I watched the video and although much of it was above my paygrade, I could get some idea of what the speaker had to say.

It seems that the Bell inequality is an equation inequality that claims that a certain probability must be greater than or equal to another probability IFF there are hidden variables which seems to be just another way of saying quantum mechanics is incomplete in the sense something is missing from it in its present form.

Experimental evidence seems to violate the Bell inequality which implies that there are no hidden variables so to speak and quantum mechanics is complete.

Neils Bohr won!

Neils Bohr won! — TheMadFool

'Hidden variables' is the De Broglie/David Bohm theory - that hidden variables cause the correlation. I don't think that's suggested as the solution although it's mentioned somewhere in the presentation.

Again with the conspiracy theories. — khaled

Nothing to do with conspiracy theories. And what, pray tell, is poisonous or conspiratorial about philosophical idealism? It is, in my view, the mainstream of the Western philosophical tradition, beginning with Platonism. Of course there are issues of interpretation, but many physicists since the early 20th c have evinced idealist leanings, not least Heisenberg, whose book Physics and Philosophy comes out in favour of Plato over Democritus. It's your white-knucked clinging to scientific realism that is always at issue in our debates.

The universe is of the nature of a thought or sensation in a universal Mind … To put the conclusion crudely — the stuff of the world is mind-stuff. As is often the way with crude statements, I shall have to explain that by "mind" I do not exactly mean mind and by "stuff" I do not at all mean stuff. Still that is about as near as we can get to the idea in a simple phrase. The mind-stuff of the world is something more general than our individual conscious minds; but we may think of its nature as not altogether foreign to feelings in our consciousness … Having granted this, the mental activity of the part of world constituting ourselves occasions no great surprise; it is known to us by direct self-knowledge, and we do not explain it away as something other than we know it to be — or rather, it knows itself to be. — Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. — Max Planck

Deleted

I watched the video and although much of it was above my paygrade, I could get some idea of what the speaker had to say.

It seems that the Bell inequality is an equation inequality that claims that a certain probability must be greater than or equal to another probability IFF there are hidden variables which seems to be just another way of saying quantum mechanics is incomplete in the sense something is missing from it in its present form.

Experimental evidence seems to violate the Bell inequality which implies that there are no hidden variables so to speak and quantum mechanics is complete.

Neils Bohr won! — TheMadFool

I made a mistake which I've now corrected in the post above.

:up: Hey don't sweat it.

Hey don't sweat it. — Wayfarer

:ok:

And what, pray tell, is poisonous or conspiratorial about philosophical idealism? — Wayfarer

Nothing. When did I say there is any conspiracy to push for philosophical idealism?

Nothing to do with conspiracy theories. — Wayfarer

But you did say that the von Neumann interpretation was avoided because of “big philosophical implications”. Sounds exactly like a conspiracy theory. Scientists didn’t want the nasty idealists to win so they came up with any number of alternatives to the von Neumann interpretation.

No, it was avoided because it’s wrong, even by its own originators eventually. Wave functions collapse in the absence of anything conscious to collapse them. Or else conscious things wouldn’t have evolved in the first place to collapse wave functions.

Of course there are issues of interpretation, but many physicists since the early 20th c have evinced idealist leanings, not least Heisenberg — Wayfarer

I wouldn’t say idealist leaning more so theistic leanings.

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. — Max Planck

This sounds to me like arguing for intelligent design, not idealism. Or maybe some sort of panpsychism?

But even if that was the case, I don’t have a problem with idealism itself. I have a problem with trying to imply that wave functions require consciousness to collapse when they simply.... don’t.

But you did say that the von Neumann interpretation was avoided because of “big philosophical implications”. Sounds exactly like a conspiracy theory. — khaled

Not at all. It's simply that realism is the natural attitude. Thinking through the implications of idealism takes philosophical acumen.

Thinking through the implications of idealism takes philosophical acumen — Wayfarer

But that’s not why the interpretation was largely discarded. It was discarded because it doesn’t make sense.

Wave functions collapse in the absence of anything conscious to collapse them. — khaled

So what you're arguing is that the 'observer problem' or 'measurement problem' in quantum physics actually doesn't exist. I think that's just because it doesn't make sense to you.

Largely discarded, by whom? Where is the evidence for that? What are the alternatives?

So what you're arguing is that the 'observer problem' or 'measurement problem' in quantum physics actually doesn't exist. — Wayfarer

So you think the alternatives are: Either consciousness is the only thing capable of causing wave functions collapse, or the observer problem doesn’t exist?

Please explain to me why you think those are the only two alternatives. I don’t think they are, clearly. If they were, you’d expect there to be 2 interpretations of quantum mechanics, either multiple worlds, where the measurement problem doesn’t exist, or Von Neumann, where consciousness is the only thing capable of causing wave functions collapse. That’s clearly not the case.

