What is the observer? Is time linear?

[truedeity]

I address a lot of interesting topics here on this video. http://whoarethegreys.com/Untitled.wmv

[truedeity]

What is the observer really? I don't believe the observer is us.

 

Is time linear? No.

 

More information on my video I address a lot of interesting topics here on this. http://whoarethegreys.com/Untitled.wmv

[toastywombel]

I address a lot of interesting topics here on this video. http://whoarethegreys.com/Untitled.wmv

 

Yes, I watched the video and I totally support your right to express your views .

 

But it would be good to note that it is a rather big leap to say thinking positively effects how our world becomes. The actions of the microscopic are really best described as random. I also thought your comments offered a poor explanation of wave function collapse.

[toastywombel]

What is the observer really? I don't believe the observer is us.

 

Is time linear? No.

 

More information on my video I address a lot of interesting topics here on this. http://whoarethegreys.com/Untitled.wmv

 

Why do you keep spamming this video? Its on three threads.

[truedeity]

because it answers the question of the thread.

[insane_alien]

does it hell.

[Sisyphus]

Thread moved to speculations.

[mooeypoo]

Another random post with this video was moved to this thread.

 

truedeity, the video is discussing issues that are not part of mainstream science, and so they belong in the speculation forum. You are more than welcome to discuss the video, in this thread.

 

Do not post this video elsewhere. If you want to discuss the validity of the claims, *THIS* is the place for it.

 

~moo

[truedeity]

The main claim in this video is that the observer is not us. That there is something else more exotic that describes what the observer really is. I created this video for another website. But I decided to reuse it on this forum. It seems more redundant to have a section for quantum physics, and a section for speculation. I thought they were the same thing... Haha, anyway i'll stop with the sarcasm.

 

What if the universe is alive? Conscious that is...

 

It's not really a taboo topic. Because the worlds leading quantum physicists talk about this amongst their constituents. The implications of this can really only be expressed by those who are deep in understanding such anomalies as the measurement problem.

[mooeypoo]

truedeity, I watched the video (painfully) and, quite honestly, I don't even know where to start.

 

You speak of things you clearly have no clue about. I am sorry to be so blunt, but when you say: "the more you observe the more you're collapsing the wave function" and then continue to state that it's equivalent to "observing that your life is in shambles, then you're going to continue observing that and it's going to become more and more of a reality to you"* then we have no common language here.

 

* Actual quotes from the video.

 

None whatsoever.

 

You do not "continuously" collapse the wave function. The wave function collapses upon observation (including 'observation' by equipment) and that's IT. It collapses into a SINGLE VALUE. There is no "ing" in it.. you are not "collapsing" anything over time, and it's not accumulating. The particle has potential states which, upon observation, only *one* is picked. That is, the multiple POSSIBLE values "collapse" into a SINGLE value. That is what "collapsing the wave equation" means.

 

And it speaks ONLY of physical particles, and only of very *SPECIFIC* physical particles.

 

It has nothing to do with your life being in shambles.

 

 

 

I suggest you go learn some physics from actual physics books rather than from random youtube videos (or random idiotic videos that distort reality and use the term "Dr" to describe their guests VERY loosely [ie, What the Bleep do we know]).

 

We are a science forum; we actually know our science, and this movie has nothing to do with the theory of quantum physics, absolutely NOTHING to do with duality of light, and/or with the way your life may or may not be in shambles.

 

I don't even know if a discussion about this is possible in light of the sheer amount of utter nonscience woowoo that is going on in that video. Really. Seriously. Read a bit about the theory you so insist on taking apart and taking advantage of, because it says absolutely NOTHING of what you're suggesting.

 

 

It's not really a taboo topic. Because the worlds leading quantum physicists talk about this amongst their constituents. The implications of this can really only be expressed by those who are deep in understanding such anomalies as the measurement problem.

Show me an actual peer-reviewed quantum physics scientist that claims that Quantum Physics has anything to do with the bad times you have in your life, or how you can affect your own consciousness.

 

The fact "What The BLEEP Do We Know" made a mishmash of known physics to serve its own agenda doesn't make that movie any authority over QM.

 

In fact, QM has actual math and observations and predictions to it, which makes it a powerful SCIENTIFIC theory. The interpretation "What The Bleep Do We Know" makes is an insult to the theory, plain and simple.

 

 

We discuss science here, truedeity, not newagey mishmash of confused statements pretending to ride a particular element of a scientific theory.

Edited January 9, 2010 by mooeypoo
Consecutive posts merged.

[truedeity]

Just out of curiosity how many "we" is there on sf?

 

Ok. I understand your points. You make them very well. But don't suggest that I don't read alot on this subject. I just have a different viewpoint. Or maybe i'm not describing the my particular perspectives accurately.

 

I admit, the example I gave is quite a crude one. Maybe its not possible that someone can literally observe enough to create major changes. But I do believe that there is a "shared observation" taking place that could amount for something? But it also begs the question how much observation is taking place at all? And what is it really? Is it limited to only what we measure quantum physics experiments? My speculation is that it occurs always, and has less to do with human sensory, or equipment sensory for that matter...

 

Please turn your attention to 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009"

with particular attention to his comments regarding a universe of 'natural selection', we know what natural selection is in nature. He further states that evolution exists as a component of this natural selection. I think in my video i made a comment regarding the universe "hiding its singularity" as further clarification on that this is what i mean. In maybeverse I explain that if there is an array of possible universes that exist, but only 1 exists. This in sorts is my interpretation of expressing that natural selection exists as some cosmic function.

 

And below references of how consciousness is only 1 particular aspect of observation.

 

Stuart Hammeroff

Here is from http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

A place for consciousness in nature

 

Consciousness defines our existence and reality, but the mechanism by which

 

the brain generates thoughts and feelings remains unknown.

 

Most explanations portray the brain as a computer, with nerve cells ("neurons") and their synaptic connections acting as simple switches. However computation alone cannot explain why we have feelings and awareness, an "inner life."

 

We also don't know if our conscious perceptions accurately portray the external world. At its base, the universe follows the seemingly bizarre and paradoxical laws of quantum mechanics, with particles being in multiple places simultaneously, connected over distance, and with time not existing. But the “classical” world we perceive is definite, with a flow of time. The boundary or edge (quantum state reduction, or ‘collapse of the wave function”) between the quantum and classical worlds somehow involves consciousness.

[mooeypoo]

Just out of curiosity how many "we" is there on sf?

 

Ok. I understand your points. You make them very well. But don't suggest that I don't read alot on this subject. I just have a different viewpoint. Or maybe i'm not describing the my particular perspectives accurately.

It's not how much you read, it's what you read. Your presentation of the physical concepts demonstrate that you either don't understand the actual physical concept or have been reading the wrong (non scientific, non peer review, woo-woo sourced) resources about said physical effects.

 

If you want to change the way a particular physical theory is viewed, you need to make sure you know what it actually says, not what some people think it, perhaps, might indicate if they mishmash enough of its components together.

 

I admit, the example I gave is quite a crude one.

It's not crude, it's outright irrelevant.

Maybe its not possible that someone can literally observe enough to create major changes.

Wait. I didn't say that, did I?

 

If you are talking about the human being observing their own life's bad instances, then.. sure.. you can observe it and affect it. It has nothing to do with the observer in Quantum Physics. Other than the fact that they share the actual word, the concepts are ENTIRELY different.

 

But I do believe that there is a "shared observation" taking place that could amount for something?

If you're talking about human psyche, sure. If you are talking about Quantum Physics, you need to define what "shared observation" means.

 

But it also begs the question how much observation is taking place at all? And what is it really? Is it limited to only what we measure quantum physics experiments? My speculation is that it occurs always, and has less to do with human sensory, or equipment sensory for that matter...

In human psyche, the amount of observation probably depends on the desire of the person to better himself. That has NOTHING to do with physics or with quantum mechanics. Absolutely NOTHING.

 

If you talk about Quantum Mechanics, the "observer" is well defined. The observer is not a human being looking at something, the "observer" is an interaction with the particle; in order for us to observe a particle, an interaction (either with another particle or with some machine or radiation, etc) must occur. But by having this interaction, we are changing the behavior of the particle -- hence the non-problem that is the "problem" of Quantum Mechanics.

 

You're mishmashing psychology with quantum physics and the two have no common ground at all.

 

Please turn your attention to 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009"

with particular attention to his comments regarding a universe of 'natural selection', we know what natural selection is in nature. He further states that evolution exists as a component of this natural selection. I think in my video i made a comment regarding the universe "hiding its singularity" as further clarification on that this is what i mean. In maybeverse I explain that if there is an array of possible universes that exist, but only 1 exists. This in sorts is my interpretation of expressing that natural selection exists as some cosmic function.

So now you are completely changing the subject from Quantum Mechanics (and human psyche) to cosmology. I am not going to get into that; we will stick to *one* subject on this debate, truedeity. When we're done with one, we'll move to another.

 

You're mixing subjects that are unrelated, and you get confused because of that. Stick to one subject at a time.

 

And below references of how consciousness is only 1 particular aspect of observation.

The 'observation' that quantum physics speaks of has *nothing* to do with consciousness.

 

None.

 

Zero.

 

Nada.

 

Stuart Hammeroff

Here is from http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

A place for consciousness in nature

Again, mishmash. Quantum physics has NOTHING to do with consciousness. The site is not peer reviewed science, which is also why it's doing a great disservice to the *actual* theory of quantum physics.

 

Consciousness defines our existence and reality, but the mechanism by which

 

the brain generates thoughts and feelings remains unknown.

Yeah, well, that's philosophy right there.. consciousness isn't as well defined as we both probably would like it to be. Regardless, consciousness has nothing to do with quantum physics.

 

 

 

And again, I'll stop here. The problem is that you mishmash consciousness with QM where the two have NOTHING in common other than the use of the word "observer", both in *different* meanings.

 

The scientific sites you gave as an example don't link consciousness to QM --> *you* do that inference. They merely speak of an observation made. That observation, in QM is a physical action, not an emotional response. It's an interference. It's well defined.

 

The only resources that say QM has anything to do with consciousness are woowoo sites that have no scientific understanding of QM, no peer review articles and are COMPLETELY misrepresenting the theory.

 

 

 

truedeity, pick a subject. If you want to discuss QM, we need to define the observer according to QM. If you want to discuss the human condition and its psyche, then we should discuss philosophical definitions of what it means to observe yourself and others in peril.

 

No matter how many times you repeat your assertion that they do, those two subjects do not mix.

 

~moo