Jump to content

Narrowband

What are people's thoughts on this?


Recommended Posts

Hmmm - quite a few sweeping generalisations there. Its easy to talk in such broad terms, I think he needs pinning down. Seems a little "new age" to me.

I was thinking the same thing. He does seem to be quite respected though, still seems a little far fetched.

Can't deny though that human consciousness doesn't intrigue me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really do not know enough but briefly in the literature of quantum mechanics there exists the Copenhagen Manifesto which argues that a particle does not exist until the observer measures it. The stated interpretation is that matter exists only as a function of consciousness and that without consciousness, the world does not exist. From this, two conclusions can be drawn:

  • I am the consciousness that created the world
  • There is a god and it is its consciousness that created the world.

These notions arise from interpretations of the

, that quantum objects do not have properties prior to measurement. But we've got to be careful with what we are saying here and not jump to extra-ordinary claims.

Firstly, we can note that the experiement does not prove, does not demonstrate, and does not say anything about particles having consciousness and making a decision based on the feeling or knowledge that they are being watched. Nor does it saying anything about consciousness transcending the body - whatever that could mean - into a formless consciousness that created everything, runs through everything and in this way is a description of some kind of god whilst refusing to call it God.

The confusion or psychological disposition to impose desires of the heart into this experiment, I feel results from a misunderstanding of the terms existence and observation.

The way I see it is that if quantum objects do not have properties prior to measurement, it does not follow from this that they do not exist. It simply means that the existence of measurable properties is absent prior to measurement :laugh: Moreover, it appears that scientists do know that something is there and this something is termed the wave function. The wave function is what is revealed on the far wall in the two-slit experiment.

If we think about the term 'observation', it seems to me that it is caused by photons from the object hitting our observing machine, be this eyes or camara, for example. So to consciously observe a wave function we need a photon to interact with the wave function and then one way or another to hit our eyes. If the photon doesn't do that, we will not consciously observe it.

In other words, it seems that it is the photon that causes the collapse and then we observe the result. If this is so, then by default, when we see a wavefunction it has already collapsed and it is here, at this junction why I think some confuse the term observation to mean something like conscious viewing. Needless to say, even if conscious observation does not occur, a photon can still cause a wavefunction to collapse.

The upshot is that it does not need a conscious observer, a deity or a god to collapse a wavefunction merely the humble interaction with something like a photon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.