So why do you think those are the only two options in light of this? All the other interpretations are simply wrong? Even though they make up what about 70-80% of physicists believe according to your poll?

Largely discarded, by whom? — Wayfarer

The vast majority of the scientific community.

Where is the evidence for that? — Wayfarer

Evidence it doesn’t make sense? I’ve provided plenty. And you’ve provided none supporting it by the way. Evidence it’s largely discarded? That it’s known by most scientists to be simply false. It doesn’t even show up on the poll you linked me. It’s so fringe it is considered “other”.

What are the alternatives? — Wayfarer

The bunch I linked you are a good start. Pilot wave theory. Copenhagen interpretation (which doesn’t necessarily require consciousness in any way). Many worlds. Etc. Or take your own poll as a source of alternatives.

So what you're arguing is that the 'observer problem' or 'measurement problem' in quantum physics actually doesn't exist.
— Wayfarer

So you think the alternatives are: Either consciousness is the only thing capable of causing wave functions collapse, or the observer problem doesn’t exist?

Please explain to me why you think those are the only two alternatives. — khaled

I think that the 'observer problem' or 'measurement problem' in physics is precisely due to the fact that 'the act of observation' has a material effect on the outcome of experiments in quantum physics. This is the origin of the controversy, and the reason there is a problem of interpretation. They don't necessarily refer to consciousness but to the act of observation or registration or measurement. It can be argued that this act of observation can be made by an apparatus, not a person, but that begs the question of why the apparatus existed in the first place, and also whether anything it measures or registers constitutes information until it is interpreted by those who made the apparatus. If you say it does, it simply kicks the can down that road, so to speak; ultimately the information is interpreted by a human being, and whether it exists uninterpreted can only ever be an assumption. So asserting that observation doesn't imply a human observer doesn't solve the problem, it only tries to hold it at arm's length.

What is referred to as the wave-function collapse is simply that, prior to the act of measurement or registration, there is not a particle at a definite location with definite properties. What there is, is a distribution of probabilities which define the degree of likelihood of the particle being found at a place and time with such and such properties. When the measurement is made, all of those degrees of probability vanish, because the particle now has definite properties, which previously it didn't. That is the 'wave-function collapse' in a nutshell - the probablity distribution has now collapsed into a certainty. That is why, in the classic double-slit experiment, whether you get a wave pattern or a particle distribution depends on whether the particle has been observed before passing through the barrier. But this is not because the act of measurement literally interferes with the object. Brian Greene says, in the Fabric of the Cosmos:

The explanation of uncertainty as arising through the unavoidable disturbance caused by the measurement process has provided physicists with a useful intuitive guide as well as a powerful explanatory framework in certain specific situations. However, it can also be misleading. It may give the impressions that uncertainty arises when we lumbering experimenters meddle with things. This is not true. Uncertainty is built into the wave structure of quantum mechanics and exists whether or not we carry out some clumsy measurement

Basically, this is what the Copenhagen interpretation says, although it's very important to note that this is NOT a scientific theory or hypothesis at all. It's more like notes on what can and can't be said on the basis of quantum physics.

Now the 'relative state formulation' of Hugh Everett simply says, what if this collapse never occurs? It proposes that all possible outcomes of quantum measurements are physically realized in some world or universe. The implication of this is the infamous 'sliding doors' universe idea, where every possible thing that could happen, does happen, in some parallel world. Philip Ball has a very good current article on what is wrong with this idea. (Neils Bohr wouldn't even discuss the idea with Everett when the latter was given the opportunity to meet him.)

That 'Copenhagen intepretation' is thought of as 'weird' is simply because of the fact that 'the observer' has a role at all. Conventional science wants to make statements about what is really the case without any reference to 'the observer'. So a lot of scientifically-inclined people can't deal with the requirement to include the observer. This is not 'a conspiracy theory', it has a sound philosophical basis. If you think philosophical arguments constitute a conspiracy theory, then maybe you're in the wrong forum.

Bonus video for those interested: Michel Bitbol on Bohr's Complementarity and Kant's Epistemology.

I think that the 'observer problem' or 'measurement problem' in physics is precisely due to the fact that 'the act of observation' has a material effect on the outcome of experiments in quantum physics. — Wayfarer

Yup. But again, “observation” doesn’t have to be conscious. If it were then consciousness would’ve never evolved in the first place! You need collapse to happen to get macro objects, such as humans or animals. So unless you’re a panpsychist, it can’t be that observation requires consciousness.

