Criticism of the Quantum Mechanics Video I found on reddit

[abrakamowse]

[Nahm]

@abrakamowse and there it is!

 

(isn’t)

[abrakamowse]

@Nahm That's what materialist will never "see"  .... 

[Nahm]

@abrakamowse I used to be one.  That red pill is really somethin! Now I am One! Lol 

brings to mind.....

Light can never be found in the dark, light can only be found in the dark.

[abrakamowse]

@Nahm  We all were one of those. That red pill is so powerful, seems like Maya or Ishvara

hahaha...

[Elisabeth]

On 26. 3. 2018 at 2:03 PM, Leo Gura said:

@Elisabeth

Lol, a detector cannot click without you being conscious of it!

Unless you are conscious, reality doesn't exist. The detector only exists in your consciousness.

You are attempting to do science without being mindful that it is happening inside YOU! You cannot isolate the experiment from you.

Consciousness isn't a term. Consciousness is the only thing you got to work with, if you actually take a look at reality rather than spinning stories.

Science is a story. You can stop spinning it at any moment. It is not ultimately true.

1

 

@Leo Gura Well, I'm not sure I was talking on that level. I was pointing out that the "delayed choice quantum erraser" experiment doesn't necessarily denounce objective reality (in any more convincing way than the rest of QM).

All I have of reality is perceptions. Yes, the detector is just in my consciousness. Is there an "objective reality", an outside world, to which these perceptions point?  The west leans yes. You say no. I don't know. 

I think I can see how science is a story, and I trust you it's possible to realize on a much deeper level. I can more or less move back and forth between concepts and just observation. But it's what I do when I meditate, and (obviously) not what I do when I'm doing the math. 

I did like you QM videos, especially the beginning of the second one, where you read the quotes. I found my current understanding resonates with Bohr very much.  

So anyway either what I'm describing with the science-story is an outside world, or it's some (surprisingly consistent) content of consciousness (as @Outer sais). The people who interpret the delayed choice experiment in a shocking way say it's the knowledge of a human observer that changes reality to what it is. (Note that here "consciousness"=!human mind! , a mind that is still separated from the system - which to me seems nonsensical even within the framework you present.)

Btw. to those interested in the experiment @lmfao,   I've read more of the article I've linked before. The video commits a rather serious misinterpretation, as it makes you think there's actually interference visible on the "signal" (D1) detector. According to the math in the article, there's not. It's just the correlations done later (and I don't understand how they are done yet, I might have to look into that to understand the issue fully) that have fringes.

Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed about that. 

Edited March 28, 2018 by Elisabeth

[daramantus]

On 3/28/2018 at 10:23 AM, Elisabeth said:

@Leo Gura Well, I'm not sure I was talking on that level. I was pointing out that the "delayed choice quantum erraser" experiment doesn't necessarily denounce objective reality (in any more convincing way than the rest of QM).

All I have of reality is perceptions. Yes, the detector is just in my consciousness. Is there an "objective reality", an outside world, to which these perceptions point?  The west leans yes. You say no. I don't know. 

I think I can see how science is a story, and I trust you it's possible to realize on a much deeper level. I can more or less move back and forth between concepts and just observation. But it's what I do when I meditate, and (obviously) not what I do when I'm doing the math. 

I did like you QM videos, especially the beginning of the second one, where you read the quotes. I found my current understanding resonates with Bohr very much.  

So anyway either what I'm describing with the science-story is an outside world, or it's some (surprisingly consistent) content of consciousness (as @Outer sais). The people who interpret the delayed choice experiment in a shocking way say it's the knowledge of a human observer that changes reality to what it is. (Note that here "consciousness"=!human mind! , a mind that is still separated from the system - which to me seems nonsensical even within the framework you present.)

Btw. to those interested in the experiment @lmfao,   I've read more of the article I've linked before. The video commits a rather serious misinterpretation, as it makes you think there's actually interference visible on the "signal" (D1) detector. According to the math in the article, there's not. It's just the correlations done later (and I don't understand how they are done yet, I might have to look into that to understand the issue fully) that have fringes.

Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed about that. 

oh rly? tell us how is it like to have a detector in your consciousness? You can have ideas, can have thoughts, etc, which are personal and subjective for you and no one anymore. A detector is NOT in your consciousness, it is outside of your consciousness and for this reason you can see what others can see too, it's called shared reality, which proves objective reality, it's static, it's there, it's outside of you. What Leo preaches is 100% utterly lie. He wants to push to the fallacious side, the deeper he is debunked the deeper he pushes to a fallacy, that way he will never lose an argument. He is a fraud. Reality is objective and there's nothing that can even refute that. The reason we can communicate via internet it's because of this fact. Just learn to deal with it, everything is outside of your consciousness, EVERYTHING

[daramantus]

On 3/26/2018 at 9:03 AM, Leo Gura said:

@Elisabeth  ̶L̶o̶l̶,̶ ̶a̶ ̶d̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶o̶r̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶c̶l̶i̶c̶k̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶b̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶i̶t̶!̶ BS [the detector is there without you beng conscious of it. there it wasn't there there wouldnt be nothing for you to be conscious of to begin with, you blatant liar]

 ̶U̶n̶l̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶,̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶d̶o̶e̶s̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶e̶x̶i̶s̶t̶.̶ [ You mean, would be cool if reality didnt exist when we were not conscious, but it does. Also, can you define reality for us? I think you can't, you don't even understand what it means]

 ̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶d̶e̶t̶e̶c̶t̶o̶r̶ ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶e̶x̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶n̶e̶s̶s̶.̶ [This is totally ridiculous, how is is like to have a detector in your consciousness? Does that even make sense? Do you even understand the nonsense you're on?

You are attempting to do science without being mindful that it is  ̶h̶a̶p̶p̶e̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶i̶n̶s̶i̶d̶e̶ ̶you [No, it's not, and the reason you're telling somebody that is outside of you already proves this is a lie. 

 ̶Y̶o̶u̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶o̶l̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶i̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶f̶r̶o̶m̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶.̶ [Yes you can and now you're isolated from it, you're not in a lab.]

 ̶Co̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶a̶ ̶t̶e̶r̶m̶.̶ ̶C̶o̶n̶s̶c̶i̶o̶u̶s̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶g̶o̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶w̶o̶r̶k̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶,̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶a̶c̶t̶u̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶t̶a̶k̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶l̶o̶o̶k̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶r̶a̶t̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶n̶ ̶s̶p̶i̶n̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶s̶t̶o̶r̶i̶e̶s̶.̶
̶S̶c̶i̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶t̶o̶r̶y̶.̶ ̶Y̶o̶u̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶s̶t̶o̶p̶ ̶s̶p̶i̶n̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶m̶o̶m̶e̶n̶t̶.̶ ̶I̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶u̶l̶t̶i̶m̶a̶t̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶t̶r̶u̶e̶.̶ [Meaningless babble]

 

[daramantus]

On 3/28/2018 at 10:23 AM, Elisabeth said:

@Leo Gura Well, I'm not sure I was talking on that level. I was pointing out that the "delayed choice quantum erraser" experiment doesn't necessarily denounce objective reality (in any more convincing way than the rest of QM).

All I have of reality is perceptions. Yes, the detector is just in my consciousness. Is there an "objective reality", an outside world, to which these perceptions point?  The west leans yes. You say no. I don't know. 

I think I can see how science is a story, and I trust you it's possible to realize on a much deeper level. I can more or less move back and forth between concepts and just observation. But it's what I do when I meditate, and (obviously) not what I do when I'm doing the math. 

I did like you QM videos, especially the beginning of the second one, where you read the quotes. I found my current understanding resonates with Bohr very much.  

So anyway either what I'm describing with the science-story is an outside world, or it's some (surprisingly consistent) content of consciousness (as @Outer sais). The people who interpret the delayed choice experiment in a shocking way say it's the knowledge of a human observer that changes reality to what it is. (Note that here "consciousness"=!human mind! , a mind that is still separated from the system - which to me seems nonsensical even within the framework you present.)

Btw. to those interested in the experiment @lmfao,   I've read more of the article I've linked before. The video commits a rather serious misinterpretation, as it makes you think there's actually interference visible on the "signal" (D1) detector. According to the math in the article, there's not. It's just the correlations done later (and I don't understand how they are done yet, I might have to look into that to understand the issue fully) that have fringes.

Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed about that. 

You didn't answer me. What do you mean by detector in your consciousness?

[Nahm]

1 hour ago, daramantus said:

You didn't answer me. What do you mean by detector in your consciousness?

Still haven’t looked?

[SQAAD]

On 18/3/2018 at 10:25 PM, Dino D said:

 

First person experience is subjective, and nod valid at all. Some people experience being a bird, or that someone spys on them (schizophrenia).

 

All experience is subjective . 

Do you know any experience that is NOT first person?