|
Time
Aug 2, 2013 3:49:12 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by hybrid on Aug 2, 2013 3:49:12 GMT -5
its not reality that is created by consciousness. it is only the image of reality.
besides there are already experiements in qm that does not requires an observer.
and alternate theories for the collapse of wave function by decoherence and not by observation
|
|
|
Time
Aug 2, 2013 4:13:58 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by hybrid on Aug 2, 2013 4:13:58 GMT -5
gentlefolks, asking if time exists is like aaking if inches and kilograms exist. time is a unit of measurement. time is a measure of motion. specifically the measure of space expansion. distance is created and the passage of time is the difference of rate of motions between objects. if this process of spacetime creation is an illusion, then its an elaborate one. since. real energy and force are spent in this process. Elaborate, yes. Beautifully so even. for me the significant part of consideration is to think that quantum waves precede time and space. that is to say that space is a wave structure as well as matter. space and time are a result of a medium that expands and contracts or vibrates. the same way music is created when strings are pulled or strum
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Time
Aug 2, 2013 4:20:12 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2013 4:20:12 GMT -5
its not reality that is created by consciousness. it is only the image of reality. besides there are already experiements in qm that does not requires an observer. and alternate theories for the collapse of wave function by decoherence and not by observation In my twenties I spent about a full year spending as much time as possible right at that junction of absolute Samadhi, trying to watch how phenomena appeared, and the best I could tell was that observation itself was the creative act, this was before i read about QM, so I guess because of my own experiences I rez more with the observation theory than decoherence interestingly, there are 5000 years worth of advaita and other lineages, as well as LOA theory, that all rez with the observational model. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...
|
|
|
Time
Aug 2, 2013 4:23:46 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by hybrid on Aug 2, 2013 4:23:46 GMT -5
if we can slow down the waking process so we can capture the moment to moment how our brain and the first light of cosnciousness appears and recreate the world and reality we left yesternight when we sleep, it would appear that the universe exiztence is dependent on consciousness.
now, an interpretation out of that experience that it is the act of observation that created the world is another thing
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Time
Aug 2, 2013 4:28:49 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2013 4:28:49 GMT -5
Elaborate, yes. Beautifully so even. for me the significant part of consideration is to think that quantum waves precede time and space. that is to say that space is a wave structure as well as matter. space and time are a result of a medium that expands and contracts or vibrates. the same way music is created when strings are pulled or strum You might really enjoy a book called Holy Science by a fellow named Sri Yukteswar Giri (he was the guru of Paramhamsa Yogananda who is widely credited for popularizing eastern philosophy and spiritualism in the west)...book was written about 100 years ago, but is one of the first books written expounding vedic science on the nature of existence etc, and the book was written by an authentic vedic sage specifically for a western audience...it talks a lot about stuff that is very close to QM theories....including that little bit about vibration being the source of space and time coming into appearance.
|
|
|
Time
Aug 2, 2013 4:39:11 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by hybrid on Aug 2, 2013 4:39:11 GMT -5
that's very interesting book. i feel like such a postulate can solve a lot of quamtum enigma including the electrons propensity to go to the future to explore the best possible paths
|
|
|
Time
Aug 2, 2013 8:50:16 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by topology on Aug 2, 2013 8:50:16 GMT -5
Hello McFly, you're turning to QM to try to explain what you believe is happening. This whole time tangent was born out of you shooting your mouth off that anything that can be conceived can be realized. I put forward a conceptual test where by I make an observation of the fact-status of my bank account and after the observation the fact-status of the observation is changed. Then you dug into this riff-raff about future "decisions" changing what happened in the past. QM doesn't allow altering the past from what it was recorded to be. It is an equally valid interpretation to say that the future decision was forced into consistency with the past observations. There are many ways to describe what is causing what, but there is a tendency to run with the more shocking/sensational interpretations, like "future" decisions determining the past. This is where pop-science writers tends to cast spurious conclusions to generate attention and excitement. The physical models of QM and QED do not have time baked into them. Experiential time is thought to be related to the flow of entropy. That the past and the future are consistent with each other in the tapestry of Quantum Electro-Dynamics doesn't mean that a future event re-writes the past. If anything it is an argument for the lack of free-will. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time----------- That said, there are no experiments which disprove the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory In this theory, everything is non-local wave pattern + the appearance of a particle. The interpretation allows for determinism if the complete configuration of the universe could be known. This interpretation posits all the shocking behavior of QM is a result of absent information. In essence it reduces the observer to an epi-phenomenon and is not required. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory#Measurements.2C_the_quantum_formalism.2C_and_observer_independenceLet me restate this explicitly: (1) The De Broglie-Bohm interpretation (pilot-wave theory) is completely consistent/equivalent with standard QM (2) The theory is observer independent. The observer is not needed to collapse a wave function. There is no "choice" being made about what state to collapse into. Sorry, what I'm reading is De Broglie-Bohm saying that they just can't accept the possibility of observer created reality, so they made an alternative theory that says that observer created reality cannot be possible but even though they can't prove this they are punting, saying that we just don't have enough information to prove my theory but I promise its out there waiting to be discovered....and then you come a latch onto that because it fits your own paradigm Most folks don't investigate to see whats there in front of them, they investigate to prove what they already know ;-) I'm an analyst by profession, and I can tell you that most clients don't want the full and relevant facts, they want the facts that support them doing what they already want to do. Its so common that I rarely even report the full facts anymore unless the client is about to do something REALLY self destructive and I'm willing to loose them as a client to keep them from it....I begin every engagement assessing what the client wants, and then bringing them the related facts that make the case for them doing what they are already committed to doing when I get there....everybody is happier that way....most people summarily dismiss facts that don't support them doing what they already want to do. Steve, since we are now appealing to our professions and trainings, I am a logician who is intimately aware of the movement of the mind and perception via observation. When two theories are equivalent, take the simpler theory, the one that postulates the least number of extraneous entities. Please define what an observer is. Is an observer a human being? Is an observer anything with consciousness? Is there one observer in the universe? Are there 7 Billion+ observers in the universe? Is a machine capable of observation? In the double slit experiment there is a device which measures which hole the particle moves through. When the device is measuring, the wave function collapses to pick a hole. When the device is not measuring, wave interference happens. Is the observer the machine which applies the pressure of measuring in the situation, or is it the human reading the results of the machine that is the observer collapsing the wave function? You see the predicament, right? Is it the conscious observation or the pressure of measurement? Or are they the same? Is there one observer in the universe? Or 7 Billion on this planet alone? What does it mean for the universe to give birth to a new observer? Are observers outside the universe or part of it? Does an observer have an influence in the decision making, or is it purely passive and receives information about state? If there is one over-arching observer or if it is really the pressure of measurement that collapses the wave into a specific state, then the DeBroglie-Bohm interpretation is a better fit. If there are multiple observers being born into existence and dying all the time, the theory needs to explain what it means to pop an observer out of the universe's cooch. What happens when an observer dies. None of that is touched on by QM. The observer is left rather undefined, which gives room for anyone to come in and fill in the gaps with "I am the observer that is causing the universe to have form". But is it really the conscious observer? Or is it the sensing apparatus of the body that causes the collapse? ------ Is the observer creating the universe? I've been into some funky perceptive states, but at no point did I ever feel like I was in control and could determine what was appearing to me. There is no capacity for me to determine the billions of minute details that occur within the experience from one moment to the next. This is just looking at my experience without trying to put it into any framework or interpret it as consistent with 5000 year old texts or external testimony. I didn't pre-conceive the dog barking before it was experienced. I have no creative influence over my observations. Attending might be active, but in terms of determining what appears, I am passive (receptive instead of projective).
|
|
|
Time
Aug 2, 2013 9:06:17 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by hybrid on Aug 2, 2013 9:06:17 GMT -5
in a dream state, the observer is the supreme creator.
so from a worldview that the universe is the mind of god or its kindred idealism, ie the supremacy of conaciousness over matter, the measurement problem of qm is a perfect supportive evidence.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 2, 2013 9:10:44 GMT -5
in a dream state, the observer is the supreme creator. so from a worldview that the universe is the mind of god or its kindred idealism, ie the supremacy of conaciousness over matter, the measurement problem of qm is a perfect supportive evidence. I don't feel like I create my dream content, either. Merely witness it.
|
|
|
Post by hybrid on Aug 2, 2013 9:14:54 GMT -5
in a dream state, the observer is the supreme creator. so from a worldview that the universe is the mind of god or its kindred idealism, ie the supremacy of conaciousness over matter, the measurement problem of qm is a perfect supportive evidence. I don't feel like I create my dream content, either. Merely witness it. well i am assuming that that the contents of consciousness ought to also arise from it and so basically its offsprings hehe
|
|
|
Post by hybrid on Aug 2, 2013 9:35:34 GMT -5
lets say that consciousness like matter has quantum properties. it has a localized and non-local attributes. entangled and superposed so as to seemingly transcends time and distances . so we can say that consciousness has cosmic properties and permeates everything.
the only difference with matter is that instead of a quanta, its a qualia.
|
|
|
Time
Aug 2, 2013 9:41:43 GMT -5
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 2, 2013 9:41:43 GMT -5
Sorry, seems like you are doing what most people do, which is picking and choosing and interpreting data that supports your pre-existing view. Most people don't investigate to see whats there, they investigate to prove what they already know. Hello McFly, you're turning to QM to try to explain what you believe is happening. This whole time tangent was born out of you shooting your mouth off that anything that can be conceived can be realized. I put forward a conceptual test where by I make an observation of the fact-status of my bank account and after the observation the fact-status of the observation is changed. Then you dug into this riff-raff about future "decisions" changing what happened in the past. QM doesn't allow altering the past from what it was recorded to be. It is an equally valid interpretation to say that the future decision was forced into consistency with the past observations. There are many ways to describe what is causing what, but there is a tendency to run with the more shocking/sensational interpretations, like "future" decisions determining the past. This is where pop-science writers tends to cast spurious conclusions to generate attention and excitement. The physical models of QM and QED do not have time baked into them. Experiential time is thought to be related to the flow of entropy. That the past and the future are consistent with each other in the tapestry of Quantum Electro-Dynamics doesn't mean that a future event re-writes the past. If anything it is an argument for the lack of free-will. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time----------- That said, there are no experiments which disprove the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory In this theory, everything is non-local wave pattern + the appearance of a particle. The interpretation allows for determinism if the complete configuration of the universe could be known. This interpretation posits all the shocking behavior of QM is a result of absent information. In essence it reduces the observer to an epi-phenomenon and is not required. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory#Measurements.2C_the_quantum_formalism.2C_and_observer_independenceLet me restate this explicitly: (1) The De Broglie-Bohm interpretation (pilot-wave theory) is completely consistent/equivalent with standard QM (2) The theory is observer independent. The observer is not needed to collapse a wave function. There is no "choice" being made about what state to collapse into. How are you defining "observer," Top?
|
|
|
Time
Aug 2, 2013 9:45:53 GMT -5
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 2, 2013 9:45:53 GMT -5
Sorry, what I'm reading is De Broglie-Bohm saying that they just can't accept the possibility of observer created reality, so they made an alternative theory that says that observer created reality cannot be possible but even though they can't prove this they are punting, saying that we just don't have enough information to prove my theory but I promise its out there waiting to be discovered....and then you come a latch onto that because it fits your own paradigm Most folks don't investigate to see whats there in front of them, they investigate to prove what they already know ;-) I'm an analyst by profession, and I can tell you that most clients don't want the full and relevant facts, they want the facts that support them doing what they already want to do. Its so common that I rarely even report the full facts anymore unless the client is about to do something REALLY self destructive and I'm willing to loose them as a client to keep them from it....I begin every engagement assessing what the client wants, and then bringing them the related facts that make the case for them doing what they are already committed to doing when I get there....everybody is happier that way....most people summarily dismiss facts that don't support them doing what they already want to do. Steve, since we are now appealing to our professions and trainings, I am a logician who is intimately aware of the movement of the mind and perception via observation. When two theories are equivalent, take the simpler theory, the one that postulates the least number of extraneous entities. Please define what an observer is. Is an observer a human being? Is an observer anything with consciousness? Is there one observer in the universe? Are there 7 Billion+ observers in the universe? Is a machine capable of observation? In the double slit experiment there is a device which measures which hole the particle moves through. When the device is measuring, the wave function collapses to pick a hole. When the device is not measuring, wave interference happens. Is the observer the machine which applies the pressure of measuring in the situation, or is it the human reading the results of the machine that is the observer collapsing the wave function? You see the predicament, right? Is it the conscious observation or the pressure of measurement? Or are they the same? Is there one observer in the universe? Or 7 Billion on this planet alone? What does it mean for the universe to give birth to a new observer? Are observers outside the universe or part of it? Does an observer have an influence in the decision making, or is it purely passive and receives information about state? If there is one over-arching observer or if it is really the pressure of measurement that collapses the wave into a specific state, then the DeBroglie-Bohm interpretation is a better fit. If there are multiple observers being born into existence and dying all the time, the theory needs to explain what it means to pop an observer out of the universe's cooch. What happens when an observer dies. None of that is touched on by QM. The observer is left rather undefined, which gives room for anyone to come in and fill in the gaps with "I am the observer that is causing the universe to have form". But is it really the conscious observer? Or is it the sensing apparatus of the body that causes the collapse? ------ Is the observer creating the universe? I've been into some funky perceptive states, but at no point did I ever feel like I was in control and could determine what was appearing to me. There is no capacity for me to determine the billions of minute details that occur within the experience from one moment to the next. This is just looking at my experience without trying to put it into any framework or interpret it as consistent with 5000 year old texts or external testimony. I didn't pre-conceive the dog barking before it was experienced. I have no creative influence over my observations. Attending might be active, but in terms of determining what appears, I am passive (receptive instead of projective). Never mind.. I see you answered the question I just asked you... I agree that many people misinterpret QM and believe that "observer" means a human being.
|
|
|
Time
Aug 2, 2013 9:52:21 GMT -5
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 2, 2013 9:52:21 GMT -5
lets say that consciousness like matter has quantum properties. it has a localized and non-local attributes. entangled and superposed so as to seemingly transcends time and distances . so we can say that consciousness has cosmic properties and permeates everything. the only difference with matter is that instead of a quanta, its a qualia. This is why I am apt to say that even rocks have consciousness...
|
|
|
Time
Aug 2, 2013 9:54:34 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by hybrid on Aug 2, 2013 9:54:34 GMT -5
lets say that consciousness like matter has quantum properties. it has a localized and non-local attributes. entangled and superposed so as to seemingly transcends time and distances . so we can say that consciousness has cosmic properties and permeates everything. the only difference with matter is that instead of a quanta, its a qualia. This is why I am apt to say that even rocks have consciousness... well we all came out of rocks. where there is rock, darn sure people will come out of it
|
|