Consciousness is fundamental to reality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-06-2015, 08:38 AM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
I tend to think his entire point is that he doesn't believe the universe exists as a material, real thing.

It's too complex for him to understand, therefore it MUST be something far more simple.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2015, 08:53 AM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
Possible, but not likely. Too many undefineds at this stage. Consciousness? Reality? Get them things hammered down, we might be able to "chicken -n- egg" 'em; and peeps still don't agree on the chicken thingy... so there it is.

For me, one thing highlighted by this OP is the absurdity of the negative rep system, which looks merely petulant and detracts from the quality of the forum.

(13-06-2015 08:36 AM)Ace Wrote:  I call for an evaluation meeting on whether or not we have enough grounds for mom and the other moderators to ban him

I reiterate my evaluation that anyone who calls for a ban gets banned. Tongue

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2015, 08:55 AM (This post was last modified: 13-06-2015 10:55 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
You have no clue how smart I think I am. What we all know is that YOU are totally ignorant of science and math. Nice try at deflecting from the fact that your nonsense is nothing but crap. The ONLY way to assess this question is to look at intelligent answers to questions posed. You are unable to do that. You're not exactly in a position here to be commenting on this, in light of what and how you're written here.

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Claiming NDEs have been proven by science is simply not true. There are theories, but no solid fact that this is the case

That's all there ever will be. Theories. That all science ever is. NDEs NEVER occur in the absence of a functioning brain. They NEVER occur in healthy normal brains. They NEVER occur in dead brains. That's really all anyone needs to know about NDEs.

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Also, to say consciousness is created by the brain is another lie, and has not been proven by science either.

Consciousness emerges from brains ONLY. There is not one scientist in the entire world that claims it emerges from any other location or function. YOU have provided NO EVIDENCE for any of your bullshit claims. You can't.

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  The brain is merely a sensory organ, a conduit of information. Ask your self, what is perceiving the thoughts, and sensory input the brain is detecting?

It is not a sensory organ. Yet ANOTHER subject we see you never took. Biology. Look up what the sense organs are, child. The brain organizes incoming sensory signals, ... then references them to stored memories, and the output that produces is called "consciousness". Thoughts are "produced" by the brain, not "perceived" by the brain. With no brain, there are no thoughts produced. Dead brains produce nothing. For consciousness you need a live, functioning brain. Consciousness emerges in no other way (... yet anyway... it may happen in a computer some day, perhaps). YOU can show us NO OTHER WAY consciousness is EVER produced. You can't even define what the word means.

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Since you claim the brain creates consciousness i need some citations and peer reviewed scientific articles that i can read which state 'consciousness is made of ___,___, and ___. ' However, I know you wont be able to provide such information because it doesn't exist. Science doesn't know what consciousness is or how it is created.

First your position is incoherent. IF I didn't have any references it would not make your nonsense true. Secondly, lucky for your lazy ass, I have all sorts of them. (What you can't Google ?) you lazy fucker ?
http://www.crystalinks.com/consciousness.html

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Apparently you also don't fundamentally understand what QM has been alluding to for decades either. The Newtonian mechanistic universe does NOT exist. A common basic assumption since Newton is that a "real world" exists independently of us, regardless of whether or not we observe it.

Nope. It's you that does not get what you're even saying. Quantum effects in a brain are not "seen" by an observer, and are irrelevant.

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  This seems to be the view you and many others still hold in regards to physics. Ill give you a brief description here why a mechanistic universe simply does not exist.

Don't bother. Give us PEER REVIEWED articles PROVING there are quantum effects on brains and their effects on consciousness. You can't, and your ignorance of EVERY scientific subject prevents anyone taking anything you say seriously, without references. YOU didn't "give us" anything. You stole every word of this.

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Werner Heisenberg argued that such concepts as orbits of electrons do not exist in nature unless and until we observe them.

That's not what he said. You have no basic understanding of what he DID say, and you cannot reference that nonsense in any publication by him.

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Max Born, however, showed that the "wave function" of Schrodingers equation does not represent the density of charge or matter. It describes only the probability of finding an electron at a certain point. In other words, quantum mechanics cannot give exact results, but only the probabilities for the occurrence of a variety of possible results.

Irrelevant to the subject at hand. You think that sounding all "sciencey" lends credence to your garbage. It doesn't. You are an ignoramus, and don't even understand QM AT ALL.

