Is Scale Related to Rate of Change in Quantum Mechanics?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
It is not obvious at all since I don't know how this thing works. In principle I can make a device that would do the same thing without the need for entanglement.

And no I don't think we are really splitting a photons.

If you "split" a photon, you are splitting it's probability wave, because that's all the photon really is in the first place. You appear to be stuck on a classical image of particles (as though they were individuals). This image has long been abolished by the EPR experiment (and many other such experiments). Thus, you cannot really ever fire "one photon", and then split it, but rather you can fire the greatest probable area for the particle to be, and split that, so that it is greatly probable in two places. However, if you do this, you must recognize that the "two" photons are entangled, so that whatever you do to one affects the other (since they are, for all practical (classical) purposes, the same photon).

Also, please remember that no one can actually envision quantum effects exactly (much like we cannot envision the fourth spatial dimension).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
If you "split" a photon, you are splitting it's probability wave, because that's all the photon really is in the first place. You appear to be stuck on a classical image of particles (as though they were individuals). This image has long been abolished by the EPR experiment (and many other such experiments). Thus, you cannot really ever fire "one photon", and then split it, but rather you can fire the greatest probable area for the particle to be, and split that, so that it is greatly probable in two places. However, if you do this, you must recognize that the "two" photons are entangled, so that whatever you do to one affects the other (since they are, for all practical (classical) purposes, the same photon).

Also, please remember that no one can actually envision quantum effects exactly (much like we cannot envision the fourth spatial dimension).

Boy are you missing the point. Where is the information that tells me that this down-converter produces entangled pairs? I am not really disputing that this is the case but they need not necessarily be entangled. Or, if they must be then this has not been clearly demonstrated either.

And I got over the particle model 20 years ago. Back when I was your age.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
One book is hardly a consensus. I am quite sure that no notices have gone out to the journals announcing that the mystery of consciousness is solved.

I can show evidence that consciousness continues even if no EEG can be measured. Would this scenario be explained by Clement's thesis?

Do you mean that no neural activity can be measured, and yet consciousness continues?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
Do you mean that no neural activity can be measured, and yet consciousness continues?

Yes. This was the surprising realization had about these death experiences that people report. The people who technically die on the table are acquiring memories without any measurable brain function. Everyone has argued about whether or not these people are "leaving their bodies". The thing everyone seemed to have missed is that according to everything we know, they can't remember these experiences - much less recite discussions had in the ER, or describe how a particular instrument looked, or the faces of people present only during the code - because they had no measurable brain activity at the time. I will dig up the link if you want.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Boy are you missing the point. Where is the information that tells me that this down-converter produces entangled pairs? I am not really disputing that this is the case but they need not necessarily be entangled. Or, if they must be then this has not been clearly demonstrated either.

I already told you, there was no splitting of some individual particle to begin with. They just split it's probabily wave so that it was greatly probable in those two positions. In doing so, however, you have produced the illusion of two photons, which must (in all factors (e.g. spin)) coincide to (in sum) equal the properties of the one "original" photon. This is what quantum entanglement means.

And I got over the particle model 20 years ago. Back when I was your age.

Much like the Psychologists and Neurologists who think they are over the "Cartesian Theater" model of consciousness, and yet still hint at a "place" where consciousness occurs (no offense).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Yes. This was the surprising realization had about these death experiences that people report. The people who technically die on the table are acquiring memories without any measurable brain function. Everyone has argued about whether or not these people are "leaving their bodies". The thing everyone seemed to have missed is that according to everything we know, they can't remember these experiences - much less recite discussions had in the ER, or describe how a particular instrument looked, or the faces of people present only during the code - because they had no measurable brain activity at the time. I will dig up the link if you want.

No, that's alright, I've seen such sites referenced before. However, I do think that Dennett's theory of concsiousness can account for this, since the mental input can still be occurring, without the constant revision and partial memorization that is consciousness (according to this theory).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
No, that's alright, I've seen such sites referenced before. However, I do think that Dennett's theory of concsiousness can account for this, since the mental input can still be occurring, without the constant revision and partial memorization that is consciousness (according to this theory).

This will be real news to neurologists and the like! This must be some real cutting edge [fringe] stuff.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
Much like the Psychologists and Neurologists who think they are over the "Cartesian Theater" model of consciousness, and yet still hint at a "place" where consciousness occurs (no offense).