It can be argued that this act of observation can be made by an apparatus, not a person, but that begs the question of why the apparatus existed in the first place — Wayfarer

No? How does it beg the question? The apparatus doesn’t need to be made by us. For reference: Eyes.

and also whether anything it measures or registers constitutes information until it is interpreted by those who made the apparatus. — Wayfarer

Idk what “registers as information” means. But what does in fact happen is that the wave function collapses before anyone has looked at the results of the measuring machine. If it didn’t, consciousness wouldn’t have evolved in the first place. There would be no electrons or atoms, just quantum soup. You need electrons and atoms to make planets, and water, and humans.

and whether it exists uninterpreted can only ever be an assumption. — Wayfarer

False. Whether or not the wave function is collapsed has testable consequences. If a wave is collapsed or does something. If it’s uncollapsed it does another thing. Look at the classic double slit experiment. If we measure which slit the electron goes through, IE, if we collapse the wave, you get 2 stripes. If you don’t collapse the wave, you get an interference pattern.

Now you think, that what’s collapsing the wave is us seeing the results of the measurement. Ok. Attach a measuring device on the slits. Next, make a simple AI that can distinguish between the 2 stripe pattern and an interference pattern. If the interference pattern is seen, make the machine dispense a cookie. If a 2 stripe pattern is seen, no cookie. Now run the experiment and go to the cookie dispenser without looking at anything. You will find that there are no cookies waiting for you :sad:. In other words, the measuring device was enough to collapse the wave function so a 2 stripe pattern is detected, and no cookies are dispensed. Or a simpler thought experiment:

What is referred to as the wave-function collapse is simply that, prior to the act of measurement or registration, there is not a particle at a definite location with definite properties — Wayfarer

Which would result in there being no macro objects at all. If that’s the case consciousness wouldn’t have evolved in the first place. So no, collapse has to happen without consciousness in order for consciousness to even exist.

The 'Copenhagen intepretation' is thought of as 'weird' is simply because of the fact that 'the observer' has a role at all. — Wayfarer

It’s the most widely held interpretation even today. Yet at the same time most scientists say consciousness is not required. So, what does that tell you about whether or not the observer needs to be conscious?

So a lot of scientifically-inclined people can't deal with the requirement to include the observer. This is not 'a conspiracy theory', it has sound philosophical basis. — Wayfarer

There is no philosophy in “a lot of scientifically inclined people can’t deal with the requirement to include the observer”. Maybe some sociology or psychology, but it’s not a philosophical argument.

And it amounts to saying that all the scientists are getting together in a circle to fight against the evil specter of idealism.

It’s not that scientists abandoned the von Neumann interpretation because they didn’t like idealism. They (again, including its own founders) abandoned it because its problematic. The first amounts to a conspiracy theory.

And it amounts to saying that all the scientists are getting together in a circle to fight against the evil specter of idealism. — khaled

If that’s what you think then we’re done.

at least respond to how consciousness could have evolved in the first place without collapse.

Or any of the other objections. If a dog uses the measuring device will the wave function have collapsed? What about a mantis? What about a bacteria? Which of these is “conscious enough” for collapse?

Never-mind the fact that we can test this and find that it will collapse without any animal or human being there at all. Because the wave not collapsing has consequences. Which we can test.

OK. I won't use the word 'consciousness', I will use 'mind'.

Now I can see the problem. In today's understanding, consciousness, mind, the observer, are all the products of evolution. There was no mind before evolution, so how could any observers exist?

The problem is that this is what the 'observer problem' ultimately calls into question. That's why it's controversial. As I said already, Einstein had to ask the question 'does the moon exist when we're not looking at it.' Of course, I think Einstein was utterly certain that it does, but he was obliged to raise the question, in light of what quantum physics was saying. This is why he had the 30-year debate with Neils Bohr that is descibed in the Manjit Kumar and David Lindley books I mentioned.

I think that the problem can be resolved with reference to Kant's Copernican revolution in philosophy - that 'thoughts don't conform to things, but things to thoughts'. This means that the 'mind-independent nature' of the world is being called into question (and I still think a very small proportion of scientists have read or understood Kant). We have to understand that we as beings don't 'see a world' - what happens is that we receive stimuli through the sense-gates and we interpret these stimuli to 'create' a world - a meaning-world, if you like, in accordance with the categories of the understanding and our cultural background. Of course, it's not just your or my fantasy world, it's real in some fundamental way, it's not just in the mind. But 'the mind' plays a central and fundamental role in constructing or building the world, moment by moment. And science has generally left that out, although it's starting to be more and more considered.

