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: 20
42
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 





Why do you have a problem in accepting you are in fact a spiritual being ? It is the most logical belief to have.


Because your still yet to define a spirit.

And the anolgy can also be used if you lived in a box would you know what a spirit was?

well would you?




posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 


Spirit does not require a definition, because it is not a word or concept. It is life. We don't have to have any language to experience life. Life just is.



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 


Could you please eludicate what exactly you believe, in an easy flowing non hypocritical format, the point of all of existence to be?

Namaste!!



posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
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'.


Why are you being so vague?

How do you interpret the fact that deleting the information has an influence on the experimental results in any other way?


Originally posted by Jezus
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 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



Why are you being so vague?

How do you interpret the fact that deleting the information has an influence on the experimental results in any other way?


How the hell am I being vague by asking you too quit being lazy and look at how the experiments are set up? Are you screwing with me or being serious here? Get the hell off that site, stop quoting it and look at anything that actually explains how the experiment is set up and conducted. Your not retarded so stop pretending to be for crying out loud. I've already gone over this with that matrix guy and he ended up stfu about it because he couldn't argue it. Now I'm asking you to do the same thing I've asked him. Tell me how the experiment is set up and conducted and still try to tell me that the human mind has an effect on it. Simple as American pie sweetheart, it really is.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Dear Sir,

Please give me a definition of consciousness and maybe then we could have a civilized discussion about the subject.

Thank you,

N



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Unfortunately I have to agree with a previous post. More people are saying it simply because there are more people.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nichiren
reply to post by sirnex
 


Dear Sir,

Please give me a definition of consciousness and maybe then we could have a civilized discussion about the subject.

Thank you,

N


I can't because our knowledge of consciousness is still in it's infancy. Whilst other will ridiculously claim full knowledge of consciousness, I won't because I am more honest than that. If this response upsets anyone, oh well. I value honesty over arrogant idiocy. I don't play nice with people who claim truths who can't bother backing up those truths.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


The orginal double slit experiment is explained on the site...

But the interesting part is still...

Measure what slits the particles use = particle pattern
Measure and delete results = wave pattern (interference)

This proves that it is not measuring but the availability of the knowledge to an observer the changes the results.


"The original double slit experiment. In 1802, the British scientist Thomas Young hit upon a way to test the nature of light, using a double slit apparatus. He reasoned that if light consisted of particles, it would travel in straight lines from a source, through two slits in a barrier, and on to a screen placed at the back of the apparatus; at the screen, it would appear as two stripes of light. On the other hand, if light consisted of waves, it would radiate outward from the source toward the two slits, pass through the two slits, and begin radiating anew from each of the two slits as it traveled toward the back screen; at the screen, it would appear as a series of stripes of light, representing the interference pattern typical of overlapping, symmetrical waves both emanating from a "stripe" in the barrier, i.e., one of the slits. The two possibilities can be diagramed as follows, and these should be reasonably clear from the review of particle and wave properties in the previous chapter:

The results of Young's double slit experiment seemed to settle the question of the nature of light in a convincing fashion. The best explanation for the stripes of light was that they were the result of two symmetrical waves overlapping and interfering, which produced the stripes along the cross-section of the interference pattern at the back screen. This experiment was easily and frequently repeated, each time with the same results. (You, too, can conduct this experiment right in your own living room, using very simple equipment. See my description in the box on page xx.) By measuring the stripes of light in various configurations, the experimenters were able even to determine the precise "wavelength" of the light, which is to say the precise distance from crest to crest, or trough to trough. Everything fit. In sum, Young's experiment was completely and precisely consistent with wave motion -- and almost completely inconsistent with particle motion. A triumph of experimental physics. And so, for the next 85 years, the scientific establishment abandoned the particle theory of light in favor of the wave theory of light."



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



This proves that it is not measuring but the availability of the knowledge to an observer the changes the results.


UGH! Human consciousness is not the observer in the experiment. Not one single human has stuck it's mind in front of the laser's path. Not one. Not even a human eye has had the pleasure of being blinded by the laser. The observer is the instruments doing the measurement, hence the measurement problem in quantum physics.

