This guy is like a mix between Neo and the Architect.

@agd163

4 ай бұрын

❤Tom is the architect he works for God. Love you tom ❤

Great presentation from a true pioneer. Reality is rendered to conscious beings on the fly, based on probability. But it has to be consistent with information that already exists in the system.

@lex.cordis

2 жыл бұрын

Indeed, which implies unequivocally that we are _not_ our bodies, but that we are ultimately immaterial beings.

@Wykesidefruitmachine

Жыл бұрын

@@lex.cordis Holy shit.

@MrSkunkguy

Жыл бұрын

Spot on people

Thank you, Tom, for connecting the dots that others aren't able to.

Excellent presentation. The act of observation doesn't generates reality but the interpretation of information generates reality. Got a big like from me.

@lex.cordis

Ай бұрын

It's both. The one implies the other.

I've been watching dozens of videos on this topic, and this is definetly the one which best has explained what this is about (if we can use 'explain' in such an inexplainable matter). Thank you very much.

@filmingkey

4 жыл бұрын

I totally agree! But being the good skeptic that I am I've tried to search for a piece of writing or video that elegantly explains how the double slit experiment makes sense through a materialistic lens with no luck. I just don't understand how the delayed choice quantum erasure effect makes sense in a materialistic worldview. Any resources you can through my way?

@lex.cordis

Жыл бұрын

@@filmingkey Because the world is NOT materialistic. Period. It's idealistic. That's what he science demonstrates to anyone intellectually honest enough to accept the implications. Your brain simply "tricks" you into believing that the world you experience exists objectively. It does not. The only thing that exists "objectively" are the metaphysical/mathematical laws which govern this reality.

@anidanga

9 ай бұрын

You beat me to it. I was going to say exactly the same thing! If it's ok, I'm going to write my comment anyway!

After watching this I now have a very clear understanding. Thank you for sharing the information!

@larrys8574

4 жыл бұрын

Merlin 🧙‍♂️

@zeb1820

3 жыл бұрын

Ah, so you are far advanced from the contemporary scientists who say no one will ever understand this..

This is Incrediblly Amazing 👏 thanks sooo much MBT team 🌬🌏🌌💖

How moms finds everyrhing that wsnt there explained... 😂👏👏👏 Love Tom Campbell

Amazing , fantastic and awesome. Thanks Tom !

This is the simplest and best explanation of the quantum phenomenon, I have seen so far!

So instead of "I think, therefore I am" its more like "Its been processed, therefore it is"

@jakobsternberg1807

5 жыл бұрын

? what

@liloleist5133

5 жыл бұрын

My consciousness creates information, therefore 'My waveform collapses, therefore I have an experience.'

@hermenutic

4 жыл бұрын

"Wake up to find out you are the eyes of the world"?

@fragtthorsten9059

2 жыл бұрын

By the rendering Engine, based on "individual data" (virtual machine), which is named "Soul" by Religion. "Here" is just the Screen, everything truly is happening "elsewhere".

@cosmo1eleven855

Ай бұрын

Should be, I am - therefore I think

The Key to Understanding Our Reality

@blackraider777

9 жыл бұрын

beautiful lecture

@TheFourthDefender

9 жыл бұрын

***** You're thinking of it backwards. What you need is a glimpse of the unseen. A ride to the immeasurable place.

@twcjr44

9 жыл бұрын

***** It is true that "many worlds" is a theoretical possibility.... but it is an extremely remote possibility because it unnecessarily requires huge resources to support. Nature (the products of evolution) is generally parsimonious and efficient with its processes.

@twcjr44

9 жыл бұрын

***** Double slit experiment. Detector data was collected. If you look at the result first you will see two piles of electrons because there is detector data available. Then, you delete the detector data. You still see two piles of electrons because the probability wave has already been collapsed to a result in PMR -- once in PMR, its a done deal, it stays in PMR.

@kevinfairweather3661

8 жыл бұрын

+Tom Campbell Hi Tom, i really enjoyed this talk, i have got a lot out of it and you make a lot of sense. I do have a question though.. If reality is in a probability flux until a conscious observer interprets the information, then how did any macro phenomena become a materialistic reality before any conscious organisms had evolved ?

It takes consciousness to see and understand the information, it's all about consciousness

@CarschA

3 жыл бұрын

And what is information but nothing more than a result of stored experience.

I will remember your name Tom. Thanks

Good shit

The physical universe must be an agreement which we are all in on since it began, but consciousness never began, it has always been..... and does not exist in space and time. We have been playing the physical universe game for so long now, that we think we are a part of the physical universe in our asleep state. We have not even began to manipulate matter, energy and the things which are going to happen in the future with energy and matter will be amazing, as long as we do not smash up the playing field which we are in.

