Comment on Literally exactly how it works, too.
Quibblekrust@thelemmy.club 2 days agoit’s a moot point because it’s the sensor is the “observer”, and it’s not “being observed” that affects the outcome.
Thing is, that’s an assumption. You dont know that for sure. Just like you can’t prove the speed of light isn’t different in different directions. I’m not saying you shouldn’t be free to believe that, but you must admit it’s an assumption.
I’m not a really mystical person, but I don’t discount the possibility. That would be arrogant. Simply being conscious is rather bizarre. How does the universe even support that? What is it? Is there a consciousness field? Why does a blob of fat, protein, and sodium ions give rise to consciousness? Surely, life could have evolved and thrived without experiencing life. I can easily imagine mindless, robotic life just doing it’s thing.
Since no one can currently explain any of that, and no one can know for sure a wavefunction has collapsed until you’ve lookef at the results, I also don’t discount that consciousness might play a role. I remain agnostic about it.
imply that there’s something special, different about consciousness.
If you don’t think there’s something special and unusual about consciousness, I don’t know what to say. 😄 I don’t believe in a soul, but at least I admit that consciousness is special, and that the universe is weird because of that.
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Oh yeah, don’t get me wrong, consciousness is probably the least explainable thing whose existence I’m aware of. But the gap in our knowledge doesn’t automatically mean it’s something that exists outside of the rest of the laws of physics. To scientifically show something is true, you need to disprove the other possible explanations (which is impossible because there’s always other possible explanations).
The double slit experiment does not prove consciousness is a special case in how the laws of physics works. There’s actually two results in it: how the slits interact with the particle/wave and how the particle/wave interacts with the photo-sensitive plate. We always observe the plate but only sometimes try to observe which slit(s) it travels through. The variations I mentioned above were ways to separate the conscious observer running the experiment from the non-conscious “ovserver” which is the sensor.
If it’s happening because of the consciousness being involved, then the sensor measuring but never recording shouldn’t affect the outcome and you should get a wave pattern. Similar for it it is possible to view the results but the observer decides not to, no matter the outcome. But then once they discard that conviction, then either it pops over to the particle result (if conscious observation means it has to act like a particle) or stays as a wave pattern but now you’ve been able to do what has never been done and measure which slits it traveled through and when to make that pattern. These variations are so obvious that they had to have been done, and since I’m not aware of conscious observation being proven to affect the outcome (as opposed to all observations require interaction, which can affect the outcome, no consciousness required), I assume they just got the particle result as long as the sensor was doing anything at all.
That one possibility is powerful, that deciding to do something can change how something behaves. It could be used for FTL communication and arbitrary prediction of the future, which makes me inclined to believe that it doesn’t work that way.
All that said, I do agree that it could be the case that consciousness is as important to the laws of physics as all the other things but confounds every attempt to measure it. I’d love to believe that, even, and a part of me does. But without anything definitive, the other part of me will hold on to the thought that it’s just wishful thinking.
That’s also part of the reason I pushed back. I’d love for someone to “well, actually” and prove something about consciousness or even just show me a new argument, so I’ll bring up the parts that make me skeptical or explain the way I see it. I want to believe.
Quibblekrust@thelemmy.club 2 days ago
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. No real arguments from me. It was a mistake on my part to equate what I had in my mind with the meme above. It is really is two different things.
I just spontaneously remembered the FTL drive from the novel “Variable Star” by Spider Robinson and Robert Heinlein. The operator of the drive must hold multiple mutually contradictory thoughts in their mind at once, for hours at a time, in shifts with the other operators. Usually two at a time for redundancy. A failure to have at least one operator holding the required mental state would stall the drive and restarting it was very difficult.
It was never really explained how it works, but it’s taken totally seriously. It’s not like flying in “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” where you fall and forget to hit the ground. I thought it was a clever idea. To make consciousness an explicit part of FTL travel by basically holding your mind in a superposition of thought.