Thread: Think and grow rich

That experiment has nothing to do with consciousness. The number of people that don't understand this is astounding.

It's not the act of a consciousness observing it that changes it.
It's the method they use to observe it. The equipment they use.

Also this should be moved to SB/RS/IS

Ok so I guess Dr Quantum doesn't know what he is talking about, he says the observer collapsed the wave function by simply observing? What does he mean then when he says this?

So what you are saying is that if they use tool A to observe, it will be particles, and if they use tool B to observe, it will be waves? How exactly does the equipment, the method they use, change particles into wave? You say the number of people that don't understand this is astounding, so it would be pretty cool of you if you did us a favor and gave us the explanation.

edit: I did some reading and apparently nobody understands the double slit experiment. This kinda pisses me off as people will claim this experiment shows us something but at the same time nobody even understands the experiment? What the hell is the point of this experiment if nobody even understands it?
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/phy00713.htm

Anyway, the experiment seems more like an unexplained mystery. The only explanation I can come up with is that light photons never really were particles to start with, and that light are actually waves, like you have soundwaves, waterwaves etc. Tada mystery solved. Or maybe they are just both. So yeah you were right tommo this experiment has nothing to do with consciousness at all. It's all about the confusion about whether light is particles, or whether light is waves.

It is the act of observation that collapses the waveform. The observer does not have to be human, nor does it have to be conscious, although the observer can be human.

ChaybaChayba,
The particle only collapses at the moment it is detected. In fact, no tool can observe the waveform, since it is only a mathematical concept, and when we try to observe the waveform, we simply end up observing a particle. The only point in time that any tool can observe a particle is when the waveform collapses into a concrete value. In fact, a particle collapses into a static value at the first moment it is detected. It is only the point in time in which the particle is detected which determines what the final result will be on the electron detection screen. There's your explanation.


Obviously there is some confusion here, so let me explain the particles' behavior so that we're all on the same page. In the case of the double slit experiment, the electron is shot out of the device, and as it travels, it is a waveform since it has no need to collapse into a particle since it travels undetected.
When it passes through the double slits when there are no detectors on the slits, it is still a mathematical waveform of probabilites while it travels through the slits (meaning it hasn't collapsed into a static value yet because it hasn't been observed by a device). The interference pattern develops after the waveform passes through the double slits because the waveform separated into two waveforms at the moment it passed through the double slits. Dr. Quantum explains the interference pattern in his video. It is because the waveform turned into two waveforms that it develops an interference pattern before it hits the electron detector on the back wall. When it hits the back wall, the waveform turns into a static value since it is detected. The probabilities of the placement of the particle change based upon the interference pattern that the single particle created with itself before it hit the screen.
Now, when the particle passes through the double slits when there are detectors on the slits, this is what happens: The particle shoots out of the electron gun as a single waveform, and when it reaches the double slits, the particle is detected by one of the two detectors, making it collapse into a static value at that point. Now, here's the interesting part: since the particle is already collapsed, that value is retained while it travels toward the electron detector on the back wall. Since its value was already detected at the point of the double slits, the electron travels as a collapsed particle with a static value, thus landing within one of the two slit-shaped lines on the wall. It is the location that the waveform is collapsed that determines its behavior later on.

Capiche?


Okay, that helped clear things up for me, too. The double slit experiment does not itself provide solid proof that it is consciousness that determines values (although it is possible in some complex way which I don't want to explain right now, so I'll leave it at that). In fact, it is the act of detection which collapses the 'waveform of probabilities' into a static value.

But what does this mean for the law of attraction? It doesn't necessarily mean anything. There's no evidence showing that we can change the probabilities of where the particle ends up being detected.


At this point, I am still convinced that it is simply our actions that our subconscious works through, and not some magical means. The fact still remains, though, that we can change our lives by changing our subconscious prejudices to accommodate what we want.

Aha thanks for the further explanation I think I get it better now.. that is pretty amazing indeed but its still a mystery why the observing affects the behavior.. so I am very much interested in your complex explanation about how our consciousness could determine the values tho that is pretty much what this thread is about anyway..

Hmm, I don't know if I'm going to be able to explain it. Basically, our consciousness could somehow be performing the conversion from waveform to the static value when anything is done to permit determination of the results of the experiment. If that were the case, that would mean that all of our consciousnesses would have to be somehow interlinked, otherwise physical reality would change from person to person. It would also mean that our consciousnesses are interlinked with physical reality itself.

Anyway, there's nothing saying that it is our consciousness that does the work; it's just a possibility. It's interesting, though, that this does provide an explanation as to how probabilities of a waveform are changed into actual values.

Interesting speculation... combine it with the theory of our consciousness being an electromagnetic field, and it becomes a real possibility as electromagnetic fields naturally harmonize and resonate with eachother, just like you would pull a string on a guitar, the other strings will also resonate. This opens up the possibility of all our minds being interlinked through resonance.
Electromagnetic theories of consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However I still don't see how exactly our consciousness would perform the conversion from waveform to static value, what kind of mechanism did you have in mind?

