177 replies to this topic

[bmk1245]

Proponents of quantum mysticism claim that conscious choice during observation is a necessity for collapse of wavefunction (simpler - consciousness causes collapse), and whats more - experiments "did proved that". Well, you can find paper on delayed-choice experiment here: Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment, V.Jacques et al. Science 315, 966 (2007)(subscription required) with supporting online material (free), or on arxiv.org

I just want to highlight most essential parts in question:

Quote

[...] To ensure space-like separation between the entrance of the photon into the interferometer and
the choice of the interferometer configuration, the applied voltage on the EOM is randomly
chosen in real time, using a Quantum Random Number Generator (QRNG) located at the output
of the interferometer.[...]

Quote

[...] The random number is generated
by sampling the amplified shot noise of a
white-light beam. Shot noise is an intrinsic
quantum random process, and its value at a
given time cannot be predicted (23). [...]

Quote

[...] The delayed-choice experiment itself is
performed with the EOM randomly switched
for each photon sent into the interferometer,
corresponding to a random choice between the
open and closed configurations. [...]

Quote

[...] All
raw data were saved in real time and were processed
only after a run was completed. [...]

We even can change experiment in the way that all equipment would be powered-on/off by some random process, with experimenters miles and miles away and not aware of when experiment would start. Recorded results would give the same effect.

So... Are proponents of quantum mysticism wrong? Apparently, big YES.

[Rlyeh]

Here is another paper

http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3977


If the Delayed Choice Experiments prove consciousness causes collapse, the researchers clearly forgot to make any reference of it.

Edit: Ofcourse it depends on the interpretation accepted, there are much better interpretations that don't invoke the solipsistic silliness of consciousness causes collapse.

Edited by Rlyeh, 06 April 2012 - 06:55 PM.

[Seeker79]

You guys still don't get it. It dosnt matter how many random processes you throw into the experiment to observe or not observe, the experimenter still had to make a choice to observe... It dosnt matter how they made that choice. Without the choice there is no collapse. Reguardless of how you organize the events ( prooven) yes even if choices are made after the experiment has been done, there still was a concouse choice.

Let me say that again. The present reality of the experiment is determined by actions in the future. This completely eliminates the possability of a piece of equipment or detectors from affecting the experiment. That was the reason the experiment was designed that way in the first place.

I can choose to observe if a coin falls on heads or tails or if a robot programed to do so for me while I'm on planet x in the m81 galaxy. The crux of the matter and the end of tge argument is that it still was the experimenter ( or rather the designer of the "random" process ) that made the choice. It is impossible to truely eliminate a concouse choice working through the integration and results of tge experiment.

Paragraph 3 In supporting online information is where this problem, bias, and frankly sublevel thinking occurs. ( I would have quoted it but my iPhone won't let me select it )

They are using a quantum number generator that generates a one or a zero. They don't say wether a 1 or a 0 makes the choice to determin the path of the photon or not.... And they don't have to.... You see the choice is not random at all. The person that made the CHOICE to observe on a one or a zero is where the choice was made. Presumably during programming. Remember in the delayed choice WHEN the choice is made is IMMATERIAL. This simply stretches the choice to the point of when some programer DECIDED  for the experiment to do one thing on 1 or another on zero.

If I strap you to chair on the other side of the earth  and I program a firearm into a quantum random number generator to shoot on 1 or not on 0. Then I take the enterprise to a new galaxy. If the generator generates a 1 and you die. I am still guilty of murder. Indeed it was my choice that killed you on 1 or saved you on 0.

How these smart people miss things like this is beyond me. But my friend Landry would say it's their BIAS and I would agree. You cannot take "choice" out of the experiment , it's part of the name even. Therefore you cannot eliminate concousness.

The verdict is in folks. It dosn't matter when or where the observation is made, space and time have nothing to do with it. Material exists in space and time. These experiments show that the fundamental collapse of what we call reality is immaterial.

