Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness (and the other way around)

a reply to: neoholographic

What I said was truth.

You calling something I say; 'inane ramblings'; Is not true.

Everything that threatens your ignorance = inane ramblings.

I threaten your ignorance.

You never started debating me.

Quote one of the lines in my last post, and state what is false about it.

Please. please just do this once, and I will be satisfied that and if you prove me wrong.

Please, seriously, I beg you. Take one statement I said, and state what is false about it. Please.

If you do this, you will prove that your sentiments of me being incorrect are true.

I hope you can prove me wrong, please, please, seriously, I beg you.

Try to prove one of my statements wrong, please.

a reply to: ImaFungi

dude...just give it up. this isnt going anywhere and i know you can see that. some horses will drown before they will drink, and there are more fruitful ways to spend your energy. either way im out.

In a nutshell, scientists use methodologies to test, understand, and predict the complexities/behaviors of physical systems (atoms, molecules cells, you & me, the Earth, the solar system, the galaxy, etc.). It seems to me that you, neoholographic, are suggesting that these efforts are misguided, as the problem is unsolvable under these (materialistic) terms. What a crock! Science and technology are not stationary paradigms. They continue to evolve and advance, and with progress comes a greater understanding of nature. You can either be scientifically minded and believe in the empirical, testable, and predictive nature of materialistic reality, or not. Pretty simple.

What you are espousing, neoholographic, is a form of solipsism, and solipsism is the most extreme form of subjectivism. It has no place in a scientific discussion. It falls under the umbrella of metaphysics or philosophy. It’s perfectly sensible to say that each individual sees things differently, but it’s a giant leap to go from there to the conclusion that consciousness constitutes the only valid reality. The fact that we cannot verify that our experiences come from anywhere but within is not validation or proof of the non-existence of an objective reality. Not being able to prove that other “things” exist does not mean that they don't. It’s an unfounded and illogical assumption of Solipsists to assert that they are the only valid source of reality.

If consciousness cannot alter the nature of reality by merely thinking it, but can only operate within the constraints reality has imposed upon it, then it stands to reason that it didn’t create it. Rather, we construct our reality via a system of sensory interactions which are interpreted by our individual conscious make-up, which is limited by its own nature and not of its own creation.

If we are unable to prove existence beyond our self, then to me that’s more a problem of logic, as we are equally unable to disprove it. That tells me that we are, to an extent, capable of reasoning and logic by the simple fact that we are confounded by the conclusions we reach. But, it says nothing about the source of existance. We are only conscious of “things” once we’re confronted by them.

It’s true we each have our own interpretation/perception of things. I think I exist; you think you exist. However, we may each see the same “thing” differently. I wouldn’t say that my interpretation/perception is the only true reality, nor would I say that your interpretation/perception is the only true reality. But, somewhere deep down I believe there is a true reality about that “thing”, and it may well be that both of us are wrong.

One of the arguments against solipsism is how odd it is for a solipsist to argue the case for solipsism. How can a solipsist argue to others that everyone around them is merely a figment of the solipsist's own imagination? The very idea of communicating thoughts/ideas would be illogical to a true solipsist, since according to them, there is no other mind to communicate with. As Bertrand Russell once put it:

"As against solipsism it is to be said, in the first place, that it is psychologically impossible to believe, and is rejected in fact even by those who mean to accept it. I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd-Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician, this surprised me. The fact that I cannot believe something does not prove that it is false, but it does prove that I am insincere and frivolous if I pretend to believe it.".

I’m not going to go back and forth over this. I don’t have the time. I really don’t. I just wanted to establish my own view. You, the reader, may believe that this post exists only as you are reading it. However, I believe it lives on for others to read, as well.

Vive la ATS!!

a reply to: ImaFungi

What you fail to understand is, you're on a scientific forum debating scientific issues. You're not backing up anything you say with any Scientific Evidence. You say this:

Try to prove one of my statements wrong, please.

