Why is the question of consciousness shunned upon in the physics forum?

All research is woo-woo. A bad idea might lead to a good idea. There are many who have the Wolf view of physics.

The belief that consciousness causes collapse is as strong an argument as people who are uncomfortable with the notion. Should we avoid topics because it sets off peoples "weird" meters. Perhaps that way of thinking could bridge a gap that will make more sense than some of the current theories.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Essentially you are saying "all ideas are valid," yes?

You are wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@ prom,
Yet I would say you are wrong. What makes you right? Your belief that you are right. Maybe you should censor my post so only your view stands. Isn't that your style?

Also I did not say "all ideas are valid". If that is how you interpret the line "A bad idea might lead to a good idea", then you should put more thought into it.

Bad ideas have led to good ideas in the past and will again play a part in our future.

Aside from some of the pompous and arrogant physics dwellers in sciforums, there are other views that need to be explored.

Science is arrogant by nature because aside from statistical sciences probabilities are ignored, and there seems to be a multiplication of that bias here. Einstein cannot be wrong I suppose, but he was wrong about the expansion of the Universe so he's not infallible.

Maybe it's time to let Heisenberg have a go at what is right, because "conventional" views are not explaining some of the probabilities.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The operative word here is "might." The Andrew Wakefield "research" into the hazards of the MMR vaccine didn't lead to anything good happening (maybe if you are a measles virus your perspective will differ, but if that is the case how are you typing on the internet?) and the Walter Wagner LHC scaremongering has cost a lot of money and resulted directly in someone's death. Those are two examples off the top of my head, and I spent 10 hours on a train yesterday so my brain is not exactly at peak performance right now.

I'm not going to disagree with you that there are some areas (maybe even scientific areas) where this attitude is fine, but it is patently not the case in physics and maths. This subject is a very slow gradual grind of spending a long time and a lot of effort learning and taking small steps forward. It truly is a case of seeing further by standing on giants shoulders.

I cannot disagree with you more on this. With the exception of mathematics (which is arguably not a science) every calculation and every measurement comes with an error which is statistical (although that may not be the only source of error). If you cannot quantify this error your results are essentially meaningless, so people spend a lot of time ans effort thinking about it and working it out.

I don't understand your point here.

 

Jesus Christ, guys. For those of you who believe you have such strong reasons to support the idea of consciousness being integral to quantum mechanics, all you have to do is use your magic quantum Jedi mind powers to alter this site and make people not see it as a topic for gullible dupes.

 

If the right people use the "Magical spell": "Send thread this to the Cesspool", instantly really good threads are magically moved into an area of the forum that the gullible don't read.
It can be done, but it depends on who casts the spell over the thread!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

@ Prom,

Maybe this quote can clear that up.

@ prom,
You are the moderator who moved a consciousness thread from the physics section to the Cesspool after only 4 posts.
you claim

You have argued that good ideas cannot come from bad ideas (at least not often), and I argue a bad idea can at least stir the imagination. It would be nice if research forums worked like a giant puzzle where everyone could find a piece to fit.

Let me get this straight... Arguing that bad ideas cannot lead to good ideas, you simply talk about a few bad ideas? Huh?

Tell the guy who invented post-its bad ideas cannot pay off. Like brainstorming no idea should be considered bad during ideation. Your computer monitor was a bad idea. The touch feature took 30+ years to make work, but now most screens are touch screens.

If you are going to move a consciousness thread to the cesspool, and you are

then really you should understand the point of

Werner Heisenberg was a well respected man in the field of quantum physics.
He "Created Quantum mechanics", and won a Nobel prize for it in 1932.
Many people in Sciforums (including Prom apparently) seem to remember him (if they have heard of him), as a woo-woo for his well known view of consciousness role in physics.

@ Prom,
By not understanding that sentence, it really does cast a murky shadow on your

if you move a consciousness thread into the cesspool after 4 posts.

I think it could have been moved fairly into the philosophy thread, or maybe even general science.

But moving a thread into the cesspool just because you disagree with the guy who created Quantum mechanics Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, John von Neumann, Wolfgang Pauli, and many today who are trying to incorporate the consciousness role into new physics, is just a slap in the face to these and many other people.

simply out of arrogance and your belief that,

New physics cannot develop here because of people like you. Nobody would ever post ideas like (this link) this here.
http://www.generativescience.org/ps-papers/qmc1h.html
and although that may make you happy. Some of us enjoy reading.

