It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Solipsism (Listeni/ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/; from Latin solus, meaning "alone", and ipse, meaning "self")[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.
What you are espousing, neoholographic, is a form of solipsism, and solipsism is the most extreme form of subjectivism.
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.
It doesn't matter whether or not we actually know what path it took, what really matters is if anyone or anything can know.
originally posted by: HotMale
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.
originally posted by: HotMale
a reply to: ImaFungi
Is there anything in particular you want to get across, or just another collection of drivel?
Please do not respond to posts that I didn't direct at you, because I am not wasting anymore time and energy on an interference pattern like yourself.
originally posted by: HotMale
a reply to: ImaFungi
Is there anything in particular you want to get across, or just another collection of drivel?
Please do not respond to posts that I didn't direct at you, because I am not wasting anymore time and energy on an interference pattern like yourself.
The vid on that forum you linked actually supports the notion of consciousness.
"Double slit experiment with detectors not recording"
The guy in the vid clearly says an interference pattern formed when the detecter was turned on but no data was stored. So no info available. This results in an interference pattern. Just like it is expected. How does this disprove the role of consciousness?It doesn't.
Yes, this guy is trying to support his theory of quantum universal consciousness theory of everything. He has to embellish on the meaning in order to claim physical consistency such a crackpot theory.
The problem with the proliferation of such crackpots is that at the edge of theoretical physics it's hard to explain to many people what is wrong with it, and even involves some things none of us yet understand. It too often allows crackpots to have their cake and eat it to.
How does this disprove the results of the refered to experiment?Is this what you based your claims on? A comment on a forum? Seems like you are parotting that guy without even knowing why. Can you even explain what he is saying? I don't think the guy that made that comment even knows what he is saying. He is not refuting the claims made in that vid anyway.
I have been posting this for 2 weeks now. Availability of info is what matters. And now you agree?
How can you say this and not recognise the role of consciousness? Why does it matter if anyone can know the info, if consciousness doesn't play a role?
originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I already explained in another thread why this makes no sense but let me ask you a question. The title of the thread is Quantum Mechanics needs no consciousness. Could you define consciousness? What is the true nature of consciousness?
If you don't have an answer then your posts makes no sense. How can you say definitively that Quantum Mechanics needs no Consciousness when you don't know what consciousness is?
You apparently didn't read the paper cited in the OP, which explains in section 3 that this collapse occurs without any observing consciousness so it can't be attributed to an observing consciousness.
originally posted by: anonentity
So does an observing consciousness cause a wave to collapse into a particle, because that's the only way it can make the information, understandable. According to quantum experiments it can.
originally posted by: anonentity
originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I already explained in another thread why this makes no sense but let me ask you a question. The title of the thread is Quantum Mechanics needs no consciousness. Could you define consciousness? What is the true nature of consciousness?
If you don't have an answer then your posts makes no sense. How can you say definitively that Quantum Mechanics needs no Consciousness when you don't know what consciousness is?
Defining consciousness is no easy task. We can only define its qualities. Consciousness is awareness, it is apart from the observed ,It has to be to observe. It cant observe itself, because then it wouldn't be the observation point. It can pass information to others that are conscious. So does an observing consciousness cause a wave to collapse into a particle, because that's the only way it can make the information, understandable. According to quantum experiments it can. Which might say more about our present reality model, than anything else.
If you read the thread you'll see the OP was asking whether that video was correct, and everyone explained why the claims made in the video were wrong.
Another post from that thread:
How could my argument be based on that comment when I only found that comment after making my claims?
I knew you were going to misinterpret that sentence from the moment I wrote it. Notice that I said anyone or ANYTHING.
According to you, if we look at the data then the wave function collapses but if we erase the data and don't look it doesn't collapse.
Even if we erase that data before looking at the pattern it wont make a difference, because we recorded the data in a non-reversible way, simply erasing it from the HDD does not reverse the process of recording the which-path data the same way that undoing polarization changes can bring back the interference pattern.
Also you are saying something much more radical than the availability of which-path data is what matters, you are saying our knowledge of the which-path data plays a role.
You apparently didn't read the paper cited in the OP, which explains in section 3 that this collapse occurs without any observing consciousness so it can't be attributed to an observing consciousness.
In summary, we have reported the observation of interference fringes in the light scattered from two localized atoms driven by a weak laser field. The measured fringe pattern and contrast can be explained in the framework of Bragg scattering by a harmonic crystal. These results show that interference measurements provide another method to determine ion temperatures and separations in traps. By exploiting the atom's internal level structure, we showed, without invoking the position-momentum uncertainty relation, that the possibility of determining the path of the scattered photon destroyed the interference fringes,
The mysteries of complementarity and the measurement process in quantum mechanics are probably most simply and elegantly stated in the context of interference. A quantum wave travels from a source to a detection region by two distinctly different paths. The interference between waves traveling by the two paths is apparent in the detection region by interference fringes—a spatial dependence of the probability distribution. However, if one asks a ‘‘particle question’’ and interrogates the wave function en route to identify the path taken by the particle, the interference pattern is destroyed. In the language of complementarity, by forcing particle properties on the wave in asking the ‘‘where’’ question ~commonly referred to as a ‘‘which-way’’ measurement!, we lose the wave properties evident in the interference fringes.
Their technically remarkable experiment uses single-atom interference to exhibit a destruction of interference fringes when different microwave transitions are applied to the two distinct atom paths, thus encoding the which-way information in a subtle way in the spin structure of the atom. In particular, the microwave transitions provide a superposition of two spin states with different phases between the two components: even for one of the paths, and odd for the other path. The photons that introduce this encoding are too soft to destroy the interference through a momentum kick. Nonetheless, the interference fringes disappear once the which-way information is stored.
The argument is clearly stated in the paper linked in the OP, so I suggest you refer to that.
originally posted by: HotMale
And again, availability of path info.
How does this refute the role of consciousness? Again, no argument to be found.
So then you can refer to the hypothesis being evaluated which states that:
...if "which-path" information was in principle obtainable, then even though no actual attempt was made to extract this information (i.e. to measure it), no interference pattern was found. Thus the first prediction of consciousness hypothesis is false.
So they explain the "which-path" information is available but that it has not been registered in the consciousness of the observer, because no actual attempt was made to extract the information.
The interference pattern should be visible if "which-path" information has not been registered in the consciousness of the observer
I knew you were going to misinterpret that sentence from the moment I wrote it. Notice that I said anyone or ANYTHING. The availability of which-path data doesn't mean it has to be available to conscious observers. Once again you really need to think about it from the perspective of the electron.
Yes, this guy is trying to support his theory of quantum universal consciousness theory of everything. He has to embellish on the meaning in order to claim physical consistency such a crackpot theory. The problem with the proliferation of such crackpots is that at the edge of theoretical physics it's hard to explain to many people what is wrong with it, and even involves some things none of us yet understand. It too often allows crackpots to have their cake and eat it to.
The argument is clearly stated in the paper linked in the OP, so I suggest you refer to that.
..if "which-path" information was in principle obtainable, then even though no actual attempt was made to extract this information (i.e. to measure it), no interference pattern was found. Thus the first prediction of consciousness hypothesis is false.
So they explain the "which-path" information is available but that it has not been registered in the consciousness of the observer, because no actual attempt was made to extract the information.
Whatever the reason, it seems to have nothing to do with a conscious observer. It's the result of two or more things, neither of which are conscious, interacting with each other.
originally posted by: HotMale
Availability of path info is what matters. Why does it matter?
Whatever the reason, it seems to have nothing to do with a conscious observer.
It's the result of two or more things, neither of which are conscious, interacting with each other.
The paper is saying that if it's available, but not to a conscious observer, the conscious observer doesn't appear to have any role.
originally posted by: anonentity
So does an observing consciousness cause a wave to collapse into a particle, because that's the only way it can make the information, understandable.