The Illusion of Free Will in the Context of Time Travel and Paradoxes

[Drakkith]

I am a little disappointed because i have presented evidence and it has been ignored.

What? You have multiple posts that have been replied to. How have you been ignored?

 

[Drakkith]

This is an interesting thread. I didn't realize how much philosophy and physics went together. I personally have nothing to add, because I'm a novice in physics--yet alone theoretical physics. However its lovely to read everyone's well-placed arguments. Keep em' comin'!

Quote from Wikipedia via 2-3 different sources:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. [1][2] It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] T

I'd agree that philosophy and science go hand in hand. After all, how can you do science without being rational!

 

[agentredlum]

What? You have multiple posts that have been replied to. How have you been ignored?

Wait, i didn't say i was ignored, i said the evidence presented by me has been ignored. Specifically links supporting my opinion about consciousness collapsing the wave function and my position that quantum entanglement of photons violates the speed of light for information transmission.

I am not disapointed by this correspondence, i am greatfull, however, i am a little disappointed about...other things. I don't want to say more about that.

 

[Drakkith]

Wait, i didn't say i was ignored, i said the evidence presented by me has been ignored. Specifically links supporting my opinion about consciousness collapsing the wave function and my position that quantum entanglement of photons violates the speed of light for information transmission.

I am not disapointed by this correspondence, i am greatfull, however, i am a little disappointed about...other things. I don't want to say more about that.

My mistake, I misread your post lol.

Anyways, it hasn't been ignored, the issue is that while it may support your opinion, it doesn't PROVE it beyond reasonable doubt. There are still a few things to clear up before we can say either way.

 

[agentredlum]

My mistake, I misread your post lol.

Anyways, it hasn't been ignored, the issue is that while it may support your opinion, it doesn't PROVE it beyond reasonable doubt. There are still a few things to clear up before we can say either way.

Here, at last, I am in total agreement with you.

 

[agentredlum]

I was thinking about a question i posted yesterday and i think i have an answer so tell me if this answer is valid.

First, the question...

Does Q. M. allow you to say...In principle pi oxygen atoms in a room could tunnel through the wall and end up outside.Is there a veto for a statement like this? According to Quantum Mechanics?

Now my attempt to save Q.M. from a 'nagging' question like this.

3 oxygen atoms will be outside. The fourth oxygen atom will be partially outside, partially in the wall.
The part of the fourth oxygen atom that will be outside is...pi - 3...the part in the wall...4 - pi.

Go agent, go agent...LOL

 

[alxm]

According to Quantum Mechanics?

Real quantum mechanics or the Deepak Chopra/New Age version you've been advocating?

 

[agentredlum]

Real quantum mechanics or the Deepak Chopra/New Age version you've been advocating?

Actually I am not a fan of that quantum mechanics and a little hurt by your question. I pose what i believe are legitimate questions. Should any theory be above criticism? I am no expert. Experts in the field have posed similar questions to mine.

 

[agentredlum]

In the bginning this thread was pure speculation. Someone posted a quote by Dr. Einstein against the philosophical foundations of Q.M. I am guilty of posting that qoute. What happened next is many 'defenders' of Q.M. started posting. I have no problem with that. They make their arguments for Quantum Mechanics, I make my arguments against their arguments. It makes the discussion interesting. I am not advocating any theory, if anything i agree with Dr. Einstein because his objection make sense to me.

I do not dispute the experimental verifications of Q.M. but i point out another qoute by Einstein.."No amount of experimentation can prove me right, 1 experiment is enough to prove me wrong"-Albert Einstein

I am suspicious of the philosophical foundations of Q.M. that is all.

 

[afstgl]

I think it is impossible to create a time travel paradox, even if it was technically possible to go back in time, it wouldn't be your time, if there is any truth to parallel universes and the concept that time does not flow but rather we move along it and as a result perceive it to be flowing, then any going back in time will result in sending you to a parallel universe, since you go back to a moment you yourself have passes and now there is a completely different scenario playing out, you may be able to go back IN TIME, but never back IN YOUR OWN TIME, so if you go back and kill your grandfather, assuming he exists in that parallel universe, you will not cease to exist, you will only break the line that leads to your parallel self, you won't get born in that particular instance but would already have been born in your time and time traveled to that prior moment.

Does it make sense?

 

[DaveC426913]

Anyways, it hasn't been ignored, the issue is that while it may support your opinion, it doesn't PROVE it beyond reasonable doubt. There are still a few things to clear up before we can say either way.

Drakkith mirrors my opinion. Since it does not refute my stance (that consciousness is not required), and I have nothing to add, I said nothing. I leave that to others to take up.

Does Q. M. allow you to say...In principle pi oxygen atoms in a room could tunnel through the wall and end up outside.Is there a veto for a statement like this? According to Quantum Mechanics?

Now my attempt to save Q.M. from a 'nagging' question like this.

3 oxygen atoms will be outside. The fourth oxygen atom will be partially outside, partially in the wall.
The part of the fourth oxygen atom that will be outside is...pi - 3...the part in the wall...4 - pi.

1] I have no idea what pi has to do with anything, so I don't understand your question at all. How can you have a fraction of an atom?

2] 'Veto' means 'deny'. So your question says "...atoms in a room could tunnel through the wall and end up outside. Does QM say this can't happen?" Is that what you meant?


3] I introduced tunnelling to demonstrate that particles in QM don't behave like we expect. They don't "go from here to there". Simply put, their position is determined by probability (I'll speak specifically about electrons rather than whole atoms). An elecrton doe not move about an atom; it simply has a probability cloud. Measure the electron and its position will be contained by that cloud. The cloud (since it is simply a probability field) can overlap other objects, such as walls. If the probability cloud of an electron extends beyond the wall of a container, it means there is a non-zero chance that, when measured, the electron will be detected outside the container - even though it cannot pass through the container.

All this aside, the point was that the Moon, a collection of particles writ huge, behaves similarly - at least in principle.

In the bginning this thread was pure speculation. Someone posted a quote by Dr. Einstein against the philosophical foundations of Q.M. I am guilty of posting that qoute. What happened next is many 'defenders' of Q.M. started posting. I have no problem with that. They make their arguments for Quantum Mechanics, I make my arguments against their arguments. It makes the discussion interesting. I am not advocating any theory, if anything i agree with Dr. Einstein because his objection make sense to me.

I do not dispute the experimental verifications of Q.M. but i point out another qoute by Einstein.."No amount of experimentation can prove me right, 1 experiment is enough to prove me wrong"-Albert Einstein

I am suspicious of the philosophical foundations of Q.M. that is all.

I wonder if it should be in a separate thread, since I am not entirely clear what your argument is.

 

[agentredlum]

Drakkith mirrors my opinion. Since it does not refute my stance (that consciousness is not required), and I have nothing to add, I said nothing. I leave that to others to take up.1] I have no idea what pi has to do with anything, so I don't understand your question at all. How can you have a fraction of an atom?

2] 'Veto' means 'deny'. So your question says "...atoms in a room could tunnel through the wall and end up outside. Does QM say this can't happen?" Is that what you meant?3] I introduced tunnelling to demonstrate that particles in QM don't behave like we expect. They don't "go from here to there". Simply put, their position is determined by probability (I'll speak specifically about electrons rather than whole atoms). An elecrton doe not move about an atom; it simply has a probability cloud. Measure the electron and its position will be contained by that cloud. The cloud (since it is simply a probability field) can overlap other objects, such as walls. If the probability cloud of an electron extends beyond the wall of a container, it means there is a non-zero chance that, when measured, the electron will be detected outside the container - even though it cannot pass through the container.

All this aside, the point was that the Moon, a collection of particles writ huge, behaves similarly - at least in principle.
I wonder if it should be in a separate thread, since I am not entirely clear what your argument is.

I made the remark about the thread cause my feelings were hurt just a little bit by the accusation i was advocating for new age Q.M. You have not hurt my feelings, as a matter of fact i find your arguments logical and the conversation interesting. However, is it wise to accept quantum jumping AND electron clouds? If electrons are not permitted certain orbits then wouldn't that mean the probability of finding the electron at a non-permissable orbit should be zero? This doesn't look like a probability cloud or wavefunction or whatever you want to call it. t seems to me Q.M. supports both. Q. M. wants quantum jumps and continuous distribution of probability functions.

I thought people would get a kick out of (pi - 3) + (4 - pi) = 1 The whole oxygen atom. I

I have no problem visualising a ruler of lenth 1. Now place the ruler protruding from the desk. The value pi-3 extending from the desk. The value 4-pi on the desk. Since the entire ruler is made of these two parts their sum must equal 1 and it does. By analogy you can have an oxygen atom with parts between two mediums. The atom is not 'split' (LOL) it is merely in transition.

 

[DaveC426913]

However, is it wise to accept quantum jumping AND electron clouds? If electrons are not permitted certain orbits then wouldn't that mean the probability of finding the electron at a non-permissable orbit should be zero? This doesn't look like a probability cloud or wavefunction or whatever you want to call it. t seems to me Q.M. supports both. Q. M. wants quantum jumps and continuous distribution of probability functions.

I think you need to read up on how they work before you try to critcize. Your description is inaccurate.

I thought people would get a kick out of (pi - 3) + (4 - pi) = 1 The whole oxygen atom. I

I have no problem visualising a ruler of lenth 1. Now place the ruler protruding from the desk. The value pi-3 extending from the desk. The value 4-pi on the desk. Since the entire ruler is made of these two parts their sum must equal 1 and it does.

I have no problem visualing this either.

By analogy you can have an oxygen atom with parts between two mediums. The atom is not 'split' (LOL) it is merely in transition.

I get it. But what does it have to do with anything? It appears spurious. Maybe you should start a new thread.

 

[Drakkith]

However, is it wise to accept quantum jumping AND electron clouds? If electrons are not permitted certain orbits then wouldn't that mean the probability of finding the electron at a non-permissable orbit should be zero? This doesn't look like a probability cloud or wavefunction or whatever you want to call it. t seems to me Q.M. supports both. Q. M. wants quantum jumps and continuous distribution of probability functions.

What do you mean they aren't permitted certain orbitals?

 

[agentredlum]

I think it is impossible to create a time travel paradox, even if it was technically possible to go back in time, it wouldn't be your time, if there is any truth to parallel universes and the concept that time does not flow but rather we move along it and as a result perceive it to be flowing, then any going back in time will result in sending you to a parallel universe, since you go back to a moment you yourself have passes and now there is a completely different scenario playing out, you may be able to go back IN TIME, but never back IN YOUR OWN TIME, so if you go back and kill your grandfather, assuming he exists in that parallel universe, you will not cease to exist, you will only break the line that leads to your parallel self, you won't get born in that particular instance but would already have been born in your time and time traveled to that prior moment.

Does it make sense?

Yes, it makes sense to me. However, the great physicist Richard Feynman developed an entire theory where virtual subatomic particles travel backward in our OWN time and create the very event witnessed in our present. To borrow a quote from DaveC426913 "That is a heady idea" A consequence of Feynman's ideas is that you only need 1 electron in the entire universe to account for all chemical interactions. This explains why the charge of all experimentally observed electrons is the same.

To put it another way, someone may ask 'Why is the charge on all electrons the same" and the reply comes "It's the same electron, zipping along through time and space mediating all interactions"

As soon as one recovers from this staggering idea then one can ask, "is there only one proton?" and many other similar questions.

I am not for or against this idea, i can't prove either way.
I'm just talking here, don't want to step on anybodies toes.

 

[boffinwannabe]

as for collapsing the wave, has it not been shown this is when information becomes known? The delayed quantum eraser experiment showing it wasnt the measurement that collapsed the wave, it was when the information became available to the observer. I take this to mean the moon is nothing more than a probability wave until someone observes it.

 

[boffinwannabe]

I think it is impossible to create a time travel paradox,

my original point. But my point went further, its not that a paradox would prohibit time travel but that the only reason its proposed that a paradox contra-indicates time travel is our need to understand what happens next. Theres no maths to say that stops time travel. And anything we do is already part of all possible histories, the universe already allows for it.

 

[agentredlum]

What do you mean they aren't permitted certain orbitals?

What do you mean what do i mean? The Bohr atom.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

The Bohr atom = incomplete

 

[agentredlum]

The Bohr atom = incomplete

Yes, but that is where the idea of quantum jumps came from.

 

[agentredlum]

Awww Dave, you hurt my feelings.

 

[Drakkith]

as for collapsing the wave, has it not been shown this is when information becomes known? The delayed quantum eraser experiment showing it wasnt the measurement that collapsed the wave, it was when the information became available to the observer. I take this to mean the moon is nothing more than a probability wave until someone observes it.

To my knowledge this is incorrect. The delayed quantum eraser only supports, in the view of a particular interpretation of QM, that a particle can "choose" its path based on the detection of its partner particle AFTER the original particle has already been detected. But I'm not a QM guru, so I don't know for sure.

 

[Drakkith]

What do you mean what do i mean? The Bohr atom.

Per your previous post:

However, is it wise to accept quantum jumping AND electron clouds? If electrons are not permitted certain orbits then wouldn't that mean the probability of finding the electron at a non-permissable orbit should be zero? This doesn't look like a probability cloud or wavefunction or whatever you want to call it. t seems to me Q.M. supports both. Q. M. wants quantum jumps and continuous distribution of probability functions.

I don't follow you on this. What does quantum jumping and electron clouds have to do with the Bohr model or non-permissable orbits?

 

[agentredlum]

Per your previous post:
I don't follow you on this. What does quantum jumping and electron clouds have to do with the Bohr model or non-permissable orbits?

perhaps this link will help, here is a portion of the link

The Bohr atom Niels Bohr (1852?1962) combined classical mechanics and some revolutionary postulates to formulate a model of the hydrogen atom that hoped to circumvent some of the difficulties of classical physics and still explain atomic spectra. The following are his basic postulates.
Postulate 1: The electron moves in only certain permitted circular orbits?quantized states?around the positive nucleus under the influence of the Coulomb force.
Postulate 2: The electron does not emit energy when it is in one of the allowed orbits called a stationary state.
Postulate 3: When the electron jumps from one permitted state to another, the energy is given off as a particular photon with energy equal to the difference in the energies of the initial and final states:

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Atomic-Structure.topicArticleId-10453,articleId-10447.html

Here is quantization of Bohr Magneton which is relevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_magneton

The electron cannot be in between two consecutive permissable orbits according to Bohr. It 'jumps' from one permissable orbit to another.

By anology on the number line, if you want to go from 1 to 2 you are not allowed to pass through any intermediate points in a smooth continuous fashion, you have to 'jump'. You are NOT allowed to occupy any intermediate point at any time.

A logical question one would ask is "how can you get from point A to point B without passing through any points in between A and B?" and the reply comes back "by performing a quantum jump"

Schrodinger voiced his objections to this idea in a famous quote-"If I knew we weren't going to be able to get rid of this damned quantum jumping I never would have involved myself in this business!"-Erwin Schrodinger

 

[Drakkith]

The bohr model is inaccurate. Electron orbitals are probabilities, not circular orbits. As such it doesn't help us here. What exactly are you asking?

 

[agentredlum]

as for collapsing the wave, has it not been shown this is when information becomes known? The delayed quantum eraser experiment showing it wasnt the measurement that collapsed the wave, it was when the information became available to the observer. I take this to mean the moon is nothing more than a probability wave until someone observes it.

I agree with you. In my opinion this is the philosophy behind quantum mechanics. I don't agree with the philosophy but i am not 'married' to my point of view. My opinion could change today, but i have yet to find evidence to change my mind. Many here say consciousness is not required. What is an observer then? According to some views posted here an observer can be anything. A quark, a gravitational field, a ray of light, an experimental apparatus, AI etc.

 

[Drakkith]

I agree with you. In my opinion this is the philosophy behind quantum mechanics. I don't agree with the philosophy but i am not 'married' to my point of view. My opinion could change today, but i have yet to find evidence to change my mind. Many here say consciousness is not required. What is an observer then? According to some views posted here an observer can be anything. A quark, a gravitational field, a ray of light, an experimental apparatus, AI etc.

As this article states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics )

The issue of observation isn't completely agreed upon. Personally I can't see how anyone would believe that a conscious observer would be required, but I'm not a QM expert.

 

[agentredlum]

The bohr model is inaccurate. Electron orbitals are probabilities, not circular orbits. As such it doesn't help us here. What exactly are you asking?

quantum jumping is discrete, probability wave distributions are continuous. Q.M. wants both ideas and it seems to me that one idea makes the other impossible.

 

[Drakkith]

quantum jumping is discrete, probability wave distributions are continuous. Q.M. wants both ideas and it seems to me that one idea makes the other impossible.

I don't see why you think that. If you look at a probability graph of an orbital, many of them aren't even physically connected between the lobes or whatever. How else would an electron get from one part of its orbital to another past a node without jumping?

 

[agentredlum]

Look, is Quantum Mechanics a theory about discrete or continuous probabilities? If it is about continuous probabilities then the first word in Q.M. should be changed because in Latin Quanta means 'how much' and is used to describe a discrete value. This is why Quantum was chosen as the name for this science. By the way if you claim Q.M. is continuous then you better throw out all philosophical arguments that have discrete implications, like Planck length and Planck time.

Carefull here, i am not saying throw away the Planck constant. I am saying throw out statements like 'the smallest physical length allowed in this universe is the Planck length.'

 

[Drakkith]

I don't think you understand that just because things might be quantized, that doesn't mean that nothing can be continuous. The probability of where a particle might be is a continuous change, but in no way does that mean that the electron energy levels cannot be quantized.

 

[agentredlum]

I don't see why you think that. If you look at a probability graph of an orbital, many of them aren't even physically connected between the lobes or whatever. How else would an electron get from one part of its orbital to another past a node without jumping?

Well that's what i mean. I find the jumping uncomfortable. You don't find it uncomfortable? I say again i am no expert. I can't see how the electron can move to a disconnected lobe like you say unless some kind of energy transmission or absortion is involved HYBRIDIZING the lobes. This is not too crazy an idea since an electron orbiting a nucleus is a moving charge and therefore creates a current. Also spins around itself and a spinning charge has a current associated with it.

Now I'm going to shock your mind. Professor Walter Lewin of MIT calculated the current produced by an electron going around the nucleus of a hydrogen atom using Bohr Magneton value and found 1.1x10^-3 A

A MILLI AMPERE! I was blown away!

I'm going to look for the lecture on MIT OCW and post the link

 

[DaveC426913]

The electron cannot be in between two consecutive permissable orbits according to Bohr. It 'jumps' from one permissable orbit to another.

By anology on the number line, if you want to go from 1 to 2 you are not allowed to pass through any intermediate points in a smooth continuous fashion, you have to 'jump'. You are NOT allowed to occupy any intermediate point at any time.

A logical question one would ask is "how can you get from point A to point B without passing through any points in between A and B?" and the reply comes back "by performing a quantum jump"

All of this fine. There's no problem with it.

You said:

If electrons are not permitted certain orbits then wouldn't that mean the probability of finding the electron at a non-permissable orbit should be zero?

So. Electrons jump discretely between orbitals. You will not find an electron in some in-between-orbitals state.

Orbitals physically overlap. Some are spherical some are dumbbell-shaped.


Some of those orbitals are large enough that part of them extend outside a container.

The upshot of this is that an electron, when measured, could still be within its orbital yet outside a container that the electron could not physically pass through (because it does not have enough energy). Once outside the container, it could be set free.

I would point out that this is not simply academic. The entire electronic industry of the planet is dependent on this process. Semiconductors, of which all computers have millions, work by electron tunneling.

 

[Drakkith]

Well that's what i mean. I find the jumping uncomfortable. You don't find it uncomfortable? I say again i am no expert. I can't see how the electron can move to a disconnected lobe like you say unless some kind of energy transmission or absortion is involved HYBRIDIZING the lobes. This is not too crazy an idea since an electron orbiting a nucleus is a moving charge and therefore creates a current. Also spins around itself and a spinning charge has a current associated with it.

Nope, why would I? It's exactly what you would expect from a wavelike object.

Now I'm going to shock your mind. Professor Walter Lewin of MIT calculated the current produced by an electron going around the nucleus of a hydrogen atom using Bohr Magneton value and found 1.1x10^-3 A

A MILLI AMPERE! I was blown away!

I'm going to look for the lecture on MIT OCW and post the link

How is 1.1x10^-3 a million? Ins't that 0.0011 amps?

 

[agentredlum]

Nope, why would I? It's exactly what you would expect from a wavelike object.
How is 1.1x10^-3 a million? Ins't that 0.0011 amps?

c'mon...I know you know what milli means...

Hey, I'm all in favor of 'question everything' but cmon...

Here is the link with this amazing derivation. Its at the beginning of the lecture.

http://www.archive.org/download/MIT8.02S02/wl-802-lec22-220k_512kb.mp4

 

[Drakkith]

c'mon...I know you know what milli means...

Hey, I'm all in favor of 'question everything' but cmon...

Here is the link with this amazing derivation. Its at the beginning of the lecture.

http://www.archive.org/download/MIT8.02S02/wl-802-lec22-220k_512kb.mp4

Oh wow, I totally read a million lol.

 

[agentredlum]

All of this fine. There's no problem with it.

You said:

So. Electrons jump discretely between orbitals. You will not find an electron in some in-between-orbitals state.

Orbitals physically overlap. Some are spherical some are dumbbell-shaped.Some of those orbitals are large enough that part of them extend outside a container.

The upshot of this is that an electron, when measured, could still be within its orbital yet outside a container that the electron could not physically pass through (because it does not have enough energy). Once outside the container, it could be set free.

I would point out that this is not simply academic. The entire electronic industry of the planet is dependent on this process. Semiconductors, of which all computers have millions, work by electron tunneling.

"I'm afraid I can't do that Dave"-HAL 9000 from 2001 a space odessy-

i guess we're freinds again eh Dave...

 

[agentredlum]

Oh wow, I totally read a million lol.

Don't knock it though, a mA is an INCREDIBLE amount of current when compared to subatomic particles.

Please, please look at the lecture, you will not be disappointed.

 

[DevilsAvocado]

The issue of observation isn't completely agreed upon. Personally I can't see how anyone would believe that a conscious observer would be required, but I'm not a QM expert.

I totally agree. One thing that seems to have been completely forgotten in "conscious camp", is that life arouse on Earth 3.7 billion years ago, and I don’t know if an amoeba could be considered 'conscious'?? However, the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and the first star was lit approx 400,00 years after Big Bang, and AFAIK, it’s a 'little bit' complicated to imagine conscious life without stars...

 

[DevilsAvocado]

"I'm afraid I can't do that Dave"-HAL 9000 from 2001 a space odessy-

We might have slightly different 'views' on one or two things – but we all seem to have a great sense of humor! LOL
(and I know Dave can take it, he’s an expert on the subject )

agentredlum, as Dave points out, a lot of your electronic gadgets is completely dependent on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling" ; computers, flash memory, etc, etc. You couldn’t have written one freaking comment in this thread without functional quantum tunneling, which constitutes pretty good evidence, if you ask me. Capice?

[URL]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/EffetTunnel.gif[/URL]

I find the jumping uncomfortable.

I think you’re mixing two different things... the (electron) jumping is an old an obsolete explanation. The idea of discrete quanta came from our common 'hero' Albert Einstein, and he got a Nobel for the photoelectric effect:

[URL]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Photoelectric_effect.svg/200px-Photoelectric_effect.svg.png[/URL]

And from this we got to the concept of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality" .

In recent years there have even been double-slit experiments performed detecting individual single electrons, one by one!

Dr. Tonomura’s single electrons double-slit experiment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCoiyhC30bc&hd=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCoiyhC30bc

Not much to discuss, huh?

 

[boffinwannabe]

I don't see why you think that. If you look at a probability graph of an orbital, many of them aren't even physically connected between the lobes or whatever. How else would an electron get from one part of its orbital to another past a node without jumping?

because as agentredlum pointed out, qm is digital and not analogue, it does say you go from one state to the next with nothing inbetween, time and space does not exsist between the states. This has given rise to digital physics.

And nobody in qm is saying conciousness is required for observation since qm is not able to even describe conciousness. btw we can operate without conciousness, just not as well as with it. QM deals with information, the rest is philosophy to interpret that as requiring conciousness. Its certainly not a requirement for processing information as proven by your computer being able to type your keystrokes.

 

[Drakkith]

because as agentredlum pointed out, qm is digital and not analogue, it does say you go from one state to the next with nothing inbetween, time and space does not exsist between the states. This has given rise to digital physics.

And nobody in qm is saying conciousness is required for observation since qm is not able to even describe conciousness. btw we can operate without conciousness, just not as well as with it. QM deals with information, the rest is philosophy to interpret that as requiring conciousness. Its certainly not a requirement for processing information as proven by your computer being able to type your keystrokes.

Umm, I'm 100% in agreement. Not sure why you would think I wasn't.

 

[boffinwannabe]

yeah i confused myself there

 

[agentredlum]

because as agentredlum pointed out, qm is digital and not analogue, it does say you go from one state to the next with nothing inbetween, time and space does not exsist between the states. This has given rise to digital physics.

And nobody in qm is saying conciousness is required for observation since qm is not able to even describe conciousness. btw we can operate without conciousness, just not as well as with it. QM deals with information, the rest is philosophy to interpret that as requiring conciousness. Its certainly not a requirement for processing information as proven by your computer being able to type your keystrokes.

How do you know what it's typing if you're not conscious of what it's typing?

Some of you here want the benefit of INTELLIGENCE without Consciousness.

I am not for or against consciosness in Q.M.

I am glad I am conscious. A universe devoid of consciousness would be a total waste.

 

[Drakkith]

What are you talking about agentredlum? Where did intelligence without consciousness come into this at let alone somehow apply to everyone?

 

[agentredlum]

I totally agree. One thing that seems to have been completely forgotten in "conscious camp", is that life arouse on Earth 3.7 billion years ago, and I don’t know if an amoeba could be considered 'conscious'?? However, the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and the first star was lit approx 400,00 years after Big Bang, and AFAIK, it’s a 'little bit' complicated to imagine conscious life without stars...

"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."-Martin Rees

I post this quote not because i agree with it, or disagree with it. I can't prove either way. This quote answers your observation that scientists in 'conscious camp' overlook something that seems obvious to you.

Martin Rees is currently Astronomer Royal and was President of The Royal Society from 2005 to 2010 so his credentials are impeccable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees,_Baron_Rees_of_Ludlow


I am editing this post because in my eagerness to provide a counterpoint i forgot to give you credit for the wonderful work you did putting post #89 and #90 together. Please accept my apology.

 

[agentredlum]

What are you talking about agentredlum? Where did intelligence without consciousness come into this at let alone somehow apply to everyone?

People here want to be able to verify experimental outcomes without using consciousness.

If you are not conscious of an experimental outcome, then what use is it to you?

How can you be intelligent and not conscious at the same time?

 

[Drakkith]

What? No one here has suggested anything of the sort.

 

[Fyzix]

"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."-Martin Rees

I post this quote not because i agree with it, or disagree with it. I can't prove either way. This quote answers your observation that scientists in 'conscious camp' overlook something that seems obvious to you.

Martin Rees is currently Astronomer Royal and was President of The Royal Society from 2005 to 2010 so his credentials are impeccable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees,_Baron_Rees_of_Ludlow

Martin Rees's quote is just too dumb, he must have been smoking PCP when he said that ****, or he just said it to see if anyone was indeed dumb enough to believe it.

So the universe came into being, and there was only probabilities, then observers were somehow made out of nonexistent probabilityness and then the universe was like "FINALLY, SOMEONE CARES ABOUT ME, I WILL STABILIZE".

Its actually the dumbest thing I've ever, EVER read.
His credentials doesn't mean anything other than the fact that the whole idea of "credentials" is as pointless as his flawed statement.

 

[agentredlum]

What? No one here has suggested anything of the sort.

Well then what was boffinwannabe quote about and you AGREE 100%?

here i put first sentence of the quote you AGREED 100% with

And nobody in qm is saying conciousness is required for observation since qm is not able to even describe conciousness.

Before the word since he makes a claim about everybody in Q.M.
After the word observation he gives his opinion

I have posted evidence contrary to both of thes ideas, yet you agreed with him 100%...