Consciousness is a Quantum Entity

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


Good to see someone else has followed these two banter back and forth over a few threads. Though, I must say, quite amusing to say the least.




posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
“All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become.” - Buddha



Buddha says: The Mind is Irrelevant



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by RRokkyy

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
“All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become.” - Buddha



Buddha says: The Mind is Irrelevant

Yeah it's always about just some damn thing or another eh? Thanks for that comment, that's helpful.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 

"Consciousness is a Quantum Entity"

A couple months ago I had a pretty interesting thought,

"Beingness is a conscious focus." Think about it!



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Information is only an abstract thing. Thing's don't inherently hold information unless there is something there that can make conscious use of information.

All objects contain information. If the fundamental constants didn't have certain set quantities we'd have a very different universe. That suggests materiality is codependent on information or that information precedes manifestation. Just read papers like Dr. Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis that argues for the ERH.

Also I'd be curious, what's your take on the delayed choice quantum eraser? Instrumentation problem (decoherence) or retrocausality? As best as I can decipher "will" is a causal structure to collapse a probabilistic state. Meaning that "will" is stochastic but bounded and therefore probabilistically computable. This would seem to suggest that life has a direct parallel to transcendental numbers (i.e. unpredictable, computable, irrational, but fixed).
edit on 13-4-2011 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
The human mind DOES influence matter.

Scientific Proof

Everything (universe) is connected by consciousness. Reality is not limited to the physical world of matter and time, thus the observation of consciousness should be taken much more seriously in the scientific community.


Originally posted by Xtraeme
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 

"Consciousness is a Quantum Entity"

A couple months ago I had a pretty interesting thought,

"Beingness is a conscious focus." Think about it!


Consciousness transcends the material world (especially apparent if you've ever had a lucid dreaming experience), yet individual perspective is allowed to come back to the material world when in an awake state. Therefore, the material being is the antenna connecting your observation of consciousness between different states of being.
edit on 13-4-2011 by prepared4truth because: quote insert



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
www.youtube.com.../uploads


--According to Craig Hogan (a physicist at the Fermilab particle physics lab in Batavia, Illinois), GEO600 has stumbled upon the fundamental limit of space-time -- i.e., the point where space-time stops behaving like the smooth continuum Einstein described and instead dissolves into "grains" just as a newspaper photograph dissolves into dots as you zoom in.


---The holograms that you find on credit cards and banknotes are etched on 2-dimensional plastic films. When light bounces off them, it recreates the appearance of a 3-D image. In the 1990s, physicists Leonard Susskind and Nobel prizewinner Gerard 't Hooft suggested that the same principle might apply to the Universe as a whole.

---Theorists have since shown that microscopic quantum ripples at the event horizon can encode the information inside the black hole. So there is no mysterious information loss as the black hole evaporates.
Crucially, this provides a deep physical insight. The 3-D information about a precursor star can be completely encoded in the 2-D horizon of the subsequent black hole -- not unlike the 3-D image of an object being encoded in a 2-D hologram.

---What's more, work by several string theorists -- most notably Juan Maldacena at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton -- has confirmed that the idea is on the right track. He showed that the physics inside a hypothetical universe with 5 dimensions and shaped like a Pringle is the same as the physics taking place on the 4-dimensional boundary

---According to Hogan, the Holographic Principle radically changes our picture of space-time. Theoretical physicists have long believed that quantum effects will cause space-time to convulse wildly on the tiniest scales. At this magnification, the fabric of space-time becomes grainy and is ultimately made of tiny units rather like pixels but a hundred billion billion times smaller than a proton. This distance is known as the Planck length (a mere 10-35 meters. The Planck length is far beyond the reach of any conceivable experiment. So nobody dared dream that the graininess of space-time might be discernable.


The Geo600 has not found the gravitational waves it was built to discover, instead, seems to be shedding light on the very nature of the Universe, the pixels, like dot matrix, that the stars, in put systems, ie. ET phone home, erect into 3d images.

The energy around us exists, is infinite as Infinity is the platform and its has some very significant hallmarks for the deep thinker, all things within it, including our consciousness are infinite.

There can be no One of any kind, be it person, place or thing. There are infinite things, infinite universes, infinite matter, infinite consciousness, for singularity would be finite.

The energy around us is condensed energy waves, in short there is no spoon.

