Wikipedia disagrees. http://en.wikipedia.org/...i/Wave_function_collapse



I've got no problem if you want to use the term "observer" instead of "consciousness" or "awareness." Is that the issue you have with our statements?

I haven't seen any of these links you are talking about. Perhaps link them in the thread in which you refer to them? I don't go around stalking everything you ever post. I'd prefer a layman's explanation, not one in which I need to have a college education in physics.

Theories/observations get put into textbooks after they have been fully explained, not when we are barely aware of them. This is the most open question in quantum mechanics. It's like telling Galileo to crack open a Bible and enlighten himself.

No, at the root of physics is common sense and observation. There is nothing else.

I make that claim. I've had graduate classes in Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Chemistry, and Physical Chemistry. My PhD is Medicinal Chemistry and I'm employed as a Computational Chemist. I'm very up on quantum chemistry and the latest methods....

The particle/slit/detector experiments clearly demonstrate that the act of observation causes a direct effect on the output. You can prove it to yourself in your own bedroom for around $500 dollars. Yep you have to extrapolate a little bit and say that the detector is an extension of our consciousness...once that extension is made the most obvious answer is that our observations do indeed effect the outcome.

No need to link to other websites. I'm very familiar with the other sides arguments. I work with a lot of scientists and quite a few of them simply can't stand the thought of giving up any ground to so called mysticism.

The kickers...and you probably know this burnt. Quantum mechanics is still only a mathematical model and nothing more. Wavefucntions are approximations. Currently some of the best models we use are nothing more than combinations of Guassians (Normal distributions) centered on the atomic nuclei.

My point with this post was to simply inform others that there are scientists that don't share your view.


I'd like to make a bold claim myself. Anyone claiming to fully understand quantum mechanics needs to sit down with a good quantum mechanic book and go back over it all again. Because none of us understand it completely. It's currently the best theory we have going...meaning that results from quantum calculations are our best bet at modeling reality on the extremely small scale. It's nothing more than a model though.

The truth is that the simple truths of existence apply to every damn thing there is, was and ever will be. And that includes quantum mechanics, irrespective of its seemingly counter-intuitive nature.

And the lie each and every single time is that these truths do not apply because somehow, this new phenomenon or matter of study is more abstract than abstraction itself.

I will make a bold claim myself, it seems it's bold claim o' clock! I claim that I fully understand quantum mechanics (just as we all do!), otherwise I wouldn't be able to do anything in this universe. What I do not claim, however with a capital H, is to be able to put it into words just yet. Give me a few years, I'm damn sure I can though.

My initial thought was to argue about how you couldn't possible understand quantum mechanics. ...but them the thought occurred to me that you actually are right. Everything that ever could be is, and everything that will ever be likely already is.

These are the most fascinating of conversations to me...especially on the dmt-nexus because everyone tolerates everyone else's opinions, and I have yet to see anyone claim to have some sort of absolute truth...ok there may have been a couple...but they were talked down!

I don't think Burnt is wrong per say. I just feel as though in my own personal life I've traveled the path of science for long enough to know that it also does not have any ultimate truths. the closest thing to absolute truth I personally feel I've ever gotten was on shrooms...and I've detailed the experience before so I won't do it again.

---------------- Thought experiment time ------------------------------

When someone uses the Bible to argue that the bible is true we all laugh at them.

But what exactly are we doing when we use an electron microscope to observe electron clouds?

Just food for thought.

It's not that Burnt is wrong. Everybody knows what truth is, they just have a different way of wording it. In that, all disagreement between any individuals is illusory. It's that the greed of other people leads to the structures of "organised religion"/collective idiocy which then turns people away from God rather than illuminate the path as it should.

If you go with the flow (i.e. speak easily understood truth), you are a happy man. If you go against the flow (to speak "falsehood" aka heavily obscured truth), the flow will obliterate you. In doing so, your substance goes with the flow. Nothing can go against the flow, so it is profoundly unwise to go against! To simplify even further, with all things, there is the quick way and the long way round. Some people prefer going nowhere faster than others, and those are the people we define as wise, successful.

