It's not so-called authority, all the interpretations are is attempts to explain the math. It's not a stretch to call the field purely math based. Interpretations is EXACTLY about the math.

Unfortunately there has yet to be an agreement on which one accurately explains the math.

The only objective way out are hidden variables. — Raymond

Again no it isn't and trying to posit such a thing is useless if you have no way to measure it. There is no problem of the collapse either.

So the guy is just right. Because you don't understand the problem and secretely project an objective collapse on nature. — Raymond

No, he is still in the wrong and so are you. You still use observer incorrectly just like he uses superposition incorrectly. If he did know how it's used his argument would make no sense. I'm also getting the sense you don't understand superposition either. Oddly enough it has nothing to do with location, it's not either-or, it's not we don't know either. In a sense it's both, but it runs counter to our understanding in the macro world. It is an objective collapse, it's not my fault you haven't grasped what is meant by observer in QM.

It's one thing to cite the measurement problem because that is inevitable in science, measuring something alters it (taking tire pressure lets air out, etc). But it's another to think observer in QM has anything to do with consciousness when it does not, no matter what YOU think.

To say solipsists in superposition is just nonsense to people who ACTUALLY know what superposition means.

The principle of quantum superposition states that if a physical system may be in one of many configurations—arrangements of particles or fields—then the most general state is a combination of all of these possibilities, where the amount in each configuration is specified by a complex number.

You have to be an idiot to think that has anything to do with solipsism. If anything it runs counter to it.

Again, you direct your nose to authority. You don't understand the matter, which is easy to understand. You say, "but these and these say this and that". The fact is that collapse cannot be understood mathematically. The process of collapse, say a superposition of a spin up spin down state, is induced by a measurement, but before someone actually sees the outcome, the whole is still in a superposition, like the cat and the poison in the covered cage of Schrödinger. You can simply state there is collapse regardless of looking (like Heisenberg does), but you can just as well maintain that only when you look there is collapse. By your logic the superposition would always be in one of the two states. Which isn't the case according to standard interpretation. Maybe you should educate yourself first, before pointing at "authority" without understanding the subject. I too once thought a collapse is objective but the very Copenhagen interpretation gives the possibility to always maintain that nature is in a superposition until measured by us (in the many worlds interpretation there is no collapse at all).There is no unitary operator that causes objective collapse. It's the observer that causes collapse. Prove the guy wrong. You can't. How do you know there is a collapse if you don't look? You can simply claim it to happen, he can simply claim the whole is still in a superposition of which you are not aware. So you measure a spin direction, and he claims you are still in a superposition of two worlds, one in which you measure spin up, and one in which you measure spin down. The many world interpretation even backs him up on this. His state is still a one in which you are in superposition. So, your claim to authority is an empty one because authority just doesn't know and any claim on objective collapse is just an assumption which with math has nothing to do. Objective collapse theory is equivalent to hidden variables. Only hidden variables cause objective collapse. The theory is deterministic and avoids the probabilistic interpretation, causing all the confusion and interpretation problems. So again, the guy is right, and if you like there is authority claiming collapse is not caused by us, and there is authority claiming it is. We just don't know, by the very nature of superposition and their attachment with the observer. Only hidden variables offer an objective mechanism for collapse (or objective collapse theory, which is equivalent). However you may not like it, you can't prove the guy wrong. But I can, as I'm sure hidden variables exist. There can't be something like pure chance, as QM implies, and which directs collapse. Chance needs a deterministic substrate.

The process of collapse, say a superposition of a spin up spin down state, is induced by a measurement, but before someone actually sees the outcome, the whole is still in a superposition, like the cat and the poison in the covered cage of Schrödinger — Raymond

Again, not entirely. Also the point of the Schrodinger experiment was to show how it doesn't apply to the macro world. Again, the collapse happens at measurement or according to the double slit experiment by the particle itself. It doesn't need someone, why is that so hard to understand. It's a fairly objective collapse, not subjective. In this case observation just means interaction with the outside world, which could be anything. It, again, has nothing to do with a person or consciousness.

But again collapse only refers to isolated systems, it has nothing to do with solipsism.

