Consciousness and QP
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-01-2015, 12:40 PM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 12:07 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(15-01-2015 11:46 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Yeah, I'm not reading all that shit. tl;dr.

OP has glaring fundamental comprehension issues re: quantum mechanics. Read a book.

If they are so glaring, please, enlighten me as to what these glaring issues are?

Well; let's start at the beginning.

(14-01-2015 10:40 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  So what exactly is quantum physics?
There a four primary quantities in QP
1) Planck's constant 'h'
h=6.26x10^-34 joule seconds or watt seconds

2) energy
Energy= h X frequency

3)Planck length, the smallest divisible slice of space allowable in our universe-space is not infinitely divisible
P=1.6X10^-35 meters

4)Planck time-the smallest divisible slice of time allowable in our universe

Uh oh. Not a good start, "friend", seeing as the above is just nonsense...

Planck's constant is a ratio between units of frequency and units of energy. Your first two points are not only equivalent, but meaningless. But that's okay; on to three and four!

So-called Planck "units" aren't really a feature of elementary quantum mechanics but quantum field theory. "Allowable" is also entirely the wrong word, as it happens. But quantum field theory is merely the inevitable (if complicated) extension of the precepts of quantum theory: things are quantised. It is not physically consistent for some but not all physical parameters to be quantised; not that either the Planck length and time are on the order of any interaction we've ever observed or considered.

You don't seem to be aware of the true nature of time quantisation, either, judging from the following:
(14-01-2015 10:40 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Space, time, and energy are not infinitely divisible, not 'smooth'. Time does not run smooth like it seems to on our macroscopic scale, but occurs in tiny 'ticks' of 10^-44 seconds, like a movie projector, and it is impossible to view any transition from one tick to the next.

Observing transitions is precisely why we say such quantisation exists.

The only sense in which time is meaningful is to differentiate between distinct observable states (in the quantum sense - there is a related but not immediately pertinent statistical mechanics definition). How, then are states differentiated? By some means of interaction. If it's us (humans) doing so we call that specifically an "observation" but interaction is by far the better word; interaction leads to decoherence regardless of the existence of any particular "observing" human. Indeed, "observer" and "observation" are long-since deprecated as useful vocabulary, precisely because of the conflatory confusion they engender in the ignorant.

So: interaction boils down to an exchange of energy. To "observe" or "measure" something requires some interaction. If energy is quantised - and, recall, this is the fundamental assumption of quantum mechanics, with over a century of extraordinary experimental confirmation - then it must follow that time is as well.
(I could alternately say that time and energy are fundamentally non-commuting operators, but you don't seem so up on the whole maths thing)

But oh, sweet saucy Spaghetti Monster, you're not done yet. Well; let us proceed!
(14-01-2015 10:40 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Another interesting feature of QP is that each quantum scale event does not share a common present with any other quantum scale event; they are isolated from one another in space and time.

I can't even tell what that is supposed to mean. There is, trivially, relativistic separation between any two interactions. But suffice to say no, in practice truly isolated systems are a theoretical construct, with a potential example being the entire universe as a whole, but potentially not even including that.

(14-01-2015 10:40 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  However, a wave-function has no actual substance.

All quantum objects exist as wave functions. I'm fairly sure protons have substance.

(14-01-2015 10:40 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  In my opinion, the definition of a wave function being pure absolute nothingness with infinite potential throughout space is the best definition I've heard.

That's not even coherent.

(14-01-2015 10:40 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Otherwise, we regard the wave function as being some 'thing' with substance, which can be segmented in such a way hat it can be wave function COLLAPSE. First, we have to define what a wave is. A wave is not a thing. In fact, a wave function is more accurately described as pure absolute nothingness with infinite potential to be something, anything and everything throughout the Universe, from its creation 14 billion years ago to its endpoint thousands of trillions of years from now, simultaneously. A wave is a probability that something might exist and/or a probability of what that state might be.

Deepity. Deepity everywhere.

Wave functions exhibit probabilistic distributions. And, as Deepak Chopra taught us, quantum mechanics means anything can happen at any time for no reason. No, wait, that was just a joke from a cartoon. Moving on.

(14-01-2015 10:40 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  The common misconception is to think of a wave like a water wave, which is a thing, it is tangible. But there's not actually anything to a quantum wave, by definition, a quantum wave is pure nothingness with infinite potential, which means there is nothing to matter. In fact, any type of quantum wave can appear out of total nothingness--the probability of a wave, which is a probability in itself, increases as you look at smaller and smaller slices of time. This wave function, which evolves out of absolute pure nothingness, is an infinite set of potentials spread out over all of space and time simultaneously. In one sense you can see that a thing spread out throughout all of space-time from 'The Beginning' to some indefinite end can gather, like the perfect storm, a huge amount of energy and thus manifest in an unthinkable variation of outcomes.

"Misconception" implies you can prove otherwise.

Hint: this long rambling affair is not exactly proving otherwise.

A genuinely reasoned scientific explanation that even begins to resolve questions regarding the meanings and interpretations of quantum mechanics would be revolutionary. Tell me; where have you published?

(14-01-2015 10:40 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Wave function collapse simply means that this infinite possibilities spread out over space and time 'collapse' into one reality. Before the wave function collapses, regardless of descriptions referring to or negating the role of consciousness, the thing is in a state referred to as 'superpositioned'. Because of a quality or process of 'non-locality'. This is the relationship between those three words. We say the process or quality of non-locality leaves a wave function 'superpositioned' throughout space time until it collapses into one tangible thing.

There is no such thing as "infinite" possibility. Probability density is closed, and indeed some distributions (i.e., a double slit experiment) are known exactly.

"Collapse" is, like "observer", a bad term. Nor is there any reason to suppose quantum mechanics to be non-local - all such tests have been negative.

(14-01-2015 10:40 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  What happens depends on who is looking at it, and what you expect to happen. Some argue that the conditions of the environment, regardless of the observer, must come into play at least to some degree. However, that assumption omits the fact that the conscious observer is also subject to the same environment, even if separated by great time and distance.

If by "some" argue that, you mean "all competent scientists over the last century" , then yes. "Some" say that.

An observer at great time and space remove is not actually observing an event. They are observing the consequences of an event as they propagate.
(although technically all "observation" is at some remove, as inevitably follows from relativity - there is no such thing as instantaneity)

Might I propose to you, trivially, that for most of the history of the universe there were no "observers"? And yet things still happened...

(14-01-2015 10:40 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  You cannot possibly eliminate the conscious observer from the system and by any means know that it is there, or it has happened, and so on. There is no way around this. The CONSCIOUS OBSERVER IS THE SINGLE UNDENIABLE REPEATABLE THING, WHICH IS PRESENT IN EACH EXPERIMENT, each piece of data, everything that you are aware. The conscious observer is always the single common element to each thing known.

Oh, this is a brilliant deepity!

Yes: without a human, no human will know about it. Without a human, there are no human experiments.

(14-01-2015 10:40 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Wave Function a Collapse and it's tributary concepts, although debated what it means, is not a philosophical issue. It is a phenomenon measured so many times under so many circumstances and using he most sophisticated technologies ever conceived by the greatest minds over the past century...Originally, physicists, particularly Einstein, rebuked the idea and all that it implied. However, Einstein died, knowing that he had been proven wrong, and he liked it. He had spent the entire second half of his celebrated life chasing a mechanistic universe that had been proven to 'not exist'.

That's one of the most... unique interpretations of the life of Einstein I've ever heard.
(hint: it's wrong too)

(14-01-2015 10:40 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  The freezing of time by constant observation is the Quantum Zeno Effect. Wave Function collapse is the moment you take your eyes off it--it changes to another, possibly final state. Eyes on--Quantum Zeno Effect; frozen, blink our eyes--wave function collapse, changes to another state.

"Quantum Zeno Effect" is not a thing. Dig? Not. A. Thing. No matter how many Words You Capitalise to try and make it seem like A Big Deal.
(or, to be sure, it may exist in the woo-o-sphere; it does not occur in legitimate scientific literature)

At this point I give up. There are hundreds of words of this shit. At no point does this long, bizarre, Dunning-Kruger exemplar come close to making a good or even coherent point. No, quantum mechanics does not work the way you think it does. Yes, that has been tested so far as it's possible. No, it is not possible to test everything. No, this does not mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever shit you like.

Oh, but for a final bonus:
(14-01-2015 10:40 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Consciousness brings order out of chaos

Consciousness exists an an emergent phenomenon in biological systems and requires an energy input to maintain. Local order exists at the cost of universal entropy.

Or have you not only overturned all of quantum mechanics but all of thermodynamics as well?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like cjlr's post
15-01-2015, 12:43 PM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 12:11 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(15-01-2015 11:46 AM)pablo Wrote:  That's it?
You can't comprehend how the universe can exist without a creator so you made up some crap that supports your beliefs?
That's original.
Why can't things occur by chance? Why is it that creationists can't fathom coincidences.
To me, ramdom chance is far more plausible than jumping through all your hoops to explain a cosmic creator.
Do you have even the slightest clue how many times we've had this line of bullshit repackaged and regurgitated for us?
Enough already, go puke on someone else's shoes.
We're all still waiting to hear where you got your "extensive physics background " btw.