Edited by Seeker79, 07 April 2012 - 11:06 PM.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 06 April 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

Here is another paper

http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3977


If the Delayed Choice Experiments prove consciousness causes collapse, the researchers clearly forgot to make any reference of it.

Edit: Ofcourse it depends on the interpretation accepted, there are much better interpretations that don't invoke the solipsistic silliness of consciousness causes collapse.

I was glad that paper stuck with quantum mechanics without introducing all that backwards in time pressure wave crap.

The say their interpretation is constant with quantum mechanics and quantum mechanics is consistant with quantum mechanics is consistent with quantum mysticism. So there are no problems. I doubt they are right, as you stated their are many other interpretations... And we all know they can't all be right ( I beleive that is a common argument against RELIGON).

There is a reason that paper did not touch on concousness

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 07 April 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

You guys still don't get it. It dosnt matter how many random processes you throw into the experiment to observe or not observe, the experimenter still had to make a choice to observe...

Read it again, thats not the choice.

Quote

There is a reason that paper did not touch on concousness.

Because it doesn't support it. Collapse occurs without conscious observation.

Quote

How these smart people miss things like this is beyond me. But my friend Landry would say it's their BIAS and I would agree. You cannot take "choice" out of the experiment , it's part of the name even. Therefore you cannot eliminate concousness.

Obviously consciousness and choice is required to set up the experiment, but thats no different to any other.

Bias? That's fresh coming from you, both you and Landry adamantly deny the experiment set up, Landry even deletes responses that challenges her misconceptions.

Can you do what Landry is unwilling or unable, support your premise that "consciousness causes collapse" with credible research? And I'm not talking about youtube videos.

Edited by Rlyeh, 08 April 2012 - 06:14 AM.

[bmk1245]

Seeker79, on 07 April 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

You guys still don't get it. It dosnt matter how many random processes you throw into the experiment to observe or not observe, the experimenter still had to make a choice to observe... It dosnt matter how they made that choice. Without the choice there is no collapse. Reguardless of how you organize the events ( prooven) yes even if choices are made after the experiment has been done, there still was a concouse choice.

Let me say that again. The present reality of the experiment is determined by actions in the future. This completely eliminates the possability of a piece of equipment or detectors from affecting the experiment. That was the reason the experiment was designed that way in the first place.

I can choose to observe if a coin falls on heads or tails or if a robot programed to do so for me while I'm on planet x in the m81 galaxy. The crux of the matter and the end of tge argument is that it still was the experimenter ( or rather the designer of the "random" process ) that made the choice. It is impossible to truely eliminate a concouse choice working through the integration and results of tge experiment.

Paragraph 3 In supporting online information is where this problem, bias, and frankly sublevel thinking occurs. ( I would have quoted it but my iPhone won't let me select it )

They are using a quantum number generator that generates a one or a zero. They don't say wether a 1 or a 0 makes the choice to determin the path of the photon or not.... And they don't have to.... You see the choice is not random at all. The person that made the CHOICE to observe on a one or a zero is where the choice was made. Presumably during programming. Remember in the delayed choice WHEN the choice is made is IMMATERIAL. This simply stretches the choice to the point of when some programer DECIDED  for the experiment to do one thing on 1 or another on zero.

If I strap you to chair on the other side of the earth  and I program a firearm into a quantum random number generator to shoot on 1 or not on 0. Then I take the enterprise to a new galaxy. If the generator generates a 1 and you die. I am still guilty of murder. Indeed it was my choice that killed you on 1 or saved you on 0.

How these smart people miss things like this is beyond me. But my friend Landry would say it's their BIAS and I would agree. You cannot take "choice" out of the experiment , it's part of the name even. Therefore you cannot eliminate concousness.

The verdict is in folks. It dosn't matter when or where the observation is made, space and time have nothing to do with it. Material exists in space and time. These experiments show that the fundamental collapse of what we call reality is immaterial.

Oh boy... Following your logic, consciousness of designers, manufacturers and suppliers of equipment was causing wavefunction collapse as well. And the consciousness of experimenter's parents who decided to have kid(s) back in 19XX's, caused wavefunction collapse in 2007 experiment, too. Going further, conscious thought of our ancestor



millions of years ago caused wavefunction collapse in 2007 experiment, as well. Brilliant, just brilliant.

Bottom line, philosophical blah blahs aren't supported by experiments, as it clearly seen from detailed description of delayed-choice experiment.

[libstaK]

bmk1245, on 06 April 2012 - 02:04 PM, said:

Proponents of quantum mysticism claim that conscious choice during observation is a necessity for collapse of wavefunction (simpler - consciousness causes collapse), and whats more - experiments "did proved that". Well, you can find paper on delayed-choice experiment here: Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment, V.Jacques et al. Science 315, 966 (2007)(subscription required) with supporting online material (free), or on arxiv.org

When did "consciousness" come into it, I though the issue was that an "observer" brought different results, aka: a camera.

The "observer" did not have to have any inherent "consciousness" to affect the result as far as I could determine.
If there was any consciousness involved at all it originated from the photon - but that's just crazy

Quote

So... Are proponents of quantum mysticism wrong? Apparently, big YES.

The question of why an observer causes the wave function to collapse is still a huge mystery isn't it?

Edited by libstaK, 08 April 2012 - 10:53 AM.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 08 April 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

Read it again, thats not the choice.

Because it doesn't support it. Collapse occurs without conscious observation.

Obviously consciousness and choice is required to set up the experiment, but thats no different to any other.

Bias? That's fresh coming from you, both you and Landry adamantly deny the experiment set up, Landry even deletes responses that challenges her misconceptions.

Can you do what Landry is unwilling or unable, support your premise that "consciousness causes collapse" with credible research? And I'm not talking about youtube videos.

Don't have to. The experiment already did. What else do you want.? They have taken any interfearance by the detectors by measuring it's entangled twin, and they have shown that it dosnt matter when the measurement is made. Even the paper that you posted didn't try to deny that. What else is there to cause collapse. Not detectors. Presumably they can be in another galaxy or another century. It's the act of measuring. The concouse act... The measurement itself. Something that does not gave to be in space nor time.

[Seeker79]

bmk1245, on 08 April 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

Oh boy... Following your logic, consciousness of designers, manufacturers and suppliers of equipment was causing wavefunction collapse as well. And the consciousness of experimenter's parents who decided to have kid(s) back in 19XX's, caused wavefunction collapse in 2007 experiment, too. Going further, conscious thought of our ancestor

That's quit an emotional response there. That's pretty typical, and telling

And thank you.... Although it's not my brilliance at all.

How so? Are you going to make an argument or keep pissing against the wind?

Edited by Seeker79, 08 April 2012 - 11:05 AM.

[Seeker79]

libstaK, on 08 April 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

When did "consciousness" come into it, I though the issue was that an "observer" brought different results, aka: a camera.

The "observer" did not have to have any inherent "consciousness" to affect the result as far as I could determine.
If there was any consciousness involved at all it originated from the photon - but that's just crazy

The question of why an observer causes the wave function to collapse is still a huge mystery isn't it?

Cncousness comes into it, because they can eliminate the "Camara" by observing  the entangled twin. This has a non local collapse on the entangled beam.

Now to further it, they can leave the "Camara" on, but ERASE the information it receives. "erase" is also in the name of the experiment. This shows that "Camara" has nothing to do with the wave function collapse. It's a non-local information system proofing that on the most fundamental level reality is information driven not material.

It is quite clearly the ACT of observing that causes collapse, and has nothing to do with the equipment or apparatus. Again, this is why the experiment was designed in the first place. The op would have us beleive that machines and random number generators have the ability to ACT on their own. When in fact machines and programs cannot ever truely act on their own. The choices "they" make are dictated by us. If Somone was controlling your actions, you would never consider your actions your own, it obviously would be theirs acting through you. I'm not sure, why the same logic would not aply ( oh yes denial). The only thing that we know of that makes choices are living concouse things.

Choices are concouse actions. As of yet we are the only ones that can make choices to observe or not observe, and this can clearly be done non-locally. Non-local is also immaterial because it needs neither space nor time.

No sense in trying to make the duck bark like a dog. If it quaks like a duck.,,..,,,

Concousness is a non-local phenomenon as demonstrated by the experiments.

Edited by Seeker79, 08 April 2012 - 11:46 AM.

[bmk1245]

libstaK, on 08 April 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

[...]The "observer" did not have to have any inherent "consciousness" to affect the result as far as I could determine.
[...]

But thats exactly what proponents of quantum mysticism claim.

[Seeker79]

libstaK, on 08 April 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

If there was any consciousness involved at all it originated from the photon - but that's just crazy

It does not have to originate from the photon. It's non-local, it can originate from anywhere..... Even everywhere at once

Crazy? hmmmmm sounds like a bias judgment. It's just "crazy" because it's counter intuitive and we are indoctrinated into thinking if things dont behave they way we would expect them to, something is wrong. It's our expectations that are often the problem. That's bias.

[bmk1245]

Seeker79, on 08 April 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

That's quit an emotional response there. That's pretty typical, and telling
[...]

Emotional? Nope. Just to show how absurd your claims sound.

Seeker79, on 08 April 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

[...]
How so? Are you going to make an argument or keep pissing against the wind?

Really? You claimed

Quote

The person that made the CHOICE to observe on a one or a zero is where the choice was made.

I just followed your train of thought a little bit further: person CHOSE to use THIS computer, and THAT detectors; person CHOSE screws THAT and not THOSE. Someone in the past come-up with THAT architecture of CPU in experimenter's computers and THAT shape of screws in their equipment, etc, etc, etc, etc down to "I ******* love this stick!" If you'll say I'm wrong here, then your logic of The person that made the CHOICE to observe on a one or a zero is where the choice was made. is... wrong. Simple.

Edit to add: simple inverter would change 0 to 1, without any effect on results of experiment.

Edited by bmk1245, 08 April 2012 - 12:12 PM.

[Seeker79]

bmk1245, on 08 April 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

But thats exactly what proponents of quantum mysticism claim.

Yes... No observation has ever or ever will not have consciousness behind it. At best the materialist should be arguing that inteligent beings are the only things  that can perform experiments, so of course we cannot eliminate ourselves. But we have managed to boil everything out so that the only thing left is observation itself. Well what observes?

[libstaK]

Seeker79, on 08 April 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

It does not have to originate from the photon. It's non-local, it can originate from anywhere..... Even everywhere at once

Crazy? hmmmmm sounds like a bias judgment. It's just "crazy" because it's counter intuitive and we are indoctrinated into thinking if things dont behave they way we would expect them to, something is wrong. It's our expectations that are often the problem. That's bias.

I don't think it is a bias, I think it is illogical.  The point of a scientific experiment is to produce results that are logical.  Hence the term "observer" not "consciousness in the experiment.

I do not "disagree" with the possibilities you present (they provide food for thought) I simply do not believe that the point of the experiment was to make any conclusions about the nature of consciousness.  The point appears to be to note that "observation" invariably causes a collapse of the wave function.  Fact is science does not know why this is so but it has had a profound effect on the scientific method - the observer appears to require consideration when extrapolating results.

Crazy is a term well used in the results of many quantum experiments and many of it's theories - not as a bias against but as a profound statement of the complete lack of material logic in the results.  The experiment could be repeated a thousand times (possibly has) and the results would still instill the notion that they are "crazy" based on what science knows of the cause of the phenomena to date.