You response

I already told you, there was no splitting of some individual particle to begin with. They just split it's probabily wave so that it was greatly probable in those two positions. In doing so, however, you have produced the illusion of two photons, which must (in all factors (e.g. spin)) coincide to (in sum) equal the properties of the one "original" photon. This is what quantum entanglement means.

sought to avoid my question with sarcasm. I showed that we might be able to create two photons that are mapped but not entangled. I never said anything about splitting photons; in fact I said that I am sure we are not. I said this because the statement makes no sense. Then you put words in my mouth to avoid the question. Prove to me that these are entangled photons. At first I was just looking for the information, but now your evasiveness makes me think you are only assuming that they are entangled.


You don't need to explain the difference between a probability wave existing over space, and splitting BB's. My first semester Quantum Mechanics professor already did that.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
No, that's alright, I've seen such sites referenced before.

This is Mentat for: I've looked at the evidence?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This will be real news to neurologists and the like! This must be some real cutting edge [fringe] stuff.

This won't be news at all, the Multiple Drafts model has existed since the late 80's or early 90's. That not everyone has accepted it is evidence that Science doesn't easily conform (as well it shouldn't).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Your response sought to avoid my question with sarcasm. I showed that we might be able to create two photons that are mapped but not entangled. I never said anything about splitting photons; in fact I said that I am sure we are not. I said this because the statement makes no sense. Then you put words in my mouth to avoid the question. Prove to me that these are entangled photons. At first I was just looking for the information, but now your evasiveness makes me think you are only assuming that they are entangled.

My sincerest apologies for the sarcastic nature of my previous post. It's been a long day, but there is no excuse for having spoken insultingly (if that's a word).

Yes, I have indeed assumed that the photons were entangled, but I did so because the experiment is based on an apparatus that "splits the photon".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
My sincerest apologies for the sarcastic nature of my previous post. It's been a long day, but there is no excuse for having spoken insultingly (if that's a word).

Yes, I have indeed assumed that the photons were entangled, but I did so because the experiment is based on an apparatus that "splits the photon".

Really no need for any apologies here. As I am sure you now know I think very highly of you. I am just trying to get you to back off on your certitude. Many very great minds do not agree on these issues. I would just hate to see your mind already made up...at what, 16?

So I want to know if these things are entangled! Then I can argue the rest of the experiment. Gotta go for a bit though...

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
So I want to know if these things are entangled! Then I can argue the rest of the experiment. Gotta go for a bit though...

Argue twice:
a) entangled
b) not entangled
both are nice options

 

[Jagger2003]

Consciousness

Gapser, glad you like the site.

The author is a pure materialist. He does cover non-material theories although without much attention and very quickly. He does not take them seriously.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Jagger2003
Gaspar, glad you like the site.

The author is a pure materialist. He does cover non-material theories although without much attention and very quickly. He does not take them seriously.

And you?

 

[Jagger2003]

From a science viewpoint, I will follow wherever the evidence leads.

Although I started wondering about my belief in a purely materialist universe when my father had a near death experience. From an agnostic/atheistic veiwpoint, I have spent three years trying to understand NDE's. My opinion is they are currently unexplainable assuming a materialistic universe. Today I would not be surprised if NDE's are exactly what they appear to be. So gradually I have reached the belief that fundamental existence may go far beyond what mainstream science finds acceptable to even consider. However I doubt if we will know the answers within my lifetime. But I keep my mind open to whatever evidence appears.

One thing I have learned over the last three years is to look very, very closely at the assumptions within science. What is stated as fact is often unproven theory when you look closely. Interestingly enough, studying NDE's has given me a different and more questioning perspective from many others that don't question the mainstream assumptions. This questioning perspective has come in very useful in many areas beyond science.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Memories and NDEs

Since I just received a PM requesting this I am posting for those who are interested. This is one report about the issue of memories acquired in the absence of any measurable EEG.

http://www.datadiwan.de/SciMedNet/library/articlesN75+/N76Parnia_nde.htm

Welcome to PF.com Hypnagogue

 

[hypnagogue]

Thanks for the info. I didn't ask in here because I didn't want to get things too off topic.
Speaking of which, this is a great thread. FWIW, I throw my lot in with Fliption although I'm really interested to see where this all will wind up. That said... have at it! *steps back*

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This post is absolutely meaningless

But it does allow me to pass up Tom and become one of the top ten posters.

