11 ms·

I'm going to play devils advocate here. We already know that the observer effect is real. We have no idea on what level the spiritual world is in. I would find

I'm going to play devils advocate here. We already know that the observer effect is real. We have no idea on what level the spiritual world is in. I would find it logical, that if we ever do discover that this paranormal realm we can tap into is real, that one of the reasons we ignored it so long is that, our intentions have much to do with it. So participating in studies to prove its real would effect how it behaves. Personally.. I highly doubt its real, else we would have more people doing this full time. There were also the divining rods that were bomb detectors(https://slate.com/technology/2013/04/dowsing-for-bombs-maker-of-useless-bomb-detectors-convicted-of-fraud.html https://slate.com/technology/2013/04/dowsing-for-bombs-maker...). People are crazy with what we will and won't believe. With varying levels of proof on each side...

kaibee 5y ago
> We already know that the observer effect is real. If you're talking about the quantum mechanics effect, then you're misunderstanding it. In QM 'observing' just means measuring something about a system. The only way we know of measuring stuff on a quantum level is by poking it with light or other particles. On the scale of quantum interactions, poking something with light affects the thing you're trying to measure. The 'observer effect' has nothing to do with there being any sort of conscious or intelligent observer.
- musingsole 5y ago
  > The 'observer effect' has nothing to do with there being any sort of conscious or intelligent observer. If a tree falls in the woods and there's no one to hear it, does it make a sound? Science can't meaningfully separate any of its observations from a conscious observer. At present, that's the realm of philosophy.
  - mypalmike 5y ago
    If you rigorously define the term "make a sound", the tree in a forest question loses its apparent profundity.
    - musingsole 5y ago
      Then please do so. Until you have conscious observer, you have no evidence that anything at all has happened and you might as well discuss angels on a pinhead.
      - mypalmike 5y ago
        Better than me defining it, you should choose a definition. Make it rigorous and unambiguously testable and your conundrum goes away. Furthermore, plenty of phenomena are detectable without a present conscious observer. If I accidentally drop a bread crumb as I bite into a crusty sandwich while walking in the forest and nobody notices, does it ever land on the ground? (Note that in this case, there's no linguistic ambiguity to insert a false profundity to the question. "Land on the ground" is pretty clearly defined.) We know the answer is yes because we understand gravity. And as evidence (rather than first principles), we might also find ants later in the spot where the breadcrumb landed.
        musingsole 5y ago
        Schroedinger's breadcrumb.
- brimble 5y ago
  Note for the confused: the "observer effect", as in modifying a system by poking it in order to measure it, is not the same thing as the uncertainty principal. Evidently, somehow, Heisenberg himself got the two confused (?!) which is why when I learned about it by fucking reading Heisenberg ("surely this will be accurate") I ended up thinking the two were basically the same thing.
IanCal 5y ago
We could eliminate that though. Even if there were an effect that was impacted by our intentions we could design experiments that were measuring the effect of earnestly carried out actions. If the effect is broken as long as someone is able to, after the fact, discern if there's any benefit vs chance - there is no possible effect.
noasaservice 5y ago
That's what Aleister Crowley was trying to do. His initial goal was to connect science and magick into a complete system. (He kinda devolved into crazy) Why do some people feel it? Why do some dont? What is the nature of this "energy"? Can devices do magick instead of humans? There's enough coincidences that should make most at least curious what's going on. It may be nothing... but probably isn't.
- voakbasda 5y ago
  If you learn about biology and physiology of the human body and mind, you will realize that our senses are easily fooled by both external and internal forces. All of the so-called mystical forces are more easily explained by such factors. Occam’s razor applies here. Human perception is incredible fallible and highly susceptible to self-subversion, and that is the simplest and most likely explanation of any magical or mystical phenomena.
  - noasaservice 5y ago
    If you think I was wanting a comment, you'd be sorely mistaken.

kaibee 5y ago

> We already know that the observer effect is real. If you're talking about the quantum mechanics effect, then you're misunderstanding it. In QM 'observing' just means measuring something about a system. The only way we know of measuring stuff on a quantum level is by poking it with light or other particles. On the scale of quantum interactions, poking something with light affects the thing you're trying to measure. The 'observer effect' has nothing to do with there being any sort of conscious or intelligent observer.

musingsole 5y ago
> The 'observer effect' has nothing to do with there being any sort of conscious or intelligent observer. If a tree falls in the woods and there's no one to hear it, does it make a sound? Science can't meaningfully separate any of its observations from a conscious observer. At present, that's the realm of philosophy.
- mypalmike 5y ago
  If you rigorously define the term "make a sound", the tree in a forest question loses its apparent profundity.
  - musingsole 5y ago
    Then please do so. Until you have conscious observer, you have no evidence that anything at all has happened and you might as well discuss angels on a pinhead.
    - mypalmike 5y ago
      Better than me defining it, you should choose a definition. Make it rigorous and unambiguously testable and your conundrum goes away. Furthermore, plenty of phenomena are detectable without a present conscious observer. If I accidentally drop a bread crumb as I bite into a crusty sandwich while walking in the forest and nobody notices, does it ever land on the ground? (Note that in this case, there's no linguistic ambiguity to insert a false profundity to the question. "Land on the ground" is pretty clearly defined.) We know the answer is yes because we understand gravity. And as evidence (rather than first principles), we might also find ants later in the spot where the breadcrumb landed.
      - musingsole 5y ago
        Schroedinger's breadcrumb.
brimble 5y ago
Note for the confused: the "observer effect", as in modifying a system by poking it in order to measure it, is not the same thing as the uncertainty principal. Evidently, somehow, Heisenberg himself got the two confused (?!) which is why when I learned about it by fucking reading Heisenberg ("surely this will be accurate") I ended up thinking the two were basically the same thing.

IanCal 5y ago

We could eliminate that though. Even if there were an effect that was impacted by our intentions we could design experiments that were measuring the effect of earnestly carried out actions. If the effect is broken as long as someone is able to, after the fact, discern if there's any benefit vs chance - there is no possible effect.

noasaservice 5y ago

That's what Aleister Crowley was trying to do. His initial goal was to connect science and magick into a complete system. (He kinda devolved into crazy) Why do some people feel it? Why do some dont? What is the nature of this "energy"? Can devices do magick instead of humans? There's enough coincidences that should make most at least curious what's going on. It may be nothing... but probably isn't.

voakbasda 5y ago
If you learn about biology and physiology of the human body and mind, you will realize that our senses are easily fooled by both external and internal forces. All of the so-called mystical forces are more easily explained by such factors. Occam’s razor applies here. Human perception is incredible fallible and highly susceptible to self-subversion, and that is the simplest and most likely explanation of any magical or mystical phenomena.
- noasaservice 5y ago
  If you think I was wanting a comment, you'd be sorely mistaken.