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.

 

Needed: A Little Help With That Double-Slit Experiment

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by sirnex
WTF are you talking about? Are you talking about physical representation as in words written on a piece of paper in an envelope about to be burned by a politician at some future point changing the results here and now?

Why don't you take the time to learn what physical information is, and what it is not. The language we use to define and describe is certainly abstract, but this is inherently different from physical information. The experiment does not deal with language or abstract information.


It doesn't matter if it is on paper or in a computer.

Or even part of the experimental mechanism.

Information is ALWAYS abstract, even in physics.


I want someone to actually say that the researchers observed the results before the envelopes were burned, and then when the envelopes were burned, that the results (somehow) changed due to the envelopes being burned, and that the change was therefore verified as having actually occurred. In short, if what the envelope contained is never revealed, then this whole argument is insane.

I grew up with guys who went on to be successful criminals, and that's exactly the kind of scam they'd try to pull on greenhorns from the suburbs. Tell me that someone verifies what's in those envelopes before the sh*t gets burned, and that there's a way of establishing the reality of the assertions of the test's conclusions. If not, then take that dumb bullsh*t somewhere where folks are discussing what it feels like to get hosed.


You can't look at the results or it negates the purpose of burning the envelope.

The point is this.

If you measure and keep the results the information is available to a consciousness observer so the wave function collapses.

If you measure and delete the results later, the wave function stays intact.

The reason this is significant is because the existence of information (raw abstract data, just symbols) changes the results of a physically complete experiment.




posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Nothing specific to respond to in that post because you are just going in circles.

Physical representations of information are still nothing but abstract symbols.

In a book, on a computer, or even in the mechanism of a physics experiment.

Information is always abstract, I'm sorry but you are just getting confused by the complexity of the set up.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



In a book, on a computer, or even in the mechanism of a physics experiment.


Why are you so hung up on abstract information as if it's the only thing that exists? Language has no bearing on physical information. Not even the word has any bearing upon that which it's attempting to define. We could call it tree if we want to get really creative with language, just for fun. It still has no bearing upon the interactions taking place. We could even rename interactions as rape instead. So now what we're seeing is tree rape, but the same physical interactions are taking place regardless of the abstract language/information/definition we place upon that process.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



You can't look at the results or it negates the purpose of burning the envelope.
Thank you for invalidating your entire argument.

I doubt you'll understand the implications of your premise in regards to this new statement and how it ties into a conscious observer.


If you measure and keep the results the information is available to a consciousness observer so the wave function collapses.


No one is using their eyeballs or magically detached minds to become the observers.


If you measure and delete the results later, the wave function stays intact.


Please oh please quote the article on how this "erasure" takes place. Do you even understand why "erasure" is always in quotations in scientific articles?


The reason this is significant is because the existence of information (raw abstract data, just symbols) changes the results of a physically complete experiment.


Abstract information is inherently different than physical information, like it or not. It something you're just going to have to learn and come to terms with, or you can continuously sit here regurgitating the same garbage over and over that has nothing to do with the experiment, nor what the results of that experiment tell us.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Jezus
 



In a book, on a computer, or even in the mechanism of a physics experiment.


Why are you so hung up on abstract information as if it's the only thing that exists? Language has no bearing on physical information.


Physical representations of information (in a book, a computer, or a physics experiment) is just another version of language because it is not physically connected to what it describes.

It doesn't have to be words, it can be digits or pictures, or raw data in a computer.

The only connection between information and what it describes is a consciousness capable of comprehending it.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

If you measure and keep the results the information is available to a consciousness observer so the wave function collapses.


No one is using their eyeballs or magically detached minds to become the observers.




They don't have to magically detach anything to comprehend the information in relation to the experiment.

A person can eventually become aware of the results if the measurement exists.
edit on 1-5-2011 by Jezus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



It doesn't have to be words, it can be digits or pictures, or raw data in a computer.

The only connection between information and what it describes is a consciousness capable of comprehending it.


I understand the point of abstract information. This experiment does not experiment on abstract information. No envelopes are burned. No computer screens are cleared. No secretaries are shredding results. No dogs are consuming results.

This is not how the "erasure" takes place. You are completely clueless if you actually believe this is what is occurring, hence why I posted two links discussing the experiment, one having pretty pictures to help you visualize and understand how the "erasure" takes place.


They don't have to magically detach anything to comprehend the information is relation to the experiment.


You clearly don't understand what an observer is in the physics world do you? It sure as hell ain't the human mind and you would be hard pressed to find one single scientific article saying any different.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
The only connection between information and what it describes is a consciousness capable of comprehending it.


Wow.

Just wow.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
I understand the point of abstract information. This experiment does not experiment on abstract information. No envelopes are burned. No computer screens are cleared. No secretaries are shredding results. No dogs are consuming results.

This is not how the "erasure" takes place.


While literally the erasure is different, conceptually it is the same.

Information exists and then it doesn't exist. The envelope concept is to help you make the connection between the experiment and reality. However, it literally could be done this way and the same exact results would appear, however this isn't even worth debating because the experiment done in the simplified way proves the same point.


Originally posted by sirnex
You clearly don't understand what an observer is in the physics world do you? It sure as hell ain't the human mind and you would be hard pressed to find one single scientific article saying any different.


The observer in the actual experiment doesn't have to be the human mind.

A human mind can eventually be made aware of the results of the experiment by comprehending the information; unless of course the information is not available to be comprehended.

The difference creates different results in the experiment.

---

Do you see the common denominator in both of these responses?

You are getting lost in the technical jargon of the physics experiment and don't seem to be able to make the connection to reality.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Jezus
The only connection between information and what it describes is a consciousness capable of comprehending it.


Wow.

Just wow.


Imagine this shape 6. It is not physically related to the concept of six things.

We could change it to 7 and it would not change reality.

Get it? The only connection between information and what it describes is a consciousness capable of comprehending it.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



While literally the erasure is different, conceptually it is the same.


No, it is not the same at all. Not even close; The experiment does not deal with abstract information.


Information exists and then it doesn't exist. The envelope concept is to help you make the connection between the experiment and reality. However, it literally could be done this way and the same exact results would appear, however this isn't even worth debating because the experiment done in the simplified way proves the same point.


The envelope misrepresentation has no bearing upon how the experiment works nor what the results of this experiment are showing us about subatomic behavior.


The observer in the actual experiment doesn't have to be the human mind.


Then knowing or not knowing the outcome has no bearing upon the actual outcome. The human mind is simply insignificant.


A human mind can eventually be made aware of the results of the experiment by comprehending the information; unless of course the information is not available to be comprehended.


The understanding of abstract information has no bearing upon the physical information or the process that occurs.


The difference creates different results in the experiment.


Please quote how the "erasure" takes place. Human understanding of the results at the *completion* of the experiment has no bearing upon the inner workings of this process.


Do you see the common denominator in both of these responses?


Yea, you're a clueless twit with literally no understanding of what the hell you're going on about.

And this is just simply amazing to me considering I've given you two sources to learn more rather than moronically relying on a misrepresentation of the experiment under the idiotic belief that this is what actually occurs.


You are getting lost in the technical jargon of the physics experiment and don't seem to be able to make the connection to reality.


You're getting lost in misrepresentations of the scientific jargon because the scientific jargon is too hard for you to understand. Probably why you haven't quoted how the "erasure" process works, you can't find it in the articles, if you even bothered reading them.


Imagine this shape 6. It is not physically related to the concept of six things.

We could change it to 7 and it would not change reality.


ABSTRACT INFORMATION DOES NOT MATTER!

Like I said, we can call the entire process tree rape, the same process still occurs regardless of the abstract information we place upon it. You're right, the ABSTRACT INFORMATION of changing our squiggly lines from a 6 to a 7 won't change the physical properties of the PHYSICAL INFORMATION that it defines.

[Edit for clarification]

Your cute number analogy is fundamentally flawed in relation to what physical information is and I'm honestly surprised you failed to catch it right away due to its blatant obviousness.

You see, you keep running on and on and on about the concept of abstract information as if it's the only thing that exists. You failed to note that regardles of the abstract information placed upon the concept of 6 things, there are still 6 things. We can call it seven if it makes you feel better, but the physical information of that system we are abstractly defining is still the same.

Watch, I'm going to redefine this numerical sequence with abstract information in three different ways.

1 2 3 4 5 6

There are 10 numerals
There are 30 elephants
There is a tree rapist in the room

Notice how the it doesn't change regardless of how I define it? We can take 6 apples and call it seven oranges, it does not change the physical properties of the system one bit.

Notice how every language has it's own abstract construct of sound groupings for labeling the same object. Every language is a different form of abstract information all defining the same physical information. Changing abstract information, or burning it in an envelope has no effect upon physical information... UNLESS... You're talking about just the envelope and it's contents alone and NOT the experiment at all!


Get it? The only connection between information and what it describes is a consciousness capable of comprehending it.


ABSTRACT; Yes. PHYSICAL; No. Learn the god damn difference. Are you still in school? Maybe you haven't learned these things yet and you're just simply uneducated. Maybe you dropped out to help ma and pa on the farm. I don't know you're situation, BUT LEARN SOMETHING! I provided two links and you give back responses I'd expect from a effin 10 year old.
edit on 2-5-2011 by sirnex because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Jezus
The only connection between information and what it describes is a consciousness capable of comprehending it.


Wow.

Just wow.


Imagine this shape 6. It is not physically related to the concept of six things.

We could change it to 7 and it would not change reality.

Get it? The only connection between information and what it describes is a consciousness capable of comprehending it.


We're obviously speaking two different versions of English. Information (according to physicists) exists as a physical determinant. I realize that tis is a Wikipedia link, but the concept, as embraced by the physics world, is fairly well explained.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is what I am referring to when I use the word information. If you still refuse to acknowledge the true physical nature of infgormation after this, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Already tried giving him that link previously in the thread, in which he promptly went off rambling about information in it's abstract form. I mean, got to give him credit, the number thing was kind of cute even if fundamentally flawed.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Jezus
The only connection between information and what it describes is a consciousness capable of comprehending it.


Wow.

Just wow.


Imagine this shape 6. It is not physically related to the concept of six things.

We could change it to 7 and it would not change reality.

Get it? The only connection between information and what it describes is a consciousness capable of comprehending it.


We're obviously speaking two different versions of English. Information (according to physicists) exists as a physical determinant.


This is what both of you are getting confused about.

This "physical determinant" is related to the measurement that is destroyed however what is destroyed is not a physically connected to the particles in the experiment.

In is still only a measurement.

A measurement is fundamentally abstract.

It is just data to represent a concept. It isn't literally physically connected to the particles.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Then knowing or not knowing the outcome has no bearing upon the actual outcome. The human mind is simply insignificant.


This statement proves you still don't get it.

Information is not knowing, it is the potential to know.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
This is what both of you are getting confused about.

This "physical determinant" is related to the measurement that is destroyed however what is destroyed is not a physically connected to the particles in the experiment.

In is still only a measurement.

A measurement is fundamentally abstract.

It is just data to represent a concept. It isn't literally physically connected to the particles.


All contextual ramifications, physically imposed upon the "reality" of how all other aspects exist within the event matrix of whatever is being examined (in this case, that goddamn erasure convolution), exist as information wholes within the "reality" that is the entire influence structure of the umbrella event's entire matrix. What is happening is that many event chains (some redundant and matrixed, and some linear and dynamically adjusting the relative contextual juxtaposition of the large event matrix wholes that exist within the umbrella event) are being channeled through avenues of available potential by that contextual ramification structure. This structure consists of information wholes in relative association with other information wholes, enhancing some avenues and closing off others as the relationships themselves dictate within the logical determinations created by what has occurred, what can possibly occur, and what has been established as being implausible and/or impossible as a potential occurrence. In short, information sets out defaults for each event chain, and when defaults start piling up relative to each other, the options decrease accordingly. Eventually, if the umbrella event involves enough layers of event matrixing, each trajectory becomes tightly directed, and redundancy is what is achieved. After all, redundancy is the path of least resistance, even if that's only true due to what I just described.

This is why rain falls down, and round balls roll straight (unless otherwise affected by a variety of introduced influence) and people can play pool without getting fed up with how ridiculously inconsistent the whole game is. Information is the manager of all physical activity, and it manages by contextual default, allowing each event trajectory a firm set of options that are dependent on the informational representation of what has occurred in a similar situation beforehand (given a full set of circumstantial similarities, of course).

I hope that this helps you realize that I'm not confused as to the true nature of information as a determinant within the physical environment. You can choose to disagree, but you can't claim that I'm confused as to what I know.
edit on 5/2/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
I hope that this helps you realize that I'm not confused as to the true nature of information as a determinant within the physical environment. You can choose to disagree, but you can't claim that I'm confused as to what I know.


You may not be confused regarding the concept but you are confused regarding the experiment.

Again, what is the "erasure" is removing is only related to the "physical determinant" conceptually.

It is a measurement, it is not physically related to the particles.

So again, this is abstract information that is being removed from reality.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 04:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 



This "physical determinant" is related to the measurement that is destroyed however what is destroyed is not a physically connected to the particles in the experiment.


You're effin kidding me right? Do you know how the "erasure" process works? Did you bother to read the two articles that explain the experiment, that discuss what the experiment tells us about subatomic behaviors?

The measurements ARE NOT what is being "erased"!

Go ahead, try and find that in the two sources I provided you.


A measurement is fundamentally abstract.


Physical systems interacting are NOT abstract. When the photons hit the detectors, they are not "abstractly" being detected/measured. The only instance that abstract information comes into play is when we apply language to define these interactions, by saying the photon interfered or did no interfere. Regardless of how we define the physical interaction with ABSTRACT INFORMATION, the PHYSICAL INFORMATION is still there and this is what the experiment deals with ONLY.


It is just data to represent a concept. It isn't literally physically connected to the particles.


We get that, we truly do and we both agree with you on that aspect alone. What we're trying to explain to your simple little mind is that the experiment has nothing to do with the printed out data on the computer screen, or in an envelope. It deals with PHYSICAL INFORMATION. An entirely different concept that you apparently have no understanding about.


Again, what is the "erasure" is removing is only related to the "physical determinant" conceptually.


WRONG. Quote the "erasure" process from either article I provided earlier. Just quote it so you can realize how effing retarded your argument is.


It is a measurement, it is not physically related to the particles.


Measurement is NOT "erased".


So again, this is abstract information that is being removed from reality.


Shame we can't remove stupid people from reality. We might actually progress faster if we did. So many morons are holding back real significant discoveries these days that it just angers me to no end; But to the point of your statement, NO, abstract information is not being removed, it has nothing to do with the effin experiment at all.



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



She sent it urging me to "debunk it" since it's been used to justify the notion that the human consciousness (as a subset of a universal consciousness) is a primordial driver of physical existence, as opposed to my own theory that human consciousness is an epitome achievement of physical existence (the result of some amazing accomplishments in progressive development).

Your primary challenge is to decide whether it is possible for material objects to perceive each other. This is a much more basic problem than what is being addressed by the experiments dealing with data and expectations of observers.

If you are convinced that the material universe is somehow capable of self-awareness, go for it!

I think this assumption makes for a physics that is far more complex than it needs to be and ultimately does not successfully model all know experience.

Even if you get to the point of deciding that some sort of metaphysics is necessary, and that this metaphysics must include the hypothesis that a "non-physical" awareness or consciousness unit is required to properly model the process of perception, there are still more problems to be solved. And they bear directly on what phenomena are "allowable" in our physics.

I must say, though, that you are thinking more rigorously about this than I would ever be willing to. Good luck!

edit on 3-5-2011 by l_e_cox because: needed better wording



posted on May, 3 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by l_e_cox
reply to post by NorEaster
 



She sent it urging me to "debunk it" since it's been used to justify the notion that the human consciousness (as a subset of a universal consciousness) is a primordial driver of physical existence, as opposed to my own theory that human consciousness is an epitome achievement of physical existence (the result of some amazing accomplishments in progressive development).

Your primary challenge is to decide whether it is possible for material objects to perceive each other. This is a much more basic problem than what is being addressed by the experiments dealing with data and expectations of observers.

If you are convinced that the material universe is somehow capable of self-awareness, go for it!


It's not. Self awareness is not residual information influence. I don't believe in a universal consciousness. I thought my posts were pretty clear about this.

I also believe that what we perceive as material is actually layers of redundant event trajectories (event matrixes) that exist as a contextually isolated whole, relative to the rest of the contextual environment. Our own bodies are the same, and so we naturally perceive other event matrix wholes as being just as solid and material as we are. That said, none if it is any more solid than downtown traffic - or a better analogy might be a river. One identified umbrella event that contains many matrix event wholes in contextual unity, just like each one of us while we're in our corporeal phase of overall development.


I think this assumption makes for a physics that is far more complex than it needs to be and ultimately does not successfully model all know experience.

Even if you get to the point of deciding that some sort of metaphysics is necessary, and that this metaphysics must include the hypothesis that a "non-physical" awareness or consciousness unit is required to properly model the process of perception, there are still more problems to be solved. And they bear directly on what phenomena are "allowable" in our physics.


Perception is the end result of an event trajectory that is initiated by a brain (a matrix event in its own right) that is specifically designed to serve the survival needs of a corporeal matrix event that has become too extensive to be managed by raw point-of-action DNA directives. The brain's information configuration process - taking incoming information streams and responding with residual data that's already loaded for immediate application, with the intent of effectively managing the extended enterprise as a coordinated whole - results in extremely rich data bursts that are event units in their own sense of being directives for the rest of the matrix whole.

The information vetting process (occurring at the point where the data stream hits the brain's short term memory) is designed to provide the brain with experience consistency and continuity, which is a fundamental survival requirement. There's a movie called Memento that does a pretty good job of describing what it'd be like if this vetting process didn't exist. The result of that process is that the brain only knows what information (even its own configured data bursts, as they are included within the wash of "conscious experience" along with sight, sound, smell, taste, sensory stimuli) the vetting process has allowed to pass through that process and into the short term memory. Plenty is filtered out, and when it's obvious, we call it cognitive dissonance. Since it's not 100% free of the impact of that process, it's perception, and not fact.


I must say, though, that you are thinking more rigorously about this than I would ever be willing to. Good luck!

edit on 3-5-2011 by l_e_cox because: needed better wording


Thanks. It's been like falling off a bicycle at full speed. One impact leads to the next and then the next and before you know it, nothing looks like it used to anymore. This started out as an attempt to sort out the traditional allegories that base most of the theologies that persist on this planet. I didn't expect it to reach deep into all the recesses that it has.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join