Maybe you should educate yourself first, before pointing at "authority" without understanding the subject. I too once thought a collapse is objective but the very Copenhagen interpretation gives the possibility to always maintain that nature is in a superposition until measured by us (in the many worlds interpretation there is no collapse at all). — Raymond

No, no, no no no. I also point to authority because these people do the math and actually use the terms right which you don't. Also that is not what it says, it doesn't suggest that nature is in a superposition unless measured. Also to just refer to the interpretation as a blanket statement that is generally agreed on is wrong. Even within that particular field there isn't an official agreement on what it IS and there are some disagreements depending on the school of thought in it. Regardless observer in that school doesn't mean conscious person either way.

Objective collapse theory is equivalent to hidden variables. — Raymond

Again with the hidden variables nonsense, you have no evidence for it.

So again, the guy is right, and if you like there is authority claiming collapse is not caused by us, and there is authority claiming it is. We just don't know, by the very nature of superposition and their attachment with the observer. — Raymond

Again, no he isn't. Because, AGAIN, he isn't using superposition correctly and neither are you. And it is known that collapse isn't caused by us, it's caused by anything interacting with the system. Observer does not mean us, it means any interaction with a quantum system with the external world. That by itself disproves solipsism.

There can't be something like pure chance, as QM implies, and which directs collapse. Chance needs a deterministic substrate. — Raymond

Yes there can and quantum physics is evidence of it. It doesn't need a deterministic substrate. You're still stuck in classical physics thinking which is your first error.

So you measure a spin direction, and he claims you are still in a superposition of two worlds, one in which you measure spin up, and one in which you measure spin down. The many world interpretation even backs him up on this. — Raymond

Many worlds is just one of many and a minority view at that. IT doesn't prove anything. It's also never been proven. And again you are putting words in his mouth, he never said any of that and even if he did it does NOT prove solipsism.

How do you know there is a collapse if you don't look? — Raymond

Because it has been measured, duh.

It's the observer that causes collapse. — Raymond

Wrong again, at least in the sense of using it. Observation causes collapse, which can mean any THING and not a conscious entity.

It's clear from your writing you don't understand the subject, much like the guy in the Quora link. The appeal to authority works here because unless you have a degree in the subject you have no business "doing your research" or "thinking of this stuff yourself". It just perpetuates the same nonsense that they have to deal with. Stop embarrassing yourself and actually talk to the people who do this stuff. Philosophy can't help you here. The other errors is that you're citing the interpretations as facts when really they're just attempts to explain the math that is rock solid. They are far from settled. So saying "many worlds backs him up" is just empty because you pick a theory you agree with (and a fringe one at that).

Sorry dude, you're just wrong here and so is the guy. QM has nothing to do with solipsism.

Again, the collapse happens at measurement — TerraHalcyon

How do you know?

Authority says:

"This is actually an unresolved question in QM. There are many interpretations of QM. Some attempt to define what constitutes measurement and what causes collapse. In some interpretation, wavefunctions never collapse. In some others, wavefunctions are not a good enough description for quantum systems. The canonical interpretation, Copenhagen interpretation, simply dodges this question"

Well according to this dude solipsism is true and we are solipsists in superposition. I don't know how right his argument is. — TerraHalcyon

just tell him to go on a rollercoaster. I think he'll find that rollercoasters are in fact, quite real.

I find solipsism contradictory on the fact that their sense of self was literally created by someone else. I don't know anyone who gave birth to themselves.

He doesn't the deny the reality of roller-coasters, but he denies there are actually other people in the roller-coaster having the same experience. The guy in this polemic says there are other solipsists rolling along, so he's not a solipsist.

He doesn't the deny the reality of roller-coasters, but he denies there are actually other people in the roller-coaster having the same experience. — Raymond

Huh. So he's like Neo in the Matrix, if I understand correctly?

It's clear from your writing you don't understand the subject, much like the guy in the Quora link. The appeal to authority works here because unless you have a degree in the subject — TerraHalcyon

It's you who doesn't understand. I'm sorry to say because I'm not a solipsist either.

