Biocentrism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-06-2011, 06:35 PM
RE: Biocentrism
(07-06-2011 06:32 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(07-06-2011 05:48 PM)sy2502 Wrote:  Wheeler believes that the only way to collapse the wave function is to have a CONSCIOUS observer? Really? Reference please? Big Grin

Goddam dude, I gave you the reference. Didn't you read the link?

"Wheeler has speculated that reality is created by observers in the universe. 'How does something arise from nothing?', he asks about the existence of space and time (Princeton Physics News, 2006). He also coined the term 'Participatory Anthropic Principle' (PAP), a version of a Strong Anthropic Principle. From a transcript of a radio interview on 'The anthropic universe'[7]:

Wheeler: We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?
Martin Redfern: Many don't agree with John Wheeler, but if he's right then we and presumably other conscious observers throughout the universe, are the creators — or at least the minds that make the universe manifest."

Shit, guess I better give you this one too since I'm starting to think I can't trust you to read for yourself: Anthropic Priniciple

You need to take a Valium.

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2011, 06:41 PM
RE: Biocentrism
(07-06-2011 06:35 PM)sy2502 Wrote:  
(07-06-2011 06:32 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(07-06-2011 05:48 PM)sy2502 Wrote:  Wheeler believes that the only way to collapse the wave function is to have a CONSCIOUS observer? Really? Reference please? Big Grin

Goddam dude, I gave you the reference. Didn't you read the link?

"Wheeler has speculated that reality is created by observers in the universe. 'How does something arise from nothing?', he asks about the existence of space and time (Princeton Physics News, 2006). He also coined the term 'Participatory Anthropic Principle' (PAP), a version of a Strong Anthropic Principle. From a transcript of a radio interview on 'The anthropic universe'[7]:

Wheeler: We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?
Martin Redfern: Many don't agree with John Wheeler, but if he's right then we and presumably other conscious observers throughout the universe, are the creators — or at least the minds that make the universe manifest."

Shit, guess I better give you this one too since I'm starting to think I can't trust you to read for yourself: Anthropic Priniciple

You need to take a Valium.

Yeah, ... and you didn't read the link.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2011, 06:52 PM
RE: Biocentrism
(07-06-2011 06:41 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(07-06-2011 06:35 PM)sy2502 Wrote:  
(07-06-2011 06:32 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(07-06-2011 05:48 PM)sy2502 Wrote:  Wheeler believes that the only way to collapse the wave function is to have a CONSCIOUS observer? Really? Reference please? Big Grin

Goddam dude, I gave you the reference. Didn't you read the link?

"Wheeler has speculated that reality is created by observers in the universe. 'How does something arise from nothing?', he asks about the existence of space and time (Princeton Physics News, 2006). He also coined the term 'Participatory Anthropic Principle' (PAP), a version of a Strong Anthropic Principle. From a transcript of a radio interview on 'The anthropic universe'[7]:

Wheeler: We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?
Martin Redfern: Many don't agree with John Wheeler, but if he's right then we and presumably other conscious observers throughout the universe, are the creators — or at least the minds that make the universe manifest."

Shit, guess I better give you this one too since I'm starting to think I can't trust you to read for yourself: Anthropic Priniciple

You need to take a Valium.

Yeah, ... and you didn't read the link.

How about you read ALL of what Wheeler says on the subject? I suggest this link:
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/fea...:int=1&-C=
Specifically see the part that says:

Quote:Does this mean humans are necessary to the existence of the universe? While conscious observers certainly partake in the creation of the participatory universe envisioned by Wheeler, they are not the only, or even primary, way by which quantum potentials become real. Ordinary matter and radiation play the dominant roles. Wheeler likes to use the example of a high-energy particle released by a radioactive element like radium in Earth's crust. The particle, as with the photons in the two-slit experiment, exists in many possible states at once, traveling in every possible direction, not quite real and solid until it interacts with something, say a piece of mica in Earth's crust. When that happens, one of those many different probable outcomes becomes real. In this case the mica, not a conscious being, is the object that transforms what might happen into what does happen. The trail of disrupted atoms left in the mica by the high-energy particle becomes part of the real world.

Wheeler says conscious observation plays A ROLE in shaping reality, but doesn't say, as you think, that it's the ONLY factor in shaping reality. Maybe you are the one who should read more...

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2011, 05:33 PM (This post was last modified: 08-06-2011 05:44 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Biocentrism
(07-06-2011 06:52 PM)sy2502 Wrote:  How about you read ALL of what Wheeler says on the subject? I suggest this link:
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/fea...:int=1&-C=

Yeah, I already did back in 2002 when it first came out. ... What are we arguing about? What constitutes a conscious observer? I never claimed it had to be human. Neither does Lanza in Biocentrism.

(07-06-2011 10:45 AM)sy2502 Wrote:  Are these people scientists?

BTW, I think Lanza probably also qualifies as a scientist who proposes this given that he's a renowned stem cell and cloning researcher at his day job. Wink

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2011, 10:49 AM
RE: Biocentrism
(08-06-2011 05:33 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(07-06-2011 06:52 PM)sy2502 Wrote:  How about you read ALL of what Wheeler says on the subject? I suggest this link:
http://discovermagazine.com/2002/jun/fea...:int=1&-C=

Yeah, I already did back in 2002 when it first came out. ... What are we arguing about? What constitutes a conscious observer? I never claimed it had to be human. Neither does Lanza in Biocentrism.
The claim wasn't that it should be human, the claim was that it should be conscious. Wheeler never stated that, and I have already explained to you what the QM meaning of "observer" is. I also provided you examples of how this happens in real life. Now what you want to do with all that information is up to you.

