the last days of fear

Lori_7 said:
what you're saying is NOT what the experiment showed.
Click to expand...
Well shit, I guess I'll have to ask for a refund on all that university tuition. Have you ever taken an actual class on quantum physics? Or did you learn it all from cartoons?
what the experiment showed is that on a quantum level, there exists a spectrum, if not an infinite number of possibilities...
Click to expand...
This is true.
... and what is actually determined depends upon an observer.
Click to expand...
This is false. The presence of an observer causes the many (possibly infinite) possibilities in the wave function to "collapse" into a single, specific possibility. But which possibility ends up being the "real" one after the observation isn't determined by the observer - in fact, it's completely random. The observer can't influence which possibility becomes actualized.

Also, it's important to note that an "observer" is any macroscopic system. It's not like the observer has to be a conscious entity or something. A Geiger counter measuring radioactive decays is a perfectly fine "observer," but no one thinks it's alive or conscious.
 
Nasor said:
Well shit, I guess I'll have to ask for a refund on all that university tuition. Have you ever taken an actual class on quantum physics? Or did you learn it all from cartoons?
Click to expand...

honey i'm so smart i knew this stuff was true before the quantum physicists did.

This is false. The presence of an observer causes the many (possibly infinite) possibilities in the wave function to "collapse" into a single, specific possibility. But which possibility ends up being the "real" one after the observation isn't determined by the observer - in fact, it's completely random. The observer can't influence which possibility becomes actualized.
Click to expand...

the introduction of a particular perspective altered the outcome distinctively. the difference wasn't in the way the outcome was measured, it was in the behavior of the electrons themselves, upon the addition of the observer. that wasn't random.

Also, it's important to note that an "observer" is any macroscopic system. It's not like the observer has to be a conscious entity or something. A Geiger counter measuring radioactive decays is a perfectly fine "observer," but no one thinks it's alive or conscious.
Click to expand...

yes i understand that but certainly you would agree that we are observers via our human bodies.
 
spidergoat said:
If our thoughts create reality, then we are gods.
Click to expand...

that's what the movie said. :eek:

i think that we are all a small part of what god actually is. the bible says god made us in his image. it also says that jesus was god in human form, and that when we are made like him, we will reign with him.

the bible also says that we are what we think, and that we're powerful because of it.
 
Lori_7 said:
honey i'm so smart i knew this stuff was true before the quantum physicists did.
Click to expand...
In other words, everything you know about quantum physics you learned from cartoons?
the introduction of a particular perspective altered the outcome distinctively.
Click to expand...
Before observation the electron has an infinite spectrum of possible locations. After observation, it will have only one. Which particular one it ends up having is not affected by the observer, except to the extent that the act of observation causes the collapse to happen. So again, I do not see what this is supposed to have to do with the assertion that "we are what we think." There is no reason to believe that "thinking" has anything to do with the double-slit experiment, or the collapse of wave functions in general.
yes i understand that but certainly you would agree that we are observers via our human bodies.
Click to expand...
Only in the sense that any macroscopic system can potentially cause a wave function to collapse by interacting with it. But we don't have any effect on what the outcome is, and there's no reason to think that our thoughts have anything to do with it. A rock is a perfectly good "observer" too, and there's no indication that a rock has any thoughts.

Edit: also, there's waaaay too much anthropomorphizing going on here. When you say things like "observation" or "introduction of a particular perspective," you make it sound like there's some sort of conscious observation going on. There's not. It's simply a matter of the electron having some interaction with a macroscopic system. Why would you call that "the introduction of a perspective"?
 
Last edited:
Nasor said:
In other words, everything you know about quantum physics you learned from cartoons?
Click to expand...

no, i don't know jack shit about quantum physics, but jesus taught me about my thoughts, and how powerful they are.


Before observation the electron has an infinite spectrum of possible locations. After observation, it will have only one. Which particular one it ends up having is not affected by the observer, except to the extent that the act of observation causes the collapse to happen. So again, I do not see what this is supposed to have to do with the assertion that "we are what we think." There is no reason to believe that "thinking" has anything to do with the double-slit experiment, or the collapse of wave functions in general.
Only in the sense that any macroscopic system can potentially cause a wave function to collapse by interacting with it. But we don't have any effect on what the outcome is, and there's no reason to think that our thoughts have anything to do with it. A rock is a perfectly good "observer" too, and there's no indication that a rock has any thoughts.
Click to expand...

fine. it's a hell of a start, don't you think?

now watch this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpnlCo5APrE&feature=related
 
Nasor said:
Edit: also, there's waaaay too much anthropomorphizing going on here. When you say things like "observation" or "introduction of a particular perspective," you make it sound like there's some sort of conscious observation going on. There's not. It's simply a matter of the electron having some interaction with a macroscopic system. Why would you call that "the introduction of a perspective"?
Click to expand...

we make conscious observations and we're made out of electrons like everything is.
 
