Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh ..well I deleted my entry and thought you would have been fast asleep by now. Anyway it boils down to symmetry in my idea which would only be one of 1000's to be sure. Why your quitting and going for proving something, not of this world that we can know but in this world I cannot figure out but everyone is different so I have to grant that. Also I really do think people not active in the field need a discovery and its justified. Its just a matter of order alongside all the explorations and work in the past and today.
Last edited by alexcanter; 01-31-2014 at 01:18 AM..
I thought that was a given, the detector is not an individual or an indication of measure alongside the value of consciousness at all.
You would think it would be a given. But many people think of the observer as the scientist doing the observing. So they come away thinking that somehow the act of consciously viewing the subject in some way alters it.
The truth however is that it is the tool used in the detection process that is causing the alteration. A fact that appears to go over the heads of far too many. The "Observer effect" and how it has been presented to a lay public has a lot to answer for for how easily many people have become bamboozled by the woo people then attach to the idea that consciousness itself is having this effect on the universe.
You have missed most of the points made in the Synthesis because of your obsession with the analogies/similie/metaphors violating your understanding of physics.
Yes, this is exactly what I've been saying all along - analogies to incorrect interpretations of physics don't tell us anything. Neither do rambling about the philosophical implications of things which don't actually happen. So it isn't so much that I've missed the points and more that I realize that the points are unsupported by science or logical reasoning.
Quote:
They violate nothing . . . they analogize the philosophical implications of the actual physics. You don't even try to communicate those implications . . . whether due to lack of desire or ability is unknown.
I'd imagine the reason is that very few people think it is fruitful to deduce things from premises which don't correspond to reality.
Quote:
Please enlighten me how you explain the implications for our reality of the delayed quantum eraser results.
What implications do you think are important here, specifically? You're acting as if you've given something to discuss, but you haven't. You've just thrown out a random science term and are getting all huffy that no one can guess how that magically proves your religious beliefs about a dark energy powered universal god creator energy field. It may seem perfectly clear to you - after all you did see the obvious truth of this in a dream - but the rest of us need a bit more to connect the dots.
You still don't get it. I wheel out the classical concepts to communicate with a lay audience who have no other frame of reference. That is the purpose of metaphor, simile, analogy, etc.
Consciousness provides the locus for the "spooky" instantaneous information at a distance. It is the information reservoir not subject to the limitations of timespace because it is what establishes timespace. You clearly did not pick up on that from my Synthesis either. You have missed most of the points made in the Synthesis because of your obsession with the analogies/similie/metaphors violating your understanding of physics. They violate nothing . . . they analogize the philosophical implications of the actual physics. You don't even try to communicate those implications . . . whether due to lack of desire or ability is unknown.
Please enlighten me how you explain the implications for our reality of the delayed quantum eraser results. I suspect you cannot because you do not think there are any implications for reality. You think it is all just mathematics. I am STILL waiting to be enlightened.
You're contradicting yourself. You are not wheeling out consciousness as an analogy. You are wheeling it out as an explanation.
Also, I already answered your question regarding the quantum eraser experiment. There is no "spooky" transformation of information. The probability that the signal photon will be found at any point L on the screen is independent of anything the idle photon does. Where is the "spooky" transfer of information?
Interesting thread even though it gets into some very diffilcut concepts and thus to follow. In any case, good for the soul I say...;-)... I like the give and take of marrying science and religious ideas. Just something from Albert who I not only admire form a purely intelelctual and scientific point of view. men of his caliber...and values......perhaps only exist in few centuries. I like this statement from him:
'The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. he to whom this emotion is a stranger, whoc an no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull facultiescan comprehend only in their most primitive forms-this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.....My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds, That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God'.
(Not sure be was Albert ostensibly an atheist??) All this from the man who gave us a jump start into the mysteries of the universe with E=mc squared, a point to ponder as we search the heavens for 'dark energy' and quantum events.
I love Penrose, I especially love his book "The Road to Reality". He is an invaluable theoretical physicist.
Penrose (Along with an anesthesiologist) suggests that consciousness arises from "orchestrated objective reduction" of the quantum wavefunction, which is a fancy way of saying consciousness emerges from gravitationally collapsing wavefunctions ( Penrose interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). While the question of consciousness is an interesting one, the "Orch OR" proposal ( Orchestrated objective reduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) has serious flaws, and has been severely criticized by the scientific community (see examples in the link).
Also, it should be emphasised that Penrose's proposal still pertains to mechanical processes producing consciousness. I.e. He does not say conscious agency fundamentally causes collapse of the wavefunction, he says the same process that causes wavefunctions to collapse (gravity) also permits non-computable consciousness in brains, as the process of collapse is not computable. This is why observation and collapse seem so intimately related.
In a very universal sense, we can confidently say quantum physics is fundamentally unrelated to consciousness. Whatever consciousness turns out to be, it is not a necessary elementary component of quantum physics.
I concur on most points. I am familiar with the Penrose-Hameroff Orch-OR model, and of the criticisms of it. I have quoted it many times, but I'll come back to that in a minute.
I have to disagree with this statement:
"In a very universal sense, we can confidently say quantum physics is fundamentally unrelated to consciousness. Whatever consciousness turns out to be, it is not a necessary elementary component of quantum physics."
I'd like to take a quote from a favourite book of mine "The Quantum Universe' by Cox and Foreshaw:
Quote:
The laws of quantum theory replace Newtons laws and furnish a more accurate description of the world. Newtons physics emerges out of the quantum description and it is important to realise that the situation is not 'Newton for big things and quantum for small': it is quantum all the way.
What is being said here is that every physical system at a base level is governed by quantum physical laws. If you accept this statement then you must accept that whatever happens is our brains is governed by them as well. And by extension then consciousness itself must also be a result of those physical laws.
If you are going to flatly rule out quantum mechanics and say it has no relationship whatever to consciousness then what you are saying is that that consciousness exists outside the physical laws of nature - and to me as an atheist, that's not a route I care to go down. Consciousness must exist with the physical laws of nature and quantum to me seems to be the only way to go.
And this is the genius of Roger Penrose and other geniuses like him- it's the ability to think outside the box. I agree with you that the Orch-OR model is flawed, not only that - it is probably outright wrong and needs a different approach. But to rule out quantum altogether at this stage to me goes against the heart of what science is about. Every avenue must be explored until an answer is found.
In the words of the great Feynman:
Quote:
It doesn't matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to it.
Penrose I am sure knows this as well as any scientist out there. That doesn't mean we should stop making guesses, or testing our ideas, because as soon as we do that, that's an end to science. It just means we haven't made the right guess yet.
My feeling is although Penrose's research may have been wrong, his perspective is probably right. Something about the nature of consciousness suggests a quantum process not yet understood.
10 years ago nobody would ever have imagined that quantum entanglement might have something to do with how birds navigate but it does appear that this is the case. Perhaps no progress has been made pertaining to quantum mechanics and a relationship to consciousness, but as we understand almost nothing about consciousness at this time, we should not rule it out.
You still don't get it. I wheel out the classical concepts to communicate with a lay audience who have no other frame of reference. That is the purpose of metaphor, simile, analogy, etc.
Consciousness provides the locus for the "spooky" instantaneous information at a distance. It is the information reservoir not subject to the limitations of timespace because it is what establishes timespace. You clearly did not pick up on that from my Synthesis either. You have missed most of the points made in the Synthesis because of your obsession with the analogies/simile/metaphors violating your understanding of physics. They violate nothing . . . they analogize the philosophical implications of the actual physics.
You don't even try to communicate those implications . . . whether due to lack of desire or ability is unknown.
Please enlighten me how you explain the implications for our reality of the delayed quantum eraser results. I suspect you cannot because you do not think there are any implications for reality. You think it is all just mathematics. I am STILL waiting to be enlightened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbert
You're contradicting yourself. You are not wheeling out consciousness as an analogy. You are wheeling it out as an explanation.
You are not reading very carefully . . . the analogies etc. are primarily for explaining the physics to a lay audience . . . but the main analogy for consciousness is as the "fire of mind" (all due credit to Hugh Elliot). I do use consciousness as the probable source of the universal field that establishes our reality and wherein all information-based aspects reside.
Quote:
Also, I already answered your question regarding the quantum eraser experiment. There is no "spooky" transformation of information. The probability that the signal photon will be found at any point L on the screen is independent of anything the idle photon does. Where is the "spooky" transfer of information?
You have explained zero implication of anything . . . which is my biggest complaint. You criticize the implications I draw without providing any of your own. This is a dismissal of the quantum entanglement of the signal and idler photons without the slightest explanation except for your imputed expertise. My view explains the information-based source of entanglement . . . yours appears to dismiss its existence.
I concur on most points. I am familiar with the Penrose-Hameroff Orch-OR model, and of the criticisms of it. I have quoted it many times, but I'll come back to that in a minute.
I have to disagree with this statement:
"In a very universal sense, we can confidently say quantum physics is fundamentally unrelated to consciousness. Whatever consciousness turns out to be, it is not a necessary elementary component of quantum physics."
I'd like to take a quote from a favourite book of mine "The Quantum Universe' by Cox and Foreshaw:
What is being said here is that every physical system at a base level is governed by quantum physical laws. If you accept this statement then you must accept that whatever happens is our brains is governed by them as well. And by extension then consciousness itself must also be a result of those physical laws.
