Biocentrism - How life creates the universe

quote:

---

You missed the target by a mile with that statement.

---

How odd, when that IS the standard version of the experiment.

quote:

---

If you don't read about them, you won't hear about it.
Have you seen the delayed choice experiment or the one done with the eraser?

---

Yes, I know of both of them, and I know that they DON'T show that the presence or absence of a conscious observer has any effect at all. In fact they don't even try to investigate that question.It all comes down to the set-up of the experimental apparatus and the measurements it takes (come to that, if I remember correctly it isn't even necessary to take the measurements - so long as the information is available in principle).

Things would be easier if this were true.Both slits open. Detector ONLY on right slit, before right slit:Detector off, interference pattern seen. Detector on, scatter pattern seen.----------------------------------------Move detector after slits but only on right slit. Same sequence, same result.----------------------------------------Use photons. Photons can be split into index photon (towards screen) and signal photon (90 deg. to index toward detector).Detector off, interference pattern. Detector on, scatter pattern.When the detector is off (not reading the signal photon) the index photon contributes to the the interference pattern.When the signal photon is measured, the index photon results in scatter pattern.----------------------------------------Move the signal photon detector to 100 times the distance from slit to screen.The index photon has reached the screen well before the signal photon has reached the detector.Detector off, interference pattern. Detector on, scatter pattern.How? Why?----------------------------------------------No time for specific references. They are on the web.If you don't find them I'll look them up later. Work calls.

All true. Although the "how? why?" you posit is understood (not by me). However, as PaulK rightly points out, a quantum observer does not mean a conscious observer.Consciousness has no special place. That's just a popular misunderstanding.

The point you seem to be missing is that the detector is not itself a conscious observer.What needs to be determined is whether it is the detector or a conscious observer that makes the difference, To the best of my knowledge the evidence points to the detector.If you know of any experiments which really deal with the question of a conscious observer, and not simply variations in the experimental apparatus - and find a real effect - let me know.

Well, it is true (as the others have implied) so it must be easier There is nothing in any of the weird and wonderful Aspect and quantum eraser experiments that even begins to suggest that consciousness and conscious observers have anything to do with the results of the experiments. They simply demonstrate the nature of relatively isolated yet broadly spread quantum states. Just as with EPR, the individual results are statistical and can in no way be used to signal FTL. Despite all appearances, the physics remains local.Edited by cavediver, : removed half-constructed aside for later discussion

Yeah, it's not the observer, but the observer's ability to obtain information about the which-path. How is that different?The eraser was specifically designed and implemented several times at different locations to highlight the fact that the universe is participatory. If you were to finish that sentence, you'd have to admit that statistics is all that exists in that "local universe".Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.

Spot on.

Forget about the observer. We are talking about the ability to know. The ability to know belongs to the observer. This is the sole causal factor in the delayed choice experiment.

An unconscious detector is capable of collapsing the wave function of light. Therefore, a consciousness is not required. It is that simple. The same would happen if a dust particle accidently and without conscious control floated into the slit and absorbed a photon.

We are not talking about the standard twin slit, where things aren't THAT obvious but of the Delayed choice experiment. Did i anywhere seem to imply i was talking about the double slit experiment? Because in every post i made in this thread i mentioned the DCE and the quantum eraser. Hmmmm....

quote:

---

Forget about the observer. We are talking about the ability to know.

---

So long as we agree that "the ability to know" only refers to the availability of information, and not to conscious knowledge. Because that is so far as the experiments actually go.

quote:

---

The ability to know belongs to the observer. This is the sole causal factor in the delayed choice experiment.

---

The experiment does not indicate that there is any causal factor other than the arrangement of the experimental apparatus.

Nonsense - it shows nothing of the sort (of course, it quite possibly was implemented in the hopes of showing this but that just shows the delusion inherrent in this subject.) The results of the eraser do not sufficiently differentiate between quantum interpretations to prmote one in favour of another. The eraser behvaviour is classic quantum mechanics and would be problematic were it not observed. I would never "admit" something in such loose language and terminology.

What are those? links please...

So you actually have no other explanation than "complementarity holds", "it's just the statistical nature of qm". Which interpretation can explain better why the interference pattern disappears when which-path information is obtained? And which interpretation can explain better why when you "erase" the which-path information, the interference pattern re-appears? Just saying "nonsense" doesn't mean anything. This is not the forum of CERN and readers need to be aware what is being discussed.Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.Edited by MatterWave, : Format of message

So true.That's what I get for being rushed and being unclear in my response.What I was responding to was Message 12Specifically, Both slits are open and, depending on whether the detector is on/off the interference (wave) or scatter (particle) pattern are seen.I do not know of any experiment attempting to separate detection from conscious observation.I suspect the results will not change. IMO, it is the act of "detection" not "conscious observation" that breaks the interference pattern. A conscious mind does not appear to be necessary for the universe to exist ... or evolve.