Originally posted by -PLB-

The "not true" obviously was directed to the claim that "science within the confines of its own standards will not allow for such explanations" and not about whether the claims itself are true or not.

Are you not paying any attention to what is said or are you trolling? This is one of the most extreme cases of quote mining I have ever seen.

What's going on here with the double talk? Let me back this up to make it real simple.

Yes, the "not true" was directed to my statement "science within the confines of its own standards will not allow for such explanations" right? right. Moving on... The he denied it.

I know it wasn't about whether the claims are not true. It was only about my statement. So what's the problem here? I'm I missing something? Good grief. Now I'm a troll because you don't understand the context?

So, is the basic question here, aside from the bickering, whether or not all matter has consciousness and is therfore aware of it's surroundings, or that OUR consciousness somehow affects the behavior of all matter?

Originally posted by FlySolo
Yes, the "not true" was directed to my statement "science within the confines of its own standards will not allow for such explanations" right? right. Moving on... The he denied it.

I know it wasn't about whether the claims are not true. It was only about my statement. So what's the problem here? I'm I missing something? Good grief. Now I'm a troll because you don't understand the context?

Yes you are missing something, when you say "he denied it", which implies the same topic was being discussed in bot cases, but it wasn't.

The first topic was your claim that science will not allow for such explanations. I provided a link leading to a scientific paper proving your claim is untrue.

The second topic was not the claim that science won't allow for such explanations. Rather it's the metaphysical explanations themselves which I am not claiming are untrue:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by FlySolo
Science and metaphysical beliefs have a long way to go before you can say "this is simply not true". We're not even close

First, I never said it wasn't true.

This was a reference to the statement I replied to, meaning I'm not claiming all metaphysical beliefs are untrue.

So this is not a denial of my earlier statement that you're wrong that these things are not allowed by science, as the Bem paper illustrates.

Do you understand that by saying "he denied it" you're totally missing the context in one topic, the other topic, or both?

Anyhow, did you look at the Daryl Bem 2011 paper? Isn't that an example of a scientist publishing a peer-reviewed paper on a topic you suggested is beyond the scope of science?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by FlySolo
I dunno. How do you explain quantum entanglement?

I made a specific comparison between my analogy of the turkey changing temperature when being observed, and the wavefunction collapsing (or whatever happens) when a quantum scale particle is observed.

I made no attempt to explain every phenomenon in the known universe.

Perhaps some things on a macro scale are impacted by quantum entanglement. But I'm pretty tired of people making the claims about "quantum consciousness" etc with absolutely no evidence to back up their claims. The lack of any evidence but anecdotal doesn't mean the claims are false, but I have anecdotal evidence from a psychologist that he has a dragon living in his garage, should I believe that too because of an anecdote?

Actually I've had some pretty interesting anecdotal experiences myself that I'd like to believe are along the lines of your anecdotes. However when I step back from what I want to be true, to try to figure out what really is true, I can't rule out the possibility of coincidence.

I don't claim science has everything figured out yet, obviously it doesn't. But the things that scientists are proven are what I claim to know. Things that science hasn't proven yet includes some things I believe. But science has shown when it makes new discoveries that beliefs have been overturned by scientific evidence, so we can't really say whether we know these things to be true or not. We are pretty good at deceiving ourselves...just look at all the things we choose to believe with little or no evidence at all; this is the human condition.

ps: I agree with your conclusions 99%. The analogy is good too, just a little flawed i believe. I mean the experiment. Which makes me doubt they ever did turkey experiments for this reason. If they did, I do hope they were more precise. But I am always happy to learn.

Originally posted by BBalazs
errors: you yourself note that you used 2 very different temperature gauges. although they do both measure temperature, you do realize that in this unscientific setting, this anomaly could account for what is observed. in fact you partially noted this yourself. In another way: how can two very different scientific instruments (albeit measuring the same thing), be offset against each other when by description the two temperatures probes are different (shape, size,etc), and this could partially account for readings mismatch.

I don't really see how this is an error. In the two double slit experiments, the instruments are also different. In one it is also measured which slit the particle is going through, and in the other it is not. The way this is measured causes the difference in results. I think that is the point of this thread. Not an observer causes the difference, but the (difference in the) measuring device is causing the difference.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by BBalazs
errors: you yourself note that you used 2 very different temperature gauges. although they do both measure temperature, you do realize that in this unscientific setting, this anomaly could account for what is observed. in fact you partially noted this yourself. In another way: how can two very different scientific instruments (albeit measuring the same thing), be offset against each other when by description the two temperatures probes are different (shape, size,etc), and this could partially account for readings mismatch.

