It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is Decoherence?

page: 11
7
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

You said:

You however believe we are all brains in a vat hooked up to one another or something like this. I dont know, I know you will throw a hissy fit for me making such a relavent assumption which at least analogously equals any of what your stance of belief equates to, which will give you justification of not answering what I am about to say here which is; just state what you do believe.

You do realize we're on a Science forum? Why should I debate against your inane ramblings that mean nothing? You don't provide any Scientific Evidence to support what you say.

Show me where I stated any of the things you're debating against.

You never present Scientific Evidence and you never quote what you're responding so you just make things up as you go.




posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

I don't think he is saying that at all. I think it is more like: without the mind, nothing exists, as the mind is fundamental -- it is just that you all are trying to force him to say "matter and mind are separate, therefor... he's wrong."



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bleeeeep

without the mind, nothing exists, as the mind is fundamental -- it is just that you all are trying to force him to say "matter and mind are separate, therefor... he's wrong."


Let me try to break it down. These are the things that we are arguing over and their hypothetical and possible existence and potentially our ability to know their existence (nothing 'exists' but it doesnt, we can attempt to clarify that one, but for the time being, ignore 'nothing')


Something.


Nothing.


Mind.


Non mind.



You are saying;

Everything = Mind.

You are saying;

There is nothing that is not Mind.

Yes?

Before we go any further, define; Mind.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: ImaFungi

I would think of it not as everything exists in the mind but more like the mind is fundamental to all that does exist.

Just as you cannot have water without hydrogen and oxygen: reality is physical (body) spiritual (will/exerted will/force) and soul (awareness/consciousness/psyche).

You need consciousness to determine the will of the body.

Exerted will=force


This is exactly what I've been saying. Without consciousness it goes even deeper based on the Scientific Evidence presented. What we call "reality" is an extension of consciousness. They can't be separated. There's no evidence that material reality has an objective existence independent of consciousness.

When a quantum system is measured, the information becomes entangled with the measuring device, the measuring device is entangled with the experimenter and the information becomes entangled with all of space.

So the entire universe observes a measurement that occurs. This measurement becomes an observed history of that environment(universe).

You then have self observation.

Without self observation the universe couldn't exist. This is consciousness.

So it has nothing to do with closing your eyes and something doesn't exist. This shows a total lack of understanding of Science. I'm saying it wouldn't exist in the first place without consciousness. There's no evidence that a material universe can exist or even form if consciousness didn't exist to experience it.


In his paper, "Non-computability of Consciousness," Daegene Song proves human consciousness cannot be computed. Song arrived at his conclusion through quantum computer research in which he showed there is a unique mechanism in human consciousness that no computing device can simulate.

"Among conscious activities, the unique characteristic of self-observation cannot exist in any type of machine," Song explained. "Human thought has a mechanism that computers cannot compute or be programmed to do."

Song's work also shows consciousness is not like other physical systems like neurons, atoms or galaxies. "If consciousness cannot be represented in the same way all other physical systems are represented, it may not be something that arises out of a physical system like the brain," said Song. "The brain and consciousness are linked together, but the brain does not produce consciousness. Consciousness is something altogether different and separate. The math doesn't lie."


www.prnewswire.com...



The reason you don't see any scientific evidence from many of the posters on this thread is because there isn't any scientific evidence. Materialism is a pipe dream that explains NOTHING.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Isn't the opposite of coherence, incoherence?




posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

I think that is his interpretation. That there is a nonphysical existence which manifests "physical" existence. He think physical is nonphysical, yet is.

Me? I think physicality is physicality but will determines its form, or rather, determined will determines its form. Think about physical, though, as forces perceived as forms and forms as forces willed/determined. That is, you cannot separate them as you're trying to do - you have to get away from the physical/nonphysical ideology.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: neoholographic

Isn't the opposite of coherence, incoherence?





Exactly, and we're seeing a lot of incoherent babble without a shred of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

Does anyone try to source what they're saying anymore? It's just inane ramblings about their subjective beliefs.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I know what you're trying to say.


It is just a complete paradigm shift to think such a way.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
Materialism is a pipe dream that explains NOTHING.


If the mind exists; But the mind is not material; how does the mind exist, what is the mind, what is the mind made of?



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

What are forces or fields made of? Force carriers? Do forces have a physical existence?

Are we all not just interpreting forces, how those forces feel? And feel is our interpretation/measurements made by observer? Is what we feel different from what is imaged? Is it different from physicality?

You are trying to force separation.
edit on 6/14/2015 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
That there is a nonphysical existence which manifests "physical" existence.


Define; 'physical'.

My definition of physical is; "That which is not nothing".

So 'nonphysical' would be; Nothing.

So how does; nothing, manifest something?



He think physical is nonphysical, yet is.



Hmmm, sorry not sorry but this doesnt seem like it could be correct in any comprehension of terminology and semantics.

The apparent truth is that he is thinking the opposite of truth.

The truth is the mind is what is 'borderline non physical', but only in terms of its ability to simulate 'physically impossible, non causal things'.




Me? I think physicality is physicality but will determines its form, or rather, determined will determines its form. Think about physical, though, as forces perceived as forms and forms as forces willed/determined. That is, you cannot separate them as you're trying to do - you have to get away from the physical/nonphysical ideology.


No clue what you mean by this.

