Wigner was roundly refuted by everyone including himself, including for the above reasons: necessitating consciousness for wavefunction collapse cannot reproduce statistical experimental outcomes. — Kenosha Kid
I think it might have been him that also pointed out that conscious observers are high-temperature bodies and cannot mediate coherent superpositions. — Kenosha Kid
Sounds to anthropomorphic to me. Humans weren't the first organisms with eyes, nor are eyes the first sensory organ (measuring device) to have evolved.According to the copenhagen interpretation (as i understand it) You can't know that so don't assume it it's unscientific. Had the wavefunction only began to collapse when the first human opened his eyes you'd get the same universe. — khaled
I think it is a practice in anthropomorphism to single out mind from the rest of reality. Mind is just one type of processing information and matter is the other types of processes.Precisely! But, since Causal Information, or as I call it Enformy, includes both cause & effect, it is responsible for both Mind and Matter. Matter is the result of energy relationships (e.g. E=MC^2; hot/cold), while Mind is the awareness of those relationships (e.g. meaning). So, in answer to the OP, Information is "dualistic" in nature : both Matter and Mind, both Energy and Entropy. But it's much more than that. Information is Matter & Mind & Life, and everything else in the world. :smile: — Gnomon
Relationships (cause and effect), process, information, are all terms I think more accurately get at what is fundamental.While I understand the notion of ‘information’, it is the question of what information is without the existence of mind that is problematic.
In my view it is relation that is fundamental. — Possibility
They are immaterial because it would be a category error to ask what the laws are made of. — Dfpolis
The laws are discovered in nature, and so they are not human constructs. Nor are the laws our descriptions of them, for to describe something that does not exist is to spin fiction. — Dfpolis
As there is no primitive in natural science that corresponds to intention or awareness, no matter how we inter-relate the basic concepts of natural science, we will never construct a theory that concludes "and therefore there is awareness." — Dfpolis
it might have been him that also pointed out that conscious observers are high-temperature bodies and cannot mediate coherent superpositions. — Kenosha Kid
They are immaterial because it would be a category error to ask what the laws are made of. — Dfpolis
Quantum fields. — Kenosha Kid
In modern physics, the concept of physical law is archaic — Kenosha Kid
Instead, you have interaction fields. — Kenosha Kid
That is, they have properties, state, dynamics, etc — Kenosha Kid
Laws evolve. — Kenosha Kid
This is a fallacy. If you want to make God laugh, start a sentence with 'Science will never'. — Kenosha Kid
No, quantum fields are subject to the laws of nature. — Dfpolis
Baloney. If you think this is true, provide a reputable reference. — Dfpolis
They correspond to the propagators (Green's functions) in the equations describing the laws of motion. — Dfpolis
The laws of nature have no mass and have no gravitational interactions. — Dfpolis
What has evolved is our understanding off the laws. You are confusing the laws of physics, which are approximate descriptions, with the laws of nature they seek to describe. — Dfpolis
to describe something that does not exist is to spin fiction — Dfpolis
It is not a fallacy to say that if a theory contains no term x, it will never have a proposition containing x as a term. — Dfpolis
Yes. In the Enformationism thesis, human "Mind" is defined as the emergent function of human Brain, as it processes Information. But the ultimate "Cosmic Mind", as some call it, is defined as the Enformer or Creator of the whole system that we call "Nature". This is not an anthro-morphic concept, but a philosophical, perhaps mathematical, Principle similar to Plato's metaphorical non-personal rational Logos, and to the Hindu universal principle Brahman. But, since Intention is an emergent property (qualia) of our universe, the creative principle of the universe must necessarily possess the Potential for Intention, which on a local scale we experience as human Will, projecting personal power into the world and into the future. But is our Will free? You are free to decide for yourself.Intentionality is the process that uses information, or values information. The information/meaning is there prior to interacting with intention, and coupled with the process of memory,the process of mind emerges. — Harry Hindu
Without actually disagreeing, you still seem to end up concluding that therefore your claim is true. — Kenosha Kid
Perhaps observation of the film collapsed the state, I hear you ask! But no. If the film was in a superposition of a*|stripes> + b*|boobies>, then we would expect to see stripes a/(a+b)*100% of the time as we repeat the experiment. We see boobies 100% of the time. We can never get stripes with this experimental setup. Ergo each wavefunction is collapsed at the slit without consciousness of it. — Kenosha Kid
So like I said, you have to go with Everett up to a point, assuming that decohered states continue to exist side by side until the mind cognates the "true" state, at which point the "counterfactual" state (along with the counterfactual observer's body!) vanishes. — SophistiCat
And which laws are they? — Kenosha Kid
Propagators are not laws. They are tools. — Kenosha Kid
W bosons. Z bosons. Gluons possibly. — Kenosha Kid
:sweat:If you want to make God laugh, start a sentence with 'Science will never'. — Kenosha Kid
:100:Indeed, before conscious minds entered the world, the world was entirely Everettian. (Either that, orGodwas extremely busy, collapsing wavefunctions right and left!) — SophistiCat
Now I'm interested in how this would hold up. In the example given, even before the mind cognates the "true" state, it had already been decided by the measurement devices placed. If a measurement device measures which slit the electron goes through, and we NEVER get a case of a striped pattern, isn't it safe to assume that the measurement is what collapsed the wave function not us? If it were us we should get a striped pattern. — khaled
I don't appreciate how you make me out to be some sort of religious fanatic being forcefully ignorant of how QM works. I'm not an expert. Every 2 lines I say "In my understanding". I'm not trying to rewrite or misinterpret on purpose, I just don't have a degree, so don't be an ass about it. — khaled
This is literally the first example you have given where "observation" is done without a conscious human. Why couldn't you just start with that? — khaled
And which laws are they?
— Kenosha Kid
Those of quantum field theory, e.g. the Dirac and Klein-Gordon equations. — Dfpolis
You are confusing the laws of physics, which are approximate descriptions, with the laws of nature they seek to describe. — Dfpolis
They are a mathematical mechanism used to represent the mediation of Fermion-Fermion interactions by Boson fields -- in other words, to describe the laws by which quanta interact. — Dfpolis
The particles you mention are extremely massive. — Dfpolis
Who says that actually cited a case of a wavefunction collapsing without consciousness? Wouldnt they have to provide a theory of consciousness to assert such a thing? Its interesting that KK is avoiding that, yet still want to assert that consciousness doesnt necessarily collapse the wave function. KK has to assume that some measuring device isn't conscious - whatever that means as KK is unwilling to address it so they are leaving a huge gap of an explanation in their explanation.You hadn't cited a case of a wavefunction collapsing WITHOUT conscious observation until now. — khaled
Who says that ↪Kenosha Kid actually cited a case of a wavefunction collapsing without consciousness? Wouldnt they have to provide a theory of consciousness to assert such a thing? — Harry Hindu
KK has to assume that some measuring device isn't conscious - whatever that means as KK is unwilling to address it so they are leaving a huge gap of an explanation in their explanation. — Harry Hindu
Again, you'd have to define consciousness to assert when it absent and when it isn't. If it were absent at what point do you observe the results. If the results are on a sheet of paper, is not the paper composed of electrons? When does the wave function of the paper containing ink marks collapse - when looked at by human eyes or when it was printed out? Did the printer collapse the wave function?Why would you need a theory of consciousness to examine an experimental setup where consciousness is absent? That's absurd. — Kenosha Kid
So no, my idea that consciousness is a measurement isn't outrageous. The fact that you claim that there is a scientific understanding consciousness when there Is no scientific theory of consciousness is a joke. Don't confuse me with Khaled. I am not proposing that consciousness is fundamental or creates reality.There's no gap. Not assuming that non-living objects are unconscious is consistent with every single element of scientific understanding of consciousness. Yours is the outrageous claim. I defend your freedom to believe incredible things, but don't push your burden of proof onto me. — Kenosha Kid
Again, you'd have to define consciousness to assert when it absent and when it isn't. If it were absent at what point do you observe the results. If the results are on a sheet of paper, is not the paper composed of electrons? When does the wave function of the paper containing ink marks collapse - when looked at by human eyes or when it was printed out? Did the printer collapse the wave function? — Harry Hindu
So no, my idea that consciousness is a measurement isn't outrageous — Harry Hindu
Why would you need a theory of consciousness to examine an experimental setup where consciousness is absent? — Kenosha Kid
True enough, but what experiment can be set up, and by association, what experimental setup can there be, that doesn’t have a conscious agency for its causality? — Mww
Can you supply an accessible reference for that colored light/boogie double slit experiment? Accessible meaning free.....I’m a YankeeVirgoBabyboomer, and paying for stuff for which I have no real use is anathema to me. But it is new and therefore interesting, so.....I’d appreciate it. — Mww
Pretty easy to see where your sympathies lay, I must say. — Mww
Those lectures are here: https://feynmanlectures.caltech.edu, In which Vol3 has a nice easy dissertation on varieties of double slits , but nothing about......er......boobies. Or colored lights. — Mww
You're really flip-flopping on this issue. First you say that theory must be accurate or else complete fiction — Kenosha Kid
And now you're back to theory being law itself. — Kenosha Kid
Quantum field theories do not have 'laws'. — Kenosha Kid
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.