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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Quantum Entanglement shows the universe is a vast simulation

page: 16
38
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Greggers


The point of the statement to me is that what we perceive of reality is limited to the capacity to observing only one or two aspects in potential for a any phenomenon in general.

For example if we could for the sake of example perceive the of the wave function of say a generic tree?

That would alter significantly the definition of the phenomenon.

In that sense our experiences in an altogether way are incomplete with respect to the common senses at the very least.

Therefore in that context observations in this vein can be understood as definitive of a subjective experience.





I really hate to keep beating on this. This is not an enjoyable debate, as it seems to have turned quite personal (not from you, mind you). And the really bothersome aspect is that it's really not all that important in the grand scheme of things. I'd much rather talk about this imaginary N-Tier architecture than the meaning of the word subjective. That conversation is fun.

All I can say is that just because an observer only sees part of something does not make it subjective.

By definition, things which are subjective are unique to the observer. If everyone who looks at the measurement sees the same number, it is objective by definition. It does not exist "in the mind." It exists "at the meter."
edit on 28-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
no comment...
edit on 28-9-2016 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Greggers


The point of the statement to me is that what we perceive of reality is limited to the capacity to observing only one or two aspects in potential for a any phenomenon in general.

For example if we could for the sake of example perceive the of the wave function of say a generic tree?

That would alter significantly the definition of the phenomenon.

In that sense our experiences in an altogether way are incomplete with respect to the common senses at the very least.

Therefore in that context observations in this vein can be understood as definitive of a subjective experience.





Exactly!

This is EASY to understand. There's not just one meaning to the term subjective just like with most words. For some reason, he thinks there's just one definition and the term subjective has to be used in only one way.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Greggers


The point of the statement to me is that what we perceive of reality is limited to the capacity to observing only one or two aspects in potential for a any phenomenon in general.

For example if we could for the sake of example perceive the of the wave function of say a generic tree?

That would alter significantly the definition of the phenomenon.

In that sense our experiences in an altogether way are incomplete with respect to the common senses at the very least.

Therefore in that context observations in this vein can be understood as definitive of a subjective experience.





Exactly!

This is EASY to understand. There's not just one meaning to the term subjective just like with most words. For some reason, he thinks there's just one definition and the term subjective has to be used in only one way.


I've seen all the definitions presented. Every single one of them agrees with me. And yes, it is easy to understand. Why you cannot is anyone's guess.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
no comment...


Yes, that is a real scientific experiment run at major universities. Yes, it captures "which path" information. Yes, it collapses the wave function.
edit on 28-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Box of Rain
a reply to: Greggers

But photons striking a chlorophyll molecule on a leaf in a jungle canopy in South America, out of sight of a conscious observer, will cause an reaction in the chlorophyll molecule even when there is no "consciousness" round to observe it...

I mean, it's not as if the tree doesn't grow until someone is around to observe it.

The same goes for photons carrying infrared radiation in space. An unknown comet out there in deep space might have its volatile compounds excited by solar radiation, and do so without a conscious observer ever knowing that the comet exists.


exactly...
remember Schroedinger's cat ?
dead and alive at the same time ?
such a BS.
NO, you just don't know until you look up.
But a physicist must have the answer so the cat is in some QUANTUM state





Or that the interaction of particles that cause a fusion reaction deep inside the sun does not happen until 100,000 years later when a photon created from that reaction strikes the eye of a conscious observer?


the Sun is not an atom bomb



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers


Yes, it collapses the wave function.


and how exactly a mathematical formula on the paper gets collapsed ?



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers


Pretty sure we can all get past that.


I makes the observation subjective if one cannot perceive or interact in any way with the phenomenon as a whole.



The story of the blind men and an elephant originated in the Indian subcontinent from where it has widely diffused. It is a story of a group of blind men (or men in the dark) who touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one feels a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes and learn that they are in complete disagreement.

