The "observer effect": Is it proof the system is "aware it's being observed?"

Could it just be possible that our reality is "self aware"? Could our reality just maybe in some way even be sentient? It would explain more than a few things.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


interesting
thanks for the reply

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller

Its stated in "Quantum Physics Double Slit Experiment - What The Bleep Movie"

The electron decided to act differently, as though it was aware it was being watched

Is it to be understood that the above statement does NOT suggest the electron was Aware.

But merely says as though it was aware...


My English as you know is very poor indeed, but are people reading too much into this?


Being as though is NOT quite the same, as "being" in my opinion...

But then again perhaps it is my lack of knowledge in the art of English Communication?

I never noticed any problems with your English and yes of course people are reading too much into it, including the producers of that "what the bleep" movie which as I noted in the OP goes on to claim:

What the Bleep Do We Know!?

the quantum channeling of Ramtha, the 35,000-year-old Lemurian warrior, and on to even greater nonsense.

So yes, the quantum channeling of the 35,000-year-old Lemurian warrior Ramtha based on the double slit experiment is reading way too much into it. But then again the producers were part of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment so I guess we can't be too surprised at them trying to channel their 35,000 year old mentor with or without quantum assistance.

In fact, it's not uncommon in psuedoscience to see "quantum this" or "quantum that" invoked to try to convince laypeople of some mysterious claim, and sometimes the scam works because scientists admit quantum effects can be somewhat mysterious to our macro sensibilities. However, people need to see through the scam and realize that just because quantum effects are mysterious doesn't mean you can invent any screwball claim you want to like channeling an ancient warrior's spirit and say quantum mechanics explains how you can do that....it doesn't. But some people try to make claims like those.

So I agree with your point that the "as though" qualifier makes what follows it an acceptable comparison, but there's actually a bigger problem with the preceding words if you really want to dissect that statement. The electron didn't "decide" to do anything, any more than my turkey "decided" to get a little colder where I stuck in a cold heat sink. In both cases they just naturally reacted to natural laws, they didn't really make any "decisions". So I think there's actually more of a problem with the use of the word "decided", but that's jut the tip of the iceberg of the problems with that movie.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Yes I would have to agree with you...

There are options in some cases, and in other situations the Domino effect, (Automatic events) in the case of the subject being debated, it is my opinion we are looking at the "Domino effect" with few cards in our hand, so more information is needed to know what is really taking place.

At the end of the day still only involves human interpretation of the experience which may or may not be produced, or the result of a system totally unknown at present... No father christmas or wizard though here .... LOL.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I call bs on this.
Although i may agree with your deductions about movie and observers effect, You made a HUUUGGEE and glaring error in your analogy both in science and logic.
I am truly amazed and somewhat baffled no one noticed. Perhaps you should have just written down that you dont agree that observers effect has any affect on result, and keave it at that, rather then providing a false and flawed analogy?
are you starting to see your mistake in analogy yet, or should i point it out?

I dunno. How do you explain quantum entanglement?

In quantum entanglement, two objects are connected by an invisible wave, like an umbilical cord, that allows them to essentially share the same existence. When something happens to one object, it immediately happens to the other, no matter how far apart they are.

Including DNA
Source

Quantum Entanglement Proven

I have a quantum link with my mom. If I pick up the phone to call but decide not, she calls. She picked up to call once but I was already on the line before it rang. After seeing my 16 year old son on Facebook I never met, he contacted me. Nothing can be just chalked up as science. There is a conscience element to everything, including DNA and subatomic particles. Dark matter holds what 70-90% of the universe's mass? What could that 70-90% possibly be? We live in only 30-10% reality.

I prefer to believe everything that exists is aware to some degree. Including plants.

Originally posted by BBalazs
Although i may agree with your deductions about movie and observers effect, You made a HUUUGGEE and glaring error in your analogy both in science and logic....

are you starting to see your mistake in analogy yet, or should i point it out?

Please point it out. This is an open forum, so all opinions are welcome and if I made an error I might learn something from you.

Originally posted by FlySolo
I dunno. How do you explain quantum entanglement?

I made a specific comparison between my analogy of the turkey changing temperature when being observed, and the wavefunction collapsing (or whatever happens) when a quantum scale particle is observed.

I made no attempt to explain every phenomenon in the known universe.

Perhaps some things on a macro scale are impacted by quantum entanglement. But I'm pretty tired of people making the claims about "quantum consciousness" etc with absolutely no evidence to back up their claims. The lack of any evidence but anecdotal doesn't mean the claims are false, but I have anecdotal evidence from a psychologist that he has a dragon living in his garage, should I believe that too because of an anecdote?

Actually I've had some pretty interesting anecdotal experiences myself that I'd like to believe are along the lines of your anecdotes. However when I step back from what I want to be true, to try to figure out what really is true, I can't rule out the possibility of coincidence.

I don't claim science has everything figured out yet, obviously it doesn't. But the things that scientists are proven are what I claim to know. Things that science hasn't proven yet includes some things I believe. But science has shown when it makes new discoveries that beliefs have been overturned by scientific evidence, so we can't really say whether we know these things to be true or not. We are pretty good at deceiving ourselves...just look at all the things we choose to believe with little or no evidence at all; this is the human condition.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by FlySolo
I dunno. How do you explain quantum entanglement?

I made a specific comparison between my analogy of the turkey changing temperature when being observed, and the wavefunction collapsing (or whatever happens) when a quantum scale particle is observed.

I made no attempt to explain every phenomenon in the known universe.

Perhaps some things on a macro scale are impacted by quantum entanglement. But I'm pretty tired of people making the claims about "quantum consciousness" etc with absolutely no evidence to back up their claims. The lack of any evidence but anecdotal doesn't mean the claims are false, but I have anecdotal evidence from a psychologist that he has a dragon living in his garage, should I believe that too because of an anecdote?

Actually I've had some pretty interesting anecdotal experiences myself that I'd like to believe are along the lines of your anecdotes. However when I step back from what I want to be true, to try to figure out what really is true, I can't rule out the possibility of coincidence.

I don't claim science has everything figured out yet, obviously it doesn't. But the things that scientists are proven are what I claim to know. Things that science hasn't proven yet includes some things I believe. But science has shown when it makes new discoveries that beliefs have been overturned by scientific evidence, so we can't really say whether we know these things to be true or not. We are pretty good at deceiving ourselves...just look at all the things we choose to believe with little or no evidence at all; this is the human condition.

All I am saying is this. We can not rule out a metaphysical, spiritual, inter-dimensional cause for the unexplained in our classical world. These things go against the ability to be patented and to capitalize on in our 'free society"
And science within the confines of its own standards will not allow for such explanations. Until science and philosophy can learn to come together, will we never understand and will always be at ends.

There is an element of belief/faith that manifests itself into our lives. The more you doubt, the less strange coincidences occur. It is in my opinion there are no such things as coincidences. They happen in my life all the time. I'll give you another real world example. I'm a subcontractor and I get my material at the same place. I'm there frequently but I don't have my own account. My supplier decided to put me under another company that gets contractor rates so I don't have to pay retail. They did this months ago. I just recently learned the company they put me under was the exact company I do my subcontracting for. They put me under them before I was even a subcontractor for them. Coincidence? no. Quantum? perhaps.

double post

A plant knows. A plant knows. really what is going on. Example. People have done these tests before. Living plant tissue reacts to stress. They hooked up plants before. They took REAL LIVE PLANTS and one was subjected to different musics. The other was subjected to fire,cutting of leaves, parts. They both reacted differently to different stimuli. The plant #1 was subjected to phisical stimuli and its leaves cut or burned. The plant reacted immediately when the scissors was picked up and also when the torch was lit. Plant #2 also reacted to different music and tones. WHY? I do not know that answer, interesting tho, really. SO, yeah, the system is aware. Hmmm, now i confused. what system? can you please be more clear.

Originally posted by FlySolo
All I am saying is this. We can not rule out a metaphysical, spiritual, inter-dimensional cause for the unexplained in our classical world. These things go against the ability to be patented and to capitalize on in our 'free society"
And science within the confines of its own standards will not allow for such explanations.

This is simply not true. Science has allowed such papers with unexplained causes to be published, even peer reviewed. Just look at Daryl Bem's most recent paper "Feeling the Future", which proves that you're making a straw man argument:

dbem.ws...

wiki, plant perception paranormal.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by FlySolo
All I am saying is this. We can not rule out a metaphysical, spiritual, inter-dimensional cause for the unexplained in our classical world. These things go against the ability to be patented and to capitalize on in our 'free society"
And science within the confines of its own standards will not allow for such explanations.

This is simply not true. Science has allowed such papers with unexplained causes to be published, even peer reviewed. Just look at Daryl Bem's most recent paper "Feeling the Future", which proves that you're making a straw man argument:

dbem.ws...

Thanks I'll read that. But this proves nothing about making a straw man argument because I've never heard of him. If I had, then you have an argument. Anyway, take a look at big pharma for instance. While they produce medicine with a plethora of known side-effects, the amazonian rain forest produces the same yet the FDA won't approve ayahuasca for heroine addicts in the West. But if you listen to the Shaman, they discovered the correct combination of species of plants out of 60,0000. A one in a 6 billion chance for the record. Who told them? Spirits. Now you tell me what your family doctor will have to say about that when he can't collect on a referral on a patented drug?

Science and metaphysical beliefs have a long way to go before you can say "this is simply not true". We're not even close

Originally posted by FlySolo
Thanks I'll read that. But this proves nothing about making a straw man argument because I've never heard of him.

It's a straw man argument whether you ever heard of him or not. You're saying what science will or won't do, when you don't know what science will or won't do, that's the straw man.

Science and metaphysical beliefs have a long way to go before you can say "this is simply not true". We're not even close

You can't prove the flying spaghetti monster isn't real. That's not a very good basis to believe it.

I'm no fan of big pharma, and they'd go broke if they relied on me to support them as I don't take their medicine, though I might if I thought it would help me. However I have even less confidence in the shaman, unless he can show me a double blind study, confirming the effectiveness of his treatment, which ordinarily, he can't.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

It's a straw man argument whether you ever heard of him or not. You're saying what science will or won't do, when you don't know what science will or won't do, that's the straw man.

science will not embrace metaphysics, ufology or spirits. This is a fact. Showing one paper to prove the contrary sounds more like a straw man by your definition.

You can't prove the flying spaghetti monster isn't real. That's not a very good basis to believe it.

What kind of debate tactic do you call this then? Ridicule to discredit? We don't have historical testimony by flying spaghetti monster witnesses. I would prefer you keep this discussion on track and not resort to this type of obvious mockery.

However I have even less confidence in the shaman, unless he can show me a double blind study, confirming the effectiveness of his treatment, which ordinarily, he can't.

How convenient since Peruvian, African, and South American medicine men don't have peer reviewed studies. Would you listen to a Vancouver doctor then? Dr. Gabor Maté. A 70-80 % success rate over traditional western methods such as methadone. Patented because it's synthetic. Hence, my point

Originally posted by FlySolo
What kind of debate tactic do you call this then? Ridicule to discredit? We don't have historical testimony by flying spaghetti monster witnesses. I would prefer you keep this discussion on track and not resort to this type of obvious mockery.

You said:

Originally posted by FlySolo
Science and metaphysical beliefs have a long way to go before you can say "this is simply not true". We're not even close

First, I never said it wasn't true. Second, I am pointing out the logical fallacy in your argument related to burden of proof

Burden of Proof refers to the sense you have, in any dispute, of how much each side needs to prove in order to win your agreement. Sometimes, this burden of proof is an established rule: in the United States, for example, the criminal court system operates on the rule that a person is innocent until proven guilty, which means that the prosecution carries all of the burden of proof; if the defendant is not proven guilty, then he or she should not be convicted of a crime, even if the defense cannot or does not prove him or her innocent of that crime.
Generally, by initiating a claim one takes on a greater degree of the burden of proof than the same position would warrant otherwise. If, for example, Warren said, "California became a state in 1850," he would be expected to offer more proof for his position than if someone else said "California became a state in 1851," and Warren disagreed. In an easily verifiable case like that, the burden of proof is almost even, so the person making the claim is usually expected to support it first.
In most arguments, however, it is usually the side that supports altering or rejecting the status quo--the current beliefs, practices, and information--which has most of the burden of proof. The more controversial the matter, generally speaking, the more evenly is the burden of proof shared by all sides; and the more extreme or unusual one side of an argument is, the greater its burden of proof. In such extreme cases, initiating the claim is normally insufficient to offset the burden of proof. Thus, if Aziza says, "I don't believe in ghosts," we might be willing to accept her claim without any support, even though she has initiated it, because the burden of such an argument would be carried overwhelmingly by the side that supports a belief in ghosts.
Intentionally shifting the burden of proof, in order to avoid offering support for one's premises, is a logical fallacy.

Consider the following arguments:

1. I can prove there is life on Mars. Samples of Martian rocks show evidence of the kind of chemical reaction that can only involve a living organism.
2. I can prove there is life on Mars. Spectroscopic analysis through the Hubble telescope has revealed a purplish area on the Martian surface, and according to Mozyritzski's Second Law, that purplish area must be associated with living organisms.
3. I can prove there is life on Mars. A spaceship filled with Martians abducted me last night.
4. Prove there is life on Mars? Can you prove there isn't?

The fourth one is the easiest to deal with: at the minimum, a claim of life on Mars carries some of the burden of proof, and therefore has to be substantiated. The fact an opponent cannot disprove the claim is insufficient for the claim to be accepted; it must be proved. The third argument makes the same claim and does support it, but the support (that the speaker was abducted by Martians) requires you to believe something else that is itself unsupported and even more unusual. The second argument is similar to the third, although it may be easier to accept Mozyritzski's Second Law (whatever that is) than Martian abductors; we can reject Martian abductors without further consideration, but to accept or reject an argument based on Mozyritzski's Second Law, we first need to find out what it is, whether it applies in this case, and how accepted it is generally. The first argument was, in fact, made by scientists in 1996, and it is certainly the most creditable of the four examples here. That "chemical reaction" may be no more verifiable than Mozyritzski's Second Law, but it is more accessible. (In fact, other scientists soon disupted the claim.) So, as presented above and without further support, those four arguments appear in descending order of their acceptibility. Yet even the claim, "There's no life on Mars," would carry some of the burden of proof, if for no other reason than someone initiated it.

You are trying to shift the burden of proof by saying others can't say ""this is simply not true", so your argument is a logical fallacy.

The extraordinary claims you make require extraordinary evidence and you have that burden of proof since you are the claimant, and anecdotes are insufficient.

I said...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

All I am saying is this. We can not rule out a metaphysical, spiritual, inter-dimensional cause for the unexplained in our classical world. These things go against the ability to be patented and to capitalize on in our 'free society"
And science within the confines of its own standards will not allow for such explanations.

You said...

This is simply not true.

Why are you telling me you didn't say it when you handed me a paper to show that science is allowing a psi reviewed paper? And then say you didn't say it?

First, I never said it wasn't true.

Are you for real? Is this how you like to debate by confusing and weighing down the entire topic with trivial contradiction? You said it so man up already.
Second, I'm not even going to read your cut and paste on the meaning of burden of proof. What the hell does burden of proof have to do with what were talking about any way?
I'll say it again...

All I am saying is this. We can not rule out a metaphysical, spiritual, inter-dimensional cause for the unexplained in our classical world. These things go against the ability to be patented and to capitalize on in our 'free society"
And science within the confines of its own standards will not allow for such explanations.

And you throw me a cut and paste distraction about burden of proof? How about you concentrate on my above paragraph and quit regurgitating dogmatic ATS rhetoric. Try using your own words

The extraordinary claims you make require extraordinary evidence and you have that burden of proof since you are the claimant, and anecdotes are insufficient.

But I can play along if you like. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I too read ATS
Further, anecdotes are necessary. Without them we would never have the curiosity leading to an investigation. Or your proof for that matter.

As a student, in this universe lucky enough to follow your experiment I enjoyed your post. I will read more into it and dissect it more for a decent follow-up response tomorrow.

Originally posted by FlySolo
I said...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

All I am saying is this. We can not rule out a metaphysical, spiritual, inter-dimensional cause for the unexplained in our classical world. These things go against the ability to be patented and to capitalize on in our 'free society"
And science within the confines of its own standards will not allow for such explanations.

You said...

This is simply not true.

Why are you telling me you didn't say it when you handed me a paper to show that science is allowing a psi reviewed paper? And then say you didn't say it?

First, I never said it wasn't true.

Are you for real? Is this how you like to debate by confusing and weighing down the entire topic with trivial contradiction? You said it so man up already.

The "not true" obviously was directed to the claim that "science within the confines of its own standards will not allow for such explanations" and not about whether the claims itself are true or not.

Are you not paying any attention to what is said or are you trolling? This is one of the most extreme cases of quote mining I have ever seen.