Proven Science says there is No Universe without Conscious Man to Observe it.

[Polymath257]

Your affiliation to certain ism makes you biased and unable to comprehend that 'information' is not conscious of itself.

Did I ever say it was? Why do you think this is relevant to the double slit experiment?

I will rather that readers listen to a physicist.

As he even notes, his views on this are rather controversial. I'd also point out that he says that the 'self' is created by the brain. Hmmm......

 

[Thief]

Did I ever say it was? Why do you think this is relevant to the double slit experiment?



As he even notes, his views on this are rather controversial. I'd also point out that he says that the 'self' is created by the brain. Hmmm......

nay.....life experiences deal to your spirit

you think you would be the same......in another body?

 

[ecco]

Your affiliation to certain ism makes you biased and unable to comprehend that 'information' is not conscious of itself.

I will rather that readers listen to a physicist.

I listened to two minutes and was completely bored. Perhaps you could summarize his viewpoints or fund something he wrote.

I also noted that he was affiliated with The University of Arizona. For some reason, that facility is home to a lot of kooky profs.

 

[WalterTrull]

Sorry, I didn't read all 13 pages of this. I like to blame age for laziness - convenient. 2 cents burning a hole.

universe does not exist without conscious man to observe it.

The ticklish part for me is the "conscious man" bit. I'm an adherent of the "mental universe" theory and of the role consciousness plays. I believe the universe, God, and man exist. What I have yet to clearly discern is “as what” and the relationships. There are hints, but it seems I’m a bit slow. I can get on board with the concept if an evolving God, however.

 

[Steven Merten]

You see, to observe requires some sort of interaction. So, when you try to observe an electron, you send a photon at it and see how that photon bounces off. In order for that photon to give 'which way' information, it needs to have a small wavelength, but that means it has a high energy, which affects the electron more. When the energy is high enough to distinguish between the two slits, the amount of interaction with the electron is enough to destroy the interference pattern.

Hello Polymath,
Where did you get your photons from?

Do you agree that photons are in a superposition state, wave state, before conscious man looks at them, as well as electrons, protons and neutrons?

What Does Quantum Theory Actually Tell Us about Reality?​

In the modern quantum form, Young’s experiment involves beaming individual particles of light or matter at two slits or openings cut into an otherwise opaque barrier. On the other side of the barrier is a screen that records the arrival of the particles (say, a photographic plate in the case of photons). Common sense leads us to expect that photons should go through one slit or the other and pile up behind each slit. They don’t.

The measurement—in this case the interaction of the wave function with the photographic plate—is said to “collapse” the wave function. It goes from being spread out before measurement to peaking at one of those places where the photon materializes upon measurement.

quoted from:
What Does Quantum Theory Actually Tell Us about Reality?

​

 

[Polymath257]

Hello Polymath,
Where did you get your photons from?

Do you agree that photons are in a superposition state, wave state, before conscious man looks at them, as well as electrons, protons and neutrons?

What Does Quantum Theory Actually Tell Us about Reality?​

In the modern quantum form, Young’s experiment involves beaming individual particles of light or matter at two slits or openings cut into an otherwise opaque barrier. On the other side of the barrier is a screen that records the arrival of the particles (say, a photographic plate in the case of photons). Common sense leads us to expect that photons should go through one slit or the other and pile up behind each slit. They don’t.

The measurement—in this case the interaction of the wave function with the photographic plate—is said to “collapse” the wave function. It goes from being spread out before measurement to peaking at one of those places where the photon materializes upon measurement.

quoted from:
What Does Quantum Theory Actually Tell Us about Reality?

​

I was talking about the electron version of the double slit experiment, where the interference pattern disappears when it becomes possible to detect 'which slit' information by interacting with photons.

Yes, 'common sense' is useless when talking about quantum mechanics. The facts are just not amenable to classical intuitions.

But, it *is* possible to get *new* intuitions, trained by quantum phenomena, and understand what happens based on those. Consciousness is NOT the key here. Interaction with a system capable of distinguishing 'which slit' information is.

 

[Polymath257]

I will rather that readers listen to a physicist.

I would note that I am trained in physics. I don't have a PhD in physics (although I do in math), but have passed the PhD level qualifying exams in it. In particular, quantum mechanics is one of the central topics tested upon.

 

[ratiocinator]

Hello Polymath,
Where did you get your photons from?

Do you agree that photons are in a superposition state, wave state, before conscious man looks at them, as well as electrons, protons and neutrons?

What Does Quantum Theory Actually Tell Us about Reality?​

In the modern quantum form, Young’s experiment involves beaming individual particles of light or matter at two slits or openings cut into an otherwise opaque barrier. On the other side of the barrier is a screen that records the arrival of the particles (say, a photographic plate in the case of photons). Common sense leads us to expect that photons should go through one slit or the other and pile up behind each slit. They don’t.

The measurement—in this case the interaction of the wave function with the photographic plate—is said to “collapse” the wave function. It goes from being spread out before measurement to peaking at one of those places where the photon materializes upon measurement.

quoted from:
What Does Quantum Theory Actually Tell Us about Reality?
​

You do realise that even the article you quote from disagrees with your statement that "photons are in a superposition state, wave state, before conscious man looks at them"?

From the same article:

But these experiments don’t constitute empirical evidence for such claims [about consciousness]. In the double-slit experiment done with single photons, all one can do is verify the probabilistic predictions of the mathematics. If the probabilities are borne out over the course of sending tens of thousands of identical photons through the double slit, the theory claims that each photon’s wave function collapsed—thanks to an ill-defined process called measurement. That’s all.

Also, there are other ways of interpreting the double-slit experiment...
​

It then goes on to outline just two of the many other possibilities, and concludes:

If nothing else, these experiments are showing that we cannot yet make any claims about the nature of reality, even if the claims are well-motivated mathematically or philosophically. And given that neuroscientists and philosophers of mind don’t agree on the nature of consciousness, claims that it collapses wave functions are premature at best and misleading and wrong at worst.​

 

[dad]

Do you agree that photons are in a superposition state, wave state, before conscious man looks at them, as well as electrons, protons and neutrons?

On earth...sure. But the reason why could be far different than you thought.

 

[Milton Platt]

Neils Bohr (Father of Quantum Theory)
"It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties"

Verses​

Albert Einstein
"I'd like to think the moon was there even when I wasn't looking at it." (Realism)
​

Science cannot claim evolution when proven science indicates that the universe does not exist without conscious man to observe it. No universe before/without conscious man, thus no evolution before conscious man.

If there was a universe five days before Adam was created, it would be a scientific miracle.

The Great Neils Bohr VS Albert Einstein Debate
on scientific Reality

There is no such thing as "proven science". Science makes observations and devises an hypothesis to explain the observations and then tests and retests the hypothesis. The hypothesis eventually will either be discarded, or modified and become a theory once confidence reaches the point that it is rational to believe the theory is correct. But all theories are subject to modification with the addition of new evidence. None of your post has anything to do with evolution.

 

[Steven Merten]

There is no such thing as "proven science". Science makes observations and devises an hypothesis to explain the observations and then tests and retests the hypothesis. The hypothesis eventually will either be discarded, or modified and become a theory once confidence reaches the point that it is rational to believe the theory is correct. But all theories are subject to modification with the addition of new evidence. None of your post has anything to do with evolution.

Neils Bohr (Father of Quantum Theory)
"It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties"

Verses​

Albert Einstein
"I'd like to think the moon was there even when I wasn't looking at it." (Realism)​

Hello Milton,
Can evolution occur in a universe which has no Quantum Particle Wave Collapse? The double slit experiment scientifically proves that conscious man, Adam and his descendants, can collapse quantum waves into physical quantum particles, through observation/measurement. Yes, once Adam and his descendants are in the universe, evolution could begin, however, Adam already being Created, when, some form of evolution begins, kind of puts a damper in what many atheist scientists consider to be evolution.

​

 

[ratiocinator]

The double slit experiment scientifically proves that conscious man, Adam and his descendants, can collapse quantum waves into physical quantum particles, through observation/measurement.

No it doesn't. As several have pointed out: there is no such thing a proving a theory in science.

The double slit experiment does not even provide provide any evidence that it is conscious observation is what is significant in the apparent "collapse" of the wave function.

Yes, once Adam and his descendants are in the universe, evolution could begin, however, Adam already being Created, when, some form of evolution begins, kind of puts a damper in what many atheist scientists consider to be evolution.

This is total nonsense for the above reason and several others too - including that evolution is not the preserve of "atheist scientists".

 

[Milton Platt]

Neils Bohr (Father of Quantum Theory)
"It is meaningless to assign Reality to the universe in the absence of observation; in the intervals between measurement, quantum systems truly exist as a fuzzy mixture of all possible properties"

Verses​

Albert Einstein
"I'd like to think the moon was there even when I wasn't looking at it." (Realism)​

Hello Milton,
Can evolution occur in a universe which has no Quantum Particle Wave Collapse? The double slit experiment scientifically proves that conscious man, Adam and his descendants, can collapse quantum waves into physical quantum particles, through observation/measurement. Yes, once Adam and his descendants are in the universe, evolution could begin, however, Adam already being Created, when, some form of evolution begins, kind of puts a damper in what many atheist scientists consider to be evolution.

​

my understanding of quantum physics is minimal. If you believe you can disprove evolution prior to the existence of homo sapiens, please present your paper to a proper journal for publication. Once your hypothesis has been tested and verified, I will be more than happy to accept the results. However, I will say that to the best of my knowledge, observation at the quantum level is not the same as observation at the macro level.
Should your hypothesis be true, however, how could man have been created? By your hypothesis, there could be absolutely nothing before there was a man to observe it... therefore no universe, and no god.

 

[Steven Merten]

my understanding of quantum physics is minimal. If you believe you can disprove evolution prior to the existence of homo sapiens, please present your paper to a proper journal for publication. Once your hypothesis has been tested and verified, I will be more than happy to accept the results. However, I will say that to the best of my knowledge, observation at the quantum level is not the same as observation at the macro level.
Should your hypothesis be true, however, how could man have been created? By your hypothesis, there could be absolutely nothing before there was a man to observe it... therefore no universe, and no god.

Hello Milton,
I would, but PBS and Neils Bohr (100 years ago), and many other scientists, beat me to it. Did you watch the PBS video, link below, on the 'Peek a Boo' universe?: A universe which does not exist when man is not looking at it. I hope you would agree that there can be no evolution, in a situation where there is no universe for evolution to take place in. The PBS video goes through this big debate between Einstein and Bohr, as to whether of not the universe exists when man is not looking at it. After one hundred years, scientists are finally being able to preform Einstein's EPR experiment, Einstein thought up to defeat Bohr and his 'Peek a Boo' universe. The experiment results did not go Einstein's way. Bohr, with his, 'the universe does not exist with out man to observe it', has become the overwhelming winner of the debate. The PBS video says that science is still clearing up a few minor possible loop holes, which could 'salvage' Einstein's 'Realism' philosophy, but it is doubtful. Please watch the PBS video and tell me what you think.

 

[Audie]

Sorry, I didn't read all 13 pages of this. I like to blame age for laziness - convenient. 2 cents burning a hole.



The ticklish part for me is the "conscious man" bit. I'm an adherent of the "mental universe" theory and of the role consciousness plays. I believe the universe, God, and man exist. What I have yet to clearly discern is “as what” and the relationships. There are hints, but it seems I’m a bit slow. I can get on board with the concept if an evolving God, however.

Why read past "proven science"?

 

[Milton Platt]

Hello Milton,
I would, but PBS and Neils Bohr (100 years ago), and many other scientists, beat me to it. Did you watch the PBS video, link below, on the 'Peek a Boo' universe?: A universe which does not exist when man is not looking at it. I hope you would agree that there can be no evolution, in a situation where there is no universe for evolution to take place in. The PBS video goes through this big debate between Einstein and Bohr, as to whether of not the universe exists when man is not looking at it. After one hundred years, scientists are finally being able to preform Einstein's EPR experiment, Einstein thought up to defeat Bohr and his 'Peek a Boo' universe. The experiment results did not go Einstein's way. Bohr, with his, 'the universe does not exist with out man to observe it', has become the overwhelming winner of the debate. The PBS video says that science is still clearing up a few minor possible loop holes, which could 'salvage' Einstein's 'Realism' philosophy, but it is doubtful. Please watch the PBS video and tell me what you think.

Yes, I have watched this. Thanks. I just don't buy your conclusion yet. If nothing can exist without a man to observe it, then nothing does exist, including a man. There could not have been a man before there was a cosmos.
Since neither you nor I actually exist, apparently, this conversation is not really happening, either.

 

[WalterTrull]

If nothing can exist without a man to observe it,

I do believe you've hit on it.

 

[Polymath257]

Hello Milton,
I would, but PBS and Neils Bohr (100 years ago), and many other scientists, beat me to it. Did you watch the PBS video, link below, on the 'Peek a Boo' universe?: A universe which does not exist when man is not looking at it. I hope you would agree that there can be no evolution, in a situation where there is no universe for evolution to take place in. The PBS video goes through this big debate between Einstein and Bohr, as to whether of not the universe exists when man is not looking at it. After one hundred years, scientists are finally being able to preform Einstein's EPR experiment, Einstein thought up to defeat Bohr and his 'Peek a Boo' universe. The experiment results did not go Einstein's way. Bohr, with his, 'the universe does not exist with out man to observe it', has become the overwhelming winner of the debate. The PBS video says that science is still clearing up a few minor possible loop holes, which could 'salvage' Einstein's 'Realism' philosophy, but it is doubtful. Please watch the PBS video and tell me what you think.

Well, quantum mechanics is well established. And it is a *local* but non-realist description. But, for macroscopic objects like the moon, there is also decoherence. And *that * restores a type of realism for macroscopic objects even if realism is violated at the atomic and subatomic scale.

But, the most consistent interpretation of QM currently is that it is non-realist and local, not the reverse.

 

[Phaedrus]

An unwatched pot still boils.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yes, I have watched this. Thanks. I just don't buy your conclusion yet. If nothing can exist without a man to observe it, then nothing does exist, including a man. There could not have been a man before there was a cosmos.
Since neither you nor I actually exist, apparently, this conversation is not really happening, either.

And apparently, I’m not even writing this.

But wait...I see this, so it exists. Wait...I don’t see you, so you don’t exist? So am I writing to myself?