Oh I know...you're welcome Hypnagogue. Ok now this post is legit.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Entanglement

They are entangled. These sources reference this point as well as variations on this experiment.

http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~frioux/2photon.htm

http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~frioux/n2photon.htm

A comment on the internal workings:
"When a photon reaches the down-converter, it excites an electron into a higher energy level. But the electron returns to its ground state via an intermediate energy level, and emits a lower-energy photon at each stage."

http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/7/19

Here are a few other sites that came up while looking for this information:

http://www.physics.iupui.edu/Physics/faculty/ou.html

"Besides squeezed light, parametric down-conversion processes also produce nonclassical states such as a single photon state and a two-photon entangled state, which can give rise to phenomena such as sub-Poissonian photon statistics and nonclassical interference that are unexplainable by classical wave theory. These states are also associated with the famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox of quantum theory. The problems that we are interested in are the nonlocality of single-photons and the EPR paradox with continuous variables."

Also:
http://science.exeter.edu/ssaltman/quantum/quantum.htm

http://fergusmurray.members.beeb.net/Causality.html

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Really no need for any apologies here. As I am sure you now know I think very highly of you. I am just trying to get you to back off on your certitude. Many very great minds do not agree on these issues. I would just hate to see your mind already made up...at what, 16?

15, actually, and my mind is not completely made up on much of anything. I just sound convinced because we are discussing reality as it exists in a Quantum Mechanical framework, and all of the texts that I've read on QM gave pretty much the same view I was giving.

However, I think you are right, our disagreement really has to do with whether or not the photons are entangled or not. And, as you've shown in your more recent post, they are.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
and all of the texts that I've read on QM gave pretty much the same view I was giving.

I don't see how you can have the time required to dig into books and be assured that you have understood them properly when you have struggled with taking time to understand the information posted here.

This means nothing to some people, but I was in the book store last night and looked through all sorts of books on QM. I'm not taking about Tao of physics stuff either. If you undertsand this stuff enough you can weed out the speculative text from those that are really hitting the issues of current science. It was amazing to me how not one single book that I look at had the view that Tiberius and Mentat have been arguing for. Of course these authors were also claiming that they didn't believe that consciousness had anything to do with it either. But they did realize that there were implications to QM research that many scientists disagree on. One quote I remember in particular was talking about the explanation that a photon has to hit an electron in order for us to observe it. The photon hitting the electron causes it to "kick" knocking it out of it's position thus our measurement affects the thing being mesasured. This is pretty much what Tiberous has claimed is obviously going on.
But this text went on to say..(I paraphrase)

"It is unfortunate that this is the explanation that many people give for the Uncertainty Principle. This view paints a common sense classical picture of the subatomic world as if it is nothing but billiard balls bouncing into one another. The truth is that the uncertainty in the quantum world is far more fundamental than that."

It went on to say that even Newton could have figured this out if that's all the uncertainty principle was.

Regardless of what is really going on in QM, I am simply trying to point out that science does NOT have an accepted consensus on it. There is nothing "obvious" about it. But I am glad to see several people have jumped into this thread and all seem willing to explore this a bit which is what I'd hoped would happen in this forum one day. I haven't had time to thoroughly read some of the links provided by some of you but I definitely want to!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
I don't see how you can have the time required to dig into books and be assured that you have understood them properly when you have struggled with taking time to understand the information posted here.

First off, I've had very little trouble understanding what you've posted, it's agreeing with it that I haven't done.

Secondly, I have (as I've said enough times, I'm sure, to make people sick of hearing it) very little time to post. So, I don't have time to mull over what people say (unless it is really profound, in which case I do lose time over it), before responding.

This means nothing to some people, but I was in the book store last night and looked through all sorts of books on QM. I'm not taking about Tao of physics stuff either. If you undertsand this stuff enough you can weed out the speculative text from those that are really hitting the issues of current science. It was amazing to me how not one single book that I look at had the view that Tiberius and Mentat have been arguing for. Of course these authors were also claiming that they didn't believe that consciousness had anything to do with it either. But they did realize that there were implications to QM research that many scientists disagree on. One quote I remember in particular was talking about the explanation that a photon has to hit an electron in order for us to observe it. The photon hitting the electron causes it to "kick" knocking it out of it's position thus our measurement affects the thing being mesasured. This is pretty much what Tiberous has claimed is obviously going on.
But this text went on to say..(I paraphrase)

"It is unfortunate that this is the explanation that many people give for the Uncertainty Principle. This view paints a common sense classical picture of the subatomic world as if it is nothing but billiard balls bouncing into one another. The truth is that the uncertainty in the quantum world is far more fundamental than that."

It went on to say that even Newton could have figured this out if that's all the uncertainty principle was.

You mean the writer didn't even attempt an explanation of what's actually going on, and just said it was a pity that people though of it (the photon) as the cause of the electron's change?

BTW, I'm sure there are a lot of (very respectable) texts that have other opinions about what's "really" going on at the Quantum level, but I just haven't run into any (yet) that explain (mathematicall, or at least logically) how what kind of observer you are could make any difference at the quantum level.

Regardless of what is really going on in QM, I am simply trying to point out that science does NOT have an accepted consensus on it. There is nothing "obvious" about it.

Ok. That's very reasonable of you, and I'm sorry if I made it seem as though there were no contraversy on the issue. I'm positive that there is. However, it was ("was" being the operative word here) my opinion that, like Joao Magueijo's disagreement with General Relativity, the contraversy was just some scientists attacking the original principle. I see now that there doesn't seem to have been an "original principle", they (QM theorists) were just explaining what they observed to be true.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
15, actually,

Excuse me while I go shove this pencil into my head.

Maximus and Tiberius are no slouches either. Aren't they about your age?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
First off, I've had very little trouble understanding what you've posted, it's agreeing with it that I haven't done.

I was referring more to the links.

So, I don't have time to mull over what people say (unless it is really profound, in which case I do lose time over it), before responding.

Hmm should I be insulted?

You mean the writer didn't even attempt an explanation of what's actually going on, and just said it was a pity that people though of it (the photon) as the cause of the electron's change?

I'm sure the writer did. But I can't read the entire book in one night at the book store. I will admit to hopping over to the issue that this thread is about.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Fliption
But this text went on to say..(I paraphrase)

"It is unfortunate that this is the explanation that many people give for the Uncertainty Principle. This view paints a common sense classical picture of the subatomic world as if it is nothing but billiard balls bouncing into one another. The truth is that the uncertainty in the quantum world is far more fundamental than that."

This was a key concept taught to me throughout my college physics career. And EPR cannot be explained except through effen magic. Many of us live under the illusion that an equation is an explanation. bbl...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Tiberius
The dual proton thingy is a bit more tricky. However, I believe it is much to do about nothing.

For starters, and going back to where this discussion begins on page 5 - the 5th post from the top - the argument that follows is nothing but a complete misunderstanding of the subject. The EPR paradox is a big deal. The explanation given by Tiberius completely ignores the point of the paradox. Bell’s inequality theorem shows that the notion of hidden variables is mathematically inconsistent. If we assume that unique values exist for the spin states [polarization] of these photons [or electron-positron pairs], and then determine the expectation value for the particles over the defined interval, we find that Bell’s inequality produces a mathematical inconsistency. In other words, we arrive at an answer that effectively says that 1 = 2. This is not a philosophical conclusion. This is a mathematical contradiction. This is how any beginning algebra student knows they have made a mistake. In this case, the mistake made is in the assumption that hidden variables exist.

We assume condition A [hidden variables exist]. We apply the equations of QM [calculate the expectation values]. We arrive at a contradiction. [1 = 2]

This is called false! Conclusion: Hidden variables do not exist.

I have also seen proofs [mathematical not philosophical] that uses the Cartographers Proof [that one can make a map using three colors I think…it has been a long time since I have seen this] to show that no hidden variables can exist. Again, this is not Capra making arm waving arguments. This is mathematics.

Finally, conservation laws require that either spooky action at a distance happens, or you violate the foundations of physics itself. Since we know the foundations of physics are well tested, we are forced to concede to a process that defies explanation but indeed somehow happens. Philosophically, this should be no more difficult to accept than even Special Relativity [not to mention GR] was 50 years ago...or now for that matter. After all, space-time is nothing but fairy dust. Prove me wrong.

The significance of this cannot be overstated:
Equations are not explanations.
Equations simply allow us to calculate the correct results.
Since we do get the right results, the equations must be correct.

However, equations that cannot be understood are called MAGIC.

Much of what I have read in this thread objects not to new age mysticism, dope smoking gurus, or the great cosmic consciousness, many of the objections are really denials of well established concepts in physics.

We have no known process by which this information can be mediated. Clearly we fail to see the complete picture. That’s what all of the commotion has been about for the last 70 years. If this could so easily be dismissed, it would have been long ago.

Edit: I should add that any arguments for propagation delay not only fail mathematically, but by now with today's technology, they surely fail experimentally. The state of two entangled particles and the intervening "communication" must happen at least at speeds much greater than C; if not instantaneously as is assumed. I would think that Heisenberg might allow a small window of Δ t, but not enough to account for the situation where the wave function collapses while the particles are separated by vast distances.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Geez I almost forgot. The challenge to philosophers is not whether physics is strange. Nearly everyone agrees on this…and those that don’t can be ignored. The challenge to you is whether it can ever be understood. I have spoken with many scientists who suspect that we will NEVER be able to understand QM in a philosophical way. Many physicists are saying that philosophy has no place in this. Many people feel that all that matters is whether we can calculate the correct answers. Do you buy this? Is this the only thing that matters...whether or not the fusion reactors works? Does understanding and insight have any significance to humans?

IMO, too many people are arguing defeat. Since we can’t figure out the TOE, or GUT, or M, or N or whatever is the latest, many scientists are starting to express concerns that there is no final explanation; that perhaps we can never understand this stuff.

I call that quitting.

I think this is the job to be done: Not to challenge that which is already understood [meaning not really understood], but to look for the synthesis in the madness.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As for consciousness, we begin with the question of measurement. As I have already posted, the explanations for the collapse of the wave function for a system includes Decoherence, gravitational interactions, and then we get into things like...

Parallel universes: This is physics. This is not new age mysticism no matter what anyone tells you. It might be wrong, but it is not garbage.

Quantum Cosmologists are arguing for some kind of paradox if we ever collapse any wave functions. They argue that the observer enters a superposition of eigenstates. Again, I don’t know why, but you can be sure that they have a damn good reason to make the argument. The source for the claim is no doubt credible.

Arguments for QM entanglement between the observer and the experiment, or some other dependence on a consciousness, both exist as schools of thought. After I do some review I will try to argue the points. I can say that to dismiss these claims as silliness is the height of arrogance. They may be wrong, but they are not silly.

 

[Mentat]

Well, I though I'd get back to that which I was forced to abandon a month ago. Hope you don't mind...

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
For starters, and going back to where this discussion begins on page 5 - the 5th post from the top - the argument that follows is nothing but a complete misunderstanding of the subject. The EPR paradox is a big deal. The explanation given by Tiberius completely ignores the point of the paradox. Bell’s inequality theorem shows that the notion of hidden variables is mathematically inconsistent. If we assume that unique values exist for the spin states [polarization] of these photons [or electron-positron pairs], and then determine the expectation value for the particles over the defined interval, we find that Bell’s inequality produces a mathematical inconsistency. In other words, we arrive at an answer that effectively says that 1 = 2. This is not a philosophical conclusion. This is a mathematical contradiction. This is how any beginning algebra student knows they have made a mistake. In this case, the mistake made is in the assumption that hidden variables exist.

We assume condition A [hidden variables exist]. We apply the equations of QM [calculate the expectation values]. We arrive at a contradiction. [1 = 2]

This is called false! Conclusion: Hidden variables do not exist.

I have also seen proofs [mathematical not philosophical] that uses the Cartographers Proof [that one can make a map using three colors I think…it has been a long time since I have seen this] to show that no hidden variables can exist. Again, this is not Capra making arm waving arguments. This is mathematics.

