Is Matter Self Aware?

reply to post by 1littlewolf


I'll ckeck out the thread.

I''ll get back to you about that part of your comment.

And yes we keep on learning because of these interactions.

Thank you so much. I reckon together we’d make a pretty epic YouTube Video

Or go on Discovery, "Wolf and Killer tell a Truth".

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

I can still hold that the act of measuring and not the fact that a conscious observer is the one doing the measuring is a more probable reason for particles to act the way they did in those experiments.

It is actually the act of observing the measurement which causes the behaviour seen in the experiment. This is the key. For if the measurement is taken and then deleted it acts as if it was never measured at all. The measurement has to be viewed by some an intelligent entity.

Stephen Hawking on measurement:

According to quantum physics, you cannot “just” observe something. That is, quantum physics recognizes that to make an observation, you must interact with the object you are observing. For instance, to see an object in the traditional sense, we shine a light on it. Shining a light on a pumpkin will of course have little effect on it. But shining even a dim light on a tiny quantum particle—that is, shooting photons at it— does have an appreciable effect, and experiments show that it changes the results of an experiment just the way that quantum physics describes.

And yet there are no photons coming from the observers eyeball, so I fail to see how this statement is in any way relevant

Please understand SO as I mentioned above the only difference at all is whether someone observes the results or not. This is the only difference between with experiment A - the waveform and experiment B – the particle. And it is this very fact which is in the main crux of everything we’ve said that you appear to skirt around and never actually address.

In order to measure something, you must interact with it. How can you make an experiment without interacting with the thing you you're doing the experiment on? It's impossible. The act of creating an experiment is an act of measuring. If you want to go do an experiment with your eye, go stare at something. I bet you won't see any wave collapse or particles. No one does a double slit experiment, shooting particles into sensors with just their eye.

In order to do an experiment on the quantum level, you have to use instruments to view, measure and record data at that level.. You said it yourself, there is no photons from the eye, therefore we will have to conclude the eyeball is NOT what is making the wave collapse, but the instruments.

Don't waste your time littlewolf, there very act of experimenting is an act of observation and you know that. If you want to go do an experiment with just your eye, by all means, go see if your consciousness affects something.

The Stephen Hawking quote is about the double-slit experiment, from his book The Grand Design, which this thread inspired me to purchase. There is a whole chapter on the experiment and it's implications. Everything Hawking says is more likely than the misunderstandings of a few laymans. You should do well to read it (no mention of consciousness either).

Take care friend.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

In order to measure something, you must interact with it. How can you make an experiment without interacting with the thing you you're doing the experiment on? It's impossible. The act of creating an experiment is an act of measuring.

Wows, you can't even seem to agree on something that is accepted by the whole scientific community.

So you are saying that the fact that we are even performing the experiment in the first place is causing the wave function collapse.

Then how do you explain that the wave function doesn't always collapse when we perform the experiment?

See how inherently wrong your view is?

It is the observations within our observation of the experiment, and their results, that prove that consciousness is influencing them.

You again refused to answer perfectly layed out questions. Simply ignored them. Again. You won't even acknowledge them.

It just doesn't register does it?

I wonder if this is some sort of mental self defense system. "Alert alert, imminent paradigm breach, can not compute, error error!"

"-Puff of smoke-"

The Stephen Hawking quote is about the double-slit experiment, from his book The Grand Design, which this thread inspired me to purchase. There is a whole chapter on the experiment and it's implications. Everything Hawking says is more likely than the misunderstandings of a few laymans. You should do well to read it (no mention of consciousness either).

What DS experiment exactly?

You are talking about the Observer Effect. From the beginning of the discussion up to now it must have been explained at least 20 times, the equipment IS NOT CAUSING IT.

The physical act of measuring, the interaction of the measuring device with the particle is not responsible for the wave function collapse.

Because, and this should sound familiar by now, when the info is erased, the wave function doesn't collapse, even though there has been an interaction with the particle.

No matter how many irrelevant qoutes on what probably are other, older versions of these experiments, by Hawking you can dig up. He simply did not say this about these Quantum eraser and Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiments, I can tell you that.

And off course you picked a book by Hawking because he is the popular scientist in the mainstream, but the list of negative reactions from the scientific community on that book is considerably larger than the one with the positive ones, so whatever you do try to keep thinking for yourself.

The whole book is based on speculation.

Roger Penrose in the FT doubts that adequate understandings can come from this approach, and points out that "unlike quantum mechanics, M-Theory enjoys no observational support whatsoever".[21] Joe Silk in Science suggests that "Some humbleness would be welcome here...A century or two hence...I expect that M theory will seem as naïve to cosmologists of the future as we now find Pythagoras's cosmology of the harmony of the spheres".[22]

en.wikipedia.org...(book)

Originally posted by TraitorKiller

Wows, you can't even seem to agree on something that is accepted by the whole scientific community.

So you are saying that the fact that we are even performing the experiment in the first place is causing the wave function collapse.

That's not what I'm saying at all, no matter how much you try to twist what I'm saying. Do you not understand that in order to perform a measurement on something, you must measure it? How do you measure something with your consciousness?

Your condescension is quite astounding, and no longer inspires me to respond. You seem fine trying to make me seem stupid to justify your own beliefs, but you fail miserably. People like you don't belong in science. Period.

It's funny how you slam me for reading Hawking, then go ahead and quote Penrose, the physicist you got your idea from and the only one who agrees with you besides Dr. Quantum, to back up your claims. Why don't you throw in some Chopra quotes while you're at it.



ETA:

It is the observations within our observation of the experiment, and their results, that prove that consciousness is influencing them.

Whaaaaaaaat!? The observations within our observation?! This is your proof?

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

That's not what I'm saying at all, no matter how much you try to twist what I'm saying. Do you not understand that in order to perform a measurement on something, you must measure it?

I am not twisting your words.I am trying to make sense of them in relation to these experiments. The unexplanable phenomenon is that if we know the Which Path info of a particle, the wave function collapses.

If we erase that info the wave functions remains. Therefore it is not the equipment that causes it. It is not the measurement itself, cause the measurement happened in both cases.

So what causes it? You say it's because we can't observe without influencing the wave function. This is the only way I can interpret your words.

If that is not what you mean, then it doesn't even apply at all, What DO you mean then?

How do you measure something with your consciousness?

By extending it with a detector.

It's funny how you slam me for reading Hawking, then go ahead and quote Penrose, the physicist you got your idea from and the only one who agrees with you besides Dr. Quantum, to back up your claims. Why don't you throw in some Chopra quotes while you're at it.

It was the best comment to drive home the point that that book is nothing but speculation, unlike quantum physics.

Are you denying that that page listed much more negative responses? I am just telling you to apply the same standards to Hawking as you do to me. I don't even know Penrose.

This is your proof?

It is clear you are not even fit to determine what proof is.

You have ignored the proof again, it simply does not compute.

Everybody agrees that there are paradoxes in Quantum Mechanics, but you can't even acknowledge that.

You lack a basic understanding. You can't even admit to what is considered the core of Quantum Mechanics by the whole scientific community.

I'll just try this one more time. I need you to answer just this question,

arstechnica.com...

As always with entanglement, it's important to note that no information is passing between Alice, Bob, and Victor: the settings on the detectors and the BiSA are set independently, and there's no way to communicate faster than the speed of light. Nevertheless, this experiment provides a realization of one of the fundamental paradoxes of quantum mechanics: that measurements taken at different points in space and time appear to affect each other, even though there is no mechanism that allows information to travel between them.

What the cause of this result?

Do you not understand that in order to perform a measurement on something, you must measure it?

Is this not your argument? How does it apply here?

It seems you don't have any idea about how these experiments actually work, using entangled partners and obscuring of path information.

You have hardly looked at them, and of the few qoutes you posted that were actually about the experiments, none of them actually disputed what I said, they just had a certain wording that made you think it did.

That was so obvious to me. You have no understanding of these experiments. That's why you keep ignoring the evidence.

You have an extreme bias which you are operating from, searching links, opinions, interpretations that support your preconceived notions, yet at no point have you refuted, or came even close to refuting the evidence.

There is simply not enough understanding to even acknowledge the evidence, proof I should say.

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
I can see tell your pretty much over this thread, but just purely for my own interest could you please answer these last few questions. If you don’t I will understand but I purely want to see where you are coming from…

… especially as you did in fact mention you are spiritual

Because you took the time and are respectful...Sure why not?

Why, in an experiment where it is proven beyond doubt that the act of observation is the one thing that makes a difference is it so improbable, so illogical, that the mind behind the observation is the thing making the difference [?]

Because it goes against all common sense and is highly improbable. It's as simple as that. I am not discounting the possibility, but there is no evidence to state this is the case, only the assertions by a couple of guys on the internet, who for some reason believe it is their thoughts affecting the the environment.

I implore you, because I love the idea of affecting the environment with my mind, show me this is true. But you can't, and I am completely open minded. You have not shown me sufficient enough empirical facts to see it your way. Frankly, I don't know why you or Traitor do believe it, until I realize it fits your metaphysical belief systems.

You guys can high five each other and star each other's posts into the ground. I still remain completely unconvinced.

We have shown it is not the equipment. This leaves only a few other options which to me seem far less likely, such as some property of the observors eyeball, possibly some electromagnetic signal or pheromone perhaps emitted by the body when the observer see’s something amazing and seemingly inexplicable. I just don’t know. This is why I see consciousness as the most logical answer.

This is where our metaphysics part ways. I would assume something such as body heat, the vibrations of the circulatory system, sound waves from breathing, the moisture from the skin or in the breath etc.—all real things, thus more logical—would have an affect before a mans wakefulness, or whether he is awake or not, has anything at all to do with it.

But the question is what aspect of this human, what aspect about the act of choosing to observe or not choosing to observe is it that makes the difference.

Is it the choice itself? What is it that makes the choice?

It is more probable that it is the action of observing and not the choice to observe that is affecting the outcome. The fact that in order to measure something we must measure it. In order to see something, we must shine a light on it, or employ a sensor, or some nickel crystal, or interference patterns we can turn on or off, it then has to translate data into information we can understand. Why can it not be one of these more obvious and likely variables beside something abstract called consciousness, or the fact that something is awake, causing the outcome? This is my issue, the giant leap of faith needed to reach such a conclusion.

Finally I’m gonna leave you with two things.

I think in fact that it’s illogical to a certain degree to separate the spiritual world from the material world just because there is no way of testing it at this present point in time.

Here we are in agreement. I believe they are, in fact, one in the same thing, but it isn't until human's mystify it, when it becomes separated and abstract (ie. separating the body into mind and body) . I have been saying this all along. I'm glad we see eye to eye on this. Now we might both agree that it is more likely the human body itself, not some abstract thing called consciousness, affecting the results.

Secondly, and this is definitely a little more ‘right brained’, and I don’t really require an answer but it's something which you may wish to ponder. Where in this universe ever has information been proven to precede consciousness.[?]

No where, because a human mind is needed to shape stimulus into something he understands. If all humans were blind, we'd have no clue stars existed. It doesn't mean stars aren't there, just that we can't see or perceive the stimulus they offer, so we'd have no clue about them or understand them.

Information, “in its most restricted technical sense, is a sequence of symbols that can be interpreted as a message” (Wikipedia). We create the symbols out of the what we perceive. It's not information until we make it information.

Cheers.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller

How do you measure something with your consciousness?

By extending it with a detector.

Then it is the detector causing the collapse, not consciousness.

Refuted.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

Then it is the detector causing the collapse, not consciousness. Refuted.

How can you not be playing a sick game here? I can't believe this. You are nothing but a troll.

The eraser experiments prove that it can't be the detector. It's been posted 30 times, I believe in every single reply to you.

If this is your argument, you have been refuted.

How can you take yourself seriously?

You are talking about respect.

You have shown none, we are going out of our way to explain this to you, and post after post after post you keep ingoring the evidence.

Only to come back with an argument that was debunked at the very beginning of this discussion and every other post since then.