All holograms are technology/constructs.

Consciousness is the driving force, progressive eternal, endless consciousness.

Infinity also shows us, there is No Time. There cannot be a measurement, in endlessness. The endlessness within a grain of sand and without it, within an atom, and without it, within a star, and without it are the same endless volume. Your infinity is also equal to the infinity that surrounds you. Anywhere you place the dot and attempt to take a measurement, its the same equal endlessness all around. There is no center, there is no Bigger/Smaller, Higher/Lower, Past/Future, except as concepts and sequential events. For our souls/consciousness are walking clips in a metaphorical infinite roll of film, with each moment restructering itself instead of movement, which is also something relating to a program in your head. Each clip is forever, hanging somewhere in "time" where there is no time. Like a metaphorical dvd on the shelf. To Future Self this is the past, and all things are at once.

It is the most mind boggling, wonderful never ending story, and there much Higher Progressed and Pure Love Adults watching over our tests here, holding out our hands to join them.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


YAWN. Old news and disproved.


On January 15, 2009, it was reported in New Scientist that some yet unidentified noise that was present in the GEO 600 detector measurements might be because the instrument is sensitive to extremely small quantum fluctuations of space-time affecting the positions of parts of the detector.[3] This claim was made by Craig Hogan, a scientist from Fermilab, on the basis of his own theory of how such fluctuations should occur motivated by the holographic principle.[4]

The New Scientist story states that Hogan sent his prediction of "holographic noise" to the GEO 600 collaboration in June 2008, and subsequently received a plot of the excess noise which "looked exactly the same as my prediction". However, Hogan knew before that time that the experiment was finding excess noise. Hogan's article published in Physical Review D in May 2008 states: "The approximate agreement of predicted holographic noise with otherwise unexplained noise in GEO 600 motivates further study."[5] Hogan cites a 2007 talk from the GEO 600 collaboration which already mentions "mid-band 'mystery' noise", and where the noise spectra are plotted.[6] A similar remark was made ("In the region between 100 Hz and 500 Hz a discrepancy between the uncorrelated sum of all noise projections and the actual observed sensitivity is found.") in a GEO 600 paper submitted in October 2007 and published in May 2008.[7]

It is also a very common occurrence for gravitational wave detectors to find excess noise that is subsequently eliminated. According to Karsten Danzmann, the GEO 600 principal investigator, "The daily business of improving the sensitivity of these experiments always throws up some excess noise (...). We work to identify its cause, get rid of it and tackle the next source of excess noise."[3] Additionally, some new estimates of the level of holographic noise in interferometry show that it must be much smaller in magnitude than was claimed by Hogan.[8]
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by prepared4truth
 



Everything (universe) is connected by consciousness. Reality is not limited to the physical world of matter and time, thus the observation of consciousness should be taken much more seriously in the scientific community.


Well, according to Matrix this is patently false. He views reality as an idealistic fantastical magic world where the material is nothing but an illusion that we magically create. I say fantastical and magical because in all my discussions with him he has yet to cite a single scientific source that proves his magical universe.


Consciousness transcends the material world (especially apparent if you've ever had a lucid dreaming experience), yet individual perspective is allowed to come back to the material world when in an awake state. Therefore, the material being is the antenna connecting your observation of consciousness between different states of being.


I disagree and I'm sure many stroke patients would as well. I'm also sure the lion that would eat you if you slept near it would as well. Hell, I'm even so damn sure that the universe is materialistic in nature that I will raise 10 million dollars if your willing to take mind altering drugs, like shrooms or lsd, get shot with a tranquilizer and pushed off a ten story building. If you survive all that, then I'll believe the universe is idealistic and utterly dependent upon how we perceive it and if we perceive it at all.

reply to post by Xtraeme
 



All objects contain information. If the fundamental constants didn't have certain set quantities we'd have a very different universe. That suggests materiality is codependent on information or that information precedes manifestation. Just read papers like Dr. Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis that argues for the ERH.


I understand physical information and how it applies to physics and how it is different than information we deal with on a daily basis, like the discussion we're having now. It's two different forms of information that should never be confused with one another.


