Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 135 of 135

Thread: Consciousness (Part 2)

  1. #101  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    I suppose I could take a selfie photo or video
    Or make a painting. But it's still won't be a duplicate your Conciousness - just a mere image of your body at a given moment.
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,767
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Theoretically you can, using somekind of device (sonar for example). Satellites observe the Sun 24h/day. Conciousness is not physical - so we can't use it as example in this case. Point is, that you perceive the moon, as it is currently - and not, as it was 2 days ago, or couple hours in the future...
    Reccordings of the past events do not represent the actual and current state of physical reality.
    It's freeing to be unburdened by knowledge, isn't it?

    Ah, bliss...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,972
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    This guy is a former professor of physics on University of Oregon - so, he probably knows, what he's talking about...
    One would assume so. Unfortunately that's not the actual case.
    Goswami is merely the latest1 in a long line of nutters.

    1 Regrettably probably not the last...
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    Here's a nice summary, how quantum physics and science in general "deals" with Conciousness...


    Simply put: it doesn't...
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    Michio Kaku speaks about Conciousness:
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,972
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Here's a nice summary, how quantum physics and science in general "deals" with Conciousness...
    Simply put: it doesn't...
    Your last sentence isn't supported by the facts.

    And stop posting videos with no additional commentary by you.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    One would assume so. Unfortunately that's not the actual case.
    Goswami is merely the latest1 in a long line of nutters.

    1 Regrettably probably not the last...
    Well, I rather believe a guy, who was a professor of physics on a university, than some unknown guy with Duffy Duck in avatar
    Your last sentence isn't supported by the facts.
    Facts are, that there is no scientific theory, which would be able to explain physically the Conciousness. There are only mere attempts, to do so...
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,972
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Well, I rather believe a guy, who was a professor of physics on a university, than some unknown guy with Duffy Duck in avatar
    Would that be because you haven't bothered checking any other sources (for example: what other physicists actually say about his ideas)?
    Your general modus operandi is to invent some fictional "reason" and then cherry pick sources that seemingly support you without actually getting the full picture. (Witness your numerous false/ erroneous claims in past posts).

    Facts are, that there is no scientific theory, which would be able to explain physically the Conciousness. There are only mere attempts, to do so...
    "Not being able to explain" is not the same as "not dealing with" (which was your claim).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    Would that be because you haven't bothered checking any other sources (for example: what other physicists actually say about his ideas)?
    Your general modus operandi is to invent some fictional "reason" and then cherry pick sources that seemingly support you without actually getting the full picture. (Witness your numerous false/ erroneous claims in past posts).
    I've googled out: "goswami amit opinion" and "goswami amit credibility" and I didn't find any result, where other scientists would deny his credibility.
    Not to mention, that I'm far from being the first one, who's talking about the influence of Conciousness on quantum physics. Actually most of the most famous theoretical quantum physicists do or did so...
    Last edited by AstralTraveler; March 14th, 2018 at 04:27 PM.
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,972
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    I've googled out: "goswami amit opinion" and "goswami amit credibility" and I didn't find any result, where other scientists would deny his credibility
    Yup, like I said: you cherry pick your sources.
    How about this, or this?
    Or this?

    Another way to check would be to look at the number of scientists who support his claims. (Clue: next to no one).

    Not to mention, that I'm far from being the first one, who's talking about the influence of Conciousness on quantum physics.
    And you've been shown to be wrong.

    Actually most of the most famous theoretical quantum physicists do or did so...
    False.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-10-01/
    "The following is John Olmsted’s review of What the #$*! Do We Know?, a film by William Arntz, Betsy Chasse, Mark Vicente, starring Marlee Matlin. John Olmsted MA, Med. is an adjunct instructor in psychology at Portland State University in Portland Oregon where he teaches a course in paranormal psychology. He is mental health therapist specializing in issues of learning, attention and the brain. "

    That's a movie review. And Goswami is mentioned there just once - and the author doesn't seem do contradict his claims...

    And as for the rest - only two citations of Goswami are being mentioned. That doesn't disproove everything, what he says. Not to mention, that couple articles from sites with "sceptic" in the title, doesn't disprove someone's credibility too much


    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    Actually most of the most famous theoretical quantum physicists do or did so...
    False.
    Do you think, you're smarter than those guys? I doubt it...
    Erwin Schrödinger
    :


    “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”

    Heisenberg:
    “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_cut

    " "In this situation it follows automatically that, in a mathematical treatment of the process, a dividing line must be drawn between, on the one hand, the apparatus which we use as an aid in putting the question and thus, in a way, treat as part of ourselves, and on the other hand, the physical systems we wish to investigate. The latter we represent mathematically as a wave function. This function, according to quantum theory, consists of a differential equation which determines any future state from the present state of the function... The dividing line between the system to be observed and the measuring apparatus is immediately defined by the nature of the problem but it obviously signifies no discontinuity of the physical process. For this reason there must, within limits, exist complete freedom in choosing the position of the dividing line."

