Quantum Experiment Confirms Reality Doesn't Exist Until Measured

originally posted by: neoholographic
An entangled particle pair is sent through slots A and B. The particle from A goes to detector D0 it's entangled pair goes randomly to detector D1 or D2 after it's entangled pair has already hit D0.

What do we find?

The particle at detector D0 is an interference pattern or a particle and this always correlates with it's entangled pair even though when the particle hits D0 the particle from slot B hasn't hit D1 or D2. If D1 then which path information can be known and you get a clumping like particles at D0 and when which path information can't be known you get an interference pattern at D0.

If an independent material reality exists, why does particle A correlate with particle B even when particle A hits the detector before particle B has hit detectors D1 or D2?

Because no independent reality exists? Its all a probability to the observer, when the wave collapses, the assumption is that an independent reality has exposed itself. This is committed to memory , and only patterns that fit the memory dump are recognised.

a reply to: ImaFungi

originally posted by: ImaFungi


You believe that before a mind existed on Earth, Earth did not exist.

I believe The Mind existed before Earth. This is not an strange or new idea. Many people believe The Mind created the world and they call it "God".

originally posted by: ImaFungi

Then a mind (or more) popped into existence from nothing from nowhere.

And created the Earth.

The same argument some atheists use against believers.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

This is the last time I will ever speak to you.

So, because I have a different perspective than you, you will never speak to me again? Ok, but the feeling is not mutual. I have nothing against you, and will not ignore you just for having a different view; and if you reply to me or say something interesting, I will still respond whenever I have time. Peace.

What are you arguing about? Sure independent reality exists. We share same picture of events and the world after all. This fact needs no special lab set up.
Wave function collapse? Yes, but when my mind collapses that wave, person behind me not going to 'see' or 'feel' what I did?

Did anyone mention 'Quantum Darwinism' theory? Google it to rest your questions.



DO)

originally posted by: darkorange
What are you arguing about? Sure independent reality exists. We share same picture of events and the world after all. This fact needs no special lab set up.
Wave function collapse? Yes, but when my mind collapses that wave, person behind me not going to 'see' or 'feel' what I did?

Did anyone mention 'Quantum Darwinism' theory? Google it to rest your questions.



DO)

An independent information stream exists, which isn't part of the observer, how that information is decoded is the reality observed. Its independent because the observer has to be outside of the stream, to be objective, observation cant be done if they are subjective. Consciousness must have always been observational, to the event. This is tested because, consciousness cant observe itself.

I don't argue with that. But did you get my drift?


DO)

a reply to: darkorange

'Quantum Darwinism' theory goes way back. In WW2 code breaking they did use special equipment to create a code breaking "environment". At Bletchley Park they keypunched rotor machine messages into a paper tape then ran the tape in a loop while projecting the pattern.

Run by itself the tape loop projected unrecognizable jibberish. They key punched a second tape loop with a special step pattern that projected all possible environments produced by the rotor machine offsets. Due to persistence of vision humans were able to see the the message in the wave superposition.

An even more simply example, if you had a slide rule with no center slide there would be no variable "environment" that you could adjust to solve problems with.

When you get down to the subatomic level the environments are probably governed by pure mathematical functions.
What we call electron shells could be the prime number 7 that factors out in a spherical scissors wave equation.

originally posted by: neoholographic
If an independent material reality exists, why does particle A correlate with particle B even when particle A hits the detector before particle B has hit detectors D1 or D2?

Because the independent material reality is not based on particles, but on wavefunctions, and particles and classical locality and causality are emergent properties in the classical limit of thermodynamic irreversibility of many degrees of freedom.

Yes it's weird. But it's not mysticism.

originally posted by: darkorange
What are you arguing about? Sure independent reality exists. We share same picture of events and the world after all. This fact needs no special lab set up.
Wave function collapse? Yes, but when my mind collapses that wave, person behind me not going to 'see' or 'feel' what I did?

