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: 23
42
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
You don't make the choice, you don't observe anything and you are not part of the experiment. Not even you are quoting from your sensationalized article where in the experiment the human mind plays an explicit role nor by what mechanism the human mind interacts to facilitate that change.



Originally posted by sirnex
This is why I am begging you to find out how the deletion process takes place in the experiments setup. We don't personally delete anything, it's in how the experiment is setup.


The reason I keep repeating myself is because you vaguely discuss the experiment while completely avoiding the key point.

The fact that an instrument deletes the information does not change the fact that the deletion of information after the experiment is complete changes reality.

Measure and keep results = particle pattern
Measure and delete results = wave pattern

The method of deletion does not change the fact that the existence of information changes the results of a physically complete experiment.

If you could comprehend what information is you would understand that human conscious plays a role in this experiment.

Data is not physically related to what is describes, the connection between information and the physical world is the conscious mind. A conscious observer gives meaning to raw data. So once you comprehend that data is an abstract concept and not inherently related to what it describes you will understand the human consciousness is a factor in this experiment.

**Remember, the shape of the number 6 is not related to the concept of “six”. It could be any shape. WE give meaning to the shape. The fact the deleting information impacts reality PROVES that human consciousness impacts reality. NOT BECAUSE A CONSCIOUS PERSON DELETED THE INFORMATION BUT BECAUSE OF WHAT INFORMATION IS.**




posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





Ah OK, so you think the universe is you, but you know the universe -> you -> not intelligent. OK, I misunderstood you there.


Yes it is and it is me.. after all we are one of the same thing.. Matter and Engery.. I can not be destroyed I only Change States..




No, the universe as a *whole* didn't have much to do with it. AH, see how I emphasized *whole* in this thread too?


as A Whole it Would have given rise to intelligence and conscious - go look in the mirror





If I were arguing like an idiot, then I would hope someone would point it out. Do unto others, right?


You are arguing yet I have not called you such.. its a mentality thing..

oh and a lack of respect.




Energy as a property/function of matter means that matter is what give's rise to 'energy'. Without matter imparting force/work upon other matter, we would have no energy. I've already explained this before, why is it still not sinking in? Do you just ignore all of science in order to make your idea's valid for yourself?


and what makes matter work? You seem to for get there is not just ONE level of matter .. you do know that right? sub attomic particals > atoms > matter.

Each one has and requires engergy to make the next one work.. did not watch the MIT lecture did you? or did it blow your mind?!!!!




I haven't ignored anything you've said. I've gone over everything you've said and shown exactly why it deserves to be called an idiotic argument. If anyone is ignoring anything, that would be you. I can't even get you to perform a simple task of citing sources to back up your assertions.


That is because im not in 8th grade nore need to school you on basic math or physics..




I shouldn't have to provide one as it's basic common sense.


yes it makes you look silly i do agree..




Not for creation as a *whole*. There's that emphasized word again!


so why use your mother and farther to back up what you know not to be true? that would seem silly and avoiding the point..




that made no sense and was completely off the point of the quoted text.


It made a lot of sense because i did in fact show you have no idea what it is you are saying :@) and a hypercrit.

Be happy knowing you make the universe work in a fundermental way and without you, it would not work.

Because of SCALE... your interaction.. The universe was created it created you and you are aware of it thus giving the universe a way to see its self in action.. you can not grasp this i know as you are very narrow minded..




Hmm, this reminds me of something you've told me about asking questions and the answer being in the question already, or something to that effect. So let's look at the question again. "so what is it then?"



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



The reason I keep repeating myself is because you vaguely discuss the experiment while completely avoiding the key point.


I'm not avoiding the key point at all. The key point of the experiment is that it shows us that we can not treat subatomic matter in the classical sense. What I am not doing is rushing off to a sensationalized non-scientific article that adds in information that is non-existent in the actual scientific description of the experiment. Please quote from a scientific article to back up your sensationalized article.


The fact that an instrument deletes the information does not change the fact that the deletion of information after the experiment is complete changes reality.


Reality didn't change. It's a measurement problem.


Measure and keep results = particle pattern
Measure and delete results = wave pattern


You don't personally delete anything. There is no inclusion of the human mind in any aspect of the deletion process.


