Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Does science prove "New Thought" at all?

Adam_Godzilla
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 12:57:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm thinking about the popular double slit experiment in particular where it quite apparently shows or if you wish 'seems' that your conscious attention can actually affect your reality. I know this isn't really a religious topic but things like "New thought", The Secret, LOA, and other such ideas do require faith and belief by the people in order to 'work'.

For those who aren't familiar with New Thought; http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you don't know what the double-slit experiment is, take a look at the video on the right.
https://www.youtube.com...

I consider myself a partial free thinker ( person who believes in logic, reason and evidence) and also a partial solipsist (person who believes reality can only be proven by the self) and also somewhat a person of faith where I believe in a soul, a creator and a purpose to life. But I am open to contradictions in my beliefs and logic since I am only human and I can make mistakes in determining the truth. So the question I ask is, does this experiment potentially prove "New thought" ideas?
New episode of OUTSIDERS: http://www.debate.org...
Episode 4 - They walk among us
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 1:07:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 12:57:19 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
I'm thinking about the popular double slit experiment in particular where it quite apparently shows or if you wish 'seems' that your conscious attention can actually affect your reality. I know this isn't really a religious topic but things like "New thought", The Secret, LOA, and other such ideas do require faith and belief by the people in order to 'work'.

For those who aren't familiar with New Thought; http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you don't know what the double-slit experiment is, take a look at the video on the right.
https://www.youtube.com...

I consider myself a partial free thinker ( person who believes in logic, reason and evidence) and also a partial solipsist (person who believes reality can only be proven by the self) and also somewhat a person of faith where I believe in a soul, a creator and a purpose to life. But I am open to contradictions in my beliefs and logic since I am only human and I can make mistakes in determining the truth. So the question I ask is, does this experiment potentially prove "New thought" ideas?

Nope. If could make that particle appear at a certain point by "wishing it" before then maybe.

The double split experiment does NOT show that if you wish the particle to appear in a certain spot it will or is more probably will appear in that wished spot than other wise if you did not wish.

If some one tries to use science to justify some sort of wish it want it bs, then they are just con men taking advantage of ignorance and wishful thinking.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Adam_Godzilla
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 1:22:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 1:07:26 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:57:19 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
I'm thinking about the popular double slit experiment in particular where it quite apparently shows or if you wish 'seems' that your conscious attention can actually affect your reality. I know this isn't really a religious topic but things like "New thought", The Secret, LOA, and other such ideas do require faith and belief by the people in order to 'work'.

For those who aren't familiar with New Thought; http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you don't know what the double-slit experiment is, take a look at the video on the right.
https://www.youtube.com...

I consider myself a partial free thinker ( person who believes in logic, reason and evidence) and also a partial solipsist (person who believes reality can only be proven by the self) and also somewhat a person of faith where I believe in a soul, a creator and a purpose to life. But I am open to contradictions in my beliefs and logic since I am only human and I can make mistakes in determining the truth. So the question I ask is, does this experiment potentially prove "New thought" ideas?

Nope. If could make that particle appear at a certain point by "wishing it" before then maybe.

The double split experiment does NOT show that if you wish the particle to appear in a certain spot it will or is more probably will appear in that wished spot than other wise if you did not wish.

If some one tries to use science to justify some sort of wish it want it bs, then they are just con men taking advantage of ignorance and wishful thinking.

I agree that you can't just 'wish' a particle to magically appear but note that in the experiment, the particle bahaviour always changes when the observer chooses to observe it. Basically this in on itself is a decision made by the observer.

So I suppose you are right that it doesn't prove New thought ideas but it does seem to me that we have DO have some influence over our reality. And if we do have that little influence then whos to say we don't affect things on a bigger scale as well?
New episode of OUTSIDERS: http://www.debate.org...
Episode 4 - They walk among us
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 10:13:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
OK, I'm going to add my original religious conversion experience of "maya" to this equation which converted me 35 years ago from atheism to last belief in spiritual reality underlying all material reality. I experienced three full days of continuous, non-stop synchronicity events, one right after the other, and ALL of them interconnected to religious themes. My science mind could not explain this at all. Oh yeah, one or two synchronicity events you pass off as coincidences, but not continual synchronicity. It did the Matrix or 13th Floor shock to the system to actually be able to "see" that our world is illusion, it's not operating how we think it is at all. Everything is interconnected and the disconnects are only in our inability to normally detect the interconnections. It takes a break from normal consciousness to do it and for me, the full veteran of the psychedelic sixties, psychedelics never did this, but a weird illness that was in my lymph system and making my consciousness so strange in that it was picking up these linkages that were everywhere I looked, everything, down to thoughts and your history, it is all there happening at once to be perceived. This is why I believe so firmly in an afterlife and the World To Come, because our world is not "real", it is a tape being played as so many ancient religions told us and sci-fi writers made plots about it- "Dream World" is this world, this whole Universe, Creation. It is a School of Living where our souls learn how to be in the World to Come. Or perhaps its just entertainment for beer-swizzling gods watching the "Creation Show" with bets on whose gonna win the Human Race..
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 11:30:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 1:22:13 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
At 7/24/2014 1:07:26 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:57:19 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
I'm thinking about the popular double slit experiment in particular where it quite apparently shows or if you wish 'seems' that your conscious attention can actually affect your reality. I know this isn't really a religious topic but things like "New thought", The Secret, LOA, and other such ideas do require faith and belief by the people in order to 'work'.

For those who aren't familiar with New Thought; http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you don't know what the double-slit experiment is, take a look at the video on the right.
https://www.youtube.com...

I consider myself a partial free thinker ( person who believes in logic, reason and evidence) and also a partial solipsist (person who believes reality can only be proven by the self) and also somewhat a person of faith where I believe in a soul, a creator and a purpose to life. But I am open to contradictions in my beliefs and logic since I am only human and I can make mistakes in determining the truth. So the question I ask is, does this experiment potentially prove "New thought" ideas?

Nope. If could make that particle appear at a certain point by "wishing it" before then maybe.

The double split experiment does NOT show that if you wish the particle to appear in a certain spot it will or is more probably will appear in that wished spot than other wise if you did not wish.

If some one tries to use science to justify some sort of wish it want it bs, then they are just con men taking advantage of ignorance and wishful thinking.

I agree that you can't just 'wish' a particle to magically appear but note that in the experiment, the particle bahaviour always changes when the observer chooses to observe it. Basically this in on itself is a decision made by the observer.

So I suppose you are right that it doesn't prove New thought ideas but it does seem to me that we have DO have some influence over our reality. And if we do have that little influence then whos to say we don't affect things on a bigger scale as well?

Maybe, but have to remember that the choice to observe or not observe the particle results is determinant outcome. I can't choose to measure the particle and expect it to make a interference pattern like it is a wave. If consciousness is involved, it seems it is rather limited as far as changing outcome.

Not only that, but a typical day I involve my consciousness in everything I observe. How do I change my behaviors to make a change in outcome, If I am always in the state of measuring/observing other than in a very specific lab setting?
Adam_Godzilla
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 10:35:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 10:13:36 AM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
OK, I'm going to add my original religious conversion experience of "maya" to this equation which converted me 35 years ago from atheism to last belief in spiritual reality underlying all material reality. I experienced three full days of continuous, non-stop synchronicity events, one right after the other, and ALL of them interconnected to religious themes. My science mind could not explain this at all. Oh yeah, one or two synchronicity events you pass off as coincidences, but not continual synchronicity. It did the Matrix or 13th Floor shock to the system to actually be able to "see" that our world is illusion, it's not operating how we think it is at all. Everything is interconnected and the disconnects are only in our inability to normally detect the interconnections. It takes a break from normal consciousness to do it and for me, the full veteran of the psychedelic sixties, psychedelics never did this, but a weird illness that was in my lymph system and making my consciousness so strange in that it was picking up these linkages that were everywhere I looked, everything, down to thoughts and your history, it is all there happening at once to be perceived. This is why I believe so firmly in an afterlife and the World To Come, because our world is not "real", it is a tape being played as so many ancient religions told us and sci-fi writers made plots about it- "Dream World" is this world, this whole Universe, Creation. It is a School of Living where our souls learn how to be in the World to Come. Or perhaps its just entertainment for beer-swizzling gods watching the "Creation Show" with bets on whose gonna win the Human Race..

Agreed. I've also had many such synchronicity events. I think theres such a thing as too much coincedence.
New episode of OUTSIDERS: http://www.debate.org...
Episode 4 - They walk among us
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 10:43:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 12:57:19 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
I'm thinking about the popular double slit experiment in particular where it quite apparently shows or if you wish 'seems' that your conscious attention can actually affect your reality. I know this isn't really a religious topic but things like "New thought", The Secret, LOA, and other such ideas do require faith and belief by the people in order to 'work'.

For those who aren't familiar with New Thought; http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you don't know what the double-slit experiment is, take a look at the video on the right.
https://www.youtube.com...

I consider myself a partial free thinker ( person who believes in logic, reason and evidence) and also a partial solipsist (person who believes reality can only be proven by the self) and also somewhat a person of faith where I believe in a soul, a creator and a purpose to life. But I am open to contradictions in my beliefs and logic since I am only human and I can make mistakes in determining the truth. So the question I ask is, does this experiment potentially prove "New thought" ideas?

Here's an old thought that is new today. We're living in God's dream and scientists can't figure out that it's only a dream. This is why they can't contain any of God's illusions called particles or explain them with their language of mathematics. Mathematics is a language used to measure God's illusions but not our true created existence as invisible vibrations.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 10:50:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 10:35:19 PM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
At 7/24/2014 10:13:36 AM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
OK, I'm going to add my original religious conversion experience of "maya" to this equation which converted me 35 years ago from atheism to last belief in spiritual reality underlying all material reality. I experienced three full days of continuous, non-stop synchronicity events, one right after the other, and ALL of them interconnected to religious themes. My science mind could not explain this at all. Oh yeah, one or two synchronicity events you pass off as coincidences, but not continual synchronicity. It did the Matrix or 13th Floor shock to the system to actually be able to "see" that our world is illusion, it's not operating how we think it is at all. Everything is interconnected and the disconnects are only in our inability to normally detect the interconnections. It takes a break from normal consciousness to do it and for me, the full veteran of the psychedelic sixties, psychedelics never did this, but a weird illness that was in my lymph system and making my consciousness so strange in that it was picking up these linkages that were everywhere I looked, everything, down to thoughts and your history, it is all there happening at once to be perceived. This is why I believe so firmly in an afterlife and the World To Come, because our world is not "real", it is a tape being played as so many ancient religions told us and sci-fi writers made plots about it- "Dream World" is this world, this whole Universe, Creation. It is a School of Living where our souls learn how to be in the World to Come. Or perhaps its just entertainment for beer-swizzling gods watching the "Creation Show" with bets on whose gonna win the Human Race..

Agreed. I've also had many such synchronicity events. I think theres such a thing as too much coincedence.

Double agreement there. I was sooooo happy to get out of that continuous synchronicity headspace. It literally takes the Life out of living because you know what its all about, how each of us are learning our moral lessons the hard way or not learning them through experiences that are "arranged" for that purposes, your whole farooking life being so arranged. We NEED mystery and that is provided by our status as completely dumb to what's really going on, the playing out of the Creation tape and our lives within it. All the fun is taken away too along with the mystery. It is really true that ignorance is blessed. I know the general God's Cosmic Plan but I don't want to know the details of it like I could "see" in that continuous synchronicity mind state because it's just TOO MUCH to digest and I like my dorky little Prophet of God life on its own merits of constant surprises, like why would God choose a rebel artist activist type to carry the spiritual ball forward? I mean I don't do "religious person" at all yet I get all these religious visions and do what God tells me to do as a good servant. But daily life for me is indistinguishable from average aging hippies around here as I don't make any big deal out of my religious work locally. You however, should treat me as a genuine prophesy bearer for God and supply the 100 Rolls Royces and buxom beauties for my spiritual needs as per standard Prophet Protocols.
Adam_Godzilla
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2014 11:24:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 10:43:52 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:57:19 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
I'm thinking about the popular double slit experiment in particular where it quite apparently shows or if you wish 'seems' that your conscious attention can actually affect your reality. I know this isn't really a religious topic but things like "New thought", The Secret, LOA, and other such ideas do require faith and belief by the people in order to 'work'.

