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: 7
2
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by NorEaster
So, while I am, and already have, allowed for the influence of the researchers' expectations, I can't agree that any such allowance opens the door to declaring the human consciousness to be determinant within the whole of reality.


Well it clearly isn't the only factor.

But it is significant that the existence of abstract information can retroactively influence the results of an experiment.

The key is to comprehend the connection between abstract information and raw consciousness.


Nothing cxan retroactively affect what has already occurred. What prevents this is a thing called ramification. When anything occurs, it affects something, and that change affects something else. Nothing occurs in a vacuum - not a contextual vacuum anyway. You literally have to dismantle the entire event chain, as well as the larger event chain that contains that event chain, and (yep) every event chain that contains any of those event chains, to retroactively affect one single event. Seriously, it can't be done.

That erasure experiment is a really vague experiment to begin with (concernign what the experiment is actually supposed to be proving) and it gets even murkier when they toss in the envelopes that either do or don't affect the outcome (which isn't ever really proven one way or the other, since the contents of the envelopes is never revealed to anyone - well, except the person who wrote it out and sealed it up, but then their influence either does or doesn't impact the experiment - but that's never fleshed out either) All in all, it reeks of someone trying to muddy the water enough to allow the double-slit experiment to survive a serious challenge (thereby preserving the careers of however many physicists there've been that have embraced the mystery of the original experiment).

I never forget that people get paid to keep these mysteries alive.




posted on May, 6 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
Nothing can retroactively affect what has already occurred.


The experiment reveals consistent results.

If you complete the experiment but do not look at the physical results, the act of deleting the measurement decides the results of the experiment.

Experiment + Keep data = Wave function collapses
Experiment + Delete data = Wave function intact


Originally posted by NorEaster
That erasure experiment is a really vague


I agree that people's comprehension of the implications of the experiment is vague but the experiment itself is consistent.


Originally posted by NorEaster
it gets even murkier when they toss in the envelopes that either do or don't affect the outcome (which isn't ever really proven one way or the other, since the contents of the envelopes is never revealed to anyone - well, except the person who wrote it out and sealed it up


No one can look at the information in the envelope before destroying it or it collapses the wave function.


edit on 6-5-2011 by Jezus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus


Originally posted by NorEaster
it gets even murkier when they toss in the envelopes that either do or don't affect the outcome (which isn't ever really proven one way or the other, since the contents of the envelopes is never revealed to anyone - well, except the person who wrote it out and sealed it up


No one can look at the information in the envelope before destroying it or it collapses the wave function.


edit on 6-5-2011 by Jezus because: (no reason given)


Okay, now this is the problem. Is someone checking the "wave function" result before the envelope is opened? And if not, then what the hell are these people calling results? The experiment results must be readily observable as soon as the experiment is completed, whether the envelope is opened in the future or not. What happens when the envelope is eventually opened? Does the experiment's data results - already recorded and stored - suddenly change when someone suddenly decides to open the envelope instead of destroying it? If so, and if it has been proven, then okay, I'll have to deal with that as a proven fact. But if that's not how it's been run, then there's nothing being proven whatsoever. In fact, it doesn't make any sense at all.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
Experiment + Keep data = Wave function collapses
Experiment + Delete data = Wave function intact


Net results are that the only result that anyone can actually verify with data = Wave function collapses

Hell, it can't be this obvious. Can it?



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by sinohptik
 


I wonder if all these staged events like 9/11 and OBL are given to us, to entrain everyone's 'View' (mind) at a specific time, place and emotion......and fundamentally create a reality through our observation.
Maybe TPTB have found out from ancient teachings that the world is created and run just by peoples thoughts....and have been using this information to create Their world of ease, and our world of dis-ease.

Maybe what we all truly Need to do when these staged mass media events are presented to us, is look away...in another direction and think good thoughts, loving thoughts, positive thoughts...... and Not entrain ourselves in fear and hatred that they wish us to be locked into.