@lucaspierce3328

6 жыл бұрын

brunnys1, actually we already are and have been manipulating matter and energy as all living systems can. That's how you got your house and people call this the law of attraction or sowing and reaping. Technology is another extension of that. All matter is made of mostly of what's considered empty space and are hands(The matter we are made of is mostly empty space) move things in empty space. That means we are already telekinetic(purpose/intention guided movement). All yeah we already been messing up ourselves and the planet. Consciousness is time and space and energy and is non-reductive as the pan-cosmo-Quantum supra-conscious holographic in-formational memory field of co-entangled states i.e morphic resonance or you can call it God. All yeah in-formational realism is a form of modern neoplatonism. I'm a Pantheists or panpsycho-panentheists. If consciousness creates information than consciousness is fundamental while information is emergent or derived from mind. Mind follows no rules but on what it decides for itself so on. This is 'de animae' not a carton simulation on some one's hard drive. The universe isn't teleological it's trans-teleological, it changes the purposes and meaning of things and things too. The idea of biocentrism and human extension or I like to call pan-bioextension fits well with my theory of everything which can explain quantum mechanics much better than his interpretation. More details latter you all.

@Ahov

4 жыл бұрын

A whole lot of fucking assertions without evidence.

Watching from Spokane wa !!!! strange so often the world seems to be wrapped around me as I observe from within

Here is what I get from this talk: information must be consistent in the reality. Information is probability distribution.

Excellent talk. Thank you Tom. I would very much like to attend a talk or workshop in the UK.

Very good 🥰👍🙏

There is no spoon.

Interesting understanding of the double slit experiment. It's not as much about consciousness or measurement as it is about the information that creates the reality we experience, in the same way information creates virtual realities.

@JCV123

5 жыл бұрын

Here is a thought experiment: If everything is about information, and not about consciousness (being able to know or be aware of something) - Then what would happen if this experiment was done but only one person knows which slit was "slit A" and which slit was "slit B" during the experiment. The data would say that the particle went through either slit A or B. If we looked at the film at this point it would show two dots instead of a distribution pattern (because the person who knows which slit was slit A and B during the experiment is still alive). If we instead killed the person first, by stopping his haert and then looks at the data and the film, it would show a distribution pattern because nobody now knows which slit was slit A and B during the experiment, so the data is inconclusive. If we then suddenly decides to start his haert and make him conscious again, would the distribution pattern then suddenly magically appear on the screen, because we now can determine which slits were A and B?

This should be titled, "Understanding our FALSE Reality"!

In the Beginning was the WORD, And the Word was with God and the Word was God. Through Him all things were made, by him for him and through him and by him all things are held together and nothing that exists was made so without him. HE IS THE FIELD of all probability .

Super explain of quantum mechanics ❤️❤️❤️❤️

what if our conscious state is so narrow it stops us from seeing other forms of life on a different consious plain

Got me thinking: As we are the universe, observing itself, does it mean that everything light touches in the present moment does indeed have state even before someone measures it? Vice versa, light that hasn't touched anything YET, could end up in many places, until we go "you're it!"?

@performancetesting1

3 жыл бұрын

Tom would say the light doesn't exist unless or until it is observed. It would take whatever form (particle or wave) is required to keep the virtual reality experience consistent with other observations.

This reminds me of a time i got REALLY high and had (what seemed at the time to be) a profound realisation. That was: "What i can not see, does not exist." Of course everyone told me that was nonsense, but now I'm not so sure lol

@couga8888

6 жыл бұрын

What you see does not "exist "either it't just data and by the way your are not the only consciousness on this world, why didn't you think "what we see does not exist" ? just kidding I know it's an old comment

Hi Tom, instead of doing a delayed choice eraser, why not do the regular double slit and record the detector data in a computer and then delete it before it is looked at. This will easily relieve the issue of the measurement causing the collapse.

Dear Tom hi, i have a question to make about the double slit experiment.Have we try to do the tree slit experiment and the first time the middle slit to be in the same line with the photon pistol and the second time one of the two walls to be in the same line with the photon pistol?

This is an example of time travel and how the universe protects particles travelling in a time warp by avoiding paradox’s. The particles are travelling at the speed of light so time stands still for those particles. When data is collected, knowledge of a particle travelling in a time warp (The electron or photon observed at light speed) is subject to a paradox if collected information doesn’t match reality. So on that basis the universe protects against paradoxes by creating a matching reality based on intelligence. This is a force outside of all other known forces and one undiscovered and undetected but proven to exist here during multiple experiments giving the same result. This is spiritual in its essence.

VERY Nicely put. I have two cents: 1) I have reasons to believe that the "conciousness" that "collapses" (to put the QM term to a better use) or in your words "materializes the information inside the virtual reality" isn't just the human mind. That is, is really not that a mountain ain't neccecsarily there when no *human* is looking. It isn't there when no thing is looking including the mountains themselves (or some distant star for that matter). Of course, it does happen than when we humans do look into reality we participate in its "materialization", what we're just part of the observers (and I don't mean Aliens but nature itself). [I don't mean to imply that the elements of the virtual reality, i.e. electrons, photons, molecules, mountains and cats are themselves the obvservers but that there are concious observers "materializing" them and which are totally independent of us human beings] 2) If the world is weird enough to "materialize" at T(i) some current form of reality, for which it takes into account whatever it had already compromised at some T(i-1), then, the fact that T(i) has been always co-herence with T(i-1) for all we know (as if that meant a lot), is just a fact, and not a prescription of how nature ought to work. I would pretty much like it that way for otherwise it would raise an already complex thing into a whole new level of complexity, but is clear from a logical POV that it might very well just so happen that the film *now* shows an inteference pattern even if we did had information about it being a particle before. Not only is this a real logical possibility but some people actually think this is in fact the case, and call it "realit shifts" (I don't like that too much but can't deny it either)

Thank you Tom, what you think about third eye opening by magnetic silver energy of awareness, could this be for making it stronger to reintegrate with being?

You are saying the information forming reality is dependant on the consciousness. So the world started existing when the humans began to think consciously and before that there was only the possibillity of a mind existing in a biological body. So every discovery we make in the future also creates a determined past from which we kind of created ourselves in the now. I have a different perspective on the QE theory. The information is not important until it makes a chain of events that form complex informations that become integrated in our world. So the simple potentially important information as a photons end point is in no importance until it starts attracting other quantum related particles that form a physical structure. This is the first time I have seen your videos Tom, I will sub and continue to investigate.

Dear Sir - What do you think about Arvin Ash's you-tube video "Boy, Was I Wrong! How the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Really works" related to retrocausality ?

this is why i nearly failed physics while getting 100s in every other subject i was taught lights both a wave and particle, never made sense. these probability waves make sense. conventional physics never made much sense but quantum mechanics seem to make sense to me. an interesting thought experiment is to think about our reality recursively. we created virtual realities(i believe data based reality is a more fitting term) because our reality IS a data based reality.

ok just one question, please help me out. If the data is not collected then deleted, the film shows a diffraction pattern but when the data is not deleded it shows a clump pattern. I was wondering if you could refer me to the exact literature where this experiment was officially done?

something i have to ask about this experiment that ive always wondered about. what if the data is taken, but the screen is looked at first, then the data about the slits erased? would the screen still always show the two slits instead of a diffraction pattern? if the two slits are there, but then the experimenter chooses to delete the data, wouldnt that cause a paradox? does reality know in advance if the data will be looked at by the experimenter or not, or does it simply depend on just the availability of the data?

Hello Tom, this explanation was wonderful, thank you so much! I have some hypothetical questions regarding the experiment which I would be very grateful if you could answer: 1. So if there were two scientists doing the experiment simultaneously, and one of them were to look at the information of the detectors, and the other one wouldn't. After the experiment is done, the first one erases the information from the data base but of course keeps it within his consciousness. Now, if they both develop the film, since one of them holds the information, the film would show two lines, correct? This will make the scientist who was NOT looking at the information to assume that the photons behaved as a particle instead of (as some people would assert) that one sees an interference pattern and the other one would see the too lines. 2. So now that the film is developed, with the two lines on it, and the information is erased from the computer. If you were to put that developed film on a box, and the two scientists who are the only ones why know the information were to die. What would a third scientist see when opening the already developed film? 3. What would happen if, without the knowledge of the people who conduct the experiment, one were to mess with the detectors or the computer in order that it shows light behaving as a wave or maybe even something completely crazy and different (like both detectors going off with one single particle). Would that information, regarded as correct by the scientists doing the experiment, be represented in the film? Again, thank you so much, and may you keep sharing this wonderful knowledge.

What would happen if you placed a double slit screen with detectors behind the first screen that creates the wave pattern? Would it change?

Tom mention 'virtual reality expainse it' as opposed to 'objective reality [can't]'. But it can also be explained with "only the present exists" the past is as non deterministic as our future is.

@ Thomas Campbell, my question below

What happen if you place a measurement to the output of the leser gun? If once the electron is partical, it will never be again wave?

Hi Tom, I still talk to people who think that on the delayed choice quantum eraser, the measurement does effect the results. Why don't they do the experiment the same way you talked about it with the regular double slit experiment (let the detectors detect at the 2 slits, then delete the data, then look at the results). That would put an end to this measurement interfering with the photons.

Are there any simple eraser experiments like the one Tom mentions in his lectures where the data is simply deleted from the detectors before looking at the screen? Or one like the thought experiment where you have the results in two different envelopes and you just delete the which way data by burning one envelope and creating an interference pattern in the other envelope?

