Consciousness and QP
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-01-2015, 03:04 PM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 02:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-01-2015 12:21 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  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.

Uh, Chas? The Chemist was saying that you pointed out the problem to the OP, whose work needed to be shown...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2015, 03:10 PM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 03:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-01-2015 02:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  You did? Where?


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.

Uh, Chas? The Chemist was saying that you pointed out the problem to the OP, whose work needed to be shown...

Need more caffeine.FacepalmWeeping

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
15-01-2015, 03:28 PM
RE: Consciousness and QP
Well it was nice running in circles with you guys. Nothing has been stated here with proof to refute my argument. Nothing that any of you have said is in any way irrefutable. It is your opinion that the Copenhagen interpretation is incorrect, and that's ok. But that doesn't make it incorrect.

Ultimately time will tell which model is correct and if a mechanistic universe does or does not exist. Currently all science has proven is how to measure how this system (universe) behaves. Fundamentally they do not know. To think that our primitive sciences have somehow come up with a model that explains everything is laughable.

The big questions who are we? Where are we? Is there a God? Haven't been answered even to the slightest degree by any of your arguments. In your opinion, not enough evidence has been shown to prove Gods existence...and it's perfectly ok to think that. But before you blast religion, come with a better argument than " I've never seen God" as if God is another human being, or even better "we need to detect God via some primitive human made scientific process in order to believe that the universe had a creator". These arguments make me want to punch a wall.

My argument is simply that consciousness is fundamental to reality. Instead of being the result of some mundane processes that occur within the tissues of the physical brain. No device currently can in any way claim to measure or detect consciousness. Such people who claim to do so have no idea what they are talking about, or what they are measuring.

You have dealt zero blows to my theory, have presented no substantial evidence refuting it, and in realizing this resort to mockery.

I close with this: let time tell which theories emerge regarding reality, until then keep an open mind, try to expand your worldview beyond the tiny confines of the scientific method.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2015, 03:33 PM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 03:28 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Well it was nice running in circles with you guys. Nothing has been stated here with proof to refute my argument. Nothing that any of you have said is in any way irrefutable. It is your opinion that the Copenhagen interpretation is incorrect, and that's ok. But that doesn't make it incorrect.

Ultimately time will tell which model is correct and if a mechanistic universe does or does not exist. Currently all science has proven is how to measure how this system (universe) behaves. Fundamentally they do not know. To think that our primitive sciences have somehow come up with a model that explains everything is laughable.

The big questions who are we? Where are we? Is there a God? Haven't been answered even to the slightest degree by any of your arguments. In your opinion, not enough evidence has been shown to prove Gods existence...and it's perfectly ok to think that. But before you blast religion, come with a better argument than " I've never seen God" as if God is another human being, or even better "we need to detect God via some primitive human made scientific process in order to believe that the universe had a creator". These arguments make me want to punch a wall.

My argument is simply that consciousness is fundamental to reality. Instead of being the result of some mundane processes that occur within the tissues of the physical brain. No device currently can in any way claim to measure or detect consciousness. Such people who claim to do so have no idea what they are talking about, or what they are measuring.

You have dealt zero blows to my theory, have presented no substantial evidence refuting it, and in realizing this resort to mockery.

I close with this: let time tell which theories emerge regarding reality, until then keep an open mind, try to expand your worldview beyond the tiny confines of the scientific method.

You haven't supported your ideas with any evidence, and now you go full pigeon.

[Image: 1911887_472121082913705_1194146690_n1.jpg]

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
[+] 7 users Like Chas's post
15-01-2015, 03:42 PM (This post was last modified: 15-01-2015 04:04 PM by gofish!.)
RE: Consciousness and QP
(14-01-2015 10:40 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Ok friends, I am back and attempt to clear up any misconceptions that may have been presented in the last thread, and give you a more thorough explanation of what I am saying. I also hope this time I don't stir up another angry mob like I did in my last post.

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

These four values are the key way to QP. 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.

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.

