So why do you have problems with robots being conscious?
-
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!
Proven Science says there is No Universe without Conscious Man to Observe it.
- Thread starter Steven Merten
- Start date
So why do you have problems with robots being conscious?
Audie
Veteran Member
Steven Merten
Active Member
Hello Polymath,
Einstein's 'Principal of Locality' has been proven wrong.
Dutch Researchers Show Einstein Was Wrong: What New Study Reveals About Speed Of Light
Closing all the loopholes
In the new study, however, the particles in space were found to really be intertwined and that it can influence each other regardless of the amount of distance present in between.
Quoted from:
https://www.techtimes.com/articles/99434/20151026/dutch-researchers-show-einstein-was-wrong-what-new-study-reveals-about-speed-of-light.htm
NONLOCALITY AND ENTANGLEMENT
Nonlocality describes the apparent ability of objects to instantaneously know about each other’s state, even when separated by large distances (potentially even billions of light years), almost as if the universe at large instantaneously arranges its particles in anticipation of future events.
Thus, in the quantum world, despite what Einstein had established about the speed of light being the maximum speed for anything in the universe, instantaneous action or transfer of information does appear to be possible.
quoted from:
https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_nonlocality.html
EINSTEIN WAS WRONG ABOUT 'SPOOKY ACTION AT A DISTANCE,' ACCORDING TO STUDY INVOLVING 100,000 GAMERS
The findings of the study showed that quantum particles that are separated by large distances can still instantly affect each other, contradicting Einstein's principle of local realism.
Quoted from:
https://www.newsweek.com/einstein-was-wrong-about-spooky-action-distance-according-study-involving-920022
Yes, the particles are entangled. Even at quite large distances.
But the results agree with QM and QM is a *local*, but non-realist theory.
The version Einstein believed in was both local and realist. That is most definitely wrong. But the error is in the realism aspect, not the local aspect.
The entangled particles do NOT affect each other. Their properties are correlated and that correlation travels slower than light. The measurements simply reveal the correlation. There is no signal from one particle to the other, no faster than light communication.
There may be a definitional problem here. Locality, in this context, means that two events outside of each others light cone are uncorrelated.
Steven Merten
Active Member
Hello Milton,
Yes, the atheist scientist view that the universe and man came into existence on its own, is proved to be impossible by quantum proven experiments. This only leaves the Christian scientist's view that our Omnipotent God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Created all that exists.
Audie
Veteran Member
As long as you keep talking about proof in science you
tip everyone off that you are not ready for intro to remedial
science 099, and, that your opinions are garbage.
But whatevs., it is better so. Do carry on.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
unfortunately for “Christian” scientists, their beliefs are based upon their desire to believe something rather than following the science where it leads
but you said that “nothing exists without a man to observe it”,didn’t you? That means you must accept that mankind predates both the cosmos and your god.
Steven Merten
Active Member
Neils Bohr (Father of Quantum Theory)
"It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties"
"It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties"
Hello Milton,
I agree with, 'Father of Quantum Theory', Neils Bohr. Off hand, I do not know how religious he was.
In the spirit of, 'following the science where it leads', Please describe an 800 atom molecule that has switched, from physical particles, to superposition, wave, state. When man is looking at the 800 atom molecule, he sees protons and neutrons gathered in the nucleus of each atom, and electrons circling each atom nucleus, with space between the electrons and nucleus of each atom. The atoms are bound together as an 800 atom molecule.
All of a sudden, the 800 atom molecule switches to superposition, wave, state. All the protons, neutrons and electrons, in the 800 atom molecule, are now no longer physical particles. Instead, each proton, neutron and electron, of the 800 atom molecule, are now, in all possible locations, with all possible properties, as a wave, and not as physical particles. What do you say this 800 atom molecule, in superposition, wave, state, looks like? Can you build a universe with these molecules which are in superposition, wave state?
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I'm not a physicist, and certainly don't understand quantum theory to any great degree. You would have to ask that sort of question to a physicist, and not me. But, if what you are saying is true, then, obviously, you can build a universe from it.....because there is a universe.