Im curious if there is any way to apply this to how feng shui really works.

I agree. Finally someone is showing the true results of that experiment. However, there are other possibilities. Like time might not exist. Maybe the universe already knows which choice will be made and it adjusts the result AS IT HAPPENS so that the film shows what choice WILL be made. Or, since the universe is actually one unified whole anyway, it just changes the film when the choice is made. We will probably never know which it is. But either way, it points to a universe that is very weird and probably conscious.

Is there any link to the article with experiment from 12:30-13:30?

Hi Tom. Some questions. If the first graph is a probability distribution, then in fact at least some number of particles should fall into areas other than those that are opposite the holes. This is not happening. Why? Conversely, why is there a probability of particles falling into the side regions if we are dealing with a rectilinear movement of the particle from one point to another through a narrow gap? Is there something wrong with your theory? Other issue. Is it possible in CERN, for example, to launch a particle by holding it in a certain direction, and not measuring which hole it will pass through, as in the picture below?

what he says at 10:13 it's key. In others videos they don't say that.

it would be easier to understand the slit experiment if you got a laser pointer

@MBTEVENTS

9 жыл бұрын

The Double Slit experiment is explained with pointers in the Calgary workshop presentation on Sat here on YT.

42:07 If it was just about the measurement then once you made this measurement, erasing it later wouldn't make any difference. So it's not just the measurement. 42:18 If it was just consciousness once you saw that all the data was measured it probably wouldn't change if you erase the data because consciousness already knows that you get a pile of electrons behind each hole after you detect which slit it went through but it does change. 42:45 So what's critical is the information but just consciousness is required.

@soonsangho9782

2 жыл бұрын

Having which-way information means that the particle went a specific way. If it went a specific way, it was a particle. If it was a particle, observation took place. Having which-way information means observation took place. Which-way information's present: the experiment's observed. Which-way information's absent: the experiment's unobserved. No which-way information, no "physical" reality: no observation, no "physical" reality. There's no Mind-independent "physical" reality: realism's false. All there is of the "physical" world at any given time is the totality of what's in all of our Consciousnesses. What of the world that's not in any Mind exists just as information (incl. the wave function), also in Mind. All's Mind. Mind: Consciousness: Self: Being: Psyche: Spirit: Absolute Infinity: Reality: God All's God.

Best video ive seen on the double split experiment.

We think we are third dimensional creatures and expect to see evidence that everything is solid like us. If something strange happens we think it's unnatural . Wow so this is how consciousness creates free will while sustaining perceivable order?! What a Trip !!

Now, what would happen if you let the detector on and let an animal, like a cat or dog, see the measurements? Would the photon behave like a wave or a particle? Only the animal would be able to see the measurements and it would not be stored in any way that a human can have access to. If the photon behaves like a particle, would this mean the animal is conscious like a human? If not, would this mean that only humans are concious and can interfere with the photon?

I can't find any external reference where the double slit experiment has been performed where they have destroyed the detection data (after collecting it) and then developed the film to find an interference pattern. Tom says this has been repeated many times - where? Note what Tom describes in this lecture is not the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment that is described elsewhere.

The minute some quantum physicist would see this he'd instantly disregard Campbell's conclusions as resulting from a misrepresentation of the double slit experiment and then maybe proceed with an explanation that seems designed to be illogical, incomprehensible and not make any sense.

Does the double slit experiment work if two groups of people are involved? One group, say Group A, collects the information at the double slits, and another group, say Group B, looks at the screen. Group A and B have no connection with each other, they are physically separated and has no communication between them, i.e. one group doesn't know what other have observed. Does Group B see diffraction pattern or two spots? The same situation can arise in delayed eraser experiment; imagine Group A has erased the information before Group B sees the screen; does Group B see diffraction or two spots?

Science at present seems to be all over the place in terms of its theories and model's,how any of it is taught as facts in schools is beyond me.

just wanna ask, how we can use all this information in our life, how we can use them to bend and reshape our game field, how to fix our daily problems beside the theory, i asked almost same question in other place as well,what is the practical application to connect to the data base willingly and use it to increase our potential in life, not just about relaxation or imagination meditation for peace or this kind a things, can we use any practical application for bending and reshaping our material reality according to our will? thanks

To Tom Campbell: In my video, “Particle 2 Slit Experiments Explained By Paul Marostica”, I very simply and logically explain the results of particle 2 slit experiments, not using quantum theory or virtual reality, but instead using a very simple field theory. I’m curious to learn what you think of my explanations. You can find my videos using the search keywords: matter theory marostica.

Can someone tell me what the added value is? When i expose the film and look at it it will tell me what the original experimental set up was/is....won't it!?

Tom, could the Larger Consciousness System itself be a subset of even larger system, perhaps something infinite?

