/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2485686
>The digital pressure gauge is doing the observation, not you
Get this guy a nobel prize...

His knowledge is way past all other sceintific knowledge.

>>2450549
>You're just making shit up without supporting it

I don`t need to supporting any claim here, all my sentences were self-evident on thier own.

>>2437009

i`m gonne go listen to Hayley Williams.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FC8KhMpJvI

>>2437009

Yes, the collapse of particles in it`s wave form is ultimately caused by an intelligent observer.

The idea a wave pattern is collapsed by a so called scientific "observalbe"(which could be any material) is a common misconception.

Yes, the collapse of particles in it`s wave form is ultimately caused by an intelligent observer.

The idea a wave pattern is collapsed by a so called scientific "observalbe"(which could be any material) is a common misconception.

Yes, the collapse of particles in it`s wave form is ultimately caused by an intelligent observer.

The idea a wave pattern is collapsed by a so called scientific "observalbe"(which could be any material) is a common misconception.

>>2358023

Yes, the collapse of particles in it`s wave form is ultimately caused by an intelligent observer.

The idea a wave pattern is collapses by a so called scientific "observalbe"(which could be any material) is a common misconception.

>>2358023

Yes, the collapse of particles in it`s wave form is ultimately caused by an intelligent obser.

The idea a wave pattern is collapses by a so called scientific "observalbe"(which could be any material) is a common misconception.

>>2358023

Yes, the collapse of particles is ultimately coused by intelligent observation.

The idea a wave pattern is collapces by a so called scientific "observalbe"(which could be any material) is a common misconception.

>>2254848

>>2254848

that`s my whole point, because i can`t say i AM a actual human.
I must say a am the appearance of a human, this makes it a rock solid statement.

Even if i`m actually just a tree; I`m still the appearance of human too, as part of that existance.

even if i`m not real at all i`m still the appearance of a human, although not a real human.

i`ve been thinking alot about who/what i am so yea.

>>2254848

that`s my whole point, i because i can`t say i AM a human. i must say a am the appearance of a human, this is a rock solid statement.

Even if i`m actually am just a tree; I`m still the appearance of human too, as part of that existance.

even if i`m not real at all i`m still the appearance of a human, although not a real human.

1/4
Why do all of you guys keep denying that souls do exist ?
Even with strong (scientific) indications for it.

You are probebly the same guys ruling out the possibility of a god and free will.
Did you guys even read a sceintific article scince the late 70`s ? ? ?

First of all lets see how a soul can be defied...
A dictionary will tell how the word soul is commonly used and what people exacly mean when referring to it.
We see the word has many meanings.
The idea of a soul is deeply rooted in society becaus it is a fundemantal part of christianity, judaism and islam.

I like this defenition most:

soul (s??l)
1. the spirit or immaterial part of man

So whenever i use the word soul in this thread i mean:
>soul = immaterial part of a human/ other being.

1/4
Why do all of you guys keep denying that souls do exist ?
Even with strong (scientific) indications for it.

You are probebly the same guys ruling out the possibility of a god and free will.
Did you guys even read a sceintific article scince the late 70`s ? ? ?

First of all lets see how a soul can be defied...
A dictionary will tell how the word soul is commonly used and what people exacly mean when referring to it.
We see the word has many meanings.
The idea of a soul is deeply rooted in society becaus it is a fundemantal part of christianity, judaism and islam.

I like this defenition most:

soul (s??l)
1. the spirit or immaterial part of man

So whenever i use the word soul in this thread i mean:
>soul = immaterial part of a human/ other being.

1/2
Particles are effected by observation of an intelligent being, period

I am not here to agree a consensus on what coases the wave form of particles to collapse. And don`t claim to know all about the sceince of quantum mechanics.
I`m just repeating what prominent sceintists already concluded.
So if you self-declared QM specialists think it`s a rediculous idea, faggory, new age bullshit, popsceince, impossible, should kill myself etc... just contact these prominent researchers in stead of ruining this thread.

Pretty much all quantum physicist think copenhagen interpretation (which implies an immaterial element of an intelligent obeserver) is most likely.
Because that`s where modern QM is based on.

[citations]
>According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997[7], the Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics, followed by the many-worlds interpretation.
>Wigner designed a though experiment to illustrate that consciousness is necessary to the quantum mechanical measurement process.
>it is an extension of the Schrödinger's cat experiment
[/citations]

Pretty much all quantum physicist think copenhagen interpretation (which implies an immaterial element of an intelligent obeserver) is most likely.
Because that`s where modern QM is based on.

They prefere to ignore the subject of what causes a particle in it`s wave to become a solid particle.
This because they want to be taken seriously be as much people as possible and don`t want thier findings to be abused by new-age scam and people who`ll not understand it and blow things up.

Schrödinger's cat though experiment is just a though experiment so we can visualize how different interpretations of QM work.
>The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies(or suggests) that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when we look in the box, we see the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead.

So as long as there`s no interaction with a particle that never did interact with an intellegent observer, the cat would technically still be in a closed system.

Although a lot of interactions take place, The cat would still be in superposition as long as it`s not obseved (by an intelligen being) AND doesn`t interact with a particle that deterministicly traces back to an intelligent observer.

Note the last requirement is impossible to accomplish in practice, but not in theorie. That`s where a lot of people here go wrong.

Anyway thanks for listening.

>>2231575
>implying the hormone that prevent`s senility hasen`t been discovered decades ago and has been covered up ever since.