What is Decoherence?

originally posted by: HotMale

Would it have fallen on your head if you weren't there? Getting hit in the head with a branch is an "observation" of a process that is the result of a universal program. You don't have to believe this, but these kind of arguments against it are not very good.

It'is not just about looking with your eyes.

One of the biggest problems is you dont even think its possible that you can be wrong. You have some time ago concluded that the universe is 'a program'; and now 1 sketchy, ill understood and ill interpreted experiment is all the evidence you need.

Show me one piece of experimental evidence that a single atom makes an interference pattern with itself.

a reply to: dragonridr

en.wikipedia.org...

First, the experimenter reproduces the interference pattern of Young's double-slit experiment by shining photons at the double-slit interferometer and checking for an interference pattern at the detection screen. Next, the experimenter marks through which slit each photon went, without disturbing its wavefunction, and demonstrates that thereafter the interference pattern is destroyed. This stage indicates that it is the existence of the "which-path" information that causes the destruction of the interference pattern. Third, the "which-path" information is "erased," whereupon the interference pattern is recovered. (Rather than removing or reversing any changes introduced into the photon or its path, these experiments typically produce another change that obscures the markings earlier produced.)

Oh look, it is saying the same thing as I have been saying the whole time.

AVAILABILTY of path info.

So what part proves your claims again?

originally posted by: HotMale
a reply to: dragonridr

en.wikipedia.org...

First, the experimenter reproduces the interference pattern of Young's double-slit experiment by shining photons at the double-slit interferometer and checking for an interference pattern at the detection screen. Next, the experimenter marks through which slit each photon went, without disturbing its wavefunction, and demonstrates that thereafter the interference pattern is destroyed. This stage indicates that it is the existence of the "which-path" information that causes the destruction of the interference pattern. Third, the "which-path" information is "erased," whereupon the interference pattern is recovered. (Rather than removing or reversing any changes introduced into the photon or its path, these experiments typically produce another change that obscures the markings earlier produced.)

Oh look, it is saying the same thing as I have been saying the whole time.

AVAILABILTY of path info.

So what part proves your claims again?

When do they turn off the path way detector?

a reply to: dragonridr

Even as annoying as ImaFungi is he at least has a firm grasp of classical mechanics and basic knowledge of quantum.

Ahem, that's why he keeps asking for proof that a single particle causes an interference pattern in these experiments.

This is not even up for debate. The experiment in Neo's other thread for instance was setup with one single particle.

Why is he even in these discussions if he obviously hasn't looked at that or other experiments.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: dragonridr

You said:

Bs she explains that information in the video tells you she has an entire video on it it's listed right next to this one. You just want to attack her because you can't argue against the quantum eraser experiment.

Who is she? What are her credentials and why should anyone give weight to her opinion?

You post a video of someones opinion and try to pass it off as evidence?

She described the experiment but then she says consciousness plays no special role.

Two things:

SHE NEVER SAYS WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS SO HOW DOES SHE KNOW THIS?

SHE SAYS IN THE VIDEO SHE'S NOT SURE HOW MEASUREMENT WORKS, SO IF SHE DOESN'T KNOW HOW MEASUREMENT WORKS HOW DOES SHE KNOW CONSCIOUSNESS PLAYS NO SPECIAL ROLE?

That's not evidence of anything.

You expect people to give weight to yours as to who is she well I happen to know she's an associate professor at stanford. And her qualifications far out weighs yours I'm sure. But you come on here and want to argue what you believe the results mean without any understanding of all the possubilities. I see this whenever someone first tries to learn about physics and thinks they know it all. I can come up with a minimum of 10 different explination depending which theory I use. Yes there is alot of variants to QM. This is why I asked you several times for you to tell me what you believe is happening. You have been unable to do this so I know you have no clear understanding of the subject. Even as annoying as ImaFungi is he at least has a firm grasp of classical mechanics and basic knowledge of quantum. You don't seem to understand either or you would never by into pseudo science websites miss interpretations.

Actually, you should have just stuck with the inane ramblings of ImFungi and stayed away from any SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. You're presenting someones opinion of the quantum eraser experiment as evidence????

If she's an Associate Professor, and you still haven't provided any evidence to support this, then there's a reason why she didn't include these credentials in the video.

It's because it's mere speculation and opinion. She doesn't define what consciousness is that "plays no special role." She also says at 3:17 in the videO SHE DOESN'T KNOW HOW MEASUREMENT WORKS.

If she doesn't know what consciousness is and she doesn't know how measurement works how can she make the ASININE comment that consciousness plays no special role???

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

Wow only made it halfway through the book you wrote. Really couldn't get your circular logic but herr I'll make it simple about photons and time.Time genuinely doesn’t pass from the “perspective” of a photon but, like everything in relativity, the situation isn’t as simple as photons “being in stasis” until they get where they’re going. IN OTHER WORDS NO FREEZING! Whenever there’s a “time effect” there’s a “distance effect” as well, and in this case we find that infinite time dilation (no time for photons) goes hand in hand with infinite length contraction (there’s no distance to the destination).

Imagine a photon had a brain and eyes (if you want to suggest that 'a photon experiences no time' or 'to a photon there is no time' or any of the things you have been saying, this is the best way to express what you are implying).

Imagine you had a clear circular tube like a hula hoop suspended off and stable around your body since you were the age of 5 and the photon was trapped in there circling around, until you were the age of 20. The photon would experience time occurring?

Or is your argument that; 'a photon cant age'?

(dont say your buzz words, time dilation, length contraction, I know, I know... but that has nothing to do with 'a photon 'experiencing' time' (a convoluted and contentious concept in its own right))

Now if you are not talking about a photon comprehending time exists by viewing it occurring in its surroundings;

If you specifically are referring to a photon comprehending (figuratively) time exists, well first of all, if a photon is an E and B wave, then it would know that it requires (space, and) time for a wave to be a wave.

Second of all, time is movement, so if a photon is truly moving at all, then it is functioning in time.

You want to argue that photons dont move? I dont think thats a likely truth, but that would be the only way your statements could be correct.

originally posted by: HotMale
a reply to: dragonridr

Even as annoying as ImaFungi is he at least has a firm grasp of classical mechanics and basic knowledge of quantum.

Ahem, that's why he keeps asking for proof that a single particle causes an interference pattern in these experiments.

This is not even up for debate. The experiment in Neo's other thread for instance was setup with one single particle.

Why is he even in these discussions if he obviously hasn't looked at that or other experiments.

"The single atom was then dropped through a pair of counter-propagating laser beams, which formed a grating pattern that acted as crossroads in the same way a solid grating would scatter light.

A second light grating to recombine the paths was randomly added, which led to constructive or destructive interference as if the atom had travelled both paths.

When the second light grating was not added, no interference was observed as if the atom chose only one path."


I do not accept this as appropriate in any way.

LASERS!!!!!!!!!!!!

completely compromise any validity or meaning from this experiment.

Multiple lasers. They dont even fully understand how light works. This has very little then to do with a single atom.

When a constant stream of single and multiple sources of light is involved.

Despicable.

a reply to: neoholographic

Funny huh. The moment you ask for actual sources and qoutes to back up their rambling they seem unable to do so and even get mad you don't swallow their YT vid.

Very scientific huh?

a reply to: ImaFungi

LASERS!!!!!!!!!!!! completely compromise any validity or meaning from this experiment.

So it is because of the laserlight that an interference pattern is created?

If you knew anyhting or had reviewed anything you would know the single particle always travels along a laserbeam, even when there is no interference pattern it has traveled along a laser beam.

This is truly the last time I responded to you.

You are a joke.

originally posted by: HotMale
a reply to: neoholographic

Funny huh. The moment you ask for actual sources and qoutes to back up their rambling they seem unable to do so and even get mad you don't swallow their YT vid.

Very scientific huh?

Exactly!!

Here's a random video from You Tube that explains the quantum eraser experiment differently. Like I said, this is why I like to post articles and published papers not opinions from videos cause anyone can play this game. At least this video quoted Physicist that support there conclusion vs. the other video where she admitted she didn't even know what a measurement was.

a reply to: neoholographic

If the universe is a program;

Well first let me ask;

Do you believe only the earth exists, that images of other galaxies are illusions, created by the program/programmers to make the universe appear large, but its only earth?

Because one difficulty I think with how the universe could logistically be a program, is where is the source of the information. Yes sure, there may be millions of ways of getting around it. But still I think its more difficult to start with this assumption, and then attempt to prove it by minor experiments. Because, there is so much information that has such real consequences.

Like you can believe the earth is just an illusion program, but you wouldnt eat lava, because the program is really good, its really real. Even if its fake, everything within it, the consequences are very real.

So like its possible the earth is fake 3d. I think its cheap to say hologram, because, it just is, there is so much information, and the favorite catch line of 'all information of the whole contained in the part' really doesnt say much, especially since in the classical world, things are more than the sum of their parts.

Where could the source be; beyond the earth; Or dare you, instead of zooming out, desire to claim the source could possibly be 'below planck length' or something, because you probably with very little thought are fancied to claim that space can be divided infinitely or something.

So say God made a computer game, and we are a couple of the potentially infinite characters; there still must be material that is used to format and create this stable program.

Because pure random chaos beyond that of which you can imagine, is not constantly occurring increasingly in different ways. There is material and law. Rules.

Energy is required to keep the program running, perhaps there is needed memory, the code must be contained in something, written in someway; the essentials of what would be required for us to make a computer program in which artificial intelligence and artificial conscious beings arise would be required of the maker of this program that you are arguing we are in.

So the housing of the program, must exist somewhere and somehow, and it must, exchange information to 'the housing' of the illusion of earth. Well like computer, it all takes place with electrons and logic gates, but there is scales, necessary scales, like it can not just be electrons and computer chip logic gates, there needs to be the scale of housing, and there needs to be the scale of complex programmer language code. But once its all created, it can relatively exist in the same place. And does it require a screen, the projection, for the illusionary realm to exist? Think of any video game, an rpg for instance, there is a world map, there are characters moving about, imagine if there was no screen, but the characters were (alive) and still moving about; where would they be moving? Would they be single, or collections of electrons, or a mixture of all that and particular programming code, that would be physically moving about the hardware, if the screen was off but the information for world map and character existence still existed somewhere some how.

It is interesting to note, it seems, illusion or not, there are some inescapable necessities, of creating or mimicking a reality and life. Hardware, software, code, time, space, energy etcs.

So if the earth and you, are being maintained by a computer program, how might this illusion be taking place;

Like think if you were the video game character of a human video game, and you were conscious, but you could only see the world map;

Knowing what you know, that there would be more than the map (there would be a programatic source of the map and you, that is hidden from the map), how would that map be existing, how would that illusion be occurring?

You would move something in the map, and would electrons be moving? The map would be the classical world. Things would always be sourced and controlled from the most fundamental aspect right, because the illusion itself would always be an illusion, the reality always the reality, which is why you are so inclined to say consciousness is primary, because it would be like the electrons in the logic gates, it is closest to the source, and human movement springs from it.

Because if we just imagine the character as its whole body, amidst the world map, houses and trees, in this computer game; and we watch the characters arm move, and grab an apple off the tree;

We know that the apple, the tree, and the body are not 'real', they have sources, that are not contained in our explicit viewing of the forms.

The tree the apple the arm, would be created somewhere else, they would not be any substance in that world map, they are a projection, of 'different things'.

So my question is; would it ever be possible, in any conceivable program creation, for the created characters, to access 'the behind the scenes sources' of the illusion? (what quantum mechanics is attempting?)

Because in our program creations, the information is with light projected onto a screen right? So imagine you in a computer screen amidst a world map, and all you can see is the world map, and your movements, and learn the laws of that world map, maybe you can jump over trees and slay dragons, but in a conceivable scenario such as that, how would you, from only having vision of the illusion world map, 'tear into the illusion' and learn anything about what is causing it?

In that case, would you not be at a very relative distance away from the source, you would just be fighting with light, with the projection. Perhaps you would be able to comprehend the nature of pixels.

But you would not be able to access any information about computer chip, code language, and stuff dont you think?

originally posted by: HotMale


So it is because of the laserlight that an interference pattern is created?

If you knew anyhting or had reviewed anything you would know the single particle always travels along a laserbeam, even when there is no interference pattern it has traveled along a laser beam.

Always 1 and 2 laser beams.

Never just the atom.

You have no certainty, or near good guess, that the interactions of laser beams is not influencing the nature of interference pattern.

a reply to: ImaFungi

I'm not reading through anymore of you're posts until I see some Science to support anything you're saying. I'm tired of the ramblings that lead nowhere.

I can just randomly pick out something you said in your post and it makes no sense.

We know that the apple, the tree, and the body are not 'real', they have sources, that are not contained in our explicit viewing of the forms.

The tree the apple the arm, would be created somewhere else, they would not be any substance in that world map, they are a projection, of 'different things'.

This just makes no sense and you never provide any scientific evidence to support anything you're saying.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: ImaFungi

I'm not reading through anymore of you're posts until I see some Science to support anything you're saying. I'm tired of the ramblings that lead nowhere.

I can just randomly pick out something you said in your post and it makes no sense.

We know that the apple, the tree, and the body are not 'real', they have sources, that are not contained in our explicit viewing of the forms.

The tree the apple the arm, would be created somewhere else, they would not be any substance in that world map, they are a projection, of 'different things'.

This just makes no sense and you never provide any scientific evidence to support anything you're saying.

If you read the rest of what I wrote it would make sense. That last post is one of the most relevant posts to your beliefs and arguments. Most of what I have been saying is pertinent and relevant. If you believe the earth is a program created by a programmer, then in that post I go over some of the potentials of that possibility.

Oh what a big surprise... you took a random quote out of my long post and you didnt understand it because there was no context.

originally posted by: neoholographic
until I see some Science to support anything you're saying.

You dont believe in science. You dont believe in anything. Science is meaningless to you. Everything is meaningless to you.

You only know that you can open and close your eyes. That is all you know and can know. Why have you been writing so much? That is all you know. That is your entire argument.

"I can open and close my eyes"

What else can you and do you know besides that?

That is all you know and can know. That is all you have been arguing. That has been the totality of all of your statements, arguments and beliefs.

"I can open and close my eyes, this is all I can do and all I can know, this is the only thing that is real".

The only reason you dont like me is because I have the power to hurt the bliss of your ignorance.

a reply to: ImaFungi

At least in your interpretation Neoholographic adheres to some form of Skepsis.

Ancient Skepticism

First published Wed Feb 24, 2010; substantive revision Sat May 31, 2014


The Greek word Skepsis means investigation. By calling themselves skeptics, the ancient skeptics thus describe themselves as investigators. They also call themselves ‘those who suspend’, thereby signaling that their investigations lead them to suspension of judgment. They do not put forward theories, and they do not deny that knowledge can be found. At its core, ancient skepticism is a way of life devoted to inquiry. It is as much concerned with belief as with knowledge. As long as knowledge has not been attained, the skeptics aim not to affirm anything. This gives rise to their most controversial ambition: a life without belief.

Source

Here's a quote from Fritjof Capra.

“The crucial feature of atomic physics is that the human observer is not only necessary to observe the properties of an object, but is necessary even to define these properties. In atomic physics, we cannot talk about the properties of an object as such. They are only meaningful in the context of the object’s interaction with the observer. In the words of Heisenberg, ‘What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.’ The observer decides how he is going to set up the measurement and this arrangement will determine, to some extent, the properties of the observed object. If the experimental arrangement is modified, the properties of the observed object will change in turn.” -Fritjof Capra, “The Tao of Physics” (140)

Very profound stuff and this was shown in the Delayed Choice Experiment. The key is CHOICE.

A photon can be emitted from a source 2 billion years ago. This photon will take all possible paths until 2 billion years later, a conscious observer makes a CHOICE to carry out a measurement. This CHOICE affects how the particle acted in the past. How can you have the path of a photon or an electron without a conscious observer making the choice to bring a past into "existence" by knowing which path information?

Again I ask, where's the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that a material objective reality that we call the universe can exists independent of consciousness?

There's self observation that special to Conscious Observers and the existence of the universe depends on the existence of consciousness.

In his paper, "Non-computability of Consciousness," Daegene Song proves human consciousness cannot be computed. Song arrived at his conclusion through quantum computer research in which he showed there is a unique mechanism in human consciousness that no computing device can simulate.

"Among conscious activities, the unique characteristic of self-observation cannot exist in any type of machine," Song explained. "Human thought has a mechanism that computers cannot compute or be programmed to do."

Daegene Song obtained his Ph.D. in physics from the University of Oxford and now works at Chungbuk National University in Korea as an assistant professor. To learn more about Song's research, see his published work: D. Song, Non-computability of Consciousness, NeuroQuantology, Volume 5, pages 382~391 (2007). arxiv.org...

www.prnewswire.com...



This also leads to the Free Will Theorem.

The theorem states that, given the axioms, if the two experimenters in question are free to make choices about what measurements to take, then the results of the measurements cannot be determined by anything previous to the experiments. Since the theorem applies to any arbitrary physical theory consistent with the axioms, it would not even be possible to place the information into the universe's past in an ad hoc way. The argument proceeds from the Kochen-Specker theorem, which shows that the result of any individual measurement of spin was not fixed independently of the choice of measurements. As stated by Cator and Landsman regarding hidden variable theories:[3] "There has been a similar tension between the idea that the hidden variables (in the pertinent causal past) should on the one hand include all ontological information relevant to the experiment, but on the other hand should leave Alice and Bob free to choose any settings they like."

en.wikipedia.org...

WOW!

There goes that word CHOICE again.

A CONSCIOUS OBSERVER HAS A CHOICE as to which observable of the wave function will be measured. Prior to that CHOICE there isn't any observed material reality.

For instance, you can have a 60% chance of measuring spin up and a 40% chance of measuring spin down. The CHOICE of the Conscious Observer to measure an observable CREATES REALITY. That measured state doesn't exist in this universe independent of the CHOICE of the Conscious Observer. In fact the CHOICE of the Conscious Observer affects how a particle behaves in the past.

a reply to: neoholographic

Again I ask, where's the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that a material objective reality that we call the universe can exists independent of consciousness?

you can start here.

plenty of information regarding the formation of our planet and galaxy, all of which happened BEFORE the presence of life forms, so far as the scientific record indicates. if you dont trust the information, by all means, do some fact checking. but please do that fact checking before you continue this pointless argument.

A CONSCIOUS OBSERVER HAS A CHOICE as to which observable of the wave function will be measured. Prior to that CHOICE there isn't any observed material reality.

please quote the article where CHOICE is said to be a confirmed factor. seems to me like you are making leaps and adjustments to keep your theory - sorry, i mean hypothesis afloat. stuff doesnt pop in and out of existence when we blink, the world doesnt fade into oblivion when we go to sleep, and there isnt a vast empty void outside our sphere of observation waiting to be filled in by a cognizant passerby. planets and galaxies and shooting stars and moons and trees and houses and all the little particles that make them all up, all continue to exist without concern for us or what we "perceive".

originally posted by: neoholographic

Again I ask, where's the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that a material objective reality that we call the universe can exists independent of consciousness?

Again I ask, where's the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that a material objective reality that we call the universe can not possibly exist independent of consciousness?

Lack of evidence is not evidence of absolute lack.

We have no way of proving either way.

I cannot prove a galaxy exists 999999999 light years west of here.

You cannot prove a galaxy does not exist 999999999 light years west of here.

We are both left to logic, reason, rational, inference, probability and thinking.

Prior to that CHOICE there isn't any observed material reality.

The lack of observing material reality, is not the proof that 0 material reality exists. repeat ad. infinitum.

The lack of observing is not the proof that there is nothing to observe.

Closing your eyes is not proof that nothing besides the blackness you see exists.

These statements are right. Your statements attempting to deny the rightness of these statements are wrong.