|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 3, 2010 13:39:34 GMT 1
And abacus finally slips into total quantum woo-woo land!
As I said before, a simple mistake in thinking that 'observation' is synonymous with 'conscious observer'.
And quantum decoherence explains a lot about wavfunction collapse. Or as Penrose suggests, it might be gravity that does the trick. But usually the people that give you a garbled version of quantum theory, and claim that consciousness does the magic, are usually trying to sell you their own brand of mystical nonsense.
Well, most of us prefer the more prosaic explanation, that others see you smile, so that the information is transmitted visually, rather than requiring weird quantum channels........
And interestingly enough, others would dispute the consciousness causes collapse on the grounds that it gives too much emphasis to the individual ego:
and seems to prefer an Allah of the many-worlds interpretation.
Misunderstand quantum theory, and you can use it to back-up any world view you choose, be it the new-age nonsense of 'what the bleep', or the Quran, or even solipsism............
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Nov 3, 2010 14:01:20 GMT 1
And abacus finally slips into total quantum woo-woo land! As I said before, a simple mistake in thinking that 'observation' is synonymous with 'conscious observer'. Of course it is! How can an unconscious person observe? And interestingly enough, others would dispute the consciousness causes collapse on the grounds that it gives too much emphasis to the individual ego: and seems to prefer an Allah of the many-worlds interpretation. Really your Englsih is capable of mystifying the most simple of concepts never mind 'explaining 'QM Misunderstand quantum theory, and you can use it to back-up any world view you choose, be it the new-age nonsense of 'what the bleep', or the Quran, or even solipsism............ And, how, precisely does this help in understanding QM I hope your mathematics is better than your English
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 3, 2010 15:37:13 GMT 1
As I've said before, an 'observation' does not mean an observer. If you'd actually read anything about quantum theory, you'd know this.
Consciousness causes collapse is just ONE possible interpretation, and the obvious one favoured by woo-woo merchants.
'Observable', 'observation' and 'measurement' mean specific things in quantum theory, it's not just enough to say, you can't have an observation without an observer, therefore it must be consciousness.............
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Nov 3, 2010 15:51:09 GMT 1
As I've said before, an 'observation' does not mean an observer. If you'd actually read anything about quantum theory, you'd know this. This is plain nonsense as written. (I have read widely on QM) Consciousness causes collapse is just ONE possible interpretation, and the obvious one favoured by woo-woo merchants. Observation/Measurement causes collaps, and no observation or measurement can take place without human consciouness. Will you please stop rferreing to those that disagree with you as 'woo woo merchants' - what are you some self-engrossed spiteful teenager? 'Observable', 'observation' and 'measurement' mean specific things in quantum theory, it's not just enough to say, you can't have an observation without an observer, therefore it must be consciousness............. Unless you ar prepared to expand upon what you mean by 'Observable', 'observation' and 'measurement' then it seems to me that it is quite enough and indeed more than enough to say that you cannot have an observation without conscious observation
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 3, 2010 17:26:26 GMT 1
How can an observation take place without an observer? This is plain absurd and illogical.
If there are no experimentalists around to perform scientific experiments who or what does the 'observing? Are you suggesting that a photon, say, is capable of 'observing' itself into existence? More tripe.
Another example of STA tying herself into knots by trying to deny the obvious.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 3, 2010 17:31:34 GMT 1
No, because if you analyse it enough you will see that whatever 'interpretation' is used it has to rely on a conscious observer. You keep missing this point, STA!
You are confusing the various interpretations of QM as things in themselves independent of any observers. How can an 'interpretation' be aware of itself. Again, you fall into the same trap!
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 3, 2010 17:38:11 GMT 1
She can't expand any further because she has arrived at a cul-de-sac with her assertion that 'observable, 'observation' and 'measurement' are all different things. They are clearly all the same thing so STA has stumbled once again. This is a common tactic of hers; she uses 'science speak' in order to make arbitrary and false claims that are clearly nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 3, 2010 17:42:09 GMT 1
This pejorative use of the term 'woo-woo' is another common tactic of not only STA but Olmy and various others of a like mind. It's childish and dismissive but not correct.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 3, 2010 20:13:50 GMT 1
All such ideas about what causes wavefunction collapse themselves originate in human consciousness so that, again, it is a mistake to think that quantum gravity or, for that matter, any other rationale has its own independent existence apart from consciousness. When we make a conscious decision to smile what we are doing is causing the wavefunction to collapse into a smile, which is a positive way of sculputing reality, within our ability to do so.
This raises an interesting question. If the wavefunction is merely only a set of probabilities then what is it that makes a 'decision' that collapses it into this or that? As quantum superpositions are unable to collapse themselves the only reasonable answer is that independent decisions arise in some realm beyond spacetime and matter, beyond even the brain, (allowing us free-will) although it uses the brain as a kind of conduit with which to communicate with the physical world. This is what consciousness really is and I believe it exists in some dimension other than the material one, in fact, I think we, in common with everything else exist in multidimensions, which would explain why many reports of life after death could be true. It might be that that part of us that manifests in spacetime ceases to exist eventually, but that part which exists in some other realm just carries on.
The idea of existing in other dimensions simultaneously isn't such a radical idea when we consider that most of today's physicists accept that there are probably other dimensions existing in the universe and that the BB may well have been a result of colliding 'bubble' universes floating in separate dimensions. Why should matter be simply composed of the particles science has thus far discovered and not something more? Until we have found 'a theory of everything' I think we should at least keep an open mind on this subject.
Nothing is really simple if you examine it closely enough.
As I mentioned above, a conscious decision to take some action, whether positive or negative, 'shapes' the wavefunction into reality so that we are, each of us, responsible for the general good or otherwise of the world.
The ego is simply a manifestation of the physical body's need for survival. The immaterial 'mind' arises from a realm outside of space and time and it is an undivided whole so that at this level we are all connected; whether we make wise decisions in regard to this world is a result of conditioning and maturity.
Even Roger Penrose advocates a branch of science/psychology that is aimed at better understanding what consciousness is. Who am I to dispute the views of such an eminent man?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 3, 2010 21:56:01 GMT 1
And here we go, all the usual woo-woo nonsense being spouted!
It is NOT obvious that consciousness must cause collapse, all we can say is that without consciousness we cannot observe something, but that doesn't mean to say that that is where the collapse (if there even is one) occurs.
In some sense, you could argue that exactly where it occurs is not falsifiable, in that even if we thought it was before conscious observation, we could only ever KNOW that by us consciously observing something! Which mucks it all up really.
Despite the nonsense being spouted, the consciousness causes collapse is just one possible interpretation of quantum theory, and not a very popular one frankly, apart from amongst the woo-woo merchants.
Why? Because it doesn't explain what it is about consciousness that magically causes the collapse, why consciousness, as a physical process, should be uniquely different to any other physical process, in that it causes collapse, but nothing else does!
If you think it is the only option, or that observation is synonymous with conscious observation, you need to read more.
And we can all see why woo-woo merchants go straight for it, as soon as they see the word 'observation', because it means that they can come up with whatever daft nonsense they like as regards consciousness, and try and claim that modern science supports them.
And as regards Penrose, his ideas are rather more then other way round. He suggests that it is gravity that causes collapse. And that gravity-mediated wavefunction collapse is the origin of basic conscious events, NOT the other way round.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 3, 2010 22:52:18 GMT 1
This kind of proves my point doesn't it?
There is no reality without consciousness. Once again, quantum superpositions remain quantum superpositions until measured. Now, if no scientists are about to do the measuring how could all the particles known to science today exist? How could quantum entanglement exist without clever physicists designing experiments with which to observe it? The delayed choice quantum eraser experiment demonstrates quite clearly that it is the presence of a conscious observer that is able to transform an already measured event to change according to the experimenter's choice. Again, Penrose's ideas about quantum gravity have never existed and may never exist and become part of reality, but if it turns out they are confirmed or something like them, that will be attributable to Penrose's consciousness, not something that was pre-existing. You don't seem to understand that nature is malleable according to what kind of questions we put to it and you will generally find the kind of answers you seek. How do birds, for example, know where to fly in the winter? They have evolved instincts which have, over countless generations, been refined by the quantum part of such creature's 'mind' to probe the quantum nature of reality and eventually, through natural selection, become adapted to be attuned to it. Same with all animals who possess senses we may have once had but which have become blunted by modern civilisation. The Theory of Relativity never used to exist nor did curved spacetime until Einstein decided to pose questions to nature and discovered that nature provided an answer to that particular question. It used to be thought that 'reality' was described by the Bible and, for all intents and purposes, most people accepted it yet today we would protest because we have largely replaced religious doctrine with scientific doctrine but in the end it is all a question of interpretation.
I am pretty sure that there must exist planets in the universe who's inhabitants have discovered ways of communicating and sensing that use forms of telepathy and or other psychic phenomena that nature has provided for them because they have had to ask nature over many, many generations how to sense things other than by our normal five senses due to the physical nature of their environments. There still exist today inexplicable cases of dogs who have somehow managed to find their way home after being lost many miles away. So, the point I am making is that nature is not really 'set in stone', pre-existing, regardless of conscious observers, but, rather, exists as sets of 'potentials' which may only be realized by the interaction of consciousness and the quantum wavefunction.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 4, 2010 14:28:00 GMT 1
Just restating the same thing doesn't prove it. That there is no reality without consciousness is an assumption, a mistaken rendering of the totally obvious statement that since we are only consciously aware of things when we are conscious............Your mistake is in taking what that statement is talking about -- my awareness of my surroundings -- and assuming, in effect, that what is in my surroundings doesn't exist except when I (or someone else) is observing it (different, everyday usage of the of observe!).
Back to quantum theory. we have two main options. Either the appearance of wavefunction collapse happens as a normal physical process, soemthing to do with a quantum system interacting with its environment, the effect of gravity on quantum superpositions, and so on, OR
There is magic going on. And given that we can't explain consciousness either, let's hook up the two, and say that the magic that causes consciousness also causes collapse.
I notice you seem to have ignored what Penrose has to say about collapse and consciousness, since what he and Hameroff are saying is that quantum wavefunction collapse (mediated by gravity) within structures in the brain is what causes conscious events.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Nov 4, 2010 16:18:20 GMT 1
You should know, if you are a physicist, that the material world only exists as potentials. The next question is what makes such potentials become 'reality?' You can never prove that a world without conscious beings can exist in its own right so please do not try to pretend you can. We have a wealth of evidence that measuring things causes them to become 'real', in spacetime at least, and QM makes this perfectly clear so it has been scientifically placed beyond any doubt. How could material objects 'know' how to collapse from the wavefunction if left alone? How would planets, stars, frogs, cats, physicists 'know' how to become what they did not possess consciousness? Just not possible because there has to exist some agency that has the ability to organize all of these potentials existing all over the place into organized structures. That takes awareness and complexity, not something a rock or an amoeba possesses.
Yes, but they seem to neglect the question of where exactly all this information comes from before collapsing into information the brain is able to process. As I mentioned earlier, I think it emanates from a another realm that we are not normally aware of but that we are always connected to. I can't prove this but it is based on my years of study and discussion with the best minds in the business. I tend to think Penrose has similar ideas but, of course, he cannot makes such speculative statements without a more robust theory and that takes hard evidence, something that is proving very elusive to date.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Nov 4, 2010 17:08:31 GMT 1
This is just meaningless waffle. As I said before, it is all based on a mistaken understanding of quantum theory.
It also goes beyond this, in that you seem to be implying that consciousness, rather than collapsing stuff at random, somehow collapses stuff so that we end up with organised structures, which would imply some non-random element. Which is even more rubbish, and of the consciousness creates a nice universe for itself variety of nonsense.
So, I say again, you are totally wrong if you think that quantum theory supports this nonsense in any way whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Nov 4, 2010 17:26:10 GMT 1
This is just meaningless waffle. As I said before, it is all based on a mistaken understanding of quantum theory. It also goes beyond this, in that you seem to be implying that consciousness, rather than collapsing stuff at random, somehow collapses stuff so that we end up with organised structures, which would imply some non-random element. Which is even more rubbish, and of the consciousness creates a nice universe for itself variety of nonsense. So, I say again, you are totally wrong if you think that quantum theory supports this nonsense in any way whatsoever. Abacus may be wrong or he may be right. What is absolutely for sure is that he or we will not learn the error of our ways from someone like you who has no clarity of thought, less clarity of expression and an appalling grasp of the English language. To me you seem too confused to be an Oxford rersearcher - certainly too dogamtic, and above all lacking any open-mindedness or humility which is a shame as you appear to have a great deal of modesty - or at least a great deal to be modest about
|
|