Return Home
It is currently Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:38 am

All times are UTC-06:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 12:53 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 10:59 pm
Posts: 3
While I have seen the following question answered by Mr. Campbell in one of his Q&As, it did, especially in audio format, go above my head. The question I will be asking is something I am sure a lot of people in the MBT community encounter quite often. In the spirit of Mr. Campbell's support for reason trumping faith, I truly wish to fully understand this.
In short, the criticism I receive from other Engineering or Physics undergrad. majors when presenting the Double Slit Experiment with the conclusion that our reality is subjective, being influenced by our consciousness is that this is a misinterpretation of the experiment itself. In short, they say, any sort of measuring has to be a physical action, thus, at a subatomic level interfering with the data. In other words, it's the physical act of measuring and not our consciousness that influences the data, and thus reality is still objective.
Some of them also add that it is a fallacy to generalize sub-atomic phenomena to our day to day lives.


Love,
Daniel


Top
PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 7:07 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
When someone is committed to the view that physicality is all that there is, they are not going to be convinced otherwise. And if they are students, they are even less likely to do so. If you want to confuse them, refer them to the writings of the actual pioneers and the following on big names of Quantum Mechanics. Tom Campbell references a number of them in his books in the 3rd volume. He also has discussions with some of them on his Youtube channel. If you go here on this board, you will find links to various resources including a readable and searchable copy of Tom's books, all in one, on Books.Google where you can read this if you do not have a copy. There are also references to many other sources of Tom's information. viewforum.php?f=265

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 3:38 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 8:55 pm
Posts: 230
Location: Australia
Theories describing reality as subjective are not new, yet they are generally not widely accepted by the scientific community because they inherently defy causality as science understands it today

As Ted pointed out, the more momentum a theory has, the more difficult it is to change the mindset.

Whilst a rebuttal may be formulated by enthusiasts reducing the phenomenon to a causal one, the double slit experiment was just the starting point.

People often quote Max Planck in that "When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change", or "The act of taking the measurement, changes the measurement". I suggest you also consider reviewing the "Delayed Choice" and "Quantum Eraser" experiments. These are much more difficult to reduce to purely causal interactions.

~Martin

_________________
- A Mind without limitations suffers the ultimate of boredom.


Top
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:34 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:05 am
Posts: 414
Quote:
In short, the criticism I receive from other Engineering or Physics undergrad. majors when presenting the Double Slit Experiment with the conclusion that our reality is subjective,
Yes, reality is subjective. An objective reality does not behave differently depending on whether we have which path information about it or not.


Quote:
being influenced by our consciousness is that this is a misinterpretation of the experiment itself.
It's not a misinterpretation. It's a fact. The interference fringes can be influenced by conscious intent. See:

Radin, D. I., Michel, L, Wendland, P., Rickenbach, R., Delorme, A., Galdamez, K. (2012). Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments. Physics Essays, 25 (2), 157-171.

Radin, D. I., Delorme, A.., Michel, L., Johnston, J. (2013). Psychophysical interactions with a double-slit interference pattern: Experiments and a model. Physics Essays. 26 (4), 553-566.

Radin, D. Michel, L., Delorme, A. (2016). Psychophysical modulation of fringe visibility in a distant double-slit optical system. Physics Essays. 29 (1), 14-22.

Radin, D. Michel, L., Pierce, A. Delorme, A. (2015). Psychophysical interactions with a single-photon double-slit optical system. Quantum Biosystems. 6 (1), 82-98.

Radin, D. Michel, L., Delorme, A. (2015). Reassessment of an independent verification of psychophysical interactions with a double-slit interference pattern. Physics Essays. 28 (4), 415-416.


Quote:
In short, they say, any sort of measuring has to be a physical action, thus, at a subatomic level interfering with the data. In other words, it's the physical act of measuring and not our consciousness that influences the data, and thus reality is still objective.
Of course it's not about "interacting with the systems" or "the act of measuring" that causes the interference to appear or disappear, which is nonsense. There are many experiments that have shown interference can be created or destroyed without touching the particle involved.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.04192v1.pdf

What they do here is basically control the interference pattern by manipulating a completely unrelated path/particle: "It is important to understand that the attenuator, A, introduces path distinguishability for the signal photons without interacting with them."

Thus "measurement causes wave function collapse" is not a fact. It's an unproven, biased opinion. It only appears true under some specific experimental setups. Like if you have a basic double slit with a detector at the slits. But then, you may modify the experiment to have a detector placed long after the slits. Now our interaction hypothesis begins to break down. If I have a situation in which it seems perfectly reasonable to say that "interaction causes wave function collapse", and another situation where interaction clearly does not cause the wave function to collapse, it is then only logical to conclude that there is something more fundamental than mere physical interaction which is causing the phenomena.

If the solution were that easy, there would have never been a measurement problem in the first place. In reality nobody (in mainstream science) knows for sure what a "wave function" really is or if it even exists. So it would then seem absurd to make these kinds of statements that have not (and cannot) been empirically proven. The situation becomes more complicated, and cannot be reduced to such a simple explanation the further one looks into things. The defense of a "consciousness does not cause a collapse" statement is to show a picture of any given quantum experiment and say "see, all this happens and works just fine with no conscious observer around". This is a naive/unscientific view, as you really cannot prove or find good evidence that anything happened inside these enclosed experiments before a person arrives and checks the results...in fact you cannot prove anything happened inside the experiment even then. That's just an assumption, that there was a photon and it traveled around inside the apparatus striking various mirrors and detectors. That all that actually happened is a naive belief...because we can never know it for sure. However, when I say "measurement does not cause wave function collapse", that is because there are many experiments that would not work if that was false.

If it were false, no delayed choice quantum eraser would ever work. But we can see that it is irrational even in the basic double slit setup. You place the camera that detects the photons after the slits watching one slit at a time, and photons traveling the opposite slit that is not being watched still form a clump pattern. If there is an interference pattern because the "wave function" travels through both slits and interferes with itself, then that happens at the slits, and the camera placed after the slits should have no influence on what happened in the past at the slits. If the camera causes wave function collapse, it is sending information back in time to the slits telling the photons to behave like particles. Not possible. The "wave function" "collapses" when there is some information in this universe that a particle went through one or the other slit/path. Nothing more.

Consider the double slit eraser. Particle S travels through the slits to a detector. Entangled particle P goes to another detector somewhere else. Now there is interference at Ds(detector S). Place QWPs at the slits to mark which path particle S takes, and interference disappears at Ds. Now while particle S is in flight, perform an erasure measurement on particle P. Interference again at Ds. Most importantly, wait until particle S strikes Ds, then (leaving QWP's in place) do your erasure measurement on particle P later. Interference pattern. This is conditional on the fact that it would not be an interference pattern if someone had looked at Ds before doing erasure on P: "In as much as our quantum eraser does not allow the experimenter to choose to observe which-path information or an interference pattern after the detection of photons (at Ds), it does allow for the detection of photon s before photon p, a situation to which we refer to as delayed erasure."

The time ordering of measurements does not matter. The "result" may occur before the "which path measurement/erasure" and vice versa, and the result is still the same. So a simple statement of "measurement causes wave function collapse" is obviously wrong. Space and time do not constrain quantum effects. There is only a logic chain which is satisfied and consistently shown regardless of when the individual events in the experiment took place. A measurement that is made and never looked at is as good as no measurement. Really there is no particle or experiment. Just an if/then statement that determines the logical outcome as constrained by the experimental setup and displayed conditionally on when some person chooses to correlate the overall coincidence data.

Everyone is probably familiar with the slogans "interaction causes wave function collapse" and "you can't measure a particle without interacting with it". The former is false (or at least unproven), and the latter is obviously true. Thus, these statements are not equivalent and cannot be logically combined. In other words, you cannot combine them into one logical statment that if interaction happens, the wave function of a particle will collapse. The wave function collapsed, therefore interaction with the particle happened. This is a fallacy.

The question of what is causing the "wave function" to "collapse" to a particle is a bad one. There is no wave function and no particle. The behavior of a quantum is not determined by a single cause, but is dependent on three things: (conscious) observation, measurement, and information. The first two are closely related, because you cannot make a measurement without an observer. Or equivalently, you cannot prove that a measurement took place if there was no observer there to see it. Information is separable from measurement because some measurements give no (which path) information (or equivalently, the measurements never happened). Also, interference may be destroyed without a direct measurement or interaction, while information (if information is some meaning a conscious being can derive from a data set) cannot be separated from conscious observation.

Ultimately we can see that, though all three ingredients are required and intricately related, information appears to be the most fundamental and the common deciding factor across every experiment in our virtual reality. Regardless of whatever the experiment looks like, what particles are used and where they "travel", or when/what kind of measurements are made, in the end logic and information is the key. Then we can see that according to the notion of information as 'meaning derived from an interpretation of data', that contrary to the prevailing beliefs out there, consciousness would appear more fundamental than measurement.

Now you might ask, given all of these facts, why do so many scientists and pseudoscientists make false claims that "measurement causes wave function collapse"?The reason is that anything other than that possibility makes them uncomfortable, because they do their best to remove all subjective elements from their theories and experiments. They believe that every measured effect must have a physical cause, just because. This belief is defended to the point of irrationality. Because they have irrational fears/beliefs that anything related to consciousness is fundamentally unscientific, they must deny its involvement at all costs. It also makes the rising group of new-atheists/laymen uncomfortable because of their belief that free will, and therefore consciousness itself, is not real. So to preserve these ideals they are forced to (lazily) make much more out of measurement than what is actually happening in reality, even though many experiments have shown that measurement and interaction doesn't really matter as much as they want to believe. It's required, but it does not cause apparent wave function collapse.

Quote:
Some of them also add that it is a fallacy to generalize sub-atomic phenomena to our day to day lives.
It is easy to believe something is true with no evidence and denounce anyone and anything that contradicts that belief as a "fallacy" or a "crackpot". I have shown here quite clearly how your colleagues are wrong, and that they are committing logical fallacies while having opinions that do not agree with facts (experiment).

_________________
What was it like to wake up after having never gone to sleep?


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2016 12:53 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
Thanks for your excellent post with all of the information that I don't have and am not up to trying to dig up.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 8:17 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 10:59 pm
Posts: 3
Radagast!

Thank you so very much for the time spent offering this very compelling and useful answer. It helps me explore My Big Toe with a much more open heart, now that you helped me wash the doubt away.

Daniel


Top
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 11:07 am 
Offline
Power Poster
Power Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:05 am
Posts: 414
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10246

That is what the best quantum physicist of our time thinks about quantum mechanics. Those who know the most about QM also understand this, while those who only have a cursory knowledge of a limited amount of QM experiments find it easy to believe in falsehoods.

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10380
"So if reality exists and if we will never be able to make an operational distinction between reality and information, the hypothesis suggests itself that reality and information are the same. We need a new concept which encompasses both. In a sense, reality and information are the two sides of the same coin.

I feel that this is the message of the quantum. It is the natural extension of the Copenhagen interpretation. Once you adopt the notion that reality and information are the same all quantum paradoxes and puzzles disappear, like the measurement problem or Schrödinger's cat. Yet the price to pay is high. If my hypothesis is true, many questions become meaningless. There is no sense then to ask, what is "really" going on out there. Schrödinger's cat is neither dead nor alive unless we obtain information about her state."


https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26790
"It appears that an understanding is possible via the notion of information. Information seen as the possibility of obtaining knowledge. Then quantum entanglement describes a situation where information exists about possible correlations between possible future results of possible future measurements without any information existing for the individual measurements. The latter explains quantum randomness, the first quantum entanglement. And both have significant consequences for our customary notions of causality.

It remains to be seen what the consequences are for our notions of space and time, or space-time for that matter. Space-time itself cannot be above or beyond such considerations. I suggest we need a new deep analysis of space-time, a conceptual analysis maybe analogous to the one done by the Viennese physicist-philosopher Ernst Mach who kicked Newton’s absolute space and absolute time form their throne. The hope is that in the end we will have new physics analogous to Einstein’s new physics in the two theories of relativity."

_________________
What was it like to wake up after having never gone to sleep?


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:48 pm 
Offline
Normal User
Normal User

Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 11:25 pm
Posts: 32
Location: Pennsylvania
What you are trying to convince others of goes against a belief system that is extremely deep rooted not just in engineers and physicists but in most humans. The belief that reality is physical is not one that will be let go of easily. Their reality is defined as physical so as long as their decision space is limited due to a lack of experience in regards to the larger reality, the belief will remain. You're also dealing with egos that will do whatever it takes to keep the belief going. Many of the mainstream physicists that are idolized by the individuals you speak of have spent their entire life doing research and writing books about what they've accomplished in relation to this model of reality that is created from a belief. The last thing they are going to do is come out and say they were wrong. This would mean failure and a wasted career for them.

If they don't have an open mind nothing will change. You can list off all the facts you want. If they do have an open mind, then MBT could do the trick. The facts are that the fundamental particles that build the current accepted model of reality do not exist. A particle has never been measured or observed, what is observed is the after effects of the experiments. The atom is just a model that was created in the minds of scientists to try and explain what was going on when really they had no idea. It was from a fear of not knowing that created the atom. It's failed to answer the hard and important questions. The virtual reality concept can answer these questions and explain the entirety of the human experience. The paradoxes are removed and quantum mechanics becomes easily understood. Most well known physicists will even admit that at the quantum level "particles" are virtual. But somehow the belief system turns something that is information and nothing more, into physical atoms that have mass. How can the model of reality be justified if the building blocks don't exist? It's all based on belief. Many scientists also criticize religion for doing the exact same thing, which is basing their reality on a belief. It's hypocritical to say the least. And if they think they're going to get the answers from the LHC in regards to the fundamentals of reality they are sadly mistaken. There are 20+ orders of magnitude left of size to get down to before they would reach what is Planck length, and even if it was possible they would only find what is part of the rule set for this particular VR. Tom also pointed out in a recent workshop that there are many humans around the world that have almost no physical brain, that can function and live ordinary lifestyles with average to above average IQs. So much for a physical reality. Those are just some of the facts.

In the previous few months Tom has worked very hard to develop new double experiments that will further justify the virtual reality concept. I think all of you will be pleased to read an email I received prior to a workshop.

The Lovit Center
Oct 26

to bcc: me
Thank you for registering for MBT LA which is due to take place at Hilton Garden Inn Los Angeles, Redondo Beach on Saturday, 29th October and Sunday, 30th October.

Just in from Tom Campbell​ — he is greatly looking forward to the MBT LA event. This will be a ground-breaking workshop! The real scoop is that Tom will be presenting physics experiments he has prepared that will demonstrate quantum theory from a virtual reality viewpoint. From his My Big TOE viewpoint, the experiments, when conducted as he has set them out, will provide good evidence that this is a virtual reality and it works as MBT science says it does! What does this mean? It means that the virtual reality concept will completely rewrite quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics goes from "weird science" to normal science! Going beyond the math, it will provide an understanding of the "why" of quantum mechanics. The results of these experiments can possibly rewrite quantum mechanics. Kind of a big deal here. Be there.

So feel free to bring a pen and paper to take notes.


Top
PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 12:43 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
I can't remember which QM 'master' said this but the quote goes approximately 'the change of the paradigms of science change one death at a time'. I have also posted on the board about those who have been discovered by the appropriate scans that they might as well be considered as brainless, having such a thin layer of brain tissue show up around the dome of their skull, although their skull might be pretty normal in shape as opposed to anencephalic births.

What Tom and I are doing is to spread the understanding widely enough in world society and to have a sufficient mass of information stored so widely that it could not be completely eliminated out of the general knowledge of society world wide. And of course people like you who understand and accept this information enter into that pool of knowledge that could not be completely eradicated either. Not starting a new religion as in Buddhism where I trace a similar understanding to with the Buddha's statement that reality as we experience it is an 'Illusion'. And some people have probably been individually inspired by their guidance to create movies like the stories about the various ideas of brains in jars who think they are people and the Matrix movies.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 8:17 pm 
Offline
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster

Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:05 pm
Posts: 75
I’m jumping on this thread as I got in trouble for starting new ones.
My question is, what happens if pilot wave wins out over Copenhagen?
Where will Mbt sit then?


Top
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:44 pm 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
It will make no difference to MBT. We never say that the particles exist as particles nor waves for that matter but rather that they exist only within the conscious mind of an avatar in PMR as the data creating the simulation of PMR is interpreted by the IUOC having the experience of being that avatar. Both of these ideas of physicists are based on the belief that this is a physical reality. We say rather that everything is information existing in an information system which has developed Consciousness.

Have you ever read the paper that you were referred to early on after your arrival here explaining how the VR of PMR is created within the minds of those IUOCs experiencing themselves as those avatars participating here? It would explain all of this to you.

Ted


Top
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 10:43 pm 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2017 2:58 pm
Posts: 2
Thank you all this conversation has really improved my understanding.


Top
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 10:53 pm 
Offline
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster

Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:05 pm
Posts: 75
Quote:
It will make no difference to MBT. We never say that the particles exist as particles nor waves for that matter but rather that they exist only within the conscious mind of an avatar in PMR as the data creating the simulation of PMR is interpreted by the IUOC having the experience of being that avatar. Both of these ideas of physicists are based on the belief that this is a physical reality. We say rather that everything is information existing in an information system which has developed Consciousness.

Have you ever read the paper that you were referred to early on after your arrival here explaining how the VR of PMR is created within the minds of those IUOCs experiencing themselves as those avatars participating here? It would explain all of this to you.
Thanks Ted, I have read this paper but still have a few questions.
For instance, the uncertainty principle is mentioned in mbt and I interpreted it as Thomas Campbell sees the principle as a gap filler for physicists who can’t see outside the small toe. But in physics it doesn’t mean because there is uncertainty in randomness but uncertainty of the location of the particle because to measure momentum you would affect position and vice versa. So I’m confused about the uncertainty principle too.


Top
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 12:56 am 
Offline
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster

Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:05 pm
Posts: 75
Quote:
Quote:
It will make no difference to MBT. We never say that the particles exist as particles nor waves for that matter but rather that they exist only within the conscious mind of an avatar in PMR as the data creating the simulation of PMR is interpreted by the IUOC having the experience of being that avatar. Both of these ideas of physicists are based on the belief that this is a physical reality. We say rather that everything is information existing in an information system which has developed Consciousness.

Have you ever read the paper that you were referred to early on after your arrival here explaining how the VR of PMR is created within the minds of those IUOCs experiencing themselves as those avatars participating here? It would explain all of this to you.
Thanks Ted, I have read this paper but still have a few questions.
For instance, the uncertainty principle is mentioned in mbt and I interpreted it as Thomas Campbell sees the principle as a gap filler for physicists who can’t see outside the small toe. But in physics it doesn’t mean because there is uncertainty in randomness but uncertainty of the location of the particle because to measure momentum you would affect position and vice versa. So I’m confused about the uncertainty principle too.
Re Your answer to my pilot wave question , I didn’t really understand because how I interpreted mbt was that it was based around Qm showing there needed to be an observer But in bohmian mechanics there needn’t be one?


Top
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 1:16 am 
Offline
Curator
Curator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia
It would be very helpful if you would use the Quote function as it is intended to make it clear who said what when you repeat things in a quote and then ask a following question. In the above posts, quotes are made that combine what is said by more than one person and then the name of someone arbitrarily ends up under them as if they made the statements. This makes it very difficult to respond. If you back up and look at the above after my first statement, you will see how everything has been confused.

Ted


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

All times are UTC-06:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited