How is it introduced by me? You say that a conscious observer is required. Not just any measuring apparatus. In the end, the quantum event must be measured by a conscious agent.

You also say that this is some evidence of idealism:

It doesn't mention consciousness as such, but says that the observer has a role in the experimental outcome, which calls into question the purported 'mind-independent' nature of the result. — Wayfarer

If any ol physical thing can collapse the wave function, then it's not our mind doing it is it? At least, there is no reason to think so. So it IS mind independent. But measurement dependent (and measurement is, again, not done by a conscious agent necessarily). That's what your article says too.

If a rock can collapse the wave function then what's likely collapsing it in our case is our eyes, not our minds. So this is no evidence of idealism. You need it to be the case that minds/consciousness are doing something for it to be evidence of idealism. But there is no experimental evidence that that is the case. And nothing you've cited so far supports it being the case. And there are plenty of problems if it were the case.

If that registration was made by a system that was never observed by a human, then that result would never be known, and so would be irrelevant. — Wayfarer

Point is, the quantum wave will collapse in that case. That is the contention here. It is what (pretty much) all the scientists think.

Also from your article:

"Does this mean humans are necessary to the existence of the universe? While conscious observers certainly partake in the creation of the participatory universe envisioned by Wheeler, they are not the only, or even primary, way by which quantum potentials become real."

"The particle, as with the photons in the two-slit experiment, exists in many possible states at once, traveling in every possible direction, not quite real and solid until it interacts with something, say a piece of mica in Earth's crust. (I doubt that's conscious)When that happens, one of those many different probable outcomes becomes real. In this case the mica, not a conscious being (I don't think you can get more explicit than this), is the object that transforms what might happen into what does happen."

All wheeler is saying is that humans can collapse the wave function. That's not the contention here. The contention is that you want to say they're the only way it collapses. Even the guy in your own article doesn't think so.

I trust the sources I'm reading more than that article. — Wayfarer

Good, then trust this one that you linked me. It says consciousness is not required.

'Observation' is a conscious act, carried out by a person. — Wayfarer

That's not what's meant by "observation" in the copenhagen interpretation. Just from a skim of wikipedia:

"A common perception of "the" Copenhagen interpretation is that an important part of it is the "collapse" of the wave function.[3] In the act of measurement, it is postulated, the wave function of a system can change suddenly and discontinuously. Prior to a measurement, a wave function involves the various probabilities for the different potential outcomes of that measurement. But when the apparatus registers one of those outcomes, no traces of the others linger."

"Because they assert that the existence of an observed value depends upon the intercession of the observer, Copenhagen-type interpretations are sometimes called "subjective". This term is rejected by many Copenhagenists because the process of observation is mechanical and does not depend on the individuality of the observer."

"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. 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."

what experiment allows us to distinguish between a "real expert" and not. — boethius

Not an experiment. But you manage to do it. I manage to do it in the same way. So does everyone I think.

As for the subject matter, if someone talking about "science" doesn't have an experiment to backup their claim, it doesn't matter anyway. — boethius

Which is precisely why physicists at large do not think consciousness is required for quantum wave collapse.

What you should say (even if you had the above data) is "most experts speculate consciousness is not needed for wave collapse".

But if it's just speculation, who cares? — boethius

Huh? No that's not how this works. In the sciences we don't add unnecessary assumptions. If some madman wanted to convince the world that every time photosynthesis happens a pink elephant is miraculously created on a certain planet that is too far away for us to see (assume this is consistent with all our laws of physics), we usually reply "Ok but what's your evidence". He can't then reply "You don't have evidence it ain't happenin, you just speculatin it ain't".

That's what you're doing here. Someone says "consciousness is required for quantum wave collapse". People ask "Where is your evidence". He doesn't have any. So people rationally should conclude that it isn't required. Since we seem to be able to explain everything without it. You can't just say "that's just speculation". No, that it is required is the speculation that needs proving. Because we don't need consciousness to explain quantum phenomena.

Point is, what the experts mostly speculated before and what they mostly speculate now doesn't matter, what matters is experiment, independent verification, and the trust (based on feeling) that we place in such verifying experiments (that also extends to ourselves as part of this vaguely trustworthy humanity, as we can also do an experiment ourselves, but do it wrong). — boethius

Great. And there hasn't been an experiment that shows consciousness is required for quantum collapse. And there are countless problems that would occur if it were required. Therefore it is reasonable to believe it isn't required. That's why experts say it isn't required.

History (which produces experts), if you bother to look at it, show us "experts" mostly agreeing on a lot of speculations at any given time. Most experts, until recently, nearly all "speculated" the expansion of the universe was slowing down, the question was just how much. Then someone (and it doesn't matter if they're an expert or not) provided evidence that the expansion is actually speeding up. Other groups then independently confirmed this ... maybe; more actual experiments, actually independent maybe needed to increase our confidence to certainty (there could be something seriously wrong with distance measurements, considering the conflict in measuring the Hubble constant may mean we're missing something profound). For now however, "experts" mostly speculate the universe is indeed accelerating in it's expansion. — boethius

This isn't a similar scenario. In this case, both hypotheses are consistent with our experimental data and no new assumptions are added. Either the universe is expanding or it's contracting, in either case, our laws of physics don't change. We can't tell yet, we need more evidence. Someone found evidence. Now we can tell, great.

But in the case of the consciousness requirement, it's purely extra. We don't need it to explain anything. Either the consciousness is required or it isn't, however we have everything we need to explain quantum phenomena without consciousness. Adding consciousness would complicate our models for no reason. And we don't have enough experimental data to add them. Nevermind that adding them can be problematic. It would be exactly like saying that photosynthesis has pink elephant materializing properties. Why the extra complication when we can explain everything without pink elephants? EVEN IF pink elephants and consciousness requirements are consistent with our laws of physics? (Pink elephants are an example of mass being created out of nowhere so they do violate them. And consciousness requirements violate them too as they imply that without a human measurement, any quantum event remains unresolved)

Point is, someone working on theories where the LHC doesn't discover anything more than the Higgs before the LHC results, was not "wrong" because many experts speculated otherwise. — boethius

But was unreasonable.

Speculation of experts doesn't resolve issues, otherwise no scientific breakthrough would ever happen (as they are almost always fringe ideas when they are first thought of, and would be discarded the moment they are thought of due to "contrary expert speculation"). — boethius

No it doesn't, but it determines what's reasonable to believe. Of all the things experts have at first thought of as a fringe idea not worth pursuing very very few end up being correct. Most are just that, fringe ideas not worth pursuing. It's unreasonable to bet on the small chance. Especially since I doubt you do that in most areas.

Some people think the earth is flat. It could be the case that it is a massive conspiracy carried out for no reason. Do you give this fringe idea serious consideration? No. So why the fringe idea that consciousness is required?

He wants to see people navigate the ups and downs of the challenges he has set the parameters for and see if people can improve on the parameters for new technologies, etc. He does not know how far it can be taken, he just has the initial conditions. He also likes seeing the people grow up and learn.. He thinks of them as his "children". He feels the joy of a kind of parent to a child.. — schopenhauer1

Then no he shouldn't start it.

But it seems like you are saying that he should keep forcing more people into the world to play his game because as more people are forced in, they will rely on the people to maintain the jobs and keep the economy going so that people that already exist in the world have more workers to survive, etc. — schopenhauer1

Correct. Once started he shouldn't stop it.

proposed explanations coherent with that and implausible that (again not due to experimental evidence by my feelings of humanity's trustworthiness) has been made up to gaslight me. — boethius

Right. And all I was saying is that it’s implausible that most experts (from trustworthy institutions that have no motivation to lie about this) saying that consciousness is not required for quantum wave collapse, are gaslighting us. This isn’t even a political issue. There is no reason to lie here. Do you agree with that much?

Then you seemed to me to be dismissing all that on the basis that an expert is indistinguishable from a layperson. Which is absurd. You distinguish them with basically all the same qualifiers. PhD, good, political corruption, bad and so on.

Yes, things I haven't actually done, like put two electrons together, I have less confidence in than things I have done. — boethius

But you have some confidence in them. Where does that come from? All the evidence you have that they do is what was written in your physics textbook. It's almost as if you have the absolutely insane idea that experts generally are trustworthy. Could you imagine someone unironically thinking that mere social titles make someone more trustworthy! :rofl:

Some level of scheming I find implausible — boethius

What the hell was that novella then?

You're also forgetting the important step of independent groups confirming results, rather than just believing experts. — boethius

I'm pretty sure the people in these independent groups happen have PhDs most of the time....

Essentially by definition I cannot actually verify by experiment exactly how trustworthy people are, I'm forced to make due with guessing and keeping an eye on things — boethius

Right, and what do you look at when you make your guesses? Does someone having a PhD or Doctorate improve your chances of trusting them in any way? That would be crazy! It's a paltry social title after all!

Can you put two electrons next to each other yourself? I doubt it. You must have been told they do.

How did you learn that two electrons repel each other? Wasn't it some physics textbook somewhere in highschool? What made you trust that one?

Ok, why?

If I send you my resume with all known PhD diplomas that have ever existed, would you just accept the result of this experiment? — boethius

If none are forgeries, yes.

Sigh.

When someone tells you electrons are attracted to other electrons, how do you know they're wrong? Or do you just not? Since my crazy idea that socially bestowed titles are pretty good indicators of expertise is so crazy.

What makes you so sure machines don’t feel anything to be machines? The capacity you just gave is not detectable yet. So what makes you so sure what has or doesn’t have it.

not features of society we are told about without experimental evidence, is what I disagree with. — boethius

Seeing the resume is experimental evidence.

And how do you think they got said features? If not by actually knowing what they're talking about (with maybe a few rare exceptions)?

You can't just define experts into existence in any meaningful sense. — boethius

So no experts exist I guess.....

Have a good one.

We can devise an experiment to resolve who likely has these socially constructed tittles — boethius

You mean looking at their resumes?

If it's a claimed fact about the world — boethius

No, it’s a definition. An expert is someone with a PhD or doctorate. We can confirm whether or not someone has this by looking at their resume. What’s so difficult here?

but says that the observer has a role in the experimental outcome — Wayfarer

Sure. But doesn’t say “conscious observer” does it? I’m sure if you asked those same physicists of consciousness was required to collapse wave functions you’d get an overwhelming “no”.

which calls into question the purported 'mind-independent' nature of the result. — Wayfarer

If only conscious observers were able to collapse wave functions, it would. But again, the theory says nothing like that. Only that an observer is required.

It is analogous to wearing a pair of spectacles, without which nothing can be seen, and then looking through them, and demanding 'show me where in this picture there are spectacles'. — Wayfarer

No what’s being asked is “What would the world look like without spectacles”. The answer is “nothing can be seen” and that’s a problem. I’m not demanding you show me consciousness, I’m asking what the world would look like absent of it. The common answer is: same as it always has been. If some apocalyptic event killed every conscious agent in existence, would all quantum states remain forever unresolved?

In your theory, consciousness is required to collapse wave functions. So what happens when no consciousness has evolved yet? Well, no wave functions have collapsed. What does that even look like? When everything is everywhere.

Ah, but do you have a non-pseudoscientific definition of expert. — boethius

Someone with a Phd or doctorate at least.

And it’s not the domain of science to define what “expert” means. So there is no scientific or pseudoscientific definition. But that’s what I have in mind when I say “expert”.

what exactly counts as an observation?

If I rig a bomb to explode if and only if the electron goes through the right slit, will the bomb explode? Will it only explode if a conscious agent could hear the explosion if it happened or is affected by it in some way? Etc



It talks specifically about consciousness at 16:38

The idea that consciousness plays any role is one of countless interpretations. It is not implied by anything you’ve said here. And it’s not even popular.

To take a bit from the video:

“What was happening in the universe before conscious observers evolved?”

“What exactly counts as a conscious observer?”

“According to Einstein’s theory of relativity, different events can seem to have happened at different times depending on observer. If the events were quantum wave collapse, which observer collapsed the wave functions?”

And many more issues.

Put another way: There is probably a reason most quantum mechanics interpretations that bring in consciousness are dismissed as pseudoscience nowadays by most experts. That being that it’s an unnecessary, problematic and poorly defined assumption.

Yup. The video hasn’t shown that “observer” has anything do with minds. Or what exactly is and isn’t an observer.

I watched that forever ago already. I just skimmed through it again. Ok quantum wave functions collapse when observed. Where is the idealism?

So he'd rather accept sliding doors than the idealism. — Wayfarer

How does either option there amount to a form of idealism?

And this would be more of a eliminitavism of consciousness than a attempt to reduce it to the physical. — Nzomigni

eliminativism would be insisting that consciousness doesn’t exist. Reducing it to the physical is reductionism. It still exists, it’s just not magical.

Why you assume machines can't have self-awareness ?
— Nzomigni

They don't yet. — Tom Storm

Again, how do you know? Or, what would it take to convince you that a machine is conscious?

I find it weird that people are very quick to say machines aren’t conscious while not having any clear definition of what “conscious” means or how we can know if something is conscious or not.