Beautiful analogy with what you said, that damn rewired a few switches in my brain! Yet again this highlights one thing - the only thing that exists is YOU. Whether you choose to see this as separation or not, is up to you. Your true self always knows what is happening, it is a child perpetually playing hide and seek, alone. People say that God is an imaginary friend. Yet surely, if you think you have any friends, think again! Existence is the epitome of "together alone" .

I'll return your food for thought with a low cholesterol double whopper. Names are the power we have over the universe. They are what differ us from ape, the ability to name IS sapience. If you don't believe me, no matter - try as hard as you can to prove me wrong . What is, is. But we as humans, we like to abstract things. We are not satisfied with the ultimate and obvious truth - "Shit happens". We ask why does shit happen, what is shit, what is happening, what is what? So then we invent these structures to explain how "shit happens". This ability to name is a god-given gift to us to use to maintain the flow, it is our most sacred possession, our holy grail. So sacred is speech but we throw it around like monkeys fling shit! We use it to try to break the magic of the flow, not realising the magic cannot be broken, only we can.

Reality is an information structure and we are the parts of the information structure that have seen a glitch in the matrix and realised that we can be the programmers. We are all Neo, but most of us take the blue pill.

The "CTMU" does a beautiful job of explaining all this, if you can handle obscenely dense literature and check your ego at the door - I dismissed it as utter drivel the first time but upon closer inspection, it is a gem waiting to be cut and polished. It's somehow disturbingly denser than the average medical paper.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1

Hey I never said the Bible didn't have any truth!

ebracethevoid, you and I, clearly (to me at least), share a very similar philosophy. Any arguing I'd do with you would only be to further challenge my beliefs.

Who is the Nexian that made this quote:

"Believe nothing, allow anything"

I basically live by that quote...

This truth stuff, it's everywhere! We are made of it. Physically made of it. In the beginning was the unfiltered truth, the blank hard drive. Then someone formatted it and installed Windows ME, thus explaining the root cause of good and evil.

Having switched on one's inner light, the next step is finding out how to explain this magical beautiful profoundity to others. I mean, even a guru can only really help someone barely below him to ascend to his level - they don't know how to talk to people below. A professor in medical science will have extreme difficulty explaining the ins and outs of human anatomy to a 6 year old. We learn from our peers not because they are the same age but because they speak the same language.

Clearly the goal, once one has been born, is then to learn to walk and talk. To learn the language of the universe...

Hey joedirt,

Nicely said, Doctor! Are you implying that an Omniscient, causative force created the physical universe through sonic vibration? Fascinating. Is there a current theory in physics about the quote you chose to share? I'm all ears! I appreciate your input on this thread and was wondering if I could ask a few layman's questions about quantum physics? As I admitted recently in one thread or another, I am an artist and a musician, not a scientist. In short, I have little-to-no knowledge of chemistry or quantum mechanics. I've been enthusiastic about wrapping my brain around certain ideas which I have read and would appreciate your cooperation with a couple ideas, given your pedigree.

First of all, I would like to start with a friendly discussion about the concept of indivisibility. This idea has been reoccurring for many thousands of years and we still arrive at it's doorstep, here in the 21st century. How does this conception translate in to quantum physics? Spiritually inclined human beings frequently have experiences which are so out of the ordinary, that initially, they cannot quite integrate much of what is happening within themselves. Nor can it easily be transferred effectively through communication, as there is no appropriate language to convey such an experience (like the one I imply with the use of the concept of Omniself). Over the last two days, I've been going through piles of books and spending several hours in contemplation about how this idea is communicated. :idea:

Essentially, most references in the world's varied scriptures and philosophical texts seem to utilize meaningful catch phrases and the use of mysterious names and nouns which represent meanings which go beyond the ordinary usage of these linguistic symbols. These very words make rather potent implications towards the metaphysical, thought they can hardly capture the reality of the subject. By carefully editing such linguistic symbols, we find that we cannot accurately detail much of the experience of the Omniself, for without the implication of double-meanings or an emphasis on the supernatural qualities of a supreme being, in purely descriptive terms... we can but fail and so to, fall into utter silence. Not that names and terminology are able to encapsulate the reality behind the meaning of such a unified field of consciousness/ energy/awareness.

It seems reasonable that much of the universe operates in ways we may never really comprehend, given our perceptual limitations. Despite our collective intellectual bradaggio, as your put so clearly, we are merely theorizing and ultimate truths are premature across the board, be they spiritual, scientific or philosophical. Whether religious or decidedly non-religious, we share much in common, in that we base our beliefs and accumulated knowledge on the rules which apply to our direct environment (though we are prone to abstraction). It is a topical issue in the Nexus community lately, that of awareness. It is quite fascinating that we have all found common ground, in that we seek to understand, if not attempt to define it's very core essence. And this leads to pondering if this awareness is, when stripped of all subjective associations, aware of itself being aware of... existing?

It is my personal opinion, based on over a half a century of searching and reflection, that each of us is wired to access this point of Omni-awareness. Meditative techniques are most effective, with or without being in conjunction with psychedelic usage, so methods have existed for millenniums to heighten our receptivity. In such a state of consciousness, the most obvious realisations is that everything is interconnected and that on a very high level, all is one. In plain English, I question if the innermost center of each individual, is the very same universal awareness looking out through the eyes of the many? It has such an immanence, when in a transcendent state of mind. And void of any reference point which is definable by cognition, what is aware? What is witness to the myriad phenomenon which this universe is expresses? If all is composed of the same building blocks of cosmic energy, birthed of the formless void, is there a way to correlate it to an equation, rather than abstract thought or metaphysical exploration? I often wonder... who am I, behind my self, as an isolated witness to my admittedly, self-constructed perception of my very own existence? Or so it appears.

You know, the death of ego and the loss of subjectivity; whereby all of the organized lines of distinction which to our mental faculties and sensory receptors, define our own familiar interpretation of what the universe truly is? Are there an infinite number of universes, overlapping upon one another or is there but one (experienced simultaneously from enumerable ideas of one inter-singular level of mind)? Even as a young man, I resonated with the idea of Einstein's Theory of a Unified Energy Field. Is this model still respected in the science of contemporary physics? are there any breakthroughs in the God Theory or the String Theory/ Theory of Everything? Can we isolate a method to translate directly, such a unified field of energy? I welcome your thoughts and the thoughts of many of the fine people contributing to this discussion. We are a fussy bunch, so I guess a little friction is to be expected amongst the gang? Granted, we are prone to debate... but we needn't loose sight of the subject at hand and that is the Omniself. Or perhaps a rose by any other name? To name a few: God, The Tao, Spirit, The Indivisible, The Absolute, The Infinite, The One... The Void.

Later guys, I'm off to have some soup and ponder the awareness of my appetite.

Peace, love & Light

Rising Spirit, Einstein's hopes for a unified theory never made it as far as his original genius, unfortunately. Quantum physics has shattered most hopes of such a thing, too. New rules appeared, ones that still aren't successfully explained. However, two incredibly interesting things have come out of the quantum world. Take a gander! It's sure to blow your mind. It still blows mine.

Double slit test (excellent layman's explanation of the collapse of a photon/electron wave function):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Quantum Entanglement (very very very layman...):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh8uZUzuRhk

Kartikay:

All of your questions have been answered. I know you are perhaps looking for reassurance that what you already have experienced is truth. You don't need it, does it not stand clear to you?

Thanks for your response because you hit me with a tidal wave of enlightenment that brought me to tears, a minute after I got out of bed! I now truly understand what the sound of one hand clapping is. And how beautiful it is...

And because it is ALL you, once you truly know YOU then you can use this power to guide everything along. Its heart lies in the law of attraction. The art of playing God is the art of using the least effort to carry out an action.

We are not just hard-wired to access the omniself, we ARE the omniself. All that remains is to remove any fear that you yourself are God himself in all his might, glory and splendour. The fear of doing so is merely the fear of doing injustice to the name of God. Thus you must first be acquainted with the name of that which created you. Once you understand the name, you can act either with effort under your own name or effortlessly through that name.

Ironically the more I try and explain this to you the more I will cloud your mind. With each word there are more preconceptions, destroy the preconceptions.

Thanks Kartikay,

I've actually seem both of these videos and liked them quite a bit, regardless of the tongue-n-cheek, cartoon-consciousness sense of humor. Of course, "furhter down the rabbit hole" is exactly where I am intrigued to travel. So, I think I'll head back to Youtube and browse through some more.

