you're missing the most critical piece of information the experiment uncovers.

@JeffMesser Whats that?
This?
"The system has four-entangled observers and a state-of-the-art six-photon experiment and they showed that while one part of the system produced a measurement, the other showed that the measurement had not been done. Two realities were measured at once. The team argues that this strengthens the case of quantum theories whose framework is already observer-dependent.

“This calls into question the objective status of the facts established by the two observers,” the scientists write in their paper, which has yet to be peer-reviewed . . ."

And how does that change the base reality of say, hunger and starvation?
It doesn't nor can it affect whether there is food or not via quantum.
And even if it did represent that BOTH exist, only one manifests and we have zero understabing as to why.
We assumme it is the observer effect (which is not really understood, only observed.

So in what way does this information change anything in a universe we are already largely ignorant of?

@Davesnothere once again verifies that consciousness has an effect on the physical universe. the additional information also suggests we're on the right path vis a vis multiple realities.

How does it affect hunger and starvation? Listen to Peter Russell discuss the issue for a moment and consider time from the standpoint of light. It affects hunger by making it a rather paltry consideration given infinity.

@JeffMesser It does not verify that as in a falsefiable meaningful way. It does indicate that observation of the quantum affects the quantum.

Infinity has no meaning to creature who might live a hundred years.

We may have many diverse realities
BUT we can only live in the one manifested.

So this feels like a combination of wish think (since conciousness seems to effect the quantum therefore what, conciousness is quantum, and we are eternal?

Seems like a lot of mental masturbation which does not help us at all, when we are living in the sixth extinction event.

Maybe I am just missing something, but it seems like a lot of science is spawning even more woo thinking. How would you ever prove such a thing? Seems non falsifiable to me.

Peter russell has been on this idea for decades.

@Davesnothere 1. No, no weaseling out of it. If you're not going to follow actual epistemology then at least accede to the fact that it provides verifiable and repeatable effects. It is evidence of and, therefore, proof.

Infinity has no meaning to us? well, that's just kind of ignorant. Considering the boundaries of our existence most certainly has meaning and your "no infinity" view is merely opinion. It's not fact either. Just because you choose to fall on one side of the line vice the other doesn't mean you move goalposts during the discussion to benefit your own claim.

Wish think? Have you even considered the epistemology of verifying results when the observer is the target and the trait has no mass? How do you think Einstein and Maxwell and others postulated ideas about it? WHY do you think they did? We have problems measuring things with no mass - there's nothing to measure. We must rely on effects as "evidence thereof" and speculate as to the cause. The scientific method that all the so-called agnostics like to reference was actually first devised in the vedas. Comparison to known systems is one of the established methods for proof.

It's only "woo" because you don't get it. Peter Russell is going down the right path. Please offer a better explanation for times' constant value ... because I find it to be 100% feasible and highly likely. The POTENTIAL for light is available immediately if we have the "tools" to receive the information. The wave form doesn't breakdown to particle or stream until the unit or work is transferred across the tiniest, most minute gap between axions and it is all in ergs/time or distance. This is how entanglement happens as well. That's how 2 particles can copy actions across a galaxy instantaneously. It's already here.

@JeffMesser Not rying to weasel out of anything, I do not see the value of this entire line of thought.

Thanks for trying to get me to see your point,.

"at least accede to the fact that it provides verifiable and repeatable effects"
We do not have that yet, this research has not been peer reviewed.

I did not say nor imply our life has no meaning.Not trying to move the goalposts either.

"Wish think? Have you even considered the epistemology of verifying results when the observer is the target and the trait has no mass?"
YES actually, but how does that effect OUR FUNCTIONAL REALITY?
It is interesting, but largly unknown, we have barely dipped our toe in this field. SO why all the assertions about "cosmic Mind" and quantum mind?
We have no way of testing that, thus it seems like an interesting thought exercise, and nothing more.

Seems very Deepak like to me, since our conciousness effects the quantum therefore the moon only exists because we believe it does?

Seems like a huge leap of faith to me.

I've read the Vedas.

"It's only "woo" because you don't get it." Quite possible, I am human and prone to cognitive bias of all sorts like all of us and an inability to grasp things outside my bubble. I do try. It's woo to me because it seems more like there is an interesting anomaly, but rather than simply say "an interesting anomaly, lets study it"
It's "An interesting anomaly, let me postulate all my core spiritual beliefs into that as an explanation."
If you set out to find a certain thing your likely to find the evidence due to your own bias and desires.

" Please offer a better explanation for times' constant value" It is not on me to provide that, nor within my capabilities. Not knowing is not evidence for that Hypothesis.

THIS " That's how 2 particles can copy actions across a galaxy instantaneously" is ALL in the microverse, the quantum. While that is possible in the quantum, it has zero evidence it is possible in the macro world we exist in.

So why would you conclude(?) that duality is therefore evidence for a cosmic mind, or eternal conciousness?
IF your hardware is toast, your software cannot run, right? You would need some other platform for that program to run on, right? We have zero evidence for any "quantum brain" on which a conciousness could run.

AND I do not think we can say for certain it is conciousness which causes the observer effect, I think it is an obvious link, but I do not think we have evidence it is conciousness itself which causes the effect, I do not see why it could not be simply the effect of looking into the Quantum from the macro. Like opening a window creates a draft, in an area where we have not even identified what wind is.

I do not see how these amazing things in particle physics relate to us in any real maco way
UNLESS we burden that data with a bunch of assertions we do not have evidence for.

@Davesnothere we have barely dipped our toe in this field? hardly. the vedas have been talking about this for thousands of years.

@JeffMesser The vedas are not quantum mechanics, in order to even see them as related requires us to interpret the script as if it pertains to something we did not know existed then.

@Davesnothere really? do you know how theoretical physics starts? because something isn't labeled the same thing you call doesn't mean it isn't making the same sense and using the same narrative. go back and read how Einstein and Faraday and Tesla filled their days with dreams. That "sub-stratum" discussed in the Mandukya upanishad as the turiya is the same spoken of by theoretical physicists today. The stages of consciousness there and in the Taittiriya upanishad are those used by psychologists today. The charioteer metaphor of the Katha upanishad is used in epistemology today discussing the limitations of "seeing the seer". So don't be so sure about knowing things now that were unknown then. Civilization didn't start in the west.

@JeffMesser How is that ANY different than Christianity, all through history calling discovery fter discovery a PROOF of their religion?

People read Genesis and think it proves the damn big bang too.

If you already accept the notion of the Vedas AS a reality, then it is easy to see how quatum fits that mold for you, but it looks to me like a bias in favor of "eternal life", with no evidence to support it. Just an interpretation of an ancient text in terms of a modern science.

I am not saying civilization started in the west, or that ancient cultures lack meaning and value. I am saying that framing a modern science in terms of an ancient religion is tainting the raw science with religious notions
WHILE ignoring all the other aspects of ancient Hinduism which don't fit.

Like a God of the Gaps for the Vedas.

"Gaudapada's Karika on the Upanishad became the basis for the emergence of the Advaita Vedanta or the philosophy of monism, according to which Brahman alone is the truth and the rest is an illusion. The Upanishad deals with the symbolic significance of the sacred syllable Aum and its correlation with the four states of consciousness, namely the wakeful consciousness, dream state, the state of deep sleep or dreamless sleep and the state of transcendental consciousness in which all divisions and duality disappears and the self alone exists in its pure state, all by itself."

A mental state of mind is not evidence for some quantum reality anymore than an LSD trip is evidence of anything but a drug interaction.

no, the upanishad itself was the source for monism and advaita vedanta. Not someone's view of it. The vedas are not canonical like the bible, koran, and talmud. They get updated to account for modern changes through the sutras, puranas, granthas, and itihasa so despite being memorized up to 80KYA (rig veda) the views are updated as human knowledge expands.

your mental state of mind comment is rather ill-educated. you really should refrain from criticizing something you've never read. you should also ask current psych experts the original source of all current prevailing views on consciousness - it all comes from the vedas and was originally written about 3KYA. They understood the black box concept and used it rather efficiently. Not understanding the reasoning didnt prevent them from notating the effects, comparing them to known phenomenon, and noting differences/predicting future data. Ask the AMA for your proof about acupressure, acupuncture, chakra centers for electrical fields, and meditation. You'll find the AMA reluctantly agreed to use all of these procedures despite not meeting western testing procedures. They worked BACKWARDS from effect. The original scientific method was devised by Hindus, not Anglos. Plus you have yet to respond to the problem with testing the tester.

So to me your denial is ill-educated.

@JeffMesser You misunderstand me.
"the upanishad itself was the source for monism and advaita vedanta.
Not someone's view of it."
Not someones view of the Vedas or Upanishads THEN
YOU or others taking the Vedas and then interpreting them VIA quantum mechanics, of which the writers wrote nothing, they had no idea of the quantum.

They are describing states of conciousness.
It is YOU and others who are then asserting those states of conciousness MUST BE quantum in nature. There is no evidence from the observastion effect that would lead me to conclude that without solid evidence. Rather it seems to me that an unknown effect happens when we observe particles in the microverse.
Some people are attributing that to conciousness, but I do not see any direct evidentiary connection, and it does not rule out any number of unknown unknowns being the culprit.