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Heisenberg took this one step further: he challenged the notion of simple causality in nature, that every determinate cause in nature is followed by the resulting effect.
Translated into "classical physics" this had meant that the future motion of a particle could be exactly predicted from a knowledge of its present position and momentum and all of the forces aging upon it. The uncertainty principle denies this, Heisenberg declared, because one cannot know the precise position and momentum of a particle at given instant, it's future cannot be determined. One cannot calculate the precise future motion of a particle, but only a range of possibilities for the future motion of a particle.

All totally irrelevant to your claims about consciousness. You have not connected any of this to your crap argument.

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  A massive planetary effort by every physicist set about affirming or denying by experimentation and mathematical proof that matter and energy existed as nothing more than probability functions - potentiality, which extended to any system linked to a particular potentiality out to infinity in both space and time - until we look at it. The effort to deny that fact has continued to his day and every effort by the most brilliant minds working together applying the most mind boggling technologies ever conceived have failed to disprove this fact.

All of these things were rigorously criticized and tested in every conceivable way and found to be true. The result was then that there was nothing 'solid' about the world. There is only probabilities and possibilities - no stuff. When you take a close look at what anything and everything really is, there is nothing there, only probability - even energy itself in any form is only probability. In modern terms they use the word potentiality.

At this time in history (the early 20th century), Pauli and Heisenberg were strong advocates to the philosophy that we are the cause of wave function collapse, the change from a potential realm of infinite possibilities to a solid outcome. There no longer was matter, no certainty, and no actual separate things or events throughout all of space-time. All things existed in a multitude possibly infinite set of possibilities and physical locations in space time simultaneously - until we look at it. In addition, at the moment we observe it, all things tied together by any potentiality or possibility with this thing come into being.

"What do you mean nothing is solid??? That's the way it seems!" You are probably thinking.

This is where things get even weirder. The double slit experiment further proved that there is no 'solid' matter but only waves, this is referred to as wave-particle duality. The most baffling part of the double slit experiment comes when only one photon at a time is fired at the barrier with both slits open. The pattern of interference remains the same, as can be seen if many photons are emitted one at a time and recorded on the same sheet of photographic film. The clear implication is that something with a wavelike nature passes simultaneously through both slits and interferes with itself--even though there is only one photon present. It is even more baffling when you do it with small molecules that are supposed to be matter. Isn't matter solid? Performed with particles, such as electrons, a new enigma emerges-- the wave particle nature of matter seems to 'know' that it is being measured by expressing itself as a wave in a wave experiment, but expressing itself as a particle in any particle experiment.

If we try to 'trick' the photon by trying to measure it's whereabouts it ceases being,
Everywhere and becomes a particle with a defined location and path.

Determinism is a view that particles and forces of nature behave in a mechanistic and predictable way, independent of the observer - they would occur that way if no life existed in the universe. This view is totally abolished by the double slit experiments. The view that matter is somehow 'solid and real' is abolished by these experiments. Matter, light, and time are what the observer determines them to be, and have no substance other than what we fashion them to be.

Be not plugging consciousness into the equation we end up with innumerable paradoxes and broken math. We therefore get this younger generation of scientists possibly refuting the philosophical concepts of consciousness and its role in reality, as put forth by the great geniuses of the early 20th century. They, however, are not scientists of such magnitude as their ancestors, and they have no physical evidence or data whatsoever that in any way refutes the philosophies our scientific ancestors laid down. In fact, the evidence and data all conclude that consciousness cannot be eliminated from any system--BY THE VERY FACT THAT THEY LOOK AT THE DATA

This is a reality that they fail to admit. Certainty is a concept that only has meaning with respect to consciousness. A universe with absolutely no observer can have no certainty. Any system on any scale with no observer can have no certainty. Certainty is not possible without consciousness, by definition. Certainty, by definition, is an act of, product of, artifact of, a 'thing' of consciousness. In addition, by definition, without certainty, uncertainty (chaos) remains for infinity, and nothing exists, not even time

First of all the discussion is not about "determinism". All this has NOTHING to do with your unsupported CLAIMS. Obviously you don't even get why. You think somehow this supports your woo. It doesn't. IN ANY WAY. Second, you didn't write any of that. Clearly you plagiarized it. You are not capable of writing that way, as you have demonstrated above. I will find out your source, you dishonest piece of shit and I will "out" you here, to be the dishonest plagiarizer you are.