It is a parable that has crossed between many religious traditions and is part of Jain, Buddhist, Sufi, Hindu and Bahá’í lore. The tale later became well known in Europe, with 19th century American poet John Godfrey Saxe creating his own version as a poem.[1] The story has been published in many books for adults and children, and interpreted in a variety of ways.



en.wikipedia.org...

In interpretation mankind altogether is but one Blind man in analogy, in relation to the topic.




edit on 28-9-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Hopefully for the last time, here are all the definitions of the word subjective at Dictionary.com, along with my thoughts on each of them. I hope you enjoy you some semantic dickery.

adjective
1.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
The measurement does not BELONG TO THE THINKING SUBJECT. IT BELONGS TO THE PARTICLE, or more specifically, TO THE METER.

2.
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual:
a subjective evaluation.
The MEASUREMENT of the PARTICLE is not a characteristic of the individual. It is a characteristic of the Particle, and/or the meter.

3.
placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
OBVIOUS THIS DOES NOT APPLY AT ALL.

4.
Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
The measurement is not related to the nature of the object as known in the mind... Because others will see the same outcome on the meter, the measurement in fact is part of the thing itself.

5.
relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.
The measurement of the particle is not related to properties of specific conditions "of the mind." It is, in fact, a GENERAL experience, as it is shared by everyone who is there to observe it.

6.
pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essential.
The measurement of the photon certainly is not ESSENTIAL as an attribute of the OBSERVER.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Greggers


The point of the statement to me is that what we perceive of reality is limited to the capacity to observing only one or two aspects in potential for a any phenomenon in general.

For example if we could for the sake of example perceive the of the wave function of say a generic tree?

That would alter significantly the definition of the phenomenon.

In that sense our experiences in an altogether way are incomplete with respect to the common senses at the very least.

Therefore in that context observations in this vein can be understood as definitive of a subjective experience.





Exactly!

This is EASY to understand. There's not just one meaning to the term subjective just like with most words. For some reason, he thinks there's just one definition and the term subjective has to be used in only one way.


I've seen all the definitions presented. Every single one of them agrees with me. And yes, it is easy to understand. Why you cannot is anyone's guess.


LOL, even a 5th grader can understand this.

A measurement of say spin down isn't an objective reality. It's a subjective experience between the observable of the wave function and an observer in this local universe that can't observe the wave function and this is why there's an ongoing debate on whether the wave function is real or can it be interpreted statistically.

A measuement of spin down is just a local subjective experience between observers and an observable of the wave function and it's only PERCEIVED as an objective reality to observers in the bubble or people who don't understand quantum mechanics.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: Greggers


Yes, it collapses the wave function.


and how exactly a mathematical formula on the paper gets collapsed ?


Are you familiar with Quantum Mechanics? The collapse of the wave function is terminology in QM that pertains to a probability distribution, and when it collapses the particle is no longer in a superposition of its possible states but is instead rendered in only one state.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
LOL, even a 5th grader can understand this.

You're not in the fifth grade yet, then?



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

You're too funny. You just can't admit you're wrong so you keep going with these long winded posts that evade evidence and say nothing.

4.
Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.


Again, this is exactly what I'm saying.

Relating to the nature of an object (THE WAVE FUNCTION) as it is known in the mind(SPIN DOWN) as distinct from a thing in itself (THE TRUE NATURE OF THE WAVE FUNCTION IS UNKNOWABLE AT THIS TIME).

It's not that hard. I think you're just being obtuse because you can't say these 3 words, I WAS WRONG!

edit on 28-9-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Greggers

You're too funny. You just can't admit you're wrong so you keep going with these long winded posts that evade evidence and say nothing.

Strangely, you're not funny at all, although you seem to be projecting heavily.



4.
Relating to the nature of an object (THE WAVE FUNCTION) as it is known in the mind(SPIN DOWN) as distinCT from a thing in itself (THE TRUE NATURE OF THE WAVE FUNCTION IS UNKNOWABLE AT THIS TIME).

