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.

 

Infinitely simple

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MightyPenfriend
 


Ah, yes, and now comes the emotional denial state, so far everyting is going exactly according the schedule lol.

You said this to debunk me,




So you admit it is the act of measuring and not your consciousness?


I debunked it. It is not the act of measuring. The eraser experiments prove that.

Now if you want to look somewhat credible and scientific, this is the time to debunk my statement instead of yapping about new age beliefs.

Tell me why the eraser experiments do not disprove your statement.




Says the guy who cites ATS and Dr. Quantum


For the third time, the Dr vid was posted to learn the basics, you even had to watch it to know what I was talking about, lol.

I cite peer reviewed experiments. It was thorroughly done in the other threads. But I guess it has to be repeated here because people refuse to look at the evidence that is spread out right before them.

Mainly because they simply cant grasp the implications.




edit on 15-8-2012 by MightyPenfriend because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ancientthunder
 



To be philosophy, it must be rooted in logic.

What if I don't want to consider God as "pure love"? What if my view is more that God is "utterly indifferent" (which is what I actually believe)? Does that leave me out of the thought experiment?



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
God is everything.

Hidden in plain View.

Pure energy and life.

But also he is nothing at all and doesn't exist.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MightyPenfriend


For the third time, the Dr vid was posted to learn the basics, you even had to watch it to know what I was talking about, lol.

I cite peer reviewed experiments. It was thorroughly done in the other threads. But I guess it has to be repeated here because people refuse to look at the evidence that is spread out right before them.

Mainly because they simply cant grasp the implications.


You do realize the experiments don't make single mention of consciousness correct? I assume you've read them.

Please tell me how you can arrive at such a solid unbreakable implication when there's no mention of consciousness whatsoever. I don't want to bring up Dr. Quantum again, but it seems that this is where your idea is coming from.

Here is some peer reviewed papers I found on arXiv that do mention consciousness:Quantum measurements are physical processes.

Here's another:


Quantum systems exhibit particle-like or wave-like behaviour depending on the experimental apparatus they are confronted by. This wave-particle duality is at the heart of quantum mechanics, and is fully captured in Wheeler’s famous delayed choice gedanken experiment. In this variant of the double slit experiment, the observer chooses to test either the particle or wave nature of a photon after it has passed through the slits. Here we report on a quantum delayed choice experiment, based on a quantum controlled beam-splitter, in which both particle and wave behaviours can be investigated simultaneously. The genuinely quantum nature of the photon’s behaviour is tested via a Bell inequality, which here replaces the delayed choice of the observer. We observe strong Bell inequality violations, thus showing that no model in which the photon knows in advance what type of experiment it will be confronted by, hence behaving either as a particle or as wave, can account for the experimental data.


A quantum delayed choice experiment

Looks like there's more debunking in your future. Or will your faith blind you once again?
edit on 15-8-2012 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


From your first report,


In conclusion, in the present note I tried to explain that the venerable measurement problem of quantum mechanics has been solved some decades ago by the Belgian physicists Diederik Aerts, in his hidden-measurement approach, so that quantum mechanics doesn’t need any consciousness-based observer effect, but only an instrument-based observer effect


This is bull. In the end a human still reads the results of the intruments. This is just that guys interpretation of hidden measurement approach.

You don't even know what your 2nd qoute is actually saying.

I'll come back tomorrow and post all I need to post.

Btw, any specific reason you are not responding to the point of the discussion we were having,




I debunked it. It is not the act of measuring. The eraser experiments prove that. Now if you want to look somewhat credible and scientific, this is the time to debunk my statement instead of yapping about new age beliefs. Tell me why the eraser experiments do not disprove your statement.


This is what we are talking about.

I know that you were busy digging up some qoutes of which you think they debunk me, yet don't at all.

Also very typical. It is al part of the process apparently.
edit on 15-8-2012 by MightyPenfriend because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I think i understand fungi's questions and have seen some utubes and read some stuff about this subject as well, which is entirely fascinating and a little mind blowing.

I tend to reoganise the what I think of it as, and put it into terms I can undestand myself, such as.

My youngest about to whack his way through a tree in the garden, I give him a look (uhuh!) and he stops mid action and will walk away pretending he had no intention of doing it! he's cheeky. He would also act differently if i put a camera on him and he knows it.

The experiment clearly shows an observed thing (particles) will react differently and scientists have no idea why.
Bickering doesn't seem to solve anything either as far as I can tell, it's a shame on this thread.

Another example and wierd, I heard the rumble of a lions chest close, wide awake and clam. A few nights later dreaming of a lion whom was not one at all, then my husband got one in glass for his birthday from his mother.
Who's observing who, or what? Has that changed my actions? should it?

We observe and we are observed
and
Science alone will not answer all the questions, just as religion alone will not answer all the questions, they can not



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by AussieAmandaC
 





The experiment clearly shows an observed thing (particles) will react differently and scientists have no idea why.


But the proof is there. The results always match up with what the experimenter knows, when this should not be possible if it was just random, statistically speaking. The results even adapt to what he knows, crossing boundaries of space and time. There simply is no other possible conclusion.

I'll completely spell it out tomorrow.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 
what if, what if, I have posted my suggestions and that is one of my sugestions only , I have many more. The idea here is for everyone to share their view and see where they stand. I am happy to hear your logical phylosophy about God. This way is as good as any to know or to simply contemplate an idea.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by MightyPenfriend
 


I admire your patience.

Consciousness is the active ingredient in all things. All phenomenon is active by the fact it exists ... to us - and there is no limitations to the intricacies when you delve into it. Indeed it is all hidden in plain sight. Science can be an extraction, or a map if you like. You can't walk on the map and obvious answers don't necessarily work, esp' where there are selfish interests attached. Just ask Einstein.

From my reading, I understand that the thought behind the manifestations, is only 'us' in so much as it's our shared consciousness at work. We don't re-materialize in the body that creates the thoughts that create our reality / created the universe, etc.

NB: I believe we can find the creator of the universe, but in the event we do, the creator will have been created and the scale just get's bigger - or stretches out to infinity in any / every direction. Simple, huh.

There is an intricate hierarchy of intelligent life that stretches into infinity. As large an idea that you can possibly have, which you wish to manifest, can only be a blip. You are restricted by the limitations of your consciousness and your material body. As human beings we are limited by our collective consciousness (without it there would be no such reality) and the material world ... it's very close to being discovered and manifested into the human consciousness, just a very small part of the picture.

The author I'm paraphrasing coined the term 'New Age'. What the Bleep comes from a channeled entity who really has got to be the most basic level entry stuff, well somewhat less basic than the way the bible is handled.

God is ALL and we are witnesses to a very small part.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MightyPenfriend

I debunked it. It is not the act of measuring. The eraser experiments prove that. Now if you want to look somewhat credible and scientific, this is the time to debunk my statement instead of yapping about new age beliefs. Tell me why the eraser experiments do not disprove your statement.


Originally posted by MightyPenfriend
This is what we are talking about.


I don't wish to be negative any longer, but I thought this is what we're talking about:


Originally posted by MightyPenfriend
But it is partly based on Quantum physics, in particular certain experiments that show beyond a doubt that reality, or matter, adapts to human consciousness, showing us that consciousness precedes our physical reality.





I know that you were busy digging up some qoutes of which you think they debunk me, yet don't at all.

Also very typical. It is al part of the process apparently.


Please, take a look at the one I've already posted. It's at least recent and about the quantum eraser. It's not too complicated.
A quantum delayed choice experiment.


These aren't quotes, but entire papers. I must admit there are very few of these, but it's probably because there is little to none articles on how consciousness affects quantum mechanics, let alone matter and reality.
arxiv.org... by Michael Nauenberg, Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA.
arxiv.org... by Giorgio Torrieri, FIAS, J.W. Goethe University, Frankfurt A.M., Germany
arxiv.org... by Shan Yu, Department of Neurophysiology, Max Planck Institute for Brain Research, Deutschordenstr. 46, 60528 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
The Myth of Quantum Consciousness
The Observer Effect

Here's some quotes I've dug up:



I see no evidence that it is so [that the cosmos depends on our being here to observe the observables] in the success of contemporary quantum theory. So I think it is not right to tell the public that a central role for conscious mind is
integrated into modern atomic physics. Or that ‘information’ is the real stuff of physical theory.I think the experimental facts which are usually offered to show that we must bring the observer into quantum theory do not compel us to adopt that conclusion.
Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (1986) Interview with J. Bell, pp. 47–48


Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not.

R.P. Feynman, Leighton, R.B., Sands, M.: The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol. 3, pp. 3–7.
Addison–Wesley, Reading (1965)


The concept that the ψ function completely describes the physical behaviour of the individual single system is untenable. But one can well make the following claim: if one regards the ψ function as the description of an ensemble it furnishes statements which—as far as we can judge—correspond satisfactorily to those of classical mechanics and at the same time account for the quantum structure of reality. In this interpretation [Born’s statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics] the paradox of the apparent coupling of spatially separated parts of systems also disappears. Furthermore, it has the advantage that the description thus interpreted is an objective description whose concepts clearly make sense independently of the observation and the observer

Einstein, A.: Unpublished commentary sent in a letter to Max Born on 12 January 1954. Reprinted in
The Born–Einstein Letters 1916–1955, translated into English by Irene Born, pp. 210–211. Macmillan Press, China (2005)
 


I'll ask one more time because I'm extremely curious and I will leave you in peace whether you answer or not:
Where did you get the idea that consciousness affects matter? I have searched high and low and cannot find anything outside of Dr. Quantum and New Age anti-scientists. I just want to know where this idea is coming from as it is popping up everywhere these days. If you've found it from a credible source, I would like to read it if you wouldn't mind. I am open to various interpretation here.

Cheers.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 




Where did you get the idea that consciousness affects matter?


That's the key aspect Buddhism. "with our thoughts, we make the world"

As for science, I don't see how we can hope to deal with something of that scope.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by bowtomonkey
reply to post by MightyPenfriend
 


I admire your patience.

Consciousness is the active ingredient in all things. All phenomenon is active by the fact it exists ... to us - and there is no limitations to the intricacies when you delve into it. Indeed it is all hidden in plain sight. Science can be an extraction, or a map if you like. You can't walk on the map and obvious answers don't necessarily work, esp' where there are selfish interests attached. Just ask Einstein.

From my reading, I understand that the thought behind the manifestations, is only 'us' in so much as it's our shared consciousness at work. We don't re-materialize in the body that creates the thoughts that create our reality / created the universe, etc.

NB: I believe we can find the creator of the universe, but in the event we do, the creator will have been created and the scale just get's bigger - or stretches out to infinity in any / every direction. Simple, huh.

There is an intricate hierarchy of intelligent life that stretches into infinity. As large an idea that you can possibly have, which you wish to manifest, can only be a blip. You are restricted by the limitations of your consciousness and your material body. As human beings we are limited by our collective consciousness (without it there would be no such reality) and the material world ... it's very close to being discovered and manifested into the human consciousness, just a very small part of the picture.

The author I'm paraphrasing coined the term 'New Age'. What the Bleep comes from a channeled entity who really has got to be the most basic level entry stuff, well somewhat less basic than the way the bible is handled.

God is ALL and we are witnesses to a very small part.


consciousness |ˈkän ch əsnəs|
noun
the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings : she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later.
• the awareness or perception of something by a person : her acute consciousness of Mike's presence.
• the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world : consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain.

I throw out the proper definition of consciousness and it gets stoned by fanatics. You say everything is consciousness, culture is consciousness, thoughts are consciousness, knowledge is consciousness, and god is consciousness in a couple poetic paragraphs and feel you are right.

What we are witness to here is man's ability to abstract real things into ideas strictly for the purposes of fitting it into their own outlook. Facts and observations are insignificant if they go against one's beliefs. Abstraction of real things into ideas is the root of all evil, and now the bane of my philosophical existence. I thank you for helping me come to this realization.

THE END
edit on 16-8-2012 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ancientthunder
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 
what if, what if, I have posted my suggestions and that is one of my sugestions only , I have many more. The idea here is for everyone to share their view and see where they stand. I am happy to hear your logical phylosophy about God. This way is as good as any to know or to simply contemplate an idea.



absolutely.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by bowtomonkey
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 




Where did you get the idea that consciousness affects matter?


That's the key aspect Buddhism. "with our thoughts, we make the world"

As for science, I don't see how we can hope to deal with something of that scope.


If thoughts are believed a 'world' is created.
Yet thoughts are created out of nothing.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 





I don't wish to be negative any longer, but I thought this is what we're talking about:





Originally posted by MightyPenfriend But it is partly based on Quantum physics, in particular certain experiments that show beyond a doubt that reality, or matter, adapts to human consciousness, showing us that consciousness precedes our physical reality.


This is what we were talking about.I had to explain to you how the experiments work, and why the results are remarkable. I then predicted you would come up with a certain statement to debunk my claim, like any uninformed skeptic has done so far, and you did.

This was your argument against my statement,




So you admit it is the act of measuring and not your consciousness?


You are saying that the cause of these mysterious results is the physical act of measuring, influencing the particle, and making the interference pattern collapse.

This is where we are at in this discussion.Can you agree that this is your "debunk"?

Like I said, it is complete nonsense.

-The eraser experiments prove that it is not the physical act of measuring, because if they erase the info of the measurement, and thus make the info unavailable, the interference pattern can still be seen, even though the measurement did take place. This proves that it is the availability of the info to the experimenter that is the key factor here, not the physical measurement itself.

-If the info is not available, a single particle takes all possible paths, this is remarkable in itself. By knowing the path we influence the behavior of the particle, it can only take one.

-As pointed out two times before, your whole argument is ridiculous, if it was all caused by the physical act of measuring, there would be no mystery in Quantum science. it is absolutely moronic to suggest that the whole premise of QP has been based on a flawed setup all these decades, and that you are the one to point this out.

