6.37 sigma replication of Dean Radin's double slit consciousness experiments

[Laird]

And how are they supposed to do that, without seeing the comments in question, in their proper context.

I think we're getting closer to a more general policy with respect to moderation on matters of potential defamation which will determine the light in which your posts are viewed. But you can catch up on the relevant thread and tell me if you disagree.

Inserting complexity is where you go wrong. Do you know what this word "observer" means in it's use by physicists? It means a disturbance of some kind on the quantum system. Photons are capable of causing a disturbance as are other other things. It means taking a measurement. A human could be involved or a machine it matters not the result would be the same. Consciousness is not required.
Ok, leave simple cell animals out. For that matter leave only humans. Better yet leave only infants whom  have  no concepts of how this universe works. And yet it works the same for them as it does for everyone else. No matter where you live, the particular philosophy you like, religion or not, skeptic or believer the universe unfolds exactly the same for each and everyone of us. Why if it's preached humans can control reality? That's what Radin et.al. is really testing for.

No Steve, that is bullshit. If it was as simple as disturbing the system an automated measuring device would be enough, it isn't. The rest of your argument is just pitiful (especially your attempt at trying to make this an anthropocentric issue)... The shallowness of it actually makes me deduce that you lack any formal STEM education.

Sorry I can't see how your reply has anything to do with the quoted text.
Maybe you are referring to something else?
Or is it some kind of Klingon humor that I don't understand... ?

He seems to think that biological complexity somehow means "people". That is pretty hilarious in my book.

Photons are capable of causing a disturbance as are other other things. It means taking a measurement. A human could be involved or a machine it matters not the result would be the same. Consciousness is not required.

We don't really know that. You're just representing one side of the argument, the one that says consciousness is not required. Easy
If we did know we would have solved the measurement problem, but it's still a freaking mystery and consciousness might have a lot to do with it. Or it might not, or both.

Cheers

We don't really know that. You're just representing one side of the argument, the one that says consciousness is not required. Easy
If we did know we would have solved the measurement problem, but it's still a freaking mystery and consciousness might have a lot to do with it. Or it might not, or both.

Cheers

Actually, I would pay Steve a 5-star hotel in the Bahamas if he could show me a single experiment where a "machine" caused the collapse. The main question is if the observer is just a passive element or not.

I have no formal STEM education either so I make no pretense of knowing how wave collapse is brought about but, from my limited understanding, it seems that consciousness is always required to determine whether the wave has collapsed or not. Isn't that the point of the delayed choice eraser experiment?

[See below for video link]

I have no formal STEM education either so I make no pretense of knowing how wave collapse is brought about but, from my limited understanding, it seems that consciousness is always required to determine whether the wave has collapsed or not. Isn't that the point of the delayed choice eraser experiment?

Video link problem?