Hi Tom, Let's suppose, couple of scientists make the experiment and they do not erase the detector data and they do not look at the screen. Then a stranger comes in the lab who does not know whether there is a collected detector data or not. So this stranger looks at the screen and if i am correct, he will see a particle pattern because even if he doesnt know that there is collected detector data, the detector data exist and that what matters. So this means that the stranger can find out if the scientists collected detector data or not by just looking at the screen?

Hi Tom, Lets assume that I am performing this experiment in front of a large audience (as though I am some sort of a magician or something!). Also assume that I have a tiny button hidden in my hand upon pressing which the 'which path' data recorded by the measuring devices gets deleted. Now consider I perform the following 2 acts: 1. I run the experiment and before revealing the screen to the audience I secretly press the tiny button in my hand to delete the 'which path' information that was recorded by the measuring devices. Upon revealing the screen everyone would observe an interference (wave) pattern. 2. Now I run the experiment and do not press the button. I reveal the screen to the audience and everyone would observe a clump pattern (as the 'which path' information is available from the measuring devices). Now if you say information causes collapse, the audience did not have information/knowledge of the fact that 'which path' information can be measured. But still they can see a clump pattern. So how does information cause collapse in this scenario?

What if you look at the data, confirm it behaved like a particle, and then erased the data? Would it go back to an interference pattern, or would the observation of the data before deleting it mean it would have to stay as a particle?

it appears that the particles are showing at the null points of the wave ??? how does one tell the difference between the magnetic or electric part of the waves ??

i have a few questions for Mr. Campbell: 1. If noone looks at the moountain, then the mountain isn't there (or isn't a "real" mountain - or whichever way you want to put it). Now Let's say noone looks at the mountain, and everyone then walks towards the mountain, eventually they're going to bump against it so the mountain is there. 2. Quantum mechanical effects are only significant at temperatures near absolute zero (the nobel prize has been handed out not long ago for this discovery if i'm not mistaken). So specific conditions like this (and many others) cannot be (without solid foundation) generalized to the macro world. I could be wrong about this, but a double check wouldn't be a waste of time. 3. The latest developments in consioussness studies tend to express the statement that "conscioussness is an emergent property", so how can an emergent property be fundamental to our universe? Tom Campbell is an excellent writer, i'm halfway his book "the big toe" and this one's a nice read. He is very clear when he speaks and has the gift of "tranquility" it seems lol. Anyway, keep up the good work Tom! We're anxiously waiting for the next one :-)

Hi Tom, Just discovered your channel, thank you so much for your great work. Just wanted to be sure I understand correctly - in the double slit experiment: a sensor is in place and the sensor data is recorded. At the end of the experiment, if a person checks the results (even without looking at the sensor recorded data), he would see a double band pattern. If however the sensor data is erased at the end of the experiment, before being seen by anyone, the same person, upon checking the result of the experiment, would see an interference pattern. Is this correct and has this actualy been tested? If so, what if only one person sees the sensor data, does not check the result of the experiment, and afterwards dies?

I’m not happy at all with how hard it is to determine the truth of this. I was told by at least one physicist that the experiment he describes in this video was never carried out. Or if it was, it always resulted in wave collapse even if the data was not recorded.

@CarschA

3 жыл бұрын

@@malloc8634 Most will follow the fools. Only a few follow authenticity.

Is there any video on this experiment ( seeing the information being erased and the pattern changing ) , so far it is talk , i havnt seen the experiment being done , ( seeing someone erasing the info and seeing one pattern, seeing the data and having another pattern )

@michaelwilkes0

8 жыл бұрын

+Science agreed.

@roninkegawa1804

8 жыл бұрын

+Michael Wilkes The experiment was published in 2000 I believe, and was called the Delayed choice quantum Eraser. It did not use tapes, but the results are the same.

@michaelwilkes0

8 жыл бұрын

+Lone Ulf Yes, I have read about it. The experiment is very interesting. In fact, for $2000 i found a home kit that can be bought to do the quantum eraser experiment yourself. Very cool. However, I was annoyed because Campbell did not present it as an analogy. He stated his analogy as fact. He is basically saying that you can take a piece of film out of the experiment, which you know has 2 dots. then, the next day, delete a file on your computer and the film changes to an interference pattern. This is just false. Yes the concept is the same, but it does not scale to that macro of level. No one talks about Schrodinger's cat experiment as an actual experiment that has been replicated many times.

@roninkegawa1804

8 жыл бұрын

I agree Michael. He uses an analogy as being a fact. In the experimentation the delay was 2 nano seconds. But in his defense, as long as the result changes depending on if we keep or not the data, does it matter if we keep the data for 2 nano seconds or 2 years? The result is the same. Somehow, by getting rid of the data that was previously collected, the end result changes. If you do some searches about that experiment you will find more evidences that what he is talking about is in fact happening. I am not sure I buy is explanation of why it is happening. I really do not know why it is happening, but it makes the concept of time quite interesting.

@michaelwilkes0

8 жыл бұрын

I do think it could make a difference whether we save it for 2 nano seconds or for 2 years. The current experiment takes place in a beam of light. You can "store" the beam of light for several nano seconds just by making the beam longer and putting the sensor farther away. I would love to see this experiment shoot the laser to the moon and back making it a couple seconds in the past. But to store the data long term would require a change in medium, like to a hard disk. This would probably collapse the wave function. If you could store the data without collapsing the wave function, and you could somehow completely erase that data, then in theory it should work. But, I suspect the wave function collapses when the data changes medium at all, like even from light to the electricity in the detector wires. I know he said that leaving the detector on, but not recording the output produced the interference pattern, but i think even that is wrong. I will go read it again to make sure.

I have only some questions. 1. What is the result in case of triple slit and one detector? this case if the detector does not signals still there are two slit..... 2. what happen if you have two walls both having 2 slits,, This case the detector at the first should not have effect to the interference because it can be after the second wall.

Here is a thought experiment: If everything is about information, and not about consciousness (being able to know or be aware of something) - Then what would happen if this experiment was done but only one person knows which slit was "slit A" and which slit was "slit B" during the experiment. The data would say that the particle went through either slit A or B. If we looked at the film at this point it would show two dots instead of a distribution pattern (because the person who knows which slit was slit A and B during the experiment is still alive). If we instead killed the person first, by stopping his haert and then looks at the data and the film, it would show a distribution pattern because nobody now knows which slit was slit A and B during the experiment, so the data is inconclusive. If we then suddenly decides to start his haert and make him conscious again, would the distribution pattern then suddenly magically appear on the screen, because we now can determine which slits were A and B?

@twcjr44

5 жыл бұрын

No "magic" is necessary. The system (LCS & PNR VR rendering engine) works on probability and is aware of every possibility and its probability. It is also aware of the experimenters thoughts and plans since the experimenters are a part of the system. It also knows whether or not the resuscitation will likely be successful and because of the uncertainty could make the resuscitation result be whatever it wished. Bottom line: Since the LCS controls every aspect of the VRs it creates, it is very hard to trick.

@JCV123

5 жыл бұрын

@@twcjr44 Aha, so we can't out smart the nature of reality. What is the connection between humans and the results we get from this experiment? To me it seems like it has everything to do with consciousness (maybe because I'm biased). The collapse of the wavefunction happens because the existence of data has the potential to be seen and then known by a conscious being. I can follow the idea of what you are talking about in the video (that it's all about information and not consciousness) if it's because the neurons and synapses in the brain after seeing the data, are being seen as data? So as long as data exists, no matter the form, it will collapse the wavefunction and show two dots on the film instead of a interference pattern.

There are no akashic records?

10:00 Where can I find a confirmation that measuring without recording data does let collaps the probability wave? Which experiment was that?

@Fransamsterdam

8 жыл бұрын

Of course it IS on the film before you develop it. Bullshit imo.

@Fransamsterdam

8 жыл бұрын

Does let = does not let.

In the DCQE experiment, when the data is erased, what method are they using to erase the data from the system? Deleted data is almost always recoverable.

@SUNSPYtm

9 жыл бұрын

It's a better version of the same thing, you can't say the measuring affects it sometimes and doesn;t other timess, but be objective.. otherwise you never know what is going to happen and the reality would nto be convincing at all. While I'm not a student, gladly, it sounds like they're trying to justify it with more assumption that it somehow does make a differentce even though its been proven 80yrs before, it is not the measurement, use both experiments, one or the other, they both say having access to information is all that matters. This scares anyone with any vested interest in the science, why wouldln't they try to explain it with some mystery. Why bother with a theory if you have to make it unexplainable mysterious and use terms like "its justt how it is". Same old denial. MBT fits so well and is so logical.. and nothing else does..

@dialecticalmonist3405

9 жыл бұрын

He was being metaphorical. I believe he is referring to a fairly complex experiment called the "delayed choice quantum eraser." So he tried to simplify it, by talking about erasing "data," like from a computer system.

I thouht delayed erasure does only work with quantum information, not with information which has crossed the treshold to classical information, definite yes or no, this or that. Am I wrong?

If there's no human watching on the information but instead there's a computer program which operates with real world depending on the experiment result, will result on the real world appear delayed as well (let's say it launched nuclear rockets) or will computer be counted as someone who made conscious measurement?

