Idealism

nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Idealism

I'm a monistic idealist and believe our universe is made of information rather than matter.  It seems to make a lot more sense than either materialism or dualism.

One reason is conservation of energy.  For example, if extra terrestrials intentionally created our universe, it would make more sense for them to do this as a simulation.  Why would they waste all the energy required to do it for real?  With enough processing power simulating a universe on a computer doesn't seem like that far fetched of an idea.  Some being, phenomenon, quantum fluctuation, whatever producing an infinite amount of "real" energy and pressure in a singularity is more implausible.             

We, of course, can't tell the difference whether our universe is real or a simulation because we are only interpreting the data received through our senses, which is pure information.

The double slit experiment shows that matter behaves like a wave (degrees of certainty) until a conscious observer collects information about it and only then does it behave like particles/atoms/buckyballs etc.   Idealism explains this without having to postulate string theory, 11 dimensions and all that.     

So for the materialists (and dualists), why do you have such a strong belief in the objective, observer-independent reality of physical matter? Are you skeptical of it at all?   


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
No

I am not at all skeptical of materialism.  If something can be measured in some way, it is real.  Radiation - real.  Supernovas - real.  Me - real.  Emotions - real.  Things that can not be measured with our current technology may be determined to be real at some future time.  Until then, they are not real.

And that is probably as much as you will get out of me as I really don't like to sit in a corner and play with my toes. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
But information wouldn't

But information wouldn't exist without matter and energy. So materialism accounts for that too.

 


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:But

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

But information wouldn't exist without matter and energy.

In theory you only need real matter and energy in one universe.   Say there is a real universe somewhere and one of its inhabitants has a computer (real matter) plugged into a power outlet (real energy), on which a universe simulation program has been running.  This simulated universe evolves intelligent beings which eventually learn how to build computers (using the simulated matter and energy in their simulated universe) and simulate universes themselves.   These universes in turn evolve their own intelligent life which does the same thing and this goes on and on.  In all these universes there is real information but the matter and energy is simulated in all but that "top" one.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2402
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:Cpt_pineapple

nebula wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

But information wouldn't exist without matter and energy.

In theory you only need real matter and energy in one universe.   Say there is a real universe somewhere and one of its inhabitants has a computer (real matter) plugged into a power outlet (real energy), on which a universe simulation program has been running.  This simulated universe evolves intelligent beings which eventually learn how to build computers (using the simulated matter and energy in their simulated universe) and simulate universes themselves.   These universes in turn evolve their own intelligent life which does the same thing and this goes on and on.  In all these universes there is real information but the matter and energy is simulated in all but that "top" one.

 

 

                  Let us NOT ......"Say there is a real universe somewhere......" unless you have evidence to back up the fantasy. The rest of your paragraph is direct from Erich Van Danikan's book "gold of the gods" and Scientology.   At least come up with something original or stand by to get sued for plagerism.

 

 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 ^agree - it's all very

 ^agree - it's all very well having philosophies like "We only exist in the dreams of someone else" - but unless you can back it up with a smidgen of evidence, it's not something to base your reality on, if it means rejecting a million other things that are evidence-based.

Occam's razor and all that...

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote: The double

nebula wrote:


The double slit experiment shows that matter behaves like a wave (degrees of certainty) until a conscious observer collects information about it and only then does it behave like particles/atoms/buckyballs etc.   Idealism explains this without having to postulate string theory, 11 dimensions and all that.     

So for the materialists (and dualists), why do you have such a strong belief in the objective, observer-independent reality of physical matter? Are you skeptical of it at all?   

Of course I'm skeptical of my own view of reality, but it's the only view I have.  Epistemologically, I consider myself a pragmatist.  

As a side note, the double slit experiment doesn't say anything about the "conscious"-ness of the observer.  The probability wave collapses irrelative of an observer, but rather dependent on the interaction alone.  If you place a detector of any kind at the slits, it will behave as a particle regardless of whether someone is watching or not.  You're confusing the "act of measuring" as conscience dependent.  It is the fact that the particle interacts with a photon that collapses it. 

Just because we have no way of explaining some quantum behavior, it doesn't automatically equate with god.  Our brains/senses are just not wired that way.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:Let us NOT

Jeffrick wrote:

Let us NOT ......"Say there is a real universe somewhere......" unless you have evidence to back up the fantasy. The rest of your paragraph is direct from Erich Van Danikan's book "gold of the gods" and Scientology.   At least come up with something original or stand by to get sued for plagerism.

My point, in response to what she said, is that you can have information in a universe without there being any real energy or matter in that particular universe.  I could have illustrated that point by making a supposition that it is our universe that is the real one.  If we someday simulate a universe on a computer and that universe evolves intelligent life, information will exist in that simulated universe without the existence of any real matter or energy in that universe.  Right or wrong?  Or is the entire question invalid because it deals with some fantasy about future computers for which there is no evidence?  If so, what about MMORPGs?  They exist right now.  These virtual worlds contain information but no matter or energy, right?     

Let us NOT say where my paragraphs come from unless you have evidence to back up the fantasy.   Post quotations from Danikan or L. Ron Hubbard (I have never read a word of either of them) so that we can compare them side by side.  If you want to know what I'm plagiarizing look up:
 

"Digital Physics"
 

"Simulation Hypothesis"
 

"Cellular Automata"
 

Brian Whitworth
 

Thomas Campbell
 

The Thirteenth Floor, Tron, The Matrix
 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:My point, in

nebula wrote:

My point, in response to what she said, is that you can have information in a universe without there being any real energy or matter in that particular universe.  I could have illustrated that point by making a supposition that it is our universe that is the real one.  If we someday simulate a universe on a computer and that universe evolves intelligent life, information will exist in that simulated universe without the existence of any real matter or energy in that universe.  Right or wrong?  Or is the entire question invalid because it deals with some fantasy about future computers for which there is no evidence?  If so, what about MMORPGs?  They exist right now.  These virtual worlds contain information but no matter or energy, right?      

