Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness (and the other way around)

originally posted by: HotMale

It's Affect by the way.

No its not, things effect things. Consciousness can be affected. But we were talking about consciousness effecting things that are not consciousness. Consciousness does not affect a baseball.

Wth are you talking about. There obviously are contradictions and consciousness would explain why this is happening. It doesn't explain how exactly.

You are failing to grasp what I am talking about, this is not my failure.

You must always remember the difference between Truth (reality) and human knowledge.

When I say 'there are no contradictions' I mean in reality.

There can only be contradictions in human knowledge, in the mind. Only the mind can posses or propagate falseness.

If the universe is not real, then there can be contradictions outside of the mind.

If the universe is real, there can be no contradictions outside of the mind.

Because reality cannot be anything other than tautological.

Your desire for undeniable physical reasons for a non physical nature is not realistic.

You just made the statement: Nature is non physical...

ermmm wut...

Something. Nothing.

Physical = Something.

Something = not nothing.

Physical = not nothing.

Real = not nothing

If nature = real.

nature = something

nature = physical

nature = not nothing.

if nature = not nothing

nature = physical reason

If human knowledge desires to = nature

human knowledge desires to = no contradictions

if nature is real, nature = no contradictions

Of course I mean physical contradictions like "It is true that it is possible for me to put the entire sun in my mouth, and it is true that it is not possible for me to put the entire sun in my mouth".


If the universe is real.

Then there are physical reasons, non contradictory, explicit reasons, exactly why experiments result as they do.

If consciousness plays a role, consciousness plays the exact role that it does.

I dont even know what you are arguing for anymore. It seems you think your interpretation = 'something non trivial', but I am not sure what that is. I am not sure what you think truth is, or your reasons for thinking it, or if you are certain your belief is reasonable or true.

Your the scientist, you do the research ; )
a reply to: Arbitrageur

a reply to: HotMale

No it doesn't respond to the mechanical observation, because if you erase the info of said observation, there still is an interference pattern, even though the mechanical observation took place.

yes. it does. it has been PROVEN to happen in response to both mechanical and organic observers.

This proves it is not the physical detection itself but the availability of the path info.

"path info" interesting, i dont recall seeing that terminology in the article. but perhaps you hail from a higher educational background.

Why does every single one of you keep ignoring these experimental results even though you must have seen me pointing it out at least a dozen times?

because you keep stonewalling every attempt we make to correct you. our patience is not infinite, and i suspect you will learn that soon enough.

a reply to: ImaFungi

All you are doing is ignoring the result while hiding behind pseudo philosophical rambling with a lot of focus on semantical concepts.

originally posted by: HotMale
a reply to: ImaFungi

All you are doing is ignoring the result while hiding behind pseudo philosophical rambling with a lot of focus on semantical concepts.

No I am not. I have attempted to explain the result numerous ways, and attempted to start conversations discussing the nature of the result and its potential reasons.

You have not provided 1 even hypothetical theory as to the meaning of the result.

How do you think the result occurs?

If I said something that was incorrect in that post; Quote it, and tell me what is incorrect about it.

HotMale:

Because it ignores the important point, just like you all keep ignoring it. That's why I don't understand what your point is exactly, and your buddies agree with you.

They agree because they exercise their faculty of discernment. If they disagreed with me, I am sure they would state it so.

Now, what is your point, and what is your question?

But the Quantum Eraser experiment DOES prove consciousness. The experiment is set up so that you can actually look at the result before the electrons arrive at the destinations, and it changes depending on whether you "knew" which path the electrons took. I wonder if the author even knows what the observer means. Observer simply means "the act of knowing which path the electrons took."

Note that this is only a guideline, and will only work for the micro-world.

Does the rock exist if you don't look at it? Well, there are two possible answers, one is, since it's already collapsed by a greater consciousness, then yes. Two is, since everyone exists in the same frame of reference as the rock, and everyone who looks at the rock will have already projected his consciousness onto or "know" what a rock is, the answer is that you can't tell. Only someone who exists outside of the universe who looks down at the rock can tell(which probably exists as an undefined "blob of energy.")

What is consciousness? Well, I was going to post this in the Does children see ghosts(something similar happened to my family actually) thread, for a more complete explanation, but I'll post it here. Now my theory is that children don't have what you'd call a "Defined Consciousness." Basically, what happens is that because they don't know or have any preconceived notion of what a ghost/soul is, yes, they can see them. However, they don't really understand them.

Now this is not to say that if they look at a chair, they don't see a chair, as the chair has already been manifested by a greater power(from the woods it's made from.) My theory is that children can see the supernatural up until you teach them what it is, or that they see them in the movies.

It's actually a dichotomy, in order to see something supernatural, or the energy that a physical object is made of(assuming your consciousness is much stronger), you must not know what it is. But if you don't know what it is, and consequently collapse it, then does it really exist? How do you know what you're looking at then? It will only exist as undefined energy after all.

So to answer the question of what is consciousness? It is simply "to know."

a reply to: TzarChasm

yes. it does. it has been PROVEN to happen in response to both mechanical and organic observers.

Post me a link to a paper that has proven that. This eraser experiment sure doesn't. Still ignoring the erasure procedure.

"path info" interesting, i dont recall seeing that terminology in the article. but perhaps you hail from a higher educational background.

What about the eraser experiment the OP refered to,

The double-slit quantum eraser experiment described in this article has three stages:[1] First, the experimenter reproduces the interference pattern of Young's double-slit experiment by shining photons at the double-slit interferometer and checking for an interference pattern at the detection screen. Next, the experimenter marks through which slit each photon went, without disturbing its wavefunction, and demonstrates that thereafter the interference pattern is destroyed. This stage indicates that it is the existence of the "which-path" information that causes the destruction of the interference pattern. Third, the "which-path" information is "erased," whereupon the interference pattern is recovered. (Rather than removing or reversing any changes introduced into the photon or its path, these experiments typically produce another change that obscures the markings earlier produced.)

because you keep stonewalling every attempt we make to correct you. our patience is not infinite, and i suspect you will learn that soon enough.

You are a bunch of trolls that will not discuss the experimental results that are presented. Will not post any sources or qoutes to back your own claims.

And lol, this "we ".

I always chuckle when I see some powerless person appealing to mob mentality. "Right guys? Right?".

What are you gonna do then. Come at me bro!

originally posted by: HotMale


I would say that my beliefs have some similarities with religious concepts. I believe in a creator. I believe in the soul. I believe true reality is a state of consciousness(however that works I can't know) and everything else is a manifestation of it, and souls are a compartmentalised part of it.

So you have a conclusion: My consciousness is special.

And now you are scouring the world for information that might prove your conclusion so you can say: See, I told you my consciousness was special.

This experiment proves that I have a soul.

This experiment proves that 'true reality is a state of consciousness'.

This experiment proves that there is a creator of the universe.

Wow

What a dishonest soul you are

a reply to: HotMale

You have not provided 1 even hypothetical theory as to the meaning of the result.

How do you think the result occurs?

a reply to: ImaFungi

My consciousness is special.

I would say consciousness is special period. My specific human consciousness is not very special. I think my soul and all other souls are something splendid, yes. Does that reflect poorly on me in any way?

How do you think the result occurs?

Again you are asking about stuff I just posted about.

I don't know how. I am saying that consciousness is playing a role because it is the only thing that availabilty of info would matter to.

I can speculate though and say that there is program that governs reality that works together with consciousness. I have been talking about it thewhole week. Maybe you missed it....

a reply to: ImaFungi

This experiment proves that I have a soul. This experiment proves that 'true reality is a state of consciousness'. This experiment proves that there is a creator of the universe. Wow What a dishonest soul you are

Yes wow. Again you take my words completely out of context. I was asked if I am religious? I responded by sharing my BELIEFS, I even used that exact word.

I did not say that Quantum ersaer experiment proves these beliefs. I said that it proves the role of consciousness.

Your attempt to twist my words in order to demonise me are pathetic, and off course laughable because you can't get anything right.

originally posted by: HotMale


Again you are asking about stuff I just posted about.

I don't know how. I am saying that consciousness is playing a role because it is the only thing that availabilty of info would matter to.

No one argued that consciousness wasnt playing a role; the experiment wouldnt occur without consciousness;

The entire argument has been about hypothetical conceptions of 'what sort of role consciousness did play, and the meaning and significance of this in relation to the knowledge of what reality is and how it functions'.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: HotMale


Again you are asking about stuff I just posted about.

I don't know how. I am saying that consciousness is playing a role because it is the only thing that availabilty of info would matter to.

No one argued that consciousness wasnt playing a role; the experiment wouldnt occur without consciousness;

The entire argument has been about hypothetical conceptions of 'what sort of role consciousness did play, and the meaning and significance of this in relation to the knowledge of what reality is and how it functions'.

lets not forget the laughable notion that without consciousness, matter wouldnt exist.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Has the Quantum Eraser experiment been done with a machine? The timing of the experiment is such that I don't believe you can use a machine to rule out all of the variables.

a reply to: TzarChasm

"Right guys?"

originally posted by: HotMale


Yes wow. Again you take my words completely out of context. I was asked if I am religious? I responded by sharing my BELIEFS, I even used that exact word.

I did not say that Quantum ersaer experiment proves these beliefs. I said that it proves the role of consciousness.

Well if the universe is real, a consciousness plays the role it does, what do you think is happening; what is even one hypothetical thought or theory as to the nature of what this experiment suggests about the nature of reality?

Does it suggest the universe is real or fake?

If it suggests the universe is real, how does the experiment change our comprehension of what 'real' is?

Does it suggest that there is a physical mechanism that exists that is coupled to quanta which transfers information faster than light does?

HotMale:

I think my soul and all other souls are something splendid, yes. Does that reflect poorly on me in any way?

No. the fact you think you have a soul is fine...it's an opinion. Your overall contribution to the thread, now that reflects poorly on you. Your type of obstinate and deliberate obtuseness I witnessed in infancy school over 50 years ago. You should read your postings and be ashamed.

a reply to: ImaFungi

If noone wants to discuss the fact that availability of path info is making the difference between non interference and interference, then we are done.

It means that you guys can't refute it and that's that. I am no longer going to indulge your evasive rambling.