Atheistforums.com

A simple technical explanation of this experiment.

(http://s243.photobucket.com/user/josephpalazzo/media/DCQE-experiment.jpg.html)


Red â†' photons from slit A go to D₀, {D₁, D₂}, D₄ (but not D₃)
Blue â†' photons from slit B go to D₀, {D₁, D₂}, D₃ (but not D₄)
D₀â†' it is a simple quantum eraser experiment, with no delayed choice.
A photon that goes to D₁, D₂, D₃ and D₄ is called an “idler”; these photons are entangled with photons going at D₀.



D₁, D₂â†' photon comes from either A or B; we get interference like in a double-slit experiment.
D₃â†' we know it’s a photon coming from the slit A; there’s no interference like in a double-slit experiment with a detector at slit A.
D₄â†' we know it’s a photon coming from the slit B; there’s no interference like in a double-slit experiment with a detector at slit B.

Interpretation (wrong): some have interpreted that the delayed choice to observe or not the path of the idler changes the outcome of an event in the past. This is not the general consensus. In fact it would violate causality.

The appropriate answer is that in one particular set of circumstances, particle behavior is exhibited, while in a different set of circumstances, wave behavior is exhibited, and this behavior can morph from one circumstance to the next.

Note:  the technical word “eraser” simply signifies that we don’t know which path was taken by the photon. It has nothing to do as in “erasing the memory of the photon” or “erasing our memory of which path the photon took.”

http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scully/kim-scully-web.htm (http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scully/kim-scully-web.htm)

This break down of the experiment was reviewed and approved by Dr. Kim who actually conducted the experiment. The conclusion is:

QuoteUpon accessing the information gathered by the Coincidence Circuit, we the observer are shocked to learn that the pattern shown by the positions registered at D0 at Time 2 depends entirely on the information gathered later at Time 4 and available to us at the conclusion of the experiment.

The position of a photon at detector D0 has been registered and scanned. Yet the actual position of the photon arriving at D0 will be at one place if we later learn more information; and the actual position will be at another place if we do not.

The instance you are referring to when you say: "some have interpreted that the delayed choice to observe or not the path of the idler changes the outcome of an event in the past. This is not the general consensus. In fact it would violate causality,"

Is shown to be a correct interpretation of this more recent version of the Delayed Choice Experiment: "Quantum Erasure With Causally Disconnected Choice," http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.6578v2.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.6578v2.pdf) completed in 2013 by Zeilinger's team. You state, "In fact it would violate causality." and Yes indeed it does. This experiment does violate causality as is explained in the paper:

QuoteIn all experiments performed to date, this choice took place either in the past or, in some delayed-choice arrangements, in the future of the interference. Thus in principle, physical communications between choice and interference were not excluded. Here we report a quantum eraser experiment, in which by enforcing Einstein locality no such communication is possible.... No naive realistic picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether.

QuoteIf the observer measures the photons, his choice of the type of measurement decides whether the atoms can be described by a wave or a particle picture. Firstly, when the photons are measured in a way that reveals welcher-weg information of the atoms, the atoms do not show interference, not even conditionally on the photons’ specific mea- surement results. Secondly, if the photons are measured such that this irrevocably erases any welcher-weg information about the atoms, then the atoms will show perfect but distinct interference patterns.

QuoteSince the welcher-weg information of the atoms is carried by the photons, the choice of measurement of the photonsâ€" either revealing or erasing the atoms’ welcher-weg informationâ€"can be delayed until “long after the atoms have passed” the photon detectors at the double slit. The later measurement of the photons ‘decides’ whether the atoms can show interference or not even after the atoms have been detected.

QuoteOur work demonstrates and confirms that whether the correlations between two entangled photons reveal welcher- weg information or an interference pattern of one (system) photon, depends on the choice of measurement on the other (environment) photon, even when all the events on the two sides that can be space-like separated, are space-like separated. The fact that it is possible to decide whether a wave or particle feature manifests itself long afterâ€"and even space-like separated fromâ€"the measurement teaches us that we should not have any naive realistic picture for interpreting quantum phenomena.

Causality is thus violated and the interpretation that the choice to observe or not changes the outcome of the past is and has been a valid interpretation since the year 2013. Further:

The naïve realist theory may be characterized as the acceptance of the following five beliefs:

1) There exists a world of material objects.
2) Some statements about these objects can be known to be true through sense-experience.
3) These objects exist not only when they are being perceived but also when they are not perceived. The objects of perception are largely perception-independent.
4) These objects are also able to retain properties of the types we perceive them as having, even when they are not being perceived. Their properties are perception-independent.
5) By means of our senses, we perceive the world directly, and pretty much as it is. In the main, our claims to have knowledge of it are justified.

All of these interpretations have proven to be useless as they do not lead to any new predictions. You can find tons of these speculations but none predicts anything new, you can use the paper iit's written on as toilet paper.

Casparov, you again post crap that is not from main stream scientists, but science writers that are also prejudiced by religion, are philosophers, or to promote their agenda that questions science. You are still being disingenuous after being called out on it.

QuoteRoss Rhodes is a science writer and lecturer for both professional and lay audiences, specializing in the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics. He is the founder of and principal contributor to BottomLayer.com, a web resource devoted to the convergence of physics, philosophy, and computer science. Mr. Rhodes has written for publications in science and theology; lectured in the United States and Europe on the foundations of quantum mechanics; and provided editorial assistance to leading researchers in the field. He obtained his B.A. from Tufts University in 1974, and his Juris Doctor from the University of Connecticut in 1981.

Just go play in traffic! Solitary

The Juris Doctor (J.D.) is a professional doctorate and first professional graduate degree in law. The degree is earned by completing law school in the United States, Canada, Australia, and other common law countries. Those who hold the degree of Juris Doctor are professionals committed to the practice of law, and may choose to focus their practice on criminal law, personal injury, family law, corporate law, or a wide range of other areas.

Most individuals holding a Juris Doctor must pass an exam to be licensed to practice law within their jurisdiction. Professionals who pass the required bar examination are known as lawyers or attorneys. Not all J.D. degree holders sit for the bar exam, and thus not all J.D. holders are licensed attorneys, unless the jurisdiction permits otherwise.

The degree was first awarded in the United States in the late 19th century and was created as a modern version of the old European doctor of law degree (such as the Dottore in Giurisprudenza in Italy and the Juris Utriusque Doctor in Germany and Central Europe). Originating from the 19th century Harvard movement for the scientific study of law, it is a law degree that in most common law jurisdictions is the primary professional preparation for lawyers. It is a three-year program in most jurisdictions.

You post good sources Casparov. Still being disingenuous after being called out for it. If it was up to me you would be banned for being dishonest and having an anti science agenda.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 07, 2014, 02:59:02 PM
All of these interpretations have proven to be useless as they do not lead to any new predictions. You can find tons of these speculations but none predicts anything new, you can use the paper iit's written on as toilet paper.

Are you serious? Anton Zeilinger is world renowned as on of the most respected living Experimental Quantum Physicists alive today second only to maybe Alain Aspect! His lab and team in Vienna is one of the most well funded and well staffed operations in the world. Are you kidding me right now?? Your going to wipe your ass with any experimental proof that disagrees with your beliefs? What are you a Fundamentalist Materialist?

You're going to say you can throw out the entire experiment and it's conclusive results on the basis that "it doesn't predict anything new"? First of all, you don't know that that is the case. Zeilinger is applying Quantum Theory to applications within the field of Quantum Cryptology and Quantum Optics, so no these experiments are not worthless. Second of all, even if they didn't predict anything new, that is no basis to entirely disregard conclusive experimental results! I mean wtf is going on here....

Okay well then change your statement to:

Interpretation (correct): some have interpreted that the delayed choice to observe or not the path of the idler changes the outcome of an event in the past. This is has been proven experimentally in 2013. In fact it conclusively violates causality. But you can just throw out all of those experimental proofs because they don't predict anything new and are therefore worthless. So in conclusion, causality is not violated nana nana boo boo!

This is getting sad. You don't debate the evidence, you look for any opportunity to just throw the evidence out instead... Atheist Apologetics at it's best.

 :popcorn:

Has anybody bothered to point out that JP is an actual Physicist? Casparov is a, uh, what?

Quote from: Casparov on May 07, 2014, 03:34:50 PM
Are you serious? Anton Zeilinger is world renowned as on of the most respected living Experimental Quantum Physicists alive today second only to maybe Alain Aspect! His lab and team in Vienna is one of the most well funded and well staffed operations in the world. Are you kidding me right now?? Your going to wipe your ass with any experimental proof that disagrees with your beliefs? What are you a Fundamentalist Materialist?

You're going to say you can throw out the entire experiment and it's conclusive results on the basis that "it doesn't predict anything new"? First of all, you don't know that that is the case. Zeilinger is applying Quantum Theory to applications within the field of Quantum Cryptology and Quantum Optics, so no these experiments are not worthless. Second of all, even if they didn't predict anything new, that is no basis to entirely disregard conclusive experimental results! I mean wtf is going on here....

Okay well then change your statement to:

Interpretation (correct): some have interpreted that the delayed choice to observe or not the path of the idler changes the outcome of an event in the past. This is has been proven experimentally in 2013. In fact it conclusively violates causality. But you can just throw out all of those experimental proofs because they don't predict anything new and are therefore worthless. So in conclusion, causality is not violated nana nana boo boo!

This is getting sad. You don't debate the evidence, you look for any opportunity to just throw the evidence out instead... Atheist Apologetics at it's best.

After his return to Europe, he built up an interferometer for very cold neutrons which preceded later similar experiments with atoms. The fundamental experiments there included a most precise test of the linearity of quantum mechanics and a beautiful double-slit diffraction experiment with only one neutron at a time in the apparatus. Actually, in that experiment, while one neutron was registered, the next neutron still resided in its Uranium nucleus waiting for fission to happen. Solitary

Quote from: Solitary on May 07, 2014, 03:14:13 PM
Casparov, you again post crap that is not from main stream scientists, but science writers that are also prejudiced by religion, are philosophers, or to promote their agenda that questions science. You are still being disingenuous after being called out on it.
Just go play in traffic! Solitary

Solitary, let me explain something to you my friend. It is a LOGICAL FALLACY to throw out evidence based on the personal beliefs of a person. You are not debating or even addressing the ACTUAL EVIDENCE you are merely taking the easy way out and saying "THIS GUY IS NOT AN ATHEIST!!! OMG ALL OF HIS EVIDENCE IS AUTOMATICALLY FALSE!!" This does not follow, and thus you are employing a Logical Fallacy rather than an actual argument about the evidence in question. You have done this probably FIVE TIMES now and each time I have pointed out to you that discrediting a person based on your own opinions does nothing to address the actual evidence.

Secondly, if the evidence at hand actually does rule out Realism/Materialism then it is quite reasonable for a person who understands and faces this fact head on to not be an Atheist. You cannot therefore dismiss the evidence solely on the basis that the person presenting it is not an Atheist. The evidence in question disputes that Atheism as a logical conclusion based on the fact that Realism/Materialism is a false assumption about reality. "Look! That guy is not an atheist!" is not an argument silly.

And third, the source I provided is one of the only sources I have provided that is not a peer reviewed scientific paper. The only reason I provided this source is because it breaks down the actual experiment by Dr. Kim and Dr. Scully in layman's terms and can be trusted to do so accurately because it was reviewed by the actual experimenter himself before it was published:

QuoteYour commentator wishes to thank Dr. Kim for reviewing this commentary before posting.

A presents evidence for X
A believes Y
Solitary disagrees with Y
Solitary rejects evidence X because A believes Y

Solitary never addresses evidence X, he rejects it outright on the basis that A believes Y, and Solitary has pre-concluded that Y is definitely false. The subtext is, "Anyone that believes Y cannot be trusted about anything ever therefore any evidence presented by someone who believes Y can be dismissed entirely without a second thought."

The problem here Solitary my friend, is that you are only looking for "someone to trust" and arguing that "this guy can't be trusted" but my dear friend, I am telling you "don't trust anybody, look at the god damn evidence!!". Do you see? It matters not who is presenting it or what they believe, you have still not addressed the evidence itself.

The fact that you continually argue that people can't be trusted based on their personal beliefs demonstrates that you only are looking for trusted people that can give you beliefs. Perhaps you have found such trusted people in Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, but clinging to someone whom you trust and believing everything they tell you is no better than clinging to the Bible and believing everything it says. You are no different unless you pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, take responsibility for your own beliefs, and do the work of examining the evidence for yourself to come to your own conclusion.

Going from Fundamentalist Christian to Fundamentalist Materialist is no real move at all. You are running in place. You have moved sideways but not forward. Your mindset is still one that cherishes belief over evidence. You are no more open minded than a Creationist. Your mind is closed to your belief and you automatically dismiss everything that disagrees with it unless it comes from someone you trust based on their beliefs agreeing with yours. You are out in the world looking for beliefs and choosing who you accept them from.

Address the evidence or stfu.

Quote from: Casparov on May 07, 2014, 03:34:50 PM
Are you serious? Anton Zeilinger is world renowned as on of the most respected living Experimental Quantum Physicists alive today second only to maybe Alain Aspect! His lab and team in Vienna is one of the most well funded and well staffed operations in the world. Are you kidding me right now?? Your going to wipe your ass with any experimental proof that disagrees with your beliefs? What are you a Fundamentalist Materialist?

You're going to say you can throw out the entire experiment and it's conclusive results on the basis that "it doesn't predict anything new"? First of all, you don't know that that is the case. Zeilinger is applying Quantum Theory to applications within the field of Quantum Cryptology and Quantum Optics, so no these experiments are not worthless. Second of all, even if they didn't predict anything new, that is no basis to entirely disregard conclusive experimental results! I mean wtf is going on here....

Okay well then change your statement to:

Interpretation (correct): some have interpreted that the delayed choice to observe or not the path of the idler changes the outcome of an event in the past. This is has been proven experimentally in 2013. In fact it conclusively violates causality. But you can just throw out all of those experimental proofs because they don't predict anything new and are therefore worthless. So in conclusion, causality is not violated nana nana boo boo!

This is getting sad. You don't debate the evidence, you look for any opportunity to just throw the evidence out instead... Atheist Apologetics at it's best.

Aspect is a graduate of the École Normale Supérieure de Cachan (ENS Cachan). He passed the 'agrégation' in physics in 1969 and received his master's degree from Université d'Orsay. He then did his national service, teaching for three years in Cameroon.

In the early 1980s, while working on his PhD thesis[1] from the lesser academic rank of lecturer, he performed the elusive "Bell test experiments" that showed that Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen's reductio ad absurdum of quantum mechanics, namely that it implied 'ghostly action at a distance', did in fact appear to be realised when two particles were separated by an arbitrarily large distance (see EPR paradox). A correlation between their wave functions remained, as they were once part of the same wave-function that was not disturbed before one of the child particles was measured.

If quantum theory is correct, the determination of an axis direction for the polarization measurement of one photon, forcing the wave function to 'collapse' onto that axis, will influence the measurement of its twin. This influence occurs despite any experimenters not knowing which axes have been chosen by their distant colleagues, and at distances that disallow any communication between the two photons, even at the speed of light.

Aspect's experiments were considered to provide overwhelming support to the thesis that Bell's inequalities are violated in its CHSH version. However, his results were not completely conclusive, since there were so-called loopholes that allowed for alternative explanations that comply with local realism. See local hidden variable theory.

Stated more simply, the experiment provides strong evidence that a quantum event at one location can affect an event at another location without any obvious mechanism for communication between the two locations. This has been called "spooky action at a distance" by Einstein (who doubted the physical reality of this effect). However, these experiments do not allow faster-than-light communication, as the events themselves appear to be inherently random.

After his works on Bell's inequalites, he turned toward studies of laser cooling of neutral atoms and is now mostly involved in Boseâ€"Einstein condensates related experiments.Why do you lie so much Casparov? Solitary

Quote from: Jason78 on May 07, 2014, 03:41:07 PM
:popcorn:

Quote from: Casparov on May 07, 2014, 03:34:50 PM

Are you kidding me right now?? Your going to wipe your ass with any experimental proof that disagrees with your beliefs? What are you a Fundamentalist Materialist?

This might bore you to death, but the DCQE experiment gives exactly the same results as the double-slit experiment:

1) If the path of the photon is unknown, there is an interference - you get that with the double-slit.
2) If the path of the photon is known, there is no interference - you also get that with the double-slit.

The only safe conclusion is that it doesn't matter if you place an eraser and/or a delayed choice in the experiment. Now if you had had a different result than the double-slit experiment, then you would have something to chew on. But that is not the case, and when you think about it, that makes sense that you would get exactly the same result: why would the photon behave differently just because you made it go through a longer path in one part of the experiment than its entangled partner? Answer: no reason whatsoever, which is what nature is telling us.

Any other interpretation is hogwash.


Note: appealing to authority won't save you as I have a PhD in physics, and I have been teaching this stuff for over 25 years. FYI, Zeilinger is small potato. Had you quoted Witten, Maldacena or Susskind, I might have paid a little more attention. 

Quote from: Solitary on May 07, 2014, 04:05:05 PM


After his works on Bell's inequalities, he (Aspect) turned toward studies of laser cooling of neutral atoms and is now mostly involved in Boseâ€"Einstein condensates related experiments.

That is an important point. Most people who have done some work on Bell's theorem have moved on as there is nothing to be accomplished, except to come up with a better theory than QM.  Fat chance this will happen. But needless to say, there are still those die-hard's who continue to try to prove QM is wrong. It's either bravery or stupidity... whatever.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 07, 2014, 04:14:17 PM

This might bore you to death, but the DCQE experiment gives exactly the same results as the double-slit experiment:

1) If the path of the photon is unknown, there is an interference - you get that with the double-slit.
2) If the path of the photon is known, there is no interference - you also get that with the double-slit.

The only safe conclusion is that it doesn't matter if you place an eraser and/or a delayed choice in the experiment. Now if you had had a different result than the double-slit experiment, then you would have something to chew on. But that is not the case, and when you think about it, that makes sense that you would get exactly the same result: why would the photon behave differently just because you made it go through a longer path in one part of the experiment than its entangled partner? Answer: no reason whatsoever, which is what nature is telling us.

Any other interpretation is hogwash.

Well I am in total agreement with you here. There are however some extra things that both Eraser and Delayed Choice Experiments teach us that the double-slit experiment by itself cannot.

A Quantum Eraser for instance shows us that the measuring device alone does not cause collapse unless a conscious observer is able to obtain the which-path information from it. If a measuring device makes a measurement and then the which-path information is made unretrievable (no conscious observer will ever see it), the interference pattern remains as if no measurement had ever taken place. The double-slit alone could not have told us that.

Also the Delayed Choice experiment shows us that the wave or particle behavior is not dependent on space-time and violates causality. In Wheeler’s words: “We, now, by moving the mirror in or out have an unavoidable effect on what we have a right to say about the already past history of that photon.” A choice in the future determines the past of the particle, whether or not it passed through the experiment as a wave the entire time or a particle the entire time.

Further the violation of both Bell's and Leggett's inequalities show us that The Principle of Locality is violated as well. All of these details the double-slit alone could not tell us. But agree that yes, in the end it is still the case that:

1) If the path of the photon is unknown, there is an interference - you get that with the double-slit.
2) If the path of the photon is known, there is no interference - you also get that with the double-slit.

This is an undisputed fact at this point. And doesn't have to just be a photon, it could be a 430 atom large molecule.

The Existence of the Physical World


Most people idly wonder, at some point, whether the physical world exists, or whether it is all one great illusion. We could be under the sway of a deceptive demon, or (in a more modern alternative) brains in the vat of some mad scientist, or (in an even more contemporary version) stuck in The Matrix. When it comes time to have a cup of coffee, talk to a friend, or even do some work, we tend to put these possibilities out of our heads. But we might wonder whether doing these things has any point if there is no physical world. If we can't prove that there is, are we justified in thinking and acting as if there were? And what does it mean to wonder whether there is a physical world, anyway?