A neutron is 10^-15 meters in diameter. A Planck unit of length is 10^-35 meters. That means a neutron contains something on the order of 10^60 Planck volumes. 10^60 would be written out as
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00​0

Therefore if you could imagine a tiny sphere of 10^-35 meters, you could fit that many of them inside a single neutron, and no two of these tiny regions share the same 'now' the same 'present', the same instant in time. Each one of them is either or both, in the past or the future with respect to every other, and at is true all the way out to a scale of infinite distance. That's just one neutron. In addition, the neutron contains something on the order of 10^60 isolated regions of space-time no two of which share the same instantaneous present, the neutron itself is smeared out over space-time.

However, a wave-function has no actual substance. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

But this argument omits the dust between stars which presumably have no one watching over them to 'paint them into being.' This is the argument. If no one is there to count the dust particles between the stars, are they there when no one is watching?

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.

If you try to eliminate consciousness from the system, even a hypothetical one, nothing happens; you don't even know that nothing happens. (Vulcan Metaphysics: Nothing unreal exists...)
This seems like a childishly simple argument. It is. That is the point. Anything else requires processes and math so bizarre and complex that it appears a desperate set of infinite bandages to latch together, and still does not work, leaves huge gaps, paradoxes, and impossibilities. That is why there has been 50 years of theory with nothing to show in hand, using budgets and machinery unprecedented in human history.

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'.

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.

It is proven mathematically and by experimentation that true and actual progression of time as we know It is governed by the observer and his eyes on it, eyes of it concept of the Quantum Zeno Effect and Wave Function Collapse. On a macroscopic scale, this application of Consciousness to Wave function Collapse, call it what you will, if you like, doesn't seem apparent. You can't roll a lucky 7 every time or win the lottery by sheer will. Why? There is sill debate 'why' because the founders of QP died before they could reach the answer. We know it has something to do with scale, but that definition is mechanistic and ultimately vague, since the only definition for 'scale' in QP is infinity.

I think if we look at the term 'scale' and combine it with what Amit Goswami (physicist) once said something to the effect of: "on a larger scale there is not just myself, there is everybody else, too. If we all willed the lights to be green at the same time because we are all in a hurry the result would be all the cars crashing into each other, chaos, not order."

Consciousness brings order out of chaos

The word order explicitly requires populations of things and/or events. So does chaos. The definition for chaos is when those things and/or events have no relationship with one another.

Some researchers might argue that the 'forces' that cause wave function collapse come somehow out of the physical tissue of the brain. Probabilities that are composed of absolute pure nothingness (matter) don't yield possibilities that occur with certainty, it's mathematically the other way around, and irreversible. In simpler terms, a trillion, trillion, trillion Wave Functions superpositioned throughout space-time do not mechanistically deconstruct all on their own a trillion trillion trillion trillion times per second all on their own to 'paint you into existence'. This becomes even more far fetched if the suggestion is that this occurs because of probability.

In perspective, as previously stated, our single neutron consists of 10^60 isolated regions of space time. A single flower would increase that by at least 20 orders of magnitude. This means in order to 'paint a single flower into being' just once would require 10^80 organized events occurring from absolute pure nothingness superpositioned throughout space time, chaos, 10^40 times, meaning 10^120; one hundred million trillion googol organized events occurring out of pure chaos to 'paint' the dynamic system we observe as a single flower for one second, BY CHANCE.?

The cause of that is then supposedly CHANCE, 10^120 of them every second, occurring in perfect capitulation and harmony with its own dynamic atomic and molecular structure, and every other thing in its environment from the bug on its petal out to cosmological distances where the light reflects off it's surface and races off into space.

Moreover, the argument turns to, "I know that sounds crazy, but that's the whacky world of..."

Give it up. We already know that the more simple answer and the one that actually has hard data is correct. Plug consciousness into the equation and the madness is solved. This physical world is interdependent on you. And that description is also suitable within the frameworks of every philosophy and religion of man. "The Whacky world of" explanation has been half a century and billions of dollars and come up completely empty handed.

So the physical brain is in itself, as I stated in my last post, a myriad of Wave Function Collapse, as a result of Consciousness, this is not up for speculation or philosophy but the hardest science yet known to man. In order for it (the physical brain) to exist in space-time as matter, in his case a physical brain- requires consciousness to paint that Brian into being via Wave Function Collapse (via a non mechanistic approach). The brain therefore cannot possibly be responsible for the effect of wave function collapse. Again, there is no brain, that 'thing' only exists as a construct of consciousness. This is not open to debate-period.

Now I will dismiss several common counter arguments to and describe why they fail. This in turn means that the physical brain cannot mathematically, or by any coherent function of the laws of physics, produce certainty. This means that it is mathematically incoherent that the physical brain can cause consciousness. It is not possible.

THEORIES OF THE BRAIN
There are a number of brain theories that have been put forth that simply do not work.

One such refers to 'microtubule' structures in the brain being the seat of anything quantum, the scaffold for this hypothesis was dismissed half a century before the creators ideas were born. In perspective, a microtubule is in diameter, relative to size on a quantum scale, as a man floating in a volume of space 10,000 times larger than the visible universe, hoping to 'interact' with the edge of that visible universe. There is no possibility whatsoever that a Quantum event can interact with the structure of a microtubule. All attempts to find this, what is referred to as 'Hall Effect,' have clearly indicated that it does not occur. As for the statement 'there have been no serious blows to this theory' I state, clearly, 'the laws of physics dismissed the theory half a century before It was suggested. The entire premise is based on an erroneous description of Quantum Scale events and a complete misunderstanding of the role of the structure of he brain along with no data other than speculation that is based on completely erroneous misconceptions in Quantum theory.

Misidentifying vocabulary words of this sort have lead people on life long careers searching down folly simply based on the misidentification of a vocabulary word. This hypothesis and others have shown up in popular urban myth breeding grounds such as 'prime time' serial documentaries and so on, all of which invariably home in on the nonsensical, deliberately, because the fiction is more compelling to draw in a viewing audience. However, the correct answer that you already know within yourself to be true is yet more compelling: you are in every sense of the word a god, creating the world around you and manipulating it at will.

And for those who will say "he's using deception!!! Slight of hand!!" Or accuse me of getting the formal definitions wrong. I encourage you, no, I BEG you to look it up on your own. Make sure I'm right if you don't believe me.

This is you, mmhm1234...




"I don't mind being wrong...it's a time I get to learn something new..."
Me.
N.B: I routinely make edits to posts to correct grammar or spelling, or to restate a point more clearly. I only notify edits if they materially change meaning.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2015, 03:49 PM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 03:28 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  The big questions who are we?
Human beings.
(15-01-2015 03:28 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Where are we?
This is planet Earth. (Bop, bop bop, bop bop, bop, bop ba)
(15-01-2015 03:28 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Is there a God?
There could be. No conclusive evidence for one yet.
(15-01-2015 03:28 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Haven't been answered even to the slightest degree by any of your arguments
Answered! What do I win?! Clap

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes LostLocke's post
15-01-2015, 03:56 PM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 03:28 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Well it was nice running in circles with you guys. Nothing has been stated here with proof to refute my argument. Nothing that any of you have said is in any way irrefutable. It is your opinion that the Copenhagen interpretation is incorrect, and that's ok. But that doesn't make it incorrect.

Ultimately time will tell which model is correct and if a mechanistic universe does or does not exist. Currently all science has proven is how to measure how this system (universe) behaves. Fundamentally they do not know. To think that our primitive sciences have somehow come up with a model that explains everything is laughable.

The big questions who are we? Where are we? Is there a God? Haven't been answered even to the slightest degree by any of your arguments. In your opinion, not enough evidence has been shown to prove Gods existence...and it's perfectly ok to think that. But before you blast religion, come with a better argument than " I've never seen God" as if God is another human being, or even better "we need to detect God via some primitive human made scientific process in order to believe that the universe had a creator". These arguments make me want to punch a wall.