Now that's not something that evolutionary theory as such explains or generally considers. Evolutionary theory is a theory of the origin of species, but now it's become a kind of universal explanation for everything about us. And evolutionary theory, being a form of naturalism, takes the reality of nature for granted. Whereas 'the nature of reality' is being called into question by the discoveries of physics. That is why both those books I mentioned have subtitles about the nature of reality. So here:

Which would result in there being no macro objects at all. If that’s the case consciousness wouldn’t have evolved in the first place. So no, collapse has to happen without consciousness in order for consciousness to even exist. — khaled

Is where the problem lies. Your theory, which is presumably scientifically realist neo-Darwinian evolution, can't accomodate the radical implications of physics. That's perfectly OK, but please understand, this is a real issue, it's a fringe idea, or a conspiracy theory, or something held by a radical minority of whackos.

As I said already, a lot of physicists don't bother with any of this, nor do they need to. They can do physics, even wildly advanced speculative physics, without engaging with this philosophical question. But some do. So please stop saying I'm 'peddling conspiracy theories', it's just insulting. I don't claim to be a physicist, or to understand the mathematical basis of quantum physics, but I've read a fair amount and what I'm saying is not fringe conspiracy theory, but it is deeply challenging for the taken-for-granted realism that a lot of people hold.

So please stop saying I'm 'peddling conspiracy theories', it's just insulting. — Wayfarer

I'm sorry if I was being confrontational. I don't mean to be, I'm just used to much less civil discussions with the likes of Bartricks. I didn't notice that what I was saying could be construed as an insult. I don't mean it to be.

what happens is that we receive stimuli through the sense-gates and we interpret these stimuli to 'create' a world — Wayfarer

Yes but there is still a "world" underneath our perception of the world. The source of the stimuli. An objective world, is what I'll call it. That's what physics tries to capture. Can we agree there?

You're saying that our interpretation of the world precedes the objective world in some sense. That's the problematic view. Because "we" are a product of the objective world, which we then interpret to create our "own world" or "intersubjective world" if you would. Physics is the study of this bottom layer, the objective world, not the intersubjective one. Physics proposes things we can't see or feel all the time. Like electrons. Or fields. These aren't created in our picture of the world due to us receiving stimuli from the sense gates. They're theories about what the "objective world" could look like. The objective world that brought us about and created the "glasses" we see the world through.

To simply say that the intersubjective world is created by our mind is no new finding at all. We don't see magnetic fields for example, yet we have pretty good reason to think they're there. As part of the objective world. How did we come to that conclusion? By proposing an objective world that could feasibly produce our intersubjective one. So we see a rock attracting metals, and we try to figure out why. Maybe the rock, objectively, has some "essence" which attracts metals. Well, not exactly, because if you rub certain cloths together they also don't attract metals. So that model is bad.... and on and on we go coming up with better and better models.

Physics attempts to get at the world "without our glasses" that we see the world through. Obviously, it would be impossible to know for sure that we got what the "objective world" looks like without any reference to our sense gates, since its our sense gates doing all the work. All we can come up with is a feasible theory to explain what our sense gates perceive, but there could be a lot more complexity than that. Even amidst this uncertainty some theories are definitely better than others. The idea that the sense gates are needed for the world to stabilize just seems confused. The sense gates wouldn't have been created without a stable world in the first place. I think it comes from thinking that the domain of physics is the intersubjective world.

And evolutionary theory, being a form of naturalism, takes the reality of nature for granted. Whereas 'the nature of reality' is being called into question by the discoveries of physics. — Wayfarer

Your theory, which is presumably scientifically realist neo-Darwinian evolution, can't accomodate the radical implications of physics. — Wayfarer

This seems very handwavy for me. No interpretation of qunatum mechanics will touch evolutionary theory. Quantum mechanics deals with small things. Evolutionary theory deals with one of the biggest things we can deal in (animals and plants). No interpretation of quantum mechanics will have it come out that the moon doesn't exist when we're not looking at it (because if it didn't, we would expect waves to behave differently, yet if everyone looked away from the moon for a second, waves won't behave any differently)

Which radical implication, specifically does it contradict. Again, I don't think bringing Kant into this does anything. I'm pretty sure anyone would agree with the above. That physics is not merely a product of our intersubjective world, but it is also our best attempt at capturing the objective world underneath. Note: best attempt, it's still a work in progress. But some theories are definitely closer than others. And to say that our interpretation precedes the world itself is one of the theories that are very far.

what I'm saying is not fringe conspiracy theory, but it is deeply challenging for the taken-for-granted realism that a lot of people hold. — Wayfarer

No, that's not what I was calling a conspiracy theory. What I was calling a conspiracy theory is that the Von Neumann interpretation was discarded because it's challenging for realism. My point was precisely that:

a lot of physicists don't bother with any of this, nor do they need to. They can do physics, even wildly advanced speculative physics, without engaging with this philosophical question — Wayfarer