Finally, conservation laws require that either spooky action at a distance happens, or you violate the foundations of physics itself. Since we know the foundations of physics are well tested, we are forced to concede to a process that defies explanation but indeed somehow happens. Philosophically, this should be no more difficult to accept than even Special Relativity [not to mention GR] was 50 years ago...or now for that matter. After all, space-time is nothing but fairy dust. Prove me wrong.

The significance of this cannot be overstated:
Equations are not explanations.
Equations simply allow us to calculate the correct results.
Since we do get the right results, the equations must be correct.

However, equations that cannot be understood are called MAGIC.

I'm sorry, but I still disagree. Just because common sense dictates that 1[x=]2, doesn't mean that it is mathematically incorrect. After all, as you said, mathematics just explains what's going on, and in the quantum world (which, as you well know, is very much counter-inuitive (electron/positron pairs appearing out of nowhere, wave/particle duality, superpositions, oh my! )), we cannot rely on the common-sense (though not logically necessary) axiom that 1 thing is always definitely 1 thing (I use the term "definitely" to draw your attention to quantum indeterminacy; what I mean is that if something is "definitely 1 thing" then there is a certain state, and there is no such thing as certain states at the Quanum level).

As far as conservation laws go, you'd need to state the actual law that you are referring to, and your application of it, before I can respond coherently.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Arguments for QM entanglement between the observer and the experiment, or some other dependence on a consciousness, both exist as schools of thought. After I do some review I will try to argue the points. I can say that to dismiss these claims as silliness is the height of arrogance. They may be wrong, but they are not silly.

As I've already stated, numerous time before, consciousness is a macroscopic occurance. Now, quantum entanglement I understand. But quantum consciousness is foolishness, as I will attempt to show in a new thread (coming soon, to a Forum near you ).

 

[Mentat]

So, no responses? Fliption? Ivan?

I feel so alone

 

[drag]

Since I'm such a lazy bastard with little time :
What exactly is this "quantum consciousness" concept
you're opposed to ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
So, no responses? Fliption? Ivan?

I feel so alone

What exactly would you like me to respond to? I thought you and Ivan were on a tangent lol.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Mentat
So, no responses? Fliption? Ivan?

I feel so alone

Hello Mentat! Sorry, I had forgotten all about this thread. Give me a few days to get focused and to catch up - busy with work right now...my vacation ended during your absence.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Since I'm such a lazy bastard with little time :
What exactly is this "quantum consciousness" concept
you're opposed to ?

Live long and prosper.

LOL!

My problem (which is apparently also Tiberius' problem, since he started the thread) is that many people take Schrodinger's "cat" analogy literally, and use it to show that an "observation" (which they (wrongfully) take to mean a conscious observation) is necessary to collapse the wave-function, and make the object take on a specific form.

Tiberius and I disagree with this (new-ageish) idea, and one of the reasons for our disagreeing with it is that consciousness is a macroscopic phenomenon (much like life or individuality), and thus has no meaning at the subatomic level.

Yes, an "observation" is necessary, but not a conscious observation, as many think. In quantum mechanics, an observation is merely an interaction between fields of energy.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Hello Mentat! Sorry, I had forgotten all about this thread. Give me a few days to get focused and to catch up - busy with work right now...my vacation ended during your absence.

Well, I can't blame you for having forgotten about this thread. I had to do some "fishing" myself, before I could actually find the thing again (it had fallen to page 4). Take your time responding.

 

[Royce]

From all that I have read on the subject, you are wrong, mentat.
The conscious obsever is an intregal and necessary part of any experiment and the results of the experiment will be determined by what the observer is looking for and what he is looking at. This has been verified time and time again and your philosophical denying it will not change the reality of the experiments.

Who now is living in a dream world and denying the findings of science because they don't support his beliefs. You are not the first or alone but you position is just plain wrong.

If you don't believe us then read up on it. read the links at the first part of this thread. Read "In search of Schroding's Cat" and/or "...Kittens" by John Gibbins.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
From all that I have read on the subject, you are wrong, mentat.
The conscious obsever is an intregal and necessary part of any experiment and the results of the experiment will be determined by what the observer is looking for and what he is looking at. This has been verified time and time again and your philosophical denying it will not change the reality of the experiments.

Who now is living in a dream world and denying the findings of science because they don't support his beliefs. You are not the first or alone but you position is just plain wrong.

