Prev: Physicists Find Way to See Through Paint, Paper, and Other Opaque Materials
Next: Can We Be Happy Without God?
From: Rushtown on 17 Mar 2010 02:01
On Mar 16, 8:05�pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 17, 9:32�am, Andrew Smyth <exitusac...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I previously posted that the double slit experiment does not indicate
> > that this universe "splits" when a conscious decision is made. �What
> > happens is the experimenter chooses to be in one of an infinite number
> > of alternative already existing universes. �This explanation explains
> > "spooky action at a distance" and Aspect's quantum erasure experiment
> > where a future decision seems to affect a past event----both are
> > explained by the experimenter having picked an alternative universe
> > with an already existing past which is compatable with the (present)
> > pick of the experimenter.
>
> > So the question arises how can a human choice be a quantum event when
> > it has been shown that anything that involves more than a few atoms
> > will not show the above described "quantum wierdness".
>
> > The answer is as follows:
>
> > The human brain is set up so that a "Yes" or "No" decision arises
> > because of the measurement or lack of measurement of only one
> > particle. It is not the macro event of the mouth saying "no" that puts
> > the person in one of two (or more) possible alternative (pre existing)
> > universes. It is that quantum "collapse of the wavefunction" (which
> > has been demonstrated) which occurs when the brain, with the
> > measurement of one particle, "decides", ie makes a conscious decision.
>
> > Where does this happen? Everywhere---at all configurations ("past and
> > present") where a set up in a brain allows a decision. �Without these
> > conscious decisions there's a static universe. � That is there is just
> > the neverending, already all set out universe, which is not moving one
> > bit---just like a ten foot strip of 16 mm movie film is not moving.
>
> What about a multiverse and no observer at all? Also what makes us in
> the right universe to create the others?
> Surely a copy of me or you in anotehr universe would creat an infinite
> more universes?
>
> Hardy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That is a question that comes up. Didn't things happen before there
were observers to create those observers?
I do not think there need be conscious observers. All that is needed
is a "set up" (such as a double slit experiment) where the particle
must interact with other particles. Until that happens the particle
is in a superposition where not only can it be in all possible
positions, but it is in all possible positions.
Now that sounds far out---but there are the results of the double slit
experiment and the backward causality experiments that cannot be
ignored and that are best explained by this version of "many worlds."
From: Huang on 17 Mar 2010 09:58
I think that the Copenhagen Interpretation is complete rubbish.
From: Rushtown on 17 Mar 2010 10:30
On Mar 17, 6:58�am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think that the Copenhagen Interpretation is complete rubbish.

I can't even understand what the Copenhagen interpretation is, even if
I read it ten times in a row. It is double talk that doe not advance
understanding one bit even after you hear it.
From: nuny on 18 Mar 2010 08:12
On Mar 16, 2:52 pm, Andrew Smyth <exitusac...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 2:03 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 1:32 pm, Andrew Smyth <exitusac...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I previously posted that the double slit experiment does not indicate
> > > that this universe "splits" when a conscious decision is made. What
> > > happens is the experimenter chooses to be in one of an infinite number
> > > of alternative already existing universes. This explanation explains
> > > "spooky action at a distance" and Aspect's quantum erasure experiment
> > > where a future decision seems to affect a past event----both are
> > > explained by the experimenter having picked an alternative universe
> > > with an already existing past which is compatable with the (present)
> > > pick of the experimenter.
>
> > > So the question arises how can a human choice be a quantum event when
> > > it has been shown that anything that involves more than a few atoms
> > > will not show the above described "quantum wierdness".
>
> > > The answer is as follows:
>
> > > The human brain is set up so that a "Yes" or "No" decision arises
> > > because of the measurement or lack of measurement of only one
> > > particle. It is not the macro event of the mouth saying "no" that puts
> > > the person in one of two (or more) possible alternative (pre existing)
> > > universes. It is that quantum "collapse of the wavefunction" (which
> > > has been demonstrated) which occurs when the brain, with the
> > > measurement of one particle, "decides", ie makes a conscious decision..
>
> > > Where does this happen? Everywhere---at all configurations ("past and
> > > present") where a set up in a brain allows a decision. Without these
> > > conscious decisions there's a static universe. That is there is just
> > > the neverending, already all set out universe, which is not moving one
> > > bit---just like a ten foot strip of 16 mm movie film is not moving.
>
> > Reductio ad absurdum time again...
>
> > Do you mean just *human* brains, or any animal brain? If the former,
> > exactly what prevents other animal brains from having this capacity?
>
> > If the latter, what specific structural feature of brains supports
> > this functionality? Is it limited to mammal brains? How simple a brain
> > can do it; IOW can say a mosquito do it?
>
> > Mark L. Fergerson- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Even an amoeba can and does do it. Thanks for giving me the
> opportunity to explain further.

IMO it goes much further down than amoebae.

> Assume there is an always existing multiverse where all possible
> particles exist in all possible configurations

I already do.

> Now the question arises: How is it that in this static "always
> existing" universe there exists conscious beings that seem to be
> moving through time towards the future?  The answer.  The
> configuration of this universe is such that in some small regions
> (like ours) the particles have to arrange themselves in a heirarchical
> order of "probable" towards "less probable." (that's where time comes
> from). (You and I exist at present in all these universes at all these
> places, which we consider to be past and present time---ie my 10 year
> old self still exists thinking ten year old thoughts.  So do not ask
> how my explanation explains your present existence).

Your explanation fails because it assigns probabilities. The
multiverse contains "all possible particles...in all possible
configurations".

There's nothing to indicate which configuration is any more "real"
than any other.

> This arrangement also, in some regions, has got so complex as to
> impart a pattern or record of other parts of the ordering
> (ie "prior events") on these first regions.  These first regions
> (which contain records of other regions) are then subject to the
> illusion that these patterns are past memory.  The patterns recorded
> in these regions also give the region the impression of what "future
> events" will be like. The foresight of "future events" (ie possible
> alternate patterns of positions of particles) combined with the
> pattern of other events (ie "memory of past events") equals the
> illusion of "consciousness".  When these regions (ie, regions =
> brains) are configured to cause one particle (in the tubules in the
> brain) to be measured in one of only two ways these regions are under
> the further illusion that "they" have free will and have made a
> conscious choice.

Nonsense. Quantum mechanics tells us that any event can go many
ways; we cannot predict "the future", we can only predict "the
futures". Think Feynman diagrams that include momentum uncertainty.
The lines representing the particles' trajectories get fuzzy; they
cover *all possible paths* between event vertices.

The arrow of time is a macroscopic illusion; any QM event (and thus
all macro events which are averages of many QM events) can be viewed
with time running "forward" or "backward". Feynman diagrams are still
"true" when time-reflected. Particles only remember the "last" thing
that happened to them in *either* temporal direction.

That means we also can't talk about "the past" (the immediately
previous configuration which led to the current one), strictly
speaking we must talk about "the pasts", (those configurations which
*could have* led to this one).

We remember the visible-at-our-scale average of all pasts that led
here. We only ever meet people who remember the same past. Anyone who
remembers a different past *cannot* exist in this configuration. That
makes them "less real" than us *as far as we are concerned*, but as
far as *they* are concerned, that we remember a different past makes
*us* "less real" than them.

Sometimes I wonder about that last part. Remember news reports many
years ago about Nelson Mandela dying in prison? Some people do, most
don't.

> Thus I have explained consciousness, time, free will, quantum action
> at a distance, and the double slit experiment.

But you got it wrong.

> I see that Uncle Al is starting to "get it" in a somewhat dim and
> confused way.  But in some universe Uncle Al does understand.  I know
> there are other questions such as how the "tubules" were set up---
> didn't they require events at the quantum level to create them before
> they were there?

Of course. I explained that.

Tubules are irrelevant. Any physical object (anything that can get
involved in a Feynman diagram, and their aggregates like thee and me)
"observes" the multiverse via its interactions.


Mark L. Fergerson
From: bert on 18 Mar 2010 09:11
On Mar 18, 8:12 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 16, 2:52 pm, Andrew Smyth <exitusac...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 16, 2:03 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 16, 1:32 pm, Andrew Smyth <exitusac...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I previously posted that the double slit experiment does not indicate
> > > > that this universe "splits" when a conscious decision is made. What
> > > > happens is the experimenter chooses to be in one of an infinite number
> > > > of alternative already existing universes. This explanation explains
> > > > "spooky action at a distance" and Aspect's quantum erasure experiment
> > > > where a future decision seems to affect a past event----both are
> > > > explained by the experimenter having picked an alternative universe
> > > > with an already existing past which is compatable with the (present)
> > > > pick of the experimenter.
>
> > > > So the question arises how can a human choice be a quantum event when
> > > > it has been shown that anything that involves more than a few atoms
> > > > will not show the above described "quantum wierdness".
>
> > > > The answer is as follows:
>
> > > > The human brain is set up so that a "Yes" or "No" decision arises
> > > > because of the measurement or lack of measurement of only one
> > > > particle. It is not the macro event of the mouth saying "no" that puts
> > > > the person in one of two (or more) possible alternative (pre existing)
> > > > universes. It is that quantum "collapse of the wavefunction" (which
> > > > has been demonstrated) which occurs when the brain, with the
> > > > measurement of one particle, "decides", ie makes a conscious decision.
>
> > > > Where does this happen? Everywhere---at all configurations ("past and
> > > > present") where a set up in a brain allows a decision. Without these
> > > > conscious decisions there's a static universe. That is there is just
> > > > the neverending, already all set out universe, which is not moving one
> > > > bit---just like a ten foot strip of 16 mm movie film is not moving.
>
> > > Reductio ad absurdum time again...
>
> > > Do you mean just *human* brains, or any animal brain? If the former,
> > > exactly what prevents other animal brains from having this capacity?
>
> > > If the latter, what specific structural feature of brains supports
> > > this functionality? Is it limited to mammal brains? How simple a brain
> > > can do it; IOW can say a mosquito do it?
>
> > > Mark L. Fergerson- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Even an amoeba can and does do it. Thanks for giving me the
> > opportunity to explain further.
>
>   IMO it goes much further down than amoebae.
>
> > Assume there is an always existing multiverse where all possible
> > particles exist in all possible configurations
>
>   I already do.
>
> > Now the question arises: How is it that in this static "always
> > existing" universe there exists conscious beings that seem to be
> > moving through time towards the future?  The answer.  The
> > configuration of this universe is such that in some small regions
> > (like ours) the particles have to arrange themselves in a heirarchical
> > order of "probable" towards "less probable." (that's where time comes
> > from). (You and I exist at present in all these universes at all these
> > places, which we consider to be past and present time---ie my 10 year
> > old self still exists thinking ten year old thoughts.  So do not ask
> > how my explanation explains your present existence).
>
>   Your explanation fails because it assigns probabilities. The
> multiverse contains "all possible particles...in all possible
> configurations".
>
>   There's nothing to indicate which configuration is any more "real"
> than any other.
>
> > This arrangement also, in some regions, has got so complex as to
> > impart a pattern or record of other parts of the ordering
> > (ie "prior events") on these first regions.  These first regions
> > (which contain records of other regions) are then subject to the
> > illusion that these patterns are past memory.  The patterns recorded
> > in these regions also give the region the impression of what "future
> > events" will be like. The foresight of "future events" (ie possible
> > alternate patterns of positions of particles) combined with the
> > pattern of other events (ie "memory of past events") equals the
> > illusion of "consciousness".  When these regions (ie, regions =
> > brains) are configured to cause one particle (in the tubules in the
> > brain) to be measured in one of only two ways these regions are under
> > the further illusion that "they" have free will and have made a
> > conscious choice.
>
>   Nonsense. Quantum mechanics tells us that any event can go many
> ways; we cannot predict "the future", we can only predict "the
> futures". Think Feynman diagrams that include momentum uncertainty.
> The lines representing the particles' trajectories get fuzzy; they
> cover *all possible paths* between event vertices.
>
>   The arrow of time is a macroscopic illusion; any QM event (and thus
> all macro events which are averages of many QM events) can be viewed
> with time running "forward" or "backward". Feynman diagrams are still
> "true" when time-reflected. Particles only remember the "last" thing
> that happened to them in *either* temporal direction.
>
>   That means we also can't talk about "the past" (the immediately
> previous configuration which led to the current one), strictly
> speaking we must talk about "the pasts", (those configurations which
> *could have* led to this one).
>
>   We remember the visible-at-our-scale average of all pasts that led
> here. We only ever meet people who remember the same past. Anyone who
> remembers a different past *cannot* exist in this configuration. That
> makes them "less real" than us *as far as we are concerned*, but as
> far as *they* are concerned, that we remember a different past makes
> *us* "less real" than them.
>
>   Sometimes I wonder about that last part. Remember news reports many
> years ago about Nelson Mandela dying in prison? Some people do, most
> don't.
>
> > Thus I have explained consciousness, time, free will, quantum action
> > at a distance, and the double slit experiment.
>
>   But you got it wrong.
>
> > I see that Uncle Al is starting to "get it" in a somewhat dim and
> > confused way.  But in some universe Uncle Al does understand.  I know
> > there are other questions such as how the "tubules" were set up---
> > didn't they require events at the quantum level to create them before
> > they were there?
>
>   Of course. I explained that.
>
>   Tubules are irrelevant. Any physical object (anything that can get
> involved in a Feynman diagram, and their aggregates like thee and me)
> "observes" the multiverse via its interactions.
>
>   Mark L. Fergerson- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

When our brains can not make reality that its in ,""it makes people
dizzy". That is how a fun house is designed. There was a show done
on this on TV put out by GE. It was fun to see how it was done. After
the great big bang chaos ruled,but out of this choas came a structure
we call the universe. The universe created humankind so it could see
itself. Thanks to the Hubble we are doing a much better job.
TreBert
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Physicists Find Way to See Through Paint, Paper, and Other Opaque Materials
Next: Can We Be Happy Without God?