Well, wrong.  If we built a computer out of MATTER, and then use electrons to manipulate RAM in order to generate that universe, fundamentally it would still be made of the same stuff as our universe.  You just add a lawyer of "computer" between our universe and the simulated universe.  I never did find this mind experiment very convincing.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 You have an infinite

 You have an infinite regression issue in your contention.

 

If we are in a simulated universe, then who's to say the universe creating our simulation is not also simulated, and so on and so on? If one of them is the real one, then why not ours? it's as likely as any of the others to be real.

 

 


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:As a side note,

Ktulu wrote:

As a side note, the double slit experiment doesn't say anything about the "conscious"-ness of the observer.  The probability wave collapses irrelative of an observer, but rather dependent on the interaction alone.  If you place a detector of any kind at the slits, it will behave as a particle regardless of whether someone is watching or not.  You're confusing the "act of measuring" as conscience dependent.  It is the fact that the particle interacts with a photon that collapses it. 

What you are saying is the old conventional wisdom that has now been proven false by the delayed choice and quantum eraser variations of the double slit experiment.   I don't think you can find an article published after 2008 that says the same thing you are saying here but if so please post it.  


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:Ktulu wrote:As

nebula wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

As a side note, the double slit experiment doesn't say anything about the "conscious"-ness of the observer.  The probability wave collapses irrelative of an observer, but rather dependent on the interaction alone.  If you place a detector of any kind at the slits, it will behave as a particle regardless of whether someone is watching or not.  You're confusing the "act of measuring" as conscience dependent.  It is the fact that the particle interacts with a photon that collapses it. 

What you are saying is the old conventional wisdom that has now been proven false by the delayed choice and quantum eraser variations of the double slit experiment.   I don't think you can find an article published after 2008 that says the same thing you are saying here but if so please post it.  

cool beans, I just read up on quantum eraser.  My quantum physics paradigm is rather old, I've been out of school for quite a while, and I get in as much reading as i can, but never enough.  So thank you for that.

The way I see this experiment is more of a proof of quantum entanglement rather than a proof of an observer.  The way I see it, an "observer" is someone doing something to the particle, in this case sending a photon at a specified frequency.  So "observing" is the same as "interacting with photon".  This observer does not need to be conscious.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
I think the key word I

Ktulu wrote:

Well, wrong.  If we built a computer out of MATTER, and then use electrons to manipulate RAM in order to generate that universe, fundamentally it would still be made of the same stuff as our universe.  You just add a lawyer of "computer" between our universe and the simulated universe.  I never did find this mind experiment very convincing.


I think the key word I should have been using is (a universe's) OWN (matter).  That is better.  So what I mean is, there can be information in a universe even though the universe doesn't have its own matter and energy, but you are right, it can all be broken down into bits on the computer in the real universe.   

When it comes to simulated universes within simulated universes within simulated universes, the thousandth universe down the chain would reside on a computer in the host real universe just as much as the 3rd simulated universe from the real one.   There should be many more simulated universes than real ones.  Therefore, the odds are low ours is real but it's possible.     

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I remember being a theist

I remember being a theist and being caught in nebula's line of thinking of a giant simulation on some quantum computer. I ditched it though when I realized how absurd it was. Where did this computer that is running this simulation come from? Is that not material?  Occam's Razor applies here.

 

 

 


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Occam's razor and all that...

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Occam's Razor applies here.

 

 Occam's razor is about making the fewest assumptions.   Idealism explains the paradox of wave-particle duality with only one assumption: our universe is a simulation rendered for conscious observers as needed.  Other explanations have LOADS of assumptions.   


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
nebula

nebula wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Occam's razor and all that...

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Occam's Razor applies here.

 

 Occam's razor is about making the fewest assumptions.   Idealism explains the paradox of wave-particle duality with only one assumption: our universe is a simulation rendered for conscious observers as needed.  Other explanations have LOADS of assumptions.   

 

Ok than wouldn't the computer running the simulation be material in a material universe? Either way you cut it, you need a material universe. Which is where occam's razor applies. Why isn't this universe the material one, rather than some other unseen untested universe?

 

 

 

 

 

 


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Ok

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 Ok than wouldn't the computer running the simulation be material in a material universe? Either way you cut it, you need a material universe. Which is where occam's razor applies. Why isn't this universe the material one, rather than some other unseen untested universe?

 

Two reasons:

The double slit experiment indicates this isn't a real one.

Assuming we are not the only intelligent life in existence, there should be many, many more simulated universes than real ones, making the probability low that ours is real.  Most likely our universe has already given birth to trillions and trillions of simulated universes starting with universe simulations run by extra-terrestrials in our universe and continuing with simulations run but the inhabitants of those simulations, ad infinitum.       

 

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote: For example,

nebula wrote:

 For example, if extra terrestrials intentionally created our universe, it would make more sense for them to do this as a simulation.  Why would they waste all the energy required to do it for real? 

Maybe they are capitalists that own power plants in other dimensions. They were just creating a new market for their product with the big bang.

P.S. the net energy of the universe is likely zero.

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:The double slit

nebula wrote:

The double slit experiment indicates this isn't a real one.

 

 

 

No it doesn't


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:nebula

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

nebula wrote:

The double slit experiment indicates this isn't a real one.

