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.

 

So, Shrodinger's Cat was actually a ball bust all along...

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


you have to consider, tho, that the statefunction of the supernova that you are describing has no relevant context to us as members of the system that the statefunction describes.

going back to the example i gave above, the statefunction WARM is only relevant to an observer outside of the system in question. particles inside the system (running water, fingertip, etc.) are entangled, but their entanglement is meaningless.

so the only way the supernova entanglement makes any sense is if we are imaginary observers from outside of it. unfortunately, for me, that becomes merely an interesting thought experiment but doesnt yield any really useful information.

so, you could be right. but what does it mean?




posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
Meaning that at the very least what we are doing, affects every particle of matter within that distance instantaneously despite distance.


and, to address this separately...

this is an improper interpretation of entanglement. our actions are not imposed upon the statefunction. the statefunction imposes itself upon us. (the first measurement, 'hot water', does not dictate the second measurement 'cold water'. they are merely members of the same statefunction, which structures ALL measurements.)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Perhaps you should argue that with a certain professor of physics at Stanford that argues that Hawkins is wrong.

I hope you guys are not assuming that I do not understand physics



edit on 23-7-2013 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp

Originally posted by Kashai
Meaning that at the very least what we are doing, affects every particle of matter within that distance instantaneously despite distance.


and, to address this separately...

this is an improper interpretation of entanglement. our actions are not imposed upon the statefunction. the statefunction imposes itself upon us. (the first measurement, 'hot water', does not dictate the second measurement 'cold water'. they are merely members of the same statefunction, which structures ALL measurements.)


And your evidence of that??? You actually suggesting that an ordered event has no effect upon everything created at the same time???

Again evidence please.

Any thoughts?
edit on 23-7-2013 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
unfortunately, for me, that becomes merely an interesting thought experiment but doesnt yield any really useful information.

so, you could be right. but what does it mean?

The state function is consciously experiencing itself from "within" (or below if you wish) itself, as there is nothing outside of itself to experience or be experienced. It will only ever be able to know/observe itself as a subset of itself looking at the other "sets".

The states are imposed upon (produced by, generated from, dictated by) the state function "from above". And yet the states are no less an aspect of describing the state function "from below".

The hand is not the body, however without parts there is no body. They are one and the same and the only time "hand" exists is when an arbitrary boundary is created. "Hand" is the fiction in the same way your earlier example lists "warm" as the fiction.


it sorta sits "above" the system in terms of time and space

What does that sound like?
edit on 23-7-2013 by ErgoTheEgo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2013 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Skeptics all you need to do is provide evidence that Bells Theorem is incorrect.

Quantum Entanglement and Bell's Theorem



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


i am not assuming anything. in fact, you might recall me saying:



so, you could be right. but what does it mean?


i didnt come here to argue. take it or leave it. sorry.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by Kashai
 


i am not assuming anything. in fact, you might recall me saying:



so, you could be right. but what does it mean?


i didnt come here to argue. take it or leave it. sorry.


If you are a Cartoon Character how would it be possible for you to understand the Cartoonist?

I mean however you may chose to define it especially with respect to dimensions.

Any thoughts?
edit on 24-7-2013 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


Tell me why what im about to say is impossible.

a particle that is entangled with another has 2 possible states. State 1 or state 2.

We have a device that makes entangled particles. Boom. 2 particles are made.

Believers in entanglement would claim that both particles onto themselves are each in state 1 and state 2 at the same time. They would say when a measurement occurs on (one of the particles) the first particle, it is seen that the particle is an exact state, (lets say for example when this measurement occurs it is in state) 1.

Then the other particle, is destined to be 2 when measured.

Why could it not be that. When the entangled particles are created. one of the particles is state 1. The other particle is state 2. And when the first is measured, it is seen to be state 1. That means the second is destined to be 2. because it was 2.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by NorEaster
 




Your survival as a material human being absolutely hinges on your mind's devotion to that very simple, yet witheringly relentless and endless process. If you think that your own survival is less important to your own consciousness than what's happening at the quantum level.


I am taking about day to day activity of consciousness in general and its effect upon our surroundings.

Essentially even as an example a spoken word affects air molecules causing them to move in response to the sound and its patterns as a result of speech.

Hypothetically speaking say you are an alien from an advanced civilization onboard a mining spacecraft.

Your society does not allow your culture of mine solar systems that have intelligent life. So as you are passing Sol you activate your "quantum entanglement life detector". As the scanner interacts with earth it registers the activity of conscious life due to the non-random effect upon the quantum environment generated by human beings.

The materials that pretty much make up our solar system was all created at the same time. Any reaction no matter how small or insignificant has an effect upon everything created at the same time. Therefore any non- random behavior that we engage in (picking up your news paper from the front yard every Sunday) affected every other particle created at the same time.

We are entangled with our quantum environment even a blink of an eye generates an effect upon every other particle created at the same time instantaneously (as in EPR Paradox and Bells Inequality).


edit on 23-7-2013 by Kashai because: Added content


Of course we have a residual impact on the environment as a whole. Everything that happens does, conscious or not. Consciousness is active and aware interpretation of events and relationships. Relative to the environment, it's no different than any change/event occurrence. The environment itself isn't conscious, and it makes no determination concerning what sort of change/event occurrence is happening. If one has a machine that can seek out and delineate residual fact sets from existent dynamic burst set clusters (both information wholes) then I suppose that brain-equipped life could be detected. That said, there'd be no way to determine the "humanness" of that life, since dynamic burst set wholes are impregnable and indivisible. A dog's burst set whole would appear as "human" as your own to any such machine.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by NorEaster
 


To suggest that a Random Universe can have probabilistic aspects. So as to form order in the classical sense implies that probability is inherent to randomness, why?

You mention simplicity but something from nothing is not simple.


edit on 23-7-2013 by Kashai because: Modifed content


Something from nothing? Who said that? The universe isn't random. Not by any stretch of the term random. I described how randomness is eliminated. Probability can only exist within the strict confines of contextual precedence, with the permanent existence of "speed bumps and furniture" in the form of residual fact sets (that emerged as a default ramification of every change and event that's ever occurred) providing very specific "avenues of possible and then plausible occurrence" to every ongoing change/event trajectory that persists, relative to the kind of trajectory it is and the contextual circumstances within which it is persisting.

It's really simple. I didn't say it wasn't densely layered with immeasurable amounts of interconnecting layers per incremental move forward, but the structural concept itself is remarkably simple.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErgoTheEgo

Originally posted by NorEaster
Since a person's experience of consciousness is always delayed - from a half second to a full seven seconds -

We can only verify that a person's experience of consciousness is delayed in relationship to the interaction with shared reality. A "tornado" has no delay in interacting with itself.

Our perception of the events going on in an online video game is delayed relative to our perception of the events going on in our living rooms.
edit on 23-7-2013 by ErgoTheEgo because: (no reason given)


This study suggests that each person's experience of conscious awareness is measurably delayed.


Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain

Chun Siong Soon1,2, Marcel Brass1,3, Hans-Jochen Heinze4 & John-Dylan Haynes1,2

There has been a long controversy as to whether subjectively 'free' decisions are determined by brain activity a. of time. We found that the outcome of a decision can be encoded in brain activity of prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 10 s before it enters awareness. This delay presumably reflects the operation of a network of high-level control areas that begin to prepare an upcoming decision long before it enters awareness.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
This study suggests that each person's experience of conscious awareness is measurably delayed.

I'm aware of and understand the studies showing those results. It is still measuring the interaction with shared reality, not the interaction with itself.

There is not a lack of conscious awareness during the 10 seconds... there is a lack of conscious "decision". The "momentum" of consciousness/brain activity building up to the decision point will clearly lead to and result in whatever the decision wound up being.

The destruction of a trailer by a tornado is encoded in the activity of the tornado before the trailer is actually destroyed... yet the tornado is still engaging in constant instant interaction with itself and apparently delayed interactions with everything "outside" of itself.

A "decision" is an arbitrary measuring point... a useful one... but an arbitrary one. No more or less than a tornado's activity crossing the path of a trailer is an arbitrary measuring point... though potentially to the family living in it... a very useful one.
edit on 24-7-2013 by ErgoTheEgo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


sorry about cutting you short last night. it was bedtime. due to your phrasing about the "cartoonist", i can see that we are both in basic agreement about the phenomena. however, i read your quote below to mean something completely different....


Originally posted by Kashai
Meaning that at the very least what we are doing, affects every particle of matter within that distance instantaneously despite distance.


to me, using your own metaphor, you are here saying that the cartoonist's drawings ("what we are doing...") are in control of the cartoon. (however, i think this is a terrible metaphor.)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 

i disagree. bell's inequality IS correct, it's just that there is a misunderstood variable, NOT a missing variable.

you will find that most problems with theories don't stem from the math, but the interpretation of the math.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ErgoTheEgo
 


i am uncertain of what you two are discussing specifically, but it is a topic which i find fascinating. i hope this information will be of use. from this article :


Consider a seemingly simple experiment. Close your eyes and imagine an object in front of you. The imagined image is vague, not as crisp and clear as with opened eyes. As we open eyes; the object becomes crisp and clear. It seems to occur momentarily, but actually it takes 1/5th of a second. This is a very long time for neural brain mechanisms–hundreds of thousands of neural interactions. Let us also note: with opened eyes we are not conscious about initially vague imagination, we are not conscious about the entire 1/5th of a second, we are conscious only about the end of this process: crisp, clear object in front of our eyes. The explanation of this experiment has become simple after many years of research that have found out what goes on in the brain during these 1/5th of a second.

....during visual perception of an object, a concept-model of the object stored in memory projects an image (top-down signals) onto the visual cortex, which is matched there to an image projected from the retina (bottom-up signal; this simplified description will be refined later...

...Projection of top-down signals from a model to the visual cortex primes or makes visual neurons to be more receptive to matching bottom-up signals. Conscious perception occurs...after top-down and bottom-up signals match.



this always reminds me of the old story about the indigenous people of the americas, and how when chris columbus' ships were out at bay, they could not see the ships. whether or not this story is true, it does have a basis in truth: your brain can (typically) only see things which it has seen before. weird.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   
An hypothesis I came up with during the '90s postulates consciousness to be an emergent phenomenon arising out of quantum interactions as a resonance, which I called 'quantum wave-field resonance correspondence' (QWRc).

Two particles some distance apart from each other are at rest phase. An external energy wave propagating through the spatial environment impinges upon the two particles. The impact of the energy wave upon each particle brings into play Newton's 3rd Law of motion, and a reactive and resistive force arises, pushing back with equal force to the energy wave acting upon them. This means that each particle is raised out of its rest phase into an excited phase. If the energy wave impacting upon them overcomes the intrinsic energy of each particle's resistance, they are moved towards each other, and as the distance between them becomes smaller and smaller, their energy values increase.

As they are forced closer to each other their quantum fields interact similarly to the way magnetic fields interact and it is at this point the resonance I postulate to underpin the conscious state arises. The resonance only lasts as long as the interaction lasts, and its energy value is the sum of each particle's intrinsic energy and the energy wave. The point at which this resonance arises is the point when wave function breakdown occurs.

The main thing to understand here is that I am not saying that the resonance is consciousness energy, in fact it has nothing to do with consciousness at this stage. What I have postulated here is a mechanism for a natural production of a resonant energy that the organic body uses (I employ this term very loosely) to place the organism into a functioning conscious state.

The type of consciousness that arises in an organic body is determined by the form and structure of the organism. The more complex the organism is in structure and form the more complex the conscious state is expressed, from simple instinctual behaviour arising from environmental conditions and triggers to the full blown sentient awareness of man. The mechanism for the production of the resonance is an on-going process deep inside the very fabric of our physical forms, which is why we have a conscious state.

Being in a conscious state is not enough for sentient awareness, before this evolved, a further - and probably the most important evolutionary acquirement by man - was the ability to store experience...in other words, memory. Without memory, no sense of time, of a past, a present, or a future could arise to give the organism even the most rudimentary perception of 'self'. Being able to store and recall experiences allows for a psyche to develop and a 'self' to emerge, whilst throughout the organism's span of life it is in a conscious state, even during sleep, when chemicals inhibit and dampen the sensory and ambulatory aspects of the organism.

A further point to bear in mind is that the resonance is a representation of the interaction from which it emerges...the resonance is informational, and it is this aspect that provides the organism in some way with its qualia experience.

Of course, I've skipped over a hell of a lot of detail, this is merely a cursory glance.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by elysiumfire
 


it is difficult to interpret your idea properly without more info, but this is what i am imagining:

the two particles are acting as tiny radios. they both encounter a carrier wave which brings their configuration into a consonant state. the consonant state represents a higher energy state than a similar but dissonant configuration....

.....and then what? what form does the resonant energy take? like in a metal with free electrons? a superconductor? did you know that DNA has room temp superconductive properties and can enter a resonant state possibly similar to what youre describing (check this out and tell me what you think)?

where does this initial carrier wave initiate?

and could you be more specific about this:



The point at which this resonance arises is the point when wave function breakdown occurs.


what do you mean by "wave function breakdown"?



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
i am uncertain of what you two are discussing specifically, but it is a topic which i find fascinating. i hope this information will be of use. from this article :

Absolutely wonderful research. Thank you.

My query into this field of study is: What is the timing of the perception of a "mind's eye" apple.

Not the opening of the eyes (opening of the fiber optic cable)... but the "local server" creation of an "apple".

If we are only able to see that which we have already seen... what is it that "sees things" in ways that have not yet "been seen"? Maybe a more useful question is "when/how" is the "unseen" combination of "seens"... "seen"?

You are not as uncertain of what we are discussing as you think/project.

Danke for your contribution... it was/is invigorating.
edit on 24-7-2013 by ErgoTheEgo because:




posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
this always reminds me of the old story about the indigenous people of the americas, and how when chris columbus' ships were out at bay, they could not see the ships. whether or not this story is true, it does have a basis in truth: your brain can (typically) only see things which it has seen before. weird.

Here is a question to contemplate.

Imagine that you were only in a position to detect, observe, and categorize the emissions of an engine.

Yes... basically it means what if you could only make scientific observations of "poop".

How much information about the motivations of the "pooper" do you think you would be capable of deducing? Especially considering that anything considered "useful" to the "pooper" is never given to you. Only that which is rejected. Meaning, that which is rare in the poop, but abundant in the pooper's world will not be accurately reflected to you. That which is abundant in the poop is not useful in the pooper's world.

What sort of models do you think the scientific method, as wonderful as it is, will be capable of constructing?

Empires of Poop?

edit on 24-7-2013 by ErgoTheEgo because:




new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join