Now that he can’t stop it harmlessly*. If, for instance, the people in the world rely on the products and need a continuous supply of them.

Thing is, it’s a chocolate factory. Idk why Willy became a God all of a sudden. I’m assuming he has some purpose behind forcing all these people and is not doing it for shits and giggles.

Why would Willy consider creating that world in your example? What’s the motivation?

Why are the fruits of the labor the summum bonum? — schopenhauer1

They're not. The highest value is prevention of suffering. If said labor is needed (aka is preventing suffering) then it's fine. Because in that case not creating the factory is also harmful.

If the fruits of these people's labor are needed somewhere then it's fine depending on how needed this labor is. Otherwise if you're doing it for no reason probably not.

Sure whatever. I don’t particularly care about this point.

Example? — Amity

“Jungian”, “Protestant”, etc

Not all isms end with “ism”

To reject all isms is another ism. “Rejectism” let’s call it.

I have in mind Dennett and his denying phenomenal consciousness. — Manuel

Do not mention the cursed one. The Starter of Interminable Threads. The insatiable devourer of time.

But I would more so say that when Dennett says “consciousness ain’t real” he is denying the “phenomenal” bit, not the “consciousness” bit. He is basically denying a dualistic approach. Consciousness is real and all, but no more than a physical process. The “feeling of red” IS a specific neurological state, and no more than that. It’s not something “produced by” a certain neurological state no it IS the neurological state.

That’s what he seems to be saying to me at least.

Nevertheless, there's a noticeable trend, even if only in certain patches of the global community, in the human condition in that the overall situation vis-à-vis happiness has shown some definite improvement. — TheMadFool

Cool. But is having children now risk free? No. If not what justifies the risk?

The antinatalist would tell you: Nothing. What would you say?

can't the les misérables work their way up the social ladder and themselves become antinatalists? Surely they can — TheMadFool

Not as surely as you might think.

If so, the antinatlist position is untenable; after all les misérables can achieve the same level of happiness that allows antinatalists to cogitate about them. — TheMadFool

Why does that make the position untenable?

It would only be untenable if you can demonstrate that les Misérables will achieve the same level of happiness. Demonstrably, that's not the case. That they can is not sufficient.

This is not an absolute proof for the simple reason that we can't ever prove that we have understood our proofs correctly — Qmeri

If this is valid it applies to your “proof” too. A proof that disproves itself false is nonsensical.

What makes you think you haven’t made a mistake? If the possibility of making a mistake is justification to reject Descartes then it’s also justification to reject your proof that we should reject Descartes. And I’d rather reject the latter.

the antinatalist claims all is not well but to do that all has to be well. — TheMadFool

I see what you mean now. There are multiple ways to resolve this though.

1- First off, the AN doesn't claim that all is not well necessarily. But that there is a chance that all won't be well. So based on that, don't take the chance.

2- The AN can simply claim that all will not be well for their child while all is well for them

Among others. But most importantly: No AN on this site has tried to reach AN through the angle that life is terrible and unbearable. Because that's not true on average. Most arguments are about risk management and how the risk of all not being well need not be taken.

It applies to every position of course. :chin: — TheMadFool

Even that one.

In other words, you're speaking nonsense. Your thoughts are self contradictory. Should be a pointer that “if they were suffering they couldn’t have thought of this position therefore this position is not right” is not right to begin with.

“if they were suffering they couldn’t have thought of this position therefore this position is not right”

What? How does that follow? And how does it not apply to every position ever?

Real philosophers aren't trying to be clever, or have an interesting discussion: they're trying to close discussion down. — Bartricks

Cool. So since you have everything figured out from indubitable first premises with pristine logic maybe close discussion down and don’t post again :wink:?

I would want to be a bit more specific here. Not sure what you mean by “antinatalism is pointless”. If you mean by it that “Antinatalism is not good” then, agreed. It isn’t. That’s not what the antinatalists argue.

The antinatalist argues that having children is bad. He doesn’t try to establish that not having children is good (who would it be good for)

He Benkei thinks that if the no person is born, that "no person born" does not benefit from being prevented from existing. — schopenhauer1

I would agree. No one in fact benefits from not having children. And since I think the asymmetry is BS, I would also have it that “not having children” is not a good act (who would it be good for). I thought this even when I was AN.

I’m confused what this has to do with the argument though. Antinatalists try to argue that having kids is wrong. What does saying “Not having kids is not good for anyone” do here? It’s true but... irrelevant.

Antinatalists (god they're so fucking annoying) — darthbarracuda

I would agree even back when I was one.

Yes, which is morally irrelevant if nobody actually benefits and counterfactual in most modern societies. — Benkei

"Is morally irrelevant if nobody actually benefits"? What does that mean?

or discuss with colleagues. — Bartricks

If they don’t have any friends I can see that but all my University teachers discussed their work all the time. Especially the daring and crazy ideas.

they might be made to attend some tedious and pointless lecture — Bartricks

That’s called “requiring a teaching qualification”. Or else they wouldn’t be made to take the lecture.

And as for your charming comment "all of your posts are trash", all I can say is: Dunning and Kruger. I feel the same way about yours. The difference is that's an expert's judgement of a fool, not a fool's judgement of an expert . — Bartricks

Prove you’re an expert. You’ve given us no reason to believe you are and plenty to believe you aren’t. Where and what do you teach exactly?

What would happen if a professional philosopher came on this site without anyone knowing that they were an expert? What would Dunning and Kruger predict, Banno? Would they predict that all the ignorant people would recognize the philosopher for the expert they were? Or would they predict that the philosopher would quickly be judged a total idiot by virtually everyone? — Bartricks

Neither. That’s not what dunning Kruger is.

Dunning Kruger is people being very confident in their knowledge when they don’t have much of it. That does not mean that they can’t recognize experts. It means that they will be very confident in their judgements of experts despite not being qualified to make the judgement (they will be very confident in what they think be it that the “expert” is an idiot or genius). Dunning and Kruger does not predict that people think experts are idiots. It predicts that everyone calls themselves an expert even when their not (such as your case).

If an actual expert came on and made an argument you’d expect some people to agree and others to disagree. What the dunning Kruger effect predicts is that everyone will be very committed to their camp. It does not predict the number of people in each camp. That depends on what the alleged expert says. And considering you’re spouting nonsense, everyone has gone to the disagreement camp.

But leave it to you not to understand the dunning Kruger effect while using it as an insult every other line.

if you just stuck to trying to argue something I wouldn't mention it. — Bartricks

Bullshit. You’re a DK connoisseur. You’re always the one that starts with the insults. The reason you’re getting so much animosity is that any time someone genuinely wants to talk to you you insult them.

And you still haven’t responded to my objection to the OP. What’s the “true view” in regards to the best ice cream flavor? You said there is a true view in regards to every subject matter no? So, provide the true view in regards to the best ice cream flavor. Or at least some way we can start to get there.

Or you can admit there isn’t one....

Do you have any expertise? — Bartricks

You keep blabbering about this but have provided no proof of your own expertise.

And you said that no experts have ever looked at your argument. I'd assume if you were an expert you would be discussing these things with colleagues.

And you said that you "don't need to learn teaching to teach at a university" which is plain false.

And your posts are trash.

So all we have is 3 pieces of evidence pointing at you not knowing what you're talking about. Having no expertise.

What exactly have you done? What have you published? What have you taught? Where have you taught?

I would bet money the answer is: Nothing, Nothing, Nothing, Nowhere. If you could easily dismiss these claims, you would. But you won't. Because you can't.

You think that if 10 people with no expertise whatsoever think a highly qualified person is talking shite, then it is the highly qualified person who is most likely manifesting the effect and not the 10 thickies?!? — Bartricks

No but if literally everyone on the site (way more than 10) disagrees with you then you're likely talking shite yes.

Idk what any of that means or what it’s in response to. “Guiding principle”? When did anyone mention that?

But I'm your philosophy teacher. — Bartricks

I don’t remember ever hiring you or signing up for any of your classes.

But since I apparently did, you’re fired/I drop out. On account of you being an idiot. No doubt you think you’re not an idiot, but that’s just the Dunning Kruger effect.

And we don't do philosophy by looking up words in the dictionary. — Bartricks

No but we do it by speaking English in this case. So if you refuse to use words properly you can’t do much philosophy.

“Non material energy” “They deserve it but it’s wrong to do to them” are examples of not understanding English.

Furthermore, you refuse to even elaborate what you mean when you are misusing words.

Exactly what desert involves is a matter of debate. But no one thinks it means 'is right to give it to', — Bartricks

You deny the common definition because you don’t want to face inconsistencies in your system, and provide no alternative. “Desert is defined in such a way that my system is consistent, but what exactly it means I don’t know”. Nice one.