My argument is simply that consciousness is fundamental to reality. Instead of being the result of some mundane processes that occur within the tissues of the physical brain. No device currently can in any way claim to measure or detect consciousness. Such people who claim to do so have no idea what they are talking about, or what they are measuring.

You have dealt zero blows to my theory, have presented no substantial evidence refuting it, and in realizing this resort to mockery.

I close with this: let time tell which theories emerge regarding reality, until then keep an open mind, try to expand your worldview beyond the tiny confines of the scientific method.

Translation:
Everything I've stated in two long threads was bullshit, and I have no evidence to support it.
I also lied about knowing anything about Quantum Physics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
15-01-2015, 04:01 PM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 03:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-01-2015 03:04 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Uh, Chas? The Chemist was saying that you pointed out the problem to the OP, whose work needed to be shown...

Need more caffeine.FacepalmWeeping

Maybe I need less caffeine. Consider

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, 04:04 PM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 03:28 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Well it was nice running in circles with you guys. Nothing has been stated here with proof to refute my argument.

Because none of you converted to christianity, your all wrong therefor god and I win.



Quote:Nothing that any of you have said is in any way irrefutable.

I lack the ability to understand anything you wrote to me.

Quote:It is your opinion that the Copenhagen interpretation is incorrect, and that's ok. But that doesn't make it incorrect.
I just learned what personal incredulity is 5 minutes ago, therefor, I will claim you don't understand, therefor, I am correct.


Quote:Ultimately time will tell which model is correct and if a mechanistic universe does or does not exist.
Blah blah Mechanistic universe ( whatever the fuck that means ) time will tell you I was right.


Quote:Currently all science has proven is how to measure how this system (universe) behaves. Fundamentally they do not know. To think that our primitive sciences have somehow come up with a model that explains everything is laughable.
Science don't know shit but I DO!


Quote:The big questions who are we? Where are we? Is there a God? Haven't been answered even to the slightest degree by any of your arguments. In your opinion, not enough evidence has been shown to prove Gods existence...and it's perfectly ok to think that. But before you blast religion, come with a better argument than " I've never seen God" as if God is another human being, or even better "we need to detect God via some primitive human made scientific process in order to believe that the universe had a creator". These arguments make me want to punch a wall.
This argument is false because you are too fucking stupid to know the difference between blasting the idea of a universal creator and blasting the actual religion itself. We have already proven every ideology, thought, idea, faith, belief, religion and philosophy that has anything to do with a universal designer to exist completely fucking false a billion times over. Does that mean there isn't one completely? well, not exactly. Does that mean your religion is completely false and everything you say or think or believe in is not only immoral, false and the single biggest detriment to all life on the planet? You bet it does!



Quote:My argument is simply that consciousness is fundamental to reality.
Pretty sure we have fucking told you a billion times already that it is NOT! Reality is not dependent on our consciousness. Its the other way around you dingle bat!



Quote:Instead of being the result of some mundane processes that occur within the tissues of the physical brain. No device currently can in any way claim to measure or detect consciousness. Such people who claim to do so have no idea what they are talking about, or what they are measuring.
There is a ton of research on what consciousness is. We know what it is. We are working on putting it into a computer so we can be immortal. We will hopefully perfect it within the next 50 years or so. Within our lifetimes, we will be able to implant it into a computer and when someone wants to talk to you, they boot up you( the program) and viola!



Quote:You have dealt zero blows to my theory, have presented no substantial evidence refuting it, and in realizing this resort to mockery.


In other words, since I came here with no intention of believing a single word any of you said and had the full expectation to have shown all of you my profound impossible to refuse evidence that I came up with by myself and you all rejected it. You must be false because there is no way I am wrong.


Quote:I close with this: let time tell which theories emerge regarding reality, until then keep an open mind, try to expand your worldview beyond the tiny confines of the scientific method.

Because we all know there is better ways to understand the universe then the proven scientific method.

WOW this guy is a fucking dumb ass.


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, 04:15 PM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 03:28 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  My argument is simply that consciousness is fundamental to reality.

Consciousness is fundamental only to the reality of the one with the consciousness. Drinking Beverage

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: