/sci/ - Science & Math

>because of qualitative


Good one.

We know you aren't the real IQ fundie.

That feel when people misunderstand QM.

Qualia? Function collapse?

>>4649276

Qualia*

So the reason the universe seems deterministic is that consciousness exists?

>>4649277
That feel when people misunderstand qualia.

Am I the only solipsist here on /sci/?
I feel so alone.

>that feel when threads repeat and it feels like i've drifted into a parallel universe

>>4649283
That qualia when people misunderstand qualia.

I thought it had nothing to do with conciousness, just that you use something to detect what's going down there instead of just observing the results.

sage

That qualia when qualia qualia.

>>4649277
There is nothing wrong with this interpretation of QM. You cannot experimentally show properties of qualia, and thus if qualia are not physical, they would skew the laws of physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind/body_problem#Dualist_interpretation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#von_Neumann.2FWigner_interpretatio
n:_consciousness_causes_the_collapse

>>4649282
No, the reason the density matrix collapses is because of measurement by a conscious observer. The observer does not follow the Schrodinger equation for time evolution. If consciousness is not involved, there is no qualia, so everything is physical, and the wave function will not collapse.

>>4649336
To observe something, you have to be an observer.

The observer is conscious.

wait wtf this shit actually makes sense

>>4649312
That qualia when I see qualia in every other thread and still have no idea what the fuck it means (because of qualia)

>>4649350
>You cannot experimentally show properties of qualia, and thus if qualia are not physical, they would skew the laws of physics.
Or they simply don't exist.

>>4649274
thank you
i'm relieved
i was genuinely confused
the real iq fundie might use a retarded/useless definition of metaphysical but wouldn't write something that stupid

>>4649366
Peak qualia when qualia qualia aspergers biology degree costanza qualia.

>>4649366
Qualia are elements of consciousness which cannot be experimentally observed or confirmed for a universal interpretation.

For example, how you would see the color red. You might see it as my yellow, and it is impossible to know experimentally that you do.

>>4649368
Prove that they do not.

>>4649370
I am the real IQ Fundie.

<div class="math">\int_{0}^{\infty }f(qualia)e^{-s(qualia)}d(qualia)=\mathbf{Consciousness}</div>

>>4649380
>Prove that they do not
Why? I wasn't asserting that they don't exist. I'm just saying that your conclusion isn't the only option here.

>>4649380
>I am the real IQ Fundie
then i overestimated you
i'm sorry

what i thought you meant in your previous posts:
> it's non-physical according to my definition of physical, therefore it cannot be dealt with using science
what i now think you meant:
> it's non-physical according to my definition of physical, therefore it's magic

>>4649398
I know it isn't. But it is the most sensible.

>>4649356

This is not how the observer effect works, you dork

the instruments we use to measure the particles "observe" the particles, collapsing the wavefunction. Conscious observation of the results is obviously not necessary.

>>4649405
>Conscious observation of the results is obviously not necessary.

Wrong. Wigner's friend.

>>4649399
It is not magic. Qualia are just unphysical.

>>4649405
No. You do not understand how observation works.

>>4649380
You're not the real IQ fundie. I am the real one. Stop impersonating me.

>>4649409
That's an interpretation of QM (nothing has definite state for you until you have interacted with it), but that has nothing to do with what you predict you will observe. That's why it's an interpretation and not a theory.

Any interaction, not necessarily consciousness, will cause wave collapse.

>>4649399
Don't listen to him. He's not the real one. He's just another troll using my trip.

>>4649416

Are you the real IQ fundie? Because you are extremely wrong. Measuring the particles is what causes the quantum decoherence. Consciousness doesn't factor into it at all.

Stop being wrong.

>>4649419
You are claiming hidden variables if the wave function collapsed before conscious observation.

>>4649420
Go away.

>>4649267
at least IQ fundie is a troll

mind/consciousness is rooted in a physical element (brain) therefore all of the cathegories you might construct are purely physical in origin

can you show an independence between the elements of your dualism?

i love penis in and around my mouth and butthole (because of qualia)

>>4649426
>You are claiming hidden variables if the wave function collapsed before conscious observation.
Sorry, no. There are interpretations of QM that deny that collapse is real at all, and they just as valid as the others (same experimental predictions, same theory).

>>4649425
I am the real one and I would never talk about quantum stuff, because I'm not sufficiently educated in the matter. OP is a troll.

>>4649425
>Measuring the particles is what causes the quantum decoherence.
I don't think you know what decoherence is, it is not valid in this context.

>Measuring the particles
In order to measure the particles, you must observe them. To observe them, you must be a conscious observer. If you have a monkey or another person do this for you, it results in a paradox as the monkey/other person is now in a superposition between possible states that the particle could be in.

>>4649432
Yes, but this one requires the least baggage that isn't experimentally confirmable. Therefore Occam's Razor.

>>4649433
Prove that you are me.

>>4649434

>In order to measure the particles, you must observe them.

Consciously observe? Uh...no? All you have to do is measure it with an instrument. You don't have to be in the room, or interpret the results at all. The measurement still happens. Are you brain-damaged?

>>4649447
You're posts are inane trolling, while mine consist of logical arguments. Should be obvious to every reader.

>>4649459
*your

>>4649439

If we are bringing Occam's Razor into this, it favors MWI the most

>Occam's razor actually is a constraint on the complexity of physical theory, not on the number of universes. MWI is a simpler theory since it has fewer postulates.

Hypothetically we set up an experiment we leave it to run while we do not observe and we have the resulting information recorded.
Machines are not conscious right?!
So it shouldnt be acting as if observed right?
oh but it is?

>>4649465
inb4 "only after you consciously observe the machine".

Anyway, look up the delayed choice quantum eraser. Amazing stuff.

>>4649465
Stop replying to the troll.

>>4649472
I'LL REPLY TO WHOM I PLEASE!?!?!

>>4649455
>You don't have to be in the room, or interpret the results at all.
You do not understand quantum mechanics and the laws of probability if you honestly believe this.

Please see this, and actually read it instead of being a pretentious asshole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend

Say if you have a quantum system which produces 1 or 0 as a result when measured. The system is in a superposition of both states until measured, obviously. If you have an instrument measure this result, the instrument is in a superposition of the same states until you observe it. The eigenvalues carry over to the instrument until you actually read the instrument and make the observation.

>>4649459
My posts are not inane trolling. Please show me where I am trolling in anything of what I've stated thus far.

Please leave if you are not going to contribute to the topic.

>>4649472

>Stop replying to the troll.

>>4649465
inb4 multiple universes are used to explain the unknown recorded machine variables until a human observes them

>>4649470
I am fully aware what this is. It does not invalidate anything of what I've stated.

http://chanarchive.org/4chan/sci/39508/bridging-the-gap-between-statistical-physics-and-neuroscience
#4461910

Read this thread, CNS a PhD candidate neuroscientist explains how physics actually plays into neuroscience. There is, to date, NO experimental evidence for quantum mechanics having any significant role in brain function.

>mfw IQ fundie posts a thread

>>4649267
> That feel when consciousness causes wave function collapse (because of qualia)
This is a blatant troll thread. Everyone in here should feel bad for feeding the troll.

>>4649480
No u. Get your own trip and stop abusing mine.

>>4649489
I didn't start the thread. This troll used my trip. I don't start threads.

>>4649489
You are an idiot who does not understand the rules of probability, which is what quantum mechanics is based upon. You also clearly did not read the thread.

Please leave.

>>4649485
Exactly, This is the stuff that is the experimentally unconfirmable Fringe science, not the von Neumann interpretation.

>>4649491
You are the troll.

Please state your knowledge of physics before proceeding.

So far all anyone has done is attack me with Ad Hominem and not actually understand what I am presenting, or have the competence to look at the material.

>>4649492
>>4649494
Go away, or learn the material and debate with me.

>>4649502
Your thread start is a blatant troll and I won't take you serious. Get your own trip, then I'm gonna hide the thread.

>>4649504
>Your thread start is a blatant troll and I won't take you serious.
Again, please kindly point out anything of what I have stated that is incorrect.

>>4649513
The entire topic of wave functions collapsing is a subject of science and has nothing to do with qualia. You're intentionally using the term "qualia" incorrectly for trolling purposes.

>>4649518
>The entire topic of wave functions collapsing is a subject of science and has nothing to do with qualia.
Wave function collapse requires observation.

Observation is only done by a conscious observer.

The Dualist interpretation,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind/body_problem#Dualist_interpretation
raises the fact that because qualia are unphysical, and are the essence of consciousness, they collapse the wave function.

That glorious qualia when /sci is being trolled by being told that consciousness causes collapse is still a valid interpretation of QM.

>>4649529
Observation is objective and can be done by machines as well.

>>4649534
No, it cannot. I already explained how this invalidates the laws of probability three times.

Please actually READ this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend

>>4649533
In no way has consciousness-causes-collapse been ruled out.

>>4649537
Yet again: this has nothing to do with qualia.

>>4649552
Yes, it does. You are unbelievable.

Qualia are unphysical in the dualist interpretation, right?

If this is so, consciousness is composed of qualia.

Therefore, consciousness is unphysical in the dualist interpretation and causes collapse of the state vector because of it.

>>4649552
Collapse happens when a qualia dependent on the observable is produced.

>>4649563
*quale

>>4649560
Consciousness is not composed of qualia. They are just a non-physical part of consciousness. There are physical parts and objective non-physical parts as well.

>>4649563
No, collapse happens, when an objective observation has been made. The fact that qualia occur with every observation is irrelevant here.

>>4649393
<div class="math">\int_{0}^{\infty }f(qualia)e^{-s(qualia)}d(qualia)=\mathbf{Consciousness}=hf</div>

>>4649569
There are no physical parts of consciousness in the dualist interpretation. Please show me experimentally physical elements of consciousness.

>Consciousness is not composed of qualia.
Qualia are unphysical elements, such as emotions and vision. This is consciousness.

>>4649573
You did not read the Wikipedia article, I am no longer responding to you, as you are either trolling or too incompetent to read.

I'll copy this again for you

Say if you have a quantum system which produces 1 or 0 as a result when measured. The system is in a superposition of both states until measured, obviously. If you have an instrument measure this result, the instrument is in a superposition of the same states until you observe it. The eigenvalues carry over to the instrument until you actually read the instrument and make the observation.

>>4649576
Confirmed for athene fanboi troll.
c=hf I just fucking lol'd so fucking hard geeze.

>this thread
>more than 3 posts
>not reported and saged to oblivion

What's wrong with you /sci/?

>>4649573
You say "objective observation" as if such a thing has an objective definition. Physical measurement is just a physical process, and is governed by unitary evolution just like any other. Only the production of qualia triggers non-unitary evolution (collapse).

>>4649581
Consciousness embraces more than just qualia. A lot of objective aspects of consciousness are amenable to neuroscience. Dualism doesn't require the entire consciousness to be non-physical. It is enough to have non-physical parts.

>>4649586
sage does nothing on a slow moving board especially when retarded OP would keep spamming qualia consciousness bull shit with no one reading it.

>>4649581
I did read the wikipedia article btw and I told you why your trolling garbage is wrong. The wikipedia article has nothing to do with qualia.

>>4649518
>>4649529
>>4649534
>>4649537
>>4649552
>>4649560
>>4649569
>>4649581


>Trolls Trolling Trolls 2: Troll Harder: Return of the Dreaded Troll: The Movie

>Starring IQ Fundie
>Co-starring IQ Fundie

>>4649590
Please provide evidence of physical elements of consciousness.

This is the definition of consciousness we're using
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

>>4649595
If you've read it, you'd see the correlation to unphysical elements of consciousness in the observation process.

Maybe you should read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind/body_problem

>>4649589
You misunderstood qualia. No subjective raw feels are needed to consciously objectively acknowledge a measurement.

>>4649593
What sort of educational background do you have? I would propose nothing over high school.

>>4649602
You are trolling. You do not understand what observation/measurement is, and you are defying axioms of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is based on observation, the poster you responded to is absolutely correct.

>>4649600
>This is the definition
It's not a definition, it's an article not providing a definition. Post your actual definiton and we'll see where you're wrong.

>correlation to unphysical elements of consciousness in the observation process
Yes, but these unphysical elements are not the qualia.

>>4649607
Observation / measurement is independent of qualia. Of course they occur, but they are not needed here.

>>4649608
>Yes, but these unphysical elements are not the qualia.
Yes they are. I don't think you know what a quale is.
>is a term used in philosophy to refer to subjective conscious experiences as 'raw feels'. Daniel Dennett writes that qualia is "an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us."
These comprise consciousness. You are considered unconscious in absence of emotion/sensory signals.

>>4649611
>Observation / measurement is independent of qualia
No. Instead of providing textbook definitions to you that you refuse to merit, provide me a counterexample.

>Of course they occur, but they are not needed here.
Provide a counterexample of the collapse of the state vector without involvement of a conscious observer.

>>4649537
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend
This is just too perfect.
>(according to his reasoning)
It's completely unjustified.
He just stated you need consciousness, he never proved a damn thing.

Holy crap this thread is terrible. I feel like a 14 year old girl who's been kidnapped and tied to a bed while a fat ugly neckbeard hovers over me and jerks off.

>>4649625
>He just stated you need consciousness
That's the point.

Qualia are unphysical, and thus the <span class="math">\mathbf{Dualist}[/spoiler] reasoning is that this unphysicalness causes the collapse.

>>4649626
Then please leave, underaged child who cannot appreciate textbook quantum theory.

>>4649626
Now I have a hard-on.

>>4649626
Yeah, you like it, don't you? Dirty little slut.

>>4649622
So much fail in one post.

>These comprise consciousness.
No, they don't. They are only a part of consciousness.

>You are considered unconscious in absence of emotion/sensory signals.
Emotion and sensory signals are not qualia. They are physical. Your trolling is so bad, that I might tend to believe you're actually that stupid.

>No. Instead of providing textbook definitions to you that you refuse to merit, provide me a counterexample.
You didn't post a textbook definition and I provided counterexamples. You're plain wrong and your trolling has no basis anymore.

>Provide a counterexample of the collapse of the state vector without involvement of a conscious observer.
A conscious observer is needed. I never claimed the opposite. But this has nothing to do with qualia. Stop abusing that term. We're talking about objective things here, not subjective.

>>4649630
Take the qualia out there. They don't belong here.

>>4649633
>>4649634
>post about a girl in undesirable situation
>anons sympathize with the neckbeard

That's some industrial grade level autism right there. Please mods, delete this abomination.

This is the troll thread I've been waiting my whole life for

MUH STUART HAMEROFF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFvaRTJ76A8

>>4649630
Their reasoning consisting purely of "what if". It's completely baseless, the thought experiment doesn't back up the conclusion. It's just a statement.
You can't solve a problem in physics with metaphysics. If it's unphysical it's unmeasurable and has nothing to do with science.

