• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Quantum Mechanics and Conscious Intent

Open_Minded

Nothing is Separate
NPR Article

Of the many mysteries of modern physics, few compare to "nonlocality" in quantum physics. Nonlocality means that far away objects can influence one another instantaneously (or, at least, much faster than the speed of light). It is as if space and time didn't exist!

"Influence" may not be the right word here; in fact, we don't have a good word for it given that words are devices we create to express experiences anchored in our sensorial perception of reality.

When a ball hits the goal or a raindrop falls, we know there is a local cause: the kick, the heavy raincloud. In the quantum world, the world of electrons and photons, effects can occur without a local cause, something I explored here a .
Experiments have verified nonlocality beyond any reasonable doubt.
On the other hand, very serious scientists, such as Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner and his Princeton colleague John Wheeler, have considered the role of consciousness in physics and to what point it determines the reality in which we live.

We use a detector when we measure something small. We don't have direct contact with an electron or an atom. Its existence is registered when it interacts with (the electrons and atoms of) a detector and we hear a click or see a pointer move. In the orthodox interpretation of quantum physics, it is this interaction that determines the existence of the particle: before the measurement we can't say that the particle exists. Something only exists after it is detected.

Wigner and Wheeler suggested that without an observer to set things up and interpret the results, without a consciousness with intent, this measurement doesn't make sense. In this case, the particle's existence is contingent on its interaction with the human consciousness. More dramatically, consciousness has an active role in determining what exists.

Wheeler imagined an experiment where a particle goes through a double-slit obstacle and then meets a screen. This screen is movable and can be taken away. Behind it, there are two detectors aligned with each of the two slits of the obstacle. This way, without the screen in the middle, the detectors can tell through which slit the particle passed. There are thus two options: with the screen, the particle (as a wave) "passes through both slits" and we see an interference pattern on the screen made of dark and light stripes; without the screen one of the two detectors will click when the particle hits it and the particle "goes through one slit." Two very different paths, depending on the screen being there or not.

Wheeler added an amazing twist to this set up: take the screen away after the particle passed through the double-slit. This way, the observer controls whether the particle should create an interference pattern (as a wave) or just hit one of the two detectors (as a particle); the particle doesn't "know" which of the two it will be, or which path it must take. In other words, the observer determines the physical reality of the particle (wave or particle) backwards in time!

Remarkably, Wheeler's "delayed choice" experiment has been performed and and again with even more stringent controls.

Somehow, observer and observed form an indissoluble whole that functions outside the boundaries of time.

Note, however, that the observer need not be a human, but a mechanical control that moved the screen in an out. Still, the intent is human. As Wheeler put it:
We have a strange inversion of the normal order of time. We, now, by moving the [screen] in or out have an unavoidable effect on what we have a right to say about the already past history of that photon.

It's an interesting Reality that we live in. :)
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Methodologically speaking - a delayed choice (by a conscious being - in this case human) changed history.

Perhaps, but that still doesn't address the question of whether or not they are confusing methodology with ontology. I'm not saying they are, but I am asking the question.
 

Open_Minded

Nothing is Separate
Perhaps, but that still doesn't address the question of whether or not they are confusing methodology with ontology. I'm not saying they are, but I am asking the question.
I'm not sure what your point is. ...

Ontology: the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such.

The facts are there for all of humanity to interpret, debate and discuss how they impact our understanding of "the nature of existence or being". Should they refrain from such mussings???? Should we????
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
The facts are there for all of humanity to interpret, debate and discuss how they impact our understanding of "the nature of existence or being". Should they refrain from such mussings???? Should we????

It's a personal choice, but I usually refrain from such musings. They usually seem to me wildly speculative and fruitless. More masturbatory entertainment than substance.
 

Open_Minded

Nothing is Separate
It's a personal choice, but I usually refrain from such musings. They usually seem to me wildly speculative and fruitless. More masturbatory entertainment than substance.
It is a personal choice - that's for sure. Although - I will point out one thing - sometimes it's the mussings that bring about further research and experimentation. :shrug: Again - that old conscious intent thing .....
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Interesting is an understatement. The first posted quote I understood. I'm not too proud to admit that the second quote was partially over my head.

Here's one little part from that quote:

before the measurement we can't say that the particle exists. Something only exists after it is detected.

In my macroscopic world, let's say there's a pebble under a rock. We lift the rock and see the pebble. Wasn't that pebble existing and there before we lifted the rock even though we couldn't say before looking if a pebble was there.

How come the article says: Something only exists after it is detected.

It's an interesting Reality that we live in.

I was already a believer in that statement from my study of macroscopic paranormal phenomenon.
 
Last edited:

Open_Minded

Nothing is Separate
Interesting is an understatement. The first posted quote I understood. I'm not too proud to admit that the second quote was partially over my head.

Here's one little part from that quote:

before the measurement we can't say that the particle exists. Something only exists after it is detected.

In my macroscopic world, let's say there's a pebble under a rock. We lift the rock and see the pebble. Wasn't that pebble existing and there before we lifted the rock even though we couldn't say before looking if a pebble was there.

How come the article says: Something only exists after it is detected.

I was already a believer in that statement from my study of macroscopic paranormal phenomenon.

You are not the first to have pondered this dynamic. Back when Quantum Physics was first being discovered Einstein (and many others) pondered the same thing. Following is a quote from Einstein:

I think that a particle must have a separate reality independent of the measurements. That is an electron has spin, location and so forth even when it is not being measured. I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it.

Also - you may be interested in Schrodinger's Cat
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
You are not the first to have pondered this dynamic. Back when Quantum Physics was first being discovered Einstein (and many others) pondered the same thing. Following is a quote from Einstein:



Also - you may be interested in Schrodinger's Cat

Thanks. I started looking at the Schrodinger's Cat article. I've known of this before but I have a hard time getting my head around it all.

Thankfully all my spiritual beliefs are from sources at the macroscopic level. I'll leave quantum arguments to others. It does tell me though this universe does not operate like our minds (which evolved for success in three-dimensional macroscopic thinking) would expect things to operate.
 

Open_Minded

Nothing is Separate
It does tell me though this universe does not operate like our minds (which evolved for success in three-dimensional macroscopic thinking) would expect things to operate.
OH the things I posted above are just the beginning. The following may interest you as well.

Some physicists are uncomfortable with the idea that all individual quantum events are innately random. This is why many have proposed more complete theories, which suggest that events are at least partially governed by extra "hidden variables". Now physicists from Austria claim to have performed an experiment that rules out a broad class of hidden-variables theories that focus on realism -- giving the uneasy consequence that reality does not exist when we are not observing it. ...
Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization.
They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it....
There are all sorts of philosophical implications that arise from these types of experiments. :)

Personally, I think the moon (and the pebble) are there, even when I'm not peering at them. :)
 
Last edited:

idav

Being
Premium Member
OH the things I posted above are just the beginning. The following may interest you as well.

There are all sorts of philosophical implications that arise from these types of experiments. :)

Personally, I think the moon (and the pebble) are there, even when I'm not peering at them. :)

Physics doesnt create reality it hinders it but the potential is there when there are no constraints.
 

Open_Minded

Nothing is Separate
Physics doesnt create reality it hinders it but the potential is there when there are no constraints.
I don't believe any scientist (nor anyone else that I'm aware of) has postulated that "physics creates reality".

That would be similar to saying, "Biology creates life". (scratching my head in puzzlement)
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
I don't believe any scientist (nor anyone else that I'm aware of) has postulated that "physics creates reality".

That would be similar to saying, "Biology creates life". (scratching my head in puzzlement)

”observation” in qm is macroscopic world interfering with the microscopic world. the probability is influenced by physical interaction with the general laws of physics.
 

Open_Minded

Nothing is Separate
”observation” in qm is macroscopic world interfering with the microscopic world. the probability is influenced by physical interaction with the general laws of physics.
Yes - I know what "observation" in Quantum Mechanics is.

The macroscopic world interferes with the microscopic world on a natural level as well as in physics. No one (that I know of) claims "Physics creates reality".

As to your point about what "observation" is. Within in the context of scientific experiments - "observation" necessarily includes intent (the intent of the experimenter). And when intent is involved (whether the "observation" is by instrument - or not) consciousness is involved.

It is the dynamic of consciousness interfering with the microscopic world, that is forcing a paradigm shift in the way we view, think about and understand reality.
 
Last edited:

idav

Being
Premium Member
Yes - I know what "observation" in Quantum Mechanics is.

The macroscopic world interferes with the microscopic world on a natural level as well as in physics. No one (that I know of) claims "Physics creates reality".

As to your point about what "observation" is. Within in the context of scientific experiments - "observation" necessarily includes intent (the intent of the experimenter). And when intent is involved (whether the "observation" is by instrument - or not) consciousness is involved.

It is the dynamic of consciousness interfering with the microscopic world, that is forcing a paradigm shift in the way we view, think about and understand reality.
My point is that non conscious objects can interefere with the experiment without our intent being involved. Intent being able to do this is important and can possibly be a path to free will but within limitations.
 

Open_Minded

Nothing is Separate
My point is that non conscious objects can interefere with the experiment without our intent being involved. Intent being able to do this is important and can possibly be a path to free will but within limitations.
We agree completely - but let us recognize the paradigm shifting dynamic of " Intent being able to do this is important and can possibly be a path to free will but within limitations".

Let us also recognize that consciousness can impact reality - this is not just limited to "free will" ... consciousness itself can impact reality.

Let us not anthropormorphize consciousness either. As humans, we really have no universally accepted definition of what consciousness is in our own species, let-alone what it is in reality. :shrug:
 
Top