If you are here, you have some doubts about my statement on how our consciences can affect reality, suggested by Quantum Physics. Here is the video to intro it if you are unfamiliar:
From my own research, many traditional physicists mocks the concept of consciousness affecting the world of physics. Even the popular Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson dismisses this concept and makes fun of it. However, many Quantum Physicist now believe in this concept of consciousness affecting the physical world based on the evidence from experiments.
Now, there are two type of doubters – lazy ones and diligent ones. Lazy is not a bad thing, but just means you doubt but you don’t want to spend a lot of time investigating. Diligent ones want to investigate a lot. I’ve made some argument sessions on both:
Here I offer some higher level items, mostly in the form of social proof. This shows the credibility of people who believe in this consciousness concept. This is not “widely accepted” or “proven” in any way, but it is a legitimate theory that accomplishing scientists support.
“When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again. It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.“
―Eugene Wigner, Nobel Prize Winner and leading Physicist of the Twentieth Century
“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”
― Max Planck, Also Nobel Prize Winner
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
― Also Max Planck
Here is an article by BBC that supports this:
“It turns out that, just as Bohr confidently predicted, it makes no difference whether we delay the measurement or not. As long as we measure the photon’s path before its arrival at a detector is finally registered, we lose all interference. It is as if nature “knows” not just if we are looking, but if we are planning to look.”
“Beginning in the 1980s, the British physicist Roger Penrose suggested that the link might work in the other direction. Whether or not consciousness can affect quantum mechanics, he said, perhaps quantum mechanics is involved in consciousness.”
This is Roger Penrose’s Credentials:
“Penrose is known for his work in mathematical physics, in particular for his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He has received several prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics, which he shared with Stephen Hawking for the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems”
Adrien Kent has this quote: “We could make some progress on understanding the problem of the evolution of consciousness if we supposed that consciousnesses alters (albeit perhaps very slightly and subtly) quantum probabilities.” BBC adds, “In other words, the mind could genuinely affect the outcomes of measurements.”
Adrien Kent’s credentials are:
Professor of Quantum Physics, DAMTP, University of Cambridge
Distinguished Visiting Research Chair at Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario
Fellow of Wolfson College, Cambridge
Director of Studies in Mathematics at Darwin College, Cambridge
Affiliate at the Institute for Quantum Computing, University of Waterloo, Ontario
Visiting Scholar at Wolfson College, Oxford”
For those who are more serious doubters, here is some backup science to investigate into.
Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment
The best and most convincing is the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment. The video below is the second part of the video posted above (this here is the original), but is a video to make sure to watch.
The 3 min 6s mark is a good place to start. I didn’t fully understand the experiment from a bunch of other videos, but this one I finally understood it in roughly 5 minutes. This explains how the human mind is what determines the results, not the measuring device.
Tom Campbell Workshop
This is a LONG workshop by Thomas W. Campbell explaining the experiments. His conclusion: “There is no objective reality.”
You can probably start at the 44 min mark if you don’t want to watch the whole thing. Below is his bio:
“Campbell has had a long career as a scientist and physicist. He received a B.S. in Physics as well as an M.S. in Physics. His Ph.D. work specialized in Experimental Nuclear Physics with a thesis in low-energy nuclear collisions. Subsequently, he spent the better part of 30 years working within the U.S. missile defense community as a contractor to the Department of Defense. Campbell most recently worked for NASA within the Ares I program (follow-on to the Shuttle) assessing and solving problems of risk and vulnerability to insure mission and crew survivability and success.”
Some people doubt his credibility, but I dug deeper into Thomas Campbell’s background as people said his background isn’t verifiable and he just made it up.
I finally found his credentials on the NASA website: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20090014192
In the PDF that is attached there, it does verify that, “THOMAS W. CAMPBELL is currently consulting in the field of Probabilistic Design Analysis for NASA. He has over 36 years of experience working with the Department of Defense in several fields, including systems engineering; technology development; physics based modeling and simulation; algorithm and software development; intelligence analysis; radars, antenna, and electronic environments analysis; system security engineering; technology transfer, reuse, and insertion; engineering management and program management; and system risk and vulnerability. He received a B.S. in Physics as well as an M.S. in Physics. His Ph.D. work specialized in Experimental Nuclear Physics with a thesis in low-energy nuclear collisions.”
Since his work with NASA is assessing and solving problems of risk and vulnerability to insure the Ares shuttle mission and crew survivability and success, I think there needs to be a lot of precision in his work, as opposed to being an idealistic philosopher.
2. If you want to investigate the actual scientific paper, check out this LONG and dense reading:
Hope this is helpful!