Thread: Our Collective Expectation Driven Reality

I guess the main criticism that comes to mind is an element of intentfulness I'm picking up on. What I mean is that your claim seems to be contingent on the existence of humans, and humans bring intentions into the universe. Could that be a way of wording the same thing you said, "Non-being is the greatest source of energy"? Could you swap in the phrase "non-intentful" and get the same meaning?

Imagine if there was a catastrophe and only one community of humans with a very narrow view of the world survived. Would that make reality narrow? What if they all believed in something not considered possible by the world at large before the catastrophe?

I like what you wrote and I'm just reacting without filtering here.

From the 4th-to-last paragraph here: "Perhaps we agree on what is "there" or "not there" because what we call consensus reality is formulated and ratified at the level of the human unconscious at which all minds are infinitely interconnected."

Your viewpoint is a valid one. I've wondered myself, if everyone believed the world was flat then why did it turn out to be round, for instance? Consensus does not make reality and time continues to prove this. But one also has to wonder if we unconsciously expect much more than we consciously intend to. One also has to acknowledge that perhaps human beings are essentially incapable of expecting or imagining anything that cannot be. In other words because certain universal laws are required for the universe to exist, if the consensus does not agree with these universal laws that parallel universe does not exist.

As far as non-being, I was basically saying find your center where you expect nothing in order to have the most powerful field of intention.

I know that this mind over matter stuff has the skeptics screaming pseudo-science. I hope they read your post nice and slowly.

What we are seeing is that expectation/belief influences the POSSIBLE outcome of reality. Is it possible for you to transform into a dragon tomorrow? I doubt it, but maybe I'm just a cynic.

I keep learning how powerful emotions are. Emotions are the driving force behind expectation. You can think happy thoughts all you want, but unless you feel happy what are your thoughts worth?

I fell into the trap promoted in The Secret. I sat and imagined that perfect dream job. After three years, not much was happening job wise and I only felt extremely frustrated. Then one day I had a revelation, I was trying to find happiness through a job, but that's not the way reality works. Because nothing outside of yourself can gaurantee your happiness. I stopped searching for happiness in a job, and instead accepted that I could have any job in the world and be happy.

Within days of accepting that, I got a new job after three years of searching. Its the oddest job I've ever had and it has my name written all over it. My boss has praised me several times, despite messing up now and then, that I'm the right person for the job. I find myself laughing because I'm thinking - I must be dead and this is just my dream. Not because this has been my "dream job", but because this job feels way too coincidental to be real.

There was no way that I could have sat down and imagined this job, because I literally did not know that such a job even existed. Its amazing what happens when you stop demanding or angsting because of your master plan.

Ive got a lot of emotional work to do!

There have been numerous discussions about this. To simply reiterate, you're butchering quantum physics to obtain a series of statements which it in no way supports but that are supported through basic thought. That's not fun and flashy though and so is clearly inadequate. I think the term 'cold and empty' has been applied by some new agers on this board. It's just so much more 'mystical' if it comes from quantum physics or 'the ancients'. So go ahead and attribute it to quantum physics (do you even know what a hilbert space is?) and enjoy your flashy confusion.

At least this is more sophisticated than that simplistic 'law of attraction' crap.

I believe in science and this is what science has shown me. BTW, science isn't cold and empty, just the manner in which certain people interpret it

It's not a matter of if you 'believe' in science or not. That's totally irrelevant. Interpretation is really not at question here either. There was a concrete statement made that is not (and could not be) born out by experiment being paraded as a fact. That's what I responded to. If asking that that which is known as a fact not be conflated with that which is mere speculation is cold and empty then I hope that I'm guilty as charged.

I should have quoted OP though as that's what I was mainly responding to. As for you, I'm genuinely glad that you got a job you like.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

It's not a matter of if you 'believe' in science or not. That's totally irrelevant. Interpretation is really not at question here either. There was a concrete statement made that is not (and could not be) born out by experiment being paraded as a fact. That's what I responded to. If asking that that which is known as a fact not be conflated with that which is mere speculation is cold and empty then I hope that I'm guilty as charged.

I should have quoted OP though as that's what I was mainly responding to. As for you, I'm genuinely glad that you got a job you like.

Okay... so what's actually wrong with the theory? Claiming I'm butchering quantum physics without explaining how does not help me much.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Basically when scientists try to predict the path or spin of particles, they discover their expectations were deciding both the path and spin. In other words until they observed the electron it was literally exhibiting all possible outcomes. Perception caused one outcome to manifest rather than the others. At this level of observation, particles take on the characteristics that we most expect them to.