The wave function itself, per QM, is simply a mathematical probability distribution and, per BOHR, is not knowable at any deeper level. It does not change the fact that SPIN UP does not "HAPPEN IN THE MIND." It happens outside of the mind, at the particle. It is OBJECTIVE by EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE DEFINITIONS I POSTED, and EVERY DEFINITION YOU'VE POSTED.



It's not that hard. I think you're just being obtuse because you can't say these 3 words, I WAS WRONG!

You're right. It's not that hard. I'm not sure why you can't admit you're wrong.
edit on 28-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers

Are you familiar with Quantum Mechanics? The collapse of the wave function is terminology in QM that pertains to a probability distribution, and when it collapses the particle is no longer in a superposition of its possible states but is instead rendered in only one state.


I'm, that is why I asked, seams you are not as you're just repeating what the book says.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: Greggers

Are you familiar with Quantum Mechanics? The collapse of the wave function is terminology in QM that pertains to a probability distribution, and when it collapses the particle is no longer in a superposition of its possible states but is instead rendered in only one state.


I'm, that is why I asked, seams you are not as you're just repeating what the book says.


By "the book," are you referring to Quantum Mechanics? Yes, I repeated what the book says because that is all that is known. If you have a more specific question I would be happy to try to answer it.
edit on 28-9-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
ATTENTION:

KNOCK IT OFF!!!

The topic is NEVER each other or opinions of each other. If you can't stick to the topic without the tit for tat, move on to another thread where you can control yourselves.

If this continues, Posting Bans will follow. This is not the Mud Pit.

Do not reply to this message.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

I just watched this yesterday.



It's a Ted Talks with Jacques Vallee talking about a similar thing? I will be back for the videos and more reading. Thanks for the thread, I appreciate it.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   
NO, Quantum Entanglement DOES NOT shows the universe is a vast simulation, it shows the electric field is faster than the magnetic field or C.
Before any electromagnetic ( electric and magnetic ) radiation is emitted, the correspondent charges connect electrically, the magnetic field "follows" the "path" reconfiguring the EM into the "new state".

Understanding that, the "eraser double slit" experiment doesn't need any waves to collapse. The path is setted the moment an "photon" is emitted. This so called "photon" has no choice, it's path is fixed from the moment of emission, through splitting into two entangled "photons" way down to the detector.
edit on 28-9-2016 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Good points and if we could perceive it as a whole, we wouldn't have to talk about it in terms of probability. Some people think the wave function is statistical others think it real and there's just an apparent collapse.

Here's another good video to check out:



As he says in the video, the world we think we know turns out to be a slither of a larger reality.

Holographic quantum error-correcting codes: Toy models for the bulk/boundary correspondence


We propose a family of exactly solvable toy models for the AdS/CFT correspondence based on a novel construction of quantum error-correcting codes with a tensor network structure. Our building block is a special type of tensor with maximal entanglement along any bipartition, which gives rise to an isometry from the bulk Hilbert space to the boundary Hilbert space. The entire tensor network is an encoder for a quantum error-correcting code, where the bulk and boundary degrees of freedom may be identified as logical and physical degrees of freedom respectively. These models capture key features of entanglement in the AdS/CFT correspondence; in particular, the Ryu-Takayanagi formula and the negativity of tripartite information are obeyed exactly in many cases. That bulk logical operators can be represented on multiple boundary regions mimics the Rindler-wedge reconstruction of boundary operators from bulk operators, realizing explicitly the quantum error-correcting features of AdS/CFT recently proposed by Almheiri et. al in arXiv:1411.7041.


arxiv.org...

It's very important as they talk about a bulk/boundary correspondence as it relates to entanglement. Entanglement on the boundary(horizon) will be simulated in the bulk(bubble),

This is why I say the only thing that makes sense is that particles are like pixels and the spacetime screen is our bubble universe. If spacetime is one whole then anywhere on the whole, the pixels can obey the program and you can have things like "spooky action at a distance" if you look at these things in a classical sense.




top topics



 
38
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join