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.

 

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

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: netbound


Solipsism (Listeni/ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/; from Latin solus, meaning "alone", and ipse, meaning "self")[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.





What you are espousing, neoholographic, is a form of solipsism, and solipsism is the most extreme form of subjectivism.


No it is not exactly(by the above definition). This is simply your short sighted and ignorant interpretation.




posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You are completely confused.

The vid on that forum you linked actually supports the notion of consciousness.

"Double slit experiment with detectors not recording"

The guy in the vid clearly says an interference pattern formed when the detecter was turned on but no data was stored. So no info available. This results in an interference pattern. Just like it is expected. How does this disprove the role of consciousness?It doesn't.

The argument you have been using is bogus, just like it was expected. Just because you focused on a comment that fit your preconceived notions you didn't even see that the refered to experiment, actually implicated the exact opposite of what you have been claiming.

Just listen what the guy says from 2.45 sec.

"It was the actually the conscious act of taking the data that made the difference between particle/wave."

If this doesn't prove how materialists are blinded by pure paradigm bias I don't know what does.


Once the data is detected by an irreversible process, deleting the data does not induce any changes. It does not matter whether you throw away the data or look at it. The only thing you can erase are reversible markers. For example you can make the paths in the double slit experiment distinguishable by using polarizers at each slit. Afterwards it is possible to change this polarization without destroying the photon, so you can shift the polarization of the beams originating from both slits such, that they are the same again. As no irreversible process happened, the interference pattern will reappear. In this case you could get which-way information and destroy the interference pattern if you measured the photon at the right position and time, but as you never measure, it persists.


How does this disprove the results of the refered to experiment?Is this what you based your claims on? A comment on a forum? Seems like you are parotting that guy without even knowing why. Can you even explain what he is saying? I don't think the guy that made that comment even knows what he is saying. He is not refuting the claims made in that vid anyway.

You have been claiming the interference pattern collapses when detection is made yet info is not recorded. I asked you to back up this claim several times. Now when you finally made an attempt, the vid in your link discussing the refered to experiment actually claims the exact opposite.

Quite embarassing actually.

So now that your only argument has been shown to be a fabrication, what do you have to say now?

I'll let you respond to this before I reply to the rest of your post.
edit on 19-6-2015 by HotMale because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder




It doesn't matter whether or not we actually know what path it took, what really matters is if anyone or anything can know.


Wth?

I have been posting this for 2 weeks now. Availability of info is what matters. And now you agree?

How can you say this and not recognise the role of consciousness? Why does it matter if anyone can know the info, if consciousness doesn't play a role?

I can't believe you. It seems like you are in exteme denial, trolling yourself.

WOW.

You materialists really have no legs to stand on anymore. All your arguments against the role of consciousness in these experiments have been refuted.

Hell, even the sources you think were backing you up actually refute you.

Lol.

Now let me watch the weaseling out of this. You should be ashamed of yourself, persistently posting false information, then trying to back it up based on some guy's misinterpreted comment that was itself based on a misinterpretation. You obviously hadn't even reviewed the vid about the experiment which you claimed disproved the role of consciousness.

Like I said, pure rambling based on preconceived notions and paradigm bias.

A complete joke actually.



edit on 19-6-2015 by HotMale because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: HotMale
a reply to: netbound




I’m not going to go back and forth over this. I don’t have the time. I really don’t. I just wanted to establish my own view. You, the reader, may believe that this post exists only as you are reading it. However, I believe it lives on for others to read, as well.


Lol, this is a great example actually.

No this post does not exist if noone is viewing this particular part of this page of this thread. It is only rendered in "material form" so to speak(in this case as letters on someone's computer screen), when it is being viewed, but when noone is viewing this page, it only exists as data, as code on some server.

Just like I propose material reality doesn't exist in its material form unless it is viewed or experienced by a conscious user. If it is not it is stored as data.


Your argument is that our vision of the world only exists as the vision of the world.

That a tree in your head is not a 1:1 representation of the source cause of the representation of the tree in your head.

If you are looking at a closed book sitting on a table, from our knowledge we can consider that the book is composed of many many many atoms and molecules, all with parts constantly moving and vibrating, and light is reflecting off of that book and entering your eyes, and creating the imagery of what you see in your head, a book sitting on a table.

But you are saying the book as an object 'doesnt actually exist as you see it in your head', that you only in your head see light, see different light signatures, so you in your head can only ever know and see comparative light signals.

All the objects we talk about and know about are the talking and knowing about comparative light signals.

(an analogy would be all the music we know and talk about are comparative sound signals)



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi

Is there anything in particular you want to get across, or just another collection of drivel?

Please do not respond to posts that I didn't direct at you, because I am not wasting anymore time and energy on an interference pattern like yourself.



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: HotMale
a reply to: ImaFungi

Is there anything in particular you want to get across, or just another collection of drivel?

Please do not respond to posts that I didn't direct at you, because I am not wasting anymore time and energy on an interference pattern like yourself.


Your argument is that 'the mind can only know what is in the mind';

What can be known in the mind, is the only thing we can call reality;

The mind cannot leave itself and contain what is actually outside it, inside it.

Therefore the mind cannot say anything about what is outside it, only inside it.



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: HotMale
a reply to: ImaFungi

Is there anything in particular you want to get across, or just another collection of drivel?

Please do not respond to posts that I didn't direct at you, because I am not wasting anymore time and energy on an interference pattern like yourself.


I know everything you know, and more. If this was true, what would you think about that?

It is either true or not. You will beg yourself to believe it is not true. But it is true, so consider how that truth should aeffect you.



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: HotMale


The vid on that forum you linked actually supports the notion of consciousness.

"Double slit experiment with detectors not recording"

The guy in the vid clearly says an interference pattern formed when the detecter was turned on but no data was stored. So no info available. This results in an interference pattern. Just like it is expected. How does this disprove the role of consciousness?It doesn't.

If you read the thread you'll see the OP was asking whether that video was correct, and everyone explained why the claims made in the video were wrong. Another post from that thread:


Yes, this guy is trying to support his theory of quantum universal consciousness theory of everything. He has to embellish on the meaning in order to claim physical consistency such a crackpot theory.

The problem with the proliferation of such crackpots is that at the edge of theoretical physics it's hard to explain to many people what is wrong with it, and even involves some things none of us yet understand. It too often allows crackpots to have their cake and eat it to.



How does this disprove the results of the refered to experiment?Is this what you based your claims on? A comment on a forum? Seems like you are parotting that guy without even knowing why. Can you even explain what he is saying? I don't think the guy that made that comment even knows what he is saying. He is not refuting the claims made in that vid anyway.

How could my argument be based on that comment when I only found that comment after making my claims? And if you didn't notice, I already explained exactly what he is saying, even what he means about reversibility. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean no one else does.


I have been posting this for 2 weeks now. Availability of info is what matters. And now you agree?

How can you say this and not recognise the role of consciousness? Why does it matter if anyone can know the info, if consciousness doesn't play a role?

I knew you were going to misinterpret that sentence from the moment I wrote it. Notice that I said anyone or ANYTHING. The availability of which-path data doesn't mean it has to be available to conscious observers. Once again you really need to think about it from the perspective of the electron. Also you are saying something much more radical than the availability of which-path data is what matters, you are saying our knowledge of the which-path data plays a role. According to you, if we look at the data then the wave function collapses but if we erase the data and don't look it doesn't collapse.

That is simply not true, since the detector was trying to obtain which-path information it causes the information to be available to the detector, thus collapsing the wave function. Even if we erase that data before looking at the pattern it wont make a difference, because we recorded the data in a non-reversible way, simply erasing it from the HDD does not reverse the process of recording the which-path data the same way that undoing polarization changes can bring back the interference pattern.
edit on 19/6/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I already explained in another thread why this makes no sense but let me ask you a question. The title of the thread is Quantum Mechanics needs no consciousness. Could you define consciousness? What is the true nature of consciousness?

If you don't have an answer then your posts makes no sense. How can you say definitively that Quantum Mechanics needs no Consciousness when you don't know what consciousness is?


Defining consciousness is no easy task. We can only define its qualities. Consciousness is awareness, it is apart from the observed ,It has to be to observe. It cant observe itself, because then it wouldn't be the observation point. It can pass information to others that are conscious. So does an observing consciousness cause a wave to collapse into a particle, because that's the only way it can make the information, understandable. According to quantum experiments it can. Which might say more about our present reality model, than anything else.



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
So does an observing consciousness cause a wave to collapse into a particle, because that's the only way it can make the information, understandable. According to quantum experiments it can.
You apparently didn't read the paper cited in the OP, which explains in section 3 that this collapse occurs without any observing consciousness so it can't be attributed to an observing consciousness.

So it turns out that the exact definition of consciousness is not so critical, for the purpose of interpreting those experiments, even if defining consciousness for general purposes might be challenging.

Most people obviously didn't read the paper, (like those asking about the definition of consciousness, the operational definition of which is explained in the paper) or maybe they did and it's over their heads, but it's written in fairly simple language for a paper on quantum mechanics.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 01:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I already explained in another thread why this makes no sense but let me ask you a question. The title of the thread is Quantum Mechanics needs no consciousness. Could you define consciousness? What is the true nature of consciousness?

If you don't have an answer then your posts makes no sense. How can you say definitively that Quantum Mechanics needs no Consciousness when you don't know what consciousness is?


Defining consciousness is no easy task. We can only define its qualities. Consciousness is awareness, it is apart from the observed ,It has to be to observe. It cant observe itself, because then it wouldn't be the observation point. It can pass information to others that are conscious. So does an observing consciousness cause a wave to collapse into a particle, because that's the only way it can make the information, understandable. According to quantum experiments it can. Which might say more about our present reality model, than anything else.


You're right and this is why this thread "collapses" so to speak. When you said:

So does an observing consciousness cause a wave to collapse into a particle, because that's the only way it can make the information, understandable.

This is very astute because the knowledge that can be obtained by a conscious observer is more important than a particle interacting with a measuring device. This is what experiments show.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder




If you read the thread you'll see the OP was asking whether that video was correct, and everyone explained why the claims made in the video were wrong.


You were claiming that the experiment in which the detectors were on, but info was not recorded, resulted in collapse of the interference pattern. According to that video it doesn´t collapse at all in that case. So this vid refutes your claim.

So you are saying that in such a case the interference pattern actually collapses. Again I ask you to back this up.




Another post from that thread:


See, so you are using forum comments as evidence. This particular one is even more worthless since he is not saying anything except opinion.

So explain to me what the important points of the first one you qouted are, and how it disproves the role of consciousness.




How could my argument be based on that comment when I only found that comment after making my claims?


Well you just did it again.

What did you base your claims on originally before you found this, and why can´t you find that information again?




I knew you were going to misinterpret that sentence from the moment I wrote it. Notice that I said anyone or ANYTHING.


Why did you include the word "anyone" then. If you believe your own claims it would never matter to anyone. Furthermore, your usage of the word "anything" was based on the unproven claim that the interference pattern still collapses when detection is not recorded.





According to you, if we look at the data then the wave function collapses but if we erase the data and don't look it doesn't collapse.


No, it collapses based on availabilty of info, it doesn't matter wether we actually look or not, its about having the potential of having that knowledge.




Even if we erase that data before looking at the pattern it wont make a difference, because we recorded the data in a non-reversible way, simply erasing it from the HDD does not reverse the process of recording the which-path data the same way that undoing polarization changes can bring back the interference pattern.


What are you trying to say exactly?

What erasing from what HDD?

What do you mean non-reversable and why does it matter?





Also you are saying something much more radical than the availability of which-path data is what matters, you are saying our knowledge of the which-path data plays a role.


No, I said availability and potential access to info is what matters.


edit on 20-6-2015 by HotMale because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




You apparently didn't read the paper cited in the OP, which explains in section 3 that this collapse occurs without any observing consciousness so it can't be attributed to an observing consciousness.


So I found one of the experiments they are refering to.

www.if.ufrj.br...


In summary, we have reported the observation of interference fringes in the light scattered from two localized atoms driven by a weak laser field. The measured fringe pattern and contrast can be explained in the framework of Bragg scattering by a harmonic crystal. These results show that interference measurements provide another method to determine ion temperatures and separations in traps. By exploiting the atom's internal level structure, we showed, without invoking the position-momentum uncertainty relation, that the possibility of determining the path of the scattered photon destroyed the interference fringes,


So again, the result that is supposed to refute the role of consciousness is nowhere to be found.

Their conclusion boils down to availability of path info.

Again, another argument against the role of consciousness turns out to be a misinterpretation of experimental results.

This is why I keep asking for actual sources, because I know that the actual experimental results support the role of consciousness. Turns out I was right again.....

I wonder what fabricated argument will be used next.
edit on 20-6-2015 by HotMale because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

And here is the other one they are refering to,

EDIT: this is not the one they were refering to, but this paper mentions that experiment if I am not mistaken, still looking for the exact one.

www.optics.rochester.edu...


The mysteries of complementarity and the measurement process in quantum mechanics are probably most simply and elegantly stated in the context of interference. A quantum wave travels from a source to a detection region by two distinctly different paths. The interference between waves traveling by the two paths is apparent in the detection region by interference fringes—a spatial dependence of the probability distribution. However, if one asks a ‘‘particle question’’ and interrogates the wave function en route to identify the path taken by the particle, the interference pattern is destroyed. In the language of complementarity, by forcing particle properties on the wave in asking the ‘‘where’’ question ~commonly referred to as a ‘‘which-way’’ measurement!, we lose the wave properties evident in the interference fringes.


Again, availabilty of which path info collapses the interference pattern.


Their technically remarkable experiment uses single-atom interference to exhibit a destruction of interference fringes when different microwave transitions are applied to the two distinct atom paths, thus encoding the which-way information in a subtle way in the spin structure of the atom. In particular, the microwave transitions provide a superposition of two spin states with different phases between the two components: even for one of the paths, and odd for the other path. The photons that introduce this encoding are too soft to destroy the interference through a momentum kick. Nonetheless, the interference fringes disappear once the which-way information is stored.


And again, availability of path info.

How does this refute the role of consciousness? Again, no argument to be found.

Like I have been saying this whole time, availability of path info is what matters, and every experiment that is presented supports this, even though people are claiming that these specific experiments are supposed to prove the opposite.

How then?

These experimenters all come to the same conclusions.

Availability of path info.

Again, why does it matter if not for the conscious observer?


You are all missing the point.

If info is available, there is a chance that the observer will gain this knowledge, so the interference pattern collapses, doesn't matter if they actually look or not.

This is logical because what if they do decide to look and there would have been an interference pattern beforehand? Then reality wouldn't be correct from the viewpoint of the observer, since he then knows the path info and there couldn't be an interference pattern.
edit on 20-6-2015 by HotMale because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-6-2015 by HotMale because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: HotMale
And again, availability of path info.

How does this refute the role of consciousness? Again, no argument to be found.
The argument is clearly stated in the paper linked in the OP, so I suggest you refer to that.


...if "which-path" information was in principle obtainable, then even though no actual attempt was made to extract this information (i.e. to measure it), no interference pattern was found. Thus the first prediction of consciousness hypothesis is false.
So then you can refer to the hypothesis being evaluated which states that:


The interference pattern should be visible if "which-path" information has not been registered in the consciousness of the observer
So they explain the "which-path" information is available but that it has not been registered in the consciousness of the observer, because no actual attempt was made to extract the information.

To use a crude analogy of information that can be "available" but not in your consciousness, I have a sealed envelope with a number in it from one to a million. The information is available in the envelope, but you have no conscious information of what that number is before you open the envelope. If you opened the envelope and looked at it the number, that is the moment your consciousness would recognize the number previously available but unknown to your consciousness.


edit on 20-6-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder




I knew you were going to misinterpret that sentence from the moment I wrote it. Notice that I said anyone or ANYTHING. The availability of which-path data doesn't mean it has to be available to conscious observers. Once again you really need to think about it from the perspective of the electron.


The perspective of the electron? What, so then you are saying that the particle is conscious? Ok. So why would availabilty of path info of the particle, matter to the particle itself?

And I just want to sbhow again how pathetic your MO is.

First you keep making a claim. I keep asking you to back it up. You refuse to. You keep making the claim. Again I ask you to back it up. You know you cannot refuse any longer, but you have problem, namely that you cannot back it up because it is a BS claim.

You then go scouring the internet, frantically. The only thing you can come up with are forum comments trying to refute a vid that is actually supportive of the role of consciousness. You are still unable to prove your claim, so the only thing you can do is qoute a few forum comments, and that is supposed to be proof of your original claim, but they don't even touch that original claim.

This is pathetic, and laughable.

I mean this, really?


Yes, this guy is trying to support his theory of quantum universal consciousness theory of everything. He has to embellish on the meaning in order to claim physical consistency such a crackpot theory. The problem with the proliferation of such crackpots is that at the edge of theoretical physics it's hard to explain to many people what is wrong with it, and even involves some things none of us yet understand. It too often allows crackpots to have their cake and eat it to.