Also I'd be curious, what's your take on the delayed choice quantum eraser? Instrumentation problem (decoherence) or retrocausality? As best as I can decipher "will" is a causal structure to collapse a probabilistic state. Meaning that "will" is stochastic but bounded and therefore probabilistically computable. This would seem to suggest that life has a direct parallel to transcendental numbers (i.e. unpredictable, computable, irrational, but fixed).


The experiment says nothing about the human mind at all. I challenge you to find one peer reviewed scientific article and report of the results of the experiment that mentions the human mind as having a direct role in the experiment.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 

Sirnex, I like you. You've always struck me as level-headed and rational. In all our conversations the biggest thing we've both struggled to grapple with are concepts of determinism versus choice. After countless hours of thinking and reading on consciousness, coupled with my personal involvement studying randomness, I've come to understand "life" in all it's forms as being a causal structure. Thinking of it in this way resolves the issue because it leaves "dead" reality as what we'd expect -- predictable. Whereas life can be seen as an inimitable representation of discrete stochastic collapsed states. Put another way a person can't choose to be everything. It's not possible to choose to be both an Austrian economist and also advocate Keynesian ideology without exposing ones self to be a fraud. We as actors choose positions amongst the set of all permutations. That selection amongst the set of possibilities is a causal collapse. To choose all possibilities is to understand all things as continuous. The opposite viewpoint is discontinuous and discrete.

So please understand, I think you misunderstood my point. I was attempting to illustrate that there may be several pathways that cause a wave collapse (retrocausal *and* decoherence). "Will" can then be seen as an additional causal structure. Deciphering which is which is the real question. Better tests are needed.



I understand physical information and how it applies to physics

I think what you really mean here is that we understand reality as containing information and the scientific method coupled with the axiomatic method show a direct correlation but there exists some yet unknown nebulous divider. To quote Christopher Langan, 'The scientific and axiomatic methods are like mirror images of each other, but located in opposite domains. Just replace "observe" with "conceptualize" and "part of the world" with "class of mathematical objects", and the analogy practically completes itself. Little wonder, then, that scientists and mathematicians often profess mutual respect. However, this conceals an imbalance. For while the activity of the mathematician is integral to the scientific method, that of the scientist is irrelevant to mathematics (except for the kind of scientist called a “computer scientist”, who plays the role of ambassador between the two realms). At least in principle, the mathematician is more necessary to science than the scientist is to mathematics.'

'As a philosopher might put it, the scientist and the mathematician work on opposite sides of the Cartesian divider between mental and physical reality. If the scientist stays on his own side of the divider and merely accepts what the mathematician chooses to throw across, the mathematician does just fine. On the other hand, if the mathematician does not throw across what the scientist needs, then the scientist is in trouble. Without the mathematician’s functions and equations from which to build scientific theories, the scientist would be confined to little more than taxonomy. As far as making quantitative predictions were concerned, he or she might as well be guessing the number of jellybeans in a candy jar.'

I think you see can where I'm going with this.

By trying to distinguish between pure thought forms as separate from the information encoded in physical material is to define what exactly? That the brains consciousness is nonphysical? In this you have the making of a paradox. The simple way to evaluate the causal line between physicality and information (both categories as you would divide it) is to throw out compartmentalization and accept that there's an inextricable link where the dependency graph tilts in favor of platonic reality not tangible existence.

This doesn't mean the physical universe behaves like a puppy dog that rolls over and plays fetch. It doesn't do what we tell it to, not yet anyways, but it shows that there's the potential for such a thing. And that's the future!
edit on 13-4-2011 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 



Sirnex, I like you. You've always struck me as level-headed and rational. In all our conversations the biggest thing we've both struggled to grapple with are concepts of determinism versus choice.


You've always come off as very intelligent and I always enjoy reading your post's, even if I don't necessarily agree with everything. I don't have any real issue with choice in and of itself, just that decisions made are determined by various factors and that no real randomness exists in nature. We can't even duplicate such a concept as true randomness. Thing's just appear random because we lack full knowledge of all the variables.


So please understand, I think you misunderstood my point. I was attempting to illustrate that there may be several pathways that cause a wave collapse (retrocausal *and* decoherence). "Will" can then be seen as an additional causal structure. Deciphering which is which is the real question. Better tests are needed.


The problem I have here with "will" or the mind is that it's never a direct factor in any physical thing. It resides solely within the brain and doesn't exert any *direct* force. It can't *directly* observe either, it requires five sensory organs and a brain to process the information it receives (information as defined by physics), and then that information is made available to the mind to make use of.


I think what you really mean here is that we understand reality as containing information and the scientific method coupled with the axiomatic method show a direct correlation but there exists some yet unknown nebulous divider.


No, what I mean is that there really are two forms of information. One being physical information as defined by physics and the other being abstract forms of information, like how to build a car. Matrix is under the erroneous belief that the latter exists and has always existed. I find this view as overreaching and stretching the bounds of reality in a futile attempt. The physical information of every atom that makes up a car does indeed exist, but the information of how to mine the ore, smelt it, mold it and eventually fabricate it into a working brand spanking new lexus doesn't exist. That's abstract information.


By trying to distinguish between pure thought forms as separate from the information encoded in physical material is to define what exactly? That the brains consciousness is nonphysical? In this you have the making of a paradox. The simple way to evaluate the causal line between physicality and information (both categories as you would divide it) is to throw out compartmentalization and accept that there's an inextricable link where the dependency graph tilts in favor of platonic reality not tangible existence.


I don't believe that consciousness is non-physical as it depends entirely upon how the physical brain and it's five senses operate. We can't escape this small fact. People born blind are born blind, that aspect of reality is entirely unknown to them and yet, the visual aspects of reality still indeed exist regardless, ask anyone who was born with sight and they can confirm this. Reality itself doesn't care if we observe it or if we observe it a certain way. It's still there just as it always was before we even evolved to invent concepts of idealistic fantastical magic worlds.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


Good thread, I completely agree with you and have often wondered why people hadnt realized this yet, that information is more archaic than matter. s/f for you!

I wrote a thread maybe a year ago that deals with this, It received a lot of applause from the general populace on ATS. Check it out, you may enjoy it!
ATS thread here

I also talk about how the binary rule of 110 is a unique number and is capable of creating random yet organized patterns all while following a completely deterministic rule. very interesting stuff!



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by VonDoomen
 



Good thread, I completely agree with you and have often wondered why people hadnt realized this yet, that information is more archaic than matter. s/f for you!


Information does not exist without matter. You will find nothing in physics that discussing information without it being applied to the material world of particles. I challenge anyone, still and again to cite a single peer reviewed scientific source that proves this fantastical idealistic magic world.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


here is my take on it.

Take the smallest piece of material reality. Whatever you wish to argue that is.

Now, how many different ways can you describe that object? how many different attributes does this object have?
These are all pieces of information required to make the total.

It is my bet that it comes down to a level where information and matter are essentially one and the same thing.
think of it as a computer where the hardware and the software are essentially the same thing. I talk about this more in this thread Reversible Computers

"Edward Fredkin proposed a new theory of physics founded on the idea that the universe is ultimately composed of software. We should not think of reality as consisting of particles and forces, but rather as bits of data modified according to computation rules. Fredkin went on to show that although energy is needed for information storage and retrieval, we can arbitrarily reduce the energy needed to perform any particular example of information processing, and that this operation has no lower limit. That implies that information, rather than matter and energy, may be regarded are the more fundamental reality."

some more reading on his work and digital physics here

"It from bit. Otherwise put, every 'it'—every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself—derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. 'It from bit' symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances—an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe. (John Archibald Wheeler 1990)"

The interesting thing about informational or digital physics is it can connect to the ideas of consciousness much better than newtonian material physics.

The only difference between his theory and your theory is that more scientists publicly back yours (safety with the herd). However, neither one has been proven, and we both know popularity and truth are not equivalent.

dont be so abrasive, we're all having fun with conjecture.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

I don't believe that consciousness is non-physical as it depends entirely upon how the physical brain and it's five senses operate. We can't escape this small fact. People born blind are born blind, that aspect of reality is entirely unknown to them and yet, the visual aspects of reality still indeed exist regardless, ask anyone who was born with sight and they can confirm this. Reality itself doesn't care if we observe it or if we observe it a certain way. It's still there just as it always was before we even evolved to invent concepts of idealistic fantastical magic worlds.


I disagree. The way the five senses operate has little to do with what consciousness actually is. I suggest you research the "hard problem" of consciousness. There have been many materialist theories on what consciousness is of course, but none of them actually address or completely explain the rich inner life that we all experience.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 




Have a look at these:
youtu.be...
youtu.be...
youtu.be...
edit on 14-4-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-4-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


I've heard of this before. It's total bunk and the guy has yet to even attempt to experimentally prove his theory.

reply to post by AlphaZero
 



I disagree. The way the five senses operate has little to do with what consciousness actually is. I suggest you research the "hard problem" of consciousness. There have been many materialist theories on what consciousness is of course, but none of them actually address or completely explain the rich inner life that we all experience.


I disagree, our conscious perception of the world around us is entirely dependent upon our five senses. A blind person has no conscious perception of any visual aspect to reality for example. We can use certain drugs that affect a persons physiology and thus affect their conscious perception of the things around them. You can have a stroke which can also affect how things work. You can die and that not a single person who has suffered bodily death and come back to confirm that consciousness lives on afterward is the ultimate evidence. The fact that every psychic medium who has agreed to be scientifically tested and debunked proves it even more.

Why we have evolved to the point where we can ask these questions is a different thing altogether. Yet we can not escape the fact that anything that happens to our sensory organs or our brain can and does time and time again affect our mind. That we go to sleep, performing a nightly experiment in observation of reality and others seeing us sleeping is more confirmation that reality still exists without our conscious observation of it. I can go on, but I'm bored now.

reply to post by VonDoomen
 



It is my bet that it comes down to a level where information and matter are essentially one and the same thing.


That's what physical information is. I have no problem with that. It's just another way to say this atom has different properties compared to this atom. Information on how a working fueled running Hummer, that's a different story.


The interesting thing about informational or digital physics is it can connect to the ideas of consciousness much better than newtonian material physics.


I really dislike the universe is a computer simulation argument. Sure, we can someday eventually create a simulation ourselves, but our ability to do so shouldn't imply that our universe was created by some nerd in some real tangible universe. It just pushes the issue of where reality came from into the realms of infinite regression. It doesn't answer anything at all. Might as well say God did it.


The only difference between his theory and your theory is that more scientists publicly back yours (safety with the herd). However, neither one has been proven, and we both know popularity and truth are not equivalent.


Perhaps it's not safety with the heard, perhaps its what the evidence fits best and what every bit of our technologies work with on a daily basis to back those theories up? See, the problem with these fringe theories is that none of it's originators have conducted, proposed or when offered the funding done any experiments that might prove their theories correct. There's a simple reason for that, they make a decent income selling these ideas in books to people who enjoy reading these fringe theories and some twist the science to sell to the new age crowd.


dont be so abrasive, we're all having fun with conjecture.


I'm not *trying* to be abrasive by any means. Perhaps only with Matrix, but because of past dealings with that whack job.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Which guy are you referencing, did you watch them all?
And then check out other videos like the double slit experiment, then the quantum eraser.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 



Which guy are you referencing, did you watch them all?
And then check out other videos like the double slit experiment, then the quantum eraser.


I watched the first one, that's the guy I was referring to. The double slit and eraser experiments both say nothing about the human mind and I've challenged everyone so far to show me one scientific peer reviewed report that says otherwise. So far that has gone unmet and that's because such a report on the results doesn't exist. Instead I get videos and websites from people who twist the science to fit their preconceived notions of how they wish reality to work rather than dealing with what the evidence dictates on how reality actually works.

EDIT:

You gotta remember one thing, money makes this world run. You have better chances of making money off the majority of the population by sensationalizing the sciences because the majority of the population just doesn't have the interest to learn what the science says or because the sensationalized lies creates a form of confirmation bias for whatever religious, spiritual, or metaphysical beliefs they may hold.

Religion is the worlds most profitable business.
edit on 14-4-2011 by sirnex because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
And here all the time I thought the banks/investment firms having their own private federal reserve corporation who can tell treasury to print worthless money from thin air with no backing was number one on the hit parade...

Religion and Politics must be somewhere down the line___________________
edit on 14-4-2011 by Communicater because: error correction



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


What do you consider 'peer reviewed report'?
If you want someone to present you a convincing other perspective, the least you could do is watch all three.
I think assuming that the world is built of solid little blocks, atoms lead to cells, that lead to molecules and then to brain and then out of that comes consciousness is where science has gone wrong . Consciousness is primary, first there was nothing.
edit on 14-4-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join