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. — Raymond
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
It's just shorthand for whatever or whoever is taking measurements, which can be a computer sensor — TerraHalcyon
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
So your friend is right in claiming that the world is in a superposition if he doesn't look. — Raymond
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
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
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
That's because, again, the basic interpretation says that an observer (so not a measuring device) is needed to collapse the wavefunction. — Raymond
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
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, t — TerraHalcyon
It's not the math telling you that. That's the easy part. It's the interpretation that's the hard part. — Raymond
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
All people claiming an actual collapse is occurring in a measuring device, or in any interaction, are fooling themselves. — Raymond
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
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
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.