Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2014 7:06:10 GMT -5
I don't understand the 'bottom line' yet. It actually makes sense that the results would be influenced by observation, given that the material assumption is abandoned in favor of 'one observer creating reality', but I don't understand how power applied to a detector constitutes an observer. I'm in favor of taking everything back to consciousness, but detectors aren't conscious. understand how power applied to a detector constitutes an observer. I'm in favor of taking everything back to consciousness, but detectors aren't conscious. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/2265/god-particle?page=4#ixzz2qemtayi5but the consciousness exists without time or space, so the detectors are the instrument of consciousness...the checking of results has already happened.
Dean Radin did an experiment where he influenced a result in the past, they litterally changed an event in the past
i do not claim to understand this, but they say it is scientifically sound experiment
ill try and find a link 4u
www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/timeflies.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2014 7:18:08 GMT -5
What was Sri Aurobindo driving at? And how is it that he – not to mention the rishis of six thousand years ago – knew before all our scientific laboratories that solar heat, Saura Agni, has a different origin from what we usually call fire or electricity, that it is produced by nuclear fusion and that it is the very same energy found in the atom's core? It is a fact – perhaps disconcerting for science, which needs to deal with "concrete realities" – that every physical reality is lined with an inner reality which is both its cause and its foundation; even the most infinitesimal material elements have their inner counterparts, and foremost among them are our own physical organs, which are only the material linings or supports of the centers of consciousness. Everything here is the symbolic translation or shadow thrown by a light or a force that is behind, on another plane. This whole world is but a vast Symbol. Science observes and analyzes phenomena, devises equations for gravitation, weight, atomic fission, etc., but it only touches the effects, never the true cause. The yogi sees the cause before the effect. A scientist can deduce a certain cause from the effects produced, whereas a yogi deduces the effects from the cause; he can even deduce effects that do not yet exist from a cause that already exists (e.g., the accident will happen tomorrow from the force of the accident that is already there in the background). The scientist manipulates effects, at times bringing about catastrophes; the yogi sees the cause, or, rather, identifies with the Cause, and thereby he can alter the effects, or as Sri Aurobindo puts it, the "habits" we call laws. Ultimately, all our physical effects, which we have codified into laws, are nothing more than a convenient support for the manifestation of forces that are behind, exactly as a performance of magic requires certain ritualistic diagrams, certain ingredients or formulas, so that the forces invoked can manifest themselves. This whole world is a gigantic magical performance, a constant act of magic www.aurobindo.ru/workings/satprem/adventure_of_consciousness_e.htm#063 page 274
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 17, 2014 7:40:54 GMT -5
It might seem a bit silly to revisit this so long after the fact, but I have pointed a few others back to it since I wrote it and there's one specific point that I'd like to revisit: Tom actually had to revisit this point of his presentation as described here. This doesn't mean that the core idea of the essay, the collapse of the material assumption, is no longer operative, it just means that explaining it becomes a bit more involved, a bit more technical, and involves a bit more conceptual structure. Picture a gun that fires electrons at a screen. The bottom line on the results of the double-slit experiment is that the electron has no certain form in the interval between leaving the gun and hitting the screen unless an observation is made along the way. This is stated succinctly by saying that the electron has no material existence independent of the observation of it. There are several ways to interpret this result. The interpretation that I'm advocating in the essay is based on the obvious point that the entire science of Physics is based on the assumption of an objective material reality. It's not the advocacy of any specific belief, but a description of moving from the presence of belief to an absence of belief -- the science of Physics, in the final analysis, simply contradicts the initial assumptions which underlie it. Special thanks to Tzu, as it was this debate that caused me to revisit this dialog -- I'd wanted to refer to the specific point that Tom had backtracked from and in looking for an outside source to cite to for that point came upon his correction. It's more difficult to explain the result without the idea that turning the power off at the detectors changes the pattern, but the point about the dependence on the physical result to the act of observation remains the same. I don't understand the 'bottom line' yet. It actually makes sense that the results would be influenced by observation, given that the material assumption is abandoned in favor of 'one observer creating reality', but I don't understand how power applied to a detector constitutes an observer. I'm in favor of taking everything back to consciousness, but detectors aren't conscious. The key to that understanding is to work out the math and then to be confronted with the fact that a diffraction pattern appears even if the electrons are fired at the slit one election at a time. It really is a reflection