What a sick joke this is.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

Then it is the detector causing the collapse, not consciousness. Refuted.

How can you not be playing a sick game here? I can't believe this. You are nothing but a troll.

The eraser experiments prove that it can't be the detector. It's been posted 30 times, I believe in every single reply to you.

If this is your argument, you have been refuted.

How can you take yourself seriously?

You are talking about respect.

You have shown none, we are going out of our way to explain this to you, and post after post after post you keep ingoring the evidence.

Only to come back with an argument that was debunked at the very beginning of this discussion and every other post since then.

What a sick joke this is.

edit on 23-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)

If the device is an extension of consciousness, and the device is taken out of the equation, how is consciousness still a factor?

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

Then it is the detector causing the collapse, not consciousness. Refuted.

How can you not be playing a sick game here? I can't believe this. You are nothing but a troll.

The eraser experiments prove that it can't be the detector. It's been posted 30 times, I believe in every single reply to you.

If this is your argument, you have been refuted.

How can you take yourself seriously?

You are talking about respect.

You have shown none, we are going out of our way to explain this to you, and post after post after post you keep ingoring the evidence.

Only to come back with an argument that was debunked at the very beginning of this discussion and every other post since then.

What a sick joke this is.

edit on 23-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)

Also, the detector is still in play, which contradicts your proof.

Next, in an attempt to determine which path the photon took through the double slits, a quarter wave plate (QWP) is placed in front of each of the double-slits that the second photon must pass through (see Illustration 1). These crystals will change the polarization of the light, one producing "clockwise" circular polarization and the other producing its contrary, thus "marking" through which slit and polarizer pair the photon has traveled. Subsequently, the newly polarized photon will be measured at the detector. Giving photons that go through one slit a "clockwise" polarization and giving photons that go the other way a "counter- clockwise" polarization will destroy the interference pattern.

So the only thing changed is the polarization. And you don't think that has anything to do with it? Or the fact that the detector is still there? The photon is still being measured, despite what you say.

The facts you shown me in every one of your posts, turned out to be not facts at all. Next time it might help to read them.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

If the device is an extension of consciousness, and the device is taken out of the equation, how is consciousness still a factor?

The only thing that is taken out of the equation is the info from the detector, the Which Path info.

That is the only thing that changes, nothing in the setup changes.

This proves that the only thing that matters is if we know the Which path info or not.

If we know the Which Path info, the paritcle can only go one way, doesn't interfere with itself, and doesn't cause an interference pattern on the detector screen.

If we don't know the info, the particle takes both, all, possible paths, interferes with itself and does create an interference pattern on the screen.

The only thing affecting the result on the detector screen is our knowledge of the path of the particle, or lack thereoff.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

So the only thing changed is the polarization. And you don't think that has anything to do with it?

Sigh, no basic understanding of the exp. at all. The polarisation is used to be able to determine, or not determine the which path. It is just another tool. No matter the outcome, the particles get polarized every time.

It is not the polarisation. It is wether or not the path can be known, and the tool to do that is polarisation. It itself has no effect on the outcome.

You probably never even heard of these experiments before this thread, I have been working with them for a few years. There is no way for you to keep up in this discussion. that much is clear.

You really think that by quick reading some qoutes you can point out a fatal flaw in the experiment, that is supposedly causing the type of outcomes that the scientific community has never had an explanation for?

And noone, including the scientists themselves and their peers pointed that out. But you solve the dilemma in 5 mins.

You are crazy.



And like pointed out before, some experiments use beam splitters to direct the particles on a path randomnly, and use them to erase the info of detection, this way especially leaves absolutely no room for doubt about other factors influencing the results.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

If the device is an extension of consciousness, and the device is taken out of the equation, how is consciousness still a factor?

The only thing that is taken out of the equation is the info from the detector, the Which Path info.

That is the only thing that changes, nothing in the setup changes.

This proves that the only thing that matters is if we know the Which path info or not.

If we know the Which Path info, the paritcle can only go one way, doesn't inerfere with itself, and doesn't cause an interference pattern on the detector screen.

If we don't know the info, the particle takes both, all, possible paths, interferes with itself and does create an interference pattern on the screen.

The only thing affecting the result on the detector screen is our knowledge of the path of the particle, or lack thereoff.

I know the which-path info is destroyed. But if we remove the information or interference, is our knowledge destroyed as well? Because I think we'd still be conscious of what the which-way path is, despite destroying the info. How does our consciousness have an affect if we are still aware of the results of the previous experiment?

It would seem the act of removing the pattern (or knowledge as you call it) and other variables introduced to the experiment (polarization, diagonal polarization, rotation of the polarizers etc) might have an affect on the outcome. Not human consciousness.

Human consciousness is not information. It's the act of being awake. You cannot remove the act of being awake without horse tranquilizers.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

 

So the only thing changed is the polarization. And you don't think that has anything to do with it?

Sigh, no basic understanding of the exp. at all. The polarisation is used to be able to determine, or not determine the which path. It is just another tool. No matter the outcome, the particles get polarized every time.

It is not the polarisation. It is wether or not the path can be known, and the tool to do that is polarisation. It itself has no effect on the outcome.

You probably never even heard of these experiments before this thread, I have been working with them for a few years. There is no way for you to keep up in this discussion. that much is clear.

You really think that by quick reading some qoutes you can point out a fatal flaw in the experiment, that is supposedly causing the type of outcomes that the scientific community has never had an explanation for?

And noone, including the scientists themselves and their peers pointed that out. But you solve the dilemma in 5 mins.

You are crazy.



And like pointed out before, some experiments use beam splitters to direct the particles on a path randomnly, and use them to erase the info of detection, this way especially leaves absolutely no room for doubt about other factors influencing the results.

edit on 23-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)

You cannot grasp simple words. Information is not knowledge. Consciousness is not an interference pattern. No one knows what consciousness even is, yet that's the answer you hold? Ridiculous sir.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

I know the which-path info is destroyed. But if we remove the information or interference, is our knowledge destroyed as well?

We don't directly remove the interference. We remove the information. Our knowledge is not so much destroyed but it never materialises, cause when we check one detector, and either learn the Which path info, or not, the result on the screen corresponds with it when we check it afterwards.

If we learned the which path info at the first detector, there turns out to be no interference pattern on the screen, which is the 2nd detector.

If the first detector has the result that makes it impossible to know the path, the 2nd detector, the screen shows an interference pattern.

The results always match up, even if the signal photon hits the screen before it's entangled partner hits detector one.

This is a bit simplified, but it shows the principle.

Because I think we'd still be conscious of what the which-way path is, despite destroying the info.

How? You can "think" all you want, but it is simply not possible if you destroy the info. If I burn a piece of paper with info on it, before you can read it, how are you still going to know?

It would seem the act of removing the pattern (or knowledge as you call it) and other variables introduced to the experiment (polarization, diagonal polarization, rotation of the polarizers etc) might have an affect on the outcome. Not human consciousness.

All these things you mention cannot be the cause, I just told you this in the other post. The scientific community accepts these results. These other variables would be fatal flaws in these experiments that would have been pointed out. There is consensus that these results are valid and yet paradoxal.

Your statement is ridiculous. You can say that it is not consciousness, but it can't be the "variables" you mentioned because it is an accepted fact that the results are inexplainable by everybody.

And the experiments themselves prove that it is not the equipment.

Congratulations buddy, you just solved Quantum Physics, it was a flaw in the setup all along.

This whole viewpoint is beyond moronic.

Consciousness is not an interference pattern.

If you truly think that that was implied, you absolutely don't understand the experiments.

I'm about to give up on you. Study up on those experiments and come back when you know what you are talking about.

I'm about to give up on you. Study up on those experiments and come back when you know what you are talking about.

Please do, we should've given up long ago. Spending 3 years studying a couple wikipedia pages and this is the result you get? Either you're lying or you severely wasted your time. Despite your conclusions (there is no detector; wait! there is a detector but it is an extension of consciousness; wait! it's not the detector but an interference pattern; wait! the interference pattern is knowledge hence something called consciousness and it affects everything in the entire world.)

I can still point to the Observer Effect and get a more realistic answer.
Observer Effect in Quantum Mechanics

This is demonstrated in a common thought experiment using the double slit setup. Imagine a double slit experiment where quantum particles are fired towards the two slits. The quantum particles pass through the slits and hit a momentum sensor a distance of D behind the slits. The momentum sensor has the ability to be turned off and on via a pin that stops the movement of the sensor when it is hit by a quantum particle. When the pin is in place, no measurement of the momentum can take place. When the pin is removed, the sensor can recoil when struck by a quantum particle and by measuring the recoil determine from which slit the quantum particle came. If the pin is removed and we can detect from which slit the particle came, then the wave-like passage through both slits cannot occur and no interference pattern will develop. However if we put the pin in place, and can no longer determine from which slit the particle passes through, then an interference pattern can develop.[3] This can be taken a step further using the delayed choice experiment.

This thought experiment was proved correct experimentally. The people conducting the experiment found that when the sensor was turned off, an interference pattern developed, but when it was turned on, the interference pattern was destroyed. It was even found that the level of detection could affect the result.

I'll go study these experiments, I promise.

reply to post by TheSubversiveOne

I can still point to the Observer Effect and get a more realistic answer.

No you can't,

In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on the phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics.

We have established that this effect is not responsible for the wave function collapse, with the eraser experiments. 35+ and counting.

And then you qoute a piece of text that isn't even about the Observer Effect, on the contrairy, it begins by saying this,

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is also frequently confused with the "observer effect". The uncertainty principle actually describes how precisely we may measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time — if we increase the accuracy in measuring one quantity, we are forced to lose accuracy in measuring the other. The observer effect however, relates to the influence the observer has on a system.[

And the piece you qouted is the conclusion of this,

The superposition principle (ψ = Σanψn) of quantum physics says that for a wave function ψ, a measurement will give a state of the quantum system of one of the m possible eigenvalues fn, n=1,2...m, of the operator which is part of the eigenfunctions ψn, n=1,2,...n. Once we have measured the system, we know its current state and this stops it from being in one of its other states.[2] This means that the type of measurement that we do on the system affects the end state of the system.

WE KNOW its current state and THIS stops it from being in one of its other states.

This completely agrees with what I am saying and what I said a few posts back.

This is demonstrated in a common thought experiment using the double slit setup. Imagine a double slit experiment where quantum particles are fired towards the two slits. The quantum particles pass through the slits and hit a momentum sensor a distance of D behind the slits. The momentum sensor has the ability to be turned off and on via a pin that stops the movement of the sensor when it is hit by a quantum particle. When the pin is in place, no measurement of the momentum can take place. When the pin is removed, the sensor can recoil when struck by a quantum particle and by measuring the recoil determine from which slit the quantum particle came. If the pin is removed and we can detect from which slit the particle came, then the wave-like passage through both slits cannot occur and no interference pattern will develop. However if we put the pin in place, and can no longer determine from which slit the particle passes through, then an interference pattern can develop.[3] This can be taken a step further using the delayed choice experiment. This thought experiment was proved correct experimentally. The people conducting the experiment found that when the sensor was turned off, an interference pattern developed, but when it was turned on, the interference pattern was destroyed. It was even found that the level of detection could affect the result. [4]

These are exactly the weird results we are talking about and are to be expected by now. The only thing that is a variable is, as always the availability of Which Path info to the experimenter which is consciousness.

You are still not disputing anything I said, just demonstrating your disastrous level of understanding.


You are completely lost.


If there ever was a line to illustrate that, it would be this one,

Despite your conclusions (there is no detector; wait! there is a detector but it is an extension of consciousness; wait! it's not the detector but an interference pattern; wait! the interference pattern is knowledge hence something called consciousness and it affects everything in the entire world.)

Completely in the dark.

You are unworthy of the effort, I'm sorry to say.

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.

Strange as it may sound, interference can only occur when no one is watching. Once an observer begins to watch the particles going through the openings, the picture changes dramatically: if a particle can be seen going through one opening, then it's clear it didn't go through another. In other words, when under observation, electrons are being "forced" to behave like particles and not like waves. Thus the mere act of observation affects the experimental findings.

Apart from "observing," or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current. r

www.sciencedaily.com...

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
In order to measure something, you must interact with it. How can you make an experiment without interacting with the thing you you're doing the experiment on? It's impossible. The act of creating an experiment is an act of measuring. If you want to go do an experiment with your eye, go stare at something. I bet you won't see any wave collapse or particles. No one does a double slit experiment, shooting particles into sensors with just their eye.

In order to do an experiment on the quantum level, you have to use instruments to view, measure and record data at that level.. You said it yourself, there is no photons from the eye, therefore we will have to conclude the eyeball is NOT what is making the wave collapse, but the instruments.

As has been mentioned I thought this had been ruled out by the Eraser Experiment. I guess until either you accept this or I decide this experiment means nothing I guess we probably won’t get much further in this discussion.

Don't waste your time littlewolf, there very act of experimenting is an act of observation and you know that. If you want to go do an experiment with just your eye, by all means, go see if your consciousness affects something.

Yes I realise, but by this very statement you may as well question the validity all the knowledge we as humans posses. For there is not a single thing we know that is not the result of human observation and/or experimentation; or at the very least human interaction. Not really sure why you are so hung up about human involvement in this particular experiment.

The Stephen Hawking quote is about the double-slit experiment, from his book The Grand Design, which this thread inspired me to purchase. There is a whole chapter on the experiment and it's implications. Everything Hawking says is more likely than the misunderstandings of a few laymans. You should do well to read it (no mention of consciousness either).

I’m impressed you bought a book over this thread, and if I can I will read it. But keep in mind if you buy a book by someone who already shares your point of view you won’t learn much about the other side of the story. I might also hazard a guess that while Hawking may throw in many paragraphs regarding the involvement of the observer in an experiment about observation, he does not offer any plausible alternate theory as to what is causing these particular results.

Why, in an experiment where it is proven beyond doubt that the act of observation is the one thing that makes a difference is it so improbable, so illogical, that the mind behind the observation is the thing making the difference [?]

Because it goes against all common sense and is highly improbable. It's as simple as that. I am not discounting the possibility, but there is no evidence to state this is the case, only the assertions by a couple of guys on the internet, who for some reason believe it is their thoughts affecting the environment.

Apart from the results of this experiment, I cannot show you any hard proof. One of the reasons this for this is that the very nature of consciousness itself is entirely subjective, which obviously doesn’t lend itself to scientific experimentation too well. I do believe you are skirting around a few of the points I raised by not addressing them directly. I also believe my reasoning is fairly sound in light of an alternate explanation and not at all improbable or unlikely especially when you’re quite willing to accept (I’m pretty sure I read it in one of your post midway through this thread) that the decision to delete the results off the detector actually affects things backwards in time.

Time travel seems on par with consciousness affecting matter in terms of improbability if you ask me.

Frankly, I don't know why you or Traitor do believe it, until I realize it fits your metaphysical belief systems.

You are right here, it fits my life experiences completely. But hopefully you realise by now that I am not one who simply accepts things on face value. I have looked at all the evidence and have found nothing to counter the conclusions I’ve drawn from this evidence, the concepts of common sense and improbability included.

If something is found that counters my beliefs I would like to think I’d accept it though it would completely shatter my current thought paradigm. Ultimately though I simply want to know...

You guys can high five each other and star each other's posts into the ground. I still remain completely unconvinced.

If it means anything I gave you a few stars too….

We have shown it is not the equipment. This leaves only a few other options which to me seem far less likely, such as some property of the observors eyeball, possibly some electromagnetic signal or pheromone perhaps emitted by the body when the observer see’s something amazing and seemingly inexplicable. I just don’t know. This is why I see consciousness as the most logical answer.

This is where our metaphysics part ways. I would assume something such as body heat, the vibrations of the circulatory system, sound waves from breathing, the moisture from the skin or in the breath etc.—all real things, thus more logical—would have an affect before a mans wakefulness, or whether he is awake or not, has anything at all to do with it.