Quote:
(07-06-2011 10:45 AM)sy2502 Wrote:  Are these people scientists?

BTW, I think Lanza probably also qualifies as a scientist who proposes this given that he's a renowned stem cell and cloning researcher at his day job. Wink
He may be a scientist but what he says is patently wrong. Consider this assertion from this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lan...31622.html

Quote:Consider the famous two-hole experiment. When scientists watch a particle pass through two holes in a barrier, the particle behaves like a bullet and goes through one hole or the other. But if you don't watch, it acts like a wave and can go through both holes at the same time.
This statement is idiotic. You can watch or not watch, be there or leave the room. If there are 2 slots the particles will produce an interference pattern, if you close one of the slots, there won't be an interference pattern.
Again, it pains me to repeat myself, but I guess I'll have to. Human beings cannot directly observe subatomic particles because they are invisible to us. All we can observe is their interaction with other systems, be it a photographic plate behind the 2-slit system, or bubble trails in a cloud chamber, or computer reconstructions of data streaming from sensors and detectors. In fact, in supercolliders for example, data is collected by automated systems, and only weeks or months later does anybody actually get around to checking it out.
Conscious action does, as should be obvious to anybody, alter reality, but saying it is the ONLY thing that can alter or even create reality flies in the face of well known facts.

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2011, 10:13 PM
RE: Biocentrism
(09-06-2011 10:49 AM)sy2502 Wrote:  Now what you want to do with all that information is up to you.

Yeah, I'm gonna keep going with my gut ... but you do what you need to.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2011, 10:49 AM
RE: Biocentrism
(10-06-2011 10:13 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(09-06-2011 10:49 AM)sy2502 Wrote:  Now what you want to do with all that information is up to you.

Yeah, I'm gonna keep going with my gut ... but you do what you need to.

So that we are clear... you are going to disregard facts because they don't agree with your intuition? Huh

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2011, 05:02 PM (This post was last modified: 14-06-2011 05:16 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Biocentrism
(13-06-2011 10:49 AM)sy2502 Wrote:  
(10-06-2011 10:13 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(09-06-2011 10:49 AM)sy2502 Wrote:  Now what you want to do with all that information is up to you.

Yeah, I'm gonna keep going with my gut ... but you do what you need to.

So that we are clear... you are going to disregard facts because they don't agree with your intuition? Huh

The nice thing about science as opposed to religion is that it is self-correcting. But outside of mathematics and logic, science doesn't talk about "facts" (and it doesn't even call them that there, instead it speaks in terms of theorems, lemmas, axioms, and proofs). Science is all about "hypotheses" and "theories" to explain observations of ever increasing fidelity. So yes, I am gonna keep running with my intuitions, especially when I see scientific "theories" trying their damnedest to catch up to what I always felt in my gut. And while I'm not a Physicist, I am a grossly overpaid overeducated Computer Scientist who has the privilege of working with Physicists doing some crazy-ass shit with Quantum Computing. Are we clear yet?

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2011, 06:03 PM (This post was last modified: 14-06-2011 06:07 PM by sy2502.)
RE: Biocentrism
(14-06-2011 05:02 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(13-06-2011 10:49 AM)sy2502 Wrote:  
(10-06-2011 10:13 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(09-06-2011 10:49 AM)sy2502 Wrote:  Now what you want to do with all that information is up to you.

Yeah, I'm gonna keep going with my gut ... but you do what you need to.

So that we are clear... you are going to disregard facts because they don't agree with your intuition? Huh

The nice thing about science as opposed to religion is that it is self-correcting. But outside of mathematics and logic, science doesn't talk about "facts" (and it doesn't even call them that there, instead it speaks in terms of theorems, lemmas, axioms, and proofs). Science is all about "hypotheses" and "theories" to explain observations of ever increasing fidelity.
Very well, you don't want to call them facts, you want to call them observations. Fine, no problem. I suppose you are also aware of the fact that scientific theories are models to explain a category of observations. You should also know that if observations consistently contradict a theory, the theory is on very shaky grounds.
Ok, so let's see, you presented the hypothesis that consciousness is the only thing that can collapse the wave function, therefore consciousness is more fundamental than physics. I presented to you observations, which are that
- We can't consciously observe wave function collapse because the subatomic realm is not accessible to our senses, what we see is the macroscopic result of interaction of such collapse with other physical but non conscious systems which are accessible to our senses.
- The observed results of the collapse happen whether people are in the same room in which the experiment is conducted or not, whether the data is analyzed in real time or months later. In other words, whether there is a conscious being present or not.
- There are also plenty of instances in which people ARE in the room observing the experiment, and no collapse happens. See the double slit experiment.
These observations are all incompatible with your hypothesis. Hence I question the validity of your hypothesis.

Quote:So yes, I am gonna keep running with my intuitions, especially when I see scientific "theories" trying their damnedest to catch up to what I always felt in my gut. And while I'm not a Physicist, I am a grossly overpaid overeducated Computer Scientist who has the privilege of working with Physicists doing some crazy-ass shit with Quantum Computing. Are we clear yet?
Perfectly. My objections to the validity of your hypothesis still stand.

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2011, 08:53 PM
RE: Biocentrism
(14-06-2011 06:03 PM)sy2502 Wrote:  Very well, you don't want to call them facts, you want to call them observations. Fine, no problem. I suppose you are also aware of the fact that scientific theories are models to explain a category of observations.

I am.

(14-06-2011 06:03 PM)sy2502 Wrote:  Perfectly. My objections to the validity of your hypothesis still stand.

But I have no hypothesis. ... just a gut feeling.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: