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.

 

Logical Proofs of Infinite External Consciousness

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by jtap66
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


How can there be an "afterlife" is conciousness is eternal? "After" what?

Again, say there's an afterlife. Say there's something beyond this realm. That still doesn't in any way point to a sentient creator.


Something had to create individual conscious entities.

You may reject this notion, but it is the only rational explanation for the existence of an external consciousness.



But do you know for certain that it involved an intelligent consciousness, i.e., a sentient creator? Could it have involved a non-intelligent consciousness, in other words a consciousness that was not purposefully creating existence? Why would an intelligent consciousness create our ancient ancestors who were barely "conscious", much less intellectuals? There were many years of evolution before these barely conscious creatures became the intellectual beings we are now. Do you think that this creator would create these creatures and then leave it up to free will whether we would eventually develop language -- or do you think that this creator knew that we would do this, thus eliminating the idea of free will?

If there is an all-knowing creator, then he knows exactly what we are going to do, from the smallest choice such as what we're going to have for breakfast - to whether we are going to murder someone. You don't have free will then, because it's already been determined by the all-knowing creator. If he doesn't know what we are going to choose to do, then he is not an all-knowing creator.

Don't get defensive, because I'm not sure if I'm for or against your argument. I believe our only intelligent choice is to be agnostic, because no one really knows the answers to these questions for certain. Even science does not tell us for certain. We can only go by what information we currently have - our knowledge of science and how the world/universe works changes as we learn more - and most likely will continue to change.




posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Ummm no. If you would like to demonstrate where I'm wrong, please feel free. You can read it right from wiki's page or you can read it in any number of scientific journals. I was nice enough to provide you links for this purpose.


No, you do not need an observer to collapse a wave function. You need something that influences the experiment in such a way that the wave function collapses.

Your argument is along the lines of "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" with a difference topping.


Citing the theory itself is not speculation. I'm not speculating about anything.


In that case you are not speculating yourself, but what it is you are posting is mere speculation.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Ummm no. If you would like to demonstrate where I'm wrong, please feel free. You can read it right from wiki's page or you can read it in any number of scientific journals. I was nice enough to provide you links for this purpose.


No, you do not need an observer to collapse a wave function. You need something that influences the experiment in such a way that the wave function collapses.

Your argument is along the lines of "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" with a difference topping.


Citing the theory itself is not speculation. I'm not speculating about anything.


I am going to make a speculative prediction as to the answer to this plb:
No but, yes but, no but, yes but and so on....:-)
In that case you are not speculating yourself, but what it is you are posting is mere speculation.

I am going to make a speculative prediction as to the answer to this plb:
No but, yes but, no but, yes but and so on.
edit on

I am going to make a speculative prediction as to the answer to this plb:
No but, yes but, no but, yes but and so on....:-)


edit on 20-1-2012 by BBalazs because: Edit

edit on 20-1-2012 by BBalazs because: E



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
The idea that consciousness is the culmination of the interaction of simple systems into ever increasingly complex ones seems a beguiling one, and one which is scientifically testable. Alternative theories on sentience and consciousness are fine, but they need to be shaped in a way in which they can be proved or disproved, theoretically or otherwise. Not proved or disproved, just potentially so. Else it's just getting your brain's cock out and fatting everywhere.

Your earlier point on the complexity of the brain is false. If you consider than a single neuron is either switched on or off then there are more potential electrical states of the human brain than there are atoms in the universe.
If the mind were separate from the brain, why does intelligence increase, and behaviour become progressively more sophisticated as brain size increases?

It seems to me that you are terrified of the notion that we are all alone in the universe. You should be, it is! If the idea of a ubiquitous intelligence passifies you then go for it, but if you don't have anything tangible to back it up then don't expect anyone to take it seriously, and don't insult anyone who offers a contrary point of view - it makes you sound like a creationist.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by gartharino
The idea that consciousness is the culmination of the interaction of simple systems into ever increasingly complex ones seems a beguiling one, and one which is scientifically testable. Alternative theories on sentience and consciousness are fine, but they need to be shaped in a way in which they can be proved or disproved, theoretically or otherwise. Not proved or disproved, just potentially so. Else it's just getting your brain's cock out and fatting everywhere.

Your earlier point on the complexity of the brain is false. If you consider than a single neuron is either switched on or off then there are more potential electrical states of the human brain than there are atoms in the universe.
If the mind were separate from the brain, why does intelligence increase, and behaviour become progressively more sophisticated as brain size increases?

It seems to me that you are terrified of the notion that we are all alone in the universe. You should be, it is! If the idea of a ubiquitous intelligence passifies you then go for it, but if you don't have anything tangible to back it up then don't expect anyone to take it seriously, and don't insult anyone who offers a contrary point of view - it makes you sound like a creationist.


Small correction: we are most likely not alone in the universe. There is other life out there.
But no programer or code. Or at least this wild twist of logic proves not.
In fact haveing reread even the infinity arguement is a logic fallacy.
Infinity is infinity. There is no way around it, duh.
You cannot disect infinity. Duh.
Why was it bought up anyway.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by jtap66
 


although i am not atheist and do believe in what many refer to as "God", i agree. bashing atheists in the end was somewhat childish and took away from the value of the post in my opinion



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by jtap66
I was with you, until you made the leap that somehow infinite conciousness translated into a sentient god, and managed to make this an atheists vs. theists thing.

How do you make the jump from endless conciousness to a confirmed existence of a creator?


If consciousness is infinite and eternal, then there is an afterlife. This non-local consciousness implies a creator to bring consciousness into existence in the first place in its non-local location.

I would also suggest that a Big Bang type event also implies the existence of a creator to bring that into existence as well, but physicists like to dispute this point by using QM interpretations. Obviously by refuting QM as a mechanism, I am demonstrating the need for a creator.





This is your brain trying to explain something it can't concieve. For you there has to be some kind of creator, for me there doesn't, and there can't be. Having a creator, implies that the creator has been around forever, before consciousness, which then you would have to explain where his intentions and motives came from to go about creating the universe. It just doesn't make sense to me, on all levels. Who created the creator, or did he just pop into existence, and if he can, why can't consicousness just pop into existence? Why is there a need for a creator? There isn't one, and it will never make sense, its illogical thinking, and something that our human race has held onto for so long, we need to grow up and let that idea go already.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Small correction: we are most likely not alone in the universe. There is other life out there.
But no programer or code.

Agreed, we most probably are not alone in the universe - I meant simply without a keeper. I disagree with the assertion that there is no code. There almost certainly is one. The whole universe seems underpinned by very vigorous mathematics. It's this, most likely, that gives the illusion of a creator.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by gartharino

Small correction: we are most likely not alone in the universe. There is other life out there.
But no programer or code.

Agreed, we most probably are not alone in the universe - I meant simply without a keeper. I disagree with the assertion that there is no code. There almost certainly is one. The whole universe seems underpinned by very vigorous mathematics. It's this, most likely, that gives the illusion of a creator.

Pattern and symerty do not a code make imo.
Also, code without life is no code at all.
Code with life is god.
So once a comprehensive working theory is pit together for this, i will consider it.
Until that its bs to me, or a matter of faith.
But maybe we can discuss this in another topic.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
No, you do not need an observer to collapse a wave function. You need something that influences the experiment in such a way that the wave function collapses.


This is the many worlds interpretation which was addressed in the OP. But your attempt to dismiss the observer by equipment brings up an obvious error on your part, the fact that a conscious entity is required to build such observational equipment in the first place. Detectors did not exist prior to matter, therefore you are arguing yourself into a circle.

As was laid out by John von Neumann, there are only two processes of wave function change:

en.wikipedia.org...

The probabilistic, non-unitary, non-local, discontinuous change brought about by observation and measurement.

OR

The deterministic, unitary, continuous time evolution of an isolated system that obeys Schrödinger's equation (or nowadays some relativistic, local equivalent, i.e. Dirac's equation).



There is no speculation on my part. According to QM, consciousness either existed prior to matter or the universe is entirely deterministic and without free will. There are no other possible outcomes if one accepts QM as truth.


edit on 20-1-2012 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


So on what exactly do you base the assertion that a consciousness is required in order to make a wave function collapse? Are you saying that this does not happen in nature at all? I would like you to support that assertion.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


So on what exactly do you base the assertion that a consciousness is required in order to make a wave function collapse?


I don't assert anything. QM asserts consciousness is either necessary for collapse or the entire universe is purely deterministic.


Originally posted by -PLB-
Are you saying that this does not happen in nature at all? I would like you to support that assertion.


I don't say anything. QM says collapse is necessary for matter to exist as it does.

I personally do not subscribe to QM's theory. What I believe is irrelevant to the discussion.


edit on 20-1-2012 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


So on what exactly do you base the assertion that a consciousness is required in order to make a wave function collapse?


I don't assert anything. QM asserts consciousness is either necessary for collapse or the entire universe is purely deterministic.


Originally posted by -PLB-
Are you saying that this does not happen in nature at all? I would like you to support that assertion.


I don't say anything. QM says collapse is necessary for matter to exist as it does.

I personally do not subscribe to QM's theory. What I believe is irrelevant to the discussion.


edit on 20-1-2012 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

Qm states what?
Link.
Yeah, but, no but.
I think you are a troll.
You have no such link.
You made it up.
In year head its true.
You linked a wave description. Wtf?!
Have fun, believing if you diety.
May i add that your sacred diety is licking my balls clean, as i right this.
At least i write the truth, unlike you.
Savant.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by -PLB-
No, you do not need an observer to collapse a wave function. You need something that influences the experiment in such a way that the wave function collapses.


This is the many worlds interpretation which was addressed in the OP. But your attempt to dismiss the observer by equipment brings up an obvious error on your part, the fact that a conscious entity is required to build such observational equipment in the first place. Detectors did not exist prior to matter, therefore you are arguing yourself into a circle.

As was laid out by John von Neumann, there are only two processes of wave function change:

en.wikipedia.org...

The probabilistic, non-unitary, non-local, discontinuous change brought about by observation and measurement.

OR

The deterministic, unitary, continuous time evolution of an isolated system that obeys Schrödinger's equation (or nowadays some relativistic, local equivalent, i.e. Dirac's equation).



There is no speculation on my part. According to QM, consciousness either existed prior to matter or the universe is entirely deterministic and without free will. There are no other possible outcomes if one accepts QM as truth.


edit on 20-1-2012 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

You have trouble with words. Dont you?
Deterministic doesnt mean without free will.
Evolution is deterministic on circumstances.
You hallucinated free will there, when no one wrote of such.
Back to kindergarten for you.
Religious nut job.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Well..., no, that is not what QM asserts. That is what you assert. But this conversation is going nowhere.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Well..., no, that is not what QM asserts. That is what you assert. But this conversation is going nowhere.


Well... yes, that is what QM asserts. That is why I cited von Neumann and wiki, so you could read it for yourself. You are right, this conversation is going nowhere.



edit on 20-1-2012 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





I don't assert anything. QM asserts consciousness is either necessary for collapse or the entire universe is purely deterministic.


Nope. There are many more possible interpretations, some of them are both indeterministic AND consciousness is not necessary to cause collapse. There is a nice comparison on Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org...

Search for Deterministic:None and Observer role:None.


I personally prefer the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation. But of course, all are experimentally indistinguishable.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





I don't assert anything. QM asserts consciousness is either necessary for collapse or the entire universe is purely deterministic.


Nope. There are many more possible interpretations, some of them are both indeterministic AND consciousness is not necessary to cause collapse. There is a nice comparison on Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org...

Search for Deterministic:None and Observer role:None.


I personally prefer the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation. But of course, all are experimentally indistinguishable.


From your own link:


"This theory is deterministic. Most (but not all) variants of this theory that support special relativity require a preferred frame. Variants which include spin and curved spaces are known. It can be modified to include quantum field theory. Bell's theorem was inspired by Bell's discovery of the work of David Bohm and his subsequent wondering if the obvious non-locality of the theory could be eliminated.
...
In de Broglie–Bohm theory, there is always a matter of fact about the position and momentum of a particle. Each particle has a well-defined trajectory. "


The theory is pure nihilism.

From the same link:


The de Broglie–Bohm theory is an example of a hidden variables theory. Bohm originally hoped that hidden variables could provide a local, causal, objective description that would resolve or eliminate many of the paradoxes of quantum mechanics, such as Schrödinger's cat, the measurement problem and the collapse of the wavefunction. However, Bell's theorem complicates this hope, as it demonstrates that there can be no local hidden variable theory that is compatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics. The Bohmian interpretation is causal but not local.


"it demonstrates that there can be no local hidden variable theory that is compatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics"




edit on 20-1-2012 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Also note that only one interpretation infers consciousness and "but remains a view held by very few physicists". For good reason of course.
edit on 20-1-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Also note that only one interpretation infers consciousness and "but remains a view held by very few physicists". For good reason of course.
edit on 20-1-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)


I'm not sure where you get that from.

en.wikipedia.org...


According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997,[10] the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics, followed by the many-worlds interpretation.[11] Although current trends show substantial competition from alternative interpretations, throughout much of the twentieth century the Copenhagen interpretation had strong acceptance among physicists. Astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin describes it as having fallen from primacy after the 1980s.[12]



The Copenhagen interpretation is the "standard" interpretation of quantum mechanics formulated by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg while collaborating in Copenhagen around 1927. Bohr and Heisenberg extended the probabilistic interpretation of the wavefunction proposed originally by Max Born. The Copenhagen interpretation rejects questions like "where was the particle before I measured its position?" as meaningless. The measurement process randomly picks out exactly one of the many possibilities allowed for by the state's wave function in a manner consistent with the well-defined probabilities that are assigned to each possible state. According to the interpretation, the interaction of an observer or apparatus that is external to the quantum system is the cause of wave function collapse, thus according to Heisenberg "reality is in the observations, not in the electron".[8]


Copenhagen is subjective and implies conscious observation is required for the collapse of the wave function.

"According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997, the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics"

"According to the interpretation, the interaction of an observer or apparatus that is external to the quantum system is the cause of wave function collapse, thus according to Heisenberg "reality is in the observations, not in the electron"



edit on 20-1-2012 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join