ok, double slit experiment, NO TANGENTS

[nousd]

[masstronaut]

Particles not deciding where to be until you observe them puts me in mind of how video games only have to render the part of the game world that's visible.

Hmmm...

[parson]

ohhh nice.

[nousd]

Good analogy

In other words, the mind, only being aware of itself,
thinks of itself as influencing that which it is.

This is a half idea...leading to...

[psyolopher]

Good analogy

In other words, the mind, only being aware of itself,
thinks of itself as influencing that which it is.

This is a half idea...leading to...

It is called schizo!

[parson]

OK now what are you trying to explain?

folx is brainwashed

[nousd]

What I can never understand
in this perennial theme of yours
is:
What's the connection between everybody (else?) being brainwashed
and the exercising of will.
You seem to think that thru some luck?, intervention?, talent?
that you have been able to decondition yourself or, perhaps, avoid
all this nefarious persuasion
and that your mind (self?) is unusually (spectacularly?, uniquely?) exempt.
Is this where the early alien visitation comes in?
Are you at all sceptical about this interpretation and willing to
change your mind?
Or do you feel compelled to think this way?
Do you have a choice as to the way you think about this?

[parson]

its something i've been working out for about 20 years

[parson]

this quantum stuff has been around for over 100 years.

[masstronaut]

Good analogy

That's not really supposed to be an analogy exactly because I don't know how similar the two things are. It looks kind of similar from the perspective of these quantum experiments that's all.

In other words, the mind, only being aware of itself,
thinks of itself as influencing that which it is.

That's not what I meant to imply - so it's not in other words, it is other words.

There's a number of assumptions / beliefs wrapped up in that sentence - that there is only one mind and that separate existence is an illusion (who perceives the illusion?), pure determinism, or total solipsism? Is your position something like that?

This is a half idea...leading to...

Yeah?

[masstronaut]

Sorry if that looks like I am being picky.

What I mean to say is you can say what you like but that's not what I was saying.

[nousd]

Too much for here eh without getting technical.
In short causality is irrelevant because,
in what we seem to accept as a short life (period of awareness)
well-being depends upon a combination of acceptance and empowerment.

For me, I'm finding that ^ in realizing that my perceptions aren't necessarily accurate but often approximate. (Humans are limited)

Secondly, I accept that there's probably a reality that doesn't depend upon this ephemeral consciousness. (No to solipsism)

The best discovery I've made is that I'm happy when I "choose to do" (accept) whatever is apparently happening...ie relax...the hardest aspect of which is when I'm scared or in pain. (Determinism is irrelevant)

I think of this as being realistic and pragmatic but hope that I'm open to other interpretations.

[parson]

The best discovery I've made is that I'm happy when I "choose to do" (accept) whatever is apparently happening.

(Taoism)

[drksteppa]

BOOOOOOOOOOOORIIIIIIING!

[masstronaut]

Yeah thanks for the answer SD5. I'm sure you know what works for you... and don't worry about getting technical, it's interesting.

What I wonder about with too much Zen and Taoism is that while there's a lot of wisdom there these philosophies weren't really designed for current world conditions. Or at least not in the way they are usually understood by dabbling westerners.

[parson]

i don't see how its any less relevent. Taoism, to me, reads like it was written for today.

[pompende]

But basically, to know that something's there, it has to have some effect on your detector, and having an effect on your detector means that your detector must have an effect on the thing - they have to interact with each other.

This is the root of the heisenberg uncertainty principle.

yes man! altho heisenberg's principle was more about measuring related variables (ie position and velocity): the more precisely you try to measure one the less precisely you can measure the other... the ratio of their uncertainties will always be at least hbar/2 it i remember correctly.
For an abstract but conceptually sounds exploration of uncertainty i recommend Michael Frayn's drama Copenhagen which seeks a simple verbal explanation of uncertainty, provides some unique historical insight into its inception, and also provides an exhaustive discussion of frequently misunderstood quantum principles in its postnote.


And yes part of the deal with the double-slit experiment is that when you measure individual electrons going through a slit, you expect them to behave as particles, and thus measure them as a particles. The electrons lose their wave/particle uncertainty because they are interacting with the measurement device as particles.
Similarly, electrons in an atom do not appear to exist in specific orbitals until you make observations about their orbitals.

OK, you might say that messing with an entangled partner has an effect on the photon. However, when the experiment is changed so that the observation is still carried out but the ability to extract information from it is 'erased' - the interference pattern returns.

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

exactly...people say that quite often. in fact I see news headlines from time to time about how experiments on separated entangled pairs will one day make it possible to transmit matter over the internet or whatever the fuck .

Hmmm... this seems to be the crux of the issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

correct again, sir.


and I for one think that Koans are, at the least, way more useful than allegories.

[nousd]

What I wonder about with too much Zen and Taoism is that while there's a lot of wisdom there these philosophies weren't really designed for current world conditions. Or at least not in the way they are usually understood by dabbling westerners.

It's the practice of zazen or vipassana (Therevada Buddhism) that matters
not the doctrine or cultural trappings
otherwise, as Diksteppa interjects, just boring irrelevance.

But I'm not talking about that.
I'm suggesting giving the mind something to play with
that it seems to find satisfying:
You are free to choose whatever is happening.

Enjoy being amazed at the unexpected
rather than being perturbed at apparently not being in control.



(attempt to get back to experiment, Pompende)

[masstronaut]

OK, double slits.

It runs a bit deeper. In a 'delayed choice quantum eraser' experiment:

"[Yoon-Ho] Kim, et al., have shown that it is possible to delay the choice to "erase" the quantum information until after the photon has actually hit its target. Under those conditions an interference pattern can be recovered, even if the information is erased after the photons have hit the detector. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_ch ... tum_eraser

And further - instead of using slits arranged in space there is a variation of the experiment that uses electrical cycles, i.e. points in time. They fire tiny pulses from a laser into a gas. The pulses have two positive peaks and one negative peak. Sometimes the pulses ionise an atom of the gas - an electron goes off in one direction and hits a detector if an atom is ionised by a positive peak, and in the opposite direction if it's ionised by a negative peak. Because there are two positive peaks and it's impossible to know which one caused the ionisation you see interference patterns (i.e.) waves at the first detector, but not at the second detector. If you reverse the polarity you get the opposite effect.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/21623

So it's not quite as simple as saying that by 'observing' a particle's position you are causing a physical interaction with it and that's why the 'wavefunction collapses', and of course there isn't agreement about whether it even makes sense to talk about collapsing wavefunctions, beyond the maths anyway. There are numerous interpretations about what this might mean but this is not why physicists are still forced to conclude that consciousness (or rather, information?) is somehow involved in the behaviour of matter. It also starts to say some curious things about time...

[nousd]

raising the possibilty of demonstrating causality violations