Wave particle dualism - an illusion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nameless
My understanding of 'information' is the product of Mind (the quantum possibility/probability wave field, 'undifferentiated potential) when observed by Conscious Perspective. The 'information', as collectively perceived by all Conscious Perspectives, is the complete Universe.

I am definitely going to start a thread about 'information' in the near future.
Not to continue this exciting topic seems hard to me.
However it is a topic opening a door to a whole new dimension of physics and philosphy that will take us lightyears away from the original issue.

Let me just say the following from my point of view: Intelligence is the ability of processing information functionally, and (our) consciousness is intelligence at a complex level, perception is something that already takes place at a low level without consciousness: Two atoms meeting each other say "how are you doing?", when two particles collide they inevitable exchange all sorts of information about each other. 'Observing' is an active way of perceiving.
Particles perceiving information about their environment is enough observation for the universe to exist.
So far for my point of view. I don't really share your philosophy however i notice that my ideas sometimes lead to conclusions that are kind of similar to yours.

Finding and analyzing these points of contact however really leads to far in this thread. However i am curious where it might lead us.

Quote:

Quote:Originally Posted by nameless
Again and again some people in the crowd wake up,
They have no ground in the crowd,
(...)

You have an interesting background in literature. What's the title of this poem? I am curious to find out what it sounds like in german.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nameless
9. Grass is green. 9. Grass registers as green to most human eyes.

What you say about the use of language appears to be totally in accordance with my idea of it. However it doesn't look a hundred percent consistent

Quote:

by nameless;
There is only one Mind.

What makes you so totally sure that this is the truth? You can only claim that you know it by intuition.

This makes your believe a religious system.

There's nothing to be said against believing in mystical quantum concepts.

If you say science is another believe system - fine, but it is based on completely different rules.

I wanna try to start a thread about the Kopenhagen interpretation, this might be a good point to discuss quantum mystics (i think you are not going to take this term as an insult).

Looking forward to reading you.

Hello Bones-O!

Reading an article about RQM today i came across something called a 'hidden variable theory'.
Remembering this thread of course i had to read further what that means.
In fact i have the feeling that in this thread i am claiming a 'hidden variable theory'.
Which would make the whole project obsolete, because those theories were confuted by Bell's theorem.
Is that correct?

:perplexed:

Furthermore, in quantum physics the observer participates in the system of observation to such an extent that the system cannot be viewed as independent. That meant, at least in the quantum context, au revoir to the Cartesian notion of an external universe, independent of cognition. Most significantly, it had been discovered that the energy we call an electron may become manifest both as a wave and as a particle, depending on the measuring conditions.

The electron "knows" that both holes are open. Yet, if observed, an electron is seen to go through one hole or the other, and is registered on the detector as a particle. It is as though the electron experiences or even creates a parallel world in which it is in two places at once-a process that can never be observed directly, for the moment an attempt is made to do so, the wave function immediately collapses. The particle "knows" it is being watched! It also behaves as if it knows what other particles are doing. In this context, objective knowledge of a supposed material world is simply impossible.

Bell's theorem is that a hidden variable theory cannot be both local and real and still obey quantum mechanics. It gives hidden variables quantum theories a choice: precisely defined properties or compatible with relativity - one can't have both. Experiment tends to fall on the side of localism rather than realism, but this only means you can't have a hidden variables theory that has particles of, say, precise position and momentum a la Bohmian mechanics, the most famous hidden variables quantum theory. In principle, there's nothing wrong with hidden variable theories... so long as they predict new experimental results. So don't worry too much about Bell.

The "observer" in many respects should be considered to be the apparatus being used to measure whatever observable is being measured. I am wary to say that our consciousness has any affect of wave function collapse. Undoubtedly, however, the "observation" done by the measurement apparatus is of critical importance.

I'm not sure I like your terminology here.

I do not speak of "our' Consciousness. We own/posess no Consciousness. There is one Consciousness.
The observer is the aparatus of observation/perception.
Perceiver and perceived are One.

What relevance does your post have with what is being discussed? I'm sure that a lot of us already know at least the basic principles of superstring theory.

Not a nice way to introduce yourself to us in this great forum. Did you make one a mobeus strip and cut it in two what happened if you did? , you see a mobeus strip in a "one dimensional object" easy to make and demonstrate to others


We are friends here not apposing enemies, maybe there is someone who does not know about the mobeus strip

I am sorry to enlighten you there is no such thing as "basic knowledge" of superstring theory, only one man knows something about this "THEORY" and he is a man of colossal intellect known by the name Ed Witten , read up on him Even the greatest physicists cant rap their brains around this unimaginably complex theory that you have so easily mastered

I didn't mean to come off hostile. I also didn't mean to imply that superstring theory is an easy thing to understand. By "basic knowledge," I meant the qualifications, e.g. multiple dimensions, etc.

Also, I'm sure more physicists other than Witten know about superstring theory (Brian Greene, Leonard Susskind).

Try my mobeus strip!!

What I have noticed is that whatever scientists conclude as True at one point in time, inevitably becomes Untrue at a future point in time. It just requires patience (and a long life). So, we can all be comforted with the notion, that whatever science comes up with now, will no longer be valid sometime in the future.

So what actually happens when you cut a mobeus strip in two?

---------- Post added at 11:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:08 PM ----------


I understand your point, however nature science does not really claim truth.
There were lots of scientists who did in the past, and some of them still do, but times change and modern scientists tend to not use the word truth anymore.
There is a process of insight taking place, that a scientific fact is not the same as ultimate truth.
The second term you used is still up to date: 'valid'.
Newton's equations were (and are) valid in a certain frame (which means functional). They haven't lost any validity in this frame. However we just know that his theories were only valid, not ultimately true.
I guess if we talk about nature science the word 'truth' has been unspokenly banned.