    Niels Bohr:

    "
    For a parallel to the lesson of atomic theory regarding the limited applicability of such customary idealizations, we must in fact turn to quite other branches of science, such as psychology, or even to that kind of epistemological problems with which already thinkers like Buddha and Lao Tzu have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the great drama of existence."

    I'm still looking for more


    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    Actually most of the most famous theoretical quantum physicists do or did so...
    False.

    Max Planck:
    "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

    Sorry, but once again you are completely wrong. Or mayber you consider yourself smarter than the most famous quantum physicists?
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,972
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-10-01/
    "The following is John Olmsted’s review of What the #$*! Do We Know?, a film by William Arntz, Betsy Chasse, Mark Vicente, starring Marlee Matlin. John Olmsted MA, Med. is an adjunct instructor in psychology at Portland State University in Portland Oregon where he teaches a course in paranormal psychology. He is mental health therapist specializing in issues of learning, attention and the brain. "

    That's a movie review. And Goswami is mentioned there just once - and the author doesn't seem do contradict his claims...

    Learn to read: The film is the latest effort by religious, mystical, and New Age gurus such as Deepak Chopra to cloak their views in the mantel of science. The entire premise of that article is that all of the proponents are talking drivel.

    And as for the rest - only two citations of Goswami are being mentioned. That doesn't disproove everything, what he says.
    I sense a shifting of the goal posts - you asked for disagreement not "disproof" (since Goswami hasn't proved - or even demonstrated his claims, then...).

    Not to mention, that couple articles from sites with "sceptic" in the title, doesn't disprove someone's credibility too much
    What?

    [QUOTE=AstralTraveler;614305]
    Do you think, you're smarter than those guys? I doubt it...
    Erwin Schrödinger
    :


    “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
    [quote]
    Nothing about "influence of Consciousness on quantum physics".

    Heisenberg:
    “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

    Nothing about "influence of Consciousness on quantum physics".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_cut

    " "In this situation it follows automatically that, in a mathematical treatment of the process, a dividing line must be drawn between, on the one hand, the apparatus which we use as an aid in putting the question and thus, in a way, treat as part of ourselves, and on the other hand, the physical systems we wish to investigate. The latter we represent mathematically as a wave function. This function, according to quantum theory, consists of a differential equation which determines any future state from the present state of the function... The dividing line between the system to be observed and the measuring apparatus is immediately defined by the nature of the problem but it obviously signifies no discontinuity of the physical process. For this reason there must, within limits, exist complete freedom in choosing the position of the dividing line."

    Nothing about "influence of Consciousness on quantum physics".

    Niels Bohr:
    "
    For a parallel to the lesson of atomic theory regarding the limited applicability of such customary idealizations, we must in fact turn to quite other branches of science, such as psychology, or even to that kind of epistemological problems with which already thinkers like Buddha and Lao Tzu have been confronted, when trying to harmonize our position as spectators and actors in the great drama of existence."

    Nothing about "influence of Consciousness on quantum physics".

    I'm still looking for more
    Like I said - cherry picking.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,972
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Actually most of the most famous theoretical quantum physicists do or did so...
    False.

    Max Planck:
    "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

    Sorry, but once again you are completely wrong. Or mayber you consider yourself smarter than the most famous quantum physicists?
    Nothing about "influence of Consciousness on quantum physics".
    (Apart from any other errors in that).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    Nothing about "influence of Consciousness on quantum physics".
    (Apart from any other errors in that).

    Eugene Wigner.
    "When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again. It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness."
    "It follows that the quantum description of objects is influenced by impressions entering my consciousness,"


    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    Bernard d'Espagnat

    "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."

    Martin Rees


    "In the beginning there were only probabilities. The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it."
    Like I said - cherry picking.


    Yeah, I'm "cherry picking" the most famous names in quantum physics
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    I sense a shifting of the goal posts - you asked for disagreement not "disproof" (since Goswami hasn't proved - or even demonstrated his claims, then...).
    Not true. You called this guy a "nutter" - so obviously, you should have a source, which would completely disproof his claims... The fact, that one or two guys disagree with someone, doesn't rather mean, that he's a "nutter"
    And you've been shown to be wrong.
    Sadly, I don't care too much about your opinion...
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,972
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Not true. You called this guy a "nutter" - so obviously, you should have a source, which would completely disproof his claims...
    No, I call him a nutter because has no evidence for his claims.

    The fact, that one or two guys disagree with someone, doesn't rather mean, that he's a "nutter"
    And the fact that no reliable physicists agree with him shows... what?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    No, I call him a nutter because has no evidence for his claims.
    So, according to you, every scientist, who made a theory, which stills need to be confirmed is a "nutter"?
    And the fact that no reliable physicists agree with him shows... what?
    No? And what about those guys:

    Bernard d'Espagnat: ""The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."
    Eugene Wigner: ""When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again. It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness."
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,972
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    So, according to you, every scientist, who made a theory, which stills need to be confirmed is a "nutter"?
    Learn to read.

    No? And what about those guys:

    Bernard d'Espagnat: ""The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."
    Eugene Wigner: ""When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again. It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness."
    And again - there is no evidence to support this view. (And you should note that Wigner later radically changed his mind: see section 2.5 Wigner’s later change of position here - showing that, once again, you're simply cherry-picking).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    showing that, once again, you're simply cherry-picking
    I'm just proving, that the most famous quantum physicists considered Conciousness as fundamental and non-physical - what you seemed to disagree with. Hard to cheery-pick such names, as Schroedinger or Planck - those are the most famous names in QM...
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,972
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    I'm just proving, that the most famous quantum physicists considered Conciousness as fundamental and non-physical - what you seemed to disagree with.
    1) You misrepresented Wigner's view.
    2) Your ACTUAL claim was "Actually most of the most famous theoretical quantum physicists do or did so... [consider that there is an influence of Conciousness on quantum physics]" - which hasn't been shown to be true. (And, regardless, that view - opinion - is not supported by the facts). Not that "quantum physicists considered Conciousness as fundamental and non-physical".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    I'm just proving, that the most famous quantum physicists considered Conciousness as fundamental and non-physical - what you seemed to disagree with.
    1) You misrepresented Wigner's view.
    2) Your ACTUAL claim was "Actually most of the most famous theoretical quantum physicists do or did so... [consider that there is an influence of Conciousness on quantum physics]" - which hasn't been shown to be true. (And, regardless, that view - opinion - is not supported by the facts). Not that "quantum physicists considered Conciousness as fundamental and non-physical".
    So you say, that the most famous quantum phycists DO NOT and DIDN'T ​consider the influence of Conciousness on QM?
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,767
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler;614322
    So you say, that the most famous quantum phycists [B
    DO NOT[/B] and DIDN'T ​consider the influence of Conciousness on QM?

    Quit moving goal posts. It's a form of dishonesty.

    YOU made an assertion, then tried and failed to support it, despite massive and desperate cherry-picking and misreprentation of quotes. We're merely pointing out that the statement YOU made stands unsupported by YOU.

    Got it?

    You seem to think that repetitive statements of faith make assertions magically come true. You are certainly free to believe what and as you wish, but if you want to convince others that what you say has merit, you need to learn some science, as well as the rules of logic and argumentation. Until then, you're just another blowhard with a chip on his shoulder and a two-bit opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Junior AstralTraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    227
    Quit moving goal posts. It's a form of dishonesty.

    YOU made an assertion, then tried and failed to support it, despite massive and desperate cherry-picking and misreprentation of quotes. We're merely pointing out that the statement YOU made stands unsupported by YOU.

    Got it?

    You seem to think that repetitive statements of faith make assertions magically come true. You are certainly free to believe what and as you wish, but if you want to convince others that what you say has merit, you need to learn some science, as well as the rules of logic and argumentation. Until then, you're just another blowhard with a chip on his shoulder and a two-bit opinion.
    Are you a lawyer? Besides I already proved, that there is/were a lot of famous scientists who did consider the influence of Conciousness on QM
    Schroedinger, Martin Rees, Bernard d'Espagnat, Eugene Wigner
    And there's most likely many others...
    Besides, here we discuss philosophical concepts of Conciousness, not science in it's strict meaning...
    Cogito Ergo Sum...
    I Am...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,767
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Quit moving goal posts. It's a form of dishonesty.

    YOU made an assertion, then tried and failed to support it, despite massive and desperate cherry-picking and misreprentation of quotes. We're merely pointing out that the statement YOU made stands unsupported by YOU.

