The Double Slit Experiment and frequencies

[DMT Psychonaut]

So I would just like to say, I stumbled upon this the other day. I had seen that video sometime ago (maybe upwards of a year or two) and thought it was very interesting but I had forgot about it. Then the last couple of days I have been looking into things about consciousness and randomly stumbled on to that video on youtube. After watching it again and remembering it, I decided to start looking more into the double slit experiment. Then behold hours later I come to the Nexus to find someone has recently posted about it.

HOW HOLY FUCKING SYNCHRONISTIC! :shock:

Almost as if my consciousness or thoughts are directing it to my reality



EDIT: On a side note I had never heard of the word Synchronicity untill I came to the Nexus. When I first heard it I noticed it pop up alot for awhile and since that time I've use that word quite often. Funny how that works?

 

[nen888]

..thanks for your response Citta, i do think this is a crucial aspect of modern physics that requires mental focus...

 

[Citta]

..thanks for your response Citta, i do think this is a crucial aspect of modern physics that requires mental focus...

No problem, nen! I realize that what I have said in this thread probably doesn't resonate with what some of you believe about the universe, but that is fine. After all, Nature doesn't care about what we believe about it, it goes about its business anyway. Now, perhaps consciousness begets matter, I can't say for sure, but what I can say is that quantum mechanics doesn't necessary imply this to be the case. That's basically all I wanted to say here.

For further reading, I recommend for all of you the following articles;

Quantum Quackery by PhD Victor J. Stenger.

Victor also has this to say; "The overwhelming weight of evidence, from seven decades of experimentation, shows not a hint of a violation of reductionist, local, discrete, nonsuperluminal, non-holistic relativity and quantum mechanics - with no fundamental involvement of human consciousness other than in our own subjective perception of whatever reality is out there. Of course our thinking processes have a strong influence on what we perceive. But to say that what we perceive therefore determines, or even controls, what is out there is without rational foundation. The world would be a far different place for all of us if it was just all in our heads - if we really could make our own reality as the New Agers believe. The fact that the world rarely is what we want it to be is the best evidence that we have little to say about it. The myth of quantum consciousness should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world." - from the article The Myth of Quantum Consciousness

The famous and ingenious professor of theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss has this to say; "no area of physics stimulates more nonsense in the public arena than quantum mechanics" - from How to spot quantum quackery

Here is a link to an article that talks about Deepak Chopra, the famous New-Age guru that makes these silly ideas popular amongst the public; http://m.dennews.com/mobile/article_849a4345-77d6-5a36-9349-8800c0cd34c8.html

Here is another article, refuting Quantum Consciousness, http://www.danko-nikolic.com/wp-con...kolic-Qm-and-consciousness-Annalen-Physik.pdf

I could on refering to articles by real physicists that know what they're talking about, but the bottom line is that quantum consciousness is without rational foundation. As a student of physics I can confirm this myself. So stop believing in crazy things without evidence and rational foundation! =)

As a last recommendation for anyone that seriously wishes to look into this without having to study physics themselves, the book Quantum Gods by Victor J. Stenger is a great book that should be read, where he debunks much of the nonsense that flies around.

Stay real, folks.

 

[SWIMfriend]

Here's an interview with Lawrence Krauss that readers of this thread might find interesting.

 

[joedirt]

So again, it is not consciousness that collapses the wave function, but the physical measurements of a completely in-sentient apparatus. The experiment can be run, as I said earlier, with no one in the lab and we would still get an interference pattern.

You would have no way to prove that statement unless you observed the reading. In which case the in-sentient apparatus woud immediately become an extension of your awareness in the same way binoculars do, or regular bi-focal glasses. A sentient being had to build, and place the measuring apparatus in order to observe the particle. No sentient being. No measurement. No particle, only energy.

Awareness is the fundamental particle if you will. Without awareness nothing exists. No philosophy. No you. No observation. No mind. Nothing Nadda. Nothing can exist unless there is an awareness to note it's existence.

The electron only exists when you observe it. Otherwise it is nothing more than energy.


Any attempt to demystify this is lame IMHO.