I don't really see how this is an error. In the two double slit experiments, the instruments are also different. In one it is also measured which slit the particle is going through, and in the other it is not. The way this is measured causes the difference in results. I think that is the point of this thread. Not an observer causes the difference, but the (difference in the) measuring device is causing the difference.

edit on 18-1-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

edit: so what I am stating art demonstration is flawed. it doesn't demonstrate the double slit experiment.
Have you guys not been following quantum mechanics?
The double slit experiment is NOT about awareness, its about MULTIVERSE, no awareness required.

Does this demonstrate awareness?
Maybe. We don't have enough info. But probably not, just means we don't understand enough. Its a leap of faith to say awareness at this point.
but multiverse, is a def possibility.
ps: I am only talking about the turkey experiment as proof. forget the double slit bs. i never brought it into question myself.

thats partially what i am saying! " Not an observer causes the difference, but the (difference in the) measuring device is causing the difference" - so how can you disprove the observers effect, when we know that the measuring device is causing the difference. flawed setup! Bingo, now go to error 2.

Originally posted by BBalazs
point 2: off course scientific instruments effect result. common knowledge.

And this is what is called the observer effect. This effect is also present with the double slit experiments, to a rather large degree. That is because measuring individual particles is extremely hard without influencing the particle to a significant degree.

okay, so i am totally going to rephrase:
1. The double slit experiment is not about awareness, but multiverse.
1,5: So off course equating double slit experiment with awareness is idiotic and nothing more then a new age scam, mumbo/jumbo.
2. The turkey experiment is flawed on so many levels, which you have not disproven by the way, even though you think you have, that it simply cannot be taken seriously. Firstly it tries to disprove something, that doesn't exist (see comment 1)...It is not a serious science experiment, but a metaphor.
3. I agree with the conclusions (partially) of the turkey experiment, even though it is flawed.
4. hence to disprove awareness (not the experiment), you just need to logically demonstrate that that is not the conclusion the can be reached. it is an over grasp. No need for experiments. Awareness matched with double slit is a logical error. end of.

edit on 18-1-2012 by BBalazs because: edit2

edit on 18-1-2012 by BBalazs because: edit2

1) The double slit experiment is also not about multiverses. Multiverses is just one possible explanation, but it is very speculative and I don't think it is widely supported.

2) The turkey experiment is flawed in a similar way as the double slit experiment is flawed. The measuring device is influencing the outcome of the experiment.

3) The part you disagree to isn't really that essential. When you take in account the draft, the same argument holds.

4) And it is. However, many people incorrectly think that awareness does influence the experiment. The purpose of this thread is to point out that this is wrong

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by BBalazs
point 2: off course scientific instruments effect result. common knowledge.

And this is what is called the observer effect. This effect is also present with the double slit experiments, to a rather large degree. That is because measuring individual particles is extremely hard without influencing the particle to a significant degree.

okay, so i am totally going to rephrase:
1. The double slit experiment is not about awareness, but multiverse.
1,5: So off course equating double slit experiment with awareness is idiotic and nothing more then a new age scam, mumbo/jumbo.
2. The turkey experiment is flawed on so many levels, which you have not disproven by the way, even though you think you have, that it simply cannot be taken seriously. Firstly it tries to disprove something, that doesn't exist (see comment 1)...It is not a serious science experiment, but a metaphor.
3. I agree with the conclusions (partially) of the turkey experiment, even though it is flawed.
4. hence to disprove awareness (not the experiment), you just need to logically demonstrate that that is not the conclusion the can be reached. it is an over grasp. No need for experiments. Awareness matched with double slit is a logical error. end of.

edit on 18-1-2012 by BBalazs because: edit2

edit on 18-1-2012 by BBalazs because: edit2

1) The double slit experiment is also not about multiverses. Multiverses is just one possible explanation, but it is very speculative and I don't think it is widely supported.

2) The turkey experiment is flawed in a similar way as the double slit experiment is flawed. The measuring device is influencing the outcome of the experiment.

3) The part you disagree to isn't really that essential. When you take in account the draft, the same argument holds.

4) And it is. However, many people incorrectly think that awareness does influence the experiment. The purpose of this thread is to point out that this is wrong

I am very well aware of what an observers effect is.
My point is exactly that the double slit experiment has no implications on it.
If any, see quantum mechanics.
finally, who the fck cares about the observers effect (as awareness), at this point we cannot detach from it!
and with laboratory conditions and 2 same household thermometers, i betya I could produce the same result for the turkeys...more exactly the temp difference would be so slight that common instruments would not be able to pick it up, if at all...we would need to get down to quantum level to see any change....so the turkey allegory is scientifically wrong, it just provides an illustration for a faulty experiment, using different equipment, not accounting for backdraft, and the finally disturbing the whole process. would you call that a valid scientific experiment, that any conclusions can be drawn upon?
regarding multiverse,it may not be supported ( i presume you mean academia here), but that makes no difference, in fact experimentation has moved way beyond this point. wether a theory is supported makes no difference to wether it is valid. and as pointed out, this result is only applied as some starting point in multiverse, which actually build upon it. but hey, if you discount a totally valid and proven (as much as einstein) theory, because its not popular, that up to you. your filters, not mine. I dabble in all theory, as I know that they will all be wrong in the vestitude of time.

regarding observers effect,a last word. you cannot deny or confirm observers effect, as you cannot detach yourself from it. even instrument measue what you want them to! descreptency is results does not equal observers effect, but bad science. but if you are able to do this, please let me know
1 thing we know for sure small stuff acts weird, not s it is supposed to, and art experiment is flawed as regarding observers effect. it is not a demonstration of observers effect, but of a bad setup. you cannot demonstrate observers effect for gods sake, but you can turn to magic tricks with turkey to provide a false analogy. but fair enough, if anyone should presume awareness based on this, this should shut them up.
in history we have considered the earth the center, thats a type of observers effect to. or remember when there was nothing smaller then an atom, and we had solved it all. the experiment is flawed, wether you care to see it or not.

let me sum up arbs kitchen experiment: it is an unfortunate misadventure in the culinary science arts.

Like the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, the double-slit experiment is often used to highlight the differences and similarities between the various interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Copenhagen interpretation
The Copenhagen interpretation is a consensus among some of the pioneers in the field of quantum mechanics that it is undesirable to posit anything that goes beyond the mathematical formulae and the kinds of physical apparatus and reactions that enable us to gain some knowledge of what goes on at the atomic scale. One of the mathematical constructs that enables experimenters to predict very accurately certain experimental results is sometimes called a probability wave. In its mathematical form it is analogous to the description of a physical wave, but its "crests" and "troughs" indicate levels of probability for the occurrence of certain phenomena (e.g., a spark of light at a certain point on a detector screen) that can be observed in the macro world of ordinary human experience.
The probability "wave" can be said to "pass through space" because the probability values that one can compute from its mathematical representation are dependent on time. One cannot speak of the location of any particle such as a photon between the time it is emitted and the time it is detected simply because in order to say that something is located somewhere at a certain time one has to detect it. The requirement for the eventual appearance of an interference pattern is that particles be emitted, and that there be a screen with at least two distinct paths for the particle to take from the emitter to the detection screen. Experiments observe nothing whatsoever between the time of emission of the particle and its arrival at the detection screen. If a ray tracing is then made as if a light wave (as understood in classical physics) is wide enough to take both paths, then that ray tracing will accurately predict the appearance of maxima and minima on the detector screen when many particles pass through the apparatus and gradually "paint" the expected interference pattern.
Path-integral formulation


One of an infinite number of equally likely paths used in the Feynman path integral. (see also: Wiener process.)
The Copenhagen interpretation is similar to the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics provided by Feynman. The path integral formulation replaces the classical notion of a single, unique trajectory for a system, with a sum over all possible trajectories. The trajectories are added together by using functional integration.
Each path is considered equally likely, and thus contributes the same amount. However, the phase of this contribution at any given point along the path is determined by the action along the path.
All these contributions are then added together, and the magnitude of the final result is squared, to get the probability distribution for the position of a particle:

As is always the case when calculating probability, the results must then be normalized:

To summarize, the probability distribution of the outcome is the normalized square of the norm of the superposition, over all paths from the point of origin to the final point, of waves propagating proportionally to the action along each path. The differences in the cumulative action along the different paths (and thus the relative phases of the contributions) produces the interference pattern observed by the double-slit experiment. Feynman stressed that his formulation is merely a mathematical description, not an attempt to describe a real process that we cannot measure.

Relational interpretation
According to the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics, first proposed by Carlo Rovelli,[30] observations such as those in the double-slit experiment result specifically from the interaction between the observer (measuring device) and the object being observed (physically interacted with), not any absolute property possessed by the object. In the case of an electron, if it is initially "observed" at a particular slit, then the observer–particle (photon–electron) interaction includes information about the electron's position. This partially constrains the particle's eventual location at the screen. If it is "observed" (measured with a photon) not at a particular slit but rather at the screen, then there is no "which path" information as part of the interaction, so the electron's "observed" position on the screen is determined strictly by its probability function. This makes the resulting pattern on the screen the same as if each individual electron had passed through both slits. It has also been suggested that space and distance themselves are relational, and that an electron can appear to be in "two places at once" – for example, at both slits – because its spatial relations to particular points on the screen remain identical from both slit locations.