"the views are updated as human knowledge expands."
Bending the interpretation of the Dogma to suit what we find, which indicates the interpretations of the works have changed.

"So to me your denial is ill-educated."
I am not denying anything (curious term oft used to defend faith, are you quite sure your position is scientific and not faith based, with a science frosting?)

I am saying I do not find the evidence compelling, certainly not compelling enough for me to leap to the conclusion, as you seem to have, prior to any peer review, that it must be so, because the Vedas.

That is much the same as people who rationalize a 6000 year old planet, because the Bible.
[skepdic.com]

@JeffMesser "There are also huge pressures at work that value things other than just the most effective healthcare. Industry, for example, is often motivated by profit. Institutions and health care providers may be motivated by the desire for prestige in addition to profits. Insurance companies are motivated by cost savings. Everyone is motivated by a desire to have the best health possible – we all want treatments that work safely, often more so than the desire to be logical or consistent. And often personal or institutional ideology comes into play – we want health care to validate our belief systems.

These conflicting motives create a disconnect in the minds and behaviors of many people. They pay lip service to science-based medicine, but are good at making juicy rationalizations to justify what they want to be true rather than what the science supports. We all do this to some degree – but, in my opinion, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is a cultural institution that is built upon these rationalizations. It is formalized illogic and anti-science conceals as science under a mountain of rationalizations.

Some recent news items and reports dealing with acupuncture demonstrate this disconnect quite well.

The BMJ

The British Medical Journal (BMJ) recently published a review of acupuncture studies in the treatment of chronic pain. Like most other reviews of acupuncture studies, the authors were not impressed. They concluded:

A small analgesic effect of acupuncture was found, which seems to lack clinical relevance and cannot be clearly distinguished from bias. Whether needling at acupuncture points, or at any site, reduces pain independently of the psychological impact of the treatment ritual is unclear."

[sciencebasedmedicine.org]

@Davesnothere nope. chandogya upanishad says that turiya is brahma. why don't you have anything to say about creating our reality in our mind?

@JeffMesser
"verifies that consciousness has an effect on the physical universe. "
Oh dear so basically you are looking for a way to legitimise believing in magic.

@JeffMesser " why don't you have anything to say about creating our reality in our mind?"
Hmm, thats a good one. If we did such a thing everyone would own a porche or tesla and no one would ever need to work would they, just "create" real food with our minds.

OOOOOOOOMMM . . .Hey I'm a millionaire! It works!

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier, conflating the micro verse with the macro verse.

@Davesnothere do you just intentionally misinterpret things? if you havent figured out that the world around you is created in your mind then you're about 30 years of study and reading behind me.

I will leave you with something I learned in all that time. You can't drive straight through from OKC, Ok to Mumbai, India. But you can get there in a few stops.

@JeffMesser

Created with your mind eh? That is a very long stretch from the science.

Don't you really mean "percieved through our senses"?

Tell me, do you think you can create clothes to keep you warm in snow by thought?
Food to keep you hungry, by thought?

" the world around you is created in your mind"
Are you refering to the models our minds make of our senses, or are you asserting you make choclate cake by thought?
Because it really sounds more like the latter than the former
If the world was created by thought we would all be millionaires.

OF COURSE our brains build models of our perceptions of reality based upon our sensory input!
THAT is not CREATING anything, it is a perceptual model for survival in reality, it does not make reality created by our minds.

I have read the same things, at least somewhat, the Vedas, Upanishads, decades ago.

What I try not do is assume or assert without factual evidence.

@Davesnothere no we havent read the same things. you're still in OKC. or Maine. wherever. and no not perceived. created. there's no such thing as blue. your blue and my blue may be completely different. there was a time when we didnt even have blue. merely green. Try the Vivekachudamani by Sri Adi Shankara.

@JeffMesser I am aware the eyes evoled, I am aware our minds build models.

THAT is not creating reality.

We percieve reality through our senses, those senses are interpreted by our brains to render the models we call reality. Those models match each other to a high extent, or else we would be crashing into each other and roads and cars would be worthless, as my model and your model did not match.

You have blended soft solipism with hindu ideas and quantum physics ideas like a milk shake.

THUS creating your very own personal religion.

YOU are entitled to believe anything you want. You can believe as you do, or believe little pink fairies fly out your ass at night and make the world go round.
THAT is your right and privalage, and as long as it niether breaks my leg or picks my pocket, I have no issue with you believing that.

However to insist that it is a TRUTH, like some absolute truth, then you need evidential support. You do not have that, instead your interpreting Quantum to support your faith.

Have a nice life, this has become a tedious waste of energy but thanks for the conversation. I enjoiy learning how others frame their realities.