If you don't believe us then read up on it. read the links at the first part of this thread. Read "In search of Schroding's Cat" and/or "...Kittens" by John Gibbins.

This is exactly what Tiberius was talking about, people taking layman texts as though they were just as good as the pure mathematics. This is not the case, and often facts need to be watered-down, before they can be explained in layman terms (I myself have fallen into that trap numerous times before). However, some new-ageish (Tiberius' term, not mine) books have also been written that refer to experiments, but interpret them as having something to do with consciousness - while the experiment doesn't indicate anything of the kind, when left to plain evidence without interpretations.

I think it would do you a lot of good to read the actual texts (mathematics and all - though I find marginal annotations very helpful as well) on QM, because the idea that consciousness plays a role is not a premise of the actual Quantum Theory, nor is it necessarily implied by any experiments.

 

[Mentat]

Royce,
I have also read some of the layman texts that attempt to explain QM, and some of them are very good (I didn't want you to think that I was preaching against the publication of such texts altogether). However, I have also read some that were not so good, including a few that have cited the EPR experiment as proof that a conscious observer is necessary before the quantum entanglement can cause the particles to assume absolute states. However, after having read some actual text-books on the subject, I've learned that this is really not the case, as any energetic reaction could have caused this assumption of absolute states.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
I think it would do you a lot of good to read the actual texts (mathematics and all - though I find marginal annotations very helpful as well) on QM, because the idea that consciousness plays a role is not a premise of the actual Quantum Theory, nor is it necessarily implied by any experiments.

No offense Mentat, but from my experience on PF it is
Royce who should give you that type of advice.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
No offense Mentat, but from my experience on PF it is
Royce who should give you that type of advice.

What does past experience on the PFs have to do with it? I wouldn't assume that Alexander shouldn't tell someone to be careful of acting pompous, just because he had before. I wouldn't assume that Lifegazer shouldn't call other people unreasonable, just because he had been before.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
What does past experience on the PFs have to do with it? I wouldn't assume that Alexander shouldn't tell someone to be careful of acting pompous, just because he had before. I wouldn't assume that Lifegazer shouldn't call other people unreasonable, just because he had been before.

I'm talking about the dude's knowledge not his post count.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
I'm talking about the dude's knowledge not his post count.

Whatever, man.

I recognize Royce's sharp intellect and thinking ability, but I also recognize that: 1) no one can be an expert at everything; and 2) Theoretical Physics hasn't been (in the past) Royce's strong-suit (which would be more on the broader realm of Philosophy).

I never meant to offend Royce (good buddies that we are ), I just thought he should continue to be open-minded enough to read up on such a complex subject. It's not like him to settle on a layman interpretation, IMO.

 

[Royce]

I have told ou before mentat that you can't insult me, we are friends.

Having said that:
I would hardly call Richard Feynman or John Gibbins lay material. Nor woulds I call Niels Bohr nor Schrodinger himself to name just a couple New Ager's. The textbooks often give a simplified cookbook rendering of QM so that it can be successfully applied. The actual theory and findings however are not so easy to explain nor is it so simple.
I am no expert nor am I a mathemitician or physicist; however, when I read the same thing from a number of highly respected theorietical physicist from a number of different sources, I tend to believe what I've read and discount others without such authority who say otherwise, especially when it contradicts the findings of actual experiments done in the last few years that indicate that what I've read is not only correct but even more correct and unexplainable than anyone thought. I repeat the findings have been verified time and time again and they all indicate that the conscious observer is an intregal and necessary part of the experiment and cannot be separated from it.
I am saying only that consciousness is an intregal intrinsic part of the universe and cannot be separated from it. That consciousness has effects on phisical material things. I do not claim that this proves that God exists or make any mystical or magical claims.

 

[Royce]

drag, thanks for the vote of confidence. It was reading Feynman's "QED" that brought me here to the PF's in the first place, loaded with a bunch of questions. Needless to say I rapidly became addicted, hoplessly so I afraid.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
In quantum mechanics, an observation is merely an interaction between fields of energy.

Sigh, 14 pages and you still claim you know what must scientists aren't even sure of. I give up. I do believe you have read everything you say you've read but I think this is clearly a case in which you entered into the scene with preconceived notions about what is possible and what isn't and you've concluded what you want in this one.

