At Scientific American: Quantum theory does not require a conscious observer
| September 10, 2018 | Posted by News under Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Mind, Philosophy, Physics, Science |
double slit experiment
Science writer Anil Ananthaswamy Intro of surveys current theories:
If nothing else, these experiments are showing that we cannot yet make any claims about the nature of reality, even if the claims are well-motivated mathematically or philosophically. And given that neuroscientists and philosophers of mind don’t agree on the nature of consciousness, claims that it collapses wave functions are premature at best and misleading and wrong at worst.Anil Ananthaswamy, “What Does Quantum Theory Actually Tell Us about Reality?” at Scientific American
One wants to ask, if we cannot make any claims about the nature of reality and there is no agreement about the nature of consciousness, how does Ananthaswamy know that claims about the role of consciousness are “premature,” “misleading,” or “wrong?” Hasn’t he ruled out any basis for such decisions?
See also: At Nature: For now, “uncertainty seems the wisest position” on the implications of quantum mechanics
and
Post-modern science: The illusion of consciousness sees through itself
80 Responses to At Scientific American: Quantum theory does not require a conscious observer
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Of course, Anil Ananthaswami is correct.
Since “science” is what we study together, establishing a consensus determines scientific truth. These truths are of necessity compatible to our politico-philosophical perspectives, which we know to be true and self evident.
The purpose of Scientific American is to enlighten and guide its readers in celebration of new Scientific discoveries and interpretation based on the fundamental axioms of Science:
I. All true Science is based on materialistic determinism. We no longer need to invoke the irrational belief in God.
II. All Truth is Scientific truth.
III. Science is guided and guarded by an elite circle of Experts in each field as determined by the weight of their referenced papers, awards, and presentations.
IV. It is the responsibility of each scientist and academic to submit their speculative observations to someone with greater recognition in their discipline for approval or amendment.
V. It is the fundamental responsibility of each scientist and academic to support the consensus in other disciplines as well as their own in their presentations, classes, and publications.
This is a brief summary of the Five-Fold Path to Scientific Enlightenment and Acceptance into the Scientific and Academic community.
😉
Q
Q, those should be chiseled in stone at some university somewhere (if they are not already) 🙂
This article is a pretty good summary of current thinking, and consistent with a couple recent books on QM. We really don’t know what the situation is, and contrary to bornagain77, it is not an established consensus that consciousness is a necessary component of the “wave collapse”.
Those interested should read the article carefully.
“and contrary to bornagain77, it is not an established consensus that consciousness is a necessary component of the “wave collapse”.”
HUH????
oh its jdk
Never mind
Did you read the article, ba? Do you discount what it says?
From a link in the OP
jdk, first off you claimed that I believe “consciousness is a necessary component of the “wave collapse” is an “established consensus”.
That is a flat out lie. I have never held the position that it is an “established consensus”.
If you disagree with me calling you a liar then please provide the exact post of mine where I claimed that.
Here is the middle of our last debate on the subject of quantum mechanics, search the thread to your heart’s content for me making the claim you falsely attributed to me,,,
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-nature-for-now-uncertainty-seems-the-wisest-position-on-the-implications-of-quantum-mechanics/#comment-662909
The decent thing to do would be for you to apologize for your bad faith in debating me.
I won’t be holding my breath.
BA @ 7,
“The descent thing to do”. You clearly meant “decent”.
But then I’ve spent WAY too many years as an editor.
Pedro Jorge Romero Retweeted
Anil Ananthaswamy
Anil Ananthaswamy
@anilananth
Why the double-slit experiment should NOT be used to make definitive statements about
#consciousness
or the nature of
#quantum
reality: The experiment can be interpreted in many different ways and each offers a different view of what’s going on.
@sciam
From what I gather from both articles and his Twitter is that we should not jump to conclusions about quantum mechanics when we ourselves are not sure on how consciousness works in the first place. I both agree with this statement and his reasoning but I disagree with it. I feel it falls under the statement of “not even wrong“ The results still show that and observer does affect the outcome of the experiment, that hasn’t gone away. So this is All fine and well, but it should not just apply to quantum mechanics and the consciousness it should also apply to all forms of science about different forms of interpretations. One such field for example is the neuroscience of free will which is often interpreted that we have none and then years later after many misquotes of Libet’s original experiment, And multiple experimental errors and bias, which was pointed out recently at medical express on the topic, it turns out that many of the interpretations were incorrect.
So in my personal opinion what’s good for the goose is good for the gander not just when it suits you, Yes quantum mechanics does appear to fly in the face of many philosophies of materialism, but exercising caution now after so many times before when caution was thrown to the wind and interpretations were made very blatantly in one direction is kind of annoying. Again I agree with him but it needs to be taken In consideration all the time
re 7: You are correct, ba, that it is not your stated position that it is an “established consensus” that consciousness is a necessary component of the “wave collapse”. You personally believe that is true about consciousness, and you believe the evidence fully supports that conclusion and no other, but you do not claim that is the “established consensus.”
For instance, consider this thread by News, based on something you sent her:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/inspiring-philosophy-on-quantum-mechanics-and-the-death-of-materialism/
It begins,
And in a comment 2, you wrote,
So I was wrong when I said that you believe that it is the “established consensus” that consciousness is a necessary component of the wave collapse, as you recognize, it seems, that there are those in the QM field who don’t accept that, but I believe it is correct to say that you believe it is a scientifically settled matter, and therefore those who believe otherwise are wrong.
Is that a more accurate statement?
From the article in the OP we find that the author claims:
Okie Dokie, if he claims that the abstract mathematical function is not a physical wave, then how can he possibly claim that “The wave function behaves like a wave. It hits the two slits, and new waves emanate from each slit on the other side, spread and eventually interfere with each other.”
He denies the physicality of the abstract mathematical wave function on the one hand and then, without missing a beat, proceeds to act as if the mathematical wave function has the physicality of a wave.
That is a flat out contradiction.
The best thing one can say about the “abstract” wave function is what leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger stated, “The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable.”
In fact, (in the following experiment which extended John Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment to atoms instead of just photons), it is stated that “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,”
Moreover, we know that while a photon is doing whatever it is doing in the double slit, while it is in its “abstract” quantum wave state, between emission and absorption, that the photon is also mathematically defined as being in an infinite dimensional state,,,
,, an infinite dimensional state that also takes an infinite amount of information to describe properly.
Now, saying something is in an infinite dimensional state to me, as a Christian Theist, sounds very much like the theistic attribute of omnipresence.
And then saying something takes an infinite amount of information to describe it sounds very much like the Theistic attribute of Omniscience to me.
Moreover, when Feynman (and others) unified Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity into Quantum Electrodynamics, it still took “an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do”.
I don’t know about Richard Feynman, but as for myself, being a Christian Theist, I find it rather comforting to know that it takes an ‘infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do’:
The reason why I find it rather comforting is because of John 1:1, which says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” ‘The Word’ in John 1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos also happens to be the root word from which we derive our modern word logic.
So that it would take an infinite amount of logic to know what tiny bit of spacetime is going to do is pretty much exactly what one should expect to see under Christian presuppositions.
In fact, as a Christian Theist, I find both the double slit and quantum electrodynamics to be extremely comforting for Christian concerns. In the double slit experiment we found that while a photon and/or electron is “traveling” in the double slit experiment it is mathematically required to be defined as being in an infinite dimensional space.
And we also found that the photon is also mathematically required to be described by an infinite amount of information.
And then we also saw that when Quantum Mechanics and special relativity were unified into quantum-electrodynamics, (which many consider the most precisely tested theory ever in the history of science), that it still took an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do.
Now all this is pretty much exactly what we would expect to see under Christian presuppositions. But, on the other hand, under Atheistic materialism and/or naturalism, and the presuppositions therein, there simply is no rational explanation for why we should find these things to be as they are.
Moreover, the basics of quantum wave collapse dovetail perfectly into some of the oldest philosophical arguments that were made by Aristotle and Aquinas for the existence of God, and even offers empirical confirmation for those ancient philosophical arguments. Michael Egnor states that ‘Aristotle 2,300 years ago described the basics of collapse of the quantum waveform (reduction of potency to act),,,’
Here is a technical explanation and video of Aquinas’ First way argument for God where you can, at your leisure, see just how well the argument from motion dovetails into what we are seeing in quantum mechanics
Or to put Aquinas’ argument for God much more simply “The ‘First Mover’ is necessary for change occurring at each moment.”:
Verses:
I’m sure the author of the article in the OP made more errors than just the one error of him assuming the physicality of the “abstract” mathematical wave function, but I hold that that one error on his part is in and of itself sufficient to discredit the ’empirical credibility’ of his entire article.
You posted all that before, but I don’t see any of that addressing consciousness.
And to dismiss his whole article because of one sentence where he makes it sound like an actual wave rather than the wave function, whatever that is, passes beyond the slits, is pedantic.
The point you objected to, to which I replied, is that I have now stated that you believe that the scientific evidence conclusively establishes that “consciousness creates reality,” to use your own words.
Is this a true statement about your beliefs?
I still see no apology!
I said I was wrong. I apologize for being wrong.
Thanks.
For those interested (if there are any) the mistake that Anil made, which BA claims is “sufficient to discredit the ’empirical credibility’ of his entire article”, is to omit the word I have added in bold in the following paragraph.
Now I know just adding this one word might still be not as accurate as it could be, because this is a difficult subject to describe accurately, especially since one of the issue is in fact what is going on when the photon travels.
If ba still objects to the paragraph as I have revised, it (and he may be satisfied), I wonder how he (in his own words) would want to state the situation.
And, backing up,ba, have I stated your position accurately in the penultimate paragraph of 10?
And last, do you have anything to say about the various points in the article that show that in the scientific community the claim that consciousness is a necessary component of the wave collapse is in fact not the consensus, or universally settled as a conclusion?
jdk,
That is indeed a strange paragraph. The wave function doesn’t move through space or hit anything, obviously, just as the function f(x) = x^2 can’t hit my car windshield. I can see how it would be difficult to describe all this, especially in a SA article though.
Yes, Dave, I think it is agreed that we don’t really know, and can’t really describe, what is actually happening as a photon travels along without interacting with anything else. But I think it would be quite ponderous to talk about all this if that disclaimer had to be made all the time.
However, here’s my attempt to describe the situation.:
“The position of the photon, as it moves from the source to the screen, is represented by a mathematical function, the wave function, even though we don’t know what exactly a photon is as it does this. It’s resultant behavior is sometimes as a wave would behave and sometimes as a particle would behave, but we can’t actually say that it is a particle or a wave. Since we don’t know what it is, we use the wave function as a “substitute entity”, so to speak, in talking about the photon.
More on this. A number of physicists take the view that we shouldn’t even bother thinking about what is “really” going on, and only deal with the mathematical descriptions, which work with astonishing accuracy. Others, however, don’t accept that and want to discuss what quantum reality might really be like, and not just calculate.
In different ways, two books I have read recently are about this: “How the Hippies Saved Physics” and “What Is Real?: The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics”. I’m thinking I’d like to read Anil’s book also.
In further note to post 11, and the category error that the author of the article in the OP made of assigning the “physicality” of a wave to the “abstract” infinite-dimensional/infinite information quantum wave function.
Here is an interesting quote about the infinite dimensional Hilbert Space in quantum mechanics that is much more apt in describing what is actually happening (than the author’s category error).
And in the following video we are given a glimpse of the ‘higher dimensional’ nature of the square root of negative one, (as well as given a glimpse at the higher dimensional nature of the 4-Dimensional space time of General Relativity).
Gauss’s work on complex numbers, like the square root of negative one, extend the idea of the one-dimensional number line to the two-dimensional complex plane by using the number line for the real part and adding a vertical axis to plot the imaginary part. In this way the complex numbers contain the ordinary real numbers while extending them in order to solve problems that would be impossible with only real numbers. This ‘higher dimensional number line’, particularly this understanding gained for the ‘higher dimensionality’ of the square root of negative one (i), is essential for understanding the ‘wave packet’ in quantum mechanics prior to measurement:
The history of the square root of negative one is particularly interesting to look at. Descartes had rejected complex roots and coined the derogatory term “imaginary” to describe the square root of negative one. Whereas, Gauss, (a devoted Christian), who was the mathematician who finally clearly explained the higher dimensional nature behind the square root of negative one, suggested that complex magnitudes be called “lateral” instead of “imaginary” magnitudes since they represent a dimensional extension of the continuum. Gauss also proposed that complex magnitudes be awarded “full civil rights.”
The author further comments, in the language of Plato’s allegory of the cave, complex numbers represent “forms” from a higher dimension casting “shadows” on the real number line.
And in quantum mechanics, as mentioned previously, we find that the “higher dimensional” square root of negative one is necessary for describing the wave packet prior to measurement.
Four dimensional space was also mentioned in ‘The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality’ video. As was the necessity for Four-dimensional space in the formulation General Relativity also mentioned in the video:
What was not mentioned in the ‘The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality’ video is that special relativity is itself also based on a single four-dimensional continuum now known as Minkowski space. In fact, the higher dimensional nature of special relativity was a discovery that was made by one of Einstein math professors in 1908 prior to Einstein’s elucidation of General Relativity in 1915.
And much like the tunnel curvature of space-time found for a ‘hypothetical’ observer falling into a gravitational well (i.e. Einstein’s General Relativity),,,
,,, Much like the tunnel curvature found for General Relativity, in the following video clip on Special Relativity, (which was made by two Australian University Physics Professors), we find that the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape as a ‘hypothetical’ observer approaches the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light.
It is also very interesting to note that many of the characteristics found in Near Death Experience testimonies are exactly what we would expect to see from what we now know about Special Relativity (and General Relativity): For instance, (in regards to the topic at hand, i.e. tunnel curvature), many people who have had a Near Death Experience frequently mention going through a tunnel to a higher heavenly dimension:
In the following video, Barbara Springer gives her testimony as to what it felt like for her to go through the tunnel to a higher ‘eternal’ dimension:
And in the following audio clip, Vicki Noratuk, who has been blind from birth, besides being able to see for the first time during in her life during her Near Death Experience, Vicki also gives testimony of going through a tunnel:
And in the following quotes, Mary Neal and John Burke both testify that they firmly believed that they were in a higher dimension that is above this three-dimensional world and that the reason that they have a very difficult time explaining what their Near Death Experiences felt like is because we simply don’t currently have the words to properly describe that higher dimension:
The relationship between eternity and special relativity is touched upon in this post from a few days ago:
All of this is very interesting for the presuppositions of the Christian Theist in that, whereas atheists have no compelling evidence whatsoever for all the various parallel universe and/or multiverse scenarios that they have tried to put forth to try to explain away quantum wave collapse, fine-tuning, etc..,,,
,,, Christians, on the other hand, can appeal directly to our best theories in science, (Quantum Mechanics and Relativity respectfully), and the higher dimensional mathematics behind Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity and General Relativity, (as well as appeal to Near Death Experience testimonies) to support their belief that God upholds this universe in its continual existence, as well as to support their belief in a heavenly dimension and in a hellish dimension.
Verses and Music
jdk
Sorry for off-topic. I wanted to ask you, are you a java developer? 😉
re 23: No. I’m curious why you would ask me that???
jdk
It is just your initials then.
JDK stands for Java Development Kit 😉 No offense meant of course. Lots of commenters here are from IT myself included 😉
ba, I would still be interested in a short reply from you as to whether the following is an accurate statement about what you believe:
Is this an accurate summary of your position?
What do you personally think?
re 25: Oh, I see. 🙂 No, those are just my initials.
Materialists issue yet another unfounded promissory note contradicted by mountains of hard data and verified experimental results. This has been going on for decades as materialists have come up with one hypothesis after another, all of which have ended up supporting the essential nature of consciousness when actually tested.
Go ahead, keep coming up with new experimental nails to put in materialism’s coffin.
I suppose if we follow Anil Ananthaswamy’s line of thinking we cannot reference gravity as a possible cause, give that it’s nature is not known, and many well respected physicists disagree on the nature of gravity. Determining that a causes b does not require understanding it’s nature, simply isolating the cause sufficiently to determine that a certain known phenomena leads to a certain effect. The number of studies done that isolate the wave collapse to a conscience observer are numerous and have been consistently replicated.
In a related thread, I quoted the following:
News wrote,
And in comment 2, ba wrote,
This belief is also stated in 28 and 29 above.
However, I know that many QM scientists have expressed doubts about this conclusion.
So, I have some questions.
Consider the classic dual-slits scenario depicted in the diagram in the OP. The electrons are in an indeterminate state as they travel from the gun to the screen, where the wave function collapses, and an interference patten develops as more and more electrons arrive at the screen.
What happens if this takes place in a closed room with no one watching? Does the interference pattern not exist because there is no consciousness aware of it?
And what happens if we are filming it, and later watch the film? Will we see the pattern?
If in both cases above the pattern appears when we are not present, how is our consciousness making it real?
Could any of you who support the statements I quoted above, or something like them, answer my questions and explain the role consciousness would be playing in the creation of the interference pattern?
Wow, Jack- if there is a room that would mean that consciousness exists. If someone set up the room for the experiment it means that consciousness exits.
How would anyone know what happens if no one is there to witness it?
jdk, because of his apparent apriori animus against God and Christianity in particular, wants desperately to save some type of view of reality where the material world exists independently of mind. i.e. jdk wants, for whatever severely misguided reason, ‘material’ to be primary instead of the Mind of God to be primary.
Yet, as has been shown to jdk numerous times, the denial of the primacy of the Mind of God, and the denial of his own mind in particular, leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science.
I briefly touched on this point recently in another thread in response to Seversky.
Usually, when pressed on this point of the catastrophic epistemological failure inherent within naturalism, jdk will disingenuously switch from defending a purely materialistic and/or naturalistic view of reality to defending some concept of eastern mysticism, i.e. panpsychism and/or pantheism, where consciousness already exists in some form in the universe. A concept of eastern mysticism that he, as far as I can tell, (purposely?) leaves in an ill-defined state.
Thus, as far as I can tell since he has never rigorously defines his philosophical position for me, jdk, when push comes to shove on the catastrophic epistemological failure inherent within his naturalism, abandons defending a purely naturalistic/materialistic view of reality and holds to some view of reality where consciousness is somehow already embedded within the universe on some level.
Previously, Stephen Meyer has humorously called such disingenuous debating tactics by atheists, such as jdk’s disingenuous debating tactic in which he switches positions to avoid falsification, to be the ABG hypothesis, i.e. to be the “Anything But God” hypothesis. 🙂
And as I asked him previously, (and never received a clear answer to), does jdk, since he holds to some type of eastern mysticism, also believe in a soul that can live past the death of our material bodies like Stuart Hameroff does?
It is also interesting to note that Stuart Hameroff, though holding to eastern mysticism, is still, none-the-less, scorned by atheists:
In regards to Hameroff’s model, although I very much enjoyed the feisty, “Galileo”, way in which Stuart Hameroff defended his model against the “atheists’ inquisition” at the convention, I hold that Hameroff’s model falls short of finding complete agreement with quantum mechanics, and thus I find his model falls short of truly explaining consciousness. The primary reason why I think Hameroff model falls short of finding complete agreement with quantum theory is primarily because of his pantheistic metaphysical view of reality. A metaphysical view of reality in which consciousness, for him, is somehow, if I read him right, co-terminus with the space-time of material reality at the Planck scale. Something he calls ‘proto-consciousness’ at the fine (Planck) scale. Simply put, he holds to ‘realism’, i.e. he holds to the view of reality that the universe exists independently of conscious observation.
Yet, ‘realism’ is falsified.
Thus, although Hameroff himself appealed to quantum mechanics, i.e. ‘quantum micro-tubules’, to develop his model of quantum consciousness, quantum mechanics comes back around and falsifies his pantheistic view of reality. Simply put, Hameroff’s postulation of ‘proto-consciousness’ at the Planck scale of the universe falls short since, according to quantum mechanics, the universe ‘does not exist when we’re not observing it’.
Pantheism aside and to move on to naturalism, the main epistemological failure within the atheist’s naturalistic worldview, as briefly touched upon previously, is his denial of free will. As Martin Cothran states, “The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order.”
And as to presuming ‘a perspective outside the physical order’ for free will so as to preserve a ‘logical’ universe that can be rationally understood, we find that free will, much to the consternation of atheists, is ‘built’ into quantum mechanics. As Steven Weinberg, who is an atheist himself, stated, “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,”
Basically Weinberg, since he is an atheist, rejects the instrumentalist approach because of free will. (In fact he has basically ‘given up’ on understanding quantum mechanics altogether.),,, It is just plain bizarre that someone would think it ‘reasonable’ to reject the instrumentalist approach of quantum mechanics because of free will.
As mentioned previously, to reject free will is to undermine any ability that we might have had to reason rationally in the first place. i.e. It is epistemologically self-defeating.
As Michael Egnor recently pointed out, the denial of free will is self-refuting:
Moreover, besides the denial of free will being self-refuting, in quantum mechanics we find that the reality of free will is now supported by what is termed ‘contextuality and/or the Kochen-Speckter Theorem
With contextuality we find that, “In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation” and “Measurement outcomes depend on all the other measurements that are performed – the full context of the experiment.”
And as leading experimental physicist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
One concluding thought, although free will is often thought of as allowing someone to choose between a veritable infinity of options, in a theistic view of reality that veritable infinity of options all boils down to just two options. Eternal life, (infinity if you will), with God, or Eternal life, (infinity again if you will), without God. C.S. states it as such:
And exactly as would be expected on the Christian view of reality, we find two very different eternities in reality. An ‘infinitely destructive’ eternity associated with General Relativity and a extremely orderly eternity associated with Special Relativity:
Verse:
I see that ba didn’t address my questions.
I think they are good questions that one who believes that “that (material) reality cannot exist without consciousness” needs to be able to at least attempt to answer.
So ba, what happens to the interference pattern if no one ever looks inside the room? How is consciousness collapsing the wave function in that case?
What do you think?
jdk asks
“So ba, what happens to the interference pattern if no one ever looks inside the room? How is consciousness collapsing the wave function in that case?”
LOL you are kidding right?
ha ha ha ha ha
Humor me, ba. Answer the questions.
People much more knowledgeable than me consider them important questions to answer. If the answer is as simple as you seem to imply, you ought to be able to explain.
jdk asks:
“Humor me, ba. Answer the questions.”
I will as soon as you look into the room without being consciousness.
🙂
JDK asks @30:
Not sure if the premise of your questions are based on a correct understanding of the experiments.
You might familiarize yourself with this basic primer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
First, they shot many electrons through dual slits and got an interference pattern. They thought the electrons were bouncing off of each other and creating an interference pattern when they should have gotten two bar clumps of electron landings (two slits). They started shooting one electron at a time at the two slits and still got an interference pattern.
Then, in order to see which slit each electron “actually” went through, they fixed a device to observe which slit the electron “actually” went through right at the entry side of the slits.
The electrons stopped acting like waves as soon as we had the capacity to determine which slit they went through. The results was the two-bar clumps and the only thing that had changed was a sensor placed just before the slits that could detect which slit the electrons went through.
There are any number of two-slit experiment videos on YouTube that directly answer your question about observed vs unobserved experimental processes.
The question is not really about “observation” itself, but how much knowledge about what we are observing is possible with regards to how we are observing and the limits of information that can be ascertained from our observation.
When we just set up a basic two-slit experiment, we are still observing the entire process, but we have very limited potential knowledge about what we are observing. We don’t know “which” slit the electron is passing through, so we observe an interference pattern even when we shoot one electron at a time.
When we add a sensor just prior to the two slits, our observational capacity includes the ability to determine which slit the electron passes through. The interference pattern stops and the two-bar clump pattern emerges. Think about that. Why would observing which slit an electron goes through change it from behaving like a wave to behaving like a particle?
The real interesting experiments are those that set up a series of sensors and half-silvered mirrors on the far side of the slits. Here’s a video about the quantum eraser / delayed choice experiments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnpCH9VRvPg
If the path of the electrons can be determined by which sensor they arrive at, they form clump patterns. If the path of the electron (or perhaps they were using photons, I believe it works with either) cannot be determined by their landing at a particular sensor, we get an interference pattern.
What that means is that how each electron interacts with a sensor (wave or particle) depends on the scientist’s capacity to determine (even if initially unobserved) which slit any particular electron came from. Because two of the many sensors were set up in a way where electrons from both slits could land on either sensor, those two sensors showed interference patterns.
So, it’s not just about “observing”. It’s about when and how one observes, and how much and what kind of information can be gathered by your experimental structure.
The implication is clear: if we can know which slit an electron passes through either before or after it passes through it, it acts like a particle. If we cannot determine which slit it goes through, it acts like a wave.
re 37, to ba: I see that are not taking this seriously.
I am not doubting that consciousness exists.
I am saying that the act of hitting the screen collapses the wave function, not the act of our observing that happen.
This is a position held by many QM scientists.
If I run the experiment on Sunday, and don’t look into the room until Friday, has there been an interference pattern recorded on the screen during the week, even though no consciousness has perceived the pattern?
re 38: Thanks for taking time to write your thorough reply, wjm.
I believe I understand the additional elements that you described concerning the situation.
At one point, you wrote,
I prefer to read rather than watch videos (much more efficient use of my time), but could you point me to one of those videos?
I think I also understand the points you make about information, including your last two paragraphs.
However, you didn’t address the role of consciousness (other than saying videos exists on that subject.)
The issue here is what constitutes an “observation” in QM. A standard understanding is that an observation is the same as a measurement. The various devices you mention (either the screen, the sensor before the slits, or the sensors after the slits) are not conscious, and our consciousness does not have to be present for them to have their affect.
That is the issue I am addressing.
jdk asks:
As I’ve explained, none of this is about any consciousness directly perceiving the phenomena at the time it occurs; it’s about how much knowledge about the position/pathway of the electron/photon we have set our observational experiment up to gather and when in the course of the experiment it is gathered. If you set the sensor up prior to the slit entrance, all electrons behave as particles so it is not the sensor screen they land on which collapses the wave function. I don’t know where you got that idea, but no QM theorists thinks that as far as I know.
If you set the sensor up before the slit, it doesn’t matter if anyone is currently watching or if they don’t check the results for a week. Simply “interacting” with a sensor does not collapse the wave behavior into particle behavior as demonstrated in the 2nd video I posted above. The clear determining factor was whether or not the supposed pathway of an electron could or could not be determined by the sensor it lands on.
jdk, the entire room, indeed even the entire universe can be described by a wave function. i.e. Schrodinger’s cat!
Of note: at the 8:30 minute mark of the following video, Schrodinger’s cat and Wigner’s Friend are highlighted:
jdk, You want to desperately to presuppose that the room can exist independently, in the past, apart from consciousness, i.e. you want “realism” to be true, but, again as the articles I’ve already referenced indicated, quantum mechanics has simply taken that option of ‘realism’ away from you and has falsified realism.
It is not me that you have a problem with, it is the experiments of quantum mechanics that have consistently falsified local realism, as well as your apriori naturalistic beliefs, that you are having a problem with.
I’m doing quite well with my Christian presuppositions in regards to what quantum mechanics is consistently telling us from experiments. 🙂
You are, since you refuse to give up your atheism, the one in an irresolvable jam!
As to your erroneous belief that the past can exist independently of conscious observation, I simply point you to Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment to falsify your belief:
In quantum mechanics, as the following video clearly shows, “the now of the mind” takes precedence over past events in time:
Verse:
I’ve answered this. The final behavioral state of the electron is directly determined by the capacity of an observer to know which slit the photon came from. It is not otherwise related to the simple fact that the electron interacts with screens, sensors or silvered mirrors. The brute physical nature of the interaction makes no difference; what makes the difference is if the interaction can inform an observer of the pathway it took. If it cannot, there is an interference pattern at the final screen sensor. If it can, there is a clump pattern at the final screen sensor.
I’ve also already posted two explanatory videos.
re 41: Thanks, wjm. (I posted 44 before I saw 43, by the way.)
You write,
I agree with that. I am trying to describe the QM position that consciousness observation is not a necessary component of wave function collapse, which you seem to be agreeing with here.
I agree with that. My statement that the wave function collapses at the screen was in respect to the basic two-slit situation, not the one where a sensor is present before the slits.
Yes, and again, it is the act of measurement, and the way the measurement is set up, that determines the eventual information we can and do obtain.
But it is not conscious observation of the results that causes anything to happen. That is all I am trying to say. I understand and accept the results of QM and the ways they change our notion of the ultimate nature of the world. I’m not questioning that.
The Measurement Problem – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE
wjm, I watched the first two minutes of the video Quantum Eraser.
The video shows the wave that has passed through the slits still travelling as a wave, and then when the observer opens his eyes the electrons become particles.
Surely this is only meant metaphorically? Or is the video really implying that if the observer kept his eyes shut a interference pattern would show on the screen, but if his eyes were open two bars would show?
re 45: ba, can you summarize in your own words what the video explains about the measurement problem?
The measurement problem is a problem only if you refuse to accept that the observer plays a fundamental role.
i.e. atheism is, once again, shown to be untenable,
jdk,
You say
Here’s the essential difference you don’t seem to understand: whether or not an electron/wave simply interacts with sensors, silvered mirrors and landing screens does not determine whether or not they form interference or clump patterns. What determines the clump or interference pattern is whether or not the particular landing screen is an indicator that the photon must have gone through slit A or B.
Please watch the first video I posted first (introduction to the 2-slit experiment), and the 2nd after (delayed choice/quantum eraser). They aren’t that long and are both pretty entertaining.
You seem to think that the mere interaction with a physical device determines whether or not we will see a clump or an interference patterns. That has been repeatedly proven to NOT be the case. The determining factor is whether or not an observer can know, from the experiment, the slot it went through. If we cannot know, we get an interference pattern. If we can know, we get a clump pattern. The only difference is if we can know which slit the electron or photon goes through.
Why would the landing pattern change simply because we CAN determine which slit the electron passed through?
re 48: This discussion has nothing to do with atheism. There are theists who question the conclusion that consciousness is necessary for wave function to collapse to specific states.
I’ll note that other than posting quotes and links to videos, you have not offered any answers to the questions in 30 and 47
jdk @ 46:
You are obviously not serious about learning even the fundamentals about the two slit experiment if you cannot even be bothered to watch a couple of short videos that explain it. Until you watch the videos and then have a cogent question, you’re being deliberately ignorant and wasting everyone’s time.
“This discussion has nothing to do with atheism.”
So you really believe the fact that “Mind” is fundamental to quantum mechanics has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism?
And then you have the gall to accuse me of not answering your supposed honest questions forthrightly in the very next sentence.
Well, I let WJM deal with you, I refuse to try to reason with those who refuse to be reasonable or simply can’t be reasonable.
I suggest you not troll me anymore.
I have no patience for stupidity.
re 51: I’m sorry you feel that way. I have read a lot about these issues, and I understood your description back in 38.
For instance, could you answer my question in 46: is the man opening his eyes just meant to be a metaphor for observing?
I will try to find time to watch the videos. I am genuinely trying to understand the distinctions you are making.
re 52: sorry ba, I’ll not troll you anymore by asking you questions and expecting that you might answer them.
I appreciate the effort wjm is putting into the discussion.
WJM states, “you’re being deliberately ignorant and wasting everyone’s time.”
My sentiments exactly. If he persists in this behavior, I will request that he be banned (once again) from UD for trolling.
No, don’t ban Jack as he is evidence that ID’s opponents don’t care about reality and evidence.
FYI. I watched the video that wjm linked to at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc, from the movie “What the Bleep Do we Know: Down the Rabbit Hole.”
This was a simple explanation of the situation, all of which I was previously familiar with.
It also was, I think, sloppy, about a number of details, and implicitly assumed a perspective on the very issue we are discussing. First, it started by called the electron a “tiny bit of matter”. Then, it anthropomorphized the sensor after the slits as an eye, and at one point (about 4:15) says, “The very act of measuring, or observing …” In this way it presumes that a conscious observer is part of the situation. It does not address the issue we are discussing: whether a conscious observer is necessary, or whether the measurement apparatus is enough to collapse the wave function.
And last, it anthropomorphizes the electron itself, saying at the end that the electron “decided” and “was aware”.
I know you are making additional points, wjm, but this video does not address them, is inaccurate in some important ways, and implies that the observer has to be a person by making the sensor a little eye.
Also, for what it’s worth, “What the Bleep Do we Know” was produced by adherents of Ramtha’s School of Enlightenment, and was widely seen as an new-agey blend of physics and spiritualism, not a reliable source of information about QM.
For the unbiased reader, and to add weight to WJM’s second referenced experiment: This following experiment extended Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment to highlight the centrality of ‘information being available to the observer at the end of the experiment’ in the Double Slit Experiment, and refutes any ‘detector’ arguments for why the wave function may collapse:
And here is an experiment entitled “delayed-choice entanglement swapping”
In regards to the “delayed-choice entanglement swapping” experiment, Asher Peres states they quote unquote “‘mimic’ future actions on past events”:
You can see a more complete explanation of the startling results of the entanglement swapping experiment at the 9:11 minute mark of the following video:
It is also important to note that the delayed choice-quantum eraser experiment and entanglement swapping experiment is part of a broader mosaic of experiments in quantum mechanics which have consistently pointed to the central importance of the conscious observer within the experiments.
More interesting still, Einstein himself has now been refuted in his dispute with philosophers of his time where Einstein held “the experience of the now can never be a part of physics”.
In quantum mechanics, several lines of experimental evidence have now demonstrated, as the following video clearly shows, “the now of the mind” takes precedence over past events in time.
Quote:
jdk,
Let’s go at this another way, then.
If you have two slits and cover one up, whether you fire one or a hundred electrons at a time, you get a correspondingly located one-slit clump pattern on the screen behind it.
If you uncover the other slit, and cover the first one, you get a one-slit clump pattern that corresponds to the now open slit.
However, if you open both slits, you get an interference pattern whether you shoot one or a hundred electrons at a time.
Additionally, if you put observational device that can see which slit the photon goes through in front of the slit barrier, then even if you leave both slits open you will still get two corresponding clumps and no interference pattern.
How do you explain this?
By the way, you said:
This is a nonsensical query because in every experiment there is a measurement apparatus or else you wouldn’t be able to gather any results.
If the presence of a “measurement apparatus” was enough to collapse the wave and produce the slit-corresponding clump patterns, then just firing the electrons through a two-slit barrier at a sensor screen beyond would result in two clump distributions that corresponded to the slits, because the sensor landing screen is, in fact, measuring the distribution of electron strikes on it.
But does this answer the age old question, “if a man says something and his wife isn’t around to hear him, is he still wrong?”?.
re 59: First, I did watch the video on the delayed choice experiment, and read some other things about it, so I hope to have a response to that later.
However, as to 59, you explain the simpler double slit experiment, and then ask “How do you explain this?”
I accept that that is how particles work on the quantum level: if they “travel” to the screen through two slits, the eventual manifestation of their nature is wave-like, but if we adjust the situation so that a measurement device observes them as they travel, the present as a particle. I’m not arguing that this doesn’t happen, or that it doesn’t presents fundamental questions about the nature of reality.
I’m just asking about the role that consciousness plays. Where is a conscious observer in this process? What differences are there, if any, if a conscious observer is or isn’t observing any of the process, or the final results? That’s the question that doesn’t seem to be being addressed.
R J Sawyer:
Only if he’s a materialist. 😎
I watched the Quantum Eraser video, which wjm linked to, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnpCH9VRvPg. This video was part of a documentary, “The Simulation Hypothesis”, about which topdocumentaryfilms.com says, “The Simulation Hypothesis … argues that matter and ideas are the result of a complex digital simulation, something akin to a video game.” I find that a difficult hypothesis to entertain.
But the description of the delayed choice experiment was good, and I think I understand some things better that wjm has been trying to explain, although I still don’t see how consciousness is critical to the results.
I also looked at a few other videos, and read some more. What I discovered is that the disagreement about what this all means about the nature of reality and its relationship to consciousness covers a wide spectrum, from people who believe it all relates to the mind of God to those that think the beliefs about consciousness and QM are new-agey quantum woo, and everything in between.
So at this point I’m going to read more (I got Anil Ananthaswamy’s book, “The Edge of Physics”), and maybe watch a selection of videos from different viewpoints.
So I appreciate wjm’s involvement (despite his thinking I was being “deliberately ignorant and wasting everyone’s time”), and even ba’s a bit (I may look at some of the videos he linked to), even though he called me a troll for asking him questions (which I don’t believe he has answered.)
So that’s it for me.
Here is a interesting recent experiment from Anton Zeilinger and company that pushed the “free-will loophole” back to 7.8 billion years ago using quasars to determine measurement settings.
It should be noted that this present experiment is a vast improvement over their last Cosmic Bell Test which only went back 600 years.
And here is another recent interesting experiment by Anton Zeilinger, (and about 70 other researchers), that insured unpredictable measurement settings in a Bell test from the free will choices of 100,000 human participants instead of having a physical randomizer determine measurement settings.
All of this plays into the recent ‘free will’ thread here on UD on Antoine Suarez
jdlk said:
The both experiments show that if the experiment is set up so that the experimenters have the capacity to know which slit the electron passes through, it behaves like a particle. If they do not have the capacity to know, it behaves like a wave.
It doesn’t matter how complicated the experiment is; how many physical objects the electron interacts with, or if the capacity to know precedes or comes after the slit barrier.
Where do you think a “capacity to know” resides, if not in the mind of a consciousness (more precisely, those who set up and conduct the experiment)?
Also, I said that if you did not have the time to watch basic information videos offered on the subject, then you would be deliberately ignorant and a waste of time. I stand by that and I think any reasonable person would agree.
Great stuff BA @64.
The main takeaway for those who refuse to accept the primary role of consciousness in deciding the fundamental aspects of our physical experience is this: for decades physicists have attempted to find explanations for these phenomena that does not require a fundamental relationship with the presence of a conscious mind and what that mind can discern in an experiment, and in how it chooses to approach the experiment.
“Closing the loopholes” experiments (which have been exhaustively conclusive) have been about dreaming up any potential way, no matter how thin, controversial or in conflict with known facts, to disprove the role of consciousness in deciding this phenomena – not only in the here and now, but retroactively backwards in time.
Every experimental result for decades has fully supported the fundamental role of consciousness in determining fundamental states of the substrate of our physical experience. To then say that “we don’t know” what the data means is ludicrous. We know exactly what it means.
The originators of quantum theory – the true giants in the field – knew what it meant and bluntly stated that the root arbiter of physical reality was consciousness/mind. To backpedal after all the experimental evidence since then has supported that view and say “we don’t know” is absurd. We know as much as we know anything in science. The evidence is overwhelming and clear even to laymen.
The idea that there is some kind of “hidden variable” that accounts for the experimental results has itself been thoroughly disproved via hidden variable experiments that are also unambiguous.
Materialism-oriented scientists just don’t like the what the experimental results demonstrate.
jdk states
jdk may not like the answer, but I have answered his question at post 32. I even took into consideration his ill-defined concept of eastern mysticism and showed, via Hameroff, how it was not compatible with the falsification of realism.
As the falsification of realism shows, without conscious observation, the past, (i.e. jdk’s hypothetical room), simply does not exist.
I went on in that post to show how naturalism is falsified by quantum mechanics in its denial of free will (this is one place where jdk’s ill-defined concept of pantheism differs from naturalism, i.e. when cornered, jdk does not deny the existence of consciousness and free will as is presupposed in naturalism. He just, as far as I can tell, disingenuously refuses to be specific in his claims about them.
Despite all that jdk still said that I refused to answer his question.
Like I said, he might not like the answer but answer his question I did.
If jdk wants to presuppose that his hypothetical room exists without an observer, (i.e. similar to the box that Schrodinger’s cat is in), then he needs to deal with the falsification of realism that I presented against Hameroff’s more specifically defined eastern mysticism.
Then in post 58, in support of WJM, I referenced this experiment.
then in 63, after I specifically referenced the preceding experiment, jdk then again accuses me of not answering his question.
That is rhetoric not honesty!
As the unbiased reader can hopefully tell by now, after months of dealing with him. I find that jdk is not a man honestly searching for truth so much as he is troll that seeks to obfuscate.
It is not simply a matter of honest disagreement between people so much as It is that I find jdk to be insincere in the way he goes about things.
‘“Thus one decides the photon shall have come by one route or by both routes after it has already done its travel”
John A. Wheeler’
“That’s the enigma. That our choice of what experiment to do determines the prior state of the electron. Somehow or other we had an influence on it which appears to travel backwards in time.”
Fred Kuttner – Univ. Of California
Surely, ba, all the imponderable mysteries of QM constitute a little bit (or a universe, depending on your perspective) of mockery of atheists by God, who ‘scatters the proud in the imagination of their hearts.’
‘It’s crazy ; but is it crazy enough to be true ?’
One of many ‘bon mots’ of Niels Bohr (who claimed to lean towards views of reality found in mainstream eastern religions) on the subject of the mysterious nature of reality at the quantum level, a consilience that evidently intrigued him no end.
Sorry. I couldn’t edit it. The syntax is unparadoxically jumbled.
In case there was any doubt, let me confirm that I am not a quantum physicist and neither, I suspect, is anyone else here. Thus we are all taking the observations and interpretations of the nature of the quantum world on faith.
I accept that there are quantum phenomena like entanglement, “spooky action-at-a-distance’ and wave/particle duality which are at odds with our experience of the macro world. What I question is whether there is yet one broadly-accepted interpretation of these phenomena – such as is being implied by some here – or whether it is still the subject of intense debate in the scientific community.
What I challenge are the attempts to extrapolate from what is observed at the quantum level to claims about the macro world which lead to absurdities.
For example, there have been loosely-phrased claims about reality not existing until we observe it at the quantum level which have been argued as supporting the claim that nothing exists unless it is being observed. But is that what is being claimed about quantum phenomena.
Yet, if you remember the famous thought experiment by that notorious metaphorical abuser of cats, Erwin Schroedinger, which was offered to illustrate the fact that not only can we not know whether the cat in the box is alive or dead until we look but that, arguably, it exists in a superposition of both states until observed. What he did not argue was that another possibility was that the cat could also have vanished altogether.
As I understand it, the observer or measurement effect broadly refers to the observation that certain quantum “entities” can exists in a number of different states but that which we observe or measure is not decided until the act of observation. Further, that an act of observation or measurement by a conscious observer is required to “collapse the wave function” to a specific observed state.
It is not the claim, therefore, that there is literally nothing there until somebody looks, either at the quantum or macro level. I once asked BA77 if he believed that he did not exist unless some other conscious being was observing him. I also posed the obvious chicken-and-egg question: if nothing exists until it is observed then what is the observer observing in the first place? On the other hand, if there is something already there for the observer to observe, then existence of something does not depend on it being observed.
As for the primacy of consciousness, as has been pointed out many times before, the only observable instances are always closely correlated with the existence of a physical substrate, specifically the brain. When the brain dies or is destroyed, the associated consciousness disappears. Permanently, as far as we can tell. That is strong, observational support for the materialist interpretation.
Speculations about some all-embracing universal field of consciousness sound more like The Force from Star Wars than anything else. Personally, I rather like the idea of The Force but the sad reality is that while it has clearly-observable effects in that far away galaxy we see nothing like it here in the Milky Way, more’s the pity.
Understandably, we would all like the Universe to turn out to fit our own notions of the way things are and the way things ought to be. But it seems to me that, good as some of our theories are, their limitations indicate that there is still a lot that we don’t yet know, that we still don’t have a good handle on what all this is about. What I suspect is that whatever it is, it is not like what I as an a/mat believe nor like what followers of the various faiths believe but something we have yet to even imagine. We have managed to get our hands on a few good pieces of the puzzle but the whole picture is still a long way from coming together.
“As I understand it, the observer or measurement effect broadly refers to the observation that certain quantum “entities” can exists in a number of different states but that which we observe or measure is not decided until the act of observation. Further, that an act of observation or measurement by a conscious observer is required to “collapse the wave function” to a specific observed state.”
Almost correct. The first sentence is correct. The second is not. “observation collapses the wave function” leads people to think “human eyeballing the system collapses the wave function.” This is not correct. In the physics parlance, in this situation, observation means “the system interacting with other particles/waves in the act of measurement inevitably collapses the system.” No consciousness required. To be really explicit, you can easily have a physical setup which measured whether, say, an electron went through this slit or that slit, and print the result on a piece of paper. The wave function collapses and the device takes a reading and dutifully prints it out, whether a human is looking in that direction or not.
I’m not a quantum physicist, but I did have 3-4 quantum classes on the way to getting one of my degrees. You haven’t known tedium until you’ve calculated a few pages of Clebsch–Gordan coefficients. IIRC for each one I had to solve 3D integrals in spherical coordinates.
Thanks for 70 and 71.
Jdk@72. Ditto.
As Von Neumann suggests, all that’s left to do now is explain how the record of a measurement came to be on a piece of paper without recourse to another record.
Upright BiPed states
Exactly,,,, the infinite regress of the Von Neumann chain, that must necessarily terminate with a conscious observer (and I would further argue that it must necessarily terminate with God as the ‘unobserved observer’), is discussed starting at the 2:00 minute mark of the following video:
Von Neumann also stated, “we must always divide the world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer.”
The following fairly recent video by InspiringPhilosophy is also very good, after going though all the failed attempts of materialist to ‘explain away’ wave collapse, for showing how conscious observation is inextricably bound to measurement:
And let’s not forget that it is not only conscious observation that materialists have to deal with in quantum mechanics. Materialists also have to deny the reality of the free will of the conscious observer in the experiments.
And the supposed “free will loop-hole” of materialists was just dealt a death blow by Anton Zeilinger and company
Not that experimental evidence ever mattered to Darwinian atheists, but if it did, the work by Zeilinger and company should definitely make them become Theists.
random_dent said:
No, it does not. As explained thoroughly in this thread. If all it took was interacting with other wave/particle systems to collapse a wave into a particular location or quality, there would be none of these quantum effects at all.
How about you provide a link, then to an experiment where the capacity to know which slit the electron passed through was not required in order to get a clump pattern instead of an interference pattern?
duplicate post
Seversky said:
I don’t know of anyone who claims that “reality” doesn’t exist, or that “nothing exists” until it is observed (which would be absurd, since there wouldn’t be anything to observe, real or otherwise). Rather, the claim is that what we experience as physical space-time does not exist in any particular configuration except in our experience, experience being the interface between conscious mind and what we call a quantum field of potential.
IOW, the actual claim is that reality is not what we think it is (an external, material world), and “what exists” doesn’t exist the way we commonly think. There’s no such thing as “nothing”.
As to this previously cited quote from von Neumann
In quantum mechanics, as you can see from von Neumann’s quote, the exact place where ‘observation’, and/or “wave collapse”, is said to occur is arbitrary. Von Neumann goes on to note the arbitrariness of ‘observation’ in quantum mechanics,
Moreover, it is also important to note that, in atheistic materialism, it is presupposed that the observer is just passively observing some pre-existent value of some physical system.
Yet that materialistic presupposition of ‘passive observation’ is now known to be false.
In regards to Wheeler’s Delayed Choice Experiment, Wheeler stated:
But even Wheeler’s contention that “the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a record in the present” is found not to be such an ironclad rule in quantum mechanics as some have thought it to be.
As Asher Peres stated in 2000, “quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded.”
Zeilinger and company experimentally realized Peres’s thought experiment
And as Professor Crull states in the following article “entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted,,, it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.”
And as the following author stated: “Not only can two events be correlated, linking the earlier one to the later one, but two events can become correlated such that it becomes impossible to say which is earlier and which is later.,,,”
That is just plain bizarre and is certainly completely antagonistic to materialistic presuppositions of ‘passive observation’. As Pascual Jordan, put it: “observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it… We compel [a quantum particle] to assume a definite position.” In other words, Jordan said, “we ourselves produce the results of measurements.”
And as Anton Zeilinger stated, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
To say all of this is incompatible with materialistic presuppositions which hold that we are just ‘passive observers’ would be an understatement.
It is also interesting to point out that this line of evidence is very friendly to Dr. Michael Egnor’s (Theistic) contention (via Aristotle) that “Perception at a distance is no more inconceivable than action at a distance.”
Of related interest to this, in the following article, Dr. Egnor points out that Aristotle (and Aquinas) anticipated the basics of Quantum Wave Collapse thousands of years before quantum mechanics was discovered.
Verse:
Sev @ 70
“But it seems to me that, good as some of our theories are, their limitations indicate that there is still a lot that we don’t yet know, that we still don’t have a good handle on what all this is about.”
And it will never change. To that I say “Amen”. Something we find agreement. That’s why God tells us “fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom”
Epistemologically, us humans find ourselves at all different levels. We can stay shallow and God will entreat us “fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom”. Or we can go deep, study the greats minds of the past/present and ponder the mysterious before us and God will still entreat us “fear the of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom”
So in a sense we just give up and look to the LORD for our wisdom. Everything changes when we do.
juwilker