Lol, this is your scientific evidence. Like I said, these comments have nothing to do with your original claim, and even worse, they are completely meaningless from any perspective.

Look at this comment. He is basically suggesting that the role of consciousness is a crackpot theory but he cannot explain why it is. The fact that "crackpots" are "getting away with it" should tell him that it maybe isn't that crazy at all.

Talking about how we dont understand yet. I get it. Everything goes as long as it is not consciousness, which would actually explain why we are getting these results.

Pure, paradigm bias.

Anyways, using these comments to back up anything is a joke.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




The argument is clearly stated in the paper linked in the OP, so I suggest you refer to that.


What, their interpretation of an experiment is what is clearly stated in your paper. I decided to look at the actual experiment itself, and the experimenters reached a different conclusion.

Are you really saying that I should not be looking at the actual experiment, but should stick to your paper that is only interpreting experiments? Really?

Am I not playing fair or something?




..if "which-path" information was in principle obtainable, then even though no actual attempt was made to extract this information (i.e. to measure it), no interference pattern was found. Thus the first prediction of consciousness hypothesis is false.


Again this is their interpretation of another experiment's result.

If path info was obtainable in principle, then there was availabilty of path info, so the interference pattern collapsed. This is exactly like I have been saying, only they think the info actually needs to be known, and that therefore it disproves the role of consciousness.




So they explain the "which-path" information is available but that it has not been registered in the consciousness of the observer, because no actual attempt was made to extract the information.


Yes and? Again, exactly what I have been saying, and exactly the same as the conclusions made by actual experimenters.

Availability of path info is what matters. This doesn't refute my claims. This doen't disprove the role of consciousness.

What is your point.

You are just going to ignore the conclusions made by actual experimenters that I just posted?

Availability of path info is what matters. Why does it matter?



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: HotMale
Availability of path info is what matters. Why does it matter?
Whatever the reason, it seems to have nothing to do with a conscious observer. It's the result of two or more things, neither of which are conscious, interacting with each other.

Sure look at the actual paper but you found no discrepancy between the papers that I can see, and then you seem to confirm this by saying that they agree with your claims that the availability is what matters.

The paper is saying that if it's available, but not to a conscious observer, the conscious observer doesn't appear to have any role.

If you want to disagree that's your right but I don't follow your logic.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




Whatever the reason, it seems to have nothing to do with a conscious observer.


So now you do at least agree that availability of path info matters.

So do you also agree that there has to be something to which it matters?

You must. So if availabilty of info matters, it can only matter to something that is conscious. I mean if info matters,
then there must be something that is potentially using this info. Do you think something UNconscious is using info?




It's the result of two or more things, neither of which are conscious, interacting with each other.


No the fact that availabilty of path info matters, is not the result of that.

Yes, two non conscious things are interacting with each other. The only thing that connects them is consciousness.




The paper is saying that if it's available, but not to a conscious observer, the conscious observer doesn't appear to have any role.


No they seem to argue that if information is available, but not KNOWN to to the observer, the interference pattern still collapses, and that therefore, the role of consciousness is disproven.

The actual experimenters are saying that it is AVAILABILTY of that info to the observer is what matters. Big diffference.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
So does an observing consciousness cause a wave to collapse into a particle, because that's the only way it can make the information, understandable.


Imagine if someone asked you to make the most accurate smaller scale map of the oceans topological surface, including the comprehension of how it evolves continuously over time, but you could not use your eyes to just look at it and draw it (supposing you were a great drawer who could draw an ocean landscape no problem) you could only use your body to measure it, and then decide how you can best know in what way how what you felt equals what exists.

The thing is, every concept of wave, includes in it 'an object who itself contains a difference amongst itself over space and time'.

Consider an ocean wave. If you could slow down time, and experience the motions of the universe millisecond by millisecond, like you had a TV remote that could skip forward scene by scene;

You would notice that 1 single wave, has 3d/4d attribute, most significant is the fact that the singularity of thing (single wave) contains in and as itself, geometric difference.

Whereas, the concept of particle, generally simplifies into a notion of, an object that is relatively physically as itself similar geometrically.

The ocean wave is not a 1 d particle that hits your hand and in the same planck second is done with hitting your hand.

The wave begins to hit you, takes time to interact with you, takes space to interact with you, and is itself different over space and time compared with the beginning of it interacting with you and the ending of it interacting with you.





edit on 20-6-2015 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join