It's pretty simple. My experiment has an indicator light on it. The light causes either a feel of redness or greenness, randomly selected according to the distribution given by the Born rule. When one of said raw feels (qualia) is felt and not the other, the state vector is reduced.

>>4649638
>No, they don't. They are only a part of consciousness.
Provide a counterexample of a physical element of consciousness.

>Emotion and sensory signals are not qualia.
You cannot measure emotion. You cannot measure someone seeing the color red, and seeing that it is the same color. You cannot measure hearing, and determine that you hear the same thing. This is what I am stating.

>They are physical.
How can you measure them and determine you experience the same thing?

>You didn't post a textbook definition and I provided counterexamples. You're plain wrong and your trolling has no basis anymore.
You did not provide counterexamples, you retard. And yes, I did. Wikipedia cites textbook sources.

>I never claimed the opposite.
You did. You stated subjective state vector collapse, which has no experimental evidence.

> But this has nothing to do with qualia.
It does. Qualia, because they are unphysical, collapse the wave function. They are the only unphysical element in the universe, so they skew the laws of physics. This is the essence of the Dualist interpretation.

>Stop abusing that term.
I think you are.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=505217

MUH PENROSE COLLABORATION

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/orchOR.html

>>4649638
>No, they don't. They are only a part of consciousness.
Provide a counterexample of a physical element of consciousness.

>Emotion and sensory signals are not qualia.
You cannot measure emotion. You cannot measure someone seeing the color red, and seeing that it is the same color. You cannot measure hearing, and determine that you hear the same thing. This is what I am stating.

>They are physical.
How can you measure them and determine you experience the same thing?

>You didn't post a textbook definition and I provided counterexamples. You're plain wrong and your trolling has no basis anymore.
You did not provide counterexamples, you retard. And yes, I did. Wikipedia cites textbook sources.

>I never claimed the opposite.
You did. You stated subjective state vector collapse, which has no experimental evidence.

> But this has nothing to do with qualia.
It does. Qualia, because they are unphysical, collapse the wave function. They are the only unphysical element in the universe, so they skew the laws of physics. This is the essence of the Dualist interpretation.

>Stop abusing that term.
I think you are.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=505217

>>4649663
0/10

>>4649651
>it's my first day on 4chan

>>4649673
>>4649657
Get your pseudoscience out of my thread.

>mfw there are more IQ fundies than anons ITT

Join the fun

IQ fundie##iq

>>4649663
You are not me. Get out.

>>4649683
You're not me either. You better get out as well and delete that shitty troll thread while you're at it.

>>4649686
I am not the OP of this thread.

>>4649689
>>4649686
>>4649683
>>4649679
Stop derailing my thread, please.

I don't have qualia.

>>4649690
Delete the thread please. And stop shitposting.

I don't understand this "consciousness causes collapse" business. Surely the same thing would happen if you set up a machine to automatically make two observations next to each other and print the results, right? You'd get the same results each time roughly right?

I can't believe that the ink on the paper would wavefunction-collapse to the correct arrangement of squiggles the moment we look at it.

>>4649694
sudo rm -rf /

Stop replying to shitposters, for God's sake.

>>4649706
Geuss what I'm doing right now.

The simplest interpretation of modern quantum mechanics is Bohmian field theory + Lorentz aether theory. The only people who don't like it are those who think mathematical elegance is more important in a physical theory than agreement with common sense.

>>4649696
You are shit posting. You provide no evidence of your claims, and have yet to respond to this post
>>4649674

>>4649698
No. Observation requires consciousness. Consciousness is not physical because of qualia, thus qualia cause state vector collapse.

>This thread

>>4649711
Bohmian mechanics is not simple, it requires hidden variables, an objectively real wavefunction, and a hidden preferred frame. You have a position variable in configuration space, this does not match observation. Occam's Razor.

Aether has no evidence. Go away.

>>4649713
That post doesn't even exist. It didn't pass my 4chanX filter. I'm not gonna bother debating a troll anyway.

>>4649698
You have trouble believing it because you think a cause has to be proximal to its effect. But that's wrong. The ability to collapse wavefunctions at a distance via entanglement has been proven experimentally.

>>4649733
Cool. It links to <span class="math">Physicsforums[/spoiler], maybe that's why?

Go fuck yourself with your consistent Ad Hominem attacks.

>>4649741
I have no reason to block physicsforums. Obviously you are the one using ad hominem attacks, otherwise your post wouldn't have been filtered.

>>4649750
I use 4chanX, I don't think it has the intelligence or algorithms to filter out posts which you don't like.

>>4649730
>>4649726
>>4649713
>>4649741
>>4649529
>>4649513
IQ fundie never capitalized "fundie"

If anyone is actually interested in the non-physical consciousness being responsible for state vector collapse, but doesn't want to participate in the conversation because of the other IQ Fundie claiming I am trolling, this page has lots of resources.
http://www.unc.edu/~ujanel/DualismSyl.htm

>>4649756
It has a word filter. It's under the tripfag filter.

>>4649726
Occam's razor only applies when comparing complete theories which account for the same observations. Consciousness causes collapse is not a complete theory because it does not include dynamics for consciousness. Many-worlds does not account for our observations, and even if it did, its simplicity would be suspect. It's what happens when your idea of simplicity has been so distorted by the study of advanced mathematics so you have the idea that "elegant" equations are simple and easy-to-understand physical explanations are complicated.

>>4649757
Damn straight. I didn't even notice the troll doing it wrong.

>>4649763
I'm not sure what sort of words you'd need to filter to block out that post. Why don't you actually read it instead of arguing about not being able to.

>>4649764
>Occam's razor only applies when comparing complete theories which account for the same observations.
It applies to interpretations of QM, as well. The guiding equation of pilot wave theories clearly fit Occam's Razor over the standard Schrodinger Equation which describes time evolution perfectly.

>>4649766
You are the troll who knows absolutely nothing regarding QM formalism.

>>4649768
If it was filtered, I assume it contained words that indicate shitposting. So I'm not gonna bother.

>>4649776
At least I know enough about consciousness and qualia to know that quantum mechanics does not need qualia.

>>4649777
Good for you. Then please, stop posting in my thread.

Hey IQ fundie, do you even lift?

>>4649780
I don't think you do.

>>4649781
Your thread is inane trolling garbage and you're still abusing my trip.

>>4649783
Of course I do.

>>4649785
>hurr durr

>>4649790
You wouldn't know what inane trolling garbage is if you haven't been banned for it. You clearly shit post.

I am not abusing anyone's trip, it's public.

>>4649776
Wrong. The Schrodinger equation does not describe time evolution perfectly. It evolves cats into states composed of both a live cat and a dead cat, in direct contradiction to observation. An element must be added to the theory to select the world actually observed. A Bohmian beable is the simplest such additional element.

>>4649798
Fuck off.

>>4649795
>You wouldn't know what inane trolling garbage is if you haven't been banned for it. You clearly shit post.
Nice fallacy there.

>>4649805
Problem?

Anyhow, let's get back on the topic of the OP.

>>4649267
>That feel when it has NOTHING to do with consciousness (Descartes did a good job showing how silly that is).

>That feel when the way in which we observe (shooting something with photons) a system causes the system to change, not the sheer fact that we did.

>>4649795
I am still using the trip, so you are abusing it. If you wanted to make a serious thread, you would have made your own trip. But your intention is to troll / shitpost by impersonating me.

>>4649802
Sorry for demystifying quantum mechanics so you can't use it to push your religious viewpoints, but there's no need to be mad about it.

What the fuck is this shit?
This thread is the pinnacle of shitposting.
I want my homework spam and religion trolls back.

>>4649820
No.

Please read up on what observation actually is.

>>4649350
You sir, have NO idea what you're talking about. Nice wikapedia links, LOL, read some fucking philosophy

>>4649829
This is the common pretentious response for those who do not understand what is going on.

>>4649844
>those who do not understand what's going on

Are you referring to yourself?

>>4649835
Lol, learn something about the way humans observe.

>>4649829
>that qualia when no religion trolls

>>4649843
Cool Ad Hominem. Please explain your reasoning, I don't think you know what I am talking about, or know enough physics to justify your own opinions.

>>4649847
No, I'm referring to you. I don't think you even know what a state vector in Hilbert space is.

>>4649850
>>4649853
>hurr durr I don't think you know what herp derp is

Is that all you can do? Fucking weak troll. 0/10

>>4649835
>>4649835
Thinking consiousness forms reality is a poor piece of 17th century philosophy that has been shown to be hogwash many many times over, but has seen a recent resurgance with people who have know nothing about physics making ludicrus claims without knowing the slightest thing of which they're talking about.

If you actually want to learn about the effects of photons on an atomic system, Niels Bohr has some pretty good papers on the subject.

>>4649820
This is correct. It's very hard to avoid disturbing a quantum system. I'm glad you said change and not collapse, which would have been wrong. Collapse is a invention of the over-philosophical Copenhagen school, who refuse to consider what is physically happening, but only the observer's knowledge. Collapse is not a physical process but an updating of that knowledge.

>>4649850
You never explained your reasoning in the first place, nice paradox. You hold my points to a criteria you yourself have not met.

>>4649867
Oh look, someone who actually knows basic physics.

*high five*

>>4649863
You do not have the competence or knowledge to state your opinions in this thread if you do not know what's going on. There's been two or three other folks here that actually agreed with this and stated it's a plausible interpretation of QM, which it is. Consciousness causing collapse has not been ruled out, and it cannot be ruled out as there isn't any way to prove it without conscious observation.

>>4649864
You are focused on philosophy, not the quantum mechanics. Please learn then formalism then comment again. I've provided several links already to help you understand the paradox that is generated from measurement which is not conscious observation.

>>4649867
You are disagreeing with experimental evidence. The Copenhagen/von Neumann interpretation introduces nothing but observation, it is not philosophical. MWI/Pilot wave introduces non-observable components that are philosophical.

>>4649872
You never read the thread, then.

>>4649877
I'll elaborate since another high school student is falling for it.

>Collapse is a invention of the over-philosophical Copenhagen school, who refuse to consider what is physically happening, but only the observer's knowledge.
This is not philosophical, this relies on the observer's knowledge, which is what we see.

Adding ANYTHING ELSE to what we see is philosophizing and is NOT SCIENCE.

>>4649850
Also, wikapedia is not justifying your opinions, as any 5th grade teacher will tell you.

>>4649882
I don't need to state my own opinions. Opinions don't belong on a science board. It's enough for me to post ITT, when I have to correct your wrong nonsense.

>>4649888
>Opinions don't belong on a science board.
They do when it comes to interpretations of quantum mechanics and observation.

>It's enough for me to post ITT, when I have to correct your wrong nonsense.
It is not. Go read Shankar then come back to me.

>>4649882
Again, you have NO idea what you're talking about. " Consciousness causing collapse has not been ruled out, and it cannot be ruled out as there isn't any way to prove it without conscious observation." Yes, actually, it has been ruled out, by 17th century philosophy (see Descartes) which is why I'm referencing philosophy. And for the love of science Wikepedia is not a reliable scource you stupid cunt. Using wikepedia to justify an outdated poorly thought out interpretation of quantum mechanics just solidifies your stupidity.

>>4649882
If you don't see how interconnected philosophy and theoretical physics are, then you really don't belong on this board.

>>4649895
You're not even talking about QM ITT, you're just spouting some inane trolling garbage about qualia, althought they are unrelated and don't belong in this topic.

>>4649906
Fucking this

>>4649882
Nothing I have said disagrees with experimental evidence. Copenhagen is not wrong, but incomplete. It describes not reality but an observer's knowledge of that reality. Religious zealots like to fill in Copenhagen's holes with mind-over-matter nonsense. Sane people prefer to fill in the holes with a physical mechanism which acts the same whether the system is being consciously observed or not.

>>4649912
The science is strong in this one.

>>4649899
You're the stupid cunt. What wikipedia states is what ANY textbook on QM states.

Would you like me to scan you copies of the five texts on quantum mechanics that I have to show to you what goes on? Referencing philosophical bullshit instead of observation is FRINGE SCIENCE. You are too retarded to understand high school probability and 2nd year undergrad QM. I use wikipedia for convenience you fucking nigger.

I'll copy this YET AGAIN to use as an example

Say if you have a quantum system which produces 1 or 0 as a result when measured. The system is in a superposition of both states until measured, obviously. If you have an instrument measure this result, the instrument is in a superposition of the same states until you observe it. The eigenvalues carry over to the instrument until you actually read the instrument and make the observation.


>>4649906
You aren't talking about QM. You probably read a book by Brian Greene and think you understand everything. Good look in university, as it's pretty evident you aren't even there yet.

>>4649912
>Nothing I have said disagrees with experimental evidence.
Yes, it does. Go fuck yourself.

>Copenhagen is not wrong, but incomplete.
Copenhagen is not incomplete. It is an interpretation of something we will never understand because we will never be able to observe it.

> It describes not reality but an observer's knowledge of that reality.
The observer's knowledge of reality is reality you fucking retard. I can say that an electron is detected on a screen, but that it converted itself into a spaghetti monster on its way to the screen. Which part is the reality?

>Religious zealots like to fill in Copenhagen's holes with mind-over-matter nonsense.
Nobody is doing that here. Filing in any holes is not science.

>Sane people prefer to fill in the holes with a physical mechanism which acts the same whether the system is being consciously observed or not.
Filing holes in with fake equations that dictate the particle having hidden position variables is nonsense when we have evidence (Bell's inequalities) to judge against that. When you introduce a mechanism to explain something, it needs to be experimentally conformable, and it will always introduce a methodology to produce such.

When we take weak measurements of the wave function, we see the particle follows laws of probability, not some fucking inane bullshit having hidden variables and fringe science. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7350/full/nature10120.html

This is why the Copenhagen interpretation is the preferred one in the scientific community.

Dualism takes the Copenhagen Interpretation and states that the observer is a distinct element in the universe, it doesn't fill in any holes. This isn't religion, it just states that consciousness is an integral part of our universe.

>>4649922
Cool samefag.

>>4649941
If what I said contradicted observation, you should be able to provide an example. You are just talking out of your ass.

If you can't understand the difference between your perception of reality and reality, then you're more delusional than I thought.

Wow I go to bed and 12 hours later you retards are still running around in circles over this. Decoherence, Everett MWI. End of Story.

>>4649941
>>4649941
"What wikipedia states is what ANY textbook on QM states." bahahaha, oh god, you're serious? let me laugh at you harder.

"Good look in university, as it's pretty evident you aren't even there yet."

oh man, you're killing me, this is too much.

You have proven yourself to be a moron many times over. How many more people need to destroy your points? It's just getting sad at this point,
If you don't understand that you're poorly thought out points have been shown to be utter nonsense, please, go into a university physics department and hear it in person.

>>4649965
>If what I said contradicted observation, you should be able to provide an example.
I did. I referenced a paper showing the probabilistic nature of the wave function.

There's also this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

Hidden variable theories are fringe science.

>>4649976
>If you don't understand that you're poorly thought out points have been shown to be utter nonsense, please, go into a university physics department and hear it in person.
I have. Consciousness causing collapse is a valid interpretation of quantum mechanics.

>>4649981
Yes, but not qualia.

>>4649955
"consciousness is an integral part of our universe."

Read Descartes meditations (or any book on string theory for that matter) and you will see what a silly statement that is.

>>4649976
>"What wikipedia states is what ANY textbook on QM states." bahahaha, oh god, you're serious? let me laugh at you harder.
Show me where anything is there as wrong.

So far all you've done is fuck around with Ad Hominem attacks.

>>4649988
Qualia are unphysical elements of consciousness, you fucking idiot. If the physical elements collapsed the wave function, it really wouldn't make sense. This is what von Neumann was trying to show. The unphysical elements of consciousness do it.

>>4649995
>it wouldn't make sense

Strong argument in here. Especially in combination with ad hominems and appeals to authority.

>>4649981
Where the fuck are you going to university? India? Consciousness forming our subjective reality has been shown to be hogwash for the past 300 years, I have yet to meet a single physicist that would even entertain that ability. If you don't understand how photons can affect an atomic system then maybe you could make an arguement for that, but that is NOT a valid enterpretation of QM, any quantum physicist would cringe at you saying that.

>>4649989
Descartes is philosophical crap, this has nothing to do with QM interpretations.

>or any book on string theory for that matter
I don't think you even have a mathematical background in remedial DEs and linear algebra to understand what's going on in string theory.

I have taken physics courses up to CFTs and math up to lie superalgebras for a needed background in some SUSY related matters.

>>4649955
>Bell's inequalities
Bell's inequalities indicate that there are nonlocal effects in physics. It's perfectly consistent with the pilot-wave view, and illustrates why we need a preferred frame.

>weak measurement
Yeah, weak measurement is pretty cool.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0706.2522
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0808.3324

The Copenhagen interpretation is preferred by many scientists because it's more or less the agnostic option. Copenhagen doesn't make any claims that conscious observation affects the physical world. That is an addition tacked on by mystics like yourself.

>>4650005
Well solipsism is still unfalsifiable. What you mean to say is that science implicitly rejects solipsism.

>>4650002
That's the point of the Dualism interpretation.

If you don't like it, fuck off.

>>4649995
No, I've been trying to tell you that all of your ideas have been shown to be utterly stupid for longer than you've been alive.

>>4650008
Descartes has nothing to do with QM? Oh dear, you really do have NO idea what you're talking about.

>>4650010
> It's perfectly consistent with the pilot-wave view
No, it is not. It states no hidden variables.

Why reference papers for no reason?

>Copenhagen doesn't make any claims that conscious observation affects the physical world.
von Neumann does, which is an extension of Copenhagen and is the opinion I am trying to enforce in this thread.

It is the simplest understanding of what QM is.

>>4650010
>Bell's inequalities indicate that there are nonlocal effects in physics
No. Their violation in experiment shows that there are no local hidden variables. This implies that physics is either nonlocal or does not have counterfactual definiteness.

>>4650013
I like the dualism intepretation, but you're doing it wrong. You're using it for trolling and horribly misintepret it.

>>4650005
>Consciousness forming our subjective reality has been shown to be hogwash for the past 300 years
see this:
>>4650014
They are not utterly stupid. It would not be a valid interpretation of QM if this was the case.

>>4650022
>You're using it for trolling and horribly misintepret it.
No, I am not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind/body_problem#Dualist_interpretation

>>4650026
The article says nothing about qualia.

>>4650024
They are stupid, because they are NOT a valid interpretation of QM, I don't give a fuck what wikepedia says, take that into a physics department, please please do, you will get laughed at.

>>4650021
>No. Their violation in experiment shows that there are no local hidden variables.
It shows that there is no hidden variables whatsoever. The scientific consensus towards hidden variable theories is that they do not seem sensible. Go do the experiment yourself.

I am not here to argue against Pilot wave fringe science, get out of my thread and start another if you'd like to do that.

>>4650024
Like I said, if you don't understand the role the photon plays in changing a system you might have a point, but to say that the change was caused because the system "knew" we were observing it? Get the fuck out.

>>4650020
Extending Copenhagen with ideas about consciousness is mysticism until you can explain how consciousness works. It's like "goddidit" or saying "intelligent design" is simpler than evolution. It's no explanation at all.

Bell inequality violation does not exclude hidden variables. It excludes local theories. You should learn something about Bell's inequalities before talking out of your ass about them.

Bell actually preferred pilot waves over the other interpretations available. He was a man with good common sense.

>>4650043
That is NOT a valid interpration of what is going on, that is a piece of poor thought out philosophy (which dates back as early as the 1600s and has been shown to be incoherent as early as the 1700s)

>>4650035
You're full of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics#von_Neumann.2FWigner_interpretation
:_consciousness_causes_the_collapse

>>4650032
Qualia are the unphysical elements of consciousness, which von Neumann was trying to demonstrate caused collapse. If you do not like the terminology, I'll happily used "unphysical consciousness" instead.

Is IQ fundie the new EK?

>>4650049
"Unphysical consciousness" and qualia are not the same. Qualia are a proper subset of unphysical consciousness. Especially they are irrelevant to QM.

Okay let's summarize without yelling at each other.

Hidden variable (ie the quantum state is a state of partial information about some deeper underlying reality) has to be non-local to work. See: Bell's inequalities and numerous strengthenings. Since we expect that both QM and GR should both be approximations to some deeper law that is simpler than either, this is a very strong tick against Hidden variable theories.

Copenhagen interpretation is just plain retarded. In it's purest form, it requires that some qualitative aspect of consciousness is ontologically basic. So that's out.

Everett decoherence (aka many worlds) postulates nothing more than that the same laws which govern the microscopic level continue to hold at all levels. In other words this is just taking the equations of QM at face value. It is the simplest known theory that fits the observations of QM, and obviously so.

MWI wins straight up.

>>4650043
You get the fuck out. There's still a wave function until observation occurs. You still have a superposition between possible states. You are trying to make the probability distribution physical, which is fringe science.

>>4650049
We've been over this dude, wikepedia doesn't mean shit, you can find any link on the internet agreeing with what you're saying, just like I can find any agreeing with what I'm saying, it means NOTHING, if you're even a shitty physicist you should know that. Take those ideas into a physics lab and prepare to get laughed at, hard.

>>4650057
Fuck off. Nobody believes in an infinite number of parallel universes.

>>4650059
Sure.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=505217

>>4650055
I already tried to explain this to you, but you refused to read the post that your filter blocked.

>>4650064
>Nobody believes
>nobody

You're obviously wrong. Thanks for showing off your lack of logic again.

So what is your IQ, IQ Fundie?

>>4650068
There's no evidence for it.

>>4650057
>Copenhagen interpretation is just plain retarded.
And the majority of physicists disagree.

>>4650069
Irrelevant.

>>4650074
Exactly.

>>4650073
>implying one needs evidence to BELIEVE in something
Too much stupid. I'm facepalming so hard right now.

>>4650058
"There's still a wave function until observation"
I've said this before and I'll say it again, obviously you do not understand how these systems work. Do you honestly believe that the wave function "knows" we are observing it? Fuck no, it has to do with the way in which we observe something, the act of obersvation is a physical process involving the interation of photons, which, has the ability to change an atomic system. To say that it is because of our consciousness is inheritelly stupid and demonstrates a profound lack of education in the subject.

Now I'm really confused. Which one is trolling us, and which is trolling the other one?

>>4650037
Please read and understand how Bell's inequalities are derived from the principle of LOCALITY before further embarrassing yourself.

Pilot waves are relevant whether you want them to be or not. Neither pilot waves nor quantum mysticism is science at the moment because we have no way to test them. But pilot waves are like string theory whereas mysticism is like goddidit. Eventually we may be able to test pilot wave theory by looking for systems not in equilibrium. Quantum mysticism could in principle be tested with AI on a quantum computer, but I think we all already know how you'll respond when your theory is refuted that way.

>>4650084
All of them are trolling us.

>>4650076
I'm not asking you, hence the use of capitalization.

>>4650037
>It shows that there is no hidden variables whatsoever.
No, no it does not. You're just flat wrong here.

>>4650066
Linking an arguement on another forum to try and prove your point after I just explained how meaningless that is.
0/10
It's obvious I'm not able to explain how silly what you're saying is, that's why I'm telling you to take these ideas into a physics lab.

>>4650089
Alright. I see.

>>4650064

Indeed. Nor should they. But that's not what MWI says. "many world's" is kinda a lousy name, but "one world that happens to be organized in such a way that it contains observers positioned in such a way that they can't see the whole thing" doesn't quite have the same ring.

>>4650057
Many-worlds does not account for observation. It predicts a cat should be dead+alive when it is either dead or alive.

>>4650083
The wave function is a density matrix describing the probability of where a particle can be. It is not physical, there is no experimental evidence suggesting this, and you've never taken a QM course if you don't understand this distinction.

I'll copy this YET FUCKING AGAIN
Say if you have a quantum system which produces 1 or 0 as a result when measured. The system is in a superposition of both states until measured, obviously. If you have an instrument measure this result, the instrument is in a superposition of the same states until you observe it. The eigenvalues carry over to the instrument until you actually read the instrument and make the observation.

>>4650082
There's some evidence suggested for other interpretations of QM, there's none for MWI.

>>4650084
Nobody is trolling anyone. I'm trying to discuss how dualism can be applied to the Copenhagen interpretation.

>>4650091
Please provide sources showing this.

>>4650093
You asked if other people agree with me.

>>4650085
I'm not here to discuss fringe science that even less people than my interpretation agree with.

>>4650102
>Nobody is trolling anyone.
>implying that given two different point of views one of them isn't always a troll

bump

>>4650102
Obviously did not read my post.
In what universe am I saying that the wave function is a physical object? It's a probability wave. YOU are the one trying to maintain that atomic systems somehow know when they are being watched.

>>4650110
Not if they are both valid and either can be used.

I don't think you understand what an "interpretation" is.

>2012
>replying to trolls

ISHYSHIGGYDIGGITY

>>4650102
And I also told you to take your pseudo-science into a physics lab and see how well it goes over rather than linking arguements on forums.

>>4650114
I don't think you understand what trolling is. Otherwise you would do it less obvious.

>>4650114
>implying different opinions can coexist

>>4650102
>Please provide sources showing this.

It is well-known to anyone who has seen Bell's inequality derived. Since you have obviously not seen that, here is a layman-accessible account of Bell's inequalities written by Bell himself:

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/142461

>>4650102
I understand the distinction between a probability wave and a particle very well, what is blatently obvious is that you do not understand A) how humans observe
and
B) how that observation interacts with atomic systems.

>>4650102
>wave function is a density matrix
Nonsense. A wave function is a vector in Hilbert space; a density matrix is an operator on the space (representable by a matrix in the case the space is finite-dimensional).

>>4650101

This is just plain false. MWI gives exactly the smae experimental predictions as anything else.

>>4650102
>There's some evidence suggested for other interpretations of QM, there's none for MWI.

Now what could you possibly mean by this? There is exactly as much evidence for MWI as there is for QM in general, namely: all the experimental evidence for QM. And there is not a single other interpretation with known evidence that distinguishes it from MWI. MWI, being the simplest interpretation, wins given the state of evidence.

>>4650128
Consciousness forming our subjective reality is a piece of philosophy, NOT science, hence why I've been referencing philosphers that have famously shown how incoherent the idea is.

>>4649267
wouldnt the simplest answer be that time travels in both directions at the quantum level

>>4650131
>This is just plain false. MWI gives exactly the smae experimental predictions as anything else.
That is what proponents of MWI claim, but they are talking out of their asses. MWI does not explain how to decompose the dead+alive cat wavefunction into the either dead-or-alive with some probability for each that we actually see. To do that you have to extend it with something else, such as Bohmian beables.

>>4650135
You can use QM to back up the idea (incorrectly I might add), but it doesn't make it valid, and it most certainly does not make it science.

>>4650138
.......No

>>4650138
Yes, the simplest ontological interpretation of QM is essentially this idea. It hasn't been brought up yet because this is a troll thread.

>>4650113
Okay, let's do the math, since you still don't understand it.
If we have a particle in a superposition of states
<div class="math">|\psi\rangle=c_{+}|\psi_{+}\rangle + c_{+}|\psi_{-}\rangle</div>
If we treat the particle+measuring device as a single system, the state vector reads
<div class="math">|\Phi\rangle = c_{+}|\psi_{+}\rangle|\phi_{+}\rangle + c_{-}|\psi_{-}\rangle|\phi_{-}\rangle</div>
Now, say a device measures the system and I walk out of the room. This person now has states <span class="math">|\phi'_{+}\rangle[/spoiler] and <span class="math">|phi'_{-}\rangle[/spoiler], and looks like
<div class="math">|\Phi'\rangle=c_{+}|\psi_{+}\rangle | \phi'_{+} \rangle + c_{-} | \psi_{-} \rangle | \phi'_{-}\rangle</div>
SO THE VALUE IS EITHER <span class="math">|c_{+}|^{2}[/spoiler] OR <span class="math">|c_{-}|^{2}[/spoiler]

The state vector <span class="math">|\Phi'\rangle[/spoiler] COLLAPSES at the moment this device answers to me when I walk back into the room, and the probability that the alternative result was obtained is zero. For example, the particle was detected in the eigenstate <span class="math">|\psi_{+}[/spoiler].

Please also, everyone here, read this:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0402121v2.pdf

>>4650145
How does something go backwards in time without being infinetly heavy or going faster than the speed of light?

>>4650130
We are representing mixed states here. The wave function is a statistical ensemble. That is the point.

>>4650149
Only demonstrating further your lack of understand of the observation effect.
All you're doing is showing that it collaspes, not WHY, which is key to understand the role consciousness plays in this (none at all)

>>4650149
> This person now
This should be
>This device

>>4650158
>All you're doing is showing that it collaspes, not WHY
It collapses because of observation, you fucking idiot.

I'm showing you that the DEVICE DOES NOT COLLAPSE THE WAVE FUNCTION, OBSERVATION DOES.

YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT. THIS IS LITERALLY IN THE FIRST THREE CHAPTERS OF GRIFFITH'S TEXTBOOK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friendhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend

>>4650149
I've said this before and I'll say it again, linking internet websites doesn't mean shit. Please for the love of science take these ideas into your local university physics department.

>>4650164
And why does it collapse from observation you fucking idiot? Is it because of your consciousness? Fuck no

>>4650167
That is a published paper - http://www.springerlink.com/content/pu18h663p2856768/
You are a fucking horrible troll, and I don't understand why I am even still responding to you.

>>4650164
implying the device is not an obvserver? lolwut

>>4650150
Objects don't propagate backwards in time. The final state does.

