|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 19, 2023 16:03:59 GMT
Like I referenced above, young 60s California experimental physicists, who were also experimenting in psychedelics, dared to think the unthinkable in hard science and looked to Eastern mysticism to get a handle on what their expanding minds were telling them. It's safe to say that the kind of material that came out of those types of folks in the 60's and 70's is what got me interested in philosophy and quantum physics in the first place. Their speculations and explorations were completely formative for me. But that movement was also responsible to some degree for spreading pseudo-science that to this day has lead a lot of people to completely misunderstand the actual implications of the science.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 19, 2023 16:11:49 GMT
Like I referenced above, young 60s California experimental physicists, who were also experimenting in psychedelics, dared to think the unthinkable in hard science and looked to Eastern mysticism to get a handle on what their expanding minds were telling them. It's safe to say that the kind of material that came out of those types of folks in the 60's and 70's is what got me interested in philosophy and quantum physics in the first place. Their speculations and explorations were completely formative for me. But that movement was also responsible to some degree for spreading pseudo-science that to this day has lead a lot of people to completely misunderstand the actual implications of the science.
Is materialism basically the same thing as physicalism? The way I hear those two terms used, they sound almost interchangeable. And to a lesser degree I suppose you could even throw in naturalism into the mix. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 19, 2023 16:57:01 GMT
Is materialism basically the same thing as physicalism? The way I hear those two terms used, they sound almost interchangeable. And to a lesser degree I suppose you could even throw in naturalism into the mix. You'll find philosophers out there who have drawn distinctions between materialism and physicalism to stress some point or other. Different philosophers seem to want to do different things by making this move. And this might extend to "naturalism," too.
There's plenty of work out there by folks for whom these distinctions are important to make, but I'm not super familiar with it. I do seem to remember "naturalism" being more clearly delineated from the other two concepts, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 19, 2023 17:24:19 GMT
Then address them. Because you really didn't. If I'm understanding this correctly, the predicted result wasn't there. Is that an accurate statement? That's one way of looking at it. First, the guy doing the presenting in this Youtube didn't actually do the experiments...that is trivially true and I don't think you thought that. Someone else did these experiments. I am not sure what they (the physicists) 'predicted' but imagine they 'predicted' that the wave would not 'know' when the detector was turned off and therefore should not collapse into a particle before it went through the slit...thus showing a pattern of physical particles hitting the plate as opposed to a wave interference pattern. But when they turned off the detector...even, as I understand it, if it had been 'on' microseconds before they 'shot' the wave/particle toward the slits, the wave did NOT collapse and the interference pattern reappeared as if the wave somehow knew the detector was off. IOW they reasoned that it made a difference to the particle if the detector was on or off and...I think that puzzled the physicists because they didn't see HOW the wave would 'know' the detector was on/off. The presenter in the youtube video thinks this shows that the conscious decision of the researcher made a difference in the experiment and that consciousness actually affected the wave and caused it to, or was part of the reason for the, collapse. I think the more practical explanation is that for some reason the detector had a physical affect on the situation/apparatus that caused the wave to collapse before entering the slit. IOW, I don't think the reasoning that this proves or demonstrates a nonphysical part of reality influenced the outcome of this experiment is convincing. I'm NOT disagreeing with or arguing against dualism or any of those philosophical schools of thought that claim the consciousness is not physical, but rather that this particular experiment and the other things described in the Youtube video don't show it. |
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Mar 20, 2023 0:46:03 GMT
I'll watch the video later but I'm guessing this is related to the recent proof that particles violate local realism? I've seen some disagreement among physicists over what it means.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 21, 2023 9:48:15 GMT
I'll watch the video later but I'm guessing this is related to the recent proof that particles violate local realism? I've seen some disagreement among physicists over what it means. Best I can tell, he uses the light slit experiment to seemingly show that consciousness plays a significant role in quantum physics and ultimately in how the physical world works. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 21, 2023 13:58:25 GMT
