Science tells us that matter/energy may be pixels of information

reply to post by Astyanax

Originally posted by majestictwo
Well hang on - do you not believe that these test haven't been done. Do you not believe that your life is reliant on the quantum world.

Then you answered....

Nobody ever put a cat in a box with a random-impulse generator and a flask of poison gas, or any equivalent thereof. The OP seems to think a cat can actually exist in superposed states of life and death inside a box. That's the level of her understanding of quantum mechanics.

Look I never said that the cat was alive and dead. I was trying to find out if there was any belief in QM because it was becoming "muddy water" at that stage.

IMO, we probably could never put a large object into a quantum state. Its unlikely, but if we did it with a cat it would be dead anyway because of its physical state of low temperatures and possibly vacuum.

I'm a bit feed up with the cats now. Let ask if Voyager has decohered its in deep space, its now well past the solar winds its cold. Does it change just because we listen to it?

reply to post by majestictwo

I'm a bit feed up with the cats now. Let ask if Voyager has decohered its in deep space, its now well past the solar winds its cold. Does it change just because we listen to it?

Good question; can we ask Ms. Matrix to answer it as well, along with Illusionsaregrander's and Lordbucket's equally penetrating ones?

Perhaps the conversations and debates between the luminaries of twentieth-century physics, which the lady is so fond of quoting, can supply an answer, even though the physics they actually did itself does not.

But I'm not - on this worldline, at any event - holding my breath.

reply to post by Astyanax

I think I may have posted what you are crying out for.....

Originally posted by loner007
Superposition exists and has been observed looking at photosynthesis. Also it seems nature/universe itself does seem to make a choice by utlilizing superposition to determine the best outcome at least with photosynthesis.

Quantum Mechanics boosts photosynthesis

also Quantum mechanics is not soley the domain of the micro universe but plays a part in the macro universe as well

www.nature.com...


[edit on 20/6/2010 by loner007]

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Excellent thread! Ive believed something along this line for a long time too.

the best way to think about it is that Information is the BASIC building block of the universe.
I did a thread on this not to long ago that many people seemed to like.
I hope it will expand your knowledge of the subject!

www.abovetopsecret.com...
"Why the Universe may be a Computer afterall: Genetic Algorithms, Cellular Automata, and Rule 110"

I dont know if this has already been discussed. The book 'The holographic universe' is very good and is something along this subject . It was written by Michael Talbot. Very very interesting read is my opinion.

Very cool thread...thanks OP and others.

I am a little wary of any theory that ties the universe's structure too closely to a "computer-like" model. As humans we tend to grab at the latest technology and then try to cram the entire cosmos into its metaphoric framework. When machines first began to become more sophisticated, suddenly you have Newtonian physics, which treates the universe like a giant mechanical cotton gin or something. Now that we have computers, there has been an explosion of metaphysical talk about "information" and "downloading" and "programming" and so on. I think its wise to rememeber the human habit of trying to make the universe fit our inventions rather than visa-versa.

Still, its a fascinating find.

reply to post by loner007

I'm aware of the two news items you mention. Exactly how do they answer the questions I'm endorsing?

Just to make things clear, the questions are:

1. Is there any principle in quantum mechanics that forbids determinism, and if so, what is it and how does it work?
   
   
2. Is it possible to consciously predetermine to what value a probability function will collapse? If so, how is this done?
   
   
3. Can events occur in the universe without somebody observing them? And if so, how can the universe be said to be consciously determined?

[edit on 21/6/10 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by loner007

 

I'm aware of the two news items you mention. Exactly how do they answer the questions I'm endorsing?

Just to make things clear, the questions are:

1. Is there any principle in quantum mechanics that forbids determinism, and if so, what is it and how does it work?
   
   
2. Is it possible to consciously predetermine to what value a probability function will collapse? If so, how is this done?
   
   
3. Can events occur in the universe without somebody observing them? And if so, how can the universe be said to be consciously determined?

[edit on 21/6/10 by Astyanax]

hmm I can tell you this i dont see determinism here.....

Next, the researchers put the quantum circuit into a superposition of 'push' and 'don't push', and connected it to the paddle. Through a series of careful measurements, they were able to show that the paddle was both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously.

The observer in this case determines which of the 2 states it should be.

the other 2 can be answered here
www.sciencenews.org...

reply to post by Astyanax


This one statement says it all. You said:

The paradoxes of quantum mechanics point to imperfections in our understanding of reality. They do not alter that reality.

This is a statement of faith not science. Materialist have turned materialism into a religion. You have a worldview that can't be altered. So to you, quantum mechanics has to be incomplete. I mean, you truly make my point in this statement. To a materialist, quantum mechanics can't be a description of reality and this is based on their faith in their materialistic worldview.

It's no different than a religious person saying you can't alter my worldview no matter how much evidence is presented that counters their worldview. This is fine with religion because it's based on faith. The sad thing is this type of thinking runs through science because of materialist or secular worldview.

So to you and other materialist your "understanding of reality" can't be altered. So anything that contradicts this worldview has to be imperfect.

Under your name it says,"Mind Firmly Closed." I definitely agree with that statement.

reply to post by LordBucket


You said:

Just as soon as he explain to me how to consciously choose the manner in which the wave function collapses, as he insists that I, as an observer, am able to do.

I never said the Observer consciously chooses the manner in which the wave function collapses. I said the CHOICE of the Observer causes a measurement to occur.

For instance, in the delayed choice experiment, the Observer makes a choice as to which event will occur(wave or particle) and this determines the outcome of an event.

If I implied that the Observer can determine which measurement will occur, then that was a typo.

The Observer can't choose which measurement will occur but the Observer's choice causes a measurement to occur and therefore is creating reality.

If you have a wave of probabilities an Observer's choice can cause one probable state to become a measured event.

We create reality with every Choice.

Look at Schrodinger's cat. The experimenter had to make a choice to set up the experiment and a live or dead cat was a measured event after the experiment.

Now an Observer can reduce the possibility as to what probable state will occur. Say a person doesn't want to get into a car accident, they can just ride the bus everyday and the state of them being in a car accident is still possible but unlikely.

Without choice, you just have a wave of probabilities.

The problem is, many materialist are avoiding the obvious conclusion. Quantum mechanics applies to small and large objects and it's just a matter of scale.

Large objects can only measure one probable state because of decoherence.

This is from the article Loner linked to in Nature:

There is no obvious reason why the rules of quantum mechanics shouldn't apply to large objects. Erwin Schrödinger, one of the fathers of quantum mechanics, was so disturbed by the possibility of quantum weirdness on the large scale that he proposed his famous 'Schrödinger's cat' thought experiment. A cat is placed in a box with a vial of cyanide and a radioactive source. If the source decays, it triggers a device that will break the vial, killing the cat. During the time the box is shut, Schrödinger argued, the cat is in a superposition of alive and dead — an absurdity as far as he was concerned.

The only reason why materialist reject this is out of absurdity. They have a view of reality and quantum mechanics destroys that view. So it has to be incomplete and it can't apply to large objects.

When you hear people talk about quantum mechanics and classical physics, they act like you're talking about two different worlds. This is predicated on their belief not science. They think it's "absurd" to apply quantum mechanics to classical objects.

This is not what the evidence tells us. The evidence shows that quantum mechanics applies to classical objects and it just a matter of scale. In classical objects, the quantum nature is hidden because of decoherence. There isn't any hidden variable between the superposition of microscopic and macroscopic objects.

The superposition of microscopic objects can be easily detected because microscopic objects can travel through space without interfering with it's environment and remaining in a state of superposition. A classical object decohere's and interacts with it's environment much quicker. So it's just a matter of scale.

Here's part of another article from Nature.

Early quantum theorists treated the quantum–classical transition almost as a kind of sleight of hand, something that had to be imposed on quantum mechanics to recover the familiar world. Now, however, there are strong signs that the transition can be understood as something that emerges quite naturally and inevitably from quantum theory. If that's so, it implies that 'classicality' is at root simply another quantum phenomenon. “There's good reason to believe that we are just as much part of the quantum world as are the tiny atoms and electrons that sparked quantum theory in the first place,” says quantum theorist Maximilian Schlosshauer of the University of Melbourne in Australia.

www.nature.com...

The bridge between the quantum mechanics and classical physics is imaginary. Materialist have faith in a bridge because of their worldview not science. It's just a matter of scale.

reply to post by loner007

No, that's not an answer. What is the principle in quantum mechanics that forbids determinism"? Express it in your own words; then we can discuss it.

The article you link to is one I've read before. It doesn't answer the other two questions. If you disagree, explain why; then we can discuss it.

*

reply to post by Matrix Rising

Admirable rhetoric, ma'am, but would you just answer the questions, please? Don't you owe your own assertions at least that much support?

EDIT TO ADD:

No, wait, I see you did sort of answer one of the questions:

I never said the Observer consciously chooses the manner in which the wave function collapses. I said the CHOICE of the Observer causes a measurement to occur.

So he doesn't know what the choice is going to be. He hasn't chosen the outcome, just which button he's going to push. You're backing away from 'consciousness creates the universe'; now all you're willing to spring for is 'human action creates the universe'. If you ever seemed to be saying otherwise, well then

that was a typo.

Right. Now that you have clarified your position, let's see where that leaves you.

• The claim that human action, conscious or otherwise, produces the universe, remains absurd; the universe is bigger and older than our actions can possibly encompass. The best that can be said is that human action affects the universe.
  
  
• But this is merely a statement of the obvious. You don't need quantum mechanics to prove it: just wave your hand and feel against your face the wind created by its movement through the air. So I push button B instead of button A and cause a photon to go in at this slit rather than that. But I still can't for the life of me predict which slit it will go in at, whichever button I press. So what's the big deal?

If you take away conscious choice your whole claim just vanishes into thin air. In fact, you end up arguing for determism, not against it.

Some typo.



[edit on 21/6/10 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


Hmm if i knew that I probably get the nobel prize in science . SO heres what I think of your impunitive question.....


And tell me why you think free will is not an option...i answer you if you answer me first tell me how determinism determines which of the 33 axis it can take for a particle to spin and end up with a ratio of always 1-0-1 rule



[edit on 21/6/2010 by loner007]

Originally posted by loner007
Hmm if i knew that I probably get the nobel prize in science.

Which science? Nobel prizes are awarded for physics, chemistry, physiology and medicine.

I suppose you mean you don't know what principle in quantum mechanics precludes determinism. That's not a Nobel question. There aren't that many principles in quantum mechanics. The most philosophically pregnant ones are well known to nonphysicists and frequently discussed. That's what this thread is supposed to be about, no?

SO heres what I think of your impunitive question.....

One down, two to go.

And tell me why you think free will is not an option...i answer you if you answer me first

Because it leads to ridiculous paradoxes like this and the empirical evidence is against it, anyway. Your turn.

tell me how determinism determines which of the 33 axis it can take for a particle to spin and end up with a ratio of always 1-0-1 rule.

The Mad Professor always pushes the right button at the right moment, because he cannot do otherwise. Your turn twice.

Do not assume my answers are frivolous, or incomplete.

[edit on 21/6/10 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


Your post actually proves what I'm saying.

You said:

If you take away conscious choice your whole claim just vanishes into thin air. In fact, you end up arguing for determism, not against it.

DUH!!!!

I have been talking about the CHOICE of the Observer throughout the thread, so if you take away choice then you're debating against a claim that I never made.

Again, CHOICE causes a measurement to occur. So the CHOICE of the Observer creates reality.

This applies to the universe as well. The universe is constantly making a CHOICE. It's constantly asking yes/no questions. So the universe itself is an Observer.

When a Conscious Observer makes a CHOICE, he/she is gathering information about a probable state of the wave function.

So the universe has to be conscious, aware and intelligent because we can't be something the universe is not.

Every configuration or probable state of matter is contained in the wave function. Have you ever heard of something called a qubit? Have you ever read anything on quantum information or information theory?

So, your statement supports what I'm saying:

If you take away conscious choice your whole claim just vanishes into thin air. In fact, you end up arguing for determism, not against it.

I don't take away conscious CHOICE. If you take away conscious CHOICE then you're debating against a point that was never made.

Without CHOICE, you just have a wave of probabilities.

Let me ask you this, does the CHOICE of the Observer cause a measurement to occur? If so, then you support my claim just like the delayed choice experiment, double slit experiment and the quantum eraser delayed choice experiment.

You can't have the reality we experience without the CHOICE of the Observer.

Originally posted by loner007
reply to post by Astyanax

 

Hmm if i knew that I probably get the nobel prize in science . SO heres what I think of your impunitive question.....

And tell me why you think free will is not an option...i answer you if you answer me first tell me how determinism determines which of the 33 axis it can take for a particle to spin and end up with a ratio of always 1-0-1 rule



[edit on 21/6/2010 by loner007]

Wait....i am not educated in physics, having worse than a laymans understanding.

33 axis....what do you mean by this?

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Your post actually proves what I'm saying.

Nope.

You said:

If you take away conscious choice your whole claim just vanishes into thin air. In fact, you end up arguing for determism, not against it.

I did.

DUH!!!!

There, there.

I have been talking about the CHOICE of the Observer throughout the thread, so if you take away choice then you're debating against a claim that I never made.

Conscious or unconscious choice?

Meaning, a choice made with foreknowledge of the outcome, or one made in ignorance of it?

In a quantum context, the first means mind over matter.

The second is unremarkable, everyday stuff that doesn't need quantum mechanics to prove it.

This is the key to your argument, yet you don't seem to understand it at all.

I mean, look:

Again, CHOICE causes a measurement to occur. So the CHOICE of the Observer creates reality.

No, it merely affects reality.

Just as reality is affected when I'm taking a walk and choose to turn left rather than right at the next crossroads I come to. That choice determines how many people I will meet along the way, but I have no way of knowing that number in advance.

This trivial, everyday fact has been known to everyone from the first apewoman on down. No-one is arguing with it. You don't need quantum mechanics to prove it.

When a Conscious Observer makes a CHOICE, he/she is gathering information about a probable state of the wave function.

Wave functions have states?



I thought you knew about quantum mechanics?

Anyway: no, the observer is not 'gathering information'. She is merely pushing a button. The information is generated by the wave function collapse this precipitates, and is only available to the observer after the fact. Very important.

This applies to the universe as well. The universe is constantly making a CHOICE. It's constantly asking yes/no questions. So the universe itself is an Observer.

So the universe has to be conscious, aware and intelligent because we can't be something the universe is not.

An 'observation' in quantum mechanics means whatever causes a wave function to collapse. A living or conscious observer is not necessary. How many times have you been told that already, on this thread alone? If you disagree, explain why.

If you take away conscious CHOICE then you're debating against a point that was never made.

You took it away, not me. You're the one who said

that was a typo.

Consciously choosing which button you're going to press, not knowing what the outcome will be, means nothing. LordBucket asked whether it is possible to consciously predetermine the outcome of the measurement that is made when the button is pushed.

Until you have proved that it is, your claim that consciousness creates reality will remain groundless.

Now what about answering the other two questions? Maybe you'll do better on them.

[edit on 21/6/10 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Frakkerface
this is fascinating BUT isn't this kind of like a a religious person pushing origins on to a god? I mean, nothing is solved, just pushed further back/away.

I'm quite amazed at some of the things science proposes and yet ridicules anyone for having belief in a god.

Now just imagine the author of The Fountainhead working these themes into her 'fiction'.

The traffic manager, at hearing the news of the head on collision, said that since the trains weren't anything but constructed pixels forming a universe that could not be proven to be material, that the crash wasn't his fault; it happened outside of his universe.

reply to post by Astyanax


You're obviously trying to debate against something that was never said. You said:

Meaning, a choice made with foreknowledge of the outcome

This is psychic ability and it's silly to try and debate against a claim that was never made. I said the Observer can cause a measurement to occur and therefore an Observer creates reality. I know why you're trying to debate against something silly like this, it's because you know that an Observer can cause a measurement to occur. This is why you didn't answer the question and I will ask it again.

Let me ask you this, does the CHOICE of the Observer cause a measurement to occur? If so, then you support my claim just like the delayed choice experiment, double slit experiment and the quantum eraser delayed choice experiment.

Please try to debate what I said and not something you're making up.

This is very specific and has been confirmed in experiment after experiment.

The Observers CHOICE cause a measurement to occur. This creates reality because without CHOICE you just have a wave of probabilities. Without measurement, you can't have reality.

You also avoided everything I said about quantum information and information theory. The universe is constantly making a choice and asking yes/no questions. In the context of quantum information we're talking about a qubit. In the context of Classical physics we're talking about a bit.

With a qubit it can be yes/no at the same time. So a hypothetical quantum egg can be both broken and not broken at the same time. In the terms of a bit, the egg can be either broken or not broken.

The missing ingredient in all of this is the CHOICE of the Observer.

The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is the unresolved problem of how (or if) wavefunction collapse occurs. The inability to observe this process directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer. The wavefunction in quantum mechanics evolves according to the Schrödinger equation into a linear superposition of different states, but actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the process under examination. Whatever that "something" may be does not appear to be explained by the basic theory.

To express matters differently (to paraphrase Steven Weinberg [1][2]), the wave function evolves deterministically – knowing the wave function at one moment, the Schrödinger equation determines the wave function at any later time. If observers and their measuring apparatus are themselves described by a deterministic wave function, why can we not predict precise results for measurements, but only probabilities? As a general question: How can one establish a correspondence between quantum and classical reality?[3]

en.wikipedia.org...

The last line says it all:

If observers and their measuring apparatus are themselves described by a deterministic wave function, why can we not predict precise results for measurements, but only probabilities? As a general question: How can one establish a correspondence between quantum and classical reality?

The answer is CHOICE.

This is what experiment after experiment tells us. The problem is most materialist have this fixed view of reality that doesn't make any sense. So they create this gulf between quantum mechanics and classical reality that isn't there.

These things can easily be explained by the CHOICE of the Observer, quantum information and information theory.

So please answer the question.

Let me ask you this, does the CHOICE of the Observer cause a measurement to occur? If so, then you support my claim just like the delayed choice experiment, double slit experiment and the quantum eraser delayed choice experiment.

The Observers CHOICE creates reality. The correspondence between quantum and classical reality is CHOICE.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
You're obviously trying to debate against something that was never said.

No, I am not. You have got yourself so confused you don't even know what you're saying any more. Here's an example:

Astyanax
a choice made with foreknowledge of the outcome

This is psychic ability.

No, it is merely logical induction. If I choose to set my alarm for five o'clock tomorrow morning, I do so with the foreknowledge that it will wake me before sunrise. Nothing psychic involved.

it's silly to try and debate against a claim that was never made.

Your claim is, always, 'consciousness creates the universe'. Having made it and realized you don't have a leg to stand on by way of proof, you are calling your claim a typographical error and seeking to take refuge behind a fig-leaf of non-volitionality. If the choice was conscious but the outcome was not willed, then how can it said to be a choice at all?

If I can't tell in advance how reality is going to be changed by my decision, in what sense can it be said that I am creating reality? I am merely affecting the course of events, which anyone can do at any time.

I said the Observer can cause a measurement to occur and therefore an Observer creates reality.

Thank you for making it so plain - now we can all see what arrant nonsense it is.

Let me ask you this, does the CHOICE of the Observer cause a measurement to occur? If so, then you support my claim just like the delayed choice experiment, double slit experiment and the quantum eraser delayed choice experiment.

Let's agree that the (apparent) choice of an observer causes something to happen. It may be a quantum measurement, it may be that a loaf of bread stays too long in the oven and gets burned. If this is what you mean by 'creating reality', why delve into quantum mechanics to explain it? We create this kind of reality all the time. So do rats, cockroaches, runaway trains, exploding stars and bowel gas. Nothing special there about consciousness.

Sorry, love, you've painted yourself into a corner. The claim 'consciousness creates the universe' is valid only if it can be shown that the universe is the product of conscious will. You forgot that vital fact and pretended you'd made a typographical error.

You've blown it.

You also avoided everything I said about quantum information and information theory. The universe is constantly making a choice and asking yes/no questions. In the context of quantum information we're talking about a qubit. In the context of Classical physics we're talking about a bit.

Avoided it? You think anthropomorphic maundering like this deserves an answer?

reply to post by Astyanax


The problem you have is you want to avoid the truth with answers that don't answer anything.

It's sad because you obviously know that the Observer causes a measurement to occur but you don't want to admit it now because you're worried about a debate on a message board.

I have debated many people who take your position but they don't try to shade or evade the truth.

You said:

Let's agree that the (apparent) choice of an observer causes something to happen. It may be a quantum measurement, it may be that a loaf of bread stays too long in the oven and gets burned. If this is what you mean by 'creating reality', why delve into quantum mechanics to explain it? We create this kind of reality all the time. So do rats, cockroaches, runaway trains, exploding stars and bowel gas. Nothing special there about consciousness.

This is too funny.Why delve into quantum mechanics to explain it?

Have you ever heard of these experiments?

Double Slit experiment
en.wikipedia.org...

Delayed CHOICE Experiment
en.wikipedia.org...

Quantum Eraser Delayed Choice
en.wikipedia.org...

So of course we're talking about quantum mechanics and not a loaf of bread in the oven LOL.

I know why you want to evade quantum mechanics, because the CHOICE of the Observer must threaten your worldview.

You said:

We create this kind of reality all the time.

Of course we do because the CHOICE of the Observer causes a measurement to occur. You just admitted that we create reality.

Your personal opinion is that it's nothing special. That's your subjective opinion and everyone is entitled to their opinion.

The point is you tried to evade what I'm saying when you know what I'm saying is confirmed in experiment after experiment. Again, you said:

We create this kind of reality all the time.

I'm glad you finally admitted that we created reality or this was a Freudian slip as you were erasing and retyping your response to try and figure out the right words to say to avoid quantum mechanics.

You then said:

So do rats, cockroaches, runaway trains, exploding stars and bowel gas. Nothing special there about consciousness.

How many rats or cockroaches have carried out the delayed choice experiment?

How many rats or cockroaches have carried out the quantum eraser delayed choice experiment?

But I digress because I agree with you when you say:

We create this kind of reality all the time.

We both agree that the Observer creates reality.

You just think it isn't anything special and I think it's great.

You can have your personal opinions about this, but the fact remains that "we create this kind of reality all the time." Of course we do because the CHOICE of the Observer causes a measurement to occur.

I'm not talking about this kind or that kind of reality (I thought there was one but I guess reality comes in kinds). I'm talking about something very specific.

So I will ask you again, does the CHOICE of the Observer cause a measurement to occur? It's a simple yes or no question.

I can tell you know the choice of the Observer causes a measurement to occur but you want to avoid it by talking about burnt bread and cockroaches.

Some try to say parallel universes make the choice. It's a silly position but at least you're debating people who understand what quantum mechanics tells us in experiment after experiment.

The Observers CHOICE can cause a measurement to occur and therefore creates the reality we perceive.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Matter doesn't exist without observation?

So are you saying all the ancient tombs buried in the sands of time do not exist until someone finds it?

What accounts for the aging it encounters?

I think your argument fails unless you believe that scientists one day can "walk through" anything.

Also, I feel you are making a claim that perception is not universal. Do you have proof that other humans/animals/species do not see the same thing under similar conditions (excluding blindness, hallucinogens, etc)?