Meaning In An Atom

Originally posted by black beetle
Of course, I am not saying that "the photons could not have travelled as waves to the cabbage unless I observed them and understood quantum mechanics". I say that I cannot comment on photons, on the way they behave under specific circumstances etc, prior to My observation of the photons that will allow my consiousness to create a specific meaning to Me
😵

Which has practically nothing to do with quantum mechanics except that you are treating the universe as a quantum fluctuation with respect to your conciousness. But you appear to be confusing this with quantum mechanics in the real world, and what you are saying really has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Which has practically nothing to do with quantum mechanics except that you are treating the universe as a quantum fluctuation with respect to your conciousness. But you appear to be confusing this with quantum mechanics in the real world, and what you are saying really has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

I already told you earlier that our formulas themselves (a mind-only product of the human mind) do not include the observer "human mentation", therefore from this perspective we are aware of the fact that the quantum systems operate the way our math indicates they operate regardless of our observation. But Taoman said not that this is not the case, you misunderstood him. He said something else.

So then I explained you that our consciousness is definately involved whenever We observe by means of our formulas the quantum systems in question. Otherwise, what exactly, if not our consiousness, is the agent that make us aware of the operation et al of the quantum systems we observe?
We have no other way to comment on quantum systems and their operations other than our formulas we are using, and the formulas we are using are a product of the human mind. Is this not properly said?
Without this product, we cannot set up specific circumstances and conditions, always according to our consiousness, that allow us to conduct experiments and state the results. Is this not properly said?

Where exactly do you see confusion in my thought?
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Where exactly do you see confusion in my thought?
😵

Just about all of it. Its not at all clear whether you are simply saying 'we cannot know anything about the universe until we are concious of it, and therefore nothing truly exists until we are concious of it' or you are talking about the phenomena of quantum collapse where it appears that an observation causes a particle to change its behaviour from a wave to a solid particle, or whether you are talking about something altogether different.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Just about all of it. Its not at all clear whether you are simply saying 'we cannot know anything about the universe until we are concious of it, and therefore nothing truly exists until we are concious of it' or you are talking about the phenomena of quantum collapse where it appears that an observation causes a particle to change its behaviour from a wave to a solid particle, or whether you are talking about something altogether different.

I said we cannot know anything about the universe until we are concious of it, and therefore nothing can be defined by us as an existent or non-existent epistemic object prior to our observation that verifies the former or the latter case.

As regards the quantum phenomena, I say that the observation per se (by means of our formulas, therefore by means of our consciousness that sets up specific conditions) defines whether the particle that We observe is perceived by us as a wave or as a particle.

In both cases, the results we get are always consciousness-dependent.
😵

Originally posted by Taoman
Thank you Hakima. I have not encountered 'Ya Fatah' before. It is an Islamic phrase?

Fatah is Arabic for "Openness" and is presented in the Qur'an as one of the 99 aspects of Allah. It is akin to the Aramaic phrase "Ethphatah": "Be opened" which the Bible reports Jesus said precursor to healing a deaf man. IMO, such state of openness is essential to receipt of Wisdom on virtually any circumstance.

Originally posted by black beetle
I said we cannot know anything about the universe until we are concious of it, and therefore nothing can be defined by us as an existent or non-existent epistemic object prior to our observation that verifies the former or the latter case.

I have no dispute with that, though I fail to see its relevance.

As regards the quantum phenomena, I say that the observation per se (by means of our formulas, therefore by means of our consciousness that sets up specific conditions) defines whether the particle that We observe is perceived by us as a wave or as a particle.
That I dispute outright. Its as if you are saying you have to know wave equations before light will refract. Light behaves as a wave regardless of whether or not you perceive it as such.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have no dispute with that, though I fail to see its relevance.

[b]As regards the quantum phenomena, I say that the observation per se (by means of our formulas, therefore by means of our consciousness that sets up specific conditions) defines whether the particle that We observe is perceived by us as a wave or as a particle.
That I dispute outri ...[text shortened]... ight will refract. Light behaves as a wave regardless of whether or not you perceive it as such.[/b]

Edit: That I dispute outright. Its as if you are saying you have to know wave equations before light will refract. Light behaves as a wave regardless of whether or not you perceive it as such."

You still don't get it! I do not say that I have to know wave equations before light will retract. I say that, to state that "light behaves as a wave regardless of whether or not we perceive it as such", this fact has to be a part of your knowledge, and in order to be a part of your knowledge it has to be a part of an observation of you, of your consciousness, that allows you to validate that this fact holds😵

Originally posted by black beetle
You still don't get it! I do not say that I have to know wave equations before light will retract. I say that, to state that "light behaves as a wave regardless of whether or not we perceive it as such", this fact has to be a part of your knowledge, and in order to be a part of your knowledge it has to be a part of an observation of you, of your consciousness, that allows you to validate that this fact holds😵

Which seems to be a repeat of the first point you made, and once again, nothing to do with quantum mechanics and the collapse of the wave function.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Which seems to be a repeat of the first point you made, and once again, nothing to do with quantum mechanics and the collapse of the wave function.

Then it seems to me you don't understand neither what exactly is the superposition, nor the way the quantum entities are to us not an actuality but a set of tendencies that consist unexperienced reality in the realm of mere potentiality for experience;

Each possibility for experience, so that we can overcome the superposition, is contained in the wf and is assigned a probability. Finally, when we have at last an experience, we have it simply because a specific possibility for experience resulted in an actual experience and thus to an orthogonal event solely thanks to the meeting of our subjective consciousness and the above mentioned validated possibility; otherwise, we have no way to state that an event or an experience took place. This is the exact level at which the involvement of our consciousness is quite forced; Taoman told you the same thing with a different way.

That being said, the "wf" is simply a mathematical way (a product of our consciousness) that we use in order to describe the potentiality for existence, and the "collapse of the wf" is a way to describe the fact that we overcame the superposition.
How we do it?
By means of validating an experience as an orthogonal event, thanks to the interaction of our consciousness and a specific possibility for an experience that we observed (with our consciousness by means of our math) and confirmed (with our consciousness by means of the verification of our experiments) its existence😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Each possibility for experience, so that we can overcome the superposition, is contained in the wf and is assigned a probability.

Either we are totally misunderstanding each other, or you don't understand even the basics of what quantum mechanics is. I think I'll have to give up here as I suspect its the former and that for some reason it can't be resolved.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Either we are totally misunderstanding each other, or you don't understand even the basics of what quantum mechanics is. I think I'll have to give up here as I suspect its the former and that for some reason it can't be resolved.

OK😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
Either we are totally misunderstanding each other, or you don't understand even the basics of what quantum mechanics is. I think I'll have to give up here as I suspect its the former and that for some reason it can't be resolved.

Well, right now methinks we could possibly sort it out by accepting that the sole observer required for our experiments is the inanimate apparatus which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic consequences. When the apparatus is placed and functions untouched, the experimenters play of course no role to the possible results. I have the feeling this is what you say, and over here we agree, as I told you earlier.

The level at which our consciousness is indeed an observer, is when the experimenters choose and adjust the inanimate apparatus. This is the reason why I said that the results of the experiments are indeed dependent on the mental process of the experimenters. For the time being I cannot a better way to rephrase this idea; as you see, I don’t mean that our individual consciousness conducts metaphysic process which is related with the quantum process that is measured from our inanimate apparatus. Thanks God, we are both atheists. But I say we deal with an event that makes itself known by means of an irreversible act of amplification of differ microevents to conceivable from our consciousness macroconsequences.

Then, from this point, again the consciousness of the experimenters translates the measurement into meaning, and the joint product along with the evidence that validates this meaning becomes a part of the knowledge of the experimenters.

Would you agree with the above?
😵

Originally posted by hakima
Fatah is Arabic for "Openness" and is presented in the Qur'an as one of the 99 aspects of Allah. It is akin to the Aramaic phrase "Ethphatah": "Be opened" which the Bible reports Jesus said precursor to healing a deaf man. IMO, such state of openness is essential to receipt of Wisdom on virtually any circumstance.

Thank you. Openness is a mark of mature spirituality. It does not necessarily mean agreement but a willingness to hear and consider another's view and experience. Without such a quality insight often struggles to find an entry - the Heart of the universe encounters us in surprising ways if we are ready and open.

Originally posted by black beetle
Would you agree with the above?
😵

I just don't get what the point is. All you seem to be saying is 'we won't know the result of the experiment until we know it.' which seems somewhat trivial. I see no connection to quantum mechanics as all your comments would apply equally well in a Newtonian universe and to macroscopic objects.
Certainly the workings of quantum phenomena such as light, has nothing whatsoever to do with conciousness - unless, as you appear to be doing, you treat conciousness as the ultimate observer of all observers, in other words although quantum mechanics is all about interactions between otherwise isolated systems, and you treat the interaction between the conciousness and the universe as the primary interaction of interest, but I see nothing useful in doing this, and I fail to see the connection to my original comments in the thread that sparked the discussion ie that many people misunderstand the meaning of 'observer' in quantum mechanics and believe that conciousness is somehow required to make the two slit experiment work.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I just don't get what the point is. All you seem to be saying is 'we won't know the result of the experiment until we know it.' which seems somewhat trivial. I see no connection to quantum mechanics as all your comments would apply equally well in a Newtonian universe and to macroscopic objects.
Certainly the workings of quantum phenomena such as light, ...[text shortened]... cs and believe that conciousness is somehow required to make the two slit experiment work.

Edit: "I just don't get… …macroscopic objects."

The point is that, since we set up the conditions of the experiments (and we set the conditions according to our consciousness alone), the outcomes of our experiments are fully dependent on these conditions, and as such they lack of inherent existence because they are fully consciousness dependent. This connection is existent in every product of the human mind and in every epistemic object we observe.
It follows that the fractal of the holistic reality we perceive, it has the meaning we attribute to it solely to the consciousness of the human or other sentient beings that share this knowledge. Other sentient beings without this knowledge, they project other fractals of reality as solid as ours out of the holistic reality, fractals of reality that are nothing but the projections of their own consciousness (as is the case with the fractals of reality we perceive).



Edit: “Certainly the workings of quantum phenomena such as light, has nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness”

They don’t, due to the fact that the Observer Universe obeys the QM laws of physics irrespective of observation by us.



Edit: “Unless, as… …interaction of interest”

Yes, this is how I see it.



Edit: ”but I see nothing useful in doing this”

The useful thingy is that it follows that there are many realities, all of them deeply subjective and equally validated from the cognitive apparatus and strictly dependent on the consciousness of the sentient beings that are aware of them. And they are aware of them, simply because the realities they perceive are nothing but projections of their own individual and collective consciousness, since they are all products of a specific decoding of the fractal of the holistic reality that is perceived from their cognitive apparatus.
The full interdependence of the differ subjective realities and the consciousnesses that project them, means that all of these realities are strictly subjective and consciousness dependent.



Edit: “and I fail to see the connection to my original comments in the thread that sparked the discussion ie that many people misunderstand the meaning of 'observer' in quantum mechanics and believe that conciousness is somehow required to make the two slit experiment work.”

Both Taoman and I know what means “observer” in QM; at the first page of this thread I told you clearly that our formulas themselves (a mind-only product of the human mind) do not include the observer "human mentation". However, consciousness is required for the experiments the way I just explained at this post. In fact, "no consciousness" means "no experiments"
😵