4 ms·

As far as I understand - we can make a random number generator decide if the automated observation of the photons passing the slits happens or not and then the

by ajuc 7y ago

As far as I understand - we can make a random number generator decide if the automated observation of the photons passing the slits happens or not and then the pattern on the screen will change from one to the other randomly. So we're pretty sure it's not consciousness that causes the collapse, right? Unless the RNG or the camera is conscious :)

ericmay 7y ago
Panpsychism to the rescue! :p https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism
- cultus 7y ago
  Panpsychism is really something that makes sense to me. It's a really parsimonious way of solving the hard problem of consciousness without getting into dualism or assuming anything special about matter that makes up sentient beings. I really don't think that testing this could ever be in the realm of physics, though.
  - ericmay 7y ago
    I certainly find it a compelling theory, and I agree that it’s probably not testable. I lean toward consciousness being an illusion or simply non-existent. It kind of seems like we, by nature, reject this notion because it shatters our collective human psyche, but it wouldn’t surprise me. On the other hand we have a hard time even defining consciousness.
    - program_whiz 7y ago
      Consciousness is probably the only thing that _cannot_ be an illusion. Whatever you may think, the fact that you are having an experience is the only thing you can know for sure (all the content of your experience could be planted into your mind, but you at least know that you are experiencing it). You really can't know if anyone else really exists and is having an experience, or if its all a dream filled with impersonators created by your own mind, but you know first hand that at least one experience is happening (your conscious experience). Perhaps "the self", or "the idea that I am a being with a consciousness separate from all the universe" is an illusion.
      - ericmay 7y ago
        > Whatever you may think, the fact that you are having an experience is the only thing you can know for sure It seems to me that you’re defining consciousness as having thought (please correct me if I’m wrong). I’m ok with that, but I think at a minimum you’d have to agree that any creature is capable of having thought and therefore possessing of consciousness. If not, let’s say you’d argue that an ant is just reacting to chemical signals, I’d just say the same is true of humans.
- x0n 7y ago
  Panpsychism is a dirty word these days, and lacks formality. Fundamentally the loose idea is sound, and is encapsulated in Integrated Information Theory ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory) for the most part.
dvdcxn 7y ago
Arguably you are consciously observing by viewing the output of the RNG
- ajuc 7y ago
  But I can record that screen on another camera and look at that recording the next month :) Are we now also assuming causality can go both ways in time :) ? Or am I changing the recording the moment I look at it :) ? It's such a stupid theory :)
  - stale2002 7y ago
    No, the camera that you observe 1 month later would be in a quantum state, until you actually observe it. The "recording" would be in multiple states until you observe the recording.
    - ajuc 7y ago
      Except when we do the experiment in the real world we can't keep the quantum superposition for macroscopic objects from collapsing and now we're claiming it just happens because we don't know the answer. That's the difference between declaring entangled photons be in superposition and declaring a tossed coin being in superposition because I covered it with my hand without looking. One is state of the universe, the other is my lack of knowledge. But sure - we can go on declaring everything entangled all the way up. Then we declare that the whole universe except the conscious observer is in a superposition of states until the observer decides to observe it or not. The problem with that is that I'm a part of the universe and I have no proof that I have a free will independent of everything else. It just feels like it :) So assuming everything waits for me to decide seems very self-centered and unjustified by the evidence as opposed to everything happening when it happens and my decision being predetermined like everything else.
      - stale2002 7y ago
        > Except when we do the experiment in the real world we can't keep the quantum superposition for macroscopic objects from collapsing No. You don't actually know that. Because the act of you "observing" this macroscopic object, could be the cause of this object collapsing. So the macroscopic object that collapsed could be due the fact that you have observed it. > One is state of the universe You have no way of knowing the state of the universe, unless you have observed it. So if you are ever looking at any state of the universe, it is observed and has already collapsed. > Then we declare that the whole universe except the conscious observer is in a superposition of states until the observer decides to observe it or not. Yep that's the theory. > I have no proof that I have a free will independent Yes, that could be true as well. > seems very self-centered and unjustified So, here we get to the Crux of the matter. No matter where we say that the wave "collapses", it is all unfalsifiable. It could be that the observes collapses it. It could be that it was collapsed once it had any interactions with a photon or the smallest microscopic particle. Or, as you pointed out, it could be that the universe has never collapsed, and the whole universe is in a super position right now. And all of these positions are equally unfalsifiable. There IS no justification that any of these are correct, and there is no way of saying which is more justified. So, yes, it is unjustified. But it is just as unjustified as any other collapse theory. It is a fools errand to give arguments as for why one collapse theory is worse or better than any others, and they are all equally unfalsifiable.
notfed 7y ago
But, you’re forgetting that the output of the random number generator doesn’t exist until you observe it.
- ajuc 7y ago
  How do you know that? Does the face a coin landed on when I tossed it with closed eyes exists before I open my eyes? If yes - how is that different? I can use a coin thrower for my RNG.
buboard 7y ago
The quantum eraser does that, and it s far more strange https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_erase...

by ajuc 7y ago

ericmay 7y ago

Panpsychism to the rescue! :p https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

cultus 7y ago
Panpsychism is really something that makes sense to me. It's a really parsimonious way of solving the hard problem of consciousness without getting into dualism or assuming anything special about matter that makes up sentient beings. I really don't think that testing this could ever be in the realm of physics, though.
- ericmay 7y ago
  I certainly find it a compelling theory, and I agree that it’s probably not testable. I lean toward consciousness being an illusion or simply non-existent. It kind of seems like we, by nature, reject this notion because it shatters our collective human psyche, but it wouldn’t surprise me. On the other hand we have a hard time even defining consciousness.
  - program_whiz 7y ago
    Consciousness is probably the only thing that _cannot_ be an illusion. Whatever you may think, the fact that you are having an experience is the only thing you can know for sure (all the content of your experience could be planted into your mind, but you at least know that you are experiencing it). You really can't know if anyone else really exists and is having an experience, or if its all a dream filled with impersonators created by your own mind, but you know first hand that at least one experience is happening (your conscious experience). Perhaps "the self", or "the idea that I am a being with a consciousness separate from all the universe" is an illusion.
    - ericmay 7y ago
      > Whatever you may think, the fact that you are having an experience is the only thing you can know for sure It seems to me that you’re defining consciousness as having thought (please correct me if I’m wrong). I’m ok with that, but I think at a minimum you’d have to agree that any creature is capable of having thought and therefore possessing of consciousness. If not, let’s say you’d argue that an ant is just reacting to chemical signals, I’d just say the same is true of humans.
x0n 7y ago
Panpsychism is a dirty word these days, and lacks formality. Fundamentally the loose idea is sound, and is encapsulated in Integrated Information Theory ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory) for the most part.

dvdcxn 7y ago

Arguably you are consciously observing by viewing the output of the RNG

ajuc 7y ago
But I can record that screen on another camera and look at that recording the next month :) Are we now also assuming causality can go both ways in time :) ? Or am I changing the recording the moment I look at it :) ? It's such a stupid theory :)
- stale2002 7y ago
  No, the camera that you observe 1 month later would be in a quantum state, until you actually observe it. The "recording" would be in multiple states until you observe the recording.
  - ajuc 7y ago
    Except when we do the experiment in the real world we can't keep the quantum superposition for macroscopic objects from collapsing and now we're claiming it just happens because we don't know the answer. That's the difference between declaring entangled photons be in superposition and declaring a tossed coin being in superposition because I covered it with my hand without looking. One is state of the universe, the other is my lack of knowledge. But sure - we can go on declaring everything entangled all the way up. Then we declare that the whole universe except the conscious observer is in a superposition of states until the observer decides to observe it or not. The problem with that is that I'm a part of the universe and I have no proof that I have a free will independent of everything else. It just feels like it :) So assuming everything waits for me to decide seems very self-centered and unjustified by the evidence as opposed to everything happening when it happens and my decision being predetermined like everything else.
    - stale2002 7y ago
      > Except when we do the experiment in the real world we can't keep the quantum superposition for macroscopic objects from collapsing No. You don't actually know that. Because the act of you "observing" this macroscopic object, could be the cause of this object collapsing. So the macroscopic object that collapsed could be due the fact that you have observed it. > One is state of the universe You have no way of knowing the state of the universe, unless you have observed it. So if you are ever looking at any state of the universe, it is observed and has already collapsed. > Then we declare that the whole universe except the conscious observer is in a superposition of states until the observer decides to observe it or not. Yep that's the theory. > I have no proof that I have a free will independent Yes, that could be true as well. > seems very self-centered and unjustified So, here we get to the Crux of the matter. No matter where we say that the wave "collapses", it is all unfalsifiable. It could be that the observes collapses it. It could be that it was collapsed once it had any interactions with a photon or the smallest microscopic particle. Or, as you pointed out, it could be that the universe has never collapsed, and the whole universe is in a super position right now. And all of these positions are equally unfalsifiable. There IS no justification that any of these are correct, and there is no way of saying which is more justified. So, yes, it is unjustified. But it is just as unjustified as any other collapse theory. It is a fools errand to give arguments as for why one collapse theory is worse or better than any others, and they are all equally unfalsifiable.

notfed 7y ago

But, you’re forgetting that the output of the random number generator doesn’t exist until you observe it.

ajuc 7y ago
How do you know that? Does the face a coin landed on when I tossed it with closed eyes exists before I open my eyes? If yes - how is that different? I can use a coin thrower for my RNG.

buboard 7y ago

The quantum eraser does that, and it s far more strange https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_erase...