Wave Particle Duality & Super-positioning " I am the Alpha, and the Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end” Revelation 22: 12-14 There were two schools of thoughts in the field of theoretical physics that had developed different theories of the nature of Matter between 19th and 20th century. There is what is referred to the “Classical physic” theory of matter, and the “ Quantum Mechanics ” theory of mater. The “Classical Theory” is basically associated with Isaac Newton. Classical theory approached matter and reality from a commonsense perspective. It treats matter as something real, measurable, and definite. It proposes that there are things out there, occupying a real space, and there are observers who examine the reality of this disconnected matter. They exists in space and time, and are localized. This is the theory that influenced scientists and philosophers up to the early part of 19th century, referred to as Rationalists. To the scientists of 19th Century, who espoused this classical theory of matter, the reality of matter was something undeniable. They held a materialistic view of matter was something real, that could be touched. It had definable attributes. It could be measured. In general, it has properties that could be reduced, dissected, analyzed, and observed. Its reductionist and materialistic in nature. Classical physics, did not predict consciousness, or for that matter, the mind. Nor did it explore a way of studying it. It was generally held that mind, or consciousness, was some kind of peculiar chemical property, of some type of matter. Therefore, scientists and philosophers presumed the reality as existing as a duality. It’s a philosophical idea espoused by Rene Descartes. This thinking held that there was matter, appearing out there, independent from the mind. And there was the mind, which apprehended and studied this matter. That also inferred that reality and observers were disconnected. This was a dualistic approach to reality and mater by science and philosophy. Quantum Mechanics was developed later from what was referred to as the “Copenhagen interpretation” of subatomic particles. It’s a theory of Matter developed through the efforts of Neil Bohr, Warner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger and Max Planck. As scientists probed the true nature of matter deeper and deeper, matter showed peculiar properties, which forced a rethinking, not only of the true nature of matter, as it were, but also the true nature of reality as it were, that was made of this matter and the role of the observers of reality. Two scientists Danish physicist Neil Bohr and Warner Heisenberg while investigating the nature of matter at quantum state, found that the parameters of subatomic particles such as particle position , angular momentum, velocity, and energy polarization existed in pairs such that the position of the particle and its momentum are delocalized, such that there did not exists a definite position, or a definite momentum of these particles. And that the more precisely you attempted to measure one pair of parameter, such as its position, the more imprecise you could know the state of the other pair of parameter such as its momentum. This is what led to the famous “Copenhagen interpretation” upon which “uncertainty principle” is founded . This principle explains the impossibility of measuring the position of a subatomic particle together with its momentum at the same time. It states that the more precisely you try to measure the position of a sub atomic particle, the more imprecise it would be to know its momentum. Therefore there exists an a wave structure of the subatomic particle, which assumes a particle characteristic only when its being observed and collapses back into a wave structure when not being observed. It exists as a “wave packet” Austrian Mathematician, Erwin Schrödinger was able to developed a mathematical model that showed this Wave function. This “Schrödinger Equation” a partial differential equation, is still used today in mathematics and quantum physics. Scientists found that the mare physical measurement of the state of subatomic particle, forces it to take a definite state. However, when the same particle is not being measures, it exists in a state of supper positioning, smeared in the quantum realm as a wave of probability. Therefore, the Quantum Mechanic posited that its observation that forces this wave structure of the subatomic particle to assume a definite state. But in reality, this definite quantum state does not exist. That before the quantum particle was measured, it existed everywhere. Therefore it stated that there exists a quantum indeterminacy of the nature of the particle which exist in a super-positioned state. It’s a wave of probability, in a state of de-coherence, or quantum super-positioning and until an observation is made, which then, forces it to take a definite state of being, it exists everywhere at the same time. Only when an experimenter shines a photon of high frequency light on a particle, for example an electron, does it assume a particle nature. Otherwise, it’s smeared in the quantum realm as a wave of probabilities. Consequently, there is no way that one can give a physical location, of a dispassion-less quantity of matter that is free of statistical fluctuation. And since we cannot measure a subatomic particle with accuracy, the true nature of the subatomic particle is meaningless until its measured. The dynamic attributes that arise from its measurement, i.e the position, momentum, velocity, energy polarization, etc, are not really an intrinsic property of the particle being measured, neither is it a property of the observing system, of the observer, but rather, a property of both. The mare act of observing determines the state it takes. Observers therefore compel the subatomic particle to assume a definite state. Meaning that observers influence the result of experiments. Therefore according to Copenhagen interpretation of matter at quantum state, there develops an intrinsic connection between quantum reality and observer, in that the object being observed, and the observer become indistinguishable, each influencing the other. Therefore accordingly, there is no reality of matter, unless there is an observer! Quantum Theory proposes therefore that reality arises from observation.
Einstein Podosky Rosen (EPR) Paradox “I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it” Albert Einstein Albert Einstein was very much opposed to Quantum Theory. To him, it was unthinkable that the matter existed in a state of mare probability. Einstein, thought the quantum theory was incomplete because it did not make sense. Of course, he was not alone. There were some other scientists colleagues of his, who held the same idea. Einstein argued that most likely cause of this probabilistic nature proposed by the Copenhagen interpretation, was that there may be some “local hidden variable” of matter, which could not as of then, be observed with the technology used in particle accelerators or atom smashers available at that time, and therefore if more powerful particles accelerators were available, these hidden variables would probably be observed. To show how improbable and nonsensical the implications of the quantum theory was, Einstein performed a thought experiment together with two of his assistant, Nathan Rosen and Boris Podolsky. This experiment is the one which was came to be referred to as the EPR experiment, or EPR paradox. Einstein, proposed an experiment to show the internal contradictions of the quantum theory. He proposed an experiment where you have two hypothetical subatomic particles, like photons, or electrons, and an experimenter. The experimenter first entangles the two particle with one another and then shoots them off, in opposite directions. The idea was to have the experimenter first measure the initial attributes of both, i.e particle position, velocity, energy polarization and momentum of the two particle at the beginning of the experiment , when they are close together, or entangled . Then as the two particle fly off, in two opposite directions, if the experimenter measures the momentum of one of the particles, he can deduce immediately the position of the other. And if he measures the position of one of the particles he can also deduce the momentum of the other. Einstein argued that if Bohr/Heisenberg quantum theory were true, then, a variation in the spin of one subatomic particle in a two particle system would affect its twin spontaneously, no matter the distance between them, since they share the wave function. Therefore, if one measured the momentum of one, the other would be forced to align itself in order to inversely correlate with the attributes of the other. If one particles spin is, up, the other will be forced to have a down spin. This is what was referred to as “non-local” behavior. This suggested that there was some sort of communication, between particles even when they are far away, which was faster than light. However, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity prohibited the possibility of any faster than light communication. (i.e superluminal signaling) This simultaneous inverse correlation between particles inferred then, that the second particle “knew” what the other was doing, in order for it to align correctly in tandem without any information passing between them. EPR concluded that “no reasonable definition of reality could be expected to allow this.”. EPR experiment therefore concluded that most likely, the Copenhagen interpretation was flawed. Therefore, either there are hidden variables, which were yet to be detected, meaning that the Quantum Theory was incomplete, or particle attributes, (such as position, velocity, energy polarization, etc) are not real and definable until they are observed” That quantum objects have no dynamic attributes. EPR, also proposed that since it would also be unreasonable to suggest that these attributes are not real, then, hidden variables must exists. Einstein posed thus, "I think that a particle must have a separate reality independent of the measurements. That is: an electron has spin, location and so forth even when it is not being measured. I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it." This is how the proposition became a paradox.
But the observer in this case can just as easily be a machine as a person. So what does that do to your conception of the role of consciousness?
Whenever we come across "Intelligence" even if this intelligence is artificial, it always infers to the presence of a "Mind" behind it. And that, is what we are interested in here. We can apply William Paley's argument that the machine was placed there by an intelligence which uses it to make observation, just as Scientists do with satellites. So, whether its a person or a machine, there is inference to Consciousness" The collapse of the Wave structure that decohere the Quantum state of systems irreversibly connects the observer and the observed, thus destroying Descartes dualistic reality. Reality and consciousness are connected in one wholeness. Observation "Arrests" reality and makes it appear "Objective" But its because we use subjective tools, (sense experience) to relate to reality. This is where illusion of objective reality arises. Reality being a wholeness, is consciousness. Because its consciousness that makes sense of reality. esse est percipi" (to be is to be perceived),Bishop Berkley To be (Conscious) is to be perceived (experience consciousness) Reality=Consciousness.
How does reality equate to a whole consciousness, again? I think I have it straight now; reality equals consciousness, and consciousness makes sense of reality. Right?? So according to you, since consciousness equals reality, and consciousness makes sense of reality, then reality makes sense of consciousness too, no?? How does reality make sense of the difference between my consciousness and your consciousness??
The problem with us human beings is like what Emanuel Kant tries to convince his contemporaries in his work, "Critique of Pure Reason" We as observers, as sentient being, are the ones who analyze reality. We see a tree out there. We taste food, and feel nice. We touch a stone, or lift it and feel its heaviness. All these tools, the eyes, the tongue, the ears, the hands etc, these are tools that the mind uses to make sense of reality. But they are subjective tools which create an illusion of objective reality we call, "Phenomenal" Being subjective tools, they only enable us to make sense of "personal reality" "The World as We see It" As subjective tools, they are biased, because they can only tell it to "us" That means two people can see the same thing and interpret it differently. So, to the extent of the bias that to tools of consciousness imposes on our understanding of reality, we are to some extent, like the five blind men and the elephant. Each touched a different part of the elephant and explains the elephant differently. So, reality can only make sense, if we admit that our tools which we use in our sense experience are limited. And if we ignore their claim that there is an objective reality, we would be more amenable to accepting the obvious that reality is unity, because reality is consciousness. And consciousness being one, we are all united, but experiencing consciousness in a differentiated way, but not a different consciousness. Does that make sense?
Its the high time Religion reconciled with Science. So, that's what am doing. Reconciling Religion, i.e Christianity with Science
How does reality differentiate between my consciousness and your consciousness? Maybe you mean that we share the same consciousness in reality? The way I see it...man showed up and started labeling objects in reality to define what we interact with in reality, and you somehow feel that's an injustice??
Why would I feel that its an injustice? What I mean is that we are all here to learn. We have come far, and we have learned a lot. But there is the ultimate lesson to learn. That we are all "One" Space, time, and objective matter is all an illusion. Once each one of us has convinced himself that that is the truth, there is going to be less hatred for each other, and the desire to help one another instead of seeing "races" "tribes" "religions" "nations" "colours" etc. Our continued acceptance of the illusion of reality as being "objective" and "impersonal" exposes us to manipulation by secret controllers.
Because you don't like the idea of having different objects being labeled different names. You want everything to be known as..."One." If you insist on labeling everything as "One" then you can't come back later and say that there are multiple people with multiple consciousness in this...single body in space (read "One")...[rolls eyes] Learn how all is to be called "One?" Saying "We" are all "One" is just plain idiosynchronotical. So when we all wake up and smell the roses for what they really are, all will be good in the world? No greed? No more jealousy? No more envy or revenge? No more stupidity in the "One?" Shouldn't you keep the plurals out of it, since we are "One?"
Learn how all is to be called "One?" Cmon, look around you, and see how people have crazed themselves with camps. Does it make any sense to you when you see people so divided? Saying "We" are all "One" is just plain idiosynchronotical. It helps you deal with people when you realize that most of them are sleepwalking So when we all wake up and smell the roses for what they really are, all will be good in the world? No greed? No more jealousy? No more envy or revenge? No more stupidity in the "One?" Yeah, but do not bet on that. Its your journey, wake those who are willing. But most of them dreams are sweet. Shouldn't you keep the plurals out of it, since we are "One?"[/QUOTE] Not really, because the who thing is like one big puzzle. We are one, but we are different. We are a duality. That's where the whole difference come in. We are Spiritual Being experiencing Humanity, but at the same time we are Human Beings, experiencing Spirituality. Most of us are trapped in out Humanness, and we cannot even imagine how it feels to experience Spirituality. So, that's why its confusing to you. Sorry. Its not easy once you get trapped in humanness to snap out of it and realized that life would be more meaningful, if we let the sun of spirituality shine in.
So like one number, but different? Like the number "1", but not? (confused) So we are all one spirit? All one human? All one belief? We are either all trapped or none are trapped, according to you, right? Or do you divide the "One" into components when it's convenient for you to do so? The sun shines out! (spelled with a "u")
We are individualized, but not individuals. Kind of confusing? So we are all one spirit? All one human? All one belief? Yeah. We are all one Spirit. That's why God took a name that Identifies Him with Man. Yahweh. I am that I am. Meaning as God, is I am, so are you and me. Then, he appeared as I am the Savior. Ya-ho-shua. All one belief? Guess not. We all have different beliefs, the reason for division and human sufferings. We are either all trapped or none are trapped, according to you, right? Or do you divide the "One" into components when it's convenient for you to do so? No. if you realize that you are a Spiritual Being, then you can workout your freedom. If you ignore your spirituality, you trap yourself in Humanism. The sun shines out! (spelled with a "u"")[/QUOTE] Huh?
Your "Oneness" not working so well for you? Trapped in your spiritual self and no place to go in your "one"?
BIGFOOT, Please learn how to quote people properly, your style of "one quote" without quotes makes it hard to read what your oneness is saying.
No dude, I'm not talking about artificial intelligence. I'm talking about an inanimate dumb machine, a photon detector. It does a measurement, and serves the purpose of an observer. Kind of collapses your whole theory, doesn't it?
I've never really followed quantum idealism very closely. It purports to provide a philosophical interpretation of something very difficult, complex and mysterious (quantum mechanics) in terms of something else that's just as mysterious and far more philosophically vague and mushy, mind and consciousness. That seems to me to be a losing proposition from the outset, piling speculations atop speculations. What's a 'mind'? How would you define that word? What do you think it refers to? Same question. What's 'consciousness'? Are you attributing ontological status to this "wave structure" and to the "quantum state of systems"? In other words, do you believe these things exist prior to and independently of the act of "observation" (the intervention of a 'mind' in the quantum-idealist scheme) that supposedly "collapses" the quantum state into a more classical state of affairs? Doesn't the belief that 'mind' 'collapses' the 'wave structure' presuppose something very similar? If our conclusion should be that objectivity and objective reality are just illusions, then what standing does quantum mechanics retain in all this? Why not just say 'My belief is true because it's my belief, it's my subjective reality'? Why try to provide that rather solipsistic belief with an ostensibly more objective justification drawn from the far reaches of philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics?
