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.

 

Decoherence And Consciousness: The Myth of Observer-Created Reality

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 06:26 AM
link   
I'm sorry, I seem to have strayed onto the 'Look at me I'm smart' section...I don't know what happened, my apologies.

Do carry on.




posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 06:32 AM
link   
neoholographic:

I usually get more technical on Physics Forums and Physics Stack Exchange but we can go there if you like.


Prior to this claim you make...you ask...

What exactly do you mean by wave function breakdown?? What in the world is that?


It is imperative that you know, that we know, you lack both comprehension and understanding in the subject in which you claim to be proficient. It is both dishonest and disingenuous of you to do this.

Even the most lowly physicist would fully comprehend the analogy I use to describe how the same mechanism is at work during the double slit experiment and that of the mechanism of sight.

Furthermore, the same lowly physicist would equally and instantly recognise the term 'wave function breakdown'.

Seriously, you cannot be taken seriously.
edit on 18/6/15 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 06:36 AM
link   
CJCrawley :

I'm sorry, I seem to have strayed onto the 'Look at me I'm smart' section...I don't know what happened, my apologies.


Hey, no worries.
If you are looking for the 'retard' door, it's at the opposite end of the spectrum. A lot of posters make this error as you can see from a couple of the postings in this thread.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I am not a scientist, and therefore do not fully understand all of the above. However…..on a very simplistic and straight forward level….If we are seeing what we see because we are programmed and wired up to perceive it that way. Then how can a camera see and record the same images….. it does not have a brain and is not wired up like us humans.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: neoholographic


Also, when it comes to Theoretical Physics we can get technical. I think I asked you a question in another thread you never answered.

What is the difference between conformal field theories and quantum field theories that make it symmetric and mathematically give rise to a thermodynamic critical point and how is this derived? How does this relate to this thread in light of recent discoveries about the entropy of entanglement and the equivalence between these energy densities and gravitational theories?

As I said in that other thread, O Theoretical Physicist, I will answer the question as soon as it makes sense. Right now, it is gibberish. Make what symmetric? Your pronoun 'it' lacks a subject.

Tell me what 'it' is supposed to refer to, and if the answer makes sense, I will attempt a reply to your question. Until then, it's just some gibberish you just cut and pasted into the thread without even understanding what it means.


How do you come up with the 10/500 false vacua? Is that the number and there's hundred of cycles in the homology for each topology so how are the the differences between the cosmological constant derived and what are some of the specific negative values and how does that relate to this thread?

This is not relevant either to this thread or another. It is obviously cut and pasted from some physics forum, and you clearly don't understand it either.

But as it happens, this one's pretty easy. So I have already posted the answer as a private message to WASTYT. I will ask him or her to post it on this thread as soon as you have satisfied me that you correctly understand the question itself. Here's a clue: that isn't 10/500 (which, as everyone except an absolute scientific ignoramus knows, is just the fraction 1/50, or 2%), but 10^500, that is, ten to the power five hundred. Surprising that I have to explain Grade Four arithmetic to a 'theoretical physicist'.

And — just to make myself quite clear — if elysiumfire's post is gobbledygook, how come I understand it, and others do too? It only looks like gobbledygook to someone who — ahem — doesn't understand the physics.



In other words you don't know so you send a private message or claim you send a private message because you don't want to say the wrong thing.

My simple point is, there's not a shred of science on this thread. If there was you or the OP would simply point me to the published paper or article that supports this.

Our eyes act like the slits in Young’s experiment, they are the openings through which the wave form of light decoheres into particle expression

Instead there's a bunch of obfuscating instead of just supporting what was said.

Here's an easy one for you and maybe this time you will not have to phone a friend.

When you have a complete orthomodular lattice what assumptions are needed to fully represent compound systems or the projection lattice L(H) of a Hilbert space?



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: elysiumfire

This is how you know there isn't any Scientific evidence to support what's being said. When you hear answers dipped in incredulity that you're asking the question. You said:


Even the most lowly physicist would fully comprehend the analogy I use to describe how the same mechanism is at work during the double slit experiment and that of the mechanism of sight.

Furthermore, the same lowly physicist would equally and instantly recognise the term 'wave function breakdown'.


You said something very specific and you didn't give any experiments, published papers or a simple article to support what you're saying. You said:

Our eyes act like the slits in Young’s experiment, they are the openings through which the wave form of light decoheres into particle expression

How do you know this "particle expression" is due to decoherence? How do you go from a Dirac delta function from a mixture of probabilities? Was it a mixture of probabilities or was it still in superposition? Do you go from a mixture of probabilities to a Dirac delta function in order to get this "particle expression?"

You answered nothing. You made a statement in a vacuum with no Scientific Evidence.

You then said wave function breakdown. What did you mean? Did you mean wave function collapse in general or wave function collapse as a symmetry breakdown?

Again, you say these things in a vacuum without a shred of Scientific Evidence to support what you're saying. This is why I list Published Papers and experiments to support what I'm saying or you have no basis as to what you're saying outside of your subjective opinion.

Edit:

I'm not expecting or asking anyone to get technical just some Scientific Evidence to support the things you say. We are on a Science and Technology forum. If it's you're belief or opinion then state it's your belief but even then there should be some Scientific Evidence if you're making an argument like the wave form of light decoheres into particle expression.
edit on 18-6-2015 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

If you were an ant that could think exactly as you can would you have the same opinions?



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

You say everyone is wrong, but you never say in what way you are right.

Is there anything you know about reality? What is the most fundamental thing you know?

Do you believe that no thing can truly be known or understood about reality?

If that is so, then of course you can just say everything everyone says is wrong.

If you think that anything can be known about reality, if you think anything is known about reality; state one thing you think is known.

State one thing you think is known about reality, that you think I disagree with

All your replies are: "No No No No No No No No No No No No "

Make a reply in which you are producing a: "Yes". Statement.

Do you comprehend what I mean? You are barking: False False False False False

If anything can be said that is true!

Say something that is true!

Not a true statement about the falseness of all others.

Say a true statement about the fundamental truth of your knowledge.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic


In other words you don't know so you send a private message or claim you send a private message because you don't want to say the wrong thing.

I have already explained why I am temporarily withholding the answer.

If you disagree with the OP's premise, provide some fact that falsifies it. If you aren't going to do that, pipe down.



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

The fact remains that it takes five photons . To dislodge an electron, that then goes up the optic nerve.Just like it has to in solar panels. The rate and flow of the electrons, get switched through the synapses, to various parts of the brain. This then builds a three dimensional, model of reality, in your own mind. Whatever you "think" you see, is exactly that, a projection in your own mind. Its the same with all the other senses. Its all decoded input data. Reality is a full on lucid dream. Reality is a mind space . The facts maintain that It cant be anything else.



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: elysiumfire
One of the most curious and counter-intuitive understandings regarding quanta is that they exhibit a wave/particle duality at the same time. Quanta seem to exist in two distinct separate expressions of reality simultaneously, but no one has observed this yet. Whenever an observation to determine this is carried out a quantum always presents itself to the observer either as a particle or as a waveform, never both at the same time.

Many clever measurement experiments have been set up and made to try to observe this seemingly dual nature in the same instance of measurement, but due to space-time differentiation, the observations cannot reconcile into a singular observation. Even when we set up an experiment that is able to take two measurements at ‘A’ and at ‘B’ simultaneously, where at measurement ‘A’ we observe a quanta's particle expression, and at ‘B’ we observe a quanta's wave form expression, we are still making two distinct and disparate measurements that cannot resolve into a single observable of wave/particle duality.

We can of course, abstract the seeming duality of a quantum in mathematical formulation as a wave function. However, this has led to an interpretation that the very act of observation/measurement collapses the superpositional state of the quanta into either a particle expression, or a wave form expression, due to observation/measurement being thought of as a form of interaction that decoheres (collapses) the wave function of the quantum?

It seems we cannot look at quanta neutrally in such a way that we are able to view them in their dual aspect during the same instance of observation. Our observation seemingly ‘interferes’ with the quantum’s expression, and no matter how many different and ingenious experiments we are able to idealise and perform, observation/measurement interference will always…well, interfere. This has further led to thinking that our consciousness plays some interactive part in collapsing a quantum’s wave function, and that our consciousness is what creates our reality. This belief raises an impossible scenario.

