4747]

29 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

This is called an opinion. Why do you reject scientific research?

 

Just to catch everyone up on some terminology, I offer this quote from someone who understands this much better than me.. Doesnt do much for tk, but very cool.

In different interpretations of quantum mechanics the definition of "measurement" is different. But I think it would be enough if I give just five of which you can choose yourself.

• In Copenhagen/von Neuman interpretations the collapse of the wave function is triggered by the observer. This person has the special property which no other object in universe is capable of. In Copenhagen interpretation the collapse can be triggered by any system which is connected to the observer, including the measurement apparatus and external medium (if the observer is not isolated from it). All things can be arbitrarily divided into the observed system and the measuring system by so-called "Heisenberg cut" with the only requirement the measuring system include the observer.

• The von Neuman interpretation is the edge case of Copenhagen interpretation where the Heisenberg cut is placed as close to the observer as possible. As such even the parts of his brain still be be considered the part of the observed system. In von Neuman interpretation the collapse of the wave function happens when the observer feels any qualia(feeling) depended on the measured value.

• In Bohm interpretation the collapse of the wave function happens when the observer introduces into the measured system some perturbation, which is inevitable when performing the measurement. The difference between the measurement and any other interaction is in that the perturbation introduced by measurement is unknown beforehand. This is because initial conditions of a system containing the observer are unknown. In other words, the observer always contains information which is unknown and cannot be determined by any means due to self-reference problem. Thomas Breuer called this phenomenon "subjective decoherence". The philosophers believe that this unpredictability of the system containing the observer for himself, defines the free will.

• In Relational interpretation the collapse happens when the interaction affects the ultimate measurement performed by ultimate observer on the universal wave function at infinite future. As such, for the collapse to happen the result of interaction should somehow affect the external medium, the stars, etc, either now or in the future, rather than being recohered and lost.

• In Many-worlds interpretation the wavefunction collapse never happens. Instead what the observer perceives as the collapse is just the event of entanglement of the observer with the observed system.

• https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35328/why-does-observation-collapse-the-wave-function

[Rlyeh]

59 minutes ago, Wes4747 said:

 

Just to catch everyone up on some terminology, I offer this quote from someone who understands this much better than me.. Doesnt do much for tk, but very cool.

In different interpretations of quantum mechanics the definition of "measurement" is different. But I think it would be enough if I give just five of which you can choose yourself.

• In Copenhagen/von Neuman interpretations the collapse of the wave function is triggered by the observer. This person has the special property which no other object in universe is capable of. In Copenhagen interpretation the collapse can be triggered by any system which is connected to the observer, including the measurement apparatus and external medium (if the observer is not isolated from it). All things can be arbitrarily divided into the observed system and the measuring system by so-called "Heisenberg cut" with the only requirement the measuring system include the observer.

• The von Neuman interpretation is the edge case of Copenhagen interpretation where the Heisenberg cut is placed as close to the observer as possible. As such even the parts of his brain still be be considered the part of the observed system. In von Neuman interpretation the collapse of the wave function happens when the observer feels any qualia(feeling) depended on the measured value.

• In Bohm interpretation the collapse of the wave function happens when the observer introduces into the measured system some perturbation, which is inevitable when performing the measurement. The difference between the measurement and any other interaction is in that the perturbation introduced by measurement is unknown beforehand. This is because initial conditions of a system containing the observer are unknown. In other words, the observer always contains information which is unknown and cannot be determined by any means due to self-reference problem. Thomas Breuer called this phenomenon "subjective decoherence". The philosophers believe that this unpredictability of the system containing the observer for himself, defines the free will.

• In Relational interpretation the collapse happens when the interaction affects the ultimate measurement performed by ultimate observer on the universal wave function at infinite future. As such, for the collapse to happen the result of interaction should somehow affect the external medium, the stars, etc, either now or in the future, rather than being recohered and lost.

• In Many-worlds interpretation the wavefunction collapse never happens. Instead what the observer perceives as the collapse is just the event of entanglement of the observer with the observed system.

• https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35328/why-does-observation-collapse-the-wave-function

It should be pointed out Niels Bohr (one of the founders of the Copenhagen interpretation) never saw that it's the observer that collapses the wave function. In fact the wave function was merely a mathematical concept and not physically real.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/

 

Edited August 10, 2017 by Rlyeh

[papageorge1]

9 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Quantum physics says nothing about consciousness, rather all you have are opinions from 80 years ago.

I have studied things like the double-slit experiment and opinions from 2017. 

Some people do not like the metaphysical implications of this and will fight forever. Post-materialist science looks like the leading edge of this century science to me.