Consciousness and QP
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-01-2015, 11:29 AM
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!!!

"You don't have time now"? OK, go run along and watch Power Rangers, kid. Just don't forget to eat your vegetables, wash behind your ears, and let your mommy tuck you in for your afternoon nap. Drinking Beverage

"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, 11:31 AM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 11:29 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(15-01-2015 11:24 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  I'll post them tonight I don't have time now...but sure I'd be happy to!!!

"You don't have time now"? OK, go run along and watch Power Rangers, kid. Just don't forget to eat your vegetables, wash behind your ears, and let your mommy tuck you in for your afternoon nap. Drinking Beverage

Get back to work you slacker.

Also the thing is, even if I present the math, and it is sound and correct, I will be refuted. Why? Because the problem isn't me, its you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2015, 11:40 AM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 11:31 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(15-01-2015 11:29 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  "You don't have time now"? OK, go run along and watch Power Rangers, kid. Just don't forget to eat your vegetables, wash behind your ears, and let your mommy tuck you in for your afternoon nap. Drinking Beverage

Get back to work you slacker.

Also the thing is, even if I present the math, and it is sound and correct, I will be refuted. Why? Because the problem isn't me, its you

I'm eating my lunch. And no, if your math is solid and it demonstrates what you are saying, I will certainly consider it. But I am willing to bet that IS you considering you have demonstrated from your posts that you have not taken the time to learn much about QM.

"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
15-01-2015, 11:46 AM (This post was last modified: 15-01-2015 11:51 AM by pablo.)
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 11:13 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(15-01-2015 10:21 AM)pablo Wrote:  mmhm1234 wrote
Evidence?
According to your statement, you were conscious before you were born or even conceived.
Do you remember that?
Lay some reincarnation on me!

Yes, that is precisely what I mean. You have no access to your memories of your existence prior to this one. But in order for a 'thing' to truly exist it HAS to be eternal. The argument 'I exist now but cease to exist after death' is invalid. It is against the axioms I presented regarding limits at infinity. This entire universe exists in the blink of an eye...it is an infinitesimal. You, your current personality, everything you think of as 'you' is an infinitesimal finite construct. Your thoughts may be a perception, your consciousness is actually an infinite being of infinite scope. You have never not existed. You existed long before this universe was created, and you will exist long after it is gone.

All creation must have a creator I.e. God. As I said in my main body, the mechanistic view that all these extremely complex systems have formed out of inert matter, and have somehow adopted a system of observing themselves...and that this all happened by CHANCE?? That's the best argument you guys can muster? That's it? The probability of such being the case is zero. It is impossible. A mechanistic universe will never be proven, because it simply does not exist.

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.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2015, 11:46 AM
RE: Consciousness and QP
Yeah, I'm not reading all that shit. tl;dr.

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

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
15-01-2015, 12:07 PM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(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?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2015, 12:11 PM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 11:46 AM)pablo Wrote:  
(15-01-2015 11:13 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Yes, that is precisely what I mean. You have no access to your memories of your existence prior to this one. But in order for a 'thing' to truly exist it HAS to be eternal. The argument 'I exist now but cease to exist after death' is invalid. It is against the axioms I presented regarding limits at infinity. This entire universe exists in the blink of an eye...it is an infinitesimal. You, your current personality, everything you think of as 'you' is an infinitesimal finite construct. Your thoughts may be a perception, your consciousness is actually an infinite being of infinite scope. You have never not existed. You existed long before this universe was created, and you will exist long after it is gone.

All creation must have a creator I.e. God. As I said in my main body, the mechanistic view that all these extremely complex systems have formed out of inert matter, and have somehow adopted a system of observing themselves...and that this all happened by CHANCE?? That's the best argument you guys can muster? That's it? The probability of such being the case is zero. It is impossible. A mechanistic universe will never be proven, because it simply does not exist.

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.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2015, 12:21 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?

I do believe that this has been done by at least 3 different people. If you cared to read it.

(15-01-2015 01:01 AM)Rahn127 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.

^You wanted to know what is wrong.
That is wrong.

He explained why quite clearly.

