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.

 

Reality Check

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by LikeDuhObviously
 


I want to request anyone following this thread check out this unrealated thread HERE - I feel this thread needs to urgently be brought to the western worlds attention - and easily takes priority over this thread.




posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by byteshertz
The reason that it is probable more than one reality is quite simple - if one can exist it is probable that more than one exists. Even if we wanted to look to science, or more specifically the mathmatics of the science we would see according to quantum mechanics, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to be there until it is percieved or observed. Particles occupy uncertain states called superpositions, they appear to be in multiple or different places at the same time. The mere act of observing somehow appears to set a particular state of reality.

Sorry, but your reasoning doesn't make any sense. If Pi exists, it's probable that more than one Pi exists? See? It doesn't make any sense. Also I'm not a quantum physicist, but as far as I can tell your interpretation of the observer effect is completely wrong. We can't "merely" observe things taking place at the quantum level. The act of measuring is always needed and the disturbance it causes is what sets the particle's state. Also even if many worlds interpretation turned out to be correct I don't see how that would imply that many realities exist. To me it would simply mean that our reality was different to what was assumed before.
edit on 9-3-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
The act of measuring is always needed and the disturbance it causes is what sets the particle's state.


This is false.

It isn't the act of measuring, it is the availability of information to a conscious observer.

If they measure and delete the information it has the same effect as not measuring at all.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by rhinoceros
The act of measuring is always needed and the disturbance it causes is what sets the particle's state.


This is false.

It isn't the act of measuring, it is the availability of information to a conscious observer.

If they measure and delete the information it has the same effect as not measuring at all.


This is false. A single electron can act as the "observer".



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I also find it funny how dreams always make perfect sense until you wake up - this is because that dream became your reality, and it is very hard to question your reality when you do not realise you need to. [quote from the OP]

Now I find this very interesting. In the introduction to my short story "Impasse & Exit," which is posted in the Short Story sub-forum, I address this very thing. You see, while you are in a dream, you are under the Law of Dreaming, and are only rarely aware of where you really are, usually snug in your bed. Once you wake up, you think it was only a dream, and carry on your life under the Law of Waking. I have to wonder if we are still unaware of where we really are, during our waking lives. So - do we only learn where we really are after Death...?



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


The double slit experiment.

If they measure the information and keep it. The wave function collapses.

If they don't measure the information at all. The wave function stays intact.

If they measure the information and delete it. The wave function stays intact.


This proves that the "measurement problem" is not valid.

The issue is the availability of information.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

If they measure the information and delete it. The wave function stays intact.



Please link to a paper (not some new age website) that confirms this.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


So I guess any source that confirms it is not reliable.

Start with a conclusion and work backwards huh?

---

What does this experiment have to do with consciousness anyway?

This is often the most difficult part to understand but it is actually very simple.

Information itself is connected to consciousness because only intelligence can give meaning to raw data.

So if the existence of information (raw abstract data) can influence reality (observable results) than consciousness MUST be a factor.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


You do know that the observer does not need to be a human or even living right ?
As in a piece of equipment ...

I have a camera that takes color images. Does it understanding a image of the following lines that the 3rd line is in red?

consciousness MUST be a factor.
consciousness MUST be a factor.
consciousness MUST be a factor.
consciousness MUST be a factor.
consciousness MUST be a factor.

Please define consciousness.

edit on 12-3-2011 by LikeDuhObviously because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by LikeDuhObviously
 


The camera is set up and used by an observer even if it is indirectly.

Not saying your wrong as I dont know enough to tell you that but unless the camera can decide what to record for itself then the operater still has an effect surely.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Forget the camera example. I was just expressing my point.
The observer in the double slit experiment can be any piece of equipment and no living thing has to be in the same room. I think you are stretching "consciousness " if you claim it can be used towards a inanimate object.




con·scious
–adjective
1.
aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2.
fully aware of or sensitive to something (often followed by of ): conscious of one's own faults; He wasn't conscious of the gossip about his past.
3.
having the mental faculties fully active: He was conscious during the operation.
4.
known to oneself; felt: conscious guilt.
5.
aware of what one is doing: a conscious liar.
6.
aware of oneself; self-conscious.
7.
deliberate; intentional: a conscious insult; a conscious effort.
8.
acutely aware of or concerned about: money-conscious; a diet-conscious society.
9.
Obsolete . inwardly sensible of wrongdoing.


In this thread someone is trying to argue that the double slit experiment shows "consciousness MUST be a factor".



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by rhinoceros
 

So I guess any source that confirms it is not reliable.

No. New age web sites are not reliable. You need to link to a scientific paper with proper materials & methods section so the study can be reproduced. But you can't do that, can you? Maybe because what you said was total bs..



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I've had this view in my head for a long time, but I could never actually express it into words like you just have. Whenever I try and explain it to people it always comes out confusing.



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by LikeDuhObviously
You do know that the observer does not need to be a human or even living right ?


It depends on whether the information is available to a human.

Measuring and deleting has the same effect as not measuring at all.

So the existence of information effects reality.

What proves that consciousness MUST be a factor is the nature of information.

Raw data is not in anyway physically related to what it describes.

For example the shape of a 6 is not related to the concept of six things; a conscious observer gives the data meaning.

So since the existence of information influences reality, consciousness MUST be a factor.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by LikeDuhObviously
 


I see no need to give me some un related definition of conscious especially in this respect as It appears consciousness affects a physical process.

From what I have read the process of observing/measuring changes the result no matter by who, what or where.

I don’t pretend to understand what is going on just that the normal thinking does not work with regards to this phenomenon/experiment call it what you will.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


rhinoceros obviously took the right approach in this thread.
How about you give any link.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by LikeDuhObviously
 


You can check out the experiments but the issue is comprehending the connection between raw data and consciousness.


"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."

www.bottomlayer.com...

Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-choice Gedanken Experiment
arxiv.org...

Photons denied a glimpse of their observer
physicsworld.com...
edit on 13-3-2011 by Jezus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
. What is God?

"God is the Supreme Intelligence--First Cause of all things."

2. What is to be understood by infinity?

"That which has neither beginning nor end; the unknown: all that is unknown is infinite."

3. Can it be said that God is infinity?

"An incomplete definition. Poverty of human speech incompetent to define what transcends human intelligence."

God is infinite in His perfections, but "infinity" is an abstraction. To say that God is infinity is to substitute the attribute of a thing for the thing itself, and to define something unknown by reference to some other thing equally unknown.

Proofs of the Existence of God
4. What proof have we of the existence of God?

"The axiom which you apply in all your scientific researches, 'There is no effect without a cause.' Search out the cause of whatever is not the work of man, and reason will furnish the answer to your question."

To assure ourselves of the existence of God, we have only to look abroad on the works of creation. The universe exists, therefore it has a cause. To doubt the existence of God is to doubt that every effect has a cause, and to assume that something can have been made by nothing.
5. What is to be inferred from the intuition of the existence of God which may be said to be the common property of the human mind?

"That God exists; for whence could the human mind derive this intuition if it had no real basis? The inference to be drawn from the fact of this intuition is a corollary of the axiom 'There is no effect without a cause.'"

6. May not our seemingly intuitive sense of the existence of God be the result of education and of acquired ideas?

"If such were the case, how should this intuitive sense be possessed by your savages?"

If the intuition of the existence of a Supreme Being were only the result of education, it would not be universal, and would only exist, like all other acquired knowledge, in the minds of those who had received the special education to which it would be due.
7. Is the first cause of the formation of things to be found in the essential properties of matter?

"If such were the case, what would be the cause of those properties? There must always be a first cause."

To attribute the first formation of things to the essential properties of matter, would be to take the effect for the cause, for those properties are themselves an effect, which must have a cause.
8. What is to be thought of the opinion that attributes the first formation of things to a fortuitous combination of matter, in other words, to chance?

"Another absurdity! Who that is possessed of common sense can regard chance as an intelligent agent? And, besides, what is chance? Nothing."

The harmony which regulates the mechanism of the universe can only result from combinations adopted in view of predetermined ends, and thus, by its very nature, reveals the existence of an Intelligent Power. To attribute the first formation of things to chance is nonsense for chance cannot produce the results of intelligence. If chance could be intelligent, it would cease to be chance.
9. What proof have we that the first cause of all things is a Supreme Intelligence, superior to all other intelligences?

"You have a proverb which says, 'The workman is known by his work.' Look around you, and, from the quality of the work, infer that of the workman."

We judge of the power of an intelligence by its works as no human being could create that which is produced by nature, it is evident that the first cause must be an Intelligence superior to man. Whatever may be the prodigies accomplished by human intelligence, that intelligence itself must have a cause and the greater the results achieved by it, the greater must be the cause of which it is the effect. It is this Supreme Intelligence that is the first cause of all things, whatever the name by which mankind may designate it.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 





To assure ourselves of the existence of God, we have only to look abroad on the works of creation. The universe exists, therefore it has a cause. To doubt the existence of God is to doubt that every effect has a cause, and to assume that something can have been made by nothing.


What a bunch of nonsense!! You are using the god of the gaps! Just because science hasn't figured out what caused the big bang (or other stuff) yet, doesn't mean you can just state magic (aka god) did it...especially in the absence of objective evidence.

According to your logic, you could also state unicorns created the universe...just as likely as your deity, or every made up deity for that matter. That's highly illogical and irrational.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I think that it is your interpretation of what GOD is that is flawed.

If you have witnessed what I have witnessed, read what I have read, talked to who I have talked to you would understand.

The nice thing is that we are entitled to our own beliefs and opinions. I once shared your opinion.
edit on 13-3-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join