This fallacy has been addressed by myself and others numerous times. I'm not really in the mood to repeat it. My advice would be to find a real book on quantum physics written by a real physicist and leave the Deepak Chopra for the new agers. It is addressed in virtually all books written by actual, practicing physicists.

As Xaq pointed out on another thread, the definitions that we employ influence the questions that we ask of a system which in turn do influence the answers we get. This is not unique to quantum physics however.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

This fallacy has been addressed by myself and others numerous times. I'm not really in the mood to repeat it. My advice would be to find a real book on quantum physics written by a real physicist and leave the Deepak Chopra for the new agers. It is addressed in virtually all books written by actual, practicing physicists.

As Xaq pointed out on another thread, the definitions that we employ influence the questions that we ask of a system which in turn do influence the answers we get. This is not unique to quantum physics however.

I believe this is called a cop-out. I hope you understand I'm also in no mood to continue repeating old arguments. It does me no pleasure to sit here and try and pull a sensible rebuttal out of an aloof. Don't play hard to get, either respond to my argument or gtfo of my thread. Is that clear enough? Trash talking mind-over-matter concepts may provide food for your ego but it does not actually invalidate any of these concepts. And I probably know a great deal more about Quantum Physics than you do. I did not get any of this information from Deepak Chopra and just because you can point the word new-ager in my direction does not make me one. If you did enough research yourself rather than write off any alien concept as pseudo-science then maybe you could understand that.

OK.

First, I didn't trash talk 'mind-over-matter' concepts. I put the notion that the ideas that you are espousing are based on quantum physics in the trash where it belongs. I said in my first post in this thread that

Originally Posted by me

..., you're butchering quantum physics to obtain a series of statements which it in no way supports but that are supported through basic thought.

That doesn't seem like a blanket dismissal or trash talking to me. It seems like exactly what I've said it is. Citing fraudulent claims of quantum physics to support your beliefs cheapens both science and spirituality. It turns science into psuedo-science and transcendence into spiritualist egoism. It calls into question the degree of insight from which the person doing it is operating.

Second, I'm more likely to feed my ego with long drawn out explanations off the top of my head than I am with simply and clearly stating that something is being misunderstood, abused, or both. Here, I'm simply addressing confusion. If you know more about quantum physics than me, then surely you're familiar with the Stern-Gerlach experiment and would perhaps be willing to back up your claim by illustrating how the expectations of the physicists affect the outcome of that particular experiment?

Third, I didn't point the term 'new-ager' at you. I implored you to leave Deepak Chopra (and other psuedo-scientific, psuedo-spiritual posuers) for the new-agers. If you feel that the term new-ager fits you, then that's not my concern, responsibility, or problem.

As for your request that I address your specific claim, I already have on the level that you made the claim.

you: The expectations of scientists affect the path and spin of particles.
me: No they don't.

If you have a source, please feel free to cite it. I personally feel no need to cite my claim as it is well known, mainstream science.

So the question is, how do you really want to back up your beliefs? I like see.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

OK.

First, I didn't trash talk 'mind-over-matter' concepts. I put the notion that the ideas that you are espousing are based on quantum physics in the trash where it belongs. I said in my first post in this thread that



That doesn't seem like a blanket dismissal or trash talking to me. It seems like exactly what I've said it is. Citing fraudulent claims of quantum physics to support your beliefs cheapens both science and spirituality. It turns science into psuedo-science and transcendence into spiritualist egoism. It calls into question the degree of insight from which the person doing it is operating.

Second, I'm more likely to feed my ego with long drawn out explanations off the top of my head than I am with simply and clearly stating that something is being misunderstood, abused, or both. Here, I'm simply addressing confusion. If you know more about quantum physics than me, then surely you're familiar with the Stern-Gerlach experiment and would perhaps be willing to back up your claim by illustrating how the expectations of the physicists affect the outcome of that particular experiment?

Third, I didn't point the term 'new-ager' at you. I implored you to leave Deepak Chopra (and other psuedo-scientific, psuedo-spiritual posuers) for the new-agers. If you feel that the term new-ager fits you, then that's not my concern, responsibility, or problem.

As for your request that I address your specific claim, I already have on the level that you made the claim.

you: The expectations of scientists affect the path and spin of particles.
me: No they don't.