Could things really be this Simple.
We create what we think about?"?

edit on 6-5-2011 by 1000TonBlocks because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


The scientists always got a wave pattern when doing the double slit experiment.
They didn't expect this, it didn't make sense.
So they put a camera next to the slits to find out what was occurring, to see why they got a interference pattern (wave result). They wanted to take photos of the wave/particle at the exact point of entry through the two slits.
When they did this, even before looking at the photographs of the wave/particle (which records the exact point of entry through the two slits) the result on the wall/back screen was two solid lines????
Again, they didn't expect this. Like you they didn't understand, because it makes no logical sense.
They didn't expect the result of the original (no camera) double slit experiment and they were even more confused by the result with the camera. Their expectations did not influence the result, because no one expected this, it is not logical.
They realised that taking a photograph of (measuring/observing) what was occurring at the point of entry through the slits changed the pattern being received on the wall/back screen.

So they logically decided that the act of photographing (measuring) the wave/particle must be changing the outcome ( no photo=wave, photo=particle). They thought that the camera did something to the wave/particle, that it interfered with it somehow.
They then thought lets do the experiment the same, take a photo of what is occurring at the point of entry through the slits, but build a device into the camera that deletes the photos before a person can check the photos.
The result on the back wall/screen was interference/wave pattern????
Again, they did not expect this. It is not logical. The scientists did not influence it with their expectations because no one expected this.
They found that if the photo was going to be seen by a person that the back screen would have two solid lines.
If it was never going to be seen by a person the result would be interference/wave pattern.
It all depends on whether the photo evidence of what is happening at the point of entry through the slits is ever going to be seen by a person.



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by NorEaster
 


The scientists always got a wave pattern when doing the double slit experiment.
They didn't expect this, it didn't make sense.
So they put a camera next to the slits to find out what was occurring, to see why they got a interference pattern (wave result). They wanted to take photos of the wave/particle at the exact point of entry through the two slits.
When they did this, even before looking at the photographs of the wave/particle (which records the exact point of entry through the two slits) the result on the wall/back screen was two solid lines????
Again, they didn't expect this. Like you they didn't understand, because it makes no logical sense.
They didn't expect the result of the original (no camera) double slit experiment and they were even more confused by the result with the camera. Their expectations did not influence the result, because no one expected this, it is not logical.
They realised that taking a photograph of (measuring/observing) what was occurring at the point of entry through the slits changed the pattern being received on the wall/back screen.

So they logically decided that the act of photographing (measuring) the wave/particle must be changing the outcome ( no photo=wave, photo=particle). They thought that the camera did something to the wave/particle, that it interfered with it somehow.


Okay, I've already addressed this much of it earlier in the thread. You can check it out, since it's still posted there.


They then thought lets do the experiment the same, take a photo of what is occurring at the point of entry through the slits, but build a device into the camera that deletes the photos before a person can check the photos.
The result on the back wall/screen was interference/wave pattern????
Again, they did not expect this. It is not logical. The scientists did not influence it with their expectations because no one expected this.[/quote]

I also addressed this.



They found that if the photo was going to be seen by a person that the back screen would have two solid lines.
If it was never going to be seen by a person the result would be interference/wave pattern.
It all depends on whether the photo evidence of what is happening at the point of entry through the slits is ever going to be seen by a person.


But this part is the part that bothers me. This is where someone decided to put the photo(?) in an envelope and either burn it or not, thereby (I assume that this is were the retroactivity comes into play) making the future decision (as to whether the envelope gets burned or opened) reach back and affect how the pattern looked when the photons were sent through.

So, let's assume that no one saw the photon pattern before burning the envelope with the photos inside of it. Okay. I can accept that as being true.

Then, let's say that when the envelope was burned, the pattern was revealed to be a wave pattern, but when the envelope was eventually opened, the wave pattern was revealed to be the double line pattern. Okay, I can accept that as well. After all, if this is what the researchers claim, then I'll accept it as being true.

What I have a very hard time accepting is that the act of opening or burning of the envelope actually reached back in time and changed the photon pattern on the target sheet. Not when I understand the immutable nature of specific ramification within the progressive trajectory/continuum of causation and resulting change.

I'm more inclined to assume a certain amount of "dirt in the process" once the experiment began to involve dynamics that we humans haven't really gotten a firm handle on yet. Dynamics that guys like Kreskin and David Blaine (among many others) work with all the time, but that we all infect each other with if we work together in close proximity. To me, there is too much potential for informational infestation between the humans involved in making the decisions about whether to burn the envelopes and when those decisions are actually made. Yes, any researcher can believe that his/her decision was delayed, but the truth is that we honestly don't know enough about the decision process to be absolutely certain when such a strictly channeled decision (a true yes/no choice) is being made, even if the delay is designed to be part of the decision process. Then, as far as the random nature of the burns versus opens, we know that Savants can count cards deep into multiple decks, and that the capacity to unconsciously perform trajectory calculations is uncharted territory when dealing with the human brain if the focus is extraordinarily compressed (as in which envelope associates with which specific experiment within a finite series of similar experiments)

We also don't honestly know the nature of informational dynamics between multiple researchers who work together all the time (de facto leaders and the true nature of group decision-making in this sort of situation), and we definitely don't know the informational dynamics that exist between the specific researchers involved in this series of experiments. I do know that the mentalist tricks that are performed all the time (for entertainment purposes only) involve very potent informational dynamics that exist between the performer and his/her immediate audience. Especially when the trick involves a one-on-one encounter. It's not magic, but it is a real physical exchange that ends with a result that the mentalist fully expects, and this indicates that there is some form of dynamic that potentially exists between human beings that are engaged in a shared effort.

For me, since this experiment involves such a potential for dynamic exchange between human beings, and considering the impact of the camera's photos on the photon pattern having already been proven, I'd have to alter the experiment to involve a third party that could somehow verify that the patterns actually reconfigured as a direct result of the choice between opening or burning the envelopes. A before and after photo of the screen maybe?

If that can't be done, then this experiment just as likely proves a human being's precognition ability as it proves the human being's ability to reconfigure progressive change by a future choice. In fact, if this weren't a bunch of theoretical physicists performing this experiment, then that's exactly how the results would be interpreted, and we all know that from other similar types of experiments that focus on a person predicting outcomes (which opening or burning of an envelope certainly is as much of an outcome as photons hitting a pattern sheet)

I'm sorry, but there's too much open territory in this experiment. There's too much that may or may not be indicated by the envelope introduction, and not enough control within the experiment itself once it involves this additional phase.



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
Okay, now this is the problem. Is someone checking the "wave function" result before the envelope is opened?


If the information still exists to be observed the envelope it will be a collapsed wave function (particle pattern).

Because remember if you measure it collapses the wave function.

However, if the envelope is destroyed and no information is available it will still be the wave function as if no measurement took place.


Originally posted by Jezus
"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...



Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Jezus
Experiment + Keep data = Wave function collapses
Experiment + Delete data = Wave function intact


Net results are that the only result that anyone can actually verify with data = Wave function collapses

Hell, it can't be this obvious. Can it?


The data is the measurement of what slot is used.
The wave or particle pattern is seen on the back wall.

So you can delete the measurement but still see the wave function.

Because remember if you ever measure or observe what slot used the wave function collapses.



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus


Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Jezus
Experiment + Keep data = Wave function collapses
Experiment + Delete data = Wave function intact


Net results are that the only result that anyone can actually verify with data = Wave function collapses

Hell, it can't be this obvious. Can it?


The data is the measurement of what slot is used.
The wave or particle pattern is seen on the back wall.

So you can delete the measurement but still see the wave function.

Because remember if you ever measure or observe what slot used the wave function collapses.


Again, with this as the experiment process, how does anyone really know what is being revealed? There's a small range of possible interpretations, but a range nonetheless. One option being that the choice of which envelopes to burn is being imposed upon the person/persons making that choice, and that the pattern result is being perceived collectively, with that collective perception being the driver of that choice. And yes, that is an option that most "sensible" people would immediately reject, even though what you've suggested is an infinitely less possible option. If you sit down with a pencil and a piece of paper and start sketching out, in a block diagram, all the absolutely established "nows" that would have to be completely obliterated in order to unwind the period of time that exists between the experiment's conclusion and the burning or opening of the envelope, you'd have to admit that the existential carnage would be considerable.

You'd also have to accept the truth that this span of time/causation can not logically exist in isolation from the whole of ongoing time/causation - especially since there's been no claim that the researchers did isolate the experiment's time/causation trajectory from the whole of universal time/causation (not that such an isolation is possible, of course). And once you accepted the hard reality of that truth, you'd be hard pressed to explain why no one - including yourself - experienced an obvious schism in the progressive consistency of time or causation during the performance of these experiments. Especially since these experiments were conducted many times. Okay, one time-slip might get by the entire universe, but let's be real here, many time-slips, being experienced by the entire universe? All those time/causation trajectories being obliterated and replaced with new event progressions (random progressions, I would imagine, since these researchers couldn't have reconfigured them all) without anyone noticing? So many linear trajectories tossed into absolute chaos - I'm thinking of cars on the road, planes in flight, planets circling suns, the list of immediate ramifications goes on and on.

Do you see why the "changing the past" idea is ludicrous? Progressive stability exists because events exist within trajectories. Linear trajectories and redundant structural trajectories. If you disrupt a trajectory, it never resumes. The event chain is broken forever. yes, a new event chain can initiate, but it's a new event chain. The original event chain is gone forever. Take a moment to consider one of your cells. Within that cell exists thousands of event trajectories, both linear and structural. A full span of time/causation removed and replaced by a different span - one that is not the same as the original span - would literally eliminate that perfectly synchronized ballet of event trajectories, and replace it with causal mayhem. You'd literally cease to exist instantly. You would change, yes, but not from one thing to another. You'd change from being in physical existence into not being in physical existence. In short, there is no possible delineation between a span of time/causation experienced by one part of this reality and any other part of this reality. The progression of time and causation is the one sub-structural similarity that unites it all and allows it all to interact one-to-the-other.

This is the bottom line, and if Time is not something that you feel you can embrace as being an immutable aspect of reality, then we have nothing at all that will serve as common ground in a debate on the topic. I realize that there are people who choose to not acknowledge this fundamental part of reality, but I don't believe that their view means that Time's progressive impact and that ongoing dominion over everything that exists, ceases to exist, and comes into existence, is a plausible point of speculation. Too much proves it to be inescapable, even if there are a handful of anomalous experiment results that some true believers interpret as suggesting that there's a way out of its clutches. Interpretation is one thing and reality is another. Reality doesn't adjust to interpretation and never has. Affecting reality is not the same as violating it.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I have re read you opening post entitled:
Needed: A Little Help With That Double Slit Experiment.
I want to verify what it is your are asking for. A friend of yours sent you a video and you want help to disprove the videos underlying message that consciousness is primary. Your own personal belief is that matter, particles are the building blocks of life. That 'things' exist prior to the experience of 'things'.

The illusion of matter appears within consciousness. Consciousness can not know it exists without the illusion of matter/things.
If you were unconscious all of the time (in deep sleep) you would not know matter/things. 'Things' would not exist, consciousness is alone in deep sleep, that's why we love deep sleep - no sound and fury. Consciousness is never away from what you are, it is what you are, even in deep sleep, especially in deep sleep-a big free expanse.
When we start to dream images start to appear, colors, noises. Dreams seem pretty real, the mind or consciousness or something produce images that we believe to be real. Every day we have to sleep.
When we wake we see a world with residual images, they reside in the belief that this is the same old, same old, same sh1t different day.
Really it is the other way round, different sh1t same day.
'Things happen' but 'It is always now'.
You are the now, the viewer of this happening.
The happenings, events are the moving, changing 'things'.
The watcher (consciousness) is the one constant, it never comes and goes.
Without the space of consciousness no-thing can appear.

Anyway in your op are you saying that the expectations of the researchers influenced the result? I think that is what you are implying. Yet each time they did the experiment they had been shocked and confused at the results.

Can you sit down with a pencil and a piece of paper and start sketching out, in a block diagram, all the absolutely established "nows"???? The funny thing about 'now' is that no matter how you look at it and the more you look at it the weirder it gets. How long is now? Where is now appearing? Is there ever more than one now? Show me where one now ends and another begins. See if you can find the past or future unless you imagine it in your head.
Time is only ever a thought. Where is tomorrow? Where is yesterday? Yesterday and tomorrow are only words (ideas, concepts)that make you believe that they exist , but do they exist? Words make us believe allsorts of 'things' exist.
We believe the words know what they are talking about, but do we understand what the words mean?
When ever we 'think' of time (past or future), it is always in the present. All memories appear in this moment of now, always. It is impossible not to be in this 'one' eternal now.
Yet most people aren't aware of this fact.

When it is not fully known that all that exists (if anything does) is this 'now' present eternal infinite space of here and now(of consciousness), there will always be a wanting, a needing for more.
This 'more' is a total illusion.
There is no more because this is it, right here and right now.
That's your lot.

When this ultimate truth is seen and completely known, there comes with it a freedom from all lies.


edit on 9-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I have re read you opening post entitled:
Needed: A Little Help With That Double Slit Experiment.
I want to verify what it is your are asking for. A friend of yours sent you a video and you want help to disprove the videos underlying message that consciousness is primary. Your own personal belief is that matter, particles are the building blocks of life. That 'things' exist prior to the experience of 'things'.


I believe that matter is our own human perception of redundant structural event trajectories, and that particles are small versions of these matrixed trajectories. We perceive these layered wholes as solid and stable because our corporeal bodies and brains are extremely complex versions of the very same wholes. Just so that we've clear on what I believe.


The illusion of matter appears within consciousness. Consciousness can not know it exists without the illusion of matter/things.


I don't believe this to be true. Consciousness is the result of dynamic information (perception) reaching a level of sophistication that allows it to perceive itself as existent and possessing existential Identity. This level of sophistication is not dependent on props wandering around that can be also perceived.


If you were unconscious all of the time (in deep sleep) you would not know matter/things. 'Things' would not exist, consciousness is alone in deep sleep, that's why we love deep sleep - no sound and fury. Consciousness is never away from what you are, it is what you are, even in deep sleep, especially in deep sleep-a big free expanse.


We need sleep. Deep sleep and REM sleep, and for two very different reasons. The body is renewed by deep sleep and the mind is renewed by REM sleep. Consciousness? No one knows the impact that deep sleep has on it. You can say that you know, but the truth is that no one knows. The brain's functionality is deeply affected, but if you believe that consciousness is not tied closely to brain activity, then the brain's functionality is not an accurate indicator. Consciousness is not so easily contained within your definition of it.


When we start to dream images start to appear, colors, noises. Dreams seem pretty real, the mind or consciousness or something produce images that we believe to be real. Every day we have to sleep.


Dreams are the result of our brains shifting data from short term memory to long term memory. Since the brain is handling information - which does physically exist - the stimuli that is directly associated with information by the brain triggers response to that stimuli, which the brain tries its best to configure into logical event trajectories. Often the data clusters align only to an extent, and we end up with dreams that end up making no sense whatsoever. Still, it's better than pure sensory mayhem.


When we wake we see a world with residual images, they reside in the belief that this is the same old, same old, same sh1t different day.


Then again, the event trajectories (matrixed and/or linear in nature) are the same, and we're accustomed to these trajectories since they're still in ongoing existence since the last time we perceived them. New matrixed trajectories that are similar to the well know trajectories are interpreted as being the same or similar, so yes, same sh*t different day. The thing is that it actually is the same thing, since it's not a new day, it's just our brains returning to engage an event trajectory umbrella that never ended just because we took a break from engaging it. It's not about us in the end. We are just part of it all as a whole.


Really it is the other way round, different sh1t same day.
'Things happen' but 'It is always now'.


It's now and a memory of now. The event and the information that represents that the event occurred. That information persists.


You are the now, the viewer of this happening.
The happenings, events are the moving, changing 'things'.
The watcher (consciousness) is the one constant, it never comes and goes.
Without the space of consciousness no-thing can appear.


You and I are both unique and inimitable matrixed event trajectories. As corporeal wholes, we are created and recreated from instant to instant, and this causes us to perceive all other matrixed event trajectories as being now and solid and stable. The truth is that we're in "synchronized freefall" with every other matrixed event trajectory that shares our sub-structural Unit Rate of Change (URC). As conscious information/event trajectories, we evolve at that same URC as our brains address the constant effort required to maintain the corporeal event trajectory's ongoing survival.

You and I obviously see this all very differently.


Anyway in your op are you saying that the expectations of the researchers influenced the result? I think that is what you are implying. Yet each time they did the experiment they had been shocked and confused at the results.


Expectation is more often a visceral certainty than a conscious determination, and even with the beam projection results followed by the "unobserved" single photon shoot, their latent certainty would have been hard to squelch. The impact, as I stated, would have been amplified by the number of minds focused on each photon shoot as they occurred once the camera was in place (expectation and anticipation of "seeing" the documented photon behavior), as well as the relative weakness of residual information matrixing (structural ramifications) at the level of a single photon.

Shocked and confused may be the words that were used, but those are words that a writer used. I'm not saying that the researchers consciously expected what they got in the unobserved shoots, but to say that they were shocked when the shoot "behaved properly" when observed....? I don't know what they felt at a visceral level. Human beings are always a wild card addition where experiments are concerned. They say what they say, but they're famously unreliable as parts of any process.


Can you sit down with a pencil and a piece of paper and start sketching out, in a block diagram, all the absolutely established "nows"???? The funny thing about 'now' is that no matter how you look at it and the more you look at it the weirder it gets. How long is now? Where is now appearing? Is there ever more than one now? Show me where one now ends and another begins. See if you can find the past or future unless you imagine it in your head.


We know that linear and/or redundant events can only become organized as definitive trajectory progressions if units exist that can become organized. I have coined the term Unit Rate of Change (URC) to describe the specific duration of each event unit. These units' uniform nature enables isolated event trajectories to engage with one another to launch linear event trajectories (like a ball rolling across a floor). If not for this unit standardization, no interplay could ever occur between anything at all. The Unit Rate of Change is the indivisible foundation of Time itself.

The event ceases to exist once the URC duration expires. Information emerges in direct rersponse to the event, at the same URC, and it is this information (that represents each event as having occurred) that exists as our perception of past.


Time is only ever a thought. Where is tomorrow? Where is yesterday? Yesterday and tomorrow are only words (ideas, concepts)that make you believe that they exist , but do they exist? Words make us believe allsorts of 'things' exist.


Information is what gives us a sense of tomorrow. I call this unique form of dynamic information Intellect, and only humanity configures it. Intellect is humanity's eternal conscious expression, and it's launched as an event/information hybrid result of the human brain's relentless effort to manage the entire corporeal event matrix that we call the human body. As information, it never ceases to exist, and part of the whole of it is what you've been calling consciousness. I call consciousness Corporeal Conscious Awareness (CCA) while the body and brain are still functional, and Post-corporeal Conscious Awareness (PCA) once the body and brain have died. Right now, your CCA is reading this, and when you have died, your PCA will be your experience of eternal existence. The Greeks called it the soul, and others call it the human spirit.

As I said, it's obvious that my approach to this issue is much more precise than what you've indicated to be your approach. I've worked very hard to ensure that there are no contradictions between my notions and what has been proven to be true and factual. This little experiment was (likely) my last question, but as I've challenged my notions concerning it here, it's begun to appear that I don't have any problem with what the experiment actually suggests, as opposed to what has been claimed that it suggests.


We believe the words know what they are talking about, but do we understand what the words mean?
When ever we 'think' of time (past or future), it is always in the present. All memories appear in this moment of now, always. It is impossible not to be in this 'one' eternal now.
Yet most people aren't aware of this fact.

When it is not fully known that all that exists (if anything does) is this 'now' present eternal infinite space of here and now(of consciousness), there will always be a wanting, a needing for more.
This 'more' is a total illusion.
There is no more because this is it, right here and right now.
That's your lot.

When this ultimate truth is seen and completely known, there comes with it a freedom from all lies.


edit on 9-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


I think that you're more concerned about describing what you think than thinking about what you think. I can appreciate that, since I'm a writer, and I love the presentation as well. Still, this isn't about the show that words can put on. It's about the true nature of reality, and there is too much open space between the units that you present as being the sub-structure of all that exists. A sub-structure needs to be much more densely packed than what your musings offer as substance.
edit on 5/9/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
Again, with this as the experiment process, how does anyone really know what is being revealed?


Because the experiment is consistent.

If the information is available the wave function collapses.
If the information is not available the wave function stays intact.


Originally posted by NorEaster
Too much proves it to be inescapable, even if there are a handful of anomalous experiment results that some true believers interpret as suggesting that there's a way out of its clutches. Interpretation is one thing and reality is another. Reality doesn't adjust to interpretation and never has. Affecting reality is not the same as violating it.


I agree the experiment is anomalous.

But interpretation does not change the results of the experiment.

Destroying information influences the results of an experiment that in our comprehension of time should already be a concrete physical reality.

It appears that the quantum world does not care about on comprehension of time.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by NorEaster
Again, with this as the experiment process, how does anyone really know what is being revealed?


Because the experiment is consistent.

If the information is available the wave function collapses.
If the information is not available the wave function stays intact.


Originally posted by NorEaster
Too much proves it to be inescapable, even if there are a handful of anomalous experiment results that some true believers interpret as suggesting that there's a way out of its clutches. Interpretation is one thing and reality is another. Reality doesn't adjust to interpretation and never has. Affecting reality is not the same as violating it.


I agree the experiment is anomalous.

But interpretation does not change the results of the experiment.

Destroying information influences the results of an experiment that in our comprehension of time should already be a concrete physical reality.

It appears that the quantum world does not care about on comprehension of time.



But - and I repeat - it is very plausible that the quantum disregard for Time interpretation is incorrect. There are other interpretations, as I noted above. And these interpretations don't require the kind of overwhelming violation of the entire existential structure of reality that your interpretation does. That's all I have to say anymore about the burned envelope wrinkle of this experiment suite. Declaring Time to be irrelavent - in the face of all the evidence and raw logic that's piled against such a declaration - is not being responsible in your interpretation. I get the feeling that the only place anyone gets a star and flag for that kind of thinking is on this board.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
But - and I repeat - it is very plausible that the quantum disregard for Time interpretation is incorrect.


It doesn't disregard time, it simply proves we do not fully comprehend its nature.


Originally posted by NorEaster
And these interpretations don't require the kind of overwhelming violation of the entire existential structure of reality that your interpretation does.


I am discussing the raw results of the experiment, not any particular interpretations of its implications.


Originally posted by NorEaster
Declaring Time to be irrelavent -


An experiment doesn't prove a concept irrelevant, it simply proves we do not fully comprehend its nature.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


It is becoming obvious that you do not believe science and you do not believe in god.
So i conclude that you only listen to what you already know, and if you don't know it, it can't be true.

There is nothing in this world of 'things' that can be trusted.
Only the self is to be trusted.
Find that 'one' true self.

Life does not have to end to see god.
Life begins with god.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   
www.youtube.com...
Quick and cute example of it, very easy to understand.


1.Matter shoots through one slit, shape on grid appears as slit.
2.Matter shoots through two slits, shape on grid is wave pattern.
3.Wave pattern insinuates that the matter is interfering with itself and causing waves.
4.Scientists shoot one at a time to make sure they don't interfere.
5.Wave pattern still appears.
6.Matter is going through both slits, interfering with itself, also going through none, also going through both, also going through just one. Expressing all possibility in a single result.
7.Scientists try to observe this phenomena, wave pattern goes back to matter pattern.
8.Observation causes the other realities to collapse into only one time-line, without the observer all reality is a chaotic jumble of potential but no manifestation thereof.

Conclusion:
God manifests reality.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


The earth is the centre of the universe and if you say it isn't then you are being irresponsible in your interpretation. The earth is flat and you can't make me believe otherwise.

I know it looks like time exists but it only exists as a concept.
All of 'time' appears within this moment, presently. When else can it appear?

Only this moment (eternally now) exists. There is no other time, in fact time is redundant in this ever present now.
We can imagine time and plan tomorrow, but tomorrow never comes because when you get there it will be now.
The 'thing' that determines the 'now' is you.
This 'now' and you are inseparable.

When this is overlooked, we become fragmented and don't know where we are.
We don't know where we are or who we are. We feel lost. This feeling lost can also feel as though there is something missing, that something has to be found to feel whole and complete.
We look to find what ever it is to make us feel at ease, because we can not help feeling the dis-ease. The dis- ease that is felt propells us toward finding the truth, that will set us free.
We seek the truth to free us from all the confusion in this world.

We are all seeking something, anything that will make the pain of life stop.
It is not life that hurts, it is the resistance to life.
We do not see that life is right here and right now, it is what we are.

Time causes un rest, because to relax we have to stop, but it is hard to stop when yesterday and tomorrow are playing in the head. Juggling the whole past and the whole future ( all only thoughts in your head that can be blown away with a gentle breeze) in this present now. Why waste this moment, which is the only moment you will ever have, stressing about things that aren't real?

God gave us life and most play in the shadows of the mind.
Life is right here and right now.
Just this.
And 'this' is easy.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by MonarchSlave
 


Very nice.
Quick, easy and straight to the point.
I like it alot.

Namaste.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by MonarchSlave
www.youtube.com...
Quick and cute example of it, very easy to understand.


1.Matter shoots through one slit, shape on grid appears as slit.
2.Matter shoots through two slits, shape on grid is wave pattern.
3.Wave pattern insinuates that the matter is interfering with itself and causing waves.
4.Scientists shoot one at a time to make sure they don't interfere.
5.Wave pattern still appears.
6.Matter is going through both slits, interfering with itself, also going through none, also going through both, also going through just one. Expressing all possibility in a single result.
7.Scientists try to observe this phenomena, wave pattern goes back to matter pattern.
8.Observation causes the other realities to collapse into only one time-line, without the observer all reality is a chaotic jumble of potential but no manifestation thereof.

Conclusion:
God manifests reality.


Interestingly, they don't do this experiment within a vacuum chamber environment, and yet they never factor in the impact of atmospheric molecules that exist within the space between the photon gun and the slit and the slit and the collector panel. I find that curious. I find a lot of this experiement to be curious. I also find it odd that some people immediately assume that the burned envelope addition to the experiment means that we don't understand the ramifications of events that have already occurred. I would imagine that other types of people would be inclined to make other assumptions (given the exact same test results).

I guess that I'm just calling this experiment out on being slipshod hack science. After this small examination, I don't think I have any other alternative. They didn't protect the test from impact contamination (oxygen, hydrogen, CO2, whatever) and they didn't allow for other, less implausible, hypotheses when determining the result implications. Classic Youtube science.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by NorEaster
 


It is becoming obvious that you do not believe science and you do not believe in god.
So i conclude that you only listen to what you already know, and if you don't know it, it can't be true.

There is nothing in this world of 'things' that can be trusted.
Only the self is to be trusted.
Find that 'one' true self.

Life does not have to end to see god.
Life begins with god.


Direct ramification is a pretty good standard when trying to determine the truth of anything. Like leaves moving at the end of a high tree limb. You can tell which way the wind is blowing up there, even if you can't feel it from where you stand. Nothing has the power to mask the impact it has on other things. It can hide, but if it's dynamic, then it will eventually expose itself when it affects something that isn't hidden.

I know what I know, and I've learned a lot in the last year alone. Even more important is the fact that I've learned how to objectively recognize what isn't true and can't be true. That's the hardest thing to learn and often even harder to accept. I've buried a lot of cherished myths and lies over the last few years, and while I miss them, I'm better off without them. Reality is magical enough without inventing stuff that simply can't exist.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join