If you're interested in this stuff, here's some reading material:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/uj92127136602554/?MUD=MP
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0507269
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u551710rp1x27723/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/56377765524v4800/
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v60/i14/p1351_1

>>4650172
No, it's OBSERVATION WHICH IS LINKED TO CONSCIOUSNESS.

You are SIDING WITH EINSTEIN, IT'S A CLASSICAL EXAMPLE TO USE THE MOON. WHEN YOU AREN'T LOOKING AT THE MOON, IT COULD BE ANYTHING. IT'S NOT REALLY THERE, AS YOU AREN'T OBSERVING IT, ACCORDING TO COPENHAGEN.

It's HIDDEN VARIABLES otherwise, and you are stating it's already collapsed - EG DENYING QUANTUM MECHANICS.

God, you are such a fucking idiot.

>>4650167
>he doesn't know arxiv

How is your undegrad treating you? Or are you still in HS?

>>4650175
Because you have yet to maintain a single point while everything you bring up has been torn to shreds by either myself or the myriad of people who have enjoyed showing how poorly thought out your ideas are. PLEASE take this stuff into a physics lab , it is NOT a valid interpratation, never has been, never will be, but don't take it from me man, see if you can talk to some physicists at your local university.

>>4650185
Fuck you, and GET THE FUCK out of my thread.

>>4650140

No. Wrong. Time evolution looks like:

(|cat_alive>+|cat_dead>)|observer>
->
|cat_alive>|observer_sees_alive>+|cat_dead>|observer_sees_dead>

There is nothing weird about this. That's just the usual linear time evolution rules applied at a macroscopic level.

The jump from here to the Born statistics is still an open question, but it is a question of anthropic probability, not of basic physics.

>>4650184
The moon dissapears when i'm not looking at it and you call me an idiot? Perception forming our reality has been proven to be an incoherent piece of pseudo-logic since the 1700s and it is honestly sad to see someone trying to regurgitate it as fact.

0/10

>>4650190
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates

>>4650190
In fact the moon does disappear once a month.

>>4650188
Truth can be a bitch

>>4650195
No it doesn't. Our ability to see it does, but for fuck sakes it's still orbiting around the earth.

>>4650197
HE'S WRONG, YOU FUCKING IDIOT

>>4650199
Prove it. How can you say anything about an object, when it's not observable?

>>4650199
You really don't know any quantum mechanics, do you?

>>4650203
Wait a sec, are you trying to apply quantum mechanics to an astronomic object (the moon)?

>>4650189
You still have a combination of dead+alive there; you've just annotated it with observers.

The Born rule is basic physics. Without the Born rule, quantum mechanics makes no predictions. Without the Born rule, entanglement can be used to transmit information FTL. If your interpretation doesn't include or allow you to derive the Born rule, it is incomplete, no ifs ands, or buts about it.

BTW extending MWI to include the Born rule is pretty easy, but you have to give up the claim that the multiple worlds aren't real. Obviously they are if MWI is correct, because I'm living in one of them.

>>4650202
Who is to say it's not observable? I think our satellites in space and our many telescopes can still observe it.

Besides, the moon has a large effect on things like tides, if it were to suddenly vanish, we would fucking notice.

>>4650207
With the concept of observation, yes.

This is the essence of the Copenhagen interpretation and the one THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DISCUSSING WITH DUALISM.


IF YOU CAN'T OBSERVE IT, YOU DON'T KNOW IT EXISTS AND IT'S IN A SUPERPOSITION OF POSSIBLE STATES.

>>4650203
In what sense does an orbit of a moon around a planet have ANYTHING to do with quantum mechanics?

>>4650213
It just disappears for one day, so the effects are insignificant.

>>4650213
But you yourself are not observing it. You have to observe it to prove it to yourself.

You can use tides, a telescope, a satelite, anything.

But YOU YOURSELF have to do it, or find out from another person for the wave function to collapse.

>>4650220
It's a thought experiment that Einstein said was bullshit

Einstein said "I like to believe that the moon is still there even if we don't look at it."

>>4650216
This has been said many times, but Descartes did a damn good job of showing how incoherent that logic is.

Also see this
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v6/n6/full/nphys1698.html

>>4650237
Then Descartes denies Quantum Mechanics. We are not discussing philosophy, we are discussing interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.

Go to >>/lit/

>>4650227
Hogwash, human beings arn't required to collapse a wave function.

>>4650202

Oh you're gotta be fucking kidding me.

Occam's razor applies. Do you expect to be able to see the moon again at some point in the future? If so, then why would you assume that it stops existing in between. The world in the moon exists only while you are looking at it is strictly more complicated than one where it exists all the time. The burden of evidence is to explain why you should believe that it stops existing. To assume that it keeps existing is the default state.

>>4650250
You're a fucking idiot, and I am going to keep calling that until you actually understand what QM entails.

http://www.iafe.uba.ar/e2e/phys230/history/moon.pdf

>>4650245
No, we're discussing the role consiousness plays in collapsing a wave function. Which is just as much philosophy as it is science.

The idea that things are only in a definite state when we are observing them goes back before quantum mechanics to the writings of Thomas Locke and guys like Descartes.

>>4650252
No, you are a fucking idiot for thinking you can prove an opinion with an internet link. Take this shit to a physics lab, I DARE you. I know you wont, because you're pulling things out of your ass, but I still think you should, you might actually learn something about the nature of reality.

>>4650251
> If so, then why would you assume that it stops existing in between.
Because that's what quantum mechanics says. STOP LOOKING AT THINGS YOU CAN'T OBSERVE, LOOK AT THE THINGS YOU CAN SEE. THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT SCIENCE, AND THAT'S WHY IT WORKS SO WELL.

>>4650255
>Which is just as much philosophy as it is science.
I consider interpretations of quantum mechanics very far from the definition of "philosophy"

Regardless, get out. You haven't taken quantum mechanics, and don't understand the math behind it.

>>4650251
>wrong use of Occam's razor

If you want to apply Occam's razor correctly, you'd have to say the following: Sicne there's no evidence for the moon when we can't observe it, we have to assume it doesn't exist.

>>4650252
You have misenterpreted QM to the point where it's pathetic, you literally have NO idea what you're talking about, many people have commented on your various pseudo-science showing how rediculous it is and all you have to counter is another internet link.

>>4650265
No, we DON'T BOTHER WITH IT'S EXISTENCE AT ALL.

WE DON'T CARE IF IT EXISTS, OR IF IT DOESN'T EXIST, NOBODY GIVES A FUCK.

WE CARE ABOUT WHAT WE CAN MEASURE.

>>4650270
You weren't even addressed. Fuck off, troll.

>>4650275
You fuck off. Get out of my thread, you thick cunt.

You don't know shit about QM, so you're not at liberty to circle jerk around in my thread.

>>4650264
If you consider physics far from philosophy, you are not a physicist. They are inherintly connected, look at Descartes, he wasn't just a philosohper, he pioneered his own system of geometry which we are still using today. Philosophy is an a priori attempt to understand the universe where as Physics is an empirical attempt, if you don't see the connection between philosophy and physics, you're an even bigger idiot than I thought.

2/10

>>4650282
I really don't know shit about QM, but obviously my knowledge of the topic is still better than yours.

>>4650282
I think it's sad that when your ideas and shown to be apparently rediculous all you have left is insults.

>>4650285
>my knowledge of the topic is still better than yours.
It's not, it's horribly wrong.

Last post before bump limit.

>>4650287
I'm not responding to you anymore. You're a horrible troll.

>>4650289
Cool argument, bitch. Cry harder.

>>4650289
No, you are wrong sir, and if you want to find out just how much, walk into any physics department of any university.

