Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AVCortez
    Offline

    AVCortez Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    391
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia

    Quantum Activist

    Discussion in 'Debate Room' started by AVCortez, Jun 29, 2014.

    "A genuine paradigm shift" <- link

    Has anyone seen this documentary? If you haven't and have as little as a passing interest in the philosophy of conciousness I'd thoroughly recommend it.

    I would be very interested to hear what people have to say about it.
     
  2. Wreybies
    Offline

    Wreybies The Ops Pops Operations Manager Staff Contest Administrator Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    18,893
    Likes Received:
    10,081
    Location:
    Puerto Rico
    My personal take is that he seems a well-intentioned individual, but his premise is founded in a flawed interpretation of quantum uncertainty and quantum weirdness. He makes an extrapolation that is two degrees removed from the reality of both of those principles and uses that wedged space to introduce and graft in a completely separate epistemology, religion.

    Astrophysicist and Professor at Drexel University, Dave Goldberg, has the following to say on the matter:

     
    123456789 and jazzabel like this.
  3. AVCortez
    Offline

    AVCortez Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2013
    Messages:
    391
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    I don't know much about quantum physics so you lost me - I took this as an interesting take on conciousness, something that is a long way from being explained by science (if it ever can be).

    I think you'll find that as entheogens gain popularity within academic circles that more and more of your favourite physicists will start to search for a god in the laws of the universe - I spent most of the film thinking "LSD changed this guy's life". I dunno if you've ever been down the rabbit hole, but I can be 99% sure the good doctor has.
     
  4. Andrae Smith
    Offline

    Andrae Smith Gone exploring... in the inner realm... Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,506
    Likes Received:
    1,404
    Location:
    Wandering
    I'm simply glad to see more conversations of consciousness coming up in mainstream media and regular life. I do not care what others believe, as belief tend to filter our perspectives and create biased preconceptions, limiting our willingness to perceive the world from new perspectives. That, in itself, is a belief--no denying that. I just mean we tend to cling too heavily to a belief system or structure and could be a bit more open-minded about the implications or possible directions. We tend to think that the systems we've devised are correct because of the evidence; however, the same results may also be true under other rules or another system...

    All that aside, I find this interesting. It could be true. It may also just be a step in a new, perhaps right direction in understanding the universe of which we are a part.
     
    GoldenGhost likes this.
  5. thirdwind
    Offline

    thirdwind Contributing Member Contest Administrator Reviewer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,351
    Likes Received:
    2,891
    Location:
    Boston
    I don't like when people do stuff like trying to bridge the gap between God and science. For me, the existence of God is no longer a scientific issue; it's a philosophical one. Science, and the scientific method, no longer works when you start talking about things that are immaterial, outside the known universe, not subject to the laws of physics, etc. Therefore, when you start talking about the universe having consciousness and things of that sort, I don't think you can use science and logic in the entirety of your argument because there are certain things that you must take for granted in order for the argument to work.
     
    GoldenGhost likes this.
  6. jazzabel
    Offline

    jazzabel Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    4,273
    Likes Received:
    1,666
    However, what I find interesting is the possibility of detecting, and gathering evidence about, phenomena we currently consider supernatural, or philosophical. All we need is more sophisticated tools, or ability to ask the right kind of questions. When we say God is now in the realm of philosophy, all kinds of very real things we can detect now, were undetectable in the past and deemed to be supernatural or abstract and philosophical. I'm not saying we will be able to calculate, detect and measure God like we did Higgs Boson, but hypothetically, it's an interesting thought. Maybe the Universe has a consciousness and maybe it is all connected somehow?
     
    Andrae Smith likes this.
  7. 123456789
    Offline

    123456789 Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,346
    Likes Received:
    3,092
    Thirdwind made a thread similar to this I still need to respond to (I have not responded yet, because I believe a subject like that deserves serious thought first, which requires more than a few minutes at the keyboard). But some food for thought, quoted from some guy in Wiki
    "
    1. I don't understand consciousness.
    2. I don't understand quantum physics.
    3. Therefore, consciousness must be a function of quantum physics."
     
    GoldenGhost and AVCortez like this.
  8. 123456789
    Offline

    123456789 Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,346
    Likes Received:
    3,092
  9. thirdwind
    Offline

    thirdwind Contributing Member Contest Administrator Reviewer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,351
    Likes Received:
    2,891
    Location:
    Boston
    Actually, Ginger made that thread. Just giving credit where credit is due. ;)

    I wonder how much of this has to do with your interpretation of quantum mechanics. From what I've been told, the Copenhagen interpretation is the most popular interpretation even though it's wrong.
     
  10. 123456789
    Offline

    123456789 Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,346
    Likes Received:
    3,092
    It's more than that. Quantum mechanics (at least quite possibly) has a limit in what it can describe. Now, I forget his name but someone mentioned a study showing "quantum effects in oil baths." From what I understand from the actual material, this is not quite true. The oil bath mimics some quantum behavior, which is actually quite different.

    Now, I did remember there was a nature paper a few years ago where they showed a macroscopic tuning fork to simultaneously be "vibrating" and "not vibrating" but this was done at < .1 K. Tell me exactly how this applies to real world systems in nature?

