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

[atanu]

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

Is it not relevant? Eventually, all observations entail knowing in some or other form. I think your confusion is due to your holding on to the notion that 'consciousness' means 'manifest consciousness of humans'. I have discussed several times that I understand consciousness as 'ability to discern' and also manifest knowledge.

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......

Yes. The notion that self is in a body is indeed an illusion created by brain. But you should not ignore what Pual actually says about 'observer'.

01:25
an observer is a system that has internal states that can process information from the world around about and then act on that information that is the behavior of that system will be modified according to these internal states and for me the critical thing that I would add to that is easy internal states have to include a representation of the observer itself....​

The point is that although physicists do not agree on nature of the 'observer', you cannot ignore the fact that an observer needs to process information and act so as to cause changes. It is easy (and foolish) to show such a process in a thermostat and deny 'intelligence'. But behind a thermostat exists the human intelligence. What intelligence is there behind the quantum collapse?

If you are not agreeable to Paul Davies, you can hear to Seth Loyd, who despite being a much more a physicalist yet articulates the view that we do not understand how QM works to give us a macroscopic world that we see around us.

What are Observers? | Closer to Truth

 

[Polymath257]

Is it not relevant? Eventually, all observations entail knowing in some or other form. I think your confusion is due to your holding on to the notion that 'consciousness' means 'manifest consciousness of humans'. I have discussed several times that I understand consciousness as 'ability to discern' and also manifest knowledge.

In that case a photodetector is conscious. And computers are conscious.

Since they can be 'observers' in the quantum mechanics sense, that at least is consistent.

 

[atanu]

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.

Yes, I understand that. Probably we voted on the same side on this poll. Yet we differ on nature of observer. However, in my opinion, you allow your physicalist belief to shut off the possibility that 'discernment competence' is inherent in the existence. I think that QM points to this, although I do not need QM for this. Whatever I know directly or through report is known in consciousness, which is non local.

 

[atanu]

In that case a photodetector is conscious. And computers are conscious.

Since they can be 'observers' in the quantum mechanics sense, that at least is consistent.

Yes. Why not? Human intelligence is behind a computer. What is behind quantum collapse?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In that case a photodetector is conscious. And computers are conscious.

Since they can be 'observers' in the quantum mechanics sense, that at least is consistent.

One of the problems, not from a physics point of view, of quantum mechanics is that the results all but invite a "woo" point of view from those that have no understanding of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. Why not? Humn intelligence is behind a computer. What is behind quantum collapse?

An interaction.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes. Why not? Humn intelligence is behind a computer. What is behind quantum collapse?

According to decoherence theory, it is interaction with a sufficiently complicated external system.

This is technically important in our attempts to create quantum computers. Entangled states are *very* delicate and will be disrupted by almost any interaction.

I'm not sure how humans being 'behind' computers allows for a transfer of consciousness. You have mentioned something like this before. If I program a computer to detect and act, it is not *my* consciousness that detects and acts.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, I understand that. Probably we voted on the same side on this poll.

Yes, I suspect we did. Even though Albert is winning in the poll, he was quite wrong. In particular, his intuitions about the universe were incorrect when it comes to quantum scale phenomena.

Yet we differ on nature of observer. However, in my opinion, you allow your physicalist belief to shut off the possibility that 'discernment competence' is inherent in the existence. I think that QM points to this, although I do not need QM for this. Whatever I know directly or through report is known in consciousness, which is non local.

Well, the phrase 'discernment competence' seems to be strange in context. But I *do* accept that what a thing *is* is defined by how it *interacts*. And it is through interaction that detection is done. If you regard every interaction as a detection (which is a stretch, but a plausible one) and all such to be 'discernment', then that *is* inherent in existence.

I just don't see that as 'consciousness'.

 

[Audie]

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?

Ya proved the stopped-clock theory of correctness
frequency!

 

[WalterTrull]

So am I writing to myself?