on the brilliance of Bohr and his crew that they were able to infer what they did without that particular experimental result ("one-at-a-time") and with results based only on light. Young's experiment wasn't done with electrons until about 40 years after the Copenhagen gang predicted what would happen. The way that I first rationalized this result with a material realist view of the world when I first encountered it was "well, yeah, of course the observer is part of the experiement, isn't this just stating the obvious fact of the experiment itself?" ... but the thing is that if a material realist model of the electron (that it is a particle) held in the space and time between leaving the gun and hitting the screen, then there would be no differential of physical result based on the intermediate observation. In other words: the wave/partical duality is not an effect of the uncertainty principle. The differential in the pattern on the screen is a "yes or no" answer -- the stream either behaves like a stream of particles, or it behaves like a stream of electrons, and the act of observation is the only determining factor. As far as the question of conscioiusness and the observer is concerned, the important point to note here is an absence. No Physicist has won the Nobel for investigating the nature of the observer. The reason for this is subtle but obvious: it's not a physical phenomenon, so it's outside the capability of the science to describe it. Does a single entity constitute the observer? Does the observer have to be a human being? ... from what I understand, Physicists don't have a way to tell. There's no way for them to observe the observer. This is the grounds for the quip that I sometimes repeat: consciousness is a word with no real meaning. The new-age spiritualists that would use QM as the basis for a non-dual quasi-scientific theory/scripture are engaged in speculative extrapolation. If I project this onto a personal story, it was an extrapolation that appears to have been useful to pick up in the "I am consciousness, consciousness is all" round of identity poker, if for no other reason than because there really weren't any cards left in the deck after that one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2014 7:59:49 GMT -5
I don't understand the 'bottom line' yet. It actually makes sense that the results would be influenced by observation, given that the material assumption is abandoned in favor of 'one observer creating reality', but I don't understand how power applied to a detector constitutes an observer. I'm in favor of taking everything back to consciousness, but detectors aren't conscious. The way that I first rationalized this result with a material realist view of the world when I first encountered it was "well, consciousness is a word with no real meaning. The new-age spiritualists that would use QM as the basis for a non-dual quasi-scientific theory/scripture are engaged in speculative extrapolation. If I project this onto a personal story, it was an extrapolation that appears to have been useful to pick up in the "I am consciousness, consciousness is all" round of identity poker, if for no other reason than because there really weren't any cards left in the deck after that one. then how could yogi´s (like aurobindo) know about the fact of atoms being ´´like small solar systems´´
and that there is ´´a fire´´ inside them diffwerent from electric or ordinary fire
1) Atoms are whirling systems like the solar system.
2) The atoms of all the elements are made out of the same constituents. A different arrangement is the only cause of different properties.
If these statements were considered under their true aspect, they could lead science to new discoveries of which it has no idea at present and in comparison with which the present knowledge is poor.
Let us remember that the year was then 1926.
Sri Aurobindo continued: According to the experience of ancient Yogis... Agni is threefold:
1) ordinary fire, jada Agni
2) electric fire, vaidyuta Agni
3) solar fire, saura Agni
Science has only entered upon the first and second of these fires. The fact that the atom is like the solar system could lead it to the knowledge of the third.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Jan 17, 2014 8:30:37 GMT -5
The way that I first rationalized this result with a material realist view of the world when I first encountered it was "well, consciousness is a word with no real meaning. The new-age spiritualists that would use QM as the basis for a non-dual quasi-scientific theory/scripture are engaged in speculative extrapolation. If I project this onto a personal story, it was an extrapolation that appears to have been useful to pick up in the "I am consciousness, consciousness is all" round of identity poker, if for no other reason than because there really weren't any cards left in the deck after that one. then how could yogi´s (like aurobindo) know about the fact of atoms being ´´like small solar systems´´
and that there is ´´a fire´´ inside them diffwerent from electric or ordinary fire
1) Atoms are whirling systems like the solar system.
2) The atoms of all the elements are made out of the same constituents. A different arrangement is the only cause of different properties.
If these statements were considered under their true aspect, they could lead science to new discoveries of which it has no idea at present and in comparison with which the present knowledge is poor.
Let us remember that the year was then 1926.
Sri Aurobindo continued: According to the experience of ancient Yogis... Agni is threefold:
1) ordinary fire, jada Agni
2) electric fire, vaidyuta Agni
3) solar fire, saura Agni
Science has only entered upon the first and second of these fires. The fact that the atom is like the solar system could lead it to the knowledge of the third.
