What is Decoherence?

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Yes but it does it in a very subtle way by looking at entangled pairs and how they are correlated.

Not really relevant, the end results are what they are.

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.

I don´t understand where you are getting this. What specific experiment are you talking about then. You are saying the opposite of what the predictable result is. Erasure of the info always results in an interference pattern.

Availability of info results in non interference, wether one looks at the info or not.

It does in the delayed-choice quantum eraser but it doesn't in the experiment I suggested

I am talking about predictable and repeatable results. Is there a paper on the specific experiment you are refering to so I can see how it is setup exactly?

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

Yeah I watched and I don't see how it changes anything. Is she citing an existing experiment? It's exactly like I say, and she makes the same mistake as you obviously.

If the detection is made but you never look at the info, the interference pattern still collapses. Correct. You think that this proves that you don't need a conscious observer.


Can you then explain why there is an interference pattern when the info is erased, making it impossible to know, as opposed to just not checking it, and there being the potential of it still becoming known?

Like I said the avaiability of info is what matters. You cannot deny this. It is the only variable. You, and others have still not said anything to refute this.

Btw, I don't know if you checked the comments on that YT vid you posted, but there are a lot of them saying the exact same thing, AVAILABILITY of info.

Why would it matter if consciousness has no role?

a reply to: dragonridr

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.

You have got this so twisted.

What do you mean without us knowing the results?

Do you mean that we do not check the path info or that that we can't know because the info doesn't exist because it is not stored anywhere?

The info obviously exists at some point, otherwise there would be no need "erase" it.

So there are two states, the path info exists, or it doesn't exist(after it is erased). Based on this you respectively get non interference pattern/ interference pattern.

Again, the only variable is availabilty of info.

How does this disprove the role of consciousness?


Btw, can you point me towards the specific eraser experiment that shows what you are saying?

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.

Lol, there's the big fat cop out.

Yes, and it does so just because a conscious observer created an experiment where reality was presented with a paradox. The only reason the boundaries of space and time seem to have been crossed is because otherwise the end result wouldn't be correct to the observer.

Wether you think that info traveled though time or you think that reality manifests upon final observation, you can't escape that fact that you need a higher mechanism to explain it.

Let's do a thought experiment

Let's not. I think I'll stick to real experimental results.

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.

Yah, my theory sounds way crazier.....

I agree that time does not exist, since there is only conciousness.

Your explanation for the result that time doesn't exist is still a cop out. You have to ask yourself why it suddenly doesn't exist when we do an experiment that is setup in such a way that it is forced to violate time and space if the result is going to to be correct in the observer's pereception.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

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:

Why are you thinking in boxes. I don't care about prior interpretations. I can think for myself.

I see this constant hiding behind established interpretations, ignoring that the fact that there are multiple to pick from is telling enough.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: neoholographic


YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT MATTER DOES NOT EXIST BEYOND YOUR PERCEPTION OF IT, YOU CAN ONLY PROVE THAT YOU DO NOT PERCEIVE ANYTHING.

YOU PROVING THAT YOU DO NOT PERCEIVE ANYTHING, IS NOT PROOF THAT NOTHING EXISTS.

Why should I prove that matter exists beyond my perception of it when there isn't any SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that says it does?

If you have the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that says matter can exist independent of consciousness then let's see the evidence.

You are claiming the absence of evidence to the contrary is evidence to the affirmative. This doesn't constitute a direct test of the hypothesis yet you pass it off as conclusive. Stop taking short cuts and stop insulting our intelligence if you expect us to take you seriously. Send us a video of your computer disappearing when you close your eyes or something. Test it somehow. And yes that responsibility falls to you, not us. For 4.5 billion years this galaxy has been 99.99% devoid of any kind of consciousness as yet verified by science. Our itty bitty tiny little speck of space-time does not account for it. There hasn't been anything to "observe" it into being. But since you claim it, then you prove it.

a reply to: HotMale

If no conscious observer knows the results then this eliminates that as being an option. The quantum eraser experiment was set up to check to see if the act of observation effected results it didnt. Make a diffrence if the observer was aware or not. What mattered was a measurement being taken. Now there is several possibilities why this occurs. But wrong have already ruled out a conscious observer as being necessary. I'm Going To Make THIS Easy FOR You. Watch these videos and will discuss them.

a reply to: dragonridr

Double slit done with single photon at a time cant result in wave pattern because photons cant interact with photons right?

Also electron being a wide lateral wave like that is troubling.

Also it is more likely that the electron hits the walls of the slit like is shown in the video, to result in the pattern; and that it is not that there is random chance or what not, again I have never seen evidence to suggest that 'hidden variables' is not the most likely candidate for any oddities.

No I am not going to watch any more YT vids by some woman giving her view on things.

Give me a link to the exact experiment she is basing it on.

What I need to know is if the information that in this case is not looked at, is stored and still available?

Is it or is it not?

I still don't see you explaining why there is an interference pattern if the info is erased.

It still interacted with a detector yet there is an interference pattern.

This show that it is NOT the detector itself.

Why do you keep ignoring the erasure part?

a reply to: TzarChasm

You said:

For 4.5 billion years this galaxy has been 99.99% devoid of any kind of consciousness as yet verified by science.

Let's see the scientific evidence that supports this. The only way you can say the universe existed 4.5 billion years is because of your conscious perception that it existed 4.5 billion years without consciousness. Where's the evidence to support this? How can the universe exist without consciousness? Show me the evidence that there's another universe out there that can exist without consciousness.

How do you know the universe would exist if you weren't here to say it exists?

a reply to: dragonridr

The videos prove nothing. In fact, in the second video she says she doesn't even know what a measurement is. If she doesn't know what a measurement is how can she say consciousness plays no role? Does she even know what consciousness is? At about 3:17 in the video she says, how does measurement work?

Again, if she doesn't know how measurement works how can she say consciousness plays no special role???

Let's go back into the video to see how she came to the asinine conclusion that consciousness plays no special role. Also, who is she? Don't tell me you're depending on videos that can be from somebody that's just giving an opinion. What are her credentials? When I post it's backed by Physicists with names and credentials not disembodied voices on you tube videos. She has a nice voice but that's about it. I looked in the about section and it said:

Curiouser and curiouser...

Back to the video:

First, I can't believe you're using this video as a source to back up anything.

How can you have a measurement without consciousness? A measurement occurs because of the potential for consciousness to experience it. Without consciousness there wouldn't even be a universe. This is why she doesn't understand how measurement works.

Measurement occurs because of the potential for consciousness to experience it. This is what Physicist Daegene Song was talking about and he used the math of quantum theory.

originally posted by: neoholographic

Let's see the scientific evidence that supports this. The only way you can say the universe existed 4.5 billion years is because of your conscious perception that it existed 4.5 billion years without consciousness. Where's the evidence to support this?

What exactly would you accept as evidence?

Has anyone ever seen it proved that a single quanta creates an interference pattern with itself? 1 particle, 1 trial = interference pattern? Can they send me the information which proved this to them.

Ok, and saying yes that is true and does occur, it would mean that all electrons have infinite width? A double slit experiment; an electron gun; a single electron is fired out of the gun nozzle, and immediately as the electron exists the gun nozzle it becomes the width of the chamber? And then carries on forward, gets broken when hitting the two slits, and then continues to spread and interacts with itself, to in 1 single trial, create an interference pattern on the detector?

I think a lot of the problem is trying to comprehend what and how electrons and photons are, by using them and assuming one knows what they are.

For example, even using electricity or whatever mechanism to prepare a single electron to fire out of the nozzle, and then giving it relative energy to fire it out of the nozzle, and then how it interacts with the material of the nozzle as it is fired out, all of this has the potential to create novel effects including the creation of EM radiation. The electron is intimately linked to EM radiation; so if the electron is a wide wave that hits the wall and both slits, this would release EM radiation.

a reply to: neoholographic

What did God use to create the universe if no material existed besides the non material of its mind?

a reply to: GetHyped

It's more or less rethorical. It is not possible to prove that anything exists outside of our perception.

I can't believe people are still not getting it. It is a simple truth.

originally posted by: HotMale
a reply to: GetHyped

It's more or less rethorical.

No, not really. When someone demands evidence, it's expected that they at the very least specify exactly what they would accept as evidence.

It is not possible to prove that anything exists outside of our perception.

So basically you're making an unsubstantiated assertion that is not in any way falsifiable. I.e. magic.

I can't believe people are still not getting it. It is a simple truth.

Your position is not supported by the scientific evidence. Feels =/= reals.

a reply to: GetHyped

Your position is not supported by the scientific evidence. Feels =/= reals.

Lol, this is hilarious.

I am not even saying it means anything, it is just impossible to prove that anything exists outside of our perception, since we wwould need our perception to verify this.

How can you not get this.

Lol.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: neoholographic

Let's see the scientific evidence that supports this. The only way you can say the universe existed 4.5 billion years is because of your conscious perception that it existed 4.5 billion years without consciousness. Where's the evidence to support this?

What exactly would you accept as evidence?

Show me evidence of material universes that exists without consciousness and show me the constants of nature in these universes and how these constants arose naturally in these other universes.

A universe can only come into existence if consciousness has the potential to experience it.

a reply to: HotMale

So if there is no objective reality, what is one theory on what there could be instead?

And its not evidence that when you die and we will still be here, that your perception was not inventing the world, that your perception was only inventing your world, that there is a world, and perception, and the world is primary, and perception is secondary, and perception is born and dies and the world remains? This is the more likely candidate for truth.

Because you also cannot prove that stuff does not exist that you cannot prove, so you are forced to either be agnostic in terms of these options, or use scientific inference, logic, reason, rational to consider which is more likely.

originally posted by: neoholographic


A universe can only come into existence if consciousness has the potential to experience it.

Well now you change the whole tone of your notion;

Now you are saying a universe can exist without consciousness.

That statement you make right there is saying,

A universe can exist without consciousness! as long as sometime after the universe is existing, consciousness has the potential to arise within it.

Looks like our side of the argument was right all along, and you just came over to the light side, congrats.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Again, you make no sense and you haven't contributed a shred of science to this thread just inane hyperbole.

No, a universe can't exist without consciousness and it can't even form unless consciousness has the potential to experience it. No consciousness, no universe.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Because you also cannot prove that stuff does not exist that you cannot prove, so you are forced to either be agnostic in terms of these options, or use scientific inference, logic, reason, rational to consider which is more likely.

That exactly what I have been doing.

I have even made posts saying I can't prove eiher way, but that these quantum experiments actually clearly point towards material reality being non persistent.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Looks like our side of the argument was right all along, and you just came over to the light side, congrats.

See this is why I basically stopped responding to you. Your complete inability to grasp the precise meaning and intent of a poster's argument.

Believe me, even the guys on "your side" can see that you are just rambling.