the underlying assumptions rig the debate

This is supports the points I am making here and have made before. The wave-function is the thing itself, and I can agree does not change. What changes is the discrete form that is manifested materially in our reference frame. That's one reason I have stated elsewhere that an information-state is the fundamental state with what we have thought of as "physical" or the discrete form being the derived, secondary state. Imo, this reverses the traditional materialist approach of science in that no longer is the information a description of something physical, but the discrete form is actually a by-product of the design-state, the wave-function.Moreover, you admit that the wave-funtion can and does occupy at a minimum different locations instantly via entanglement, right? In other words, distance is not an issue. The system stays as one even over long distances with no observable connections, right?Why if this space barrier is superceded, do you not think the time barrier can be superceded as well? Isn't time and space interconnected so we have a 4-D universe, and doesn't the wave-function work in 4-D? So? How is any different at all if the observer is the conscious observer or something else in terms of this discussion?

No, I'm not jumping ahead. I'm just clarifying the objections I have already made by pointing out the claims made in the OP which run into trouble with the sources you have produced.

quote:

---

First, I have shown one way that a superposition can exist; then not exist but instead a collapsed state, and then a superposition exists again, and that the quantum eraser shows that

---

And it is evidence that your ideas don't work in reality. The quantum eraser arranges the situation such that the "original" collapse can have no effect - the path of the photon is rendered unknowable - that is how it works. So the whole situation is such that even if the path after the second "collapse" were different it could not be known. So the actual impact on the rest of the universe is zero.

quote:

---

Now, of course, we are dealing with a book and story, that if we are to accept it, contains God Almighty directly intevening and working, and so you really cannot assess the story's events ruling out God.

---

However, if you are trying to construct an argument that your view is scientifically plausible then appealing to miracles is pointless. If you need miracles, then your view isn't scientifically plausible. So why bother ? Why not just say it's a miracle and have done ?

quote:

---

I think there is some sense you may be missing things here. When Adam was alive and had not sinned, to say the universe then or now was fully in a collapsed state is probably wrong.

---

That is a red herring. To say that death does not exist, Either the state is collapsed to the extent that death does not exist, or it is in a superposition of states excluding death.

quote:

---

With the introduction of the knowledge of good and evil, there would be for every new situation a new way to "know" something about it.

---

Morality is not part of QM. Moreover if morality is objective the information available in principle would not change. Since your sources are quite explicit that it is the knowability that matters, not even actual measurements, it appears that there is no relevant difference.

quote:

---

1. The change in the waveform reacts based on whether something can be known about it.

---

Actual human knowledge makes no difference. It is enough that an informed observer could determine the result. This point argues against you, even if you somehow managed to incorporate morality into QM in some way that could help you.

quote:

---

2. With the eating of the knowledge of good and evil, a new level and intimacy of knowledge was obtained, and so with that new knowledge, there was something new that could be asked so to speak of everything, and that includes the past.

---

And this is not a relevant point for the reasons given above..

PaulK, you are just not considering all the factors here. First, let me reiterate that I showed and you have not responded to how in the quantum eraser experiment, that as "time progresses" or as a photon goes through it's trajectory, that it can change. It can be in superposition, to a single path, back to superposition, and back again to an entirely new path and everyone one of these changes involves a change, as it were, backwards in time from our vantage point.Now, what is really happening according to some is that all possible states always exist all the time, but what we see as a real wave or particle is just one state. So the questions we ask seem to determine the past, but they actually just reveal one of the possible past routes or behaviour and all the others are still there, and so that is how you can get around seeming backwards causality.But if that is the case, it really doesn't matter from our perspective. The past we know does not necessarily stay the same from our perspective. That has been shown conclusively from the quantum eraser experiment. Your claim that the net change is 0 is wrong because you assume in the real world this process will be limited as in the lab, and that the same answer will be generated as to what path the photon took when in reality if the observation is different, the answer will be as well.So somehow what can be known about something affects it's the discrete form it takes, and this discrete form is generally what people think of as the physical world.Well, with the introduction of the knowledge and good and evil to the observers, Adam and Eve, their questions and so what can be made known would change, and so one would expect everything to change.But regardless of the Bible story, the OP point stands. The past is not determined. It does change, and that has been shown in QM experiments. You yourself admit that it changes from an indetermined state to a determined state, but I have shown that even a determined state (a collapsed state) can be changed and you admit that too.You said that this only happens with a change of what can be known, and I have shown how that circumstances can change what can be known, and so every time there is a change of what can be known, the past changes.

Who is the informed observer here? They were not informed of the knowledge of good and evil, and of death, but then they did gain knowledge of it, the world had changed.But regardless, the primary point of evos assuming a static past has been successfully refuted as the past responds based on what can be known about it.

An excellent plan! You should be sure to look at a complete and representative selection of experiments, papers and public writings instead of cherry-picking what agrees with your preconceptions. As has been pointed out, phrases like "seems to know" and others are just the best that can be made of an impossible task, namely rendering the math into accurate English descriptions. These phrases are leading you to reach unintended (and incorrect) conclusions. I'd say the jury is still out about whether Wheeler accepted violations of causality. Even if he did, it is not a currently accepted view within science because it has no theoretical or experimental support. And when Feynman said that no one understands quantum theory he was speaking generally and colloquially for a lay audience. He definitely was not saying, "Is causality violated? Heck if I know!" It appears to everyone that you are misinterpreting the experimental results. Look at it this way. If the experiments indicated what you think they do, then why are the scientists pursuing these ideas still seeking both theoretical and experimental validation, for example, in the paper you linked to from ORNL. If it is as you say and the experimental results make causality violation and FTL communication a done deal, then why do the efforts focused on these areas appear to be approaching them as still unproven and undemonstrated?There's a difference between an intriguing idea with possibilities and an idea that already has both theoretical and experimental support, but you seem to continually confound the two. We all want science to move forward, but before we plant our flag in new territory we want to make certain it is solid ground and not quicksand.--Percy

As I have pointed out to you guys ad nauseum, the experiments were done in this world, not as mere thought experiments, and not in math. It is, imo, intellectually dishonest to continually state that's because they are trying to render the math into English when that is not the case at all.What they are doing is describing the experiments in English. They are not trying to put the math into English when they say the photon "seems to know" and is time you guys quit making that claim.The math, like the English, is an attempt to explain the experiments and yes, the experiments do show certain mathematical principles, but when people say the photon "appears to know", they are describing the observed behaviour of the photon, not the math.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

quote:

---

PaulK, you are just not considering all the factors here

---

It seems to me that I am considering factors that you are not. Such as the way in which quantum erasers work.

quote:

---

First, let me reiterate that I showed and you have not responded to how in the quantum eraser experiment, that as "time progresses" or as a photon goes through it's trajectory, that it can change. It can be in superposition, to a single path, back to superposition, and bac again to an entirely new path and everyone one of these changes involves a change, as it were, backwards in time from our vantage point.

---

I repeat my response to this point from the previous post.

quote:

---

The past we know does not necessarily stay the same from our perspective

---

That would be the past that is not and cannot be known. According to your own sources.

quote:

---

So somehow what can be known about something affects it's the discrete form it takes, and this discrete form is generally what people think of as the physical world.

---

Ands this is precisely the poblem for your views. You want changes to the knowable past, which requires you to resort to miracles, thus undermining the whole point of invoking QM and the sources you use.

quote:

---

Well, with the introduction of the knowledge and good and evil to the observers, Adam and Eve, their questions and so what can be made known would change, and so one would expect everything to change.

---

Provided one fails to consider the points that what is in pricniple knowable has not changed and that moral questions are not part of QM. As I pointed out in my last post.

quote:

---

You said that this only happens with a change of what can be known, and I have shown how that circumstances can change what can be known, and so every time there is a change of what can be known, the past changes.

---

But you have not shown that what is in principle knowable changed in any way. ANd the very fact that such "changes" rely on the chnage being completely indetectable rules out any nooticiable change - directly contrary to the major and very noticable changes you invoke.
y

On what basis is the jury out? Incredulity? And you think Wheeler had no theoritical or experimental support to make this claim? LOL. He made this claim because of the experiments. Why don't you substantiate what he did mean then? He was referring to himself and mainstream science when he made the statement, and that's because QM conflicts with other areas such as GR. No I am not, and the old argument that science fiction writers or others would be jumping up and down is getting old. I have showed you plenty of scientists that state the results clearly indicate that the present measurement determines whether the photon manifests as a wave or particle, and you know what, no one really disagrees with that actually. They don't want to come out with the implications of that, but no one out there really disagrees that these experiments do show that the form of measurement affects the photon's path even if the measurement was taken after the photon travelled it's path. That's why Wheeler made the comments he did, and others as well like Zeilinger.You just assumed that the spin you have heard from evos about QM was true when it has never been true. Oh, so if anyone runs a test for gravity, GR, or how about mutations, then by golly they must doubt the earlier claims are true? That's absurd. One reason they continue to run experiments with basic quantum mechanics is so we can develop a better technology in using it, and another is to settle the issue firmly and develop a more comprehensive theory of everything. For instance, there are experiments to see if larger objects can become entangled, have wave-like properties, etc,....so we can see to what degree QM principles work in the macro-world directly.

quote:

---

Who is the informed observer here?

---

There doesn't need to be one, according to your own sources. All that matters is what an informed observer COULD determine, if one were there.U

You seem to have missed the point. Let's imagine the scenario where the photon pass through some polarizers and so we could observe which path and they thus take one path. Now, there is the third polarizer that erases that collapse by scrambling the ability to know what path the photon took, but this time it is, say, a month of a light-year away. So a month later, the photons that did take a single path the month before, now in the past took all possible paths.See what I am talking about?The fact that an observation was made does not change the fact that down the road the same observation cannot be made. Just imagine the experiment more spread out distance-wise so you can properly assess how with the changes in time, the past can actually change. The photons can go from a collapsed state to a non-collapsed state IN THE PAST.Now, let's extend the experiment further. Let's say the photons travel another month, and this time are sent through a polarizer so we can determine which path the photons took. Then, they would collapse back to a single path again, but here is the kicker.What path would they exhibit?So you could have along this trajectory, 3 different pasts all observed by people. The first group observes a single path. The second group observes the photon as a wave, all paths taken, and the third observes a single path taken (and no reason to think it would be the same as the first group).

I wouldn't argue in this way again if I were you. Let me say again that it would help your case immensely if you could paraphrase the positions of those you're discussing with more accuracy than this. No one here has ever denied the experiments were done in the real world. No one here has ever claimed that they were only thought experiments. But theory and experiment have marched forward roughly together in quantum theory. Experiment is validation of the theory, and theory points the way toward experiment. It is the mathematical theory that provides the interpretational framework for the experiment, and you're misinterpreting the descriptions.As I already said, if your interpretations were correct and what you were claiming had already been established, then explain why groups like those at ORNL are still approaching the problems as if they are not yet established either experimentally or theoretically. Even just the phrase "appears to know" when applied to a photon is so obviously euphemistic that to point it out hardly seems necessary.--Percy

quote:

---

You seem to have missed the point. Let's imagine the scenario where the photon pass through some polarizers and so we could observe which path and they thus take one path. Now, there is the third polarizer that erases that collapse by scrambling the ability to know what path the photon took, but this time it is, say, a month of a light-year away. So a month later, the photons that did take a single path the month before, now in the past took all possible paths.

---

Even if you are right this is no good to you. You want to change the path that the photon did take and you want it to have a significant effect. And your own sources say that that can't happen.

quote:

---

So you could have along this trajectory, 3 different pasts all observed by people. The first group observes a single path. The second group observes the photon as a wave, all paths taken, and the third observes a single path taken (and no reason to think it would be the same as the first group).

---

By my understanding only one of these groups could possibly exist. If there were any measuring apparatus that the first group could use, for instance, the quantum eraser would fail.s

Concerning causaility, first you provided a Wheeler quote of questionable origin from Paul Davies, then you provided a quote about observers that had nothing to do with causality. Did I miss anything? If that's the sum of your evidence that Wheeler accepted violations of causality, then yes, the jury is still out. Way out. It's even premature to have a jury.But the Wheeler quote is unimportant. Whether he accepted causality violations or not, this view has not found anything approaching wide acceptance within physics. You offered the quote as support for causality violations. As I already said, the quote was offered generally about quantum theory, not specifically about causality violations. That famous Feynman quote is in no way a statement about his views on causality violations. Do you misinterpret points on purpose or does it just come naturally?Of course we're still running experiments verifying GR and other accepted theories. But efforts at further verifications of GR can and do point to past validations. That paper from ORNL made clear that there are no prior theoretical or experimental validations.This whole discussion just boils down to you trying to convince people that some stuff that is pretty far out there on the scientific fringe is actually accepted mainstream science, or that the possibilities hold much more promise than is actually the case. And you're trying to do this because central to some of your objections to modern scientific views is that the past was actually different from the evidence we have of that past. But even your interpretation of quantum theory doesn't allow this possibility. In the view your arguing for, the present would change to be consistent with the past, including the evidence we have of that past. Any such changes of the past would be indetectable today because the evidence would have changed, too.--Percy

No, the quote was specifically about how the photon behaves in the 2-slit experiment; hence specifically about the appearance of causality in the experiments.

Yes, and that difference is the whole story... That is because you do not understand the topic. No, absolutely not. I never say this. No information means NO INFORMATION period. No information gleaned, interpreted, or translated. There is no difference. Who suggested there was? Has the foul stink of a New Sci article... No you don't, and this is precisely what entanglement isn't. It is this erroneous view that has lead RAZD to his objections to the whole affair. Entanglement is nothing to do with knowing the state of one "particle" becasue you know the state of the other. Take two boxes and one marble. But the marble in one box. Take the boxes to opposite sides of the universe. Open a box. Instantly you know the contents of the other box, billions of light years away. Big deal. This has nothing to do with entanglement, though this is precisely how it is often presented in layman and popular science. Completely, utterly and totally wrong.NON-LOCAL has NOTHING to do with superluminal transfer.Non-locality is a perfectly fine feature of QM. To get superluminal transfer, you need to non-linearise QM into something that is not QM, and which then contradicts SR/GR.