No it doesn't

Well the line is drawn.  Here is maybe a better way to put it: Idealism, while admittedly counter-intuitive, is the interpretation of quantum mechanics that best follows Occam's Razor because it has only one assumption.

Similarly, the concept of a spherical earth, while counter-intuitive [said the ancients: "why doesn't the water fall out?"] is the interpretation of observations made by sailors and hellenistic astronomers that best followed Occam's Razor.  

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:Well the line

nebula wrote:

Well the line is drawn.  Here is maybe a better way to put it: Idealism, while admittedly counter-intuitive, is the interpretation of quantum mechanics that best follows Occam's Razor because it has only one assumption.

Similarly, the concept of a spherical earth, while counter-intuitive [said the ancients: "why doesn't the water fall out?"] is the interpretation of observations made by sailors and hellenistic astronomers that best followed Occam's Razor.  

 

Well, the ancients were mistaken, but based upon the limited amount of knowledge that was available to them at the time, Occam's Razor indeed would seem that the Earth was flat and such. It was the endeavors of those that discovered otherwise that proved them all wrong.

But until there is some sort of actual evidence that is contrary to what our observable modals currently see, the realm of speculation remains simple speculation.

Like god, I don't say that I am 100 % certain that something of some sort exists. However, continual evidence has constantly debunked any god claims and god remains unproven.

Is it possible that we are in a simulated reality ? Possibly. But then again, all sorts of things are possible. If your entertaining the possibility of what if, that is one thing. If your making a claim that something exists with lack of evidence, that is quite another.

For instance, if I had lived around the time of the Renaissance and been fortunate enough to be among the learned men and not a slave to the stranglehold of the church or a peasant trying to survive and live, had someone presented to me the hypothesis that the Earth was round, I would have asked them what proof that they had for this. If they had been able to provide none and had said : "Well it is a possibility" then I probably would not have discussed it any further.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:Cpt_pineapple

nebula wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

nebula wrote:

The double slit experiment indicates this isn't a real one.

No it doesn't

Well the line is drawn.  Here is maybe a better way to put it: Idealism, while admittedly counter-intuitive, is the interpretation of quantum mechanics that best follows Occam's Razor because it has only one assumption.

Similarly, the concept of a spherical earth, while counter-intuitive [said the ancients: "why doesn't the water fall out?"] is the interpretation of observations made by sailors and hellenistic astronomers that best followed Occam's Razor.  

 

QM is inherently odd and nobody has a full comprehension of it in the same way that we have a full comprehension of other CM phenomena.  We can only abstract from experiments, but some of the basic mechanics(workings) are as of yet unknown.  This leaves a whole lot of interpretation to the point where you have professionals leaning one way or another.  

The same as religion, afterlife, and other unknown, if anyone tells you they have a full comprehension they are full of shit.  

Now, every time someone talks about "observing", or "marking" or even creating an "entangled pair" relative to particles, they are talking about collapsing the probability wave.  

He're is someone's more eloquent then I am, answer:

"No, the photon doesn't see anyone watching it. And the photon doesn't see its future, either. In fact, the photon doesn't exist in any classical sense prior to its observation.

All of its properties - e.g. which slits it could be taking; whether it behaves more as a particle or a wave etc. - are encoded in the wave function until the very moment of the measurement which is why they may always be "changed back" to the previous answers. For example, in quantum eraser, the photon is ordered to behave as a wave again, even though a premature argument could lead a sloppy person to think that the photon has already decided to behave as a particle forever.

When you measure the photon, it is finally possible to think of its properties classically and the wave function allows one to calculate all probabilities that the outcome will be something or something else. In the case of the quantum eraser, we restore the interference pattern. But any attempt to "imagine" that the photon has obtained a classical property at any moment before it was measured would lead to wrong predictions.

It is always essential to appreciate that the photon always behaves according to the laws of quantum mechanics and we're never allowed to approximate it by any classical intuition because the classical intuition fails. This strict requirement that classical mechanics is wrong may only be partly circumvented after the photon is actually detected (because then it interacts with a classical object that quickly decoheres) - but not earlier than that. In other words, quantum mechanics always holds: that's the main lesson of this experiment (and many others)."

There is no consciousness dependent observer, if you automate the experiment, leave the room and observe the pattern later, it will be the same pattern.  An instrument will generate the same results as a conscious observer.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:There is no

Ktulu wrote:

There is no consciousness dependent observer, if you automate the experiment, leave the room and observe the pattern later, it will be the same pattern.  An instrument will generate the same results as a conscious observer.

If there is any way for a conscious observer to know which slit the particles went through, (which would be the case if any type of recording of this information is made, by an instrument, during an automated experiment and this information has not been erased but is sitting there, available for the scientist to look at, for example) you get a pattern that is the same shape as the slits.   If however, you remove a conscious observer's ability to know which slit the particles went through, you get an interference pattern.    Do you agree?


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:Ktulu

nebula wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

There is no consciousness dependent observer, if you automate the experiment, leave the room and observe the pattern later, it will be the same pattern.  An instrument will generate the same results as a conscious observer.

If there is any way for a conscious observer to know which slit the particles went through, (which would be the case if any type of recording of this information is made, by an instrument, during an automated experiment and this information has not been erased but is sitting there, available for the scientist to look at, for example) you get a pattern that is the same shape as the slits.   If however, you remove a conscious observer's ability to know which slit the particles went through, you get an interference pattern.    Do you agree?

You keep using the phrase "conscious observe" but the proper phrase is "observe" which in this case means "interfere".  Or in other words, shine stuff at the particle.  

