/sci/ - Science & Math

Many-minds supports the Dualist interpretation, is deterministic, and is the Occam's razor of the simulation hypothesis. I don't see how you can go with any other without fully explaining what consciousness is. Any other theory assumes an independent reality of observation, and thus is untestable.

>>4665048
Please don't turn this into a fucking Dualism thread

>>4665048
>durr, we haven't explained consciousness, so we can't ever consider the possibility of something that implies that it has some explanation.
So tell me again, how is it you haven't been beaten to death?

>>4665060
I am not. I am just stating that all other interpretations are untestable as they are not observable.

>>4665070
What the falsifiable prediction of dualism?

>>4665064
>so we can't ever consider the possibility of something that implies that it has some explanation.
No, you cannot. It is philosophy, not science. Science is only based on observation.

>>4665064
>It keeps hapening
>I told you man! I told you about fuckin dualists!

>>4665077
There is not one. You must explain consciousness and qualia before you can eliminate Dualism.

>>4665088
You must explain consciousness and qualia before you can ALLOW for Dualism.

>>4665048
You again?

Leave /sci/ with your one-paper "conclusive proof" garbage. You did this last time with that Noetic trash science, too.

>>4665088
Ok, good, so we agreed dualism isn't scientifically testable, contrary to what you said here:

> Many-minds supports the Dualist interpretation, is deterministic, and is the Occam's razor of the simulation hypothesis. I don't see how you can go with any other without fully explaining what consciousness is. Any other theory assumes an independent reality of observation, and thus is untestable.

Thus, you continue to be full of shit.

captcha: errums contemptible

Any modern version of Copenhagen uses the density matrix to represent the observer's knowledge.

>conclusive mathematical proof
Under certain assumptions, which you would know if you'd read the paper.

>If this is true, we're only left with
Trying to enumerate all the interpretations? That ain't gonna work well.

>thus just the pilot wave
Bohmian mechanics without the point in configuration space IS many-worlds.

>>4665094
No, you may not. Physicalism assumes an explanation of consciousness using physical laws. Dualism does not.

>>4665097
What are you talking about?

>>4665099
Are you the same person who was unable to comprehend what quantum mechanics infers in a previous thread?

Note how I used the word "support". Many-minds/von-Neumann assumes that only observation reduces the state vector. Anything else is unscientific pseudoscience as you cannot observe without consciousness.

>>4665129
>Note how I used the word "support". Many-minds/von-Neumann assumes that only observation reduces the state vector. Anything else is unscientific pseudoscience as you cannot observe without consciousness.
>Many-minds/von-Neumann assumes that only observation reduces the state vector.
>Many-minds/von-Neumann assumes
>assumes
Lost me right there. Talk to me when you have evidence.

Many worlds interpretation is crap fiction and the least imaginative solution. It creates a sort of multi-locality (many-worlds) to solve the non-locality problem. Hahah, how imaginative... "Let's split the worlds to explain non-local effects in one."

>>4665137
You are screwing with terminology.

Talk to me when you understand what observation means.

The evidence is that the state vector will only collapse when observation occurs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner's_friend

This is testable using the standard rules probability. You can setup an experiment which has a particle in two possible states, measure the particle while you walk out of the room, then you can walk back into the room and observe the result of the measurement.

Fuck off, IQ Fundie.

>>4665151
Those experiments do not show that minds are required, only observation aka interaction.

>>4665173
You did not read.

Observation is not interaction, that is the point that von Neumann was trying to make.

Clearly you are incapable or too incompetent to understanding one of the most notable scientists if the 20th century.

I have explained how it works several times, but you outright refuse to understand or learn, yet you participate in the thread.

>>4665129
That's not what "observe" actually means.

>>4665183
Nope. I read the wiki page. At no point did it offer anything resembling evidence, falsifiable predictions, and so on. Come back when you get those. Until then it's just useless drivel.

>>4665186
Yes, it is. Have you heard of Wigner's friend?

I'll copy over the explanation yet 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.

>>4665193
What university do you attend? I'll kindly contact their physics department for you so you can demonstrate the Born rule to yourself.

>Wigner designed the experiment to illustrate his belief that consciousness is necessary to the quantum mechanical measurement process. If a material device is substituted for the conscious friend, the linearity of the wave function implies that the state of the system is in a linear sum of possible states. It is simply a larger indeterminate system.

>>4665204
Waiting for that falsifiable prediction....

>>4665183
Wigner never actually determined that this was true; in fact, it's not. Things can interact with each other without observation and the wave functions collapse, and you can observe that they did collapse. You use this as evidence for dualism and yet it has never actually been done.

Sorry, my tripcode cookie decided to delete itself.

>>4665186
Yes, it is. Have you heard of Wigner's friend?

I'll copy over the explanation yet 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.

>>4665193
What university do you attend? I'll kindly contact their physics department for you so you can demonstrate the Born rule to yourself.

>Wigner designed the experiment to illustrate his belief that consciousness is necessary to the quantum mechanical measurement process. If a material device is substituted for the conscious friend, the linearity of the wave function implies that the state of the system is in a linear sum of possible states. It is simply a larger indeterminate system.

I prefer the "shut up and calculate" interpretation

Waiting for that falsifiable prediction...

>>4665214
Spoken like a true scientist!

>>4665208
>Wigner never actually determined that this was true; in fact, it's not. Things can interact with each other without observation and the wave functions collapse, and you can observe that they did collapse. You use this as evidence for dualism and yet it has never actually been done.
No, they do not actually collapse.

>Wigner never actually determined that this was true;
Explain how it isn't. Falsify it. I have posted Wigner's friend written out in bra-ket notation countless times and it is explained in the Wikipedia article.

>>4665213
I'm not sure what you are asking.

>>4665183
This is nothing more than physical solipsism.

>>4665219
>I'm not sure what you are asking.
You're making a material claim. What? I'm not sure. You're too confused to make sense. If you wish to make sense, make a falsifiable claim. Preferably with a description of the apparatus involved.

Otherwise, get the hell out.
>>>/x/
>>>/b/

>>4665221
Exactly. It is the only possible interpretation until consciousness is proven to be physical. You cannot assume something to be some way without evidence.

>>4665227
I'm sorry, I'm sure your post was referencing me, but it has been filtered by 4chanX. It must have contained shitposter vocabulary. Please reformulate your post if you'd like to make a reasonable contribution to this thread.

>>4665228
>only possible interpretation
>until proven to be physical
It looks like you're taking sides in this debate with absolutely no evidence. Moreover, I believe the terms are loaded, prejudiced, and ill-defined. Stop trolling / being retarded. Make falsifiable predictions, aka science.

>>4665228
You already have. You've assumed that consciousness is the only thing that makes wave functions collapse.

Note to self: Never bother with IQ fundie again.

>>4665242
It is. You are not assuming this, consciousness causes the wave function to collapse.

Please provide me evidence suggesting another mechanism does.

Ha ha, the guy's name is pussy lol

>>4665239
How can you assume something acts in some manner without evidence? I have provided an example which you can facilitate experimentally. Would you like it written out in bra-ket notation as well? It is standard quantum mechanics. You are simply too incompetent to understand what the Born rule is, and how Wigner's cat applies to it.

iq fundie you've made my go and reinstall my tripfag filter, conglaturations

>>4665328
The real IQ fundie here, posting anonymously. I've left the trip completely to the imposter now and funnily I added it to my trip filter as well.

>>4665330
Protip: Don't pick a dictionary word for your trip pass, or something else equally insecure.

>>4665343
I don't really care. It was a lot of fun anyway. But now it has overstayed its lulzy welcome.

>>4665260
The following is from a thread you ran out on.

[paste]

>If that one person came across the idea of qualia, he would still have to make the distinction between communicable and not communicable
No! There is not reason that would be true. An observation is an observation. Said person could never even know of the possibility of other conscious minds existing and yet the scientific method would still be valid.

>I asked you to not tell me the physical perception
There you go again! You would change your trip name to "Tautology fundie". You are arguing that there is no scientific/physical means of explaining subjective experience, but in your arguments you keep using the assumption that it cannot be explained scientifically/physically nor communicated (the latter of which I have been arguing is moot).

>Prove to me that the "blue" you see does not look different to me.
Like I said, both sets of instruments (both our sets of eyes) simply need to be calibrated. You could just as easily switch out eyes with voltometers, "prove to me that these voltmeters are EXPERIENCING the same voltage without calibrating them".

So, in summary: communication is not necessary for science because science can still be done even if there was no means of communication, subjective experience can be communicated if not directly experienced (e.g. calibrating one's instrument). Thus, science has no problem dealing with subjective experience.

[/paste]

You do the same thing every thread IQ fundie. You talk yourself in circles for an hour and then leave. At least EK knows e is a dick. You're worse because you actually think you are holding an intelligent discussion with other posters.

>what's your preferred interpretation of QM now?
I believe in the "guiding wave". I think there's another whole level of particle interactions, where certain effects propagate through space constantly, initiated by any change in any particle, conveying only information, not energy.

I don't believe in nonlocality, do believe in determinism, and think many-worlds is completely insane.

>>4665369
So, you're for locality. Thus you're against counterfactual definiteness? Interesting. Admittingly, I'm too much of an idiot to get the nuance, but doesn't "no counterfactual definiteness" play havoc with scientific realism and determinism? Ugg, I need to go reread the article I have that clearly explains this shit.

>>4665377
>So, you're for locality. Thus you're against counterfactual definiteness?
Don't be an ass. I didn't say that.

They only appear to conflict when you make certain assumptions.

Don't trust physicists too much when they claim to interpret their experiments. Usually, when they say things like "Locality has been ruled out by experimental evidence." they start out by setting up a straw-man of what "locality" means, or piling on a lot of unjustifiable assumptions.

>>4665398
I'm not sure you properly understand. Here's the paper I was talking about:

Basic description of Bell's inequalities
http://www.stat.physik.uni-potsdam.de/~pikovsky/teaching/stud_seminar/Bell_EPR-1.pdf

It's really quite readable by the undergrad-science-level literate.

>>4665408
>You don't understand.
>Read this paper.
I'm not going to go read a dense ten-page article because some twit on the internet who I point out doesn't know what he's talking about assumes I don't know what I'm talking about and thinks something in the paper will fix it.