Well, don't get ahead of yourself now. All I said was that it's a possibility. There are in fact many other explanations for the phenomena, some of which are more believable than consciousness being the process for wave function collapse.

If consciousness was the reason for the collapse of wave functions, it would be making these calculations behind the scenes somehow.


I'd much rather remain skeptical of any supernatural explanations since many more times than not, things can somehow be rationally explained.

You guys should read the Intention Experiment, some interesting ideas if you want to read more science meets the law of attraction. And becareful, no one here is assuming that the process is supernatural. But neither do I believe the process is simply you motivating yourself via emotions.

The Intention Experiment's website describes itself as an experiment which measures the effects of mass intention on objects. It has nothing to do with the Law of Attraction.

The Law of Attraction has been known as many things, including mind over matter and creative visualization. All of which are the act of consciously intending to manifest an outcome. The website was about performing your own intention experiment to prove to yourself that the Law of Attraction is real.

But actually I was referring to the book, not the website. The book talks about different experiments to help open up the reader to the possibility of how real of the Law of Attraction is. It asks a lot of questions regarding how it potentially works. It asks questions such as, what is intention (directed thought) composed of? Literally? At the quantum level, what is thought? Isn't it energy? What type of energy? And given everything we know about quantum physics, when we identify what exactly is consciousness, then we can understand some basic properties about consciousness that exceed the human body.

After discussing some experiments, the book offers the theory that thought/intention is literally composed of photons of light. This opens up the door to set up new experiments to study thought/intention.

In one experiment, going on the theory that intention is literally composed of light, they asked an individual to 'intend' to heal another, just from their thoughts alone. They watched the process using a telescope brought in from Nasa meant to see the darkest regions of space. When the individual intended to heal, light was seen emitting from their hands directed at the individual meant to be healed.

Virtually every experiment discussed in the book begged more questions than provided answers.

The book also asks the obvious questions we got from the Law of Attraction, can I use my thoughts to transform my cup into a kitten? Does consciousness only influence probabilities (the future) or can it also influence reality once its collapsed into a set reality? Either way, its comforting to know that the future is potentially a flux of infinite possibilities just waiting to collapse into something real. Nothing is set in stone!

What is the importance of frequencies? Namely, the different waves that brain operates at? How do the different brain wave states influence the outcome of collapsing probabilities? Are all intentions equal? What's more powerful, a thought or an emotion? Can we measure it?

I'm not saying that the book answers all of these questions. But what I think the book does aim at is to show thatthere is a lot to ask! It's not just a debate of whether or not thoughts manifest into reality. How can we even have that argument if we don't even know what a thought is at the quantum level?

Do you understand what I mean? A lot of people think the LOA is bullcrap, that theres nothing to look at, that theres nothing else to it. I say that these people aren't considering the quantum properties of our own mind, and what that could potentially mean. I partly blame our modern schools which separated the sciences, making many believe on a subconscious level that there is no relationship between quantum physics and biology. That we have laws for the tiny reality of particles, and laws for large things like organic molecules.

The problem with understanding what the LOA is saying is we haven't adequately merged the two fields of science into one. But there are scientists who are working on that, understanding what quantum physics means for our biological selves. It's a whole different paradigm than what most of us grew up with.

The other problem with the LOA is many people don't even recognize their own mind. Most of us carry baggage, negative thought patterns we aren't even aware of. It's very easy to say the LOA is bull because of all this junk in your life you didn't intend for when you haven't looked deep within yourself.

If you take the LOA seriously, it begs you to rip open your mind and excavate every dark corner. Because if you haven't, how can you be in control of your life, when you're not even in control of yourself?

I hate it so much when someone comes in to a fairly rational conversation and posts an 800 word slab of gobbledigook.

If someone believes that it will work, they will likely be more motivated and more likely to take realistic steps to achieve their desires. That's all it is. I'm guessing that for the very improbable things which, realistically, take a lot of luck as well as talent and work to achieve, most people fail. But those who do make it, mostly due to luck, are the ones you hear about, and they insist it was the law of attraction that caused their success.

My view is that our subconscious influences the actions we make based on what we believe is true. Everything you pointed out is true, although I don't agree about the luck part. I think you can accomplish anything with enough determination and belief that it will happen. (With the exception of, for instance, dying before you accomplish it, the task being impossible, etc.)

Originally Posted by MindGames

My view is that our subconscious influences the actions we make based on what we believe is true. Everything you pointed out is true, although I don't agree about the luck part. I think you can accomplish anything with enough determination and belief that it will happen. (With the exception of, for instance, dying before you accomplish it, the task being impossible, etc.)

What about becoming the a great mathematician when you have very little understanding of math and very little ability to grasp the concepts?

Do you think you can influence your brain to restructure itself so you're good at it?
As opposed to a savant or a genious who had the luck of having an innate ability to do maths.

