The Experiment That Debunked Materialism

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   


Fuel to the fire...







Any thoughts?

 
Posting videos and video links - ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ

AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count. Please do not create minimal posts. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of a video, please post the video or a link to the video, a description of the video's content, and one or two paragraphs offering your own opinion on the video. This will help inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.
edit on 30/12/2012 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


Any thoughts?


Yeah, how about a brief on the content of the vid's... do you really expect anyone to view over 2 hours of video without some idea of what they're in for??

edit on 28-12-2012 by Perhaps because: meh



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
things have been simplified far too much and presumptions have been made.

Aside from all that, materialism can never be proven wrong through material experiment. It can be proven someone's idea was wrong, but materialism is the material, there is nothing 'wrong' about it, even if everything material is imagined/virtual/synthetic. in the material realm materialism is.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Perhaps
 


The title offers what they are for and in so far as Materialism, the question is if in this case, it has been debunked??



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Yeah ? whats this all about ?



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   


 
Posting videos and video links - ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ

AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count. Please do not create minimal posts. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of a video, please post the video or a link to the video, a description of the video's content, and one or two paragraphs offering your own opinion on the video. This will help inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.
edit on 30/12/2012 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
What are these videos about?



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by cartesia
 


Are you suggesting that what we see of a rock is all there is to it???



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by forgetmenot
 


Some of them imply that Materialism could be irrelevant.

Any thoughts?



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by forgetmenot
 

Any thoughts?

Yeah, that if you don't give some sort of summary of their contents (preferably one for each video), then I'm not wasting 2 hours of my time watching random videos.
edit on 28-12-2012 by forgetmenot because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by Perhaps
 


The title offers what they are for and in so far as Materialism, the question is if in this case, it has been debunked??


Has what been debunked? The material world is made from quantum material. I don't see an issue here.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by forgetmenot
 


Actually the first video 7 minutes + is the actual argument and the rest, is in relation to providing "equal time",to either consideration.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by forgetmenot
 


Actually the first video 7 minutes + is the actual argument and the rest, is in relation to providing "equal time",to either consideration.

Awesome, but could you summarize them?



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


I haven't watched the videos that you posted, but I don't need to.
I know from personal experience that people do in fact value their material possessions more than the human connection they have with someone. For the love of money. Just plain ridiculous. Is there a term for those who have a phobia about being poor or even lower middle class? Just plain sad.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by forgetmenot
 


It means that the Universe can react to an observation if it understands that it is being observed



The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is the unresolved problem of how (or if) wavefunction collapse occurs. The inability to observe this process directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer. The wavefunction in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation as a linear superposition of different states, but actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the process under examination. Whatever that "something" may be does not appear to be explained by the basic theory.

To express matters differently (to paraphrase Steven Weinberg [1][2]), the Schrödinger wave equation determines the wavefunction at any later time. If observers and their measuring apparatus are themselves described by a deterministic wave function, why can we not predict precise results for measurements, but only probabilities? As a general question: How can one establish a correspondence between quantum and classical reality?[3]


en.wikipedia.org...

Any thoughts?



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by forgetmenot
 


It means that the Universe can react to an observation if it understands that it is being observed


Actually it means the act of observing changes the outcome. Whatever instrument is used to measure the outcome necessarily effects the outcome.

Not at all what you said.

The double slit experiment does not debunk materialism, it shows matter and energy are not a wave OR a particle, that they can be both. That is all. None of the interpretations negate materialism except for fringe people who have no grasp of real science.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


Alright here's some more food for thought. After visiting the 2nd videos author's website (elwave.org...), he is leaning more towards a different theory to quantum mechanics, called The Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) proposed by Lewis E. Little.(elementarywaves.com...)

He is stating that from the double slit experiment, instead of waves going forward from the particle, it in fact comes in the reverse way of thinking. His video is his experiment to prove this, and he is saying that he has found a new time factor, 1 nanosecond, to close shut a slit and get new results.

------------------------
TEW


Quote from the video at the end:

The whole subject of Measurement Theory, simply evaporates.



Now I also looked for others that disagree with this theory. (ariwatch.com...)

And they seem to imply the support of the wave–particle duality and quantum mechanics.

Wave–particle duality postulates that all particles exhibit both wave and particle properties, a central concept of quantum mechanics



The basic problem with TEW is that it is undefined and contradictory. Nothing exists to agree with experiment. It’s not really a theory at all. To put it another way: If we found a local explanation of DDC, still TEW would be wrong, still lack any explanatory power.



The most telling flaw is that the physical units of his theory’s fundamental constituent, the elementary wave, is undefined. (Mr. Speicher once claimed it was energy, then refused to discuss it ! )



"Lewis Little was
ultimately forced to admit his theory could not explain the relevant
EPR experiments"


I see TEW to be a sketchy theory, but it adds more likelihood to the quantum mechanic's wave-particle duality approach which is demonstrated in the first video with the double-slit experiment.

On the other hand, if he can prove his experiment, and give credence to TEW; it would change a ton in the quantum world.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by smwoop
reply to post by Kashai
 


On the other hand, if he can prove his experiment, and give credence to TEW; it would change a ton in the quantum world.


Which is evidence that TEW is bogus. If they could show an experiment as proof it would put their names in the books forever. They can't do it. It's more of the same, asking for trust with no real proof, and their biggest peice of "evidence" is that the other guy can't explain everything 100%.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Materialism has indeed been debunked but rather than just falling to the floor like a good corpse it has become a zombie.

Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments

Abstract


A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern's double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s.

Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z=–4:36, p=6x10–6). Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z=0:43, p=0:67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified.

By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem.


edit on 29-12-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)
edit on 3/1/13 by JAK because: External quote tags added



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


What explanation do you have for this?

Perhaps you have a PDF file from a conservative scientist that offers an explanation for this. Something that changes when a person looks at it? You suggest that what I have offered is fringe and not in keeping with an understanding of science then by all means what do you have to offer??


Any thoughts?





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join