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: 15
7
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You are so wrong, but you are most wrong for not letting me prove you wrong.

When I started responding in this thread maybe even on the first page, I started with questions, that are the beginning of a linear process, of proving you wrong.

You did not want to play fair. You did not want to have an honest discussion. You have your false conclusion and you are sticking with it. I can prove your beliefs wrong. You do not want me to. You will not let me. I will no longer try. The world will be worse for it, because you are an ignorance that has the ability to infect others with your ignorance. Enjoy your ignorant bliss, its all youve ever wanted, its all you will get.




posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi




You did not want to have an honest discussion. You have your false conclusion and you are sticking with it.


Lol.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: tzarchasm
a reply to: neoholographic


Again I ask, where's the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that a material objective reality that we call the universe can exists independent of consciousness?


you can start here.

plenty of information regarding the formation of our planet and galaxy, all of which happened BEFORE the presence of life forms, so far as the scientific record indicates. if you dont trust the information, by all means, do some fact checking. but please do that fact checking before you continue this pointless argument.


A CONSCIOUS OBSERVER HAS A CHOICE as to which observable of the wave function will be measured. Prior to that CHOICE there isn't any observed material reality.


please quote the article where CHOICE is said to be a confirmed factor. seems to me like you are making leaps and adjustments to keep your theory - sorry, i mean hypothesis afloat. stuff doesnt pop in and out of existence when we blink, the world doesnt fade into oblivion when we go to sleep, and there isnt a vast empty void outside our sphere of observation waiting to be filled in by a cognizant passerby. planets and galaxies and shooting stars and moons and trees and houses and all the little particles that make them all up, all continue to exist without concern for us or what we "perceive".


Again, the only reason you can say that plenty planets formed before lifeforms is because of Consciousness. There's no SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that a material universe can exist independent of consciousness. The Wiki artilcle you linked to just confirms what I'm saying. It wouldn't be there and the universe wouldn't have an objective material existence without Consciousness. Consciousness has to exists or universes can't form. Is there any evidence of a material universe forming where consciousness doesn't exist to give the universe it's existence?

I just showed you through things like the free will theorem and the subjective universe from Physicist Daegene Song. This is just basic quantum mechanics.

There's no measured state prior to the OBSERVERS CHOICE to carry out a measurement and the Conscious Observer can choose the state they want to measure.

You're the one that has to provide the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that a measurement exists prior to the Conscious Observers CHOICE.

Herein lies another problem of materialist. Determinism. They can't account for consciousness or CHOICE so they go to these ASININE extremes to try and avoid choice but they can't.

When I wake up in the morning and make a CHOICE to watch ESPN, some would say I never made that choice. A bunch of universes with different versions of me all made different choices so no version of me actually made a choice. This is just ASININE but it's belief.

The Physicist David Deutsch said in his book The Fabric of Reality that he likes many worlds because in his mind it reduces the role of Consciousness.

Again, they will accept a bunch of material universes and a global wave function with no physical basis and no experimental evidence. It goes back to the article I posted earlier.

Cosmic Confusion: Talk of Multiverses and Big Errors in Astrophysics


Priyamvada Natarajan, a professor of astronomy and physics at Yale University who studies exotic matter in the universe, emphasized how the deck seems stacked against a universe that is hospitable to life.

"The fact is that you need about six numbers to describe all the properties of our universe — the past, present, future. And we can measure [those numbers] to varying degrees of accuracy. And if any of these numbers actually departed even very slightly from what we measure them to be, then life would not have been possible," Natarajan said. "So there's a real fine tuning problem. […] Things have to be just so to have the universe that we have."

"One of the reasons why the multiverse argument actually appeals to me is actually there is no room for agency or deities or any such thing," she said. "I must say that personally I am not uncomfortable with the idea of a multiverse."


www.space.com...

The fact is this. Science found that the universe was fine tuned for life and so they had to come up with all these universes that can't be measured or observed and can't explain how the constants of nature arose naturally.

These ABSURD things only make sense to TRUE BELIEVERS.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


Again, the only reason you can say that plenty planets formed before lifeforms is because of Consciousness. There's no SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that a material universe can exist independent of consciousness. The Wiki artilcle you linked to just confirms what I'm saying. It wouldn't be there and the universe wouldn't have an objective material existence without Consciousness. Consciousness has to exists or universes can't form. Is there any evidence of a material universe forming where consciousness doesn't exist to give the universe it's existence?


so if i take a rock, etch my name into it, then bury it several feet deep on a deserted island and then i go away and die years later without ever telling a single soul, that rock wont be there if someone digs in the right spot?

and in answer to your question: yes. i just posted the link. i will do so again here. your CHOICE to remain an ignoramus does not affect the reality of the data i shared, which is conclusive evidence that material reality leads to consciousness and not the other way around. no one was there to "imagine" or "observe" any galaxy into being, nor any of the particles which comprise them. speaking of choices...i now choose to refuse you the privilege of wasting my time further. deuces.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: tzarchasm

You didn't post anything that refutes anything I'm saying.

You posted a link that says NOTHING as it pertains to decoherence, quantum states, the wave function, quantum theory, the free will theorem, the vacuum catastrophe, the axis of evil in Cosmology or anything else that has been discussed in this thread.

Posting a link without any explanation or without any posting of the relevant parts of the link that add to your position or refute mine is just A BIG NOTHING BURGER!!

You posted a link to a Wiki article titled:

Timeline of the evolutionary history of life

I suspect you didn't post any of the relevant parts because there isn't any relevant parts pertaining to this discussion.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING IN THIS THREAD.

This is why you blindly posted a link and basically said Go Fish for some meaning to the link you posted as it pertains to this thread.

edit on 15-6-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: tzarchasm




so if i take a rock, etch my name into it, then bury it several feet deep on a deserted island and then i go away and die years later without ever telling a single soul, that rock wont be there if someone digs in the right spot?


Are you being obtuse on purpose? Noone is saying that our material reality as we know it is any different, the rules are still the same, it just works a bit differently behind the scenes.

How many times do these simple minded arguments need to be adressed?
edit on 15-6-2015 by HotMale because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: HotMale
a reply to: ImaFungi




You did not want to have an honest discussion. You have your false conclusion and you are sticking with it.


Lol.



To the eternal jury made up of the grandest intelligences, who may be reading this at any time in the future; please note the last few replies I made to this creature; 'hotmale', and all my replies to them throughout this thread. Please note, that I have presented to them statements and questions which have gone unanswered and that instead of attempting to discuss them, this hotmale, has chosen to quote this particular meaningless phrase. Conclude what you will. You know my nature, you know I only seek Truth, and discussion therein and thereof, we know we have pity with each other battling the essence of ignorance, you know I dont have much options at this point, as I have stated so many great points in this thread, that if paid attention to would lead to very intriguing discussions. You easily witness that these two characters are stating the same simple concepts over and over again, you easily acknowledge that I understand and know what they are saying, but am attempting to state more and more in regards to what they are saying and everything they are not. That I know everything they know and more. We know this, we know this is all I can do. I appreciate your sigh, best of luck.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Make a single statement (or more) that you believe is your knowledge, that you believe might be, or is true.

We cant possibly have a discussion or argument, if you do not think that you believe information, that I believe is false.

So state; a line of statement; which you believe is true, that you believe I believe is false.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi




To the eternal jury made up of the grandest intelligences, who may be reading this at any time in the future; please note the last few replies I made to this creature; 'hotmale',


Eternal jury? Like some sort of consciousness that exists outside of this world?




Lol


Yes, lol.




You did not want to have an honest discussion. You have your false conclusion and you are sticking with it.


Aw, and your intention was to have a perfectly honest discussion about his false conclusion that he is sticking to.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: HotMale

Eternal jury? Like some sort of consciousness that exists outside of this world?


No, like, there is the potential that the information of this conversation will exist eternally (or relatively eternally, it was slightly exaggerated but still).

Moreover, in less than hundred years, and then after that, if increasingly advanced AI are created, you know eventually there may exist some that can 'read' the entire contents of the history of the internet in 'like a year or something', so I was speaking to them. But I was more so speaking to you. Because they would know all of this and that. I was more so letting you know that I hold my self to extremely high standards in terms of philosophy and the seeking of truth, I go about discussions, every one, as if I were being watched by the totality of intelligence and intelligences far superior to my own. I do not argue superfluously or for emotions. Only with the attempt to destroy ignorance, embody and propagate truth, and attempt to further my knowledge.





Aw, and your intention was to have a perfectly honest discussion about his false conclusion that he is sticking to.


I always am perfectly honest. I always desire perfectly honest discussion. I abhor liars and dishonesty. I only seek truth. I have acted at no point in this thread dishonestly. If he has a false conclusion, I can honestly discuss its falsity. His behavior was bad. He did not want to have an honest discussion. If you were honest you would be able to see that. He has conclusions, and he will not hear any attempts at which they can be proven false. I never attempted to prove his conclusions false with one post or one statement. After every single one of my posts, he would not even attempt to argue what I was saying, he would claim I was automatically wrong, even for my mode of arguing, which was only ever the first minimal attempt in a 'who knows how long' process of seeing what can be known about our stances. This is called fear. He has his conclusions, and he is sticking to them. If you were honest you would see and know this.