I see your point. But then the question becomes are these things any more or less real than particles travelling backwards or forwards in time, appearing in two places at once or information passing between them faster than the speed of light. Also if it were these factors which effected the experiment then why is it so consistently one or the other. There are never any 'in between’ or inconclusive results, which you would expect if biological factors were somehow involved (think different scientists with different bodies with different expectations), or if it were the instruments themselves were somehow involved (which have changed are probably a little different in each lab and have no doubt changed design over the 35 or so years these experiments have been around).

But the question is what aspect of this human, what aspect about the act of choosing to observe or not choosing to observe is it that makes the difference.

Is it the choice itself? What is it that makes the choice?

It is more probable that it is the action of observing and not the choice to observe that is affecting the outcome. The fact that in order to measure something we must measure it. In order to see something, we must shine a light on it, or employ a sensor, or some nickel crystal, or interference patterns we can turn on or off, it then has to translate data into information we can understand. Why can it not be one of these more obvious and likely variables beside something abstract called consciousness, or the fact that something is awake, causing the outcome? This is my issue, the giant leap of faith needed to reach such a conclusion.

Again I see your point. But once again I must point to the results of the Eraser Experiment which seems to discount these possibilities, and point out my example about the person reading a book with glasses. It is not the glasses that read the book; it is the person whose face they sit on. We cannot see these things simply due to the physical limitations of the eye. But does a person who reads a book with glasses get any information that is different from someone who does not need glasses to read?

Perhaps you consider this somehow analogous to the ‘Placebo Effect’. But then looked at a different way the Placebo Effect is completely supportive of consciousness affecting matter.

I think in fact that it’s illogical to a certain degree to separate the spiritual world from the material world just because there is no way of testing it at this present point in time.

Here we are in agreement. I believe they are, in fact, one in the same thing, but it isn't until human's mystify it, when it becomes separated and abstract (ie. separating the body into mind and body) . I have been saying this all along. I'm glad we see eye to eye on this. Now we might both agree that it is more likely the human body itself, not some abstract thing called consciousness, affecting the results.

Please don’t try twisting my words by underquoting them. You know all I was getting at here was the fact that just because we lack the technology to properly measure or fully clarify what something is, which in turn makes it ‘abstract’, does not mean that we won’t have this ability in the future.

Secondly, and this is definitely a little more ‘right brained’, and I don’t really require an answer but it's something which you may wish to ponder. Where in this universe ever has information been proven to precede consciousness.[?]

No where, because a human mind is needed to shape stimulus into something he understands. If all humans were blind, we'd have no clue stars existed. It doesn't mean stars aren't there, just that we can't see or perceive the stimulus they offer, so we'd have no clue about them or understand them.

No doubt someone would one day invent a ‘detector’ and then we’d be sitting here on our braille computers arguing whether it is some property of the detector itself which is causing these results, or maybe, just maybe the stars actually do exist and there is in fact a whole new universe, a completely new realm of possibilities we’ve never even considered simply because we’ve been blinded by relying on the limited senses which we do posses.

Information, “in its most restricted technical sense, is a sequence of symbols that can be interpreted as a message” (Wikipedia). We create the symbols out of the what we perceive. It's not information until we make it information.

Or maybe it’s all information and we simply perceive what we want to perceive. Yes I realise this analogy works both ways though…



Well it appears TraitorKiller has got himself banned, and I think both of us (short of your response to this post maybe) have said as much as we can really say. You are open to the possibility that consciousness may cause these results. I am, believe it or not, open to the fact they may not but simply haven’t seen anything that shows my thought processes are in anyway flawed.

I’ve enjoyed it and enjoyed getting to know you a little better. I guess in the end all we can do is agree to disagree, but the fact we’ve both learnt a little more can only be a positive thing. It’s been fun SO.

Wish you only the best.

1littlewolf

Gospel of Thomas:

(29) Jesus said: If the flesh came into existence because of the spirit, it is a marvel. But if the spirit (came into existence) because of the body, it is a marvel of marvels. But as for me, I wonder at this, how this great wealth made its home in this poverty.