 

[nen888]

^..yeah, my other philosophical point is that there is no such thing as a measurement without a sentience to make/cause the observation..there may be interaction, but nothing's ever there to measure it..
..like the old saying.."There is no reality outside your perception of reality..."
.

ps. thanks for vid, SWIMfriend..making me think about quantum levels of the brain/mind..

 

[Zip]

The word "measurement" is being misunderstood here by several people. See John S. Bell's _Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics_ for better coverage of language issues, and then ask yourself if he's getting it right. There are also interpretations of quantum mechanics that dispense with the so-called "collapse" of the wavefunction, for what it's worth (e.g., Everett, Bohmian mechanics/de Broglie-Bohm/pilot-wave theory). Philosophers of physics, unsurprisingly, find these more satisfactory to varying degrees. The Copenhagen interpretation is on its way out of the building.

Citta, the wavefunction is regarded by many to be more than a mathematical tool for experimental results. Wavefunction realism is quite popular now. See D.Z. Albert's "Elementary Quantum Metaphysics." This is not a recent development (e.g., David Bohm was a wavefunction realist). Indeed, David Wallace describes it as the "main extant view" in contemporary philosophy of physics here http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4621/. Furthermore, some philosophers of physics wonder if particles are even necessary; that is, the wavefunction may be all that's needed. Here's an interesting talk by Tim Maudlin regarding this: http://vimeo.com/4607553 . Then there's configuration space realism, and one can combine these realisms variously. I'm getting carried away, so, lastly, even if the wavefunction was merely a mathematical tool, you seem to be presupposing nominalism about mathematics, whereas Max Tegmark takes a platonistic view on mathematics and sees the world as isomorphic to mathematical structure where, moreover, there is no reason for distinguishing between the two -- they are, for all theoretical purposes, identical (see http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646v2.pdf).

Even these more finely-grained views of interpretations of the wavefunction and the various ontological commitments we like in addition are further nuanced, not only in physical foundations but also conceptual foundations.

 

[nen888]

..thanks zip, great references and POV..will check them out..
the issue of whether the observed phenomenon is a wave or a particle gets to the heart of the consciousness issue to me..is it either? Wave/particle..these are still mental and cognitive concepts, not necessarily what is 'out there', if anything except perhaps energy or oscillation..

 

[Citta]

So again, it is not consciousness that collapses the wave function, but the physical measurements of a completely in-sentient apparatus. The experiment can be run, as I said earlier, with no one in the lab and we would still get an interference pattern.

You would have no way to prove that statement unless you observed the reading. In which case the in-sentient apparatus woud immediately become an extension of your awareness in the same way binoculars do, or regular bi-focal glasses. A sentient being had to build, and place the measuring apparatus in order to observe the particle. No sentient being. No measurement. No particle, only energy.

Awareness is the fundamental particle if you will. Without awareness nothing exists. No philosophy. No you. No observation. No mind. Nothing Nadda. Nothing can exist unless there is an awareness to note it's existence.

The electron only exists when you observe it. Otherwise it is nothing more than energy.


Any attempt to demystify this is lame IMHO.

This claim of yours, the "nothing exists without someone to observe it", is neither falsifiable nor verifiable. You might as well have said that there are unicorns in every house, but that they are placed so that we can't see them. You claim it to be a fact, yet you have no honest reason to do so. I have never claimed to absolutely know whether or not consciousness begets matter, but there are good reasons to assume it doesn't, I believe.

When we measure things generally in physics, it is just a controlled physical event where we note us the results. There is really absolutely nothing to suggest that these physical events can't happen on their own. We could for example measure the position of the moon, where we ultimately note how the photons hit our eyes, the film or the camerachip here on earth, and these photons hits something here whether we observe it or not. It is just nothing to suggest that the position of the moon is dependent upon what the photons hits here on earth, and there is neither any reason to assume that the existence of the electron is dependent upon whether or not we are ready to observe it and note the result of its interaction with our environment.

Another thing to note is that the claim "a particle doesn't exist without a measurement" really only becomes an ontological problem if we really consider the electron as an objective particle in time and space. As zip noted over this post here, it seems to only make sense to treat these particles instrumentally and operationally. A concrete example might help to illustrate what I mean; say we drop a little rock from a certain hight, and we wish to calculate when the rock will hit the ground. We have a model stemming from Galileo that says the rock will accelerate down to earth with approximately 9.81m/s^2, and using this fact we can with a mathematical model for movement determine when the rock will hit the ground. However, nowhere in calculating this and predict the time it takes to travel this hight we need to know anything about the totally objective nature of the rocks position, the time it takes or any such thing. This can be applied to quantum mechanics too, and comes neatly into Zips reference that particles might not be necessary at all, just our models to understand and predict observations.

When it comes to this wavefunction collaps, it is also discussed if this really is a phenomenon in its own right, or if it is a result of something else, for examle decoherence. I believe the leading interpretation is the ensemble interpretation, and it fancies the last. Zip also makes references to the fact that collapse might not even be a phenomenon in its own right. Anyhow, there are many interpretations of QM, and the most of them and the leading ones do not place consciousness in a very special position.

But back to your claims, it is a complete lack of evidence that matter is dependent upon consciousness. It is also pretty strange that we study the universe and don't understand how it works before many years of intense research and intellectual work (we still have lots we don't understand). If the movement of galaxies is determined by our consciousness, how then can't we know how they work? Why do experiments done repeatedly by others in a completely different place - sometimes completely independent and unknowing of eachother - give the same results? Why do the Universe as observed by everyone follow the exact same laws? How can objects in a room stay where they are when different people walk in and out? The results must be out of our control.

Furthermore, how do you explain evolution? The early history of our universe? Objective measurements of the age of the earth? If nothing exists without observation, the ultimate conclusion must be that we determine reality billions of years back in time instantenously, when we for example observe the light from galaxies. This is just absurd. Quantum mechanics doesn't support these claims anymore neither, and the claim that it does generally rests on the misunderstanding of what is meant by measurements and observations.

Zip:

Great references, I appreciate your informed views. I admit I am more of a "shut up and calculate" guy when it comes to physics, especially quantum physics. Tell me, you studied some quantum physics, philosophy or something, or are you just generally interested? =)

 

[TheMindBender]

Great intellectual discussion guys, keeps me on the edge of my seat! Also... I'll recommend (again) the book "Quantum Reality" by Nick Herbert. And, not to be a debbie downer, but I wouldn't take books that claim to be scientific but are written by a nonphysicists who studies mysticism very seriously (I've read the Holo Universe and it will definitely get us to think, don't get me wrong).

 

[joedirt]

So again, it is not consciousness that collapses the wave function, but the physical measurements of a completely in-sentient apparatus. The experiment can be run, as I said earlier, with no one in the lab and we would still get an interference pattern.

You would have no way to prove that statement unless you observed the reading. In which case the in-sentient apparatus woud immediately become an extension of your awareness in the same way binoculars do, or regular bi-focal glasses. A sentient being had to build, and place the measuring apparatus in order to observe the particle. No sentient being. No measurement. No particle, only energy.

Awareness is the fundamental particle if you will. Without awareness nothing exists. No philosophy. No you. No observation. No mind. Nothing Nadda. Nothing can exist unless there is an awareness to note it's existence.

The electron only exists when you observe it. Otherwise it is nothing more than energy.


Any attempt to demystify this is lame IMHO.

I stand by this.

This claim of yours, the "nothing exists without someone to observe" it, is neither falsifiable nor verifiable. You might as well have said that there are unicorns in every house, but that they are placed so that we can't see them. You claim it to be a fact, yet you have no honest reason to do so.

Show me ANYTHING ANYWHERE that exists outside of observation?
In fact don't even bother responding to me at all if you don't address this statement as is. Don't give me a political dance around either. Show me sonething, anything that exists without observation or concede that you are wrong. If you fail to to do that then I'm calling you out on it.

When we measure things generally in physics, ...

Are you a physicists? If not then QUIT acting like you are. It's arrogant and childish. 'We' (meaning you) do nothing. Physicist do things and publish their work, others then digest that work and write opinion pieces about it, which you then read and form 'OPINIONS' about. I use the word opinion because I very seriously doubt you can actually do the math to verify these things for yourself. Have you actually ever run the slit experiment? Taken a differential equations class? Solved the time dependant Schrodinger equation? Have you? If not then you are only speaking from opinion. Of course you are certainly entitled to your opinion.....:roll:

When it comes to this wavefunction collaps,...

Do you even know what a wave function collapse is? You do realize it's nothing more than the Wave equation going to zero...aka collapsing? It's a mathematical phenomena. You know what a wave equation is right? It's a parameterized question used to MODEL quantum phenomena. Nothing more and nothing less.

Please Citta, get off your high horse. You look stupid sitting up there spouting off about things that you clearly only have an opinion of.

There is really absolutely nothing to suggest that these physical events can't happen on their own.

Yes there is. It's all around you. You are however to stuck in "Look at me I'm alway's right" mode to realize that the very fact that anything physical exists is mystical. Seriously. Bang here it all is? That isn't mystical to you? Or what was before the bang? Or what was before that. You can kick this can across an infinite number of parallel universes...and at the end of the day you will still never get the big picture because you refuse to entertain an idea that doesn't fit into a neat little box that scientist can label. Sad....very sad actually.

If there is no witness, then there is nothing to witness. It can't be any other way. It's profound. It's obvious. It's hard to digest with a typical world view, bu true it is none-the-less.

Electrons don't exist as particle until they are witnessed. Up until that time they exist as an energetic probabilistic continuum. Nothing more and nothing less. When they are measured/observed/witnessed they kindly condense into a solid particle for us...but only for a brief instant in time.


People listen up. The particle/slit experiment very distinctly suggests that the measurement/observation of subatomic waves collapses them into physical reality. People like Citta can't stand the thought of something mystical or something outside or current physics...so he tries his best to convince you it's not really that interesting at all. In fact it's what we'd expect... seriously? In fact I'd say it's pretty obvious that Citta is somewhat scared of the other view. Scared that if he embraced it then his entire world view has to collapse and be rebuilt.

Citta Go take a college level physics class and run the actual experiment yourself. See how it really works. It's actually very fascinating. The implications are staggering.

I'm saying this as SOMEONE that has not only studied quantum chemistry, but as someone that has applied it to real world applications. Unlike you Citta I actively true to adjust my world view to reality instead of trying to force the world view of others into my reality. Because of that I'll be the first one to tell you that WE, meaning, ALL OF US, don't have a freaking clue what this magical place called reality is. It's far FAR grander than simple minds can ever fathom. Actually that's not true. Citta you have the capacity to understand, but your "I need to be right" ego stand in your way.

BTW. You are not right. Niether am I. None of us are. Not a single one of us has even an inkling of what, how, or why this all came to be. Because of that I stand firmly i the mystical camp.

I'm spiritual because of science. Not in spite of it.

Peace.

 

[SWIMfriend]

Show me ANYTHING ANYWHERE that exists outside of observation?
In fact don't even bother responding to me at all if you don't address this statement as is. Don't give me a political dance around either. Show me sonething, anything that exists without observation or concede that you are wrong. If you fail to to do that then I'm calling you out on it.

Come on Joe, that's a bit much, isn't it?

Do you truly believe that the assumption that things exist independently of our observation is...uncalled for, or unreasonable?

I'll grant that, to be clear about things, one must ask the QUESTION. But, between the dichotomy, I think most would agree that the answer "Things exist only when we observe them" is most easily seen as....something contrived (although one might admit that it's CONCEIVABLE).

So I ask again: Do you REALLY wish to insist that those (billions of us) who take for granted that things exist independent of observation have the burden of proof vs. the idea that nothing exists UNLESS it is observed?

I'd just like to clarify that's the position you're taking....

 

[joedirt]

So I ask again: Do you REALLY wish to insist that those (billions of us) who take for granted that things exist independent of observation have the burden of proof vs. the idea that nothing exists UNLESS it is observed?

Yes. Just because a billion people believe something doesn't mean they are right.

How many times has the consensus of this planet been wrong?
Do you honestly think that creation is so simple that the average person would get it right without even a second thought? no.

I'd just like to clarify that's the position you're taking....

yes that's the position I'm taking. I'm stating a profoundly OBVIOUS FACT...BACKED by scientific results....which a few in this thread apparently want to deny.

Citta is arguing that the scientific results don't mean that, and I'm insisting that unless he can show even a SINGLE item in the entire universe that can be proven to exist with out observation then he should take the Occams razor approach and side with the simplest answer.

Without a witness....there is nothing to witness.

How can you possible argue against that and believe you are being rational?

 

[SWIMfriend]

Well, I do side with Citta on this, and it's my understanding that his understanding is representative of the scientific mainstream.

A billion people can be (and often are) wrong, of course. But my point isn't about right and wrong, it's about the common perception/understanding. You imply that your idea is so obvious and apparent that it's undeniable--yet I offer as more or less a fact that most people deny it. Again, the only point in that being that I think it's somewhat disingenuous of you to feel it's OK to put ALL OF US BILLION on the defensive--and to claim that it's WE who have the burden of proof.

My basis for my position is the very UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE of science: independent observers observe the same things in independent experiments. That is taken to mean that the recorded observations are OBJECTIVELY true....and it usually goes along with the unstated assumption that the events under observation exist independent of human ideas (and observations).

So the questions I would have for you are:

1) Do you believe/acknowledge that science is based on the idea that independent experiments give the same results, and thus demonstrate that the events under experimentation are "objectively true." ?

2) How do you justify the seeming "break" with that, in assuming that those objective and independent realities really arise straight from human consciousness?

3) Why do we billion (who seem to naturally fall to the conclusion that "reality exists" whether we observe it or not) have the burden of proof while you do not? Why should the idea that reality DOESN'T exist unless we observe it be the default position?

4) BTW, who are the observers? Is it just humans? All sentient beings? So, for example, I observe plants to grow around obstacles (and the plants did the growing before I observed them). Did the PLANTS observe the obstacles into reality? Please don't assume I'm being facetious--I'm definitely not. I'm just trying to expand on your idea and understand how you believe it manifests.

 

[Citta]

Show me ANYTHING ANYWHERE that exists outside of observation?
In fact don't even bother responding to me at all if you don't address this statement as is. Don't give me a political dance around either. Show me sonething, anything that exists without observation or concede that you are wrong. If you fail to to do that then I'm calling you out on it.

The burden of proof is not on me. I have never claimed anything here in absolutes, but many times explicitly said that I can't know for sure. You on the other hand, make absolute claims about the nature of our universe - claims that are completely unfounded. The problem is your claims, and I have argued against them.

Are you a physicists? If not then QUIT acting like you are. It's arrogant and childish. 'We' (meaning you) do nothing. Physicist do things and publish their work, others then digest that work and write opinion pieces about it, which you then read and form 'OPINIONS' about. I use the word opinion because I very seriously doubt you can actually do the math to verify these things for yourself. Have you actually ever run the slit experiment? Taken a differential equations class? Solved the time dependant Schrodinger equation? Have you? If not then you are only speaking from opinion. Of course you are certainly entitled to your opinion.....:roll:

No, but I am studying physics and mathematics, joedirt. I have run the double slit experiment indeed, and I have run several others and confirmed to myself many of the laws of physics we operate with. I study math and physics every day, and I work my ass off with these things.

Do you even know what a wave function collapse is? You do realize it's nothing more than the Wave equation going to zero...aka collapsing? It's a mathematical phenomena. You know what a wave equation is right? It's a parameterized question used to MODEL quantum phenomena. Nothing more and nothing less.

I know what the wavefunction collapse is, yes, and I have talked about it several times in my previous posts in this thread. I also know what a wave equation is, and I have already made several comments about models of physics and the tools of physics. See my other posts, joedirt.

And that the wavefunction collapse is purely mathematical is not raised over any doubt, in fact several interpretations states that it is objectively real, though the most common ones don't. I have already talked about how it can be considered as an abstract mathematical tool we use to predict, explain and understand observations in previous posts in this thread.

Please Citta, get off your high horse. You look stupid sitting up there spouting off about things that you clearly only have an opinion of.

I suggest you get off, because I have not talked in absolutes, only argued with real arguments and references to why quantum mechanics can't be used to support "consciousness creates reality". Tell me, do you study physics? Have you read my references? Do you know what you are talking about? Perhaps you should have a chat with the most leading physicists of our time and tell them how they are so wrong, or perhaps you should start answering my arguments properly.