What you FAIL to get, sport, is that today, there is NO GRAND UNIFICATION THEORY, (yet). You don't have one, nor have you or anyone proposed one. Until there is one, brains are MACRO systems. Quantum effects can be ignored in MACRO systems, (UNTIL AND UNLESS there is a unification theory). There is not one today. Consciousness is OBSERVED ONLY to emerge from complex MACRO biological systems. You have no other example of one to propose. You can't even define what the word "consciousness" means.

The fact that quantum in-determinism does not mean the universe is capriciously random. It still works WITHIN predictable probability parameters. The fact that any given sub-atomic particle cannot be predicted, does not mean macro systems cannot be predicted. The fact that at the QUANTUM LEVEL there is uncertainly does not CHANGE macro observations of large macro systems. Brains are large macro biological systems. Quantum effects can be ignored at this level, (which you would know if you ever really studied the subject).

Fail again.

Try harder.

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
13-06-2015, 09:05 AM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(12-06-2015 06:56 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  I have a hard time subscribing to the view that consciousness is the result of mundane electro chemical processes. This is merely a theory not fact.

To claim that consciousness isn't necessary in my mind is absurd, especially because such a view is coming from a conscious sentient being, the statement is almost non-sequitur.

You cannot possibly eliminate the conscious observer from any system and by any means know 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, each and everything that you are aware of.the conscious observer is always the single common element to each and every thing known.

If you try to eliminate consciousness from the system, even a hypothetical one, nothing happens; you don't even know nothing happens.

Certainty is a perception, it can only be alluding to a conscious observer. Without consciousness there is no certainty.
mmhm1234,

I am responding directly to the OP. My apologies if I raise issues that have already been resolved in the rest of the thread.

If I subscribe to the idea that there is an underlying objective reality, as far I can tell, there are no established facts. Just observations and interpretations. Theories.

Going by dictionary definitions, your assertion that there is no certainty without an observer is a no-brainer.

There are those who will make the argument that in fact there is no objective certainty at all. With or without an observer.

If we agree that the above is nothing new, then perhaps one can rephrase the point I think(and stand to be corrected) you are trying to make thus

"The things that are observed to happen do not happen if there is no observer".
or
"The things that are observed to happen, happen because there is an observer".

It's obvious from a scientific perspective that this is an invalid hypothesis. Because it is untestable.

A better approach might be to ask about the things that I as an observer do not observe, but someone else does. On what basis does one establish they really happen?

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2015, 09:11 AM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(12-06-2015 06:56 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  I have a hard time subscribing to the view that consciousness is the result of mundane electro chemical processes. This is merely a theory not fact.
No one cares, nor is it relevant, that you have a hard time accepting reality. And yes it IS a fact. Not only are "electro chemical processes" demonstrably evident they are malleable and can be modified. This has been a demonstrated fact for years now. A persons consciousness can be completely altered through material means.
More importantly however is that you can find that hard to believe but you have provided NOTHING int he way of demonstrable, testable, or falsifiable evidence for anything involving consciousness outside the brain and it's workings and as such have no good reason to believe it works any way other then in accordance with the material world.
You can just make up shit, that's not an explanation it's delusion and you don't get to declare things not a fact because you don't like them.

(12-06-2015 06:56 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  To claim that consciousness isn't necessary in my mind is absurd, especially because such a view is coming from a conscious sentient being, the statement is almost non-sequitur.
Again..no one fucking cares, nor is it relevant that, you find something absurd especially something which has been demonstrably true for years. It's also not a view Skippy it's a FACT, we are not stating our faith or belief that mater can, and has existed, independent of consciousness is a scientific fact.
You also seem to have no idea what a non-sequitur is because "a conscious being saying consciousness in not required" is not anywhere near the definition of a non-sequitur.

(12-06-2015 06:56 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  You cannot possibly eliminate the conscious observer from any system and by any means know it is there, or it has happened, and so on.
Facts don't cease to be factual just because there is no one around to catalog them.

(12-06-2015 06:56 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  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, each and everything that you are aware of.the conscious observer is always the single common element to each and every thing known.
We don't need a way around that because it's a pointless observation completely unconnected from the reality of space and time. Things don't suddenly become real because we observe them or test them. Plants would still operate the way planets do because physics operates on natural principles and those principles and laws don't require consciousness to operate. If you disagree you are welcome to PROVE that is not the case, but your "what ifs" and " I'm too stupid to grasp its" are not proof. Provide evidence for your hypothesis, the scientific community has been providing evidence for a materialistic universe for thousands of years.

(12-06-2015 06:56 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  If you try to eliminate consciousness from the system, even a hypothetical one, nothing happens; you don't even know nothing happens.
Wrong, removing an observer from a system just means the system goes unobserved. It does not mean the system no longer functions and you can provide no evidence in support of your idiotic nonsense. A ball rolls down hill regardless of if there is an observer or not and this is plainly obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of physics. Which is why I'm having to explain it to you.

(12-06-2015 06:56 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Certainty is a perception, it can only be alluding to a conscious observer. Without consciousness there is no certainty.
Your point being? The universe continues to operate independently of consciousness regardless of you liking that fact or not. Reality does not cease to operate the second there is no one to observe it. Deal with it.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2015, 09:18 AM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(12-06-2015 07:12 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Consciousness has exists at least since the beginning of the universe

Provide evidence for this claim and keep in mind that evidence is demonstrable, testable, independently verifiable, and falsifiable. It is however NOT made up bullshit, personal ignorance manifested on a keyboard, or a collection of "what ifs" and " I can't imagines otherwises".

Evidence shit head, provide it.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2015, 09:24 AM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
(12-06-2015 06:56 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  You cannot possibly eliminate the conscious observer from any system and by any means know it is there, or it has happened, and so on.

Not knowing something exists or that some event happened is not the same as that thing existing or happening. You need the conscious observer to have something that "knows" the system exists or the event has happened but that's tautological and not some deep insight. The primacy of existence has proven to be a useful axiom and if you want to undermine it you'll need something much stronger than the fact that it doesn't make sense to you.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2015, 09:32 AM (This post was last modified: 13-06-2015 09:38 AM by epronovost.)
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
con·scious·ness
ˈkän(t)SHəsnəs/
noun
1) the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
2) the awareness or perception of something by a person.
3) the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.

These are the definitions of consciousness in the English language. The first two are directly linked to senses and the interpretation of the brain of the information received by those senses. That's why you can be qualified of unconscious when you are knocked out. According to the first two definitions, if you can't react and interact with your environment, you are deprived of consciousness. A blind person can be unconscious of the presence of furniture in a room until he touches them. The furniture don't pop into existence when he senses them. They were always there, he just became conscious of their presence. I don't think you will seriously reject those uses of the word consciousness and the implication that in those circumstances, consciousness is directly linked to the brain.

The third definition is the tricky one. In that form, the word consciousness means the exact same think than self-awareness. We know it's a thing exclusive to living systems like animals and maybe even plants. Rocks, water, cloud aren't conscious since they can't react to the environment thus they can't be aware of the world. You need to be capable to make a difference between you and the rest of the world to achieve consciousness according to the third definition. Thus, it's very doubtful that plants or very simple bacteria can be qualified of conscious even if they are alive. You need sensory organs and the tools to decode their signals to make the difference between you and the rest of the world, you need a brain (or at least a primitive form of it) to have consciousness. What science has no clue about is when consciousness arise from the brain and a way to identify it. There is no real question if it's a product of the brain or not, of course it is. It's always dependant of it in all our observations. The question is when consciousness is achieved by a living creature and good way to identify it.

From what I can understand of your hypothesis, you are conflating consciousness and the idea of a soul or ka. You are giving an undemonstrated propriety to consciousness: the idea that our senses, emotions AND our thoughts which allow our ability to form a consciousness can exist outside of our brain and body, that they can be eternal and have the power to create reality. Personally, since this claim is extraordinary, you need very solid evidence that this is not only possible, but that it's actually the case. For that, you would need to find solid example of consciousness outside of the brain or without a brain that can be examined and recorded. Then, you would need to demonstrate that these form of consciousness are eternal. Then that they are capable of creating or at least interacting with matter. Has of now, near death experience are very, very weak since many explanations have been found which deny the existence of consciousness outside the brain and no ghost story have been demonstrated has true and all the best ones were identified formerly has demonstrably false. Because there is no evidence to support your extraordinary claim and plenty of evidence to support that it's not the case, it must be discarded has false until new evidence allows us to reconsider its status. In the end you may be right (I don't believe so), but it would be stupid and wishful to claim so with our current knowledge.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2015, 09:34 AM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
This thread is causing me to lose consciousness. Sad

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2015, 10:23 AM
RE: Consciousness is fundamental to reality
I saw this OP last night and was all "NOPE NOPE NOPE"... But we all know the sad risks of rubbernecking at a stupendous trainwreck.

