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 Mechanics shows there's life after death

page: 11
31
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by loner007
 

Proof, Apparently, that Quantum Mechanics Shows there's Life After Death


Originally posted by loner007
www.mind-lamp.com...




Mind-Lamp.com offers a 30-day money-back guarantee if you are unhappy with your purchase, and a 1-year parts and service warranty on defective lamps. If your lamp malfunctions or arrives broken, just send it back for replacement or repair. International and expedited shipping are available. The Mind Lamp is securely padded for shipment.

I think a bulb needs to be changed somewhere.


Originally posted by sirnex
It's special Olympics week on ATS...

Nah. It's just the pre-Christmas bargain sale.

[edit on 13/12/09 by Astyanax]




posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
IMHO we return to the Source and join with the energy that surrounds us. In essence, we join with God. Those that do commit the greatest of sins - murder for one, simply fade out into nothingness. After a period of review and renewal, energy is returned from the Source of All Life, into another being. Not necessarily human. Call it a form of reincarnation if you will. Just ny 2 cents. Cheers all!



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Again, you don't have a clue as to what your talking about. These things are not interpretations. You are stuck on this word because your a troll debating something that you don't know about.

You said:


Now that I have been made aware of which interpretation you were discussing I can't point this out. Nor have I explicitly said that you had said any interpretation was the only one, but that you were discussing said interpretation as *IF* it were the only interpretation. Please learn how to comprehend what your reading. Your arguing something here that never even happened.


How can I be talking about many worlds when I said the observers choice creates reality?

See you are trying to debate against Copenhagen or Many Worlds because you don't understand that I have been talking about both.

So if I say many worlds, you want to cut and paste against many worlds. If I say Copenhagen, you want to cut and paste against Copenhagen. This is because your a troll that doesn't have a clue.

When you talk about the appearnce of collapse of the wave function, tell me what happens to it? If it just "appears" to collapse does it really collapse? If it doesn't really collapse where is it at?

You said:


Well, I was under the impression that it was the Copenhagen interpretation, I didn't reply to the thread until page three, so naturally I forgot the explicit statement of 'many worlds'. Forgetfulness does not make someone a liar, so I really don't appreciate the unfounded slanderous libel against me.


You did this the last time I debated you. You assumed and you looked foolish.

The reason you want to debate against "only" the Copenhagen interpretation or "only" the many worlds interpretation is because you didn't understand that I was talking about both.

Everything I talked about is not an interpretation. You are stuck on these words for some reason.

Bose-Einstein Condensate is not an interpretation
en.wikipedia.org...

I talked about de Broglie and matter waves
en.wikipedia.org...

I talked about Entanglement
en.wikipedia.org...

I talked about non locality
en.wikipedia.org...

I talked about decoherence
en.wikipedia.org...

I talked about black hole thermodynamics, delayed choice experimen, quantum eraser delayed choice experiment.

You keep talking about interpretation because you read somewhere about the debate between Copenhagen and many worlds. Interpretation has nothing to do with the experiments I'm quoting.

Einstein said the distinction between past, present and future is a persistent illusion. If time is an illusion, what is death?

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein

So when you talk about death in isolation from the whole it's meaningless. This is decoherence and entanglement not an interpretation.

You said this:


Irregardless of which interpretation, the many worlds interpretation has never stated anything in which you state it does. There is no explicit or implied mechanism for the consciousness of this universe to transfer into another universe upon death nor any mechanism cited for this transference or what happens to the consciousness of the other 'you'. Many worlds states that all these multiple you's are separate distinct individuals that exist just as you exist here in this universe


Again this shows you don't understand what your talking about. When you say seperate and distinct you's, this shows me you don't understand what your talking about.

First, to say we are seperate and distinct in light of entanglement and nonlocality is silly. We are under the illusion of seperation because of decoherence.

How can universe A be distinct from universe B if they are entangled? These events don't influence events that occur in these different universes because of magic.

You say these silly things in a vacuum. If these things are seperate and distinct then show the evidence that this is the case.


Proponents argue that many-worlds reconciles how we can perceive non-deterministic events, such as the random decay of a radioactive atom, with the deterministic equations of quantum physics. Prior to many-worlds, reality had been viewed as a single "world-line". Many-worlds, rather, views reality as a many-branched tree where every possible quantum outcome is realised.

In many-worlds, the subjective appearance of wavefunction collapse is explained by the mechanism of quantum decoherence. By decoherence, many-worlds claims to resolve all of the correlation paradoxes of quantum theory, such as the EPR paradox and Schrödinger's cat, since every possible outcome of every event defines or exists in its own "history" or "world". In layman's terms, there is a very large—perhaps infinite—number of universes, and everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but didn't, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes.


The reason why these events appear to occur in their "own" world is because of the appareance of collapse because of the illusion of decoherence.

So I want you to present the evidence that says we are in "seperate, distinct" worlds.

See this is what trolls do. They say these things in a vacuum and they think it means something.

I have presented evidence that shows we are not seperate and distinct based on entanglement and decoherence.

I think you need Dr. Quantum lol.

www.youtube.com...

You have deluded yourself into thinking your being honest. You may not know these things because you don't understand them. That doesn't mean that other can't know these things. You are trying to measure others understanding by the yardstick of your own ignorance.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





So... You agree that someone can openly state that they haven't bothered to read someone else posts and make a valid opinion of their intelligence? Your so silly and I love the two word response!


No i do not agree, Im sure you asume.. But i was pointing out how crass your comment was?

Can you not deal with a basic comment?




Your so silly and I love the two word response


Im agree you do love my attention Troll


Keep posting, it just makes you look more un interesting that your posts on the subject.

You have not stated anything other than sit on the fence and insult others who do not agree with your trolling ways...

So please Make a thread I can comment on. Thanks



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



Again, you don't have a clue as to what your talking about. These things are not interpretations. You are stuck on this word because your a troll debating something that you don't know about.


That's right, call me a liar and ignore the damn link I provided that literally states that these are all separate interpretations of quantum mechanics. Your such a smart little boy aren't you.


How can I be talking about many worlds when I said the observers choice creates reality?


There are so many thing's wrong with that statement, I don't even know where to begin or if I have the patience to quote you all night.


See you are trying to debate against Copenhagen or Many Worlds because you don't understand that I have been talking about both.


Both describe a different function of quantum mechanics, not the same thing. I am unsure where you get this ridiculous idea that you can equate the two as applicable to the other.


So if I say many worlds, you want to cut and paste against many worlds. If I say Copenhagen, you want to cut and paste against Copenhagen. This is because your a troll that doesn't have a clue.


OK, so if you state that two different interpretations of quantum mechanics agree with your opinions and then I post something from each interpretation that shows they don't... I'm a troll. Wow.


When you talk about the appearnce of collapse of the wave function, tell me what happens to it? If it just "appears" to collapse does it really collapse? If it doesn't really collapse where is it at?


As there is no mechanism of function discovered and only a possible explanation for the appearance, it could be wrong. Irregardless of the apparent appearance, there is no experimental data that even suggests it collapses elsewhere. Parallel universes has not been proven nor observed.


You did this the last time I debated you. You assumed and you looked foolish.


That's your opinion, and if I'm not mistaken even then there were some who agreed with me just as there are some who do here; But your right... We "just don't get it". Only you understand all these complex ideas despite ignoring contrary evidence.


The reason you want to debate against "only" the Copenhagen interpretation or "only" the many worlds interpretation is because you didn't understand that I was talking about both.


Both describe a different function of quantum mechanics, not the same thing. I am unsure where you get this ridiculous idea that you can equate the two as applicable to the other.


Everything I talked about is not an interpretation. You are stuck on these words for some reason.


MWI is certainly an interpretation of quantum mechanics, and not the only one. If you could please read my links then we wouldn't be having this pointless discussion here.


Bose-Einstein Condensate is not an interpretation


What is your point? I never said BEC's were an interpretation.


I talked about de Broglie and matter waves


This is a separate interpretation.


I talked about Entanglement


What is your point? I never said BEC's were an interpretation.


I talked about non locality


What is your point? I never said non locality was an interpretation.


I talked about decoherence


This is a separate interpretation.


I talked about black hole thermodynamics, delayed choice experimen, quantum eraser delayed choice experiment.


Black holes have yet to be proven, so it's a moot point. Quantum eraser has more to do with the Copenhagen interpretation than it does with the Many Worlds interpretation.



You keep talking about interpretation because you read somewhere about the debate between Copenhagen and many worlds. Interpretation has nothing to do with the experiments I'm quoting.


Interpretation has everything to do with it. The Copenhagen interpretation and MWI are both derived from the same experiments and the same results, interpreted differently. They are not applicable to the other and postulate separate mechanisms of function in quantum mechanics which is evident by the link you blatantly ignored before created this nonsensical BS diatribe of a response.


Einstein said the distinction between past, present and future is a persistent illusion. If time is an illusion, what is death?

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein


An opinion is just that, an opinion.


So when you talk about death in isolation from the whole it's meaningless. This is decoherence and entanglement not an interpretation.


What your attempting here is to take death out of the equation, but still try to argue it as part of the equation. That doesn't make sense to you does it? I mean... it can't make sense. You would have to be certifiably retarded to take belief in such a viewpoint. Are you?


Again this shows you don't understand what your talking about. When you say seperate and distinct you's, this shows me you don't understand what your talking about.


MWI postulate's real tangible physical universes, any and all living beings would already have their own separate consciousness and would be distinctly unique and not you as their realities are different than yours as well as their subjective experiences of those realities. For example, there is a reality out there where you are a very intelligent and easy going guy who is capable of actually grasping these ideas. Unfortunately, this isn't that reality.


