Do atheists have any evidence to support their beliefs?

[GrowingSmaller]

The second one is real too.

God bless than one. Big smiles.

 

[stevevw]

If he's saying that the observer effect requires a conscious mind then he is wrong (e.g. http://chapmanlabs.gatech.edu/papers/scattering_ifm_prl95.pdf).

Your source makes lots of claims but for some reason doesn't reference the papers it is making those claims about. That's really suspicious.

How can you be so sure, The observer effect has been verified. The Copenhagen interpretation is a well accepted interpretation of quantum physics. Most of the articles I posted had links to papers.

 

[Dave-W]

How can you be so sure, The observer effect has been verified.

That is one point of view.

[/humor]

 

[KCfromNC]

How can you be so sure, The observer effect has been verified.

Yep, and it works whether or not the thing observing is conscious or not.

 

[stevevw]

Yep, and it works whether or not the thing observing is conscious or not.

Without a human observing there is no results.

 

[KCfromNC]

Without a human observing there is no results.

Prove it.

Also, you might want to read the paper I posted.

 

[stevevw]

Prove it.

Also, you might want to read the paper I posted.

The point is scientists are devivded just like they are about other ideas such as multiverses, hologram worlds, inflation, ect that are associated with quantum physics. There have been tests done that counter that paper more recently such as Wheelers which I already posted. Wheelers delayed choice experiment showed that despite any physical interference from measuring not only does observing cause the collaspe but even planning to observe the event causes the collapse and may influence past events.

Whenever, in these experiments, we discover the path of a quantum particle, its cloud of possible routes "collapses" into a single well-defined state. What's more, the delayed-choice experiment implies that the sheer act of noticing, rather than any physical disturbance caused by measuring, can cause the collapse.
Phys. Rev. A 35, 2532 (1987) - Delayed-choice experiments in quantum interference
The strange link between the human mind and quantum physics

Wheeler suggested that reality is created by observers and that: “no phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.” He coined the term “Participatory Anthropic Principle” (PAP) from the Greek “anthropos”, or human. He went further to suggest that “we are participants in bringing into being not only the near and here, but the far away and long ago.” [Reference: Radio Interview With Martin Redfern]

Like many of the ideas proposed based on quantum effects such as multiverses, hologram worlds, many worlds idea, there are scientists on both sides who support or dont support these ideas. Some of the scientists who actually doscovered quantum physics or are strongle associated with pioneering it seem to think that we can't help but say that consciousness if a part of qantum physics.

Would it (the world) otherwise (without consciousness) have remained a play before empty benches, not existing for anybody, thus quite properly not existing?
— Erwin Schrödinger
…
"When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again. It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness."
Eugene Wigner

I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.
— Max Planck

"It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.

 

[KCfromNC]

That's nice, but too bad none of these guys published scientific papers demonstrating that consciousness is required for the observer effect to happen.

 

[stevevw]

That's nice, but too bad none of these guys published scientific papers demonstrating that consciousness is required for the observer effect to happen.

Of course they wrote papers supporting their ideas about the observer effect and consciousness. That is what they believed, its like saying Alan Guth who believed and supported inflation didnt write papers on it.

Wheeler supported the idea that reality is created by the observer and he came up with the term “Participatory Anthropic Principle” (PAP) which is well known in QP. AS it states below the claim was considered outlandish until he proved it with one of his experiments the “delayed-choice experiment,”.

Wheeler suggested that reality is created by observers and that: “no phenomenon is a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon.” He coined the term “Participatory Anthropic Principle” (PAP) from the Greek “anthropos”, or human. He went further to suggest that “we are participants in bringing into being not only the near and here, but the far away and long ago.” [Reference: Radio Interview With Martin Redfern]

This claim was considered rather outlandish until his thought experiment, known as the “delayed-choice experiment,” was tested in a laboratory in 1984. This experiment was a variation on the famous “double-slit experiment” in which the dual nature of light was exposed (depending on how the experiment was measured and observed, the light behaved like a particle (a photon) or like a wave).

The results of this experiment, as well as another conducted in 2007, proved what Wheeler had always suspected – observers’ consciousness is required to bring the universe into existence.
John Wheeler’s Participatory Universe

Wheeler was a pioneer in quantum physics and worked with Einstein and Neils Bohr who was a nobel prize winner for his work in quantum physics. Wheeler also came up with the idea of hypothetical “tunnels” in space-time which he called “wormholes”. He also came up with the term black holes and the concept of quantum foam. Wheeler envisaged the fabric of the universe as a chaotic sub-atomic realm of quantum fluctuations, which he called "quantum foam".
John Archibald Wheeler - Wikipedia

So he has contributed a lot to quantum physics and I think he is much more clued up on the topic than most. Yet people accpet his other ideas of worm holes and quantum foam and reject his ideas about consciousness which is more or less based on the same theorizing as his other ideas. This to me points to a bias becuase acknowledging consciousness to some is acknowledging a mind behind what we see which to some is too close to acknowledging some sort of creator.

There are stacks of papers on quatum physics and consciousness. Here are a few, in fact they have entire journals dedicated to the topic.

Journal of Consciousness Studies
Journal of Consciousness Studies: Ingenta Connect Table Of Contents

The papers can be associated with a wide range of topics from the observer effect and consciousness to spirituality, panpsychism mind body dualism, psychokinesis and metaphysics.

There are too many to name but here are a few.

The self, consciousness and communication: an experiential model of the self and consciousness in communication
This article explores intrapersonal and transpersonal communication as the principal derivatives of a subjective, inner reality. These levels relate to different states and levels of consciousness and corresponding levels of self-awareness. Since an exploration of the nature of the self and its possible confluence with states and levels of consciousness necessitates a multidisciplinary approach, theories and constructs in Psychology, the New Physics (Quantum Physics), Mysticism, and Philosophy are integrated with contemporary communication notions of the self and consciousness. Integration and inclusiveness consequently form the bedrock of this article.
The self, consciousness and communication: an experiential model ...: Ingenta Connect
The Role of Quantum Physics in the Theory of Subjective Consciousness
The Role of Quantum Physics in the Theory of Subjective Conscious...: Ingenta Connect
New age spirituality, quantum mysticism and self-psychology: changing ourselves from the inside out
New age spirituality, quantum mysticism and self-psychology: chan...: Ingenta Connect
Beyond Scientific Materialism: Toward a Transcendent Theory of Consciousness
Beyond Scientific Materialism: Toward a Transcendent Theory of Co...: Ingenta Connect

The problem with using the logic of scientists who suppor the idea of consciousness don't have papers showing direct evidence for consciousness can be the same logic used to wipe out most of the other ideas like worm holes, black holes, multiverses, inflation, the big bang, dark matter, dark energy, etc that are based on effects of quantum physics becuase they dont have direct support either. They all only have indirect evidence and no scientists has published a paper demostrating that these ideas are verified.

My point is none of these ideas are directly verified but that should not stop consciousness being one of the ideas that could expalin what we are seeing. Consciousness seems to have a lot of indirect evidence and in some ways more than some of the far fetched ideas that are well accepted by scientists nowadays.

 

[KCfromNC]

My point is none of these ideas are directly verified but that should not stop consciousness being one of the ideas that could expalin what we are seeing.

This is all well and good, but it doesn't explain the experiments where the observer effect happens without conscious observation. I linked to one of them.

 

[stevevw]

This is all well and good, but it doesn't explain the experiments where the observer effect happens without conscious observation. I linked to one of them.

How can the observer effect happen without an observer. You need an observer to read/see the results. Besides how does one result refute the many tests that show the observer effect that points to consciousness. It could be that your link is wrong. That is the nature of quantum physics, it is still developing and it is hard to get clear evidence linking the quantum world to the macro world.

Wheeler is one of the best minds when it comes to quantum physics and he seems to think that quantum physics and the observer effect point to consciousness. I would tend to have more trust in his ability than most.

Also there are many more findings that support counsciouness from other areas besides quantum physics such as parapsychology, anthropology, psychology, biocentrism, metaphysics and spiritualism. These come under the study areas such as Conscientiology and Projectiology. What is Conscientiology & Projectiology? Some tests show the power of the mind and how it can influence the physical world. Even the power of positive thinking and belief can have an eff4ct on things.

Results from tests and experiments in some of these areas are finding similar things and links to the ideas and results found quantum physics. Ie an experiment below

Entitled “Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect,” the paper presents evidence from nine experiments involving over 1,000 subjects suggesting that events in the future may influence events in the past — a concept known as “retrocausation.” In some of the experiments, students were able to guess at future events at levels of accuracy beyond what would be expected by chance. In others, events that took place in the future appeared to influence those in the past, such as one in which rehearsing a list of words enhanced recall of those words, with the twist that the rehearsal took place after the test of recall.

