Conscious universe getting more support by scientists.

Very interesting thread. Unfortunately I can't stand sirnex lack of decorum and respect and will not follow this discussion any longer.

I clearly remember when I got deducted 1000 points by a mod for calling somebody an idiot twice. Obviously times have changed and the mods don't care about it anymore.

Sirnex I have a feeling that behind your intellectual grandstanding there is a wounded little child ...

Bye,

N

Originally posted by Nichiren
Very interesting thread. Unfortunately I can't stand sirnex lack of decorum and respect and will not follow this discussion any longer.

I clearly remember when I got deducted 1000 points by a mod for calling somebody an idiot twice. Obviously times have changed and the mods don't care about it anymore.

Sirnex I have a feeling that behind your intellectual grandstanding there is a wounded little child ...

Bye,

N

I've gotten post's removed a few time's for decorum, I'm not immune.

I have a temper when people want to BS me, call me name's, tell me I'm closed minded, or tell me I'm wrong when I cite my sources from the science *itself*. I just can't stand little deviant twerps like that. Very dishonest bunch they are, full of garbage and BS.

Anywho, if you want to bow out and whine about it as you bow out, cool. Thanks for adding nothing of value to the thread.

Originally posted by sirnex
Go read from the SCIENCE itself, *not* from sensationalized BS.

Calling something sensationalized BS doesn't refute the experimental results...


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!

reply to post by Jezus

Calling something sensationalized BS doesn't refute the experimental results...

There are *no results* obtained from an unperformed *proposed* experiment. Learn to read before you start posting BS.

These situations are principally derived from the phenomenon known as "delayed choice,"

Notice what he says, it's very important, I put the text in bold so you can read it easier. The proposed experiment was not actually performed, there is no data and there are no results of an unperformed proposed experiment. Sinking in yet?

At least one quantum eraser double slit experiment has been accomplished with electrons.

...

The experimental realizations of delayed choice of which I am aware have all been accomplished with photons.

Now hop on off that website and go learn about this experiment from a SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE.

I see a lot of people replying to sirnex lol ...I put him on ignore I suggest if you want to read this thread without his garbage put him on ignore....I have and now i am reading posts in which people are arguing with him..DONT.. He dosent understand nor does he cares to the words forum troll rings true here..

reply to post by loner007


Good call.

Sirenx is a millitant atheist. He has no wish to have any rational debate with anybody who is theistic or idealistic or has a theistic idealistic interpretation of science. The latter arouses the greatest ire in him, as you are basically infringing on his sacred territory of science. He just resorts to name-calling and outright abuse or simply dismisses what you have to say.

You would have as much luck having a rational debate with him as you would with any religious fundamentalist. He is not amenable to reason. I would advise people just ignore him and continue this discussion without him.

reply to post by Indigo_Child

He is not amenable to reason.

Yes, because correcting blatantly erroneous information is against ALL reason.

If you actually *were* paying attention to the current discussion between me and Jezus, he's talking about an *unperformed experiment* and attempting to argue "results" of it. Wow, talk about being reasonable and rational!

Sirenx is a millitant atheist.

And here is why I feel the utmost need to insult people. You misrepresent me, misunderstand me, outright ignore what I've said and then hypocritically bitch about being insulted. Tool.

No, I'm not a militant atheist. I'm not closed minded. I'm very open to a variety of phenomena and possibilities. I've had my own dealings with 'magic' and ESP, I've attempted to devise a theory on how a creator of sorts could arise and exist. What I am militant about is the applauding of and continuous applauding of demonstratively erroneous information. Using something wrongly in an attempt to prove something else is idiotic. Like Einstein and his GR/SR theories and the derivation of the big bang theory based off that. No, not even science is immune from my critical analysis of it.

reply to post by sirnex


the worst sin a scientist or someone who follow science can commit is to declare they know something. once you declare something as fact you commit the crime of thinking it as a rock solid foundation to base your future assumptions. i've you are not asking for sources to learn but merely to refute. if we weren't going to believe a claim to begin with then there is no point asking for a source. it then takes a very inflated ego to claim that something is true based on citing the works of others. the only thing that is real science is the scientific method which is only a system of thought and experimentation. it does not guarantee any of the results that stem from it. which means any result can be shaken from the roots. the science we have now assumes that reality can be measured first and foremost. now imagine if this is only true because it is believed to be true and only possible because it was believed to be possible. so then how can you claim that anything is fact if your starting point is based on assumptions?

reply to post by kynaccrue

the worst sin a scientist or someone who follow science can commit is to declare they know something.