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Claiming NDEs have been proven by science is simply not true. There are theories, but no solid fact that this is the case. Also, to say consciousness is created by the brain is another lie, and has not been proven by science either. The brain is merely a sensory organ, a conduit of information. Ask your self, what is perceiving the thoughts, and sensory input the brain is detecting?

If the brain does not play a role in consciousness, why does brain damage affect cognition?

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Since you claim the brain creates consciousness i need some citations and peer reviewed scientific articles that i can read which state 'consciousness is made of ___,___, and ___. ' However, I know you wont be able to provide such information because it doesn't exist. Science doesn't know what consciousness is or how it is created.

"Science doesn't know therefore I do," in other words.

That's idiotic when theists try it, and it's idiotic when you try it. What else ya got?

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Apparently you also don't fundamentally understand what QM has been alluding to for decades either. The Newtonian mechanistic universe does NOT exist. A common basic assumption since Newton is that a "real world" exists independently of us, regardless of whether or not we observe it.

Oh, good. We're going to play quantum woo-woo roulette now, aren't we?

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  This seems to be the view you and many others still hold in regards to physics. Ill give you a brief description here why a mechanistic universe simply does not exist.

Mechanistic <> classical. Quantum mechanics is entirely mechanistic. Those mechanics are statistical but no less absolute for it.

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Werner Heisenberg argued that such concepts as orbits of electrons do not exist in nature unless and until we observe them.

He argued no such thing.

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Max Born, however, showed that the "wave function" of Schrodingers equation does not represent the density of charge or matter. It describes only the probability of finding an electron at a certain point. In other words, quantum mechanics cannot give exact results, but only the probabilities for the occurrence of a variety of possible results.

Those probabilities are exact. They simply reflect the nature of reality at that level - that is, it is comprised of interacting probability density functions.

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Heisenberg took this one step further: he challenged the notion of simple causality in nature, that every determinate cause in nature is followed by the resulting effect.
Translated into "classical physics" this had meant that the future motion of a particle could be exactly predicted from a knowledge of its present position and momentum and all of the forces aging upon it. The uncertainty principle denies this, Heisenberg declared, because one cannot know the precise position and momentum of a particle at given instant, it's future cannot be determined. One cannot calculate the precise future motion of a particle, but only a range of possibilities for the future motion of a particle.

Quantum mechanics - and do note that quantum mechanics is just a theory, like all other scientific explanations; you don't get to call things "just a theory" when you disagree with them and pretend they're immaculate, perfect knowledge when you do agree with them - suggests that microscopic interactions are fundamentally probabilistic in nature.

This does not mean they are not deterministic. This does not mean they cannot be known precisely. This does not mean that statistical ensembles do not lead to effectively absolute thermodynamic evolutions.

A gas in a vacuum will expand to fill the vacuum. The individual motions of each particle are subject to chaotic variation. The collective behaviour of the gas is precisely and exactly predicable.

You still have not made any actual points.

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  A massive planetary effort by every physicist set about affirming or denying by experimentation and mathematical proof that matter and energy existed as nothing more than probability functions - potentiality, which extended to any system linked to a particular potentiality out to infinity in both space and time - until we look at it. The effort to deny that fact has continued to his day and every effort by the most brilliant minds working together applying the most mind boggling technologies ever conceived have failed to disprove this fact.

No competent scientist anywhere in the world has denied the precepts of quantum mechanics at any point in the last 60 years.

What was it a jackass once said? Oh, right:
Since you claim that scientists deny the precepts of quantum mechanics i need some citations and peer reviewed scientific articles that i can read which state 'consciousness is made of ___,___, and ___. '

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  All of these things were rigorously criticized and tested in every conceivable way and found to be true. The result was then that there was nothing 'solid' about the world. There is only probabilities and possibilities - no stuff. When you take a close look at what anything and everything really is, there is nothing there, only probability - even energy itself in any form is only probability. In modern terms they use the word potentiality.

