quantum physics says reality only exsists in the past, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 05:13 AM by Astyanax
reply to post by Kryties


No, intuitive ballastics will do it.

The OP is correct, but what does this have to do with quantum mechanics? It seems pretty Newtonian to me.


reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 05:19 AM by Kryties
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to
post by Kryties


No, intuitive ballastics will do it.


Care to elaborate?

Im not being nasty I'm genuinely interested. Its a topic which Ive wanted to look more into for quite some time but never had the time to.


reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 05:25 AM by mapsurfer_
reply to post by constantwonder


Yeah, this is true.. even measuring something in real-time (down to a yactosecond) is still a past observation. So effectively, we are *always* seeing the past.


reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 07:49 AM by Astyanax
reply to post by Kryties


Care to elaborate?

Sure. It's not particularly esoteric or exciting, though.

Catching a thrown object (say a ball) is a learned skill. You learn to track the ball in flight, calculate its trajectory and place your hand or hands at some point along the trajectory before the ball gets there, or at least no later. The skill involves anticipation in any event; you put your hands where you calculate the ball will be in the future, not where your senses tell you the ball is now.

Sure, the ball isn't where your senses tell you it is now. It has moved further along that trajectory by the time the message reaches your brain. But that's irrelevant, because your brain has already computed the ball's future trajectory (using tracking data from your eyes, not precognition) and placed your hands in the appropriate position. The time lag ball-eye-brain-hand is automatically calculated for and taken account of in the process. How does your brain do that? Through trial and error. Practice makes perfect; until you learn to compensate for that time-lag, you'll keep dropping the ball.

It's ballastics, but it ain't rocket science.


reply posted on 1-9-2008 @ 10:36 AM by Kryties
reply to post by Astyanax



Ahh of course, I know what you are saying. I was thrown by the 'Intuitive Ballistics' though Ive never heard it called that.

Makes for some interesting thinking if you apply that logic to the people who can supposed catch an arrow shot from a bow or crossbow. I guess if you practice it enough you become intuitive, but unlike learning to catch a ball I really wouldn't be too comfortable on my first attempt trying to catch an arrow!



reply posted on 2-9-2008 @ 01:07 AM by Kryties
reply to post by constantwonder



What will really blow your mind is when you think about the fact that Time, in itself, is a man-made thing and therefore does not actually exist.

Fire an arrow at an apple. Film the arrow's journey with a high-speed camera. Select two sequential frames with the time between them being zero seconds.

Now, if time existed one would see the arrow not move between the two frames. Yet it does. So if no time actually passed in the space of these two frames, how did the arrow move?


reply posted on 2-9-2008 @ 07:30 AM by squiz
reply to post by constantwonder



Hey there constantwonder, I posted something along this line of thought in a similar thread of yours. I believe you are correct, I believe our consciousness is folded into space time. The brain is a biological quantum computer than can work in backwards time.
Stuart Hammeroff also shares this opinion, I recommend you check out Quantum Consciousness and any of his other research you can find, you may recognise him from "What the Bleep".


reply posted on 2-9-2008 @ 07:54 AM by Astyanax
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]



reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 01:37 AM by Astyanax
reply to post by SectionEight


Taking away all perceptive senses you are left with your own thoughts, you are as close to the present as possible (but still not there)....does this not describe meditation?

I'm afraid not. Consciousness, as pointed out earlier, does not exist in the present. It exists in the past.

The research of Libet and others shows that our supposedly conscious decisions occur before we are conscious of them.

Libet's experiments suggest unconscious processes in the brain are the true initiator of volitional acts, therefore, little room remains for the operations of free will. If the brain has already taken steps to initiate an action before we are aware of any desire to perform it, the causal role of consciousness in volition is all but eliminated.

Wikipedia

The idea that thought and action are voluntary is simply an illusion generated in the brain.

Libet's hypothesis was that conscious awareness is subjectively referred backwards in time. We consciously perceive the stimulus as occuring at the same moment it registers unconsciously, even though it doesn't in fact enter our awareness until it has persisted for half a second. Subjectively we backdate it to match the evoked potential at the beginning rather than the end of the 500 millisecond span.

ConsciousEntities


It is increasingly clear that consciousness is a projection of some sort caused by (and possibly no more than a by-product of) organic function. The self is an illusion and free will does not exist except in the most rudimentary sense.

More here, and much more here.

As for meditation, it's just a way of monkeying with brain function, no different in its operations from drugs, electrocortical stimulation or a bash on the head. I'm not saying it isn't beneficial under certain circumstances; but then, so is aspirin.


reply posted on 3-9-2008 @ 04:32 AM by Astyanax
reply to post by SectionEight


The object of meditation is not to think: rather, it is to be open to all perceptual information without allowing oneself to be distracted by thinking about it. That is the very opposite of being 'alone with your thoughts'.

Besides, your thoughts (ie your mental processes) are not in the present; by the time you are conscious of them, they are already past.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^




Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 17 hours ago, 117 replies
Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 13 hours ago, 65 replies
I saw a cat turn into a bag..
  The Gray Area, Posted 17 hours ago, 42 replies