I haven't heard a damn thing from you that isn't purely ideological. I described how consciousness is the thing that brings order out of chaos. No consciousness = no finely tuned universe. You say my theories hold no weight when yours don't either.

The science you worship merely describes the workings, the rules, the laws of the system. It has NOTHING to say on what consciousness is, how order can come out of chaos, and how the universe was formed.

Your argument isn't ideological?
You are hiding your emotional ideology behind a facade of quatum physics.
The reason all the 'other scientists' you claim don't try to use QP to explain consciousness is because there is no working way to test it.
Again, you have created a flawed hypothesis to try to explain away what you don't like.

"No consciousness = no finely tuned universe."
This is a simple argument from ignorance, you can't comprehend it, so it must be wrong.

I don't claim to know what consciousness is, because I don't fucking know. You don't know either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
15-01-2015, 12:51 PM
RE: Consciousness and QP
Your arguments make as much sense as this video.





My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Shadow Fox's post
15-01-2015, 12:53 PM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 12:39 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  The Copenhagen interpretation of QP agrees entirely with what I am saying. And the problem is you guys still don't understand how fundamental the act of observing is in science. The scientists observes the data that is measured. Without his observation=no data! it is only data because consciousness has observed it such. There is no science separate from the conscious observer, you guys act like science has nothing to do with the observer. It does. Nothing can be known unless it is known by a conscious sentient being. There would be no universe if there was no consciousness. Plain and simple.

Modern scientists have the curious habit of trying to explain themselves out of existence. They aren't looking for info that validates them, they are fumbling and looking for the mechanistic universe that doesn't exist.

Perhaps this Facepalm isn't loud enough.

Is this better?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`\

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
15-01-2015, 01:02 PM
RE: Consciousness and QP
ok QP genius, publish your findings
get it peer reviewed
and collect your Nobel Prize

and we all know why the above has yet to happen
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2015, 01:06 PM
RE: Consciousness and QP
WAIT GUYS!!!!! There is a god and he is talking through this guy!!! we were WRONG!!!!! Sadcryface2Sadcryface2

[Image: th?id=HN.608011530949888615&pid=...mp;amp;P=0]

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
15-01-2015, 02:16 PM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 11:18 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(15-01-2015 10:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  I understand quite well. The Copenhagen Interpretation is a minority position among the 27 or so interpretations of QM.

The Copenhagen Interpretation is the interpretation lampooned by Schrödinger with his cat.

You are still confabulating measurement, observation, and consciousness.

The Copenhagen interpretation was the one the founding fathers of QP agreed upon.

No, they didn't. As I pointed out, Schrödinger thought it absurd.

Quote:All the other bizarre interpretations came years later and were ultimately because they didn't accept he Copenhagen interpretation. Such interpretations are bandaged from head to to with ridiculous mathematics that create even more bizarre theories such as the multiple universes spraying out to infinity upon infinity of all "the other outcomes".

The Copenhagen interpretation is one of many and is not a majority position.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2015, 02:17 PM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 11:24 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(15-01-2015 11:21 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  YES!!!!! What the hell do you think I have been asking you for???!!!!!!!

If you have a conclusion, you surely must have done the proofs. Simply scan them in and post them. This really isn't that difficult.

I'll post them tonight I don't have time now...but sure I'd be happy to!!!

I'm not expecting much - you don't even understand that n/0 is undefined.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2015, 02:21 PM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 12:21 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(15-01-2015 10:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  I understand quite well. The Copenhagen Interpretation is a minority position among the 27 or so interpretations of QM.

The Copenhagen Interpretation is the interpretation lampooned by Schrödinger with his cat. You are still confabulating measurement, observation, and consciousness.

Pointed out a problem here.

You did? Where?

Quote:I have repeatedly asked you to show your work. Perhaps, you haven't gotten to that point yet in grade school where you have to turn in your work. Welcome to science, son, it is Thunderdome.

What work? I made statements of fact and provided a link. Just because the Copenhagen interpretation is dear to you does not make it correct.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2015, 02:30 PM
RE: Consciousness and QP
To summarize...

(15-01-2015 12:40 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That's not even coherent.

Also...

[Image: notsayingaliens.png]

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: