Quantum Mechanics shows there's life after death

reply to post by sirnex


One explaination: ego, cognitive dissonance, brainwashing and narrow-minded.

reply to post by sirnex


You just look worse and worse with each post.

I hope you keep posting because maybe there's people out there who want to understand these things instead of mindless bloviating.

Just listen to 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.

Talk about mindless babble.

"separate interpretations that describe different functions of operation in quantum mechanics"

This is just incoherent nonsense. It's like Charlie Brown with the Wa Wa Wa.

I explained to you how they are compatible over and over again. You can't debate what I'm saying because you don't understand it. This is why you are cutting and pasting things that have nothing to do with my argument.

I laid out why the choice of the observer creates reality. We see this in these experiments.

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

Quantum Eraser delayed choice
en.wikipedia.org...

Quantum eraser
en.wikipedia.org...

I also talked about Decoherence and many worlds and the appearence of wave function collapse.

You have not debated anything I said because you don't understand it.

You just give us a lot of incoherent babble and then you cite an article.

You are cutting and pasting about a debate between Copenhagen and many worlds. This is not my argument. Why don't you try debating what I'm acually saying?

You said:

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.

Of course Copenhagen is talking about a conscious observer. This is why Einstein asked is the moon still there if I'm not looking at it.

The only reason it's not specified is because they are talking about materialism and I'm talking about idealism.

If you understand what I'm saying and actually debated the issue you wouldn't say these silly things.

You said

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 haven't been quoting anything left and right. You give us a lot of incoherent babble and then you cut and paste about a debate between copenhagen and many worlds that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

We know that choice can affect the outcome of an event even after that event has occured.

You made a choice to get on your computer, a person made a choice to go to the store, a person made a choice to go to work.

The choice of a conscious observer creates reality and I have shown this throughout the thread.

You are cutting and pasting about a debate between copenhagen and many worlds. I'm not making an argument about that.

I'm debating these things from the standpoint of idealism not materialism. You are really looking silly because you don't understand what I'm saying.

Another piece of your mindless tripe.

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.

How can you die if your entangled with a state where your not dead?

The only thing that seperates the dead state and the non dead state is decoherence. If these two states are connected. You will always be in a non dead state.

The seperation of these two states is an illusion because of noise and decoherence.

So you don't magically poof into these realities. You don't die because you are always in a non dead state.

Death is just an illusion of decoherence. You are seperated from the whole but you are still connected via entanglement.

Please try to debate what I'm saying and stop cutting and pasting about a debate between Copenhagen and Many worlds.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

I explained to you how they are compatible over and over again. You can't debate what I'm saying because you don't understand it. This is why you are cutting and pasting things that have nothing to do with my argument.

You did no such thing as these different interpretations explain different functions of operation. Just because a Mac and a PC are both computers, does not mean the software for each are cross compatible with each other. Twit.

The only reason it's not specified is because they are talking about materialism and I'm talking about idealism.

Alright then, so you agree with the quoted text, the interpretation does not make mention of what is doing the actual observation. Your just asserting that your opinion of what that observer is, is true.

reply to post by sirnex


More Gibberish

You did no such thing as these different interpretations explain different functions of operation. Just because a Mac and a PC are both computers, does not mean the software for each are cross compatible with each other.

What in the world does "explain different functions of operation" mean? I heard you say this a few times and it sounds like incoherent babble.

Explain what this means in laymen terms. Different functions of operation ???????

If I look behind the gibberish, I think you are still trying to debate between copenhagen and many worlds. I'm glad you stopped cutting and pasting things out of context but the mindless bloviating is still front and center.

As I explained over and over again, I'm not talking exclusively about copenhagen or exclusively about many worlds. This would be obvious if you understood what I was saying.

Alright then, so you agree with the quoted text, the interpretation does not make mention of what is doing the actual observation. Your just asserting that your opinion of what that observer is, is true.

Of course it doesn't make mention of it but it's implied. This is why Einstein asked is the moon still therewhen your not looking at it.

This is why people like Professor David Deutsch from Oxford said in his book The Fabric of Reality that he likes many worlds because he thinks it reduces the role of the observer.

They couldn't say that it was consciousness at the time because Copenhagen would have never been taken seriously so they left it blank.

We see in thing like the delayed choice, quantum eraser and delayed choice quantum eraser that the choice of an observer can alter an event even after that event has occured.

So if the choice of the observer was meaningless, when event A occured the observers choice would not mean anything. We don't see that in experiments.

A variation of this experiment, delayed choice quantum eraser, allows the decision whether to measure or destroy the "which path" information to be delayed until after the entangled particle partner (the one going through the slits) has either interfered with itself or not. Doing so appears to have the bizarre effect of determining the outcome of an event after it has already occurred.

Again, if the conscious observers choice had no effect on which path information then the experiment would have showed this.

Do you have evidence that the observers choice has no effect on which path information? If you don't have this evidence then what are you debating against?

reply to post by Matrix Rising

What in the world does "explain different functions of operation" mean? I heard you say this a few times and it sounds like incoherent babble.

Go back and read my source links, if you bothered, then it wouldn't sound so incoherent.

Of course it doesn't make mention of it but it's implied. This is why Einstein asked is the moon still therewhen your not looking at it.

There are derivatives of the Copenhagen interpretation that include consciousness and there are some that don't. The Copenhagen interpretation itself makes no distinction of what the observer is.

Do you have evidence that the observers choice has no effect on which path information? If you don't have this evidence then what are you debating against?

Quantum Atom Theory and the Observer Effect but I already mentioned this a while back ago, you decided to ignore it. Don't worry, I don't mind if you ignore it again, I'm getting used to it now.

reply to post by sirnex

What in the world does "explain different functions of operation" mean? I heard you say this a few times and it sounds like incoherent babble.

Go back and read my source links, if you bothered, then it wouldn't sound so incoherent.

I didn't ask for links. I asked you to explain what this gibberish means. If you can't explain your own gibberish then your just a troll.

You said:

Do you have evidence that the observers choice has no effect on which path information? If you don't have this evidence then what are you debating against?

Quantum Atom Theory and the Observer Effect but I already mentioned this a while back ago, you decided to ignore it. Don't worry, I don't mind if you ignore it again, I'm getting used to it now.

What are you takling about?

Explain how these things show that the observer has no effect on which path information as shown by the experiments I listed above.

If you understand these things you can explain your gibberish. If not, you need a troll of the year award.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

I didn't ask for links. I asked you to explain what this gibberish means. If you can't explain your own gibberish then your just a troll.

It was already done, so stop being lazy and quit ignoring it and go through the thread and find the explanation again and read the damn links.

Explain how these things show that the observer has no effect on which path information as shown by the experiments I listed above.

Already did that as well. If you could just stop being an arrogant little twit and not ignore what I post outright, then you wouldn't sound like such an ignorant arrogant twit. I'm not repeating everything again for the sake of your blatant laziness.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Sweet!

I think we need to eradicate the idea of death being this mysterious, frightening end to our existence. It's far more logical in my mind to have eternity rather than a beginning and an end. I think near death experiences give us a fascinating insight into what awaits everybody once they exit their physical bodies. Death is merely a transition and it is nothing to be feared.

If we educate ourselves about death, then there is no unknown to be feared and we could possibly eradicate this fear altogether. Instead, we could embrace this transition into another dimension of concsciousness. If this is the case, is it not exciting?

We need a universal understanding of death, and a paradigm shift in how we respond to it.

- all this stuff is woo- pseudo science

reminds me of that movie- what the bleep do we know

which reminded me of this

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by IrnBruFiend


Good points and we do need a paradigm shift from materialism to idealism.

People have been able to use death to control people.

Einstein said the distinction between past, present and future is just a persistent illusion. If time doesn't exist how can death exist? How can old age exist?

The answer is decoherence. We are under the illusion of seperation from the whole. This occurs in order to make this experience seem real.

Our infinite nature could not experience a finite reality if these things could be easily seen. So the universe is designed to make the experience real.

Some people will become enlightened to our true nature while others will remain in the cave.

reply to post by lifecitizen


This is not about What the Bleep do We Know but since you brought it up let's discuss it.

I had problems with some of the things in What the Bleep. Most of my problems with it were listed in the video you posted. I noticed the video spent about 20 to 30 seconds on quantum mechanics.

He said it's not the observers mind that changing external particles, it's the act of observation.

I don't recall what the documentary Bleep said about these things but this line is consistent with what I have been saying.

The observers mind can make a choice and know which path information even after the event has occured. This is shown by the experiments I listed above.

These states exists as probabilities until the observer makes a choice. When the observer makes a choice the appearence of collapse occurs and these probable states are seen as one state to the observer in universe A and another state to an observer in universe B. These probable states belong to the same wave function so the observers in the two universes are entangled.

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

reply to post by Matrix Rising

The observers mind can make a choice and know which path information even after the event has occured. This is shown by the experiments I listed above.

Describe the setup of the experiment and how it works and then attempt to repeat that it's conscious choice.

Please quote the explicit statement of the experiment involving the human conscious involvement.

Good points and we do need a paradigm shift from materialism to idealism.

Idealism is older than Materialism and has provided nothing but ignorant twits. Then they have hypocritical ignorant twits who turn around and attempt use Materialism to prove Idealism while complaining about how horrible Materialism is.

Our infinite nature could not experience a finite reality if these things could be easily seen.

Cite sources, research and experimental proofs that prove infinity exists.

So the universe is designed to make the experience real.

Designed? Designed by what?

BTW, Excellent job ignoring my post about you ignoring my other posts. And I just remembered, that other thread where you claim I looked foolish, your such a BS artist. You kept coming forward with straw men arguments and backed out of the thread never to be seen again. Are you or were you ever in SPED classes before? There has to be a reason you are the way you are... Dropped as a baby maybe, could be.


[edit on 15-12-2009 by sirnex]

Originally posted by TheRepublic
reply to post by Matrix Rising

 

exactly. energy can be neither created nor destroyed. matter is just energy trapped in form.

Except that energy does not have to remain organized in a way to allow cohesion and sentience. Just because your energy lives on in the universe it does not mean YOU will. Your conscious self rely on your "energy" being a form that creates your awareness.

The energy that is your thoughts get dissipated as heat into the universe. Your not home anymore. You cease to exist.

reply to post by sirnex


I didn't answer you because I have asked you on three seperate occassions to explain your gibberish and you are such an ignorant troll you don't even realise that you have no clue.

I asked you these two simple questions that you can't answer.

What in the world does "explain different functions of operation" mean? I heard you say this a few times and it sounds like incoherent babble.

and

Do you have evidence that the observers choice has no effect on which path information? If you don't have this evidence then what are you debating against?

You kept talking abou a link that you never posted and you couldn't explain these things in your own words.

If you don't understand your own gibberish, then you are a troll.

The observer can know which path information and the choice of the observer can alter an event even after it occured.

I don't think you have a clue when I say the observer can know which path information.

Of course consciousness is involved with the experiment that I listed above.

It's called the delayed "choice" experiment. It's called the delayed "choice" quantum eraser experiment.

How long can we delay the choice? In Wheeler's original thought experiment, he imagined the phenomenon on a cosmic scale, as follows:

1. A distant star emits a photon many billions of years ago.

2. The photon must pass a dense galaxy (or black hole) directly in its path toward earth.

"Gravitational lensing" predicted by general relativity (and well verified) will make the light bend around the galaxy or black hole. The same photon can, therefore, take either of two paths around the galaxy and still reach earth – it can take the left path and bend back toward earth; or it can take the right path and bend back toward earth. Bending around the left side is the experimental equivalent of going through the left slit of a barrier; bending around the right side is the equivalent of going through the right slit.

3. The photon continues for a very long time (perhaps a few more billion years) on its way toward earth.

4. On earth (many billions of years later), an astronomer chooses to use a screen type of light projector, encompassing both sides of the intervening and the surrounding space without focusing or distinguishing among regions. The photon will land somewhere along the field of focus without our astronomer being able to tell which side of the galaxy/black hole the photon passed, left or right. So the distribution pattern of the photon (even of a single photon, but easily recognizable after a lot of photons are collected) will be an interference pattern.

5. Alternatively, based on what she had for breakfast, our astronomer might choose to use a binocular apparatus, with one side of the binoculars (one telescope) focused exclusively on the left side of the intervening galaxy, and the other side focussed exclusively on the right side of the intervening galaxy. In that case the "pattern" will be a clump of photons at one side, and a clump of photons at the other side.

Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments.

We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago.

www.bottomlayer.com...

What Wheeler showed is the power of the choice of the observer. This is what I have been talking about throughout the thread.

The photons path is determined by how the observer chooses to measure an event that "occured" years ago.

If the observers choice had no effect on the Photon, then no matter how we measured the event it would garner the same result.

You also talked about materialism.

I want you to show me the scientific experiment that shows the material world has an objective existence.

What gives matter it's mass? Have you or anybody ever touched matter? Give me the experiment that shows matter can be touched. If matter can't be touched, how do you know it exists?

reply to post by Matrix Rising


I didn't read through most of the posts so maybe you were asked this, but I have thought about this and thought, could this be the case? But what about aging?

I have often wondered if I actually did die or have died many times where I have had "close calls" whether from car accidents or times I've slipped while rock climbing, etc. I've thought "maybe I did fall to my death, but I just traveled to another dimension to keep living and learning".

I think this is what you are saying, but I could be wrong and if it is and we can live forever, what about the death that comes with age? I don't want to live an eternity aging!

S/F great thread, just help me out here, thanks.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

I didn't answer you because I have asked you on three seperate occassions to explain your gibberish and you are such an ignorant troll you don't even realise that you have no clue.

I asked you these two simple questions that you can't answer.

What in the world does "explain different functions of operation" mean? I heard you say this a few times and it sounds like incoherent babble.

Why would I repeat myself over and over if again, as I said I had already explained it, your again ignoring that I had done. Your act of laziness and blatant act of ignoring is of no fault of my own. I don't control what you do, if I did, you would have gone to a better school.

Do you have evidence that the observers choice has no effect on which path information? If you don't have this evidence then what are you debating against?

No, and I'm not against the possibility, but you haven't shown that this is the case. Look at how the experiment is setup. Explain it to me as I think this is the only way your going to understand what is going on there.

You kept talking abou a link that you never posted and you couldn't explain these things in your own words.

Twit, don't lie to me. I don't appreciate liars.

Of course consciousness is involved with the experiment that I listed above.

Quote that explicit statement from the experiments setup.

It's called the delayed "choice" experiment. It's called the delayed "choice" quantum eraser experiment.

No kidding, now look at how the experiment is setup, explain it, each step of the process of how that 'choice' is made.

What Wheeler showed is the power of the choice of the observer. This is what I have been talking about throughout the thread.

Through a thought experiment? Are you flipping retarded???

What gives matter it's mass? Have you or anybody ever touched matter? Give me the experiment that shows matter can be touched. If matter can't be touched, how do you know it exists?

So because there is a gap in knowledge it's wrong, but then we can use logical fallacies and claim to speak the truth?!

reply to post by sirnex


Man, you are really looking bad.

You said:

Through a thought experiment? Are you flipping retarded???

This again shows that you don't have a clue as to what your talking about.

Thought experiments are very important. This is why Einstein said imagination was more important than knowledge.

He would think about how light would look if he rode his motorbike next to a light beam.

You have things like Schrodinger's cat that has been debated for years. Thought experiments are very important because they can described an observed phenomena or they can be confirmed by experiments like these were. If you bothered to look, you wouldn't make these silly statements.

In 2007, the first "clean" experimental test of Wheeler's ideas was performed in France by the team of Alain Aspect, Philippe Grangier, Jean-François Roch et al

In 2000, Yoon-Ho Kim, et al., reported success in their delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, a variation that combines Wheeler's delayed choice experiment with a quantum eraser experiment, so that the choice to observe the photon or not observe the photon is done after it hits the detector.

Another Quantum eraser experiment was done in 2002 by S. P. Walborn, M. O. Terra Cunha, S. Padua, and C. H. Monken.

en.wikipedia.org...'s_delayed_choice_experiment

Photons are fired at a beam splitter one by one to cleave the quantum wave describing each photon. They then set up a second beam splitter. If the the splitter was on it behaved like a wave, if the splitter was turned off so the waves couldn't recombine, then they would behave like a particle.

This occurs based on the choice of the observer even after the event has occured at the first beam splitter.

The result was reported in Science (if you didn't know this is a Journal).

Either your acting ignorant because you don't know or your ATS ego has been bruised because you look foolish.

I'm still waiting on you to answer 2 simple questions. This is now the fourth time I asked you to explain your gibberish.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by Matrix Rising]

...

[edit on 15-12-2009 by AndreDC]

reply to post by gnosis111


Thanks for the response and you make some good points.

I think aging is just a product of time. There's no evidence that time exists. Einstein said the distinction between past, present and future is just a persistent illusion.

We also don't have any evidence that matter exist. Nobody has ever touched something called matter.

All that exists is our perception of what we call matter. This is what science tells us. This is idealism.

When you touch a table for instance, your not touching matter. The electrons in the table repel against the electrons in your hand creating a force that you perceive as hardness.

So you might find yourself in a reality where a genetic breakthrough has occured pertaing to aging. Maybe a breakthrough in nanotechnology and medicine will allow you to live a good life for 40 or 50 more years. Maybe there's a breakthrough in quantum computing and simulation and you enter into a simulation where your younger. They even theorize about a universe where time runs backwards and maybe you can find yourself like Benjamin Button

The point is our mind's perception and the choice of the observer creates reality. So when you die you just transistion to another state. Maybe your reincarnated into another reality or you exist between worlds.

To talk about materialism is futile because there isn't anyone who has touched matter. If matter can't be touched, how can we say it exists?

reply to post by Matrix Rising

This occurs based on the choice of the observer even after the event has occured at the first beam splitter.

Your hung up on 'choice' and 'observer' as invariably meaning human consciousness and this simply is not the case at all. I've even attempted to get to to make an explicit quote from the experiment description that human consciousness was this observer and chooser, you ignored such request.

Your faults should have no impact on my character, as you seem to suggest it does.

I'm still waiting on you to answer 2 simple questions. This is now the fourth time I asked you to explain your gibberish.

Again, it is of no consequence to myself if you wish to ignore a previous point where this was already done and the now fourth time telling you to quit being a lazy twit, go back, re-read rather than ignore as was done the first time. I do not wish to partake in your circle jerk party.