Wave Particle Duality, the Observer and Retrocausality

It's not the amount of time, it's the distinction being made between local and global observers that the paper I first posted about agrees with. I think you just need to rewatch the video, this time paying specific attention to the timestamps Kastrup mentions in his review...a review I included in my first reply to you which you likely didn't read just as you didn't read the paper in the OP ->


So again, Matt O'Dowd's presentation doesn't seem to definitively rule out human observers collapsing the wave function - rather his argument is that QM doesn't open the way for humans to craft their own reality. But, to say it yet again, this question of human observers wasn't even the point of the original paper which argues human observers do not collapse the wave function.

Of course why we have to accept Matt as the final authority, and whether there are physicists who would argue for humans being able to influence reality, is a separate question you can make another thread for.

And yes I do think your behavior in this thread has been one big tantrum, starting from not bothering to read the paper in the first post. Then, after yet again being shown that you're in error, you started going off about how any physicist who disagrees with you is both a narcissists & choosing an incorrect "mystical" view.

It's sadly predictable behavior coming from you at this point.

Finally your question about mechanism was itself inherently philosophical, since you are making a distinction between "consciousness" and the "physical". The "default view", if there is one, is that my experience of reality is a part of reality so there's no separation between whatever you're saying consciousness and the physical are. I mean what's the mechanism by which one part of this "physical" you speak of interacts with other "physical" stuff?

When Matt hinted that consciousness plays a role, but not in the way you think. This video is what he is hinting. Is this what you thought? Or not?
 Is the Future Predetermined by Quantum Mechanics https://youtu.be/1JCRDaa3ehk

For a condensed explanation see this excerpt. The Observer Effect in Quantum Mechanics
https://youtu.be/v6fAcigk3Ys

Let's just stick to the paper. I've looked into the two authors Ashok Narasimhan, Menas C. Kafatos. The former one I find to be unqualified to answer the question they are asking and the latter to be too bias. I'm sure everyone is aware the idea of global consciousness is a continuation of the defunct research done PEARS Research Laboratory.

It is possible to talk QM without it turning into a philosophical debate.

 If there’s more than one conscious observer, then who’s observation determines reality?

Out of interest, what exactly is this one single objective reality that you want us to believe in?  I don't believe any subjective observer has ever witnessed such a thing.

Out of interest, what exactly is this one single objective reality that you want us to believe in?  I don't believe any subjective observer has ever witnessed such a thing.

You misunderstand what I am saying. Frankly, I have no idea what objective reality comprises. It might be everything folks here hope it to be, or some of it or none of it. I am saying don't believed everything you think. In the words of Feynman "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."

Who is the Master who makes the grass green?

Why are you certain the grass is green?

Why are you certain the grass is green?

The light dawns!  The point being, it is our own nervous system that invents "green" just as it does everything else.

The light dawns!  The point being, it is our own nervous system that invents "green" just as it does everything else.

True because color is not an intrinsic property of matter. But my brain did not invent the grass.

Let's just stick to the paper. I've looked into the two authors Ashok Narasimhan, Menas C. Kafatos. The former one I find to be unqualified to answer the question they are asking and the latter to be too bias. I'm sure everyone is aware the idea of global consciousness is a continuation of the defunct research done PEARS Research Laboratory.

It is possible to talk QM without it turning into a philosophical debate.

So you can't actually speak to the details of the paper, but since they disagree with you they are unqualified and biased, but some random guy like Arvin Ash is qualified.

And Wigner's Friend isn't talking about the Pear Labs experiment.

And of course your usual thing where people who disagree with you are doing philosophy while you[r] phyiscalist faith is just the facts.

You should just admit that you didn't even read the paper before you started spamming the PBS spacetime video.

If nothing else, Steve is still a wonderful example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Bless that confidence.

This is reminding of the time he thought "field effects" were something to do with "immaterialism" rather than physics.

Why I am half-convinced he's a proponent but trolling as a physicalist to show "skepticism" is really dogmatic religious pseudo-skepticism.

True because color is not an intrinsic property of matter. But my brain did not invent the grass.

Oh yes it did.  We have to assume that something real is out there but we cannot observe it - not really.  Instead, out of all the chaos (presumably it's chaos - who really knows?) our nervous systems construct a "reality" for us to live in.  I'm afraid you created the grass that you see just as surely as you made it green.

I don't see why you guys have the assumption that there's the grand conspiracy here or anything. I don't even personally see the negativity of Steve's position, not wanting to change your mind and sticking with the popular majority until enough evidence comes up it forces you too is entirely fair. 

It's only when they step out and call parapsychological evidence wrong that it becomes an issue.