I'll watch the video later but I'm guessing this is related to the recent proof that particles violate local realism? I've seen some disagreement among physicists over what it means. Best I can tell, he uses the light slit experiment to seemingly show that consciousness plays a significant role in quantum physics and ultimately in how the physical world works. Of course, if it's true, you realize the implications. No need to break out in a sweat. It doesn't prove that God exists, but it would prove that consciousness has the power to affect physical reality. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 21, 2023 14:19:40 GMT
Of course, if it's true, you realize the implications. It isn't true. The guy doesn't have a clue. Quantum physics is certainly weird and tells us that reality doesn't behave the way we expect, but the weirdness does not involve consciousness at all. |
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Mar 21, 2023 14:25:20 GMT
So possibly we have quantum physics contributing to the development of Hair Club for Men, which might seem to belie claims its proponents make for the insubstantiality of matter. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 21, 2023 14:26:41 GMT
Of course, if it's true, you realize the implications. It isn't true. The guy doesn't have a clue. Quantum physics is certainly weird and tells us that reality doesn't behave the way we expect, but the weirdness does not involve consciousness at all. This is what happens when you start with your conclusion. Anything that doesn't match up with it gets thrown out. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 21, 2023 14:37:27 GMT
This is what happens when you start with your conclusion. Anything that doesn't match up with it gets thrown out. No, this is what happens when you pay attention to the data in the actual experiments and don't go off making conclusions which have absolutely nothing to do with what has been observed. You wouldn't understand, since you were projecting your own thought processes and biases on me. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 21, 2023 14:42:27 GMT
This is what happens when you start with your conclusion. Anything that doesn't match up with it gets thrown out. No, this is what happens when you pay attention to the data in the actual experiments and don't go off making conclusions which have absolutely nothing to do with what has been observed. You wouldn't understand, since you were projecting your own thought processes and biases on me. You began by saying, "It isn't true." Until you can demonstrate how the anomaly happens, you haven't proved it isn't true.  |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 21, 2023 15:00:26 GMT
Best I can tell, he uses the light slit experiment to seemingly show that consciousness plays a significant role in quantum physics and ultimately in how the physical world works. Of course, if it's true, you realize the implications. No need to break out in a sweat. It doesn't prove that God exists, but it would prove that consciousness has the power to affect physical reality. The implications? Indeed I know it doesn't prove...or even suggest God exists. Rather if it has any implications about God, I think it more likely would prove/suggest God does not exist...at least a not god of a certain type.
Their idea is that it makes a difference what happens in the slit experiment depending what some 'consciousness' is doing/thinking/deciding and that if said conscious tried to detect the wave/particle as it goes through the slit ie by turning on a detector, it causes the wave to collapse. If God exists, you know a God that is conscious and omnipresent he/it would supposedly always be 'detecting' the wave/particle as it goes through the slit. And since that kind of 'detection always causes the wave to collapse, there could NEVER be case where the wave would not collapse because a God that is omnipresent would be the consciousness that would force it to collapse. The experiment would just only ever show that particles are going through the slit(s).
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 21, 2023 15:05:20 GMT
You began by saying, "It isn't true." Until you can demonstrate how the anomaly happens, you haven't proved it isn't true. No, that isn't how it works. If you think the data coming from experiments in quantum physics tells us something about consciousness, or involves consciousness in a special way, then it is your responsibility to point to that data and explain why it justifies the conclusions you have made.We both know you can't do this, because you don't know a single thing about the science or what actually happens during the various experiments that have been done. You've just decided ahead of time, not knowing a single thing about the data, that you want it to have something to do with consciousness. If your only interest in science is getting a hard-on from weird results, quantum physics is still your friend. What it tells us is that our everyday notions of time and causality and a reality independent of us are mistaken in fundamental ways. No one can figure it out. But the weird data we can't explain have nothing to do with consciousness. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 21, 2023 15:09:57 GMT
Of course, if it's true, you realize the implications. No need to break out in a sweat. It doesn't prove that God exists, but it would prove that consciousness has the power to affect physical reality. The implications? Indeed I know it doesn't prove...or even suggest God exists. Rather if it has any implications about God, I think it more likely would prove/suggest God does not exist...at least a not god of a certain type.
