Incomprehensible quantum quandaries

In quantum mechanics, the characteristics of a subatomic entity is undecided until the point where it is observed and measured. When observed and only then does it coalesce into a particle or so physicist would have us believe.

So then if I buy a scratch ticket the numbers below the scratch pads are undefined or are they. Well perhaps they are defined by the computer that calculated the numbers to be printed on that ticket in the first place. But wait no conscious observer has actually set eyes on it to observe it until scratched.
No observer has seen the electrons flowing in the computer so it to is undefined.
Are the numbers really luck – luck of the observer?


Voyager is way passed our solar system its not observed by any consciousness locally. Yet we can hear it. Observation via radio which is a quantum action then must be still observable. Do I take it that only when someone actually listens to the signal, Voyager changes from a wave and coalesces into the structure that left earth many years ago.


Above I don’t expect answers for there are no real answers that we know of today. I submitted two examples of incomprehensible quantum quandaries. I find them interesting and I am sure many others do – so hit me with yours. Hit me with something many of us can say “I never thought of that before”

Cheers MJ2

Even if a concious observer did observe the numbers under the scratch card, I probably didn't whitness them observing the numbers so from my point of view it could still vary? Wouldn't it take a number of concious observers observing the numbers and agreeing on what they were for it be a manifest reality?

Thats not true....

You did observe the numbers ....... in the future !!! Time does not exist in quantum physics.

I think "observing" doesnt neccesarily mean "seeing", ... with your eyes. I think even thinking of an object can give it solidity as well.

Originally posted by majestictwo
In quantum mechanics, the characteristics of a subatomic entity is undecided until the point where it is observed and measured. When observed and only then does it coalesce into a particle or so physicist would have us believe.

So then if I buy a scratch ticket the numbers below the scratch pads are undefined or are they. Well perhaps they are defined by the computer that calculated the numbers to be printed on that ticket in the first place. But wait no conscious observer has actually set eyes on it to observe it until scratched.
No observer has seen the electrons flowing in the computer so it to is undefined.
Are the numbers really luck – luck of the observer?


Voyager is way passed our solar system its not observed by any consciousness locally. Yet we can hear it. Observation via radio which is a quantum action then must be still observable. Do I take it that only when someone actually listens to the signal, Voyager changes from a wave and coalesces into the structure that left earth many years ago.


Above I don’t expect answers for there are no real answers that we know of today. I submitted two examples of incomprehensible quantum quandaries. I find them interesting and I am sure many others do – so hit me with yours. Hit me with something many of us can say “I never thought of that before”

Cheers MJ2

Complex Equivalence

To go from the quantum scale all the way up to scratch tickets is a bit of a stretch although with that being said it can be accurate viewed from the idea of "As Above, So Below" but what is missing from this equation is the fact that the machines which are "randomly" generating the winning tickets has been observed and programmed by an observer to produce what can be called witnessed results although it is calculated through programmed algorithms which initially began with an observer utilizing silicon to make CPU's and all the other necessary observations that brought us to a shared-reality where our previous observations become "the norm" or what is understood as a reality. The problem is there is no objective reality except that which our nervous systems create or have in the past created for our current development.

We also have to take into account that we are the only ones observing our own selves. Like a machine researching itself. Therefore everything we know about the body and ourselves is subjective as well, being DNA, the appearance and function of our various organs and "spirituality" with that being said I think it's easy for us to get confused if you forget that we created the distinctions and "maps of reality" also known as reality tunnels (term coined by Timothy Leary and used by Robert Anton Wilson) using not only our own bodies as instruments of discovery but also the various tools and apparatus we use "externally" to measure the maps we've already made.

To put it in another way, .. What is life? can it be described as one minute you are here and the next minute you are not? which can be classified as particle theory.... or is it in the form of what can be classified as a wave theory?

a very deeply philosophical debate.

edit: and whoever mentioned that observation is not exclusively "visual" that is precisely correct, observation for me can be classified as any means of interpreting or filtering information/signals from what appears to be external.

Originally posted by IntastellaBurst


Thats not true....

You did observe the numbers ....... in the future !!! Time does not exist in quantum physics.

I think "observing" doesnt neccesarily mean "seeing", ... with your eyes. I think even thinking of an object can give it solidity as well.

If i understand you correctly you are saying that just by thinking about voyager makes it a real thing to us. Is that really correct because in the double slit experiments not observing returned to wave functions but surly the experimenters were thinking about the process.

Maybe nothing exists unless we think about it.... Although for the sake of our collective insanity, a quantum memory of things that were once observed still 'hover' in 'reality' (or at least a quantum probability space) until re-observed.

Or in other words... the tree falling in a forest will only make a sound when someone is there... because otherwise the 'sound' is nothing more than a displacement of air waves. A sound cannot be a sound if nothing can 'hear' it?

Now does this apply to quantum observation, not the fact that it's a particle or a wave, but the notion that we as receivers and observers decode 'it' as such. Without anything to decode 'it' , the 'it' does not have to be there?

This then falls into theories of quantum expectancy...

Originally posted by mr-lizard
Now does this apply to quantum observation, not the fact that it's a particle or a wave, but the notion that we as receivers and observers decode 'it' as such. Without anything to decode 'it' , the 'it' does not have to be there?

I hadn't thought of it that way - thanks

Originally posted by majestictwo

Originally posted by mr-lizard
Now does this apply to quantum observation, not the fact that it's a particle or a wave, but the notion that we as receivers and observers decode 'it' as such. Without anything to decode 'it' , the 'it' does not have to be there?

I hadn't thought of it that way - thanks

No Thank YOU for a very interesting train of thought

Double post - so i'll add this:

www.mindfully.org...

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

and this:

Using the mind to look for reality is delusion.
Not using the mind to look for reality is awareness.

-Bodhidharma

reply to post by majestictwo


You have to remember though that both the numbers on the ticket and the ticket itself and also you are all part of the same system, you don't collapse the wave form of the numbers by observing them, you yourself are part of the probability along with the numbers...

Ermm..

Or something like that anyway

Explanation: S&F!

It's this simple,... ALL states self observe and interfere with themselves...

The science...

Double Split Experiment (by Dr Quantum) [youtube]



And here is that applied to ourselves...

Cogito ergo sum (by Rene Descartes) [wiki]

Personal Disclosure: I Think I AM a God local to my reality! Do you?

P.S. Don't let your wave function collapse into human form now that I have observed you OK! :shk:

sorry one more quote:

(You've got me onto something now)

The Mind and the world are opposites,
and vision arises where they meet.
When your Mind doesn't stir inside,
the world doesn't arise outside.

Maybe the observed electrons travelling in wave or particle forms are a RESULT of our observation, but what were they before they became such?

Does our mind, summon reality, does thought (expectancy?) create the things we desire? Does something taste nice if we've never eaten it? What about people who can 'read' or 'write' music from a manuscript, does that music exist? If it's never been created by an instrument?

It exists in the composers mind, no doubt, but never to be heard by anyone, unless the right tools are employed, namely other musicians and instruments. But the orchestra will only be temporary... the song will eventually stop. Does that music still exist? On paper ... yes. In reality... No..... (unless it's pre-recorded).... In memory... Yes.

But then, recorded music - does it exist? Do those recreated sounds of your speakers (no matter how perfectly tuned) recreate the music? Or just the 'experience' or 'illusion' of the orchestra? What is true music? What are true senses?

Does experiencing something make things real?

My appologies guys been away working.
Some interesting replies - But I didn't want to get just caught up in the numbers on a scratch ticket. What about the voyager scenario. But if you could read again I would really like to hear from some of the ATS mind-benders here with your Incomprehensible quantum quandary. I know you are out there

reply to post by mr-lizard


Woooo Mr Lizard that's something, your last post a star from me.

Since you bring up recorded information, there was an experiment about recorded data or music don't remember which now. I just can't remember fully but it proved something like it wasn't there until listened too - gee I hope I'm right. I've tried to find this from time to time but never did. Hope it wasn't in my mind but as you indicate does that make it any less real.

Ummm another "Incomprehensible quantum quandary"