Collapse of the wave function.

[Hamish McPanji]

The ultra pseudo skeptic Wiki has been discussed to death and I have no wish to repeat it here.
As to Obama, I don't think he has contributed anything to science. We are talking SCIENCE here and not politics.

Not all of Wikipedia is of the same level, so discounting the entire site shows you display the same level of bias as that which you accuse it of.

Do you still maintain that not having a Nobel prize means you really haven't contributed to science? Do you have one perchance, and if not, why should we actually take anything you say to mean anything of value?

Actually by the same Nobel measure that you seem to use to measure a usefulness of a scientist, which of the sources you have quoted that support these theories actually have Nobel prizes. Was interesting that in your OP , you failed to provide a source and "one professor observed...." Blah blah blah , doesn't quite cut it

 

[Xarog]

You have obviously made up your mind regarding what you want to believe, who am I to try and convince you otherwise.

Au contraire. I am not speaking to any particular actuality, merely possibilities. What argument do you have to exclude the possibility of this alternative being true?

I have provided some reading meterial that could possibility counter your view and that is far as I'm willing to take it.

You have not. There is absolutely nothing in the wiki links which precludes the possibility that is being offered here.

I will leave you though with this question.

The instrument one would use to detect /measure partical waves. How would it work?

Do you even know what you are saying here?

Quantum mechanics describes all matter and energy in terms of wave particles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality

What we are discussing is not the existence of this thing, we are discussing the nature of this thing. In other words, what it is. The notion that it exists is completely uncontroverisal.

Similar to a microscope or the eye maybe? Would it gather information based on light (photons) that bounces of and object? Is it not the only way we have of observing the world. Could it be the emit of photons from your instrument could possible cause an interference on the partical wave? Could that mean that there will always be a level of "uncertainty" regarding real-time posistions of a particals? If there is no way of observing the current state of a partical, how would one claim that something like thought could influence it?

 

[Xarog]

Yet throwing out information as biased without even bothering to consider it is just as stupid.

Who said he didn't consider it? There's more than enough evidence to suggest that the conclusion is very considered. Not least of all the accusation of unreasonable skepticism.

http://www.deanradin.com/papers/Physics Essays Radin final.pdf

If you know of any criticism of the experiment itself, let me know. A vague opinion derived from information available on Wikipedia isn't going to cut it here.

And having "a degree in this stuff" does not actually mean you have a sensible and sound approach towards something. I have met and equal amount of educated and uneducated idiots in many fields

Exactly. And there's a large proportion of scientists which learn science in a dogmatic fashion and behave like religious zealots towards anything which challenges their orthodoxy. It's really tedious having to deal with arguments based in those motivations and it happens in science all the time.

All the proof you will need of that can be found in the discussion section of the news story about dark matter which I made a thread about.

Wikipedia is generally ruled by hive mind. All information available on it should be scrutunised with this in mind.

 

[Xarog]

Good point Xarog. NoLogic has no science background and does not know that QM scientist have little understanding of QM and now I get told I have no understanding. I do not but if she/he (avatar suspicious) has then he/she should tell the world and explain how it works.

My personal take on it is this and bear in mind that science does not need "proof" as it is only used in mathematics and alcohol. In science it is all about "strength of evidence or sigma".

It is not the "measurement" but the "information". We may perhaps live in a reality of information. Once we have the information of where the photon was at the slits in our reality, it HAS to remain as a particle IN OUR REALITY.

Take awhile and think it through.

Actually, this probably deserves a response too.

I've thought along very similar lines in the past.

I have a slightly different take on it, though, and that is: How did nature solve the travelling salesman problem?

But you are absolutely right, ultimately there is no meaningful distinction between "reality" and "information"; the two concepts are inherently the same thing. In order for reality to make sense, the different pieces of information must be able to communicate with each other. That is what the confinement is about; creating a definite relative relationship between the two so that they know with absolute certainty their relative positions towards each other. Thus how entangled quantum states "touch" each other. Reality is merely the amalgamation of these contact points.

 

[konfab]

If you know of any criticism of the experiment itself, let me know. A vague opinion derived from information available on Wikipedia isn't going to cut it here.

Our brains produce a measureable amount of electromagnetic activity, as in the energy that it radiates is enough to trigger a sensor. Since electromagnetic waves are discrete packets at quantum levels, you cannot have an arbitrarily soft measurement activity, which means that the amount of energy that the brain radiates is enough to change the outcome of the experiment.

Now the level of energy our brains radiate is correlated to different tasks they have to perform and the intensity they perform them at ( look at an F-MRI). So we have some control over our brains' energy output.

So it doesn't surprise me that someone changing their concentration levels on a task can influence the outcome of an experiment where the mere act of looking at it can change the outcome.

 

[Xarog]

Our brains produce a measureable amount of electromagnetic activity, as in the energy that it radiates is enough to trigger a sensor. Since electromagnetic waves are discrete packets at quantum levels, you cannot have an arbitrarily soft measurement activity, which means that the amount of energy that the brain radiates is enough to change the outcome of the experiment.

Now the level of energy our brains radiate is correlated to different tasks they have to perform and the intensity they perform them at ( look at an F-MRI). So we have some control over our brains' energy output.