First, to say we are seperate and distinct in light of entanglement and nonlocality is silly. We are under the illusion of seperation because of decoherence.



MWI is considered by some to be unfalsifiable and hence unscientific because the multiple parallel universes are non-communicating, in the sense that no information can be passed between them.
source

How is entanglement occurring when MWI postulates no mechanism for these separate realities to be in an entangled state and hence in communication with one another? Are you sure you really know what your talking about here?


How can universe A be distinct from universe B if they are entangled? These events don't influence events that occur in these different universes because of magic.


MWI nor any multiple universe interpretation that I am personally aware of postulate any mechanism of entanglement between realities. Entanglement itself as it is right now postulates a mechanism of entanglement in this reality alone, in the singular perspective.


You say these silly things in a vacuum. If these things are seperate and distinct then show the evidence that this is the case.


I did, you ignored it couple that with your inability to frigging comprehend your own quoted texts that states exactly what I just said and you look like a pompous buffoon who thinks he has the truth.


The reason why these events appear to occur in their "own" world is because of the appareance of collapse because of the illusion of decoherence.


Comprehend what you read please. Read it a little more slowly, sleep on it, and then read it again the next day.


So I want you to present the evidence that says we are in "seperate, distinct" worlds.


Not only did I, but you did as well.


See this is what trolls do. They say these things in a vacuum and they think it means something.


It's physically impossible to say anything in a vacuum, unless your talking about the vacuum between your ears.


I have presented evidence that shows we are not seperate and distinct based on entanglement and decoherence.


You did no such thing and nor do the two even discuss that opinion of yours, it's also never even been experimentally proven to be the case.


You have deluded yourself into thinking your being honest. You may not know these things because you don't understand them. That doesn't mean that other can't know these things. You are trying to measure others understanding by the yardstick of your own ignorance.


Right... I don't understand them while you ignore contrary evidences.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 



No i do not agree, Im sure you asume.. But i was pointing out how crass your comment was?

Can you not deal with a basic comment?


How else should I have handles such blatant stupidity? I mean, the guy signs up to attack me... Wow and I'm still getting called a troll while that nitwit get's a pat on the back. Amazingly, my point that you guy's don't know what a troll is, is proven here.


Im agree you do love my attention Troll

Keep posting, it just makes you look more un interesting that your posts on the subject.

You have not stated anything other than sit on the fence and insult others who do not agree with your trolling ways...

So please Make a thread I can comment on. Thanks


I've made a few threads, my favorite one was an attempt to work out a theory for how a universe could be created by an intelligent entity, but no one really bothered to bite and work out the little thought experiment. I understand some thing's can be a bit too complex for others to grasp... Like open mindedness with honesty and reservation of judgment.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


You are really making yourself look silly each time you post.

You said:


Both describe a different function of quantum mechanics, not the same thing. I am unsure where you get this ridiculous idea that you can equate the two as applicable to the other.


This ia because you don't understand them.

Of course they are both applicable. One is talking about the choice of the observer as seein in these experiments.

Delayed Choice
en.wikipedia.org...'s_delayed_choice_experiment

Quantum Eraser
en.wikipedia.org...

Quantum Eraser Delayed Choice
en.wikipedia.org...

The problem occurs because your a troll that doesn't understand these things. You are debating from a standpoint of ignorance.

Anyone with a clue about these things would know I was talking about both of them. You had no clue. So you read a debate between Copenhagen and many worlds and you then tried to cut and paste against Copenhagen. When you realised how silly you looked you then tried to cut and paste against many worlds. This is because you didn't and still don't have a clue as to what I'm talking about.

Many worlds occurs because of decoherence. For instance the cat in the box with Schrodinger's thought experiment will decohere into state A or state B because of decoherence before the box is even open. This is because the cat is a macroscopic object and interacts with it's enviroment.

So yes Copenhagen and Many worlds are compatible. You would know this if you understood these things.

Many worlds doesn't talk about the choice of the observer. It just says when a choice is made it's thermodynamically irreversible. I agree with both positions.

The more you talk the sillier you look. I mean listen to this meaningless garbage.


As there is no mechanism of function discovered and only a possible explanation for the appearance, it could be wrong. Irregardless of the apparent appearance, there is no experimental data that even suggests it collapses elsewhere. Parallel universes has not been proven nor observed.


Talk about incoherent babble. You are without shame. You are ignorant about these issues but you want to let your ignorance shine because you think it's about winning a debate. It's not about a debate when you don't have a clue as to what your talking about. This is mindless tripe.

Here's another gem of mindless bloviating.


That's your opinion, and if I'm not mistaken even then there were some who agreed with me just as there are some who do here; But your right... We "just don't get it". Only you understand all these complex ideas despite ignoring contrary evidence.


Agree with you about what? You have spent these long, drawn out posts talking about nothing. What's there to agree with you about?

It's not that I'm the only one who understands these things. Many people do but you don't. You are a troll who is trying to debate something that you don't understand.