You start from the conclusion that; God exists.

So you say; God created nature.

So you say; all physicality is the product of will.

The question is; are you certain God created nature, can you possibly be wrong in your conclusion?

And if you are wrong, would that mean that; not all physicality is determined by will?



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Why does the mind need to be made of anything? Again, Scientist are looking at the wave function as a non physical reality.

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography

arxiv.org...

Why does the mind need to be made of something material? The mind just exists. What is observation made of? What is non locality made of? What are quantum states made of? What is information made of? What is the wave function made of?

If there's no separation why does it need to be made of something material?

edit on 14-6-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bleeeeep

What are forces or fields made of? Force carriers? Do forces have a physical existence?

Are we all not just interpreting forces, how those forces feel? And feel is our interpretation/measurements made by observer? Is what we feel different from what is imaged? Is it different from physicality?

You are trying to force separation.


There is reality. And there is; What man thinks he knows about reality.

Something is always something. Nothing is always nothing.

If something exists in a moment, something exists in a moment.

If forces have a physical existence, they do.

There has only ever been; what has existed, what exists, and what will exist.

The nature of consciousness opens the door of 'potential', free will, to alter the present to alter the future.

Also the nature of abstract concepts make my statements a little different, such as the nature of eternal ideal geometry and math. Are they 'somethings' which 'exist', but this has been debated for thousands of years and maybe will be debated eternally... but if that latter were the case, might the debate be settled by saying 'in some sense they 'exist' even if they dont exist, because as everything has changed for eternity we are debating about this same changeless concepts? That is why plato thought the ideal geometric forms were the only true things that did exist, even though apparently they didnt exist at all. Quite cool, Plato was rad.
edit on 14-6-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic


Why does the mind need to be made of anything?


Because that which is not made of anything is nothing.

That which is nothing does not exist.

You cannot say; 'the mind exists'

If the mind is only nothing.

Only nothing, cannot be a mind.

Only nothing has no attributes, quantities or qualities.

Mind, has attributes.

Mind has potential and abilities and qualities.

Nothing has nothing is nothing has nothing always nothing nothing nothing.

If there is; Mind

Mind, is something.


This is a pure distinction so I will let you respond to it, before I answer your rapid fire questions at the bottom of that post, which are good and great ones, but lets take this first thing first, and then I will answer those.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Wow, more nonsense!

Do you know what Scientific Evidence means? You said:

Something is always something. Nothing is always nothing.

Show me the scientific evidence that supports this.

The most you can say is your perception of something is always something to you. You haven't presented a SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that says what that something is or that something has an objective existence outside of your perception.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: ImaFungi

Wow, more nonsense!

Do you know what Scientific Evidence means? You said:

Something is always something. Nothing is always nothing.

Show me the scientific evidence that supports this.

The most you can say is your perception of something is always something to you. You haven't presented a SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that says what that something is or that something has an objective existence outside of your perception.



These are a priori definitions of words. This is math. 1=1. 0=0. Something = Something. Nothing = Nothing.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

You said:

Because that which is not made of anything is nothing.

No it's not, IT'S JUST NOT MATERIAL AND DOESN'T HAVE AN OBJECTIVE EXISTENCE OUTSIDE OF CONSCIOUSNESS.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: ImaFungi

Wow, more nonsense!

Do you know what Scientific Evidence means? You said:

Something is always something. Nothing is always nothing.

Show me the scientific evidence that supports this.

The most you can say is your perception of something is always something to you. You haven't presented a SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that says what that something is or that something has an objective existence outside of your perception.



These are a priori definitions of words. This is math. 1=1. 0=0. Something = Something. Nothing = Nothing.


Show me with SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that what you perceive as something has an objective existence outside of your perception. I have showed you with Scientific Evidence that this is subjective and we see this down to Planck scales.

This entire thread, you haven't presented a shred of scientific evidence to support anything you're saying.

Will we get more inane rambling or some scientific evidence? My money's on more inane rambling.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: ImaFungi

You said:

Because that which is not made of anything is nothing.

No it's not, IT'S JUST NOT MATERIAL AND DOESN'T HAVE AN OBJECTIVE EXISTENCE OUTSIDE OF CONSCIOUSNESS.




I am writing an awful lot (would be funny if I left the potential for you to say; 'no you are writing a lot of awful', but this is me collapsing that wave function) for you to be cherry picking 1 statement at whim, which I still have no problem defending as I will do now, but there is just a lot more you seem to be ignoring, but ok here we go;

Nothing, by definition, is nothing. It has no attributes or abilities, it does not exist, in any way (there is one way it does exist, but its only 'existence' is the existence of non existence, which is non existence).

If you say; There is a thing that exists, but it is made of only nothing.

Then it is not a thing that exists, it is only nothing.

If there is such thing as 'Mind'; Mind cannot be only nothing.

edit on 14-6-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

I'll just say:

Show me with SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that what you perceive as something has an objective existence outside of your perception. I have showed you with Scientific Evidence that this is subjective and we see this down to Planck scales.

This is a scientific forum and you're just rambling with no science to back anything you say. It all sounds like gibberish.

Nothing, by definition, is nothing. It has no attributes or abilities, it does not exist, in any way (there is one way it does exist, but its only 'existence' is the existence of non existence, which is non existence).

This has nothing to do with the thread or science. It's just incoherent nonsense.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join