Lori_7 said:
fine. it's a hell of a start, don't you think?
Click to expand...
I think it's very interesting. As for it being a "hell of a start" toward demonstrating that "we are what we think," no, I don't think it's any sort of start. Because it doesn't have anything to do with thinking.
now watch this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpnlCo5APrE&feature=related
Click to expand...
Total bullshit. This guy was debunked YEARS ago. This is proof that the people who made this stupid video are either incompetent, or don't mind deliberately lying to their audience.
we make conscious observations and we're made out of electrons like everything is.
Click to expand...
What's your point? The fact remains that when a wave function interacts with a macroscopic system and collapses, it doesn't have anything to do with thought.
 
Nasor said:
I think it's very interesting. As for it being a "hell of a start" toward demonstrating that "we are what we think," no, I don't think it's any sort of start. Because it doesn't have anything to do with thinking.

Total bullshit. This guy was debunked YEARS ago. This is proof that the people who made this stupid video are either incompetent, or don't mind deliberately lying to their audience.
Click to expand...

how was he debunked?

our thoughts affect us on every other level. why wouldn't they on a quantum level?
 
Lori_7 said:
how was he debunked?
Click to expand...
They did a blind experiment which showed that there was no different between the special thought-at/whatever water and control water. The guy was just having photographers hunt around until they found what they were looking for from the nearly-infinite variety of shapes formed by the water, and ignoring everything that didn't look the way they wanted.
our thoughts affect us on every other level.
Click to expand...
Proof? I don't think my thoughts can make my hair grow faster.
why wouldn't they on a quantum level?
Click to expand...
Because there is no plausible explanation for how they could affect us on the quantum level, and no experimental evidence that they do.
 
spidergoat said:
There is a sense in which all we percieve of the world is in the mind. Our perceptions are always indirect.

But that's not what these people are saying.
Click to expand...

i know! they're saying that our collective minds actually manifest into our existence!
 
Based on the double-slit experiment? Believe it if you want, but that's not what the experiment reveals.
 
spidergoat said:
Based on the double-slit experiment? Believe it if you want, but that's not what the experiment reveals.
Click to expand...

not just that experiment, but everything they know about quantum physics.

how about a biological example that's more concrete...your thoughts (often but not necessarily tied with emotions) trigger the production and release of chemicals that alter the nature of the cells in your body. those changes are accumulated over time and passed down genetically.

how about nutrition...our thoughts determine what we ingest and why. the quality of our food, water, and air. they determine what we eat and why and when and how much. they determine how and if we grow it, how and if we process it, and how we handle it. nutrition obviously has an impact on the human body like a mack truck, and that impact is accumulated over time and passed down genetically.
 
I would agree that our thoughts (which are not quantum in nature) have effects on the world through our actions. But that is a far different thing than claiming that there is some connection between observing something and causing it to happen. You are saying if no one is in the forest to hear the tree fall, it doesn't fall.
 
spidergoat said:
I would agree that our thoughts (which are not quantum in nature) have effects on the world through our actions. But that is a far different thing than claiming that there is some connection between observing something and causing it to happen. You are saying if no one is in the forest to hear the tree fall, it doesn't fall.
Click to expand...

how are thoughts not quantum? are they not electrical impulses that not only travel through, but also create, neurological pathways in the brain?
 
External sources in the environment such as cosmic rays or internal sources such as radioactive potassium (K40) in blood can be expected to induce fluctuations in brain currents. These processes are quantum in origin, which means that they are random—at least in most interpretations of quantum mechanics. Like the fluctuations that provide for mutations in the evolutionary process, these might serve to trigger what complexity theorists call a bifurcation, when a system moves from one quasi-stable state to another.

The brain could operate that way, being basically classical and deterministic but occasionally jolted by a random quantum event. What is interesting is that the decisions made in this fashion would be indistinguishable from creative acts or free will. Is that all there is to it?​

http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/is_the_brain_a_quantum_device/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top