If he was confident, he would have answered every one of my questions, proving my efforts futile, proving me wrong. Instead, he did not attempt to answer any of my questions, but only ad hominemed them in the same repetitive manner time and time again. That is not the behavior of someone who is confident in their conclusion. I do not know if he attempted to answer a single one of my questions. A lot of my good points, he claimed to not even have read, and then quoted an out of context portion as 'proof' that I was speaking non sense.

The totality of superior intelligences is on my side. I am attempting honest discussion. He has a conclusion on poster board and is chanting it over and over. There is nothing meaningful about that.

Do you think I do not know his conclusion? Do you think I am incapable of understanding why he holds it? Do you think I can not hold his conclusion in my mind just as well as he can, and look at it, and chant it to my self?

It doesnt matter how you answer that, the truth is I have, and I can.

My entire purpose of writing even one post in this thread, is to start the process of showing him, that his conclusion is not the only thing and way to think.

I can think the exact conclusion and ideas he has in his head, in my head; but also a lot of other things.

His fear to have an honest discussion with me, proves that he is afraid that his conclusion might be false. He would not behave the way he did. Writing the same thing over and over again, after I wrote novel post after novel post of interesting information.

Ad hominem all you want, it is meaningless and valueless of you to do so. It only goes to show that you care more about your emotions and how you perceive yourself than truth.
edit on 15-6-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I’m sure this post will piss-off a number of folks here. But, it’s my honest opinion, and I felt I should express it.

This thread not only doesn’t belong in a science forum, it doesn’t even merit acceptance in a philosophy or metaphysics forum. Perhaps in a “Science Misfits” forum or a “Bad Philosophy” forum it might have a leg to stand on. But I don’t think ATS has one of those.

I came back to this thread to possibly include some thoughts on problems with decoherence and the measurement problem, inconsistencies with spacetime and quantum gravity, and problems that arise when considering a universal quantum state. The question posed by the OP is a very good one, and is deserving of discussion. After reading the last 4 pages, though, I’ve decided there’s no point in it. Nothing “scientific” going on here.

It’s not that I have a problem with unconventional, out-of-the-box, thinking, as long as there is some substance to back it up. But this “I’m right - You’re an idiot” attitude going back and forth doesn’t resolve anything, and only amounts to emotional diatribe. The link you posted to space.com about the Vacuum Catastrophe, neoholographic, didn’t validate a thing you’re saying. It made no assertions about consciousness as it relates to reality. It simply insinuated that perhaps our understanding of nature/physics is screwed up and that there may be things we will never be able to compute/calculate. Gimme a break. I thought we all knew that! Who ever said that human beings are even remotely capable of understanding everything there is to know? Only ignorance, or shameless arrogance, would lead to such a conclusion; traits, I’m afraid, we humans share in abundance. Maybe someone here has discovered the true essence of reality. If so, then I believe that makes you an island, surrounded by a sea of misguided fools. To make such a claim, it seems to me, is not the result of reasoned, rational thought. And as far as the notion of a quantum consciousness goes, it’s an old idea that has yet to gain significant support amongst the greater scientific community, but makes for great, sensational print in mainstream mags. Personally, I think the idea that material reality exists only when consciously observed is a load. It seems to me quite arrogant to think human interaction has such a sweeping influence. Observation is not an exclusively human event, and decoherence does not demand human participation.

Just because others may have a different point of view is not justification to ridicule them. After all, it may well turn out that you’re wrong.

I’m outta here. Nothing “scientific” worth posting. To me, this thread no longer exists...

PS: Your argument about “choice”, neoholographic, is easily refutable. A choice is often initiated via many influences; interpretation of incoming sensory information, strengthened neural pathways due to repititious, rewarded behavior, blah, blah, blah... You’re making a mountain out of a mole hill. Your choice to watch ESPN is not a mystical event. This repititious behavior can be easily simulated in a simple neural network.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi





Moreover, in less than hundred years, and then after that, if increasingly advanced AI are created, you know eventually there may exist some that can 'read' the entire contents of the history of the internet in 'like a year or something', so I was speaking to them. But I was more so speaking to you. Because they would know all of this and that. I was more so letting you know that I hold my self to extremely high standards in terms of philosophy and the seeking of truth, I go about discussions, every one, as if I were being watched by the totality of intelligence and intelligences far superior to my own.


What does your therapist say about this matter?



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: netbound

LOL, nice try.

You come on the thread complaining there's no Science and sadly I agree especially by materialist. I have offered SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support what I'm saying.

