Is The Uncertainty Principle Incompatible With Determinism?

Weird.

 

Yes, and for those people, the concept of Dinosaur never existed. For us, Dinosaurs do exist, because we became conscious of their existence.

Gravity as a concept never existed prior to Newton. He decided to give it a name, though, and thus, with language, created it into existence. Yes if you tripped down the stairs prior to Newton being alive, you would still fall, but there was no notion yet of the concept of Gravity. And falling still requires Conscious Observation. You can't prove that anything falls without observing it.

 

I don't see what's so out there about any of this.

We needed Consciousness in order to observe that Dinosaurs ever existed, and when we discovered it, we discovered it with our Consciousness in the Now.

Dinosaurs also needed Consciousness to ever exist, and when they existed, they existed in the Now.

Neither us nor Dinosaurs nor our discovery of their existence can exist without the primacy of CONSCIOUSNESS, and both our discovery of them and their existence happened in the Now. I'm getting tired of typing so I'm logging off.

But it's not super complicated.

Check out the Alain Aspect experiment of 1982, the Nicolus Gisin experiments of 1997, and I'll post this link again, all supporting the idea that Non-Locality is the substance of all physical reality. This doesn't necessarily prove that all is non-local Consciousness, but it's definitely a step in that direction, and if it turns out that Non-Locality is more Macrocosmic than we thought, then that's definitely another huge step in the supporting of the existence of Magick. This argument towards relativistic non-locality is argued here. http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v10/n4/pdf/nphys2916.pdf ...what's also argued in this link is that Non-Locality and Non-Determinism should be the foundational axioms of Quantum Mechanics.

 

OH EXCUSE ME!

I thought this whole time you were talking about actual existence in the universe, I was not aware we were only discussing conceptual existence. Silly me!

 

Is Consciousness present for humans? Yes or no?

Was Consciousness present during the discovery of Dinosaurs? Yes or no?

Based off of our discoveries, which happens with Consciousness present, was Consciousness present for the existence of Dinosaurs? Yes or no?

Was Consciousness present during the discovery of Gravity? Yes or no?

 

From a conceptual standpoint, every one of those questions can be Yes or No.


I read the abstract by the way and I must admit, I found it very interesting. I'm not sure that I see how it relates much to non-local Consciousness, however it is the first time I've heard of "Super-Quantum" ideas and I don't fully understand some of the ideas. Although I think some of the info is relevant to this thread..

"Bits" from wikipedia on quantum non locality :

 

Yeah I would argue it argues more for Non-Locality than specifically Non-Local Consciousness, but either of them are arguments towards Magick in my opinion. But i won't say that word again on this thread so i don't get yelled at for being off topic.

 

I want to elaborate on this point more.

Such as with the concept of Gravity, even before Newton decided to call it that, the argument that was being made on this forum was that Gravity still existed prior to our naming of it. I would agree with this. But even prior to the naming of Gravity, Consciousness is still side by side with the experience of Gravity, all the way back to any organism in early times. But there was no such concept of Gravity, so it didn't really exist.

And it couldn't ever exist without being conscious of its existence.

It's like if some aspect of reality were ever-present right now, I'll call it Wida, but we haven't discovered it yet even though it's ever-present in our reality and Consciousness. We have no sense in giving it a name until it's discovered further into the future, and so it essentially doesn't exist. We have to give it a name to actually give it some sort of existence. And even more important than calling it a name, we have to beam our Consciousness onto it.

But before we gave it a name, during the naming, and after, Consciousness is still present.

So since we create our world and culture through our language, something doesn't really exist until it comes into our Consciousness. Many people on this Earth would argue that since there's no evidence in our Consciousness of E.T'S, that they don't actually exist. Correct?

 

Prior to naming it, the concept of gravity did not exist but all animals of Earth preceding this were still bound by the phenomena of gravity.

I agree in one sense, in another I disagree. We use language to communicate, so in order to talk about anything there is going to be a nominal component, which is the conceptual element of existence and fair enough. However there can also be things which actually exist, that our finite body and finite ~1250 cc brains simply do not understand. Perhaps the most notable current example in science of this would be Dark Matter/Dark Energy. The nominal 'dark' adjective here is basically conceding ignorance and saying "we do not understand" so that really doesn't get us anywhere in suggesting what the existence of this "stuff" is, however it's almost assuredly a multitude of different "stuff" that has actual existence and scientists know this based on the effects it has on other things in the cosmos, which we do have a better understanding. So this is a situation where the observations being made are not on the phenomena that we want to understand, it's indirect, in a loosely related way kind of like some of the QM stuff. I don't see Conscious Observation as anything more than a truism for necessity in acknowledging the existence of some of this phenomena.

Then you're losing me again on the E.T's example, a few posts ago you contended to IRQ42 something to the effect that part of the way he is conscious of the effects of gravity is that he saw it in movies, well E.T's are in movies as well, so why does that not account for evidence in our Consciousness now?

To entertain the notion though, Unless one ascribes to Ancient Aliens manipulating human events, it's a vastly different scenario then that of gravity, much more similar to the dinosaur example, although dwarfs the scale as not only perhaps separated by time but, perhaps separated by planets, perhaps solar systems, perhaps galaxies. The view on this is based again on our finite limitations, including others such as limited ability to traverse the cosmos, not simply due to the ignorance of Universal laws as was the case for gravity. But regardless of the conceptual worldview, E.T's actually do or don't exist.

 

Yes but even with animals, they had to have the consciousness of falling to know the existence of gravity. Gravity couldn't exist without some sort of Consciousness that's aware of it.

I can dig what you're saying. I just mean that even with Dark Matter, we still had to become conscious of it to even call it that name.

Ultimately I can't prove what I'm saying to be true. There's no way to actually prove that something is or isn't there if you're not aware of it. But I will say that Consciousness IS always present for the discovery of every phenomena. So in this sense, it's hard to say that something exists outside of observing it.

Anyway, there are Quantum Scientists who agree with me. I mean I thought that this was the crux of QM anyway, is that something can't exist outside of observing it? Or that just must be one perspective on it?

 

From my understanding, your interpretation is not without precedent but this is the prevailing understanding of observation in QM.

 

Are you saying that the quote from me is the prevailing understanding or the quote from IRQ? IRQ, right? Just want to clarify.

I just still feel that the knowing and Consciousness cast upon recorded information is what itself DEFINES it as recorded information. Until Consciousness is thrown at it, it's non-manifest.There would be no sense of the big bang without looking into the telescope and having that observation. I don't know, we can change the subject though because we might just go in circles with this. But it's up to you. That's just how I feel about it.

 

IRQ

 

So what is the recorder of this information if it's not Consciousness?

And of what use is this recording with a Conscious Observer?

 

Umm.. A recording instrument??

I suppose To better understand aspects of reality. Analogous In a way to a time clock which can inform an employer that their employees are at work, without having to consciously observe them for their entire shift.

 

I'm going to make the point one last time. The recording instrument was designed and used by beings that are Conscious Observers. So it's always going to go back to that. But let's move on from going in circles on this...

 

lots of things are recording instruments per se that werent designed by humans. Any system that is capable of changing its state upon interaction with another system or event has just recorded information about the event; it has been recorded as the current state of the system. These systems can be totally inanimate, and created via natural processes, no sentient inventor involved. Causality and its preservation come into play here.

 

Which means nothing without a Conscious Observer to understand that...

 

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it invalid.

 

You keep posing the questions

Not everyone uses fluffy semantics like you.