The New Science


#1

#2

A less aggressive way of introducing this would be to say that groups have different ‘ways of Being’ or ‘modes of perception’.
The Female, Black, Indigenous, Lefty conception only applies if you look at it through a scientific lense.
Its as though science believes that numeric answers are Truth per say; rather than an aspect of Truth.
As though other Truths cannot exist because scientif Truth has excluded them.
This is obvious nonsense.

The hard science mob are very sure of themselves in spite of the kick-in-the-bollox that quantum theory has delivered to them; nothing is as it seems, to put it mildly. Rounding on alternative systems religious or otherwise which have been promoting this position for millenia seems a little… stupid.

Anyways, to make a long story short, the answer youre all scrambling for is one that has already been presented to most of us - Catholicism.


#3

What kick is that? Genuinely interested.


#4

#5

I’ve had a few jars, but I’ll make a fist of explaining this and assume your question is in good faith…

The kick that the wave function collapses only in the presence of human consciousness - even at a remove.
(I’m assuming familiarity with the Double Slit experiment here…)

to wit; Electron fired, measurement taken, measurement recorded on computer #1.
Binary outcome “yes/no an observation was not/made” recorded on 2nd computer.
Original result on 1st computer erased without possibility of recovery
Outcome = electron shows unobserved ‘wave’ pattern even though it was observed and that observation recorded and deleted.
Its just that Humans did not read the data.

Conclusion - it is not the recording of the wave function that determines collapse, but human consciousness of that occurrence.

It follows than that the Universe proceeds from Human consciousness, not the inverse; material science therefore is a subset or function of Human Experience.

Thats the ‘kick’.

There is no way around this; it has implications for human consciousness, Cause-and-Effect, Time, Space… the whole shooting match…

Perhaps its all a game?

:wink:


#6

Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is often described as relating to the unavoidable disturbance during measurement of the thing being measured. And indeed, that is how Heisenberg formulated it in his doctoral thesis. But that phenomenon is more accurately described as Heisenberg’s Measurement-Disturbance Principle or, more simply, the observer effect. And it’s actually wrong! It has been demonstrably violated using a process called weak measurement in the last decade.

The thing we most often call Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle nowadays – the intrinsic uncertainty in the combined measurement of non-commuting properties – wasn’t actually discovered by Heisenberg. That was done by two little known Americans, Earle Kennard and Howard Robertson. It seems to be a fundamental property of nature. The uncertainty (or at least one variety of it) arises because of the wave nature of matter, as proposed by de Broglie. Weirdly, the same reason that your MP3 player can never perfectly reproduce a sound – because of the use of the Fourier transform to convert between time and frequency domains – applies to the simultaneous measurement of position and momentum. One of them is the Fourier transform of the other in the abstract configuration space used in quantum mechanics. If one is localised the other is spread out, and vice versa. It’s got nothing to do with measurement or disturbances.


#7

The implication of this argument would be that the phenomenon of wave function collapse was not a thing until humans evolved. Could Australopithecus have made the necessary observation? How about a cat? An amoeba? A virus?

The bottom line is that wave function collapse occurs somewhere in the chain of interactions of the quantum system with its environment. We don’t know where, exactly. Attributing it to human consciousness is a bit of a leap, the quantum erasure experiment notwithstanding. It is probably fairer to say that the system includes its environment.

A lot of “woo” has been associated with the double slit experiment over the years. But fundamentally it is a demonstration of quantum indeterminacy. The photons or electrons (or whatever) that pass through the slits do not have definite positions and momenta simultaneously. You cannot precisely measure one without affecting the other (as in my previous post). The double slit experiment even without measurements at the slits is a demonstration of this. If we narrow the slits, thus increasing the positional localisation of the electrons, the momentum distribution broadens (see here for a descripton). The act of measurement at one of the slits localises the position to that single slit, destroying the superposition in which the electron could have passed through either slit. The superposition concept is itself pretty weird, but merely underscores that the constituents of matter are neither particles nor waves.

Furthermore, the ease with which the double slit demonstrates the effect of wave function superpositions tempts us to think of the electron wave function as a thing independent of its environment. It isn’t. The detector at the slit becomes part of a single wave function governing the whole system. This, I think, is the real “woo” factor. Reality is fundamentally non-local in nature. Entire systems, perhaps the entire universe, are described by a single incredibly complicated wave function. Our ability to set up isolated subsystems like the double slit experiment distract from that. If you have a detector at a slit it is not the double slit experiment anymore. It is an enlarged system, possibly including us.

