"They have proven beyound any doubt that when a scientist studies subatomic phenomena his consciousness plays a causal role in the physical state that is observed"
This is a completely inaccurate statement.
The observer role in wavefunction collapse has not been proven beyound doubt.
The existence of wave particle duality has not even been proven beyound all doubt.
I am dissapointed that you have not investigated quantum mechanics prior to making such claims.
Actually science relies on peer review and evidence, this is a limitation perhaps, but it is also how progress is made.
The theory of relativity was not without its share of detractors when it was introduced, but empirical evidence confirmed its predictions. This is why it accepted.
Science primary goal is not to disprove religion, as religion requires belief and science requires observation.
Sorry ... After watching this artificial intelligence is a real possibility (what would this mean for humanity?).Even anamals have instinctual drive for preservation of life and its species. The ego and superego are what separates humanity from the animal kingdom and level of conscousness.
Can it be said, the individual who takes in data/facts then interprets it and forms information? If this is so then data/facts can be as subjective as a person forming an opinion. WOW!
I suspect you're entirely correct that scientists may too often constrict their thinking too much to an established framework, and that this may influence their interpretation of their results. A curious example of it working in the other way, however, was a group of scientists researching the effectiveness of homeopathy by observing the effects of the medicine on certain cell cultures. They found it had a positive effect and published their work to the great surprise of other scientists.
However, it was pointed out the tests had not been carried out blind - i.e. each scientist had known whether the cells he was looking at had been treated with homeopathic medicine or the control. When the experiments were repeated blind, all positive correlation vanished.
So, what you mean is that many individuals believe the world to be as expansive as their ability to see, yes? They have the best intentions but the fear and confusion yet present in their mind bind both their hands and reasoning to their openning to that which is clearly evident to be real. As a result of such inertia we may be left with another generation of struggle and poor advancement of morality coupled with low development of perception towards the inner horizons yet to be explored, agree?
To paraphrase.
"They have proven beyound any doubt that when a scientist studies subatomic phenomena his consciousness plays a causal role in the physical state that is observed"
This is a completely inaccurate statement.
The observer role in wavefunction collapse has not been proven beyound doubt.
The existence of wave particle duality has not even been proven beyound all doubt.
I am dissapointed that you have not investigated quantum mechanics prior to making such claims.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
And who will provide the proofs of the "observer role in wavefunction collapse" & for the "existence of wave particle duality"? Scientists only :P
Audit shud always be done by an outsider. How can the Scientists be impartial abt their own claims when their very claims r at stake!!!
anujdasgupta 2 years ago
Aperently you do not understand the politics of the scientific comunity
for each thoery there are countless detractors with their own theories they wish to promote
this gives rise to different interpretations of data and observation
issues in theorectical dispute are resolved by vitrue of physical observation
not by individual ambition
Nature has a tendancy to humble genius
mtheoryrules 2 years ago
Science is automatically limited by its epistemological frame work that is founded on a metaphysical axiom.
We are free to explore any notion we wish, however we are not free to call it science without conflicting with how science is defined.
Science is branch of philosophy and assumes the axiom that existence is primary to consciousness.
In otherwords science assumes that reality is objective and independent of human perceptions and consciousness.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
Actually science relies on peer review and evidence, this is a limitation perhaps, but it is also how progress is made.
The theory of relativity was not without its share of detractors when it was introduced, but empirical evidence confirmed its predictions. This is why it accepted.
Science primary goal is not to disprove religion, as religion requires belief and science requires observation.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
Sorry ... After watching this artificial intelligence is a real possibility (what would this mean for humanity?).Even anamals have instinctual drive for preservation of life and its species. The ego and superego are what separates humanity from the animal kingdom and level of conscousness.
njneopatriot 3 years ago
After watching this artificial intellig
njneopatriot 3 years ago
Can it be said, the individual who takes in data/facts then interprets it and forms information? If this is so then data/facts can be as subjective as a person forming an opinion. WOW!
njneopatriot 3 years ago
I suspect you're entirely correct that scientists may too often constrict their thinking too much to an established framework, and that this may influence their interpretation of their results. A curious example of it working in the other way, however, was a group of scientists researching the effectiveness of homeopathy by observing the effects of the medicine on certain cell cultures. They found it had a positive effect and published their work to the great surprise of other scientists.
mediteight 3 years ago
However, it was pointed out the tests had not been carried out blind - i.e. each scientist had known whether the cells he was looking at had been treated with homeopathic medicine or the control. When the experiments were repeated blind, all positive correlation vanished.
mediteight 3 years ago
So, what you mean is that many individuals believe the world to be as expansive as their ability to see, yes? They have the best intentions but the fear and confusion yet present in their mind bind both their hands and reasoning to their openning to that which is clearly evident to be real. As a result of such inertia we may be left with another generation of struggle and poor advancement of morality coupled with low development of perception towards the inner horizons yet to be explored, agree?
jerfow 3 years ago
I don't think it will take a couple of generations. I think we are already in the process of breaking through to a more expanded world view.
morelife33 3 years ago
I was first :)
ihaveabubu 3 years ago