Whatever you think that means, you're wrong.

Reality is reality. It exists. It interacted and evolved merrily for 13 billion years before human beings came along. It will continue to interact and evolve merrily for billions of years after human beings no longer exist.

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  At this time in history (the early 20th century), Pauli and Heisenberg were strong advocates to the philosophy that we are the cause of wave function collapse, the change from a potential realm of infinite possibilities to a solid outcome.

They were never advocates of any such thing.

Wave function collapse - one of several interpretations of quantum mechanics, and not a particularly favoured one - does not require consciousness.

Every competent physicist dislikes the original use of "observer" in contemporaneous dialogue; it is interaction that matters. The reason being that it gives rubes like you and Chopra the license to bloviate meaninglessly at the drop of a hat.

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  There no longer was matter, no certainty, and no actual separate things or events throughout all of space-time. All things existed in a multitude possibly infinite set of possibilities and physical locations in space time simultaneously - until we look at it. In addition, at the moment we observe it, all things tied together by any potentiality or possibility with this thing come into being.

Purely quantum states decohere when interacting with other entities. This is a fact. This has nothing to do with human beings or consciousness.

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  "What do you mean nothing is solid??? That's the way it seems!" You are probably thinking.

If I were you I wouldn't dream of presuming to know what other, better educated people were thinking.

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  This is where things get even weirder. The double slit experiment further proved that there is no 'solid' matter but only waves, this is referred to as wave-particle duality. The most baffling part of the double slit experiment comes when only one photon at a time is fired at the barrier with both slits open. The pattern of interference remains the same, as can be seen if many photons are emitted one at a time and recorded on the same sheet of photographic film. The clear implication is that something with a wavelike nature passes simultaneously through both slits and interferes with itself--even though there is only one photon present. It is even more baffling when you do it with small molecules that are supposed to be matter. Isn't matter solid? Performed with particles, such as electrons, a new enigma emerges-- the wave particle nature of matter seems to 'know' that it is being measured by expressing itself as a wave in a wave experiment, but expressing itself as a particle in any particle experiment.

The "duality" is an artifact of applying classical understandings - that is, macroscopic, intuitive models - to situations beyond those in which they were derived. Nothing more. It is not special.

It is like saying a computer exhibits typewriter/telephone duality. It is neither of those things, but in some reduced situations it may exhibit properties of one or the other.

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  If we try to 'trick' the photon by trying to measure it's whereabouts it ceases being,
Everywhere and becomes a particle with a defined location and path.

Certain types of interaction cause a collapse in superposition. So what?

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Determinism is a view that particles and forces of nature behave in a mechanistic and predictable way, independent of the observer - they would occur that way if no life existed in the universe. This view is totally abolished by the double slit experiments. The view that matter is somehow 'solid and real' is abolished by these experiments. Matter, light, and time are what the observer determines them to be, and have no substance other than what we fashion them to be.

This is nonsense. A double slit experiment is perfectly deterministic - it simply does not exhibit behaviour determined by classical rules.

If it were not deterministic it would be impossible to predict.

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Be not plugging consciousness into the equation we end up with innumerable paradoxes and broken math.

This is incoherent.

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  We therefore get this younger generation of scientists possibly refuting the philosophical concepts of consciousness and its role in reality, as put forth by the great geniuses of the early 20th century.

Citation needed.

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  They, however, are not scientists of such magnitude as their ancestors, and they have no physical evidence or data whatsoever that in any way refutes the philosophies our scientific ancestors laid down. In fact, the evidence and data all conclude that consciousness cannot be eliminated from any system--BY THE VERY FACT THAT THEY LOOK AT THE DATA

Citation needed.

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  This is a reality that they fail to admit.

Citation needed.

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Certainty is a concept that only has meaning with respect to consciousness. A universe with absolutely no observer can have no certainty. Any system on any scale with no observer can have no certainty. Certainty is not possible without consciousness, by definition.

This is incoherent.

(13-06-2015 07:49 AM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Certainty, by definition, is an act of, product of, artifact of, a 'thing' of consciousness. In addition, by definition, without certainty, uncertainty (chaos) remains for infinity, and nothing exists, not even time

At best it seems as though you're striving for a very stupid brand of solipsistic semiotic equivocation.

Your certainty requires your observation, but it implies nothing further about the universe.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: