>Werner Heisenberg:
"The discontinuous change in the wave function takes place with the act of registration of the result by the mind of the observer. It is this discontinuous change of our knowledge in the instant of registration that has its image in the discontinuous change of the probability function."
>Von Neumann:
"consciousness, whatever it is, appears to be the only thing in physics that can ultimately cause this collapse or observation."
>Max Planck:
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness."
>Erwin Schrodinger:
"The only possible inference ... is, I think, that I –I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say, every conscious mind that has ever said or felt 'I' -am the person, if any, controls the 'motion of the atoms'. ...The personal self equals the omnipresent, all-comprehending eternal self... There is only one thing, and even in that what seems to be a plurality is merely a series of different personality aspects of this one thing, produced by a deception."
>Freeman Dyson:
"At the level of single atoms and electrons, the mind of an observer is involved in the description of events. Our consciousness forces the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and another."
>Eugene Wigner:
"It is not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a consistent way without reference to the consciousness."
>Pascual Jordon:
"Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it."
>Niels Bohr:
"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. A physicist is just an atom's way of looking at itself."
>Wolfgang Pauli:
"We do not assume any longer thedetached observer, but one who by his indeterminable effects creates a new situation, a new state of the observed system."
>Niels Bohr:
"Any observation of atomic phenomena will involve an interaction with the agency of observation not to be neglected. Accordingly, an independent reality in the ordinary physical sense can neither be ascribed to the phenomena nor to the agencies of observation. After all, the concept of observation is in so far arbitrary as it depends upon which objects are included in the system to be observed."
>John Stewart Bell:
"As regards mind, I am fully convinced that it has a central place in the ultimate nature of reality."
>Martin Rees:
"The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it."
Literal whos. A bunch of uneducated chuds like you. Read Dennet. Consciousness is an illusion that emerges when a bunch of neurons rub together. Frick Jesus, frick God and frick magic. Go back to /x/.
funny but most r.eddit normies believe this. quantum mechanics proves idealism is the truth and when you only have idealism left you have no choice but to accept god.
also abiogenesis and the primordial soup are lies.
"Idealism" is a meaningless buzzword, so broad it becomes vacuous.
>Consciousness is an illusion that emerges when a bunch of neurons rub together.
Doesn't explain how a bunch of atoms gives forth to awareness though. They are two separate things.
You fedora post too hard. Suffice it to say, a jester on the sidelines like Santa Claus Dennet is not fit to shine the shoes of the greats of actual hard science you are too neckbearded to know - funny how the eternal fedora has to rely on a fricking humanities clown like Dennet to uphold your delusional "muh sciunce" beliefs against the actual men who created science in the first place.
Monke brain trying to understand things.
As expected, Bohr is the only correct one in all these quotes. These other people are moronic.
He's saying the same thing as the others. There is no objective observer independent reality. Of course there wouldn't be. Why would you render a virtual reality why there are no players demanding a data stream? This is not a coherent concept even.
No he isn't. Of course I can't expect schizos like you to understand what he's saying there and I'm not interested in trying to educate you since I know your mental capacity is not adequate for that. Don't reply to me with drivel like this ever again schizo.
I am psychically integrated. Also, it is you who are wrong. He said in many ways that there was no objective reality.
In picrel he puts it another way. No objective independent reality. Just like in a massively multiplayer online game. No players log on, no reality rendered. No observer, no 'physical world'. Otherwise it just unfolds in the superposed state until the next 'collapse'. But there is no actual superposed state in the physical world. It's effectively just as data in a hard drive evolving according to a ruleset, Schrödinger's equation, til the event that measurement is made and then what is rendered is rendered according to the collapse postulate and the born rule. The collapse is not some collapse of some objective physical superposed stuff. It's the 'creation' of the stuff as in the resolution of uncertainty, ie information creation.
Meds, now.
It seems like you missed the whole EPR paradox, the einstein bohr debate's, bell's theorem, not local hidden variables thing. You are taking einstein's position. He couldn't deal with the reality either.
Seems like you've memorized a bunch of words without understanding any of them.
Let me give you a hint: He says there's no objective reality of *elementary particles*, not whatever video game schizo nonsense you're saying.
>Let me give you a hint: He says there's no objective reality of *elementary particles*
Ok, and so what is all matter made of? Is it not made of elementary particles? If the elementary constituents are not objectively real then how is that which is constructed of these constituents objectively real? It's not.
>Is it not made of elementary particles?
It is
>If the elementary constituents are not objectively real
That's not what he said you moron. There is no objective reality to elementary particles in the sense that you can't attribute sharp properties to them at all times.
>how is that which is constructed of these constituents objectively real?
Through decoherence. Others in the time of Bohr didn't understand this but Bohr did, although he did not have the correct words for it. No mysticism nonsense, no bullshit.
You're moronic and don't understand quantum mechanics.
>You're moronic and don't understand quantum mechanics.
Not an argument, if you defend realism then Bohr disagrees with you, he was an anti-realist.
>Through decoherence.
Absolute moron, decoherence is what happens when quantum effects stop taking effect at large enough scales
> No mysticism nonsense
Pic related, Bohr's coat of arms that he designed himself, he was 100% an spiritual person, you are literally an ignorant moron.
>if you defend realism then Bohr disagrees with you, he was an anti-realist.
Buzzwords without meaning >>>/x/. Learn some quantum mechanics instead of memorizing heaps and heaps of buzzwords
>Pic related
What the frick did you expect that to prove? Stupid schizo. Bohr was a total atheist.
There is no measurement problem as Bohr made clear. The only problem is in your head
>Learn some quantum mechanics instead of memorizing heaps and heaps of buzzwords
Not an argument, he did not agree with Einstein's realism, that's a historical fact.
>Bohr was a total atheist.
Aha so, atheism =/= non spiritual
Buddhism can be atheist and is still be spiritual, same for Hinduism, same for Jainism, holy shit you are so blatantly ignorant, you are the one who needs to learn before you open your mouth
> he did not agree with Einstein's realism
Yes, and so? Notice how you tried to shift goalposts
>Buddhism can be atheist
So believing in reincarnation is atheist now
>Hinduism, Jainism
Kek. You are a clueless moron. Read more about these religions than whatever your local schizo on IQfy told you and you'll realize that they're completely theistic.
>Notice how you tried to shift goalposts
??? Are you literally braindead, we are talking about Bohr's anti-realist position that there is no objective reality prior to measurement
>So believing in reincarnation is atheist now
Strawman
>Read more about these religions
Hindus can choose to be polytheistic, pantheistic, panentheistic, pandeistic, henotheistic, monotheistic, monistic, agnostic, atheistic or humanist.[61][62][63]
Is you who should learn a thing in your disgusting joke of an ignorant life lmao
>Bohr's anti-realist position that there is no objective reality prior to measurement
That's your schizo position, not Bohr's. DUMBFRICK.
>Hindus can choose to be polytheistic, pantheistic, panentheistic, pandeistic, henotheistic, monotheistic, monistic, agnostic, atheistic or humanist.[61][62][63]
Lol, more buzzwords without meaning. As if a Christian can't choose to be those things. You're braindead. Don't reply to me anymore, I find your existence disgusting.
>That's your schizo position, not Bohr's.
Show me one quote of Bohr's entire work where he says there is a realist physical reality
>Lol, more buzzwords without meaning. As if a Christian can't choose to be those things. You're braindead. Don't reply to me anymore, I find your existence disgusting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_atheism
You stupid as frick, facts don't care about your feelings, you are a literal waste of oxygen
>Not an argument, he did not agree with Einstein's realism,
There was no "argument" worth arguing over if it came out of the mouth of that crackpot. He reified two nonexistent places into one descriptions which means frick all.
>Buddhism can be atheist and is still be spiritual,
Buddhism is a denial of the soul and therefore is bankrupt of any "spiritual" ontology you believe can be derived from it. Atheism is the metaphysical belief system that denies metaphysical belief systems and therefore is a contradiction of a "belief".
>Hindus can choose to be polytheistic, pantheistic, panentheistic, pandeistic, henotheistic, monotheistic, monistic, agnostic, atheistic or humanist
Real Hinduism is monistic, do yourself a favor and don't compare it to modern day new age trash that is Buddhism.
>Ok, and so what is all matter made of?
It's the unreal and temporal. Farts of fields
>Is it not made of elementary particles?
Fields
>If the elementary constituents are not objectively real then how is that which is constructed of these constituents objectively real? It's not
Correct, fellow hardened light projection.
>Fields
These are just sets of values or quantities. There are no fields sitting around some where as physical/material objects with observer independent existence. These are models useful for predictions. It's a concept. Do you want to try and describe what you think a field is fundamentally?
>These are just sets of values or quantities.
"Of what"? Do they just make it up as they go along? Where is the science in that?
>Do you want to try and describe what you think a field is fundamentally?
I mean you defined it as a "value/quantity". "Of what" I have yet to hear, you just claim it's a concept so why bother? What is a "field" actually referring to?
>"Of what"? Do they just make it up as they go along?
You tell me. You are the one saying that matter is made up of 'fields'. You said that here
To me a field is a conceptual object which is useful in calculating and making predictions in the consciousness based virtual reality that I find myself interfacing with through immersion. Physics are the equivalent of mario in super mario brothers jumping on a turtle shell and it shoots forward and he comes up with a formalism to describe and predict positions and momentums ect and he declares, AHA, THIS IS FORCE!! This is being caused by a physical entity called force! And this stuff I am describing is to be called matter!! Of course, mario has constructed a useful system of measuring and predicting, but his conclusion about the whole situation with regard to 'force' and 'matter' is just a model. There is no physical force. There is no physical causation. Nothing in the virtual reality is causing anything. The causation is non-local, ie not in his space time. The causation is calculations and computations and processing outside of the reality and the reality is just the output of this processing. And these in our universe fields are idealized constructions useful for describing and predicting what is rendered in experiment upon measurement or upon observation in general. This is why shit can be described as being in super position because it's not real in the objective material sense. It's a super position of probability only. It's data, not physical. This is why time dialates. Processing slows as load increases. ETC, pic related.
>The causation is calculations and computations and processing outside of the reality
>It's a super position of probability only. It's data, not physical. This is why time dialates. Processing slows as load increases. ETC, pic related.
Not him but I wanted to say I agree with this and it makes a lot of sense to me.
Thanks. It has the most explanatory power.
By the way, most of the theory was discovered by this guy in this vid
>There is no measurement problem
Not unless you believe in a deterministic objective reality. If you do, then you must account for the born rule and why, given initial conditions, you can not predict results to arbitrary precision, but only according to probability.
You guys are getting things confused.
Realism/antirealism
Theism/atheism
Random/deterministic
The real dichotomy is Bohr suggested a statistical model of the atom. Einstein knew that a statistical model would violate causality, which of course, it does. All this other metaphysical stuff is skirting the real issue.
>Einstein knew that a statistical model would violate causality, which of course, it does.
I agree with this part. Causality has to be thought in terms of virtual reality type processing causality. So in the case of entanglement, objects separated by great distances can correlate with each others changes in a way that defies local causation because space time is virtual and not fundamental and objective and all points are equidistant from the processor. And so material, event causality and the idea that causality is coming from inside the physical world is of course false. Material objects are not effecting material objects. The physical causality is simulated. Of course the causation is non-local, ie outside of the virtual reality being rendered.
>space time is virtual and not fundamental and objective and all points are equidistant from the processor.
Good luck proving this
Soon. Not me that will do it but tests are underway and have been for a couple of years now. Described here.
On testing the simulation theory
'Can the theory that reality is a simulation be tested? We investigate this ques-
tion based on the assumption that if the system performing the simulation is finite
(i.e. has limited resources), then to achieve low computational complexity, such a
system would, as in a video game, render content (reality) only at the moment that
information becomes available for observation by a player and not at the moment of
detection by a machine (that would be part of the simulation and whose detection
would also be part of the internal computation performed by the Virtual Reality
server before rendering content to the player). Guided by this principle we describe
conceptual wave/particle duality experiments aimed at testing the simulation theory.'
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00058.pdf
>That's not what he said you moron.
Yes, it is.
Decoherence does not solve the measurement problem. Even the people who came up with it admit that
' in their seminal paper on decoherence
as a source of spatial localization, Joos and Zeh (1985) state “Of course no unitary treatment
of the time dependence can explain why only one of these dynamically independent com-
ponents is experienced.” And in a recent review on decoherence, Joos (1999) states “Does
decoherence solve the measurement problem? Clearly not. What decoherence tells us is that
certain objects appear classical when observed. But what is an observation? At some stage
we still have to apply the usual probability rules of quantum theory.”
Why Decoherence has not Solved the Measurement Problem
https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0112095.pdf
>He says there's no objective reality of *elementary particles*
What is all reality we know made of? Elementary particles, what he's saying is known as non-realism, if you defend physical realism then Bohr disagrees with you.
>It seems like you missed my schizo rambling theory and my latest delusional fantasy i've read, haha sucks to be you!
I didn't come up with the consciousness based simulation hypothesis. This guy did, tom campbell
The one who wrote the paper in that post. He is conducting a series of experiments
'Two strategies can be followed to test the simulation theory: (1) Test the moment
of rendering (2) Exploit conflicting requirement of logical consistency preservation and
detection avoidance to force the VR rendering engine to create discontinuities in its
rendering or produce a measurable signature event within our reality that indicates that
our reality must be simulated.
Testing the moment of rendering. In subsections 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 we will describe
wave-particle duality experiments (illustrated in figures 5, 6 and 7) aimed at testing
the simulation theory by testing the hypothesis that reality is not rendered (or the wave
function is not collapsed) at the moment of detection by an apparatus that would be part
of the simulation, but rather at the moment when the corresponding information becomes
available for observation by an experimenter. More precisely, in the setting of waveparticle duality experiments, our hypothesis is that wave or particle duality patterns are
not determined at the moment of detection but by the existence and availability of the
which-way data when the pattern is observed.'
Here is a description of one of them. Don't be like einstein, an old fuddy duddy who couldn't deal with the changing paradigm. Turn and face the strange.
>No objective independent reality
Where did he say that? He didn't. Nice try putting words into his mouth schizo >>>/x/
>Where did he say that?
In the quote I posted. I don't want to go to /x/.
>No players log on, no reality rendered.
So? The data (3D models of player characters, weapons, environments, items, particle effects, code that describes and governs their interactions etc.) is still there on the disk. Does it being "rendered" for someone "playing" even matter?
>Does it being "rendered" for someone "playing" even matter?
It does to the player.
>It does to the player.
>1,3e+7 + 2022
>STILL being a graphicsgay
shiggy diggy
Wow, you are hip, dude
people didnt used to be as stupid and uneducated as they are now because they werent ~~*brainwashed*~~ in school with moronic nonsense and actually knew the science and arguments before all the history and books were doctored
I think, therefore I ham
Not surprised quantum mechanics worshippers have also delusional view of consciousness
The pic show people that have completely ruined physics, nothing relevant has been invented after their crap stain on history. Hope they're happy in hell.
Why did this make me laugh so hard omg my stomach hurts haha.
this metaphysical garbage is a way to cope, being unable to form a coherent theory of the atom and falling back on a shitty statistical model.
MWI doesn't have this problem.
>t. never read Everett's thesis
Hugh Everetts entire postulate about many worlds was about reconciling human consciousness with Schrödinger's equation kek
Nothing happens in the Universe of the Everett
Interpretation
Abstract:
Since the scalar product is the only internal structure of a Hilbert space, all
vectors of norm 1 are equivalent, in the sense that they form a perfect sphere in
the Hilbert space, on which every vector looks the same. The state vector of the
universe contains no information that distinguishes it from other state vectors of
the same Hilbert space.
If the state vector is considered as the only fundamental entity, the world is com-
pletely structureless. The illusion of interacting subsystems is due to a “bad” choice
of factorization (i.e. decomposition into subsystems) of the Hilbert space. There is
always a more appropriate factorization available in which subsystems don’t inter-
act and nothing happens at all. This factorization absorbs the time evolution of the
state vector in a trivial way. The Many Worlds Interpretation is therefore rather a
No World Interpretation.
A state vector gets the property of “representing a structure” only with respect to
an external observer who measures the state according to a specific factorization
and basis.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.8447.pdf
>The universe could only come into existence if someone observed it. It does not matter that the observers turned up several billion years later. The universe exists because we are aware of it
This is the most interesting of all. The past is also probabilistic. This is possible because physical causality is agent causal, processual and computational an calculational and non-local (the computer can not be in the virtual world it outputs) as opposed to being materialist event causal. Events are not caused by antecedent events in a causal chain going back to the big bang. There is a kind of probabilistic, on the fly procedural generation. This was shown in the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment.
“the past has no existence except as it is recorded in the present. (...) we would seem forced to say that no phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon. The universe does not 'exist, out there' independent of all acts of observation. Instead, it is in some strange sense a participatory universe”
― John Archibald Wheeler
Good quotes op. These guys had it figured out. Physics since then has been a big cover up and cope by materialists. Bohmian mechanics and many worlds both are copes of trying to keep determanism and observer independence.
>IMMMAA GOONNNAAAAA QUANTUUUUUUUUUMMMM!!!