Printable View
I like the comment about free will not existing, but rather being a sum of nature and nurture. I have always felt this way. If you take the same machine (chemical, mechanical or otherwise) and put it in the same situation, it should always act the same way. What seems random is really just a result of imperceptible differences in the situation. Sorry, but with this theory, you've already decided what you are going to do - you just don't know it yet.
Thanks, Harry. I have a feeling I am going to need the backing of the scientific community on this thread. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Evans
What you said here reminded me of a study I read about a while back. Some neuroscientists gave people a choice between two buttons, one they could press with their left hand and one they could press with their right. The people's brains were imaged while the experiment took place. It turned out that the scientists could predict the choice the person would make something like 10 seconds before the person was aware of the choice, just by looking at which part of the brain lit up. Ten seconds is a long time.
Tom, I have to go train right now. But when I get back...
LOL, alright dude. Just bring hard science. Not that New Age metaphysics sprinkled with enough scientific jargon to make it sound credible crap, like "What BLEEP...". I have no interest in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby rivers
Oh, and I think we got a bit off topic. Chronic, to your original question, "Is there anyone who has any theories of why this occurs...?" Yeah, there are people. One of the most notable of which was Richard Feynman, and here is his theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation
i had a double slit experiment in my youth.. Oh, those were the days.. Dirty little heathens too..! :)
Well in your opinion, how can you not observe the output, yet watch(observe) the pattern?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Van
What the bleep the theatrical version leaned way left. The quantum edition, still reaching imo, is unedited and much more credible. I assume you have taken college courses.? Well scientists, who might be more researched than you, disagree. While others share your opinion, there is no possible way to measure, observe, or calculate without observing. Thats why I always say our perception of reality. There is no hard scientific proof of what is real outside of our perception of it.
And angular momentum, or spin, is the main force driving the material universe.
But i only speculate, and you seem to know. Pleas share, love it.
The output is which slit the photon went through, the pattern is where they end up. They are two different things. The "observer" can be an electron. It does not have to be conscious. That is not my opinion. That is the science. Check "Observer Effect" on Wikipedia, and you will see "An observer is anything that causes wavefunction collapse, it could be anything really; a rock, human, particle, etc. It is important to note that an observer has nothing at all to do with a human consciousness." Sure, that's just Wikipedia, but you get the idea. Ask a physicist and he'll tell you the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby rivers
Yes, as I stated in another post I have a Bachelors of Science in Applied Physics, so I have taken many college courses.Quote:
I assume you have taken college courses.?
No credible ones as far as I can tell. Again, for some trivial evidence, a cursory scanning of Wikipedia article on the movie will reveal:Quote:
Well scientists, who might be more researched than you, disagree.
"Scientists who have reviewed What the Bleep Do We Know!? have described distinct assertions made in the film as pseudoscience."
and
"David Albert, a physicist who appears in the film, has accused the filmmakers of selectively editing his interview to make it appear that he endorses the film's thesis that quantum mechanics is linked with consciousness. He says he is 'profoundly unsympathetic to attempts at linking quantum mechanics with consciousness.' These issues relate to the so called Quantum mind-body problem."
As well as many other insightful tidbits, such a Richard Dawkins calling the film "tosh".
The OP's post was a question about science. Sorry if I sounded smug, but yes I took issue with you sprinkling words like "wave function" and "entanglement" into your pseudo-religious New Age talk, as you casually passed it off as scientific fact. It just struck me as disingenuous, and so did that film.Quote:
But i only speculate, and you seem to know. Pleas share, love it.
Oh, and angular momentum is not a force. :)
This was one of those posts where I was just curious to see peoples opinions and theories.. I like to see the world through other peoples eyes. But in no way were the questions asked to make people defend what they believe or force anyone to feel obligated to justify their beliefs by backing up all they assume with scientific facts. lol. Though I do appreciate people who base their beliefs on their own personal research rather than what they are told to believe.. I just dont want this turning into another ego based Pseudo-religious/scientific argument. And no this isnt geared toward Tom or Bobby.. I just saw the comments and wanted to clarify before anyone else felt like they needed to do tons of research before stating their opinion in fear they would be expected to provide answers to all they believe. Obviously you two are educated enough in your beliefs that you most likely compare with me in the fact that you love discussions like this. After all, if we never challenge each other, we will never learn anything new. So Just wanted to open the door for anyone else who had some personal opinions that perhaps dont line up with any mainstream beliefs. Just curious to see some other points of view.. Now.. continue with all the great convos/responses :P