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

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.

An article of interest I think.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-ste...88798.html

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

That's your best. Are you waiting for the non humans to speak up to tell you it's not anthropocentric? Are you still claiming it is not?

Opinion piece of interest I think.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-ste...88798.html

There, fixed that for you (also, quite obsolete given adavances in quantum biology, but... Whatever).

You should probably look up what both Bohm and Heisenberg said straight from the horse's mouth.

That's your best. Are you waiting for the non humans to speak up to tell you it's not anthropocentric? Are you still claiming it is not?

Are you serious? Is this even an argument?

Are you serious? Is this even an argument?

https://youtu.be/Lvcnx6-0GhA?t=34s

There, fixed that for you (also, quite obsolete given adavances in quantum biology, but... Whatever).

You should probably look up what both Bohm and Heisenberg said straight from the horse's mouth.

his idea was that "a machine" could cause the collapse.

So you know a machine can't cause wave function collapse. How do you know that? Now that leaves consciousness. So whose is it. The bespeckled guy or gal in the lab coat or my neighbors dog Spot who's at home? For 10 years I listened to most members of skeptiko prattle on how consciousness is fundamental. I'm absolutely certain they didn't have in mind pig consciousness or some such.
You might check before you implicate knowledge of someones position like Bohm and Heisenberg

In his book "Physics and Philosophy", Heisenberg writes: ..the space-time events in the body of a living being which correspond to the activity of its mind, to its self conscious or any other actions, are (considering also their complex structure and the accepted statistical explanation of physico-chemistry) if not strictly deterministic at any rate statistico-deterministic.

To the physicist I wish to emphasize that in my opinion, and contrary to the opinion upheld in some quarters, quantum indeterminacy plays no biologically relevant role in them, except perhaps by enhancing their purely accidental character"Of course the introduction of the observer must not be misunderstood to imply that some kind of subjective features are to be brought into the description of nature. The observer has, rather, only the function of registering decisions, i.e., processes in space and time, and it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being; but the registration, i.e., the transition from the `possible' to the `actual,' is absolutely necessary here and cannot be omitted from the interpretation of quantum theory.

As for Bohm from what I've read he did not mix consciousness and QM. Now have I delivered?

So you know a machine can't cause wave function collapse. How do you know that? Now that leaves consciousness. So whose is it. The bespeckled guy or gal in the lab coat or my neighbors dog Spot who's at home? For 10 years I listened to most members of skeptiko prattle on how consciousness is fundamental. I'm absolutely certain they didn't have in mind pig consciousness or some such.

No. And they most certainly didn't have human consciousness in mind either. If you still (inexplicably) think so... IDK, maybe only someone as patient as Bernardo can actually explain the difference between an individual ego (or strand) and the fundamental aspects under that paradigm.

You might check before you implicate knowledge of someones position like Bohm and Heisenberg

That quote is taken out of context (and it also belongs to a book published 20 years before his death) and without a link to the source it's hard to know how it was being used. Heisenberg argued against an active role for the observer (I made reference to active/passive being the real question a couple of pages ago, so this should not be new to you), he also suggested the existence of a "chain" in the act of observation (I will explain more about this in a bit). Well, at least he did so publicly, his correspondence with Bohm is much more philosophical (Heisenberg once described discussing this for hours with Bohm and being so dumbfounded by the absurdity of the implications that he went to a park in order to clear his head).

Anyways, cutting to the chase (no pun intended)... When discussing the eponymous and highly relevant "Heisenberg cut" (which is entirely subjective, BTW), Heisenberg said:

In this situation it follows automatically that, in a mathematical treatment of the process, a dividing line must be drawn between, on the one hand, the apparatus which we use as an aid in putting the question and thus, in a way, treat as part of ourselves, and on the other hand, the physical systems we wish to investigate. The latter we represent mathematically as a wave function. This function, according to quantum theory, consists of a differential equation which determines any future state from the present state of the function... The dividing line between the system to be observed and the measuring apparatus is immediately defined by the nature of the problem but it obviously signifies no discontinuity of the physical process. For this reason there must, within limits, exist complete freedom in choosing the position of the dividing line.

(http://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.3567426)

And this, Steve, is the answer to the riddle. The "cut" is the critical point in which the collapse happens. Heisenberg considered both the measuring apparatus and the human, two interconnected parts independent of the system being investigated (ergo, his note on it being an extension of the tester) and established the cut as a distinctive (and, worse, entirely subjective) point in which the chain transcended from one the next. Do you understand the context?

Of course, this is without taking under consideration that Heisenberg posited particles as an abstract object of sorts, best expressed in this particular 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." or that he favored Platonism: "I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language."

In the end Heisenberg's compared his career to the voyages of Christopher Columbus, shifting away further and further from Newtonian physics as he grew older, but it can be better summarized in his now infamous quote "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you..." What he wrote in the 1950s is not necessarily his final stance on a particular subject, it's good to keep this in mind when discussing both Heisenberg and Einstein, fickle as they were.

As for Bohm from what I've read he did not mix consciousness and QM.

That is nuts. Basil, one of his partners in crime, elaborates on that here: https://www.interaliamag.org/interviews/basil-hiley/

Furthermore, the Dalai Lama once labeled Bohm a "scientific guru" and commented that it was precisely his interest in the connection between consciousness and QM that drove him (see "The Essential David Bohm" by Lee Nichol). Without getting into his more philosophical study on the matter (which is quite elaborate)... Bohm formalized his speculation on the matter by first implying that his "implicate order" held some fundamental relation to it (mind and matter as yin and yang), he also worked in a little idea called "holonomic brain theory", which focused on the non-locality of certain elements of consciousness and in the brain as some sort of holographic construct.

Now have I delivered?

In the end... No, you haven't, boy. I asked for a paper demonstrating that a machine can actually cause the collapse and you posted articles and a book quote, none of which describe any experiment supporting the hypothesis.

Edit: Just to make a little comment about the importance of reading on those early years where Schödinger/Heisenberg debated Einstein/Planck. That is widely available and in the public domain, and aids in giving an enormous insight on how the role of mind was treated those early years.

https://youtu.be/Lvcnx6-0GhA?t=34s

:-D

I've never really grasped the finer points of all this stuff about the collapse of the wave function.

On the topic of the thread, does anyone have any opinions on whether in a double-slit experiment it would be possible to distinguish some kind of psychical wave function collapse effect from microPK in general (and, if so, how)?