It's About Time: The Scientific Evidence for Psi Experiences | HuffPost

This is similar to Wheelers “Participatory Anthropic Principle” which show that the observer effect may also influence outcomes in the past and future as I posted in the last post.

So there is a number of other fields that are finding some support for consciousness or the mind effecting and influencing the material world in one way or another. All these results from 1000’s of scientists in many different areas cannot be dismissed. I am not saying that consciousness has been directly verified. What I am saying is just like the other ideas that scientists have no problems in promoting which are even more harder to believe why can't consciousness be just as valid as a possible idea that explains what we see between the quantum world and the macro world.

 

[KCfromNC]

How can the observer effect happen without an observer.

It can't, obviously. But that has nothing to do with it being a conscious observer.

Besides how does one result refute the many tests that show the observer effect that points to consciousness. It could be that your link is wrong.

At least you understand my paper does give an example of the observer effect without a conscious observer. And yeah, anything could be wrong. The tough part is demonstrating that it is. Take a look and see if you can find anything which actually proves it wrong - I'm not all that interested in maybes.

That is the nature of quantum physics, it is still developing and it is hard to get clear evidence linking the quantum world to the macro world.

This is patently false. The computer you're using is an easy counter-example.

Wheeler is one of the best minds when it comes to quantum physics and he seems to think that quantum physics and the observer effect point to consciousness. I would tend to have more trust in his ability than most.[/QUOTE]

Why trust him more than any other expert?

And more importantly, why haven't you posted a link to his peer-reviewed scientific work on the subject?

 

[stevevw]

It can't, obviously. But that has nothing to do with it being a conscious observer.

Of course it does. An observer is a conscious being.

At least you understand my paper does give an example of the observer effect without a conscious observer. And yeah, anything could be wrong. The tough part is demonstrating that it is. Take a look and see if you can find anything which actually proves it wrong - I'm not all that interested in maybes.

I am not that up on understanding it completely but I get the idea that it is claiming that coherence can be lost with some interference (scattering) a photon wave shifts and this can be increased with the amount of space when scattered. They mention in their conclusion coherence was not really lost but was entangled with the final state of the reservoir. What I cant understand is how the many tests show that coherence loss was caused by the measurement/observer so I am not sure that your paper reflects the proper use of the experiment. Becuase quantum particles are supceptable to interference maybe the way the photon was scattered had some different effect on the outcome.

This is patently false. The computer you're using is an easy counter-example.

Yes but this is only recently and only in a very small way. There has been a lot of theorizing in the last few decades but we are still a long way off making a complete quantum computer. Besides I am not saying that quantum physics cannot be applied to the real world. I am saying that there is a large part of quantum physics that is not understood and at present it conflicts with classical physics ie with relativity and gravity. WE will either have to find some way of uniting the different worlds or have to revise some of our fundementalunderstandings in physics.

Why trust him more than any other expert?

I dont trust him more than other experts. BUt he does have extensive knowledge and understanding of quantum physics enough to understand how the quantum world points to something beyond the material world. Most physistssupport the oberver effect but they disagree on what it represents. That is the nature of quantum physics and this is my point.

Just like other ideas that some scientists promote like multiverses, dark matter, and worm holes are debated and there is diagreement it is the same with consciousness. So I cannot see the issue of including consciousness as one of the ideas that may come from quantum physics. It does not mean it has been verified, it just means that it can be one of the ideas that we can consider that may answer what we see.

And more importantly, why haven't you posted a link to his peer-reviewed scientific work on the subject?

I did several times. I dont think you followed it up as the link was in the article "The strange link between quantum physics and the brain" which was based on Wheelers delayed choice experiement. Anyway here it is and also his "Participatory Anthropic Principle".
The “Past” and the “Delayed-Choice” Double-Slit Experiment
Choice” Double-Slit Experiment - Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory - The “Past” and the “Delayed

“Participatory Anthropic Principle”

Here is an update of the experiment
Photons denied a glimpse of their observer
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/feb/15/photons-denied-a-glimpse-of-their-observer

 

[Eudaimonist]

How can the observer effect happen without an observer.

Have you ever used a camera? Did you ever try taking a photo with your eyes closed? Do you think that it wouldn't work?

The camera, even a security camera taping an empty building, is an observer.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Rivga]

Have you ever used a camera? Did you ever try taking a photo with your eyes closed? Do you think that it wouldn't work?

Or Look at the evidence left behind, I mean the police don't have to see the attack to know a person lying on the floor with a knife sticking out of their chest has been stabbed.

Or you come to a tree that has fallen,
Man kind have witnessed this before - what could it be
1) Wind
2) something large knocked it down
3) tree died a while back and it has finally fallen
etc

We can test for the 3 above things -
1) was it windy last few days, if so was the wind fast enough to down a tree
2) Is there tracks that would lead us to believe a large animal/vehicle was around
3) Has the tree been dead for a while

What we don't do is say - I don't know and I am not going to bother reasoning what it could be as I have a stock answer - God did it.

Events leave evidence, if a certain thing is true there will always be some signs - Big bang - cosmic microwave background radiation
Evolution by natural selection - Vestigial Organs

 

[Tinker Grey]

Or Look at the evidence left behind, I mean the police don't have to see the attack to know a person lying on the floor with a knife sticking out of their chest has been stabbed.

Or you come to a tree that has fallen,
Man kind have witnessed this before - what could it be
1) Wind
2) something large knocked it down
3) tree died a while back and it has finally fallen
etc

We can test for the 3 above things -
1) was it windy last few days, if so was the wind fast enough to down a tree
2) Is there tracks that would lead us to believe a large animal/vehicle was around
3) Has the tree been dead for a while

What we don't do is say - I don't know and I am not going to bother reasoning what it could be as I have a stock answer - God did it.

Events leave evidence, if a certain thing is true there will always be some signs - Big bang - cosmic microwave background radiation
Evolution by natural selection - Vestigial Organs

I don't disagree with you are saying but I don't think it relevant to Observer effect - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Rivga]

I don't disagree with you are saying but I don't think it relevant to Observer effect - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are correct - I have spent too much time in the Evolution vs Creation but and just continued that debate.

 

[stevevw]

Have you ever used a camera? Did you ever try taking a photo with your eyes closed? Do you think that it wouldn't work?

The camera, even a security camera taping an empty building, is an observer.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The quantum world is different. The double split experiment has verified quantum weirdness of a particle acting like a wave or a solid particle and it is only when it is measured that it becomes a particle. If we applied this to the macro world when we took the picture without looking we would find waves. We cannot understand how the quantum world is applied to the macro world but we know that everything is made up of it wheen we get down to the micro level. So maybe there is something that allows us to see what we see that we don't understand yet. Maybe there is more to what we see that is hidden from our macro vision. They have found that birds use quantum theory to navigate the earth through its magnetic field. Birds measure magnetic fields using long-lived quantum coherence - physicsworld.com

They have now done a test similar to the double split that tests beyond the quantum particle level and this still shows the same weirdness as in the quantum world.

Quantum Weirdness Has Been Tested Beyond The Particle Scale For The First Time
Researchers from the Universities of Vienna and Tel Aviv have recently collaborated on turning a two-decade old idea into a reality, replacing tiny particles with large organic molecules in a variation on Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer's classic 1927 double slit experiment in order to test the limits of a law governing their behaviour.
Quantum Weirdness Has Been Tested Beyond The Particle Scale For The First Time

Physicists Smash Record For Wave-Particle Duality
Researchers have observed quantum superposition in molecules containing around 5000 protons, 5000 neutrons and 5000 electrons
Physicists Smash Record For Wave-Particle Duality – The Physics arXiv Blog – Medium

 

[Eudaimonist]

The quantum world is different.

What does this have to do with the issue of observers?

Our eyes register photons just as scientific measuring devices register photons. There's nothing less "quantum" about either process.

There is nothing about the premise "quantum stuff is weird" that leads to the conclusion that only conscious observers collapse wave functions, especially when scientists make so much use of non-conscious mechanical observation devices to take measurements.

Do you think that physicists at CERN must have conscious persons stationed in the complex during every experiment, being told not to blink or they will ruin the experiment?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

Of course it does. An observer is a conscious being.

Not in the paper I posted.

maybe the way the photon was scattered had some different effect on the outcome.

Like I said, I need more than maybe to reject peer-reviewed scientific results.

There has been a lot of theorizing in the last few decades but we are still a long way off making a complete quantum computer.

I think you're missing the point. Normal everyday computers are a perfect example of quantum effects linking with the everyday world.

I did several times. I dont think you followed it up as the link was in the article "The strange link between quantum physics and the brain" which was based on Wheelers delayed choice experiement.

For some reason he fails to mention consciousness in the abstract of the first paper and there's no mention of it in the second link either. Seems weird to leave such an important part of the result out. In fact, the first abstract talks about using an unconscious detector to observe the experiment. Are you sure you linked the correct paper?