(15-01-2015 09:27 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(15-01-2015 08:58 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Here is the perfect summary of what I am saying, this is from a physics forum

"Here's the problem. Decoherence......

You continue to conflate measurement with conscious observation. You obviously do not understand the nuance of what you posted. Scientists often use the word "observation" or "look" to mean "measurement". There is no implication whatsoever in the various schools of thought on QM that incorporate consciousness into the discussion.

You are guilty of making what Dan Dennett calls a deepity--stating something that has multiple readings, one of which is trivially true, and using the triviality to try to prove something profound.

He also explained.

(15-01-2015 10:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-01-2015 10:03 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Unfortunately you sir don't understand. In the Copenhagen interpretation of QP the conscious observer is paramount. This "discription of information" is only information because somewhere down the line it is observed as such. You cannot think your way out of this...

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.

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.

"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
[+] 2 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
15-01-2015, 12:36 PM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 08:58 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Here is the perfect summary of what I am saying, this is from a physics forum

"Here's the problem. Decoherence can explain with no difficulty how different "pointer positions" of a macro instrument get coupled to certain "quantum outcomes," with no cross-talk (i.e., no interference) between different pointer positions. This is the state of affairs before we look at the outcome of the measurement-- we have only a statistical understanding of the possibilities. The problem comes when we actually look at the pointer ourselves, and at that point, something happens that there is no consensus about in quantum measurement theory. The Copenhagen school says that the statistical prediction is all we can use quantum mechanics for, and the actual looking is something different, something outside the ability of quantum mechanics to describe (expressly because it is outside the ability of quantum mechanics to predict, and Copenhagen likes to equate science with prediction). The many-worlds school says that all the pointer positions actually occur, and each sub-world spawns its own intelligent analyses of their own particular pointer, so each consciousness is trapped by, or born into if you prefer, a kind of coherent sub-world of the incoherent and non-interfering many worlds. You can see how it is a little hard to talk about the differences in these interpretations without talking about consciousnesses. Finally, the third main school is deBroglie-Bohm, which says that there is only one world, and it is computable and deterministic, we just don't have access to the information one needs to do the computation (which is called a "pilot wave" and is not directly observable at present)."

To summarize, the role of consciousness is quite substantially different in the three interpretations. To Copenhagen, consciousness is paramount, because quantum mechanics is just a tool that the consciousness uses to predict outcomes, and some elements of the outcome are simply not describable so must be treated as random. To many worlds, the consciousness is a kind of minor player in the vast array of many worlds (and I do mean vast), because some of the worlds spawn consciousnesses and some don't, and the physics doesn't really care if there's a consciousness in there or not. To deBroglie-Bohm, the consciousness is neither paramount nor minor-- the deterministic physics is the "truth" of the situation, just as in many worlds, but now there is just one world that is being determined, and so that one world must be the home to all the consciousnesses.

The bottom line is, all these interpretations make the same successful predictions, so choosing between them (or ignoring them altogether) is really a matter of personal taste. The choice is very often motivated by how you like to think about the role of consciousness, and that's why consciousness continues to play a key role in, not the predictions of quantum mechanics about measurable outcomes, but in understanding what quantum mechanics is really describing, what it really is.

Read more: http://www.physicsforums.com

Seriously ? You claim "extensive bla bla bla". You you can't even write a simple explanation in your own words. Hmm. Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2015, 12:39 PM
RE: Consciousness and QP
(15-01-2015 12:21 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(15-01-2015 12:07 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  If they are so glaring, please, enlighten me as to what these glaring issues are?

I do believe that this has been done by at least 3 different people. If you cared to read it.

(15-01-2015 01:01 AM)Rahn127 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.

^You wanted to know what is wrong.
That is wrong.

He explained why quite clearly.

(15-01-2015 09:27 AM)BryanS Wrote:  You continue to conflate measurement with conscious observation. You obviously do not understand the nuance of what you posted. Scientists often use the word "observation" or "look" to mean "measurement". There is no implication whatsoever in the various schools of thought on QM that incorporate consciousness into the discussion.

You are guilty of making what Dan Dennett calls a deepity--stating something that has multiple readings, one of which is trivially true, and using the triviality to try to prove something profound.

He also explained.

(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.

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.

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.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: