What is Decoherence?

a reply to: HotMale

This is what I have been saying about "path info AVAILABILTY". It doesn't matter if you look which path it actually took, what matters is the AVAILABILITY of such info.

Well if you take the delayed-choice quantum eraser at face value it would seem to imply that conclusion but I'm not convinced that is the right interpretation. If that interpretation were true it should be very easy to test. All you would need to do is set up a simple double slit experiment, place a detector at the slits to collect which-path information, but set it to delete the information before we actually look at the pattern produced.

Assuming our ability to know which path each particle took is what really matters, then we should see an interference pattern since the which-path information was deleted before the pattern was observed, but what we actually see is no interference pattern. Also that interpretation implies that events in the present can determine what happened in the past, a process called quantum back solving.

If we don't delete the which-patch information until after it has travelled though the slits and yet our decision to erase the which-path information is what determines the pattern, then that must mean our actions are affecting the past. The delayed-choice quantum eraser seems to confirm back solving is real because the result at D0 is dictated by what the ilder photon does at a later point in time.

One must question why the delayed-choice quantum eraser implies retrocausal activity and yet we cannot observe it in simple experiments like the double-slit setup I just mentioned; our decision to delete the which-path information after the pattern has been created (but not observed) doesn't impact what the pattern will be.

Furthermore, experiments like the quantum eraser also show that non-conscious objects can collapse the wave-function, which implies reality would operate perfectly fine without us, because non-conscious observers should be able to do measurements and cause back solving to occur. If you ask me there's clearly something we aren't quite grasping about quantum mechanics.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

All you would need to do is set up a simple double slit experiment, place a detector at the slits to collect which-path information, but set it to delete the information before we actually look at the pattern produced.

This is exactly what the Eraser part of these experiments does........

If we don't delete the which-patch information until after it has travelled though the slits

There is no path info before it has travelled through any slits......

The delayed-choice quantum eraser seems to confirm back solving is real because the result at D0 is dictated by what the ilder photon does at a later point in time.

This is one possible conclusion of the experiment from the other thread.

The other was that the result only materialises when the path info is available.

Either way it proves that there is a mechanism connecting the outcomes. Like I said before, there is only one mechanism that comes into contact with both events.

One must question why the delayed-choice quantum eraser implies retrocausal activity and yet we cannot observe it in simple experiments like the double-slit setup I just mentioned; our decision to delete the which-path information after the pattern has been created (but not observed) doesn't impact what the pattern will be.

But it does, that's just it.

Furthermore, experiments like the quantum eraser also show that non-conscious objects can collapse the wave-function,

No they show it is the availability of info.

If you ask me there's clearly something we aren't quite grasping about quantum mechanics.

Yes, the role of the conscious observer.

a reply to: HotMale

This is exactly what the Eraser part of these experiments does........

Yes but it does it in a very subtle way by looking at entangled pairs and how they are correlated. I was asking why it doesn't work when we try a much simpler version of the experiment where it should still work but doesn't. You need to be able to explain that.

There is no path info before it has travelled through any slits......

Yes I worded that badly, I was saying that if we delete the which-patch information before looking at it but after the particle has arrived at the final sensor then our decision to erase it should affect the resulting pattern, yet it doesn't.

But it does, that's just it.

It does in the delayed-choice quantum eraser but it doesn't in the experiment I suggested. And like the said the way the delayed-choice quantum eraser works is very subtle. The which-path information has a 50/50 chance of being automatically erased depending on why direction it chooses to travel through the first beam. You can't tell what will happen to the idler photon just by looking at the signal photon, you have to combine it with signals from other detectors.

No they show it is the availability of info.

I was talking about the original quantum eraser experiment and not the delayed-choice variant. Click the link and watch the video.

Yes, the role of the conscious observer.

I highly doubt it.

a reply to: HotMale

OK PICK ONE AGAIN YOUR CONFUSING TWO THINGS. Let's start with the easy one quantum eraser experiment shows a conscious observer is not needed at all. What it shows is if we measure an experiment without a conscious observer in other words no one looks at which slit our photon travels through, we still see the probability wave collapse. This is done by having our machine measure it without us knowing rhe results. This proves beyond a doubt whatever collapses our probability wave is not us.

Now let's move on to the second part you keep discussing there is no doubt that observation made after it travels through the slit can and does change the path it took. This is by far the strangest part of quantum mechanics and was predicted. Now how does this work well entangled photons like in the experiment in the op. Wright can show measuring one particle of an entangled pair effects the path the other had taken even though it was already measured. This shows us time is not fixed and works in forward or reverse.

Let's do a thought experiment let's say a photon leaves a distant galaxy from a neutron star along the path it encounters a galaxy and do to gravitational lending can go left or right of the galaxy on its path to earth. If I set up my telescope to see the entire galaxy I can't tell which side of the galaxy it came from. ill see the regular tic of netrons hitting my detector. Now I narrow the field to the left and another to the right pattern won't change I'll just see it on two detectors when I put the information together. But now I turn off one detector and to our amazement again the patern doesn't change now all seem to come from the left or right of our galaxy. Just by whichance telescope I decide to use I'm effecting rhe photons path around a galaxy billions of years ago.What does this tell us that time is not set and we get into the many world's interpretation. And a second which means time and what we consider the preaent is an illusion. Meaning there is no past present or future. It means everything in the entire universe that has ever happened or will ever happen is happening now.Similar to Einstein's belief that time is an illusion though a persistent one.THIS BY NO MEANS TELLS US THE UNIVERSE ISN'T REAL.

originally posted by: HotMale


When does it not take both paths?

First of all; A particle never takes more than 1 path.

If something exists and it takes more than 1 path at the same time it is not a particle.

Unless, the particle splits in half, but the reason I am so definite above, is because that would not be 'a' particle traveling through more than 1 path, that would be 'half' a particle traveling through each path, not 'a' particle traveling through each path.

There can be singular quantity of waves; I am on the beach and I see 3 ocean waves. 1, 2, 3 things.

Lets take 1 of those things; 1 ocean wave, can travel through 2 paths at the same time. But, is this not the same as the particle example, in that it is not really 1 wave traveling through, but half a wave?

Ok, so if quanta (the only reason this aspect is controversial is because the fundamental quanta being studied is thought to be non splittable, i.e. fundamental) can be cut in half, and half travels, or even if it is naturally embedded in, coupled to, fundamental fields that exist everywhere that any experimental environment cannot be leaved of; even if the single quanta travels by 1 path, it is possible that by being connected to these fields, that by the particles motions towards one path or the other, created momentum in the field, which was in the form of energy, which trickled down the path the quanta did not travel down.

This also depends on how close together the openings of the paths, if the quanta is shot directly at the middle of them, or biased towards one path or the other.

particles are presented with a choice.

subject these particles to an unnatural environment that we see an inner mechanism at work

This is where your ungrounded conclusion is showing, you are striving towards this conclusion with emotional desire.

You believe, think, and think you know, that fundamental particles 'have minds'. I am compelled to let that statement sit, as a simple statement, to see how you respond, because thats what you are implying.

That the particles are presented with a choice. That the particles have the ability to choose.

Let me ask this; Do you agree that there can only ever be greater and lesser amounts of determinism and choice? That those are the only 2 possibilities, and that there can only ever be areas of perfect determinism but there can never be areas of perfect free choice?

Do you know that determinism is the fact that stuff exists and the stuff that exists generally cannot choose to move itself? Do you know thats what the laws of physics are; that different stuff exists in relation to one another, and that they move depending on their physical nature in relation to all local physical natures? Do you think a lake chooses to evaporate and then rain, or that a river chooses to flow into that lake, or that a boulder on a mountain chooses to loose? I am just setting some grounds of agreement, that it is possible for physical quanta to exist, and be determined to act certain ways, without choosing how they act, because there is no internal choosing mechanism within them. Do you agree that this is possible? That there exists stuff that is unable to choose?

If so; you believe that the most fundamental quanta, has internal choosing mechanism? And it is this fundamental quanta which make up all quanta, so the last questions in the above paragraph, you would answer no to, or, your answer is; the fundamental quanta that makes up rivers and boulders and light and rain can only choose, when they are separated from macro objects and placed in an experiment?

something at work behind the scenes that in this case is making sure that reality is "correct" in a set up that provides reality with the option of not being "correct".

So you have the conclusion that the universe is fake. It would be nice to hear you come out and say it blatantly, since it is the conclusion you are attempting to fit all data to prove.

And the last question; Can you explain how the set up provides reality with the option of not being correct?

a reply to: dragonridr

What is 1 leading theory as to how entanglement physically works.

Dont give me all the back story and experiments, I know all about it; besides, the leading theory of the smartest humans who believe entanglement is a real thing, as to the physics of the universe which allow entanglement to occur. You hear it said 'it occurs', you rarely say 'how'; you hear 'how it was made to say it occurs', but rarely how it occurs.

originally posted by: HotMale
When you observe and the path info is available. It can't interfere with itself if there is proof that it took one of the paths.

So knowing all this, how can you still deny the role of the observer?

The "observervation" can be made by anything interacting with the experiment, no consciousness is needed by any of the equipment to play the role of "observer". See table below where most interpretations of quantum mechanics say the observer plays no role.

originally posted by: dragonridr
Now I see several on here are confusing to diffrent theories
-Copenhagen interpretation
-The other idea was first put forward by Hugh Everett in 1957.

Now on here people have been freely mixing these two versions. ..The OP is clearly talking about the many world's interpretation with the explination of decoherence.

I agree there is some confusion and this is why I pointed out people talking about wave function collapse are presuming Copenhagen and we don't know that interpretation to be correct. There is no wave function collapse with Everett interpretation nor with numerous other interpretations.

I'd also note that decoherence was first proposed in 1952 by David Bohm for the Pilot Wave interpretation which later became known as the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation, so that's a third interpretation of QM which uses decoherence

A fourth interpretation is called "consistent histories" and it also has no wave function collapse as in the Copenhagen interpretation. It's especially important to mention this interpretation in a thread on decoherence but aside from you who seems to have awareness of the different interpretations, many of the posters in this thread don't even seem to be aware of the various interpretations so it's no wonder they are getting them mixed up.

In fact there are more and in most interpretations there is no wave function collapse and there is no observer role, so the people saying the observer plays some kind of role don't even seem to be aware that most interpretations say this isn't so. Due to space limitations I only included the two columns for collapsing wavefunctions and for observer role but feel free to see the unedited table which would be illegible here if posted in its entirety due to the 600 pixel width space limitation:

In most interpretations of quantum mechanics the observer plays no role

The most common interpretations are summarized in the table below. The values shown in the cells of the table are not without controversy, for the precise meanings of some of the concepts involved are unclear and, in fact, are themselves at the center of the controversy surrounding the given interpretation.

No experimental evidence exists that distinguishes among these interpretations. To that extent, the physical theory stands, and is consistent with itself and with reality; difficulties arise only when one attempts to "interpret" the theory. Nevertheless, designing experiments which would test the various interpretations is the subject of active research.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Probability doesnt exist.

Only in the mind (or on paper) of a consciousness, can probability exist.

I can better than imagine how Einstein felt dealing with his colleagues how were saying absurd things, which prompted him to say 'god does not play dice...';

What that statement means, is what I am saying. Determinism; Free will. Determinism is the rule. Free will is a novel and complex thing, and difficult to occur. I argue pretty much all animals have it and it is in essence almost synonymous with mind or consciousness itself.

Compare a human to an ant. A human is able to accomplish more than an ant, primarily (but due to many reasons, but the main source, I would argue at least at first and generally) due to what the mind is capable of; now of course there needs to be a proportion with the body; for we can playfully imagine an ant that is smarter than all humans put together but cannot execute its knowledge due to its body; another example would be if Stephen Hawking knew everything he did but had no way at all of communicating. But I am drifting.

What Einstein was saying, or what I am saying;

There is only minds and non minds. Non minds cannot be anything other than determined, by the laws of physics, and the laws of physics executed by minds.

Minds are not perfectly escaped from determinism, of laws of physics, (genetics, nature, nurture, one can argue habits, necessities of biology, the dependance on language etc.)

Probability cannot really exist in/as nature. Because law is never unsure of itself. Because substance is never unsure of itself. Because that which is not a mind, is always exactly what it is at all times, (minds are too, but because they operate with symbols and can symbolically escape the laws of physics, ...eh yeah I can express more about this but, yeah), that which is not a mind is never at the guise of probability, because that which is not a mind is determined to happen exactly as it is determined to happen.

Probability only exists to minds. A mind which does not know what is going to happen.

Imagine a ball floating down a river 100 yards away from where you are, and where you are there are 12 posts sticking up out of the river floor into the air;

The ball is coming down, you can measure any of the variables and physical systems as you can attempt to and think to, and write out the probability, and you can attempt this because you know the truth, the determination of what will occur is contained in the totality of physical systems and their causal laws. But you know you will not determine it perfectly, and if you do, it will only be because you must closely come to know all the physical systems and data, in which case it will no longer be probability, it will be knowledge of the physical systems and laws and knowledge of the certain determination which is certain to occur.

The posts are close enough together so that the ball cannot fit through; when the ball is 100 yards away, you do not know which post it will hit, but barring a kid or a bird coming down a grabbing the ball, and this is a mellow enough river where it will not be shot up onto land, we can kind of know that the ball will end up hitting at least 1 of the posts first.

When the ball is placed on the river 100 yards away, and it is certain that no mind will influence any of the physical systems or variables as the ball journeys towards the posts, it is certain that when the ball is placed on the river 100 yards away from the post, that it is already than determined (in relation to the totality of nature) which post/s the ball will hit first (I say post/s if you havent figured it out, because the posts not being distant enough from one another to allow the ball to past, leaves the potential of the ball hitting 2 at once).

Even if the ball begins its journey down, any gusts of wind, any clouds and shade and sunshine, any rocks that are loosed from the river bed by the river that float to the top and hit the ball, all of this is determined by the exact physical systems.

Now, the difficult thing...and maybe where things get annoying and near impossible to think about, is how minds fit in. like 'the butterfly effect' type stuff, and even this is how (well this occurred for many reasons, but) gods were brought into the picture, maybe. But anyway, because what if the water of that river that is now touching the ball has been played in by children days before down the river? And the childrens free choice movements, which could not be predicted or determined by any science (because children can have non sense in their heads, because children/people can do things for close to no reason, and science depends on reason, because law is reason) influence the water at all, well then I dont know, I know it gets to splitting hairs but still.

Adding this in edit;

Even after the children play with the water, their effects would still hypothetically verge back into 'law' (?), or it would never leave law, it would just be influenced, there would just be mindful influence in the physical system. And the tricky part goes, and we can see in this macro example the quantum buggery, any time we attempt to measure the physical system, we disturbed the physical system, your attempts to measure the wind at all areas along the river, and pressure systems, and the wind speeds distances away, approaching the river bed, and correlating it with time, and the speed of the river, and the friction of the side river banks, and the choppiness of the water, and the weight of the ball, the material, how inflated it is etc. If you attempt to measure the water you will be effecting it in some way.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Probability doesnt exist.

Only in the mind (or on paper) of a consciousness, can probability exist.

What about the moment of conception, when one sperm joins with the egg thus determining if the baby will be a boy or a girl? Before that moment there were at least three probabilities, for conceiving a boy, a girl, or not conceiving. I don't see what free will has to do with that, well maybe free will could apply to reasons for not conceiving but test tube babies aside, it has little to do with the gender of the baby.

First off, Decoherence doesn't explain the measurement problem it avoids it by saying a measurement doesn't occur. If Decoherence solves the measurement problem why are Physicist still debating the measurement problem? Why are there still so many interpretations if Decoherence solves the measurement problem? It doesn't and anyone who understands Decoherence knows why it doesn't.

Decoherence does not generate actual wave function collapse. It only provides an explanation for the observation of wave function collapse, as the quantum nature of the system "leaks" into the environment. That is, components of the wavefunction are decoupled from a coherent system, and acquire phases from their immediate surroundings. A total superposition of the global or universal wavefunction still exists (and remains coherent at the global level), but its ultimate fate remains an interpretational issue. Specifically, decoherence does not attempt to explain the measurement problem. Rather, decoherence provides an explanation for the transition of the system to a mixture of states that seem to correspond to those states observers perceive. Moreover, our observation tells us that this mixture looks like a proper quantum ensemble in a measurement situation, as we observe that measurements lead to the "realization" of precisely one state in the "ensemble".

en.wikipedia.org...

A TOTAL SUPERPOSITION OF THE GLOBAL OR UNIVERSAL WAVEFUNCTION STILL EXISTS.

Where's the evidence for this? When you try to use Decoherence to explain the measurement problem, you're living in a fantasy world. This is because there's a global wave function that can't be measured or observed and this isn't Science but fantasy.

This was recently talked about at a Science Festival in New York:

Cosmic Confusion: Talk of Multiverses and Big Errors in Astrophysics

"I would like to talk about a very serious embarrassment," said Mario Livio, a proclaimed scientist and author, at a panel at the World Science Festival in New York City last month.