An observation is not an interaction. Every interaction is a virtual process and an observer looking at what he measures too. The photons reaching your retina are virtual ones too. They might have momentum and energy almost on shell (meaning the both obey the relativistic relation between them) but they are still not observed themselves.The system (process-observer-measuring device) remains in a superposition if it stays isolated from a second observer (which means the second observer is in a superposition too), the guy in your polemic. It could even be that there is only superposition, without collapse. The talk about objective collapse, uttered by some are put on your barricade just to back up your presumption. The claim to authority is just to hide your ignorance. Authority simply uses a priori assumption too. There simply is no objective collapse when you stick to the basic principles. You can even consider the whole universe as a developing superposition, like is done in the many worlds interpretation, which was invented exactly to evade the problem of collapse (if collapse was objective, this wouldn't have been done, but collapse is problematic in the standard interpretation, giving rise to a non-unitary evolution of the wavefunction). And the guy is justified in using this interpretation. Let me explain.

If you observe a spin up thee is a second you observing a spin down. For the guy not observing you yet you are in a state of superposition of both outcomes in both parallel worlds (the one where you measured spin up and the one where you measured spin down). Simply because you always are in superposition. In the world where you measured up, he is justified to see you as a superposition still because he is in superposition too. He is present in the world where you observed up, as well in the world where you observed down. Only when he observes you, the world will evolve in a new state that consists of four superimposed ones. Two in which you observed up and he observes up or down, and two where you observed spin down and he up or down. So you as well as him are always in superposition, and observing causes the superposition to live happily after observing but in separate worlds. So either nothing is in superposition or all is. If he claims the world is in superposition if he doesn't observe it, he himself is in a superposition too.
To put it differently. If you observe a superimposed state of spin up and spin down, the superposition of you measuring up and down is still attached to the guy, in both the world where you measured up as in the world where you measured down. Only when the guy observes you, the two separate worlds will each split further in two separate states in which he observes you observing up and down. So in your world you might actually have observed up or down, but these two distinct outcomes will still be in superposition. For the guy, in both of these worlds with distinct outcomes for you, you are still in superposition and only when he observes you, he will see you have measured up or down. So from the state where you measured up, as well from the state where you measured down, two new states follow, because a superposition of you measuring up and down (apart from the actual outcomes you observe) is still contained in the both of them. Your observations might have caused two separate states (up and down), but the state of you observing the spin is still a superimposed one, and only the guy observing you causes a split into two separate worlds in which he sees you observing up and down.
So the whole state is initially a superposition of the up and down spin of an electron and you observing up or down spin. The total state is a product of these two states, with four outcomes, all superimposed firstly. If you observe firstly, there is a split between a spin up and a spin down state. From each of these two, up as well as down, the observation of the guy creates a split of you observing up and you observing down. This doesn't mean though that he observes up while you observed down. He will always observe the same spin as you observed.
To put it differently, for TG (the/that guy) you are still in a superposition of observing up and down. Your observation causes a local split, but only when TG observes the superposition of you observing up and down, the global splits in two distinct states. TG can't observe one of the two you's (one observing up and one observing down) if you did not actually observe. He can't observe something that doesn’t actually exist. The superposition of you observing up and down, is different from the superposition of the two spins, obviously. For TG you are still in a superposition, and you are, actually! Only when he observes you, from both the states with spin up and spin down, two new states will appear when TG observes you, one in which you have observed spin up and one in which you have observed spin down, no matter if the state it comes from contains up or down only. The states of spin up and down couple with the states of you observing up and observing down, and the product of these states gives rise to a state of four substates. One with spin up and you measuring up and down (which means you observe up while TG can observe you observing up as well as down) and one with spin down and you measuring up and down (which means you observe down while TG can observe you observing up as well as down). It may sound counterfactual that when you observe up TG can still observe you observing up as well as down, but that's exactly what the math tells us. There is a product state of spin up and you measuring up and down, as well as a product state of down with you measuring up and down. The sum of these two existed as a superposition first. Your observation of the spin led the separation of this sum into two distinct superpositions, the two products. Each product is a sum: spin up and you measuring up or down, and spin down and you measuring up and down.

So. At the start, the wavefunction is:

(up+down)(YOu+YOd),

Ignoring normalization factors. wher u is spin up and YOu is the state you observe (YO) up.ikewise for spin down.

Which can be written:

up(YOu+YOd)+down(YOu+YOd).

