Is law of attraction an absolute hoax?

@ neverfly,
I bet you never watched the cartoon, as most people understand it simply from that. I do not wish to insult, but I think a 10 year old should be able to grasp the double slit experiment from this simple cartoon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

I want you to grasp this, but you obviously cannot.

If anyone else would like a crack at convincing neverfly do it in PM as I don't want to embarass him further.

I have not been trying to support this Interpretation at this time, although I do. I have just been trying to get you to learn a simple thing.

You said I made up the debate about the moon between Bohr-Einstein yet it was a famous debate. Einstein thought the moon existed independently, and Bohr's thought the moon was dependent upon an observer. I showed this was true, yet you argued it was false. The debate is famous.

Watch this show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv1_YB1IedE&feature=related
especially 20 minutes on.

Schrodinger made the cat in the box thought experiment precisely to show how absurd this Interpretation is. Before the box is open there is no cat. The cat is only a probability wave. It is not until the door opens that reality decides what is real. It could be a purring cat or a rotting corpse.

It is that point before the door opens that everything exists only as math probabilities NOT REALITY.

Anyways. Im done talking. You either get it or you dont.
 
Last edited:
kwhilborn,

You have piqued my curiosity. I don't know much (in otherwords anything) about the Copenhagen whatchamajig you two are debating. but let me see if I understand your argument a bit.

Are you saying that according to this guy, Bohr, nothing exists unless we observe it?

If yes, what constitutes observation?
 
Read post number 60.
kwhilborn said:
@ neverfly,
I bet you never watched the cartoon, as most people understand it simply from that. I do not wish to insult, but I think a 10 year old should be able to grasp the double slit experiment from this simple cartoon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

I want you to grasp this, but you obviously cannot.

If anyone else would like a crack at convincing neverfly do it in PM as I don't want to embarass him further.
Click to expand...
No, please do it publicly. I welcome public correction if I am in error.
kwhilborn said:
You said I made up the debate about the moon between Bohr-Einstein yet it was a famous debate. Einstein thought the moon existed independently, and Bohr's thought the moon was dependent upon an observer. I showed this was true, yet you argued it was false. The debate is famous.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to be a liar at this point?
I never denied that they hashed out differences. You altered their words. Which is dishonesty. You also claimed other physicists thought Bohr as insane due to this fiction you made up. That, too, was fiction.
In addition, You are altering mine.
You continue to alter their words but buddy- I've quoted showing clearly that Bohr never said the Moon does not exist unless observed. He said we cannot know its state unless it's observed.
 
@ neverfly,

I am honestly not trying to argue here. I am trying my best to show something and I am just being a bad teacher. I have no "I told you so's" at the end of this, but I would rather be like "sweet.. He gets it" because this is a huge topic that normal people will never even hear of nevermind discuss.

You seem to not understand basic words like reality, actuality, "Objective reality" and even "nature". You recently quoted
Think about the words meanings.

If I have said anything inaccurate it is minor. I did not misrepresent Bohrs opinion about the moon. I did show the link.

OMG. You just said it yourself "You said BOHR STATED "We cannot know what STATE THE MOON IS IN UNLESS IT IS OBSERVED".

If you could grasp the concept of things being in a state of quantum flux / probabilities only / like schrodingers cat before box opens then you would know what BOHR meant by the statement you admit he made. If you think of it like this - Imagine he does not look at the moon. If he does not look at it then according to him he wont know what state it is in. It could be quantum flux / not collapsed.

When these guys talk about state it is in they are not discussing its condition of repair. They are meaning that its in a state of
a) Observed quantum collapse which is matter / atoms
b) Unobserved probability wave which is absence of matter and atoms.

I would argue that Bohr made more than that one remark and it was a back and forth debate based upon Einstein always asking people the question about moon to see which side they were on, but I'm just happy you found a quote you like.

Yes Schrodinger made the cat in the box experiment to show the absurdity of The Copenhagen Interpretation. I have in the past thouht schrodinger was supporting the Copenhagen Interpretation, but he was in fact trying to show it was absurd to think that way.

Simply put the Copenhagen Interpretation says that if your bathroom has nobody in it to consciously observe and collapse the wave functions into matter then your bathroom does not exist as matter but merely as probability waves of what your bathroom may look like if ever a conscious observer gets in there. Your bathroom would not exist unless someone looked at it and collapsed the waves into particles.

This is hard to grasp, but is what Bohr held as an opinion. He had a very unrealistic view (literally and figuratively) according to many.

