|
Post by laughter on Sept 17, 2019 17:20:56 GMT -5
ok ... So this question is then, "what is the nature of the observer?". I gave my answer here. The here answer is basically a tautology. Of course observer and the observation are linked, that's the whole point of the results of the double-slit experiment. You observe one or the other of the slits (it doesn't matter which) you get one result (particle-bullet pattern), if you don't observe you get another result (interference pattern). I think Bohr maintained consciousness is not necessary for observing. I definitely say consciousness is not necessary for observing (not necessary to collapse the superposition). What is the nature of the observer? The question is what brings the superposition to a definite result in time and space (what brings the collapse of the wave function)? It seems that it can be anything that breaks the coherence. It can be natural processes. Consciousness does not have to be involved. Tautology? How do you conclude that? That dependence is not only the unexpected facet of both the double-slit and QM generally, but it breaks the assumption of objectivity that underlies the scientific method. This aspect of the dialog is purely intellectual - and I don't write that to disparage or dismiss, simply, instead, to differentiate. As for the question of the nature of the observer and your interest in the topic of consciousness, as I said, I take no position either way, so please don't take any of the rest of what I'm writing here as an attempt at persuasive argument. But, how can you ever prove your position? Also, do you conceive of consciousness as universal, in that (as I take reefs' position to be) the notion of inert matter is misconceived, and that instead (as ZD likes to point), "THIS, is alive"? If not, then notice that the relationship between the notion of consciousness and the notion of the observer become rather peculiar. And circling back to the intellectual issue, you see, none of these questions even arise if matter didn't exhibit this property of dependence on the act of observation. If there was no wave/particle duality, then the answer is very clearly the position you state: matter exists and manifests and changes objectively ... but, you see, there is this duality, and matter doesn't behave that way. Now, you're welcome to answer any or all of that in whatever detail you'd like, but the intellect is of no use in addressing existential questions. The question "what observes?", is pure self-inquiry.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 17, 2019 18:55:28 GMT -5
The here answer is basically a tautology. Of course observer and the observation are linked, that's the whole point of the results of the double-slit experiment. You observe one or the other of the slits (it doesn't matter which) you get one result (particle-bullet pattern), if you don't observe you get another result (interference pattern). I think Bohr maintained consciousness is not necessary for observing. I definitely say consciousness is not necessary for observing (not necessary to collapse the superposition). What is the nature of the observer? The question is what brings the superposition to a definite result in time and space (what brings the collapse of the wave function)? It seems that it can be anything that breaks the coherence. It can be natural processes. Consciousness does not have to be involved. Tautology? How do you conclude that? That dependence is not only the unexpected facet of both the double-slit and QM generally, but it breaks the assumption of objectivity that underlies the scientific method. This aspect of the dialog is purely intellectual - and I don't write that to disparage or dismiss, simply, instead, to differentiate. As for the question of the nature of the observer and your interest in the topic of consciousness, as I said, I take no position either way, so please don't take any of the rest of what I'm writing here as an attempt at persuasive argument. But, how can you ever prove your position? Also, do you conceive of consciousness as universal, in that (as I take reefs' position to be) the notion of inert matter is misconceived, and that instead (as ZD likes to point), "THIS, is alive"? If not, then notice that the relationship between the notion of consciousness and the notion of the observer become rather peculiar. And circling back to the intellectual issue, you see, none of these questions even arise if matter didn't exhibit this property of dependence on the act of observation. If there was no wave/particle duality, then the answer is very clearly the position you state: matter exists and manifests and changes objectively ... but, you see, there is this duality, and matter doesn't behave that way. Now, you're welcome to answer any or all of that in whatever detail you'd like, but the intellect is of no use in addressing existential questions. The question "what observes?", is pure self-inquiry. Yes, I take the notion of inert matter as misconceived, yes, This is alive. Most people who have been around a while know I consider SOCI as Source of everything. Supreme, Ordering, Conscious, Intelligence. That seems to need no explanation. (E asked a similar question a few weeks ago. ?) As to the other, I can offer no independent proof. But I consider there to be some wiggle room for free action on the bottom side (us). There is mostly Top-down action, but some bottom-up action possible. And the bottom-up can be subjectively-objectively proven, that is, to oneself. Further, I'd say there is no wave- particle duality, ultimately. The duality arises because of our limited perspective (epistemological). The particle-wave is a one something in a higher dimension (ontologically). The quantum explanation is a mystery from our perspective. From a higher dimension perspective it's child's play.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2019 3:13:43 GMT -5