After you observed the spin, there are two states, each in a separate world:

up(YOu+YOd), and
down(YOu+YOd).

From these two worlds, TG's observation causes four worlds to come into play:

up(YOu) and up(YOd)
down(YOu) and down(YOd).

Now how the hell can a state whit spin up can go together with you observing spin down, up(YOd)? Following the rules we can nothing but conclude exactly that.

The only alternative: objective collapse theory or hidden variables.

Again it's not hidden variables but I'm getting tired of repeating myself to someone who doesn't get it.

How do you know? — Raymond

Again, because it has been measured. What is so hard to understand about that? You are taking the effects of collapse to mean that observing the effect means you caused it, but you don't have the evidence to show that you caused the collapse, you're just observing the effects of it.

To put it differently, for TG (the/that guy) you are still in a superposition of observing up and down. Your observation causes a local split, but only when TG observes the superposition of you observing up and down, the global splits in two distinct states. — Raymond

Except it doesn't because quantum principles don't apply to macro level objects. Also you're using the weakest interpretation of QM as fact.

Only when he observes you, from both the states with spin up and spin down, two new states will appear when TG observes you, one in which you have observed spin up and one in which you have observed spin down, no matter if the state it comes from contains up or down only. — Raymond

For him to observe me I would have to exist outside of him, which would render solipsism false.

So you as well as him are always in superposition, and observing causes the superposition to live happily after observing but in separate worlds. — Raymond

No we aren't. Superposition doesn't apply at the classical level, at least in terms of the quantum way. Stop citing many worlds as though it's fact, it's the weakest interpretation out there which posits something it cannot prove. Also it would disprove solipsism.

He doesn't the deny the reality of roller-coasters, but he denies there are actually other people in the roller-coaster having the same experience. The guy in this polemic says there are other solipsists rolling along, so he's not a solipsist. — Raymond

Solipsism is saying that one's own existence or mind (depends on the degree of doubt) is the only thing that can be sure to exist. So if you accept the reality of rollercoasters then you aren't a solipsist because you believe something besides you exists. There also, by definition, CANNOT BE OTHER SOLIPSISTS.

Huh. So he's like Neo in the Matrix, if I understand correctly? — john27

Sort of, except unlike the matrix where there are other minds but in virtual bodies solipsism says one cannot know about the existence of other minds. Most find the concept absurd though and there is no way to prove it.

Ray on the other hand is jumping through hoops trying to show what the guy in the original Quora link is trying to say and failing. As I said, when asked he didn't explain anything just defaulted to saying "you don't get it" each time, so to say "he's actually saying X" is giving him way more credit then is due and putting words in his mouth. If you read the same link I did you'll find no explanation of his reasoning, and I spent rows trying to get it out of him only to be met with irrelevant quotes and him just insisting it's right with no reasoning.

Quantum physics has nothing to do with solipsism, they are completely different matters entirely and you have to be an idiot to think otherwise. Not to mention the obvious flaw with being a solipsist and posting on the internet.

You cannot have minds in superposition (again using superposition incorrectly since it's not about location or anything you're trying to use) with solipsism because that would be admitting other minds exist and therefor it ceases to be solipsism.

Sort of, except unlike the matrix where there are other minds but in virtual bodies solipsism says one cannot know about the existence of other minds. — TerraHalcyon

Oh, then couldn't you say absence of proof isn't proof of absence or something like that?
Like just because I can't see a tiger in the Sahara desert doesn't mean a tiger isn't in the Sahara desert.

Edit: I don't know if tigers actually live in the Sahara desert...but you get my point.

It's a bit more complicated than that. Because I can verify a tiger.

It's also not a case of absence of evidence but more like reasonable doubt. Like in the case of unicorns I can say there are none within reasonable doubt, because there are no bones or anything like that of them. I can't say it's beyond all possible doubt, I mean...no one can because there is always going to be SOME degree of doubt.

In the case of other people I assume they have minds because they are humans like me and I know I have a mind. To me I go with parsimony and the simplest explanation is that they are humans like me and so they have a mind.

One could say I made them, but they need evidence for that. Or that they are p-zombies, but then that also raises doubts about me as well. If they look and do everything as a normal human would do then how do I know I'm not a p-zombie?