Steven Merten
Active Member
A quantum experiment suggests
there’s no such thing as objective reality
there’s no such thing as objective reality
Physicists have long suspected that quantum mechanics allows two observers to experience different, conflicting realities. Now they’ve performed the first experiment that proves it.
Quoted from:
A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality
Quoted from:
A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality
Scientists, recently in 2019, have accomplished multiple realities, in the lab, at MIT. The ‘weirdness’ of Quantum Theory equations indicated multiple realities, now multiple realities have been proven in the lab.
In the Double Slit experiment, even if you observe/measure and electron, after it has passed through the double slit, wave collapse occurs in the past of physical time, from the moment the electron left the electron gun. Wow! How did and electron ‘evolve’ to know when a man is looking at it, and thus go back in physical time to change its physical course traveled? Again, Neils Bohr once stated, 'If you are not in total shock by Quantum Mechanics, you simple do not understand it’.
In MIT’s testing of multiple realities, a scientist observing one reality cannot tell the scientist observing a different reality, what he sees; If he does, the multiple realities collapse and they have now observed the same reality, back in physical time, to when they first started observing the reality. Again, Wow! How did electrons ‘evolve’ to be able to know when man is looking at them!
By the end of the MIT article, the whole scientific process, which relies on scientists telling other scientists what they have observed, is at stake here.
Even as I do not agree that a thermostat has innate competence to discern and phenomenal consciousness. Even as I do not agree that a bicycle's locomotive power is same as locomotive power of our legs. I know that I have power to change behaviour of photons in a two slit experiment. I am pretty sure that a camera has no such knowledge.
And robots do this. For that matter, so does a thermostat.
Here you are wrong. If you use a camera that can distinguish between the slits, then the interference pattern will disappear, whether or not you look at what the pictures the camera took.
If you look at the double slit, but don't use something that can distinguish between the slits, then the interference pattern will remain.
Consciousness has nothing to do with it. Only the degree of interaction and the ability to distinguish (not necessarily consciously) between the slits.
dad
Undefeated
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Looking at the actual quote:
"All possible properties" may even be in play, or be oscillating at all times, and the very act of observing gives you a momentary "pick one" that ends up being what you observed (kind of like blinking quickly at a spinning fan and getting a glimpse of the blades in relatively static positions). But in general terms, that specific, "indeterminate" action is happening on such a small scale that the mass of, say, the sun, is basically "unaffected" to us by the oscillation between states/property-values/etc. on the quantum level. Or, rather, the effect is entirely negligible since our sensory devices (eyes/ears/nose/touch/taste/etc.) can only even slightly pick up on those states as a function of the accumulated/aggregated whole. We get a picture a thousand miles out, so to speak - where things in the distance (in this case, things very close to the microcosm, but relatively "far" from we who reside in the macrocosm) seem to move a lot more slowly, or not at all. Kind of like a quantum to macroscopic parallax effect.
It doesn't actually say anything about the material of the universe NOT existing when no one is looking. I think this is getting more at the idea that there is nothing "concrete" to label as "reality" when everything we observe with our senses is interpreted by our limited qualia/sensors/brain-function - and truly, if there were no observer, then all that is going on is just going on, and there's nothing to even label it, or determine its nuances or facets.
"All possible properties" may even be in play, or be oscillating at all times, and the very act of observing gives you a momentary "pick one" that ends up being what you observed (kind of like blinking quickly at a spinning fan and getting a glimpse of the blades in relatively static positions). But in general terms, that specific, "indeterminate" action is happening on such a small scale that the mass of, say, the sun, is basically "unaffected" to us by the oscillation between states/property-values/etc. on the quantum level. Or, rather, the effect is entirely negligible since our sensory devices (eyes/ears/nose/touch/taste/etc.) can only even slightly pick up on those states as a function of the accumulated/aggregated whole. We get a picture a thousand miles out, so to speak - where things in the distance (in this case, things very close to the microcosm, but relatively "far" from we who reside in the macrocosm) seem to move a lot more slowly, or not at all. Kind of like a quantum to macroscopic parallax effect.