Thomas Young (1773-1829) – an ancestral compatriot – established the wave theory of light against Newton’s theory of light as a particle. He established the idea of ‘interference’ firstly in water waves, and then in light. Through his Double-Slit experiment, he was able to show that light moved like waves on a water’s surface. Our eyes perform the same experiment every second throughout our wakeful hours.

Our eyes act like the slits in Young’s experiment, they are the openings through which the wave form of light decoheres into particle expression, and then hit the rods and cones in our retinas to cause a firing of a signal along the optic nerve to the brain. This occurs prior to our conscious experience of light. Only when the signal from the optic nerve is transposed and processed in the brain does a conscious experience of light arise. This natural and inbuilt latency negates the idea and belief that consciousness itself plays any part in wave function breakdown, or that consciousness creates our reality. Consciousness is a phenomenon after the event that raises it. It is not prior nor simultaneous to the event that brings it into being.

Observer-created reality is a myth.


Presto. You have proved it with a post on ats. Better tell those whacky science guys doing silly experiments. What a time waster.



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly


You have proved it with a post on ats. Better tell those whacky science guys doing silly experiments. What a time waster.

None of the wacky science guys doing silly experiments believe for a moment that reality is created by conscious observers.



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 01:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly


You have proved it with a post on ats. Better tell those whacky science guys doing silly experiments. What a time waster.

None of the wacky science guys doing silly experiments believe for a moment that reality is created by conscious observers.


their belief is of no issue....double slit experiment certainly implies the possibility. They are just looking for more "mundane" explanation for it.



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: marioonthefly


double slit experiment certainly implies the possibility

Then why isn't anyone investigating the possibility?

Well, actually, someone did. Guess what they concluded.

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


edit on 19/6/15 by Astyanax because: of bad format.



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

correct me if I'm wrong...cos I don't have time to watch the video in the end of that OP...the reasoning is...that machines can take measurements and therefore conciousness is not needed for the function collapse, right ?

Without conciousness...there are no machines...and there are no measurements of any kind. Machine is still a "conciousness"...sort off like...an extension.

When you look through the binoculars...who is looking ? you or the binoculars ? Do binoculars look independently of the human watching through it ? without you...there is nothing.



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: marioonthefly

Without conciousness...there are no machines... and there are no measurements of any kind.


This is obvious, yes.


Machine is still a "conciousness"...sort off like...an extension


No. That is like saying "Lighters can start fires. Lighters are made by conscious humans, Therefore, fire requires consciousness".



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped




No. That is like saying "Lighters can start fires. Lighters are made by conscious humans, Therefore, fire requires consciousness".


Since you brought up the lighter...yes...a lighter needs conscious human to start a fire. It can not do it on it own. Your reasoning is flawed. Fires do not require lighters to get started...therefore it is illogical to conclude that, since fire CAN be started by a lighter (and the lighter is an extension of conscious action), that it requires one. It does not.

In order to take a measurement ( a measurement is strictly a human action) of any kind...a conscious observer..IS REQUIRED.

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



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: marioonthefly

Correct, lighters aren't the only means of starting fires. That's my point.

OF COURSE human-made machines require humans to exist. But to then conclude "therefore, wavefunction collapse requires consciousness" is not a conclusion that follows any form of logic given your premise. You could equally say that the Sun doesn't exist without humans to observe its existence "because without humans we wouldn't be able to see it". Well yeah, if we didn't exist we wouldn't be aware of the sun's existence. Yet it's patently obvious that the Sun existed long before humans, and will continue to do so should we be wiped out as a species.
edit on 19-6-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped




Correct, lighters aren't the only means of starting fires. That's my point.


and while...only way of making measurements is through perception of the conscious observer. Therefore...to say...machines can do the measuring without the conscious observer is false. They can not conceptually even exist without the observer. The machine is nothing else but a sensory extension of your own consciousness.




Yet it's patently obvious that the Sun existed long before humans, and will continue to do so should we be wiped out as a species.


How is is patently obvious ? Based on our own understanding and limited knowledge ?



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: marioonthefly


correct me if I'm wrong.

My pleasure. No, a 'measurement' does not require an artificial measuring device. A 'measurement' is simply an event that collapses a probability field.

When a tree falls in a forest, that's a measurement too

I hope you find the time to read the links in my posts.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join