For those who aren't familiar with New Thought; http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you don't know what the double-slit experiment is, take a look at the video on the right.
https://www.youtube.com...

I consider myself a partial free thinker ( person who believes in logic, reason and evidence) and also a partial solipsist (person who believes reality can only be proven by the self) and also somewhat a person of faith where I believe in a soul, a creator and a purpose to life. But I am open to contradictions in my beliefs and logic since I am only human and I can make mistakes in determining the truth. So the question I ask is, does this experiment potentially prove "New thought" ideas?

Here's an old thought that is new today. We're living in God's dream and scientists can't figure out that it's only a dream. This is why they can't contain any of God's illusions called particles or explain them with their language of mathematics. Mathematics is a language used to measure God's illusions but not our true created existence as invisible vibrations.

Yes, i have thought about this too. And perhaps god doesnt know hes dreaming. Maybe he created our world but is now currently 'asleep'.
New episode of OUTSIDERS: http://www.debate.org...
Episode 4 - They walk among us
Adam_Godzilla
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 3:20:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 10:50:55 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
At 7/24/2014 10:35:19 PM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
At 7/24/2014 10:13:36 AM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
OK, I'm going to add my original religious conversion experience of "maya" to this equation which converted me 35 years ago from atheism to last belief in spiritual reality underlying all material reality. I experienced three full days of continuous, non-stop synchronicity events, one right after the other, and ALL of them interconnected to religious themes. My science mind could not explain this at all. Oh yeah, one or two synchronicity events you pass off as coincidences, but not continual synchronicity. It did the Matrix or 13th Floor shock to the system to actually be able to "see" that our world is illusion, it's not operating how we think it is at all. Everything is interconnected and the disconnects are only in our inability to normally detect the interconnections. It takes a break from normal consciousness to do it and for me, the full veteran of the psychedelic sixties, psychedelics never did this, but a weird illness that was in my lymph system and making my consciousness so strange in that it was picking up these linkages that were everywhere I looked, everything, down to thoughts and your history, it is all there happening at once to be perceived. This is why I believe so firmly in an afterlife and the World To Come, because our world is not "real", it is a tape being played as so many ancient religions told us and sci-fi writers made plots about it- "Dream World" is this world, this whole Universe, Creation. It is a School of Living where our souls learn how to be in the World to Come. Or perhaps its just entertainment for beer-swizzling gods watching the "Creation Show" with bets on whose gonna win the Human Race..

Agreed. I've also had many such synchronicity events. I think theres such a thing as too much coincedence.

Double agreement there. I was sooooo happy to get out of that continuous synchronicity headspace. It literally takes the Life out of living because you know what its all about, how each of us are learning our moral lessons the hard way or not learning them through experiences that are "arranged" for that purposes, your whole farooking life being so arranged. We NEED mystery and that is provided by our status as completely dumb to what's really going on, the playing out of the Creation tape and our lives within it. All the fun is taken away too along with the mystery. It is really true that ignorance is blessed. I know the general God's Cosmic Plan but I don't want to know the details of it like I could "see" in that continuous synchronicity mind state because it's just TOO MUCH to digest and I like my dorky little Prophet of God life on its own merits of constant surprises, like why would God choose a rebel artist activist type to carry the spiritual ball forward? I mean I don't do "religious person" at all yet I get all these religious visions and do what God tells me to do as a good servant. But daily life for me is indistinguishable from average aging hippies around here as I don't make any big deal out of my religious work locally. You however, should treat me as a genuine prophesy bearer for God and supply the 100 Rolls Royces and buxom beauties for my spiritual needs as per standard Prophet Protocols.

I am finding it hard to take you seriously. What are you sa
ying?
New episode of OUTSIDERS: http://www.debate.org...
Episode 4 - They walk among us
Adam_Godzilla
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 4:03:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 11:30:13 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/24/2014 1:22:13 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
At 7/24/2014 1:07:26 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:57:19 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
I'm thinking about the popular double slit experiment in particular where it quite apparently shows or if you wish 'seems' that your conscious attention can actually affect your reality. I know this isn't really a religious topic but things like "New thought", The Secret, LOA, and other such ideas do require faith and belief by the people in order to 'work'.

For those who aren't familiar with New Thought; http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you don't know what the double-slit experiment is, take a look at the video on the right.
https://www.youtube.com...

I consider myself a partial free thinker ( person who believes in logic, reason and evidence) and also a partial solipsist (person who believes reality can only be proven by the self) and also somewhat a person of faith where I believe in a soul, a creator and a purpose to life. But I am open to contradictions in my beliefs and logic since I am only human and I can make mistakes in determining the truth. So the question I ask is, does this experiment potentially prove "New thought" ideas?

Nope. If could make that particle appear at a certain point by "wishing it" before then maybe.

The double split experiment does NOT show that if you wish the particle to appear in a certain spot it will or is more probably will appear in that wished spot than other wise if you did not wish.

If some one tries to use science to justify some sort of wish it want it bs, then they are just con men taking advantage of ignorance and wishful thinking.

I agree that you can't just 'wish' a particle to magically appear but note that in the experiment, the particle bahaviour always changes when the observer chooses to observe it. Basically this in on itself is a decision made by the observer.

So I suppose you are right that it doesn't prove New thought ideas but it does seem to me that we have DO have some influence over our reality. And if we do have that little influence then whos to say we don't affect things on a bigger scale as well?

Maybe, but have to remember that the choice to observe or not observe the particle results is determinant outcome. I can't choose to measure the particle and expect it to make a interference pattern like it is a wave. If consciousness is involved, it seems it is rather limited as far as changing outcome.

Not only that, but a typical day I involve my consciousness in everything I observe. How do I change my behaviors to make a change in outcome, If I am always in the state of measuring/observing other than in a very specific lab setting?

Perhaps instead of saying that you 'observe' the particle. Maybe it's that you give 'attention'. And that reality shapes itself into what you 'expect' instead of what you just 'measure'. In other words, by expecting and giving attention to a particle to act one way, you interfere it and change its form. Butwhen you stop and give your attention elsewhere, the particle goes back into its wavefunction state where it is present in all forms and locations until the next time you 'observe' it. If this is true, then it is may not be an overspeculation to say that a mind or consciousness must be present in order for reality, physics and solidity to be formed.
New episode of OUTSIDERS: http://www.debate.org...
Episode 4 - They walk among us
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 6:00:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 12:57:19 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
I'm thinking about the popular double slit experiment in particular where it quite apparently shows or if you wish 'seems' that your conscious attention can actually affect your reality.

It doesn't show that at all. The "wishes" of the observer don't affect the outcome of the experiment. In fact, the observer need not even be a conscious or living entity.

New Thought (a la "The Secret") is gobbledegook of the highest order.
Adam_Godzilla
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 6:32:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 6:00:01 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:57:19 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
I'm thinking about the popular double slit experiment in particular where it quite apparently shows or if you wish 'seems' that your conscious attention can actually affect your reality.

It doesn't show that at all. The "wishes" of the observer don't affect the outcome of the experiment. In fact, the observer need not even be a conscious or living entity.

The observer machine itself is not a living thing but it still is examined by humans. Humans basically observe the observer's results. An observer machine that is not known to exist by a person has as little effect to the experiment as a stagnant rock. Unless the results have and measurements have finally been 'observed' by a living observer, the particle does not do jack squat.
New episode of OUTSIDERS: http://www.debate.org...
Episode 4 - They walk among us
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 7:43:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 6:32:07 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
At 7/25/2014 6:00:01 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:57:19 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
I'm thinking about the popular double slit experiment in particular where it quite apparently shows or if you wish 'seems' that your conscious attention can actually affect your reality.

It doesn't show that at all. The "wishes" of the observer don't affect the outcome of the experiment. In fact, the observer need not even be a conscious or living entity.

The observer machine itself is not a living thing but it still is examined by humans.

Yes, but it is not the examination by humans that alters the experiment, it is the observation performed by the machine.

Listen, there is nothing special or magical about "observation" here. All QM taught us was that observation is not passive and plays a role in particle interactions because the things we used to observe interactions (photons) are particles themselves!

It's not that your consciousness has any influence over the course of events, but simply the fact that, in order to observe something, you must slam photons into it and perceive how they bounce. For most things this is trivial, but when you are analyzing the actions of atomic and subatomic particles, slamming photons into it has a drastic effect.

Humans basically observe the observer's results. An observer machine that is not known to exist by a person has as little effect to the experiment as a stagnant rock.

Wrong.

Unless the results have and measurements have finally been 'observed' by a living observer, the particle does not do jack squat.

Absolutely, completely, and utterly wrong. Again, the reason "observation" affects the outcomes of an experiment is that observation actually involves interacting with the experiment itself (e.g. bouncing photons off of it). Whether or not there is a conscious being to make sense of the observation is irrelevant.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov...

In short, you don't know what you're talking about and this quantum woo is unscientific nonsense.
Adam_Godzilla
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 8:04:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 7:43:32 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/25/2014 6:32:07 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
At 7/25/2014 6:00:01 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:57:19 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
I'm thinking about the popular double slit experiment in particular where it quite apparently shows or if you wish 'seems' that your conscious attention can actually affect your reality.

It doesn't show that at all. The "wishes" of the observer don't affect the outcome of the experiment. In fact, the observer need not even be a conscious or living entity.

The observer machine itself is not a living thing but it still is examined by humans.

Yes, but it is not the examination by humans that alters the experiment, it is the observation performed by the machine.

Listen, there is nothing special or magical about "observation" here. All QM taught us was that observation is not passive and plays a role in particle interactions because the things we used to observe interactions (photons) are particles themselves!

It's not that your consciousness has any influence over the course of events, but simply the fact that, in order to observe something, you must slam photons into it and perceive how they bounce. For most things this is trivial, but when you are analyzing the actions of atomic and subatomic particles, slamming photons into it has a drastic effect.

Humans basically observe the observer's results. An observer machine that is not known to exist by a person has as little effect to the experiment as a stagnant rock.

Wrong.

Unless the results have and measurements have finally been 'observed' by a living observer, the particle does not do jack squat.

Absolutely, completely, and utterly wrong. Again, the reason "observation" affects the outcomes of an experiment is that observation actually involves interacting with the experiment itself (e.g. bouncing photons off of it). Whether or not there is a conscious being to make sense of the observation is irrelevant.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov...

In short, you don't know what you're talking about and this quantum woo is unscientific nonsense.

I agree, i dont. So what? But let me ask you this. Why then are these scientists scratching their heads still about this experiment. If its so non trivial then why cant quantum physicists just shut up about this 'double slit experiment' which is deemed the most important experiment in quantum physics? Are they excited because they finally discovered that photons affect particles? That tech equpments ruin experiments? Is that such a mystery? Is that a mystery worth solving and receiving a nobel prize such as the proffesor in the video claims?

There's obviously something bigger here than you believe.
New episode of OUTSIDERS: http://www.debate.org...
Episode 4 - They walk among us
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 8:21:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 8:04:18 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
At 7/25/2014 7:43:32 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/25/2014 6:32:07 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
At 7/25/2014 6:00:01 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:57:19 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
I'm thinking about the popular double slit experiment in particular where it quite apparently shows or if you wish 'seems' that your conscious attention can actually affect your reality.

It doesn't show that at all. The "wishes" of the observer don't affect the outcome of the experiment. In fact, the observer need not even be a conscious or living entity.

The observer machine itself is not a living thing but it still is examined by humans.

Yes, but it is not the examination by humans that alters the experiment, it is the observation performed by the machine.

Listen, there is nothing special or magical about "observation" here. All QM taught us was that observation is not passive and plays a role in particle interactions because the things we used to observe interactions (photons) are particles themselves!

It's not that your consciousness has any influence over the course of events, but simply the fact that, in order to observe something, you must slam photons into it and perceive how they bounce. For most things this is trivial, but when you are analyzing the actions of atomic and subatomic particles, slamming photons into it has a drastic effect.

Humans basically observe the observer's results. An observer machine that is not known to exist by a person has as little effect to the experiment as a stagnant rock.

Wrong.

Unless the results have and measurements have finally been 'observed' by a living observer, the particle does not do jack squat.

Absolutely, completely, and utterly wrong. Again, the reason "observation" affects the outcomes of an experiment is that observation actually involves interacting with the experiment itself (e.g. bouncing photons off of it). Whether or not there is a conscious being to make sense of the observation is irrelevant.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov...

In short, you don't know what you're talking about and this quantum woo is unscientific nonsense.

I agree, i dont. So what?

You're persisting as if you do. As if this nonsense has any grounding or root in scientific theory. That's what.

But let me ask you this. Why then are these scientists scratching their heads still about this experiment.

Because it shows just how counterintuitive the world really is. We want to believe the world exists in easily definable, comprehending compartments. The double slit experiment shows us that's not the case, and - even if we understand the math - it's hard to wrap our heads around.

It shows us that the universe does NOT conform to our expectations, which is pretty much the exact opposite of "The Secret" and other such stupid nonsense.

If its so non trivial then why cant quantum physicists just shut up about this 'double slit experiment' which is deemed the most important experiment in quantum physics? Are they excited because they finally discovered that photons affect particles? That tech equpments ruin experiments? Is that such a mystery? Is that a mystery worth solving and receiving a nobel prize such as the proffesor in the video claims?

There's obviously something bigger here than you believe.

Well, yeah, that's the nature of science. I never said there wasn't anything bigger. Just that it's not pseudoscientific, nonsensical, ill-thought-out, magical-thinking, wish-fulfillment, gibberish like "New Thought."
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 8:52:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 4:03:20 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
At 7/24/2014 11:30:13 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/24/2014 1:22:13 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
At 7/24/2014 1:07:26 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:57:19 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
I'm thinking about the popular double slit experiment in particular where it quite apparently shows or if you wish 'seems' that your conscious attention can actually affect your reality. I know this isn't really a religious topic but things like "New thought", The Secret, LOA, and other such ideas do require faith and belief by the people in order to 'work'.

For those who aren't familiar with New Thought; http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you don't know what the double-slit experiment is, take a look at the video on the right.
https://www.youtube.com...

I consider myself a partial free thinker ( person who believes in logic, reason and evidence) and also a partial solipsist (person who believes reality can only be proven by the self) and also somewhat a person of faith where I believe in a soul, a creator and a purpose to life. But I am open to contradictions in my beliefs and logic since I am only human and I can make mistakes in determining the truth. So the question I ask is, does this experiment potentially prove "New thought" ideas?

Nope. If could make that particle appear at a certain point by "wishing it" before then maybe.

The double split experiment does NOT show that if you wish the particle to appear in a certain spot it will or is more probably will appear in that wished spot than other wise if you did not wish.

If some one tries to use science to justify some sort of wish it want it bs, then they are just con men taking advantage of ignorance and wishful thinking.

I agree that you can't just 'wish' a particle to magically appear but note that in the experiment, the particle bahaviour always changes when the observer chooses to observe it. Basically this in on itself is a decision made by the observer.

So I suppose you are right that it doesn't prove New thought ideas but it does seem to me that we have DO have some influence over our reality. And if we do have that little influence then whos to say we don't affect things on a bigger scale as well?

Maybe, but have to remember that the choice to observe or not observe the particle results is determinant outcome. I can't choose to measure the particle and expect it to make a interference pattern like it is a wave. If consciousness is involved, it seems it is rather limited as far as changing outcome.

Not only that, but a typical day I involve my consciousness in everything I observe. How do I change my behaviors to make a change in outcome, If I am always in the state of measuring/observing other than in a very specific lab setting?

Perhaps instead of saying that you 'observe' the particle. Maybe it's that you give 'attention'. And that reality shapes itself into what you 'expect' instead of what you just 'measure'. In other words, by expecting and giving attention to a particle to act one way, you interfere it and change its form. Butwhen you stop and give your attention elsewhere, the particle goes back into its wavefunction state where it is present in all forms and locations until the next time you 'observe' it. If this is true, then it is may not be an overspeculation to say that a mind or consciousness must be present in order for reality, physics and solidity to be formed.

I agree that it may not be out the realm of possibility, but it is not like anything that the New Thought movement would propose. There is only the option of to give attention or not to give attention and the outcome is either x or y. The New Thought proposes much more control than that..
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 8:59:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 6:00:01 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:57:19 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
I'm thinking about the popular double slit experiment in particular where it quite apparently shows or if you wish 'seems' that your conscious attention can actually affect your reality.

It doesn't show that at all. The "wishes" of the observer don't affect the outcome of the experiment. In fact, the observer need not even be a conscious or living entity.

This is not true. The S. cat demonstrates that the gieger counter is in the box and is not being observed therefore it ends up in the superposition state along with the radioactive particle it is trying to measure so the killer gas is both released and not released at the same time. In turn it makes the cat both dead and alive at the same time.

I don't know of any quantum experiment that demonstrates an unobserved measuring device caused a wave to collapse.

New Thought (a la "The Secret") is gobbledegook of the highest order.

This statement I can agree with.
Adam_Godzilla
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 9:17:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 8:59:07 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/25/2014 6:00:01 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:57:19 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
I'm thinking about the popular double slit experiment in particular where it quite apparently shows or if you wish 'seems' that your conscious attention can actually affect your reality.

It doesn't show that at all. The "wishes" of the observer don't affect the outcome of the experiment. In fact, the observer need not even be a conscious or living entity.

This is not true. The S. cat demonstrates that the gieger counter is in the box and is not being observed therefore it ends up in the superposition state along with the radioactive particle it is trying to measure so the killer gas is both released and not released at the same time. In turn it makes the cat both dead and alive at the same time.
Agreed.

I don't know of any quantum experiment that demonstrates an unobserved measuring device caused a wave to collapse.
New episode of OUTSIDERS: http://www.debate.org...
Episode 4 - They walk among us
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 9:51:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 8:59:07 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/25/2014 6:00:01 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:57:19 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
I'm thinking about the popular double slit experiment in particular where it quite apparently shows or if you wish 'seems' that your conscious attention can actually affect your reality.

It doesn't show that at all. The "wishes" of the observer don't affect the outcome of the experiment. In fact, the observer need not even be a conscious or living entity.

This is not true. The S. cat demonstrates that the gieger counter is in the box and is not being observed therefore it ends up in the superposition state along with the radioactive particle it is trying to measure so the killer gas is both released and not released at the same time. In turn it makes the cat both dead and alive at the same time.

It doesn't demonstrate that. The thought experiment only raises that as a question, the answer to which is disputed, depending on the interpretation of quantum mechanics. When real life experiments modeling S. cat are carried out, unconscious observation is sufficient to collapse the wave function.

http://web.archive.org...

I don't know of any quantum experiment that demonstrates an unobserved measuring device caused a wave to collapse.


New Thought (a la "The Secret") is gobbledegook of the highest order.

This statement I can agree with.
slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 10:38:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 9:51:03 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/25/2014 8:59:07 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/25/2014 6:00:01 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:57:19 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
I'm thinking about the popular double slit experiment in particular where it quite apparently shows or if you wish 'seems' that your conscious attention can actually affect your reality.

It doesn't show that at all. The "wishes" of the observer don't affect the outcome of the experiment. In fact, the observer need not even be a conscious or living entity.

This is not true. The S. cat demonstrates that the gieger counter is in the box and is not being observed therefore it ends up in the superposition state along with the radioactive particle it is trying to measure so the killer gas is both released and not released at the same time. In turn it makes the cat both dead and alive at the same time.

It doesn't demonstrate that. The thought experiment only raises that as a question, the answer to which is disputed, depending on the interpretation of quantum mechanics. When real life experiments modeling S. cat are carried out, unconscious observation is sufficient to collapse the wave function.

http://web.archive.org...

I don't know of any quantum experiment that demonstrates an unobserved measuring device caused a wave to collapse.


New Thought (a la "The Secret") is gobbledegook of the highest order.

This statement I can agree with.

LOL, did you read the fact that their experiment separates the data and gives it to TWO conscious observers.

"The quantum detecting outcome is coded by two pieces of partial information that are supplied separately to two observers. Neither piece alone enables the outcome to be known without opening the box, but taken together they do."

This experiment does not eliminate the conscious observer. Not only that it does not probe any areas around coherence. The conscious observer can become entangled with what it observes or is interacting with and how does that affect other non observed particles that become entangled with it?

Here is a great article that highlights some experiments, pertaining to the cat. The final verdict on consciousness still very much open, but it is nice to see scientists to begin probing it to better understand what is happening. Too many physicists are taught that consciousness has nothing to do with it and the reality is that they have not yet proven that. It is not something which can be easily proven or disproved due to coherence.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 10:49:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 10:38:04 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/25/2014 9:51:03 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/25/2014 8:59:07 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/25/2014 6:00:01 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:57:19 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
I'm thinking about the popular double slit experiment in particular where it quite apparently shows or if you wish 'seems' that your conscious attention can actually affect your reality.

It doesn't show that at all. The "wishes" of the observer don't affect the outcome of the experiment. In fact, the observer need not even be a conscious or living entity.

This is not true. The S. cat demonstrates that the gieger counter is in the box and is not being observed therefore it ends up in the superposition state along with the radioactive particle it is trying to measure so the killer gas is both released and not released at the same time. In turn it makes the cat both dead and alive at the same time.

It doesn't demonstrate that. The thought experiment only raises that as a question, the answer to which is disputed, depending on the interpretation of quantum mechanics. When real life experiments modeling S. cat are carried out, unconscious observation is sufficient to collapse the wave function.

http://web.archive.org...

I don't know of any quantum experiment that demonstrates an unobserved measuring device caused a wave to collapse.


New Thought (a la "The Secret") is gobbledegook of the highest order.

This statement I can agree with.

LOL, did you read the fact that their experiment separates the data and gives it to TWO conscious observers.

"The quantum detecting outcome is coded by two pieces of partial information that are supplied separately to two observers. Neither piece alone enables the outcome to be known without opening the box, but taken together they do."

This experiment does not eliminate the conscious observer. Not only that it does not probe any areas around coherence. The conscious observer can become entangled with what it observes or is interacting with and how does that affect other non observed particles that become entangled with it?


Here is a great article that highlights some experiments, pertaining to the cat. The final verdict on consciousness still very much open, but it is nice to see scientists to begin probing it to better understand what is happening. Too many physicists are taught that consciousness has nothing to do with it and the reality is that they have not yet proven that. It is not something which can be easily proven or disproved due to coherence.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Then, at best, it's an open question.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 8:48:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 12:57:19 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
I'm thinking about the popular double slit experiment in particular where it quite apparently shows or if you wish 'seems' that your conscious attention can actually affect your reality. I know this isn't really a religious topic but things like "New thought", The Secret, LOA, and other such ideas do require faith and belief by the people in order to 'work'.

For those who aren't familiar with New Thought; http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you don't know what the double-slit experiment is, take a look at the video on the right.
https://www.youtube.com...

I consider myself a partial free thinker ( person who believes in logic, reason and evidence) and also a partial solipsist (person who believes reality can only be proven by the self) and also somewhat a person of faith where I believe in a soul, a creator and a purpose to life. But I am open to contradictions in my beliefs and logic since I am only human and I can make mistakes in determining the truth. So the question I ask is, does this experiment potentially prove "New thought" ideas?

I should probably go back through the thread because I'm sure someone has pointed this out by now; but the double-slit experiment doesn't demonstrate the need for any conscious observer. The observer can be a purely electro-mechanical device and it will still alter the outcome of the experiment.

- Without a detector, you get an interference pattern.

- With a working detector and human observer, you get two bars, aligning with the slits.

- If the detector is working, and hooked to a machine to record the results, you get two slits.

- If the machine hooked to the detector to record the data is not working, you get an interference pattern.

It has nothing to do with any kind of "conscious observer". A conscious observer will alter the experiment in the same way that an electro-mechanical or electro-chemical observer will.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Adam_Godzilla
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 10:01:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 8:21:27 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/25/2014 8:04:18 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
At 7/25/2014 7:43:32 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/25/2014 6:32:07 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
At 7/25/2014 6:00:01 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:57:19 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
I'm thinking about the popular double slit experiment in particular where it quite apparently shows or if you wish 'seems' that your conscious attention can actually affect your reality.

It doesn't show that at all. The "wishes" of the observer don't affect the outcome of the experiment. In fact, the observer need not even be a conscious or living entity.

The observer machine itself is not a living thing but it still is examined by humans.

Yes, but it is not the examination by humans that alters the experiment, it is the observation performed by the machine.

Listen, there is nothing special or magical about "observation" here. All QM taught us was that observation is not passive and plays a role in particle interactions because the things we used to observe interactions (photons) are particles themselves!

It's not that your consciousness has any influence over the course of events, but simply the fact that, in order to observe something, you must slam photons into it and perceive how they bounce. For most things this is trivial, but when you are analyzing the actions of atomic and subatomic particles, slamming photons into it has a drastic effect.

Humans basically observe the observer's results. An observer machine that is not known to exist by a person has as little effect to the experiment as a stagnant rock.

Wrong.

Unless the results have and measurements have finally been 'observed' by a living observer, the particle does not do jack squat.

Absolutely, completely, and utterly wrong. Again, the reason "observation" affects the outcomes of an experiment is that observation actually involves interacting with the experiment itself (e.g. bouncing photons off of it). Whether or not there is a conscious being to make sense of the observation is irrelevant.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov...

In short, you don't know what you're talking about and this quantum woo is unscientific nonsense.

I agree, i dont. So what?

You're persisting as if you do. As if this nonsense has any grounding or root in scientific theory. That's what.


But let me ask you this. Why then are these scientists scratching their heads still about this experiment.

Because it shows just how counterintuitive the world really is. We want to believe the world exists in easily definable, comprehending compartments. The double slit experiment shows us that's not the case, and - even if we understand the math - it's hard to wrap our heads around.

It shows us that the universe does NOT conform to our expectations, which is pretty much the exact opposite of "The Secret" and other such stupid nonsense.

If its so non trivial then why cant quantum physicists just shut up about this 'double slit experiment' which is deemed the most important experiment in quantum physics? Are they excited because they finally discovered that photons affect particles? That tech equpments ruin experiments? Is that such a mystery? Is that a mystery worth solving and receiving a nobel prize such as the proffesor in the video claims?

There's obviously something bigger here than you believe.

Well, yeah, that's the nature of science. I never said there wasn't anything bigger. Just that it's not pseudoscientific, nonsensical, ill-thought-out, magical-thinking, wish-fulfillment, gibberish like "New Thought."

Alright, alright. I was just testing out an idea. If new thought turns out to be garbage then i wont complain.
New episode of OUTSIDERS: http://www.debate.org...
Episode 4 - They walk among us
Adam_Godzilla
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 10:08:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 8:48:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:57:19 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
I'm thinking about the popular double slit experiment in particular where it quite apparently shows or if you wish 'seems' that your conscious attention can actually affect your reality. I know this isn't really a religious topic but things like "New thought", The Secret, LOA, and other such ideas do require faith and belief by the people in order to 'work'.

For those who aren't familiar with New Thought; http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you don't know what the double-slit experiment is, take a look at the video on the right.
https://www.youtube.com...

I consider myself a partial free thinker ( person who believes in logic, reason and evidence) and also a partial solipsist (person who believes reality can only be proven by the self) and also somewhat a person of faith where I believe in a soul, a creator and a purpose to life. But I am open to contradictions in my beliefs and logic since I am only human and I can make mistakes in determining the truth. So the question I ask is, does this experiment potentially prove "New thought" ideas?

I should probably go back through the thread because I'm sure someone has pointed this out by now; but the double-slit experiment doesn't demonstrate the need for any conscious observer. The observer can be a purely electro-mechanical device and it will still alter the outcome of the experiment.

- Without a detector, you get an interference pattern.

- With a working detector and human observer, you get two bars, aligning with the slits.

- If the detector is working, and hooked to a machine to record the results, you get two slits.

- If the machine hooked to the detector to record the data is not working, you get an interference pattern.

It has nothing to do with any kind of "conscious observer". A conscious observer will alter the experiment in the same way that an electro-mechanical or electro-chemical observer will.

Then i am curious as to how this mechanical alters the experiment and if scientists know a way around it and make sure that the observer does not affect the experiment. Just exactly how does a particle identify a neutral observer and react to it? Its not like this observer is constantly touching the particles and disturbing them. If it was then the scientists would have to switch to more non obtrusive recording device.
Why havent they?
New episode of OUTSIDERS: http://www.debate.org...
Episode 4 - They walk among us
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 10:37:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 10:08:28 PM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
At 7/25/2014 8:48:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:57:19 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
I'm thinking about the popular double slit experiment in particular where it quite apparently shows or if you wish 'seems' that your conscious attention can actually affect your reality. I know this isn't really a religious topic but things like "New thought", The Secret, LOA, and other such ideas do require faith and belief by the people in order to 'work'.

For those who aren't familiar with New Thought; http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you don't know what the double-slit experiment is, take a look at the video on the right.
https://www.youtube.com...

I consider myself a partial free thinker ( person who believes in logic, reason and evidence) and also a partial solipsist (person who believes reality can only be proven by the self) and also somewhat a person of faith where I believe in a soul, a creator and a purpose to life. But I am open to contradictions in my beliefs and logic since I am only human and I can make mistakes in determining the truth. So the question I ask is, does this experiment potentially prove "New thought" ideas?

I should probably go back through the thread because I'm sure someone has pointed this out by now; but the double-slit experiment doesn't demonstrate the need for any conscious observer. The observer can be a purely electro-mechanical device and it will still alter the outcome of the experiment.

- Without a detector, you get an interference pattern.

- With a working detector and human observer, you get two bars, aligning with the slits.

- If the detector is working, and hooked to a machine to record the results, you get two slits.

- If the machine hooked to the detector to record the data is not working, you get an interference pattern.

It has nothing to do with any kind of "conscious observer". A conscious observer will alter the experiment in the same way that an electro-mechanical or electro-chemical observer will.

Then i am curious as to how this mechanical alters the experiment
Scientists are curious about the very same thing.

and if scientists know a way around it and make sure that the observer does not affect the experiment.
As far as I know, no they don't.

Just exactly how does a particle identify a neutral observer and react to it?
I'm more interested in knowing what kind of detector they're using, and how it works. How do you detect anything without interacting with it? Even the act of looking at something is actually a process of analyzing photons which have reflected off of the object in question. So how does their detector work without any form of interaction with the particles being "observed"?

Its not like this observer is constantly touching the particles and disturbing them. If it was then the scientists would have to switch to more non obtrusive recording device.
Well, that's pretty much the system with any form of detection with which I'm familiar. But I'm not a physicist, and I have no reason to believe that physicists wouldn't have thought about that a long, LONG time before publishing any results. And in that whether or not the recording instruments are working can actually alter the results of the experiment, it's obviously not the detector making the difference.

Why havent they?
Well, again... I'm not sure how to "observe" anything without some level of interaction which will affect the object being observed. And I'm sure the physicists working on this quirky nature of QM have already considered whether or not the interaction of the detection system is causing the unexpected results. But as I already said, if that were the issue, then it wouldn't matter whether the recording system was working or not. And it does matter. So it's not that the detector is intrusive. But I don't know what causes the altered outcome, nor do scientists working in the field of Quantum Mechanics.

Quantum Gravity goes a long way to explain many of the seemingly quirky behaviors observed in quantum mechanics, but this is one of those which has yet to be solved. The key thing to note at this point (because so many false assumptions are being made), is that it doesn't have to do with a "conscious observer". And unfortunately, many people are claiming otherwise. But even a non-sentient recording instrument can cause the same alterations as a conscious observer.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 8:07:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 10:01:36 PM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
At 7/25/2014 8:21:27 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/25/2014 8:04:18 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
At 7/25/2014 7:43:32 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/25/2014 6:32:07 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
At 7/25/2014 6:00:01 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:57:19 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
I'm thinking about the popular double slit experiment in particular where it quite apparently shows or if you wish 'seems' that your conscious attention can actually affect your reality.

It doesn't show that at all. The "wishes" of the observer don't affect the outcome of the experiment. In fact, the observer need not even be a conscious or living entity.

The observer machine itself is not a living thing but it still is examined by humans.

Yes, but it is not the examination by humans that alters the experiment, it is the observation performed by the machine.

Listen, there is nothing special or magical about "observation" here. All QM taught us was that observation is not passive and plays a role in particle interactions because the things we used to observe interactions (photons) are particles themselves!

It's not that your consciousness has any influence over the course of events, but simply the fact that, in order to observe something, you must slam photons into it and perceive how they bounce. For most things this is trivial, but when you are analyzing the actions of atomic and subatomic particles, slamming photons into it has a drastic effect.

Humans basically observe the observer's results. An observer machine that is not known to exist by a person has as little effect to the experiment as a stagnant rock.

Wrong.

Unless the results have and measurements have finally been 'observed' by a living observer, the particle does not do jack squat.

Absolutely, completely, and utterly wrong. Again, the reason "observation" affects the outcomes of an experiment is that observation actually involves interacting with the experiment itself (e.g. bouncing photons off of it). Whether or not there is a conscious being to make sense of the observation is irrelevant.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov...

In short, you don't know what you're talking about and this quantum woo is unscientific nonsense.

I agree, i dont. So what?

You're persisting as if you do. As if this nonsense has any grounding or root in scientific theory. That's what.


But let me ask you this. Why then are these scientists scratching their heads still about this experiment.

Because it shows just how counterintuitive the world really is. We want to believe the world exists in easily definable, comprehending compartments. The double slit experiment shows us that's not the case, and - even if we understand the math - it's hard to wrap our heads around.

It shows us that the universe does NOT conform to our expectations, which is pretty much the exact opposite of "The Secret" and other such stupid nonsense.

If its so non trivial then why cant quantum physicists just shut up about this 'double slit experiment' which is deemed the most important experiment in quantum physics? Are they excited because they finally discovered that photons affect particles? That tech equpments ruin experiments? Is that such a mystery? Is that a mystery worth solving and receiving a nobel prize such as the proffesor in the video claims?

There's obviously something bigger here than you believe.

Well, yeah, that's the nature of science. I never said there wasn't anything bigger. Just that it's not pseudoscientific, nonsensical, ill-thought-out, magical-thinking, wish-fulfillment, gibberish like "New Thought."

Alright, alright. I was just testing out an idea. If new thought turns out to be garbage then i wont complain.

It was pretty well and firmly established as garbage immediately.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2014 11:25:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/24/2014 11:24:35 PM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
At 7/24/2014 10:43:52 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 7/24/2014 12:57:19 AM, Adam_Godzilla wrote:
I'm thinking about the popular double slit experiment in particular where it quite apparently shows or if you wish 'seems' that your conscious attention can actually affect your reality. I know this isn't really a religious topic but things like "New thought", The Secret, LOA, and other such ideas do require faith and belief by the people in order to 'work'.

For those who aren't familiar with New Thought; http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you don't know what the double-slit experiment is, take a look at the video on the right.
https://www.youtube.com...

I consider myself a partial free thinker ( person who believes in logic, reason and evidence) and also a partial solipsist (person who believes reality can only be proven by the self) and also somewhat a person of faith where I believe in a soul, a creator and a purpose to life. But I am open to contradictions in my beliefs and logic since I am only human and I can make mistakes in determining the truth. So the question I ask is, does this experiment potentially prove "New thought" ideas?

Here's an old thought that is new today. We're living in God's dream and scientists can't figure out that it's only a dream. This is why they can't contain any of God's illusions called particles or explain them with their language of mathematics. Mathematics is a language used to measure God's illusions but not our true created existence as invisible vibrations.

Yes, i have thought about this too. And perhaps god doesnt know hes dreaming. Maybe he created our world but is now currently 'asleep'.

Does it matter whether He's asleep or not if we can't ever see Him anyway?

We are only characters in His play who will never know what's beyond His thoughts.