Quantum Experiment Confirms Reality Doesn't Exist Until Measured

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

They're not even getting their own theory right.

There is no way to prove that the machine is the one who collapsed the wave function because the machine would have to derive information without revealing it at all to anyone or anything else. The machine would have to keep the information secret. In that case, the information could not be dissected to reveal what the machine derived. Therefore, whatever the machine did, according to their own theory, would be pointless.

However, the machine must relay the information to the human observer at some point. The information is completely inconclusive until it is dissected by the conscious observer.

Therefore, even then, the infantile human senses are completely incapable of proving the obvious - that what happened did happen and that what is going to happen is probably going to happen - because it is unwilling to see that there is no collapsing of a wave function in reality. Numbers /= reality. Numbers are supposed to help us keep track of the current reality by creating an alternate constructive abstract universe. But once we start defining our own reality by our extremely limited construct, we've gone off the deep end and we have forgotten where we're at. Those who think we're in the Matrix are those who simply tied their minds into the abstract universe. They put themselves there.

Let us reiterate: Reality does not require you, but it would hurt if you weren't here.

a reply to: luthier

We do not constitute our own reality. That is less than infantile thinking. That is fetal thinking. Even a fetus knows better. How can I put this?

If an individual was never exposed to that kind of thinking - ever - so that they were not tempted by such a lie, then they would have the OBVIOUS conclusion that SOMEONE GAVE BIRTH TO THEM.

"Hey Mom. I was just thinking... uh... I didn't ever need you. Did you know that? I created you and made you push me out. Yeah..."

What in the world is going on here?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Two rocks drifting towards each other in intergalactic space, and they collide. Once their gravitational fields interact...is this the point of measurement? The point at which each rock begins to exist beyond simple probability?

Well rocks tend to have a large mass which means they already exist "beyond simple probability" imo. In a recent debate I had with neoholographic we got very in depth on this topic of wave-function collapse and decoherence. I recommend you read through the last two pages of that thread, starting with this post.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

So the past and the future already exist

Do you see?

Hey. Someone gets it. The obvious.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Again, that video is nonsense.

She says, there's nothing special about consciousness but she doesn't know how measurement works???????

That's just idiotic.

How can the quantum eraser experiment be set up without a conscious observer? How can the results be reported without a conscious observer?

How could there be a you tube video for her to report the results of the quantum eraser without a conscious observer?

There has to be something special about consciousness for her to even say there's nothing special about consciousness.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity
The experiment the article was written about is actually less about whether reality is real...

You see the detector detects the event after the event actually occurred, yet the event is affected by the measurement nonetheless...

You may look at these result from two distinct perspectives

One. The matter somehow knew that you were going to look at it and acted accordingly...

Or.

Two. The matter did not exist until the measurement was made.

Neither are intuitive to our experience of nature.... What the studies I have been involved in have lead me to believe is that this indicates strongly that Space-Time is a construct of events, that all events exist within the continuum.

so the past and the future already exist, there isn't a sudden change in the past once something has been observed... it was already observed just from out perspective within space-time we do not see the future events.

Do you see?

I was derailing a little to prove a point but I know the experiment pretty well. It coincides with a lot of physics and cosmology being observed right now which is why I am not dismissive of it. Not to mention if you understand Hume, Newton, Kant as well as there are hints of the philosophical idea being connected to the observation being the only true way to explain reality without infinite regress. Its not the same thing but it certainly points to they were on the right track of understanding.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

One. The matter somehow knew that you were going to look at it and acted accordingly...

Or.

Two. The matter did not exist until the measurement was made.

This so called "back-loading" is really where the mystery lies imo. Clearly the first option is not tenable, but the second option is also very unappealing. Actually I don't think option two is correct, well it's not stated properly. What this experiment implies is that asking "when a tree falls and no one is around to hear it is does it make a sound" is not even a valid question because the tree wont fall to begin with if no one is around. But when someone enters the forest, and they find a tree fallen to the ground, it's always possible to discover why the tree fell, it doesn't just pop out of thin air in an awkward position, it has a full history which was "back loaded" the moment is was required by an observer.

Personally I've always had a very hard time accepting that conclusion but it seems inescapable. Back loading, if real, strongly implies that we are living in a computer simulation which only loads things when they are required, in order to save computational resources. And the fact that the entire history of the thing in question can be instantaneously generated implies that this processing is happening outside of normal space time (ie in a computer in another reality). None of this really seems to sit very well with me because experiments like the quantum eraser show that non-conscious objects can cause wave-functions to collapse, which implies reality would operate perfectly fine without us, because non-conscious observers can also cause back loading to occur.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

So the past and the future already exist

Do you see?

Hey. Someone gets it. The obvious.

The trouble is there is nothing obvious about it when you consider how we humans seem to naturally view the flow of time and reality...

Yet when experiments such as the one we are discussing give results such as they do, the conclusions are more obvious than many are willing to accept.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: luthier

We do not constitute our own reality. That is less than infantile thinking. That is fetal thinking. Even a fetus knows better. How can I put this?

