The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind  (Read 23852 times)

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #25 on: 13/10/2009 07:05:07 »
Mr "Scientist"
you say "Oh you know there is more then one?"
Yes, I know it because of the evidence.
There is, for example, one that realises there's more than one, and a second, who doesn't.

At the moment, the nearest thing to evidence you have is some fairy story about quantum trafic lights.
On that basis, you seem to be trying to rewrite physics.


Do you realise that you cannot win this argument?
If you were right then you would be arguing against yourself so you couldn't hope to win.
If not then you are wrong so you won't win.

 

Offline Dimi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
  • Prone to rambling
    • View Profile
The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #26 on: 13/10/2009 07:11:14 »
I think it has a nice philosophical debate. It'd be better if it wasn't written in brain-f**k

I do not agree that something like this could ever be proved, we're humans - we have our limits. We can only find with what we have. Can't really ask for more.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #27 on: 13/10/2009 12:07:04 »
Mr "Scientist"
you say "Oh you know there is more then one?"
Yes, I know it because of the evidence.
There is, for example, one that realises there's more than one, and a second, who doesn't.

At the moment, the nearest thing to evidence you have is some fairy story about quantum trafic lights.
On that basis, you seem to be trying to rewrite physics.


Do you realise that you cannot win this argument?
If you were right then you would be arguing against yourself so you couldn't hope to win.
If not then you are wrong so you won't win.



Quantum mechanics allows for illusions. I'll give you another; one which mirrors the idea. Ever heard of the Single Electron Universe Theory?
 

Offline Dimi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
  • Prone to rambling
    • View Profile
The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #28 on: 13/10/2009 12:41:36 »
See my previous post.

Also, Mr Scientist you might like this link http://www.stefonmears.com/fintach/ChaosDogma.html
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #29 on: 13/10/2009 19:29:38 »
"Quantum mechanics allows for illusions. I'll give you another; one which mirrors the idea. Ever heard of the Single Electron Universe Theory?"

Yes, but I have never heard the sugestion that the electron can argue with itself.


There are clearly two "selfs" here- one is consious of the fact that (from its point of view) your idea is right and the other is consious of the fact that (from its point of view) it isn't.
That proves that they are different.
If they are different then they cannot be the same; there must be (at least) two.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #30 on: 14/10/2009 01:58:00 »
"Quantum mechanics allows for illusions. I'll give you another; one which mirrors the idea. Ever heard of the Single Electron Universe Theory?"

Yes, but I have never heard the sugestion that the electron can argue with itself.


There are clearly two "selfs" here- one is consious of the fact that (from its point of view) your idea is right and the other is consious of the fact that (from its point of view) it isn't.
That proves that they are different.
If they are different then they cannot be the same; there must be (at least) two.


You've never heard of an electron entangling with itself...? In this case, wave mechanics must be obsolete... In the one-electron universe, it goes to show that a single electron can decohere.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #31 on: 14/10/2009 08:29:00 »
Entangling, yes, holding two different ideas in it's "mind" no.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #32 on: 14/10/2009 23:30:36 »
You've just described what was needed. Thank you.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #33 on: 14/10/2009 23:32:39 »
And you think the electron cannot argue with itself? You might be surprised to know that electrons have an internal clock.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #34 on: 15/10/2009 18:41:22 »
You've just described what was needed. Thank you.
So, provided that an electron has a mind which can hold two mutually exclusive ideas at the same time then the idea that there is only one consciousness might be correct.

Thanks for sharing that.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #35 on: 17/10/2009 03:12:10 »
You've just described what was needed. Thank you.
So, provided that an electron has a mind which can hold two mutually exclusive ideas at the
same time then the idea that there is only one consciousness might be correct.

Thanks for sharing that.

Fool.

You ask all the wrong questions. Never mind understand which questions are allowed.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #36 on: 17/10/2009 03:13:20 »
I have papers which prove you wrong too.
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #37 on: 18/10/2009 08:42:58 »
If there's only one consciousness don't you mean papers that prove yourself wrong?
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #38 on: 18/10/2009 11:18:38 »
No, they prove him to be both right and wrong at the same time.
Reductio ad adsurdum.
QED
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #39 on: 18/10/2009 17:04:38 »
If there's only one consciousness don't you mean papers that prove yourself wrong?

No.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #40 on: 18/10/2009 17:14:36 »
Time to broaden your minds folks. You are all thinking rigidly within the bounds of our experience. Just because we experience what is called a ''singular individual existence'' is but a mere illusion.

Such illusions are common within physics. I will give you two examples which have drastically-altered our perception of physical sciences. One being the Linear Time of Experience (now shown to be an illusion) and the Holographic Principle, which is a theory suggesting we live in a illusion.

Firstly, Linear Time. It has been shown by three different physicists i know of that Linear Time does not exist; in other words, time is not a direction in which consciousness and our experience of the world tunes to. The psychological arrow represents a type of river in time, where there is a discontinuous flow from the past and into the future, relative to the observer.

Howsoever these three scientists have shown that time is not linear really, and that this is an illusion of sorts. Real time ''out there'' in the world really exists for starts and stops.

The Holographic Principle states that we live on the wall of dimensions, and that we are a projection of this wall. Without getting deep into the theory, it suggests much like how shadows are formed on the wall of a cave, which is an analog of Plato's allegory of the cave. Reality simply at large, may not exactly seem what is objectively appears.

That which is subjective, and feels personal to me might go for a change too; it might seem ridiculous that there can be only one mind, but for a while physicists where saying that there was only one electron in the universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe so why not consciousness or the plural ''I''? Is such a theory really any different?

Broaden your minds, think outside the box. I wouldn't be suggesting this if it had no credibility within physics itself. What we experience as the selfish I may not be the entire block in which consciousness exists in.
« Last Edit: 18/10/2009 17:16:14 by Mr. Scientist »
 

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #41 on: 18/10/2009 21:15:55 »
it isn't that "we are all thinking rigidly within the bounds of our experience". it's that you have nearly zero evidence that supports your conclusion, and the evidence you DO have does not even properly support your hypothesis. the one-electron universe hypothesis, as you have said yourself, is a past tense hypothesis and is unrealistic based on information from other well supported theories. you have drawn some disanalogies like this to support the hypothesis' worth of being considered.

Quote from: Mr. Scientist
Imagine that Wigner is approaching a quantum traffic light with two possibilities, red and green; at the same time his friend is approaching the same light  from the perpendicular road.  Being busy Americans, they both choose green.  Unfortunately, their choices are contradictory; if both choices materialize at the same time, there would be pandemonium.  Obviously, only one of their choices counts, but whose?

            After many decades, three physicists at different places and times (Ludwig Bass in Australia, myself at Oregon, and Casey Blood at Rutgers, New Jersey), independently discovered the solution of the paradox: consciousness is one, nonlocal and cosmic, behind the two people’s local individuality.  They both choose but from this nonordinary state of one consciousness (which I call the quantum self) where there is no local individuality or selfishness so contradiction can be avoided.  This allows the common sense result that in many such crossings, Wigner and his friend each would get green fifty percent of the time; yet for any individual crossing, a creative opportunity for getting green is left open for each.'' [/b]

http://www.amitgoswami.org/consciousness-quantum-physics/

But then again, it would be better if you just read Ludvic Bass' account in his paper Hermethena.

Quote from: that mad man
A lot of QM is based on imaginary scenarios like the one above. QM can predict a lot of things but it does not mean that they will become true or a fact only that its a possibility.

Quote: "To expand this further, Bass shows how if there is a singular master consciousness, then it may have direct applications for psychic conditional theories, which usually remain outside the conventional wisdom of science"

It may be logical reasoning but a lot of his stuff is full if, may and could and not will.

Quote from: Mr. Scientist
So far, it's the most logical conclusion based from the soil of QM.

i just want to bold the thing that i think is the biggest flaw in all of this. you have non responded properly to it, just repeated that it's logical and makes sense. it's okay to accept this as a possibility, but don't talk as though it's been proven, it's barely even past the hypothesis stage and you're putting words like "proven" in the title? you need to put this in the context of science. it is a fringe hypothesis. it might be true. pink unicorns that fly around the earth might be true, but it's unlikely - so don't present your hypothesis as though it is likely.

besides all this, how is this hypothesis useful, even if it is right? you didn't answer that. it might be interesting and all that, but it has no use, and no further questions can really be asked after finding out the answer which also have no use.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #42 on: 19/10/2009 02:25:18 »
it isn't that "we are all thinking rigidly within the bounds of our experience". it's that you have nearly zero evidence that supports your conclusion, and the evidence you DO have does not even properly support your hypothesis. the one-electron universe hypothesis, as you have said yourself, is a past tense hypothesis and is unrealistic based on information from other well supported theories. you have drawn some disanalogies like this to support the hypothesis' worth of being considered.

Quote from: Mr. Scientist
Imagine that Wigner is approaching a quantum traffic light with two possibilities, red and green; at the same time his friend is approaching the same light  from the perpendicular road.  Being busy Americans, they both choose green.  Unfortunately, their choices are contradictory; if both choices materialize at the same time, there would be pandemonium.  Obviously, only one of their choices counts, but whose?