I am not arguing for or against consciousness in quantum physics. I am arguing against censoring topics based on....

@ Prom,
If you are such an all knowing genius, then why do we even have a forum, maybe you can just tell us all how it is?

 

I would like to say at the start of this that your post is one of the most disjointed I have ever had the misfortune of reading, let alone feeling like I have to reply to. I's also like to say that I am fully aware that this will not do anything at all to change your mind because I'm beginning to question your ability to think at all, but I am finding your posts rather funny so I will continue and see how long it takes for your spittle flecked rants to get the thread locked.

Einstein is well known for going off the rails in his later career - after GR (which was a stupendous achievement) he basically contributed nothing to physics because he was too narrow minded to accept quantum mechanics. Basically what I'm saying is that if someone starts advocating a theory with poor theoretical background and no decent experimental results to back it up, like for example telepathy (check out James Randi's many studies of telepathy) then I will say that person is wrong no matter who they are. That includes people like Josephson, who was awarded his Nobel prize for a very mainstream topic and decided to become a crackpot when the prize went to his head (he was one of the youngest recipients of the Nobel ever.)

Learn to read: "I'm not going to disagree with you that there are some areas (maybe even scientific areas) where this attitude is fine, but it is patently not the case in physics and maths. This subject is a very slow gradual grind of spending a long time and a lot of effort learning and taking small steps forward. It truly is a case of seeing further by standing on giants shoulders. "

There is nothing scientific about trying to merge quantum mechanics with consciousness.

Nice use of the classic logical fallacy, argumentum ad verecundiam.

Have you ever noticed that new physics never comes from people talking shit on web forums. It comes from people with dedication and ability that work in universities and private companies the world over (mostly the former in the case of physics).

I have never ever said I am an "all knowing genius," and I will tell you now that I am certainly not one. I know a lot about physics though, and I know physics when I see it - the contents of that thread was not it.

 

First I'd like to say it's a farce that this thread even remains open however...

@ Prom,

That is not the opinion of the person who created Quantum mechanics.

Prometheus seems to be determined to alter Heisenbergs belief that consciousness causes collapse. Could that be the case or would prometheus be more comfortable rewriting history altogether to exclude the entire concept.


Could that be the same Heisenburg who wrote:

@ Anyone,
Please note the above paragraph in case Prometheus gets the authority to delete it. It does not fit within his prescribed belief system so should be censored.

Maybe this quote can clear that up.

@ prom,
You are the moderator who moved a consciousness thread from the physics section to the Cesspool after only 4 posts.
you claim

You have argued that good ideas cannot come from bad ideas (at least not often), and I argue a bad idea can at least stir the imagination. It would be nice if research forums worked like a giant puzzle where everyone could find a piece to fit.

Let me get this straight... Arguing that bad ideas cannot lead to good ideas, you simply talk about a few bad ideas? Huh?
I LOVE HOW YOU DELETE THIS NEXT GIBBERISH FROM YOUR QUOTE IN THE POST ABOVE

Is your objective here to show bad ideas can only lead to bad ideas by representing 2 bad ideas?

Very poor argument really.
Tell the guy who invented post-its bad ideas cannot pay off. Like brainstorming no idea should be considered bad during ideation. Your computer monitor was a bad idea. The touch feature took 30+ years to make work, but now most screens are touch screens.

@ prom,
You argue that bad ideas cannot have any merit, yet considering possibilities is the entire basis of free thinking. Use your noggin.

If you are going to move a consciousness thread to the cesspool, and you are

then really you should understand the point of

Werner Heisenberg was a well respected man in the field of quantum physics.
He "Created Quantum mechanics", and won a Nobel prize for it in 1932.
Many people in Sciforums (including Prom apparently) seem to remember him (if they have heard of him), as a woo-woo for his well known view of consciousness role in physics.

@ Prom,
By not understanding that sentence, it really does cast a murky shadow on your

if you move a consciousness thread into the cesspool after 4 posts. You obviously have dismissed someone whom you apparently have never heard of, and that means this decision was not based on education or

I think it could have been moved fairly into the philosophy thread, or maybe even general science.

But moving a thread into the cesspool just because you disagree with the guy who created Quantum mechanics Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, John von Neumann, Wolfgang Pauli, and many today who are trying to incorporate the consciousness role into new physics, is just a slap in the face to these and many other people.

simply out of arrogance and your belief that,

New physics cannot develop here because of people like you. Nobody would ever post ideas like (this link) this here.
http://www.generativescience.org/ps-papers/qmc1h.html
and although that may make you happy. Some of us enjoy reading.

I am not arguing for or against consciousness in quantum physics. I am arguing against censoring topics based on....

@ Prom,
If you are such an all knowing genius, then why do we even have a forum, maybe you can just tell us all how it is?

p.s. I am well versed with the real James Randi, and have exchanged mail and email with him and his staff.
I think it is foolish and naive to think of "telepathy" as something without experimentation results, however you are not the only fool to choose the path of lesser probabilities. The sceptic James Randi was probably most noted for his ill conceived television show where he would get subjects to demonstrate their abilities (often inconclusively). If anyone cares to sponsor the experiments in a controlled setting I can statistically prove telepathy and precognition exist. I can/have carry on statistical anomalies for as long as I am healthy increasing the probabilities over time. James Randi organization is a fraud (Yes I state his offer is fraudulent) as they want something that can be demonstrated in a short video clip, and do not accept probabilities as success. They are also quite clear that they want the experiments to be very quick. Nothing that would require time.

My foolish rants? How is it that you want to keep these threads going when it only serves to demonstrate your
a) Poor Judgement
b) name calling antics.
c) poor intelligence
d) evident maturity level

If you were in the right your arguments would make a lot more sense than they do, and you would not resort to name calling.

I have been polite and demonstrate all of my points well, and this is why my arguments have favoured more support.

I have suggested this thread be locked before. I did not start it. I simply agreed that you are a very bad moderator.

 

Since you've more or less copied and pasted your previous post (again) there isn't much for me to get my teeth into. Come on! Surely you can do better!

If Heisenberg thought that consciousness causes collapse of the wave function then Heisenberg was wrong. (I don't want to "alter Heisenbergs belief [sic]" - that's a matter for Heisenberg, and you are libelling me again.) Measurement in quantum mechanics is a very complicated topic that is still not fully agreed upon by physicists, but AFAIK it is universally believed that consciousness has nothing to do with the collapse of the wavefunction. If you have any intellectual integrity at all, which I highly doubt in the light of your views on telepathy, you will start with this page and learn about just how complicated it is.

...and again...

I love the way you misquote me here - great start. I also like the fact that it seems that if an experiment disproved telepathy it's parameters were wrong, or some such. It says very little for your intellectual integrity, as I may have touched on before. Since you seem not to have the ability to read, and regard a copied and pasted reply as a sufficient argument you are hardly in a position to label me as being of poor intelligence and low maturity. I suspect your list is simply projection, especially as you continually fail to provide any evidence that I have done what you claim.

 

"Is the moon there when nobody looks" is the question here, and Einstein and Born/Heisenberg would give different answers

I am done arguing, so copy and paste my last post I will do. If this thread remains open.

First; Seriously? You started off trying the "Filthy Liar" thing which I turned around on you, and now you are attacking my integrity? Are you a preschooler?

Secondly; the "AFAIK" comment you make is the first attempt at humility I've seen from you, and for the record it is not universally believed (your interpretation; AND your humility), and as such is a philosophical debate if nothing else. You used your "AFAIK" knowledge to immediately relegate the discussion to the cesspool.
I would suggest you start here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind/body_problem
and also look at the Philosophical problems of quantum measurements in the link you provided.

I am an Engineer, however am also a professional Paranormal researcher. I do not understand how "my views on telepathy" are related to my integrity. If you are suggesting I have not witnessed far above chance telepathic experiments then that is your opinion. I do not try to impose this belief on this website, although I do stand behind it from time to time. I maintain that if I had not seen first hand some of what I have seen, then I may doubt it as well. I also feel sorry for people who have not had these experiences as your beliefs must be very limiting as a result.

If you were smart; you would realize that no such experiment could exist. I will attempt to explain this idea to you however.

Telepathy is not something that can be measured so far. We do not possess technology that can detect telepathy. We can detect electrical signals from our brain, but we cannot be sure if these things are even related.

How could someone disprove telepathy? Put two people in two rooms and if telepathy does not occur then it is disproved? How do we know either participants even tried without measurement?

