/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14762924
Quantum events are so sensitive and small that the instruments we have to measure them effect the outcome, but we might develop more precise methods one day. The point of schrodinger's cat is to mock redditors like you.

>>14762924
Premise 1 is already false due to pilot waves.

You know it's pseud nonsense when people use the "observer" and immediately jump to "consciousness as the observer".

>>14762924

Isn't this like calling consciousness "the soul"?
And why would it get attached to another brain?
What happens to it while waiting for a new brain?
What about reincarnation into less intelligent animals? The human population has exploded the last centuries, such explotion could only be explained with the creation of s huge numbers of souls from zero. Not reincarnation.

>>14762924
Who the fuck is Tucker? This knowledge is ancient and whoever Tucker is had nothing to do with it

I don't know the details of the implications, but aren't we still 'inside' the frame? We don't have to necessarily be able to do it also.

>>14762924
>How legit is his theory on a scientific level?
Didnt read his work but its safe to say its not legit, or anything else regarding standard supernatural phenomena, scientifically speaking. It could be correct, but we're not advanced enough to test such hypotheses. Its one of those ideas that will linger as hundreds of years pass until we will be able to either prove or disprove its validity.

>>14762924
>Quantum mechanics shows
Into the trash it goes.

>>14762924
>quantum mechanics shows events only occur when they are observed
No it doesn’t, it shows that we don’t know what’s happening when we aren’t observing
>this suggests
>may
>max planck, father of quantum mechanics
>may not be
>would follow
>if
>may
>could
>How legit is this on a scientific level?
Kys

>>14762924
No, our consciousness needs a reality to experience, without reality there is nothing to observe
Yes, a tree makes a sound when it falls even when noone's around, no amount of schizo theories will change that

>>14762924
>quantum mechanics shows events only occur when they are observed

>>14763256
>No it doesn’t, it shows that we don’t know what’s happening when we aren’t observing
Not true. There are two totally different situations.
When not observing
>The deterministic, unitary, continuous time evolution of an isolated system that obeys the Schrödinger equation (or a relativistic equivalent, i.e. the Dirac equation)
Upon measurement
>The probabilistic, non-unitary, non-local, discontinuous change brought about by observation

If you want to claim that the particle had classical like properties before measurement, you run in to the bell inequalities. Local hidden variable theories were further constrained by kochen specker therem.
>The theorem proves that there is a contradiction between two basic assumptions of the hidden-variable theories intended to reproduce the results of quantum mechanics: that all hidden variables corresponding to quantum-mechanical observables have definite values at any given time, and that the values of those variables are intrinsic and independent of the device used to measure them. The contradiction is caused by the fact that quantum-mechanical observables need not be commutative. It turns out to be impossible to simultaneously embed all the commuting subalgebras of the algebra of these observables in one commutative algebra, assumed to represent the classical structure of the hidden-variables theory, if the Hilbert space dimension is at least three.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kochen%E2%80%93Specker_theorem

So we know quite a lot about the situation before measurement. For one, we know the situation is non-local, IE correlations between quantum states can be entangled and correlated in away that defy spacetime. So spacetime causation goes out the window. And guess what are in spacetime? Brains. And guess what that means? Brains can't be causitive of anything, including consciousness.

>>14763548
>assume that particle follows deterministic wave equation
>when you look at where it is you find out it’s not where your equation predicted it to be
>well it can’t be the equation that’s wrong, it must have changed when I looked at it

>>14763491
It's true. Before that they 'exist' as an evolving probability distribution. This means no classical like trajectories. See here.
>>14763548

>>14763559
oh boy I'm really looking forward to a 100-comment debate as to what an 'observation' is that devolves into namecalling and shitflinging

>>14763561
This get's into interpretation. The problem is something that a measuring device is made of matter just as the particle you send through the slits. And so the question is why the measuring device would not also enter into superposition with the particle and the recording device, same thing, made of matter on up to the brain of the person reading the data. The brain should also be in superposition. But we don't see a super position. Something from outside the isolated system must break this chain. This is called the von neuman chain.
>This problem - known as the von Neumann chain – is a regression of measuring devices, whose stopping point is presumed to be the conscious mind (i.e. not a purely physical measurement device, but a conscious entity who actually reads said measurement, effectively stopping the chain).
So you need something non-physicle, which is not just matter to break the chain.

There is no explanation of why the measuring device should collapse the wave function at all. Since it is just also made up of particle.

>>14763120
Bohmian mechanics are still non-local. So causality is still coming from outside of spacetime and guess what is in spacetime? Brains. So if causality is coming from outside of spacetime and brains are in spacetime, then causality of consciousness from brains is false. So this still holds with bohmian mechanics.

>>14762924
Based, but ultimately meaningless to us given that brain to brain hops don't include memory so if true we're in perpetual hell where we experience all the trials and tribulations of physical world with no forward progress beyond a single life.

>>14762924
bullshit

>>14762924
If you ban me, at least just ban me off this board and don't give me a Global-30-Day-Go-Away next time.

I'm sorry if you find my research "unscientific", but if you find my posts unscientific, you should blame the subject I'm posting about, not the method in which I approach the pseudoscientific topic.

>brainlet discovers quantum mechanics

>>14763558
>assume that particle follows deterministic wave equation
That's not what it is saying. There is no particle. The thing evolving deterministically is a quantum state that gives a probability distribution for possible future outcomes. The wave function. If you try to assign pre-existing properties to a particle, called hidden variables, you run in to inequalities.

see here
>>14763548

picrel isn't /sci/entific, so I'll ask a picunrel question.
To the neurosurgeons and psychologists, and physicists(non-Nobel Prize havers need not answer due to the advanced complexity of the question):
Is coffee good for you?

>>14763175
>I don't know the details of the implications, but aren't we still 'inside' the frame?
No. We (the consciousness) are immersed in the physical reality, as in the virtual reality concept of immersion. We (the consciousness) are not 'in' spacetime because spacetime is virtual. It is emergent from underlying quantum information processing. Our AVATARS are part of the virtual reality, but our consciousnesses are not. We are just given, by our consciousness, a first person shooter type vantage point as if we (the consciousness) are located in a head in 3d reality. So when you look down, your consciousness renders you a virtual body to interface with in the physical world. The consciousness is non-local to the reality, ie outside of the space of the reality. It must be this way because consciousness is the processes which structures the data stream we recieive as the physical world. So the computer (consciousness) can not be in the virtual world it outputs. A computer can output itself.

At any rate, when we are done interfacing with this particular physical reality with the current avatar, ie death, since we the consciousness are non-local and not located in some spacetime brain, we might simply stop interfacing with this avatar and start interfacing with another, either in this reality or another.

>>14763680
This is one of the reasons I was figuring they are chemtrailing all these years. Create a constant layer of particulates to trap in heat and also, since the particulates or nanoaluminum, also radiate the suns rays to cause more heat and then melt the artic ice to be able to more easily get the oil. Plus the also get to implement the climate change agenda under the guise that carbon out put is causing it even though they are in fact causing the problem theirselves on purpose.

how odd

>pure coincidence

kinda makes you wonder....

No way....
That's crazy...
It's 100% pure coinc-
>unless.....

Uhhh, Death-Cult sisters...
I don't feel so good...

>>14763708
>they are in fact causing the problem theirselves on purpose.
They ARE the problem.

>>14762924
>only occur once they are observed
yes
but this isn't due to you doing the action of observing the state
it is due to the fact that particles interact with other particles

so when you observe something, that means photons have been in contact with the thing you're observing

a thread died for this

>>14762998
>Quantum events are so sensitive and small that the instruments we have to measure them effect the outcome,
Holy fuck, Go back.

>>14763739
>it is due to the fact that particles interact with other particles
Not true. There are interaction free measurements.
>In physics, interaction-free measurement is a type of measurement in quantum mechanics that detects the position, presence, or state of an object without an interaction occurring between it and the measuring device. Examples include the Renninger negative-result experiment, the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb-testing problem,[1] and certain double-cavity optical systems, such as Hardy's paradox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interaction-free_measurement


They are experimentally verified.
https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/Institute/IQOQI-Vienna/PDF/publications-zeilinger/1994_-_Fundamental_Problems_in_Quantum_Theory_-_Experimental_Realization_of_Interaction-Free_Measurement.pdf


Here is a vid describing it. The volume is tinny. Turn it down before pushing play
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3uzSlh_CV0

Here is a more idealized explanation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOv8zYla1wY

It ends up being about information, as opposed to interaction.

>>14762998
Not true. They lack of measurement also creates information. See here.
>>14763776

a midwit made this

>>14763739
>but this isn't due to you doing the action of observing the state
I make sure to throw in some "I know you're watching" google searches every now and then.

>>14762924
>soul
>quantum

>>14762924
>As a physicist who has devoted his whole life to rational science, to the study of matter, I think I can safely claim to be above any suspicion of irrational exuberance. Having said that, I would like to observe that my research on the atom has shown me that there is no such thing as matter in itself. What we perceive as matter is merely the manifestation of a force that causes the subatomic particles to oscillate and holds them together in the tiniest solar system of the universe. Since there is in the whole universe neither an intelligent force nor an eternal force (mankind, for all its yearnings, has yet to succeed in inventing a perpetual motion machine), we must assume that this force that is active within the atom comes from a conscious and intelligent mind. That mind is the ultimate source of matter.
>—Max Planck, Das Wesen der Materie

>>14762924
>It would follow that consciousness does not depend on a living brain to exist.

>>14764094
correct
brains are generated within consciousness

>>14762998
>Quantum events are so sensitive and small that the instruments we have to measure them effect the outcome
this is not the reason as to why the measurement problem exists or the cause of the quantum randomness

>>14762924
>Quantum
stopped reading right there