It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
Originally posted by 1littlewolf
I have; and what you say is not completely true. There are many eminent physicists who support the consciousness hypothesis. They may not be all be prepared to take their quite as far as those who made such docos as 'What The Bleep', you also have to keep in mind of the 10 or 11 scientists who appeared on that film only one disagreed with the films conclsions.
There have also been double blind experiments conducted which prove the effects are caused by human observation and have nothing to do with proximity of the recording equipment etc. While the conclusions regarding consciousness actually causing effects in reality on a macro scale maybe be a little far-fetched for many scientists who quite rightly will only take their conculsions as far as what can be proven experimentally, there is one fact which cannot be ignored.
The human mind effects the particles which are the very building blocks of all matter and energy in this universe
This is a proven fact and shows that the human consciousness is not bound by the physical body. What conclusions you make after this short of further scientific experimentation are your own but it opens a rabbit hole which questions the very nature of reality as we know it.
Also while it doesn't completely disprove your premise of 'consciousness without matter', (in fact this would be almost impossible as there is matter everywhere in the universe in various concentrations) it does , as I have stated already, show that the mind can and does effect other matter beyond the confines of the physical human shell.
The human mind effects how we view the particles which are the very building blocks of all matter and energy in this universe
Originally posted by TheSubversiveOneIt's solipsistic to think our own consciousness can affect matter, despite the fact nothing has proven that mind can affect matter. We only wish it to be true. It's self-centeredness, and can be debunked by going outside and trying to affect matter with the mind. It just doesn't happen. There's too many variables to just conclude that "it must've been because we were watching it."
Second, we don't live on a quantum level. Nothing does.
These experiments tell us more about humans, the human processes and the way our equipment works than they tell us about the universe. We draw the lines on the map, we make the equipment, we come up with the experiments. We measure them, calculate them and dream up conclusions. It tells us more about how we work.
Name one place in the universe where there are no outside forces influencing particles. There isn't such a place. Every instrument, "observer," and the result of the experiment is entirely synthetic—made up by man. How does this explain reality? It doesn't, you only wish it does.
Everything else you said is based on a variable-less, completely synthetic, man made, man conceived, void of nature, observed by instruments and entirely unnatural version of the universe. Explain to me how this translates into reality?
Again, Every instrument, "observer," and the result of the experiment is entirely synthetic—made up by man. How does this explain reality? It doesn't, you only wish it does. The experiment is relative to the experiment only. Show me in nature how particles act this way, show me a place in the universe where there are only two slits and particles flying through them, show me without having to find everything through layers of powerful electron and screens. The result tells us more about the equipment, our methodology, and the experiment than it does about the universe.
Your failure to think for yourself is sheep-like at best.
There is a lot of proof that particles "know" stuff.
If you are referring to the double slit experiment, it has been debunked. I read a paper in a physics forum one year ago.
Originally posted by swan001
There is a lot of proof that particles "know" stuff.
What kind of proofs? New Age proofs? If you are referring to the double slit experiment, it has been debunked. I read a paper in a physics forum one year ago.
Please post a link to that one paper you read on a forum last year so that I can review it.
I would love to do it, but as it was one year ago, I'll have to dig the paper up in Google. As this information was not heavily published, we can assume that is the reason why media (which promotes New Age vision because it is part of its New World Order agenda) kept it quiet.
Basically the detector affected the shape of the slit so it gave an "anomaly" which made it look as if electron were aware. We need a detector to detect the passage of an electron, but, as Heisenberg showed it, the detector will temper with the behaviour of the particle affected by the detector.
Originally posted by swan001
As this information was not heavily published, we can assume that is the reason why media (which promotes New Age vision because it is part of its New World Order agenda) kept it quiet.
Originally posted by TraitorKiller
This is the exact same reasoning that is debunked by these experiments. They erase the info of the detection and the wave function still does not collapse, even though the detection did take place. The means of erasure also doesn't affect the particle.
This proves that the detector is not causing the collapse of the wave function.
The only thing that matters is if the Which Path info is available or not.
As this information was not heavily published, we can assume that is the reason why media (which promotes New Age vision because it is part of its New World Order agenda) kept it quiet.
Originally posted by TraitorKiller
Most scientists are afraid to make the bold statement that consciousness is playing an intrinsic role at the core of reality.
The ones that do are labeled New Age idiots. New Age, a word that only skeptics seem to use.
When I look at comment sections at physics sites, discussing these kind of experiments, and see people going around in circles, going out of their way to explain away the results in order to secure their own safe little paradigm, when the answer is really pretty simple as to why they happen, it just makes me cringe.
I just gave in my 2 cents.
I don't expect you to do any research about what I just said.
I don't expect you to open a book of physics or read Arxiv.
Who I am to tell you what to believe? You are old enough to believe what you want. I just popped here to tell you, your beliefs lack truth. No I will go. I need to rest. Peace.
reply to post by whoevertheotherguywas
It may have been unnecessary for me to discount the usefulness of experiments. I only did so to inspire the gentleman to think for himself and at least wait until something more concrete arrises.
That being said, you had me second guessing myself because of your surety and conviction. I wondered if the evidence I looked at was wrong. So for the past number of hours I've been scouring the internet looking for the facts you mention (at the expense of work), and I found none.
Also, I couldn't find anything that mention quantum principles working above the sub-atomic level. If you can point those out to me, I would be gracious.
Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne
You make some good points 1littlewolf. It may have been unnecessary for me to discount the usefulness of experiments. I only did so to inspire the gentleman to think for himself and at least wait until something more concrete arrises. To me, any experiment that doesn't involve my own nervous system is suspect. This is a curse I have for a fear of being duped. There is nothing wrong with suspending judgement—which is the state I am at. I am obviously a layman in quantum physics, much like everyone else in this thread.
I am skeptical of the idea that consciousness affects matter because I am unable to affect matter with my being conscious. It's as simple as that. I tried it on a grain of sand. Nothing happened to that sand. If I was to believe the hypothesis, I would then have to conclude that every particle was in wave-form before life existed. I'm not quite ready to take that leap of faith quite yet. So excuse my stubbornness in blindly accepting something.
Furthermore, I am not a materialist or skeptic or unspiritual. I'm still discovering and experimenting and haven't come to any conclusions regarding physics or metaphysics. My mind is entirely open.
That being said, you had me second guessing myself because of your surety and conviction. I wondered if the evidence I looked at was wrong. So for the past number of hours I've been scouring the internet looking for the facts you mention (at the expense of work), and I found none. I only discovered various interpretations, problems and guesswork, the majority of which anyone in this thread has failed to recognize or take into account. I've read all these and still cannot reach the same conclusion you do. Please take a look through and help me realize these facts.
Also, I couldn't find anything that mention quantum principles working above the sub-atomic level. If you can point those out to me, I would be gracious.
As for your spiritual experiences in regards to consciousness and matter, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm not sure what your Pagan beliefs have to do with it, but I respect your interpretations of how you interact with the world. They are no more or less valid than mine.
For now, let's excuse the bickering and find us some sort of foundation we can agree on, and take it from there.
Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by TraitorKiller
A link? You want me to waste 3 hours of my limited time, to hop around Google, search for an ancient paper that I came across one year ago, then what? You say, Oooh, this is not conclusive?
And yet you just admitted that you never opened a book of physics or visited ArXiv. That explains why you use the word "wave collapse function" abusevly, as the wave function is a set of wave-like equations that represent possible outcomes for an event and when an event is set, the whole equation collapses to zero.
So, you are no physicist, yet you want me to hop around giving you links?