I don't know much about physics, but my guess is that 3) is simply photons.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2014 8:44:19 GMT -5
then how could yogi´s (like aurobindo) know about the fact of atoms being ´´like small solar systems´´
and that there is ´´a fire´´ inside them diffwerent from electric or ordinary fire
1) Atoms are whirling systems like the solar system.
2) The atoms of all the elements are made out of the same constituents. A different arrangement is the only cause of different properties.
If these statements were considered under their true aspect, they could lead science to new discoveries of which it has no idea at present and in comparison with which the present knowledge is poor.
Let us remember that the year was then 1926.
Sri Aurobindo continued: According to the experience of ancient Yogis... Agni is threefold:
1) ordinary fire, jada Agni
2) electric fire, vaidyuta Agni
3) solar fire, saura Agni
Science has only entered upon the first and second of these fires. The fact that the atom is like the solar system could lead it to the knowledge of the third.
I don't know much about physics, but my guess is that 3) is simply photons. would still be remarkable that a man discovers photons without any outer instrument
he says that is possible because all is consciousness, vibrating at different levels
The Mother described it (the empty space in an atom) as infinitely fast yet completely stable , MASSIVE (my own words, but i think i convey correctly)
my problem with that is that this was,as far as i know, AFTER the discovery of the wave /particle thing
so her observation may have been biased by that
but then she wasnt someone who would lie about things
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 17, 2014 9:36:11 GMT -5
The way that I first rationalized this result with a material realist view of the world when I first encountered it was "well, consciousness is a word with no real meaning. The new-age spiritualists that would use QM as the basis for a non-dual quasi-scientific theory/scripture are engaged in speculative extrapolation. If I project this onto a personal story, it was an extrapolation that appears to have been useful to pick up in the "I am consciousness, consciousness is all" round of identity poker, if for no other reason than because there really weren't any cards left in the deck after that one. then how could yogi´s (like aurobindo) know about the fact of atoms being ´´like small solar systems´´
and that there is ´´a fire´´ inside them diffwerent from electric or ordinary fire
1) Atoms are whirling systems like the solar system.
2) The atoms of all the elements are made out of the same constituents. A different arrangement is the only cause of different properties.
If these statements were considered under their true aspect, they could lead science to new discoveries of which it has no idea at present and in comparison with which the present knowledge is poor.
Let us remember that the year was then 1926.
Sri Aurobindo continued: According to the experience of ancient Yogis... Agni is threefold:
1) ordinary fire, jada Agni
2) electric fire, vaidyuta Agni
3) solar fire, saura Agni
Science has only entered upon the first and second of these fires. The fact that the atom is like the solar system could lead it to the knowledge of the third.
When one considers what the ancients were able to infer it really is quite remarkable. It's admittedly less so if we open up our imagination a bit and allow for the possibility that they had access to technology that we assume they didn't ... perhaps they developed something that was later lost ... although the idea of pre-iron-age particle accelerators really is quite the stretch. Consider something as unsubtle as the book of Genesis though. There's really no hint from the world of perception that it might not just as well be timeless, never changing, in a perfect sort of dynamic stasis, rather than having a beginning, and many people have favored that idea at various times. It is, however, a delightful irony that it took a Catholic priest in the employ of the Vatican to come up with the solutions to the equations of General Relativity that included the Big Bang -- Einstein was actually appalled at the idea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2014 9:49:27 GMT -5
then how could yogi´s (like aurobindo) know about the fact of atoms being ´´like small solar systems´´
and that there is ´´a fire´´ inside them diffwerent from electric or ordinary fire
1) Atoms are whirling systems like the solar system.
2) The atoms of all the elements are made out of the same constituents. A different arrangement is the only cause of different properties.
If these statements were considered under their true aspect, they could lead science to new discoveries of which it has no idea at present and in comparison with which the present knowledge is poor.
Let us remember that the year was then 1926.
Sri Aurobindo continued: According to the experience of ancient Yogis... Agni is threefold:
1) ordinary fire, jada Agni
2) electric fire, vaidyuta Agni
3) solar fire, saura Agni
Science has only entered upon the first and second of these fires. The fact that the atom is like the solar system could lead it to the knowledge of the third.