So again, it is your turn to debunk me and tell me how these experiments do not prove that it is in fact the availability of Which path info that is the causal factor of these results.

That is what you need to answer, you certainly don't need to ignore it and post all sorts of links of which you think they disprove me, but actually don't at all.

i will be back for more but first, just answer the damn question.





edit on 16-8-2012 by MightyPenfriend because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by bowtomonkey
 





I admire your patience.


Thanks, but I'm not patient at all, just, persistant, lol.




What the Bleep comes from a channeled entity who really has got to be the most basic level entry stuff, well somewhat less basic than the way the bible is handled.


Ramtha you mean. I read one of her books a few years ago, it was an interesting read but I like to focus more on the scientific aspect of it.
edit on 16-8-2012 by MightyPenfriend because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
When I asked that question I wasn't talking about the quantum eraser experiment. The entire experiment is a physical act of measurement. I didn't mention "interference pattern collapses" once.

If you cannot answering any of my questions and cannot look at any of the evidence, including the more recent quantum eraser experiment I linked to a few times, where they use a beam-splitter, a "Bell inequality," rather than an interference pattern, which removes the delayed-choice of the observer, but gave the same results despite the observer not "knowing" the which-path info, then I am completely wasting my time and anyone else's who tries to read this. Your quantum eraser experiment that uses the interference pattern is outdated.

Don't even bother with your "debunk."

Since you avoided my most important question: "Where did you get the idea from?" I will now have to assume it was good ol' Dr. Quantum. Typical psuedoscientist, cannot come to conclusions on his own behalf, but is woo'd into it.

Goodbye sir.




edit on 16-8-2012 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 





When I asked that question I wasn't talking about the quantum eraser experiment. The entire experiment is a physical act of measurement. I didn't mention "interference pattern collapses" once.


What were you talking about then? That is the only argument that is constantly used against the role of consciousness in these results.

Why else did you use it?



It clearly was to debunk my statement. You obviously can't refute my claim. You obviously don't get any of this at all.




I didn't mention "interference pattern collapses" once.


Here, you have no idea what I am talking about. If you did, youwould know that this is one of the fundamental results in these experiments.




Since you avoided my most important question: "Where did you get the idea from?" I will now have to assume it was good ol' Dr. Quantum. Typical psuedoscientist, cannot come to conclusions on his own behalf, but is woo'd into it.


The discussion was about results of quantum experiments. Your question is not only completely irrelevant, but it is also an attempt to steer the discussion away from the question you are unable to answer. The fact that you would deem that the most important question in our discussion of quantum experiments proves you are not fit for the discussion.


I only asked you to answer one question. You can't.

Goodbye indeed.
edit on 16-8-2012 by MightyPenfriend because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MightyPenfriend
What were you talking about then? That is the only argument that is constantly used against the role of consciousness in these results.

Why else did you use it?

It clearly was to debunk my statement. You obviously can't refute my claim. You obviously don't get any of this at all.




I didn't mention "interference pattern collapses" once.


Here, you have no idea what I am talking about. If you did, youwould know that this is one of the fundamental results in these experiments.




Sure. I'll play along. From the Quantum Eraser wikipedia page:


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.


Please show me where there is nothing physical taking place?





The discussion was about results of quantum experiments. Your question is not only completely irrelevant, but it is also an attempt to steer the discussion away from the question you are unable to answer. The fact that you would deem that the most important question in our discussion of quantum experiments proves you are not fit for the discussion.


Then please. Look at the results of the most recent (2012) delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, the one I posted and tell me what you read.

If you resort to ad hominem attacks yet refuse to look at any of the evidence I wave in front of your face, why are we arguing? It seems it is you who is unfit.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 



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.


Again, a complete lack of understanding of what this means.

It destroys the interference pattern because by using polarisation they make it indeterminable which path the particle took.

Again, it is the availability of which path info that is the causal factor.

From the same exp.,


The experiment has two stages: The experimenter marks through which slit each photon went, without disturbing their movement, and demonstrates that the interference pattern is destroyed. This stage shows that it is the existence of the "which-path" information which causes the destruction of the interference pattern.



The "which-path" information is "erased," whereupo the interference pattern is recovered. It does not matter whether the erasure procedure is done before or after the detection of the photons.


The which path info is what matters here.

It clearly matters what the experimenter knows. Why else is that info relevant?

Again,


So, under conditions where the double-slit part of the experiment has been set up to prevent the appearance of interference phenomena (because there is definitive "which path" information present),


Want me to go in depth on the Delayed QE exp. and completely shut you up?




edit on 16-8-2012 by MightyPenfriend because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join