If you are going to flatly rule out quantum mechanics and say it has no relationship whatever to consciousness then what you are saying is that that consciousness exists outside the physical laws of nature - and to me as an atheist, that's not a route I care to go down. Consciousness must exist with the physical laws of nature and quantum to me seems to be the only way to go.
And this is the genius of Roger Penrose and other geniuses like him- it's the ability to think outside the box. I agree with you that the Orch-OR model is flawed, not only that - it is probably outright wrong and needs a different approach. But to rule out quantum altogether at this stage to me goes against the heart of what science is about. Every avenue must be explored until an answer is found.
In the words of the great Feynman:
Penrose I am sure knows this as well as any scientist out there. That doesn't mean we should stop making guesses, or testing our ideas, because as soon as we do that, that's an end to science. It just means we haven't made the right guess yet.
My feeling is although Penrose's research may have been wrong, his perspective is probably right. Something about the nature of consciousness suggests a quantum process not yet understood.
10 years ago nobody would ever have imagined that quantum entanglement might have something to do with how birds navigate but it does appear that this is the case. Perhaps no progress has been made pertaining to quantum mechanics and a relationship to consciousness, but as we understand almost nothing about consciousness at this time, we should not rule it out.
Today is my chosen day off and I couldn't be in a better mood, anyway only a perspective arriving at the conclusion man knows very little to nothing about consciousness removes any value to anything proposed at all in these things.
animals do have a type of consciousness although it is not the same and less sophisticated then the human. Here is a clip , the clip needs to be analyzed , all moves, moment, happening turned into language alongside all the conditions in existence, as a capability, if the word consciousness is going to be used in these idea's, giving support to the properties and values that are being talked about , things need to comply and fit in, only in opinion tagging along.
I have to disagree with this statement:
"In a very universal sense, we can confidently say quantum physics is fundamentally unrelated to consciousness. Whatever consciousness turns out to be, it is not a necessary elementary component of quantum physics."
I'd like to take a quote from a favourite book of mine "The Quantum Universe' by Cox and Foreshaw:
What is being said here is that every physical system at a base level is governed by quantum physical laws. If you accept this statement then you must accept that whatever happens in our brains is governed by them as well. And by extension then consciousness itself must also be a result of those physical laws.
If you are going to flatly rule out quantum mechanics and say it has no relationship whatever to consciousness then what you are saying is that that consciousness exists outside the physical laws of nature - and to me as an atheist, that's not a route I care to go down. Consciousness must exist with the physical laws of nature and quantum to me seems to be the only way to go.
And this is the genius of Roger Penrose and other geniuses like him- it's the ability to think outside the box. I agree with you that the Orch-OR model is flawed, not only that - it is probably outright wrong and needs a different approach. But to rule out quantum altogether at this stage to me goes against the heart of what science is about. Every avenue must be explored until an answer is found.
In the words of the great Feynman:
Penrose I am sure knows this as well as any scientist out there. That doesn't mean we should stop making guesses, or testing our ideas, because as soon as we do that, that's an end to science. It just means we haven't made the right guess yet.
My feeling is although Penrose's research may have been wrong, his perspective is probably right. Something about the nature of consciousness suggests a quantum process not yet understood.
10 years ago nobody would ever have imagined that quantum entanglement might have something to do with how birds navigate but it does appear that this is the case. Perhaps no progress has been made pertaining to quantum mechanics and a relationship to consciousness, but as we understand almost nothing about consciousness at this time, we should not rule it out.
I am sorry to intrude . . . I know you have withdrawn from engaging my views, Cruithne. But Morbert's most recent posts to me seem to disavow quantum entanglement entirely. This would explain his disavowal of consciousness as having anything to do with quantum processes. Quantum entanglement is an information-based aspect of reality . . . and our source of information about reality is our consciousness.
I am sorry to intrude . . . I know you have withdrawn from engaging my views, Cruithne. But Morbert's most recent posts to me seem to disavow quantum entanglement entirely. This would explain his disavowal of consciousness as having anything to do with quantum processes. Quantum entanglement is an information-based aspect of reality . . . and our source of information about reality is our consciousness.
Im sorry but yuh gotta define what is understood by consciousness with a theory...so that clip, and I can bring more, insects , plants, all of it needs to be understood and fit in...
so explain the existence in the underlying world together with above clip , every frame , every-moment...with this knowing of whats going on...go ahead with all cause-effect time space the whole deal, so there is something to only work with, seems fair.
Last edited by alexcanter; 02-01-2014 at 01:08 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
