What is Decoherence?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: HotMale

To answer, if this reality is a program any feature in it is a part of the program.

then who programmed it?

I don't know. God? The One Consciousness? Future humans living on a post nuclear war Earth?

I don't have those answers.

Maybe there was a black void that somehow got aware of itself and created the material world and divided itself into smaller parts of consciousness to escape the reality that it is alone in nothingness.

I don't know. What I know is that there must be a higher reality.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Now we keep running the photon emitter, but simply remove the detector. Let's say it's outside and the photons are simply shooting off into space, at least we have reason to believe the same photon emitter that was emitting 30 photons a minute for the last hour is still emitting about 30 photons a minute. We have evidence to support this like many experiments confirming the conservation of energy, and we can continue to monitor the power input, measure the heat output, and say the difference between energy in and energy out as heat must be energy out as photons, which combined with the previous photon measurements is actually pretty good evidence. Then without changing anything, we can put the photon detector back in place and see it's still detecting ~30 photons a minute.

How do you know there is energy input and output without conscious observation?

No matter what you come up with you can't escape this.

Well the evidence actually supports quantum mechanics theory which makes accurate predictions.

Arghh, "predictions", as if that means anything. Yes you can predict but it does not explain anything.

a reply to: HotMale
Saying "consciousness" certainly doesn't explain anything as we know less about consciousness than we do about quantum mechanics, but one thing we are pretty sure of is the universe existed for billions of years before humans and their consciousness showed up. Claims denying this are outside the scope of science.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Saying "consciousness" certainly doesn't explain anything as we know less about consciousness than we do about quantum mechanics,

It is the only mechanism that would explain why we get these result. It doesn't explain how, but why. I see no other mechanism that would explain why.

What are your thoughts on the post I just made about "path info availability" with regards to Quantum Eraser experiments.

but one thing we are pretty sure of is the universe existed for billions of years before humans and their consciousness showed up. People who deny this are really outside the scope of science.

We can be sure it appears so within our perception.

And again this is not about human consciousness, per se.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Again, you should have read my post. I said this at the end of the quote:

there's no evidence that a a particle of matter exists before it's observed.

The whole point of the thread is that an objective material reality doesn't exist until it's observed. There's no independent material reality outside of conscious observation. Nothing you said changes or challenges that. There's a reason why you quoted that little piece and then tried to debate something that has nothing to do with what I said.

I then said this:

If you're going to make the claim a particle exists independent of our observation you have to show how a material particle can be in a green state and blue state at the same time. You don't need a particle to exists, just the wave function which contains information about what states an observer can perceive when a measurement occurs.

Again, there's no evidence that an objective material particle exists. I said a particle doesn't have an objective material existence independent of a conscious observer. This is because a material particle can't be in two states at the same time.

In order for you to debate what I said, you would have to show that a particle exists as an objective material reality independent of conscious observation.

It's gets worse because elementary particles are point particles. Again, no evidence that a point particle has an independent material existence. Sadly, when people think particle they think of grains of sand or particles of salt. In quantum theory, these particles are just excitations of fields that are localized when observed but don't take up any space.

A point particle (ideal particle[1] or point-like particle, often spelled pointlike particle) is an idealization of particles heavily used in physics. Its defining feature is that it lacks spatial extension: being zero-dimensional, it does not take up space.[2] A point particle is an appropriate representation of any object whose size, shape, and structure is irrelevant in a given context. For example, from far enough away, an object of any shape will look and behave as a point-like object.

In quantum mechanics, the concept of a point particle is complicated by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, because even an elementary particle, with no internal structure, occupies a nonzero volume. For example, the atomic orbit of an electron in the hydrogen atom occupies a volume of ~10−30 m3. There is nevertheless a distinction between elementary particles such as electrons or quarks, which have no known internal structure, versus composite particles such as protons, which do have internal structure: A proton is made of three quarks. Elementary particles are sometimes called "point particles", but this is in a different sense than discussed above. For more details see elementary particle.

en.wikipedia.org...

Again, this is the IDEALIZATION of particles. What does idealization mean?

Idealization is the process by which scientific models assume facts about the phenomenon being modeled that are strictly false but make models easier to understand or solve. That is, it is determined whether the phenomenon approximates an "ideal case," then the model is applied to make a prediction based on that ideal case.

The only thing the idealization of a particle as an objective material reality does is muck up QM. You know have to talk about material objects being in two states at the same time or how material objects can exhibit "spooky action at a distance."

At the end of the day, it was just easier to call them particles without explaining particles don't actually exist in the way most people think a particle of something has a independent existence. The better name would be something like wavicle. A wave that can exhibit properties of a particle but aren't localized in space beyond a conscious observer's perception.

For instance, when you carry out a double slit experiment, the quantum field gets entangled with the measuring device and the perception to a conscious observer is a local measurement but the truth is this information is non local and spread out throughout space. So again, we're back to the perceptions of a conscious observer not an independent material reality.

Here's more:

No Evidence for Particles

There are a number of experiments and observations that appear to argue for the existence of particles, including the photoelectric and Compton effects, exposure of only one film grain by a spread-out photon wave function, and particle-like trajectories in bubble chambers. It can be shown, however, that all the particle-like phenomena can be explained by using properties of the wave functions/state vectors alone. Thus there is no evidence for particles. Wave-particle duality arises because the wave functions alone have both wave-like and particle-like properties. Further the results of the Bell-Aspect experiment and other experiments on entangled systems, which seem to imply peculiar properties for particles if they exist, are easily and naturally understood if reality consists of the state vectors alone. The linear equation-Hilbert space structure for the state vectors, by itself, can explain every mystery in quantum mechanics except the origin of the probability law.

arxiv.org...

Here's more:

The centuries-old concept of particles is one of the cornerstones of our view of the structure of the physical universe. It has led to many insights and advances and is now so thoroughly accepted that it seems to be an indispensible feature of our conceptual landscape. In contrast to this apparent certainty, however, the mathematics of quantum mechanics, which gives an astonishingly accurate and wide-ranging quantitative description of nature, makes no mention of particles. Particles seem necessary, not to obtain the correct numerical answers—wavelengths, energies, cross-sections and so on—but rather to qualitatively account for observations that quantum mechanics, by itself, allegedly cannot explain.

This is a very important point. Again, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT A PARTICLE HAS AN OBJECTIVE MATERIAL EXISTENCE.

The reason you have paradox after paradox with QM is because of the MATERIALIST ASSUMPTION. So you see superposition and say,"Gee, how can this particle be in two states at the same time?"

Now you have weirdness because it's ASSUMED that a material particle is in superposition. There's no evidence of this but it must be the case if you have blind belief in materialism.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: HotMale
Saying "consciousness" certainly doesn't explain anything as we know less about consciousness than we do about quantum mechanics, but one thing we are pretty sure of is the universe existed for billions of years before humans and their consciousness showed up. Claims denying this are outside the scope of science.

Tell me, how do you know the universe would exist if conscious observers weren't here to say it exists? Where's the evidence that the universe can exist without consciousness?

How do you know the universe is billions of years old? Consciousness

Without consciousness, how can you know the universe is billions of years old?

How do you know the universe would even form if humans and their consciousness wasn't going to show up?

a reply to: neoholographic

People are stuck in the idea that the consciousness we are both speaking of is the result of the material human brain. Every counter argument comes from that notion but the material human would be a manifestation of a higher consciousness.

originally posted by: HotMale
It is the only mechanism that would explain why we get these result. It doesn't explain how, but why. I see no other mechanism that would explain why.

This is a bit of "tunnel-vision" on your part. There are usually multiple possibilities and science admits it doesn't know what's going on under the hood of quantum mechanics but has come up with multiple possibilities. For you to claim that you do know what's going on under the hood is a position not supported by science. I think you need to be more open-minded and consider multiple possibilities, as scientists do.

What are your thoughts on the post I just made about "path info availability" with regards to Quantum Eraser experiments.

originally posted by: HotMale
the wave does not collapse and it results in a wave/interference pattern.

The experimental results confirm quantum theory. As I said just because we don't know which interpretation of quantum theory is correct is no reason to invoke "consciousness" which doesn't explain anything. Your statement "the wave does not collapse" again shows some tunnel vision because you're presuming an interpretation of quantum mechanics which says the wave collapses. In some interpretations such as Everett, the there is no wave function collapse ever.

We can be sure it appears so within our perception.

And again this is not about human consciousness, per se.

Then I have no idea what "consciousness" you're referring to.

originally posted by: neoholographic
If you're going to make the claim a particle exists independent of our observation you have to show how a material particle can be in a green state and blue state at the same time.

I read your OP, you haven't shown that it is and in fact you consistently show a very incomplete understanding of quantum mechanics.

Critique of "Quantum Enigma: Physics encounters Consciousness" p6

Quantum theory is a theory that predicts the probability of observing physical attributes of a particle, such as position and momentum. The probability of finding a particle in “two places at once” is always zero. The question can be asked as to where a particle is located in between observations, but this question is metaphysical, and lies outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Tell me, how do you know the universe would exist if conscious observers weren't here to say it exists? Where's the evidence that the universe can exist without consciousness?

Well if you're using the same non-standard definition of consciousness as HotMale then I have no idea what you mean by that term.

But if you don't understand the universe existed for billions of years before humans based on evidence, there's no more point in debating this than debating the 6000 years age of the Earth claim with a fundamentalist.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

This is a HUGE NON RESPONSE and simply a diversion. You said:

But if you don't understand the universe existed for billions of years before humans based on evidence there's no more point in debating this than the age of the Earth being 6000 years old according with a fundamentalist.

Who said anything about the earth being 6000 years old? This is your POOR ATTEMPT to try and divert the issue because you can't debate what I said. So now you want to debate fundamentalism lol. This is what I said:

Tell me, how do you know the universe would exist if conscious observers weren't here to say it exists? Where's the evidence that the universe can exist without consciousness?

How do you know the universe is billions of years old? Consciousness

Without consciousness, how can you know the universe is billions of years old?

How do you know the universe would even form if humans and their consciousness wasn't going to show up?

Nothing about the universe being 6000 years old. Stop obfuscating because you can't answer.

a reply to: neoholographic
In your version it would be a little older than 6000 years but only as far back as the first consciousness. When were the first conscious beings on Earth?

You don't even have to know when the first consciousness appeared on Earth. According to science the universe existed for 8 billion years before the Earth did, so no consciousness on Earth could explain that 8 billion years of existence, since the Earth didn't even exist.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

This is a bit of "tunnel-vision" on your part. There are usually multiple possibilities and science admits it doesn't know what's going on under the hood of quantum mechanics but has come up with multiple possibilities. For you to claim that you do know what's going on under the hood is a position not supported by science. I think you need to be more open-minded and consider multiple possibilities, as scientists do.

Then what mechanism would also explain why we see these results? Consciousness would not explain how, but it would explain why we are seeing these results. It's not tunnel vision. It's the only option we have.

The experimental results confirm quantum theory. As I said just because we don't know which interpretation of quantum theory is correct is no reason to invoke "consciousness" which doesn't explain anything. Your statement "the wave does not collapse" again shows some tunnel vision because you're presuming an interpretation of quantum mechanics which says the wave collapses. In some interpretations such as Everett, the there is no wave function collapse ever.

You are ignoring the experimental results I was refering to. We know it collapses or doesn't collapse because of the pattern we see.

Furthermore, wave function and its collapse are what you like to call perfectly predictable. Is this not the foundation of Quantum physics?

The fact that you are now denying this is telling.

Please read my post again. The only variable is the availability of the path info. You cannot deny this fact. Let me rephrase it so it is only about the specific results in this type of experiment.

In Quantum Eraser experiments, there are two possible outcomes, interference pattern and non interference pattern.

Fact.

The only variable is availability of path info.

Fact.

Question:

Why would availabilty of info matter, if consciousness has no role to play. To what other mechanism would it matter?

Then I have no idea what "consciousness" you're referring to.

No you don't understand it. I definately did describe what I mean with this conciousness. A higher level consciousness that exists above our material reality.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

In my version???????????

What version is that?

There's no evidence that consciousness emerges from the material brain. There's actually more experimental evidence for quantum consciousness than there is for consciousness emerging from the material brain.

But that's a smaller point in a bigger issue that's been the discussion of this thread.

The discussion has been that an objective material universe exists independent of conscious observation. So my questions still stand:

Tell me, how do you know the universe would exist if conscious observers weren't here to say it exists? Where's the evidence that the universe can exist without consciousness?

How do you know the universe is billions of years old? Consciousness

Without consciousness, how can you know the universe is billions of years old?

How do you know the universe would even form if humans and their consciousness wasn't going to show up?

More thoughts on the "history" issue.

Maybe the simulation program was being run starting with let's say the big bang, although material reality never materialised until the first conscious beings were introduced. This would mean that all "historical data" would appear in the universe that materialised when concious beings were introduced.

And/or maybe material reality manifested itself in the same way for beings of lesser consciousness, like dinosaurs. Or maybe there were and still are other conscious lifeforms in other places besides Earth.

a reply to: neoholographic

OF COURSE THE UNIVERSE EXISTS WITHOUT US!
In physics none of the equations involve calculating when humans are involved,what happens when we are is the quantum-mechanical indefinite processes become definite. What it does not mean is that humans are necessary to the process; that's a fallacy called "affirming the consequent": just because A implies B, it does not mean that B implies A. Quantum collapse occurs any time two macro-scale systems interactBut it still exists, collapsed or uncollapsed, whether you were there or not. It's just that you can't say anything about it until you interact with it, which will always reduce the system from one in an indefinite state of overlapping possibilities to one in a definite state with only one possibility.

Superposition at its most basic is an object being able to be two things at once. Kind of like this picture.

a reply to: dragonridr

A mish mash of nonsense.

You said:

OF COURSE THE UNIVERSE EXISTS WITHOUT US!

Show me the scientific evidence of a universe that can exist without consciousness. Why would the equations need to calculate when humans are involved?

The problem here is the MATERIALIST ASSUMPTION that consciousness emerges from the material brain and like I said earlier there's more experimental evidence to support quantum consciousness than consciousness emerging from the material brain. That's just your belief.

The most you can say is you BELIEVE the universe can exist without us but that's a HUGE assumption without any evidence.



There's no evidence that a universe can exist without consciousness. There's no evidence a universe can even form without consciousness.

a reply to: dragonridr

Like I said before, repeating that material reality is persistent doesn't make it solid.

If you had any intellectual honesty, or dare I say, intellect for that matter, you would at least admit that you simply can't prove that anything exists outside our perception.

It is a given.

originally posted by: neoholographic


there's no evidence that a a particle of matter exists before it's observed.

Theres no evidence that a particle of matter does not exist before its observed.

If those are the two options;

Either; Stuff exists before its observed

Or; Nothing exists before its observed.

Its infinitely more logical, rational, reasonable, intelligent, probable, all evidence points closest to correct, to assume the former.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Theres no evidence that a particle of matter does not exist before its observed

You can say that as long as you keep ignoring the results of the Quantum experiments we have been discussing.

a reply to: ImaFungi

You said:

Theres no evidence that a particle of matter does not exist before its observed.

Sure there is. A particle of matter can't be in two states at the same time. All the evidence shows is that quantum states are in superposition not material particles.

You said:

Its infinitely more logical, rational, reasonable, intelligent, probable, all evidence points closest to correct, to assume the former.

It actually is irrational and illogical to think that material particles exist before it's observed because the scientific evidence doesn't support this. You can assume based on your beliefs but a lot of people assume irrational things based on belief.

I never said nothing exists before it's observed. Consciousness exists and Physicist Daegene Song made an excellent point when he said the observer's frame of reference and the wave function is inseparable. Very profound indeed and he explains this using the math of quantum theory.

originally posted by: HotMale
a reply to: dragonridr

Like I said before, repeating that material reality is persistent doesn't make it solid.

If you had any intellectual honesty, or dare I say, intellect for that matter

, you would at least admit that you simply can't prove that anything exists outside our perception.

It is a given.

I can shoe you math that proves you are not here. In fact using the Higgs Boson I can show you math that tells you rhe universe doesn't exist and never has that doesn't mean it's right because obviously we are here. Why because time exists and with time change occurs wirh or without us.