Forget all the complex metaphysical arguments. It's long been a thing for disenchanted young males to conclude that life is either nihilism or solipsism. Sometimes it's just a stage. And sometimes they get stuck with there for years. It's not really possible to talk people out of these kinds of closed belief systems. Given they are largely positions of faith. Often the belief meets a need and helps them avoid personal responsibility or it's used as escape from some trauma.

I wouldn't call him a strict follower when he doesn't even use superposition in the way it is meant to. I've google both definitions of it and neither one supports his case. Superposition is when you add two states and get another state, that's it. Even in the physics examples they don't back his point.

But his only reply is "you don't understand superposition or solipsism" every single time. If you look at the replies he just name drops people but when you google it they don't truly back his points.

That's what it sounds like to me. Because most of his replies were "you just don't get it" and I told him that the inability to explain something usually means you don't understand what you're talking about. Not once does he explain his point in the whole conversation I had with him, and you can check.

He just accused me of being a naive realist, like that had anything to do with it. And kept saying my worldview wouldn't understand his explanation or "you won't get it". It was all just a bunch of dodges to avoid having to show any sort of reasoning.

:up: 'You won't get it' often means the person doesn't want to face a different worldview challenge. Ironic that you won't get it if you don't exist. You may already have won the argument. Solipsism can provide people with a kind of safety.

You might be right. He also did use "naive realism" like some kind of slur or excuse for not explaining it.

That is why I invite people to look through the thread I originally linked with my conversation about it because I can't do it justice how it was like talking to a wall.

Calling someone a naïve realist is an insult in some places. In other words holding such a view you may be seen as an unsophisticated yokel, with an untheorized, common man's erroneous understanding regarding the nature of reality. Unless you are John Searle... :razz: Of course, no matter what position you take on this philosophically, the moment you go out into the world you become a naïve realist no matter what...

Did you take a look at the conversation in Quora I linked?

Quick skim of his opening gambit. These days everyone seems to be a panpsychist. I don't sign into google or facebook.

These days everyone seems to be a panpsychist. — Tom Storm

Is that a bad thing? I think there are a whole lot more materialists. There is no difference between them. Except that materialists claim that consciousness is an illusion and panpsychists claim it's real, and material an illusion. Now who is right? I would say, both.

Superposition as used by strict followers of the Copenhagen view are a kind of solipsists too. This view is a direct, but irrefutable outcome of the rules of QM, and there is no proof it isn't right. He can always claim that the whole universe, including you, finds itself in a superimposed state. This only goes to show this is a weird view. The consequences of this view are debated and the only plausible way out are hidden variables. I suggest you use these against him.

Is that a bad thing? I think there are a whole lot more materialists. There is no difference between them. Except that materialists claim that consciousness is an illusion and panpsychists claim it's real, and material an illusion. Now who is right? I would say, both. — Raymond

I take the third option - no one fucking knows. :razz: I think I subscribe to mysterianism on consciousness (and some other issues). My point was simply it is in vogue, which is likely to mean people chose this option because it is cool not because they have thought about it.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. According to what I have read Quantum Mechanics doesn't imply solipsism at all.

No, that's usually not what it's called. But just imagine (and keep in mind it's no scientifically acclaimed and peer-reviewed forum): according to the standard way to interpret QM, as was decided by some hot shots in the field back then, a century or so ago (Einstein excluded), the only way a wavefunction collapses is because of "the observer". So if you don't look, everything and everyone is in superposition. If I don't look (observe) you and everything else exist, for me, in a superimposed state of many you's, and other you's. Regardless if yiu yourself observe or not. Which is solipsist. A solipsist denies other consciences, a superpositionist denies other wavecollapses when not looking.

But that's not really fact though right? That's just one out of MANY interpretations of it.

Also if I understand "observer" is misunderstood to mean conscious observer which it does not. It can be anything measuring it even a sensor.

But that's not really fact though right? That's just one out of MANY interpretations of it.

Also if I understand "observer" is misunderstood to mean conscious observer which it does not. It can be anything measuring it even a sensor. — TerraHalcyon

A sensor is no observer. QM says an observer is a human with the knowledge of QM measuring an outcome in an experiment. This collapses the wavefunction. Basically there are two interpretations. With and without hidden variables. The one without has evolved in a variety of a lot that are basically the same but all stumble on collapse. The only one for which collapse actually happens independently from us is the HV interpretation. You can say that the WF collapses during a sensor interaction but you can always maintain that happens only on us observing. It's a silly interpretation but it's what QM says, hence the countless and fruitless attempts to correctly interpret.

That's not true. Directly quoted from the page on an observer in QM:

"The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the "possible" to the "actual," is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory."

So it's not a person at all which renders the whole consciousness part moot. Observer seems to be the most frequently misunderstood term in QM because it implies a conscious observer when it really doesn't.

That's simply not true either. You can always look at every measuring act as caused by a conscious observer. No claim of measuring devices can contest that. Only when a conscious observer looks, the wave function collapses. That's the weird stuff about QM. I don't buy it. But therre is no one to prove it's not like that. That's the reason for dozens of interpretations. The problem of wave collapse, of measurement. Only hidden variables claim an objective collapse.

Okay I read that quora thread halfway through. The guys arguments are in conflict with each other. He says that consciousness precedes everything and is in everything. So right here he confirms he cannot be a solipsist, bcs then his mind is made of same magic dust (consciousness) as everyone else's. So he thinks there not to be a rational way of being sure that other minds exist and also holds a belief of other minds existing. But of course if you would ask him of this belief he holds, he would go into making rational arguments for it. Twisted.

Solipsism is more like a truman show type situation. How can I know people around me aren't actors?

That was directly quoted from the matter about observation on quantum systems so it's clear that observer doesn't mean conscious observer. It's just shorthand for whatever or whoever is taking measurements, which can be a computer sensor. Measuring isn't always done by a conscious observer, you're making the same mistake the general population does when they think of observer.

I did ask him about it but all he really said was that my worldview wouldn't allow me to understand his view, which is just a copout for having to actually explain it.

I told him that you can't have solipsism, even if superposition applied to it, with other minds. To say "We are solipsists in superposition" (stupid but for the sake of argument lets say it isn't) directly contradicts solipsism's claim about not knowing other minds exist. As soon as you claim knowledge of other minds it ceases to be solipsism.

The article is prejudiced? How you know the super position has collapsed without you or an observer? Here your opponent is right. You don't know. You can just state it, like in the article you linked, but the basic principles say only a conscious observer can do it.

It's just shorthand for whatever or whoever is taking measurements, which can be a computer sensor — TerraHalcyon

That's not true. The computer sensor stays in a superposition. It only collapses after a conscious act of observation. Even if someone else looks at the computer, then he is for you still in a superposition Read about Wigner's friend or Schrödinger's cat. So your friend is right in claiming that the world is in a superposition if he doesn't look. There are all kind of ways constructed to circumvent exactly what you are against, but not successfully. Many worlds, decoherence, knowledge collapse, etc. Only hidden variables offer objective collapse. So if you hold this against him, you can take him down. It's the orthodox view (the ruling view) that gave rise to it. Let the guy think what he wants. If he wants to be solipsist, just tell him that according to you he is non-existent or in any case, you can't be sure of his reality.

Except that isn't true. Trust me when I say I have asked people who do this for a living and they say consciousness has nothing to do with it. And unconscious photo detector can collapse the wave function.

Here your opponent is right. You don't know. You can just state it, like in the article you linked, but the basic principles say only a conscious observer can do it. — Raymond

Except he isn't. He isn't using superposition right because it's not applicable to solipsism. It doesn't mean either-or, it's something new entirely which is why I know he's not using it right and neither are you. I can only assume you don't have a degree in this stuff if you keep insisting consciousness has something to do with it and it doesn't. Any act of measurement will collapse it, conscious or not. You know it collapsed because the sensor tells you, so you know the result but you had no hand in it. They didn't really explain it much to me because they said it required teaching me quantum physics but suffice to say consciousness doesn't play a part. I trust them.

So your friend is right in claiming that the world is in a superposition if he doesn't look. — Raymond

He's not though because that's not what superposition is, that's another thing people misunderstand. It doesn't mean "either-or".

Many worlds, decoherence, knowledge collapse, etc. Only hidden variables offer objective collapse. So if you hold this against him, you can take him down. It's the orthodox view (the ruling view) that gave rise to it. Let the guy think what he wants. If he wants to be solipsist, just tell him that according to you he is non-existent or in any case, you can't be sure of his reality. — Raymond

Many worlds is just an interpretation not really fact. And that doesn't really stop his argument either, it would just be admitting he is right. I can only know he is wrong by definition. You can't have other minds under solipsism because they are at best uncertain. Claiming to know there are others in superposition (which by the way is wrong and he doesn't bother to explain himself) is essentially nullifying solipsism.

Not to mention taking the p-zombie thought experiment and citing it as a fact.

Actually to claim anything existing in superposition (which again isn't how you use the term) would nullify solipsism because it's acknowledging something else existing (or at the very least knowing) apart from you. So in a sense he can't have solipsism AND superposition in his argument.

Except that isn't true. Trust me when I say I have asked people who do this for a living and they say consciousness has nothing to do with it — TerraHalcyon

Of course they tell you that. I have thought about it a lot. I thought the same as you. Precisely because I don't do it for a living, I know that people who say that a measuring device measures or collapses independently of us are wrong. That's because, again, the basic interpretation says that an observer (so not a measuring device) is needed to collapse the wavefunction. Bell, in his quest for hidden variables, said he couldn't imagine that only an observer with knowledge of QM could collapse the wavefunction retroactively (in the past). Which is indeed hard to imagine, but if you stick to the rules, the measuring device stays in superposition untill measured by an observer. That's the fucked up feature of QM, and anyone claiming that the world collapses independently of us hasn't understood QM. Of course, when you work in the field, you want your collapses to exist independently of yourself. But then you silently presume hidden variables causing objective collapse (Bell's experiment allowed for the non-local hidden variables).

