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: 21
42
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I understand that you are saying that instruments not people are obtaining and deleting the information but the fact that the particle or wave pattern can be determined by this deletion, regardless of how it takes place, after the physical experiment is complete is the point of interest.




posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by sirnex
 


I understand that you are saying that instruments not people are obtaining and deleting the information but the fact that the particle or wave pattern can be determined by this deletion, regardless of how it takes place, after the physical experiment is complete is the point of interest.


OK, so if you understand that point, then you should equally understand that human consciousness has no play in it's effects. All quantum mechanics is showing us is that the subatomic world doesn't behave accordingly to classical physics of the macroscopic world. It doesn't say anything about human consciousness having any effect on the nature of reality or an ability to change reality or create reality.

The reason there are so many interpretations given for the results of the experiments is because we don't actually know what is going on at that level. If we actually knew and understood what was happening and why it was happening, then we would not have such a wide variety of interpretations. We would have only one explanation of how thing's behave at the subatomic level. So, to reiterate, QM discuss the behavior of subatomic particles, not how human consciousness effects reality. The only thing that discusses how human consciousness effects reality is new age sensationalized propaganda born from a misunderstanding of what QM is telling/showing us.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


You’re not addressing the issue.

The availability of knowledge to a conscious observer changes reality.


Originally posted 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.

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...



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



The availability of knowledge to a conscious observer changes reality.


I specifically asked you to get off the sensationalized site and review the experiment from a scientific description. No, you and I have no role. It's a measurement problem, not a consciousness problem.



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


In the experiment I am discussing measurement takes place in all cases.

The difference appears after the experiment is complete and some of the measurements are deleted...



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by sirnex
 


In the experiment I am discussing measurement takes place in all cases.

The difference appears after the experiment is complete and some of the measurements are deleted...


OK, but as you alluded to, you claimed to understand that it's the INSTRUMENTS that make this change, NOT human consciousness. So why continue argue that point unless your demanding I call you a flipping hypocrite?



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by sirnex
 


In the experiment I am discussing measurement takes place in all cases.

The difference appears after the experiment is complete and some of the measurements are deleted...


Wouldn't this have thermodynamic implications? What is measured and at what time? How much of the apparatus could possibly be involved before the erasure?

Remember light travels a mere 3-4 inches in a vacuum in a single modern PC CPU cycle. I suppose that means there's plenty of time to do stuff in the background while the photons travel, like decode pr0n.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


OMFG pr0n!!! W00t!!!one111one!!!



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by sirnex
 


In the experiment I am discussing measurement takes place in all cases.

The difference appears after the experiment is complete and some of the measurements are deleted...


OK, but as you alluded to, you claimed to understand that it's the INSTRUMENTS that make this change, NOT human consciousness. So why continue argue that point unless your demanding I call you a flipping hypocrite?


You still aren't addressing the issue.

The fact that instruments are making the change doesn’t change the fact that the change takes place after the experiment is complete.

Measure what slit the particle use
=
Particle pattern

Measure what slit the particles use but delete the information (after you already measured it)
=
Wave (interference) pattern

The experiments are identical up until the point of deletion.
This deletion of information takes place after the experiment is complete.
The deletion takes place after the pattern should already be on the wall.

The use of instruments doesn’t change the fact that the availability of information changes the physical results of the experiment after it is complete



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



The use of instruments doesn’t change the fact that the availability of information changes the physical results of the experiment after it is complete


No fooling and contrary to your belief, this does not indicate that human consciousness facilitates that change, nor is it a factor of the experiment itself. It isn't even mentioned once as being a causation of whatever mechanism is taking place or as being an aspect of the experiment or the experiment being used to prove anything of the Mind itself.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
No fooling and contrary to your belief, this does not indicate that human consciousness facilitates that change, nor is it a factor of the experiment itself.


Human consciousness is a part of all experiments.


Originally posted by sirnex
It isn't even mentioned once as being a causation of whatever mechanism is taking place or as being an aspect of the experiment or the experiment being used to prove anything of the Mind itself.


The fact that the availability of information changes the physical results, even after the physical results should have been created, proves that human consciousness is a factor.

Causation is beside the point, the correlation of available information and reality is the point.

Observe the slits = particle must “choose” a slit
Observer the slits but delete the information so no “one” can know = the particle can remain potential

Information is an abstract concept and relative concept, and in this case it is created by complex machines. “Information” has no meaning unless it is observed and understood.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


Why stop at number 3 in that post? Number 4, IF true is the most mind-blowing and gives greater weight to the importance of conscious access to the data over instrument access (ie. deriving meaning), future intent and singularity of consciousness.


4. Arrange the experiment so that we can make an arbitrary choice at some later time, after the experiment is "complete," whether or not to use the information gathered by the electron detectors at the slits. 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 (this gets a little complicated), we will

  1. mix the data from the slits with additional, irrelevant garbage data, and record the combined (and incomprehensible) data;
  2. design a program to analyze data coming from the slits in one of two ways, either

    1. filtering out the garbage data so that we will be able to obtain clean results of electrons going through the slits, or
    2. analyzing the mixed-up data so that we will not be able to obtain the results of electrons going through the slits; and

  3. leave it up to a visiting politician which way we actually analyze the data from the slits.


The result upon final analysis by method (2)(a): a particle clumping pattern appears from the data.
The result upon final analysis by method (2)(b): an interference pattern appears from the data.


So, is this for real or are they doing some leg pulling?



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 



So, is this for real or are they doing some leg pulling?


It's leg pulling, you should have posted the whole thing, especially this last sentence:


will turn out to be correlated to a choice that we make in the present.


Look's like leg pulling to me at least. Irregardless of when the experiment is conducted or in what order or any such thing, they still are not showing any mechanism at all for how human consciousness has a *direct and explicit* effect. This is why I asked him to get away from this sensationalized version of the experiment and look at the actual scientific version, which posits forth no such interaction of consciousness.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



Human consciousness is a part of all experiments.


Your simply way too naive, it's almost cute. The study of consciousness and mind are still in it's infancy, we don't even know how it arises, works or affects anything. This includes the mind/body relationship. We know it exists, but we don't know why or how it all works. Yet you want to claim bogus BS of full knowledge or claim bogus BS of direct causation? Just cute!


Causation is beside the point, the correlation of available information and reality is the point.


Wow, to be honest I hope you never become a judge with that mindset. Hopefully your just tooling around and being sarcastic, I really hope so.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


It's leg pulling, you should have posted the whole thing, especially this last sentence:


will turn out to be correlated to a choice that we make in the present.


Didn't want to over-post. I'm not sure what that fragment really adds or subtracts from the message being conveyed.


Look's like leg pulling to me at least. Irregardless of when the experiment is conducted or in what order or any such thing, they still are not showing any mechanism at all for how human consciousness has a *direct and explicit* effect. This is why I asked him to get away from this sensationalized version of the experiment and look at the actual scientific version, which posits forth no such interaction of consciousness.


Any such result as described sure does have some implications for consciousness being placed in the mix. When I saw the first part Jezus already posted in-thread, a procedure like this came to mind where the data could be transformed to be consciously unmeaningful but not discarded. It would show the apparatus, including the recorders (computer, harddrive, etc.) is not the final determininant but data intelligible to a concious observer is.

You want a mechanism in an area of research and theory where mechanisms are not clear, where interpretations rule the roost. Local realism has lost tenability.

I then would propose committing to this (diabolical) variant:
    If an interference pattern is observed, decrypt the which-path info.
    If a cluster pattern is observed, do not decrypt the which-path info.


Next thing to do is to proceed with this quantum oracle under the committement of decrypting the which-path info on 12/22/2012. If you see an interference pattern, worry about your future. LOL.

[edit on 12/31/2009 by EnlightenUp]

[edit on 12/31/2009 by EnlightenUp]



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


The correlation between information and reality proves the fact that consciously observing variables creates them.

The information exists to distinguish A from B (data on particles/slits)
=
The physical reality must reflect A or B (the particle pattern)

Information does not exist (data deleted)
=
The physical reality remains potential of both A and B (the wave/interference pattern)

The connection between the existence of data and the physical reality is the conscious mind.

The data is an abstract creation of humans to correlate with an observed physical reality. The “meaning” of the data only exists when observed by a conscious mind.

Without a person to understand the numbers written on a piece of paper the numbers do not inherently mean what they represent; the physical shape of a 6 does not correlate with the meaning of the term “six”, they are simply ink shapes.

Information only has meaning in relation to a conscious mind.
.
The experiment proves that it is not measuring that collapse the wave function but knowledge of the measurement. The fact the deleting or not deleting the information changes the results proves that not only knowledge but potential knowledge changes reality.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 




The correlation between information and reality proves the fact that consciously observing variables creates them.


The hell it does.


Correlation does not imply causation. Furthermore, in none of the experiments I have read about, not a single one conducted is ever explicitly stated to be set up to discover if the conscious mind affects reality. Read into all the sensationalized BS you want, you won't learn jack that way.


Without a person to understand the numbers written on a piece of paper the numbers do not inherently mean what they represent; the physical shape of a 6 does not correlate with the meaning of the term “six”, they are simply ink shapes.


Are you kidding me? Damn you are just absolutely naive aren't you? Irregardless of numerical labels given by the human species, the physical processes will still occur. We can label these processes fresh dog crap, and somehow, reality doesn't give a crap about it.

[edit on 31-12-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Furthermore, in none of the experiments I have read about, not a single one conducted is ever explicitly stated to be set up to discover if the conscious mind affects reality.


Completely irrelevant.
Critically analyze the results..


Originally posted by sirnex
Irregardless of numerical labels given by the human species, the physical processes will still occur. We can label these processes fresh dog crap, and somehow, reality doesn't give a crap about it.


That is exactly the point...

Data is only meaningful when observed.

So the fact that deleting data can influence reality proves that observation creates reality.

If the information is available to a conscious mind the physical reality reflects it.
If the information is deleted the wave function does not collapse.

Connect the dots.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



Completely irrelevant.
Critically analyze the results..


Very relevant as it applies to your ridiculous assertion born from misunderstandings and wishful thinking.


Data is only meaningful when observed.


I don't think you have a clue what even you are trying to argue. You keep screwing it up, slow down and think for a minute. The experiments are NOT experiments of data, they are experiments of how matter behaves at the microscopic level.


So the fact that deleting data can influence reality proves that observation creates reality.


Yea OK, I've already gone over the observer effect not only with you, but also in other threads that I'm pretty sure you've ventured into. You are not the observer nor is the observer described as human consciousness in any of the experiments.


If the information is available to a conscious mind the physical reality reflects it.
If the information is deleted the wave function does not collapse.

Connect the dots.


Learn to comprehend. If you don't understand the material and/or are only gathering all your information from one specific form of source, then you aren't actively learning jack. You are not the observer nor can the conscious mind ever be the observer. There simply is no direct interaction taken place and none of the experiments conducted even posit a possible mechanism for such a direct interaction. Damn man, your so backwards in how your looking at it all.



posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I have some questions for you, Sir Nex.

When were you knighted?

Are conscious scientists getting more support by the universe?

Will boxes of chocolates with contents selected according to random radioactive decay counts spice up my love life?

How far can I go until I run into the forest?



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join