Energy is not bound in time as we are and has potential to be affected by intent? just thinking out loud Tom, would love to hear any ideas

@twcjr44

7 жыл бұрын

Yes. Understand that "energy" is a metaphor for something that can cause change. and that physical energy is limited to the VR in which it is physical. In the superset LCS, intent is energy and it can influence or trigger changes in the subset VR

What about the microscopic world ..how does it fit in the virtual reality theory? ..is this VR really that detailed?

If the information for which slit it goes through is recorded only on a single sheet of paper and I decide I will not look at it and burn it AFTER I look at the result would I get a probability distribution or particle pattern? If a particle pattern then you would think it's not because of observation by someone but just because the data exists?

@twcjr44

7 жыл бұрын

You would get a particle pattern just because the data exist when you look at the result. You are the observer and when you observe the screen results you will see particle pattern if detector data exists and is available. Once you see the screen result that becomes a fact in PMR and it matters not what you do with the detector data after that.

Very interesting! I have a thought experiment, which I think could be interesting to try out! While the measurements are taken, no humans are looking at the slit, but a fly does! If a fly gets the information of which particle went through which slit, even though no humans looked at it, but still collected the data...what would they see on the screen? And could that experiment also determine whether or not a fly is conscious? :)

@joem9629

8 жыл бұрын

same question asked, haha

So comparing cat experiment with delayed eraser if e.g. we open a box and realize that cat is dead and than, in somehow, "erase this data" when we open a box again cat can be again either dead or alive?

Is entropy - the heat death process believed effervescent in the universe - really more of a timer? As things cool, energy is lost, and things "freeze" it is a race for the perfect form before the clay hardens?

@ChrisPearson1337

9 жыл бұрын

I guess I should ask if thermodynamics present this as a real probability. Perhaps it's not an inevitability, but the presence of which gives viable cause to indicate "doing nothing" isn't an option. But is there a real potential for universal failure? Or is time merely a self-motivating perception where it simulates within its own simulation the potential only?

what happens if only half of collected data is erased? what will then appear on screen?

@johnwhite5306

4 жыл бұрын

@@malloc8634 Shut up

So... theoretically you could change a constant like the speed of light. By disseminating the new speed, destroying any book with the old speed in it and killing everyone who knew about the old speed. Once the new speed became the understood speed, measurement from that time on would reference the new knowledge?

@Tom Campbell does this experiment only work with photons or does this apply to all information? I apologize if this sounds like a foolish question for I'm only learning of this as of recently, for example if I set up a camera that could take a random picture (without anyone present) given a certain time frame, let say within a 5 minute period the camera will randomly take only one photo, this camera will be focused to a area of 1"X1", at the focused point there's a wheel that has a penny, a dime, a nickel , and a quarter, these coins will be on the outer perimeter of the circle. The circle will be spinning slowly, slow enough that when the random picture is taken within the given 5 minute period the camera will capture one of these coins, now if this experiment only works with photons then I've completely wasted my time typing this I suppose, but if it does apply to information in general then here's my question. Since no one was present when the camera took the photo within the 5 minute period and the wheel was spinning with 4 possible picture outcomes which gives the photo a 25% chance of being anyone of the individual coins, since no one was physically there to take the picture or observe the picture being taken does the probability still remain at 25% before observing the picture/information? I'm sorry if this sounds like lunacy but from what I'm understanding it was said that matter can exist at more than one given point in time, so what I'm not observing behind me isn't there until I look in that direction, so back to my scenario no one was there when the picture was taken, does this affect the % outcome or is it redundant because I originally knew what the camera would be taking a picture of?

@twcjr44

9 жыл бұрын

BLAZENYCBLACKOPS It is a general principle that works for everything (not just photons) but you are not applying it properly. The probability of getting each picture is still .25 and the camera is an extension of your senses making the measurements for you. According to the rule-set, there is still uncertainty as to the order in which the pictures are taken but not in the probability of getting any particular picture.

isn't it valid to consider, not just the photon, nor the resulting patern are influenced by observation, but to consider the observer has in fact changed. In a multiverse analogy, the observer is positioned in a different setting due to information?

What if consciousness is a fundamental part of the physical universe. Then when we make a measurement the fact that information is collected into an ordered form that interacts with this consciousness results in particles being observed.

@CarschA

3 жыл бұрын

It's the other way around, that is, the physical universe is a fundamental part of consciousness, as is everything else that exist. Think of the droplet in an ocean. Without the droplets there could be no ocean.