Tautology? How do you conclude that? That dependence is not only the unexpected facet of both the double-slit and QM generally, but it breaks the assumption of objectivity that underlies the scientific method. This aspect of the dialog is purely intellectual - and I don't write that to disparage or dismiss, simply, instead, to differentiate. As for the question of the nature of the observer and your interest in the topic of consciousness, as I said, I take no position either way, so please don't take any of the rest of what I'm writing here as an attempt at persuasive argument. But, how can you ever prove your position? Also, do you conceive of consciousness as universal, in that (as I take reefs' position to be) the notion of inert matter is misconceived, and that instead (as ZD likes to point), "THIS, is alive"? If not, then notice that the relationship between the notion of consciousness and the notion of the observer become rather peculiar. And circling back to the intellectual issue, you see, none of these questions even arise if matter didn't exhibit this property of dependence on the act of observation. If there was no wave/particle duality, then the answer is very clearly the position you state: matter exists and manifests and changes objectively ... but, you see, there is this duality, and matter doesn't behave that way. Now, you're welcome to answer any or all of that in whatever detail you'd like, but the intellect is of no use in addressing existential questions. The question "what observes?", is pure self-inquiry. Yes, I take the notion of inert matter as misconceived, yes, This is alive. Most people who have been around a while know I consider SOCI as Source of everything. Supreme, Ordering, Conscious, Intelligence. That seems to need no explanation. (E asked a similar question a few weeks ago. ?) As to the other, I can offer no independent proof. But I consider there to be some wiggle room for free action on the bottom side (us). There is mostly Top-down action, but some bottom-up action possible. And the bottom-up can be subjectively-objectively proven, that is, to oneself. Further, I'd say there is no wave- particle duality, ultimately. The duality arises because of our limited perspective (epistemological). The particle-wave is a one something in a higher dimension (ontologically). The quantum explanation is a mystery from our perspective. From a higher dimension perspective it's child's play. Well, notice that there was no implication as to the notion of free will in what you're responding to. So in this sense, your response simply shifts the form of the existential question on the table. As for the child's play, it's almost a certainty that for as long as the human race continues it will constantly uncover new wonders. This is the structure of the mind: every new answer leads to ten other questions. But replacing the unknown with speculation that can't be proven is exactly what Low meant by "resting the mind".
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2019 3:19:54 GMT -5
This link contains the Tom Campbell video, a question raised about the validity of his claim. The Youtube video I linked (quantum erasure) seems to say that if you make it impossible to look at the data (I could imagine destroying the data, not burying it for 100 years) from the cameras (even if they are turned on) you will indeed get an interference pattern. (That's my recollection after two views). But that being the case that is as if the camera was turned off, which results in getting an interference pattern. (I didn't actually look at the Tom Campbell video itself). Sounds like what I listened to years ago is BS. Sorry to propogate it here. Not sure if it was Campbell. Even with the mistake Tom's presentation is the most lucid on the topic I've ever encountered, and he's got the credentials to be credible. The Monroe Institute is another group reefs might be interested in. Tom probably got a little exuberant in terms of interpreting the actual Quantum Erasure experiments, and while I've never dug down in the details on those, casual reading suggests that the results at least allude to what he thought they meant.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 18, 2019 6:42:17 GMT -5
Randomness is expressed in terms of probability, which implies uncertainty, but the frequency of events becomes very well defined over millions of iterations, and in that sense, very accurate predictions can be made. Still, a single event can be considered random just like a roll of the dice will produce a random outcome, but the more you roll the dice the more consistent the frequency of outcomes are, and we can predict that one million rolls will produce the predicted frequency of outcomes within a fraction of a percent. This implies objectivity, but in a certain sense; not in the sense of 'a definite thing'. Only in the sense that probability is measurable as a mean of multiple measurements. A single event, however, is unpredictable, which we might refer to as random. But, given many 'random' singular events, a predictable pattern emerges. Yes, there's a relevant distinction between a random process and a stochastic process, and - depending on perspective - physical objectivity either emerges as a pattern expressed over time, or, is a systemic assumption. In either event, it is, ultimately, mind-made. That's as far as the thinking process can go: to mark it's boundary. Or not. It can, instead, always just continually spin-along, sideways, following the contours of the wall. Like an n-dimensional ant, on an n-dimensional mobius strip. To say 'ultimately'... I'm never sure what that is, but things happen in particular way according to probability distributions. For example, an electron can be spin up or spin down, but nothing between. Hence we say an electron has 2 possible states, no more, no less, but it exists in a superposition of two states - it's both spin up and spin down until we measure it; then it assumes one state or the other. The state of electron is exactly 50% and we will get one of two results with measurement. Hence it's not like QM makes it like we don't know. Sure it makes it completely uncertain, but the probability distribution is completely exact.