Schrödinger's Cat

[Little Bang]

We have free will, but only to the exent that we decide which reality we wish to travel.

[DAK]

<We have free will, but only to the exent that we decide which reality we wish to travel.>

 

And perhaps the 'reality' is not 'out there', but inside. Two people doing the same thing have quite different experiences. As Dr. David Hawkins writes, truth is radically subjective.

 

DAK

[mojassty]

We have free will, but only to the exent that we decide which reality we wish to travel.

 

If reality splits because I have to make a decision, then I'm obviously going to be in both realities, and be a conscious, thinking being in both realities. I haven't decided which reality to travel in, because I am in both of them.

 

This is why the many worlds theory is absurd, at least on a macroscopic level. Human actions are not based on pure chance like quantum events are, and even if they were... can a consciousness split into two?

 

Free will is moot if every possibility must happen anyway.

[Little Bang]

Mojassty, there is another scenario that still fits the multiverse theory. Everything you see is an illusion created by your own consciousness and even Dr. Feynman hinted that it seemed strange that every time we needed a new particle to make things work researchers went out and found it.

[mojassty]

You mean we're each living in some sort of matrix? lol

 

But seriously, do you really think that's likely? Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but wouldn't that mean that everyone I'm interacting with is a figment of my imagination? And if so, where am I really?

 

As for conveniently finding particles, I don't believe anyone has discovered a graviton yet.

[Little Bang]

Yes, it would mean that you creat every event that you think you see. If this where true how would you ever prove or disprove it. As to where you are, that's sort of like asking what's before the big bang. You've heard the old saying " Faith can move mountains. " If you knew ( I don't mean think or believe ) but knew for fact that what we are talking about were true then you could creat any possible universe that you want.

 

Maybe no one believes that the graviton exists. Remember you have know for sure that your going to find what your looking for.

[DAK]

< Human actions are not based on pure chance like quantum events are>

 

Who's shown that?? It doesn't make any sense that the quantum level would be random but not the macro level.

 

<You mean we're each living in some sort of matrix?>

 

Zero point fields or "M-Fields". Also Dr. David Hawkins describes 'attractor fields'. All mystic teachings speak of the manifest coming out of the 'unmanifest' which itself is 'real'.

 

 

DAK

[mojassty]

It doesn't make any sense that the quantum level would be random but not the macro level.

 

Sure it does. The Universe isn't a fractal. The world of quantum mechanics may be random, but it still follows rules and trends. When you zoom out to our everyday world, the chaos of quantum mechanics is insignificant, and you are left with a world that obeys classical physics, the "clockwork Universe." Zoom out to an astronomical scale, and General Relativity becomes important as well.

[Qfwfq]

I have no idea what a coherent linear superposition is, was, or will be.

And yet, it is quite central to the matter....

 

In your example above, for instance, a person with a particular destination in mind would turn in the direction that would lead to the shortest route.

How about if there are two shortest roots? See Buridan's ***, as an another example.

 

If reality splits because I have to make a decision, then I'm obviously going to be in both realities, and be a conscious, thinking being in both realities. I haven't decided which reality to travel in, because I am in both of them.

Quite the point, yes.

 

Dr. Feynman hinted that it seemed strange that every time we needed a new particle to make things work researchers went out and found it.

There are reasons behind this and I don't see this as implying the conclusions that you draw. I'm quite sure Feynman's point was also quite different from your conclusions.

 

Maybe no one believes that the graviton exists. Remember you have know for sure that your going to find what your looking for.

If you know for sure, why bother looking? I mean, in research. It's different if I need my wallet, no matter how sure I'm going to find it I look for it because I need to use it, not just to prove that it exists.

 

Physicists don't bust there arse with huge accelerators and large funding because they're absolutely sure a given particle will be detected. They do so to see whether or not. Even when they do it because there are strong grounds of plausibility, it's an effort to confirm.

 

It doesn't make any sense that the quantum level would be random but not the macro level.

Ah, this is again the point I had asked about; why? Where is the line between the quantum microscopic and the non-quantum macroscopic?

 

Actually, there is random in the macroscopic, not due to the QM formalism. Look up chaotic attractors.

 

All mystic teachings speak of the manifest coming out of the 'unmanifest' which itself is 'real'.

So does Kant.

[Little Bang]

I think Dr. Boyd is associated with the consciousness Institute

 

On the Failures of Physics with Regard to Consciousness

© Robert Neil Boyd

This is a simplified discussion of some of the failures of physics regarding Consciousness. (I think Dean Radin will appreciate this.)

 

Let us start by examining the EPR experiment in terms of consciousness. One important understanding about EPR, is that the purpose of Bell's inequality, which was developed with EPR in mind, was to show that any local hidden variable theory which allows for any kind of independent disturbance of a system from outside the system, must imply a failure of quantum mechanics.

 

Such a failure has occurred in the form of the results of Radin, Jahn, and Dunne at PEAR, which show with a greater statistical basis than that used to prove QM, that systems are indeed disturbed from outside of the system, by Consciousness.

