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: 8
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT MATTER DOES NOT EXIST BEYOND YOUR PERCEPTION OF IT, YOU CAN ONLY PROVE THAT YOU DO NOT PERCEIVE ANYTHING.

YOU PROVING THAT YOU DO NOT PERCEIVE ANYTHING, IS NOT PROOF THAT NOTHING EXISTS.




posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: neoholographic


YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT MATTER DOES NOT EXIST BEYOND YOUR PERCEPTION OF IT, YOU CAN ONLY PROVE THAT YOU DO NOT PERCEIVE ANYTHING.

YOU PROVING THAT YOU DO NOT PERCEIVE ANYTHING, IS NOT PROOF THAT NOTHING EXISTS.



Why should I prove that matter exists beyond my perception of it when there isn't any SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that says it does?

If you have the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that says matter can exist independent of consciousness then let's see the evidence.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

Why should I prove that matter exists beyond my perception of it when there isn't any SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that says it does?


I didnt say you SHOULD I said you CANT.

Therefore you cant say matter does not exist beyond your perception, because you dont know if it does.


You say;

I cant see matter when I am not seeing matter, therefore when I am not seeing matter, matter does not exist.

I say;

You dont know if matter exists that you cannot see, so you cannot say that matter does not exist, you can only say that you cannot see matter.

Therefore you must admit, it is possible matter exists when your eyes are closed. Because when your eyes are closed, you cannot prove that matter does not exist beyond your eyes, because your method of proving is with your eyes, and your method of proving is turned off in that moment.





If you have the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that says matter can exist independent of consciousness then let's see the evidence.


You are not talking about reality, you are talking about knowledge.

There is no scientific evidence knowledge of matter can exist independent of consciousness.

There is no argument from consciousness that proves that matter cannot possibly exist outside of its knowledge.

Your argument is an argument from ignorance; I dont know so I dont know.

Try to pose an argument as to how theoretically it would be impossible for matter to exist at all.

And all my thoughts are based on science, my hypothetical questions would lead somewhere, if you can find the courage to answer them. Try to answer these questions, and they will lead us down a road towards better understanding of both of our positions.


How is mind not matter? Is mind made of pure nothingness? Does only pure nothingness exist? What is your knowledge of the nature of mind, how it exists, what its made of, is it infinitesimally singular, is it made of parts, that move, and regenerate, where does it get its energy, is each part of the mind (if made of parts) separate consciousness, animate, mindful?

You believe a mind, one or many (?), has always existed, and it 'invents' material from nothing? Or it has a pallet of material to work from, but that pallet did not exist before the mind? And the mind requires no material or energy to think and imagine and create?



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

You said:

Therefore you cant say matter does not exist beyond your perception, because you dont know if it does.

Sure I do, it's called Science. This is why I have been presenting Science to back up everything I'm saying. You haven't presented any scientific evidence just ramblings about your loosely defined definitions.

There's no evidence that there's an objective independent reality without consciousness. There's no way the universe can come into being naturally. This is why many Scientist invoke universes that can't be measured, observed or show how the constants of nature can arise naturally.

So again, if you believe matter can exists independent of consciousness it's your job to support your claim with Scientific Evidence.

The nature of consciousness is self observation. This self observation is even present in Quantum Theory.


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...

Here's more from Song.



When a conscious observer observes their own reference frame the math of Quantum Theory becomes non equivalent. So the reference frame of the observer and the wave function can't be separated.

Again, I support what I'm saying with Scientific Evidence.

You and others never present any Scientific Evidence just hyperbole and inane ramblings about your subjective beliefs and it has nothing to do with the thread.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Respond to my questions. I will respond to your questions after your respond to mine. I saw the video the first time you posted it.

Why are you not grasping what I am saying... I am grasping everything you are saying, I know your position and stance, I understand it, I know what you are saying. You are not trying to grasp what I am saying. Read my last reply, and respond to every sentence, then I will reread and reread your continuous 'peek a boo' argument. All the literature from your standpoint is the same thing repeated over and over again 'nuh uhh nuh uhh nuh uhh nuh uhh nuh uhh' 'la la la la la la la la' ' peek a boo peek a boo'.

I get it... I know it... I understand...

Respond to my sentences and questions.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Respond to what?

I have presented SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that supports what I'm saying. You haven't presented ANY EVIDENCE to support what you're saying. It has nothing to do with Science and just your subjective beliefs that are all over the place.

Listen to this incoherent nonsense:

Therefore you must admit, it is possible matter exists when your eyes are closed. Because when your eyes are closed, you cannot prove that matter does not exist beyond your eyes, because your method of proving is with your eyes, and your method of proving is turned off in that moment.

This isn't a Scientific Debate it's just you wanting someone to debate your personal gibberish that you believe.

Like I said, present some Scientific Evidence. I'm not here to debate your subjective beliefs. I mean listen to this:

All the literature from your standpoint is the same thing repeated over and over again 'nuh uhh nuh uhh nuh uhh nuh uhh nuh uhh' 'la la la la la la la la' ' peek a boo peek a boo'.

That's just childish. Try to present some actual Scientific Evidence to support what you're saying or to refute the evidence I presented.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic


Respond to what?


Every question I asked like I asked you to respond to them.





I have presented SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that supports what I'm saying. You haven't presented ANY EVIDENCE to support what you're saying. It has nothing to do with Science and just your subjective beliefs that are all over the place.


If you would have answered my questions, we would see that they lead to SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

I UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING YOU THINK AND KNOW. I CAN HOLD YOUR VIEWS INSIDE MY MIND, I SEE THEM I KNOW THEM.

THERE IS MORE KNOWLEDGE THAT EXISTS THAN THAT WHICH IS IN YOUR MIND,

BUT YOU WOULDNT AGREE WITH THAT, BECAUSE WHAT IS NOT IN YOUR MIND DOES NOT EXIST RIGHT.




Check out this unscientific hypothetical question that you may be scared to answer because it may begin to destroy your ignorance like my other questions would do which you are scared to answer because of the sam reason;

Do you think Asteroids exist?

Notice how it is a yes or no question; has there been evidence of asteroids existing, rocks that travel through space; yes your no... Ultimate intelligence, let us see how this person will respond to this question.

The follow up question;

If it is agreed upon and known that rocks can travel through space, because they have been seen and observed, they have been seen to hit earth (though being afraid this person may attempt to deflect and focus on something trivial to escape the harsh burn of the dwindling of their comfortable ignorance, I will note that they may be termed 'meteorite' at that point, though I am not sure, and all may agree that is not important compared to the gist);

I wonder how this person will respond to this;

If it is agreed that rocks traveling through space have entered into the atmosphere and contacted the earths surface;

Is it ; Possible or Impossible, for you to be hit by an asteroid if your eyes are closed (and your ears etc. say you are asleep if you must, to express your lack of knowledge of sensory data)?








edit on 13-6-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   
you guys are trying so hard to separate things...

does force exist without a physical state? what is the difference between force/field and matter?

I think that is what you all need to reconcile.


I am pretty sure dragonrdr has the right idea:

"Any time information is exchanged it is being observed."

But you must think in spectral terms. All observation conceived by forces, that is, all conception, is not self-aware.


These words are images of my concepts/awareness. (body/physicality/son)
My awareness/concepts are of my will. (soul/conception/observer/father)
My will is to reproduce the awareness of my will. (spirit/forces/holy ghost)

I am observing/interpreting the forces within me into images/physicality/my body/shapes of concepts.

And so the three things are one: matter is the image of observation of forces. my body is the image of my soul and my soul is the awareness or conception of my spirit. But again, what is observed/conceived is not always self-awareness - what is conceived exists on a spectrum from observed (reaction) to absolute awareness(Father).

e.g. the apple exists as the conception of an apple tree's will to produce fruit. The one true apple is then in the force/spirit/will to produce fruit, and its image is what is conceived by the apple tree/the apple tree's interpretation of its force/will to produce fruit. What is a wing? It is the image of the will/force/spirit to fly. ad infinitum to everything.

Maybe it will help to think of physicality like merian webster's dictionary, in that there is not a single concept in that book - the only thing in that book, in any dictionary, is shapes/forms/words/images of concepts, and what is conception/awareness is conceiving the words / interpreting their meaning, and that force, that ability to conceive, is a force itself (spirit of life). So just as some forces conceive convection, some conceive self-awareness, and some do other stuffs etc.. so the conception/conceiving/observation exists on a spectrum, where the spectrum itself is I Am (Father).
edit on 6/13/2015 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

I'm almost in agreement with you yes I'm shocked. There is no such thing as a probability wave they do not exist. This is simply a way for us to use math to make predictions. Probability waves like in the Copenhagen interpretation have no basis in reality other than to say we see it acts like a wave and we see probability is involved. So no one should ever think a particle or photon can be a wave we are simply describing what we see. We know this isn't the underlying reality.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 11:04 PM
link   


