Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Understanding Divination from a quantum level.


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 SteampunkScientist

SteampunkScientist

    Distinguished Mad Scientist

  • OG VIP
  • 3,977 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 17 February 2019 - 06:25 PM

No, I'm not using the word "quantum" here to lend some credince to an woo idea that needs a science word to sound respectable.

Instead, I'm referring to the actual quantum level wavefunction spread across all possible outcomes, which is defined as the wave equation of probabilities. For a single particle it might look like a 3 dimensional bell curve up close. But there are ripples too that go on across the universe. The electron is "observed" to most likely be at the place where the bell shape is high, but at various energy points that electron can be scattered in islands that barely touch. The "electron" tunnels, or teleports to each of those domains. Here's a pic:

095833_404467.png

But we only ever observe it in some "place". Because to "observe" and to be "entangled" is the same thing.

That is what I think needs to be understood. We observe solid reality because we are entangled with it. Just like two entangled particles of light.

But we are massive universes of particles ourselves! And so our experience of entanglement is our experience of the our existence, and relationship with everything we consider not to be "us".

Divination is seeing this. I think.

Ha ha! Or maybe not.

Edited by SteampunkScientist, 17 February 2019 - 06:30 PM.

  • Alder Logs likes this

#2 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,455 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 17 February 2019 - 07:39 PM

It's probably not what we think.  There's a probability to bet on.



#3 TheBigRip

TheBigRip

    Mycophiliac

  • Free Member
  • 37 posts

Posted 17 February 2019 - 10:18 PM

Sorry, I am not understanding what you are writing. Just a note about the so called "observer". It does not sound like it is what you are saying, but just inc ase I want to mention that the "observer" is not a conscious being seeing something. It is any measurable interaction with any other particle/unit


  • SteampunkScientist likes this

#4 SteampunkScientist

SteampunkScientist

    Distinguished Mad Scientist

  • OG VIP
  • 3,977 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 17 February 2019 - 11:36 PM

Sorry, I am not understanding what you are writing. Just a note about the so called "observer". It does not sound like it is what you are saying, but just inc ase I want to mention that the "observer" is not a conscious being seeing something. It is any measurable interaction with any other particle/unit


Indeed it is, but only if a human Conciousness observes the measurements, and you can't get around that.

There is no such thing as a measurement that no concious entity did not ultimately observe.

Or it didn't happen. Literally.

That is my point here, and the reason is that the entirety of all our experience is in fact our entanglement with the rest of "reality". Every quantum physics experiment requires a human Conciousness to perform it, observe the results, and attempt to explain what was observed.

I'm saying that all of it, the experiment, the results, and the thoughts about the results are the result of entanglement.

#5 TheBigRip

TheBigRip

    Mycophiliac

  • Free Member
  • 37 posts

Posted 18 February 2019 - 04:36 PM

No. That's incorrect. That was the point the physicists such as Sean Carroll explain sometimes. It does not have to be anything conscious "observing" anything for a wave function to stabilize because there is no definition of consciousness to even suggest that. The closest to defining the observer is defining it as anything that can "measure" the wave function effect. Another commentary is that after someone has measured or saw these measurements after some instrument has measured it and created a RECORD of it, the wave remains collapsed even if this measurement is destroyed and no one reads it. For example if one scientists measures it then destroys the record and the device the effect that has collapsed still remains.

 

It is one of those honest misunderstandings due to the unfortunate choice to call this phenomenon the "observer effect" which makes it sound like a conscious observer has to be there. I was specifically interested in this question and the answer I keep seeing is that it has nothing to do with human consciousness.



#6 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,455 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 18 February 2019 - 05:49 PM

Yeah, Steam, you will back down when a deranged army of multimeters comes to conquer us.  

 

Does this boy need a strong dose of Bernardo Kastrup?



#7 SteampunkScientist

SteampunkScientist

    Distinguished Mad Scientist

  • OG VIP
  • 3,977 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 18 February 2019 - 11:17 PM

Big Rip, The Copenhagen interpretation is only one version of how to view Quantum Mechanics - Regardless, you missed my point.

 

 

The closest to defining the observer is defining it as anything that can "measure" the wave function effect.

 

"Anything that can measure" - exactly.

 

Which is, as Alder hinted at, that without a conscious being, there is no experiment. There is no gang of multi-meters taking measurements on their own.  What is watching the meter? What is building the meter? What is thinking about the experiment? Without that "what" no experiment is done. No measurement is taken, nothing is recorded.

 

And that "what" - whatever you may want to call it, I call it consciousness because that is at least a somewhat "familiar" word, it must be there for reality to be "there".  You simply cannot break the entanglement between every observation and what is observed, and what this means is that even "observations" are actions - there is no such thing as being truly separate from what you are experiencing.  Which means seeing, changes that which is seen.



#8 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,455 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 19 February 2019 - 12:18 PM

 

The Copenhagen interpretation is only one version of how to view Quantum Mechanics...

 

I swore off Copenhagen when my grandmother gave me a pinch when I was about five.   Her experimenter bias worked wonders.


  • SteampunkScientist likes this

#9 TheBigRip

TheBigRip

    Mycophiliac

  • Free Member
  • 37 posts

Posted 22 February 2019 - 04:13 AM

Big Rip, The Copenhagen interpretation is only one version of how to view Quantum Mechanics - Regardless, you missed my point.

 

 

The closest to defining the observer is defining it as anything that can "measure" the wave function effect.

 

"Anything that can measure" - exactly.

 

Which is, as Alder hinted at, that without a conscious being, there is no experiment. There is no gang of multi-meters taking measurements on their own.  What is watching the meter? What is building the meter? What is thinking about the experiment? Without that "what" no experiment is done. No measurement is taken, nothing is recorded.

 

And that "what" - whatever you may want to call it, I call it consciousness because that is at least a somewhat "familiar" word, it must be there for reality to be "there".  You simply cannot break the entanglement between every observation and what is observed, and what this means is that even "observations" are actions - there is no such thing as being truly separate from what you are experiencing.  Which means seeing, changes that which is seen.

 

Well its not really about what you call it. It is what scientists say it is. It does not have to do with consciousness or not. You could have a device programmed to measure something and record it without looking at the result. Plus what is "consciousness?" in relation to "observing" the particle consciousness is just the arrangement of synapses and a specific ways in which they interact with each other. In fact it is not even a "measurement" is what is required, it is interaction with any other particles. I don't mean to be a downer or some kind of skeptic. I am just telling you what the quantum uncertainty implies. Has nothing to do with any living consciousnesses.



#10 SteampunkScientist

SteampunkScientist

    Distinguished Mad Scientist

  • OG VIP
  • 3,977 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 22 February 2019 - 08:15 AM

 You could have a device programmed to measure something and record it without looking at the result. 

 
No, not really - you can set up such a thing, sure, but if you never look at it, you don't know what state your device is in, if you don't look at the results, you don't know if or what it measured.  Eventually, no matter how long a chain of "this device looks at that device, and then the next device looks at...." you make, if the experiment is to have any meaning, it must be observed at some point eventually.

 

This is fleshed out somewhat in the "Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser" experiment, where entangled photons are observed after the experiment to see which slit their entangled pairs went through, and as in the normal double slit experiment, the entangled photons (that were not directly observed) wave function collapses apparently backwards in time!

 

You should check out work done by Dr. Stuart Hameroff on micro-tubules in neuron structures, and how memories may be laid down.  Ultimately, memory and the making of memory is very fundamental to what we call "consciousness" - regardless or not if this theory is tenable, it does start going to the heart of the matter which is that for any scientist to perform any experiment, at some point his/her consciousness must interact with the experiment being done, memory traces are going to be laid down, and entanglement will occur.

 

By the way, I love talking about this stuff and it's implications, and I am in no way married to this particular point of view - any good scientist should always be ready to chuck her or his pet theories if the evidence suggests otherwise, so wanted to make that clear - I don't want to sound like some douche, so if I came off a bit that way, my apologies! After rereading some of my posts, I also wanted to make that clear too.  

 

It appears to me that perhaps the problem with the "Monism" vs "Dualism" problem is that it is much like the "Wave or Particle" problem - reality is both and neither.

 

But the bottom line for me anyway is that I simply do not see any way for consciousness not to be entangled with reality, because how then would it be conscious of it? 


Edited by SteampunkScientist, 22 February 2019 - 08:19 AM.


#11 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,455 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 22 February 2019 - 10:17 AM

The issue with dualism is not that it's one thing, though that might be, or not.  What non-dual means is simply, "not two."  Actually, zero is also a possibility in the non-dual.  In the case at hand, the two would be the observer and the observed.   Non-dual would call bullshit on that.  Whether the seeming two are one or zero could then be pondered.


Edited by Alder Logs, 22 February 2019 - 10:20 AM.


#12 SteampunkScientist

SteampunkScientist

    Distinguished Mad Scientist

  • OG VIP
  • 3,977 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 22 February 2019 - 10:28 AM

Zero seems kind of odd, in that we would not be having this conversation...



#13 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,455 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 22 February 2019 - 11:06 AM

Zero seems kind of odd, in that we would not be having this conversation...

 

 

So, if it's not for conversation, what then? 

 

Could something with a material value of zero be thought of as an indefinite potentiality?  

 

Could the "hard problem of consciousness" reside in its being prior to all manifestation? 

 

If it's not a word, not a concept, untouchable by thought, ultimately subtle, yet fully the potential behind and before any of what we can sense, do we worship it, or do we merely discount it? 

 

Does this consciousness, which gives us everything we perceive, have any form or quality that we have an ability to completely and accurately conceptualize?

 

Is Supreme Being the power to conceptualize, to tell the Tao?  

 

Is not knowing a dis-empowered position?  Or, is it the most powerful position a mind can occupy?


  • SteampunkScientist likes this

#14 SteampunkScientist

SteampunkScientist

    Distinguished Mad Scientist

  • OG VIP
  • 3,977 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 22 February 2019 - 11:36 AM

No idea.  That's a joke...sort of.


  • Alder Logs likes this

#15 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Moderator
  • 13,455 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 22 February 2019 - 09:43 PM

That was sort of a good joke.  






Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!