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.
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.
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.
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.
Did you not even consider that your consciousness does not directly observer anything outside of your skull?
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.
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'?
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.
INDEED!
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?
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.
Postulating axioms and leaving it open to interpretation are not the same thing. Clearly interpretation is not settled.
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.
source
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.
Of course it doesn't, at least not under normal, everyday human conditions. My conscious reality in body involvement is virtual, not actual.
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.
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.
Wheee!
Originally posted by sirnex
source
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.
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.
source
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]
Originally posted by sirnex
QM has never had anything in the past nor now to do with human consciousness.
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]
...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.
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.
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.
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,
We are not the universe, we exist within its boundaries.