I think any reasonable conclusion would show that other people exist and have minds. Anything else would honestly make me question the motivation of the other person. Even if you did believe other folks didn't have minds it doesn't change anything about how they act.

They still act and behave as though they have minds, which to me is the same thing. It would also pose the question of what use or importance is there of a mind if other beings can behave in all the same ways without one. Then you would have to explain how these things behave as though they have minds but they don't.

Solipsism just needlessly complicates things and calls it "doubt" but really it's a dead end philosophy.

Again it's not hidden variables but I'm getting tired of repeating myself to someone who doesn't get it. — TerraHalcyon

It's you who doesn't get it. Gnight!

It's you who doesn't get it. Gnight! — Raymond

No...no...just you. Using just one interpretation you agree with, and a fringe one at that. Enough said.

I mean...you still think observation has anything to do with consciousness.

Mm. It doesn't seem very productive, this solipsism thing...

It's a thought experiment. The point being that we can't prove other people are conscious, not strictly. But some take that to the extreme end and think that they are the only ones who exist. Most people who subscribe to it though don't jump to that absurd conclusion that other people don't exist, just that they can't prove they are conscious. So they behave as though they were and that everything is real because if they don't then they could cause serious harm if they were real.

Which to me seem...unnecessary. I mean if you're gonna behave and treat everything as real just say it's real. I get the uncertainty but our lives are mired in uncertainty and we just take somethings for granted whether we want to or not.

But yes, it is a useless theory. It changes nothing about reality.

What I also find interesting is that it's swamped in...ignorance? Naivety? It's kind of banking on the fact that we won't ever know what consciousness is/prove consciousness is a thing. Which in my opinion, while plausible, is not entirely er...seems a little biased.

Well it's also taking average doubt to an absurd conclusion. Just because I can't solidly prove others are conscious doesn't mean they aren't and I'm the only one who exists.

Sure all I have are their actions and behaviors and that they are humans like me. But why is that not enough. I mean if one's behavior isn't enough to prove consciousness then that spells trouble for me, because then how do I know I am conscious and not just acting in such a manner.

It's just an absurd conclusion to a very old problem.

The guy thinks you are a solipsist too, so he at least acknowledges that. Two solipsists denying each other's existence are very lonely.

Says one solipsist to another: "you don't exist!" The other solipsist kicks his ass. "And what about that?" Says the other one: "That's only me thinking you kicked and my body being in pain"

Solipsists use this reasoning to feel themselves superior, making reality happen themselves, thereby being above the others.

There will never be real contact. I think you can't stand it he ignores your consciousness and can't prove him wrong. If he claims you are in superposition before he observes you then he at least says your existence is as real as yours. You can just say to him that according to you his existence is utterly unreal. If you do that, his argument doesn’t hold, as he is unreal...

Calling his post an argument is being VERY generous as it is nothing but just a bunch of assertions that he repeats without any reason to logic to explain it all. I asked for it and all I got was just him repeating it back to me. Not to mention his assertions are bonkers, just look at this:

Your counterpoints are so off the mark, they’re not even wrong. They’re just ignorant of what they are attempting to address. You can’t even see that perception is reality (which is tautological) has to be the case. Your points miss the point and are pointless.

I will enumerate the perquisites that your belief system needs to accept in order to understand these concepts.

1: Consciousness is fundamental and all that exists.

You don’t believe it so you can’t understand any ramifications thereof.

2: Everything in physical reality is a construct of one’s mind. Created by consciousness and translated by the brain.

You can’t fathom such a concept which is antithesis of naïve realism and the basis of idealism.

3: Other minds in superposition are part of number 2 and constructed by each of us. You don’t understand number 2 and so therefore can’t understand 3.

My you is a lonely, insecure, p-zombie (can’t understand the analogy) who uses arrogance to cover his fears. My you likely has few if any friends who tolerate your abrasive, egotistical personality.

Your you is an entirely different construct but you don’t even realize that you have constructed the you you are so enamored of and that your me you are trying to disabuse is also your creation. At least I know I’ve created the p-zombie that is labeled Ian and is tilting at windmills.

There is no reason to believe his premises.