Steven Merten
Active Member
Hello Vestigial,
Do you agree with Quantum Theory's understanding of the double slit experiment outcome, as presented in the video link below? In the double slit experiment, subatomic particles, electrons, protons, neutrons and photons, all act as, superposition, waves, where they are in all possible places with all possible properties, when, of all things, conscious man is not observing/measuring them. Subatomic particles do not materialize into physical particles, protons and neutrons forming a nucleolus, with empty space and electrons circling around them, until conscious man observes them, according to the proven findings of the double slit experiment. Protons, neutrons, electrons and photons are the building blocks of everything in the macroscopic world.
Science is up to running an 800 atom molecule through the double slit experiment. The 800 atom molecule switches to superposition wave state, when man is not observing/measuring it. What do you say a molecule, with all its many subatomic particles, in superposition wave state, with all of its many subatomic particles in all possible places, with all possible properties, looks like? Before we switch to the macroscopic world, do we agree on how the Quantum world behaves?
This is what Neils Bohr was talking about.
Neils Bohr (Father of Quantum Theory)
"It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties"
"It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties"
I'll answer here. I think the video gets a number of things badly wrong. For example, it is NOT the fact that a conscious person observes that collapses the wave function. Second, it is NOT true that these particles are in ALL places with ALL possible properties. And it is false that they are not 'physical particles' prior to observation.
For the first, it isn't interaction with a consciousness that produces the collapse of the wave function. It is interaction with *any* sufficiently complex external system.
Second, the difference between the system with the interference pattern and the system without is NOT the conscious observer. It is the fact that something is interacting with the electrons in such a way that it can tell which slit they go through. That is typically a photon. When the photon has a small enough wavelength to distinguish between the slits, it has enough energy to destroy the interference pattern.
Third, most wave functions do NOT allow *all possible places and all possible properties*. In fact, the positions and properties are restricted to be the eigenvalues of whatever variable you measure. That is part of what it means to be a quantum system.
And, whatever it means to be 'physical', those particles are physical. They are NOT classical particles and never are such. But they *are* quantum particles.
You are wrong in details. The particle is in a superposition when the 'which slit' information is not measured by some interaction. That measurement of the information is what elimintes the interference pattern, not the consciousness of the obse
Some care is required. For example, after I measure an electron's spin in the x-direction, it has a definite value for that spin, but it is, by necessity in a superposition of y-spin states. Being in a superposition depends on what properties you are measuring in many cases. In most cases, for example, particles are in a definite energy state. This means they are NOT in a definite momentum state, for example, OR a definite position state. If you have a definite momentum state, it will not be in a definite energy state, etc.
it is the same wavefunction, but described in terms of different potential measurements. This means that *every* wavefunction (even after being measured) is in a superposition of *some* of its properties. In fact, this is part of the essence of the Uncertainty Principle: it is impossible to be in a state with definite position and definite momentum at the same time.
Yokefellow
Active Member
When Adam and Eve partook of the Forbidden Fruit, their 'eyes were opened'...
Genesis 3:7
"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons"
This was the first conscious observation of what was then a 'Wave Reality'. A form of Simulation.
In other words...
Adam and Eve were the first to collapse the Wave Function.
We call that event 'The Big Bang'...
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
How could mythical beings collapse a wave function?When Adam and Eve partook of the Forbidden Fruit, their 'eyes were opened'...
Genesis 3:7
"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons"
This was the first conscious observation of what was then a 'Wave Reality'. A form of Simulation.
In other words...
Adam and Eve were the first to collapse the Wave Function.
We call that event 'The Big Bang'...
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
But, in terms relative to the macroscope, "where" is the 800 atom molecule? Within a particular degree of certainty (again, in the macroscope) we can measure/place it. And that is where it "is". It isn't jumping all over the universe, or sometimes there, sometimes not. Can we be certain that if we close the box with the 800 atom molecule in it, when we open it again, it will be there. And I say yes. Yes we can be certain.
Steven Merten
Active Member
Hello Base,
What do you say happened, at the Quantum level, when Jesus turned water into wine?
A few months ago, scientists at MIT have accomplished multiple realities in the lab. Jesus accomplished multiple realities / switched realities, at the Quantum level, 2000 years ago, simply using His Words.
A quantum experiment suggests
there’s no such thing as objective reality
there’s no such thing as objective reality