My whole point here Mentat was that there isn't a strong consensus on what exactly the "observation" act that collapses the wave function is. You can believe it to be anything you want but I just wish you'd stop telling everyone what it is and what it isn't as if you know it for certain.

I give up.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Having said that:
I would hardly call Richard Feynman or John Gibbins lay material. Nor woulds I call Niels Bohr nor Schrodinger himself to name just a couple New Ager's. The textbooks often give a simplified cookbook rendering of QM so that it can be successfully applied. The actual theory and findings however are not so easy to explain nor is it so simple.
I am no expert nor am I a mathemitician or physicist; however, when I read the same thing from a number of highly respected theorietical physicist from a number of different sources, I tend to believe what I've read and discount others without such authority who say otherwise, especially when it contradicts the findings of actual experiments done in the last few years that indicate that what I've read is not only correct but even more correct and unexplainable than anyone thought. I repeat the findings have been verified time and time again and they all indicate that the conscious observer is an intregal and necessary part of the experiment and cannot be separated from it.
I am saying only that consciousness is an intregal intrinsic part of the universe and cannot be separated from it. That consciousness has effects on phisical material things. I do not claim that this proves that God exists or make any mystical or magical claims.

First, I challenge you to produce an experiment where it is undeniable that consciousness plays any role at the subatomic level.

Secondly, I also challenge you to show me the flaw in the first post of "Mentat at the subatomic level", because, if I was corect in that post, consciousness shouldn't have any affect at the subatomic level (just based on reasoning, there's nothing conclusive).

Finally, what do you think consciousness is?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
Sigh, 14 pages and you still claim you know what must scientists aren't even sure of. I give up. I do believe you have read everything you say you've read but I think this is clearly a case in which you entered into the scene with preconceived notions about what is possible and what isn't and you've concluded what you want in this one.

My whole point here Mentat was that there isn't a strong consensus on what exactly the "observation" act that collapses the wave function is. You can believe it to be anything you want but I just wish you'd stop telling everyone what it is and what it isn't as if you know it for certain.

I give up.

Look, Fliption, I'm sorry that I've exasperrated you, but you still haven't given me what I asked for: a direct counter to my reasoning on your experiment (the experiment that you posted about). Yes, people can say that conscious observation played an integral role in that experiment, and I can't (shouldn't) just tell them that they are wrong (this issue is, as you've said repeatedly, highly controversial, and not in any way resolved yet), but I can attempt to reason on the experiment to see if there is a - equally or surpassingly logical - way to explain the results of the experiment without consciousness.

If there is some actual logical problem with what I'm doing, please just tell me (don't give up on me yet; I may be a slow learner, but I'm still listening).

Also, I would like to solicit your participation (and the participation of anyone else who reads this post) on my new thread. I think the responses will assist us in this and many other threads.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mentat
First, I challenge you to produce an experiment where it is undeniable that consciousness plays any role at the subatomic level.

Secondly, I also challenge you to show me the flaw in the first post of "Mentat at the subatomic level", because, if I was corect in that post, consciousness shouldn't have any affect at the subatomic level (just based on reasoning, there's nothing conclusive).

Finally, what do you think consciousness is?

Go back and read Fliption's links located at the 7th post on page 5 of this thread. READ IT. READ IT ALL. Then come back and and tell us what you think.

Note: Playing the devils advocate does not mean being intentionally bullheaded and obtuse. It means addressing the issue in logical meaningful ways not simply repeating the same counterstatement over and over again. If your going to play the game play it right. That way we can all learn and clarify our thinking rather than getting exasperrated with one another.

If a person makes a valid point, say so then counter it with your own valid point don't just not accept anything anyone says and repeat your point as if it were the last word on the suject over and over again. If you have a question ask it, then thank the person answering it.
Playing the devils advocate for mutal advantage and the meaningful sake of the quality of the discussion is a lot harder than you think.
There is a lot more than just disagreeing with a point. Playing the devils advocat is a service to both the opposition and the discussion. The word "advocate" in this case means lawyer as in trying a case before an impartial judge. It is a lot of responsiblity and must be played seriously or you expose your self to fined for being in contempt of court, being thrown off the case and/or being disbarred for incompetence. Being the Devil's advoce one should be extra careful not anger you client or you may end up toast.