Is The Uncertainty Principle Incompatible With Determinism?

I feel that Solipsism proves itself in your own life. Doesn't mean that life is only Solipsism. But I do feel that subjective experience is half of the equation. Quite literally, in actuality, I am unable to prove that anything exists outside of me, since the moment I die, my entire world is gone for all that i know. The same is true of "everyone else".

Now, I don't really hold too tightly onto this, because it borders on Schizophrenia to do so. But I do feel that certain principles of Solipsism play a role into the Quantum discussion. It seems that the act of Consciousness is what allows an experience to exist. Quite literally, nobody can know that something exists without it being within their own field of Consciousness.

Regarding the Quantum Computers, how far off do you think we are from that just out of curiosity?

 

Yeah. I feel that it gets Schizophrenic if you have the notion that you're more important, but also feel that in actuality that you can't prove that anything exists outside of you. Might as well assume that it's not just you, however, but it can't ultimately be proven.

I feel that it's a paradox where it's all actually the exact same singular Consciousness for everyone, and yet, since it's so infinite, you as an incarnate being can still go through the experience of not actually being able to prove that anyone exists outside of you. But it's like that for everyone even in my own world, so i may as well not ponder too deeply whether I am the only one to exist or not.

But this "I" may be the same "I" as everyone else ultimately. So in that sense, Solipsism could be valid. But this is kind of a side-bar post.

 

But isn't even the act of setting up a controlled environment already showing how the Observer is effecting the outcome?

 

i'm not reading 18 pages
uncertainty has to do with simultaneous dual nature of subatomic particles which cannot be scoped with our present cyclotrons - thus they can be particals or waves - thus it has nothing to do with determination

this bullshit that the observer changes the observed when pertaining to subatomic particles is a thought game and nothing more

 

We must take the existence of other sentient beings on faith. It's no wonder it's so easy to take God on faith, God just being one more sentient being we can't immediately experience in order to verify first hand.

We can't be perfectly scientific, because we have to make this one assumption: that our consciousness isn't in fact God itself, creating everything we experience. In science, results must be verified, but, technically, we have no way to verify whether anything is being verified. Quite simply, we take it all for granted. But the real matter I think we're getting at with this solipsism is, how does taking everything for granted effect our attitude towards the real nature of reality? Because maybe the real nature isn't that I am the only being that exists, but is the real nature something we can take for granted, as we are training ourselves to do? Perhaps we collectively have the wrong attitude towards reality. I don't think there's any way to have the right attitude, because I don't believe in solipsism, but I don't believe in making assumptions, either.

People will just say, "Give me a break. It's not an assumption. There's no way your mind could be creating reality." But honestly, how do they know that? Why should there be anything but my mind? Isn't it in accordance with Occam's Razor that I should only assume my mind exists?

I hate it when people act like they own reality. You do not reserve the right to call this interpretation of quantum physics bullshit. Your opinion, if not supported by evidence, is worthless.

 

So all the Quantum Physicists who do assert this are just incorrect? It's really just stubborn to act like this. I've posted multiple crucial studies already and there are plenty of books written by Quantum Physicists who think contrary to you.

It may not be the most popular notion by Scientists but that's because we live in a Materialist society that is ignoring certain aspects of Quantum Physics.

 

Yeah, I mean i feel that Solipsism on a subjective level can't help but to be true but it can still intersect with the notion that all is one non-local Consciousness...nobody exists but YOU but YOU and everything else are one thing. This breaks down the barriers of inner and outer and still accounts for both and doesn't distort the Ego's sense of being the only and most important.

 

i went through the cult of physics and patanjali 's third pada and the notion of conscious being the unified field - yet, there is no proof of unified field and now instead of four fundemental force fields scientists think there are 6 including dark matter and dark energy - plus one theorists posits that there is antigravity such that the faster something falls a counter gravity slows it

this paradign of spiritual equating with THEORY is doubly incorrect

 

Some Scientists also have a theory of Consciousness being the foundation of reality as opposed to Matter. Not just Patanjali.

This attitude that anything Spiritual can't equate with Scientific theory is the flaw of mainstream materialist Science, and is dogmatic and close-minded.

