Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

KarlJay

Quantum mechanics & consciousness video, is it true or BS?

Recommended Posts

So I'm watching this video after watching some others about "what is reality".  This one digs into the brain and self awareness.  I'd like to know if this is just BS or if what he says is true.  Esp about the how the brain works and the self awareness part.

Thanks for any input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole video is about "awareness". Let's see how aware you are. 

1. Where is the group who produced this video geographically located?

2. What is the political climate in this geographical area?

3. What is the general age of those who produced this video?

4. Describe the style of this video.

5. In 2004, another documentary was released. This documentary focused on quantum mechanics, consciousness, and self-awareness. Overall, what were some of the opinions about the documentary of the scientists interviewed for the documentary? Who was featured at the climax of the documentary? What is "special" about this person?

6. What decade did the quantum mechanics/consciousness narrative enter the zeitgeist. When did it go out of vogue? (and why?)  When did it reappear?

7. 

8. What's the difference in presentation between your video and this video?

9. The documentary opens "The following documentary presents new developments in neuroscience and a solution to the many current unsolved problems in physics. While it keeps clear of metaphysical correlations and is solely focused on scientific verifiable data, it also has philosophical repercussions of life, death, and the origin of the universe. Due to its many layers and density of presentation, it may require multiple viewings to fully comprehend its implications. Even though considerable effort has been made to simplify the complex scientific concepts that are discussed. Furthermore, I would like to thank the author to follow and report on his work, as he wanted to remain dedicated to his research and avoid becoming involved in its media coverage."

What does this tell you about what follows?

10. Compare and contrast the music styles of your video and the video I posted. 

11. What do these two have in common?

 

I think that's enough to get us started.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, KarlJay said:

I'd like to know if this is just BS or if what he says is true.

At 17:10, "What we traditionally call selfish tendencies.......is only a narrow interpretation of what self- serving behaviour entails, wherein human characteristics are perceived through the flawed paradigm of identity". ....  and "The psychological consequences of this as an objective believe system allow self awareness without attachment to an imagined self, causing dramatic increases in mental clarity, social conscience,...."

 

The video states that consciousness and the self (identity) is, so to speak, the result of calculations done by the brain. As far as I know this is correct. But why is the "paradigm of identity" flawed?

What is an "objective believe system"?  If something is objective, there is no need to believe it.

And if somebody could explain to me how one can be self aware "without attachment to an imagined self", I would really appreciate this. But I do admit that all this meditation stuff, like e.g. Buddhism teaches,  to solve all contradictions explicitly with non-thinking, always was beyond my capabilites.

There are many theories who want to explain consciusness with quantum theory, which is "explaining" the unknown with the weird. And many of these theories claim a kind of collective consciousness to which everybody can connect when he just follow some rules. I would say its more esoteric than science.

 

regards

Andi

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, KarlJay said:

So I'm watching this video after watching some others about "what is reality".  This one digs into the brain and self awareness.  I'd like to know if this is just BS or if what he says is true.  Esp about the how the brain works and the self awareness part.

Thanks for any input.

Interesting stuff about mirror neurons and empathy and the need to change minds through acceptance and openness.  We are robotic in our brain circuit activity and need to transcend that if we are to survive.

Got scared by the "one world" vibe.  Sounds like a way to justify dropping our borders, which is another way of saying that the West has no right to exist, which means that I as a Westerner clinging to particular values, principles, and cultural artefacts have no right to exist at all, much less in a nurturing culture.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quantum theory explains nothing in the world we inhabit.

Quantum theory explains a whole lot at the quantum level but nothing at the biological level.

The larger the object the less the quantum world has an effect on it. Imagine "quantum theory" as a huge black blanket. You put this blanket over 1 particle and you can be very certain that there might or might not be a particle underneath because a particle is too small to modify the blanket's shape. Add a bunch of particles and you'll be less certain than before but still certain there might or might not be a bunch of particles underneath. In the case of the blanket forming the shape of a couch you'll know for certain that the couch is in a quantum superposition of it being a couch or it being two chairs apart from each other to form the shape of a couch. You'll also be certain it's not a cat, or a car, or a building, and so on. The larger the object you need to drape a quantum blanket over the easier it is to "guess" the object by the shape of the blanket.

If you put a cat inside a box with a poison vial that can be opened by a particle in some quantum state then the cat IS NOT in a quantum state of it being alive and dead at the same time. Schrodinger's cat is not an analogy to demonstrate the meaning of quantum theory, it's an analogy to demonstrate the absurdity of quantum theory because Schrodinger really, really hated quantum theory. So did Einstein. Both these people dismissed quantum theory on the basis of it being too stupid. Einstein's famous quotes of "God does not play dice" and "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough" for instance are critiques of quantum theory.

 

As a personal rule of mine, each time a person mentions "quantum theory" as one of their premises I immediately assume their conclusion is 100% BS. You can test this. Read up on the double slit experiment, as in the actual experiment, not someone's interpretation of what someone else said. Then ask them to explain what the experiment means. If they say that light behaves both like a wave and particle depending on who's looking they have no idea what they're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

really hated quantum theory.

Schrödinger really had a strange way of hating it, by contributing a lot to its understanding.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/25/2017 at 5:51 PM, _LiveFree_ said:

This whole video is about "awareness". Let's see how aware you are. 

1. Where is the group who produced this video geographically located?

2. What is the political climate in this geographical area?

3. What is the general age of those who produced this video?

4. Describe the style of this video.

5. In 2004, another documentary was released. This documentary focused on quantum mechanics, consciousness, and self-awareness. Overall, what were some of the opinions about the documentary of the scientists interviewed for the documentary? Who was featured at the climax of the documentary? What is "special" about this person?

6. What decade did the quantum mechanics/consciousness narrative enter the zeitgeist. When did it go out of vogue? (and why?)  When did it reappear?

7. 

8. What's the difference in presentation between your video and this video?

9. The documentary opens "The following documentary presents new developments in neuroscience and a solution to the many current unsolved problems in physics. While it keeps clear of metaphysical correlations and is solely focused on scientific verifiable data, it also has philosophical repercussions of life, death, and the origin of the universe. Due to its many layers and density of presentation, it may require multiple viewings to fully comprehend its implications. Even though considerable effort has been made to simplify the complex scientific concepts that are discussed. Furthermore, I would like to thank the author to follow and report on his work, as he wanted to remain dedicated to his research and avoid becoming involved in its media coverage."

What does this tell you about what follows?

10. Compare and contrast the music styles of your video and the video I posted. 

11. What do these two have in common?

 

I think that's enough to get us started.

Yes, thanks. That's 'pretty much enough' to see things 180°.

Thumbs up!

Barnsley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2017 at 1:42 AM, ofd said:

Schrödinger really had a strange way of hating it, by contributing a lot to its understanding.

The analogy has the effect of making people believe they understand quantum theory in the same way the Sun's size has the effect of making people believe the Earth is flat.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If they say that light behaves both like a wave and particle depending on who's looking they have no idea what they're talking about.

What is your interpretation of single photons showing interference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ofd said:

What is your interpretation of single photons showing interference?

Read on the experiment itself. The "observer" in the text refers to the photon detecting device and not the scientist performing the experiment (i.e. the person observing the results). Light behaves like a wave 99.(9)% of the time with THE EXCEPTION of when a photon detecting device interferes with the light wave.

Waves produce interference, that is why light produces interference. The question is not why particles behave like waves. the question is how does the photon detecting device change the properties of light so it behaves like a particle.

Saying light behaves like both a particle and wave at the same time is factually innaccurate.

In one situation you have light traveling through two slits producing an interference pattern (as expected).

In another situation you have light interacting with a device and producing a different result (as expected because if you add an extra variable or tamper with the experiment in any way you will get a different result).

These two scenarios are not equivalent.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone interested, Schrodinger's issue was with the interpretation of quantum mechanics, not with quantum mechanics as such.

 

The cat, whom you put in a box with a poison gas which is released through atomic decay, is intended to demonstrate the absurdity of the interpretation that a particle both is and is not in a particular state at the same time.

Suppose the particle state is binary, 1 or 0, then the gas is released when the particle is in state 1, not 0, then the cat dies when the particle is in state 1 because the gas is released. But if the particle is metaphysically in both states at the same time, both 1 and 0, then the gas is both released and not released and the cat is both alive and dead. The cat is not both alive and dead, because the gas is not both released and not released because the particle is not in both states at the same time. Therefore, the interpretation is wrong (the interpretation that the particle can be in 2 states at the same time, which is the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics).

 

edit: Because the cat can not be both alive and dead at the same time, that is the obvious contradiction of the law of identity. Life and death being mutually exclusive states. This contradiction then back-chains.

 

Philosophically, the Copenhagen interpretation contradicts the law of identity (which is what Schrodinger's cat demonstrates). The Copenhagen interpretation is the "generally" accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics. So, the generally accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics contradicts the law of identity at the level of the foundations of reality. Yup, seriously. Now you know why (some quantum) physics has turned into a shit show. But better yet, now you know why mystics bring up quantum mechanics, because they want to exempt something from the law of identity.

 

Muh quantum X --> X is exempt from the law of identity.

Muh quantum consciousness --> consciousness is exempt from the law of identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Saying light behaves like both a particle and wave at the same time is factually innaccurate.

So what do you make of experiments that show that fermions too have wavelike properties?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, for anyone interested. It is something like: leptons are not fundamental, but we don't know what they are made of, but whatever it is, it can wave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.