If an individual was never exposed to that kind of thinking - ever - so that they were not tempted by such a lie, then they would have the OBVIOUS conclusion that SOMEONE GAVE BIRTH TO THEM.

"Hey Mom. I was just thinking... uh... I didn't ever need you. Did you know that? I created you and made you push me out. Yeah..."

What in the world is going on here?

I love the arrogance of your viewpoints. Prove without infinite regress you exist and are real.

So you are calling imanuel Kant probably the greatest modern philosopher in history a fetal infant? Sorry bit there would be absolutely no empirical method without the empiricists'. The whole purpose of the arguments (which you don't get apparently) is to make you use empiricism to prove reality. Try it.

What you are left with is his idea. It hasn't been disproved or had a good argument against it in all of academia.

Oh but wait you know more than them even though you wouldn't without the scientific method (which is what these men came up with in the enlightenment era.

Ps your using simple anecdotal evidence that has no real value to your argument. But then again you don't really seem to get how to empirically prove your points. Remember the cat?

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Korg Trinity

One. The matter somehow knew that you were going to look at it and acted accordingly...

Or.

Two. The matter did not exist until the measurement was made.

This so called "back-loading" is really where the mystery lies imo. Clearly the first option is not tenable, but the second option is also very unappealing. Actually I don't think option two is correct, well it's not stated properly. What this experiment implies is that asking "when a tree falls and no one is around to hear it is does it make a sound" is not even a valid question because the tree wont fall to begin with if no one is around. But when someone enters the forest, and they find a tree fallen to the ground, it's always possible to discover why the tree fell, it doesn't just pop out of thin air in an awkward position, it has a full history which was "back loaded" the moment is was required by an observer.

Personally I've always had a very hard time accepting that conclusion but it seems inescapable. Back loading, if real, strongly implies that we are living in a computer simulation which only loads things when they are required, in order to save computational resources. And the fact that the entire history of the thing in question can be instantaneously generated implies that this processing is happening outside of normal space time (ie in a computer in another reality). None of this really seems to sit very well with me because experiments like the quantum eraser show that non-conscious objects can cause wave-functions to collapse, which implies reality would operate perfectly fine without us, because non-conscious observers can also cause back loading to occur.

Yep that is one way to look at it.

And if we had the ability to simulate actual reality, this is the way we would do it too...

It has actually become a selling point of most video games of today... the background simulation updating events as and when they render.

Never the less... the results however surprising... still do not get us any closer to understanding reality as we cannot perceive beyond our four dimensions and thus will always experience space-time as a linear progression of events... regardless of how much data there is to say it is so because of X or Y...

If we were to have a defining result that proves beyond all shadow of a doubt that we are in a simulation then what could we do about it? what would it mean to us really?

I propose not a single thing would change.

originally posted by: Korg Trinity

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Korg Trinity

One. The matter somehow knew that you were going to look at it and acted accordingly...

Or.

Two. The matter did not exist until the measurement was made.

This so called "back-loading" is really where the mystery lies imo. Clearly the first option is not tenable, but the second option is also very unappealing. Actually I don't think option two is correct, well it's not stated properly. What this experiment implies is that asking "when a tree falls and no one is around to hear it is does it make a sound" is not even a valid question because the tree wont fall to begin with if no one is around. But when someone enters the forest, and they find a tree fallen to the ground, it's always possible to discover why the tree fell, it doesn't just pop out of thin air in an awkward position, it has a full history which was "back loaded" the moment is was required by an observer.

Personally I've always had a very hard time accepting that conclusion but it seems inescapable. Back loading, if real, strongly implies that we are living in a computer simulation which only loads things when they are required, in order to save computational resources. And the fact that the entire history of the thing in question can be instantaneously generated implies that this processing is happening outside of normal space time (ie in a computer in another reality). None of this really seems to sit very well with me because experiments like the quantum eraser show that non-conscious objects can cause wave-functions to collapse, which implies reality would operate perfectly fine without us, because non-conscious observers can also cause back loading to occur.

Yep that is one way to look at it.

And if we had the ability to simulate actual reality, this is the way we would do it too...

It has actually become a selling point of most video games of today... the background simulation updating events as and when they render.

Never the less... the results however surprising... still do not get us any closer to understanding reality as we cannot perceive beyond our four dimensions and thus will always experience space-time as a linear progression of events... regardless of how much data there is to say it is so because of X or Y...

If we were to have a defining result that proves beyond all shadow of a doubt that we are in a simulation then what could we do about it? what would it mean to us really?

I suppose not a single thing would change.

Yes! That's it exactly.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

I don't know which humans are unable to figure out that the past is done and the future is inevitable (seeing as how that's what time is) except for kids that keep asking for a treat they were already told they are going to get (unless they keep asking).

As I pointed out earlier, if what they say is true, then the obvious result is that they must therefore acknowledge that there is a conscience which preexists externally space-time; as well, they would therefore need to come to the conclusion that it wasn't their observation that was collapsing the wave-function, but rather when they observed, the external force collapsed the wave-function for their observation. For that which preexists externally space-time is therefore not affected and is therefore and will be therefore. That also means all things have already been observed, which renders their theory useless anyway because it assumes that observation is the key, but observation is attributed to the scientist.

It's utterly flawed.

More irony: The future which they claim cannot exist until it is observed has now been observed to be the most logical conclusion of their line of thinking, if they so chose to be unbiased. If those choose to continue being biased and not understanding what they're actually saying, then maybe someone will get smart and stop giving them our electronic and paper abstract representation of human time, if they can figure out that other people do, in fact, exist, even if they haven't met them.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: Korg Trinity

I don't know which humans are unable to figure out that the past is done and the future is inevitable (seeing as how that's what time is) except for kids that keep asking for a treat they were already told they are going to get (unless they keep asking).

You'd be surprised.

Most people think the future is not set and there are even some that believe the past never existed....

a reply to: luthier

You're still not paying attention.

I have already pointed out that people are unable to prove the obvious because the senses are limited in scope. The mind is not a sense. It is able to go beyond that limitation of sensing and it is able to envision reality beyond the senses of the body.

It is not a healthy mind that says that you do not exist unless I see you there. That is a narcissist.

I possess the opposite of arrogance. IT is all the narcissists in all their arrogance who do not seem to understand such a simple and obvious fact.

You did not give birth to yourself.

If you can "prove" that you gave birth to yourself, then you will "prove" the infantile thinking.

But ANYONE can literally prove that you did not give birth to yourself. Reality is not elusive at all if you realize that you are not alone!

I do not care who people say is the smartest or most influential. Once again, unlike you, I do not base what I know to be truth based upon credentials or bias. I base it on, as much as I am able to access with my mind, or to access with my senses, without bias, on reality.

What about before earth had sustainable qualities for supporting life and consciousness, or before any star formed and produced energy, was reality non-existent then? Were clouds of gas not colliding and forming galaxies and stars and planets; even though nobody was around to observe it? Were particles not attracting and exerting forces on other particles? How did the big bang even occur if there were no observers to collapse the big bang into reality.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

I'm starting to see that.

I guess if they were to have their way, I just created them somehow. Okey Dokey. In this universe they have created for themselves, I'm doing some really illogical and painful things to myself.

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Neither are intuitive to our experience of nature.... What the studies I have been involved in have lead me to believe is that this indicates strongly that Space-Time is a construct of events, that all events exist within the continuum.

So the past and the future already exist, there isn't a sudden change in the past once something has been observed in the present... it was already observed just from our perspective within space-time we do not see the future events.

So you're going with option 1? I find that view even more distasteful than living in a simulation because it implies my entire future is already set in stone. Also that idea doesn't seem to agree with the type of randomness we get from QM, unless you want to believe in a many worlds theory with a huge or infinite number of deterministic time lines. But then if you accept that idea it seems to undermine your original premise that the setup knows what you will do in the future because you could end up on many different future time lines. And I'm pretty sure there are experiments which essentially prove that some type of back loading must be occurring at the moment the measurement is made, although I can't seem to find any info on that right now. Google seems to be utterly hopeless at finding documents relevant to quantum back loading.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Reality doesn't care about what you find distasteful. You're not supposed to eat your own excrement.

a reply to: Seamrog

Even closer... It didn't exist for YOU until you observed it. That doesn't mean that it didn't exist for someone else who was observing it.

originally posted by: micpsi
This experimental confirmation of the supposition principle postulated in quantum mechanics has NOTHING to do with the holographic model of the universe. Nor does it mean anything as simplistic as the conclusion that reality does not exist until it is observed. Rather, it means that the classical notion of a unique reality that exists independent of how it is observed fails for quantum objects. That's as far as it goes. All the silly hype that is being reported in science magazines and blogs on the internet should be ignored as hyperbole, misrepresentation and distortion. Macroscopic reality is NOT a quantum system, so stop making the mistake that it can be regarded as such.

I find that I often don't agree with you, but this happens to be a case where I do. There is a lot of silly hype and other than yours I didn't see any other posts in this thread that seem to grasp the situation.

First, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics that we teach in school may not be correct. In a survey of physicists asking what interpretation of quantum mechanics they think is most likely correct, Copenhagen didn't even get 50% of the vote. In the following video, physicist Sean Carroll explains this, and he also explains that in his preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics first proposed by Everett in the 1950s, none of the claims about reality not existing before the measurement is made are true, as there is no "wave function collapse". He says there is no way yet to prove if the Everett-type interpretation he prefers is the correct one but he thinks that the Copenhagen interpretation upon which the OP article is based is unlikely to be the correct one.


If you can't watch the video, here is the synopsis of the Everett many worlds interpretation which Sean Carroll prefers:

Everett interpretation

The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction and denies the actuality of wavefunction collapse.

I don't know if that's true and as Dr Carroll explains, nobody does. But if it is true, all the assertions made in the article based on Copenhagen, would be false, because they are based on the idea of wave function collapse which is specifically denied by this other interpretation. And as micpsi suggested, some of the inferences in the OP are not supported by ANY interpretation of QM, not even Copenhagen.