What came before the Big Bang?

[Skeptisch]

Know this: No concept can encapsulate the Infinite. It is folly to think one can. As another wise scientist has told us: "Nature is smarter than we are". (Michio Kaku.)

And another wise scientist has told us:
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."
Richard Feynman

 

[godnotgod]

The important aspect is we can't collapse it simply by looking/observing it. We collapse it by interfering with it. We have already managed to get passed all that, they are doing it in quantum computers, observing qubit as on and off at the same time without interfering with it, and they use the knowledge to choose the path of the qubit.

Well, I say the issue is still out and unresolved. The short video below looks very recent (2014) and provides a technical explanation as to how/why the question of the observer effect is still unanswered:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=iR4nQsYvo5o

But this is really a side issue to the primary dialogue I was having with Monk, so I guess we'll have to just leave it at that. My only comment here is that there are some pretty prestigious people involved with these questions, such as Sir Roger Penrose, Amit Goswami, Stuart Hameroff, Anton Zellinger, and many, many more and growing, who cannot easily be dismissed, and in my opinion, and should be taken seriously.

 

[godnotgod]

And another wise scientist has told us:
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."
Richard Feynman

Doesn't say much, actually. Even those who have the working knowledge of its nuts and bolts, still have no true understanding as to what it is they are dealing with. Knowledge is not understanding. Get the understanding first; then the knowledge can be understood in the correct context. This is a common problem, because most people think that by getting knowledge first, they will then have understanding. Not so, though it seems right, which leads back to Kaku, because that is exactly what he tried, and it led him back to the starting point of knowing nothing.

"In the end, you will know nothing"
Carlos Castaneda

 

[idav]

Well, I say the issue is still out and unresolved. The short video below looks very recent (2014) and provides a technical explanation as to how/why the question of the observer effect is still unanswered:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=iR4nQsYvo5o

But this is really a side issue to the primary dialogue I was having with Monk, so I guess we'll have to just leave it at that. My only comment here is that there are some pretty prestigious people involved with these questions, such as Sir Roger Penrose, Amit Goswami, Stuart Hameroff, Anton Zellinger, and many, many more and growing, who cannot easily be dismissed, and in my opinion, and should be taken seriously.

With the interpretations of qm the observer aspect isnt even really the issue.

 

[godnotgod]

With the interpretations of qm the observer aspect isnt even really the issue.

If the observer effect proves to be a reality, it will be THE issue, and that is because we will then begin to see that consciousness is at the base of all phenomena. Of course, the mystics have whispered as much throughout the centuries. Modern man has, however, become so attached to and driven by materialism that the invisible world has been poo pooed as nonsense and woo woo. But even if the observer effect proves to be due to something thoroughly explainable in rational terms, we will still be left with the hard problem of consciousness. Meanwhile, a revolution is going in some areas of the scientific world, and intelligent people are getting that the universe is a conscious event, and that we are part of that event.

 

[idav]

If the observer effect proves to be a reality, it will be THE issue, and that is because we will then begin to see that consciousness is at the base of all phenomena. Of course, the mystics have whispered as much throughout the centuries. Modern man has, however, become so attached to and driven by materialism that the invisible world has been poo pooed as nonsense and woo woo. But even if the observer effect proves to be due to something thoroughly explainable in rational terms, we will still be left with the hard problem of consciousness. Meanwhile, a revolution is going in some areas of the scientific world, and intelligent people are getting that the universe is a conscious event, and that we are part of that event.

By saying the observer effect is the qm issue is to spread misinformation. Just so you know.

To me the issue with interpretation is if the superpositions are ontologically real or not. Quantum computing is showing us it is very real which leads us to something similar to the many worlds interpretation, not quackery like the copenhagen interpretation, ok thats rude but the collapse idea sounds like the chopra stuff to me, that any influence collapses a wave function is almost as bad as saying the mind collapses it. General relativity doesn't need a collapse to do those tricks at the micro level.

 

[Skeptisch]

By saying the observer effect is the qm issue is to spread misinformation. Just so you know.

...the collapse idea sounds like the chopra stuff to me...

Much of what is presented here as some sort of esoteric understanding (not knowledge) seems to align quite well with the spoon bending woo master himself.

“Deepak Chopra is using a common trick of the pseudoscientist – exploiting cutting edge science, which the public is not likely to understand, and pretend as if there is proof where there is uncertainty. Take some interesting experiments, then leap way ahead to conclusions that serve their metaphysical purposes, but which are not settled science.

In short – beware of anyone pretending to understand the ultimate implications of QM and that it supports their far out philosophy.

And here is Chopra’s woo philosophy:
It was only with the advent of quantum physics that scientists began to consider again the old question of the possibility of comprehending the world as a form of mind.
Indeed, the quantum theory implies that consciousness must exist, and that the content of the mind is the ultimate reality.

The universe is a mind, and consciousness is the ultimate reality. Not surprisingly, a very Eastern philosophy, packaged nicely for a Western audience.”

(Esoteric = understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest)

 

[godnotgod]

By saying the observer effect is the qm issue is to spread misinformation. Just so you know.

To me the issue with interpretation is if the superpositions are ontologically real or not. Quantum computing is showing us it is very real which leads us to something similar to the many worlds interpretation, not quackery like the copenhagen interpretation, ok thats rude but the collapse idea sounds like the chopra stuff to me, that any influence collapses a wave function is almost as bad as saying the mind collapses it. General relativity doesn't need a collapse to do those tricks at the micro level.

Q: Where does consciousness leave off and the 'objective' world begin?

 

[idav]

Q: When you look at something, are photons striking the object being viewed?

Yes but we don't see particles. We can't see atoms or electrons either, not with the naked eye.

 

[godnotgod]

Much of what is presented here as some sort of esoteric understanding (not knowledge) seems to align quite well with the spoon bending woo master himself.

“Deepak Chopra is using a common trick of the pseudoscientist – exploiting cutting edge science, which the public is not likely to understand, and pretend as if there is proof where there is uncertainty. Take some interesting experiments, then leap way ahead to conclusions that serve their metaphysical purposes, but which are not settled science.

In short – beware of anyone pretending to understand the ultimate implications of QM and that it supports their far out philosophy.

And here is Chopra’s woo philosophy:
It was only with the advent of quantum physics that scientists began to consider again the old question of the possibility of comprehending the world as a form of mind.
Indeed, the quantum theory implies that consciousness must exist, and that the content of the mind is the ultimate reality.

The universe is a mind, and consciousness is the ultimate reality. Not surprisingly, a very Eastern philosophy, packaged nicely for a Western audience.”

(Esoteric = understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest)

Mystics are not sitting around waiting for Holy Science to give them the green light. They don't see Reality in the context of any analytical methodology; they see the methodology in the context of Reality.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes but we don't see particles. We can't see atoms or electrons either, not with the naked eye.

Nevertheless, photons from the viewer are still striking the particle?

 

[idav]

Nevertheless, photons from the viewer are still striking the particle?

The particles have to be handled by specialized instruments to handle them. When they test a photon they are using a laser to pulse one photon at a time.

 

[idav]

Nevertheless, photons from the viewer are still striking the particle?

Don't be shy. Spit out what your getting at.

 

[Skeptisch]

Nevertheless, photons from the viewer are still striking the particle?

Does it make a difference whether the viewer is within feet of the experiment taking place or is looking at it with a telescope from a far distance, like the moon for example?

How about if the viewer is a guard dog, would that influence the experiment?

 

[godnotgod]

Does it make a difference whether the viewer is within feet of the experiment taking place or is looking at it with a telescope from a far distance, like the moon for example?

How about if the viewer is a guard dog, would that influence the experiment?

The question originally posed is:

Do the photons strike the particles, ie, electrons?

 

[godnotgod]

Don't be shy. Spit out what your getting at.

What I'm getting at is whether the photons strike the particles or not, and

where does consciousness end and the objective world begin?

 

[idav]

What I'm getting at is whether the photons strike the particles or not, and

where does consciousness end and the objective world begin?

When one photon is pulsed to the screen through a double slit it acts as if anwave of a million photons are going through. We would think this can not be but w would be wrong. Qm allows particles to be in two states at once, more than one place at once, and more than one time at once, and that to me is the beginning of knowing the data.

 

[Skeptisch]

Nevertheless, photons from the viewer are still striking the particle?

Why not give us an answer anyway?
Does it make a difference whether the viewer is within feet of the experiment taking place or is looking at it with a telescope from a far distance, like the moon for example?

How about if the viewer is a guard dog, would that influence the experiment?

 

[Thief]

You can't observe anything until something is created.

If you need an observer at the 'point' of beginning....that would be God.

 

[godnotgod]

You can't observe anything until something is created.

If you need an observer at the 'point' of beginning....that would be God.

Where does the consciousness of the observer end and the objective world begin?