TED Conversations

Poch Peralta

Freelance Writer / Blogger,


This conversation is closed.

Can Consciousness Alter Our Physical World?

Scientific Studies That Prove Consciousness Can Alter Our Physical World
'Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.' – Niels Bohr
'For quite some time now, physicists have been exploring the relationship between human consciousness and its relationship to the structure of matter. Previously it was believed that a Newtonian material universe was the foundation of our physical material reality. This all changed when scientists began to recognize that everything in the universe is made out of energy. Quantum physicists discovered that physical atoms are made up of vorticies of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating. Matter, at its tiniest observable level, is energy, and human consciousness is connected to it, human consciousness can influence it’s behavior and even re-structure it...'


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Apr 14 2014: Poch,
    If our collective mental model & thoughts of reality changes then the universe changes big or small proportional to our thoughts or "collective consciousness" so directed . So-when we believed that the earth was motionless at the center of the universe-that was our reality-(or was it?), then the nature of the Universe big or small did not changed -just our conception of it- Thinking alone cannot change reality. There is no known mechanism for it. But the idea sells Quantum Mysticism books.
    Another plume of smoke is the use of new agers of the "observer effect",if you want to know the location of an electron you need to fire a photon at the electron in order to pinpoint its location (the photon is the measuring tool in this case) what happens is when the photon interacts with the electron it effects its momentum (an interaction that would have occurred with or without a conscious observer), so now we know where the electron is but cannot know what momentum it was traveling at because we effected it's momentum. This is where observer created reality comes into play, we have in effect created or predetermined what would happen by the tools we used and the measurement taken.So "Observer created reality" is simply the tools and the experiment we use will manifest certain realities, it is not really our consciousness that created what happened.
    In the Schroedinger cat experiment, the cat is a perfectly adequate observer of a quantum state, and while we may scratch our heads and ponder on the half-deadness of a cat, the cat itself has no such illusions on that point.

    At Q levels shooting a photon at an electron will definetelty alter the measurement, however if you observe a tiger (unspotted by the big Cat) you are not going to change his behavior(no photons to shoot at macro levels),just passive observation, However, if you went up and poked it I guarantee you its behavior would be affected by this form of observation. No magic man, just nature cruel & beautiful.
    • thumb
      Apr 14 2014: Your explanation is the best so far Carlos.

      'No magic man, just nature cruel & beautiful.'
      And a deep and beautiful description too!
    • thumb
      Apr 14 2014: You used the human hand in your illustration of effecting change (poking the tiger). So are our hands considered tools that create reality?
      • thumb
        Apr 14 2014: Poch,
        Not "create" but rather transform , I don't think that reality can be "created" , Things exists we all agree ( I hope) thus to think on period where nothing "existed"(a philosophical nothingness) is imo pointless, existence becomes then an always necessary condition in this ballpark; Reality existed before human consciousness and without a need of a "creator"... or maybe nature is conscious since we are examining it?! That I leave to philosophers!

        Thanks for your kind words,
        • thumb
          Apr 14 2014: 'Reality existed before human consciousness...'
          I quote a philosopher: 'Something becomes real only when two people agree it exists.'
          Do you still believe in your statement?
      • thumb
        Apr 15 2014: Poch,
        Remember when we all physicists agreed on the existence of luminiferous aether? -no more- or when we all "knew' that the world was flat, or Aristotelian physics vs Newton vs Einstein vs now... Now we are all in agreement that crossing an intersection recklessly is foolish so based in a consensus view that is practical for all. A bunch of folks can agree on a bad or good perspective of what reality means or is but that doesn't necessarily makes it real, we all agree that Bambi is cute, but not real, others agree that some religions or races are superior (as a fact) but we know better now (right?) Consensus in reality beyond the practical requires evidence and a methodology to establish best explanations to where to make predictions from and also falsifiable methinks.
        • thumb
          Apr 15 2014: If you also argued precisely that: 'we all believe that Bambi is a REAL cartoon character yet it doesn't exist', then you would have convinced me better! But I see your point alright Carlos. You have refuted my philosopher's argument. Great job amigo.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.