reply to post by constantwonder
what does it have to do with quanum physics..... it has to do with quantum physics because its dealing with the nature of light and
consiousness (a "packet" of light being a quantum)
Well, the speed of light is the same whether you're talking about a quantum of light, aka a photon, or a lightwave propagating outward from the
source. So there's really no specific appeal to quantum theory here.
what i would really like to get to the bottom of is what exists in the exact present moment of exsistance knowing observation takes time and
particles are collapsed out of a wave function into a point particle simply by the act of observation
No problem. Just wait till the light reaches your eyes and you'll know exactly. No need to be impatient; light travels fast. Unless you're observing
something at astronomical distances, you won't have to wait long.
then does anything actually exsist in the present other than consiousness and sheer probability?
Not only because the speed of light is finite but also because electrical impulses travel at finite (and much slower) speeds from our sensory organs
to our brains, we can never know what is happening in the actual present. In fact, the more exactly you try to locate the present moment, the more
elusive it becomes. There is really no such thing as 'the present'; it's just a cognitive and linguistic convenience.
Consciousness does not exist in the present, but in the past, as you imply in the OP.
And I seriously doubt that the world only exists because we're around to look at it. It's there all the time, whether we're watching or not.
physics hates the idea of consiousness having any role, but im afraid they are being forced to account for it.
I'm reading
The Trouble With Physics by
Lee Smolin. He makes the point that quantum
mechanics, in spite of its great experimental success, is probably not a complete theory precisely because of this implied dependence on an observer
to make any phenomen 'real'. He points out that the universe has existed for a lot longer than human beings have, indeed for longer than any kind of
life could possibly have, so who then was the observer of all those ancient events? Who was watching the Big Bang?
Smolin feels it's likely that when a unified theory of physics finally emerges, it will account for all phenomena independent of the presence of any
observer. I find his arguments persuasive.
That isn't to say that quantum theory is wrong; only that it is probably restricted in scope just as Newtonian mechanics is.
But of course, nobody really knows, one way or the other.
[edit on 2-9-2008 by Astyanax]