    When I try to search for examples of quantum mechanics in systems thought to be classical, all I seem to find are weird claims in websites about Chakras and crap like that. I'm plain and simply not seeing legitimate literature that points to quantum mechanics going in that direction. So, yes, for now, I must maintain that most of this is based on ignorance and wishful thinking.
     
  11. thirdwind
    Offline

    thirdwind Contributing Member Contest Administrator Reviewer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,351
    Likes Received:
    2,891
    Location:
    Boston
    It was fluid droplets, not oil baths.

    From the website of some dude at MIT:
    Based on this, it seems like the droplets are neither purely classical nor purely quantum mechanical. So what are they? A bridge between the two worlds?
     
  12. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    If you take a look at all those 'awards' on the webpage, they appear to be fake. The first red flag is all of the awards have the same logos.

    Heart of England International Film Festival
    There is a Cottage Grove Regional Film Festival Committee near Eugene, OR. There's a Meet-up group, nothing in the UK in case that was the problem and nothing about this film or other awards.

    There are Dublin and Belfast film festivals but no "Irish International Film Festival". There's no Asia Consciousness film festival.

    There is reportedly a Chile digital film festival that had "15 countries participate in Chilean Digital Film Festival" in 2010. But the link is dead and this is some kind of tourist page.

    Thailand film festival has "destination" in it's name. And the hits for South Africa are like Ireland, some film festivals are named for big cities, none for the country.

    Science of non-duality brings up hits, none being a film festival.

    Most of these festival names have FaceBook pages and sometimes the QA link from the OP shows up.

    If someone has to fake their resume, why should I watch the film?


    It's a common technique in medical scams to fake journals and claim the research was published in a journal. Organizations are also faked, you have to beware of this kind of fraud.



     
    GoldenGhost likes this.
  13. 123456789
    Offline

    123456789 Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,346
    Likes Received:
    3,092
    It was droplets in an oil bath. You need both (particle + wave).

    Here's a better source, imo.

    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/jul/09/bouncing-droplets-simulate-zeeman-effect

    Math dudes can say anything, no matter what University they live in. Take a closer look at his website, which contains Tolstoy quotes and all sorts of flash to promote his work. Then take a look at the link above, which tries to clearly explain in layman's terms what's going on.

    The droplet experiment is not a quantum system, it is an analogue in many ways. Yes, it's fascinating that they can demonstrate quantum like behavior in such a system, but that doesn't make it truly quantum behavior. It's important to understand that.
    From PhysicsWorld.
    "The most significant feature of this paper, and of others by the same team, is the masterful use of state-of-the-art technology to bring out analogies between classical and quantum physics that can be easily visualized." He suggests that it might be interesting to try to visualize other quantum phenomena using classical means. "

    Look, I'm not saying the behavior demonstrated by the experiment isn't significant, but if you do a little digging, at this point, it seems like most experts are skeptical about how much this experiment really redefines things.

    My initial point was simply that it was not a quantum based system, as it is made up of many discrete particles, for one, and there are other differences too, making this only an analogy. However, after searching other's opinions, it seems like a few want to point to the significance of the behavior, which seems to be quantum, while the vast majority of experts maintain it's only coincidental behavior.
     
    jazzabel likes this.
  14. 123456789
    Offline

    123456789 Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,346
    Likes Received:
    3,092
    People today laugh at their ancestors who used to burn witches, but when you think about it, how much has the general public really changed? You used to have a few scholars with legitimate information trapped in scrolls that most people couldn't read, and then you had unsupported rumors that were passed along among the masses at the fire. Which information do you think traveled further?

    Today, you have a few science journals really only understandable to people with doctorate degrees, and then you have a million pages from Joe Shmoe and Yogic teacher Patty Schmally making wishy washy statements about reality. Google scholar (which was a Google based search for academic journals) used to be at the Google front page, sadly, no longer.

    Statements made in this thread like," well I don't know much about QM but I think it's pretty cool that..." are dangerous because they spread misinformation.

    I've taken multiple graduate courses in QM and I admit I still know next to nothing about the subject. I personally think it's important people take a step back, and really try to think about things before they start believing fantastic claims.
     
    jazzabel likes this.
  15. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    I don't have a doctorate and I can read a study published in a science journal. What people need is some education in the principles of critical thinking. I didn't need to know a thing about that film to know those awards looked fake and it only took a few minutes of Google-fu to verify it.

    There are some basic principles anyone who can read should be able to use. Research should be repeatable by different researchers. Look at the sample size, was it only a pilot study? Get some idea about how often conflicting results are found. Look at what other knowledgeable people in the field are saying. Find the original source, don't rely on the news account.

    It doesn't take doctorate level skills. I don't need to understand the complex science of QM to know that someone who puts fake film awards on their web page is not going to be a reliable source of information.
     
    GoldenGhost likes this.
  16. 123456789
    Offline

    123456789 Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,346
    Likes Received:
    3,092
    It does when we're discussing potetially ground breaking science. Can you honesty say you truly understand everything about the experiment I was discussing with thirdwind?

    You're right of course when talking about some things, but once we get into controversial territory that even experts disagree on , the rest of us should tread very carefully.
     
    GoldenGhost likes this.
  17. 123456789
    Offline

    123456789 Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,346
    Likes Received:
    3,092
    @GingerCoffee

    Also, there's a difference between accepting something as truth and spreading it to others. Just because most of us here can speak English doesn't mean all of should be teaching it.
     
    GoldenGhost likes this.
  18. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    If I recall correctly, I believe I left that previous discussion because people weren't overly interested and it was going to require a bit of time consuming research on my part to support the side I've taken on quantum entanglement.

    Yes I understand it. That doesn't mean I could keep up in an advanced discussion with a theoretical physicist about QM.

    It has nothing to do with the stuff in this thread though. You can't take someone seriously that has a fake website trying to shill a dvd of mumbo-jumbo to unsuspecting victims. This is not about a new idea or legitimate research.
     
    123456789 likes this.
  19. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    This might be of some use if only as an exercise in checking if people are who they say they are:
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amit Goswami
    I do find evidence that he is a retired University of Oregon quantum physicist, but why was his Wiki page deleted?

    Here's what the 1992 U of O catalogue says (warning large pdf file):
    What was his doctoral thesis on? What has he published in his field?

    Michael Shermer refers to Goswami's credentials and appointment at the U of O in this piece, Quantum Quackery, but he concludes with:
    I have to agree with that. I'll keep an open mind to the hypothesis that there is something on the quantum level going on within our neurobiology, but I prefer to get my evidence from more legit sources. I'll wait for others in the field to weigh in. Goswami wouldn't be the first quack with a PhD.
     
    123456789 likes this.
  20. thirdwind
    Offline

    thirdwind Contributing Member Contest Administrator Reviewer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,351
    Likes Received:
    2,891
    Location:
    Boston
    So what if he has a Tolstoy quote on his site? What does that have to do with any of the research he has posted? And just because he's a mathematician doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about.

    I read through the article, but I'm not sure I completely understand what the Zeeman effect is. Oh well...

    Which side would that be?
     
  21. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    Well I went to a talk here in Seattle by Anton Zeilinger discussing his experimental evidence confirming QE and it was very convincing.

    Dance of the Photons: From Einstein to Quantum Teleportation

    I've heard that this evidence is unconvincing or the experiments don't show what is claimed but hearing him explain them first hand I have to agree they have good evidence.
     
  22. thirdwind
    Offline

    thirdwind Contributing Member Contest Administrator Reviewer Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Messages:
    7,351
    Likes Received:
    2,891
    Location:
    Boston
    I'm pretty sure everyone believes entanglement is real. I've never heard of anyone doubting it.
     
  23. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    Re the Zeeman effect,

    The magnetic compass mechanisms of birds and rodents are based on different physical principles
    So, birds navigate with it, rodents in this experiment didn't.
    It's complicated:
    I do understand spin. So I looked up radical pair processes.
    Chemical magnetoreception in birds: The radical pair mechanism
    I understand photoactive proteins from the biology of light receptors in the mammalian eye.

    I also understand radicals, that's basic chemistry. Free radicals are what kill your brain cells after hypoxia.


    I don't think it's that hard to understand. I'm not saying it's perfectly clear to me but I get the gist. It might require a little more reading along this line of inquiry and I'm not that interested. But I don't see that it's impossible to understand without a doctorate.

     
  24. 123456789
    Offline

    123456789 Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,346
    Likes Received:
    3,092
    You wouldn't be the first to say that. Many a first year graduate student has nodded his head enthusiastically when someone mentions a concept, because he thinks he gets the "gist" of it, only to be later exposed for having little more than a superficial understanding of the subject. Science is not like reading a fiction novel. If you want to make real, tangible arguments, you can't just say, "well, it's basically about this." You have to understand every detail and at least appreciate the math.

    I understand what the experimentals for the oil bath/droplet experiment did, but there are many many deep principles related to it that I would have to understand better for me to attempt to make a conclusive argument from it.

    It's important to remember that all these experiments usually take years to work and are performed by people who have given up years and years of their lives to achieve that level of skill and understanding, and even more years for the results from this experiments to be formed into theories by the theoreticians. It would be sheer arrogance to assume these concepts are easy.
     
  25. GingerCoffee
    Offline

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    17,605
    Likes Received:
    5,879
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    Color me arrogant then. I'm not sure I understand why you think it's that complicated to get the gist? The math sure. How one tests the hypotheses, waay over my head. But the gist of entanglement, photon particle waves, 11 dimensions of string theory, CERN and the model of elemental particles, knowing the speed or location of an electron but not both, these ideas are not hard. Believe it or not some of us get it that electrons have a probability of being in a location around the neutron and proton but don't go around in an orbit like the model appears.

    I think we just have different concepts of what getting the gist of it means. It seems you think that means master's level theoretical physics and I think it's understanding the basic concepts.

    I'm interested in understanding the Universe. I read, go to lectures, try to learn when I can.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page