I could just post articles where real science studies show objective evidence that contradicts your claim... but because you are the claimer, the onus is on you so please do go through the categories and objectively demonstrate that "In physics... reality is built up on conscious expereince, and that without consciousness, there is no reality". If you can't prove your claim then you are a liar.
psychic powers
- Thread starter Oniw17
- Start date
I could just post articles where real science studies show objective evidence that contradicts your claim... but because you are the claimer, the onus is on you so please do go through the categories and objectively demonstrate that "In physics... reality is built up on conscious expereince, and that without consciousness, there is no reality". If you can't prove your claim then you are a liar.
He cannot prove such, ergo your final statement clearly stands on it's own merit.
It's not necessary for me or anyone else to shoot you down - you've already done a fine job of that all by yourself.:shrug:
A simple subject, it may seem at first, though the observer’s role in quantum physics and
relativity point to some disturbing and rather quite 'mind-boggling' conclusions... those
being an observer-dependant universe!
At first, this may sound a bit strange. Though, i say this, as it makes perfect
sense...
In Einstien's relativity papers, we see that distances and speed soley depend on an
observer present... this relative world requires an observer-dependant universe. And then
there is the quantum world. This world describes particles... matter in its simplest forms.
Though, these elementary particles also requires an observer, for many important reasons.
A photon particle of light will travel across the galaxy... though its path will
remain uncertain until an observer ''pops'' the question, and a so-called collapse is made.
Equally, that photon is said not to even exist until such a measurement is executed.
Instead, it has no exact, defined form, or state; a victim of an observer-dependant
universe.
And there is the paradox of no defined spin, for any particle, until a strong
electrical field, or even an observer pulls it out of its superpositioning. Why this might
happen, is still undetermined, however, it also brings with it, its own discrepancies, such
as the so-called ''measurement problem...'' The measurement problem asks why we don't see
matter in these mixed states caused by the wave function. Though, the relatively recent
discovery of ''decoherence'' seems to put the observer’s role into pure contempt.
The Copenhagen viewpoint say's that this must all occur at a superluminal speed
(faster-than-light), and the object is instantly determined for its most probable state.
Though, the Copenhagen viewpoint has been disregarded by many physicists today. This means
that not everyone agrees with this interpretation, and that many physicists ask how this all
comes about so instantly... Some have even concluded that no such a collapse occurs.
Instead, our universe is constantly splitting and flying apart from newly created universes,
every time something comes into contact with anything else in the Universe. This is the
''many worlds hypothesis,' or 'multiverse theory,' and has itself been under heavy scrutiny,
but is a growing theory with much interest. But not for me. I see absolutely no reason why
there should be an infinite amount of universes...
Despite these paradoxes’, the quantum path is taking us out of the frame of
things... and i am disenchanted by this course. We must create reality. Reality must depend
on consciousness. If it doesn't, why is there even consciousness? Why shouldn't the shadow
of reality and the vast cosmos be cast by ourselves? Does this make us far too unique, or
far too bizarre?
We should know that the mind influences reality that, without perception, there is no
reality. Now, this viewpoint can be interpreted three ways, (i think). The first is more of
a philosophical view than anything else. It states that our universe is observer-dependant
(if) it 'wishes' to have any substance - thus, is there a particle without a mind to say
there is one? Thus, reality begins at the point of the first perception. You can imagine the
very first intelligent being able to process the world around them. It would have been a
momentous era/epoch for the quantum universe, since according to this axiom, the universe
too only just 'really' began in its existence at the appearance of this new intelligent
being.
The second interpretation is a materialistic one. We affect matter in such profound
ways; one might even say that any initial state of any quantum system, like an atom, depends
on the observers mind or 'mind-interpretation.' One example of this ability to ascribe
fundamental attributes is with fundamental spins. Quantum particles will have both spins of
up and down simultaneously before an observer comes along and makes a resolution. Thus, when
an observation occurs, reality makes sense through something i call, 'mind talk'
The third interpretation is a world of sense and perception - the main point in the physics
of the mind. My world ''feels independent'' of anything else. My world is, as far as my
perception is concerned, unique and individual.
Now, all three of these examples have something in common. Not only do they show
that mind influences matter and matter influences mind, but they also indicate two worlds.
They indicate an objective world of 'in here' - the world of senses - and the subjective
world of 'out there,' which is a materialistic world. 'In here' though, and 'out there' are
inexorably tied to each other, defining each other.
The first pointer was that our universe is observer-dependant, since it requires us
to bring it into existence through the realm of the mind. This alone sets two distinct
realms of the observer and the observed. But these two worlds are inextricably connected,
unbounded, and totally hyperdimensional.
The world of consciousness leaves me in awe whenever i consider the effect of the observer
in the universe. I wonder if anyone else shares my deep sentiments on this issue; somehow,
reality depends rather intrinsically on the role of the observer - which makes the universe
somehow observer-dependant.
These interdependent existences, the worlds of the internal and the external define
each other. In the arena of spacetime, we observe macroevents, all those events directly
observable to the naked eye, right down to infinitesimally small world of 'taons' and
'muons', and somehow, the world of observation is an inextricably linked loop with the world
of the physical substances.
We have seen some examples of this relationship between the observed and the
observer - we have seen the Copenhagen viewpoint, where matter lies as potential before a
resolution is made. We have also seen the alternative - a universe superimposed upon an
infinite amount of brother-sister universes, and whenever we come to do or say anything, our
universe splits into as many possibilities as there are outcomes. We have also seen the
estranged behavior of the zeno-effect, where the outcome of an atom can be suspended in time
whenever it is being observed. Why should we have this effect on matter, whether that be the
collapse, the split and merging, or even the zeno-effect? We might know the technical side
to it all... but how does it all happen so suddenly?
Some physicists believe we over duly stress the role of the observer, simply because
a non-conscious mechanical recording device too can bring about quantum changes - but we
must remember, before these devices came about by man, the mind itself was natures own
recording device; and for some reason, the universe wished this - it created the natural
human recording devices so that we may have a unique, and rather bizarre effect on the
external reality. You might even say, the drive of the universe was so that we could exist
and observe its beauty - after all, what would the universe be without the human to observe
its vast creation? It would have been a waste otherwise...
The brain has itself an unusual existence. The spatial world i envision is itself a
product of the mind - yes, the image itself is cast into the mind when it hits the retina,
but this is a two-dimensional image, yet somehow, it is reassembled into the
three-dimensional phenomenon of our neural networks. Thus, we never observe real reality -
our bubbles of existence are a bit of a lie, a product created in the image of the external
world - just as Adam was created in Gods image, yet Adam had never seen God.
As i believe the great Sir Arthur Eddington once put it, 'the stuff of the world is
mind stuff.'
I will now leave you with some very famous qoutes...
'We ourselves can bring about into existence only very small-scale properties, like the spin
of the electron. Might it require intelligent beings, 'more conscious' than ourselves to
bring into existence the electrons and other particles?
Barrow and Tipler, 'the Anthropic Principle.'
'No photon exists until a detector fires, only a developing potentiality. Particle-like and
wave-like behavior are properties we ascribe to light. Without us, light has no properties,
no existence. There is no independent reality for phenomena nor agencies of observation.'
Niels Bohr
'The world in Copenhagen interpretation is merely potential before our observation, and is
actual afterwards.'
Bryce S. DeWitt
'We have to imagine the system a-attentively trying out all potentialities out of which one
actually emerges.'
David Bohm
'There is always a triple correspondence;
1. A mental image, which is in our minds and not in the external world
2. Some kind of counterpart in the external world, which is inscrutable in nature
3. A set of pointer readings, which exact science can study and connect with other pointer
readings
To put the conclusion crudely - the stuff of the world is 'mind stuff'. '
Sir Arthur Eddington
relativity point to some disturbing and rather quite 'mind-boggling' conclusions... those
being an observer-dependant universe!
At first, this may sound a bit strange. Though, i say this, as it makes perfect
sense...
In Einstien's relativity papers, we see that distances and speed soley depend on an
observer present... this relative world requires an observer-dependant universe. And then
there is the quantum world. This world describes particles... matter in its simplest forms.
Though, these elementary particles also requires an observer, for many important reasons.
A photon particle of light will travel across the galaxy... though its path will
remain uncertain until an observer ''pops'' the question, and a so-called collapse is made.
Equally, that photon is said not to even exist until such a measurement is executed.
Instead, it has no exact, defined form, or state; a victim of an observer-dependant
universe.
And there is the paradox of no defined spin, for any particle, until a strong
electrical field, or even an observer pulls it out of its superpositioning. Why this might
happen, is still undetermined, however, it also brings with it, its own discrepancies, such
as the so-called ''measurement problem...'' The measurement problem asks why we don't see
matter in these mixed states caused by the wave function. Though, the relatively recent
discovery of ''decoherence'' seems to put the observer’s role into pure contempt.
The Copenhagen viewpoint say's that this must all occur at a superluminal speed
(faster-than-light), and the object is instantly determined for its most probable state.
Though, the Copenhagen viewpoint has been disregarded by many physicists today. This means
that not everyone agrees with this interpretation, and that many physicists ask how this all
comes about so instantly... Some have even concluded that no such a collapse occurs.
Instead, our universe is constantly splitting and flying apart from newly created universes,
every time something comes into contact with anything else in the Universe. This is the
''many worlds hypothesis,' or 'multiverse theory,' and has itself been under heavy scrutiny,
but is a growing theory with much interest. But not for me. I see absolutely no reason why
there should be an infinite amount of universes...
Despite these paradoxes’, the quantum path is taking us out of the frame of
things... and i am disenchanted by this course. We must create reality. Reality must depend
on consciousness. If it doesn't, why is there even consciousness? Why shouldn't the shadow
of reality and the vast cosmos be cast by ourselves? Does this make us far too unique, or
far too bizarre?
We should know that the mind influences reality that, without perception, there is no
reality. Now, this viewpoint can be interpreted three ways, (i think). The first is more of
a philosophical view than anything else. It states that our universe is observer-dependant
(if) it 'wishes' to have any substance - thus, is there a particle without a mind to say
there is one? Thus, reality begins at the point of the first perception. You can imagine the
very first intelligent being able to process the world around them. It would have been a
momentous era/epoch for the quantum universe, since according to this axiom, the universe
too only just 'really' began in its existence at the appearance of this new intelligent
being.
The second interpretation is a materialistic one. We affect matter in such profound
ways; one might even say that any initial state of any quantum system, like an atom, depends
on the observers mind or 'mind-interpretation.' One example of this ability to ascribe
fundamental attributes is with fundamental spins. Quantum particles will have both spins of
up and down simultaneously before an observer comes along and makes a resolution. Thus, when
an observation occurs, reality makes sense through something i call, 'mind talk'
The third interpretation is a world of sense and perception - the main point in the physics
of the mind. My world ''feels independent'' of anything else. My world is, as far as my
perception is concerned, unique and individual.
Now, all three of these examples have something in common. Not only do they show
that mind influences matter and matter influences mind, but they also indicate two worlds.
They indicate an objective world of 'in here' - the world of senses - and the subjective
world of 'out there,' which is a materialistic world. 'In here' though, and 'out there' are
inexorably tied to each other, defining each other.
The first pointer was that our universe is observer-dependant, since it requires us
to bring it into existence through the realm of the mind. This alone sets two distinct
realms of the observer and the observed. But these two worlds are inextricably connected,
unbounded, and totally hyperdimensional.
The world of consciousness leaves me in awe whenever i consider the effect of the observer
in the universe. I wonder if anyone else shares my deep sentiments on this issue; somehow,
reality depends rather intrinsically on the role of the observer - which makes the universe
somehow observer-dependant.
These interdependent existences, the worlds of the internal and the external define
each other. In the arena of spacetime, we observe macroevents, all those events directly
observable to the naked eye, right down to infinitesimally small world of 'taons' and
'muons', and somehow, the world of observation is an inextricably linked loop with the world
of the physical substances.
We have seen some examples of this relationship between the observed and the
observer - we have seen the Copenhagen viewpoint, where matter lies as potential before a
resolution is made. We have also seen the alternative - a universe superimposed upon an
infinite amount of brother-sister universes, and whenever we come to do or say anything, our
universe splits into as many possibilities as there are outcomes. We have also seen the
estranged behavior of the zeno-effect, where the outcome of an atom can be suspended in time
whenever it is being observed. Why should we have this effect on matter, whether that be the
collapse, the split and merging, or even the zeno-effect? We might know the technical side
to it all... but how does it all happen so suddenly?
Some physicists believe we over duly stress the role of the observer, simply because
a non-conscious mechanical recording device too can bring about quantum changes - but we
must remember, before these devices came about by man, the mind itself was natures own
recording device; and for some reason, the universe wished this - it created the natural
human recording devices so that we may have a unique, and rather bizarre effect on the
external reality. You might even say, the drive of the universe was so that we could exist
and observe its beauty - after all, what would the universe be without the human to observe
its vast creation? It would have been a waste otherwise...
The brain has itself an unusual existence. The spatial world i envision is itself a
product of the mind - yes, the image itself is cast into the mind when it hits the retina,
but this is a two-dimensional image, yet somehow, it is reassembled into the
three-dimensional phenomenon of our neural networks. Thus, we never observe real reality -
our bubbles of existence are a bit of a lie, a product created in the image of the external
world - just as Adam was created in Gods image, yet Adam had never seen God.
As i believe the great Sir Arthur Eddington once put it, 'the stuff of the world is
mind stuff.'
I will now leave you with some very famous qoutes...
'We ourselves can bring about into existence only very small-scale properties, like the spin
of the electron. Might it require intelligent beings, 'more conscious' than ourselves to
bring into existence the electrons and other particles?
Barrow and Tipler, 'the Anthropic Principle.'
'No photon exists until a detector fires, only a developing potentiality. Particle-like and
wave-like behavior are properties we ascribe to light. Without us, light has no properties,
no existence. There is no independent reality for phenomena nor agencies of observation.'
Niels Bohr
'The world in Copenhagen interpretation is merely potential before our observation, and is
actual afterwards.'
Bryce S. DeWitt
'We have to imagine the system a-attentively trying out all potentialities out of which one
actually emerges.'
David Bohm
'There is always a triple correspondence;
1. A mental image, which is in our minds and not in the external world
2. Some kind of counterpart in the external world, which is inscrutable in nature
3. A set of pointer readings, which exact science can study and connect with other pointer
readings
To put the conclusion crudely - the stuff of the world is 'mind stuff'. '
Sir Arthur Eddington
Actually, it's much simpler than that. The odds are greatly in favor of there being no such thing. Why? because the chances are huge that that which cannot be shown to exist most likely DOESN'T exist.
Ok, you've stated the conclusion... now lets see the evidence.
Do you mean a second observer needs to be present to witness distance and speed of a first observer or do you mean a single observer needs to be present for distance and speed to be applied to?
Ok, you've made another conclusion. I will expect evidence to be coming.
I'll buy that. You should know however that humans can make systems that are collapse-resistant. The Bose-Einstein condensate for example... Humans and non-humans can observe the wave (superposition) without causing collapse.
False. Whether it exists as a superposition or as a single unit, it exists.
On the right track...
You cannot use the conlusion as a fact without proving its true... and that has not been done at this point. Also, I don't think particles can be 'victims'.
How is it a paradox? Also, an electrical field is also an observer... as is a block of wood, a piece of ice, etc. Observers are not confined to being human or sentient. Also, the Bose-Einstein condensate can exist in a superposition and be observed by humans and non-humans just fine.
Why?
Do you mean the speed of transitioning between wave and particle?
A little all over the board there, but its probably harmless.
Yet another conclusion. I hope evidence is forthcoming... I am still waiting on the previous two conclusions.
Yep, the many worlds theory is a tough one. I suspect its not true simply on the grounds that there is not enough energy to sustain all those branches indefinitely.
What paradoxes?
Why are your feelings relevant?
Conclusion #4. I hope there will be evidence, but the way this is going I am starting to doubt I'll see it.
Conclusion #5... waiting on evidence... o.o
It's a survival trait.
None of those questions have anything to do with science... let alone reality.
That's part of the original conclusion... which I am still waiting for evidence on.
That interpretation is not based on anything objective. It's fantasy.
Wave collapse does NOT require a SENTIENT OBSERVER. In other words, this whole paragraph is false.
Nothing objective here either. Just fantasy.
The only thing these examples have in common is that they are born of human desire.
Objective is information absent of interpretation. Subjective is interpreted information.
I am still waiting on evidence for that first pointer.
Non-conscious objects are also observers and you have not provided any evidence yet that reality is dependent on observers. The correct assertion would be that observers can cause wave collapse.
Ok you went out of your way to not show supportive evidence of any of the 5 claims issued so far.
We have also seen that you apparently think an observer has to be sentient (which is not remotely true).
Many world's theory is cool. I doubt it will end up true due to the energy requirements.
That's not true. The zeno-effect is when an unstable particle does not decay due to the presence of constant observation. If such a particle were frozen in time, it would be unmovable... which isn't the case.
Thats the important part. It doesn't have to be a recording device either. It could be a block of wood. Any object which can accept information is an observer (conscious or not).
