this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
16 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

14479 readers
1474 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Maybe consciousness is fundamental and matter and spacetime are derived from it

edit: this comment is a bit controversial to people just want to say why not explore this idea we spent over 50 years on string theory where has that gotten us

Donald Hoffman Ted talk on consciousness

Papers by Bernardo Kastrup

Please just take the time to learn more before you come at me lol

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Consciousness has literally nothing to do with it. In fact, the experiment as demonstrated in this emem would not replicate the double slit results. What has to happen is something along the path has to interfere with the photon (aka observe, which has nothing to do with consciousness, rather just an interaction), which causes the waveform to collapse. Basically, if something needs to know the state, the state collapses into one result. It doesn't matter what that thing is.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Idk that would depend on what you believe is fundamental Fringe science baby!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah, except we can do this experiment without ant consciousness aware of it even and it gets the same results. The only thing that matters is if the particle has to interact with something, because when it does it becomes a specific particle rather than a waveform. What that interaction is with does not effect the experiment in the slightest. A consciousness does not have any effect on the results of the experiment so there's no reason to expect that the universe cares about consciousness. To the universe, consciousness is yet just another series of interaction of things that behave the same as anything else, except it happens in a pattern that we think of as thought.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Perhaps the particle is simply moving so fast that it appears as a wave but once it smacks into something it slows down enough to be observed

Btw I do not know any significances about this subject

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Nope. That isn't it. My understanding is it essentially has to do with the position being required for an interaction to happen. It exists as a waveform until some interaction (any interaction) requires the position to be finite for the interaction to take place. That collapses the waveform (aka, the likelihood for all possible positions collapses into just one possibility) and the interaction happens. It has nothing to do with speed, only the need of the position to be known to perform an interaction.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ok but how do you actually remove consciousness from the experiment? Seriously curious because from my point of view no matter what a conscience agent has to check the results

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Use a computer? I guess you could say it all collapses when an actual consciousness checks what state things are at, but that'd be a rediculous claim to make. This is where Occam's Razor is useful. Why introduce a concept of a consciousness being required when it would function identically but be significantly stranger and more complex?

What is consciousness to the universe anyway? It's nothing but a system of electrical impulses, and there no reason to think there's anything physically special about it. It's just an interesting phenomenon that happened, but fundamentally it isn't anything special.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I guess you could say it all collapses when an actual consciousness checks what state things are at, but that'd be a rediculous claim to make.

Would it? We now know with the recent experiments with Bell's inequality that quantum mechanics can't be reduced to a local hidden-variable theory, doesn't that at least in theory leave space for consciousness? Sure you could go with superdeterminism but currently that seems equally unfalsifiable as a consciousness-based theory.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Sure, it leaves space for anything. It leaves space for (any) God. It doesn't make it useful to consider it though. There are literally an infinite number of things we could make up to explain it, but that doesn't make them equally likely. The most likely is the one that doesn't require strange assumptions, like the universe caring about consciousness, or that particles are conscious like another person said, or the hand of God literally reaching in to set the states exactly himself. Some hypotheses shouldn't be entertained because they require so many strange assumptions they're essentially useless and just a waste of time.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Consciousness is not part of the observer effect (which is itself named in the most infuriating way possible, specifically because it makes people think that the universe is somehow aware of when something sentient is looking at it). "Observing" a particle requires interacting with it in such a way that you meaningfully affect its current state of being, whether that be deflecting it in a different direction than it was going or changing its velocity, and therefore it is impossible at a quantum level to be a passive observer that does not influence the outcome.

In the case of the double slit experiment, if unobserved light will act as a wave with interference and if observed then it acts like a particle. The reason for this is both complicated and simple: light behaves as a wave due to probability. There's no way of observing a photon without influencing it, so therefore the best we can do is say it has a certain probability of being in this collection of spaces, which in the case of photons is a wave (because it can travel in any of a number of directions outwards from the photon emitter in the experiment, but all going away from the emitter and towards the wall the slits are cut into). For the purposes of this probability wave, the start position is the emitter and the end position is the wall behind the slits, so averaging out a large number of photons will recreate the interference pattern on the wall.

However, if you observe the photons at the slits to try and figure out which slits they're going through you have influenced the photons and thus collapsed that probability wave into a particle, and in the process created a new probability wave from that moment onwards which has the same end position as the original wave, but now starts at the individual slit. From its perspective, there is no second slit, so now the wave acts as if it is in the single slit setup because from its perspective it is, hence the loss of interference.

Nothing here has anything to do with consciousness. You can recreate this experiment with no one in the room and it will behave exactly the same, and has a sound (if very confusing conventionally) mathematical cause.

On a side note, string theory is effectively unfalsifiable and therefore completely useless as a scientific theory.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You need to qualify that statement somehow, or maybe give a citation or source that supports such an idea

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure firstly id like to say these are theories just as anything in science starts as. I am not saying this is fact by any means and could be totally wrong. here are some sources:

Donald Hoffman Ted talk

Papers by Bernardo Kastrup

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Both these figures are embarrassingly bad.

Hoffman confuses function for perception and constantly uses arguments demonstrating things can interpret reality incorrectly (which is purely a question of function) in order to argue they cannot perceive reality "as it is.," which is a huge non-sequitur. He keeps going around promoting his "theorem" which supposedly "proves" this yet if you read his book where he explains his theorem it is again clearly about function as his theorem only shows that limitations in cognitive and sensory capabilities can lead something to interpret reality incorrectly yet he draws a wild conclusion which he never justifies that this means they do not perceive reality "as it is" at all.

Kastrup is also just incredibly boring because he never reads books so he is convinced the only two philosophical schools in the universe are his personal idealism and metaphysical realism, which the latter he constantly incorrectly calls "materialism" when not all materialist schools of thought are even metaphysically realist. Unless you are yourself a metaphysical realist, nothing Kastrup has ever written is interesting at all, because he just pretends you don't exist.

Metaphysical realism is just a popular worldview in the west that most Laymen tend to naturally take on unwittingly. If you're a person who has ever read books in your life, then you'd quickly notice that attacking metaphysical realism doesn't get you to idealism, at best it gets you to metaphysical realism being not a coherent worldview... which that is the only thing I agree with Kastrup with.