And it is THESE PHYSICISTS, that don't bother with this, that have found problems with the Von Neumann interpretation. I'm saying the physicists didn't reject the idea because of any philosophical implications they didn't like, but because the idea itself is problematic. You think it's not problematic, but even without the whole evolution argument how do you explain this:

Now you think, that what’s collapsing the wave is us seeing the results of the measurement. Ok. Attach a measuring device on the slits. Next, make a simple AI that can distinguish between the 2 stripe pattern and an interference pattern. If the interference pattern is seen, make the machine dispense a cookie. If a 2 stripe pattern is seen, no cookie. Now run the experiment and go to the cookie dispenser without looking at anything. You will find that there are no cookies waiting for you :sad:. In other words, the measuring device was enough to collapse the wave function so a 2 stripe pattern is detected, and no cookies are dispensed. — khaled

in terms of consciousness causing wave function collapse?

The Von Neumann interpretation isn't just philosophically challenging, it's also physically problematic. That's my point.

Then again, every interpretation of quantum mechanics has its issues, I'm not denying that, (though I definitely think that the Von Neumann interpretation has more than usual), what I'm denying is that the view is physically unproblematic, but was rejected on the basis of an ideological bias by the scientific community. That's what you seem to be saying to me. That's what I kept calling a conspiracy theory.

Yes but there is still a "world" underneath our perception of the world. The source of the stimuli. An objective world, is what I'll call it. That's what physics tries to capture. Can we agree there? — khaled

This is the problem! That's exactly the point! Is its real nature particle-like or wave-like. Well, it depends on which experiment you conduct. Some will give you wave, some particle. 'But what is it really?'

Silence.

‘What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning,’ said Heisenberg.

See the connection with Kant? That we know phenomena, what appears to us. What is it really, though? What is the real nature of what appears?

Silence.

Not true. Not even for MWI. MWI is the theory that ALL the possibilities happen. As in a universe where the wave function collapsed to A is created and another universe where the wave function was collapsed to B is created, and so on.... — khaled

You seem to be in a contradiction.

You're saying the MWI solves the problem we're talking about, but somehow the problem doesn't even exist for the proposed solution you are arguing against that "consciousness collapses wave functions".

You say:

False. If you set up a measuring machine and no one looks at the results, the wave function will still collapse. — khaled

If the wave function collapses anyway due to a measuring machine, why the need to postulate multiple worlds?

I think @Wayfarer describes the basic problem well, so I'll just repeat it:

I think that the 'observer problem' or 'measurement problem' in physics is precisely due to the fact that 'the act of observation' has a material effect on the outcome of experiments in quantum physics. This is the origin of the controversy, and the reason there is a problem of interpretation. They don't necessarily refer to consciousness but to the act of observation or registration or measurement. It can be argued that this act of observation can be made by an apparatus, not a person, but that begs the question of why the apparatus existed in the first place, and also whether anything it measures or registers constitutes information until it is interpreted by those who made the apparatus. If you say it does, it simply kicks the can down that road, so to speak; ultimately the information is interpreted by a human being, and whether it exists uninterpreted can only ever be an assumption. — Wayfarer

As I mention in my previous comment, there's nothing "special" about measuring apparatus, other than that we become conscious of their definite states, and, once we do, it is incoherent to continue in the belief that the measuring apparatus is in a superposition of different possible results (which, before we look, is entirely coherent to believe the measuring apparatus is in the superposition of the different measurement outcomes; to "know it's not" we have to look, and only after looking and seeing it definitely says "5" does it become incoherent to persist in the belief that it could be other values other than 5, as it definitely says 5).

Adding a "measuring apparatus" in the box with Schrödinger's cat, doesn't change the thought experiment. There's already the measuring apparatus of the Geiger counter that when activated releases the poison, we ca simply argue it is in a superposition along with the particle it's measuring. We can add into the box as many measuring devices as we like. The particle, the "measuring apparatus" of the Geiger counter, the cat, the air, everything in the box is just particles described by some wave function and there is nothing "logical" that forces us to believe the wave function collapses at any given moment before we check.

The question is what state these measuring devices are in before we look at them? How can we prove any hypothesis? If we're doing science, we have to look to prove our hypothesis, but this defeats the question we are trying to resolve.

When we check, we see one of the potential outcomes; there is no difference between saying we "could have seen one of the potential outcomes since the box was closed" and saying "we could have seen one of the potential outcomes since a series of wave function collapse that have happened since the box has closed", there is no mathematical difference in this second way to imagine things where the "possibility tree" is pruned regularly, just in our minds with imagined wave collapses, as that does not give us any new information in which to predict the state of the box. All we have is the information about the box before we close the lid, so if I just calculate the wave function based on that and let it evolve until the time we open the box to know the probabilities of different box states I may observe, this will be the same as hypothesizing the wave function collapses regularly for some reason.

This is the problem! That's exactly the point! Is its real nature particle-like or wave-like. Well, it depends on which experiment you conduct. Some will give you wave, some particle. 'But what is it really?'

Silence. — Wayfarer

By "Objective world" I didn't mean a well defined one. I didn't mean that in the "objective world" everything is a resolved quantum wave, that's it's all made of small and big things bumping into each other. That is not needed for what I said to be true. All that is needed is that there is some objective world that is the source of the stimuli. IN that objective world it is totally possible for a particle to exist as a particle sometimes and as a wave sometimes, I don't care about that. Point is there IS an objective world.

AND that that objective world is REQUIRED for minds to exist at all.

Let's take it slowly:

1- Minds require brains
2- Brains require resolved quantum states
3- Therefore minds require resolved quantum states (which implies that it's not the other way around)

What's the problem here?

‘ What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning,’ said Heisenberg. See the connection with Kant? That we know phenomena, what appears to us. What is it really, though? — Wayfarer

An unresolved quantum wave until something measures it. Not silence. Again, I don't need the objective world to be well defined for what I said to be true.

All I need is that we agree that our "mind" cannot be produced without the existence of well resolved, particles and atoms. Do we agree there?

What Kant said is that we don't observe things as they are. They pass through the filters of the senses. It is not consistent or sensical to then claim that the filters are what create the things as they are. Because then, what creates the filters?

You're saying the MWI solves the problem we're talking about, but somehow the problem doesn't even exist for the proposed solution you are arguing about that "consciousness collapses wave functions". — boethius

? I legit don't understand what this sentence means.

which, before we look, is entirely coherent to believe the measuring apparatus is in the superimposition of the different measurement outcomes — boethius

False. That's precisely the point. There are CONSEQUENCES to the wave not being resolved while we're not looking at it. Attach a measuring apparatus to a double slit experiment. Then have an AI recognize whether or not an interference or striped pattern is produced, and connect the AI to a cookie dispenser. If a striped pattern is produced, no cookie, if an interference pattern is produced, dispense a cookie. Start the experiment and go to the cookie dispenser. You will find no cookie.

You can't say that observing the cookie dispenser is the same as measuring which slit the electron went through. The whole series of events, the measurement, and the interpretation of the results, was done by completely unconscious agents. You did nothing, just checked if a cookie comes out or not.

According to you, we should expect that there will be a striped pattern, UNTIL we go and check which slit the particle went through ourselves. In other words, there will be a cookie dispensed, but the second we go and check the measurement device to see which slit the electrons are going through, no cookie.

This simply doesn't happen.

Adding a "measuring apparatus" in the box with Schrödinger's cat, doesn't change the thought experiment. — boethius

Add a cookie dispenser that dispenses a cookie when the cat dies. You will either get a cookie or you won't get a cookie at any one time. You won't be "in a superposition state of having and not having a cookie". And you can tell precisely by doing this whether or not the cat is dead or alive. Even without observing the cat, just the consequences of it being dead or alive.

The question is what state these measuring devices are in before we look at them? — boethius

Again, this has testable consequences. Let me take another though experiment, Einstein's does the moon exist when no one is looking at it. But let's make it the sun this time. If no one looks at the sun, does the world suddenly go dark? We can test that. And no it won't. Because the sun stays there even when no one is looking at it. Same can be said of the moon and the behavior of waves (in the ocean).

We can know whether or not a quantum wave is collapsed or not without observing it, by observing its consequences in each case (collapsed or uncollapsed).

By "Objective world" I didn't mean a well defined one — khaled

It’s more than simply undefined. It is not objective. You should read Schopenhauer. Objects and subjects arise together, you don’t have one without the other. But you (not you in particular) have an object-world, a real-world, in the back of your mind all the time. It’s assumed, inviolable, unchallengeable. You’re not engaging with philosophy until you challenge this innate realism - and it’s a hard thing to do. That’s why it’s challenging - it’s not an ideological issue but a philosophical one.

I think you’re seeing the idea of the ‘collapse’ as being causal, like the closing of the circuit, that plays a role in literally generating things. But it’s not necessarily that. Step back again and consider what questions were being asked when quantum physics was discovered. The ultraviolet catastrophe, then drilling down to the finest constituents of matter and energy, or matter-energy, all based on observation and experiment. What was hoped that some fundamental constituent would be discovered, the ultimate building block of nature, a bedrock. Instead, what we got was uncertainty. We wanted to find a Democritean atom - something that was utterly real, a literal atom, a fundamentally real object. Instead, we get an equation which describes a range of possibilities, and it takes a measurement to pull the real rabbit out of the statistical hat. Seems suspiciously like magic. Nobody really knows if the equation is objectively real and the ‘collapse’ literally occurs. That’s part of the problem!