There is really absolutely nothing to suggest that these physical events can't happen on their own.

Yes there is. It's all around you. You are however to stuck in "Look at me I'm alway's right" mode to realize that the very fact that anything physical exists is mystical. Seriously. Bang here it all is? That isn't mystical to you? Or what was before the bang? Or what was before that. You can kick this can across an infinite number of parallel universes...and at the end of the day you will still never get the big picture because you refuse to entertain an idea that doesn't fit into a neat little box that scientist can label. Sad....very sad actually.

Have I ever said the universe is not mysterious, joedirt? I say that all the time in here! Have I claimed to have all the answers? No, I haven't! But the matter of fact is that there is nothing to suggest that physical events can't occur without observation. Again, how would you then explain evolution, the early universe etc?

If there is no witness, then there is nothing to witness. It can't be any other way. It's profound. It's obvious. It's hard to digest with a typical world view, bu true it is none-the-less.

Here you keep talking in these absolutes I have been mentioning, drop it. You are not in a position to do so unless you have some convincing arguments or evidence to support this conjecture. How do you know there is nothing to witness unless someone can witness it? Why can't something exist independently of us, or of consciousness? I refer you to my previous questions that addressed this issue, but that you have not cared to answer.

People listen up. The particle/slit experiment very distinctly suggests that the measurement/observation of subatomic waves collapses them into physical reality.

No, this is not correct for reasons I have already made extensive arguments for, and backed up with references from real, prominent physicists. Your claims are contrary to our most prominent physicists of our time, joedirt. Stop making absolute claims like this, unless you can back them up with more than "it's so obvious, it's all around you!" and so on.

People like Citta can't stand the thought of something mystical or something outside or current physics...so he tries his best to convince you it's not really that interesting at all. In fact it's what we'd expect... seriously? In fact I'd say it's pretty obvious that Citta is somewhat scared of the other view. Scared that if he embraced it then his entire world view has to collapse and be rebuilt.

Spare me with this cheap stuff in a serious discussion. Address my arguments properly, don't talk about how scared and close-minded I must be. This is ridiculous, and extremely poor debate.

Citta Go take a college level physics class and run the actual experiment yourself. See how it really works. It's actually very fascinating. The implications are staggering.

Done, done and done. Stop trying to make arguments on the false assumption of how ignorant I am.

I'll be the first one to tell you that WE, meaning, ALL OF US, don't have a freaking clue what this magical place called reality is. It's far FAR grander than simple minds can ever fathom. Actually that's not true. Citta you have the capacity to understand, but your "I need to be right" ego stand in your way.

You are not the first one to say this, I have already done that many times. However, you contradict yourself here, because you state things in absolutes several times, yet here you say that none of us ultimately knows.

BTW. You are not right. Niether am I. None of us are. Not a single one of us has even an inkling of what, how, or why this all came to be. Because of that I stand firmly i the mystical camp.

Then stop making unfounded claims that are stated as facts.

I really dislike the way you bash out against me, using mild ad-hominems, trying to make me look ridiculous, trying to make arguments from the false assumption that I don't know shit and so on. This is poor debate technique, and you use these poor arguments delibirately without even addressing my arguments or answering my questions. I can't really take you seriously, and I don't wish to have such a low grade debate where I am attacked personally everytime I present some serious arguments that are backed with references and education.

Let me fill in again with a previous question that is pretty concrete; how do you explain the room situation I talked about earlier? If I go in and place a book there, and then go out leaving no one inside the room; according to you the book doesn't exist. How then, is it possible for you or anyone else to walk into the room and see the exact same book placed on the exact same spot? If our consciousness determine the nature of reality, then isn't it extremely strange that anyone can see the same results every time?

Applying Occam'z razor here as you wish I should do, what is the simplest explanation for this? Furthermore, what is the simplest explanation for all the other questions I posed in my previous post, like evolution, all the objective measurements, the history of our universe, the light being observed from galaxies several million light years away, the moons position and so on? Seriously, how can it even be close to rational to assume that all of this pops into existence instantenously upon observation, that consciousness determines it? How is it rational to assume this is not out of our control? What about running the double slit experiment with light coming from a galaxy billions of light years away, and you delay your choice of what to measure just before the light entered the apparatus, would you then consciously be deciding what the nature of the object is - wave or particle - long after it left its source? How is this a rational assumption?

 

[SWIMfriend]

BTW Joe, is what you're saying intended to represent the well known Shrodinger's Cat paradox?

If it is, then we can defer to the many great minds that have considered it...

 

[joedirt]

Citta.

Show me ANYTHING ANYWHERE that exists outside of observation?
In fact don't even bother responding to me at all if you don't address this statement as is. Don't give me a political dance around either. Show me sonething, anything that exists without observation or concede that you are wrong. If you fail to to do that then I'm calling you out on it.

I've got all the particle wave experiments on my side. You are the one going against the grain.

You prove it. But you can't so you will play with words in a vain effort to look smart...and appar right.

BTW I don't care if you don't like me. I don't like you spreading false information about science.

 

[endlessness]

How do you define an observer, or "conscious", joedirt? SWIMfriend asked you some interesting questions, would be nice to see them addressed.

Also, let's please keep the ad hominen down and rather debate arguments themselves, and learn from the diversity of views

 

[Citta]

Citta.

Show me ANYTHING ANYWHERE that exists outside of observation?
In fact don't even bother responding to me at all if you don't address this statement as is. Don't give me a political dance around either. Show me sonething, anything that exists without observation or concede that you are wrong. If you fail to to do that then I'm calling you out on it.

I've got all the particle wave experiments on my side. You are the one going against the grain.

You prove it. But you can't so you will play with words in a vain effort to look smart...and appar right.

BTW I don't care if you don't like me. I don't like you spreading false information about science.

No, you don't, and I am not going against the grain! Look at my previous posts, read my references, look up on the different interpretations of QM - especially the popular Copenhagen interpretation and/or Ensemble interpretation. Show me and show our modern, prominent physicists why we are so wrong. Point out where the arguments fail, address my questions properly and show me how it is without a doubt consciousness that collapses the wavefunction, determining the nature of reality or whatever it is you're saying. Respond to the good criticism that have been raised, not only by me, but by several physicists and other educated people, and show why it is wrong.

If you can do this, I will be all ears! Seriously, I am totally open to this if I can see good reasons and evidence for why this must be the case, I really am. It would truly be an incredible revolution of physics, and I would back you all the way if you had the proper theoretical foundation, the proper arguments and the proper evidence to present to the world. That is science, joedirt, and I am trying to stick with it.

Again, don't shift the burden of proof on me because I have not made absolute claims. I have only argued seriously that QM doesn't, by default, show that your conjectures are true. All along the way I have said that I however can't know for sure, that I have not totally disregarded the possibility, but I have argued from my education and prominent physicists informed statements that there are many misunderstandings flying around with QM and what it actually implies, and that there is not much of a foundation on the notion of Quantum Consciousness.

I still miss some serious counter arguments from you, and that you address the questions raised by me and SWIMfriend here. If you really know the truth as you claim you do, show us the way.

 

[joedirt]

The most commonly held interpretation of quantum mechanics is the Copenhagen interpretation.[5] In the Copenhagen interpretation, a system stops being a superposition of states and becomes either one or the other when an observation takes place. This experiment makes apparent the fact that the nature of measurement, or observation, is not well-defined in this interpretation. The experiment can be interpreted to mean that while the box is closed, the system simultaneously exists in a superposition of the states "decayed nucleus/dead cat" and "undecayed nucleus/living cat," and that only when the box is opened and an observation performed does the wave function collapse into one of the two states.

Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So let me ask again Citta.

Show me ANYTHING ANYWHERE that exists outside of observation?
In fact don't even bother responding to me at all if you don't address this statement as is. Don't give me a political dance around either. Show me something, anything that exists without observation or concede that you are wrong. If you fail to to do that then I'm calling you out on it.

Why not answer the question directly instead of dancing around the issue. I am fully aware of the other interpretations. You are not the only person that wants to remove all mystical from the world. The copenhagen explanation is the most widely held view. But lets be honest here shall we? We cares what the most widely held view is? I care what the correct view is. I ssy occams razor suggests that the copenhagen is correct. All you have to do to change my mind is show a single example. even one. But you can't. YOu won't even try.