The last question is, of course, the first that we have to consider. It is actually tougher than we might suppose. The common-sense answer is: a three-dimensional world filled with objects, each of which has a certain colour, shape, smell and so on. This view seems simple, but (as we shall see) it is actually quite mysterious and ultimately untenable. A less ambitious answer is that the physical world is something external to us, at least in part causing our sensations, ideas and so on. This must be a part of the notion, but it cannot be the whole of it. For many 'idealists', who have denied a physical world, nevertheless think that there are some things external to us - for instance, other minds, or Berkeley's ideas in the mind of God, or Leibniz's rudimentary minds.

Material things must then be both external to us and not mental. It is harder to get a more precise grip on the notion of 'material' than that, which may bode poorly for it. Often, when we cannot articulate a notion, and only say what it is not, this is because it is not really reflective of anything.

Before we go on to examine this, someone might want to ask whether we really can assume there is an external world. Perhaps all the places we pass through and people we talk to are just figments of our imagination, as in a dream. This position is known as solipsism, and it really would alter the way you thought about the world, placing all the objects and people (other minds) that we interact with solely within your own mind. It is important to realize that it cannot ever be completely disproved: any evidence could be dismissed as the invention of a bloody-minded mind, intent (for some obscure reason) on deceiving itself.

While solipsism cannot be disproved, most people find certain considerations against it persuasive. The (subtly different) questions of whether these considerations would convince the strongest sceptic, and whether they should convince us if not, are dealt with in another essay. Here, I shall assume that our judgements are reasonable, seeing only where they lead us.

What convinces us (rightly or wrongly) of the falsehood of solipsism is that we are not conscious of creating the world around us, but often seem to passively experience it, encountering new things (like elephants) we had never come across before. The idea of an elephant could admittedly be fabricated from pre-existing concepts, but some of these (like the colour grey) also come from experience, and could not. It could always be argued that these are creations of the unconscious mind, but this is something external to our immediate consciousness, 'discovered' by science and psychology rather than any direct awareness of it, so would strictly count as part of an external world. We can thus convincingly argue that the theory that something external affects our mind fits much better with our everyday experience.

So if we say that our experiences likely come at least in part from something external to us, where do they come from? What about the possibility that there is an external world, which causes our perceptions and ideas, but it is completely unlike the world we assume exists? This is the case in Descartes' famous supposition that an evil demon might be feeding him false perceptions. It is interesting to note that in the common thought experiments of the brain-in-the-vat, The Matrix, and the evil demon (if you think demons are physical, that is - Descartes spoke of a 'spirit'), there is a physical world which causes our experiences; we are just deceived about the contents of that world. But when we talk about the physical world existing or not, we tend to mean a physical world somewhat like the one we seem to experience.

Again, these possibilities cannot be completely disproved. This is because we can only know about the physical world through our senses and what we learn from them. Descartes thought that he could banish the evil demon altogether by reasoning a priori, without reference to experience. His attempt to do so, by first proving God's existence and then arguing that since God is no deceiver, the physical world must exist, is largely discredited. But his general a priori approach was also misconceived, as the physical world is simply what we seem to perceive through our senses, so cannot be known a priori.

But several things convince us that we are not being deceived about the external world. For a start, it seems an entirely superfluous suggestion. The world seems quite unconcerned with us, or any conscious life - so far as we can tell, the laws it obeys are entirely impersonal. Sometimes they favour us, sometimes they don't; we seem to be accidental byproducts of nature. Granted, this appearance could all be part of an extraordinarily clever, apparently purposeless, illusion, but it is reason enough for supposing that the world around us is probably in some way real.

As mentioned earlier, several idealists have come up with worldviews that accept an external reality that we perceive, more or less correctly, but account for it purely in terms of mind, not matter. One of the most famous systems of this kind was that of Bishop Berkeley, an 18th century Irish philosopher. Like the solipsists, Berkeley noted that all we are ever directly aware of are the ideas in our mind (some philosophers would disagree with him, but this exploratory essay is not the place to dismiss their arguments). From this observation, he tried to show that it makes more sense to suppose that there are only ideas in the world than to suppose that there is matter, too. If we believed in matter, we would only be positing the existence of some mysterious, totally hidden substance, divorced from anything that we experience.

And this would violate Occam's Razor. Berkeley also exploited the confusion over how physical events could cause states of mind, arguing that they required mental causes. J.L. Mackie illustrates this argument with the analogy of a billiard ball moving because it is hit by another billiard ball, not because of some unrelated event halfway round the world. The implicit principle is that an event requires a similar cause, so physical causes could only give physical events. Modern neuroscience to some extent undermines this by revealing a close correlation between the physical and the mental, which are clearly not so separate as they were once thought to be.

Berkeley's simpler account of the world was that things exist only in being perceived: the Latin slogan was esse est percipi. However, he avoided the claim that the world ceases to exist when we are not aware of it (the weakness of solipsism.) Objects continue to exist, independent of our perception of them, by virtue of being ideas in the mind of God, which are what God makes us aware of when we experience the real world. So there is an external world, found in God's mind, just not a physical one. Matter is dispensed with altogether.

There are, however, great difficulties with explaining the world in purely mental terms. As Bertrand Russell pointed out in The Problems of Philosophy, though ideas and perceptions are by definition in our minds, that does not mean that their objects are. For instance, idealists generally accept the reality of other people (or at least other minds), yet when we 'bear them in mind', that does not mean that they only exist in our minds any more than the fact that the idea of an orange can only exist in your mind implies that there is no orange outside it. There seems to be an inconsistency here.

The metaphysics behind Berkeley's system has since been undermined. If all the traditional arguments for God's existence fail, and we see no reason to believe in any sort of 'divine mind', it is difficult to see a mental basis for facts about the world. This either takes us back to the problematic view that cats and the rest cease to exist when we are not around, or requires that they have a non-mental existence. And by our definition, a non-mental existence is a material existence.

At this point, we must return to the question of just what material existence is. We know what mental existence is, because our experience of our own thoughts and perceptions is as direct as one could want. But we can only experience the physical objects we take to exist through the medium of such perceptions, so strictly speaking we only know about their power to cause these. This raises the interesting question of whether we directly perceive the external world, or are aware only of our minds' representations of it. And, if the answer is the latter, can we have any idea what the physical world is like?

Locke and the British empiricists in the early centuries of the scientific revolution made a famous distinction between 'primary' and 'secondary' qualities of objects. Primary qualities are the basic elements of modern physics: extension (shape), solidity and motion. Secondary qualities are things like colour, taste and smell, which are a major part of our perception of the world but can be understood in terms of the primary qualities that cause them. For instance, modern science tells us that colour can be understood by the propensity of a surface to reflect certain frequencies of light, dependent on its structure. So an orange doesn't really 'have' a colour, only the ability to cause the experience of orange in a mind.

By itself, this is a radical alteration of the way we look at the world: every object we see appears coloured, so to that extent we are not seeing the world as it 'really' is. Unreflective common sense tends to assume that oranges really are orange. Yes, they may look different given different lighting, perspective or eyes, but there is one right colour: the one you would see in bright sunlight, with normal human eyes. But, as Russell pithily observed, this is "favouritism".

This implies that the physical world is made up of objects with shape and solidity, in motion or at rest, and that colour and other 'secondary' qualities are just representations of these basic, 'primary' properties. However, even this view is extremely problematic. We can understand the primary qualities only by considering how they affect us, the observers. The shape of an object, for example, looks different from different perspectives, none more privileged than any other. So the three-dimensional shape we attribute to it cannot be directly perceived; is is constructed out of these two-dimensional perceptions.

And when we consider what it is that fills this shape, what it is that moves around, we are left able only to say that it is something 'solid'. Locke was very taken with this quality, but even his description reveals that it can only be understood in terms of the resistance solid objects offer us. Berkeley argued that this meant we were back to understanding the object solely in terms of our perceptions of it, which can differ from creature to creature: an orange will offer more resistance to an ant than to a woodpecker.

So we experience objects purely through their capacity to cause certain sensations in us, or alter other objects, which in turn cause sensations in us. This conclusion sounds tautological once we have laid it out: how else could we experience them? We have seen that there is good reason to suppose that objects have an external, non-mental existence. But we seem now to have concluded that we can have no understanding of what this existence is except by reference to our internal mental states. Imagine an orange losing its potency to cause various experiences one by one. First, its taste goes, then its colour, then its smell, then the sound it makes when bounced. Finally, with the sense of touch, we lose the last manifestations of what we call its shape, as well as its texture and resistance. We now seem to be left with no concept of what the orange is, in itself.

We may be reminded of Kant's claim that we can know nothing of the real, 'noumenal' nature of objects, and our limited to considering the phenomenal world of our experience, which is dependent on the mind for its structure and appearance. One of Berkeley's main arguments against those who believed in matter was: "you know neither what it is in itself, nor what relation it bears to accidents."[1] If this is really the case, we may be worried about what it means to say the physical world exists.

The picture of the world that modern physics offers is that of a vast, interrelated network of forces, operating on a mysterious thing called matter. This can be seen in the way matter is merely defined as "the object of inertial mass", which says nothing about what it is in itself. Scientists would doubtless dismiss a request to do more as meaningless.

However, what physics does offer is a powerful, coherent and elegant way of understanding why we have the perceptions we do, or - if your inclinations are anti-realist - of systematising them. For instance, the different resistances oranges offer to woodpeckers and ants can be understood in terms of woodpeckers' greater force and sharper beakes, letting us assign a constant number to the amount of resistance offered by our orange. Likewise, all observers in scientific enquiry can agree that oranges reflect those frequencies of light labelled 'orange', no matter how such frequencies appear to their different eyes. Similar stories can be offered for all the other secondary qualities. Finally, physics treats matter as susceptible to certain apparently constant physical laws: oranges interact with other objects we perceive in predictable ways. So positing its existence goes a long way to explaining our experience.

This view of matter as a theoretical construct brought in to explain our experience is admittedly a long way away from our ordinary picture of the world. It treats our perceptions of the world not as neutral representations of the 'real' structure of things, but as to a large extent reflecting the structure imposed on that world by our minds. The similarity this picture bears to Kantianism is readily apparent: our knowledge of the world can only come from its effects on the five senses of sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste, while any 'noumenal' nature it might have remains forever hidden. Our senses have evolved to give us what we need to survive, not to satisfy our desire for knowledge of how the world really is (a desire which even if it is intelligible.  We should be thankful that they seem to do at least that.

Quote from: Casparov on May 07, 2014, 04:29:42 PM
Well I am in total agreement with you here. There are however some extra things that both Eraser and Delayed Choice Experiments teach us that the double-slit experiment by itself cannot.

A Quantum Eraser for instance shows us that the measuring device alone does not cause collapse unless a conscious observer is able to obtain the which-path information from it.

It's a speculation that is not borne by the facts. All the measurements are made by detectors. Those results are there whether there is a conscious being reading the results on the detectors or not.

QuoteIf a measuring device makes a measurement and then the which-path information is made unretrievable (no conscious observer will ever see it), the interference pattern remains as if no measurement had ever taken place. The double-slit alone could not have told us that.

The which-path goes to detectors 1 and 2. It matters not if there is a conscious being to observe it. The interference will take place. But we only know this when we look at the oscilloscope that shows the inference pattern.  The detector by interacting with the photon to make the measurement has already influenced the result. But in no way, our decision to look at the detector will affect the results. I don't think you know what's involved in the experiment, otherwise you would not make such an implausible statement.

QuoteAlso the Delayed Choice experiment shows us that the wave or particle behavior is not dependent on space-time and violates causality.

No it doesn't. The original paper made that claim. Subsequently that idea was abandoned as it would make no sense. There has never been any experiment that has ever showed that causality is violated. Not to confuse with violations of Bell's theorem, as this is an altogether different thing.

Again I won't answer any of your quote-mine as they are irrelevant to this discussion. What Wheeler said in the 1960's or Einstein in the 1930's is quite irrelevant if we have moved on to better ideas.

You've only got a lousy PHD, JP. You ain't got a chance.

:rotflmao:

Quote from: stromboli on May 07, 2014, 05:09:56 PM
You've only got a lousy PHD, JP. You ain't got a chance.

:rotflmao:

At this stage I'm wondering if Casparov has ever walked into a physics lab.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 07, 2014, 04:50:02 PM
It's a speculation that is not borne by the facts. All the measurements are made by detectors. Those results are there whether there is a conscious being reading the results on the detectors or not.


The which-path goes to detectors 1 and 2. It matters not if there is a conscious being to observe it. The interference will take place. But we only know this when we look at the oscilloscope that shows the inference pattern.  The detector by interacting with the photon to make the measurement has already influenced the result. But in no way, our decision to look at the detector will affect the results. I don't think you know what's involved in the experiment, otherwise you would not make such an implausible statement.

Kind sir, are you meaning to tell me that once the signal photon is detected, registered, and scanned at detector D0 according to its position, that no matter what happens beyond this, "the detector by interacting with the photon to make the measurement has already influenced the result," meaning that no matter if we ever know the which-path information or not the wave function will be collapsed every single time because the "unconscious measuring device" made an observation already?

Is this your argument? Because you seem to be implying that measuring devices cause the collapse regardless of whether or not they relay information to a conscious observer or not. If you are correct, then the very first measurement that occurs in the experiment should suffice to collapse the wave function every single time, and we should never get an interference pattern.

You say, "But in no way, our decision to look at the detector will affect the results." Your words are cryptic here. I am assuming that you mean that if the which-path information is not erased, and is made available, no matter if we look at the results or not we will still get a collapsed wave function. This is true, but it might not be what you are saying. On the other hand you could be saying that whether or not the detecter erases or relays the which-path information does not effect the results, and this would be definitely false. So which are you saying? Please clarify.

QuoteNo it doesn't. The original paper made that claim. Subsequently that idea was abandoned as it would make no sense. There has never been any experiment that has ever showed that causality is violated. Not to confuse with violations of Bell's theorem, as this is an altogether different thing.

Yes there has, it is the experiment called "Quantum Eraser With a Causally Disconnected Choice" completed last year. The fact that wave or particle like behavior is determined by a "Causally disconnected choice" is a demonstration of causality being violated. Since you are an educated man, you should be able to read the paper and deduce this yourself. It is quite straight forward that Causality is conclusively violated: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.6578v2.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.6578v2.pdf)

I am just happy to be speaking with someone on this forum who seems to actually be willing to discuss the evidence.  :biggrin:

Oh my goodness, it isn't the detector or observer that causes the results to be different, it is light itself that makes the difference. Caparov, take a course in quantum mechanics so you don't keep making a fool out of your self by committing the logical fallacy of Appeal to ignorance (Argumentum Ad Ignorantum) which is advancing the position that if one conclusion in an argument cannot be established convincingly to a debater, then their opposing view can be accepted. Everyone here has shown you your wrong because you don't have a clue about quantum mechanics and parrot all the New Age philosophical speculation on how it operates. Do you have a high degree in math and physics like Joseph Palazzo has, or studied all the higher mathematics and physics like I have? If no, you have no idea what you are talking about, because without understanding the math and physics you can't possibly know because it requires abstract thinking that has to be learned and not intuitive thinking and mere speculation that is used in philosophy. Solitary

Casparov, can you do this equation? (http://imgur.com/QVNOEC1)

Quote from: Casparov on May 07, 2014, 09:29:43 PM
Kind sir, are you meaning to tell me that once the signal photon is detected, registered, and scanned at detector D0 according to its position, that no matter what happens beyond this, "the detector by interacting with the photon to make the measurement has already influenced the result," meaning that no matter if we ever know the which-path information or not the wave function will be collapsed every single time because the "unconscious measuring device" made an observation already?

Is this your argument? Because you seem to be implying that measuring devices cause the collapse regardless of whether or not they relay information to a conscious observer or not. If you are correct, then the very first measurement that occurs in the experiment should suffice to collapse the wave function every single time, and we should never get an interference pattern.

Here is what you get on the detectors:

(http://s243.photobucket.com/user/josephpalazzo/media/KimDelayedChoiceQuantumEraserGraphsGIF.gif.html)

It doesn't matter if a conscious being looks at the detectors or not, the detectors will show those patterns.

To explain the data:

The interference occurs at D₁ and D₂, these are the paths in which we don't know if the photon comes from A or B.  This is the same as a double-slit experiment, where we are not trying to know where the photon went through.

However for D₃, the photon went through the beam splitter BS_a making an angle, while for D₁, it went right through - follow the diagram carefully. This is the same as adding a detector in a double-slit experiment to figure out which slit the photon went through. By gaining this knowledge with an additional interaction, the interference disappears. Ditto for D₄.

 :popcorn: Can't wait for  :blahblah:. Solitary

I am glad we are having this conversation JosephPalazzo because you are the first person willing to discuss the actual evidence and it's conclusions with me. We disagree but that is fine, let's come to an agreement based on this experiment:

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 08, 2014, 10:22:06 AM
Here is what you get on the detectors:

(http://s243.photobucket.com/user/josephpalazzo/media/KimDelayedChoiceQuantumEraserGraphsGIF.gif.html)

It doesn't matter if a conscious being looks at the detectors or not, the detectors will show those patterns.

To explain the data:

The interference occurs at D₁ and D₂, these are the paths in which we don't know if the photon comes from A or B.  This is the same as a double-slit experiment, where we are not trying to know where the photon went through.

However for D₃, the photon went through the beam splitter BS_a making an angle, while for D₁, it went right through - follow the diagram carefully. This is the same as adding a detector in a double-slit experiment to figure out which slit the photon went through. By gaining this knowledge with an additional interaction, the interference disappears. Ditto for D₄.

All of this is correct as I understand it but you have omitted the key part of it.

Before any particle arrives at either (D1 and D2) or (D3 and D4), D0 detects, scans, and registers either an interference or a particle pattern. D0 makes a measurement of particle or wave-like behavior before D1, D2, D3, D4 ever do anything.

Now if the photon arrives at (D1 and D2), since we do not have which path information, we get an interference pattern at both of these detecters as you rightly said, but what you omitted was that we also get an interference pattern from D0 with this scenerio as well.

If the photon arrives at (D3 and D4), because we do have which-path information, we get no interference pattern at both of these detecters as you rightly said, but what you omitted was that we also get no interference pattern from D0 with this scenerio as well.

The Coincidence Counter correlates the arrival of a signal photon at detector D0 with the arrival of its twin at D1, D2, D3, or D4. If the correlation is with an idler arriving at D3 or D4, then we know (after-the-fact) the which-path information of the signal photon that arrived earlier at D0. If the correlation is with an idler arriving at D1 or D2, then we have no which-path information for the signal photon that arrived earlier at D0.

QM predicts that if which-path information is not available "at the time of measurement", the pattern will be an interference pattern. This is the case at detector D0 at all times.

QM also predicts that if which-path information is available "at the time of measurement", there will be a particle pattern and no interference pattern.

Therefore, based on the results of this experiment we can only conclude that, "the time of measurement," is after the correlation of the joint detections, which takes place at the Coincidence Counter. However, the count of photon hits that will be displayed, just as your pictures show, represents hits at D0 registered earlier. Proving that a measuring device's "observation" does not cause collapse simply by "interfering with the particle", but rather the cause of collapse is the availability of which-path information "at the time of measurement." Period.

You say, "It doesn't matter if a conscious being looks at the detectors or not, the detectors will show those patterns." But this is not a testable hypothesis. The only way you can ever know "the detectors will show those patterns" is if a conscious being looks.

Question: Do agree you that "the time of measurement" is at the Coincidence Counter?

Quote from: Casparov on May 08, 2014, 04:18:27 PM
I am glad we are having this conversation JosephPalazzo because you are the first person willing to discuss the actual evidence and it's conclusions with me. We disagree but that is fine, let's come to an agreement based on this experiment:

That is not true. Others have discussed the same thing with you, myself included, but you just don't like disagreement.
You still confuse an interpretation with proof and decide that however you and your New Ageist friends interpret QM is the ONLY way it can be interpreted.

Quote from: Casparov on May 08, 2014, 04:18:27 PM



You say, "It doesn't matter if a conscious being looks at the detectors or not, the detectors will show those patterns." But this is not a testable hypothesis. The only way you can ever know "the detectors will show those patterns" is if a conscious being looks.

Do you believe a tree exists if no one looks at it? Same thing for the patterns on those detectors. If you believe that trees have an existence independent of your perception, so with the patterns as they are registered by the detectors. Over the last 30 years there have been quite a few teams of researchers that have investigated DCQE experiments, and all the results give the same results: if there is no knowledge of where the photons have gone through one of the slits, there is interference; if you have knowledge by whatever clever devices you have schemed, there is no interference.  And it doesn't matter if the experiment is set up for the interference to happen before or after it arrives at d₀. If you find an experiment that says the contrary, please let me know.

If you want to learn more about this, you can go  to LuboÅ¡ Motl at http://motls.blogspot.ca/2010/11/delayed-choice-quantum-eraser.html

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 08, 2014, 06:30:21 PM
Do you believe a tree exists if no one looks at it? Same thing for the patterns on those detectors. If you believe that trees have an existence independent of your perception, so with the patterns as they are registered by the detectors.

This is not a trivial question. Einstein asked Bohr, "Do you really believe the moon is not there when nobody looks?" To which Bohr replied, “Can you prove to me the contrary?” It is a serious question to ask.

Realism is the assumption that perceived objects have an existence independent of perception, and I believe that what quantum mechanics is showing us is that there is no need for that assumption. Unless someone can "prove to me the contrary?"

QuoteOver the last 30 years there have been quite a few teams of researchers that have investigated DCQE experiments, and all the results give the same results: if there is no knowledge of where the photons have gone through one of the slits, there is interference; if you have knowledge by whatever clever devices you have schemed, there is no interference.  And it doesn't matter if the experiment is set up for the interference to happen before or after it arrives at d₀. If you find an experiment that says the contrary, please let me know.

Yes but the claim I am refuting is the one which states, "the measuring devices themselves are the cause of the wave function collapse." These experiments disprove this claim outright. If unconscious measuring devices were the sole cause of the "observer effect" of collapsing wave functions, then whether or not the recorded which-path information is at a later time erased or not should have no effect. The wave function should stay collapsed because the unconscious measuring device made the "observation." Do you disagree?

Further I do believe there have been better Quantum Eraser Experiments since the one we are discussing from 1999. For instance http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0512207v1.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0512207v1.pdf) from 2005 which states:

QuoteIn this context another novelty of our experiment is particularly important: a new type of detection scheme. In all previous quantum erasers, the observation or not observation of the interference pattern were associated to different experiments, or at least to different photoelec- tric detectors. Therefore even though the physics behind the erasure has been exploited, the implementation of the random delayed choice can still be improved. In our real- ization both the erasing choice and the reading choice are analyzed by a single detector. This characteristic stresses the interpretative difficulties of the quantum eraser. In fact in our experiment the particle-like and wave-like be- havior of the photon are recorded randomly and simul- taneously by the same pair of joint measurement devices in only one measurement process.

And also http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/Walborn.pdf (http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/Walborn.pdf) a beautifully simple quantum eraser experiment from 2002 which states:

QuoteWe have presented a quantum eraser that uses a Young double slit to create interference. The quarter-wave plates in
our experiment served as the which-path markers to destroy interference. We recovered interference using the entangle- ment of photons s and p. Our quantum eraser is very similar to the that of Scully, Englert, and Walther. We have shown that interference can be destroyed, by marking the path of the interfering photon, and recovered, by making an appropriate measurement on the other entangled photon. We have also investigated this experiment under the conditions of delayed erasure, in which the interfering photon s is de- tected before photon p. In as much as our experiment did not allow for the observer to choose the polarization angle in the time period after photon s was detected and before detectionof p, our results show that a collapse of the wave function due to detection of photon s does not prohibit one from ob- serving the expected results. Our experimental data agree with the proposal of Scully, Englert, and Walther that quan- tum erasure can be performed after the interfering particle has been detected.

In all these experiments, unconscious detecters can "measure" or "observe" the which-path information, but this does not cause collapse if that which-path information never makes it to a conscious observer. Thus, proving that unconscious detecters and measuring devices themselves are not the cause of wave function collapse, and not the cause of the "observer effect." Otherwise, no matter what happens after the measurement from an unconscious detector, the wave function would stay collapsed.

Quote from: Casparov on May 08, 2014, 04:18:27 PM
You say, "It doesn't matter if a conscious being looks at the detectors or not, the detectors will show those patterns." But this is not a testable hypothesis. The only way you can ever know "the detectors will show those patterns" is if a conscious being looks.

Completely wrong.
The information shows up on the detectors first, then the light from the detectors goes to your eyes. That is the order.
So your wrong. The patterns appear on the detectors first and it doesn't matter if a conscious being, a moth, or a video recorder is "observing" the detectors.

Quote from: Casparov on May 08, 2014, 07:57:34 PM
This is not a trivial question. Einstein asked Bohr, "Do you really believe the moon is not there when nobody looks?" To which Bohr replied, “Can you prove to me the contrary?” It is a serious question to ask.

Yes I can. How? Same way that we know black holes exist even though they cannot be observed directly. Their existence is inferred from the effect they have on everything around them.
I don't have to look at the moon directly to not only know that it exists, but to also demonstrate this.

QuoteRealism is the assumption that [...]

You keep saying this, and have also occasionally jumped to "if you can't know for sure, then realism is an unsupported assertion", as if regarding our existence in a physical universe as something that is axiomatic is based on absolutely no evidence at all.

Quote from: Casparov on May 08, 2014, 07:57:34 PM
This is not a trivial question. Einstein asked Bohr, "Do you really believe the moon is not there when nobody looks?" To which Bohr replied, “Can you prove to me the contrary?” It is a serious question to ask.

Realism is the assumption that perceived objects have an existence independent of perception, and I believe that what quantum mechanics is showing us is that there is no need for that assumption. Unless someone can "prove to me the contrary?"

Einstein and Bohr were discussing what is as old as philosophy: how do you prove "existence" with philosophical arguments? And the answer is: you can't.  That was the point in Bohr's reply. You either accept that the moon has an existence independent of your perception or you don't. Most reasonable person accept that it does, the other way is to fall into nihilism. But I'll be honest, philosophical discussions don't interest me.

QuoteYes but the claim I am refuting is the one which states, "the measuring devices themselves are the cause of the wave function collapse." These experiments disprove this claim outright. If unconscious measuring devices were the sole cause of the "observer effect" of collapsing wave functions, then whether or not the recorded which-path information is at a later time erased or not should have no effect. The wave function should stay collapsed because the unconscious measuring device made the "observation." Do you disagree?

Sorry to disagree, but as I have already stated there is only one conclusion from all DCQE experiments: if you know the which-path there is no interference; if you do not know it, there will be interference. Any contrary result would be an exception to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and that would be so big, so huge, it would have hit the headlines of all the major papers and that person would be in line for the Nobel.

Quote
In all these experiments, unconscious detecters can "measure" or "observe" the which-path information, but this does not cause collapse if that which-path information never makes it to a conscious observer. Thus, proving that unconscious detecters and measuring devices themselves are not the cause of wave function collapse, and not the cause of the "observer effect." Otherwise, no matter what happens after the measurement from an unconscious detector, the wave function would stay collapsed.

I'm not a fan of the terminology "wave collapse" as it leads to all kinds of crazy interpretations. It's a term that came out of the 1930's when physicists believed that the wavefunction was real (Einstein was one of them). Subsequently, with the development of QFT in the 1960's, that picture changed.  I tend to look at the wavefunction as a mathematical tool that allows the calculation of probabilities. Beyond that, I refuse to give it more than that interpretation. 

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 09, 2014, 07:11:38 AM
Sorry to disagree, but as I have already stated there is only one conclusion from all DCQE experiments: if you know the which-path there is no interference; if you do not know it, there will be interference. Any contrary result would be an exception to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and that would be so big, so huge, it would have hit the headlines of all the major papers and that person would be in line for the Nobel.

I think you're going to confuse him with the use of the word "you" above.

Here is a thought experiment that may shed light on the situation.

QuoteShimon Malin Phd. Professor Emeritus of Physics at Colgate University
"Suppose a measurement of an electron's spin component along some direction is being measured. The result can either be "up" or "down". The result of the measurement is automatically communicated to a printer that can either print "up" or "down". If human consciousness is what causes the collapse to the observed state, then the collapse would only occur when someone read the printout, and not before. Now suppose that the printer has just enough ink to print "up", and not enough ink to print "down". Furthermore, if the printer runs out of ink, a bell sounds in a secretary's office. If the secretary hears the bell, a collapse to "down" has clearly occurred before the bell sounded. If the secretary does not hear the bell, a collapse to "up" must have occurred--and no human interaction was necessary at all."

Quote from: Berati on May 09, 2014, 08:21:54 AM
I think you're going to confuse him with the use of the word "you" above.

Here is a thought experiment that may shed light on the situation.

QuoteShimon Malin Phd. Professor Emeritus of Physics at Colgate University
"Suppose a measurement of an electron's spin component along some direction is being measured. The result can either be "up" or "down". The result of the measurement is automatically communicated to a printer that can either print "up" or "down". If human consciousness is what causes the collapse to the observed state, then the collapse would only occur when someone read the printout, and not before. Now suppose that the printer has just enough ink to print "up", and not enough ink to print "down". Furthermore, if the printer runs out of ink, a bell sounds in a secretary's office. If the secretary hears the bell, a collapse to "down" has clearly occurred before the bell sounded. If the secretary does not hear the bell, a collapse to "up" must have occurred--and no human interaction was necessary at all."

Indeed, that's exactly why I wrote: I'm not a fan of the terminology "wave collapse". That has led to so many blind alleys, it should be called the biggest blunder ever.

Well, on the upside, in the last few days I have learned more about quantum physics than I ever didn't want to know.

Quote from: stromboli on May 09, 2014, 10:41:57 AM
Well, on the upside, in the last few days I have learned more about quantum physics than I ever didn't want to know.

Wait til you get my bill... :madu:

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 09, 2014, 08:53:02 AM


Indeed, that's exactly why I wrote: I'm not a fan of the terminology "wave collapse". That has led to so many blind alleys, it should be called the biggest blunder ever.

I think it's the words "observer" or "observation" that has caused so much nonsense. Casparov will never admit that these terms refer to instrumentation because his religion depends on it.
New ageism is a religion and his views are faith based not science based to begin with. The faith came first. The unknowns in QM are just a convenient excuse new agers have glommed on to in order to insert a god of the gaps fallacy.

Or "MENTAL."  I already posted that the wave collapse is mental and not objective. And Casparov says no one else has given him evidence. He keeps using the old fallacy from ignorance, poisoning the well and he is therefore correct. He just likes to argue and use slick maneuvers that aren't logical just like any neurotic that has no clue what sound reasoning is.. JOSEPH HAS MORE PATIENCE THAN I HAVE WITH HIS DISHONESTY. It is fun using him as a chew toy, but  it is getting old.  Solitary

Casparov is desperately seeking an example from science where a high level system produces an effect (Mass Effect?), at a lower level that cannot occur without some new principle (mind)coming in at that level. Then he can extend that notion to the very top level, to heaven with a "MENTAL" God Himself acting down to control everything that happens below. This downward causation is just the Aristotelian "final cause," renamed because of the dispute that the term has suffered at the hands of the  scientific revolution.

He likes to use examples of the early universe, the collapse of the wave function, influence of the mind on the body, and influence of the mind on the world. Currently science has found no need to for a special principle (mind) to provide for the movement from simple to complex. Solitary

QuoteShimon Malin Phd. Professor Emeritus of Physics at Colgate University
"Suppose a measurement of an electron's spin component along some direction is being measured. The result can either be "up" or "down". The result of the measurement is automatically communicated to a printer that can either print "up" or "down". If human consciousness is what causes the collapse to the observed state, then the collapse would only occur when someone read the printout, and not before. Now suppose that the printer has just enough ink to print "up", and not enough ink to print "down". Furthermore, if the printer runs out of ink, a bell sounds in a secretary's office. If the secretary hears the bell, a collapse to "down" has clearly occurred before the bell sounded. If the secretary does not hear the bell, a collapse to "up" must have occurred--and no human interaction was necessary at all."

Here is the thing:

QuoteThe presence of path information anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough. - from http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.6578v2.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.6578v2.pdf)

Shimon Malin does not understand that wave function collapse occurs as soon as there is merely "the presence of path information anywhere in the universe". Before anybody looks at the printed out paper or hears the bells, if the information is already present and available to conscious observers anywhere in the universe, the collapse takes place. So he is right in a sense that "no human interaction is necessary" but he is wrong if he concludes that "measuring devices cause the collapse". The which path information has to be available to conscious observers, being only available to measuring devices and then erased so that no conscious observers will ever have the possibility to obtain the information does not collapse the wave function.

JosephPalazzo, If you don't like the phrase, "cause wave collapse," then I will use, "prohibit the interference pattern."

I am confused as to what you guys think prohibits the interference pattern. It is undeniable that the cause is "the presence of which-path information in the universe" but what does this mean? That a measuring device can have this information? Or a conscious observer?

We can present a case:

P1) An "observation" prohibits the possibility of an interference pattern
P2) Obtaining or merely having access to available which-path information constitutes an "observation"
P3) Once an observation is made, the prohibition of the possibility of an interference pattern is permanent
P4) Measuring devices that record and then erase their which path information do not permanently prohibit interference patterns
C1) Per P3 and P4, measuring devices cannot be said to be making an "observation"

Premise 3 is the one you may call into question. Here is the explanation:

Once an Observation is made, it is permanent. If the which-path observation becomes available to a conscious observer (EVEN FOR A SECOND) it's too late. It's done. The interference pattern will be prohibited permanently and there is no way to get it to reappear after that. No matter what you do after an observation is made, the interference pattern wont come back EVER! Therefore, a True Observation PERMANENTLY prohibits the interference pattern.

However, If the which-path information becomes available to an unconscious measuring device, it can erase that which-path information LONG AFTER THE MEASUREMENT, and behold, the interference pattern reappears just as if no "observation" had been made. (this is because indeed no "observation" was made) Therefore, unconscious measuring devices do not make "Observations."

This should show that "which path information being available to an unconscious measuring device" does not itself prohibit the interference pattern, and therefore cannot be a true "observation".

What hangs you up is that a measuring device is required in order for any conscious observer to ever obtain the which-path information, you therefore argue that the measuring devices measurement is prohibiting the interference pattern, not the conscious observer. It is a well established fact that what prohibits the interference pattern is the ability to obtain which-path information. The question is, "the ability for what to obtain which-path information? Measuring devices or conscious observers?"

When a conscious observer obtains which-path information, the interference pattern is permanently prohibited. Even if that which-path information is obtained only for one second and then erased, the interference pattern will never reappear. On the other hand unconscious measuring devices can obtain which-path information (which should prohibit the interference pattern) but if they erase the information the interference pattern reappears. (this should not happen if the measuring devices were making true "observations") One can only conclude that a True Observation only takes place when which-path information is obtained or available to a Conscious Observer. Measuring devices can relay this information so that it is "observed" or than can erase it so that it is "not observed" but the measuring devices themselves are doing any "observing" themselves.

I am very open to being wrong. I am not dogmatic about this. But no one is providing any argument to the contrary. What is the argument for measuring devices as true observers? I have been presented no good reason to believe that "which-path information becoming available to an unconscious measuring device prohibits the interference pattern."

That is not true! Solitary

Casparov, consider this.
No physicist is up for a Nobel for rocking our understanding of reality NOT being physical and materialistic.
No physicist is up for a Nobel for proving that materialism is conclusively and absolutely wrong.
No scientist, in fact nobody at all, is up for a Nobel for proving even the remote possibility, scientifically speaking, that transcendental may be factual.
All we have is inconclusive data at best, no matter how you want to toss and interpret it, a handful (just so I don't say that you keep referring to one or two experiments) of experiments done, a scientific field that is still in its infancy; there is still a lot of research to be done, a lot to be discovered.

If I were you, honestly, I would get on with my life and try my luck at constructing a different world view until (more) evidence showed up.
But until then, I would have no reason to not regard our existence in a material universe as axiomatic.
And regardless of whether or not somebody presented me with a good reason to believe or not believe what you are currently hung up on, I would defer to, again, no physicist proving materialism is false is up for a Nobel.

Quote from: Shol'va on May 09, 2014, 06:11:37 PM
Casparov, consider this.
No physicist is up for a Nobel for rocking our understanding of reality NOT being physical and materialistic.
No physicist is up for a Nobel for proving that materialism is conclusively and absolutely wrong.
No scientist, in fact nobody at all, is up for a Nobel for proving even the remote possibility, scientifically speaking, that transcendental may be factual.
All we have is inconclusive data at best, no matter how you want to toss and interpret it, a handful (just so I don't say that you keep referring to one or two experiments) of experiments done, a scientific field that is still in its infancy; there is still a lot of research to be done, a lot to be discovered.

If I were you, honestly, I would get on with my life and try my luck at constructing a different world view until (more) evidence showed up.
But until then, I would have no reason to not regard our existence in a material universe as axiomatic.
And regardless of whether or not somebody presented me with a good reason to believe or not believe what you are currently hung up on, I would defer to, again, no physicist proving materialism is false is up for a Nobel.

The reason why no Nobel Prize has been won for "proving that materialism is false" is because every aspect of Materialism that gets proven false, gets rationalized as "well Materialism is obviously true, so this only proves that Materialism doesn't have this aspect as we thought."

For instance: Materialism requires that Material objects exist independent of observations and obey the Principle of Causality and the Principle of Locality.

So we prove that these objects violate the Principle of Locality. This is rationalized as, "Materialism still must be true, it just seems that the principle of locality is not a part of it like we thought."

So we prove that these objects violate the Principle of Causality. This is rationalized as, "Materialism still must be true, it just seems that the principle of locality is not a part of it like we thought."

So we prove that these objects are not observation independent. This is rationalized as, "Materialism still must be true, it just seems that at the quantum level it is not observation independent, but this doesn't mean the macro level is."

Materialism has been disproven since around 1925, and continues to be disproven over and over again. Yet, because it is such a deeply ingrained foundational belief that no one wants to give up, it is rationalized away some how. Scientist are NOT immune to this, in fact, they are probably the worst ones. Nearly every aspect of what Materialism means has been disproven in one way or another, and yet Materialist's best argument for why Materialism is still a good model is, as you say, "No physicist is up for a Nobel for proving that materialism is conclusively and absolutely wrong." That's the best argument you've got.

So when I tell you, "Okay, if you want to entirely dismiss all of this evidence that contradicts Materialism then fine. Materialism is a positive claim about the nature of reality. So what is your positive argument for Materialism then? What is the evidence that allows Materialism to meet it's burden of proof as a positive assertion about the nature of reality?"

But you don't answer this question. You side step it. You avoid it. You look for reasons why you don't have to provide any proof or evidence. You complain that you don't have to, you argue that you have no burden of proof. (Special Pleading) Either that or you use Logical Fallacy. Appeal to Widespread Belief. Appeal to Authority. Appeal to Ignorance - assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false. Appeal to a False Dilemma - two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more. (often that either Materialism is true or nothing makes sense and we live in a wacky wavy fun inflatable tube anything goes dream land.) Argumentum ad populum â€" where a proposition is claimed to be true solely because many people believe it to be so. etc etc etc.

Bottom line is: You will not or cannot provide any positive evidence to support the assertion that Materialism is true. And you outright deny and dismiss the mounting pile of evidence which seems to directly contradict the assertion of Materialism. As someone who is skeptical of Materialism, what am I to do with this?

Casparov, I did not provide an answer to you because I would rather have those that know more than me do so.
So you are saying that the reason no such individual is up for a Nobel is, essentially, fanaticism, denial, if not outright a conspiracy of vast proportion. Does that honestly make intellectual sense to you? Stop and ask yourself if you honestly, genuinely believe that.
This is the exact same claim Creationists make, and the exact same reason they like to flaunt that crap movie called Expelled.
I hate to say this, but you have more in common with them than you care.

You are right, I do not have any burden of proof. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that your own conclusions and the way that you are reading into these experiments is in fact what the scientists themselves are proposing.
In the debate, you engage in weasel tactics and flip-flop between terms like hypothesis and scientific model. They are not the same.
There is no such thing as a scientific idealist model, or however you call it.
There is no consensus amongst scientists that materialism has been disproven.
There is nothing but you reading into these experiments, and while I do not have all the answers for you because I have not looked into them, what I have looked into clearly established that you in fact read wrong into both the conclusions, the findings and the purpose of the experiments. So why should I lose one moment of effort to discuss this further when some fundamental aspects and definitions are clearly misunderstood, which I will not repeat, that have been pointed out to you by others, and quite eloquently so?
You are welcome to hold whatever world view you wish. I am perfectly comfortable with that, even if it's wrong.

And there is no appeal to ignorance at play here unless you start with the premise that your own existence in a material universe is not axiomatic. Good luck with that.
There is also no argumentum ad populum commited in dismissing a claim due to a distinct lack of evidence to the contrary.

Again, you have absolutely no evidence or reason to doubt your own existence in a material universe before you even begin to delve into QM (and butcher it). To begin to investigate, you must first have reason to doubt. Tell me, what is your reason to doubt materialism from the get-go?

It is obvious that you are emotionally invested into the world  view you currently hold. It also gives you an excuse to look down on others. Until you voluntarily choose to take an objective view into what you believe and WHY you believe it, nothing we ever say will ever change your mind. But as it stands, your emotional investment prevents introspection, just like it does to religious people.

Casparov I am still unclear. If I accept your world view ... then what? What are the implications? In other words what is your world view selling that I should be buying?

Quote from: Shol'va on May 09, 2014, 07:03:25 PM
Casparov, I did not provide an answer to you because I would rather have those that know more than me do so.
So you are saying that the reason no such individual is up for a Nobel is, essentially, fanaticism, denial, if not outright a conspiracy of vast proportion. Does that honestly make intellectual sense to you? Stop and ask yourself if you honestly, genuinely believe that.
This is the exact same claim Creationists make, and the exact same reason they like to flaunt that crap movie called Expelled.
I hate to say this, but you have more in common with them than you care.

You are right, I do not have any burden of proof. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that your own conclusions and the way that you are reading into these experiments is in fact what the scientists themselves are proposing.
In the debate, you engage in weasel tactics and flip-flop between terms like hypothesis and scientific model. They are not the same.
There is no such thing as a scientific idealist model, or however you call it.
There is no consensus amongst scientists that materialism has been disproven.
There is nothing but you reading into these experiments, and while I do not have all the answers for you because I have not looked into them, what I have looked into clearly established that you in fact read wrong into both the conclusions, the findings and the purpose of the experiments. So why should I lose one moment of effort to discuss this further when some fundamental aspects and definitions are clearly misunderstood, which I will not repeat, that have been pointed out to you by others, and quite eloquently so?
You are welcome to hold whatever world view you wish. I am perfectly comfortable with that, even if it's wrong.

And there is no appeal to ignorance at play here unless you start with the premise that your own existence in a material universe is not axiomatic. Good luck with that.
There is also no argumentum ad populum commited in dismissing a claim due to a distinct lack of evidence to the contrary.

Again, you have absolutely no evidence or reason to doubt your own existence in a material universe before you even begin to delve into QM (and butcher it). To begin to investigate, you must first have reason to doubt. Tell me, what is your reason to doubt materialism from the get-go?

It is obvious that you are emotionally invested into the world  view you currently hold. It also gives you an excuse to look down on others. Until you voluntarily choose to take an objective view into what you believe and WHY you believe it, nothing we ever say will ever change your mind. But as it stands, your emotional investment prevents introspection, just like it does to religious people.

Shol'va, Materialism is a widely held belief. As the peer reviewed paper states:

QuoteMost working scientists hold fast to the concept of 'realism' - a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation. But quantum physics has shattered some of our cornerstone beliefs. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529 (http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.2529)

They said "realism" but we both know that they are nearly interchangeable, Materialism being dependent upon Realism. The fact that most working scientists, and indeed most human beings on the planet, are Materialists, gives you a sense of comfort in your position. I am admittedly the underdog in this discussion. You have a head start and hundreds of years of momentum behind you. However, universal truth is not measured by mass appeal.

No self respecting philosopher will claim that Materialism is axiomatic. Any world view should be built upon the fewest number of assumptions as possible. The foundation of my philosophy is built upon the statement "I exist". There is nothing about this foundation which necessitates Materialism.

Beyond "I exist" I note that I have perceptions. Notating that I perceive does not necessitate Materialism as it makes no claim about the perceptions or the source of those perceptions. It merely notes that perceptions are being had.

To spur forward my philosophy I need to make a decision about what it is am perceiving and what the source of these perceptions is. I have available a great many options, and it is here I presume, that you and I would deviate. If you wish to convince me that what I perceive are objective material objects that exist independent of observation, that is totally fine. But I will not accept such a claim about my perceptions without good reason to do so. I will remain skeptical of all claims until convinced otherwise.

Well Casparov, I'm not a philosopher. At best I dabble in it and that's it. And I'm probably lousy at it which is fine. I suppose I can learn.
But you see, I've got a family. I've got a job. I've got to go on with life. And as such, until anyone knows anything with absolute certainty I have to go on with my life and as a result sophistry is a casualty in all this. I suppose that makes me a pragmatist.
I have no desire to convince you of anything. Believe what you want.
Your argument, as you present it, comes across as somebody telling me "you know what, maybe the sky isn't actually blue".
Cool. I'm not sure where that leaves me. Should I go back to eating dinner?

So you've had your much wanted debate. You've had conversations here with many. You haven't convinced anyone.
So where does that leave you?
Because I hope you realize you have no good reason to convince anyone. It's not like our souls are at stake or something.
So does this mean you will be leaving?

Quote from: Shol'va on May 09, 2014, 07:39:46 PM
Casparov I am still unclear. If I accept your world view ... then what? What are the implications? In other words what is your world view selling that I should be buying?

Shol'va, I am not here to sell anything. I am just a man in the world searching for truth. I am here because you all disagree with what I have found to be the best explanation of the evidence, and I am trying to find out what your arguments are. What the basis for your philosophy is. What evidence you have that supports your world view. I want to make sure there is not something that I am missing. Some key point that you all have arrived at that somehow I missed.

I have come here in search of someone who can prove me wrong.

You do realize by saying you are looking to be proven wrong basically implies you think you are right. Good for you!
You're not here to be proven wrong. You're here to argue because it gives you an opportunity to feel secure and gives you a reason to look down on others. You've clearly expressed this in your responses. Just like a theist that needs to argue in order to reinforce their belief. "If they can't convince me then I am right. I need to know I am right. Therefore I will argue and dismiss their arguments."

It is obvious that none of us can prove anything since your own position of god is unprovable. So I ask again. Will you be leaving now?

You know ... for somebody that claims is here to learn about atheism, you sure spend a lot of time disputing and NO time asking questions and listening.

Quote from: Shol'va on May 09, 2014, 08:02:22 PM
You do realize by saying you are looking to be proven wrong basically implies you think you are right. Good for you!
You're not here to be proven wrong. You're here to argue because it gives you an opportunity to feel secure and gives you a reason to look down on others. You've clearly expressed this in your responses. Just like a theist that needs to argue in order to reinforce their belief. "If they can't convince me then I am right. I need to know I am right. Therefore I will argue and dismiss their arguments."

It is obvious that none of us can prove anything since your own position of god is unprovable. So I ask again. Will you be leaving now?

Yes Shol'va I'll be leaving soon. If I came off that way to you I apologize. I'm not looking for a reason to look down on others, but I am trying to find out if I'm right and expose and improve upon the weaknesses in my world view. If you never put your world view to the test, you can never truly know if it's sound. I think I will find a Philosophy Forum or a Physics Forum next.

Then may I suggest that you skip the philosophy forum altogether as well as physics forum unless you are talking to physicists.
Which, by the way, I believe you were on here, and still rejected their point.
Either way, if you are in search for truth, before you reach out, you first need to reach in. Because if you want to find god, you surely will ... I say this because I am reminded of a quote, I believe Lincoln said it, and from what I remember it is along the lines of if you go looking for evil in men, expecting to find it, you surely will. And so it is with quests for god. Whatever it is you WANT to find it because you want to believe it, you will.

You must first get to know yourself, know your biases, desires, and take them into account. Otherwise you're going to look at the evidence and conclude whatever it is you wanted to conclude beforehand.

Quote from: Shol'va on May 09, 2014, 08:21:09 PM
Then may I suggest that you skip the philosophy forum altogether as well as physics forum unless you are talking to physicists.
Which, by the way, I believe you were on here, and still rejected their point.
Either way, if you are in search for truth, before you reach out, you first need to reach in. Because if you want to find god, you surely will ... I say this because I am reminded of a quote, I believe Lincoln said it, and from what I remember it is along the lines of if you go looking for evil in men, expecting to find it, you surely will. And so it is with quests for god. Whatever it is you WANT to find it because you want to believe it, you will.

You must first get to know yourself, know your biases, desires, and take them into account. Otherwise you're going to look at the evidence and conclude whatever it is you wanted to conclude beforehand.

Thanks for the advice.

Quote“I searched for God and found only myself. I searched for myself and found only God.” - Rumi

That might actually mean something if "God" was, you know, defined.

"I searched for the FSM and found only myself. I searched for myself and found only the FSM"

Shol'va

And by the way your quote is a Sufi proverb.
Sufism is a branch of Islam.
Do you love Allah?

Quote from: Shol'va on May 09, 2014, 08:31:56 PM
That might actually mean something if "God" was, you know, defined.

"I searched for the FSM and found only myself. I searched for myself and found only the FSM"

Shol'va

And by the way your quote is a Sufi proverb.
Sufism is a branch of Islam.
Do you love Allah?

Sufism is the mystical sect of Islam, just as Gnosticism is the mystical sect of Christianity, just as Kaballah is the mystical sect of Judaism. I believe all of these mystical sects agree that they speak of the same ultimate truth towards which there are many paths.

As I said in a previous post, I am not religious, and yet I consider myself a member of every religion.

Quote“Yes I am, I am also a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist, and a Jew.” - Mahatma Gandhi

Don't take this the wrong way, but since you're here to find out more about the way the non-religious think, what you wrote sounds, to me anyway, like talking about fantasy novels. I myself like fantasy novels by many different authors.
Religions are like a salad bar.

Quote from: Shol'va on May 09, 2014, 09:28:46 PM
Don't take this the wrong way, but since you're here to find out more about the way the non-religious think, what you wrote sounds, to me anyway, like talking about fantasy novels. I myself like fantasy novels by many different authors.

With all due respect, I feel pretty secure in assuming that you have not actually read any of the texts of these various mystical traditions. You have thus writ them off as fiction without giving them a chance. I on the other hand have at least read what they have to say with an open mind, and I have concluded that they all speak of the same core message and approach it from different angles and traditions. You probably have only read part and pieces of the Bible. But have you read Abdul-Qadir Gilani, or The Hujwiri? Have you read the Bhagavad Gita or The Upinishads? Have you read The Gospel of Thomas or The Gospel of Phillip?  The Testimony of Truth or The Secret Book of James? The Diamond Sutra or the Lotus Sutra of Buddhism?

All of these deliver the same message, some better than others, all are just pointers pointing in the same direction. You have writ them all off as fantasy before having read them. Take the Bhagavad Gita for instance:

It is a story of Krishna and Arjuna having a heated discussion in the middle of a battle field. You would say, "Pffft, krishna is not real! No actual battle took place! This is fiction!" But you would be missing the entire point of the document. It is not about whether or not an actual battle took place and Krishna and Arjuna actually had the conversation, it was written to deliver a messaging to the reader. The point of the Bhagavad Gita is not to suggest that these two people had a real conversation in the middle of a real battlefield, it is to deliver a message.

A message you will never receive because you are too concerned with all religions being fiction and all gods not existing. This is the meaning of the quote I have in my signature by Albert Einstein. You are so blinded by religion as the 'opium of the masses' that you cannot see the beauty of other spheres.

Quote from: Casparov on May 09, 2014, 03:27:56 PM

JosephPalazzo, If you don't like the phrase, "cause wave collapse," then I will use, "prohibit the interference pattern."

It doesn't work that way. If you follow my blog on the The Essential Quantum Mechanics (http://soi.blogspot.ca/2014/02/the-essential-quantum-mechanics.html), the whole theory hinges on equation 33 ( up to there, it was all math), and that equation has to do with wave/particle duality. Up until all those observations were made which were unexplained by classical physics,  they were based on the idea that every energy exchange could come out in only two different categories: energy exchange by waves, or by particles. But Einstein's photoelectric effect, Rutherford's atom, spectral lines analysis, the Stern-Gerlach experiment, to name a few, defied that categorization. It was not until  the 1920's that De Broglie hypothesis  led the way to QM. Then came Schroedinger, Heisenberg and Dirac that formalized QM on a sound mathematical basis (which my blog is a good starting point if you want to learn that stuff).

Now the whole idea behind the wave collapse is in the wavefunction was taken as a real wave, with a real wavelength, real frequency etc, but it isn't. You can`t measure the wavelength/frequency of the wavefunction. The belief was that this particle/wave was in some quantum states, and when a measurement is taken, it collapses to a certain state.  However, in QFT, (see my blog  The Essential Quantum Field Theory (http://soi.blogspot.ca/2014/04/the-essential-quantum-field-theory.html), equations 37,38) the wavefunction is no longer a quantum state but a quantum operator. It will no longer collapse, how could it, it`s a mathematical object. Those physicists who are still using wave collapse are behind the times. Their education is incomplete, that`s why I don`t pay attention to them.

BTW, did you read up on  LuboÅ¡ Motl at http://motls.blogspot.ca/2010/11/delayed-choice-quantum-eraser.html , he has an extensive explanation on Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiments. You won`t find better explanation.

I will answer questions on the physics, but not on wild speculations.

Quote from: Casparov on May 09, 2014, 08:00:00 PM
I have come here in search of someone who can prove me wrong.

You must first prove that you are right. You have not done so.

 :blahblah:

QuoteYou have thus writ them off as fiction without giving them a chance.

It is not about whether or not an actual battle took place and Krishna and Arjuna actually had the conversation, it was written to deliver a messaging to the reader

]

Which is it fiction, or non fiction. All the gods of history are considered as myths, the Scripture has the same people in it that are mythical figures---therefore it is a myth or fiction too, no matter what the message is. As to the other religions, Buddha is a god to the Hindus, and Buddha himself never believed he was---therefore it is mythical and a fantasy. By the way, I have read all the books and about all the religions. Yes they have good messages, but they are still based on myths and---therefore fiction. Modern Buddhism and the various schools do give the good messages that Buddha taught, but they also teach things he never believed in, so are corrupted by other religions---there are no prayers, sacrifices, thou shall not's, rituals etc. in his philosophy. There is just good advice for a better world and how to not suffer from desire, and not demands, just suggestions.  Solitary

Quote from: Casparov on May 09, 2014, 03:27:56 PM
Here is the thing:
The presence of path information anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough. - from http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.6578v2.pdf

Here is the real thing. If you read that paper you will note that the word conscious or consciousness doesn't appear at all. Not once. And yet you claim that consciousness is the main take away from this paper. Doesn't that strike even you as a little odd?
As you have been previously told, you are shoehorning consciousness into these experiments in order to appease your desire to put yourself at the center of the universe, but the universe doesn't care what you think.

QuoteShimon Malin does not understand that wave function collapse occurs as soon as there is merely "the presence of path information anywhere in the universe". Before anybody looks at the printed out paper or hears the bells, if the information is already present and available to conscious observers anywhere in the universe, the collapse takes place. So he is right in a sense that "no human interaction is necessary" but he is wrong if he concludes that "measuring devices cause the collapse". The which path information has to be available to conscious observers, being only available to measuring devices and then erased so that no conscious observers will ever have the possibility to obtain the information does not collapse the wave function.

Here is another example of you stuffing in consciousness even though it isn't necessary. You're assertion that "The which path information has to be available to conscious observers" is just that. An bold assertion that is not required anywhere in the experiment.

QuoteI am confused as to what you guys think prohibits the interference pattern. It is undeniable that the cause is "the presence of which-path information in the universe" but what does this mean? That a measuring device can have this information? Or a conscious observer?

We can present a case:

P1) An "observation" prohibits the possibility of an interference pattern
P2) Obtaining or merely having access to available which-path information constitutes an "observation"
P3) Once an observation is made, the prohibition of the possibility of an interference pattern is permanent
P4) Measuring devices that record and then erase their which path information do not permanently prohibit interference patterns
C1) Per P3 and P4, measuring devices cannot be said to be making an "observation"

Premise 3 is the one you may call into question. Here is the explanation:

Once an Observation is made, it is permanent. If the which-path observation becomes available to a conscious observer (EVEN FOR A SECOND) it's too late. It's done. The interference pattern will be prohibited permanently and there is no way to get it to reappear after that. No matter what you do after an observation is made, the interference pattern wont come back EVER! Therefore, a True Observation PERMANENTLY prohibits the interference pattern.

However, If the which-path information becomes available to an unconscious measuring device, it can erase that which-path information LONG AFTER THE MEASUREMENT, and behold, the interference pattern reappears just as if no "observation" had been made. (this is because indeed no "observation" was made) Therefore, unconscious measuring devices do not make "Observations."

This should show that "which path information being available to an unconscious measuring device" does not itself prohibit the interference pattern, and therefore cannot be a true "observation".

What hangs you up is that a measuring device is required in order for any conscious observer to ever obtain the which-path information, you therefore argue that the measuring devices measurement is prohibiting the interference pattern, not the conscious observer. It is a well established fact that what prohibits the interference pattern is the ability to obtain which-path information. The question is, "the ability for what to obtain which-path information? Measuring devices or conscious observers?"

When a conscious observer obtains which-path information, the interference pattern is permanently prohibited. Even if that which-path information is obtained only for one second and then erased, the interference pattern will never reappear. On the other hand unconscious measuring devices can obtain which-path information (which should prohibit the interference pattern) but if they erase the information the interference pattern reappears. (this should not happen if the measuring devices were making true "observations") One can only conclude that a True Observation only takes place when which-path information is obtained or available to a Conscious Observer. Measuring devices can relay this information so that it is "observed" or than can erase it so that it is "not observed" but the measuring devices themselves are doing any "observing" themselves.

I am very open to being wrong. I am not dogmatic about this. But no one is providing any argument to the contrary. What is the argument for measuring devices as true observers? I have been presented no good reason to believe that "which-path information becoming available to an unconscious measuring device prohibits the interference pattern."

Rethink your entire premise above keeping these four rules in mind and you will understand why your insertion of a conscious being "anywhere in the universe" is unnecessary for QM to function as it does and why your case above is false.  These rules are what has been proven and verified by QM experiments. The conjecture you add about conscious beings HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN.
This part you must understand if you want to understand our position.

(Thanks to JP for sharing this link)

Quote1.   Quantum mechanics only predicts the final results of experiments: it is not possible to say what the "real properties of the system" were prior to the measurement; and it's unsurprising that everything that occurs before a measurement may influence its outcome

2.   All the predictions of quantum mechanics for the outcomes of the measurements are probabilistic and we can't influence the random generator: there can't be any hidden variables that decide about the exact fate of individual particles, not even in principle, and whenever some phenomena are random in the quantum sense, the data is genuinely random and produced by Nature at the given moment; we should never think that it was "us" who made the decision

3.   Nature never forgets about any correlations: if the equations of quantum mechanics predict two objects "A, B" or their properties to be correlated - i.e. the probabilities of combinations of outcomes "P(A1, B3)" can't be universally written as "P(A1) P(B3)", then Nature never forgets about this correlation, not even after a long time (or at a very different place); so Nature's random generator that decides about the outcome of the measurement of "B" uses the conditional probabilities in which all quantities that have already been measured - e.g. "A1" - are already assumed; after "A" is measured to be "A1", the relevant probabilities for outcomes in "B" are the conditional probabilities assuming "A1"; this prescription may be visualized as a "collapse of the wave function" but this collapse is not a real physical process in any sense, it is just a rule for us to know which amplitudes are relevant

4.   Correlation is not causation: the fact that two spatially or temporarily separated measurements are correlated doesn't mean that one of them has physically influenced the other; instead, in all EPR-like experiments above, the correlation between the two measurements appears because both measurements share a common past - or a common "cause", if you wish; this comment is the typical and nearly universal reason why there's never any propagation of "faster than light" signals in any similar experiments as many people incorrectly say

So far, you have been unable to separate what the experiments CAN actually prove with what your CONJECTURE is concerning the results. Let me repeat this because it is the source of all our disagreements:
you have been unable to separate what the experiments CAN actually prove with what your CONJECTURE is concerning the results

The science here holds no interest for you. The conjecture apparently is the only thing you are concerned with.

