Religion Vs. Philisophy

I watched a short video from a Brian Greene video on the double-slit experiment, I didn't see anything that contradicted the link I posted but I'm probably not going to go check out the book anytime soon or lose sleep over this.

To the colored part. NO, this is a mistake on your part...

Observer does not necessarily equal Conscious Observer. An Observer here can be a measuring device, this is subtle but then it makes the way you writing this disingenuous (perhaps not intentionally) to what the poster said. I don't know anything about his or her background in philosophy, so seems like might be a rush to judgement to call everyone who interprets the findings in such a way a materialist.

I'm pretty much a laymen on this stuff, particularly in regards to the formulas, so for all I know maybe it could be that mainstream scientists are clinging onto certain things which may not be properly representative of the phenomena, but you present this stuff as if it's a knockdown argument and it doesn't seem like the consensus view among what I'll assume are knowledgeable people in QM. I'd like to appeal to the ideas here on HF but I also enjoy to do my own research on this fascinating stuff, admittedly I don't attempt to seek a lot of alternative non-mainstream sources because I have the perception that a lot of them are pseudoscience, so when I'm grasping to understand some of these ideas, simple mistakes in this context like conflating an Observer with a Conscious Observer makes it more difficult for me to follow what you say.

 

Do you have a link?

 

Definitely agree. Scientists downright REFUSE to acknowledge anything that resembles Magick, which is what would be happening if they acknowledged the role of the Conscious Observer.

I even tried to create an account yesterday on the Physics Forum that guerilla posted and mentioned the word Magician one time in regards to Quantum activity and i instantly got banned from the forum …this is how deep-seated Scientists can't handle that realm.

 

With how well developed the stuff is maybe they saw you as a troll, luckily some forums are more forgiving.

 

If i'm understanding this correct is that Scientists have let go of a Conscious Observer playing a role in the outcome, according to the article. So what point exactly are you trying to make regarding Observer vs. Conscious Observer?

 

That an Observer is still an integral part of the experiment.

 

Ok but a non-conscious Observer isn't quite the same as a Conscious Observer. And it was the article that first suggested the notion of Scientists giving up on an Observer. Mountain Valley Wolf was re-iterating that. And I believe that yes what was meant is that Scientists have given up on the notion of a Conscious Observer.

 

No, not the same..

 

Yes, we know this. Just don't understand what point that you're making still. The article and you are making the same point, and that's that Scientists have long ago let go of a Conscious Observer playing a role (even though I completely disagree with that myself). Mountain Valley Wolf re-iterated this, and i just don't understand why you're nitpicking how he worded it.

 

And ultimately, a Conscious Observer still has to observe the recordings of a non-conscious observer. So it's still quantum free-for-all until the Conscious Observer steps in. This can't be escaped.

 

Not my problem, the discrepancy made here seems plainly obvious. But if you don't understand, maybe you should think twice before you're lampooning on mainstream science on stuff like this.

 

I'm asking you to explain what your point is.

 

The first sentence is true, but it is a truism. The second sentence is exactly the notion that the poster is suggesting QM scientists have given up.

 

http://www.hipforums.com/forum/topic/471954-religion-vs-philisophy/?p=7825828

 

Well it's not giving up anything. it's still a fact that when the Conscious Observer steps in, that's where it matters.

But it even looks here that a non-conscious Observer still effects the outcome. The difference is that a non-conscious Observer doesn't have any conscious Will. Either way, an observer is changing the outcome. If Scientists embraced Magick, they might find that the Conscious Observer may even be able to decide the outcome.

Another question I have is if they have two different instruments that measure either wave or particle, why couldn't it be that it is indeed both simultaneously? Why don't they make an instrument that can measure if it's both, rather than one instrument for one and one instrument for the other?

 

Ok so then you are disagreeing with the article that you yourself posted? Whether it's a Conscious Observer or non-conscious Observer, either way, it's still effecting the outcome.

 

Yeah, most of mainstream America had little or no awareness of Eastern thought or spirituality until the Beatles started talking about it.

 

No I am not disagreeing with the article because as I am understanding it, the Conscious Observer has no role in the experiment.

It's pretty difficult to relate Quantum Mechanics to our ordinary experience of reality but I'll try to provide an analogy...

If there is a double-blind experiment on a novel drug and the researcher who is recording the results doesn't have access to whether the patient received a placebo or a treatment, we wouldn't say that we can't say the patient ingested a placebo/treatment until after the experiment and the researcher finds out what the patient was given. The reality is the patient ingested one or the other and the uncertainty is due to the available information that the researcher currently has at his or her disposal. The researcher solidfying the results in their notebook doesn't change the experiment.

 

If a non-conscious Observer plays a role in the outcome then why wouldn't a Conscious Observer?

 

A worthy Science-Magick experiment would be to take a so-called Mage and have him do a ritual and DECIDE which outcome he wants to see show up more often, and then have him present during the process, and measure what the results are.