Bohmian Mechanics

First published Fri Oct 26, 2001; substantive revision Mon Mar 4, 2013


Bohmian mechanics, which is also called the de Broglie-Bohm theory, the pilot-wave model, and the causal interpretation of quantum mechanics, is a version of quantum theory discovered by Louis de Broglie in 1927 and rediscovered by David Bohm in 1952. It is the simplest example of what is often called a hidden variables interpretation of quantum mechanics. In Bohmian mechanics a system of particles is described in part by its wave function, evolving, as usual, according to Schrödinger's equation. However, the wave function provides only a partial description of the system. This description is completed by the specification of the actual positions of the particles. The latter evolve according to the “guiding equation,” which expresses the velocities of the particles in terms of the wave function. Thus, in Bohmian mechanics the configuration of a system of particles evolves via a deterministic motion choreographed by the wave function. In particular, when a particle is sent into a two-slit apparatus, the slit through which it passes and its location upon arrival on the photographic plate are completely determined by its initial position and wave function.

Bohmian mechanics inherits and makes explicit the nonlocality implicit in the notion, common to just about all formulations and interpretations of quantum theory, of a wave function on the configuration space of a many-particle system. It accounts for all of the phenomena governed by nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, from spectral lines and scattering theory to superconductivity, the quantum Hall effect and quantum computing. In particular, the usual measurement postulates of quantum theory, including collapse of the wave function and probabilities given by the absolute square of probability amplitudes, emerge from an analysis of the two equations of motion: Schrödinger's equation and the guiding equation. No invocation of a special, and somewhat obscure, status for observation is required.


Source








edit on 13-6-2015 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Your turn you take unrelated things and try to force a link without understanding the underlying principles. Here's an example what your doing is like saying a hot dog was made long and thin in order to fit into a hot dog bun. There has been experiments dome in order to verify the universe exists suggest you look into holometers we have yet to find the fuzziness on the universe you keep implying.

As I explained the problem your truly not understanding is the experiment has more to do with time. Time is relative we already know this where you are and how fast you move effects time. Well now we learned from our perspective time can be reversed. Key point our perspective to our photons this occurs at the same time.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

More GOBBLEDY GOOK. You said:


Your turn you take unrelated things and try to force a link without understanding the underlying principles. Here's an example what your doing is like saying a hot dog was made long and thin in order to fit into a hot dog bun. There has been experiments dome in order to verify the universe exists suggest you look into holometers we have yet to find the fuzziness on the universe you keep implying.


Just nonsense. I don't need to here about hot dogs and hot dog buns, show some actual SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

You said there has been experiments done to verify the universe exists. Let's see them. Where's the experiments that show the universe has an existence independent from consciousness.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I had a feeling you wouldn't understand shocker. What your doing is called reverse logic. You say we'll see this proves the universe doesn't exist. Then you point at an experiment without understanding the implications. When asked to prove it you again post the experiment. You are attempting to use the experiment to back you bit have no idea how it does. So I'll make it easy please explain how this experiment proves your right what's actually going on. What do you believe is occurring? ?



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
So no one should ever think a particle or photon can be a wave we are simply describing what we see.


Well not so fast, riddle me this;

Consider that I am asking right now, ONLY in regards to a SINGLE photon.

A photon always travels at the same velocity, yes?

What is the difference between a single X ray photon;

And a single Radio Photon?

You just said above, no one should ever think a photon can be a wave.

So 2 equal particles? That travel the same speed. But are different? What is the difference?



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi


One factor is the mediums through which they travel.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 01:09 AM
link   

So here is a interesting video on the nature of superposition from what the bleep do we know. In my opinion we need but look to the BIG BANG from the point of view of superposition and see the universe is indeed infinate everywhere.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Under normal circumstances Photons can be accelerated beyond 186,000 miles per second.

So what exactly is your point???



More information: James M. Hill and Barry J. Cox. "Einstein's special relativity beyond the speed of light." Proc. R. Soc. A. DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2012.0340

Abstract
We propose here two new transformations between inertial frames that apply for relative velocities greater than the speed of light, and that are complementary to the Lorentz transformation, giving rise to the Einstein special theory of relativity that applies to relative velocities less than the speed of light. The new transformations arise from the same mathematical framework as the Lorentz transformation, displaying singular behaviour when the relative velocity approaches the speed of light and generating the same addition law for velocities, but, most importantly, do not involve the need to introduce imaginary masses or complicated physics to provide well-defined expressions. Making use of the dependence on relative velocity of the Lorentz transformation, the paper provides an elementary derivation of the new transformations between inertial frames for relative velocities v in excess of the speed of light c, and further we suggest two possible criteria from which one might infer one set of transformations as physically more likely than the other. If the energy–momentum equations are to be invariant under the new transformations, then the mass and energy are given, respectively, by the formulae m=(pinf/c)[(v/c)2 - 1]-1/2 and e=mc2 where pinf denotes the limiting momentum for infinite relative velocity. If, however, the requirement of invariance is removed, then we may propose new mass and energy equations, and an example having finite non-zero mass in the limit of infinite relative velocity is given. In this highly controversial topic, our particular purpose is not to enter into the merits of existing theories, but rather to present a succinct and carefully reasoned account of a new aspect of Einstein's theory of special relativity, which properly allows for faster than light motion.

University of Adelaide press release


Read more at: phys.org...


Source





edit on 14-6-2015 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


Why should I prove that matter exists beyond my perception of it when there isn't any SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that says it does?

This thread really has degraded into complete nonsense. I don't even think you guys know what you are arguing about anymore. Let me make this really simple... if matter didn't exist beyond your perception of it, that implies things aren't really there when they aren't being observed, which is clearly false. If that were true you shouldn't be able to get hit on the head by a falling tree branch unless you or someone else is looking at the branch. If it were true, the stars wouldn't always be exactly where we expect them to be when we look at the night sky. Two different people on opposite sides of the world could discover a new planet like Earth and not know about it until years later when they both attend the same conference and meet for the first time.

Either that Earth-like planet was always there waiting for someone to find it, or the act of looking caused it to pop into existence the moment it was needed, causing it to back load an entire history consistent with its position and appearance. For example if you find a tree fallen over in the forest, it's always possible to determine why the tree fell, it didn't just pop out of thin air in an awkward position the first time it was measured by an observer. So ultimately there are two ways of looking at this. Either things are there when we aren't looking, or they only exist when we are looking, but from our perspective it seems like they were always there because when we look at them they back load an entire history.

In either case something must still exist outside of our perception for these computations to take place even if back solving is real. If you start with consciousness and then say everything else arises out of consciousness, one is forced to conclude we are in some type of shared dream state. Now I'm sorry but I just don't see any evidence to support such a claim. The laws upon which reality works are far too static and expansive to be a shared delusion. Looking at black body pattern in the CMB, we can see that the universe had some sort of low entropy beginning, and we can extrapolate backwards from now using the known laws of physics to get an estimation of how old it is.

Clearly the universe was following the laws of physics even right after the big bang first occurred, when it was just a highly condensed fire ball containing immense energy, and no chance for conscious observers to exist in such a universe. There are many good reasons to believe the universe is perfectly capable of existing without conscious observers to watch it existing. To state otherwise just leads to countless paradoxes and nonsensical conclusions about reality. But hey, reality doesn't have to make sense, maybe I'm wrong and reality is totally nonsensical, we're all living in a dream, and nothing can exist without conscious observers. Nah... I'll only believe it when there's solid proof.
edit on 14/6/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

A whole bunch of nonsense and not a shred of science. You guys with these long winded posts that say nothing without any evidence are in abundance. You said:

There are many good reasons to believe the universe is perfectly capable of existing without conscious observers to watch it existing.

Show me the Scientific evidence that there's an objective material reality independent of consciousness. I keep asking for Scientific Evidence and I keep getting long winded hyperbole. I can care less about your subjective opinion unless it's supported by actual Scientific Evidence.

Everything I say, I have a scientific basis for it and I present the evidence. This is a Scientific Forum. Again, we're not here to debate your subjective opinion that leads to nowhere.



posted on Jun, 14 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
Everything I say, I have a scientific basis for it and I present the evidence. This is a Scientific Forum. Again, we're not here to debate your subjective opinion that leads to nowhere.
Oh give me a break, you posit consciousness existed before the Earth did, and there's no scientific evidence for that. That belief is religion, not science.


originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: ImaFungi

Under normal circumstances Photons can be accelerated beyond 186,000 miles per second.
Your source doesn't say that.

Relativity prohibits massive objects from traveling at c. Their paper doesn't solve that problem, it still says traveling at the speed of light is impossible for a massive object. What they point out is that relativity doesn't prohibit faster than c explicitly, only traveling AT c. Since nobody knows how to get from less than c to greater than c without passing through the impossible c, that's the logic behind why people often say relativity forbids faster than c but their paper says relativity doesn't really doesn't forbid faster than c specifically. I wrote a paper along these lines for my science class when I was 16, but I don't think my science teacher understood it. He gave me an A anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join