Quote from: Casparov on May 09, 2014, 03:27:56 PM

The question is, "the ability for what to obtain which-path information? Measuring devices or conscious observers?"

When a conscious observer obtains which-path information, the interference pattern is permanently prohibited. Even if that which-path information is obtained only for one second and then erased, the interference pattern will never reappear. On the other hand unconscious measuring devices can obtain which-path information (which should prohibit the interference pattern) but if they erase the information the interference pattern reappears. (this should not happen if the measuring devices were making true "observations") One can only conclude that a True Observation only takes place when which-path information is obtained or available to a Conscious Observer. Measuring devices can relay this information so that it is "observed" or than can erase it so that it is "not observed" but the measuring devices themselves are doing any "observing" themselves.

I am very open to being wrong. I am not dogmatic about this. But no one is providing any argument to the contrary. What is the argument for measuring devices as true observers? I have been presented no good reason to believe that "which-path information becoming available to an unconscious measuring device prohibits the interference pattern."

It doesn't look like you are aware of what's doing on during the experiment. Here's some clarification:

QuoteCASE 1

You have a double-slit experiment:

(http://s243.photobucket.com/user/josephpalazzo/media/Double-slitnodetector.jpg.html)

You have an interference pattern

Quote

CASE 2

You have a double-slit with a detector at one of the slit:

(http://s243.photobucket.com/user/josephpalazzo/media/Double-slitwithdetector.jpg.html)

You have no interference.

NOTE:

(1) THE INTERFERENCE IS DUE TO THE NO- PRESENCE OF THE DETECTOR.

(2) THE NO-INTERFERENCE IS DUE TO PRESENCE OF THE DETECTOR.

IN BOTH CASES, WHAT IS OBSERVED IS NOT DUE TO A CONSCIOUS MIND BUT TO WHETHER THERE IS A DETECTOR OR NOT.


EDIT: If you want the mathematical explanation of these two cases, see my blog Two-slit experiment (http://soi.blogspot.ca/2011/02/two-slit-experiment.html)

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 10, 2014, 11:36:35 AM
NOTE:

(1) THE INTERFERENCE IS DUE TO THE NO- PRESENCE OF THE DETECTOR.

(2) THE NO-INTERFERENCE IS DUE TO PRESENCE OF THE DETECTOR.

IN BOTH CASES, WHAT IS OBSERVED IS NOT DUE TO A CONSCIOUS MIND BUT TO WHETHER THERE IS A DETECTOR OR NOT.

I am aware of Young's Double Slit Experiment. Thank you. You seem to be suggesting that the mere presence of a detector causes the interference pattern to disappear. Keeping in mind what we have learned via the Eraser Experiments, such as http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/Walborn.pdf (http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/Walborn.pdf) which actually uses the Young Double Slit, what is it about the presence of a detector that causes the interference pattern to disappear? If the detector records which-path information and then erases it, does the detector's mere presence still cause the interference pattern to disappear? If not, why not?

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 10, 2014, 07:20:01 AM
BTW, did you read up on  LuboÅ¡ Motl at http://motls.blogspot.ca/2010/11/delayed-choice-quantum-eraser.html , he has an extensive explanation on Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiments. You won`t find better explanation.

I read this blog, thank you for the link. He seems to be saying over and over again that the only reason people think Quantum Mechanics is counter-intuitive is if they assume Realism is true. We cannot say what the real properties of the system are prior to measurement. If we attempt to, counter-intuitive things like retro-causality seem to be taking place. Quantum Mechanics teaches us that we cannot assume that Realism is true, and thus when we simply refuse to make that assumption, all of the counter-intuitiveness goes away. I agree with this assessment.

Realism - all measurement outcomes are determined by pre-existing properties of particles independent of the measurement; a viewpoint according to which an external reality exists independent of observation

Quote from: Casparov on May 11, 2014, 04:36:11 AM
I am aware of Young's Double Slit Experiment. Thank you. You seem to be suggesting that the mere presence of a detector causes the interference pattern to disappear.

It is NOT a suggestion, it is a FACT.

Quote
If the detector records which-path information and then erases it, does the detector's mere presence still cause the interference pattern to disappear?

You've missed out on what I said earlier. Let me make it clearer for you:1) every double-slit experiment, 2)every delayed choice experiment, 3)every quantum eraser experiment, 4) every experiment that combines any of 1,2, 3 show exactly the same results - if the which-path is known, no interference; if the which-path is not known, there is interference.

Quote from: Casparov on May 11, 2014, 05:17:55 AM
I read this blog, thank you for the link. He seems to be saying over and over again that the only reason people think Quantum Mechanics is counter-intuitive is if they assume Realism is true.

I've read that blog and nothing you say is in that blog. You are extracting what you think he should be saying. I hate to tell you this but you make a poor student. Did I say I have been teaching physics for more than 25 years? In those years I've seen all kinds, bright students, average students, students who didn't belong in my classes. Regrettably you would fail all my courses, not because you're not smart but because you have blinders that prevent you from absorbing the material.

QuoteWe cannot say what the real properties of the system are prior to measurement. If we attempt to, counter-intuitive things like retro-causality seem to be taking place.

You're partly right but you extract the wrong conclusion. Let me give an analogy. Suppose you want to measure the velocity of a car. What you do is take its position versus a clock. You plot that on a graph, draw the best curve, joining all the data, and from there, you can calculate the velocity. There is one assumption that is left out: for you to see the car at different positions, photons had to strike the car, bouncing off  and then reach your eyes (or a detector). Those photons bouncing off the car don't disturb the car - well they do, but the effect is so small, you can safely ignore that effect. However, should you do the same for an electron, the effect of the bouncing photons would have great effect, so much so that any attempt to find the position at any given time is almost an impossible task. That's reality - at subatomic scale, any measurement you are trying to observe affect the system to such an extent that it destroys what you are trying to accomplish - this is something you cannot circumvent. Fortunately, people of great imagination and creativity were able to come up with a theory to deal with those situations, but there is a cost: we can only calculate probabilities, and that theory is quantum mechanics.

Now that is not the only problem the early pioneers of QM were faced. Another problem was that these objects (photons, electrons, etc) were exhibiting both particle and wave characteristics. Again, QM can handle that, but there is a cost: there are certain properties which are incompatible, meaning: if you know the position of those objects, there is an uncertainty in the momentum, or, if you know one component of the spin, there is an uncertainty in the other components of the spin, and what you get in those experiments we have been talking about- double-slit, delayed choice, quantum eraser - if you know the path, you get no interference, meaning large uncertainties in the momentum.

I'm getting bored like I do with children who beieve their fantasies are real. Solitary

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 11, 2014, 07:27:34 AM


It is NOT a suggestion, it is a FACT.


You've missed out on what I said earlier. Let me make it clearer for you:1) every double-slit experiment, 2)every delayed choice experiment, 3)every quantum eraser experiment, 4) every experiment that combines any of 1,2, 3 show exactly the same results - if the which-path is known, no interference; if the which-path is not known, there is interference.

Mr. Palazzo, I agree with you, but you don't seem to be answering my question. I agree that all of these experiments show that: "if the which-path is known, no interference; if the which-path is not known, there is interference." We agree We agree we agree. there should be no need to go over this point any longer because we agree.

The point in question is: "if which-path is known or unknown" by what? Measuring devices or conscious observers? What if a measuring device "knows" the which-path information but makes it absolutely impossible for any conscious observers to "know" the which path? Do we get an interference or no?

I am not trying to force my layman opinion on you and I am not quote mining for passages that agree with me. I am sincerely trying to understand the results of these experiments. You seem to be saying that "the observer" need not be a conscious being, but I find that this is inconsistent with the results of these experiments. If unconscious detectors are observers then why does the interference or no interference result depend on whether or not these detectors relay their information to conscious beings? Why is it not the case that if a detector is present and records which-path information, no matter if the which-path information later gets relayed to conscious observers or erased, there will always be no interference pattern as a result of the detector's "observation" alone?

The detectors detecting does not seem to be the cause of the no interference patter result. The cause seems to be whether or not these detectors relay which-path information to conscious observers. You have not addressed why this is so. The question: "If detectors are the observers, why does the interference pattern remain after detectors have "observed" but neglected to relay which-path information to any conscious being?"

If all you do is repeat: "if the which-path is known, no interference; if the which-path is not known, there is interference." Am I allowed to assume that by "known" you mean "known by the experimenters"? It is the experimenters knowledge (even if just in principle, because it is obtainable) of which-path information that results in no interference? If this is what you are saying I agree.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 11, 2014, 08:03:02 AM
I've read that blog and nothing you say is in that blog. You are extracting what you think he should be saying.

He never says, "We should not assume that Realism is true" outright and blatantly like that of course, but this is essentially what he keeps saying over and over. If we assume that Realism is true, then that would mean that the past of this particle would be effected by a decision that is made in it's future. He says, don't assume that Realism is true, we can say nothing about the past of the particle as if it had real properties before the measurement takes place. Assume Realism is true and all kinds of counter-intuitive things seem to be taking place, locality being violated, causality being violated, etc. Refuse to assume that Realism is true and all of these counter-intuitive things are no longer a problem. This is the message of his blog, only without using the actual word "realism."

QuoteI hate to tell you this but you make a poor student. Did I say I have been teaching physics for more than 25 years? In those years I've seen all kinds, bright students, average students, students who didn't belong in my classes. Regrettably you would fail all my courses, not because you're not smart but because you have blinders that prevent you from absorbing the material.

With all due respect, I am not a student who has paid to be taught by you in a classroom setting. I am an equal human being trying to understand very complex ideas that even the experimenters themselves may not understand. I am speaking to you as an equal, yet I am open to learning from you if you have something to teach. If you do not make sense or fail to adhere to the evidence I am not just going to quietly accept that and swallow my tongue because there is no test on monday and you don't get to decide if I pass or fail.

QuoteYou're partly right but you extract the wrong conclusion. Let me give an analogy. Suppose you want to measure the velocity of a car. What you do is take its position versus a clock. You plot that on a graph, draw the best curve, joining all the data, and from there, you can calculate the velocity. There is one assumption that is left out: for you to see the car at different positions, photons had to strike the car, bouncing off  and then reach your eyes (or a detector). Those photons bouncing off the car don't disturb the car - well they do, but the effect is so small, you can safely ignore that effect. However, should you do the same for an electron, the effect of the bouncing photons would have great effect, so much so that any attempt to find the position at any given time is almost an impossible task. That's reality - at subatomic scale, any measurement you are trying to observe affect the system to such an extent that it destroys what you are trying to accomplish - this is something you cannot circumvent. Fortunately, people of great imagination and creativity were able to come up with a theory to deal with those situations, but there is a cost: we can only calculate probabilities, and that theory is quantum mechanics.

Mr. Palazzo, what are you suggesting? Measuring devices interfere with the particle because photons must strike it in order for an observation to be made?

Consider this:

Scenerio #1: Run the Young Double slit experiment with no detector present. Send a single particle towards the slits and it seems to travel through both Slit A and Slit B simultaneously as a wave which interferes with itself and produces the interference pattern at the back slide.

Scenerio #2: Now place a Detector at Slit A which will detect the particle if it goes through Slit A by emitting a photon which must strike the particle in order to detect it. Send a single particle towards the slits and if it goes through Slit B, it was never struck by any photon and the detector at Slit A will not have detected anything, and yet the interference pattern will have disappeared and we will know that the particle travelled through Slit B.

Even though no photon struck the particle, we have extracted which-path information because the detector at Slit A detected nothing, therefore it went through Slit B. The cause of the interference pattern disappearing is that we the experimenters can know the which path information, it has absolutely nothing to do with the measuring device striking the particle with a photon.

QuoteNow that is not the only problem the early pioneers of QM were faced. Another problem was that these objects (photons, electrons, etc) were exhibiting both particle and wave characteristics. Again, QM can handle that, but there is a cost: there are certain properties which are incompatible, meaning: if you know the position of those objects, there is an uncertainty in the momentum, or, if you know one component of the spin, there is an uncertainty in the other components of the spin, and what you get in those experiments we have been talking about- double-slit, delayed choice, quantum eraser - if you know the path, you get no interference, meaning large uncertainties in the momentum.

You speak of The Uncertainty Principle. If you have 100% certainty of it's position you have 0% certainty about it's momentum and vice versa. If you have 100% certainty about it's energy you have only 0% certainty about how long it had or will have that charge for and vice versa. I thought we were having a conversation about what constitutes an "observation" though? I say which path information available to a conscious observer prevents interference patterns, you say it doesn't have to be a conscious observer it could just be an unconscious detector. Why are you teaching me about The Uncertainty Principle all of a sudden?

Quote from: Casparov on May 12, 2014, 02:59:19 AM

He never says, "We should not assume that Realism is true" outright and blatantly like that of course, but this is essentially what he keeps saying over and over.

Like I said before, that is YOUR interpretation.

QuoteIf we assume that Realism is true, then that would mean that the past of this particle would be effected by a decision that is made in it's future.

Another interpretation not borne by the facts.

QuoteHe says, don't assume that Realism is true, we can say nothing about the past of the particle as if it had real properties before the measurement takes place. Assume Realism is true and all kinds of counter-intuitive things seem to be taking place, locality being violated, causality being violated, etc. Refuse to assume that Realism is true and all of these counter-intuitive things are no longer a problem. This is the message of his blog, only without using the actual word "realism."

Lubos doesn't say any of that stuff, and it is very dishonest on your part to put your "words" into his mouth.

QuoteWith all due respect, I am not a student who has paid to be taught by you in a classroom setting. I am an equal human being trying to understand very complex ideas that even the experimenters themselves may not understand. I am speaking to you as an equal, yet I am open to learning from you if you have something to teach. If you do not make sense or fail to adhere to the evidence I am not just going to quietly accept that and swallow my tongue because there is no test on Monday and you don't get to decide if I pass or fail.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but in matters of physics, you are NOT my equal.

Quote
Mr. Palazzo, what are you suggesting? Measuring devices interfere with the particle because photons must strike it in order for an observation to be made?

Consider this:

Scenerio #1: Run the Young Double slit experiment with no detector present. Send a single particle towards the slits and it seems to travel through both Slit A and Slit B simultaneously as a wave which interferes with itself and produces the interference pattern at the back slide.

Scenerio #2: Now place a Detector at Slit A which will detect the particle if it goes through Slit A by emitting a photon which must strike the particle in order to detect it. Send a single particle towards the slits and if it goes through Slit B, it was never struck by any photon and the detector at Slit A will not have detected anything, and yet the interference pattern will have disappeared and we will know that the particle travelled through Slit B.

Even though no photon struck the particle, we have extracted which-path information because the detector at Slit A detected nothing, therefore it went through Slit B. The cause of the interference pattern disappearing is that we the experimenters can know the which path information, it has absolutely nothing to do with the measuring device striking the particle with a photon.

It doesn't happen this way. When you send single particles, you get single dots on the screen. It's only after there are thousands of these dots that we see the interference pattern. During that process, some of these will pass through slit A where there is a detector, and some will pass though slit B where there is no detector. And QM can describe this very well, and it does that without any of your arguments that you keep repeating which has nothing to do with how QM was built to describe what classical physics had failed to do.

QuoteYou speak of The Uncertainty Principle. If you have 100% certainty of it's position you have 0% certainty about it's momentum and vice versa. If you have 100% certainty about it's energy you have only 0% certainty about how long it had or will have that charge for and vice-versa. I thought we were having a conversation about what constitutes an "observation" though? I say which path information available to a conscious observer prevents interference patterns, you say it doesn't have to be a conscious observer it could just be an unconscious detector. Why are you teaching me about The Uncertainty Principle all of a sudden?

This is another instance that illustrates you don't pay attention to the arguments. In post #28, I wrote about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: "Sorry to disagree, but as I have already stated there is only one conclusion from all DCQE experiments: if you know the which-path there is no interference; if you do not know it, there will be interference. Any contrary result would be an exception to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and that would be so big, so huge, it would have hit the headlines of all the major papers and that person would be in line for the Nobel.".  All experiment in which you would know the which-path,  there is no interference, and by the HUP, you get large uncertainties in the momentum. The HUP is at the core of QM. As I said before, and repeating what seems to be a million times, as you are very slow to make the connection, there is no exception to the HUP. All of these experiments are confirming the HUP, and by de facto, QM.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 12, 2014, 08:02:34 AM
It doesn't happen this way. When you send single particles, you get single dots on the screen. It's only after there are thousands of these dots that we see the interference pattern. During that process, some of these will pass through slit A where there is a detector, and some will pass though slit B where there is no detector. And QM can describe this very well, and it does that without any of your arguments that you keep repeating which has nothing to do with how QM was built to describe what classical physics had failed to do.

This is another instance that illustrates you don't pay attention to the arguments. In post #28, I wrote about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: "Sorry to disagree, but as I have already stated there is only one conclusion from all DCQE experiments: if you know the which-path there is no interference; if you do not know it, there will be interference. Any contrary result would be an exception to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and that would be so big, so huge, it would have hit the headlines of all the major papers and that person would be in line for the Nobel.".  All experiment in which you would know the which-path,  there is no interference, and by the HUP, you get large uncertainties in the momentum. The HUP is at the core of QM. As I said before, and repeating what seems to be a million times, as you are very slow to make the connection, there is no exception to the HUP. All of these experiments are confirming the HUP, and by de facto, QM.

sigh.....


Okay Mr. Palazzo, you win. Realism is entirely compatible with QM, there is undeniable proof that unconscious measuring devices are the irreversible cause of the wave function collapse, whether or not we have which-path information is irrelevant if the detector has already made an "observation", and because of HUB all of this is easily explained and consistent with the world view that we exist in an objective observation independent universe just as described in terms of the Materialism of 19th century Newtonian physics. Naive Realism wins again. Man I'm so dense!

Thanks for all the free lessons on cognitive dissonance and dogmatism. I learned a lot. Cheers!

Quote from: Casparov on May 13, 2014, 03:17:33 AM
sigh.....


Okay Mr. Palazzo, you win. Realism is entirely compatible with QM, there is undeniable proof that unconscious measuring devices are the irreversible cause of the wave function collapse, whether or not we have which-path information is irrelevant if the detector has already made an "observation", and because of HUB all of this is easily explained and consistent with the world view that we exist in an objective observation independent universe just as described in terms of the Materialism of 19th century Newtonian physics. Naive Realism wins again. Man I'm so dense!

Thanks for all the free lessons on cognitive dissonance and dogmatism. I learned a lot. Cheers!

I know you've written that response with sarcasm, but I'm not here to defend "realism" or any philosophical position. I'm not a philosopher, and don't pretend to be. I believe that many of the pioneers of QM turned themselves into self-proclaimed philosophers and by giving all sorts of interpretations to QM led many future generations down the wrong path. In my study of physics, I have learned to interpret physics as close as possible to what the equations  say, and learn how those equations were derived, including whatever assumptions were put into these derivations.  I cannot put it into simpler language: you can't do physics without a thorough knowledge of math.

Quote from: Casparov on May 13, 2014, 03:17:33 AM

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 13, 2014, 06:22:19 AM
I know you've written that response with sarcasm, but I'm not here to defend "realism" or any philosophical position. I'm not a philosopher, and don't pretend to be. I believe that many of the pioneers of QM turned themselves into self-proclaimed philosophers and by giving all sorts of interpretations to QM led many future generations down the wrong path. In my study of physics, I have learned to interpret physics as close as possible to what the equations  say, and learn how those equations were derived, including whatever assumptions were put into these derivations.  I cannot put it into simpler language: you can't do physics without a thorough knowledge of math.

Well I for one am glad you took the time to respond as I found your answers very informative. Hopefully we can now leave the religious arguments aside because I have a few questions if you don't mind.

Is it correct to say that photons are always particles (since they make individual dots) and that their final position is determined by whether or not their movement occurs in a wave like fashion? Like water is always particles that sometimes move in a wavelike fashion.
I'm trying to understand the "waveform". If it's a "probability wave" then aren't we always talking about particles?

Quote from: Berati on May 13, 2014, 08:47:09 AM
Well I for one am glad you took the time to respond as I found your answers very informative. Hopefully we can now leave the religious arguments aside because I have a few questions if you don't mind.