>>4650295
He hasn't actually made a valid point since the start of the thread, all he has done is insult other people and call other people stupid in what seems to be a poorly vieled attempt to cover up his own stupidity, you see kindergardeners doing the same thing.

I honestly havn't taken a word this guy says seriously since he tried to link wikepedia as fact (LOL)

>>4650301
>>4650303
case and point.

>>4650265

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Despite apparently knowing at least a little bit about QM, you have failed to grasp the entire point of physics, and indeed of science in general.

Just going to hazard a quick guess: I bet you are generally unimpressed with Isaac Newton?

>>4650301
>>4650299
You're a horrible samefagging troll.

Fuck you all.

>>4650301
I know. At least the thread is on autosage now. But he's gonna repost anyway tomorrow.

>>4650311
Are you really that easy to troll? I mean he couldn't be more obvious.

>>4650316
Summer is here =/

>>4650316
I posted links to published papers, other discussions about this subject, and even explained the concept in bra-ket notation and you refuse to stop being a pretentious philosophizing asshole.

>>4650327
And I've explained to you many times that linking a website on the internet doesn't mean shit, try taking these ideas into a physics lab and see how well it goes over.

>>4650331
I work in a physics lab, you fucking idiot.

>>4650327
Just because someone is discussing a subject doesn't mean it's valid, you are obviously NOT a physicist.

>>4650336
Ahahahahahahahahahahaha and I'm the queen of France

0/10

>>4650338
What sort of credentials do you have? Like I said, I've taken physics up through SUSY Conformal Field Theories

>>4650336
Linking a forum discussion is about as valid as eye-witness testimony, which, if you were actually a scientist, you would know, is one of the LOWEST forms of evidence you could possibly hope to attain. Thank you sir for providing me with good comedy reading for the night.

>>4650318

Can never be sure. Some people actually think that.

>>4650349
I am not responding to a high school troll who spells ridicious as "redicious", Wikipedia as "wikepedia", and thinks Springerlink isn't a scientifically-accredited journal.

>>4650354
I'm sorry that english isn't my first language, but it doesn't change the fact that your "evidence" is laughable and would never stand up in a physics lab.

>can't make a point? correct their spelling

>>4650360
Physics laboratories base experiments on observation, which is the point I am trying to make.

Are you even published?

>>4650360
Not to mention the myriad of papers disproving your "fringe science" but you refuse to read because they are written by philosophers and that (somehow) makes it less valid.

>>4650367
Descartes work is not published in a scientific journal.

>>4650365
And what obersvations have physicists made that consiousness is the root of the collapse of a wave function? NONE, those are interpretations by people who don't understand what is actually going on.

>Fail to present sound arguments.
>Argue from authority "I work in a physics lab".

If you know what you are talking about, you shouldn't have to tell me that you are a physicist. Argument screens off authority.

>>4650369
You realize he is the guy who pioneered the scientific method right? Do you even know who Descartes is?

>>4650372
It's because, as he as shown many times, he is obviously not a physicist. If he is a physicist then i am the queen of france.

>>4650372
The guy has repeated 500 times to "go to a physics lab". I work in one, and have published from one, as well as coauthored several notable papers.

>>4650374
Philosophy is not empirical.

>>4650369
Any journal that is science based owes a debt to Descartes, he hasn't been alive for the past couple hundred years so obviously he hasn't been in any journals recently.

>>4650370
People who support the ensemble interpretation? I have already linked a paper with large scientific consensus. I don't think you understand what's going on, as you resort to hidden variables which nobody in a "physics lab" believes in.

>>4650374

Wait, Descartes is Roger Bacon?

>>4650381
No, but saying that consciousness forms our reality is

>>4650382
His work does not show a basis for disproving modern quantum theory, else we wouldn't be using it right now, would we?

If you find a way to disprove quantum mechanics, please go claim your Nobel prize.

>>4650391
I never stated it forms our reality. I am stating it is a component of said reality, separate from what is physical, eg Dualism.

>>4650389
>Roger

It was Francis Bacon.

Man, why would observer being concious matter, it's not like the dude can even look at the thing, he's just looking at the results of something observing it in some way.

>>4650389
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-physics/

I can link websites too.

>>4650398
That's because it doesn't. Consciousness has nothing to do with it.

>>4650398
Because it's the only way to know for certain we have observed something.

Again, you cannot tell me the moon is really out there during the day if you do not have any empirical evidence to see it.

>>4650381
>The guy has repeated 500 times to "go to a physics lab".

Fair enough. But actually the correct response is "that is irrelevant".

>>4650402
That's funny. Again, please elaborate on how you can collapse the state vector without observing it.

>>4650392
I'm not trying to disprove quantum mechanics, I'm trying to disprove your bullshit enterpratation of it, what you're saying is NOT quantum mechanics, it's a piece of 17th century philosophy that has been resurected due to poor interpretations of the observer effect.

>>4650411
Well, then instead of claiming you cannot see objects without observing them, you should instead try to disprove Dualism, not the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics.

You can start by showing that consciousness is a physical component of the mind.

>>4650410
Observation and consiousness are two different things. They collapse due to the fact that they are being obvserved not because they are aware of a sentient being watching them.

>>4650415
That should be
>you can see objects without observing them

>>4650399

I think you have me confused with someone else. I was just poking fun, don't worry.

>>4650416
Okay, then you are trying to prove that consciousness is physical.

Evidence of such? How can this be proven experimentally?

>>4650415
Why would I ever want to do that? Everything I'm trying to say has already been shown since the 17th century.

>>4650424
If Dualism was disproven, it wouldn't be a valid alternative to Physicalism, and Consciousness causing state vector collapse wouldn't be a valid interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

There isn't a valid interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that states "God did it", or "the particle is sentient", for example.

>>4650423
Well, the problem with that is we don't really have a definition of what consciousness is. In terms of physicality I would say that the field of neuroscience has fairly cemented that out consciousness is a physical thing, it relies on chemical interactions without our brain. However, that's not really my point, my point is that it's the act of being observed not the consiousness of the observer that is causing the wave function to collapse

>>4650435
I'm not trying to disprove dualism, that's different. I'm trying to show that the role consiousness plays in forming our reality is essentially zero, which descartes has already done.

>>4650441
You can still have dualism under that paradigm.

>>4650438
because the act of observation is a real, physical thing, that can change the system it is observing.

>>4650438
>Well, the problem with that is we don't really have a definition of what consciousness is.
Exactly. There isn't science behind qualia, and there cannot be because qualia cannot be observed. Thus, they can be physical or nonphysical, we do not know and can never know. It's an "interpretation of consciousness".

> In terms of physicality I would say that the field of neuroscience has fairly cemented that out consciousness is a physical thing
Not really, that's why I used qualia as an example in the OP.

>However, that's not really my point, my point is that it's the act of being observed not the consiousness of the observer that is causing the wave function to collapse
How can you go about proving this? You can't, because the act of trying to prove it would result in conscious observation. I hope you can see the point I'm trying to make.

I'll finally admit that this is an elaborate troll thread, and that I personally do not agree with any of this nonsensical Dualism bullshit, but rather I am trying to see if there is evidence against it.

>How can you go about proving this? You can't, because the act of trying to prove it would result in conscious observation. I hope you can see the point I'm trying to make.

I totally do, but you should check out Descartes meditations, he does A LOT better job of explaining it than I can. You're right, you can't disprove it, but you can show it to be incoherent.

>>4650460
You can show it's absurd to where there is no point in believing in it, which is what descartes did.

>>4650460
Alright, I'll legitimately check out this for real this time.

Thanks!