Mostly irrelevant, but the universe would be the universe if people did not exist.
Nothing objective here.
No evidence of the 5 claims here either.
[/QUOTE]
And here we are. What started off as 1 claim turned into 5 with zero supportive evidence. The moment you take a fanstastic speculation, a conjecture, an opinion and consider it truth without evidence is the moment you cross the line into delusion. The moment you peddle delusion to others is the moment you become a liar.
Reiku, you are a liar.
lie1 /laɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
–noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
–noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
–noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
What a load of shit. Sorry, but the attitude stinks round here. I'm a liar now. How in Gods name did you Crunch come up with that one eh?
You asked for evidence, i gave you evidence. I gave you qauntum physical evidence, and now you are still pervasively calling me a liar - you need medical attention. And i don't mean the vets, you total and utter ignoramous. You either do not know the true definition of liar, or you are posing your insults simply because i challenged your knowledge, and you do not like this.
If anyone here can explain to me how i lied, then so be it. Until such a time, i think you're gravely mistaken.
What a load of shit. Sorry, but the attitude stinks round here. I'm a liar now. How in Gods name did you Crunch come up with that one eh?
You asked for evidence, i gave you evidence. I gave you qauntum physical evidence, and now you are still pervasively calling me a liar - you need medical attention. And i don't mean the vets, you total and utter ignoramous. You either do not know the true definition of liar, or you are posing your insults simply because i challenged your knowledge, and you do not like this.
If anyone here can explain to me how i lied, then so be it. Until such a time, i think you're gravely mistaken.
As for some of these statements... well... what can i say, some you take too literal, and others you simply won't listen to... for instance...
''That's not true. The zeno-effect is when an unstable particle does not decay due to the presence of constant observation. If such a particle were frozen in time, it would be unmovable... which isn't the case.''
Too literal. I didn't mean actual real time. I meant within a scape of time which it should radiate energy.
''Many world's theory is cool. I doubt it will end up true due to the energy requirements.''
I AGREE! FLIPPIN ECH!
''We have also seen that you apparently think an observer has to be sentient (which is not remotely true).''
The human is a sentient being. I do not know what you mean by these loose terms.
''Objective is information absent of interpretation. Subjective is interpreted information.''
Virtual Crunchy, totally virtual.
''Do you mean the speed of transitioning between wave and particle?''
No. Quantum information.
The rest i cannot be arsed even entertaining.
''That's not true. The zeno-effect is when an unstable particle does not decay due to the presence of constant observation. If such a particle were frozen in time, it would be unmovable... which isn't the case.''
Too literal. I didn't mean actual real time. I meant within a scape of time which it should radiate energy.
''Many world's theory is cool. I doubt it will end up true due to the energy requirements.''
I AGREE! FLIPPIN ECH!
''We have also seen that you apparently think an observer has to be sentient (which is not remotely true).''
The human is a sentient being. I do not know what you mean by these loose terms.
''Objective is information absent of interpretation. Subjective is interpreted information.''
Virtual Crunchy, totally virtual.
''Do you mean the speed of transitioning between wave and particle?''
No. Quantum information.
The rest i cannot be arsed even entertaining.
Thank you existabrent. For all that it is worth, i have been working in this area for years now. I keep in close contact with many Ph.D's - one of them in particular being Fred Alan Wolf, and until just recently, i've never been treated with such contempt, as Crunchy has demonstrated. I wonder if Crunchy has a scientific bone in his body?
Crunchy Hat is a flaming bore, from what I've read. But your study was highly stimulating. Supposing billions of conscious portrayals are bounced back at the universe from this point of origin, planet Earth, then could any one particular consciousness eclipse another?
Hi Chewing Gum...
You see, this is why i come to places like this. I just love physics. I love the theory of consciousness. The mind is the new quantum lab of the future...
Now, sorry, but i'm not sure i totally got you there mate. I understood the main part, just the end confused me... what do you specifically mean by ''could any one particular consciousness eclipse another?''
Cheers
You see, this is why i come to places like this. I just love physics. I love the theory of consciousness. The mind is the new quantum lab of the future...
Now, sorry, but i'm not sure i totally got you there mate. I understood the main part, just the end confused me... what do you specifically mean by ''could any one particular consciousness eclipse another?''
Cheers
You made a claim of truth, turned it into 5 claims, and didn't prove any of them... not even close. You should feel ashamed for trying to deceive other people. You are a liar.
You gave me more claims and no evidence.