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.

 

Conscious universe getting more support by scientists.

page: 18
42
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


We know the results after the conclusion of every experiment, not during and not before, but only after the experiment is done and the measurements have taken place and the results are either on a monitor or on a print out.


Local realism is at least partially debunked. As the article mentioned, there are non-local possibilities that haven't been as of yet. Clearly more research is required.

So, when are the results, the results? Are each datapoint actually resolved into a definite state until they are observed? Is there any way to know? There are always untold numbers of electrons involved.


Again to reiterate, QM has nothing to do with human consciousness nor does it postulate that the human mind has any direct effect upon reality itself.


Postulating axioms and leaving it open to interpretation are not the same thing. Clearly interpretation is not settled.


Hey, I gave one link and nor am I going to play run around let's find every damn available website out there that further corroborates the truth for a group of lazy people who applaud erroneous information.


No need to find every website. One good link to something that meets your criteria as a reputable source I would have appreciated. If I'm going to argue from any source, I want to make sure you cannot dismiss it out of hand, thus my request that you provide at least one to illustrate your point. I prefer you set your own traps, that way you cannot cleverly move the goalposts without being overtly hypocritcal.


Did you not even consider that your consciousness does not directly observer anything outside of your skull?


Of course it doesn't, at least not under normal, everyday human conditions. My conscious reality in body involvement is virtual, not actual.


Or are you under the belief the the five sensory organs don't really exist and the centers of the brain that process the information from those sensory organs are just all bunk BS put out by evil scientists who want us all to go to hell? Just curious here.


You know my position. I've been frank both here and in another thread where you already asked me that. But, to reiterate graphically, obviously if I gouge my eyes out, my human vision will fail to be effective. So, I definitely will not. I like it. But then, it only has to seem really real in that way.


Woohoo, thanks proved one of many points made in this thread. You quoted the first sensationalized paragraph as an end all? Are you daft? Did you read past that one paragraph or did you completely skip this 'little gem'?


I read the entire thing and the abstracts that are available to the other two.


Do you know what Bell's Inequality Theorem is? Well, for starters, it has nothing to do with the sensationalized garbage you quoted from the first paragraph.


They weren't using Bell's Inequality Theorem but "Leggett's". But loosely, it places limits on what is possible to observe with hidden variable models. Local realism isn't holding up. Nonlocal hidden-variable models are open. More to be done, mon ami.


INDEED!


Wheee!

[edit on 12/28/2009 by EnlightenUp]

[edit on 12/28/2009 by EnlightenUp]




posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by rickyrrr
 




However, because that definition came about from a person ultimately, then how do we not know that consciousness as defined here (the state of beingness) is an illusion brought about by our own brains?


That is impossible.

If the consciousness is an illusion, then how are we aware?


I don't believe that in this discussion we have successfully separated the state of beingness from the process of thought. But supposing that we have, then there is nothing stopping us from asserting that this state of beingness might be pervasive, unbound from the ego, and if so, not requiring of a special additional entity "per person". If so, then the state of beingness would be present on anything, not just humans. But as I stated, that requires that we successfully define the state of beingness as separate from the ability to think and perceive. If we successfully do that, then there is nothing stopping us from ascribing a state of beingness to a rock. I personally don't think I am capable of defining a state of beingness as separate from perceiving and thinking, because I can't reliably switch thinking and perceiving off, which would, if possible, then allow me to fully experience *nothing but* the state of beingness. But even if I could, would I have memories of it? I think it is fairly establish that memory is a phisical attribute of the brain, so if a non physical state of beingness exists, then it is not the source of memory.

-rrr



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 



Local realism is at least partially debunked. As the article mentioned, there are non-local possibilities that haven't been as of yet. Clearly more research is required.


Yes, more research is required and due to this requirement we can't simply state that it is debunked, even 'partially'. There is no such thing as 'partially debunked'. It either is, or isn't and thus far it hasn't been debunked.


So, when are the results, the results? Are each datapoint actually resolved into a definite state until they are observed? Is there any way to know? There are always untold numbers of electrons involved.


Good question, but to assume that human consciousness has any effect upon it whilst purposefully ignoring that consciousness never directly 'experiences' any facet of reality is pretty faulty and narcissistic in my opinion.


Postulating axioms and leaving it open to interpretation are not the same thing. Clearly interpretation is not settled.


Obviously not, hence why we have a plethora of interpretations. Yet I know of no scientific interpretation that gives a viable mechanism for consciousness to have a direct role in shaping reality through bypassing all five sensory organs, the nerve bundles the information seemingly propagates through and the brain which seemingly appears to process that information.


No need to find every website. One good link to something that meets your criteria as a reputable source I would have appreciated. If I'm going to argue from any source, I want to make sure you cannot dismiss it out of hand, thus my request that you provide at least one to illustrate your point. I prefer you set your own traps, that way you cannot cleverly move the goalposts without being overtly hypocritcal.


How is that being overtly hypocritical? Come on, I expect at least you to know how to apply that label. You want another source, you want me to spend my time finding more sources to validate what's already been validated. Fine, here is one more source, any more is in your own hands and no, not giving into laziness is not overtly hypocritical so please don't misrepresent me or place your faults upon me, I simply won't stand for that kind of BS.


The quantum world can be not be perceived directly, but rather through the use of instruments. And, so, there is a problem with the fact that the act of measuring disturbs the energy and position of subatomic particles. This is called the measurement problem.

...

If the physicist looks for a particle (uses particle detectors), then a particle is found. If the physicist looks for a wave (uses a wave detector), then a wave pattern is found. A quantum entity has a dual potential nature, but its actual (observed) nature is one or the other.
source

As is clearly evident, the 'observer' is not a conscious entity.


Of course it doesn't, at least not under normal, everyday human conditions. My conscious reality in body involvement is virtual, not actual.


If you want to put it that simplistically, then fine. At least we now know where the misunderstandings are coming from.


You know my position. I've been frank both here and in another thread where you already asked me that. But, to reiterate graphically, obviously if I gouge my eyes out, my human vision will fail to be effective. So, I definitely will not. I like it. But then, it only has to seem really real in that way.


I like to continuously ask to make absolutely sure what one's opinion is and to equally make sure that opinion is being hypocritically changed to argue a particular point. Individually, if we lose our five sensory organs, does this invariably change reality as a whole or just our personal perception of reality as a result of losing the necessary sensory organs?

I'm really interested in your answer.


They weren't using Bell's Inequality Theorem but "Leggett's". But loosely, it places limits on what is possible to observe with hidden variable models. Local realism isn't holding up. Nonlocal hidden-variable models are open. More to be done, mon ami.


Oh for crying out loud. Leggett-Garg inequality is nothing more than a few proposed experiments. As far as I know, nothing has been conducted as of yet and certainly it hasn't even been proven to a point where you can simply state that "local realism isn't holding up". Let's dispense with the mindless conjectures, huh?


Wheee!


Whooo!



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
The Infinite One is Unfocused and Undifferientated

Basis: The first known thing in creation is infinity.



Step 1: Infinity become aware of itself. Awareness led to the focus of infinity into infinite energy. You have called this by various names, the most common being ‘logos' or ‘love' [But love is actually the 2nd distortion, Free will being the 1st and light being the 3rd arising and creating from love]

Side note: Love may be seen as the type of energy of an extremely high order which causes intelligent energy to be formed from the potential of intelligent infinity in a particular way. All love emanates from the Oneness

Intelligent infinity discerned a concept, namely, freedom of will of awareness.

This concept was finiteness. This is the first and primal paradox or distortion of the Law of One. Thus the one intelligent infinity invested itself in an exploration of many-ness.

Due to the infinite possibilities of intelligent infinity (or the Oneness), there is no ending to many-ness. The exploration thus is free to continue infinitely into an eternal present.


From the Infinite One desiring to experience itself arises to Creator. The Creator = The focusing of Intelligent Infinity into Intelligent Energy.

Step 2: As the Creator decides to experience Itself It generates into that plenum (nothingness that has the potential for being) full of the glory and the power of the One Infinite Creator which is manifest to our perceptions as space or outer space

The Creator divides into (Or creates) individualized portions of itself.

Step 3: Step by step, the Creator becomes that which may know (or experience) Itself, and the portions of the Creator partake less purely in the power of the original word or thought. The creation itself is a form of consciousness which is unified.

Intelligent infinity has a rhythm or flow as of a giant heart beginning with the central sun as we would conceive of this, the presence of the flow inevitable as a tide of beingness without polarity, without finiteness, the vast and silent all beating outward, outward and inward until all the focuses are complete. Then their spiritual nature or mass calls them inward, inward until all is coalesced. This is the rhythm of reality. Over and over again, creation to creation.

The galaxy and all other material things are products of individualized portions of intelligent infinity. As each exploration began, an individualized portion of the One would, in its turn, find its focus and become co-creator. Using intelligent infinity each portion created a universe. Allowing the rhythm of free choice to flow and playing with the infinite spectrum of possibilities, each individualized portion channeled love/light into intelligent energy, thus creating the so-called Natural Laws of any particular universe. Each has its own local version of illusory Natural Laws.

IT SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD THAT ANY PORTION, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, OF ANY DENSITY OR OF ANY ILLUSORY PATTERN CONTAINS, AS IN A HOLOGRAPHIC PICTURE, THE ONE CREATOR WHICH IS INFINITY. THUS ALL BEGINS AND ENDS IN MYSTERY.


Namaste


[edit on 28-12-2009 by Psychonaughty]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex



If the physicist looks for a particle (uses particle detectors), then a particle is found. If the physicist looks for a wave (uses a wave detector), then a wave pattern is found. A quantum entity has a dual potential nature, but its actual (observed) nature is one or the other.
source


As is clearly evident, the 'observer' is not a conscious entity.


The measurement is not what changes the results, it is the potential to be observed that influences the results.

If the result was measured the information was different than if the result was measured but deleted before anyone could see it.

www.bottomlayer.com...

"Record the measurements at the slits, but then erase it before analyzing the results at the back wall. Suppose we take our modified double slit set up -- with electron detectors at the slits -- and still leave everything intact. And we will still keep the electron detectors at the slits turned on, so that they will be doing whatever they do to detect electrons at the slits. And we will record the count at the slits, so that we will be able to obtain the results. But, we will erase the data obtained from the electron detectors at the slits before we analyze the data from the back wall.

The result upon analysis: an interference pattern at the back wall. Notice that, in this variation, the double slit experiment with detectors at the slits is completed in every respect by the time we choose to erase the recorded data. Up to that point, there is no difference in our procedure here and in our initial procedure ([pp. 15-17]), which yielded the puzzling clumping pattern. Yet, it seems that if we, in a sense, retroactively remove the electron detectors at the slits (not by going back in time to physically remove them, but only by removing the information they have gathered so that it is not available from the time of the erasure going forward into the future), we can "change" the results of a completed experiment, so far as those results are determined by a later analysis, to produce an interference pattern instead of a clumping pattern. This is mind-boggling."

"The difference is whether we know. The difference is whether we choose to have the information available. "

[edit on 28-12-2009 by Jezus]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



The measurement is not what changes the results, it is the potential to be observed that influences the results.


Go read other stuff beside sensationalized garbage, please.


The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is the unresolved problem of how (or if) wavefunction collapse occurs. The inability to observe this process directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer. The wavefunction in quantum mechanics evolves according to the Schrödinger equation into a linear superposition of different states, but actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the process under examination. Whatever that "something" may be does not appear to be explained by the basic theory.

To express matters differently (to paraphrase Steven Weinberg [1][2]), the wave function evolves deterministically – knowing the wave function at one moment, the Schrödinger equation determines the wave function at any later time. If observers and their measuring apparatus are themselves described by a deterministic wave function, why can we not predict precise results for measurements, but only probabilities? As a general question: How can one establish a correspondence between quantum and classical reality?[3]
source

QM has never had anything in the past nor now to do with human consciousness. If you believe it does or had previously had anything to do with, then I challenge you to give an explicit quotation and experiment that explicitly mentions this aspect. I'm not looking for implications, I'm looking for explicitness.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
QM has never had anything in the past nor now to do with human consciousness.


The experimental results strongly suggest otherwise.

The results of the experiment are different if the information is observable.

"What is the difference? It turns out that, so far as experimentalists have been able to determine, the difference is not whether electrons were run through an electron detector at the slits. It turns out that, so far as experimentalists have been able to determine, the difference is whether the analysis of the results at the back wall is conducted when information about the electrons' positions at the slits is available, or not."

"The measurement effect. With sublime understatement, this phenomenon is referred to as "the measurement effect." When we measure (or detect, or see, or quantify, or determine, or otherwise gain knowledge of) something at the quantum level, the very act of measurement will have an effect on the thing itself. To all intents and purposes, the act of a sentient being in seeking a measurement will cause the thing to have a property which can be measured, and thereby produce a definite property that can be measured.

"The difference is whether we know. The difference is whether we choose to have the information available."


1
[Back] Double slit experiment with electrons:
A. Tonomura, J. Endo, T. Matsuda and T. Kawasaki, “Demonstration of single-electron buildup of an interference pattern”, Am. J. Phys. 57, 117 (1989).
C. Jönsson, Zeitschrift für Physik 161, 454; C. Jönsson "Electron diffraction at multiple slits," Am. J. Phys. 42, 4-11 (1974).
P.G. Merli et al., Am. J. Phys. 44, 306-7 (1976).
See "The double-slit experiment," Physics World (Sept. 2002, at p. 15; supp. May 2003) (discussion of double slit in general and electron double slit in particular, with comments from Tonomura and Merli), available at physicsweb.org...

See also Hitachi website, www.hqrd.hitachi.co.jp... and especially www.hqrd.hitachi.co.jp... for striking photographs and video from the Tonomura experiment.

2
[Back] These situations are principally derived from the phenomenon known as "delayed choice," proposed by John Wheeler, see Quantum Theory and Measurement, J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek, eds. Princeton Univ. Press (1983). The QM predictions have been experimentally realized and verified by, e.g., V. Jacques, et al., "Experimental realization of Wheeler's gedankenexperiment," Science 315 966 (2007), e-print at www.arxiv.org... ; A.G. Zajonc et al., Nature, 353, 507 (1991); P.G. Kwiat et al., Phys. Rev. A 49, 61 (1994); T.J. Herzog et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 75, 3034 (1995); T.B. Pittman et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 77, 1917 (1996). The Jacques experiment is described in Physics World, "Photons denied a glimpse at their observer" (Feb. 15, 2007), physicsworld.com... .

At least one quantum eraser double slit experiment has been accomplished with electrons. I. Neder, et al., "Entanglement, Dephasing, and Phase Recovery via Cross-Correlation Measurements of Electrons," Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 036803 (2007-Jan-19), e-print at arxiv.org... This is said to be the electron equivalent of "ghost interference" as reported by D. Strekalov, et al., "Observation of two-photon 'ghost' interference and diffraction," Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3600 (1995), which is nicely described in P. Chingangbam, et al., "Two particle ghost interference demystified," e-print at arxiv.org... See also Qureshi T., et al., "Quantum Eraser Using Spin-1/2 Particles" (2005), e-print at arxiv.org...

The experimental realizations of delayed choice of which I am aware have all been accomplished with photons. This is mainly due to the ingenious scheme developed by Marlan O. Scully which employs entangled pairs of photons to accomplish which-path measurement 1) with no interaction; and 2) with the ability to manipulate the which-path information. M.O. Scully and K. Drühl, Phys. Rev. A 25, 2208 (1982). For pedagogical purposes, I have continued to use electrons as the quantum units under discussion. With recent successes in achieving entanglement among atoms, it seems likely that these experiments may be repeated in the near future with various quantum units of matter (if this has not already been achieved). QM being what it is, there is no question but that the results will be consistent with those obtained with photons.

Summary of the basic idea of delayed choice experiments is available at
www.bottomlayer.com...
For an elegant delayed choice experiment, see Yoon-Ho Kim, et al., "A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser", Phys.Rev.Lett. 84 (2000) 1-5 xxx.lanl.gov... Commentary on this experiment is available at
www.bottomlayer.com...

Another excellent experiment is reported at G. Scarcelli, Y. Zhou and Y. Shih (Dep't of Physics, Univ. of Maryland). "Random Delayed-Choice Quantum Eraser via Two-Photon Imaging." (Dec. 22, 2005) arxiv.org...

Recently, a group advised by Alain Aspect reported a successful delayed-choice experiment with single photons and direct intervention by the experimenter. V. Jacques, et al., Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-choice GedankenExperiment (Oct. 31, 2006), e-print www.arxiv.org...

Paul Kwiat and Rachel Hillmer describe "A Do-It-Yourself Quantum Eraser" in the May 2007 edition of Scientific American . All you need is a laser pointer and some polarizing filters, and they even tell you where to get the polarizing filters. If I were still in high school, this would be my science project!


2a
[Back] It is not necessary to see or comprehend the information that is available. The experimenter cannot make information go away by not looking at it. If the information is available, it will reflected in the measurement outcome.
3
[Back] M. Arndt, et al., "Wave-particle duality of C60" Nature 401, 680-682 (1999). Summarized at "Fullerene diffraction," www.quantum.univie.ac.at...
4
[Back] L. Hackermuller, et al., "Decoherence in a Talbot Lau interferometer: the influence of molecular scattering"
www.arxiv.org...



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
The true Self can never be measured because it is formless. Only through changing ourselves and our outlook on life will we ever be given "explicit instructions" on proving the formless.

 

From the 1 comes 2, which denotes 3. Life, Quality and Appearance are described as Spirit, Soul and Body. Together, either working individually or as a synthesized Whole, these three work at experiencing time and space. Spirit (energy), Soul (mind) and Body are the temples through which the true Observer observes.

According to the Maitreya teachings: Being and Becoming are two modalities. Being is unchanging, whereas becoming is a process in time and space. Man, in his Being, is the Self. In his becoming, he is the soul -the reflection of the Self.

Mind, spirit and body are the temples of the Lord which man inhabits. Spirit (Shiva-shakti) is energy. Mind is Brahma, which is thought-formation. Body is Prakriti, which is material substance.

The Self is not energy; the Self is not thought-formation; the Self is not material activity. The destiny of the Self is to enter and leave these temples of the Lord at will.

The Self alone matters. You are that Self, an immortal being. Suffering is caused by the identification of anything and everything that is not the Self.

Ask yourself: "Who am I?" You will see that you are identified either with matter (the body), or with thought (the mind) or with power (spirit). But you are none of these. Mind, spirit and body are the temples of the Lord. The Self experiences in these the supreme Being and Becoming of the Lord.

Being is eternal, Becoming is the unfolding in time and space. The Self experiences both.


Cheers.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


Like I said, please stop reading sensationalized garbage. The measurement problem has nothing to do with human consciousness. I already posted this, please don't blatantly ignore it and re-source your sensationalized material.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Psychonaughty
The Infinite One is Unfocused and Undifferientated

Basis: The first known thing in creation is infinity.



Step 1: Infinity become aware of itself. Awareness led to the focus of infinity into infinite energy. You have called this by various names, the most common being ‘logos' or ‘love' [But love is actually the 2nd distortion, Free will being the 1st and light being the 3rd arising and creating from love]

Side note: Love may be seen as the type of energy of an extremely high order which causes intelligent energy to be formed from the potential of intelligent infinity in a particular way. All love emanates from the Oneness

Intelligent infinity discerned a concept, namely, freedom of will of awareness.

This concept was finiteness. This is the first and primal paradox or distortion of the Law of One. Thus the one intelligent infinity invested itself in an exploration of many-ness.

Due to the infinite possibilities of intelligent infinity (or the Oneness), there is no ending to many-ness. The exploration thus is free to continue infinitely into an eternal present.


From the Infinite One desiring to experience itself arises to Creator. The Creator = The focusing of Intelligent Infinity into Intelligent Energy.

Step 2: As the Creator decides to experience Itself It generates into that plenum (nothingness that has the potential for being) full of the glory and the power of the One Infinite Creator which is manifest to our perceptions as space or outer space

The Creator divides into (Or creates) individualized portions of itself.

Step 3: Step by step, the Creator becomes that which may know (or experience) Itself, and the portions of the Creator partake less purely in the power of the original word or thought. The creation itself is a form of consciousness which is unified.

Intelligent infinity has a rhythm or flow as of a giant heart beginning with the central sun as we would conceive of this, the presence of the flow inevitable as a tide of beingness without polarity, without finiteness, the vast and silent all beating outward, outward and inward until all the focuses are complete. Then their spiritual nature or mass calls them inward, inward until all is coalesced. This is the rhythm of reality. Over and over again, creation to creation.

The galaxy and all other material things are products of individualized portions of intelligent infinity. As each exploration began, an individualized portion of the One would, in its turn, find its focus and become co-creator. Using intelligent infinity each portion created a universe. Allowing the rhythm of free choice to flow and playing with the infinite spectrum of possibilities, each individualized portion channeled love/light into intelligent energy, thus creating the so-called Natural Laws of any particular universe. Each has its own local version of illusory Natural Laws.

IT SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD THAT ANY PORTION, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, OF ANY DENSITY OR OF ANY ILLUSORY PATTERN CONTAINS, AS IN A HOLOGRAPHIC PICTURE, THE ONE CREATOR WHICH IS INFINITY. THUS ALL BEGINS AND ENDS IN MYSTERY.


Namaste

This conveys beautifully the nature of creation and what we are. Many will find this concept too fantastical but, this is the way it is. Proving it is the problem.
[edit on 28-12-2009 by Psychonaughty]



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ironbutterflyrusted
 





...so why are you using the terms `mind` and `universe`..? surely submitting a title for something gives rise to claims of extent and separateness/individuality...this seems to be counter productive to your cause. You also mention `shape`, well the lack of, but what is `shape` and how can you know when it is not one.? This claim is a `fact` you say, isnt a `fact`part of a theory.? a human construct, to be understood as strictly relative to an Earth bound observer, open to revision when the observer is aware of more.? ...the Earth is flat, to one observer, a globe to another, a speck of light to another etc... Using the language of definition in the framework of Science will not provide an answer to or flesh out a Metaphysical problem/enquiry and Philosophy will only help to define a better question from a particular stance. What `is` and what is in a state of `being`...Protagoras,"man is the measure of all things" and Heraclitus,"all is flux". Where do the terms you have used fall.? universe, mind, infinity(implied), fact. I think you should make a decision before you proceed, because using parts of so many frameworks is liable to lead to contradiction.


No The topic states "conscious" universe

yet your inside of it? and are "conscious" right?

so if the universe MADE you then IT IS without even KNOWING IT or maybe it does? who knows but if you wish to play word games.

You live inside a physical mind.. "the function there of"

understand?



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by bargoose
 



Infinity is a reflection of being alive.

Thats why we have it. Infinity STOPS when you die..

Observer "TRAPPED" in INFINITY because They are living a lifetime.

If you put 2 mirrors facing each other what do you get? "infinity" simple test.. What happens when you take one of the mirrors away ? No infinity

Now try to think this way what happens when you are alive? you become a mirror? what is it that is reflecting back? You are.. "not your body" but the very function of creation in all its glory.

Thats what makes YOU so important. LIFE is a gift of epicness should not be feared just understud.

you make the universe conscious "fact" and if you was to exclude humans form it.

The universe would still be conscious "ask my cat" take away cats "ask the tree"

And a tree is conscious "of its soroundings" just because it does not talk and walk does not mean its not "aware" / "interacting"



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Jezus
 


Like I said, please stop reading sensationalized garbage. The measurement problem has nothing to do with human consciousness. I already posted this, please don't blatantly ignore it and re-source your sensationalized material.


It isn't scientific to dismiss experimental data because of your preconcieved notions.

The results of the experiment were impacted by the availability of information to human consciousness.

Measure results = one outcome
Measure and delete the results = another outcome

by removing the information they have gathered so that it is not available from the time of the erasure going forward into the future...we can "change" the results of what we presume is a mechanically complete experiment

"Record the measurements at the slits, but then erase it before analyzing the results at the back wall. Suppose we take our modified double slit set up -- with electron detectors at the slits -- and still leave everything intact. And we will still keep the electron detectors at the slits turned on, so that they will be doing whatever they do to detect electrons at the slits. And we will record the count at the slits, so that we will be able to obtain the results. But, we will erase the data obtained from the electron detectors at the slits before we analyze the data from the back wall.

The result upon analysis: an interference pattern at the back wall. Notice that, in this variation, the double slit experiment with detectors at the slits is completed in every respect by the time we choose to erase the recorded data. Up to that point, there is no difference in our procedure here and in our initial procedure ([pp. 15-17]), which yielded the puzzling clumping pattern. Yet, it seems that if we, in a sense, retroactively remove the electron detectors at the slits (not by going back in time to physically remove them, but only by removing the information they have gathered so that it is not available from the time of the erasure going forward into the future), we can "change" the results of what we presume is a mechanically complete experiment, so far as those results are determined by a later analysis, to produce an interference pattern instead of a clumping pattern. This is mind-boggling."

www.bottomlayer.com...



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



It isn't scientific to dismiss experimental data because of your preconcieved notions.


Look into those experiments, specifically how they are set up and performed. Human consciousness is not a factor at all. Please don't get confused by the word 'choice'.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


so do you agree the universe is conscious or what is your "take on things" if its not.

Im still unsure of your view.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by 13579
reply to post by sirnex
 


so do you agree the universe is conscious or what is your "take on things" if its not.

Im still unsure of your view.


You already know that answer and your attempting to do nothing more than troll me here.

No, the universe itself is no more conscious than a rock is conscious. Yes, the individual bits that exist in the universe can coalesce into a conscious entity through physical interaction, but this does not inherently imply the universe as a whole is conscious itself. We are not the universe, we exist within its boundaries.

Looking forward to your trolling answer, possibly won't reply to it as I don't really have the patience yet to deal with your garbage tonight.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Me troll? nah i just like beating you down with facts my self...

just like you do with others who dont have the time to in fact debate you and put you on ignore..

So lets begin.




No, the universe itself is no more conscious than a rock is conscious. Yes, the individual bits that exist in the universe can coalesce into a conscious entity through physical interaction,


the universe



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





We are not the universe, we exist within its boundaries.


We are NOT the universe? what on earth is that meant to mean?????

what boundaries???

YOU LIVE INSIDE IT LOL it CREATED YOU

it has no boundaries... LOL it made you didnt it? or is that a step to far for your closed mind to grasp or to cope with?

hmm?



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 


I have nothing nice to say to you right now with your many misspellings, improper grammar and lack of critical thought. The choice of words I wish to convey towards you, as well as the harshness of tone would in no doubt get me banned for awhile off of ATS and since this would happen, the best response I can give you is this.

Get bent. Please.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


love it.



Oh well look forward to reading more on here



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join