Originally Posted by tommo

What about becoming the a great mathematician when you have very little understanding of math and very little ability to grasp the concepts?

Do you think you can influence your brain to restructure itself so you're good at it?
As opposed to a savant or a genious who had the luck of having an innate ability to do maths.

How do you think you learned math as a child? All you have to do is learn math.


By the way, yes, you can influence your brain to restructure itself well into your adult life. It's called neuroplasticity.

Originally Posted by MindGames

The only point in time that any tool can observe a particle is when the waveform collapses into a concrete value. In fact, a particle collapses into a static value at the first moment it is detected.

Can the process be reversed? Un-collapsing the particle back into a waveform, that is.

I ask because I'm confused about how the electron is emitted as a waveform in the first place. If it interacts the detectors on the slits and collapses into a known value, why does it retain that value on its path to the wall sensors?

Originally Posted by MindGames

By the way, yes, you can influence your brain to restructure itself well into your adult life. It's called neuroplasticity.

I haven't looked into it, but my common sense tells me that the brain is very powerful, and people can change their brain structure to a certain extent, making themselves better at solving problems, memory, etc. I've always believed this, just from witnessing what I'm able to do with my own brain. But I wouldn't be surprised to find out there is a limit to how good someone can get at something, at least in some areas, and that limit might be different for different people, but maybe not.

As for things in the real world, I think a lot of it unfortunately is luck. For example, the chance that a particular business has of succeeding, no matter how creative and innovative and charismatic and intelligent its members are, since there are so many businesses that are just as ambitious, is going to be due to what we might as well call random chance. A potential customer happens to be dating the boss's daughter, etc. It's analogous to winning a lottery, but maybe with better odds.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

As for things in the real world, I think a lot of it unfortunately is luck. For example, the chance that a particular business has of succeeding, no matter how creative and innovative and charismatic and intelligent its members are, since there are so many businesses that are just as ambitious, is going to be due to what we might as well call random chance. A potential customer happens to be dating the boss's daughter, etc. It's analogous to winning a lottery, but maybe with better odds.

I believe differently. I believe that if a product is innovative and very useful, people will want to buy it, and will recommend it to others. There are many determining factors which go into how successful your business will be. Whether or not the business takes all of these into consideration is where their success is determined.

Originally Posted by MindGames

How do you think you learned math as a child? All you have to do is learn math.

By the way, yes, you can influence your brain to restructure itself well into your adult life. It's called neuroplasticity.

I know about that, but VVVV

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I haven't looked into it, but my common sense tells me that the brain is very powerful, and people can change their brain structure to a certain extent, making themselves better at solving problems, memory, etc. I've always believed this, just from witnessing what I'm able to do with my own brain. But I wouldn't be surprised to find out there is a limit to how good someone can get at something, at least in some areas, and that limit might be different for different people, but maybe not.

I pretty much agree with this. I've had experiments and experiences with my own mind too, confirming this for me, even before I heard of neuroplasticity. However, most people can probably only do it to an extent. Research has also shown that some people are better at it than others.
Maybe given enough time, like if we achieved immortality, it would be possible to change your brain completely. Maybe.
But my understanding is that geniouses and savants etc. have fairly different brains to the average person, which enables them to do these amazing things and I'm not sure whether it is possible to change your brain that much. Of course I may be wrong, but no one knows at the moment.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

As for things in the real world, I think a lot of it unfortunately is luck. For example, the chance that a particular business has of succeeding, no matter how creative and innovative and charismatic and intelligent its members are, since there are so many businesses that are just as ambitious, is going to be due to what we might as well call random chance. A potential customer happens to be dating the boss's daughter, etc. It's analogous to winning a lottery, but maybe with better odds.

Originally Posted by MindGames

I believe differently. I believe that if a product is innovative and very useful, people will want to buy it, and will recommend it to others. There are many determining factors which go into how successful your business will be. Whether or not the business takes all of these into consideration is where their success is determined.

Agreed.

This kind of thing isn't really chance. There's definitely determining factors. It's just a case of whether you know what they are. Of course it may be impossible to determine all the factors. But that doesn't mean they aren't there.

For example if I decided to set up a company which sells "small portable telephones".
It would most likely fail. But there could be a lot of people in the area where it's set up which have a good sense of humour and decide to buy one and it could spread from there. But you can still determine whether a demographic has a sense of humour which would help this company succeed.

Unless, I just realised, you might be talking about people who don't research these factors and just start up a business and just happen to succeed. But then there could be sub-conscious processes at work, "telling" them to set up this business, who knows.

But now I have forgotten why I am arguing this.

Oh yes (that analogy wasn't very good and I thought I was arguing solely about that for a second lol), if you're leaving it up to luck, you have a high chance of failing. 50% chance. No amount of wanting to succeed will increase your chances. This is proven by the studies in which "psychics" etc. fail to score any better than chance for a given task. Unless you make an exception for stuff which isn't physically possible.
But that's kind of contradicting your belief isn't it.