Demystifying Quantum Physics

[Runewolf1973]

Completely irrelevant. What you asserted isn't something that is inaccurate because of a particular worldview, because of scientific research, because of any brand of skepticism, etc., it simply wrong by definition. It's akin to the assertion that 2+1 = Claymation. In other words, it's not just wrong because there is no evidence to support it, no reason to believe it, no logic behind it, etc., it's wrong because it is using words incorrectly to express notions of concepts that cannot by definition be true.

If you are into quantum mysticism or universal consciousness or any number of new age ideas, ok. I disagree, but I cannot even so much as ask for explanations or express why I disagree when you say things that are by definition false.


Ok, so you don't understand physics at even a basic level. How does that help me evaluate what you are trying to express? The fact that your descriptions of energy alone are nonsensical, let alone the fundamental inaccuracies in your discussions of QM, do not enable constructive dialogue. You are using terms from physics, but you use them incorrectly. In fact, you use them incorrectly inconsistently, so that it hard to determine how you are incorrectly using any given instance of a term.

Perhaps you should try thinking outside of the box a little. You seem to be so stuck on your definitions and scientific theories and what your text books tell you that it is in effect putting up imaginary walls and you are unable or unwilling to see what might lie beyond those walls. It seems you are the type that prefers to sit on the shoulders of others rather than go out and actually think for yourself. I guess if you think for yourself you might have to deal with the fact that you might be wrong...perhaps that is what seemingly scares you from being original. You think exactly the way you were programmed or conditioned to think...but there is nothing original there, nothing unique you have to offer. It's like talking to a computer. Science does not know everything. When I use the terms energy or consciousness or life, I use the them in more of a metaphorical sense and not necessarily the way they are defined. Really it is all just what could be called "Star-Stuff".

If you are already fully convinced that I don't understand anything, or that my beliefs or ideas are illogical or unfounded, or that I am incapable of understanding it, then you really shouldn't expend so much energy trying to pick apart everything I have to say. To do so is nonsensical on your behalf. It is almost like a computer talking to a tree without even realizing it....but hey, trees are said to be very wise, and they are much easier to get along with than computers.

 

[idav]

Whether you think I am right or wrong, there are many who would agree with me...

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/156820-my-take-quantum-animism.html

---

Your take is interesting and I can relate to much of what you say except for the use of the word conciousness. I can understand what your getting at but, as legion pointed out, consciousness is about being self aware. If you mean the universe and everything in it is self aware that is fine but it doesnt seem like that is what your meaning. Perhaps something other than consciousness is what you mean or a particular definition. I have seen the definitions and it doesnt describe inanimate or non-life objects without spinning the definition or redefining it all together.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Your take is interesting and I can relate to much of what you say except for the use of the word conciousness. I can understand what your getting at but, as legion pointed out, consciousness is about being self aware. If you mean the universe and everything in it is self aware that is fine but it doesnt seem like that is what your meaning. Perhaps something other than consciousness is what you mean or a particular definition. I have seen the definitions and it doesnt describe inanimate or non-life objects without spinning the definition or redefining it all together.

Thanks for the reply.

I use the term "consciousness" very loosely, and simply for lack of a better term, so I apologize if it is a little hard to follow in that regards. Words with specific definitions or meanings such as "energy" or "animate" or "consciousness" are a little hard to use unconventionally without creating barriers that lead to misunderstanding or confusion. If I had better words I would use them, but I don't, so please bear with me on that...

To put it simply, it is my opinion/belief that "consciousness" is different from "self-awareness". I believe that plants and animals are conscious to a certain level, but they are not necessarily self aware. I believe that self-awareness in a way "evolved" from more simpler forms of conscious matter. A plant is more conscious than a rock, an insect is more conscious than a plant perhaps, and an animal is more conscious than an insect, and so on... I believe that the level or degree of consciousness present in natural forms keeps advancing and evolving to a point where we eventually get to humans which are fully conscious and that in turn leads to self-awareness. I don't believe that the universe is self-aware, but I do believe that it is in a way "conscious" to varying levels. A rock is not self-aware, but as an animist, I do believe that it is conscious in a way...as in it has an animating force behind it whether one wants to call it energy, spirit, consciousness, or even God if one so desires. Given enough time and the right conditions (on Earth or perhaps elsewhere), that animating force which was already present in the very "building blocks of life" (the primordial soup) grew and advanced into conscious life-forms.

For those who haven't read my other thread, I will post the following quote as it pertains much to my belief...

"I am the light that shines over all things, I am everything. From me all come forth and to me all return. Split a piece of wood and I am there. Lift a stone and you will find me there." The Gospel of Thomas.

---

 

[idav]

Thanks for the reply.

I use the term "consciousness" loosely, and simply for lack of a better term, so I apologize if it is a little hard to follow in that regards. Words with specific definitions or meanings such as energy or consciousness are a little hard to use without creating barriers that lead to misunderstanding. Please bear with me on that...

To put it simply, it is my opinion/belief that what we call "consciousness" is different from "self-awareness". I believe that plants and animals are conscious to a certain level, but they are not self aware. I believe that self-awareness in a way "evolved" from more simpler forms of conscious matter. A plant is more conscious than a rock, an insect is more conscious than a plant perhaps, and an animal is more conscious than an insect, and so on... I believe that the level or degree of consciousness present in nature keeps advancing and evolving to a point where we eventually get to humans which are fully conscious and that in turn leads to self-awareness. I don't believe that the universe is self-aware, but I do believe that it is in a way "conscious" to varying levels. A rock is not self-aware, but as an animist, I do believe that it is conscious in a way...as in it has an animating force behind it whether one wants to call it energy, spirit, consciousness, whatever... Given enough time and the right conditions (on Earth or perhaps elsewhere), that animating force which was already present in the very "building blocks of life" (the primordial soup) grew and advanced into conscious life-forms.

Yes that makes sense, thanks for clarifying. Awareness and consciousness seem to be one of those things where there is no clear line as to when something becomes alive and aware. Like with the analogy of color and not seeing a clear line of when the spectrum becomes true red because there are varying degrees and shades.

Although interstingly I am not so sure there are varying degrees of awareness per se. So to say that if we are in contact with an object there is no degrees of being in contact, you either made contact or not. What we see as various degrees of consciousness is really varying degrees of intelligence and abilities (which gets into defintions of consciousness). For example humans dont show signs of self awareness until 2 or 3 which doesnt mean at two we are more aware, we just are utilizing memory and intelligence better. The brain is cognizant of now, whether we can recall now later depends on the brains abilties and limitations.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Yes that makes sense, thanks for clarifying. Awareness and consciousness seem to be one of those things where there is no clear line as to when something becomes alive and aware. Like with the analogy of color and not seeing a clear line of when the spectrum becomes true red because there are varying degrees and shades.

Although interstingly I am not so sure there are varying degrees of awareness per se. So to say that if we are in contact with an object there is no degrees of being in contact, you either made contact or not. What we see as various degrees of consciousness is really varying degrees of intelligence and abilities (which gets into defintions of consciousness). For example humans dont show signs of self awareness until 2 or 3 which doesnt mean at two we are more aware, we just are utilizing memory and intelligence better. The brain is cognizant of now, whether we can recall now later depends on the brains abilties and limitations.

I agree with you. I think it is possible however that as humans evolved away from animals we became more aware of certain things and less aware of others. In a way we sacrificed something to become "human". I suppose it was worthwhile.

---

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Minor trivial issue I can't restrain from noting: we do not have a neural network. Network models are used to in computational neurosciences to model neural circuitry, certain kinds of "learning" processes, and for similar purposes. To the extent it is accurate to describe the brain as possessing (or consisting of) such networks, we have many and not all of them are in the brain. The entire PNS is "a" neural network which can be broken down into various "neural networks" without mention of the CNS, let alone the brain. Additionally, "emergence" as an explanation for consciousness is, in this case, to say that if we assume consciousness is a causal feature of the brain, then consciousness emerges from neural activity (and this is coming from a supporter of emergence models of consciousness). To say that consciousness is an emergent (functional) property of the brain is to rely on certain assumptions:

Thank you for the correction and information.

Science does not bother to look into the question of the existence of a god because that question is beyond the scope of science. The same is true of consciousness: it is an untestable condition, consciousness belonging to the realm of the invisible, the silent, the tasteless, the formless. It is, in fact, the source for all that is the visible universe, because the universe cannot be understood as such without the background of the formless and the invisible against which it is seen.

It is, but you haven't shown how emergence occurs. At this point it's just a hypothesis, an idea you first refuted when asked about it.

Actually Legion more or less explained this an I think this isn't the first time in this thread. So yeah we do have an idea of how it happens. However your dismissal of an answer based off of study and understanding of how the brain works and the blind acceptance of a metaphysical answer based off of one's interpretation of some mystical experiences seems baffling to me.

It is your assumption that forms of matter are observing one another. They're not; it's consciousness observing form. It's the universe observing itself through the eyes of its myriad forms. You think that it's a local phenomenon of your brain because you have formed a false concept of a self, an individual ego called "I", that is doing the observing, an agent of observation, if you will, when, in fact, the very consciousness you use to do so is non-local. Bottom line is that the mind is a self-created principle.

They do observe one another. Observation does not require consciousness or intellegence. The reason why the electron doesn't just go into the nucleus of an atom is because it has observed the nucleus. The forces that are exterted onto it are observations.

The rest of your paragraph is mostly just regurgitated reiterations of the same unsupported stuff you have been going on about.

An ocean wave is not a local phenomenon, because it is something the whole ocean is doing. It is made of the same stuff of the universal ocean: water. You are made of the same stuff of the universe: universal consciousness. You came out of it and will return to it. In fact, you never left, because there is no 'you' to have done so in the first place. You are not an existence apart from the universe in any way.

That is actually true. However the whole "universal consciousness" is just thrown in there. Take that out and the rest of it is very true.

Perhaps you're having one of those weird, mystical experiences you know all about, LOL. According to you, it's all in your brain.

Everything you experience is in your brain. all of our senses are simply nerve cells that have evolved to react to certain types of stimuli. Our brains have evolved to such an advanced point that it is able to take the information these sensory cells have collected and put it into a coherent picture inside our heads and that is literally everything we have ever experienced. However such a complex system as our brain can be fooled and because of the nature of our brain our created images often do not match the real world.

How does the non-material come from the material? How does that which is in space-time create that which is not in space-time? How does material form create the formless?

We have a Big Bang event that began in some kind of pre-existing context, but since space-time, according to theory, was created when the BB occurred, space-time did not exist prior to the BB, or at the moment of inception. So what kind of pre-existing context could it be that was not in space-time, within which the BB occurred?

How do we know non-material even exists? That seems to be up for debate from the get go.

And actually that is something we don't know. There are theories. Some theories connected with QM is the multiverse theory and that somehow our universe was created from another but then that leads to the question "where did the multiverse come from?". But either way currently our only answer is "we don't know".

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Perhaps you should try thinking outside of the box a little. You seem to be so stuck on your definitions and scientific theories

When you describe consciousness in a way that makes it meaningless, it's just poor usage. The science issue is just you talking about physics without understanding what you are talking about. You're feel free to do so, but thinking outside the box doesn't mean extrapolating from ignorance.

and what your text books tell you that it is in effect putting up imaginary walls and you are unable or unwilling to see what might lie beyond those walls.

Textbooks? Not really. Especially not with the brain. Running neuroimaging studies is pretty far from "textbooks". As for quantum physics...well, even if I only had textbooks (which of course is not the case) that would still be better than using terms in ways that sound nice but mean nothing.

It seems you are the type that prefers to sit on the shoulders of others rather than go out and actually think for yourself

I do research. You talk about concepts you don't understand. We all stand on the shoulders of others, but some of us actually make use of what others have done to build on it, while others simply quote-mine buzzwords from the sciences.

You think exactly the way you were programmed or conditioned to think

I love how this is always considered a defense when someone speaks from utter ignorance about topics they don't understand and are corrected by someone who does know. When you speak about physics, the fact that you don't understand what you are talking about isn't "thinking outside the box" it's just talking about things you don't know about. Which is of course your prerogative, but as you have no idea what my background is and clearly do not understand the words you are using except in a metaphorical (and therefore useless) sense, as these are technical terms.

Science does not know everything.

That's true. However, the fact that we don't entirely understand the brain or that quantum physics presents several different kinds of problems doesn't mean we should use terms from the sciences we are not familiar with as if they meant something.

When I use the terms energy or consciousness or life, I use the them in more of a metaphorical sense and not necessarily the way they are defined.

And you do this because it illuminates or elucidates what?

If you are already fully convinced that I don't understand anything

Of course you understand things. I have no idea what, but I have no doubts that you understand many things (perhaps at an expert level). All I know is a few specific things you clearly do not understand.

or that my beliefs or ideas are illogical or unfounded

I doubt your belief system is so concise you have expressed it in full here. When I tell you that you do not understand something it says nothing about what other things you do or do not understand (as understanding some things and not understanding most things describes the human condition).

or that I am incapable of understanding it

I have no idea what you are capable of understanding. I certainly don't believe that you are incapable of understanding physics, for example. It's just apparent you do not now.

It is almost like a computer talking to a tree without even realizing it

You're comparing yourself to a tree?

 

[Runewolf1973]

You're comparing yourself to a tree?

Sure. What does that make you? Woody the Woodpecker?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sure. What does that make you? Woody the Wood Pecker?

No. In your analogy I'm already the computer.

 

[Runewolf1973]

No. In your analogy I'm already the computer.

And according to that same analogy, I compared myself to a tree. You probably already know what happens when you cut down too many trees...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And according to that same analogy, I compared myself to a tree. Does it feel kinda wierd arguing with a tree?

Are you asking me whether it feels weird to argue with something capable of the understanding a tree has?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Are you asking me whether it feels weird to argue with something capable of the understanding a tree has?

I think you underestimate trees.

 

[YmirGF]

I think you underestimate trees.

Oh good grief.

 

[idav]

I think you underestimate trees.

I was thinking a bit more about the conciousness term "for lack of a better word". The prime essence I sometimes refer to tao for lack of a better term. Though it isnt consciousness, it is more like will, to do, tao literally meaning the way.

 

[godnotgod]

How do we know non-material even exists?

That you recognize a material world is evidence that you recognize the non-material simultaneously, because you could not know the material unless it were seen against the non-material. However, you are not aware of the non-material because it is the passive background to the material, which is your primary focus of attention.

In reality, there is neither material nor non-material: those are just dual mental concepts. You are probably more familiar with the concepts of solids vs. space, in which neither can exist independently. In both cases, these are relative values, which implies an absolute. What do you suppose that absolute might be?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Oh good grief.

Yes indeed.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I was thinking a bit more about the conciousness term "for lack of a better word". The prime essence I sometimes refer to tao for lack of a better term. Though it isnt consciousness, it is more like will, to do, tao literally meaning the way.

That's kind of interesting. I would like to share my beliefs further with you, but I'm getting tired of having every word I have to say picked apart piece by piece like vultures to a carcass by some others here. Apparently my beliefs are utter nonsense to some, but make perfect sense to others. You have been very respectful...thank you.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That you recognize a material world is evidence that you recognize the non-material simultaneously, because you could not know the material unless it were seen against the non-material. However, you are not aware of the non-material because it is the passive background to the material, which is your primary focus of attention.

In reality, there is neither material nor non-material: those are just dual mental concepts. You are probably more familiar with the concepts of solids vs. space, in which neither can exist independently. In both cases, these are relative values, which implies an absolute. What do you suppose that absolute might be?

Why does relative values imply an absolute? And why must I require the immaterial to view the material? That makes no sense.

 

[idav]

That's kind of interesting. I would like to share my beliefs further with you, but I'm getting tired of having every word I have to say picked apart piece by piece like vultures to a carcass by some others here. Apparently my beliefs are utter nonsense to some, but make perfect sense to others. You have been very respectful...thank you.

It can get picky sometimes in the debate sections, often bodering on arguing semantics, I venture to the dirs section sometimes for more discussion type conversations.

 

[godnotgod]

Why does relative values imply an absolute? And why must I require the immaterial to view the material? That makes no sense.

How do you know that something is relative?

Does solid require space?