You then do the exact same thing that other materialist have done. You start commenting without ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ANYTHING YOU'RE SAYING.

You said:

Your argument about “choice”, neoholographic, is easily refutable. A choice is often initiated via many influences; interpretation of incoming sensory information, strengthened neural pathways due to repititious, rewarded behavior, blah, blah, blah... You’re making a mountain out of a mole hill. Your choice to watch ESPN is not a mystical event. This repititious behavior can be easily simulated in a simple neural network.

This has NOTHING TO DO with the CHOICE of a conscious observer to measure an observable and the free will theorem. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

Tell me, what incoming sensory input, strengthened neural pathways contribute to the observers CHOICE as to which observable they will measure and why this choice can affect how a particle behaved in the past? Again, you need to read the thread again because nothing you're talking about has anything to do with what I'm saying.

The Vacuum Catastrophe supports everything I'm saying and it shows why materialism can't give you a natural explanation as to how these things arise.

It's not saying that Scientist don't know so it must be X. It's saying it's not possible to explain these things in a Scientific way with materialism. This is why they have to appeal to a multiverse that can't be measured or observed. There's no physical explanation to explain these things. Here's more from the article:

The multiverse explanation for the vacuum energy discrepancy is an example of something called the anthropic principle, Frieman said. This philosophical argument is somewhat circular, and essentially states that the rise of sentient beings in this universe only seems remarkable because sentient beings are there to observe it. Beyond that, the principle dismisses the search for a reason why this universe was tuned to host life.

"My colleagues and I, we call it the 'A' word," Frieman said. "And [it] may be the explanation for why the vacuum energy is so small. To my mind though, the problem with that approach is that it diverts you from looking for physics-based approaches to problems."


This isn't SCIENCE. It's fantasy. One of the Scientist said this:

"One of the reasons why the multiverse argument actually appeals to me is actually there is no room for agency or deities or any such thing," she said. "I must say that personally I am not uncomfortable with the idea of a multiverse."

She didn't say it appeals to me because it's good science or there's all of this Scientific Evidence. It appeals to her because of her pre-existing belief.

So without all of these universes that somehow give rise naturally to the constants of nature, there's Agency or God. There must be evidence that God or Consciousness fine tuned the universe for life because without the multiverse the evidence says God, Consciousness, Agency, Mind or whatever you want to call it.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Make a single statement (or more) that you believe is your knowledge, that you believe might be, or is true.

We cant possibly have a discussion or argument, if you do not think that you believe information, that I believe is false.

So state; a line of statement; which you believe is true, that you believe I believe is false.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: HotMale
a reply to: ImaFungi





Moreover, in less than hundred years, and then after that, if increasingly advanced AI are created, you know eventually there may exist some that can 'read' the entire contents of the history of the internet in 'like a year or something', so I was speaking to them. But I was more so speaking to you. Because they would know all of this and that. I was more so letting you know that I hold my self to extremely high standards in terms of philosophy and the seeking of truth, I go about discussions, every one, as if I were being watched by the totality of intelligence and intelligences far superior to my own.


What does your therapist say about this matter?


Since you love assumptions, I will assume my avatar picture is the source of more than 0% of your judgement of me, which is not a mistake on my part in any way that can be semantically interpreted. I know everything you know and much more, what can you possibly offer me? There is no non triviality you know, that I am not aware of, what do you think you are doing speaking to me?
edit on 15-6-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
It's not saying that Scientist don't know so it must be X. It's saying it's not possible to explain these things in a Scientific way with materialism.
It's the same thing. You don't know that "it's not possible to explain these things in a Scientific way with materialism." we can only say it hasn't been explained yet. About a century ago there was an "Ultraviolet catastrophe" we didn't know how to explain, but then we figured it out, and the answer had nothing to do with consciousness. We may also figure out the solution to the vacuum catastrophe and again there's no reason to think the solution will have anything to do with consciousness. To suggest this is to make a leap bigger than the grand canyon.


This is why they have to appeal to a multiverse that can't be measured or observed.
You're cherry-picking one person who said that. There's no scientifically confirmed evidence of multiverse.


originally posted by: netbound
Maybe someone here has discovered the true essence of reality. If so, then I believe that makes you an island, surrounded by a sea of misguided fools. To make such a claim, it seems to me, is not the result of reasoned, rational thought. And as far as the notion of a quantum consciousness goes, it’s an old idea that has yet to gain significant support amongst the greater scientific community, but makes for great, sensational print in mainstream mags. Personally, I think the idea that material reality exists only when consciously observed is a load. It seems to me quite arrogant to think human interaction has such a sweeping influence.
Not just arrogant, but also egocentric, as people can think the universe revolves around them and their consciousness.

The worst part is the twisting of the quantum eraser experiment to suggest it infers consciousness when it shows the opposite. See here:

Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness (and the other way around)



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Multiverse theory is very interesting from the context of "Consciousness creates reality". In that it presents another perspective in respect to the culmination of every frame. In this regard it is consciousness that is transcendent of the separation of states in relation to the electron cloud or for that matter distance.

Implied for each off us is that we are akin to facet in a diamond which I find rather fascinating.

Only a conscious observer can interpret data that is common sense, a camera, telescope or satellite, no matter how sophisticated it is, is not capable of interpreting what is being observed.

These comments really are irrelevant.


In so far as I know the matter of Decoherence cannot be completely answered unless one can in detail define the wave structure of objects in question.

Any real world explanation for Decoherence would require a complete comprehension of any object in that sense and that requires such advances.

Without any doubt our referent to external reality is due to internal interactions. We perceive with the senses what the Brain is capable of allowing us to perceive in reality.

I commend you on your effort to not interject your personal beliefs


Any thoughts?
edit on 15-6-2015 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Wow, the post you linked to supports exactly what I'm saying. The main difference is, you and others want to proclaim Consciousness has nothing to do with it but you don't know what consciousness is or how a measurement occurs. The video you posted in that thread is the same you tube video posted earlier that solves nothing. I can post random you tube videos that reach a different conclusion.



Whenever you hear people proclaim, we show consciousness has nothing to do with this or that it's just a lie. They don't even know what consciousness is or how a measurement works yet they claim consciousness has nothing to do with it.

What is the nature of consciousness? How can any Scientist who isn't operated out of belief proclaim consciousness has nothing to do with it when they don't know what consciousness is?

Look at what you said in that post:


It took me a while to figure out that when physicists say "particle" or "particle-like" they are not necessarily inferring marble like objects though this is the impression one might get from seeing sources over-simplified for popular consumption. Quantum mechanics has the wave function at its heart and the key to understanding the quantum eraser is to stop thinking of "particles" as little marbles, and start thinking of them as manifestations of the wave function. The sooner you realize that a photon has very little in common with a small marble, the faster you'll be able to grasp interpretations of quantum experiments using the wave function.


It didn't take me awhile. It's exactly what I've been saying throughout this thread and before this. There's NO SEPARATION. A particle doesn't have an independent objective existence.

It took you awhile, but I'm glad you figured it out.

What have I been saying? People think of particles like grains of sand or salt but all you need to explain these things is wave function/state vectors. Exactly what I've been saying.

The paper you quoted says this:


We first derived a proposition about the relationship between the collapse of the wave function and conscious perception. Our subsequent analysis lead to the conclusion that this proposition is already disproved by the existing empirical results, which forces us to conclude tentatively the following: Conscious access to the information about the outcome of a measurement of a quantum state is not necessary for the collapse of wave function– –conclusion similar to those suggested else- where (Mandel, 1999; Zeilinger, 1999a; Brukner and Zeilinger, 2002).


I never made such a claim. I never said Conscious access to the information about the outcome is necessary to collapse the wave function.

I said the outcome could never occur without consciousness. This is why I talked about the Free Will Theorem and Physicist Daegene Song and the Subjective Universe.

So a Conscious Observer knowing spin up/spin down or which path information creates reality because that state had no objective MATERIAL existence until the Conscious Observer made a CHOICE.

It took you a while to figure out that particles didn't have a marble like existence so it may take you a few years to grasp what QM says because you're still trying to hold onto materialism which is just irrational based on current scientific understanding.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Good points:


In so far as I know the matter of Decoherence cannot be completely answered unless one can in detail define the wave structure of objects in question.

Any real world explanation for Decoherence would require a complete comprehension of any object in that sense and that requires such advances.

Without any doubt our referent to external reality is due to internal interactions. We perceive with the senses what the Brain is capable of allowing us to perceive in reality.

I commend you on your effort to not interject your personal beliefs


This is why when people throw around decoherence they usually do it without understanding what decoherence says and what it doesn't say.

Decoherence still leaves you with probabilities and no explanation why when a measurement occurs you just see one state. It says there's no measurement or wave function collapse but we see both of these things in experiments.

Decoherence is important but people sadly try to use it as a catch-all.



posted on Jun, 15 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Material = non nothing.

You = non nothing.

You = material.

Material = material reality

Material reality exists.

Attempt to express one at a time, or all at a time, which one of those statements is false. And I will show you how what you say is false.
edit on 15-6-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join