The mind creates what we call reality

apologies. I made mention of 'magical thinking' without qualifying it.

In the two slit experiment, for instance, we note that the act of measurement alters the results of the experiment. We don't understand why. However, we note that measuring the path of an electron causes it to produce a particle result rather than wave result. The reasoning in current physics predominates to the idea that the act of measurement is the cause of this because we cannot concieve of any other explanation. This is, to my mind, the error and the source of mystical logic in physics.

If we cannot understand why something happened, then there is something wrong with our understanding. Either we misunderstand the nature of the universe or we misunderstand the ramifications of the measuring process. However, if we consider that the only important aspect is our own understanding, we've introduced associative logic to a linearly logical system.

We could extrapolate outward from that associative logic to say that, for instance, if no one saw the man shoot the bullet then he coud both be guilty and not guilty of murder. How do you both punish the guilty and free the not-guilty if they exist in a superstate? Extrapolate further and we might arrive, through circuitous logic, to the conclusion that eating the heart of a fierce warrior confers his strength to the victor. Or by taking a picture we steal a soul. Associative logic as a nasty bugger.

If, however, we follow Occam's Razor to find the simplest answer, however, we arrive to a very different conclusion. The results of the two-slit experiment differ in result because we have changed the experiment in ways that we don't understand. "I don't know" is a valid answer in physics, both quantum and classical.

To summate, I tend to lend more credence to the statement "superstates are a pleasant fiction of physics."

reply to post by Confusion42


Your last post is nothing short of being sick...

So I won't bother bother to make any other comments regarding you delusional thinking...

reply to post by Confusion42


you keep giving is this line about "nothing wrong with 'quantum mysticism'."

I agree. there isn't.

however, the term itself has an underlying assumption about the nature of the information to which it is being referenced. specifically, that the information is not only CURRENTLY unproven, but that it CAN NEVER BE proven.

that is a very very bold statement. it is a categorical dismissal ...you should stop pretending that it is otherwise. if you're gonna be a jerk, just own it. what's with the pretense? that was my objection about the what the bleep comment, etc. you put on such high airs. but who the hell do YOU think YOU are?!

besides, in only a very short few years, you will be on the wrong side of history. quantum theory is already being applied in ways which, according to you, are only mystical.

Relaxing some restrictionsand definitions from quantum theory proper yields an axiomatic framework that can be applied to any type of system. Most importantly, it keeps the core of the quantum theoretical formalism. It is capable of handling complementary observables, i.e. descriptors which are non-commuting, incompatible and yet collectively required to fully describe certain situations. It also predicts a generalised form of non-local correlations that in quantum theory are known as entanglement. This generalised version is not quantum entanglement but an analogue form of holistic, non-local connectedness of elements within systems, predicted to occur whenever elements within systems are described by observables which are complementary to the description of the whole system.

scholrly treatment of GQT.

reply to post by herrw


You tickle my brain

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by Confusion42

 

you keep giving is this line about "nothing wrong with 'quantum mysticism'."

I agree. there isn't.

however, the term itself has an underlying assumption about the nature of the information to which it is being referenced. specifically, that the information is not only CURRENTLY unproven, but that it CAN NEVER BE proven.

that is a very very bold statement. it is a categorical dismissal ...you should stop pretending that it is otherwise. if you're gonna be a jerk, just own it. what's with the pretense? that was my objection about the what the bleep comment, etc. you put on such high airs. but who the hell do YOU think YOU are?!

besides, in only a very short few years, you will be on the wrong side of history. quantum theory is already being applied in ways which, according to you, are only mystical.

The above is incorrect.

Your putting words in my mouth. I didn't say, and I am not saying that Quantum Mysticism has an underlying assumption that the nature of information can never be proven. The whole quote above, the "very very bold statement," I DID NOT MAKE.

We both agree nothing is wrong with Quantum Mysticism.

I read the link, and am currently reading Generalised Quantum Theory—Basic Idea and General Intuition: A Background Story and Overview by Harald Walach and Nikolaus von Stillfried

I also started researching Nikolaus von Stillfried. I found his dissertation, and am reading through it.

Theoretical and empirical explorations
of
“Generalized Quantum Theory”


Nikolaus von Stillfried
[

I am reading the Over View of Mr. Stillfried's Disseration, and, at the end of page 8 / start of page 9,
"

If GQT were a correct
description of reality, then in such an experimental system we should be able to observe
entanglement. However, no indication for entanglement was detected in the experiments.
More detailed analysis revealed that the experimental systems I developed did not
operationalize in a satisfactory way all the theoretical requirements and that in fact this 9
may be difficult to achieve even in principle. Therefore, the finding that no entanglement
was observed in these experiments cannot be interpreted unambiguously to either support
or disprove GQT. While on the one hand GQT may simply be wrong with respect to
generalized entanglement, it is also possible that the experiments simply did not
adequately fulfill some of the theoretical requirements for generalized entanglement to
occur. What is more, my theoretical analysis will show that it may be in principle
impossible to design an experiment that does fulfill these requirements.

It may be important to point out that much of this theoretical analysis took place after the
experiments had been conducted. This explains why in chapter 4 of this dissertation I will
report experiments which in light of the analysis presented in chapter 3 may not seem to
have been very promising in the first place. Ideally, in scientific progress, negative results
will lead to the formulation of new hypotheses, which in turn can be tested again
experimentally. In the case of generalized entanglement, however, I have come to the
conclusion that a rigorous experimental proof is probably impossible as a matter of
principle. If that is so, the question about its existence will have to be assessed on grounds
of plausibility and circumstantial evidence rather than the potential experimental
falsification of its nonexistence.

I will read his dissertation in full and come back with more points regarding this.

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


in the matrix it is what we call the drama

One could then ask if a blind man can experience the moon? Well, maybe not directly, but rather through the typical temperature cycles, or the tides, they could. Einstein is long dead, yet the moon still exists. To think your singular experiences are the workings of the Universe, is folly. What your saying is, "I think, therefore you exist", which is by the way, my saying.... an offshoot "I think, therefore I exist" lol.... To think yourself the reason for all that exists....well......
***************************************************************************************************************************
Einstein once said “I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it.". I like to think I have a million bucks but that isn't the case. The real question is WAS THE MOON THERE BEFORE IT WAS OBSERVED? Is the moon there after it's observed or are we seeing a projection of quantum information? Does observation really collapse the wave function? I think the answer goes deeper than that. I think the CHOICE of the Observer causes a measurement to occur.

reply to post by AstroBuzz


Well that's because Bishop Berkeley's God was collapsing their wave-functions the whole time.