            After many decades, three physicists at different places and times (Ludwig Bass in Australia, myself at Oregon, and Casey Blood at Rutgers, New Jersey), independently discovered the solution of the paradox: consciousness is one, nonlocal and cosmic, behind the two people’s local individuality.  They both choose but from this nonordinary state of one consciousness (which I call the quantum self) where there is no local individuality or selfishness so contradiction can be avoided.  This allows the common sense result that in many such crossings, Wigner and his friend each would get green fifty percent of the time; yet for any individual crossing, a creative opportunity for getting green is left open for each.'' [/b]

http://www.amitgoswami.org/consciousness-quantum-physics/

But then again, it would be better if you just read Ludvic Bass' account in his paper Hermethena.

Quote from: that mad man
A lot of QM is based on imaginary scenarios like the one above. QM can predict a lot of things but it does not mean that they will become true or a fact only that its a possibility.

Quote: "To expand this further, Bass shows how if there is a singular master consciousness, then it may have direct applications for psychic conditional theories, which usually remain outside the conventional wisdom of science"

It may be logical reasoning but a lot of his stuff is full if, may and could and not will.

Quote from: Mr. Scientist
So far, it's the most logical conclusion based from the soil of QM.

i just want to bold the thing that i think is the biggest flaw in all of this. you have non responded properly to it, just repeated that it's logical and makes sense. it's okay to accept this as a possibility, but don't talk as though it's been proven, it's barely even past the hypothesis stage and you're putting words like "proven" in the title? you need to put this in the context of science. it is a fringe hypothesis. it might be true. pink unicorns that fly around the earth might be true, but it's unlikely - so don't present your hypothesis as though it is likely.

besides all this, how is this hypothesis useful, even if it is right? you didn't answer that. it might be interesting and all that, but it has no use, and no further questions can really be asked after finding out the answer which also have no use.

I don't have proof, and most of physics yield no proof either, only predictions.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #43 on: 19/10/2009 02:26:49 »
I do have evidence however. I take it that even though three physicists have independantly reached the same conclusion - with an added physical paper - but obviously this means nothing.
 

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #44 on: 19/10/2009 08:51:51 »
but non-problem they solved is both a non-problem and only related to your idea, not evidence for it. if quantum mechanics does predict that there is only one consciousness, then something in quantum mechanics is wrong.
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #45 on: 19/10/2009 17:58:30 »
What do you mean non-problem?
 

Offline demografx

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8196
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #46 on: 20/10/2009 04:59:29 »

Fool.


Please quit the ad hominems.


You ask all the wrong questions. Never mind understand which questions are allowed.


Including the putdowns.
« Last Edit: 20/10/2009 05:03:09 by demografx »
 

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Thanked: 2 times
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #47 on: 20/10/2009 05:44:45 »
I was frustrated then.
 

Offline demografx

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8196
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #48 on: 20/10/2009 18:19:52 »

I was frustrated then.


Not an excuse. And this is not the first instance. One more breach of this nature will get you banned.

An apology to Bored chemist is in order.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #49 on: 20/10/2009 18:52:00 »
While an apology might be apropriate for the sake of good form, I'm not too bothered.
I only take insults to heart when they come from someone whose opinion I value.
My personal take on the matter is that someone who consistently tries to win a logically unwinnable argument by
appeal to authority i.e "I take it that even though three physicists have independantly reached the same conclusion "

or by seeking to ignore the issues  i.e. "You ask all the wrong questions. Never mind understand which questions are allowed."

seems to have mistaken this site for a theology forum.
To be honest, their insults bother me about as much as a three year old saying "You are horrid and you smell of wee!".
It's not polite; it shows frustration and a lack of maturity. It ought to be frowned upon, but it's certainly not worth losing sleep over. Laughing seems to me to be a more apropriate response.

Anyway, to get back to Mr Sciences perfectly valid question
"What do you mean non-problem?"

Imagine that it's about 1650 and, together with your philosopher friends, you have got bored of arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin* so you decide to ask the same question about dodos.
As you are trying to deduce the answer ab initio a servant comes in and says "They just killed the last dodo".

The question "How many angels can dance on the head of a dodo (or dodos on a pin)?" becomes a non-problem.
The circumstances where the question might have a meaning no longer exist.

Similarly, if you are talking about quantum traffic lights, influenced by the minds of the drivers and someone points out that the real world doesn't have traffic lights like that, you ought to see that the original problem (about the unreal lights) is a non-problem.

The old riddle about how much wood could a wood-chuck chuck.... is another example.
It can't so the answer isn't defined.

* incidentally, the answer is "all of them, but not all at the same time".
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

The Quantum Physicist who proved There was Only One Mind
« Reply #49 on: 20/10/2009 18:52:00 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums