Originally posted by YouAreDreaming
Planks Constant or the Higgs boson elementary scalar particle are all constructs of a cognitive organization of data in the form of thought. The root
of all wave theory and particle physics one day will realize what forms the atom is thought organized by consciousness, not matter organized by random
events and chance.
In some ways this has already happened.
Raw data is not physically related to what is describes; it is simply an abstract concept that we define through observation.
The shape of a 6 is not related to the concept of “six”. It could be any shape.
So, when the availability of information changes the physical reality it proves that consciousness is a factor.
4. Arrange the experiment so that we can make an arbitrary choice at some later time, after the experiment is "complete," whether or not to use the
information gathered by the electron detectors at the slits. Suppose we take our modified double slit set up -- with electron detectors at the slits
-- and still leave everything intact. And we will still keep the electron detectors at the slits turned on, so that they will be doing whatever they
do to detect electrons at the slits. And we will record the count at the slits, so that we will be able to obtain the results. But (this gets a little
complicated), we will
(1) mix the data from the slits with additional, irrelevant garbage data, and record the combined (and incomprehensible) data;
(2) design a program to analyze data coming from the slits in one of two ways, either
(a) filtering out the garbage data so that we will be able to obtain clean results of electrons going through the slits, or
(b) analyzing the mixed-up data so that we will not be able to obtain the results of electrons going through the slits; and
(3) leave it up to a visiting politician which way we actually analyze the data from the slits.
The result upon final analysis by method (2)(a): a particle clumping pattern appears from the data.
The result upon final analysis by method (2)(b): an interference pattern appears from the data.
So it seems that an arbitrary choice (represented by the politician who has no personal interest in the experiment) made hours, days, months, or even
years after the experiment is "complete," will change the result of that completed experiment. And, by changing the result, we mean that this
arbitrary, delayed choice will affect the actual location of the electron hits as recorded by the electron detector at the back wall, representing an
event that was supposed to have happened days, months, or even years in the past. An event that we suppose has taken place in the past (impingement of
the electron on the detector) will turn out to be correlated to a choice that we make in the present. Imagine that.
The proverbial tree has already fallen in the forest, and we can later choose whether or not to listen. And if we choose to listen then the falling
tree will have made a noise, and if we choose not to listen then the falling tree will not have made a noise.