Actually to claim anything existing in superposition (which again isn't how you use the term) would nullify solipsism because it's acknowledging something else existing (or at the very least knowing) apart from you. So in a sense he can't have solipsism AND superposition in his argument. — TerraHalcyon

But the something existing apart from you can be said to be still in a superposition. Which means you are a kind of solipsist, denying the collapse you or I see.

That's because, again, the basic interpretation says that an observer (so not a measuring device) is needed to collapse the wavefunction. — Raymond

A measuring device is an observer.

But the something existing apart from you can be said to be still in a superposition. Which means you are a kind of solipsist, denying the collapse you or I see. — Raymond

No it can't because that isn't what existing in a superposition is. It's not either-or it's something new entirely, like a weird form of probability. You can't claim it to be in superposition because it's not at the quantum level, this stuff doesn't apply to the macro world. It's also only in very specific situations.

Of course they tell you that. I have thought about it a lot. I thought the same as you. Precisely because I don't do it for a living, I know that people who say that a measuring device measures or collapses independently of us are wrong. — Raymond

Sorry but if you don't have a degree on the stuff you don't really have business calling the guys who actually do the math right or wrong, that's why philosophy on this stuff is useless. Whether you want to admit it or not "Observer" doesn't mean what you want it to mean in QM. You're just wrong here.

Sorry but if you don't have a degree on the stuff you don't really have business calling the guys who actually do the math right or wrong, t — TerraHalcyon

How do you know I haven't got a degree? What is so important about a degree? I actually studied physics if you put so much value in that. Quantum field theory was my last year's choice subject. And let me tell you, your opponent is right. All people claiming an actual collapse is occurring in a measuring device, or in any interaction, are fooling themselves. And you also. That's the whole point of interest of the interpretation of QM. The Copenhagen rules are clear. Had they decided back then to stick to hidden variables, the problems wouldn't have arisen and Hugh Everett wouldn't have eaten, drunk, and smoked himself to death. And his daughter wouldn't have killed himself. His many worlds interpretation was invented exactly to account for the non-unitary behavior of collapse, and he thought he continued living in a parallel world, like his daughter thought she would meet him there if she killed herself...

So the lesson to be learned: everyone claiming that collapse is an objective event hasn't understood QM. It's hard to believe. That's why I think hidden variables are real and actually constituting space.

It's not the math telling you that. That's the easy part. It's the interpretation that's the hard part.

It's not the math telling you that. That's the easy part. It's the interpretation that's the hard part. — Raymond

The interpretation is just a way to simply the math behind it. It's one of the large problems of quantum physics to be honest, to even understand what is meant requires a lot of high level math.

How do you know I haven't got a degree? What is so important about a degree? I actually studied physics if you put so much value in that. Quantum field theory was my last year's choice subject. And let me tell you, your opponent is right. — Raymond

I have talked to people who studied the matter. Also saying you took physics is laughable as that has nothing to do with what is going on in the quantum level. I'm also surprised you took QFT and still insist an observer is conscious. This leads me to believe you don't know what you are talking about.

And my opponent isn't right because he isn't using superposition correctly, he's a software engineer he doesn't understand it.

All people claiming an actual collapse is occurring in a measuring device, or in any interaction, are fooling themselves. — Raymond

They really aren't. You just keep insisting otherwise when the facts show it's nothing to do with consciousness. Observer doesn't mean what we think when we hear it. I also know you don't understand what you are talking about because superposition has to do with probability, so saying we are solipsists in superposition doesn't make any sense. It would still be wrong because it's admitting there is something else outside of you which can be observed and recorded. You can't have superposition if it's just you.

So the lesson to be learned: everyone claiming that collapse is an objective event hasn't understood QM. It's hard to believe. That's why I think hidden variables are real and actually constituting space. — Raymond

Well you are right in that people don't understand it, but you're wrong about the collapse not being objective. There is also no such thing as hidden variables with it either, it's just weird and counter to how physics in the macro world works.

I'm beginning to think you don't get it either. I only know enough to know when folks get it wrong and you definitely have got it wrong. I doubt you actually took QFT.

The interpretation is just a way to simply the math behind it. It's one of the large problems of quantum physics to be honest, to even understand what is meant requires a lot of high level math — TerraHalcyon

The measurement problem exists in QFT all the same. QM is a cross section, for free fields, of QFT. However complicated you make the math, the problem of collapse is not solved. You merely use the so-called authority of math to strengthen your case. But the interpretation is not about math. It's about what math describe (a unitary evolution operator can't be applied to collapse. In QFT, the creation and destruction operators, create states in Fock space, but the states of real particles still evolve and there is a collapse if the actually are observed. If you apply the probabilistic interpretation of QM. The only objective way out are hidden variables. So the guy is just right. Because you don't understand the problem and secretely project an objective collapse on nature.