Is it correct to say that photons are always particles (since they make individual dots) and that their final position is determined by whether or not their movement occurs in a wave like fashion? Like water is always particles that sometimes move in a wavelike fashion.
I'm trying to understand the "waveform". If it's a "probability wave" then aren't we always talking about particles?

If it were just particles, then putting a detector at one of the slit in the double-slit experiment should not affect the outcome. But it does, so something else has to happen. Secondly, when we shoot individual photons, one at a time, a particle shouldn't interfere with itself. Yet, we get an interference pattern even in that case. No particle model can describe adequately these observations, and neither a wave model.  In QFT, fields are the basic idea, yet, we must look at an electron as an object surrounded by a cloud of photons or pairs of electron/positrons, some of these interacting with each other, and even interacting with the vacuum. In my latest blog, The Path Integral Simplified] (http://soi.blogspot.ca/2014/05/path-integral-simplified.html), according to Feynman, particles traveling from point A to point B  take an infinite number of paths, and with that idea, you get the same results as in QFT. All in all, there is no simple answer to the particle/wave duality. We are dealing with microscopic objects that have no analogy to our macroscopic world.

Quote from: Casparov on May 13, 2014, 03:17:33 AM
sigh.....


Okay Mr. Palazzo, you win. Realism is entirely compatible with QM, there is undeniable proof that unconscious measuring devices are the irreversible cause of the wave function collapse, whether or not we have which-path information is irrelevant if the detector has already made an "observation", and because of HUB all of this is easily explained and consistent with the world view that we exist in an objective observation independent universe just as described in terms of the Materialism of 19th century Newtonian physics. Naive Realism wins again. Man I'm so dense!

Thanks for all the free lessons on cognitive dissonance and dogmatism. I learned a lot. Cheers!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bijbF3gkNk

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 13, 2014, 09:23:01 AM
If it were just particles, then putting a detector at one of the slit in the double-slit experiment should not affect the outcome. But it does, so something else has to happen. Secondly, when we shoot individual photons, one at a time, a particle shouldn't interfere with itself. Yet, we get an interference pattern even in that case.

I've seen video's of water waves passing through two slits and forming interference patterns. I always thought that this was because the waves are propagating through a medium (water in this case) and that the medium is particles of water. The interference is that of peaks and troughs of the (water) particles affecting each other. Not sure if this is 100% correct from the view of physics.

The problem with photons (it seems to me) is that there appears to be no medium for the waves to be propagating through and this is especially true if there is only one particle at a time being fired through the slits. How could something interfere with itself? as you pointed out.

QuoteNo particle model can describe adequately these observations, and neither a wave model.  In QFT, fields are the basic idea, yet, we must look at an electron as an object surrounded by a cloud of photons or pairs of electron/positrons, some of these interacting with each other, and even interacting with the vacuum. In my latest blog, The Path Integral Simplified] (http://soi.blogspot.ca/2014/05/path-integral-simplified.html), according to Feynman, particles traveling from point A to point B  take an infinite number of paths, and with that idea, you get the same results as in QFT. All in all, there is no simple answer to the particle/wave duality. We are dealing with microscopic objects that have no analogy to our macroscopic world.

I had a crazy thought while watching Neil DeGrasse Tyson give a talk on relativity and I might as well ask you here. I'm probably not the first to consider this and I'm probably missing something important, but here it goes anyway.

Dr. Tyson made the point that a photon doesn't experience time from it's point of view because it travels at the speed of light. If photons don't experience time, why should it be considered odd that it could interfere with itself if time is not an issue for it?
Is it possible that the photons interfere with their timeless selves when left alone (they are their own medium), but experience time whenever a measurement of their actual position is made, thus preventing them from interfering with themselves?

Sorry if it's a silly question.

Sorry, double post for some reason?

Quote from: Berati on May 13, 2014, 01:27:04 PM
I've seen video's of water waves passing through two slits and forming interference patterns. I always thought that this was because the waves are propagating through a medium (water in this case) and that the medium is particles of water. The interference is that of peaks and troughs of the (water) particles affecting each other. Not sure if this is 100% correct from the view of physics.

The problem with photons (it seems to me) is that there appears to be no medium for the waves to be propagating through and this is especially true if there is only one particle at a time being fired through the slits. How could something interfere with itself? as you pointed out.

Indeed, that is a puzzle with light being a wave and at the same time not having a medium like sound waves or water waves to propagate through. The other piece of the puzzle is that it comes as discrete bundles of energy.

Quote

I had a crazy thought while watching Neil DeGrasse Tyson give a talk on relativity and I might as well ask you here. I'm probably not the first to consider this and I'm probably missing something important, but here it goes anyway.

Dr. Tyson made the point that a photon doesn't experience time from it's point of view because it travels at the speed of light. If photons don't experience time, why should it be considered odd that it could interfere with itself if time is not an issue for it?
Is it possible that the photons interfere with their timeless selves when left alone (they are their own medium), but experience time whenever a measurement of their actual position is made, thus preventing them from interfering with themselves?

Sorry if it's a silly question.

The picture is clearer if you think in terms of you sitting on a photon: according to Relativity, you would experience no time. I don't think that we can speak of the photon experiencing or not the effect of time, only metaphorically.

Quote from: Berati on May 13, 2014, 01:27:04 PM
Dr. Tyson made the point that a photon doesn't experience time from it's point of view because it travels at the speed of light. If photons don't experience time, why should it be considered odd that it could interfere with itself if time is not an issue for it?
Is it possible that the photons interfere with their timeless selves when left alone (they are their own medium), but experience time whenever a measurement of their actual position is made, thus preventing them from interfering with themselves?

The problem with this of course is that it's not just photons that interfere with themselves. Louis de Broglie suggested that electrons should have wave-like properties as well when unobserved and it was experimentally confirmed in 1927. Electrons do experience time. Anton Zeilinger has performed an equivalent of the double slit experiment with "fullerenes" with are 60-70 carbon atom's large and showed that they "interfere with themselves" as well. More recently there has been an experiment done using 430 atoms large molecules and these too "interfere with themselves." Full blown multi-atom molecules do experience time.

You can even do Monroe-Wineland-type experiments on these multi-atom molecules, electrons, or single atoms, proving that they are in a state of superposition up until you make a measurement.

Quote from: Casparov on May 13, 2014, 05:08:09 PM
The problem with this of course is that it's not just photons that interfere with themselves. Louis de Broglie suggested that electrons should have wave-like properties as well when unobserved and it was experimentally confirmed in 1927. Electrons do experience time. Anton Zeilinger has performed an equivalent of the double slit experiment with "fullerenes" with are 60-70 carbon atom's large and showed that they "interfere with themselves" as well. More recently there has been an experiment done using 430 atoms large molecules and these too "interfere with themselves." Full blown multi-atom molecules do experience time.

You can even do Monroe-Wineland-type experiments on these multi-atom molecules, electrons, or single atoms, proving that they are in a state of superposition up until you make a measurement.

Casparov, you should refrain from answering physics questions as you are clueless about this subject, and will only confuse others. If you want to discuss philosophy I would ask you to do that in another thread.

Thanks

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 13, 2014, 02:19:01 PM
Indeed, that is a puzzle with light being a wave and at the same time not having a medium like sound waves or water waves to propagate through. The other piece of the puzzle is that it comes as discrete bundles of energy.

This is one of the confusing parts.
How can anything just "be" a wave. Isn't it always a wave of "somethings"? Sound, for instance, is a longitudinal wave of air. If I flick a rope, I create a transverse wave down the material that is the rope. But light can just be a wave and not a wave of particles? Would it not be more appropriate to think of light as photons moving as a wave, with the particles location or momentum before being measured described as a probability wave?

QuoteThe picture is clearer if you think in terms of you sitting on a photon: according to Relativity, you would experience no time. I don't think that we can speak of the photon experiencing or not the effect of time, only metaphorically.

It occurred to me after I made the post that a particle would have to be in many places at the same time in order to interfere with itself. It wouldn't matter if it was in many different times.  Although I can't help but think speed of light has something to do with the strange results we see.

I looked around a little and could not find the answer to this question. Is the same effect with the interference patterns appearing and disappearing observable when single particles are fired at speeds much slower than the speed of light?

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 13, 2014, 05:28:01 PM
Casparov, you should refrain from answering physics questions as you are clueless about this subject, and will only confuse others. If you want to discuss philosophy I would ask you to do that in another thread.

Thanks

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/050411/full/news.2011.210.html (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/050411/full/news.2011.210.html)

QuoteOne manifestation of quantum superposition is the interference that can occur between quantum particles passing through two or more narrow slits. In the classical world the particles pass through with their trajectories unchanged, like footballs rolling through a doorway.

But quantum particles can behave like waves, which interfere with one another as they pass through the slits, either enhancing or cancelling each other out to produce a series of bright and dark bands. This interference of quantum particles, first seen for electrons in 1927, is effectively the result of each particle passing through more than one slit: a quantum superposition.

As the experiment is scaled up in size, at some point quantum behaviour (interference) should give way to classical behaviour (no interference). But how big can the particles be before that happens?

In 1999, a team at the University of Vienna demonstrated interference in a many-slit experiment using beams of 60-atom carbon molecules (C60), which are shaped like hollow spheres. Now Markus Arndt, one of the researchers involved in that experiment, and his colleagues in Austria, Germany, the United States and Switzerland have shown much the same effect for considerably larger molecules tailor-made for the purpose â€" up to 6 nanometres (millionths of a millimetre) across and composed of up to 430 atoms. These are bigger than some small protein molecules, such as insulin.

Photons moving at the speed of light have nothing to do with superposition and interference patterns.

Quote from: Berati on May 13, 2014, 06:10:11 PM
This is one of the confusing parts.
How can anything just "be" a wave. Isn't it always a wave of "somethings"? Sound, for instance, is a longitudinal wave of air. If I flick a rope, I create a transverse wave down the material that is the rope. But light can just be a wave and not a wave of particles? Would it not be more appropriate to think of light as photons moving as a wave, with the particles location or momentum before being measured described as a probability wave?

If you think of photons as made of "something", then is that "something" made of "something else"? Where do you stop? String Theory postulates that everything is made of "strings". One could always ask, what is a string made of? At one point we have to think that we have reached the end of the line. Right now, we have no way of testing String Theory, and there's a growing dissatisfaction with a theory that is untestable, and that it might be a deadend.

As to the wave/particle duality, if String Theory is wrong, then most physicists accept that the wave/particle duality is the end of the line, and we are stuck with that conundrum: something that behaves like a wave in some circumstances, and as a particle in other circumstances.   

QuoteIt occurred to me after I made the post that a particle would have to be in many places at the same time in order to interfere with itself. It wouldn't matter if it was in many different times.  Although I can't help but think speed of light has something to do with the strange results we see.

I looked around a little and could not find the answer to this question. Is the same effect with the interference patterns appearing and disappearing observable when single particles are fired at speeds much slower than the speed of light?

Electrons travel at a much lower speed than light, and they also exhibit wave/particle duality. So we can safely conclude that wave/particle duality does not dependent on speed.

Quote from: Casparov on May 13, 2014, 07:18:40 PM
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/050411/full/news.2011.210.html (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/050411/full/news.2011.210.html)

That article is about testing the threshold between classical physics and quantum physics. This is called the quantum-to-classical transition. They are also looking at quantum decoherence - that's when the system understudied is interacting with the environment and becomes more and more classical. So the idea is to see if there is interference by passing larger and larger objects through 2, 3 and sometimes 4- slit experiments. In that article the team from Austria were able to pass molecules made up of 430 atoms and they still see interference. As you can tell from the article, nothing knew was learned, just old stuff.

I find it bizarre that Casparov thinks that citing instances where real entities (430 atom molecules) behave like other real entities (individual photons) is somehow an indictment against realism in any form.

Quote from: Casparov on May 13, 2014, 07:18:40 PM
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/050411/full/news.2011.210.html (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/050411/full/news.2011.210.html)

Photons moving at the speed of light have nothing to do with superposition and interference patterns.

I wasn't asking you as I'm not interested in religious proselytizing.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 13, 2014, 07:56:35 PM
I find it bizarre that Casparov thinks that citing instances where real entities (430 atom molecules) behave like other real entities (individual photons) is somehow an indictment against realism in any form.

That is because he hopes it will fly under the radar of the uninitiated, such as myself (but I always check into it, I never accept it just on, you know, faith). Luckily, there are others here that won't fall for it.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 13, 2014, 07:18:56 PM
If you think of photons as made of "something", then is that "something" made of "something else"? Where do you stop? String Theory postulates that everything is made of "strings". One could always ask, what is a string made of? At one point we have to think that we have reached the end of the line. Right now, we have no way of testing String Theory, and there's a growing dissatisfaction with a theory that is untestable, and that it might be a deadend.

As to the wave/particle duality, if String Theory is wrong, then most physicists accept that the wave/particle duality is the end of the line, and we are stuck with that conundrum: something that behaves like a wave in some circumstances, and as a particle in other circumstances.   


Electrons travel at a much lower speed than light, and they also exhibit wave/particle duality. So we can safely conclude that wave/particle duality does not dependent on speed.

Thanks for the replies.
I'm ok with not having final answers to every question and I feel no need to insert an answer just to make myself feel like the center of the universe.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 13, 2014, 07:56:35 PM
I find it bizarre that Casparov thinks that citing instances where real entities (430 atom molecules) behave like other real entities (individual photons) is somehow an indictment against realism in any form.

In Casparov language: real = illusion in THE matrix

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 14, 2014, 08:04:15 AM
In Casparov language: real = illusion in THE matrix

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 13, 2014, 07:56:35 PM
I find it bizarre that Casparov thinks that citing instances where real entities (430 atom molecules) behave like other real entities (individual photons) is somehow an indictment against realism in any form.

Quote“... the atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” - Werner Heisenberg

Quote"Quantum states are not physical objects: they exist only in our imagination." - Asher Peres

Quote“If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action at a distance but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded.” Asher Peres

Quote"The objective world of nineteenth-century science was, as we know today, an ideal, limiting case, but not the whole reality." - Niels Bohr

Quote“Solipsism may be logically consistent with present Quantum Mechanics, Monism in the sense of Materialism is not.” - Eugene Wigner

Quote"The material world has only been constructed at the price of taking the self, that is, mind, out of it, removing it; mind is not part of it." - Erwin Schrodinger

Quote"Bell's theorem represents a significant advance in understanding the conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics. The theorem shows that essentially all local theories of natural phenomena that are formulated within the framework of realism may be tested using a single experimental arrangement. Moreover, the predictions by those theories must significantly differ from those by quantum mechanics. Experimental results evidently refute the theorem's predictions for these theories and favour those of quantum mechanics. The conclusions are philosophically startling: either one must totally abandon the realistic philosophy of most working scientists, or dramatically revise our concept of space-time." J F Clauser and A Shimony

Quote"Consciousness is much more of the implicate order than is matter . . . Yet at a deeper level they are actually inseparable and interwoven , just as in the computer game the player and the screen are united by participation." - David Bohm

Quote“Hence it is clear that the space of physics is not, in the last analysis, anything given in nature or independent of human thought. It is a function of our conceptual scheme. Space as conceived by Newton proved to be an illusion...” - Max Jammer

Quote“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” - Max Planck

Quote"The very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality.” - Eugene Wigner

Quote"We do not belong to this material world that science constructs for us. We are not in it; we are outside. We are only spectators. The reason why we believe that we are in it, that we belong to the picture, is that our bodies are in the picture. Our bodies belong to it. Not only my own body, but those of my friends, also of my dog and cat and horse, and of all the other people and animals. And this is my only means of communicating with them." - Erwin Schrodinger

Quote"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. 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

Quote"Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind... Consciousness is never experienced in the plural, only in the singular. Not only has none of us ever experienced more than one consciousness, but there is also no trace of circumstantial evidence of this ever happening anywhere in the world. If I say that there cannot be more than one consciousness in the same mind, this seems a blunt tautology â€" we are quite unable to imagine the contrary..." - Erwin Schrodinger

Quote"In itself, the insight is not new. The earliest records, to my knowledge, date back some 2500 years or more... the recognition ATMAN = BRAHMAN (the personal self equals the omnipresent, all-comprehending eternal self) was in Indian thought considered, far from being blasphemous, to represent the quintessence of deepest insight into the happenings of the world." - Erwin Schrodinger

Quote"It is not possible that this unity of knowledge, feeling and choice which you call your own should have sprung into being from nothingness at a given moment not so long ago; rather this knowledge, feeling, and choice are essentially eternal and unchangeable and numerically one in all men, nay in all sensitive beings. But not in this sense â€" that you are a part, a piece, of an eternal, infinite being, an aspect or modification of it... For we should then have the same baffling question: which part, which aspect are you? what, objectively, differentiates it from the others? No, but, inconceiveable as it seems to ordinary reason, you â€" and all other conscious beings as such â€" are all in all. Hence, this life of yours... is, in a certain sense, the whole..." - Erwin Schrodinger

Quote"So many people today â€" and even professional scientists â€" seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is â€" in my opinion â€" the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." - Albert Einstein

Quote“A human being is a part of the whole called by us 'universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.” - Albert Einstein

Quote"The history of science shows that the progress of science has constantly been hampered by the tyrannical influence of certain conceptions that finally came to be considered as dogma. For this reason, it is proper to submit periodically to a very searching examination, principles that we have come to assume without any more discussion." - Louis de Broglie

^^^^

Perfect example of someone who knows little about physics, and goes on quote-mining to prove an ideology. Creationists, Young-Earth-Creationists, Heliocentrists, Conspiracy theorists, and many other fanatics do exactly that.

Quote from: Casparov on May 16, 2014, 02:40:42 AM

Ah, the appeal to authority. Classic. You realize that these 10 second sound bytes prove nothing, yes? No? Of course not, you're a moron.

Casparov, Why does this sound like you?

Despite a huge fan following, Deepak Chopra, the world-renowned guru on spirituality and mind-body medicine, has drawn a lot of flak. He has frequently been criticized for his beliefs. People have been sceptical about his reference to the relationship that he makes between quantum mechanics and healing. Critics say that his reference often lead to a confusing state about the theories of quantum measurement, de-coherence and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Deepak Chopra Quotes is also criticized for overly mystifying Hinduism and Ayurveda. People have been questioning his knowledge of Ayurveda. He is accused for the elusive language he uses to explain this branch of medicine, thus alienating it from the mainstream. Some even accuse Mr. Chopra’s writings and lectures of being dishonest and hypocritical. His frequent admonishing on materialism is viewed as hypocrisy, since he continues live himself in a sprawling and luxurious mansion.

Others accuse Mr. Chopra of not using his current photograph on his web site or on the jackets of his newly released books, saying that he is hiding the fact that he is aging, though he claims to know the technique to over come the aging process. When asked to suggest creative ideas, in an interview, shortly prior to the US-led invasion of Iraq, he reportedly suggested the construction of a new Disney World theme park in the Middle East. He felt that it would help reduce the fear and anger in children, while Iraqi residents should be provided free access to CNN, MTV and Nickelodeon for their greater exposure to the rest of the world.

Mr. Chopra’s suggestions were ridiculed roundly.
P. Z. Myers, a well-known biologist, criticized Mr. Chopra severely for his theories by raising the question of genetics. On the other hand, several other scientists ridiculed him for his unscientific approach and methods.
Some critics even say that Mr. Chopra creates a false sense of hope in sick individuals. This, they say, often keep the sick from seeking traditional medical care. A few years ago, a Time article summed up Mr. Chopra’s beliefs and his quotes on various aspects of life thus: “Chopra has arguably been the most successful at erasing apparent differences between East and West by packaging Eastern mystique in credible Western garb …”

Chopra has written more than 65 books with 18 New York Times bestsellers. Deepak Chopra books have been translated into 35 languages and sold more than 20 million copies worldwide. His book, Peace Is the Way won the Quill Awards and The Book of Secrets: Unlocking the Hidden Dimensions of your Life received the Nautilus Award. FINS â€" Wall Street Journal, mentioned his book, “The Soul of Leadership”, as one of five best business books of 2011 to read for your career. Chopra is represented in the US by the literary agency, Trident Media Group.

His first book, Creating Health, is credited with helping to create initial, international recognition for Chopra. In the book, Skeptic’s Dictionary, the author Robert T. Carroll writes that Mr. Chopra is the “foremost advocate of Ayurvedic medicine in America”. He further states that according to Mr. Chopra, perfect health is a matter of choice; physical imbalances can be identified by taking the pulse; allergies are the result of poor digestion; and washing the eyes with saliva can prevent or even reverse cataracts. Mr. Carroll alleges that Mr. Chopra gave up his work in medicine to follow religion. But Mr. Chopra, refuting such allegations, says that he found the world of medicine utterly frustrating.

Solitary

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 16, 2014, 09:56:50 AM
^^^^

Perfect example of someone who knows little about physics, and goes on quote-mining to prove an ideology. Creationists, Young-Earth-Creationists, Heliocentrists, Conspiracy theorists, and many other fanatics do exactly that.

I think even if Caspy took years to learn about physics on advanced courses he would still have the same position. 

I forget the exact statistics but Neil deGrasse Tyson has a great quote about even the most advanced and high level scientists as a group still have a percentage that believe a god impacts their life and even if the entire US population was highly educated we would still have believers.

A good percentage of the population is irretrievably lost.

But they will be saved------by science, if they don't screw things up any worse with their superstitious dogma.  :wall: Solitary

Cas's gratuitous quote-mining is yet another example of his dishonest debating. You can literally make anyone imply anything you want them to imply by simply choosing your quotes well, like making Darwin sound like he doubted the veracity of his own theory, or make Einstein sound like he actually believed in a personal God.

Casparov, you are either willfully dishonest, or you don't know how to debate or argue honestly. Neither of these alternatives speak well for you.

Couldn't agree more, don't know if it was done on purpose, or Ignorartio Elenchi, Fallacy Of Missusing Appeal To Authority, or From Ignorance and many other fallacies. I would think he doesn't know how to think soundly.  Maybe still too young. Solitary

Judging by the references to certain computer games, I estimate late teens, early twenties at most.

Quote from: TrueStory on May 16, 2014, 01:12:37 PM
I think even if Caspy took years to learn about physics on advanced courses he would still have the same position. 

I forget the exact statistics but Neil deGrasse Tyson has a great quote about even the most advanced and high level scientists as a group still have a percentage that believe a god impacts their life and even if the entire US population was highly educated we would still have believers.

I am very very open to being wrong. I am begging someone/anyone to give a coherent argument in support of Realism or Materialism. If I am presented evidence for Materialism I am not so intellectually dishonest with myself that I will deny it outright, or dismiss it entirely out of hand simply because it disagrees with my current world view. On the contrary, I would adjust my world view to fit with the evidence. I am begging to be shown wrong! I have presented paper after paper after paper showing that Realism is flawed forwards backwards and sideways. Of course I am attempting to prove a negative so I cannot succeed anymore than you can succeed in proving a negative. So I am begging for proof of the positive!

Why should I believe that I live in an observation-independent objective material universe? Give me proof and I will convert on the spot!!! What's the justification? What's the rationalization? What's the reason?

Quote from: Casparov on May 16, 2014, 11:56:31 PM
I am very very open to being wrong. I am begging someone/anyone to give a coherent argument in support of Realism or Materialism. If I am presented evidence for Materialism I am not so intellectually dishonest with myself that I will deny it outright, or dismiss it entirely out of hand simply because it disagrees with my current world view. On the contrary, I would adjust my world view to fit with the evidence. I am begging to be shown wrong! I have presented paper after paper after paper showing that Realism is flawed forwards backwards and sideways. Of course I am attempting to prove a negative so I cannot succeed anymore than you can succeed in proving a negative. So I am begging for proof of the positive!

Why should I believe that I live in an observation-independent objective material universe? Give me proof and I will convert on the spot!!! What's the justification? What's the rationalization? What's the reason?

PLEASE GIVE ME A REASON TO BE A MATERIALIST!!! I AM BEGGING YOU!!!

So far chuckles your "argument" that materialism isn't valid have been destroyed by damn near everyone on this board, and as of yet you have not stopped spouting it as if nobody has done just that. I myself have given you a surefire way to prove materialism(you know walk in front of a speeding semi truck) and yet you have yet to take up that challenge. You are a fucking dishonest cunt, and show no signs of changing. You stated several times that you were leaving, you claim that if someone could "prove" materialism you would believe it(heres an idea since you claim its not valid, why don't you put forth PROOF) and Ive watched every one of your arguments against it get ripped to shreds by people who obviously know more than you on the subject.

Heres an idea for you,

Quote from: Casparov on May 16, 2014, 11:56:31 PM
I am very very open to being wrong.

Your refusal to acknowledge simple, verifiable evidence has determined this to be a lie.

Quote from: Moralnihilist on May 17, 2014, 01:04:04 AM
So far chuckles your "argument" that materialism isn't valid have been destroyed by damn near everyone on this board, and as of yet you have not stopped spouting it as if nobody has done just that. I myself have given you a surefire way to prove materialism(you know walk in front of a speeding semi truck) and yet you have yet to take up that challenge. You are a fucking dishonest cunt, and show no signs of changing. You stated several times that you were leaving, you claim that if someone could "prove" materialism you would believe it(heres an idea since you claim its not valid, why don't you put forth PROOF) and Ive watched every one of your arguments against it get ripped to shreds by people who obviously know more than you on the subject.

I am no longer interested in your apologetical defenses as to why my Negative Arguments can be dismissed. I am now asking what is the POSITIVE ARGUMENT then? I am making no claim right now. I am skeptical of Materialism. It is not up to me to disprove Materialism. I am not required to provide PROOF that Materialism is false. I am wondering what is the evidence for Materialism? What is the justification? What would the reasons be to become a Materialist and drop all of this "woo" I've been spewing? Save me from my ignorance!!

"Walk in front of a speeding semi truck."

If I walk in front of a speeding semi truck and the result is death, are you suggesting that this result is only compatible with Materialism? Perhaps I am missing something but it seems like there are several Reality Models that could produce this exact same scenario and therefore, since Materialism is just one of many Reality Models that can produce this result, I am still left wondering how to be positive Materialism is the conclusion. Why do you consider Materialism the only possible explanation for this result? Please!! Help me believe in Materialism!!! I want to be a Materialist so baaaad!! I'm tired of being stupid and ignorant!!

Walk me through your logic!!!

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 17, 2014, 02:44:19 AM
Your refusal to acknowledge simple, verifiable evidence has determined this to be a lie.

I do apologize, I am in search of this verifiable evidence. I would love to be a Materialist. I do not want to be ignorant. I must have entirely missed this evidence at some point I have no idea how. Can you please remind me? What is the evidence for Materialism?

I've asked before, and I'll ask again:

What set of natural laws works in this 'non-materialist' universe?

Quote from: Casparov on May 16, 2014, 11:56:31 PM

PLEASE GIVE ME A REASON TO BE A MATERIALIST!!! I AM BEGGING YOU!!!

If you look back at 500 years ago when people believed in the material + spiritual world, and taking into consideration that in those intervening years there were no proof of the spiritual world, then what's left? The material world is then the default position. Now you want to bring in mind, but from the material world point of view, mind is just the activities of the brain, which is matter. So this materialist position is consistent. It requires no more assumption.

If you believe that mind exists independently from matter, then the burden is on you to prove your case.

Quote from: Casparov on May 17, 2014, 02:46:22 AM
I am no longer interested in your apologetical defenses as to why my Negative Arguments can be dismissed. I am now asking what is the POSITIVE ARGUMENT then? I am making no claim right now. I am skeptical of Materialism. It is not up to me to disprove Materialism. I am not required to provide PROOF that Materialism is false. I am wondering what is the evidence for Materialism? What is the justification? What would the reasons be to become a Materialist and drop all of this "woo" I've been spewing? Save me from my ignorance!!

"Walk in front of a speeding semi truck."

If I walk in front of a speeding semi truck and the result is death, are you suggesting that this result is only compatible with Materialism? Perhaps I am missing something but it seems like there are several Reality Models that could produce this exact same scenario and therefore, since Materialism is just one of many Reality Models that can produce this result, I am still left wondering how to be positive Materialism is the conclusion. Why do you consider Materialism the only possible explanation for this result? Please!! Help me believe in Materialism!!! I want to be a Materialist so baaaad!! I'm tired of being stupid and ignorant!!

Walk me through your logic!!!

Fine junior Ill try this one fucking time after that back to walking in front of a speeding semi. Materialism is the default due to one simple fact, it works. It is the simplest non woo infested version of reality. All this bullshit of solipsism that you are trying to put forward simply adds unneeded levels of complexity to the equation with zero benefit.

Now on to the truck analogy, If as you claim that reality is consciousness based you would not cease to be upon getting plowed by a speeding semi truck. If is it materialistic in nature, well I can't say it was nice knowing you. See dingus its simple.

By adding the Chopra-esque levels of insanity to the entire argument you are mixing philosophy and science. Methodological solipsism adds nothing to the party. The arguments you have put forward, that one can safely assume are your reasons for denying materialism, have been dismantled as mostly conjecture on your part based on a predisposed position of materialism not being true. Not one ounce of evidence exists, outside of philosophical mental masturbation, for anything else other than materialism.

Now Im not the most educated in science on this forum, but junior even I can see that you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. You want a "reason to be a materialist" heres a good un: If it walks, quacks, and looks like a duck, chances are it isn't a dog.

Quote from: Casparov on May 16, 2014, 11:56:31 PM
I am very very open to being wrong. I am begging someone/anyone to give a coherent argument in support of Realism or Materialism. If I am presented evidence for Materialism I am not so intellectually dishonest with myself that I will deny it outright, or dismiss it entirely out of hand simply because it disagrees with my current world view. On the contrary, I would adjust my world view to fit with the evidence. I am begging to be shown wrong! I have presented paper after paper after paper showing that Realism is flawed forwards backwards and sideways. Of course I am attempting to prove a negative so I cannot succeed anymore than you can succeed in proving a negative. So I am begging for proof of the positive!

Why should I believe that I live in an observation-independent objective material universe? Give me proof and I will convert on the spot!!! What's the justification? What's the rationalization? What's the reason?

It is not up to us to prove the world is physical because it is self evident. The whole idea of the world being mental is based on the belief that the mind doesn't emerge from the workings of the body and is separate. If this were true anesthesia and drugs would not effect the mind, or a bump on the head cause one to loose consciousness. How much more proof does one need that the mind is a product of physical causes?

Michael Shermer points out that human beings consistently choose to consider non-human objects as human whenever they are allowed the chance, a mistake called the anthropomorphic fallacy: They talk to their cars, ascribe desire and intentions to natural forces (e.g., "nature abhors a vacuum"), and worship the sun as a human-like being with intelligence. If the Turing test is applied to religious objects, Shermer argues, then, that inanimate statues, rocks, and places have consistently passed the test throughout history. This human tendency towards anthropomorphism effectively lowers the bar for the Turing test, unless interrogators are specifically trained to avoid it.

This goes for scientists or computer programmers with a religious background also. If someone can prove the world is not physical, explain how you can feel physical pain. The whole concept of gods, or God, is based on the anthropomorphism fallacy in logic. So is the idea of any supernatural entity. Giving God a mind, or any other exaggerated human attribute is this fallacy. The brain is a marvelous thing, but it is not an example of what is the truth anymore than logic is. To think the mind and any concept it comes up with is more than a fantasy it has to be tested in the physical world, which is what science does. When it doesn't pan out by experiment it is dismissed as wishful thinking at best, and insanity at its worst. Solitary

For fuck's sake, Professor Wogglebug, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woggle-Bug) you couldn't even follow the basic theorems that give the real number line its structure and properties when I tried to teach you. You literally don't know how numbers work â€"the basis of measurement and data-gatheringâ€" yet you would proclaim that you know better than us what underlies the entire universe? Complete nonsense.

You seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that in the experiments you cited, no conscious onlooker saw any wavefunction collapse â€" each and every measurement was done by a non-conscious instrument. There was no consciousness involved in any collapse of any wavefunction. Instead, all of that stuff was inferred long after the fact. Even someone sitting watching the oscilloscope would only deduce the collapse long after the fact, because human brains are really slow compared to quantum phenomena. Any references to "you" and "observer" in physical papers refer to those measurement apparatuses, because that's the lingo. You don't actually perform the measurements, your instruments do (no consciousness involved), and their actions of measurement disturb the system in very precisely predictable ways. And I say actions of measurement because â€"as been pointed out to you repeatedlyâ€" an observation of a system is an action on it, and one must disturb a quantum system for it to reveal anything. If you don't disturb the system, it putters along and reveals nothing to you.

(Also, it would take a painfully long time to perform these experiments if physicists didn't do it automatically, and faster data collection and number crunching means faster papers â€"the painstaking experiments of Robert A. Millikan was a necessity at the time, but no more.)

Quote from: Casparov on May 17, 2014, 02:48:48 AM
I do apologize, I am in search of this verifiable evidence. I would love to be a Materialist. I do not want to be ignorant. I must have entirely missed this evidence at some point I have no idea how. Can you please remind me? What is the evidence for Materialism?

Other folks have beaten me to it, so I will simply say: It's the only model that works in science, therefore it it the default. If you have a better model, then you must demonstrate proof. "Disproving" materialism does you no good until you have a working model to replace it.

Quote from: Casparov on May 16, 2014, 11:56:31 PM
I am very very open to being wrong. I am begging someone/anyone to give a coherent argument in support of Realism or Materialism. If I am presented evidence for Materialism I am not so intellectually dishonest with myself that I will deny it outright, or dismiss it entirely out of hand simply because it disagrees with my current world view. On the contrary, I would adjust my world view to fit with the evidence. I am begging to be shown wrong! I have presented paper after paper after paper showing that Realism is flawed forwards backwards and sideways. Of course I am attempting to prove a negative so I cannot succeed anymore than you can succeed in proving a negative. So I am begging for proof of the positive!

Why should I believe that I live in an observation-independent objective material universe? Give me proof and I will convert on the spot!!! What's the justification? What's the rationalization? What's the reason?

THIS SENTENCE IS SCROLLING!

Do you believe in a god that in impacts your life?

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 17, 2014, 07:02:03 AM
If you look back at 500 years ago when people believed in the material + spiritual world, and taking into consideration that in those intervening years there were no proof of the spiritual world, then what's left? The material world is then the default position. Now you want to bring in mind, but from the material world point of view, mind is just the activities of the brain, which is matter. So this materialist position is consistent. It requires no more assumption.

"Materialism is the default position."

Quote from: Moralnihilist on May 17, 2014, 09:25:29 AM
Fine junior Ill try this one fucking time after that back to walking in front of a speeding semi. Materialism is the default due to one simple fact, it works. It is the simplest non woo infested version of reality. All this bullshit of solipsism that you are trying to put forward simply adds unneeded levels of complexity to the equation with zero benefit.

"Materialism is the default position."

QuoteNow on to the truck analogy, If as you claim that reality is consciousness based you would not cease to be upon getting plowed by a speeding semi truck. If is it materialistic in nature, well I can't say it was nice knowing you. See dingus its simple.

Okay, I see your point... I think. It's basically like a Christian saying, "You'll know hell is real when you die!" That's basically your argument just reversed, right? Okay so when a Christian tells you that you can prove hell is real by getting hit by a speeding semi, what is your typical response? (and do you consider that a convincing argument?)

QuoteThe arguments you have put forward, that one can safely assume are your reasons for denying materialism, have been dismantled as mostly conjecture on your part based on a predisposed position of materialism not being true. Not one ounce of evidence exists, outside of philosophical mental masturbation, for anything else other than materialism.

Well see now here this is more apologetics again. This is called an Argument From Ignorance fallacy. Just because a claim has not been, or cannot be proven false is not proof that it is true. Accepting this as proof of Materialism would be fallacious, and therefore I will not do so as it is a personal rule of mine to not accept logical fallacies as proof for any claim.

QuoteNow Im not the most educated in science on this forum, but junior even I can see that you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. You want a "reason to be a materialist" heres a good un: If it walks, quacks, and looks like a duck, chances are it isn't a dog.

The problem with that is there are competing models other than Materialism that claim the exact same thing. The Duck Principle, "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck," is actually quoted in http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.3307v1.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.3307v1.pdf) on page 3 after allegedly demonstrating that everything we know of reality is better explained by a Virtual Reality Model of reality rather than an Objective Material Model of reality. I have two competing reality models, two competing positive claims, both citing the same Duck Principle as proof, how do I make a determination about which is correct? I have a dilemma here. If there is proof that Materialism is true, then I would be able to make an informed decision. Is there such proof?

Quote from: Berati on May 17, 2014, 10:38:44 AM

I HAVE GIVEN YOU PROOF AND YOU JUST IGNORE IT

I am asking for proof. The sentence you have written is, "I have given you proof," which I cannot accept as proof. You neglect to reference this alleged "proof". You neglect to even hint at what this alleged "proof" may have been. I have no idea what you are talking about. If you have proof in support of Materialism then provide it please. I am begging you!

Quote from: Solitary on May 17, 2014, 11:34:57 AM
It is not up to us to prove the world is physical because it is self evident.

"It is self evident."

That we definitely exist in an Objective Material Universe, as opposed to say... a Virtual Universe, is a positive claim about the nature of reality. Do you disagree? Are you arguing that whoever makes a positive claim does not have to provide proof? If someone approaches you and says, "It is not up to me to prove the world is virtual because it is self evident," what would your response be? Would you accept this statement as proof? If not, you should be able to comprehend why I do not accept your statement as proof.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 17, 2014, 06:14:49 PM
You seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that in the experiments you cited, no conscious onlooker saw any wavefunction collapse â€" each and every measurement was done by a non-conscious instrument. There was no consciousness involved in any collapse of any wavefunction. Instead, all of that stuff was inferred long after the fact. Even someone sitting watching the oscilloscope would only deduce the collapse long after the fact, because human brains are really slow compared to quantum phenomena. Any references to "you" and "observer" in physical papers refer to those measurement apparatuses, because that's the lingo. You don't actually perform the measurements, your instruments do (no consciousness involved), and their actions of measurement disturb the system in very precisely predictable ways. And I say actions of measurement because â€"as been pointed out to you repeatedlyâ€" an observation of a system is an action on it, and one must disturb a quantum system for it to reveal anything. If you don't disturb the system, it putters along and reveals nothing to you.

Thank you for the apologetic defense against my negative arguments, however I am requesting positive evidence FOR Materialism, not apologetics against attempts to disprove Materialism. That Materialism has not been, or cannot be disproven is not proof that Materialism is true. To suggest this would be to employ the logical fallacy known as an Argument From Ignorance, and I cannot accept fallacious arguments as proof for anything as a personal rule.

Quote from: TrueStory on May 17, 2014, 10:35:52 PM
Do you believe in a god that in impacts your life?

I am making no claims about reality at this time. I am reverting for a moment to agnosticism and trying to make an evidence based decision on the best foundation for my world view. I know with absolute certainty that I am conscious. I simply am unable to deny this, and therefore I know with absolute certainty that consciousness exists. Beyond this I am uncertain. There are claims being made from several competing camps. Materialists claim that I exist in an Objective Material Universe and my consciousness is the product of Material interactions. Idealists claim that consciousness is all that exists and I am experiencing existing in a virtual reality that is the product of information processing. Dualists claim that my consciousness is my immaterial soul which was born into a material universe.

I am skeptical, yet open-minded, about all of these claims. I am surveying the evidence from all sides and weighing them equally as possible explanations. I am trying to decide which one explains all of the evidence the best. That is all.

Quote from: Casparov on May 18, 2014, 02:50:07 AM


Okay, I see your point... I think. It's basically like a Christian saying, "You'll know hell is real when you die!" That's basically your argument just reversed, right? Okay so when a Christian tells you that you can prove hell is real by getting hit by a speeding semi, what is your typical response? (and do you consider that a convincing argument?)

It's not, because the evidence shows that after billions of people who have died in the last 10,000 years, no one came back to tell us that hell exists. It doesn't prove that hell doesn't exist, but there are no convincing reasons to believe that it does. Same logic is applied here as to what happened in the last 500 years: no evidence of the supernatural,so why believe in it!

Quotehttp://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.3307v1.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.3307v1.pdf) on page 3 after allegedly demonstrating that everything we know of reality is better explained by a Virtual Reality Model of reality rather than an Objective Material Model of reality.

In a virtual reality model, you have to postulate "something else" exists in order to sustain that virtual reality (computers, god(s), whatever). Again applying the same logic: there is no evidence that such a"something else" exists outside of our reality, therefore there is no reason to believe in it.

QuoteI have two competing reality models, two competing positive claims, both citing the same Duck Principle as proof, how do I make a determination about which is correct? I have a dilemma here. If there is proof that Materialism is true, then I would be able to make an informed decision. Is there such proof?

There is no philosophical arguments to prove "existence". The only thing I can tell you is go hit a tree, if that doesn't convince you that a tree is real, nothing else will. But it's not a philosophical argument as such. But the fact that you won't jump from a 10-story high building, because you know you will die, and you know that you have no convincing arguments there is an afterlife, only a hope, but no guarantee, so that tells you that in some sense, the reality around you is real. At least, it's a better bet that waging it's all an illusion.

Quote from: Casparov on May 18, 2014, 02:50:07 AM
Thank you for the apologetic defense against my negative arguments, however I am requesting positive evidence FOR Materialism, not apologetics against attempts to disprove Materialism. That Materialism has not been, or cannot be disproven is not proof that Materialism is true.

Materialism can be disproven: find something other than material stuff in the universe. What? You can't? Too fucking bad!

Every time you look into the universe and find only material stuff in the universe, and not find anything other than material stuff, that's evidence for materialism. Materialism makes the prediction that you will only find material stuff in the universe, whatever you look at, wherever and whenever you look. Every time you find only mindless, mechanistic, material stuff at work in the universe, that supports materialism. This prediction has borne out every single freaking time it has been tested. The fact that you do not understand this principle is not my problem.

Your problem is that consciousness is a phenomenon and not a substance. It has all the hallmarks of something that is a phenomenon of physical matter: that there is no verified consciousness separated from some sort of brain, that physical chemicals affecting the brain also affect consciousness, that functions of consciousness can be linked to specific brain regions, and so forth. That you do not accept that this is proof that consciousness is a brain phenomenon is not my problem.

Quote from: Casparov on May 18, 2014, 02:50:07 AM
I am skeptical, yet open-minded, about all of these claims. I am surveying the evidence from all sides and weighing them equally as possible explanations. I am trying to decide which one explains all of the evidence the best. That is all.

I do not believe you know what those words mean. You use "skeptical" and "open minded" like they are magical wands for warding off our criticism of your ideas, rather than actual discipline in your thinking. You say you are evaluating the evidence from all sides, yet you flat out ignore all of the evidence that fails to find any substance other than the material â€" all the evidence that falls in line with the materialist claim that there is nothing but material stuff at work. You haven't recognized this evidence before, and I don't expect you to start recognizing it now.

So, go away, Professor Wogglebug. You are exactly the kind of person who won't be convinced by any evidence.

You claim that quantum reality(virtualiism) is a valid reality model. Fine, where is evidence for it. By the way, the paper you linked to was called "The Virtual Reality CONJECTURE" for a reason. It isn't actually proof, nor is it an actual scientist stating that this is an actual evidence backed theory. It is simply one educated guys "What If". You know what this kind of paper is lacking though? EVIDENCE.

You are claiming all kinds of fallacies are being used against you, yet you are all to willing to believe a paper called conjecture. And whats worse is that you are using this paper as if it proves something other than materialism. I shall call this fallacy "the argument from a bullshitter".

Quotecon·jec·ture  [kuhn-jek-cher]noun 1.the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof. 2.an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.

So numb nuts I restate the simple statement, If there is no evidence for anything other than materialism, If(to quote Hakurei Reimu) every time you look into the universe and find only material stuff, and not find anything other than material stuff, chances are the universe isn't a virtual reality.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 18, 2014, 07:06:08 AM
It's not, because the evidence shows that after billions of people who have died in the last 10,000 years, no one came back to tell us that hell exists. It doesn't prove that hell doesn't exist, but there are no convincing reasons to believe that it does. Same logic is applied here as to what happened in the last 500 years: no evidence of the supernatural,so why believe in it!

That there is no evidence of the supernatural is not a positive argument for Materialism. I am not arguing that the supernatural exists, I am asking for positive evidence in support of the positive claim that we exist in an Objective Material Universe. 

QuoteIn a virtual reality model, you have to postulate "something else" exists in order to sustain that virtual reality (computers, god(s), whatever). Again applying the same logic: there is no evidence that such a"something else" exists outside of our reality, therefore there is no reason to believe in it.

If you "apply the same logic" you run into the same problem. I am not asking you to falsify or adopt competing models, I am merely asking you to justify your own. That this "something else" has no evidence does absolutely nothing to address the issue of evidence for Materialism.

QuoteThere is no philosophical arguments to prove "existence". The only thing I can tell you is go hit a tree, if that doesn't convince you that a tree is real, nothing else will. But it's not a philosophical argument as such. But the fact that you won't jump from a 10-story high building, because you know you will die, and you know that you have no convincing arguments there is an afterlife, only a hope, but no guarantee, so that tells you that in some sense, the reality around you is real. At least, it's a better bet that waging it's all an illusion.

"Go hit a tree," is the best you can do for evidence that Materialism is true, yet Brian Whitworth could tell me to "go hit a tree," in a Virtual Reality, and I still have no basis to determine which claim is correct because both produce the exact same result. I do not understand how this could ever prove Materialism over other models?

The same is true for why I do not jump from a 10-story building. No matter which claim is true, and no matter if life persists or ceases upon physical death, I will still refuse to jump from a 10-story building. I have goals and ambitions that I wish to accomplish, and jumping from a 10-story building would wreck my chances no matter which model of reality turns out to be correct. Materialism being false would not change my decision to not jump off a 10-story building. This is obviously not evidence that Materialism is true.

"At least, it's a better bet that waging it's all an illusion." Kind sir, you are saying Materialism is founded upon a wager. I have no qualms with telling you that I refuse to found my own world view on a wager. I am no more willing to base my world view on a "wager" that Materialism is true than I am to base my world view on "Pascal's Wager."

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 18, 2014, 07:30:25 AM
Materialism can be disproven: find something other than material stuff in the universe. What? You can't? Too fucking bad!

Every time you look into the universe and find only material stuff in the universe, and not find anything other than material stuff, that's evidence for materialism. Materialism makes the prediction that you will only find material stuff in the universe, whatever you look at, wherever and whenever you look. Every time you find only mindless, mechanistic, material stuff at work in the universe, that supports materialism. This prediction has borne out every single freaking time it has been tested. The fact that you do not understand this principle is not my problem.

This is called Begging the Question. You are providing the conclusion of the argument as a premise. You are basically saying, "Materialism is true, therefore Materialism is true."

The claim is, "when you look out into the universe you only find material stuff." That's the claim. The claim is that what we perceive is "material stuff." Materialism claims that, "we exist in an objective material universe," and every thing we perceive is objective material stuff. That's the claim. What I am asking for is evidence which supports this claim, which you have not provided.

Brian Whitworth could say, "The Virtual Reality Model can be disproven: Find something that's not virtual in the universe! Every time you look out into the universe you find only virtual stuff. The Virtual Reality Model predicts that you will find only virtual stuff, and the fact that all we ever find is virtual stuff supports the Virtual Reality Model." You see, Brian Whitworth would be making a positive claim there without providing a shred of evidence, just as you have done.

QuoteYour problem is that consciousness is a phenomenon and not a substance. It has all the hallmarks of something that is a phenomenon of physical matter: that there is no verified consciousness separated from some sort of brain, that physical chemicals affecting the brain also affect consciousness, that functions of consciousness can be linked to specific brain regions, and so forth. That you do not accept that this is proof that consciousness is a brain phenomenon is not my problem.

I have no idea what this has to do with me asking for evidence that Materialism is true. That there is no verified consciousness separated from some sort of brain has nothing to do with whether or not said brain is material. That functions of consciousness can be linked to specific brain regions is not proof that these "brain regions" are material. I am asking for proof of Materialism, I am not asking you to disprove the claim that consciousness can exist separated from a brain.

QuoteI do not believe you know what those words mean. You use "skeptical" and "open minded" like they are magical wands for warding off our criticism of your ideas, rather than actual discipline in your thinking. You say you are evaluating the evidence from all sides, yet you flat out ignore all of the evidence that fails to find any substance other than the material â€" all the evidence that falls in line with the materialist claim that there is nothing but material stuff at work. You haven't recognized this evidence before, and I don't expect you to start recognizing it now.

So, go away, Professor Wogglebug. You are exactly the kind of person who won't be convinced by any evidence.

If I am presented legitimate evidence I will. Do you consider what has been offered so far evidence? Falsifiable evidence? You have said, "Every time you look into the universe [you] find only material stuff in the universe." I can't accept this as evidence I'm sorry. This is Begging the Question, you can't just present the conclusion as the premise and call that proof. Then you suggest that the fact that no one has ever been able to preserve a brainless consciousness in a bottle of formaldehyde is proof that Materialism is true. Just because an apposing claim has no evidence cannot be used as evidence that your claim is true. You cannot just point to the fact that some other competing claim has not been proven to prove that your claim is true. Sir, this is another fallacious argument, not evidence, and yet you chastise me for being someone who will not be convinced by this "evidence"...

Shall I chastise you in return for being exactly the kind of person who accepts such weak and unconvincing arguments as evidence for your world view?

Quote from: Moralnihilist on May 18, 2014, 09:20:34 AM
You claim that quantum reality(virtualiism) is a valid reality model. Fine, where is evidence for it. By the way, the paper you linked to was called "The Virtual Reality CONJECTURE" for a reason. It isn't actually proof, nor is it an actual scientist stating that this is an actual evidence backed theory. It is simply one educated guys "What If". You know what this kind of paper is lacking though? EVIDENCE.

I'm not claiming that Virtualism is true. Virtualism is just another positive claim like Materialism is a positive claim.  I am skeptical of both claims equally, and open minded towards both claims equally. The fact that Virtualism lacks evidence does not prove that Materialism is true any more than the lack of evidence for Materialism proves that Virtualism is true. If you claim that we definitely exist in an Objective Material Universe, I am simply asking for the evidence that justifies making such a claim. That competing claims have not been proven is not proof that Materialism is true.

QuoteYou are claiming all kinds of fallacies are being used against you, yet you are all to willing to believe a paper called conjecture. And whats worse is that you are using this paper as if it proves something other than materialism. I shall call this fallacy "the argument from a bullshitter".

No I'm not willing to believe this paper. It is just another positive claim out there and I am asking what evidence you have that proves that Materialism is true apposed other positive claims such as this paper. If Materialism has no evidence to support it, then it is on equal ground with Virtualism according to you. Both have zero evidence. So how do you determine which is true without any evidence to support one over the other?

QuoteSo numb nuts I restate the simple statement, If there is no evidence for anything other than materialism, If(to quote Hakurei Reimu) every time you look into the universe and find only material stuff, and not find anything other than material stuff, chances are the universe isn't a virtual reality.

See, you say, "if there is no evidence for anything other than materialism," and yet this entire discussion is over whether or not there actually is any evidence for Materialism. You have not provided any such evidence. You have simply said there is no evidence to support the competing assertions, and have taken this as proof that your assertion is true. I have a personal rule that I cannot accept fallacious arguments as proof for any assertion, therefore I cannot accept the lack of proof for competing claims as proof for Materialism. This is a personal principle of mine, if you differ with regards to your own world view that is up to you. But don't expect me to compromise my principles in order to accept your positive assertion.

This thread is just fascinating.

:popcorn:

Quote from: Casparov on May 19, 2014, 04:52:20 AM


"Go hit a tree," is the best you can do for evidence that Materialism is true, yet Brian Whitworth could tell me to "go hit a tree," in a Virtual Reality, and I still have no basis to determine which claim is correct because both produce the exact same result. I do not understand how this could ever prove Materialism over other models.

Fine, let's forget about the words "material" and "illusion" as I think those are getting in the way. Let's call it "stuff". You are made of  "stuff" as the tree is. When you die, your body is going to be made of stuff. When the tree dies, it's just made of stuff. When anything dies, it's just made of stuff. Rocks are also made of stuff. Everything in the universe - this planet and all it contains, the stars, etc. - is made of stuff.

Now you're claiming that there is stuff + "something else not made of stuff and through some mysterious process produces the stuff". The burden of proof is on you to prove that "something else not made of stuff and through some mysterious process produces the stuff" exists. And since you cannot make that proof - no one can - so, what's left is "stuff", and that you obviously cannot accept. So you should ask yourself why? I would guess that the fear of dying and the prospect that you will  no longer exist is the underlying reason why you refuse to accept this argument.

Quote from: Casparov on May 19, 2014, 04:52:20 AM
This is called Begging the Question. The claim is, "when you look out into the universe you only find material stuff." That's the claim. The claim is that what we perceive is "material stuff." Materialism claims that, "we exist in an objective material universe," and every thing we perceive is objective material stuff. That's the claim. What I am asking for is evidence which supports this claim, which you have not provided.

The hell it is! "When you look out into the universe you only find material stuff" isn't just something I'm asserting, as would be required for this to be a real begging the question. It is the observation. It also happens to be a prediction of materialism. Materialism makes the prediction that what you will find behind the scenes of all universal phenomena and objects is what we would call "matter" â€" tangible, fundamentally simple entities obeying physical laws. Our observation of that universe reveals that behind every phenomenon within it is "matter" and only "matter."

And by "material stuff" we don't just mean "anything in the universe" as you seem to be implying. We do not include spirits, innate intelligence, conscousness-as-a-thing, vital force, crystal powers, and the whole pantheon of what we usually shove under the category of "woo." Materialism predicts there are some things you will not see in this universe. This is what makes materialism falsifiable. And the observation is that we, indeed, don't see anything but material stuff at work.

What is apparent to me is that you do not know what "evidence" means when talking about evidence for a hypothesis. A piece of evidence for a hypothesis is a fact about the universe in line with the predictions of that hypothesis and not with alternatives.

Is it true that when you look out into the universe, do you only find only matter operating behind the scenes? Yes? Then that's evidence for materialism. Each observation of that fact or similar facts in line with the hypothesis of materialism is evidence for materialism. Materialism's first claim (as you have listed them) is a prediction about what you will find in the universe. When that prediction bears out â€"when you find facts in line with that predictionâ€" then materialism is supported; it is evidence for materialism. Period.

Quote from: Casparov on May 19, 2014, 04:52:20 AM
Brian Whitworth could say, "The Virtual Reality Model can be disproven: Find something that's not virtual in the universe! Every time you look out into the universe you find only virtual stuff. The Virtual Reality Model predicts that you will find only virtual stuff, and the fact that all we ever find is virtual stuff supports the Virtual Reality Model." You see, Brian Whitworth would be making a positive claim there without providing a shred of evidence, just as you have done.

Not even close. These assertions are, indeed, merely assertions... unless and until you can distinguish a virtual object from a non-virtual one. This is, of course, very hard to pin down for someone within the virtual world as is proposed, which is why the virtual reality model remains a conjecture. But once we're able to tell the difference between a virtual object and a non-virtual one by some means available to us, the virtual reality model will become a falsifiable model we can gather data for.

Quote from: Casparov on May 19, 2014, 04:52:20 AM
I have no idea what this has to do with me asking for evidence that Materialism is true.

It's cutting off any counterargument from you that consciousness is a non-material stuff. Seriously, in future, if I ask for evidence of non-material stuff in the universe, save yourself some time and don't cite consciousness or quantum mechanics.

Quote from: Casparov on May 19, 2014, 04:52:20 AM
If I am presented legitimate evidence I will.

At this point, I don't think you know what legitimate evidence is.

Quote from: Casparov on May 19, 2014, 04:52:20 AM
Do you consider what has been offered so far evidence?

What, the entire body of science that has so far found it unnecessary to propose things that are not material? Absolutely!

Quote from: Casparov on May 19, 2014, 04:52:20 AM
Falsifiable evidence?

THEORIES and HYPOTHESES are falsibiable, you boob. There's no such thing as falsifiable evidence.

Quote from: Casparov on May 19, 2014, 04:52:20 AM
You have said, "Every time you look into the universe [you] find only material stuff in the universe." I can't accept this as evidence I'm sorry.

The body of evidence that convinced the scientific world that materialism is the word of the day couldn't fit in this entire forum, let alone one of my posts, and I would destroy my carpel tunnel if I tried. The statement "every time you look into the universe [you] find only material stuff in the universe" is necessarily a summary of that body of evidence. Are you looking for the one piece of evidence that proves without a doubt that the universe is materialistic? Sorry, no one piece of evidence proves materialism. Except for the most trivial of hypotheses, no one piece of evidence proves anything in science. I cannot think of a major theory in science that was proven with a single piece of evidence, let alone a whole paradigm.

No one piece of evidence proves materialism, but when that one piece becomes untold trillions of individual observations supporting materialism, the weight of that evidence becomes all but incontrovertalbe.

Again, it is not "begging the question" when I point out that the evidence â€"which is what is deduced from the reality we're talking aboutâ€" happens to match a prediction of a particular theory. In a different world, with a different way of working, it could easily not be the case. That it does happen to be the case that our body of evidence is consistent with materialism is not my fault, nor is it a "begging the question" fallacy as you claim, Professor Wogglebug.

Quote from: Casparov on May 19, 2014, 04:52:20 AM
Then you suggest that the fact that no one has ever been able to preserve a brainless consciousness in a bottle of formaldehyde is proof that Materialism is true.

I just want some evidence that a consciousness can exist as a thing in and of itself. It's up to you to figure out how that's to be accomplished.

Can't figure it out? Well, too fucking bad.

Quote from: Casparov on May 19, 2014, 04:52:20 AM
Just because an apposing claim has no evidence cannot be used as evidence that your claim is true.

So you finally admit that your entire strategy in your "debate" with Mr.Obvious was a waste of both of your respective times.

Quote from: Casparov on May 19, 2014, 04:52:20 AM
You cannot just point to the fact that some other competing claim has not been proven to prove that your claim is true. Sir, this is another fallacious argument, not evidence, and yet you chastise me for being someone who will not be convinced by this "evidence"...

But I did point to specific evidences: the body of evidence known as "scientific knowledge." They are observations that do not admit the existence or role of any nonmaterial substance in the universe. That that body of evidence happens to coincide with the claim of materialism is just too bad for you.

Quote from: Casparov on May 18, 2014, 02:50:07 AM

I am making no claims about reality at this time. I am reverting for a moment to agnosticism and trying to make an evidence based decision on the best foundation for my world view. I know with absolute certainty that I am conscious. I simply am unable to deny this, and therefore I know with absolute certainty that consciousness exists. Beyond this I am uncertain. There are claims being made from several competing camps. Materialists claim that I exist in an Objective Material Universe and my consciousness is the product of Material interactions. Idealists claim that consciousness is all that exists and I am experiencing existing in a virtual reality that is the product of information processing. Dualists claim that my consciousness is my immaterial soul which was born into a material universe.

I'm not asking you to make a claim on reality or your worldview, I asked if you believe in a god that impacts your life?  If you are certain of consciousness then you can certainly discuss the merits of that consciousness.  So do you believe in a god that impacts your life? 

Quote from: Casparov on May 19, 2014, 04:52:20 AM
I am a drooling retard who likes to pretend that I have the slightest fucking clue as to what I am talking about.

Look asshat its so fucking simple that a history major can get it.
IF all that is found in the universe is material stuff, THEN logically the universe is a materialistic one.
IF something else other than material stuff is found, THEN you would have a fucking leg to stand on.
UNTIL someone with a functioning brain(this obviously excludes you) can present evidence for something other than material stuff outside of mental masturbation(what you actually seem to want to do) there is NO INTELLIGENT REASON to assume anything outside of the material stuff exists.

This is the same reason many people on this forum(and in the world) don't believe in god. THERE IS NO FUCKING EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST ONE EXISTS.
Because some, albeit highly educated, guy posts a paper based on a thought he had(mostly conjecture papers are nothing more than ideas to stimulate conversations to assist in the fleshing out of theorems) does not make it a valid counter argument to the established(and evidence backed) norms.