Thankfully, unlike these folks, I claim to *not* know something (everything).

once you declare something as fact you commit the crime of thinking it as a rock solid foundation to base your future assumptions.

Exactly what I've been attempting to tell them, albeit in different wording and form. If you just willy nilly assume a sensationalized media article is a correct representation of the science itself, well then a lot of your future assumptions are going to be muddled.

i've you are not asking for sources to learn but merely to refute.

Quiet the contrary. I am looking for sources to learn, but the sources provided are one's that are refutable based upon the line of argumentation given and the erroneous information received from the sources.

if we weren't going to believe a claim to begin with then there is no point asking for a source.

This is why I call people idiots. Regardless of me pointing out my own personal experiences, my open mindedness of the possibilities, I'm still met with people demanding I'm closed minded. Look, if information is used ERRONEOUSLY, I will attack that *erroneous* information. If your science teacher corrects you on your answer, is he now a closed minded militant atheist? Do you people understand what critical thought is?

it then takes a very inflated ego to claim that something is true based on citing the works of others.

The beauty of it, this can be applied both ways as this is exactly what has occurred throughout this thread. Please read before you post.

the only thing that is real science is the scientific method which is only a system of thought and experimentation.

I couldn't agree more.

it does not guarantee any of the results that stem from it. which means any result can be shaken from the roots.

I couldn't agree more.

the science we have now assumes that reality can be measured first and foremost.

If this were not true, then we have to pretend purposefully that everything we know is false. Do you understand why though?

now imagine if this is only true because it is believed to be true and only possible because it was believed to be possible. so then how can you claim that anything is fact if your starting point is based on assumptions?

Do you understand how ill thought out this question is? In either spectrum, materialist or idealist, both are invariably based upon *assumptions*. Yet the main issue is, the idealist stance has garnered no scientific evidence in favor of it whereas, the materialist stance *has*. Do you understand that distinction? Now, when we are discussing idealism vs. materialism, we are discussing the nature of *reality itself and how it arises to be perceived*. We aren't talking about the impossibility of psychic powers or a creator of the universe or any such metaphysical concept. These thing's would be equally valid in either materialism or idealism. So please, go flipping learn something before you attempt to attack me in subtle idiotic ways.

reply to post by sirnex


i just said since you cannot know anything for a fact, whatever sources you use will always be a work in progress and unprovable. that's why im saying that if you try to use these things to prove that you are right is the same thing as not having any proof. since both sides are rested upon assumptions you can't say who is more correct than another. all the scientists have to admit that science will always be a work in progress. what you post today may be wrong tomorrow.

then there's the part where you wont accept the mere possibility of the power of perception. you said you will correct all things you see that are wrong. but how can you do that with out facts? if premise is based on assumption trying to argue another point false is just going around in circles. what exactly are you trying to prove by posting things that can change at any moment?

[edit on 3-1-2010 by kynaccrue]

reply to post by kynaccrue

i just said since you cannot know anything for a fact, whatever sources you use will always be a work in progress and unprovable.

The beauty of it, this can be applied both ways as this is exactly what has occurred throughout this thread. Please read before you post.

Sorry to repeat myself, you seem to have forgotten this point made in my response.

that's why im saying that if you try to use these things to prove that you are right is the same thing as not having any proof.

Hm, I'm pretty sure I had just agreed with you on that. Not in the same manner as you've just said, but still inherently the same meaning.

since both sides are rested upon assumptions you can't say who is more correct than another.

Let's perform an experiment. Let's assume that if you slam your head into a brick wall that it won't hurt.

Point being, not *everything* known is based solely upon certain assumptions.

all the scientists have to admit that science will always be a work in progress. what you post today may be wrong tomorrow.

This is what scientists admit to.

then there's the part where you wont accept the mere possibility of the power of perception.

Do you usually purposefully not comprehend what you read or attempt to misrepresent someone to suite your purposes?

Do you not remember this part of the original post you replied to?

"I'm very open to a variety of phenomena and possibilities. I've had my own dealings with 'magic' and ESP, I've attempted to devise a theory on how a creator of sorts could arise and exist."

you said you will correct all things you see that are wrong. but how can you do that with out facts?

Are you being sarcastic or simply pretending to be retarded for the sake of argumentation? If I post a verse from the bible and say it means something that it does not mean, would I be wrong? Would you correct me? I don't know if your religious or not, I'm just using this as an example. The issue here is that Jezus is posting from a sensationalized article that *proposes* a modified version of the quantum eraser experiment. He's arguing results and data that have never actually been obtained. I'm telling him to look at the experiments that have actually been performed as they do not have anything to do with this unperformed experiment. This is *why* sources are important.

if premise is based on assumption trying to argue another point false is just going around in circles. what exactly are you trying to prove by posting things that can change at any moment?

Is it early where you live? Do you not understand that using something the science says in an erroneous fashion to prove an assumed point that lacks evidence of it's own merit is just as stupid based on your own logic. Yet what befuddles me is the subtle dig towards me as if your in defense of such erroneous use of logic and science. Are you admitting to being a hypocrite?

what i'm saying is that QM and all the other theories out there are called theories for a reason. because the stuff they are suggesting are just too far out there to be fully tested. regardless of whether the data is obtained or just from theory you can't assume something is wrong if it is not tested. not to mention the rules can change anytime so whats the point of calling another view on the same science wrong? in the end it could be wrong or it could all be wrong but what does it matter? maybe you only live in my mind to annoy me and none of this is real. none of this could be proven but so what. a true skeptic can never say anything is 100% wrong. the best you can do is HOPE that what science discovered is true and HOPE that it works. what makes sense or not is based on point of view. not to mention you are assuming that if one bangs brick on ones head it will definitely hurt. is this even always true? have you tested it on every person out there? you seem to assume that i'm arguing for a side here. but i'm merely pointing out that you are hiding behind a wall of science that you seem to believe is grounded in stone. so im telling to stop arguing because there is no point. i could care less whether you are open minded or not. but if you can't even realize that there will be no end to this no matter what you say or cite, then you are not as good at critical thinking as you think you are.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by kynaccrue]

reply to post by kynaccrue

what i'm saying is that QM and all the other theories out there are called theories for a reason.

Do you understand what a theory is?

Quantum theory alone postulates no effect of human consciousness on reality. This is not to say that there are no *interpretations* (

yawn. why would i attack the guy who simply posted something he thinks is relevant? the reasons i directed the message to you is because you don't seem to understand much beyond what you think you know about science. if you think that me saying that you have trouble accepting something means that i'm calling you close minded then perhaps you are looking for people to call you that. i suppose i'll just repeat myself as many times as needed. its very simple if you can't say for certain that what you know is 100% true then you have no ability to call anything else false. so all your attacks does not contribute to the thread as you think they may have. like i said i could careless if you are open minded or not as this discussion does not require an open mind. i find it ironic that you call people ignorant when you yourself are delusional. as far as i can tell you are not even really reading what i or anyone else is writing. you reply for the sake throwing everything back. as i said before, if when you read stuff posted on this thread you can only find so many things wrong that you need to correct them then you are not a skeptic at all. all people who pursue science need to be skeptics. so if you are not one then why are you even posting things that you are not even equipped to read? you chopping up my post only shows me that you can only read in quotes as you are not able to comprehend what i'm saying. therefore i believe you are the one that's BSing me and not the other way around. as for my being a hypocrite, why not? even if i am a hypocrite that does not mean my logic is flawed. it simply means i have a set of rules for me and a different set of rules for those that have trouble learning.

Originally posted by sirnex

These situations are principally derived from the phenomenon known as "delayed choice,"

Notice what he says, it's very important, I put the text in bold so you can read it easier. The proposed experiment was not actually performed, there is no data and there are no results of an unperformed proposed experiment. Sinking in yet?

Here is the rest of that quote...

The QM predictions have been experimentally realized and verified

Originally posted by sirnex
Now hop on off that website and go learn about this experiment from a SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE.

I would suggest the same to you but you seem to have difficulty comprehending the simpler version.

reply to post by Jezus

Here is the rest of that quote...

Yes, they have been verified as they are predicted by quantum theory. The underlying issue that *you* are not grasping is:

Quantum mechanics (QM) is a set of principles describing the physical reality at the atomic level of matter (molecules and atoms) and the subatomic (electrons, protons, and even smaller particles). These descriptions include the simultaneous wave-like and particle-like behavior of both matter[1] and radiation[2] ("wave–particle duality"). Quantum Mechanics is a mathematical description of reality, like any scientific model. Some of its predictions and implications go against the "common sense" of how humans see a set of bodies (a system) behave. This isn't necessarily a failure of QM - it's more of a reflection of how humans understand space and time on larger scales (e.g., centimetres, seconds) rather than much smaller.

source

There is nothing in Quantum Theory that deals with *human consciousness*.

I would suggest the same to you but you seem to have difficulty comprehending the simpler version.

Please discern the difference between a 'simpler version' and a sensationalized version.

Originally posted by sirnex
Please discern the difference between a 'simpler version' and a sensationalized version.

The simpler version spells out the human consciousness factor.

It involves comprehending the implications of the fact that the existence of information changes the physical reality.

This proves that consciousness changes the physical reality.

If you understand that data is not physically related to what it describes you should understand that consciousness is the connection between deleting the information and changing the experimental results.

reply to post by kynaccrue

why would i attack the guy who simply posted something he thinks is relevant?

Your simply being an ass aren't you?

This is fun. You BS me with hypocritical arguments that apply to both sides, all the while you aren't alluding to the possible truth that you lean more towards his side of the argument, which is the underlying reason why you don't subtly attack him for the same exact reasons you attack me. Man this really is fun!

the reasons i directed the message to you is because you don't seem to understand much beyond what you think you know about science.

If you can provide where he fails to provide, I would love to hear the contrary. Please post the experiment from a scientific explanation that undoubtedly and explicitly shows the inclusion of human consciousness as being the direct causation of any changes in either the results or reality itself, as is being claimed by Jezus.

if you think that me saying that you have trouble accepting something means that i'm calling you close minded then perhaps you are looking for people to call you that.

I could care less about your baseless unfounded assertions of my beliefs. What is truly amazing is the constant reiteration of this baseless unfounded opinion irregardless of twice now of me dispelling this myth. I'm in no way against any possibility, what I am against is the erroneous usage of the science itself.

its very simple if you can't say for certain that what you know is 100% true then you have no ability to call anything else false.

I'm starting to lean towards the opinion that you might possibly have some mental retardation going on. If you read something about (let's say), how a radio works and you understand what the concept is all about and someone post's a thread saying that radio works by transmitting sound through the air, completely misunderstanding thing's like electromagnetic wave's and whatnot. Are you an ass for correcting him/her? I'm just curious how you would feel if someone hypocritically acted the way you are right now towards yourself.

so all your attacks does not contribute to the thread as you think they may have.

Please read the thread, it's not filled with just attacks or requests for sources to the contrary. Keep your idiotic baseless unfounded biased opinions out of the discussion.

like i said i could careless if you are open minded or not as this discussion does not require an open mind.

Now that I can agree with!!!

If we maintain a closed minded biased opinion, then we can make your moronic baseless argument work!

i find it ironic that you call people ignorant when you yourself are delusional.

Hm, delusional in what aspect? Please elaborate.

as far as i can tell you are not even really reading what i or anyone else is writing. you reply for the sake throwing everything back.

I am reading everything posted. I'm sorry if I don't give in as readily to sensationalized media articles.

as i said before, if when you read stuff posted on this thread you can only find so many things wrong that you need to correct them then you are not a skeptic at all.

Are you an idiot? Oh right, we've already got that answer! Let's take something from the beginning of the film itself in this thread. The first 48 seconds into the film we witness an erroneous claim about the fifth Solvay Conference. Now, I'm sure you've actually *read* the thread in order to facilitate an actual *intelligent* response here. So there should be no need for me to repeat the erroneous claim again.

Nah, let's just say I'm not a proper skeptic and tool around and believe whatever the hell is claimed! That sounds so much more better.

all people who pursue science need to be skeptics. so if you are not one then why are you even posting things that you are not even equipped to read?

Are you claiming I'm not skeptical of science?

There are many problems I have with science, but my biggest pet peeve is the erroneous usage of science itself. You can't just claim something is said without showing it is actually said. If you weren't such a tool and have actually READ the thread, you wouldn't be arguing like this. Well, perhaps you would be as it seems clearly evident of what opinion you lean more towards.

you chopping up my post only shows me that you can only read in quotes as you are not able to comprehend what i'm saying.

I most certainly am comprehending what your attempting to state about me.

The reason I chop your post's is because you leave so much to be discussed with so few little words. You ... You do know how to think don't you?

therefore i believe you are the one that's BSing me and not the other way around.

This is where it get's really fun. Watch this!

as for my being a hypocrite, why not? even if i am a hypocrite that does not mean my logic is flawed. it simply means i have a set of rules for me and a different set of rules for those that have trouble learning.

Who's BS-ing who moron?

reply to post by Jezus

This proves that consciousness changes the physical reality.

Sweetheart, there is no *data* obtained that *proves* that experiment. It has *not been performed* at all. The actual experiments conducted *do not include* human consciousness.

Why is that so hard for you to grasp? Why?

since you are not against any possibilities then perhaps you would like to admit that its possible that you are simply a egocentric who thinks he knows things. but since you are so full of spite then maybe we could set up an experiment to prove that you are the ass and once and for all brand you as such. maybe then we can finally have some facts in this world. it seems that you are now the key to unlocking the mysteries of the universe. don't let me down champ!