Introducing consciousness as a necessary part of the measurement process is beset with problems. As I said, it suggests that quantum processes were different before humans came along – processes that our own existence depends on. Every atom in the universe is an example of the same sort of quantum indeterminacy as displayed by the double slit experiment. The sizes of atoms are fundamentally determined by momentum broadening as electrons are confined to smaller orbitals (see here for a simplified description).


#8

No, the implication is that The Universe is a subset or function of consciousness; the higher the consciousness the ‘deeper’ the Universe. We are down the rabbit hole, chasing our own tail, the more we look th
e more we find, etc…etc…etc…

No!
It expressly and explicitly is not a leap, or a summation or speculation or conjecture - it is established, concrete, reproducible fact; the wave function does not collapse without conscious comprehension of same.

There is not, nor can there be any doubt about this!

Youve got it ass backwards - there we,re no quantum processes before there were humans because they proceed from us - as laboratory evidence proves again ad again - We are the font of all material experience - the ‘Chalice’ within which the Transubstantiation occurs.

You are the ‘miracle’, the laboratory, the ‘Soul’, the ‘test tube’ withing which the reaction or ‘miracle’ occurs.

I find it remarkable that a country full of Catholics educated with 100 years of science cannot bring comprehend these two truths. I mean, in artistic terms, its laid out for you in the for of the Cross - at the junction of the the up/down and the left/right lies the 'Sacred Heart’or Truth, or realisation, or essence or whatever.

You’d have to be fucking stupid not to see it, really…


#9

That doesn’t really mean anything. Certainly not anything scientific.

You’re wrong. There is a great deal of doubt about it. For a start, we have no definition of consciousness. For seconds, we have no definition of measurement. Quantum theory doesn’t define it. It only talks of interactions with a classical system, without saying where that boundary lies. They don’t call it the measurement problem for nothing. (Some alternatives are enumerated here).

Ah c’mon, yer havin’ a larf. Every helium atom fused in every star is a quantum process. We don’t consciously observe them now any more than we did ten billion years ago. Without quantum tunneling – the ability of protons to overcome a Coulomb barrier that is insurmountable in the classical regime – there would be no stars.

Well, I’m a Catholic (practising, not cultural) and I’ve a degree in physics and a masters in astrophysics … and I ain’t buyin’ it. If it’s quite as obvious as you think, you’d expect a scientific consensus that simply doesn’t exist. That should be an alarm signal to you that you may have overreached in your interpretation. (Though the Pin does seem to attract people who are oblivious to the usual alarms, such as IT AIN’T IN ANY TEXT BOOK :wink:)


#10

Explain this one then Mr. Text book?

:grin:


#11

The short answer is: if the black perimeter length is constant then the proposition is that it is equal to the length of the circle in the first picture as well as the last. A five year old child can see by inspection that it isn’t.

We can calculate the length of a curve using line integrals. (The concept is from Riemannian or differential geometry, but in 2D Euclidean space it doesn’t need much more than Pythagoras theorem). Chop the curve into little segments of horizontal width Δx and add them all up:

image

We get the sum:

image … which, in the limit of decreasing Δx gives: image

This is a very general approach by Riemann that requires only the local curvature instead of the global shape, and by extension to higher dimensions was eventually instrumental in the formulation of General Relativity. But for our less lofty purposes you can see that the line integral depends on the slope, or derivative of the curve at each point. Archimedes’ approximation using polygons of increasing number of sides approaches the slope of the circle at each point. That approach does work. But your vertical line segments have a singularity in the derivative. That’s why that doesn’t work. Despite superficial appearances, the black perimeter length is not an increasingly close approximation to the circle.

...


#12

Now prove that there are 67 genders. :smile:


#13

image


#14

I’ll grant you that it isnt ‘scientific’ in the sense that its not Materialist. Its not Geographical, either but hey…

As an aside, not having a definition of the most fundamental state of your own existence seems a little remiss, no? Further, by your own admission, there is little evidence to back any scientific claims up - and how could there be if they can neither define or measure the issue?
It seems a bizarre position to take to say ‘scientists havent a clue’ but we know its not that other thing.

You’ll be aware of the DCQE experiments in 1999 and the implications of the atemporal and non-local aspects of quantum experiments. For those who dont know - recent experiments completed successfully, seem to show that ‘atoms’ can move backward and/or forward in time and can ‘communicate’ with each other across vast distances instantly. This last fact seems to break the ‘Laws of Physics’ in that it allows faster than light travel.
In ps200306 comments he comments “…don’t consciously observe them now any more than we did ten billion years ago.” but (owing to this qualifications) he’ll know and understand that - in many laboratories - time is not a factor in quantum arrangements.

In summary - something is acting in a non-local, atemporal fashion in labs and experiments and has been doing so for 100 years. By implication of these experiments it also acts everywhere and across all time.
Either the universe is conscious of us (ie we live in a simulation) or the universe is a product of our consciousness. So the appeal to atoms ‘ten billion years ago’ is moot; they arent even ‘atoms’ until they’re observed! The arguement is circular.
The Buddists were on to this early with their ‘tree falls in the forest’ Koans - their own ‘hint’ that unless there is a human observer conscious and present - then nothing occurs.

Heres my tongue-in-cheek TL;DR Koan or my own;
We are in a lab on the 20th floor of a building and we have broken the laws of physics.
The foundations of the building are made of Bricks of Physics that we now understand not to exist.
Are we still on the 20th floor or wha’?

G’night ps200306, enjoying the tete-a-tete but less of the hieroglyphics - its the refuge found-out, high priesthoods since the year dot :wink:


#15

“The fundamental nature of reality is actually consciousness.”

Peter Russell explores the reasons why consciousness may be the fundamental essence of the Universe.

Many have made such claims from metaphysical perspectives, but the possibility has always been ignored by the scientific community. In this talk, he discusses the problems the materialist scientific worldview has with consciousness and proposes an alternative worldview which, rather than contradicting science, makes new sense of much of modern physics. He presents a reasoned argument that shows how they are pointing towards the one thing science has always avoided considering—the primary nature of consciousness. (Excerpt from main website)

sprword.com/videos/primacy/


#16

Watched it. He’s a hand-wavey woo merchant. It’s clear the audience think they got their money’s worth. But then he’s preaching to the converted. Standard M.O. – trot out a bit of elementary science to make it look like you know stuff about stuff, then move in for the kill with a ton of completely unsupported assertions. He had them eating out of his hand.


#17

I posted the video as an example of someone using the argot of Science/Physics to back up a foolish argument or idea, its far too common and unfortunately IMO over 50% of the population are vulnerable to the trick/fraud


#18

Yes, although in that case the audience were being led willingly, I think. They wanted to be persuaded. I’d say everyone in the population is vulnerable to it. In reality we all believe in things that are not fully justifed by the evidence. The trick is to know when you’re doing it, and be open to persuasion by counterevidence.

Btw, was that a posting slip up? I take it Poacher and PrinceMyshkin are one and the same?


#19

It’s not out of the question that even if consciousness had a role in quantum processes that it would also have a material basis. But we’ve no hard evidence for that role anyway. At least we agree – your statement is not scientific.

You’ll have to take that up with the scientists. Some philosophers of science think they have it figured out. For instance, Dan Dennett thinks that consciousness is no more than inputs wired to outputs, with some processing that we’re not fully aware of in between. I think he’s completely misunderstood the whole problem, but I’m just pointing out that some people do claim to have a working definition of consciousness. They solve the hard problem by hand-waving it away.

I think you might be misinterpreting me. There is no compelling evidence that consciousness is the sine qua non of quantum measurement. There’s no proof that it isn’t either. Science doesn’t know. Sometimes that’s just the answer.

No, that’s really not correct. Yes, reality seems to be fundamentally non-local as I acknowledged earlier. In fact I think it is the most startling revelation of quantum physics. But correlations among particles do not imply either retrocausality or faster-than-light travel. The cosmic speed limit applies to material influences or to the transmission of information.

Your last sentence is not at all justified by the first two. There’s no evidence for it. As you know, experiments like DCQE are difficult to set up. You have to keep components isolated in order for quantum effects to appear. Same with quantum computers. Maintaining qubits in the necessary prepared states is a task we’ve been struggling with for years. Once an isolated quantum system interacts with the classical environment, many of the effects we are interested in go away. As I’ve said before, we have little idea where the quantum world ends and the classical world begins. Bohr’s correspondence principle simply says that it must happen somewhere, since both quantum and classical effects are part of the same world. There’s only one reality (assuming you’re an objective realist, as I am).

Why put ‘hint’ in scare quotes? Do you think they had a premonition or just a lucky guess? It can’t have been divine inpiration, like when god told Muhommad to write a precise formula for the speed of light into the Qu’ran (according to some Muslims). Buddhists don’t really hold much truck with that sort of god.


#20

Nope