I talked about de Broglie and matter waves

This is a separate interpretation.


Matter waves are not an interpretation? How ignorant are you?


In 1927 at Bell Labs, Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer fired slow-moving electrons at a crystalline nickel target. The angular dependence of the reflected electron intensity was measured, and was determined to have the same diffraction pattern as those predicted by Bragg for x-rays. Before the acceptance of the de Broglie hypothesis, diffraction was a property that was thought to be only exhibited by waves. Therefore, the presence of any diffraction effects by matter demonstrated the wave-like nature of matter. When the de Broglie wavelength was inserted into the Bragg condition, the observed diffraction pattern was predicted, thereby experimentally confirming the de Broglie hypothesis for electrons.

This was a pivotal result in the development of quantum mechanics. Just as Arthur Compton demonstrated the particle nature of light, the Davisson-Germer experiment showed the wave-nature of matter, and completed the theory of wave-particle duality. For physicists this idea was important because it means that not only can any particle exhibit wave characteristics, but that one can use wave equations to describe phenomena in matter if one uses the de Broglie wavelength.

Since the original Davisson-Germer experiment for electrons, the de Broglie hypothesis has been confirmed for other elementary particles.


en.wikipedia.org...

Decoherence is not an interpretation, it's something that occurs. When subatomic particles are entangled with their enviroments they go from a state of coherence to decoherence.


The collapse of a quantum superposition into a single definite state was quantitatively measured for the first time by Serge Haroche and his co-workers at the École Normale Supérieure in Paris in 1996. Their approach involved sending individual rubidium atoms, each in a superposition of two states, through a microwave-filled cavity. The two quantum states both cause shifts in the phase of the microwave field, but by different amounts, so that the field itself is also put into a superposition of two states. As the cavity field exchanges energy with its surroundings, however, its superposition appears to collapse into a single definite state.


It goes on to say exactly what I have been saying.


Decoherence does not provide a mechanism for the actual wave function collapse; rather it provides a mechanism for the appearance of wavefunction collapse. The quantum nature of the system is simply "leaked" into the environment so that a total superposition of the wavefunction still exists, but exists — at least for all practical purposes — beyond the realm of measurement.


en.wikipedia.org...-7

Because of decoherence, you are under the illusion of isolation from the whole.

You said:


How is entanglement occurring when MWI postulates no mechanism for these separate realities to be in an entangled state and hence in communication with one another? Are you sure you really know what your talking about here?


This is just more gibberish.

Of course these universes are in an entangled state. What mechanism are you talking about? Do you know what entanglement is?

I want you to show me where it say these universes are not entangled. Where do you get this nonsense?

I mean listen to this nonsense. You are just sticking your foot in your mouth because you don't understand these things. You think it's about trying to win a debate. You can't win a debate when you don't have a clue as to what your talking about.

Listen to this incoherent nonsense.


MWI nor any multiple universe interpretation that I am personally aware of postulate any mechanism of entanglement between realities. Entanglement itself as it is right now postulates a mechanism of entanglement in this reality alone, in the singular perspective.


I'm sorry but this has to be one of the dumbest and incoherent sentences every put forth on ATS.

Of course there connected and this "singular perspective" is pure gibberish from a B.S. artist who looks like an idiot.

Say for instance in univers A Hitler was killed before WW2 and universe B he was not killed. This occured because these universes were entangled and these possible outcomes are the result of a shared wave function.

I want you to show me one piece of evidence that says these worlds are not entangled. Entangled doesn't mean communication just connection.



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Ok so how your talking about constantly changing reality's, what happens when we get old we can't die we change to another of us but that other is the same in all ways except death so what happens then



posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by loner007
found another link this is damn interesting..
www.mind-lamp.com...



Studies at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) Laboratory have suggested that the mind has the subtle capacity to influence the output of devices known as Random Event Generators (REGs). The Mind Lamp is a new ambient LED lamp, created by Psyleron, in collaboration with researchers from the PEAR lab. By exerting an influence on the quantum-scale probabilistic events that control it, your mind may be able to affect the colors that the Mind Lamp displays.


I am trying to find the mind experiments in which they show mind can influence matter. When i find them i post them

twm.co.nz...

another good link to macro quantum effects
www3.amherst.edu...

[edit on 12-12-2009 by loner007]


There's plenty evidence to support Psi Effects. There's more evidence for Psi than there is that asprin can help prevent a second heart attack.

Here's a good video with Dean Radin. He talks about the taboo of Psi and gives you some good info on replicated studies and peer reviewed papers.

www.youtube.com...

Here's some papers from Rupert Sheldrake that you may find interesting.

www.sheldrake.org...&Papers/papers/telepathy/index.html

I think Rupert does some interesting work.

Here's one of his studies.

Videotaped Experiments on Telephone Telepathy
Journal of Parapsychology 67, 187-206, June 2003 64, 224-232
by Rupert Sheldrake and Pamela Smart


The authors tested whether participants (N = 4) could tell who was calling before answering the telephone. In each trial, participants had 4 potential callers, one of whom was selected at random by the experimenter. Participants were filmed on time-coded videotape throughout the experimental period. When the telephone began ringing, the participants said to the camera whom they thought the caller was and, in many cases, also how confident they felt in their guesses. The callers were usually several miles away, and in some cases thousands of miles away. By guessing at random, there was a 25% chance of success. In a total of 271 trials, there were 122 (45%) correct guesses (p = 10-12). The 95% confidence limits of this success rate were from 39% to 51%. In most trials, some of the callers were familiar to the participants and others were unfamiliar. With familiar callers there was a success rate of 61% (n = 100; p = 10-13). With unfamiliar callers the success rate of 20% was not significantly different from chance. When they said they were confident about their guesses, participants were indeed more successful than when they were not confident.


[edit on 13-12-2009 by Matrix Rising]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



This ia because you don't understand them.

Of course they are both applicable. One is talking about the choice of the observer as seein in these experiments.


Different function meaning, one interpretation explains a mechanism for the results that operate differently than the other interpretation, not the same mechanism of function for the same effect. I've already posted my source on this, please go back and read it rather than ignore it, moron.


So yes Copenhagen and Many worlds are compatible. You would know this if you understood these things.


They are separate interpretations of the same results and as such are not compatible and translatable to each other. One interpretation explains the results as occurring one way and the other as occurring a different way. Please do not ignore my links and cited sources and pretend your correct here.


Talk about incoherent babble. You are without shame. You are ignorant about these issues but you want to let your ignorance shine because you think it's about winning a debate. It's not about a debate when you don't have a clue as to what your talking about. This is mindless tripe.


This mindless garbage BS-ing is a refutation against what I said? Right... and I'm still the ignorant one as always. Simply amazing. Your right, no debate going on there at all, a debate consists of two participants, when your ready to participate and refute, then you can talk about debates, till then your acting like an imbecile here.


It's not that I'm the only one who understands these things. Many people do but you don't.


Not even a quantum physicist will make such a bold claim as understanding quantum mechanics.

Richard Feynman: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

Kudos to you for pretending to be able to grasp the complexity of QM. Poser.


Matter waves are not an interpretation?


What? Please comprehend what you read before responding.

It's an interpretation, another interpretation is called the Quantum Atom Theory that postulates a separate not compatible function for those same results.


Decoherence is not an interpretation, it's something that occurs. When subatomic particles are entangled with their enviroments they go from a state of coherence to decoherence.


Please review my sources rather than blatantly ignoring them, you wouldn't sound so infantile.


Because of decoherence, you are under the illusion of isolation from the whole.


The quoted text stated no such thing.


Of course these universes are in an entangled state. What mechanism are you talking about? Do you know what entanglement is?


Please cite reproducible and peer reviewed experiments that prove this viewpoint.


I want you to show me where it say these universes are not entangled. Where do you get this nonsense?


Wiki: Many Worlds Interpretation

The quantum-mechanical "Schrödinger's cat" paradox according to the many-worlds interpretation. In this interpretation every event is a branch point; the cat is both alive and dead, even before the box is opened, but the "alive" and "dead" cats are in different branches of the universe, both of which are equally real, but which cannot interact with each other.


Can you read? Or are you just going to ignore this again?


I want you to show me one piece of evidence that says these worlds are not entangled. Entangled doesn't mean communication just connection.



I did, you ignored it. I did it again just now and your going to ignore it again.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



There's plenty evidence to support Psi Effects. There's more evidence for Psi than there is that asprin can help prevent a second heart attack.


Incorrect. source


The authors tested whether participants (N = 4) could tell who was calling before answering the telephone. In each trial, participants had 4 potential callers, one of whom was selected at random by the experimenter.


Logical fallacy; Correlation does not imply causation. source



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheUserz
Ok so how your talking about constantly changing reality's, what happens when we get old we can't die we change to another of us but that other is the same in all ways except death so what happens then


He can't explain that because no viable mechanism exists or has been theorized as of yet. It is just simply stated that this occurs without showing how it can occur and it's unscientific because it isn't falsifiable. He has a very strong bond with his crap spouting. A viscous continuous cycle of input/output, if you know what I mean.

[EDIT TO ADD]

His attempt at using quantum mechanics erroneously and quantum immortality to imply continuation of physical death as in, we die here our consciousness goes there is wrong. The theory doesn't state this at all and backs up what I've been trying to tell him, that he's a pompous buffoon.

Here is an article on Quantum Immortality: link

Here, from this article despite previous evidences, we can again see that the OP is a lying little twerp who doesn't understand a damn thing at all as he is too biased and arrogantly opinionated to take an objective look at what he is reading.


Proponents of the quantum immortality point out that, although it is highly speculative, the theory does not violate any known laws of physics—but only if certain controversial assumptions are made:[citation needed]

1. That the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics, as opposed to the Copenhagen interpretation, the latter of which does not involve the existence of parallel universes. Note, though, that parallel universes may be possible through other mechanisms in the Copenhagen interpretation.
2. All of the possible scenarios in which the proposed experimenter (or any entity being argued about in the thought experiment) can die support a nonnull subset of survival scenarios.[clarification needed]
3. Not dying some finite number of times (perhaps in parallel universes) constitutes immortality.
4. Permanent cessation of the consciousness, along with the ability to observe, occurs at physical destruction (death).


Notice point four. *Not continuation at all, but permanent cessation in the universe where death occurred.* This guy is just making crap up as he goes along, adding information where is doesn't exist and ignoring statements such as this that disprove his assertions and opinions about the sciences.

[EDIT TO ADD MORE]

From that same article:


Max Tegmark's work

Using logic similar to that of Greg Egan's Dust Theory, Max Tegmark argues that under any sort of normal conditions, before someone dies they undergo a period of diminishment of consciousness, a non-quantum decline (which can be anywhere from seconds to minutes to years), and hence there is no way of establishing a continuous existence in this world to an alternate one in which the person ceases to exist.[5] Although quantum immortality is motivated by the quantum suicide thought experiment, Max Tegmark has stated that he does not believe that quantum immortality is a consequence of his work.


The man who developed the quantum suicide experiment in which quantum immortality is supposedly derived from is even against the notion that quantum immortality is an actual consequence of his work. Wishful people are just wishful people, wish as much as they would like, wishes don't come true.


[edit on 14-12-2009 by sirnex]

[edit on 14-12-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


More mindless tripe.

It's sad because your ignorant about these issues and you don't even know it.

Here's more mindless babble.


Different function meaning, one interpretation explains a mechanism for the results that operate differently than the other interpretation, not the same mechanism of function for the same effect.


LOL, man you are really sad. A wise man would try to understand these things. An ignorant fool tries to debate these things as if he knows what he's talking about.

I explained how they were compatible but I'm sure you didn't understand what I was talking about. This is why you have been all over the place with this nonsense.

Here's more incoherent babble.


They are separate interpretations of the same results and as such are not compatible and translatable to each other. One interpretation explains the results as occurring one way and the other as occurring a different way. Please do not ignore my links and cited sources and pretend your correct here.


Again, many worlds incorperates decoherence and explains the appearence of wave function collapse. Copenhagen the choice of the observer. These things are both observed in experiments.

You are just cutting and pasting and not trying to understand. You are looking at these things to try and win a debate instead of trying to educate yourself and your posts are filled with mindless babble and out of context citations.

For instance.

This is what you said about Many Worlds. If you had a clue as to what you were talking about, you wouldn't have cut and paste this from Wiki without first trying to understand it.


The quantum-mechanical "Schrödinger's cat" paradox according to the many-worlds interpretation. In this interpretation every event is a branch point; the cat is both alive and dead, even before the box is opened, but the "alive" and "dead" cats are in different branches of the universe, both of which are equally real, but which cannot interact with each other.


This shows how ignorant you are of these issues.

You actually tried to use this to say they are "seperate,distinct" worlds. Anybody with any understanding of these things would be able to read what it says and know what it means.

Of course these worlds can't interact with each other because of decoherence. This is a key feature of many worlds. This is what I have been saying the whole time.

We can't communicate with these worlds and we are under the illusion of seperation from these other universes. This doesn't mean we are not entangled and connected with these universes.

You are a really sad troll that doesn't have a clue. These things you are quoting support what I have been saying. This is because you don't try to understand what it means before you cut and paste it.


In quantum mechanics, quantum decoherence is the mechanism by which quantum systems interact with their environments to exhibit probabilistically additive behavior. Quantum decoherence gives the appearance of wave function collapse and justifies the framework and intuition of classical physics as an acceptable approximation: decoherence is the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges out of a quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundary. Decoherence occurs when a system interacts with its environment in a thermodynamically irreversible way. This prevents different elements in the quantum superposition of the system+environment's wavefunction from interfering with each other.


Again, you can't measure or communicate with different elements of the wavefunction. This doesn't mean they are "seperate and distinct." We are under the illusion of seperation because of decoherence.

The problem here is, you are not trying to understand these issues. You are looking for things you can cite that you think support your argument and then you rush back here and cut and paste them out of context.


Decoherence does not generate actual wave function collapse. It only provides an explanation for the appearance of wavefunction collapse. The quantum nature of the system is simply "leaked" into the environment. A total superposition of the universal wavefunction still occurs, but its ultimate fate remains an interpretational issue. Specifically, decoherence does not attempt to explain the problem of measurement. Rather, decoherence provides an explanation for the transition of the system to a mixture of states that seem to correspond to those states we perceive as determinant. Moreover, our observation tells us that this mixture looks like a proper quantum ensemble in a measurement situation, as we observe that measurements lead to the "realization" of precisely one state in the "ensemble". But within the framework of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, decoherence cannot explain this crucial step from an apparent mixture to the existence and/or perception of single outcomes.


I know your not going to understand this but I'm sure others will.

What this means is that a quantum ensemble of states interact with their enviroment and then we perceive one state as determinant. This state is still connected to the ensemble of quantum states, it's just under the illusion of isolation from these other states.

Information theory goes a step further. Qubits become entangled with the enviroment and we percieve them as classical bits.

So a qubit can be this and that at the same time. A classical bit is this or that. These states are still connected but they appear as classical bits because of decoherence.

Let's look at quantum computing.


“Normally, in order for quantum computing to work,” White explains, “we need to encode the information into quantum bits—qubits—which are in a noise-free pure state. It’s known that the entanglement between these is what makes standard quantum computing powerful.”


www.physorg.com...

A noise free state is in a state of coherence. Decoherence is a state with noise. This noise gives you the illusion of seperation.

I mention quantum computing because it also illustrates decoherence and entanglement.

The idea behind quantum computing is to find a noise free state(coherent). This is because when subatomic particles are entangled with their enviroment then noise becomes an issue and they are in a state of (decoherence).

It doesn't take the mind of Einstein to understand these issues.

It does take the mind of an idiot to act like they understand these issues and then you have to deal with mindless bloviating.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 

Hey, sirnex, thanks for the Wikipedia link. At last I understand what our la-la merchants are trying to sell us. A thought experiment about a thought experiment. One that the original experimenters didn't take seriously in the first place because they knew it was only an analogy of an analogy; a means of distinguishing between the Copenhagen and Everett interpretations of quantum-mechanistic outcomes (which our pals seem to think are one and the same).

You know, sometimes I think our forebears were right: there is some knowledge that the vulgar mob should not be allowed access to, because they will misunderstand it and be driven mad by it, or cause who knows what destruction by their meddling. Look at what hearing (not knowing, by any means) about quantum mechanics has done to these poor fellows. They think it's a religion.

So there's the poor old cat in the box, never dying from radiation poisoning, but ever so slowly starving to death all the same... and this proves that men have immortal souls!

The arrogance of the ignorant is a wondrous thing. :shk:



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Here's another poster that doesn't have a clue and talked about "fiddlesticks."

You and the other guy make a monkey look like a Ph.D candidate.

You don't understand what I'm saying so your cutting and pasting things that make no sense.

Debate what I'm saying. I'm not making the same argument as what you quoted and I have shown experiments to support what I'm saying.

I'm saying quantum immortality exists from the standpoint of idealism not materialism. This is the difference in the arguments. You don't understand what I'm saying so you copy and paste things out of context.

I talked about the observers choice creates reality.

You don't understand the difference between many worlds and copenhagen and you don't understand the difference between an argument about idealism vs materialism.

In my first post I said:


These states are connected and therefore there has to be quantum immortality.


I then went onto explain throughout the thread that this quantum immortality is dependent on the choice of the observer because the observers choice creates reality. This was shown in these experiments.

Delayed choice
en.wikipedia.org...'s_delayed_choice_experiment

Quantum eraser delayed choice
en.wikipedia.org...

Quantum eraser
en.wikipedia.org...

If you took time to read and understand these things before you post, you wouldn't look like an idiot.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Let me explain you fast what happen once you physically die:
your mind and soul go out of your body and wander in something different like another world, there you are on your "own", no such thing like angel or guides, there is one rule to KNOW and that applies on each world: survival.

What must you do to survive in a world in which you dont need to eat food or cant be hurt? Thats the interesting part and probably the reason of physical life: once dead, you must be able to maintain your soul/mind into "one" with the willpower you got in your biological life. The reason is simple. Without the flesh body which is a container, the soul/mind will tend to desintegrate more or less fast, depends of your mind and your strenght. You will be like a drop of water falling in an ocean, you will melt in that ocean. In others words, weaklings that didnt train their mind and only cared about useless things will die permanently.

And yea, by weaklings i meant almost all humans that only care about flesh, comfort, fame,.. so 99,9% of the global population. Closed-simple-narrow minded, brainwashed, blind believers people, living in illusions, won't even understand what happen to them once dead, and they probably will melt instantly, that means they loose everything, their identity, consciousness, memory. This is the ultimate ignorance, a filter that only allow the strongs to survive and stop the trashes. You think your quantum physics applies on worlds outside the physical one? Don't make me laugh, each world got his own laws and rules, some have links between them but they keep their own specificities. In others words: science is limited to physical world and cant and wont ever explain what happen after death.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by _damon]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


I'm saying quantum immortality exists from the standpoint of idealism not materialism.

In that case you have no business appealing to science to make your case. Quantum mechanics is science. It is based on empirical observation. It is profoundly and unalterably materialistic.

If and when you post a cogent and reasoned argument, backed by evidence, for this ridiculous proposition, I will be happy to debate it. Third--or possibly fourth--time of asking.

You can't learn physics off the internet, kid. You're on to a loser whatevver you try.

[edit on 14/12/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I have provided a ton of evidence to support what I'm saying.

You came on the thread talking about "fiddlesticks" and "poppeycock."

You have not provided evidence of anything. All you have done is give us your mindless opinion about nothing.

I have listed the evidence and I have made my argument clear.

If you can't debate it then I suggest you go over the thread and read the links that have been provided. Then you may learn something.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by Matrix Rising]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



LOL, man you are really sad. A wise man would try to understand these things. An ignorant fool tries to debate these things as if he knows what he's talking about.


Awesome, so you *do* understand what your doing here. I was afraid you might be ignorant of your own ignorance as well. Glad to know I made a fool out of myself and assumed that wrongly too!



I explained how they were compatible but I'm sure you didn't understand what I was talking about. This is why you have been all over the place with this nonsense.


You did no such thing; You described separate interpretations that describe different functions of operation in quantum mechanics. You then blatantly ignored my source link that backed this up.


Again, many worlds incorperates decoherence and explains the appearence of wave function collapse. Copenhagen the choice of the observer. These things are both observed in experiments.


Incorporates and is the same are two different things.


Copenhagen the choice of the observer. These things are both observed in experiments.


Where do you get that from?


In the Copenhagen interpretation, quantum mechanics can only be used to predict the probabilities for different outcomes of pre-specified observations. What constitutes an "observer" or an "observation" is not directly specified by the theory, and the behavior of a system after observation is completely different than the usual behavior.
Source

Copenhagen interpretation makes no mention of what is doing the actual observation. The observer effect itself however states:


These experiments demonstrate a puzzling relationship between the act of measurement and the system being measured, although it is clear from experiment that an "observer" consisting of a single electron is sufficient -- the observer need not be a conscious observer.


So honestly, it is quiet perplexing how your able to draw such ridiculous conclusions from places where they don't exist. Hey, at least I got that vacuum between your ears to speak into, but you've got nothing!


You are just cutting and pasting and not trying to understand. You are looking at these things to try and win a debate instead of trying to educate yourself and your posts are filled with mindless babble and out of context citations.


I'm not trying to understand? I've been quoting left and right thing's from these different interpretations that directly refute what your trying to postulate here. Explicitly and directly refute... But I just don't get it.


You actually tried to use this to say they are "seperate,distinct" worlds. Anybody with any understanding of these things would be able to read what it says and know what it means.


MWI does not state this:


You will always find yourself in the reality where you survive death.


You die here, you die here, that's it. MWI allows for another reality where you don't die, but that other reality is not you from this reality. You don't magically poof into this other realities body and kick him out of it. You die, you find yourself dead, not in another reality where you live. Certainly not in magical fairyland where you live.


MWI is distinguished by two qualities: it assumes realism,[16][17] which it assigns to the wavefunction, and it has the minimal formal structure possible, rejecting any hidden variables, quantum potential, any form of a collapse postulate (i.e. Copenhagenism) or mental postulates (such as the many-minds interpretation makes).
Source

From the MWI article itself. Rejects copenhagenism view, as in not compatible with.


It does take the mind of an idiot to act like they understand these issues and then you have to deal with mindless bloviating.


I agree, you've been doing this the whole time. I'm going to bow out of discussing this with you for now as your just blatantly ignoring my sources or attempting to say I misunderstand the EXPLICIT STATEMENTS that refute your assertion of continuation of consciousness after death.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by sirnex
 

Hey, sirnex, thanks for the Wikipedia link. At last I understand what our la-la merchants are trying to sell us. A thought experiment about a thought experiment. One that the original experimenters didn't take seriously in the first place because they knew it was only an analogy of an analogy; a means of distinguishing between the Copenhagen and Everett interpretations of quantum-mechanistic outcomes (which our pals seem to think are one and the same).

You know, sometimes I think our forebears were right: there is some knowledge that the vulgar mob should not be allowed access to, because they will misunderstand it and be driven mad by it, or cause who knows what destruction by their meddling. Look at what hearing (not knowing, by any means) about quantum mechanics has done to these poor fellows. They think it's a religion.

So there's the poor old cat in the box, never dying from radiation poisoning, but ever so slowly starving to death all the same... and this proves that men have immortal souls!

The arrogance of the ignorant is a wondrous thing. :shk:


No problem; I really can't get over how arrogant and ignorant these morons are. I quote explicit statements from the same theories and interpretations that they are attempting to use to "prove" their ridiculous claims and I get called a troll and ignorant. Yet they wonder why I insult them. Just absofckinglutley amazing these folks are. It's like dealing with what the bleep do we know people who do this same thing. Take a few aspects of an interpretation out of context and exclaim just how damn special they are.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join