With all do respect, who cares about trying to prove your statements wrong? Your statements are meaningless unless they're backed with Scientific Evidence. If you want to debate your Philosophy there's a forum for that.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This forum is called the Science and Technology forum. I can care less about proving your statements wrong because you haven't provided a SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that supports anything you say. I'm not here to prove your subjective rambling right or wrong. I'm here debating Science in a Science forum.

You said:

Quote one of the lines in my last post, and state what is false about it.

Everything is false about it because you don't provide any Scientific Evidence to support anything you say. If we were in the Philosophy forum then it doesn't matter. You can say anything without providing any Scientific Evidence.

You keep wanting people to prove your subjective ramblings false but why should anyone care? I can say Pink Elephants live on Kepler 22-b. Without any Scientific Evidence it's a statement devoid of any meaning in the context of a scientific debate just like all of your post.

a reply to: neoholographic

I used words. Words have meaning. If you dont think I am allowed to pose arguments with words, then why are you writing?

It is scientifically verifiable that words have meanings.

The concept something = something

And nothing = nothing.

Is the root truth of reality, and necessarily science.

If you do not agree that something = something and nothing = nothing. You are wrong.

a reply to: netbound

Again, a post devoid of any Science.

Your whole post turned into a rant about solipsism. You said:

The fact that we cannot verify that our experiences come from anywhere but within is not validation or proof of the non-existence of an objective reality.

Exactly and that's why I talked about the free will theorem, subjective universe, fine tuning of the universe, non local collapse of a single particle, the vacuum catastrophe, the axis of evil in cosmology, quantum mind and quantum biology, violations of macrorealism, the wave function as a non physical reality and more.

I backed up each of these things with Published Papers and experiments. There's no SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that an objective material reality exists independent of consciousness.

Your problem is, you offer nothing in the way of Science to support anything you say.

a reply to: neoholographic

Do you think there exists 1 mind, with many little minds in it (us)? And that is all?

con·scious·ness
ˈkän(t)SHəsnəs/
noun
the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

If you poke a worm, that worm will squirm(hey, that rhymes!). Plants have defense mechanisms. Bacteria react to their surroundings. Atoms bond with certain other atoms when in proximity. Just because there is not a thought process identical to the way our brains work does not mean there is no consciousness afoot...and if you refuse to call it consciousness, you must at least call it programming.

originally posted by: neoholographic

Like I said, there's all these message board PhD's that declare these things that are still being debated in the Scientific community. You guys need to call up nature and tell them you know what consciousness is and that consciousness has nothing to do with quantum mechanics so they can tell the rest of the Scientific world.

Tell me more about Zog. The first consciousness to pop the wavefunction.

a reply to: mbkennel

Neoholographic is arguing there was no wavefunction before there was consciousness, or that there was/has always been consciousness.

So, Zog has always existed. And created all other consciousnesses out of nothing. There is no such thing as material, there is no such thing as wave function. All that has ever existed is nothing. Consciousness is only pure nothing. All that exists is pure nothing.

a reply to: ImaFungi

a reply to: neoholographic by ImaFungi

I used words. Words have meaning. If you don't think I am allowed to pose arguments with words, then why are you writing?

It is scientifically verifiable that words have meanings.

The concept something = something

And nothing = nothing.

Is the root truth of reality, and necessarily science.

If you do not agree that something = something and nothing = nothing. You are wrong.

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 don't like me is because I have the power to hurt the bliss of your ignorance."

Taken from page 14 in the Discussion, What is Decoherence?

It sounds like you are "projecting".

Any thoughts?

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.

Source

Maybe this image has something conceptually inspiring in relation to some of these topics; to better have reference to think about potential meanings of how objects can change in time, in relation to other objects, and result in different physical meanings when an object is interacted with.

I think all those who would be quick to judge and negative toward this concept, would be too quick to judge amongst other things.


themetapicture.com...

a reply to: neoholographic

Arrgghhh, I appreciate what Arbitrageur was trying to do with this thread by providing the scientific evidence you keep demanding, but man reading through this thread is making me cringe and giving me a massive headache. Not just because of your ridiculous posts neo, but the other fools trying to debate you with stupid arguments, making your side of the debate look stronger than it really is.

When you say consciousness has nothing to do with Quantum mechanics and you don't know what consciousness is that makes no sense.

Actually it makes perfect sense, it's called the process of elimination. You can zero in on the true nature of something by eliminating what it isn't. We do that all the time in science, and tighten the constraints on different variables. It is perfectly valid to say that consciousness isn't required for QM to work, we can write down all the laws of QM and then compare our simulations with what we actually observe in nature. And I know you're just going to say "consciousness built the simulation and compared it with nature by making more observations", you're essentially saying that we cannot ever truly separate ourselves from the experimental process.

Of course that's true, but what you need to realize is that it's impossible to prove that point of view wrong because we don't and cannot know what reality would be like without conscious observers, there is no possible experiment we can do to disprove the notion that consciousness is required for anything to exist, and you know that fact very well, which is why you keep demanding scientific evidence. Assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false is known as an argument from ignorance. We cannot definitely prove that reality will still exist without conscious observers, but that doesn't definitely prove reality cannot exist without conscious observers.

They fear consciousness because it threatens their view of the world.

I don't fear consciousness, I am consciousness. I simply feel like a more rational view of reality is one which exists externally from me instead of being generated by me, and I also feel the experimental evidence supports the notion that reality exists externally from me. Of course I cannot prove it with 100% certainty, just like I cannot prove that the people around me are truly conscious, but that doesn't mean I actually believe they aren't conscious like me, it's just not a rational conclusion.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

What seems odd is that some people try to cite the quantum eraser experiment as proof that consciousness is needed in quantum mechanics but it actually shows the opposite, that it's not. That's ok, you can have other reasons to feel special about yourself, without the need to feel that the universe revolves around you because of your consciousness.

Here is a pretty good technical explanation of the implications of the quantum eraser experiment. Most of the "spooky" misinterpretations which lead to "magic" are the result of assuming things we call "particles" must always act like particles, but a fundamental concept of quantum mechanics is that they can also behave as waves. When we consider this wave behavior, it's much easier to interpret the results of the experiment:

I have found that people often mix up the original quantum eraser experiment with the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment, they are two different things. In that video you posted she is talking about the original quantum eraser experiment and how it can be used to show why non-conscious machines can also collapse the wave-function. In the delayed-choice quantum eraser something much stranger happens and it cannot be easily understood even if you understand that particles are really waves.

There is a seemingly retrocausal effect where the results at D0 seem to be determined by what the idler photon does at a later point in time. This would imply we can send messages into the past but in fact we cannot because the result at D0 isn't enough by itself to tell you what the idler photon is going to do, you need to combine many results from several detectors before you can begin to see the evidence for retrocausal activity.

This feels very similar to the way entanglement allows for instantaneous action over any distance, yet it still doesn't allow you to send information FTL because of the random aspect involved in measurements. The delayed-choice quantum eraser seems to allow for actions which affect the past, but it cannot be used to send information backwards in time because of the way the experiment is designed to restrict knowledge of the final result until you combine the results from several detectors together.

The delayed-choice quantum eraser is typically the experiment which people use to show consciousness plays a crucial role in the collapse of the wave function, because it seems to imply our ability to know which path the particle took is what really matters. But we know that isn't the case because we can set up much simpler double-slit experiments which erase the which-path information very quickly before we observe the pattern on the back screen, and yet the interference pattern still disappears regardless if we can or cannot know the path it took.

I also want to point out that when I use the term particle here what I really mean is a quantized wave packet of energy. Obviously elementary particles such as electrons can be in two distinct states, one where they are able to go through both slits at the same time, and another state where they only go through one slit or the other and the interference pattern disappears, usually because we tried to detect which slit the electron went through, so we force it to choose one or the other.

Also, it's clear that when the electron actually hits the back screen and deposits its energy onto the screen atoms, it must be highly localized and not spread out over space in a broad state of superposition. In other words it hits the back screen in only one place if we shoot a single electron. It's only when we fire many electrons, even one at a time, that we see the interference pattern start to build up. During its travel from the electron gun to the back screen, it wasn't being observed or interfered with in any way, so it took all possible paths at the same time.

In other words the electron acts like a probability wave, travelling through both slits at the same time, then that wave will interfere with its self on the other side, leading to an interference pattern if we fire many electrons. When the wave reaches the back screen it will be forced to interact with the high energy screen and so it will be forced to collapse into a localized wave packet which can deposit its energy into the atoms it collides with and be recorded. It is at this point where the main controversy seems to be.

Does the electrons probability wave really collapse by its self when it interacts with the back screen or does it only make a decision about where it hit the screen when measured by conscious observers. In other words, does the cat collapse into a state of being dead or alive only when we open the box and look, or can it collapse into a definite state without conscious observers being required. And I think this question is already answered conclusively by experiments such as the original quantum eraser and double-slit variants.

Clearly high energy non-conscious objects can collapse the wave function of small elementary particles. The interference pattern does not directly correspond to our ability to know the which-path information, the wave function can still be collapsed by detectors even if we don't have any way to determine the which-path information. The delayed-choice quantum eraser is certainly showing some very weird aspect of QM, but I don't think it's proof that consciousness is fundamentally required by QM.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

The delayed-choice quantum eraser is typically the experiment which people use to show consciousness plays a crucial role in the collapse of the wave function, because it seems to imply our ability to know which path the particle took is what really matters. But we know that isn't the case because we can set up much simpler double-slit experiments which erase the which-path information very quickly before we observe the pattern on the back screen, and yet the interference pattern still disappears regardless if we can or cannot know the path it took.

You keep saying this. Where are your sources? What experiment?

What you are talking about here is the same as what is done in the known Quantum Eraser experiment in which path info is erased before the pattern on the screen is checked.

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.)

en.wikipedia.org...


Please back up your claim.

And even if this result were true and this is the argument aginst the involvement of consciousness, then why does an interference patten appear when the info is erased? Why are the people that are using your argument, all ignoring this?

If what you say is true then there should never be an interference pattern. I mean the particle was detected by a non conscious measuring device, yet there is an interference pattern. Only difference, existence of info.

The only way to get out of this implication is to ignore it........

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

This feels very similar to the way entanglement allows for instantaneous action over any distance, yet it still doesn't allow you to send information FTL because of the random aspect involved in measurements.

No it is because you still need a classical non-FTL channel to do the correlations.

The delayed-choice quantum eraser seems to allow for actions which affect the past, but it cannot be used to send information backwards in time because of the way the experiment is designed to restrict knowledge of the final result until you combine the results from several detectors together.

So how do you explain the result? Either info is sent back to the past, or the correct reality manifests itself at the time of the final observation. We have been over this.

Also, the latter would explain what happens with entanglement. There is no spooky action a distance. Just a conscious observer connecting the one entangled partner to the other as soon as they are correlated.

Again, the mechanism connecting them is consciousness, and the correct reality manifests on final observation. The result did not exist in its final state before that, so no FTL info travel was needed.

Obviously elementary particles such as electrons can be in two distinct states, one where they are able to go through both slits at the same time, and another state where they only go through one slit or the other and the interference pattern disappears, usually because we tried to detect which slit the electron went through, so we force it to choose one or the other.

Wait what, so you agree. Why is it forced to take one path if we are looking? How does this not spell conciousness to you?

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Obviously elementary particles such as electrons can be in two distinct states, one where they are able to go through both slits at the same time, and another state where they only go through one slit or the other and the interference pattern disappears, usually because we tried to detect which slit the electron went through, so we force it to choose one or the other.

That awkward moment, when you are so blinded by your own bias that you don't even recognise you are refuting your own claims that are supposed to be backing up your outdated paradigm.

How can you not recognise the implication of your own words?

I love this display.

This is exactly what the problem is in these debates against the role of consciousness.

People just can't compute or even recognise the concept even if it is slapping them in the face.

a reply to: netbound

I’m not going to go back and forth over this. I don’t have the time. I really don’t. I just wanted to establish my own view. You, the reader, may believe that this post exists only as you are reading it. However, I believe it lives on for others to read, as well.

Lol, this is a great example actually.

No this post does not exist if noone is viewing this particular part of this page of this thread. It is only rendered in "material form" so to speak(in this case as letters on someone's computer screen), when it is being viewed, but when noone is viewing this page, it only exists as data, as code on some server.

Just like I propose material reality doesn't exist in its material form unless it is viewed or experienced by a conscious user. If it is not it is stored as data.

a reply to: HotMale

You keep saying this. Where are your sources? What experiment?

Like I said before, I don't know if that experiment has a name but I was able to find a little bit of info on the subject. This is the best explanation I was able to find anywhere.

Double slit experiment with detectors not recording

Once the data is detected by an irreversible process, deleting the data does not induce any changes. It does not matter whether you throw away the data or look at it. The only thing you can erase are reversible markers. For example you can make the paths in the double slit experiment distinguishable by using polarizers at each slit. Afterwards it is possible to change this polarization without destroying the photon, so you can shift the polarization of the beams originating from both slits such, that they are the same again. As no irreversible process happened, the interference pattern will reappear. In this case you could get which-way information and destroy the interference pattern if you measured the photon at the right position and time, but as you never measure, it persists.

Clearly if it worked the way you are claiming, we could send messages back in time by delaying our decision to erase the data. That's simply not how it works, the detector at the slit will collapse the wave function regardless of whether or not we check to see what it recorded. The pattern on the back screen will always remain the same as long as we leave the detector on the slits, it does not magically change based on whether or not we look at the data recorded by the detector.

What you are talking about here is the same as what is done in the known Quantum Eraser experiment in which path info is erased before the pattern on the screen is checked.

No it's not the same, my proposal does not even make use of entangled pairs for a start. The point about reversibility in the above excerpt is important. In the delayed-choice quantum eraser the which-path information of the idler photon is obscured by the half-silvered mirrors. Since the photon could have taken multiple paths to get to D1 or D2 the which-path information is obscured and in effect it gets erased. In the original quantum eraser experiment it is shown how the interference pattern can be recovered by undoing the original change in polarization. What you need to realize is that all of these changes in polarization occur before any process tries to determine the which-path information, allowing the photon to take multiple paths at the same time and interfere with its self as usual.

No it is because you still need a classical non-FTL channel to do the correlations.

You wouldn't need to calculate any correlations if it wasn't totally random, hence my point.

So how do you explain the result? Either info is sent back to the past, or the correct reality manifests itself at the time of the final observation.

I believe retrocausal activity is probably occurring. Since I already accept the fact that reality is non-local due to entanglement, I see no problem accepting that reality is retrocausal. But just like I can't use the non-local nature of reality to send messages FTL, I cannot use the retrocausal nature of reality to send messages back in time. Both of those weird things are real, but they are cleverly restricted in such a way that they can't be used to violate space-time locality.

Why is it forced to take one path if we are looking? How does this not spell conciousness to you?

It doesn't need to be a human looking, it could be a non-conscious sensor, that's what I've been explaining. As soon as you do something which records the which-path data, the wave function will collapse. We do not have to actually KNOW what the which-path data is, we could erase it before looking at the pattern and still see no interference pattern. You need to look at it from the perspective of the electron/photon. If the particle is forced into a situation where its path will be recorded, the wave function will collapse and it will take only one path, thus allowing the which-path information to be recorded. But if you then create a situation where the eraser is reversed, from the perspective of the particle, it can take all paths at the same time because at the end there will be no data about which path it took. It doesn't matter whether or not we actually know what path it took, what really matters is if anyone or anything can know.