If no one looks at the sun, does the world suddenly go dark? We can test that. And no it won't. Because the sun stays there even when no one is looking at it. Same can be said of the moon and the behavior of waves (in the ocean). — khaled

You’re asking the same question as Einstein, but the world-picture within which you enact this drama is still the artefact of thought. Every one of your objections come down to ‘but this is obviously wrong’ - obviously, because of the obvious reality of the world that you assume. That’s why those arguments among the pioneers of this subject were so intense and vehement. Heisenberg recalled being literally reduced to tears. Seriously, do some more reading. That’s all for now.

But you (not you in particular) have an object-world, a real-world, in the back of your mind all the time. It’s assumed, inviolable, unchallengeable. You’re not engaging with philosophy until you challenge this innate realism — Wayfarer

I have challenged it on the metaethics and moral relativism thread and on other threads.

And came up empty. It just doesn't make sense. If the object world doesn't exist, then what are the lenses that we observe the world through made of? It is an inescapable fact that you can't have a mind without a certain configuration of matter. And if that configuration is disturbed (say, by a concussion to the back of the head) the mind goes away.

If one of the two goes away when the other is disturbed then that other is more fundamental. Obviously.

Presumptuous of you to say I haven't. I haven't accused you of being dogmatic and am trying to discuss in good faith. I wish you would do the same.

Objects and subjects arise together, you don’t have one without the other. — Wayfarer

I think this is conflating two things by saying "objects". It is conflating the intersubjective and objective worlds. The intersubjective world doesn't arise without subjects. But the objective world couldn't care less about them.

I can easily conceive of a world empty of life or consciousness. Objects without a subject are no problem. All a subject does is interpret the "things in themselves", the objects, into intersubjective "objects". But the objects can exist without an interpreter. Or at least, the interpreter can not be conscious.

In other words, "planet earth" doesn't exist without a subject because there is no one to distinguish a planet from whatever surrounds it and to dub it "earth". But that doesn't mean that the planet literally, objectively, doesn't exist. There was a floating rock in space with a lot of water on it before any conscious beings evolved. Or else, the conscious beings wouldn't have evolved!!! Yes "water" and "rock" wouldn't have existed either without a subject for the same reason but you know what I mean. The "base material" had to be there already.

We wanted to find a Democritean atom - something that was utterly real, a literal atom, a fundamentally real object. Instead, we get an equation which describes a range of possibilities, and it takes a measurement to pull the real rabbit out of the statistical hat. Seems suspiciously like magic. Nobody really knows if the equation is objectively real and the ‘collapse’ literally occurs. That’s part of the problem!

Sure. But you seem incredibly sure that the collapse literally occurs, moreover as a result of our conscious awareness.

And the measurement, again, doesn't have to be done by a conscious agent. I've given countless possible experiments now. It simply is not the case that without a conscious agent seeing the results, that the collapse doesn't occur. I'll repeat what I said to boethius:
— Wayfarer

We can know whether or not a quantum wave is collapsed or not without observing it, by observing its consequences in each case (collapsed or uncollapsed). — khaled

That’s why those arguments among the pioneers of this subject were so intense and vehement. Heisenberg recalled being literally reduced to tears. Seriously, do some more reading. That’s all for now. — Wayfarer

Again, presumptuous of you to assume I haven't done enough reading. I don't doubt that you have done reading, but I think you've taken what you're reading too far. Considering you already linked me an article you thought supports your point when it explicitly refuted it. And a quote you thought supports your point when it was talking about intelligent design. Etc

1- Minds require brains
2- Brains require resolved quantum states
3- Therefore minds require resolved quantum states — khaled

Which part of this do you disagree with?

False. That's precisely the point. There are CONSEQUENCES to the wave not being resolved while we're not looking at it. Attach a measuring apparatus to a double slit experiment. Then have an AI recognize whether or not an interference or striped pattern is produced, and connect the AI to a cookie dispenser. If a striped pattern is produced, no cookie, if an interference pattern is produced, dispense a cookie. Start the experiment and go to the cookie dispenser. You will find no cookie. — khaled

This is just not how it works.

Interference patterns disappear, not because of wave collapse, but because of running a different experiment, where phase is not preserved through both slits; and without the same phase going through both slits, the interference pattern does not emerge; this is why there is no interference pattern even if you do not "look" at your experiment until the end.