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2019 7:20:32 GMT -5
Yes, there's a relevant distinction between a random process and a stochastic process, and - depending on perspective - physical objectivity either emerges as a pattern expressed over time, or, is a systemic assumption. In either event, it is, ultimately, mind-made. That's as far as the thinking process can go: to mark it's boundary. Or not. It can, instead, always just continually spin-along, sideways, following the contours of the wall. Like an n-dimensional ant, on an n-dimensional mobius strip. To say 'ultimately'... I'm never sure what that is, but things happen in particular way according to probability distributions. For example, an electron can be spin up or spin down, but nothing between. Hence we say an electron has 2 possible states, no more, no less, but it exists in a superposition of two states - it's both spin up and spin down until we measure it; then it assumes one state or the other. The state of electron is exactly 50% and we will get one of two results with measurement. Hence it's not like QM makes it like we don't know. Sure it makes it completely uncertain, but the probability distribution is completely exact. But, this exactness is a pattern that emerges over time, based on repeated measurements, so I'll have to respectfully agree to disagree on that. We can stick a thermometer in the ocean without having to account for the effect it has, but not so with the measurement of the electron's spin. Unlike the classical observer effect, this quantum observer effect isn't only a matter of scale, but instead, marks a limit.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2019 8:07:47 GMT -5
Yes, I take the notion of inert matter as misconceived, yes, This is alive. Most people who have been around a while know I consider SOCI as Source of everything. Supreme, Ordering, Conscious, Intelligence. That seems to need no explanation. (E asked a similar question a few weeks ago. ?) As to the other, I can offer no independent proof. But I consider there to be some wiggle room for free action on the bottom side (us). There is mostly Top-down action, but some bottom-up action possible. And the bottom-up can be subjectively-objectively proven, that is, to oneself. Further, I'd say there is no wave- particle duality, ultimately. The duality arises because of our limited perspective (epistemological). The particle-wave is a one something in a higher dimension (ontologically). The quantum explanation is a mystery from our perspective. From a higher dimension perspective it's child's play. Well, notice that there was no implication as to the notion of free will in what you're responding to. So in this sense, your response simply shifts the form of the existential question on the table. As for the child's play, it's almost a certainty that for as long as the human race continues it will constantly uncover new wonders. This is the structure of the mind: every new answer leads to ten other questions. But replacing the unknown with speculation that can't be proven is exactly what Low meant by "resting the mind". When you asked what observes? in relation to QM I thought you were asking what collapses the wave function. Otherwise, attention is what observes, and is what self-inquiry is about. What is the full context if the Low quote? Attention emerging out of awareness is the full context. And that, is the "cubic centimeter of chance", of freedom.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 18, 2019 8:18:17 GMT -5
Yes, there's a relevant distinction between a random process and a stochastic process, and - depending on perspective - physical objectivity either emerges as a pattern expressed over time, or, is a systemic assumption. In either event, it is, ultimately, mind-made. That's as far as the thinking process can go: to mark it's boundary. Or not. It can, instead, always just continually spin-along, sideways, following the contours of the wall. Like an n-dimensional ant, on an n-dimensional mobius strip. To say 'ultimately'... I'm never sure what that is, but things happen in particular way according to probability distributions. For example, an electron can be spin up or spin down, but nothing between. Hence we say an electron has 2 possible states, no more, no less, but it exists in a superposition of two states - it's both spin up and spin down until we measure it; then it assumes one state or the other. The state of electron is exactly 50% and we will get one of two results with measurement. Hence it's not like QM makes it like we don't know. Sure it makes it completely uncertain, but the probability distribution is completely exact. Just to be clear, in superposition it's not that the electron is 1/2 spin up and 1/2 spin down. It is both and neither ATST. It neither is nor isn't. It both is and isn't. Neither applies. IOW, it's not like a flipped coin. Just to be clear.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 18, 2019 8:19:27 GMT -5
Well, notice that there was no implication as to the notion of free will in what you're responding to. So in this sense, your response simply shifts the form of the existential question on the table. As for the child's play, it's almost a certainty that for as long as the human race continues it will constantly uncover new wonders. This is the structure of the mind: every new answer leads to ten other questions. But replacing the unknown with speculation that can't be proven is exactly what Low meant by "resting the mind". When you asked what observes? in relation to QM I thought you were asking what collapses the wave function. Otherwise, attention is what observes, and is what self-inquiry is about. What is the full context if the Low quote? Attention emerging out of awareness is the full context. And that, is the "cubic centimeter of chance", of freedom. If you'll notice, I haven't asked the question "what observes?", instead, I've been pointing out how it's implicated in what you wrote previously. I offer no answer to it, but yes, asking "what collapses the wave function?" is the same question. If you want to answer the existential question of free will this way, that's up to you, but it's answering a question with a question.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 18, 2019 11:26:35 GMT -5
Tautology? How do you conclude that? That dependence is not only the unexpected facet of both the double-slit and QM generally, but it breaks the assumption of objectivity that underlies the scientific method. This aspect of the dialog is purely intellectual - and I don't write that to disparage or dismiss, simply, instead, to differentiate. As for the question of the nature of the observer and your interest in the topic of consciousness, as I said, I take no position either way, so please don't take any of the rest of what I'm writing here as an attempt at persuasive argument. But, how can you ever prove your position? Also, do you conceive of consciousness as universal, in that (as I take reefs' position to be) the notion of inert matter is misconceived, and that instead (as ZD likes to point), "THIS, is alive"? If not, then notice that the relationship between the notion of consciousness and the notion of the observer become rather peculiar. And circling back to the intellectual issue, you see, none of these questions even arise if matter didn't exhibit this property of dependence on the act of observation. If there was no wave/particle duality, then the answer is very clearly the position you state: matter exists and manifests and changes objectively ... but, you see, there is this duality, and matter doesn't behave that way. Now, you're welcome to answer any or all of that in whatever detail you'd like, but the intellect is of no use in addressing existential questions. The question "what observes?", is pure self-inquiry. Yes, I take the notion of inert matter as misconceived, yes, This is alive. Most people who have been around a while know I consider SOCI as Source of everything. Supreme, Ordering, Conscious, Intelligence. That seems to need no explanation. (E asked a similar question a few weeks ago. ?) As to the other, I can offer no independent proof. But I consider there to be some wiggle room for free action on the bottom side (us). There is mostly Top-down action, but some bottom-up action possible. And the bottom-up can be subjectively-objectively proven, that is, to oneself. Further, I'd say there is no wave- particle duality, ultimately. The duality arises because of our limited perspective (epistemological). The particle-wave is a one something in a higher dimension (ontologically). The quantum explanation is a mystery from our perspective. From a higher dimension perspective it's child's play. Regarding SOCI the only difference I can see between what you've written is that ND folks regard SOCI as the only thingless thing there is. IOW, every thought, act, or feeling is a thought, act, or feeling of SOCI because there is no "other." In the words of E. "SOCI falls into its own dream as it grows from babyhood to adulthood, and sometimes it awakens from its dream of separation by becoming sufficiently silent for the obvious to become obvious." As for collapsing the wave function, consider the "existence" of a tree. Until distinguished, what a tree IS remains only what it IS. When distinguished, it's imagined to be a separate thing. The issue is one of distinction rather than observation. One can observe __________________without making distinctions and without distinguishing oneself as an observer. Duality arises as soon as a single distinction is made. The observer paradox only arises via the intellect.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 18, 2019 18:36:18 GMT -5
To say 'ultimately'... I'm never sure what that is, but things happen in particular way according to probability distributions. For example, an electron can be spin up or spin down, but nothing between. Hence we say an electron has 2 possible states, no more, no less, but it exists in a superposition of two states - it's both spin up and spin down until we measure it; then it assumes one state or the other. The state of electron is exactly 50% and we will get one of two results with measurement. Hence it's not like QM makes it like we don't know. Sure it makes it completely uncertain, but the probability distribution is completely exact. Just to be clear, in superposition it's not that the electron is 1/2 spin up and 1/2 spin down. It is both and neither ATST. It neither is nor isn't. It both is and isn't. Neither applies. IOW, it's not like a flipped coin. Just to be clear. It is considered to be in a superposition of both states (as a 50% probability) since it can only be measured as one or the other.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 18, 2019 18:39:01 GMT -5
To say 'ultimately'... I'm never sure what that is, but things happen in particular way according to probability distributions. For example, an electron can be spin up or spin down, but nothing between. Hence we say an electron has 2 possible states, no more, no less, but it exists in a superposition of two states - it's both spin up and spin down until we measure it; then it assumes one state or the other. The state of electron is exactly 50% and we will get one of two results with measurement. Hence it's not like QM makes it like we don't know. Sure it makes it completely uncertain, but the probability distribution is completely exact. But, this exactness is a pattern that emerges over time, based on repeated measurements, so I'll have to respectfully agree to disagree on that. We can stick a thermometer in the ocean without having to account for the effect it has, but not so with the measurement of the electron's spin. Unlike the classical observer effect, this quantum observer effect isn't only a matter of scale, but instead, marks a limit. The exactness is it will be either up or down when measured. That turns out to be 50% given multiple iterations, but then it gets strange because an elecron measured up might measure down if measured in a different way. However, if measured in the same way... the above holds true.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 19, 2019 2:31:49 GMT -5
Yes, I take the notion of inert matter as misconceived, yes, This is alive. Most people who have been around a while know I consider SOCI as Source of everything. Supreme, Ordering, Conscious, Intelligence. That seems to need no explanation. (E asked a similar question a few weeks ago. ?) As to the other, I can offer no independent proof. But I consider there to be some wiggle room for free action on the bottom side (us). There is mostly Top-down action, but some bottom-up action possible. And the bottom-up can be subjectively-objectively proven, that is, to oneself. Further, I'd say there is no wave- particle duality, ultimately. The duality arises because of our limited perspective (epistemological). The particle-wave is a one something in a higher dimension (ontologically). The quantum explanation is a mystery from our perspective. From a higher dimension perspective it's child's play. Regarding SOCI the only difference I can see between what you've written is that ND folks regard SOCI as the only thingless thing there is. IOW, every thought, act, or feeling is a thought, act, or feeling of SOCI because there is no "other." In the words of E. "SOCI falls into its own dream as it grows from babyhood to adulthood, and sometimes it awakens from its dream of separation by becoming sufficiently silent for the obvious to become obvious." As for collapsing the wave function, consider the "existence" of a tree. Until distinguished, what a tree IS remains only what it IS. When distinguished, it's imagined to be a separate thing. The issue is one of distinction rather than observation. One can observe __________________without making distinctions and without distinguishing oneself as an observer. Duality arises as soon as a single distinction is made. The observer paradox only arises via the intellect. Yes, and this doesn't mean I look down on or dismiss the products of intellect, only, instead, that I "render unto Caesar".
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 19, 2019 2:39:57 GMT -5
But, this exactness is a pattern that emerges over time, based on repeated measurements, so I'll have to respectfully agree to disagree on that. We can stick a thermometer in the ocean without having to account for the effect it has, but not so with the measurement of the electron's spin. Unlike the classical observer effect, this quantum observer effect isn't only a matter of scale, but instead, marks a limit. The exactness is it will be either up or down when measured. That turns out to be 50% given multiple iterations, but then it gets strange because an elecron measured up might measure down if measured in a different way. However, if measured in the same way... the above holds true. Ok, the concept of the spin is a pattern that nature exhibits for us. Now, to get to this point, Physicists documented a set of other patterns, over centuries, with an underlying assumption that they were observing inert matter. That what was observed was independent of the observation of it. If matter really was that way, then there would be no need for a probability function. To acknowledge the absence of knowledge here isn't to suggest that these patterns aren't happening, but, instead, to acknowledge the context in which they appear, is a mind-made context: observer/observed. "Nature" itself, is a mind-made context.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 19, 2019 2:43:51 GMT -5
Just to be clear, in superposition it's not that the electron is 1/2 spin up and 1/2 spin down. It is both and neither ATST. It neither is nor isn't. It both is and isn't. Neither applies. IOW, it's not like a flipped coin. Just to be clear. It is considered to be in a superposition of both states (as a 50% probability) since it can only be measured as one or the other. Technically, the expected value will depend on the other conditions of the experiment, it's just that you've defined a variable with a binary state. Not 50% probability, just one of two possible outcomes.
|
|