Conscious universe getting more support by scientists.

reply to post by kynaccrue

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.

Not sure how we can conclude that when I admit to not knowing everything or even certain thing's one-hundred percent.

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.

People have already branded me as an ass for telling them that an orange is not a grape and showing them the difference between the two fruits.

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!

I'm so happy you responded to this thread just to argue baseless unfounded opinions.

Originally posted by sirnex
The actual experiments conducted *do not include* human consciousness.

All experiments include human consciousness.

These ones prove that the physical reality is effected by human consciousness.

The existence of information changes reality.

If you understand what information is, you understand why these experiment *do include* human consciousness.

Otherwise you are suggesting that the raw data is somehow physically related to what it describes.

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

reply to post by Jezus

All experiments include human consciousness.

The article you linked to is discussing an *unperformed* modified version of the quantum eraser experiment. As this is an *unperformed* experiment, there are no results or data to be obtained from it. The "information" does not exist in that modified unperformed experiment. So, we need to default to the experiments that *have* been performed in their unmodified state.

Please cite a direct causation and inclusion of the human consciousness in those experiments that PROVE the human mind changes reality.

These ones prove that the physical reality is effected by human consciousness.

Idiot, how many time's do I have to tell you this, that 'experiment' proves nothing. Your arguing data and results that have never been obtained. OMFG! Even the article itself tells you this.

Otherwise you are suggesting that the raw data is somehow physically related to what it describes.

Giving meaning to a physical process through the act of LABELING, does not change the physical properties of something. A physical object of a particular configuration or process will invariably remain as it is irregardless of calling it a lamp or a moron. Unfortunately, this means that no matter how many time's I call you the most intelligent man on Earth, this won't inherently change the physical processes that occur within your brain that give rise to your inability to discern the difference between *real raw data* and *conjectured results*.

Giving meaning to a physical process through the act of LABELING, does not change the physical properties of something. A physical object of a particular configuration or process will invariably remain as it is irregardless of calling it a lamp or a moron.

Yet the lamp consists of matter like the chair and table

and why do you keep insulting people?

Mods?

Giving something a "lable" does change a thing as you are giving it a "property" invertly " a lable" that describes "matter" called "a lamp".. then i give a "table" its property by naming it as such thus changing it physical propeties via "method" of applying a lable

I could call everything matter

would that make any logical sens or would it just be me labing the obvservation of matter thus creating it even tho it created me?

funny is it not?

[edit on 3-1-2010 by 13579]

reply to post by Jezus


Jezus my good friend give up... there is no point.. its trying to decribe what a human is to a racsit..

Pointless..

I enjoyed the videos and have been on board of a conscious model of the Universe for over 20 years.

For me, having Deja Reve (Which means already dreamed) as being the source of all my Deja Vu (Already Seen) started the wake up call I needed to start seeing reality from a cognitive dream perspective.

It's a difficult series of realizations I had to endure to finally see clearly how dreams were constructing the soon to be physical reality I would experience here. This process of pre-programming reality in the form of a dream was a bit aloof as to why and how for a while. All I knew was, I had some dreams, and they would literally come true some time later.

All of this impossible from the viewpoint of materialism and physical law. It completely shattered any belief I had in materialism. Idealism emerged and I realized at a fairly young age that this is a constructed cognitive created matrix reality. A dream appearing physical that we all unconsciously were constructing for another conscious part of ourselves we identify with who we are here and now.

Planks Constant or the Higgs boson elementary scalar particle are all constructs of a cognitive organization of data in the form of thought. The root of all wave theory and particle physics one day will realize what forms the atom is thought organized by consciousness, not matter organized by random events and chance.

Plato realized this and said all matter was made up of triangles and for the most part, that model is true due to the geometric nature of organized thought. Forming geometric patterns was one of the first stages where our dim awareness started dreaming into existence what would be the multiverse we exist in today. Idealism wins... materialism is the blind belief system.

We exist in a highly intelligent, highly organized conscious Universe. We are simply units of consciousness experiencing the unified field of everything from individualism. All parts of a greater whole.

A dream within in a dream within a dream. Your dreams come true because this reality created by them.

reply to post by 13579

Yet the lamp consists of matter like the chair and table

He's asserting that changing the 'information' changes the 'reality'. Calling a physical object in a certain configuration a lamp or a moron will not change that physical configuration. There is no experiment conducted that "proves" such an assertion nor does arguing unperformed and unobtainable data that doesn't exist constitute as "proof".

and why do you keep insulting people?

In retrospect, why do people hypocritically bitch about being insulted and then whine to the mods about it? I'm not immune from receiving insults from anyone I have insulted in return. Please don't act like billy the hypocrite.

would that make any logical sens or would it just be me labing the obvservation of matter thus creating it even tho it created me?

To me, this seems like a very infantile way to look at thing's. I understand and can discern the difference between applying different labels/information to a particular physical configuration or a physical process. Yet you folks can't discern that irregardless of that label, that physical configuration or process still remains the same. Essentially, reality is uncaring of what you want to label it. Labels are mere placeholders given to describe certain physical characteristics or events. They don't change any aspect of what is occurring.

Originally posted by sirnex
Giving meaning to a physical process through the act of LABELING, does not change the physical properties of something. A physical object of a particular configuration or process will invariably remain as it is irregardless of calling it a lamp or a moron. Unfortunately, this means that no matter how many time's I call you the most intelligent man on Earth, this won't inherently change the physical processes that occur within your brain that give rise to your inability to discern the difference between *real raw data* and *conjectured results*.

Thanks for repeating what I said back to me...

You are the one that is suggesting the data is somehow physically related to what is describes...

When you delete the information and the back wall pattern changes after you have already finished the experiment it is NOT because data is physically related to what it describes, it is because it is potential knowledge for a conscious observer.

reply to post by sirnex

Labels are mere placeholders given to describe certain physical characteristics or events. They don't change any aspect of what is occurring.

But it does? because by the very nature of labling you are changing matter its self

YOU

?

I can understand you do not have an open mind and wish to state facts.. and want to see proof..

Is the earth flat or round sirex? Well it depends.. when i look at my feet the earth is indeed flat is it not?

yet when one opens or zooms out "both respective of ones mentality and range of thinking"

the world does appare to be round!

stop being a little microscope.. and stop looking at your feet..

as both are correct..

go look in the mirror? how do you think you got here my good man? Luck? Probility?

or is that you was in fact needed as a function of the universe?

do you understandd? or is it that you can no accept it?

you will die just like me.. care to argue that fact? NO you dont do you..

Yet you wish not to answer a simple question i gave.. so i shall again in hope you will..

Does your mind have a shape

and does the universe

and if you think im corrolating the two I AM because the moon is ROUND

and so is the EARTH?

That is called corrotlation

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming
Planks Constant or the Higgs boson elementary scalar particle are all constructs of a cognitive organization of data in the form of thought. The root of all wave theory and particle physics one day will realize what forms the atom is thought organized by consciousness, not matter organized by random events and chance.

In some ways this has already happened.

Raw data is not physically related to what is describes; it is simply an abstract concept that we define through observation.

The shape of a 6 is not related to the concept of “six”. It could be any shape.

So, when the availability of information changes the physical reality it proves that consciousness is a factor.


www.bottomlayer.com...

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.

reply to post by Jezus

Raw data is not physically related to what is describes; it is simply an abstract concept that we define through observation.

The shape of a 6 is not related to the concept of “six”. It could be any shape.

So, when the availability of information changes the physical reality it proves that consciousness is a factor.

You have such an infantile mentality when it come's to applying labels to physical configurations and processes.

Here, watch this, prepare to be amazed!

. . . . . . PIZZA

Are you paying attention yet? Irregardless of what label is given, the physical characteristics of the pattern observed has not changed one bit. Information has caused no change in the actual configuration or process underlying reality.

Your still arguing data and results that have never actually been obtained.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by sirnex]

reply to post by sirnex


You really can't be that stupid...

Originally posted by Jezus

Thanks for repeating what I said back to me...

You are the one that is suggesting the data is somehow physically related to what is describes...

When you delete the information and the back wall pattern changes after you have already finished the experiment it is NOT because data is physically related to what it describes, it is because it is potential knowledge for a conscious observer.

reply to post by Jezus

You really can't be that stupid...

If you think I'm misunderstanding something here, then please explain it a bit more. From where I'm sitting, this sounds exactly what your trying to argue.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Jezus

 

Raw data is not physically related to what is describes; it is simply an abstract concept that we define through observation.

The shape of a 6 is not related to the concept of “six”. It could be any shape.

So, when the availability of information changes the physical reality it proves that consciousness is a factor.

You have such an infantile mentality when it come's to applying labels to physical configurations and processes.

Here, watch this, prepare to be amazed!

. . . . . . PIZZA

Are you paying attention yet? Irregardless of what label is given, the physical characteristics of the pattern observed has not changed one bit. Information has caused no change in the actual configuration or process underlying reality.

Your still arguing data and results that have never actually been obtained.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by sirnex]

In this post you prove to be a troll or a moron because you are taking my point and arguing it back to me...

reply to post by Jezus


If you think I'm misunderstanding something here, then please explain it a bit more. From where I'm sitting, this sounds exactly what your trying to argue.

Oh wait...

you are taking my point and arguing it back to me...

How is what I posted equatable to your point? Can you please restate your point and explain it in your own words as you understand it without using the website?

reply to post by sirnex


Okay.

The fact the deleting the information has an effect on the experiment, after it is complete, proves that conscious is a factor.

This is why.

The data itself is not physically related to what it describes. The data and the pattern on the back wall are not physically related to one another, the only connection between them is that a conscious person could look at the data and have knowledge of the back wall pattern.

reply to post by Jezus

The fact the deleting the information has an effect on the experiment, after it is complete, proves that conscious is a factor.

But wait, no information was deleted in the unperformed experiment. Why are you arguing unobtainable data as if it proves anything? What information are you talking about?

The data itself is not physically related to what it describes.

By data, I'm assuming based on previous statements that you mean 'labels'. In this case, I agree with you.

The data and the pattern on the back wall are not physically related to one another

You just said that.

the only connection between them is that a conscious person could look at the data and have knowledge of the back wall pattern

That half makes sense and is mostly infantile in thought. I understand that in order for the physical configuration or process to have "meaning" for a conscious entity, there must be a conscious entity to label it. Yet, the act of labeling a physical configuration or process does not inherently *change the reality* or the natural mechanism behind that configuration or process.

As I provided in my post where you assert that I am a troll or moron, or possibly both, irregardless of how we label those six dots (or atoms in a physical setup), those *objects* still maintain that same configuration. If we fire those objects at a wall, they will still do what they do irregardless of calling them bowling balls or feathers. The data/information used to describe them doesn't change them.

And I do hope we can dispense with the hypocritical bitching about being insulted in all future discussions.

I also do hope that you can stop arguing a proof exists here based upon an unperformed experiment and conjectured results.

Originally posted by sirnex
Yet, the act of labeling a physical configuration or process does not inherently *change the reality* or the natural mechanism behind that configuration or process...

...irregardless of how we label those six dots (or atoms in a physical setup), those *objects* still maintain that same configuration. If we fire those objects at a wall, they will still do what they do irregardless of calling them bowling balls or feathers. The data/information used to describe them doesn't change them.

Exactly.

This is why consciousness must be a factor.

Because the data itself it not physically connected to what it describes.

reply to post by sirnex

. . . . . PIZZA

Yet via doing so in fact changed the physical aspet of ones self

as you are made from matter

do not confuse your self tho it is funny to see..

and now jezus ows me 1 penny on our bet you could not answer without one insult

This is why consciousness must be a factor.

jezus did say that hehe ty for pointing it out jezus

[edit on 3-1-2010 by 13579]

reply to post by Jezus

This is why consciousness must be a factor.

Consciousness must be a factor because irregardless of what a conscious entity labels a physical configuration or process that label given or data obtained and given meaning through symbols and labels itself doesn't change that configuration or process? Are you sure your still arguing the same point or did you flip around and get confused somewhere in there?