Did anyone mention 'Quantum Darwinism' theory? Google it to rest your questions.



DO)

Does the mind actually collapse the wave, or is the rendering of reality, the assumption of a wave collapse, which would be needed to interpret a reality model. If all the waves were actually collapsed, it would mean that consciousness was eating the information stream. Thus the Universe.

Physical reality exists. The collapse of a waveform upon being measured is the collapse of our previously uncomplete knowledge into a more complete one.

Take particle spin for example. If you use a radio telescope to look at space, you can detect a "glow" from cold atomic hydrogen at a specific wavelength. That wavelength was emitted many thousands of years ago by hydrogen atoms that initially had their electron have the same spin as the proton. But as it is more energy-favourable for an electron to have the spin opposite to the proton, those electrons have been gradually and spontaneously changing their spin, emitting that radio frequency in the process.

This shows that, independent of the observer, electrons in those atoms had a specific spin which was reversed at some point, and we're observing the result thousands of years after the fact.

More info: astronomy.swin.edu.au...

originally posted by: wildespace
Physical reality exists. The collapse of a waveform upon being measured is the collapse of our previously uncomplete knowledge into a more complete one.

I think all the experiments show that the collapse is an experimentally inducible physical phenomenon, not a mental one.

It does seem to work non-locally and that's OK. We have to deal.

It so happens that all the ways to get inputs into our macroscopic brains with macroscopic input sensory organs also happen to be the circumstances (large numbers, thermodynamically large and irreversible) which induce decoherence and collapse.

Hitherto it has been assumed that all our knowledge must conform to objects. But all attempts to extend our knowledge of objects by establishing something in regard to them a priori, by means of concepts, have, on this assumption, ended in failure. We must therefore make trial whether we may not have more success in the tasks of metaphysics, if we suppose that objects must conform to our knowledge. This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should be possible to have knowledge of objects a priori, determining something in regard to them prior to their being given. We should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus' primary hypothesis. Failing of satisfactory progress in explaining the movements of the heavenly bodies on the supposition that they all revolved round the spectator, he tried whether he might not have better success if he made the spectator to revolve and the stars to remain at rest. A similar experiment can be tried in metaphysics, as regards the intuition of objects.[. Immanuel Kant

Key Kantian Insight: Mind is NOT passive in experience, but rather active. Mind constructs experience out of the raw sense data that the world provides. (Sometimes referred to as Kant’s Copernican Revolution in Epistemology.) Rather than asking “How does knowledge impress itself onto mind?” (passive metaphor) Kant asks “How does mind construct knowledge?”


According to Kant, the noumenal world may exist, but it is completely unknowable to humans.


truth arises from our imposition of our own system of rules (concepts or categories) upon the sense data given to us, and by which we constitute our reality (experience). Knowledge then is no longer to be thought of as gaining an understanding of a reality beyond our experience (i.e. things in themselves), but rather an understanding of how we constitute experience for ourselves. This does not mean knowledge of experience is distinct from knowledge of objects, for the objects of our experience are all the objects that there are for (our) reality.

All said by a man 300 years ago using reason and philosophy.

originally posted by: luthier
Hitherto it has been assumed that all our knowledge must conform to objects.

We have knowledge of energy, and most don't consider that an "object", so your first statement is false and thus no need to make the leap to metaphysics, not only for that reason but for many other reasons. One can make any metaphysical claim they wish but if it's outside objective experience, it's not science, not objectively verifiable, and when two people make directly contradicting metaphysical claims we have no way to determine which is nonsense, or if indeed both are.

So while metaphyics or the study of things which have no objective evidence may have some value, it seems very limited with respect to not being independently verifiable. Seeing as science has shown human beliefs are historically riddled with concepts shown by science to be incorrect (such as geocentrism), I sincerely wonder if anyone resorting to metaphysics is aware of this.

As Richard Feynman said, moogles are a great theory because they explain everything and nobody can prove that wrong. So what do you need metaphysics for when you've got moogles?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: luthier
Hitherto it has been assumed that all our knowledge must conform to objects.

We have knowledge of energy, and most don't consider that an "object", so your first statement is false and thus no need to make the leap to metaphysics, not only for that reason but for many other reasons. One can make any metaphysical claim they wish but if it's outside objective experience, it's not science, not objectively verifiable, and when two people make directly contradicting metaphysical claims we have no way to determine which is nonsense, or if indeed both are.

So while metaphyics or the study of things which have no objective evidence may have some value, it seems very limited with respect to not being independently verifiable. Seeing as science has shown human beliefs are historically riddled with concepts shown by science to be incorrect (such as geocentrism), I sincerely wonder if anyone resorting to metaphysics is aware of this.

As Richard Feynman said, moogles are a great theory because they explain everything and nobody can prove that wrong. So what do you need metaphysics for when you've got moogles?

Its not my statement its immanuel Kant. He also thought metaphysics had no way to prove and thus no need for debate.
I think you misinterpretted the meaning of his statement.

In a dumbed down version david hume an empericist and preceded john locke and newtons work basically theorized it is impossible to prove you are not just dreaming and this reality isnt real. People wake from dreams which seem amd feel real only to discover they are not. It is impossible to experience some one elses reality and there for have no emperical evidence there is a reality or can predict a reality that hasnt happened yet (since it hasnt been observed). Yes i know you probably want to argue but read Hume's fork. These guys created the scientific method.

Kant came along and said we constitute our own reality through observation. It is our combined observation that creates reality. This is not exactly accurate but if the language above is hard to understand this is the basic idea. Even if you are dreaming you are still the observer.

Also metaphysics is of interest it just cant be debated like science with emperical data therefor some analytical minds dont like to waste time on it.

a reply to: luthier

If Reality is the interpretations of electromagnetic waves. The analogy to use would be that we do the same as a radio set, essentially tuned to this interpretation of reality, from an infinite number of possible stations. The incoming information, gets decoded and then discussed between other radio sets. We get trained in the correct way to do the decoding according to our culture.

If all the lights are switched off, and the radio set picks up a talking book, the words, get decoded into the reality of the story that the book is telling. Images and characters build in the mind of the listener, if its a good enough piece of art, it can be almost real. Isn't it one small little step and you could be the character of that book, especially as it becomes the focus of full concentration. Basically you have switched off this reality, and have chosen to live in another . No one taught you to do this, it just comes with the real estate. Its the same , when you are dreaming, if theirs a loud noise, it gets interpreted into the dream. Can we draw the conclusion, that reality is a great story , and very well told, but their are many other stories out there, but they also need a listening consciousness, to make any sense, but they exist whether the listener is their or not.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: wildespace
Physical reality exists. The collapse of a waveform upon being measured is the collapse of our previously uncomplete knowledge into a more complete one.

I think all the experiments show that the collapse is an experimentally inducible physical phenomenon, not a mental one.

All that the experiments show is that you get a definite result upon making a measurement. It's only a mathematical construct that before being measured, the system exists in a combination of possible states. What it _really_ means is that only our understanding of the system is incomplete, and thus it seems to exist in several possible states. But it doesn't mean that it does.

Take another example, the infamous Schrodinger's cat. After a certain amount of time elapsed, the cat in the box may be dead or it may be still alive. The current interpretation is that the cat is both dead and alive - until we open the box and have a look for ourselves - upon which the cat suddendly ends up being either dead or alive. I think that's a fallacy of thought-experiment. The "both alive and dead" idea is simply our lack of knowledge about the cat's situation, a kind of strange way of saying "the cat could be either alive or dead at this point in time". But the cat really is either alive or dead. Performing the measurement (i.e. opening the box) simply collapses our perceived uncertainty about the cat's status into a perceived definite status. It doesn't affect the cat in any way, it only affects our knowledge.