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.

 

The Ten Things Everyone Should Know About Science

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Last time I checked camera's were not human, they are observers, but not human, think you have my principle round your ankles, because humans cannot observe the double split, and moreover the act of placing a camera to observe the action, still changes how the particles behave, so it appears as though particles have a consiousness, if you really need me to, I can dig out some stuff I have read about this stuff, but I'm sure you wuld have more fun looking it up yourself


Check out youtube




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by solargeddon
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Last time I checked camera's were not human, they are observers, but not human, think you have my principle round your ankles, because humans cannot observe the double split, and moreover the act of placing a camera to observe the action, still changes how the particles behave, so it appears as though particles have a consiousness, if you really need me to, I can dig out some stuff I have read about this stuff, but I'm sure you wuld have more fun looking it up yourself


Check out youtube

Particles do not have consciousness. Prove this claim as the science does not agree with you.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Ok so if that be the case, you would need to prove that particles are not capable of holding a conciousness, I can subscribe to this point being subjective, and down to how the indviual chooses to perceive, but it cannot be proven either way, confirm or deny, that particles are not able to possess conciousness.

I guess you could say it comes down to faith, personally i like to keep an open mind about these things, although I do veer to side of it being possible, nobody fully understands the inner workings on the subatomic level,and for that reason if would be foolish to try and state fact, where fact is somewhat missing.

To answer that this happens with the quantum computer, yes the second an electron floats in the whole thing stops working, but again, whats to say that these particles aren't extremely shy (bless them lol)

I hereby post the following link to an article for your viewing pleasure .....

www.ijest.info...
edit on 21-3-2011 by solargeddon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by solargeddon
 

Did you read my earlier post in the thread, solargeddon?

If you think subatomic particles have consciousness, I'm afraid real science is not for you.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Being somewhat of an elitist, I would have thought you would know better than to attempt to put down another without hard scientific evidence to back it up.

Good luck finding it, because I don't think it exsists, as entering into the realms of consiousness is crossing over into philosophy.

Nothing wrong with mxing science with other subject area's it can only serve to enhance, not take anything away.

But of course you are entitled to your view, just as in turn I am entitled to mine, and given that you intend on being a intellectual snob, I think this is a good place to leave it.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Jezus
The issue is the availability of information to a conscious observer.

This is why the existence of information influences the experiment.


No, it's got nothing to do with conscious anything. The experiment could be done completely by computer program with no consciousness at all and you'd get the same results.


Because the information is available for a conscious observer to obtain.


Consciousness has nothing to do with it. I'm sorry if that tramples on any beliefs you have that stem from this but unfortunately the science says nothing of the sort.


Linking the experimental results to consciousness can be difficult to understand at first, but when you understand the abstract nature of raw data it is really simple.

When they measure what slot the particle uses the wave function collapses.

However, if they measure and delete the information the wave function stays intact.

So the existence of information influences the experimental results.

What is information? What is raw data?

It is given meaning by a conscious observer, it itself is not in anyway physically connected to what it describes.

edit on 21-3-2011 by Jezus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by solargeddon
 


Being somewhat of an elitist, I would have thought you would know better than to attempt to put down another without hard scientific evidence to back it up. Good luck finding it, because I don't think it exsists, as entering into the realms of consiousness is crossing over into philosophy.

I don’t need to find evidence to refute your claim; it’s absurd on the face of it. Subatomic particles conscious? Then why not conscious atoms? Conscious rocks and stones? Conscious puffs of fart gas? After all, these things are made up of subatomic particles.

No, my friend, it is you who must provide evidence for your assertions, not I. And it had better be very hard evidence, for extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.


Nothing wrong with mixing science with other subject area's it can only serve to enhance, not take anything away.

There is everything wrong with mixing science with other ways of thinking. It dilutes and destroys the science. Allowing scientific ideas to feed into philosophy and other intellectual areas is okay, so long as you are qualified to understand the science. Otherwise one is apt to draw the wrong conclusions, as you have.


But of course you are entitled to your view, just as in turn I am entitled to mine, and given that you intend on being a intellectual snob, I think this is a good place to leave it.

You call me an intellectual snob and expect me not to respond? You are even more of a dreamer than I thought.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by PrincessAura
 


I look forward to your thoughts on the matter



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Why not conscious puffs of fart gas. I like to think that I'm leaving little bits of consiousness in the sewers all around the world, just being conscious of sewage... with no thoughts on the matter, and no intended activity in response there to.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Oh but you have responded, simply by feeling the need to comment back



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
This is the experiment the proves measuring is not what collapses the wave function.

The availability of information to a conscious observer collapse the wave function.

A Double-Slit Quantum Eraser Experiment
grad.physics.sunysb.edu...

"This experiment uses the phenomena of interference, produced by light incident on a double slit, to investigate the quantum mechanical principle of complementarity between the wave and particle characteristics of light. Using a special state of light, Walborn and his coworkers created an interference pattern, made a "which-way" measurement which destroyed the interference, and then erased the "which-way" marker, bringing the interference back. This experiment clearly displays the way in which nature is counterintuitive on the quantum scale and makes it clear that our ways of thinking based on our everyday experiences in the classical world are often completely inadequate to understand the quantum world."


Delayed Erasure

"Next the erasure measurement is performed. Before photon p can encounter the polarizer, s will be detected. Yet it is found that the interference pattern is still restored. It seems photon s knows the "which-way" marker has been erased and that the interference behavior should be present again, without a secret signal from photon p. "



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
The op's thread lacks God?religion. The Big Bang and the like are just as much a guess as anything else.
Evolution or Darwinism is just as much a theory as God.
The science you promote is just as flawed and hypothesized as anything else.
Prove to me why your top 10 science is any better than the rest?
Theories are just that. Religion or science.



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mugger
 


The thread is titled "The ten things everyone should know about science", not "The ten things everyone should know about religion". And we have more evidence for the big bang at this moment in time (cosmic microwave background radiation) than we do of and gods existence. To say evolution is just a guess is laughable, go read a book or something
edit on 23/3/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mugger
 

Thread hijack alert.

DO NOT FEED THIS TROLL.




top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join