Maybe. "Self" could be a pretty big word.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Ya proved the stopped-clock theory of correctness
frequency!

Don’t be mean! (Is this your nature?)

It’s way more than twice a day.

 

[Polymath257]

Ya proved the stopped-clock theory of correctness
frequency!

that a clock that loses 1 second a month will only be correct once every 7200 years?

 

[ecco]

One of the problems, not from a physics point of view, of quantum mechanics is that the results all but invite a "woo" point of view from those that have no understanding of it.

There is a lot of that going round.

Brain cells are made of atoms, therefore, since Suns contain atoms they can communicate with each other.

I'll bet they were doing that long before man observed them doing it.



Just a thought on the flipside: If no third party observed my mother and father having intercourse, does that mean I do not exist? Does my existence mean that they were being watched?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just a thought on the flipside: If no third party observed my mother and father having intercourse, does that mean I do not exist? Does my existence mean that they were being watched?

So if some sick pervert was not spying on your parents you do not exist? Hmm, that could cause me to rethink the laws making being a peeping Tom illegal.

 

[Audie]

Don’t be mean! (Is this your nature?)

It’s way more than twice a day.

Is it yours, to go straight into a character attack when someone
attempts to agree with you, however dim the humour
may look to narrowed eyes?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Is it yours, to go straight into a character attack when someone
attempts to agree with you, however dim the humour
may look to narrowed eyes?

Lol!
What a funny way to agree, by inferring I’m rarely correct.
It was mean.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Ahh the poor snowflake. If I felt like being "mean"
it would not take sensitive instruments to detect it

But whatevs.

None of us doubt that your views are the sole and
exclusive product of your ideology, so keep it.

I really rile you, don’t I?! “Sole and exclusive product” of my “ideology”?
It is shared by many.

Take care of yourself, my cousin.

 

[Audie]

I really rile you, don’t I?! “Sole and exclusive product” of my “ideology”?
It is shared by many.

Take care of yourself, my cousin.

Obviously you ideologs are thick as hair on a dogs back,
and of course it informs your groupthink.

But you are the one being so sensitive. I was so mean.
Poor darlin'. It wasnt your team of benighted unfortunates,
it's just you being the 'flake.

Rile? Really that debate tactic is so moldy, it sad to see
anyone use it.

There is no way I could take you seriously on anything anyway
after seeing your "flash frozen mammoth" et all,
so sorry-ah, you lack any capacity to rile me. Vaguely
amusing is about it, if I am feeling expansive.

 

[Steven Merten]

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.

Hello Polymath,
Do you have any, scientific, experimentally proven, proof on your 'macroscopic' 'realism' philosophy? For Quantum Mechanics scientists, the verdict has still not been established. QM scientists are up to 800 atom molecules being sent through the double slit experiment, and even molecules the size of 800 atoms, still switch to wave form, when not observed/measured. Presently there is no scientifically proven 'macroscopic', 'realism', threshold in sight.
'

What Does Quantum Theory Actually Tell Us about Reality?​

Neither do so-called collapse theories, which argue that wavefunctions collapse randomly: the more the number of particles in the quantum system, the more likely the collapse. Observers merely discover the outcome. Markus Arndt’s team at the University of Vienna in Austria has been testing these theories by sending larger and larger molecules through the double slit. Collapse theories predict that when particles of matter become more massive than some threshold, they cannot remain in a quantum superposition of going through both slits at once, and this will destroy the interference pattern. Arndt’s team has sent a molecule with more than 800 atoms through the double slit, and they still see interference. The search for the threshold continues.

Quoted from:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-does-quantum-theory-actually-tell-us-about-reality/

​

 

[atanu]

I just don't see that as 'consciousness'.

Well. To me, an observer system that has internal states that can process information from the world around, act on that information, and modify it’s behavior, indicates consciousness.

And any study of that system must include a representation of the observer itself.