I found these two rather fascinating, albeit a touch simplistic but that's good for a simpleton like myself. Sometimes complexity only blurs the lines which clarify one's direct cognition
http://www.youtube.com/w...X9CU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/w...Er4c&feature=related

I understand that observation has an effect of output. How can it not? There is no way to imagine observing something so tiny without effecting it. These are facts you and I already understand.

My only disagreement is that the detector is an extension of my consciousness or any human beings consciousness. To me that idea is an assumption with no sound basis.



I completely agree with you.

I'm not sure why that's a hard leap? The detector brings the results of the experiment to our conscious mind right? Without the detector we wouldn't be able to observe/deduce what has happened? In fact nothing on the atomic scale would be brought to our conscious if it weren't for 'detectors'.

Hum...consider this. If we take the detector and stick it in the corner of the room and run the experiment we will see the wave like behaviour correct? It's not until we consciously put the detector at the slit that we observe the particles....

One possibility is that because we consciously choose to measure/observe/read/ etc that the experiment changed course. ( I believe this )

Another argument could be that the detector caused the electron to behave differently, but if we stick another detector at the other slit and simply chose to not turn it on we still observe particle behavior. That is one detector on and one off we get particle like behavior. Both on we get particle behavior. Both off we get wave behavior. Now obviously this isn't accounting for any electrostatic effects that the detectors could be generating when on....and I'd conceed and say this possibility needs to be accounted for...and perhaps it has I'm not really up on the latest experiments in this area.. I think the way to do it would be to turn the detector on but face it away from the slit...My bet is since it's not taking a reading that the electron would continue to act like a wave just like it does with the detector in the corner of the room...

I guess I see your point..it's not a direct extension but it's results provide feedback to our consciousness....

Either way I think we all agree it's fascinating and there is obviously much more to be learned be for we can definitively jump to the conclusion that our observation causes direct changes in the real world...but even as I type that I realize that my conscious mind is observing me as I am currently changing the text in a text box on the dmt-nexus...thus causing the real world to change...

They've done double split experiments where they send only like one or a very few electrons at a time and watch the dots build up. Electrons are particles. But when they set up the wave conditions with no detector interfering with the one slit you will still get the wave pattern even though you are firing single (or very few) particles. They will eventually build up to reveal and interference pattern. If you put the detector there they will build up but keeping hitting the same area instead of making interference pattern. I think this is an important point to consider. Really what you have is particle like objects (although in quantum world its not like pool balls bouncing around obviously) which can exhibit wave like characteristics and particle like characteristics under different conditions.

Even stranger and more impressive is that this same thing can happen with buckyballs! Which are big football shaped carbon molecules (maybe C60 I forget).

But again I don't see how consciousness fits into any of this. Sure its possible consciousness could have some integral role in the universe that isn't obvious. But I really wish people who propose such ideas would be coherent and try and find mechanisms or experiments to falsify at least some their statements. Otherwise its just baseless speculation.

Don't get confused between sapience and consciousness, that will be a good start. Sapience is what we know as "free will with the ability to act upon a thought", consciousness is pure awareness/observation power.

To observe something requires that it must observe you. Look at the light cones, when any event/interaction between particles occurs, the light cones are perfectly lined up for both and thus it occurs. So likewise, when you observe a tree, the tree must also observe you.

That is where consciousness comes into the picture, doing justice to the 14 billion year old base matter you are made from, not using your temporal mind that is like a gnats compared to the universal mind.


Sapience = human observers
Consciousness = OBSERVER

Consciousness = Sole observer of the sole system

Certainly, it is never obvious when seen through our usual collection of preceptory lenses. Each lens is designed for specific transmissions of perceptual data. Yes? So the determination by which one supports the central idea that existence is consciousness, must be one which has the capacity to SEE the inherent unification, the oneness, the eternal light of consciousness. I suggest that this lens is the singular eye and without it's full activation, I agree with you, it is baseless speculation. Even moreso, without this condition, it is a type of blind faith.

I do agree with your assessment here. There is nothing enlightening about blind faith. Seeing, however, is believing. A belief founded on affirmative contact with the Divine. Merging into the Indivisible Field of Omni-consciousness (or supraconsciousness) is a prerequisite. No one can fake this realization, otherwise, it is mere parroting of another's description of their Omni-personal vision. Again, this would qualify as blind faith and therefore, truly be speculative by definition.

Spirit cannot be proven rationally, encapsulated by reason, enacted by methodical process or clinical experimentation. Only a fool or a madman would think it could be. In a nutshell, it needs to be directly experienced, internally, and then gradually integrated through meditation and contemplation. This, however, does not prove anything to the greater collective of humanity, rather, it remains a subjective experience. One which transforms the very structure of our individual understanding of our own existence and how it has an undeniable symbiosis with everything else in the universe. So, is this a conceptual impasse? Can we find any bridge to traverse the gap in our ideologies? I suspect not but I won't make any absolute statements toward this end, as I cannot know your experience.



Hmmm... what exactly do you mean by, "falsify at least some of their statement"? Did you really mean to type the word falsify? Don't you really mean clarify, substantiate, shed some light upon... or convey some reasonable and perceivable truth about? Why would I want to falsify any part of my attempt to communicate my ideas and impressions about a plane of being which is both, the source and interior nature of all that exists? Now, I may choose to refer to it as Supreme Consciousness but I cannot prove it exists to anyone else, despite my conviction that it is the interior core and very Self of all forms of being, through the primacy of a central point of awareness.

I know semantically, our attempts at interpreting our vision is a purely subjective endeavor but make no mistake about it, when the individuated sense of self is shattered and awareness still continues to persist, still has an essential core of being... could this not be labeled as consciousness in it's purest, most fundamental state of being?

Again, it is necessary to have this realization within one's own direct experience of such a subtle kind of primary awareness, by which we temporarily loose ourselves within said immersion with Spirit. Some East Indian sages claim that all of the physical manifestation of existence is illusory and essentially, unreal. So too, they emphasize that only God is truly real. This is mirrored in many of the monotheistic religions and philosophies around our planetary body. This is a dualistic philosophy, yet, it's coherence necessitates belief in a polarity between the Indivisible Causative Force and the outcome of said Force, mysteriously dividing itself into the many particles and waves of cosmic energy (thereby creating our universe).

Advaita stresses the realization of the non-dual nature of Omniconsciousness. This implies a belief that the Divine Spirit is immanent in every part of existence. I agree that this is a conceptual assertion. After all, communication is fundamentally conceptual. As to "mechanisms or experiments", they are only reliably duplicated within our own individual mind-awareness and cannot be brought out, into an objective scientific format, by which we might examine it from the outside. It is an internal journey and must be done by the solitary traveler. :idea:

By redirecting the focus of our individuated awareness upon the lens of our singular eye, we are able to see this very singularity of being... The Omniself. So I must ask, what is incoherent about this thought form? Sure, they are just words but they are as close as I am able to come, to transmitting the content of my immersions within the Godhead.

I feel it is of paramount importance, that we learn to understand that we do not need to 'prove' the existence of a Divine plane of consciousness. It is fully beyond our scope and cannot be reduced to human conceptual format, by deduction or through hypothesis. We can reflect it's intelligence, each in our own way, but we will never be able to contain the Infinite Spirit within a pragmatic series of tests or arrive at any consensus through our advanced scrutiny or clinical procedural endeavors (to grasp it's evasive formlessness, it's inconceivable reality, it's incomprehensible... Void).
























Yeah, what those guys said... Ditto!

Ain't that something!

Hmm. This is a view I enjoy (not my words):

"Possibly the problem is that rational thought is a function of making distinctions, rather than connections. We think 1+1=2, but if we actually add things together, we get one of something larger. In basic terms, it's like adding two piles of sand together and getting one larger pile of sand. In the biological sense though, it is that all our parts add up to one larger whole.
When I get that sensation of a thought I can't quite remember, it is obvious there is a quite conscious part of my brain which does know it, but it is having trouble making the connection to the part asking the question. In the same sense, it is obvious that the people around me are quite conscious, but I have very limited access to their sense of awareness. This suggests we are all part of some larger sense of consciousness, which is segmented, but still comprising a larger whole."

Life (as it currently appears to me): - Portentous Experience
- Creative Destruction
- Always 'onwards' and 'upwards'
- Getting more and more interesting everyday!