 

I can already present to you famous experiments that have been done in regards to non-local interaction of Consciousness between human beings and one experiment showed non-local interaction over the span of 12 miles. In fact, I already mentioned it on this page, so find that post of mine. On a quantum scale, 12 miles is gigantic. Why simply ignore this and call this bullshit? If non-local interaction is possible then why the hell is it outrageous to think that the Observer plays a role?

I really am dumbfounded that something such as Consciousness is so resisted to playing ANY part at all. Take the tests done that show a plant being put in the same control settings as another and one gets insulted while the other gets compliments of love. What happens is that the insulted plant turns out to shrivel and die while the one that gets complimented flourishes. Another example of the conscious Observer playing a role.

There are also studies done that I can dig up that show how more often than not, someone can tell that someone is looking at them from behind. Usually, when someone can tell they are being watched, they get insecure in some fashion. Can human emotions not be broken down to subatomic particles?

 

Not exactly, you're just isolating variables to exclude effects that would obscure results. It's the reason experiments are set up with control groups.

 

Thanks for taking the time in that exhaustive explanation. After your explanation, modular addition makes some sense to me, I won't respond right now because I'll need to dedicate some attention to it in regards to the paper and I have other priorities at the moment, but as these threads tend to stray, I think it's good to keep this here in one post for reference.


http://www.hipforums.com/forum/topic/470013-is-the-uncertainty-principle-incompatible-with-determinism/?p=7833086

and add the link to the abstract as well so I don't need to dig for that.

http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v10/n4/pdf/nphys2916.pdf

 

I'll add something I left out, not sure how relevant it is outside of computing, but generally when a register overflows, the CPU has another register called the flags register, each bit being a flag, and an integer overflow usually results in the overflow flag in that register being set (so the extra bit can be accounted for, and by using another machine word (which isn't an atomic operation) you can store the larger value, but this AFAIK this only really is useful in the case of bit shift operations, or just to test for whether or not an overflow has in fact occurred. The actually accumulator register though can only store a fixed amount of bits, single bits cannot be read or set, i.e the smallest atomic operation is an operation on a machine word, which is the width of the processor register (to do so requires using a bitmask and bitwise logical operations). So even storing the value unsigned value '1' in a 16 bit register will have 15 leading zeroes (it will be zero extended, through using an opcode such as MOVZX) ... if it were signed it would be extended with the sign bit, or extended with ones due to two's complement bit model with signed integers.

Do you have a link to that full paper? ... I kinda like collecting things like that on my hard drive. I don't always have the time to read all them in their entirety (some are quite long and go way over my head, and I have way too many academic books of several hundred pages each to ever read anytime soon) but I usually get around to it eventually and get the gist of it. I don't mind reading a 30 page or so paper though, that's nothing.

 

I attempted to send the full paper to your inbox. I believe I got it all, except there are like a couple cartoon illustrations that may not have copied, but I don't think they are really necessary.

You can create a free account below the abstract link as well.

 

I read it, I need to make a note to self to not slack on my math. I did for many years and my math skills suffered as a result. I must practice math every now and then, math is very important in every STEM field.

 

just because there was one or even a million experiments done which show correlation between consciousness and unified field don't matter because unified field hasn't been proven - it's just a subset of physical theory - also what does it matter? it has no existential finality

look into dzogchen

 

you're confusing intuition with scientific law

from dao of physics to the million other books making facile comparisons
again, and i argue this always - they sound good
they might be true
but they are not proof, and they are not science
but they sell books

they are like fudruckers hamburgers of physical theory
a hamburger is meat and garnish and buns and condiments
not a smorgasboard
the best hamburgers start simple with quality ingredients cooked to perfection

 

Neither is the Theory of Evolution necessarily proof. Scientists don't even know what Dark Energy is. Scientific theories that are more mainstream don't necessarily equal proof either, however they do prove how collectively agreed upon notions on the nature of reality essentially create that collective reality, such as our Materialist world-view and life.

 

And the data from the studies that I have mentioned isn't intuition, but data.

 

you want you own answer - but all that means is you don't care about real ansswers - gointo the science and prove something - you're like a girl pretending to have a cock