This video has a lot of interesting thoughts and I think defining information as the fundamental concept makes total sense. The holographic principle points in the same direction, by the way. But I see two minor misrepresentations in this video: For one thing consciousness is not very well defined in science and I believe the concept does not contribute very much in solving any problems in this area. The question about the dead observers sounds a bit too philosophical to me, like asking if a falling tree does actually make a sound if nobody is there to hear it. To me, there is no experiment (not even in principle) which could determine if there has to be a conscious observer involved for physical events to take place or not. So the question doesn't even make sense (it's like thinking about things "outside" of the universe). The second problem I see is in the erasure of the information about a distant nebula which some observers have seen. I totally agree that erasing ALL information about an event would "undo" it, but this would be next to impossible when using macroscopic objects. Even if all the observers are dead, I think the rest of the "physical world" would still have enough information to distinguish a nebula from a red dwarf: there are a lot of photons which actually did NOT hit the eyes of our dead observers and did have an effect on the physical world. These photons would of course have to "agree" if they came from one thing or another. We have to distinguish if the information is lost forever OR it could be reconstructed in any imaginable way. As I tried to point out, it does not make sense to think about events which are non-observable (any more).

So, there is no physical reality (or universe for that matter) unless there's a conscious observer...? What about if I go out in a forest and hide something, without telling anyone! Once I die, that "information" is gone. For all practical purposes it doesn't exist. Then many years later someone finds what I buried. Well, that just means it was always part of our reality, wether a conscious being was aware of it or not. Right..?

If all of reality is a computer program I wish the damn power would go out.

@CarschA

3 жыл бұрын

I do believe it's a really bad idea to compare reality with a computer program. Only those with no soul do that kind of thing.

Since it seems no one understands why this is happening yet... I am wondering if there is more details somewhere on the experiment... and what I mean by more detail is.... VERY detailed info.... like exactly what instruments are used. What the slits are made out of... what color they are.. what distance everything is placed at... etc etc. So that lots of minds can take a look at all the different variables and perhaps find something that is influencing the experiment that no one had thought of. With the info I have come across so far I don't even know if the "observer" is a human or a camera or a sensor... or... I have no idea. I'm sure this has all been looked at by better minds than my own, but it would help even someone like myself understand what is going on better to be able to rule this or that out. When I hear Neil DeGrasse try to explain it away it made no sense to me. saying that the observers eyeball is using light bouncing off of the particle and that light is interfering with the particle... but there is almost always light... hitting from many angles.. our eyes don't suddenly create the light ... they just pick up some of it in the form of reflecting off an object. There is plenty to be confused about... so if anyone knows a link to details of the experiments, it might help someone like myself understand... even if the understanding is that it cannot be understood currently. .. Even if this comment is old when you read it... if you have the info I am talking of and can link it, it may help out people wanting to look deeper into this. Thanks for reading.

@JLeb1990

10 ай бұрын

I used to have a lot of respect for Neil DeGrasse, but I can’t stand that guy now. He is so sure of himself and his knowledge that he will ignore evidence and even make up his own in order to come to a conclusion he can explain.

What if you took the measurement with the detectors at the slits and before you destroyed it or looked at the screen, you showed the data to a dog but no humans. Then you destroy the data? What would the screen show?

@alansewell7810

10 ай бұрын

Schrodinger's CAT?

What if i duplicate the data from the counter than i destroy the original. Look at the film first whats the pattern? After that i look at my duplicated copy of the counter data? Can I fool reality?

If consciousness is needed to make information, then if there is some higher consciousness who knows always where is everything (not necessary allknowing, but that concept works also), if all is recorded somewhere like in some kind of Akasha, then does it follows we would never see any quantum efect? And the fact there is quantum uncertianity then means that no one is watching actually , no one is taking the data?

how can they look at data after it's been erased?

Quran is clear that whatever a person believes or expects of the Creator, thst is what they will experience. This delayed eraser experiment confirms this, as it shows that what we see is bssed on the expectation, which is based on the information we see. Therefore, if the information we have determines our experience, how important is revelation from the Creator: the Quran.

what if we are getting too clued up about all of this and the programmers decide to reset us ?

@elweedo2003

8 жыл бұрын

+Scott Robertson Maybe it's a moral or ethical dilemma. If you have created consciousness in a virtual reality, is it immoral to kill it? It might not be so much they don't want us to know, but they don't want to erase our existence.

@RollingThunder808

5 жыл бұрын

The Creators wanted us to know that we are in a subjective Universe otherwise they wouldn't have given us this clue. This clue is written into the program of this virtual reality. They could have easily made it two slits makes two lines but they didn't.

@RollingThunder808

5 жыл бұрын

I heard that conscience can not be created or destroyed. We all come back and face Karma. Nobody gets away with anything. We retain no memory of our previous thousands of lives good or bad lives. Our conscience is not physically in this virtual reality.

@bgs03548

5 жыл бұрын

Paul Okada ‘Energy’ cannot be destroyed only transformed. Not Consciousness. Consciousness is raised by increasing your frequency....out of this 3D reality because it is going to be culled/harvested and then Reset. Last one.

@johnwhite5306

4 жыл бұрын

There you go giving, human emotions to something we have no understanding of. Typical.

What if the data and the results are viewed at the exact same time