When I said Einstein and Schrodinger thought Bohr was insane for this belief I was exaggerating to make a point. They "disagreed with him". However if someone holds the opinion that the moon or your bathroom or anything is not there unless it is observed most would think them slightly bonkers. I have no intention of lying, and if I made any mistakes they were small and not totally inaccurate.
 
Last edited:
@ Seagypsy and Neverfly,
NOTE: ALTHOUGH THIS WAS A CLASSIC VIEW OF QM FOR A TIME (and still is), ALL TALK OF "Observer" IS USUALLY DEEMED WOO ON SCIFORUMS. People argue about observation methods, etc. since we are discussing protons and electrons it is not as if a camera could easily see them. I am not versed in some of the newer popular notions, but am letting you know that this Copenhagen Interpretation is widely viewed as WOO now.

I have an open mind about it, but am not decided.

@ seagypsy,
I double posted to reply to you separately because I didn't want your response getting lost.

An Observer / Measurement has been argued about. Some say it must be any consciousness, some say it must be human consciousness. As you will see in the links below there is currently no consensus as to what constitutes an observer.

I have seen some arguments say everyone collapses their own universe and we all have our own realities but interact and share information on some level.

Here is official view on it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_in_quantum_mechanics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind–body_problem

It is very surprising how much of the quantum world relies on a conscious observer. It is also surprising how many wikipedia liks discuss practically the identical phenomena. The 4 links above should at least demonstrate I am not just yelling my views here. Quantum physics is insane from an outside look in. Entanglement is where true unexplainable insanity grabs hold, but that is off topic.

@ seagypsy,
This cartoon does a fair job explaining the experiment, and yes Bohrs opinion was nothing exists unless it is observed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
then
http://www.quora.com/Quantum-Mechan...n-nothing-exists-until-it-is-observed-defined
 
Last edited:
I'm confused... is all this discussion of QM supposed to provide support for the acceptability of telepathy, or LOA as interpretations for more mundane occurrences?
Is your argument really one of "QM is weird... therefore telepathy is an acceptable explanation!"??
 
Sarkus said:
I'm confused... is all this discussion of QM supposed to provide support for the acceptability of telepathy, or LOA as interpretations for more mundane occurrences?
Is your argument really one of "QM is weird... therefore telepathy is an acceptable explanation!"??
Click to expand...

That's about the short of it. He's not trying to "prove" since believers never can do that, either. He's trying to cast doubt on skeptical thinking by 'opening up possibilities.'

It's a bit like the ten percent myth. You only use ten percent of your brain-- the "psychic" crowd jumped all over that with the misconception that 90% of the brain never gets used and therefor, can be where psychic ability comes from.
Problem is, we use all of our brains. 100%.
We just don't use 100% all of the time; we use only what we need at any given time. Just as we don't use all of our muscles all at once and only use a small percentage that we need at any given time.

You don't hear so much these days about the ten percent myth...

Kwhilborn, problem is: I get it. I understand exactly what you're claiming. This does not alter my refutations to your claim.
 
@ Sarkus,
That was explained already and supports LOA (ie. this thread). Try reading the posts sometimes before commenting. Just a thought.
 
kwhilborn said:
An Observer / Measurement has been argued about. Some say it must be any consciousness, some say it must be human consciousness. As you will see in the links below there is currently no consensus as to what constitutes an observer.

I have seen some arguments say everyone collapses their own universe and we all have our own realities but interact and share information on some level.

Here is official view on it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_(quantum_physics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_in_quantum_mechanics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind–body_problem

It is very surprising how much of the quantum world relies on a conscious observer. It is also surprising how many wikipedia liks discuss practically the identical phenomena. The 4 links above should at least demonstrate I am not just yelling my views here. Quantum physics is insane from an outside look in. Entanglement is where true unexplainable insanity grabs hold, but that is off topic.
Click to expand...

You seem to have skimmed over your references, because even the first one outlines very clearly that the general consensus is that no consciousness is required whatsoever. Every physical measurement in quantum mechanics involves the usage of a physical apparatus which must physically interfere with the system under observation in order for some sort of observable effect to occur. Even in the simplest of measurement scenarios, you can't see things without shining light/photons on them and that light is always going to produce a physical interaction. Watch that stupid Ramtha cult "Dr. Quantum" cartoon again and tell me how that eye is supposed to "see" a particle if light's not shining on it and physically interfering with its wave function.