Their idea is that it makes a difference what happens in the slit experiment depending what some 'consciousness' is doing/thinking/deciding and that if said conscious tried to detect the wave/particle as it goes through the slit ie by turning on a detector, it causes the wave to collapse. If God exists, you know a God that is conscious and omnipresent he/it would supposedly always be 'detecting' the wave/particle as it goes through the slit. And since that kind of 'detection always causes the wave to collapse, there could NEVER be case where the wave would not collapse because a God that is omnipresent would be the consciousness that would force it to collapse. The experiment would just only ever show that particles are going through the slit(s).
No, it wouldn't prove/suggest that there isn't a God either. That's more wishful thinking on your part. It would still be wide open, just as it is now. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 21, 2023 15:13:21 GMT
You began by saying, "It isn't true." Until you can demonstrate how the anomaly happens, you haven't proved it isn't true. No, that isn't how it works. If you think the data coming from experiments in quantum physics tells us something about consciousness, or involves consciousness in a special way, then it is your responsibility to point to that data and explain why it justifies the conclusions you have made.We both know you can't do this, because you don't know a single thing about the science or what actually happens during the various experiments that have been done. You've just decided ahead of time, not knowing a single thing about the data, that you want it to have something to do with consciousness. If your only interest in science is getting a hard-on from weird results, quantum physics is still your friend. What it tells us is that our everyday notions of time and causality and a reality independent of us are mistaken in fundamental ways. No one can figure it out. But the weird data we can't explain have nothing to do with consciousness. Yes, that's how it works. Scroll back. I didn't say it's true. I said if it's true. You said it isn't true. Now, prove it isn't true. And take your time. No hurry. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 21, 2023 15:36:55 GMT
You said it isn't true. Now, prove it isn't true. Not my job, cupcake. If someone thinks the data from quantum physics involves consciousness, elves, goblins, Santa Klaus, or Zeus, they can point to the data and use it to justify their claims. I know what the data is, and I know that none of it can be used to justify any such claims. I can rest my case right there, and I will, until you or someone else can come forward and discuss the actual experiments and what they really show. You aren't going to do it, that's for damn sure. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Mar 21, 2023 15:40:46 GMT
They seem to be saying that because a researcher decided to 'turn on' a detector and thus make the wave collapse before it goes through the double slit, that this shows the 'decision' by the researcher played a part in making the wave collapse. I haven't watched the video yet so apologies, but if that is the argument they're making, isn't that presuming "decision making" is not a physical process? So if the researcher's decision did affect the experiment, his decision could still be argued to be determined by the matter in is brain etc. It seems like a question-begging argument to me - they're assuming that decision making is non-material to argue that if it impacts an experiment that shows materialism is false. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 21, 2023 15:49:56 GMT
You said it isn't true. Now, prove it isn't true. Not my job, cupcake. If someone thinks the data from quantum physics involves consciousness, elves, goblins, Santa Klaus, or Zeus, they can point to the data and use it to justify their claims. I know what the data is, and I know that none of it can be used to justify any such claims. I can rest my case right there, and I will, until you or someone else can come forward and discuss the actual experiments and what they really show. You aren't going to do it, that's for damn sure. When you say, "It isn't true," yeah, it's your job, cucpake. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Mar 21, 2023 18:14:20 GMT
When you say, "It isn't true," yeah, it's your job, cucpake. I’m pretty sure that if this guy had claimed “elves and gremlins did it” and I said he was wrong, you wouldn’t feel the need to be so obtuse and ridiculous. But then again, you are so far gone I wouldn’t be too surprised. All I need to say is that at around the 1:43 mark or so he makes two claims: “That implied outside observers were necessary to collapse the wave function” and “Observers would bring about the physical existence of the fundamental particles that make up reality”. None of the experiment data suggests either conclusion, which is why you don’t see any mainstream physicists saying such things. Anyone who thinks otherwise has the responsibility to show how it does. In fact, the vast majority of experiments aren’t even performed with people around actually participating—the experiments are typically automated and use random number generators to place or remove detectors. Any scientists “observing” the results are doing so hours or days later, looking at reports of compiled data on a computer or print out with no conscious input during the actual experiment. So what kind of silly “burden of proof” games are you going to play next? |
|
