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

Video link problem?

Thanks Typoz ... I hadn't noticed.

Video link problem?

To be fair I think there are other ways of interpreting this experiment that would be perfectly "in tune" with the multi-world interpretation and require no collapse.

Just a reminder: the "collapse" of the wave function is an abstract concept that was invented to explain the discrepancy between the expected superposition of states and the single outcome the experimenter gets.

It's a bit like dark matter/energy: it was introduced to provide an explanation to an otherwise incomprehensible phenomenon. This is not to say that "collapse" is incorrect, in fact it might be the right answer we've been looking for. 
It's just that it's not something described in the math of QM.

Cheers

You can do a thought experiment, and find the system state appears to evolve independently, whether there is anybody wakefully conscious or not. But if *you* want to learn anything about the system state, I agree that you're going to have to make an observation yourself.

Yeah... I'm not going to criticize your thought experiment, but ongoing tests are gathering increasing evidence that Bohr was actually right (the Big Bell's Test is still fresh, for example). And with basic tenets like local realism on shaky ground, I'm not sure what would allow for some nice and solid "objectivity" (at least as we know it) or for the system to be truly independent.

But, I digress... Steve wasn't arguing that, his idea was that "a machine" could cause the collapse. He has yet to deliver anything supporting that claim, so here we are with Schrödinger's Steve being stuck between making something up or telling me to go screw myself... Shall I take a peek?

To be fair I think there are other ways of interpreting this experiment that would be perfectly "in tune" with the multi-world interpretation and require no collapse.

Just a reminder: the "collapse" of the wave function is an abstract concept that was invented to explain the discrepancy between the expected superposition of states and the single outcome the experimenter gets.

It's a bit like dark matter/energy: it was introduced to provide an explanation to an otherwise incomprehensible phenomenon. This is not to say that "collapse" is incorrect, in fact it might be the right answer we've been looking for. 
It's just that it's not something described in the math of QM.

Cheers

Yeah, but (at least Everettian) MWI is pretty much unfalsifiable without something else taking down the entirety of QM (as said by Everett himself), so sticking to it gives you worse problems to solve than merely understanding the implications of the DCQE.

I'm not really a fan of collapse, more a consistent histories person. I'm also happy a machine can take a measurement (happy with what steve said)... but not happy that *I* can learn anything without an observation (not happy with what steve said). I'm definitely more towards anti-realism, but still happy with 'local' - that is within the light cone. Definitely relativistic QM.

Steve got himself boxed in Copenhagen when he cited what "quantum physicists mean" (i.e. the mainstream) while purporting to show me how "wrong" I was about my own understanding of the dynamics between observer and collapse. He turned collapse into the contention point, so he can't escape it. 

Had he cited any other interpretation, or even a witty response of his own, I would have ignored the comment (to each their own). But, since he raised the bar, now I want him to deliver within the parameters that he set.

I didn't get anything problematic about what he said along those lines... but perhaps I missed it... what I did find a problem was a lack of recognition that if *I* want to learn anything (a fact), I still have to make an observation, and that is understood within spacetime.

"If a tree falls in a forest..."

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 shallowness of it actually makes me deduce that you lack any formal STEM education.

Are you really really really really sure? I know you are, but if I were you I'd double check.

The rest of your argument is just pitiful (especially your attempt at trying to make this an anthropocentric issue)

Will all of the non humans make your presence known. Should I hold my breath? Nah!

Some of us gradiated univarsity long before anybodys thunked up the the acronym STEM.

Some of us gradiated univarsity long before anybodys thunked up the the acronym STEM.

That would explain why this sentence is written in something similar to Old English...