However, if you put your experiment in the box with Schrödinger's cat, how is it described quantum mechanically? The particles, the detectors, the AI are all in superpositions of the different possibilities of when you open the box.

If we look at the math of quantum physics, there is no logical inconsistency in just letting the wave function propagate indefinitely without any "collapses". The logical inconsistency arises when we look at the world and do not see this wave function, but see definite things with definite values. Now, what we can make of this I think @Wayfarer has been describing very well, so I suggest reading his posts carefully.

this is why there is no interference pattern even if you do not "look" at your experiment until the end. — boethius

If you already know this then how can consciousness be what collapses the wave function? When clearly, even without it the interference pattern would not emerge.

Interference patterns disappear, not because of wave collapse, but because of running a different experiment, where phase is not preserved through both slits; and without the same phase going through both slits, the interference pattern does not emerge — boethius

????

I don't think you understand what phase is. The interference pattern occurs, even if you send in ONE electron at a time. The electron would act as a wave and interfere with itself. It would go through "both slits" at the same time and produce an interference pattern after enough have been sent. That is, if no measuring apparatus is there.

Nothing in the experiment I described suggested sending in electrons in different phases. It is literally just the classic double slit experiment, using a single electron at a time (which has already been done btw) but instead of a person looking at the results, an AI looks at the results and either dispenses or doesn't dispense a cookie.

Start from 1:51.



What I'm proposing is the exact same setup at 2:46 / 3:43 except that an AI recognizes the pattern produced, and no one is actually watching which slit the electron went through. In that case, there is a very clear consequence that is testable, whether or not the wave makes an interference or striped pattern, makes the difference between me getting and not getting a cookie.

What will happen is I won't get a cookie. Because the wave will collapse, aka, will produced a striped pattern, not an interference pattern. Due to the measuring device alone. Or, maybe the measuring device and AI. Point is, not due to anything conscious.

However, if you put your experiment in the box with Schrödinger's cat, how is it described quantum mechanically? The particles, the detectors, the AI are all in superpositions of the different possibilities of when you open the box. — boethius

?

When I get a cookie, I know for a fact the cat is dead. As long as I don't get a cookie, I know for a fact it is alive. The cat is either alive or dead, not in a superposition by this setup. We know this. And we know it without observing the cat. Because we can observe the consequences of it being alive or dead in this case no cookie vs cookie.

The cookie dispenser is, as a matter of fact, not in a superposition of dispensing and not dispensing a cookie (what would that even look like). I can positively know that it has either dispensed, or has not dispensed a cookie. Which allows me to infer the status of the cat without looking at the cat. An example of collapse without conscious attention.

If we look at the math of quantum physics, there is no logical inconsistency in just letting the wave function propagate indefinitely without any "collapses". — boethius

False. If a wave function is collapsed in the double slit experiment, you get 2 stripes. If it isn't, you get an interference pattern. If an AI can dispense a cookie based on which occurs then there is a very real consequence if the wave function collapses or otherwise. It is simply not the case that if the wave function doesn't collapse, everything would be the same as if it hasn't. No, there is a cookie on the line here! Only when the wave function doesn't collapse, do you get a cookie. If it collapses, no cookie.

There is very much a logical inconsistency in claiming that a world where I eat a cookie is no different than a world where I don't eat a cookie.

It just doesn't make sense. — khaled

Right.

It just makes sense to you because you haven't read enough and you have a mind-world, at the back of your mind at all times that is assumed and unchallengable.

Anyways cheers.

To those following this discussion and still uncertain of what "the problem" is.

An analogous problem is the idea of a "block universe", which is a hypothesis that arises as soon as we assign a dimension to time that is mathematically the same as our dimensions of space; which you can do in any physics system be it Newton, General Relativity or Quantum mechanics.

When time is treated as a space dimension, one becomes (based on the math) free to imagine that time really is a physical dimension and particles travelling "through time" are "physically" long strands traversing this "space-time" physical substance (in one way or another).

If one describes the whole universe this way, there is nothing logically inconsistent within the math of saying the whole 4 dimensions (or however many dimensions you have in your system) physically exist (in some substance intuition sense) as one 4 dimensional block.

The logical inconsistency arises when we try to reconcile the block-universe view with our experience of time, and that only arises due to being conscious of "one moment to the next".

If a mathematical system describing "the" or just "a" universe was given to a mathematician, and the label "universe" was removed and the dimension of time wasn't labeled "time" then there would nothing in that mathematical structure that would lead our mathematician to hypothesize time. You ask the value (or range of values) of a position labeled as "a,b,c,d" in the mathematical structure, and our friendly mathematician crunches the numbers and gives you the result.