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

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 




The environment itself isn't conscious, and it makes no determination concerning what sort of change/event occurrence is happening.

Something from nothing? Who said that?


Given the environment is conscious then a basis for interaction would be apparent.

Consciousness exist not because of something coming from nothing but rather. That we are conscious because we exist in a conscious environment. The tendency of life towards existing in this environment is inherent, being an aspect or image of a living thing, its origin. Depending upon the development of said organisms. Some and then eventually all will comes to terms with this and that is transcendence. One context being in the works of Carl Jung and the Collective Unconscious.

Feel free to know that I am enjoying this conversation.
But also understand that based upon my experiences above is apparent.

I can't help the fact you have never spent two years as I have


*********************************

tgidkp



however, i think this is a terrible metaphor.)


Actually its a good analogy to Flatland.

The cartoon character has no referent to understanding its creator or if one can even exist. It exist in a bubble of sorts where even though it can understand there exist a 3rd dimension. It has only that slightest capacity to perceive or understand it. We have the same problem with the 4th dimension and so on.

Their we are the ones in the proverbial bubble

Any thoughts?



edit on 24-7-2013 by Kashai because: modifed content




posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Kashai
 


Why do you have stake in the environment being conscious? Do you want to know the true nature of reality, are you curious? Or do you already know the answers and truth? Why do you think what you think and believe is the truth? How were these answers proven to you? If you have not been proven beyond a doubt, what is it about you that desires to believe what you are saying is true? Why do you want something that is not able to be sure to be true, given your evidence, to be true? How did the nature of reality turn out to be the thoughts which make you feel most comfortable?



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 09:33 PM
link   
After you open the box and determine that the cat is indeed dead you can them take the cats temperature to determine how long it has been dead. If the radioactive decay occurred 10 minutes after the box was sealed you will know by its temp. If the cats state of, "alive or dead" was determined the instant the box was open you will know by it's temp, or lack of decay.

Not knowing does not mean that it exists in both states simultaneously. I understand the principle behind the paradox but I just can't accept the blurred existence of the poor cat,
edit on 7/24/2013 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



I spent two years interacting with Native's to the western hemisphere. I was very young at the time which is a part of the tradition. While at the time I was exposed to "Western Society" I learned a lot of things that I have been able to carry over into my life and by the way that is very complicated.

I am presenting an opinion about reality which pretty much became a whole lot larger, after Planks Satellite was returned to Earth. I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying you have no way on Gods green earth to convince me of that. That has nothing to do with me passing off on some judgment about you.

One way of looking at it is in relation to the proverb of walking in another's moccasins or shoes. I am simply saying that if you had walked in my shoes, you would better understand where I am coming from.

As I have explained on numerous occasions science has never investigated psi by interacting with indigenous cultures in relation to religious experiences (including this thread).

My point is simple, claims that psi does not exist with regards to current data on the subject. Can in every way shape an form be considered in effect an effort at bias. I mean honestly if one does not test the origins of any phenomenon how is that science?



edit on 24-7-2013 by Kashai because: Modifed content



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


oooohhhhhh.... the plot thickens. great questions.

btw, i thought your last post about the "entanglement believers" was a bit of a red herring. the phenomenon is far better established than you are letting on.



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


Oh im glad you think so and know so. Can you please describe the leading candidate/s for the theory of the mechanism which allows particulates of energy to transfer information regarding their states across any distance of space instantly? What do believers of this theory, claim space is fundamentally, and what do they claim particles of energy are fundamentally, that this activity is able to occur?



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


oooohhhhhh.... the plot thickens. great questions.

btw, i thought your last post about the "entanglement believers" was a bit of a red herring. the phenomenon is far better established than you are letting on.


Ahhh... I was at ATS before from about 12 to 16 years ago, meaning I was discussing here for about 5 years.

While I was here I happened to get into a conversation with a certain skeptic after that we talked more in PM and IM and E-mail, outside our conversations in public forum. There was a falling out and part of it was my fault and the other issues was that I had no idea I was talking to his father. He and I argued a lot in debate as he preferred a strict adherence to Christianity. At the same time I was about to be involved in something rather important to me as it had to do with my father. I left at the protest of my skeptical friend and the truth was he really has nothing to do with the matter.

So I came back after having dealt with the problem I owed him that. Many things I have to talk about have no real referent with in the context of the mainstream. It has a lot to do with the teachings and comprehension of cultures like the Toltec's, Ancient Chinese, Japanese Europeans prior to Christianity and some accounts about after Christianity.

As a result of my complicated life where as far as laurels no problem there.

Just here to chat about thoughts and to keep to the forums rules as I should already know better.

Any thoughts? .



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   
There is nothing wrong in relation to questioning your thoughts that is an aspect of Critical thinking.

The most important thing in that regard is to treat anything you are exposed to in a critical way.

Question everything as that is skepticism in its purest form.
edit on 24-7-2013 by Kashai because: added content



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
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.


Has quantum entanglement not been achieved?
www.2physics.com...



posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Here is an article from 2009 same issue though this time its a meter apart.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


....see, thats the thing about a red herring. you are trying to get me to answer questions that are irrelevant. amplified by your snarky tone. i do not have to explain the phenomenon in order to acknowledge its observance.

entanglement is established as a subset of the coherence of the wavefunction.

entanglement (and by association, superposition) is the "how" of quantum mechanics. it is not "teaching a dog to dance" (homage to OP). yes, it may require strict laboratory conditions to study (just as most science does), but it is as common as the nose in front of your face and is the single phenomenon that enables any material form to persist, as a whole, across any length of spacetime.

entanglement is fragile? coherence cannot persist through noise? pfffft. coherence and entanglement happen because of the noise and through the noise. they ARE the noise.


so now i will throw you a fish: care to explain how each and every little one-at-a-time photon "knows" how to generate the interference pattern in the double-slit experiment?



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp



so now i will throw you a fish: care to explain how each and every little one-at-a-time photon "knows" how to generate the interference pattern in the double-slit experiment?


First of all there is a difference between the double slit; Shooting exactly 1 photon, and bringing superposition into the mix by saying the photon goes through both slits, or that it only goes through one slit for sure, but since we dont know what slit it goes through when we are not observing (obviously, I dont know how many fingers you are holding behind the back when im not observing them), when we do observe there is no interference pattern, because the detector used for observation, is the 'observer' that 'collapses' the wave function and forces the photon to go in an exact slit. I dont know exactly why this occurs, but all the explanations ive heard are related to the fact that any of our means of detection requires as reflecting light off an object, and then receiving that light and interpreting it (radar,sonar,x rays, cameras,microscopes). So when we do this to try and observe the photon, this detector interacts with the environment in some manner, that causes the single photon (remember this is only single photon experiment, not one after the other, just what happens with 1 photon) to go through 1 slit. like the entanglement scenario, I would assume that whether we detect or not the single photon travels through one slit.

I admit I dont know much about the nature of photons and space. Is it thought that when the photon creator, creates a photon, the photon is like a bullet, or from the point of creation, is it like a wave, so like the creation of the photon would be like dropping a stone, and the ripples wold travel outward towards the slit (well ripple non plural would be a photon?)

anyway. Bunch of photons fired, I would expect bunch of ripples, like frequencies of vibrations, or moving your hand in water at different speeds, or if youve seen those videos of sand being vibrated at different frequencies, and so certain intervals would create harmonies, and certain frequencies would create interference.

So 1 photon, I dont see how it could ever create an interference pattern, if its the only thing, unless it is a wave that takes up longitudinally a length longer then the distance between the slits, and the slits broke the wave, and then the two waves interacted.

photons one after another (even though im not sure what is meant, one after the other created as in a million every second?) photons are said to not be able to act with one another, so this is another hurdle in my understanding with this situation...

Well I was hoping to answer this a lot successfully snakier so I could have said "I hope you like your fish well done" or "consider your fish fried".. But I still think I brought up some key points, that I hope you can address, and im looking forward to your response.

One more thing. Id like for you to define photon in this manner. We have a photon creator (a gun looking thing) in a vacuum sealed box, with a double slit in front of it, and then the boxes wall behind. The only way to truly understand and imagine the scope of the dilemma, is to ponder what im about to ask. Imagine that you are pure mind/spirit/god (nothing exists just the laws of physics as they are and that vacuum box set up), and you can see every plancks length space in that box, and im outside the box with a remote control, that when I press the remote control the gun will create a photon. In this scenario your mind is also like a remote control, though it is master over time, every instance of time that exists (change in a system, change of energy) is viewable by you, so I press the button and you watch a photon created in the slowest motion possible, the slowest frame rate, step by step, everything that physically occurs for a photon to be created. What are you viewing? what is going on? in that gun, at the tip of that gun, and every possible step from the tip of the gun, to the photon interacting with the most immediate space at the tip of the gun, and beyond.
edit on 25-7-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by NorEaster
 




The environment itself isn't conscious, and it makes no determination concerning what sort of change/event occurrence is happening.

Something from nothing? Who said that?


Given the environment is conscious then a basis for interaction would be apparent.

Consciousness exist not because of something coming from nothing but rather. That we are conscious because we exist in a conscious environment. The tendency of life towards existing in this environment is inherent, being an aspect or image of a living thing, its origin. Depending upon the development of said organisms. Some and then eventually all will comes to terms with this and that is transcendence. One context being in the works of Carl Jung and the Collective Unconscious.

Feel free to know that I am enjoying this conversation.
But also understand that based upon my experiences above is apparent.

I can't help the fact you have never spent two years as I have



I don't base anything that I believe to be of a primordial or sub-structural basis on what I've experienced. If I did, then I'd believe all kinds of things that can't possibly be true. We're all entitled to our interpretations of what we've experienced, but reality is and will be what it is regardless of our individual interpretations of how we experience that reality. I'm comfortable with what I believe to be true about consciousness and its place within the whole of physical reality. It is the result of many years of diligent research and extremely disciplined application of that research. In this last year, that effort has begun to really pay off with a remarkable coalescence of emerging realizations that, as an intricately coordinated developmental structure, literally eliminates the most vexing existential contradictions that have persisted for decades, even centuries. It's been a bit of a shock at times, but definitely exciting.

In the end, the human mind will tend to "project" its own version of physical reality onto what it perceives as that which is real. It doesn't actually matter if it chooses to anthropomorphize the simple defaults of ramification and contextual precedence, since it will never perceive with 100% clarity anyway. I see no value in debating such an issue.

Have a good day today, and thanks for sharing.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
First of all there is a difference between the double slit; Shooting exactly 1 photon, and bringing superposition into the mix by saying the photon goes through both slits, or that it only goes through one slit for sure, but since we dont know what slit it goes through when we are not observing (obviously, I dont know how many fingers you are holding behind the back when im not observing them), when we do observe there is no interference pattern, because the detector used for observation, is the 'observer' that 'collapses' the wave function and forces the photon to go in an exact slit. I dont know exactly why this occurs, but all the explanations ive heard are related to the fact that any of our means of detection requires as reflecting light off an object, and then receiving that light and interpreting it (radar,sonar,x rays, cameras,microscopes). So when we do this to try and observe the photon, this detector interacts with the environment in some manner, that causes the single photon (remember this is only single photon experiment, not one after the other, just what happens with 1 photon) to go through 1 slit. like the entanglement scenario, I would assume that whether we detect or not the single photon travels through one slit.


I'd just like to point out that there have been experiments in which they excluded interaction of the detector. Search for the double-slit quantum eraser experiment for an example.

For me, that experiment successfully shows that entanglement is a thing.. But not much more than that, we still don't know why the photons behave differently when we try to know more about them. It also says nothing about superposition imo.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
tgidkp:

Did you know that DNA has room temp superconductive properties and can enter a resonant state possibly similar to what you're describing...


The crux of my hypothesis requires a correspondence of energy interaction between the various scales of matter. That is to say that it requires an interactive energy component at the quantum level of our physical bodies between that of our molecular level, and thence between molecular level and cellular level. This correspondence may actually be determined by the shape and form of the resonating quantum lattice determining the shape and form of the molecular lattice, which in turn determines the shape, form, and function at cellular level. The internal forces of bonding at the smaller levels determine the forces and functions of bondings at larger scaling. We also have to take into account environmental forces and conditions which influence what type of bondings occur and how.

Optimal human body temperature is given as being 37C (or 98.6F) with a variability throughout the day and night, but not by much. This mean temperature is what is required for optimal internal functioning of the human body, especially enzyme functioning. Variations of temperature in either direction, either too hot or too cold, rapidly reduces both physical and mental optimal functioning.

The human body is one of the most complex organic modular systems of seemingly self-organisation that we know of. All the pieces in isolation look nothing like the whole human body, but together in cooperative relations they make a whole human being, both physically and mentally. If we put aside all assumptions of either divine or extraterrestrial origin, the human body is an awesome piece of natural engineering. At it's most basic functioning it is simply an 'automaton' reacting and responding to internal and external (environmental) triggers, but at its highest functioning, through the conscious state, it is the carrier of sentient awareness and intelligence, and the person-hood of 'self'.

Nature is profligate, but never wasteful or trivial, everything in nature is present for an interconnected purpose (ala, Bohm). On recognising this non-illusory aspect of nature, I wondered to myself why nature would require the presence and existence of sentient awareness and intelligence, and ultimately that of person-hood of 'self'?

In order to supply myself with a plausible answer to my question, I looked at the problem of consciousness and for a plausible natural mechanism for its production. There is no doubt in my mind that the energy that places the organic body into the conscious state arises out of quantum wave field interactions, but must not be considered as a single 'whole' field, but one comprised of billions of wave fields switching on and off very rapidly which we perceive as a whole field, and that it is regulated at cellular level and processed into experience within the brain.

This mechanism would explain the conundrum of Schroedinger's Cat paradox and brings me neatly to your question regarding wave function breakdown.

When a cat is placed (alive) within a sealed box we already know of its condition. If the box is hooked up to some apparatus that can, at some unknown time, randomly trigger an event which may or may not release poison into the box and kill the cat, and we leave it for say 24 hours and return to the box, we can have no way of knowing the cat's true condition after the interlude. Is the cat alive or dead?

Until we open the box to find out (i.e., make an observation), we can say that the cat's condition is (in philosophical terms) both alive and dead simultaneously. Without opening the box, its as if the cat's condition is smeared out into two potential realities. To all intents and purposes, the cat's condition is now a wave function of probability, of being either alive or dead. It does not mean that the cat now exists in two different universes, that's a ridiculous assumption, as the cat exists only and solely in the universe that we too, inhabit.

Once we decide to open the box it is at that point that the cat's wave function of probability breaks down and becomes the reality of what we discover it to be...either it is alive, or it is dead. It's condition becomes a part of the conscious state production in us. Light radiation reflecting off the cat into our eyes acts like the external energy wave impinging upon the particles forcing them together and thus helping to create the energy resonance that places our bodies into the conscious state.

This does not mean that our observation determined the cat's condition, only that our opening the box (as an act of observation) discovered what the cat's condition was.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Nekodos
 


I have heard of that experiment though I admit I dont truly understand the significance, I will check it out again.

Entanglement and superposition are intimately linked. Superposition has to do with our ignorance of a particles state without observing it. Entanglement has to do with our ignorance of 2 particles states without observing them, and only knowing what one and the others states are after observing one.

Like I said I have not been convinced of the mechanism of how this magic trick works, so I refuse to believe it is magic. Entanglement to my mind seems like, you have a red and blue ball in your hand; you are holding them behind your back one in your left hand one in your right. To my ignorant perspective, there is a 50% probability that the ball in your right hand is red, and 50% it is blue, and same for your left hand. So from my perspective is the ball in your left hand superposition of red and blue, and the same in your right hand? Then you show me the ball in your right hand, and it is red. Is it logical for me to claim that the ball in your right hand was blue and red, and only when you showed it to me it turned red, and sent and instant non physical signal FTL to the ball in your other hand to tell it, it must be blue. And what do you know, when you show me the ball in your other hand, its blue!

This is a simple version of schrodingers cat that equally shows the silliness of the theory of superposition and entanglement.

I have no problem with FTL information transfer, superposition, and entanglement existing in this universe, I have no stake in the outcome, it doesnt bother me, and I dont care. What I do have a problem with, is believing in something that has a chance of not being true. So until I hear at least one, hopefully multiple, logical theories of how superposition, and entanglement possibly can occur I must withhold my faith in its validity.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

reply to post by elysiumfire
 

reply to post by ErgoTheEgo
 


sorry to do this to the OP, but i feel that in order to establish a foundation to any of these questions, we have to take a look at what is probably the biggest mistake in all of physics:


new thread



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by elysiumfire
 


i think that vitalism is going to make a big comeback and a theory such as yours just might prove to be true.



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


To be truly perfect one must also be imperfect
So as to encompass all things.

What would a 4 dimensional form of life look like from our 3 dimensional perspective?

That is expressed in Flatland.

Investigating Anthropomorphism implies humans do not evolve......in a manner of speaking we are back to moments.

Any thoughts?
edit on 25-7-2013 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 

I see you and raise you P00P: www.abovetopsecret.com...





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join