Quake3World

The idea that our very thoughts affect the world around us at an atomic, subatomic or even beyond the subatomic level isn't too far fetched. In fact, I think it'd be foolish to think that it doesn't but what if at this level all that's contained is information? Perhaps this information can be decrypted by our brains and processed. This information could contain anything based in our reality of course and properly interpreted could reveal information about things we would otherwise normaly never know anything about.

Just like some are stronger than others perhaps for some the ability to interpret and detect something like this might be more unique to some than others. Perhaps it's the ammount or depth our brains individualy perceive reality and would explain those that seem to be very intuitive versus those that aren't.

Perhaps it even extends beyond this simply reading too perhaps it extends to the physical.... who knows what the boundaries are, you could possibly learn to manipulate the very fabric of reality just with a thought.

Yes, now did this come to you in one of those moments or are you smoking pot?

looks moreo a story or sommin , not a thought eh

Go read books about Schroedinger and his cat.
Then read about parallel universes, quantum stuff (like electrons being in 2 places at once), and how an observer can actually impact the outcome of a quantum experiment.

for your googling pleasure look for the observer's paradox.

A little from column A and a little from collumn B...

i typed "looks like", not "reads like"

Seems more likely that intuitive people are just detecting more signals and cues unconsciously.

I'm no physicist, but I think a problem might be that we can't "detect" information at a subatomic level without affecting it at the same time. That is to say detecting this information would be irrelevant because as soon as you do that, the information no longer applies.

cookie for werldhed

as far as i know, the notion that consciousness (or a perception) actually directly affects physical states (collapses wavefunction) is a hypothesis. I kinda don't like how many physicists, etc brush over this point. As Werldhed pointed out, An alternative explanation is that we can't measure things without interfering with the state of the system we're measuring (need to bounce photons off whatever we're measuring etc and that "bouncing off" may be the reason the wavefunction collapses).

Same thing with randomness - they assume it's a random process that's causing the event, when all we have are empirical data showing that the collapses are randomly distributed.

There's a difference - you can design deterministic algorithims to produce effectively random distributions - but that doesn't mean the underlying process itself was random.

pld Juls

Kracus wrote:A little from column A and a little from collumn B...

So basically you don't want to actually educate yourself, you just like sitting at work baked and having "random thoughts" while not even using the requisite self-discipline to learn more and see if they are viable theories. Why are you so proud of being ignorant Kracus?

[xeno]Julios wrote:as far as i know, the notion that consciousness (or a perception) actually directly affects physical states (collapses wavefunction) is a hypothesis. I kinda don't like how many physicists, etc brush over this point. As Werldhed pointed out, An alternative explanation is that we can't measure things without interfering with the state of the system we're measuring (need to bounce photons off whatever we're measuring etc and that "bouncing off" may be the reason the wavefunction collapses).

Same thing with randomness - they assume it's a random process that's causing the event, when all we have are empirical data showing that the collapses are randomly distributed.

There's a difference - you can design deterministic algorithims to produce effectively random distributions - but that doesn't mean the underlying process itself was random.

Never thought of that tbh. The whole thing about radioactive atoms decaying randomly but in predicitable numbers troubles me in the same way Einstein put it (something like "I can't believe God plays dice", I'd reword it to "It can't JUST be fucking random!").
That post sort of gives food for thought.

Yeah but determinism is so depressing.

Tormentius wrote: Why are you so proud of being ignorant Kracus? [/color]

Because he's an idiot.

Kracus wrote:Yeah but determinism is so depressing.

Just like reading and self-improvement?

Kracus wrote:Yeah but determinism is so depressing.

You're quite a prick.

werldhed wrote:I'm no physicist, but I think a problem might be that we can't "detect" information at a subatomic level without affecting it at the same time. That is to say detecting this information would be irrelevant because as soon as you do that, the information no longer applies.

Yea, like I mentioned before...look up the observer's paradox

Lazy bastards....and werldheld gets the cookie?!?

What makes you think it's critical for me to be an expert on these matters?

Kracus wrote:What makes you think it's critical for me to be an expert on these matters?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAA!!!!!

Massive Quasars wrote:http://consc.net/online.html

"2498 online papers on consciousness and related topics"

For you Jules.

[xeno]Julios wrote: Same thing with randomness - they assume it's a random process that's causing the event, when all we have are empirical data showing that the collapses are randomly distributed.

There's a difference - you can design deterministic algorithims to produce effectively random distributions - but that doesn't mean the underlying process itself was random.

Of course, but do you really believe they don't realize that?

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

Tormentius wrote: Why are you so proud of being ignorant Kracus? [/color]

Because he's an idiot.

I meant other than the obvious :icon1:

Massive Quasars wrote:

Massive Quasars wrote:http://consc.net/online.html

"2498 online papers on consciousness and related topics"

For you Jules.

wow, that's extensive. Didn't expect that when I accidentally clicked a krackass thread.

Thanks Passive Tasers.

Massive Quasars wrote:

Massive Quasars wrote:http://consc.net/online.html

"2498 online papers on consciousness and related topics"

For you Jules.

ah yes - that's a great site by Chalmers. Good find.