 

With regard to EPR correlations of spin of particle A and particle B, there will be a set of hidden variables, lambda, for example, due to Consciousness (represented here as a and ;), such that

 

A = A(a, mu_a, lambda_A, lambda)

and

B = B(b, mu_b, lambda_B, lambda)

 

We can then define the averages of A and B. Since |A = A(a, mu_a, lambda_a, lambda)| = |B = B(b, mu_b, lambda_b, lambda)| = 1 it follows that |Abar(a, lambda_A, lambda)| is < = 1 and |Bbar(b, lambda_B, lambda| is < = 1

 

From this we can consider the various experimental results for various orientations of our spin detection apparatus relative to various locations of observers a and b. Results from such experiments will result in non-locality, as far as I can see, where consciousness has been involved in the experiment. Similar pictures are found in the math which accompanies the results of the experiments done over the years at PEAR. These results clearly show the effects and influences of the consciousness on various non-linear and probabilistic systems.

 

Simply put, quantum physics does not address consciousness, while it is empirical fact that consciousness has measurable effects on physical systems. The same can be said with regard to relativity theory. Relativity fails to describe or predict any event which involves consciousness.

 

Since the entire cosmos is either consciousness, or an emanation of some manner of consciousness, or resulting from some manner of consciousness, it is clear that the standard physics fail to address the majority of observable reality, due to catastrophic oversimplifications which exclude consciousness in all regards.

 

The present physics treatments of reality have basis wherein nothing whatsoever has any manner of consciousness, including people. Clearly, this is wrong, because obviously the writer and the reader, at least, are conscious. A physics which does not address consciousness is similar to attempting to move an automobile that does not have an engine. It will move, but it will take a great deal of human effort to get such an automobile anywhere other than where it is presently located. "Better to leave it where it is, and admire it" seems to be the present view of many in the sciences.

 

I think that the solution is to put an engine into the automobile. While this in itself is an enormous task, at least I'm working on it. I want to go for a drive.

 

 

 

Home Physics Spirit and Consciousness e.e. cummings Harmony Dynamics Penetrating Insight Health Miscellaneous [email protected]

[DAK]

<Sure it does. The Universe isn't a fractal.>

 

Exactly... NONE of it is random ;))

 

<The world of quantum mechanics may be random, but it still follows rules and trends.>

 

It may NOT be random and follow rules and trends. There may be patterns where things appear random.

 

<When you zoom out to our everyday world, the chaos of quantum mechanics is insignificant, and you are left with a world that obeys classical physics>

 

Of course that is subjective... insignificant to whom and what and you really mean "appear to obey classical physics" of course. Same with general relativity... important to whom?

 

DAK

[DAK]

<Ah, this is again the point I had asked about; why? Where is the line between the quantum microscopic and the non-quantum macroscopic?>

 

Why? Simple, because then you don't NEED a line between the quantum micro and macro... what is the "line" between ice and water? One could say water is "more random" acting than ice... and that ice is "more linear, or more classical physics" than water. Then there's water vapor... whoa!! I think god hangs out in the vapors. ;))

 

DAK

[mojassty]

According to quantum mechanics, events on a subatomic scale can only be described by probabilities. Physicists aren't able to predict the occurence of single quantum events, but they can predict very accurately the odds that an event will happen. This means that quantum events must be random, even though they follow trends. If the quantum world weren't random, then there would be no reason to have the schrodinger's cat thought experiment in the first place.

 

Did anyone ever explain what coherent linear superposition is?

[Qfwfq]

you don't NEED a line between the quantum micro and macro... what is the "line" between ice and water? One could say water is "more random" acting than ice... and that ice is "more linear, or more classical physics" than water. Then there's water vapor... whoa!!

Come now, DAK, you're pushing things a tad too far there. There's much more of a line between ice and water, and between water and vapour, than there is between the microscopic and the cat! And yet, most people say there is the distinction because, obviously, the cat won't be in a coherent, linear superposition.

 

Indeed, it would be very difficult to have the cat in such a state.

 

Did anyone ever explain what coherent linear superposition is?

Yes, Mojassty, many people have. You should be able to find plenty of stuff about it.

[DAK]

<According to quantum mechanics, events on a subatomic scale can only be described by probabilities.>

 

But while probability equations describe what appear to be random quantum level events, probability equations are not the events. So out of seemingly randomness the equation collapses why & how? If conciousness is involved what appears random from a material view may not be from a view at the level of conciousness itself.

 

< If the quantum world weren't random, then there would be no reason to have the schrodinger's cat thought experiment in the first place.>

 

Interesting wording and in a way how I would word it seems to describe quite a bit:

 

If the quantum world weren't THOUGHT [or didnt appear] to be random............

 

So, the map is correct, but just a map. Nothing on paper can describe the experience of actually following the map.

 

"You can know all ABOUT things in a linear descriptive way, but really the only way to KNOW the cat {for example} is to BE the cat."- Dr. David Hawkins, 'Truth and Subjectivity'

 

DAK

[DAK]

<There's much more of a line between ice and water, and between water and vapour, than there is between the microscopic and the cat!>

 

It's an example... "Much more of a line" doesnt not negate the corollary as containing a certain descriptive level of truth.

 

DAK

[Qfwfq]

;)