Flipping find one scientific paper that has shown direct evidence of human consciousness having any role as the explicit observer. Just one will suffice.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
The observer is the instruments doing the measurement, hence the measurement problem in quantum physics.


The fact that erasing the observations (after the experiment is complete) influences the results proves that it is not the act of measuring which changes the results but the availability of the knowledge to a conscious observer.

Information available = particle pattern
Information deleted = wave (interference) pattern

In both cases the measurement took place but if the information is observable by a person it forces the particle to pick a slot and the pattern on the back wall is a particle pattern.

If the information is deleted the knowledge of which slot the particle used is not available and the pattern on the back wall remains a wave (interference) pattern.

This proves the consciously looking for something to observes collapses the wave function.


"3. 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...



[edit on 29-12-2009 by Jezus]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



The fact that erasing the observations (after the experiment is complete) influences the results proves that it is not the act of measuring which changes the results but the availability of the knowledge to a conscious observer.


The experimenter does not physically erase anything. Please read how the experiment is set up and conducted. Explain it to me in your next post, pick the whole thing apart and then try to tell me that it's the human consciousness that does anything.

Find a clear explanation from a different website, try an actual scientific article on that experiment so we can have a non-biased view as best we can. I already asked you to do this one simple task. You want to claim it, then show it. Pick apart the entire setup of the experiment and explain every aspect of how it works to me.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Why would we work backwards?

I already explained the experiment, if you have a problem with the results then explain why...



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by GrandKitaro777
 

Numbers please. If there were 2 scientists 5 years ago and 10 today you could claim 400% increase! WOW HUGE....hang on 10 is nothing. I'm sure there are more than 10 scientists in asylums in that period!!!!!

So numbers please to determine whether this is a genuine increase or not.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by sirnex
 


Why would we work backwards?

I already explained the experiment, if you have a problem with the results then explain why...



Explain it step by step, if I missed that explanation then can you either tell me on what page it was or link to the specific post? Too many pages to go through to find something that I'm pretty sure I didn't see at all.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


www.bottomlayer.com...


Check the link if you want the basics of the double slit experiment but the quote below explains the issue of erasing the measurements of the instrument.

Measure what slit the particles use = particle pattern
Measure but delete the information = wave (interference) pattern


3. 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.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


www.bottomlayer.com...


Check the link if you want the basics of the double slit experiment but the quote below explains the issue of erasing the measurements of the instrument.

Measure what slit the particles use = particle pattern
Measure but delete the information = wave (interference) pattern


3. 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.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


As I've said, and this is quiet a simple request. Explain the set up and how the experiment is conducted. Find a different article that explains the entire experiment in great detail. There are some, I've already done this with the Matrix guy, only I had to explain it to him.

Don't get hung up on the word 'choice' and assume it's implying human choice here. There definitely is something making a 'choice', just not the human mind.

Also, don't get hung up by the vague phrase of 'if we erase'. "We" don't actually do the erasing. Yet, if you will consider looking into the experiment and how it's set up, you would know this by now.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
quiet a simple request...the entire experiment in great detail.


If you don't agree with the results then explain why, I'm not going to explain the entire double slit experiment...


Originally posted by sirnex
Also, don't get hung up by the vague phrase of 'if we erase'. "We" don't actually do the erasing.


Irrelevant, the point is that deleting the information after the experiment is complete changes the results.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



If you don't agree with the results then explain why, I'm not going to explain the entire double slit experiment...


I don't disagree with the results of the experiment at all. I disagree with your assertion that human consciousness has any effect on those results. I'll explain it in a bit, going to look up a couple articles to source from so you can follow along with verifiable information which you can review for yourself.


Irrelevant, the point is that deleting the information after the experiment is complete changes the results.


It's actually quiet relevant as it's important to know how that erasure is taking place. If your getting hung up on a vague phrase, then your not fully understanding the experiment. Hence my reasoning behind having YOU explain the experiment step by step to me. Obviously your going to refuse to bother to learn something on your own, so since I'm going to have to teach you the mechanics behind this simple experiment, your going to have to wait a bit as I'm busy right now.




top topics



 
42
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join