Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Spirituality & Beliefs > Science & Spirituality

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old 18-04-2012, 04:30 AM
hybrid hybrid is offline
Master
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,192
  hybrid's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoguy423
Kepler,

Thanks for the paper... but it is still no closer to answering the problem of consciousness affecting the quantum world.

You have to understand that measuring by any sort of way, whether by recorder, or by direct observation always, always affects the position or momentum of any particles which are in motion!!!!

There is no other way of detecting them!!! You either know position and give up momentum... or you know momentum , but have no idea about position... but rather just a statistical probability on it's position.

In lay man's terms... when using a light amplifier to observe particles... the particles must give up some of it's momentum(energy) to the detector and hence would affect it's flight path. If you put a mesh to detect it's in flight position, it will give up it's momentum when passing through the mesh.

If you allow the particle to maintain it's momentum, then it's position can only be predicted.... although very accurately statistically.

It is a dichotomy... and you can never have both which would in essence have given you absolute detachment from the experiment!!!

Quantum de-coherence of snapping into one reality or another is the Multiple universe idea.

The Macro effects of de-coherence can be explained using the Multiple universe theory.... although me myself, do not prescribe to this theory simply because of the ever expanding universes which arise out of all conscious thought!

Cheers

whoguy,

i got a question.

imagine a still pond of water. Then let there be an observer that throws pebble one at time in the pond. These pebbles will create ripples that will constantly create destructive and constructive interference. Note that as long as there are ripples, there is no final state for these resultant waves because it is constantly changing.

Now the observer decided to look for a standting wave, how would he do that?
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 18-04-2012, 05:11 AM
whoguy423 whoguy423 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 22
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kepler
For me to make an observation, I must be conscious of it, yes. But a particle detector making an observation of an electron's momentum does not need to be.

That is what I thought to be the case as well... But further researching about Schrodingers dead cat proved otherwise... When the detector detects the particle say... even after the fact... the result in the detector is still a wave... until upon you look at it and it collapses into a result. To see what the result is without being conscious of it is impossible, because you cannot look at it without actually looking at it.... Crazy I know... but that is the analogy... or the reality... depending what you believe.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kepler
You seem to be assuming to be true the thing this whole thread is about: that consciousness causes wave function collapse. As I have said, there is reason to believe that this is not true. If you think consciousness does cause wave function collapse, and you'd like to put forth an argument why, I'd be more than happy to discuss it.

As per your paper... consciousness is not required for quantum collapse to occur... at the beginning of the universe where no life existed... QM phenomena still occurred and the universe carried on as normal.

As to whether consciousness affects does cause wavefunction collapse... Yes in my view.

As to the effects of consciousness on the Macro world or universe... very very weak in order of magnitude of mass as compared to a particle.

As to why... in my previous post... That's all i gotta say really.

Cheers Kepler
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 18-04-2012, 05:22 AM
whoguy423 whoguy423 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 22
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hybrid
whoguy,

i got a question.

imagine a still pond of water. Then let there be an observer that throws pebble one at time in the pond. These pebbles will create ripples that will constantly create destructive and constructive interference. Note that as long as there are ripples, there is no final state for these resultant waves because it is constantly changing.

Now the observer decided to look for a standting wave, how would he do that?


According to quantum de-coherence... the consciousness of the observer would actually cause the waves to all snap into one place which would result in showing the exact location of where the pebble entered the pond.

The pebbles would be the equivalent of an electron being fired one after the other at say... a tiny tiny dart board.... without looking at the dart board... it would just be statistical probabilities or where it would hit the dart board. You could model these probabilities as waves and interference patterns. E.g. single slit experiment.

I'm not sure what you really mean by looking for a standing wave? To me, I'd interpret this as the target pattern created by the pebbles over time.

Is this okay Hybrid?
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 18-04-2012, 05:30 AM
hybrid hybrid is offline
Master
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,192
  hybrid's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoguy423
That is what I thought to be the case as well... But further researching about Schrodingers dead cat proved otherwise... When the detector detects the particle say... even after the fact... the result in the detector is still a wave... until upon you look at it and it collapses into a result. To see what the result is without being conscious of it is impossible, because you cannot look at it without actually looking at it.... Crazy I know... but that is the analogy... or the reality... depending what you believe.




As per your paper... consciousness is not required for quantum collapse to occur... at the beginning of the universe where no life existed... QM phenomena still occurred and the universe carried on as normal.

As to whether consciousness affects does cause wavefunction collapse... Yes in my view.

As to the effects of consciousness on the Macro world or universe... very very weak in order of magnitude of mass as compared to a particle.

As to why... in my previous post... That's all i gotta say really.

Cheers Kepler
Shrod cat is a thought experimet in an attempt to explain the measurement problem.

You got it in reverse, because you use an illustration as proof.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 18-04-2012, 05:41 AM
whoguy423 whoguy423 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 22
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hybrid
Shrod cat is a thought experimet in an attempt to explain the measurement problem.

You got it in reverse, because you use an illustration as proof.


I'm not using the thought experiment as proof... I'm using it to illustrate... as you said... the measurement problem...

I did write ... an analogy or reality... depending on what you believe...It is by no means proven.

When I say... In my view... that is my own personal belief... It is not a proven view.

The reason for my view is that I keep thinking about the pseudo science experiments whereby random dices or marbles or whatever is rolled dropped or whatever ... and their patterns examined.

First done without someone in the room... then done with someone watching... and some experiments have shown signs of conscious influence... this is by no means acceptable proof... even for me... but I have an open mind.

Cheers Hybrid
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 18-04-2012, 05:59 AM
hybrid hybrid is offline
Master
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,192
  hybrid's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoguy423
According to quantum de-coherence... the consciousness of the observer would actually cause the waves to all snap into one place which would result in showing the exact location of where the pebble entered the pond.
Decoherence says the opposite. Consciousness is not required and the collapse is only apparent.

Quote:
The pebbles would be the equivalent of an electron being fired one after the other at say... a tiny tiny dart board.... without looking at the dart board... it would just be statistical probabilities or where it would hit the dart board. You could model these probabilities as waves and interference patterns. E.g. single slit experiment.

I'm not sure what you really mean by looking for a standing wave? To me, I'd interpret this as the target pattern created by the pebbles over time.

Is this okay Hybrid?
yes. But how do we measure it.
First we have two options. . .
1. Using wave mechanics we can calculate the sum of all the ripples to see where a standing wave would occur. But this require a very complex calculation and we may not have the math for it.
2. Using wave equation, we can use statistics to predict where the standing wave would likely to appear. This is a more practical approach.

How do we confirm thru measurment if our prediction is correct?
Since we know already where and when in the pond a sw will likely to appear what we have to do is to take a camera and capture it in a picture frame. Why do we have to do that? Because we want a definitive answer of its location with exact coordinates.

Without freezing the standing wave in time, the sw will always be in the move, now you see it now you dont .iowto simply say its on then off is not an answer to the question where is it.

So the act of measurement or observation is akin to taking pictures of the standing wave.
We interfere to make exact measurments and thought it is us that created the standing wave measured
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 18-04-2012, 06:05 AM
hybrid hybrid is offline
Master
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,192
  hybrid's Avatar
cheers

Quote:
Originally Posted by whoguy423
I'm not using the thought experiment as proof... I'm using it to illustrate... as you said... the measurement problem...

I did write ... an analogy or reality... depending on what you believe...It is by no means proven.

When I say... In my view... that is my own personal belief... It is not a proven view.
All im saying is that you cant say consciousness collapse the wave function because of shroddinger cat paradx.

Quote:
The reason for my view is that I keep thinking about the pseudo science experiments whereby random dices or marbles or whatever is rolled dropped or whatever ... and their patterns examined.

First done without someone in the room... then done with someone watching... and some experiments have shown signs of conscious influence... this is by no means acceptable proof... even for me... but I have an open mind.

Cheers Hybrid
Im not aware of actual experiments where consciouness has significant influence on the physical outcome of the experiemnt.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 18-04-2012, 06:09 AM
whoguy423 whoguy423 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 22
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hybrid
Decoherence says the opposite. Consciousness is not required and the collapse is only apparent.


I'm not saying that de-coherence needs consciousness to occur... but consciousness causes de-coherence or seems to... (the seems to, cannot be proven either way).

What is your stance on this Hybrid?

Does consciousness play a role in QM, .... just let you know... All answers are correct in my opinion... it's just a matter of statistics.. he he
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 18-04-2012, 06:51 AM
hybrid hybrid is offline
Master
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,192
  hybrid's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoguy423
I'm not saying that de-coherence needs consciousness to occur... but consciousness causes de-coherence or seems to... (the seems to, cannot be proven either way).

What is your stance on this Hybrid?

Does consciousness play a role in QM, .... just let you know... All answers are correct in my opinion... it's just a matter of statistics.. he he
nope i don't think so.

I am more intrigue with the hard and soft problem of consciouness. And qm in my opinion has no answer to it also
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 18-04-2012, 06:57 AM
JaysonR JaysonR is offline
Knower
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Alaska
Posts: 152
  JaysonR's Avatar
A thought.

A microorganism.
To go inside of a microorganism, the most non-intrusive devices must be employed; so as not to contaminate the observation - to not alter it from prior to observation.

Water.
Moving in it moves it around you.
If you are part of that world, then some of it moves into you as well.

We are made of this stuff that we are looking at.
Everything is.

But we're looking at the ether of existence; the breath of the gods.
There are many names.

But they all have one thing in common: subtlety.

Just as I cannot stick my hand over the crest of a wave without effecting it.

Air pressure is easily affected, and it is several times the magnitude larger than the particle layer.

We are, in a sense, looking at the minuscule pieces of the crest of the waves of masses.

It will move independent, yet entangled.
It will react to observation, because the increase and location of concentrated matter in its area has been provided.
This will change the lighter-than-air currents of the particle crests of the universe.


It's like the drawing sequences of the 80's video, "Take on me":
http://youtu.be/djV11Xbc914?t=1m43s

At least...this is how I see it.

And as such, I don't see a difference between what either of you are saying. ;)
__________________
I would like more people to embrace their religion; not the religion they belong to. The religion of life, instead, that comes from being them.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums