0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
If it wasn't drivel, why did you say it was, by insisting that the consequence of biocentrism is that life preceded the universe in which it clearly didn't exist for several billion years? That's the problem with science - if you make a statement, it has to be consistent with observation.
Consciousness preceded the universe , not life , needless to add .
They assumed the behaviorof particles would be completely predictable if everything wasknown at the outset—that there was no limit to the accuracy withwhich they could measure the physical properties of an object of anysize, given adequate technology...."
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg444409#msg444409 date=1415989684]Quote from: DonQuichotte on 14/11/2014 18:10:46Consciousness was the one that preceded the universe , not life , needless to add .Your definition of consciousness being....?
Consciousness was the one that preceded the universe , not life , needless to add .
QuoteThey assumed the behaviorof particles would be completely predictable if everything wasknown at the outset—that there was no limit to the accuracy withwhich they could measure the physical properties of an object of anysize, given adequate technology...." No, Zeno's Paradox has been around for a very long time. Heisenberg puts numbers to it.
Can you try to comment on the more relevant issues raised by the above displayed quotes or excerpts , please , instead of focussing on less relevant ones ? Thanks .
But when you have a lucid moment, you might consider this:Photographic film doesn't record single photons. You need two photons to interact with a silver halide crystal within a fairly short time (before the first interaction relaxes) in order to produce persistent blackening.So in Taylor's famous single-photon double-slit experiment, the second photon has to "observe" the first one in order to collapse its wavefunction and record an interference pattern.
No conscious observer can be involved because a conscious observer can only see the result, after the second photon has arrived, not the process by which the first photon decides where to go. Or are photons self-conscious? Or are silver halide crystals conscious?
Caution: "Consciousness" has nothing whatsoever to do with the quantum process. We are dealing with an event that makes itself known by an irreversible act of amplification, by an indelible record, an act of registration. Does that record subsequently enter into the "consciousness" of some person, some animal or some computer? Is that the first step into translating the measurement into "meaning" meaning regarded as "the joint product of all the evidence that is available to those who communicate." Then that is a separate part of the story, important but not to be confused with "quantum phenomena." (Wheeler, 1983).
I think Don's problem, whioch seems to be shared by a number of deluded mystics, is taking a rather literal - indeed literary - interpretation of Heisenberg and Schrodinger's use of "observe": what they are getting at is that we don't know anything about a particle until it has interacted with something else, and in doing so, no longer possesses the properties it had before the interaction - Wheeler's "irreversible act of amplification".
Taylor's single photon double slit experiment was conducted around 1900, not 200 years ago, and involved one photon at a time, not one per second.
The point I'm trying to make is that quantum selfinterference has been demonstrated in the absence of any conscious observer.
Even John Wheeler said once , to mention just that :" No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon."
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 15/11/2014 16:58:41Even John Wheeler said once , to mention just that :" No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." which makes perfect sense in the context of Wheeler's definition of observation, but not yours.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 15/11/2014 16:58:41Even John Wheeler said once , to mention just that :" No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." Sir Don.......You're not understanding the point Wheeler was making with that remark.Translation: No phenomenon can become a reality to our understanding unless we can observe empirical evidence of it's occurrence. Wheeler's statement does not mean that our observation of it somehow influences it's course or function. Please reread it keeping mind that Wheeler is only giving credence to the observation as a vehicle for our anticipated enlightenment.
Quote from: Ethos_ on 15/11/2014 19:18:30Quote from: DonQuichotte on 15/11/2014 16:58:41Even John Wheeler said once , to mention just that :" No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." Sir Don.......You're not understanding the point Wheeler was making with that remark.Translation: No phenomenon can become a reality to our understanding unless we can observe empirical evidence of it's occurrence. Wheeler's statement does not mean that our observation of it somehow influences it's course or function. Please reread it keeping mind that Wheeler is only giving credence to the observation as a vehicle for our anticipated enlightenment.See above
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 15/11/2014 19:23:08Quote from: Ethos_ on 15/11/2014 19:18:30Quote from: DonQuichotte on 15/11/2014 16:58:41Even John Wheeler said once , to mention just that :" No phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon." Sir Don.......You're not understanding the point Wheeler was making with that remark.Translation: No phenomenon can become a reality to our understanding unless we can observe empirical evidence of it's occurrence. Wheeler's statement does not mean that our observation of it somehow influences it's course or function. Please reread it keeping mind that Wheeler is only giving credence to the observation as a vehicle for our anticipated enlightenment.See aboveYou're reading way too much into those remarks Don. What I take from his statements is this: Our existence is made reality in our minds thru the things we experience. However, our experiences are not the creators of true reality, only the reality which our mind understands. One can create any mental reality they choose to but true reality is the result that empirical experiment obtains.