Comment on double slit

• ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  No, I don’t have to define it, because I’m talking about observability in quantum mechanics, not some philosophical metaphysical bollocks about what consciousness is. My definition of observation does not in any way include consciousness, so defining consciousness adds nothing to my definition. Your definition of observation is being seen by something with consciousness, so you have to define what consciousness is. I have to define things like interactions and particles, I do not have to provide you with definitions so that your stupid ideas make sense.

  source

  • space_comrade@hexbear.net ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I do not have to provide you with definitions so that your stupid ideas make sense.

    Damn you’re a feisty one.

    In fact you do have to provide definitions, an “observation” in the context of quantum mechanics does not have a consensus definition and the definition heavily relies on your particular interpretation of quantum mechanics. One of these interpretations also includes consciousness, and if you want to be completely certain this particular interpretation is false you need your own coherent definition of consciousness that doesn’t call upon quantum mechanics. You don’t have such a thing, nobody does.

    source

    • ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Look spacey, I need you to understand that it’s offensive that you consider yourself intelligent enough to have this conversation. To butt in and spew your completely baseless hypotheticals around as if they hold any scientific weight.

      If you knew enough to have this conversation, you’d already know from the language we’ve used around superpositioning and observation that we’re discussing the copenhagen interpretation - even if you weren’t certain, you’d at least know it’s overwhelmingly the most popular theory (like you better have some fucking great evidence if you want to dispute it), and that consciouness based theories are the fringest of the fringe. You’re not going to find anyone actually employed in quantum theory or research espousing it.
      If you knew enough to have this conversation, you would have at least attempted to define consciousness. You’d have some sort of working definition that you could share and we could analyse, but you haven’t because you don’t. You have no idea what consciousness is, you don’t even know that there’s a debate about whether consciousness even exists - you think, therefore you have accepted that there exists a nebulous, undefineable set of aspects that makes something conscious. Despite not being able to articulate a single aspect of it, you deeply, truly believe both that it exists and that everyone else believes it exists.
      If you knew enough to have this conversation you’d know that I’ve haven’t actually discussed quantum physics at all - the only thing in each of my comments is an attempt to get you to confront your own lack of knowledge - to admit that you can’t define consciousness. I have been playing softball with you this entire time trying to lead you to your own logical conclusions, instead of pointing out that the most basic possible demonstration of quantum interaction - the double slit experiment - inherently proves that consciousness is not required, because otherwise the observation media - gold foil or a modern detector - wouldn’t be able to record the results.

      Lastly, you’d know that there isn’t a “consensus definition” because it was defined by Heisenburg and Bohr when they created the copenhagen interpretation. Here are some quotes from them:

      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.

      all unambiguous information concerning atomic objects is derived from the permanent marks such as a spot on a photographic plate, caused by the impact of an electron left on the bodies which define the experimental conditions. Far from involving any special intricacy, the irreversible amplification effects on which the recording of the presence of atomic objects rests rather remind us of the essential irreversibility inherent in the very concept of observation. The description of atomic phenomena has in these respects a perfectly objective character, in the sense that no explicit reference is made to any individual observer and that therefore, with proper regard to relativistic exigencies, no ambiguity is involved in the communication of information.

      Of course, I’m sure you can find some sort of peer reviewed data or study that provides literally any evidence at all for your totally sensible and informed idea that isn’t otherwise pushed by con artists and new age mystics, instead of demanding I work to both define and disprove your idea.

      Don’t you fucking dare try to lecture me about belief when you have literally nothing but. You believe so strongly you refuse to provide a single shred of proof, because deep down you know there isn’t any.

      source

      • space_comrade@hexbear.net ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Damn you’re a complete grating asshole, I’m not reading all of that shit but I do know at least this is wrong:

        You’re not going to find anyone actually employed in quantum theory or research espousing it.

        Eugene Wigner, John von Neumann, Roger Penrose, Henry Stapp, Erwin Schrödinger (debatable, but he was questioning physicalism).

        source

        • -> View More Comments