The method of deletion does not change the fact that the existence of information changes the results of a physically complete experiment.


Please read a scientific article and quote from that.


If you could comprehend what information is you would understand that human conscious plays a role in this experiment.


If you could read from a scientific article and quote from that, you'd realize that your assertion is wrong.


Data is not physically related to what is describes, the connection between information and the physical world is the conscious mind. A conscious observer gives meaning to raw data. So once you comprehend that data is an abstract concept and not inherently related to what it describes you will understand the human consciousness is a factor in this experiment.


OK, you really are naive here. Regardless of 'giving meaning to invented symbols' does not change the physical processes of what is occurring. We look at a lamp for example, what we see is the physical shape of an object that we label as a lamp. Regardless of *what label* is given to that physical object, that object will still have the same physical characteristics. If you call the lamp an ocean (new label, new meaning), it won't turn into an ocean and drown you.


**Remember, the shape of the number 6 is not related to the concept of “six”. It could be any shape. WE give meaning to the shape. The fact the deleting information impacts reality PROVES that human consciousness impacts reality. NOT BECAUSE A CONSCIOUS PERSON DELETED THE INFORMATION BUT BECAUSE OF WHAT INFORMATION IS.**


Continue 'internet shouting' all you want. I'm still going to ask you to read and quote this experiment from a SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


I dont think he gets it!!

Maybe if he was born in a box he would

He reminds me of shorings cat in the box lol



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





Reality didn't change. It's a measurement problem.


Reality does change.. because we are the observer thats why it becomes not possible to messure what you are using to meassure with..

YOU are the problem
and also the answer ..

You see when you are messuring something on a scale that small the very particals that MAKE YOU WORK act in a way thats its NOT possible.. because YOU are effecting it by LOOKING AT IT

that is why it cancles out..



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 




Reality does change.. because we are the observer thats why it becomes not possible to messure what you are using to meassure with..


No, the human mind never directly 'observes' anything. Learn something about biology and the nervous system to understand why.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 



Yes it is and it is me.. after all we are one of the same thing.. Matter and Engery.. I can not be destroyed I only Change States..


LMFAO, thanks for that answer. Damn that was a good one!



as A Whole it Would have given rise to intelligence and conscious - go look in the mirror


So do you want me to explain why I emphasize *whole*?


You are arguing yet I have not called you such.. its a mentality thing..

oh and a lack of respect.


I have no respect for purposeful stupidity. Unless you are a certified retard, there is no reason that you can't take the initiative to look at the science itself and see what it actually says from an objective non-biased point of view.


and what makes matter work? You seem to for get there is not just ONE level of matter .. you do know that right? sub attomic particals > atoms > matter.

Each one has and requires engergy to make the next one work.. did not watch the MIT lecture did you? or did it blow your mind?!!!!


Go learn about force carriers.



That is because im not in 8th grade nore need to school you on basic math or physics..


You refuse to cite sources, because there are no scientific sources to back up your assertion. I've managed to cite sources, it's just the proper thing to do. You make a claim, you back that claim up. Right, but you can't so you give me a cop out BS answer. How lame.



so why use your mother and farther to back up what you know not to be true? that would seem silly and avoiding the point..


Hmm, let's put it this way. Your a piece of tape. I wonder if you can work that one out.



It made a lot of sense because i did in fact show you have no idea what it is you are saying :@) and a hypercrit.


LOL, that was a cute straw man answer and a BS lie.


Be happy knowing you make the universe work in a fundermental way and without you, it would not work.

Because of SCALE... your interaction.. The universe was created it created you and you are aware of it thus giving the universe a way to see its self in action.. you can not grasp this i know as you are very narrow minded..


If the universe existed prior to us, then how can we have been an integral aspect of it existing. You have to be the biggest hypocrite I've met on this subject. You don't even understand your own argument and you give me BS answers in a futile attempt to hide your idiocy.


Yes asking questions IS in fact the asnwer NOT the answer one attains FROM IT


*IT*.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





Quantum numbers describe values of conserved quantities in the dynamics of the quantum system. Perhaps the most peculiar aspect of quantum mechanics is the quantization of observable quantities. This is distinguished from classical mechanics where the values can range continuously. They often describe specifically the energies of electrons in atoms, but other possibilities include angular momentum, spin etc. Since any quantum system can have one or more quantum numbers, it is a rigorous job to list all possible quantum numbers.


They often describe specifically the energies of electrons in atoms

read it kiddo..



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 




So do you want me to explain why I emphasize *whole*?


Because you think the universe as a whole "everything" is not conscious..

when in fact it does not need to be as WE are here to do it... We make it "whole"



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





If the universe existed prior to us, then how can we have been an integral aspect of it existing. You have to be the biggest hypocrite I've met on this subject. You don't even understand your own argument and you give me BS answers in a futile attempt to hide your idiocy.


I think you missunderstand or do not get what it is im sayin dear sirex

The universe created us YES?

was we AWARE of IT when we was NOT here? NO

so when WE was CREATED that is WHEN the UNIVERSE BEGAN for US..

OBSERVATION!

"If the universe existed prior to us, then how can we have been an integral aspect of it existing."

it would never have made you would it?



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 



They often describe specifically the energies of electrons in atoms

read it kiddo..


LOL, that's just too cute. I've already gone over what energy is according to the physics community quiet a few time's already. When we discuss 'energy', we're discussing the amount of force/work matter is capable of exerting. Use the search function, type in energy and in the post author part, put in my name. Happy reading.


Because you think the universe as a whole "everything" is not conscious..


Please quote me on that.

I'm going to restate this:

Your a piece of tape. I wonder if you can work that one out.



I think you missunderstand or do not get what it is im sayin dear sirex

The universe created us YES?

was we AWARE of IT when we was NOT here? NO

so when WE was CREATED that is WHEN the UNIVERSE BEGAN for US..

OBSERVATION!

"If the universe existed prior to us, then how can we have been an integral aspect of it existing."

it would never have made you would it?



Naive and infantile explanation. I get the aspect of that without humans existing, then we couldn't LABEL the universe as a "universe", but this does not inherently imply that the object of discussion would not still be the object of discussion.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Regardless of 'giving meaning to invented symbols' does not change the physical processes of what is occurring. We look at a lamp for example, what we see is the physical shape of an object that we label as a lamp. Regardless of *what label* is given to that physical object, that object will still have the same physical characteristics. If you call the lamp an ocean (new label, new meaning), it won't turn into an ocean and drown you.


Exactly my point.

Since the experiment proves that the existence of information can change reality it proves that the human conciousness changes reality.

Claiming that this experiment has nothing to do with the conciousness is claiming that raw data is some how physically related to what it describes.


Originally posted by sirnex
Reality didn't change. It's a measurement problem.


In both cases measurment takes place.

If the data is deleted, the back wall pattern is a wave pattern.

If the data is not deleted, the back wall pattern is a particle pattern.


You are trying to alter the facts to fit your theory because you don't like the implications of the experiment. Sorry, I can't play this game any more, you are purposely being ignorant to the experiment's resulsts because you don't like what they imply.

Human conciousness observing variables creates the variables.

The experiment proves it. Sorry if this is disturbing to you.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



Since the experiment proves that the existence of information can change reality it proves that the human conciousness changes reality.


No, the experiment proves that matter on a subatomic level does not behave in the classical sense. It has nothing to do with 'changing reality' or human consciousness. This is why I want you to actively take the initiative YOURSELF and quote this from a scientific article.



Claiming that this experiment has nothing to do with the conciousness is claiming that raw data is some how physically related to what it describes.


It is *not* an experiment on data.



If the data is deleted, the back wall pattern is a wave pattern.

If the data is not deleted, the back wall pattern is a particle pattern.


*Data* is *not* deleted.



You are trying to alter the facts to fit your theory because you don't like the implications of the experiment. Sorry, I can't play this game any more, you are purposely being ignorant to the experiment's resulsts because you don't like what they imply.


I'm not altering any facts. I'm simply not putting up with you quoting from a non-scientific sensationalized article.



Human conciousness observing variables creates the variables.


Human consciousness does not directly 'observe' anything. Not even this post.



The experiment proves it. Sorry if this is disturbing to you.


Please find a scientific article that explains the experiment in detail, how the experiment is setup and what takes place at each step of the experiment.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Maybe you are discussing a different experiment.

www.bottomlayer.com...

1. Turn off the electron detectors at the slits. Suppose we take our modified double slit set up -- with electron detectors at the slits -- and leave everything intact. But, we will conduct the experiment with the electron detectors at the slits turned off, so that we will not actually detect any electrons at the slits.

The result upon analysis: an interference pattern at the back wall. So it seems that mere passage through the electron detectors at the slits does not affect the electron, so long as those electron detectors are not functioning.

2. Leave the electron detectors on, but don't gather the information. Suppose we take our modified double slit set up -- with electron detectors at the slits -- and still leave everything intact. And we will keep the electron detectors at the slits turned on, so that they will be doing whatever they do to detect electrons at the slits. But, we will not actually look at the count of electrons at the slits, nor will we record the count at the slits in any way, so that we will not be able to obtain any results from these fully-functioning electron detectors.

The result upon analysis: an interference pattern at the back wall. So it seems that the electron detectors located at the slits do not themselves affect the electron, even when the equipment is fully functioning and detecting (in a mechanical sense) the electrons, so long as we don't obtain the results of these measurements.

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.

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
(a) filtering out the garbage data so that we will be able to obtain clean results of electrons going through the slits, or
(b) 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 it seems that an arbitrary choice (represented by the politician who has no personal interest in the experiment) made hours, days, months, or even years after the experiment is "complete," will change the result of that completed experiment. And, by changing the result, we mean that this arbitrary, delayed choice will affect the actual location of the electron hits as recorded by the electron detector at the back wall, representing an event that was supposed to have happened days, months, or even years in the past. An event that we suppose has taken place in the past (impingement of the electron on the detector) will turn out to be correlated to a choice that we make in the present. Imagine that.

The proverbial tree has already fallen in the forest, and we can later choose whether or not to listen. And if we choose to listen then the falling tree will have made a noise, and if we choose not to listen then the falling tree will not have made a noise.

--

I never got to the fourth one because you couldn't comprehend the less complicated third one.

These experiments do involve data.

These experiments prove that the existence of data on variables changes the physical reality.

Observing variables changes their behavior.

Again, I'm sorry if the implications of the experiments disturb you but repeatedly denying the facts doesn't change the results of the experiment.


[edit on 2-1-2010 by Jezus]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





I've already gone over what energy is according to the physics community quiet a few time's already. When we discuss 'energy', we're discussing the amount of force/work matter is capable of exerting.


THAT IS WHY THEY ARE THE SAME THING

what part of ENGERY IS MATTER cant you GRASP?

do you think MATTER does NOT make ENERGY?????

and what MAKES MATTER??? THE FORCE / WORK of ATOMS

you plum



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





No, the human mind never directly 'observes' anything. Learn something about biology and the nervous system to understand why.


hahahahaha


LOL lol LOL



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



Maybe you are discussing a different experiment.


He's discussing a modified version of a quantum eraser experiment. One that hasn't actually been conducted mind you. Hence the need for you to actually go to a scientific article and learn something about this type of experimentation.


Please, get off that garbage website and read up on this stuff direct from the science itself.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by 13579
 



and what MAKES MATTER??? THE FORCE / WORK of ATOMS


Are you being sarcastic or are you really *that retarded*? Atoms = Matter. Matter doesn't make matter. Go learn about the law of conservation you twit.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Please, get off that garbage website and read up on this stuff direct from the science itself.


Calling the website garbage doesn't refute the experimental results...



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



Calling the website garbage doesn't refute the experimental results...


What experimental results?! Are you sure you can read there buddy?





1. Suppose we take our modified double slit set up
2. Suppose we take our modified double slit set up
3. Suppose we take our modified double slit set up
4. Suppose we take our modified double slit set up


In each step of the proposed experiment, we are met with that first sentence. Do you understand what that sentence means in context to the proposed experiment? Do you have a clue yet? Are you capable of grasping something so ridiculously simple? Go read from the SCIENCE itself, *not* from sensationalized BS. What is so hard about that? If you want to learn about warps in space, you don't turn to that simpsons show that had Homer go through one into a different dimension. I mean come one, use your head, no one will judge you for doing so.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join