If you have a source, please feel free to cite it. I personally feel no need to cite my claim as it is well known, mainstream science.

So the question is, how do you really want to back up your beliefs? I like see.

I never claimed anything I wrote was Science. I made a claim based on Scientific Evidence. Do I know for sure if Expectation effects reality? Of course not, but the evidence certainly opens that up as a possibility. I am not observing A and concluding B, here. Conclusions about B have existed for thousands of years which are now being supported by evidence in A. There is a difference. You want me to cite my evidence? I can do that. But everything you said until this last post where you finally made a claim of your own (Scientific Observation does not effect path or spin) I consider to be worthless trash-talking. And scrounging up an antiquated experiment from the twenties without explaining how it is relevant to my claim hardly helps your case. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle! Nyah!

Here is a source of this experiment, I used google:

Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality

That link doesn't back up your claim. It essentially states that 'measurement prevents interference'. This is significantly different from the statement that 'expectations influence experimental outcomes'. That article is also riddled with confusing terminology. 'quantum observer' is very confusing. It's much better (and more common with real physicists) to talk about measurements.1

Why is the negation of your claim a 'claim of my own' in my third post but not in my first or second posts?

Also, I chose the Stern-Gerlach experiment because it's probably the simplest scenario in which spin is relevant. Feel free to choose another one if you like.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Basically when scientists try to predict the path or spin of particles, they discover their expectations were deciding both the path and spin. In other words until they observed the electron it was literally exhibiting all possible outcomes.

Polite version: this is either wilful ignorance and self-delusion or lying. It's completely wrong. Rude version: absolute bullshit.

As the rest of the post seems to follow from this premise (and even then in a totally vague or unexplained manner), I'll stop here for now.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

That link doesn't back up your claim. It essentially states that 'measurement prevents interference'. This is significantly different from the statement that 'expectations influence experimental outcomes'. That article is also riddled with confusing terminology. 'quantum observer' is very confusing. It's much better (and more common with real physicists) to talk about measurements.1

Why is the negation of your claim a 'claim of my own' in my third post but not in my first or second posts?

Also, I chose the Stern-Gerlach experiment because it's probably the simplest scenario in which spin is relevant. Feel free to choose another one if you like.

Your first two posts did not point out any holes in my logic, they merely attacked my logic by associating my thesis with new-agers. the final post pointed out one possible flaw, which is that I did not cite any sources for you to verify this on your own. And I'm sorry if it's easier to deal with the world in Measurements but the more we learn about the universe, the more we are discovering that the observer is an integral part of the observed.

As far as Xei's comment goes, now you understand why I'm so sick of people trash-talking ideas without actually countering them. You are filling an otherwise perfectly informative thread with egotistical dead-horse beatings.

So I'll say this once for everybody. Either respond to my actual claim or do not respond at all. If you want to troll, go to SB.

Ughhhhh.

Okay, baby steps: I can't counter your argument for your 'actual claim'. Why? You didn't provide one. You didn't provide any evidence for what you were saying, you just pulled some BS assertion out of the ether. If you'd like to provide some kind of argument for your claim that a scientist's anticipation of a quantum experiment plays a part in the result (although that seems unlikely, as when PS asked this you provided a link to something totally unrelated, strongly suggestive that you don't actually have a clue what you're talking about but won't admit it), I'll be happy to either acquiesce or counter it. As it stands, all I can do for now is call BS on what would certainly not be the first time somebody has tried to support their philosophy with nothing but a totally vague misconception about quantum physics gleaned from some piece of pop science or new-age propaganda like What The Bleep Do We Know, until this provokes you to show me otherwise.

If you truly think people trash talk your ideas because they can't counter them, you need to do some major introspection buddy.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I'll get the "pseudo-science" out of the way now so Skeptics can respond directly rather than read the entire post. This idea leans very heavily upon studies done with perception of electrons, and that is essentially the only evidence but I think it's rather good evidence. Basically when scientists try to predict the path or spin of particles, they discover their expectations were deciding both the path and spin. In other words until they observed the electron it was literally exhibiting all possible outcomes. Perception caused one outcome to manifest rather than the others.

Have you ever heard of the (infamous) twin-slits experiment?

Originally Posted by Xei

Polite version: this is either wilful ignorance and self-delusion or lying. It's completely wrong. Rude version: absolute bullshit.

As the rest of the post seems to follow from this premise (and even then in a totally vague or unexplained manner), I'll stop here for now.

Same question.

Yes, of course? If you don't measure particles going through the slits, they act as waves, going through both, and interfering with themselves (even one particle at a time), creating an interference pattern when you measure after the slits. If you measure at the slits, this collapses the wave function and so causes the particles to act as such after the slit, destroying the interference pattern.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

(Glances nervously for vehement Objectivists)

I'll get the "pseudo-science" out of the way now so Skeptics can respond directly rather than read the entire post. This idea leans very heavily upon studies done with perception of electrons, and that is essentially the only evidence but I think it's rather good evidence. Basically when scientists try to predict the path or spin of particles, they discover their expectations were deciding both the path and spin. In other words until they observed the electron it was literally exhibiting all possible outcomes.

Your "In other words" was not describing the same thing. We already know detectors collapse the wave functions, but "expectations deciding both the path and spin" is a whole other claim. Could you show me a scientific paper describing a repeatable experiment where they somehow show that mental expectation influences the properties of the collapsed wave functions?

Originally Posted by Wayfaerer

Your "In other words" was not describing the same thing. We already know detectors collapse the wave functions, but "expectations deciding both the path and spin" is a whole other claim. Could you show me a scientific paper describing a repeatable experiment where they somehow show that mental expectation influences the properties of the collapsed wave functions?

You're absolutely right, I should not have used the word Expectation for that sentence. While it has been sufficiently argued that Observation effects one's ability to measure particles (as well as appears to have a direct effect on path and spin), Expectation or Intent is a completely different manner. It merely seemed natural for me that Expectation is an intrinsic and instantaneous attribute of Observation. Like I mentioned in the OP, its like a Guess and Check table where the first answer provided is the one that takes form. I can only admit this is not in perfect semblance with what humans consider to be Expectation. I would provide research that details studies where Affirmations increased illness-afflicted individuals chances of recovery, however in googling this I can only find new-age affirmation guides or scientific studies done on prayer (which are obviously ineffective because particles respond to sincere belief, not emotionally charged begging). Besides, this evidence would not be related to wave collapse. However, considering the intrinsic relationship between Observation and Expectation I don't see how expectation could possibly be measured at a subatomic level.

Hm, I'd give more consideration to the expectation thing if observation really is what determines the measurable outcomes. I'm pretty sure that actual human observation is not needed to collapse the wave function in the two slit experiment, only the detector is needed. I wonder if that's how it is with measuring other properties in superposition.

There's one thing I'd really like for someone to explain if they could...

What kind of observation devices were used for the double-slit experiment, and to observe subatomic particles in general?

Cause I suspect the whole reason "observing" these particles changes their behavior is because whatever is used to observe them probably knocks them off course at the same time. I posted something the other day about using electron microscopes to observe subatomic particles, that it would be about like firing a stream of pool balls at a single pool ball in order to observe its behavior...

I mean, doing that would DEFINITELY change the very behavior you're trying to observe, and it has nothing to do with the consciousness of scientists watching.

But I haven't been able to find out what kind of device is used? Somebody enlighten please?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

There's one thing I'd really like for someone to explain if they could...

What kind of observation devices were used for the double-slit experiment, and to observe subatomic particles in general?

Cause I suspect the whole reason "observing" these particles changes their behavior is because whatever is used to observe them probably knocks them off course at the same time. I posted something the other day about using electron microscopes to observe subatomic particles, that it would be about like firing a stream of pool balls at a single pool ball in order to observe its behavior...

I mean, doing that would DEFINITELY change the very behavior you're trying to observe, and it has nothing to do with the consciousness of scientists watching.

But I haven't been able to find out what kind of device is used? Somebody enlighten please?

Actually the light particles needed to make them visible are being accounted for in these experiments.

How so? I mean, they definitely aren't using high def cameras to record this!! You'd need something like an electron microscope I'm assuming (though I know nothing about it really, which is why I'm asking). And I would think a stream of electrons would pretty much crash any subatomic particle they collide with?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

How so? I mean, they definitely aren't using high def cameras to record this!! You'd need something like an electron microscope I'm assuming (though I know nothing about it really, which is why I'm asking). And I would think a stream of electrons would pretty much crash any subatomic particle they collide with?

Well no they use particle detectors Particle detector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Light particles are known as nutrinos and are weak force meaning they don't collide with anything but rather pass through everything. Strong force particles do not collide either, as particles are typically so tiny and imprecise they can't touch each other, they simply meet resistance.