If you want to argue that the conscious intent to measure something is what produces the wave collapse, I must ask how one can go about performing any sort of measurement whatsoever without consciously intending to do so- you see 0% of the things you're not looking at. The only weird and spooky thing about QM is that it obeys more abstract mathematics than the things we're used to observing on everyday macroscopic scales.
 
@ CptBork,
No. My Argument was that Bohr held that belief contrary to the opinions of Einstein and Schrodinger. I also am arguing he carried this belief when he co-authored the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Unclear on above statement you made, but simply looking at something is considered measuring, but I did skim those wikipedia links. I'd also like to mention the eye in the cartoon was supposed to be watching an electron. You can shine as much light as you would like, but you will never see an electron for obvious reasons.

I'm guessing you don't think it is weird/spooky that entangled objects can communicate faster than light speed. If you wish to say Bohr was of the opinion that the Moon did exist when it was not observed then I will argue with you as well. Bohr was of the opinion that things remained in a state of quantum flux / probabilities only until the waves are collapsed by observation. Schrodingers cat in the box was meant to show how foolish the Copenhagen Interpretation was. He did not think the cat would remain as a probability only until the door opened as he rejected that idea. There are some who do feel the cat is ONLY a probability wave until it is collapsed when the door opens. I used to think Schrodinger also ascribed to this, but was wrong, his thought experiment was a challenge to the idea.

That cartoon is a better representation of the experiment than I have seen. I am not telling anybody how to interpret this experiment, and if you looked in one of my last posts I emphasized that the Copenhagen Interpretation is thought of as woo in all caps
@ Seagypsy and Neverfly,
NOTE: ALTHOUGH THIS WAS A CLASSIC VIEW OF QM FOR A TIME (and still is), ALL TALK OF "Observer" IS USUALLY DEEMED WOO ON SCIFORUMS. People argue about observation methods, etc. since we are discussing protons and electrons it is not as if a camera could easily see them. I am not versed in some of the newer popular notions, but am letting you know that this Copenhagen Interpretation is widely viewed as WOO now.
Click to expand...

That quote was from post 65.

Although I used the "cartoon" I did tell them that the Copenhagen Interpretation is viewed as woo, and did so in large capitol letters. I am not trying to convince anybody of anything using possibly wrong concepts. My goal is mainly to describe the double slit experiment and describe the one interpretation.

You must admit the double slit experiment is one of the greatest experiments in the past 120 years no matter how you interpret it.

I have been trying to explain the Copenhagen Interpretation to Neverfly only (not endorsing it). If anything I steered them away from such woo (even though I believe it has merit).
 
Last edited:
kwhilborn said:
I have been trying to explain the Copenhagen Interpretation to Neverfly only (not endorsing it). If anything I steered them away from such woo (even though I believe it has merit).
Click to expand...

It must be frustrating. Me all a stubborn dunce that just won't examine critically like that... Ignoring quotes and facts in order to hold toward my preconceived ideas as to what the interpretation states and foolishly taking refuge in scientific journals and wikipedia and quotes by parties involved...
 
kwhilborn said:
@ CptBork,


That cartoon is a better representation of the experiment than I have seen. I am not telling anybody how to interpret this experiment, and if you looked in one of my last posts I emphasized that the Copenhagen Interpretation is thought of as woo in all caps
Click to expand...

Actually the cartoon is good at explaining someone's horseshit interpretation by distorting facts of the actual experiment. If you think it is the best explanation, it can only be because you harbor theistic horseshit desires from science and will grasp at any opportunity to misrepresent science to support your horseshit notions. The description of the experiment is given in such a way that gives way to the FSM and the supernatural. But it is not the way the experiment was conducted or interpreted by intelligent people at all. Basically, it is an unscientific understanding of what the experiment revealed. Kinda like the unscientific understanding of what happens to a child's tooth when he puts it under his pillow and discovers a quarter under his pillow in place of the tooth in the morning.


kwhilborn said:
That quote was from post 65.

Although I used the "cartoon" I did tell them that the Copenhagen Interpretation is viewed as woo, and did so in large capitol letters. I am not trying to convince anybody of anything using possibly wrong concepts. My goal is mainly to describe the double slit experiment and describe the one interpretation.
Click to expand...
YOUR interpretation of the copenhagen interpretation is woo. THE ACTUAL Copenhagen Interpretation is not considered woo. Get your facts straight.

kwhilborn said:
You must admit the double slit experiment is one of the greatest experiments in the past 120 years no matter how you interpret it.[/quotes] yes it is but it does most certainly depend on how you interpret it. If you interpret it to mean pink unicorns are real then it failed to show anything of substance didn't it.

kwhilborn said:
I have been trying to explain the Copenhagen Interpretation to Neverfly only (not endorsing it). If anything I steered them away from such woo (even though I believe it has merit).
Click to expand...
Not endorsing it, just using it as some kind of justification to believe in woo woo bullshit like telepathy and LOA. So if you do not endorse it (but believe it has merit- oh the contradictions) then why use it as evidence that supports LOA? You make no logical sense at all. Basically you have said that you believe woo has merit.

As for my questions, I simply meant what is accepted methods of observation. I'm not going off into the lunacy of whether or not there is a consciousness to the observer.

I am also not asking you what Borh's opinion is, I understand your interpretation of his opinion. I was asking for YOUR opinion.

I am also asking what YOU believe counts as observation. Why is that so hard?
Click to expand...
 
@ Seagypsy,
WTF? You just got all high and mighty about what you were asking.

you said,
YOUR interpretation of the copenhagen interpretation is woo. THE ACTUAL Copenhagen Interpretation is not considered woo. Get your facts straight.
Click to expand...

It is nice to see your highness has learned so much about the Copenhagen Interpretation in the past Thirteen (13) hours. Considering you didn't even know what it was called this morning.
When you wrote...
kwhilborn,

You have piqued my curiosity. I don't know much (in otherwords anything) about the Copenhagen whatchamajig you two are debating. but let me see if I understand your argument a bit.

Are you saying that according to this guy, Bohr, nothing exists unless we observe it?

If yes, what constitutes observation?
Click to expand...

"This guy, Bohr". (from your quote).

Glad to see you got your sarcasm back.

You obviously had not heard of,
this guy, Bohr
Click to expand...
or
the Copenhagen whatchamajig
Click to expand...
when you wrote that this morning. They teach the double slit experiment in grade 7. It is stuff you should have at least heard of, especially if you hang out in a science forum.

You are giving idiots everywhere a bad name as most of them could at least be civil, however your,
you harbor theistic horseshit desires from science and will grasp at any opportunity to misrepresent science to support your horseshit notions.
Click to expand...
almost seems like you lack behavioral norms.

You can talk all the crap you like, but when you said

You have piqued my curiosity. I don't know much (in otherwords anything) about the Copenhagen whatchamajig you two are debating. but let me see if I understand your argument a bit.

Are you saying that according to this guy, Bohr, nothing exists unless we observe it?

If yes, what constitutes observation?
Click to expand...

Maybe you could know the subject for an entire day before claiming your superior expertise

You obviously knew a lot less when you wrote this earlier today, and at least now you have heard of Bohr and The Copenhagen Interpretation. No wonder you are so jumpy and defensive all the time. It turns out you were simply a complete idiot.
 
kwhilborn said:
@ Neverfly,
I told you. I only want to convey this strange Interpretation as it is, but it has been a little frustrating yes. I am not going to become a teacher anytime soon.
Click to expand...
It's not you- it's me. I'm delusional. I believe Bohr, over you. I don't know why... His words seem more in tune with his words than yours do.

kwhilborn said:
@ Seagypsy,
It is nice to see your highness has learned so much about the Copenhagen Interpretation in the past Thirteen (13) hours. Considering you didn't even know what it was called this morning.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm a better teacher. But more likely, she's just a sharper student. It didn't take her long to grasp what you utterly refuse to.
 
kwhilborn said:
@ Seagypsy,
WTF? You just got all high and mighty about what you were asking.

you said,


It is nice to see your highness has learned so much about the Copenhagen Interpretation in the past Thirteen (13) hours. Considering you didn't even know what it was called this morning.
When you wrote...


"This guy, Bohr". (from your quote).

Glad to see you got your sarcasm back.

You obviously had not heard of,

or

when you wrote that this morning. They teach the double slit experiment in grade 7. It is stuff you should have at least heard of, especially if you hang out in a science forum.

You are giving idiots everywhere a bad name as most of them could at least be civil, however your,

almost seems like you lack behavioral norms.

You can talk all the crap you like, but when you said



Maybe you could know the subject for an entire day before claiming your superior expertise

You obviously knew a lot less when you wrote this earlier today, and at least now you have heard of Bohr and The Copenhagen Interpretation. No wonder you are so jumpy and defensive all the time. It turns out you were simply a complete idiot.
Click to expand...

You are right, when I first spoke of it, I didn't understand it. But you have been teaching all this time and I have learned from your teaching. Unfortunately, in the process of learning I do not put aside my ability to use logic. You teaching has forced me to research things. And as a result I understand what the scientists say about it and recognize the difference in how you are representing what they say. Thanks to you I have learned something. Only I haven't learned what you wanted me to learn. I learned the reality of what the copenhagen interpretation was. I was already aware of the double slit experiment and have never suggested that I didn't understand it. I just wasn't aware that what I knew was referred to as the copenhagen interpretation. So stop bitching about the fact that I have learned. And I have never once claimed superior expertise in regards to the CI. I only claim superior expertise in my ability to use logic and reason over your piss poor ability to do so. And I am guessing a dog would also have superior expertise in this same ability over yours. So for me to be superior to you in that respect is nothing to be proud of or brag about.

Also I have refrained, until my last couple of posts, from outright calling you an idiot, but you have been calling us all illiterate, stupid, pathetic and now you have called me an idiot. Who's not being civilized here?

It is normal human behavior to act with hostility towards someone who is behaving like an arrogant know it all jack ass who in reality doesn't seem to know his ass from a whole in the ground.

Back to the point... What is YOUR interpretation? What do YOU consider observation?

Answer the questions and stop with all the hopscotching around.

BTW did you get any messages from me in your dreams last night? I was sending you something. Should have worked according to you.


Honestly, I don't know why anyone is bothering with you at this point. You have stated that the LOA is legitimate. Then you use the CI to support your claim that it is legitimate. Then you say that the evidence that you present is woo. But you then say you believe that the said woo has merit. Meaning you believe woo has merit. Completely discrediting yourself, your evidence and therefore your claim. You have debunked your own claims more effectively than Neverfly or I or any skeptic ever could have dreamed of doing. And you call us idiots!
 
Last edited:
Actually I brought up the CI more for you in regards to your other post. I have not endorsed CI, but until some rational explanations come available that explain and measure telepathy I will not write it off. If I had to choose an observer I'd say we all break down our own reality like individual computer monitors, but this theory is not my own and is not related to CI.

No sense continuing to "teach". I am glad that you both are at least aware of this experiment and its implications.

I feel bad that you choose to close your mind concerning psychic topics, but have hopes you secretly will try on your own and learn the truth.

You can talk about people like Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Confucius, but the thing that convinced me that such people existed were the conversations with Bohr.
About his time working with Niels Bohr in Copenhagen.
— John Wheeler
Click to expand...

Good-luck
 
kwhilborn said:
I feel bad that you choose to close your mind concerning psychic topics, but have hopes you secretly will try on your own and learn the truth.



Good-luck
Click to expand...

Secretly? I tried last night, announced it on the thread and yet you ignore it. So did you get my phone number last night or not? I screamed it into your dreams but you haven't called me yet. You know, I will try again tonight. In the morning if you can post my phone number for the entire forum to read and test out by calling me to verify that I am not lying about my number, then I will grant you the awesome glory and status of being right and I will bow down in my wrongness.
 
kwhilborn said:
@ Sarkus,
That was explained already and supports LOA (ie. this thread). Try reading the posts sometimes before commenting. Just a thought.
Click to expand...
I have read this thread - although I note how quickly you yet again jump to that conclusion when someone disagrees with you. It is because QM, and nothing that has been said about it on this thread, does not support LOA that I raised the question / concern.

At the moment, the only "support" seems to be in the argument that because QM is "weird", and not fully understood, and allows weird things to happen, that this means this somehow "supports" telepathy or any number of other psychic claims.

That, Kwhilborn, is a fallacious argument: an appeal to ignorance if nothing else.

Perhaps, though, you could clear up precisely how you think QM and the Copenhagen Interpretation supports telepathy or LOA, just to bring this thread back on track?

It is very surprising how much of the quantum world relies on a conscious observer.
Click to expand...
This has yet to be proven, and is merely one of many interpretations of QM.
The difficulty here is how we (humans) can observe something non-consciously - as we have to either use direct observation (e.g. eyes) or indirect observation (e.g. we use an instrument and then observe the result on the instrument). And with indirect observations we have the issue of when the waveform collapses - is it when the instrument takes the measurement, or when we observe the results?

Even that cartoon you linked to showed how it might very well be non-conscious observation / measurement, rather than anything conscious, that results in the "observer effect".

But since all our observations are, by default, conscious, we can never separate between our own conscious and non-conscious observation - if we set up a non-conscious observation / measurement, we can never actually see the effect unless we later provide a conscious observation.

And therefore to say that conscious observation is the key (rather than possibly so), rather than mere interaction / non-conscious observation/measurement, is flawed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top