Why must you insist reality is illusion?

reply to post by sirnex

The advantage of manipulating the entangled partners of the photons in the double-slit part of the experimental apparatus is that experimenters can destroy or restore the interference pattern in the latter without changing anything in that part of the apparatus. Experimenters do so by manipulating the entangled photon, and they can do so before or after its partner has entered or after it has exited the double-slits and other elements of experimental apparatus between the photon emitter and the detection screen. t)So, under conditions where the double-slit part of the experiment has been set up to prevent the appearance of interference phenomena (because there is definitive "which path" information presen, the quantum eraser can be used to effectively erase that information. In doing so, the experimenter restores interference without altering the double-slit part of the experimental apparatus. An event that is remote in space and in time can restore the readily visible interference pattern that manifests itself through the constructive and destructive wave interference.

So you can't see where the "consciousness" comes into play in this article?

What about the "experimenter"?

So, under conditions where the double-slit part of the experiment has been set up to prevent the appearance of interference phenomena (because there is definitive "which path" information present,

This definative "wich path" information is known to whom?

The "experimenter"

In doing so, the experimenter restores interference without altering the double-slit part of the experimental apparatus.

Who restores the interference/wave pattern?

The "experimenter" does, by letting the quantum eraser erase the info, and thereby destroying any chance of knowledge about the outcome, suddenly anything is possible and so the wave/interference function is restored.

So where might the consciousness be in this experiment?

Exactly, in the "experimenter"

Get it?


[edit on 15/9/08 by enigmania]

[edit on 15/9/08 by enigmania]

reply to post by enigmania


Please post a direct quote where the article specifically portrays the the observer as being a conscious observer and not the instruments used as is defined by the observer effect.

Don't tell me you have a better understanding and sit there still insisting that it is the experimenter/consciousness.

reply to post by sirnex


It doesn't have to say "consciousness" because it is obvious that the whole experiment works because of the knowledge the experimenter has about witch slit the particle went through.

The experimenter, as a human is the consciousness that is influencing the experiment.

I think I explained it pretty clear in my last post.

I think that the problem is that you can't grasp the concept.

reply to post by sirnex


Ok, I'll try again. See how I am willing to explain myself instead of just saying you're wrong?

The observer effect:

In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on the phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics.

So according to the observer effect, the change from particle to wave and back, as a result of not observing and observing(in the DS exp.), is caused by the physical effect the measuring device has on the particle.

If you measure wich slit the particle goes through, the wave/interference pattern collapses and it turns into a particle pattern.


But if you have the quantum eraser erasing the info of the measuring device, so that it is unknown to the experimenters watching the pattern, what slit the
particle went through, the pattern turns to a wave/interference pattern again.

Even though the particle was physically detected by the measuring device, it had no effect on the pattern.

The knowledge of the observers of the experiment was the only factor influencing the pattern.

[edit on 15/9/08 by enigmania]

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I think reality is an illusion merely because we don't know what real is.

Real is what exists, and what we create into existance. You can punch a wall and vow you do not know if it is real, and you will get a painful answer.

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
Do we hear sounds the same? taste the same tastes? see the same colours? I think not.

Generally yes. These perceptions are standardized through shared DNA. How we react to the perceptions is where the variation and difference is (conciousness).

Forgive me sir but you seem to be running a bit behind the times. It is true that biologist once taught that consciousness was produced by the brain as that was the information passed on by those scientists concerned with the nature of reality, the physicists.
But now with the concept of observer-created universes gaining acceptance by these same physicists it is now generally believes that it is instead, matter which is produced by consciousness.
The brain, being matter, cannot be viewed as the source of consciousness if consciousness is needed for the creation of the brain. Consciousness is reality. The brain and all it's electro-chemical processes are only part of the illusion.
The movie "The Matrix" is a perfect analogy. Replace the controlling computer with the collective consciousness and instead of bodies lying in individual units attached to some type of energy collector, think of minds co-existing at a point free of time and space as these concepts exist only within the matrix.
It is an illusion. It does not require anyone's belief or acceptance to exist. But if one does not accept it then they have no chance of ever discovering the real rules by which it works.
The laws of physics are merely the default settings while science is little more than one of several dozen optional background choices which is why one should not sweat gods, demons, or aliens. They are only computer generated characters that go along with certain background settings.
Or maybe not.

It didn't show but my last post was a reply to sirnex

reply to post by enigmania


Damn your denser than lead boy.

It is not YOU doing the observing, it is the instruments themselves. Your looking at the outcome of the observation as it is done through the instruments, YOU never DIRECTLY OBSERVED nor DIRECTLY CHANGED the physical properties of the electron. The entire time you used INSTRUMENTS.

Gee golly and what do you know, the observer effect talks about just that!

@Robin:

No, your also misusing the observer effect. So, who kept this "Matrix movie" going for 13.8 billion years before man evolved? Or is the universe now so inherently complicated that it was created just this second?

Hell, let's just roll with that one. Our universe was created right now, this very second. Everything popped into existence just as it is, with a predefined past and all. Prove it wrong.

reply to post by sirnex

Well done, sirnex! I've been watching you hold the light of science aloft in the midst of all this New Age murk for several pages now.

My congratulations, and if it seems you're fighting a lonesome battle, well, you're doing better than your opponents. I, for one, haven't yet felt the urge to chip in.

Stars for all your posts. Well, except for the really bad-tempered ones.


[edit on 16-9-2008 by Astyanax]

reply to post by sirnex


No damn you denser than black hole son. What the quantum eraser test proves is that there is no observer effect that is making the wave function collapse.

If they watch wich slit the particle goes through, the wave pattern turns to a particle pattern.

So, this could be caused by the effect the detector has on the particle, the observer effect.

But it isn't, because when they erase the information after detection, they still get the wave pattern again.

So even though a detection is made, the wave of potential doesn't collapse, because everything is still possible.

If they don't erase the info, the poattern turns to a particle pattern again.

Does this not prove that the observer effect has no influence on the collapsing of the wave function?

reply to post by Astyanax

Yes I have to agree As I am also one that sincerely knows and understands through sound Newtonian logic that my local Daily Newspaper is always made available for me to buy. Simple because the actual Place where it is made always has chaotic calculated explosions each night where by the Inks blow up and ends up on the huge Reams of Paper in clear legible texts that form concise grammatically correct and precise sentences of which I can read very well despite this seemingly chaotic process as the end product being in a set format of organised pages in a chronological order complete with liftouts and great sports sections. This process in so unique because the ink splatters so well I can also read a Weather and TV forecast on some highlighted pages

reply to post by sirnex

It is not YOU doing the observing, it is the instruments themselves. Your looking at the outcome of the observation as it is done through the instruments, YOU never DIRECTLY OBSERVED nor DIRECTLY CHANGED the physical properties of the electron. The entire time you used INSTRUMENTS.

Yes but if there is no way to read the instruments results, the wave pattern continues.

If there is a way or chance the results are read, the wave pattern collapses.

So, isn't there a force outside of the instruments that has influence on the pattern?

And what would that be?

reply to post by Astyanax


Oh, you mean the light of science that makes people think all they are is there body and the result of it's processes?

What about the implications of the experiment I'm talking about? Don't you see anything strange about them?

Even if you don't believe consciousness is affecting the pattern, can you tell me what is making the pattern change?

And don't say observer effect, cause the quantum eraser experiment proves that is not the case, no matter how you look at it.

This thread just keeps on going like a bad nightmare... but I would still assert that science can be applied to reality, whereas illusions cannot be tested in the same manner. It may well turn out there are other dimensions which may agree with science and explain much of what we consider paranormal or supernatural. There is a thread about Fermilab Looking For Visitors from Another Dimension which very well could yield some concrete proof, but you on these theories as such.. you have to remain a skeptic to some degree. It isn't healthy to buy into every theory throw out onto the web as if it is fact. I am certainly open minded on the topic and hope that is true. It would certainly answer alot of questions.

reply to post by mapsurfer_


Yes, and I would like to add that it's not like I think I fully understand this all, or that it makes sense, but I do know that the experiment I'm talking about has severe implications. It's outcome was scientifically determined.

If you don't believe in the effect of consciousness, the outcome is inexplanable.

That's the funny part, to me, all these people are saying that consciousness has nothing to do with the experiment, but there is no other way to explain the quirky results.

So instead they choose to ignore the whole experiment and it's implications.

And no, it is proven that the observer effect plays no rol in the matter.

So can anyone explain what actually causes the wave pattern to collapse in this experiment?

[edit on 16/9/08 by enigmania]

reply to post by enigmania

Well, are you saying that conscious observation is irrelevant? It is really the only form of validation that we know. I do not believe we are being deceived or shielded from scientific fact because we are conscious. But on the contrary, until we can prove some continuity of unconscious thought.. it remains an enigma. I am not discounting that unconscious minds cannot be connected, or that we cannot tap into other dimensions, etc... but AFAIK its just a theory.

reply to post by mapsurfer_


No, I'm saying, that in the latest versions of the Double Slit experiment, there is no other explanation for the collapsing of the wave into a particle, than it being the result of conscious observing.

So translated to our life, it could mean that consciousness is what makes up the world, and not the other way around.

So light is both a particle and a wave. OK, kind of unexpected (like Jell-O) but perhaps not totally weird. But the double slit experiment had another trick up its sleeve. One could send one photon (or "quantum" of energy) through a single slit at a time, with a sufficiently long interval in between, and eventually a spot builds up that looks just like the one produced when a very intense (many photons) light was sent through the slit. But then a strange thing happened. When one sends a single photon at a time (waiting between each laser pulse, for example) toward the screen when both slits are open, rather than two spots eventually building up opposite the two slit openings, what eventually builds up is the interference pattern of alternating bright and dark lines! Hmm... how can this be, if only one photon was sent through the apparatus at a time?

The answer is that each individual photon must - in order to have produced an interference pattern -- have gone through both slits! This, the simplest of quantum weirdness experiments, has been the basis of many of the unintuitive interpretations of quantum physics. We can see, perhaps, how physicists might conclude, for example, that a particle of light is not a particle until it is measured at the screen. It turns out that the particle of light is rather a wave before it is measured. But it is not a wave in the ocean-wave sense. It is not a wave of matter but rather, it turns out that it is apparently a wave of probability. That is, the elementary particles making up the trees, people, and planets -- what we see around us -- are apparently just distributions of likelihood until they are measured (that is, measured or observed). So much for the Victorian view of solid matter!

reply to post by enigmania

Yeah bro I hear you.... There is real unexplained weirdness occurring at the quantum level. I don't even pretend to understand, and science apparently doesn't either. It's as if the act of observing somehow changes the results which leads me to think there is either a flaw in the way the such things are measured or observed, or we simply do not understand how the waves/particles. In my opinion, science has not discovered all of the sub-atomic particles necessary to explain the phenomena. I am however confident that they will at some point in the future. Quantum physics is still theoretical, and being redefined upon every new discovery.

I would say however, that all observation/measurement is made at a conscious level... According to Wiki "Reality" may contain things which are unobservable including "nothing", in which case things get convoluted, but I will just have to go along with it because there will always be unexplained elements of reality.


[edit on 16-9-2008 by mapsurfer_]

reply to post by mapsurfer_

It's as if the act of observing somehow changes the results which leads me to think there is either a flaw in the way the such things are measured or observed, or we simply do not understand how the waves/particles.

Jeah, but this is the point I've been trying to make regarding the DS-experiment.

There is no flaw in measuring there, cause if they immediately erase the info of the detection, after it is detetected, they keep getting the wave pattern, the wave of potential.

This PROVES that the physical interaction of the detector with the particle, doesn't collapse the wave function.

It is the fact that it is now non-verifiable to see wich slit the particle went through, so it turns into a wave.

I would say however, that all observation/measurement is made at a conscious level... According to Wiki "Reality" may contain things which are unobservable including "nothing", in which case things get convoluted, but I will just have to go along with it because there will always be unexplained elements of reality.

The way I see it, there has to always be consciousness, even if there was nothing, because how could nothing exist, if there was no consciousness to acknowledge that there was nothing.

The consciousness could exist without the nothing, but could the nothing exist without the consciousness?