The "observer effect": Is it proof the system is "aware it's being observed?"

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?

reply to post by no special characters


They should hire me to work with some of you and your hacking and surveillance techniques at all levels of
Military
Private Gang Stalking groups
Corporations


Sloppy sloppy

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 RBTRBT
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?

I know this is a popular idea.

What we know or at least think we know is that consciousness arises from the brains of at least humans, and quite possibly other life forms as well depending on exactly how you define "consciousness" which it turns out isn't the easiest thing in the world to define:


Consciousness

Consciousness is a term that refers to the relationship between the mind and the world with which it interacts.[1] It has been defined as: subjectivity, awareness, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.[2] Despite the difficulty in definition, many philosophers believe that there is a broadly shared underlying intuition about what consciousness is.

Now if you cherry-pick that definition and say it just means "awareness", then my home kitchen experiment proved that the dead turkey was aware its temperature was being taken with a fat thermometer instead of a skinny one because it gave a different result with the fat thermometer.

However, I think this is an extremely naive interpretation of the experimental results, which is also being applied in the "what the bleep do we know" movie which implies that subatomic particles are aware they are being observed. At least it seems pretty obvious to me that in both cases, the results of the experiment have nothing to do with any consciousness, but rather how a measuring method can interact with and affect the system it is measuring.

And if you don't cherry-pick the definition of consciousness and apply that whole definition in context, it becomes even more apparent that consciousness is not involved. Whatever mind the turkey had at one time probably didn't function any more after 4 hours in the oven.

Even if the turkey's consciousness survived somehow and he went on to live in turkey heaven, I don't think such an explanation is required for the experimental results I obtained with the two different thermometers, nor is consciousness required as an explanation for why a particle behaves differently when it's observed in the double slit experiment.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


My fault. I just got home from a 10 hour day driving 4 hours in blizzard like conditions. I don't have the stamina now to keep up now but I'm sorry. Things get lost in translation sometimes online.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


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.

you also failed to take into account backdraft, draft...Yes I know you switched the turkey around, but still...you have in essence pooped on the experiment. the observation of switching would have to be 2 separate experiments at the least...


there are a few more point to.

anyway, I read the posts on marko whatever his name is. i learned a lot from you, and buddhasystem....
i think we think similarly...but 1 thing: you do realize you were taken down the rabbit hole by beeb, mary and there rest for over a year...


I also have a proposition for you, one that you may very much enjoy, also for buddhasystem....care to hear?

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 FlySolo
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

It's a straw man argument whether you ever heard of him or not. You're saying what science will or won't do, when you don't know what science will or won't do, that's the straw man.

science will not embrace metaphysics, ufology or spirits. This is a fact. Showing one paper to prove the contrary sounds more like a straw man by your definition.
arb, science should not embrace these things, I agree. However, if you look at these as creative thinking, thinking outside the box (as long as the scientist is aware of this), it is defiantly a possibility of examination.
And btw, to some extent scientist do embrace their own world views, think einstein.
Or ponder on this. I will confidently bet with you that in 100 years our physics will be very different.
Do you understand what I am getting at? Think black holes, or black energy. Not saying they don't exist, but say, if someone gave a plausible explanation, devolving from einstein, would anyone listen? Plausible explanation scientifically testable. My point: We should allow even alternative schools of physics, you don't know were the next breakthrough will come from. You don't know if we are right, we just know our science to be precise on our understanding. In no way am I making an argument for nut jobs. But with instant dismissal, the very few real ideas are also lost....Think fractals. Think what fractals maths, physics could turn into? Not so long ago it was dismissed as a parlor trick. Why, because of other idiots.
The above can be metaphorical systems.

You can't prove the flying spaghetti monster isn't real. That's not a very good basis to believe it.

What kind of debate tactic do you call this then? Ridicule to discredit? We don't have historical testimony by flying spaghetti monster witnesses. I would prefer you keep this discussion on track and not resort to this type of obvious mockery.

However I have even less confidence in the shaman, unless he can show me a double blind study, confirming the effectiveness of his treatment, which ordinarily, he can't.

How convenient since Peruvian, African, and South American medicine men don't have peer reviewed studies. Would you listen to a Vancouver doctor then? Dr. Gabor Maté. A 70-80 % success rate over traditional western methods such as methadone. Patented because it's synthetic. Hence, my point

edit on 15-1-2012 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)

This is a critical point.
Really, but a totally different thread.
Again, real, but science from another perspective, is dismissed as junk, when there is piles of evidence. What evidence do we have for antidepressants? They are as affective as sugar pills, and would probably not be allowed to be sold NOW.

Turkey analogy was all wrong lol.

However the electron may not be aware but the system (universe) is. There is no known reason why the photon should behave differently from being observed to not being observed.

cienceDaily (Feb. 27, 1998) — REHOVOT, Israel, February 26, 1998--One of the most bizarre premises of quantum theory, which has long fascinated philosophers and physicists alike, states that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality.
In a study reported in the February 26 issue of Nature (Vol. 391, pp. 871-874), researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science have now conducted a highly controlled experiment demonstrating how a beam of electrons is affected by the act of being observed. The experiment revealed that the greater the amount of "watching," the greater the observer's influence on what actually takes place.

source

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.

reply to post by BBalazs


When a measuring device is influencing the experiment, it is a case of the observer effect. So the observer effect is not being disproved, it is just explained what it is using the example of the turkeys. The misconception is that the observer effect is the effect of a cautious observer observing the results and by the act of observing it, changing the outcome, as if the test subject is aware of being observed, and because of it changes its behavior. That is not the case. It is the measurement instruments influencing the experiment.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by BBalazs

 

When a measuring device is influencing the experiment, it is a case of the observer effect. So the observer effect is not being disproved, it is just explained what it is using the example of the turkeys. The misconception is that the observer effect is the effect of a cautious observer observing the results and by the act of observing it, changing the outcome, as if the test subject is aware of being observed, and because of it changes its behavior. That is not the case. It is the measurement instruments influencing the experiment.

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

see above comments, expanded.
Point 1:yes, but it does disprove the observers effect (not in its quantum meaning anyway). especially the turkey experiment. it is not a scientific experiment. it demonstrates nothing. as I have pointed out. surely you cannot be advocating quantum mechanics in the kitchen? it should be every housewives hobby, right?
point 2: off course scientific instruments effect result. common knowledge.
the double slit experiment is not about observers effect, at least not in current research. it not about awareness, but multiverse.
but to understand that we need to move on to quantum mechanics and leave the flawed kitchen experiment behind.to do that we need to leave behind the kitchen experiment, as it is of little relevance to multiverse theory and the setup is totally wrong.
btw, I am not arguing for an observers effect, but I am saying the conclusions reached have NOTHING to do with what is actually being studies (either in the film, or the turkey experiment).


edit: this (observers effect) is not what the double slit experiment is about to put it in a nutshell. its not about awareness.



getting my drift?


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.

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

reply to post by -PLB-

i posted a link saying otherwise. Did you read it?

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.

reply to post by minor007


I did just now. It does not disagree. It doesn't really make a statement on what causes the interference pattern to disappear exactly. As far as I know, this is yet not fully understood. But in any case, nowhere in that article it is claimed that awareness has anything to do with it.

When you hold two magnets to each other they either attract or repel, depending on the position of the poles. Do you think that these magnets are aware of each other? Or do you think there is just an invisible force at play here, that acts according to some set rules? This is also the case with the double slit experiment. The difference is that it is not yet understood what exactly cases the behavior. Inserting "awareness" as explanation is about as valid as inserting "god" as explanation.

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.