Yes, in principle I agree with the experiment, it is quite obvious that is the case.  In fact I agree with you that QM has "spooky" conclusions, the only thing I don't agree with is the "conscious" part. 

Edit:

Think of it this way, if you program a robot to perform the experiment, and record it all on video, you will notice EXACTLY the same results watching the video, as if your "conscious" observer was performing it.  Is the robot conscious? in the same way as my pocket calculator I guess.  All other implications of the experiment are just as difficult to comprehend.  On this one point, however, there should be no confusion, the "conscious observer" argument is fallacious.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I have a certain skepticism

I have a certain skepticism for everything. I credit the Twilight Zone and the Outer Limits for this.

That said, it doesn't make a difference to any of us whether the universe is a simulation or not. There is no way to find out, and knowing it was simulated wouldn't alter the rules of the simulation anyway.

There's little reason to dwell on it, except as an exercise of imagination.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:You keep using

Ktulu wrote:

You keep using the phrase "conscious observe" but the proper phrase is "observe" which in this case means "interfere".  Or in other words, shine stuff at the particle. 

Again, this is completely outdated.   They don't shine stuff at the particle anymore.   Please watch this video in full screen mode:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfeoE1arF0I

Ktulu wrote:

Think of it this way, if you program a robot to perform the experiment, and record it all on video, you will notice EXACTLY the same results watching the video, as if your "conscious" observer was performing it.  Is the robot conscious? in the same way as my pocket calculator I guess.  All other implications of the experiment are just as difficult to comprehend.  On this one point, however, there should be no confusion, the "conscious observer" argument is fallacious.

Consciousness has everything to do with it but only as it relates to consistency in our universe.  Ninety nine point nine percent of the time the computer we are running on doesn't allow inconsistency.  If the only one who will ever have access to the information of which slit the particles went through is a cat or a calculator or even a person who doesn't understand the data and has no ability to communicate the data to someone who does, you will see the interference pattern every time - there is no danger of inconsistency in our universe.   Of course this is unproven as far as I know.   I have only heard of how this experiment relates to the researcher's consciousness, the researcher being someone who understands the data, hence the danger of there being an inconsistency - he or she knowing which slit the particles went through but getting an interference pattern nevertheless.      


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
hmmm, what do you think a

hmmm, what do you think a "detector" is? it is a light wave of a certain frequency.  How do you "detect" particles.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:Consciousness

nebula wrote:

Consciousness has everything to do with it but only as it relates to consistency in our universe.  Ninety nine point nine percent of the time the computer we are running on doesn't allow inconsistency.  If the only one who will ever have access to the information of which slit the particles went through is a cat or a calculator or even a person who doesn't understand the data and has no ability to communicate the data to someone who does, you will see the interference pattern every time - there is no danger of inconsistency in our universe.   Of course this is unproven as far as I know.   I have only heard of how this experiment relates to the researcher's consciousness, the researcher being someone who understands the data, hence the danger of there being an inconsistency - he or she knowing which slit the particles went through but getting an interference pattern nevertheless.      

I've had two glasses of wine, so naturally, I feel like typing Smiling.  We need to take this discussion back to the basics.  Let me address a past misunderstanding, namely the foundation of QM, the uncertainty principle.  What it basically states is that one may not simultaneously know ANYTHING'S position and it's velocity greater then the Plank's constant.  This isn't necessarily a particle, it could be a bullet, pool ball, car or whatever you like.

Now, why is that? It's a pretty bold statement, in fact if you could figure out a particle's position and velocity with a greater accuracy then h (Plank's constant) then you would overthrow QM as we know it.  Is it because we simply do not have the proper instruments? Or maybe we don't know enough about particles.  Well no, it turns out it has to do with WAVES, and how we MEASURE stuff.  It goes back to the whole detector thingy.  How do you "detect" stuff in the macro world? you look at it.  But what is "looking" at something? well, it is the act of measuring the REFLECTED wave length of the photons (for the sake of the argument we'll limit ourselves to the visible spectrum, in principle the only difference between Gama rays and the colour blue is the frequency).

Ok, so we've established that "observing" means measuring the reflected photons, not just in QM but in our day to day life.  So let's go back to trying to measure a particle's velocity and position.  You would need to "shine" a sort of light at it in order to figure out what its velocity is, and some sort of a screen to detect its position.  Now let's say you need it's velocity very accurately, what you need to do is increase the frequency of the light you "shine" on it.  This has the effect of interacting with the particle more, thereby randomly (random force within the wave function) influencing it's position.  So the more you increase the frequency, the less you will know where it hits the screen.  The less frequency you have, the less chance of a detection of velocity, but more accurate position on the screen.  

Notice that this has nothing to do with an observer or any such nonsense, it is a property of waves. You have to "detect" it with a wave.  The only control you have over the detector is the frequency.  

Now when you say that they don't "shine" stuff on particles anymore, do you care to elaborate on how you would detect stuff otherwise? perhaps you and I can share a Nobel prize by figuring out a way to detect velocity and position greater then h. 

I understand the "temptation" of god of the gaps, but the universe is far to interesting as is.  Don't stump on it with the "god did it" dirty boot, marvel in it's mystery and wonder.  Try to figure shit out and don't give into intellectual laziness.  You seem to be able to understand parts of QM, don't waste your brain on religion and superstition. 

(that last part may have been the wine talking)

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote: Consciousness

double post


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Now when you say

Ktulu wrote:

Now when you say that they don't "shine" stuff on particles anymore, do you care to elaborate on how you would detect stuff otherwise? perhaps you and I can share a Nobel prize by figuring out a way to detect velocity and position greater then h. 

I'm not all over these detectors but I know that in Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment the detectors are "remote telescopes" located behind the screen, and the screen can be moved up or down.   I have to research what you are saying more but in the meantime let me just ask you one question.   In the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser you always get an interference pattern at Detectors 1 and 2.   If it is the detectors that cause the collapse how is that possible?   

Edit:

I have been reading more about the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser and it looks like the 5 "Detectors" (D0 to D4) are the same thing as the one screen in the regular double slit experiment.   So this experiment has 5 screens and no detectors.   The "which slit" information is obtained by other means which answers your question on "how you would detect stuff otherwise."   They do it with a crystal, a prism, beam splitters and mirrors.  So this experiment proves that it's not the observing of or interaction with the particle that causes the clump pattern (which you get on D3 and D4).  Instead, it is the "which slit" information being available to the researcher that causes it.    


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Quote:It has been considered

Quote:

It has been considered that the general mechanism responsible for the loss of the interference pattern is the uncertainty principle, as no measure can be so delicate not to disturb the system which is measuring.6 However, in this experiment, the “which-way” information of the particles is found without disturbing their wavefunction. The reason of the interference loss is the quantum information contained in the measuring apparatus, by means of the entanglement correlations between the particles and the path detectors. The experiment shows that if such quantum information is afterwards erased from the system, then the interference reappears (which would be impossible in the case of a perturbation).

http://strangepaths.com/the-quantum-eraser-experiment/2007/03/20/en/


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:I have been

nebula wrote:

I have been reading more about the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser and it looks like the 5 "Detectors" (D0 to D4) are the same thing as the one screen in the regular double slit experiment.   So this experiment has 5 screens and no detectors.   The "which slit" information is obtained by other means which answers your question on "how you would detect stuff otherwise."   They do it with a crystal, a prism, beam splitters and mirrors.  So this experiment proves that it's not the observing of or interaction with the particle that causes the clump pattern (which you get on D3 and D4).  Instead, it is the "which slit" information being available to the researcher that causes it.    

Well, it's not relevant to the experiment discussed, but "detectors" of location while in transit are lights of a given frequency.  Let's move on from that because it is not relevant to the Quantum Eraser experiment.  

I've been doing a bit of reading on it, and listened to all the lectures I could find available on youtube, it is definitely a very strange implication, namely that information can be erased, or rather that the "wave form" can be "uncollapsed".  Or, if you like, that causality doesn't follow the arrow of time at the quantum level, you can do stuff now that will influence stuff in the past.

Now, it is important to notice in all this, that I'm not disagreeing with you regarding the experiment, in fact I plan on doing the home version of it as soon as I have a bit of time, I'm disagreeing with the fact that a "consciousness" is necessary.  In other words, if you automate the experiment and have a robot do it while you're taping the whole thing.  You watching the movie will find the same results as someone repeating the experiment on their own.  That's the only part I'm contesting. 

I just want to thank you for bringing this discussion up, there is a "home version" of the experiment you can perform with polarized glass.  I plan on setting it up soon, and I suggest you should too if you're this interested in it.  It definitely ranks up there with cool beans.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote: I have been

double post


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I'm disagreeing

Ktulu wrote:

I'm disagreeing with the fact that a "consciousness" is necessary.  In other words, if you automate the experiment and have a robot do it while you're taping the whole thing.  You watching the movie will find the same results as someone repeating the experiment on their own.  That's the only part I'm contesting. 

When I said in the OP "until a conscious observer collects information about it" I didn't mean with his mind, I meant with automated equipment.   What is there for the experimenter to do DURING the experiment that you are going to have this robot do?  As far as I know the complete experiment is automated.   The experimenter can turn the equipment on and then go out of the room and come back in a few hours to check the results.  Currently, to clear up any misconceptions, rather than use the phrase "until a conscious observer collects information about it" I'm using "if which-slit information is available to the researcher" or something like that.

This is what happens in the regular double slit experiment in which you have the detectors set up at the slits and the which-slit information is recorded on some medium: The researcher turns on the equipment and goes to lunch.    He comes back later to check the results.  If he looks at the screen first, he will see a clump pattern because the "which-slit" info is available on that hard drive or tape.  If he then deletes that data and looks at the screen again he will still see the clump pattern because 99.9% inconsistency isn't allowed in our universe.  However, if he comes back from lunch and immediately deletes the which-slit information before looking at the screen, he will see an interference pattern, because no which-slit information is available to him.   If he turns on the detectors and leaves them running but disables/disconnects the recording device, when he gets back from lunch he will see an interference pattern on the screen because no which-slit information is available to him (see the link).   And this last one, of course, is another proof that the uncertainty principle or interaction with the particle is NOT what determines whether you find an interference or clump pattern on the screen.  

http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/reality/chap2.html

If anyone knows of a study in which they left the detectors running but did not record the data and ended up with a clump pattern on the screen please post a link.  I seriously doubt anyone will find anything like that because you should get an interference pattern every time, since no which-slit information is available to the researcher.

It's not just about consciousness.   That's an oversimplification.   It's about consistency in our universe as it relates to consciousness.       

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 interesting.  But why

 interesting. 

 But why does this experiment indicate that we are living in a simulated reality? 

 


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 interesting. 

 But why does this experiment indicate that we are living in a simulated reality? 

 

This is the reasoning: If our reality were objective, you would get the pattern that you would get, be it clump or interference, regardless of whether or not the information was available to a researcher. 

Since this isn't the case, our reality is not objective, it's subjective.  That is another way of saying that it doesn't exist on it's own, only in our perceptions.  (When I say "our" I mean anything that is aware of its surroundings, like a bug, mouse, person and probably some robots now.)

The relevant difference between a Shakey's Pizza Parlor and a particle is in the degrees of certainty about their locations.   There is great certainty about where the Shakey's is and no certainty about where the particle is.  If the Shakey's mysteriously vanished or moved 10 feet there would be inconsistency in our universe because everybody knows where it is suppose to be.  But if there is uncertainty about something, such as which slit the particles went through, the "spooky stuff" can happen.     


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Maybe I wasn't very clear in

Maybe I wasn't very clear in my "robot" example.  

What I meant to say is that, if a robot (something without consciousness) is performing he same experiment, and said robot gets the same result, how is the word "consciousness" relevant?  Imagine that all you saw was the end result, you would be a passive observer and you saw a screen from room A and a screen from room B.  If a human (or someone that is conscious) performs the experiment in one room, and the a robot performs the experiment in the second room, you would have the exact same result.  You will get a wave like pattern when the probability wave is "uncollapsed" irrelative of any consciousness.  In fact, you don't even need to know wtf is going on, you could think that it's pretty art you are watching, it would still behave exactly the same way.

I'm not arguing the experiment, I'm arguing your conclusion that consciousness is a necessity of the outcome.  The above thought experiment would show you that is not the case.

 

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Maybe I wasn't

Ktulu wrote:

Maybe I wasn't very clear in my "robot" example.  

What I meant to say is that, if a robot (something without consciousness) is performing he same experiment, and said robot gets the same result, how is the word "consciousness" relevant?  Imagine that all you saw was the end result, you would be a passive observer and you saw a screen from room A and a screen from room B.  If a human (or someone that is conscious) performs the experiment in one room, and the a robot performs the experiment in the second room, you would have the exact same result.  You will get a wave like pattern when the probability wave is "uncollapsed" irrelative of any consciousness.  In fact, you don't even need to know wtf is going on, you could think that it's pretty art you are watching, it would still behave exactly the same way.

I'm not arguing the experiment, I'm arguing your conclusion that consciousness is a necessity of the outcome.  The above thought experiment would show you that is not the case.

Unconscious things don't do experiments.   Going through the mechanical actions of an experiment is not doing an experiment.  Doing an experiment means doing some stuff and then analyzing the results.   If you don't have someone or thing with consciousness and understanding of the data then you have no experiment in the first place.  What does it mean for the unconscious robot to "get the results?"


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:Unconscious

nebula wrote:

Unconscious things don't do experiments.   Going through the mechanical actions of an experiment is not doing an experiment.  Doing an experiment means doing some stuff and then analyzing the results.   If you don't have someone or thing with consciousness and understanding of the data then you have no experiment in the first place.  What does it mean for the unconscious robot to "get the results?"

Good question.  In this case the "result" would be an interference pattern.  Basically it goes like this.  You have two polarized lenses splitting light into vertical and horizontal parity.  You shoot the photon through the double slit, and record which slit it goes through, since the light passes through the two polarized lenses canceling each other out, you get a particle like pattern.  If you then add a third lens at 45 degrees angle you combine the photon potential waves and get an interference pattern.  Which would erase your previous which-slit knowledge.  

That's the poor man's quantum eraser, basically the same thing as the more elaborate version.  The only thing we're lacking is the speed at which to add the last lens after the photon passed through the slit.  Now imagine two robots one records the which-slit and the other sticks the last lens after the photon passed the slits, thereby recording an interference, which means that the previous information of which-slit gets erased. 

what the "result" would be is just an interference pattern, so you looking at pretty art from room A and room B would notice a pretty pattern (of interference) regardless if the recordings are done, and subsequently erased by someone with a consciousness.  I hope I was eloquent enough in my explanation, if you need me to go through the experiment again, I will elaborate more (I mean this without sarcasm, it took me a few days to wrap my mind around the whole thing).

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Good question.

Ktulu wrote:

Good question.  In this case the "result" would be an interference pattern. 

Actually, I wasn't asking what the unconscious robot's results would be.   I was asking how can something without consciousness get results from an experiment?   What does that mean?  For example, what does it mean for a rock to get the results of an experiment (any experiment)?  

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:Ktulu

nebula wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

Good question.  In this case the "result" would be an interference pattern. 

Actually, I wasn't asking what the unconscious robot's results would be.   I was asking how can something without consciousness get results from an experiment?   What does that mean?  For example, what does it mean for a rock to get the results of an experiment (any experiment)?  

 

well, in this case, the "results" would be the pattern itself.  You have to understand that obtaining an interference pattern would automatically imply that you have erased information of which-slit.  So really all that you need is for a picture of an interference pattern to appear.  If you otherwise get a "two bars" like pattern formed by particles, no information erasing has taken place and it is a non argument.  

In the case I proposed, two closed rooms display a screen with interference pattern.  You don't need to know what is going on in there, it really doesn't matter.  Information is being recorded and erased continually, in one room it is done by a scientist overseeing the experiment, in the other room it is done by a machine with nobody watching it.  You, having no prior knowledge of what is going on, walk down the hall and observe two screens on the outside of the rooms, both with interference patterns on them.  

The quantum erasure is happening in both cases, and consciousness (or conscious choice) has nothing to do with it.  Rather it is the conditions setup in the experiment that allows for the wave "collapse" and subsequent "uncollapse" that is the real mystery.  The fact that a "conscious" observer is present is inconsequential.  Think of it as the particle behaving like a wave, "interacting" with a detector and behaving like a particle.  That's mind blowing in of itself.  What's even more mind blowing, is the fact that if the conditions are such that it may potentially have more then one pathway after detection, it will revert to a wave form and interfere with itself. 

In the process the "detected" information gets "erased".

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:well, in this

Ktulu wrote:

well, in this case, the "results" would be the pattern itself. 

Sorry but I'm not following this at all.  Without consciousness patterns are meaningless so the machine or unconscious robot or rock or whatever may as well not even do the experiment.  Consciousness is inherent to any experiment, even if it's a mouse testing out a new food.  

Also, it seems like you are making a straw man out of what I've been saying.  I never said a conscious observer has to be present during the experiment or anything like that.  What I have been saying is that what determines clump or interference is whether or not the researcher has the which-slit info available for him to look at - except in the case where he looks at the clump pattern on the screen before deleting the data.   In that case, the clump pattern will remain on the screen so as to maintain consistency.   


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
I think it's time we recap

I think it's time we recap the discussion in light of all the new data.  The thing that drew my attention about your OP was:

"The double slit experiment shows that matter behaves like a wave (degrees of certainty) until a conscious observer collects information about it and only then does it behave like particles/atoms/buckyballs etc.   Idealism explains this without having to postulate string theory, 11 dimensions and all that.   "

specifically "a conscious observer collects information"... In the example I provided, the "experiment" was setup in order to test the claim that a "conscious" observer is necessary to erase the previously observed data.  The fact that you can setup a machine and get the same results as a conscious observer, proves that a conscious observer is not necessary.  This is an experiment because it tests a hypothesis, namely that "a conscious observer collects information about it and ONLY THEN it behaves like a particle".  I'm sorry you're not following my line of reasoning, I find it relatively simple.  

Is anyone else following this discussion that cares to throw a different light on the matter? (pun intended)

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I think it's

Ktulu wrote:

I think it's time we recap the discussion in light of all the new data.  The thing that drew my attention about your OP was:

"The double slit experiment shows that matter behaves like a wave (degrees of certainty) until a conscious observer collects information about it and only then does it behave like particles/atoms/buckyballs etc.   Idealism explains this without having to postulate string theory, 11 dimensions and all that.   "

specifically "a conscious observer collects information"... In the example I provided, the "experiment" was setup in order to test the claim that a "conscious" observer is necessary to erase the previously observed data.  The fact that you can setup a machine and get the same results as a conscious observer, proves that a conscious observer is not necessary.  This is an experiment because it tests a hypothesis, namely that "a conscious observer collects information about it and ONLY THEN it behaves like a particle".  I'm sorry you're not following my line of reasoning, I find it relatively simple.  

Is anyone else following this discussion that cares to throw a different light on the matter? (pun intended)

OK, poor choice of words in that sentence in the OP.  I was talking about two different things at once but now I see that was ill advised.  That's way too much stuff to pack into one sentence.  On one level, I was talking about the actual experiment.  On that level, by "only then" I meant "only after detectors and a recording device are added to the experiment."

However, I was also implying in that one sentence that this is how the classical world works as well.  On that level, what I meant is that matter behaves like a wave (probability distribution) until a conscious observer (anything aware of its surroundings) collects information through his or her senses. 

That is to say, when you are unconscious, nothing is rendered for you, so matter is behaving like a wave or probability distribution for you at that time.  When you wake up, now stuff is being rendered for you, like your bedroom, so matter is behaving as if it's made up of atoms.   However, when you are awake in your bedroom only what you can perceive through your senses needs to be rendered for you, so the rest of your house and the universe is still behaving like a wave for you.  Then you walk into your kitchen and "only then" does your kitchen behave like it's made of atoms for you.              


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:Unconscious

nebula wrote:
Unconscious things don't do experiments. 

Not true.

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/futureoftech/dna-wrangling-robot-performs-200-000-experiments-week-780904

Regarding the question of what it means for an unconscious entity to do an experiment/analyze results; the answer is simple: Nothing.

However, the fact that the results ARE always the same, regardless of whether a conscious or unconscious entity performs the experiment, doesn't support your hypothesis.

In effect, you're basically suggesting that a tree falling in the woods only makes a sound if something is there to hear it. But that argument simply doesn't fly. Sound exists regardless of consciousness, you merely need consciousness (and some method of detecting vibrations) for it to be heard.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"That is to say, when you

"That is to say, when you are unconscious, nothing is rendered for you, so matter is behaving like a wave or probability distribution for you at that time.  When you wake up, now stuff is being rendered for you, like your bedroom, so matter is behaving as if it's made up of atoms.   However, when you are awake in your bedroom only what you can perceive through your senses needs to be rendered for you, so the rest of your house and the universe is still behaving like a wave for you.  Then you walk into your kitchen and "only then" does your kitchen behave like it's made of atoms for you."

Then why don't I fall through my bed into the core of Earth when sleeping? If gravity is also subjectively rendered so as to prevent it, why don't I float away? Hell, why don't I fall apart?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
I wish I could

Ktulu wrote:

Is anyone else following this discussion that cares to throw a different light on the matter? (pun intended)

I'm not very well informed about QM, but I will say that this thread has been very useful.

Your explanation, after two glasses of wine, of what 'the observer' is, particularly helped.

I'd either forgotten or never really understood.

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
nebula wrote:However, I was

nebula wrote:

However, I was also implying in that one sentence that this is how the classical world works as well.  On that level, what I meant is that matter behaves like a wave (probability distribution) until a conscious observer (anything aware of its surroundings) collects information through his or her senses. 

That is to say, when you are unconscious, nothing is rendered for you, so matter is behaving like a wave or probability distribution for you at that time.  When you wake up, now stuff is being rendered for you, like your bedroom, so matter is behaving as if it's made up of atoms.   However, when you are awake in your bedroom only what you can perceive through your senses needs to be rendered for you, so the rest of your house and the universe is still behaving like a wave for you.  Then you walk into your kitchen and "only then" does your kitchen behave like it's made of atoms for you.              

I wish I had more answers Smiling  I find QM fascinating because it is so "spooky" and ultimately incomprehensible.  Nobody has an answer really, we're all just pitching our best guess behind the theory that makes the most sense to us.  To me, the fact that consciousness dictates the outcome of reality just doesn't jive.  But there are so many unknowns at this level of reality, that I may very well be wrong.  

On a tangent, the book "Hollow Man" by Dan Simmons is a fascinating novel that ultimately touches on the whole subjective reality and diverging universes from consciousness.  I went on a Dan Simmons kick about 4-5 years ago and read all of his books, very good author.  You should give it a try.

I will say that we agree to disagree at this point, and really there is no other way that we can push this further.  Thank you for the discussion I have learned quite a bit.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:Ktulu wrote:Is

x wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

Is anyone else following this discussion that cares to throw a different light on the matter? (pun intended)

I'm not very well informed about QM, but I will say that this thread has been very useful.

Your explanation, after two glasses of wine, of what 'the observer' is, particularly helped.

I'd either forgotten or never really understood.

 

well thank you, Smiling it is a counter intuitive concept.  It takes a lot of thinking energy to understand the experimental results, and even so, the outcome's explanation still defies logic.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I will say that

Ktulu wrote:

I will say that we agree to disagree at this point, and really there is no other way that we can push this further.  Thank you for the discussion I have learned quite a bit.

You should not bail!   We have JUST stopped talking past each other (due to my poorly worded sentence in the OP, and sorry for the straw man accusation).  To reiterate what I said in post 33, it isn't necessary for a researcher to "perform the experiment" (whatever that means) because as far as I know, in the regular experiment at least, there is nothing to do during the experiment - it's completely automated.   All the researcher has to do is turn on the equipment and come back later to check the results.

Another stumbling block to me understanding your "robot quantum eraser thought experiment" which began in post 23 is that it seemed to have a faulty premise.  Results have to do with meaning, you know?  And without consciousness there is no meaning so I just cannot wrap my brain around an unconscious entity "getting results."   Whatever the results are, no one will ever know, unless you bring consciousness into it.   I have read Vastet's article and clearly these robots are nothing more than tools of the researchers used to perform tedious manual tasks.

Another problem I was having with the thought experiment is that it's too complicated.   Quantum Eraser is complicated enough without adding robots and I just didn't understand what you were saying.   However, if it were possible for you to do that thought experiment using the regular Double Slit rather than Quantum Eraser I don't think it would have made a difference because of the "unconscious entity getting results" thing.  

The only reason I brought up Quantum Eraser in the first place is because, at the time, I didn't have documentation for the regular double slit experiment in which they leave the detectors running but do not record the data, but get an interference pattern nevertheless, proving that the uncertainty principle is not the determining factor.   That documentation is in the link in post 33.

Is there any way that you can prove consciousness is not involved without using robots?   That is the most important thing for me, avoiding the robots, because to me it doesn't make any sense.  Also, it would be nice if we can stick to the regular experiment for simplicity's sake, but I can deal with Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser and maybe even Quantum Eraser (proper) or Wheeler's Delayed Choice as long as no robots are involved.   But apart from the regular Double Slit, the one I am most familiar with out of those three is Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser (which is just a combination of Wheeler's and Quantum Eraser).               


nebula
Theist
Posts: 78
Joined: 2011-07-30
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: In effect,

Vastet wrote:
In effect, you're basically suggesting that a tree falling in the woods only makes a sound if something is there to hear it. But that argument simply doesn't fly. Sound exists regardless of consciousness, you merely need consciousness (and some method of detecting vibrations) for it to be heard.

HERE'S a good thought experiment!  First, let's get all of the critters out of a patch of woods about 1 square mile so we don't have to deal with them.  So now there is only vegetation, rocks and trees.   This entire area exists only as a probability distribution because it's currently not being rendered for anything.   If you go to this area it will be rendered for you.   You can take a bunch of pictures of the area if you want.   Then, come back a year later and compare your pictures to the area.   You will probably see some fallen trees and notice the area has changed a little.   That is because the simulation continues regardless of whether or not it is rendered for anyone.   That is how it maintains historical consistency.  

I must point out that you are accepting that sound exists regardless of consciousness on FAITH.   If you set up a recorder in that area, let it run the whole year and come back to listen to the recording, will you hear anything?   Of course you will!  This universe is historically consistent 99.9% of the time (that last .1% is reserved for glitches in the Matrix and I have seen one personally).   You can't have a recording going all year, when there should be trees falling down, wind rustling through the leaves, storms and such and not hear anything on that recording.   That would be inconsistent.  The simulation doesn't allow that. 

Vastet wrote:
Then why don't I fall through my bed into the core of Earth when sleeping? If gravity is also subjectively rendered so as to prevent it, why don't I float away? Hell, why don't I fall apart?

Your body is simulated just like everything else in the universe.   There is nothing to fall through your bed.  Your body is only rendered for you when you are conscious.   Even then, only those parts of your body that you can perceive through your senses at any one time are rendered for you.   So when you are sitting in a chair for example, the visual of your back isn't rendered for you.  It doesn't need to be.   Only the feeling of the chair on your back needs to be rendered.  Similarly, our internal organs are never rendered for us visually, but the feeling of our organs is rendered for us a bit.   If you get an operation, your internal organs will be rendered for the surgeon while she's working on you, etc.