I maintain that first hand views of this topic might be more persuasive than relying on statistics, however there are many successful telepathy experiments out there that defy probabilities. A certain amount of skepticism may be healthy, but it should not outweigh probabilities.

I am sure you would feel comfortable if there was already a "rational" explanation of "Entanglement", or "Spooky action at a distance". How can objects possibly interact instantly ignoring light speed. Does this also keep you awake at night? Would you move a conversation about entanglement to the cesspool?

I assure you; I feel the "non-believers" are crazier than what you may feel about "believers". I also believe that the "non-believer" class is unwilling to look very plausibly at the subject and can easily overlook overwhelming evidence.

I am not going to try to sway opinions on this matter however, but I can assure you my "integrity" is fine just as it is.

If your own integrity (see definition maybe) is intact then perhaps you would be willing to admit that moving the "consciousness in physics" thread to the cesspool may have been "hasty".

If this thread remains open I will most likely post my last post in response to any further name calling or attacks on my integrity from Prometheus.

 

What a shame that the laws of physics aren't subject to democratic rule like all the other laws. I for one think it would be really swell if we could only just get enough support to set \(\pi=3\).

 

It already is. \(\pi=3 something\)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'd vote to have Physics differentiated from Quantum Mechanics, because there is too much controversy to have any set laws at the moment.

 

The reason discussions of consciousness are shunned is because the science used to investigate this phenomena, usually leads to subjective results, thereby discounting the topic of consciousness as being only subjective and not objective.

As an analogy, say we wanted to know what was on the ocean bottom. We would not sit on the surface in a ship, speculating. That would be at best, partially objective and partially subjective. To make this objective science, you would need to get in a diving bell and go down to the bottom to collect first hand data. Second and third hand data would leave doubt, which would be considered subjective to other scientists who collect direct data.

Even if you lowered another person down to the bottom, unless he is an expert, he will not know what he is looking for, nor will he be aware of subtle things that count. Since there will also be is a break in expert continuity from surface to bottom, there will still be unknowns. The only way is the expert has to get into the diving bell.

As an analogy, say we had an expert of depression who was never depressed. There is something missing, called first hand data. He can observe others and get a good empathy for the phenomena but there is a still is discontinuity with the best reality data. Say we fire him and he goes into a deep depression, now he has the data that links the entire phenomena. But what scientists will sacrifice himself, when you can get all the accolades with second hand data?

When it comes to consciousness, investigation in the third person, or observing others, or having laymen describe what they see, leaves open doubt and ends in rational polytheism. The lac of first hand data create the subjectivity associated with too many theories.

Relative to human consciousness, the most direct form of data is within the mind of each person. The first need would be experts probing their own minds as a data source. There is another wall that the direct approach can create, that can also make it subjective. The analogy would be like diving down to the bottom of the ocean and the diving bell begins to leak. The worry or fear of death/insanity makes it harder to objectively observe the bottom, unless you have gone through this a few times. Then you can remain cool under pressure.

What you would need is someone like a Yoga master who can induce deep consciousness affects, who also has something like a PhD in psychology who can observe and collect data. He/she would also need to be cool under pressure since the best data is out of control and might last for weeks. You need stamina. Then you would need more than one explorer to verify the data.

Back in the 1960's, similar research was being done using drugs like LSD. The unconscious mind would be opened up with the drugs and you needed to gather observational data while also under fire. This was a simulation or training exercise for the real thing that would be needed . The real thing would be need to be induced, but without drugs, so there is no drug wild card variable, to make data artificial. It could be scary, so it was not for everyone. It is easier to go into denial than take the risk needed to collect first hand data. It is easier on the ship acting like experts than in the diving bell taking risks.

What I found is the conscious mind is only the tip of the iceberg, with most of the framework for consciousness below the surface. There are two centers of consciousness, the inner self, which is at deepest depth and the ego on the surface. Exploration is about triggering the inner self to generate data so you know the inner self is there. Once that is routine, then it is time to see the types of data output that it can generate. Based on all that data you can model consciousness.

 

Wrong.

So you personally are advocating a subjective approach?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Proof, if any more were needed, that you really don't understand quantum mechanics.

 

That's one of the dumbest statements I have read in a while.

 

I found this fascinating , never knew or heard of this before

you ?

 

I am... somewhat confused as to what the question posed is referencing... from the posts I've read... why would our consciousness affect reality? Yes, it would affect OUR perception of reality... but the "truth" of reality still remains the same, yes?