What I would like to see is a study done on the wave-function collapse of the quantum reality by the DMT-induced observer in comparison to that of a 'normal' observer. This could perhaps lend some physical evidence as to whether the DMT-verse is in fact a parallel continuum to our own, no?

And if I’m showing any failed quantum mechanical understandings here, would an expert please let me know. Thanks.

People are not really "observers", at least not in the sense that the word is generally used with regards to quantum physics. The quantum world is too small to observe directly, so we make use of instruments to detect things on a quantum level, and these instruments are the observers.

Also, even if it were possible to design a quantum experiment in which a person could be the observer, how would someone whose mind is in hyperspace be capable of observing results back in consensus reality?

Okay, so the instruments themselves are the 'observers' of reality? I thought that in order for the wave-form to collapse there actually had to be a conscious person using the instrument?



That was my idea though. If the wave needs a living consciousness to collapse, then is it possible that we can measure and compare the specific ways it collapses with and without a DMT state of mind? In other words, is it possible that a tripping mind would fire up a different 'quantum image' (so to speak) than a consensus mind?

Again, clarify me if I'm wrong about anything here.

Nope.



That was my idea though. If the wave needs a living consciousness to collapse, then is it possible that we can measure and compare the specific ways it collapses with and without a DMT state of mind? In other words, is it possible that a tripping mind would fire up a different 'quantum image' (so to speak) than a consensus mind?

Again, clarify me if I'm wrong about anything here.[/quote]

I have no idea what you're saying here, sorry. Could you elaborate on what you mean?

Hm, so the interpretation I put forth is no longer valid? (what's it called, btw?) Can you guide me to a source that proves this?



Well as I understand it electrons, when observed, collapse in to certain, defined states, right? What if that certain, defined state depends on the exact way it is observed? What if that certain, defined state is uniquely determined by the consciousness that beholds it? What if a hyperspace mind gives way to a different pattern of wave collapse than a consensus mind?

Interesting idea, but how do you observe an electron from hyperspace? If you can observe a consensual-reality electron, it seems to me like you're not really in hyperspace at that moment.

There is this ongoing debate about whether it's realy observation that causes the wave-function to collapse or whether it's simply interaction. I'm sceptical about the idea that counsciousness has anything to do with it.

But that's the idea, maybe it isn't a consensual electron at all. Maybe the electron assumes a different place in time when observed from hyperspace than from the consensual world. In other words, perhaps the 'regular' observer and the hyperspace observer are causing two decidedly different patterns of sub-atomic collapse to emerge. You see, what I'm wondering here is if that world and this one literally exist as separate quantum dimensions to one another, each defined by their own unique states of particle collapse. Each world consists of electrons existing in different places at the same time.

I apologize if my layman's translation of these ideas is too inaccessible. If someone sees what I'm saying though and could better describe it, please help us out here!!



Hm, but how meaningful is the difference though? It seems to me that whether it's 'observation' or 'interaction' that causes the collapse doesn't really matter because one thing is really the other. I mean, without observation can there be any interaction, and vice versa? Isn't observation the thing that's interacting?

That interpretation (consciousness causes collapse) cannot be explicitly disproven because we're all conscious, and we cannot observe the result of an experiment without our consciousness being involved. However computers can store the data, so we don't consciously involve ourselves until after all the data had been collected; I suppose you could then argue that the data doesn't resolve until its observed, but that doesn't seem terribly likely.

The whole concept of the observer was necessarily introduced because the state of things on a quantum level is indeterminate until an observation is made, and interacting with the electron (or whatever you're observing) cannot be done without the measurement causing a change in the state of the particle being measured.

Furthermore, if consciousness affected the manner in which the wavefunction collapses to particular eigenstates, this would necessarily have the potential to skew the results so that they are no longer 100% consistent with the probability distribution (the square of the wavefunction). So it's highly unlikely that consciousness has any role in the resolution of the wavefunction to particular eigenstates. Deepak Chopra and the folks who made the atrocious "documentary" called What the bleep do we know are representative of the sort of people who hold to this interpretation.



No, observation is not the thing that's interacting. Matter and energy are.

Look at the double-slit experiment for example (the classical experiment demonstrating the observer effect). When you fire the electron towards the double-slits, it can pass through the slits but not through the wall between the slits. This interaction confines the electron to moving through the slits (and in the absence of an observer, it's happy to move through both at the same time), which results in the interference pattern as enough electrons are shot through to collect a representative data set. That interference pattern is a result of the electron interacting with the background wall (beyond the two slits); when it hits the wall, its position resolves to a single location. The role of the observer (an instrument that detects if it's travelling through a particular slot) is that by measuring whether or not the electron passed through that slot, it forces the electron's position to resolve earlier, confining it to one slot or another, as a result of which the electron can't pass through both and interfere with itself.




You can't prove an idea by assuming its conclusion as a postulate. You seem to be assuming that hyperspace is a real world built on the same building blocks as consensual reality (i.e. that there are electrons in hyperspace that can be observed, and further that there are instruments there capable of measuring them). Until you can prove that there are electrons in hyperspace, the whole question of whether the wavefunction resolves differently is irrelevant. Hell, considering we don't know how the wavefunction resolves to particular eigenstates in consensual reality (only that its probability of resolving to particular eigenstates is given by the probability density obtained by squaring the wavefunction), the question seems pretty irrelevant regardless.

Unless I'm still misunderstanding what you're getting at?

I don't think you all are thinking small enough, an electron is made up of hundreds of different subatomic particles, and those even smaller pieces. If you look at string theory and M-theory especially, hyperspace is quite possibly a realm of additional observable dimensions from one of 7 observation points; a state in which we are capable of observing and are aware of more than 4 dimensions. Personally, I think the test would be to give someone a problem that they cannot have the answer to, perhaps something they do not comprehend or are unaware of the answer to, have them memorize the problem, then take a break through amount to see if they can obtain the answer.

this has been suggested as one of the things to do in every SHE event, but nothing came out of this yet.