When one considers what the ancients were able to infer it really is quite remarkable. It's admittedly less so if we open up our imagination a bit and allow for the possibility that they had access to technology that we assume they didn't ... perhaps they developed something that was later lost ... although the idea of pre-iron-age particle accelerators really is quite the stretch. Consider something as unsubtle as the book of Genesis though. There's really no hint from the world of perception that it might not just as well be timeless, never changing, in a perfect sort of dynamic stasis, rather than having a beginning, and many people have favored that idea at various times. It is, however, a delightful irony that it took a Catholic priest in the employ of the Vatican to come up with the solutions to the equations of General Relativity that included the Big Bang -- Einstein was actually appalled at the idea. yes, but Aurobindo wasnt an ancient,he lived from 1872 to 1950 and the interview is from 1926 he had to learn sanskrit first before he found out that the old translations werent good, so the knowledge didnt come from there he had (´´cosmic´´) experiences for which he found no references in any of the scriptures known till then (like this agni) only after translating the Veda´s he found references he says it is a FORCE, one can individualise and use to manipulate mattera.o.. That´s what psychics or telekineticians do (which is btw not anything particularly spiritual-)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 17, 2014 19:40:58 GMT -5
I don't understand the 'bottom line' yet. It actually makes sense that the results would be influenced by observation, given that the material assumption is abandoned in favor of 'one observer creating reality', but I don't understand how power applied to a detector constitutes an observer. I'm in favor of taking everything back to consciousness, but detectors aren't conscious. understand how power applied to a detector constitutes an observer. I'm in favor of taking everything back to consciousness, but detectors aren't conscious. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/2265/god-particle?page=4#ixzz2qemtayi5but the consciousness exists without time or space, so the detectors are the instrument of consciousness...the checking of results has already happened.
Dean Radin did an experiment where he influenced a result in the past, they litterally changed an event in the past
i do not claim to understand this, but they say it is scientifically sound experiment
ill try and find a link 4u
www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/timeflies.html
I don't see detectors, or rocks, as an instrument of consciousness, and in those terms they seem equally inert.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 17, 2014 20:05:34 GMT -5
I don't understand the 'bottom line' yet. It actually makes sense that the results would be influenced by observation, given that the material assumption is abandoned in favor of 'one observer creating reality', but I don't understand how power applied to a detector constitutes an observer. I'm in favor of taking everything back to consciousness, but detectors aren't conscious. The key to that understanding is to work out the math and then to be confronted with the fact that a diffraction pattern appears even if the electrons are fired at the slit one election at a time. It really is a reflection on the brilliance of Bohr and his crew that they were able to infer what they did without that particular experimental result ("one-at-a-time") and with results based only on light. Young's experiment wasn't done with electrons until about 40 years after the Copenhagen gang predicted what would happen. The way that I first rationalized this result with a material realist view of the world when I first encountered it was "well, yeah, of course the observer is part of the experiement, isn't this just stating the obvious fact of the experiment itself?" ... but the thing is that if a material realist model of the electron (that it is a particle) held in the space and time between leaving the gun and hitting the screen, then there would be no differential of physical result based on the intermediate observation. In other words: the wave/partical duality is not an effect of the uncertainty principle. The differential in the pattern on the screen is a "yes or no" answer -- the stream either behaves like a stream of particles, or it behaves like a stream of electrons, and the act of observation is the only determining factor. As far as the question of conscioiusness and the observer is concerned, the important point to note here is an absence. No Physicist has won the Nobel for investigating the nature of the observer. The reason for this is subtle but obvious: it's not a physical phenomenon, so it's outside the capability of the science to describe it. Does a single entity constitute the observer? Does the observer have to be a human being? ... from what I understand, Physicists don't have a way to tell. There's no way for them to observe the observer. This is the grounds for the quip that I sometimes repeat: consciousness is a word with no real meaning. The new-age spiritualists that would use QM as the basis for a non-dual quasi-scientific theory/scripture are engaged in speculative extrapolation. If I project this onto a personal story, it was an extrapolation that appears to have been useful to pick up in the "I am consciousness, consciousness is all" round of identity poker, if for no other reason than because there really weren't any cards left in the deck after that one. I'm not sure I heard an answer to my question. Are you suggesting that the detector, with power applied, may somehow be an observer? If so, could the screen be an observer? Could the electron, itself, be an observer? I'm not buying it. What I would say, which you may have just intimated, is that the observer is so intimately entangled in both the experiment and the math, that there is no way to proceed without one.At some point, in some form, observation will take place and the fate of Schrodinger's kitty will be revealed. Hencely, there is no data point sans observer. If we imagine we are dreaming math and double slit experiments, that comes close to my view of the situation. There is no 'space' between the observer and the observed.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 17, 2014 20:12:28 GMT -5
then how could yogi´s (like aurobindo) know about the fact of atoms being ´´like small solar systems´´
and that there is ´´a fire´´ inside them diffwerent from electric or ordinary fire
1) Atoms are whirling systems like the solar system.
2) The atoms of all the elements are made out of the same constituents. A different arrangement is the only cause of different properties.
If these statements were considered under their true aspect, they could lead science to new discoveries of which it has no idea at present and in comparison with which the present knowledge is poor.
Let us remember that the year was then 1926.
Sri Aurobindo continued: According to the experience of ancient Yogis... Agni is threefold:
1) ordinary fire, jada Agni
2) electric fire, vaidyuta Agni
3) solar fire, saura Agni
Science has only entered upon the first and second of these fires. The fact that the atom is like the solar system could lead it to the knowledge of the third.
I don't know much about physics, but my guess is that 3) is simply photons. Either that or the nuclear force, both of which have already been discovered.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 18, 2014 0:26:09 GMT -5
The key to that understanding is to work out the math and then to be confronted with the fact that a diffraction pattern appears even if the electrons are fired at the slit one election at a time. It really is a reflection on the brilliance of Bohr and his crew that they were able to infer what they did without that particular experimental result ("one-at-a-time") and with results based only on light. Young's experiment wasn't done with electrons until about 40 years after the Copenhagen gang predicted what would happen. The way that I first rationalized this result with a material realist view of the world when I first encountered it was "well, yeah, of course the observer is part of the experiement, isn't this just stating the obvious fact of the experiment itself?" ... but the thing is that if a material realist model of the electron (that it is a particle) held in the space and time between leaving the gun and hitting the screen, then there would be no differential of physical result based on the intermediate observation. In other words: the wave/partical duality is not an effect of the uncertainty principle. The differential in the pattern on the screen is a "yes or no" answer -- the stream either behaves like a stream of particles, or it behaves like a stream of electrons, and the act of observation is the only determining factor. As far as the question of conscioiusness and the observer is concerned, the important point to note here is an absence. No Physicist has won the Nobel for investigating the nature of the observer. The reason for this is subtle but obvious: it's not a physical phenomenon, so it's outside the capability of the science to describe it. Does a single entity constitute the observer? Does the observer have to be a human being? ... from what I understand, Physicists don't have a way to tell. There's no way for them to observe the observer. This is the grounds for the quip that I sometimes repeat: consciousness is a word with no real meaning. The new-age spiritualists that would use QM as the basis for a non-dual quasi-scientific theory/scripture are engaged in speculative extrapolation. If I project this onto a personal story, it was an extrapolation that appears to have been useful to pick up in the "I am consciousness, consciousness is all" round of identity poker, if for no other reason than because there really weren't any cards left in the deck after that one. I'm not sure I heard an answer to my question. Are you suggesting that the detector, with power applied, may somehow be an observer? If so, could the screen be an observer? Could the electron, itself, be an observer? I'm not buying it. What I would say, which you may have just intimated, is that the observer is so intimately entangled in both the experiment and the math, that there is no way to proceed without one.At some point, in some form, observation will take place and the fate of Schrodinger's kitty will be revealed. Hencely, there is no data point sans observer. If we imagine we are dreaming math and double slit experiments, that comes close to my view of the situation. There is no 'space' between the observer and the observed. With respect to the idea of nonseperation, QM gets us past the materialist assumption to an entangling of the observer and the observed, but it still distinguishes between them -- that's the inherent nature of a model. Looking back, on a personal note the conceptual understanding of that entangling set in motion two decades of contemplation, most of it unconcious, of something similar to "form is emptiness, emptiness is form". Bohr, when he was given the Danish equivalent of knighthood, designed a coat of arms with a yin-yang wheel, which hints toward a similar association of QM with the pointer of nonduality on his part. The discredited idea that simply throwing a switch on the detector differentiates the result would have simply made it easier to explain the entangling of observer/observed, and doesn't really impact the substance of the result either way. I can't say what an observer is in a physical sense, but we can certainly see that the slits are not an observer -- and that point is what gives rise to the inert/conscious distinction. If the phantom result that Tom briefed had actually been true, it's not that powering the detector would have transformed the detector into an observer, it's just that flipping the switch would have been the threshold between the possibility of observation and not. As it is the dependance of the result on the act of observation, is itself entangled with the fact of the detector. This means that now any description of the result, and the mainstream interpretation of the act of observation, either has to black box the detector, or involve some heavy-duty conceptual structure that is usually referred to as the "measurement problem" and is often confused with the uncertainty principle, with the bottom line that the differential in pattern (scatter or diffraction), by the Copenhagen Interpretation, is not due to the physical interaction of the observer with the electrons, just to the act of observation. To black box the detector leads to a straightforward explanation and is starkly simple. If the materialist assumption held, then we'd never see a diffraction pattern. If the electron stream and the slitted-barrier were not intertwined with the observation at the barrier and had existence independent of observation, the electron would always act like a particle, and you'd always see a scatter pattern. The problem with a description like this that black boxex the detector is an ambiguity of interpretation of what observation really means, and this gets tweaked either way depending on metaphysical bias of the interpreter toward either material realism or monistic idealism ("everything is consciousness"). In contrast the Copenhagen version stands in clear ambiguity on the issue, simply stating the entanglement, disclaiming objective reality, and leaving us with the measurement problem.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 18, 2014 2:17:47 GMT -5
I'm not sure I heard an answer to my question. Are you suggesting that the detector, with power applied, may somehow be an observer? If so, could the screen be an observer? Could the electron, itself, be an observer? I'm not buying it. What I would say, which you may have just intimated, is that the observer is so intimately entangled in both the experiment and the math, that there is no way to proceed without one.At some point, in some form, observation will take place and the fate of Schrodinger's kitty will be revealed. Hencely, there is no data point sans observer. If we imagine we are dreaming math and double slit experiments, that comes close to my view of the situation. There is no 'space' between the observer and the observed. With respect to the idea of nonseperation, QM gets us past the materialist assumption to an entangling of the observer and the observed, but it still distinguishes between them -- that's the inherent nature of a model. Looking back, on a personal note the conceptual understanding of that entangling set in motion two decades of contemplation, most of it unconcious, of something similar to "form is emptiness, emptiness is form". Bohr, when he was given the Danish equivalent of knighthood, designed a coat of arms with a yin-yang wheel, which hints toward a similar association of QM with the pointer of nonduality on his part. The discredited idea that simply throwing a switch on the detector differentiates the result would have simply made it easier to explain the entangling of observer/observed, and doesn't really impact the substance of the result either way. I can't say what an observer is in a physical sense, but we can certainly see that the slits are not an observer -- and that point is what gives rise to the inert/conscious distinction. If the phantom result that Tom briefed had actually been true, it's not that powering the detector would have transformed the detector into an observer, it's just that flipping the switch would have been the threshold between the possibility of observation and not. As it is the dependance of the result on the act of observation, is itself entangled with the fact of the detector. This means that now any description of the result, and the mainstream interpretation of the act of observation, either has to black box the detector, or involve some heavy-duty conceptual structure that is usually referred to as the "measurement problem" and is often confused with the uncertainty principle, with the bottom line that the differential in pattern (scatter or diffraction), by the Copenhagen Interpretation, is not due to the physical interaction of the observer with the electrons, just to the act of observation. To black box the detector leads to a straightforward explanation and is starkly simple. If the materialist assumption held, then we'd never see a diffraction pattern. If the electron stream and the slitted-barrier were not intertwined with the observation at the barrier and had existence independent of observation, the electron would always act like a particle, and you'd always see a scatter pattern. The problem with a description like this that black boxex the detector is an ambiguity of interpretation of what observation really means, and this gets tweaked either way depending on metaphysical bias of the interpreter toward either material realism or monistic idealism ("everything is consciousness"). In contrast the Copenhagen version stands in clear ambiguity on the issue, simply stating the entanglement, disclaiming objective reality, and leaving us with the measurement problem. Thanks for being clear. I'm sure with all this cleverness, somebody has devised an experiment in which nobody knows whether the detector is on or off. Are you aware of such? To bring this into the metaphysical domain some more, given the notion of consciousness collapsing the probability, what would we expect it to 'probably' do? In the case of sending particles through a slit one at a time, we would expect a scatter pattern, which is in fact what happens when we 'observe' it. When we do not observe, it does something completely different and unexplainable, but only in the observation of the resulting pattern, but not in the observation of the behavior of the electron. Nobody is 'watching' the electron. Doesn't this mean that in the absence of observation, the probability function simply did not collapse, and the result is an interaction, or interference pattern? IOW, a superposition of simultaneous states much like shrody's cat before the lid is opened? It would simply mean a single electron did, in fact, go through both slits at once.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2014 5:57:12 GMT -5
I don't know much about physics, but my guess is that 3) is simply photons. Either that or the nuclear force, both of which have already been discovered. Either that or the nuclear force, both of which have already been discovered.
yes, but not in 1926, when that yogi made these remarks in an interview.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2014 6:12:48 GMT -5
I don't understand the 'bottom line' yet. It actually makes sense that the results would be influenced by observation, given that the material assumption is abandoned in favor of 'one observer creating reality', but I don't understand how power applied to a detector constitutes an observer. I'm in favor of taking everything back to consciousness, but detectors aren't conscious. understand how power applied to a detector constitutes an observer. I'm in favor of taking everything back to consciousness, but detectors aren't conscious. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/2265/god-particle?page=4#ixzz2qemtayi5but the consciousness exists without time or space, so the detectors are the instrument of consciousness...the checking of results has already happened.
Dean Radin did an experiment where he influenced a result in the past, they litterally changed an event in the past
i do not claim to understand this, but they say it is scientifically sound experiment
ill try and find a link 4u
www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/timeflies.html
I don't see detectors, or rocks, as an instrument of consciousness, and in those terms they seem equally inert. I don't see detectors, or rocks, as an instrument of consciousness, and in those terms they seem equally inert.
it would seem that way,but the yogi i mentioned earlier states differently
sorry about this quote, but you may find it enlightening i bolded some comments of my own
´´When we discover consciousness, we find it is a force. Remarkably, we even start noticing it as a current or inner force before realizing it is a consciousness.(this i know as fact) Consciousness is force, consciousness-force, as Sri Aurobindo calls it, for the two terms are truly inseparable and interchangeable.
The ancient wisdom of India knew this well, and never spoke of consciousness, Chit, without adjoining to it the term Agni, heat, flame, energy: Chit-Agni (sometimes also called Tapas, a synonym of Agni: Chit-Tapas).
The Sanskrit word for spiritual or yogic discipline is tapasya, that which produces heat or energy, or, more correctly, consciousness-heat or consciousness-energy. Agni, or Chit-Agni, is the same everywhere. We speak of descending or ascending Force, of inner force, of mental, vital, or material force, but there are not a hundred different kinds of forces;
there is only one Force in the world, a single current that circulates through us as it circulates through all things, and takes on one attribute or another, depending upon the particular level of its action.
Our electric current can light up a tabernacle or a bar, a schoolroom or a restaurant; it is still the same current, though it illuminates different objects.
So too, this Force, this Warmth, Agni, is till the same whether it animates or illuminates our inner recesses, our mental factory, our vital theater, or our material lair; depending on the level, it takes on a more or less intense light, heavier or lighter vibrations: superconscious, mental, vital, physical, but it does link everything together, animates everything. It is the fundamental substance of the universe: Consciousness-Force, Chit-Agni.
While consciousness is a force, the reverse is also true: force is consciousness; all the forces are conscious.
53 Universal Force is universal Consciousness.
This is what the seeker discovers. After coming in contact with the current of consciousness-force in himself, (this i know as living experience, S.)
he can attune himself to any plane of universal reality, at any point, and perceive or understand the consciousness there, and even act upon it, since the same current of consciousness is everywhere with only different modes of vibration, whether in a plant or in the thoughts of a human mind, whether in the luminous superconscient or the instincts of an animal, whether in metal or in our deepest meditations. (it would explain why i can know--not always,mind you-what folk are thinking, or why i can feel their energy, even when they are on the other side of the planet) If a piece of wood were not conscious, no yogi could displace it through concentration, because there would be no possibility of contact with it. If a single point of the universe were totally unconscious, the whole universe would be totally unconscious, because there cannot be two things. With Einstein we have learned – a great discovery indeed – that Matter and Energy are interchangeable: E=mc2 ; Matter is condensed Energy.
www.aurobindo.ru/workings/satprem/adventure_of_consciousness_e.htm#017 page 54
|
|