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.

 

Quantum Theory Observer, some questions

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 





The thing ive noticed about all of these replies and must disagree with is that they make you the person the observer. . . . this is not solely the case the observer can also be another particle or a molecule or a rock or a dog or a toe nail clipping. . . the observer could be anything that would interact with the particle in question. . . please find some real physics elsewhere to brush up your info with most of what ive read here is pseudo-science hooplah like "What the Bleep" (which is not a scientificaly backed interpratation of quantum physics. So please take it with a grain of salt my friend


please find some real physics elswhere to brush up? lol

And then you say this

(which is not a scientificaly backed interpratation of quantum physics. So please take it with a grain of salt my friend)

My grammer may be lacking as my spelling as you liked to point out..

my understanding of this subject is NOT.. we are the observer no matter how you wish to spin it.

atoms dogs cats toenails

dont assume something you dont know.. put forth your understanding as a rock as an atom as a toe nail then and only then will i pay attention.

This is about human observation and how we affect it.. Not from the view of atoms not from the view of a cat and NOT from the view of a toenail..

Yes observations we can postulate from other objects interacting is real but and i say this WE ARE NOT THE OTHER THINGS we are infact the observer here you are confusing the 2 aspects of the (qp)..

If you need help ill post you a link by stephen hawkings on this very subject

yes btw i do read infact i enjoy his lectures alot.....



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Goodmorning from the Netherlands


Well it's the first time every I started a thread that required moderation...lol. But I have to say... I'm learning very much from all the info you guys put in it. At the same time I'm also translating it for a friend who doesn't understand english so well but is very interested in what you guys have to say.

So thank you all for contributing


I really want to dig some deeper into the matter, so right now I'm going to smoke a cigaret and have some breakfast and once my mind is fully awake (well... as far as it can be...lol) I'll reply on the theoretical side of things.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ambushrocks
 


hey nps hello to the netherlands!! hehe

I want you to take a look a new thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Not to derail this one but i think you will have a better understanding in some ways




posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp

quantum entanglement is a more accurate description of dialectics re:QM.

Brion Gysin and William Burroughs discussed dialectics in terms of the "third mind". that is to say that when two people interact with one another, the interaction of their minds creates a third, superior cognitive intelligence. this third mind the controlling entity of the interaction between the two individual minds.

the third mind concept can be extended indefinitely into super-conscious entities.

in terms of subatomic particles, the third mind is the smallest physical unit: the atom.

in this way, reality is manifested by an interaction of top->down AND bottom ->up....and humans find themselfs right smack in the middle.



This is a very interesting theory.... I hadn't heard of it before, but it is defenitly worth checking out from what I read here!!!

Of course (as with all new things I read) I've got lots of questions about it... but let's start with the first one. "Reality is manifested by interaction".. This sounds very logic, but in this theory is interaction the only way to manifest reality? (hmm.. I think this sentence is not totally correct english but I hope you understand)



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 02:31 AM
link   
We can not be sure of the state of the system before it is observed. Therefore it is just a probability of what the state is AFTER observation.

Reality is probabalistic in nature. Not solid and "out there" and fundementally objective like mainstream science believes.

As we progress with science, I truely believe science will eventually accept that space and time are quantized (descrete bits of information) and reality is ultimately computated.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then it is by definition a duck. The universe computes itself through bits (one thing as it relates to another). Therefore the universe is by definition a quantum computer.

Do not accept that the universe is mechanical. This isn't newtons version of the universe as seen 300 years ago. We are in a new age of modeling the universe in digital terms.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by tobiascore
 


We can not be sure of the state of the system before it is observed. Therefore it is just a probability of what the state is AFTER observation.


we can be sure.. as when we observe "IT" is the logical path to us doing and being the oberver,,

or we would never understand it ect ect



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 03:35 AM
link   
Forgive me if I say something stupid here... but I was already thinking about time in relation to dialectics and quantum theory and now I see you guys talking about before and after:



We can not be sure of the state of the system before it is observed. Therefore it is just a probability of what the state is AFTER observation.


So how's the stance of quantum theory towards time? Is it relative? Do all times exist simutaniously? Is it subjective? Objective?



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ambushrocks
Forgive me if I say something stupid here... but I was already thinking about time in relation to dialectics and quantum theory and now I see you guys talking about before and after:



We can not be sure of the state of the system before it is observed. Therefore it is just a probability of what the state is AFTER observation.


So how's the stance of quantum theory towards time? Is it relative? Do all times exist simutaniously? Is it subjective? Objective?


Kinda hard to explain unless you break your habitual thought patterns of how reality operates.

It's gotta be subjective.

Not to get TOO metaphysical, but if you try meditating and get good, you can hold your consciousness and you are aware of what seems like a few minutes, but in real-time an hour has passed. Your consciousness wasn't broken at any point. So that tells you that we all share an objective time-loop. But it's a product of awareness. Fundemental time only exists within your mind.

If all of humanity blacked out, the physical world we share wouldn't exist physically, it would exist as a statistical probability. Some people may experience consciousness in dreams, or maybe OOBE, who knows. But that consciousness would not be located *here* in this physical time-loop.

What I'm getting at, is consciousness is not fundementally bound by the rules of space-time. It is an illusion that it is. Here, awake, we experience data streams coming into our senses. But once that data stream is cut-off, the phsycial is a probability-wave, because YOU can not objectivly measure what you are not observing. Period. This makes sense if you model reality as quantized, a data stream of descrete bits of information that we translate into the 3D physical world we perceive.

There's a fine line between metaphysical assumption and scientific assumption. Terminology is a very powerful thing here. I was homeschooled, so pardon if I'm not coming across clearly.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChronMan
Ambush, disregard that post (above) made by tobias, its all wrong and unfortunately, typical.


I was wrong in bringin in meditation as an example.

But by the standard model, I am incorrect. But the standard model is at it's breaking point. Too many assumptions. Assuming the universe is a giant quantum computer, tell me how I am wrong.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Einstein and Bohr both knew that the physical is derivitive of the mind, not the other way around.

Programming the Universe

I would reccomend reading this book as a platform. Then once we start modeling the universe as a computer, then what I'm saying will start to make sense.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by tobiascore
Einstein and Bohr both knew that the physical is derivitive of the mind, not the other way around.

Programming the Universe

I would reccomend reading this book as a platform. Then once we start modeling the universe as a computer, then what I'm saying will start to make sense.


Physics

I would reccomend, that you enroll in one of those programs, or anything similar; Once you start understanding physics, you'll be more equipped to engage in an intelligent discussion concerning popular topics in physics/science.

Its always interesting when I encounter people who make extreme statements about reality, make expressions such as: "The physical 3D world", I guess the former facilitates the latter.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by ChronMan]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I think people would do much better if they learn to understand what people mean instead of just reading what they said.

There is a difference. Anyways.. everyone here has a different opinion. My suggestion would be to lay them out, compare, and rethink your opinion, repeat.

Arguing who is right and who is wrong isn't going to get us anywhere. Personally I an extremely interested in this topic. Mainly because a lot of the theories I hear help to make my sense of what I keep experiencing in my mushroom trips.

Keep up the discussion but just because someone is wrong or you don't agree with them doesn't, for one, make them wrong, and you should be making it a point to correct them and show why you "think" you are right. That's constructive.. not fighting.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   


If all of humanity blacked out, the physical world we share wouldn't exist physically, it would exist as a statistical probability.


This is another philosophy way of thinking which I have already examined. While I appreciate your efford and understand what you are saying, I'm purely looking at the scientific side of dialectic concepts. I think this is also what ChronMan is trying to say in his post.

This does not mean your ideas aren't intersting. They explore the relativity side in philosophy and are defenitly worth checking out. Maybe another topic would do better to explore that idea... and if you would open one I would be glad to post in it.

Now to try to stay on track here (which is hard.. I know.. philosophy, quantum fysics, quantum mechanics and quantum theory have many "side tracks) Can someone shed some more light on the time thing?

What does time mean for the observer and the particle/wave? I will explain my question a bit more...

Imaging I will right now, as an observer, make a measurment and thus I collapse the wave into a particle. This gives me some data (as to where that particle is and what it is doing or something like that) If I repeat that same expiriment the next day, under what we consider to be the same circumstances (well, as well as we can calculate these circumstances) would it be likely I get the same reading on my measurement or would it be more likely I get a totally different reading?



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SeeingBlue
 


Arguing who is right and who is wrong isn't going to get us anywhere

this was my fav comment!!!

what does that boil down to in relation to this topic? lets look shall we..

who ie me and who ie you asking questions? questions of what is it? what we are in who is right? is the world flat is is not? depends on ones presective..

the world is flat "for were you stand" look outside of were it is your feet are placed

the world is no longer flat but round!

what way is up?

i ask that question to people alot.. its funny..

what way is infact up if you live on a sphear?

same question.. is the world flat ; )

its alll about prespective and ones thinking .. you see this is what we have to challange in (qp)

the question we ask IN (qp) is infact OUR answer.. not that may infact sound silly.. but its the truest statement of all..



hope that helps



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


Sorry guys... I can't take a stance in the discussion between you 2... but the fight club is a good idea!

Anyway... now on your post.


Basically the future grows out of the past


That would almost (or maybe totally..lol) be something that fits into philosophy.. (and dialectics for that matter) It is a very interesting theory and I will watch the vid tomorrow (my partner is ready to go to bed and the computer is in our bedroom... so I bet he won't like it if I go watching vids now..lol)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join