    Got it?

    You seem to think that repetitive statements of faith make assertions magically come true. You are certainly free to believe what and as you wish, but if you want to convince others that what you say has merit, you need to learn some science, as well as the rules of logic and argumentation. Until then, you're just another blowhard with a chip on his shoulder and a two-bit opinion.
    Are you a lawyer?

    Besides I already proved, that there is/were a lot of famous scientists who did consider the influence of Conciousness on QM
    That wasn't your original claim. Such moving of goal posts is a weak tactic generally employed by those who have no legitimate argument and thus are driven by desperation to resort to illegitimate techniques.

    In any case, taking a poll of scientists's opinions is a pretty useless way of doing science. You would do well to read up on what the scientific method is, because you have repeatedly demonstrated a conspicuous ignorance of its precepts. Time to get educated, AT. Making up bollocks isn't going to convince anyone.

    While you're at it, you would do well to study logical fallacies (eg., argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam). You practise them freely without a hint of self-consciousness. You should become more self-conscious, whether or not QM has a role in it.
    Last edited by tk421; March 14th, 2018 at 11:00 PM. Reason: wordsmithing and typos
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,972
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Besides I already proved, that there is/were a lot of famous scientists who did consider the influence of Conciousness on QM
    That wasn't your claim.

    Schroedinger,
    Martin Rees, Bernard d'Espagnat, Eugene Wigner

    You seem to be forgetting that Wigner retracted.

    And there's most likely many others...
    Yet YOU claimed "most".

    Besides, here we discuss philosophical concepts of Conciousness, not science in it's strict meaning...
    Don't be stupid.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,301
    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    I can speak with someone, who's on opposite side of the globe
    I never said that the opposite side of the globe isn't real so this doesn't provide support for anything that is in dispute.


    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    And can you speak with someone, who's living in yesterday's world?
    I don't need to speak to anyone in yesterday's world to establish that it is real. I was actually there yesterday, and it was every bit as real as today is.


    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    You can go to moon and see the Earth. But can you see yourself from 2 seconds ago?
    With a mirror that is 300000 km away.


    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    I can speak with someone, who's on opposite side of the globe - because he's still placed in the same time, as I am...
    Not really. The person you are talking to is a little over 40 milliseconds in the past. And if you were having a conversation with someone on the moon, the time difference would be more than 1 second. But note that each of you is in the past relative to the other. So who's real and when?

    When you look at the Andromeda Galaxy, is what you looking at real? After all, what you're looking at is 2.5 million years in the past.


    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Scientist can push the on/off button on the measuring device and affect the behavior of electron in double slit experiment.
    It's still the measuring device that is interacting with the electron, not the human experimenter.


    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    But surely you do not have to be at a location in order for that location to be physically real?
    Yes, you have to - only then it's physically real FOR YOU...
    I hope your position isn't simply solipsism because I have no interest in arguing against solipsism except to say that such a position has no value as a theory of physics.


    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    First one measures the spin, then another measurement is taken and when a second scientist measures the spin, he can get a totally different result, than the first one
    This depends on the particular measurement that was performed between the two spin measurements. For example, if the measurement was of an observable that commutes with spin, then the second spin measurement will obtain the same result as the first spin measurement.

    What was the point of saying this with regards to the current discussion?


    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Really??? Can you perceive the centre of the moon? the sun at night? X-rays? other people's consciousness?
    Theoretically you can, using somekind of device (sonar for example). Satellites observe the Sun 24h/day.
    This actually proves my point. First you claim that something is physical only if it can be perceived. But when this is challenged, you concede that indirect evidence is sufficient. Therefore, I only need indirect evidence to establish the reality of spacetime and the multiverse. Indirect evidence of spacetime comes from special relativity, specifically the relativity of simultaneity. Indirect evidence of the multiverse comes from quantum mechanics, specifically the notion of the wavefunction and superposition.


    Quote Originally Posted by AstralTraveler View Post
    Recordings of the past events do not represent the actual and current state of physical reality.
    While recordings of present events are not a complete representation of that event, the passage of time does not make the recording (now of a past event) any less of a representation of the event.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Freshman A-wal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    36
    Doesn't the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment prove that it must be consciousness that collapses the wave function because one of an entangled pair of particles is measured without being consciously observed but the other doesn't collapse?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,301
    Quote Originally Posted by A-wal View Post
    Doesn't the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment prove that it must be consciousness that collapses the wave function because one of an entangled pair of particles is measured without being consciously observed but the other doesn't collapse?
    No. The quantum eraser experiment shows that undoing a measurement of one particle of an entangled pair restores the interference pattern of the other particle. The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment shows that this is also true if the measurement is undone after the interference pattern is restored.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Freshman A-wal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    36
    If 'undoing' the measurement is what restores the interference pattern then how can it be 'undone' after the interference pattern is restored?

    'Undoing a measurement' in this context means erasing the result before it can be consciously observed. You can't undo it, it's been done and didn't collapse the wave function. Erasing the data doesn't erase the fact that the measurement occurred and the wave function doesn't collapse if can't be consciously observed but it does if it can be consciously observed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,645
    Quote Originally Posted by A-wal View Post
    'Undoing a measurement' in this context means erasing the result before it can be consciously observed.
    It has nothing to do with being consciously observed.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,301
    Quote Originally Posted by A-wal View Post
    If 'undoing' the measurement is what restores the interference pattern then how can it be 'undone' after the interference pattern is restored?
    That's the point of the experiment, and is accomplished by arranging the photon path-lengths so that the interference pattern is decided before the measurement choice has been made.


    Quote Originally Posted by A-wal View Post
    'Undoing a measurement' in this context means erasing the result before it can be consciously observed. You can't undo it, it's been done and didn't collapse the wave function. Erasing the data doesn't erase the fact that the measurement occurred and the wave function doesn't collapse if can't be consciously observed but it does if it can be consciously observed.
    Because I was unable to see the connection between what you wrote in post #130 and the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, I gave a brief description of the experiment, and included some hyperbole. In fact, no measurement is undone as the measurement only occurs at the photon detectors. What is erased is the which-slit information that is contained in the spatial separation of the idler photon paths. But even though the idler photons contained the which-slit information, no actual measurement is performed until after these photons have encountered the beam-splitters that lead to the choice. The beam splitters may erase the which-slit information, but not actually undo a measurement because no measurement had been done.

    One thing that is actually quite important but not usually highlighted is that the interference pattern only occurs for the coincidence with detector 1, or the coincidence with detector 2, but not simply for the coincidence with the erasure of the which-slit information. Thus, one cannot communicate information using signals based on choosing to erase or not erase the which-slit information of the idler photons. That is, the no-communication theorem is upheld by the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment.
    Last edited by KJW; March 29th, 2018 at 12:51 PM.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Freshman A-wal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by A-wal View Post
    'Undoing a measurement' in this context means erasing the result before it can be consciously observed.
    It has nothing to do with being consciously observed.
    Maybe.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by A-wal View Post
    If 'undoing' the measurement is what restores the interference pattern then how can it be 'undone' after the interference pattern is restored?
    That's the point of the experiment, and is accomplished by arranging the photon path-lengths so that the interference pattern is decided before the measurement choice has been made.


    Quote Originally Posted by A-wal View Post
    'Undoing a measurement' in this context means erasing the result before it can be consciously observed. You can't undo it, it's been done and didn't collapse the wave function. Erasing the data doesn't erase the fact that the measurement occurred and the wave function doesn't collapse if can't be consciously observed but it does if it can be consciously observed.
    Because I was unable to see the connection between what you wrote in post #130 and the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, I gave a brief description of the experiment, and included some hyperbole. In fact, no measurement is undone as the measurement only occurs at the photon detectors. What is erased is the which-slit information that is contained in the spatial separation of the idler photon paths. But even though the idler photons contained the which-slit information, no actual measurement is performed until after these photons have encountered the beam-splitters that lead to the choice. The beam splitters may erase the which-slit information, but not actually undo a measurement because no measurement had been done.

    One thing that is actually quite important but not usually highlighted is that the interference pattern only occurs for the coincidence with detector 1, or the coincidence with detector 2, but not simply for the coincidence with the erasure of the which-slit information. Thus, one cannot communicate information using signals based on choosing to erase or not erase the which-slit information of the idler photons. That is, the no-communication theorem is upheld by the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment.
    Thanks, I didn't know that. Even if it's not consciousness that collapses the wave function it's still wtf! Gotta love QM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Consciousness
    By Shenron in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: December 1st, 2013, 07:23 AM
  2. Consciousness
    By cookiejr in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: April 30th, 2013, 11:05 AM
  3. consciousness
    By dolphinbubble in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 21st, 2010, 05:56 AM
  4. Consciousness
    By SuperNatendo in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: May 24th, 2008, 04:17 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •