|
Post by laughter on Jan 18, 2014 9:52:53 GMT -5
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? No, and there is a mild residual curiosity about that question. If I were a bajillionaire I'd fund a foundation to buy up old abandoned Christian churches and set up double-slit apparatus and supply volunteers with pamphlets about the history of early Christianity including the Gospel of Thomas, the council of Nicaea and the mystical and very (apparently) personal implications of the trinity. At the risk of sounding attached to a fixed belief, Particle Physics was humanity's collective neti-neti, and it's high time humanity got over it! 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. Bohr: "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it" Bohr was Einsteins nemesis and vice-versa. Can you imagine having been trolled by Einstein? .. as a matter of fact, it was in trying to tear down QM that Einstein inadvertently provided one of the strongest supports to it in what would eventually be the verification of the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. For a number of historical reasons, Bohr's cultural profile is quite obscure compared to his rival, but if you've never checked out his quotes, I recommend them. The perspective might strike you as oddly familiar. ... can you guess at what I mean by that?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 18, 2014 11:48:45 GMT -5
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. Okay, but I was responding to this: "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 have no problem with the idea that many can see what science cannot.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 18, 2014 12:00:02 GMT -5
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
Everything is consciousness. Not everything is conscious. To be conscious is to be a point of perception. You, as a vehicle of perception, are the one who informs the tree of it's treeness, and the rock of it's rockness through this common origin in/as consciousness itself.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 18, 2014 12:19:52 GMT -5
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? No, and there is a mild residual curiosity about that question. If I were a bajillionaire I'd fund a foundation to buy up old abandoned Christian churches and set up double-slit apparatus and supply volunteers with pamphlets about the history of early Christianity including the Gospel of Thomas, the council of Nicaea and the mystical and very (apparently) personal implications of the trinity. At the risk of sounding attached to a fixed belief, Particle Physics was humanity's collective neti-neti, and it's high time humanity got over it! 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. Bohr: "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it" Bohr was Einsteins nemesis and vice-versa. Can you imagine having been trolled by Einstein? .. as a matter of fact, it was in trying to tear down QM that Einstein inadvertently provided one of the strongest supports to it in what would eventually be the verification of the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. For a number of historical reasons, Bohr's cultural profile is quite obscure compared to his rival, but if you've never checked out his quotes, I recommend them. The perspective might strike you as oddly familiar. ... can you guess at what I mean by that? Sorry, this stuff isn't easy for me, and the need to guess makes it impossible. So, am I too far off with my conjecture for you to respond to it?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 18, 2014 12:24:50 GMT -5
No, and there is a mild residual curiosity about that question. If I were a bajillionaire I'd fund a foundation to buy up old abandoned Christian churches and set up double-slit apparatus and supply volunteers with pamphlets about the history of early Christianity including the Gospel of Thomas, the council of Nicaea and the mystical and very (apparently) personal implications of the trinity. At the risk of sounding attached to a fixed belief, Particle Physics was humanity's collective neti-neti, and it's high time humanity got over it! Bohr: "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it" Bohr was Einsteins nemesis and vice-versa. Can you imagine having been trolled by Einstein? .. as a matter of fact, it was in trying to tear down QM that Einstein inadvertently provided one of the strongest supports to it in what would eventually be the verification of the phenomenon of quantum entanglement. For a number of historical reasons, Bohr's cultural profile is quite obscure compared to his rival, but if you've never checked out his quotes, I recommend them. The perspective might strike you as oddly familiar. ... can you guess at what I mean by that? Sorry, this stuff isn't easy for me, and the need to guess makes it impossible. So, am I too far off with my conjecture for you to respond to it? Apologies, I thought that the Bohr quote expressed confirmation of the conjecture. ... yes, that's exactly what it means and that's the result that the Copenhagen club had to deal with. It's what they invented Quantum Mechanics to explain.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 18, 2014 13:23:15 GMT -5
Sorry, this stuff isn't easy for me, and the need to guess makes it impossible. So, am I too far off with my conjecture for you to respond to it? Apologies, I thought that the Bohr quote expressed confirmation of the conjecture. ... yes, that's exactly what it means and that's the result that the Copenhagen club had to deal with. It's what they invented Quantum Mechanics to explain. Oh, I read through half the page of quotes and gave up. Hehe. I don't seem to have questions about the idea of everything being in an indeterminate, or dual state, until observed by consciousness. In the broader sense, it just means everything is both here and not here until observed to be one or the other. That would also be the nature of dreams unfolding from infinite potential.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2014 15:07:14 GMT -5
Oh, I read through half the page of quotes and gave up. Hehe. I don't seem to have questions about the idea of everything being in an indeterminate, or dual state, until observed by consciousness. In the broader sense, it just means everything is both here and not here until observed to be one or the other. That would also be the nature of dreams unfolding from infinite potential. Yes!! And you're right, seeing this does involve a 'broadening' of perspective. "Both here and not here until observed to be one or the other", indeed. It is a contracted perspective that sees and then fixates on one over the other. You've described the view/understanding/way of experiencing from "full-circle"....."mountain, no mountain, mountain."
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 18, 2014 16:49:03 GMT -5
Apologies, I thought that the Bohr quote expressed confirmation of the conjecture. ... yes, that's exactly what it means and that's the result that the Copenhagen club had to deal with. It's what they invented Quantum Mechanics to explain. Oh, I read through half the page of quotes and gave up. Hehe. I don't seem to have questions about the idea of everything being in an indeterminate, or dual state, until observed by consciousness. In the broader sense, it just means everything is both here and not here until observed to be one or the other. That would also be the nature of dreams unfolding from infinite potential. Yes, here and not here until observed by consciousness, but in this sense consciousness is not a physical phenomenon, so the scientist is faced with that rotten chegg that ever gets swept under the rug. Einstein's world view was deterministic, while Bohr's world view was chaotic. Einsteins description's were elegant and simple, while Bohr's were a hot tranny mess. Both views revealed the myth of objectivity, but in different contexts. They trolled each other for nearly their entire professional lives. Bohr talked alot about paradox, Einstein talked alot about resolving the apparent paradox that emerged from thought experiments where objects were not bound by the speed of light.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 19, 2014 11:16:55 GMT -5
Greetings.. Oh, I read through half the page of quotes and gave up. Hehe. I don't seem to have questions about the idea of everything being in an indeterminate, or dual state, until observed by consciousness. In the broader sense, it just means everything is both here and not here until observed to be one or the other. That would also be the nature of dreams unfolding from infinite potential. Yes, here and not here until observed by consciousness, but in this sense consciousness is not a physical phenomenon, so the scientist is faced with that rotten chegg that ever gets swept under the rug. Einstein's world view was deterministic, while Bohr's world view was chaotic. Einsteins description's were elegant and simple, while Bohr's were a hot tranny mess. Both views revealed the myth of objectivity, but in different contexts. They trolled each other for nearly their entire professional lives. Bohr talked alot about paradox, Einstein talked alot about resolving the apparent paradox that emerged from thought experiments where objects were not bound by the speed of light. If one is interested in simplicity, the fabric of existence is one and many simultaneously.. the observer and the observed, distinctly separate, act in unison as one, instantaneously, across distances where the separate positions of the 'instant happening' reveals the oneness responding to the intention of the parts.. 'get it', and move on.. staying trapped by the inclination to imagine stories about the implications of such awareness results in competitive story-telling.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 19, 2014 11:56:48 GMT -5
Oh, I read through half the page of quotes and gave up. Hehe. I don't seem to have questions about the idea of everything being in an indeterminate, or dual state, until observed by consciousness. In the broader sense, it just means everything is both here and not here until observed to be one or the other. That would also be the nature of dreams unfolding from infinite potential. Yes, here and not here until observed by consciousness, but in this sense consciousness is not a physical phenomenon, so the scientist is faced with that rotten chegg that ever gets swept under the rug. Einstein's world view was deterministic, while Bohr's world view was chaotic. Einsteins description's were elegant and simple, while Bohr's were a hot tranny mess. Both views revealed the myth of objectivity, but in different contexts. They trolled each other for nearly their entire professional lives. Bohr talked alot about paradox, Einstein talked alot about resolving the apparent paradox that emerged from thought experiments where objects were not bound by the speed of light. Yes, objectivity is the foundation of science, and so science cannot resolve the problem caused by that initial split. Science is representative of the butcher blade mind that can only divide further and can never resolve the problem created by it's distinctions by making more distinctions. It's a macro form of the spiritual dilemma of the personal mind.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 19, 2014 12:00:42 GMT -5
Greetings.. Yes, here and not here until observed by consciousness, but in this sense consciousness is not a physical phenomenon, so the scientist is faced with that rotten chegg that ever gets swept under the rug. Einstein's world view was deterministic, while Bohr's world view was chaotic. Einsteins description's were elegant and simple, while Bohr's were a hot tranny mess. Both views revealed the myth of objectivity, but in different contexts. They trolled each other for nearly their entire professional lives. Bohr talked alot about paradox, Einstein talked alot about resolving the apparent paradox that emerged from thought experiments where objects were not bound by the speed of light. If one is interested in simplicity, the fabric of existence is one and many simultaneously.. the observer and the observed, distinctly separate, act in unison as one, instantaneously, across distances where the separate positions of the 'instant happening' reveals the oneness responding to the intention of the parts.. 'get it', and move on.. staying trapped by the inclination to imagine stories about the implications of such awareness results in competitive story-telling.. Be well.. So the function of "the oneness" is to do my personal bidding?
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jan 19, 2014 12:05:02 GMT -5
Greetings.. If one is interested in simplicity, the fabric of existence is one and many simultaneously.. the observer and the observed, distinctly separate, act in unison as one, instantaneously, across distances where the separate positions of the 'instant happening' reveals the oneness responding to the intention of the parts.. 'get it', and move on.. staying trapped by the inclination to imagine stories about the implications of such awareness results in competitive story-telling.. Be well.. So the function of "the oneness" is to do my personal bidding? The blob is actually a butler.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 19, 2014 12:06:30 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. If one is interested in simplicity, the fabric of existence is one and many simultaneously.. the observer and the observed, distinctly separate, act in unison as one, instantaneously, across distances where the separate positions of the 'instant happening' reveals the oneness responding to the intention of the parts.. 'get it', and move on.. staying trapped by the inclination to imagine stories about the implications of such awareness results in competitive story-telling.. Be well.. So the function of "the oneness" is to do my personal bidding? You are creating an illusion, there was no indication of the 'function' of oneness.. it is the 'function' of water to make you wet? Be well..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 19, 2014 12:59:25 GMT -5
So the function of "the oneness" is to do my personal bidding? The blob is actually a butler. Jeeves the oneness butler blob. It's an interesting ontology.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 19, 2014 13:01:47 GMT -5
Greetings.. So the function of "the oneness" is to do my personal bidding? You are creating an illusion, there was no indication of the 'function' of oneness.. it is the 'function' of water to make you wet? Be well.. Yes, water functions in such a way as to make me wet, and apparently Jeeves the oneness butler functions in such a way as to fulfill my intent.
|
|