So it doesn't surprise me that someone changing their concentration levels on a task can influence the outcome of an experiment where the mere act of looking at it can change the outcome.

Indeed. But if you look at the experiment they did use some strong EM-shielding techniques too.

What you are suggesting, imo, is that conscious thought is capable of generating non-local EM fields of a measurable strength.

 

[Bobbin]

And as much as I haven't bothered to look at the specifics of this claim, the idea that consciousness can affect things at a great distance is really not all that remarkable once you accept that non-locality seems to be a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics.

In what way does consciousness, a system of association of ones self with the environment, affect some photon - an entirely different system - meters or more away without any cause for influence? At best it might only affect one's perception of reality - but not reality itself.

Particularly as consciousness is at or near a "layer of decisiveness" - if you will. And I simply cannot wish a bucket of popcorn to appear in front of me.

I'm sorry but this concept that you put out, if true, is extremely remarkable to me

PS: Not saying (by proxy of the OP/article) you're wrong - it just goes against everything I think is logical at this point in my limited capacity I still stubbornly hold that classical mechanics can explain the mind and every decision it makes, conscious or not. (And I'm sceptical of the quantum mind).

 

[Xarog]

In what way does consciousness, a system of association of ones self with the environment, affect some photon - an entirely different system - meters or more away without any cause for influence? At best it might only affect one's perception of reality - but not reality itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_nonlocality

Do you realise that quantum entanglement implies the existence of non-locality? And not merely non-locality over space, but time (i.e. spacetime) too.

Particularly as consciousness is at or near a "layer of decisiveness" - if you will. And I simply cannot wish a bucket of popcorn to appear in front of me.

And yet you apparently have free will and are able to influence the environment around you to some degree. What is to say that some element of that isn't really an expression of a quantum-superposed state?

I'm sorry but this concept that you put out, if true, is extremely remarkable to me

That's fine, many people find it to be counter-intuitive at first.

PS: Not saying you're wrong - it just goes against everything I think is logical at this point in my limited capacity I still stubbornly hold that classical mechanics can explain the mind.

Why?

Edit: https://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits/

The fact of the matter is that quantum logic represents a kind of information processing that is orders of magnitude more efficient than a classical logic system could ever hope to match. At this point I think the chances that evolution did not manage to utilise this resource is pretty much close to 0%.

 

[Bobbin]

And yet you apparently have free will and are able to influence the environment around you to some degree. What is to say that some element of that isn't really an expression of a quantum-superposed state?

Hehehe. I also do not believe in free will at all. But this will go off topic I'm afraid

Why?

On classical mechanics explaining the mind... Are you asking why I choose to believe it or why I think it is true?

My answer to the former is because it keeps things simple. And if expanded upon could reveal further interesting discoveries and applications without over complicating it. If we are truly this easy to understand then we might achieve greater discoveries via application of a much simpler theory - which oddly many people instinctively choose not to believe in my experience - and also skew the understanding of.

My answer to the latter is that I have no certainty that it is true but I also have no evidence to the contrary as I've been quite comfortable explaining every behavior and decision making process of an individual as influenced by internal or external factors only (No random processes or free will required). It isn't proof but it at least shows a non-dependence on a rudimentary level which is good enough to work on until proven false.

I am but a layman with an opinion and nothing more so think little of it

PS: I hope Occam's razor works in my favor here - Classical mechanics has far fewer assumptions.

 

[Xarog]

Hehehe. I also do not believe in free will at all. But this will go off topic I'm afraid

On classical mechanics explaining the mind... Are you asking why I choose to believe it or why I think it is true?

My answer to the former is because it keeps things simple. And if expanded upon could reveal further interesting discoveries and applications without over complicating it. If we are truly this easy to understand then we might achieve greater discoveries via application of a much simpler theory - which oddly many people instinctively choose not to believe in my experience - and also skew the understanding of.

My answer to the latter is that I have no certainty that it is true but I also have no evidence to the contrary as I've been quite comfortable explaining every behavior and decision making process of an individual as influenced by internal or external factors only (No random processes or free will required). It isn't proof but it at least shows a non-dependence on a rudimentary level which is good enough to work on until proven false.

I am but a layman with an opinion and nothing more so think little of it

I was mostly interested in what argument you would present in favour of a brain explained via classical processes.

There's no proof that quantum processes are in any way random. That is merely an assumption derived from the fact that we cannot observe a pattern. And yet, the way that wave-particles interact with themselves when they are in a state of superposition can still be manipulated such that mathematical calculations can be done.

Which is to say that I believe the real story is far more complicated than what our mathematical models can currently say.

For me, the strongest proof is just how much thinking we can get done with so little energy expended. Above all else, the human brain is energy efficient. Computation always requires energy.

 

[Bobbin]

I was mostly interested in what argument you would present in favour of a brain explained via classical processes.

There's no proof that quantum processes are in any way random. That is merely an assumption derived from the fact that we cannot observe a pattern. And yet, the way that wave-particles interact with themselves when they are in a state of superposition can still be manipulated such that mathematical calculations can be done.

Which is to say that I believe the real story is far more complicated than what our mathematical models can currently say.

For me, the strongest proof is just how much thinking we can get done with so little energy expended. Above all else, the human brain is energy efficient. Computation always requires energy.

You already know my survival theory I think haha.

The theory is an obvious statement: The law/s governing how life started and evolved existed before life itself. Thus, like a force of gravity, these law/s control life's behavior to this day. For life vs death is, in a sense, quite binary - and thus every mechanism built on that (i.e. our brain) is likely in itself also binary or at least is governed by binary ends, whether it survives or not.

If computation could evolve physically and be granted certain needs it may ultimately and inevitably achieve efficiency. In my mind this is without a doubt, I can't actually see it any other way - but others I know will disagree

 

[konfab]

Indeed. But if you look at the experiment they did use some strong EM-shielding techniques too.

Correct. To isolate the experiment as a whole from the outside world. The person was inside the chamber...

Participants one at a time sat quietly about 2 m from the sealed optical apparatus (see Fig. 3). They were instructed not to touch or approach the device at any time. Test sessions were conducted inside a solid steel, double-walled, electromagnetically shielded chamber at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (Series 81 Solid Cell chamber, ETS Lindgren, Cedar Park, TX, USA). Electrical-line power in the chamber was conditioned through a high-performance electromagnetic interference filter (ETS-Lindgren filter LRW 1050-S1), and to further reduce potential electromagnetic interference, the optical system and computer were powered by a battery-based uninterruptable power supply. This testing chamber in its unadorned state is a rather imposing steel cube without windows, so to make it more welcoming the walls and ceiling were covered with a tan-colored muslin fabric, antistatic carpeting was installed on the floor, and comfortable furniture was placed inside the chamber

What you are suggesting, imo, is that conscious thought is capable of generating non-local EM fields of a measurable strength.

That is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that the brain radiates energy, and that energy is enough to disturb an experiment designed to show quantum effects from happening.

 

[Xarog]

Correct. To isolate the experiment as a whole from the outside world. The person was inside the chamber...




That is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that the brain radiates energy, and that energy is enough to disturb an experiment designed to show quantum effects from happening.

Fair enough.

I wonder what would happen if they put a second shield in.

 

[Xarog]

You already know my survival theory I think haha.

The theory is an obvious statement: The law/s governing how life started and evolved existed before life itself. Thus, like a force of gravity, these law/s control life's behavior to this day. For life vs death is, in a sense, quite binary - and thus every mechanism built on that (i.e. our brain) is likely in itself also binary or at least is governed by binary ends, whether it survives or not.

If computation could evolve physically and be granted certain needs it may ultimately and inevitably achieve efficiency. In my mind this is without a doubt, I can't actually see it any other way - but others I know will disagree

Quantum 0 and quantum 1 can store more information than classical 1 and classical 0. That's the only point I feel must be made explicit.

 

[Bobbin]

Quantum 0 and quantum 1 can store more information than classical 1 and classical 0. That's the only point I feel must be made explicit.

qbits are waaay above my pay grade I have no understanding of it yet.

 

[konfab]

I wonder what would happen if they put a second shield in.

Nothing.

 

[Oopsie]

Human-Machine Anomalies

The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) programme flourished for nearly three decades under the aegis of Princeton University’s School of Engineering and Applied Science.

It was a programme to enable better understanding of the role of consciousness in the establishment of physical reality.

The lab has now shut down as the anomaly has been confirmed by thousands of experiments over 30 years and there have been numerous papers submitted on this phenomenon. There is no longer a need to continue.

Science is advancing rapidly and we should all embrace it but not to disregard classical materialistic science of sticks and balls totally as each has merits. The number of science students studying for PhD's in Parapsychology and Quantum Biology is increasing rapidly as it is no longer looked upon as a woo woo subject. Except for James Wales and his type.

Here is a link to the PEAR Institute. Watch the short video on the RHS.
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/

 

[Nirv]

Some further reading:

https://briankoberlein.com/2015/06/04/real-and-unreal/

 

[Oopsie]

Some further reading:

https://briankoberlein.com/2015/06/04/real-and-unreal/

Good article but what I do not agree with and my thoughts on it are not my own but the fundamental phenomena of QM. At the end it states this:
"While that might seem strange, it isn’t magical or mystical. The Moon wouldn’t vanish from existence if everyone closed their eyes, and reality isn’t dependent upon us observing it".

The moon has already been observed to be there in our reality and as such it has to remain as matter in our reality regardless if we now all close our eyes or not. It has been detected already.
Perhaps it was not worded correctly to attune to the whole article.

 

[etienne_marais]

Oopsie, you need to understand that the actof observing/ measuring/ detecting causes the interference. It is really as simple as that.

The "uncertainty principle" is one of the fundamental laws of quatum mechanics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Also, if you are uncomfortable with Wikipedia as reference I suggest you read A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking.

He has some real insight on the matter.

So it is the act and not the consciousness behind it. If an experiment was set up where electronics repeatedly/continuously do measurements and the scientist go on a long holiday forgetting the experiment, do the electronics qualify as the act of observance/measurement and thus causing a collapse ?