The embarrassment Livio referred to is sometimes known as the vacuum catastrophe. Truly empty space, sucked dry of any air or particles, still has an inherent energy to it, according to observations, Livio said. But when scientists use theories of quantum mechanics to try and calculate this vacuum energy, their results differ from the measured results by about 120 orders of magnitude, or the number 1 followed by 120 zeros.

The Vacuum Catastrophe is something I often talk about. It's another nail in the coffin of Decoherence and a materialist view of reality that makes no sense. It's always good to listen to Scientist at these festivals because they're very open about the problems they're facing. And these problems are HUGE!!

This is why it's funny to see people with no understanding of these issues say things that make zero sense. It goes on:

Priyamvada Natarajan, a professor of astronomy and physics at Yale University who studies exotic matter in the universe, emphasized how the deck seems stacked against a universe that is hospitable to life.

"The fact is that you need about six numbers to describe all the properties of our universe — the past, present, future. And we can measure [those numbers] to varying degrees of accuracy. And if any of these numbers actually departed even very slightly from what we measure them to be, then life would not have been possible," Natarajan said. "So there's a real fine tuning problem. […] Things have to be just so to have the universe that we have."

Again, this brings us back to consciousness and how the universe is FINE TUNED for life. You can't have a universe without consciousness. Without consciousness where is the evidence that our universe would even come into existence?

People are saying you can do this experiment and it shows consciousness plays no role.

HOW CAN YOU EVEN CARRY OUT THE EXPERIMENT IF CONSCIOUSNESS PLAYS NO ROLE?

HOW CAN YOU KNOW THE RESULTS OF THE EXPERIMENT IF CONSCIOUSNESS PLAYS NO ROLE?

Consciousness plays a major role because without CONSCIOUS CHOICE there would be no reality. There would be no universe. There's not a shred of evidence that there can be a universe without consciousness.

It goes on:

The multiverse explanation for the vacuum energy discrepancy is an example of something called the anthropic principle, Frieman said. This philosophical argument is somewhat circular, and essentially states that the rise of sentient beings in this universe only seems remarkable because sentient beings are there to observe it. Beyond that, the principle dismisses the search for a reason why this universe was tuned to host life.

"My colleagues and I, we call it the 'A' word," Frieman said. "And [it] may be the explanation for why the vacuum energy is so small. To my mind though, the problem with that approach is that it diverts you from looking for physics-based approaches to problems."

There are examples in the history of science where people have assumed an anthropic approach to a problem, but then found a physical explanation.

"I think even [Stephen] Hawking himself called it a 'council of despair,'" Frieman said. "Because basically you're saying we're never going to figure out a physical explanation for this."

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE!

This is a belief.

What makes this even worse, there's no physical explanation that accounts for Decoherence as an explanation for the measurement problem or why these universes will have all of these random variables that will give rise to different universes naturally.

THIS IS ALL FANTASY AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE.

The only SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE out there is that an agency or a mind fine tuned the universe for life and you can't have a universe without consciousness.

Everything else is just nonsense. One of the Scientist explains this is why she accepts a multiverse.

"One of the reasons why the multiverse argument actually appeals to me is actually there is no room for agency or deities or any such thing," she said. "I must say that personally I am not uncomfortable with the idea of a multiverse."

BINGO!!

This has nothing to do with Science but belief. She didn't say the multiverse argument appeals to me because it makes these predictions or there's all of this observable evidence to support it. She said, it appeals to me because in her mind it leaves no room for agency.

WOW!!!!

This shows that there's evidence that supports that consciousness or some agency fine tuned the universe for life and THIS IS THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE THAT'S SCIENTIFIC.

If you're going to appeal to a multiverse it has nothing to do with science and has NO PHYSICAL SUPPORT. It's just belief because you can't REFUTE THE EVIDENCE THAT CONSCIOUSNESS FINE TUNED THE UNIVERSE FOR LIFE TO EXIST.

Here's the link:
www.space.com...

At the end of the day, there's no evidence that Decoherence solves the measurement problem and no evidence that the universe has an objective independent existence without consciousness.

Edit:

I didn't even mention the Axis of Evil problem in Cosmology that Planck Satellite confirmed has a stronger signal than was previously thought.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
What about the moment of conception, when one sperm joins with the egg thus determining if the baby will be a boy or a girl? Before that moment there were at least three probabilities, for conceiving a boy, a girl, or not conceiving. I don't see what free will has to do with that, well maybe free will could apply to reasons for not conceiving but test tube babies aside, it has little to do with the gender of the baby.

It was probabilities for human knowledge, but you have to consider the nature of time. For you the probability takes places in these chunks of time;

(perhaps starting with verbal recognition of the desire to attempt to conceive a child, but lets even for sake, assume that is not the case)

So lets start with 'off to the races';

You are outside of the system (hopefully, or assumedly)

So you are not witnessing, and as suggested by your question, not thinking about all the real time continuous physical systemic interactions that are occurring in the body.

Many multiple things are occurring at once; cells and bodily functions and heart beat and the outside environment and the entire history of the inside environment, how it is prepared for this moment.

The best primer to get you thinking about, what can only be seen as to be the essence of truth, is to assume, that things exist exactly as they do regardless of what you think and know about them.

When 'off to the races occurs'.....


Oh well see, you picked one of the greatest and most intriguing examples, because it deals with like the precipice of life and non life, does a sperm have a mind? If it doesnt what is it, a robot? Its more like a machine than a rock right?

This is a very interesting scenario.

Do you think a sperm has any free will at all? That it thinks?

Do they detect things in their environment and move out of the way? Do they steer themselves? Could they stop if 'they wanted to' and check out the scenery? The most important thing is, can they think. But even still this gets into very interesting territory, like compare it to a horse in a horse race, does that horse have free will? Or forget that, a person in a person race, can that person stop running if they wanted to? Well yes they could, but there would need to be a large determining factor to get them to not participate in what they have worked their life to lead up to (for example if someone offered them a billion dollars to in the middle of the race, stop and sit down...but then again, would that be free will, or would they be determined by a law of logic, of obviousness, of the force of massive money?)

Is a sperm like a ball flowing down a river?

If a sperm can move, can it only move determinately, like it has senses that automatically react to the environment?

Well dang, the nature of that wiggling tail is interesting, is it controlling the tail, does the tail wiggle automatically, as fast as it can, when it feels itself getting tired does it slow down or attempt to wiggle faster... all very interesting questions; and it seems you did pick the most interesting one, because it is the very precipice between life and non life, or fully determined substance and not fully determined substance.

Also you would agree there is knowledge that a persons decisions throughout their life can effect the nature of their reproductive cells and organs.

But ok getting towards it;

If sperms can think, at least something like; "I know I can go faster or slower".... but you see, its so weird, because even if they could think at all, it is potentially 'their nature' as it is the human racers nature, to 'desire' to go as fast as they can and 'win'. Does one choose to want to win? Does one choose to desire to be successful over a loser, or is that a natural eternal nature of the concept of reward and value, to seek control, and to get control in ways one must give up control. Very difficult topic. Mainly because what the free will of the human does influences what occurs, like, the woman can be unsure if she desires to get a morning after pill, you see she has the privilege of being uncertain for a chunk of time. Nature is never uncertain, besides minds. Because a mind has a choice, a mind is aware of its choice, so a mind can think, a mind can know 'I can do a, b, c, d, e, f,.... a and then c..... d and then e quickly followed by f.....' You see there are all these options. That which is not a mind, is determined by that which is determined and that which can determine.

I can attempt then to go at your question like this;

It is true people get pregnant and have babies.

There is reasons as to how people get pregnant and have babies.

When 'off to the races occur'; if the reasons as to how people get pregnant and have babies are continuously true in form; than that person will get pregnant and have a baby.

If the reasons are not present, or are present, but then fail due to anything that causes the reasons of pregnancy to fail; then the person will not get pregnant or have a baby.

You do see how the situation is difficult because if woman egg and man sperm do not think, and the body parts of a woman does not think, well there is also the variables of the act to get to the races, but that can be looked at as a nature mechanism contrary to belief without a mind of its own, it can be viewed variably comparatively as far as angles and distances in trials.

Yeah, you picked a good situation, but it did not stump me or prove my efforts and views wrong, it is just that it is so intimately attached to free will, that again, the probability of the non mind biological mechanisms of sperm and egg, are potentially determined by the mind, which is not fully determined by nature. so a woman can be pregnant, and then stab her self in the stomach or jump off a building.

And that has nothing to do with the mindless mechanisms of egg and sperm, but the mindful mechanism of mind, which self determines, and can be unreasonable.

What is also interesting is that minds co create nature.

Do you at least see how probability is related to free will, but its all related to consciousness anyway, I think even free will is intimately related to consciousness, or at least we must say consciousness that has power over it self, because free will would not exist at all if all consciousness that existed could not control anything in any way, but was just like 'turned on eyes' that was streamed information from the environment but could not move or think, but just know the aesthetics as it saw it.

Ok here is how I can best get to expressing my point to you;

Imagine the universe existed, imagine matter at all existed, something rather than nothing;

But imagine, eternally, there was promise that no consciousness of any kind would ever exist.

Where would the probability come in?

Dont you agree that, the complete lack of consciousness, is the complete meaning of determinism. And in regards to complete determinism, what possibly is the meaning of probability? There is no probability, there is eternal certainty, eternal determinism, no consciousness to alter what is determined by the conciousnessless nature of nature.

originally posted by: neoholographic

It's another nail in the coffin of materialist view of reality

Can you define your use of the term 'material'?

So you will tell me what material is, but then I also am asking now;

Can you tell me what is not material?

Also you mention your belief that; the universe was created by intelligences/consciousnesses beyond humans.

And you say because the universe couldnt have existed, and then minds arise in the universe; You say; Minds must exist, and then create the universe, so that minds can then arise in the universe;

I am assuming you have thought of the way to explain away how 'mind/minds' originally existed?

You see its a chicken or the egg problem; the egg being matter, the chicken being mind, for analogy;

You are saying, there has always been a chicken, and then it invented some eggs, and then we are chickens that grew.

Do you have any arguments as to how it would be that there has 'always' (cannot stress the severity of that term enough) been chicken/mind?

a reply to: ImaFungi

First off, it's hard to decipher what you're saying because it has nothing to do with science or the thread. I haven't seen anything that you have said backed up by any science.

It's just inane rambling. You said this:

And you say because the universe couldnt have existed, and then minds arise in the universe; You say; Minds must exist, and then create the universe, so that minds can then arise in the universe;

What in the world does this mean????

Could you try quoting the relevant points you're responding to and then some science to refute those points. You said:

You see its a chicken or the egg problem; the egg being matter, the chicken being mind, for analogy;

You are saying, there has always been a chicken, and then it invented some eggs, and then we are chickens that grew.

No, this has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm debating SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE NOT RAMBLINGS AND HYPERBOLE.

In order to refute what I'm saying, you need to show SCIENTIFICALLY that the "material" has an objective existence independent of consciousness.

Now, if you disagree with the science then let's see some science to refute what I'm saying. You're basically all over the place without a shred of actual science to support what you're saying. You do know this is a Science Forum?

a reply to: neoholographic
You're using the same logical fallacy as UFO believers do.
They say "I saw something, I don't know what it was, therefore I know what it was, it was aliens".

See the table I posted of all the various interpretations, we don't know which is correct.
You cite our lack of understanding of quantum mechanics, and say "we don't know, therefore I know...it's consciousness".

That is a view completely unsupported by evidence.

a reply to: ImaFungi
As Feynman explains in his lectures in volume 3, page 2-10, while in some book sense one might claim that classical mechanics could be deterministic, he explains why in a practical sense it really wasn't even before quantum mechanics (he used an example of gas molecules interacting, but you could use the example I did or many other real examples which have a lot of variables where it's very difficult to define the present state precisely enough to make future predictions):

Feynman_Lectures-Vol3-p2-10
www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Nope and this is why you can't refute anything I've said.

It has NOTHING TO DO WITH I DON'T KNOW.

It has everything to do with what we do know and I listed it in the previous post. You're the one that lives in a fantasy world if you think materialism can explain these things. You have provided zero evidence to support this.

You listed different interpretations and that's exactly my point. There wouldn't be the need for different interpretations if Decoherence could explain the measurement problem. There wouldn't be the need for different interpretations if materialism could explain fine tuning of the universe.

Like I said, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE that the universe can exist independent of consciousness. If there is this scientific evidence, let's see it.

originally posted by: neoholographic

What in the world does this mean????

"And you say because the universe couldnt have existed, and then minds arise in the universe; You say; Minds must exist, and then create the universe, so that minds can then arise in the universe;"

You say it could not be true that; The universe exists, and then minds arise in it.

You say: The universe exists; Then minds arise in it = False.

You say: Minds must exist; Then create the universe; Then minds arise in that universe, the original mind/s create.

Your ad hominem attacks are as unjustified as your beliefs. If you read what I write line by line, it makes more sense than perhaps you are capable of handling.

My chicken and the egg analogy:

First let me loosely define mind as; System which knows it knows, system which does and knows it does and can do.

Hypothetically let us say it is possible for there to be systems which do not know, which do not know they do and know they can do.

Hypothetically let us say it is possible for minds to exist, and possible for things to exist which are not minds.

There are only 2 possible distinctions; Minds and not minds.

You seem to be saying, there is only 1 thing that exists, mind.

Your entire argument can stop at Descartes 'I think therefore I am' if that is the case.

Ok so you have 2 options;

Either you agree that minds can exist, and non minds can exist.

Or, you believe that minds can exist, and only minds can exist.

I will stop here to see how you respond.

originally posted by: neoholographic
You listed different interpretations and that's exactly my point. There wouldn't be the need for different interpretations if Decoherence could explain the measurement problem. There wouldn't be the need for different interpretations if materialism could explain fine tuning of the universe.

You don't understand decoherence because it's part of the various interpretations.

Like I said, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE that the universe can exist independent of consciousness. If there is this scientific evidence, let's see it.

I already provided it, the 8 billion years the universe existed before the Earth existed.

You seem to be saying that no universe can exist in a conscious mind without a conscious mind, which is a useless tautology which has nothing to do with whether the universe existed outside that mind.

It's like saying "there no marbles in this box if there is no box". True, but that does nothing to show there aren't marbles elsewhere.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

That Feynman quote is...I dont even know. You are just falling in the same trap, how you can in the same post tell someone else of their logical fallacy while below either succumbing to error or using one yourself is not beyond me because I understand what being human is like.

Feynman is still basing the comprehension of reality, and the comprehension of what can be known about reality, and the comprehension of what can be predicted of reality.

Dont you see that all those things relate to 'the human and the human mind'.

Dont you recall that I said probability only exists in the human mind?

Probability is only the relationship between ignorance and knowledge in a human mind.

There is no probability in reality (beyond human minds) because reality has no knowledge or ignorance, it only perfectly is itself at all times.

It is determined. Non minds are determined.

Feynman is talking bout the theory, the model. I am talking about truth. Yall are talking about a tool. Yall are talking about the limits of our modes of knowing. I am talking about an absolute truth that can be known via logic and reason and inference. Dont dare to read those words and say the thing you always say. Read all the words prior to those, and realize that they are what those words equal and they are valid and true.

Imagine the universe existed, imagine matter at all existed, something rather than nothing;

But imagine, eternally, there was promise that no consciousness of any kind would ever exist.

Where would the probability come in?

Dont you agree that, the complete lack of consciousness, is the complete meaning of determinism. And in regards to complete determinism, what possibly is the meaning of probability? There is no probability, there is eternal certainty, eternal determinism, no consciousness to alter what is determined by the conciousnessless nature of nature.

a reply to: ImaFungi

You said:

First let me loosely define mind as; System which knows it knows, system which does and knows it does and can do.

Why should I debate something that's loosely defined based on your beliefs?

Again, this is the Science Forum not the Philosophy forum. I could care less about how you loosely define something. This is why I backed up everything I was saying with Scientific Evidence.

You don't present any Science in your post just inane ramblings. You said:

Hypothetically let us say it is possible for there to be systems which do not know, which do not know they do and know they can do.

Hypothetically let us say it is possible for minds to exist, and possible for things to exist which are not minds.

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REMIND YOU THIS IS THE SCIENCE FORUM?

This makes no sense because your ramblings are predicted on your subjective beliefs and loose definitions. It has nothing to do with Science.

So I'm not going to respond to your hypotheticals and subjective definitions that have nothing to do with the thread. Like I said, present some actual scientific evidence to support what you're saying. I'm not here to debate your subjective beliefs.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You're starting to sound like the other guy. You said:

It's like saying "there no marbles in this box if there is no box". True, but that does nothing to show there aren't marbles elsewhere.

Give me the Scientific Evidence of the marbles that exist without consciousness. Where are they?

You say the universe existed 8 billion years before earth, tell me how can the universe exists 8 billion years without consciousness saying it existed for 8 billion years before earth? If consciousness wasn't here to say it existed 8 billions years before earth how could it exist 8 billion years before earth?

Science gives us the answer but it's not one materialist will accept so they replace the God of religions with the God of materialism and multiple universes that can't be observed or measured. Universe that can't explain how the constants of nature arose naturally.

How is that Scientific?